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

John Waters quits BAI

24

Comments

  • #52
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Why do you ask that?

    Would you be fine with me calling you names on television?
    He didn't call him names


  • #53
    Cienciano
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    As a member of the board, I don't think he was allowed to send legal threats if the comment has not been proved to be libelous.

    Bit of an embarrassing incident for Waters.

    Water(s) off a ducks back.
    His entire life is a series of embarrassing incidents.


  • #54
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    What did he say wrong though? It was tactless of him to use a BAI member as an example (and a particularly touchy one at that) but thought it was one of the more balanced discussions on homosexuality in Ireland and think it educated a lot of people.

    Don't get me wrong. I'll all for debate. It's great to have people voice an opinion on a subject. But I think everyone can comprehend that that was a rant. Taking swipes at people might be fine for twatter or boards. But on TV?

    Dodgy.


  • #55
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong. I'll all for debate. It's great to have people voice an opinion on a subject. But I think everyone can comprehend that that was a rant. Taking swipes at people might be fine for twatter or boards. But on TV?

    Dodgy.

    What was dodgy care to quote?


  • #56
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong. I'll all for debate. It's great to have people voice an opinion on a subject. But I think everyone can comprehend that that was a rant. Taking swipes at people might be fine for twatter or boards. But on TV?

    Dodgy.
    He correctly called out two people who are notorious for their comments in the past, pretty baseless and unconstructive comments, as per Iona's usual.

    I'll add that they and their cronies have called Rory much worse. The usual 'how can I take an opnion seriously from a man who dresses like a woman, etc'
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    In fairness now. It was a targeted attack that included name calling. Waters didn't get the right of reply.
    I think Mr. Waters has said pretty much everything he could say in regards to the topic. For some reason himself and Iona are more obsessed about gay issues than gay people are themselves at times.


  • #57
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Just watched that interview. I would be really surprised if that lad didn't end up in a court room over that.

    Disgraceful rant was disgraceful. Should have counted to ten before he said anything.

    Well in contrast to Waters' disgraceful and rather homophobic weekly rants, it's fairly mild mannered.


  • #58
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Links234 wrote: »
    He didn't call him names

    In fairness now. It was a targeted attack that included name calling. Waters didn't get the right of reply.


  • #59
    Oryx
    Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Why do you ask that?

    Would you be fine with me calling you names on television?
    He said Waters and his ilk make anti gay comments online. This is true, its evidenced in this thread and any one of us can google you more evidence of Waters' vitriol in about 10 seconds.

    I thought he was fair in what he said, and put his point across well. Not a rant in sight.


  • #60
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Why do you ask that?

    Would you be fine with me calling you names on television?

    Would I say (based on your boards postings) you are homophobic? Yes


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    He correctly called out two people who are notorious for their comments in the past, pretty baseless and unconstructive comments, as per Iona's usual.

    Theres two ways of seeing this.


  • #62
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    In fairness now. It was a targeted attack that included name calling. Waters didn't get the right of reply.

    Any quotes?


  • #63
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    efb wrote: »
    Any quotes?

    The video is posted up on the other page.


  • #64
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Theres two ways of seeing this.
    No there aren't. Unless you can show me that they're open minded/tolerant on the subject (psst, they're not)

    http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/01/16/wisdom-is-bliss/
    Transcript for anyone interested.

    Here's the part in question that got the attention
    The only place that you see it’s okay to be really horrible and mean about gays is you know on the internet in the comments and you know people who make a living writing opinion pieces for newspapers. You know there’s a couple of them that really cheese..”

    BO’C: “Who are they?”

    RO’N: “Oh well the obvious ones. You know Breda O’Brien [Irish Times Columnist] today, oh my God you know banging on about gay priests and all. The usual suspects, the John Waters and all of those people, the Iona Institute crowd. I mean I just..you know just…Feck Off! Get the hell out of my life. Get out of my life. I mean..[applause from audience] why…it astounds me…astounds me that there are people out there in the world who devote quite a large amount of their time and energies to trying to stop people you know, achieving happiness because that is what the people like the Iona Institute are at


  • #65
    Arthur Beesley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭Arthur Beesley


    Beardy weirdy


  • #66
    Oryx
    Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Theres two ways of seeing this.
    Do you think JW is justified in sending a legal threat and having the video removed? Reasons why would be cool.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    In fairness now. It was a targeted attack that included name calling. Waters didn't get the right of reply.

    It wasn't a targetted attack, and didn't include name calling. Waters didn't even ask for the right of reply, he abused his position in silencing criticism.


  • #68
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    The video is posted up on the other page.

    I want you to quote what you think is abuse


  • #69
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Oryx wrote: »
    Do you think JW is justified in sending a legal threat and having the video removed? Reasons why would be cool.

    As far as I know, name calling isn't tolerated by most people. Maybe JW is fine with being called names on TV. Who knows.


  • #70
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    efb wrote: »
    I want you to quote what you think is abuse
    Good luck. Phill has a terrible habit of making claims and then not backing them up, and ignoring every time he's asked to clarify or back something up.


  • #71
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    As far as I know, name calling isn't tolerated by most people. Maybe JW is fine with being called names on TV. Who knows.

    Well his sols letter seems to indicate JW thinks himself beyond criticism


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Oryx
    Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    As far as I know, name calling isn't tolerated by most people. Maybe JW is fine with being called names on TV. Who knows.
    He wasnt name called. He was mentioned because of his actions.


  • #73
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    As far as I know, name calling isn't tolerated by most people. Maybe JW is fine with being called names on TV. Who knows.
    Maybe he is fine with being called names on TV, but we won't know, because he wasn't called names on TV.


  • #74
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Jebus to point out somebody's history of writing homophobic articles and to call them up on it is not the same as saying X is a homophobe without any supporting evidence.


  • #75
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    As far as I know, name calling isn't tolerated by most people. Maybe JW is fine with being called names on TV. Who knows.

    Quote where he was called names. You claim it- put up or withdraw it.


  • #76
    dd972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭dd972


    Has Devine resigned in sympathy?


  • #77
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    P_1 wrote: »
    Jebus to point out somebody's history of writing homophobic articles and to call them up on it is not the same as saying X is a homophobe without any supporting evidence.

    Thats the other way of looking at it. I guess JW didn't see it that way.


  • #78
    JupiterKid
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 13,102 Mod ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    Waters was a self-styled "right on" liberal back in circa 1975 but now he's just a right wing dinosaur reactionary who is still stuck in the 1970s while Ireland has long since moved on.


  • #79
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Just watched that interview. I would be really surprised if that lad didn't end up in a court room over that.

    Disgraceful rant was disgraceful. Should have counted to ten before he said anything.

    There's always one person willing to defend the indefensible. Hi Phill!


  • #80
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    SaulGoode9 wrote: »
    Many years ago John Waters came to my school and was going around asking everyone in the class their names and where they were from. When he came to me I said "Homer Simpson from Springfield" and he made the teacher give me lines. True story.

    Maybe he's a Simpsons nut and it was a ironic reference to Bart in the opening sequences . :)


  • #81
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Thats the other way of looking at it. I guess JW didn't see it that way.

    And the most polite way to describe JW's way of seeing it would have to be incredibly irrationally.

    It's fairly simple, you publish articles spouting homophobic views and you are going to be pulled up on it.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Oryx
    Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Thats the other way of looking at it. I guess JW didn't see it that way.
    C'mon, nail your colours to the mast. Do you think he was right to threaten legal action, and to use his clout to have RTE remove the video?


  • #83
    Hootanany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,477 ✭✭✭Hootanany


    Akrasia wrote: »
    and that's my question answered

    Bertie again:mad:


  • #84
    ahnowbrowncow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,588 ✭✭✭ahnowbrowncow


    efb wrote: »
    Well his sols letter seems to indicate JW thinks himself beyond criticism

    What the flip is a sols letter?


  • #85
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    ahnowbrowncow wrote: »
    What the flip is a sols letter?

    Solicitors letter


  • #86
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Better call Saul


  • #87
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I guess JW didn't see it that way.

    Frankly, I don't think Jawn can see a damn thing other than the inside of his own colon.

    The man is a bully and a homophobe, and abused his position in the BAI. His claims that gay people are only out to destroy marriage and sabotage culture, those are not ideas that have come about from reason, those kinds of claims come from bigotry and small minded hatred. Keep in mind that these are other human beings that Jawn is talking about, people in all walks of life, and rather than having their own hopes and dreams and loves and goals the same as anyone, oh no, they are fiendish bogeymen set at destruction and sabotage. That's a very disturbing thing to say about anyone.


  • #88
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Just watched that interview. I would be really surprised if that lad didn't end up in a court room over that.

    Disgraceful rant was disgraceful. Should have counted to ten before he said anything.


    Jaysus phill, you should try to go easier on the oul gay lads.


  • #89
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Thats the other way of looking at it. I guess JW didn't see it that way.
    Man writes homophobic articles, is called out on being homophobic. Where's the issue?


  • #90
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    P_1 wrote: »
    And the most polite way to describe JW's way of seeing it would have to be incredibly irrationally.

    It's fairly simple, you publish articles spouting homophobic views and you are going to be pulled up on it.

    I don't read JW. I'm not aware he is a homophobe. Isn't his ex wife bi-sexual?


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Links234 wrote: »
    Frankly, I don't think Jawn can see a damn thing other than the inside of his own colon.

    The man is a bully and a homophobe, and abused his position in the BAI. His claims that gay people are only out to destroy marriage and sabotage culture, those are not ideas that have come about from reason, those kinds of claims come from bigotry and small minded hatred. Keep in mind that these are other human beings that Jawn is talking about, people in all walks of life, and rather than having their own hopes and dreams and loves and goals the same as anyone, oh no, they are fiendish bogeymen set at destruction and sabotage. That's a very disturbing thing to say about anyone.


    And misogynist. He's often too busy talking other crap to get digs in at the wimminz these days, but he's still a paid up member.


  • #92
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Man writes homophobic articles, is called out on being homophobic. Where's the issue?

    Post up one of these articles so I can read it please. Don't/won't buy the inderpendent


  • #93
    Oryx
    Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I don't read JW. I'm not aware he is a homophobe. Isn't his ex wife bi-sexual?

    Read a few of his articles. He does a good line in misogynistic bigotry too.


  • #94
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I don't read JW. I'm not aware he is a homophobe. Isn't his ex wife bi-sexual?

    Yet the many links and quotes on this thread are not enough to Phill Ewinn?


  • #95
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Actually I do wonder if it'd be best to treat his articles like one would treat a troll. Ignore them, don't link to them and starve him of his oxygen.


  • #96
    ahnowbrowncow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,588 ✭✭✭ahnowbrowncow


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I don't read JW. I'm not aware he is a homophobe. Isn't his ex wife bi-sexual?

    That must be why he doesn't like them, he's insecure.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Nodin wrote: »
    And misogynist. He's often too busy talking other crap to get digs in at the wimminz these days, but he's still a paid up member.

    Women, the gays, atheists, bloggers and wikipedia, there's so much Jawn hates that I can barely keep track of.


  • #98
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Post up one of these articles so I can read it please. Don't/won't buy the inderpendent

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88623093&postcount=31


  • #99
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    I do believe he has a hatred of keyboard journalists, like bloggers and posters. He would prefer that opinions and comments be by professional self opinionated journos like him.


  • #100
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Links234 wrote: »
    Women, the gays, atheists, bloggers and wikipedia, there's so much Jawn hates that I can barely keep track of.


    True. Ever since a school girl beat him up and took his lunch money, he's been a bitter man.


  • #101
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Nodin wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88623093&postcount=31

    JW article like?

    Point out the homophobic bits too!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement