Planetarion Forums

dda · 28 Dec 2006, 16:36

Doing my limited Deffeh imitation I pose the following.

Tell me what you think won't happen next year. It is a prediction but there are a lot more sure bets in the "won't happen" catagorey.

examples: DDA will not die in a mountain climbing accident.

Yahwe will not give up bubbly or gin.

Horn will not replace Dr. Phil as a guru of mental health.

GD will not die.

Any ideas you care to share?

jt25man · 28 Dec 2006, 17:40

I will not suddenly become rich enough to where I can tell everyone I know to go have intercourse with themselves.

I will not get my spine back from my wife.

Yahwe will not start being nice to new posters, or any other posters for that matter.

Travler will not admit that there is no God and Science is the real answer to all our questions.

Deffeh · 28 Dec 2006, 19:04

the queen will not die or abdicate

i will not go a year without at least one 3 month period of exile from gd

i will probably not have any sex or even make any meaningful attempt to get any.

newcastle will not play an entertaining game of football

new labour's fortunes will not turn around just because big bad is going

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Dec 2006, 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

the queen will not die or abdicate

You want Prince Charles to be King?

Mistwraith · 28 Dec 2006, 19:14

I will not give up smoking ..

My post count wont reach 2000.

My daughter will still be mentally incabable of recognising that washing up needs doing without someone yelling about it.

The Conservatives will beat Labour in the next election and 3 to 6 months later we'll regret letting them win as well !

Mistwraith · 28 Dec 2006, 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You want Prince Charles to be King?

I seem to remember somewhere that Charlie said he'd defer to his son .. or maybe some suggested it as a viable option, which it is.

maybe the old farts waiting long enough for that to happen, but i dont think Cahrlie would be a bad king .. i just think hes now getting too old for a long tenure .. and thats what the monarchy really needs.

Yahwe · 28 Dec 2006, 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistwraith

I seem to remember somewhere that Charlie said he'd defer to his son .. or maybe some suggested it as a viable option, which it is.

your memory is as flawed as your spelling ... your grammar ... your use of logic ... your presumption that anyone cares about your personal life ... your 'sense of humour' ...

flawed you see.

Mistwraith · 28 Dec 2006, 19:20

yup Yahwe .. i crawled out of the reject bin :-)

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Dec 2006, 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistwraith

I seem to remember somewhere that Charlie said he'd defer to his son .. or maybe some suggested it as a viable option, which it is.

It's been mooted, but not by the Prince as far as I'm aware. The Prince's major concern appears to be the name he'd assume upon taking the throne, as he doesn't like the associations of "Charles".

Yahwe · 28 Dec 2006, 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It's been mooted, but not by the Prince as far as I'm aware. The Prince's major concern appears to be the name he'd assume upon taking the throne, as he doesn't like the associations of "Charles".

there's no shortage of precedent for adopting a new name on coronation

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Dec 2006, 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

there's no shortage of precedent for adopting a new name on coronation

That there is not. However, as there isn't a royal backup name in such an event, he will still have to choose one.

Yahwe · 28 Dec 2006, 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That there is not. However, as there isn't a royal backup name in such an event, he will still have to choose one.

he could do it via a 'reality tv show' to bond with mistwraith

Mistwraith · 28 Dec 2006, 20:05

only if he gets his ears done :-)

furball · 28 Dec 2006, 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That there is not. However, as there isn't a royal backup name in such an event, he will still have to choose one.

His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor, so he has a few choices.

King Charles III
King Philip I
King George VII

or King Arthur.

I think it's obvious which one he should go for.

dda · 28 Dec 2006, 20:16

King George W the First

Deffeh · 28 Dec 2006, 20:42

the queen is alright in that she is benign, and charles may not be a benign monarch given that hes a more political person than old lizzy is.

but i wouldnt mind her death or abdication prompting a debate on the merits of monarchy

_Kila_ · 28 Dec 2006, 23:12

wait, it matters who the king/queen is?

Mistwraith · 28 Dec 2006, 23:22

to the person who is next in line and has spent their entire life waiting and in a way training themselves for the rulership.. yes.

to anyone who wants the power .. yes

to us ... sometimes no

Yahwe · 28 Dec 2006, 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistwraith

to anyone who wants the power .. yes

what power?

(please list in detail)

demiGOD · 29 Dec 2006, 00:10

Yeah, what power?

Mistwraith · 29 Dec 2006, 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Kila_

wait, it matters who the king/queen is?

kila didnt mention the UK .. tho it was implied so i generalised also.

