A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.

Started by winghalfback, May 27, 2015, 03:16:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

muppet

Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 02:48:14 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.
MWWSI 2017

Rossfan

Can the mods gat that Franko eejit off the scene till we have a serious adult discussion about the future please ??
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

Franko

Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 02:48:14 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post.  You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

Franko

Quote from: Rossfan on November 24, 2015, 03:06:12 PM
Can the mods gat that Franko eejit off the scene till we have a serious adult discussion about the future please ??

I don't believe I'm stopping you discussing anything.  But yes, by all means, run and tell the teacher.

muppet

Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 02:48:14 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post. You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

What exactly are you claiming that I didn't read?
MWWSI 2017

foxcommander

Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 24, 2015, 03:06:12 PM
Can the mods gat that Franko eejit off the scene till we have a serious adult discussion about the future please ??

I don't believe I'm stopping you discussing anything.  But yes, by all means, run and tell the teacher.

He must be out of primary school early today. His folks should get parental controls set up on the family PC or hide the 16k Modem from the kiddies.
Every second of the day there's a Democrat telling a lie

Franko

Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 02:48:14 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post. You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

What exactly are you claiming that I didn't read?

Stop, you're making it worse.

muppet

Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:19:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 02:48:14 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post. You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

What exactly are you claiming that I didn't read?

Stop, you're making it worse.

I thought you wouldn't be able to answer that without looking foolish.  ;D

MWWSI 2017

seafoid

How many nationalists have been killed in political violence since 1920 up north ?

And what generational changes have been experienced by nationalists since 1920 to get to where they are today ie mostly happy to stay with the current system.

Franko and Muppet can you go into the lounge and sort it out there ?
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

Franko

Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 04:39:17 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:19:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 02:48:14 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post. You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

What exactly are you claiming that I didn't read?

Stop, you're making it worse.

I thought you wouldn't be able to answer that without looking foolish.  ;D

And you know what thought did...  ;)

muppet

Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:45:51 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 04:39:17 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:19:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 02:48:14 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post. You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

What exactly are you claiming that I didn't read?

Stop, you're making it worse.

I thought you wouldn't be able to answer that without looking foolish.  ;D

And you know what thought did...  ;)

Yea. He thought an opinion was a fact.  ;D
MWWSI 2017

armaghniac

Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

You are conflating two issues. 'Freedom to win freedom' worked perfectly well, your concern is with the ending of partition. In reality the new Saorstat government might have taken more interest in the North, the boundary commission, council of Ireland etc, but in order to free the North the irregulars seized Kerry which was no help whatsoever.

Freedom to win freedom created a State in the 26 counties more prosperous and successful than the 6 county one, but people whose grandfathers were nationalists now can't be bothered working to unite the island.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

Maguire01

Quote from: Kidder81 on November 23, 2015, 10:53:29 PM
Turns out it was basically a SF commissioned "study"
Yes, exposed on Slugger. So it was only ever going to give one answer, or it would never have seen the light of day?

And i'm no economist, but the extent to which it was based on current currency exchange rates seemed to make it all a bit susceptible to any swing in these rates.

foxcommander

Quote from: armaghniac on November 24, 2015, 05:55:45 PM
Freedom to win freedom created a State in the 26 counties more prosperous and successful than the 6 county one, but people whose grandfathers were nationalists now can't be bothered working to unite the island.

Freestaters?
Every second of the day there's a Democrat telling a lie

muppet

Quote from: armaghniac on November 24, 2015, 05:55:45 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

You are conflating two issues. 'Freedom to win freedom' worked perfectly well, your concern is with the ending of partition. In reality the new Saorstat government might have taken more interest in the North, the boundary commission, council of Ireland etc, but in order to free the North the irregulars seized Kerry which was no help whatsoever.

Freedom to win freedom created a State in the 26 counties more prosperous and successful than the 6 county one, but people whose grandfathers were nationalists now can't be bothered working to unite the island.

We seem to be better at splits than uniting.
MWWSI 2017