Parallel Universe Loyalists

 Posted by on July 17, 2013  Add comments
Jul 172013
 

What’s going on with the Loyalist riots?  Seriously now, what exactly is the story with these guys?  On the twelfth of July they’re celebrating the victory of a Vatican-backed gay Dutch bloke over some other rich bastard.

As you know, loyalists are noted for their tolerance of Catholics, gays and foreigners, but does that mean that Loyalism is all about gay, Dutch tolerance?  I don’t know.  Head in to Belfast and check it out for yourself.

What would happen if William of Purple  from Finland arrived in the North today?

What about you there, fukken loyalist friends there, hey?  I’m a flaming Finnish homosexual and the Pope is backin me.  How’s it goin’?  What about you?

Michael Thompson/Harrison Photography

That’s a guaranteed intro for Northern loyalists.  Pushing all the buttons.

My name is Aari and, eh, well I’ll be invadin’ the country, right enough.  Terve!

I can’t see it.  The boys would definitely put down their beer cans and leave off building the bonfire, for a wee while at least.  They might even forget to sign on, though that’s probably unlikely.

What the fuck are you doin invadin aar country?   Who the fuck do you think you are, invadin aar country?  That there is just not all right.   Fuck off, foreign invader fucker gay fucker.  Fuck the fuck off, right enough.  We are the ancient peoples of this land.  Right?

Right.  Of course.

We’re witnessing the birth of the LRA.

 

 

  79 Responses to “Parallel Universe Loyalists”

Comments (79)
  1.  

    Hmm, I think you said it all in this short piece, with all your sarcastic venom (and I mean that in a positive way – wish I could make it as short as yourself).

    But I used to live in Belfast for a year and a half before I moved to the sedate “Southern Irish” countryside. (That’s my favourite game with English people on ebay, when I ask them if they send stuff to Ireland as well, and they ask me, is it Northern Ireland or Southern Ireland, and I go, no, it’s Western Ireland).

    Anyway, I’ve had fun during the “Twelves” on marches and riots, ’cause I loved to go among them and ask them ‘innocent’ questions, as a German blow-in who is seemingly outside of all loyalties. And I got loads of stuttering replies. Like, well, tradition, eh, always, queen’s highway, ehm right of way, the IRA…

    Really, I said, that’s pretty awful, that nobody likes you and even the queen isn’t right here to march with you. How come?

    We are lost, they said. But we are loyal.

    To what, I said.

    Well, right, it’s like, like, the Lord is with us? We are, like, British?

    So why marching and rioting? I says. If the Lord is with you anyway. Don’t you trust the lord whatshisface?

    *But we want to be heard, we want to be noticed, ’cause all that shit with the modern world frightens us. Everyone is going on about the Fenians and the Micks, but what about us? We have to do something about it. And the only way so is to riot. We don’t know any better.

    I didn’t make it up, apart from the last *paragraph.
    These are people who feel abandoned from all and sundry and keep hanging on to the only way of expression and identity they ever knew in their backward ways.

    I did recently, after all these years, a traditional sightseeing tour in Belfast where all the touristy excitement was in the nationalist areas. They are more inventive anyway, and not even the world famous Sandy Row can compete with traditional Irish colourfulness and ‘ah sure, we’ll be grand and have craic’ in the Fallls area.

    Anger about being a minority and the vague insight that nobody likes you is a powerful fuel. I think that the nationalist community up North does know it from times past when THEY were the underdogs and the ones who did the colourful riots.

    Throw in the unusual summer heat this year, the boredom of not participating of any economic success, being uneducated bordering on stupid, not being appreciated by tourists and being the given global eejit, loads of booze – and hey, you have a loyalist riot.

  2.  

