|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Diana Princess of Wales.......New Ripper Victim?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Ripper Victims:
Diana Princess of Wales.......New Ripper Victim?
Author: Ashleah Skinner
Friday, 20 September 2002 - 04:15 pm |        | Taken from a forum article....The Full Moon of Virgo occurred last night. For clandestine
Luciferian Masons (CLuMs) the zodiac sign of Virgo (the virgin) is
important for women in general, in their states of young girl, mother, and
old woman. In many cases human sacrifices of women are carried out by
CLuMs during this zodiac sign.
This was the case with the death of Princess Diana who was killed by
CLuMs on August 31, 1997, just before the New Moon of Virgo (9/1/97).
CLuM human sacrifices are also sometimes synchronized with the New
Moon, or the Full Moon, according to the sacrificial timetable of the
Temple of Solomon, the central object of Masonic mythology.
As far as the French police investigation itself is concerned, the fact
that they have not publicly identified the white Fiat that collided with
Diana's car shows that they are unable or unwilling to conduct a thorough
inquiry, no matter how many "millions of dollars" they have spent.
Diana's death occurred 109 years to the day after the first murder
attributed to the CLuM serial killer Jack the Ripper. The number 109
contains the digits of 19, a reminder of the 19-year Metonic cycle of the
moon, another regulator of CLuM outrages. The Ripper's first victim was
Mary Ann (Polly) Nichols, killed on August 31, 1888.
It is a little known fact, but the name "Polly" is a variant of the name
"Mary". The combinations "Mary Ann", or "Marianne", or "Pollyanna",
etc., are common because St. Anne was the mother of the Blessed Virgin
Mary: "Mary Ann" simply means "Mary, daughter of Anne".
As CLuM luck would have it, on October 1, 1993, a young girl named
Polly Klaas was abducted from her house in Petaluma, CA, and killed. It is
a little known fact, but Polly's full name was Polly Hannah Klaas. "Klaas",
of course, is the Dutch version of "Nicholas". Therefore, Jack the Ripper's
first victim, Mary Ann (Polly) Nichols, had the same name form as Polly
Hannah Klaas, or "Mary Ann Nicholas". Moreover, as CLuM luck would
have it, Polly Klaas' mother is named Eve Nichol.
Petaluma, CA, is located in Sonoma County, just north of San
Francisco Bay. "SONoMA" is a Baconian cypher for "Mason". "San
Francisco Bay" is an anagram for "Say Francis Bacon", a reminder of the
very important CLuM Sir Francis Bacon, the author of "The New Atlantis"
and one of the real authors of the Shakespearean works. Another
landmark near Petaluma is the Jack London State Historical Park, a
reminder of JACK the Ripper, the CLuM serial killer active in LONDON.
Polly Hannah Klaas' murder happened on the day after the Full Moon
of the Blue Moon of September 1993. That Blue Moon had marked the
signing of the first accord between the Zionist entity, the so-called State of
Israel, and the PLO. This event had taken place on the 13th day of
September 1993 at the White House. It seems that poor Polly Klaas,
"America's child", was chosen as a sacrificial victim for the success of that
CLuM agreement on behalf of New Atlantis.
The Polly Hannah Klaas case began to be "solved" by the police two
Full Moons later on November 28, 1993, when a woman named Dana Jaffe
called them and said that some items related to Polly had been found on her
property on Pythian Road. "Pythian" is one of the names of Apollo, the
sun god, a Greco-Roman version of Lucifer/Satan. "Pythian" refers to the
Python, a large snake, or dragon, that Apollo had slain at Delphi, according
to Greek mythology. "Pythia", of course, was also the title of the woman
fortune teller of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.
The name "Dana Jaffe" is also very significant. The main Masonic
hero, Hiram Abiff, was a "son of a widow", a woman of the tribe of
Naphtali (Kings 7:14), or the tribe of Dan (2 Chronicles 2:14). The tribe of
Dan had settled two areas of Canaan: one at the northern border and
another along the coast, where the cities of Jaffa (Joppa) and Tel Aviv are.
Therefore, the CLuM meaning of "Dana Jaffe" is "a woman of the tribe of
Dan from the Jaffa area". (Remember, also, the case of "Dana" Plato.)
Eventually a "usual suspect", the career criminal Richard Allen Davis,
was charged with Polly's murder and sentenced to death in 1996. "Davis",
of course, means "a descendant of David", keeping things tightly in the
family of Mary and Anne, who were also descendants of King David,
according to the Bible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 12:07 am | | Dear Ashleah:
Yes, but how does it fit into the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon?
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 12:08 am | | Ally, this is the BEST thread yet!!! What a hoot! I needed a good laugh this evening.
Anyone for Sooty as a suspect?
J |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 01:13 am | | Additional post...
I was pondering the statement ""Pythian" is one of the names of Apollo, the sun god, a Greco-Roman version of Lucifer/Satan. "Pythian" refers to the Python, a large snake, or dragon, that Apollo had slain at Delphi, according to Greek mythology. "Pythia", of course, was also the title of the woman fortune teller of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi." and it did not sit right with me. I was very fond of Greek Mythology and it was my understanding that there really is no Lucifer/Satan equivalent. So, I started doing some research...
Apollo was the god of prophesy, music and healing. He had a twin sister, Artemis (Diana in Roman Mythology). He was the god of truth, who could not speak a lie. This hardly seems like a Greco-Roman version of Lucifer/Satan! So why would anyone equate him with the Prince of Darkness?
According to both Greek and Roman Mythology, the gods were tempermental beings that had a tendency to meddle in the affairs of man and cause all kinds of mischief. For good or ill, the gods had all of the characteristics of man, with a few extra godly powers.
The closest that one could equate with Satan would be the god Hades, the god of the Underworld. However, this is not an exact fit either. After Hades and his brother Zeus overthrew their father, Cronus, they drew lots to see which one would rule which world. Hades had bad luck and became the god of the Underworld, ruling over the dead. He was a greedy god who was greatly concerned with increasing his subjects, and was disinclined to allow his subjects to leave. He was also the god of wealth, due to the precious metals mined from the earth. He had a helmet that made him invisible. He was unpitying and terrible, but not capricious.
Allegedly, Lucifer was a beloved angel of God, but cast out of Heaven to rule Hell. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Catholic Church maintains that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen.
Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer".
In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star/planet we now know by a Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." (and its origins may actually come from Greek, but to simplify things, let's stick with Roman).
In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").
So, I guess that there is a connection between Lucifer and Apollo, but not Satan and Apollo.
Additionally, "Pythian" referred to the games held every four years at Delphi in Apollo's honor. "Pytho" was also another name for Delphi.
One more interesting tidbit... The Order of Knights of Pythias is a fraternal organization founded in Washington DC in 1864, to promote friendship and charity among men. It bases its lessons and builds its rituals largely on the familiar story of the friendship of Damon and Pythias, who were historical characters living about four hundred or more years before the beginning of the Christian era. They were members of a school, founded by Pythagoras, who was known as the father of Greek philosophy (and had something to do with that dreaded geometry we hated in school!).
Hmmm... makes me wonder who thinks this stuff up. And now that I have put you all to sleep...
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Caroline Morris
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 10:23 am | | Hi Divia,
Sleep?? I'm rapidly losing the will to live here! See you and young Ashleah later - I'm off to watch some paint dry... 
Love,
Caz
PS I loved geometry at school |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 12:09 pm | | Dear Judith:
Actually, Hammy Hamster has my vote...
Dear Caz:
I took geometry twice. I failed the first time. I took it again to negate my failing grade. The second time I took it, I had a really good geometry teacher, and then I loved geometry also. But I hated algebra. Someone told me that you either love one or the other. Did you hate algebra too?
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 08:49 pm | | Ummm....
I could have saved you all the research, Divia. I'm probably the local mythology expert. I haven't heard of any others here make a claim for the title anyway (and I'd fight em for it, zing, pow!).
To take a far more quick route to debunk the Apollo = Satan thing....
Apollo killed Python in much the same way as Hercules killed the snakes that tried to attack him as a child and the Lernean Hydra later; as Zeus, Perseus, Jason and Cadmus fought off their respective evil dragon-like critters; as Thor would kill the World Serpent; as Ra (and others in Ancient Egyptian myths) battle Apep the serpent of darkness each night; as Marduk destroyed Tiamat; and as much later St. George would kill a dragon (etc.). Hence Apollo is not only not Satan, he plays the role of the hero who destroys the evil serpent. It's a complete opposite.
And I'd go far as to say he doesn't match up very well with any version of Lucifer either.
But then you wouldn't expect whomever came up with that rambling nonsense to know what they were talking about.
Dan |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 09:16 pm | | Dear Divia,
Don't know about Caz, but I LOVED geometry, and failed algebra miserably! Everyone I have spoken with about that says the same thing....you love one or the other, but rarely both.I'm sure that means SOMETHING in the great scheme of things, but I'm damned if I can tell you what!
Cheers,
Judy |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 10:23 pm | | Dear Dan:
Not to worry; I'm not out to take your title. However, I was trying to path out the relation between Lucifer, Satan and Apollo... apparently, Lucifer and Satan are not one and the same as I originally thought.
So, I'm glad that I did the research, only about 45 minutes of my time. And yes, I did read all the information that you gave as well. But I didn't want to put everyone to sleep!
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Ashleah Skinner
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 04:06 am | | THE REAL DIANA
A Numerological Assessment of Diana, Princess of Wales
Diana came into this world for a very important reason. The 88 (in her numerology chart) shows that she was not only destined to be the consort of a very important person, but also the instrument of break-up, of an institution.
She had a mind of her own and needed to find things out for herself. She was no pushover. Very much a dual personality who was able to show two different sides at will; she could show the full range of emotions and could turn her feminine charm on when the situation demanded it. At home in the company of those she knew well she could become quite bossy, even aggressive. Outside in public, she could become shy, appearing vulnerable, and often "the little girl lost."
In fact, she was never lost and once she made her mind up to do something it would be almost impossible to stop her. However, her
single-minded and often bloody-minded attitude could get her into trouble. Unexpected situations could develop which would have a dramatic impact on her life and on those around her.
She was a very intelligent person who had a deep compassion for people whose lives were going through traumas - people who seemed to be leading lives outside the normal human experience. Always to be a person who lived frequently on the outside of her immediate family, she often could be used and humiliated by them. A woman apart from society, yet a leading light who would be followed and often worshipped by the public. Material wealth would always come easy to her. Very fashion conscious and impeccable n dress, her home would be spotless, as would her children.
People were to be an important aspect of her life and her profound sense of responsibility would guide her actions. If ever she tried to avoid them she would be discovered. Truth and honesty, therefore, became very important to her. She could not abide any any faithlessness and would develop a deep sense of guilt if she felt that she had failed in this respect.
In this incarnation she would travel almost incessantly. This would be for entertainment, for love, for charity and to visit the sick and unfortunate. She would bring fresh ideas to old problems and give new impetus to flagging institutions. However, she disliked bureaucracy and lack of action and would have made her opinion known very forcefully. Diana was a doer and not a talker.
Diana brought glamour, inspiration, hope, separation, new ideas and love to the world. She was a remarkable woman. Time will tell that she was very much a martyr, and that her death would be the very natural conclusion to her remarkable life.
Diana had embarked upon a period of dramatic events around October 1996, a period that threatened immense upheaval for great institutions. Her decision to distance herself from the Royal Family would be unshakable. She would become unpredictable, impulsive and unwilling to suffer the constraints that had been forced upon her Many of her plans and ideas would be thwarted and this would lead to unpredictable behaviour that could be seen as threatening to those who would chain her.
From about July '97 her thirst for freedom would have become intense. Her behaviour would have seemed erratic, irresponsible and very threatening to some. Changes in every aspect of her life were about to occur - new directions, new relationships and possible change of residence. Consequently, in the early hours of Sunday, 31st August 1997 (a day that promised, numerologically, the sudden death of the Empress' travelling away from home) he met her death at the hands of others. Even the number plate of the car she was travelling in included the numbers 6, 8 and 8. these numbers mean the organisation (8) claims responsibility (8 and 6) for the dramatic (8+8 = 16) end of this life (6).
6 + 8 + 8 = 22: this is the number of the circle 22/pi - completion.
ellis c taylor
31st August 1997
Published in Nova Magazine, Western Australia . October 1997
INTERESTING FACTS::
"I dislike my pagan name...to me the name is ominous of mischief." The heroine in "DIANA of the CROSSWAYS" written by George Meredith in 1875.
