Interesting posters appearing around UL

roro1neil0

nevermind

based on the quake, cycling, computer stuff we narrowed it down to one guy.

nice to be reacquainted.

Popoutman

The Sid I refer to is definitely the right Sid for this forum. There's only one Sid that is a meme-generator on this forum - the infamous Sid_Justice.

If your Sid is a different person, well they aren't the Sid that comes to mind when regular readers of this particular forum read that name, and that may be where you get the confusion from.

Popoutman

roro1neil0 wrote: »

nevermind

based on the quake, cycling, computer stuff we narrowed it down to one guy.

nice to be reacquainted.

If I am who you think I am, PM me my name then. Consider this your bluff called..

I'd *love* to read your dossier on me Would it be accurate? Would it be complete?

roro1neil0

can't remember your full name just first initial, which is I am i wrong?

actually if you're in your mid 30s i have no idea who you are

Popoutman

I am neither confirming nor denying, nor admitting to which part of my name that initial may be..

But this development on the part of "anti-soc" does make it officially interesting and puts a whole different complexion on this thread and the part that "anti-soc" says it plays, and how it operates.

This will be very very interesting for everyone involved if it pans out how I expect it to..

Go on, dig through the memory and the databases.
PM me what you think my name is.

reunion

roro1neil0 wrote: »

That shows you haven't read this thread and you don't know what you're talking about. we can't claim credit for the posters (which we haven), and I've said twice it wasn't our work

If you had read the thread you would have found the following posts claiming credit for the posters

Kevin.Lally wrote: »

Yeah I did! I don't see anyone else claiming to have put them up!

Nockz wrote: »

Can we go back to discussing the posters I put up?

roro1neil0

moderators deleted almost all the posts of that account as it was discovered it was a person impersonating someone else. anyone with any intelligence could see that, alas, reunion can't.

roro1neil0

Popoutman wrote: »

I am neither confirming nor denying, nor admitting to which part of my name that initial may be..

But this development on the part of "anti-soc" does make it officially interesting and puts a whole different complexion on this thread and the part that "anti-soc" says it plays, and how it operates.

This will be very very interesting for everyone involved if it pans out how I expect it to..

Go on, dig through the memory and the databases.
PM me what you think my name is.

I don't know who you are and I'm pretty certain you know nothing about me or anyone else associated with antisoc and this is a game for you. A game I'd imagine someone in their mid thirties would have grown bored with about 15 years ago. but i guess you still play quake

Popoutman

Now we can get back on topic, and back to "anti-soc" and their ability or not to do anything visibly useful.

Possible headline on Fox News (if TT had a tv channel):
(scrolling banner across the bottom :
"anti-soc" - when will they come out and show us what useful things they have done? Should we be proud or should we be afraid?

That would make an amusing storyline, with backlit headshapes against bright windows, and disguised voices..

--

^all fun and games.. but seriously:

This whole screwed up situation with the small issue of SU deeply in the sh|t financially; and the bigger issues of the University being forced through removal of State funding to squeeze students and sponsors for cash left, right, and (medical) centre; the reduction in teaching effectiveness with the hiring freeze and lack of CIDs being progressed in various departments; the fact that a lot of the good lecturers and staff have retired early - all this is not a game. It's core to the idea that UL is a worthwile institution to attend, and to sponsor research at. Yet I have not seen anything that "anti-soc" have done for these big problem areas - these are bigger than the fact that Kelly sat on the centre fees for at least a fortnight before the paper edition came out, and bigger than DD giving the appearance of not being effective. These big issues are not going to be fixed by being anti-anything, they can get fixed by people getting up and doing something - and that's what we want to do, and that's what we are trying to do. Look at the bigger picture - there are some issues endemic to public service institutions that need to be resolved or otherwise worked around. This is the type of stuff that the "anti-soc" should be looking at - no point in gluing a wig on the cancer patient when the chemo is failing. I don't want to see UL become a second or third rate institution as it does not deserve that.

I have a view of the bigger picture, and I think that "anti-soc" and its ilk have missed it.. and that is a real pity.

You don't have to be in mid-thirties to see it( but it helps I suppose ), but it is a different viewpoint when one is around campus often and can compare to how things were, seeing some improvements and some worrying trends that have developed. Student apathy, and the general lack of a cohesive student body is a big problem. People no longer meet regularly during the day as everyone is away in other buildings. There are no centralised meeting places anymore. Student nights out are few and far between compared to e.g 2001-2002 where you would have 4 student nights out tue/wed/thu in differing venues with 3-5 buses to each one. Crew is a shadow of its former self. The on-campus pubs have changed, and not a lot for the better. More student misbehaviour, and less caring of students for students. More student laziness, driving to college from college court or elm park. Less club and soc participation overall.

Lots of little problems, and some really big ones. All need to be minimised at some stage...

reunion

roro1neil0 wrote: »

moderators deleted almost all the posts of that account as it was discovered it was a person impersonating someone else. anyone with any intelligence could see that, alas, reunion can't.

Implying I have no intelligence how mature.

I just pointed out posts, I never said they were in anyway legitimate.

roro1neil0

There were many apathetic students who joined antisoc who are now less apathetic and interested in the su

roro1neil0 1 popoutman 0

roro1neil0

reunion wrote: »

Implying I have no intelligence how mature.

I just pointed out posts, I never said they were in anyway legitimate.

they were there to undermine me, other people, and obfuscate. complete negativity, complete cynicism.

roro1neil0

Popoutman wrote: »

Now we can get back on topic, and back to "anti-soc" and their ability or not to do anything visibly useful.

anti-soc was never the topic of this thread, have you read this thread yet?

Yet I have not seen anything that "anti-soc" have done for these big problem areas -

are you serious? you are asking what has antisoc done about lecturers retiring early?

they can get fixed by people getting up and doing something - and that's what we want to do, and that's what we are trying to do.

i don't know what 'you' do but antisoc does this.

I don't want to see UL become a second or third rate institution as it does not deserve that.

news flash: UL is very much a second or third rate institution.

Student nights out are few and far between compared to e.g 2001-2002 where you would have 4 student nights out tue/wed/thu in differing venues with 3-5 buses to each one.

the level of binge drinking, drunkenness, vandalism and petty theft that went on then dwarves what is happening now. College is for studying and getting a degree and getting some life skills etc. it's not about student nights 4 nights a week in some kip in town paying some fat ****ing guards 5 mortgages.

Peteee

roro1neil0, one of your posts is clearly abusive and your tone is quite agressive. This goes for some other posters too.

Keep the discussion civil and do not resort to name calling.

Popoutman

roro1neil0 wrote: »

are you serious? you are asking what has antisoc done about lecturers retiring early?

Well it's included in the problems that UL has, and if you fail to see the ramifications of those bigger and more important issues than the SU alone has, it shows a real lack of understanding of the real issues in UL and if you fail to understand the issues that UL faces, then the "anti-" position is a bit silly and useless.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

i don't know what 'you' do but antisoc does this.

Does what exactly? I've only seen vague assertions by you that anything is being done. You've constantly shied away from answering my questions about what has "anti-soc" actually done? What are you hiding? What are you as a group hiding? *Why* are you hiding?
I put it to you that *nothing* has been done. Up to you now to prove it, and my guess is that you'll avoid the question again and again, mostly by handwaving. Simple vague assertions that 'something is being done' is not enough here anymore. Either back down about the "anti-soc" or respond with the positives that "anti-soc" has achieved in the past 12 months. There's a good simple choice for you.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

the level of binge drinking, drunkenness, vandalism and petty theft that went on then dwarves what is happening now. College is for studying and getting a degree and getting some life skills etc. it's not about student nights 4 nights a week in some kip in town paying some fat ****ing guards 5 mortgages.