    I just don’t think they can hack that Catholics are on the same level as themselves…

  3.  

    mmmmm… What is Loyalism…

    Well as I can see, it’s…
    Bonfires, Irish flag burning, rioting, wearing rangers jerseys, drinking cans of Tenants, racist chants, racist songs, getting pissed & just total hatred for anyone but them selves..
    I’m sure their British conterparts wouldn’t support their traditions, they’d be happy to wash their hands with them if this is what British idenity is all about..
    They should step back & take a look at themselves, let it be via youtube or whatever..
    They are nothing far off a Nazi party or the KKK marching down the street for their culture..
    As sure, you’d have to feel for them, they haven’t must of an idenity left to cling on to since their flag was taken down from Belfast city hall… they haven’t much left to cling on to in terms of culture…
    But if they are left to march.. it’ll be in the reverse with the Nationalists, as it’ll be their turn to riot…

  4.  

    I take it you are not a fan of ‘Orange Culture’ Bock. Good man.

    Some of the jaffas hold down responsible jobs and are well educated.

    Seriously, stop laughing now.

  5.  

    Madhatter I feel sorry for them. I’ve seen them up close and personal and it’s not pretty. They are beyond reasoning with

    When I read the article I thought Bock went a bit OTT but thinking about it brings it all back and every negative arrow he fired is true because frankly that it the way I remember it

    People still remember them pissing all over the streets of Manchester and for this reason it’s hard not to think of a jaffy without imagining them pissing in the street while holding a beer can and singing the sash my father wore. Today it is the sack my father wore

    How about me you and Bock all pile in a car and head off across the border to attend one of those world famous ‘Orange Cultural Events’ which are held in churches in small towns and villages across that beautiful part of the Island and which where apparently all are welcome?

    Not fancy it?
    Nah me neither brother.

  6.  

    Frankly, I can’t see much evidence of a culture.

  7.  

    Frankly neither can I.
    So I take it we shall not be pouring over the border to give love to the cousins?
    Ah well.
    Sure we have all we need here.

  8.  

    I take it that the “gay Dutch Bloke” that you refer to is William III, Prince of Orange and joint King of England (and possessions at that time), together with his wife Mary II. Am I right? You seem to have refrained from positively identifying him.
    Once again, you seem to be dipping into your pork barrel of sex gunk against people with whom you do not agree or otherwise do not like so let me tell you that the historic FACTS do not support any contention that King William was homosexual.
    William had many enemies who would not stop at any slander against him and all the evidence weighed indicate nothing more than a lot of murky minds at work.
    Much of the allegations directed at him centered upon the King’s high regard for one Keppel, a page, and later made Earl of Albemarle, Keppel was involved one day in an accident in the King’s presence and the soldierly William was so impressed with the young man’s stoic and brave attitude in the face of his injuries that he took him under his wing in a paternal spirit. William was without children himself, as Mary had miscarried and unable to bear any further and as such with people in this position, they can often “adopt” de facto.
    This is the detail that his enemies cared to misrepresent.
    Let the King speak for himself:

    “It seems to me to be very extraordinary that it should be impossible to have esteem and regard for a young man without it being criminal”.

    Now other points that you seem to have overlooked are:

    As I already noted, Queen Mary was pregnant by William once, but she miscarried and was left unable to bear any further.(Highly unusual for a homosexual to be getting women pregnant at all ! )
    William had a mistress, Elizabeth Villiers, hardly a commendable practice for a king, but this does indicate a non-homosexual status.
    Keppel, William’s supposed boyfriend, married sometime later and had two children. (Most extraordinary phenomena for a homosexual !!!!)

    Most extraordinary defense being aired by a Catholic, but I do hold King Billy in high regard. !!

  9.  

    John, shame on you for thinking that being gay is a bad thing.

  10.  

    Well, I don’t think it is a good thing. Male homosexuality was crime in King William’s time.

  11.  

    You don’t seem to understand that it’s not meant as an insult here.

    You and the Orange Order seem to share two things in common: a high regard for King Billy and homophobia.

  12.  

    I never took offence. But why did you present King William as gay when in fact most historians have long dismissed this allegation and given his known background there is nothing to suggest that this is so? He had any number of enemies that would gleefully slander him with this kind of thing if they could.

    (I have not forgotten the Limerick Pride blog —- I am trying to compose a carefully worded reply.). By the way, I notice that you have deleted something that “Three of a kind’ said.
    If is just personal offence that he offered, then please just let it through. I am not offended.

  13.  

    John sexual orientation is clearly a big obsession for you but that’s enough about it on this thread which concerns loyalism.

    As to the other thread,editorial decisions are not up for discussion.

  14.  

    Little words speak big things. It is clear that you are defaming King William. The whole area above the picture is full of it.

  15.  

    John
    You have obviously done your research on King Billy and as a result its fair to say we cannot establish if he was a homosexual. Maybe he was bisexual? but his sexuality is not really that important.
    Can you confirm from your studies if he received financial support for his campaign from the Vatican?

  16.  

    I can’t see how anything there disparages King Billy (it’s not possible to defame the dead, incidentally).

  17.  

    I have not looked into that matter although it did occur to me to do so. As yet I cannot find any evidence to support this. Perhaps, Bock can enlighten us.
    At the moment, I cannot see how the Vatican might have been financing William as it would seem to be against their own best interests. James II was the Catholic monarch of England and it must surly have suited them to keep him there. I will have to look further.

  18.  

    I don’t know about the legal nitty gritty of defaming the dead but you can desecrate their memory and what they stood for. I find that uncharitable in the extreme.

  19.  

    John, I’m not particularly bothered what you find uncharitable, but it would help if you could point out something derogatory I said about William.

    By the way, John, what’s this “US” stuff? I already told you we’ve had enough about people’s sexual orientation on this thread, which is, let me remind you, concerned with loyalism. It only touches tangentially on your pet obsession.

  20.  

    Look, Bock, you are the one who brought this “pet obsession” of yours, not mine, into this matter with your article above. It occupies a third at least of the whole composition and it offers very obvious offence to the Loyalists. Who is your character William the Purple, only William of Orange in caractiture? Rubbish sexual insults to the memory of King Billy are interpreted as affronts to them and we can just do without people like you inflaming an unstable and volatile situation which has dragged on, erupting at intervals, for over 300 years. If the Loyalists want to be Loyalists let them be so. The utter corruption that they fostered in Government of the past is now past and we can do without the occasion for its rebirth.

  21.  

    I thought that the “US” stuff occurred in the reply to “Long John Silver” regarding his enquiry on your suggestion that William was backed by the Vatican? I am trying to find evidence of this but as yet nothing —- Perhaps, you can help us.

    (It is 2AM here in New South Wales right now — I’m off now — see you later)

  22.  

    John, I’m not going to explain this article to you line by line.

    I can’t help it if you completely miss the point, I don’t give a rat’s arse if you or the loyalists are offended and I’m not going to pander to your obsession with homosexuality.

  23.  

    Yes, Long John Silver, I am getting a somewhat vague and wolley picture here now but the politics of the time are very complex and hard to follow.
    It appears that James II was not quite the ideal man that the Vatican would like as King of England as he was generally a weak and unstable ruler. Pope Innocent XI actually disapproved of James and refused him any help when he needed it. To make a long story short, funds were actually passed to William because of some rift that the Papacy had with Louis XIV of France. I am still very unclear on the matter but they are the bones of it for the moment. A book written as a novel, but based on fact, was written in 2007 addressing this issue and subsequently banned by the Vatican !! The banning was published in the Telegraph on 19 March 2008 and the name of the book was “Imprimatur” by Rita Monaldi and Francesco Sorti. I am sorry that I am not well informed on this matter — it is new to me also but I hope that I have given you enough to start your own research.

    WELL DONE, BOCK —- Congratulations you actually came up with something substantial AT LAST !!!!!!

  24.  

    I did not miss the point at all. The whole writing is nothing more than a tirade against Loyalists garnished with your usual sex smear gobbleigook that you have uttered against others in other threads, notably the clergy.

    However, in response to Long John Silver, above, and Vatican involvement, there does appear to be something here.

    I sent an answer to him already but it seems to have gone astray somewhere —— I will send another.

  25.  

    Hi Long John Silver —– I am afraid that my first reply got lost somewhere in the pipeline so I will send another which is more or less the same.
    Now, the background: James II, although he was the Catholic monarch of England, was not exactly what the Vatican would like. He was a weak and unstable king that could not be counted upon. The English people had long had a distaste for Catholicism, ever since the atrocities of Queen Mary’s reign, 130 years before and Pope Innocent XI would not approve of James’ methods of re-establishing the Catholic Church. The result of this was that the Pope would not approve of Vatican funds to James at this critical time. However, this meant that the Vatican could not risk a Catholic victory or a victorious James might not forgive them and the Catholic Church would find itself locked out more than ever now !! Better to back the Protestants and just foster good diplomatic relationships. There was also a Vatican rift with Louis XIV of France which exasipated this decision —– I do not understand the implications behind this right now.

  26.  

    Hi Long John Silver again —– In 2008 the was a book written as a novel but based on fact which addresses this issue of William being funded by the Vatican. The book was banned in Italy by the Vatican and printing and distribution of it elsewhere is plagued with all sorts of snags. The matter has all the signs of cover up.
    The issue was reported in the Telegraph dated 19, March 2008 and the name of the book is “Imprimatur” written by Ruth Monaldi and Francesco Sorti.

  27.  

    John, you still haven’t quoted the bit where I disparaged poor William. Do that now please.

  28.  

    Thank you John for your your confirmation of Vatican support for Williams campaign. So its fair to say that without the backing of the pope, William may not have won the battle of the Boyne.
    I doubt very much that there are any flags bearing a thank you message to the Vatican for its support during the 12th celebrations in the North of Ireland. Eaten bread is soon forgotten.

  29.  

    You cannot see how you have disparaged King Williams character?? Well, if somebody published an article wrongfully insinuating that YOU were gay, would you be offended? OK, so you are still living: If someone published something wrongfully about someone dead but for whom you had great respect, would take it to defend them, seeing that they cannot speak for themselves? Maybe, maybe not, but I will !
    When these wrongful assertions about the deceased happen, it is for us, the living to defend the good reputation of those who have gone before.
    In the seventeenth century, homosexuality was a word that you did not even utter in polite company, (“absurd peferdy” I believe it was called) and indeed only up until very recent times, homosexuality was actually a crime.
    Your wrongful account of the man offends others —- be sure of it.

    Now, CONGRATULATIONS !! My little research seems to have uncovered quite strong evidence that the Vatican did in fact provide William with military funds.

    WELL DONE —— It seems that you finally got something right AT LAST !!!!

  30.  

    John — it’s only an insult in the eyes of someone who thinks being homosexual is a bad thing. You, in other words.

    So there you go again, confusing your own personal prejudices with facts.

    (By the way, finally … at last is a tautology).

    Also, please stop shouting.

  31.  

    My apologies if you think I am shouting —- I was just trying to give expression to certain words. Sincere apologies.

  32.  

    Hi Long John Silver again —— Another of my comments to you ran off the rails again and never arrived —– trying again.
    I would not advise you to attend an Orange Day parade waving a flag thanking the Pope for his support of William unless you are bent upon committing some form of spectacular suicide !! The Orange Institution is not amused.
    To illustrate how this matter of the Vatican assisting the House of Orange is still a bitter pill for some hardline Loyalists to swallow, fathom this:

    At Stormont some years ago, there was a painting by a Dutch artist, Pieter Van Muelen, hanging on the wall of the Government building, showing William and the Pope together victorious at the Battle of the Boyne.
    Extreme Unionist, John Nixon and a group of others slashed the painting and threw paint upon it. Where the painting is today is unknown.
    So you see, any talk about “Old Red Socks” giving help to William’s campaign can be dangerous, even today, if said in front of the wrong people, Protestant OR Catholic.
    As I told you previously with the Vatican banning embarrassing books, it is a skeleton in the cupboard for them also.

