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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Seems Michael Collins and Padraig Pearse were gay?
Comments
-
-
-
walrusgumble wrote: »
I could not give two flying decks what you are waffling on about. Norris intentions are clear and you even proved what I had said, "if it's okay for x,y,z...." granted the reference to marriage was a bit unfair. If they were alive he would rightly be crucified in a court for defamation. Let him pick on less easier targets or at least come up with actual proofs.let him deal with those alive today and see where he gets.he wants to use figures from the past let him , but let him focus in people who were amazingly gay.
Norris is not nor was not accepted by members of society because he is gay, it is because he is an elitist snob (or is perceived as such) and few agree with his politics.the idea that he is led wing, as many perceive him to be is hilarious.
In order to sue for defamation (a) the statement would need to be false and (b) the statement would have to be seen to lower their reputations in the minds of a reasonable person.
While Norris hasn't really put forth any proof in the case of Collins etc, and thus his claims can't be taken as fact, are you in any position to say he's wrong? Just because it wasn't previously reported doesn't mean its wrong. As the only people who are likely to know are all probat dead, I doubt we will ever know conclusively.
Neither of you are in any position to know conclusively. I think if there was any man in Irelsnd capable of keeping something like this secret it would be Collins. Whether he did or not I've no idea.
Secondly, they'd need to prove it would damage their reputation. In this day and age I doubt any judge would find that being gay would damage your reputation in the eyes of reasonable people. I'd say being called a homophobe would be far more defamatory.
And lastly, the Irish people didn't reject Norris for being an elitist anything. At one point he was favourite for president. It was the revelations about his pederasty comments and his ex's conviction, and subsequent failure to address them adequately, that turned people against him. His "snobbery" or politics were up to that apparently quite endearing to the Irish people.0 -
It wasn't me! wrote: »fasttalkerchat wrote: »Actually it can be defamation. If I circulated a rumour that you're gay and your wife left you because of it you could quite rightly take me to court for defamation.
Because I would have a demonstrable loss. Where no such incidence occurs, then the "reasonable man" principle stands, and an accusation of homosexuality is not, in and of itself, defamatory.
Defamation is actionable per se - you don't need to show loss. The fact that your wife left you wouldn't necessarily make an otherwise non-defamatory statement defamatory.
Now if the allegation is that you had gay extra-marital sex causing your wife to leave that probably would be defamatory - not because of the gay part, but the extra-marital part.0 -
In order to sue for defamation (a) the statement would need to be false and (b) the statement would have to be seen to lower their reputations in the minds of a reasonable person.
While Norris hasn't really put forth any proof in the case of Collins etc, and thus his claims can't be taken as fact, are you in any position to say he's wrong? Just because it wasn't previously reported doesn't mean its wrong. As the only people who are likely to know are all probat dead, I doubt we will ever know conclusively.
Neither of you are in any position to know conclusively. I think if there was any man in Irelsnd capable of keeping something like this secret it would be Collins. Whether he did or not I've no idea.
Secondly, they'd need to prove it would damage their reputation. In this day and age I doubt any judge would find that being gay would damage your reputation in the eyes of reasonable people. I'd say being called a homophobe would be far more defamatory.
And lastly, the Irish people didn't reject Norris for being an elitist anything. At one point he was favourite for president. It was the revelations about his pederasty comments and his ex's conviction, and subsequent failure to address them adequately, that turned people against him. His "snobbery" or politics were up to that apparently quite endearing to the Irish people.
I could not have said any of this any better if I had tried I would however ask the poster that you were answering, who does he/she think he/she is that he/she can conclusivley say why the Irish People denied the Senator the position of President? That however is off topic.
What I would also like to say to the same poster is to again look at the context, you said in your earlier post to me that you couldn't give damn what I had said, but you'll find that to be able to have a conversation about Norris' claims that you have to consider the context in which they were made. On that particular note, it is not even Norris making the claim, he is just retelling a story told to him, this is obviously with regard to Collins!
So again I ask you to read the extract, look at the context and if you really have an issue with the Senator, maybe you should leave the conversation because you are clearly not willing to listen to rational argument.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Gay or not Norris's a knob of the highest order and a complete twat.0
-
-
In order to sue for defamation (a) the statement would need to be false and (b) the statement would have to be seen to lower their reputations in the minds of a reasonable person.
There is no conclusive evidence that Collins was gay. Thus, the truth of it can't be proven.Norris can't prove it it true . (but did qualify himself, cleverly)
Secondly, you only need to , as per the 2009 Act to show that it is capable of being defamatory, ie " capable" of lowering one's reputation in the eyes of the reasonable person. You don't need to show that a group has actually lowered their opinion. It simply must be capable of doing so, in the eyes of reasonable people
Making a false attack on a personal integrity that suggests that you are dishonest and a liar etc (by being gay), is often an actionable case. (if that is if, and only if, an article implied it of course)
Granted someone may have a defence like honest opinion (if a defamatory remark had being made) but that might be limited. (might)
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/ira-hero-collins-may-have-been-gay-1-4350697While Norris hasn't really put forth any proof in the case of Collins etc, and thus his claims can't be taken as fact, are you in any position to say he's wrong?
Firstly, Norris probably only gave his own personal opinion and no more. He probably did not claim it to be fact, if , the words taken by the newsletter above is accurate. Loose talk can make suggestions look like facts.
You can't however, unless you have a defence as per sections 16-26,go around making claims that suggest something without a qualification.
You make a statement, you better be basing it on credible facts or at least be careful how you say it, in case you are wrong. No way in hell would Norris dare make such comments if the man was alive today. Why? Because he knows that he might have action. Anyway, he is dead so the defamation issue is irelevant (simply pointing out that had he being alive, it would be a live issue)
It is not a case that "Norris hasn't really put forth any proof", Norris has provided NO proof at all. How does he know that his "source" is credible? What did he do to verify it?Just because it wasn't previously reported doesn't mean its wrong. As the only people who are likely to know are all probat dead, I doubt we will ever know conclusively.
Basing facts on little or no credible grounds does not make it alright either!
Many fools claim to have known Collins or fought in the GPO. We as tax payers are currently footing a Tribunal based partly on "facts" from a proven fantastic (ie Smithwick Tribunal) Kevin Mysers (Not the person that I am referring to above ) has, according to reports thus far,had a spot of bother
http://www.faduda.net/tribunal/smithwick40b.html
The Phoenix, one of the only papers that has extensively covered this tribunal has more on it. Check out the back catalogues in local libraries (Should warn, it is dismissive of the whole point of there being a tribunal however, on the basis that they believe that there is no foundation to the allegations - that of course remains to be seen)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0919/breaking31.html
Have people learnt from that well known libel case from last year yet? No, clearly not. (that example, I admit, is a bit dramatic, not intended)Neither of you are in any position to know conclusively.
You don't say something unless you know it is true. Some who made those comments can't prove that they are true, so, unless there is a defence like honest opinion (which , must be based on a true and proven fact) you are screwed. The Constitutional defence of a reputation, bearing in mind the more generous provisions of a defence to balance out the freedom of speech and taught, ain't going to wait around and see if something might be true.I think if there was any man in Ireland capable of keeping something like this secret it would be Collins. Whether he did or not I've no idea.
You honestly going to say, many others, in particular, his enemies, who know him would? Of course Collins would keep stum.Secondly, they'd need to prove it would damage their reputation. In this day and age I doubt any judge would find that being gay would damage your reputation in the eyes of reasonable people
I'd say being called a homophobe would be far more defamatory.
Depends on the circumstances, but yes, that would be a fair comment in general. But if by falsely claiming that a person is gay, and it suggests that you live a life of double standards or are dishonestly pretending to be straight , you might be in a spot of bother.
Look at Reynolds v Malcoo case.
As for having to prove that your reputation is damaged, no. You just have to prove that it "tends" to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society or as per section 14, capable of doing so.(ie High Court when as to determine whether a statement is defamatory) There is a rebuttable presumption that a comment is false.
http://www.simonmcaleese.com/asp/printf.asp?RecordId=352
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Explanatory%20Memo%20to%20Defamation%20Bill.pdf/Files/Explanatory%20Memo%20to%20Defamation%20Bill.pdf
You might want to look at the watters case about reputations (another case of allegations of being gay)
http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/2c63f5208729bfdd802577d70041b855?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,watters
It is being anyone else but Collins who was involved in killing, you are saying that someone had broken the law in those days, thus a criminal and it was not sociably acceptable, (you know that it was illegal to be gay then) It ain't the allegation of being gay that is the issue it's the context. If it suggests more (and is a false allegation) that one is say a hypocrite etc
Anyway, he is long dead, so, no point going any further.And lastly, the Irish people didn't reject Norris for being an elitist anything. At one point he was favourite for president.
Favourite according to who? A few opinion poles of selected people and famous faces who don't necessarily share the views of most people.
He was never going to win that election, regardless of the allegations, by all means they greatly fecked up his campaign, but he was never going to win. Get real, he would never have been elected had he ran for Dail (although, I would never criticise for that, I doubt that he would have stooped himself to the depth of parish pump politics)
So much so that he barely got the nominations needed (in light of who they were, probably not the greatest example) , bar the clever gesture of our current President. Regarding the people themselves, great guy to have the craic with but, many did not think he was suited to be President. Before the scandal, he hardly could have said to have set the house of fire during his campaigning outside of Dublin. His "snobbery" or politics were up to that apparently quite endearing to the Irish people.0 -
fasttalkerchat wrote: »Interesting example, although if the alleged "tout" subsequently suffered injury from an assassination attempt the case could swing the other way (I would imagine).
What if you were outed as being gay infront of friends and family causing you embarrassment when in fact it was untrue that you are gay... wouldn't that be damage resulting from defamed character (I use the word defamed very loosely).
That decision, Berry v Irish Times, was, in light of precedent, made on public policy grounds (in my opinion). It would have been odd to suggest that there was something wrong with reporting a crime to the police. It probably would still not be defamatory even if he was killed.Sure, the old republican guards were still in Office, Dev as President, Lemass, Aiken, Traynor retired, Blaney still knocking about....
Second part, depends on the context of whether you said one thing but turned out to be lying . It potentially can be defamatory, but on it's own, not. Depends on the circumstances.0 -
Advertisement
-
Pearse always seemed fairly gay but I think that's a good thing because it shows you don't have to kill bears with your bare hands and ride a load of women to be a national hero. As for the others, as far as I know Collins was engaged for real, and where the **** is the proof? Not a shred of evidence (unless Norris has something OP didn't include. which I doubt) It's a load of bollix imho.0
-
I could not have said any of this any better if I had tried I would however ask the poster that you were answering, who does he/she think he/she is that he/she can conclusivley say why the Irish People denied the Senator the position of President? That however is off topic.
What I would also like to say to the same poster is to again look at the context, you said in your earlier post to me that you couldn't give damn what I had said, but you'll find that to be able to have a conversation about Norris' claims that you have to consider the context in which they were made. On that particular note, it is not even Norris making the claim, he is just retelling a story told to him, this is obviously with regard to Collins!
So again I ask you to read the extract, look at the context and if you really have an issue with the Senator, maybe you should leave the conversation because you are clearly not willing to listen to rational argument.
Before congratulating another poster, it might be best that the opinion of that poster is better informed regarding how to sue in a defamation case.
Secondly, the reference to Presidential Capability was in response to Norris' moaning about being accepted. Granted, context wise, he is talking about when he was growing up, a matter that he comendably fought the rights for.
Thirdly, you clearly don't get it. He is trying to use people from history, with little or no actual proof, (and would not dare utter those views in public) if they were alive. What he has said, and it can't be an unforeseeable accident, has made other reports indicate that he said alot more (maybe missing the point, of course, but he allowed it to happen)
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/ira-hero-collins-may-have-been-gay-1-4350697
Of course, this is the more reliable article http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1008/1224325013269.html
Why bring it up , when you have no proof? Why try to label someone when you have no evidence? Rumours ain't facts. Sources are not necessarily reliable. Pick out more relevant people. Stick to more appropriate figures like Wilde. You raise a suggestion, your leaving yourself open to being accused of making allegations.
Norris simply telling a story, ya. Norris is no fool (either way , what he did or did not intend, if for argument sake there was a case, would be irrelevant at proof stage, only relevant at defence)
You come here now and tell me whether or not Norris would dare have said any of this if they were alive today.
Sorry, and when I said I could not care, I should have said, I could not care if you found it offensive or ignorant.0 -
-
walrusgumble wrote: »Before congratulating another poster, it might be best that the opinion of that poster is better informed regarding how to sue in a defamation case.
Secondly, the reference to Presidential Capability was in response to Norris' moaning about being accepted. Granted, context wise, he is talking about when he was growing up, a matter that he comendably fought the rights for.
Thirdly, you clearly don't get it. He is trying to use people from history, with little or no actual proof, (and would not dare utter those views in public) if they were alive. What he has said, and it can't be an unforeseeable accident, has made other reports indicate that he said alot more (maybe missing the point, of course, but he allowed it to happen)
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/ira-hero-collins-may-have-been-gay-1-4350697
Of course, this is the more reliable article http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1008/1224325013269.html
Why bring it up , when you have no proof? Why try to label someone when you have no evidence? Rumours ain't facts. Sources are not necessarily reliable. Pick out more relevant people. Stick to more appropriate figures like Wilde. You raise a suggestion, your leaving yourself open to being accused of making allegations.
