Pope sends direct message to Ben

[molly bloom]

In any case, you're retarded.

I'm so hurt by your pungent wit.

For someone who does copious reading, you are not terribly good at it.

Izzat so ? I'm crying into my copy of 'D!ck sees Spot run' now.

[molly bloom]

Yeah, he was a foreign king. He was born in the Netherlands.

He only became a king (of the English) when he was crowned joint ruler with his wife in England. He may have been born in the United Provinces (which were of course a republic) but his mother was English.

Perhaps if you didn't want to be misunderstood when employing ambiguous phraseology, you might not want to call him King of the Dutch- as you did in a previous post :

William III, the King of the Dutch was sole king over England

What, forgetting your own mistakes ? Moron.

Perhaps I was referring to someone other than William III

Perhaps you were referring to Hammurabi. Life's too short for me to try your mind reading trick of 'knowing' what all liberals supposedly think or do, or to try to fathom out all the possibilities of your ambiguous wording. I simply went on your previous performance of getting details of William's life completely wrong- that and blaming the Dutch and Dutch politics for your ignorance of Dutch history. That was a gem.

Who's the ****** now?

You're still no.1 with a bullet !

If you don't understand a reference, I suggest you ask questions to relieve your ignorance.

Oh my- if you were to do that I'd have no private or personal life. Nor would many professional historians, clearly.

I'm glad you finally admitted that prejudice was the sole motivation for the Glorious Revolution and the subsequent Act of Settlement

Alas I haven't. Steer clear of industrial strength glue. It definitely has a bad effect on you.

Yawn, which justifies him of depriving a Catholic of his birthright.

That would be ex-Anglican, Roman Catholic convert. By the way, the English had already demonstrated with an earlier Stuart what they thought of kings who tried to rule in an arbitrary fashion, ignore the wishes and privileges of Parliament, and who attempted to raise an Irish army to subdue England.

If you don't understand a reference, I suggest you ask questions to relieve your ignorance.

A thief is still a thief even if he repairs the property he has stolen.

I refer you to the Royal Navy Museum's intellectual property which you appropriated. Pot, meet kettle.

Which explains why the Netherlands was still ruled by a Catholic monarch.

Remember they were a Republic ? Can you say re-pub-lic ? Still having difficulty ? Clearly in the dark about the Thirty Years' War too, and how Catholic France allied with Lutheran Sweden...


Well, no shock there.

[molly bloom]

Delusion?

I think you're referring to the subject of your degree.

As opposed to the Danes who invaded and attempted to slay Englishmen?

Yawn.

True - James VII/II was an Englishman deposed by William of Orange and James never threatened to execute protestants.

He didn't have to threaten to execute Protestants- after Monmouth's failed rebellion, his judges executed Protestants for him:

The Autumn Assizes of 1685 at which Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys presided and was assisted by four other judges, has gained such dreadful notoriety as the 'Bloody Assize' and has been the subject of so much vivid and exaggerated writing that it is difficult to find the truth about what really happened. The king was anxious that an example should be made to deter any other attempts at rebellion; Jeffreys was a sick man, suffering from an extremely painful illness; many of the accused were persuaded to confess, hoping for mercy after a plea of 'Guilty'. These facts, and the great differences in the legal system of that time in comparison with today, make it almost impossible to arrive at a fair and balanced view of the trials.
The Assize began at Winchester, where Dame Alice Lyle was condemned to death for helping two of the rebels-a harsh and terrible judgement on an old and kindly lady. At Dorchester the full horror of the Assize began to be felt as between 300 and 350 rebels were accused. A few were acquitted, some were fined or sentenced to be flogged, but the majority were condemned to death and handed over for execution as soon as possible. This horrifying spectacle included public hanging, disembowelling and then quartering, after which the heads and quarters were dipped in pitch and salt and sent to villages around to be displayed in public on poles. Many who were condemned to death had their sentences reduced to transportation-in effect, long years of slavery in the colonies. The judges passed on to Exeter where about 40 men were tried, and of those condemned, 12 or 13 were executed and their quarters sent for display into towns and villages in Devon.

The judges began their work in Somerset on September 17 at Taunton, in the Great Hall of Taunton Castle, and completed their work in two days. About 500 men were brought to trial and almost all were sentenced to death, but by now it was clear that transportation was to be the fate of the majority, especially as each man transported would be worth more than £12, a source of considerable profit for the Crown, The final decision was delayed for some time while the judges moved on to Bristol where there were no rebels held for trial. On September 23 they came to Wells, where, in a makeshift court held in the space under the Market Hall, shut in by wooden screens, in one day's sitting over 500 men were tried and the majority sentenced to death. Jeffreys returned to London where he and his fellow judges were formally thanked by the King.

http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/ASH/Bloodyassize.htm

Oh, and on his deathbed, Jeffreys said that he and his fellow judges were not nearly 'bloody' or vindictive enough for James.

