IMPEACH!!!

Ginge Young

reunion wrote: »

Can't say my experience was like that.

Your so cool

shabouwcaw

just a few things -

ninty9er wrote:

Those attacking us here are doing so because we take issue with someone making a baseless attack.

Can I just point out that there is a difference between attacking an idea and attacking a person. The only time I specifically mentioned any sabbatical officers were to say I agreed with the majority of your blog at the very top of the piece. There was absolutely no need for the unjustified ad hominem and no need for it to continue here. This is nothing but the continuation of the entrenched spin and bluster that has typified your reaction to everything this year. Just throw enough mud so people don't know what's going on then wait until the heat dies down.

ninty9er wrote:

There has been quite a bit ill informed pontificating from certain quarters, and if anyone needs reminding, she got almost 2,400 votes, more than almost anyone who has ever contested a ULSU Election.

And yet the specifics of why that was ill-informed have still not been communicated. Is that perhaps because there's nothing to respond? Like generally attacking individuals, like you have, is symptomatic of a lack of actual answers. Also, the C&S stuff, which seemed to piss sabbats off the most, was less than a third of the piece. The majority of it being an ideological concern for the lack of student services being run by the union. Which I think is factually true, considering student services run by the union are now much diminished. And my ideological concerns are ideological and therefore probably cannot be ill informed, no such thing as a wrong opinion etc. But like keep blowing that trumpet there kiddo.


but I digress.

As for the point of this thread, as Ginge said, she can't be impeached. Secondly, facebook rants notwithstanding, she's done her job, honestly too. There are other sabbats I would have a bigger issue with.

Fishooks12

So according to the minority the majority are just idiots who couldn't care less





Well that explains that so.......................................................................
























SARCASM!

Fishooks12

I actually don't know who's worse on this thread

, the pro union arse lickers

or the anti soc trolls

roro1neil0

doesn't sound like you have much insight on this, who are antisoc trolls?

Mikel91

Fishooks12 wrote: »

So according to the minority the majority are just idiots who couldn't care less

Nope not idiots,just have no interest.Your the one who implies they're idiots:P

Fishooks12

roro1neil0 wrote: »

doesn't sound like you have much insight on this, who are antisoc trolls?

You'd be the main one

reunion

roro1neil0 wrote: »

If people call me out on stuff I address it, I have no reputation to uphold. At least unlike you, I don't engage in these petty antics and then pretend I'm not doing it.

No you avoid it. What have anti-soc done?

roro1neil0 wrote: »

doesn't sound like you have much insight on this, who are antisoc trolls?

You've never proved that:

1. You are involved with anti-soc
2. Anti-soc exist
3. Anti-soc have done anything
4. Anti-soc aren't threatening and intimidating students (note if anti-soc don't exist, you have been threatening and intimidating students (something I imagine boards shouldn't tolerate))

So far it has been proven (if anti-soc even exist):

1. They are full of morons and trolls (with one/two people as members)
2. They haven't achieved anything except saying they will do things in the future


Side note: Can this thread be closed? It has become off-topic. Also the original question: what are the impeachment proceedings? has been answered.

Ginge Young wrote: »

There is no method by which to remove an officer from their position in the constitution. It was due to be added in with the last two general meetings (I think 2, wasn't one rescheduled, I could be wrong) but either way students never showed up, so it was never added into the constitution.

roro1neil0

reunion wrote: »

You've never proved that:

1. You are involved with anti-soc

i am not involved with antisoc

2. Anti-soc exist

antisoc do not exist

3. Anti-soc have done anything

antisoc have not done anything

4. Anti-soc aren't threatening and intimidating students (note if anti-soc don't exist, you have been threatening and intimidating students (something I imagine boards shouldn't tolerate))

i haven't intimidated any students. how dare you make that acquasation, you continually harass me

Side note: Can this thread be closed? It has become off-topic. Also the original question: what are the impeachment proceedings? has been answered.

no

who are you to be requesting threads be locked and making accusations that i have been intimidating people, post reported for personal abuse and i am seeking advice on how to deal with your abuse

Jester252

To be fair you have posted a couple of times telling people that you know who they are or you're going to find out who they are. I know you didn't mean anything by it but you can't fail to see how somepeople might have seen these posts as threatening. Also from your post anti-soc doesn't exist so that means you made the dossiers which leads back to my first comment.
P.S can I see mine?

roro1neil0

sorry i don't know who you are nor have a 'dossier' on you. i'm sure if you googled yourself you'd find out everything antisoc could find out about you.