Oh dear - you have your information wrong again, don't you?
The current level of those activities is significantly higher than it was e.g. a decade ago. Tale a look at the number of organised college nights out (which gave a good social outlet instead of the current more antisocial trend of houseparties), take a look at the number of off-licenses within walking distance of UL and compare that to a decade ago or longer. They wouldn't survive without a market now would they?
The reason to attend a University is to get an education, both academic skills and the social/life skills. Good that you realise that - there may be hope for you yet, though your attitude shown through your posts isn't very indicative that you've started learning either of those skillsets. Still, you may do well enough to progress and finally gow up a bit. Time will tell.

Note that I'm not considering that I've won this argument (though all signs point to that being true), as that's not what's important here, and it's childish to consider otherwise. I do consider that you have unfortunately not done a particularly good job arguing your case, but there are no winners when people waste their own time and the time of others by engaging is such a useless pursuit as "anti-soc" (but I suppose that you have given some comedy value to the thread so there's something positive that you've done ).

Just to remind you, you still haven't given any reasons why the "anti-soc" isn't useless as I've defined above.

Add to that the fact that we are all still waiting for the list of positives.

Popoutman

Actually scratch that. I's patently obvious at this stage that roro1neil0 has nothing to back up the assertions being made about "doing something useful" otherwise it would have been stated here already. Therefore there can only be nothing but smoke and mirrors behind "anti-soc".

I do forget sometimes that arguing with a certain class of person is futile, as you tend to get dragged down to their level, where they try to beat you with experience..

I think I've made my points loud and clear, and there has been nothing useful returned by roro1neil0, except some inaccurate and childish scorekeeping and general handwaving in avoiding the direct questions that were asked.

This argument is turning circular, with "anti-soc" regularly avoiding the questions like a good old-school Fianna Fail councillor.

I don't think that there is any more to add to this thread from an "anti-soc" point of view. Time to concentrate on real problems I think.

Regarding the amusing anonymous fliers around campus - well if the "anti-soc" aren't doing it then we'll have to wait and see who is.

I'm out of this thread before I eventually get dragged down to the level of ror1neil0.

roro1neil0

Popoutman wrote: »

Actually scratch that. I's patently obvious at this stage that roro1neil0 has nothing to back up the assertions being made about "doing something useful" otherwise it would have been stated here already. Therefore there can only be nothing but smoke and mirrors behind "anti-soc".

Antisoc has 156 current members in its facebook group which is a platform for sharing information that contributes to better SU transparency. Antisoc makes at least 156 members of this university more aware of what is happening within the university and the SU. We are building interest and activism in SU politics and trying to overcome the overriding cliqueness of the current SU.

I do forget sometimes that arguing with a certain class of person is futile, as you tend to get dragged down to their level, where they try to beat you with experience..

Poor form, just a baseless personal attack.

I think I've made my points loud and clear, and there has been nothing useful returned by roro1neil0, except some inaccurate and childish scorekeeping and general handwaving in avoiding the direct questions that were asked.

What I would like to make clear to the people reading this thread is that you are a complete liar. You said you 'knew Sid from Dublin' etc. but you don't. You made that up as a childish ruse. You don't know Sid, or anyone else that sits on the current Antisoc committee. You pretended to, because you are a liar.

This argument is turning circular, with "anti-soc" regularly avoiding the questions like a good old-school Fianna Fail councillor.

Not sure what Derek Daly has to do with this conversation.

I don't think that there is any more to add to this thread from an "anti-soc" point of view. Time to concentrate on real problems I think.

What have you done? i'm working on the presumption you're a former member of the su who used to work in the x, only a presumption.

Regarding the amusing anonymous fliers around campus - well if the "anti-soc" aren't doing it then we'll have to wait and see who is.

goes to show your level of ignorance and arrogance. You came barging into this thread based on the presumption that antisoc actually made and distributed this posters, then attacked us for it. Now you finally have admitted your gross mistake and fairly baseless assumption. How many other gross mistakes and groundless assumptions did you make on the way I wonder?

I'm out of this thread before I eventually get dragged down to the level of ror1neil0.

Least I'm not a liar.

shabouwcaw

roro1neil0 wrote:

Case in point, antisoc is in no way associated with or endorsed by David Hartery. But antisoc started the ball rolling on criticising every ****ty thing the SU has done especially with regard to the health centre and this has given (in our opinion) more impetus to people like David Hartery making his own criticisms in his own way.

Nockz

156 members.

Yes, that is the only thing Antisoc have claimed to have done so far.

Enter that one into the dossier boys! That big bullet point there! 156 members!

reunion

Nockz wrote: »

156 members.

Yes, that is the only thing Antisoc have claimed to have done so far.

Enter that one into the dossier boys! That big bullet point there! 156 members!

Don't forget calling people liars!

Cadroc

And 'finding out who you are'... Although I'm still waiting.

wnolan1992

And finding out what books people have taken from the library.

Ave Sodalis

Ohh books from a Library :eek: I can completely see how that will achieve anything, sounds as if they've been doing loads

Popoutman

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Antisoc has 156 current members in its facebook group which is a platform for sharing information that contributes to better SU transparency. Antisoc makes at least 156 members of this university more aware of what is happening within the university and the SU. We are building interest and activism in SU politics and trying to overcome the overriding cliqueness of the current SU.

Now that wasn't so hard - a reasonably clear statement of your current status.
However, still absolutely nothing positive and concrete has been achieved to date, or at least nothing that has been shown to have been done. I'll leave the dossier-gathering and distribution out as that cannot be seen as positive.
If the only purpose of the "anti-soc" is to raise awareness then that's all well and good - and a noble effort in itself.
However, how do you propose to fulfil your stated brief? Are you going to ensure transparency and openness from within in the "anti-soc"? I've seen no proof of that so far..

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Poor form, just a baseless personal attack.
What I would like to make clear to the people reading this thread is that you are a complete liar. You said you 'knew Sid from Dublin' etc. but you don't. You made that up as a childish ruse. You don't know Sid, or anyone else that sits on the current Antisoc committee. You pretended to, because you are a liar.

Actually, you are very much mistaken, and your statements above are most certainly a lie and a slur against me and my character. It's a pity that you feel the need to descend to falsehoods - I've been completely truthful in my postings and you well know it. I think that it shows how baseless your defence has been that you feel the need to resort to such untruths.
As a matter of fact, I *have* had dealings with the real-life person that is generally accepted as being the person behind the Sid Justice account, while that person was in college in Dublin. That much is true for sure - not the lie you think it is. To be fair though it's unlikely that they would have connected the dots between the person that they dealt with while in Dublin, and my Boards profile - that may be the cause of your confusion. However that is no reason to start spouting lies about me here..
A question to clarify whether your Sid is the same as the Sid I've dealt with - does your "anti-soc" committee member wear glasses and sport a beard, and was in a back row at the ULSU EGM, and that they are not an undergrad but are currently attending UL? If so, that is definitely the person that I have had the dealings with.
So I ask you to retract your falsehoods as it appears that you are a little bit confused, and you are definitely in error on this one. I'll happily accept a simple apology from you on this thread in this matter.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

i'm working on the presumption you're a former member of the su who used to work in the x, only a presumption.

Again, I'd suggest that you get better information before spouting off, as othewise you'll only continue to make yourself look silly. But by all means do continue though as I think that a lot of the regular readers of this boards forum could do with a few more chuckles at your expense before the exams kick off

roro1neil0 wrote: »

goes to show your level of ignorance and arrogance. You came barging into this thread based on the presumption that antisoc actually made and distributed this posters, then attacked us for it. Now you finally have admitted your gross mistake and fairly baseless assumption. How many other gross mistakes and groundless assumptions did you make on the way I wonder?

Again you continue with the direct insults. Is it possible that you are unable to maintain a decent argument without descending to base levels? Your tendency to descend to base levels suggests that the basis for your arguments is not worth defending, or you are simply unable to defend your arguments adequately. It seems that the only arrogance being shown here is by yourself, suggesting without any basis in fact that you do know better than others, and that your way is the only way to get things done. I've only suggested ways that could improve the realisation of the apparent aims of "anti-soc". I'm sorry that you think that is arrogance, but that error is yours.

As a matter of fact - you still didn't answer the question as to whether or not any member of "anti-soc" was involved in the production or distribution of those flyers. Care to revisit that question, and then to revisit your paragraph above? Your only reference says that "it wasn't your handiwork" - fair enough but not an answer to the question I posed. That question still has to be answered. So my questioning was perfectly fair - especially when you appeared to be continually dodging that question.

You've been called on the inaction of the "anti-soc", and you've continually failed to answer.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Least I'm not a liar.

Funny you write that - based on your falsehoods that you are spreading as per your previous post. Please get your information correct before you write in future..
Why do you feel the need to avoid the argument, avoiding the questions posed of you and the "anti-soc" and attack the poster? I've been responding to your posts all along, but you've still managed to avoid one of my original points which was that "anti-soc" is apparently doing nothing useful in reality. That point is still under discussion, or have you conceded that point?

Nockz

I'm going to need more paper. This dossier has filled up with all of the activities Antisoc have been up to.

Edit: Wait no! 84pt fonts are bigger than I had imagined! (It freed up a few pages)

roro1neil0

Popoutman wrote: »

However, how do you propose to fulfil your stated brief? Are you going to ensure transparency and openness from within in the "anti-soc"? I've seen no proof of that so far..

well at some point you'll meet someone from antisoc other than me and you can inquire about the transparency

I've been completely truthful in my postings and you well know it.

No this isn't true.

A question to clarify whether your Sid is the same as the Sid I've dealt with - does your "anti-soc" committee member wear glasses and sport a beard, and was in a back row at the ULSU EGM, and that they are not an undergrad but are currently attending UL? If so, that is definitely the person that I have had the dealings with.

This is a very naive misdirection. Everybody knows who Sid is, sure there's a photo of him sitting in that meeting in an focal, anyone could describe him. What I asked you to prove, or even hint, is that you knew him 'from dublin'. You don't even have to explain your interaction, if you can tell me one thing about him that isn't found from a google search or asking any of the mouth breathers on this forum that will be enough. You said you had previous dealings with sid, i asking you to admit you lied or prove it. I've had no dealings with reunion or wnolan or cjkeane other than through this forum but i could also give you a physical description. You are a liar.

So I ask you to retract your falsehoods as it appears that you are a little bit confused, and you are definitely in error on this one. I'll happily accept a simple apology from you on this thread in this matter.

you are a liar

Again, I'd suggest that you get better information before spouting off, as othewise you'll only continue to make yourself look silly. But by all means do continue though as I think that a lot of the regular readers of this boards forum could do with a few more chuckles at your expense before the exams kick off

working from a presumption that remains unproven as a falsehood. you can pm me your identity and i'll stop making presumptions.
[/QUOTE]

roro1neil0

Cadroc wrote: »

And 'finding out who you are'... Although I'm still waiting.

we failed thus far

Popoutman

Roro1neil0 you have pm en route regarding Sid.

I'll await your apology as a result.

roro1neil0

awaiting...

Popoutman

Just to clarify - you didn't ask me to prove how I had known "Sid" (unlike the consistent requests for "anti-soc" to prove the useful things that have been done)
The information I that I sent in PM isn't exactly what I would put out on a public forum. It would definitely damage the reputation of the people involved.

I'm waiting on your retraction and subsequent apology.