Well... very precise question, though... hehe

I know a Mixie McCafferty. He's a friend of mine. He is a musician from near Derry
(republican side)
He travels with Katja, his cail�n from Bremen, Germany.
I met them in a pub in Solingen, Germany. We ended up doing a session and
parted the next morning...

Roidsear

Are you saying you are from Solingen?

I know Solingen very well, as I am often Duesseldorf. I do not know of any Irish Pub in Solingen, only of one in Hilden. I have been there, it is more an Irish Theme Bar, not really Irish.

I have also been to Graefrath in Solingen and the Getaway (Disco), but that was some time ago.

I know the Irish pubs in Duesseldorf quite well (King Tuck, McCloughlins...... Do you go to them? I haven"t been for some time, must do that again.

kleine Welt.

Shame on you!

At first, let us remember, that witch-panic in Europe begins only during Renaissance (end of 15th - 17th cent.) - not on the Middle Ages.

In SPAIN there were burned less than a twenty witches FOR 300 years!
More than that - those witches were accused by secular courts, not by SPANISH Inqusition, who interfered and effectively ended "witch-panic" in Spain.

It banned even spreading rumours about witches and magic, saving thousands of lifes.

As for Catholic Ireland there was not witch-hunting too. In Poland or Great Duchy of Litwa (Belarus) - the same.

In Italy, where Inquisition was also active number of burnings was also minimal (about 10 for 200-250 years).

In France there was no Inquisition, only secular courts, result - hundreds of witches slain, Germany (half-Protestant) - 99% of death sentences for magic were also produced by secular courts, at least 50% - in Protestant lands.

As for torture - it WAS a common mean of EVERY SECULAR investigation at those times.

More than that - Inquisition, as opposed to secular system, said that you can be tortured no more that 3 times and a doctor must oversee the process.
System of advocats, who defend you in the courts - was also installed by Inqusition.

As for condoms and AIDS - make love to your wife only, as Vatican teaches, and you are 100% AIDS-protected!

As for protection of the Jews...

Just read this:

1198 - Jews are driven out by French barons and population. The Jews appealed to Innocent III to curb the violence; and in answer, the pontiff issued a Constitution which rigorously forbade mob violence and forced baptism.

In 1235 Gregory IX confirmed the Constitution of Innocent III, and in 1247 Innocent IV issued a Bull reprobating the false accusations and various excesses of the time against the Jews. Writing to the bishops of France and of Germany the latter pontiff says:

Certain of the clergy, and princes, nobles and great lords of your cities and dioceses have falsely devised certain godless plans against the Jews, unjustly depriving them by force of their property, and appropriating it themselves; . . . they falsely charge them with dividing up among themselves on the Passover the heart of a murdered boy. . . . In their malice, they ascribe every murder, wherever it chance to occur, to the Jews. And on the ground of these and other fabrications, they are filled with rage against them, rob them of their possessions without any formal accusation, without confession, and without legal trial and conviction, contrary to the privileges granted to them by the Apostolic See. . . . They oppress the Jews by starvation, imprisonment, and by tortures and sufferings; they afflict them with all kinds of punishments, and sometimes even condemn them to death, so the Jews, although living under Christian princes, are in a worse plight than were their ancestors in the land of the Pharaohs. They are driven to leave in despair the land in which their fathers have dwelt since the memory of man. . . . Since it is our pleasure that they shall not be disturbed, . . . we ordain that ye behave towards them in a friendly and kind manner. Whenever any unjust attacks upon them come under your notice, redress their injuries, and do not suffer them to be visited in the future by similar tribulations.

The protestations of the Roman pontiffs do not seem to have been much heeded in the Christian states generally. In 1254, nearly all the French Jews were banished by St. Louis from the king's domains. Between 1257 and 1266, Alfonso X of Castile compiled a code of laws which contained several clauses against the Jews and countenanced the blood accusation which had been contradicted by Innocent IV.

During the last years of Henry III (d. 1272), the Jews of England fared worse and worse. About this time, Pope Gregory X issued a Bull ordaining that no injury be inflicted upon their persons or their property (1273); but the popular hatred against them on the charge of usury, use of Christian blood at their Passover, etc., could not be restrained.


In Germany, they fared still worse during the riots and the civil wars under Louis IV (1314-1347). For two consecutive years (1336, 1337), the Armleder, or peasants wearing a piece of leather wound around arm, inflicted untold sufferings upon the Jewish inhabitants of Alsace and the Rhineland as far as Swabia. In 1337,also, on the charge of having profaned a consecrated Host, the Jews of Bavaria were subjected to a slaughter which soon extended to those of Bohemia, Moravia, and Austria, Benedict XII had issued a Bull ordering an inquiry into the matter.

Greater Jewish massacres occurred in 1348-1349 while the fearful scourge, known as the "Black Death", desolated Europe. The reports that the Jews had caused the scourge by poisoning the wells used by Christians, spread rapidly and was believed in most towns of Central Europe. Then Pope Clement VI issued the Bulls in July and September, 1348, declaring their falsity.

The same pontiff had ordered that Jews be not forced into baptism, that their sabbaths, festivals, synagogues, and cemeteries be respected, that no new exactions be imposed on them.
The next years were, on the whole, a period of respite from persecution for the Jewish race. In Castile, the Jews attained to a great influence under Don Pedro (1360-1369), and the misfortunes which then befell them arose partly from the prevalent view that they availed themselves of their power to lap up the people's possessions with their tax-farming, and partly from their constant loyalty to Don Pedro's cause, during the civil war which broke out between him and Don Henry. The latter, after reaching the throne, showed himself friendly to the Jews, and agree only reluctantly to some of the restrictive measures urged by the Cortes in 1371. In Germany, they were readmitted as early as 1355 into the very towns which had sworn that for 100 or 200 years no Jew should dwell within their walls.

In France, they were granted special privileges by King John (1361), which they enjoyed to the full extent under his successor, Charles V (1364-1380). But the last twenty years of the fourteenth century were again disastrous for the European Jews. In France, scarcely was Charles V dead, when popular riots were started against them because of their extortionate usury and encouragement to baptized Jews to recant, and finally brought about the permanent exile of the Jewish population (1394). In Spain, the reign of John I (d. 1390) witnessed a great curtailing of the Jews' power and privileges; and that of Henry III (d. 1406) was marked by bloody assaults in many cities of Castile and Aragon and even in the island of Majorca, on account of which numerous Jews embraced Christianity. In Germany (1384), and in Bohemia (1389, 1399), the Jews were likewise persecuted.
Pope Boniface IX had protested against such outrages and slaughters (1389); and it is only in his states, in Italy, and in Portugal, that the Jewish race had any measure of peace during these years of carnage.

Pope Martin V declares in 1419:

"Whereas the Jews are made to the image of God, and a remnant of them will one day be saved, and whereas they have besought our protection: following in the footsteps of our predecessors we command that they be not molested in their synagogues; that their laws, rights, and customs be not assailed; that they be not baptized by force, constrained to observe Christian festivals, nor to wear any new badges, and they be not hindered in their business relations with Christians."

But then began new persecutions against the Jewish population of Central Europe. In their distress, the Austrian and the German Jews appealed to the same pontiff who, in 1420, also raised his voice in their favour, and who, in 1422, confirmed the ancient rights of their race.

Pope Nicholas V (1447-1455) opposed to mob violence against the Jews, and he enjoined upon the Inquisitors of the Faith not only to refrain from exciting the popular hatred against them, but even to see that they should not be forcibly baptized or otherwise molested.

After Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain had ordered all Jews to flee from Spain of to baptise, Jews of Rome offered 1000 ducats to Pope Alexander VI to prevent admission of SPanish Jews to Rome, and this offer which was indignantly refused.

You are not right. Inqusitors REFUSED to take part in this political show. Moreover, bishop Caushon who was effectively an English agent was accused later by Inquition for heresy and violation of law.

"guilty of, quote, "manifest malice against the Roman Church and indeed even of heresy" for wrongly convicting a Christian in order to pursue a secular political vendetta" �

As Joan said to her 'judge':

'You say that you are my judge, I don't know if you are [or not]; but take care not to judge wrongly, lest you place yourself in great danger; and [I] notify you of this, so that if our Lord punishes you for it, I will have done my duty in telling you."

Inquisitors were not angels, but they were not demons either.

/Sorry for interfering, I'm Belarusan Catholic and Nationalist, interested in IRA and Irish history and politics. I also have a University degree in History. Born and educated (until 1991) in atheist communist state.

I am sorry, I might not be an expert in History, but personnally the only History I actually care about is the Irish one...


Thanks, I did know that. I was being a bit ironical with the "bit of English help". But you cannot deny Cauchon was still a bishop when it happened.
And anyway it doesn't change al the crimes of the Holy Inquisition... which was the main point and who cares where and when they did what exactly?

Slan agat

Charlotte


A bishop who comitted a sin against the Law of the Church. In this very case.

Who said that Catholic clergymen are angels? Not me. They are men and they have their sins. Cauchon acted against the law of the Church.
If Joan was tried by the proper Inquisitoril tribunal, she would have been cleared of all accusations.



What do you mean when you say about 'crimes of the Inquisition'? They protected Christian people i terms of those times and people greeted them for their protection.

In Spain and Itay they even protected those accused un witchcraft from false accusations.

They combatted the witch-panic. If not for the Inquisition, there would have been MUCH MORE victims.

Never said the opposite


If you say so. They still burnt a few so-called witches...

a few?

Yes they did. They also were men of THOSE times, a lot of inquisitors (not all of them, for ex. in Spain) believed in witchcraft like 99% europeans of 16-17 cent.

Witch-hunts that sometimes spreaded in some territories were results of panic "witches among us and kill us!" And this panic was not result of the Church's teaching, but a result of old (even pre-Christian) beliefs in magic combined with an effects of rapid socil, cultural and economical (and ecen climatic) transformations of 16-17 cent.

People could not cope with these changes and lookfor enemies. And when they found then they came to secular state court (and that resulted in a hundreds of deaths) or to the inquisitionary court (a few of them if any at all, like on Spain or Italy) or simply killed these men and women themselves (nobody knows how many exactly).

Inquisition was the BEST option.

maybe, but in my opinion not good practicised...

those witch hunters used tricks to make a witch out of a man or a woman...
and afaik they had been the judges of the inquisition during witchhunts

Actually there were a few corrupted inquisitiors who acted againts laws and rules of the Catholic Church.

But
1) they were much less numerous than currupted secular judges and policemen of those (and our) times,
2) they were persecuted by Church itself.

I was teached, that those "witch hunters" only had prepared instruments...

but nevertheless, the roman-catholic church was corrupt, think at Martin Luther and his "fight"

There is no one without a sin. Catholic Church never said opposite of Her members (except Jesus and Holy Virgin).

But "untold millions of witches burned by evil catholic inquisitors' is a clear result of Protestant and atheist propaganda.
It had its effect.

Everyone on Earth knows of those "murderous spanish inqusition-killers" and almost no one ever remembers of the Protestant witch-hunts in Germany, Scotland or even in America (where there were no killed 'witches' in Catholic colonies at all), persecution of Catholics in England or Ireland (except Irishmen, I suppose) by Protestants
or thousands killed by French atheist revolutioners or tens of millions of men killed by Communists all over the world.

that isn't right at all (I mean that no one remembers...), here in Germany they teached us about the witch hunts in germany, and there is a quite good film about witch hunting by the protestant settlers in america (forgot the name...)

Belarus, I'm crying of happiness. Now here are two of us...
Fionas, the Enemy I mention so often plays tricks with the historical textbooks.

Fionas :
the title is Salem's witches.
The play was very good too.

Belarus,
as one of my friend often says "it explains but doesn't excuse". Of course I believe most Inquisitors burnt witches because they really thought they were, but we are also taught "Thou shall not kill". Then I say they were bad Catholics, even though they were of "THOSE" times as you say.
By the way I am a Catholic myself and I exactly know what you mean with atheist propaganda. Here in France (though more than 70% people claim to be Catholics), if people hear I am a Catholic, they kinda think I'm a criminal. And here goes the enquiry "Do you not know about the Crusades, do you not know about the Holy Inquisition, do you not know that the Vatican is worse than the Mafia?, etc..."

Slan agat

Then may I ask a question WHY every time somebody talks about Catholic Church everybody begins blaming it with "millions of innocent victims of Inquisition"?

This stigma of collective memory is rooted deep in the Protestant and atheist propaganda beginning from the 16th century.

As one of the historians said "protestants failed on the German and Swiss battlefields of mid-16th cent, but won a propaganda war".

Hello Sean!

to say the truth, it doesn't bother me... should they say it or not... Im not an atheist nor protestant or catholic

but in my opnion, everybody talks about catholiks because afaik they startet with it...

Chralotte, Fionas, there is an article (I cut it a little bit) with some answers:

Inqusition
by James Hitchcock

The subject of the Inquisition illustrates one of the paradoxes of the "information age" - the availability of accurate information on a subject by no means guarantees that such information will affect public perceptions.

The image of the Inquisition needs no elaboration. According to traditional views, it was a kangaroo court operated by possibly psychotic fanatics with a taste for blood, who tortured innocent people to obtain false confessions, then sent them off to be burnt at the stake.

Even that stereotype has always contained an unresolved ambiguity - were the defendants innocent of the charges against them, hence victims of malign hysteria, or were they heroes of free thought, hence in a legal sense guilty as charged? Depending on their purposes, those who write about the Inquisition emphasize either one or the other, although the two are obviously contradictory.

The modern historiography of the Inquisition, most of it by non-Catholic historians, has resulted in a careful, relatively precise, and on the whole rather moderate image of the institution, some of the most important works being: Edward Peters, Inquisition; Paul F. Grendler, The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press; John Tedeschi, The Prosecution of Heresy; and Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition.

Some of their conclusions are:
- The inquisitors tended to be professional legists and bureaucrats who adhered closely to rules and procedures rather than to whatever personal feelings they may have had on the subject.
- Those rules and procedures were not in themselves unjust. They required that evidence be presented, allowed the accused to defend themselves, and discarded dubious evidence.
- Thus in most cases the verdict was a "just" one in that it seemed to follow from the evidence.
- A huge number of cases were dismissed, or the proceedings terminated at some point, when the inquisitors became convinced that the evidence was not reliable.
- Torture was only used in a small minority of cases and was allowed only when there was strong evidence that the defendant was lying. In some instances (for example, Carlo Ginzburg's study of the Italian district of Friulia) there is no evidence of the use of torture at all.
- Only a small percentage of those convicted were executed - at most two to three percent in a given region. Many more were sentenced to life in prison, but this was often commuted after a few years. The most common punishment was some form of public penance.
- The dreaded Spanish Inquisition in particular has been grossly exaggerated. It did not persecute millions of people, as is often claimed, but approximately 44,000 between l540 and l700, of whom less than two per cent were executed.
- The celebrated case of Joan of Arc was a highly irregular inquisitorial procedure rigged by her political enemies, the English. When proper procedures were followed some years later, the Inquisition exonerated her posthumously.

The Inquisition has long been the bete noir of practically everyone who is hostile to the Church, such as Continental European anti-clericals. But its mythology has been especially strong in the English-speaking lands, including America.

Much of this is due to John Foxe's Acts and Monuments (commonly called his Book of Martyrs), which for centuries was standard reading for devout Protestants, alongside the Bible and John Bunyan. Foxe, an Elizabethan, detailed numerous stories of Protestant martyrs, especially during the reign of Queen Mary. Ironically, in view of the ways the book has been used, Mary's persecution of Protestants had nothing to do with the Inquisition, which did not exist in England.

But the English-speaking hatred of the Inquisition also stems from the unfamiliar legal system that institution employed. "Inquisition" of course means merely "inquiry," something which in itself is hardly sinister.

The Enlightenment, as everyone knows, condemned religious persecution, which in Western Europe finally ceased in its traditional form during the eighteenth century. But the Enlightenment also spawned the Committees of Public Safety during the French Revolution, and the irony is that those bodies indeed fit the stereotype so long attached to the Inquisition - they were in fact kangaroo courts often run by unbalanced fanatics, and they did indeed condemn people wholesale without regard for guilt or innocence. Had the Committees of Public Safety functioned for as long as the Inquisition (roughly l230-l830), their death tolls would have been incalculable.

Some traditional Catholic apologetics about the Inquisition is untenable, for example, the claim that the Church did not put heretics to death, the state did. Yes, but the Church urged the state to do so, and churchmen hardly escaped responsibility through this legal maneuver.

The Inquisition can only be understood within the framework of the centuries of its existence, when religious uniformity and orthodoxy, and obedience to authority, were enforced by almost all political and religious institutions, considered essential for the very survival of society.

The Second Vatican Council's decree "Dignitatis Humanae" once and for all put an end to the mode of thought which would revive the Inquisition, or see it as having eternal validity. However, the Inquisition should also cease to be the shibboleth it has long been. Why not say "Committees of Public Safety" the next time somebody wants a short-hand term for sinister proceedings?

Bjorn, time for a religious board me finks!

Fionas, not me, not me... I was born in the atheistic state, but at 8 I was baptized as the Eastern Orthodoxal Church...

It's still The Celtic Lyrics Collection Forum, Speakers Corner...
We are standing in the corner and keep speakin' 'bout the Inqusition and Religion...

First of all, sorry, if I miss some things here, but I simply haven't got the time to read all of this (especially the pages Belarus wrote)...

I have got a bit of an overall impression that the most East-European people on this board that are Christian have got a bit of a reaction that is predictable and understandable. They were raised in a athe�st communist society, which had the use of declaring anything that was said by the state or his rules was the absoltute truth and not contradictable and acted very strongly against religions. It was a society of extremes, as a reaction on this, people like you have gone to the other side, but also a good bit on the extreme. The pope is only a fallible mere human being, just like the rest of us, and churches are also ruled by fallible mere human beings. They do not tell the absolute truth, they CANNOT know what 'their 'god'' thinks, they only tell people what to do on base of what they think is right...

I can only say the pope and church are -excuse me for these words- a bunch of ridiculous fools if they contradict anything that has been scientiffically PROVEN. Galilei was also a heretic stating the earth was not the center of universe, but only a planet circling around the sun.

It is of no use of arguing about our beliefs: they are different and why couldn't they? No problem to me. A difference to me is propaging mere lies and nonsense proclamed by the church just because it fits in its shemes...

By the way, I would like to make something clear about me: I am agnost and humanist, I am NOT an athe�st. Athe�sme is a filosofy that not only does not believe in the existence of any god, but also acts against people and institutions having and propaging a belief. Agnosm does not believe in any god or so, but defends the right of freedom of religion and speech. I'm not going to say anything about the statements about the church, but statements like those of my 'dear' compatriot Cardinal Gustaaf Joos make it all clear enough to me. And that's about the end of tolerance of people like him Bloody ol' fool...

I don't know if any of you can read some dutch. But this is an article on him and his late statements: Cardinal Gustaaf Joos

I'll translate some statements(perfectly objective!!! )

Joos reduceert homoseksualiteit tot "een modeverschijnsel" Homosexuality is a trend in society, he reduces it to trendy comtemperary happening). De overgrote meerderheid van wie zich homo of lesbisch noemt, is volgens hem gewoon seksueel geperverteerd.The large majority of people who call themselves homosexuals are sexually perverted "Echte homoseksuelen lopen niet op straat in gekleurde pakjes. Dat zijn mensen die een zwaar probleem hebben en daarmee moeten leren leven", aldus Joos. Real homosexuals don't walk in the streets in shiny dresses. These are people with a huge problem and have to live with that

Schrijvers zoals de Vlaams-nationalistische Cyriel Verschaeve en priester-dichter Guido Gezelle noemt Joos "groot", Hugo Claus en Jef Geeraerts zijn volgens hem "smeerlappen". Writers like a Flemish nationalist Cyriel Verschaeve and priest-poet are called 'great' by Joos, comtemporary "modern" writers like Hugo Claus en Jef Geeraerts (famous and well-reputed writers in Flanders and the Netherlands) are "bastards"...

Voorts lapt Joos de democratie aan zijn laars. "Politiek, democratie. Ik moet daarmee lachen. Dat algemeen stemrecht. Waar slaat dat nu op ?". Veel politici vindt hij "leeghoofden". The next thing Joos mocks is democracy: "Politics, democracy, I've got to laugh with all that. That universal right to vote (dunno exactly how to translate it: suffrage universel); What's that good for? Most politicians are "empty-headed". (Well... )

Bovendien vindt hij dat mensen die verantwoordelijkheid dragen, "zoals een vader van zeven kinderen", best meer op de politiek mogen wegen dan "een 18-jarige snotaap". A father of 7 children should deserve more votes (quick translation) than an "18-year old kiddy"


terrific, isn't it

I can argue with Cardinal Joos on some matters, but as for the problem of homosexuality HE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

"I am willing to write in my own blood that of all those who call themselves lesbian or gay, a maximum of five to 10 percent are effectively lesbian or gay," Cardinal Gustaaf Joos, 80, told the Belgian weekly P-Magazine.

"All the rest are just sexual perverts," Joos added.

"I demand you write that down," said Joos, who was made a cardinal by Pope John Paul late last year. "I don't care if they all come protesting at my door. I won't open the door."

"Real homosexuals don't wander in the streets in colorful suits. Those are people who have a serious problem and have to live with that. And if they make a mistake they will be forgiven. We have to help these people and not judge them," Joos added.

"The Church...rejects homosexuality, not the homosexual," Joos said.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=4174251

Ah, interesting link, there goes all my trouble to translate

As you probably already noticed: I think he's a bloody ol' fool...

Oh, by the way, did you check on the magazine he was interviewed by? This IS interesting... LOL!

Check the "Babe-archief"

My favourites: Julie Taton, Ann Van Elsen.

By the way, don't condemn me for loving to see beautiful women! I'm as straight as can be And I fully respect (unlike the church )the woman as a human being, I even think women should be more feminist... Yeah, I know, I'm "quite" liberal or leftie... I know

Isn't she gorgeous? Makes me think a bit of Charlotte Lol

P.S. You good catholic people are gonne shoot me!

Yes, you are RIGHT. More than that The POPE HIMSELF AGREES WITH YOU.
(one little exception - ex-cathedra)


As for Christian Church it is ruled not by 'mere human beings', but by Christ Himself. That is why you are not right calling Church 'a mere human thing'.


The same with you when you talk about something you do not understand and don't know. As you do now.


Hey, you'll better read something about it. Galilei never was accused of heresy.

Yes, he stated that Earth is not in the center of Universe, BUT he could not proof it in court. So he was urged not to promote Copernicus system until REAL proof would be found. That is all.

By the way, scientific researches of Galilei were funded by Church (he was better mechanic than astronomican). The pope Urban VIII had been his friend and had conferred to him a pension, to which as a foreigner in Rome Galileo had no claim.

So please. do not tell (as you've said) 'mere lie and nonsense' about Church.

Enough or I'll have to wear an headscarf !

Christophe

As I told before I am not catholic. But I wil...

...if you should not give me her e-mail and her ICQ

Cate Blanchet, Milla Jovovich, Keira Knightly and Natalie Portmann
are much more beautiful.




If you are 'unlike the Church' then you don't respect woman as a human being.

Cate Blanchett?

I cant fault the other three, but I dont think Cate Blanchett is good lookin at all.
Shes not mighty ugly, but shes nothing special.

Eliza Dushku, Charisma Carpenter, are both gorgeous though

Funny how nobody posts when there's a deep religious discussion going on, but the second somebody mentions hot women everybody posts! Nice...

And you can take your hollow Yankie chicks, I'm keeping it Irish! Hillary Woods from JJ72. I reckon nobody here has ever seen her in their life so:



So she mightn't be up to your Charisma Carpenter standards, but hell, she plays bass in a rock band, and that's good enough for me! And she's got that crazy eyeliner thing going on...oh man...

But I saw her in town once and she was 5 foot nothing, and I'm 6'2", so that kinda ruined things on me! Oh well...

Enough men !
Leave some room to the girls

So let's have a list of "hot men"
Keanu Reeves, Ryan Philippe, my best friend, Matt Damon, Guillaume Canet (French one !)
And as regards Irish men I'd say my ex and... isn't Colin Farrell Irish?

Slan agat

Who's Colin Farrell?

Shame on you !
Well he acted in minority report. He was the young man trying to arrest Tom Cruise, don't remember his name in this movie.

And well he acted in many other movies I haven't seen.

Slan agat

Oh, that Colin Farrell...

yes "that" one

He wasn't really in Minority Report, was just a cardboard cut-out of him...

Lol who gives a damn? I don't like him for his acting

Ah, I knew Charlotte had a shallow side!!

So what do you like about him? Couldn't be his Dublin accent cause that's put on...

Well he doesn't wear a "crazy eyeliner"

By the way, the hottest is still Keanu Reeves

If Colin Farrell had worn eyeliner in Dublin when he was younger, let's just say he wouldnt be half as "hot" as he apparently is now!

Have you ever heard Keanu Reeves talking in real life? He is one boring fuck...

But hey, all Charlotte wants to do is stare at him and drool, so that doesn't matter to her!

Lol !!!
Not even.

I want to get back to Ireland and get some nice Irish Republican

Slan agat

"Get" some nice Irish Republican?!

Typical French woman, thinks she can just stroll into our country and take the cream of the crop! Just point at a guy and have him! Sample the best Ireland has to offer!

You'll probably end up coming to Ireland and marrying a Frenchman!

That's not nice !

I'm sorry!!!

I'm hungover...

Is that an ok excuse?!

Yeah I think so.