FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

FreudianSlippers

McMurphy wrote: »

Anyone reading the article can tell it's the same document after the first sentence.

It's not clear to you for some reason thought, that's fine. I'm struggling to understand why in fairness, but it's fine nonetheless.

Why would you suggest that's clear to anyone? A random 2019 document that I should know about when I live in Ireland for 5 months of the year?

Admit it, I asked you a simple question and you went off on one rather than just answering the question.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I know it seems to be wrong to ask questions here, but can I check who you are alleging said that? I must have missed that in the thread.

This poster seems to be handwaving it away as nothing and a 'waste' of their time. I.E 'Nothing to see here'....whatcha think?

FreudianSlippers wrote:

Just in case anyone is wondering, the question which no less than 4 people were unable to answer is: yes, it is the same document in question from reporting in November, not a separate/different document.

Glad I had to waste 15 mins looking into it myself when one of those muppets could have just answered a genuine question. FFS

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This poster seems to be handwaving it away as nothing and a 'waste' of their time. I.E 'Nothing to see here'....whatcha think?

I think you should not infer things from basic comments. I just said it was the same document as the one reported as leaked in November, which was the question I had initially asked.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think you should not infer things from basic comments. I just said it was the same document as the one reported as leaked in November, which was the question I had initially asked.

I.E. 'Nothing to see here'. No case to answer, move on...etc etc etc. :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I.E. 'Nothing to see here'. No case to answer, move on...etc etc etc. :rolleyes:

Let's be clear here since you are having trouble with this: I am not saying that there is "nothing to see here".

Happy now?

FreudianSlippers

I always forget about posting here that anyone who dares question SF gets accused by the Shinners of supporting FF/FG automatically.

What a stupid website.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Let's be clear here since you are having trouble with this: I am not saying that there is "nothing to see here".

Happy now?

What are you saying then?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Never said he said that in the article. Once again, you dissemble and obfuscate in a byzantine attempt to excuse the bad behaviour of a Shinner.

Read Pearse's tweets and retweets.

You put quotation marks up against remarks from the article you wrongly ascribed to Doherty blanch.

Just admit it.

Or, if not from the article - link me to Doherty Saying what you quoted him saying.

You're a gas man.

blanch152

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Let's be clear here since you are having trouble with this: I am not saying that there is "nothing to see here".

Happy now?

If you do not share the consensus pro-republican anti-government view on this thread, expect your posts to be parsed and analysed so that they can be misinterpreted and reinterpreted to mean something completely different to what the clear intention, tone and content of your post is.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

You put quotation marks up against remarks from the article you wrongly ascribed to Doherty blanch.

Just admit it.

Or, if not from the article - link me to Doherty Saying what you quoted him saying.

You're a gas man.

They are a direct quote from his tweet. I told you already to read his tweets and retweets where he goes even further.

He might want to take some advice from Stanley and close his Twitter account.

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What are you saying then?

Jesus. Sigh.


1. I asked if the leaked document was the same one that was reported in November 2020 or was it a new document. Ok?

2. The person who posted the tweet completely abreacted to me asking a question and started moaning relentlessly. Still with me?

3. Rather than receive a simple "yes it is" or "no it isn't" from said poster, I had to go off and look up the document in question from November 2020 reporting.

4. I concluded that the document was the same document and thought I'd helpfully post that here in case anyone else was wondering, as I genuinely was.


Is that clear enough for you?

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Why would you suggest that's clear to anyone? A random 2019 document that I should know about when I live in Ireland for 5 months of the year?

Admit it, I asked you a simple question and you went off on one rather than just answering the question.

Five months/Five years, matters little in your case, as you literally admitted you knew, and were familiar about it FFS.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Wait again, or is this a repost of the same story from before Christmas (early November?)?

It's difficult to remember posting that all those minutes ago I suppose.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Wait again, or is this just a repost of the same story from before Christmas (early November?)?

blanch152 wrote: »

They are a direct quote from his tweet. I told you already to read his tweets and retweets where he goes even further.

He might want to take some advice from Stanley and close his Twitter account.

Lol. Clutching more straws than Wurzel Gummidge playing with himself.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Jesus. Sigh.


1. I asked if the leaked document was the same one that was reported in November 2020 or was it a new document. Ok?

2. The person who posted the tweet completely abreacted to me asking a question and started moaning relentlessly. Still with me?

3. Rather than receive a simple "yes it is" or "no it isn't" from said poster, I had to go off and look up the document in question from November 2020 reporting.

4. I concluded that the document was the same document and thought I'd helpfully post that here in case anyone else was wondering, as I genuinely was.


Is that clear enough for you?

You asked and then said this:

yes, it is the same document in question from reporting in November, not a separate/different document.

Glad I had to waste 15 mins looking into it myself when one of those muppets could have just answered a genuine question. FFS

if that ain't saying, 'nothing to see here', I am not sure what is.

Floppybits

blanch152 wrote: »

If you do not share the consensus pro-republican anti-government view on this thread, expect your posts to be parsed and analysed so that they can be misinterpreted and reinterpreted to mean something completely different to what the clear intention, tone and content of your post is.

Well Blanch tell me did you like a post where the poster referred to anyone who does not support FFG as being "Special Needs"?

It seems to me that you are part of this programme looking to push everyone to extremes where as most of us are just looking for a government that maybe puts the country first, treats people fairly and has a bit of honesty and dignity about it. Probably too much to ask in this country.

Another question for you, if roles were reversed and lets say Pearse Doherty or Roisin Shortall sent a confidential document to a mate before it was public would be waving that off as nothing to see here or would you be calling for them to answer why they did it and then if it was later found out that they were lying through their teeth would you then be looking for them to be sacked?

FreudianSlippers

McMurphy wrote: »

Five months/Five years, matters little in your case, as you literally admitted you knew, and were familiar about it FFS.



It's difficult to remember posting that all those minutes ago I suppose.






Lol. Clutching more straws than Wurzel Gummidge playing with himself.

I know that there was reporting in November 2020 because I've been in Ireland for months due to the global pandemic. I was not aware whether the document to which the current article referred was the same document as that reported in November 2020 or a new document... which is why I asked the question.

How is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You asked and then said this:



if that ain't saying, 'nothing to see here', I am not sure what is.

Then you aren't sure what is. How is clarifying it is the same document even remotely the same as saying that the leaking of that document is/was fine?

I can not have been clearer with you. You obviously refuse or accept that... but go off and put words in my mouth.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Five months/Five years, matters little in your case, as you literally admitted you knew, and were familiar about it FFS.



It's difficult to remember posting that all those minutes ago I suppose.






Lol. Clutching more straws than Wurzel Gummidge playing with himself.

blanch152 wrote: »

If you do not share the consensus pro-republican anti-government view on this thread, expect your posts to be parsed and analysed so that they can be misinterpreted and reinterpreted to mean something completely different to what the clear intention, tone and content of your post is.

I am getting into the prophet business this year.

smurgen

Would be great if on the date his mate Trump is leaving we get notice of Leo also having to pack his bags. Here he is in happier times getting stuff done for the Donald. Leo always delivers!

https://twitter.com/Dliodore64/status/1351312046999162884?s=19

McMurphy

Some lads are so arrogant, holding their hands up and admitting they didn't bother to read, or did read and misread a very clear article that was in no way shape or form difficult to follow.

Some think people said things in the article that was the headline of the author.

I suppose if they're pedanting the shyte out of that, it's a distraction from Leo's blatant lies in the Dail, and his blatant undermining and disrespect of his minister for health at the time.

This is what you're up against here.

Business as usual.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Then you aren't sure what is. How is clarifying it is the same document even remotely the same as saying that the leaking of that document is/was fine?

I can not have been clearer with you. You obviously refuse or accept that... but go off and put words in my mouth.

You are clearly trying to downplay this breaking story...i.e. 'nothing to see here, wasting 15 minutes of my time, this is the same story as in November, etc etc'.

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are clearly trying to downplay this breaking story...i.e. 'nothing to see here, wasting 15 minutes of my time, this is the same story as in November, etc etc'.

I've made it super clear by directly saying to you that I'm not doing that, that I'm not doing that. I'm now directly saying that to you again - you're now incorrectly putting words in my mouth.

FreudianSlippers

McMurphy wrote: »

Some lads are so arrogant, holding their hands up and admitting they didn't bother to read, or did read and misread a very clear article that was in no way shape or form difficult to follow.

Some think people said things in the article that was the headline of the author.

I suppose if they're pedanting the shyte out of that, it's a distraction from Leo's blatant lies in the Dail, and his blatant undermining and disrespect of his minister for health at the time.

This is what you're up against here.

Business as usual.

I can keep this up all day. You clearly are still having a cry over a simple yes or no question.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I've made it super clear by directly saying to you that I'm not doing that, that I'm not doing that. I'm now directly saying that to you again - you're now incorrectly putting words in my mouth.

Sure.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Some lads are so arrogant, holding their hands up and admitting they didn't bother to read, or did read and misread a very clear article that was in no way shape or form difficult to follow.

Some think people said things in the article that was the headline of the author.

I suppose if they're pedanting the shyte out of that, it's a distraction from Leo's blatant lies in the Dail, and his blatant undermining and disrespect of his minister for health at the time.

This is what you're up against here.

Business as usual.

Have you managed to read Pearse's tweets and retweets on the issue yet?

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sure.

Thanks for agreeing.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Have you managed to read Pearse's tweets and retweets on the issue yet?

Pearse tweeted what the IT was saying here:

https://twitter.com/PearseDoherty/status/1351787381398102016

FreudianSlippers

Ah yes the airtight legal argument "retweets aren't endorsements" :pac:

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ah yes the airtight legal argument "retweets aren't endorsements" :pac:

He actually says 'via Irish Times'.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Have you managed to read Pearse's tweets and retweets on the issue yet?

Let's back up here blanch people seem to be very forgetful with their posting this morning......

blanch152 wrote: »

Doherty says "Varadkar leaked GP contract while minister for health was urgently seeking copy"

I'll ask again, where did Doherty say that

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He actually says 'via Irish Times'.

So that is what you're saying then?