Comments on: The difference is clear

By: M. Brincat

M. Brincat — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:07:18 +0000

Daphne … it’s hard to believe that you and Dom Mintoff … are backing the same candidate … now that’s what I call … great minds think alike!!! ;)

By: amrio

amrio — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:55:06 +0000

Ooops sorry, my previous entry should go under ‘The difference is clear’… Meerkat would love my mistake…

By: amrio

amrio — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:54:06 +0000

SmartCity is getting bigger…

http://www.maltarightnow.com/?module=news&at=Imressqa+l%2Dapplikazzjoni+g%26%23295%3Ball%2Di%26%23380%3Bvilupp+ta%27+SmartCity+Malta&t=a&aid=32285&cid=19

11,000 employees are now being mentioned. Is Austin seeing too big?

By: Vanni

Vanni — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:46:14 +0000

People out of the limelight, should not be dragged in, just to score points off their parents/relatives.

@ Mod, the same should also hold true to Licari’s wife, however. BTW, the fact that you mentioned that she is Russian, could be taken to imply many things, but the two that spring to mind (my mind at least, and no you can’t help what I think, but still) are:
1) That he couldn’t find a Maltese woman
AND/OR
2) That there is something wrong with her as she is a barranija.
The Maltese say, “Tad-dar inhalluhom id-dar” and very rightly so.

By: David Buttigieg

David Buttigieg — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:24:47 +0000

@Daphne,

Actually I believe the Catholics are expressly forbidden from re-marrying and not divorce per se.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, Catholics in the U.S. who apply for an annulment are first told to get a legal divorce by the church, though I stand open to correction on this.

After all the Church simply does not recognise divorce but it is not a sin in itself!

By: amrio

amrio — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:15:36 +0000

@Daphne,

Now that’s better! In another note a few minutes I said that I don’t agree with your generalising sometimes.

Here you’re mentioning a public figure, and calling a spade a spade when exposing Marlene’s ‘two weights and two measures’ approach.

How can we take these people seriously? Why do our politicians still drag religion in politics to score (they think) brownie points? Marlene may be against divorce on social grounds, but she can’t possibly be against on religious grounds. If I’m an honest-to-God Catholic(which I’m not) and leave my wife, I would strive to lead a celibate life….

By: rene

rene — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:11:30 +0000

Personally, I do not like your views (but it is your blog after all), it is biased, to say the least. But on Marlene Pullicino, I totally agree with you – hypocrisy … personally, I’m fed up with it.

By: Daphne Caruana Galizia

Daphne Caruana Galizia — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:04:09 +0000

@Rene – I must rush to add that I am not criticising Marlene for leaving her marriage and for living with another man. That’s her business. Our business, on the other hand (and that’s because she is a politician and is now an MP), is the fact that she claims to oppose divorce on religious grounds when she obviously doesn’t oppose adultery on religious grounds, even though her religion regards the latter as far more grievous than the former (after all, you can divorce and never have sex with anyone else again, ever). The sanction against adultery was literally inscribed in stone, if I remember correctly from my own distant religion classes. The sanction against divorce wasn’t.

By: Daphne Caruana Galizia

Daphne Caruana Galizia — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:58:34 +0000

@Rene – the real flaw in Marlene Pullicino’s argument is that while she claims that she opposes divorce because she is a Catholic, she appears to have no such problem with what the Catholic Church regards as the mortal sin of adultery. Hence, though she is still married to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando in the eyes of her religion, and will not divorce him because her religion says she can’t, she left him for another man with whom she has lived for the past several years. I can’t imagine what her interviewer was thinking of (or not thinking of) when he failed to ask her this follow-up question. What a bag of laughs, really.

By: Daphne Caruana Galizia

Daphne Caruana Galizia — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:51:29 +0000

@Adrian Borg: I think Kurt Farrugia means ‘self-inflated’ rather than ‘self-floated’. Either way, he must have been thinking of Lilos (I know that I’m a little larger than I was a couple of years ago, as Jason kindly noted on Bondiplus, but really….). As for ‘opinionist’ – AAAARRRRGGGGGH! The word just doesn’t exist. It’s coined directly from the Italian ‘opinionista’. The English term is newspaper columnist, or just plain columnist (self-floated or otherwise).

@Cikki. Of course! Your brother was there. He was standing with our host and the Toby Jug, and when I went in and headed straight for our host to say hello, the Toby Jug was actually stupid enough to hold his hand out when our host said ‘Do you know Kurt?’. Then he was left standing there with it in mid-air when I failed to notice (because he’s below my line of vision). What a prat. Unbelievable.