All's not well in FG.

McMurphy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Siteserv?

Don’t remember that.

But as far as I know nothing has been said or found yet?

Don’t know much about it.

Perhaps this will refresh your memory.

You asked this.

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Why would FG look after foreign vulture funds???

I don’t get it, like what benefit is it for them as a party?

It’s bad press but how are they benefitting?

(The bolded bits being the most pertinent)

And Charlie replied and followed up with this rather excellent question of his own.

charlie14 wrote: »

Who knows.

They did get bad press from the awarding of a mobile phone licence on the actions of the then Minister from the 2011 Moriarty Tribunal
report. A report that may yet put a major dent in State finances from an on-going court case.


Not that the bad press seems to have bothered them too much.

The same individual is involved in another inquiry into the sale of Siteserv..

Perhaps you'll answer it this time around.

Jinglejangle69

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Honestly I clicked on the link but could only read the first 2 paragraphs.

That’s the truth.

Believe it or not.

It’s like that for some stories only. You need register and log in if that happens, which is daily for me! No need to pay.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s like that for some stories only. You need register and log in if that happens, which is daily for me! No need to pay.

Do you actually think it will make any difference after his critique of the Colette Browne article he didn`t even read.


That would be the same Colette Browne article critique he didn`t read that you actually thanked.
But then I suppose him not wishing to hear anything but FG good news stories accounts for that

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

Do you actually think it will make any difference after his critique of the Colette Browne article he didn`t even read.


That would be the same Colette Browne article critique he didn`t read that you actually thanked.
But then I suppose him not wishing to hear anything but FG good news stories accounts for that

Having read Ms Browne’s articles, I am well aware that her opinion is just that. Her opinion. One that I rarely agree with.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Having read Ms Browne’s articles, I am well aware that her opinion is just that. Her opinion. One that I rarely agree with.

Be that as it may, but really a bit ridiculous too thank someones criticism of an article they admitted to not having read.

Jinglejangle69

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Perhaps this will refresh your memory.

You asked this.






(The bolded bits being the most pertinent)

And Charlie replied and followed up with this rather excellent question of his own.



Perhaps you'll answer it this time around.

Huh????

Seriously I never mentioned siteserv at all???

Another poster did??

What in God’s name is going in here???

Edit- I just went back through the posts and Johnny dogs mentioned siteserv first??

More lies and spin.

Jinglejangle69

charlie14 wrote: »

You didn`t bring up Siteserv or you have no interest in anything other than FG good news stories

I didn’t bring up siteserv.!!!!

Jinglejangle69

Pack of lying *****.

Piss off.

It’s a disgrace the lies you both get away with here every day

I wasn’t the one who mentioned siteserv first but your slander and lies go on.

Horrible *****

EDIT- Matt, hope you’re getting great feedback on your FG bot thread.

charlie14

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Huh????

Seriously I never mentioned siteserv at all???

Another poster did??

What in God’s name is going in here???

Edit- I just went back through the posts and Johnny dogs mentioned siteserv first??

More lies and spin.

You really should pay more attention to what is actually said and who said it.
It was not Johnny, it was me in answer to a question you posed here which Johnny re-posted here along with your original post.

It really isn`t that difficult to follow.
Johnny, as indeed was I, were curious if you now had any comment to make on my reply and query of that post now as you originally avoided it.
It`s basically very simple how things work around here. If you ask a question then if it is replied too and a question asked then it is courteous to reply.

Jinglejangle69

charlie14 wrote: »

You really should pay more attention to what is actually said and who said it.
It was not Johnny, it was me in answer to a question you posed here which Johnny re-posted here along with your original post.

It really isn`t that difficult to follow.
Johnny, as indeed was I, were curious if you now had any comment to make on my reply and query of that post now as you originally avoided it.
It`s basically very simple how things work around here. If you ask a question then if it is replied too and a question asked then it is courteous to reply.

So I didn’t mention siteserv first?

About time you admitted it.

Pack of slieveens making things up about posters and Tag teaming each other.

Nothing worst.

Worst bunch of misery I’ve ever seen.

Horrible *****.

charlie14

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Pack of lying *****.

Piss off.

It’s a disgrace the lies you both get away with here every day

I wasn’t the one who mentioned siteserv first but your slander and lies go on.

Horrible *****.

I haven`t seen you showing anything where I have lied , or indeed showing anybody has lied either.

This is a discussion forum, but with you it could as easily be Donald Trump`s Instagram page with your contribution to it.

charlie14

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

So I didn’t mention siteserv first?

About time you admitted it.

Pack of slieveens making things up about posters and Tag teaming each other.

Nothing worst.

Worst bunch of misery I’ve ever seen.

