Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

1…5253555758…65

Comments

  • #2702
    selectamatic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,996 ✭✭✭selectamatic


    Faugheen wrote: »

    It was complete and utter bullsh*t.

    Very true. You'd have saved me a bit of time if you posted this yesterday though.
    Faugheen wrote: »
    It wasn’t ‘misinformation’.

    Bull**** and misinformation are the same thing.
    Wrongway1985 wrote: »
    You think this is suspect? .

    No not at all, I never said it was suspect.


  • #2703
    Wrongway1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,386 ✭✭✭Wrongway1985


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    I said the texts were sent between the girls and they were and when asked for a source with further info, I provided one.

    Tbf you phrased it in a way one would assume it would be of more relevance, you were putting the lads texts on par with these, nonsense really.


  • #2704
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

    I can comfortably say I've never discussed sex in the manner they did. If you ever have, speak for yourself only.

    I dont know whether to believe you, disbelieve you, or pity such ingénue

    Everyone talks about sex at some stage, bar people who surely forfeit the right to criticise others' proclivities, by their reluctance to discuss their own, or claims not to do so.

    These "lads" discussed their sex lives to each other, in the context of this activity seemingly being a common enough "thing" for them, socialising where young ladies choose to engage in such activities. Sonething else that seems to gall the more puritan, apparently that this wasnt their first rodeo. 'Topshaggers' whatsapp group must have has some content.

    However, it wouldnt be my thing in my current condition and circumstances, but when younger, if afforded such an oppurtunity, with a lot of drink on board, who knows. Who knows what messages are exchanged between their lady partners and their friends? They are more than likely as crass, insensitive. embarrassing and not intended for public consumption.

    But each to their own, i wont judge the sex lives of others if it doesnt interfere with me. Others are free to do so. But its a slippy slope.


  • #2705
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    I dont know whether to believe you, disbelieve you, or pity such ingénue

    Everyone talks about sex at some stage, bar people who surely forfeit the right to criticise others' proclivities, by their reluctance to discuss their own, or claims not to do so.

    These "lads" discussed their sex lives to each other, in the context of this activity seemingly being a common enough "thing" for them, socialising where young ladies choose to engage in such activities. Sonething else that seems to gall the more puritan, apparently that this wasnt their first rodeo. 'Topshaggers' whatsapp group must have has some content.

    However, it wouldnt be my thing in my current condition and circumstances, but when younger, if afforded such an oppurtunity, with a lot of drink on board, who knows. Who knows what messages are exchanged between their lady partners and their friends? They are more than likely as crass, insensitive. embarrassing and not intended for public consumption.

    But each to their own, i wont judge the sex lives of others if it doesnt interfere with me. Others are free to do so. But its a slippy slope.

    why would you pity somebody who doesn't talk about other people in such a manner? is it something to be proud of? Nothing to do with being puritan. It is about having respect for other people. A difficult concept for some it seems.


  • #2706
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    I dont know whether to believe you, disbelieve you, or pity such ingénue

    Everyone talks about sex at some stage, bar people who surely forfeit the right to criticise others' proclivities, by their reluctance to discuss their own, or claims not to do so.

    These "lads" discussed their sex lives to each other, in the context of this activity seemingly being a common enough "thing" for them, socialising where young ladies choose to engage in such activities. Sonething else that seems to gall the more puritan, apparently that this wasnt their first rodeo. 'Topshaggers' whatsapp group must have has some content.

    However, it wouldnt be my thing in my current condition and circumstances, but when younger, if afforded such an oppurtunity, with a lot of drink on board, who knows. Who knows what messages are exchanged between their lady partners and their friends? They are more than likely as crass, insensitive. embarrassing and not intended for public consumption.

    But each to their own, i wont judge the sex lives of others if it doesnt interfere with me. Others are free to do so. But its a slippy slope.

    why would you pity somebody who doesn't talk about other people in such a manner? is it something to be proud of? Nothing to do with being puritan. It is about having respect for other people. A difficult concept for some it seems.

    Why be so eager to discuss and condemn others sexual proclivities if reluctant to discuss your own?


  • Advertisement
  • #2707
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    I said the texts were sent between the girls and they were and when asked for a source with further info, I provided one.

    'Caught good and proper son'. Think you've been watching too many repeats of The Sweeney.

    You said “the girls’ texts to one another”, but we only saw the content of texts in one direction.


  • #2708
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Why be so eager to discuss and condemn others sexual proclivities if reluctant to discuss your own?

    I'm not here to discuss my own proclivities. this isn;t the personal issues forum. My sex life is not for public consumption. Their proclivities are now in the public domain so i am free to discuss them.


  • #2709
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    why would you pity somebody who doesn't talk about other people in such a manner? is it something to be proud of? Nothing to do with being puritan. It is about having respect for other people. A difficult concept for some it seems.

    I find very amusing the idea that people who don’t talk graphically about sex must be prudes. :pac: It’s more a signifier that they don’t wonder at sex, IMO.


  • #2710
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    selectamatic wrote: »
    Very true. You'd have saved me a bit of time if you posted this yesterday though.

    I did
    selectamatic wrote: »
    Bull**** and misinformation are the same thing.

    Nah, misinformation is too kind to describe the complete lies that he posted.

    I've reported the post twice because it's also libellous.


  • #2711
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    dont bother wrote: »
    where is the respect for two people who were found NOT GUILTY?

    the texts between the girls only serve to prove that at the very very least she was friends with women who thought this vindictevely.

    "if i was raped i would blackmail them" and "dont mention ulster rugby"...

    you are what you are friends with, and those texts indicate that the so-called "victim" in this non-rape was evil and planning something. when this is combined with the fact that she was said to have a vendetta against PJ and Ulster rugby before she decided to pull down her knickers and involve herself in a sexual situation that she was clearly not mentally prepared to deal with.... you have the answer.

    she was seeking to destroy them, namely Paddy Jackson, and she went about it in the wrong way, got caught out with her lies (yet not punished for this) and hence the two guys were found NOT GUILTY of raping her.

    she, by the sounds of all accounts, as mis-matched as they are in ways, went off with them and fvcked multiple men, gave bjs, whatever and didnt have the mental capacity to actually process what she CHOSE to do. that does not mean she was raped, it only means that she got herself into a situation that she wasnt able to deal with. simple.

    Do you have a source for this vendatta against paddy? and anything to back up her claim that she was evil and planning something? both claims are defamation by the way.


  • Advertisement
  • #2712
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    dont bother wrote: »
    where is the respect for two people who were found NOT GUILTY?

    the texts between the girls only serve to prove that at the very very least she was friends with women who thought this vindictevely.

    "if i was raped i would blackmail them" and "dont mention ulster rugby"...

    you are what you are friends with, and those texts indicate that the so-called "victim" in this non-rape was evil and planning something. when this is combined with the fact that she was said to have a vendetta against PJ and Ulster rugby before she decided to pull down her knickers and involve herself in a sexual situation that she was clearly not mentally prepared to deal with.... you have the answer.

    she was seeking to destroy them, namely Paddy Jackson, and she went about it in the wrong way, got caught out with her lies (yet not punished for this) and hence the two guys were found NOT GUILTY of raping her.

    she, by the sounds of all accounts, as mis-matched as they are in ways, went off with them and fvcked multiple men, gave bjs, whatever and didnt have the mental capacity to actually process what she CHOSE to do. that does not mean she was raped, it only means that she got herself into a situation that she wasnt able to deal with. simple.

    Still waiting for you to provide proof that she text her mates saying she was going to destroy him and Ulster Rugby.

    Or do you want to admit you completely made it up?

    EDIT: Both texts you quoted weren't sent by her. She didn't want to go to police because she didn't think she was going to be believed.


  • #2713
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Why be so eager to discuss and condemn others sexual proclivities if reluctant to discuss your own?

    I'm not here to discuss my own proclivities. this isn;t the personal issues forum. My sex life is not for public consumption. Their proclivities are now in the public domain so i am free to discuss them.

    While (not) you (claim) never to have discussed your own sex life or members of the opposite/same sex, privately to your friends in a purile and crass manner , you're rather keen to discuss others', whose sex lives seem to be in a different orbit to most of ours.

    I think its rather strange, for someone not of that sphere, totally unaffected by it, to be such a guardian of the public morals. Its almost as if, there was an ulterior motive in being do critical, as if its a compensation for something. Their acquittal perhaps?

    Fair enough. Each of the chattering curtain twitching class to their own.


  • #2714
    Wrongway1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,386 ✭✭✭Wrongway1985


    selectamatic wrote: »
    No not at all, I never said it was suspect.
    Either do I actually noting 9 out of 10 cases aren't convicted seems an odd starting point for false claims.


  • #2715
    dont bother
    Closed Accounts Posts: 542 ✭✭✭dont bother


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Still waiting for you to provide proof that she text her mates saying she was going to destroy him and Ulster Rugby.

    Or do you want to admit you completely made it up?

    nah, i havent the time to do it right now, and seeing as you're too lazy to literally google it, then i'll just have to do it tomorrow.


  • #2716
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    dont bother wrote: »
    nah, i havent the time to do it right now, and seeing as you're too lazy to literally google it, then i'll just have to do it tomorrow.

    I have googled it. I can't find it.

    You make the claim, you provide the proof, otherwise you're just a bullsh*tter.


  • #2717
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    dont bother wrote: »
    where is the respect for two people who were found NOT GUILTY?

    the texts between the girls only serve to prove that at the very very least she was friends with women who thought this vindictevely.

    "if i was raped i would blackmail them" and "dont mention ulster rugby"...

    you are what you are friends with,     and those texts indicate that the so-called "victim" in this non-rape was evil and planning something. when this is combined with the fact that she was said to have a vendetta against PJ and Ulster rugby before she decided to pull down her knickers and involve herself in a sexual situation that she was clearly not mentally prepared to deal with.... you have the answer.

    she was seeking to destroy them, namely Paddy Jackson, and she went about it in the wrong way, got caught out with her lies (yet not punished for this) and hence the two guys were found NOT GUILTY of raping her.

    she, by the sounds of all accounts, as mis-matched as they are in ways, went off with them and fvcked multiple men, gave bjs, whatever and didnt have the mental capacity to actually process what she CHOSE to do. that does not mean she was raped, it only means that she got herself into a situation that she wasnt able to deal with. simple.

    What? “You are what you’re friends with”?


  • #2718
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    dont bother wrote: »
    selectamatic wrote: »
    Just while we're on the matter of the girls texts. I had a look and couldn't find any where the plaintiff said anything about Jackson specifically before the incident so I'd have my doubts as to the veracity of a claim a poster made on here the other day.

    If anyone can find anything to the contrary please post it up.

    you're not looking properly to suit your agenda. i've not the time to look now, but i'll dump a load of links to the subject tomorrow, if only so you can see for yourself that the whole thing was pretty much orchestrated from start to finish by a woman with an agenda to destroy Paddy Jackson


    Dude
    Ive followed/consumed a lot on this, its the first ive heard of this. Theres a bang of bull§hït, but if true, certainly should be cause for some reflection by many here.

    I stand to be corrected tbough.


  • #2719
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    dont bother wrote: »
    it's not defamation you fool, the so-called victim is nameless.
    it would be defamation if i had stated a name, or indicated who she is, which i didnt.

    anyway, i thought you were not allowed to threaten legal stuff on boards?

    i have made no threats.


  • #2720
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    dont bother wrote: »
    it's not defamation you fool, the so-called victim is nameless.
    it would be defamation if i had stated a name, or indicated who she is, which i didnt.

    anyway, i thought you were not allowed to threaten legal stuff on boards?

    Actually you have it wrong again.

    If a friend of hers was to point this out to her, she'd have absolutely every right to take boards to court over it and she'd win it too.


  • #2721
    dont bother
    Closed Accounts Posts: 542 ✭✭✭dont bother


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i have made no threats.

    you said i was guilty of defamation, even though you clearly dont understand the meaning of it.
    in fact, the very fact that you said that about me, without it being true, is surely defaming me no?

    or do you see the logic now - nameless unidentifiable people on the internet is the same as a nameless unknown "victim" in the trial. so it cant be defamation.


  • Advertisement
  • #2722
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    dont bother wrote: »
    you said i was guilty of defamation

    a statement of fact, not a threat.


  • #2723
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    dont bother wrote: »
    not a bull****ter, just dont have the time right now to placate a rabid feminist

    Prove it then. Back it up.

    Until you do, you are a bullsh*tter because literally nobody else in this thread heard or read about that evidence.


  • #2724
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    dont bother wrote: »
    you said i was guilty of defamation

    Think you need to produce some proof soon


  • #2725
    dont bother
    Closed Accounts Posts: 542 ✭✭✭dont bother


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Actually you have it wrong again.

    If a friend of hers was to point this out to her, she'd have absolutely every right to take boards to court over it and she'd win it too.

    so why not just shut down discussion of anything then. close down boards, is that it? dont be so ridiculous.

    i wish all these nu-feminists would grow up a bit and realise that all the hate-speech their lesbian arts professor in college taught them isnt the way the world really works.


  • #2726
    dont bother
    Closed Accounts Posts: 542 ✭✭✭dont bother


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Think you need to produce some proof soon

    as i said i will do it in the morrow.


  • #2727
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Prove it then. Back it up.

    Until you do, you are a bullsh*tter because literally nobody else in this thread heard or read about that evidence.

    We're disagreeing on a lot, but i have to agree with you here!


  • #2728
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    dont bother wrote: »
    so why not just shut down discussion of anything then. close down boards, is that it? dont be so ridiculous.

    i wish all these nu-feminists would grow up a bit and realise that all the hate-speech their lesbian arts professor in college taught them isnt the way the world really works.

    I wish you would back up what you claimed or at least admit it's bullsh*t and stop wasting all of our time.


  • #2729
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    dont bother wrote: »
    so why not just shut down discussion of anything then. close down boards, is that it? dont be so ridiculous.

    i wish all these nu-feminists would grow up a bit and realise that all the hate-speech their lesbian arts professor in college taught them isnt the way the world really works.

    never knew i had a lesbian arts professor. i should have paid more attention.


  • #2730
    thecretinhop
    Registered Users Posts: 6,663 ✭✭✭thecretinhop


    it is an outrage. lefties feminists how long do we punish them for? the next two generations of kids?? they have. not guilty does not mean anything im yere eyes as you have no values other than hate.
    as for cash convertors and duiago holding high ground lol. yeah..


  • Advertisement
  • #2731
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    We're disagreeing on a lot, but i have to agree with you here!

    I think I need to lie down in an attempt to grasp this bizarre situation


  • #2732
    Sephiroth_dude
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 80,755 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sephiroth_dude


    Mod

    dont bother, unless you have proof for what you're claiming don't bother (pardon the pun) posting in here again without that proof.

    Thread reopened.


  • #2733
    facehugger99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,376 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    dont bother wrote: »
    as i said i will do it in the morrow.

    The smell of bull**** from your posts is overpowering.


  • #2734
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    We're disagreeing on a lot, but i have to agree with you here!

    I think I need to lie down in an attempt to grasp this bizarre situation

    You're not getting a hug


  • #2735
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,926 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    I find very amusing the idea that people who don’t talk graphically about sex must be prudes. :pac: It’s more a signifier that they don’t wonder at sex, IMO.

    What else is it, if not prudery?
    Many people talk about/to each other the way those guys and girls were whatsapping. Many behave the way they were in Ollie's and later at the party.

    You are judging them based on your own set of beliefs or moral compass , no matter how much you say you aren't.


  • #2736
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    What else is it, if not prudery?
    Many people talk about/to each other the way those guys and girls were whatsapping. Many behave the way they were in Ollie's and later at the party.

    You are judging them based on your own set of beliefs or moral compass , no matter how much you say you aren't.

    Are you actually being serious here? Not wondering at sex, perhaps? How much a person talks about sex says nothing of their sex life. Precisely nothing. I’m amused that people think you must not like sex if you like to keep your sexual exploits private. How bizarre. :D


  • Advertisement
  • #2737
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,926 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Are you actually being serious here? Not wondering at sex, perhaps? How much a person talks about sex says nothing of their sex life. Precisely nothing. I’m amused that people think you must not like sex if you like to keep your sexual exploits private. How bizarre. :D

    What now?


  • #2738
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    What now?

    Indeed.


  • #2739
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,926 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Indeed.

    I don't understand what you are on about...what does 'not wondering at sex' mean?


  • #2740
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I don't understand what you are on about...what does 'not wondering at sex' mean?

    Okay, if you must feign innocence - you think not taking or joking about sex signifies prudery, as per the bolded bit below. Some people just think it’s a private matter. Others just find it a bit juvenile. It doesn’t mean they find it shocking that people talk and joke about sex. They’re as likely to be bemused or just plain uninterested in such conversation than to be prudish. And it says nothing of their own sex lives. To think that prudery is the only explanation is bizarre.

    I’m being quite clear and if you still don’t understand what I’m saying, I can’t help you.

    Oh and, no, many people don’t talk like those guys, male and female. Speak for yourself.
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    What else is it, if not prudery?
    Many people talk about/to each other the way those guys and girls were whatsapping. Many behave the way they were in Ollie's and later at the party.

    You are judging them based on your own set of beliefs or moral compass , no matter how much you say you aren't.


  • #2741
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,926 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Okay, if you must feign innocence - you think not taking or joking about sex signifies prudery,
    That is not what I said...JUDGING people who choose to talk that way is prudery. I am not bothered whether people do or don't. Live and let live.
    as per the bolded bit below. Some people just think it’s a private matter. Others just find it a bit juvenile. It doesn’t mean they find it shocking that people talk and joke about sex. They’re as likely to be bemused or just plain uninterested in such conversation than to be prudish. And it says nothing of their own sex lives. To think that prudery is the only explanation is bizarre.

    I’m being quite clear and if you still don’t understand what I’m saying, I can’t help you.

    Oh and, no, many people don’t talk like those guys, male and female. Speak for yourself.

    Totally disagree, many many people talk like that. As I said way back, I have worked in bars and nightclubs and heard it many many times. Scroll some of the threads here on women and you will see it too.


  • Advertisement
  • #2742
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    That is not what I said...JUDGING people who choose to talk that way is prudery. I am not bothered whether people do or don't. Live and let live.



    Totally disagree, many many people talk like that. As I said way back, I have worked in bars and nightclubs and heard it many many times. Scroll some of the threads here on women and you will see it too.

    And many people don’t. :) You worked in bars and heard people talk about sex. Super. That’s not all the people. Or anywhere close to all the people. And even of people who go to bars, not everyone will be talking explicitly about sex. I know this because I also worked in bars.

    Judging people for talking graphically about sex is also not necessarily prudery. That judgement might involve just thinking them to be very juvenile. Or just being bemused. I tend to think that people who are mouthy about their exploits are exaggerating greatly. Whether fair or not, it leads me to think they have a shïtty enough sex life. Otherwise, why are they making such a big deal about it? A natural act, something our parents and grandparents did.


  • #2743
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,926 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    And many people don’t. :) You worked in bars and heard people talk about sex. Super. That’s not all the people. Or anywhere close to all the people. And even of people who go to bars, not everyone will be talking explicitly about sex. I know this because I also worked in bars.

    Judging people for talking graphically about sex is also not necessarily prudery. That judgement might involve just thinking them to be very juvenile. Or just being bemused. I tend to think that people who are mouthy about their exploits are exaggerating greatly. Whether fair or not, it leads me to think they have a shïtty enough sex life. Otherwise, why are they making such a big deal about it? A natural act, something our parents and grandparents did.

    Talking about sex is juvenile? :):) you sound like my spinster aunt.
    People talk about many things to each other, sex being one of them. I think we have all the evidence we need (and then some) that these particular lads were getting some, so we can rule out your last theory there.


  • #2744
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Talking about sex is juvenile? :):)you sound like my spinster aunt.
    People talk about many things to each other, sex being one of them. I think we have all the evidence we need (and then some) that these particular lads were getting some, so we can rule out your last theory there.

    Ah, it can be, yes!

    Now now, who’s being the judgemental one here? Exactly what I was talking about. “Oh, you don’t talk about sex, must not be getting any, lolz”.


  • #2745
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Talking about sex is juvenile? :):) you sound like my spinster aunt.
    People talk about many things to each other, sex being one of them. I think we have all the evidence we need (and then some) that these particular lads were getting some, so we can rule out your last theory there.

    Sex is spoken about among people, nobody is denying that.

    What these lads were talking about though? This wasn’t just a standard ‘I got the ride last night’ type message.

    Having said all of that, you just know Blaine McIlroy is a bullsh*tter. Even the complainant, Jackson and Olding all said she didn’t have oral sex with him. You know something is up when the complainant agrees with the two men accused of raping her.


  • #2746
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,926 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Faugheen wrote: »
    What these lads were talking about though? This wasn’t just a standard ‘I got the ride last night’ type message.

    Can you link to data on how 'non-standard' it was? You are quick to call for back-up. Your turn now.
    Or is it a case of you need to get out more, as they say.


  • #2747
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Can you link to data on how 'non-standard' it was? You are quick to call for back-up. Your turn now.
    Or is it a case of you need to get out more, as they say.

    The requests for links on this site grow ever more moronic. Do you think there’s going to be a peer-reviewed study on the subject?


  • #2748
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,926 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    The requests for links on this site grow ever more moronic. Do you think there’s going to be a peer-reviewed study on the subject?

    Yes...it was another way of saying you cannot say it was not standard chat. :rolleyes:


  • #2749
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Can you link to data on how 'non-standard' it was? You are quick to call for back-up. Your turn now.
    Or is it a case of you need to get out more, as they say.

    Sigh.

    Even if there was a link, I wouldn't post it. You wouldn't listen to actual legislation which said you couldn't perform sexual acts on someone when they were sleeping so what would the point be?


  • #2750
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,926 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Sigh.

    Even if there was a link, I wouldn't post it. You wouldn't listen to actual legislation which said you couldn't perform sexual acts on someone when they were sleeping so what would the point be?

    ha ha...the misquoting continues and the desire to legislate for what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting couples. How quaintly Roman Catholic.

    Nicely deflected btw...I didn't miss that.


  • #2751
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Faugheen wrote: »
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Can you link to data on how 'non-standard' it was? You are quick to call for back-up. Your turn now.
    Or is it a case of you need to get out more, as they say.

    Sigh.

    Even if there was a link, I wouldn't post it. You wouldn't listen to actual legislation which said you couldn't perform sexual acts on someone when they were sleeping so what would the point be?

    Who was asleep?


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement