Stephen Gately has died! ----(mod warning post #6)

drkpower · 11-10-2009 08:59PM

mikom wrote: »

I'm 65, I'll have you know.

Good for you....

Lord Trollington · 11-10-2009 09:19PM

adrieanne__x wrote: »

Sudden unexplained death syndrome (SUDS) is actually common enough. I know two people that have died from it.

43 People in every 100,000 have died from that and you know 2 people who have died from it.

Thank god i do not know you.

If it was SUDS, it would be too early to say it was an accident, or anything like that because they would be still trying to find out how stephen died..and would come up with no explanation in the end which would lead to people saying it was SUDS.

Mental Mickey · 11-10-2009 09:21PM

This "speculation" is stupid and pointless.

Lord Trollington · 11-10-2009 09:25PM

drkpower wrote: »

Believe it or not, people of all ages do "go to bed and accidentally not wake up".
Many things may have happened - and Im sure by the middle of the week, it will become more apparent what has happened. Perhaps you can wait until then before entering into more idle and unfounded speculation?

How is what i said speculating?
Going on the statement released, they say it was an accident?
You dont accidently go to bed and not wake up... You can go to bed andnot wake up yes, but you dont do it accidently

I'm only picking up on the wording of the statement, which i imagine in this case would have been well thought out before being released...

Its irrelevent how the chap died, it wont make it any easier on his family.

Are we not all speculating until the autopsy results?

I dont want to engage in any speculation, i was only picking up on the press release wording

OutlawPete · 11-10-2009 09:28PM

ceannair06 wrote: »

WHY THE FCUK WOULD YOU WANT TO MAKE JOKES 24 HOURS AFTER A 33 YEAR OLD DIED ?

The reason people like those making the jokes do so, is because they are not funny people and wish to be. When they make jokes at any other time that is appropriate to do so, they fail bigtime to so much as make someone crack a smile let alone laugh.

While at the same time others, who are naturally funny deservedly get all the laughs and smilies and leave them sitting at their keyboards pathetically craving any kind of attention rather than the stark loneliness they feel as tumbleweeds fill their bedsit.

So then along comes an opportunity to make a comment and try and be funny again - only this time they know that nobody else will make a joke that betters theirs. This time there won't be someone funnier, cleverer with more wit, so no matter what, they have to get ATTENTION!!

Who cares if it's classless and crude and shows them to be their worms that they are? Who cares!

'This time they'll notice me!, they'll laugh at me! there are no other jokes to compete with me now! I'll be the funniest for once!! .. yes yes yes .. notice me, notice me .. mommy.

Eh, no.

I say ignore the clowns and don't give them one little bit of attention that they so obviousily missed out on as kids.

RIP Stephen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvziSXELEOw

Terrontress · 11-10-2009 09:29PM

Mental Mickey wrote: »

1) Nobody knows how he died.

2) If making jokes about someone who has died is your idea of "fun", then I feel sorry for you. Maybe you should go to a discussion forum that finds that kind of thing funny/acceptable....?

3) So what if it looks like a book of condolences. What else is there to say at times like this?

I don't wish to make jokes, I only mentioned it as there have been several people told not to. I do however think that the discussion of how he might have died to be constructive. I think that several posters have mentioned how Sudden Adult Death Syndrome has affected them and highlighting that can only be positive. To discuss the death of someone and completely ignore the circumstances is peculiar.

As for the book of condolences, I am sure the Gatelys are very happy that someone known only as "Mental Mickey" shares their grief. Sorry for the sarcasm but I don't see this as an effective book of condolences.

I understand the tragedy and can see how awful it must be for those who were close to him but I think there has to be more good from this thread than 5000 identical posts each stating "RIP".

Mental Mickey · 11-10-2009 09:33PM

Terrontress wrote: »

I don't wish to make jokes, I only mentioned it as there have been several people told not to. I do however think that the discussion of how he might have died to be constructive. I think that several posters have mentioned how Sudden Adult Death Syndrome has affected them and highlighting that can only be positive. To discuss the death of someone and completely ignore the circumstances is peculiar.

As for the book of condolences, I am sure the Gatelys are very happy that someone known only as "Mental Mickey" shares their grief. Sorry for the sarcasm but I don't see this as an effective book of condolences.

I understand the tragedy and can see how awful it must be for those who were close to him but I think there has to be more good from this thread than 5000 identical posts each stating "RIP".

What would you suggest then?

drkpower · 11-10-2009 09:34PM

whycliff wrote: »

You dont accidently go to bed and not wake up... You can go to bed andnot wake up yes, but you dont do it accidently

I'm only picking up on the wording of the statement, which i imagine in this case would have been well thought out before being released...

Its irrelevent how the chap died, it wont make it any easier on his family.

I dont want to engage in any speculation, i was only picking up on the press release wording

Yes, you can "accidently go to bed and not wake up" (choking on vomit, suffocation).

