Derry Bombing thread

Wolfe Tone

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But of course your objectivity in the matter can be assumed without question?

Well done on ignoring the rest of my post. How on earth could I be an objective third party?

Wolfe Tone

Deleted User wrote: »

Look.
Let me put it to you this way.
If a dissident bomb went off in the North and a local Sinn Féin representative or any were asked on tv radio or newspaper what they thought,they'd just condemn it.
They wouldnt take out a flip chart and a pointing rod to discuss the merits of where the bomb was placed from a placing it to try to be safe point of view.

They wouldn't do that because it would look like apoligism and would be politically stupid.

If it's not acceptable in that context,it's not acceptable here either,this being a politics forum not a violence advocacy forum.

It's obvious that some posters are fervently anti anything Sinn Féin,theres irreconcilability politically there I'm afraid,I don't think anybody should bother trying to refute that.
But by the same token it's not a curtain to hide behind when a mistake was made here in what WT posted.
It's a mistake no matter who would be posting it.

They wouldnt take out a flip chart and a pointing rod to discuss the merits of where the bomb was placed from a placing it to try to be safe point of view.

I didnt do that. I posted a map so everyone could see what we where dealing with. All I did was give more detail.

danbohan

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But of course your objectivity in the matter can be assumed without question?

and yours ?

mediator
1. One that moderates, as:
a. One that arbitrates or mediates.
b. One who presides over a meeting, forum, or debate.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

Look.
Let me put it to you this way.
If a dissident bomb went off in the North and a local Sinn Féin representative or any were asked on tv radio or newspaper what they thought,they'd just condemn it.
They wouldnt take out a flip chart and a pointing rod to discuss the merits of where the bomb was placed from a placing it to try to be safe point of view.

They wouldn't do that because it would look like apoligism and would be politically stupid.

If it's not acceptable in that context,it's not acceptable here either,this being a politics forum not a violence advocacy forum.

It's obvious that some posters are fervently anti anything Sinn Féin,theres irreconcilability politically there I'm afraid,I don't think anybody should bother trying to refute that.
But by the same token it's not a curtain to hide behind when a mistake was made here in what WT posted.
It's a mistake no matter who would be posting it.

This is where I (and others) differ from your interpretation. I did not interpret the post from WT in that way and once WT clarified it there should have been no more hounding.

You know the wording in the charter as you probably wrote some of it. Once WT clarified his position, the hounding is then against the charter.

Eliot Rosewater

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Well done on ignoring the rest of my post. How on earth could I be an objective third party?

But you dismissed southsiderosie's opinion on the matter because she's supposedly biased, while taking your own opinion (that you're doing nothing wrong) for definite. There's a rather obvious contradiction there. If you really felt that lack of objectivity was a problem you wouldn't be pursuing your own very subjective opinion so thoroughly. Given that you are clinging on to your subjective opinion so tightly, it would seem to be that your concerns about bias and objectivity as expressed in the first sentence here are only a ruse to dismiss the very valid concerns put forth by posters of very high repute like southsiderosie.

danbohan wrote: »

and yours ?

I'm not relying solely on my opinion here.

Wolfe Tone

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I didnt do that. I posted a map so everyone could see what we where dealing with. All I did was give more detail.

It was a mistake to do so though.
You are bound to get the backs up of fervantly anti SF posters by doing so,thats their problem as SF wouldn't do what you did as I pointed out in my last post.

Posting on a politics forum is a lot about evolution,you let your opinions out but for heavens sake,let them out a little more carefully if this is the fuss that ensues.
I mean even your pointing what you did about the bomb out may well have been the thinking of the bombs planters but don't be a defacto mouth piece for them which is what has happened here.
They couldn't do it in public as they'd be arrested and given the gravity of what they did,no one else right minded should either.

So to be honest,I'd urge you to step back,ponder whats happened here and move on.

I mean theres people here that will disagree with you no matter what you say and theres people here who will disagree with what they say no matter if theres any merit in it.
Thats an internet discussion forum for you.
It doesn't stop discussion though especially if you learn from this little incident.

FlutterinBantam

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

As I said I question anyones objectivity when it comes to issues like this.


Ok, lets say my first post was easily misunderstood. I don't feel that it was, and nor do a lot of other posters but lets just pretend it is, fair enough. I explained why I posted it. That should have been it, yet PB and others, on this very thread, are still accusing me of defending terrorist actions and refuse to acknowledge that I do not, and refuse to cease making such claims.
s I said earlier I am not annon on this site, my name is linked to my username.
AI feel personally insulted here, and defamed.

That would be your problem, not that of the site.

Wolfe Tone

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But you dismissed southsiderosie's opinion on the matter because she's supposedly biased, while taking your own opinion (that you're doing nothing wrong) for definite. There's a rather obvious contradiction there. If you really felt that lack of objectivity was a problem you wouldn't be pursuing your own very subjective opinion so thoroughly. Given that you are clinging on to your subjective opinion so tightly, it would seem to be that your concerns about bias and objectivity as expressed in the first sentence here are only a ruse to dismiss the very valid concerns put forth by posters of very high repute like southsiderosie.

Yet again you refuse to address that despite my clarification he still insists on claiming I defend dissidents. Seriously we have all seen how pally that little circle of posters are, and nesf is a co mod.

I'm not relying solely on my opinion here.

Neither am I.

southsiderosie

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

One rule for the lads, another for everyone else.

Deliberately misleading posts or posters aiming to spread misinformation will be sanctioned.

Utter, utter bollocks.

You (and people co-signing) seem to want rules whereby Sinn Fein will be exempt from the kinds of attacks that other political parties are regularly subjected to. As such, there seems to be a "boy that cried wolf" phenomenon emerging. If and when SF supporters have a legitimate complaint - and I have said on this very thread that at times this is the case - nobody wants to listen anymore because there is so much whinging about other posts that are pretty run-of-the-mill criticism.

In addition, the levels of bull****, misinformation, and flat-out nonsense posted here on economic matters far outpaces anything having to do with republicanism. Do you look at the non-Republican threads at all? People get called out on their positions all of the time, across the political spectrum. In fact, that process was well underway on the Derry thread until this all blew up, so to speak.

Wolfe Tone

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

That would be your problem, not that of the site.

Actually, its the sites problem.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This is where I (and others) differ from your interpretation. I did not interpret the post from WT in that way and once WT clarified it there should have been no more hounding.

You know the wording in the charter as you probably wrote some of it. Once WT clarified his position, the hounding is then against the charter.

I understand your position.
But I'm positing here that the post should have been deleted for the reasons I've stated and as I stated I also think threads on disidents shouldn't be allowed at all in fact as they have no politics just violence.
Thats a matter for the current mods though.

Wolfe Tone

southsiderosie wrote: »

Utter, utter bollocks.

You (and people co-signing) seem to want rules whereby Sinn Fein will be exempt from the kinds of attacks that other political parties are regularly subjected to. As such, there seems to be a "boy that cried wolf" phenomenon emerging. If and when SF supporters have a legitimate complaint - and I have said on this very thread that at times this is the case - nobody wants to listen anymore because there is so much whinging about other posts that are pretty run-of-the-mill criticism.

In addition, the levels of bull****, misinformation, and flat-out nonsense posted here on economic matters far outpaces anything having to do with republicanism. Do you look at the non-Republican threads at all? People get called out on their positions all of the time, across the political spectrum. In fact, that process was well underway on the Derry thread until this all blew up, so to speak.

Pretty sure falsely accusing people of supporting proscribed organisations and their actions is a wee bit more serious than lies about the economy.

southsiderosie

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Yet again you refuse to address that despite my clarification he still insists on claiming I defend dissidents. Seriously we have all seen how pally that little circle of posters are, and nesf is a co mod.

"That little circle"? Really? That's rich.

Honestly, I encourage you to check into non-republican threads on a more frequent basis.

nesf

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Are people to be hounded because of the misconceptions / misinterpretations / ignorance of others?

If people post in a way that a person who would support the terrorists would post then yes they're going to have problems on the forum.

A supporter of the RIRA would point out, as WT did, that the bomb posed little threat to civilians or that effort had been made to minimise that threat. This is the core issue here! It's perfectly legitimate for someone to ask whether or not the person is supporting the bombing in this case because they've given something that could be used to justify the bombing. This is why people need to be very careful to be clear when they post on issues like these.

Wolfe Tone

nesf wrote: »

If people post in a way that a person who would support the terrorists would post then yes they're going to have problems on the forum.

A supporter of the RIRA would point out, as WT did, that the bomb posed little threat to civilians or that effort had been made to minimise that threat. This is the core issue here! It's perfectly legitimate for someone to ask whether or not the person is supporting the bombing in this case because they've given something that could be used to justify the bombing. This is why people need to be very careful to be clear when they post on issues like these.

I didnt say that it posed little threat to civilians, sure there where buildings nearer the bomb than the housing which could have been packed with kids for all we know. All I did was mention that Derrys walls, a landmark, where there as you cant see that they are from above.

I outlined why I posted it,yet he continues with his accusations despite correction, whats your opinion on that?

Eliot Rosewater

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Yet again you refuse to address that despite my clarification he still insists on claiming I defend dissidents. Seriously we have all seen how pally that little circle of posters are, and nesf is a co mod.

So, in summary, despite the concerns put forth here by a number of reputable posters about the propensity for your posts to be misunderstood, you still maintain that you're doing nothing wrong whatsoever, and that it's all their fault because of their lack of objectivity.

If that's the way you choose to operate then there's nothing more I can do to convince you otherwise.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are assenting to what I thought I clearly stated in my last post.

Why you think it still only pertains to SF threads is perplexing. For the third time, it's about stupid, point scoring, agenda wielding posts that offer little for debate in the whole forum.

I don't think anybody agreed with your OP, well, definitely not the logic of it. It was just "a get at" SF thread adding no value to the forum.

WT, though at times I find his posting style grating, has gone to great lengths to clarify that particular thread he is referring to which says a lot for me, to an extent he was playing devils advocate.

I'm starting to understand his frustration when you clarify things and certain people just don't get it, if you God forbid defend SF in anyway you must be a Shinner and biased!

I read the stat that only 3 dozen or so posters post regularly in the forum and tbh, the quality of debate is starting to reflect that.

Wolfe Tone

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So, in summary, despite the concerns put forth here by a number of reputable posters about the propensity for your posts to be misunderstood, you still maintain that you're doing nothing wrong whatsoever, and that it's all their fault because of their lack of objectivity.

If that's the way you choose to operate then there's nothing more I can do to convince you otherwise.

So the posters who dont agree with you are not reputable?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

So the posters who dont agree with you are not reputable?

Where have I said that?

A Dub in Glasgo

nesf wrote: »

If people post in a way that a person who would support the terrorists would post then yes they're going to have problems on the forum.

A supporter of the RIRA would point out, as WT did, that the bomb posed little threat to civilians or that effort had been made to minimise that threat. This is the core issue here! It's perfectly legitimate for someone to ask whether or not the person is supporting the bombing in this case because they've given something that could be used to justify the bombing. This is why people need to be very careful to be clear when they post on issues like these.

You support the hounding of WT, against the charter, once he clarified that he did not support the bomb (an interpretation of his post by you).

I posted extracts of the charter yet you seem to be advocating incertain circumstances, it is OK to go against the charter?

k9

k9 wrote:

I read the stat that only 3 dozen or so posters post regularly in the forum and tbh, the quality of debate is starting to reflect that.

where'd you read that? link?

some off usual threads there like the irish aid budget one has 6.5k views and there are many like that.
I did a quick few presses on the who has posted links on some of the threads and there seems to be lots of regular posters.

Wolfe Tone

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Where have I said that?

You haven't, yet it can be interpreted as such. And of course seen as they are not reputable they must be fools.

Whose fault is this interpretation?

A Dub in Glasgo

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So, in summary, despite the concerns put forth here by a number of reputable posters about the propensity for your posts to be misunderstood, you still maintain that you're doing nothing wrong whatsoever, and that it's all their fault because of their lack of objectivity.

If that's the way you choose to operate then there's nothing more I can do to convince you otherwise.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71418917&postcount=79

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71419099&postcount=85

Any comment?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You support the hounding of WT, against the charter, once he clarified that he did not support the bomb (an interpretation of his post by you).

I posted extracts of the charter yet you seem to be advocating incertain circumstances, it is OK to go against the charter?

For clarity could you give examples of what you call hounding as opposed to vigorous debate?

There comes a time in every thread that instead of circling the wagons,one of the opposing views should say on whatever and leave it.

southsiderosie

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Pretty sure falsely accusing people of supporting proscribed organisations and their actions is a wee bit more serious than lies about the economy.

I'm pretty sure that, when every time you talk about said proscribed organizations people consistently read your posts a certain way, that perhaps the problem lies with you.

I am also pretty sure that your "jobs for the boys" comments were complete bull**** given the tenor of debates and moderation in other threads across the politics forum.

I don't think I have anything left to say on this thread. I expect we will all be back here in three months to flog this poor horse one more time.

Eliot Rosewater

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You haven't, yet it can be interpreted as such. And of course seen as they are not reputable they must be fools.

That's quite a stretch. I've been saying "some reputable posters agree with me" which is in no way equivalent to "all posters who disagree with me are not reputable". You're just looking for any means now to discredit me instead of focusing on the criticisms of your posting style, which is a very dishonest way of going about the thing.

nail and head to be honest.
WT just calm down.

The longer game of debate is to have your point of view heard,not have it lost in arguments over something like this.

Soldie

I was one of the posters in the original thread who criticised Wolfe Tone for his response. As I said in the thread, I was not accusing him of justifying the planting of the bomb; I was accusing him playing down its significance. I do not think that that's an unreasonable criticism to make when his first post in the thread mentioned that a "warning was phoned in" and that "walls are between the carpark and the sheltered housing", especially when one considers that in the previous Derry bombing thread he claimed that "the dissidents in question did not intend to kill anyone, ample warning was given, everyone was evacuated". He also argued that the legitimacy of Jean McConville's murder was debateable in a thread prior to the general election. To many, many people both murdering and bombing people is abhorrent, and no amount of "she was a tout" and "walls are between the car park and the housing" detracts from that. I'll echo what other posters have said: You need to be a lot more careful about how you post if you don't want to be misinterpreted in the future. I don't have any axe to grind; I don't even know you.

I don't think I'm alone when I say that threads such as the one in question are a major reason why I generally tend to steer well clear of threads pertaining to Northern Ireland. The same handful of posters post in them every single time; the trenches are dug on the first page or two, and what follows is an unconstructive thanks fest that's usually closed by a mod after around 10-15 pages.

As the saying goes: A picture is worth a thousand words.

Eliot Rosewater

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71418917&postcount=79

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71419099&postcount=85

Any comment?

Myself and others have responded to the point made in your first post there on this thread multiple times. If a number of reputable and objective posters see a problem cropping up repeatedly one must be led to the conclusion that the posting style of the person in question has something to do with that.

As regards your second post, I don't disclose personal details online so there was no conceivable way for me to collect the €10 if I told you the quote was from the Politics forum charter, hence why I didn't reply.