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

Gravelly

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Just show us your her postal vote letter and then we'll know.

LLMMLL

Gravelly wrote: »

Just show us your her postal vote letter and then we'll know.

Can I just show you Obama’s birth cert instead?

Gravelly

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can I just show you Obama’s birth cert instead?

Did he postal vote too?

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

What the actual f...?! That's exactly what Trumpy fake news is.. 'lie'/make a statement and not back it up!! You do it's impossible to prove I didn't do something which never happened but very easy to prove something which I myself claimed I had done, where there should literally be a paper trail.

Go read the thread of tweets. She says she used the postal vote and then was really ambiguous about how she went about securing this, considering others specifically stated that they were refused the postal vote on precisely the same ground!

It's entirely possible that she did vote, it's also entirely possible she didn't. I mean, it wouldn't be like LON to babble on about something incessantly and then not show up for the cause. :rolleyes:

Maybe it is literally as simple as fill out a form and say you're away for work, but as stated on the same twitter thread, other 'high profile' folks were refused despite having the exact same reason for needing it.

mzungu

givyjoe wrote: »

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 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.

givyjoe wrote: »

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 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 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’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.

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?

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

givyjoe wrote: »

What the actual f...?! That's exactly what Trumpy fake news is.. 'lie'/make a statement and not back it up!! You do it's impossible to prove I didn't do something which never happened but very easy to prove something which I myself claimed I had done, where there should literally be a paper trail.

Go read the thread of tweets. She says she used the postal vote and then was really ambiguous about how she went about securing this, considering others specifically stated that they were refused the postal vote on precisely the same ground!

It's entirely possible that she did vote, it's also entirely possible she didn't. I mean, it wouldn't be like LON to babble on about something incessantly and then not show up for the cause. :rolleyes:

Maybe it is literally as simple as fill out a form and say you're away for work, but as stated on the same twitter thread, other 'high profile' folks were refused despite having the exact same reason for needing it.

Get a room you two!! :pac:

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

What the actual f...?! That's exactly what Trumpy fake news is.. 'lie'/make a statement and not back it up!! You do it's impossible to prove I didn't do something which never happened but very easy to prove something which I myself claimed I had done, where there should literally be a paper trail.

Go read the thread of tweets. She says she used the postal vote and then was really ambiguous about how she went about securing this, considering others specifically stated that they were refused the postal vote on precisely the same ground!

It's entirely possible that she did vote, it's also entirely possible she didn't. I mean, it wouldn't be like LON to babble on about something incessantly and then not show up for the cause. :rolleyes:

Maybe it is literally as simple as fill out a form and say you're away for work, but as stated on the same twitter thread, other 'high profile' folks were refused despite having the exact same reason for needing it.

She wasn’t ambiguous at all. Is she supposed to go through the process step by step for your benefit? Would you?

She posted on may 12 that she had just sent off her vote. One person asked her how she got that. She said due to being out of the country for work. Someone else posted that they were refused it but didn’t ask any questions.

Then she retweeted it on may 28. One person basically called her a liar and another said they were refused for giving a similar reason.

You really expect her to go to the effort of posting evidence to someone who called her a liar?

Zulu

LLMMLL wrote: »

You really expect her to go to the effort of posting evidence to someone who called her a liar?

No, especially not considering her form (remember the march that was sooooo important to her, until the day, when she needed to iron her knickers?)

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

She wasn’t ambiguous at all. Is she supposed to go through the process step by step for your benefit? Would you?

If i was that bothered to go and dig up my own old post, I would provide some kind of evidence that I had to indeed to shut people up. There's a post from a 'fan' on the thread specifically commenting on the ambiguity of how she managed to do this.

I really hope LON is rewarding you for your superfandom.

RabbleRouser2k

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

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.

Yeah..sorry..
Thought it would be funny..knew as soon as I'd posted it I had went too far..

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

If i was that bothered to go and dig up my own old post, I would provide some kind of evidence that I had to indeed to shut people up. There's a post from a 'fan' on the thread specifically commenting on the ambiguity of how she managed to do this.

I really hope LON is rewarding you for your superfandom.

I don’t think she should. Fake news type people crave the legitimacy acknowledging them does. If she responds to them then they come out with more fake allegations and expect her to “prove” them wrong about those. She’s dead right not to entertain them.

Which thread are you looking at? I only see two. May 12 and 28.

LLMMLL

Zulu wrote: »

No, especially not considering her form (remember the march that was sooooo important to her, until the day, when she needed to iron her knickers?)

Would only be form if she had claimed to be at it.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don’t think she should. Fake news type people crave the legitimacy acknowledging them does. If she responds to them then they come out with more fake allegations and expect her to “prove” them wrong about those. She’s dead right not to entertain them.

Which thread are you looking at? I only see two. May 12 and 28.

Genuinely last post on this.. this is the exact kind of 'thinking' which facilitates clowns like Trump saying whatever they want and never have to back it up. Different ends of the spectrum, same 'logic'.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Genuinely last post on this.. this is the exact kind of 'thinking' which facilitates clowns like Trump saying whatever they want and never have to back it up. Different ends of the spectrum, same 'logic'.

Not at all. Someone spontaneously saying they voted in an election being asked to prove it is ridiculous.

Trump saying things about crime in Britain etc. Of course need to verified. If LON was making those kind of claims then I’d agree. But she’s not. She wasn’t taking part in a debate.

Basically someone (who wasn’t even aware about her earlier postal vote tweet) made a false claim. And the mindless internet mob lent it validity. Nobody else who claimed to have voted (postal or otherwise) would be subjected to the same. If you can’t see that then you’re a fake news type person.

LLMMLL

In fact let’s do a little experiment. Givyjoe. Prove to me you voted.

Mr. Incognito

I like a lot of posters pop in here out of curiosity because the fecking thing is permalocked to page 1.

Look, she's a crap attention seeking writer. It's working. You are on here stalking her twitter, and making snidey comments about her bf. I mean ffs. If someone is a crap attention seeking writter, talk about their crap attention seeking writing.

The non-voting thing is pretty obvious. If it wasn't the feminist bandwagon, it'd be the food disorder brigade, or the male patriarchy, or as it was in the 80s - Someone please think of the starving Africans- Geldolf has made a 30 year career out of being a hyperbolic attention seeking twat and adopting agendas.

People like this are narcisists. Every bit of attention is enough, good and bad. Of course they thrive on social media. Im the real world if you say Kim Kardashian you would cross the street to get away from this weirdo with her fat lips and her fat arse. In real life these people are not well. If it was a choice between voting and "a fan" asking them to sign a sneaker for 8 hours because they "just love your writings, like sooooo true OMG" she'd have writers cramp.

In social media- they are campaigners, vacous righeous PC brigade who attract other vacous twits. Much like the Koni brigade they move on to the newest vapid fad.

If you think she is a crap attention seeking writing, then please please please just stop contributing. Trump was elected because people feel compelled to respond to the newest stupidity. Rent a gob Katie Hopkins is at the same thing.

The best way to deal with this sort of innate stupidity is just ignore it. Dont contribute, dont respond. I realise the hypocricy of responding to point this out but I really think someone needs to produce a social media for dummies guide.

Rule 1. Dont' feed the Trolls.
Rule 2. If in doubt apply Rule 1.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

In fact let’s do a little experiment. Givyjoe. Prove to me you voted.

I didn't vote. Prove I did.

Wibbs

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Look, she's a crap attention seeking writer. It's working. You are on here stalking her twitter, and making snidey comments about her bf. I mean ffs. If someone is a crap attention seeking writter, talk about their crap attention seeking writing.

The non-voting thing is pretty obvious. If it wasn't the feminist bandwagon, it'd be the food disorder brigade, or the male patriarchy, or as it was in the 80s - Someone please think of the starving Africans- Geldolf has made a 30 year career out of being a hyperbolic attention seeking twat and adopting agendas.

