Nice piece, down to Dr No.

Can he shake of the devil of sectarianism he created to gain power, long enough to hold the mantle in his hand, or will the wee devil eat him at the altar of power sharing ?

Seen it all now - Shay says there was no sectarianism in Ireland before Paisley :)
You wouldn't be related to Oliver J Flanagan would you ?

Ball not man.

Where did I say that there was no sectarianism in Ireland before Dr No ?

The devil he created to gain power, do you recognise it ?

Or are you too blind to see?

the devil of sectarianism he created

He didn't create sectarianism :)He wasn't even the first to use sectarianism in Ireland to build a power base.

I'll be charitable and accuse you of hyperbole.

Ball not man , please keep on thread.

Perfectly proper to address your ridiculous claim that Paisley created sectarianism :)

Junior :

My phrase was :

"The devil of sectarianism he created to gain power"

If you can't see the nuance that's your problem.

Now grow up and enjoy the rest of your weekend, your childish antics are boring me.

I have tried to tell you nicely, but it just won't sink in.

Regards,

If Paisley signs then it will because he won. Gerry Adams's bluff will be called.

The DUPs' time has come. Good government for all the people of Ulster but there will be no truck with Dublin or Rome.

With four cabinet posts we are in a powerful position to bring about our Ulster. A christian Ulster at peace with itself.

The enemies of Ulster will soon realise it is not the Papist leaning Trimble in charge now. Remember SF there is such a thing as sacked Cabinet ministers and the term send them to coventry springs to mind.

We won.

To the victors the spoils.

God Save The Queen.

14

Problem is that Paisley didn't even invent the use of Sectarianism as a tool to gain power Shay.
If you make daft claims like that you are going to be challenged.

Hyperbole.

Davros :

concentrate a little :

The article is paraphrased as "The high priest of sectarianism eyes ultimate seat of power"

To which I state (referring to Dr No) :

Can he shake of the devil of sectarianism he created to gain power, long enough to hold the mantle in his hand, or will the wee devil eat him at the altar of power sharing ?

Now do yo get it ?

Another clue maybe :

Here is the wee devil in action.

He more than any should know how hungry it can be, he let it out of the bag and laughed as it ate O'Neill and many others.

Now he keeps looking over his shoulder to see if it's still in the bag, must be hard to sleep at night.

Davros, Ian Paisley didn't creat all the devils of sectarianism, just this particular one that shay was referring to. is that better?

It's still as nonsensical for you to claim that paisley created sectarianism as it was for Oliver Flanagan to claim there was no sex in Ireland before Television - While I can accurately point out that SF/IRA created the car-bomb, I cannot honestly claim they invented terrorism :)

It's closer but still inaccurate Fraggle.

Paisley, while being an evil sectarian monster did not invent sectarianism, he was just more adept at using it to his political advantage.

Agreed Pat :)

If Paisley and Adams can agree a deal they should both be asked the same question, what was the last thirty years about and the 3000 lives

I suspect that the only part of the deal that was easily agreed was a "no awkward questions about the past allowed " clause alex .

Quite difficult to find "Home Thoughts from Abroad" online, but it's here :
Coping with a Christ who does not want women priests almost as much as He wants Ulster to remain British

Tom McGurk's article is historically inaccurate in so far as Ian Paisley was strutting his stuff around Belfast in the 1950s, having established the "Free Presbyterian Church" at that time. Ask Eamonn McCann to give an account of the Rev's appearance in Queen's Literific Society in the late '50s. It was a riot. "Paisley for Pope" and so on.

A lot of man not ball going on here, not least the reference to an "evil sectarian monster".

The biggest problem is not that the people concerned will take offence, but that it has a marked tendency to inhibit the overall standard of debate.

There's also a tendency (Davros!!) to resort to 'witty' one line put downs. Whilst there's no Slugger rule against this, it can inflame opponents whilst revealing little of the underlying logic of your own position.

In NI, whilst most of us understand the internal logic of our own community's public position on any given issue, it may not be so clearly understood to outsiders.

Thusly have too many threads descended into dull, introspective and personal carping. A little more industry in addressing an opponent's 'point' will take your own personal view much further!