What washing powder does Una Mulally use?

alan partridge aha

She could do with a good ride

meeeeh

Gravelly wrote: »

[*]Immigrants are Great and are Much Better than Horrible White People

I looked through good few articles and still didn't find that one. Any specific links?

Gravelly

meeeeh wrote: »

I looked through good few articles and still didn't find that one. Any specific links?

Do your own donkey work.

Goodshape

Chewbacca wrote: »

She is a big bag of gee's.

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

She's a c unt

alan partridge aha wrote: »

She could do with a good ride

Gosh, I wonder why anyone would possibly think it's important to keep talking about women's rights and equality. That c unting gee-bag should shut up and get a ride and stop harping on about things.

Right lads?

Goodshape

Gravelly wrote: »

Do your own donkey work.

It's your work to do. You made the accusation.

Gravelly

Goodshape wrote: »

It's your work to do. You made the accusation.

It's not an accusation, it's a simple statement of fact. See link I included in original post.

Grayson

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Do you do anything else in this life other than be the guardian of all things left of centre on boards.ie?
Do you have time to eat, drink, sleep, shop?

yep. I'm eating right now. I do work in bursts. About 30 minutes intense activity and then 5 minutes of distraction.

If you were that obsessed with my posting times you'd see that I don't post much in the evenings or weekends. I have better things to do than post here.

Plus, I've pointed it out before, I tend to just point out bullsh1t arguments. It's not so much that I advocate certain positions, I just really, really hate lazy stupid opinions/arguments that make no sense.

Anyways, you got anything to add to the thread?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Goodshape wrote: »

Gosh, I wonder why anyone would possibly think it's important to keep talking about women's rights and equality. That c unting gee-bag should shut up and get a ride and stop harping on about things.

Right lads?

As the person who started this thread, I agree with you. I'm disappointed that some posters have tried to drag it down that route.

Will I Am Not

Grayson wrote: »

yep. I'm eating right now. I do work in bursts. About 30 minutes intense activity and then 5 minutes of distraction.

If you were that obsessed with my posting times you'd see that I don't post much in the evenings or weekends. I have better things to do than post here.

Plus, I've pointed it out before, I tend to just point out bullsh1t arguments. It's not so much that I advocate certain positions, I just really, really hate lazy stupid opinions/arguments that make no sense.

Anyways, you got anything to add to the thread?

Yeah. Una Mullaly is a twat.

pjohnson

Very dissapointed thread title hasnt changed yet.

DickSwiveller

She's an insufferable blowhard with a grating voice.

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly

The Irish Times is getting worse all the time, some days I think if world war three was breaking out today , their only worry would be what would be the impact on property prices in Dublin. It is hardly a newspaper, it is a property magazine, with the addition of middle class people sharing their opinions about designer handbags and real estate prices. The only ever decent articles in there are republished ones out of the Financial Times

Goodshape

Gravelly wrote: »

It's not an accusation, it's a simple statement of fact. See link I included in original post.

Facts require proof. You made the simple statement, you provide the simple proof.

I looked at your link and I think you're seeing what you want to see there. I found very little to back up your accusations.

CrankyHaus

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly wrote: »

The Irish Times is getting worse all the time, some days I think if world war three was breaking out today , their only worry would be what would be the impact on property prices in Dublin. It is hardly a newspaper, it is a property magazine, with the addition of middle class people sharing their opinions about designer handbags and real estate prices. The only ever decent articles in there are republished ones out of the Financial Times

Yes the paper's dependance on its property supplement seems to have fatally compromised it. The liberal-conservative dichotomy it presents is just a smoke-screen to disguise the fact that it's an establishment comic pushing the interests of property.

Grayson

Goodshape wrote: »

Facts require proof. You made the simple statement, you provide the simple proof.

I looked at your link and I think you're seeing what you want to see there. I found very little to back up your accusations.

Don't bother. They're not going to provide any proof. Half of this thread so far is people asking for posters to back up what they're saying and no-one has.

Gravelly

Goodshape wrote: »

Facts require proof. You made the simple statement, you provide the simple proof.

I looked at your link and I think you're seeing what you want to see there. I found very little to back up your accusations.

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Grayson

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Yes the paper's dependance on its property supplement seems to have fatally compromised it. The liberal-conservative dichotomy it presents is just a smoke-screen to disguise the fact that it's an establishment comic pushing the interests of property.

You mean on a Thursday? Or do you mean commercial property on a Wednesday? Property supplements are there only two days a week.

The Irish Times isn't great. Like most Irish news sources it relies far too much on copy journalism. They simply don't have the resources, especially for international news.

They do better in political and court reporting. And their opinion pages are Ok. I say ok, because there is some rubbish but they do have differing opinions, however it's still far better than the Indo.

Edit: and they still have the best crossword of any Irish paper.

meeeeh

Gravelly wrote: »

It's not an accusation, it's a simple statement of fact. See link I included in original post.

Ehm no not good enough. Unless your ego is so blown up that you think something is a fact just because you said so.

Goodshape

Goodshape wrote: »

Gosh, I wonder why anyone would possibly think it's important to keep talking about women's rights and equality. That c unting gee-bag should shut up and get a ride and stop harping on about things.

Right lads?

In fairness it's not uncommon (to say the least) to call a guy on the internet a virgin who lives in his mother's basement etc. But yes I know, it's different & worse when directed at women.

Somedaythefire

meeeeh wrote: »

Ehm no not good enough. Unless your ego is so blown up that you think something is a fact just because you said so.

Funny, that's what they accuse Mulally of being like.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Grayson wrote: »

Don't bother. They're not going to provide any proof. Half of this thread so far is people asking for posters to back up what they're saying and no-one has.

For me it's just a general tone and set of assumptions in her articles that grate. For instance, at the weekend she was more or less saying that now we have abortion sorted, the next thing we must do is get that ridiculous bit out of the Constitution about no woman being forced, for economic reasons, to work outside the home.

To Una that's just nonsense and putting women in their place. To many people it is something to aspire to, but needs rewording to reflect the fact that nowadays it is also acceptable for a father to be the stay at home parent.

But in essence, there are many couples who find it stressful and draining to have to leave young children in crèches or with childminders, face long commutes, rush through dinner and bed time etc. and who would much rather if one parent could stay at home and look after the children themself. It is not something that would suit everyone, and every parent should have the right to work. But there are many parents (and let's be honest the majority are women) who really resent having to leave their children during the day to do a job they find boring or unrewarding, or who have so little left after the crèche fees are paid that they're working for buttons.
There are also lots of newer communities that are being drained of any kind of life because all of the parents are out working all day, and all of the children are with childminders.

We should be working towards some sort of balance of rights, and societal benefit. Not just blindly following one route.

meeeeh

Grayson wrote: »

You mean on a Thursday? Or do you mean commercial property on a Wednesday? Property supplements are there only two days a week.

While I agree with most of your post I think property articles started popping up a lot more often than just twice a week. If you look into their property section three houses on the market were added today, there is an opinion piece about buying a house added yesterday and advice column today. There is also stuff published on Saturday. Property must be a decent revenue generator for them because it is a lot more prevalent, a bit too prevalent.

Vladimir Poontang

Goodshape wrote: »

Gosh, I wonder why anyone would possibly think it's important to keep talking about women's rights and equality. That c unting gee-bag should shut up and get a ride and stop harping on about things.

Right lads?

Right.

Hector Savage

Has anyone ever seen Una Mullaly and Louise O Neill in the same room ?

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly wrote: »

The Irish Times is getting worse all the time, some days I think if world war three was breaking out today , their only worry would be what would be the impact on property prices in Dublin. It is hardly a newspaper, it is a property magazine, with the addition of middle class people sharing their opinions about designer handbags and real estate prices. The only ever decent articles in there are republished ones out of the Financial Times

Yeah i gave up on it when they started charging and my free articles allowance goes on property stuff out of curiosity.
So i haven't read the columnists mentioned here

meeeeh

Reagan Many Acorn wrote: »

For me it's just a general tone and set of assumptions in her articles that grate. For instance, at the weekend she was more or less saying that now we have abortion sorted, the next thing we must do is get that ridiculous bit out of the Constitution about no woman being forced, for economic reasons, to work outside the home.

To Una that's just nonsense and putting women in their place. To many people it is something to aspire to, but needs rewording to reflect the fact that nowadays it is also acceptable for a father to be the stay at home parent.

But in essence, there are many couples who find it stressful and draining to have to leave young children in crèches or with childminders, face long commutes, rush through dinner and bed time etc. and who would much rather if one parent could stay at home and look after the children themself. It is not something that would suit everyone, and every parent should have the right to work. But there are many parents (and let's be honest the majority are women) who really resent having to leave their children during the day to do a job they find boring or unrewarding, or who have so little left after the crèche fees are paid that they're working for buttons.
There are also lots of newer communities that are being drained of any kind of life because all of the parents are out working all day, and all of the children are with childminders.

We should be working towards some sort of balance of rights, and societal benefit. Not just blindly following one route.

