Seamus Heaney

[Nally Stand]

That must be it. I'm stupid. I should have known better that trying to punch above my weight with a couple of SF intellectuals.

While everyone slags off political parties you'll recognise these boys from from their default ad hominems.

Muppet, you might want to read back a few posts. Hardy brought party references into the discussion, and attempted to do so as some sort of personal attack to avoid discussing my *initial point. Ad hominems, you might call that.
(My initial point was that he accused Glens of saying something which he in no way said)

[muppet]

That must be it. I'm stupid. I should have known better that trying to punch above my weight with a couple of SF intellectuals.

While everyone slags off political parties you'll recognise these boys from from their default ad hominems.

I only said Heaney was a fine poet but his opinion on the National question would be of very little relevance come election time.Whats the problem with that,am I not allowed an opinion on this subject.

Not you Glens.

[muppet]

That must be it. I'm stupid. I should have known better that trying to punch above my weight with a couple of SF intellectuals.

While everyone slags off political parties you'll recognise these boys from from their default ad hominems.

Muppet, you might want to read back a few posts. Hardy brought party references into the discussion, and attempted to do so as some sort of personal attack to avoid discussing my *initial point. Ad hominems, you might call that.
(My initial point was that he accused Glens of saying something which he in no way said)

Read it again, before he even mentioned a party you said:

I know you're busting a gut trying to maintain a superiority complex about you on this thread, but you're just getting carried away.

Like I said, the default ad hominem.

[Nally Stand]

That must be it. I'm stupid. I should have known better that trying to punch above my weight with a couple of SF intellectuals.

While everyone slags off political parties you'll recognise these boys from from their default ad hominems.

Muppet, you might want to read back a few posts. Hardy brought party references into the discussion, and attempted to do so as some sort of personal attack to avoid discussing my *initial point. Ad hominems, you might call that.
(My initial point was that he accused Glens of saying something which he in no way said)

Read it again, before he even mentioned a party you said:

I know you're busting a gut trying to maintain a superiority complex about you on this thread, but you're just getting carried away.

Like I said, the default ad hominem.

You conveniently omitted the start of that quote where I referred directly to the issue "He never said the opinions were wrong, he said his opinions will not be of great interest to people." Something the poster in question never engaged in discussion over, choosing instead to resort to "the default ad hominem". His modus operandi being to make insinuations about me based on my support for a political party previously unmentioned in the thread. You then chose to join in this. Also "default ad hominem".

[Hardy]

Muppet, as you can see, that's been the rule in their catechism for so long that they don't even know they're doing it.

Anyway, Nally, would you ever proof-read your posts at least, before you put them out here for all of us to ... well to appreciate. For instance, could you try and make up your mind whether I'm too stupid or too intelligent to debate with you, as your oscillation between these two positions is making me dizzy.

Now, if you're limbering up for another marathon last word competition there, comrade, warm down again, 'cause you got yerself a walkover, me being more inclined to the odd short sprint here and there these days and just in it for the exercise, you know.

However, not to disappoint your longing for a bit of constructive cat-calling that you probably think is debate, here are my responses to your next five posts. Let me know when you run out.

No. You're wrong again.

Sorry – I think you've got that arseways.

And my name is Dutch Doherty.

You and who else?

OK. You have me there.

[Orior]

Will someone please think of the children

[Tony Baloney]

In a classroom in West Belfast, O'Neill sits laughing.

[Main Street]

You know a thread is near the bottom of a dive, when a Meath man is being defended by a muppet on an ad hominem.

Heaney's comment about caste not class, is clever.

Any chance of the English Times article being pasted here? is there one Gaaboard member who knows somebody, who knows somebody, who has a Times' subscription?

[muppet]

That must be it. I'm stupid. I should have known better that trying to punch above my weight with a couple of SF intellectuals.

While everyone slags off political parties you'll recognise these boys from from their default ad hominems.

