Diana

mangaman · June 2007

The Boss said <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I watched that, briefly - prety dodgy the way they locked the french photographers up for 2 days solid in a neon cell without a bed <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I missed the programme but I wish I'd seen this.

How did they make the neon cell? Is it like a huge lightbulb?

|||||

ankev1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by CometGirl

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp
If Diana had taken more time and trouble to find out if he was a suitable husband for her we might have been spared the publically financed whining and moaning from her later on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How astute of you to pick up on yet another example of cynical, manipulative, evil women conning innocent men and then playing the victim.

[:D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Young Simon only understands one principle in the whole universe: that of unlimited free trade. His marriage guidance advice is no doubt predicated on that. I would be tempted to think he was just being provocative and trying to get a bite (which is generally a good thing) but his other postings make me doubt that he has that capability.

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by CometGirl

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp
If Diana had taken more time and trouble to find out if he was a suitable husband for her we might have been spared the publically financed whining and moaning from her later on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How astute of you to pick up on yet another example of cynical, manipulative, evil women conning innocent men and then playing the victim.

[:D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Young Simon only understands one principle in the whole universe: that of unlimited free trade. His marriage guidance advice is no doubt predicated on that. I would be tempted to think he was just being provocative and trying to get a bite (which is generally a good thing) but his other postings make me doubt that he has that capability.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Diana was an adult who rushed into marriage and then whined to the rest of us when it didn't work out. She was a tiresome person. Like many others, she made a mistake in choosing her marriage partner. Why did she need to bore the rest of us to tears about it?

papercorn2000 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

If Diana had taken more time and trouble to find out if he was a suitable husband for her we might have been spared the publically financed whining and moaning from her later on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not the musings of a spurned ex-lover?
She briefly mentioned a Mac ex of hers. "His only joys were cycling and a second rate Northern, provicial football team!" she said. And she told me that I was a much better lover.[:D]

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I would be tempted to think he was just being provocative and trying to get a bite (which is generally a good thing)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

i've noticed that it is becoming quite hard to get people to bite these days. Time was when even the smallest morsel of controversy could produce a feeding frenzy from the usual types. Not any more. Call me paranoid if you will, but i'm very suspicious about you lot holding internet caucus meetings each day to work out your policies and appropriate targets for abuse (having initially read your 'Party Notes' from Cameron of course).

On the other hand, perhaps all that dancing on the heads of pins simply produces centrist agreement.

Whichever is the case, some of us are so reduced that we are prepared to resort to provoking our friends.. its quite undignifying.

please look up to the stars.. ***

ankev1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

[
Diana was an adult who rushed into marriage and then whined to the rest of us when it didn't work out. She was a tiresome person. Like many others, she made a mistake in choosing her marriage partner. Why did she need to bore the rest of us to tears about it?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

When we start regarding 19 year olds as adults, I think it will be time for us all to pack up and go home. And please don't start talking about the legal age of majority as it is just an arbitray number. She may well have been tiresome, nonetheless she was first and foremost a human being like the rest of us. I rather think it was largely the press who bored (and continue to bore) us to tears about it, although she was guilty of using the press as well.

rothbook · June 2007

I remember clearly what I was doing when I heard the news.

I was watching the news.

Smeggers · June 2007

Aye but that hairstyle though? Come on, be reasonable.

Hickory Dickory Dock,
A baby elephant ran up the clock,
The clock is being repaired

redcogs · June 2007

rothbook, you are in danger of becoming too funny for the forum. i might flag your next quip.

please look up to the stars.. ***

rothbook · June 2007

Brazilian. Trust me.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

i've noticed that it is becoming quite hard to get people to bite these days. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I generally find the best bait to be something to do with religion and gays, particularly if it can be linked to paedophiles and women's rights. [;)] Allied to some stirring, this can get the usual suspects frothing at the keyboard and make ginger beards stand on end. [:p]

ankev1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I would be tempted to think he was just being provocative and trying to get a bite (which is generally a good thing)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

i've noticed that it is becoming quite hard to get people to bite these days. Time was when even the smallest morsel of controversy could produce a feeding frenzy from the usual types. Not any more. Call me paranoid if you will, but i'm very suspicious about you lot holding internet caucus meetings each day to work out your policies and appropriate targets for abuse (having initially read your 'Party Notes' from Cameron of course).

On the other hand, perhaps all that dancing on the heads of pins simply produces centrist agreement.

