Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1363364366368369416

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 218 ✭✭CDarby


    This is interesting from yourself.

    The accusations in the papers /affidavit are he used company funds & personnel to help his crusade

    So I'm afraid you'll have to put up with what his spinning tyres have thrown up 

    Because as it's very funny indeed, funny because you have had multiple in-thread hissy fits, and have accused people of goading and using pseudonyms for posting accusations against Leo which are also in the papers.

    Wasn't it yourself I've witnessed posting multiple times the phrase "sauce for the goose" on this thread, yeah? Not for you though if would seem.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    So nothing new

    Just more repetition, denial of goading and an inclusion that I don't understand words...

    Okaaaay



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to say,is it that I have to put up with what you guys are saying too?

    I don't have a problem with that,but I'll tell you what I think some of it is

    What's gas about some of the responses in this thread is,in some quarters you'd swear the most important thing was to goad the other side,often using 'subject ' as a pseudonym for criminal

    My side of the thread see this,call it,but are happy enough in their opinion not to give a toss about it



  • Registered Users Posts: 141 ✭✭BKelly21



    Well to be fair, a "pseudonym" is an alias (a fictitious name).

    You used one yourself when you created your username here (I would hope)

    Perhaps you meant to use a different word, I don't know, but as far as I can tell, "OTuathail" and "Varadkar" are certainly not "pseudonyms", not my dog in the fight, but I can see where they're coming from, thinking you might misunderstand the meaning of the word you were using?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Nope,I deliberately used it to describe using a word to imply criminal that doesn't mean criminal

    To pretend you're not trying to say criminal when that's what you want to say

    I engaged poetic license describing a word as you would a person in tandem with explaining why You can't call an uncharged and unconvicted person a criminal



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 141 ✭✭BKelly21


    Ah I understand now, you're a tad "peeved" (shall we say?) at "subject" being used (that's not a pseudonym, no matter how much you protest though)

    Looking in from here though, you just seem to be complaining about something which is factually correct, Leo, and his actions are the subject of a criminal investigation though, by the NCBI. Surely your can't have missed numerous reports describing it as such?

    I believe SIPO even used the term, perhaps they're deliberately "goading" you also?


    Sipo contacted Mr Murphy last Wednesday. AnAnfficial in the complaint and investigations unit told him: “The Commission notes that this matter is the subject of an investigation by An Garda Síochána, as reported in the media. Based on this information, the Commission has decided to suspend consideration of the complaint made by you until An Garda Síochána have concluded their investigation.”


    If it was factually inaccurate, I would get your grievance, but currently (to me anyway) it just looks like you moaning because you don't like the stark reality lain out in front of you.

    I'll leave it at that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    You're a great example of why politicians like Varadkar think they can do as they like and be defended for it.

    I have a problem with a minister, then Taoiseach, being untrustworthy, underhanded and a liar.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    Varadkar is not a criminal. He could be, but we'll wait until the criminal investigation into his actions is closed.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I never said Varadkar wasn't the subject of the investigation

    I just am not at this side of the thread joining the other sides connotations party as there are none

    Alas the fact no one this side of the thread cares about the goading around that,seems to upset some quarters on the other side,I and this side probably care even less about that

    We all must carry our own burdens



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭Thinkingaboutit


    This is Ireland. Of course he can become Taoiseach of the Banana Republic.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,607 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    I've been struggling to follow your latest crusade, ML.....you're acknowledging that Varadkar is the subject if an investigation, while claiming that, 'the other side' are goading and making connotations by referring to him as the subject of an investigation....while also engaging in the very same speculation and insinuation regarding Paddy Cosgrave?

    It doesn't strike me as a particularly sturdy moral high ground you're on there.



  • Registered Users Posts: 141 ✭✭BKelly21


    So now you are admitting that the poster Murphy (or any other poster) is factually correct when they describe Leo as being the "subject" of a criminal investigation?

    What, in the name of all that is holy, was the big commotion about, and why are you describing it as "goading" and using the entirely incorrect and inappropriate description "pseudonym" for calling it, what it is?

    I find it a bit "cry babyish" if I'm perfectly honest, I detest the dark and cold evenings that are encroaching on us at this time of year, but it is what it is, no point complaining about it.

    With this apparently set to continue into 22, I'd get used to it if I were you, but what I wouldn't do is complain about folks calling a spade a spade.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Thats not what I said

    What I said is clear,I'm not repeating myself, it's upthread in today's posts

    Its also immaterial in my opinion as my side of the thread is 100% confident what the outcome of this is going to be once its been thoroughly investigated and closed

    I see all the repeating as pointless



  • Registered Users Posts: 141 ✭✭BKelly21


    It's not what you said?

    Who posted this then?


    How am I supposed to take that seriously when all you're doing from what I can see is trying to goad me and others to use your pseudonym's for what your side has shown it wants to say


    Are you posting with sincerity, or taking the mickey?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭M three


    Fair play ML, hell of a job you are doing defending varadkar and his nonsense. He'll keep you busy to be fair.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,544 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    LOL, always so quick to point the finger, and then the ninja edit after.

