You can probably judge the success of your blogging from the silence of your peers in scribedom outside of Leinster House Deaglan. They are probably draped over the bar in the Gin Palace or Chaplins like in days of yore discussing the Camelot of blogs through bilious sips of dark stout.

I gave up politics.ie entirely due to the shrill and exasperatingly dull screech pitch debates that pass for comment there these days. I have enjoyed the debates that your page affords and it has reminds me of a better behaved early version of politics.ie. Many thanks for providing a receptacle for comment.

The only other place I post is in First Drafts, Prospect Magazine’s blog section and I think that apart from the odd (in both senses) colourful poster, this blog manages to pitch at the same level.

1) Have to tell you, Robespierre, that the days of heavy drinking in the media are more or less over.
2) Michael: We obviously don’t publish anything we consider libellous, or rather defamatory as the law prefers to call it. There is an issue whereby some contributors (well, one anyway) indulge in what would be known in a debating chamber as “personalities” which have nothing to do with the issue under discussion, and where these are unduly or grossly offensive I would tend to spike them. Normal, day-to-day, run-of-the-mill insults are generally let through!
3) Thank you both for your kind words. I am only one member of a trio that keeps this Blog going in good times and bad, without a penny’s remuneration by the way. Labour of love

@2, well now I know what category I fall into and I’m still waiting for you to provide proof what I said about ‘personalities’ was not true.

But Deaglán you’ll no doubt feel honoured that I only ever post on your blog, and more recently sometimes on Political Reform, and on my own blog, which will remain as it always had my little secret.

And when I do blog on other sites, I always use my own name and stand by everything I’ve said. As I told Mammy O’Rourke when she tried to take me to task for a comment – ‘I don’t need to hide behind anything as I’ll gladly tell you to your face’ … she loves it really!

You are the one who, more than anyone else has had to be asked to play the ball not the wo/man…
And also the one who resorts to ‘personalities’ usually because your arguments are so puerile…However now I realise you are only ‘two’ it explains a lot…I expect this also explains the lack of interest from colleagues in the print media…especially if they read your risible post on Tackling Drugs…or whatever passes for reality in DeagLand…
Oh yeah and you’re really rather BORING…your response to the ‘Spud that came in from the Cold’…was embarrassingly cringeworthy…in fact I was embarrassed for you…!

You are beyond embarrassment Ruby

Thanks Des. Don’t tell me there’s two of them …. I’m leaving the country. Aaaargh!

Thank you Ruby Harvey Oswald

and he spells FitzGerald properly with a capital G too – my cup runth over !!

Word to the weary Deaglán — “ruby” is a computer virus — has a nasty habit of reconfiguring and endlessly replicating itself by manufacturing more and more of the same old “gems” (pause for muffled laughter) but it’ll keep coming back at you until you’re at the outer limits of exhaustion — and you do sound weary Deaglán……….time to install some kick-ass anti-virus software — it’ll do the work for you — signature-based detection involves searching for known malicious patterns in executable code. Quite Easily Done, as we used to scribble at the end of our theorem solving exercises……….but the golden rule is: Do not, I repeat do not, under any circumstances try to “play” the woman … sorry … virus.
ps it also thinks kynos is it’s biatch

(Meself don’t always comment but always read the politics blog)

Thanks folks. For the record, Aidan, your comments are very robust but to the point. I don’t accept that I set the tone. I doubt if you use a different tone in argument with anyone else. Ruby on the other hand is only interested in dishing out petty insults, which is really rather sad. And if I’m so boring why does she send me all these “love-notes”?

I am not going to be dragged back over this well-traversed ground other than to say that you’re “Cooking” the books!

@ 16 Ai-dan……………from that vacuous post I should imagine that “arguing” with you is like arguing with a black hole (despite its invisible interior a black hole can be observed through its interaction with other matter)

Minxie,

Arguing 101: Merely asserting something doesn’t make it so.

Deaglán stating that I am “cooking the books” or you stating that my points are “vacuous” is tantamount to saying nothing at all if you each don’t explain why you think so.

Anyone can trade in cheap retorts.