reunion

roro1neil0 wrote: »

i am not involved with antisoc

antisoc do not exist

antisoc have not done anything

roro1neil0 wrote: »

well i just joined. I can all the other members. Obviously not all their facebook names are their real names but most of them look real. I don't think it's too underhand either, if you're a member of skynet let's say, all I seem to be asked to do is let anyone know if anything interesting happens in terms of budgets and expenditure really. all information you're supposed to have access to anyway.

with regards to information, they are sourcing it

So either they exist, (in which case you haven't intimidated students, anti-soc has) OR they don't exist, in which case you have been intimidating students. Unless of couse you've been spewing lies the entire time.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

i haven't intimidated any students. how dare you make that acquasation, you continually harass me

roro1neil0 wrote: »

we'll find out who you are so

roro1neil0 wrote: »

no


who are you to be requesting threads be locked

I asked if it can be locked. The answer is yes it can. Will it be? that's up to a mod. I'm just an individual who asked a simple question and got the wrong answer.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

making accusations that i have been intimidating people, post reported for personal abuse and i am seeking advice on how to deal with your abuse

roro1neil0 wrote: »

you're a **** troll and i won't waste a breath on you. but will put it in a dossier marked nockz

i will email derek in the morning and report back

roro1neil0 wrote: »

We have one on you. Would you like to see it?

Also you use the term WE and MY PEOPLE to describe anti-soc, so screams to me you run the thing.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

The only POSITIVE changes to this has been implemented by people associated with antisoc. Since the efforts made my people associated with antisoc, mostly from September of last year, we have seen a concerted effort by MORE people to question the service they receive from their SU and their university.

It would be completely arrogant and presumptuous for antisoc to take the entire credit for this change in attitude and we are not overlooking TST etc. but we feel we have been instrumental in a change of attitude.

We honesty don't care who laughs at us, what is said behind our backs and what nasty, malicious little lies those we low moral character say about us. I certainly don't care.

People have been aware of and critical of the SU in the past but never really made an effort to get that opinion out there. And we think, antisoc have given some people a vehicle to do that and others the spur on they needed to make their voice heard.

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.

You don't know what we do, you don't know what we are about, you don't know what you're talking about popoutman

To use your own words

roro1neil0 wrote: »

stop draggin the thread off topic nobody gives a ****

wnolan1992

This thread makes me...

roro1neil0

reunion wrote: »

So either they exist, (in which case you haven't intimidated students, anti-soc has) OR they don't exist, in which case you have been intimidating students. Unless of couse you've been spewing lies the entire time.

so what you're saying is, if antisoc exists you are calling everyone in antisoc a moron or a troll to indirectly send personal abuse at me. and if antisoc doesn't exist, you are directly calling me an intimidator, troll, moron?

Stop harassing me on this thread.

The current status is non of your business as your chief time waster in the SU, asking the stupidest most irrelevant questions. How exactly you got a opportunity to study for a PhD is beyond me, I will look forward to dropping back into this thread in 2 /3 years time when you've been found out for being incompetent and had to settle for a Msc.

The amount of time you spend on boards or at SU meetings I'd be interested to see your progress report with your phd? I wouldn't be surprised if you've not made any progress at all.

Fishooks12

roro1neil0 wrote: »

so what you're saying is, if antisoc exists you are calling everyone in antisoc a moron or a troll to indirectly send personal abuse at me. and if antisoc doesn't exist, you are directly calling me an intimidator, troll, moron?

Stop harassing me on this thread.

The current status is non of your business as your chief time waster in the SU, asking the stupidest most irrelevant questions. How exactly you got a opportunity to study for a PhD is beyond me, I will look forward to dropping back into this thread in 2 /3 years time when you've been found out for being incompetent and had to settle for a Msc.

The amount of time you spend on boards or at SU meetings I'd be interested to see your progress report with your phd? I wouldn't be surprised if you've not made any progress at all.

None of that is your business either.

It's funny how you always claim to be the victim of personal abuse yet you manage to hurl a lot of it into your often pointless posts

If you actually do have an "antic soc" it's embarrassing to the extreme and would just serve to negate the people who actually critique the SU in an educated manner

roro1neil0

reported for personal abuse

Ginge Young

Such a trend criticizing peoples PhD's welcome to the club Reunion

roro1neil0

you doing a phd as well ginge, what's it on? boards.ie or orienteering?

Fishooks12

roro1neil0 wrote: »

you doing a phd as well ginge, what's it on? boards.ie or orienteering?

You seem to be more a more frequent poster than either of those posters

So by your own logic your own education must be suffering as a result too

Unless your PHD is on boards or "the anti soc"

roro1neil0

I'm doing a postgraduate diploma in IT and am writing my project on internet memes.

reunion

roro1neil0 wrote: »

so what you're saying is, if antisoc exists you are calling everyone in antisoc a moron or a troll to indirectly send personal abuse at me. and if antisoc doesn't exist, you are directly calling me an intimidator, troll, moron?

I said anti-soc as an organisation was threatening and intimidating students. I also said it was full of trolls and morons. I have provided evidence on the matter.

You were the one to state you were in anti-soc AND that anti-soc didn't exist. So is it just you or is it "200" members?

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Stop harassing me on this thread.

This has seemed to strike a nerve that anti-soc is intimidating and threatening students and that I think it is full of morons and trolls. Never said you personally were a troll or a moron; just that if anti-soc didn't exist, you must be doing the threatening and intimidating (as you have said you have read dossiers which are intimidating and you have said threatening things).

roro1neil0 wrote: »

The current status is non of your business as your chief time waster in the SU, asking the stupidest most irrelevant questions. How exactly you got a opportunity to study for a PhD is beyond me, I will look forward to dropping back into this thread in 2 /3 years time when you've been found out for being incompetent and had to settle for a Msc.

Well by asking "the stupidest most irrelevant questions" I get information. In exams, dodging questions doesn't work sadly.

Just so you know, you have personally attacked me here by calling me incompetent and belittling my questions. So you have been reported.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

The amount of time you spend on boards or at SU meetings I'd be interested to see your progress report with your phd? I wouldn't be surprised if you've not made any progress at all.

Did you know you can work outside of 9-5 on your phd if you want to? You seem to think I can't multi-task and/or manage my time. Clearly, I can impress you with my excellent management of time.

Ginge Young wrote: »

Such a trend criticizing peoples PhD's welcome to the club Reunion

Shh you twat!

Seems like anyone on boards who is doing a phd has to go through abuse and/or criticism from some new account created recently....

roro1neil0

reunion wrote: »

I said anti-soc as an organisation was threatening and intimidating students. I also said it was full of trolls and morons. I have provided evidence on the matter.

You have not provided any evidence. You can't even prove antisoc exists, so how can something that may not even exist be definitely threatening and intimidating. The only way this makes sense is that people are afraid of monsters, despite monsters not existing. If people are intimidated by something that you can't even prove to exist, they must have a problem. Secondly, you haven't shown me anyone, or shown my any proof, anyone does feel intimidated. You are making this up.

You were the one to state you were in anti-soc AND that anti-soc didn't exist. So is it just you or is it "200" members?

you tell me

This has seemed to strike a nerve that anti-soc is intimidating and threatening students and that I think it is full of morons and trolls.

yes, you struck a nerve, and repeating it, is striking more nerves. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Never said you personally were a troll or a moron; just that if anti-soc didn't exist, you must be doing the threatening and intimidating (as you have said you have read dossiers which are intimidating and you have said threatening things).

nobody is being intimidated stop telling lies and making **** up. why don't you just tell the truth or just let the truth speak for itself. it's funny you should accuse me of intimidating people without proof when you yourself were accused of harassment without proof. pedant.

Well by asking "the stupidest most irrelevant questions" I get information. In exams, dodging questions doesn't work sadly.

you get information in the slowest and inefficient manner possible.

Just so you know, you have personally attacked me here by calling me incompetent and belittling my questions. So you have been reported.

why are you telling me that? i'm not a moderator. they will see through your lies

Did you know you can work outside of 9-5 on your phd if you want to? You seem to think I can't multi-task and/or manage my time. Clearly, I can impress you with my excellent management of time.

you are clearly not spending enough time on your 'phd'. clearly.

Jester252

Roro1neil0 if I may be as bold as to interject the following can be seen as threatening and intimidating

How exactly you got a opportunity to study for a PhD is beyond me

The amount of time you spend on boards or at SU meetings

I assume Reunion had no contact with you so the fact that you know these things about him is slightly stalkerish which some people find threatening and intimidating.

I will look forward to dropping back into this thread in 2 /3 years time when you've been found out for being incompetent and had to settle for a Msc.

What wrong with a masters?
The people who are doing them have their degree so I assume that they are smart.
Do you look down on undergrads also or do you look down on everyone who isn't you.

roro1neil0

Jester252 wrote: »

Roro1neil0 if I may be as bold as to interject the following can be seen as threatening and intimidating
.

he said as much on the forum ya wally, unlike some people in this college, I am actually able to read and remember things.

Jester252

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Jester252 wrote: »

Roro1neil0 if I may be as bold as to interject the following can be seen as threatening and intimidating
.

he said as much on the forum ya wally, unlike some people in this college, I am actually able to read and remember things.

Look back at my post on why that might be seen as creepish. I do think what you said falls under personal abuse. If he said that on boards then how do you know he spends a lot of time in the SU and SU meeting. Also can you answer my question about the comment you pasted about a masters?

Peteee

roro1neil0 banned for personal abuse and trolling. Not your first warning either.