Still Waters No Longer Running, Derp.

Mr. CooL ICE

Also, a doctor stuck their finger up his ass. But he won't comment on something so personal online.

Nodin

porsche959 wrote: »

I have never commented on a John Waters article online (apart from in this thread) but having read a few comments that have been posted after some of his articles I would concede some of them over the top.

....they may be from people who couldn't get into Journalism, but can write. Anything waters-like may push them over the edge.

Oddly that's one of his better written articles. He may only see clearly when concerning the most holy of subjects.

Nodin

lazygal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/media/if-you-re-reading-this-online-stop-1.1525539


John is VERY VERY cross with online peoples today. VERY cross. Shame on all of you.

Evidently the church memo about people placing themselves in untouchable positions atop pillars has yet to reach John, some few centuries later.

robindch

Nodin wrote: »

[...] the church memo about people placing themselves in untouchable positions atop pillars has yet to reach John [...]

John as Simeon Stylites?

The comparison is good.

Dave!

Sorry John

Skrynesaver

Dave! wrote: »

Sorry John

Imagine the ad revenue generated as people come to read his drivel, now imagine ignoring him on-line and the effect that would have on his revenue raising potential.

the man is a professional troll.

The Black Oil

Today's thesaurus bingo.

For the avoidance of doubt
sewer of toxic hatred
concomitant process
antagonistic demeanour
cyberspace
exaggeratedly strident
excessively timid and self-protective
form of censorship

Nodin

...it's in hilarious bad taste really. He's holding up an alleged phone call to the Samaritans and an alleged prostate test to say "lemme alone".

porsche959

Nodin wrote: »

...it's in hilarious bad taste really. He's holding up an alleged phone call to the Samaritans and an alleged prostate test to say "lemme alone".

Doubters make the baby Jesus cwy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle

recedite

So everything John writes is supposed to be from the perspective of a dead person. Hmm...

tawnyowl

robindch wrote: »

John as Simeon Stylites?

The comparison is good.

Bet he didn't have to pay a parking fine, though!

goose2005

ARCHBISHOP Diarmuid Martin has hit out at some Catholic writers who he said lack basic Christian charity.

He also criticised elements of the Catholic media who he said were damaging the credibility of the church.

In an address yesterday to the 'Faith of Our Fathers' conference in Kilkenny, organised by the 'Catholic Voice' newspaper, the archbishop criticised the "growing tendency" towards 'tabloidism' in sectors of the Catholic media in Ireland.

I wonder if JW was on his mind?

PopePalpatine

He attacks "tabloidism" in Catholic media...in a conference organised by the "Catholic Voice", which features Fr. Brian McKevitt of Nearly Dead! Alive! fame. :rolleyes:

Sarky

The Catholic church does a fine job damaging itself, perhaps he's just hitting out at the writers because he doesn't want, or even need their help running that particular cult into the ground?

Hotblack Desiato

Who could Martin have been talking about?

Anyone any good at crosswords?

1 Across: Larry ____, creator of Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm (5)

1 Down: Super_____, Irish supermarket chain (5)

The Black Oil

If we guess correctly is the prize a JW writing course?

lazygal

The Black Oil wrote: »

If we guess correctly is the prize a JW writing course?

No, a copy of 'that' picture.

Doctor Strange

lazygal wrote: »

No, a copy of 'that' picture.

The Black Oil

Y'know, each time I hear Martin say something it often seems reasonable and fairly mild-mannered. Certain people could learn from him.

Links234

ninja900 wrote: »

Anyone any good at crosswords?

Nope! I was scratching my head thinking "Who the **** is David Value?" for a good 2 minutes

Bannasidhe

Links234 wrote: »

Nope! I was scratching my head thinking "Who the **** is David Value?" for a good 2 minutes

I googled David Value - apparently he's David Beckham or possibly someone called David Wilson....

tawnyowl

The Black Oil wrote: »

Today's thesaurus bingo.

I've just had an idea: John Waters fridge magnets!

tawnyowl

goose2005 wrote: »

I wonder if JW was on his mind?

Or some of his pals? Looks meaningfully towards Merrion Square.

Brian Shanahan

Actually I've been thinking of this for a while, and if M. Waters was truly christian he would have refused to leave the jail.

For, you see, the crime rate would have immediately and permanently plummeted, as criminals would have the fear of god put into them that the would have to listen to his inane, insane and self-regarding ramblings the whole time they were incarcerated.

And we could also perfect cloning technology, with Waters as a mass replicable weapon, world-peace would be easy.