The article is in constitution and it did not stop all this happening. That article and the blasphemy one are archaic and a bit pointless. Constitution needs to be fit for purpose not some irrelevant historical document.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

meeeeh wrote: »

The article is in constitution and it did not stop all this happening. That article and the blasphemy one are archaic and a bit pointless. Constitution needs to be fit for purpose not some irrelevant historical document.

That wasn't my point. She was poo pooing the very idea that society should aspire to create conditions where a mother would be helped to stay at home and look after her children if she so wished. To her that was demeaning and belittling women - to many mothers it would be a wonderful thing.

CrankyHaus

Grayson wrote: »

You mean on a Thursday? Or do you mean commercial property on a Wednesday? Property supplements are there only two days a week.

The Irish Times isn't great. Like most Irish news sources it relies far too much on copy journalism. They simply don't have the resources, especially for international news.

They do better in political and court reporting. And their opinion pages are Ok. I say ok, because there is some rubbish but they do have differing opinions, however it's still far better than the Indo.

Edit: and they still have the best crossword of any Irish paper.

I haven't tried the other paper's crosswords so I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt on that last one. I'm not a big fan of crosaire though.

I mean that the paper is beholden to the interests of property, in part because of its vested interest in the money it makes off its property supplements. This stymies its ability to comment on matters of national importance, like whether volatile property bubbles are a good economic strategy.

Resources affect all papers. As I said the IT has focused on views above news for a long time and is a worse paper for it. I think the Business Post and even the Irish parts of the Sunday Times do far better investigative reporting. I think it's closeness to the establishment makes it slow to pursue some stories. On balance I don't find it worth buying. Even though it has some excellent sections (business and technology) and journalists it seems to care little for them.

Tell me how

Una Mulally is not too dissimilar to Fintan O'Toole. Both write for the same paper. Both could be described as very liberal.
This morning Fintan is suggesting that Amhrán na bhFiann is no longer suitable for the Ireland of today and should be changed.

Why does Una get a thread and Fintan doesn't?*


* For anyone who wants to tell me to go start a thread on Fintan if I want one, I don't. I'm curious on how they are similar yet viewed somewhat differently.

Gravelly

meeeeh wrote: »

Ehm no not good enough. Unless your ego is so blown up that you think something is a fact just because you said so.

I do, thanks.

Vladimir Poontang

Fintan the Tool

PARlance

PARlance wrote: »

Me first, please.

Una: Does she drive you Doolally?

Una, Dos, Tres Annoying?

Com'on mods...

RobertKK

Una Mullally, I think she wants to appear as a strong woman, but she is a constant moaner which is not how I view a strong woman.
A strong woman is someone like Taylor Swift, she was having photos taken with fans and one man stuck his hand right up the back of her skirt and touched her...before any of the #MeToo, she sued him for $1 to prove her point that he was guilty. She won her case, none of the drama of all the women who allowed men abuse them and did nothing and caused other women to get abused...
I have no time for Una or the paper she writes for which is a campaigning newspaper a lot of the time.

BandMember

Goodshape wrote: »

Gosh, I wonder why anyone would possibly think it's important to keep talking about women's rights and equality. That c unting gee-bag should shut up and get a ride and stop harping on about things.

Right lads?

Her gender has nothing to do with it - there's plenty of males who could be (and are) called the same thing.


I'll save you the bother of asking for one example, and give you double that: Chris Donoghue and George Hook.


That's just for starters. So, you can park that sidetracking irrelevant distraction tactic.



Classic "liberal" trick though, when someone says something that they don't agree with (i.e. in this case they don't like Una Mulally's columns) and they can't come back with any facts or arguments to refute the original argument, they try to divert it down another road (i.e. people don't like her or her columns because she is a woman). It's pathetic really.

Will I Am Not

BandMember wrote: »

Her gender has nothing to do with it - there's plenty of males who could be (and are) called the same thing.


I'll save you the bother of asking for one example, and give you double that: Chris Donoghue and George Hook.


That's just for starters. So, you can park that sidetracking irrelevant distraction tactic.



Classic "liberal" trick though, when someone says something that they don't agree with (i.e. in this case they don't like Una Mulally's columns) and they can't come back with any facts or arguments to refute the original argument, they try to divert it down another road (i.e. people don't like her or her columns because she is a woman). It's pathetic really.

I don’t like her because she’s a geebag. I love women in general... I even married one.

jon1981

Can we add Roe McDermott to this hate campaign?

"Toxic masculinity" - what the actual....

Goodshape

BandMember wrote: »

Her gender has nothing to do with it - there's plenty of males who could be (and are) called the same thing.


I'll save you the bother of asking for one example, and give you double that: Chris Donoghue and George Hook.

Those are names, not examples of similar abuse.

razorblunt

meeeeh wrote: »

No she does not.

Insert name of the bin lorry she does write for then.

Goodshape

BandMember wrote: »

Her gender has nothing to do with it - there's plenty of males who could be (and are) called the same thing.


I'll save you the bother of asking for one example, and give you double that: Chris Donoghue and George Hook.

I searched Google for a mention of Chris Donoghue on boards.ie. Found this 4 year old thread. Nobody calling him a c*nt or a geebag, or suggesting he needs a shag, or anything like it.

Worst he got is a few comments about his youthful appearance. As many people saying "good for him" as there are stating any dislike for the guy.

BandMember

Goodshape wrote: »

Those are names, not examples of similar abuse.

Wow. Are you serious?? Speechless at how you can't deal with or accept someone refuting your point.

Both of those individuals have been the recipients of abuse here in the past. A quick search will confirm that. However, you might not want to do that though as it will blow your paper thin non-existent argument out of the water.

_Dara_

I have little experience of her, but what I have is both positive and negative.

A glance at her Twitter shows someone who is often looking to cast women as victims - negative

I’ve read a few articles by her that were nothing to do with feminism and they were thoughtful and well-written - positive

Goodshape

BandMember wrote: »

Wow. Are you serious?? Speechless at how you can't deal with or accept someone refuting your point.

Do you really think listing names with zero context is enough to backup your argument?

Really?

super_furry

Think she’s a good writer myself and while I wouldn’t always agree with her columns, there’s usually the crux of a decent point in there. She was really well spoken anytime I heard her during the abortion referendum and anyone who can cause John Walters to have a breakdown just by their proximity to him is alright by me.

More importantly though, is this the beginning of the end of After Hour’s weird obsession with Louise O’Neill?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

_Dara_ wrote: »

I have little experience of her, but what I have is both positive and negative.

A glance at her Twitter shows someone who is often looking to cast women as victims - negative

I’ve read a few articles by her that were nothing to do with feminism and they were thoughtful and well-written - positive

Yes, there is no doubt that she is a good writer, capable of writing incisive and interesting articles. Presumably why she got the job with the Irish Times in the first place. But she seems to be increasingly using her position to dictate to everyone how society should be run, without any nod to the fact that her circumstances and aspirations might not be the same as everyone else's. She really seems to have become a 'my way or the high way' character.

BandMember

Goodshape wrote: »

Do you really think listing names with zero context is enough to backup your argument?

Really?

That's very nice and very selective editing of my post there!

If you had quoted the full post, or bothered to read it, you would have seen that I wrote that both of those individuals have been the recipients of similar criticism here in the past because of their opinions and/or what they said. There was no sexism or gender issue in those posts/threads.

So, do you want to deal with the original point of this thread or continue trying to distract from it by making non-existent irrelevant arguments?

Signore Fancy Pants

This post has been deleted.

Goodshape

BandMember wrote: »

If you had quoted the full post, or bothered to read it, you would have seen that I wrote that both of those individuals have been the recipients of similar criticism here in the past because of their opinions and/or what they said. There was no sexism or gender issue in those posts/threads.

There was no sexism or gender issue with what posts/threads?

In the posts calling una a c*unt and a geebag? Suggesting she needs a shag? I disagree. That's why I brought it up.

In the threads about Donoghue and Hook? Well, I've seen one and I agree that there wasn't. I haven't seen any others because you've not provided anything to back up your point.

So, do you want to deal with the original point of this thread or continue trying to distract from it by making non-existent irrelevant arguments?

I wasn't the one calling a journalist a c*unt and a geebag. Or making unverifiable claims about supposed similar abuse elsewhere.

super_furry

Mutant z wrote: »

Of course when there was actual sexual abuse of girls in Rotherham and Telford she was no where to be seen why doesnt she make herself useful and tweet about that or is the religion of peace out of bounds for self proclaimed feminists like Una Mulally.

I honestly worry for people like you, so obsessed and blinded by their hatred of islam that it crops up everywhere?

Una Mulally writes about Irish feminist issues? YEAH WELL WHY ISN'T SHE WRITING ABOUT THE MUSLAMICS IN ROTHERHAM?

Yer Da sells Avon

super_furry wrote: »

More importantly though, is this the beginning of the end of After Hour’s weird obsession with Louise O’Neill?

You underestimate the tenacity of the men's rights weirdos of Boards.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Mods - Can you please change my thread title back to the original?

Thanks