Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Mortelaro

McMurphy wrote: »

What or who is this online supporter's group Colonel? I mean, even a cursory glance on Facebook gives numerous Sinn Fein referenced groups, seen one earlier called " Friends of Sinn Fein - Canada"

Besides, "the big bad media" was certainly no shrinking violet regarding the shinners in the run up to the election, I don't think they owe them too many favours.

What was this rule though?

Lots of groups (from all sides of the political spectrum) on the net are full of dicks, doxing goes on and what not, I'm interested in hearing more about the nature of this rule change, and why you think the group adhering to the shinners request is conspiracy theory territory, some things are just common sense. The don't be a dick rule on boards for example.

I've been adhering to the social distancing measures and the non essential travel advice Leo and Simon dished out, am I now a FG member?

Twilight zone music.

I must admit,that's an amusing post
Its telling me you're a bit of craic even if I couldn't agree less with a lot of what you usually say
The SBP article linked refers to it being a private page that issued the instructions
To be fair,if Sinn Féin supporters here start posting mostly twitter links... rather than newspaper links,we(as in the royal we if that phrase isnt offensive to shinnerists:D ) might be excused for pointing to the SBP article

Jamie2k9

Besides, "the big bad media" was certainly no shrinking violet regarding the shinners in the run up to the election, I don't think they owe them too many favours.

I think SF got a very favourable election from the media compared to past elections. Policies were not particularly well scrutinised (all parties) and FG got a hammering and some of that was self inflicted.

The media attention after the election was a big own goal, up the ra and SF running there Clare candidate didn't help...

How nobody has called out the crap from Mary Loo, all in SF think buzz works like families and workers but most of there policies don't support average families or workers at all.

McMurphy

Mortelaro wrote: »

I must admit,that's an amusing post
Its telling me you're a bit of craic even if I couldn't agree less with a lot of what you usually say
The SBP article linked refers to it being a private page that issued the instructions
To be fair,if Sinn Féin supporters here start posting mostly twitter links... rather than newspaper links,we(as in the royal we if that phrase isnt offensive to shinnerists:D ) might be excused for pointing to the SBP article

You didn't read what colonel claptrap actually posted did you?

The insinuation is quite clearly that the shinners are somehow directing the private page, while simultaneously disassociating themselves from it. Or, that Sinn Fein issued the instructions to the Facebook group, it's literally in the post I quoted.

Colonel Claptrap wrote:

SF claimed it had nothing to do with the online group yet the group immediately changed one of it's rules when told to do so by SF HQ.

So Sinn Fein with close to 250k subscribers/fans/likes or whatever you would like to call them are now also discreetly directing another smaller unofficial Sinn Fein group with 16k subscribers/fans/likes???

Fair enough I haven't read the article as it's behind a paywall, but as previously discussed, does anyone know what this specific rule was?

We can tell from the linked to article just before the paywall preventing non subscribers reading any further says the following.

Rule number four, if you see something in the mainstream media.......

Have they removed this, and that's the link that undoubtedly points to the Shinners apparently covertly operating a private Facebook group alongside the much more popular mainstream one?

Did Sinn Fein publicly suggest they stop acting the dick and drop the media linking, and the group did so, is this the piece of the puzzle we're missing?

What a cunning plan.

Can I have some of the pot you lot are presumably toking on?

We are now in the twilight zone.

Mortelaro

McMurphy wrote: »

You didn't read what colonel claptrap actually posted did you?

huh

What a cunning plan.

We are now in the twilight zone.

I'm afraid you're not
The article is very clear,16000 shinners must not link to mainstream media for fear of funding mainstream media

If you think most people outside that bubble would believe the mother ship has no influence on a group like that,you're deluded

McMurphy

Mortelaro wrote: »

huh



I'm afraid you're not

Well firstly, I like how you very selectively quoted me, as already explained what you thought Colonel Claptrap was posting didnt match up with your own posting, one implied the unofficial fb group changed a rule afterr SF told them to do it, and that somehow obviously means that despite them claiming they have nothing to do with the group obviously can't be true.

You said.

