Foxy,

You sure use a lot of words to say things - pretty much the same thing about everything. In this instance, you even needed to repeat what I said, before you repeated what you said. You did add something new: you believe that some members of the royal family suffer from the same skin problem. (although Diana was not a member of the family) You don't say how you know this. Added to the alcoholism, they have a problem then. It's probably due to the inbreeding. They all look the same. Prince Ginger (wonder why he is the only one with red hair) has introduced a bit of multiculturalism and mixed race to the family, so we are now regaled by American emotionalism, with the father of a mixed-race 'duchess’ pleading to the Queen, no less, to heal things between him and his very non-royal daughter. Gross! It will be interesting to see if the 'it won't last’ prediction of Germaine Greer proves to be true. Given Edward VIII's performance, and Charles's philandering, divorce, and marriage to a divorcee, Greer is probably right.

The less and less royal family is doing what the Anglican Church and Western civilization is doing: undermining itself from within; committing suicide. They are setting themselves up for replacement by a republic - not just in Australia, but in their own country.

In the meantime, I'm looking forward to the second series of 'The Crown’, which will continue to make clear that the only good'n is Her Majesty who, sadly, is irreplaceable.

ttbn,

1) I repeated what you said because you did not
understand my earlier response to you, and my
reasons for it. Therefore you needed reminding.

2) No - it's not what I believe about the Prince's
condition of Rosacea and that of his family members.
It's what the facts happen to be. And there is
plenty on the web regarding this.

http://varicoseveins.org/blog/2015/07/royal-family-of-facial-redness/

It's common knowledge.

3) Princess Diana was a member of the Royal family. She was
Prince Charles's wife and the mother of his two sons.
Which explains why one of them also suffers from Rosacea.

4) You admiration for the Queen is admirable.
Thank You for sharing that with us.

Foxy Quote "I repeated what you said because you did not understand my earlier response to you, and my reasons for it. Therefore you needed reminding."

Taking that as a precedent I would like to remind you. If it is okay for you to remind people then so can I.

Foxy You asked a question Quote "When did you successfully manage to point out to me that I was wrong?"

I replied to you with this.
In your blind belief in global warming.
When shown something that was stated is wrong they do not even consider maybe or possibly even if only a small doubt would be put into their thinking even as small as say there is a 1%, 2% or even 3% chance that something is wrong we are being told lies.

Fact
Prince Charles on advice from leading environmentalists Jonathon Porritt and Tony Juniper made a statement that it had been "calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world" this statement was made July 2009.

** that is from calculations made by the two leading environmentalists **

** So July 2017 the world was in relatively the same state as July 2009. So that statement was based on faulty science or other errors or a blatant lie **

In any person that should put a small doubt into their thinking on the subject in question.

Come back foxy all is forgiven.
Unless you are going to supply links to polls that you have not even read the questions too or how the poll was conducted.

A poll of 1,000 people does in no way represent the opinion of 150 million or so people.

Just as two questions to people that in no way differentiates between man made and natural causes of global warming have any standing.

Philip S.,

Thank You for being so concerned with what
I said or for that matter think.
I am very flattered that you care so much.
However, I am no longer interested in arguing
the issue and I certainly don't want to appear
so dogmatic and pig-headed.
As another poster pointed out
this is after all just an opinion forum
and surely there should be room for all of us on it.

Wishing you and yours All the Joys of the Christmas
Season and I hope that your Christmas is Wonderful.
Enjoy Every Moment. All the Best for 2019!

Foxy It appears you are an expert at the Claytons answer.

Which is the answer one gives when they do not have an answer.

It is really very simple, a yes or no will do.

Do you honestly think a poll of 1,000 people could really represent the opinions of 150 Million people, that is 1 person representing 150,000 people?

Philip S.,

I can see that you still insist on arguing.

OK. I'll play.

Whether a sample is representative has very
little to do with its size. A representative sample
of one or two or three thousand Americans can be
used to predict the outcome of a presidential election
to within a few percentage points of the actual result
as we have seen from Gallup polls, and an unrepresentative
sample of several million can be hopelessly off target.

Representativeness can be ensured by using a random
sample - one chosen in such a way that every member of
the population in question has the same chance of being
selected. Anyway, the following link explains further:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-for-only-100/