Jump to content

Phil Deakins

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phil Deakins

  1. As a guy, my #1 to perfume on a girl is Chanel No.5. Just behind that, there was one called Poison. I don't know if it's the one pictured above or not though. It probably is. I could sink into any girl who's wearing either of those.
  2. As Amina pointed out, English is the most widely spoken language in the world, but it's not just that. Since the advent, and massive spread, of the web, it's become almost a necessity for way more non-English speaking people to learn English. We native English speakers are very lucky indeed.
  3. I think Al Jolson was referring to Harry Linden who, unfortunately, is no longer with LL. He was one of the good ones.
  4. I imagine it can be. Unfortunately some native english speakers use 'then' when it should be 'than', and actually think it's correct. I've always assumed that it's down to where they live in U.S. If I'm not mistaken, in some parts, the word 'than' is pronounced as though it is spelt 'then', and a few people just don't manage to learn it. It's similar with New Zealand people, who often pronounce the letter 'e' as an 'i'; e.g. 'bed' sounds like 'bid'. But they don't get the spelling wrong
  5. Interesting. I run a webserver on one Raspberry Pi and I have another one that's never done anything. I think I'll use that one to have a play with what you suggest.
  6. So being famous with money, popular, etc. makes them powerful? Many other people fit that description and, like the royals, they don't have any power in the way the country is run either. Sorry, Scylla, but, as I explained earlier, having power means having the ability to make things happen. You are arguing that having the ability to be heard more than most people is power. (I still don't know why you include wealth though). I say no. Power is being able to make things happen, and the ability to be heard more than most can't do that. I don't know that anyone does care about
  7. @Scylla Rhiadra Just one more thing, if you don't mind. Please tell me exactly what power the royals have in governing the country these days. You've learned from me that the monarch, not the people, appoints the PM, but apart from that, what power do they wield these days? So far you haven't stated anything other than they and their money have power, and I'm interested to know where you see them exercise power.
  8. I don't keep harping on about it. I mentioned it once because it was the point when the King, who believed he should have absolute power over the country, conceded that he shouldn't. He changed his mind later, but it was too late. You kept it going.
  9. @Scylla Rhiadra Wow! Run out of sensible points, Scylla. Can't provide credible replies. I take it as a concession. Thank you.
  10. @Scylla Rhiadra Sorry Scylla, but that's not power. Power is the ability to cause things to happen. Being listened to isn't power like that. In many cases, people who do have power probably laugh at what Charles says sometimes. You included money in your original statement, as though the money was power too. Unless the royals manage to bribe decisions their way, their money has no power. And I don't believe for a second that any of the royals use money in that way.
  11. Incidentally, the Magna Carta was an agreement, between King and Parliament, that the King does not run the country, and that Parliament does. Perhaps the King was left with some powers, such as raising taxes or going to war. I don't know. But I can assure you that the monarch today has no power except to appoint a PM (you were even wrong about that ). It is a figurehead and a servant of the country. Heck it's only yesterday that the King was not allowed to marry who he wanted to marry. To marry her, he had to abdicate the throne. Some power, huh? His money counted for nothing lol.
  12. So did a lot of other people. The guy had lots of friends. So there's no evidence there. As for royals with power, you need a quick course in British government. You can argue all you like, Scylla, but you haven't offered anything to back it up - not a shred - or even a glimpse of the system that allows the royals to have power here. All you've offered is your imagination. You are entitled to it, of course, but that's all it is - imagination.
  13. @Coffee Pancake Concerning Andrew: You are free to believe what you want to believe but that doesn't make things true. You have no idea of what's true concerning that. All you know is what you read in newspapers. And we all know how newspapers try to dramatise things. But the real truth is that YOU DON'T KNOW. You seem to be very good at imagining and guessing things - and believing what you imagine or guess. You have offered nothing at all to back up your claim of corruption. You can't offer anything, because there is nothing. Next you'll be telling us that they keep reds under the beds
  14. OOPS! It wasn't you. It was Coffee. Sorry 🥵 Yes, the Royal family have been amassing wealth for ages past. You did say that they are powerful though, and they are not - not in the way that we would understand that word in this context; i.e. powerful in the way the country is run. They don't have that power - not since King John signed the Magna Carta. I have no idea what Andrew is, but neither have you. You can think of him as "ethically corrupt" and/or "monstrous" if you like, but it's just you making it up. Neither you nor I have any idea one way or the other.
  15. Charles does - but NOT because of money. It's because he is listened to by people in government, because of who he is, and you are not. It's nothing to do with money. He is not obeyed by people in government, or he could be corrupt. I have no idea how bright and articulate you and Charles are Scylla, so I can't judge between you, but I don't mind anyone blocking and muting me. It's not a powerful threat. You accused the British royal family of being corrupt, Scylla. You were wrong. It's interesting that you haven't even attempted to justify the accusation. Instead you falsely claim t
  16. @FairreLilette I'm sorry, but it is you who is mistaken. FS has not been accused many times of being copybot viewer - not in this forum, anyway.
  17. Oddly enough, they do The people don't elect a Prime Minister. The Queen invites someone to be it. It's just that she doesn't invite anyone other than the leader of the party that won the election. But it's the monarch's choice - literally. Money is irrelevant to power, unless the money can be spent to arrange decisions and, in this case, it can't, so it's irrelevant. There may be some influence at the very top, but that's just in the form of being listened to, which is very different to what you said - that they are corrupt. They can't make government decisions, or tell
  18. I think it's safe to say that FS has not been accused many times as a copybot viewer. I also think it's safe to say that you have made a mistake through the years about that. It has been accused many times for something else, but not copybotting. You are mistaken.
  19. That's correct. Copybotting was an unintended misuse of LibSL, not of the open source viewer. That came later.
  20. I'm not a fan of Firestorm but I've never seen it accused of being a copybot viewer. Where I think you may be making a mistake is that Firestorm has been accused many times of having skullduggery in its history, including by me, and you've assumed that the accusations were about copybotting. They weren't.
  21. Sorry Coffee, but you've started writing some idiotcally stupid posts that cannot be taken even slightly seriously. Yesterday I wrote something positive about you in a post. I take it back.
  22. The British royals (the top ones who are paid) are not obsolete at all. They do plenty of very valuable work for the UK, and they sacrifice a helluva lot for the UK. I wouldn't like the job with its lack of freedom.
  23. I've always been a supporter of the British 'royal' system, but in recent years I've slowly changed my mind, and I would prefer it to end when the Queen goes - but not before.
  • Create New...