Charles & Camilla: An alternative view

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Bog McBog O'Boggable

unread,
Apr 8, 2005, 1:29:18 PM4/8/05
to
So Jake Drake thinks the Pope got unending affection this week, does
he?

Obviously, he's never heard of The House of Windsor (Battenburg)

He wants to come to Britain. You Americans are said to lurve the
British Royals. You can 'ave 'em! A more dysfunctional, delusional,
untalented, unintelligent bunch of nomarks than this mob does not exist
anywhere.

If Charles "Dickhead Dumbo" Windsor was a roadbuilder and had his
family of misfits and ne'er do wells with him, he'd never get into
America. Because he is Royalty (allegedly),you fawn over him. With the
behaviour of his unruly family, you'd soon get sick of the lot of them.
In an age where the Monarchy is at an all time low in support,
appreciation and respect, this crowd thinks that all they have to do is
have a wedding and everyone will line the streets and cheer.

And they have an exaggerated view of their place in history. Just
because of the number of tourists. It hasn't occurred to them that when
foreign tourists visits Buck Pally, it's to get a feeling of British
pageantry and history, not to wonder at the splendor of the
Battenburgs...er, sorry...Vindsors.

Anyone remember the wedding of Dumbo and Ditzy Spencer? Allegedly 30
million Brits watched on TV as it occurred live (well, as live as Royal
weddings EVER get). Since then, the mystique of the Royals has been
eroded away, as the people have become sickened of their petulence and
disregard for the people they want to rule over. Tomorrow, Dumbo gets
spliced to Camilla "Camel Face" Parker-Bowles (Bowels?). Dumbo and
Camel Face. Made for each other.

They'll be lucky if 30 people watch that fiasco.

God save the Queen?
God help the rest of us!

b m o'b

Steve Silverman

unread,
Apr 8, 2005, 1:43:20 PM4/8/05
to

"Bog McBog O'Boggable" <raff_ma...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1112981358.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


> He wants to come to Britain. You Americans are said to lurve the
> British Royals. You can 'ave 'em! A more dysfunctional, delusional,
> untalented, unintelligent bunch of nomarks than this mob does not exist
> anywhere.

What makes you think that's an alternative view? Sounds pretty mainstream to
me.

Steve Silverman


La Donna Mobile

unread,
Apr 8, 2005, 1:57:36 PM4/8/05
to

Bog McBog O'Boggable wrote:

>
>They'll be lucky if 30 people watch that fiasco.
>
>
>
>

I beg to differ!

30 million will be watching just to see the sour vinegar look on the
Queen's face. I wouldn't miss it for the world.

Anyway, rumour has it he's got a stag night in Rome tonight. Half the
College of Cardinals are going to get him drunk, Ratzinger's
hand-cuffing him to a lamppost, but only after Clinton's taken him on a
tour of the red light district (where all leave has been cancelled,
reportedly) and Mugabe's giving him an inflatable sheep. Dubya will look
on, bemused.

--
http://www.madmusingsof.me.uk/weblog/
http://www.geraldine-curtis.me.uk/photoblog/

Erasmus Zacchary Drainpipe

unread,
Apr 8, 2005, 2:04:46 PM4/8/05
to
...but the thing that gets me is that as they get older, they look more
and more like their ancestors.

Betty Battenburg is turning into Queen Vic (I don't mean the
Eastenders' pub...or do I?)
Dumbo is turning into George III (as portrayed by N Hawthorne)
Randy Andy is another Nicholas II of Russia

donpaolo

unread,
Apr 8, 2005, 10:41:17 PM4/8/05
to
See what happens when just a few OTs are posted? They grow & grow in number
until the integrity of the entire "raison d'etre" is compromised &
bastardized.

DonPaolo
"Jon E. Szostak, Sr." <jszostaks...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DridnQJYka8...@giganews.com...
> Isn't this kind of stuff supposed to be marked OT? And isn't this an
> 'opera' NG? I really don't mind the occasional OT...but lately there's
> more of that than 'opera'. What gives?
> --
> Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
>
>
> "Steve Silverman" <ssil...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:d36fro$dkv$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...

alanwa...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 8, 2005, 6:17:57 PM4/8/05
to
Cannot possibly say about the College of Cardinals (although I do like
the idea) but there's a musical problem as well.

The original wedding date (today, Friday) had a Thursday morning
rehearsal by Sir Charles Mackerras and then 2-to whenever
(OVERTIME!!!!) rehearsing with Mr Warren-Green for The Big Event.

Accordingly, the final Mackerras rehearsal for his 3 pm Sunday concert
at the Royal Festival Hall (Brahms Tragic, Dvorak Cello, Brahms 2) was
switched to Saturday 10-1, 2-5, the cellist not now arriving until late
Friday night.

When the departure of His Holiness caused Charles and Camilla to
rearrange things that left a sort of marooned cellist and a sort of
marooned Philharmonia/Mackerras.

Of course the Philharmonia will play for the occasion
except....errr...most of them won't be from the Philharmonia.

Telephones rang, I imagine, with that slightly panic stricken voice
which begins: "Do you happen to be free Friday and Saturday. We can
offer a principal fee............"

I hope the music-making will be wonderful but I think I should warn you
that it may not be from the Philharmonia and if the orchestra are shown
on TV you, as a regular concertgoer, might recognise a few faces from
other ensembles.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins

La Donna Mobile

unread,
Apr 8, 2005, 6:20:59 PM4/8/05
to

alanwa...@aol.com wrote:

Ooh, I had a panic, but it's the London Phil I'm off to tomorrow night...

REG

unread,
Apr 8, 2005, 7:39:21 PM4/8/05
to
I never understand why the Brits don't like the Royal Family. It seems like
just about the best thing in Britain other than West End Theatre and
Scotland.


"Steve Silverman" <ssil...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d36fro$dkv$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
>

Stephen Jay-Taylor

unread,
Apr 8, 2005, 8:26:14 PM4/8/05
to
Personally, Idon't know which bores and/or irritates me more : The House of
Windsor, or Scotland. But at least we can agree about ( at least some of )
our theatre, and the outstanding musical life here in London. Not to mention
our tea-rooms...

SJT, not mentioning our tea-rooms


Erasmus Zacchary Drainpipe

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 4:01:36 AM4/9/05
to
Proof tghat you need them over there with you for a few months so you
can see what they're really like.

West End Theatre is overrated, anyway. Scotland is beautiful, I have to
agree.

Michael Bednarek

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 4:51:58 AM4/9/05
to
On 8 Apr 2005 10:29:18 -0700, "Bog McBog O'Boggable"
<raff_ma...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in rec.music.opera:

[snip]


> In an age where the Monarchy is at an all time low in support,
>appreciation and respect, this crowd thinks that all they have to do is
>have a wedding and everyone will line the streets and cheer.

[snip]

The Australian Republican Movement is quietly rather chuffed with this
wedding - it furthers their cause enormously.
<http://www.theage.com.au/news/Breaking-News/Republicans-get-a-royal-boost-ARM/2005/02/11/1108061849287.html>
<http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/mediaroom/mr112.htm>
<http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?l_id=15&ObjectID=10116717>

--
Michael Bednarek http://mbednarek.com/ "POST NO BILLS"

Steve Silverman

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 5:14:29 AM4/9/05
to

"Jon E. Szostak, Sr." <jszostaks...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DridnQJYka8...@giganews.com...
> Isn't this kind of stuff supposed to be marked OT? And isn't this an
> 'opera' NG? I really don't mind the occasional OT...but lately there's
> more of that than 'opera'. What gives?

Isn't the OT-ness of the thread self-evident from it's title. I find it hard
to believe that adding the letters OT would make it any clearer. It's not so
long ago that this newsgroup was drowning in discussions about American
politics. The least you can do is to allow us Brits our moment in the sun!!

Steve Silverman


Steve Silverman

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 5:16:15 AM4/9/05
to

"donpaolo" <donp...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:K9adnQWMU8G...@rcn.net...

> See what happens when just a few OTs are posted? They grow & grow in
> number until the integrity of the entire "raison d'etre" is compromised &
> bastardized.

It's always vastly entertaining when complaints about OT threads emanate
from individuals who are perfectly happy to participate in them when it
suits their immediate purpose.

Steve Silverman


Steve Silverman

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 5:18:41 AM4/9/05
to

"REG" <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JCE5e.1592$yl6.1...@twister.nyc.rr.com...

>I never understand why the Brits don't like the Royal Family.

The pomp, ceremony and tradition are great. It's just the incumbents that
are the problem.

Steve Silverman


Erasmus Zacchary Drainpipe

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 5:40:19 AM4/9/05
to
Don Paolo, it was meant as much as anythjing else a swipe at the
resident troll by the name of Jake Drake qho posts on anything BUT
opera.

I know he posts on OPera L, but he annnoys everyone there as well

Regards

ezd

La Donna Mobile

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 6:17:50 AM4/9/05
to
He asks this question on a thread with a contribution already by a
Loony-Lefty politically-obsessed Republican?

Hmm, where do I begin...

REG wrote:

--
http://www.madmusingsof.me.uk/weblog/
http://www.geraldine-curtis.me.uk/photoblog/

stephenmead

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 6:35:18 AM4/9/05
to

"REG" <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JCE5e.1592$yl6.1...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> I never understand why the Brits don't like the Royal Family.

How long have you got?
Actually, opinion polls showed that the vast majority of the UK population
did support the monarchy until the debacle and never-ending soap
opera/tragedy of the marriage of Charles and Diana and all the associated
scandals. When Charles married Diana in 1981, one million people lined the
streets to wish them well. Articles in the British press this week have
shown that the cheering smiling faces you will see if you watch the
proceedings of today's royal wedding as the party makes it way from Windsor
Castle to the Guildhall are a "rent-a-crowd" of people associated with
charities supported by the Prince of Wales, including the Royal Opera and
the Royal Ballet, I am sorry to say, who were written to secretly by one of
Charles's aides and asked to send people along to stand outside and cheer
and wave to ensure that the route is not lined with anti-Charles and Camilla
demonstrators.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/17732467?source=Evening%20Standa
rd

> It seems like
> just about the best thing in Britain other than West End Theatre and
> Scotland.
>

Fraid spoken theatre doesn't do it for me any more and I loathe ghastly
West End "musicals".Best things are London operatic and musical / night life
and beautiful landscapes, not just of Scotland, but Devon and Cornwall,
Wales, the Yorkshire moors and others.


La Donna Mobile

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 7:19:00 AM4/9/05
to
Whilst agreeing with much, may I also put in a plea for the built environment. I am quite besotted by the London skyline, and I adore the way that the new addiitons over the past 7 or 8 years have added to that.

Also, the sheer variety of good food available from just about every corner of the Globe (hint: avoid the West End). And Real Ale. Definitely Real Ale.

Sadly claiming no credit for the London Eye.

REG

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 7:16:12 AM4/9/05
to
I understand a little about the debacle of the marriage - by a little it's
not that I haven't followed it, but I mean that I can imagine a bit how it
strikes people there. But despite Charles' infidelity, it always seemed to
me that Diana was such a bad sort, underneath that mock humility, that I
felt that to some degree it cleansed Charles in my own view. If he's to be
faulted, as I see it, it's for marrying such a vengeful and destructive
narcissistic bitch.....although her death wasn't planned, I can't' believe,
it seems foreordained by the extraordinary extent of her own
self-destructiveness....but perhaps my view is far off.


"stephenmead" <ste...@mead9720.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d38d4f$mbj$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...

La Donna Mobile

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 7:32:52 AM4/9/05
to
I'm surprised an American needs explaining the inherent immaturity of a constitution that deems that power is handed down from the "Queen-in-Parliament" to the people, rather than coming from the people, of the people,  for the people. This leads to a culture of deference, which is fast fading, but is still inherent in the fabric.

I am intensely frustrated by opinion polls that state repeatedly that large numbers of the population want Charles to be passed over as Head of State for William. One, those people clearly fail to realise that their opinion matters not one iota, they don't get to choose, that's the point of a hereditary monarchy; secondly, they consistently fail to explain what skills or experience William can possibly bring to the post, other than being intensely photogenic, and reportedly, quite a pleasant young man.

There are far too many hangers-on and freeloaders, and whilst few reasonable people would harshly criticise the Queen as a person or the way she does the job, it is pretty clear that most of that bunch - her included, I think -  hold the rest of us in very deep contempt.

The amount of income they derive from the Crown Estates, the Duchy of Cornwall etc, basically land stolen in historical times, is obscene - and, BTW, the Duchy of Cornwall is landlord for  many grotty flats near the South Bank. We were quite shocked to discover in the early nineties that they were actually worse as a landlord - unresponsive, neglectful etc - than Lambeth Council at its very worst, which was just about as bad/negligent/corrupt as Social Landlords could possibly be (the situation improved beyond compare during 1994-2002). . Quite bizarre to see monarchists becoming republicans actually before one's very eyes.

REG

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 7:33:21 AM4/9/05
to
I guess is that if what comes across is that they hold others in such contempt, then that explains it. I'm not there, so I don't, obviously, have the same feeling about it   I am not sure that that's true, but I am not in a position to disagree. It seems to me that the monarchy is in most countries a very useful and to some degree necessary element of a diverse society, certainly as a figurehead and an a holder of an element of mystery. If you ask me whether I think the US lacks something for lacking that kind of potentially unify symbol, I might say "yes".
 
Best
 

donna...@brixton.fsworld.co.uk

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 7:45:20 AM4/9/05
to
I ended up watching the Chas-Di nuptials because I was staying at my
cousin's in-laws over night, and I shocked all those good people by
declaring with all the wisdom of a 13-year old that it wouldn't last.

When Diana married Charles she was barely out of her teens, it was to
all intents and purposes an arranged marriage brought about by two
meddlesome conniving grandmothers. I don't suppose for a moment she had
any idea what she was letting herself in for; what her personality
became, good and bad, as most of us are, was a mixture of her
upbringing, the dreadful circumstances of her entire adult life, and,
no doubt, inherent characteristics.

I was appalled that in the supposedly enlightened 1980s it was still
acceptable to the vast majority of the population for a very young
woman to be sold into slavery as a brood mare. (Although I make no
claims to have had that insight or the ability to express it as a 13
year old; and I spent much of that summer in the company of many
anti-establishment cousins who were then much older than me than they
are now...)

donna...@brixton.fsworld.co.uk

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 7:53:02 AM4/9/05
to
Although it is clearly none of my business, my observation is that a
flaw in the US system is that the roles of Head of State and Head of
Government are combined in one post. This was normal in the Old World
at the time the US constitution was drawn up.

In many modern democracies, especially ones that have escaped from the
British system, or have been constructed by the Western Allies, there
is a clear separation between the elected Head of State and the elected
Head of Government. The ones that spring easiest to my mind are
Republic of Ireland and the Federal Republic of Germany, both post-War
states (effectively), which have Taiseoch/Chancellor who are leaders of
the ruling party and separate Presidents who are above the
cut-and-thrust of partisan politics and to some extent are able to
embody the dignity of the State, the nation, without the messiness of
political controversy.

La Donna Mobile

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 9:21:18 AM4/9/05
to


La Donna Mobile wrote:
secondly, they consistently fail to explain what skills or experience William can possibly bring to the post, other than being intensely photogenic,
with bald patch. At 22.  He's turning into his father before our very eyes

geoff

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 8:45:23 AM4/9/05
to
Ah! The tea-rooms. The best past of living in London.

GeoffDavis - a connoisseur of tea-rooms

La Donna Mobile

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 9:20:13 AM4/9/05
to

Erasmus Zacchary Drainpipe wrote:

I thought Edward VII had just turned up; turns out it's one of the Kents...

Steve Silverman

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 9:54:31 AM4/9/05
to

"REG" <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:54P5e.119$mp6.1...@twister.nyc.rr.com...

> I guess is that if what comes across is that they hold others in such
> contempt, then that explains it.

It's the difference between respect for the institution and contempt for
those (with the exception of the Queen) representing it. I believe you have
a similar problem over there. :-))

Steve Silverman


Hans Christian Hoff

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 10:22:41 AM4/9/05
to
I got into the TV transmission from the Windsor chapel(?) after the
actual wedding in the middle of a Russian hymn which reminded me very
much of Boris Godunov and/or Borodin, with a very impressive alto
soloist. Can anyone give me some details, as our Norwegian commentator
was busy commenting on robes and hats.

Regards

Hans

La Donna Mobile

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 10:49:54 AM4/9/05
to


Hans Christian Hoff wrote:
I got into the TV transmission from the Windsor chapel(?) after the actual wedding in the middle of a Russian hymn which reminded me very much of Boris Godunov and/or Borodin, with a very impressive alto soloist. Can anyone give me some details, as our Norwegian commentator was busy commenting on robes and hats.

Regards

Hans


A full article on the music is available in the Guardian Golden Oldies

This particular piece was a setting of the Creed by Alexander Grechaninov, who was born in Moscow in 1864 and died some 90 years later in New York, and the soloist was Ekaterina Sementchuk. Details here -  a finalist in the Cardiff Singer of the World 2001, and a present from the Mariinsky.

I thought the music was great - I'm a sucker for stonking anthemic hymns, although if I was world dictator, I would ban Love Divine All Love's Excelling from the wedding services. It's beautiful, but the tessitura is a killer for mere mortals like me. I do recall one wedding where a friend (tenor) and I almost dissolved into giggles at our inability to sing it...

I will put forward a controversial view that the music was better by a mile than the Papal funeral. I like funerals also to have stonking anthemic music, and while I like a bit of Gregorian chant, not that much...

I got a frisson of goose pimples during the Immortal Invisible. If the organ wasn't enough, it was wonderful hearing the strings of the Phil soar heavenwards. The Bach cantata was beautiful. I was disappointed that the otherwise impeccable Dermot Murnaghan talked over the Albinoni oboe concerto, although I couldn't help thinking that it was a poor imitation of Handel. I wasn't impressed by the never-to-be-heard-again except on the highlights Hoddinott fanfare and was relieved when it segued into Handel's Water Music. I may complain to the BBC about the instant pumping out of Duran Duran in a trailer for the General Election coverage.

It was nice to see some familiar faces in the Philharmonia, notably the Leader, although I noticed that gigglers and chatterers of the lower strings seemed absent. I was curious to see the shot of the two conductors in unison. I felt the Nat Ant would have been improved by a glorious timpani roll and the essential, to my mind, cymbal clash at the climax  of the twiddly bit.

I was disappointed that much of the music was played before the blessing, when the TV was focusing on celeb arrivals. But one shouldn't complain.

david...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 12:39:47 PM4/9/05
to
Me? I like Camilla. It's Diana I couldn't stand. I wish Charles and
Camilla all the happiness in the world, which isn't much, I admit. And
not because they're "royals," either.

-david gable

REG

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 12:48:25 PM4/9/05
to
Over here, there's a great respect for Queens; there seems to be less reason
to respect Brooklyn.

"Steve Silverman" <ssil...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message

news:d38mqn$5ko$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...

Stephen Jay-Taylor

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 1:20:51 PM4/9/05
to
Ah, at last : the voice of reason.

"Me? I like Camilla. It's Diana I couldn't stand. I wish Charles and
Camilla all the happiness in the world, which isn't much, I admit. And not

because they're "royals," either." david gable

SJT, who's always believed Diana to be the proof of Derrida's apercu
"Chaque victime trouve son bourreau"


Nancy C Kenfield

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 4:49:50 PM4/9/05
to
A) she was dim like a small appliance bulb.
B) He wasn't the only one screwing around and she did it with her STAFF!!!
At least he picked somebody with some "background." (for whatever that
would be worth if you are messing around.)
Speaking of messing around:
What's the difference between "NAKED" and "NEKKID?"
"Naked" means you have no clothes on.
"Nekkid" means you have no clothes on and you're doing something you
shouldn't.

