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

Why is Boards.ie like the Ministry of Truth...

12357…14

Comments

  • #122
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Darragh wrote: »
    On the 12 December 2009, a thread was put in Consumer Issues with the title "Avoid Just-Eat[dot]ie"

    In this thread one of our members detailed problems (since resolved) they were having with that site and also mentioned another competing site of theirs (not involved) called feedme[dot]ie.

    The problem with the thread was, as so often happens, because Boards.ie is so Google friendly, that it rose in the search engine rankings for the OTHER website, even though it was nothing to do with them.

    So, on 24th December 2009 at 17:04, (please note the date), after that website had contacted me to see if I could help, I unapproved the thread, reporting it to the moderators of the forum with the following message - and I'll screenshot it so there's no accusation of changing - and here's the link to it for mods to verify its accuracy.

    151638.png

    So, what I did, on Christmas Eve, was turn off the thread until I got a chance to check with the Admins what we normally do in those situations and it seems I just never turned it back on. Until tonight. It's here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055768501

    When things like that happen, we HAVE to discuss them and take appropriate action. It makes sense. NEITHER website that is mentioned in that thread have, to my knowledge, advertised with us. It wasn't do do with that. It was to do with comments on the website causing unnecessary trouble.

    NOW, what TheZohan accused me of doing:



    is completely NOT what happened. It doesn't happen. Our sales team will tell you that they come to us asking for threads to be removed for potential advertisers and we don't do it. Its precisely for this bloody reason that we spent so long on pages like http://www.boards.ie/legal and http://www.boards.ie/terms

    I may have used the term "approach" that TheZohan took to mean "advertising" but since he never asked me about it, he never checked to see if he was correct and because he completely failed to verify his assumption, he is, I'm glad to say, completely wrong.

    HOWEVER, what he did on this thread was accuse me in the wrong of something I didn't do. He made a statement which I may have said was defamation under Irish law (link)



    and could have followed up on.

    Now say I wasn't working with Boards.ie. What I'd have done, if I'd wanted to follow up on that was
    • email Boards.ie to get it taken down (work for Boards.ie)
    • Ask for TheZohan's details to follow up legally, be told to get a Section 8 request. Go to the Gardaí or my solicitor and submit that (work for Boards.ie)
    • Through my solicitor request any details relating the TheZohan, his posting and his logs for evidence in the trial. Under a court order Boards.ie would be legally obliged to provide this (work for Boards.ie)
    • Go through the legal system (with Boards.ie involved) and if it came to trial, quite possibly Boards.ie being involved would be a major story for some other rival outlets, thereby meaning another blow to reputation and more work for Boards.ie.

    Can you see why I'm eager to avoid such things on site? Can you see the amount of time and work that takes - time and work better spent anywhere else?

    Don't worry TheZohan, I'm not going to follow this up legally. Consider it a polite request to make sure you have ALL your facts right before posting up an accusation.

    Not everyone has as much patience as I do.

    That's exactly what I took it as, I do apologise and I'm glad I was wrong in this instance.

    Edit: Since you brought it up; legally you wouldn't have a leg to stand on regarding defamation etc so you'd only be wasting your own money by contacting a solicitor.


  • #123
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    Just on this point. Both yourself, Dav and a few admins (can't remember which off the top of my head but I could check if needs be) said that my actions (re: the sticky and the mcsavage thread) could have got the site in legal trouble.

    yes, that was YOUR actions and the precedent it could have set. That's actually quite seperate to this discussion and indeed to the threads being discussed here.


  • #124
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Is that the reputation of the site as a whole, or of specific forums on the site?

    Both. Each reflects on the other.
    southsiderosie wrote: »
    If someone makes a living on their looks, then criticism of their looks should be up for grabs. If someone makes a living on heaping abuse on others for laughs, why would people on boards not be able to do the same? Just as the forum shapes the tone of the debate, so should the person being discussed.

    I think the bigger problem here though is that there seems to be a perception among users that comments are being labeled as "abuse" when they apply to individuals who are powerful and/or wealthy enough to have a solicitor call the admins. Whether this is true or not, it is how it comes across from the user end.

    It should apply to everyone, regardless of whether they can afford a solicitor or not. We, as a site, should just not condone it. The reason I'm involved in this thread is to see how we shape that together and what the right thing to do is.

