IRISH NORTHERNERS AND SOUTHERNERS

[Franko]

You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased.  I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules.  As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual.  Happy policing.

Nope.

I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.

Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.

You said that there were two ways of starting a thread like this.  Posting a balanced piece or posting a biased piece.  Given that you have now argued that there would be no such thing as a non-biased piece, what would you suggest that the original poster should have done?  Post nothing?  See my point about the pointlessness of discussion boards if we follow your rules.  And please drop the faux victimhood, nobody 'attacked' you.

[muppet]

You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased.  I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules.  As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual.  Happy policing.

Nope.

I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.

Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.

You said that there were two ways of starting a thread like this.  Posting a balanced piece or posting a biased piece.  Given that you have now argued that there would be no such thing as a non-biased piece, what would you suggest that the original poster should have done?  Post nothing?  See my point about the pointlessness of discussion boards if we follow your rules.  And please drop the faux victimhood, nobody 'attacked' you.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

It goes like this.

<Link a> give one view
<Link b> gives the other view.

Jesus wept.

[Franko]

You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased.  I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules.  As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual.  Happy policing.

Nope.

I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.

Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.

You said that there were two ways of starting a thread like this.  Posting a balanced piece or posting a biased piece.  Given that you have now argued that there would be no such thing as a non-biased piece, what would you suggest that the original poster should have done?  Post nothing?  See my point about the pointlessness of discussion boards if we follow your rules.  And please drop the faux victimhood, nobody 'attacked' you.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

It goes like this.

<Link a> give one view
<Link b> gives the other view.

Jesus wept.

Bold - agreed.

I've been a member here for about 8 years and never once have I seen a thread started like that.  Until now, I've never seen anyone suggest that it should be that way.

But like I say, I'll look out for your patrolling of this in future.

[muppet]

You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased.  I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules.  As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual.  Happy policing.

Nope.

I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.

Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.

You said that there were two ways of starting a thread like this.  Posting a balanced piece or posting a biased piece.  Given that you have now argued that there would be no such thing as a non-biased piece, what would you suggest that the original poster should have done?  Post nothing?  See my point about the pointlessness of discussion boards if we follow your rules.  And please drop the faux victimhood, nobody 'attacked' you.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

It goes like this.

<Link a> give one view
<Link b> gives the other view.

Jesus wept.

Bold - agreed.

I've been a member here for about 8 years and never once have I seen a thread started like that.  Until now, I've never seen anyone suggest that it should be that way.

But like I say, I'll look out for your patrolling of this in future.

I suggested a balanced discussion on a divisive political topic, and you then demand that I must always demand balance on everything for ever. I suppose it was always going to reach this level.

[leenie]

Finally, this constant dogma about how the south left the north behind is very grating. In

Ach bless your cottons socks , you find it 'grating'.. Must b hard for you, cause you know living in the six counties is a walk in the park..

[muppet]

Finally, this constant dogma about how the south left the north behind is very grating. In

Ach bless your cottons socks , you find it 'grating'.. Must b hard for you, cause you know living in the six counties is a walk in the park..

No one said it was a walk in the park.

I lived in the 6 counties too. So did my siblings for years and I still have family there.

My issue is with the constant dogma about 1921.

[leenie]

Finally, this constant dogma about how the south left the north behind is very grating. In

Ach bless your cottons socks , you find it 'grating'.. Must b hard for you, cause you know living in the six counties is a walk in the park..

No one said it was a walk in the park.

I lived in the 6 counties too. So did my siblings for years and I still have family there.

My issue is with the constant dogma about 1921.

Oh yeah when a treaty was signed and what happened the six counties .. They were part of a 32 county country , em nope that didn't happen .. I do believe they were 'left' behind .. Can't rewrite history .. It did happen

[AQMP]

Maybe I'm the only northerner on here to think this way, but lets see. Firstly I'm bored at this stage by Tony's campaign for a NI identity. I would believe that he is only doing it for the rise, but sure I can't help myself.

I don't believe we were abandoned by the treaty, I do believe that everybody including the British at the time saw it as a holding position, except perhaps the Unionists.The treaty was the best available at the time short of an all out sectarian war which would have ended with the British flat-out steamrollering the whole Island. I do believe that many in the South don't really think or care about the North on any given day, in the same way that people in Manchester wouldn't be losing sleep over the lot of Cornish farmers or fishermen. Not all people in the South are ill-informed on the North and not all are uncaring but there are some.I do think but can't prove that Southern Politicians feel a guilt about partition that is sub-conscious and their reaction to the rise of SF seems to touch that raw nerve. I also firmly believe that a State founded on violence or the threat of violence be it either side of the border should not be hypocritical when it comes to SF. I grew up threw the worst of the troubles and I commend Adams and McGuinness who both from the early '70's have worked to deliver the imperfect peace we now have.

I don't believe Adams is in any way stupid, I do however cringe when I hear him speak. I have stated before that when it comes to dealing with the British in the past the Irish Government outwardly could have been more robust and supportive of Northern Nationalists, however the couldn't exactly threaten to invade given the disparity in the armed forces. What is unknown is the work that went on behind the scenes, governments very often can say things privately that must remain of the record for diplomatic reasons. I am disappointed by the utterances of some of my fellow northerners on this forum who take simplistic and jingoistic positions that are not helpful.

A UI is achievable but only in the context of uniting everyone both within the 6 counties and across the border thats will take time and work. I won't see it but perhaps my Grand children will (if I ever get any!).

More or less spot on AiA.  Yes, Tony is a WUM!!  Partition was going to happen in some form, truce and treaty or no truce and treaty.  Maybe the 26 didn't abandon Irish people in the North but  I know there was a sense or feeling of abandonment among northern nationalists of, say, my parents generation (i.e. the "partition generation") - perception/reality and all that.  I'll probably never know what efforts there were from the Free State government in the years immediately after partition to intercede on behalf of or improve the lot of nationalists in the North, but it appears arch Republican Dev did sweet FA when in power and the British government did even less.

In my opinion at the risk of boring everyone, we should be developing cross border cooperation and links in health, education, power supply. communications, presidential election votes, etc rather than bleating on about a border poll.

While I'm all for including everyone in the New Ireland, Stephen Watson and James Nesbitt will have to be deported.

[leenie]

And Stephen Nolan

[muppet]

Finally, this constant dogma about how the south left the north behind is very grating. In

Ach bless your cottons socks , you find it 'grating'.. Must b hard for you, cause you know living in the six counties is a walk in the park..

No one said it was a walk in the park.

I lived in the 6 counties too. So did my siblings for years and I still have family there.

My issue is with the constant dogma about 1921.

Oh yeah when a treaty was signed and what happened the six counties .. They were part of a 32 county country , em nope that didn't happen .. I do believe they were 'left' behind .. Can't rewrite history .. It did happen

I have no idea what your point is.

Is is that because of the Treaty signed in 1921, Southerners born 2 generation later are to blame for the troubles from 1969 to 1996?

[leenie]

Expand on blaming ?

[muppet]

Expand on blaming ?

Am I supposed to guess what your point is? 

[Franko]

You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased.  I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules.  As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual.  Happy policing.

Nope.

I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.

Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.

You said that there were two ways of starting a thread like this.  Posting a balanced piece or posting a biased piece.  Given that you have now argued that there would be no such thing as a non-biased piece, what would you suggest that the original poster should have done?  Post nothing?  See my point about the pointlessness of discussion boards if we follow your rules.  And please drop the faux victimhood, nobody 'attacked' you.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

It goes like this.

<Link a> give one view
<Link b> gives the other view.

Jesus wept.

Bold - agreed.

I've been a member here for about 8 years and never once have I seen a thread started like that.  Until now, I've never seen anyone suggest that it should be that way.

But like I say, I'll look out for your patrolling of this in future.

I suggested a balanced discussion on a divisive political topic, and you then demand that I must always demand balance on everything for ever. I suppose it was always going to reach this level.

Well yeah, it's called being consistent.  And I didn't demand that you did anything, I just said I'd keep an eye out in future.  There's been plenty of divisive political topics discussed here.  Some people might see it as a little hypocritical to criticise a poster for lack of balance on an article which you clearly disagree with, whilst remaining steadfastly silent for years in this regard on any number of other divisive issues. Keep wriggling.

[leenie]

Muppet

What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?

[muppet]

You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased.  I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules.  As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual.  Happy policing.

Nope.

I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.

Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.

You said that there were two ways of starting a thread like this.  Posting a balanced piece or posting a biased piece.  Given that you have now argued that there would be no such thing as a non-biased piece, what would you suggest that the original poster should have done?  Post nothing?  See my point about the pointlessness of discussion boards if we follow your rules.  And please drop the faux victimhood, nobody 'attacked' you.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

It goes like this.

<Link a> give one view
<Link b> gives the other view.

Jesus wept.

Bold - agreed.

I've been a member here for about 8 years and never once have I seen a thread started like that.  Until now, I've never seen anyone suggest that it should be that way.

But like I say, I'll look out for your patrolling of this in future.

I suggested a balanced discussion on a divisive political topic, and you then demand that I must always demand balance on everything for ever. I suppose it was always going to reach this level.

Well yeah, it's called being consistent.  And I didn't demand that you did anything, I just said I'd keep an eye out in future.  There's been plenty of divisive political topics discussed here.  Some people might see it as a little hypocritical to criticise a poster for lack of balance on an article which you clearly disagree with, whilst remaining steadfastly silent for years in this regard on any number of other divisive issues. Keep wriggling.

No it isn't. It is called you playing the man all the time and ignoring the issue being discussed completely.

Once again, here is what I said:

"Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?"

I was hoping for something to balance the obvious bias in the link which everyone, including the author, understood and accepted but which you insisted wasn't the case. Thankfully you have abandoned that argument.

Most threads quickly have multiple views, thus providing their own balance, and most linked articles provide their own balance or point out that there are other views. What I asked for was a balancing piece, before it descended into the usual Republican worldview.

You now will avoid the topic at all costs and set out to bash me because I have a view different to your own. You set out to pretend that because I favour seeking balance this time round, thus I am a hypocrite for not seeking balance in every post. All the time. You will keep playing the man, and refuse to discuss what he said, or what the main issue of the tread was.