North & South

tomMK1

i believe I'll be exiting this thread. You'll have to admit, its a bit circular

tomMK1

murphaph wrote:

then surely the best thing is to increase the number of catholics in the force, so presumably you favour more catholics joining up.

I spoke too soon.

The problem is that more catholics won't join the PSNI whilst its more than likely still run by the same people in managment and 'on the ground' control. The PSNI won't be truly acceptable, imho anyway, until they are completely answerable to the community. Until then. its the RUC in new uniforms.

Thats the way most nationalists (its much more complex than catholic v protestant) i know look at it anyway. i cant defend, explain or debate that point much further.

Flex

BuffyBot wrote:

Time for the tin-foil hats, I suspect. It's many things, but to say that this forum is pro-anyone is a bit misleading. Pretty much everything gets questioned.

lotta responses to that.
LOL, not from my experience.For example, there was a thread about NI and the usual..... anyway i was on it and there was unionist on it.Then there were 'middle ground people'. The thing is though, everything i posted was criticised or argued against or basically regarded as a concoction of ****e, whereas the crap put forward by the unionist wasnt questioned a single time. The reason this really sticks out with me is because towards the end of the thread it was proven that this jackass had actually been copying and pasting alot of posts from loyalist websites (ie. ulster protestant movement for justice, scottish loyalists) which talked about 'heroes' like billy wright and johnny adair,and passing it off as his own. Anyways, i thought that if people REALLY were 'middle ground', they would have been even more critical of this unionist guy for posting such extreme ****e, but as i said ,nothing he posted was ever criticised, in stark contrast to stuff put up by the nationalist side of the debate; so youll have to forgive for not believing that middle ground ****e.

My impression of most people here is that they favour the union between britain and Ireland; generally very critical of nationalist side of discussions, while being 'sympathetic'(for want of a better word) toward the unionist side; favour allowing britain to control a part of Ireland. From stuff like that i gathered this was a pro-unionist forum, seemed blatently obvious from my experience here so far ?

gurramok

I remember that fellow you talk about Flex, he did endorse an extreme loyalist perspective of things but criticism on the forum was nearly non-existent.
Its not a pro-unionist forum, alot of people dont post stuff with even a moderate nationalist stance as they feel that they would get labelled as IRA apologists.

Anyway, speaking of PSNI. Today loyalists of UVF brand are cleansing a housing estate in Belfast of people they feel that should not live there.(fellow loyalists)
The PSNI just stand there and do nothing and tolerate while these thugs control an estate and force people out of their homes.
If it was republicans, I bet the water cannon and riot squad would be there in vast numbers to quell such behaviour.
From BBC BBC

Flex

gurramok wrote:

I remember that fellow you talk about Flex, he did endorse an extreme loyalist perspective of things but criticism on the forum was nearly non-existent.

Nearly non-existent?.... it WAS non-existent.Even after it was proven, he wasnt even censured for it. Whereas, if a nationalist copied and pasted some An Phoblacht crap, he'd be a sectarian, bigot, SFIRA supporter and the list goes on.......

Its not a pro-unionist forum, alot of people dont post stuff with even a moderate nationalist stance as they feel that they would get labelled as IRA apologists.

YEAH, EXACTLY!!!! Like durin the citizenship referendum; people were afraid to speak in favor of it during debates because they were branded racists and so on, and as a result couldnt express their point of view without fear of such labelling. Same thing goes on here i feel.

People should realise that its possible to be a republican/nationalist without supporting SFIRA. Im 100% Irish Republican and want a UI, but at the same time, Im a major critic of SFIRA too.

oscarBravo

Flex wrote:

Nearly non-existent?.... it WAS non-existent.

What you're saying is, someone posted something on this forum that you found inaccurate and offensive, and you didn't criticise it? Got a link to this thread?

Flex wrote:

YEAH, EXACTLY!!!! Like durin the citizenship referendum; people were afraid to speak in favor of it during debates because they were branded racists and so on, and as a result couldnt express their point of view without fear of such labelling.

In my experience, people get branded racists when they express racist sentiments. Again, I'm open to correction: please feel free to link a thread where someone said something in support of the referendum that wasn't racist in tone, but got branded racist.

Flex wrote:

People should realise that its possible to be a republican/nationalist without supporting SFIRA.

Perhaps you should take that up with those SF supporters who describe themselves as the "Republican Movement" to the exclusion of all others.

Flex

oscarBravo wrote:

What you're saying is, someone posted something on this forum that you found inaccurate and offensive, and you didn't criticise it? Got a link to this thread

?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=225255&page=13&pp=20&highlight=northernisation

Theres your link.Post 257 is where its found out he was c&p' ing from loyalist websites. Oh, I did criticise, what i was saying was that people who are supposidly 'middle ground', DIDNT. Yet they criticised everything put forward by the nationalist side. You were one of those 'middle ground' people, right? Did you criticise him or any of his arguements before or after it was shown he was getting that ****e off loyalist websites? That implys , to me anyway, a tacit acceptance or agreement.

In my experience, people
get branded racists when they express racist sentiments. Again, I'm open to correction: please feel free to link a thread where someone said something in support of the referendum that wasn't racist in tone, but got branded racist.

Oh yeah right, ill find a thread for that :rolleyes: . From my personnal experience and those around me, i gathered that. And i also thought from my experiences and people i know, that people get branded names like that by the '100% political correct' crowd, because they know their a minority.

Perhaps you should take that up with those SF supporters who describe themselves as the "Republican Movement" to the exclusion of all others.

OK, ill do that tommorow afternoon after my tea. I know republicans in Belfast, Derry and Newry,some of whom vote Sinn Fein, and none of them are a part of the "Republican Movement". I wouldnt really want anything to do with the Republican Movement (presume you mean IRA) anyway. Why would I?

oscarBravo

Flex wrote:

Yet they criticised everything put forward by the nationalist side. You were one of those 'middle ground' people, right?

I don't recall criticising everything put forward by the nationalist side.

Flex wrote:

Did you criticise him or any of his arguements before or after it was shown he was getting that ****e off loyalist websites? That implys , to me anyway, a tacit acceptance or agreement.

I comment on things I personally have strong feelings on. When I don't comment on something, it's safer to assume that I don't feel all that strongly about it than that I agree with it.

Flex wrote:

From my personnal experience and those around me, i gathered that. And i also thought from my experiences and people i know, that people get branded names like that by the '100% political correct' crowd, because they know their a minority.

Sorry, but I'm calling bull**** here. In any discussions I had on the referendum, if someone told me they were voting for it, I'd ask why. Most of the answers were grounded in racism.

Flex wrote:

I wouldnt really want anything to do with the Republican Movement (presume you mean IRA) anyway.

I don't mean anything by it - I'm not the one that hijacked the term.

Flex

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't recall criticising everything put forward by the nationalist side. I comment on things I personally have strong feelings on. When I don't comment on something, it's safer to assume that I don't feel all that strongly about it than that I agree with it.

Well I recall ya criticising a hell of alot of what was put forward by nationalists, but never anything put forward by the unionist guy posting his biggoted ****e(and considering the sources it came from, its safe to presume it was biggoted crap) , before or after it was shown where he was getting it from. Do you not take issue with biggoted stuff towards nationalists or something?

Sorry, but I'm calling bull**** here. In any discussions I had on the referendum, if someone told me they were voting for it, I'd ask why. Most of the answers were grounded in racism.

Well I can tell you i saw it happening. also other little things like posters all over the city centre describing it as a racist referendum.Getting off topic here with this.

I don't mean anything by it - I'm not the one that hijacked the term

Alot of 'things' on this island have been 'hijacked' from the Irish against our will, and it shouldnt be accepted.

oscarBravo

Flex wrote:

Well I recall ya criticising a hell of alot of what was put forward by nationalists, but never anything put forward by the unionist guy posting his biggoted ****e(and considering the sources it came from, its safe to presume it was biggoted crap) , before or after it was shown where he was getting it from. Do you not take issue with biggoted stuff towards nationalists or something?

Did you criticise anything put forward by nationalists?

Flex

oscarBravo wrote:

Did you criticise anything put forward by nationalists?

No, of course not. Ya see I WAS ON THE NATIONALIST SIDE OF THE DEBATE, so why would I?

Are you rationalising youre lack of criticism toward the loyalist stuff by saying youre on the unionist side of the debate?


Congratulations on your 2,000th post BTW

oscarBravo

Flex wrote:

No, of course not. Ya see I WAS ON THE NATIONALIST SIDE OF THE DEBATE, so why would I?

Interesting. You see, I criticise stuff I think is wrong, or irrational, or just plain stupid. Not stuff posted by people on the other side of some sort of line in the sand.

Flex wrote:

Are you rationalising youre lack of criticism toward the loyalist stuff by saying youre on the unionist side of the debate?

Nope.

Flex wrote:

Congratulations on your 2,000th post BTW

Bloody hell!

Flex

oscarBravo wrote:

Interesting. You see, I criticise stuff I think is wrong, or irrational, or just plain stupid. Not stuff posted by people on the other side of some sort of line in the sand.

So do I, like how i criticise SFIRA, however in that debate there wasnt any bigoted crap put forward by the side i was on. So, once again, why didnt you criticise the bigoted loyalist garbage being put forward? Is extreme-loyalist propaganda not stupid or irrational or wrong?

Bloody hell!

Thatll be me some day!!!!

oscarBravo

Flex wrote:

...why didnt you criticise the bigoted loyalist garbage being put forward?

It didn't push my buttons. I don't reply to every thread on this board.

Flex

oscarBravo wrote:

It didn't push my buttons. I don't reply to every thread on this board.

But you replied to the thread in question numerous times to argue with nationalists. The republican arguments pushed your buttons, but the loyalists didnt.....why?

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote:

I comment on things I personally have strong feelings on. When I don't comment on something, it's safer to assume that I don't feel all that strongly about it than that I agree with it.

Thing is Oscar, the bloke quoted and supported articles from a loyalist terrorist website..not just the once but a few times.
Surely this material is WRONG ?

The impression is got that this was ok by the posters that did not challenge him but yet the same posters would deride a similar post if it came from the republican side.
As i said earlier, loyalist terrorists have just evicted 6 familes(according to UTV) tonight under the watchful eye of the security forces but nothing was done to prevent it and where is the criticism here of that terror from the posters?

oscarBravo

Flex wrote:

But you replied to the thread in question numerous times to argue with nationalists.

(I'm finding it hard to get motivated to look for my posts in that thread, but...) I didn't argue with nationalists, I argued with points I disagreed with.

Flex wrote:

The republican arguments pushed your buttons, but the loyalists didnt.....why?

What's really interesting is that the only issue you and others took with true's post was its source. I had a quick look through, and I didn't see any attempt to refute its contents.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote:

Thing is Oscar, the bloke quoted and supported articles from a loyalist terrorist website..not just the once but a few times.

I've looked at the site. It's not exactly impartial, but it's not what I'd necessarily descrive as a "terrorist website".

gurramok wrote:

Surely this material is WRONG ?

Because of the source? Because I've seen no other attempt to disprove it.

gurramok wrote:

The impression is got that this was ok by the posters that did not challenge him...

I can't help what impression you choose to get from the absence of a post.

gurramok wrote:

As i said earlier, loyalist terrorists have just evicted 6 familes(according to UTV) tonight under the watchful eye of the security forces but nothing was done to prevent it and where is the criticism here of that terror from the posters?

I'd be critical of any acts of intimidation that force people to leave their homes.

I'd equally be critical of any attempt to spin this into some sort of collusion between the police and loyalists. I've read the BBC's reportage, and it bears no relation to your interpretation of events.

Flex

oscarBravo wrote:

(I'm finding it hard to get motivated to look for my posts in that thread, but...) I didn't argue with nationalists, I argued with points I disagreed with.

thats what i meant, and thats what i meant when i said you didnt argue points with true.

What's really interesting is that the only issue you and others took with true's post was its source. I had a quick look through, and I didn't see any attempt to refute its contents.

We had taken issue with all of true's crap; like his non-sense about Ireland seeking independence being cmparable to Yorkshire seeking independence,how Protestants were all driven out of the south due to murder, intimidation, house burnings and basically nothing much else other than sheer violence, how stormont wasnt discriminatory or how the Dail and Garda were worse than their northern counterparts for discrimination and oppression against minorities and colluding with terrorists, or that post about how DeV backed Clare county council about firing a Protestant woman and so on; but the fact it came from loyalist websites simply put it over the edge.

If by "refute its contents" you mean the nationalist side telling him off for posting that crap, we did. Didnt need to go into great depths about doing it though since the mere fact we knew where he got it from was enough to dismiss it as being ****.

Flex

oscarBravo wrote:

I've looked at the site. It's not exactly impartial, but it's not what I'd necessarily descrive as a "terrorist website".

Check out the UPMJ site aswel, coz he got stuff off that too

http://www.upmj.co.uk/ Check out the interesting article on the St. Patricks Day parade in NY, and the discussion forum.

Also have a look at http://www.scottishloyalists.co.uk/

Because of the source? Because I've seen no other attempt to disprove it.

Yes, because of the source, it didnt need to be disproved. Most of his non-sensical posts were disproved anyway. Just like Nazi propaganda about Jews and Communists wouldnt need to be 'disproved', the mere fact ya knew where it came from would be enough to dismiss it as rubbish.

bonkey

Flex wrote:

Theres your link.Post 257 is where its found out he was c&p' ing from loyalist websites.

Which was posted at somethling like 2am, and despite the fact that there were predominantly only about 6 posters on that thread left at that point, the plagiarism was called within an hour by one of those.

Exactly what did you want the rest of the politics forum community to do? Join into a thread they had already clearly no interest in and/or already abandoned, in order to join in the chastisement of something which had already been pointed out as plagiarism?

Oh, I did criticise, what i was saying was that people who are supposidly 'middle ground', DIDNT.

I apologise for not getting up at 2 am on that particular nght to make sure that there was no plagiarism going on in the forum that I could chastise someone for, nor for joining in some sort of shout-down of a poster on flaws raised by someone else which I could add nothing more to.

Yet they criticised everything put forward by the nationalist side.

If you look at the very thread you're commenting on, you'll find ti quite difficult to find much criticism of the nationalist side by the mid-grounders from the point you link to and the end of the thread. Sounds like both Nationalists and Unionists were by and large being equally ignored by the rest in that given situation. Its instructive that you see both sides on a given topic being equally ignored as bias.

Did you criticise him or any of his arguements before or after it was shown he was getting that ****e off loyalist websites? That implys , to me anyway, a tacit acceptance or agreement.

Can we take it then that any stance taken on this forum since you joined that you haven't posted in opposition to meets with your tacit agreement?

If not, then I'd suggest you're reading implications from others' behaviour that you wouldn't conclude from your own. Hardly a fair approach.

Its also somewhat instructive that you appear to have picked up a warning from a mod for being abusive to true in that thread, rather than having reported his posts.



jc

Flex

bonkey wrote:

Which was posted at somethling like 2am, and despite the fact that there were predominantly only about 6 posters on that thread left at that point, the plagiarism was called within an hour by one of those.

Exactly what did you want the rest of the politics forum community to do? Join into a thread they had already clearly no interest in and/or already abandoned, in order to join in the chastisement of something which had already been pointed out as plagiarism?

This came about because i was responding to a few statements amongst which were claims that people I viewed as pro-unionist were really middle ground. I then mentioned a thread where a debate was going on between unionists and nationalists that I had been on where the middle ground folks were consistantly arguing points and dismissing points with the nationalists, whereas they never took issue with anything from the unionist side, then it was shown that true was copying and pasting from loyalist sites. So, i figure if people were unbiased that they would have been more critical of a guy posting ****e from loyalist sites. Strange, I know, but just think about it......

I apologise for not getting up at 2 am on that particular nght to make sure that there was no plagiarism going on in the forum that I could chastise someone for, nor for joining in some sort of shout-down of a poster on flaws raised by someone else which I could add nothing more to.

Apology accepted. Anyway, the post was at 2 am, but the thread continued for the next 3 days.
Anyway, the context your using that quote in is wrong.Try reading the preceding posts.Anyway,my point was if people in the middle ground took such issue with the republican arguements for being irrational and whatever, why didnt they take any with the loyalist posts at any point? Thats what i was/am asking.

If you look at the very thread you're commenting on, you'll find ti quite difficult to find much criticism of the nationalist side by the mid-grounders from the point you link to and the end of the thread. Sounds like both Nationalists and Unionists were by and large being equally ignored by the rest in that given situation. Its instructive that you see both sides on a given topic being equally ignored as bias.

And i posted the link to that page because thats were it was shown he was pasting his ****. If you need help finding out how to scroll back through the pages; go to the top or bottom right hand side of the screen and click on the arrows or numbers. The arrows pointing this way < scroll back through the pages (ie. from page 7 to 6 to 5 and so on), whereas arrows pointing this way > scroll forward through the pages(ie.from 7 to 8 to 9 and so on).Or you can simply press on a number ( each number represents the page youll view bt clicking on that number). Let me know if ya need more help.

Can we take it then that any stance taken on this forum since you joined that you haven't posted in opposition to meets with your tacit agreement?

Perhaps in threads I was actively a part of and arguing with the people who had taken the stance against whatever you may be referring to, while not arguing a single point in the other direction.

Its also somewhat instructive that you appear to have picked up a warning from a mod for being abusive to true in that thread, rather than having reported his posts.

Once again, if ya actually read the thread youll see it was MT I was responding to, and I did so because he made references associating me with Sinn Fein, so i made one associating him with the DUP. After Sceptre made it known he disapporved of my post('as well as everyone elses' as he put it) I immediately erased the post(MT didnt erase his BTW) and sent him a pm apologising for acting in haste and not reporting the post i took offence with, which he accepted and reminded me how he wasnt only referring to me in his post. (post 298). 'somewhat instructive that you appear to have' missed that.