Re: Fianna Fail Church Gate Collection

Liam Byrne

I started a thread to discuss this, and 2 people appear to have interpreted a small aspect in my post as what they call "an emotional red herring".

I've clarified this - more than once - but they refuse to accept the clarification and are repeatedly implying that it is the main factor in the discussion.

Yes, in hindsight I could have phrased it better, but at this point the thread is more of an argument about their incorrect interpretation of that aspect of the initial post than the topic of the thread.

I've also gotten a mod post in the thread to say that I was being personal; it's a relatively fair point.....I had no objection to clarifying the initial point, but I did get annoyed that the clarification was completely and repeatedly ignored.....

The other issue is that the person going on and on about a small point that I clarified very early on wasn't equally told by the mod to stop repeating that angle - as in "that's been clarified - move on and discuss the topic properly", rather than allowing them to repeatedly accuse me of introducing that "emotional red herring" despite numerous (at this stage) clarifications.

So, given that the thread has been relatively "hijacked" by an off-topic issue, what is the procedure ? I've requested from the mod who posted that it be deleted, but haven't heard back.

Can I request to have this thread deleted, or - considering that there are at least one or two sensible replies - at least have the rubbish accusations and sub-issues deleted as they are completely off-topic ?

And for future reference, what's the correct procedure when this happens ?

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

You asked a question and got an answer that didn't agree with your own viewpoint. What's the big deal with that? Welcome to a 'discussion' board. You wouldn't have posted this if people were supporting your view.

gandalf

Links would be really really helpful :rolleyes:

Dades

gandalf wrote: »

Links would be really really helpful :rolleyes:

Undoubtably. Can't guarantee I'd be arsed clicking on 'em though.

Liam Byrne

Roundtower2 wrote: »

You asked a question and got an answer that didn't agree with your own viewpoint. What's the big deal with that? Welcome to a 'discussion' board. You wouldn't have posted this if people were supporting your view.

Sorry, I think you're missing the point. People disagreeing with my viewpoint is NOT the issue.

Being accused of something, clarifying it so that it was no longer open to interpretation, and then having that clarification repeatedly ignored and thrown back at me - THAT is the issue.

I reacted and a mod posted to say to stop being personal - and that's fair enough.

But there was no directive posted to say "he's repeatedly clarified that point and anyway it's irrelevant - move on", despite the fact that what I was accused of - the accusation of a particular "emotional red herring" that I would NEVER use in a discussion something so trivial by comparison, was - to me - an extremely personal insult.

Thread is here (and thankfully there have been a few on-topic posts since, as well as - hopefully - the final instalment of clarifications):

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055287138

Doctor DooM

Dades wrote: »

Undoubtably. Can't guarantee I'd be arsed clicking on 'em though.

You should, I've read it and it involves religion . I kind of see what the OP is saying, his point is that FF are raising money at a grass root level but there's no transparancy where the money is going with all the corruption scandles and its taking from charity, whereas other posters keep going on about the fact that the OP mentions it was a funeral mass.

I don't agree with the OP but it must be very frustrating for him.

Sherifu

I did wonder when I read the thread what an emotional red herring is. If they're half as good as these lads i'll be getting tickets!

I found the thread interesting, why delete it because someone doesn't agree with you?

Gandalf23

I too found the thread interesting ... pity to delete it.

Who specifically did you think attempted to drag it off-topic and why?

Liam Byrne

Sherifu wrote: »

I did wonder when I read the thread what an emotional red herring is. If they're half as good as these lads i'll be getting tickets!

I found the thread interesting, why delete it because someone doesn't agree with you?

Thanks for the feedback, guys. As I said, I've no problem with people disagreeing with me.

To answer Gandalf, the first to mention the "erh" phrase was RockClimber, but to be fair, while I did think it was harsh and an annoying conclusion to jump to, I was happy enough to refute that as I could kinda see why they might have thought that....but it got annoying when that refute/clarification was simply not accepted and was repeatedly dragged up.

To add to it, RockClimber posted with a "he's gone" in a paragraph which didn't refer to Bertie.....in fact, the paragraph had said "there are dead people at every mass" immediately before that.....RC only referred to Bertie later in the post. When I queried whether they were referring to Bertie or the friend, the crap really started.

Again, I'm not looking for special treatment, and I'm not perfect, but a few posters seemed to be quick enough to give RockClimber the benefit of the doubt in relation to who he/she was referring to, they gave no such benefit-of-the-doubt to me on the initial reference to the anniversary mass, despite the fact that I'd clarified it a few times......

