Deathlist Memories

[Lady Grendel 138]

Yes but you don't seem to tolerate peoples 'different ideas', not a very healthy opinion, some of our members that crossed over to your forum made some valid points, but because it didn't conform to the 'party view' instead of holding a lively debate, you banned them.

 

We tolerate all sorts of different ideas. We don't tolerate people causing trouble for the sake of causing trouble. The Diana thread here is full of comments like this:

 

"Anyone up for a 'Deathlist guerilla raid' a la the BBC Derby Dead Pool page?"

 

 

"I think the prize goes to whoever lasts longest, undetected, whilst still taking the royal p***!"

 

"PS: if someone wants to post URLs to that site, please use http://tinyurl.com/ to hide direct links. It may help hide our business just a tad longer."

 

"So is this the new DeathList hobby - acting as an internet commando force to disrupt forums we don't like."

 

"hope they accept though, can't wait to have some fun with those saddos"

 

etc etc

 

 

That last comment was yours, by the way. And now you're trying to claim that you were all just over there to have an interesting exchange of opinions about royalty? Whatever.

I am not claiming anything at all Elspeth, yes I admit the last comment was mine, but my point is you just ignore these comments and don't enter into a lively discussion as to why (for example) you are not 'saddos', why do you idealise a monarchy which is stuck in the past, while we all progress to the 21st century they are still stuck in the rituals of 18th/19th century protocols, I don't think that is very normal and why would you idealise that way of life?

[Gunjaman5000 30]

...why do you idealise a monarchy which is stuck in the past, while we all progress to the 21st century they are still stuck in the rituals of 18th/19th century  protocols, I don't think that is very normal and why would you idealise that way of life?

Which is remarkably odd for someone so vehemenently against creationism being taught in schools. How do you feel about monarchism being taught in schools Elspeth?

[Guest Guest]

I am not claiming anything at all Elspeth, yes I admit the last comment was mine, but my point is you just ignore these comments and don't enter into a lively discussion as to why (for example) you are not 'saddos', why do you idealise a monarchy which is stuck in the past, while we all progress to the 21st century they are still stuck in the rituals of 18th/19th century protocols, I don't think that is very normal and why would you idealise that way of life?

 

If someone wanted to have a discussion about that topic without constantly poking fun and insulting the people who respond, I think you'd find it'd be possible. In a large forum like the Royal Forums you have a wide range of people with a wide range of views; some of them just want to talk about the fashions of the various crown princesses while some are more interested in protocol or history or culture and several other aspects. One thing we do try to do is to stop people who aren't interested in a topic from hijacking it and taking it off topic and spoiling it for people who are interested. Another thing we have to do is to stop threads getting too political because experience has shown that they tend to degenerate into fights.

 

While you have some people who might idolise the monarchy and wish to turn the clock back, others are looking forward to seeing the monarchy develop in the future, and we've had discussions about how that might be done and why some of us think constitutional monarchies are stable and healthy forms of government compared with an executive-style presidency like the United States. All these topics have been discussed; you just need to ignore the threads on topics that don't interest you and focus on the ones that do, or start one if someone else hasn't. I don't recall many of the contributions from the DeathList people being particularly serious, though; most of them were much more along the lines of, as those quotes mentioned, having fun, taking the royal p*ss, and disrupting things. I don't see any reason to put up with that. We have a lot of youngsters on the forum, and some of them don't have particularly thick skins. Part of the job of moderators' task on the forum is to make sure that deliberate baiting and disrupting don't start causing problems.

 

As I said before, it wasn't windsor's opinions or even the way he stated them that got him banned, it was his extracurricular activities.

[Guest Guest]

...why do you idealise a monarchy which is stuck in the past, while we all progress to the 21st century they are still stuck in the rituals of 18th/19th century  protocols, I don't think that is very normal and why would you idealise that way of life?

Which is remarkably odd for someone so vehemenently against creationism being taught in schools. How do you feel about monarchism being taught in schools Elspeth?

I guess you're going to have to explain what's odd about a person who appreciates constitutional monarchy also appreciating science. I mean, of the industrialised countries in the west at the moment, it's the good old republic of the USA that's busy selling out to religious extremists and enabling creationists (thanks, Dubya!).

