Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

boylecm

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem to want to make your points but not get into a discussion about those very points.

But sure... I'm sick to the hilt about this whole situation, and would happily let it pass.

I don't mind debating if I think there's a chance of minds being changed, but reading back over this thread it seems unlikely. In my view, both sides have made some good points, but everyone has the same position as when the thread started.
I just think there's a bit of a mob mentality in this thread and one poster got shafted. I mean you've called her a troll, but replied to her today when she hadn't referenced you at all, called her posts rubbish, and have said most of what you said today was to "tweak her nose", which to me is the definition of trolling, just posting to get a reaction.
So I don't really want to get drawn into a debate which goes nowhere and feelings get hurt.
And yes I realize the irony of saying I've nothing more to say and posting again.

Peace

boylecm

boylecm wrote: »

I don't mind debating if I think there's a chance of minds being changed, but reading back over this thread it seems unlikely.

Depends on what's being discussed. You spoke earlier about my bitch post, I listened, and I responded to your stance with an apology.

In my view, both sides have made some good points, but everyone has the same position as when the thread started.
I just think there's a bit of a mob mentality in this thread and one poster got shafted.

I don't think you've read through many of LLs posts and seen the manner in which she's posted in this thread or in others.

Have you wondered why so many of the posters here reacted to her attitude? It's not as if these same posters generally agree in other threads. Many of the posters here are posters I regularly butt heads against on other threads.

I mean you've called her a troll, but replied to her today when she hadn't referenced you at all, called her posts rubbish, and have said most of what you said today was to "tweak her nose", which to me is the definition of trolling, just posting to get a reaction.

You're missing on two days of posting to another thread with really long posts, where we went around (and around) arguing over personal responsibility, victim blaming and the difference in risk. This is two days of us discussing the topic, her changing my statements after quoting them, and then addressing her rewritten statements, along with making assumptions about men without providing evidence/links.

And when I refused to accept her viewpoints, she made observations about me personally. Before that, I hadn't made any comments about her personally, and I'd focused entirely on the posts themselves.

So, I got annoyed. Simple. And I reacted to that annoyance rather than ignoring her (which is what I should have done).

So I don't really want to get drawn into a debate which goes nowhere and feelings get hurt.

I'd prefer you did some research and looked at her behavior too rather than simply looking at mine before judging me. In spite of your declarations not to get involved, you have repeatedly jumped in to make those judgements on my behavior.

I could understand it if you had been part of the overall discussions over the last five or so pages, but your only contributions to this thread have been directed at my post of LON being called a bitch and at the situation between LL & me.

But, if you're content to let it all go. I am too. I'd be glad for it all to be finished with TBH.

Omackeral

Anyway, what phone do you reckon Louise uses?

Boom_Bap

Omackeral wrote: »

Anyway, what phone do you reckon Louise uses?

Rose Gold iPhone Plus

Kimbot

boylecm wrote: »

I guess I'm the only one who sees the irony in a mod banning someone for personal abuse and calling them a dick in the same sentence.

Almost as good as the poster who called O'Neill a bitch and complained about personal abuse.

Deleted User wrote: »

I had nothing to do with the mod intervention.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Yeah, I gotta admit-that irked me a little too. No offence to the moderators.

boylecm wrote: »

Just seemed to be a similar pattern of someone having a problem with someone doing something very similar to something that they themselves seem fine doing. At least yours wasn't in the same sentence. Wasn't implying that you were behind the mod action.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I've always liked Conspectus as a mod. Firm but fair.

I find it more ironic that a feminist got warned for being a dick. :pac:

Lu Tze wrote: »

I think the overarching guidance for conducting yourself on boards is "don't be a dick". I'm sure it's in there charter somewhere, I'm guessing that's what the reference was as opposed to calling somebody a dick, which they didn't.

boylecm wrote: »

That's a good rule, but calling someone a dick is violating that rule. Just seemed a little ironic to break the rule in the same sentence banning someone for breaking that rule.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's an absolute outrage that Llmmll was banned from this thread..

MOD Right, if you have a problem with Moderation on this thread you can contact the mod team to discuss. Do not discuss moderation on thread again.
And yes "Dont be a dick" is in the charter.

upandcumming

jonnycivic wrote: »

And yes "Dont be a dick" is in the charter.

That offends me!

:pac:

garbo speaks

Omackeral wrote: »

Anyway, what phone do you reckon Louise uses?

The Samsung Feminati BS.

freshpopcorn

Omackeral wrote: »

Anyway, what phone do you reckon Louise uses?

The Ihatemen phone!

Omackeral

upandcumming wrote: »

That offends me!

:pac:

Don’t be a kunt could work!

py2006

Aren't we due a title change by now?

cantdecide

py2006 wrote: »

Aren't we due a title change by now?

Is the splelling erorr gettting to yuo?

Omackeral

py2006 wrote: »

Aren't we due a title change by now?

That’s a top notch thread title up there now. Kudos to whoever made it.

2smiggy

definitely shops in S+M :P

Yeah_Right

I would have thought that LON's mum did her grocery shopping for her. So that she can spend all her time in her study fighting the patriarchy on Boards researching her next book.

Boom_Bap

I don't think she shops. I reckon she forages for food.

TomSweeney

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The Ihatemen phone!

That's the iHatemen Plus ...

givyjoe

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I don't think she shops. I reckon she forages for food.

Yes, definitely struck me as the independent, hunter gatherer type :eek:.

boylecm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd prefer you did some research and looked at her behavior too rather than simply looking at mine before judging me. In spite of your declarations not to get involved, you have repeatedly jumped in to make those judgements on my behavior.

In an effort at fairness I just took a look over the thread for the last week. Honestly, what struck me the most was how similar your posting styles are. If your views weren't so opposed I'd think you were the same person.
I didn't really see any clear examples of rewriting what you said. You both seemed to think the other had said things they had not said at various points. She thought you were victim blaming, you thought she said women shouldn't take precautions. I don't think either of you actually said those things. The only clear example I saw of a poster rewriting what another poster said was the whole 1 in 2 men have sexually assaulted a woman thing but that wasn't you or her.
As for personal comments, while you did say you regretted calling O' Neill a bitch, and that was mainly what my issue with your post was, you don't seem to regret making a personal remark about her. Maybe I'm reading too much into what you are saying, but it reads (to me) as if you are fine with making a personal remark about someone under certain circumstances defined by you. You seem to think its alright to make a personal comment about O'Neill (even if you think you went too far), but are extremely critical about someone making a personal comment about you. Apologies if I have misinterpreted you.
And having read back over things, you had said a few things on Sunday morning that LLML did not say anything about. You then quoted her with a snippy comment, and later say you were trying to tweak her nose. I've never heard the phrase before but it sounds like you were deliberately goading her. You say its because you were annoyed and it seems you pick people up on the way they post but are happy to post in a similar manner while providing justification afterwards as to why you posted that way.
I don't think it was her posting style that rubbed people up the wrong way necessarily. The initial problem seems to be that there are about ten regular posters on this thread that disagree with her, with most of them making snippy comments, claiming that she is O'Neill herself (I don't include you in that, you were quite reasonable).
I'm male and wasn't offended at her claims about the number of men who harrass women. She did explicitly say it was an opinion. I don't agree with her that that many men harrass women, but I include myself in the 40% to 80% that she thinks doesn't harrass. If people are going to be picked up on just holding an opinion then this whole forum may as well be shut down.
I think the posters who pick her up on her posting style need to look at how their own posts contributed to a pretty negative atmosphere.

Peace

vicwatson

I don’t know who Louise O’Neill is, same as a tracker mortgage

boylecm

boylecm wrote: »

Peace

Nope. Not getting into this again. It's been done to death.

Move on from it, and perhaps, contribute to the thread itself (one way or another - hint: the subject of me and LL is not contributing).

givyjoe

boylecm wrote: »

In an effort at fairness I just took a look over the thread for the last week. Honestly, what struck me the most was how similar your posting styles are. If your views weren't so opposed I'd think you were the same person.
I didn't really see any clear examples of rewriting what you said. You both seemed to think the other had said things they had not said at various points. She thought you were victim blaming, you thought she said women shouldn't take precautions. I don't think either of you actually said those things. The only clear example I saw of a poster rewriting what another poster said was the whole 1 in 2 men have sexually assaulted a woman thing but that wasn't you or her.
As for personal comments, while you did say you regretted calling O' Neill a bitch, and that was mainly what my issue with your post was, you don't seem to regret making a personal remark about her. Maybe I'm reading too much into what you are saying, but it reads (to me) as if you are fine with making a personal remark about someone under certain circumstances defined by you. You seem to think its alright to make a personal comment about O'Neill (even if you think you went too far), but are extremely critical about someone making a personal comment about you. Apologies if I have misinterpreted you.
And having read back over things, you had said a few things on Sunday morning that LLML did not say anything about. You then quoted her with a snippy comment, and later say you were trying to tweak her nose. I've never heard the phrase before but it sounds like you were deliberately goading her. You say its because you were annoyed and it seems you pick people up on the way they post but are happy to post in a similar manner while providing justification afterwards as to why you posted that way.
I don't think it was her posting style that rubbed people up the wrong way necessarily. The initial problem seems to be that there are about ten regular posters on this thread that disagree with her, with most of them making snippy comments, claiming that she is O'Neill herself (I don't include you in that, you were quite reasonable).
I'm male and wasn't offended at her claims about the number of men who harrass women. She did explicitly say it was an opinion. I don't agree with her that that many men harrass women, but I include myself in the 40% to 80% that she thinks doesn't harrass. If people are going to be picked up on just holding an opinion then this whole forum may as well be shut down.
I think the posters who pick her up on her posting style need to look at how their own posts contributed to a pretty negative atmosphere.

Peace

Excuse me sir. you're referring to me in the 1/2 men sexual assault and if check over the thread properly, you'll see I corrected the error and said it was 1/2 have harassed women which llmmll had stated.

It's funny how you've made your entrance, just as llmmll has made her exit

Yer Da sells Avon

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I would have thought that LON's mum did her grocery shopping for her. So that she can spend all her time in her study fighting the patriarchy on Boards researching her next book.

I think her dad is a butcher, so that aspect of the shopping is probably sorted. You wouldn't know though, you can get some good deals on steak in SuperValu. I don't know if it's the same in all SuperValu shops around the country, but my local one is currently doing 30% off. I'd say it's probably the same down in Cork, but you wouldn't know. I prefer going to an old-fashioned butcher, myself. What's your favourite humming noise?

givyjoe

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I think her dad is a butcher, so that aspect of the shopping is probably sorted. You wouldn't know though, you can get some good deals on steak in SuperValu. I don't know if it's the same in all SuperValu shops around the country, but my local one is currently doing 30% off. I'd say it's probably the same down in Cork, but you wouldn't know. I prefer going to an old-fashioned butcher, myself. What's your favourite humming noise?

The White Knight Rises..

givyjoe

givyjoe wrote: »

It's funny how you've made your entrance, just as llmmll has made her exit

yeah..

py2006

I don't like tomatoes

Yer Da sells Avon

givyjoe wrote: »

The White Knight Rises..

I seem to get called a "white knight" and a "virtue signaller" quite a bit on here by very dull men who all seem to share the same dreary posting style.

givyjoe

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I seem to get called a "white knight" and a "virtue signaller" quite a bit on here by very dull men who all seem to share the same dreary posting style.

Eh, did you not see the above?! I'm hilarious!

Yer Da sells Avon

py2006 wrote: »

I don't like tomatoes

They're alright, but it's hard to find decent tomatoes that have that nice sweet, ripe taste. Sometimes I'll pick up a pack of cherry tomatoes in Tesco's or Lidl's and they'll look ripe - lovely deep red, but then you go to eat them and there's no taste off them. It's hit and miss, really. Wouldn't be fond of tomatoes on a sandwich. I don't like how the bread soaks the juice up. Tomato ketchup is grand though. As long as its Heinz. Maybe Chef at an absolute stretch. I notice McDonalds don't do Heinz ketchup any more. As my dear old granny used to say, "Heinz or GTFO".

Hapax Legomenon

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

They're alright, but it's hard to find decent tomatoes that have that nice sweet, ripe taste. Sometimes I'll pick up a pack of cherry tomatoes in Tesco's or Lidl's and they'll look ripe - lovely deep red, but then you go to eat them and there's no taste off them. It's hit and miss, really. Wouldn't be fond of tomatoes on a sandwich. I don't like how the bread soaks the juice up. Tomato ketchup is grand though. As long as its Heinz. Maybe Chef at an absolute stretch. I notice McDonalds don't do Heinz ketchup any more. As my dear old granny used to say, "Heinz or GTFO".

off topic..

The real question is what is LON's position on tomatoes..