Whichever is the case, some of us are so reduced that we are prepared to resort to provoking our friends.. its quite undignifying.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The first post I remember reading on this website was you coming up on Soapbox and whingeing that there hadn't been any decent rows going on for the previous few days. "Aha", thought I, having been known to enjoy a good row myself, "this could be the place for me". And so it has largely proved to be the case. What seems to be a bit lacking though is the talent to really rip somebody to bits but without being gratuitously rude about it and it's that rudeness which IMO has induced a bit of blandness. The ill-mannered use their rudeness to cover up their inadequacies at being cutting.

Oh and before you kick off anything at all Redders me old muckah just remember that as a Rohloff owning homeowner, you've trashed your own position before you start, not that I would ever dream of trying to get you going.

redcogs · June 2007

[?]

please look up to the stars.. ***

redcogs · June 2007

Steady about revealing too many personal details ankev' - some of us still have a reputation to protect (shame you failed to pick up on the hi-fi interest).

BTW - the rohloff has never ailed, and it has quite a tough time underneath my 4 stone frame, not to mention the significant miles clocked up. i pity the derailer users.

please look up to the stars.. ***

simoncp · June 2007

Diana was dull. She was important to those who run the gutter press and the Panorama TV programme, but to those of us who don't make our living selling celebrity tittle-tattle to the gullible she was just one of thousands of 30 something divorcees with a grudge against her ex. How interesting is that?

papercorn2000 · June 2007

There you go, he couldn't satisfy her!

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

Gary Askwith · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by CometGirl

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp
If Diana had taken more time and trouble to find out if he was a suitable husband for her we might have been spared the publically financed whining and moaning from her later on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How astute of you to pick up on yet another example of cynical, manipulative, evil women conning innocent men and then playing the victim.

[:D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Young Simon only understands one principle in the whole universe: that of unlimited free trade. His marriage guidance advice is no doubt predicated on that. I would be tempted to think he was just being provocative and trying to get a bite (which is generally a good thing) but his other postings make me doubt that he has that capability.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I reckon dear simon is anything but young...late 50's seems about right...a young Simon would make the thinly veiled prejudice, the seething indignation and purple faced angst a bit more forgivable as the product of inexperience/nieviety/petulance
I suspect the general consensus might agree those features present in a fifty-something is more worthy of pathos than vilification [:)]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Gary Askwith · June 2007

Mind you Simons habit of Blasting 360 degrees with a Blunderbuss does mean he very occasionally hits a target[:)][;)]

A philosophy professor who branded Diana, Princess of Wales, as a muddled, self-obsessed woman who damaged the monarchy, her children and herself, has defended his criticisms.

Professor Anthony O'Hear defends his description of Diana
Anthony O'Hear said the Princess symbolised attitudes which were widespread in modern Britain.

He added: "The sort of attitudes I mean are the elevation of feeling over reason, self-expression over discipline, self esteem over objective duty.

"Above all, a sense of oneself as a victim, of not being responsible for what one is and what one has become."

"Faking It - The Sentimentalisation of Modern Society" denounces "fake Britain" which has abandoned reason in favour of cheap sentimentality.

The book is published on Friday by the right-wing think-tank, the Social Affairs Unit.

Editors Professor O'Hear and Anglican clergyman Peter Mullen depict a Britain where politics, arts, religion and even eating habits are dominated by self-indulgence and hollow emotion.

"Today's Britain is not 'modern', let alone `cool'. It is a fake society with fake institutions," write the editors.

"The society's defining moment was Princess Diana's funeral, in which sentimentality - mob grief - was personified and canonised, the elevation of feelings above reason, reality and restraint."

Friends and admirers of the princess have denounced the book, describing it as distasteful and inappropriate.

'Duty absent'

Professor O'Hear maintains Diana was a woman who "lacked understanding of her public role" and says that the rest of the Royal Family had to put up with her "childlike self-centredness".

The Princess was hounded by photographers
He writes: "In the Diana story, duty is a notion which is entirely absent."

He concedes that Diana did good through her charity work, but says even that was driven largely by sentimentality.

Reverend Mullen said: "She was self-indulgent and she believed the expression of one's feelings is the be-all and end-all.

"The fact is that Princess Diana did a great number of things that were very useful, but she was extremely self-indulgent and infantile.

"How else do you describe the behaviour of anyone who goes on hunger strike and throws herself down stairs - if she was a child of yours you would give her a smack."

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Mind you Simons habit of Blasting 360 degrees with a Blunderbuss does mean he very occasionally hits a target[:)][;)]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I always hit the target. Very occasionally you realise that I hit it.

maybrick · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">redcogs
Posted - rothbook, you are in danger of becoming too funny for the forum. i might flag your next quip.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

i think i'd like arch to flag my quip please!

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.

Russell_john · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Mind you Simons habit of Blasting 360 degrees with a Blunderbuss does mean he very occasionally hits a target[:)][;)]

A philosophy professor who branded Diana, Princess of Wales, as a muddled, self-obsessed woman who damaged the monarchy, her children and herself, has defended his criticisms.

Professor Anthony O'Hear defends his description of Diana
Anthony O'Hear said the Princess symbolised attitudes which were widespread in modern Britain.

He added: "The sort of attitudes I mean are the elevation of feeling over reason, self-expression over discipline, self esteem over objective duty.

"Above all, a sense of oneself as a victim, of not being responsible for what one is and what one has become."

"Faking It - The Sentimentalisation of Modern Society" denounces "fake Britain" which has abandoned reason in favour of cheap sentimentality.

The book is published on Friday by the right-wing think-tank, the Social Affairs Unit.

Editors Professor O'Hear and Anglican clergyman Peter Mullen depict a Britain where politics, arts, religion and even eating habits are dominated by self-indulgence and hollow emotion.

"Today's Britain is not 'modern', let alone `cool'. It is a fake society with fake institutions," write the editors.

"The society's defining moment was Princess Diana's funeral, in which sentimentality - mob grief - was personified and canonised, the elevation of feelings above reason, reality and restraint."

Friends and admirers of the princess have denounced the book, describing it as distasteful and inappropriate.

'Duty absent'

Professor O'Hear maintains Diana was a woman who "lacked understanding of her public role" and says that the rest of the Royal Family had to put up with her "childlike self-centredness".

The Princess was hounded by photographers
He writes: "In the Diana story, duty is a notion which is entirely absent."

He concedes that Diana did good through her charity work, but says even that was driven largely by sentimentality.

Reverend Mullen said: "She was self-indulgent and she believed the expression of one's feelings is the be-all and end-all.

"The fact is that Princess Diana did a great number of things that were very useful, but she was extremely self-indulgent and infantile.

"How else do you describe the behaviour of anyone who goes on hunger strike and throws herself down stairs - if she was a child of yours you would give her a smack."

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

... and who her actually takes the musings of a philosophy professor seriously. From the collection of professions that is determnined to put peoples in boxes: aah you exhibit this behaviour therefore you must have X condition is utter drivel.

Show me someone who is not in some way 'muddled' and again show me someone who is not - for each and every one of us suffers from 'muddled' thinking in some area of our lives - it's called being a human being, or does the great professor not appreciate that.

Needless to say Diana was unhappy in her life and she, like the rest of us has/d numerous flaws but she lived her life in the constant spotlight - how unbearable must that have been...

I'll give you a simple example: Last night I was in a pub in Brighton - the 'Cricketers' in the lanes with a group of friends. Sitting in the corner table were two actors off Eastenders who play 'Gary' and 'Minty', just having a quiet drink. Then the next minute what I can only describe as a bunch of cacking harpies come over to them and ask their photos to be taken - sit on their lap etc etc. It struck me as being a total invasion of their privacy and after a few minutes the actor playing 'Minty' walked out soon followed by 'Gary'.

It struck me just how little respect people have for others privacy - of course had they declined to have their picture taken or told the gaggle of harpies in no uncertain terms to 'sex and travel' then it would be in this Sundays 'News of the screws'.

I can't even begin to imagine what a burden it must be to live your life in the public domain - so completely and utterly that you have no time and space of your own. It must be suffocating. People find all kinds of ways of dealing with it - perhaps in the case of Diana being involved in Charity works was 'selfish'. So what? If she did good by it then great - charity work is very rarely 'noble' and very often driven by personal need.

We seem so easy to judge and then we get someone in a 'profession' to validate our judgement. Yes she was messed up but my god when I read some of the postings on this and other forums recently she seems a lot bl**dy saner and more balanced and dare I say it 'human' than a fair bunch of the posters here - why is it everybody want to judge? Are your own lives so 'perfect' that you have to seek fault with others? or is it just that by picking fault in others it makes the failings of your own lives seem so much more tollerable? There: that my Philosophy

are they wibbin me Centurwion?

Diana

Comments

Categories