Re: Fianna Fail Church Gate Collection

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

What "point" did you tackle me on ? All you've said is that it's your OPINION that I've done whatever you've accused me of along the way.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Once again, you're wrong. Think what you like at this stage, but stop attacking me by "I think you are doing this". YOU ARE WRONG. PERIOD.

Deleted User wrote: »

Still you avoid the clear reference to FF in the sentence you claim refered to your late friend.

Where did I claim that ? I said I interpreted it that way BECAUSE there was no name included. The gripe with FF could have just as easily referred to the context of posting the thread, as Overheal pointed out to you but again you've ignored that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats because you know what you are saying all along holds no water.

Bull****. Again, you can't possibly say what I know, so while we're talking useless debating strategies, there's one for you.

Deleted User wrote: »

No clarification was made.

WTF ? You've been pointing out that - in your opinion - IT COULDN'T REFER TO ANYONE OTHER THAN BERTIE.....the clarification, therefore, is that it didn't refer to Bertie. That's accepted. The only issue is your repeated stance that IT COULDN'T....which if you're right, means AT LEAST I and Overheal are thick as two short planks.

Deleted User wrote: »

Here you are inventing stuff again (with no links obviously because what you're inventing doesn't exist).

FFS :mad:That's a blatant lie - see above.

Deleted User wrote: »

You were simply called on the inaccuracy of your claim,that is all.

You were called on the inaccuracy of your claims, but you're still spouting accusations and opinions about me.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

When YOU THOUGHT it was obvious; when YOU ASSUMED that things weren't there.

Deleted User wrote: »

I stand on facts and it is facts that I have used.

Christ! Something in common at last. Unfortunately you are not standing on facts - you are standing on YOUR INTERPRETATION of facts, as well as AN OPINION that I have an agenda.

Deleted User wrote: »

The personal abuse is water off a ducks back to me.

Good for you. I wish I was more thick-skinned because I've been doubted, accused of tactics and agendas and God-knows what else since this rubbish started.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Better to use it in a lecture on how jumping to conclusions colours your view. And BTW, if I hear about a lecture that posts me in a bad light BECAUSE OF YOUR OPINION, then I might have a chat with a solicitor....it's bad enough that you've repeatedly done that here and made what was a misunderstanding WAY TOO personal by accusing me of all sorts of things that I've done my best to clarify.

I screwed up by including the reason for the mass....fair enough; but I DID NOT intend it to have any relevance other than what I've repeatedly clarified.

I know you won't believe that, but it's TRUE.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What "point" did you tackle me on ? All you've said is that it's your OPINION that I've done whatever you've accused me of along the way.

If you're claiming you don't know at this stage,I see little point in playing that game.

Once again, you're wrong. Think what you like at this stage, but stop attacking me by "I think you are doing this". YOU ARE WRONG. PERIOD.

I'm perfectly entitled to come to a view as to what you are at here.You are not entitled to tell me to stop.

Where did I claim that ? I said I interpreted it that way BECAUSE there was no name included. The gripe with FF could have just as easily referred to the context of posting the thread, as Overheal pointed out to you but again you've ignored that.

You mean you expect me to rely on someone elses interpretation of what you are doing who also stops a sentence at it's start to support a shaky theory?
At least you are consistant with the rubbish.

If you are referring to this-I think it strange that you fall back on an interpretation that relies upon leaving out all of the sentences attached to "he's gone".
There wasn't a full stop after the he's gone.
A sentences meaning relies upon the whole of the sentence.

Bull****. Again, you can't possibly say what I know, so while we're talking useless debating strategies, there's one for you.

I believe you do know it holds no water.
It's obvious it doesn't hold any.
It's also obvious what causes the water leaks and thats your reliance on ignoring the whole sentence.

WTF ? You've been pointing out that - in your opinion - IT COULDN'T REFER TO ANYONE OTHER THAN BERTIE.....the clarification, therefore, is that it didn't refer to Bertie. That's accepted. The only issue is your repeated stance that IT COULDN'T....which if you're right, means AT LEAST I and Overheal are thick as two short planks.

You do know black isn't white don't you?
Because you've just tried to say black is white there.
You were called on a further emotional hyperbole and further use of the red herring at that stage in that thread and here.
Feigning not knowing which is which at this stage is frankly so see through.

FFS :mad:That's a blatant lie - see above.

At least when you use that word ,you could try to be a little sure of your ground.
You were at all times called on your use of the emotional red herring.
Re-inventing that in your own head now at this stage (as one of the few collapsing recourses open to you) is an incorrect usage of th eword lie and ergo more personal abuse.
Water off a ducks back mind.

You were called on the inaccuracy of your claims, but you're still spouting accusations and opinions about me.

I've backed up everything I've said in terms of pointing out at least 3 or 4 ocasions where you have attributed stuff to people here and in the politics thread that they haven't said.
I don't think you're in any position to confidently say what you said there.

When YOU THOUGHT it was obvious; when YOU ASSUMED that things weren't there.

Frankly anything I've said exists does,I've quoted examples and linked to where it was said.

Christ! Something in common at last. Unfortunately you are not standing on facts - you are standing on YOUR INTERPRETATION of facts, as well as AN OPINION that I have an agenda.