  33.  

    Bock —- You are capable of writing informed articles and it is a pity that you have to waste it on personal religious bigotries and sex smear rubbish. (Yes, you are bigoted, albeit the other way round).

    Now, the matter of the Vatican resources being channeled into the Williamite campaign in 1688 is well documented although not well KNOWN. Catholic and Protestants alike seem blissfully unaware of this and as it is an embarrassment to both, it is becoming convieniently forgotten history. What I have written to Long John Silver above, posts 24, 25 and 31, is easy to verify. As Simon, over on the Bethany Homes site mentioned, a Te Deum was issued to William by the Pope. It was actually Pope Alexander VII, Innocent XI’s successor, as Innocent XI died in 1689 a year or so after William’s landing in south west England.

    Now, if you want a really noise thread, this subject may well be the way to go about it, but note what happened to a painting as described in post 31. This incident happened over 60 years ago but they still can’t take it.

    And as for the Vatican banning embarrassing books ….. well …… speaks for itself.

  34.  

    John, you’ve now come full circle, and you’repeating the things you said at the beginning.

    As I pointed out at the start, saying someone is gay only a smear in the eyes of a homophobe. That would include the loyalists and you.

  35.  

    No, Bock, I have not come full circle at all. I just consider that the matter of defending
    King Billy’s character against your rantings and ravings is accomplished.

    Now, let me say here, the Orange Institution today venerate King Billy as a great hero and so he is. They THINK that he is THEIR hero. Yet I can well imagine that if King Billy came back today he would disown them as not in his mould at all. They would probably roll out the red carpet for him and hail him as their conquering deliverer from Romanism and Popery —-and maybe within a month or so try to string him up from the nearest lamp post !!!

    Now, in the course of events, Long John Silver asked me to confirm the Vatican matter, something about which I myself did not know at the time —- I thought that it was just some other “nasty goodie” that you found in the gutter somewhere and threw in just for good measure ! But, no ! You have actually hit upon something that is worth writing about.

    So, lets go.

  36.  

    But John, I haven’t attacked King Billy’s character. That’s all in your head.

    I just said he was gay, and that’s no insult, except in the mind of a homophobe.

  37.  

    You seem now to be evading the other subject of the thread, the one that does indeed have some substance in it, namely the Vatican matter.

    Have you bitten off more than you can chew, here?

    I understand —— it could be dangerous.

  38.  

    John, be very clear about this: you don’t decide what the subject is here.

  39.  

    You already decided that. Now you are shying away from it.

  40.  

    John, you made two points, one of which was wrong and the other of which was based on your personal prejudices. That’s all.

    Now do you have anything to add to what you’ve already said or do you not? A simple yes or no will be sufficient.

  41.  

    Yes —- Neither was wrong and neither was personal prejudice.

  42.  

    John do you know or are you friends with any gay people, male or female? I’m genuinely interested in knowing how someone with such a childish and innocent view of life gets on in the real world.

  43.  

    John, you were wrong about the Pope supporting Billy, and your personal distaste for homosexuals speaks for itself, even though you’ve tried to wrap it up in all manner of spurious research and theological waffle. Those are the two things you came here to talk about. You’ve had your opportunity to be the polite face of homophobia, though your mask has slipped from time to time.

  44.  

    Sorry, but you were the one who initiated the Vatican matter and now you are backing off.
    Any reason why??

  45.  

    John, the post stands as it was written. I’m not backing off, just ignoring your childish attempts to control the discussion. Don’t forget, I’ve been doing this a long, long time and I’ve seen these antics many times before.

  46.  

    Tommy — I will reply to you over on the Limerick Pride March thread in a short while.

  47.  

    John, you will not.

    Comment moved back to appropriate thread.

  48.  

    [Note — Comment moved to appropriate thread]

    Tommy, —- I am re-typing your comment from the other thread for other people to follow.

    “John, Do you know, or are you friends with any gay people, male or female?
    I am genuinely interested in knowing how someone with such a childish and innocent view of life gets on in the real world.”

    ANSWER.

    I do not know personally any gay people at this time. I did have three gay friends in the past at different times, years apart. Two were female and one male. I was romantically involved with one of the women.

    Now, you might wonder how this could be: You probably noticed in my supposedly homophobic tirade, that I spoke generally against MALE homosexuality. There is a huge difference between male gay and female gay and the difference is so great that I am inclined to see female homosexuality as not really homosexuality at all.
    In homosexuality, WOMEN KEEP THEIR INTEGRITY AS WOMEN — MEN DO NOT.
    You could know a woman for twenty years and she can hide it without difficulty all the way.
    A man, on the other hand, usually you can it see it in a minute.
    A woman at worst just seems a bit of a tomboy but she keeps her integrity as a woman. Women can also “back out” of this situation almost at will —- men can’t.

    Men on the other hand cut a pathetic picture and in my view, homosexuality has a far more destructive impact upon a man’s personality than a woman’s.
    Effeminate men carry themselves in a manner that is their own subjective image of a woman. Think now for a moment. If you see a man, sometimes built like a stevedore, dressed somewhat like a woman, and simphering along the street in an exaggerated effeminate manner, may I ask, —- what woman have you ever seen carrying herself like that? That is not the way women carry themselves.

    My three friends of long ago: They were all people whom I met at work. My male collogue was an excellent person to work with, very reliable and knew the job well. I got to know him a bit socially also and I felt very sorry for him when he told me of his problems especially a serious suicide attempt that he made. I was sorry when he left the job.
    I do hope that he is OK today.

    How does someone as childish and innocent as me get by ?????
    You know, Tommy, I was of the impression that you were the innocent one !!

    I know that Someone up there just watches over me.

  49.  

    Bock — the appropriate thread is over there and you know that. Tommy’s just came here to look for me — that was all.

    Your reason for shifting the matter over here is just to clutter up the dialogue here in your efforts to evade the important issue. The Vatican —- we are waiting Bock.

    The truth is that you are cornered here and you can’t get around it.
    The matter of slandering King Billy is successfully defended.
    The homosexuality issue here was only in relation to the vicious allegations uttered against him by his enemies and which you dragged in here out of the gutter.

    Now, again this Vatican issue is intriguing —– so lets have it or is it that you really are afraid of offending the Loyalists? Remember you brought it up — now stand by it.

  50.  

    John — do not try to manage this site. It’s not your place.

    I’m assuming that you have as little experience of internet etiquette as you do of human sexuality and that’s the only reason I continue to indulge your juvenile behaviour.

    If you have something further to add to your earlier comments please do so. If not, then, I’ll request you to stop making a fool of yourself. If you find yourself unable to do that, I’m afraid we’ll have to say goodbye to you and your special brand of homophobia.

    It’s in your own hands, John.

  51.  

    I am not talking about homophobia or anything related to it.

    I am talking about the Vatican involvement with the Williamite campaign.
    As you did say that William was backed by the Vatican, lets hear more.

  52.  

    Are you saying he wasn’t?

  53.  

    He was —- you said it on the article —– lets hear more —- I,(maybe we), am/are intrigued.

  54.  

    You can be as intrigued as you like, John, but despite what you might have convinced yourself of, you are not the moderator of this website, and therefore you do not direct the discussion.

    You are, in fact, just another random character on the internet and a borderline troll to boot.

    I will repeat one last time, do you have anything to add to your earlier comments or not? If not, your involvement with this thread is now at an end.

  55.  

    The real truth is that I am just too tough for you.

    Anyway, on the other hand, maybe I should be more patient with you because it is a dangerous subject to approach.

    As I said to Long John Silver, you need to be careful who you say this kind of thing in front of.

    Simon,(Bethany Homes), more or less bore me out when he told you that he was cautioned about “our ways”.

  56.  

    John, there’s nothing tough about you. I’ve dealt with far more competent and articulate trolls than you over the years. You’re simply an apologist for the idiot, homophobic, bigoted loyalists.

    Be honest, why don’t you?

  57.  

    I was hoping to end this whole matter here on a softer note with comment 55 which I don’t think is too much to cope with.

  58.  

    John, are you familiar with the term Volksgerichtshof?

  59.  

    Peoples’ Court in Nazi Germany —- President Rowland Freizler — Very famialiar with the subject of Nazi Germany.

  60.  

    Very good. Are you the individual who commented in Indymedia UK under the name Volksgerichtshof, or a mis-spelling of it, in support of Ian Huntley, the murderer of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman?

  61.  

    Not me. Why?

  62.  

    It’s a remarkable coincidence than, that this individual uses your precise email address. Wouldn’t you think?

  63.  

    Direct me to the article.

  64.  

    Are you sure?

  65.  

    Didn’t think so.

  66.  

    I am not one for posting my email address openly — it will invite junk mail like you never saw it.

    I don’t patronize Indymedia or generally any of the British Press.

  67.  

    It is your address, isn’t it?

  68.  

    John? Are you there?

  69.  

    If it the same address as you have then it is my address —– I posted that address on a friends website some years ago and it was displayed. The junk mail just seemed to flood in after that — I learnt the hard way. I even used to get mail that the anti-virus put up a red flag to. Today that address is junked out —- I look into it sometimes — why I don’t know —— otherwise I just use it for giving to some people like here where there won’t be contact.
    My contact address is a carefully guarded secret now. But you need not worry about me using a back door to here. I will at least be honest with you that way. Another detail that I learnt the hard way is not use my real name on an email address. That gives fraudsters a start and it is peculiar how much info the can get on you.

    What is the article anyway?

  70.  

    I’m not in the slightest bit worried about you using a back door to this site. Where did you get that idea?

    Do you really want me to post a link to the comment on Indymedia? It contains your email address.

  71.  

    I thought you made reference to it on your comments policy about people using a second email address.

    Post what you like to whoever you like. I won’t be searching for it.

  72.  

    I must say John, I have to congratulate you on staying up all night over there in New South Wales to debate these important matters with Bock.

  73.  

    I am involved in a course of study at the moment and I should be giving my undivided attention to my books but you can see how easly waylaid I can be.
    I am often up at all hours nowadays. It is not good for health to be making a practice of this

  74.  

    Nobody forced you to comment here John and you didn’t just comment in passing. You threw yourself into it.

    I sincerely hope your course of study doesn’t require you to be intellectually rigorous.

  75.  

    John after your last response to the question I posed I have to say that I ve taken the decision to no longer debate with you. The issues you have around homosexuality are deeply ingrained and good adult debate should have an element of learning regardless of the position a person takes. In this instance I feel I ve nothing to learn from you nor you from me. I really do hope things work out ok for you. Mind yourself.

  76.  

    I’m inclined to agree. This site is mostly devoted to adult discussion, apart from when we’re being silly.

    John has probably had more space than his limitations deserve.

  77.  

    Thanks for your company, Tommy and for taking the trouble to write back to me Truly, I did value it. Too bad that we cannot see eye to eye but that’s life I suppose. You take care also.

  78.  

    Jesus Bock, just give John the last word on this and he might fuck off for good. That’s what you do when a child is being silly and won’t listen to reason.

  79.  

    John has nothing further useful to add to this discussion.

Leave a Reply