UCD - What a nice place to be gay

swiss · 26-02-2004 10:09am

This discussion is now clearly in breach of the charter listed for this board. Racisim, religious intolerance never mind the homophobia and a troll or 3 in for good measure...Moderators your opinions please?

Actually, for the most part this conversation has been civil and troll free. I'm not exactly thrilled about Skanger calling daveydub a small minded bigot, but I don't really think it's necessary to divert the course of the thread by just railing on that point. Religious intolerance and homophobia are facts of life. Not dealing with them would be an even greater injustice.

As for the Islamic society, yes their religion dictates that gays are immoral/evil/whatever. I don't particularly care whether they think I'm the spawn of the devil or not. They can hope and pray for my damnation, and they'll probably get their wish too, but as long as they uphold my constitutional protections and freedoms to engage in whatever lifestyle I want, I would not rail against their ethos. Doing so would make me a hypocrite, since I would merely be condemning their intolerance and replacing it with my own.

GuanYin · 26-02-2004 2:32pm

Originally posted by swiss
Actually, for the most part this conversation has been civil and troll free.

At the risk of trolling :rolleyes:, I would like to hear suzybie's opinions on mine and other responses. Do you not think the LGB may have acted inappropriately in its actions towards one of the lecturers.

The message I get from LGB in UCD is "conform or be labelled", which is kinda ironic.

boomdogman · 26-02-2004 2:44pm

Religious intolerance?
I gave a very fair, honest list of some of the vile practises which the peace loving Islamic citizens find acceptable according to the religious laws they espouse. Try reading the Koran some time or better still some of the tracts from the London mosques. I never mentioned the tendency of vast swathes of the public in Islamic countries to support the slaughter of innocents in suacide bombings tho I might have done. As an athiest I have no brief to defend christianity but as a gay man I'm damm glad I was born in a country whose laws and customs relect some of the better elements of its Christian past. Those laws include a level of religious freedom denied in ALL countries where Islam is the majority faith.

I find the "liberal" tolerance of intolerance despicable.

boomdogman · 26-02-2004 2:45pm

And thanks for the biscuit!

BuffyBot · 26-02-2004 2:46pm

I gave a very fair, honest list of some of the vile practises which the peace loving Islamic citizens find acceptable according to the religious laws they espouse.

No, you gave a biased and somewhat objectionable view of a faith you only seem to understand from what you have read in the media.

swiss · 26-02-2004 4:50pm

Religious intolerance?

I wasn't commenting on your post specifically (although I can see why you would think so). Regarding that post, you have a right to your opinions and to an extent I agree with them. I have no problem with the concept of the Islamic faith or it's adherents. What I would have a problem with is the element within Islam that demands that it replace all other ways of life. I would also fight ardently to keep the freedoms of religious thought and expression (or lack thereof) should they be besieged by any ethos. However I do believe you are labelling Islam unfairly based on a few of it's more questionable (IMO) tenets. If we were to look at Christianity in the same light we would see that it is based on torture and murder (of Jesus Christ), on sacrifice (the martyrs) and abstainance. Islam also contains worthy ideals, as do many world religions.

Not that it matters, I'm an atheist. But that's irrelevant to the topic in hand, which is the UCD sticker campaign and the controversy it has generated. Let's get back to that.

The message I get from LGB in UCD is "conform or be labelled", which is kinda ironic.

I don't know enough about the LGB society in UCD, but I would find this a very questionable policy at best. I think that one of the biggest challenges facing gay people is trying to escape the stereotypes that they have built for themselves. If an LGB society condemns those that do not conform to the view that gay is great, then in a manner they are as guilty of intolerance as those who would use the same kind of dogma, except this time from the opposing side.

Atreides · 26-02-2004 5:27pm

Originally posted by boomdogman
Religious intolerance?
I gave a very fair, honest list of some of the vile practises which the peace loving Islamic citizens find acceptable according to the religious laws they espouse. Try reading the Koran some time or better still some of the tracts from the London mosques. I never mentioned the tendency of vast swathes of the public in Islamic countries to support the slaughter of innocents in suacide bombings tho I might have done. As an athiest I have no brief to defend christianity but as a gay man I'm damm glad I was born in a country whose laws and customs relect some of the better elements of its Christian past. Those laws include a level of religious freedom denied in ALL countries where Islam is the majority faith.

I find the "liberal" tolerance of intolerance despicable.

Actually the Koran like any other religious book of that nature are open to interpretation. Have you tried reading the bible of late? or some of the catholic doctrine on this matter. If we can be Catholics despite the hard-line position of our religion on this subject, why can't followers of Islam do the same. As for my comments about your man being a bigot, Not a troll as I do believe he is, but I'll remove them anyway.

daveydub · 26-02-2004 8:27pm

I believe "Skanger" is free to say as he wishes, just as everyone has that right. But what is not right is for people to cross from the line of free speech into inciting hatred.

Academic staff who describe homosexuality and bisexuality as “deviant” send a message to the wider college population that homophobia is an acceptable form of discrimination, and give legitimacy to those who would victimise other staff and students through homophobic bullying, physical attacks and death threats.

Equally disturbing is the reaction of the UCD Islamic society. Muslim students should know better, as a minority group that are often the victims of racist abuse, than to promote bigotry and discrimination on our campus. While we must all respect the religious beliefs of others (or lack thereof), it is unacceptable to legitimise homophobia against LGBT students on religious grounds. No one religious ideology should be enforced on the general population, nor is it rational to claim such views based on religious dogma represent the majority of students.

For those people who are not lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered, it is easy for them not to see the sensitivities surrounding other peoples sexuality and the sheer fear some people experience about their sexuality and how it impacts on themselves, their families and friends, etc. 'Coming out week' is designed to promote awareness and equality among staff and students, perhaps my learned friend skanger is oblivious to this and maybe he didn't have this experience at third-level. Universities are generally regarded as places that foster open-mindedness and it's worrying when people have contempt for other peoples practices.

As I've said before I accomadate many people living in this country and hold no objections or grudges against them. There are two sides to the coin, and while I make every effort to accept ethnic minorities and other groupings they can return the favour by accepting me and my sexuality.

GuanYin · 26-02-2004 8:47pm

Originally posted by daveydub
Academic staff who describe homosexuality and bisexuality as “deviant” send a message to the wider college population that homophobia is an acceptable form of discrimination, and give legitimacy to those who would victimise other staff and students through homophobic bullying, physical attacks and death threats.

I agree. However, and this is where LGB lose all my support.... the second lecturer was quoted as saying that

ihat the sticker campaign could "encourage unwanted advances from students".

This is what the LGB and University paper had released and published. It transpired that what he actually said was:

It is inappropriate to place any stickers in relation to race, gender or creed in the offices of staff. The positive space sticker on the office of an academic staff member could cause real problems as it is very ambiguous as to what it is advocating and is to do with sexual orientation. We have to meet students on a one-to-one basis many times and have to be very careful not to say or do anything in relation to sexuality that could be misconstrued by students in the 'Dignity and Respect' policy. The sticker could be interpreted that the office was a place for sexual expression and might inadvertently encourage unwanted advances from students

Now everything he said bar what I have put in bold is spot on imho, and the last line is nothing more than naivity if you ask me. However, LGB purposefully tried to paint him as a homophobe and catagorise him with the other lecturer. The guy has been in twopapers defending himself and has had his details posted on BBS so people can mail him about it.

To what purpose did the LGB make a move like this? Did the feel so undermined as to make this man a scapegoat? How can a society, that is there to promote acceptance really hang a man out over the views expressed above? Its just plain wrong.

They have even called his employers to discipline him. Byrne deserves it, he hung himself, why did they want to have a go at the other guy?

Originally posted by daveydub
No one religious ideology should be enforced on the general population, nor is it rational to claim such views based on religious dogma represent the majority of students.

Surely that should be no ideology full stop! The Islamic society were out of order, but I think the general bigotry in their statement is second to trying to ruin amans career.

Originally posted by daveydub
For those people who are not lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered, it is easy for them not to see the sensitivities surrounding other peoples sexuality and the sheer fear some people experience about their sexuality and how it impacts on themselves, their families and friends, etc. 'Coming out week' is designed to promote awareness and equality among staff and students, perhaps my learned friend skanger is oblivious to this and maybe he didn't have this experience at third-level. Universities are generally regarded as places that foster open-mindedness and it's worrying when people have contempt for other peoples practices. .

To the casual observer UCD's coming out week seems to be a self serving publicity stunt by a bunch of people who have forsaken the morals they were entrusted with by the people they claim to represent.

uberwolf · 26-02-2004 9:03pm

Originally posted by daveydub

Academic staff who describe homosexuality and bisexuality as “deviant” send a message to the wider college population that homophobia is an acceptable form of discrimination, and give legitimacy to those who would victimise other staff and students through homophobic bullying, physical attacks and death threats.