The SBP article linked refers to it being a private page that issued the instructions

which has nothing to do with claptraps suggestion that they only did so when told to do it by SF HQ meaning proof they are one in the same, is that it?

Colonel Claptrap wrote:

SF claimed it had nothing to do with the online group yet the group immediately changed one of it's rules when told to do so by SF HQ.

Which version is it?

The article is very clear,16000 shinners must not link to mainstream media for fear of funding mainstream media

Well for those of us who don't subscribe, it's not clear at all, I said in my post (which you selectively quoted) that it specifically mentions rule no 4, but looking at the Facebook page in question, rule no 4 is about using profanities, nothing at all about linking to mainstream media.

Did SF ask them to remove this rule and they did so, replacing it with the bad language one?

If you think most people outside that bubble would believe the mother ship has no influence on a group like that,you're deluded

Do I think the SF party may be influential to an unofficial SF supporters group on Facebook? Is this a serious question?

Influential isn't proof that the shinners are covertly operating the unofficial SF group as per the original insinuation.

Who was making strawman allegations earlier in the thread?

Shefwedfan

Check over boards/facebook/twitter etc and it is clear SF and supporters have a clear agenda. Its the same waffle that is spouted out here. FF release a video and all the comments underneath are from SF supporters. All the same "topics" as discussed on here.

Normally we have the Apple money fired in at least once, I did respond once and more or less similar to here, once the person knew they hadn't a clue in was name-calling.

Trying to say that threads like this, facebook, twitter all have the exact same topics, all the exact same limited knowledge on the facts, all use the same derogatory names from other politicians is just pure chance is bulls**t.

It's clearly a campaign by SF, its fairly easy to see why, just look at Cambridge Analytica and the success they had, of course the one they will never admit to is Brexit when it was clearly hired to help with the campaign. The thing people forget is Cambridge was shut down and thought it was the end of it but in reality loads of companies still doing the exact same, one of the biggest whistleblower who was ex Cambridge had his own company up and running so he just killed the competition.

You can say it "tinfoil hat" blah blah blah. But the chances of the likes of all these people having the same view point exactly to the same details are .......well lets just say very very very slim

Mortelaro

McMurphy wrote: »

Well firstly, I like how you very selectively quoted me, as already explained what you thought Colonel Claptrap was posting didnt match up with your own posting, one implied the unofficial fb group changed a rule afterr SF told them to do it, and that somehow obviously means that despite them claiming they have nothing to do with the group obviously can't be true.

You said. which has nothing to do with claptraps suggestion that they only did so when told to do it by SF HQ meaning proof they are one in the same, is that it?



Which version is it?

Well for those of us who don't subscribe, it's not clear at all, I said in my post (which you selectively quoted) that it specifically mentions rule no 4, but looking at the Facebook page in question, rule no 4 is about using profanities, nothing at all about linking to mainstream media.

Did SF ask them to remove this rule and they did so, replacing it with the bad language one?



Do I think the SF party may be influential to an unofficial SF supporters group on Facebook? Is this a serious question?

Influential isn't proof that the shinners are covertly operating the FG group as per the original insinuation.

Who was making strawman allegations earlier in the thread?

Well it is a private page that issued the instructions
Secondly I didn't say Sf ,that was the colonel
Thirdly above you suggest you are a member of the face book group in question because you are able to clarify their 'rule 4' (which you break a lot it seems to me)
Fourthly in your previous post,you said you couldn't find this online Facebook group,yet now you are able to clarify its ''rule 4''
Are you a member, always a member or couldn't find it,which is it ?

Nothing strawman about my posts,all I did was parse the SBP article
As I said I'm not the Colonel, I'm allowed parse,comment and discuss on a discussion forum
It's also a perfectly reasonable point to expect that the mother ship has the ultimate influence on the group whether arms length or not

McMurphy

Mortelaro wrote: »

Well it is a private page that issued the instructions
Secondly I didn't say Sf ,that was the colonel
Thirdly above you suggest you are a member of the face book group in question because you are able to clarify their 'rule 4' (which you break a lot it seems to me)
Fourthly in your previous post,you said you couldn't find this online Facebook group,yet now you are able to clarify its ''rule 4''
Are you a member, always a member or couldn't find it,which is it ?

