Praveen Halappanavar says he has received abusive letters

Professey Chin

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I don't suppose we'll get to learn who sent the abusive mail?

The initials Y.D. or affiliated comes to mind

LizT

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'm not referring to how he is now.

I'm specifically referring to his interview with Miriam O'Callaghan about 2-3 weeks after the death of Savita.

She died on 28th October 2012, the interview was broadcast on 21 November 2012.

How should he have acted?

That, in itself, is a stupid question. There's no "normal" reaction to gauge this against, everyone grieves differently.

laoch na mona

some people are ****ing scum and they seem to radiate towards the abortion debate

intellectual dosser

Chinpool wrote: »

The initials Y.D. or affiliated comes to mind

That's what everybody is assuming -and it would be reasonably consistent. But still would prefer confirmation before everyone starts bashing.

eviltwin

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'm not referring to how he is now.

I'm specifically referring to his interview with Miriam O'Callaghan about 2-3 weeks after the death of Savita.

She died on 28th October 2012, the interview was broadcast on 21 November 2012.

Shock will do that to a person. I've seen first hand people be stong and stoic in the face of a terrible tragedy only to break down months after the fact. Some are just great at keeping their emotions in check while in public. Maybe he felt he needed to do that interview for Savita and his daughter and that kept him strong throughout.

wretcheddomain

laoch na mona wrote: »

some people are ****ing scum and they seem to radiate towards the abortion debate

I'm actually pro-choice. But anyway, I don't wish to divert the thread any further concerning my views given as the OP suggested, it was about the hate mail, which I'm fervently against in all its forms by the way, and I reject the comments made from some other posters that I may have sent a hate mail. That's something I'd never do and completely against given the circumstances.

Shock will do that to a person. I've seen first hand people be stong and stoic in the face of a terrible tragedy only to break down months after the fact. Some are just great at keeping their emotions in check while in public. Maybe he felt he needed to do that interview for Savita and his daughter and that kept him strong throughout.

I completely understand that and think there's truth to it. The problem I have is that while there's a chance you're right, nobody is even willing to contemplate that there's a chance, however small, that it's not right. Instead, accusations of 's***' and other derogatory comments get thrown around. People should be open to the possibility however disturbing it may be. Going back to the Joe O'Reilly case, I'm sure many people would have been accused of being sick and twisted for suggesting he could have killed his wife, but alas, they were vindicated. All I'm saying is be open to the possibility instead of shooting down everyone who offers an alternative perspective to this tragedy.

MissFlitworth

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'm specifically referring to his interview with Miriam O'Callaghan about 2-3 weeks after the death of Savita.

She died on 28th October 2012, the interview was broadcast on 21 November 2012.

Go and watch the interview and tell me that 2-3 weeks after you lose a wife and baby under tragic circumstances, you could even believe the sincerity. I doubt you'll be able to.

Shock?
Tranquilizers?
Anti-depressants?
Determination to get her story out?

It seriously sounds like you're saying that from the time his wife died he was like 'cha ching! bit of a claim here Praveen my son'. People deal with loss in their own way, just because he hasn't done it in a way you find acceptable doesn't make your theory anything less than a load of hairy, offensive old balls. From anyone I know who has lost someone suddenly and tragically the reaction leans more towards 'being a robot' than tears for the first while

endacl

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I could mirror that back at you and say for all we know he really doesn't care as much as he claims to, nor do you know him personally to adduce he cares and you've also no idea what's going through his head on a daily basis.

You could. But that style of sophistic tail-chasing would be more appropriate to a conversation that didn't involve a bereavement as a result of medical negligence. I really don't think this is a suitable topic for small minded points scoring.

NinjaTruncs

Radiosonde wrote: »

He's looking for a full public enquiry, not compensation, FFS.

That's not quite accurate. While he wants a public inquiry, he's also suing for damages according to the report on breakingnews.ie

The claim will be for injures, distress and the loss of his wife.

Sounds like someone hasn't heard of delayed grief

endacl

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

That's not quite accurate. While he wants a public enquiry, he's also suing for damages according to the report on breakingnews.ie

And fair play to him.

stimpson

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I reject the comments made from some other posters that I may have sent a hate mail. That's something I'd never do and completely against given the circumstances.

To be honest, I don't believe you. You sound a bit suspicious. Someone who really didn't send abusive letters would be far more upset about the accusation, given the circumstances.

KKkitty

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I could mirror that back at you and say for all we know he really doesn't care as much as he claims to, nor do you know him personally to adduce he cares and you've also no idea what's going through his head on a daily basis.

From my own experiences of dealing with grief I can tell you when you lose an unborn child through whatever circumstances it knocks you for 6. After losing 2 babies in one year I can safely say it numbs you right to the core. To lose a partner or spouse so young in life must be shattering but unfortunately you have to try your best to move on and in this man's case he can't win with how he chooses to grieve since he's scrutinised by the media.

NinjaTruncs

I'm not saying he's right or wrong, just clarifying that it isn't just a public inquiry that he is looking for.

wretcheddomain

wretcheddomain wrote: »

How would you feel if you lost a very young successful wife along with your baby?

That's an awful lot to lose.

I don't believe anyone can be so calm and reserved, especially so soon after it happened. Not even an apathetic person could be so calm and almost indifferent. It just doesn't look sincere, sorry, but it really doesn't.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'm not referring to how he is now.

I'm specifically referring to his interview with Miriam O'Callaghan about 2-3 weeks after the death of Savita.

She died on 28th October 2012, the interview was broadcast on 21 November 2012.

Go and watch the interview and tell me that 2-3 weeks after you lose a wife and baby under tragic circumstances, you could even believe the sincerity. I doubt you'll be able to.

I've been in a similar but different situation to this man. I lost two people who I shouldn't have lost. I lost one of those people on a saturday, on the following Monday, I had to wait around for stem cell tests on the other to confirm whether or not they were in fact, brain dead. I subsequently had to make a decision to turn of their life support machine. I was all over the media. I couldn't turn on the news without my hearing my name. My extended family wept and wailed as we waited for the stem cell test results. They became angry at the red tape, and at the slowness of it all. I didn't. I was calm, and collected. I calmed everyone else down - when it was I who should have been broken.

I did readings at their funeral without a tear. I spoke to the media, without emotion. And you know what else I did? I sued. Yes! I got money from their deaths.

4 years later, I broke down. Finally. I cried and I didn't think I would stop.

Grief doesn't have rules. Grief is different for everybody. To judge a person on not being sad enough when the truth is, they are probably in utter shock, is morally reprehensible.

The man lost his wife and his child due to a fcuk up by the HSE. If I was him, I wouldn't rest until I had made sure everybody had heard.

I need a vodkda

Corkfeen

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Presumably he has handed these letters over to An Garda Siochana for them to investigate?

padd b1975 wrote: »

Had to get his publicity from the media first....

padd b1975 wrote: »

How do you know he has?

I can't find any mention of it either way in the numerous links I checked online.

It was reported on RTE News at 1 O' Clock that his solicitor has passed them onto the Gardaí. But it's lovely that ye're treating him as if he's a star in the tabloid press that's looking for attention. It is despicable that that you lack any sympathy and prefer to jump to conclusions.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

While I'm fully against those abusive letters he has received, I do think there's something suspicious about him. When I watched the interview with Miriam O'Callaghan, I got the distinct impression he didn't really 'care' as much as a husband should do. He didn't even appear despondent. I'm aware that organised marriages occur within their faith and so it wouldn't surprise me if this is how it happened and would explain his lack of emotion for the situation. I knew he would eventually sue the HSE for cash and this fits perfectly within my model that he is merely thinking of his own pockets to capitalise on her death. I know that sounds bad given the tragic circumstances in which she died but if I had a wife that died in such circumstances, I personally would not want to gain a cent from it. I think there's something morally reprehensible, as well as suspicious, to gain cash at the expense of a death.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

How would you feel if you lost a very young successful wife along with your baby?

That's an awful lot to lose.

I don't believe anyone can be so calm and reserved, especially so soon after it happened. Not even an apathetic person could be so calm and almost indifferent. It just doesn't look sincere, sorry, but it really doesn't.

Congratulations, you one upped the post that came before yours. You've concluded that he didn't give a damn about his wife due to the fact he's not breaking down in tears on tv. I've had plenty of people close to me that have died but I wouldn't publicly show large displays of emotion, does that mean I didn't care about them? There's no definitive way in which one grieves.

Also, if anything happened to a family member that involved large failures that resulted in their death. I'd be calling for numerous inquiries and do everything in my power for the issues to be truly realised. He's dedicated show much time to it and personally I believe it is indicative of how much the event personally affected him hence the unwillingness to give up, no matter what roadblocks our government puts in his way. Or you could go your route and attempt to smear the man based on no evidence....

My name is URL

Lapin wrote: »

As I see it, such cowardly actions are the lowest possible form of trolling, even by the cretinous levels some people stoop to here at times.


Shame on whoever it was.

Shame.

Why are you assuming the letters were sent by Irish people? They could easily have originated from the same American sources responsible for those automated phone-calls around the time the story broke.

But yeah.. fcuk facts, let's just bash the unknown enemy. And as others have said, he should report it to the cops and allow them investigate the matter. I'm pretty sure it'd constitute harassment and intimidation.

padd b1975

Nodin wrote: »

Not really.

I'll tell ye what is though.

The suspense is killing me....

Bannasidhe

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Not at all - I think he was being honest and himself in the interview, which is precisely why I have my views on it.

But think about it, losing a wife in her early thirties and a soon-to-be-born baby?

That would *destroy* any husband's life, completely and entirely.

To be so reserved on interview, being watched by hundreds of thousands, and appear so indifferent soon after she died, does not make sense to me at all. I think anyone who cared would not be able to even withstand such an interview with all the pressure that comes with it. I think my view on this is reasonable despite the objections here.

Really?

Losing their young wives - one of whom was pregnant - to cancer didn't *destroy* the lives of two of my mother's neighbours. One married his wife's nurse 6 months later and the other had remarried within a year.

What you see as indifference I see as dignity - a thing we don't get to see that often so perhaps you did not recognise it.

CroatoanCat

wretcheddomain wrote: »

While I'm fully against those abusive letters he has received, I do think there's something suspicious about him. When I watched the interview with Miriam O'Callaghan, I got the distinct impression he didn't really 'care' as much as a husband should do. He didn't even appear despondent. I'm aware that organised marriages occur within their faith and so it wouldn't surprise me if this is how it happened and would explain his lack of emotion for the situation. I knew he would eventually sue the HSE for cash and this fits perfectly within my model that he is merely thinking of his own pockets to capitalise on her death. I know that sounds bad given the tragic circumstances in which she died but if I had a wife that died in such circumstances, I personally would not want to gain a cent from it. I think there's something morally reprehensible, as well as suspicious, to gain cash at the expense of a death.

Oh my. I have been hugely impressed by Mr. Halappanavar's dignity through all of this. To me, his great love for his wife has been absolutely clear. He has fought for whatever justice it is possible to obtain on her behalf in every way open to him. Moreover, he has consistently expressed his wish that no other woman should be left to die in agony as his wife was, as a consequence of a combination of woeful clinical practice and the legal vacuum in which doctors in this country have been operating under the shadow of the disastrous insertion of the eighth amendment into the Constitution. He is a hugely impressive person and a man greatly to be admired.

Is there an element in this type of commentary - and I have heard similar from other quarters - of a failure on the part of some Irish people to comprehend that it is possible to stand up for one's loved one, even while grieving terribly, against powerful vested interests and institutional stonewalling? The death of Mr. Halappanaver's wife was utterly unacceptable and quite possibly entirely avoidable, if she had been given the termination she requested in a timely manner, as would have happened in most other developed countries. I applaud his persistence in refusing to let the authorities of this State give other than absolute recognition to the tragedy that has befallen him. His persistence and dedication are testament to both him and his late wife.

Nodin

padd b1975 wrote: »

The suspense is killing me....

Its fairly obvious.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85381908&postcount=3

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85382020&postcount=12

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85382276&postcount=36

padd b1975

Corkfeen wrote: »

It was reported on RTE News at 1 O' Clock that his solicitor has passed them onto the Gardaí.

Fair enough, let's hope they contain enough information for the Gardaí to identify who sent them and act accordingly.

Dostoevsky

Praveen Halappanavar says he has received abusive letters

No matter who you are or what hardship/suffering has happened to you or somebody you love, you can be sure there will always, always, always be some abject dickhead who will try to demean it, and you. Always. On the internet, that person does so anonymously and is almost always encouraged passive-aggressively with the "thanks" feature by somebody of the same status.

It's as if some people just need to "shock" in order to assert their existence. Offence for the sake of offence.

Lapin

My name is URL wrote: »

Why are you assuming the letters were sent by Irish people? They could easily have originated from the same American sources responsible for those automated phone-calls around the time the story broke.

But yeah.. fcuk facts, let's just bash the unknown enemy. And as others have said, he should report it to the cops and allow them investigate the matter. I'm pretty sure it'd constitute harassment and intimidation.

I'm not.

Where did I say that ?

o1s1n

wretcheddomain wrote: »

While I'm fully against those abusive letters he has received, I do think there's something suspicious about him. When I watched the interview with Miriam O'Callaghan, I got the distinct impression he didn't really 'care' as much as a husband should do. He didn't even appear despondent.

You do realize that sometimes, when someone dies, it takes a long time for those close to them to realize fully? He had a media storm whipped up around him - would have kept his mind occupied.

I don't know if you've ever lost someone close, but it's not until the funeral is over, the relatives all go home and you're left sitting on your own that it really truly sinks in.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'm aware that organised marriages occur within their faith and so it wouldn't surprise me if this is how it happened and would explain his lack of emotion for the situation.

Wow, what a load of assumptions.

Assumption 1; they had an organized wedding (do you have any proof of this? Or are you just assuming based on their race?)
Assumption 2; those in organized weddings cannot love one another like a 'real' couple

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I knew he would eventually sue the HSE for cash and this fits perfectly within my model that he is merely thinking of his own pockets to capitalise on her death. I know that sounds bad given the tragic circumstances in which she died but if I had a wife that died in such circumstances, I personally would not want to gain a cent from it. I think there's something morally reprehensible, as well as suspicious, to gain cash at the expense of a death.

There is so much wrong with that comment I don't know where to start.

So in summary, Praveen was in an arranged marriage (because you know, we can determine this from his race. Further to this, in such marriages, each party will never have feelings for the other one :rolleyes:)
He then watched as she died, along with his baby, again, with absolutely no feelings - then money symbols appeared in his eyes.

'I know! I can capitalize on this!'

He then went on a huge campaign to get his face in the media as much as possible to build up sympathy and the amount which he would ultimately win in court.

Or you know, maybe actually, he did love his wife and future child, watched them die and now wants to take our joke of an Irish healthcare system to the courts to show the world what an absolute mess we have it in?

I know that second option probably doesn't fit your CSI type armchair detective notions - but which one seems more logical?

Cody Pomeray

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Not at all - I think he was being honest and himself in the interview, which is precisely why I have my views on it.

But think about it, losing a wife in her early thirties and a soon-to-be-born baby?

That would *destroy* any husband's life, completely and entirely.

To be so reserved on interview, being watched by hundreds of thousands, and appear so indifferent soon after she died, does not make sense to me at all. I think anyone who cared would not be able to even withstand such an interview with all the pressure that comes with it. I think my view on this is reasonable despite the objections here.

Can you just give us your bottom line instead of skirting around it?

What is the point of implying that he isn't sad enough? Is there anything to it but idle church-pew gossip, a bit of malicious backbiting over a digestive biscuit?

His wife has died in the course of her pregnancy, and there are grounds for believing that she died as the result of negligence, or governance failures, or inadequate legal protections for pregnant women. He has now been receiving hate mail.

These are the facts.

So what is your point in relation to the facts?

mynameismud

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'm not referring to how he is now.

I'm specifically referring to his interview with Miriam O'Callaghan about 2-3 weeks after the death of Savita.

She died on 28th October 2012, the interview was broadcast on 21 November 2012.

Go and watch the interview and tell me that 2-3 weeks after you lose a wife and baby under tragic circumstances, you could even believe the sincerity. I doubt you'll be able to.

Hi

I'm looking for someone to dig a very very very deep hole and was just wondering would you be interested?

endacl

mynameismud wrote: »

Hi

I'm looking for someone to dig a very very very deep hole and was just wondering would you be interested?

If you're looking for somebody with plenty of digging experience, you'd be looking in the right place...

wretcheddomain

Stark wrote: »

You forgot "I'm not a racist, but"

endacl wrote: »

You made a stupid comment

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I have to say that's reaching a level of stupidity I didn't think was even possible for After hours.

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Creepy.

LizT wrote: »

is a stupid question

laoch na mona wrote: »

some people are ****ing scum

Dostoevsky wrote: »

...always be some abject dickhead

All this for suggesting you guys may be wrong. :eek: :rolleyes:

The problem is that you guys have no more evidence than I do to make a 100% conclusion that he is grieving as possible. You keep saying the arguments and explanations to support your view but are not open to the fact that you may be wrong. As we've adduced, we don't know the mind of Praveen so essentially we are all guessing. My conclusion is that there's a distinct lack of sincerity, not complete lack, but a lack to some degree.

Don't be so closed minded to think that the world is filled with laughter, love, rabbits and rainbows. Sometimes, however tragic the circumstances, and however unpopular and unlikely the view is, you may be wrong.

endacl

New shovel? That ones knackered...

wretcheddomain

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Don't be so closed minded to think that the world is filled with laughter, love, rabbits and rainbows. Sometimes, however tragic the circumstances, and however unpopular and unlikely the view is, you may be wrong.

That's good advice, you should take it.

wretcheddomain

Deleted User wrote: »

That's good advice, you should take it.

I openly conceded twice in this discussion that other people have raised reasonable objections and that they could be right. I definitely heed other people's views, it's a pity this isn't reciprocated by the other side.

The Backwards Man

To be fair, wretcheddomain's opinion is one that is no doubt echoed up and down the land. We all know the type of person that goes to a funeral to see who cries, that wonder aloud who got the inheritance of someone who died, that generally make up their own stories when the truth doesn't fit.

I don't think there is anything shocking about Praveen receiving abusive letters, but there's plenty saddening about it.

wp_rathead

wretcheddomain wrote: »

All this for suggesting you guys may be wrong. :eek: :rolleyes:

The problem is that you guys have no more evidence than I do to make a 100% conclusion that he is grieving as possible. You keep saying the arguments and explanations to support your view but are not open to the fact that you may be wrong. As we've adduced, we don't know the mind of Praveen so essentially we are all guessing. My conclusion is that there's a distinct lack of sincerity, not complete lack, but a lack to some degree.

Don't be so closed minded to think that the world is filled with laughter, love, rabbits and rainbows. Sometimes, however tragic the circumstances, and however unpopular and unlikely the view is, you may be wrong.

Freedom of speech allows you to say the above
It also allows me to say "could you kindly **** off?"

banie01

wretcheddomain wrote: »

While I'm fully against those abusive letters he has received, I do think there's something suspicious about him. When I watched the interview with Miriam O'Callaghan, I got the distinct impression he didn't really 'care' as much as a husband should do. He didn't even appear despondent.

I hope you never experience the trauma of being widowed unexpectedly and young.
I have, and its something that a comment like yours shows a distinct lack of understanding for!
I hope you never have to experience your hoped for family and future evaporate before your eyes.
I hope you never need to learn to cope, when all you want to do is die.
I hope you never have to experience being medicated enough to suppress your emotions whilst still trying to find a reason to get up and face the world when all you want to do is curl up and live in your memories.
Then when you are trying to focus on something, to give you the motivation and to at least let you try and understand why the woman you married is dead?
Why the future ye both had planned for is gone?
Why you need to try and fight for some closure?
Why you need to figure out why to bother getting out of your bed?
And the only reason you can come up with is that that you need to know Why!...
Why did this happen to us?

