Gay couple humiliated after being asked to leave Dublin restaurant

05-11-2015 02:36PM

Nah I have time - the joys of being a computer programmer

If someone wants to erode their credibility against my abundance of time - I am happy to accommodate them

ShowMeTheCash · 05-11-2015 03:21PM

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.

Small victories.
In this case OP meaning "Other poster" not Original (Or original response to my first post) but either way it is of no consequence.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

So your not stupid you just understand why other people might want to be stupid....

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Well I now need be careful, are you talking about the original letter or what the independent reported?

I doubt what the independent reported would be allowed to remain if it is reporting discrimination without a source. So a moot point

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

That's is because I offered the contrast.
In the original story that was relayed to me almost a month after the event was very similar to the story outlined in the independent.

I was told how "Joe" (Not his real name) was in the local shop, shopping with his new boyfriend and for little to no reason was asked to leave the shop and indicated he felt the reason for this was because he was gay after confronting the security guard over his discriminatory actions he was later arrested for defending himself. That was more or less the story that was floating around!

It was only that I was in the shop and actually witnessed what actually had happened I could comment on it.

As for a comparison, the point I am making we cannot make a comparison, we have a one sided account of an event from an anonymous source.

ShowMeTheCash · 05-11-2015 03:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Nah I have time - the joys of being a computer programmer If someone wants to erode their credibility against my abundance of time - I am happy to accommodate them

You must work for the Public Sector :eek:

Kev W · 05-11-2015 03:28PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Small victories.
In this case OP meaning "Other poster" not Original (Or original response to my first post) but either way it is of no consequence.

It is of consequence, you can't just decide that "OP" means something different when you feel like it.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So your not stupid you just understand why other people might want to be stupid....

This is just nonsense. And it's "you're".

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Well I now need be careful, are you talking about the original letter or what the independent reported?

I doubt what the independent reported would be allowed to remain if it is reporting discrimination without a source. So a moot point

The claims were made in the letter, so reference to the claims would be referring to the letter.[/quote]

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

That's is because I offered the contrast.
In the original story that was relayed to me almost a month after the event was very similar to the story outlined in the independent.

I was told how "Joe" (Not his real name) was in the local shop, shopping with his new boyfriend and for little to no reason was asked to leave the shop and indicated he felt the reason for this was because he was gay after confronting the security guard over his discriminatory actions he was later arrested for defending himself. That was more or less the story that was floating around!

It was only that I was in the shop and actually witnessed what actually had happened I could comment on it.

As for a comparison, the point I am making we cannot make a comparison, we have a one sided account of an event from an anonymous source.

So in contrast with "a one sided account of an event from an anonymous source" you offered... a one sided account of an event from an anonymous source?

Useful, I guess?

05-11-2015 03:29PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Small victories.

Similar to spending several days ignoring other peoples points in favor of trying to tell them they said things they never said - and claimed things they never claimed - and defended things they never defended then?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So your not stupid you just understand why other people might want to be stupid....

As I pointed out before - I made no value judgements of this sort at the time and I do not make them here now. If you see something stupid about - say - deciding not to go to such an establishment yourself - then that is your judgement and I am not associating with it. But I can certainly imagine that other gay couples might not want to go to such an establishment given the choice - and I find it difficult to link that to stupidity.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Well I now need be careful, are you talking about the original letter or what the independent reported?

Neither - I was more talking about lamentation that the claims about the restaurant came with no evidence. And my simple point - and I do not know why it bothers you so - is that this is also true of any random review you read about restaurants.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You must work for the Public Sector

About as accurate as most of the other comments you have made about me - which is to say not at all

05-11-2015 03:32PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I was told how "Joe" (Not his real name) was in the local shop, shopping with his new boyfriend and for little to no reason was asked to leave the shop and indicated he felt the reason for this was because he was gay after confronting the security guard over his discriminatory actions he was later arrested for defending himself. That was more or less the story that was floating around!

It was only that I was in the shop and actually witnessed what actually had happened I could comment on it.

I was in a shop when two people were asked to leave and not come back. One had opened and eaten a 4 pack of muffins and didn't offer to pay. The other got abusive to security when she was asked if she paid for the muffins.

They threaten the staff and then claim they are being forbidden because they are travellers.

People make stuff up to hide behind all the time

ShowMeTheCash · 05-11-2015 03:35PM

Kev W wrote: »

It is of consequence, you can't just decide that "OP" means something different when you feel like it.

Yes I can.

Kev W wrote: »

This is just nonsense. And it's "you're".

Thanks for that.

Kev W wrote: »

So in contrast with "a one sided account of an event from an anonymous source" you offered... a one sided account of an event from an anonymous source?

Useful, I guess?

The question was not whether it was useful is was whether the anecdotal comparison was fair.

I believe it to be fair as did many others.

ShowMeTheCash · 05-11-2015 03:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I was in a shop when two people were asked to leave and not come back. One had opened and eaten a 4 pack of muffins and didn't offer to pay. The other got abusive to security when she was asked if she paid for the muffins.

They threaten the staff and then claim they are being forbidden because they are travellers.

People make stuff up to hide behind all the time

Agreed.

ShowMeTheCash · 05-11-2015 03:50PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Similar to spending several days ignoring other peoples points in favor of trying to tell them they said things they never said - and claimed things they never claimed - and defended things they never defended then?

I never posted anything you did not say, you just took a weird stance.
You felt it inappropriate that the paper publish the identity but on the other hand you would like to know the identity.
You talk about how you would not want mob justice but give excuses whereby mob justice would be delivered.

Deleted User wrote: »

As I pointed out before - I made no value judgements of this sort at the time and I do not make them here now. If you see something stupid about - say - deciding not to go to such an establishment yourself - then that is your judgement and I am not associating with it. But I can certainly imagine that other gay couples might not want to go to such an establishment given the choice - and I find it difficult to link that to stupidity.

And I completely understand why a number of people now refuse to use the local spar based on a story that circulated in a small town it does not make the decision justified or grounded in anything sensible.

Deleted User wrote: »

Neither - I was more talking about lamentation that the claims about the restaurant came with no evidence. And my simple point - and I do not know why it bothers you so - is that this is also true of any random review you read about restaurants.

I have never seen a review of this nature ever.. have you?

Deleted User wrote: »

About as accurate as most of the other comments you have made about me - which is to say not at all

That was a joke!

05-11-2015 04:06PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I believe it to be fair as did many others.

Many? I do not recall seeing anyone do so let alone "many". You called it a comparison and as I said:

In your anecdote they genuinely were causing a disturbance AND were not appearing to be using the establishment for the purpose it was therefore AT ALL. They then brought their sexuality into it as a defence when confronted. And they caused a greater disturbance when asked to leave.

In the OPs anecdote they are causing no disturbance at all AND were using the establishment for its correct purpose. And it was not them that brought sexuality into it at all. And they left peacefully when asked.

So it is hardly a very fair comparison - but if the only point of your comparison was that in both cases a person or establishment COULD come out of it innocent - but be judged falsely as homophobic or whatever by the mob - then you will get little argument from me on that. It can happen and does happen all too often.

Despite living in a society based on "innocent until proven guilty" all too often merely being accused of something - even entirely falsely - can result in you carry a guilty verdict in the minds of many. People falsely accused of rape will attest to this all too well

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I never posted anything you did not say

Except yes you did - such as when you claimed I defended things I never did. An accusation you have since quietly dropped without retraction - or substantiation.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

you just took a weird stance.

Nothing weird about it though. I am simply saying that other diners should be made aware of the restaurants actions _through the proper channels_. No more. No less. Our national news papers or magazines - for one couple to moan about their bad experience in a restaurant - not so much the proper channel for this in my opinion.

Going on Yelp or Trip Advisor - the proper way to go. And that is not the "mob" either - but the people who might consider going there - who then decide to read up a few reviews before committing - which is the opposite of a national news paper calling attention to the restaurant and a mob 95% of which might never have considering going to the place in the first place anyway.

HUGE difference.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

it does not make the decision justified or grounded in anything sensible.

Nor - as I keep pointing out - did I claim it does. I merely laid out what other motivations for wanting to know the name MIGHT be. I did so entirely without value judgement of whether those reasons were right - useful - or justified.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I have never seen a review of this nature ever.. have you?

Many.

Takes merely seconds to find examples.

How many would you like?

I can go all day.

ShowMeTheCash · 05-11-2015 05:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Many? I do not recall seeing anyone do so let alone "many".

My original comment and comparison seem to fit what most people thought being it was liked by quite a number of people.
In comparison your response which received 1 from... Yep you guessed it Kev W.

Deleted User wrote: »

You called it a comparison and as I said:

In your anecdote they genuinely were causing a disturbance AND were not appearing to be using the establishment for the purpose it was therefore AT ALL. They then brought their sexuality into it as a defence when confronted. And they caused a greater disturbance when asked to leave.

In the OPs anecdote they are causing no disturbance at all AND were using the establishment for its correct purpose. And it was not them that brought sexuality into it at all. And they left peacefully when asked.

So it is hardly a very fair comparison

And again I feel the comparison apt, perhaps had I gave you the story that circulated and not what I witnessed you would see the comparison, the objective of telling the story was to demonstrate there can usually be two sides to any story.

Deleted User wrote: »

Except yes you did - such as when you claimed I defended things I never did. An accusation you have since quietly dropped without retraction - or substantiation.

Except I didn't I simply quoted what you said, your only defense was to accuse me of misrepresenting what you said.

For example:

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing weird about it though. I am simply saying that other diners should be made aware of the restaurants actions

Not actions, alleged actions from an unknown source.

Deleted User wrote: »

Going on Yelp or Trip Advisor - the proper way to go. And that is not the "mob" either - but the people who might consider going there - who then decide to read up a few reviews before committing - which is the opposite of a national news paper calling attention to the restaurant and a mob 95% of which might never have considering going to the place in the first place anyway.

HUGE difference.

I never had an issue with Trip Advisor.
This was your tangent and off topic with the thread.

Which again I need to ask why bring this up? Do you have a point?

Deleted User wrote: »

Nor - as I keep pointing out - did I claim it does. I merely laid out what other motivations for wanting to know the name MIGHT be. I did so entirely without value judgement of whether those reasons were right - useful - or justified.

You appear to be complicit in it's acceptance.
My argument was that it is unfair to name and shame without evidence you respond with "well no different to any review" as to suggest this is OK?

Do you think it is OK?

Deleted User wrote: »

Many.

Takes merely seconds to find examples.

How many would you like?

I can go all day.

Well now I have seen a review of this nature.
Let me ask another question did you come across these just by chance or did you google them?

But on this there are a number of differences they are not anonymous albeit a persons details could be false and most people know not to believe everything they read on a review board but that being said.
I have no issue with anyone making a serious claim as long as they can stand by it.
I have no issue with someone making a claim and allowing the the other party too respond.

In the links above they range from a perceived attitude or rudeness which are non serious and subjective one of them simply states "I have a strong feeling that we weren't allowed in because we were holding hands" hardly a legal matter!

The only one that appears to be serious was the fitzwillam review - But the Fitzwilliam did respond to that so a certain element of fairness to that.

ShowMeTheCash · 06-11-2015 08:48AM

taxAHcruel wrote:

Nothing weird about it though. I am simply saying that other diners should be made aware of the restaurants actions _through the proper channels_. No more. No less. Our national news papers or magazines - for one couple to moan about their bad experience in a restaurant - not so much the proper channel for this in my opinion.

Just before you go on your next tangent, if this thread was about an online review I probably would not of cared...

My only issue with what you responded was your stance around what was actually published in the Independent.

And really was simply this:

ShowMeTheCash wrote:

An allegation was made, let's name and shame a restaurant without any real facts.

taxAHcruel wrote:

So just like ANY bad review of ANY restaurant then?

Was to compare what a national paper done to that of an online review.
You did not say that, it was wrong of the paper to do nor did you say that the original letter would be better suited to a place like trip-advisor.

You challenged my statement as if to suggest it OK as it was no different to that of an online review.

If I am wrong in that, explain to me on the above statement what anyone is meant to take from it?

Kev W · 06-11-2015 08:51AM

Oh God, please don't. This is ridiculous now.

ShowMeTheCash · 06-11-2015 10:59AM

Kev W wrote: »

Oh God, please don't. This is ridiculous now.

The thread is not going anywhere now anyways so what difference does it make.

06-11-2015 11:43AM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

My original comment..... by quite a number of people.