Norris simply telling a story, ya. Norris is no fool (either way , what he did or did not intend, if for argument sake there was a case, would be irrelevant at proof stage, only relevant at defence)
You come here now and tell me whether or not Norris would dare have said any of this if they were alive today.
Sorry, and when I said I could not care, I should have said, I could not care if you found it offensive or ignorant.
You're entire post is ignorant, the point that Norris is making is that if those men were alive today, Norris would not have needed to make the claim because we NOW live in a safe world where you can be openly gay.
At this stage I'm really done speaking with you on this because you are refusing to look at the context that Norris told the story in and are just concerned with the potential defamation which is completely off topic!0 -
I've heard the rumor about Micheal Collins being gay. But wasn't he engaged? I heard O'Duffy was gay too. Never heard about Pearce or Casement though.
Heard long time ago about Casement, but that was allowable he was English.
Pearse does make sense, what with all that bloody romantism and poetry.
Never heard about mr Garda Siochana or Collins.Guy:Incognito wrote: »Could'nt have been gay, sure wasnt he riding Julia Roberts.
And he was from Cork boy.
Republicans are far more open-minded than loyalists, though (generalisation, yes. Wrong? No).
Well there is always Sammy Wilson.
And wasn't Mrs Robinson a bit of cougar.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
De valera - Sex symbol0
-
walrusgumble wrote: »I could not have said any of this any better if I had tried I would however ask the poster that you were answering, who does he/she think he/she is that he/she can conclusivley say why the Irish People denied the Senator the position of President? That however is off topic.
What I would also like to say to the same poster is to again look at the context, you said in your earlier post to me that you couldn't give damn what I had said, but you'll find that to be able to have a conversation about Norris' claims that you have to consider the context in which they were made. On that particular note, it is not even Norris making the claim, he is just retelling a story told to him, this is obviously with regard to Collins!
So again I ask you to read the extract, look at the context and if you really have an issue with the Senator, maybe you should leave the conversation because you are clearly not willing to listen to rational argument.
Before congratulating another poster, it might be best that the opinion of that poster is better informed regarding how to sue in a defamation case.
Secondly, the reference to Presidential Capability was in response to Norris' moaning about being accepted. Granted, context wise, he is talking about when he was growing up, a matter that he comendably fought the rights for.
Thirdly, you clearly don't get it. He is trying to use people from history, with little or no actual proof, (and would not dare utter those views in public) if they were alive. What he has said, and it can't be an unforeseeable accident, has made other reports indicate that he said alot more (maybe missing the point, of course, but he allowed it to happen)
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/ira-hero-collins-may-have-been-gay-1-4350697
Of course, this is the more reliable article http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1008/1224325013269.html
Why bring it up , when you have no proof? Why try to label someone when you have no evidence? Rumours ain't facts. Sources are not necessarily reliable. Pick out more relevant people. Stick to more appropriate figures like Wilde. You raise a suggestion, your leaving yourself open to being accused of making allegations.
Norris simply telling a story, ya. Norris is no fool (either way , what he did or did not intend, if for argument sake there was a case, would be irrelevant at proof stage, only relevant at defence)
You come here now and tell me whether or not Norris would dare have said any of this if they were alive today.
Sorry, and when I said I could not care, I should have said, I could not care if you found it offensive or ignorant.
I know all about defamation law, trust me. I had already pointed out in another post that its actionable per se - I.e. without damage.
I'm just not arsed arguing finer points because it really doesn't matter.
You can argue whether or not its defamatory (I think it's a very open issue, especially if there's no allegation of extra-marital affairs etc), but its hypothetical and irrelevant.
Neither of us know, so while Collins might be able to sue if he were alive today, Norris might be able to establish a defence of justification.
So I don't get why the **** anybody is outraged at Norris when they actually know if he's wrong.
On the balance of probabilities I saw he's more likely straight but I really haven't a ****ing clue.
And unless you think there is something wrong with being gay, it wouldn't really matter either way. It's as likely to tarnish his reputation in reasonable people's eyes as if Norris was to reveal he loved mushrooms.
His achievements in life are what people respect, not his sexual orientation.0 -
You're entire post is ignorant, the point that Norris is making is that if those men were alive today, Norris would not have needed to make the claim because we NOW live in a safe world where you can be openly gay.
At this stage I'm really done speaking with you on this because you are refusing to look at the context that Norris told the story in and are just concerned with the potential defamation which is completely off topic!
No it is not ignorant. The core of what I had said, and other posters like you pathetically attempted to dispute was the laws on defamation. I had, if you bothered (but did not, because, you far too more concerned in blindly defending any criticism of Norris) pointed out, that since Collins is dead, there is no point talking about defamation.
