Originally Posted by Verhofstadt

Didn't Madam Editor sack him once and then reinstate him? (can't remember the reasons)

Perhaps she can try again.

Originally Posted by TradCat

I think his point was that we are suffering for a secular form of secular Jansenism with no room for the more charitable outlook that the people had before.

It would be consistent with his disdain for the tribunals and his affection for the likes of Sean Docherty. I think the mistake he makes is that he doesn't distinguish between the powerful and the powerless. To forgive is divine but the children of the world are wiser than the children of the light and holding the powerful to account is essential to the future of this country. It's not about queue jumpers really.

Originally Posted by aggressivesecularist

You've had that experience too. How interesting!

Originally Posted by mccafferty cat

His apalling personal hygiene, we presume

Originally Posted by aggressivesecularist

If that's his point, he fails so olympically to get it across that no trace of what you say can be found in the article.

You sure you're not reading too much into it?

Originally Posted by aggressivesecularist

I hadn't forgotten that.

Originally Posted by Geekzilla

I suspect his fans tend to do that.

Originally Posted by conservative green

I also find myself in the minority on here of finding Water's a refreshing antidote to the cynicism, rushing around, and materialism of modern Ireland.

Are people really saying they don't sympathise with this?

Originally Posted by Oppenheimer

No fan here, I also wrote at the outset he did not make his point well, or at all it seems - just pointing out what I got from the article.