Hey, there! Log in / Register

Sam Adams drops sponsorship of St. Patrick's parade

MassLive reports on Boston Beer Co.'s statement this morning:

We have been participating in the South Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade for nearly a decade and have also supported the St. Patrick’s Day breakfast year after year. We’ve done so because of the rich history of the event and to support veterans who have done so much for this country.

We were hopeful that both sides of this issue would be able to come to an agreement that would allow everyone, regardless of orientation, to participate in the parade. But given the current status of the negotiations, we realize this may not be possible.

We share these sentiments with Mayor Walsh, Congressman Lynch and others and therefore we will not participate in this year’s parade.

The news comes less than a day after a South End club announced it was dropping Sam Adams because of its parade sponsorship.

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Some of them support the decisions, some of them don't.

up
Voting closed 0

Sam Adams, Harpoon, and the sponsors put together an organizing committee and sponsorship for a large Evacuation Day parade that is inclusive of all citizens and focused on Veterans. It could even run through JP starting at the VA all the way to the Sam Adams brewery.

I'd love to see the city turn itself inside, outside, and sideways trying to not give it permits because it might compete with Wacko the Flatulent Bigot's dwindling hatefest and attempts to hide behind a religion whose leader doesn't agree with him.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd wager that Sam Adams himself hoisted a pint or two in celebration of the original Evacuation Day.

up
Voting closed 0

I find it odd that so many commenters are gleeful that Sam Adams pulled their sponsorship from the parade. I'm disappointed since it means that a compromise hasn't been reached. I'll still be celebrating St. Patrick's Day this weekend and on Monday just like I always have since I was a little kid. My parents used to run a St. Pat's Day road race in Lowell, our Portuguese neighbor would have a St. Pat's Day party and invite the entire neighborhood, my Mom who didn't think she was Irish (till I did research years later) still makes corned beef and cabbage, my husband (who has no Irish ancestry) and I have a Guinness, listen to traditional Irish music at Mr. Dooley's and sometimes go to the Southie parade and sometimes we don't. While some will be reveling in their bitter victory of Sam Adams pulling their sponsorship, those of us who truly wished for gay veterans to be welcomed to march openly will actually be disappointed that it didn't happen this year.

up
Voting closed 0

We heard you the first time, Mr. Concern Troll.

up
Voting closed 0

I said I would avoid the comments on this. I swore I would. And comments like yours are why.

She makes a reasonable argument, points out that she (like a lot of people, myself included) were hoping for a reasonable solution to the parade issue that would respect the views of either side, noted that there are in fact other ways to celebrate St. Patrick's Day (by the way, as a general aside, the Irish HATE it when Americans call it "St. Patty's" Day. He was a dude. No dudes are called Patty), and commented on how people are gleeful that everything is f-ed up as far as compromise goes.

Your response, "We heard you first time concern troll." Nice comeback. A fine example of the echo chamber approach to debate.

I've never been to Southie for the parade. Not because of the lack of gay groups, and I most likely won't start when (or if) they allow gay groups. I've got an opinion on the matter, but like most of the people I have no dog in this fight.

up
Voting closed 0

I was going to drink something else, but in support im having a few Sam Adams tonight....Its good to be american

up
Voting closed 0

"This is why we can't have nice things!"

up
Voting closed 0

Beer or no beer, I am getting pretty sick and tired of seeing the word gay. Is this all there is in the way of news these days? Are we supposed to drop everything in our lives now in order to pay homage to those living a certain lifestyle? I understand that the concept of being gay is important to some Americans, but to many countless others it is not what their world revolves around. What is the next big thing? People who have shoe fetishes? People who want to marry their uncles? The media can push certain topics in your face and try to make you believe that EVERYONE is for them. Don't fall for it.

up
Voting closed 0

The performer got most of the talking points dead on, but did not complete one of the required elements.

Manditory 5/10 deduction for omitting "shoving/ramming gay down my throat".

up
Voting closed 0

for a near-miss on the "slippery slope" argument: went with "marry their uncle", whereas the required-memes rule specifies "dog".

up
Voting closed 0

Manditory 5/10 deduction for omitting "shoving/ramming gay down my throat".

Does "push ... in your face" qualify for partial credit?

up
Voting closed 0

Are we supposed to drop everything in our lives now in order to pay homage to those living a certain lifestyle? I

You're supposed to DROP TO YOUR KNEES and SUPPLICATE yourself at the feet of TEH GAY!!!!!