If you're claiming that William threatened to kill Catholics for nothing other than their faith, then prove it. His forces were multi-national, multi-racial and multi-faith.

You claimed James II/VII was incompetent and that Aethelred was incompetent

Quote what I actually said, liar. Otherwise, remain a liar.

And one who's attended Grammar school possesses sufficient means to determine this reliably?

Who says you have to have attended a grammar school ? I'm thinking that by now, sentience isn't even a requirement.

This is like the blind man querying the seaman's ability to navigate by sextant.

That's so unwittingly ironically amusing. Thanks for that.

Mary was Queen of Scots by her birthright, unlike Elizabeth who was declared a bastard.

Boring. Rehashing old nonsense. You described Mary Stuart as a ruler when executed by Elizabeth's government. As I pointed out, more than once, she was not ruler of Scotland or anywhere else in 1587. She was no longer a queen, and she was not Elizabeth's 'heir apparent' as you kept incorrectly repeating. Neither she no her son were directly or indirectly acknowledged as Elizabeth's legitimate heirs by Elizabeth. You were wrong.

And William's descendents, (oddly enough), did become Kings shortly after.

YOU ARE ENORMOUSLY STUPID.

The office of Stadholder (which was not king, no matter what gloss you seek to put on it) became hereditary in the House of Orange in 1747-1748. The first king of the Dutch after they won their freedom from the Spanish was imposed upon them by a French dictator. Not until the 19th Century did the Dutch avail themselves of a king from the House of Orange.

1688 until 1815 ?

Shortly ?

Idiot.

Oh and William died childless, fool.

[molly bloom]

Hrm? England was invaded and James II/VII was deposed by William. Same as with Bolingbroke.

It's mildly interesting in a kind of semi-scientific way, when you reveal which great gaping gulfs there are in your supposed historical knowledge- Dutch history, Elizabethan history, Scottish history, European history in the 16th and 17th Centuries, confusing the supporter of absolutism with his opposite, Anglo Saxon history....

James II, before William had even reached London, gave instructions for his wife and infant son to leave the country (via Gravesend) and seek refuge in France.

2 days later, James made up his mind to flee as well- he lied to the Mayor of London and other officials, claiming he had no intention of escaping, but after burning the writs for the new Parliament and entrusting the Grand Duke of Tuscany's representative with state and personal papers, he retired, having given orders that he was to be allowed to rest.

Like the proverbial thief in the night, James had sneaked out in the early hours, throwing the Great Seal into the River Thames. Typically he blamed the disloyalty of officers in the armed forces for his cutting and running- not his misdeeds or prejudice or tyranny.

William was no nearer London than Abingdon when James II and his travelling companion, the former governor of the Tower of London, were recognized in Faversham in Kent.

Apparently James had some sort of breakdown, pleading for a boat and treating his captors to a long disquisition on a biblical text.

William convened a meeting of twelve peers of the realm to let them decide James's fate- they advised the best way to handle James was simply to let him go- to Ham House, not far away. James replied that Ham House would be cold and unpleasant in wintertime (it was December) and asked if perhaps he might be allowed to go to Rochester.

He was taken there (partly by Royal barge) and under a very light guard (which included Catholic troops) he was allowed to escape to exile in France, after having left a last communication to the English that he would not overthrow the Anglican religion or the laws even though he was going to seek foreign aid.


None of this is secret knowledge- well, except perhaps to you.

[Ming]

I've played Rook. I don't know if anyone else here has played that. In rook, 7 NT is a 7 of whatever suit that is not trump. They don't use a standard deck or standard suits -they have a special deck for Rook.

I call BS on you lame ass attempt to explain your moronic post...
In the special deck for rook, there are no aces, just numbered cards (1 - 14) and the rook card.
So the expression you used makes no sense for Rook either.

Now you will probably try to worm you way out by saying something like "well if you use a regular deck of cards to play instead of a rook deck, there are aces" but that still doesn't explain why this would be a common rook "expression" since rook decks don't have aces.

But heck, it's sure nice to see what an expert you are on a game you play.

[rah]

Christ Rah, are you so ****ing dense that you can't ****ing parse the concept that trump beats no trump? Or are you just spooning your usual bull**** that nobody really gives a **** about? You do this every goddamn post.

Yes whenever anyone tries to correct you it's bull****. Thanks for proving my point with every post.

[C0ckney]

Right, because when Henry VIII is machinegunning his way through all the plantagenets who have any ****ing claim to his throne, and then later followed up by all the Catholics - one of whom took 10 axe chops as a 65 year old woman, we can be certain that they died of sepsis in prison and not a ****ing execution.

i've already demolished you over henry. i thought we were talking about elizabeth. i'm telling you that someone dying in prison is not the same as them being executed. do try to keep up.

It means that Catholics were ****ing executed for their faith.

yes some were killed for their faith, no one has ever disputed that of course. we're talking about the numbers killed. numbers which you have consistently tried to inflate, and been called out on.

Don't you get that? or are you just unable to perceive the concept that yes - Catholics go to mass? I can see how that might be difficult when you as an atheist don't ****ing understand why Christians would die before their death cult god on a cross. Yeah, it was becausee they were revolutionaries! That's the ticket.

65 year old women. Christ. At least the pope eventually beatified her only 3 centuries after which makes it all better

around that time, a lot of people died for their religion. all the various 'heretics', the patarini, the dulcinians, the waldensians, the lollards. the victims of the albigensian crusade, the hussite wars, the inquisition, the counter reformation, the wars of religion in france etc.

[kentonio]

Right, because when Henry VIII is machinegunning his way through all the plantagenets who have any ****ing claim to his throne, and then later followed up by all the Catholics - one of whom took 10 axe chops as a 65 year old woman, we can be certain that they died of sepsis in prison and not a ****ing execution.

Or was he that much of a ***** that he had to kill the lady because she was a revolutionary who could overthrow him?

65 year old women. Christ. At least the pope eventually beatified her only 3 centuries after which makes it all better

Oh wow, you've suddenly found some human compassion for a poor woman who was basically hacked to death? Good, you should feel compassion for her. Now, how about you find some for the 300 odd people who were tied to a stake of wood, surrounded with more wood and then set fire to? You don't think they might just have suffered a bit more standing there feeling themselves being slowly cooked alive?

It means that Catholics were ****ing executed for their faith. Don't you get that? or are you just unable to perceive the concept that yes - Catholics go to mass? I can see how that might be difficult when you as an atheist don't ****ing understand why Christians would die before their death cult god on a cross. Yeah, it was becausee they were revolutionaries! That's the ticket.

I don't recall Jesus telling the early Christians to rise up in armed rebellion to try and overthrow and kill the Romans. Which part of the bible did that happen in again?

[Hauldren Collider]

Lenovo Thinkpad Tablet 2

[Ben Kenobi]

no they don't. you might get to 300 if you include people who died in prison (16th century prisons were unsanitary, who knew?) , but you said: "executions". not the same thing.

Right, because when Henry VIII is machinegunning his way through all the plantagenets who have any ****ing claim to his throne, and then later followed up by all the Catholics - one of whom took 10 axe chops as a 65 year old woman, we can be certain that they died of sepsis in prison and not a ****ing execution.

Or was he that much of a ***** that he had to kill the lady because she was a revolutionary who could overthrow him?

so? this doesn't contradict anything i said.

It means that Catholics were ****ing executed for their faith. Don't you get that? or are you just unable to perceive the concept that yes - Catholics go to mass? I can see how that might be difficult when you as an atheist don't ****ing understand why Christians would die before their death cult god on a cross. Yeah, it was becausee they were revolutionaries! That's the ticket.

65 year old women. Christ. At least the pope eventually beatified her only 3 centuries after which makes it all better

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes the principle of trump wins is, but that isn't what you said.

Christ Rah, are you so ****ing dense that you can't ****ing parse the concept that trump beats no trump? Or are you just spooning your usual bull**** that nobody really gives a **** about? You do this every goddamn post.

[rah]

I thought the principle easy enough to follow - trump always wins over anything not trump.

Yes the principle of trump wins is, but that isn't what you said.

7 No trump loses to the trump ace everytime.

Bridge is a much more popular game, and to those that play bridge, 7 no trump means NO TRUMP.
SO I repeat, don't use a more obscure games in an example and expect people to understand what you're trying to say.

As always, no matter how wrong you are you keep twisting and twisting to try to show that you're really right. And no one ever buys it but you.

[C0ckney]

Yes, they do.

no they don't. you might get to 300 if you include people who died in prison (16th century prisons were unsanitary, who knew?) , but you said: "executions". not the same thing.

Performing the mass and attending one was considered treason under the act of Supremacy.

so? this doesn't contradict anything i said.

[Ben Kenobi]

catholic martyrologies don't give a figure of 300 for elizabeth's reign.

Yes, they do.

many of those elizabeth executed were executed for taking up arms against her.

Performing the mass and attending one was considered treason under the act of Supremacy.

[C0ckney]

For the same reason I'm excluding the source with 300 Catholic martyrs under Elizabeth.

what?

And most accept that Elizabeth had 300+ Catholics executed, and many, many more in the Pilgrimage of Grace and the Rising in the North.

I see no reason to accept Foxe's book and to reject Catholic martyrologies.

catholic martyrologies don't give a figure of 300 for elizabeth's reign. please stop lying. many of those elizabeth executed were executed for taking up arms against her.