Messages

[not]

Are you saying that you think possessing guns is not serious? What do you think guns are used for? If I ask you to mind a gun for me until such time as I can get around to shooting my neighbour, and you agree to do so, do you not think you deserve to go to jail just as much as me? Of course I think loyalists should decommission their weapons. Why would I not? As for your other points, if you're expecting me to defend Craig and the old Stormont regime, you're going to be disappointed. I don't try and defend the indefensible. (That said, I don't think the 50 years of unionist misrule in any way justifies the so called armed struggle carried out by Irish republicans.) I know I won't be asked to play for the clubs in question, but that's hardly the point. If the GAA is serious about attracting protestants / unionists to the game, then it needs to clean up its act. I think we're agreed on your last point - I have nothing better to do with my time. 

In your wonderfully phrased scenario the only answer is no, I don't. I'm minding a gun, you have the intent. I could have been forced into it and 'until you get around to such time' as carrying out the crime I wouldn't be killing anyone. I don't deserve to go to jail for 14 years if people who shot dead 14 unarmed men in cold blood don't deserve to go to jail either.

50 years of 'misrule' is playing it down a bit. 50 years of fascist b**tards ensuring that any Catholic with even a semblance of republican or nationalist thought wouldn't be able to vote, get a job or a house is more than just 'misrule.' It's an aggressive campaign based on no rational grounds whatsoever--and let's not just forget that the UVF were quite the murderers too, albeit in a sectarian rather than political way. The RUC, UDR and Army have been proven to collude with all of these...

I think you're forgetting the fact that the GAA has long been and continues to be a target for loyalist thugs. GAA grounds have often been the scenes of loyalist murders, GAA members have been killed by the loyalists. You do not have a monopoly on suffering so do not pontificate on whether or not Bobby Sands or Kevin Lynch killed anyone--which they didn't.

France, Italy and a host of other countries held pro-irish protests after Sands died, do you refuse to visit these countries because they glorify terrorism??

But you haven't been forced into it Stibhan. You're quite happy to mind the gun (I could've said explosives too) for me, because you also think my neighbour deserves to die. So, again, do you think you should go to prison too? And you're wonderfully selective with the example you choose. Of course I believe that those who committed murder on Bloody Sunday should face justice. I believe the same of those who committed murder on Bloody Friday, or in Darkley, Teebane, La Mons, Birmingham, Omagh, Enniskillen, Guildford, Ballygawley, Shankill Road, McGurks, Ormeau Road, Greysteel, etc, etc, etc. What about you? What's your view? I'm interested in that distinction you make between political and sectarian murders. Doesn't make sense to me. My neighbour's going to be just as dead, whether I'm killing him because he's a Protestant or because he votes for the Green Party. And at the end of the day, is one reason better than the other? If you think I've 'played down' the unionist misrule bit, I think you've over egged the pudding a wee bit when you talk of Catholics not being able to vote, get a job, and so on. NI may have been a cold house for Catholics, in Trimble's memorable phrase, but it wasn't South Africa under apartheid (though I understand why republicans like to make out it was - makes it easier for them to justify their 'armed struggle'). I appreciate that the GAA members have often been the target of thugs / killers, but they don't have a monopoly on suffering anymore than unionists do. And for what it's worth, I'm not actually a unionist. I played Gaelic football as a child, both for a club and at school. Gave it up when I realised that (a) I preferred soccer and (b) I was crap. 

By political murders I mean murders with a political motivation, rather than a sectarian political motivation; it's not about someone who deserves something, it's about a means to an end. I never said someone shouldn't go to prison, I did say that someone shouldn't go to prison for the same amount of time as someone who murdered someone and I'm quite sure the courts agreed because they were given 14 years rather than a life sentence.

There is a clear distinction in law between certain deaths. Some are accidental; some are in an understandable fit of rage; some are in reaction to an attempted murder and some are down-right cold blooded. Incidentally the Good Friday Agreement, ratified by 71% of the population of the North of Ireland and 96% of the Republic, has clearly made a distinction between all of these 'political' or 'sectarian' murders and those carried out in cold blood.

The point about a monopoly on suffering isn't really applicable when you send it back. No, we don't have a monopoly on suffering, but if we compare the quote of Darcy in which he weighs up the 'Craigavons, Mountjoys...etc." with the republican names then I think you see what I'm getting at here. There has to be some parity of some sort and an inherent part of Irish culture is commemorating men who died for its freedom, a fact that you will see reflected North and South; "Connolly Station," anyone? Weren't Carson and Craig paramilitants as well? Didn't they found the tradition of Loyalist organised violence?