    We're not going to just make a policy that you have to agree with. This is so we can ALL shape a policy that's fair and operable.


  • #125
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Going by whats being said Darragh would have to sue the company he works for!

    Nope, in fact I'd just sue himself. Boards.ie wouldn't be responsible but WOULD, under a court order or a Section 8 request, have to hand over the details of the person in question. Then I could do what I need to.

    Does that make it any clearer?


  • #126
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Darragh wrote: »
    Nope, in fact I'd just sue himself. Boards.ie wouldn't be responsible but WOULD, under a court order or a Section 8 request, have to hand over the details of the person in question. Then I could do what I need to.

    Does that make it any clearer?
    And you seriously think you would reach a successful conclusion? Seriously?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Darragh wrote: »
    yes, that was YOUR actions and the precedent it could have set. That's actually quite seperate to this discussion and indeed to the threads being discussed here.

    So the McSavage thread didn't contain anything that could land the site in legal trouble but my actions could land the site in legal trouble? Is that what you are saying because I'm not too sure? If so, how?


  • #128
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    So the McSavage thread didn't contain anything that could land the site in legal trouble but my actions could land the site in legal trouble? Is that what you are saying because I'm not too sure? If so, how?
    And now he is saying that all boards needs to do in order to pass the buck is provide user details.


  • #129
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Darragh, the concern I have is that the site may become too comercialised.

    How so? How will us clamping down on abuse make the site more commercial?

    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Is it worth clamping down on dissent to have these interviews?

    I think of boards as a community. I know posters here, some "in real life" I recognize there avatars etc(Micky really confused me when he started taking other peoples!) and I enjoy reading peoples posts on certain things(Wibbs for example). People have gotten to know each other through boards. I remember Dev referring to "boards babies".

    And you held an interview with some fella who insulted everyone? Then the inevitable response was deleted. Having him on insulting everyone, even if it was joking or whatever, was stupid.

    Why are these interviews held in the first place? I assume to boost traffic?

    Again with your assumptions. The interviews are interesting content for the members of the forum. They give them access to people they may not get the chance to ask questions of. They are done when I can and when it's possible. It can be anything from members of the Politics forum asking politicans questions to members of the Commuting & Transport forum asking questions to the head of the RPA. They're an experiment in what can be done AND supposed to be a bit of fun.

    They don't have any discernible effect on traffic from what I can see. It'd be cool if they did that too, but as long as they educate, entertain and inform the forum members they're created for, I'm happy.


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Darragh,it really looks like that thread was not deleted to get rid of legal issues.(which I believe did not exist and "legal issues" are being used as a smokescreen to hide the truth)

    You're correct if you're talking about the AH thread about the video that was posted. Legal issues weren't brought into it and I'm not altogether sure where you're getting that from?

    We do have legal issues around abuse though and that needs to be dealt with.
    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    It is my belief that these interviews are intended to boost traffic and raise boards.ies profile in the media world.

    Again, that's YOUR belief. Tell me, how would the videos boost traffic OR raise or profile in the media world? What strategy are you seeing here that I don't seem to be?

    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Now you can say thats not true, but that is the perception created. And as you have mentioned reputation so many times I am sure you realise that appearances are very important. To me thats how it looked. And to many others too.

    I completely agree that appearances are very important. The truth is more important though.


  • #130
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    TheZohan wrote: »
    That's exactly what I took it as, I do apologise and I'm glad I was wrong in this instance.

    Edit: Since you brought it up; legally you wouldn't have a leg to stand on regarding defamation etc so you'd only be wasting your own money by contacting a solicitor.
    How sure are you of that? 90% sure?


  • #131
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Darragh wrote: »
    How so? How will us clamping down on abuse make the site more commercial?




    Again with your assumptions. The interviews are interesting content for the members of the forum. They give them access to people they may not get the chance to ask questions of. They are done when I can and when it's possible. It can be anything from members of the Politics forum asking politicans questions to members of the Commuting & Transport forum asking questions to the head of the RPA. They're an experiment in what can be done AND supposed to be a bit of fun.

    They don't have any discernible effect on traffic from what I can see. It'd be cool if they did that too, but as long as they educate, entertain and inform the forum members they're created for, I'm happy.





    You're correct if you're talking about the AH thread about the video that was posted. Legal issues weren't brought into it and I'm not altogether sure where you're getting that from?

    We do have legal issues around abuse though and that needs to be dealt with.



    Again, that's YOUR belief. Tell me, how would the videos boost traffic OR raise or profile in the media world? What strategy are you seeing here that I don't seem to be?




    I completely agree that appearances are very important. The truth is more important though.
    There is not much point clogging the thread up with me teling you what I think you are doing, Ive said that already.

    I have one more question though.


    Tell me what the legal issues are please, pertaining in particular to this:
    Just on this point. Both yourself, Dav and a few admins (can't remember which off the top of my head but I could check if needs be) said that my actions (re: the sticky and the mcsavage thread) could have got the site in legal trouble.

    Im curious. I feel "legal issues" is a term being waved around here as an excuse for various things, I loath being misled. So what are the legal issues? I would like to know,even just for my academic benefit.


    Disclosing these legal issues will help everyone to achieve a better understanding of the situation.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    And you seriously think you would reach a successful conclusion? Seriously?
    Why do I get the feeling this entire thread is based around the mistaken assumption that Irish defamation law is fair?

    It's the nastiest piece of legislation we have on the books, for my money - and fair doesn't really come into it. If you think Darragh couldn't cause Zohan trouble, you just don't understand what the Defamation Act says.


  • #133
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    So the McSavage thread didn't contain anything that could land the site in legal trouble but my actions could land the site in legal trouble? Is that what you are saying because I'm not too sure? If so, how?

    No, let's go back again AC.

    Here's what you said
    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    Just on this point. Both yourself, Dav and a few admins (can't remember which off the top of my head but I could check if needs be) said that my actions (re: the sticky and the mcsavage thread) could have got the site in legal trouble.

    and here's what I said
    Darragh wrote: »
    yes, that was YOUR actions and the precedent it could have set. That's actually quite seperate to this discussion and indeed to the threads being discussed here.

    What you did was you - without conferring with any of your co-Mods, your co-cMod, the admins or anyone else - was, using your authority as a Boards.ie moderator - open a sticky and say (not your exact words) "You know what, it's fine to throw abuse at this person". You did this, as you said yourself in the moderators thread, without any thought of the actions.

    So, you said it was okay to abuse someone on Boards.ie

    Fine, it was in one particular thread in response to one particular occasion, but what's to stop you, or another moderator, doing that again? Do you not think that that could lead to accusations of cyber-bullying? That it could be seen as an attack on someone? That BECAUSE OF YOUR ACTIONS someone COULD have said something defamatory on the thread and landed the site AND that user in serious trouble.

    That's what the issue is, and I fail to see how this has been explained to you so many times and you still don't think this is a problem.


  • #134
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Gordon wrote: »
    How sure are you of that? 90% sure?

    100% sure.

    I was 90% sure that Darragh made the post in the Reported Posts forum, I gave you the dates and the name of the company involved and I was correct with all information provided(even 15 months after the post was made), I did however mistakenly read "an approach by x company" as an approach regarding advertising as it wasn't clear from his post.


  • #135
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    TheZohan wrote: »
    Edit: Since you brought it up; legally you wouldn't have a leg to stand on regarding defamation etc so you'd only be wasting your own money by contacting a solicitor.

    That edit was pointless, unnecessary and really actually just a bigger reflection on yourself than you might think. You could have apologised and left it at that. That would have been better.


  • #136
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,590 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


    TheZohan wrote: »
    That's exactly what I took it as, I do apologise and I'm glad I was wrong in this instance.

    Edit: Since you brought it up; legally you wouldn't have a leg to stand on regarding defamation etc so you'd only be wasting your own money by contacting a solicitor.

    You stated as fact that Darragh altered the editorial policy of boards at the behest of an advertiser. Then you stated as fact that if it wasn't Darragh it was Dav. It doesn't matter that you thought what you said was true, it wasn't. The onus is on you to prove what you said was true.

    In the job that Darragh and Dav do that would arguably be defamation, indeed many similar sites to boards wouldn't hire someone with that that in their background. The kind of people they deal with on a daily basis also read boards.

    You thought nothing of throwing around the comment as it's meaningless to you, but to other people it may be their whole career that is affected. Hence why they might consider legal action, or the very least the removal of the comments.

    Personally if I was Darragh/Dav, I'd still have the comments removed.


  • #137
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Darragh wrote: »
    That edit was pointless, unnecessary and really actually just a bigger reflection on yourself than you might think. You could have apologised and left it at that. That would have been better.

