We'll have to agree to disagree..
We'll have to agree to disagree..
On the contrary - there is only one explanation - it was apposite that The Queen continued to use the same prince to further the relationship between the Windsors and the Chakris. What other explanation could there be? And calling yourself Caligula is an interesting approach, tooOriginally Posted by arsenal
Haha. I'm not going down that road. If you feel a terrible injustice was done to you then contact Amnesty. Otherwise it's all history.
So what's the answer, Caligula? Was it inapposite to describe The Queen sending the same prince as apposite, or was it inapposite for The Queen to send the same prince?
frequent (December 30th, 2017)
Dont worry Frequent - the rest of us totally get what you're saying.
Surely Len's more like Nero - fond of playing the lyre
Don't be so sure about that NIrish.
Hitchhiking's more of a challenge on the road less travelled.
snotface (December 30th, 2017)
This is not about what Frequent is saying now NIrish. It's about what he said regarding xxxx. He IS one of the smarter knives in the drawer and it's impossible he didn't know what he was doing.
And Gorbals. You have unfinished business with Moses on the feedback forum. He's waiting there for you or are you trying to slither out of the issue?
Last edited by arsenal; December 31st, 2017 at 05:46.
You're evidently a lot cleverer than I, Caligula, since I have no idea why it was not apposite to welcome Queen Elizabeth sending her regular family member to a Chakri event
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
