Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Gay couple humiliated after being asked to leave Dublin restaurant

1…1112141617

Comments

  • #392
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I'm sorry, I see sarcasm is lost on you, but let me explain.

    Done well - not at all. Done in the form of pathetic hyperbole - not so much. There is nothing to explain to me - I think it is you that miss the point that we can discuss this kind of event even if it turns out the event never happened at all. Because events like it happen all the time. And the social etiquettes that we come to through discussion of events like this inform our attitudes on that reality. For example - search the history of this forum for topics related to breast feeding in public places - including restaurants and cafes - and you will see how relevant the discussion is even in our "modern" world.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Yeah I get it... The mob are fickle and are as sharp as a spoon....

    If you say so. I certainly didn't. I certainly think voting with ones feet is a good thing and if a restaurant is treating its customers that badly - such as asking them to leave while doing nothing wrong - I would certainly like to know which restaurant it is so I can simply never bring it my custom.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Again apologies I did not factor in people's inability to distinguish a facetious comment

    And again - no such inability exists where being facetious is done well. And doing it well is made more difficult when many of the opinions are - as you yourself observed - patently ridiculous. When there is that many patently ridiculous comments and opinions floating around - the danger that ones own failed attempts at sarcasm might be construed as just another one of THOSE increases - and so too therefore does the requirement to do your sarcasm well.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Yeah cause that's what happens in a review....
    The steak was dry, the wine list deplorable, lacked atmosphere... Oh and that staff where all homophobic...Are you insane?

    We can do without the personal slights here I think - we are both adults. That was not the point I was making at all. The point I was making was that you expressed a concern that someone might name a restaurant and disparage it without offering any facts that anything they say is true. My point is simply that ANY bad review fits that description.

    If you read a review saying the steak was dry - the wine tasted like vinegar - or the staff were incredibly poor at their tasks - then those reviews too are coming before you without any evidence. We merely take the authors word for it - or not - as is our wont.

    That is all the point was - and I see nothing insane about it.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    That coming from someone who thinks blankly making an accusation that an establishment is homophobic is the same as receiving a bad review???? Your compass on fairness is clearly askew!

    The only thing askew here is your interpretation of what I wrote it would seem - beacause I never made such an "accusation" at all - anywhere - ever. You just made it up and shoved it in my mouth.

    As I explained above the ONLY point I was making is that if you are going to lament that such a story comes before you without any evidence that what is in it is true - then it is worth noting that this description also applies to Bad Restaurant Reviews. Because when you read THEM - you ALSO have no idea that anything in it is true or ever actually happened.

    That is all I was making a point about - anything else you parse out of my words is solely and entirely of your own imagination.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Again let me explain as I do no now if you are being deliberately obtuse or you really don't get when I am trying to convey.

    Given the blatant misrepresentations of what I have been saying I have had to correct above - I am afraid the only one failing to get what someone is trying to convey here - is you. But I trust you will note that rather than simply calling you "insane" or anything of the sort - I have moved to merely calmly and politely correct your errors. Perhaps try this approach yourself next time rather than condescend someone you have no position from which to do so.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Point I am making is that people are already deciding this story in their mind is legitimate

    And that is perfectly ok because as I say - events like it do happen all the time - and since no names are mentioned in this thread - we can take the event itself as a thought experiment from which to discuss that TYPE of event. People holding hands - or breast feeding - are doing nothing at all wrong. Nothing. At all. So we can certainly discuss - as I have done - the kind of event where staff or crank customers like Jackie above - take exception to them and feel they deserve some "satisfaction" for their own hang ups.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    you yourself think this information is enough to impact on the restaurants trade the restaurant should be named so as people can make a decision on whether they should go there.

    What I myself think is that the people in the OP should write a review of the restaurant in the proper place - such as a restaurant review TripAdvisor style venue - for all to read - rather than looking for a trial by mob through the news papers or Joe Duffy.

