This is why I like the queen!

Oh, I thought you meant that she had done something sensible, like pay taxes :D

To my dying day I will never understand why Buckingham Palace has not been overrun and those awful inbreeding bastards strung up by their feet while everyone else throws rotten eggs at them.....but maybe that's just me

:) God Save The Queen :)

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 Oh, I thought you meant that she had done something sensible, like pay taxes :DTo my dying day I will never understand why Buckingham Palace has not been overrun and those awful inbreeding bastards strung up by their feet while everyone else throws rotten eggs at them.....but maybe that's just me

Yer preachin' to the choir....

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 Oh, I thought you meant that she had done something sensible, like pay taxes :DTo my dying day I will never understand why Buckingham Palace has not been overrun and those awful inbreeding bastards strung up by their feet while everyone else throws rotten eggs at them.....but maybe that's just me

Yeah, why hasn't that happened? In a nation with such oppressive autocrats, I'd expect nothing less than a revolution...or at least another civil war. :D

You'd think that they'd have learned a lesson after the American Revolution....

I'll never be able to understand how someone can think that they can be a monarch by "divine right" or whatever it is.

Ufff Nicos, for a moment I thought you had written "That's why I like Queen" and a cold shudder went through my spine thinking about a prospective Queenonline.

I feel much better now!

Originally posted by Budvar Huber Ufff Nicos, for a moment I thought you had written "That's why I like Queen" and a cold shudder went through my spine thinking about a prospective Queenonline.

I feel much better now!

Funny that! Me too! The thought of a www.itsakindoftosh.com is unbearable!

HEY! I'VE JUST WASTED MY 1000TH POST ON A BLOODY QUEEN THREAD!!!

the queen does pay taxes (true, she didn't for a long time, but does now), the monarchy is hardly 'oppressive', as britain is a constitutional monarchy and parliament has pretty much all of the power even though all bills must be approved by the queen first(no monarch has refused to sign a bill since 1707), and the last monarch to assert that he or she ruled by 'divine right' ended up with his head separated from his body, so i don't think any british monarch would be so daft as to make such a bold claim! not to mention that the queen, as an individual, isn't even one of the top hundred wealthiest people in the UK! as head of state and of the house of windsor she has access to an enormous amount of wealth but, for example, buckingham palace and the crown jewels technically belong to the british state, just as the white house belongs to the US government. in fact, queen beatrix of the netherlands is many times wealthier than queen elizabeth II, yet beatrix is only a ceremonial monarch.

the house of windsor do bring in the tourist dollars, as well, as people are fascinated with the royals, whatever they think of them personally. it's part of what makes the country unique.

is anyone really that menaced by the presence of the queen? the british monarch has more powers than other european monarchs, so perhaps the underlying problem lies in the lack of a written british constitution, which creates confusion over the relationship between queen and parliament and the extent of the monarch's powers, not in the very existence of the monarchy itself.

so basically, the UK should have a written constitution, allow the queen limited powers to continue with certain elements of tradition (and dispose of others) and keep her as head of state so she can keep the castles nice and neat, keep the tourists coming, wave to the crowds and let parliament get on with the business of running the country. she should keep her gig opening parliament, however...it's quite entertaining to watch.

Totally disagree with the above. They do absolutely nothing for the north. London is already staggeringly wealthier than the rest of the country. I don't think Paris does to badly for tourist since the revolution and London would be same. The royals only get in the way of the tourist industry. Taking up valuable space in the palaces.

We have to plough through pages of sycophantic arse kissing in the papers to get at the news. I absolutely detest Prince fucken William - you might well ask why since I've never met him. The answer lies in the fact he's foisted upon us an all-round babe magnet/action man. There seems to be full time team of spin-doctors at work whose sole purpose is to prop up this anachronistic institution through spin doctoring a public persona onto him. He's often portrayed as the caring Prince seen alongside such bollocks as pictures of his mother visiting victims of landmines. The sole purpose of their existence is in preserving the gravy train for themselves the royals and their hangers-on. They are also a particularly nauseating branch of the media, usually made up of people who talk with the plumiest accents, they come across as totally detached from the rest of society. It’s almost unbelievable to hear them speak in the fawning manner they adopt. Totally out of place in a so-called classless society.

They may now cough up a bit of tax but that’s offset by what they get back from the civil list. The Queen has made over £35m in profit on taxpayers money in the last 10 years. They get £7.9m a year from the civil list. Before her death the Queen Mother received £643,000 a year that on top of the £7.9m, yet still had that enormous £4m overdraft. The national disgrace who is married to the Queen gets £359.000 a year, again on top of the £ 7.9m.

They make good stamps though.

You can't really put a figure on that, other than the Queen and some seasonal ranges at Christmas time.

God save the Queen! This is the British house, don't abuse....

Originally posted by Huntsman They make good stamps though.You can't really put a figure on that, other than the Queen and some seasonal ranges at Christmas time.

They've had to make stamps self adhesive cos people in the north couldn't decide upon which side of the stamp to spit.

it is technically speaking an offence punishable by death to put a stamp with the queens head on it on an envelope upside down i never even knew my local pub had been on a stamp...

Originally posted by Jim Reilly :) God Save The Queen :)

Bloody Ditto Mate

actually we probably shouldnt bring god into it, but at least (s)he/its not on the civil list!

Originally posted by Hank Wiseass© Totally disagree with the above. They do absolutely nothing for the north. London is already staggeringly wealthier than the rest of the country. I don't think Paris does to badly for tourist since the revolution and London would be same. The royals only get in the way of the tourist industry. Taking up valuable space in the palaces. We have to plough through pages of sycophantic arse kissing in the papers to get at the news. I absolutely detest Prince fucken William - you might well ask why since I've never met him. The answer lies in the fact he's foisted upon us an all-round babe magnet/action man. There seems to be full time team of spin-doctors at work whose sole purpose is to prop up this anachronistic institution through spin doctoring a public persona onto him. He's often portrayed as the caring Prince seen alongside such bollocks as pictures of his mother visiting victims of landmines. The sole purpose of their existence is in preserving the gravy train for themselves the royals and their hangers-on. They are also a particularly nauseating branch of the media, usually made up of people who talk with the plumiest accents, they come across as totally detached from the rest of society. It’s almost unbelievable to hear them speak in the fawning manner they adopt. Totally out of place in a so-called classless society.They may now cough up a bit of tax but that’s offset by what they get back from the civil list. The Queen has made over £35m in profit on taxpayers money in the last 10 years. They get £7.9m a year from the civil list. Before her death the Queen Mother received £643,000 a year that on top of the £7.9m, yet still had that enormous £4m overdraft. The national disgrace who is married to the Queen gets £359.000 a year, again on top of the £ 7.9m.

Are you speaking as a Manxman by any chance?

No, my surname might derive from there(Isle of Man) but I don't have any links to it. Why?

HW - I've never witnessed such an outburst since purchasing an in-season tangerine back in January.

In the merry days of Dick Turnip you'd have been strung up from your britches and left to fester for a month whilst goof folk pelt you with tommys and pots.

Don't forget, a civilian who shoots a bow and arrow within the boundaries of York is not bound by law.

Originally posted by Hank Wiseass© We have to plough through pages of sycophantic arse kissing in the papers to get at the news.

but the media wouldn't put news about the royals in the papers if it didn't sell! so somebody out there must be reading it, even if it is tedious (note 'hello' magazine).

and prince william is a babe. and, yes, i've run across him (at st. andrews) and he's got a pretty good head on his shoulders, unlike his grandfather and certain other members of his family. the boy's all right, in my opinion.

What my original statement concerned was my utter inability to understand the NEED for a "royal family" in these modern, somewhat democratic times. They don't really serve a purpose anymore, besides being tabloid fodder.

I suppose all we're hearing is Radio Gaa-Gaa :p

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 What my original statement concerned was my utter inability to understand the NEED for a "royal family" in these modern, somewhat democratic times. They don't really serve a purpose anymore, besides being tabloid fodder.I suppose all we're hearing is Radio Gaa-Gaa :p

the electoral college really doesn't serve any purpose either, except to confuse the crap out of people, yet we hang on to that old dame for some reason or other.

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> What my original statement concerned was my utter inability to understand the NEED for a "royal family" in these modern, somewhat democratic times. They don't really serve a purpose anymore, besides being tabloid fodder.> > I suppose all we're hearing is Radio Gaa-Gaa :p

the electoral college really doesn't serve any purpose either, except to confuse the crap out of people, yet we hang on to that old dame for some reason or other.

I actually disagree, I WAS of the same opinion until I realized that Al Gore was a robot.....no, actually the design of the electoral college was more benefical than it would seem, because the Founding Fathers (rich white slaveowners that they tended to be) were weary of a popular demagogue being voted to leadership outright by the people (who were admittedly stupider then) who would destroy the country, so they installed the EC to provide some sort of measure against that. The EC has its flaws, but (at least to me) it serves some sort of purpose. Besides, it was the election officals in the state of Bushland...erm, Florida, who screwed up and confused the people

I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me :D

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 > Originally posted by AgentWood> > > > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> > What my original statement concerned was my utter inability to understand the NEED for a "royal family" in these modern, somewhat democratic times. They don't really serve a purpose anymore, besides being tabloid fodder.> > > > I suppose all we're hearing is Radio Gaa-Gaa :p>

the electoral college really doesn't serve any purpose either, except to confuse the crap out of people, yet we hang on to that old dame for some reason or other.

I actually disagree, I WAS of the same opinion until I realized that Al Gore was a robot.....no, actually the design of the electoral college was more benefical than it would seem, because the Founding Fathers (rich white slaveowners that they tended to be) were weary of a popular demagogue being voted to leadership outright by the people (who were admittedly stupider then) who would destroy the country, so they installed the EC to provide some sort of measure against that. The EC has its flaws, but (at least to me) it serves some sort of purpose. Besides, it was the election officals in the state of Bushland...erm, Florida, who screwed up and confused the people

I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me :D

I think the Electoral College was a good idea because it meant that the states held voting power instead of a national voting body, but these days (since parties weren't considered by the founding fathers, despite the Federalist Anti-Federalist split) it ensures that only 2 parties have any realistic chance at being elected. I mean, a candidate has to win an entire state to even get ANY electoral votes. Since electoral votes are the only ones that really matter, no smaller parties will be able to get serious recognition unless they win an entire state, which just isn't realistic. The Electoral College also ensures that states like California and New York with large population centers won't cast a disproportionate amount of votes, which is what would happen if voting for presidential candidates on a national level took place. So, I reluctantly would like to keep the Electoral College--but I think smaller parties would benefit from proportional representational voting for legislative candidates. PR voting would mean that the legislative bodies would be filled according to the percentage of total votes that each party received; it means voting for the parties instead of voting for the candidates themselves, thus putting issues in a more important position than personalities. By voting along more ideological lines, more parties could get more support and therefore actually get seats in legislative bodies, thus making their chances at taking an entire state in a presidential election more feasible by establishing a tangible support basis.

And while the federal Supreme Court technically could've had more time to let the recounts continue in Florida, they did do the right thing consititutionally. just my thoughts...

i find it a bit unnerving that the electoral college vote decides who becomes president, not the popular vote. george bush received, what, half a million fewer votes than gore but won the election...weird. and it's not just because i'm not a bush fan. it's weird in any situation!

also, with the electoral college, a candidate can conceivably win the presidential election by carrying just 12 states! (538 votes, 270 needed to win)

and as a registered member of a third party, i would like to see a system of proportional representation, like in the UK. :D

Originally posted by AgentWood i find it a bit unnerving that the electoral college vote decides who becomes president, not the popular vote. george bush received, what, half a million fewer votes than gore but won the election...weird. and it's not just because i'm not a bush fan. it's weird in any situation!also, with the electoral college, a candidate can conceivably win the presidential election by carrying just 12 states! (538 votes, 270 needed to win)and as a registered member of a third party, i would like to see a system of proportional representation, like in the UK. :D

If popular vote determined who won presidential elections, the states with the largest populations would have a disproportionate advantage over smaller states. That wouldn't be democratic, now would it? As an independent voter (formerly aligned with the Libertarian Party), I've advocated PR voting for years. It would work just fine in legislative elections, but not for President. How could you get 54% of a President from one party, 23% from another party, and so on? I suppose it could be done, but it would be rather messy and the resulting President might have trouble staying in office for 4 years without being very refrigerated or at least embalmed. :D (at least he or she would do a better job than the president we have now....)

Originally posted by David Church If popular vote determined who won presidential elections, the states with the largest populations would have a disproportionate advantage over smaller states.

WHAT? as far as i can see it's the electoral college that ensures that the states with the largest populations have a disproportionate advantage over smaller states, not the popular vote! this is because larger states have more electoral votes (and why bush needed florida so desperately to win--you don't see candidates campaigning furiously in alaska!). so, no matter the voter turnout in large states, they get as many electoral college votes as they have seats in congress. for example, california has 54 and delaware has 3 (one repreentative, 2 senators). so (and this is highly unlikely, but theoretically possible), if more people turned out to vote in delaware than california, california would still have more clout in electing the president because of its large number of electoral votes.

some opponents of the electoral college, however, believe that the system is biased towards rural and smaller states and areas! this is because, for example, in 1988 the combined voting age population of the seven least populous jurisdictions (just over 3 million) carried the same voting power in the electoral college as the entire voting population of florida (just over 9.5 million)! therefore, each floridian potentially carried only 1/3 the voting power of a voter in one of the other seven states.

under the popular vote, all that matters is total numbers, not state population. the popular vote doesn't differentiate between states--it evens out the field. true, there are many more people in certain states and metropolitan areas, but the 'winner-takes-it-all' result of the electoral college is far more detrimental to democracy than populated areas.

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by David Church> > > If popular vote determined who won presidential elections, the states with the largest populations would have a disproportionate advantage over smaller states.

WHAT? it's the electoral college that ensures that the states with the largest populations have a disproportionate advantage over smaller states, not the popular vote! this is because larger states have more electoral votes (and why bush needed florida so desperately to win--you don't see candidates campaigning furiously in alaska!). so, no matter the voter turnout in large states, they get as many electoral college votes as they have seats in congress. for example, california has 54 and delaware has 3 (one repreentative, 2 senators). so (and this is highly unlikely, but theoretically possible), if more people turned out to vote in delaware than california, california would still have more clout in electing the president because of its large number of electoral votes.

some opponents of the electoral college, however, believe that the system is biased towards rural and smaller states and areas! this is because, for example, in 1988 the combined voting age population of the seven least populous jurisdictions (just over 3 million) carried the same voting power in the electoral college as the entire voting population of florida (just over 9.5 million)! therefore, each floridian potentially carried only 1/3 the voting power of a voter in one of the other seven states.

under the popular vote, all that matters is total numbers, not state population. the popular vote doesn't differentiate between states--it evens out the field. true, there are many more people in certain states and metropolitan areas, but the 'winner-takes-it-all' result of the electoral college is far more detrimental to democracy than populated areas.

Regardless of whether or not the electoral college either benefits or hinders large population centers vs. rural areas (since you do make very good points that I should've considered), I think we are both in agreement that the "winner-take-all" means by which each state's electoral votes are won in a block by the candidate with theoretically the highest popular vote (although the electoral college members are free to vote their own way, and have done so in the past--though it seems rather undemocratic that these people are often chosen by the two dominant parties for their long-term support) is a bad thing. Because a candidate must get a plurality in a state to win any (and consequently all) electoral votes, third parties have no real chance. I'm not sure how this problem could be solved without abolishing the electoral college (i did think of a solution while i was in a polisci class last year, but i've forgotten it now!). oh well, food for thought....

perhaps the electoral college was necessary at one point in america's history, but it's entirely archaic now. i was a democrat, but i got so sick of the bipartisan bickering and lack of conviction within the party that i decided to join the greens (no, i don't wear patchouli, and i really could care less about genetically-modified food :D) which has a platform i generally agree with (and the platform doesn't waste space blasting this party or that party). of course, there's little chance of the greens, or libertarians, or reforms, or anyone else making much of a dent in washington with the electoral college in place, even though more americans seem to be interested in third-party politics. it's strange--we're such a large country and only have two effective political parties. look at israel: five million people and dozens of them!

Originally posted by Hank Wiseass© No, my surname might derive from there(Isle of Man) but I don't have any links to it. Why?

Just that a colleague at work shares your surname and he maintains that it comes from IOM. So he's right then!

What democracy if there are only two political parties in the league. Besides they don't represent the very people, they re-re-re-represent something far standing. So monarchy is much better. It is supposed to stay always the same. And that's kool. I like the English since they accept other countries' rules only after they had been aprobated quite well. Besides, the monarchy gave us the Beatles, the Sex Pistols, the Fall, New Order, Happy Mondays, Pet Shop Boys.... Spice Girls whatever.... kool football matches... Yahooo!! I do not understand why Americans hate the Queen and the family, the very idea of monarchy. Every country has its own rules, traditions and its own idea of political management. In Denmark people don't give a shit about it. They simply love their Margret, ha.

Originally posted by Texas hooligan I do not understand why Americans hate the Queen and the family, the very idea of monarchy.

well, according to recent polls, the majority of brits aren't so fond of the monarchy, either.

hell, i'm an american and i'm probably a bigger fan of the idea of monarchy than most people in the UK!

Originally posted by AgentWood it's strange--we're such a large country and only have two effective political parties. look at israel: five million people and dozens of them!

Exactly! Israel uses PR voting for their legislative bodies, which is what we should damn well do too. Get some fresh voices in Congress. No more strictly bipartisan politics.

Originally posted by Texas hooligan What democracy if there are only two political parties in the league. Besides they don't represent the very people, they re-re-re-represent something far standing. So monarchy is much better. It is supposed to stay always the same. And that's kool. I like the English since they accept other countries' rules only after they had been aprobated quite well.Besides, the monarchy gave us the Beatles, the Sex Pistols, the Fall, New Order, Happy Mondays, Pet Shop Boys.... Spice Girls whatever.... kool football matches... Yahooo!!I do not understand why Americans hate the Queen and the family, the very idea of monarchy. Every country has its own rules, traditions and its own idea of political management. In Denmark people don't give a shit about it. They simply love their Margret, ha.

I don't hate the British monarchy. I just think it's stoopid! :D It makes about as much sense as Americans worshippng the Kennedys and all that Camelot bullshit. People are entitled to love their government or not, but if all a monarchy does is celebrate Jubilees and silly traditional affairs and draw in tourist monies, then what's the use? The Pistols were right, dammit.

I think they're like piles. You just get used to them.

Originally posted by a very small boy > Originally posted by Hank Wiseass©> No, my surname might derive from there(Isle of Man) but I don't have any links to it. Why?

Just that a colleague at work shares your surname and he maintains that it comes from IOM. So he's right then! According to my dad he is. I've heard it's actually a very common name on the island.

Originally posted by Texas hooligan Besides, the monarchy gave us the Beatles, the Sex Pistols, the Fall, New Order, Happy Mondays, Pet Shop Boys.... Spice Girls whatever.... kool football matches... Yahooo!!

And lastminute.com dont forget! ;)

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Texas hooligan> > I do not understand why Americans hate the Queen and the family, the very idea of monarchy.

well, according to recent polls, the majority of brits aren't so fond of the monarchy, either.

hell, i'm an american and i'm probably a bigger fan of the idea of monarchy than most people in the UK!

A "fan of the monarchy". Why? Please explain. And as for "running into" the over-priveleged gimp that is Prince William in St. Andrews, that aint nothing to boast about. In fact studying in a place like St. Andrews where the vast vast majority of students are of the same over-priveleged (and Southern English)ilk is nowt to boast about either. Had your Oxbridge application rejected? Go to St. Andrews!

As for the monarchy...don't get me started. A permanent barrier in the way of creating a meritocracy which in the abscence of the unacheiveable "clasless society" is the very least we should be aiming for. The whole concept of the monarchy is vile and nauseating and the individuals themselves take that a step further. F**k 'em all.

What do the royal familes in Europe and most of the states south of the Mason-Dixon line have in common?

INBREEDING! :sex:

Yep, them there royals ain't no better than Cousin/Brother/Daddy Billy Joe Bob Gene and his wife/Cousin/sister/mother Ellie Mae Becky Sue!

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 What do the royal familes in Europe and most of the states south of the Mason-Dixon line have in common?INBREEDING! :sex:Yep, them there royals ain't no better than Cousin/Brother/Daddy Billy Joe Bob Gene and his wife/Cousin/sister/mother Ellie Mae Becky Sue!

Odd that that comment comes from someone who is himself below the Mason-Dixon Line...hmmm Although no one who loves New Order, or even knows who they are for that matter, could be too backwoods. Those "folks" are too busy listening to Creedence and Skynyrd.

But seriously, it's no wonder why the monarchs of Britain, Russia, and Germany during WWI were all related by blood.

Weird to have a democracy in a country like South Africa where the ANC enjoys more than 70% of the vote and can (theoretically at least) change the constitution at will. If you're a minority, better hope that the goodwill of the government saves your ass.

Originally posted by Push Weird to have a democracy in a country like South Africa where the ANC enjoys more than 70% of the vote and can (theoretically at least) change the constitution at will. If you're a minority, better hope that the goodwill of the government saves your ass.

That sure doesn't sound like a democracy to me. If the ruling government can arbitrarily change the constitution to serve itself, there's a problem right there. checks and balances, people.

