Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

''We're Safer in Europe''

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    nullzero wrote: »
    I agree that human trafficking is an awful thing, but I don't know what relevance it has to this thread..

    The OP said
    bustertherat wrote: »
    The poster is advocating a Yes vote because ''we're safer in Europe.''


    and I made it clear that its probably referring to the human trafficking points in the treaty

    hence its quite relevant to this thread

    SkepticOne wrote: »
    More hysterics tbh, suggesting that the No side are in favour of human trafficking.

    actually i didnt suggest that since i was replying about you and @ nullzero in particular

    no need to try to twist things my post is very clear reply to your both posts

    /


  • Options
    #33
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    It is interesting that a poster that IS based on Lisbon, creates such disdain!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #34
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 17,041 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    The OP said




    and I made it clear that its probably referring to the human trafficking points in the treaty

    hence its quite relevant to this thread




    actually i didnt suggest that since i was replying about you and @ nullzero in particular

    no need to try to twist things my post is very clear reply to your both posts

    /

    Fair point.
    But it doesn't excuse you taking my post completely out of context.
    It was the wrong thing to do, you were wrong to do it, do you not agree?
    Do you believe I was belittling you or your argument in what I posted?
    I can assure you I wasn't, i was merely making a light hearted comment that had nothing to do with any of your posts and I can assure you that I was more than a little peeved to see some jumped up zealot quoting me and turning a completely inoffensive post into some sort of support for human trafficking.
    You were out of line, end of.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #35
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    nullzero wrote: »
    turning a completely inoffensive post into some sort of support for human trafficking.
    You were out of line, end of.

    no I was not, if it bothers you that your vote may result in people not being "safe" then maybe you should reconsider your position

    the poster is perfectly correct and the fact that it started a debate means that it accomplished its purpose of raising awareness of Lisbon and cross-border crime


    without Lisbon there is no agreement or policy between all EU states on how to handle cross border crime such as human trafficking

    so in effect yes by voting NO you may be responsible for more cross-border crime


    in such a scenario the EU states would waste more years trying to figure out how to implement all of the points from Lisbon across all states in a unanimous fashion, instead of dealing with this serious issue (and many more)


  • Options
    #36
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    We would be in Europe whether we were in the EU or not. It's a simple fact of geography.
    I doubt if many looking at the poster that says "It's simple, I'm safer in Europe - Vote YES" is thinking that Europe here refers to the geographical entity. The posters are about the EU.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I doubt if many looking at the poster that says "It's simple, I'm safer in Europe - Vote YES" is thinking that Europe here refers to the geographical entity. The posters are about the EU.

    Yes, I'm afraid I was harking back to earlier pedantries about people deliberately confusing the words 'Europe' and 'EU'. On the other hand, there's a slight double meaning to it, in that voting Yes to Lisbon means that women will in general be safer in Europe.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #38
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 17,041 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    no I was not, if it bothers you that your vote may result in people not being "safe" then maybe you should reconsider your position

    the poster is perfectly correct and the fact that it started a debate means that it accomplished its purpose of raising awareness of Lisbon and cross-border crime


    without Lisbon there is no agreement or policy between all EU states on how to handle cross border crime such as human trafficking

    so in effect yes by voting NO you may be responsible for more cross-border crime


    in such a scenario the EU states would waste more years trying to figure out how to implement all of the points from Lisbon across all states in a unanimous fashion, instead of dealing with this serious issue (and many more)

    I wasn't advocating a Yes or No vote.
    I was merely attempted to inject some humor into the thread.
    You were out of line in making me out to be in favour of human trafficking.
    I made no point about the treaty at all, I took a swipe at the poster campaign on both sides.
    You're really starting to get on my nerves, you seem to have no concept of logic or decenecy.
    I made a harmless funny comment which was in no way affiliated with a Yes or No vote and you turned it into me supporting human trafficking. Where the hell do you get off making assumptions like that?
    You have shown a complete lack of respect to me for absolutely no reason at all, I wasn't even addressing you or your argument, you just picked on me for no reason, can you not see what I'm talking about here?