Muppet, you might want to read back a few posts. Hardy brought party references into the discussion, and attempted to do so as some sort of personal attack to avoid discussing my *initial point. Ad hominems, you might call that.
(My initial point was that he accused Glens of saying something which he in no way said)

Read it again, before he even mentioned a party you said:

I know you're busting a gut trying to maintain a superiority complex about you on this thread, but you're just getting carried away.

Like I said, the default ad hominem.

You conveniently omitted the start of that quote where I referred directly to the issue "He never said the opinions were wrong, he said his opinions will not be of great interest to people." Something the poster in question never engaged in discussion over, choosing instead to resort to "the default ad hominem". His modus operandi being to make insinuations about me based on my support for a political party previously unmentioned in the thread. You then chose to join in this. Also "default ad hominem".

If you left it at that there would be no accusation of ad hominem, but you didn't.

Then you shout ad hominem because I said ad hominem.

QED.

[Nally Stand]

Anyway, Nally, would you ever proof-read your posts at least, before you put them out here for all of us to ... well to appreciate. For instance, could you try and make up your mind whether I'm too stupid or too intelligent to debate with you

Already referred to this.

I actually don't think you're stupid. As I said at the start, you just got a tad carried away while giving your superiority complex a bit of a boost, that's all.

I base this on your eagerness to judge Glens by accusing him of saying something he didn't remotely say, and on your insinuation that you are on an intellectual plane far beyond that of anyone who supports SF.

[Nally Stand]

That must be it. I'm stupid. I should have known better that trying to punch above my weight with a couple of SF intellectuals.

While everyone slags off political parties you'll recognise these boys from from their default ad hominems.

Muppet, you might want to read back a few posts. Hardy brought party references into the discussion, and attempted to do so as some sort of personal attack to avoid discussing my *initial point. Ad hominems, you might call that.
(My initial point was that he accused Glens of saying something which he in no way said)

Read it again, before he even mentioned a party you said:

I know you're busting a gut trying to maintain a superiority complex about you on this thread, but you're just getting carried away.

Like I said, the default ad hominem.

You conveniently omitted the start of that quote where I referred directly to the issue "He never said the opinions were wrong, he said his opinions will not be of great interest to people." Something the poster in question never engaged in discussion over, choosing instead to resort to "the default ad hominem". His modus operandi being to make insinuations about me based on my support for a political party previously unmentioned in the thread. You then chose to join in this. Also "default ad hominem".

If you left it at that there would be no accusation of ad hominem, but you didn't.

Then you shout ad hominem because I said ad hominem.

QED.

In all this discussion, you have never referred to the initial point re Muppet's rewording of glensabu. Rather, you came along just to offer criticisism of me. Default ad hominems, you might call that.

Anyway.....I'll leave you to it.

[muppet]

That must be it. I'm stupid. I should have known better that trying to punch above my weight with a couple of SF intellectuals.

While everyone slags off political parties you'll recognise these boys from from their default ad hominems.

Muppet, you might want to read back a few posts. Hardy brought party references into the discussion, and attempted to do so as some sort of personal attack to avoid discussing my *initial point. Ad hominems, you might call that.
(My initial point was that he accused Glens of saying something which he in no way said)

Read it again, before he even mentioned a party you said:

I know you're busting a gut trying to maintain a superiority complex about you on this thread, but you're just getting carried away.

Like I said, the default ad hominem.

You conveniently omitted the start of that quote where I referred directly to the issue "He never said the opinions were wrong, he said his opinions will not be of great interest to people." Something the poster in question never engaged in discussion over, choosing instead to resort to "the default ad hominem". His modus operandi being to make insinuations about me based on my support for a political party previously unmentioned in the thread. You then chose to join in this. Also "default ad hominem".

If you left it at that there would be no accusation of ad hominem, but you didn't.

Then you shout ad hominem because I said ad hominem.

QED.

In all this discussion, you have never referred to the initial point re Muppet's rewording of glensabu. Rather, you came along just to offer criticisism of me. Default ad hominems, you might call that.

Anyway.....I'll leave you to it.

I wasn't involved in any glensabu rewording at all.

[Hardy]

Anyway, Nally, would you ever proof-read your posts at least, before you put them out here for all of us to ... well to appreciate. For instance, could you try and make up your mind whether I'm too stupid or too intelligent to debate with you

Already referred to this.

I actually don't think you're stupid. As I said at the start, you just got a tad carried away while giving your superiority complex a bit of a boost, that's all.

I base this on your eagerness to judge Glens by accusing him of saying something he didn't remotely say, and on your insinuation that you are on an intellectual plane far beyond that of anyone who supports SF.

Ah I'll change my mind and prolong this again. It's great crack.

If you're comfortable with lying, that's grand, but a little ridiculous, as the chain of posts is just up above there for anyone to look at. I'll just put things straight. You came in with the elbow up (I'm fed up with this 'ad hominem' stuff) in your very first post. I responded with a kick and in your next post you insinuated (since you're so fond of such a mealy word that can be disowned if push comes to shove) that I was so stupid I needed things too be dumbed down.

So you introduced the accusations of stupidity and insinuations of your own intellectual superiority, old son, not me.. I'm happy to play it any way you want, but at least have the balls to stick to your guns and finish what you started instead of squealing like a stuck pig when you get growled at for being uncivil and running to your mammy whinging that somebody called you names when you started it yourself.

Five more:

You did in your arse; you were probably hiding under the stairs.
Caoimhín Ó Caoláin? You're having a laugh.
Gerry Adams, is it, or Jerry Springer?
That's better.
And many happy returns.

[Nally Stand]

Anyway, Nally, would you ever proof-read your posts at least, before you put them out here for all of us to ... well to appreciate. For instance, could you try and make up your mind whether I'm too stupid or too intelligent to debate with you

Already referred to this.

I actually don't think you're stupid. As I said at the start, you just got a tad carried away while giving your superiority complex a bit of a boost, that's all.

I base this on your eagerness to judge Glens by accusing him of saying something he didn't remotely say, and on your insinuation that you are on an intellectual plane far beyond that of anyone who supports SF.

Ah I'll change my mind and prolong this again. It's great crack.

If you're comfortable with lying, that's grand, but a little ridiculous, as the chain of posts is just up above there for anyone to look at. I'll just put things straight. You came in with the elbow up (I'm fed up with this 'ad hominem' stuff) in your very first post. I responded with a kick and in your next post you insinuated (since you're so fond of such a mealy word that can be disowned if push comes to shove) that I was so stupid I needed things too be dumbed down.

So you introduced the accusations of stupidity and insinuations of your own intellectual superiority, old son, not me.. I'm happy to play it any way you want, but at least have the balls to stick to your guns and finish what you started instead of squealing like a stuck pig when you get growled at for being uncivil and running to your mammy whinging that somebody called you names when you started it yourself.

Five more:

You did in your arse; you were probably hiding under the stairs.
Caoimhín Ó Caoláin? You're having a laugh.
Gerry Adams, is it, or Jerry Springer?
That's better.
And many happy returns.

I've a fair idea about the sort of "witty" stuff the above post likely contains, but I should probably do you the courtesy of letting you know that I haven't read it. Sure if I did, and formulated a reply, you'd likely just claim I said something totally different. You do that sometimes. Anyway, you've probably got other posters offering their opinions on Seamus Heaney's remarks that you'll be wanting to sneer at from up on your high horse, so I'll leave you to it.

[Applesisapples]

A fine poet but like Bono his opinion will on the National question will not be of any great interest to the majority of the electorate. 

Translation: His opinion on the national question is different to mine, therefore he is both wrong and unworthy of attention.

No,he is a poet like Bono is a singer,they can have their opinions on the National question but come the elections it will mean nothing.

So what's the point of commenting on something that means nothing?

Plenty of posters do that here, doesn't stop them from talking about a topic, being in the public eye means that the media will always ask you the fleg question, they did it to Liam Neeson yesterday, like he gives a fcuk!!

His answer was class though! I didn't realise John Wayne was from East Belfast.