Rip Off Republic - Episode #2 - review

[ClubMan]

The word Canvass was introduced by you and it has a very specific meaning. I will not be going door to door canvassing for anyone. I will be asking people I know to vote for him. Happy to clear this up for you.

Mea maxima cupla - I mistakenly used the work "canvass" when you had originally used the word "campaign". On the other hand many would argue that campaigning on behalf of, offering one's services to and asking others to vote for a particular candidate (while making the clear distinction that one was not officially part of the candidate's election team) would be synonymous with canvassing. Either way, the main thrust of my argument stands - that it makes no absolutely no sense to try and unseat a party from Government while also campaigning on behalf of of of their candidates.

If you can't get your head around that then OK. It makes perfect sense to me to encourage and support those in FF who want to change the Party. Rather than engage in the pointless cycle of kicking FF out for one term and then having them come back the same or worse than they ever were. I'd like them to leave government seeing that those preaching change kept their seats.

As above.

Thanks for your advice that I'm wasting my time.

I never said or insinuated that. What was it you said earlier about people misrepresenting the views and comments of others?

 

[daltonr]

that it makes no absolutely no sense to try and unseat a party from Government while also campaigning on behalf of of of their candidates.

I never said or insinuated that

Mea maxima cupla I mistakenly assumed that doing something that makes absolutely no sense was a waste of time.

We're counting angels on the head of a needle here. This thread stopped having a point about 6 pages ago. I'm happy to end it here and we can all go and vote for whoever we like.

-Rd

 

[ClubMan]

Mea maxima cupla I mistakenly assumed that doing something that makes absolutely no sense was a waste of time.

The full quote was in reference to your attempted rationalisations as to why it made sense to support a candidate of a party whom you were trying to unseat from Government.

I don't agree with your analysis because it is still the case that none of this in any way makes sense of campaigning and voting for a member of a party whom you have stated need to be removed from Government.

So it was your analysis that did not make sense. You complained earlier about misrepresentation by some people of others' views and yet you are doing exactly the same thing yourself here.

We're counting angels on the head of a needle here. This thread stopped having a point about 6 pages ago. I'm happy to end it here and we can all go and vote for whoever we like.

Nobody is forcing you to contribute to it. If you honestly think that it makes sense to campaign on behalf of and vote for a candidate of a party whom you are trying to unseat from Government and no logical explanation of why this is not the case can disabuse you of that notion then so be it.

In case of any confusion I initally posted on reply but then replaced it with this modified version.

 

[daltonr]

So it was your analysis that did not make sense. You complained earlier about misrepresentation by some people of others' views and yet you are doing exactly the same thing yourself here.

This is really getting tiresome. I never said anything about anyone misrepresenting anything, read my post again, don't just link to it. I said people were misinterpreting what was being said. Thanks for this stunning proof of that point.

Incidently you got the wrong quote when you quoted yourself. I quoted you verbatim when you said it makes no absolutely no sense

it makes no absolutely no sense to try and unseat a party from Government while also campaigning on behalf of of of their candidates.

Like I said. Tiresome. This is my last post. Post away to your hearts content.

-Rd

 

[ClubMan]

This is my last post.

Ever or just in this thread?

 

[daltonr]

Ever or just in this thread?

This thread. I'm not going to pull a Clubman and dissapear for 6 months because someone said something I didn't like.

See here for non-ripoff related post where I actually agree with Clubman on something.
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=106741&postcount=17

-Rd

 

[ubiquitous]

Did Eddie attack the Consumers Association (of which he is a leading member) for their policy opposing reform of the Groceries Order?

From [broken link removed]

Michael Kilcoyne, Chairperson of the
Consumers’ Association of Ireland recently
refuted suggestions that the Association was
reversing its stance on the Groceries Order’s
ban on below cost selling. The Consumer
Association has always and continues to
favour the retention of the ban.
According to Kilcoyne, although the association
regularly reviews its position and takes
advice on ‘that and all of the other elements
of the Groceries Order’, to date ‘that review
has brought no change of policy and any
suggestion to the contrary is presumptuous’.
Kilcoyne’s comments come in the wake of
recent suggestions from within the
Consumers’ Association that it was likely to
reverse its policy of support for the ban on
below-cost selling in supermarkets.

From

Consumers Authority chairman Michael Kilcoyne says there is no evidence that removing the Groceries Order would reduce prices.
"The Groceries Order covers only 50 of the 5000 items in supermarkets. The multiples would use below cost selling to swallow-up the independent operators and this would reduce competition and lead to higher prices," Kilcoyne says. "There is little point in paying less this month to pay more the following month."

Not much point in consumers sending nappies in protest to a Minister when Eddie's own outfit are telling the Minister to do nothing!

 

[Lemurz]

From "Morning Ireland" today............

28k - [broken link removed]

 

[ClubMan]

Did Eddie attack the Consumers Association (of which he is a leading member) for their policy opposing reform of the Groceries Order?

From [broken link removed]



From




Not much point in consumers sending nappies in protest to a Minister when Eddie's own outfit are telling the Minister to do nothing!

I'm amazed that this issue has not garnered as much attention and generated as much comment as EH's TV programme.

 

[daltonr]

I'm amazed that this issue has not garnered as much attention and generated as much comment as EH's TV programme.[./Quote]

Because noone disagrees with it. Eddie's view is very clear the Groceries Order should go. Do we have anything more recent that 2003/2004 to know the official view of the Consumers Association? Has their view changed? Has Eddie's view changed. I think I recall him saying that there was a time when the Order made sense but it no longer does.

-Rd