The final aspect was my posting

Will you ever sod off ..... with that "emotional red herring" crap! It's insulting (to put it mildly) to suggest that I would even contemplate abusing the memory of someone to get a cheap "sympathy vote"

While the phrasing was down to frustration at that stage, and for that I apologise, this appears to have been taken by the mod and one of the posters as a complete "sod off", rather than a "lay off the claims of erh and please stay on topic", so rather than a mod directive saying to stay on-topic, I got a warning to keep it civil.....fair enough, but even the mod tried to imply that it was a "difference of opinion" issue, rather than me - justifiably - defending myself against the unfair accusation of an "erh".

I, of course, couldn't point this out because I would be at risk of "discussing moderation", after which I would probably be blocked from the forum and then they could all say what they liked about what they assumed were my motives or agenda.

Black Briar also kept repeating the accusation and defending RockClimber's claim that "he" referred to Bertie, although he/she did eventually come around to seeing the bigger picture.

Yes, there was no need for me to mention that it was an anniversary mass; in retrospect, it just gave them ammunition for the "erh" claim, rather than being - as intended - a kind of "first time at mass/seeing a church gate collection in years", and yes, the thought that I would use that to gain sympathy was annoying and got my back up - but understandably so; I think the query/point of the thread was easily valid enough without having to resort to that, and it disgusted me that anyone would think I would sully my friend's memory by abusing it in that fashion....and to be repeatedly ignored when I clarified it just made it worse.

So that thread really did seem like a "pick on Liam" thread for a while.....and ironically it seemed like there were people using my phrase to create a red herring to drag it off-topic and avoid discussing the actual issue.

It's improved a bit now, with some sensible contributions, so it might be worthwhile leaving it there, but it really did get out of hand and I didn't appreciate being ignored and accused despite repeated clarifications that 2 or 3 posters repeatedly dismissed and repeated their accusations, and there was no intervention by the mod to stop that aspect of it.

Rock Climber

Liam Byrne wrote: »

To add to it, RockClimber posted with a "he's gone" in a paragraph which didn't refer to Bertie.....in fact, the paragraph had said "there are dead people at every mass" immediately before that.....RC only referred to Bertie later in the post.

Thats quite untrue.
my exact sentence was "He's gone so it is obvious now that your main truck is with Fianna Fáil." link

I notice you are prepared to say untruths here without linking to the post.
I've linked and quoted correctly unlike you and hopefully nailed the blatant misrepresentation you are making for what it is,an untruth.

When I queried whether they were referring to Bertie or the friend, the crap really started.

See'ing how easily you are able to misrepresent me here and on that thread,I wouldn't be at all surprised if you know exactly what you are at both there and here ie attempting to feign anything to get yourself out of a hole.
Unfortunately you're no good at it.

Again, I'm not looking for special treatment, and I'm not perfect, but a few posters seemed to be quick enough to give RockClimber the benefit of the doubt in relation to who he/she was referring to, they gave no such benefit-of-the-doubt to me on the initial reference to the anniversary mass, despite the fact that I'd clarified it a few times......

Seriously do you expect anyone to believe you are genuine after what you just did here ie mis represent me with an untruth?

Dades

SDooM wrote: »

You should, I've read it and it involves religion

You owe me five minutes SDooM...

Your mention of religion is another example of an emotional red herring!

Storm in a teacup, tbh.

Hobart

gandalf wrote: »

Links would be really really helpful :rolleyes:

BIG HINT Search Fianna Fail Church Gate Collection. :rolleyes:

Dades

Hobart wrote: »

BIG HINT Search Fianna Fail Church Gate Collection. :rolleyes:

When I was yooour age people didn't get links in post... we had to go down t'library and look 'em up.

Hobart

Dades wrote: »

When I was yooour age people didn't get links in post... we had to go down t'library and look 'em up.

Overheal

Rock Climber wrote: »

Thats quite untrue.
my exact sentence was "He's gone so it is obvious now that your main truck is with Fianna Fáil." link

thats not the whole truth there,

Ah for heavens sake.I'm very sorry for your loss but bringing an emotional red herring into this is ridiculous.There are dead people prayed for at every mass.
Shall we send the tidy towns people to hell now for blasphemy aswell?
He's gone so it is obvious now that your main truck is with Fianna Fáil.Fine you're entitled to that as much as others are entitled to go *yawn*

Pardon me, but if I had just been to a funeral this would only read as:

"Ah for heavens sake.I'm very sorry for your loss but bringing an emotional red herring into this is ridiculous.There are dead people prayed for at every mass.
Shall we send the tidy towns people to hell now for blasphemy aswell?
He's gone"

Rock Climber it was somewhat ambiguous - enough so that you Should have simply typed in Bertie. And it wouldnt have hurt matters to apologize for the confusion after. But the both of you are just being stubborn intractable ***** about it.

Honestly climber you know the lad had just been to a funeral and you dont mind plugging in words like emotional and dead and blasphemy - how did you expect him to interpret "He's Gone"?

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Rock Climber it was somewhat ambiguous - enough so that you Should have simply typed in Bertie. And it wouldnt have hurt matters to apologize for the confusion after. But the both of you are just being stubborn intractable ***** about it.

Honestly climber you know the lad had just been to a funeral and you dont mind plugging in words like emotional and dead and blasphemy - how did you expect him to interpret "He's Gone"?

I'm starting to think that not reading posts is infectious in that thread.

• It wasn't a funeral the op was attending , it was an anniversary mass.

• Secondly RC actually said "sorry for your loss" meaning RC was being nice about it.

• Thirdly unless the person whose anniversary it was happened to be a member of Fianna Fáil,I don't see how the line "he's gone so it's obvious your main truck is with Fianna Fáil" could be seen as anything other than a reference to Ahern given that the whole Ahern business was implicit in the op's complaint about the collection.

• Fourthly I'm disappointed that after giving the op the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't lying in that thread and after explaining that he should use his language more carefully the next time..and he saying he would..I'm disappointed that he's gone in this thread and ignored that completely and misrepresented what RC posted.

Liam Byrne

Excuse me ? Can I just say a few things without this turning into another version of the other thread.

Firstly, I started this thread a few days ago when I wasn't sure how to deal with the unfolding scenario in the other one without going miles off-topic or risking mod action.

Yes, Black Briar and I sorted out our differences - I said as much earlier. But I was asked what happened so I told it as I saw it.

Re

RockClimber wrote:

I notice you are prepared to say untruths here without linking to the post.
I've linked and quoted correctly unlike you and hopefully nailed the blatant misrepresentation you are making for what it is,an untruth.

The link that RockClimber gave shows precisely the paragraph in which he/she said what they said, and as Overkill pointed out, there was no leap of judgement required to reach the conclusion that I did.

Again I'll point something out - the assumption that I was not only misrepresenting, but (allegedly) blatantly misrepresenting what he or she said, rather than a simple misinterpretation on my part (my reply even mentions both possible interpretations!)......but then there was no comeback or leeway when I pointed that out, nor any acceptance of the fact that their issue with my post was also a misinterpretation on their part.....nope, easier to accuse me - again - of something that I didn't intend.

So basically, RC can deliberately and repeatedly misinterpret and then go on to misrepresent me -as they've done in this thread again, but I can't even question their post ? That's hardly fair ? Example:

RockClimber wrote:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if you know exactly what you are at both there and here ie attempting to feign anything to get yourself out of a hole.

Again, the assumption that I have an agenda, rather than a now (fairly ridiculous) misunderstanding. I'm not misrepresenting nor feigning.

I will agree with one thing - I know what I'm at alright, which is looking for fair play without having to repeatedly defend myself against your assumption of some weird agenda.

No, it wasn't a funeral, it was a first anniversary mass. None of that is actually relevant, because - having just come from it, the accusation that I was somehow using it to get some sort of sympathy from people reading my query about the church gate collection is actually ridiculous....like I said (and like has been obvious to the other posters in the thread and here (i.e. the people who said "why delete it ?") the question was worth asking and there was no extra mileage required. And even if there was, I wouldn't stoop that low.

But yeah, having come from the mass and to be accused of getting mileage out of it did get my back up - I've admitted that and apologised.

Re Black Briar giving me the benefit of the doubt and then changing their mind above; fair enough (because I thought we sorted it out too) but the inclusion of the assumption in the post above that I "misrepresented" what RC posted does make me wonder.....like I said, Overheal read it the way that I did, and SDooM (who disagrees with me - fair enough...and in fact it's great and a relief that someone who disagrees with me could still see the thread for what it really is) also admitted that in their view it would be frustrating for me to put up with....

So I didn't give RC the benefit of the doubt.....but I definitely didn't misrepresent what they said, if two posters here interpret the post the way that I did.....room for interpretation ? Yes.....misrepresentation ? No.

RC then clarified it in the thread - fair enough (or so you'd think) - but then refused to give me the same courtesy and repeated the erh claim, despite me clarifying it repeatedly.

If they'd clarified their post and then accepted my clarification as well without re-issuing the accusation, then we'd have been back on track after a minor hiccup.

But not only that.....in addition to the misunderstanding they have posted here again claiming that I'm misrepresenting them. And BB has also added to it here, which I am equally disappointed with because we'd sorted that out in the thread.

So, to summarise, it was a misunderstanding on both parts, fair enough - I've accepted my part in that in my response (in the thread) to Black Briar...but how come any time I tried to explain the facts I was shot down, while I was expected to immediately accept RC's clarification - which I actually did; the issue I had was that they repeated the erh accusation again and again.

As I said earlier, I'm really annoyed at myself that I even mentioned the anniversary, but having clarified it - once should have done - then I should not have had to put up with the continous repetition of the accusations and dismissals or some dark agenda for which I would disrespect someone's memory, either there or indeed here.

Like I said, I was (and still am, by the looks of it) DEFINITELY being misrepresented and was being shouted down; RC merely views that they are being misrepresented (maybe room for interpreting it that way - if so sorry, but 2 of the posts here don't quite see it that way) and brings it up again......is that fair ?

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The link that RockClimber gave shows precisely the paragraph in which he/she said what they said, and as Overkill pointed out, there was no leap of judgement required to reach the conclusion that I did.

At this stage,It's immaterial.
Just don't expect thread readers to be mind readers.
Also we'll have to agree to disagree regarding your apparent mis understanding.

Again I'll point something out - the assumption that I was not only misrepresenting, but (allegedly) blatantly misrepresenting what he or she said, rather than a simple misinterpretation on my part (my reply even mentions both possible interpretations!)......but then there was no comeback or leeway when I pointed that out, nor any acceptance of the fact that their issue with my post was also a misinterpretation on their part.....nope, easier to accuse me - again - of something that I didn't intend.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree again.
One sentence saying "he's gone so your truck must be with FF" couldn't possibly mean anything other than Mr Ahern is gone.

I'm increasingly thinking that you are trying to be clever here or smart about this and as said feigning that you are being insulted when you don't like what people see in your post.

So basically, RC can deliberately and repeatedly misinterpret and then go on to misrepresent me -as they've done in this thread again, but I can't even question their post ? That's hardly fair ?

I thought you were asked not to invent stuff?
wheres this "you're not allowed to question posts" coming from?
All thats reasonably expected is that you make a case for your grievance and I don't think you are making it well.

Again, the assumption that I have an agenda, rather than a now (fairly ridiculous) misunderstanding. I'm not misrepresenting nor feigning.

Yes you are in my opinion and I unreservedly withdraw the benefit of the doubt I gave you.

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

One sentence saying "he's gone so your truck must be with FF" couldn't possibly mean anything other than Mr Ahern is gone.

What was that you were saying about mindreading ? Please read the entire paragraph that was posted - as quoted by Overkill - and stop taking out one sentence in isolation.

Yes, I misunderstood it. Yes the poster was referring to Ahern. They didn't refer by name. The previous line had said that dead people are prayed for all the time.

And even allowing for all that, I mentioned both options as possible referral subjects - Ahern or my friend.

So there is absolutely no fault on my part that RC did not mention Ahern by name.

But let's assume for a second that I do give RC the benefit of that doubt - which, as I said, I did in the reply.

The issue was that he/she not only did not give me the benefit of the doubt, but repeated THEIR accusation. Note that I did not repeatedly say "that's not what you meant" and ignore their clarification.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm increasingly thinking that you are trying to be clever here or smart about this and as said feigning that you are being insulted when you don't like what people see in your post.

Then you're wrong again. I'm not feigning anything....you're assuming that I am, but it is insulting that people thought that I would stoop that low.

What people may or may not see in a post is not really the issue either; posts can be misinterpreted if they're not clear - I've already admitted that and apologised for my part in it.

The issue is where people REPEATEDLY IGNORE THE CLARIFICATION and don't take it in good faith. If that had been done in-thread, then this wouldn't have turned into the farce that it has become.

Can I ask one simple question ? WHY do you doubt my sincerity so blatantly ? Why was the in-thread explanation not enough to say "oh, ok - glad that's cleared up" ??

Anyone who doesn't know someone else can have niggling doubts, sure - but why was/is every attempt that I make to clarify this second-guessed and rejected off-hand ? That's a straight question.

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought you were asked not to invent stuff?
wheres this "you're not allowed to question posts" coming from?
All thats reasonably expected is that you make a case for your grievance and I don't think you are making it well.

Not making anything up.....although I do note that I needed to spell out another issue in-thread before you accepted that, too. So let's clarify the issue with questioning what's said in posts, nice and clearly:

1) I questioned RC's post and was told by you that I should have somehow known that it referred to Bertie - even before clarification.....on the flip-side, my view was that you and RC should have known that there was no "erh" - even AFTER clarification that would have been ok, but no.....

