HRH Prince Charles visiting the Free State tomorrow.

[Dougal Maguire]

Aw Jesus, don't engage with the simpleton. If he could get anywhere near any of the royals he'd have his fat face in for a photo before you could say 'wanna buy a poppy'

[Carmen Stateside]

Brannigan with another Sinn Fein related post. Yawn!

[Franko]

Brannigan with another Sinn Fein related post. Yawn!

It does get tiresome after a while.

[Rossfan]

Wouldn't ya think he'd just praise them uncritically all the time 

[Franko]

Wouldn't ya think he'd just praise them uncritically all the time 

Yawn

[Rossfan]

Shinnerbots sleepy today.
Must have stayed late ato Charlie Windsor's party

[Franko]

Shinnerbots sleepy today.
Must have stayed late ato Charlie Windsor's party

Ad hominem = weak

[foxcommander]

Shinnerbots sleepy today.
Must have stayed late ato Charlie Windsor's party

Rossfanny is a complete tool. I bet he fawned until he made himself sick

[Owen Brannigan]

Brannigan with another Sinn Fein related post. Yawn!

It does get tiresome after a while.

Ad hominem = weak

[Franko]

Brannigan with another Sinn Fein related post. Yawn!

It does get tiresome after a while.

Ad hominem = weak

You'd want to check the meaning of ad hominem there OB.  My comment directly referred to the content of your post(s), not to you.  Fail.

[Owen Brannigan]

Brannigan with another Sinn Fein related post. Yawn!

It does get tiresome after a while.

Ad hominem = weak

You'd want to check the meaning of ad hominem there OB.  My comment directly referred to the content of your post(s), not to you.  Fail.

Well Franko, I have checked the meaning and decided to rely on the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, although other definitions are available and probably less favourable to you:

Definition of ad hominem

1:  appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2:  marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival

It can be seen that your post in its reply to the previous one relating to me is clearly aimed at my actions in highlighting the cant of previous posters and of those pictured in my post as opposed to critiquing the actual content and message of my post. Hence, I believe that both you and the poster to whom you replied in relation to my post have provided ad hominem arguments.

Unfortunately, ad hominem arguments are all too frequent occurrences on this forum, often used as a first strike, by some posters faced with posts that they find unfavourable, uncomfortable or just plain contrary to their own beliefs and opinions. 

I believe you were correct in pointing out the ad hominem argument to Rossfan, yet for some reason, Foxcommander did not warrant the same reprimand from you when his post was particularly 'argumentum ad hominem'.  I don't expect that you should police such posts but observing which posters warranted your intervention and which did not within a sequence where you intervened in such a manner is enlightening.

BTW, I don't believe that I am being over sensitive in this observation.

[theticklemister]

Up Tipp

[Avondhu star]

Up Tipp

Also known as the one hit wonders

[Franko]

Brannigan with another Sinn Fein related post. Yawn!

It does get tiresome after a while.

Ad hominem = weak

You'd want to check the meaning of ad hominem there OB.  My comment directly referred to the content of your post(s), not to you.  Fail.

Well Franko, I have checked the meaning and decided to rely on the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, although other definitions are available and probably less favourable to you:

Definition of ad hominem

1:  appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2:  marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival

It can be seen that your post in its reply to the previous one relating to me is clearly aimed at my actions in highlighting the cant of previous posters and of those pictured in my post as opposed to critiquing the actual content and message of my post. Hence, I believe that both you and the poster to whom you replied in relation to my post have provided ad hominem arguments.

Unfortunately, ad hominem arguments are all too frequent occurrences on this forum, often used as a first strike, by some posters faced with posts that they find unfavourable, uncomfortable or just plain contrary to their own beliefs and opinions. 

I believe you were correct in pointing out the ad hominem argument to Rossfan, yet for some reason, Foxcommander did not warrant the same reprimand from you when his post was particularly 'argumentum ad hominem'.  I don't expect that you should police such posts but observing which posters warranted your intervention and which did not within a sequence where you intervened in such a manner is enlightening.

BTW, I don't believe that I am being over sensitive in this observation.

Anything I posted was directly dealing with the content of your (repeated) posts and had nothing to do with your character.

The reason I picked up rossfan and not the other one is because rossfan was clearly replying to me whereas the other was not.  Surely that is blindingly obvious to anyone who was reading?  Possibly you should have read a bit more carefully and you may have found yourself being enlightened.

[Fuzzman]

Did Charley and Cam visit Dublin Castle on this visit?

I noticed on Friday that they have a Palestine flag now flying above City Hall
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/palestinian-flag-to-fly-above-dublin-s-city-hall-1.3076059