Waterford History Group - John Condon Memorial

Samsgirl

Just wondering if many on here are following the John Condon Memorial story on Waterford History Group on Facebook?

wellboytoo

Is that the "arguing about how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin" thread?

Samsgirl

wellboytoo wrote: »

Is that the "arguing about how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin" thread?

Yeah, thats the one. The dogs in the street now know that the poor lad wasn't 14 when died & the council should have checked this out fully before commissioning this monument. But the childishness, bitterness & poisonious comments being made on there, esp by the two admins are discraceful. I have refrained from posting as they will prob delete me from the group. I generally enjoy the group but this is beyond riduculous.

wellboytoo

Agreed I just put up a post and expect to be an ex member fairly soon....

Samsgirl

wellboytoo wrote: »

Agreed I just put up a post and expect to be an ex member fairly soon....

Hopefully not. They just keep going on & on.. unreal

wellboytoo

Tony Hennessy s post just now really nails it.

Samsgirl

It does for sure. The two guys are just hell bent on slating it though. They should be ashamed of themselves.

LiamD1977

Basically the group started off with good intentions. Now the egos have come in and they see themselves as the Internet History Police. Lots of words like "expert" being thrown around there with no qualifications to back it up.

navalus

what "Poisonious comments" are you on about Samsgirl ? could you give an example please?

wellboytoo

Constant whinging when things don't go "your" way, or when "you" are not consulted! on the design, cost, veracity, FONT size ffs, anything at this stage practically anything The City Council do!
Who died and made you two the king anyway?

navalus

If you have a look at WLR facebook page you will see the majority of posts are against what it cost and looks like, why no mud slung at them ? The way you are talking you would think only the two admins have nothing good to say about it ?

wellboytoo

Because you are the admins of a site that is well used and respected but you are abusing your position and not following what are acceptable norms in sites like boards where moderators are Moderating,and step back if they are involved personally in an issue.
You can't continue as you are going or the site will just implode like so many before.
What is being said on WLR site is individuals talking sh1te or truth but they are individuals, whereas you are moderators and have responsibilities to the site.
No one is making it personal more than yourselves by constantly chewing at something rather than stating your case and leaving it at that.

mark17

As an admin on the Waterford History Group, we felt it was our responsibility to bring the facts to the attention of our members. Sorry about the fact John Condon was 19 when he lost his life in the trenches. Not our fault the Council went with this, we argued for a memorial to all who lost their lives in WW1. Crazy to state our egos are too big, we just tell Waterford History as it is

wellboytoo

Don't bring your crazy over here now.
WCC nowhere on the new sculpture say he was 14,they refer to the legend urban myth whatever of him and state he was from Waterford no more,so what's the issue? It also clearly states it commemorates all who died in war ,Or have you even seen it?

LiamD1977

There is constant references in that group to the council telling "lies" about John Condon. The word symbolism seems lost on all concern.

Sadly the group has descended into a farce where the main rule is don't disagree with the admins.

mark17

wellboytoo wrote: »

Don't bring your crazy over here now.
WCC nowhere on the new sculpture say he was 14,they refer to the legend urban myth whatever of him and state he was from Waterford no more,so what's the issue? It also clearly states it commemorates all who died in war ,Or have you even seen it?

As a matter of fact I have seen it "Wellboytoo" we don't hide behind an anonymous name, I have right of reply, suppose you as an admin on this forum think you can say what you like, call names etc. on the History Group we don't hide nor do we tell lies, we give Waterford History from research and give our sources, what evidence do you have for John Condon's age, you don't have it as he was 19 years old, nobody was ever banned from the History Group for airing their views, I think you need to heed what you said about us. History is a science sure you obviously know that ha ha ha

2SWEET

I actually left the group when two of the admin had a very public slagging match and basically ruined the group because of their egos, the third admin, and I'm also sure he was the founder left the group while all this was going on and yes there has been quiet a lot of people removed from the group for disagreeing with the admin.

mark17

And another thing if you"Wellboytoo" don't like what we post just leave the group, simple as that. We aren't throwing Waterford History down your throat, you seem to want to be part of the group, I didn't ask you to join, you asked us to join.

mark17

2Sweet I never removed any person for disagreeing with us, only one who seemed to have issues every Saturday night when he got a few bottles in him. Furthermore the same individual was using our research to further his career, without referencing our research, this wasn't fair. Im relation to the row, sure everybody has a falling out from time to time, we are only human, and it was sorted within a week. If you left the group, how do you feel you are in a position to comment on same?????

2SWEET

mark17 wrote: »

2Sweet I never removed any person for disagreeing with us, only one who seemed to have issues every Saturday night when he got a few bottles in him. Furthermore the same individual was using our research to further his career, without referencing our research, this wasn't fair. Im relation to the row, sure everybody has a falling out from time to time, we are only human, and it was sorted within a week. If you left the group, how do you feel you are in a position to comment on same?????

