Attending a Church wedding

Cabaal

haveringchick wrote: »

I'm guessing jonotti doesn't get invited to many weddings......

I'd imagine he gets invited to lots and lots of weddings and masses, but the one's he claims to stand backwards in are all imaginary

Kidchameleon

I wonder does he turn his back at funerals?

Jonotti

Cabaal wrote: »

I'd imagine he gets invited to lots and lots of weddings and masses, but the one's he claims to stand backwards in are all imaginary

Why are you repeating the same post? Give it a rest.

Samaris

Jonotti wrote: »

Maybe I will take on too much attention if I'm on my own but somebody has to make a start. Say in ten years time people might expect 10-15 people to turn their back, understand what it means and not take offence to it.

I was rereading this thread again and it struck me that if in ten years time, we can -expect- people to go into a church to be rude, I wonder will churches have to widen the pews to allow for people to turn their backs on the priest and stare at the confused person behind them?

I mean, they could damage their knees with their sincere form of rud protest and we can't be having that.

Sorry for rezzing the thread after a week /cough

robindch

jank wrote: »

Next head of Atheist Ireland right here.

While I'm sure you're aware that your comment is offensive, I'm not fully sure that you know that Michael Nugent reads this forum.

On account of the latter, I suggest you might withdraw or delete your comment.

jank

Done although I wonder would the same level of 'offensiveness' be recorded if the shoe was on the other foot (have heard much much worse describing Iona members for example)? Anyway, its deleted.

Cabaal

jank wrote: »

Done although I wonder would the same level of 'offensiveness' be recorded if the shoe was on the other foot (have heard much much worse describing Iona members for example)? Anyway, its deleted.

Do you know something we don't know?
There's an active well known member of Lolek Ltd posting on this forum that we're all aware of....but somehow we forgot about?

imho your comment was a form personal dig and as such personal abuse directed at another poster in this forum, to be fair I don't believe robindch is giving Michael any special treatment here..merely just applying general boards.ie rules it seems.

If Lolek Ltd high up's were brave enough to post here I'm sure they'd get the same application of boards rules, I'd imagine though they won't ever actively post in this forum though.

robindch

jank wrote: »

Done although I wonder would the same level of 'offensiveness' be recorded if the shoe was on the other foot (have heard much much worse describing Iona members for example)? Anyway, its deleted.

As Cabaal points out, Michael Nugent is afforded the protection of the same rules that apply to all A+A posters. In the unlikely event that David Quinn, Breda O'Brien or anyone else from the II posted here, the same would apply to them. So, to answer your question, yes, exactly the same level of "offensiveness" would "be recorded if the shoe was on the other foot".

Forum and site rules are less specific concerning public figures rather than site members, so posters are pretty much free, within the limits of decency and the law, to write what they wish.

Furthermore, where certain public figures feel themselves unburdened by the need to stick to the rules of polite debate, it's difficult to deny the same to posters here, though the moderators will step in from time to time if it's felt that boundaries are crossed.

jank

Cabaal wrote: »

Do you know something we don't know?
There's an active well known member of Lolek Ltd posting on this forum that we're all aware of....but somehow we forgot about?

imho your comment was a form personal dig and as such personal abuse directed at another poster in this forum, to be fair I don't believe robindch is giving Michael any special treatment here..merely just applying general boards.ie rules it seems.

If Lolek Ltd high up's were brave enough to post here I'm sure they'd get the same application of boards rules, I'd imagine though they won't ever actively post in this forum though.

So, they are active posters or not....?

Absolam

Maybe it's a lowly lowly Lolek....well known but not high up? A Steven Seagal to David Quinns Chuck Norris perhaps....

I think to be fair Cabaal is suggesting that there isn't an active member of Lolek posting on the forum, therefore there is no need to be concerned about offending them.
To my mind whether or not someone is giving offense doesn't depend on whether or not there is someone being offended, but perhaps the intent is more that posters not be offended than posters not offend (and lurkers, perhaps, be damned).

robindch

jank wrote: »

So, they are active posters or not....?

Posters have a right of anonymity on boards. A poster is of course free to reveal who they are, but that choice resides with the poster and not anybody else.

To answer your question, so far as I'm aware, no members of Lolek Ltd post here in A+A.