[I] The Queen Mother
Mark
I don't know what to say.
:-(
Quantum Moth
> I have just heard the news. The Queen Mother has died in Windsor today.
>
> I don't know what to say.
>
--
thom willis - http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz
it's easter. she'll be back up and running by tuesday..
Torak
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
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
"Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in message
news:ajnp8.115$3w2....@news.chello.be...
Adding my sympathies, and also saying that no matter what anyone thinks of
the Monarchy as a position, the Queen Mother was a person, and a truly regal
person in her own right. That should be remembered above all.
May she rest in peace.
--
Spooky
Torak
news:Nunp8.21490$gj7.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > > > 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
position. But I will attempt to keep silent in the face of even this.
--
thom willis - http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz
101 year old woman dies!
film at 11..
Sherilyn
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.
>
[1] Ban on Politics
--
Sherilyn
Quantum Moth
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.
--
thom willis - http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz
i'm a firm believer in the concept of a ruling class.
especially as i rule.
Spooky
> 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
> > > > 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
> Sherilyn says they said...
> > Quantum Moth <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote:
> > > Torak says they said...
> > >> "Quantum Moth" <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote in message
> > >> 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
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
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
>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
> > 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.
--
thom willis - http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz
i'm a firm believer in the concept of a ruling class.
especially as i rule.
David Jensen
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
> 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
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.
>
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
> "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
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
> 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
> 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
--
thom willis - http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz
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
> 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
>
> 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.
--
thom willis - http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz
a sacred monkey, perhaps.
Quantum Moth
>
> 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?
--
thom willis - http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz
"yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
Torak
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
news:oe5dauonpkh7vj0t4...@4ax.com...
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
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
> 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
Irony, I'd wager.
Sylvain.
Quantum Moth
Belsambar
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
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
news:1103_10...@news.free.fr...
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:43:15 +0200, "Torak"
> > > >
> > > > 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
news:y1Cp8.55$Q24....@news.chello.be:
>> "Sir, I wholeheartedly disagree with what you say, but I'll defend
>> with my life your right to say it"
>
> Nice quote.
One does one's best.. Personally, being from a monarchy myself, I can see
both sides of the argument. It IS an outdated concept, bue it IS also a
tradition with its good sides.. The way the British Royals are behaving
nowadays does tend to kindle republicanism, tho...
TTFN
Corinne Pritchard
news:_1Cp8.56$Q24....@news.chello.be...
*boggles that someone who doesn't recognise irony can enjoy Pratchett books*
--
Corinne
Kincaid
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
news:a86rd1$q4sbc$1...@ID-69734.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > "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
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
> "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
I suppose you need a ;-) to be able to tell, eh?
--
Corinne
Torak
> > > > "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
"Jenny Radcliffe" <jenny.r...@physics.org> wrote in
<a86mi3$q0qnm$2...@ID-110686.news.dfncis.de>:
Glad to hear it anyway.
Quantum Moth
>
> 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.
--
thom willis - http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz
the second law of thermodynamics is - you do not talk about
thermodynamics
Sherilyn
Corinne Pritchard
> 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
> 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
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
> > >
> > > 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*
I understand, but as I say - one never knows nowadays if someone's being
serious. The comment wasn't weird enough to be an obvious joke.
Simon Waldman
> 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.
oh, certainly, it's tactful/sensitive/whatever to keep quiet. But that's
not the same as starting to pour out praise when you previously scorned
them.
--
"I don't mind anyone looking down on me, as long as they don't
expect me to be looking up." -Trevor Baylis
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Waldman, England email: swal...@firecloud.org.uk
http://www.firecloud.org.uk/simon
---------------------------------------------------------------
Torak
news:3CA741C1...@firecloud.org.uk...
> Mary Messall wrote:
> > 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.
>
> oh, certainly, it's tactful/sensitive/whatever to keep quiet. But that's
> not the same as starting to pour out praise when you previously scorned
> them.
Of course - nobody's under any obligation to suddenly start fawning over
them. However, if they feel compelled to start insulting them it is the
wrong time to do so.
Peter Ellis
>"Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote:
>>
>>I don't agree with any of the above.
>
>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.
It's hard to see how he's any more or less affected than (say) you.
Taking offence vicariously on the part of others is one of the worst
habits to acquire, and I urge you to beware it.
>
>Have some
>consideration for the Royal Family, just as you should for any bereaved
>family.
And his posting on this newsgroup affects them how?
Peter
Torak
news:MPG.171152344...@news.cable.ntlworld.com...
> to...@andrew-perry.com wrote:
> >"Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>I don't agree with any of the above.
> >
> >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.
>
> It's hard to see how he's any more or less affected than (say) you.
> Taking offence vicariously on the part of others is one of the worst
> habits to acquire, and I urge you to beware it.
Agreed, but it's just not done!
> >Have some
> >consideration for the Royal Family, just as you should for any bereaved
family.
>
> And his posting on this newsgroup affects them how?
It's a matter of principle. This is a public forum, and there's nothing
stopping the Queen from dropping in. That's my point - feel free to say
whatever you like about the Queen Mum in the comfort of your own home, but
not in public.
Michel
<swal...@firecloud.org.uk> wrote:
>Mary Messall wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>oh, certainly, it's tactful/sensitive/whatever to keep quiet. But that's
>not the same as starting to pour out praise when you previously scorned
>them.
That's exactly what I meant. There's lots of people who said insulting
things about somebody when alive, but who suddenly are full of praise
for that same person after he/she dies.
That's just hypocritical. If they don't want to hurt the people who
are left behind, they shouldn't say anything, not suddenly pretend
they admired the dead person.
Michel
Michel
wrote:
>Of course, it's just a matter of manners. It's poor form to start insulting
>someone when they've just died.
>
I didn't say anything about *starting* to insult them. I'm talking
about the people who already insulted them while they were still
alive. Their opinions haven't suddenly changed because the person they
disliked has died, so they shouldn't pretend.
Michel
Snifnoy the Swordfish
> > >>I don't agree with any of the above.
> > >
> > >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.
> >
> > It's hard to see how he's any more or less affected than (say) you.
> > Taking offence vicariously on the part of others is one of the worst
> > habits to acquire, and I urge you to beware it.
>
> Agreed, but it's just not done!
...so you're saying it's essentially arbitrary then?
--
This message was brought to you by the same 1000 time-traveling monkeys
from whom Shakespeare plagiarized Hamqlet.
Quantum Moth
>
> Of course - nobody's under any obligation to suddenly start fawning over
> them. However, if they feel compelled to start insulting them it is the
> wrong time to do so.
Define start. I've been doing this for years. All my life. Want me to
stop now? I don't think so.
--
thom willis - http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz
"yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
Torak
news:3CA74AE1...@optonline.net...
> Torak wrote:
> > > >>I don't agree with any of the above.
> > > >
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > It's hard to see how he's any more or less affected than (say) you.
> > > Taking offence vicariously on the part of others is one of the worst
> > > habits to acquire, and I urge you to beware it.
> >
> > Agreed, but it's just not done!
>
> ...so you're saying it's essentially arbitrary then?
No. One does not insult a recently deceased person where it may affect one
of the relatives, and as I've said - there's nothing stopping the Queen from
dropping in on this NG. Hey, maybe she's been lurking for years?
Torak
news:sgieau8109ebo371v...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:05:05 +0000, Simon Waldman
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >oh, certainly, it's tactful/sensitive/whatever to keep quiet. But that's
> >not the same as starting to pour out praise when you previously scorned
> >them.
>
> That's exactly what I meant. There's lots of people who said insulting
> things about somebody when alive, but who suddenly are full of praise
> for that same person after he/she dies.
> That's just hypocritical. If they don't want to hurt the people who
> are left behind, they shouldn't say anything, not suddenly pretend
> they admired the dead person.