Isn't it interesting that Diana was ritually murdered on the same date as Mary Ann Nichols, the first victim of Jack the Ripper?
Both Diana and Mary were numerologically, 22.
31st August 1888
4 22-4 9 88 = 110 -8
31st August 1997
4 22-4 19 16 =22-7
Diana Frances Spencer
29 66 80
http://www.royal.gov.uk/family/diana.htm
An anonymous correspondent tells me that the 'downstairs' word is that James Hewitt, the former Beau of Diana's , (who was threatened with his life to back off) did not write the book, Love and War, which bears his name. He claims James Hewitt is dyslexic. This person claims an upper-bracket editor of a high class magazine was responsible and that Hewitt, was unaware of much of the book's content before publication.
Hidden Evidence: The explosive new book by Jon King and John Beveridge on Diana's assasination.
Anus Horribilis - Terrifying Old Woman - This site's article details the occult synchronicities employed in the sacrifice of Diana., The Moon Princess.
Diana Death Conspiracy - An Assassination by John Quinn |
Author: Chris Jd
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 09:29 am | | Hi Ashleah,
Annus horribilis that is.
An Anus horribilis can be obtained by sitting too long reading articles like the above.
Christian |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 04:14 pm | | Dear Ashleah,
Her death was prophecied in Godfrey Smith's column
of the Sunday Times, December, 1999.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 04:34 pm | | Greetings all:
We're born, we live, we die... that's life. The stuff in between is what we live for and it depends on what we make of it and what we do with it. Personally, I control my own destiny, and the planetary alignment and numbers have very little to do with it.
Isn't it interesting that you can twist things around in astrology/numerology to make it fit the circumstances? I mean, it's all very interesting how people come to these conclusions, but I don't think it belongs on the Victims board... maybe Miscellaneous.
Ashleah, do *you* believe this is why Princess Diana died? Do you really feel that she is a "Ripper Victim"?
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 06:35 pm | | The connection between Diana and the Ripper victims is the British Royal Family of course , and that mysterious date - the last day of summer.
Wait - come back !
Theres also a connection to Paris , Diana died there and Mary Kelly had been there but returned.
Theres definitely an element of sacrifice involved - Kelly had her heart removed and Diana had to have her chest cut open for her heart to be massaged. Any British subject - including the Princess of Wales - who dies abroad has to have an inquest performed on them in the UK if their body is returned to Britain : with Diana , this didn't happen. Why not ?
Surely the last thing the British government and Royal family would want was the Royal princes being brought up under the auspices of Dodi and Mohammed Al Fayed ?
Ask yourself this : why has the British Government not conducted its own independent enquiry into Diana's death just in case she was murdered by terrorists - after all , the British Prime Minister or Prince Charles could have been the next target if there was a terrorist campaign raging ? |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 02:50 am | | Dear Everyone,
There used to be a saying that famous people had no secrets from either their doctor or their barber. Today I suppose you could also add your bodyguard.
A friend of mine who used to be part of Diana's protection team once described her as a 'pit viper on heat'
For everyone who is overwhelmed by her compassion for others just remember that on the day she received her divorce settlement of some (I think) £17 million she ditched most of the charities she was involved with ( about 30 if I recall correctly) keeping three very high profile ones.
I remember one of the organisers of one of the ditched charities saying how disgusted she was by this blatant act. The next time I saw this woman was after Diana's death when she was gushing about the wonderful work Diana had done for charity.
If you want to worship someone for their good work, take a look at the Princess Royal. Only she doesn't drag a retinue of press behind her all the time.
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 06:20 am | | Diana's death might have been "convenient" for certain members of the Royal family and British establishment, that doesn't mean they bumped her off, though.
When the Titanic went down, the rest of the big liner companies improved their commercial position, as it resulted, ultimately, in the demise of one of the biggest players.
That doesn't mean they clubbed together to buy an iceberg. |
Author: Ally
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 07:36 am | | I just thought I'd give fair warning...the very next person who decides to insult a woman by saying she acted like a whatever "on heat" or "in heat" or whatever the next charming term is to insult a woman who doesn't stay at home with her knees together like a good little housefrau, will be word-slapped royally by me. Welcome to the new millenium where women are still sluts for doing what men have been doing with congratulatory back slaps for centuries.
And you know what, if I had to play the perfect princess for 15 years and put up with a git of a husband, I'd probably go wild when I was finally free too.
Ally
The original pit viper in heat. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 08:43 am | | Hi Judy, Divia,
I seem to be the exception then - I loved algebra even more than I loved geometry. Maybe it had something to do with my mother being a maths teacher, although the thing I loved most of all was not asking her for help with my homework.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 12:24 pm | | Caz , I can believe you are the exception !
Personally , I thought Princess Diana was a bit of an overpaid fashion model when she was alive , and I didn't sign any books of condolences or anything when she died , but whatever she did in her life doesn't mean that she deserved to be murdered ( if its true that she was ).
I've already explained about my microwave oven blowing up at the exact moment of Diana's crash : okay most probably its a co-incidence , but it makes me feel like I had a little connection to her life in some way.
Okay , she may have been a publicity junkie but who is to say that we wouldn't act the same if we were in her position ? Her work with AIDS charities and victims has had real effect in helping destigmatise the disease , partly because she was in the public eye. Similarly , I'm sure a few heads of state were worried because of her campaign against landmines.
Whatever one might think of Diana , I'm sure she was a fundamentally good person at heart.
Simon |
Author: judith stock
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 01:05 pm | | I'm with Ally on this one, guys. I guess it was OK for Charles to croon that he wanted to be Camilla's "feminine hygiene product" (NO WAY do I go THERE!), but for Diana to act as a normal, healthy female was just not on...right? We all tend to forget she was a woman, NOT a saint.I give her enormous credit for dumping the git, and getting on with her life. We all fall off the pedestal more than once...it just happened that the press were there when she was caught behaving normally, and that the press' pursuit of her was one of the causes of her death. Let her rest in peace; it's easy to vilify someone dead. Why not celebrate the good she did, and get on with it?
And guys...you had better get used to women being willing to stick up for themselves; the days of bum-kissing are well and truly OVER! Thank goodness!
J
2nd Pit Viper |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 01:57 pm | | Hi, Judy:
Not a saint? Not a saint?
I am still waiting for Tim Rice and Lord Lloyd Webber to rewrite "Evita," just as Elton John rewrote "Candle in the Wind," a song originally about Marilyn Monroe and made it about Di, and have the ensemble sing "O Santa O Santa Diana!" Shouldn't give 'em any ideas I guess. 
All the best
Chris |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 02:59 pm | | Ally
I find it rather strange that whilst you object to a derogatory term being used about a woman, you feel perfectly happy using a derogatory term about a man, calling Prince Charles a 'git'.
Whilst I must point out that this was a term used by someone who knew her extremely well, it is not a remark I would use about her simply because I didn't know her - just like you- and am therefore in no position to make comments of that nature about her.
I did however know Prince Charles and a kinder more caring person I have yet to meet, and that is my personal opinion formed by my personal knowledge. I also knew Princess Anne slightly and found her to be an exceptional person.
Bob Hinton |
Author: Ally
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 03:26 pm | | Dear Bob,
Yes and I can see how as you are involved with dozens of charities, you would look down on someone who, after having gone through a public and messy divorce would scale back and only devote their time to three charities. I myself being involved in no less than one hundred charities find her pitiful attempts at sponsoring only three after her divorce to be just shocking and hardly charitable at all and might want to insult her as being a witch, shallow, and well.. a woman which is deplorable all on its own. So much better if she would have just been a man. So considering all that I could hardly object to you insulting her.
What I object to is you insulting her by calling her a viper "in heat". As if a woman wanting sex is a bad thing. Oh but it is, isn't it?
I mean after all, Charles who was an adulterous, skirt chasing whore-hound is the kindest person you ever met, but let his ex-wife exhibit that sexuality and she is a viper in heat.
Tsk tsk tsk. I feel sorry for any man who thinks women ought to stay at home and grit their teeth when they do their wifely duty. ...Actually, no, I really feel sorry for their wives.
Ally |
Author: judith stock
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 03:35 pm | | Speaking for myself ONLY, Bob, you are quite correct: I don't know either of the parties in question, and therefore, am unable to speak from first hand knowledge. I CAN, however, express an opinion and that still stands. I do believe the Prince of Wales is a bit of a mess, and cannot understand how he will, in good conscience, take the Oath to be "Defender of the Faith", when he has been quite outspoken in his lack of belief in Christianity. His behavior seems more than odd, and a bit repellent in some instances....whether or not he appears to be a "more caring person" in his public persona.
The truth is, Bob, I feel deeply for a 19 year -old girl who was submerged in the "Cinderella" fantasy, waded (with what appears to be no help from her husband) through the morass in which she found herself, and emerged the other side intact. Good for her.
Didn't mean to offend, and again, I stand corrected; I cannot speak of either with first hand knowledge. You are right, and I was wrong to speak that way.
Still friends?
J |
Author: Howard Brown
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 04:31 pm | | | What the hell is a "git" ? Is that like a dork or a nerd? Maybe a dweeb or a schlamazel? HB |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 02:34 am | | Ally
I really do think you ought to lie down in a darkened room for a while.
I wonder if Shakespeare was thinking of Ally when he wrote"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
Judith Hiya! Never take offence over something like that - no apologies needed. I suppose I do get a bit raddled sometimes when I listen to people banging on about Diana, who not only knew nothing about her, which is the majority of us, but seem to consistantly refuse to accept the facts.
Describing Charles as an ' adulterous, skirt chasing whore hound' is not only extremely offensive but totally inaccurate. As far as I know Charles had one affair with Camilla and has remained 'faithfull' to her ever since. Diana had countless affairs, and put many marriages at risk (Carling) but people seem to overlook that.
The point about the charities was that she gave them up not after a long and messy divorce, but immediately after receiving her cash settlement (within hours). Unfortunately people seem to disregard fact and wallow in fantasy. Ally for example objects to:
" you insulting her by calling her a viper "in heat"
completely overlooking the fact that I didn't. If she had bothered to read my post before having a fit she would have read:
"A friend of mine who used to be part of Diana's protection team once described her as a 'pit viper on heat'
I actually re-enforced that in my next post by saying:
"it is not a remark I would use about her simply because I didn't know her - just like you- and am therefore "
However when hysteria takes over......
yours
Bob |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 04:47 am | | Dear All,
I must register my support for Ally in this matter.
Wummins Rights are very important. Some men live in the Dark Ages, and think wummin should be chained to the kitchen sink with no shoes. I don't.
I insist my wummin wears high heels when she's chained to the kitchen sink.
A Skirtchasin Git
 |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 05:17 am | | Mornin' Jim Lad,
I asked hubby if I could have the money to buy myself a watch - he said "You don't need one, - there's a perfectly good clock on the cooker!"
He was particularly cross with me the other day - he said "You slut, how can I pee in the sink when you've left it full of washing up?"
I suppose he had a point.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 05:51 am | | A "dick-head" Howard,-with the same brain power.
Though that is not the way I think of him, he seems to me to be a nice bloke. My sister in law and brother in law were live in caretakers for some property of his, for ten years, they won't have a word said against him, and I agree with them, and I'm not a royalist
All the Best
Rick |
Author: Graham Jay
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 08:31 am | | I agree, he seems like a decent enough bloke, but one who likes to spend a bit of time away with the fairies. And I'm no royalist either!
He'll probably go the same way as Edward VII - his mum will live another couple of decades and he'll get to be king for about 5 minutes. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 09:35 am | | Hi, all:
Per a BBC site on British slang usage:
"The word 'git' is connected with 'get' but in the sense of spawn or offspring, as in the old verb to beget, so your 'get' are your (probably illegitimate) offspring. In the northwest of England get is still used in the way that git is in the rest of the country. In the BBC sitcom Till Death Us Do Part, Alf Garnett used to refer his Liverpudlian son in law, as a 'Scouse git'. 'Git' is only a very mild form of abuse (certainly in the UK anyway), and it can be used affectionately with people, calling someone a git as a real form of abuse is more likely to encourage them to laugh at you."
Some of you who are old enough to recall it, may remember that the U.S. rock group, the Monkees (called disparagingly by some, the "PreFab Four") recorded a song in 1967 called "Randy Scouse Git" after bandmember Mickey Dolenz heard the term used on "Till Death Do Us Part" and wrote the song using that term in the title.
All the best
Chris George
aka "Mine of Useless Information" |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 09:39 am | | Oh Bob..
Shameful. I had really thought better of you than for you to try the old: "I didn't say it; I was merely repeating what a friend of mine said" bit. When you repeat gossip, you are saying it. Period. I mean how would it be if I could say something like "A friend told me Bob Hinton has sex with prostitutes and regularly engages in criminal acts with his pets" and then claim lack of responsibility by saying I prefaced it with a friend told me? That would be shabby wouldn't it?
Ally |
Author: Chris Jd
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 12:20 pm | | Bob Hinton is doing it with pets?
I just heard it from Ally!!
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Christian |
Author: Chris Jd
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 12:22 pm | | | |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 03:43 pm | | Dear Ally,
I'm afraid you're losing it. I'm not trying to pull any old trick, I am merely pointing out that I did not say what you accused me of saying, and furthermore made a point of that by saying :
""it is not a remark I would use about her simply because I didn't know her - just like you- and am therefore "
If you are now saying that no one is allowed to quote anyone anymore unless we agree wholeheartedly with the quote, then say so. I mentioned that as being the opinion of someone who knew her very very well, certainly better than you or I did.
I notice that whenever you launch into a tirade you always seem to be hung up over sex. ie:
"a woman wanting sex " "stay at home with her knees together " "Bob Hinton has sex with prostitutes ". Why is that I wonder?
I am also at a loss to explain why someone who apparently has such an aversion to anyone saying anything slightly off colour should immediately launch themselves into a stream of purile gutter language.
I wonder why with your marked ignorance of the Royal Family you should feel qualified to refer to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales as:
"Charles who was an adulterous, skirt chasing whore-hound"
Perhaps one day when you have mastered the rudiments of good manners you might feel able to reply.
Bob Hinton |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 03:50 pm | | Hi Bob,
Are you really trying to dodge the point that you attempted to defame Diana by repeating gossip you had heard about her sexual inclinations? Yes Bobs, *you* brought up the sex thing, not me. And you apparently have as poor reading skills as you accuse me of having, I don't have a problem with off-colour language, I live for off colour language. What I don't like are misogynistic types who insult women for behavior they would applaud in men.
And I wonder why with your marked ignorance of Diana, which you have claimed over and over, you felt able to comment on her in the first place? Oh wait..that's right..you'd heard gossip about her from "a friend". Well a friend told me Charles was a skirt chasing whore-hound.
Cheers. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 05:06 pm | | Dear Ally,
So you live for off colour language do you? What heights you do aspire to! Well I guess that says more about you than it does me!
Bob |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 05:31 pm | | Uh...actually Bob, that statement says nothing about you at all. You're starting to worry me, Bob.
Shaking her head in puzzlement,
Ally |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 25 September 2002 - 11:06 am | | Hi Chris, Everyone,
Another useless bit of information is that The Monkees' 'Randy Scouse Git' had an alternate title. It was also called - er - 'Alternate Title', presumably for the benefit of those sensitive souls who, in the 60s, were offended by the words 'Randy, Scouse and Git'.
I know these things because I was one of The Monkees' greatest fans, and had Davey Jones to thank for teaching me what it felt like to be 'in heat' every Saturday night when their show was on telly.
Hi Bob, Ally,
I think everyone should be grateful to Mother Nature all the while she is smiling on them. I guess I could say hubby is getting 'hung up' over sex. Owing to the fact that my own 'in heat' days are sadly over, the only precautions he has to take these days are tying his feet to the bed.... 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 07 October 2002 - 04:05 am | | Greetings all:
You know, I don't understand all these people having sex on the computer. I mean, don't they keep falling off?
Perplexed,
Divia |
Author: Michael Raney
Tuesday, 08 October 2002 - 06:52 pm | | Divia,
As long as they get off, does it matter how?
Mikey
PS - I love you Divia darling. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 09 October 2002 - 07:33 am | | Divia,
No, no, no, you're doing it ALL wrong honey.........
........let Monty show you !
Ah Bless,
Monty
|
|
|
|
|