Nothing strawman about my posts,all I did was parse the SBP article
As I said I'm not the Colonel, I'm allowed parse,comment and discuss on a discussion forum
It's also a perfectly reasonable point to expect that the mother ship has the ultimate influence on the group whether arms length or not

I did?

Anyone with a Facebook account, or access to the internet can view "the rules" :pac:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/497532963671113/?ref=share







And no, I'm not a member/fan/subscriber to it. I'm just able to work the internet.

Political groups on Facebook are little more than an echo chamber, full of idiots, be they FG,SF or anyone else.

The only reason I use Facebook at all is to keep in contact with e friends and ex colleagues from Australia and Saudi, and telegram and WhatsApp are slowly making even that redundant.

Fighting too many little fires at once Morty.

Mortelaro

McMurphy wrote: »

I did?

Anyone with a Facebook account, or access to the internet can view "the rules" :pac:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/497532963671113/?ref=share







And no, I'm not a member/fan/subscriber to it.

That's interesting, So the SBP is wrong it's not private? Or is that the main SF facebook page you're showing us?

The SBP is referring to a private Facebook page's instructions and rules not the 'official' page
So are you showing us the page referred to by the SBP or not
Please clarify, I won't be clicking it

McMurphy

Mortelaro wrote: »

That's interesting, So the SBP is wrong it's not private? Or is that the main SF facebook page you're showing us?

The SBP is referring to a private Facebook page's instructions and rules not the 'official' page
So are you showing us the page referred to by the SBP or not
Please clarify, I won't be clicking it

It's right there in the screenshot, it's a private page anyone can find - the privacy aspect (I assume) refers to the ability to either post to, or read the contents within.

The rules are clearly laid out for people to read and promise to abide to before asking to join, again an assumption as I'm not exactly au fait with private FB groups for the aforementioned reasons.

Suggesting the shinners are covertly operating it however actually is tinfoil hat stuff.

Mortelaro

McMurphy wrote: »

It's right there in the screenshot, it's a private page anyone can find - the privacy aspect (I assume) refers to the ability to either post to, or read the contents within.

The rules are clearly laid out for people to read and promise to abide to before asking to join, again an assumption as I'm not exactly au fait with private FB groups for the aforementioned reasons.

Suggesting the shinners are covertly operating it however actually is tinfoil hat stuff.

Ah I'd need my glasses to see that small
So you can't read posts unless you are a member
Those are the rules then for posting on the page,presumably for to be courteous to other fans
It's not the rules for organised shilling on other sites which obviously is hidden to non members ?

How do you know this is the site the SBP refers to btw?
I find your dismissal of mothership involvement improbable

McMurphy

Mortelaro wrote: »

Ah I'd need my glasses to see that small
So you can't read posts unless you are a member
Those are the rules then for posting on the page,presumably for to be courteous to other fans
It's not the rules for organised shilling on other sites which obviously is hidden to non members ?

Asks people to be courteous to each other - fans or otherwise, also asks trolls shills and spammers to stay away.

How do you know this is the site the SBP refers to btw?

16k number is a strong indicator.

I find your dismissal of mothership involvement improbable

I don't really care.

I find the insinuation they are operating it covertly conspiracy theory territory.

Mortelaro

McMurphy wrote: »

I don't really care.

Ah like most people here,I dont give a sho1te either

Edgware

Mortelaro wrote: »

Ah like most people here,I dont give a sho1te either

Am I bothered?

McMurphy

Mortelaro wrote: »

Ah like most people here,I dont give a sho1te either

Mind your language, no profanities plz.

Mortelaro

McMurphy wrote: »

Mind your language, no profanities plz.

Well at least I have the courtesy not to direct them at posters,unlike you

blanch152

Another insight into how a country would be run by Sinn Fein:

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0428/1135264-covid19-coronavirus-border/

"However, proper investigation of this specific virus pattern is a problem, according to Dr Scally, because in Northern Ireland the available data is "quite poor" and testing for Covid-19 is not as widespread as in the Republic. "

nigeldaniel

I am not at all impressed with SF milking covid19 for political gain this week. Its arrogant and wholly unpleasant behavior.

all about the mane

nigeldaniel wrote: »

I am not at all impressed with SF milking covid19 for political gain this week. Its arrogant and wholly unpleasant behavior.

