WaffenThinMint Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Carroll wasn't actually proved to be a paedophile was he? He was suspected and accused of it, especially with his friendship of Alice Liddell, but wasn't it thought later on that it was all exaggerated? Sorry, that's a bit irrelevant and I like the rest of your post :-) Lewis Carroll wasn't a paedophile, although it was trying to get his hole that was the reasons behind his friendship with Alice Liddell (as her later correspondence in her life revealed after her death). Carroll was after her hot governess - what better way in those days than providing her with stories to read them? He blundered though because he was meant to become an Anglican priest, but asked for a year's deferral (so he could complete his conquest of the governess), for which he was debarred from Oxford Uni for a time & automatically from the Liddell household as the head of the household was an Oxford Dean & it wouldn't have appeared "proper" to socialise with a man "in scandal" The whole Alice In Wonderland series was actually a brilliantly concealed satire of the hypocrisy & pretentions of the masters of Oxford Uni, particularly the Mad Hatter's tea party. Was William III gay? aka Queen Billy. "William of Orange had male lovers, most notably William Bentinck, whom William made Earl of Portland, and Arnold Van Keppel, who was a mere page when William met him and made him Earl of Albemarle. Neither of these men did anything to justify their elevation. The only common factor was that they were constant and intimate partners of William of Orange." But, at the end of the 17th century, accusations of sodomy came laden with double meaning and were aimed at emphasising both the court's supposed moral decay and William's foreignness. "Billy with Benting does play the Italian," went one rhyme - "Italian" being an easily recognised euphemism. Scandal also accompanied Van Keppel's rapid advancement through the ranks of the court. In 1697, Bentinck wrote a letter to William, declaring his shock at the rumours of "Things I am ashamed to hear, and which I thought you to be as far removed of as any man of the world, I would have thought any man of society would have distanced himself from". William III had no children although married. Don't care in the least what his sexual persuasion was. Hope everyone else is equally understanding. If William III was gay, why was it the hitherto Villiers family shot to prominance only during his reign? Nothing to do with him shagging Elizabeth Villiers, of course! It was well recorded that William was an emotional basket case for over a year after Mary's death, bursting out blubbing during cabinet meetings. He turned into something of a boring old fart thereafter, only interested in beating Louis (some said to "justify" his neglect of Mary), & after that happened he was something of a broken man. William Bentinck was far from being "undeserving" of promotion: he'd been the main fixer of William's marriage to Mary, got the German states to support or at least stay off his back when he created the "blasphemous" alliance with Pope Innocent. He also arranged the transportation, financing and quartermasting for the invasion of Britain in 1688 in record time (& which William's elder advisors had claimed "couldn't be done") The main reason for the coup being bloodless was also thanks to his wheeling & dealing with the English Catholics (especially the Jesuits) to "let James go" as more trouble than he was worth. The main reasons for the rumours about Bentinck at that time was more to do with both Tory & Whig enemies who couldn't stand him for being very good at whatever job he was asked to do & regarding him as something of an upstart. The "Billy with Benting does play the Italian" myth has one fatal flaw - no such concept as "Italians" existed until the 19th century. It appears to be little more than Shane Hegarty's somewhat vivid imagination. I wonder if he does boiler repairs whilst pretending to be an IT consultant? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Not even a little bit true. Yes it is. The original post was widely condemned by many including WRK, AberdeenBud & myself. In fact there was at least one full page of condemnation. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 In fact there was at least one full page of condemnation. Show us then - or be laughed at like the blatant, revisionist liar you appear to be. Even WKR was cautious enough to confess to over-egging. But you're running with 'at least' one full page? Oh dear... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Bilel Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Hang around long enough and you'll get plenty of opportunity to take cheap shots. That tends to be the standard of most berrz'input on here, so I'm used to it. Why are you wriggling? Answer the question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Show us then - or be laughed at like the blatant, revisionist liar you appear to be. Even WKR was cautious enough to confess to over-egging. But you're running with 'at least' one full page? Oh dear... I recanted on "almost everyone" because that would have suggested a majority of posters. Enough did condemn the statement (over a period of a couple of days) to show your accusations of "defence" as the arrant claptrap they are. If you could show one post - just one - which suggests any poster shares this view, then you may be taken seriously. Best of luck with that. Consistency is your only positive value, as we can rely on you to be a deflective, lying moron. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Why are you wriggling? Answer the question. Hows about you try to explain why you're so interested in a poster's politics - on a football forum? Then - why this particular poster? Then - post your home address and that of any attractive female relatives (photos if poss). Oh, that last one's irrelevant, personal and a bit stalkery? Well, have a look at yourself, then. Even Bennett is more subtle than you. Assuming you're not actually Bennett, that is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Show us then - or be laughed at like the blatant, revisionist liar you appear to be. Even WKR was cautious enough to confess to over-egging. But you're running with 'at least' one full page? Oh dear...t Fk that. I've better thongs things to do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 You are quick to judge, and evasive when questioned. You have something to hide. The date is arbitrary, you would use it as a ruse no matter when I posted. Tell me what your beliefs and politics are. Read the thread, you'll get a fair idea of his ideology. And it'll keep you busy for about a month. I didn't get a virus warning on the site that WRK linked. Maybe your anti-virus has a virus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifes Elite Force Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 I believe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Why are you wriggling? Answer the question. It's what he does, i'm afraid you won't get a valid answer from him. He'll post a few paragraphs of inane drivel which will have nothing to do with your question in an attempt to divert. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slip Digby Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Not the done thing to quote yourself .. but check out the reddie given to this post by a supposed 'St Mirren' fan. Now why would a St Mirren fan (Slip Digby) even bother with that post? Then check his posting history .. it is blatantly obvious his 'big team' is the one that died and he was was upset at the Ringers remark. That or was he defending Bendy ... My goodness, what a lot of nonsense. If you're not one of us you're one of them. Reason for the red dot was due to your incessant use of mock names for The Rangers. You are ,more obsessed about them than you are about your own team. To actually go through my post history speaks volumes tbh but at the same time not much of a surprise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Why are you wriggling? Answer the question. Guess whose back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 It's what he does, i'm afraid you won't get a valid answer from him. He'll post a few paragraphs of inane drivel which will have nothing to do with your question in an attempt to divert. Guess whose backing him up..... This all feels strangely familiar. P&B sweepstake on KB's eventual banning? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 It's what he does, i'm afraid you won't get a valid answer from him. He'll post a few paragraphs of inane drivel which will have nothing to do with your question in an attempt to divert. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 My goodness, what a lot of nonsense. If you're not one of us you're one of them. Reason for the red dot was due to your incessant use of mock names for The Rangers. You are ,more obsessed about them than you are about your own team. To actually go through my post history speaks volumes tbh but at the same time not much of a surprise. You do tend to post in a lot of Celtic threads to be fair. Tad obsessed are we? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slip Digby Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 You do tend to post in a lot of Celtic threads to be fair. Tad obsessed are we? Suppose it could be looked on that way, as I usually just "dip in and out". If you have a look at what I was saying though, Celtic do have a few hypocritical supporters, LordHawHaw was a prime example. I just happened to point that out. My main bug bear was during the double standards of the famine song (a disgusting song I agree) but at the same time it was OK to have casual racism with the Nakamura song. Also, if I was a "tad" obsessed, do you not think I would be straight in with the boots on with the recent events in Amsterdam? I made one post on there and it was actually sticking up for Kris Commons. Again, I do take your point though that it does look like I am sticking the boot in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Suppose it could be looked on that way, as I usually just "dip in and out". If you have a look at what I was saying though, Celtic do have a few hypocritical supporters, LordHawHaw was a prime example. I just happened to point that out. My main bug bear was during the double standards of the famine song (a disgusting song I agree) but at the same time it was OK to have casual racism with the Nakamura song. Also, if I was a "tad" obsessed, do you not think I would be straight in with the boots on with the recent events in Amsterdam? I made one post on there and it was actually sticking up for Kris Commons. Again, I do take your point though that it does look like I am sticking the boot in. I'm just joshin' with you, mate. I'm guilty of posting about Rangers a bit too much myself. Mainly cos they're c***s tho 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Bilel Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Hows about you try to explain why you're so interested in a poster's politics - on a football forum? Then - why this particular poster? Then - post your home address and that of any attractive female relatives (photos if poss). Oh, that last one's irrelevant, personal and a bit stalkery? Well, have a look at yourself, then. Even Bennett is more subtle than you. Assuming you're not actually Bennett, that is. I want to know if your hypocrisy matches your paranoia. You hate Rangers and other organisations for 'duping of acolytes' and thinking they are 'superior', now I want to know what your beliefs and politics are. You claimed to be 'never less than open', but when pressed you're like a worm in bleach. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Bilel Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 It's what he does, i'm afraid you won't get a valid answer from him. He'll post a few paragraphs of inane drivel which will have nothing to do with your question in an attempt to divert. He can dish it out, but can't take it. He's hiding something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Bilel Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Guess whose backing him up..... This all feels strangely familiar. P&B sweepstake on KB's eventual banning? Why would you ban someone for agreeing with you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.