i don't quite understand the logic of some lifeforms' vitriolic arguments, in view of the impending marriage of this couple:
1. that Chas shouldn't entertain the thought of becoming king since he's marrying a divorcee
2. the union is a grave insult to the church of england
3. the union is a grave insult to the memory of the saintly Di
4. the soon-to-be-consort doesn't deserve any royal title
5. and some other obscure reasons
my rebuttal:
1. eh wot? could someone please tell me which century is this?
2. shouldn't we separate the rights of an individual from the church?
3. that cunning attention-seeking whore was no saint
4. see point #1
5. it's amazing what some people could come up with
come to think of it, i'm no better than those nothing-better-to-do noseyparker's, eh?
as enscribed by the letter b @ February 11, 2005 10:59 AM