Hotblack Desiato

We can't do that, we signed the UN Convention on Torture...

Links234

If only we could harness self-importance as a source of energy, Waters could fuel the country for another 30 years.

Brian Shanahan

ninja900 wrote: »

We can't do that, we signed the UN Convention on Torture...

Fecking lily-livered pinkos going on about human rights. Put the crims in bed with him!, it's the only language they understand!

Feck it we've a potential multi-billion export industry here, just like the UK selling rubber bullets and tear gas to the Ay-rabs.

Hotblack Desiato

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Put the crims in bed with him!, it's the only language they understand!

:eek:

robindch

The Mandela of Castlerea is moved to worry about the abolition of the Seanad:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/our-power-as-citizens-is-at-stake-in-seanad-referendum-1.1541473

Dear John wrote:

I should be in favour of abolishing the Seanad – I railed against it long enough. A decade ago, I debated the elitism of its electoral system on radio with David Norris, who declared me “jealous” because I hadn’t been to Trinity and thereby wasn’t entitled to vote for him. But there’s a difference between criticising the Seanad and wanting an end to it. The Taoiseach claims the Upper House has shown itself incapable of reform, yet no serious attempt has been made to take reform beyond the level of framing proposals and promptly shelving them.

There have – yet again – been some troubling and even suspicious aspects relating to the adequacy of the public debate about the present amendment proposals. The impression has been conveyed by both combatants and hosts of the debate that nothing of great significance hangs upon the outcome – that the headline issues relate to reducing the number of politicians and saving €20 million. In fact, the change will have considerable impact on the capacity of our democratic systems to call some of its most powerful actors to account, and will erode some of the most fundamental democratic powers currently residing with citizens.

The proposed change to Article 35.4.1, for example, will significantly raise the threshold of difficulty to be encountered in seeking to impeach a judge. At present, a judge may be impeached on grounds of stated misbehaviour or incapacity on a simple majority of members present in both Dáil and Seanad. We know from some relatively recent cases that, even under these constitutional conditions, removing a judge poses significant challenges. If the Seanad is abolished, the impeachment bar will be raised even higher, requiring a majority of “not less than two-thirds of the total membership” of the Dáil, in effect changing the odds of removing a miscreant judge from evens to two-to-one against.

The public mindset on this issue has been manipulated to in effect bring about a 180 degree about-turn from the position of just over a decade ago. The oversight of judges became a hot-button issues in the late 1990s as a result of the “Sheedy affair”, although politicians were reluctant to tackle the issue for fear of offending against the separation of powers governing the relationship between politics and the judiciary. The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2001 was introduced with the intention of establishing a body to investigate judges. Against the grain of pubic opinion, this proposed to change the rules governing the impeachment of judges to require a two-thirds majority of either house, instead of the existing simple majority of both. The proposal provoked indignation from senior members of the then opposition, not least Ruairí Quinn. Eventually, the government withdrew the referendum Bill.

When Judge Brian Curtin was charged with possessing child pornography in 2002, the question of his judicial position became a major political embarrassment, in no way mitigated when the trial judge ruled that a search of Curtin’s home had been illegal, and the matter was disposed of only when Curtin resigned on grounds of ill-health. Subsequently, politicians kicked the accountability of judges issue into touch. The present amendment, however, proposes to reinstate one of the key measures of the abortive 2001 amendment, under cover of abolishing the Seanad. Hitherto, it would in theory have been sufficient for a government to operate the whip to remove a delinquent judge. The amended position will in effect require that a large part of the Dáil opposition combine with the government in removing such a figure. It is conceivable, therefore, that a judge seeking to contest his impeachment could use political influence to successfully mount a campaign to resist his or her removal from office.

There are other issues also. At present, the Constitution provides that Bills may be referred to the people for a referendum if a majority of the Seanad and at least a third of Dáil members request the President to refer the Bill to the people on grounds of its national importance. The President has power to implement or disallow such a request. If the present amendment is passed, these provisions will be dispensed with. One doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder why such fundamental changes were tacked onto what is presented as a straightforward proposal to abolish the Seanad, and why several weeks of intensive campaigning have passed without them becoming the major issues of the debate. In the cunning disguise of a cynical populism we are to be confronted next week by a radical attempt to reduce permanently the democratic powers of citizens, and make some of the most powerful actors in our society more untouchable than ever.

Sarky

Refreshing to see him natter on about something that's not telling women how they should feel about abortion or about the gross injustices of failing to pay parking fines.