So basically it seems that it's was OK for you to (mis)interpret mine and yet not OK for me to interpret RC's....i.e. you and RC can question my posts, but I can't question yours ? If I got it slightly wrong when posting and gave you cause to do some interpretation, how come you and RC just can't seem to see that the same applies in reverse ? Even when 2 neutral people here can see it ?

Is that clear enough - surely it can't be that hard to comprehend ?

2) I also questioned the repeated attacks questioning my integrity - as I said, one clarification should have been enough. But no - the clarification was ignored and I was repeatedly accused of having an agenda and some pathetic form of emotional manipulation.

Those are the questions re the posts in the thread. As for outlining my case for having a grievance ? Those are it; I've made it. Was it perfect ? No. Did neutral observers accept it ? Apparently. Did you and RC accept it ? No, but TBH at this stage I don't care.

All I wanted was some feedback to see whether it was reasonable for me to be annoyed, and I got that. I would have also liked an apology for judging me - not once, but repeatedly - as someone who would resort to "erh" (to some that might be small but to me it was a massive insult); to be fair to you, you gave one, but you seem to have taken it back, simply because I outlined my view of events here when I posted here to ask how to deal with it and Gandalf asked who started it and why.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes you are in my opinion and I unreservedly withdraw the benefit of the doubt I gave you.

Well, you're wrong again, because - similar to the original thread, you're reading into something that isn't there.

I'm not lying or feigning or anything of the sort - I'm telling it like I saw it. Plain and simple. Was I annoyed and might that have coloured my response ? Maybe, but why was I annoyed in the first place - because of the accusation and the incessant repetition of it.

Even aside from the thread, there is no reason to accuse me here of lying or feigning or anything else; but I doubt that you'll bother acknowledging it. And to be honest considering the complete disparity between the level of understanding you expect from me compared to what you're prepared to give, I don't really care.

Did I phrase things perfectly ? No. Could I have done better ? Yes. Did I deliberately set out to repeatedly cast doubt over someone's integrity, and repeatedly dismiss their clarifications ? No.

Did others do that to me ? Yes.

Discussion closed. I will not discuss this matter further, at least not with you; at this stage anyone with an open mind can read both threads and judge whether I've been reasonable for themselves (assuming that they haven't fallen asleep), and that's good enough for me.

It's a pity, because I thought - whatever about RC who started the erh accusation and then repeated it - I though you and I had at least cleared this up in-thread, but obviously not. Still, I won't lose any sleep over it at this stage.

In hindsight, I wish I hadn't mentioned the reason for the mass, because then I wouldn't have given people ammo.....but having done that, I can't for the life of me see why my clarification was repeatedly refused and insulted.

It's also a pity that the mod didn't intervene to stop the repeated insults (and yes, I do think the accusation of erh was an insult).

But the "I've decided not to believe you no matter what you say" approach just doesn't make sense....

GuanYin

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I started a thread to discuss this, and 2 people appear to have interpreted a small aspect in my post as what they call "an emotional red herring".

I've clarified this - more than once - but they refuse to accept the clarification and are repeatedly implying that it is the main factor in the discussion.

Yes, in hindsight I could have phrased it better, but at this point the thread is more of an argument about their incorrect interpretation of that aspect of the initial post than the topic of the thread.

Okay, initial problem is poor phrasing... kay, kay...

I've also gotten a mod post in the thread to say that I was being personal; it's a relatively fair point.....I had no objection to clarifying the initial point, but I did get annoyed that the clarification was completely and repeatedly ignored.....

The warning was fair, ...kay, kay.....

The other issue is that the person going on and on about a small point that I clarified very early on wasn't equally told by the mod to stop repeating that angle - as in "that's been clarified - move on and discuss the topic properly", rather than allowing them to repeatedly accuse me of introducing that "emotional red herring" despite numerous (at this stage) clarifications.

There is a difference between someone not accepting a point and someone snapping at someone in a thread.

So, given that the thread has been relatively "hijacked" by an off-topic issue, what is the procedure ? I've requested from the mod who posted that it be deleted, but haven't heard back.

You know, you don't "OWN" threads you start, nor do you get to direct them. Sometimes threads just take on a life of their own. It especially happens if the initial point is vague or poorly phrased, as is, by your own admission, the case here.

Can I request to have this thread deleted, or - considering that there are at least one or two sensible replies - at least have the rubbish accusations and sub-issues deleted as they are completely off-topic ?

And for future reference, what's the correct procedure when this happens ?

Why not just stop posting in it, or make a clear point saying that you're not interested in discussing the points not related to your initial intended point.

If everyone on a discussion forum decided to take their toys home because they didn't like the way the game was going, it wouldn't be much of a forum.

ninty9er

Holy mother of Methuselah, this is worse than the original thread!!

Someone should close one or the other of them!

ninty9er

ninty9er wrote: »

Holy mother of Methuselah,

The op has little to be worried about in real life I think when a ten page essay/rant ensues in reply to one line from me.
The op is wrong,he knows he's wrong and keeps digging.
As Gandalf would say OCD .

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

The op has little to be worried about in real life I think when a ten page essay/rant ensues in reply to one line from me.
The op is wrong,he knows he's wrong and keeps digging.
As Gandalf would say OCD .

The OP is right and you know it. Am I 100% in the right ? Probably not.

I say something which is open to interpretation, you interpret it wrong and you refuse to accept the clarification.

RC says something which is open to interpretation, I interpret it wrong, and you refuse to acknowledge that it's open to interpretation and shoot me down at almost every opportunity.

That's inconsistency.

And that's my last word on the subject, other than to say that I presume Gandalf can speak for himself too, so no need to put words in his mouth either....of course, I'm assuming that you mean the poster earlier in the thread, and assumptions have been the cause of all this fiasco, so I'm open to correction.

Dades

ninty9er wrote: »

Holy mother of Methuselah, this is worse than the original thread!!

There we go again - bringing religion into it!

More herrings for the BBQ!

Doctor DooM

Dades wrote: »

There we go again - bringing religion into it!

More herrings for the BBQ!

You wouldn't understand because you don't have faith

Dades

SDooM wrote: »

You wouldn't understand because you don't have faith

I have faith this thread ain't gonna get any more interesting!

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I say something which is open to interpretation, you interpret it wrong and you refuse to accept the clarification.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt eventually but then withdrew it having read your carry on in this thread.
Do you want me to write that in swahili so you can interpret it better.

I'm now 100% of the following view :

• You deliberately mentioned the anniversary mass for to add dramatic effect to a new angle in yet another bash FF post from you.I've no problem with the bash FF stance if thats your bag but I think there was no need for the new angle.
  
• That was an emotional red herring.
  
• You've refused to acknowledge that you've ignored all along that the sentence RC made about "he's gone" included the words "so your truck is with FF" Ergo you are attempting (rather badly) all along to feign outrage at an impossible to see, never mind interpret insult (as it isn't there).This is especially poignant when 2 lines up,RC said he was sorry for your loss ie he was being nice about it.
  
• You're exhibiting symptoms of the tireless rebutter causing me to repeat over and over the points at the start that blow your obvious poor attempt to wrangle out of your being called on the emotional red herring out of the water.I've no problem correcting you each time.
  
• I suspect that if I have to continue posting the obvious that you are amazingly trying to pretend isn't there,that you and I will be the only remaining viewers of this thread making this a rather pointless exercise.

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

You deliberately mentioned the anniversary mass for to add dramatic effect to a new angle in yet another bash FF post from you.I've no problem with the bash FF stance if thats your bag but I think there was no need for the new angle.

Incorrect - there was no "deliberately" involved, and it's sickening that I have to repeatedly point this out to you. Dealt with ad nauseum and you're wrong. Period.

Deleted User wrote: »

That was an emotional red herring.

Also dealt with and you're wrong again. Period.

Deleted User wrote: »

You've refused to acknowledge that you've ignored all along that the sentence RC made about "he's gone" included the words "so your truck is with FF" Ergo you are attempting (rather badly) all along to feign outrage at an impossible to see, never mind interpret insult (as it isn't there)

See Overheal's comment as to how that statement could come across. That statement by RC was badly phrased and I've acknowledged that I misinterpreted it as a result. You obviously can't see it, so it's impossible for you to see. And if you read my reply in the thread, you'd know that I covered both possibilites, but you've refused to acknowledge that. THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO BERTIE, so NO REFERENCE TO WHO "HE" WAS. It might be clear now, but having already been accused of an emotional red herring it is perfectly understandable that I interpreted it that way. Fair enough - I interpreted it differently to the way it was intended - just as you and RC interpreted the existence of an emotional red herring. I'm sick to death of pointing that out because it seems like it would take a sledgehammer at this stage to get you to acknowledge that there was fault on both sides.

But the main difference is that I have to - and did - accept RC's clarification and yet you STILL spout the erh rubbish because you've refused to accept mine and accuse me AGAIN. Pity that rolleyes icon is gone awol, because that's downright pathetic at this stage.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're exhibiting symptoms of the tireless rebutter causing me to repeat over and over the points at the start

Kettle, pot.

Deleted User wrote: »

.... that blow your obvious poor attempt to wrangle out of your being called on the emotional red herring out of the water.

FFS - this is the type of crap I had to put up with in the thread itself! :mad:

Leave out the phrase "called on" and replace it with the phrase "accused of" and you're spot-on....

Deleted User wrote: »

I've no problem correcting you each time.

WTF ? You haven't corrected me EVEN ONCE, because you can't possibly know what was in my head; YOU ASSUME that it was an ERH; you ASSUME that it was deliberate....how can you correct someone when the ENTIRE BASIS FOR YOUR ARGUMENT is an incorrect assumption ? I CERTAINLY can't tell what's in your head, and you can't tell what's in mine.....

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect that if I have to continue posting the obvious that you are amazingly trying to pretend isn't there,that you and I will be the only remaining viewers of this thread making this a rather pointless exercise.

To be honest, I'm beginning to thing you're simply trolling at this stage. I've said my piece and I'm going to simply find a way to block my view of your posts - they're irritating and tiresome at this stage.....why you have to assume the worst of me is beyond me.

Say what you like from now on because - AS PROVEN ABOVE AGAIN - you've got your mindset and will refuse to acknowledge that there's fault on both sides.

Mods, can we PLEASE delete BOTH threads at this stage so that I don't have to listen to this crap anymore.....it's sickening at this stage to STILL be accused of something that I clarified days ago.....

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Incorrect - there was no "deliberately" involved, and it's sickening that I have to repeatedly point this out to you. Dealt with ad nauseum and you're wrong. Period.

See I think,you wanted this.I'm immune to your use of hyperbole aswell,I saw through that a long time ago.

Also dealt with and you're wrong again. Period.

"wrong" because you were caught out on the unnecessary introduction of the emotional red herring..
Sorry,it doesn't work that way.
You post an opinion and your words are fair game for discussion.
Thats what discussion fora are for.

See Overheal's comment as to how that statement could come across. That statement by RC was badly phrased and I've acknowledged that I misinterpreted it as a result. You obviously can't see it, so it's impossible for you to see. And if you read my reply in the thread, you'd know that I covered both possibilites, but you've refused to acknowledge that. THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO BERTIE, so NO REFERENCE TO WHO "HE" WAS. It might be clear now, but having already been accused of an emotional red herring it is perfectly understandable that I interpreted it that way. Fair enough - I interpreted it differently to the way it was intended - just as you and RC interpreted the existence of an emotional red herring. I'm sick to death of pointing that out because it seems like it would take a sledgehammer at this stage to get you to acknowledge that there was fault on both sides.

More hyperbole and again you've ignored the reference to FF in RC's sentence because it doesn't suit you.
Lol
The emotional red herring was also hyperbole introduced for effect.

But the main difference is that I have to - and did - accept RC's clarification and yet you STILL spout the erh rubbish because you've refused to accept mine and accuse me AGAIN. Pity that rolleyes icon is gone awol, because that's downright pathetic at this stage.

Why should I accept a clarification when I'm of the opinion that it was an effort to row back and pretend that your intention wasn't hyperbole in the first place.

Kettle, pot.

About the tireless rebutting? I'm here in the interests of fair discussion.I'll defend it to the death.
You are on record several times as wanting the politics thread closed/deleted.I can only conclude that would be because you wanted no further embarassment.

FFS - this is the type of crap I had to put up with in the thread itself! :mad:

What discussion like? A different opinion like?

Leave out the phrase "called on" and replace it with the phrase "accused of" and you're spot-on....

Except your effort to clarify looks like a row back and your effort to get the thread closed or deleted smacks of someone whose soapbox wasn't quite working out like you had planned.
Ah well.

WTF ? You haven't corrected me EVEN ONCE, because you can't possibly know what was in my head; YOU ASSUME that it was an ERH; you ASSUME that it was deliberate....how can you correct someone when the ENTIRE BASIS FOR YOUR ARGUMENT is an incorrect assumption ? I CERTAINLY can't tell what's in your head, and you can't tell what's in mine.....

To be honest,I don't think you do at this stage,you're making it up as you go along.
Twice or three times in this thread,you've made stuff up as if it was fact and then later feigned it as your opinion when called to back it up.

To be honest, I'm beginning to thing you're simply trolling at this stage. I've said my piece and I'm going to simply find a way to block my view of your posts - they're irritating and tiresome at this stage.....why you have to assume the worst of me is beyond me.

I see so you are now back to your last port of defence-personal abuse.
Poor show.
You used it in the politics thread and were warned by a mod and now devoid of any substance you use it here.
Poor show.

Say what you like from now on because - AS PROVEN ABOVE AGAIN - you've got your mindset and will refuse to acknowledge that there's fault on both sides.

The only fault I think I had here was to give you the benefit of the doubt in the first place.You've no interest in discussion-only soap boxing.

Mods, can we PLEASE delete BOTH threads at this stage so that I don't have to listen to this crap anymore.....it's sickening at this stage to STILL be accused of something that I clarified days ago.....

Hyperbole and looking to have the thread deleted again because you are unable to put a case..It being impossible as the fallacy of your original point about RC's sentence is,your description of it falls because you've ignored RC's bit about FF in it.
I rest my case m'luds.

Liam Byrne

Think what you like - I've better things to do. I've said my piece and anyone neutral can acknowledge that; anyone with a bias can continue this rubbish.

FACT 1 : I did NOT intend to introduce any "ERH" :rolleyes: by mentioning the anniversary, and it sickened me to think that someone thought that I would be like that

FACT 2 : RC DID intend to refer to Bertie, but didn't say it explictly, and I didn't interpret it that way

FACT 3 : I accepted the clarification

FACT 4 : RC & BB did not accept my clarification and have incessantly repeated the ERH accusation, thereby annoying the hell out of me because they refuse to give me the same courtesy I gave them

AND THAT IS MY LAST WORD ON IT - I'VE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN JUSTIFY MYSELF AGAINST SOMEONE WITH A PRECONCEIVED IDEA OR BIAS.

You believe that I have/had an agenda - believe away because I know you're wrong. Repeatedly saying it is insulting and personal and ignorant and doesn't make you right.

So that's what ignore lists are for, and thankfully I've found mine before I feel the need to vacate boards.ie completely after this amount of bull**** and abuse.

Before I go, I'd like to thank both Overheal and SDooM for their contribution to emphasise that there WAS room for interpretation, and those people who can see why I got annoyed...

And now I'm off.....life's too short and there's nothing else I can say that hasn't been said.....let whoever sees this draw their own conclusion because I'm sickened at the bias, ignorance and closed-mindedness at this stage.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Think what you like - I've better things to do. I've said my piece and anyone neutral can acknowledge that; anyone with a bias can continue this rubbish.

I see so when you encounter someone who tackles you on a point you make you either peg personal abuse or just accuse them of bias?
Both qualities not renouned as good debating tools.

FACT 1 : I did NOT intend to introduce any "ERH" :rolleyes: by mentioning the anniversary, and it sickened me to think that someone thought that I would be like that

So you've said umpteen times and I neither believe you now as regards your original intentions and neither do I think you are doing anything other than continuing the hyperbole and feigning that you are sickened.

FACT 2 : RC DID intend to refer to Bertie, but didn't say it explictly, and I didn't interpret it that way

Still you avoid the clear reference to FF in the sentence you claim refered to your late friend.
Thats because you know what you are saying all along holds no water.

FACT 3 : I accepted the clarification

No clarification was made.
Here you are inventing stuff again (with no links obviously because what you're inventing doesn't exist).
You were simply called on the inaccuracy of your claim,that is all.

FACT 4 : RC & BB did not accept my clarification and have incessantly repeated the ERH accusation, thereby annoying the hell out of me because they refuse to give me the same courtesy I gave them

Well actually I agreed to give you the benefit of the doubt but subsequently withdrew it when it was obvious,you were making up things that weren't there.

AND THAT IS MY LAST WORD ON IT - I'VE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN JUSTIFY MYSELF AGAINST SOMEONE WITH A PRECONCEIVED IDEA OR BIAS.

I stand on facts and it is facts that I have used.
The personal abuse is water off a ducks back to me.

You believe that I have/had an agenda - believe away because I know you're wrong. Repeatedly saying it is insulting and personal and ignorant and doesn't make you right.

As I said all this personal abuse is water off a ducks back to me.It just shows you up the more you carry on like that.
But how and ever..

So that's what ignore lists are for, and thankfully I've found mine before I feel the need to vacate boards.ie completely after this amount of bull**** and abuse.

Lol

And now I'm off.....life's too short and there's nothing else I can say that hasn't been said.....let whoever sees this draw their own conclusion because I'm sickened at the bias, ignorance and closed-mindedness at this stage.

I'm thinking of saving this thread actually for use in a lecture I might give in the future on how not to use hyperbole.