Of course - one shouldn't suddenly start spouting sycophancy, but one
shouldn't take it as carte blanche to berate them.
Torak
insulting
> >someone when they've just died.
> >
> I didn't say anything about *starting* to insult them. I'm talking
> about the people who already insulted them while they were still
> alive. Their opinions haven't suddenly changed because the person they
> disliked has died, so they shouldn't pretend.
Of course not, but it's considered polite to not voice those opinions this
soon after the person's death.
Torak
> Torak says they said...
> >
> > Of course - nobody's under any obligation to suddenly start fawning over
> > them. However, if they feel compelled to start insulting them it is the
> > wrong time to do so.
>
> Define start. I've been doing this for years. All my life. Want me to
> stop now? I don't think so.
Let me rephrase that.
"However, if they feel compelled to insult them it is the wrong time to do
so."
April Goodwin-Smith
<snip>
> 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.
>
> them are in no condition to answer the insults. So it's not
> fair, in fact it's cruel, to insult them.
Mary? WYMM?
Another thing about the death of public figures is that they
become the lightening rod for all the grief that has no
sanctioned outlet. In this case, the death of Elizabeth, aka
Lady Elizabeth, aka The Little Duchess, aka The Queen Consort,
aka The Queen Mum, really does represent the closing of a door
on an era. If you miss people and things and ways of being
that belong to that era, her death stirs that up, and you weep
a little more because some things can never be mourned enough.
Grief is a very selfish emotion, and most of us know that, and
feel somewhat shamefaced about it. The advantage of public
grief, however, is that the guilt about selfishness is spread
out very thin. It is an opportunity to ditch a big burden in
exchange for a little one. The amount of public grief we are
willing to show is usually a measure of how much of ourselves
we have invested in the public person. (Which is why, for
instance, Diana brings on the deluge and Mother Theresa
does not.)
April.
(Okay. I'm invested in as much as I have lost my grandparents
and I miss them.)
--
"Things that try to look like things often do look more
like things than things. Well known fact."
Esmerelda Weatherwax (Pratchett 1988)
Sherilyn
Snifnoy the Swordfish <snif...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Torak wrote:
>> > >>I don't agree with any of the above.
>> > >
>> > >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.
>> >
>> > It's hard to see how he's any more or less affected than (say) you.
>> > Taking offence vicariously on the part of others is one of the worst
>> > habits to acquire, and I urge you to beware it.
>>
>> Agreed, but it's just not done!
>
> ...so you're saying it's essentially arbitrary then?
>
now that to offend Torak, whose pompous bleating is becoming more
entertaining by the minute.
I've been told by Torak that I owe the royal family something, I
disagree, and am demonstrating the contrafactuality of Torak's
ridiculous claim by going out of my way to be nasty about a family that
I've always regarded as a bunch of sponging parasites. When you can't
wind up a royalist arse-licker on afp, I don't think the group will be
worth posting to.
--
Sherilyn
April Goodwin-Smith
> 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.
Mary? WYMM?
Torak
> Snifnoy the Swordfish <snif...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > Torak wrote:
> >> > >>I don't agree with any of the above.
> >> > >
> >> > >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.
> >> >
> >> > It's hard to see how he's any more or less affected than (say) you.
> >> > Taking offence vicariously on the part of others is one of the worst
> >> > habits to acquire, and I urge you to beware it.
> >>
> >> Agreed, but it's just not done!
> >
> > ...so you're saying it's essentially arbitrary then?
> >
> I think there's no better reason to kick the royals in the balls right
> now that to offend Torak, whose pompous bleating is becoming more
> entertaining by the minute.
You mean we're both hanging around because of the other's amusement value?
> I've been told by Torak that I owe the royal family something, I
> disagree, and am demonstrating the contrafactuality of Torak's
> ridiculous claim by going out of my way to be nasty about a family that
> I've always regarded as a bunch of sponging parasites. When you can't
> wind up a royalist arse-licker on afp, I don't think the group will be
> worth posting to.
I've stated the facts re. parasites, so no point carrying on with that.
Quite frankly, I think you've just about run out of insults, and I can't be
bothered throwing them back at you any more.
OK, the next flame war topic is the Euro.
David Chapman
> I've been told by Torak that I owe the royal family something, I
> disagree, and am demonstrating the contrafactuality of Torak's
> ridiculous claim by going out of my way to be nasty about a family that
> I've always regarded as a bunch of sponging parasites.
Yep; you're doing an excellent job of opposing good-hearted
stupidity with evil stupidity. Keep up the good work; soon
you'll earn your Grade II Troll badge.
When you can't
> wind up a royalist arse-licker on afp, I don't think the group will be
> worth posting to.
So you're going to stop posting as soon as people agree with
you? OK, then - I agree with you.
--
"Do you just keep your newbies locked up in cages all alone?"
"Of course! That's what pets are for!"
Sherilyn
David Chapman <evil...@madasafish.com> wrote:
> "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnaaf25n....@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
>
>> I've been told by Torak that I owe the royal family something, I
>> disagree, and am demonstrating the contrafactuality of Torak's
>> ridiculous claim by going out of my way to be nasty about a family that
>> I've always regarded as a bunch of sponging parasites.
>
> Yep; you're doing an excellent job of opposing good-hearted
> stupidity with evil stupidity. Keep up the good work; soon
> you'll earn your Grade II Troll badge.
I really shouldn't encourage your propensity for idiotic flamage like
this, David, so I guess I'll pop you back in my killfile.
>
> When you can't
>> wind up a royalist arse-licker on afp, I don't think the group will be
>> worth posting to.
>
> So you're going to stop posting as soon as people agree with
> you? OK, then - I agree with you.
>
That looks to me like another non sequitur. Is anybody counting?
--
Sherilyn
Paul E. Jamison
> 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.
>
I haven't commented on this thread so far, because I'm not much for
holding my own in a debate, even if I were right. Also, not my Royalty.
However, I do want to say that I agree with you strongly, Mary.
There is such a thing as respect for the recently deceased, and there is
such
a thing as common courtesy, unfashionable though that is.
Another point, and I'll go back to general lurkerage: I don't like the idea
of
using a mourning thread to slag off a particular religion, political
view or parasitic institution, because I might be there someday. If I
were to haved dissed, say, Dudley Moore or Milton Berle after the
announcements of their passing, then come on myself weeks later and
said that my Mother had just passed away (and she's basically marking time
right now), how much sympathy am I going to get? How much sympathy
should I *expect* to get?
I agree that now is not the time to slag the institution of Royalty. Not if
I
expect emotional support down the line. Selfish, I know, but I'm only
human.
Paul E. Jamison
Michel
wrote:
>OK, the next flame war topic is the Euro.
>
Who says we even want you in the Euro? Not with the current exchange
rates anyway. Now if they'd use the rates from back when the current
Euro countries decided to join...
Michel (Going to the UK at least once a year, I wouldn't want to have
the exchange rates fixed at the current level)
April Goodwin-Smith
I apologize for this repost.
April.
Spooky
"Paul E. Jamison" <paul...@infi.net> wrote in message
news:3CA7F9CC...@infi.net...
> Mary Messall wrote:
>
> > Michel wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I haven't commented on this thread so far, because I'm not much for
> holding my own in a debate, even if I were right. Also, not my Royalty.
> However, I do want to say that I agree with you strongly, Mary.
> There is such a thing as respect for the recently deceased, and there is
>
> Another point, and I'll go back to general lurkerage: I don't like the
idea
> view or parasitic institution, because I might be there someday. If I
> were to haved dissed, say, Dudley Moore or Milton Berle after the
> announcements of their passing, then come on myself weeks later and
> said that my Mother had just passed away (and she's basically marking time
> right now), how much sympathy am I going to get? How much sympathy
> should I *expect* to get?
