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…1112131517

Comments

  • #422
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Without having to go back and repeat exactly what you posted but let's be clear.

    Stating something is being clear.
    Stating something but then alluding to something else is being allusive
    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.
    You also indicate you would like the Restaurant named.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I never said something about them actually getting it - or how they should get it. you made that part up entirely by yourself

    People are shouting about how the paper should of named the Restaurant, my post was highlighting the stupidity of a witch hunt by naming the restaurant with such little facts.

    You weigh in to defend why people would want the restaurant named.

    In the next post to me you then say:
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I would certainly like to know which restaurant it is so I can simply never bring it my custom.

    You then go on some weird comparison of talking about review's and how review's come with little to no evidence.

    But when challenged you duck around what you have said by stating "but I never said the paper should name the restaurant nor do I condone the mob like thinking"...


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.

    You will usually find unfounded claims of this nature get removed from review boards especially if there are legal implications of said claim.

    So you can hold this all you like but the above story written as a review would probably have been removed anyways so you are making a moot argument.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.

    I dunno I think you have been baited a little :D


  • #423
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Without having to go back and repeat exactly what you posted but let's be clear. Stating something is being clear.Stating something but then alluding to something else is being allusive You also indicate you would like the Restaurant named.

    No - I clearly did not. Anyone can go back and read the post in question and see you are simply making things up. I never once said in that post that I would like the Restaurant named. It simply is not there at all. Not even a little bit. It exists wholly and solely in your head.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    You weigh in to defend why people would want the restaurant named.

    Again this exists solely in your head. I weighed in to explain some of the reasons why they might want it named. Nothing else. The rest you are simply inventing from your fantasy land and ascribing to me. I again invite anyone who wants to check to read the actual post and see if they can find me defending anything. They will not find it - because you have simply made it up.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    You then go on some weird comparison of talking about review's and how review's come with little to no evidence.

    Nothing weird about it. You complained that such a claim comes before us without any evidence. I merely pointed out the obvious fact that this is true of ALL reviews you read about a restaurant. You like your labels - but never manage to get them to stick it seems. Is there something erroneous about the comparison or the fact I am claiming? If so what? The simple fact is if you go on to - say Trip Advisor - and read a review of a restaurant - you will likely have no evidence to use to prove what the user claims in it is true - accurate - or entirely made up.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    But when challenged you duck around what you have said by stating "but I never said the paper should name the restaurant nor do I condone the mob like thinking"...

    Stating my exact position is not "ducking" anything. Nor is pulling your words out of my mouth where you have spent days now in a campaign of shoving them.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    You will usually find unfounded claims of this nature get removed from review boards especially if there are legal implications of said claim.

    I have not found any such thing actually. Perhaps you have facts and figures on this claim of yours that you can cite? I know amazon recently have moved to try and prosecute for fake reviews - but in general there is little done to remove them.

    Despite the very bad review I co-wrote of a horrifically bad golf hotel in Dungarvan for example - there was nothing they could do to remove it - despite sending personal messages to us sounding all legal and threatening in the hope we would remove it ourselves.

    Yet anyone who reads that review has no evidence at all as to whether my claims in that review are unfounded or not. So I have no idea even what procedure you imagine is in place for their removal - let alone how many you think actually are - or on what basis or figures you are claiming it not only happens - but "usually" happens. Enlighten us with your facts and figures here.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I dunno I think you have been baited a little

    Then I merely refer you to my previous homeopathy comment.


  • #424
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No - I clearly did not. Anyone can go back and read the post in question and see you are simply making things up. I never once said in that post that I would like the Restaurant named. It simply is not there at all. Not even a little bit. It exists wholly and solely in your head.

    So you never said in the next two posts following this??
    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.

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

    Not even a little bit? You sure?


  • #425
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I have not found any such thing actually. Perhaps you have facts and figures on this claim of yours that you can cite? I know amazon recently have moved to try and prosecute for fake reviews - but in general there is little done to remove them.

    Despite the very bad review I co-wrote of a horrifically bad golf hotel in Dungarvan for example - there was nothing they could do to remove it - despite sending personal messages to us sounding all legal and threatening in the hope we would remove it ourselves.

    Yet anyone who reads that review has no evidence at all as to whether my claims in that review are unfounded or not. So I have no idea even what procedure you imagine is in place for their removal - let alone how many you think actually are - or on what basis or figures you are claiming it not only happens - but "usually" happens. Enlighten us with your facts and figures here.

    Tell you what go onto a review board and write you where sexually assaulted by the hotel manager see how long it remains there.

    Are you being deliberately obtuse?
    Saying a hotel was bad, the food poor, the staff rude, the room dirty is par for the course you could really go to town all you want but in the end it is down to your opinion and is always subjective.

    Putting up a review that you where asked to leave because you are a homosexual is an accusation of discrimination, different consequences with such an accusation.

    You are comparing apples with oranges!


  • #426
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Tell you what go onto a review board and write you where sexually assaulted by the hotel manager see how long it remains there.

    Are you being deliberately obtuse?
    Saying a hotel was bad, the food poor, the staff rude, the room dirty is par for the course you could really go to town all you want but in the end it is down to your opinion and is always subjective.

    Putting up a review that you where asked to leave because you are a homosexual is an accusation of discrimination, different consequences with such an accusation.

    You are comparing apples with oranges!

    The letter writer never said the restaurant asked them to leave. You are fighting over an incident that exists nowhere but your head.


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    The letter writer never said the restaurant asked them to leave. You are fighting over an incident that exists nowhere but your head.

    I cannot speak for the letter writer as I never saw the original letter but the Independent reports:


    "According to a letter published in November’s Issue of Irish magazine GCN, the writer claims he was asked to leave the restaurant because other customers became “uncomfortable” as he held his partner’s hand."

    The Independent must be reporting now on the things I make up :eek:


  • #428
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I cannot speak for the letter writer as I never saw the original letter but the Independent reports:


    "According to a letter published in November’s Issue of Irish magazine GCN, the writer claims he was asked to leave the restaurant because other customers became “uncomfortable” as he held his partner’s hand."

    The Independent must be reporting now on the things I make up :eek:

    You never read the letter... Are you for real? You've been posting dissertationesque posts on this thread for days now and you haven't even bothered to read the original letter? Which by the way has been posted in this very thread.


  • #429
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    You never read the letter... Are you for real? You've been posting dissertationesque posts on this thread for days now and you haven't even bothered to read the original letter? Which by the way has been posted in this very thread.

    Who cares what the letter said?
    The issue on this thread is what the independent reported, you are now arguing over the source which is of nearly no consequence and is anonymous.

    The Independent reported : the writer claims he was asked to leave.


  • #430
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Who cares what the letter said?
    The issue on this thread is what the independent reported, you are now arguing over the source which is of nearly no consequence and is anonymous.

    The Independent reported : the writer claims he was asked to leave.

    Seriously dude give it up.


  • #431
    The_Valeyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Seriously dude give it up.

    You should only give it up to someone you love or really like and have consent......oh wait, wrong thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    mackeire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭mackeire


    MJI wrote: »
    Last time I checked it was 2015. And we live in "post marriage-referendum" Ireland.

    ye but Marty was back since and changed modern day as we know it!!


  • #433
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    I will ask again, Do we know if this actually happened or as I suspect it's click bait outrage porn. Some have also mentioned this in regards to tolerance after the election and testing the waters.


  • #434
    PucaMama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭PucaMama


    its so obviously untrue, only written to get a reaction. makes you think what else has been made up.


  • #435
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 31,310 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    I will ask again, Do we know if this actually happened or as I suspect it's click bait outrage porn. Some have also mentioned this in regards to tolerance after the election and testing the waters.

    No, we don't know; that and the click bait conclusions were reached about 28 pages ago.


  • #436
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,166 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    Somewhere a student is getting an A+ for a social media experiment.


  • #437
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    So you never said in the next two posts following this??

    And once again you reply one to small part of what I write and ignore the context of the rest. This is low - at best. Yes I very clearly did say I would like to know the name - but I also indicated HOW I would like to obtain that name. And I very clearly said I do not think it should be through a news paper or a magazine or any other "trial by mob" venue.

    I WOULD like to know but I would like to know through the proper channels such as - if I happen to consider going to this restaurant myself - finding their review among all the others on a site dedicated to that agenda.

    As I said I am happy to keep going around in circles with you on this as long as you are - and as long as you keep taking one sentence I wrote out of the context of everything else - and thus misrepresenting me - then circles is exactly what lie before us - of you quite consistently claiming things I never said - and me happily picking your words back out of my mouth.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Tell you what go onto a review board and write you where sexually assaulted by the hotel manager see how long it remains there.

    You are the one making the claims that not only are reviews removed but they USUALLY are. So obtaining the evidence for this claim, or performing experiments to prove the point, is your business not mine. I am not in the habit of writing dishonest or erroneous reviews either - and am not about to start now in order to help you substantiate your own claims.


  • #438
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And once again you reply one to small part of what I write and ignore the context of the rest. This is low - at best. Yes I very clearly did say I would like to know the name - but I also indicated HOW I would like to obtain that name. And I very clearly said I do not think it should be through a news paper or a magazine or any other "trial by mob" venue.

    You keep saying this but this is not what you responded, if you did show me? I have posted exactly what you said...
    I flat out ask do you think the paper should of printed the restaurants identity.

    On one hand you are talking about a hypothetical review and on the other we are talking about the real idea that the paper publish the name, you said you could have both....

    Don't blame me for your inability to make a clear point.


  • #439
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Seriously dude give it up.

    Hmmmmmmmmmm no :D


  • #440
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I also indicated HOW I would like to obtain that name. And I very clearly said I do not think it should be through a news paper or a magazine or any other "trial by mob" venue.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    You keep saying this but this is not what you responded, if you did show me? I have posted exactly what you said...

    Sure - easy - it is the same post that you quoted the cherry picked sentence from.

    In post #210 - my first post to you - I gave you reasons why people might want to know the name - without defending anything about it despite your ongoing falsehood that I did.

    In post #392 - my second post to you - At the beginning I did indeed make it clear that I would like to know the name myself. And at the end of that SAME post - I made it clear that I do not think the news paper was the right venue for this - but that a review in a proper place for reviews would be the correct place. It is there for all to read.

    Perhaps the issue here is your attention span? Maybe you are reading the start of longer posts and not quite making it to the end of them?

    Don't blame me for your inability to comprehend a clear point.


  • #441
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Sure - easy - it is the same post that you quoted the cherry picked sentence from.

    In post #210 - my first post to you - I gave you reasons why people might want to know the name - without defending anything about it despite your ongoing falsehood that I did.

    In post #392 - my second post to you - At the beginning I did indeed make it clear that I would like to know the name myself. And at the end of that SAME post - I made it clear that I do not think the news paper was the right venue for this - but that a review in a proper place for reviews would be the correct place. It is there for all to read.

    Perhaps the issue here is your attention span? Maybe you are reading the start of longer posts and not quite making it to the end of them?

    Don't blame me for your inability to comprehend a clear point.

    I read what you said, you gave a hypothetical review scenario that you would of preferred... So as not to have a trial by mob.. blah blah blah, I read it the first time...

    This is why I then asked are we discussing the hypothetical or do you want the restaurant named? Again this is in the context of the thread and my original post around people saying the publication should of named the restaurant.

    What you are now saying is when you said you wanted both what you really wanted was the restaurant named but not by the paper but in some hypothetical review type scenario but you really failed to make that distinction.

    My question around which is it? Was an attempt to separate your waffle but you simply continued to waffle on.


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    Kev W
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I read what you said, you gave a hypothetical review scenario that you would of preferred... So as not to have a trial by mob.. blah blah blah, I read it the first time...

    This is why I then asked are we discussing the hypothetical or do you want the restaurant named? Again this is in the context of the thread and my original post around people saying the publication should of named the restaurant.

    What you are now saying is when you said you wanted both what you really wanted was the restaurant named but not by the paper but in some hypothetical review type scenario but you really failed to make that distinction.

    My question around which is it? Was an attempt to separate your waffle but you simply continued to waffle on.

    That's what they were always saying. Just because you didn't understand doesn't mean it wasn't clear. Notice that nobody else has asked for clarification? That's because we all figured out what was meant by what was said. The fact that you didn't doesn't justify clogging up the thread with this attempted "gotcha" nonsense.


  • #443
    Dr.Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭Dr.Internet


    I can't believe people are still getting so annoyed about a fake story


  • #444
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I read what you said, you gave a hypothetical review scenario that you would of preferred... So as not to have a trial by mob.. blah blah blah, I read it the first time...

    Then to be honest I have no idea what your issue even is any more. I made it clear I would like to know the name of restaurants that act in this fashion so I include it in my decision on going there. I also made it clear I do not think news papers or mob trials are the venue for me obtaining that information. Simples.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    but you really failed to make that distinction.

    YOU have failed to make that distinction when reading my post. The distinction is in the post however and is abundantly clear but you simply continue to waffle on.

    Don't blame me for your inability to comprehend a clear point.


  • #445
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,009 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Don't blame me for your inability to comprehend a clear point.
    Your fatal flaw is to assume that this is actually a comprehension problem which can be rectified through explanation and evidence.


  • #446
    DarkyHughes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭DarkyHughes


    Put the handbags away ladies before someone gets hurt.


  • #447
    Chimichangas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 738 ✭✭✭Chimichangas


    Dr.Internet wrote: »
    I can't believe people are still getting so annoyed about a fake story

    But this is a terrible fake story... so terrible I am now making it a terrible non-story for me.


  • #448
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Kev W wrote: »
    That's what they were always saying. Just because you didn't understand doesn't mean it wasn't clear. Notice that nobody else has asked for clarification? That's because we all figured out what was meant by what was said. The fact that you didn't doesn't justify clogging up the thread with this attempted "gotcha" nonsense.

    I understood exactly what the OP was doing from his first post.

    I made a comment on the the publication naming the restaurant via the paper.
    The OP then kind of challenges by position albeit he actually agrees that it would be wrong to do so but then tries to slide in his own theoretical position.

    I think I asked 4 posts in what his point was just turns out there wasn't one.


  • #449
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Then to be honest I have no idea what your issue even is any more.

    I never had one, you commented on my post. What was your point?


  • #450
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    The OP then kind of challenges by position

    Really? I must have missed the conversation between you and the OP. Or is it now not only that you can not understand what people are saying - but you do not even know WHO you are talking to any more? Do keep up.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I never had one, you commented on my post. What was your point?

    I have had several points. If you mean my original one to you however - the points were simply:

    1) I listed other reasons people might want to know the name of the restaurant other than the hyperbolic ones you offered.

    2) I pointed out that the claims made about this restaurant being without evidence is pretty much the same as any review. Given that any review you read online you often get little to no evidence for. Which is why it is a good thing to have many reviews of a place so you can build up a greater picture and not depend on one persons word for it.

    3) The anecdotal comparison you offered to this story from one of your own matched the one in the OP in hardly any way whatsoever and I did not find it a fair comparison.


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    Kev W
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Really? I must have missed the conversation between you and the OP. Or is it now not only that you can not understand what people are saying - but you do not even know WHO you are talking to any more? Do keep up.



    I have had several points. If you mean my original one to you however - the points were simply:

    1) I listed other reasons people might want to know the name of the restaurant other than the hyperbolic ones you offered.

    2) I pointed out that the claims made about this restaurant being without evidence is pretty much the same as any review. Given that any review you read online you often get little to no evidence for. Which is why it is a good thing to have many reviews of a place so you can build up a greater picture and not depend on one persons word for it.

    3) The anecdotal comparison you offered to this story from one of your own matched the one in the OP in hardly any way whatsoever and I did not find it a fair comparison.

    You may want to just make all that your signature and have done with it, save you typing it out every time!


Advertisement
Advertisement