It's funny that you say I over-egged the Unionist discrimination when it's quite clear that there was an organised policy of discrimination. If you look at the cabinet members of the Stormont government all but 4 during its 50-year Span were in the Orange Order, a notably anti-Catholic organisation, I think you'll agree. If the Ku Klux Klan was prominent in American governance and African-Americans were somehow unable to get jobs, housing and employment there'd be some job trying to put it down to mere economic conditions, especially if a large section of the white community were considerably better off, in better jobs and being able to vote than were the African-Americans.

I agree with you that there was discrimination and gerrymandering carried out by the stormont regime. What I take issue with is the assertion that this resulted in Catholics in the north being worse off than, say, black South Africans under apartheid. The welfare state in the north meant that even in the dark days, Catholics in the north were still better off economically and socially than people living in the Free State. The Housing Act of 1945 meant that there was more public housing about, and Catholics had access to this. The 1947 Education Act in increased the capital grants for voluntary or Catholic schools. Family allowance and unemployment rates were much higher in the north than they were down south. In these years of 'unionist oppression', the Catholic middle class continued to grow and prosper. And let's not forget that some of the franchise measures used by the unionist parliament to exclude some Catholics from voting, also had the effect of excluding some working class Protestants. I'm not defending the regime: it was hateful and should have been dismantled long before it eventually fell. But if we exaggerate the impact it had on Catholics and nationalists by comparing our situation to people living in cardboard huts in shanty towns, we make our own argument look silly and trivialise the experience of those who lived in real squalor.

The relation to apartheid is clearly in terms of the systems rather than the effects. The effects of apartheid in Africa, in comparison to the Unionist government's policy of anti-Catholicism, differ because of cultural and geographical conditions rather than the systems of discrimination themselves. In fact, the likelihood is that Westminster's legislation did more for the Catholic schools than the unionist government did, as your beloved CAIN asserts:

'[By the 2nd World War] Northern Ireland has adopted a policy of parity with Westminster whereby government acts will be mirrored in Northern Ireland, with any additional cost being met by the British exchequer."

It also states that: "The Education (Northern Ireland) Act 1947 is closely modelled on the Butler Act. The main tenets of the act are that education will be compulsory for all children up to the age of 15. Primary education will end at 11 when children will be assessed by tests which will determine what type of secondary school they will attend. Facilities such as milk and dinners are made available. The funding for the Voluntary (Catholic) schools is raised to 65%."

So this is hardly a specifically Northern Problem; the government actually danced to the tune of the House of Commons and post-war consensus--a tune which their Orange flutes and lambeg drums probably weren't well equipped enough to play anyway. This fact is reflected when we look at the dates of the respective Health Service acts of both England and Northern Ireland: go on there CAIN

"In Northern Ireland the concept of a 'National Health Service' became a reality when the Health Service Act (Northern Ireland) was passed by the Stormont parliament."

My point here is that if such a 'domino effect' system hadn't have existed in Northern Ireland during the majority rule of the Unionists, then we would be in a similar state to the South Africans in all probability. That it wasn't is not a fact attributed to the generosity of Unionist rule in Ireland but rather the fleeting common sense of English politicians.

I agree with your main point, that it was membership of the UK rather than the benevolence of the unionist administration, which benefited Catholics in the north. Disagree with the conclusion you draw from this, however, when you say that had it not been for this link, Catholics would have been in a similar state to black South Africans. More accurate to say, surely, that if there'd been no link with the UK, there wouldn't have been a unionist administration in the first place, no?

Great result for Connacht, but not great news for Ulster, given that we have to finish above them to qualify for next year's Heineken Cup.

Myles,
Ulster are going through a very iffy period now and have been off the pace for a long time. Any ideas as to why they are underperforming for so long?

There's a fairly simple explanation for the slump in form over the last 12 months or so when you look at the changes in personnel that have taken place. Seven or eight players left or retired in the summer, including the likes of David Humphrys, Tommy Bowe, Neil Best, Justin Harrison, people who had formed the backbone of the side for a few years. A lot of new faces have been brought in by Matt Williams and they've taken a while to settle in, but the signs are there that the team is developing. A good win over Munster, a win and a draw against the Scarlets, and a good performance against Leinster on Saturday night there, when really we deserved something from the game. But you're right when you say that Ulster have been 'iffy' for a long time. We haven't got out of the group stages in the HC for years and haven't really kicked on since winning the Celtic league in 2006. Part of it comes down to finance. Bit like the Champions League, if you're not getting into the latter stages of the HC, you're not getting the big dough, which means you're not able to attract the top players. Part of it also has to be put down to the coaching and management of the side in recent years, and some of it is down to the cyclical nature of all team sports: Munster have been one of Europe's top sides over the last 8 years or so, but there are signs that their squad has peaked and is now on the way back down. I'm fairly optimistic that we'll see Ulster on up over the next couple of years. Ferris, Trimble and Rory Best are already in the Irish team, but watch out for Ryan Caldwell and Darren Cave making the first team this year.

[not]

Are you saying that you think possessing guns is not serious? What do you think guns are used for? If I ask you to mind a gun for me until such time as I can get around to shooting my neighbour, and you agree to do so, do you not think you deserve to go to jail just as much as me? Of course I think loyalists should decommission their weapons. Why would I not? As for your other points, if you're expecting me to defend Craig and the old Stormont regime, you're going to be disappointed. I don't try and defend the indefensible. (That said, I don't think the 50 years of unionist misrule in any way justifies the so called armed struggle carried out by Irish republicans.) I know I won't be asked to play for the clubs in question, but that's hardly the point. If the GAA is serious about attracting protestants / unionists to the game, then it needs to clean up its act. I think we're agreed on your last point - I have nothing better to do with my time. 

In your wonderfully phrased scenario the only answer is no, I don't. I'm minding a gun, you have the intent. I could have been forced into it and 'until you get around to such time' as carrying out the crime I wouldn't be killing anyone. I don't deserve to go to jail for 14 years if people who shot dead 14 unarmed men in cold blood don't deserve to go to jail either.

50 years of 'misrule' is playing it down a bit. 50 years of fascist b**tards ensuring that any Catholic with even a semblance of republican or nationalist thought wouldn't be able to vote, get a job or a house is more than just 'misrule.' It's an aggressive campaign based on no rational grounds whatsoever--and let's not just forget that the UVF were quite the murderers too, albeit in a sectarian rather than political way. The RUC, UDR and Army have been proven to collude with all of these...

I think you're forgetting the fact that the GAA has long been and continues to be a target for loyalist thugs. GAA grounds have often been the scenes of loyalist murders, GAA members have been killed by the loyalists. You do not have a monopoly on suffering so do not pontificate on whether or not Bobby Sands or Kevin Lynch killed anyone--which they didn't.

France, Italy and a host of other countries held pro-irish protests after Sands died, do you refuse to visit these countries because they glorify terrorism??

But you haven't been forced into it Stibhan. You're quite happy to mind the gun (I could've said explosives too) for me, because you also think my neighbour deserves to die. So, again, do you think you should go to prison too? And you're wonderfully selective with the example you choose. Of course I believe that those who committed murder on Bloody Sunday should face justice. I believe the same of those who committed murder on Bloody Friday, or in Darkley, Teebane, La Mons, Birmingham, Omagh, Enniskillen, Guildford, Ballygawley, Shankill Road, McGurks, Ormeau Road, Greysteel, etc, etc, etc. What about you? What's your view? I'm interested in that distinction you make between political and sectarian murders. Doesn't make sense to me. My neighbour's going to be just as dead, whether I'm killing him because he's a Protestant or because he votes for the Green Party. And at the end of the day, is one reason better than the other? If you think I've 'played down' the unionist misrule bit, I think you've over egged the pudding a wee bit when you talk of Catholics not being able to vote, get a job, and so on. NI may have been a cold house for Catholics, in Trimble's memorable phrase, but it wasn't South Africa under apartheid (though I understand why republicans like to make out it was - makes it easier for them to justify their 'armed struggle'). I appreciate that the GAA members have often been the target of thugs / killers, but they don't have a monopoly on suffering anymore than unionists do. And for what it's worth, I'm not actually a unionist. I played Gaelic football as a child, both for a club and at school. Gave it up when I realised that (a) I preferred soccer and (b) I was crap. 

By political murders I mean murders with a political motivation, rather than a sectarian political motivation; it's not about someone who deserves something, it's about a means to an end. I never said someone shouldn't go to prison, I did say that someone shouldn't go to prison for the same amount of time as someone who murdered someone and I'm quite sure the courts agreed because they were given 14 years rather than a life sentence.

There is a clear distinction in law between certain deaths. Some are accidental; some are in an understandable fit of rage; some are in reaction to an attempted murder and some are down-right cold blooded. Incidentally the Good Friday Agreement, ratified by 71% of the population of the North of Ireland and 96% of the Republic, has clearly made a distinction between all of these 'political' or 'sectarian' murders and those carried out in cold blood.

The point about a monopoly on suffering isn't really applicable when you send it back. No, we don't have a monopoly on suffering, but if we compare the quote of Darcy in which he weighs up the 'Craigavons, Mountjoys...etc." with the republican names then I think you see what I'm getting at here. There has to be some parity of some sort and an inherent part of Irish culture is commemorating men who died for its freedom, a fact that you will see reflected North and South; "Connolly Station," anyone? Weren't Carson and Craig paramilitants as well? Didn't they found the tradition of Loyalist organised violence?

It's funny that you say I over-egged the Unionist discrimination when it's quite clear that there was an organised policy of discrimination. If you look at the cabinet members of the Stormont government all but 4 during its 50-year Span were in the Orange Order, a notably anti-Catholic organisation, I think you'll agree. If the Ku Klux Klan was prominent in American governance and African-Americans were somehow unable to get jobs, housing and employment there'd be some job trying to put it down to mere economic conditions, especially if a large section of the white community were considerably better off, in better jobs and being able to vote than were the African-Americans.

I agree with you that there was discrimination and gerrymandering carried out by the stormont regime. What I take issue with is the assertion that this resulted in Catholics in the north being worse off than, say, black South Africans under apartheid. The welfare state in the north meant that even in the dark days, Catholics in the north were still better off economically and socially than people living in the Free State. The Housing Act of 1945 meant that there was more public housing about, and Catholics had access to this. The 1947 Education Act in increased the capital grants for voluntary or Catholic schools. Family allowance and unemployment rates were much higher in the north than they were down south. In these years of 'unionist oppression', the Catholic middle class continued to grow and prosper. And let's not forget that some of the franchise measures used by the unionist parliament to exclude some Catholics from voting, also had the effect of excluding some working class Protestants. I'm not defending the regime: it was hateful and should have been dismantled long before it eventually fell. But if we exaggerate the impact it had on Catholics and nationalists by comparing our situation to people living in cardboard huts in shanty towns, we make our own argument look silly and trivialise the experience of those who lived in real squalor.

[not]

Are you saying that you think possessing guns is not serious? What do you think guns are used for? If I ask you to mind a gun for me until such time as I can get around to shooting my neighbour, and you agree to do so, do you not think you deserve to go to jail just as much as me? Of course I think loyalists should decommission their weapons. Why would I not? As for your other points, if you're expecting me to defend Craig and the old Stormont regime, you're going to be disappointed. I don't try and defend the indefensible. (That said, I don't think the 50 years of unionist misrule in any way justifies the so called armed struggle carried out by Irish republicans.) I know I won't be asked to play for the clubs in question, but that's hardly the point. If the GAA is serious about attracting protestants / unionists to the game, then it needs to clean up its act. I think we're agreed on your last point - I have nothing better to do with my time. 

In your wonderfully phrased scenario the only answer is no, I don't. I'm minding a gun, you have the intent. I could have been forced into it and 'until you get around to such time' as carrying out the crime I wouldn't be killing anyone. I don't deserve to go to jail for 14 years if people who shot dead 14 unarmed men in cold blood don't deserve to go to jail either.

50 years of 'misrule' is playing it down a bit. 50 years of fascist b**tards ensuring that any Catholic with even a semblance of republican or nationalist thought wouldn't be able to vote, get a job or a house is more than just 'misrule.' It's an aggressive campaign based on no rational grounds whatsoever--and let's not just forget that the UVF were quite the murderers too, albeit in a sectarian rather than political way. The RUC, UDR and Army have been proven to collude with all of these...

I think you're forgetting the fact that the GAA has long been and continues to be a target for loyalist thugs. GAA grounds have often been the scenes of loyalist murders, GAA members have been killed by the loyalists. You do not have a monopoly on suffering so do not pontificate on whether or not Bobby Sands or Kevin Lynch killed anyone--which they didn't.

France, Italy and a host of other countries held pro-irish protests after Sands died, do you refuse to visit these countries because they glorify terrorism??

But you haven't been forced into it Stibhan. You're quite happy to mind the gun (I could've said explosives too) for me, because you also think my neighbour deserves to die. So, again, do you think you should go to prison too? And you're wonderfully selective with the example you choose. Of course I believe that those who committed murder on Bloody Sunday should face justice. I believe the same of those who committed murder on Bloody Friday, or in Darkley, Teebane, La Mons, Birmingham, Omagh, Enniskillen, Guildford, Ballygawley, Shankill Road, McGurks, Ormeau Road, Greysteel, etc, etc, etc. What about you? What's your view? I'm interested in that distinction you make between political and sectarian murders. Doesn't make sense to me. My neighbour's going to be just as dead, whether I'm killing him because he's a Protestant or because he votes for the Green Party. And at the end of the day, is one reason better than the other? If you think I've 'played down' the unionist misrule bit, I think you've over egged the pudding a wee bit when you talk of Catholics not being able to vote, get a job, and so on. NI may have been a cold house for Catholics, in Trimble's memorable phrase, but it wasn't South Africa under apartheid (though I understand why republicans like to make out it was - makes it easier for them to justify their 'armed struggle'). I appreciate that the GAA members have often been the target of thugs / killers, but they don't have a monopoly on suffering anymore than unionists do. And for what it's worth, I'm not actually a unionist. I played Gaelic football as a child, both for a club and at school. Gave it up when I realised that (a) I preferred soccer and (b) I was crap. 

without wanting to get into the whole debate here again, the long and the short of the answer to your incorrect implications happens to be that the guns etc and people sing them were around to defend the nationalists/catholics from oppression and persecution that bordered on genocide and apartheid.Its only since that threat has ended that these tools of death have been thankfully thrown away and no longer needed. It might not have been right, but whe faced with death, you have to defend yourselves as you see fit...so I cant or wont comment more on this. You are getting into a wider bigger discussion that you most def wont win irrespective of your outlook on justification.
So yes they were forced into it, by the unionist/loyalist establihment, ruc/udr and british army and their backing of the uvf/udr etc etc murder death squads

The GAA are not political and have their house in order on this front. Its other apects such as consistent refereeing and disciplinary procedure etc that they need to properly look at or define these days.
It might be unpalatable to unionists/loyalists, but as I have said before this is completely down to their mindsets and upbringing (to hate GAA if not catholics etc).
While carribears cmment might have been half in jest and seems to have got his desired result in winding some of you up, the essence is actually almost true, if they dont like it and dont want to play - because of themselves and their own self erected barriers- then Feck them.
you can bring horses to water and all that.
If and when loyalists/unionists change to be a moreinclusive unit (and we will see that from any change in their socccer stance and procedures etc) and we find that GAA rulings might need to be altered for some reason now unknown, then it could be looked at. I dont think clubs, cups or grounds names will rank high on the list.
Not if people are being truthful and not disingenuous - as they most def are at the moment!

Pat was correct to speakout as gregory campbell is having unabated pot shots at the GAA all the time recently and while he is merely a fly in ointment, no one should be allowed get away with the incorrect  rubbish he spouts - as not only is it factually wrong, he is fanning the explosive flames of the knuckledragger unionist/loyalist set.
hardly a great example for a 'local leader' to be setting, but I suppose he has 'previous form'. Some of these old bitter stagers just cant let go !

Interesting point. The University of Ulster's Cain website gives a fairly comprehensive statistical breakdown of deaths during the troubles. Even a cursory look at it is enough to reveal that republicans were responsible for more deaths during the conflict than all the other groups combined. It shows they were responsible for more deaths of civilians than anyone else. Finally, it shows that republicans were responsible for the deaths of more people from the Catholic community than the RUC and the British Army put together. So explain to me again. Who were the IRA defending and who was committing genocide? 

[not]

Are you saying that you think possessing guns is not serious? What do you think guns are used for? If I ask you to mind a gun for me until such time as I can get around to shooting my neighbour, and you agree to do so, do you not think you deserve to go to jail just as much as me? Of course I think loyalists should decommission their weapons. Why would I not? As for your other points, if you're expecting me to defend Craig and the old Stormont regime, you're going to be disappointed. I don't try and defend the indefensible. (That said, I don't think the 50 years of unionist misrule in any way justifies the so called armed struggle carried out by Irish republicans.) I know I won't be asked to play for the clubs in question, but that's hardly the point. If the GAA is serious about attracting protestants / unionists to the game, then it needs to clean up its act. I think we're agreed on your last point - I have nothing better to do with my time. 

In your wonderfully phrased scenario the only answer is no, I don't. I'm minding a gun, you have the intent. I could have been forced into it and 'until you get around to such time' as carrying out the crime I wouldn't be killing anyone. I don't deserve to go to jail for 14 years if people who shot dead 14 unarmed men in cold blood don't deserve to go to jail either.

50 years of 'misrule' is playing it down a bit. 50 years of fascist b**tards ensuring that any Catholic with even a semblance of republican or nationalist thought wouldn't be able to vote, get a job or a house is more than just 'misrule.' It's an aggressive campaign based on no rational grounds whatsoever--and let's not just forget that the UVF were quite the murderers too, albeit in a sectarian rather than political way. The RUC, UDR and Army have been proven to collude with all of these...

I think you're forgetting the fact that the GAA has long been and continues to be a target for loyalist thugs. GAA grounds have often been the scenes of loyalist murders, GAA members have been killed by the loyalists. You do not have a monopoly on suffering so do not pontificate on whether or not Bobby Sands or Kevin Lynch killed anyone--which they didn't.

France, Italy and a host of other countries held pro-irish protests after Sands died, do you refuse to visit these countries because they glorify terrorism??

But you haven't been forced into it Stibhan. You're quite happy to mind the gun (I could've said explosives too) for me, because you also think my neighbour deserves to die. So, again, do you think you should go to prison too? And you're wonderfully selective with the example you choose. Of course I believe that those who committed murder on Bloody Sunday should face justice. I believe the same of those who committed murder on Bloody Friday, or in Darkley, Teebane, La Mons, Birmingham, Omagh, Enniskillen, Guildford, Ballygawley, Shankill Road, McGurks, Ormeau Road, Greysteel, etc, etc, etc. What about you? What's your view? I'm interested in that distinction you make between political and sectarian murders. Doesn't make sense to me. My neighbour's going to be just as dead, whether I'm killing him because he's a Protestant or because he votes for the Green Party. And at the end of the day, is one reason better than the other? If you think I've 'played down' the unionist misrule bit, I think you've over egged the pudding a wee bit when you talk of Catholics not being able to vote, get a job, and so on. NI may have been a cold house for Catholics, in Trimble's memorable phrase, but it wasn't South Africa under apartheid (though I understand why republicans like to make out it was - makes it easier for them to justify their 'armed struggle'). I appreciate that the GAA members have often been the target of thugs / killers, but they don't have a monopoly on suffering anymore than unionists do. And for what it's worth, I'm not actually a unionist. I played Gaelic football as a child, both for a club and at school. Gave it up when I realised that (a) I preferred soccer and (b) I was crap. 

Great result for Connacht, but not great news for Ulster, given that we have to finish above them to qualify for next year's Heineken Cup.

My point was that...

I support the GAA's message of inclusion to unionists

isn't exactly consistent with:

F the unionists.They aren't needed in the sport. They only burn down GAA clubhouses after torching their own orange halls for the insurance money.

I don't know how you can say you support the message of inclusion, yet see no issue with the bigoted comment, and ridiculously sweeping generalisation posted by carribbear.

I can see the inconsistency you're getting at. It's kind of the point I've been trying to make.

the NI football forum OWC would be good for you - might broaden your horizons a bit.

Quote of the week. Not many broad horizons over there Myles! 

Many posters here have posted there and have been rounded on for being a GAA man. Seems you cant even post in the other sports section over there to comment on a specific GAA issue without being held accountable for every gripe the unionists have ever had with the GAA.

Sure the mods themselves on OWC have openly called the GAA a racist organisation.

The work address and phone numbers of posters on here were even posted publicly for all to see over there.

Whatever about one sided arguments on either board. Theres been some really sinister stuff over on that particular site.

I would argue that the OWC site is much the same as this one in terms of the range of views of posters. The only difference is that one is mainly unionist / loyalist in outlook, the other mainly nationalist / republican. The GAA is seen by a lot of unionists as a sectarian / racist organisation. The IFA and the NI football team are viewed by some on here as sectarian. Rather than dismissing these opinions out of hand because they don't fit with our own take on things, we should maybe look to see where the perceptions arise from. If the GAA has serious ambitions about bringing more young protestants into Gaelic games, it needs to understand where the unionist community is coming from. The work address / phone numbers bit you refer to concerns, I think, the fall out from the incident where NI fans were beaten up outside a bar in Bratislava (I think). A regular from this site posted remarks which caused great anger and offence to NI supporters, and appeared to be doing it from a work computer. Someone posted the work address with the suggestion that complaints should be made to the employer of the person concerned. It was removed by the moderators soon after. Stupid thing to do, I agree, but I'm not sure there was anything sinister about it.

but people calling over to GAAboard posters workplaces to confront the Gaaboard member - thats prob in the 'sinister' category, as is the threat to do it again
also we have the recent bard of dunclug , another ni soccer fan and frequenter of their soccer site and unionist/loyalist counciller who so eloquently labelled the nationalist/catholic community and mentioned his preference to see them done away with.
Plenty more where these come frome and the way GAAboard/pro GAA posters are reported as being kicked off that site for voicing their pro GAA opinion regarding anything shows that their soccer site is nazi-esque in administratio, with posters turning on these pro-gaa people like ravenous hounds on a wounded deer !

So forgive us for not believing that myth of yours that the soccer site is an all encompassing hotbed of open minded debate, we know otherwise.
This is a GAA site, but has a heavy population of posters that are also into other sports - soccer, rugby, cricket (all the 'garrison games'!), plus motor sports, aussie rules,basketball etc etc
a mix that may be present on the soccer site - but completely lacks any Gaa sports -hurling or football in any meaningful discussion, correct me if I am wrong!
That would lead us to believe that the bias is flawed in a sectarian type of way. So the site can hardly be the open minded joy to the world version we have here.

Its not that people are not open to what you have said in your short tenure here already, its how you have said it, and your asertions that seem to miss reality.
Unfortunately Gaa sports are not going to be considered by unionist/loyalist community as their minds are closed towards nationalist/catholic community still yet.
Look at the polarity of voting that has swung in the direction of the dup when the oup/uup declared they were 'all for sharing' the six counties establishment.
Another example is the annual disgrace of triumphalist orange parades through nationalist streets - how could anyone consider this as being anything other than sectarianly motivated (parading through other protestant held streets would be acceptable imo).
We have had this debate on here before and the result was that it is not renaming GAA clubs, ptches, cups, competitions that will alter the minds of unionists/loyaists- as the names of today will melt into history like the names of 1916 and will not be any point of contention for future generations, its the mindset of unionists/loyalists that has to change to be open minded, to want to integrate, then things will change.All other calls for changes in GAA circles have proven worthless and are an example proving my point (Croke park opening, psn/ruc allowed to play Gaelic games - and nothing has changed in reciprocation to these in the unionist/loyalist comunity).
If you cant understand that, you dont understand the problem.
maybe your soccer site will become a well rounded open forum for debate,but given the closed nazi-esque mindset and experiences of many from here on there, its not going to be any time soon.

The reason I registered to post on here was that reading Pat Darcy's comments left me genuinely bewildered. I didn't - and don't - understand how he can talk about reaching out to unionists while at the same turning a blind eye to the openly republican sympathies of some GAA clubs. Your post - and thank you for taking the time to explain your views - shows the same lack of understanding, imo, of the unionist community. You think all the problems are due to the 'mindset of unionists/loyalists' and you argue that this has to change. Actually, it doesn't. If a sales person wants to sell a product to someone, s/he has to make that product attractive to them first. If the GAA wants to broaden its appeal to the unionist community, it needs to make sure it is marketing a product that is attractive to that community. Yet as soon as the unionist community points out how the product could be made more attractive - by separating the sport from militant republicanism - it is howled down and accused of bigotry. You cite the examples of reforms that have already been made as if these alone should have been enough to win over the unionists. But what were these reforms? The reversal of a several partisan policies of exclusion aimed at the unionist community? It's good that these things have gone, but it took a while, and why were they put in place in the first place? And let's be clear about one thing. Celebrating the IRA, either by naming clubs, or grounds, or tournaments, doesn't just jar with unionists. It is also offensive to many from a nationalist background. I'm not going to argue the toss with you about OWC, simply because I've never said it's a bastion of tolerance and liberal viewpoints. I said that there are members of OWC who are prepared to discuss and debate things. I also said that it's not much different from this site, and I'll stick to that too.

the NI football forum OWC would be good for you - might broaden your horizons a bit.

Quote of the week. Not many broad horizons over there Myles! 

Many posters here have posted there and have been rounded on for being a GAA man. Seems you cant even post in the other sports section over there to comment on a specific GAA issue without being held accountable for every gripe the unionists have ever had with the GAA.

Sure the mods themselves on OWC have openly called the GAA a racist organisation.

The work address and phone numbers of posters on here were even posted publicly for all to see over there.

Whatever about one sided arguments on either board. Theres been some really sinister stuff over on that particular site.

I would argue that the OWC site is much the same as this one in terms of the range of views of posters. The only difference is that one is mainly unionist / loyalist in outlook, the other mainly nationalist / republican. The GAA is seen by a lot of unionists as a sectarian / racist organisation. The IFA and the NI football team are viewed by some on here as sectarian. Rather than dismissing these opinions out of hand because they don't fit with our own take on things, we should maybe look to see where the perceptions arise from. If the GAA has serious ambitions about bringing more young protestants into Gaelic games, it needs to understand where the unionist community is coming from. The work address / phone numbers bit you refer to concerns, I think, the fall out from the incident where NI fans were beaten up outside a bar in Bratislava (I think). A regular from this site posted remarks which caused great anger and offence to NI supporters, and appeared to be doing it from a work computer. Someone posted the work address with the suggestion that complaints should be made to the employer of the person concerned. It was removed by the moderators soon after. Stupid thing to do, I agree, but I'm not sure there was anything sinister about it.

[plus the sectarian football for all (ni orangemen) site!]

I've no great wish to wind people up, but as someone with a passing interest in GAA and a much stronger interest in discussion and debate, I feel I've as much right to come on and state an opinion as anyone else. The problem seems to lie in the fact that my opinions don't conform to the republican consensus which passes for political comment on here - ain't that a kick in the head, as somebody once said. 

Passing interest in the GAA  That reminds me I must sign up for the IRFU and Linfield boards very shortly....I have a "passing" interest in both of those...

Not forgetting to send my memebership re-registration form back to DUP headquarters

I can recommend the Munster rugby forum. Also, the NI football forum OWC would be good for you - might broaden your horizons a bit.

the old bandwagon jumpers wbsite, plus the sectarian football for all (ni orangemen) site!having a laff I see !

As someone who has posted on that site, and who has argued in favour of a united Ireland on that site, I can tell you that many of the members are much less bigoted, more open to debate, than some of those posting on this site (present company excepted of course). 

Now that is comedy. Is that the same site where every member of the GAA is labelled as scum?

That's an unfair generalisation. There are some on there who would hold that view, I don't doubt. There are also many who have difficulties with the GAA as an organisation, but not with individual Gaels. There are also some GAA fans who post on the site regularly, and there are even one or two free thinkers who combine support for the GAA with support for the NI football team. And before you race to occupy the moral high ground, you should consider how the word 'bigot' is used euphemistically by posters on this site for someone perceived to be from the unionist community.

[plus the sectarian football for all (ni orangemen) site!]

I've no great wish to wind people up, but as someone with a passing interest in GAA and a much stronger interest in discussion and debate, I feel I've as much right to come on and state an opinion as anyone else. The problem seems to lie in the fact that my opinions don't conform to the republican consensus which passes for political comment on here - ain't that a kick in the head, as somebody once said. 

Passing interest in the GAA  That reminds me I must sign up for the IRFU and Linfield boards very shortly....I have a "passing" interest in both of those...

Not forgetting to send my memebership re-registration form back to DUP headquarters

I can recommend the Munster rugby forum. Also, the NI football forum OWC would be good for you - might broaden your horizons a bit.

the old bandwagon jumpers wbsite, plus the sectarian football for all (ni orangemen) site!having a laff I see !

As someone who has posted on that site, and who has argued in favour of a united Ireland on that site, I can tell you that many of the members are much less bigoted, more open to debate, than some of those posting on this site (present company excepted of course). 

I have no doubt at all that you have posted on that site !

fyi I have argued against a united Ireland on here multiple times !
so have fun with rationalising your stereotypes !

If I've stereotyped you, I apologise. I'd be interested to hear why you're against a united Ireland.

[plus the sectarian football for all (ni orangemen) site!]

I've no great wish to wind people up, but as someone with a passing interest in GAA and a much stronger interest in discussion and debate, I feel I've as much right to come on and state an opinion as anyone else. The problem seems to lie in the fact that my opinions don't conform to the republican consensus which passes for political comment on here - ain't that a kick in the head, as somebody once said. 

Passing interest in the GAA  That reminds me I must sign up for the IRFU and Linfield boards very shortly....I have a "passing" interest in both of those...

Not forgetting to send my memebership re-registration form back to DUP headquarters

I can recommend the Munster rugby forum. Also, the NI football forum OWC would be good for you - might broaden your horizons a bit.

the old bandwagon jumpers wbsite, plus the sectarian football for all (ni orangemen) site!having a laff I see !

As someone who has posted on that site, and who has argued in favour of a united Ireland on that site, I can tell you that many of the members are much less bigoted, more open to debate, than some of those posting on this site (present company excepted of course). 

I've no great wish to wind people up, but as someone with a passing interest in GAA and a much stronger interest in discussion and debate, I feel I've as much right to come on and state an opinion as anyone else. The problem seems to lie in the fact that my opinions don't conform to the republican consensus which passes for political comment on here - ain't that a kick in the head, as somebody once said. 

Passing interest in the GAA  That reminds me I must sign up for the IRFU and Linfield boards very shortly....I have a "passing" interest in both of those...

Not forgetting to send my memebership re-registration form back to DUP headquarters

I can recommend the Munster rugby forum. Also, the NI football forum OWC would be good for you - might broaden your horizons a bit.

Jesus poor Miles.

Must have been a pretty crappy christmas that led to you spending part of your christmas day registering on a gaa site to wind people up.

Did santa not get you what you wanted? 

Happy christmas your holiness,
Actually registered on the 19th, but it took a few days to come through. I've no great wish to wind people up, but as someone with a passing interest in GAA and a much stronger interest in discussion and debate, I feel I've as much right to come on and state an opinion as anyone else. The problem seems to lie in the fact that my opinions don't conform to the republican consensus which passes for political comment on here - ain't that a kick in the head, as somebody once said. 

What literature would you suggest, teacher?

Since you are attempting to wind-up I think i'll pass.

Thought you might.