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

Connollies shoes no more.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    RayM wrote: »
    Regardless (and for the third time...), can you point towards any specific inaccuracies contained in that article?

    I wouldn't want to interrupt you while you were about to explain on what basis you consider the 'mandate union website' to be an neutral source on this matter.


  • Options
    #33
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    Morlar wrote: »
    I wouldn't want to interrupt you while you were about to explain on what basis you consider the 'mandate union website' to be an neutral source on this matter.

    I haven't claimed that Mandate's website is a neutral source. You, on the other hand, have claimed that it is 'guaranteed' to be misleading. I've asked you (just once or thrice, like...) to point out examples of any inaccuracies, but you seem unable or unwilling to do so. It's a very simple question, and I don't understand why you're being so shifty and evasive about it.


  • Options
    #34
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    I have not been shifty or evasive - thanks. I responded to a user who posted a link to a union website as if it were a neutral source. I did not, and do not consider the 'mandate union website' to be a neutral source. Any argument to the contrary is pathetic and ridiculous.

    I have zero inclination to comb their website for specific innacuracies in order to satisfy a disingenous request (or parroted series of such requests) from you.

    If on the other hand you would like to explain why it is that you consider the mandate union website to be a neutral and trustworthy source then by all means fire away. Either you do consider it neutral or you do not.

    As regards specific inaccuracies - yet again I would refer you to the answer I gave which you apparently missed. ie Read what information is posted by the former employers in the shop windows of where Connolly's shoeshop used to be. If you find that this information ties in with what you read on the mandate website then I am in error.

    If not then what I said about the mandate website being a non neutral and 'guaranteed to be misleading' source of information on the subject of this dispute - stands.


  • Options
    #35
    Ron DMC
    Registered Users Posts: 5,297 ✭✭✭Ron DMC


    This is going nowhere. Way off topic so I'm locking it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement