Three critically ill after Waterford party

Aquos76 · 03-12-2007 11:48am

kaiser sauze wrote: »

He never said the "machine was turned off".

The only part that hasn't been said is the turning of the life support

No!

kaiser sauze · 03-12-2007 12:03pm

Aquos76 wrote: »

No!

Quote full post.

kaiser sauze · 03-12-2007 12:16pm

Sully wrote: »

I have been reliably informed, he will be pronounced dead within the next few days. There waiting on a member of the family to travel over to turn of the life support machine.

Not said here.

Sully wrote: »

Not these chaps. If they were small enough takers, I don't think so. There are far bigger drug takers out there, and if all the small guys left its only a small dent to the bigger guys.

He wont be pronounced dead until his father is back, from what I hear.

I to, have heard nothing on my side of his passing. Iv been informed there waiting on the father before they turn of life-support.

Nor here.

@Aquos76:

Poor form to misconstrue a quote of someone's and use it, taken out of context, to back up slanderous claims. I consider your remark withdrawn.

Aquos76 · 03-12-2007 12:52pm

Very reliable. As in, so reliable it cant be false. Make what you want out of that, but what im told was a guarntee from someone extremely close to the family.

It seems the chap has died - I wont find out until the morning if its true or not, but id imagine the press have it before I will. At this time, I think its best we give our condolences to his family and friends. We all make mistakes, it looks like this chap may have made one to. May he Rest In Peace.

He wont be pronounced dead until his father is back, from what I hear.

I to, have heard nothing on my side of his passing. Iv been informed there waiting on the father before they turn of life-support.

Sully wrote: »

The final test was done this morning with no sign of improvement. His father is back on Thursday, from Australia.

Ok my apoligies, it was in the final quote I have quoted where he confirmed that the machine had been turned off. However he re-edited his original post afterwards. I must now go through my email alerts and see if I can find the original post

post 53 on page 3

Aquos76 · 03-12-2007 12:58pm

As the original post is gone, I cant back up what he said but it was along the lines of the final test was carried out and with no sign of any improvement a decision was made to turn of the machine this morning rather that waiting until his father arrived home on Thursday

I'm sure there may be others who remember seeing the original post, but as its gone now I suppose I cant back up my statement of where he said the machine had all ready been turned off.

In that case I guess I should retract my statement.

MagicMarker · 03-12-2007 1:03pm

mad man wrote: »

So after going on like your **** doesn't smell you still acknowledge that you were dumb enough to try drugs yourself. If you don't want to feel sympathy for anyone then so be it.But what need are you fulfilling by declaring your lack of sympathy on the boards? This isn't New York everyone in Waterford is probably only a person or two away from knowing these people. The fact is innocence is relative and no one is 100% innocent.Anyone who loses there life in a tragedy deserves some sympathy and so does their family.All the half arse analogies don't wash.If you really are in your heart of hearts incapable of putting yourself in someone elses position and feeling sympathy or empathy then this is a negative reflection on you and you might want to get some help because in all probablility you are a sociopath.

I didn't say trying drugs was dumb, hence i didn't acknowledge being dumb in trying drugs. I smoked a spliff or two, if you call that dumb, more power to ya matey;) I am only declaring my lack of sympathy to those posting shíte about how they are disgusted with some of the replies in this thread, i would have thought that was fairly obvious.

If someone loses their life through their OWN DOING (seriously i can't say this enough) then no, i will no feel any sorrow for them. Unless of course it's a case of suicide for obvious reasons. Of course i'd feel sympathy for the family, why wouldn't I?

kaiser sauze · 03-12-2007 1:04pm

Aquos76 wrote: »

As the original post is gone, I cant back up what he said but it was along the lines of the final test was carried out and with no sign of any improvement a decision was made to turn of the machine this morning rather that waiting until his father arrived home on Thursday

I'm sure there may be others who remember seeing the original post, but as its gone now I suppose I cant back up my statement of where he said the machine had all ready been turned off.

In that case I guess I should retract my statement.

I do notice the considerable period of time between his post and subsequent edit. It is plausible you are correct. It's a shame that you did not have the email alert as the original post would be contained in it.

I have to admit that the paraphrased quote you give above rings a bell or two with me, but I've been watching this story from many different sources; some of which have been found wanting in terms of accuracy and I could be getting mixed up.

What I would say if this is the case is that he was good enough to go back and correct his inaccuracy.

dlofnep · 03-12-2007 1:16pm

Is there any update on the health of the two lads?

CantGetNoSleep · 03-12-2007 1:42pm

I think I remember seeing an rip in an original post

trishw78 · 03-12-2007 2:20pm

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote: »

I will be open and honest i have taken drugs in the past, I do not agree with it by the way and it was only because i was around people who were doing it and at the time it was because your friends were doing it so u dont want to leave the side down .. These guys were just at a vulnerable age ..

Isn't that a wee bit hypocritical

Vulnerable age at 21 I don't think so... maybe if they were 15 or 16 I'd agree they were at a vulnerable age

Junior · 03-12-2007 4:06pm

Aquos76 wrote: »

As the original post is gone, I cant back up what he said but it was along the lines of the final test was carried out and with no sign of any improvement a decision was made to turn of the machine this morning rather that waiting until his father arrived home on Thursday

I'm sure there may be others who remember seeing the original post, but as its gone now I suppose I cant back up my statement of where he said the machine had all ready been turned off.

In that case I guess I should retract my statement.

I remember the post dude being phrased something similar to what you've just said there.

mad man · 03-12-2007 4:57pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

I didn't say trying drugs was dumb, hence i didn't acknowledge being dumb in trying drugs. I smoked a spliff or two, if you call that dumb, more power to ya matey I am only declaring my lack of sympathy to those posting shíte about how they are disgusted with some of the replies in this thread, i would have thought that was fairly obvious.?

Well I never said drugs were dumb either.I said you were dumb enough to still take them considering the prosylethysing you've been doing on this board.

MagicMarker wrote: »

If someone loses their life through their OWN DOING (seriously i can't say this enough) then no, i will no feel any sorrow for them. Unless of course it's a case of suicide for obvious reasons. Of course i'd feel sympathy for the family, why wouldn't I??

So you've no sympathy for people who die from heart disease,lung cancer,or who have paid the ultimate price for being careless by crossing the road without looking.The fact is your stance is typical from the type of person who likes to kick people when they are down and are just looking for a legitimate reason to do so.Again it's an abnormal reaction not to show sympathy for another human being who is suffering regardless of the circumstances.

MagicMarker · 03-12-2007 7:28pm

mad man wrote: »

Well I never said drugs were dumb either.I said you were dumb enough to still take them considering the prosylethysing you've been doing on this board.

Are you just trolling for the sake of it?

mad man wrote: »

So you've no sympathy for people who die from heart disease,lung cancer,or who have paid the ultimate price for being careless by crossing the road without looking.The fact is your stance is typical from the type of person who likes to kick people when they are down and are just looking for a legitimate reason to do so.Again it's an abnormal reaction not to show sympathy for another human being who is suffering regardless of the circumstances.

Are you seriously comparing heart disease and cancer to a drug overdose? Is this how you try and make a point? Because you're not doing a very good job.

paul666 · 03-12-2007 7:50pm

Aquos I too pulled sully on this. I just feel its very bad form posting on a public forum what u have heard. ok if its from a relaible source thats grand but u just dont post those things on a forum only unless u are family or u have permission from the family or the gardai.
I try to stay out of these debates sully but u can be strict on certain stuff thats maybe a tad trivial (image resizing) and then u go and contradict yourself completly by blatently throwin up stuff of what u heard. (like his brain is mush),
do u really think a family member would like to see that? what if a teenager or child of the family who doesnt understand fully whats going on reads that.

mad man · 03-12-2007 8:00pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Are you just trolling for the sake of it?

Explain how is it I'm trolling.I'm a regular contributer to this board and have never needed to troll to win or impede a debate.If you can't defend your stance then stop posting.If you genuinely think I'm trolling which I don't believe you do then report me to the moderators. That is what they are for.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing heart disease and cancer to a drug overdose? Is this how you try and make a point? Because you're not doing a very good job.

No.But I'm applying your logic to someone who has lung cancer due to smoking or heart disease by not exercising or eating properly.There has been public awareness campaigns on these issues for years now in the schools and media so don't tell me you can't make the connection.

MagicMarker · 03-12-2007 8:27pm

mad man wrote: »

Explain how is it I'm trolling.I'm a regular contributer to this board and have never needed to troll to win or impede a debate.If you can't defend your stance then stop posting.If you genuinely think I'm trolling which I don't believe you do then report me to the moderators. That is what they are for.

What debate are you talking about? There is no debate to win because I’m only giving my opinion on the subject at hand. I don't have to ''defend'' anything. If you want to challenge my opinion then fire away but you've already lost because my opinion won't change.

mad man wrote: »

No.But I'm applying your logic to someone who has lung cancer due to smoking or heart disease by not exercising or eating properly.There has been public awareness campaigns on these issues for years now in the schools and media so don't tell me you can't make the connection.

Ok, I’ll entertain you this once, but I’m not going to get into a petit argument about something completely unrelated to the original topic.

