The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I have Facebook's own comments to back up my claim, saying at least 1 in 20 profiles on their website are fake. Pretty clear cut and straight from the horses mouth.

Feel free to ignore that though and claim I have "nothing to back it up". Trumpian logic on show. I don't even know what you have to gain from defending facebook here.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

Not FB making claims here though, it's you who said this and failed to back it up when asked:

Really? If you read the comments on facebook on any article at all you will notice that a large chunk of the comments are coming from anonymous accounts.

Can you even outline your method of determing these are anonymous accounts?

All eyes on how you manage that one.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not FB making claims here though, it's you who said this and failed to back it up when asked:



Can you even outline your method of determing these are anonymous accounts?

All eyes on how you manage that one.

Francis, you are moving goalposts here. I will pander it once and then leave you at it.

Facebook themselves claim they have an issue with fake accounts, so it absolutely beats me why you are taking the opposite side here. Literally makes no sense Francis.

I would see a profile with either no profile picture (or else a profile picture of a slogan rather than any actual image), combined with either a fully blank or fully private profile as being fake, or at least fully anonymous to allow them to say whatever they want. If you want to see any specific examples yourself, you will find plenty of them on any article relating to Covid-19.

Can't believe I pandered to that request, but there you go.

If you are going to continue to claim Facebook doesnt have any fake account issue, then you will need to find someone else to debate that with. I'm out.

rdwight

Bowie wrote: »

The difference being our country was divided without our consent and the Irish in the occupied portion of the Irish province of ulster being treated as less than second class in the faux democracy that followed.
We are more akin to post war Germany.

*mod snip Less of the personal nonsense*


Bowie, on the other hand, has entered a late contender for worst historical analogy of the year award.

RandomViewer

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I have Facebook's own comments to back up my claim, saying at least 1 in 20 profiles on their website are fake. Pretty clear cut and straight from the horses mouth.

Feel free to ignore that though and claim I have "nothing to back it up". Trumpian logic on show. I don't even know what you have to gain from defending facebook here.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

It's much higher
https://www.statista.com/chart/20685/duplicate-and-false-facebook-accounts/

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Francis, you are moving goalposts here. I will pander it once and then leave you at it.

Facebook themselves claim they have an issue with fake accounts, so it absolutely beats me why you are taking the opposite side here. Literally makes no sense Francis.

I would see a profile with either no profile picture (or else a profile picture of a slogan rather than any actual image), combined with either a fully blank or fully private profile as being fake, or at least fully anonymous to allow them to say whatever they want. If you want to see any specific examples yourself, you will find plenty of them on any article relating to Covid-19.

Can't believe I pandered to that request, but there you go.

If you are going to continue to claim Facebook doesnt have any fake account issue, then you will need to find someone else to debate that with. I'm out.

I didn't claim any such thing...I asked you to back up this comment.

Really? If you read the comments on facebook on any article at all you will notice that a large chunk of the comments are coming from anonymous accounts

YOU made the claim, you back it up.

You claimed 'any' article on COvod would prove this. Here is an article on Covid...can you point to the 'large chunk of the comments' that are from anonymous accounts?
https://www.facebook.com/irishtimes/posts/10157997947126158

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't claim any such thing...I asked you to back up this comment.


YOU made the claim, you back it up.

You claimed 'any' article on COvod would prove this. Here is an article on Covid...can you point to the 'large chunk of the comments' that are from anonymous accounts?
https://www.facebook.com/irishtimes/posts/10157997947126158

You are the one making claims that go against Facebooks own information here. You should be backing your own claims up, as you are the one making outrageous claims that go against even Facebook's self analysis.

2 seconds on that link and I see Stuart Kelly and Liam Logan as clear ones. You can find the rest yourself I'm sure, it not difficult. Not going to pander to your ridiculous demands on this any further. Feel free to take the last word.

