Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 820
    MEMBERS
  • 45849
    MESSAGES
  • 34
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Derailed Thread   The U.K and Europe

Started Mar-31 by MEDDLY; 1327 views.
MEDDLY

From: MEDDLY

Mar-31

In reply toRe: msg 1
RGoss99

From: RGoss99

Apr-4

Hardly a hard news ítem. First of all, I doubt that the Queen and Duke share a bedroom, at present if they ever did. My evidence of this is a long time back when someone broke into Buckingham Palace and woke the queen (no mention of the duke), who took care of the matter.

As for "two years" where would such stats, if true, come from. As for the vague "living togather" what does that mean: sharing a bed, sharing a bedroom, sharing an apartment, or sharing a residence.  If there are facts on this I would expect the answers to these questions to be no, no, perhaps, yes. For example, traditionally the royal family gathers at Sandringham at Christmas, which means my "yes" is probably correct, and the title of this thread false. Also since I can´t remembere the date when the Duke "retired" if it was less then 2 years ago, and the royals were togather away from a royal residence, I suspect the penultimate would also be a yes, e.g. the thread statement false.

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

Apr-4

The Daily Mail is the worst for British versions of Fox News. 

But only because the Daily Express doesn't really do "hard news" or journalism of any kind.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host
RGoss99 said:

...a long time back when someone broke into Buckingham Palace and woke the queen...

When did this happen?

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

Apr-5

RGoss99 said:

I doubt that the Queen and Duke share a bedroom, at present if they ever did. My evidence of this is a long time back when someone broke into Buckingham Palace and woke the queen (no mention of the duke), who took care of the matter.

Sorry, my comment read as if I disbelieved the story when I agree with your facts and (very likely) your interpretation of them.

What I meant to say is "Nobody in their right mind would get information from the modern Daily Express". Only use it for historical accounts of a section of British (and world) opinion in the 1930s.

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

Apr-5

For a long time I have been confused about the number of pointless posts you send to me. One possibility is that while you don´t believe what I post as a passive-aggressive you ask questions which cast doubt on me, while protecting yourself by not actually stating your doubts. But I think I have figured out a more milder crit with this post. So now I possibly understand why you do this, and also why you seem incapable of documenting the sources of your posts which I question overtly. Is it posible that you simply do not know how to do research on the net? In this case, I have done you a favor pretending that this last post of yours is simply a form of trolling, and done your research for you. By using two key strings: "burglar" and "Queen Elizabeth" Google provided your answer. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/9091612/Buckingham-Palace-intruder-Michael-Fagan-given-whisky-by-Queens-staff.html

ramseylurker

From: ramseylurker

Apr-5

RGoss99 said...

By using two key strings: "burglar" and "Queen Elizabeth"

Was he really a burglar (a word that doesn't occur in your original post, by the way), or did he just have to pee?  

https://www.ladbible.com/news/uk-man-who-broke-into-queens-room-admits-new-detail-about-what-happened-20190120

RGoss99 said...

For a long time I have been confused about the number of pointless posts you send to me. One possibility is that while you don´t believe what I post as a passive-aggressive you ask questions which cast doubt on me, while protecting yourself by not actually stating your doubts. But I think I have figured out a more milder crit with this post. So now I possibly understand why you do this, and also why you seem incapable of documenting the sources of your posts which I question overtly. Is it posible that you simply do not know how to do research on the net? In this case, I have done you a favor pretending that this last post of yours is simply a form of trolling, and done your research for you.

Is there any reason in particular why you decided to piss on this thread so early in the morning out of the blue?

What is your hostility all about?

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, after being startled by a burglar, perhaps?

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

Apr-5

Another problem with the British press that does not fall into the same class as the "Daily Express" is that much of the rest of it, while valid journalism is so boring to read.

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

Apr-5

To get past the censor with a God complex I Will answer your post with two separate posts.

To your "Was he really a burglar (a word that doesn't occur in your original post, by the way), or did he just have to pee?  " The anwswer is quite simple, for those who ignorant who are confused between uneducated popular speech, and SEU

Yes, he really was a burglar because the context fits the definition, as opposed to the popular use of the Word.

 "the felony of breaking into and entering the house of another at night with <<INTENT>> to steal, extended by statute to cover the breaking into and entering of any of various buildings, by night or day."

Note that one can be convicted of burglary, whether they steal or rob or not, "intent" is irrelevant. so yes, considering he was not a legal resident of Buckingham Palace, which is surrounded by fences and guards, his very presence inside the building even if he is standing just inside the f ront door in the hallway is an act of burglary. In this case, I doubt that the man had any intent to steal anything, just to do something daring. If someone jumped the fence on Pennsylvania he would automaticly be a tresspasser no mater what his intent, if he got inside the front door of the White House he would automaticly be a burglar (and for either or both, a number of other crimes also for which the only excuse would be insanity or feeble mindedness. 

ramseylurker

From: ramseylurker

Apr-5

RGoss99 said...

The anwswer is quite simple, for those who ignorant who are confused between uneducated popular speech, and SEU

Let me Google that for you.

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=what+does+SEU+stand+for%3F

SEU is an abbreviation for Service Entrance cable, Underground.

https://www.electriciantalk.com/f5/seu-ser-acronyms-207225/

Although my father was an electrician, I'm just an ignorant and confused mathematician, so no, I don't know the difference between uneducated popular speech and Service Entrance cable, Underground.

However, I do know how to spell the name of the South American country "Colombia" in uneducated popular speech. Perhaps it is spelled "Columbia" in Service Entrance cable, Underground?

TOP