Sure don’t we have shinners on here hoping for more deaths. Pathetic.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

Another insight into how a country would be run by Sinn Fein:

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0428/1135264-covid19-coronavirus-border/

"However, proper investigation of this specific virus pattern is a problem, according to Dr Scally, because in Northern Ireland the available data is "quite poor" and testing for Covid-19 is not as widespread as in the Republic. "

eh ... are you getting the conservatives and SF mixed up?

walshb

Why does SF seem to atrract so many hostile, aggressive in your face loutish abrasive supporters to their party? And chav like? Ignorant and aggressively so...

I used to admire them, but a lot of their supporters are just downright rough!

So many seem so uncouth, undignified and lacking general gentleness and human kindness...They’d see harm done to you and not give a fook..

It’s so prevalent and obvious, particularly online..

Is it that SF are, and have been actively pursuing this fan base?

McMurphy

all about the mane wrote: »

Sure don’t we have shinners on here hoping for more deaths. Pathetic.

Any chance you might link to them doing this so I could simultaneously determine you're not just spouting bollocks (again) and vent my disgust at them should it be true?


Should I count to a million while I wait?

olestoepoke

I'd say Louise o'Reilly knows what the 19 in Covid-19 means though in fairness.

mariaalice

walshb wrote: »

Why does SF seem to attract so many hostiles, aggressive in your face loutish abrasive supporters to their party? And chav like? Ignorant and aggressively so...

I used to admire them, but a lot of their supporters are just downright rough!

So many seem so uncouth, undignified snd lacking general gentleness and human kindness...They’d see harm done to you and not give a fook...

It’s so prevalent and obvious, particularly online...

Is it that SF is, and has been actively pursuing this fan base?

That's a little bit unfair, while they do have supporters like that and they are the more vocal ones especially online. I don't think they court them as such but don't admonish them either, but you would have to ask how come so many felt excluded by the political system in the first place.


It is an interesting question as to why the more chip on the shoulder aggressive political supporters are a large part of the SF base.

mariaalice

olestoepoke wrote: »

I'd say Louise o'Reilly knows what the 19 in Covid-19 means though in fairness.

Do not like her at all she come across as quite nasty sometimes.

blanch152

maccored wrote: »

eh ... are you getting the conservatives and SF mixed up?

Eh, no......last I checked Sinn Fein were in power in the North.

Unless that is all a sham?

walshb

mariaalice wrote: »

That's a little bit unfair, while they do have supporters like that and they are the more vocal ones especially online. I don't think they court them as such but don't admonish them either, but you would have to ask how come so many felt excluded by the political system in the first place.


It is an interesting question as to why the more chip on the shoulder aggressive political supporters are a large part of the SF base.

I don’t think it is unfair at all, and SFs way of doing things seems to be either encouraging it or playing up to it.

They just always seem to come across as overly combative, lacking nuance and subtlety. Aggressive politics seems to be their only way.

I really think a gentler and more diplomatic and accommodating stance would see them with even more supporters, and more desirable ones..

minikin

SF are just like the Brexit party, as soon as they get a sniff of having to fulfil their stated objectives (potential to get some power) they fall apart like a cheap balaclava.

Edgware

mariaalice wrote: »

That's a little bit unfair, while they do have supporters like that and they are the more vocal ones especially online. I don't think they court them as such but don't admonish them either, but you would have to ask how come so many felt excluded by the political system in the first place.


It is an interesting question as to why the more chip on the shoulder aggressive political supporters are a large part of the SF base.

A lot of them are the local dirtbirds who think prancing around with an Easter Lily will give them a hardman image. They'd piss in their pants if someone fired a water pistol at them and would give a better shot at naming the Liverpool team than the 1916 Proclamation signatories.

TheCitizen

minikin wrote: »

SF are just like the Brexit party, as soon as they get a sniff of having to fulfil their stated objectives (potential to get some power) they fall apart like a cheap balaclava.

The self preservation society otherwise known as FFG are strong in this thread.