Bubbaclaus

RandomViewer wrote: »

It's much higher
https://www.statista.com/chart/20685/duplicate-and-false-facebook-accounts/

Yes, I'm sure it is significantly larger than the 5% facebook were self reporting. Even the 16% in that article might be under estimating.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You are the one making claims that go against Facebooks own information here. You should be backing your own claims up, as you are the one making outrageous claims that go against even Facebook's self analysis.

2 seconds on that link and I see Stuart Kelly and Liam Logan as clear ones. You can find the rest yourself I'm sure, it not difficult. Not going to pander to your ridiculous demands on this any further. Feel free to take the last word.

I did back up what I claimed by linking to somebody outlining how hard it is to create an anonymous account on FB.

How do you know those commenters are not just keeping their private information private? That is not the definition of 'anonymous' Which is hiding your identity from the provider.

blanch152

rdwight wrote: »

*mod snip*


Bowie, on the other hand, has entered a late contender for worst historical analogy of the year award.

I had it down for most hysterical historical analogy of the year, but it’s a close run thing.

There is a sense out there that the government are doing a good job managing COVID-19 far better than our neighbours, managing Brexit and generally running things competently. That leaves the perennial protestors in a pickle.

RandomViewer

blanch152 wrote: »

I had it down for most hysterical historical analogy of the year, but it’s a close run thing.

There is a sense out there that the government are doing a good job managing COVID-19 far better than our neighbours, managing Brexit and generally running things competently. That leaves the perennial protestors in a pickle.

Any views on fiddling councillors ?

blanch152

RandomViewer wrote: »

Any views on fiddling councillors ?

Which Sinn Fein councillors are fiddling expenses? This is the Sinn Fein thread.

RandomViewer

blanch152 wrote: »

Which Sinn Fein councillors are fiddling expenses? This is the Sinn Fein thread.

But you've avoided the 2 where it's mentioned, I suspect theres councillors from all parties involved

Kraftwerk

RandomViewer wrote: »

But you've avoided the 2 where it's mentioned, I suspect theres councillors from all parties involved

You suspect SF councillors are fiddling expenses? Nasty business isn't it. Although nothing new to SF. They've been fiddling expenses for years in the North claiming millions in expenses from Westminster.

FrancieBrady

Kraftwerk wrote: »

You suspect SF councillors are fiddling expenses? Nasty business isn't it. Although nothing new to SF. They've been fiddling expenses for years in the North claiming millions in expenses from Westminster.

Expenses for work carried out as elected public reps which goes on.

Are you saying that the authorities are ignoring criminality?

Kraftwerk

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Expenses for work carried out as elected public reps which goes on.

Are you saying that the authorities are ignoring criminality?

What work is that? Speaking and voting in Parliament to represent their constituents? No. They're happy to waste the money on SF days out to promote the party but refuse to actually take the seats and carry out their duties as elected MPs.

No surprise if they're grabbing any free money they can during lock down too tbh.

FrancieBrady

Kraftwerk wrote: »

What work is that? Speaking and voting in Parliament to represent their constituents? No. They're happy to waste the money on SF days out to promote the party but refuse to actually take the seats and carry out their duties as elected MPs.

No surprise if they're grabbing any free money they can during lock down too tbh.

Why don't you research it?

You might find out the answer to why there are no criminal charges for 'fiddling' their expenses. You might also find out that there is more to being a public representative than vows of allegiance and speaking in Westminster.

RandomViewer

Kraftwerk wrote: »

You suspect SF councillors are fiddling expenses? Nasty business isn't it. Although nothing new to SF. They've been fiddling expenses for years in the North claiming millions in expenses from Westminster.

Guessing you and Blanch have the full list beside you, the lack of enthusiasm from the frap room says it all, as I said earlier name,shame ,sack and jail

Kraftwerk

RandomViewer wrote: »

Guessing you and Blanch have the full list beside you, the lack of enthusiasm from the frap room says it all, as I said earlier name,shame ,sack and jail

You're the one who brought it up suggesting that SF councillors were fiddling expenses. So by all means name and shame.

Kraftwerk

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why don't you research it?

You might find out the answer to why there are no criminal charges for 'fiddling' their expenses. You might also find out that there is more to being a public representative than vows of allegiance and speaking in Westminster.

I doubt I'd find out much more than I already know. SF are happy to claim millions in expenses from Westminster yet claim they have no business being in Westminster. Can't say no to the easy money.

blanch152

RandomViewer wrote: »

Guessing you and Blanch have the full list beside you, the lack of enthusiasm from the frap room says it all, as I said earlier name,shame ,sack and jail

You are posting about Sinn Fein councillors on the fiddle, please name and shame them.

FrancieBrady

Kraftwerk wrote: »

I doubt I'd find out much more than I already know.

One doesn't care if one wishes to live in ignorant bliss so.

RandomViewer

Kraftwerk wrote: »

You're the one who brought it up suggesting that SF councillors were fiddling expenses. So by all means name and shame.

Response was censored earlier
I would think councillors from all parties and none have fiddled expenses, the attempts by FG to make it a one party issue shows how guilty they likely are

marieholmfan

Hi Blanch -- Why did you describe Leo Varadkar as coming from a very traditional family when excusing Varadkar's homophobia?

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why don't you research it?

You might find out the answer to why there are no criminal charges for 'fiddling' their expenses. You might also find out that there is more to being a public representative than vows of allegiance and speaking in Westminster.

Some of us have jobs to do Francie, not spend all day faffing about on numerous social media outlets in fairness.

Maybe you could educate the boy....with your boundless knowledge of these particular issues.

walshb

marieholmfan wrote: »

Hi Blanch -- Why did you describe Leo Varadkar as coming from a very traditional family when excusing Varadkar's homophobia?

Leo's homophobia?

What's this about?

McMurphy

walshb wrote: »

Leo's homophobia?

What's this about?

I think it's in reference to Leo initially being against same sex marriage, and while obviously not a serious suggestion that he's "homophobic" - it's presumably pointing out how the same poster it was directed at, has and does make numerous and blatant faux homophobic insinuations and accusations about things, and Leo's speech would likely be classified as such using their earlier standards at classifying something someone says as them being "homophobic".

Brendan Bendar

McMurphy wrote: »

I think it's in reference to Leo initially being against same sex marriage, and while obviously not a serious suggestion that he's "homophobic" - it's presumably pointing out how the same poster it was directed at, has and does make numerous and blatant faux homophobic insinuations and accusations about things, and Leo's speech would likely be classified as such using their earlier standards at classifying something someone says as them being "homophobic".

Randal, are you a distant relative of James Joyce by any chance?

FrancieBrady

walshb wrote: »

Leo's homophobia?

What's this about?

blanch was refusing to accept that Leo, along with decades of governments were being homopobhic in refusing rights. He refused to accept that nobody needed to 'come out' to stand up for what was right when he made the excuse that Leo's tardiness was down to the pressures he felt and the 'traditional family' background he came from. He never explained what he meant by that.

blanch152

marieholmfan wrote: »

Hi Blanch -- Why did you describe Leo Varadkar as coming from a very traditional family when excusing Varadkar's homophobia?

McMurphy wrote: »

I think it's in reference to Leo initially being against same sex marriage, and while obviously not a serious suggestion that he's "homophobic" - it's presumably pointing out how the same poster it was directed at, has and does make numerous and blatant faux homophobic insinuations and accusations about things, and Leo's speech would likely be classified as such using their earlier standards at classifying something someone says as them being "homophobic".

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch was refusing to accept that Leo, along with decades of governments were being homopobhic in refusing rights. He refused to accept that nobody needed to 'come out' to stand up for what was right when he made the excuse that Leo's tardiness was down to the pressures he felt and the 'traditional family' background he came from. He never explained what he meant by that.

Is this the Sinn Fein thread?

Some deflection this morning, must be more bad stuff about Sinn Fein coming out for you guys to go all-out on a poster about an off-topic issue.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Is this the Sinn Fein thread?

Some deflection this morning, must be more bad stuff about Sinn Fein coming out for you guys to go all-out on a poster about an off-topic issue.

Just answering a question asked by a poster. Not sure what thread it happened in.