If someone has lung cancer due to years of smoking, then no, I will not feel sorry for them. They know the risks, they chose to ignore them and now they’re paying the ultimate price. If someone has heart disease due to lack of exercise and poor diet then no I won’t have sympathy for them because again, they chose their lifestyle and knew the risks associated with it. If someone crosses the road without looking then they’re a retard who doesn’t deserve sympathy from anyone, the only person I have sympathy for in this instance is the poor soul who knocked them down and now has to live with it for the rest of their life.

If someone goes to a party, gets drunk and decides to play with an ILLEGAL drug that can KILL you, then no, there won’t be any sympathy from me, accept to the relations of same.

If you have a problem with my opinion then please try and learn to live with it. I’ve explained myself prior to this post and I don’t really care to have to do it again. I don’t come to boards for pages of debates using endless quotes because it’s boring, and i have better things to be doing.

Sully · 03-12-2007 8:50pm

Aquos76 wrote: »

Yeah, but the fact that you came on here and said that this guy was now dead, imo.. this was way out of order. You were adamanant that his machine was turned off and you had got that info very good.

I was not the one to say he was dead. Someone else said it, I quoted it and said I wasn't able to confirm such. I was not adamant the machine was being turned off - I didn't press the issue to anyone (at least, I dont recall doing so).

The fact that this poor lad is still alive and connected up to a machine makes the matter even more serious. I am surprised that a moderator on a public forum would allow himself become so involved in such a sensitive topic and then to make matters worse, post totally inaccurate information about it.

Is brain dead considered alive? I'm involved in this topic because I know more then most people posting here.

Aquos76 wrote: »

As the original post is gone, I cant back up what he said but it was along the lines of the final test was carried out and with no sign of any improvement a decision was made to turn of the machine this morning rather that waiting until his father arrived home on Thursday

I'm sure there may be others who remember seeing the original post, but as its gone now I suppose I cant back up my statement of where he said the machine had all ready been turned off.

In that case I guess I should retract my statement.

You don't need to retract the statement, I did say that. Paul already brought the issue up (mainly about the source) and as a result, I agreed and changed the post to prevent further offence.

paul666 wrote: »

Aquos I too pulled sully on this. I just feel its very bad form posting on a public forum what u have heard. ok if its from a relaible source thats grand but u just dont post those things on a forum only unless u are family or u have permission from the family or the gardai.
I try to stay out of these debates sully but u can be strict on certain stuff thats maybe a tad trivial (image resizing) and then u go and contradict yourself completly by blatently throwin up stuff of what u heard. (like his brain is mush),
do u really think a family member would like to see that? what if a teenager or child of the family who doesnt understand fully whats going on reads that.

If I was in the hospital (not saying I am) and was speaking to his mother. If the doctor explained what happened in front of me. Would that be reliable? No? A teenager or child who doesn't understand this thread can ask someone what it means. A family member knows exactly what im saying, and has indeed told friends and relatives the exact information.

Since you and others don't like people posting up information that's not done via the press (who, we already are aware report inaccurate information in this case also) I stopped. I listened to the feedback, and stopped.

A lot happened since I made those comments which made them incorrect. I didn't comment, but those close to me are fully aware of what's happening and the source. I understand that things happen which might be unexpected and throw my comments way of - which is another part of the reason why I stopped.

As for trivial moderating compared to this.. when your involved in such, you can indeed get carried away and report reliable information which can bounce back incorrect due to unforeseen circumstances (even to medics!). I apologise for this, and this is why I will now keep my mouth shut and only discuss information through the news. Even if its complete rubbish.

Sully · 03-12-2007 8:57pm

trishw78 wrote: »

Isn't that a wee bit hypocritical

Vulnerable age at 21 I don't think so... maybe if they were 15 or 16 I'd agree they were at a vulnerable age

Its well known that Males don't sense danger compared to Females until a much later age. Its why there are more road deaths with males then female (that bit is well known, but the other bit I was informed in a Road Safety Talk by the Guards)

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I think I remember seeing an rip in an original post

It was reported (not by me) that he passed away by a few people. I was not able to confirm this, as I stated. I think I know why people said it, but things changed and didn't go according to plan!

Aquos76 · 03-12-2007 9:06pm

Sully wrote: »

It was reported (not by me) that he passed away by a few people. I was not able to confirm this, as I stated. I think I know why people said it, but things changed and didn't go according to plan!

It seems the chap has died - I wont find out until the morning if its true or not, but id imagine the press have it before I will. At this time, I think its best we give our condolences to his family and friends. We all make mistakes, it looks like this chap may have made one to. May he Rest In Peace.

If this is not you saying that he had died I dont know what is, Sorry for harping on about it Sully but some of you comments have been out of order even if you are as close to the family or to someone in the family as you say you are.

If this was another member posting these reports, you would have had them edited along time ago.

Sully · 03-12-2007 9:22pm

Aquos76 wrote: »

If this is not you saying that he had died I dont know what is, Sorry for harping on about it Sully but some of you comments have been out of order even if you are as close to the family or to someone in the family as you say you are.

If this was another member posting these reports, you would have had them edited along time ago.

Can you point me to the post, I remember posting it - I just want to find something. Ill comment further then.

It might give you sometime to look back over the above post as its quoted completely out of context.

steven22 · 03-12-2007 9:25pm

No change in the lads. They haven't even woken up yet, still in coma's.

Kevin is definately braindead and John rumour has it is the same. Fluid on the brain was what was texted to me Friday night by immediate family members of one of the lads.

Sully · 03-12-2007 9:29pm

steven22 wrote: »

No change in the lads. They haven't even woken up yet, still in coma's.

Kevin is definately braindead and John rumour has it is the same. Fluid on the brain was what was texted to me Friday night by immediate family members of one of the lads.

Same source as myself more then likely, iv heard the same.

paul666 · 03-12-2007 10:45pm

Sully wrote: »

I was not the one to say he was dead. Someone else said it, I quoted it and said I wasn't able to confirm such. I was not adamant the machine was being turned off - I didn't press the issue to anyone (at least, I dont recall doing so).

Is brain dead considered alive? I'm involved in this topic because I know more then most people posting here.

You don't need to retract the statement, I did say that. Paul already brought the issue up (mainly about the source) and as a result, I agreed and changed the post to prevent further offence.

If I was in the hospital (not saying I am) and was speaking to his mother. If the doctor explained what happened in front of me. Would that be reliable? No? A teenager or child who doesn't understand this thread can ask someone what it means. A family member knows exactly what im saying, and has indeed told friends and relatives the exact information.

Since you and others don't like people posting up information that's not done via the press (who, we already are aware report inaccurate information in this case also) I stopped. I listened to the feedback, and stopped.

A lot happened since I made those comments which made them incorrect. I didn't comment, but those close to me are fully aware of what's happening and the source. I understand that things happen which might be unexpected and throw my comments way of - which is another part of the reason why I stopped.

As for trivial moderating compared to this.. when your involved in such, you can indeed get carried away and report reliable information which can bounce back incorrect due to unforeseen circumstances (even to medics!). I apologise for this, and this is why I will now keep my mouth shut and only discuss information through the news. Even if its complete rubbish.

a fair and valid response.

Sully · 03-12-2007 10:47pm

paul666 wrote: »

a fair and valid response.

Thank You.

dlofnep · 03-12-2007 10:56pm

You're welcome.

AdMMM · 03-12-2007 11:01pm

I don't know how you managed to weasel out of that one, Kevin!

Can I just point out that in sensitive situations like this, it would be in your own best interest to give a little more information about your source. If your source is happy that you're posting what you hear from them on public fora then this shouldn't be a problem. If your source is unaware of what you're doing then I'd recommend you cease quoting or refering to what they are telling you to avoid any further difficulties that may arise from misquoted/false information.

Sully · 03-12-2007 11:15pm

|.Murderer.| wrote: »

I don't know how you managed to weasel out of that one, Kevin!

Can I just point out that in sensitive situations like this, it would be in your own best interest to give a little more information about your source. If your source is happy that you're posting what you hear from them on public fora then this shouldn't be a problem. If your source is unaware of what you're doing then I'd recommend you cease quoting or refering to what they are telling you to avoid any further difficulties that may arise from misquoted/false information.

Its my own choice not to reveal the source, for reasons I dont want to go into. Iv discussed it with some people (in PM) already. I may, at a later date, reveal how im getting the information. For the moment, id rather not. I have my reasons, and I wont go into it in public.

kaiser sauze · 03-12-2007 11:32pm

Sully wrote: »

Its my own choice not to reveal the source, for reasons I dont want to go into. Iv discussed it with some people (in PM) already. I may, at a later date, reveal how im getting the information. For the moment, id rather not. I have my reasons, and I wont go into it in public.

I think that even discussing your sources via PM is uncouth.

Do you have their permission to name them to other people?

Sully · 03-12-2007 11:34pm

I never named the source to anybody. Those who PMd me are people I know or who know Kevin. I just discussed it.

kaiser sauze · 03-12-2007 11:41pm

Sully wrote: »

I never named the source to anybody. Those who PMd me are people I know or who know Kevin. I just discussed it.

Glad to hear it. I am also glad to see that you've come clean about edited posts earlier in this thread.

Three critically ill after Waterford party

Comments