BillyBhoyBrit's Newsletter

In the context of Irish history and politics, then yes. It does. Anything else is muddying the waters. Don't you agree?

And that being the case, the Irish Times is wrong.

 

I feel a song coming on.

What are dark satanic mills anyway?

 

I will reiterate for you Patrick. In the context of Irish history and politics, it muddies the waters to use that term to reference anything other than a Religious persuasion.

That being the case, the Irish Times was wrong to use it.

Given that you have now come to agree with me that the context of words is important then I would have thought you would agree with that sentiment.

 

No Med Dog, I am not ignoring the definition of words. Quite the opposite. I am being very specific in pinning down exactly what that word means in the context in which it is used.

 

A whole ****ing year telling me that the dictionary definition of the word Hun is incorrect and on the very day you break ranks with that argument you want to have a pop at me for CORRECTLY using a dictionary definition of a word.

****ing hell you are a spastic

 

You are not everyone in the world Med Dog.

 

I have been wrong in the past Med Dog. We all have. I was not wrong about that. I am not wrong about this.

After months of you being adamant that Hun was a sectarian word. Today you concede it is not.

Your problem is that you attack me and not what I say. It causes you to miss the point I am making.

Like here for example. The point is that a journalist has lazily used the word sectarian to describe abuse a player has received. I think that is lazy. It affords Religiously motivated sectarian bigots a cover for their own abuse. You cited one example of a Protestant GAA player receiving abuse that may or may not be down to his faith and treat that as one and the same as a Catholic GAA player who has received partitionist abuse. You even confused the two incidents in this very discussion.

Now you go ahead and tell me I'm wrong Paddy.