Discussion:
God Save the Queen
Add Reply
The Doctor
2014-06-19 12:16:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.

Hopefully Moffatt has something up his sleeve.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
For what I have received, may the Lord make me truly thankful. And more truly for what I have not received. -Storm Jameson
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-19 16:51:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
The Queen did not appear. Just an actress pretending to be the Queen.
Post by The Doctor
Hopefully Moffatt has something up his sleeve.
The Queen appeared in a James Bond spoof for the Olympics. That was quite
amusing. No idea though why you want to see her in Dr Who. I very much doubt
that Moffat even has any desire to ask her, let alone feature her in any
future story. What makes you think he has and why do you want to see that?
The Doctor
2014-06-19 19:05:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
The Queen did not appear. Just an actress pretending to be the Queen.
Post by The Doctor
Hopefully Moffatt has something up his sleeve.
The Queen appeared in a James Bond spoof for the Olympics. That was quite
amusing. No idea though why you want to see her in Dr Who. I very much doubt
that Moffat even has any desire to ask her, let alone feature her in any
future story. What makes you think he has and why do you want to see that?
Unless you follow Moffatt fully, you never can tell
what he is up to.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
For what I have received, may the Lord make me truly thankful. And more truly for what I have not received. -Storm Jameson
Rob
2014-06-19 18:53:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
--
Rob
"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational
in order to prove that you care, or, indeed, why it should be necessary
to prove it at all." - Avon, Blake's 7
The Doctor
2014-06-19 19:06:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
--
Rob
"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational
in order to prove that you care, or, indeed, why it should be necessary
to prove it at all." - Avon, Blake's 7
Bring out the guitars!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
For what I have received, may the Lord make me truly thankful. And more truly for what I have not received. -Storm Jameson
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-19 20:56:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Pudentame
2014-06-19 21:35:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-19 22:12:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
It took him 30 years to get it though! He didn't get his doctorate until
2007.

But apart from Brian May, the following musicians all have doctorates: Greg
Graffin (singer in Bad Religion), Brian Briggs (singer in Stornoway), Brain
Cox (keyboardist in D:Ream), Sterling Morrison (guitarist in Velvet
Underground), Milo Aukerman (singer in the Descendants), Mira Aroyo
(keyboardist in Ladytron), David Grubbs, Karl Precoda (guitarist in the
Dream Syndicate). Probably more.

Having said that, there was something special about Queen.
Pudentame
2014-06-21 20:40:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:12:52 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
It took him 30 years to get it though! He didn't get his doctorate until
2007.
But apart from Brian May, the following musicians all have doctorates: Greg
Graffin (singer in Bad Religion), Brian Briggs (singer in Stornoway), Brain
Cox (keyboardist in D:Ream), Sterling Morrison (guitarist in Velvet
Underground), Milo Aukerman (singer in the Descendants), Mira Aroyo
(keyboardist in Ladytron), David Grubbs, Karl Precoda (guitarist in the
Dream Syndicate). Probably more.
Having said that, there was something special about Queen.
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
The Doctor
2014-06-21 20:44:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:12:52 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
It took him 30 years to get it though! He didn't get his doctorate until
2007.
But apart from Brian May, the following musicians all have doctorates: Greg
Graffin (singer in Bad Religion), Brian Briggs (singer in Stornoway), Brain
Cox (keyboardist in D:Ream), Sterling Morrison (guitarist in Velvet
Underground), Milo Aukerman (singer in the Descendants), Mira Aroyo
(keyboardist in Ladytron), David Grubbs, Karl Precoda (guitarist in the
Dream Syndicate). Probably more.
Having said that, there was something special about Queen.
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
I'd rather be a failure at something I love than a success at something I hate. -George Burns
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-21 22:23:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:12:52 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
It took him 30 years to get it though! He didn't get his doctorate until
2007.
But apart from Brian May, the following musicians all have doctorates: Greg
Graffin (singer in Bad Religion), Brian Briggs (singer in Stornoway), Brain
Cox (keyboardist in D:Ream), Sterling Morrison (guitarist in Velvet
Underground), Milo Aukerman (singer in the Descendants), Mira Aroyo
(keyboardist in Ladytron), David Grubbs, Karl Precoda (guitarist in the
Dream Syndicate). Probably more.
Having said that, there was something special about Queen.
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
The Doctor
2014-06-21 23:35:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:12:52 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
It took him 30 years to get it though! He didn't get his doctorate until
2007.
But apart from Brian May, the following musicians all have doctorates: Greg
Graffin (singer in Bad Religion), Brian Briggs (singer in Stornoway), Brain
Cox (keyboardist in D:Ream), Sterling Morrison (guitarist in Velvet
Underground), Milo Aukerman (singer in the Descendants), Mira Aroyo
(keyboardist in Ladytron), David Grubbs, Karl Precoda (guitarist in the
Dream Syndicate). Probably more.
Having said that, there was something special about Queen.
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
Read the whole article carefully and you will see.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Whatever you think, be sure it is what you think; whatever you want, be sure that is what you want; whatever you feel, be sure that is what you feel. -T. S. Eliot
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-22 15:02:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:12:52 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
It took him 30 years to get it though! He didn't get his doctorate until
2007.
But apart from Brian May, the following musicians all have doctorates: Greg
Graffin (singer in Bad Religion), Brian Briggs (singer in Stornoway), Brain
Cox (keyboardist in D:Ream), Sterling Morrison (guitarist in Velvet
Underground), Milo Aukerman (singer in the Descendants), Mira Aroyo
(keyboardist in Ladytron), David Grubbs, Karl Precoda (guitarist in the
Dream Syndicate). Probably more.
Having said that, there was something special about Queen.
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
Read the whole article carefully and you will see.
I've read the whole article carefully. You obviously see something in it I
didn't. Why not explain it for me?
The Doctor
2014-06-22 21:06:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:12:52 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
It took him 30 years to get it though! He didn't get his doctorate until
2007.
But apart from Brian May, the following musicians all have doctorates: Greg
Graffin (singer in Bad Religion), Brian Briggs (singer in Stornoway), Brain
Cox (keyboardist in D:Ream), Sterling Morrison (guitarist in Velvet
Underground), Milo Aukerman (singer in the Descendants), Mira Aroyo
(keyboardist in Ladytron), David Grubbs, Karl Precoda (guitarist in the
Dream Syndicate). Probably more.
Having said that, there was something special about Queen.
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
Read the whole article carefully and you will see.
I've read the whole article carefully. You obviously see something in it I
didn't. Why not explain it for me?
Look at singers vs scientistic.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Whatever you think, be sure it is what you think; whatever you want, be sure that is what you want; whatever you feel, be sure that is what you feel. -T. S. Eliot
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-22 21:17:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:12:52 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
It took him 30 years to get it though! He didn't get his doctorate until
2007.
But apart from Brian May, the following musicians all have
Greg
Graffin (singer in Bad Religion), Brian Briggs (singer in Stornoway), Brain
Cox (keyboardist in D:Ream), Sterling Morrison (guitarist in Velvet
Underground), Milo Aukerman (singer in the Descendants), Mira Aroyo
(keyboardist in Ladytron), David Grubbs, Karl Precoda (guitarist in the
Dream Syndicate). Probably more.
Having said that, there was something special about Queen.
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
Read the whole article carefully and you will see.
I've read the whole article carefully. You obviously see something in it I
didn't. Why not explain it for me?
Look at singers vs scientistic.
And then what?
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-23 16:24:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:12:52 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
It took him 30 years to get it though! He didn't get his doctorate until
2007.
But apart from Brian May, the following musicians all have
Greg
Graffin (singer in Bad Religion), Brian Briggs (singer in
Stornoway),
Brain
Cox (keyboardist in D:Ream), Sterling Morrison (guitarist in Velvet
Underground), Milo Aukerman (singer in the Descendants), Mira Aroyo
(keyboardist in Ladytron), David Grubbs, Karl Precoda (guitarist in the
Dream Syndicate). Probably more.
Having said that, there was something special about Queen.
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
Read the whole article carefully and you will see.
I've read the whole article carefully. You obviously see something in it I
didn't. Why not explain it for me?
Look at singers vs scientistic.
And then what?
You don't know, do you?
Peter Irwin
2014-06-27 11:31:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
Read the whole article carefully and you will see.
I've read the whole article carefully. You obviously see something in it I
didn't. Why not explain it for me?
Look at singers vs scientistic.
And then what?
You don't know, do you?
Has it occurred to that David might reasonably think you are being
obtuse on purpose?. I'm fairly sure that you were so earlier in the thread
when you seemed not to understand that "the Queen" in appearing in a
television episode might reasonably mean a character depicting the
Queen.

While Pudentame did not intend "How many are honorary and how many
are earned in the hard sciences?" to imply that degrees earned in
other than the hard sciences do not really count, it does seem to
be in the form of a loaded question.

Peter.
--
***@ktb.net
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-28 12:58:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
Read the whole article carefully and you will see.
I've read the whole article carefully. You obviously see something in
it
I
didn't. Why not explain it for me?
Look at singers vs scientistic.
And then what?
You don't know, do you?
Has it occurred to that David might reasonably think you are being
obtuse on purpose?. I'm fairly sure that you were so earlier in the thread
when you seemed not to understand that "the Queen" in appearing in a
television episode might reasonably mean a character depicting the
Queen.
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
Post by Peter Irwin
While Pudentame did not intend "How many are honorary and how many
are earned in the hard sciences?" to imply that degrees earned in
other than the hard sciences do not really count, it does seem to
be in the form of a loaded question.
My understanding of a loaded question is that it contains a false
presupposition. I supplied a list of musicians with doctorates (some in hard
science, but some in other areas) and the question seemed quite
straight-forward to me - were the doctorates earned or were they honorary.
In the case of the musicians I listed, all were earned (as far as I'm
aware). But nothing about the question appeared to be loaded to me.

Again, Dave didn't explain why he thought it was a loaded question - just
told me to "read the whole article carefully". That didn't explain it, so
his only further comment was "look at singers vs scientific", and I'm afraid
I still have no idea what that means or how it is meant to answer the
original question...
The Doctor
2014-06-28 14:14:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
Read the whole article carefully and you will see.
I've read the whole article carefully. You obviously see something in
it
I
didn't. Why not explain it for me?
Look at singers vs scientistic.
And then what?
You don't know, do you?
Has it occurred to that David might reasonably think you are being
obtuse on purpose?. I'm fairly sure that you were so earlier in the thread
when you seemed not to understand that "the Queen" in appearing in a
television episode might reasonably mean a character depicting the
Queen.
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
Post by Peter Irwin
While Pudentame did not intend "How many are honorary and how many
are earned in the hard sciences?" to imply that degrees earned in
other than the hard sciences do not really count, it does seem to
be in the form of a loaded question.
My understanding of a loaded question is that it contains a false
presupposition. I supplied a list of musicians with doctorates (some in hard
science, but some in other areas) and the question seemed quite
straight-forward to me - were the doctorates earned or were they honorary.
In the case of the musicians I listed, all were earned (as far as I'm
aware). But nothing about the question appeared to be loaded to me.
Again, Dave didn't explain why he thought it was a loaded question - just
told me to "read the whole article carefully". That didn't explain it, so
his only further comment was "look at singers vs scientific", and I'm afraid
I still have no idea what that means or how it is meant to answer the
original question...
Pudentame gets it right!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. -Mahatma Gandhi
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-28 14:33:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
Read the whole article carefully and you will see.
I've read the whole article carefully. You obviously see something in
it
I
didn't. Why not explain it for me?
Look at singers vs scientistic.
And then what?
You don't know, do you?
Has it occurred to that David might reasonably think you are being
obtuse on purpose?. I'm fairly sure that you were so earlier in the thread
when you seemed not to understand that "the Queen" in appearing in a
television episode might reasonably mean a character depicting the
Queen.
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
Post by Peter Irwin
While Pudentame did not intend "How many are honorary and how many
are earned in the hard sciences?" to imply that degrees earned in
other than the hard sciences do not really count, it does seem to
be in the form of a loaded question.
My understanding of a loaded question is that it contains a false
presupposition. I supplied a list of musicians with doctorates (some in hard
science, but some in other areas) and the question seemed quite
straight-forward to me - were the doctorates earned or were they honorary.
In the case of the musicians I listed, all were earned (as far as I'm
aware). But nothing about the question appeared to be loaded to me.
Again, Dave didn't explain why he thought it was a loaded question - just
told me to "read the whole article carefully". That didn't explain it, so
his only further comment was "look at singers vs scientific", and I'm afraid
I still have no idea what that means or how it is meant to answer the
original question...
Pudentame gets it right!
What does he get right?
The Doctor
2014-06-28 14:37:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
Read the whole article carefully and you will see.
I've read the whole article carefully. You obviously see something in
it
I
didn't. Why not explain it for me?
Look at singers vs scientistic.
And then what?
You don't know, do you?
Has it occurred to that David might reasonably think you are being
obtuse on purpose?. I'm fairly sure that you were so earlier in the thread
when you seemed not to understand that "the Queen" in appearing in a
television episode might reasonably mean a character depicting the
Queen.
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
Post by Peter Irwin
While Pudentame did not intend "How many are honorary and how many
are earned in the hard sciences?" to imply that degrees earned in
other than the hard sciences do not really count, it does seem to
be in the form of a loaded question.
My understanding of a loaded question is that it contains a false
presupposition. I supplied a list of musicians with doctorates (some in hard
science, but some in other areas) and the question seemed quite
straight-forward to me - were the doctorates earned or were they honorary.
In the case of the musicians I listed, all were earned (as far as I'm
aware). But nothing about the question appeared to be loaded to me.
Again, Dave didn't explain why he thought it was a loaded question - just
told me to "read the whole article carefully". That didn't explain it, so
his only further comment was "look at singers vs scientific", and I'm afraid
I still have no idea what that means or how it is meant to answer the
original question...
Pudentame gets it right!
What does he get right?
Everything!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. -Mahatma Gandhi
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-28 14:59:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
Read the whole article carefully and you will see.
I've read the whole article carefully. You obviously see something in
it
I
didn't. Why not explain it for me?
Look at singers vs scientistic.
And then what?
You don't know, do you?
Has it occurred to that David might reasonably think you are being
obtuse on purpose?. I'm fairly sure that you were so earlier in the thread
when you seemed not to understand that "the Queen" in appearing in a
television episode might reasonably mean a character depicting the
Queen.
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so
significant.
He
still hasn't explained this.
Post by Peter Irwin
While Pudentame did not intend "How many are honorary and how many
are earned in the hard sciences?" to imply that degrees earned in
other than the hard sciences do not really count, it does seem to
be in the form of a loaded question.
My understanding of a loaded question is that it contains a false
presupposition. I supplied a list of musicians with doctorates (some in hard
science, but some in other areas) and the question seemed quite
straight-forward to me - were the doctorates earned or were they honorary.
In the case of the musicians I listed, all were earned (as far as I'm
aware). But nothing about the question appeared to be loaded to me.
Again, Dave didn't explain why he thought it was a loaded question - just
told me to "read the whole article carefully". That didn't explain it, so
his only further comment was "look at singers vs scientific", and I'm afraid
I still have no idea what that means or how it is meant to answer the
original question...
Pudentame gets it right!
What does he get right?
Everything!
So you agree that there was no loaded question and that you were talking
rubbish. Well done!
The Doctor
2014-06-28 16:24:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
Read the whole article carefully and you will see.
I've read the whole article carefully. You obviously see something in
it
I
didn't. Why not explain it for me?
Look at singers vs scientistic.
And then what?
You don't know, do you?
Has it occurred to that David might reasonably think you are being
obtuse on purpose?. I'm fairly sure that you were so earlier in the thread
when you seemed not to understand that "the Queen" in appearing in a
television episode might reasonably mean a character depicting the
Queen.
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so
significant.
He
still hasn't explained this.
Post by Peter Irwin
While Pudentame did not intend "How many are honorary and how many
are earned in the hard sciences?" to imply that degrees earned in
other than the hard sciences do not really count, it does seem to
be in the form of a loaded question.
My understanding of a loaded question is that it contains a false
presupposition. I supplied a list of musicians with doctorates (some in hard
science, but some in other areas) and the question seemed quite
straight-forward to me - were the doctorates earned or were they honorary.
In the case of the musicians I listed, all were earned (as far as I'm
aware). But nothing about the question appeared to be loaded to me.
Again, Dave didn't explain why he thought it was a loaded question - just
told me to "read the whole article carefully". That didn't explain it, so
his only further comment was "look at singers vs scientific", and I'm afraid
I still have no idea what that means or how it is meant to answer the
original question...
Pudentame gets it right!
What does he get right?
Everything!
So you agree that there was no loaded question and that you were talking
rubbish. Well done!
SW scores 0/10 on comprehension.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. -Mahatma Gandhi
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-28 21:56:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the
hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
Read the whole article carefully and you will see.
I've read the whole article carefully. You obviously see
something
in
it
I
didn't. Why not explain it for me?
Look at singers vs scientistic.
And then what?
You don't know, do you?
Has it occurred to that David might reasonably think you are being
obtuse on purpose?. I'm fairly sure that you were so earlier in the thread
when you seemed not to understand that "the Queen" in appearing in a
television episode might reasonably mean a character depicting the
Queen.
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so
significant.
He
still hasn't explained this.
Post by Peter Irwin
While Pudentame did not intend "How many are honorary and how many
are earned in the hard sciences?" to imply that degrees earned in
other than the hard sciences do not really count, it does seem to
be in the form of a loaded question.
My understanding of a loaded question is that it contains a false
presupposition. I supplied a list of musicians with doctorates (some
in
hard
science, but some in other areas) and the question seemed quite
straight-forward to me - were the doctorates earned or were they honorary.
In the case of the musicians I listed, all were earned (as far as I'm
aware). But nothing about the question appeared to be loaded to me.
Again, Dave didn't explain why he thought it was a loaded question - just
told me to "read the whole article carefully". That didn't explain it, so
his only further comment was "look at singers vs scientific", and I'm afraid
I still have no idea what that means or how it is meant to answer the
original question...
Pudentame gets it right!
What does he get right?
Everything!
So you agree that there was no loaded question and that you were talking
rubbish. Well done!
SW scores 0/10 on comprehension.
No Yads, that's you. I'll spell it out for you.

Yads: "Now that is a loaded question."
Pudentame: "No, just lazy".

So either Pudentame gets everything right and Yads got it wrong, or
Pudentame doesn't get everything right and Yads got it wrong.
The Doctor
2014-06-28 22:11:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the
hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
Loaded in what way?
Read the whole article carefully and you will see.
I've read the whole article carefully. You obviously see
something
in
it
I
didn't. Why not explain it for me?
Look at singers vs scientistic.
And then what?
You don't know, do you?
Has it occurred to that David might reasonably think you are being
obtuse on purpose?. I'm fairly sure that you were so earlier in the thread
when you seemed not to understand that "the Queen" in appearing in a
television episode might reasonably mean a character depicting the
Queen.
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so
significant.
He
still hasn't explained this.
Post by Peter Irwin
While Pudentame did not intend "How many are honorary and how many
are earned in the hard sciences?" to imply that degrees earned in
other than the hard sciences do not really count, it does seem to
be in the form of a loaded question.
My understanding of a loaded question is that it contains a false
presupposition. I supplied a list of musicians with doctorates (some
in
hard
science, but some in other areas) and the question seemed quite
straight-forward to me - were the doctorates earned or were they honorary.
In the case of the musicians I listed, all were earned (as far as I'm
aware). But nothing about the question appeared to be loaded to me.
Again, Dave didn't explain why he thought it was a loaded question - just
told me to "read the whole article carefully". That didn't explain it, so
his only further comment was "look at singers vs scientific", and I'm afraid
I still have no idea what that means or how it is meant to answer the
original question...
Pudentame gets it right!
What does he get right?
Everything!
So you agree that there was no loaded question and that you were talking
rubbish. Well done!
SW scores 0/10 on comprehension.
No Yads, that's you. I'll spell it out for you.
Yads: "Now that is a loaded question."
Pudentame: "No, just lazy".
So either Pudentame gets everything right and Yads got it wrong, or
Pudentame doesn't get everything right and Yads got it wrong.
Selective as always SW.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. -Mahatma Gandhi
Peter Irwin
2014-06-28 15:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
Post by Stephen Wilson
My understanding of a loaded question is that it contains a false
presupposition.
Yes, I would broaden that to "contains or implies." There was an
unintentional implication in the question that a degree could either
be honorary or in the hard sciences - i. e. that earned degrees
outside the hard sciences are not really real degrees.
Post by Stephen Wilson
Again, Dave didn't explain why he thought it was a loaded question - just
told me to "read the whole article carefully". That didn't explain it, so
his only further comment was "look at singers vs scientific",
Um, it was "scientistic" rather than "scientific." One common meaning
of scientism is the belief that only the hard sciences are legitimate
fields of study.

Dave does sometimes get the wrong word, he recently used "decent"
when he appeared to mean "dissent." But it generally isn't too hard
to figure out this sort of thing - try the word used first and then
try homophones and near homophones.

Peter.
--
***@ktb.net
The Doctor
2014-06-28 16:24:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
My understanding of a loaded question is that it contains a false
presupposition.
Yes, I would broaden that to "contains or implies." There was an
unintentional implication in the question that a degree could either
be honorary or in the hard sciences - i. e. that earned degrees
outside the hard sciences are not really real degrees.
Post by Stephen Wilson
Again, Dave didn't explain why he thought it was a loaded question - just
told me to "read the whole article carefully". That didn't explain it, so
his only further comment was "look at singers vs scientific",
Um, it was "scientistic" rather than "scientific." One common meaning
of scientism is the belief that only the hard sciences are legitimate
fields of study.
Dave does sometimes get the wrong word, he recently used "decent"
when he appeared to mean "dissent." But it generally isn't too hard
to figure out this sort of thing - try the word used first and then
try homophones and near homophones.
Peter.
Cheers.
Post by Peter Irwin
--
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. -Mahatma Gandhi
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-28 23:32:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so
significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
The Doctor
2014-06-28 23:32:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Sounds like a typical Card carrying Communist to me!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. -Mahatma Gandhi
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-28 23:50:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Sounds like a typical Card carrying Communist to me!
That's only because you haven't got a clue what a "typical Card carrying
Communist" is.
The Doctor
2014-06-29 00:27:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Sounds like a typical Card carrying Communist to me!
That's only because you haven't got a clue what a "typical Card carrying
Communist" is.
0/10 . Failed attempt of imitating Neil Kinnock noted.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. -Mahatma Gandhi
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-29 08:19:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why
Dave
thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Sounds like a typical Card carrying Communist to me!
That's only because you haven't got a clue what a "typical Card carrying
Communist" is.
0/10 . Failed attempt of imitating Neil Kinnock noted.
And you clearly know nothing about Neil Kinnock either.
The Doctor
2014-06-29 12:42:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why
Dave
thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Sounds like a typical Card carrying Communist to me!
That's only because you haven't got a clue what a "typical Card carrying
Communist" is.
0/10 . Failed attempt of imitating Neil Kinnock noted.
And you clearly know nothing about Neil Kinnock either.
The Repo of Islwyn?
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. -Mahatma Gandhi
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-29 16:12:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why
Dave
thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so
significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Sounds like a typical Card carrying Communist to me!
That's only because you haven't got a clue what a "typical Card carrying
Communist" is.
0/10 . Failed attempt of imitating Neil Kinnock noted.
And you clearly know nothing about Neil Kinnock either.
The Repo of Islwyn?
The only Neil Kinnock I've heard of was not a repo man. He was once an MP in
Islwyn though. In what way do you think I was imitating him? How did I
manage to fail to imitate him if that was not something I was even trying to
do?
The Doctor
2014-06-29 21:15:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why
Dave
thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so
significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Sounds like a typical Card carrying Communist to me!
That's only because you haven't got a clue what a "typical Card carrying
Communist" is.
0/10 . Failed attempt of imitating Neil Kinnock noted.
And you clearly know nothing about Neil Kinnock either.
The Repo of Islwyn?
The only Neil Kinnock I've heard of was not a repo man. He was once an MP in
Islwyn though. In what way do you think I was imitating him? How did I
manage to fail to imitate him if that was not something I was even trying to
do?
Kinnock did say out with the monarchy.

Republican (n): 21st Century ersino ofthe Neanderthal man.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. -Mahatma Gandhi
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-30 18:14:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why
Dave
thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so
significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned
them.
Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Sounds like a typical Card carrying Communist to me!
That's only because you haven't got a clue what a "typical Card carrying
Communist" is.
0/10 . Failed attempt of imitating Neil Kinnock noted.
And you clearly know nothing about Neil Kinnock either.
The Repo of Islwyn?
The only Neil Kinnock I've heard of was not a repo man. He was once an MP in
Islwyn though. In what way do you think I was imitating him? How did I
manage to fail to imitate him if that was not something I was even trying to
do?
Kinnock did say out with the monarchy.
He may well have been a critic of the royal family.
Post by The Doctor
Republican (n): 21st Century ersino ofthe Neanderthal man.
Your bigotry knows no bounds, Yads. Unlike you though, not everyone is happy
that the oldest child of a single family will automatically inherit the
crown. Nobody voted for Elizabeth to be queen. When she dies or abdicates,
Charles will automatically become the king.

Of course, I very much doubt you really know the first thing about the queen
or her family - what they're like as people and what they spend their time
doing. Although the Queen has certain powers, the reality is that they are
dormant. She's a symbol - nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
The Doctor
2014-06-30 21:53:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why
Dave
thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so
significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned
them.
Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Sounds like a typical Card carrying Communist to me!
That's only because you haven't got a clue what a "typical Card carrying
Communist" is.
0/10 . Failed attempt of imitating Neil Kinnock noted.
And you clearly know nothing about Neil Kinnock either.
The Repo of Islwyn?
The only Neil Kinnock I've heard of was not a repo man. He was once an MP in
Islwyn though. In what way do you think I was imitating him? How did I
manage to fail to imitate him if that was not something I was even trying to
do?
Kinnock did say out with the monarchy.
He may well have been a critic of the royal family.
Post by The Doctor
Republican (n): 21st Century ersino ofthe Neanderthal man.
Your bigotry knows no bounds, Yads. Unlike you though, not everyone is happy
that the oldest child of a single family will automatically inherit the
crown. Nobody voted for Elizabeth to be queen. When she dies or abdicates,
Charles will automatically become the king.
Of course, I very much doubt you really know the first thing about the queen
or her family - what they're like as people and what they spend their time
doing. Although the Queen has certain powers, the reality is that they are
dormant. She's a symbol - nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.


Looks like some sort of support is needed.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. -Mahatma Gandhi
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-30 22:15:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Kinnock did say out with the monarchy.
He may well have been a critic of the royal family.
Post by The Doctor
Republican (n): 21st Century ersino ofthe Neanderthal man.
Your bigotry knows no bounds, Yads. Unlike you though, not everyone is happy
that the oldest child of a single family will automatically inherit the
crown. Nobody voted for Elizabeth to be queen. When she dies or abdicates,
Charles will automatically become the king.
Of course, I very much doubt you really know the first thing about the queen
or her family - what they're like as people and what they spend their time
doing. Although the Queen has certain powers, the reality is that they are
dormant. She's a symbol - nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.
You really haven't got a clue, have you?!

Edward VIII became king in 1894. He wasn't "blocked from ascending the
throne" at all. He abdicated in 1936 so he could marry Wallis Simpson which
was deemed (at the time) morally unacceptable by the Church of England.
Post by The Doctor
Looks like some sort of support is needed.
What sort of support would you like?
The Doctor
2014-06-30 22:21:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Kinnock did say out with the monarchy.
He may well have been a critic of the royal family.
Post by The Doctor
Republican (n): 21st Century ersino ofthe Neanderthal man.
Your bigotry knows no bounds, Yads. Unlike you though, not everyone is happy
that the oldest child of a single family will automatically inherit the
crown. Nobody voted for Elizabeth to be queen. When she dies or abdicates,
Charles will automatically become the king.
Of course, I very much doubt you really know the first thing about the queen
or her family - what they're like as people and what they spend their time
doing. Although the Queen has certain powers, the reality is that they are
dormant. She's a symbol - nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.
You really haven't got a clue, have you?!
Edward VIII became king in 1894. He wasn't "blocked from ascending the
throne" at all. He abdicated in 1936 so he could marry Wallis Simpson which
was deemed (at the time) morally unacceptable by the Church of England.
Post by The Doctor
Looks like some sort of support is needed.
What sort of support would you like?
What about the non-Confidence coming from PMs of the UK, Canada, Aus and NZ?
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-30 22:35:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Kinnock did say out with the monarchy.
He may well have been a critic of the royal family.
Post by The Doctor
Republican (n): 21st Century ersino ofthe Neanderthal man.
Your bigotry knows no bounds, Yads. Unlike you though, not everyone is happy
that the oldest child of a single family will automatically inherit the
crown. Nobody voted for Elizabeth to be queen. When she dies or abdicates,
Charles will automatically become the king.
Of course, I very much doubt you really know the first thing about the queen
or her family - what they're like as people and what they spend their time
doing. Although the Queen has certain powers, the reality is that they are
dormant. She's a symbol - nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.
You really haven't got a clue, have you?!
Edward VIII became king in 1894. He wasn't "blocked from ascending the
throne" at all. He abdicated in 1936 so he could marry Wallis Simpson which
was deemed (at the time) morally unacceptable by the Church of England.
Post by The Doctor
Looks like some sort of support is needed.
What sort of support would you like?
What about the non-Confidence coming from PMs of the UK, Canada, Aus and NZ?
The prime ministers of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have no
confidence in you? Sorry to hear that.
The Doctor
2014-06-30 23:37:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Kinnock did say out with the monarchy.
He may well have been a critic of the royal family.
Post by The Doctor
Republican (n): 21st Century ersino ofthe Neanderthal man.
Your bigotry knows no bounds, Yads. Unlike you though, not everyone is happy
that the oldest child of a single family will automatically inherit the
crown. Nobody voted for Elizabeth to be queen. When she dies or abdicates,
Charles will automatically become the king.
Of course, I very much doubt you really know the first thing about the queen
or her family - what they're like as people and what they spend their time
doing. Although the Queen has certain powers, the reality is that they are
dormant. She's a symbol - nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.
You really haven't got a clue, have you?!
Edward VIII became king in 1894. He wasn't "blocked from ascending the
throne" at all. He abdicated in 1936 so he could marry Wallis Simpson which
was deemed (at the time) morally unacceptable by the Church of England.
Post by The Doctor
Looks like some sort of support is needed.
What sort of support would you like?
What about the non-Confidence coming from PMs of the UK, Canada, Aus and NZ?
The prime ministers of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have no
confidence in you? Sorry to hear that.
Not in me. IN Edward VIII.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-01 16:40:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Kinnock did say out with the monarchy.
He may well have been a critic of the royal family.
Post by The Doctor
Republican (n): 21st Century ersino ofthe Neanderthal man.
Your bigotry knows no bounds, Yads. Unlike you though, not everyone is happy
that the oldest child of a single family will automatically inherit the
crown. Nobody voted for Elizabeth to be queen. When she dies or abdicates,
Charles will automatically become the king.
Of course, I very much doubt you really know the first thing about the queen
or her family - what they're like as people and what they spend their time
doing. Although the Queen has certain powers, the reality is that they are
dormant. She's a symbol - nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.
You really haven't got a clue, have you?!
Edward VIII became king in 1894. He wasn't "blocked from ascending the
throne" at all. He abdicated in 1936 so he could marry Wallis Simpson which
was deemed (at the time) morally unacceptable by the Church of England.
Post by The Doctor
Looks like some sort of support is needed.
What sort of support would you like?
What about the non-Confidence coming from PMs of the UK, Canada, Aus and NZ?
The prime ministers of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have no
confidence in you? Sorry to hear that.
Not in me. IN Edward VIII.
I'm afraid he died in 1972. It's difficult to have confidence in someone
who's been dead for 42 years.
The Doctor
2014-07-01 16:56:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Kinnock did say out with the monarchy.
He may well have been a critic of the royal family.
Post by The Doctor
Republican (n): 21st Century ersino ofthe Neanderthal man.
Your bigotry knows no bounds, Yads. Unlike you though, not everyone is happy
that the oldest child of a single family will automatically inherit the
crown. Nobody voted for Elizabeth to be queen. When she dies or abdicates,
Charles will automatically become the king.
Of course, I very much doubt you really know the first thing about the queen
or her family - what they're like as people and what they spend their time
doing. Although the Queen has certain powers, the reality is that they are
dormant. She's a symbol - nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.
You really haven't got a clue, have you?!
Edward VIII became king in 1894. He wasn't "blocked from ascending the
throne" at all. He abdicated in 1936 so he could marry Wallis Simpson which
was deemed (at the time) morally unacceptable by the Church of England.
Post by The Doctor
Looks like some sort of support is needed.
What sort of support would you like?
What about the non-Confidence coming from PMs of the UK, Canada, Aus and NZ?
The prime ministers of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have no
confidence in you? Sorry to hear that.
Not in me. IN Edward VIII.
I'm afraid he died in 1972. It's difficult to have confidence in someone
who's been dead for 42 years.
In 1936.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-01 16:59:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Kinnock did say out with the monarchy.
He may well have been a critic of the royal family.
Post by The Doctor
Republican (n): 21st Century ersino ofthe Neanderthal man.
Your bigotry knows no bounds, Yads. Unlike you though, not everyone
is
happy
that the oldest child of a single family will automatically inherit the
crown. Nobody voted for Elizabeth to be queen. When she dies or abdicates,
Charles will automatically become the king.
Of course, I very much doubt you really know the first thing about
the
queen
or her family - what they're like as people and what they spend
their
time
doing. Although the Queen has certain powers, the reality is that
they
are
dormant. She's a symbol - nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do
object
to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.
You really haven't got a clue, have you?!
Edward VIII became king in 1894. He wasn't "blocked from ascending the
throne" at all. He abdicated in 1936 so he could marry Wallis Simpson which
was deemed (at the time) morally unacceptable by the Church of England.
Post by The Doctor
Looks like some sort of support is needed.
What sort of support would you like?
What about the non-Confidence coming from PMs of the UK, Canada, Aus
and
NZ?
The prime ministers of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all
have
no
confidence in you? Sorry to hear that.
Not in me. IN Edward VIII.
I'm afraid he died in 1972. It's difficult to have confidence in someone
who's been dead for 42 years.
In 1936.
No, he definitely died in 1972.
Pudentame
2014-07-01 01:13:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 23:15:18 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Kinnock did say out with the monarchy.
He may well have been a critic of the royal family.
Post by The Doctor
Republican (n): 21st Century ersino ofthe Neanderthal man.
Your bigotry knows no bounds, Yads. Unlike you though, not everyone is happy
that the oldest child of a single family will automatically inherit the
crown. Nobody voted for Elizabeth to be queen. When she dies or abdicates,
Charles will automatically become the king.
Of course, I very much doubt you really know the first thing about the queen
or her family - what they're like as people and what they spend their time
doing. Although the Queen has certain powers, the reality is that they are
dormant. She's a symbol - nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.
You really haven't got a clue, have you?!
Edward VIII became king in 1894. He wasn't "blocked from ascending the
throne" at all. He abdicated in 1936 so he could marry Wallis Simpson which
was deemed (at the time) morally unacceptable by the Church of England.
Edward VIII was BORN in 1894.

He became king in January 1936 and abdicated in December 1936. He
reigned for less than a year.
The Doctor
2014-07-01 14:50:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 23:15:18 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Kinnock did say out with the monarchy.
He may well have been a critic of the royal family.
Post by The Doctor
Republican (n): 21st Century ersino ofthe Neanderthal man.
Your bigotry knows no bounds, Yads. Unlike you though, not everyone is happy
that the oldest child of a single family will automatically inherit the
crown. Nobody voted for Elizabeth to be queen. When she dies or abdicates,
Charles will automatically become the king.
Of course, I very much doubt you really know the first thing about the queen
or her family - what they're like as people and what they spend their time
doing. Although the Queen has certain powers, the reality is that they are
dormant. She's a symbol - nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.
You really haven't got a clue, have you?!
Edward VIII became king in 1894. He wasn't "blocked from ascending the
throne" at all. He abdicated in 1936 so he could marry Wallis Simpson which
was deemed (at the time) morally unacceptable by the Church of England.
Edward VIII was BORN in 1894.
He became king in January 1936 and abdicated in December 1936. He
reigned for less than a year.
SW gets the facts wrong again!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-01 16:16:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 23:15:18 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Kinnock did say out with the monarchy.
He may well have been a critic of the royal family.
Post by The Doctor
Republican (n): 21st Century ersino ofthe Neanderthal man.
Your bigotry knows no bounds, Yads. Unlike you though, not everyone is happy
that the oldest child of a single family will automatically inherit the
crown. Nobody voted for Elizabeth to be queen. When she dies or abdicates,
Charles will automatically become the king.
Of course, I very much doubt you really know the first thing about the queen
or her family - what they're like as people and what they spend their time
doing. Although the Queen has certain powers, the reality is that they are
dormant. She's a symbol - nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.
You really haven't got a clue, have you?!
Edward VIII became king in 1894. He wasn't "blocked from ascending the
throne" at all. He abdicated in 1936 so he could marry Wallis Simpson which
was deemed (at the time) morally unacceptable by the Church of England.
Edward VIII was BORN in 1894.
He became king in January 1936 and abdicated in December 1936. He
reigned for less than a year.
Oops! Quite correcf. Well spotted!!
John Fleming
2014-07-01 02:08:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[Default] On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 23:15:18 +0100, while chained to a desk
in the scriptorium "Stephen Wilson"
$> Looks like some sort of support is needed.
$
$What sort of support would you like?
In the doctor's case, perhaps an athletic support would do.
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada


Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
Pudentame
2014-07-01 00:52:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.
Looks like some sort of support is needed.
Edward 8th wasn't blocked from "ascending the throne".

He abdicated because Parliament wouldn't approve him marrying a twice
divorced woman. Conflicted with his duties as the head of the Church
of England which did not at the time approve of remarriage for
divorced persons with still living former spouses.

In a Constitutional Monarchy, even the King is bound by some laws.
Your Name
2014-07-01 01:23:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.
Looks like some sort of support is needed.
Edward 8th wasn't blocked from "ascending the throne".
He abdicated because Parliament wouldn't approve him marrying a twice
divorced woman. Conflicted with his duties as the head of the Church
of England which did not at the time approve of remarriage for
divorced persons with still living former spouses.
In a Constitutional Monarchy, even the King is bound by some laws.
Although, previous Kings have simply disowned the Roman-led Pope and
church and started their own version (the Church of England).
The Doctor
2014-07-01 14:52:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Name
Post by Pudentame
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.
Looks like some sort of support is needed.
Edward 8th wasn't blocked from "ascending the throne".
He abdicated because Parliament wouldn't approve him marrying a twice
divorced woman. Conflicted with his duties as the head of the Church
of England which did not at the time approve of remarriage for
divorced persons with still living former spouses.
In a Constitutional Monarchy, even the King is bound by some laws.
Although, previous Kings have simply disowned the Roman-led Pope and
church and started their own version (the Church of England).
Good riddance about the Church of Thyatira!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. -Friedrich Nietzsche
The Doctor
2014-07-01 14:49:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
I'm not particularly for or against the Royal family. But I do object to
anyone inheriting power or wealth rather than earning it.
Then explain Edward 8th being blocked
from ascending the throne.
Looks like some sort of support is needed.
Edward 8th wasn't blocked from "ascending the throne".
He abdicated because Parliament wouldn't approve him marrying a twice
divorced woman. Conflicted with his duties as the head of the Church
of England which did not at the time approve of remarriage for
divorced persons with still living former spouses.
In a Constitutional Monarchy, even the King is bound by some laws.
Thank goodness for the Constitution!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Pudentame
2014-06-30 23:51:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:32:23 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Maybe, maybe not.

I've seen several economic studies that suggest the Royal Family are
Good Theater and that they generate far more tourist revenue to the UK
than the actual cost to the British taxpayer for their upkeep.
The Doctor
2014-07-01 00:30:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:32:23 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Maybe, maybe not.
I've seen several economic studies that suggest the Royal Family are
Good Theater and that they generate far more tourist revenue to the UK
than the actual cost to the British taxpayer for their upkeep.
I rather live in a Monarchist state than a Republic for practical reasons.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Your Name
2014-07-01 01:21:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:32:23 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Maybe, maybe not.
I've seen several economic studies that suggest the Royal Family are
Good Theater and that they generate far more tourist revenue to the UK
than the actual cost to the British taxpayer for their upkeep.
There's a bit of both.

The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.

Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.

Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince William is
much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an immature
fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.


The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones, Tonga
for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen, but is
just a title with even less power and political importance than the
UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where she is
still the top of the power chain).
John Fleming
2014-07-01 12:20:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[Default] On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:21:52 +1200, while chained to a desk
$There's a bit of both.
$
$The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
$
$Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
$it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
$impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
$with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I agree. Making Charles king would be a mistake. Better to skip a
generation and let the crown pass directly to William.
$Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince William is
$much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
$perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an immature
$fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.
I guess, personality wise, they are all a bit like politicians that
way. Don't say or do anything that might upset the peasants.
$The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
$European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones, Tonga
$for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen, but is
$just a title with even less power and political importance than the
$UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where she is
$still the top of the power chain).
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada


Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
The Doctor
2014-07-01 14:56:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Fleming
[Default] On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:21:52 +1200, while chained to a desk
$There's a bit of both.
$
$The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
$
$Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
$it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
$impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
$with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I agree. Making Charles king would be a mistake. Better to skip a
generation and let the crown pass directly to William.
$Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince William is
$much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
$perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an immature
$fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.
I guess, personality wise, they are all a bit like politicians that
way. Don't say or do anything that might upset the peasants.
$The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
$European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones, Tonga
$for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen, but is
$just a title with even less power and political importance than the
$UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where she is
$still the top of the power chain).
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-01 16:54:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by John Fleming
[Default] On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:21:52 +1200, while chained to a desk
$There's a bit of both.
$
$The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
$
$Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
$it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
$impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
$with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I agree. Making Charles king would be a mistake. Better to skip a
generation and let the crown pass directly to William.
$Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince William is
$much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
$perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an immature
$fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.
I guess, personality wise, they are all a bit like politicians that
way. Don't say or do anything that might upset the peasants.
$The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
$European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones, Tonga
$for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen, but is
$just a title with even less power and political importance than the
$UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where she is
$still the top of the power chain).
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
The Doctor
2014-07-01 16:57:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by John Fleming
[Default] On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:21:52 +1200, while chained to a desk
$There's a bit of both.
$
$The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
$
$Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
$it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
$impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
$with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I agree. Making Charles king would be a mistake. Better to skip a
generation and let the crown pass directly to William.
$Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince William is
$much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
$perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an immature
$fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.
I guess, personality wise, they are all a bit like politicians that
way. Don't say or do anything that might upset the peasants.
$The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
$European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones, Tonga
$for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen, but is
$just a title with even less power and political importance than the
$UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where she is
$still the top of the power chain).
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
Then how come Edward VIII has to face 4 PMs i nthe process?
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-01 17:03:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by John Fleming
[Default] On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:21:52 +1200, while chained to a desk
$There's a bit of both.
$
$The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
$
$Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
$it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
$impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
$with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I agree. Making Charles king would be a mistake. Better to skip a
generation and let the crown pass directly to William.
$Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince William is
$much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
$perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an immature
$fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.
I guess, personality wise, they are all a bit like politicians that
way. Don't say or do anything that might upset the peasants.
$The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
$European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones, Tonga
$for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen, but is
$just a title with even less power and political importance than the
$UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where she is
$still the top of the power chain).
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
Then how come Edward VIII has to face 4 PMs i nthe process?
Edward wanted to marry Wallis. Wallis was already divorced, and still
married to her 2nd husband at the time. Most people did not approve of
Edward's plan to marry. The prime minister told Edward that the government
would resign and cause a constitutional crisis. Edward therefore chose to
abdicate.
The Doctor
2014-07-01 17:04:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by John Fleming
[Default] On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:21:52 +1200, while chained to a desk
$There's a bit of both.
$
$The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
$
$Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
$it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
$impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
$with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I agree. Making Charles king would be a mistake. Better to skip a
generation and let the crown pass directly to William.
$Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince William is
$much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
$perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an immature
$fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.
I guess, personality wise, they are all a bit like politicians that
way. Don't say or do anything that might upset the peasants.
$The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
$European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones, Tonga
$for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen, but is
$just a title with even less power and political importance than the
$UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where she is
$still the top of the power chain).
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
Then how come Edward VIII has to face 4 PMs i nthe process?
Edward wanted to marry Wallis. Wallis was already divorced, and still
married to her 2nd husband at the time. Most people did not approve of
Edward's plan to marry. The prime minister told Edward that the government
would resign and cause a constitutional crisis. Edward therefore chose to
abdicate.
Now for Cameron to do the same thing to the Current Prince of Wales.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-01 17:12:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by John Fleming
[Default] On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:21:52 +1200, while chained to a desk
$There's a bit of both.
$
$The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
$
$Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
$it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
$impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
$with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I agree. Making Charles king would be a mistake. Better to skip a
generation and let the crown pass directly to William.
$Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince William is
$much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
$perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an immature
$fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.
I guess, personality wise, they are all a bit like politicians that
way. Don't say or do anything that might upset the peasants.
$The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
$European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones, Tonga
$for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen, but is
$just a title with even less power and political importance than the
$UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where she is
$still the top of the power chain).
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
Then how come Edward VIII has to face 4 PMs i nthe process?
Edward wanted to marry Wallis. Wallis was already divorced, and still
married to her 2nd husband at the time. Most people did not approve of
Edward's plan to marry. The prime minister told Edward that the government
would resign and cause a constitutional crisis. Edward therefore chose to
abdicate.
Now for Cameron to do the same thing to the Current Prince of Wales.
Prince Charles has not broken any rules. Cameron could not threaten that the
government will resign because they won't. Unless Charles dies before his
mother, he will become king whether you or any prime minister likes it or
not.
The Doctor
2014-07-01 21:57:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by John Fleming
[Default] On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:21:52 +1200, while chained to a desk
$There's a bit of both.
$
$The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
$
$Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
$it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
$impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
$with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I agree. Making Charles king would be a mistake. Better to skip a
generation and let the crown pass directly to William.
$Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince William is
$much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
$perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an immature
$fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.
I guess, personality wise, they are all a bit like politicians that
way. Don't say or do anything that might upset the peasants.
$The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
$European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones, Tonga
$for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen, but is
$just a title with even less power and political importance than the
$UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where she is
$still the top of the power chain).
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
Then how come Edward VIII has to face 4 PMs i nthe process?
Edward wanted to marry Wallis. Wallis was already divorced, and still
married to her 2nd husband at the time. Most people did not approve of
Edward's plan to marry. The prime minister told Edward that the government
would resign and cause a constitutional crisis. Edward therefore chose to
abdicate.
Now for Cameron to do the same thing to the Current Prince of Wales.
Prince Charles has not broken any rules. Cameron could not threaten that the
government will resign because they won't. Unless Charles dies before his
mother, he will become king whether you or any prime minister likes it or
not.
And if think the Pblic has not forgotten the Prince's treatment
of Diana Spencer, you are living in a fantasy world.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-01 22:43:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by John Fleming
[Default] On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:21:52 +1200, while chained to a desk
$There's a bit of both.
$
$The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
$
$Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
$it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
$impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
$with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I agree. Making Charles king would be a mistake. Better to skip a
generation and let the crown pass directly to William.
$Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince William is
$much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
$perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an immature
$fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.
I guess, personality wise, they are all a bit like politicians that
way. Don't say or do anything that might upset the peasants.
$The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
$European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones, Tonga
$for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen, but is
$just a title with even less power and political importance than the
$UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where
she
is
$still the top of the power chain).
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
Then how come Edward VIII has to face 4 PMs i nthe process?
Edward wanted to marry Wallis. Wallis was already divorced, and still
married to her 2nd husband at the time. Most people did not approve of
Edward's plan to marry. The prime minister told Edward that the government
would resign and cause a constitutional crisis. Edward therefore chose to
abdicate.
Now for Cameron to do the same thing to the Current Prince of Wales.
Prince Charles has not broken any rules. Cameron could not threaten that the
government will resign because they won't. Unless Charles dies before his
mother, he will become king whether you or any prime minister likes it or
not.
And if think the Pblic has not forgotten the Prince's treatment
of Diana Spencer, you are living in a fantasy world.
How Charles treated Diana is irrelevant. What the public remembers, and what
the public thinks, is irrelevant. Charles will be king as long as he does
not die before his mother. He will also be king if Elizabeth chooses to
abdicate.

Besides, what do you know about the way Charles treated Diana? What do you
know about the way Diana treated Charles? Nothing. The 2 seperated. Charles
started seeing Camilla, Diana saw James Hewitt. Then Hasnat Khan. Then Dodi
Fayed.

What's your point?
The Doctor
2014-07-01 23:29:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by John Fleming
[Default] On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:21:52 +1200, while chained to a desk
$There's a bit of both.
$
$The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
$
$Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
$it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
$impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
$with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I agree. Making Charles king would be a mistake. Better to skip a
generation and let the crown pass directly to William.
$Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince William is
$much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
$perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an immature
$fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.
I guess, personality wise, they are all a bit like politicians that
way. Don't say or do anything that might upset the peasants.
$The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
$European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones, Tonga
$for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen, but is
$just a title with even less power and political importance than the
$UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where
she
is
$still the top of the power chain).
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
Then how come Edward VIII has to face 4 PMs i nthe process?
Edward wanted to marry Wallis. Wallis was already divorced, and still
married to her 2nd husband at the time. Most people did not approve of
Edward's plan to marry. The prime minister told Edward that the government
would resign and cause a constitutional crisis. Edward therefore chose to
abdicate.
Now for Cameron to do the same thing to the Current Prince of Wales.
Prince Charles has not broken any rules. Cameron could not threaten that the
government will resign because they won't. Unless Charles dies before his
mother, he will become king whether you or any prime minister likes it or
not.
And if think the Pblic has not forgotten the Prince's treatment
of Diana Spencer, you are living in a fantasy world.
How Charles treated Diana is irrelevant. What the public remembers, and what
the public thinks, is irrelevant. Charles will be king as long as he does
not die before his mother. He will also be king if Elizabeth chooses to
abdicate.
Besides, what do you know about the way Charles treated Diana? What do you
know about the way Diana treated Charles? Nothing. The 2 seperated. Charles
started seeing Camilla, Diana saw James Hewitt. Then Hasnat Khan. Then Dodi
Fayed.
What's your point?
And you call that acceptable for a public figure?
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience. -George Washington
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-02 16:35:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by John Fleming
[Default] On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:21:52 +1200, while chained to a desk
$There's a bit of both.
$
$The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
$
$Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
$it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
$impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
$with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I agree. Making Charles king would be a mistake. Better to skip a
generation and let the crown pass directly to William.
$Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince
William
is
$much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
$perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an immature
$fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.
I guess, personality wise, they are all a bit like politicians that
way. Don't say or do anything that might upset the peasants.
$The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
$European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones, Tonga
$for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen,
but
is
$just a title with even less power and political importance than the
$UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where
she
is
$still the top of the power chain).
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
Then how come Edward VIII has to face 4 PMs i nthe process?
Edward wanted to marry Wallis. Wallis was already divorced, and still
married to her 2nd husband at the time. Most people did not approve of
Edward's plan to marry. The prime minister told Edward that the government
would resign and cause a constitutional crisis. Edward therefore chose to
abdicate.
Now for Cameron to do the same thing to the Current Prince of Wales.
Prince Charles has not broken any rules. Cameron could not threaten that the
government will resign because they won't. Unless Charles dies before his
mother, he will become king whether you or any prime minister likes it or
not.
And if think the Pblic has not forgotten the Prince's treatment
of Diana Spencer, you are living in a fantasy world.
How Charles treated Diana is irrelevant. What the public remembers, and what
the public thinks, is irrelevant. Charles will be king as long as he does
not die before his mother. He will also be king if Elizabeth chooses to
abdicate.
Besides, what do you know about the way Charles treated Diana? What do you
know about the way Diana treated Charles? Nothing. The 2 seperated. Charles
started seeing Camilla, Diana saw James Hewitt. Then Hasnat Khan. Then Dodi
Fayed.
What's your point?
And you call that acceptable for a public figure?
Of course I do. Why shouldn't I? Charles divorced Diana. That was
acceptable. Charles married Camilla. That was acceptable. I don't see what
your problem is.
The Doctor
2014-07-02 19:19:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by John Fleming
[Default] On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:21:52 +1200, while chained to a desk
$There's a bit of both.
$
$The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
$
$Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
$it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
$impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly
dimbulbs
$with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I agree. Making Charles king would be a mistake. Better to skip a
generation and let the crown pass directly to William.
$Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince
William
is
$much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
$perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an
immature
$fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.
I guess, personality wise, they are all a bit like politicians that
way. Don't say or do anything that might upset the peasants.
$The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
$European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones,
Tonga
$for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen,
but
is
$just a title with even less power and political importance than the
$UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where
she
is
$still the top of the power chain).
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
Then how come Edward VIII has to face 4 PMs i nthe process?
Edward wanted to marry Wallis. Wallis was already divorced, and still
married to her 2nd husband at the time. Most people did not approve of
Edward's plan to marry. The prime minister told Edward that the government
would resign and cause a constitutional crisis. Edward therefore chose to
abdicate.
Now for Cameron to do the same thing to the Current Prince of Wales.
Prince Charles has not broken any rules. Cameron could not threaten that the
government will resign because they won't. Unless Charles dies before his
mother, he will become king whether you or any prime minister likes it or
not.
And if think the Pblic has not forgotten the Prince's treatment
of Diana Spencer, you are living in a fantasy world.
How Charles treated Diana is irrelevant. What the public remembers, and what
the public thinks, is irrelevant. Charles will be king as long as he does
not die before his mother. He will also be king if Elizabeth chooses to
abdicate.
Besides, what do you know about the way Charles treated Diana? What do you
know about the way Diana treated Charles? Nothing. The 2 seperated. Charles
started seeing Camilla, Diana saw James Hewitt. Then Hasnat Khan. Then Dodi
Fayed.
What's your point?
And you call that acceptable for a public figure?
Of course I do. Why shouldn't I? Charles divorced Diana. That was
acceptable. Charles married Camilla. That was acceptable. I don't see what
your problem is.
Just like Edward VIII married MRs. Simpson.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience. -George Washington
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-02 20:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
And if think the Pblic has not forgotten the Prince's treatment
of Diana Spencer, you are living in a fantasy world.
How Charles treated Diana is irrelevant. What the public remembers, and what
the public thinks, is irrelevant. Charles will be king as long as he does
not die before his mother. He will also be king if Elizabeth chooses to
abdicate.
Besides, what do you know about the way Charles treated Diana? What do you
know about the way Diana treated Charles? Nothing. The 2 seperated. Charles
started seeing Camilla, Diana saw James Hewitt. Then Hasnat Khan. Then Dodi
Fayed.
What's your point?
And you call that acceptable for a public figure?
Of course I do. Why shouldn't I? Charles divorced Diana. That was
acceptable. Charles married Camilla. That was acceptable. I don't see what
your problem is.
Just like Edward VIII married MRs. Simpson.
In 1936 the Church of England opposed the remarriage of divorced people. But
guess what, Yads? It's not 1936 today. Things change.

Do you think things should always be the same? Do you think women should not
be allowed to vote? Do you think black men should be kept as slaves and
called "niggers"? Do you think parents and teachers should be allowed to
beat children?

And things continue to change. The Queen has accepted that it's time to
scrap the rule saying that the crown should pass to the oldest male. And the
old rule forbidding marriage to a Roman Catholic has also been scrapped.

But even with all these changes, the fact remains that whatever hereditary
system in place is unfair, unjust and outdated.

So come on then, Yads. You're the monarchist. Tell me what you think is the
main advantage that a monarchy has over a republic.
The Doctor
2014-07-02 21:59:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
And if think the Pblic has not forgotten the Prince's treatment
of Diana Spencer, you are living in a fantasy world.
How Charles treated Diana is irrelevant. What the public remembers, and what
the public thinks, is irrelevant. Charles will be king as long as he does
not die before his mother. He will also be king if Elizabeth chooses to
abdicate.
Besides, what do you know about the way Charles treated Diana? What do you
know about the way Diana treated Charles? Nothing. The 2 seperated. Charles
started seeing Camilla, Diana saw James Hewitt. Then Hasnat Khan. Then Dodi
Fayed.
What's your point?
And you call that acceptable for a public figure?
Of course I do. Why shouldn't I? Charles divorced Diana. That was
acceptable. Charles married Camilla. That was acceptable. I don't see what
your problem is.
Just like Edward VIII married MRs. Simpson.
In 1936 the Church of England opposed the remarriage of divorced people. But
guess what, Yads? It's not 1936 today. Things change.
Do you think things should always be the same? Do you think women should not
be allowed to vote? Do you think black men should be kept as slaves and
called "niggers"? Do you think parents and teachers should be allowed to
beat children?
And things continue to change. The Queen has accepted that it's time to
scrap the rule saying that the crown should pass to the oldest male. And the
old rule forbidding marriage to a Roman Catholic has also been scrapped.
But even with all these changes, the fact remains that whatever hereditary
system in place is unfair, unjust and outdated.
So come on then, Yads. You're the monarchist. Tell me what you think is the
main advantage that a monarchy has over a republic.
Sorry mate, the Bible does not cahnge and the UK is a Bible based society.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience. -George Washington
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-03 16:31:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
And if think the Pblic has not forgotten the Prince's treatment
of Diana Spencer, you are living in a fantasy world.
How Charles treated Diana is irrelevant. What the public remembers,
and
what
the public thinks, is irrelevant. Charles will be king as long as he does
not die before his mother. He will also be king if Elizabeth chooses to
abdicate.
Besides, what do you know about the way Charles treated Diana? What do you
know about the way Diana treated Charles? Nothing. The 2 seperated. Charles
started seeing Camilla, Diana saw James Hewitt. Then Hasnat Khan. Then Dodi
Fayed.
What's your point?
And you call that acceptable for a public figure?
Of course I do. Why shouldn't I? Charles divorced Diana. That was
acceptable. Charles married Camilla. That was acceptable. I don't see what
your problem is.
Just like Edward VIII married MRs. Simpson.
In 1936 the Church of England opposed the remarriage of divorced people. But
guess what, Yads? It's not 1936 today. Things change.
Do you think things should always be the same? Do you think women should not
be allowed to vote? Do you think black men should be kept as slaves and
called "niggers"? Do you think parents and teachers should be allowed to
beat children?
Inability to provide an answer noted.
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
And things continue to change. The Queen has accepted that it's time to
scrap the rule saying that the crown should pass to the oldest male. And the
old rule forbidding marriage to a Roman Catholic has also been scrapped.
But even with all these changes, the fact remains that whatever hereditary
system in place is unfair, unjust and outdated.
So come on then, Yads. You're the monarchist. Tell me what you think is the
main advantage that a monarchy has over a republic.
Inability to provide an answer noted.
Post by The Doctor
Sorry mate, the Bible does not cahnge and the UK is a Bible based society.
Wrong again, Yads. The Bible has helped inform much of the UK historically.
But the UK is NOT "a Bible based society".

Even if it really was, the Bible may not have changed in the last few
hundred years, but translations and interpretations certainly have.

There's far more to life than the rubbish in the Bible. But yes, let's look
at the Bible for a minute. Perhaps you could show me which part of it says
it is wrong for a divorced man to remarry. Or whether a monarchy is better
or worse than a republic. I think you'll find it has more to say on
unicorns.

Oh yeah, and while you harp on about homosexuals, I can find you at least 3
same-sex relationships in the Bible. Ruth and Naomi. King David and
Jonathan. Daniel and Ashpanaz. So much for Biblical standards, eh?
The Doctor
2014-07-03 19:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
And if think the Pblic has not forgotten the Prince's treatment
of Diana Spencer, you are living in a fantasy world.
How Charles treated Diana is irrelevant. What the public remembers,
and
what
the public thinks, is irrelevant. Charles will be king as long as he does
not die before his mother. He will also be king if Elizabeth chooses to
abdicate.
Besides, what do you know about the way Charles treated Diana? What do you
know about the way Diana treated Charles? Nothing. The 2 seperated. Charles
started seeing Camilla, Diana saw James Hewitt. Then Hasnat Khan. Then Dodi
Fayed.
What's your point?
And you call that acceptable for a public figure?
Of course I do. Why shouldn't I? Charles divorced Diana. That was
acceptable. Charles married Camilla. That was acceptable. I don't see what
your problem is.
Just like Edward VIII married MRs. Simpson.
In 1936 the Church of England opposed the remarriage of divorced people. But
guess what, Yads? It's not 1936 today. Things change.
Do you think things should always be the same? Do you think women should not
be allowed to vote? Do you think black men should be kept as slaves and
called "niggers"? Do you think parents and teachers should be allowed to
beat children?
Inability to provide an answer noted.
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
And things continue to change. The Queen has accepted that it's time to
scrap the rule saying that the crown should pass to the oldest male. And the
old rule forbidding marriage to a Roman Catholic has also been scrapped.
But even with all these changes, the fact remains that whatever hereditary
system in place is unfair, unjust and outdated.
So come on then, Yads. You're the monarchist. Tell me what you think is the
main advantage that a monarchy has over a republic.
Inability to provide an answer noted.
Post by The Doctor
Sorry mate, the Bible does not cahnge and the UK is a Bible based society.
Wrong again, Yads. The Bible has helped inform much of the UK historically.
But the UK is NOT "a Bible based society".
Even if it really was, the Bible may not have changed in the last few
hundred years, but translations and interpretations certainly have.
There's far more to life than the rubbish in the Bible. But yes, let's look
at the Bible for a minute. Perhaps you could show me which part of it says
it is wrong for a divorced man to remarry. Or whether a monarchy is better
or worse than a republic. I think you'll find it has more to say on
unicorns.
Oh yeah, and while you harp on about homosexuals, I can find you at least 3
same-sex relationships in the Bible. Ruth and Naomi. King David and
Jonathan. Daniel and Ashpanaz. So much for Biblical standards, eh?
You are more than perserve SW. You Are Satanic!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience. -George Washington
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-03 21:25:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Sorry mate, the Bible does not cahnge and the UK is a Bible based society.
Wrong again, Yads. The Bible has helped inform much of the UK
historically.
But the UK is NOT "a Bible based society".
Even if it really was, the Bible may not have changed in the last few
hundred years, but translations and interpretations certainly have.
There's far more to life than the rubbish in the Bible. But yes, let's look
at the Bible for a minute. Perhaps you could show me which part of it says
it is wrong for a divorced man to remarry. Or whether a monarchy is better
or worse than a republic. I think you'll find it has more to say on
unicorns.
Oh yeah, and while you harp on about homosexuals, I can find you at least 3
same-sex relationships in the Bible. Ruth and Naomi. King David and
Jonathan. Daniel and Ashpanaz. So much for Biblical standards, eh?
You are more than perserve SW. You Are Satanic!
Why am I satanic Yads? You said the UK "is a Bible based society". I'm very
glad to report that it is not. If it was, we would all be banned from eating
pork, working on a sabbath, we would have to stone naughty boys to death, we
could keep slaves, women would be forbidden from teaching, men could have as
many wives as they wanted, etc.

But go on - show me where I'm wrong. Apart from rules such as not killing
(which Christians happily ignore during wars), and not stealing (neither of
which was considered to be polite long before the Bible was written, and is
also not considered polite in all non Christian countries as far as I'm
aware), how many Biblical rules can you name that show the UK is based on
the Bible?

As for the same sex relations I mentioned - I don't believe you've ever
really read the Bible. Not properly. But if you don't want to believe me,
how about one of your fellow Christians? Trevor Dennis is the vice dean of
Chester Cathedral. Read his article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/14/religion.gayrights

But you won't. You're too lazy. Here are his final 2 paragraphs: "The book
of Ruth is the great love story of the Bible and it is a story of love
between women - Ruth's marriage to Boaz is entered into only to protect the
relationship between the women and ensure their survival. The reality of
such gay and lesbian partnerships is that if they were heterosexual, we
would unhesitatingly call them "good marriages".
In a society which can be so casual about infidelity and so careless of the
consequences, which does not quite know how to value friendship or affirm
its importance, where so many children are given televisions in their
bedrooms but are starved of time with their parents, and where the horrors
and the prevalence of domestic violence are only beginning to be faced, the
Church has enough that is challenging to say, enough hard words to speak,
without condemning loving homosexual couples."

Right over your head as usual, eh? But basically, if you're calling me
Satanic then that also makes the Bible Satanic. I didn't write the stories.

Of course, there are a number of possibilities here.

The first is that the Bible has never condemned same sex relations. There is
really only one passage that even mentions it, and that is a very minor
sentence in Leviticus that could have a number of interpretations. And
seeing as almost every Christian ignores the majority of Leviticus anyway,
it hardly counts.

The second is that God keeps changing his mind. Don't work on the Sabbath,
says God. Do work on the Sabbath, says Jesus. Jesus is the son of God. Jesus
is God. Kill your enemy. Love your enemy. Jesus is love. Jesus came not to
send peace, but a sword. Take your pick...

The third is that the Bible was written by men. It contains some good
advice. It contains some bad advice. Some was relevant 2000 years ago. Some
is relevant today. One thing it certainly is not is the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth.


You're not getting any of this at all, are you Yads? Fingers in ears. Eyes
shut. Mind closed. Nobody at home.
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-03 22:07:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Sorry mate, the Bible does not cahnge and the UK is a Bible based society.
Wrong again, Yads. The Bible has helped inform much of the UK
historically.
But the UK is NOT "a Bible based society".
Even if it really was, the Bible may not have changed in the last few
hundred years, but translations and interpretations certainly have.
There's far more to life than the rubbish in the Bible. But yes, let's look
at the Bible for a minute. Perhaps you could show me which part of it says
it is wrong for a divorced man to remarry. Or whether a monarchy is better
or worse than a republic. I think you'll find it has more to say on
unicorns.
<snip>
Post by The Doctor
You are more than perserve SW. You Are Satanic!
Leviticus11:4 "Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the
cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the
cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

Leviticus 11:10 "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in
the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is
in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you."

Leviticus 11:27 "And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of
beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their
carcase shall be unclean until the even."

Leviticus 11:28-29 "These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping
things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the
tortoise after his kind, and the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard,
and the snail, and the mole."

Leviticus 3:17 "It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations
throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood."

Leviticus 11:13-20 "These are they which ye shall have in abomination among
the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and
the ossifrage, and the osprey, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow,
and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the
great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork,
the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. All fowls that
creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

Leviticus 10:6 "Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye
die, and lest wrath come upon all the people."

Leviticus 19:19 "Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come
upon thee."

Leviticus 19:27 "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads."

Leviticus 19:27 "Neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."

Leviticus 19:28 "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead,
nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord."

Leviticus 19:19 "Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed."

Leviticus 19:19 "Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind."

Leviticus 5:2 "If a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of
an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean
creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and
guilty."

Leviticus 12:4-5 "And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying
three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the
sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a
maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and
she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days."

Leviticus 10:9 "Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with
thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die."

Leviticus 23:3 "Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the
sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the
sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings."

Not one of those is relevant in the UK. None are observed, none are obeyed.
In fact I can think of no good reason for any of them. So come on Yads, help
me out here!! Which Biblical rules are relevant in the UK today?
The Doctor
2014-07-03 23:50:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Sorry mate, the Bible does not cahnge and the UK is a Bible based society.
Wrong again, Yads. The Bible has helped inform much of the UK historically.
But the UK is NOT "a Bible based society".
Even if it really was, the Bible may not have changed in the last few
hundred years, but translations and interpretations certainly have.
There's far more to life than the rubbish in the Bible. But yes, let's look
at the Bible for a minute. Perhaps you could show me which part of it says
it is wrong for a divorced man to remarry. Or whether a monarchy is better
or worse than a republic. I think you'll find it has more to say on
unicorns.
<snip>
Post by The Doctor
You are more than perserve SW. You Are Satanic!
Leviticus11:4 "Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the
cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the
cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."
Leviticus 11:10 "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in
the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is
in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you."
Leviticus 11:27 "And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of
beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their
carcase shall be unclean until the even."
Leviticus 11:28-29 "These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping
things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the
tortoise after his kind, and the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard,
and the snail, and the mole."
Leviticus 3:17 "It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations
throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood."
Leviticus 11:13-20 "These are they which ye shall have in abomination among
the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and
the ossifrage, and the osprey, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow,
and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the
great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork,
the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. All fowls that
creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."
Leviticus 10:6 "Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye
die, and lest wrath come upon all the people."
Leviticus 19:19 "Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come
upon thee."
Leviticus 19:27 "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads."
Leviticus 19:27 "Neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."
Leviticus 19:28 "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead,
nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord."
Leviticus 19:19 "Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed."
Leviticus 19:19 "Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind."
Leviticus 5:2 "If a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of
an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean
creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and
guilty."
Leviticus 12:4-5 "And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying
three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the
sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a
maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and
she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days."
Leviticus 10:9 "Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with
thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die."
Leviticus 23:3 "Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the
sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the
sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings."
Not one of those is relevant in the UK. None are observed, none are obeyed.
In fact I can think of no good reason for any of them. So come on Yads, help
me out here!! Which Biblical rules are relevant in the UK today?
Looks like a red heifer to me.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience. -George Washington
The Doctor
2014-07-03 23:48:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Sorry mate, the Bible does not cahnge and the UK is a Bible based society.
Wrong again, Yads. The Bible has helped inform much of the UK
historically.
But the UK is NOT "a Bible based society".
Even if it really was, the Bible may not have changed in the last few
hundred years, but translations and interpretations certainly have.
There's far more to life than the rubbish in the Bible. But yes, let's look
at the Bible for a minute. Perhaps you could show me which part of it says
it is wrong for a divorced man to remarry. Or whether a monarchy is better
or worse than a republic. I think you'll find it has more to say on
unicorns.
Oh yeah, and while you harp on about homosexuals, I can find you at least 3
same-sex relationships in the Bible. Ruth and Naomi. King David and
Jonathan. Daniel and Ashpanaz. So much for Biblical standards, eh?
You are more than perserve SW. You Are Satanic!
Why am I satanic Yads? You said the UK "is a Bible based society". I'm very
glad to report that it is not. If it was, we would all be banned from eating
pork, working on a sabbath, we would have to stone naughty boys to death, we
could keep slaves, women would be forbidden from teaching, men could have as
many wives as they wanted, etc.
But go on - show me where I'm wrong. Apart from rules such as not killing
(which Christians happily ignore during wars), and not stealing (neither of
which was considered to be polite long before the Bible was written, and is
also not considered polite in all non Christian countries as far as I'm
aware), how many Biblical rules can you name that show the UK is based on
the Bible?
As for the same sex relations I mentioned - I don't believe you've ever
really read the Bible. Not properly. But if you don't want to believe me,
how about one of your fellow Christians? Trevor Dennis is the vice dean of
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/14/religion.gayrights
But you won't. You're too lazy. Here are his final 2 paragraphs: "The book
of Ruth is the great love story of the Bible and it is a story of love
between women - Ruth's marriage to Boaz is entered into only to protect the
relationship between the women and ensure their survival. The reality of
such gay and lesbian partnerships is that if they were heterosexual, we
would unhesitatingly call them "good marriages".
In a society which can be so casual about infidelity and so careless of the
consequences, which does not quite know how to value friendship or affirm
its importance, where so many children are given televisions in their
bedrooms but are starved of time with their parents, and where the horrors
and the prevalence of domestic violence are only beginning to be faced, the
Church has enough that is challenging to say, enough hard words to speak,
without condemning loving homosexual couples."
Right over your head as usual, eh? But basically, if you're calling me
Satanic then that also makes the Bible Satanic. I didn't write the stories.
Of course, there are a number of possibilities here.
The first is that the Bible has never condemned same sex relations. There is
really only one passage that even mentions it, and that is a very minor
sentence in Leviticus that could have a number of interpretations. And
seeing as almost every Christian ignores the majority of Leviticus anyway,
it hardly counts.
The second is that God keeps changing his mind. Don't work on the Sabbath,
says God. Do work on the Sabbath, says Jesus. Jesus is the son of God. Jesus
is God. Kill your enemy. Love your enemy. Jesus is love. Jesus came not to
send peace, but a sword. Take your pick...
The third is that the Bible was written by men. It contains some good
advice. It contains some bad advice. Some was relevant 2000 years ago. Some
is relevant today. One thing it certainly is not is the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth.
You're not getting any of this at all, are you Yads? Fingers in ears. Eyes
shut. Mind closed. Nobody at home.
Looks like Oxxie Osbourne just took over the above acount.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience. -George Washington
Pudentame
2014-07-04 02:54:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Sorry mate, the Bible does not cahnge and the UK is a Bible based society.
The Bible has nothing to do with it. The relevant law governing
accession to the British throne is the Bill of Rights 1689, Act of
Settlement 1701 and Acts of Union 1800.

The most pertinent in Charles case is the Act of Settlement.
The Doctor
2014-07-04 14:31:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
Post by The Doctor
Sorry mate, the Bible does not cahnge and the UK is a Bible based society.
The Bible has nothing to do with it. The relevant law governing
accession to the British throne is the Bill of Rights 1689, Act of
Settlement 1701 and Acts of Union 1800.
The most pertinent in Charles case is the Act of Settlement.
Imagine an open adulterer being the head ofthe Church of England!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit. -Aristotle
Pudentame
2014-07-04 02:51:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:43:38 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
And if think the Pblic has not forgotten the Prince's treatment
of Diana Spencer, you are living in a fantasy world.
How Charles treated Diana is irrelevant. What the public remembers, and what
the public thinks, is irrelevant.
It's not, you know.

Charles can only become King with the consent of Parliament.
Parliament will be sensitive to any public outcry against Charles.

I wouldn't want to give odds on whether there would be such an outcry
or whether it would be strong enough to cause Parliament to withhold
consent, but it is NOT irrelevant.
The Doctor
2014-07-04 14:30:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:43:38 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
And if think the Pblic has not forgotten the Prince's treatment
of Diana Spencer, you are living in a fantasy world.
How Charles treated Diana is irrelevant. What the public remembers, and what
the public thinks, is irrelevant.
It's not, you know.
Charles can only become King with the consent of Parliament.
Parliament will be sensitive to any public outcry against Charles.
I wouldn't want to give odds on whether there would be such an outcry
or whether it would be strong enough to cause Parliament to withhold
consent, but it is NOT irrelevant.
10/10 for understanding your constitution!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit. -Aristotle
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-04 20:30:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:43:38 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
And if think the Pblic has not forgotten the Prince's treatment
of Diana Spencer, you are living in a fantasy world.
How Charles treated Diana is irrelevant. What the public remembers, and what
the public thinks, is irrelevant.
It's not, you know.
Charles can only become King with the consent of Parliament.
Parliament will be sensitive to any public outcry against Charles.
I wouldn't want to give odds on whether there would be such an outcry
or whether it would be strong enough to cause Parliament to withhold
consent, but it is NOT irrelevant.
10/10 for understanding your constitution!
Sorry Yads. You're both wrong.

Stephen Wilson
2014-07-04 20:29:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:43:38 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
And if think the Pblic has not forgotten the Prince's treatment
of Diana Spencer, you are living in a fantasy world.
How Charles treated Diana is irrelevant. What the public remembers, and what
the public thinks, is irrelevant.
It's not, you know.
Charles can only become King with the consent of Parliament.
Parliament will be sensitive to any public outcry against Charles.
Parliament has no say on the matter. To prevent Charles from becoming King
would be breaking the act of Settlement, not something any parliament is
likely to do.
Post by Pudentame
I wouldn't want to give odds on whether there would be such an outcry
or whether it would be strong enough to cause Parliament to withhold
consent, but it is NOT irrelevant.
I am not aware of any legislation that gives parliament any power to bar
Charles from the throne. Neither the parliament, nor the public, can prevent
it. I'm not sure why they'd want to - he's as qualified as anyone for the
role. The only thing that can prevent it is if Charles dies before the Queen
passes away (or abdicates), or if he breaks any of the current rules (which
he hasn't to date).
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-01 17:21:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by John Fleming
[Default] On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:21:52 +1200, while chained to a desk
$There's a bit of both.
$
$The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
$
$Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
$it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
$impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
$with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I agree. Making Charles king would be a mistake. Better to skip a
generation and let the crown pass directly to William.
$Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince William is
$much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
$perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an immature
$fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.
I guess, personality wise, they are all a bit like politicians that
way. Don't say or do anything that might upset the peasants.
$The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
$European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones, Tonga
$for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen, but is
$just a title with even less power and political importance than the
$UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where she is
$still the top of the power chain).
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
Then how come Edward VIII has to face 4 PMs i nthe process?
Edward wanted to marry Wallis. Wallis was already divorced, and still
married to her 2nd husband at the time. Most people did not approve of
Edward's plan to marry. The prime minister told Edward that the government
would resign and cause a constitutional crisis. Edward therefore chose to
abdicate.
Now for Cameron to do the same thing to the Current Prince of Wales.
For someone who claims to support the monarchy, you not only show very
little knowledge about it but also seem quite disdainful of the next in line
to the throne.

Perhaps you're not really such the royalist you think you are.
Pudentame
2014-07-04 02:46:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:54:51 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
It's not a done deal.

Succession to the throne is subject to provisions of the Bill of
Rights 1689, Act of settlement 1701 and the Acts of Union 1800. If
Parliament refuses to issue the Proclamation of Accession, he ain't
gonna' be King.

It all depends on what the Accession Council decides about Camilla.
She was a Roman Catholic during her marriage to Parker Bowles and both
of her children were raised in the Roman Catholic faith. She's also a
divorcee with a living former spouse, not to mention technically an
adultress.

The Accession Council could decide that disqualifies Charles under the
Act of Settlement 1701.

It's funny, reading about some of the shenanigans going on between the
various Royal scions & their significant others, you'd have a pretty
good script for Peyton Place, Dallas or any of the American day-time
soap operas.
The Doctor
2014-07-04 14:30:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:54:51 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
It's not a done deal.
Succession to the throne is subject to provisions of the Bill of
Rights 1689, Act of settlement 1701 and the Acts of Union 1800. If
Parliament refuses to issue the Proclamation of Accession, he ain't
gonna' be King.
It all depends on what the Accession Council decides about Camilla.
She was a Roman Catholic during her marriage to Parker Bowles and both
of her children were raised in the Roman Catholic faith. She's also a
divorcee with a living former spouse, not to mention technically an
adultress.
The Accession Council could decide that disqualifies Charles under the
Act of Settlement 1701.
It's funny, reading about some of the shenanigans going on between the
various Royal scions & their significant others, you'd have a pretty
good script for Peyton Place, Dallas or any of the American day-time
soap operas.
Pudentame for Liberal MP!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit. -Aristotle
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-04 20:18:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:54:51 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
It's not a done deal.
Succession to the throne is subject to provisions of the Bill of
Rights 1689, Act of settlement 1701 and the Acts of Union 1800. If
Parliament refuses to issue the Proclamation of Accession, he ain't
gonna' be King.
It all depends on what the Accession Council decides about Camilla.
She was a Roman Catholic during her marriage to Parker Bowles and both
of her children were raised in the Roman Catholic faith. She's also a
divorcee with a living former spouse, not to mention technically an
adultress.
The Accession Council could decide that disqualifies Charles under the
Act of Settlement 1701.
None of this is true. The Accession Council is a ceremonial body which makes
a formal declaration on the new monarch. It has no legal force. Succession
automatically passes to the new monarch under the very Act you named.
Post by Pudentame
It's funny, reading about some of the shenanigans going on between the
various Royal scions & their significant others, you'd have a pretty
good script for Peyton Place, Dallas or any of the American day-time
soap operas.
And quite a few scripts have been written using the royal family as their
basis - some being slightly more historically accurate than others, e.g.
The Madness of King George vs Black Adder...
The Doctor
2014-07-04 20:29:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Pudentame
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:54:51 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Well the Prime Ministers of the Crown do hold a vote on Succession.
Wrong again, Yads. If Elizabeth dies before Charles, Charles will become
King. The prime minister has no say in the matter.
It's not a done deal.
Succession to the throne is subject to provisions of the Bill of
Rights 1689, Act of settlement 1701 and the Acts of Union 1800. If
Parliament refuses to issue the Proclamation of Accession, he ain't
gonna' be King.
It all depends on what the Accession Council decides about Camilla.
She was a Roman Catholic during her marriage to Parker Bowles and both
of her children were raised in the Roman Catholic faith. She's also a
divorcee with a living former spouse, not to mention technically an
adultress.
The Accession Council could decide that disqualifies Charles under the
Act of Settlement 1701.
None of this is true. The Accession Council is a ceremonial body which makes
a formal declaration on the new monarch. It has no legal force. Succession
automatically passes to the new monarch under the very Act you named.
Post by Pudentame
It's funny, reading about some of the shenanigans going on between the
various Royal scions & their significant others, you'd have a pretty
good script for Peyton Place, Dallas or any of the American day-time
soap operas.
And quite a few scripts have been written using the royal family as their
basis - some being slightly more historically accurate than others, e.g.
The Madness of King George vs Black Adder...
And some good Doctor Who has come out of that.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit. -Aristotle
The Doctor
2014-07-01 14:51:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Name
Post by Pudentame
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:32:23 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Maybe, maybe not.
I've seen several economic studies that suggest the Royal Family are
Good Theater and that they generate far more tourist revenue to the UK
than the actual cost to the British taxpayer for their upkeep.
There's a bit of both.
The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
Somehow, presumably because it skips a generation, Prince William is
much better, although still a bit of lacking in personality (which
perhaps Kate and his child will help with). Harry is just an immature
fool, just like his father - who obviously isn't Charles.
The UK isn't the only place that has a monarchy though. Many of the
European countries still do, as well as some non-European ones, Tonga
for example has a King. New Zealand has a Maori King / Queen, but is
just a title with even less power and political importance than the
UK's Queen does (either in the UK or here in New Zealand where she is
still the top of the power chain).
William for KING!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Pudentame
2014-07-04 02:20:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Name
Post by Pudentame
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:32:23 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Maybe, maybe not.
I've seen several economic studies that suggest the Royal Family are
Good Theater and that they generate far more tourist revenue to the UK
than the actual cost to the British taxpayer for their upkeep.
There's a bit of both.
The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I've wondered if Charles might have disqualified himself marrying
Camilla ... divorcee & former Roman Catholic. Parliament might find
her (and him) as objectionable as they found Wallis Simpson.
The Doctor
2014-07-04 14:29:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
Post by Your Name
Post by Pudentame
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:32:23 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Maybe, maybe not.
I've seen several economic studies that suggest the Royal Family are
Good Theater and that they generate far more tourist revenue to the UK
than the actual cost to the British taxpayer for their upkeep.
There's a bit of both.
The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I've wondered if Charles might have disqualified himself marrying
Camilla ... divorcee & former Roman Catholic. Parliament might find
her (and him) as objectionable as they found Wallis Simpson.
Now THERE is an idea!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit. -Aristotle
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-04 20:30:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
Post by Your Name
Post by Pudentame
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:32:23 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why
Dave
thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so
significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Maybe, maybe not.
I've seen several economic studies that suggest the Royal Family are
Good Theater and that they generate far more tourist revenue to the UK
than the actual cost to the British taxpayer for their upkeep.
There's a bit of both.
The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I've wondered if Charles might have disqualified himself marrying
Camilla ... divorcee & former Roman Catholic. Parliament might find
her (and him) as objectionable as they found Wallis Simpson.
Now THERE is an idea!
And it's completely dead in the water.
Stephen Wilson
2014-07-04 20:07:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
Post by Your Name
Post by Pudentame
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:32:23 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why
Dave
thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Maybe, maybe not.
I've seen several economic studies that suggest the Royal Family are
Good Theater and that they generate far more tourist revenue to the UK
than the actual cost to the British taxpayer for their upkeep.
There's a bit of both.
The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I've wondered if Charles might have disqualified himself marrying
Camilla ... divorcee & former Roman Catholic. Parliament might find
her (and him) as objectionable as they found Wallis Simpson.
I'm afraid you're a little behind the times. The first is that the Anglican
Church cahnged its position on remarrying divorced people back in 2002.

The second is that Commonwealth leaders agreed, unanimously, to a few
changes in succession laws back in 2011. They came into force from April
2013.

It ended the requirement for all descendants of George II to seek the
consent of the monarch before marrying.
It lifted the ban on marrying a Roman Catholic.
And it gave daughters equal rights to the throne.

If you want more details, see the Succession to the Crown Bill 2013.
http://www.britroyals.com/Succession%20Bill%202013.pdf
The Doctor
2014-07-04 20:11:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Pudentame
Post by Your Name
Post by Pudentame
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:32:23 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why
Dave
thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so
significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Maybe, maybe not.
I've seen several economic studies that suggest the Royal Family are
Good Theater and that they generate far more tourist revenue to the UK
than the actual cost to the British taxpayer for their upkeep.
There's a bit of both.
The Queen herself is great, although getting old now.
Charles is an idiot who hopefully never becomes King (thinking about
it, Charles could who the fool George Bush was trying to
impersonante!). The other children of the Queen are similarly dimbulbs
with zero personality, thanks to a stuffy up-bringing.
I've wondered if Charles might have disqualified himself marrying
Camilla ... divorcee & former Roman Catholic. Parliament might find
her (and him) as objectionable as they found Wallis Simpson.
I'm afraid you're a little behind the times. The first is that the Anglican
Church cahnged its position on remarrying divorced people back in 2002.
The second is that Commonwealth leaders agreed, unanimously, to a few
changes in succession laws back in 2011. They came into force from April
2013.
It ended the requirement for all descendants of George II to seek the
consent of the monarch before marrying.
It lifted the ban on marrying a Roman Catholic.
And it gave daughters equal rights to the throne.
If you want more details, see the Succession to the Crown Bill 2013.
http://www.britroyals.com/Succession%20Bill%202013.pdf
Still the public have not forgotten the Prince of Wales over Diana.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit. -Aristotle
Your Name
2014-07-01 01:26:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:32:23 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Peter Irwin
Post by Stephen Wilson
I understood that perfectly. What I failed to understand was why Dave thinks
that having an actor depicting the Queen makes an episode so significant. He
still hasn't explained this.
He is a rather enthusiastic monarchist.
God Save the Queen
The Queen will not be saved by God. The monarchy is an outdated institution.
The royal family have all inherited their positions, not earned them. Most
of them are in-bred wastes of space.
Maybe, maybe not.
I've seen several economic studies that suggest the Royal Family are
Good Theater and that they generate far more tourist revenue to the UK
than the actual cost to the British taxpayer for their upkeep.
Studies can "prove" whatever the person paying for them wants the to
prove. They're fairly useless and inaccurate for any sensible kind of
decision-making.

I canrun a study to "prove" poo is good to eat ... by restricting my
poll so that only dung beatle opinions are allowed, but not actually
mentioning that fact anywhere in the published results.
Pudentame
2014-06-24 00:23:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:12:52 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Pudentame
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
It took him 30 years to get it though! He didn't get his doctorate until
2007.
But apart from Brian May, the following musicians all have doctorates: Greg
Graffin (singer in Bad Religion), Brian Briggs (singer in Stornoway), Brain
Cox (keyboardist in D:Ream), Sterling Morrison (guitarist in Velvet
Underground), Milo Aukerman (singer in the Descendants), Mira Aroyo
(keyboardist in Ladytron), David Grubbs, Karl Precoda (guitarist in the
Dream Syndicate). Probably more.
Having said that, there was something special about Queen.
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
No, just lazy.

If I were interested in making some point or other about them, I could
look them all up myself, but I ask merely from idle curiosity. Won't
really matter if I get an answer or not.

Nor does it lessen my admiration for Brian May's accomplishment that
it took him 30 years to acchieve his degree. I think it's cool that he
didn't give up his studies even though he was successful beyond most
people's wildest fantasies with his band.
The Doctor
2014-06-24 00:29:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:12:52 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Pudentame
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
It took him 30 years to get it though! He didn't get his doctorate until
2007.
But apart from Brian May, the following musicians all have doctorates: Greg
Graffin (singer in Bad Religion), Brian Briggs (singer in Stornoway), Brain
Cox (keyboardist in D:Ream), Sterling Morrison (guitarist in Velvet
Underground), Milo Aukerman (singer in the Descendants), Mira Aroyo
(keyboardist in Ladytron), David Grubbs, Karl Precoda (guitarist in the
Dream Syndicate). Probably more.
Having said that, there was something special about Queen.
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Now that is a loaded question.
No, just lazy.
If I were interested in making some point or other about them, I could
look them all up myself, but I ask merely from idle curiosity. Won't
really matter if I get an answer or not.
Nor does it lessen my admiration for Brian May's accomplishment that
it took him 30 years to acchieve his degree. I think it's cool that he
didn't give up his studies even though he was successful beyond most
people's wildest fantasies with his band.
He still rocks!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. -William G. McAdoo
Your Name
2014-06-21 22:04:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:12:52 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
It took him 30 years to get it though! He didn't get his doctorate until
2007.
But apart from Brian May, the following musicians all have doctorates: Greg
Graffin (singer in Bad Religion), Brian Briggs (singer in Stornoway), Brain
Cox (keyboardist in D:Ream), Sterling Morrison (guitarist in Velvet
Underground), Milo Aukerman (singer in the Descendants), Mira Aroyo
(keyboardist in Ladytron), David Grubbs, Karl Precoda (guitarist in the
Dream Syndicate). Probably more.
Having said that, there was something special about Queen.
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
Most of them certainly know all about "chemistry" thanks to alcohol,
drugs, smoking, ... They also know all about "biology" thanks to the
groupies. ;-)

Obviously Queen is special ... afterall, they "are the Champions". ;-)
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-21 22:23:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:12:52 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
It took him 30 years to get it though! He didn't get his doctorate until
2007.
But apart from Brian May, the following musicians all have doctorates: Greg
Graffin (singer in Bad Religion), Brian Briggs (singer in Stornoway), Brain
Cox (keyboardist in D:Ream), Sterling Morrison (guitarist in Velvet
Underground), Milo Aukerman (singer in the Descendants), Mira Aroyo
(keyboardist in Ladytron), David Grubbs, Karl Precoda (guitarist in the
Dream Syndicate). Probably more.
Having said that, there was something special about Queen.
How many of those are honorary and how many are earned in the hard
sciences?
In the above list, I think they were all earned. I can verify the following:
Greg Graffin: Majored in anthropology and geology, masters in geology, Ph.D
at Cornell University. Thesis: Evolution, Monism, Atheism, and the
Naturalist World-View: Perspectives from Evolutionary Biology"
Brian Briggs: gained a phD in ornithology specialising in duck ecology.
Brian Cox: BSc and MPhil in Physics, PhD after D:Ream disbanded in high
energy particle physics. Thesis "Double Diffraction Dissociation at Large
Momentum Transfer"
Sterling Morrison: PhD in medieval literature with a dissertation on the 4
signed poems of Cynewulf.
Milo Aukerman: Doctorate in biology from UC San Diego
Mira Aroyo: postgraduate research in genetics. D.Phil student in Division of
Molecular Genetics (although never actually completed her D.Phil)
David Grubbs: PhD in literature from University of Chicago
Karl Precoda: PhD in English, now a professor of Theatre and Cinema.
The Doctor
2014-06-19 22:12:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
The Royal Family doing Queen on Spitting Image.

NOw that's memories.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
For what I have received, may the Lord make me truly thankful. And more truly for what I have not received. -Storm Jameson
Stephen Wilson
2014-06-19 23:04:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
The Royal Family doing Queen on Spitting Image.
NOw that's memories.
You mean this:


So in one post you condemn Little Britain, and in this one you enthuse about
Spitting Image. Spitting Image was quite amusing when at its best, but at
its worst it was not only boring but also quite malicious in the way it
pilloried some people.
The Doctor
2014-06-20 02:35:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by The Doctor
Post by Pudentame
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:56:20 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
Post by Stephen Wilson
Post by Rob
Post by The Doctor
Queen's appearance in Silver Nemesis and Voyage of the Damned
did add a bit to DW.
I was thinking of Brian May and co. when I read that :-)
Queen haven't really been Queen since Freddie Mercury's passing.
Still, how many other rock 'n roll bands have a guitar player with a
Doctorate (PhD) in Astrophysics.
The Royal Family doing Queen on Spitting Image.
NOw that's memories.
You mean this: http://youtu.be/pHYvAf3lI_w
So in one post you condemn Little Britain, and in this one you enthuse about
Spitting Image. Spitting Image was quite amusing when at its best, but at
its worst it was not only boring but also quite malicious in the way it
pilloried some people.
Oi! You do not like satire then.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
For what I have received, may the Lord make me truly thankful. And more truly for what I have not received. -Storm Jameson
Loading...