Eoghan Harris terminated

Cilldara_2000

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

It’s up to you to prove yourself right, mate, not someone else to prove you wrong. Rule number 1 in civil discourse.

Wtf are you on about? I'm not making an accusation that the allegation from Aoife Moore is false. The poster I quoted was. I'm asking that poster for their proof that they're right!

Cilldara_2000

Kumejima wrote: »

No, and neither would she, unless she deliberately clicked into them?! Oh my God, if only there was a way for her not to do that?


Cyberbullying is literally the only type of bullying where you have to, with full agency, collaborate in your own bullying otherwise its completely impotent.

Really well done here. Literally blaming victims of bullying everywhere for not just ignoring it. Disgusting opinion.

magicbastarder

Kumejima wrote: »

Cyberbullying is literally the only type of bullying where you have to, with full agency, collaborate in your own bullying otherwise its completely impotent.

of all the wrong things i've read on boards, this is one of the wrongiest.

gormdubhgorm

Faugheen wrote: »

You seem to have pinpointed tweets that she has to be talking about. How do you know those are the exact tweets?

It is not deny deflect. Again you are try to shoot the messager rather than the messenge.

Yesterday I saw the Pym/Harris account defending himself to Moore's tweet.

Another person on twitter quickly respond with an 'Ahem found the tweets in five minutes to put Harris in his place.' With screenshots of said tweets.

I read tweets out of curiosity and in my view in context, they do not correlate completely with what Moore said. Which made me extremely cynical about the whole scenario.

Is someone saying you are 'sniping in the bushes with your arse in the air' honestly the same as person saying to a woman that she has big arse?
For example.

Is someone saying 'does it turn you on?' have the same context to that comment when it was in response to Moore commenting that - She was pleased that 'Mary Lou became the first defacto female leader of the opposition one day in the Dail'

In my view it does not.

--

Was Harris right to do so - NO
Was it underhanded of Harris - YES
Did Moore twist things slightly to make the narrative more pointed - (in my view YES)

--

Am I glad Harris is gone - YES
Am I a fan of Harris - NO

--

I am not saying that sort of tweet is the the right thing to do because it is implying that she is a lawless Republican. Particularly for someone in the public eye like Harris.

But it is clear that Moore conflated things to make Harris's tweets fit a certain narrative.

It worked superbly, judging by the number of likes and comments it received.
Moore's profile will sky rocket.
Fair dues and all that she played it well.

Faugheen

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

It’s up to you to prove yourself right, mate, not someone else to prove you wrong. Rule number 1 in civil discourse.

No it’s actually up to the poster who is accusing Aoife Moore of lying to prove themselves right.

Cilldara_2000

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

...
But it is clear that Moore conflated things to make Harris's tweets fit a certain narrative. ...

This is not clear at all.

Who are you to tell her that her she wasn't abused?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Harris was laughed at as a journalist mostly.
His 'spirited' intervention in the last election on behalf of Micheál did for SF what a Paisley rant used to do, I would imagine.
Now he faces two legal cases with probably more to come...popcorn time as journalism in Ireland scampers to cover their traces. Is it too late though.

Have you word that the 4th estate are in crisis over this? Are their other developments to come?

The narrative that journalism and the media are one homogeneous grouping out to get a particular party or group is a sinister one straight out of the Trump playbook. It’s an idea gaining traction in some murkier quarters.

Pintman Paddy Losty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you can show us his second account trolling and defaming people then?

More bluster and bull Francie. We have no idea what Gerry's second account was doing, only obvious he had one as he replied to himself. God knows what he was up to with it.


Anyway, to be honest, Gerry's online activities are the very least of his crimes. Doesn't bother me what he was it. The hyprocrisy is all I'm pointing out.

Faugheen

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is not deny deflect. Again you are try to shoot the messager rather than the messenge.

Yesterday I saw the Pym/Harris account defending himself to Moore's tweet.

Another person on twitter quickly respond with an 'Ahem found the tweets in five minutes to put Harris in his place.' With screenshots of said tweets.

I read tweets out of curiosity and in my view in context, they do not correlate completely with what Moore said. Which made me extremely cynical about the whole scenario.

Is someone saying you are 'sniping in the bushes with your arse in the air' honestly the same as person saying to a woman that she has big arse?
For example.

Is someone saying 'does it turn you on?' have the same context to that comment when it was in response to Moore commenting that - She was pleased that 'Mary Lou became the first defacto female leader of the opposition one day in the Dail'

In my view it does not.

--

Was Harris right to do so - NO
Was it underhanded of Harris - YES
Did Moore twist things slightly to make the narrative more pointed - (in my view YES)

--

Am I glad Harris is gone - YES
Am I a fan of Harris - NO

--

I am not saying that sort of tweet is the the right thing to do because it is implying that she is a lawless Republican. Particularly for someone in the public eye like Harris.

But it is clear that Moore conflated things to make Harris's tweets fit a certain narrative.

It worked superbly, judging by the number of likes and comments it received.
Moore's profile will sky rocket.
Fair dues and all that she played it well.

It is deny deflect. It’s a common fact that female politicians and journalists get untold amounts of abuse, more so than their male counterparts and you’re here trying to dismiss everything she said by making up context to suit yourself.

Your basis for this is tweets that someone else got? Did she say these were the tweets? I don’t recall her saying so. The turn on tweet is in response to her saying she’s the first female leader of the opposition. It’s blatantly obvious what is being said here and you’re the only one saying otherwise.

Her profile will sky-rocket? She’s already one of the most recognisable journalists in the country as a result of golfgate. The fact your first thought was to try to discredit her shows that she clearly butters you up the wrong way.

To say she’s ‘playing a game’ over something so traumatic that she needs counselling is a dick move. Why would any woman say anything if the first thing you assume is that she’s manipulating the facts or even lying?

Honestly, some weird people on these boards. Genuinely very weird.

Faugheen

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

This is not clear at all.

Who are you to tell her that her she wasn't abused?

He’s a man, and she’s a woman who doesn’t know her place.

FrancieBrady

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Have you word that the 4th estate are in crisis over this? Are their other developments to come?

The narrative that journalism and the media are one homogeneous grouping out to get a particular party or group is a sinister one straight out of the Trump playbook. It’s an idea gaining traction in some murkier quarters.

If you could point to where anyone said any of the above?

A 'murky corner' has been outed...as usual you want to deflect to something something else.

The accusation has been made by me and other's that 'some' journalists are operating to a bias and an agenda.
If 'others' were involved in this as has been suggested then you have your proof and I and others will have been right.
Simple really.

gormdubhgorm

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

This is not clear at all.

Who are you to tell her that her she wasn't abused?

i read the actual words of the tweets she conflated in one particular tweet.

And took my take on her interpretation and the actually tweets.

Can it be classed as abuse? It depends on your definition.
As that is a wide ranging one.
Was it cyberbullying by 'Harris' ?
I would argue yes.

But was it exactly the same as Moore is trying to portray?
I have my doubts.

Simple as that.
Just my opinion on actual 'words' that were said on twitter from both involved.

Rosita

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We get it. You don't want the question asked.

Anything else?

What question?

You said that the Taoiseach should make a statement.

I'm wondering why?

You are implying that Harris is an advisor of the Taoiseach.

I'm asking if you have any evidence for that. Maybe that's the question? If it is, then I do want it asked.

Shebean

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Ironically Harris who 'masked' himself while in his view fighting 'masked men' got caught by the law.
Harris is now metaphorically on the lamb. Irony not lost on me.

So Aoife Moore, one of his victims, will make off it, no harm done and Harris is only as bad as he is in relation to other people?


There is nothing noble about his hateful cowardly trolling and attacking of people. It's good that he'll be remembered for what he actually was not what he pretended to be.

FrancieBrady

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

More bluster and bull Francie. We have no idea what Gerry's second account was doing, only obvious he had one as he replied to himself. God knows what he was up to with it.


Anyway, to be honest, Gerry's online activities are the very least of his crimes. Doesn't bother me what he was it. The hyprocrisy is all I'm pointing out.

His 2nd account if it existed doesn't have two defamtion claims against it nor several women complaining about being abused and debased by it.

Maybe you should stick to the topic until you have actual evidence that is what it was used for.

It's refreshing to see a CA thread where almost everyone is in agreement that there is an issue with abuse of journalists by anonymous online trolls on Twitter. Journalists being threatened and abused for simply doing their jobs and reporting on issues that are in the public interest. It also shows the nonsense involved in suggesting that because x is an issue in Ireland that no journalists can report on issue y.

The optimal solution would be to close down Twitter and Facebook, and strike them off as very very bad ideas that humanity would be better off without. Not going to happen though in the short term at least, so the next best solution is to make everyone provide proof of identity when registering.

No poorly paid young hack deserves to get abuse for simply doing their job. Democracy needs a strong and independent media.

Rosita

fvp4 wrote: »

Partisans be partisans. The both of you.

Stupid stupid comment. I asked a question of a hot-air man. That's all. Only in a small-minded peevish world (which obviously Irish politics is) would that make me partisan.

Anyway, I look forward to Mary Robinson's statement.

And Sinn Fein's, since he's a former member.

golfball37

Attacking a Magdelene survivor representative was as low as you can get.

gormdubhgorm

Faugheen wrote: »

It is deny deflect. It’s a common fact that female politicians and journalists get untold amounts of abuse, more so than their male counterparts and you’re here trying to dismiss everything she said by making up context to suit yourself.

Your basis for this is tweets that someone else got? Did she say these were the tweets? I don’t recall her saying so. The turn on tweet is in response to her saying she’s the first female leader of the opposition. It’s blatantly obvious what is being said here and you’re the only one saying otherwise.

Her profile will sky-rocket? She’s already one of the most recognisable journalists in the country as a result of golfgate. The fact your first thought was to try to discredit her shows that she clearly butters you up the wrong way.

To say she’s ‘playing a game’ over something so traumatic that she needs counselling is a dick move. Why would any woman say anything if the first thing you assume is that she’s manipulating the facts or even lying?

Honestly, some weird people on these boards. Genuinely very weird.

I disagree if you can step back from it and read the actual tweets and from Harris which Moore quickly referred to with picture of Harris (public enemy no1) and take away your high levels of emotion which this this issue seems to cause you will perhaps see my point of view.

Well I never heard of Moore before this it has been years since I read the examiner 'paper' and ages since I read the indo 'paper' bar the sports pages.

My information now comes from 'online sources'. And threads such as these.

Have you actually read the tweets or is this just a general rant on how ''very weird' I am since I share a different viewpoint on this issue than yourself?

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

It's refreshing to see a CA thread where almost everyone is in agreement that there is an issue with abuse of journalists by anonymous online trolls on Twitter. Journalists being threatened and abused for simply doing their jobs and reporting on issues that are in the public interest. It also shows the nonsense involved in suggesting that because x is an issue in Ireland that no journalists can report on issue y.

The optimal solution would be to close down Twitter and Facebook, and strike them off as very very bad ideas that humanity would be better off without. Not going to happen though in the short term at least, so the next best solution is to make everyone provide proof of identity when registering.

No poorly paid young hack deserves to get abuse for simply doing their job. Democracy needs a strong and independent media.

Twitter and Facebook need independent regulation in my view as they currently seem to do all the regulation themselves.

FrancieBrady

He is on RTE Drivetime this evening

Faugheen

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I disagree if you can step back from it and read the actual tweets and from Harris which Moore quickly referred to with picture of Harris (public enemy no1) and take away your high levels of emotion which this this issue seems to cause you will perhaps see my point of view.

Well I never heard of Moore before this it has been years since I read the examiner 'paper' and ages since I read the indo 'paper' bar the sports pages.

My information now comes from 'online sources'. And threads as these.

Have you actually read the tweets or is this just a general rant on how ''very weird' I am since I share a different viewpoint on this issue than yourself?

I will never see your point of view. Because you are trying to say someone who is talking about needing counselling because of this scumbag is doing it so she can go on Dancing With The Stars.

I think it is very weird, yes. Very much so. The fact you have spent this time trying to dismiss everything she has said and accused her of only doing it to raise her profile instead of focusing on the fact this man abused her (which you have acknowledged yourself) behind a troll account is very, very weird.

Cilldara_2000

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He is on RTE Drivetime this evening

Odds on him coming with a shovel instead of a sackcloth? I'd say 1/10.

Hangdogroad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He is on RTE Drivetime this evening

"Are we re-recording this?"

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The optimal solution would be to close down Twitter and Facebook, and strike them off as very very bad ideas that humanity would be better off without. Not going to happen though in the short term at least, so the next best solution is to make everyone provide proof of identity when registering.

Sure thing Abominable Dr. Phibes, if that is your real name. As far as I know, and I know very little as I am not on it. FB does ask for proof of identity. That might be why the young stay away.

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He is on RTE Drivetime this evening

Surely his lawyers should be advising him against that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApHj9vOu2eQ

Put it down Eoghan.

gormdubhgorm

Faugheen wrote: »

I will never see your point of view. Because you are trying to say someone who is talking about needing counselling because of this scumbag is doing it so she can go on Dancing With The Stars.

I think it is very weird, yes. Very much so. The fact you have spent this time trying to dismiss everything she has said and accused her of only doing it to raise her profile instead of focusing on the fact this man abused her (which you have acknowledged yourself) behind a troll account is very, very weird.

Again untrue. I did not dismiss it I analysed it. Ok the dancing with the stars comment was tongue and cheek.

But it was after how I initially found some disparity between the comment I read from Moore and the actual tweets from 'Pym/Harris'.
Simple as that.

But my general point stands as Moore now has the chance to push a narrative.
A narrative in which she can't lose.
Because Harris has done so many things wrong in this scenario it can tick loads of 'boxes'.

And will raise Moore's 'status' within a demographic. 'Courageous' journalist working in a 'toxic' environment standing up to bullies etc.

There is also the mental health angle implied in the background as well as the sexual harassment angle, which plays well with the target demographic

You seem to assume people do not run on certain agendas. And frame issues in a certain manner to suit an agenda that is naive in the extreme.

All journalists are at it in one form another, they have agendas.

Have you read the actual Tweets Harris said at all and looked at Moore's take on them? As a matter of interest.

When you strip it all back it is one journalist getting caught been underhanded and attacking another. The one who is attacked gets an outpouring of sympathy and fishes for sympathy on top of that.

That seems to bee way twitter works all about the likes,tweets and number of engaged conversations.

Cilldara_2000

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Again untrue. I did not dismiss it I analysed it. Ok the dancing with the stars comment was tongue and cheek.

But it was after how I initially found some disparity between the comment I read from Moore and the actual tweets from 'Pym/Harris'.
Simple as that.

But my general point stands as Moore now has the chance to push a narrative.
A narrative in which she can't lose.
Because Harris has done so many things wrong in this scenario it can tick loads of 'boxes'.

And will raise Moore's 'status' within a demographic. 'Courageous' journalist working in a 'toxic' environment standing up to bullies etc.

There is also the mental health angle implied in the background as well as the sexual harassment angle, which plays well with the target demographic

You seem to assume people do not run on certain agendas and frame issues in a certain manner to suit an agenda that is naive in the extreme.

All journalists are at it in one form another they have agendas.

Have you read the actual Tweets Harris said at all and looked at Moore's take on them? As a matter of interest.

When you strip it all back it is one journalist getting caught been underhanded and attacking another. The one who is attacked gets an outpouring of sympathy and fishes for sympathy on top of that.

That seems to bee way twitter works all about the likes,tweets and number of engaged conversations.

I think the advice in McMurphy's post just above applies here too. Put it down gormdubhgorm.

Shebean

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Again untrue. I did not dismiss it I analysed it. Ok the dancing with the stars comment was tongue and cheek.

But it was after how I initially found some disparity between the comment I read from Moore and the actual tweets from 'Pym/Harris'.
Simple as that.

But my general point stands as Moore now has the chance to push a narrative.
A narrative in which she can't lose.
Because Harris has done so many things wrong in this scenario it can tick loads of 'boxes'.

And will raise Moore's 'status' within a demographic. 'Courageous' journalist working in a 'toxic' environment standing up to bullies etc.

There is also the mental health angle implied in the background as well as the sexual harassment angle, which plays well with the target demographic

You seem to assume people do not run on certain agendas and frame issues in a certain manner to suit an agenda that is naive in the extreme.

All journalists are at it in one form another they have agendas.

Have you read the actual Tweets Harris said at all and looked at Moore's take on them? As a matter of interest.

When you strip it all back it is one journalist getting caught been underhanded and attacking another. The one who is attacked gets an outpouring of sympathy and fishes for sympathy on top of that.

That seems to bee way twitter works all about the likes,tweets and number of engaged conversations.

You don't have to give a care but to go the other way and talk about the pros of being harangued and trolled is a bit much.
In human nature we do have empathy or sympathy for victims not jump to hand waving before the dust settles.

gormdubhgorm

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

I think the advice in McMurphy's post just above applies here too. Put it down gormdubhgorm.

Shebean wrote: »

You don't have to give a care but to go the other way and talk about the pros of being harangued and trolled is a bit much.
In human nature we do have empathy or sympathy for victims not jump to hand waving before the dust settles.

Fair enough I have a tendency to shoot from the hip. Not to everyone's taste I suppose.

But my viewpoint is solely based on what was written not the 'emotional, empathy' aspect. Maybe I am too 'cynical' and that is my fault? I am not one for those who 'play the violins' on any issue.

And for the record once and for all, I am glad Harris is gone.