Derry Bombing thread

Wolfe Tone

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

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.

It is quite a stretch, its also not true, but its very similar to the type of leap that PB made.

It could be interpreted the way I laid it out, perhaps you, and everyone, should take supreme caution to ensure their posts cant be misinterpreted?

danbohan

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

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.

reputable and objective posters


this is in YOUR opinion of course . i dont suppose you consider anyone on the nationalist /republican side of the argument falls into that category , do you ?

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

boards.ie - View Single Post - Women and Politics

It was a few dozen, not 3, but it's very limited and I've noticed in showing lately. It isn't so much the number, there seem to be a lot of agenda driven posters in that number.

Wolfe Tone

Again I will point out that I clarified my position, that should have been it, and posters should not still be accusing me of defending bombings and militant republican groups.


Answer me this, if someone posts something, then clarifies their position is it ok to ignore that and go "no, you really meant xyz?

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

This post is where WT calls permabear up for relating the bomb to SF in Donegal

This post is the factual one with details of the incident

This post is where permabear accuses WT of excusing the bomb following the factual post above and states it is a disgusting post

This post is WT asking for an apology from permabear for implying he supports the bomb attack

This post is where permabearasks for clarification

This post is WT providing that clarification

This post is permabear not accepting that clarification

This post is permabear not accepting that further clarification

This post is permabear not accepting that further clarification

Soldie gets in on the act as well

This post is the mod blaming WT

'If you are going to level allegations of lying at another poster, please be willing to prove that they are lying - that they deliberately intend to deceive. Simply calling someone a liar is not acceptable.

Deliberately misleading posts or posters aiming to spread misinformation will be sanctioned. ... If a poster is corrected, or information corrected in a thread, any poster who continues to relate misinformation as fact will be sanctioned.

We expect all posters to extend respect to the rest of the community. This includes refraining from abuse or conduct that will deliberately upset or provoke others.'

invinciblePRSTV

I am not a supporter of any groups which espouse political violence, but i do have an academic interest in Northern Irish politics. It's quite clear Wolfe Tone reacted to the emotional opening post in the thread in question which talked about the danger to ''7 year old choirboys'' with the perfectly valid point that many of these bombs are placed not to damage or endanger people, but are done for PR purposes, hence the photo to prove his point that the nail bomb wouldn't have caused the kind of loss of life the OP shrieked about. This isn't being sympathetic to dissident republican groups politics no matter how much people want to spin it, but how NI paramilitaries operate.

Furthermore it's a disgrace how a group of '' reputable'' posters - some of whom who have professed a complete lack of knowledge of NI politics, others with an ideological disdain for all forms of Irish Republican politics - have attempted to hound WT on his posting style. Whether he is or isn't sympathetic to dissident republicanism is besides the point, a politics forum should allow for all political parties and traditions to be represented, this includes dissident republicans no matter how reprehensible you find their politics. Bit of a joke tbh but not suprising when you consider boards.ie's libertarian brigade are centrally involved in this farce -reputable posters indeed LOL.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This post is where WT calls permabear up for relating the bomb to SF in Donegal

This post is the factual one with details of the incident

This post is where permabear accuses WT of excusing the bomb following the factual post above and states it is a disgusting post

This post is WT asking for an apology from permabear for implying he supports the bomb attack

This post is where permabearasks for clarification

This post is WT providing that clarification

This post is permabear not accepting that clarification

This post is permabear not accepting that further clarification

This post is permabear not accepting that further clarification

Soldie gets in on the act as well

This post is the mod blaming WT

'If you are going to level allegations of lying at another poster, please be willing to prove that they are lying - that they deliberately intend to deceive. Simply calling someone a liar is not acceptable.

Deliberately misleading posts or posters aiming to spread misinformation will be sanctioned. ... If a poster is corrected, or information corrected in a thread, any poster who continues to relate misinformation as fact will be sanctioned.

We expect all posters to extend respect to the rest of the community. This includes refraining from abuse or conduct that will deliberately upset or provoke others.'

Firstly-Lies are deliberate concealment's of facts.
Saying I don't believe you or I believe you meant something else is not accusing someone of telling a lie.
People are entitled to believe what they like and say why.

A Catholic won't believe an atheists statements or motivations for them on religion but he's not accusing the atheist of lying.

I don't wish to thrawl through this or any thread again but is there a specific accusation of lying?
Theres no hounding going on in the above,just two diametrically and passionately opposed posters,an open goal left for pb by wt given that he is so opposed to anything vaguely associated with pira,rira or whomever does violence now on this island.
Add into the mix,neither poster is reconcilable on their views and both are holding their ground.

Elliots post is reasonable in the circumstances.

I've told you why I think WT should not have posted that picture.
But then if I was mod,I'd have locked that thread on sight hopefully a lot earlier with a line decrying those disidents as violence advocators not politicians worthy of discussion in the forum.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

Firstly-Lies are deliberate concealment's of facts.
Saying I don't believe you or I believe you meant something else is not accusing someone of telling a lie.
People are entitled to believe what they like and say why.

A Catholic won't believe an atheists statements or motivations for them on religion but he's not accusing the atheist of lying.

I don't wish to thrawl through this or any thread again but is there a specific accusation of lying?
Theres no hounding going on in the above,just two diametrically and passionately opposed posters,an open goal left for pb by wt given that he is so opposed to anything vaguely associated with pira,rira or whomever does violence now on this island.
Add into the mix,neither poster is reconcilable on their views and both are holding their ground.

Elliots post is reasonable in the circumstances.

I've told you why I think WT should not have posted that picture.
But then if I was mod,I'd have locked that thread on sight hopefully a lot earlier with a line decrying those disidents as violence advocators not politicians worthy of discussion in the forum.

Sorry BB, if I accused you of supporting that bomb and you came back and said no chance and I said 'don't believe you - you obviously support the bomb' You would think that I am not accusing you of lying when you say you do not support the bomb and I am inisisting you are. For me to continue, after you corrected me, to state that you support the bombing is deliberately spreading misinformation as fact. It is rational to infer that me doing that is conduct that will deliberately upset or provoke you.

At least 3 contraventions of the charter in those ding dongs.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Sorry BB, if I accused you of supporting that bomb and you came back and said no chance and I said 'don't believe you - you obviously support the bomb' You would think that I am not accusing you of lying when you say you do not support the bomb and I am inisisting you are. For me to continue, after you corrected me, to state that you support the bombing is deliberately spreading misinformation as fact. It is rational to infer that me doing is conduct that will deliberately upset or provoke you.

At least 3 contraventions of the charter in those ding dongs.

You think there is I don't.
It's simple why,both posters are just not accepting each others positions.

Theres no accusation of lying there.
I or no one can police peoples minds or what they think.
In the context of the politics forum,it's always been allowed to run a little in situations like that untill,it gets ridiculous because it becomes wagon circling,with people saying,yes it is,no it isn't in umpteen different ways.

Thats whats happened here.
The outrage about it doesn't alter the situation.
The job of the moderator then is to call time.

It's clear from Elliots post that he agree's that the post with the picture was open to being interpreted as apologism even if it wasn't the intention of the post.

It appears to be down to ego's now,thats all.
I'm willing to accept WT's bona fidé's on why he posted that.
But I'll stay here untill this thread is closed maintaining that the post was wrongly placed.
My reasoning is the SF tv example earlier,it's just bizarre to have it there like that.
It's looking like you and I or WT don't see eye to eye on that and thats a symptom of the problem here resulting in this unnecessary carcrash of a thread.

Incidently I don't accept that the bomb was safe,anyone including kids could have found it there.

I've no real wish to continue this debate because the whole thing is distaste full and defacto publicity for dissident loonies.

#15

Soldie wrote: »

Great image. Sums up nearly every thread in the politics forum the last few years.

The pontificating on all sides is has made it next to impossible for moderates to join in the discussions on this topic. As well as a whole host of other topics; PS reform, health, education, ideology, Irish language, etc etc.

We've had 9 pages of people shouting at each other and we're still no closer to any kind of resolution or agreement to disagree.

Hmmmm....

RDM_83 again

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I believe I thanked the post very soon after it was posted (about an hour afterwards). Could you explain to me what was wrong with my thanking it?

And could you also explain what you would have me do, at 11 o'clock, when I locked the thread? On this thread you've both complained about me locking it, and the long time it took to lock it. If I hadn't locked it it would have taken even longer.

If Wolfe Tones post was condoning the bombing it should have been removed, there is literally no point in letting that the 'debate' go down that road as you did due to the fact that WT could only reply the way he did, denying that he thought the bombing was justified and denying support of the dissidents OR say he supported the bombing and get banned RE this very long thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056160708&page=12

As it is you obviously thought that as it was a Republican poster being smeared it was clearly ok and when locking the thread clearly placed the blame on the innocent party

In short as a mod you failed to either prevent a poster condoning terrorism from keeping posting in a thread (which is clearly what you feel from the thanks given to Perma's post) or you allowed Perma's post #26 to stand even though it was clearly going to cause a row and have yet another NI thread locked.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

Ironic that you should thank the post with the picture when your posts quite clearly fall into one of the inital 'No' boxes.

K-9

#15 wrote: »

Great image. Sums up nearly every thread in the politics forum the last few years.

The pontificating on all sides is has made it next to impossible for moderates to join in the discussions on this topic. As well as a whole host of other topics; PS reform, health, education, ideology, Irish language, etc etc.

We've had 9 pages of people shouting at each other and we're still no closer to any kind of resolution or agreement to disagree.

Hmmmm....

And if you do try and offer a reasonable opinion you get slurs thrown at you.

Apparently I supported NAMA, the bail out, FF's denial of the IMF and probably in 6 months time will have advocated the raising of our Corporation Tax rate!

Ah, that's unfair, there are good posters there, but they seem less and less or IMO, are posting less.

#15

K-9 wrote: »

And if you do try and offer a reasonable opinion you get slurs thrown at you...there are good posters there, but they seem less and less or IMO, are posting less.

Yeah, I've found the same thing.

It's gone very tabloid-esque, often juvenile and very bitter.

K-9

#15 wrote: »

Yeah, I've found the same thing.

It's gone very tabloid-esque, often juvenile and very bitter.

I think and it's tied into this thread, you spout anything remotely sympathetic to a particular "cause" and the diehards have you stereotyped forever.

Eg. my post above, I wasn't in favour of NAMA, who was? I called FF on the IMF thing and I am in no way advocating a CT rise but it'll be thrown at me in a few months.

Same with this thread. It's rare I go on Republican threads and if I do, it's to offer a considered opinion, that is, all sides. Because I took a certain line on this thread I must be a SF sympathiser to some.

It gets frustrating. I love posting, it's the endless "putting in a box" that I hate. It doesn't facilitate reasoned discussion or learning!

nesf

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?

What you link isn't hounding it's two completely at odds posters both wasting their time arguing against each other.

P. Breathnach

#15 wrote: »

... The pontificating on all sides is has made it next to impossible for moderates to join in the discussions on this topic. As well as a whole host of other topics; PS reform, health, education, ideology, Irish language, etc etc...

I consider myself a moderate, and I am posting less than I used to. A major reason for that is I have no wish to become entangled in disputes with people that I consider to be intemperate (and who usually seem to have boundless energy).

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I consider myself a moderate, and I am posting less than I used to. A major reason for that is I have no wish to become entangled in disputes with people that I consider to be intemperate (and who usually seem to have boundless energy).

There needs to be some resemblance of a discussion going on, a rare treat in politics at the moment. If somebody is taking on board and considering your points it helps.

Maybe it's familiarity breeding contempt, the Libya threads aren't bad, same sides, just a new topic!

big b

Having left the country recently, I intended to use boards only as an information source. However, I feel moved to offer the following;

What boards needs to find is an antidote to that good old Irish quality of cute hoorism.

It's abundantly clear to any moderate-minded viewer of WT's posts that his posts are designed to, in no particular order

give an air of publicity to terrorism
validate these acts (whilst claiming not to support them)
play down the seriousness of acts of terrorism

and then defend such posts with the never-ending cute hoorism of ...but I don't actually agree with these actions, I'm just sympathetic to the political views of those who carry them out...

It's Boards.ie's shame that it gives a world-wide platform to those who will claim " but it wasn't meant to kill inocent civilians" or " but they only do the odd knee-capping now" and other such stomach-turning acts of depravity.

Quite what the answer is, I don't profess to know. What I do know is that allowing a poster to hide behind "I'm only saying, not opining..." when it relates to acts which are illegal and repugnant does a damn fine website no credit at all.

FlutterinBantam

big b wrote: »

Having left the country recently, I intended to use boards only as an information source. However, I feel moved to offer the following;

What boards needs to find is an antidote to that good old Irish quality of cute hoorism.

It's abundantly clear to any moderate-minded viewer of WT's posts that his posts are designed to, in no particular order

give an air of publicity to terrorism
validate these acts (whilst claiming not to support them)
play down the seriousness of acts of terrorism

and then defend such posts with the never-ending cute hoorism of ...but I don't actually agree with these actions, I'm just sympathetic to the political views of those who carry them out...

It's Boards.ie's shame that it gives a world-wide platform to those who will claim " but it wasn't meant to kill inocent civilians" or " but they only do the odd knee-capping now" and other such stomach-turning acts of depravity.

Quite what the answer is, I don't profess to know. What I do know is that allowing a poster to hide behind "I'm only saying, not opining..." when it relates to acts which are illegal and repugnant does a damn fine website no credit at all.

I have been pointing out those very valid points for yonks B.

All publicity is good publicity, hence a long running thread on AH recently started by your subject and bumped at regular intervals by the subject and co-travellers.

make no mistake all this is for a reason, glad to see at least one other person has the cop-on see the agenda.

Hope those involved will take note.


I know it can be difficult but surely this stuff can't be left to ride roughshod over the facilities of Boards.ie.

these guys will argue on the head of a pin for as long as it takes, happy in the knowledge that they are getting publicity for whatever 'cause' they appear to support.

danbohan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

perhaps if you would accept that you played some ''small' part in this whole nonsense then wolfe tone would have done similar and it would gone to bed at least until the next time
needless to say you did not or would not , your scramble to the high moral ground is a well worn path for you .

Yitzhak Rabin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Since, you've decided to leave it there I won't respond to the rest of your post.

However, if you can't see the irony in claiming that WT refuses to listen to reason, whilst in the same breath writing off anyone who took 'his side' as only doing so for perverse entertainment, then I really don't know what to say...

Edit: I just want to point out that I misinterpreted what Permabear was saying. I thought he was included all people who defended WT, however, he was only referring to some posters.

Yitzhak Rabin

The main issue I have is that people continued, and still continue to accuse WT of excusing/condoning terrorism despite his crystal clear statements to the contrary.

This isn't just a problem confined to republicans either. As someone else pointed out, there's a lot of people who accuse other posters of being west-brits, closet unionists etc. However, of all the accusations levelled against posters, supporting terrorism is definitely on the more extreme end of the scale.

I can see why WT's posting of a pic and including the facts about the wall could be construed as mitigating the placement in some way (I didn't see it that way) however, once he cleared up that he was not, then that should have been the end of it, and further accusations shouldn't have been tolerated.

Thats why I suggested earlier that such accusations shouldn't be tolerated at all. If someone thought that WT posting the pic was condoning the bombing in any way, they should have reported the post and the mods could have dealt with it. Instead we got was pages of people accusing him of supporting/excusing terrorism with him vehementely denying it, ruining the thread for anyone else who was interested.

A Dub in Glasgo

^^^^^^^

The nail has firmly been hit on the head with the above post

The thread could even have been moved to Conspiracy Theories!

yekahS

yekahS wrote: »

I can see why WT's posting of a pic and including the facts about the wall could be construed as mitigating the placement in some way (I didn't see it that way) however, once he cleared up that he was not, then that should have been the end of it, and further accusations shouldn't have been tolerated.

As I said earlier,even a sf politician if asked on tv about a bomb like this one wouldn't bother doing it because they know they'd be hammered for it as apologists.
Common sense didn't prevail in that thread and I hope the lesson has been learned.

The politics forum is not the place to be discussing people who don't believe in politics anyway.
The people involved are criminals,deluded criminals.
The only discussion involving them worthy of the forum is one about laws to bring them to justice.

Yitzhak Rabin

Deleted User wrote: »

You can't see how a picture pointing out where the bomb was in relation to who could have been affected could be construed as apologising for the bomb planters?
That just doesn't make sense.

I think you misread my post. I said I can see how...

Wolfe Tone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Maybe YOU should accept responsibility for YOUR actions, mainly ignoring my clarifications and persisting in accusing me of supporting dissidents.

The OP has also brought with him to Feedback a number of other posters who, knowing his history of public meltdowns, are clearly egging him on for their own perverse entertainment. They certainly haven't helped matters.

"Public meltdowns" Could you be any more condescending?

Needless to say, I won't be giving the OP any retractions or apologies. The best I can do from here, in part out of respect for my own sanity, is to pledge to ignore him and his fellow travelers entirely.

Im not surprised. Fair enough you made a mistake and misinterpreted my post. I clarified it, yet you refuse to accept that and proceed on regardless with your wild accusations.

Do you honestly think I would bother my arse with all this if I did support dissident republicans?

With apologies to all the posters and Politics mods whose time has been wasted on this silliness (nesf and Eliot Rosewater in particular), this post ends my contribution to the thread.

Perhaps Im the only one who sees the seriousness of being accused of supporting bombings?

Wolfe Tone

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said earlier,even a sf politician if asked on tv about a bomb like this one wouldn't bother doing it because they know they'd be hammered for it as apologists.
Common sense didn't prevail in that thread and I hope the lesson has been learned.

The politics forum is not the place to be discussing people who don't believe in politics anyway.
The people involved are criminals,deluded criminals.
The only discussion involving them worthy of the forum is one about laws to bring them to justice.

But some of their political wings intend to run people in elections.... Surely talk about dissident republicans would be necessitated in threads about that?

Eliot Rosewater

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Maybe YOU should accept responsibility for YOUR actions, mainly ignoring my clarifications and persisting in accusing me of supporting dissidents.

Okay, this is going to get nowhere if either side just repeatedly sounds off about the responsibilities of the others, without taking any responsibility themselves.

Permabear and Soldie shouldn't have persisted with the accusation after Wolfe Tone had denied it, and should ensure such a thing doesn't happen again.

Wolfe Tone should admit that his posts often generate misunderstandings, and should take appropriate steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.