I may have left the group but I am still a member of Boards which is why I'm in a position to comment, and yes everyone falls out but mature adults will sort it out privately and not bring what was once a great group done to playground level with childish tit for tat!

mark17

Is that all you have to fault us for, 2sweet, get a life!!!!!, not much point arguing with you is there really?? anyway you are like Wellboytoo hiding behind a pseudonym, no point even answering this cowardly crap, give your names and I'll answer again, my name is Tommy Deegan I don't have to hide behind an alias, thank you and good evening

Tarman

I too left the group a while back because of the behavior of the admins. I anticipated that things were only going to get worse and it appears that I made the correct decision.

wellboytoo

mark17 wrote: »

As a matter of fact I have seen it "Wellboytoo" we don't hide behind an anonymous name, I have right of reply, suppose you as an admin on this forum think you can say what you like, call names etc. on the History Group we don't hide nor do we tell lies, we give Waterford History from research and give our sources, what evidence do you have for John Condon's age, you don't have it as he was 19 years old, nobody was ever banned from the History Group for airing their views, I think you need to heed what you said about us. History is a science sure you obviously know that ha ha ha

I am not an admin or mod here .I don't care if John Condon was drawing the pension never did,that was and is not an issue with me. You have not seen what I have written, you may have read it but have not seen it.I have no issue with you or any others just your behaviour on this issue. Just leave it alone about his age please , as I have said here and on your page it is an urban myth his age at this stage. you are RIGHT about his age, but you cannot turn back what the myth of John Condon's grave stands for so give it a rest.

As regard my name quite a few on here know who I am and you could find out easily if you tried, but I will not be bullied by you into publishing it.

2SWEET

mark17 wrote: »

Is that all you have to fault us for, 2sweet, get a life!!!!!, not much point arguing with you is there really?? anyway you are like Wellboytoo hiding behind a pseudonym, no point even answering this cowardly crap, give your names and I'll answer again, my name is Tommy Deegan I don't have to hide behind an alias, thank you and good evening

And that is exactly the attitude I mean! I posted a comment stating my opinion and you Mr Deegan,feel the need to tell me I'm arguing with you ,why because I didn't agree with your opinion?? Then you resort to calling me a coward, that right there is playground carry on!
Oh and by the way I do have a life and a very good one at that :-)
And as for my real name well that's none of your business:)

Samsgirl

navalus wrote: »

what "Poisonious comments" are you on about Samsgirl ? could you give an example please?

I think Wellboytoo has summed it up perfectly. The way the admins have carried on is disgraceful.

mark17

I know your name too Cian, the only bully I see is yourself, give it a break, kinda long in the tooth now at this stage, would you prefer we went with the Council's spin on the fact of the "Boy Soldier's" age, and as you claim to be the spokesman for Waterford, make an eejit of you, yet you try to make an eejit of the messenger. I don't get this please explain, I'm not responding to anymore of this, just don't call me names to prove your point, try a bit of intellectuality if your brain can manage that :)

LiamD1977

I think its fairly obvious from the belligerent attitude of the Waterford History Group admins on here how they conduct themselves on their own facebook page.

Samsgirl

mark17 wrote: »

As an admin on the Waterford History Group, we felt it was our responsibility to bring the facts to the attention of our members. Sorry about the fact John Condon was 19 when he lost his life in the trenches. Not our fault the Council went with this, we argued for a memorial to all who lost their lives in WW1. Crazy to state our egos are too big, we just tell Waterford History as it is

I don't think anyone has a problem with ye telling Waterford History as it is. It's the constant negativity & bashing that is utterly ridiculous. As already stated, it's an abuse of the admin position on the page. Everyone is entited to their optinion but no need to keep ramming down our throats & belittling the occasion/event. We get it, ok?

LiamD1977

I don't think anyone has a problem with ye telling Waterford History as it is. It's the constant negativity & bashing that is utterly ridiculous. As already stated, it's an abuse of the admin position on the page. Everyone is entited to their optinion but no need to keep ramming down our throats & belittling the occasion/event. We get it, ok?

Samsgirl

mark17 wrote: »

I know your name too Cian, the only bully I see is yourself, give it a break, kinda long in the tooth now at this stage, would you prefer we went with the Council's spin on the fact of the "Boy Soldiers" age, and as you claim to be the spokesman for Waterford, make an eejit of you, yet you try to make an eejit of the messenger. I don't get this please explain

You do know it's against Boards rules to reveal someone name??

LiamD1977

I don't think anyone has a problem with ye telling Waterford History as it is. It's the constant negativity & bashing that is utterly ridiculous. As already stated, it's an abuse of the admin position on the page. Everyone is entited to their optinion but no need to keep ramming down our throats & belittling the occasion/event. We get it, ok?

I agree Samsgirl,

I seem to remember a admin slagging off a individual and the next day saying his computer was hacked !