Then someone questions your emotional involvement in your marriage because you came across as uninvolved when you discussed your wife in an interview....?
And sure in his faith they may have had an arranged marriage and not really have been in love????

It is 6yrs since I was widowed and still the only way I can discuss my wife's death is a ''matter of fact'' and if I'm honest in an unattached manner, because otherwise I lose control of myself!
I break down into a 6'5'' blubbering heap.... and sure men don't do that!
So when I discuss that weekend, the time in hospital and the circumstances around it...
I purposely detach myself to maintain some emotional control.
It is I'm glad to say a different matter when I discuss her life, because we shared a great one although it was shared all too briefly.
But I'm glad I have plenty of sories of those times to share and love doing it.

I agree with Praveen that the central questions that matter to him were never answered!
Why did his wife die?
Why was no intervention made to save her life before the infection was too far gone?
Who is responsible for failing his wife?
Its all too easy to say it is a systemic issue but at the end of the day,in similar situations in other hospitals, choices are made, and lives saved.
The situation in Galway smacks of fear!
Fear of making the morally hard decision that is involved!
And knowing that by doing nothing, by letting that woman die! that they at least covered their own ass by following the ''system''!

I would like to think that he can get the answers he needs in a fair manner and without recourse to a higher court(Ideally he would not need to have dragged this to court at all!)

stimpson

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I openly conceded twice in this discussion that other people have raised reasonable objections and that they could be right. I definitely heed other people's views, it's a pity this isn't reciprocated by the other side.

Does your lack of empathy for another human being not concern you in the slightest?

laoch na mona

wretcheddomain wrote: »

All this for suggesting you guys may be wrong. :eek: :rolleyes:

The problem is that you guys have no more evidence than I do to make a 100% conclusion that he is grieving as possible. You keep saying the arguments and explanations to support your view but are not open to the fact that you may be wrong. As we've adduced, we don't know the mind of Praveen so essentially we are all guessing. My conclusion is that there's a distinct lack of sincerity, not complete lack, but a lack to some degree.

Don't be so closed minded to think that the world is filled with laughter, love, rabbits and rainbows. Sometimes, however tragic the circumstances, and however unpopular and unlikely the view is, you may be wrong.

since you quoted me i take it you mean that those who sent death threats aren't scum?

endacl

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I openly conceded twice in this discussion that other people have raised reasonable objections and that they could be right. I definitely heed other people's views, it's a pity this isn't reciprocated by the other side.

There are sides? These would be the presence/absence of basic human decency I suppose.

wretcheddomain

endacl wrote: »

There are sides? These would be the presence/absence of basic human decency I suppose.

I think we have a firm conclusion that posters here are 100% definitely not open to the possibility they may be wrong. That type of closed mindedness and response with a torrent of abuse is not conducive to reasonable discussion.

There are sides? These would be the presence/absence of basic human decency I suppose.

And to think you accused me earlier of sophistry and points scoring.

LizT

How do you know people aren't open to being proved wrong? You proved your opinion, people disagreed and gave their reasoning. Nowhere did anyone say "You are completely wrong, I am right and there is no way you can ever prove me wrong"

Debating something and sticking to your side of the argument does not equal "100% definitely not open to the possibility they may be wrong" and it's a huge leap to suggest it does.

wretcheddomain

LizT wrote: »

How do you know people aren't open to being proved wrong? You proved your opinion, people disagreed and gave their reasoning. Nowhere did anyone say "You are completely wrong, I am right and there is no way you can ever prove me wrong"

Debating something and sticking to your side of the argument does not equal "100% definitely not open to the possibility they may be wrong" and it's a huge leap to suggest it does.

When individual posters start using words such as 'abject d***head', I think it's reasonable to assume such posters are not open to further discussion.

wretcheddomain

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I openly conceded twice in this discussion that other people have raised reasonable objections and that they could be right. I definitely heed other people's views, it's a pity this isn't reciprocated by the other side.

You posted this:

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I don't believe anyone can be so calm and reserved, especially so soon after it happened. Not even an apathetic person could be so calm and almost indifferent. .

Now that you have read my story, do you believe that someone can be so calm and reserved, so soon after a tragedy?

wretcheddomain

Deleted User wrote: »

Now that you have read my story, do you believe that someone can be so calm and reserved, so soon after a tragedy?

Yes. I don't think I should have made a generalisation or blanket understanding.

Femme_Fatale

Ah... crazy pro-lifers. So full of "compassion" for the unborn, yet utterly hate-filled otherwise. So really, I don't think they care about the unborn at all actually, just doing what the looney old testament tells them to.

I love too how that "wretched" person made a dig at this man being upset at losing a "very young, successful" wife, implying - for absolutely no reason - that she was a trophy to him.

"I'm just expressing an unpopular opinion" - code for acting the ****. There is no cause for believing these things about the man - but it makes you and that Cavehill person and that Padd person and the one other thanker... look... kinda bad-ass. Go ye. You "christian" people.

My name is URL

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I think we have a firm conclusion that posters here are 100% definitely not open to the possibility they may be wrong. That type of closed mindedness and response with a torrent of abuse is not conducive to reasonable discussion.



And to think you accused me earlier of sophistry and points scoring.

What kind of reasonable discussion can there be when the starting point is accusing the guy of being insincere about the grief he is showing for his deceased wife, and only being interested in a payout?

That's hardly reasonable to begin with.

LizT

wretcheddomain wrote: »

When individual posters start using words such as 'abject d***head', I think it's reasonable to assume such posters are not open to further discussion.

So individual posters = everyone now?

Good to know.

endacl

wretcheddomain wrote: »

And to think you accused me earlier of sophistry and points scoring.

I certainly didn't accuse. I identified.

vitani

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I completely understand that and think there's truth to it. The problem I have is that while there's a chance you're right, nobody is even willing to contemplate that there's a chance, however small, that it's not right. Instead, accusations of 's***' and other derogatory comments get thrown around. People should be open to the possibility however disturbing it may be. Going back to the Joe O'Reilly case, I'm sure many people would have been accused of being sick and twisted for suggesting he could have killed his wife, but alas, they were vindicated. All I'm saying is be open to the possibility instead of shooting down everyone who offers an alternative perspective to this tragedy.

Why, exactly?

Even if Praveen was motivated by money and all of his interviews were to help him along with this, he's not doing anything illegal or trying to get anything he's not entitled to.

It's not the same as a murderer trying to get away with a crime. There's an argument to be made for questioning the behaviour of someone like Joe O'Reilly, because people like to see justice being done. But Praveen hasn't broken any laws so there's no public interest in questioning the nature of his grief. And as the likelihood is that he's acting sincerely throughout, chances are that all you'll do is damage him with false accusations.

Incidentally, I wonder if any of the abusive letters asked him what his agenda was.

wretcheddomain

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Ah... crazy pro-lifers. So full of "compassion" for the unborn, yet utterly hate-filled otherwise. So really, I don't think they care about the unborn at all actually, just doing what the looney old testament tells them to.

I love too how that "wretched" person made a dig at this man being upset at losing a "very young, successful" wife, implying - for absolutely no reason - that she was a trophy to him.

"I'm just expressing an unpopular opinion" - code for acting the ****.

I'm unsure if you mean I'm a crazy pro-lifer? I'm a staunch pro-choice advocate in case it was directed at me.

And no, I don't have the understanding she was a trophy to him, I was merely pointing out the tragic circumstance of having a young successful lady die.

wretcheddomain

LizT wrote: »

So individual posters = everyone now?

Good to know.

The reason I came to that conclusion was that I've asked multiple times over the course of this thread, 'Are people willing to accept they might be wrong?', and not one poster was willing to come forward to accept that my perspective, or other versions of my perspective, may still hold some degree of water, even a drop. When no posters come forward, and the posters who make abuse get repeatedly thanked, then I came to that conclusion.