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

py2006

I wonder will LON take over from Roseanne Barr. They may decide to continue the show of LON puts her name forward to replace the main character.

*ehem...new thread title hint...ehem*

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

How is it hypocrisy?! As I've just stated.. most of my posts here are simply in response to your nonsense! Around 80--90%. I know you love ranges.

Ah you’re just upset that I proved you wrong that I was responsible for the increase in posts on the thread over the last few days. I notice you’re not mentioning that anymore and instead trying to make some point about me being the top poster in the thread.

It’s hypocrisy because you are the second biggest poster. Complaining about me being the top poster when you’re the second top poster and you’re wondering why its hypocritical. Looks like I’ll be needing those finger puppets again.

LLMMLL

Zulu wrote: »

Yeah, seems like a different kind of nasty, doesn't it?

It is nasty but it’s pretty consistent with the tone of the entire thread. Glad people are starting to see it.

Wibbs

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Ah here, pure bile.

Pretty much. I think her feminist credo at turns daft, wrongheaded, often paranoid with a large dose of narcissism and her social media shtick and general self promotion decidedly off putting, but stuff like what she looks like or who she's banging interests me not a jot and focusing on that stuff decidedly childish.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

It is nasty but it’s pretty consistent with the tone of the entire thread. Glad people are starting to see it.

depends on how one views things I suppose. Calling her names etc nasty alright, calling the bullshite she spouts isn't.

Gravelly

LLMMLL wrote: »

Looks like I’ll be needing those finger puppets again.

I hope you have the puppets consent. In writing.

LuckyLloyd

Wibbs wrote: »

Pretty much. I think her feminist credo at turns daft, wrongheaded, often paranoid with a large dose of narcissism and her social media shtick and general self promotion decidedly off putting, but stuff like what she looks like or who she's banging interests me not a jot and focusing on that stuff decidedly childish.

As always, it completely undermines any substantive points of criticism one may hold.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Gravelly wrote: »

I hope you have the puppets consent. In writing.

Consent forms won't stand up in court if the puppet was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

depends on how one views things I suppose. Calling her names etc nasty alright, calling the bullshite she spouts isn't.

Not really. Even if I shared your view that she talks crap, the majority of this thread is personal “insults” about her. Not necessarily calling her names but basically getting as much info about her personal life and saying nasty things about it. That’s what they’re doing about her new relationship. Oh she has a new boyfriend. Let’s tear him apart.

So it’s not really about how one views things,whether you agree with her viewpoints or not, this thread is a cesspit.

DickSwiveller

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not really. Even if I shared your view that she talks crap, the majority of this thread is personal “insults” about her. Not necessarily calling her names but basically getting as much info about her personal life and saying nasty things about it. That’s what they’re doing about her new relationship. Oh she has a new boyfriend. Let’s tear him apart.

So it’s not really about how one views things,whether you agree with her viewpoints or not, this thread is a cesspit.

He's hardly been torn apart.

Zulu

LLMMLL wrote: »

It is nasty but it’s pretty consistent with the tone of the entire thread.

No, its not really.



I appreciate that would be your perspective alright, but I think we can all agree that that's a unique perspective.

LLMMLL

DickSwiveller wrote: »

He's hardly been torn apart.

A group of people saying things such as he looks like the runt of the litter?

Would you like stuff like that about you being put online because you dared date someone the boards anti-feminist collective disapproved of?

LLMMLL

Zulu wrote: »

No, its not really.



I appreciate that would be your perspective alright, but I think we can all agree that that's a unique perspective.

I don’t agree with that

Boom_Bap

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not really. Even if I shared your view that she talks crap, the majority of this thread is personal “insults” about her. Not necessarily calling her names but basically getting as much info about her personal life and saying nasty things about it. That’s what they’re doing about her new relationship. Oh she has a new boyfriend. Let’s tear him apart.

So it’s not really about how one views things,whether you agree with her viewpoints or not, this thread is a cesspit.

There is far more humour in this thread than nastyness from what I can see. But it's poor taste to judge folk on appearance or who they are dating or their appearance.
The mods are doing a top notch job of keeping the good natured fun going with the name changes.

Zulu

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don’t agree with that

Naturally; I dont think anybody expected anything else.

Gravelly

LLMMLL wrote: »

A group of people saying things such as he looks like the runt of the litter?

He kinda does though. That's no reflection on him as a person, I'm absolutely certain that he is extremely nice, but lets not pretend that people don't judge each other on appearance every day of the week.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ah you’re just upset that I proved you wrong that I was responsible for the increase in posts on the thread over the last few days. I notice you’re not mentioning that anymore and instead trying to make some point about me being the top poster in the thread.

It’s hypocrisy because you are the second biggest poster. Complaining about me being the top poster when you’re the second top poster and you’re wondering why its hypocritical. Looks like I’ll be needing those finger puppets again.

Not mentioning it?!?!?! You've made several posts in the space of a few minutes!! 6 to be exact.

How was I complaining?! I simply stated that I was curious as to the large jump in pages, then low and behold I see numerous new posts from you. Curiosity quenched. Honestly your ability to take a post, deconstruct it and re-construct it as something completely different is almost Macgyver like. Do I need finger puppets to explain hypocrisy and irony to you?

As for your last point, more pathetic indirect swipes at a posters intelligence, but par for the course with your posts.

Again, with specific reference to over and above prolific posting on this thread, as you're probably not LON herself, fair to assume that you're closely connected and/or a super fan. Assumption taken from the number of posts coupled with your constant whinging.

LLMMLL

Boom_Bap wrote: »

There is far more humour in this thread than nastyness from what I can see. But it's poor taste to judge folk on appearance or who they are dating or their appearance.
The mods are doing a top notch job of keeping the good natured fun going with the name changes.

And I’m sure the next time someone delves into her personal life to make fun of her, the collective will pretend the stuff about her boyfriend was all good-natured and not making nasty remarks about his personal experience.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Not mentioning it?!?!?! You've made several posts in the space of a few minutes!!

Yes those posts were ME mentioning it. You dropped it once you were shown to be wrong. I think I’m gonna need better finger puppets.

How was I complaining?! I simply stated that I was curious as to the large jump in pages, then low and behold I see numerous new posts from you. Curiosity quenched. Honestly your ability to take a post, deconstruct it and re-construct it as something completely different is almost Macgyver like. Do I need finger puppets to explain hypocrisy and irony to you?

And yet pretty much the same number of posts were made in the day before I posted as the day I which I posted. So the jump in posts were nothing to do with me.

They were in fact due to the LIE that she hadn’t voted.

I don’t think anyone is convinced you’re “curious” about the jump in posts in the thread. You’re clearly making some pretty bad attempts to criticise me. You’ve already admitted that every post you make in this thread is about me.

Assumption taken from the number of posts coupled with your constant whinging.

More hypocrisy.

LLMMLL

Gravelly wrote: »

He kinda does though. That's no reflection on him as a person, I'm absolutely certain that he is extremely nice, but lets not pretend that people don't judge each other on appearance every day of the week.

Little bit of a difference between judging someone’s appearance and putting up a picture of them online and saying something nasty.

LLMMLL is definitely LON..

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

LLMMLL is definitely LON..

Well I do think her bf is good looking, so you never know.....

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes those posts were ME mentioning it. You dropped it once you were shown to be wrong. I think I’m gonna need better finger puppets.



And yet pretty much the same number of posts were made in the day before I posted as the day I which I posted. So the jump in posts were nothing to do with me.

They were in fact due to the LIE that she hadn’t voted.

I don’t think anyone is convinced you’re “curious” about the jump in posts in the thread. You’re clearly making some pretty bad attempts to criticise me. You’ve already admitted that every post you make in this thread is about me.



More hypocrisy.

Hard to know how to reply to you at this stage, you seem to be deliberately making silly points/posts to encourage a response.

• I said 80/90% of my posts were in response to your crap, of which there is a lot. I'm simply calling you out for your nonsense, I'll continue to do so.
• The same number of posts, 2 days in a means nothing if a load are from you/in response to you i.e. there wouldn't be the same number of posts on day 2 if you hadn't posted. Do you really need that explained..jesus wept.
• I clearly stated there was another jump, sparked by you.. simple really.
• I don't think i need to 'attempt' to criticize you, the fact that so many people thing you're actually LON, says it all about what they think of your posts.

You seem to be convinced that it's a LIE that she didn't vote. Do you have actual proof or inside info that she did actually vote? Other than LON herself claiming she did and failing to explain how she secured the postal vote when other verified twitterer's had asked for info how they could do it.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well I do think her bf is good looking, so you never know.....

Awww...there was me holding out for the LON Tubbs Irish equivalent of the royal wedding..
I had an image of lots of little ginger feminist tv presenters running around the place .

Could have changed the world..

Gravelly

LLMMLL wrote: »

Little bit of a difference between judging someone’s appearance and putting up a picture of them online and saying something nasty.

I did say he was nice

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

I said 80/90% of my posts were in response to your crap, of which there is a lot. I'm simply calling you out for your nonsense, I'll continue to do so.

And I’ll continue to call out your crap. So assuming we’re posting for similar reasons (to call out crap) then either me being the highest poster is a negative thing for some reason (in your head), in which case you being the second highest is also a negative thing and calling me out on it is hypocritical. Or me being the highest poster is not a negative thing (in your head), in which case you pointing it out is just whataboutery.

So which is it?

The same number of posts, 2 days in a means nothing if a load are from you/in response to you i.e. there wouldn't be the same number of posts on day 2 if you hadn't posted. Do you really need that explained..jesus wept.

So what you’re saying is you didn’t notice the general jump in posts e, but did notice that the posts did not decrease the following day as might be expected. So you examine threads and estimate expected falloff in posts day by day. Riiiiiight.

Be honest. There was a jump in posts due to the lie that she didn’t vote. You noticed this. Saw that I posted. Thought you could use it against me. Posted criticism. Got shown to be wrong. Tried to climb out of hole.

I don't think i need to 'attempt' to criticize you, the fact that so many people thing you're actually LON, says it all about what they think of your posts.

I’ll take that as a compliment.

You seem to be convinced that it's a LIE that she didn't vote. Do you have actual proof or inside info that she did actually vote? Other than LON herself claiming she did and failing to explain how she secured the postal vote when other verified twitterer's had asked for info how they could do it.

Yeah it’s 100% a lie. Let’s examine how the lie started. One person on the thread said she couldn’t have voted as she was out of the country. That’s the only thing this person knew about. You’re imagining they sifted through loads of evidence and came to a considered conclusion. Nope. They seem to be unaware of even the possibility of a postal vote. Then all the clever clever people on this thread wanted to believe it so badly that they didn’t bother thinking about it. And that’s how the lie was born.

If you take it seriously then you’re no better than a birther in the US. Throw enough mud and some of it will stick.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

And I’ll continue to call out your crap. So assuming we’re posting for similar reasons (to call out crap) then either me being the highest poster is a negative thing for some reason (in your head), in which case you being the second highest is also a negative thing and calling me out on it is hypocritical. Or me being the highest poster is not a negative thing (in your head), in which case you pointing it out is just whataboutery.

So which is it?



So what you’re saying is you didn’t notice the general jump in posts due to the lie about her vote, but did notice that the posts did not decrease the following day as might be expected. Riiiiiight.

Be honest. There was a jump in posts due to the lie that she didn’t vote. You noticed this. Saw that I posted. Thought you could use it against me. Posted criticism. Got shown to be wrong. Tried to climb out of hole.



I’ll take that as a compliment.



Yeah it’s 100% a lie. Let’s examine how the lie started. One person on the thread said she couldn’t have voted as she was out of the country. That’s the only thing this person knew about. You’re imagining they sifted through loads of evidence and came to a considered conclusion. Nope. They seem to be unaware of even the possibility of a postal vote. Then all the clever clever people on this thread wanted to believe it so badly that they didn’t bother thinking about it. And that’s how the lie was born.

If you take it seriously then you’re no better than a birther in the US. Throw enough mud and some of it will stick.

Why any individual of sound mind would take being compared to, or identified as LON as being a compliment is baffling.

Again, I'll make this really simply for you.. there was a jump from when I last viewed the thread, where I read all about postalgate, to the next time, where you re-joined the party. Simple.

It's 100% a lie? Again, how do you know? Do you believe everything LON writes without critical thought? All LON has said on the matter, via twitter, is that she did use a postal vote. She didn't answer ANY one (including 2 verified twitter) how she managed this, again despite others asking for info how she do it when they'd been refused. I'm not saying she didn't, I'm asking how do you know 100% it's a lie?

Boom_Bap

LLMMLL wrote: »

And I’m sure the next time someone delves into her personal life to make fun of her, the collective will pretend the stuff about her boyfriend was all good-natured and not making nasty remarks about his personal experience.

Well it was good natured












......that's a joke by the way

RabbleRouser2k

Deleted User wrote: »

Awww...there was me holding out for the LON Tubbs Irish equivalent of the royal wedding..
I had an image of lots of little ginger feminist tv presenters running around the place .

Could have changed the world..

Why...oh why...did you have to produce the image of Ryan Tubridy sexually thrusting away into LON in order to make LON pregnant? Why do put that image into people's heads?

Nobody wants to imagine Tubridy getting his groove on.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Why any individual of sound mind would take being compared to, or identified as LON as being a compliment is baffling.

Again, I'll make this really simply for you.. there was a jump from when I last viewed the thread, where I read all about postalgate, to the next time, where you re-joined the party. Simple.

It's 100% a lie? Again, how do you know? Do you believe everything LON writes without critical thought? All LON has said on the matter, via twitter, is that she did use a postal vote. She didn't answer ANY one (including 2 verified twitter) how she managed this, again despite others asking for info how she do it when they'd been refused. I'm not saying she didn't, I'm asking how do you know 100% it's a lie?

And I’ve shown that the jump had nothing to do with me. Simple.

I know it’s a lie because of how it started. For example if someone came on here and said “givyjoe murdered someone” who would I ask for evidence from? Would I require you to prove that you had in fact not done it or would I ask the accuser for evidence.

Lon said she was doing a postal vote on May 12. The accusation that she didn’t vote was based on her not being in the country. It’s clearly false. If you require her to prove it to you and support criticism if she doesn’t then you’re supporting the rise of anti-intellectual Trumpy fake news type thinking.