User talk:GoodDay/Archive 8

2009
Neither do I. Maybe it's because it's a new article and they want to change policy. I don't think there is a consensus to have her listed there, but I am not going to get in an edit war over it. If it stays on the article then when things quiet down I will remove her. --Tocino 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's recentism. It's being pushed by editors who haven't been editing the YEAR articles much in the past (not that WP requires a certain amount of experience or that we own the article). They need to be thinking ahead. Will those reading the article 20 years from now believe that Maria de Jesus is worthy of a spot on the exclusive list, that she was one of the top newsmakers of the year 2009? I don't think so.  --Tocino 23:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

and i would remind you, as one person, you have no aurthority to keep removeing the piece as we are currently debating it in the discussion area once a no. of people have oposed (soz spelling) her being there she will be left. Hawkania (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC) oh and Tocino will see her reinstated.


 * 'note' there is no consensus to remove her as there are only a few users debating this. Hawkania (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Yawn' Look if you really feel so strongly about a few words then get Jimmy Wales himself so sort out the discussion. Hawkania (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. What are you talking about? GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment

 * Hey GoodDay, what do you think kept Jeanne alive so long? She said she never worked and ate 2 pounds of chocolate a week? Aha, I am a lazy ass, I also eat an enourmous amount of chocolate, my name is Jeanne, I've got French blood, now all I need to do is to start rubbing olive oil into my skin. Look at her photos. You'll notice that she looks better at 40 than 20! I wonder what the world will be like if you and I live to be 122 years old. Holidays to the moon, the world government recording our thoughts and dreams, elevated cities and streets, flying cars, temperatures at 90 degrees throughout the year, more rain, lots of tornadoes and earthquakes--jeanne (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If I make it to 122, I doubt the world will have changed too much (in 2093). I base this belief on the 1950's hopes, that we'd be living like the The Jetsons by now. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We're NOT?! Bbbut, I thought we already were living like The Jetsons! GD, must you ALWAYS burst my bubble?--jeanne (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the bursting, gorgeous. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Moon landings & Aliens

 * Don't worry, Jeanne, as far as I know the Jetsons didn't have the internet, so we are well ahead of them. PS, I'd rather go to mars, I hear it's a little warmer this time of year. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Baba Hum Be Be. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Baba what/who!! Titch Tucker (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The novelty song The Martian Hop. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sailors fighting on the dance floor, is there life on Mars?--jeanne (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you imagine going to Mars when your 122? I'd be floating there all wrinkled, drooling and incontinent. Hmm, I think I'd rather check out before then! Titch Tucker (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We won't be going to Mars for awhile yet. Humans haven't even been to the mooon, yet. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not been to the moon yet? didn't you watch that episode of the Mythbusters where they proved man went to the moon? Masterhatch (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

e/c::::I was wondering what you meant by that, then it hit me. Do you believe in the conspiracy theory where the US Government faked it? Flag blowing in the non existent wind, the wrong shadows coming off the astronauts, etc. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely a Cold War PR stunt, to frighten the Soviets. Ever wonder why there's no Mooon bases today, or frequent trips to the Moon & back? Why it's too expensive today, yet wasn't back then? Yep, it's was a hoax. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you watched that episode of mythbusters, they put a flag in a vaccuum chamber and simulated the movements of the flag being placed and the flag made the same motion as on the moon....meaning the inertia of the flag moving cause the "waving" and not a wind. Also, with the shawow thing, they built a huge scale model of the landing site and proved that topography can make the shadows appear to be going in different directions. Masterhatch (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The only way they will prove it (to those who doubt it) is when someone else goes to the moon and either finds the remains of the landing modules, rovers, and other bits and pieces or they don't. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mythbusters also did that "laser" test. When they went to the moon, they left a reflector up there and mythbusters (for their grand finale) aimed the laser at the reflector, and sure enough, the laser came back to them. Masterhatch (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also believe they use the lasers to accurately measure the distance between the earth and moon at any one time. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If i recall the episode correctly, that is one of the reasons they left the reflector on the moon. Masterhatch (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Titch hit the nail on my skeptic mind. It's been 37yrs since the last alledged moon landing & their doesn't seem to be any movements for a return. I'm still waiting for the next moon landing (37yrs & counting). GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am no expert on the field, but my theory is that since they have already been there and they have gathered lots of moon rock already, the need isn't there to go back at this time. It seems NASA is more interested in Mars, which makes sense. There is nothing to gain by sending a manned space craft back to the moon at this time. I read somewhere, though, that in the future they are planning to use the moon as a training ground for Mars. Masterhatch (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A big Cold War PR stunt & nothing more. We should have bases on the moon by now, with frequent trips their & back (in passenger shuttles). Sorry ya'll, I'm just not convinced. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to try and change your mind, but here are a few things off the top of my head to think about as to why there aren't regular "passenger" flights and a moon base:
 * the challenger accident set back the American space programme many years
 * no "efficient" space shuttles have been built yet. We are still using 20 plus year old shuttles
 * space tourism is relatively new (why don't they have regular passenger shuttles to orbit the earth or go to the space station? do you believe that humans haven't gone to space yet either?)
 * it takes months of training to go to space, making space "tourism" difficult.
 * We are barely able to build a space station to orbit the earth..imagine the complications and cost of trying to build one on the moon, several days away from earth.
 * We barely have frequent trips to orbit humans around our own planet, why would we have frequent trips to the moon?
 * yes it costs lots of money to send a human to the moon. It is a lot cheaper to send a robot there to gather more moon rocks if we need them. Maybe one day, when we are more advanced, we can build a space station on the moon using nothing but robots to do all the work up there.

Think of the cost of building a space station on the moon. Who would pay for it? Where would the money come from? Tourists? Private companies? Well, considering that space tourism isn't that feasible at this point in time, and there is no economic benifit for private companies to go to the moon, there is no one willing to do it. While I believe we have the technology to build a space station on the moon, we don't have a reason to spend the money to do it. We can't mine the moon. We can't live on the moon. There aren't enough rich people would would be willing to shell out billions to be moon "tourists". Simply put, the reason we haven't built a moon base is because we don't have a reason to, not because we can't. Masterhatch (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When (via CNN coverage) they return to the Moon & find the supposed Eagle remains & the flag etc; then I'll be convinced. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, would you be convinced if I told you I have been to the moon? It's a marvelous night for a moon dance.....Do you believe there's life on Mars, BTW?--jeanne (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be convinced. I don't believe there's life on any of the other seven planets of the Solar System. Also, I don't believe that extra-terristial aliens have visited Earth (sorry Roswell folks). GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For me, the jury is still out with Roswell, although logic points to no alien visits. But who knows, eh?. Let me ask you, do you think that there WAS life on Mars and that NASA might find fossils or something? Also, that icey moon (sorry, can't remember the name off hand) might have life under that ice in that ocean. Scientists are pretty hopeful about that. Masterhatch (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I should rephrase: I don't believe there's aliens beyond are known development, within the Solar System. There's every possibility that slug-like or fish-like beings exist or existed on Mars. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is even a theory that we originated from Mars, not as we are, but as spores landing on earth. Don't ask me for any fact's, I don't have them. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that movie, though I forget the name. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And if I told you I was an alien? Perhaps you are one GoodDay, after all nobody here has ever seen your photo (hint hint)--jeanne (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and GoodDay, if you don't believe man has ever landed on the moon, then who in hell was Major Tom?--jeanne (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I might be an alien (hmm, I'd luv to see that suggestion, spread across Wikipedia). It's possible I've been observing human behaviour on this site (since 2005). Maybe even running 'behaviour response' tests across other editors User pages. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Start spreading the news, GoodDay comes from Mars, he wants to be a part of it, planet Earth, planet Earth GD, speak of the devil, check out the photo on Sarah's talk page.--jeanne (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sing it, Frankie baby. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK here I go: Relax, don't do it when you want to .... to it.....--jeanne (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Franken Article
Thanks for removing/changing the info box on the Al Franken article. I was actually saying it should be changed as well, but couldn't remember how to do it. I'm out of practice on editing since I rarely come here anymore (I finally got sick of the edit warring and decided to spend less time and energy here). It looks like both the Franken and Coleman articles are going to have to be watched carefully as they are subject to reverts by many unregistered users, who are often more difficult to deal or communicate with then regular users. Anyway, I just wanted to say that. Davidpdx (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect those IPs are Coleman & Franken supporters. Maybe even campaign members. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The info box was changed again on the Franken article. Could you please go and change it again? I don't want to mess with it as I'm kind of afraid I'll screw it up worse then it is now. I really believe that the senator info box shouldn't be there and there should be no one shown as a successor to the position at this point. I owe you a cyber beer or something. Thanks! Davidpdx (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting that again. I left a message on the talk page driving the point home that we need to leave the info boxes alone until this thing is resolved one way or another. People seem to want to act like a dog with a constant itching problem around here. Davidpdx (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia hot-spot spotter