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson And as for "running into" the over-priveleged gimp that is Prince William in St. Andrews, that aint nothing to boast about. In fact studying in a place like St. Andrews where the vast vast majority of students are of the same over-priveleged (and Southern English)ilk is nowt to boast about either. Had your Oxbridge application rejected? Go to St. Andrews!

wow, talk about stereotyping people and pigeonholing! MAN! so, the vast vast majority of the 8000 students at st. andrews 'are of the same over-priveleged (and southern english) ilk'? really? that's strange, because when i was there, for four years, mind you, the 'yas' (and, yes, there are definitely yas in st. andrews, no doubt) were in the minority and most of the students, who were NOT, i repeat, NOT either 'over-priveleged' or 'southern english' paid little attention to these people. yes, about half of the students who go to st. andrews are english (that's hardly a vast majority!), but many are, in fact, northern. i also had friends from europe, north america, south america, east asia, the middle east and australia and new zealand, as well. st. andrews is a very international university.

as for going there because one didn't get into oxford or cambridge, i wouldn't know. i didn't apply to oxford or cambridge because st. andrews has the best postgraduate department in the world for what i studied (terrorism), so why would i want to go to oxbridge? oxbridge isn't right for everyone, you know, and other universities do have excellent departments. in fact, and this may surprise you, i knew several people who turned down oxbridge to attend st. andrews. other universities have students who have done the same thing for one reason or another (another friend of mine, for example, turned down oxford to go to UCL). i thought only snobs thought that oxbridge was the end-all and be-all, and i was under the impression that you weren't one! however, you seem to be pretty set in your stereotypes about st. andrews students, and while i wouldn't ever make assumptions about an entire group of people because of the university they went to, the school they went to, what country they were from, what town they lived in or how much money they had, i see that you have no problem doing so. this is a shame, as i thought with your travel experience that maybe you would know better than that. disappointing. but then again, i guess that's just me making assumptions.

i hope you'll stop such blatant stereotyping someday, grahame. really offensive, snobbish comments, mate. and shug, i hope you weren't applauding him for this.

Oh come on!!!! We're all pals here. Can a fella not spout off once in a while? All points noted and accepted but do you never wanna go off on an irrational rant sometimes?

And knowing St. Andrews very well I stand by my stereotype. The vast majority of the students there are posh twats. Fact.

Originally posted by David Church > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> What do the royal familes in Europe and most of the states south of the Mason-Dixon line have in common?> > INBREEDING! :sex:> > Yep, them there royals ain't no better than Cousin/Brother/Daddy Billy Joe Bob Gene and his wife/Cousin/sister/mother Ellie Mae Becky Sue!

Odd that that comment comes from someone who is himself below the Mason-Dixon Line...hmmm Although no one who loves New Order, or even knows who they are for that matter, could be too backwoods. Those "folks" are too busy listening to Creedence and Skynyrd.

But seriously, it's no wonder why the monarchs of Britain, Russia, and Germany during WWI were all related by blood.

We can't "rise again", we're all deformed from staying within the same gene pool all these years.

Yeah, as a proud Southerner (well, not proud really, but comfortable with my choice of location), I can make all the inbreeding jokes I want. The minute some "outsider" makes the same kind of remark, however, me and Bubba Eugene Beauregard Jones (my cousin/uncle/newphew/grandmother) string him up on the old oak tree in the back. :D

As for WWI, it always seemed like a off-kilter family feud between England and Germany and Russia. Too bad they couldn't have all gotten together in a railway car to sort it out and been blown up.

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson Oh come on!!!! We're all pals here. Can a fella not spout off once in a while? All points noted and accepted but do you never wanna go off on an irrational rant sometimes?And knowing St. Andrews very well I stand by my stereotype. The vast majority of the students there are posh twats. Fact.

as you can see, i can be a bit hot-headed when defending something, but when you insinuated that st. andrews is only a consolation prize for those who didn't get into oxbridge...that set me off and running!

sure, you can spout off, but really-- the 'vast majority' of students there are not posh twats. i'm assuming you went to st. andrews, as you say you know it very well. sorry you had such a bad experience there, but perhaps you were hanging out with the wrong people, mate! sure i knew some posh people when i was there, i even knew some twats. some of the posh people were twats and some of them were very nice. just because someone's posh doesn't make them immediately an arsehole--you can't rush to judgments about people like that, otherwise you'd be as guilty of propping up the class system as they are. i had some ya friends who were in the tory club/debate club circuit (boy did we have some whopping political debates!)and i found them extremely entertaining, and surprisingly accomodating--once i got over my initial stereotype of them (not vice versa!). of course some of their crowd were idiots, but you just ignore those ones (because they thrive on attention) and get on with it, avoiding the ya pubs or, on occasion, visiting them and people-watching for entertainment value (and you'd be surprised how many ya boys are fascinated by liberal girls who speak their mind!). this goes for every 'group,' not just 'posh' people, you know that. there are arseholes of all kinds, not just posh ones.

i was actually really disappointed in some of my friends who, when i introduced them to my friend fiona (a so-called 'posh' type/tory club/cheltenham ladies' college...you get the picture), took one look at her and, without even getting to know her told me that they didn't want her around because she was 'one of those yas and they didn't like her'. they didn't even know her! now who were being the classist twats! i'm a pretty good judge of character, and if she was a snobby bitch, i would certainly have nothing to do with her. i was disappointed that my friends wouldn't give her a chance...they couldn't see past her education, accent, and political beliefs to get to know her.

perhaps your experience of st. andrews is one of posh kids, but here's my memories: being off my head at fantastic parties at six in the morning with both students and locals, playing darts at lafferty's for hours on end with my mates, going to the casino in dundee for the cheap drinks and a bit of roulette, bowling in dundee with my mate from strathkinness, people watching in the union on weekends, watching endless hours of football in the tudor with my mates and getting cheap drinks from my friend who worked behind the bar, and spending many evenings in the cellar bar having political discussions with malcolm, the socialist publican, and probably the nicest guy in town. oh, and maybe a bit of studying!

and there's my rant for the day. now perhaps, in another post, i'll explain to you my feelings about the monarchy. and i didn't say i was a fan of them...i said i was 'a bigger fan of them than most brits.' but i've already taken up too much space with my little big-up for northeast fife, so the windsors will have to wait.

Originally posted by ShugZV©
006 - I really do not like POSH people, and I thought G's comments were brilliant and accurate.I read yer views and understand, but Posh people get right on my tits;)And as fer the monarchy

I agree. Posh people do nothing but live and breed in their own little upper-class world. To hell with the petite culturati types. Manners are a tool invented by the wealthy to keep the lower classes visibly separate from them. The bourgeoisie has no discreet charm. I don't have time for a proper rant, but I agree that posh people, in any country, are not welcomed by me.

sincerely, a "classist," hypocritical, middle-class suburban-type state-college student who still lives off his parents and has no real cause to advocate class struggle. :D

All people who make generalisations are stupid.

Originally posted by a very small boy All people who make generalisations are stupid.

(wait, was that a generalisation?)

(wait, was that a generalisation?)

well done

god f*** the queen!

the english should learn from the french and take action against their monarchy :headoff:

maybe queen lizzie should be killed in some other manner :dotdotdot:

:violent2:

and now for the rest :sex:

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol the english should learn from the french and take action against their monarchy :headoff:

I don't know Tristan, the French did kill le Roi and they got the Red Terror, the White terror, Napoleonic wars, and a bucketful of lesser Revolutions during the next 50 years. The British did keep their Kings and they got a century of unprecedented affluence and development.

Then again in Spain we kept our kings and got absolutism, scores of minor revolutions and putschs, no less than 6 different Constitutions...

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol the english should learn from the french and take action against their monarchy :headoff:

I don't know Tristan, the French did kill le Roi and they got the Red Terror, the White terror, Napoleonic wars, and a bucketful of lesser Revolutions during the next 50 years. The British did keep their Kings and they got a century of unprecedented affluence and development.

Then again in Spain we kept our kings and got absolutism, scores of minor revolutions and putschs, no less than 6 different Constitutions...

Y el Generalissimo Francisco Franco!

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol the english should learn from the french and take action against their monarchy :headoff:

That was tried a good few hundred years ago. The result was that a puritan military dictator got into power and banned Christmas, beer and pretty much everything else ( not to mention murdering lots of people.)

Originally posted by Monsieur Round&Round > Originally posted by Budvar Huber> > > > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> > the english should learn from the french and take action against their monarchy :headoff: >

I don't know Tristan, the French did kill le Roi and they got the Red Terror, the White terror, Napoleonic wars, and a bucketful of lesser Revolutions during the next 50 years. The British did keep their Kings and they got a century of unprecedented affluence and development.

Then again in Spain we kept our kings and got absolutism, scores of minor revolutions and putschs, no less than 6 different Constitutions...

Y el Generalissimo Francisco Franco!

Well, actually that was the fault of the II Republic, if the King Alfonso XIII would have stayed put in 1931 instead of fleeing like a terrified rodent we could have save ourselves the awful Republic, a Civil War and fucking Francisco Franco. Oh well, such is History unless you are Swiss I guess

Originally posted by The Robot > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> the english should learn from the french and take action against their monarchy :headoff:

That was tried a good few hundred years ago. The result was that a puritan military dictator got into power and banned Christmas, beer and pretty much everything else ( not to mention murdering lots of people.)

Did he really ban beer? Bastard Richard Harris!

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 > Originally posted by a very small boy> All people who make generalisations are stupid.

(wait, was that a generalisation?)

Ah! Hoist by my own petard.

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Originally posted by The Robot

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol the english should learn from the french and take action against their monarchy :headoff:

That was tried a good few hundred years ago. The result was that a puritan military dictator got into power and banned Christmas, beer and pretty much everything else ( not to mention murdering lots of people.)

Did he really ban beer? Bastard Richard Harris!

Originally posted by David Church > Originally posted by Budvar Huber> > > > Originally posted by The Robot> > > > > > > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> > > the english should learn from the french and take action against their monarchy :headoff: > > >

That was tried a good few hundred years ago. The result was that a puritan military dictator got into power and banned Christmas, beer and pretty much everything else ( not to mention murdering lots of people.)

Did he really ban beer? Bastard Richard Harris!

Christmas Pudding is (apparently) still illegal too. Thank God for 'A Man Called Horse'.

I like Oliver Cromwell :violent2:

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol I like Oliver Cromwell :violent2:

I don't know about that, that was one case where it was "lesser of two evils" (and Oliver was still not much fun)

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol I like Oliver Cromwell :violent2:

Well, I like Richard Harris.

(but that son of his, the little shit, got to be in that movie 'B. Monkey' with the most beautiful woman in the world. nepotism, i tell you--plain and fuckin simple. no, i'm not bitter i'm not bitter i'm not bitter she will be mine she will be mine)

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson> Oh come on!!!! We're all pals here. Can a fella not spout off once in a while? All points noted and accepted but do you never wanna go off on an irrational rant sometimes?> > And knowing St. Andrews very well I stand by my stereotype. The vast majority of the students there are posh twats. Fact.

as you can see, i can be a bit hot-headed when defending something, but when you insinuated that st. andrews is only a consolation prize for those who didn't get into oxbridge...that set me off and running!

sure, you can spout off, but really-- the 'vast majority' of students there are not posh twats. i'm assuming you went to st. andrews, as you say you know it very well. sorry you had such a bad experience there, but perhaps you were hanging out with the wrong people, mate! sure i knew some posh people when i was there, i even knew some twats. some of the posh people were twats and some of them were very nice. just because someone's posh doesn't make them immediately an arsehole--you can't rush to judgments about people like that, otherwise you'd be as guilty of propping up the class system as they are. i had some ya friends who were in the tory club/debate club circuit (boy did we have some whopping political debates!)and i found them extremely entertaining, and surprisingly accomodating--once i got over my initial stereotype of them (not vice versa!). of course some of their crowd were idiots, but you just ignore those ones (because they thrive on attention) and get on with it, avoiding the ya pubs or, on occasion, visiting them and people-watching for entertainment value (and you'd be surprised how many ya boys are fascinated by liberal girls who speak their mind!). this goes for every 'group,' not just 'posh' people, you know that. there are arseholes of all kinds, not just posh ones.

i was actually really disappointed in some of my friends who, when i introduced them to my friend fiona (a so-called 'posh' type/tory club/cheltenham ladies' college...you get the picture), took one look at her and, without even getting to know her told me that they didn't want her around because she was 'one of those yas and they didn't like her'. they didn't even know her! now who were being the classist twats! i'm a pretty good judge of character, and if she was a snobby bitch, i would certainly have nothing to do with her. i was disappointed that my friends wouldn't give her a chance...they couldn't see past her education, accent, and political beliefs to get to know her.

perhaps your experience of st. andrews is one of posh kids, but here's my memories: being off my head at fantastic parties at six in the morning with both students and locals, playing darts at lafferty's for hours on end with my mates, going to the casino in dundee for the cheap drinks and a bit of roulette, bowling in dundee with my mate from strathkinness, people watching in the union on weekends, watching endless hours of football in the tudor with my mates and getting cheap drinks from my friend who worked behind the bar, and spending many evenings in the cellar bar having political discussions with malcolm, the socialist publican, and probably the nicest guy in town. oh, and maybe a bit of studying!

and there's my rant for the day. now perhaps, in another post, i'll explain to you my feelings about the monarchy. and i didn't say i was a fan of them...i said i was 'a bigger fan of them than most brits.' but i've already taken up too much space with my little big-up for northeast fife, so the windsors will have to wait.

Nah, studied at Glasgow Yooni, MA (Hons) in Sociology. Before setting up on my own I used to run bars for Belhaven Breweries and spent a crackin' summer in St Andrews at "Drouthy Neebors" on the Main Street, I'm sure you've probably visited it (lots of tartan!). Stayed with me Auntie Betty, pocketed my re-location cash and got treated like a king for three months. Quality!

Nothin' but fond memories of Fife with the exception of those darned posh students! Fortunately I moved again just 3 weeks into term time. Murder may otherwise have been commited.

Glad to also hear that you like Dundee. Thought I was the only person seduced by it's grey charms!

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson Nah, studied at Glasgow Yooni, MA (Hons) in Sociology. Before setting up on my own I used to run bars for Belhaven Breweries and spent a crackin' summer in St Andrews at "Drouthy Neebors" on the Main Street, I'm sure you've probably visited it (lots of tartan!). Stayed with me Auntie Betty, pocketed my re-location cash and got treated like a king for three months. Quality!Nothin' but fond memories of Fife with the exception of those darned posh students! Fortunately I moved again just 3 weeks into term time. Murder may otherwise have been commited.Glad to also hear that you like Dundee. Thought I was the only person seduced by it's grey charms!

ah, yes. drouthy neebors...spent many evenings in there, as well. a bit 'theme' oriented, if you know what i mean, but it was usually not too crowded and a decent place to have a drink. i practically lived at the westport across the street for two years--it was a big postgrad hangout at the time. and then the owner sold it and they went and turned it into a bloody over-priced wine bar!!! for shame. needless to say, pretty much everyone took their business elsewhere after that.

as for dundee--it isn't the prettiest place in the UK, but it certainly has character. i always went up there to do my shopping and they have a fantastic theatre (the dundee rep). plus, my ex-boyfriend grew up just across the tay in wormit and his dad was a dundee lad, so he always spoke fondly of the city, as well. it gets a bad rap in my book.

Originally posted by Grigori Rasputin, the Mad Mystic > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> I like Oliver Cromwell :violent2:

Anybody got a job for Saddam...he tells me he's too young for retirement!!

I'm sure any Fortune 400 company would love to have him on the board....Halliburton, perhaps?

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson> > > Nah, studied at Glasgow Yooni, MA (Hons) in Sociology. Before setting up on my own I used to run bars for Belhaven Breweries and spent a crackin' summer in St Andrews at "Drouthy Neebors" on the Main Street, I'm sure you've probably visited it (lots of tartan!). Stayed with me Auntie Betty, pocketed my re-location cash and got treated like a king for three months. Quality!> > Nothin' but fond memories of Fife with the exception of those darned posh students! Fortunately I moved again just 3 weeks into term time. Murder may otherwise have been commited.> > Glad to also hear that you like Dundee. Thought I was the only person seduced by it's grey charms!

ah, yes. drouthy neebors...spent many evenings in there, as well. a bit 'theme' oriented, if you know what i mean, but it was usually not too crowded and a decent place to have a drink. i practically lived at the westport across the street for two years--it was a big postgrad hangout at the time. and then the owner sold it and they went and turned it into a bloody over-priced wine bar!!! for shame. needless to say, pretty much everyone took their business elsewhere after that.

as for dundee--it isn't the prettiest place in the UK, but it certainly has character. i always went up there to do my shopping and they have a fantastic theatre (the dundee rep). plus, my ex-boyfriend grew up just across the tay in wormit and his dad was a dundee lad, so he always spoke fondly of the city, as well. it gets a bad rap in my book.

Not so! If the Westport was what is now "The Gin House" (and I'm pretty sure it was) then I'm sorry to have to tell you that everyone has in fact taken there business to there rather than from there. All the smaller locals are struggling at the mo cos the GH has taken so many of their punters. And to be fair it is a crackin' pub, well designed with great service.

Your right about Drouthy's though, an awful place!

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson > Originally posted by AgentWood> > > > Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson> > > > > > Nah, studied at Glasgow Yooni, MA (Hons) in Sociology. Before setting up on my own I used to run bars for Belhaven Breweries and spent a crackin' summer in St Andrews at "Drouthy Neebors" on the Main Street, I'm sure you've probably visited it (lots of tartan!). Stayed with me Auntie Betty, pocketed my re-location cash and got treated like a king for three months. Quality!> > > > Nothin' but fond memories of Fife with the exception of those darned posh students! Fortunately I moved again just 3 weeks into term time. Murder may otherwise have been commited.> > > > Glad to also hear that you like Dundee. Thought I was the only person seduced by it's grey charms!>

ah, yes. drouthy neebors...spent many evenings in there, as well. a bit 'theme' oriented, if you know what i mean, but it was usually not too crowded and a decent place to have a drink. i practically lived at the westport across the street for two years--it was a big postgrad hangout at the time. and then the owner sold it and they went and turned it into a bloody over-priced wine bar!!! for shame. needless to say, pretty much everyone took their business elsewhere after that.

as for dundee--it isn't the prettiest place in the UK, but it certainly has character. i always went up there to do my shopping and they have a fantastic theatre (the dundee rep). plus, my ex-boyfriend grew up just across the tay in wormit and his dad was a dundee lad, so he always spoke fondly of the city, as well. it gets a bad rap in my book.

Not so! If the Westport was what is now "The Gin House" (and I'm pretty sure it was) then I'm sorry to have to tell you that everyone has in fact taken there business to there rather than from there. All the smaller locals are struggling at the mo cos the GH has taken so many of their punters. And to be fair it is a crackin' pub, well designed with great service.

Your right about Drouthy's though, an awful place!

the gin house is the new name for what used to be ogston's, not the westport, and is a wretched place that was always so crowded and loud i couldn't bear it. it's the only pub that students from the local boarding school (st. leonard's) were allowed to patronize, so, needless to say, some of my male friends were eager to go there, as well! it's full of screaming girls who are far too dressed up for a town like st. andrews and who wore loads of face glitter...not to mention the middle aged men who fancied themselves as being akin to tom jones. there's no place to sit down and just have a goddamn drink! (unless you're lucky enough to get there early and plant yourself upstairs at one of the tables.) you're guaranteed to see a fight outside the place nearly every friday or saturday night. that was the only interesting thing about it! unfortunately, during euro 2000 it was the only pub in town with a giant screen TV so i would go there to watch the matches. mercifully, it was in the afternoons and was relatively quiet.

i can have fun in pretty much any company and location, so i don't really give a sh*t, as long as there's good drinks and craic! ogston's/the gin house being the one st. andrews exception!

Ach it's not that bad! And the wee burds from St. L's were everywhere, don't kid yourself!

Strange how a thread about the monarchy has turned into a discussion on the licensed trade in a small Fife town between someone in Florida and a commited Scots West Coaster. Odd!

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 > Originally posted by Grigori Rasputin, the Mad Mystic> > > > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> > I like Oliver Cromwell :violent2: >

Anybody got a job for Saddam...he tells me he's too young for retirement!!

I see nothing wrong with the Halliburton contract ;) maybe I can be another American who denies human rights and upset Amnesty International I'm sure any Fortune 400 company would love to have him on the board....Halliburton, perhaps?

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson Ach it's not that bad! And the wee burds from St. L's were everywhere, don't kid yourself! Strange how a thread about the monarchy has turned into a discussion on the licensed trade in a small Fife town between someone in Florida and a commited Scots West Coaster. Odd!

man, i couldn't stand ogston's...but anyhow, now st. leonard's has gone coed, there's a bit of jailbait eye candy for both sides!

the manager of my hall's daughter (who was a friend of mine) was finishing up at st. leonard's my first two years in st. andrews and hated it there. she said the academics were crap and the students were even worse. not to mention those horrid green uniforms! i lived in deans' court, right across the street from the school, and would always see these blobs of soylent green coming at me up south street...

about the west coast vs. east coast thing (scotland, mind you, not rap!), you have to admit the weather's better on the east side!