Ruby has a point. From Deaglán’s post above you’d swear he was an island of civil, polite, reasonable debate surrounded by a sea teeming with nasty, spiteful, internet creatures.

There was a world of difference between Peter Cook’s version of comedy of the absurd and the deeply-worrying tone and content of Tommy Tiernan’s shocking and inexcuisable rant about the Holocaust. We have discussed this ad nauseam in numerous previous blogs and you are the one who is being cheap by suggesting otherwise. i am sure that anyone who wishes to read the exchanges can do a search for ‘Tommy Tiernan’ on this Politics Blog. I still cannot help suspecting that you have some sort of professional or personal link with the guy.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Your phrase, “A person who had a problem with jokes about the Holocaust” is most revealing. That’s the real point of difference between us. Like most people, I have a very big problem with “jokes about the Holocaust” and you don’t seem to have any problem at all or,if you do, it ain’t very serious.

Head-wrecking, that “style” of disputing by aidan/ruby. It is vacuous because it has no substance of it’s own but takes the substance of an argument being made, “negativises” it and then throws it back at the one making the argument … and with a few insults tagged on for special effect. If you’re not going to install some anti-virus software Deaglán, try some insect repellent ’cause those little mosquitoes will never give up trying to drain the life blood out of a body…

Aidan, Not like you to fall back on cop-out lines. I am disappointed. You say I am “not speaking to the point”. The whole point of our near-interminable exchanges on that deeply-unfortunate rant by Tommy Tiernan was that you put a comedian’s right to say whatever comes into his/her head above the need to honour and respect those who died in the Holocaust and to ensure that it never happens again. There is no other point. If I choose to present my argument with a picture of Belsen, you can just as easily insert a link to something else – indeed you have done that from time to time.

@ 16, Aidan, you refer to a sincerely held “belief” of yours that the Decalogue is not, as you put it, “the best guide for morality.” Clearly it may be inferred from your statement that you accept the necessity of “morality” for human beings in the struggle for attaining an optimal society at any given time and that people need guidance in maintaining such. Could you please outline for us the guidelines for whatever system it is that you would adhere to, and that you believe to be superior to the guidelines many believe to be given to human beings by God? I eagerly anticipate a categorical imperative … or two … when you have looked up (“researched” — don’t wear out the keyboard) any distinctions involved re considerations of an ethical live and a moral life…

Minxie,

You just wrote the equivalent of “it is vacuous because it is vacuous”. I still have no way to answer that.

Just a quick road map for you here: If you want to say that something is vacuous you should take the point being made and explain why it is vacuous. Here’s a point I made in the post you took issue with.

“In the debate on drugs, there were many reasonable comments which disagreed with you that were not personal, contained statistics, and pointed out the rather large holes in your argument. Your response was basically to call those who disagreed with you a nasty bunch, lacking in moral fibre.”

You might argue that this is untrue. You can check the blog in question. You might say there was no stats provided, or that the stats weren’t relevant in some way etc. Other than you doing those things, the point stands pretty well that Deaglán was the first one in drugs issue to get nasty, without much provocation, and in the context of Deaglán saying that he can’t believe other people’s nastiness is well worth making. Not vacuous at all.

Also, you said “with a few insults tagged on for effect….” If you’re going to talk about insults you should quote them. Otherwise I have no idea what you’re talking about, and I can’t respond. How I am to know what you think is an insult and what isn’t otherwise? Now, I’ve read back through that post and I can’t see any “tagged on” insults there. If you don’t point them out in your next post I’m going to have to assume that you’re still trying to score cheap points.

It’s very difficult to take a lecture on vacuousness from someone who continues to say nothing that can be replied to.

1) Your response is all flannel, Aidan. It comes down to a difference in attitude towards the Holocaust. You’re just not all that bothered about it, isn’t that the case?
And I never wished for the end of Tommy Tiernan’s career, only that he would issue a proper apology which, as far as I am aware, he has not done so far.

2) Can I draw the attention of readers to the following from one of Ruby’s recent comments:

I inherited a keen wit, which combined with my academic and professional education and experience I am able to use to advantage in lampooning stupidity.
That much and the extent to which my material is appropriated by others, in some cases verbatim, including print journalists/Editors is to quote Basil Fawlty ’stating the bleeding obvious’, and I make no apology for that.

(You couldn’t make it up!)

Yeah, Aidan, why can’t ya take a joke? Lighten up, just like you expect the Holocaust victims to do!

Aidan, It’s not a question of “getting” the Holocaust, it’s a question of caring about it. I cannot avoid the conclusion that you don’t care all that much. Your attitude is in contrast with that of Archbishop Martin who spoke out very quickly on the extraordinary Tiernan monologue. I am also trying to locate the link to the Peter Cook item so people can make up their own minds.
Again: do you have any personal or professional link with Tommy T? Let’s start with the easy questions: Do you know the fellow personally? Do you go for pints together? Are yiz mates? Do you work for him in any capacity?

Liberal Fundamentalists! What are ya going to do……….they’re so……….pleasant………..yes, pleasant when you go along with them but soooooo tetchy when challenged
btw Aidan why don’t you respond to bairbre’s post @33?

minXie,

I’m not tetchy, I just want you to flesh out your points, add quotes – provide an argument I can actually respond to. When you were challenged on your point you retreated behind the “I was only making a joke” and now suddenly you are “challenging”. Make up your mind. Do you actually have anything of worth to say?

Aidan: Okay, I accept you have no connection with TT. I was wondering if you had, because of the way you are obsessing about the Holocaust monologue. In fact, if you were a mate of his, I realise now, you would be letting the matter drop. We have had these arguments before and are now repeating ourselves. Things must be very quiet at work (There, go on, take offence at that, why don’t you?)
As for Peter Cook, I can barely remember the sketch or joke that you refer to but it did not strike me as being in the same league at all as TT’s very disturbing rant. So, you see, I am not against “black humour” per se. Each joke has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and I would be for taking a very liberal approach by and large. I mean, look at the number of jokes there are about death.
Anyway, send me the Peter Cook link, ‘cos it was you who drew my attention to it in the first place, and we’ll continue this discussion – till the cows come home.

Cop-out! As soon as you are asked to provide evidence, you refuse. Is that your style of argument?

@ Aidan — In assessing one’s “opponent” a light-hearted dart throwing strategy usually works to get one to reveal what it is that drives one. So far, from your posts, I understand that Hot Press is your “bible” and Niall Stokes (the little darlin’) is for you the great arbiter when it comes to moral assessment and individuals under public scrutiny for causing offence, also and taking your enthusiastic appraisal for an alternative you suggest for the Decalogue to its logical conclusion, the United States, on account of a particular guideline in its Declaration of Independence (1776), should by now (2010) be the perfect role model for the rest of the world.
Liberty and the pursuit of happiness……….or perhaps sex and drugs and rock and roll — much depends on interpretation. I see you would do away with 1, 2 and 3 of the Decalogue. I’m guessing you would also amend the 5th to allow for euthanasia
Ps @ 42 Mark – Well it would seem we have a potential dictator in our midst — wants to do away with comment ‘n the blog. Wonder what would be Mark’s regime of choice — totalitarianism — fascism — despotism? Hitler — now there’s a “big name blogger” all right.
I admire Deaglán and I really like his blog. He allows the most badly thought out of posts (including/especially my own) and even the most nasty insults against himself, which makes for interesting reading since a long thought out contrived response reveals nothing of the person and getting to know people is the interesting thing imo. I have to say, I find Ruby (in spite of her many faults !!) to be one of the most interesting posters (don’t tell anyone but I think Deaglán does too)

Deaglan,

This is pointless. For you, there is no reasonable defence that can be made of Tiernan, and all attempts to explain Tiernan’s comments are basically masking the insensitivity of the commenter (“flannel”). That’s why I didn’t want to get back into it.

The unanswered question is this: is this your assessment of all those who defended Tiernan? It seems easy on this blog to tell a commenter, like me, that they are insensitive to the Holocaust, but it seems that you can’t carry the courage of your convictions to state the same about Niall Stokes, for instance.

I said before that this was understandable. I mean, you can’t as an IT journalist go around saying that the editor of one of Ireland’s major publications lacks sensitivity for the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, unless you’re really sure of your position. What would you say to me instead if I happened to be Niall Stokes? Would you stand by the things you’ve said here, and the way that you’ve conducted yourself?

Also, I note from the previous blog that when the Cook joke was brought up you proclaimed immediately that the jokes were “different” with great confidence. Now it seems you need a link in order to make an assessment. How did you make your assessment previously?

Finally, this is the first blog I’ve ever commented on that I’ve been slagged off by the blogger for spending time commenting. It’s a novel approach, I’ll grant you that.

1) We’ve been over that. Move on.

2) You’ve already considered the Cook joke and declared it to be totally different quite a number of times. Anyway, as far as you’re concerned there’s no reasonable defence of Tiernan that can be made, so continuing down this line is utterly pointless. Move on.

Answer my last post. Courage of your convictions, and all that. What say you to Niall Stokes? What if I was Niall Stokes: would you stand by your statements about my personality and how I regard the Holocaust?

I admire Deaglán and I really like his blog. He allows the most badly thought out of posts (including/especially my own) and even the most nasty insults against himself, which makes for interesting reading since a long thought out contrived response reveals nothing of the person and getting to know people is the interesting thing imo. I have to say, I find Ruby (in spite of her many faults !!) to be one of the most interesting posters (don’t tell anyone but I think Deaglán does too)

Thanks MinXie!

Comment by minXie | Edit This

“Your attempted defence of an indefensible and tasteless rant on the Holocaust is a shabby and deeply-questionable exercise and an extraordinary waste of your time and obvious talents.”

Would you say the same to Niall Stokes and all other people who defended Tiernan? Is it your opinion that they defended Tiernan because they lack the requisite care about the Holocaust?

And, if you’re talking about bullying: I find it very, very interesting that you have no problem at all trashing my morality for trying to defend Tiernan in what I consider to be a reasonable manner, but you won’t bring yourself to say a word about the morality of level of care about the Holocaust of the other people who defended Tiernan. Scared of the big boys, Deaglán?

P.S. I don’t have a link to the Cook joke. It was very simple. It was a joke about people complaining that television violence makes people go out and commit similar acts. Cook says that he watched a documentary on the Holocaust and then stated that he found himself “gassing six million Jews on the way back from the shops”. But, seriously, there is no point to discussing Cook further. You’ve stated that Tiernan is indefensible, and our discussion on Cook did not previously change your mind. Why go over old ground again and again when there is literally nothing that can convince you that Tiernan can be defended. I’m not dodging, I’m just trying to save my time and obvious talents.

Deaglán,

You’ve said that before on the Cook thing when I explained it before. See. We got nowhere.

The logic of your position, that Tiernan is utterly indefensible, dictates that those who defend Tiernan are in some way morally deficient for doing so. There is nothing anyone who defended Tiernan could say to convince you otherwise, so the whole “let them come to my blog and comment” thing is a cod.

They’d all say the same things I’m saying. The point about Peter Cook was made in Hot Press. Niall Stokes defended Tiernan’s comments as being taken out of context. What could he say now otherwise if he was commenting here to convince you of that? Nothing. You’ve stated that Tiernan is indefensible.

Of course, it’s easy to pour scorn on some unknown commenter, some small fry, but it’s rather uncouth for an Irish Times journalist to say that the editor of Hot Press and other high-profile people don’t have the correct level of sensitivity for the victims of the Holocaust.

The great thing about my position is that I can argue it to anyone, without fear, because I didn’t get personal here. I can talk at length about the context of jokes, similar jokes etc., etc, all the points I made here, without needing in any way to talk about the personality of the person I am arguing with. The only thing I said about you is that you are obviously ignorant of quite a lot of contemporary comedy, which isn’t an insult, it’s just a fact.

So, my original point, that you have no right to complain about other’s nastiness, unevenness, spitefulness, insults, unreasonableness etc. stands very, very well. You should be able to maintain your position no matter who you are talking to, without fear.

I made an argument. Others made the same argument. You called me a moral degenerate for making my argument. You can’t bring yourself to say that of the others, because in order to explain away my argument you’ve had to paint me as quite a nasty person with quite a lot of insults (unknowing anti-Semite, Holocaust-enabler, insensitive etc. etc.). Can’t do it to the others though. Too high profile. Can’t be seen be as nasty to those people, can we?

I think my original point is well proven. We’re done here.

Aidan,
1) You keep saying “We’re done” and then you come back for more. Whisper it: are you perhaps suffering from a mild form of obsessive compulsive disorder? That’s a serious question, by the way, not an insult.
2) Will you please stop trying to start rows between me and the rest of the world? Enough of this intellectual cowardice, Naydo: have a bit of bottle and stand up for your own views without doing the equivalent of calling in your big brother. If someone else writes a comment here on Tommy Tiernan, whether he’s the editor of the New York Times or Le Monde or the NME I shall be more than happy to respond to it. I don’t pick fights with people but will defend myself if attacked. Anyway, I don’t even want to have this discussion with you, never mind anyone else. It’s done to death.
3) As for the South Park lyrics: they seem pretty nasty tho’ I don’t know the context and cannot make a definitive judgment. The fact that the series may be widely-praised – what has that got to do with the price of eggs? I am clearly not as up to speed as you on contemporary comedy. Any time I attend a gig or listen to someone on the TV, much of it comes across as pretty tasteless with people substituting f-words and other forms of obscenity for genuine wit. The camerawork is often quite manipulative, showing people applauding a particularly tasteless item as a way of lessening the possibility of a formal complaint. I am neither a prude nor a Holy Joe, but at times I feel we are on the cusp of a new form of fascism with the decline in public morality as one of the symptoms.
4) I didn’t call you a moral degenerate: stop playing fast and loose with the facts please. It is clear that you don’t lie awake at night fretting over the Holocaust: I think that is a reasonable and even unavoidable deduction. And while you are patting yourself on the back for being so fearless, let me point out that you are some pseudonymous or semi-anonymous bloke who hasn’t got the guts to even use his own name (or full name) on his comments. Now are we done, Aidan? I have a feeling I shall hear back from you.

Thanks Bairbre. I hadn’t thought of Salman Rushdie in this context. Very interesting. Dread to think what would have happened to Tommy if he had joked in the same terms and tone about the other side of the Middle East conflict.

@58 MinXie…have you been at the cooking sherry?!

@61 Did I read that correctly… you are describing this blog an ‘internet legend’…sez who…?…apart from yerself a course…? And you know what they say about self praise…! Have you won a blog award…that you’re keeping to yourself?

@37 No you couldn’t make it up and I haven’t made it up and if you think I have made anything up tell me what it is and I will rebut it…!

Post-menopausal! Now that’s not very nice. I have more than one other female contributor – do you mean MinXie, Bairbre or Barbera2, to name but a few. You have no idea who they are or what stage in life they are at. Incidentally, I wrote “internet” not “international” legend. A bit of self-mockery but you took it seriously. So much for your self-proclaimed superior wit

I am not an expert on comparative religion but as far as I am aware Muslims do not portray the face of the Prophet at any time, unlike Christians who are very eager to show the face of Jesus, as with the Turin Shroud, the Crucifix, etc. Showing the face of Mohammed is clearly an issue of great sensitivity and should be treated as such. That, of course, does not in any way, shape or form justify the threat of violence, much less the use of violence (just to anticipate your ritual, knee-jerk distortion of my views, Aidan.)

Jac’Hughes @ 66: I note your gratuitously insulting remark. So another nasty piece of work emerges from the Blogosphere (sigh!) The supply seems to be endless. Why not try making a contribution of substance instead, once you have polished off the wine?

Gollygosh, this is getting hot and heavy. What will Rubyharveyoswald say in reply, I wonder?

Aidan, I quite enjoyed the George Carlin monologue although a strong Christian might find it somewhat offensive. Hadn’t heard of him before. Certain irony in the fact that he is apparently no longer with us: 1937-2008. Looks like Jehovah had the last laugh

Why is calling someone post menopausal ‘not very nice’…
If someone i.e. minxie et al remember Mr Ed cf Screen**iter blog then she must be at least in her 60’s that would by anyone reckoning make her post menopausal…
It’s really quite scary how obsessed you two are with me…that post @71 is quite mad…
I don’t perceive anyone on these blogs to be ‘a threat’…
Aidan is impressive having demonstrated an analytical acuity by his patient deconstruction of ill constructed opinion masquerading as argument…
I suspect he is either a Philosophy or Science Graduate…
I enjoy reading his comments in particular the way he takes the view of his opponent and unpicks the argument thread by thread until it unravels entirely…it is a skill I recognise from my Professional work…
My day is busy and I deal with complex issues I therefore prefer to spend my free time when I have any lampooning the stupidity of the less educationally advantaged…
Think that covers it…well as far as I’m concerned…

Not surprised you haven’t heard of George Carlin. There’d no irony in the death of a 71-year-old. Happens to a lot of 71 year olds.

Of course, according to your religion, he’s probably in hell right now endlessly screaming his guts out. And when you get to heaven one of the bonuses is that you’ll get to watch. Nice.

I find it hard to think of a perfect creator who would create a universe where small-minded religious bigots get rewarded with eternal happiness, and thoughtful and truly talent people of the likes of Carlin get burned for eternity.

On that point of irony, you seem to be suggesting that God might have offed Carlin and got the “last laugh”. Do you think that God does such things? Or, if not, does he laugh at the death of atheists? Christopher Hitchens, an outspoken and eloquent atheist, has cancer of the throat – this would only be an irony if you believed that God gave people who anger him cancer of the throat. Do you believe such things?

Pourquoi? What rules were broken?
As I recall it was a perfectly reasonable comment unlike for instance 74 above, if that is not bile not to mention deranged I don’t know what is…!
If you’re going to apply the rules then I think you are required to do so equitably…including your own gratuitously offensive comments which are quite scandalous…
Aidan you read the references correctly for some incomprehensible reason the Blogfather has not published my acknowledgement…Another little ‘Napoleon’ of the four and two legged variety…I will jkeep a watching brief on your ahem progress …

I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea if you put the stopper to this thread Deaglán, since Ruby’s obviously scraping the barrel now and I strongly doubt that Aidan would wish to be “supported” by a big fat middle-aged, grumpy, menopausal woman with a chip on both her puffed up padded shoulders!

I assume that arbitrary rule will apply equally to all those using multiple pseudonyms…?
As far as my professional status is concerned your elderly church mouse is, as ever, wrong in every particular…
I never learned to type on principle precisely because I refuse/d to be and have never been anyone’s secretary…
I know some excellent legal secretaries however…
As far as my appearance is concerned modesty forbids me from commenting…
I would have to leave comment on that to those facebook friends who comment on this blog and have access to my physiog…
Let’s just say I’ve never had any complaints and I was asked to model both cosmetics and my then lovely hair in my youth….it’s a bit more shall we say ‘distinguished’ now…!…Nice try tho’!
I suggest you arrange a Professional get together and invite Deaglan…he’s mad for it…
Ooops sorry can’t make it… I’m watching paint dry that night…

Lawks a-mercy……….this is running ‘amuck’…………kind of interesting though, the apparent politeness and camaraderie between men in our culture (which is generally evident in comments forums) as in contrast with the utter bitchiness and sometimes murderous spite between women which often prevails and I am oft stunned by the sheer nastiness of comments directed at female columnists – even more so when the such vitriol emanates from women. Precarious thing, this civilization business……….time for another look at that social contract maybe……….and are people losing the run of themselves in what some would describe as the aftermath of religion in an increasingly secular society………..weird, though, when a woman attacks another woman at the level of the very core (womb) of her being – maybe it’s an equality thing………if men can establish superiority over each other with a particular body-part measuring contest then women can challenge each other on the basis of womb functionality………. Lawks a-mercy…

Two years Deaglán? Yer naught but a cub here yet. Some of us been commenting on the IT blogsite (this and previously ireland.com) for 8 years and more. Tho’ you could stick a few xeros after that 8 and I wouldn’t be surprised. Feels like it at times. What’s 8 times 365? Minus oh say about ten days in total for births marriages weddings divorces sick days drunk days carcrash days pre-wi-fi days. Janey. Forever. That’s what it is.