>
> I agree that now is not the time to slag the institution of Royalty. Not
if
> I expect emotional support down the line. Selfish, I know, but I'm only
> human.
AOL and (((HUGS)))
I'm sure that you will get all the support you need.
--
Spooky
Strangers are just friends I haven't met yet.
Torak
news:uaf90o4...@corp.supernews.com...
> > disagree, and am demonstrating the contrafactuality of Torak's
> > ridiculous claim by going out of my way to be nasty about a family that
> > I've always regarded as a bunch of sponging parasites.
>
> Yep; you're doing an excellent job of opposing good-hearted
> stupidity with evil stupidity. Keep up the good work; soon
> you'll earn your Grade II Troll badge.
<GRIN>
> When you can't
> > wind up a royalist arse-licker on afp, I don't think the group will be
> > worth posting to.
>
> So you're going to stop posting as soon as people agree with
> you? OK, then - I agree with you.
I agree, too. Definitely.
Torak
> >
> Who says we even want you in the Euro? Not with the current exchange
> rates anyway. Now if they'd use the rates from back when the current
> Euro countries decided to join...
OK, I don't want to be in the Euro. That settles that war quickly!
Torak
> > 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.
> > even for historical figures.
>
> I haven't commented on this thread so far, because I'm not much for
> holding my own in a debate, even if I were right. Also, not my Royalty.
> However, I do want to say that I agree with you strongly, Mary.
> There is such a thing as respect for the recently deceased, and there is
such
> a thing as common courtesy, unfashionable though that is.
Very much agreed.
Jacob Aron
"Corinne Pritchard" <corinne....@worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a86rd1$q4sbc$1...@ID-69734.news.dfncis.de...
> "Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in message
> news:_1Cp8.56$Q24....@news.chello.be...
> > "Sylvain Chambon" <gou...@lepcf.org> wrote in message
> > news:1103_10...@news.free.fr...
> > > On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:43:15 +0200, "Torak"> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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*
Its a bit like iron, isn't it?
--
Jacob Aron
"For", according to the trollish philosopher Plateau, "if you wants to
understan' an enemy, you gotta walk a mile in his shoes. Den, if he's still
your enemy, at least you're a mile away and he's got no shoes." - PTerry
Phil Davison
>"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.
>
Well maybe you could take your own advice. In another thread you
condoned Prince Philip's insults against Indians (on many occasions),
Chinese, deaf people, Canadians, British women, wives, the unemployed,
Scots in general, the people of Lockerbie, Hungarians, Nigerians,
Egyptians...
Need I go on?
--
Cyclops
Evil Heretic Infiltrator
Phil Davison
>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.
>
The Duke of Edinburgh Awards have been going longer than the Prince's
Trust [1] but I think he just lends his name to it. Prince Charles
actually gets involved with the Prince's Trust, for which he has been
on the end of some barbed comments from his father...
[1] Founded in 1956, based on the philosophy of the German
educationalist who founded Gordonstoun School.
Alex
> The Duke of Edinburgh Awards have been going longer than the Prince's
> Trust [1] but I think he just lends his name to it.
Well he does present the Gold Award personally if that helps.
--
Biscuit (TM)
Quantum Moth
> "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnaaf25n....@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
>
> > I've been told by Torak that I owe the royal family something, I
> > disagree, and am demonstrating the contrafactuality of Torak's
> > ridiculous claim by going out of my way to be nasty about a family that
> > I've always regarded as a bunch of sponging parasites.
>
> Yep; you're doing an excellent job of opposing good-hearted
> stupidity with evil stupidity. Keep up the good work; soon
> you'll earn your Grade II Troll badge.
I disagree that Torak is good-hearted on this matter; his attitude
towards those who disagree with him has been aggressive to say the least.
From the start. Even when I wasn't saying anything - and making a point
of not saying anything, out of a misguided sense of respect, not for the
deceased but for those on this group who may not appreciate my thoughts
on the matter at this time - his smugness and self-righteouness have been
launched in my direction and Sherilyn's direction, and in the direction
of anyone who dared to take issue with his netcopping.
The provocation has been enough, it has not been innocent, I really don't
feel it's good-hearted[1] and if a few of us are enjoying pricking at his
bubble of self-important piety, so much the better.
[1]In a charitable, spiritual or ethical way.
--
thom willis - http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz
i'm a firm believer in the concept of a ruling class.
especially as i rule.
David Roy
AOL to that - both of the main participants are coming across as
berks, and an obit thread is no place to lay into someone...
David
Quantum Moth
>
> AOL to that - both of the main participants are coming across as
> berks, and an obit thread is no place to lay into someone...
That, ladies and gentlemen, is irony. Please study it, there will be a
test in the morning.
--
thom willis - http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz
spiders follow you round the house because they think they are married to
you.
David Chapman
> wrote:
>
> >OK, the next flame war topic is the Euro.
> >
> Who says we even want you in the Euro?
Who says we *need* to be in the Euro?
Michel
<evil...@madasafish.com> wrote:
>Who says we *need* to be in the Euro?
Some UK politicians, I think.
Michel
--
Insert .sig here.
Michel
wrote:
>OK, I don't want to be in the Euro. That settles that war quickly!
>
I wish all wars were solved that easily.
Sherilyn
Quantum Moth <evil...@neo-tokyo.org> wrote:
[...]
>
> The provocation has been enough, it has not been innocent, I really don't
> feel it's good-hearted[1] and if a few of us are enjoying pricking at his
> bubble of self-important piety, so much the better.
I don't regard Torak's contributions as provocative, really, just ripe
for derision. I really cannot agree with those who seem to think it's
okay for the royalist nutters to take over large swathes of our
broadcasting media to pump out propaganda, whilst those with differing
views are supposed to sit on their hands for a few weeks out of a
respect that they probably don't feel in the first place.
The deaths and metamorphoses of old institutions are seldom comfortable
affairs.
--
Sherilyn
Melody S-K
"Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:slrnaagqnu....@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
I really cannot agree with those who seem to think it's
okay for the royalist nutters
Now *thats* the sort of thing that I take exception to ..it is
unneccesary and deliberately offensive. Please Sherilyn , explain to
me , civilly , why Royalists are nutters?
Melody
--
Hey, if you cut off your foot, you wouldn't keep putting it
in your mouth, but your body wouldn't be the same, would it?
David Roy
news:slrnaagqnu....@happy.sherilyn.org.uk:
Speaking as one sitting on his hands, it's not a question of respect
that I don't feel for the people involved - it's respect for others'
feelings of loss... I'm a lot sorrier to have lost Spike, Dud, and Barry.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that there are people out there who found
none of their work funny, but I'd be a lot happier if they'd sit on their
hands and not intervene in those obit threads. Basically, if it's an obit
thread, and you don't feel moved by the death, it's better to stay out of
the way.
David
David Chapman
> David Chapman says they said...
> > "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> > news:slrnaaf25n....@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
> >
> > > I've been told by Torak that I owe the royal family something, I
> > > disagree, and am demonstrating the contrafactuality of Torak's
> > > ridiculous claim by going out of my way to be nasty about a family
that
> > > I've always regarded as a bunch of sponging parasites.
> >
> > Yep; you're doing an excellent job of opposing good-hearted
> > stupidity with evil stupidity. Keep up the good work; soon
> > you'll earn your Grade II Troll badge.
>
> I disagree that Torak is good-hearted on this matter; his attitude
> towards those who disagree with him has been aggressive to say the least.
> From the start. Even when I wasn't saying anything - and making a point
> of not saying anything, out of a misguided sense of respect, not for the
> deceased but for those on this group who may not appreciate my thoughts
> on the matter at this time - his smugness and self-righteouness have been
> launched in my direction and Sherilyn's direction, and in the direction
> of anyone who dared to take issue with his netcopping.