    Won't fool ol' Marko though!



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,470 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    I would have to say I have never read a thread where the guts of it have been raked over to such an extent as this one.

    Surely there’s no more room on the head of the pin?



  • Registered Users Posts: 163 ✭✭BackOfMyBag


    hey you should have a peep in the sf tread , their was a poster on there that " raked " up a word that a sf td used on the radio because gerry adams used years before too and claimed there was a shinner conspiracy about people being schooled to use the same language .

    actually come to think of it , it was you brendan hahaha

    varadkar is still the main figure of the guards investigation , for something varadkar admitted doing , people will understandably want to talk about that , likely even for years to come no matter how it concludes .

    prob as wise getting use to it pal



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,607 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    Two groups sitting on opposite sides of a room with their fingers in their ears roaring the same tired points at eachother over and over again for months now. Both as bad as eachother.


    The thread seems to have absolutely no room for any discussion from a reasoned middle-ground, it's either judge, jury, executioner from one side or, 'nothing to see here; despite being the subject of a criminal investigation he definitely didn't do anything wrong' from the other.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,877 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    He is none of those, but I have a similar problem with posters and don't hesitate to call them out on it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,470 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    You have very high moral standards, in fairness.

    I often am amazed as to how worked up folk get over perceived ‘alleged wrongdoing’ by those in Govt. Yet seem to

    ignore the past of a lot of those in opposition.

    I accept that that may be a tad off topic, apologies for that, but I feel it’s worth saying in the context of this thread.

    strong bang of hypocrisy about their faux distaste of alleged events which have yet to be fully investigated and adjudicated on.


    Strange kind of attitudes I have to say……..but hey.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    By your low standards I guess so.

    He confessed and apologised. Did you not know that?

    Desperate attempt at whatabout there lad. 2 out of 10.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Sorry for the late reply marine, working life occasionally gets in the way of odd internet arguments, needs must as they say though.

    I've already been reading the replies in my absence though, it would appear that I'm correct, you're throwing around the "goading" accusation in reference to the word "subject" yet (bizarrely) admit it's the entirely correct word to use at the same time, "goading" in this instance simply boils down to = Marine Layer finding the description correct, yet uncomfortable.

    The pseudonym thing, I wasn't trying to have a go by asking you if you were sure you understood the meaning of the word, because my understanding of the word, a pseudonym is a false/made up name used by authors, (for example) to hide their real name, (much like a boards username for example)

    With that in mind, you simply can't be on here claiming subject = pseudonym from one side of your mouth, yet acknowledge that subject is a correct term to use from the other side, and expect to be taken seriously, because one statement contradicts the other.

    Same goes for the "goading" accusations.

    I wouldn't be so petty as to resort to ask you to withdraw the accusations, instead I will just suggest that you'd be as well to park them up now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,470 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Let the law take its course, my friend.

    Get on with life, there are and were folk in the Dáil who have had convictions for serious crime.

    Id be very much more worried about those folk than this issue.

    Lets let the law take its course.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    1, This morning you were practically frothing at the mouth about people "raking over guts" -

    2 Few hours later, you're bewildered why people are "ignoring the past" of others.

    3 And in the next sentence, mentioned something about "hypocrisy and faux distaste"

    Never change Brenner, never change. 🤣🤣



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,470 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Lookit Randal, the Brenner won’t change if that’s what’s worrying you.

    I’ll leave it at that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,877 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    He didn't confess and apologise for what you accuse him of.

    Desperate attempt to lie and pretend.

    Post edited by Ten of Swords on


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,877 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    That was a Sinn Fein type of apology, he didn't apologise for the leaking of the document, he apologised for a number of other things.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Actually your re construct of it is a misinterpretation of my position at best or a misrepresentation I'll assume the former, because I'm not going to be mean here


    I'm not surprised obviously

    I'm simply stating that there are 4 things common to your side of the thread

    1.Repetition

    2. Using the word subject as a replacement for criminal as if it means anything about an innocent person,it doesn’t

    3. Constantly saying Varadkar has admitted to doing something and apologised for it,in the misapprehension/ misrepresentation that the other side don't accept that (they do)

    Basically presenting it as an admission of a crime when it isn't, albeit mod instructions have closed down the explicit version

    4. Goading the other side of the thread with number 2 and number 3 as pseudonym 's for what they really are in the (vain) hope of a reaction

    The above has been wholesale throughout this thread

    All I'm doing is calling it

    Ironically that is uncomfortable, but not for me

    I'd agree with that

    As regards your earlier comments on how I'm not treating paddy C being sued the same as Varadkar's situation,I've brought it up as pertinent

    I've not said or tried to say he's a criminal and wouldn't

    All I've noted is,the new light it sheds on what's going on and it doesn't look like moonlight and roses thus far

    Comparing carrying out vandetta's to getting a gp contract signed up by a larger number of doctors

    I know which is the more decent of the two motives

    PC will get his due process too



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement