Quote: Aaron @ October 23 2009, 3:37 PM BSTThat's not actually what the article says though, is it?
Not explicitly, but Moir mentions gay so much that the reader is clearly being invited to draw certain conclusions
In speculating on the already-established cause of the chap's death, she spends far more time focusing on gay than she does anything that could plausibly have contributed to his death.
She makes one mention of his outing towards the beginning of the article, and one rather dubious attempt to link his death to the most recent other celebrity death at the end. Hardly "focusing on gay".
Didn't she also call for all gypsies to be killed? And working mothers to be stoned to death?
I didn't read it, but applying a DailyMail style focus. I assume that's what she probably said.
Quote: Aaron @ October 23 2009, 3:55 PM BSTShe makes one mention of his outing towards the beginning of the article, and one rather dubious attempt to link his death to the most recent other celebrity death at the end. Hardly "focusing on gay".
Don't be naive. The only reason the article exists is to set up a "gay lifestyle" straw man that Moir can burn down.
If you doubt the veracity of that statement, ask yourself what the relevance is of Gately's husband being bummed (she assumes) by a stranger while Gately died. Or the relevance of civil partnerships to a pulmonary oedema. Or George Michael's ongoing antics. Or Matt Lucas's husband's suicide.
Bottom line - the doc said he died of natural causes. Moir remains convinced that there must have been something else involved. If she was interested in the drugs angle she would have spent more than one sentence on the cannabis that was smoked.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 23 2009, 4:10 PM BSTDon't be naive. The only reason the article exists is to set up a "gay lifestyle" straw man that Moir can burn down.
Evidently things are different in your bizarre little world, but I prefer to draw judgements upon what people have actually said rather than upon what I have decided that they mean.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 23 2009, 4:10 PM BSTIf you doubt the veracity of that statement, ask yourself what the relevance is of Gately's husband being bummed (she assumes) by a stranger while Gately died.
To establish the depravity of society, to question the perpetuated myth that he was some kind of saint who wouldn't go near anything that wasn't entirely wholesome. And let's be quite clear about this: neither she nor I have made mention of "bumming" or any other homosexual connotations. That's all you and your complainy friends. What she notes is the presence of another person.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 23 2009, 4:10 PM BSTOr the relevance of civil partnerships to a pulmonary oedema. Or George Michael's ongoing antics. Or Matt Lucas's husband's suicide.
And that's the dubious part of the article that I questioned in my previous post. Now you're not even reading what people have said before jumping to your own conclusions.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 23 2009, 4:10 PM BSTBottom line - the doc said he died of natural causes. Moir remains convinced that there must have been something else involved. If she was interested in the drugs angle she would have spent more than one sentence on the cannabis that was smoked.
Discounting the title of the article, which we've no way of knowing whether it was her or an editor who wrote it, she doesn't actually point fingers in any specific direction as to his death. What she does note is something that I found rather peculiar; that his friends and family were a little too insistent right from the start that he wasn't into drink or drugs. As Tim noted above, that remains to be proven.
I do wish that people would climb down from their pursuit of victimhood liberal agenda high-horses.
Quote: Aaron @ October 23 2009, 5:04 PM BSTEvidently things are different in your bizarre little world, but I prefer to draw judgements upon what people have actually said rather than upon what I have decided that they mean.
It's not that little a world. You're the one expressing the minority view here, remember. Most everybody else who's commented on that article had substantially the same interpretation that I did.
To establish the depravity of society, to question the perpetuated myth that he was some kind of saint who wouldn't go near anything that wasn't entirely wholesome. And let's be quite clear about this: neither she nor I have made mention of "bumming" or any other homosexual connotations. That's all you and your complainy friends. What she notes is the presence of another person.
Right, she merely noted the presence of another person.
After a night of clubbing, Cowles and Gately took a young Bulgarian man back to their apartment. It is not disrespectful to assume that a game of canasta with 25-year-old Georgi Dochev was not what was on the cards.
Cowles and Dochev went to the bedroom together while Stephen remained alone in the living room.
Clearly she wasn't suggesting anything sexual was going on. Nope. Nothing suggestive about that at all. I wonder how anyone could think such a thing. Must be my dirty mind.
I do wish that people would climb down from their pursuit of victimhood liberal agenda high-horses.
Oh, is that what's happening here?
I'd rather be on that high horse (I'm not) than a pointlessly contrarian high horse that has not a leg to stand on.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 23 2009, 5:50 PM BSTClearly she wasn't suggesting anything sexual was going on. Nope. Nothing suggestive about that at all. I wonder how anyone could think such a thing. Must be my dirty mind.
Well clearly she was, and that's what I meant - but that's nothing to do with his sexuality.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 23 2009, 5:50 PM BSTIt's not that little a world. You're the one expressing the minority view here, remember. Most everybody else who's commented on that article had substantially the same interpretation that I did.
Yes, sadly it does appear that I am one of the few non-sheep in the country, with the ability to assess things objectively, unclouded by damaging emotion.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 23 2009, 5:50 PM BSTI'd rather be on that high horse (I'm not) than a pointlessly contrarian high horse that has not a leg to stand on.
You stay up there (you are), but it's making you a very pointlessly angry, sad little man. You're winding yourself up with your own analysis of something, not being wound up by the thing itself. Quite pathetic.
Why do you, and the liberal and homosexual crowd, feel the need to seek out such victimhood? A depressing state of affairs this society is in.
Quote: Aaron @ October 23 2009, 6:09 PM BSTWell clearly she was, and that's what I meant - but that's nothing to do with his sexuality.
That's a fair point, but it has to be taken in the context of the article, which went on to discuss civil partnerships, lifestyles, and such.
Yes, sadly it does appear that I am one of the few non-sheep in the country, with the ability to assess things objectively, unclouded by damaging emotion.
Live long and prosper mate.
You stay up there (you are), but it's making you a very pointlessly angry, sad little man. You're winding yourself up with your own analysis of something, not being wound up by the thing itself. Quite pathetic.
Yeah, I'm really raging here. Furious.
Oh, Aaron!
*insert crazed American sitcom audience whooping and cheering*
Quote: Aaron @ October 23 2009, 8:01 PM BST*crazed American*
They'd have to be.
LET'S GET READY TO RUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMBLE !
