ARTICLE/BLOG: The Real WQ - A defence of R3

Well, this guy got it right. It's a start?

http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421

tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/mrv6ye3

--

- *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
- *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

Well I didn't see this coming:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p01dn3rl


Especially since my TV guide magazine says that tomorrow's episode starts 10 years on from the death of George of Clarence.



--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Well, this guy got it right. It's a start?
>
> http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421
>
> tiny URL:
> http://tinyurl.com/mrv6ye3
>
> --
>
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>
>
>
>

Tongue planted firmly in cheek, I trust.

A J


On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 2:30 PM, davidarayner
<theblackprussian@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Well I didn't see this coming:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p01dn3rl
>
> Especially since my TV guide magazine says that tomorrow's episode starts
> 10 years on from the death of George of Clarence.
>
> --- In , Wednesday McKenna
> <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, this guy got it right. It's a start?
> >
> >
> http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421
> >
> > tiny URL:
> > http://tinyurl.com/mrv6ye3
> >
> > --
> >
> > - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> > - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

1488?
----- Original Message -----
From: davidarayner
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE/BLOG: The Real WQ - A defence of R3



Well I didn't see this coming:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p01dn3rl

Especially since my TV guide magazine says that tomorrow's episode starts 10 years on from the death of George of Clarence.

--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Well, this guy got it right. It's a start?
>
> http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421
>
> tiny URL:
> http://tinyurl.com/mrv6ye3
>
> --
>
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>
>
>
>

You couldn't make it up. Well actually PG has obviously.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> 1488?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: davidarayner
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:30 PM
> Subject: Re: ARTICLE/BLOG: The Real WQ - A defence of R3
>
>
>
> Well I didn't see this coming:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p01dn3rl
>
> Especially since my TV guide magazine says that tomorrow's episode starts 10 years on from the death of George of Clarence.
>
> --- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, this guy got it right. It's a start?
> >
> > http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421
> >
> > tiny URL:
> > http://tinyurl.com/mrv6ye3
> >
> > --
> >
> > - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> > - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You mean the bit about Richard attending Edward on his deathbed?

I suppose it simplifies things enormously if everyone is already in London when Edward snuffs it.

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> You couldn't make it up. Well actually PG has obviously.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > 1488?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: davidarayner
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: ARTICLE/BLOG: The Real WQ - A defence of R3
> >
> >
> >
> > Well I didn't see this coming:
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p01dn3rl
> >
> > Especially since my TV guide magazine says that tomorrow's episode starts 10 years on from the death of George of Clarence.
> >
> > --- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, this guy got it right. It's a start?
> > >
> > > http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421
> > >
> > > tiny URL:
> > > http://tinyurl.com/mrv6ye3
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> > > - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Well what a load of bollocks that was. Sorry if that's offensive, but its the only word that will do.

I think I've worked out the method:

Only men who are set to become kings are allowed to be clean shaven; everyone else has to glue embarrassingly unconvincing and anachronistic fake hair to their faces.

So that means that after Richard the only contended for the next king must be: oh bollocks.

--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> You mean the bit about Richard attending Edward on his deathbed?
>
> I suppose it simplifies things enormously if everyone is already in London when Edward snuffs it.
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > You couldn't make it up. Well actually PG has obviously.
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 1488?
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: davidarayner
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:30 PM
> > > Subject: Re: ARTICLE/BLOG: The Real WQ - A defence of R3
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well I didn't see this coming:
> > >
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p01dn3rl
> > >
> > > Especially since my TV guide magazine says that tomorrow's episode starts 10 years on from the death of George of Clarence.
> > >
> > > --- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, this guy got it right. It's a start?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421
> > > >
> > > > tiny URL:
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/mrv6ye3
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> > > > - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Huh. And here I was thinking it was code from the makeup department saying, "These Men Are Older Now."

~Weds

--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Well what a load of bollocks that was. Sorry if that's offensive, but its the only word that will do.
>
> I think I've worked out the method:
>
> Only men who are set to become kings are allowed to be clean shaven; everyone else has to glue embarrassingly unconvincing and anachronistic fake hair to their faces.
>
> So that means that after Richard the only contended for the next king must be: oh bollocks.
>
> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > You mean the bit about Richard attending Edward on his deathbed?
> >
> > I suppose it simplifies things enormously if everyone is already in London when Edward snuffs it.
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You couldn't make it up. Well actually PG has obviously.
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 1488?
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: davidarayner
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:30 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: ARTICLE/BLOG: The Real WQ - A defence of R3
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well I didn't see this coming:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p01dn3rl
> > > >
> > > > Especially since my TV guide magazine says that tomorrow's episode starts 10 years on from the death of George of Clarence.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, this guy got it right. It's a start?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421
> > > > >
> > > > > tiny URL:
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/mrv6ye3
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> > > > > - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I wondered if maybe the costume dept. though "1483 - nearly the Tudors now. We'll let the audience know with the Henry VIII stick-on beards (except for Richard, who never lived to be a Tudor)."
Yes, what bollocks.
Fancy Richard being mean enough to execute Rivers on Tower Green in front of Edward V..... nobody twigging that Geoffrey wasn't Richard Duke of York..... the Thames diverting itself round the abbey.....
Buckingham looking like the Sheriff of Nottingham out of a 1940s movie.
Oh yikes.
Marie

--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Well what a load of bollocks that was. Sorry if that's offensive, but its the only word that will do.
>
> I think I've worked out the method:
>
> Only men who are set to become kings are allowed to be clean shaven; everyone else has to glue embarrassingly unconvincing and anachronistic fake hair to their faces.
>
> So that means that after Richard the only contended for the next king must be: oh bollocks.
>
> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > You mean the bit about Richard attending Edward on his deathbed?
> >
> > I suppose it simplifies things enormously if everyone is already in London when Edward snuffs it.
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You couldn't make it up. Well actually PG has obviously.
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 1488?
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: davidarayner
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:30 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: ARTICLE/BLOG: The Real WQ - A defence of R3
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well I didn't see this coming:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p01dn3rl
> > > >
> > > > Especially since my TV guide magazine says that tomorrow's episode starts 10 years on from the death of George of Clarence.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, this guy got it right. It's a start?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421
> > > > >
> > > > > tiny URL:
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/mrv6ye3
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> > > > > - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

And, didn't the "regular folks" follow the modes and mores of the gentry as best they could? Love the word bollocks!

On Aug 4, 2013, at 4:27 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



I wondered if maybe the costume dept. though "1483 - nearly the Tudors now. We'll let the audience know with the Henry VIII stick-on beards (except for Richard, who never lived to be a Tudor)."
Yes, what bollocks.
Fancy Richard being mean enough to execute Rivers on Tower Green in front of Edward V..... nobody twigging that Geoffrey wasn't Richard Duke of York..... the Thames diverting itself round the abbey.....
Buckingham looking like the Sheriff of Nottingham out of a 1940s movie.
Oh yikes.
Marie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Well what a load of bollocks that was. Sorry if that's offensive, but its the only word that will do.
>
> I think I've worked out the method:
>
> Only men who are set to become kings are allowed to be clean shaven; everyone else has to glue embarrassingly unconvincing and anachronistic fake hair to their faces.
>
> So that means that after Richard the only contended for the next king must be: oh bollocks.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > You mean the bit about Richard attending Edward on his deathbed?
> >
> > I suppose it simplifies things enormously if everyone is already in London when Edward snuffs it.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You couldn't make it up. Well actually PG has obviously.
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 1488?
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: davidarayner
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:30 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: ARTICLE/BLOG: The Real WQ - A defence of R3
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well I didn't see this coming:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p01dn3rl
> > > >
> > > > Especially since my TV guide magazine says that tomorrow's episode starts 10 years on from the death of George of Clarence.
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, this guy got it right. It's a start?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421
> > > > >
> > > > > tiny URL:
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/mrv6ye3
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> > > > > - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

That is my reaction to the whole WQ series. One might want to call
Shakespeare inaccurate historically but one would never call into
question his dramatic sense or his dialogue, both things totally lacking
from WQ.
I am amazed PG got an English degree. I knew standards had dropped, but
I didn't realise just how much!
Paul

On 04/08/2013 22:14, davidarayner wrote:
> Well what a load of bollocks that was. Sorry if that's offensive, but its the only word that will do.
>
> I think I've worked out the method:
>
> Only men who are set to become kings are allowed to be clean shaven; everyone else has to glue embarrassingly unconvincing and anachronistic fake hair to their faces.
>
> So that means that after Richard the only contended for the next king must be: oh bollocks.
>
> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>> You mean the bit about Richard attending Edward on his deathbed?
>>
>> I suppose it simplifies things enormously if everyone is already in London when Edward snuffs it.
>>
>> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>> You couldn't make it up. Well actually PG has obviously.
>>>
>>> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>>>> 1488?
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: davidarayner
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:30 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: ARTICLE/BLOG: The Real WQ - A defence of R3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well I didn't see this coming:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p01dn3rl
>>>>
>>>> Especially since my TV guide magazine says that tomorrow's episode starts 10 years on from the death of George of Clarence.
>>>>
>>>> --- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Well, this guy got it right. It's a start?
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421
>>>> >
>>>> > tiny URL:
>>>> > http://tinyurl.com/mrv6ye3
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> > - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
>>>> > - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul, as the grandmother of several college graduates, it is SHOCKING!

On Aug 5, 2013, at 4:28 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:



That is my reaction to the whole WQ series. One might want to call
Shakespeare inaccurate historically but one would never call into
question his dramatic sense or his dialogue, both things totally lacking
from WQ.
I am amazed PG got an English degree. I knew standards had dropped, but
I didn't realise just how much!
Paul

On 04/08/2013 22:14, davidarayner wrote:
> Well what a load of bollocks that was. Sorry if that's offensive, but its the only word that will do.
>
> I think I've worked out the method:
>
> Only men who are set to become kings are allowed to be clean shaven; everyone else has to glue embarrassingly unconvincing and anachronistic fake hair to their faces.
>
> So that means that after Richard the only contended for the next king must be: oh bollocks.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>> You mean the bit about Richard attending Edward on his deathbed?
>>
>> I suppose it simplifies things enormously if everyone is already in London when Edward snuffs it.
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>> You couldn't make it up. Well actually PG has obviously.
>>>
>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>>>> 1488?
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: davidarayner
>>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:30 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: ARTICLE/BLOG: The Real WQ - A defence of R3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well I didn't see this coming:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p01dn3rl
>>>>
>>>> Especially since my TV guide magazine says that tomorrow's episode starts 10 years on from the death of George of Clarence.
>>>>
>>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Well, this guy got it right. It's a start?
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421
>>>> >
>>>> > tiny URL:
>>>> > http://tinyurl.com/mrv6ye3
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> > - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
>>>> > - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> That is my reaction to the whole WQ series. One might want to call
> Shakespeare inaccurate historically but one would never call into
> question his dramatic sense or his dialogue, both things totally lacking
> from WQ.
> I am amazed PG got an English degree. I knew standards had dropped, but
> I didn't realise just how much!
> Paul
>


I haven't watched TWQ (and never will, not even if someone were to pay me to watch it... life's too short to annoy oneself voluntarily) but from all I've read and seen about it, it looks like a good example of the kind of historical fiction that honestly baffles me. I haven't read PG's books either, so I'm going by your discussions, reviews and short clips of the TV series, but my point is:

It baffles me because the period of the Wars of the Roses is the *perfect* raw material. You can read the most boringly written non-fiction study of the period and you'll find blood, gore, horror, intrigue, strange legends, epic battles, murder, mystery, torture, death, love, sex, clandestine marriages, mistresses and secret lovers, accusations of witchcraft, religion, hypocrisy, power politics, jealousy, small personal tragedies, heartbreaking loss, loyalty, vengeance, feuding families, reversals of fortune, numerous noble houses that are reduced to ashes in the conflict...

You've got elements of the classic Greek tragedy AND the Gothic novel AND chivalric romance AND sweeping Dickensian drama about that runs the whole gamut of the human condition AND just about any genre you can possibly come up with...

You've got so many dramatic twists and turns, eerie coincidences, instances of poetic justice and larger-than-life characters that we'd think them implausible in fiction. And yet they're TRUE. (For the most part, anyway.)

It takes a special kind of talent to fail miserably with this sort of raw material, IMO. And a *really* special talent to take a look at the raw material, decide that it's a bit too boring as it is, invent stuff of your own to spice it up... and *still* fail miserably.

The history itself is so rich and full of variety; so perfect in its pacing and dramatic arc(s). How does one take the Wars of the Roses and manage to suck the inherent drama out of it, I'll never be able to understand. Special kind of talent, like I said.

Well said Paul.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> That is my reaction to the whole WQ series. One might want to call
> Shakespeare inaccurate historically but one would never call into
> question his dramatic sense or his dialogue, both things totally lacking
> from WQ.
> I am amazed PG got an English degree. I knew standards had dropped, but
> I didn't realise just how much!
> Paul
>
> On 04/08/2013 22:14, davidarayner wrote:
> > Well what a load of bollocks that was. Sorry if that's offensive, but its the only word that will do.
> >
> > I think I've worked out the method:
> >
> > Only men who are set to become kings are allowed to be clean shaven; everyone else has to glue embarrassingly unconvincing and anachronistic fake hair to their faces.
> >
> > So that means that after Richard the only contended for the next king must be: oh bollocks.
> >
> > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >> You mean the bit about Richard attending Edward on his deathbed?
> >>
> >> I suppose it simplifies things enormously if everyone is already in London when Edward snuffs it.
> >>
> >> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>> You couldn't make it up. Well actually PG has obviously.
> >>>
> >>> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >>>> 1488?
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: davidarayner
> >>>> To:
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:30 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: ARTICLE/BLOG: The Real WQ - A defence of R3
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Well I didn't see this coming:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p01dn3rl
> >>>>
> >>>> Especially since my TV guide magazine says that tomorrow's episode starts 10 years on from the death of George of Clarence.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Well, this guy got it right. It's a start?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421
> >>>> >
> >>>> > tiny URL:
> >>>> > http://tinyurl.com/mrv6ye3
> >>>> >
> >>>> > --
> >>>> >
> >>>> > - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> >>>> > - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>