Why do you think the statement was "well thought out"? Do you really think that the family was giving the precise wording of the statement much thought in these circumstances. Of course, they werent. And if you are referring to Gerald Keans statement as the source for the "tragic accident" phrase, remember he said that "It's just a tragic accident is what we've been told ". That means we are dealing with 3rd hand information; hardly to be taken as some kind of well thought out phrase.

And finally, of course how he died is not irrelevent. As someone who had somebody close to them die, I took much comfort from the fact that my loved one died in a relatively peaceful way.

Ardent · 11-10-2009 09:36PM

Rabies wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8301627.stm

INteresting that the solicitor describes it as an accident..

Lord Trollington · 11-10-2009 09:37PM

drkpower wrote: »

Yes, you can "accidently go to bed and not wake up" (choking on vomit, suffocation).

And finally, of course how he died is not irrelevent. As someone who had somebody close to them die, I took much comfort from the fact that my loved one died in a relatively peaceful way.

It is irrelevent to us on boards.ie in AH forum...

By you saying choking on vomit, suffocation you too are speculating...

i never mentioned how he died, all i said is there may be more to it other than he went to bed and didnt wake up...

Dudess · 11-10-2009 09:37PM

The jokes are lame but the insincere "sorrow" at the death of someone people didn't know/care about when alive is as bad.

Still though, the death of anyone early in life, suddenly and seemingly inexplicably, is a terrible tragedy.

Slideshowbob · 11-10-2009 09:37PM

The family said it was an accident!?!? what sort of accident??

sparky360 · 11-10-2009 09:37PM

As stated above, the heavy handed approach most of the "hand-wringers" have taken when anything that THEY PERCEIVE to be inappropriate is shocking.

Yes a man has died, a man who lived his life in the public eye. Of course his death is going to be open to speculation. The wording of the statement, mentioning an accident will guarantee that. Especially on a DISCUSSION forum.

The title of this thread is Stephen Gately has died, not "please only come in here if you are going to write RIP Stephen"

It is a tragedy, for his friends and family. Not for me.

drkpower · 11-10-2009 09:43PM

whycliff wrote: »

It is irrelevent to us on boards.ie in AH forum...

By you saying choking on vomit, suffocation you too are speculating...

i never mentioned how he died, all i said is there may be more to it other than he went to bed and didnt wake up...

Oh, give me a break. I was correcting your statement that "you dont accidently go to bed and not wake up" by stating two ways in which that could happen.

That's pretty disingenuous.

And, as for the 'relevance' point, you said that the way he died was irrelevent as it wouldnt make it easier for the family - I was pointing out that the cause of death is often a very important factor for a family and does make it "easier".

All in all, a pretty disingenuous post by any standards.

Terrontress · 11-10-2009 09:46PM

Mental Mickey wrote: »

[/B]

What would you suggest then?

Well, for a start, something like Whycliff stating that by it being described as an accident there must have been some form of external influence. I.e. not a heart attack or sudden adult death syndrome.

He was roundly turned upon for that and I think that more posts like his would be better. Discussing the information available in the public domain. As long as it is not insulting or unproven then what is wrong with talking about that?

I can't see the point in hundreds of anonymous people wishing someone they don't know to rest in peace. Fine, stick it on to the end of another post, it does no harm. But posting just to say that? Some form of megalomania and an attempt to make oneself relevant to the issue at hand if you ask me.

drkpower · 11-10-2009 09:48PM

Ardent wrote: »

INteresting that the solicitor describes it as an accident..

Bloody 'ell, can noone read properly anymore. He didnt describe it as an accident, he said that "It's just a tragic accident is what we've been told". That is somewhat different.

Lord Trollington · 11-10-2009 09:49PM

drkpower wrote: »

Oh, give me a break. I was correcting your statement that "you dont accidently go to bed and not wake up" by stating two ways in which that could happen.

That's pretty disingenuous.

And, as for the 'relevance' point, you said that the way he died was irrelevent as it wouldnt make it easier for the family - I was pointing out that the cause of death is often a very important factor for a family and does make it "easier".

All in all, a pretty disingenuous post by any standards.

Firstly,You speculated...

Why didnt you correct me without giving examples...

at least i didnt give any examples as to how he may have died...

I suppose you set the standards then.... ****

Epic Tissue · 11-10-2009 09:52PM

sparky360 wrote: »

As stated above, the heavy handed approach most of the "hand-wringers" have taken when anything that THEY PERCEIVE to be inappropriate is shocking.

Yes a man has died, a man who lived his life in the public eye. Of course his death is going to be open to speculation. The wording of the statement, mentioning an accident will guarantee that. Especially on a DISCUSSION forum.

The title of this thread is Stephen Gately has died, not "please only come in here if you are going to write RIP Stephen"

It is a tragedy, for his friends and family. Not for me.

Then surely you can ignore the thread:eek:

drkpower · 11-10-2009 09:55PM

Terrontress wrote: »

Well, for a start, something like Whycliff stating that by it being described as an accident there must have been some form of external influence. I.e. not a heart attack or sudden adult death syndrome.

I dont necessarily have a problem with speculation per se but so many here are engaging in speculation that is baseless.

As I have repeatedly said, an 'accident' does not necessarily mean an 'external influence'. The point us that many are wildly speculating on the basis of two words in a statement that the family solictor seems to have gotten from some source in Majorca.

Its about as useful (and as ridiculous) as speculating that, because there was another man at the scene, that he died from some sort of group sex accident*.

* I am not speculating that he died from some sort of group sex accident.....

Terrontress · 11-10-2009 09:56PM

Epic Tissue wrote: »

Then surely you can ignore the thread:eek:

No, the issue is that a thread exists about something in the public domain. People are looking to discuss the information which is being released and being rounded upon by other posters who appear to have little constructive to add.

Terrontress · 11-10-2009 09:56PM

drkpower wrote: »

I dont necessarily have a problem with speculation per se but so many here are engaging in speculation that is baseless.

As I have repeatedly said, an 'accident' does not necessarily mean an 'external influence'. The point us that many are wildly speculating on the basis of two words in a statement that the family solictor seems to have gotten from some source in Majorca.

Its about as useful (and as ridiculous) as speculating that, because there was another man at the scene, that he died from some sort of group sex accident*.

* I am not speculating that he died from some sort of group sex accident.....

You shouldn't even bring that sort of nonsense up, hypothetically or otherwise. Shame on you.

Mental Mickey · 11-10-2009 09:57PM

drkpower wrote: »

I dont necessarily have a problem with speculation per se but so many here are engaging in speculation that is baseless.

As I have repeatedly said, an 'accident' does not necessarily mean an 'external influence'. The point us that many are wildly speculating on the basis of two words in a statement that the family solictor seems to have gotten from some source in Majorca.

Its about as useful (and as ridiculous) as speculating that, because there was another man at the scene, that he died from some sort of group sex accident*.

* I am not speculating that he died from some sort of group sex accident.....

Exactly.

LizT · 11-10-2009 09:58PM

This is not a place to snipe at each other - stop acting like immature stubborn toddlers.

This thread is to remember and reflect on Stephen's life and his career, in my opinion anyway.

drkpower · 11-10-2009 09:58PM

whycliff wrote: »

Firstly,You speculated...

Why didnt you correct me without giving examples...

Read the thread. I did exactly that. I first corrected you without examples and when you repeated your silly assertion that "you dont accidently go to bed and not wake up", I repeated my correction and gave you two examples to back it up.

At no point did I speculate.

sparky360 · 11-10-2009 09:58PM

Epic Tissue wrote: »

Then surely you can ignore the thread:eek:

Of course I could. Same way people could ignore the "inappropriate speculation" and we could all ignore posts that we dont agree with. that is after all the point of a discussion forum

(and don't call me Shirley)

It's hard to un-read a thread. I wasnt expecting the thread to be just a bunch of "OMG RIP" posts

drkpower · 11-10-2009 10:00PM

Terrontress wrote: »

You shouldn't even bring that sort of nonsense up, hypothetically or otherwise. Shame on you.

Get off the high horse.

Terrontress wrote: »

No, the issue is that a thread exists about something in the public domain. People are looking to discuss the information which is being released and being rounded upon by other posters who appear to have little constructive to add.

No, you are misinterpeting the information which is being released. And badly at that.

Lord Trollington · 11-10-2009 10:02PM

drkpower wrote: »

I dont necessarily have a problem with speculation per se but so many here are engaging in speculation that is baseless.

As I have repeatedly said, an 'accident' does not necessarily mean an 'external influence'. The point us that many are wildly speculating on the basis of two words in a statement that the family solictor seems to have gotten from some source in Majorca.

Its about as useful (and as ridiculous) as speculating that, because there was another man at the scene, that he died from some sort of group sex accident*.

* I am not speculating that he died from some sort of group sex accident.....

becasue you thought of it and typed it, your speculating.

Agreeing with released Statement from anyone or Anything other than the coroner is speculation.
At this stage, his own family maybe only speculating.

Terrontress · 11-10-2009 10:02PM

drkpower wrote: »

Get off the high horse.

You have bought this thread lower than anyone else so far.

If being on the high horse is speaking out about such a flippant remark following the death of a young gay man then I will remain happily on this horse.

sparky360 · 11-10-2009 10:03PM

drkpower wrote: »

Get off the high horse.
.

haha racist against kettles much Mr Pot?

Lord Trollington · 11-10-2009 10:04PM

drkpower wrote: »

Read the thread. I did exactly that. I first corrected you without examples and when you repeated your silly assertion that "you dont accidently go to bed and not wake up", I repeated my correction and gave you two examples to back it up.

At no point did I speculate.

Giving examples is speculating my friend...

If someone went to bed, and Died from SUDS, he didnt accidentally do it, he/she just done it...

Stephen Gately has died! ----(mod warning post #6)

Comments