There was more than the comparison in that post - such as your hyperbole about burning the place to the ground. You have no idea what they were thanking.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

And again I feel the comparison apt

Clearly you do - despite my explaining why it is not. None of which you have actually replied to.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Except I didn't I simply quoted what you said your only defense was to accuse me of misrepresenting what you said.

Because you did. You claimed numerous times that I was defending those motivations - when all I did was lay out what those motivations might be. That is - yes you guessed it - a misrepresentation.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I never had an issue with Trip Advisor. This was your tangent and off topic with the thread. Which again I need to ask why bring this up? Do you have a point?

My point remains the same as it ever was, which I have explained to you numerous times: Which is that there are many reasons people would want to know when a restaurant behaves in this way - but I think places like Trip Advisor NOT national news papers - are the proper venue for them to do so.

It is not a complex point - and no one (including you) has rebutted or disagreed with it yet - so the question is do YOU have a point?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You appear to be complicit in it's acceptance.

Only in your head and the light of your own narrative you have erected on my behalf. However I repeat - laying out what someone's motivations are likely to be - is not being complicit with anything. One is capable of laying out someone's motivations for an action - without making a value judgement about those motivations.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

My argument was that it is unfair to name and shame without evidence you respond with "well no different to any review" as to suggest this is OK?

Again - I made the comments without value judgement. I merely acknowledge the similarity - and do so without saying it IS ok or is NOT ok. You seem to think that every observation of reality must come with some value judgement about the ethics of it. It is not so.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Do you think it is OK?

Irrelevant to my point. It simply is what it is - I bring no value judgement to it. The simple fact is when you read most reviews - you usually have no idea if a single thing in the review is true or not.

THAT is why I say it is best to take reviews as a mass group as a whole and build up an over all picture. Because in that way some malicious person trying to diss something - or some one paying people to review their establishment positively (which Amazon are currently trying to prosecute) - will have the effect of their attempt dilute.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Well now I have seen a review of this nature. Let me ask another question did you come across these just by chance or did you google them?

Both. I have come across many such reviews simply by looking up the establishment I plan to attend. Including at least one of the links above. But since I do not have links to them in my memory I used google to find a mix of ones I knew of before - and ones I had not seen before.

The point being that reviews like this exist - in great numbers - and this is the proper way people LIKE those in the OP should be bringing their story to the public.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The only one that appears to be serious was the fitzwillam review - But the Fitzwilliam did respond to that so a certain element of fairness to that.

Then we are approaching agreement because this is exactly why I think venues like that are correct over venues like the letters page in papers or magazines. It gives the review not only in the context of the other reviews - but also giving the establishment AND other users the right of reply and rebuttal.

So I think you and I are in agreement here - that reviews of this nature have no place in our papers and magazines - nor should the news papers be submitting such establishments to the mob for trial - but there are good places LIKE Yelp and TripAdvisor where it should best be done.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Just before you go on your next tangent

There has not been one yet - so the word "next" here is both superfluous and erroneous.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

My only issue with what you responded was your stance around what was actually published in the Independent.

What stance is that? Because you do not appear to be entirely sure what my stance actually is on most things. Despite me explaining it numerous times and other users piping in to say they understood it perfectly.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Was to compare what a national paper done to that of an online review.

No - it was to point out that in BOTH cases you have no evidence that anything written in it is true. That really is it. Anything else you read into my comparison is of your own invention - not mine.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You challenged my statement as if to suggest it OK as it was no different to that of an online review.

Again - entirely your own invention. I never said it. I never implied it. I never espoused it. You made it up and added it yourself.

RWCNT · 06-11-2015 12:24PM

This is horrible to read, a moderator should have declared Tax victorious by TKO and locked this thread days ago.

ShowMeTheCash · 06-11-2015 12:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Clearly you do - despite my explaining why it is not. None of which you have actually replied to.

And you say I miss-represent you?
I draw a comparison over something I witness you and say it is not the same. I think most people understood the comparison I was drawing, you either deliberately reuse to acknowledge the similarity or fail to understand the idea of one event having two possible accounts of what happened, my account was not to mirror the story in the Independent but to draw a hypothetical contrast.

But we both know you understand what I was saying you just prefer to argue against it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because you did. You claimed numerous times that I was defending those motivations - when all I did was lay out what those motivations might be. That is - yes you guessed it - a misrepresentation.

Nope - I will explain in the comment below as you highlight it.

Deleted User wrote: »

My point remains the same as it ever was, which I have explained to you numerous times: Which is that there are many reasons people would want to know when a restaurant behaves in this way - but I think places like Trip Advisor NOT national news papers - are the proper venue for them to do so.

It is not a complex point - and no one (including you) has rebutted or disagreed with it yet - so the question is do YOU have a point?

Partly because no one cares, the topic is not "Where is the correct venue" it was on the fact that the independent printed the story in the first place.

Deleted User wrote: »

Only in your head and the light of your own narrative you have erected on my behalf. However I repeat - laying out what someone's motivations are likely to be - is not being complicit with anything. One is capable of laying out someone's motivations for an action - without making a value judgement about those motivations.

Again I will explain below.

Deleted User wrote: »

Again - I made the comments without value judgement. I merely acknowledge the similarity - and do so without saying it IS ok or is NOT ok. You seem to think that every observation of reality must come with some value judgement about the ethics of it. It is not so.

OK my explanation of the above.

The reason I tend to think you comments disingenuous is that you use them as a counter-argument or an argument against a statement that I make.
And if they are not meant as a counter-argument then I need to ask again is there a point to it? Or are you just making a blank statement?
You say that you draw the comparison to a review but do not bring a value of judgement to it, however using it as a counter-argument you implicitly have given value to it and even if you are simply making a statement you continue to then defend the idea of review-boards for this type of unfounded story.

So the logic looks like (As you said you are a programmer)

if(Independent == TripAdvisor)
{
acceptable = true;
}

If you are not saying this again what is the point of the comment?
Just an observation? You are not trying to suggest anything?
At very least this looks like you are justifying the Independent in its actions by likening it to a review on Trip-Advisor.

If this is a miss-representation of your thoughts then you miss-represented them on your own I am not miss-representing them.

Deleted User wrote: »

Both. I have come across many such reviews simply by looking up the establishment I plan to attend. Including at least one of the links above. But since I do not have links to them in my memory I used google to find a mix of ones I knew of before - and ones I had not seen before.

The point being that reviews like this exist - in great numbers - and this is the proper way people LIKE those in the OP should be bringing their story to the public.

Then we are approaching agreement because this is exactly why I think venues like that are correct over venues like the letters page in papers or magazines. It gives the review not only in the context of the other reviews - but also giving the establishment AND other users the right of reply and rebuttal.

So I think you and I are in agreement here - that reviews of this nature have no place in our papers and magazines - nor should the news papers be submitting such establishments to the mob for trial - but there are good places LIKE Yelp and TripAdvisor where it should best be done.

In terms of your ideas around reviews and trip-advisor i was never really in any disagreement albeit accusations of a serious nature I think sometimes need to be handled more sensitively but that is something to consider on a case by case basis, the links you provided I found perfectly acceptable

Deleted User wrote: »

There has not been one yet - so the word "next" here is both superfluous and erroneous.

The thread was to discuss what the Independent published not to discuss the merits of using TripAdvisor this is off topic.

Deleted User wrote: »

What stance is that? Because you do not appear to be entirely sure what my stance actually is on most things. Despite me explaining it numerous times and other users piping in to say they understood it perfectly.

No - it was to point out that in BOTH cases you have no evidence that anything written in it is true. That really is it. Anything else you read into my comparison is of your own invention - not mine.

Again - entirely your own invention. I never said it. I never implied it. I never espoused it. You made it up and added it yourself.

I know your position weirdly probably no different to my own but I did not weight in on your comment you weighed in on mine.
But all of the above is mainly derived from this.

ShowMeTheCash wrote:

An allegation was made, let's name and shame a restaurant without any real facts.

taxAHcruel wrote:

So just like ANY bad review of ANY restaurant then?

You take this approach that you did not mean anything but this, you where merely making an observation and where not placing any judgement in the statement, why waste your time if it means nothing?

ShowMeTheCash · 06-11-2015 12:55PM

RWCNT wrote: »

This is horrible to read, a moderator should have declared Tax victorious by TKO and locked this thread days ago.

Booooooo

ShowMeTheCash · 06-11-2015 12:59PM

RWCNT wrote: »

This is horrible to read, a moderator should have declared Tax victorious by TKO and locked this thread days ago.

If you are all really board you, tax, Kev W and Jobbridge gather round for a good ole circle jerk

06-11-2015 01:11PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

And you say I miss-represent you?

Yes I do. Frequently. And my issues with how the two stories do not compare stand. One was people misusing a shop and then bringing their sexuality into it - the other was a story about two people doing nothing at all wrong and being asked to leave. Two massively different stories.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

you either deliberately reuse to acknowledge the similarity

And this is why I say you misrepresent me. I did acknowledge it in post #461 - paragraphs 4-5. But I also acknowledge why they are poor stories to hold up against each other.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Nope - I will explain in the comment below as you highlight it. Partly because no one cares

It has nothing to do with who cares. It has everything to do with me explaining what their motivations might have been - and then you misrepresenting me numerous times as having defended those motivations when I did no such thing.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

And if they are not meant as a counter-argument then I need to ask again is there a point to it?

I really can not make my point any clearer. You lamented that this story about the restaurant comes before you without any evidence that it was true. My point was merely to point out the fact that this is ALSO true when you read any review of a restaurant.

Really - at this point I have no idea what part of that simple point you are failing to comprehend. And in your desperation to comprehend it you are inventing your own narratives about my value judgements in relation to it - which I never myself expressed.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

At very least this looks like you are justifying the Independent in its actions

Again - only in your head.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The thread was to discuss what the Independent published not to discuss the merits of using TripAdvisor this is off topic.

Not at all. If you are going to discuss what was published and why - then a discussion of where it might better have been done is directly ON topic.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You take this approach that you did not mean anything but this

Exactly. Now you are getting it.

The Randy Riverbeast · 06-11-2015 01:54PM

Hands up, who just scrolls past anything by a certain 2 people in this thread?

I forget what this thread was about, 2 gay men slaughtering children in a restaurant or something.

BattleCorp · 06-11-2015 01:59PM

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Hands up, who just scrolls past anything by a certain 2 people in this thread?

I forget what this thread was about, 2 gay men slaughtering children in a restaurant or something.

Show of hands.

I think we should do what "Mick The Bull" from the Savage Eye does with them:- put them into a woodchipper and be done with it.

Put your hand in the air if you agree with me.

06-11-2015 02:02PM

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Hands up, who just scrolls past anything by a certain 2 people in this thread?

BattleCorp wrote: »

put them into a woodchipper and be done with it.

RWCNT wrote: »

This is horrible to read

Kev W wrote: »

Oh God, please don't. This is ridiculous now.

Fair enough - I am happy to drop it and not engage again - especially after the circle jerk comment shows just what hope we have of getting anywhere with this - though I doubt the other is likely to - if its annoying this many people - I will drop it.

BattleCorp · 06-11-2015 02:03PM

I didn't bother reading the whole thread. Did this "get out of here with that carry on" actually happen or was the story made up?

Were names named etc.?

The Randy Riverbeast · 06-11-2015 02:07PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

I didn't bother reading the whole thread. Did this "get out of here with that carry on" actually happen or was the story made up?

Were names named etc.?

Not that I could see, what youve read in the OP is everything we know. Thankfully it is just enough to get outraged no matter if your are pro and anti gay people but must people appear to be skeptical of the story.

Kev W · 06-11-2015 02:08PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

I didn't bother reading the whole thread. Did this "get out of here with that carry on" actually happen or was the story made up?

Were names named etc.?

Turns out it was likely made up, for Christ knows what reason. It did spark a sporadically interesting conversation about what constitutes too much of a public display of affection though.

Nobody involved was named.

Duggy747 · 06-11-2015 02:12PM

I heard it was Santa and Jesus.

Orangebrigade · 06-11-2015 02:18PM

I heard it was done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Boom_Bap · 06-11-2015 02:24PM

MOD
I'm pretty sure you know what I'm going to say here.
taxAHcruel & ShowMeTheCash - I think you both need to agree to disagree on this one.
Now let's all hold hands and please get this back on topic. Please.

jobbridge4life · 06-11-2015 02:28PM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

MOD
I'm pretty sure you know what I'm going to say here.
taxAHcruel & ShowMeTheCash - I think you both need to agree to disagree on this one.
Now let's all hold hands and please get this back on topic. Please.

Some of us can't hold hands. We are in a circle jerk... in a restaurant.

Gay couple humiliated after being asked to leave Dublin restaurant

Comments