 

Not that Tony Blair is all that far behind, mind you, after his appalling waffle in the Commons about creationism at Emmanuel College. But then, he's also a party politician, not a royal. Most of the Japanese royal family are trained scientists. Most of the US Senate and Congress are not. I don't see the problem here. You talk as though royalty and 21st-century science and technology are mutually exclusive, and I don't see why they should be.

[Entropy 5]

Sorry - the above two posts are mine. Somehow this bloody computer doesn't like remembering passwords.

 

Oh, and windsor, if you want me to respond to your PM, you're going to have to clear out your inbox.

[Gunjaman5000 30]

...why do you idealise a monarchy which is stuck in the past, while we all progress to the 21st century they are still stuck in the rituals of 18th/19th century  protocols, I don't think that is very normal and why would you idealise that way of life?

Which is remarkably odd for someone so vehemenently against creationism being taught in schools. How do you feel about monarchism being taught in schools Elspeth?

I guess you're going to have to explain what's odd about a person who appreciates constitutional monarchy also appreciating science. I mean, of the industrialised countries in the west at the moment, it's the good old republic of the USA that's busy selling out to religious extremists and enabling creationists (thanks, Dubya!).

 

Not that Tony Blair is all that far behind, mind you, after his appalling waffle in the Commons about creationism at Emmanuel College. But then, he's also a party politician, not a royal. Most of the Japanese royal family are trained scientists. Most of the US Senate and Congress are not. I don't see the problem here. You talk as though royalty and 21st-century science and technology are mutually exclusive, and I don't see why they should be.

I can't see how someone with such strong views against a very old and very flawed idea can have such strong views for a very old and very flawed idea.

Nor do I think the Japanese royal family are a great example, they'd still thinking the Emperor was god had the case against their view not been presented so emphatically in the 1940's.

[Entropy 5]

I can't see how someone with such strong views against a very old and very flawed idea can have such strong views for a very old and very flawed idea.

Nor do I think the Japanese royal family are a great example, they'd still thinking the Emperor was god had the case against their view not been presented so emphatically in the 1940's.

 

Actually, creationism isn't an old idea, it's quite modern. "Scientific creationism" as we know it today dates back to the 1960s, and the latest incarnation, intelligent-design creationism, started in the late 1980s or thereabouts. The notion of biblical creation being the correct way of viewing the world is a lot older, of course, but it wasn't until about 50 years ago with the publication of "The Genesis Flood" by Whitcomb and Morris that creationists started claiming that creationism was legitimate science and should be taught as such to schoolkids. Intelligent-design creationism is an attempt to get round the 1987 Edwards v Aguillard Sipreme Court decision that creationism was basically religious and hence unconstitutional to teach in govenment-run schools in the USA. Creationism isn't as much flawed as dead wrong. And deeply dishonest as well.

 

As far as constitutional monarchy is concerned, it can't be that terribly bad. If you look at the UN list of countries with the highest quality of life, constitutional monarchies are a majority in the top ten and have been for years. To me, the great advantage of a system like that is that it takes the head-of-state job out of the clutches of a party politician. I think we've seen over the last few years what can happen when a head of state is also a partisan party politician and doesn't hesitate to blend the two roles, insisting that if his policies as a politician aren't supported, the critics are unpatriotic. This is especially a problem during wars, again as we've seen over the past few years. A person can disagree with Tony Blair without being branded as a traitor, because people know that Tony Blair's interest is himself and his party and that the head of state is not a party politician. It's getting a bit hard to disagree with George Bush without being accused of being unpatriotic. Many people in the USA are being made to feel that they're anti-American because they're not Republican. I don't think that's a healthy state of affairs.

 

It also means that an executive president can insulate himself from critics; the Vice President is the President's choice, as are all the major figures like Secretary of State, Secretary of Defence, National Security Advisor. as we've seen after Hurricane Katrina, he can appoint just about any idiot into a high-level job if the idiot is a good enough friend of his. At the moment, some of his high-level appointees in public health are there because they toe the Republican party line on health insurance and abortion, not because they have the first notion about infectious diseases like avian flu. The president doesn't have an opposition like the prime minister does, there's no weekly question time, and press conferences are carefully orchestrated to not be too critical. There's little continuity between a Republican and Democratic president; in fact, when the administration changes parties, the outgoing one tries to make things as hard as possible for the incoming one. In contrast, when you have an experienced monarch, the prime minister knows s/he has one colleage who isn't motivated by ambition or ideology, and just about every prime minister for the last half century, including Labour ones (but no doubt excluding Tony Blair) has said how helpful it was to know they had the Queen there to listen to their concerns and give advice about things.

 

I think you'd have to be careful, if you were replacing a constitutional monarchy, that you didn't make things worse simply out of a desire to do away with something that has a long history. It's working as well as any other form of western government these days.

 

I thought the Japanese just thought the emperor was descended from god? For all we know, he might be. Gods can be a bit eccentric sometimes.

[in eternum+ 20]

It's official! Entropy is one of us!!

 

The lovely Elspeth is currently 4th on the top 10 poster-for-the-day leaderboard, above such notables as HCW, Lady G, and Bouddica.

 

Only 23 posts since joining, but it looks like her daily quota is increasing exponentially.

Shall I restate the odds?

 

I know there's been a lot of jolity and hilarity ensuing, but is this really going to turn into another site for discussing the Royals? I thought I'd gotten away from them travelling to the other side of the ocean. However, it turns out that bloody Prince Charles will be over here visiting next week, and he'll be on 60 Minutes tomorrow. There's no escape!

 

Elspeth - if you really want to have a debate with the members of this forum about the Royals and/or your site, why did you ban them all?* If you're going to discuss the Royals here, could you at least please focus your comments to regard their immanent (or possible) demise? I assume you follow them closely; any hints or tips for our list next year?

 

*This is a rhetorical question; I've read the thread. Please don't rehash it all again.

[Entropy 5]

It's official! Entropy is one of us!!

 

Oh dear...

 

 

I know there's been a lot of jolity and hilarity ensuing, but is this really going to turn into another site for discussing the Royals?

 

Well, Gunjaman did ask.

 

 

I thought I'd gotten away from them travelling to the other side of the ocean. However, it turns out that bloody Prince Charles will be over here visiting next week, and he'll be on 60 Minutes tomorrow. There's no escape!

 

Yes there is. Just - you know - don't watch 60 Minutes.

 

Elspeth - if you really want to have a debate with the members of this forum about the Royals and/or your site, why did you ban them all?

 

Because I'm not a barrel of laughs, remember.

 

If you're going to discuss the Royals here, could you at least please focus your comments to regard their immanent (or possible) demise? I assume you follow them closely; any hints or tips for our list next year?

 

No idea, sorry.

[Gunjaman5000 30]

To me, the great advantage of a system like that is that it takes the head-of-state job out of the clutches of a party politician. I think we've seen over the last few years what can happen when a head of state is also a partisan party politician and doesn't hesitate to blend the two roles, insisting that if his policies as a politician aren't supported, the critics are unpatriotic...

...In contrast, when you have an experienced monarch, the prime minister knows s/he has one colleage who isn't motivated by ambition or ideology, and just about every prime minister for the last half century, including Labour ones (but no doubt excluding Tony Blair) has said how helpful it was to know they had the Queen there to listen to their concerns and give advice about things.

Interesting that Queen Elizabeth II, the head of the constitutional monarchy you've used as an example, is also the head of the Church of England. I do not know what stance the 'Supreme Governor' has on creationism.

 

You could also research Arahitogami for more on the Japanese emperor's divinity/

Edited October 30, 2005 by Gunjaman5000

[Tuber Mirum 119]

Windsor, yer nae wise.

[Paul Bearer 5,716]

I bailed out at about 10:30 last night ( well, I have a man cold coming on, I'm sure everyone knows what that is like ) What the hell happened? What was the end result? Is Windsor still banned from the royal forum?

[football_fan 41]

I bailed out at about 10:30 last night ( well, I have a man cold coming on, I'm sure everyone knows what that is like ) What the hell happened?  What was the end result? Is Windsor still banned from the royal forum?

He is back, but with a new identity.

[Tempus Fugit 212]

.

[in eternum+ 20]

If you're going to discuss the Royals here, could you at least please focus your comments to regard their immanent (or possible) demise? I assume you follow them closely; any hints or tips for our list next year?

 

No idea, sorry.

Well get investigatin'!

[Windsor 2,144]

Windsor, yer nae wise.

Well that was fairly random .

 

My Inbox is now cleared (I'm so popular) so you may respond now Elspeth/Entropy.

[Entropy 5]

Interesting that Queen Elizabeth II, the head of the constitutional monarchy you've used as an example, is also the head of the Church of England. I do not know what stance the 'Supreme Governor' has on creationism.

 

Nor do I. It would appear that the Prince of Wales is a supporter of intelligent-design creationism, though.

[Tempus Fugit 212]

.

[Lady Die 63]

Interesting that Queen Elizabeth II, the head of the constitutional monarchy you've used as an example, is also the head of the Church of England. I do not know what stance the 'Supreme Governor' has on creationism.

 

Nor do I. It would appear that the Prince of Wales is a supporter of intelligent-design creationism, though.

Prince Charles is an excellent example of unintelligent design. What intelligence would design ears like that?

[Entropy 5]

If you're going to discuss the Royals here, could you at least please focus your comments to regard their immanent (or possible) demise? I assume you follow them closely; any hints or tips for our list next year?

 

No idea, sorry.

Well get investigatin'!

Erm - how, exactly?

 

I have this vague suspicion that if I were to e-mail the Royal Insight Q&A page to ask if they'd mind letting me know the state of health and seriousness of death threats for each of the royals, they wouldn't answer. Or at least, they wouldn't answer usefully.

[in eternum+ 20]

Erm - how, exactly?

 

I have this vague suspicion that if I were to e-mail the Royal Insight Q&A page to ask if they'd mind letting me know the state of health and seriousness of death threats for each of the royals, they wouldn't answer. Or at least, they wouldn't answer usefully.

Perhaps. But with your (assumedly) vast knowledge of all things Royal, you must have some idea of states of health, etc.? Or, at least, where to find this information out.

 

Also, is there any possibility you'll be attending Royal events in the near future (you know, conferences where Royal afficionados get together and exchange memorabilia, that type of thing)? One or two 'important' people are normally invited to those types of gatherings as key guests to draw the crowds, and these are usually notables of the 'Z-list' variety. So there could well be some old, decrepit Royals who are past their prime and on the verge of death.

 

Here is some advice on how to approach such a situation.

[Entropy 5]

No, I don't attend royal-related events (anyway, if I took that advice and called a royal "Mr" like Professor Hawking was being called "Mr," I doubt they'd appreciate it much, and royals are a bit sensitive about titles).

 

There were no deaths among the British royals (descended from George V, at any rate - I have no idea about the peripheral ones) in the 1980s and Diana was the only fatality in the 1990s, so, depending on how you look at it, either you can go a very long time between royal deaths or they're overdue for a whole lot of them.

[Windsor 2,144]

Your knowledge lets you down Elspeth/Entropy. (I noticed you dodged the question).

 

How about the current Earl of Harewood? Son of Princess Mary the former Princess Royal, daughter of the late King George V.

 

He recently had a heart operation (don't ask me of the details) and is over 80 years of age.

 

[Gunjaman5000 30]

While you have some people who might idolise the monarchy and wish to turn the clock back, others are looking forward to seeing the monarchy develop in the future, and we've had discussions about how that might be done and why some of us think constitutional monarchies are stable and healthy forms of government compared with an executive-style presidency like the United States.

Elspeth could you please provide a link to a discussion on constitutional monarchy? I tried the search engine at theroyalfoums but my limited computing abilities let me down again.

I watched a programme 'Penn & Teller's Bullshit' looking at the efforts (successful) to get Creationism/Intelligent Design taught in a Georgia? school. Frightening. I'm glad that lot were made by their creator and I evolved from apes. Chimps have more brains than those idiots.

[Entropy 5]

Your knowledge lets you down Elspeth/Entropy. (I noticed you dodged the question).

 

How about the current Earl of Harewood? Son of Princess Mary the former Princess Royal, daughter of the late King George V.

 

He recently had a heart operation (don't ask me of the details) and is over 80 years of age.

 

So what did I say that contradicts that? You're being mighty picky these days, you know.