    It actually wasn't, it shows you have people can talk about bringing legal action even when there really is no case to answer. We really shouldn't be afraid every time someone mentions the word "solicitor" or "legal".


  • #138
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Sparks wrote: »
    Why do I get the feeling this entire thread is based around the mistaken assumption that Irish defamation law is fair?

    It's the nastiest piece of legislation we have on the books, for my money - and fair doesn't really come into it. If you think Darragh couldn't cause Zohan trouble, you just don't understand what the Defamation Act says.

    I didnt say he couldn't cause trouble or hassle, I implied that any action would be unsuccessful.



    Anyway, this is all rather pointless, not nice to see people threatening to sue one another.


  • #139
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »

    Im curious. I feel "legal issues" is a term being waved around here as an excuse for various things, I loath being misled. So what are the legal issues? I would like to know,even just for my academic benefit.


    Disclosing these legal issues will help everyone to achieve a better understanding of the situation.

    I really feel like I'm repeating myself on this thread. Repeatedly.

    But for clarification sake, I'll point you towards this post - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71170820&postcount=133

    and what I said earlier

    Darragh wrote: »
    What I'd have done, if I'd wanted to follow up on that was
    • email Boards.ie to get it taken down (work for Boards.ie)
    • Ask for TheZohan's details to follow up legally, be told to get a Section 8 request. Go to the Gardaí or my solicitor and submit that (work for Boards.ie)
    • Through my solicitor request any details relating the TheZohan, his posting and his logs for evidence in the trial. Under a court order Boards.ie would be legally obliged to provide this (work for Boards.ie)
    • Go through the legal system (with Boards.ie involved) and if it came to trial, quite possibly Boards.ie being involved would be a major story for some other rival outlets, thereby meaning another blow to reputation and more work for Boards.ie.

    Can you see why I'm eager to avoid such things on site? Can you see the amount of time and work that takes - time and work better spent anywhere else?

    So, in summary, here are the issues around this:
    1. Any email into us takes time to answer - time we could (should?) be spending on other things.
    2. Legal correspondence even more so. When this happens we have to collate as much data around the incident as we can.
    3. What AC did, as a representative of Boards.ie, was invite abuse, seemingly officially, which could have turned nasty
    4. If he had, we'd have had to go through the process outlined above, which would have taken time, possibly money, which is better spent elsewhere

    Is that easier to understand?

    Oh and re
    There is not much point clogging the thread up with me teling you what I think you are doing, Ive said that already.

    I'll take that as an answer, or lack thereof, to my direct questions as to how you think us getting rid of abuse (or the reputation thereof) is over-commercialising the site.


  • #140
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Darragh wrote: »
    No, let's go back again AC.

    Here's what you said



    and here's what I said



    What you did was you - without conferring with any of your co-Mods, your co-cMod, the admins or anyone else - was, using your authority as a Boards.ie moderator - open a sticky and say (not your exact words) "You know what, it's fine to throw abuse at this person". You did this, as you said yourself in the moderators thread, without any thought of the actions.

    So, you said it was okay to abuse someone on Boards.ie

    Fine, it was in one particular thread in response to one particular occasion, but what's to stop you, or another moderator, doing that again? Do you not think that that could lead to accusations of cyber-bullying? That it could be seen as an attack on someone? That BECAUSE OF YOUR ACTIONS someone COULD have said something defamatory on the thread and landed the site AND that user in serious trouble.

    That's what the issue is, and I fail to see how this has been explained to you so many times and you still don't think this is a problem.

    Yes I said the abuse rule doesn't apply to him any more, how does that mean I was allowing people to defame him?


  • #141
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    TheZohan wrote: »
    It actually wasn't, it shows you have people can talk about bringing legal action even when there really is no case to answer. We really shouldn't be afraid every time someone mentions the word "solicitor" or "legal".

    Really. Is that a fact? And how often do you deal with this? Daily, like I do? Do you deal with the solicitors, the requests and the emails? What, in fact, are you basing this on? Do you think we can just ignore a solicitors letter?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    Yes I said the abuse rule doesn't apply to him any more, how does that mean I was allowing people to defame him?

    AC, did you take ANY other actions on that thread? Did you remove any other comments that named other comedians or celebrities? Did you verify every statement made about him as fact or opinion? Did you actually read the entire thread AFTER you posted that sticky?