I think that's a Foxworthy.


On 4/9/05 12:20 PM, in article d392tj$ns5$1...@hercules.btinternet.com,

Jon E. Szostak, Sr.

unread,
Apr 9, 2005, 7:29:14 PM4/9/05
to
Well...far be it for me...one of those hooligan colonists...to differ...but
differ I must. I think you a tad too condemning of Lady Diana.

A) She was smart enough to marry the heir apparent to the throne of
England...and yet NOT smart enough...by marrying the like of Charles. I
think they were pushed into the marriage by the monarchs.

B) I believe all of the...as you put it so gently...'screwing' commenced
when BOTH of them were bored to tears each with the other. And screwing is
screwing no matter what your title or place in society. They were both
wrong and that's plain and simple.

I further think she was a thoughtful mom to try to keep her sons as normal
as was possible for as long as possible. Plus she give of her time to many
charities.

Quite oddly enough...as I write this...MSNBC is showing...for some gawd
awful reason...the first marriage...and she is walking up the aisle with her
dad as Charles and the monarchs watch. Entirely too bizarre!

Having said all of that...I think Charlie & Camilla deserve each other...and
I mean that in all the best of ways. They are obviously friends and
lovers...and you simply cannot have a good marriage without being both.
They've been too long waiting for their union to be legalized. Good to them
both.

That's my 2 cents...from the colonies.
--
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.

"Nancy C Kenfield" <tremo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BE7DAA1E.827B%tremo...@bellsouth.net...

donpaolo

unread,
Apr 10, 2005, 2:02:45 AM4/10/05
to
Ya know, at foist, I thought this an OT thread. However, if this plot does
not make for a Donizetti opera, I dunno what does....

DonP.
"Stephen Jay-Taylor" <sjayt...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d392tj$ns5$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...

JAG...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 10, 2005, 4:02:04 PM4/10/05
to

so charles is now a married man; so is camilla. jag

Mark D Lew

unread,
Apr 11, 2005, 12:22:15 AM4/11/05
to
In article <BE7DAA1E.827B%tremo...@bellsouth.net>, Nancy C Kenfield
<tremo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Speaking of messing around:
> What's the difference between "NAKED" and "NEKKID?"
> "Naked" means you have no clothes on.
> "Nekkid" means you have no clothes on and you're doing something you
> shouldn't.
>
> I think that's a Foxworthy.

The same observation is made in one of Tom Robbins' novels. It comes
up in a conversation the female protagonist has with her mother. I
think it's _Skinny Legs and All_.

That might not be the earliest occurrence, but it certainly predates
Foxworthy.

mdl

JAG...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 12, 2005, 11:37:56 PM4/12/05
to
so now that charles is married, who is going to be his mistress?

JAG...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 12, 2005, 11:46:24 PM4/12/05
to

it's a mixed marriage you know. he's german and she's a clydsdale.

Enzoadorato

unread,
Apr 12, 2005, 11:56:32 PM4/12/05
to
it's a mixed marriage you know. he's german and she's a clydsdale

I understand that Cheryl Strudel will sing atr the wedding of you and a
goat...CH

JAG...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 13, 2005, 12:02:45 AM4/13/05
to
now that charles and camilla are married, does this mean england has
approved of same sex marriages?

Enzoadorato

unread,
Apr 13, 2005, 12:45:03 AM4/13/05
to
now that charles and camilla are married, does this mean england has
approved of same sex marriages?


Reply
But we do have same sex marrriages here...you married a goat with a
dribbling ass.....CH

Leonard Tillman

unread,
Apr 14, 2005, 12:06:48 AM4/14/05
to

An easiiy-entertained cackling hyaenid deviate exclaims:

>It's always vastly entertaining when

Not nearly so (vastly) entertaining as when a sniping, vindictive
paradigm of hypocrisy such as yourself vainly attempts to mpugn the
integrity of its countless betters.

> blahblahindividuals who are
> perfectly happy to participate in them when it
> suits their immediate purpose.

Sounds far too much like you.

>Sniv SilVermin

Res Ipsa, etc.

JAG...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 14, 2005, 9:13:53 AM4/14/05
to

Leonard Tillman wrote:
> An easiiy-entertained cackling hyaenid deviate exclaims:
>
even though it's true, you shouldn't denigrate the opera clown
handelputzy like this. he has thin skin and his head might just
explode....and what a stinky mess that would be to clean up. jag

Leonard Tillman

unread,
Apr 14, 2005, 9:39:43 AM4/14/05
to

From: JAG...@aol.com

>Leonard Tillman wrote:

"An easiiy-entertained cackling hyaenid deviate exclaims: "

>even though it's true, you shouldn't denigrate
> the opera clown

Indeed, CH is no opera clown, as is the scum to which I referred.

>[CH] has thin skin and his head might just
> explode

The SS-Opera-Clown has no skin of worth, though its ear-to-ear
crud-loaded head is tightly sheathed by the capaceous bum of its FL
co-slime, who seems to enjoy the....er...."filling-feeling",
-experiencing regular and super-titillating storf-gasms as a result.

Hopefully, no x-ray images of the process exist, and won't, ever.

JAG...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 14, 2005, 10:33:30 AM4/14/05
to

Leonard Tillman wrote:
>
> Indeed, CH is no opera clown,
alas, and surprisingly, subjectivity issues cloud your assessment, one
that i am far from being alone in making, the catagorization of which
is held by, i dare say, thousands on various opera forums but can only
be openly voiced on rmo thanks to the fact that no prissy opera queen
moderator is watching our every word.

the fact remains that the opera clown is either banned from or held in
contempt - and ignored - on a number of opera forums, hardly lending
credibility to your statement. post after mind-numbing post on Opera-L
is ignored, their only viable option. not the case here, fortunately.
jag

Leonard Tillman

unread,
Apr 14, 2005, 7:57:38 PM4/14/05
to
From: JAG...@aol.com

>Leonard Tillman wrote:

"Indeed, CH is no opera clown, "

>alas, and surprisingly, subjectivity issues cloud
> your assessment, one that i am far from being
> alone in making

Well, CH does post some REALLY silly stuff, but *compared to* the pack
of boob-onic, hypocritical, vicious bombastards I mentioned, -- he, you,
and I - are, each of us, virtually Maimonides, Moses, and Jesus
combined, whatever our all-too-human flaws.

Purely a matter of degree, we may suppose....

Leonard Tillman

JAG...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 15, 2005, 12:36:15 AM4/15/05
to

Leonard Tillman wrote:
> virtually Maimonides, Moses, and Jesus
> combined, whatever our all-too-human flaws.

my buddy maimonides wrote the opera clown's handbook: the "guide for
the perplexed." jag

Leonard Tillman

unread,
Apr 15, 2005, 5:45:01 AM4/15/05
to

From: JAG...@aol.com


>the "guide for the
> perplexed." jag

Ah,
"Purple-X", - what FinkLey and its co-slimes each sign with, no doubt.
They must keep their Crayolas® on hand.

JAG...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 16, 2005, 4:41:02 PM4/16/05
to
camilla was so poor growing up that if she hadn't been a boy she would
have had nothing to play with. jag

Leonard Tillman

unread,
Apr 17, 2005, 12:51:26 AM4/17/05
to

From: JAG...@aol.com

>camilla was so poor growing up that if she
> hadn't been a boy she would have had
> nothing to play with. jag

Finley the Liar had that same problem....until one day when it
discovered the joys of playing handball with its didee's contents,
nevermind their constantly crash-landing right in his/its prevaricating
mouth.

Nancy C Kenfield

unread,
Apr 17, 2005, 10:03:53 AM4/17/05
to
I think you're right on the money there. Now that you remind me, I think it
IS Robbins!

On 4/10/05 11:22 PM, in article 100420052122185341%mark...@earthlink.net,

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages