Discussion:
Tom Parker Bowles May Be King
(too old to reply)
Roofshadow
2007-04-26 00:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Again I am in a "Gossip" newsgroup. How dare you look down on me?
Aren't you the same folk who subscribe to the tabloids, which of
course publish all sorts of "news" about aliens giving signs to us and
blue dots give you luck if you touch them?
The interesting thing about gossip is that even if nothing is actually
happening in reality, to create gossip about it is to make it more
real anyway. For instance, if I were to stay, "why is it that the
alt.gossip.celebrities newsgroup is full of pathetic, foolish and
obstinate knaves, is it because they worship celebrities who they long
to be or is it because their main source of news is tabloids?" then it
would infuse an idea out in the open to you, even if there were
absolutely no truth in the rumour, which there absolutely isn't.
I wonder if Tom Parker Bowles has any ambition to be King?
I wonder if you can win some Kook Awards - hey I bet you can!

Hey AUK - check out THIS kook who thinks that Camilla's kid might be
king one day and that there's a vast conspiracy to deny that he's really
Prince Charles's kid.

(AUK added)
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Roofshadow
2007-04-26 19:08:56 UTC
Permalink
This is a "gossip" newsgroup. How dare you look down on me? Your best
source of information and argumentation is the tabloid.
<looking down from FAR above>
It's hard following logic and common sense, isn't it?
No, not when the ideas are illogicall and not common sensical...
Legally, Tom Parker Bowles is in a position to be King,
See, Agnes, here's your problem.
You are wrong in your first statement. Absolutely, unequivocably wrong.
You have no understanding, whatsoever, regarding the laws of succession in
the UK and Commonwealth Countries if you believe that anypart of that
statement is true.
Tom Parker-Bowles is not in the line of succession. He cannot be. There
is no possible way, short of an Act of Parliment, confirmed by the countries
of the Commonwealth. (not bloody likely) Full-Stop!
You've succinctly summed up everything that I tried to explain to her.

In the future please cc any responses you make to her to
alt.usenet.kooks - they're always looking for new nuts to ridicule!

(AUK added)
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Roofshadow
2007-04-28 22:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Tom Parker-Bowlesis not in the line of succession. He cannot be. There
is no possible way, short of an Act of Parliment, confirmed by the countries
of the Commonwealth. (not bloody likely) Full-Stop!
There are approximately 1000 people noted in the Line Of Succession.
Parliament, however, does not approve the list itself. Rather, it is
an informal recognition.
Parliament, if anything, approves the heir to the throne, as well as
the monarch, of course.
Whenever a royal has a new child, parliament doesn't recognize him;
the Queen does. If they are of aristocratic extraction, then they
themselves make the announcement, and if no views are expressed to the
contrary, the new addition to the aristocracy is approved. There is no
central agency devoted to scanning the legitimacy of a claim to be
extracted legitimately from royalty.
Rather the Queen is motivated by tradition and past practises. Most
previous practises have shown that all legitimate marriages produce
recognized children, unless they are shunned by society (as is the
case with the Queen's cousin Katherine Bowes Lyon).
If Tom can prove Charles was married to Camilla in 1973 and obtained
consent from the monarch, he would automatically be recognized by the
Queen as third-in-line to the throne.
But you are right, there is still a seemingly uphill battle in
convincing the parliament of it. But don't underestimate the
complicity of society, either under the will of the Queen or the words
of authority figures.
So why do you want Tom to be king?

Please explain.

(AUK added)
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-04-30 05:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
So why do you want Tom to be king?
Please explain.
--
Roofshadow
I don't want him to be King, personally. As it is, the monarchy
provides some stability in a dynamic world. Nor do I like him much
particularly.

Rather he represents the role that ambition can play in the real
world, and the potential it has for bringing untold success. It is
that ethic that interests and inspires me.

Not that he has pursued this ambition, at least not outright or
publicly. Thus, I am curious at his seeming ignorance of his political
position, in spite of the evidence of Camilla and her climactic rise
to the top of the British state, and despite the dissidence of many of
the pundits on these newsgroups.

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-04-30 10:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
So why do you want Tom to be king?
Please explain.
--
Roofshadow
I don't want him to be King, personally. As it is, the monarchy
provides some stability in a dynamic world. Nor do I like him much
particularly.
Rather he represents the role that ambition can play in the real
world, and the potential it has for bringing untold success. It is
that ethic that interests and inspires me.
Not that he has pursued this ambition, at least not outright or
publicly. Thus, I am curious at his seeming ignorance of his political
position, in spite of the evidence of Camilla and her climactic rise
to the top of the British state, and despite the dissidence of many of
the pundits on these newsgroups.
Tom Parker-Bowles isn't in the line of succession and never will be.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Roofshadow
2007-04-30 23:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Tom Parker-Bowlesis not in the line of succession. He cannot
be. There is no possible way, short of an Act of Parliment,
confirmed by the countries
of the Commonwealth. (not bloody likely) Full-Stop!
There are approximately 1000 people noted in the Line Of
Succession. Parliament, however, does not approve the list
itself. Rather, it is an informal recognition.
Again, you're wrong. The people in the line of succession are
there because of an Act of Parliment - specifically the Act of
Settlement which named the non-Catholic descendants of the
Electress Sophia.
Tom is not in the line of succession because he's not of Sophia's
line... Period.
<snip a whole bunch of misguided untrue drivel>
She trying to suggest that Tom is the bastard of Charles, but fails to
understand that even Henry VIII couldn't get his bastard son in line to
the throne. What makes her think that any conceivable turn of events
could put Tom there? It boggles the mind.
Who knows how a kook's mind works??
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Roofshadow
2007-05-01 19:51:36 UTC
Permalink
Again, you're wrong. The people in the line of succession are
there because of an Act of Parliment - specifically the Act of
Settlement which named the non-Catholic descendants of the
Electress Sophia.
Tom is not in the line of succession because he's not of Sophia's
line... Period.
<snip a whole bunch of misguided untrue drivel>
She trying to suggest that Tom is the bastard of Charles, but fails to
understand that even Henry VIII couldn't get his bastard son in line to
the throne. What makes her think that any conceivable turn of events
could put Tom there? It boggles the mind.
I am NOT suggesting that a bastard son can get the throne. I am only
suggesting that if Tom Parker Bowles can prove that he was born in a
legitimate marriage between Charles and Camilla, he would be a
descendent of the Electress Sophia and the second-in-line to the
throne.
He can't prove that because it's not true.

God are you ever looney!
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Roofshadow
2007-05-02 00:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Again, you're wrong. The people in the line of succession are
there because of an Act of Parliment - specifically the Act of
Settlement which named the non-Catholic descendants of the
Electress Sophia.
Tom is not in the line of succession because he's not of Sophia's
line... Period.
<snip a whole bunch of misguided untrue drivel>
She trying to suggest that Tom is the bastard of Charles, but fails to
understand that even Henry VIII couldn't get his bastard son in line to
the throne. What makes her think that any conceivable turn of events
could put Tom there? It boggles the mind.
I am NOT suggesting that a bastard son can get the throne. I am only
suggesting that ifTom Parker Bowlescan prove that he was born in a
legitimate marriage between Charles and Camilla, he would be a
descendent of the Electress Sophia and the second-in-line to the
throne.
Aggie
Honey, you didn't even know who Electress Sophia was until I mentioned her
name.
--
-J
** Keeper of Betty Buckley and Bette Midler **- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Actually when this discussion occurred six months, I was the first to
mention Sophia. This is because I had been investigating Camilla's
royal links, which believe it or not, she does have (but from before
Sophia).
Camilla and Tom are related to both Diana and Charles, as you know.
Doesn't matter - Tom will never be King.

Never ever ever ever.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-04 20:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Truth is stranger than fiction.


Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-04 21:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Your delusions are stranger than either truth or fiction.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-05 00:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Your delusions are stranger than either truth or fiction.
Then I must be incredibly powerful!


Ah, the depths of the human mind....
Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-05 01:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Your delusions are stranger than either truth or fiction.
Then I must be incredibly powerful!
Ah, the depths of the human mind....
I suggest taking the meds those nice doctors gave you.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-05 01:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Your delusions are stranger than either truth or fiction.
Then I must be incredibly powerful!
Ah, the depths of the human mind....
I suggest taking the meds those nice doctors gave you.
Such a kind suggestion, how strange.

Aggie
Aggie
2007-05-05 01:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Excerpt from a newspaper article in The Observer, October 1st 2006:

"Tom Parker Bowles is quite simply one of the nicest young men I have
ever met. I defy anyone, however crazed by class prejudice or Diana
worship, to dislike him. His only fault that I can see is that he has
an odd strain of self-denigration that comes out both in his book and
in conversation. He says, "Oh I'm just a toff, what do I know?" so
often that it is quite irritating. Why does he do it? 'I think it's
because I've had everything so easy and the older you get the more you
realise how lucky you've been."

The more positive publicity Tom gets, the better it is for him.

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-05 01:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Your delusions are stranger than either truth or fiction.
Then I must be incredibly powerful!
Ah, the depths of the human mind....
I suggest taking the meds those nice doctors gave you.
Such a kind suggestion, how strange.
I don't hate you... I think you have serious problems and you need some
help.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-05 01:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Your delusions are stranger than either truth or fiction.
Then I must be incredibly powerful!
Ah, the depths of the human mind....
I suggest taking the meds those nice doctors gave you.
Such a kind suggestion, how strange.
I don't hate you... I think you have serious problems and you need some
help.
Help me win this argument... be reasonable. Can you see (or foresee)
how Tom Parker Bowles can be King?

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-05 02:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Your delusions are stranger than either truth or fiction.
Then I must be incredibly powerful!
Ah, the depths of the human mind....
I suggest taking the meds those nice doctors gave you.
Such a kind suggestion, how strange.
I don't hate you... I think you have serious problems and you need some
help.
Help me win this argument... be reasonable.
I am quite reasonable.

Can you see (or foresee)
Post by Aggie
how Tom Parker Bowles can be King?
No - it's a completely crazy proposition.

As others have pointed out it would require a special act of Parliment
to abolish the House of Windsor and put someone else on the throne -
it'll never happen in a million years.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-05 04:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Your delusions are stranger than either truth or fiction.
Then I must be incredibly powerful!
Ah, the depths of the human mind....
I suggest taking the meds those nice doctors gave you.
Such a kind suggestion, how strange.
I don't hate you... I think you have serious problems and you need some
help.
Help me win this argument... be reasonable.
I am quite reasonable.
Can you see (or foresee)
Post by Aggie
howTom Parker Bowlescan be King?
No - it's a completely crazy proposition.
As others have pointed out it would require a special act of Parliment
to abolish the House of Windsor and put someone else on the throne -
it'll never happen in a million years.
Don't be silly. I'm not suggesting that an entirely new line of royals
come to the throne. Rather I'm suggesting that Tom can successfully
claim that he is in the House of Windsor, simply by proving Charles
was married legally and with the consent of the monarch in 1973 and
1974.

Aggie
FragileWarrior
2007-05-05 16:05:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Your delusions are stranger than either truth or fiction.
Then I must be incredibly powerful!
Ah, the depths of the human mind....
I suggest taking the meds those nice doctors gave you.
Such a kind suggestion, how strange.
I don't hate you... I think you have serious problems and you
need some help.
Help me win this argument... be reasonable.
I am quite reasonable.
Can you see (or foresee)
Post by Aggie
howTom Parker Bowlescan be King?
No - it's a completely crazy proposition.
As others have pointed out it would require a special act of
Parliment to abolish the House of Windsor and put someone else on the
throne - it'll never happen in a million years.
Don't be silly. I'm not suggesting that an entirely new line of royals
come to the throne. Rather I'm suggesting that Tom can successfully
claim that he is in the House of Windsor, simply by proving Charles
was married legally and with the consent of the monarch in 1973 and
1974.
Aggie
Whatta coinkydink! Charles married my mom and had me in 1972! Whoohooo!
Crown me!
Roofshadow
2007-05-05 16:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by FragileWarrior
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Your delusions are stranger than either truth or fiction.
Then I must be incredibly powerful!
Ah, the depths of the human mind....
I suggest taking the meds those nice doctors gave you.
Such a kind suggestion, how strange.
I don't hate you... I think you have serious problems and you
need some help.
Help me win this argument... be reasonable.
I am quite reasonable.
Can you see (or foresee)
Post by Aggie
howTom Parker Bowlescan be King?
No - it's a completely crazy proposition.
As others have pointed out it would require a special act of
Parliment to abolish the House of Windsor and put someone else on the
throne - it'll never happen in a million years.
Don't be silly. I'm not suggesting that an entirely new line of royals
come to the throne. Rather I'm suggesting that Tom can successfully
claim that he is in the House of Windsor, simply by proving Charles
was married legally and with the consent of the monarch in 1973 and
1974.
Aggie
Whatta coinkydink! Charles married my mom and had me in 1972! Whoohooo!
Crown me!
I'm sure he was married to MY mom before that and she had ME!

So there!

We don't even need a DNA test (according to Aggie) - we just need to say
that Charles was married to our moms!

How about that??
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-05 22:23:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
I'm sure he was married to MY mom before that and she had ME!
So there!
We don't even need a DNA test (according to Aggie) - we just need to say
that Charles was married to our moms!
It's true though. As long as you have the monarch's support (presently
Queen Elizabeth), plenty of creativity and few scruples, anything can
be done.

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-06 01:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
I'm sure he was married to MY mom before that and she had ME!
So there!
We don't even need a DNA test (according to Aggie) - we just need to say
that Charles was married to our moms!
It's true though. As long as you have the monarch's support (presently
Queen Elizabeth), plenty of creativity and few scruples, anything can
be done.
Even if this were true there's not a chance in Hell that QE II would
ever support such a preposterous scheme.

You're in serious need of a reality check.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-06 14:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
I'm sure he was married to MY mom before that and she had ME!
So there!
We don't even need a DNA test (according to Aggie) - we just need to say
that Charles was married to our moms!
It's true though. As long as you have the monarch's support (presently
Queen Elizabeth), plenty of creativity and few scruples, anything can
be done.
Even if this were true there's not a chance in Hell that QE II would
ever support such a preposterous scheme.
I am obsessed with reality. QE II has defended her son and her House
many times, and she could do so again.

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-06 17:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
I'm sure he was married to MY mom before that and she had ME!
So there!
We don't even need a DNA test (according to Aggie) - we just need to say
that Charles was married to our moms!
It's true though. As long as you have the monarch's support (presently
Queen Elizabeth), plenty of creativity and few scruples, anything can
be done.
Even if this were true there's not a chance in Hell that QE II would
ever support such a preposterous scheme.
I am obsessed with reality.
You are nowhere in the neighborhood of reality.

You wouldn't know reality if it snuck up on you in a dark alley and
stole your purse.

QE II has defended her son and her House
Post by Aggie
many times, and she could do so again.
Tom Parker-Bowles isn't part of her house.

Even if he were Charles's illegitimate son (a possibility that I
certainly wouldn't dismiss out of hand) there's not a chance in hell
that he'll ever come to the throne... for one thing the British public
would be in an uproar.

The last thing QE II needs is more ill will from her subjects... and
trying to put TP-B on the throne (illegitimate son or not) would be the
last straw for lots and lots of people.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-07 05:06:18 UTC
Permalink
I agree wholeheartedly with you. For Queen Elizabeth to take such a
drastic step of acknowledging a marriage between Camilla and Charles
in 1973 would be both incredible and unlikely.

Yet how can Tom shorten this gap between his (supposed) ambitions and
the goal of becoming heir to the throne? Is there anything he can do?
Surely there is.

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-07 15:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
I agree wholeheartedly with you. For Queen Elizabeth to take such a
drastic step of acknowledging a marriage between Camilla and Charles
in 1973 would be both incredible and unlikely.
Mostly because it never happened.
Post by Aggie
Yet how can Tom shorten this gap between his (supposed) ambitions and
the goal of becoming heir to the throne?
How do you know about his "ambition"?

Are you him?

Is there anything he can do?
Post by Aggie
Surely there is.
No there isn't.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-08 04:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
,
Post by Aggie
I agree wholeheartedly with you. For Queen Elizabeth to take such a
drastic step of acknowledging a marriage between Camilla and Charles
in 1973 would be both incredible and unlikely.
Mostly because it never happened.
Right!
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Yet how can Tom shorten this gap between his (supposed) ambitions and
the goal of becoming heir to the throne?
How do you know about his "ambition"?
Are you him?
I don't know about his ambition, that's why I call it his "supposed"
ambition, or the ambition I suppose he may have.
Post by Roofshadow
Is there anything he can do?
Post by Aggie
Surely there is.
No there isn't.
I don't want to give up. The publication of marriage must have some
complications, and some way to avoid.

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-08 10:09:20 UTC
Permalink
AUK: Check this one out - she's got some serious potential!
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
,
Post by Aggie
I agree wholeheartedly with you. For Queen Elizabeth to take such a
drastic step of acknowledging a marriage between Camilla and Charles
in 1973 would be both incredible and unlikely.
Mostly because it never happened.
Right!
It didn't... trust me.
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Yet how can Tom shorten this gap between his (supposed) ambitions and
the goal of becoming heir to the throne?
How do you know about his "ambition"?
Are you him?
I don't know about his ambition, that's why I call it his "supposed"
ambition, or the ambition I suppose he may have.
Why do you care?

Why are you obsessed with this?
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Is there anything he can do?
Post by Aggie
Surely there is.
No there isn't.
I don't want to give up. The publication of marriage must have some
complications, and some way to avoid.
To avoid what?

Keep it up - you're shaping up to be a damn fine new kook!
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-08 16:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Mostly because it never happened.
Exactly, it never happened.
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
I don't want to give up. The publication of marriage must have some
complications, and some way to avoid.
Avoid the publication! Is there no way around it?
Post by Roofshadow
Keep it up - you're shaping up to be a damn fine new kook!
Thankfully, I don't know what a kook is. Nor do I want to know!

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-08 16:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Mostly because it never happened.
Exactly, it never happened.
I'm glad we agree.
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
I don't want to give up. The publication of marriage must have some
complications, and some way to avoid.
Avoid the publication! Is there no way around it?
I don't know... I didn't write the above - YOU DID.

Why are you replying to yourself??
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Keep it up - you're shaping up to be a damn fine new kook!
Thankfully, I don't know what a kook is. Nor do I want to know!
I think you DO know.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
JFlexer
2007-05-09 21:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
I agree wholeheartedly with you. For Queen Elizabeth to take such a
drastic step of acknowledging a marriage between Camilla and Charles
in 1973 would be both incredible and unlikely.
Mostly because it never happened.
Post by Aggie
Yet how can Tom shorten this gap between his (supposed) ambitions and
the goal of becoming heir to the throne?
How do you know about his "ambition"?
Are you him?
Oh, silly, Tom told her when he came to her house for a visit.

It was the time that Barbara Bush, Marylin Monroe (who's not really dead),
and The Easter Bunny joined her for a light lunch and bridge.
--
-J

** Keeper of Betty Buckley and Bette Midler **
Roofshadow
2007-05-10 04:58:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by JFlexer
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
I agree wholeheartedly with you. For Queen Elizabeth to take such a
drastic step of acknowledging a marriage between Camilla and Charles
in 1973 would be both incredible and unlikely.
Mostly because it never happened.
Post by Aggie
Yet how can Tom shorten this gap between his (supposed) ambitions and
the goal of becoming heir to the throne?
How do you know about his "ambition"?
Are you him?
Oh, silly, Tom told her when he came to her house for a visit.
It was the time that Barbara Bush, Marylin Monroe (who's not really dead),
and The Easter Bunny joined her for a light lunch and bridge.
It actually wouldn't surprise me if she started talking about something
like that.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Roofshadow
2007-05-08 20:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Roofshadow-
My replying to myself was an error! I didn't copy and paste the entire
Post by Aggie
I don't want to give up. The publication of marriage must have some
complications, and some way to avoid.
Post by Roofshadow
To avoid what?
To avoid the publication of marriage.
You're still replying to yourself.

Obviously you don't need to have other people involved in order to
discuss this topic - in fact it tends to put a damper on things doesn't
it?
What I've been addressing in another usenet discussion is that every
church keeps an original copy of the marriages that have occurred.
And?
Perhaps an error can be found?
Probably - I suggest that we get a CT scan of your brain and find out.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-09 02:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Feel proud of yourself. For a moment, you made me feel insecure. But
that's over now. Let's return to the issue at hand.
What I've been addressing in another usenet discussion is that every
church keeps an original copy of the marriages that have occurred.
Can anybody tell us more about this original copy of marriages that
churches keep? Have errors been found in the past?


Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-09 10:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Feel proud of yourself. For a moment, you made me feel insecure. But
that's over now. Let's return to the issue at hand.
So you almost saw reality for a second - there's hope!
Post by Aggie
What I've been addressing in another usenet discussion is that every
church keeps an original copy of the marriages that have occurred.
Can anybody tell us more about this original copy of marriages that
churches keep? Have errors been found in the past?
You're replying to your own post again.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-09 16:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
You're replying to your own post again.
Yes, it's the only intelligent thing I can find nowadays. Somebody
prove me otherwise.

What I've been addressing in another usenet discussion is that every
church keeps an original copy of the marriages that have occurred.

Can anybody tell us more about this? Have errors been found in the
past?


Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-09 16:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
You're replying to your own post again.
Yes, it's the only intelligent thing I can find nowadays. Somebody
prove me otherwise.
What I've been addressing in another usenet discussion is that every
church keeps an original copy of the marriages that have occurred.
Can anybody tell us more about this? Have errors been found in the
past?
Can you explain to me why it's so important to you that Tom
Parker-Bowles gets crowned king that you're willing to ignore silly
things like logic and reality?

That question is far more interesting to me.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-10 04:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Can you explain to me why it's so important to you that Tom Parker-Bowles gets crowned king...
That question is far more interesting to me.
It's not that I care either way who becomes King/Queen. I think it's
interesting to speculate. I'm motivated by people's dismissal of what
I think are valid points.

Can we resume a logical, civil debate now?

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-10 04:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Can you explain to me why it's so important to you that Tom Parker-Bowles
gets crowned king...
That question is far more interesting to me.
It's not that I care either way who becomes King/Queen. I think it's
interesting to speculate. I'm motivated by people's dismissal of what
I think are valid points.
Key words here are "I think".

No one else thinks they're valid points because they're not.
Post by Aggie
Can we resume a logical, civil debate now?
You can start with the logic at any time now.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-10 16:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Can we resume a logical, civil debate now?
You can start with the logic at any time now.
The original record of a marriages in a church, can it be altered? If
so, one can find that a Camilla and Charles marriage was registered in
1973.

The Monarch then would only have to admit that she prevented the
greater publication of the marriage, but that the marriage was noted
in the church's book.

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-10 18:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Can we resume a logical, civil debate now?
You can start with the logic at any time now.
The original record of a marriages in a church, can it be altered? If
so, one can find that a Camilla and Charles marriage was registered in
1973.
The Monarch then would only have to admit that she prevented the
greater publication of the marriage, but that the marriage was noted
in the church's book.
I see one flaw with this right off the bat: Charles and Camilla were
NEVER MARRIED IN 1973.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
JFlexer
2007-05-10 20:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Can you explain to me why it's so important to you that Tom Parker-Bowles
gets crowned king...
That question is far more interesting to me.
It's not that I care either way who becomes King/Queen. I think it's
interesting to speculate. I'm motivated by people's dismissal of what
I think are valid points.
Can we resume a logical, civil debate now?
Dear Agnes,

If you're involved, the one thing we can be sure of is a completely
illogical argument, divorced from reality.
--
-J

** Keeper of Betty Buckley and Bette Midler **
Post by Aggie
Aggie
FragileWarrior
2007-05-09 22:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
You're replying to your own post again.
Yes, it's the only intelligent thing I can find nowadays. Somebody
prove me otherwise.
You just proved yourself otherwise.
Roofshadow
2007-05-10 04:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by FragileWarrior
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
You're replying to your own post again.
Yes, it's the only intelligent thing I can find nowadays. Somebody
prove me otherwise.
You just proved yourself otherwise.
She's a pretty good kook isn't she?

She's no Pamela Kay Russell of course but then again Pam is one of a
kind (and thank God for that!)
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
FragileWarrior
2007-05-10 19:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by FragileWarrior
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
You're replying to your own post again.
Yes, it's the only intelligent thing I can find nowadays. Somebody
prove me otherwise.
You just proved yourself otherwise.
She's a pretty good kook isn't she?
She's no Pamela Kay Russell of course but then again Pam is one of a
kind (and thank God for that!)
Yeah, she's okay. You might want to nurture her and see if she has some
other loony opinions tucked away. Try flying saucers, Loch Ness, The
Diana Conspiracy, The Bermuda Triangle, Stonehenge as a Time Machine and
The Mickey Mouse Loan Shark Operation.
Roofshadow
2007-05-10 20:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by FragileWarrior
Post by Roofshadow
Post by FragileWarrior
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
You're replying to your own post again.
Yes, it's the only intelligent thing I can find nowadays. Somebody
prove me otherwise.
You just proved yourself otherwise.
She's a pretty good kook isn't she?
She's no Pamela Kay Russell of course but then again Pam is one of a
kind (and thank God for that!)
Yeah, she's okay.
She hasn't reached her full potential yet.

You might want to nurture her and see if she has some
Post by FragileWarrior
other loony opinions tucked away. Try flying saucers, Loch Ness, The
Diana Conspiracy,
Ooo... I bet she's fan of THAT one!

The Bermuda Triangle, Stonehenge as a Time Machine and
Post by FragileWarrior
The Mickey Mouse Loan Shark Operation.
Mickey Mouse Loan Shark Operation?
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
JFlexer
2007-05-10 22:23:21 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Roofshadow
Post by FragileWarrior
The Mickey Mouse Loan Shark Operation.
Mickey Mouse Loan Shark Operation?
As opposed to "The Donald Duck Society of Lenders..."
Post by Roofshadow
--
Roofshadow
AUK FNG
Roofshadow
2007-05-10 22:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by JFlexer
<snip>
Post by Roofshadow
Post by FragileWarrior
The Mickey Mouse Loan Shark Operation.
Mickey Mouse Loan Shark Operation?
As opposed to "The Donald Duck Society of Lenders..."
Never heard of either one... but I bet Aggie has!
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
JFlexer
2007-05-10 22:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by JFlexer
<snip>
Post by Roofshadow
Post by FragileWarrior
The Mickey Mouse Loan Shark Operation.
Mickey Mouse Loan Shark Operation?
As opposed to "The Donald Duck Society of Lenders..."
Never heard of either one... but I bet Aggie has!
I'm sure she accounts at both of them!
--
-J

** Keeper of Betty Buckley and Bette Midler **
Roofshadow
2007-05-10 23:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by JFlexer
Post by Roofshadow
Post by JFlexer
<snip>
Post by Roofshadow
Post by FragileWarrior
The Mickey Mouse Loan Shark Operation.
Mickey Mouse Loan Shark Operation?
As opposed to "The Donald Duck Society of Lenders..."
Never heard of either one... but I bet Aggie has!
I'm sure she accounts at both of them!
It's where she keeps all her Monopoly money!
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-11 05:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Gentleman, are you capable of civil debate?


Aggie
FragileWarrior
2007-05-11 11:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Gentleman, are you capable of civil debate?
Aggie
Are you capable of intelligent debate?
Aggie
2007-05-11 17:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Tom Parker Bowles explains the cocaine fiasco, May 06 2007 press
article:

"I never tried to sell drugs, it was a pretty girl who asked if I
could get her any (cocaine) and showing off I said I could, then my
idiotic conversation was recorded and aired to millions," he says.

"I knew I would be under closer scrutiny than most people if I was
ever caught doing something stupid so it was my fault."

So he did nothing wrong? See: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=265353

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-11 17:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Tom Parker Bowles explains the cocaine fiasco, May 06 2007 press
"I never tried to sell drugs, it was a pretty girl who asked if I
could get her any (cocaine) and showing off I said I could, then my
idiotic conversation was recorded and aired to millions," he says.
"I knew I would be under closer scrutiny than most people if I was
ever caught doing something stupid so it was my fault."
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=265353
Who cares?

Are you in love with this guy or something?
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Roofshadow
2007-05-11 17:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by FragileWarrior
Post by Aggie
Gentleman, are you capable of civil debate?
Aggie
Are you capable of intelligent debate?
Are you capable of rational debate?
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
FragileWarrior
2007-05-11 18:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by FragileWarrior
Post by Aggie
Gentleman, are you capable of civil debate?
Aggie
Are you capable of intelligent debate?
Are you capable of rational debate?
Are you capable of fact-based debate?
Aggie
2007-05-11 20:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by FragileWarrior
fact-based debate?
The facts are Tom has granted more interviews and they are mostly
positive, and the details are that he is trying to spin his past
somewhat positively.

Still other facts are that Tom has written a book, is married, has a
protestant wife that is pregnant now, was married in a protestant
church, and is older than Harry and William.

We can infer that he has had some success as a writer. As well, he
seems to be much loved by Charles, who is like a father to Tom. We can
also infer that Queen Elizabeth favours Camilla due to her consent and
presence at the marriage between Camilla and Charles. We can also
infer that Camilla has some kind of ambition and/or luck, given her
dramatic rise to the top of British society from a mere mistress a few
years ago, her formal Princess of Wales title, and the "not intended"
potential of her becoming Queen.

The facts are that Prince William and Harry have been photographed in
some seemingly compromised positions lately. Also, Harry was seen
wearing a Nazi costume at a party. William has yet to secure a
girlfriend, not to mention a marriage or a child (and heir).

Thus, we can infer that Tom is doing better than William and Harry.

The facts are, or at least appear to be, that original marriage
documents are held on church premises, in what are said to be secure
locations but may in fact be insecure. The facts are that such
documents can be altered by highly specialized individuals, and
perhaps appear passable upon scrutiny. The facts are that Charles will
become, or quite possibly become, future King and his favour will be
very important. The fact is that Diana is dead and Camilla is alive.

We can infer that Charles didn't like Diana. We can also infer that he
may favour his present wife's offspring to Diana's offspring. We can
infer that Camilla has Charles' ear and can influence him to act as
she pleases. We can infer that Camilla has few scruples, given her
role in breaking up the marriage of the much-loved Princess Diana.

Aggie
FragileWarrior
2007-05-11 20:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by FragileWarrior
fact-based debate?
The facts are Tom has granted more interviews and they are mostly
positive, and the details are that he is trying to spin his past
somewhat positively.
Still other facts are that Tom has written a book, is married, has a
protestant wife that is pregnant now, was married in a protestant
church, and is older than Harry and William.
We can infer that he has had some success as a writer. As well, he
seems to be much loved by Charles, who is like a father to Tom. We can
also infer that Queen Elizabeth favours Camilla due to her consent and
presence at the marriage between Camilla and Charles. We can also
infer that Camilla has some kind of ambition and/or luck, given her
dramatic rise to the top of British society from a mere mistress a few
years ago, her formal Princess of Wales title, and the "not intended"
potential of her becoming Queen.
The facts are that Prince William and Harry have been photographed in
some seemingly compromised positions lately. Also, Harry was seen
wearing a Nazi costume at a party. William has yet to secure a
girlfriend, not to mention a marriage or a child (and heir).
Thus, we can infer that Tom is doing better than William and Harry.
The facts are, or at least appear to be, that original marriage
documents are held on church premises, in what are said to be secure
locations but may in fact be insecure. The facts are that such
documents can be altered by highly specialized individuals, and
perhaps appear passable upon scrutiny. The facts are that Charles will
become, or quite possibly become, future King and his favour will be
very important. The fact is that Diana is dead and Camilla is alive.
We can infer that Charles didn't like Diana. We can also infer that he
may favour his present wife's offspring to Diana's offspring. We can
infer that Camilla has Charles' ear and can influence him to act as
she pleases. We can infer that Camilla has few scruples, given her
role in breaking up the marriage of the much-loved Princess Diana.
Aggie
Nice k00kscreed. (File away the word "fact" for further use, Roofie.)
Aggie
2007-05-11 21:25:14 UTC
Permalink
It is very ironic that a place like usenet, which should encourage
debate, rather encourages those who castigate the debaters. It is not
logic that you are after, it is personal insult.

So-
There is a thin line between passion and preponderance.

It's not always good to live a life of passion, for most things in
life ought to be ignored. Other things require only a light amount of
attention from us. Everything should be in proportion.

There is also a thin line between amused speculation and paranoia. For
instance, it may be true that aliens control the world with their
spaceships; but facts and empirical arguments do not expressly point
to that. Or perhaps they do, but it is better not to live life
thinking that you're going to be abducted by ugly aliens in the middle
of the night.

If you are capable of debating something, seeing the logic of
something, see the possibility of it in the real world, without being
caught up in it, then go right ahead. I certainly don't spend my days
thinking that Tom Parker Bowles will be King.

He's like the underdog that I cheer for. Under Camilla, many things
have happened, don't you agree, ladies and gentlemen?

Aggie
FragileWarrior
2007-05-11 21:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
It is very ironic that a place like usenet, which should encourage
debate, rather encourages those who castigate the debaters. It is not
logic that you are after, it is personal insult.
So-
There is a thin line between passion and preponderance.
It's not always good to live a life of passion, for most things in
life ought to be ignored. Other things require only a light amount of
attention from us. Everything should be in proportion.
There is also a thin line between amused speculation and paranoia. For
instance, it may be true that aliens control the world with their
spaceships; but facts and empirical arguments do not expressly point
to that. Or perhaps they do, but it is better not to live life
thinking that you're going to be abducted by ugly aliens in the middle
of the night.
If you are capable of debating something, seeing the logic of
something, see the possibility of it in the real world, without being
caught up in it, then go right ahead. I certainly don't spend my days
thinking that Tom Parker Bowles will be King.
He's like the underdog that I cheer for. Under Camilla, many things
have happened, don't you agree, ladies and gentlemen?
Aggie
Wow, the foamage just keeps going and going and going and going...
Aggie
2007-05-11 22:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Stop castigating!
Roofshadow
2007-05-12 01:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
It is very ironic that a place like usenet, which should encourage
debate, rather encourages those who castigate the debaters. It is not
logic that you are after, it is personal insult.
So-
There is a thin line between passion and preponderance.
It's not always good to live a life of passion, for most things in
life ought to be ignored. Other things require only a light amount of
attention from us. Everything should be in proportion.
There is also a thin line between amused speculation and paranoia. For
instance, it may be true that aliens control the world with their
spaceships; but facts and empirical arguments do not expressly point
to that. Or perhaps they do, but it is better not to live life
thinking that you're going to be abducted by ugly aliens in the middle
of the night.
If you are capable of debating something, seeing the logic of
something, see the possibility of it in the real world, without being
caught up in it, then go right ahead. I certainly don't spend my days
thinking that Tom Parker Bowles will be King.
He's like the underdog that I cheer for. Under Camilla, many things
have happened, don't you agree, ladies and gentlemen?
Is it just me or is she starting to sound like anal jones?
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-12 07:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Grow up, please.

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-12 22:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Grow up, please.
Who are you talking to?

Why is it that k00ks can't figure out how to quote??
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
FragileWarrior
2007-05-12 11:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
It is very ironic that a place like usenet, which should encourage
debate, rather encourages those who castigate the debaters. It is not
logic that you are after, it is personal insult.
So-
There is a thin line between passion and preponderance.
It's not always good to live a life of passion, for most things in
life ought to be ignored. Other things require only a light amount of
attention from us. Everything should be in proportion.
There is also a thin line between amused speculation and paranoia. For
instance, it may be true that aliens control the world with their
spaceships; but facts and empirical arguments do not expressly point
to that. Or perhaps they do, but it is better not to live life
thinking that you're going to be abducted by ugly aliens in the middle
of the night.
If you are capable of debating something, seeing the logic of
something, see the possibility of it in the real world, without being
caught up in it, then go right ahead. I certainly don't spend my days
thinking that Tom Parker Bowles will be King.
He's like the underdog that I cheer for. Under Camilla, many things
have happened, don't you agree, ladies and gentlemen?
Is it just me or is she starting to sound like anal jones?
That's the neat thing about k00ks -- by their screed they shall be known.
Aggie
2007-05-12 17:53:38 UTC
Permalink
The only mishmash I'm reading is a bunch of silly, childish words. Try
to grow up and start focusing on the debate.


Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-12 22:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
The only mishmash I'm reading is a bunch of silly, childish words. Try
to grow up and start focusing on the debate.
There IS no debate - your obsession is stupid and pointless.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-14 01:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
There IS no debate - your obsession is stupid and pointless.
The debate is about how Tom Parker Bowles can legitimately and
realistically claim that a marriage occurred in 1973 between Camilla
and Charles. Particularly, we want to know how the church records of
marriages are kept, and if there is room for modification and
alteration.

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-14 02:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
There IS no debate - your obsession is stupid and pointless.
The debate is about how Tom Parker Bowles can legitimately and
realistically claim that a marriage occurred in 1973 between Camilla
and Charles.
He can't because it didn't.

End of story.

Particularly, we want to know how the church records of
Post by Aggie
marriages are kept,
Why?

and if there is room for modification and
Post by Aggie
alteration.
I'm sure there isn't.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-14 05:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Your asuredness is not based on fully accurate facts. Surely there's a
way to alter a document?

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-14 15:53:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Your asuredness is not based on fully accurate facts. Surely there's a
way to alter a document?
You really need to look up the word "fact" because I don't think that
word means what you think it means.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-14 16:04:16 UTC
Permalink
What on earth makes you think church records in Bermuda would be more
easily falsified?? Remember- Bermuda laws and institutions are of
British origins - do get a grip and stop this nonsense!
Now you're the one being absurd. The marriage records of not a few of
the commonwealth countries must be very easy to falsify. They have
much less security than the U.K., at least many of them; they may not
speak english or bother to publish the records in a public forum; and
the churches may be ill attended, poorly staffed, or forbidden by the
government.

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-14 16:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
What on earth makes you think church records in Bermuda would be more
easily falsified?? Remember- Bermuda laws and institutions are of
British origins - do get a grip and stop this nonsense!
Now you're the one being absurd. The marriage records of not a few of
the commonwealth countries must be very easy to falsify. They have
much less security than the U.K., at least many of them; they may not
speak english or bother to publish the records in a public forum; and
the churches may be ill attended, poorly staffed, or forbidden by the
government.
Seriously - what is your major malfunction?
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-15 19:02:10 UTC
Permalink
So you would turn the entire Royal Family and a great many clergy and
civil servants besides into perjurers just to legitimate -- of all
people -- Thomas Parker-Bowles? I'm not sure such gall has been seen
since Shaftesbury tried to pass off the Duke of Monmouth as Charles
II's legitimate son. A scenario which at least had about it a greater
air of probability...
There is a circumstance that would require little corruption on the
part of the clergy and civil service. It is, as I conceive it:

A corrupted researcher finds some seemingly mundane item in the Privy
Council minutes from 1973. It is based on silly or code language or
has some sort of digits to recognize its secrecy. It's so mundane and
irrelevant that nobody paid attention to it at the time it was
passed.
However, the researcher aligns the agenda item's reference number
with
a confidential document that is sitting in the government's protected
archive. That forged document is a confidential notice delivered to
the privy council of a marriage between Camilla and Charles in
Bangladesh and the Queen's consent, expiring in 35 years. An expert
forger then goes to Bangladesh and enters into the remaining books of
the one protestant church in Dhaka the names of Camilla and Charles.


A call is then placed from the Queen's office to the Privy Council's
office in 2008 reminding them of the said document. It is released to
the public without duplicity by honest civil servants. The public is
in shock, for a few days. The Queen's communication secretary
announces that Prince William and Harry will retain their places in
the Line of Succession. Experts agree that it is not necessarily the
eldest son of a Monarch that should obtain the thrown upon the
monarch's death. Charles declares that it is not intended for Prince
Thomas of Wales to become King.


Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-16 17:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
So you would turn the entire Royal Family and a great many clergy and
civil servants besides into perjurers just to legitimate -- of all
people -- Thomas Parker-Bowles? I'm not sure such gall has been seen
since Shaftesbury tried to pass off the Duke of Monmouth as Charles
II's legitimate son. A scenario which at least had about it a greater
air of probability...
There is a circumstance that would require little corruption on the
A corrupted researcher finds some seemingly mundane item in the Privy
Council minutes from 1973. It is based on silly or code language or
has some sort of digits to recognize its secrecy. It's so mundane and
irrelevant that nobody paid attention to it at the time it was
passed.
However, the researcher aligns the agenda item's reference number
with
a confidential document that is sitting in the government's protected
archive. That forged document is a confidential notice delivered to
the privy council of a marriage between Camilla and Charles in
Bangladesh and the Queen's consent, expiring in 35 years. An expert
forger then goes to Bangladesh and enters into the remaining books of
the one protestant church in Dhaka the names of Camilla and Charles.
A call is then placed from the Queen's office to the Privy Council's
office in 2008 reminding them of the said document. It is released to
the public without duplicity by honest civil servants. The public is
in shock, for a few days. The Queen's communication secretary
announces that Prince William and Harry will retain their places in
the Line of Succession. Experts agree that it is not necessarily the
eldest son of a Monarch that should obtain the thrown upon the
monarch's death. Charles declares that it is not intended for Prince
Thomas of Wales to become King.
You have a very active imagination... pity you don't use it for
something constructive.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-16 21:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Like what?


Aggie
FragileWarrior
2007-05-16 22:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Like what?
Aggie
Like what what, ya' non-quoting f'loonstick?
Roofshadow
2007-05-16 22:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by FragileWarrior
Post by Aggie
Like what?
Aggie
Like what what, ya' non-quoting f'loonstick?
Unbelievable.

I don't understand why she's not getting more attention at AUK.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-17 11:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
I don't understand why she's not getting more attention at AUK.
I suppose it's because 1) Agnus is new, 2) she's talking about a subject
that many kookologists find obscure and arcane, and 3) AUK has been
distracted from new kooks outside of AUK by a bunch of lamers, trolls,
mission poasters, and borderline kooky RLing assholes who have been
charging directly at AUK and only very recently have been thrown into the
Galactic Killfile. With any luck, that last issue should be fading away.
Besides, she now has /my/ attention. I hope that helps.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Roofshadow
2007-05-17 17:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Roofshadow
I don't understand why she's not getting more attention at AUK.
I suppose it's because 1) Agnus is new, 2) she's talking about a subject
that many kookologists find obscure and arcane, and 3) AUK has been
distracted from new kooks outside of AUK by a bunch of lamers, trolls,
mission poasters, and borderline kooky RLing assholes who have been
charging directly at AUK and only very recently have been thrown into the
Galactic Killfile. With any luck, that last issue should be fading away.
Besides, she now has /my/ attention. I hope that helps.
It does - I'm glad someone appreciates her.

She may be a relatively quiet and harmless kook but she IS pretty kooky.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-17 05:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by FragileWarrior
Post by Aggie
Like what?
Aggie
Like what what, ya' non-quoting f'loonstick?
lol ok so how should I start quoting you quoting you guys?


Aggie
Lionel
2007-05-17 05:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by FragileWarrior
Post by Aggie
Like what?
Aggie
Like what what, ya' non-quoting f'loonstick?
lol ok so how should I start quoting you quoting you guys?
RTFM, noob.
--
\___ Proud Cog #1 in the AUK Hate Machine
_(AUK)====:: Do *you* think that you have the Right Stuff?
/='='='='-, Apply TODAY by addressing a gratuitously cruel
(O+O+O+O+O) flame to: "Uncle Fester", C/O soc.singles & AUK.
~^^^^^^^^^~~~^~^^~'~~^'^~~~"~~'"~^~'"~~^~"~'~^'^~^~^^~^~"~^~"'~'"~^~~
Roofshadow
2007-05-16 22:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Like what?
Who are you addressing?
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Kris Baker
2007-05-16 22:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Like what?
Who are you addressing?
--
Roofshadow
AUK FNG
Is it time for the "This is Usenet, not Google Groups" posting lessons
again?

Kris
JFlexer
2007-05-16 23:17:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Baker
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Like what?
Who are you addressing?
--
Roofshadow
AUK FNG
Is it time for the "This is Usenet, not Google Groups" posting lessons
again?
Kris
I don't know how you manage the patience to keep giving instruction. I gave
up at least a year ago - I don't even bother to respond with a <plonk>
message anymore, unless they are particularly revolting..
--
-J

** Keeper of Betty Buckley and Bette Midler **
Roofshadow
2007-05-17 01:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Baker
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Like what?
Who are you addressing?
--
Roofshadow
AUK FNG
Is it time for the "This is Usenet, not Google Groups" posting lessons
again?
It seems so.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
FragileWarrior
2007-05-16 23:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Like what?
Who are you addressing?
WHAT are you addressing?
Lionel
2007-05-17 01:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Like what?
Learn how to post properly, fuckhead.
--
\___ Proud Cog #1 in the AUK Hate Machine
_(AUK)====:: Do *you* think that you have the Right Stuff?
/='='='='-, Apply TODAY by addressing a gratuitously cruel
(O+O+O+O+O) flame to: "Uncle Fester", C/O soc.singles & AUK.
~^^^^^^^^^~~~^~^^~'~~^'^~~~"~~'"~^~'"~~^~"~'~^'^~^~^^~^~"~^~"'~'"~^~~
Roofshadow
2007-05-17 03:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lionel
Post by Aggie
Like what?
Learn how to post properly, fuckhead.
Do you think she's kooky enough for a nomination yet or should I give
her a little more time to develop her kookiness?
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Lionel
2007-05-17 03:40:27 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:24:46 -0400, Roofshadow
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Lionel
Post by Aggie
Like what?
Learn how to post properly, fuckhead.
Do you think she's kooky enough for a nomination yet or should I give
her a little more time to develop her kookiness?
<rummages through the thread a bit>

She seems more clueless than kooky to me. I'm not seeing any hardcore
delusions from her, for example, just speculation.
--
\___ Proud Cog #1 in the AUK Hate Machine
_(AUK)====:: Do *you* think that you have the Right Stuff?
/='='='='-, Apply TODAY by addressing a gratuitously cruel
(O+O+O+O+O) flame to: "Uncle Fester", C/O soc.singles & AUK.
~^^^^^^^^^~~~^~^^~'~~^'^~~~"~~'"~^~'"~~^~"~'~^'^~^~^^~^~"~^~"'~'"~^~~
Roofshadow
2007-05-17 03:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lionel
On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:24:46 -0400, Roofshadow
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Lionel
Post by Aggie
Like what?
Learn how to post properly, fuckhead.
Do you think she's kooky enough for a nomination yet or should I give
her a little more time to develop her kookiness?
<rummages through the thread a bit>
She seems more clueless than kooky to me. I'm not seeing any hardcore
delusions from her, for example, just speculation.
She seems pretty kooky to me... we'll see what develops.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-17 11:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Do you think she's kooky enough for a nomination yet or should I give
her a little more time to develop her kookiness?
Let her develop. She really doesn't meet the qualifications for most
awards yet, even if she is manifesting a rather unique obsession. In fact,
the AUK awards she'd come closest to qualifying for now--Looney Maroon and
Palmjob Paddle--have rather high bars and would likely have stiff
competition; Brad Guth in particular would stomp her in a contest for
Looney Maroon. That said, do keep up the good work. Agnes may not yet be
award-worthy, but she is entertaining.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Roofshadow
2007-05-17 17:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Roofshadow
Do you think she's kooky enough for a nomination yet or should I give
her a little more time to develop her kookiness?
Let her develop. She really doesn't meet the qualifications for most
awards yet, even if she is manifesting a rather unique obsession.
It IS pretty bizarre isn't it?

I've honestly never seen anything quite like it.

In fact,
Post by Pinku-Sensei
the AUK awards she'd come closest to qualifying for now--Looney Maroon and
Palmjob Paddle--have rather high bars and would likely have stiff
competition; Brad Guth in particular would stomp her in a contest for
Looney Maroon.
Maybe she'll get loonier if she's poked enough.

That said, do keep up the good work. Agnes may not yet be
Post by Pinku-Sensei
award-worthy, but she is entertaining.
Will do!

;)
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Rosie O'Donnell's Beaver
2007-05-17 18:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Lionel
Post by Aggie
Like what?
Learn how to post properly, fuckhead.
Do you think she's kooky enough for a nomination yet or should I give
her a little more time to develop her kookiness?
--
Roofshadow
AUK FNG
Follow your heart
Aggie
2007-05-17 18:12:47 UTC
Permalink
As silly as it may be to suggest, may I ask that we cool things down a
bit and try to discuss the simple argument that I've posed: that Tom
can be King.

Many of you had many some very strong counter-arguments. For instance,
it was said that the privy council must approve any marriage, and they
would have known about this notification in 1973. In reply, I've
argued that there are some routine or inconspicious motions that are
passed at any meeting, and that a motion referencing some other
document could have passed, and that that document could have been
kept confidential since 1973.

It was said that it is very difficult to argue that a marriage
occurred in a British church in 1973, because the marriage documents
(banns) are always published on many levels. I countered by saying
that a foreign church could have been used, because the essential
thing is that the Queen's consent (and council's) is obtained.
Somebody then said that even those churches have good security, and
libraries publishing the marriages. I countered by saying that a
church doesn't need to be used; a civil marriage in a foreign land
will do, as was done (coincedentally) between Camilla and Charles a
few years ago.

Ideally this should be a logical as well as common-sensical
discussion. I find it interesting!

Aggie

Roofshadow
2007-05-12 22:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by FragileWarrior
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
It is very ironic that a place like usenet, which should encourage
debate, rather encourages those who castigate the debaters. It is not
logic that you are after, it is personal insult.
So-
There is a thin line between passion and preponderance.
It's not always good to live a life of passion, for most things in
life ought to be ignored. Other things require only a light amount of
attention from us. Everything should be in proportion.
There is also a thin line between amused speculation and paranoia. For
instance, it may be true that aliens control the world with their
spaceships; but facts and empirical arguments do not expressly point
to that. Or perhaps they do, but it is better not to live life
thinking that you're going to be abducted by ugly aliens in the middle
of the night.
If you are capable of debating something, seeing the logic of
something, see the possibility of it in the real world, without being
caught up in it, then go right ahead. I certainly don't spend my days
thinking that Tom Parker Bowles will be King.
He's like the underdog that I cheer for. Under Camilla, many things
have happened, don't you agree, ladies and gentlemen?
Is it just me or is she starting to sound like anal jones?
That's the neat thing about k00ks -- by their screed they shall be known.
If she's in England anal may have hope of finding a girlfriend yet!

(Assuming he wants one - I personally think he'd rather have a young
boyfriend... a VERY young boyfriend if you know what I mean.)
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Roofshadow
2007-05-12 01:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by FragileWarrior
Post by Aggie
Post by FragileWarrior
fact-based debate?
The facts are Tom has granted more interviews and they are mostly
positive, and the details are that he is trying to spin his past
somewhat positively.
Still other facts are that Tom has written a book, is married, has a
protestant wife that is pregnant now, was married in a protestant
church, and is older than Harry and William.
We can infer that he has had some success as a writer. As well, he
seems to be much loved by Charles, who is like a father to Tom. We can
also infer that Queen Elizabeth favours Camilla due to her consent and
presence at the marriage between Camilla and Charles. We can also
infer that Camilla has some kind of ambition and/or luck, given her
dramatic rise to the top of British society from a mere mistress a few
years ago, her formal Princess of Wales title, and the "not intended"
potential of her becoming Queen.
The facts are that Prince William and Harry have been photographed in
some seemingly compromised positions lately. Also, Harry was seen
wearing a Nazi costume at a party. William has yet to secure a
girlfriend, not to mention a marriage or a child (and heir).
Thus, we can infer that Tom is doing better than William and Harry.
The facts are, or at least appear to be, that original marriage
documents are held on church premises, in what are said to be secure
locations but may in fact be insecure. The facts are that such
documents can be altered by highly specialized individuals, and
perhaps appear passable upon scrutiny. The facts are that Charles will
become, or quite possibly become, future King and his favour will be
very important. The fact is that Diana is dead and Camilla is alive.
We can infer that Charles didn't like Diana. We can also infer that he
may favour his present wife's offspring to Diana's offspring. We can
infer that Camilla has Charles' ear and can influence him to act as
she pleases. We can infer that Camilla has few scruples, given her
role in breaking up the marriage of the much-loved Princess Diana.
Aggie
Nice k00kscreed. (File away the word "fact" for further use, Roofie.)
I'm just flabbergasted.

This is indeed some mighty fine screed - I hope AUK'ers take notice!
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Roofshadow
2007-05-11 17:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Gentleman, are you capable of civil debate?
I'm a woman.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
JFlexer
2007-05-11 18:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Gentleman, are you capable of civil debate?
I'm a woman.
Details like facts are of no import to Agnes.
--
-J

** Keeper of Betty Buckley and Bette Midler **
Roofshadow
2007-05-12 01:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by JFlexer
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Gentleman, are you capable of civil debate?
I'm a woman.
Details like facts are of no import to Agnes.
Heh.

Ya THINK??
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...