Whilst this is an unreasonable opinion to voice, and certainly naive to to voice it to whom he did, the man was harassed to a certain extent. For his support to be demanded and his workspace (email) to be invaded is inciting him. In this context he may have snapped and privately responded. He didn't broadcast a message as has been said. He was hardly legimatising homophobia to an audience. Look at who his audience were!!! He shouldn't have said it, but is he any less entitled to his opinion than you are to your sexuality? and if there was never any question over his treatment of LGB before - which I take to mean he's professional enough to get on with it and deal, despite his opinions - should he now be removed? and does his treatment make the other staff feel? are LGB students going to be treated equally now? or extra equally? is that real equality?

seamus · 26-02-2004 9:13pm

As uberwolf says.

While his opinion is unreasonable and not acceptable in the wider arena, it's still his opinion, and he's entitled to it. When (in his eyes) it's attacked, he also has the right to affirm his belief to whomever will listen. The Islamic society don't run around the University posting anti-gay literature in people's mailboxes and encouraging people to put up stickers indicating that their offices aren't gay friendly. If they did, the LGB society would be up in arms, and youd be damn sure they'd try and make their voices heard. Why shouldn't the Islamic society be allowed do the same thing when the LGB does precisely the polar opposite of the above?
Just because it's not popular these days to discourage homosexuality, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Nor does it necessarily make it right to encourage it.

The University Observer is a rag, let's get that clear now. It's not fit to use as toilet paper. They try to make big deals out of things that don't really matter and deliberately misquote people to serve their own purposes.

uberwolf · 26-02-2004 9:14pm

Originally posted by seamus

The University Observer is a rag, let's get that clear now. It's not fit to use as toilet paper. They try to make big deals out of things that don't really matter and deliberately misquote people to serve their own purposes.

the other thing to bear in mind though is they haven't the resources to research a story thoroughly and are always happy when one is provided for them, anyone with an agenda can spoon feed them a front page story.

daveydub · 26-02-2004 9:29pm

I am unaware of any plan or action to have Dr. Brayden removed from his position, I think people have been more offended by the remarks made by Mr. T.J. Byrnes and the UCD Islamic Soc.

Dr. Bryaden it would appear identified a genuine concern he had relating to the posting of stickers in his workplace. That's fair enough.
But Mr. Byrnes cannot be allowed to continue in a position where he believes some of his students are "deviants". What he was reported to have said does breach the Universities code on Dignity and Respect, and it is only just that he is reprimanded for his actions. All students and staff at UCD are bound by this policy.

The "Coming out week" in UCD was not about throwing their sexualities in peoples faces, and I have no idea why people are construing it as such. The men shown on the posters around the campus were not even kissing! Posters of two women kissing were displayed last semester all over campus, and there was no show of concern from the Islamic Soc. then??

What I believe angers the LGBT students of UCD is the lack of equality shown for them. A fuss is not kicked up when posters are displayed with a man and a woman or even a woman and a woman for that matter. Why are people so offended when it's two men -> and they're not even kissing!!

uberwolf · 26-02-2004 9:34pm

why was there a poster of two men kissing? or about to kiss or just being close?

daveydub · 26-02-2004 9:41pm

On what qualifications do you uberwolf and seamus make your judgement about the University Observer? Yes it is a voluntary student paper, but I think it serves as much a purpose then The Irish Sun, The Mirror and the like.

Why were there posters of men? Because for narrow minded people that is the easiest thing for them to identify as being gay or in there eyes queer.
Whatever was on the posters is irrelevant, what angers some students is the inequality shown to them by students and staff.

seamus · 26-02-2004 9:51pm

Originally posted by daveydub
But Mr. Byrnes cannot be allowed to continue in a position where he believes some of his students are "deviants". What he was reported to have said does breach the Universities code on Dignity and Respect,

No it doesn't.

UCD Staff Manual Section 5.2 Dignity and Respect Policy, November 2001i
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN POLICY ON HARASSMENT, INCLUDING BULLYING,
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RACISM
POLICY
University College Dublin is committed to the promotion of an environment for work and study which upholds the dignity and respect of the individual and which supports every individual’s right to study and/or work in an environment which is free of any form of harassment, intimidation or bullying.
The University recognises the right of every individual to such an environment and requires all members of the University community to recognise their responsibilities in this regard. Harassment of others by members of the University community - staff or students - will not be tolerated.

Which basically means that anyone can say whatever they like so long as what they say isn't directed at any one person, or so long as it isn't a form of harrasment, bullying or intimidation. Claiming homosexuality is "deviant" is none of these things. The sexual orientation of his students is neither any of his business or relvant to his role as a lecturer. So long as he doesn't use it as factor in carrying out his role as a university lecturer, he's allowed hold whatever beliefs he likes about them.

Whatever was on the posters is irrelevant, what angers some students is the inequality shown to them by students and staff.

Where has this inequality been shown? No students are being treated any differently by the lecturers who have voiced their opinions, that is they are being treated equally. There is a huge difference between having an opinion about someone, and treating them differently based on that opinion. The latter is prejudice, the former is not.

uberwolf · 26-02-2004 9:54pm

Originally posted by daveydub
On what qualifications do you uberwolf and seamus make your judgement about the University Observer? Yes it is a voluntary student paper, but I think it serves as much a purpose then The Irish Sun, The Mirror and the like.

Having read both college papers for four years, contributed pieces to both, been interviwed by both I'm guessing better qualified than you and I'm certainly not talking through my arse. I'm not being harsh on them, In fact I'm trying to defend it, I don't mind either paper, just believe that they are easy enough to manipulate by someone with an angle.

Originally posted by daveydub

Why were there posters of men? Because for narrow minded people that is the easiest thing for them to identify as being gay or in there eyes queer.
Whatever was on the posters is irrelevant, what angers some students is the inequality shown to them by students and staff.

you've contradicted yourself there IMO, I believe it was to get attention, just as the posters of women kissing where. And they were complained about as well and the societies involved censured afaik. If they were looking for attention, unarguably their intention then there were always going to be complaints - no more than the other posters you mention. People complained about the other posters because they were insulting and "objectifying women" to assume that people are bigots because they objected to the same material with different genders is unreasonable and in fact only serves to highlight the difference between straight and gay - defeating the purpose of any equality movement.

As for the Islam society they are out of order. I can accept their religion forbids it, but in this country you play by local rules - deal or get out TBH. Like when a group of muslim women attacked that gay muslim on de nortsoide a yr or 2 ago. I don't care if that swing s in ur place don't come here and do it. Its assault.

GuanYin · 26-02-2004 9:57pm

Originally posted by uberwolf
For his support to be demanded and his workspace (email) to be invaded is inciting him.

It was actually physical post. It came addressed in an umarked envelope.

Originally posted by seamus
The University Observer is a rag, let's get that clear now. It's not fit to use as toilet paper

Originally posted by uberwolf
the other thing to bear in mind though is they haven't the resources to research a story thoroughly and are always happy when one is provided for them, anyone with an agenda can spoon feed them a front page story.

But who forwarded the e-mails to the observer and the college tribune and the Irish times and the independant for that matter? It the first two cases it was the LGB soc.
So why would they have forwarded both those mails? Why not just one? Did they really forward one mail saying "look at this well constructed argument" or did they do it maliciously? What do you think?

Originally posted by daveydub
I am unaware of any plan or action to have Dr. Brayden removed from his position, I think people have been more offended by the remarks made by Mr. T.J. Byrnes and the UCD Islamic Soc.

Dr. Brayden it would appear identified a genuine concern he had relating to the posting of stickers in his workplace. That's fair enough.

If the LGB view it as a fair point why did they forward his e-mail to the college papers? Was this not a very poor action on LGB's part? And LGB officers and SU called for Brayden to be disciplined. If you are a part of either society you should know that. but thats not the point, the man had to defend him self in public, nationally from being branded a homophobe over that passage. An, whatever way you paint it, the ultimate responsability for that lies with LGB

Originally posted by daveydub
The "Coming out week" in UCD was not about throwing their sexualities in peoples faces, and I have no idea why people are construing it as such

BEcause the subsequent actions and way that people who have disagreed with LGB have been immediately branded as hoophobes without even listening to the points makes it seem that way.

It even happened here. Check out suzybie calling me and others trolls and asking for the thread to be shut down. She didn't even try argue a point.

People are allowed have opinions in life and even express them, so long as they do it civilly (or at least thats how it should work). LGB seem to have missed this. Isn't it all about choice? Why were people not allowed choose whether to support the campaign without being attacked?

daveydub · 26-02-2004 10:00pm

"It is one thing to be a deviant. It is another to go around attempting to convince people that it is OK."

It is obvious from this that Mr. Byrnes believes LBGT people are abnormal. And there would be a gross conflict of interests if he were to allow his opinions interfere with his responsibilities as a member of the teaching staff. He may not have directed his remarks at one person in particular, instead he chose to direct them at an entire group who happen to be a minority.
Which is why students are calling for an investigation into his remarks and also his ability to be an indenpendent, responsible figure.

daveydub · 26-02-2004 10:02pm

I am not a member of UCD LGB Soc. nor do I speak for or on behalf of them.

seamus · 26-02-2004 10:07pm

Originally posted by daveydub
"It is one thing to be a deviant. It is another to go around attempting to convince people that it is OK."

It is obvious from this that Mr. Byrnes believes LBGT people are abnormal. And there would be a gross conflict of interests if he were to allow his opinions interfere with his responsibilities as a member of the teaching staff. He may not have directed his remarks at one person in particular, instead he chose to direct them at an entire group who happen to be a minority.
Which is why students are calling for an investigation into his remarks and also his ability to be an indenpendent, responsible figure.

Yes it would be a gross conflict of interests. But there is no evidence to support any claims that it in fact does affect his performance, or any other lecturers' performances for that matter. If a student feels he/she is being discriminated against, then they should take the matter up with the relevant people, but there is no reason to attack a man or launch an investigation just because of what he believes.
Even that quote defends him. He suggests that even though he's not overly happy with the idea of homosexuality, he ignores it.

As I'v said, there is no reason for him to treat any of his students as anything but students. Do gay students nowadays walk up to lecturers and ask them to put "homosexual" in brackets beside their name, just so they know?

daveydub · 26-02-2004 10:30pm

Uberwolf, not once did I suggest you were talking through your arse, and please don't take me up as though I am. It's reassuring to know some people have an idea as to what's going on.

uberwolf · 27-02-2004 11:12am

Originally posted by syke
It was actually physical post. It came addressed in an umarked envelope.

I thought it was email - hence the emailed response but I think my point stands as regards uninvited correspondence

Originally posted by syke
But who forwarded the e-mails to the observer and the college tribune and the Irish times and the independant for that matter? It the first two cases it was the LGB soc.
So why would they have forwarded both those mails? Why not just one? Did they really forward one mail saying "look at this well constructed argument" or did they do it maliciously? What do you think?[/B]

I think they were only too willing to pass the two emails on grouped and they did so to service their own angle - whilst they're entitled to defend their corner - not considering the ramifications of their actions or even considering their actions and delighting in them, relying on a hysterical PC reaction was unjustified and potentially libelous IMO. Dr. Brayden appears to have been misquoted and it is debatable whether or not this was done maliciously or not.

Originally posted by syke
If the LGB view it as a fair point why did they forward his e-mail to the college papers? Was this not a very poor action on LGB's part? And LGB officers and SU called for Brayden to be disciplined. If you are a part of either society you should know that. but thats not the point, the man had to defend him self in public, nationally from being branded a homophobe over that passage. An, whatever way you paint it, the ultimate responsability for that lies with LGB[/B]

It is an awful lot more convenient to tar the man and escape cleanly themselves whilst getting the publicity they obviously feel they need.

Originally posted by syke
BEcause the subsequent actions and way that people who have disagreed with LGB have been immediately branded as homophobes without even listening to the points makes it seem that way.

It even happened here. Check out suzybie calling me and others trolls and asking for the thread to be shut down. She didn't even try argue a point.[/B]

I refer back to my point about hysterical political correctness. Refusing to reflect before reacting has caused permanent damage to one man's career. Unjustly. This refusal to consider other people's perspective is worse than any discrimanation that the LGB population may feel they are suffering in this instance.

Originally posted by syke
People are allowed have opinions in life and even express them, so long as they do it civilly (or at least thats how it should work). LGB seem to have missed this. Isn't it all about choice? Why were people not allowed choose whether to support the campaign without being attacked? [/B]

Hetrophobia?

Atreides · 27-02-2004 10:22pm

I'm sorry but so what if a lecturer is homophobic, I'm sure many are but won't ever openly admitt it. You get the exact same lecture you would if you where straight, its a communal thing, it's not like its in secondary school where you might have a some kind of relationship with a teacher.

boomdogman · 28-02-2004 11:09pm

Since Buffybot has appointed Buffyself as resident expert on comparative religions it seems impolite to point out that her post assumes my ignorance of both the Koran and the Bible based, I believe, on her own wooly liberal notion that either religions are above critisism or that they all are equeally vile. Except of couse, Buffy being a wooly liberal, Christianity has to be viler. But i'll risk being a teeny bit impolite when I am patronised.

As a viscous, twisted conservative I belive that that everybody is entitled to free speech but not entitled to impose their beliefs on others. The Islamic Society is perfectly right to point out that Gays are sinful, evil perverts heading straight for hell. This, to paraphrase a book Buffy with which seems familiar, is their furrow and there they must plow. They are not entitled to remove posters from common areas or to interfere with gay people. I, on the other hand am perfectly free to say that their beliefs are a load of vile codswallop but I would defend their right to hold and express those views.

The LGB society at UCD seem to have created a battle to fight because they wanted something to do. This sort of antic does nothing for young students struggling to come to terms with a sexual identity that they have been culturally indoctrinated to despise. Its the political equivalent of drag. Having watched a young lady from the Trinity Students on Questions and Answers abandon grammar as if it was some kind of nasty disease while looking as utterly lost as a Challenging Times contestant asked a question about something other than Pop Music, I wonder is it a case of those who can, do, the rest join the societies and student unions?

Do lecturers just lecture or do they have a role in examining students? Then the deviancy comments might be serious.

Atreides · 29-02-2004 9:52am

Originally posted by boomdogman
Since Buffybot has appointed Buffyself as resident expert on comparative religions it seems impolite to point out that her post assumes my ignorance of both the Koran and the Bible based, I believe, on her own wooly liberal notion that either religions are above critisism or that they all are equeally vile. Except of couse, Buffy being a wooly liberal, Christianity has to be viler. But i'll risk being a teeny bit impolite when I am patronised.

As a viscous, twisted conservative I belive that that everybody is entitled to free speech but not entitled to impose their beliefs on others. The Islamic Society is perfectly right to point out that Gays are sinful, evil perverts heading straight for hell. This, to paraphrase a book Buffy with which seems familiar, is their furrow and there they must plow. They are not entitled to remove posters from common areas or to interfere with gay people. I, on the other hand am perfectly free to say that their beliefs are a load of vile codswallop but I would defend their right to hold and express those views.

The LGB society at UCD seem to have created a battle to fight because they wanted something to do. This sort of antic does nothing for young students struggling to come to terms with a sexual identity that they have been culturally indoctrinated to despise. Its the political equivalent of drag. Having watched a young lady from the Trinity Students on Questions and Answers abandon grammar as if it was some kind of nasty disease while looking as utterly lost as a Challenging Times contestant asked a question about something other than Pop Music, I wonder is it a case of those who can, do, the rest join the societies and student unions?

Do lecturers just lecture or do they have a role in examining students? Then the deviancy comments might be serious.

First off Buffybot is not female. Secondly your comments aren't fair, buffybot wasn't making the point that the followers of Islam don't hate you, merely that its it possible to have a strong faith in Islam and not give a damn about you. Homosexuals and treated much the same way by the catholic church, but you would never dare claim that because someone is catholic they must therefore hate all homosexuals, extremely unlikely with the number of homosexual priests. This is why certain comments show a lack of thought on your part.

As for the last comment, while I can't speak for UCD, I can for trinity, lecturers lecture that is all, they have no role in the examination process apart from writing the exam. Postgrads correct them anonymously. The problem arises if an instructor in a practical has a problem with your sexuality and marks you down, at which point you go to the head of the department, and ask for him to review you work, if he agrees with you he will mark you up there and then. No problem unless you want to make an issue of it and throw accusations around.

That's why I don't understand the fuss over these guys (well one guy) have some odd view points, they, in real terms, have zero influence over individual students, they are not teachers. And as for the guy who said he likes to create a safe zone for homosexuals in tutorials, what planet are you on, tutorials you go, you get bored, you do afew questions, you go home. Its not a dangerous environment to start with.

yellum · 29-02-2004 4:03pm

Originally posted by boomdogman
Since Buffybot has appointed Buffyself as resident expert on comparative religions

Thats a bit full of yourself isn't it ? Just because someone said your viewpoint on islam was wrong you are saying they must be an expert if they proved you in the wrong ?

BuffyBot · 01-03-2004 11:31am

Except of couse, Buffy being a wooly liberal, Christianity has to be viler. But i'll risk being a teeny bit impolite when I am patronised.

Damn that wooly liberal evil (and female) evil twin of mine! I must make sure the padlocks are secured correctly the next time.

The point I was trying to make was you were making some rather sweeping generalisations about Islam and it's followers which I found quite - well, offensive. Not because I had appointed myself as anything. As for patronising - well, pot, kettle and black is all I'll say on that front.

As Skanger pointed out, much of what you said about Islam could be said about many Christian denominations.

UCD - What a nice place to be gay

Comments