Hope this helps clear things up.

up
Voting closed 0

Don't read or listen to media that specifically concerns Gay people. If you're reading Bay Windows or the Advocate then stop reading them. Stick to general media of newspaper and television (and the most excellent Universal Hub) and I guarrantee that the vast majority of news will not specifically refer to Gay people. I read newspapers and listen to radio news (television news is a joke) and I can not count on my many hands to an exponent the number of days that I do NOT hear anything about Gay people.

Also pass on reading a list such as this. I mean it's obvious that this particular discussion would be about Gay people. So don't read it.

But as a Gay man who grew up at a time when any reference to homosexuality, Gay, etc. was always in the context of mental disease, perversion or included words such as faggot, perv, queer, deviant, or as Catholic prelates like to say, intrinsically disordered, I welcome every positive statement about Gay people that offsets centuries of physical and spiritual violence, particularly for Gay people who live in those nations that continue to use Gay people as their scapegoats.

What Straight people who get their bloomers all twisted up about Gays either can not or refuse to do is to try understand what it is to grow up in an environment where you are, pardon my bluntness, shit. They do not comprehend being the target of verbal and often physical abuse simply to their sexual orientation. They do not grasp what it is to be disowned by family solely due to a person's sexual orientation. But most important is that if they are somehow upset by the appearance of Gay people in media then there is something about then the problem is not how much Gay people are mentioned in media, the problem is with their own reaction.

up
Voting closed 0

Can a giant Chick-Fil-A float be in our future? (shudder)

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

Anything for marketing...

up
Voting closed 0

Logistically, how could a celebrity or politician walk both parades !?... could that be even possible? Or part of both?... How?... Not that would be a good idea, but how could it be done hypothetically if it could ever be a workable idea for a particular celebrity or politician?...

up
Voting closed 0

One note for you journalists out there;

The Allied War Veterans Council is a 501(c)(3) non-profit registered with the Commonwealth. As such, they are required to open their books to anyone who asks via a FOIA request. Thus, we can show who actually donated and how much.

Also of note; the AWVC is located in Southie? No, but Stoughton. Looks like another Southie guy (Wauschke) turned his place into condos and then complained about the yuppies that just financed his retirement.

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

Sam Adams is my favorite beer, but I'm done with them. How ignorant or stupid can they be? Do they know that the Westboro Church wanted to march and were turned down? Do they know that pro-life Catholics wanted to march and they were turned down? Why, oh why, why in the heck should they permit homosexuals to march under banner when that is not what this parade is about? They have their own parade for crying out loud! Do they even know that the Supreme Court already ruled on this matter by a 9 - 0 count?! Libs like to call abortion and Obama_care the "law of the land". Well, guess what, the fact that you cannot march in the St. Patrick's Day Parade under a political or social banner is the "law of the land."

up
Voting closed 0

I admittedly don't have a dog in this debate, because I'm not a lesbian, and I don't live in Southie.

The fact that they turned the Westboro Church down was completey right...and understandable, as they've proven themselves to be extremely dangerous and violent not only in rhetory, but their actions and behaviors as well. They knowingly and delliberately promote violence, especially against minorities and other marginalized groups.

As for the pro-life Catholics, I don't have a dog in that fight, since I never ended up having an abortion, let alone any kids.

They're right to tiurn down any group that knowing promotes horrific violence, but I think that turning down the IGLBT group was inexcusable. Even though I don't have a dog in this discussion, due to being a straight white woman, it's clear to me that the IGLBT group means no harm, and they're fighting for their rights to be treated as equals in our society. They're human beings, too.

up
Voting closed 0

The parade will go on as planned and over 500,000 people will brave the cold to celebrate St Patrick's Day. We won't have to listen to all the bullshit until next year.

up
Voting closed 0

This isn't Chicago.

The entire population of Boston proper is barely over 600,000, and only state and local government workers get the day off.

Try 50,000, tops.

up
Voting closed 0

Boston Globe estimated over 700K @ 2013 parade in South Boston.

up
Voting closed 0

People having "the day off" is not relevant. The parade is (and has been for years) held on a Sunday afternoon. Crowd estimates have consistently been in the 6 figures, not 5 as you predict. Often depends on the weather, but the streets are packed with spectators along the 3.5 mile route.

up
Voting closed 0

As somebody who attended a suburban public high school in the mid to late 1960's, I still remember that a whole bunch of kids in our school used to skip school and go to Southie for the St. Patrick's Day Parade. That was when they used to hold the parade right on St. Patrick's Day, regardless of what day of the week that it was on.

up
Voting closed 0

Ask anyone in Southie today, there are 50k hipsters walking bar to various in Southie today. Get on your bike and check out Southie sometime.

up
Voting closed 0

That's why I wonder how that many people could possibly fit.

Unless they are estimating from the bar tax take, including Fort Point, Dorchester, and Downtown, for the entire weekend.

up
Voting closed 0

Logistically, how could a celebrity or politician walk both parades?... or part of both?... How could they setup things for the ride back?... Or stop somewhere then continue in the other parade?... walk both parades, draw attention to, ridicule failed negotiation, ridicule the first group's prejudice, see also
http://pon.harvard.edu

Or a group of notables arranging this strategy?... So that even with the required gap the second group become a greater part of the overall day. Circumvent the prejudice, backup around with great Irish humor, literally circumvent !

Not that would be a good idea, but how could it be done hypothetically if it could ever be a workable idea for a particular celebrity or politician or group of notables?...

up
Voting closed 0

A Herald commenter just asked if Jim Koch was one of the evil Koch brothers.

up
Voting closed 0

Benedict Arnold Boston Lager.

up
Voting closed 0

"It's a shame because it is certainly going to mean that fewer children from foster care are going to find permanent homes." Marylou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said simply, "This is a tragedy for kids."

These militant gays have no shame. They are the 2% of the 2%. Their attempt to shut down the South Boston St. Patrick's Day parade is reminiscent of their shutting down of Catholic Charities adoptions when they insisted on getting hold of small children. As for Jim Koch and Sam Adams, bad move. Already a niche beer, alienating half or more of the drinking population with liberal activism at the same time that Yeungling is storming into the market doesn't bode well. Good for the Flaherty's at The Cornerstone for pulling the product, a la Jerry Foley (J.J. Foley's) and Jimmy McGettrick (Beachcomber) when Koch demonstrated another act of anti-Catholic bigotry, paying the couple to defile St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC in 2002. My guess is that this time, rather than endure the name calling and intolerance of the gay crowd, barmen won't publicly pour out Sam but will merely sell what they have and stop ordering it.

up
Voting closed 0

You want state money, you follow the state's rules. Period.

You want private money? You don't make a big chest-thumping display of activity that would get you fired from those private companies.

Simple.

Gotta love how you are so enamored of Yuengling, yet you are supported by a very generous disability and retirement pension, courtesy of your UNION. Even though Dick Yuengling would likely call you a parasite, as your employment and pension result from your years as a public employee.

up
Voting closed 0

Settled law, Swirly, 9-0. The parade will be just fine without the rabidly anti-Catholic Jim Koch and cafeteria Catholics like Marty Walsh and Steve Lynch. What will be interesting is when any of the three face a challenge. Koch is facing one now with Yuengling. My understanding is that Yuengling is killing it. Hopefully for Koch, the 2% will switch from shiraz to Cold Snap. Marty Walsh can't help as he's been dry for years and I think Lynch stopped drinking after the arrest for attacking the Iranian kids.

up
Voting closed 0

Or did the Supreme Court declare 9-0 that private companies had to fund your little juvenile clique's parade?

Did they vote 9-0 that these guys are the only ones who can organize a parade, either? No.

Meanwhile, the state has to serve all citizens. Catholic Charities wanted to discriminate, so the state pulled their funding and their certification to oversee adoptions. They can get all the private funding they want to do other things which do not involve judicial oversight.

up
Voting closed 0

If these militant gays were also Jewish would that mean that they were actually continuing the practice of Blood Libels? It certainly would make sense if the children were specifically Christian, and better Catholic.

The calumny of kidnapping, sacrificing or recruiting children is a very old and vicious canard. As soon as a person uses it they loose their credibility among sober mature people who don't need a group to condemn as less than. I would argue that the lack of a healthy degree of shame is found in the person who makes this kind of malicious statement. Applying any variation of a blood libel on any group puts the speaker in the same camp as a certain group infamous for their camps.

As for Jim Koch's connection to a couple of jerks behaving badly in a Catholic church that is such a stretch that the rubber broke. From just a little research it sounds like quite a few more people were between Boston Beer Company as sponsor and the people in the church. But then why let pesky facts get in the way of nasty personal attacks. If Joe McCarthy taught us nothing else at least he taught us that when attacking a person the facts be damned. All that is needed is a loud voice repeating the same thing over and over.

Gays trying to stop the parade? I see it now: Thousands of Gay stormtroopers in lavender Star Wars with their light saber batons held high stopping the parade! Onward Homo soldiers, marching as to war, With the Pink Triangle going on before.

Finally Catholic Charities appears to be doing quite well according to their website. Yes they had to stop acting as an adoption agency because they wanted to discriminate against Gay parents. The same would have applied if they discriminated against Jewish or Black parents. In this nation freedom of religion includes allowing religions to treat the outsider de jure with contempt and hatred if they want - but only within the context of their religious practice (and even then so long they don't break higher laws). But when acting in the public sphere a religious institution has to follow the same rules as everybody else. In Iran religion dictates law, but in the U.S. religion is secondary to law.

up
Voting closed 0

This whole thing is embarrassing for our society. It's so obvious a young child can see that by denying the gays into the parade or supporting that action you are clearly a homophobe but have the lucky excuse of 'but it's a political blah blah blah...'

It's shocking to hear so many people use these legal-type excuses to deny the marchers and think that they are not seen by others as less of a person. People might not tell them that to their face but that it the reality.
I read a comment earlier about a guy is gonna bring his family to a bar because they stopped serving sam adams when they pulled out. (itself a cowardly and revealing act) An actual act of hate bringing a family together. Shame.

History will look down on you as others currently do.

up
Voting closed 0

For bars to stop selling Sam because they don't choose to sponsor a specific event is pretty sad.

There is a difference in intent between what Club Cafe did and what Cornerstone is doing. Club Cafe was making the statement that "we aren't going to give you more money because we see that you choose to sponsor an event we disagree with when you have our money to donate". However, what Cornerstone is saying is "we aren't going to give you money because you won't spend it on the things we think you should spend it on".

When has anyone ever thought that buying a company's product gave them any right to tell that company how to spend its money? It's seemingly the same thing but in reality it's not.

up
Voting closed 0

Gays are being insensitive to the suffering of many Catholics at the hands(etc.) of pedophile, homosexual priests and others. For many boys, this was their first introduction to gay people, and not a positive one. This is still raw for many victims. Just ask guys in their mid 40's and up who grew up Catholic if they were hit on or heard stories about gay pedophiles in their neighborhood. Many won't open up about it or may just acknowledge that yeah, so and so liked too much to wrestle or roughhouse with boys and was talked about. These men in church or youth groups got away with behaviors in those days that would never be acceptable even 20 years ago. Most victims don't like to talk about the abuses that went on in their community, so don't bring it up when denying parade groups either.

Many girls had a more benign introduction to homosexuals with female gym teachers who seemed masculine. These teachers, however, weren't known to prey on girls, even if a few girls might have been uncomfortable with them at an uncomfortable age.

So, would an group of ex-priests with a NAMBLA banner be welcome in the parade?! How about a BDSM or swingers group? Any of these people can be in the parade as members of the many groups participating, just not identify as a group via dress or banners/flags. In effect, the parades has a dress codes, much as many public schools do regarding yoga pants, miniskirts, tube tops, profane T-shirt "free speech" etc.. Courts have allowed public institutions to have dress codes. Marchers can be gay or whatever, just not promote the lifestyle on what they wear or carry.

up
Voting closed 0

building all those straw men? Stop conflating homosexuality with child molestation, for starters: it's the oldest anti-gay canard in the book, a hateful myth. Educate yourself, ignoramus.

up
Voting closed 0

Wooosh! You need to learn that how people feel isn't easily changed with a web link. If a woman is raped, how well will a web link and blog post take away her feelings? Good luck explaining to a bunch of guys who experienced abuse by a homosexual at a tender age why they shouldn't feel the way they do. That is what is insensitive, ignorant, and arrogant. In time, the number of men abused as boys and their feelings will fade so that you can march in their parade, so just be patient. Its no big loss for you in the mean time.

up
Voting closed 0

... seeking some professional help with your "feelings" then.

Education is a big industry around here - you can also find plenty of professional help with your ignorance, too.

Stop pretending that homosexuality has anything to do with pedophillia. It doesn't and it never has.

up
Voting closed 0

is the cold wind of scientific fact flying over your head. You are welcome to your irrational, ignorant hurt feelings, but they don't give you license to spread hateful, hysterical, long-discredited homophobic myths.

up
Voting closed 0

The ratio of male to female pedophiles is about 10:1. Hence, if a boy is molested, its more likely by a man than a woman. This also means that girls are more likely to be molested than boys, if the 10% homosexuality in the population is consistent in pedophiles.

up
Voting closed 0

For many Catholic boys in a time when all homosexuals were closeted, their first encounter with or knowledge of a gay man was a overly friendly priest or youth group counselor. Following that time, the first knowledge of homosexuals was about those dying from AIDS or protesting government inaction. Only after those times have positive images of openly homosexual people been available for a young person becoming aware of them. All I'm saying is to please consider a couple generations of survivors of abuse in a community still recovering from very deep wounds and not to push homosexuality down their throats. The youngest generation or two have more positive images of gay people, so resistance will continue to decline in time. Just be patient with survivors. Show some compassion and understanding, especially when it costs you very little to nothing to just back off.

up
Voting closed 0

not to push homosexuality down their throats

Seriously, Mark. Get counseling. You not only lack compassion and reason, you seem to have lost all grip on reality, too.

up
Voting closed 0

Child molestation is a deadly serious issue, and I have nothing but compassion for its victims. Had my folks chosen one Massachusetts town they were considering moving to when I was a kid, instead of the nearby one we settled in, my brothers and I could have been among those altar-boy victims; a notorious case of Catholic priest sex abuse happened literally a few miles away from us. I can't imagine the pain and ruination that caused to the lives of those innocent children. How lucky for me and my family that we dodged that bullet.

But the scientific research on the issue is clear: homosexuals are no likelier to molest children than heterosexuals. The notion that gays are child-molesting by nature is simply a lie. Pedophiles are a category unto themselves: they are obsessed with children, and show no interest in or gender preference for sex with adults. The science on the subject is long established: no amount of your cynical attempts at exploiting the pain of the victims of child molestation is going to undermine it. Stop spewing ignorant hate.

up
Voting closed 0

I never claimed that gays were more likely to molest, just that 30+ years ago, if a boy was getting unwanted sexual attention from an adult, it would most likely be from a man, not a woman. Even today the stigma (and fact) remains that men are more likely to sexually abuse children than women and all are eyed with some suspicion. Young Catholic girls were perhaps getting fewer unwanted advances from women, so, for them, their first contact with a homosexual woman was not in this negative context - they were more likely to get unwanted advances from heterosexual, pedophile men.

So, here is the math: 90%+ of pedophiles are male and <10% are female. If the victim of a pedophile is male, the attacker is most likely male, thus homosexual contact. If the victim is female, the attacker is again most likely male, thus heterosexual contact. Instead, if pedophiles were equally likely to be male as female, then there would be no association made by anyone between homosexuality and pedophilia, but that isn't the case because most pedophiles are men.

up
Voting closed 0

trying to tar gays with the brush of child molestation. Science makes a clear, purposeful distinction between the two. One is a sexual preference, the other is a pathology.

The current science identifies two types of molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated molester, the stereotypical pedophile, cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because he often finds adults of either sex repulsive and often molests children of both sexes. The regressive type is generally attracted to other adults, but regresses under stress to attacking children; the majority of regressive offenders are heterosexual in their adult relationships.

So it is still homophobic and deliberately science-ignorant to suggest that gays ought to have some special sensitivity to the feelings of child-abuse victims, or that allowing gays to march in the parade is like letting child molesters march. Stop conflating the two groups.

up
Voting closed 0

Again trying to put words in my mouth. Not what I wrote at all. I just wrote that gay protesters are lacking in compassion and need to find some for a community in recovery from gay, pedophile priests etc..

So, if one asks boys who have been molested what was the gender of their attacker, what percentage of were male and what percentage were female? Next. does the victim really know or care if the pedophile who attacked him was fixated or regressive? All he knows is that it was a man and what he was trying to do was homosexual. Would you expect traumatized victims (or their families) to feel differently around homosexuals from the way women surviving sexual assault by men are also often uncomfortable around heterosexual men?

up
Voting closed 0

but talking about pedophiles and gays in the same breath is science-ignorant, and echoes one of the oldest, most inflammatory homophobic slurs in history: right out of Putin's playbook. You should be ashamed to be a member of an enlightened society and keep propagating it.

A pedophile attacking a child of the same gender has zero to do with homosexuality as a sexual preference. Suggesting that gays should somehow be especially sensitive to the feelings of molestation victims, which is where you started out here and can't seem to let go of, is nothing less than ignorant bigotry.

up
Voting closed 0

with the caveat that I'm not a clinician and only dug into the research behind the issue a couple of days ago when you posted your first comment, the science says that: a) gays are no likelier than heterosexuals to be pedophiles; b) most pedophiles cannot be meaningfully classified as either heterosexual or homosexual; and c) among the rest that can be so classified, the majority of those are heterosexual in their adult relationships.

Worrying about molestation victims being exposed to the presence of gays in our society is like saying, "Some children were molested by adults with blue eyes, therefore we should protect those unfortunate victims from exposure to all people with blue eyes." Conflating pedophilia with homosexuality this way is a patent logical fallacy. Using it to justify hate and fear is worse than dumb: it's morally unconscionable.

up
Voting closed 0

Good link to the UC Davis study, Slim. I know this isn't PC but consider the fact that until very recently gays were in fact ostracized and shunned by society. My opinion is many may went into the priesthood not out of any great abundance of faith or calling to serve the Lord, but rather to avoid stigmatism of being an unmarried man. (And NOT to molest children.)

So lots of gays in Church but it's not a swingers club and they can't date their parishioners so they turn to an available target as an outlet to relieve their sexual needs. Altar boys.
Let's remember that many altar boys are adolescent and pubescent, and there a few prepubescent ones.

So I see a possibility for ephebophilia by opportunity. After all, can anyone give one example of a priest molesting a toddler? Or multiple examples of Anglican priests, who marry, commuting the crimes of molestation of pubescents?

Form the US Davis study:

[The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that "Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children" or that "Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner."]

It's interesting that this figure dropped to 19% by 1999. I would argue that possibly, as society became more tolerant of homosexuality, fear gay men felt need to enter priesthood and therefore less molestation may have occurred and the public perception of the issue diminished as well. (I realize that more recent revelations don't deem like diminished numbers of crimes, but it's quite possibly so.)

Let me state that I'm looking at this as an academic question to understand why all of these priest molestations did occur. I'm not homophobic and don't think homosexuals are any more pedophiliac than heterosexuals. I do however think there's some truth to more crimes of pedophilia being committed within the same gender groups. Let's face it, guy coaches were never allowed into girls locker rooms.

Just my two cents. I'm curious if there are a theories to explain the priest molestation phenomenon and would be happy to hear them.
Something caused it, right?

up
Voting closed 0

Very few homosexuals seduce teenagers, but I can agree that the few who do are a menace. That doesn't mean that they're all in the church, however.

up
Voting closed 0

That would be the logical conclusion if your theory made any sense. Now go work yourself up into a lather over that. I know you will.

up
Voting closed 0

So it's Sunday afternoon, and I'm listening to the police scanner online. Drunks passing out, drunks causing disturbances in businesses, fights in houses, fights in the street, fights on the Red Line trains, fights at the Red Line stations, bottles being thrown from rooftop parties, etc. Police are calling for backup but backup is not available because they're too busy attending to drunks, fights, etc. EMTs are very busy too.

We can't let gays march because the children might be harmed by their presence , but all the drunks, fights, violence, and injuries are ok. One of the Allied Veterans press releases actually said one reason we cant have gays is because they're protecting the parade's reputation for good clean family fun. Ha!!!!

Southie is awesome.

up
Voting closed 0

It's a St. Patricks Day Parade. Every parade isn't about gay rights. Trying to force your flag into everything, even if it's not even about sexuality is wrong. Way to get sponsors pulled. Keep St Patriks day green.

up
Voting closed 0

How do you sort all the comments here by date/time ?... instead of by subthread.

up
Voting closed 0

If you really wanted to, you could write some code to parse out the data and sort it yourself. Keep in mind that registered users can edit their comments, and in doing so update the comment posting time.

( Just in case you have some private reason for doing so, I won't ask why you wish to sort comments by time. )

up
Voting closed 0

Now to see what happened to the control that lets you do that.

up
Voting closed 0

Because the subthreads within stories are quite conversational and often veer off topic, the replies would lose meaning and be difficult to understand if displayed in chronological order, and not in the context of which they were written.

Normally, when you just want to read the new messages, clicking on the "(n) new comments" will take you to the first new reply in a story, and they'll all have a red New flag.

However, I think there's a bug in that feature when; as is the case for this story; the replies are so numerous they continue on multiple pages. It shows "new comments", but clicking on it just takes you to the top of the story, and any actual new comments don't have the New flag.

( Maybe that's why Theszak wanted to sort chronologically. )

up
Voting closed 0

The red new flag appears right after posting a reply to the second page of comments. Apparently then, when the "(n) new comments" link takes a user to the first page of the story, it clears all of the "new" flags for that user on all of the other pages too, even though the user hasn't viewed those other pages yet.

Increasing the number of replies before it starts using multiple pages might be a quick way to fix the problem.

up
Voting closed 0

Pages