I don't think we have anything in common there at all as you invent things that don't exist.
I either quote them or link to them.

Good for you. I wish I was more thick-skinned because I've been doubted, accused of tactics and agendas and God-knows what else since this rubbish started.

Welcome to message boards and non soap box style debate.

Better to use it in a lecture on how jumping to conclusions colours your view. And BTW, if I hear about a lecture that posts me in a bad light BECAUSE OF YOUR OPINION, then I might have a chat with a solicitor....it's bad enough that you've repeatedly done that here and made what was a misunderstanding WAY TOO personal by accusing me of all sorts of things that I've done my best to clarify.

oh dear.. Don't worry,I won't use your real name

I screwed up by including the reason for the mass....fair enough; but I DID NOT intend it to have any relevance other than what I've repeatedly clarified.

I know you won't believe that, but it's TRUE.

I don't believe you.

Gandalf23

Lads, no offence to either of you, but this is painful. You are both making yourselves look very bad at this stage.

Why not agree to disagree, and extend the hand of friendship. If thats not possible at this time, just avoid each other on the site for a while.

This really cant go on like this ... Time and space are needed here now.

Lol Gandalf23-what happened to your advice in the other thread that you don't have to read these threads if you don't want to

Gandalf23

I'm not sure I said that ... you might have picked me up wrong there.

I'm just saying this is not worth it (and painful to read).

Let me ask you this ( and same questions to LB) ... How much time have you spent reading and replying to this thread? Is there nothing you could have better spent your time at? Has anything been contributed to any debate, and have you changed anyones mind?

I'm not getting at either of you guys in any way ... I'm just wondering about your motivations and what you both are trying to achieve.

Gandalf23

Gandalf23 wrote: »

How much time have you spent reading and replying to this thread?

About 5 minutes per reply.

Is there nothing you could have better spent your time at?

I multi task.

Has anything been contributed to any debate, and have you changed anyones mind?

Changing peoples minds is not the purpose.
Writing what you believe in,to an extent is.

I'm not getting at either of you guys in any way ... I'm just wondering about your motivations and what you both are trying to achieve.

Isn't that off topic here and more on topic in the thread you started

Liam Byrne

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I'm not getting at either of you guys in any way ... I'm just wondering about your motivations and what you both are trying to achieve.

Just don't like being accused of doing something that I would never do.

Esel

Get a room ffs!

Hobart

I've read both threads. To say that this has spiralled out of control, is actually an understatement. I think that really there are a number of points of clarification that are needed from a "neutral" perspective, as it's obvious that Black Briar and Liam Byrne have issues with each other that go beyond this or the other thread.

Firstly Black Briar, you have to understand that it does not really matter that you do or do not believe what the OP's intention was when he mentioned the anniversary mass. It could be interpreted in a couple of ways:

1) He was using it to explain why he was at mass.
2) It was an emotional ploy to garner support for his supposed "singular hatrid of FF" .

Both are valid hypothesis. The OP states that the former was his reasoning, most reasonable people would take that to be the more likely explanation. Again, what you believe to be 100% true, is of no consequence to what the OP knows.

Secondly Black Briar, you try and introduce a "red herring" yourself by attempting to climb on the intellectual ladder when you say "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." . That's just crap tbh and trolling of the worst type. Nobody cares what you do with this thread, you won't use it in any so-called "lecture".

Thirdly RC's line containing "he's gone" is also open to interpretation. In fact the OP questioned RC on that, RC responded and that should have been that. Again, any reasonable person would have seen that RC was referring to Bertie when using the comment, but there is enough ambiguity in the statement to warrant a question. Once that question was answered, the discussion should have moved on from there.

Lastly, I believe that in this particular case the OP is guilty of one thing, and one thing only, when the nub of the issue is looked at. His initial phraseology when starting the thread left enough room for people to detract from his point (irrespective of whether his point was well made or not) and the thread went left of field from there. It's a ridiculous situation, and the tireless rebuttal's of posters in this thread, where everybody is tearing the minutia of words apart, is somewhat amusing to be me, but I suspect tiresome for most people. Yes we don't have to read it, but we do.

Vbulletin tells me theres a post here from hobart .
I have to click on view post to read it,I've no intention of doing that on this occasion.
I've had hobart on ignore since 2005 or thereabouts due my distaste of his constant trolling on the mod forum.
I've been a better person for this

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

He must have stopped trolling when i joined in 2005 then, i've never noticed him trolling. His post was a good post in this thread btw, perhaps the only good one.

Ask him about the hobart forum there were two of them titled that in jest by ecksor when hobart tirelessly argued against their creation as if his life depended upon it.
That was possibly before your time alright.

Now you've gone and done it..I've read his post.I like not having too but in this case I like having to.
I think this post was better though and a fair point about "having a truck with".

I do agree with you though,this entire thread really was a waste of electronic space but then I didn't start it-just felt the need to give my views.

Time for the cats now or does the milk in here taste funny..

Dades

Deleted User wrote: »

Time for the cats now or does the milk in here taste funny..

Vexorg

I grant this thread closure.

Was it threads like this that spawned the T-Dome.