The point was, and you are hopeless ignorant on (intentionally, but, it seems, with your understanding of defamation, stupidity might not be far off), is that Norris would have been told by his editors to keep his mouth shut and refrain from making such comments , if these people were still alive. He would never have dared make such passing gossipy comments. Why do it with dead people? He had other openly and well know gays to use in his argument should he want to.
It is clear what he is trying to say, but it still does not in any way prevent it from being capable of being defamatory, if they were alive. He has wrongfully or without credible evidence labelled and associated certain people with his cause
Norris is associating, without little proof, and thus not true, (Just because some clown and a few rumours, - just as well you are not in journalism - means very little) one or two of the historic figures as gay, in order to make his arguments. He has no basis for doing it, and no right to label them as such.
You of course, have no problem with people like him wrongfully / unfairly / falsely labeling or associating people.... sod your context. If Norris is not capable of making his argument without the manner he did, he would be best to shut that loose mouth of his.0 -
I know all about defamation law, trust me. I had already pointed out in another post that its actionable per se - I.e. without damage.
I'm just not arsed arguing finer points because it really doesn't matter.
You can argue whether or not its defamatory (I think it's a very open issue, especially if there's no allegation of extra-marital affairs etc), but its hypothetical and irrelevant.
Neither of us know, so while Collins might be able to sue if he were alive today, Norris might be able to establish a defence of justification.
So I don't get why the **** anybody is outraged at Norris when they actually know if he's wrong.
On the balance of probabilities I saw he's more likely straight but I really haven't a ****ing clue.
And unless you think there is something wrong with being gay, it wouldn't really matter either way. It's as likely to tarnish his reputation in reasonable people's eyes as if Norris was to reveal he loved mushrooms.
His achievements in life are what people respect, not his sexual orientation.
On the padentic, since you know all about defamation, you will know that there is no longer such a thing as the defence of "justification".
If Collins was alive today, or, had Norris had made those comments about a person alive today, how could he rely on the defence of truth or any form of privelidge , if he fails to show that the comments are remotely true, ? Unless honest opinion, but even then he needs some correct facts to base it on.
You seem to have no problem being accused of being something that you are not , I see. You and your friend know only too well, that had he being alive today, or had the subject to whom Norris was referring to was alive, those comments in his book would not be in the book.0 -
walrusgumble wrote: »No it is not ignorant. The core of what I had said, and other posters like you pathetically attempted to dispute was the laws on defamation. I had, if you bothered (but did not, because, you far too more concerned in blindly defending any criticism of Norris) pointed out, that since Collins is dead, there is no point talking about defamation.
The point was, and you are hopeless ignorant on (intentionally, but, it seems, with your understanding of defamation, stupidity might not be far off), is that Norris would have been told by his editors to keep his mouth shut and refrain from making such comments , if these people were still alive. He would never have dared make such passing gossipy comments. Why do it with dead people? He had other openly and well know gays to use in his argument should he want to.
It is clear what he is trying to say, but it still does not in any way prevent it from being capable of being defamatory, if they were alive. He has wrongfully or without credible evidence labelled and associated certain people with his cause
Norris is associating, without little proof, and thus not true, (Just because some clown and a few rumours, - just as well you are not in journalism - means very little) one or two of the historic figures as gay, in order to make his arguments. He has no basis for doing it, and no right to label them as such.
You of course, have no problem with people like him wrongfully / unfairly / falsely labeling or associating people.... sod your context. If Norris is not capable of making his argument without the manner he did, he would be best to shut that loose mouth of his.
Just so as you're aware you made some personal attacks on me there without knowing me and you have not read my posts otherwise you would see that I stated the claim of defamation was not the point, I also asked that you take the context of what he said into account which you seem unwilling to do so.
Can I ask and this is not an attack on you, but are you a homophobe? You seem very insulted by the concept that Collins *MAY NOT* have been 100% straight, is this down to some of your own insecure feelings regarding MSM?
I have decided to report your post for the personal attacks on me and your dismissive attitude to my argument. You just seem to be on a mission to attack Norris and any of his supporters such as myself.
I think the bottom line is that to me Norris will always be a hero because without him we would have a large group of people who are criminals from the day they were born just because of the gender of the people they fancy!0 -
Advertisement
-
Everybody calm down and stop making things personal here.0
-
Just so as you're aware you made some personal attacks on me there without knowing me and you have not read my posts otherwise you would see that I stated the claim of defamation was not the point, I also asked that you take the context of what he said into account which you seem unwilling to do so.
In response to your comments about my post being ignorant. That would be a fair comment, if you had any clue as to what you were talking about. It is beyond a joke hearing that from such an ill informed and dishonest poster such as yourself to have to listen to that.
I pointed out that you were being ignorant, no more , no less. Your posts show ignorance. Fair comment.
It has being pointed out time and time again, Norris attempted to label someone, in order to get his point across. He would not have done that to a person alive today. Your defence of context is laughable. It does not in any way justify what he did.Can I ask and this is not an attack on you, but are you a homophobe?
What a surprise. How bloody predictable. Playing the victim card are you? Point out where I have made or implied anything that was homophobic. Norris could have called Collins et all a space mutant for all that matters, the point was, he was labeling someone without a thread of evidence and passing it off to be borderline fact.
He would not have done it to a person who was alive today, why do it to the dead. You know it!
No I am not a homophobe, each to their own. But there is nothing worse than someone who plays the victim when they have no other cards to play. I have an issue with any person being labelled by someone with their own agenda, something that they are not and there is little evidence to support it.
Is it homophobic to be critical of Senator Norris?
I suppose you might have being one of those who told us to take things in context in light of those odd interviews that messed up his Presidency Campaign?You seem very insulted by the concept that Collins *MAY NOT* have been 100% straight, is this down to some of your own insecure feelings regarding MSM?
There is no maybe.
Thankfully, I am pretty secure about who I am, I see you are trying to insinuate, typically pointless weapon of defence the pink brigade use. (Unlike you, I am not a petty as you to run off like a child to teacher, any time hard or akward comments are pressed onto me)
You have a problem , clearly, with anyone who is critical of Norris. Just to make it very clear, Norris was not attacked for being gay, he was attacked for comments that he made that are based on nothing
As some poster has already said, Norris has a habit of sexualising everything. He also has a habit of running his mouth off. You don't seem to have a problem with branding someone something that they are not, and there is no proof of it (no amount of, he could have etc cuts it), whether alive or dead
Of course, that point has completely gone over your head
You are clearly on a mission to blindly defend someone when there is little justification to do it. You have no qualms with falsely labeling people, when your "hero's" do it I see. It gets pointed out that it is bang out of order, and you play the little victimI have decided to report your post for the personal attacks on me and your dismissive attitude to my argument. You just seem to be on a mission to attack Norris and any of his supporters such as myself.
Your posts are ignorant, your ignorant on defamation. You are ignoring the fact that he would never have made the comments that he made if they related to someone who was still alive today. He would possibly get himeself into hot water. Fair comment
You are clearly on a mission to blindly defend someone when there is little justification to do it. You have no qualms with falsely labeling people, when your "hero's" do it I see. It gets pointed out that it is bang out of order, and you play the little victimI think the bottom line is that to me Norris will always be a hero because without him we would have a large group of people who are criminals from the day they were born just because of the gender of the people they fancy!
It does not justify blindly defending him of every single issue, like the complaint raised by me.
You have proven to be utterly biased.Your argument on "context" is nonsense and very disengenuous
Incapable of dealing with people who do not agree with you, I see. Why bother come onto discussion boards?0 -
walrusgumble wrote: »In response to your comments about my post being ignorant. That would be a fair comment, if you had any clue as to what you were talking about. It is beyond a joke hearing that from such an ill informed and dishonest poster such as yourself to have to listen to that.
I pointed out that you were being ignorant, no more , no less. Your posts show ignorance. Fair comment.
It has being pointed out time and time again, Norris attempted to label someone, in order to get his point across. He would not have done that to a person alive today. Your defence of context is laughable. It does not in any way justify what he did.
What a surprise. How bloody predictable. Playing the victim card are you? Point out where I have made or implied anything that was homophobic. Norris could have called Collins et all a space mutant for all that matters, the point was, he was labeling someone without a thread of evidence and passing it off to be borderline fact.
He would not have done it to a person who was alive today, why do it to the dead. You know it!
No I am not a homophobe, each to their own. But there is nothing worse than someone who plays the victim when they have no other cards to play. I have an issue with any person being labelled by someone with their own agenda, something that they are not and there is little evidence to support it.
Is it homophobic to be critical of Senator Norris?
I suppose you might have being one of those who told us to take things in context in light of those odd interviews that messed up his Presidency Campaign?
Thankfully, I am pretty secure about who I am, mentally, socially and sexually. How about you.? Nice try, I see you are trying to insinuate, typically pointless weapon of defence the pink brigade use. (Unlike you, I am not a petty as you to run off like a child to teacher, any time hard or akward comments are pressed onto me)
You have a problem , clearly, with anyone who is critical of Norris. Just to make it very clear, Norris was not attacked for being gay, he was attacked for comments that he made that are based on nothing
As some poster has already said, Norris has a habit of sexualising everything. He also has a habit of running his mouth off. You don't seem to have a problem with branding someone something that they are not, and there is no proof of it (no amount of, he could have etc cuts it), whether alive or dead
Of course, that point has completely gone over your head
You are clearly on a mission to blindly defend someone when there is little justification to do it. You have no qualms with falsely labeling people, when your "hero's" do it I see. It gets pointed out that it is bang out of order, and you play the little victim
Your posts are ignorant, your ignorant on defamation. You are ignoring the fact that he would never have made the comments that he made if they related to someone who was still alive today. He would possibly get himeself into hot water. Fair comment
You are clearly on a mission to blindly defend someone when there is little justification to do it. You have no qualms with falsely labeling people, when your "hero's" do it I see. It gets pointed out that it is bang out of order, and you play the little victim
It does not justify blindly defending him of every single issue, like the complaint raised by me.
You have proven to be utterly biased.Your argument on "context" is nonsense and very disengenuous
Incapable of dealing with people who do not agree with you, I see. Why bother come onto discussion boards?
Wow someone I don't know just called me "ill informed and dishonest" I'm sorry but I think you may have missed the post where we were asked to stop getting personal yet that entire post was a personal attack on me!
In the same vein of you asking for proof that Collins was not hetrosexual, can you provide concrete evidence that he was?
And being engaged does not count, because I personally know plenty of people who were married and even had kids before they came out so a bit more evidence?
I'm no victim, and to suggest otherwise is, again, ignorant of your post. I have at no point attacked you I have said that I don't agree with you or your posts, but I have yet to attack you!
Yes I will defend Norris when I believe he is being attacked unfairly, I'll also defend you if I believe you are being attacked unfairly, does that mean that I'd be blindly defending you?
Again I feel that your post again needs to be reported as you clearly ignored the directive from the Mod to not attack posters!0 -
Wow someone I don't know just called me "ill informed and dishonest"
Your post was ill informed and dishonest (assuming that you are remotely intelligent) on what you had to say and approve of, regarding defamation.
The comments are based on the posts and no more. I or anyone else do not need to know your life story to make those comments. You say it fit, based on my posts , to suggest that I am homophobic. You did so, on the basis of your interpretation of the posts that I wrote. You don't hear me crying, "you don't know me.............."I'm sorry but I think you may have missed the post where we were asked to stop getting personal yet that entire post was a personal attack on me!
It is fair comment. If you are too thin skinned, you probably should not be here. You have absolutely no issue with making suggestions your self.In the same vein of you asking for proof that Collins was not hetrosexual, can you provide concrete evidence that he was?
You and you'r hero are the ones making claim that he was or might have being gay. You are the ones to prove that he is or maybe gay, not the other way round. There is a presumption of falsity.
Deal with it, there is little or no evidence that he was gay.
I'm no victim, and to suggest otherwise is, again, ignorant of your post.
Let us leave it to other posters to decide.I have at no point attacked you I have said that I don't agree with you or your posts, but I have yet to attack you!
What attacks? Your posts are ignorant and dishonest. It is a legitimate and valid point. The fact that you can't or won't rebut that, does not justify you going off crying about it.Yes I will defend Norris when I believe he is being attacked unfairly, I'll also defend you if I believe you are being attacked unfairly, does that mean that I'd be blindly defending you?
You are in this case, your are ignoring the fact that Norris is allowing insinuations which he has little or no proofs on. He is careful however to protect himself in how he says it. What he did say, may not past muster if those comments referred to someone who was alive today.
In order to defend him, you are telling everyone to take it into context , (ie what he meant by that. There is no issue with relying on historical people, there is an issue with relying on people where there is little or no credible basis)
But, that is your right.Again I feel that your post again needs to be reported as you clearly ignored the directive from the Mod to not attack posters!
Knock your self out. You clearly can't defend your argument0 -
-
walrusgumble wrote: »Your post was ill informed and dishonest (assuming that you are remotely intelligent) on what you had to say and approve of, regarding defamation.
The comments are based on the posts and no more. I or anyone else do not need to know your life story to make those comments. You say it fit, based on my posts , to suggest that I am homophobic. You did so, on the basis of your interpretation of the posts that I wrote. You don't hear me crying, "you don't know me.............."
It is fair comment. If you are too thin skinned, you probably should not be here. You have absolutely no issue with making suggestions your self.
You and you'r hero are the ones making claim that he was or might have being gay. You are the ones to prove that he is or maybe gay, not the other way round. There is a presumption of falsity.
Deal with it, there is little or no evidence that he was gay.
Let us leave it to other posters to decide.
What attacks? Your posts are ignorant and dishonest. It is a legitimate and valid point. The fact that you can't or won't rebut that, does not justify you going off crying about it.
You are in this case, your are ignoring the fact that Norris is allowing insinuations which he has little or no proofs on. He is careful however to protect himself in how he says it. What he did say, may not past muster if those comments referred to someone who was alive today.
In order to defend him, you are telling everyone to take it into context , (ie what he meant by that. There is no issue with relying on historical people, there is an issue with relying on people where there is little or no credible basis)
But, that is your right.
Knock your self out. You clearly can't defend your argument
I have defended my post and my argument yet you continue to just hurl insults at me so instead of defending my argument I have been forced to defend myself.
Also I never suggested you were homophobic, I asked if you were I would appreciate that you don't keep putting words in my mouth.
You did not call my posts ill-informed and dishonest, you called me ill-informed and dishonest, there are clear differences.
I have tried to bow out of this discussion at least once but had to come back to defend myself so I'll ask that you no long reply directly to my posts as I have no interest in speaking to you any longer on the matter as you simply refuse to acknowledge my argument and resort to insulting me.
So on that note I'll say thank you and good afternoon.0 -
Does anyone have any feedback on George Hook's response to this. (if he made any commnets that is....)0
-
I have defended my post and my argument yet you continue to just hurl insults at me so instead of defending my argument I have been forced to defend myself.
Also I never suggested you were homophobic, I asked if you were I would appreciate that you don't keep putting words in my mouth.
You did not call my posts ill-informed and dishonest, you called me ill-informed and dishonest, there are clear differences.
I have tried to bow out of this discussion at least once but had to come back to defend myself so I'll ask that you no long reply directly to my posts as I have no interest in speaking to you any longer on the matter as you simply refuse to acknowledge my argument and resort to insulting me.
So on that note I'll say thank you and good afternoon.
Point out the abusive comments.
You said that you were leaving it at that. Do so then and stop playing the victim, you are getting no where with it. Let the other posters see for themselves.
You asked whether I was homophobic. You clearly was insinuating the possibility of this. You were asked to highlight how you came to the need to ask such a question.
You (on the basis of your posts) and your posts are ill informed and dishonest. Fair comment. The comments made were not genuinely intended to insult. If you feel that they are insults, well then refrain from making ill informed and dishonest comments.
Your argument was acknowledged in that I said that I understood what you were saying. But, the argument is nonsense, as it in no way rebuts that fact that Norris should have refrained from referring to people he would other wise would have been advised to say nothing, if they were alive. He labelled people unfairly. There were other figures in history that he could have referred to.You support that kind of behaviour, clearly.
If Norris was not known for being over the top and consistently sexualising (no matter how genuinely funny he can be) then one could give him the benefit of doubt. But , this is not the case. Pointing to context, other posters have made a similar complaint about the over sexualisation. It is irrelevant that he is gay, the same would be said if there was some sort of Russel Brand hetro type. It was bang out of order. But, since one is critical of Norris, somehow, someone, in the form of a question (oh, clever) is suggesting that there might be a quiff of homophobia or Anti Norris Agenda
Bow out so.0 -
In the same vein of you asking for proof that Collins was not hetrosexual, can you provide concrete evidence that he was?
I better clarify that i am straight-Otherwise there is no proof of it
That's basically what your post is asking for, Norris as usual sexualising things and calling everyone that can't defend themselves gay, If he was as comfortable as he claims to be about been gay maybe he would not be so determined to paint everybody as been gay.
Norris as usual is out of order, and you asking for proof that he was straight is just side tracking and keeping Norris's unfair unjust claims legit.Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I met an auld wan in a pub one night who confided in me that it was WELL KNOWN in gay circles that David Norris is a closet straight.
I always suspected as such.
I'm avidly waiting for each day's edition of the Oirish Mail to see how many of the 1916 proclamation signatories will be outed.
David, in case you're reading this, I'm only messing. Please don't sue. 0 -
I met an auld wan in a pub one night who confided in me that it was WELL KNOWN in gay circles that David Norris is a closet straight.
David, in case you're reading this, I'm only messing. Please don't sue.
First time I saw him on TV I said he was 90% sure he was gay... didn't realise he was openly gay.0
. 
Advertisement