Vote yes, sure you can trust all politicians..

P. Breathnach

the_dark_side wrote: »

You would wonder, have certain people been recruited from 'deep' within the FF camp, to come onto boards and fight the corner of the 'Yes' campaign. ...

That's a really low insult.

conchubhar1

it was a low point

but posting longer means what exactly?

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

...posting longer means what exactly?

...

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll leave the drawing of conclusions as an exercise for the reader.

conchubhar1

bravo, oscar, bravo

i know what you thught it meant, i meant that that is a false asumption that voting longer means it is of better quality


''excercise'' = how delightfuly pompous and demeaning and rude

the_dark_side

..and this is'nt a low insult?

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Well no offence, but your father is as much an authority on the matter as a magic eight ball. You may have immense respect for him, but his answer to you smacks of a knee jerk response to a complex issue, which he's entitled to, but remains his personal opinion.

So go on and ban me :pac:....escort me to the door of this thread, and cast me into the cold and forboding night that is Ireland sans Lisbon Treaty.
And I will go as a martyr, a voice for those who were denied their right to vote on Lisbon across Europe... is free speech not a cornerstone of democracy?

conchubhar1

i heard that if we vote no

ireland will collapse into a dark fiery hell

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i know what you thught it meant...

You do?

...i meant that that is a false asumption that voting longer means it is of better quality

Ah. You don't.

conchubhar1

posting longer does not mean automaticaly you post better

case in point - you and your talking down?

now, those two questions (your ''you do?'' and mine - are rhetorical questions....)

====

that was meant to be ''psoting' longer - edited now

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

voting longer does not mean automaticaly you post better

case in point - you and our talking down?

now, those two questions (your ''you do?'' and mine - are rhetorical questions....)

Statement: Some of the 'yes' side are FFers which have just signed up to boards in order to boost 'yes' arguments.
Response: Check the join dates of the 'yes' posters in question, and compare and contrast to some on the 'no' side.

It's got nothing to do with quality, and everything to do with irony.

As an aside, some of your posts are quite difficult to understand, as above I assume you mean 'posting' for 'voting' and I don't know what 'you and our talking down?' means.

Maybe you could read over them a couple of times before you post, to make sure they are crystal in what they mean?

conchubhar1

no

anyway, if you read my post my stance was that it is ludicrous to think that any poiticans is registered to boards to pass of as a regular joe and try to push a yes vote

but, of course attack my grammar and spelling - and dont read my points


you and your talking down

BlitzKrieg

Statement: Some of the 'yes' side are FFers which have just signed up to boards in order to boost 'yes' arguments.
Response: Check the join dates of the 'yes' posters in question, and compare and contrast to some on the 'no' side.

Also note that at least 2 if not many more of the debaters strongly on the *yes* side started in the *no* camp.

case in point my first post here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55923679&postcount=28

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

anyway, if you read my post my stance was that it is ludicrous to think that any poiticans is registered to boards to pass of as a regular joe and try to push a yes vote

I didn't attack anything, I offered constructive criticism on your posting style, so that your points of view don't get lost amongst confusing text or typo's.

In fairness, how am I supposed to know that you meant 'your' when you type 'our', they're both English words and you wouldn't tell from the context.

I can't see why you're arguing with oB then, and what you are talking about length of time posting not being related to quality for, if what you mean is that it's ludicrous to think any politicians would be shilling (which it probably isn't, it's happened before).

In fact I can't read into any of your posts in this thread that you think the above is ludicrous.

I do see you completely misunderstand an post by oB, and go for his throat, despite him telling you that you didn't understand what he was talking about.

turgon

the_dark_side wrote: »

is free speech not a cornerstone of democracy?

Eh...no? Democracy is "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives." How does that have anything to do with free speech?

Democracy - such a buzzword. Vote Yes to Lisbon for Democracy. Vote No to Lisbon for Democracy.

In Time Magazine this week one reporter said Iranian people sharing political news by word of mouth was "democracy in action." Whatever about posters on an Internet forum, is it above reporters to know the definition of democracy?

conchubhar1

i never said you should know what i meant - and yes i should check for typos

i wasnt argueing with ob, but his statement on posting longer means better

is a very large stretch

''an post'' - see typos are easy to make

--
it is a form of govt - which couldnt exist without free speech

free speech is essential for democracy - and is often used in its place. not correct usage, but you surely must know what was meant

''cornerstone'' - not it is democracy...................

P. Breathnach

conchubhar1 wrote: »

... but, of course attack my grammar and spelling - and dont read my points

I don't normally attack grammar and spelling (or punctuation or capitalisation). If, however, the meaning of a post is not clear to me I usually disregard it.

You might get fewer responses from me than your ideas merit.

conchubhar1

indeed - i should have checked and changed that ''our'' example
that could not be understood, except by me

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i never said you should know what i meant - and yes i should check for typos

i wasnt argueing with ob, but his statement on posting longer means better

is a very large stretch

He didn't make that statement, that's why he told you that you had misunderstood him.

Scofflaw

the_dark_side wrote: »

So go on and ban me :pac:....escort me to the door of this thread, and cast me into the cold and forboding night that is Ireland sans Lisbon Treaty.
And I will go as a martyr, a voice for those who were denied their right to vote on Lisbon across Europe... is free speech not a cornerstone of democracy?

Free speech is - histrionics, not so much.

amused,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

oscarBravo wrote: »

You might wonder that, alright. Then you might look at the join dates of some of the more vocal "no" campaigners, and compare them to the join dates of the more vocal "yes" campaigners.

I'll leave the drawing of conclusions as an exercise for the reader.

look at dates no campaigners and compare to those of yes voters

okay - what conclusion did ob draw from that?

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

look at dates no campaigners and compare to those of yes voters

okay - what conclusion did ob draw from that?

He drew the conclusion that they were here longer so thus they had a lower chance than some No-siders of joining Boards specifically to debate Lisbon.

Scofflaw

conchubar1 wrote:

look at dates no campaigners and compare to those of yes voters

okay - what conclusion did ob draw from that?

The accusation that Yes advocates here are Yes campaign sock-puppets is given the lie by the fact that most of us are long-term boards posters, with extensive posting records on other issues. We are therefore extremely unlikely to be FF press office interns recruited to sing Lisbon's praises.

Conversely, many of the No posters are recent registrations, and apparently solely interested in knocking Lisbon and/or the EU. In the lead-up to the elections, for example, it was pretty clear a number of them were Libertas 'online canvassers' - who have now, unsurprisingly, disappeared again.

That suggests that not only is the accusation that Yes posters are hacks untrue, but that it is probably the exact opposite of the truth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

the_dark_side

news just in

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0624/1224249417090.html

conchubhar1

if they only have posted on lisbon issues and have small post counts yes

but many no advocates here do not meet that requirement (me included, though i am currently swaying between no to yes and back again numerous times) as they have been here quite some time and have posted on many other topics

conchubhar1

i was watching that on sky news yesterday

the irish get to heir their views twice as the british still dont get to heir their views once - nicely put

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i am currently swaying between no to yes and back again numerous times

How stupid do you think we are?

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

if they only have posted on lisbon issues and have small post counts yes

but many no advocates here do not meet that requirement (me included, though i am currently swaying between no to yes and back again numerous times) as they have been here quite some time and have posted on many other topics

The point was only brought up to show how, if anything, it's the other way round.

conchubhar1

turgon wrote: »

How stupid do you think we are?

what relevance does this have?

the_dark_side

Its interesting to note how the general election in the UK was either to be this month, or 2010.
If Brown was voted out, Lisbon would be put to referrendum in England, as was initially promised, which would be voted against by a large majority, according to opinion polls. Could it be that they want this treaty shoved through before the general election in England.... never :rolleyes:

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

look at dates no campaigners and compare to those of yes voters

okay - what conclusion did ob draw from that?

It was alleged that some on the 'yes' side had only signed up to boards, to promote yes, and they were secretly FFers.

oB's post was in direct response to that post.

i.e. the original post was idiotic, because many of the 'yes' posters have been around for years, and ironically, if you look at the join dates of many of the 'no' posters they are quite recent. If anyone was potentially shilling for a political organisation, it would be someone with a recent join date.

He was merely pointing out the irony of the original post, and it had nothing to do with alleged quality or lack thereof.

K-9

the_dark_side wrote: »

Its interesting to note how the general election in the UK was either to be this month, or 2010.
If Brown was voted out, Lisbon would be put to referrendum in England, as was initially promised, which would be voted against by a large majority, according to opinion polls. Could it be that they want this treaty shoved through before the general election in England.... never :rolleyes:

Can't see Cameron in a rush to hold it either if he was PM.