  • #143
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Anyway, this is all rather pointless, not nice to see people threatening to sue one another.

    WELCOME TO MY JOB AND THE POINT OF THIS THREAD.

    Finally! :D


  • #144
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    How can a person be defamed by an annon username? What right thinking person would feel someone was lowered in their estimation based on what an annon username says?

    Would it not be covered by innocent publication(from boards side) regardless?

    Especially considering posts are not pre moderated?


  • #145
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Darragh wrote: »
    Really. Is that a fact? And how often do you deal with this? Daily, like I do? Do you deal with the solicitors, the requests and the emails? What, in fact, are you basing this on? Do you think we can just ignore a solicitors letter?


    What I said is that not everybody that mentions the words "legal" or "solicitor" has a valid case.

    You've been on boards all day Darragh and for most of the day yesterday, Sunday, it shows you care but maybe it's time you caught some rest away from the computer (and I'm being sincere here). As I said in my earlier post, I took your reported post to mean something else and I'm actually glad I was incorrect. I have apologised. It was something that was on my mind for a while and you've answered my query. Thank you.


  • #146
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Darragh wrote: »
    AC, did you take ANY other actions on that thread? Did you remove any other comments that named other comedians or celebrities? Did you verify every statement made about him as fact or opinion? Did you actually read the entire thread AFTER you posted that sticky?

    If there were any defamatory posts why did you not want it deleted at the time? Leaving defamatory posts published on the site could cause us legal trouble.


  • #147
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    Have a read of http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/669d0a8da2d31ae2802575a6004e5e63?OpenDocument

    The entire most recent judgment from Irish courts is there. Sections 5 and 6 are most relevant.

    In short, you can't hide behind your username. You are not anonymous.


  • #148
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Darragh wrote: »
    Have a read of http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/669d0a8da2d31ae2802575a6004e5e63?OpenDocument

    The entire most recent judgment from Irish courts is there. Sections 5 and 6 are most relevant.

    In short, you can't hide behind your username. You are not anonymous.
    They were pre moderated comments, in essence the site published them. Edit: Woops that was another case.

    Besides, you missed my point. What reasonably minded persons estimation of a person be lowered as a result of an annon username? They are annon till you give them the details.


    Darragh, as far as I can see if you remove something when someone points out it is defamatory boards.ie will be fine.


  • #149
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    TheZohan wrote: »
    What I said is that not everybody that mentions the words "legal" or "solicitor" has a valid case.

    See, you didn't say that. You said
    We really shouldn't be afraid every time someone mentions the word "solicitor" or "legal".

    and that is different. It implies that we shouldn't be concerned when these things are brought up. Well, we are.
    You've been on boards all day Darragh and for most of the day yesterday, Sunday, it shows you care

    Mostly about the things you have accused me of, in fairness, so while I appreciate your concern, I'd also appreciate you knowing that all we're doing is trying to do the right thing for the site and the people who use it, to make it better.


  • #150
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    If there were any defamatory posts why did you not want it deleted at the time? Leaving defamatory posts published on the site could cause us legal trouble.

    Seriously? Okay. Firstly what I did when I saw that thread was I reported it for the attention of the moderators so THEY could remove any potentially harmful statements that were there. THEN we got into a discussion about your actions. Then your co-cMod unapproved the thread pending results of the Admin and the AH mods discussion. And that's what's brought us here.

    Tell me AC, what's your own, personal answer to the question that many of this thread's contributors seem to be avoid answering?
    Are you happy to be a member of a website that is primarily known for abuse?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    TheZohan wrote: »
    I was 90% sure that Darragh made the post in the Reported Posts forum, I gave you the dates and the name of the company involved and I was correct with all information provided
    Not really, no.

    This is the information you provided in the initial, erroneous accusation:
    TheZohan wrote: »
    I can recall a thread being deleted by you Darragh because a competitor of the company mentioned was in negotiations re: advertising.
    If we take this to mean as you have implied after you realised you were wrong:
    I did however mistakenly read "an approach by x company" as an approach regarding advertising as it wasn't clear from his post.
    Then if we are to take your latest quote as true - you weren't correct with all the information provided.

    Because: If you thought that company X was going to advertise with boards, why would Darragh pull a thread that was not in favour of their competitor?

    Because of this, I believe you to be backtracking by saying that you were correct with all info provided.


Advertisement