[Jack_]

Ahh TiBB, where points are continuously missed and people's posts aren't bothered to be read and understood properly!

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Because the section explaining it is about a cultural etiquette, it's not just religious people who do those kinds of things.

Exactly. So again, why include the names of two religions in the subtitle of that section?

Originally Posted by Marsh.

And I can only assume someone who thinks every single story has no truth to it automatically because of a paper's political leanings is being wilfully stupid.

Eh? Please direct me to the point in this thread where I've made any suggestion that this story isn't true? In actual fact I made two posts stating very clearly that this story is disgusting, the man should be prosecuted and that in pointing out what the Mail is using this story for, I'm not trying to absolve him of anything.

So where have I insinuated this story isn't true?

Originally Posted by Cherie

Where do you get off? I wasn't partaking in your angle on the discussion, which seems to be Mail, Mail, rant rant nothing new there so nothing to discuss as it's said on every thread with a Mail link. You decided to drag me into your discussion by quoting my post and telling me (and Kaz) that we had missed your point. No I didn't I just didn't acknowledge your point, now you are telling me I shouldn't be commenting at all because I didn't read the article in full, anything else I can do to make your stay more comfortable?

Err...yes you were:

Originally Posted by Cherie

As usual this has turned into a "which is better" debate

I didn't drag you into anything, you decided to drag yourself into a discussion I was having with Vicky in a post that was quite obviously directed at me (although conveniently not quoted), so I responded.

You then said, and I quote, 'what the Mail is doing is neither here nor there', thereby entering yourself into the discussion regarding the article's intentions - so yes you did acknowledge my point, and really, partaking in a discussion about an article when you've not read said article is, well...uh...pointless?