_Kila_ · 29 Dec 2006, 01:06

They still have no more power in the UK than your average person.

dda · 29 Dec 2006, 01:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Kila_

They still have no more power in the UK than your average rich and famous person.

Fixed for greater accuracy.

_Kila_ · 29 Dec 2006, 01:17

I don't know, I don't think that people like David Beckham have more power/sovereignty than others (except in his work/home etc...)

Dante Hicks · 29 Dec 2006, 01:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Kila_

I don't know, I don't think that people like David Beckham have more power/sovereignty than others (except in his work/home etc...)

Power isn't just about sovereignty, that's too much of a black/white concept. It's also about influence over other people and influence over the state of the world.

I think it's fairly obvious that on average people with more wealth (i.e. more control over resources) have more influence (or power) than people with less wealth. That seems a bit of a truism.

The Queen (ignoring her constitutional role) obviously has more power than the average citizen because she potentially has influence (in the same way newspapers do). A lot of people listen to the royals (not as many people as previously, but they still exist) and I suspect perhaps more importantly a lot of people in positions of authority still would respect her judgement.

To take a rather silly example : two people apply for Cambridge. One has a letter of recommendation from Dante Hicks, drug addict, forum "personality" and housing professional. The other has a personal letter of recommendation from Her Royal Highness the Queen. Which do you think would be taken more seriously? This is not to say that they use their influence in this fashion obviously.

Marv · 29 Dec 2006, 01:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Kila_

I don't know, I don't think that people like David Beckham have more power/sovereignty than others (except in his work/home etc...)

Would you not possibly say that the likes of David Beckham have more influence as opposed to power? Through the likes of clever advertising / publicity and the general influence this has over the "public"?

The former question I pose could be applied fairly to the Royal Family as well, but I think it depends on the member that is at the top. Our current Queen seems less politically driven than her heir of a son, for example.

Edit: oh, Dante beat me to the point 2 minutes before me while I was typing this one, making sure it was spelt correctly for Yahwe

JonnyBGood · 29 Dec 2006, 02:29

In fairness perhaps it is best to draw a distinction between power and influence so we're clear on what we're talking about.

Yahwe · 29 Dec 2006, 09:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

To take a rather silly example : two people apply for Cambridge. One has a letter of recommendation from Dante Hicks, drug addict, forum "personality" and housing professional. The other has a personal letter of recommendation from Her Royal Highness the Queen. Which do you think would be taken more seriously?

it doesn't matter because 'who recommended you' is not a criteria for entry.

MrL_JaKiri · 29 Dec 2006, 11:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

it doesn't matter because 'who recommended you' is not a criteria for entry.

It's not one of the most significant ones, but certainly the trustworthyness of the the person who writes your statement must be relevent. In this case the Queen is on a level with your average vicar, and probably below the level of any given educational professional, but still better than Senor Hicks.

pyirt · 29 Dec 2006, 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

In fairness perhaps it is best to draw a distinction between power and influence so we're clear on what we're talking about.

Dante Hicks · 29 Dec 2006, 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

In fairness perhaps it is best to draw a distinction between power and influence so we're clear on what we're talking about.

In this context such a distinction would be false I think since influence is a subset of power. Even very specific legal powers are only "real" because there are men who would obey (or accept) them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

it doesn't matter because 'who recommended you' is not a criteria for entry.

While it might not be an official criteria, are you saying that in such a scenario those processing the application would be able to completely ignore who the recommendation came from? Perhaps they don't even see it in which case fair enough.

In my own work, the criteria for whether you have repairs done on your property is certainly not who writes in on your behalf, but if the local MP / councillors contact us about a certain job it would be disengenuous to claim this has no effect on our decision making process.

G.K Zhukov · 29 Dec 2006, 16:57

Dace will get laid. More than one time.

Yahwe will be himself. (okey, that one was obvious)

TomKat will be king of GD, due to his 1337 stories.

I will waste a lot of time on FM2007 and EU3 when it comes out.

The US Army in Iraq will continue to get their asses whooped.
They will also face major problems recruiting new kids.

Dubaya Bush will not learn to speak properly.

Whoever takes over for Tony "the liar" Blair will be just as shit.

The parties who are now in government in Norway, will do poorly in the local elections.

All Systems Go · 29 Dec 2006, 17:33

there will be large increase in posts from people who want to make next years Dantes 2007 Posting Activity Spectacular!

furball · 29 Dec 2006, 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

there will be large increase in posts from people who want to make next years Dantes 2007 Posting Activity Spectacular!

Nah, everyone forgets about it around a week after it drops off the front page.

Deffeh · 29 Dec 2006, 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

Nah, everyone forgets about it around a week after it drops off the front page.

so in november then, oh zing