Re: Diana tributes etc - time to draw a line now

Sam Nelson wrote:
In article <fb9t9a$6u4$6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, comfysofas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
Did I say that you did? it's the hysterical overreaction ofthe baying mob - "poor diana betrayed by the evil royals "

She was a rather stupid, if attractive[0] minor-aristocratic woman whose purpose in life was to be available to be married to some aristocrat. She was indeed married off, produced an heir and a spare, and was then dumped. Before and throughout the marriage, it seems, she was being cheated on by a bloke that apparently prefers horses' arses to women. This, then, is the model of family life our superiors wish us to aspire to.

Nut job slapper more like.
By the same logic, that makes you a dedicated arse-licking royalist. Does the cap fit?
No ordinary logic - I couldn't care less either way . We've had ten years of almost president blair .

Non sequitur?

To me diana was a huge pain in the arse from day 1 .

Just too stupid to spot what was happening, perhaps?

0] So I fancied her. So shoot me.

I've over reacted , I'm sorry.

I've just had it up to here seeing her simpering face and hearing ad nausem about the bloody crash - and don't get me started about fucking fayed FFS!!

I was sickened by the whole lady Di & charlie *** from day 1.
.

Quantcast