hboy Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 And her response was: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/1...gately-response Oh man. She comes across as really stupid again. Shouldn't be surprised really. There was a similar piece by her in the Mail I think. It was equally nasty and made her look equally retarded - trying to suggest that his gay lifestyle had caused it and then giving various tenuous reasons why all of which were complete rubbish. He died from complications arising from fluid on the lungs according to most reports. If that fluid was lots and lots of spunk then I could see how his lifestyle might of caused it but as it is it just seems to a terribly unfortunate end to a young life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Daniel Finkelstein's Take My question would be, if Jan Moir wasn't making a point about homosexuality what point was she making? Why if the police and coroner are satisfied that the death was due to natural causes does she think different? Stav, and Moir and the like are trying to spin this as a leftist, gay-lib thing but remove the gay element and it's still a vile, horrid article - Gately's family have always maintained that drugs were not involved in the singer's death, but it has just been revealed that he at least smoked cannabis on the night he died. Nevertheless, his mother is still insisting that her son died from a previously undetected heart condition that has plagued the family. This fella seems to have been a harmless, pleasant little pop singer. There's no suggestion that he was doing much wrong in his final hours. Yet with his body not even buried she calls his mother a liar? Even when official reports support the mother's version. Imagine the uproar if someone did that on here? The article is nasty, spiteful and against basic decency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Thank you, LDV, for underlining the point I made about irrationality. As you obviously didn't do too well at comprehension at school (not surprising in recent times given the abysmal dumbing down of A Levels, Degrees, etc.) try understanding the article along the following lines: 1. Gately was a "celebrity" and therefore anything surrounding his death was going to have media interest in it; 2. Gately died of what is medically termed "natural causes" - Moir does not disagree with this medical finding - snide comments as to her medical qualifications are therefore merely gratuitous abuse; 3. Moir then asks about factors which may or may not have had some influence on the death from natural causes i.e. if there were things which had happened in the absence of which death from natural causes would not have occurred; 4. Moir raises possibilities of drink, drugs or homosexual activity having been contributory factors i.e. the homosexual aspect was one amongst others; 5. The way in which the circumstances of the death have been investigated do not clarify if such causes might have been relevant. LDV - I suggest you get rid of the chip sitting on your shoulder - otherwise you are going to have a lot of trouble understanding many things properly, never mind being able to conduct a rational, reasoned argument. For someone who, I believe, has pretentions to a proper University level of intelligence and intellectual ability, you are currently labouring under a severe handicap. Mind you, you share your "blindness" with some others, including Declan and PK (the latter being so bigotted that the fact that Moir was writing in that well-known Left-Wing branch of the gutter press, the Wail, would be enough to justify blind abuse). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Actually, if you look at the original story on the mail site (they've edited the title)... Mail Link Why has no-one spoken up for the accidental victims in this. The Nolan Sisters must be gutted that an unflattering photo and some bitchy comments about them are attached to the most talked about article of the day. Are all Jan Moir's articles laced with nastiness and spite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Why has no-one spoken up for the accidental victims in this. The Nolan Sisters must be gutted that an unflattering photo and some bitchy comments about them are attached to the most talked about article of the day. Are all Jan Moir's articles laced with nastiness and spite? What are you going on about, accidental victims? Are you suggesting that the Nolan sisters are 'accidental victims' because they appear on the same page? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 It wasn't a serious post Stav, basically, increased traffic to that page, means more people will have seen the unflattering photo of the Nolans and read the catty comments about them. It was just a throwaway attempt at humour, though, & not worth analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 that well-known Left-Wing branch of the gutter press, the Wail I've never heard it called left wing before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 LOL Anyway, the Nolans. She has the nerve to make comment on their size and comeback tour. She trills "Oh, my giddy Spanx power panties!" Judging by the photo of the lady, it's a heck of a long time since she squeezed into anything smaller than the O2 arena! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Saucer of milk for table 10 please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Topping idea Stav I'll have one too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 1. Gately was a "celebrity" and therefore anything surrounding his death was going to have media interest in it; I haven't mentioned anything to do with the fact that his death has had coverage simply because he was a minor celeb. I am well aware there would be media interest in his death 2. Gately died of what is medically termed "natural causes" - Moir does not disagree with this medical finding - snide comments as to her medical qualifications are therefore merely gratuitous abuse; I don't agree. In a case where so little is known about his death other than it appears to be of natural causes, she is someone eager to say a lot, a lot that is irrelevant to his death as well. 3. Moir then asks about factors which may or may not have had some influence on the death from natural causes i.e. if there were things which had happened in the absence of which death from natural causes would not have occurred; Not really, what she does do is make some comment about drugs, because she has heard that Gately took cannabis. This MIGHT have something to do with his death, but there is no indication to say it would. The fact that he smoked some cannabis doesn't mean his life is on a knife edge for those idiots who believe that "all drugs are bad". It is no more significant than to find out that Gately smoked cigarettes 4. Moir raises possibilities of drink, drugs or homosexual activity having been contributory factors i.e. the homosexual aspect was one amongst others; Firstly, drink was not mentioned. Also I don't understand your thinking here at all. Homosexual activity is mentioned by her as a contributory factor? Well, she does allude to that but she isn't specific at all about what she means or why it MIGHT be relevant. 5. The way in which the circumstances of the death have been investigated do not clarify if such causes might have been relevant. It is quite possible it has something to do with aliens. I won't explain how I think this however. But there is certainly something strange going on here. And we cannot dismiss any cause. LDV - I suggest you get rid of the chip sitting on your shoulder - otherwise you are going to have a lot of trouble understanding many things properly, never mind being able to conduct a rational, reasoned argument. For someone who, I believe, has pretentions to a proper University level of intelligence and intellectual ability, you are currently labouring under a severe handicap. May I suggest you read the parts of the article where same-sex is mentioned and explain to me, if possible, what same-sex marriage and homosexual 'activity' really has to do with this. Much of what you mentioned here isn't even related to my criticisms on the article and why it is homophobic. You have just waffled on about what was said in the article, but not about why. You really can't criticise my comprehension of reading material when you clearly don't understand political correctness, and therefore almost certainly have little understanding of homophobia. And the manner in which you have used that term and 'bleeding heart' in this thread is indicative of a certain type who rails against any outspokeness on matters of homophobia and racism by refering to P.C. when they have no understanding of the criticisms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 LDV, Why don't we look at it correctly, it matters not what any so called experts in political correctness say, you cannot force a person how to think, you have to accept some people and in cases religions/races find homosexuality repulsive unatural and against nature, it is not your position to tell others how to think, you need to accept the right of every man to think how he wishes. Now consider what I just said, if you call a person homophobic because the believe homosexuality is wrong due to their national/religious beliefs, doesn't that make you racist towards them also due to the fact you will not accept their views due to them being based on their racial upbringing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Which races find homosexuality repulsive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Which races find homosexuality repulsive? What, are you not capable of using Google? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Which races find homosexuality repulsive? What, are you not capable of using Google? I can, but I was hoping that I could encourage you into another public display of utter idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.