Askaboutmoney

P. Breathnach

I wish to draw attention to this thread in the Accommodation and Property forum: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056483885 .

Its opening post was an attack on Askaboutmoney.com. As such, it is questionable whether it is even on-topic in Accommodation and Property. The attack was taken up by others, and the owner of the site was also attacked.

Is it appropriate that this forum be used for such a purpose?

coffee_cake

did you not just report the OP...?

sometimes they might wait for an actual complaint before closing it

El Weirdo

Don't see the problem myself. Would you have the same problem with a thread about Facebook and Mark Zuckerburg, OP?

P. Breathnach

bluewolf wrote: »

did you not just report the OP...?

sometimes they might wait for an actual complaint before closing it

So it looks to you that all that is required is that I report it, and it's pretty well a done deal: thread closed.

I doesn't seem to work that way. I have gone through the procedures.

El Weirdo wrote: »

Don't see the problem myself. Would you have the same problem with a thread about Facebook and Mark Zuckerburg, OP?

I'm not trying to discuss Facebook and Mark Zuckerburg, and going there would derail this thread.

I am drawing attention to a kangaroo court that has convened on Boards.ie.

coffee_cake

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So it looks to you that all that is required is that I report it, and it's pretty well a done deal: thread closed.

No, not necessarily, I was just wondering if you'd reported it. I would have assumed it might be locked but then i'm not mod of that forum

I doesn't seem to work that way. I have gone through the procedures.

In that case I'll leave it to the rest

miju

one or two posts are borderline and prob should be deleted as they contain a bit of namecalling but the rest is fair comment so I dont see the problem

Treehouse72

P. Breathnach wrote: »

a kangaroo court

Some of us have been judging these people for the guts of a decade.

That's not a kangaroo court. It's a great big neo-classical Palais de Justice, with a vast and echoing marble foyer around which sit 12 enormous columns that support an awe-inspiring domed roof, emblazoned across it a painting of the Scales of Justice. In this place, common law is by now long, long established - we have precedent, we have the case history, we have the names, ranks and serial numbers. The evidence has been heard, the victim impact statements have been considered and pleas in mitigation weighed.

And yea brother I say unto thee that the accused, having been tried justly before God and history, have been found GUILTY!

*** Turns, lifts the black square of material, and solemnly places it on head ***

All this happened before you got to the party. I'd like to say it was a fun party, but it wasn't. It was torture calling out these people during the bubble. But some of us suckers tried and are still trying. Hearing this described as nothing but a kangaroo court feels like a Creationist telling me evolution didn't happen just because he never saw the primordial slime. Well, I've been up to my neck in that slime for donkey's years and let me tell you, it's very real. Being told otherwise by the evolutionary equivalent - on this matter at least - of the most gassy specimen currently occupying a cot in Ward 4 at the Rotunda won't change my mind on that.

P. Breathnach

Treehouse72 wrote: »

...
All this happened before you got to the party. I'd like to say it was a fun party, but it wasn't. It was torture calling out these people during the bubble. But some of us suckers tried and are still trying. Hearing this described as nothing but a kangaroo court feels like a Creationist telling me evolution didn't happen just because he never saw the primordial slime. Well, I've been up to my neck in that slime for donkey's years and let me tell you, it's very real. Being told otherwise by the evolutionary equivalent - on this matter at least - of the most gassy specimen currently occupying a cot in Ward 4 at the Rotunda won't change my mind on that.

It seems that I am not being accorded any standing in this matter.

Isn't that the way kangaroo courts operate? Dissenting voices are not heard.

El Weirdo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm not trying to discuss Facebook and Mark Zuckerburg, and going there would derail this thread.

I am drawing attention to a kangaroo court that has convened on Boards.ie.

I was just using it as an example.

Treehouse72

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Isn't that the way kangaroo courts operate? Dissenting voices are not heard.

Dissenting voices not being heard?

Please just pause for a moment, consider that remark in the context of the thread we're discussing and then hope to God you're not sucked into the swirling vortex of irony you've just created for yourself.

Snakeblood

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It seems that I am not being accorded any standing in this matter.

Isn't that the way kangaroo courts operate? Dissenting voices are not heard.

You're dissenting and being heard. People just think you're wrong though. That happens sometimes.

The_Conductor

Ok- I'm closing the thread.
Personally I don't see what the issue is- other than the name calling perhaps, but c'est la vie.

P. Breathnach

Treehouse72 wrote: »

Dissenting voices not being heard?

Please just pause for a moment, consider that remark in the context of the thread we're discussing and then hope to God you're not sucked into the swirling vortex of irony you've just created for yourself.

You have attempted to undermine my standing by writing "All this happened before you got to the party." That is a clear attempt to suggest that whatever I say does not merit consideration: I am being treated as uninformed.

You don't know me. You know nothing about how informed or uninformed I might be. Yet you strike the pose of the expert addressing the uppity neophyte.

Stick to the subject of the thread.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.centralbank.ie%2Fconsultative-panels%2Fconsumer%2Fformal-correspondence%2FDocuments%2FReply%2520to%2520letter%2520to%2520Chief%2520Executive%2520re%2520housing%2520and%2520mortgage%2520market%252013%2520April%252007.pdf&ei=brnxTtzKC-yciAelzImYAQ&usg=AFQjCNFXFVsySmfAviGoNKK85OZ67XIMAA&sig2=eU3WI0S0rKyt9TtG4A6fXg

Burgess was chairman of the financial regulators consumer panel
Burgess like any of the top bankers or the regulator or politician was working for the public and in the public domain so just like any of the above mentioned people is a valid topic of conversation

Why close the entire discussion, why not deal with specific comments that would be outside the charter.

Sacksian

Deleted User wrote: »

Why close the entire discussion, why not deal with specific comments that would be outside the charter.

This is an important point. On what grounds was the thread locked?

P. Breathnach

smccarrick wrote: »

Ok- I'm closing the thread.
Personally I don't see what the issue is- other than the name calling perhaps, but c'est la vie.

Here's another issue: I reported the last post in the thread because it was about me rather than about the thread topic. It now sits there unanswered.

The_Conductor

Sacksian wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Why close the entire discussion, why not deal with specific comments that would be outside the charter.

This is an important point. On what grounds was the thread locked?

I have temporarily locked the thread, as I'm away from a PC at the moment and accessing boards on my mobile phone. When I'm home again this evening, I will revisit this. I'm quite shocked at the number of reported posts and complaints this thread and the tenants property tax thread have generated.


Shane

Zamboni

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Here's another issue: I reported the last post in the thread because it was about me rather than about the thread topic. It now sits there unanswered.

You could always answer it here if it is such a bother.

You are just calling for censorship because you disagree with the overriding sentiment.
Oh, wait, that sounds familiar Brendan.

Ps: You're wrong.

P. Breathnach

Zamboni wrote: »

You could always answer it here if it is such a bother.

I have no intention of responding to ad hominem posts. That is the business of the moderators.

You are just calling for censorship because you disagree with the overriding sentiment.

No. I am objecting to the forum being used in this way. My objection is related to the purpose of the forum and to the forum's charter.

Oh, wait, that sounds familiar Brendan.

Please may we rise above this level of discussion?

Ps: You're wrong.

Am I? Try to make a more convincing case.

Snakeblood

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have no intention of responding to ad hominem posts. That is the business of the moderators.



No. I am objecting to the forum being used in this way. My objection is related to the purpose of the forum and to the forum's charter.
.

Askaboutmoney is a property related website. Brendan Burgess appears frequently in the media discussing property. Where should it be discussed?

Zamboni

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Its opening post was an attack on Askaboutmoney.com. As such, it is questionable whether it is even on-topic in Accommodation and Property. The attack was taken up by others, and the owner of the site was also attacked.

Attack is such a strong word. The only person that directly insulted him was appropriately carded.
Mr Burgess put himself in the public domain and as such is open to criticism.

Doc Ruby

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Its opening post was an attack on Askaboutmoney.com. As such, it is questionable whether it is even on-topic in Accommodation and Property.

I have to say this is a wildly unreasonable complaint. I recall that particular problem with AAM, and the particular property related locked thread over there. I remember how it led to the creation of the property pin, and I think you should disclose your relationship to any of the above parties before proceeding one step further laddie.

P. Breathnach

Doc Ruby wrote: »

... I think you should disclose your relationship to any of the above parties before proceeding one step further laddie.

That's effective writing: managing to impugn my integrity and be offensive in tone in a single sentence.

Doc Ruby

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's effective writing: managing to impugn my integrity and be offensive in tone in a single sentence.

Answer the question please.

K-9

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Answer the question please.

You should outline your evidence first. You're putting forward a pretty serious accusation, that P. Breathanch is in someway connected to AAM. Its up to you to outline your reasoning.

I could well get accused of being an AAM agent though now!

Doc Ruby

K-9 wrote: »

You should outline your evidence first.

No, I shouldn't.

Its a perfectly reasonable question given the overwhelming preponderance of relevance that particular AAM thread has to accom/prop.

If no connection or other vested interest exists, whats the problem with saying that?

You know what, just answer the damn question.

K-9

Doc Ruby wrote: »

No, I shouldn't.

Its a perfectly reasonable question given the overwhelming preponderance of relevance that particular AAM thread has to accom/prop.

If no connection or other vested interest exists, whats the problem with saying that?

You know what, just answer the damn question.

I'll leave the mods to decide. I think if the site or large parts of it went down that line, well..................................

I think your posts suggest something and its up to you to prove otherwise.

Doc Ruby

K-9 wrote: »

I think your posts suggest something

I think the mods and owners should definetely be raising their eyebrows by this stage alright.

K-9

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I think the mods and owners should definetely be raising their eyebrows by this stage alright.

You can't go around accusing people of stuff without a bit of evidence. You've no evidence P. Breathnach is associated with AAM other than him opposing a contrary view on a thread.

From your posts, you've an issue with Capuchians for some reason!

Doc Ruby

K-9 wrote: »

You can't go around accusing people of stuff without a bit of evidence. You've no evidence P. Breathnach is associated with AAM other than him opposing a contrary view on a thread.

From your posts, you've an issue with Capuchians for some reason!

Do feel free to point out to me where an accusation was made, like a good man.

As for my posts on the Capuchin order of monks, every single one of them was in defence of what I described as one of the few unambiguously shining lights of this country, genuine heroes. So you can add an inability to read what I wrote to a bad aim with the mud there, champ.

Anyone else want to chime in with a few slurs, this is getting kinda entertaining, and by damn I love a good scrap.