    What I myself think is that people like me can then read the reviews for a place like that - as a whole - and make our own decision on whether to go to that restaurant.

    And what I myself HOPE is that if this event did not happen - then that one review out of 100 or 1000 the restaurant gets will be an anomaly and most people will notice that 999 of the reviews are good except for this single 1 - and they will take it with a pinch of salt therefore.

    But if 5 - 10 - 50 such reviews start to appear then people will genuinely know what kind of establishment this is and will decide not to go there - or to go there if they themselves share a similar world view to the owner - accordingly. And if this means the restaurant goes out of business - then so be it - that is at it should be.


  • #393
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Done well - not at all. Done in the form of pathetic hyperbole - not so much. There is nothing to explain to me - I think it is you that miss the point that we can discuss this kind of event even if it turns out the event never happened at all. Because events like it happen all the time. And the social etiquettes that we come to through discussion of events like this inform our attitudes on that reality. For example - search the history of this forum for topics related to breast feeding in public places - including restaurants and cafes - and you will see how relevant the discussion is even in our "modern" world.

    If you say so. I certainly didn't. I certainly think voting with ones feet is a good thing and if a restaurant is treating its customers that badly - such as asking them to leave while doing nothing wrong - I would certainly like to know which restaurant it is so I can simply never bring it my custom.

    So which is it?
    Are we having a hypothetical conversation on "If this happened"?
    Or do you want the restaurant named so you can vote with your feet?

    So you would take a one sided story not question it and take on someone else's grievance with little not no real facts?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And again - no such inability exists where being facetious is done well. And doing it well is made more difficult when many of the opinions are - as you yourself observed - patently ridiculous. When there is that many patently ridiculous comments and opinions floating around - the danger that ones own failed attempts at sarcasm might be construed as just another one of THOSE increases - and so too therefore does the requirement to do your sarcasm well.

    You literally seem to be the only person that took the statement literally, but let's argue literally over semantics. Moving on...... This is not important.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    We can do without the personal slights here I think - we are both adults. That was not the point I was making at all. The point I was making was that you expressed a concern that someone might name a restaurant and disparage it without offering any facts that anything they say is true. My point is simply that ANY bad review fits that description.

    If you read a review saying the steak was dry - the wine tasted like vinegar - or the staff were incredibly poor at their tasks - then those reviews too are coming before you without any evidence. We merely take the authors word for it - or not - as is our wont.

    No there is a huge difference.
    Saying the food was poor or the service lacking is a subjective topic open to opinion, stating you where removed due to bigoted intolerance is criminal.
    Falsely making such an accusation is also criminal, whether it is slander or liable.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    That is all the point was - and I see nothing insane about it.

    So you think someone giving a bad review and reporting bigotry similar... OK
    Deleted User wrote: »
    The only thing askew here is your interpretation of what I wrote it would seem - beacause I never made such an "accusation" at all - anywhere - ever. You just made it up and shoved it in my mouth.

    As I explained above the ONLY point I was making is that if you are going to lament that such a story comes before you without any evidence that what is in it is true - then it is worth noting that this description also applies to Bad Restaurant Reviews. Because when you read THEM - you ALSO have no idea that anything in it is true or ever actually happened.

    That is all I was making a point about - anything else you parse out of my words is solely and entirely of your own imagination.

    Again a bad review is one thing, reporting something criminal is not the same..

    You did not say anything specific about the restaurant but you are one of the ones that has suggested you would like the restaurant named so you can as you put it "vote with your feet"...

    The point I am making, whether you said anything or not, giving a name when you have no evidence of the alleged is socially irresponsible.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And that is perfectly ok because as I say - events like it do happen all the time - and since no names are mentioned in this thread - we can take the event itself as a thought experiment from which to discuss that TYPE of event.

    Which is fine if purely a hypothetical debate but my comments on this thread where aimed at the "name and shame" crowd which seem to develop...

    Also you are talking about exceptional events and trying to portray them as the norm, in my experience watching people being ejected from a premises usually comes after an incident too which they gave cause to be removed.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    People holding hands - or breast feeding - are doing nothing at all wrong. Nothing. At all. So we can certainly discuss - as I have done - the kind of event where staff or crank customers like Jackie above - take exception to them and feel they deserve some "satisfaction" for their own hang ups.

    My issue is not with the story, it that the story lacks facts and it's anonymous a blank allegation of what could be seen an a criminal and discriminatory act...
    Deleted User wrote: »
    What I myself think is that the people in the OP should write a review of the restaurant in the proper place - such as a restaurant review TripAdvisor style venue - for all to read - rather than looking for a trial by mob through the news papers or Joe Duffy.

    What I myself think is that people like me can then read the reviews for a place like that - as a whole - and make our own decision on whether to go to that restaurant.

    I think you do not understand the law, this is serious accusation, you don't just get to make it...
    If this happened and you out the restaurant you had better hope someone either backs up the story or at least the restaurant cannot prove anything to the contrary like if 5 people come forward to say you where drunk and made a scene and it had nothing to do with being gay.

    This is not a bad review...


  • #394
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    So which is it? Are we having a hypothetical conversation on "If this happened"? Or do you want the restaurant named so you can vote with your feet?

    Not seeing why it needs to be one or the other. I can do both.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    So you would take a one sided story not question it and take on someone else's grievance with little not no real facts?

    As I say - that is what you are doing whenever you read any review of a place before you choose to go there or not. You are taking a one sides story with no real facts. The joy of multiple reviews however is you get an over all trending picture - not just a one sides one off review.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Falsely making such an accusation is also criminal, whether it is slander or liable.

    Then it would be up to the establishment in question to take up that legal case. Not my problem. IF someone had a bad experience in a restaurant I would like to read about that in the reviews. That is my perspective as a customer. Any issues the establishment and the review writer have between them is their issue, not mine.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    So you think someone giving a bad review and reporting bigotry similar... OK

    From MY perspective as another customer considering the establishment it is the same thing. And that is the perspective I am discussing it from. They had a bad experience with the service - and I as a review reader would want to know that yes.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I think you do not understand the law, this is serious accusation, you don't just get to make it...

    I think you do not understand that the law has little to do with the points I am making. We are talking past each other from entirely different perspectives. I - solely as a customer - would want to read reviews of any and all bad or good experiences another customer had.

    If that customer is making up the review or is lying - then that is for the establishment and the website hosting the review to resolve and delete the review as required.

    In fact I myself once co-wrote a very bad review of a certain golf hotel in Dungarven with another user of this forum who is better at writing than I am. The establishment wrote a legal sounding email to me suggesting it was slanderous. It was up to them to take a legal case against me or my review or have Tripadvisor take it down if they felt it was a false review. They failed to do so. So the review is still there.


  • #395
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not seeing why it needs to be one or the other. I can do both.

    As I say - that is what you are doing whenever you read any review of a place before you choose to go there or not. You are taking a one sides story with no real facts. The joy of multiple reviews however is you get an over all trending picture - not just a one sides one off review.

    Again I will say this, your moral compass is worryingly askew.

    Do you know what a witch hunt is?
    The problem with SJW and I am putting you in the category of social justice warrior is that it's a mob mentality is void of anything intellectual.
    Twitter storms take on a momentum of their own regardless of any real facts.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Then it would be up to the establishment in question to take up that legal case. Not my problem. IF someone had a bad experience in a restaurant I would like to read about that in the reviews. That is my perspective as a customer. Any issues the establishment and the review writer have between them is their issue, not mine.

    Not your problem..... I see, I am now getting a clearer picture of your character.

    As for the rest of your post I doubt it is worth my consideration.


  • #396
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Again I will say this, your moral compass is worryingly askew. Do you know what a witch hunt is?

    I see nothing immoral about people who had a bad experience with an establishment - being permitted to submit a review to a proper venue for reviews. I am a believer in free speech and open reporting. If that makes me a moral blip on YOUR radar - then I can only remain thankful that measurement by your radar has no interest to me.

    Similarly if someone submits a false review and slanders without basis another person or business - I would be happy to see that person suffer whatever prosecution or justice is available.

    Aside from merely asserting something is askew with that - try explaining exactly how something is askew with that. Labels are too easy to write - but harder to stick it seems.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Not your problem..... I see, I am now getting a clearer picture of your character. As for the rest of your post I doubt it is worth my consideration.

    Now you are just getting personal and snide - for reasons that are opaque to me. Whether that says something about my character - or in fact yours - I will simply leave to others to read along and decide - for I am not about to be baited into mud slinging when my points stand for themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    Chris_Bradley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,818 ✭✭✭Chris_Bradley


    Pure bull****e from the Indo.


  • #398
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Heckler wrote: »
    I'm not sick of gay people Kev. Just people who, these days with any sort of cause, agenda, belief, take to social media usually to get likes and anyone who hints at some sort of negativity towards that particular cause gets villified.

    Being gay is an agenda?


  • #399
    recylingbin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,001 ✭✭✭recylingbin


    So, in light of the fact that this never actually happened, I'd like to apologise for the faux outrage that I never had or displayed.
    Yours, etc
    Right on guy.


  • #400
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I see nothing immoral about people who had a bad experience with an establishment - being permitted to submit a review to a proper venue for reviews. I am a believer in free speech and open reporting. If that makes me a moral blip on YOUR radar - then I can only remain thankful that measurement by your radar has no interest to me.

    Similarly if someone submits a false review and slanders without basis another person or business - I would be happy to see that person suffer whatever prosecution or justice is available.

    Your failings in ethics is nothing short of amazing. I see you now try down the route of "free speech" but you fail in that also.

    Originally you wanted the restaurant named so you could avoid said restaurant but we already know the author is anonymous, we do not know who this person is who made this claim.
    So if this was a false report what retribution can the Restaurant hope to peruse?

    It's only course would be to chase the Independent but this would not prove whether or not the incident actually happened (without outing the source) but more on whether it was ethical for the Independent to print the identity of the Restaurant without providing a source.

    Let me skip forward, the reason the Independent did not print the identity of the Restaurant is party because it would have been ethically amoral to do so and the bigger reason they probably knew they could of found themselves in court over the head of it.

    To go back to my earlier comment about people being contrived in this sense of social justice for a gay couple but if this story was bogus you need to look at the flip side and how this could do irreparable damage to a business but then again as you put it "that's not your problem".

    Also your attempt to claw back any sensibly with the:
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I would be happy to see that person suffer whatever prosecution or justice is available.

    Is all well and good if a person or persons stood by what they have said but they have not so why should the Independent then publish the identity of the restaurant?


  • #401
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Your failings in ethics is nothing short of amazing.

    If you say so - but aside from throw this assertion out repeatedly you have not made any arguments that actually make it stick.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Originally you wanted the restaurant named so you could avoid said restaurant but we already know the author is anonymous

    Actually what I said was that I feel the WRONG thing to do at all was for this "author" to go to the news paper or for the news paper to name the restaurant. What I said the correct thing to do was for the person in question to write a review in the normal place for writing restaurant reviews - where it could be evaluated in the same way as we do any review we read when we look at such sites.

    Then we can have open and honest evaluation. For example I was looking at a hotel in Berlin recently and there was around 200 reviews for it. 98% of them gave it 4-5 starts. There was three reviews giving it the lowest score and saying everything was truely awful.

    Now I could see these reviews were an anomaly and I could treat them as such. Perhaps the authors are cranks. Perhaps they got unlucky. Perhaps they had some entirely underhand reason for bad mouthing the place. I do not know. But I could tell in a WEALTH of good reviews for this hotel - their reviews were likely irrelevant.

    The same should be true here. The "author" of the letter should have written a review in a venue for that purpose. And people could read and parse that review in the light of ALL the reviews for the restaurant and treat it accordingly.

    What I do not want - and never called for - is that the news papers "out" this restaurant and submit it to trial by mob.

    And I still do not see you arguing for why that is immoral. You just declare it to be so and leave it at that.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    we do not know who this person is who made this claim. So if this was a false report what retribution can the Restaurant hope to peruse?

    As I keep saying that is the issue we have to face with all online reviews. Amazon for example are currently trying to pursue and prosecute people who have left fake reviews. They of course have the issue of identifying those people in order to do so.

    And yes - this is a failing in open online reviewing and one we have to be aware of when reading such reviews. But a failing IN it is not a failing OF it as a whole. Open online reviewing is still a good thing. The problem of fake reviews (bad AND good) is simply something we have to be aware of and address and where possible improve.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    why should the Independent then publish the identity of the restaurant?

    I never said they should. So I am not sure why you bring it up with me. I did discuss the reasons why people who want to know the name - might want to know the name. But at no point did I suggest the newspaper should be publishing it.


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Actually what I said was that I feel the WRONG thing to do at all was for this "author" to go to the news paper or for the news paper to name the restaurant. What I said the correct thing to do was for the person in question to write a review in the normal place for writing restaurant reviews - where it could be evaluated in the same way as we do any review we read when we look at such sites.

    This was not a review it was an article in the paper.
    On one hand you you try and argue that the Restaurant should be named and when challenged you hide behind a hypothetical scenario of a review...

    TripAdvisor does exist the author could of posted this as a review as you suggest, they did not, what is your point?


  • #403
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    This was not a review it was an article in the paper.
    On one hand you you try and argue that the Restaurant should be named and when challenged you hide behind a hypothetical scenario of a review...

    TripAdvisor does exist the author could of posted this as a review as you suggest, they did not, what is your point?

    They also didn't request an article in a paper. They wrote a fairly tame letter to a gay interest magazine and did not name or attack the restaurant so your concern is entirely misplaced.


  • #404
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,009 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    This was not a review it was an article in the paper.
    On one hand you you try and argue that the Restaurant should be named and when challenged you hide behind a hypothetical scenario of a review...

    TripAdvisor does exist the author could of posted this as a review as you suggest, they did not, what is your point?
    Literally every point you are trying to make/question you are asking already has an explanation in the very post you quoted.


  • #405
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    This was not a review it was an article in the paper.

    Yes - that is what I am saying. Nice of you to catch up. I repeat again - I think going to the news paper with this was the wrong thing to do. They should have written a review on a place like Trip Advisor or Yelp.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    On one hand you you try and argue that the Restaurant should be named and when challenged you hide behind a hypothetical scenario of a review...

    You not understanding my point is not the same as me hiding behind things. Once again - I do NOT feel the news paper should be naming the restaurant and never have. I do NOT feel the alleged couple should have gone to a news paper or magazine in the first place. I DO feel they should have written a review of their experience in a venue designed for writing restaurant reviews.

    Nothing there is me hiding - and nothing there has been challenged either - certainly not by you.


  • #406
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    They also didn't request an article in a paper. They wrote a fairly tame letter to a gay interest magazine and did not name or attack the restaurant so your concern is entirely misplaced.

    My objection is not with the Author it's around the idea of naming the restaurant.
    My concern is around mob type judgement which is not misplaced.


  • #407
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    osarusan wrote: »
    Literally every point you are trying to make/question you are asking already has an explanation in the very post you quoted.

    My original comment was around people being contrived and completely disingenuous.
    People quickly jump to conclusions and make judgement.

    The OP posted challenging what I said saying people just want to know the name of the restaurant so they could vote with their feet.
    He then added a scenario of “like any review”.

    My original comments are in the context of the thread and this being published in the Independent not whatever tangent the OP has decided to go down.
    You will find even with a review like Trip Advisor comments around discrimination would be removed if unfounded or at very least the Restaurant would have the opportunity to respond.


  • #408
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yes - that is what I am saying. Nice of you to catch up. I repeat again - I think going to the news paper with this was the wrong thing to do. They should have written a review on a place like Trip Advisor or Yelp.



    You not understanding my point is not the same as me hiding behind things. Once again - I do NOT feel the news paper should be naming the restaurant and never have. I do NOT feel the alleged couple should have gone to a news paper or magazine in the first place. I DO feel they should have written a review of their experience in a venue designed for writing restaurant reviews.

    Nothing there is me hiding - and nothing there has been challenged either - certainly not by you.

    Really?

    Let's recap:

    You said
    Deleted User wrote: »
    The vast majority of people who want to know the name of the establishment likely want to do so they can either 1) Not go there themselves ever or 2) Do what the breast feeders there and go there en-masse - behave perfectly well - pay well - tip well - but hold each others hands a lot.

    This was in response to my over the top comment around let's just burn the place to the ground.


    I said:
    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    An allegation was made, let's name and shame a restaurant without any real facts.

    What I have said is purely in the context of the article in the paper and in response to people saying they should of published the name of the Restaurant.

    You then said
    Deleted User wrote: »
    So just like ANY bad review of ANY restaurant then?

    You did not say they should of posted a review you are condoning it being published in the Independent and saying So just like ANY bad review.


  • #409
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,166 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    Guy trolls everyone by making up a story and sending it to a gay magazine to get a reaction.

    Troll: 1
    Outraged Public: 0

    Derp.


  • #410
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    Guy trolls everyone by making up a story and sending it to a gay magazine to get a reaction.

    Troll: 1
    Outraged Public: 0

    Derp.

    Except there is no outraged public except for those with a hard on for deciding it definitely didn't happen and trying to protect an unnamed restaurant from an anonymous complaint..


  • #411
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Really? Let's recap: You said This was in response to my over the top comment around let's just burn the place to the ground.

    Yes - and in that section I never once said the news paper should be naming the restaurant. Not once. You simply made that up on my behalf. And in post #401 I pre-empted the error you just made here. In the text you just quoted I discussed WHY people might want to know the name of the restaurant. But I never once said the news paper should be giving us the name of the restaurant. See the difference?
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    You did not say they should of posted a review you are condoning it being published in the Independent and saying So just like ANY bad review.

    Actually I did say they should have posted a review. Nice of you to cherry pick so heavily in your "recap". Anyone can read the last section of post #392 however and see what I actually said.

    And the "Just like ANY bad review" comment was related solely to it being pointed out that the comments bad in the letter come before us without facts or evidence to back them up. I am merely pointing out that this is true of any bad review you read of a restaurant. When you read a bad review you have no idea if it is actually accurate - made up - or anything.

    Do not take my saying the two things are the same in THAT regard as me acting like the two things are in all way the same. Therein lies your error.

    My position is clear and I am happy to repeat it until you reply to it rather than this other narrative you have erected for me. Simply: If these people exist and if they genuinely had this experience - they would be better off detailing that experience on places like Trip Advisor and Yelp - than writing anonymous letters to interest magazines or news papers. There is NO reason to go to a magazine or news paper - and there is NO reason for such a magazine or news paper to name the restaurant and subject it to mob rule.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yes - and in that section I never once said the news paper should be naming the restaurant. Not once. You simply made that up on my behalf. And in post #401 I pre-empted the error you just made here. In the text you just quoted I discussed WHY people might want to know the name of the restaurant. But I never once said the news paper should be giving us the name of the restaurant. See the difference?

    Yeah you take this passive approach by defending a mob type mentality then try and stand back and say "Oh but i'm not saying this is what we should do"

    Got it.


  • #413
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ^ You really do enjoy making up positions for me I do not hold and never espoused don't you. I never once "defended" anything of the sort.

    What I DID do was explain WHY many people might want to know the name of the restaurant. I did not defend the reasons - I did not attack the reasons - I merely told you what the reasons are likely to be.

    My explanation was value neutral and did not defend or attack anything.

    Do learn the difference between someone explaining why others might want to do X - and defending them actually doing X. It is not a hard difference to learn.


  • #414
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Deleted User wrote: »
    ^ You really do enjoy making up positions for me I do not hold and never espoused don't you. I never once "defended" anything of the sort.

    What I DID do was explain WHY many people might want to know the name of the restaurant. I did not defend the reasons - I did not attack the reasons - I merely told you what the reasons are likely to be.

    My explanation was value neutral and did not defend or attack anything.

    Do learn the difference between someone explaining why others might want to do X - and defending them actually doing X. It is not a hard difference to learn.

    I think you have twisted and turned and back tracked.

    Even when I asked:
    ShowMeTheCash wrote:
    So which is it? Are we having a hypothetical conversation on "If this happened"? Or do you want the restaurant named so you can vote with your feet?

    Your response:
    taxAHcruel wrote: »
    Not seeing why it needs to be one or the other. I can do both.

    You come across as completely disingenuous.
    But you do not support the restaurant being named by the Independent though you state you can have both....


  • #415
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    ^^^

    In true political fashion I expect you will say that the above does not explicitly say published in the Independent.

    But I get it passive! Or perhaps spineless.


  • #416
    sonofenoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,846 ✭✭✭sonofenoch


    'The owner reserves the right' ......and what if other customers caught the gay thing, isn't it contagious?


  • #417
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I think you have twisted and turned and back tracked.

    And some people think homeopathy is effective. Just goes to show that thinking something true does not make it true.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    But you do not support the restaurant being named by the Independent though you state you can have both....

    You really are desperate to ignore half of what I am saying each time you reply to the other half. If you only focus on half - you are going to misrepresent me every time.

    What I mean by "I want both" is that I DO want the restaurant named. I clearly said that. But I do NOT want it named in the paper. I clearly also said that.

    I want it named through the proper channels - by the people who had a bad experience in a restaurant - writing a proper review of the restaurant in the proper venue for doing so (I already suggested 2 possible venues). So that people like me - if they happen to be planning to go to that restaurant - can read that review - along with all the others - and vote with our feet.

    That is what I mean by having "both".
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    In true political fashion I expect you will say that the above does not explicitly say published in the Independent.

    Yes - funny how you can predict people claiming they did not say something - when you clearly know they did not say it. Hardly a prediction or a prophecy really - nor is there anything "political" about it. If I shove words in your mouth you never said - I could probably predict you claiming you never said them too.

    You love your name calling with things like "disingenuous" - but at this point the only one being disingenuous is you - because you insist on defending a narrative you have constructed for me - in an attempt to prove I said it or meant it - rather than engaging in an adult two way conversation where you listen to me tell you what my position actually is.

    Given the choice between presuming to tell me what my position is - and listening to me tell you what my position is - I doubt it takes a genius to work out which is the disingenuous choice there.


  • #418
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Newspaper were totally wrong to publish a letter from an unverifiable source. Bad, lazy journalism at best.


  • #419
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And some people think homeopathy is effective. Just goes to show that thinking something true does not make it true.

    I find this Ironic but just think of this as my "review" of you, facts do not need to play in part in it, it's just my opinion.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    You really are desperate to ignore half of what I am saying each time you reply to the other half. If you only focus on half - you are going to misrepresent me every time.

    What I mean by "I want both" is that I DO want the restaurant named. I clearly said that. But I do NOT want it named in the paper. I clearly also said that.

    No you didn't, with regard my original comment and your responses you did not make it clear that you did not condone the paper naming the restaurant. You did make it clear you wanted the Restaurant named however, and after a bit of flipping and flopping you now have made it clear that "what you meant was..." :rolleyes:
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I want it named through the proper channels - by the people who had a bad experience in a restaurant - writing a proper review of the restaurant in the proper venue for doing so (I already suggested 2 possible venues). So that people like me - if they happen to be planning to go to that restaurant - can read that review - along with all the others - and vote with our feet.

    That is what I mean by having "both".

    And I will say it again, i get it.
    Just on the topic on giving a bad review, I am not against giving bad reviews I think it gives customers the chance to tell their story and either recommend or advise patrons against one place or another.

    I do however think using a review board as you medium to report bigotry, racism, sexism or perhaps anything illegal a gutless thing to do.
    You seem to think a review is the forum to do this I don't, I think hiding behind a keyboard to defame someone or something spineless.
    If someone has been victimized they should be encouraged to step forward and stand by their statement only then does it actually have any real weight.

    I am not even obverse to the paper naming the restaurant if the source stood by what they have reported and the paper at least got the restaurants side of the story.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    You love your name calling with things like "disingenuous" - but at this point the only one being disingenuous is you - because you insist on defending a narrative you have constructed for me - in an attempt to prove I said it or meant it - rather than engaging in an adult two way conversation where you listen to me tell you what my position actually is.

    Given the choice between presuming to tell me what my position is - and listening to me tell you what my position is - I doubt it takes a genius to work out which is the disingenuous choice there.

    I think my review of you quite apt


  • #420
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Hang on, Has this even been proven to be True ?


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I find this Ironic but just think of this as my "review" of you, facts do not need to play in part in it, it's just my opinion.

    Indeed - facts clearly DO play no part in it - and as with a review we can take it in the context of all other reviews. And since you appear to be the anomaly opinion - you can be dismissed just as readily as a single one star review in a mass collection of 4 and 5 star reviews.

    So you have effectively made my point for me - very well too - so thanks! This is exactly the point I am making. Rather than submitting a trial by mob letter to a magazine or paper - the people in question should have submitted their review under the restaurant name on a site for that purpose. Then people like me can read not just that review - but all of them in context - and decide which the nonsense anomaly reviews - like yours here - actually are.

    That is what is so good about sites like that - one is not slave to a single - possibly apocryphal - entirely nonsense mallicious fantasy review like your own of me - but we would have a wealth of them to draw from to build up an over all opinion of what is being reviewed. One or two cranks making up malicious nonsense for no good reason can be taken in the over all context of reviews as a whole - giving us an over all picture of the object. This is a good thing.

    And if the OVERALL reviews of this nameless restaurant start trending towards a bigoted owner who likes to evict homosexuals - then we can vote with out feet - go elsewhere - and spare not a moment of lamentation for the owner should the establishment go out of business.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    No you didn't

    Except yes I have - multiple times. That it is not clear to YOU is not my issue - because clearly you have more interest in clinging on to what you want me to be saying - and what you want my point to be - rather than listening to another person tell you what their points are.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    with regard my original comment and your responses you did not make it clear that you did not condone the paper naming the restaurant.

    With regard my original comments it was abundantly clear I was giving you reasons why someone might want to know the name of the restaurant. I never said something about them actually getting it - or how they should get it - you made that part up entirely by yourself because you want to imagine I have been calling for - or condoning - the news paper naming them. Something I have never done - but you apparently really really need to imagine I did for reasons of your own narrative.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I do however think using a review board as you medium to report bigotry, racism, sexism or perhaps anything illegal a gutless thing to do.

    And I do not think so - and I welcome my ability to read the reviews of others where such things have happened. If YOU think it is the wrong think to do then YOU should not do it. Simple as that. Other people do - and I welcome that.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I think my review of you quite apt

    And I think you are unable to have this discussion without peppering it with snide personal comments. Something I am sure people will note I have not been baited by - and have not reduced myself to emulating.


Advertisement
Advertisement