Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

[I] The Queen Mother

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 1:13:18 PM3/30/02
to
I have just heard the news. The Queen Mother has died in Windsor today.

I don't know what to say.

:-(

Quantum Moth

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 1:20:46 PM3/30/02
to
Mark says they said...

> I have just heard the news. The Queen Mother has died in Windsor today.
>
> I don't know what to say.
>
We-ell, I do, but let's not start that thread, eh?

--
thom willis - http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz

it's easter. she'll be back up and running by tuesday..

Torak

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 12:49:45 PM3/30/02
to
"Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1710125a3...@news.cis.dfn.de...

> Mark says they said...
> > I have just heard the news. The Queen Mother has died in Windsor today.
> >
> > I don't know what to say.
> >
> We-ell, I do, but let's not start that thread, eh?

If you were about to start being republican, I think yes, don't start that
thread.


David Jensen

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 1:29:41 PM3/30/02
to
On 30 Mar 2002 10:13:18 -0800, in alt.fan.pratchett
dmzweb...@yahoo.co.uk (Mark) wrote in
<24a6e92f.02033...@posting.google.com>:


>I have just heard the news. The Queen Mother has died in Windsor today.
>
>I don't know what to say.
>
>:-(

I'm neither British nor a fan of British Royalty (except as a competitor
to Dallas and Dynasty), but everything I have heard about the Queen
Mother is that she exemplified what was supposed to be great and
honorable about royalty. Just her presence appears to have been enough
to keep the republicans from having the permanent upper hand in the UK
over the past decade.

Britain and the world were richer for her life.

Spooky

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 1:30:11 PM3/30/02
to

"Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in message
news:ajnp8.115$3w2....@news.chello.be...

Adding my sympathies, and also saying that no matter what anyone thinks of
the Monarchy as a position, the Queen Mother was a person, and a truly regal
person in her own right. That should be remembered above all.
May she rest in peace.
--
Spooky


Torak

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 1:04:16 PM3/30/02
to
"Spooky" <laptop...@ntlworld.combrain> wrote in message
news:Nunp8.21490$gj7.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

> "Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in message
> > "Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
> > > Mark says they said...
> > > > I have just heard the news. The Queen Mother has died in Windsor
today.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what to say.
> > > >
> > > We-ell, I do, but let's not start that thread, eh?
> >
> > If you were about to start being republican, I think yes, don't start
that thread.
>
> Adding my sympathies, and also saying that no matter what anyone thinks of
> the Monarchy as a position, the Queen Mother was a person, and a truly
regal
> person in her own right. That should be remembered above all.

Agreed. (And I'm *still* a staunch monarchist. So there.)

> May she rest in peace.

Seconded.


Quantum Moth

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 1:47:04 PM3/30/02
to
Torak says they said...
I will not "start being republican", because that is my starting
position. But I will attempt to keep silent in the face of even this.

101 year old woman dies!
film at 11..

Sherilyn

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 2:46:10 PM3/30/02
to
In message-id <MPG.1710187a8...@news.cis.dfn.de>,

Quantum Moth <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote:
> Torak says they said...
>> "Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1710125a3...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> > Mark says they said...
>> > > I have just heard the news. The Queen Mother has died in Windsor today.
>> > >
>> > > I don't know what to say.
>> > >
>> > We-ell, I do, but let's not start that thread, eh?
>>
>> If you were about to start being republican, I think yes, don't start that
>> thread.
>>
> I will not "start being republican", because that is my starting
> position. But I will attempt to keep silent in the face of even this.
>
Why? Do we have the BOP[1] in this group?

[1] Ban on Politics
--
Sherilyn

Quantum Moth

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 2:59:17 PM3/30/02
to
Sherilyn says they said...

No. But I don't want this argument. Especially not with people playing
the "Oh, you heartless fiend, she was a wonderful woman!" card at me.

i'm a firm believer in the concept of a ruling class.
especially as i rule.

Spooky

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 3:06:05 PM3/30/02
to

"Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.17102974f...@news.cis.dfn.de...

> Sherilyn says they said...
> > In message-id <MPG.1710187a8...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> > Quantum Moth <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote:
> > > Torak says they said...
> > >> "Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
> > >> news:MPG.1710125a3...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > >> > Mark says they said...
> I have just heard the news. The Queen Mother has died in Windsor
today.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I don't know what to say.
> > >> > >
> > >> > We-ell, I do, but let's not start that thread, eh?
> > >>
> If you were about to start being republican, I think yes, don't start
> that thread.
> > >>
> > > I will not "start being republican", because that is my starting
> > > position. But I will attempt to keep silent in the face of even this.
> > >
> > Why? Do we have the BOP[1] in this group?
> > [1] Ban on Politics
>
> No. But I don't want this argument. Especially not with people playing
> the "Oh, you heartless fiend, she was a wonderful woman!" card at me.

I don't see that that is the point.
It's a loss of life and a bit of respect, is all. She was an aged lady
respected world wide for the work she did for charities, same as Mother
Theresa or any other non-royal, for that matter.
Politics aside, the Royals don't rule - government does.
I'll butt out now. As you say, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
--
Spooky

Torak

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 3:04:45 PM3/30/02
to
"Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1710187a8...@news.cis.dfn.de...

> Torak says they said...
> > "Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
> > > Mark says they said...
> > > > I have just heard the news. The Queen Mother has died in Windsor
today.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what to say.
> > > >
> > > We-ell, I do, but let's not start that thread, eh?
> >
> > If you were about to start being republican, I think yes, don't start
that thread.
> >
> I will not "start being republican", because that is my starting
> position. But I will attempt to keep silent in the face of even this.

Jolly good.

I like having royals. It's nice.


Torak

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 3:05:42 PM3/30/02
to
"Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.17102974f...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> Sherilyn says they said...

> > Quantum Moth <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote:
> > > Torak says they said...
> > >> "Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
> > >> > Mark says they said...

> > >> If you were about to start being republican, I think yes, don't start
that
> > >> thread.
> > >>
> > > I will not "start being republican", because that is my starting
> > > position. But I will attempt to keep silent in the face of even this.
> > >
> > Why? Do we have the BOP[1] in this group?
> > [1] Ban on Politics
>
> No. But I don't want this argument. Especially not with people playing
> the "Oh, you heartless fiend, she was a wonderful woman!" card at me.

I can understand that - I prefer logic. Usually.


Corinne Pritchard

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 3:49:08 PM3/30/02
to
"Spooky" <laptop...@ntlworld.combrain> wrote in message
news:MUop8.21975$gj7.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

He hasn't even said what his opinion is, and already you're needing to butt
out?

What is the world coming to... ;)

--
Corinne


David Chapman

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 3:04:14 PM3/30/02
to
"Mark" <dmzweb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:24a6e92f.02033...@posting.google.com...

> I have just heard the news. The Queen Mother has died in Windsor today.
>
> I don't know what to say.

They said that the passing of Princess Margaret might be the
last stroke. It seems they were right.

--
"Do you just keep your newbies locked up in cages all alone?"

"Of course! That's what pets are for!"


Phil Davison

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 5:37:54 PM3/30/02
to
Quantum Moth wrote:

>I will not "start being republican", because that is my starting
>position. But I will attempt to keep silent in the face of even this.
>

I think I am possibly in the same position. However, Phoney Tony [1]
makes having a Royal family more acceptable.

[1] Am I right in thinking that he has planned his political life
after watching Peter Cook in "The Rise And Rise Of Michael Rimmer"?
--
Cyclops
Evil Heretic Infiltrator

Quantum Moth

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 7:31:15 PM3/30/02
to
Torak says they said...
> "Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote
>
> > I will not "start being republican", because that is my starting
> > position. But I will attempt to keep silent in the face of even this.
>
> Jolly good.

You're not doing an awful lot to encourage me to keep silent with this
sort of patronising remark, you know.



> I like having royals. It's nice.

And I don't. I think it's bloody awful.

i'm a firm believer in the concept of a ruling class.
especially as i rule.

David Jensen

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 7:38:24 PM3/30/02
to
On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:31:27 +0000, in alt.fan.pratchett
Bruce Richardson <ten.x...@ecurbtsi.REVERSE> wrote in
<slrnaacm6v.g4...@knossos.bruce>:


>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>> I'm neither British nor a fan of British Royalty (except as a competitor
>> to Dallas and Dynasty), but everything I have heard about the Queen
>> Mother is that she exemplified what was supposed to be great and
>> honorable about royalty.
>

>Well, that's all you would hear. Sacred cows are sacred cows.


>
>> Just her presence appears to have been enough
>> to keep the republicans from having the permanent upper hand in the UK
>> over the past decade.
>>
>> Britain and the world were richer for her life.
>

>This is true of most people, but if they happen to be randomly decended
>from royalty then it's taken for a given. If you're born in a slum then
>it's rarely acknowledged.

I think I missed the ways that Phillip and Charles have been helping.

Torak

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 8:05:52 PM3/30/02
to
"Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1710692a1...@news.cis.dfn.de...

> Torak says they said...
> > "Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote
> > > I will not "start being republican", because that is my starting
> > > position. But I will attempt to keep silent in the face of even this.
> >
> > Jolly good.
>
> You're not doing an awful lot to encourage me to keep silent with this
> sort of patronising remark, you know.

It wasn't meant to be patronising. Nor the start of a flame war.

> > I like having royals. It's nice.
>
> And I don't. I think it's bloody awful.

If you say so. I'll ask you why when the Queen Mum's funeral is out of the
way - not done to ask before.


Torak

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 8:08:35 PM3/30/02
to
"Bruce Richardson" <ten.x...@ecurbtsi.REVERSE> wrote in message
news:slrnaacm6v.g4...@knossos.bruce...

> David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
> > I'm neither British nor a fan of British Royalty (except as a competitor
> > to Dallas and Dynasty), but everything I have heard about the Queen
> > Mother is that she exemplified what was supposed to be great and
> > honorable about royalty.
>
> Well, that's all you would hear. Sacred cows are sacred cows.

Your opinions on the monarchy are yours, and you're welcome to them.
However, insulting someone as recently deceased as the Queen Mother is not
done. Very poor form indeed - are you American?

Remember what happened when someone insulted Spike Milligan recently. I
suggest you retract your comment before this becomes an even worse flame
war.


Mik

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 9:31:53 PM3/30/02
to
"Torak"wrote:
> "Bruce Richardson" wrote:

> > David Jensen wrote:
> > > I'm neither British nor a fan of British Royalty (except as a
> > > competitor to Dallas and Dynasty), but everything I have
> > > heard about the Queen Mother is that she exemplified what
> > > was supposed to be great and honorable about royalty.
> >
> > Well, that's all you would hear. Sacred cows are sacred cows.
>
> Your opinions on the monarchy are yours, and you're welcome to them.
> However, insulting someone as recently deceased as the Queen Mother is
> not done. Very poor form indeed - are you American?

Your opinions on Americans are yours, and you're welcome to them.
However, I don't really think referring to the QM as "a sacred cow"
constitutes an insult. Bruce was merely pointing out (as I understand
it) that she was one of the few remaining members of the royal family
about whom one tended not to hear derogatory tales, or rather tales
presented in a derogatory fashion. Look at it this way: imagine the
field day the British press would have if (for example) Prince Edward
had a propensity for drinking gin and a fondness for the gee gees. The
fact that the QM was never vilified for this (indeed, these traits were
often presented as ones that made her somehow 'one of us'), could be
construed as meaning that she was, indeed, viewed by some as a 'sacred
cow'.

> Remember what happened when someone insulted Spike Milligan recently.
> I suggest you retract your comment before this becomes an even worse
> flame war.

I suggest you get off your high horse and don't start a flame war over
this.

Cheers
Mik
--
"Without verticality, wisely the cochineal
emperor goes forth at teatime;
at evening the mollusc is silent
among the almond blossom" - TP, M '87


Michel

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 12:01:47 AM3/31/02
to
On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:08:35 +0200, "Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com>
wrote:

>However, insulting someone as recently deceased as the Queen Mother is not
>done. Very poor form indeed - are you American?
>

I've always found that "of the dead nothing but good" attitude to be
hypocritical. If they were bad[1] while they were still alive, they're
not suddenly saints when they die.

Even people who despise somebody while that person is alive, suddenly
only mentions how good he/she was after that person dies. As if they
suddenly totally change their mind about them. I don't like that. If
people are allowed to say somebody is a fool while that person is
alive, they should be allowed to say it after they die too.

Michel

[1] Am not saying the Queen Mother was bad, I'm talking about this
strange custom in general. I don't know much about her, so I have no
idea how good or bad she was, nor do I particularly care.

Flesh-eating dragon

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 3:33:01 AM3/31/02
to
"Quantum Moth" wrote :

> I will not "start being republican", because that is my starting
> position. But I will attempt to keep silent in the face of even this.

I am staggered at your use of the words "attempt" and "even".

Adrian.

Mary Messall

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 4:11:26 AM3/31/02
to
Michel wrote:
> Even people who despise somebody while that person is alive, suddenly
> only mentions how good he/she was after that person dies. As if they
> suddenly totally change their mind about them. I don't like that. If
> people are allowed to say somebody is a fool while that person is
> alive, they should be allowed to say it after they die too.

No. Because death is the ultimate weakness. And you don't take advantage
of weakness. That's it. That's the rule. It's not all that hard, and if
you apply it to your whole life, you'll do well.

The dead can't defend themselves, and the people who loved them are in
no condition to answer the insults. So it's not fair, in fact it's
cruel, to insult them. Wait. Your political views, your TV schedules,
they can wait. Eventually, and I can't give you a date here, but
eventually there's a point when it's not their death that just happened,
but their life. When people are just as likely to mention something
about them that happened twenty years before they died as two weeks
before. That's when they become a part of the past, and then you can
attack, if you like, although it doesn't hurt to show a little respect
even for historical figures.

-Mary

Quantum Moth

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 4:40:25 AM3/31/02
to
Flesh-eating dragon says they said...
Why, thank you.

Mark James Schryver -
"One cannot control what fools assume. If one runs around trying to
accomodate fools, one won't ever have time to get anything else done."

Jenny Radcliffe

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 4:49:11 AM3/31/02
to
David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote
> Bruce Richardson <ten.x...@ecurbtsi.REVERSE> wrote

> >David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
> >> Britain and the world were richer for her life.
> >This is true of most people, but if they happen to be randomly
> >decended from royalty then it's taken for a given. If you're born
> >in a slum then it's rarely acknowledged.
> I think I missed the ways that Phillip and Charles have been
> helping.

Dunno, my brother was a staunch republican until he got involved in the
Prince's Trust. Seems Charles is quite actively involved in keeping that
going, and it does a *lot* of good. Apparently broadly the same applies to
Phillip and the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme, although Doug says that
doesn't count for quite as much because he only started it in imitation of
Charles' scheme.

But I'm just peddling Doug's statements here, I don't really know it of my
own knowledge.


Quantum Moth

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 5:02:07 AM3/31/02
to
Mik says they said...

>
> Your opinions on Americans are yours, and you're welcome to them.
> However, I don't really think referring to the QM as "a sacred cow"
> constitutes an insult.

Pheep!

No, I'm not a sacred cow!

Oh, right.

a sacred monkey, perhaps.

Quantum Moth

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 5:06:18 AM3/31/02
to
Mary Messall says they said...

>
> No. Because death is the ultimate weakness. And you don't take advantage
> of weakness. That's it. That's the rule. It's not all that hard, and if
> you apply it to your whole life, you'll do well.

What are ye? Some kinda communist?

"yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

Torak

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 5:40:38 AM3/31/02
to
"Mik" <m...@spamtrap.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a85sfk$vv2$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

> "Torak"wrote:
> > "Bruce Richardson" wrote:
> > > David Jensen wrote:
> > > > I'm neither British nor a fan of British Royalty (except as a
> > > > competitor to Dallas and Dynasty), but everything I have
> > > > heard about the Queen Mother is that she exemplified what
> > > > was supposed to be great and honorable about royalty.
> > >
> > > Well, that's all you would hear. Sacred cows are sacred cows.
> >
> > Your opinions on the monarchy are yours, and you're welcome to them.
> > However, insulting someone as recently deceased as the Queen Mother is
> > not done. Very poor form indeed - are you American?
>
> Your opinions on Americans are yours, and you're welcome to them.

Nice one - I knew someone would pick up that line...

> However, I don't really think referring to the QM as "a sacred cow"
> constitutes an insult. Bruce was merely pointing out (as I understand
> it) that she was one of the few remaining members of the royal family
> about whom one tended not to hear derogatory tales, or rather tales
> presented in a derogatory fashion. Look at it this way: imagine the
> field day the British press would have if (for example) Prince Edward
> had a propensity for drinking gin and a fondness for the gee gees. The
> fact that the QM was never vilified for this (indeed, these traits were
> often presented as ones that made her somehow 'one of us'), could be
> construed as meaning that she was, indeed, viewed by some as a 'sacred
cow'.

Yes, but the term "sacred cow" carries an insulting subtext. Would you go up
to the Queen and say "Oi, you, yer mum's a cow"? Think about the
connotations.

> > Remember what happened when someone insulted Spike Milligan recently.
> > I suggest you retract your comment before this becomes an even worse
> > flame war.
>
> I suggest you get off your high horse and don't start a flame war over
> this.

I'm not starting one. I'm not going to continue one, either. And,
unfortunately, I haven't been near a horse for years, couldn't find a decent
riding school here. However, I digress.


Torak

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 5:41:47 AM3/31/02
to
"Michel" <elect...@theglobe.com> wrote in message
news:oe5dauonpkh7vj0t4...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:08:35 +0200, "Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com>
> >However, insulting someone as recently deceased as the Queen Mother is
not
> >done. Very poor form indeed - are you American?
> >
> I've always found that "of the dead nothing but good" attitude to be
> hypocritical. If they were bad[1] while they were still alive, they're
> not suddenly saints when they die.

Of course, it's just a matter of manners. It's poor form to start insulting
someone when they've just died.


Torak

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 5:42:47 AM3/31/02
to
"Mary Messall" <m.k.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3CA6D2BE...@durham.ac.uk...

> Michel wrote:
> > Even people who despise somebody while that person is alive, suddenly
> > only mentions how good he/she was after that person dies. As if they
> > suddenly totally change their mind about them. I don't like that. If
> > people are allowed to say somebody is a fool while that person is
> > alive, they should be allowed to say it after they die too.
>
> No. Because death is the ultimate weakness. And you don't take advantage
> of weakness. That's it. That's the rule. It's not all that hard, and if
> you apply it to your whole life, you'll do well.
>
> The dead can't defend themselves, and the people who loved them are in
> no condition to answer the insults. So it's not fair, in fact it's
> cruel, to insult them. Wait. Your political views, your TV schedules,

Nice one. ;-)

> they can wait. Eventually, and I can't give you a date here, but
> eventually there's a point when it's not their death that just happened,
> but their life. When people are just as likely to mention something
> about them that happened twenty years before they died as two weeks
> before. That's when they become a part of the past, and then you can
> attack, if you like, although it doesn't hurt to show a little respect
> even for historical figures.

Very much agreed. I'm glad I'm going to Durham.


Torak

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 5:43:15 AM3/31/02
to
"Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1710eff47...@news.cis.dfn.de...

> Mary Messall says they said...
> >
> > No. Because death is the ultimate weakness. And you don't take advantage
> > of weakness. That's it. That's the rule. It's not all that hard, and if
> > you apply it to your whole life, you'll do well.
>
> What are ye? Some kinda communist?

Eh? What on Earth are you blithering about?


Sylvain Chambon

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 5:54:26 AM3/31/02
to

Irony, I'd wager.

Sylvain.

Quantum Moth

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 6:02:39 AM3/31/02
to
Sylvain Chambon says they said...
Aww, don't ruin it.. <sef>

Belsambar

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 6:02:42 AM3/31/02
to
"Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in
news:cFBp8.50$Q24....@news.chello.be:

> Of course, it's just a matter of manners. It's poor form to start
> insulting someone when they've just died.

As far as I could see, he didn't insult the QM, he insulted (if you can
call it that) the Monarchy. I'd like to point the esteemed congregation
towards the famous saying by Voltaire:

"Sir, I wholeheartedly disagree with what you say, but I'll defend with my
life your right to say it"

TTFN

Torak

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 6:07:45 AM3/31/02
to
"Belsambar" <wd...@diespammerdie.hetnet.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns91E284B234447wd...@194.109.6.74...
> "Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in

>
> > Of course, it's just a matter of manners. It's poor form to start
> > insulting someone when they've just died.
>
> As far as I could see, he didn't insult the QM, he insulted (if you can
> call it that) the Monarchy. I'd like to point the esteemed congregation
> towards the famous saying by Voltaire:
>
> "Sir, I wholeheartedly disagree with what you say, but I'll defend with my
> life your right to say it"

Nice quote.


Torak

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 6:08:13 AM3/31/02
to
"Sylvain Chambon" <gou...@lepcf.org> wrote in message
news:1103_10...@news.free.fr...

> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:43:15 +0200, "Torak"
> > "Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
> > > Mary Messall says they said...
> > > >
> > > > No. Because death is the ultimate weakness. And you don't
> > > > take advantage of weakness. That's it. That's the rule.
> > > > It's not all that hard, and if you apply it to your whole
> > > > life, you'll do well.
> > >
> > > What are ye? Some kinda communist?
> >
> > Eh? What on Earth are you blithering about?
>
> Irony, I'd wager.

I hope so...


Belsambar

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 6:16:17 AM3/31/02
to
"Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in
news:y1Cp8.55$Q24....@news.chello.be:

>> "Sir, I wholeheartedly disagree with what you say, but I'll defend
>> with my life your right to say it"
>
> Nice quote.

One does one's best.. Personally, being from a monarchy myself, I can see
both sides of the argument. It IS an outdated concept, bue it IS also a
tradition with its good sides.. The way the British Royals are behaving
nowadays does tend to kindle republicanism, tho...

TTFN

Corinne Pritchard

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 6:22:16 AM3/31/02
to
"Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in message
news:_1Cp8.56$Q24....@news.chello.be...

*boggles that someone who doesn't recognise irony can enjoy Pratchett books*

--
Corinne


Kincaid

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 6:16:08 AM3/31/02
to
In article <7EBp8.49$Q24....@news.chello.be>,

Torak <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote:
> Yes, but the term "sacred cow" carries an insulting subtext. Would you
> go up to the Queen and say "Oi, you, yer mum's a cow"? Think about the
> connotations.

Um, you are aware of what 'sacred cow' means in this context, yes?

--
The second law of thermodynamics is "You do not talk about thermodynamics." nicked from Quantum Moth

Torak

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 7:46:07 AM3/31/02
to
"Corinne Pritchard" <corinne....@worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a86rd1$q4sbc$1...@ID-69734.news.dfncis.de...

> "Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in message
> > "Sylvain Chambon" <gou...@lepcf.org> wrote in message
> > > On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:43:15 +0200, "Torak"
> > > > "Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
> > > > > Mary Messall says they said...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No. Because death is the ultimate weakness. And you don't
> > > > > > take advantage of weakness. That's it. That's the rule.
> > > > > > It's not all that hard, and if you apply it to your whole
> > > > > > life, you'll do well.
> > > > >
> > > > > What are ye? Some kinda communist?
> > > >
> > > > Eh? What on Earth are you blithering about?
> > >
> > > Irony, I'd wager.
> >
> > I hope so...
>
> *boggles that someone who doesn't recognise irony can enjoy Pratchett
books*

I recognise irony - I've just met so many who don't, and I know quite a few
who'd say stuff like that and mean it...


Torak

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 7:46:57 AM3/31/02
to
"Kincaid" <Kin...@kincaid.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4b1fcf26...@freeserve.co.uk...

> Torak <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote:
> > Yes, but the term "sacred cow" carries an insulting subtext. Would you
> > go up to the Queen and say "Oi, you, yer mum's a cow"? Think about the
> > connotations.
>
> Um, you are aware of what 'sacred cow' means in this context, yes?

Of course, referring to how cattle are sacred in India and so on. However,
it could still be better phrased.


Torak

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 7:47:47 AM3/31/02
to
"Belsambar" <wd...@diespammerdie.hetnet.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns91E286FF88572wd...@194.109.6.74...
> "Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in

>
> >> "Sir, I wholeheartedly disagree with what you say, but I'll defend
> >> with my life your right to say it"
> >
> > Nice quote.
>
> One does one's best.. Personally, being from a monarchy myself, I can see
> both sides of the argument. It IS an outdated concept, bue it IS also a
> tradition with its good sides.. The way the British Royals are behaving
> nowadays does tend to kindle republicanism, tho...

I like tradition. But I agree, having affairs left right and centre isn't
the best PR stunt in the book.


Corinne Pritchard

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 9:11:15 AM3/31/02
to
"Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in message
news:MtDp8.71$Q24....@news.chello.be...

I suppose you need a ;-) to be able to tell, eh?

--
Corinne


Torak

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 9:21:04 AM3/31/02
to
"Corinne Pritchard" <corinne....@worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a875k2$qdpd2$1...@ID-69734.news.dfncis.de...

> "Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in message
> > "Corinne Pritchard" <corinne....@worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > "Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in message
> > > > "Sylvain Chambon" <gou...@lepcf.org> wrote in message
> > > > > On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:43:15 +0200, "Torak"
> > > > > > "Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > > Mary Messall says they said...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No. Because death is the ultimate weakness. And you don't
> > > > > > > > take advantage of weakness. That's it. That's the rule.
> > > > > > > > It's not all that hard, and if you apply it to your whole
> > > > > > > > life, you'll do well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What are ye? Some kinda communist?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eh? What on Earth are you blithering about?
> > > > >
> > > > > Irony, I'd wager.
> > > >
> > > > I hope so...
> > >
> > > *boggles that someone who doesn't recognise irony can enjoy Pratchett
books*
> >
> > I recognise irony - I've just met so many who don't, and I know quite a
few
> > who'd say stuff like that and mean it...
>
> I suppose you need a ;-) to be able to tell, eh?

With some people, yes. I know many people who would utter statements like
that in earnest, and I can't know if whoever it was who posted that is one
of those people.


David Jensen

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 9:53:18 AM3/31/02
to
On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:49:11 +0100, in alt.fan.pratchett
"Jenny Radcliffe" <jenny.r...@physics.org> wrote in
<a86mi3$q0qnm$2...@ID-110686.news.dfncis.de>:

Glad to hear it anyway.

Quantum Moth

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 10:33:55 AM3/31/02
to
Torak says they said...

>
> With some people, yes. I know many people who would utter statements like
> that in earnest, and I can't know if whoever it was who posted that is one
> of those people.

Well, I wouldn't want to be considered one of *those* people.

Terribly uncouth, those types.

the second law of thermodynamics is - you do not talk about
thermodynamics

Sherilyn

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 10:37:14 AM3/31/02
to
In message-id <3CA6D2BE...@durham.ac.uk>,
I don't agree with any of the above.
--
Sherilyn

Corinne Pritchard

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 10:54:19 AM3/31/02
to
"Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.17113cbe3...@news.cis.dfn.de...

> Torak says they said...
> >
> > With some people, yes. I know many people who would utter statements
like
> > that in earnest, and I can't know if whoever it was who posted that is
one
> > of those people.
>
> Well, I wouldn't want to be considered one of *those* people.
>
> Terribly uncouth, those types.
>

shush darling, he won't understand. *pats gently*

--
Corinne


Torak

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 11:01:08 AM3/31/02
to
"Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.17113cbe3...@news.cis.dfn.de...

> Torak says they said...
> >
> > With some people, yes. I know many people who would utter statements
like
> > that in earnest, and I can't know if whoever it was who posted that is
one
> > of those people.
>
> Well, I wouldn't want to be considered one of *those* people.
>
> Terribly uncouth, those types.

Indeed.


Torak

unread,
Mar 31, 2002, 11:02:16 AM3/31/02
to
"Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:slrnaaeb9a....@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...

Of course you don't. However, it's not a question of whether you agree,
since you're (obviously, from your comments) not the one affected. Have some
consideration for the Royal Family, just as you should for any bereaved
family.


Torak

unread,