Horrible *****.

Your entitled to your opinion.
For me the worst person to attempt to engage in a discussion is someone who adds nothing other than ranting and raving at anyone who is not in complete and total subservience to their opinion and the sound of their own voice.

hatrickpatrick

The state of this thread over the last few pages

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

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Having read Ms Browne’s articles, I am well aware that her opinion is just that. Her opinion. One that I rarely agree with.

An opinion which is backed up by several reports.....

McMurphy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

So I didn’t mention siteserv first?

About time you admitted it.

Pack of slieveens making things up about posters and Tag teaming each other.

Nothing worst.

Worst bunch of misery I’ve ever seen.

Horrible *****.

Sigh.....

You really need to pay more attention to what is being posted, and stop wishing people posted what you would have liked them to have posted.

Let's start again with a nice step by step recap.

1. Poster A (Charlie) wrote about vulture funds.
   
2. Poster B (Jingle) asked if Charlie thought they (FG) would be benefitting from entertaining vulture funds, admitted it was bad press but again insisted on wanting to know how it was benefitting them.
   
3. Poster A (Charlie) answered "who knows" why they were flirting with the bad press stories, and then went on to mention a lucrative mobile phone license and how when FG were in power they once again awarded the same man a sweet deal acquiring a company (siteserv) and another very lucrative state contract, both of which are now under investigation at considerable cost to the tax payers.
   
4. Poster B runs away and claims amnesia.

This whole "I didn't bring up siteserv first" is childish nonsense to avoid having to remotely go near another bad news story surrounding FG. No one said you mentioned it first, you were asked a question about it, one you didn't answer.

And you've still not answered it mind you, so we will assume you're stumped for an answer.

You've the worst memory ever. Either that or you are just plain old deliberately misrepresenting things.

charlie14

McMurphy wrote: »

Sigh.....

You really need to pay more attention to what is being posted, and stop wishing people posted what you would have liked them to have posted.

Let's start again with a nice step by step recap.

1. Poster A (Charlie) wrote about vulture funds.
   
2. Poster B (Jingle) asked if Charlie thought they (FG) would be benefitting from entertaining vulture funds, admitted it was bad press but again insisted on wanting to know how it was benefitting them.
   
3. Poster A (Charlie) answered "who knows" why they were flirting with the bad press stories, and then went on to mention a lucrative mobile phone license and how when FG were in power they once again awarded the same man a sweet deal acquiring a company (siteserv) and another very lucrative state contract, both of which are now under investigation at considerable cost to the tax payers.
   
4. Poster B runs away and claims amnesia.

This whole "I didn't bring up siteserv first" is childish nonsense to avoid having to remotely go near another bad news story surrounding FG. No one said you mentioned it first, you were asked a question about it, one you didn't answer.

And you've still not answered it mind you, so we will assume you're stumped for an answer.

You've the worst memory ever. Either that or you are just plain old deliberately misrepresenting things.

Straight into the basket chief.

Jinglejangle69

charlie14 wrote: »

No deflection whatsoever.
You brought up Siteserv yourself, but I get where you are coming from alright.
Anything that reflects badly on FG you just do not want to know about.

Once again.

Can we at least accept I didn’t bring up siteserv first???

Someone brought it up in a conversation.

It was not me.

Jinglejangle69

McMurphy wrote: »

Sigh.....

You really need to pay more attention to what is being posted, and stop wishing people posted what you would have liked them to have posted.

Let's start again with a nice step by step recap.

1. Poster A (Charlie) wrote about vulture funds.
   
2. Poster B (Jingle) asked if Charlie thought they (FG) would be benefitting from entertaining vulture funds, admitted it was bad press but again insisted on wanting to know how it was benefitting them.
   
3. Poster A (Charlie) answered "who knows" why they were flirting with the bad press stories, and then went on to mention a lucrative mobile phone license and how when FG were in power they once again awarded the same man a sweet deal acquiring a company (siteserv) and another very lucrative state contract, both of which are now under investigation at considerable cost to the tax payers.
   
4. Poster B runs away and claims amnesia.

This whole "I didn't bring up siteserv first" is childish nonsense to avoid having to remotely go near another bad news story surrounding FG. No one said you mentioned it first, you were asked a question about it, one you didn't answer.

And you've still not answered it mind you, so we will assume you're stumped for an answer.

You've the worst memory ever. Either that or you are just plain old deliberately misrepresenting things.

Listen another negative FG story makes no odds as it’s constant at this stage.

I’m standing by that I didn’t mention siteserv or bring it up first.

After that I don’t care.

That was a lie and that was my argument last night.

Nothing to do with anything else only that accusation.

