Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

Sure:

This was some time ago yet you are still on it today:



Another 'nothing to see here theory':



A standard in these parts:



This is your first post in the thread:



It's fair to say you've covered all the bases.
So as I say, since day one all you've done is question the reported facts, dismiss and supply excuses.

None of the above shows me "questioning the reported facts" as you had claimed James. So you found nothing to back up your statement is the conclusion essentially?

ohnonotgmail

smurgen wrote: »

The troubles is simple in your world yet something like a contract being confidential or not is nuanced. Lol.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Does this sentence even make sense? What are you trying to say?

blanch152 wrote: »

I couldn’t understand it either.

the issue is with ye two because it makes sense to me. pretty standard english I would have thought.

smurgen

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Does this sentence even make sense? What are you trying to say?

That it's a simple issue. This is a diversion tactic of Fine Gaelers. Your lot are quiet black and white when it's the other side being judged yet there's a muddying of the waters/nuanced when it's your crowd. Simply put it's not rocket science.its binary. A document is confidential or it isn't.

Bubbaclaus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the issue is with ye two because it makes sense to me. pretty standard english I would have thought.

Can you dumb it down for me so?

Cute Hoor

Originally Posted by blanch152 View Post
It is a simple matter to me. The Taoiseach has the responsibility of deciding what is best.

blanch152 wrote: »

Your understanding is flawed.

I gave an example earlier whereby the GRA and PDFORRA are parties to the national pay agreements but don’t form part of the negotiations but get copies of confidential discussion documents. All perfectly normal.

Do you think it would be OK for any Taoiseach to give a copy of a document marked CONFIDENTIAL to his/her buddy.

Bubbaclaus

smurgen wrote: »

That it's a simple issues. Yet this is a diversion tactic of Fine Gaelers. Your lot are quiet black and white when it's the other side being judged yet there's a muddying of the waters/nuanced when it's your crowd. Simply put it's not rocket science.its binary. A document is confidential or it isn't.

You seem very confused, what scenario for the "other side" are you on about here where I saw it as black and white? I think you must have me confused with someone else. I only have one account on here

ohnonotgmail

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Can you dumb it down for me so?

It is simple enough as it is.

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You seem very confused, what scenario for the "other side" are you on about here where I saw it as black and white? I think you must have me confused with someone else. I only have one account on here

I think he was wrong and I have no problem saying it, Varadkar knows he was wrong (and admitted it eventually), why can't you say you think (and it's only your opinion) whether he was right or wrong. There won't be repercussions for you. What do you think.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a lie.

Varadkar said that the way he shared it was wrong, but he never said he was wrong to share it.

As for your relentless pursuit of posters to give black and white answers to pejorative questions, it fails to take into account all the complexities of the situation. Life isn’t black and white.

Should have used barbershop quartet instead of courier?

He apologised for slipping it to his pal. He gave excuses why he shared it, but didn't say he was right to share it either.

blanch152

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Originally Posted by blanch152 View Post
It is a simple matter to me. The Taoiseach has the responsibility of deciding what is best.



Do you think it would be OK for any Taoiseach to give a copy of a document marked CONFIDENTIAL to his/her buddy.

I just gave you an example of where confidential documents are shared with those not party to an agreement!!!!!!!

Whether or not the person the document being shared with is a buddy or not is immaterial. What matters is whether there is a public policy reason for the person to receive the document.

Bubbaclaus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is simple enough as it is.

So simple you can spell it out for me so. Thanks

Bubbaclaus

Cute Hoor wrote: »

I think he was wrong and I have no problem saying it, Varadkar knows he was wrong (and admitted it eventually), why can't you say you think (and it's only your opinion) whether he was right or wrong. There won't be repercussions for you. What do you think.

Did you respond to the wrong post?

Cute Hoor

Originally Posted by blanch152 View Post
It is a simple matter to me. The Taoiseach has the responsibility of deciding what is best.

blanch152 wrote: »

I just gave you an example of where confidential documents are shared with those not party to an agreement!!!!!!!

Whether or not the person the document being shared with is a buddy or not is immaterial. What matters is whether there is a public policy reason for the person to receive the document.

Yea but do you think it's OK for any Taoiseach to give a copy of a document marked CONFIDENTIAL to his/her buddy, you seem to think it is but are reluctant to confirm it

ohnonotgmail

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

So simple you can spell it out for me so. Thanks

would you like it in words of one syllable? do you really need somebody to explain basic english to you? I can send you links to introductory english classes if you like?

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Did you respond to the wrong post?

No, you hadn't come back to me so it was the handiest way of re-asking the question.

I think he was wrong and I have no problem saying it, Varadkar knows he was wrong (and admitted it eventually), why can't you say you think (and it's only your opinion) whether he was right or wrong. There won't be repercussions for you. What do you think.

smurgen

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You seem very confused, what scenario for the "other side" are you on about here where I saw it as black and white? I think you must have me confused with someone else. I only have one account on here

If a Sinn Fein Taoiseach leaked a confidential document in the manner Leo Varadkar did to whomever they seen fit would you think it to be an okay thing to do?

Bubbaclaus

Cute Hoor wrote: »

No, you hadn't come back to me so it was the handiest way of re-asking the question.

I think he was wrong and I have no problem saying it, Varadkar knows he was wrong (and admitted it eventually), why can't you say you think (and it's only your opinion) whether he was right or wrong. There won't be repercussions for you. What do you think.

I answered it for you a page or two back already. You didn't like my answer, and thats fine, but I don't see the point in asking me again and again?

Bubbaclaus

smurgen wrote: »

If a Sinn Fein Taoiseach leaked a confidential document in the manner Leo Varadkar did to whomever they seen fit would you think it to be an okay thing to do?

It depends on the situation. If you put McDonald in Varadkar's shoes for this exact same scenario then yes absolutely. It depends on the scenario and the facts at hand. I look at the facts, not the person.

Can you answer my question though as to what you are referring to with the black or white remark?

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I answered it for you a page or two back already. You didn't like my answer, and thats fine, but I don't see the point in asking me again and again?

Apologies if you did answer it already, I may have missed it, can you point me to it please.

I think he was wrong and I have no problem saying it, Varadkar knows he was wrong (and admitted it eventually), why can't you say you think (and it's only your opinion) whether he was right or wrong. There won't be repercussions for you. What do you think.

Bubbaclaus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

would you like it in words of one syllable? do you really need somebody to explain basic english to you? I can send you links to introductory english classes if you like?

Yes. Please explain the basic English to me and send me some links to introductory classes.

Thanks a million!

Bubbaclaus

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Apologies if you did answer it already, I may have missed it, can you point me to it please.

Sure. It is one or two pages back in this thread.

You are welcome.

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

If you put McDonald in Varadkar's shoes for this exact same scenario then yes absolutely. It depends on the scenario and the facts at hand

So it's OK to leak some documents marked CONFIDENTIAL, but not OK to leak other documents marked CONFIDENTIAL, is that what you are saying

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Sure. It is one or two pages back in this thread.

You are welcome.

To save me the search, can you please reply again, and it's only a simple yes or no

I think he was wrong and I have no problem saying it, Varadkar knows he was wrong (and admitted it eventually), why can't you say you think (and it's only your opinion) whether he was right or wrong. There won't be repercussions for you. What do you think.

Bubbaclaus

Cute Hoor wrote: »

To save me the search, can you please reply again, and it's only a simple yes or no

I think he was wrong and I have no problem saying it, Varadkar knows he was wrong (and admitted it eventually), why can't you say you think (and it's only your opinion) whether he was right or wrong. There won't be repercussions for you. What do you think.

I'm sure you will manage just fine with the search. As I answered at the time, it is not a binary yes or no answer.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

None of the above shows me "questioning the reported facts" as you had claimed James. So you found nothing to back up your statement is the conclusion essentially?

I don't think you read my post it literally shows you questioning the facts from day one to present day.
Look you can play away, no skin off my nose. I've pointed it out and we all know the facts.
You seem to be getting testy with folk. Maybe we'll leave it.

smurgen

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It depends on the situation. If you put McDonald in Varadkar's shoes for this exact same scenario then yes absolutely. It depends on the scenario and the facts at hand. I look at the facts, not the person.

Can you answer my question though as to what you are referring to with the black or white remark?

Republicans = bad. Everyone else = good. Especially during the troubles. It's black and white. For you right? No nuanced necessary?

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I'm sure you will manage just fine with the search. As I answered at the time, it is not a binary yes or no answer.

Has the edict issued to be careful about answering any questions

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

I don't think you read my post it literally shows you questioning the facts from day one to present day.
Look you can play away, no skin off my nose. I've pointed it out and we all know the facts.

Which one of those has me questioning the confirmed facts? One of them quotes you chose even has me questioning a poster for suggesting MOT was Varadkars bit on the side. How is that questioning the facts exactly?

Unless you think that is factual?

How you think you have backed up your original point with those quotes is beyond me. Truly.

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

If you put McDonald in Varadkar's shoes for this exact same scenario then yes absolutely. It depends on the scenario and the facts at hand

So it's OK to leak some documents marked CONFIDENTIAL, but not OK to leak other documents marked CONFIDENTIAL, is that what you are saying

Bubbaclaus

smurgen wrote: »

Republicans = bad. Everyone else = good. Especially during the troubles. It's black and white. For you right? No nuanced necessary?

Don't believe I have ever once posted about the troubles on boards mate. Clearly you are confused and have mixed me up with someone else.

You've done this before too by claiming I was "up in arms" about something, and it turned out I hadn't posted about it at all.