People like this are narcisists. Every bit of attention is enough, good and bad. Of course they thrive on social media.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

I didn't vote. Prove I did.

so you agree the onus is on the person making the claim. Thanks

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

In fact let’s do a little experiment. Givyjoe. Prove to me you voted.

If I was a social media junkie public figure campaigning for one side or t'other I'd make sure of selfies outside of the polling station. Just in case anyone thought me not committed to the cause. If it were a postal vote I'd have a shot of that going into the envelope.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

so you agree the onus is on the person making the claim. Thanks

Ooohhh..

The Crowman

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

It's was the People's Republic of Cork forum her sister was talking about.

They had an even longer thread on Louise that got even more personal.

Going on the comments here it was Boards.

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/760012971686891520

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

If I was a social media junkie public figure campaigning for one side or t'other I'd make sure of selfies outside of the polling station. Just in case anyone thought me not committed to the cause. If it were a postal vote I'd have a shot of that going into the envelope.

Does this mean that any social media user who doesn’t have said pics is lying?

LLMMLL

The Crowman wrote: »

Going on the comments here it was Boards.

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/760012971686891520

That tweet is from 2016. This thread is 7 months old. Unless there was an previous boards thread.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

so you agree the onus is on the person making the claim. Thanks

Nope, not in this case. LON could easily have answered the questions posed to her with a little more than the basic criteria, she ignored those questions. No qualifying information. She would have received extra physical documentation to facilitate the vote, if she was really interested in proving it or convincing anyone. She could.

Anyway, Continue to defend Louise's honour Macgyver. I'm sure she'll throw you a treat or something eventually.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Nope, not in this case. LON could easily have answered the questions posed to her with a little more than the basic criteria, she ignored those questions. No qualifying information. She would have received extra physical documentation to facilitate the vote, if she was really interested in proving it or convincing anyone. She could.

Anyway, Continue to defend Louise's honour Macgyver. I'm sure she'll throw you a treat or something eventually.

She was only asked to prove it 2 weeks later. I voted on Friday and there’s zero evidence to support that. Have my polling card to the people at the desk.

Why should she have interest in proving it. Only one person actually asked her to in the May 28 thread while also calling her a liar.

Are you going to prove to me that you didn’t vote?

Gravelly

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not at all. Someone spontaneously saying they voted in an election being asked to prove it is ridiculous.

Trump saying things about crime in Britain etc. Of course need to verified. If LON was making those kind of claims then I’d agree. But she’s not. She wasn’t taking part in a debate.

Basically someone (who wasn’t even aware about her earlier postal vote tweet) made a false claim. And the mindless internet mob lent it validity. Nobody else who claimed to have voted (postal or otherwise) would be subjected to the same. If you can’t see that then you’re a fake news type person.

They would if they made a living out of virtue signalling, and attacking others who they believe dare to hold a different opinion. You are acting like you LON is some average Twitter schmuck - she isn't, she has made much out of her being a Yes voter, and there is now reason - flimsy or not, who knows? - that she was lying about how important that was to her.

The Crowman

The Crowman wrote: »

Going on the comments here it was Boards.

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/760012971686891520

does that Darren Geraghty guy comment on every tweet she does....

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

That tweet is from 2016. This thread is 7 months old. Unless there was an previous boards thread.

there was one before, an ex mod who was a bit sensitive about feminist issues ,kept opening and closing the thread

Outlaw Pete

The Crowman wrote: »

Going on the comments here it was Boards.

Yeah, was defo Boards. She mentioned it in some interview at the time also.

At 2mins into the following podcast Rosemary MacCabe brings up Boards and there's an audible gulp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0t6pP7b9OQ

'Projecting insecurities'. Sums you lot up to be fair

Gravelly

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, was defo Boards. She mentioned it in some interview at the time also.

At 2mins into the following podcast Rosemary MacCabe brings up Boards and there's an audible gulp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0t6pP7b9OQ

'Projecting insecurities'. Sums you lot up to be fair

To be fair to LON, she is perfectly normal and balanced, and has no chip on her shoulder at all, when compared to Rosemary.