JeffKenna

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

So I didn’t mention siteserv first?

About time you admitted it.

Pack of slieveens making things up about posters and Tag teaming each other.

Nothing worst.

Worst bunch of misery I’ve ever seen.

Horrible *****.

Obvious attempt to get the thread shutdown.

blanch152

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

There is a little truth in what was said even if you disagree.


https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/colette-browne-the-rich-get-richer-and-the-poor-and-middleclass-stagnate-because-the-system-is-designed-that-way-38773780.html

Someone posted that link on another thread, and I demolished the statistics behind it. Actually, they weren't statistics, just unsubstantiated opinion.

Jinglejangle69

JeffKenna wrote: »

Obvious attempt to get the thread shutdown.

I think I’ll get banned??

I’ve never seen a thread shutdown over comments I made.

Anyway before I get banned I’ll bow out.

And one more thing.

I couldn’t open that indo link but I was accused of lying and people liked it.

That’s the truth.

Didn’t mention siteserv and couldn’t open the link.

Cheers.

McMurphy

There's some serious reading comprehension issues going on in here.

Where did anyone say you "brought it up first" (this is a wear out tbh)

You asked a question relating to vulture funds/how dealing with them would benefit FG.

You got a reply and then were asked why they would then go on to award lucrative state contracts to DOB surrounding siteserv, which was an excellent comparison, and an excellent question.

You never did answer it btw.

Bad press = head in the sand stuff.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

There's some serious reading comprehension issues going on in here.

Where did anyone say you "brought it up first" (this is a wear out tbh)

You asked a question relating to vulture funds/how dealing with them would benefit FG.

You got a reply and then were asked why they would then go on to award lucrative state contracts to DOB surrounding siteserv, which was an excellent comparison, and an excellent question.

You never did answer it btw.

Bad press = head in the sand stuff.

I think that there’s a huge difference between bad press and biased personal opinion.

charlie14

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Once again.

Can we at least accept I didn’t bring up siteserv first???

Someone brought it up in a conversation.

It was not me.

You really do not seemed to have grasped yet, even after reading McMurphy`s post, what this forum is.
It`s a discussion forum for expressing opinions and debating.
You do not even attempt to have conversations.
Anything that is not completely in agreement with your view results in nothing other than tirades of abuse.
Unless you are a pubescent teenager with hormones in disarray there is no excuse for that type of behaviour.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that there’s a huge difference between bad press and biased personal opinion.

If you wish to ignore any and all bad press then what else is it other than biased personal opinion

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

If you wish to ignore any and all bad press then what else is it other than biased personal opinion

As you have said, we are on a discussion board, we are not political representatives. None of us need to pay any attention to bad press, as we are not here to defend anything or anyone.

I pay no attention to where the mob heads in terms of the media or the general mob-following herd on here, except to examine what are the facts behind some of the more deluded ravings. Generally, I find that most of the mob-based opinions are based on sentiment, emotion and anger, but have little relationship to realistic facts.

Keep to the facts and you don't go wrong.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that there’s a huge difference between bad press and biased personal opinion.

Absolutely, but in this case I agree with Jingle.

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Why would FG look after foreign vulture funds???

I don’t get it, like what benefit is it for them as a party?

It’s bad press but how are they benefitting?

It's his personal opinion that it was bad press, are you suggesting he's biased lol?

And I happen to share that opinion with him.

Think before you post please.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

As you have said, we are on a discussion board, we are not political representatives. None of us need to pay any attention to bad press, as we are not here to defend anything or anyone..

You may be confused.

The discussion is not about fake news. It is about uncomfortable facts that some posters do their utmost to avoid.
Something you yourself have often attempted to do.

Plumbthedepths

blanch152 wrote: »

Someone posted that link on another thread, and I demolished the statistics behind it. Actually, they weren't statistics, just unsubstantiated opinion.

Sure go ahead and demolish the stats again here chief.......Her piece carried links to two different reports which backed up her opinion. Funny though Collette used the same report findings that MA was happy to spam over several threads which you yourself 'thanked'.lol.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Of all the comments on this page designed purely to stir, and there are a few, this is the most provocative.

Do you see the irony in you comment here? Probably not.

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Siteserv?

Don’t remember that.

But as far as I know nothing has been said or found yet?

Don’t know much about it.

Department of Finance, allegedly without Noonan knowing, sold Sitserv to Denis O'Brien at a discount in the millions and the state then gave the water metering contract to Denis' new company before the ink had dried, some suggest before the ink was used. So it's all under investigation.
We do know Denis O'Brien was sold the company at a discount and then given the metering contract. With his and FG's record, it warrants an investigation. Especially with Noonan in the mix.