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #39
    corcaigh07
    Registered Users Posts: 6,398 ✭✭✭corcaigh07


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    The poster is misleading. Most of the posters on both sides are misleading. The gloves are off at this stage.

    never a truer word said


  • Options
    #40
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    nullzero wrote: »
    I wasn't advocating a Yes or No vote.
    I was merely attempted to inject some humor into the thread.
    You were out of line in making me out to be in favour of human trafficking.
    I made no point about the treaty at all, I took a swipe at the poster campaign on both sides.
    You're really starting to get on my nerves, you seem to have no concept of logic or decenecy.
    I made a harmless funny comment which was in no way affiliated with a Yes or No vote and you turned it into me supporting human trafficking. Where the hell do you get off making assumptions like that?
    You have shown a complete lack of respect to me for absolutely no reason at all, I wasn't even addressing you or your argument, you just picked on me for no reason, can you not see what I'm talking about here?

    If there's a problem, please report the offending post rather than having an argument on-thread - the latter course will probably result in infractions all round.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #41
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 17,041 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If there's a problem, please report the offending post rather than having an argument on-thread - the latter course will probably result in infractions all round.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw

    Perfectly valid point.
    I just didn't want people thinking I was advocating human trafficking or anything like it. Perhaps I set about validating that point too fervently.

    Apologies,
    Nullzero.

    Glazers Out!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Brendan Junior wrote: »
    Hello Mr.Flaw,

    I am new here and I just want to know do most members have nearly 8,000 posts or do some members actually have a social life?

    Yours sincerely,

    BJ [Mr.Job]
    :eek:

    And that, bustertherat, will earn both your accounts a site ban.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #43
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    nullzero wrote: »
    Perfectly valid point.
    I just didn't want people thinking I was advocating human trafficking or anything like it. Perhaps I set about validating that point too fervently.

    Apologies,
    Nullzero.

    i never said anywhere in this thread that you or @skepticone are advocating human trafficking, im not sure how yee jumped to that conclusion


    i just pointed out that the poster is actually quite relevant to the treaty


    and by voting NO the EU has no clear policy on cross-border crime such as human trafficking, so one of possible consequence of a NO vote is EU being in disarray while this "trade" continues

    as the posters say

    "Its rather simple"

    /


  • Options
    #44
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Yes, I'm afraid I was harking back to earlier pedantries about people deliberately confusing the words 'Europe' and 'EU'. On the other hand, there's a slight double meaning to it, in that voting Yes to Lisbon means that women will in general be safer in Europe.
    I'm not sure many people would take that second meaning. "I will be safer" (your suggested second meaning) is very different to "I'm safer" (the actual phrasing).

    If you didn't know anything about the Lisbon treaty, for example, if you arrived in from another country, then if you were to read "I'm safer in X, Vote Yes", you would probably conclude that a) X is some political entity and b) a Yes vote is a vote either for joining that entitiy or remaining a member of that entity.


  • Options
    #45
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 17,041 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    i got a "polite" pm now as well (pmid=4200390)


    I wanted YOU to know how I felt about you misrepresenting me on this thread. You did a real hatchet job on me with what you said.

    It's a PM, send me one back if you have a problem.
    You made me out to be somebody who condoned human trafficking on no evidence at all, that's just stupid.
    Keep your PM's to yourself.
    Telling the teacher is still stupid in adulthood, no honour at all, take it on the chin, I've had offensive PM's and I haven't posted them here for people to judge the sender.
    What the hell is your problem?

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #46
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    i got a "polite" pm now as well (pmid=4200390)

    Sorry, PM's are posted in confidence and there is a report PM function.

    Bad Form.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #47
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    ei.sdraob, do not post other people's PMs without their express permission. If you continue this argument with nullzero, I will ban you.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #48
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I'm not sure many people would take that second meaning. "I will be safer" (your suggested second meaning) is very different to "I'm safer" (the actual phrasing).

    If you didn't know anything about the Lisbon treaty, for example, if you arrived in from another country, then if you were to read "I'm safer in X, Vote Yes", you would probably conclude that a) X is some political entity and b) a Yes vote is a vote either for joining that entitiy or remaining a member of that entity.

    However, under those circumstances, you probably shouldn't vote.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement