The Future King Arthur

[antiaristo]

Jerky,<br>It's not Prince Charles you need to fear.<br>It's Camilla Parker-Bowles.<br><br>HIS only significance lies in his potential to create a new queen.<br><br>That's the reason his homosexuality is an issue.<br><br>That's also the only reason George Smith had to be killed.<br><br>But let me say this.<br><br>You have now snarked me three times. <br>If you STILL cannot see it I suggest you leave my threads alone. <p></p><i></i>

[JerkyLeBoeuf]

I snark you because it's been a year, and you STILL haven't been able to provide a succinct explanation of exactly what is the point of your humungous, schizophrenic-sounding posts.<br><br>The entirety of Hegel's complex philosophical system can be sumarized on the back of a post-card, and you can't explain yourself without refering to a Unabomber-manifesto-sized bolus of stream-of-consciousness crap about how the Queen of England got you fired and stole your pancakes or some such crazy-ass shit.<br><br>I've asked before, so I'll try again... WHAT IS YOUR FRIGGING POINT?!?! <p></p><i></i>

[antiaristo]

Jerky,<br><br>I'l try one last time. In return I ask that if you still don't get it, you stay away. If you don't understand, then you've nothing positive to contribute, right?<br><br>This is the law in question. It begins<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies<br>...If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>the Queen</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->...<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Now the point is this. If there is no queen, this law has no meaning. You can't do those things to a person that does not exist, right?<br><br>There is currently a queen.<br><br>When she finally goes, what then?<br><br>The whole Windsor circus since they murdered Diana has been directed to one single end: to having a successor queen in waiting. Were Charles to assume the Throne alone, the law would fall, because there is no Most Gracious Lady the Queen.<br><br>Let's take it a bit at a time. Are you with me so far? <p></p><i></i>

[sunny]

I'm really so sorry to interject here, but I must ask a couple of questions of you anti.<br>First, as QEII is a Windsor, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>she</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> is the heir to the throne and the Queen and Phillip is her consort, right?<br>Charles is a Windsor and heir to the throne, right?<br>Why is it that Camilla would become a queen, and not a consort such as Phillip?<br>Will they have to break a law or flout protocol or something in order to make her the queen? <p></p><i></i>

[antiaristo]

sunny,<br>That's fine.<br>You've gone to the heart of the inequity.<br>Where the heir is male, his consort automatically becomes queen when he becomes king.<br><br>But.<br><br>The opposite is NOT the case.<br>Where the heir is female, her consort does NOT become king.<br>There ARE some historical wrinkles, but I'll not go into it here.<br><br>The same is true of all the European monarchies.<br>It's custom and practice, but that's how it works.<br><br>Camilla would become queen <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>consort.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Look it up in Wiki. You'll find a whole category of queens consort, who are differentiated from queens who reign on their birthright.<br><br>The trouble is that the badly drafted TFA does not differentiate. It just says "our Most Gracious Lady the Queen".<br><br>Alexandra, Mary and Elizabeth all said the same thing.<br><br>"Am I not the Queen?"<br><br>What can you reply, but "yes"?<br><br>A Queen Camilla would do the same. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 2/23/06 6:23 pm<br></i>

[Darklo]

So Prince Charles is a muderer, the NWO is out to get you, his wife is a dangerous woman, its a Spiritual War, and the treason felony act is the root of all our ills.<br><br>There is a point where you stop being a conspiracy theorist and become a delusional paranoid. And that is when "they" have finally have got you... <p></p><i></i>

[antiaristo]

Darklo,<br>I knew you were a saboteur when you responded to a new thread of mine and disagreed within FOUR MINUTES.<br><br>I can but plead to all other members of Rigorous Intuition.<br><br><br>LOOK AT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. <p></p><i></i>

[Darklo]

A saboteur? Whats that all about?<br><br>Perhaps you could provide me with a list of response times against poster types and Ill try to fit into your cosy world view as best I can. <p></p><i></i>

[antiaristo]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=3068.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...3068.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[antiaristo]

The previous saboteur.<br><br>Look at what he had to do in TWENTY minutes.<br>How much he had to read, to absorb, to formulate a reply and to type it.<br><br>Twenty minutes.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm11.showMessage?topicID=143.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...=143.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Darklo]

It took you 12 days to make your point about this on the RI board. Does that mean you are therefore correct that I am a "Sabotuer"?<br><br>No, your argument is a standard logical fallacy - non sequitur. <br><br>And does the fact that a some UK troops are acting disgracefully with a couple of Iraqi in a war zone mean that they are "probably" doing a "masonic ritual".<br><br>Yet again - non sequitur. <p></p><i></i>

[antiaristo]

I'm off to bed now.<br><br>But before I go I'd like you all to think about Jeff's moto.<br><br>"What you don't know can't hurt them."<br><br>What do you think "they" don't want you to know? <p></p><i></i>

[Darklo]

Er, Im really sorry here, but I didnt actually post on that thread.<br><br>So you are saying that because someone else posted quickly to that post that I am a "sabotuer".<br><br>Yet again, non-sequitur ("absurdum" might be a good addition!)<br><br>Some on, try me again....oh, youve gone to bed. Ah well! <p></p><i></i>

[Floyd Smoots]

When BajaSur offered his famous Monty Hall choice of:<br>(a) Whacks On (the head?) or<br>(b) Whacks Off (the other head?)<br>I sorta kinda got confused.<br>I think my blogger-buddy (as opposed to a real life drinking-buddy), anti-John-aristo is trying to say:<br>Y'all jist don' git it!!!<br><br>We ALL like to see "our name up in lights" from time to time, but, it still annoys me when a lot of posters here are just too lazy to rename their responses. I mean, c'mon here, how many times did you ALL make me read "Re: No, Jerky....", before John actually renamed his response?<br><br>In light of the mindless, senseless success of American cable TV Comedy Central channel's "Reno 911", which, I confess, I DO find hilarious, I'm thinking of starting my own franchise of "tough guy" fast food restaurants titled "Reno Jerky" (registered Trademark).<br><br>Our featured "Specialites du Maison" will, of course, be, our "World-Famous-Recipe" entrees of: Beef Jerky, Chicken Jerky, Turkey Jerky, Pork Jerky, 'Possum Jerky, Coon Jerky, Buffalo Jerky, Puppy Jerky, Kitten Jerky, Squirrel Jerky, Hampster & Gerbil (a combo) Jerky, Armadillo Jerky, Buzzard Jerky, Buzzard-Hurk (or Hurl, if you're from New York) Jerky, Deer Jerky, Elk Jerky, Crow Jerky, Spam Jerky, Beetle Jerky, Caterpillar Jerky, Spider Jerky, Sparrow Jerky, Marrow Jerky, Lizard Jerky, <br>Jello(?) Jerky, Chocolate Jerky, Lemon Jerky, Lime Jerky, Peach Jerky, Apple Jerky, Gummy-Bear Jerky, Grizzly Bear Jerky, Yeti (or Bigfoot) Jerky, Penguin Jerky, Seal Jerky, Dolphin Jerky, Whale Blubber(?) Jerky, Mastodon Jerky, Dinosaur Jerky, Pterodactyl Jerky, Behemoth Jerky, Leviathan Jerky, Loch Ness Monster Jerky, Cockroach Jerky, Parakeet Jerky, Starfish Jerky, Bubba Gump's Cajun Shrimp Jerky, Seahorse Jerky, and our "Piece de Restance", Jellyfish Jerky!!!<br><br>We sincerely hope that Ever'body whut stops by, will find sumthin' ta thar lik'in!!!! Y'all Come Back Now, Y'hear??? <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Sometimes "letting your little light shine" simply means just getting folks to "lighten up a little"....Saint Alex the Foolish, Circa 3rd Millennium, a.D. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>John, wake up and (hopefully) have a laugh on me just to start your day off on the right foot.<br><br>Jerky, hope it at least gave you a grin or three.<br><br>Darklo, don't know you, but try for a little humour!<br><br>Pugzleyca3, don't read this post, it'll only disillusion you!<br><br>Jeff, you really should check in more often, but I know you're a busy fellow. Live Long & Prosper.<br><br>Added on edit: I counted SIX "Re: No, Jerky...."s, not counting my original title. Folks, that's just too much undeserved "fame".'<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=floydsmoots>Floyd Smoots</A> at: 2/23/06 10:06 pm<br></i>

[antiaristo]

I'll assume Jerky was acting in good faith and finish the explanation.<br><br>Let's assume Queen Camilla has been crowned.<br><br>How might it be used?<br><br>Here is the text of the law<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies<br>...<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, ...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, or of any other of her Majesty's dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, ...within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her... to change her... measures of counsels, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>or in order to put any force or constraint upon her</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty... <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>and such compassings</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>shall express</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, ...<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony,</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ...to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br><br>You need to navigate all the "ands" and "ors", which I've done by bolding.<br><br>Now collect all those bolded parts together and you get this<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, ...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom...or in order to put any force or constraint upon her...and such compassings...shall express...by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony,...<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Let's assume you are a judge, such as one of the five appeal court judges sitting in July 2004.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=3152.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...3152.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Ten minutes before the hearing begins, you are handed a piece of paper by Sir Michael Jay.<br><br>On that piece of paper you are told that to consider the legality of the war would place a constraint upon Her Majesty. If you do so you will be guilty of felony.<br><br>The paper is signed either by the Queen herself, or her minister (Jack Straw).<br><br>What can you do?<br>No judge can commit a crime and continue as a judge.<br>You have no choice but to obey. <p></p><i></i>