Yah, but he's at least being a bit of a monster in an attempt to
stop people hurting others. Sherilyn is self-confessedly hurting
people for fun. That's totally indefensible.
Lesley Weston
I agree. I know it's traditional for a funeral to bring out all the family
feuds, but this is generally regarded as a bad thing. Can't we all try to
behave nicely now?
Lesley Weston.
Jenny Radcliffe
> > disagree, and am demonstrating the contrafactuality of Torak's
> > ridiculous claim by going out of my way to be nasty about a family
> > that I've always regarded as a bunch of sponging parasites.
> Yep; you're doing an excellent job of opposing good-hearted
> stupidity with evil stupidity. Keep up the good work; soon
> you'll earn your Grade II Troll badge.
Evil? It's not *evil* - I'm not even sure it's *stupidity*. What Sherilyn
seems to me to be exhibiting is deliberate callousness.
Torak, on the other hand, I have the distinct impression I'd be agreeing
with if he was only phrasing what he's trying to say a little better.
David Underdown
"Alex" <no....@mail.com> wrote in message
news:a89f7j$qb1fr$1...@ID-106519.news.dfncis.de...
Is that actually true now? I thought Prince Edward had actually taken
over as patron, BICBW.
--
David Underdown
Alex
news:a8a4t7$kti$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
http://www.theaward.org/contents.asp?mainID=4&main_name=Award+Programme
"The scheme started in 1956 and its Founder and Patron is HRH The Duke of Edinburgh."
http://www.theaward.org/contents.asp?mainID=8&main_name=Award+Q+%26+A&submod1ID=41&submod2ID=0
"what part does prince edward have in it
Chairman of the International Trustees; and a Trustee of the UK Award."
"How long does it take from getting your gold book signed to going to the palace?
Between 6-14 months"
Sherilyn
Melody S-K <Mel...@Wibble.org> wrote:
>
>
> "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnaagqnu....@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
>
> I really cannot agree with those who seem to think it's
> okay for the royalist nutters
>
> Now *thats* the sort of thing that I take exception to ..it is
> unneccesary and deliberately offensive. Please Sherilyn , explain to
> me , civilly , why Royalists are nutters?
You mean you don't know? :)
A royalist advocates precedence by lineal descent. Enough said.
--
Sherilyn
Belsambar
>
> Listen, you pompous idiot, the term "sacred cow" refers to the fact
> that cows are sacred in India and cannot be touched. In vernacular
> English it refers to things or people whom convention dictates may not
> be criticesed. I wasn't calling her a cow.
>
</mildly>
The word you're looking for is 'metaphore'
</mildly off>
TTFN
Jenny Radcliffe
> > okay for the royalist nutters
> > Now *thats* the sort of thing that I take exception to ..it is
> > unneccesary and deliberately offensive. Please Sherilyn , explain
> > to me , civilly , why Royalists are nutters?
> You mean you don't know? :)
> A royalist advocates precedence by lineal descent. Enough said.
You have children, I know. Do you intend to leave them anything when you
die?
Have you ever inherited anything from any ancestors?
To me, royalty is only an extension of, oh, my possession of my
great-grandmother's diamond ring.
Sherilyn
not possessions. I am not Mrs Windsor's diamond ring.
--
Sherilyn
M.S.R
> David Roy says they said...
> >
> > AOL to that - both of the main participants are
> > > coming across as
> > berks, and an obit thread is no place to lay into
> > someone...
>
> That, ladies and gentlemen, is irony. Please study it,
> there will be a
> test in the morning.
>
> --
It *can't* be irony - there wasn't a smiley.
Andrew Gray
>Torak, on the other hand, I have the distinct impression I'd be agreeing
>with if he was only phrasing what he's trying to say a little better.
I'd agree with what he's saying if, not only was it phrased better but,
emphatically, it *wasn't said*...
-Andrew.