 * I have the feeling another hot-spot is smouldering on Talk: 2009. Call it woman's intuition, ESP, whatever, I just have a wee feeling that the section regarding Obama's inauguration is about to expel lava into cyber space. Id head over there if I were you.--jeanne (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've returned
4-year old Niece visiting. Thus computer (Wikipedia) unavailable to me, due to cartoons on YouTube. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what you mean. My 17 year old son monopolises the computer for hours on end watching 1980s Dead or Alive videos on YouTube. I tell ya.--jeanne (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm back. Yep, the sacrifices we must make for the younger generation. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Governor numbering
Yeah, there's quite a few. I go from either an official list (Alabama has one), or just from the official declaration of the current number and work back, figuring out how they arrived at that number. This issue has kept me from even working on Virginia; the official sources contradict as to the numbering. --Golbez (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominee
Will this cause you to oppose or will you remain neutral?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's try to keep the discussion centralized at the FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool
Just wanted to say that I like your username...very clever and refreshing! --Eustress (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the dawning of a New Era

 * Reminds me of the line in the Monkees song, We're the young generation, and we've got something to say, ahh...... Just think GD, I was part of the Young Generation back then, and you weren't even born.--jeanne (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was born in 1971, but my musical tastes would suggest 1951. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My musical tastes would suggest that I was a liberal, atheist republican, so one cannot judge another based on their choice in music, LOL!--jeanne (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All my photo's when I was really young are in black and white, they look like something from another era. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just 1 B&W photo of myself (the rest being coloured). GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They are from another era. WE ARE FROM ANOTHER ERA!!!Remember those pics of me in 1960s in fashion?--jeanne (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't go telling me I'm from another era. My parents where from another era, I'm from right here right now. So I'm not listening to you!, ( put's fingers in ears ). Titch Tucker (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm from another planet. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha! So there is intelligent life out there. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not too certain of that. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ground control to Major Tom, one, check ignition and may God's love be with you. Lift-off beep beep beep beep......--jeanne (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) God's love? You humans have a very active imagination. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Houston could have substituted God for this god.--jeanne (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * May Lucifer's love be with you, Lift-off. Beep beep beep--jeanne (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I wonder if during the War between Mexico and the Republic of Texas, did General Sam Houston own a messenger Eagle. When it arrived with a message, somebody may have inevitably yelled out, Houston... the eagle has landed. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Mexico's flag does have an eagle on it.--jeanne (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My father used to love reading J. T. Edson books. All those heroic cowboys and rather sinister Mexican's. He was actually an English guy with a vivid imagination. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember the Alamo. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a lot of Mexican friends in school. The first (last?) love of my life was half-Mexican. Bet you can't spot him on Wikipedia!--jeanne (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * His name wasn't Maximilian was it? Nah, it couldn't have been, wrong era. And he wasn't Mexican. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, his name was John and he doesn't have an article, just an image.--jeanne (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did he go by Juan? GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No way, Jose just John. Anyroad, he could have been called Johann seeing as he was also half German-and a surfer!--jeanne (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of John's, Juan's etc. Ever wonder why the current King of Spain, is known as Juan Carlos in the English world, yet his ancesters were known as John, Charles, Ferdinand etc. Same with the crown prince of Spain, why does the English world call him Felipe, instead of Philip (like they did with his ancesters). GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who knows? None of my teachers could pronounce my name correctly. It still provokes much hostility from many Francophobic Americans. How much French are you, BTW?--jeanne (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm atleast half-francophone. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm only 1/8th. Not much but if Wikipedia can mention that Obama's great-great-great-Grandfather was Irish, I can claim my French blood, eh?--jeanne (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, seeing as I'm related (albeit distantly) to Boom Boom, do you think I can become an honourary Quebecois?--jeanne (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I reckon so. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder where Titch has gone? Probably off to the pub for a wee pint.--jeanne (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Tis possible. I'm confident, he'll return. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish you guys would put your photos up on your user pages.--jeanne (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But ya already know what I look like (at least in human disguise), remember George Fox? GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And Titch? Personally I think he was one of the Bay City Rollers--jeanne (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe only on Saturday night. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, he's the drummer. Dig his white flares?S-s-s-saturday niiiight--jeanne (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all so 1970's. Even Bill Bixby as Dr Banner, wore the bell-bottom pants. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk about 1970s check out this guy here: Bobby Sherman on YouTube Hey little woman please make up your mind.....--jeanne (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's funny how things change, then change back. Sherman's appearance wouldn't have been excepted today or in the 1st half of the 20th century. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But he would have been accepted in Napoleon's France or Regency England--jeanne (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC).
 * A possible friend of Beau Brummel? GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly or Charles Joseph, Comte de Flahaut, Hortense de Beauharnais's lover.--jeanne (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's like the hippies of the late 1960s, early 1970s. We used to think those guys with long stringy hair, droopy mustaches, ragged bell-bottoms, bare feet and fringed vests were hip, now they look silly. Same with the hippy girls with their non-use of make-up and granny dresses. I used to wear ragged jeans, Indian-print dresses, and no make-up. In 1973, I changed my look drastically by adopting glittery make-up, glam rock style clothing, and I plucked my eyebrows to a thin line (see my user page main photo). Fashion also changes one's mentality as well as wardrobe contents.--jeanne (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey GoodDay, have you heard the latest from NASA? It seems that they are today going to reveal compelling new evidence that there is life on Mars. Something to do with the discovery of methane gas which they say must come from organisms living below the surface. I reckon its little green men travelling by metro/subway with really bad wind. Any inside knowledge? seen as you say your from another planet? Titch Tucker (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there's life on Mars. The Martians are actually all Bay City Rollers lookalikes, all dressed in tartan scarves with flared parallel jeans! P.S. Titch, I know you're really the drummer with the group, Derek Longmuir, or else his brother Alan Longmuir, or perhaps even Eric Faulkner or Woody!. I Only Want To Be With You.........--jeanne (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeanne, I would never have been seen dead wearing tartan trousers, I told you, I was a pretty cool dude with a wardrobe full of sharp suits and the patter to match it. It might have been 30 years ago or more, but memorys never fail, just the body. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to both: Remember the alien being interviewed by Kermit the Frog, on The Muppet Show, who had the ability to evolve quickly (copying himself after Kermit)? GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your giving the game away GD, is there another GD out there? Maybe locked up in a little room while you walk amongst us? ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Tis possible. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be something if they found even organisms on Mars. The first alien life to be discovered so close to earth, and think of the uncountable other planets that could have all kinds of different life on it.Titch Tucker (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Indeed, it's a discovery I'm looking forward to. With so many galaxies, it's impossible for their to be life on only one planet. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, real live Martians, how fun! Remember that 1960s programme, My Favorite Martian?--jeanne (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Walston & Bixby? yep. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a Starman waiting in the sky, he'd like to come and meet us but he thinks he'd blow our minds... and that is why the aliens have not yet landed on Earth, but......they are OUT THERE!!!!!--jeanne (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncle Martin... GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That werent no DJ that was hazy cosmic jive.....--jeanne (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oswald and Tippit
GoodDay, I just added a comment to the talk page of the Lee Harvey Oswald page which is sure to provoke several rebukes. Have a look, do you think my comments are valid? P.S Who tipped off Tippit? The Wizard of Ozwald, perhaps? Tip it, baby!--jeanne (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Before I add it to the LHO article I'll wait and see what the others say, otherwise it'll be quickly deleted. Their only reliable source is the LBJ-approved Warren Report.--jeanne (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. Since it falls under conspiracy theories, it's difficult to get a reliable source. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, GD, go check out the J.D. Tippit article! The guy never made it past the tenth grade in high school, yet he somehow was intelligent enough to have spotted the assassin from BEHIND!!! Are we in Twilight Zone or what?--jeanne (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, had Tippit survived? he just might've succeeded Hoover, as FBI Director. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the TwilightZone, did you notice how number 10 was a significant feature of his life? He had a 10th grade education, he drove a #10 patrol car, and he died in 10th Street.Scary stuff, eh?--jeanne (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh da do da, ooh da do da - "you unlock this door...". Luv, the '50s/60s series. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What about Dark Shadows? I LOVED that programme also One Step Beyond. I can still hear that creepy distorted music playing........--jeanne (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Taint never heard of those. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What? You never heard of Dark Shadows? The vampire Barnabas Collins? Angelique the witch? Mad Jenny? It aired on ABC from 1966 to 1971. I used to race home from school every afternoon so's not to miss a second of it. One Step Beyond was a scarier version of Twilight Zone.--jeanne (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all new to me. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But of course, I forget you were born in 1971! God, do I feel OLD!--jeanne (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya don't look old, foxy. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This fox is old enough to be your big sister!--jeanne (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely I'm not the only editor at Wikipedia who smells fish in Officer Tippit's patrol car #10?--jeanne (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tippit's the assassin. Oswald had to eliminate him & Rudy had to eliminate Oswald. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you got a reliable source to back that up, GD? Otherwise it's just original research!!!!!We must not be original here, you know.--jeanne (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's my weakness on Wikipedia. I'm not good at providing reliable sources. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your version makes sense. Hire a dumb cop as trigger man (his presence in Dealey Plaza with a gun would not attract attention), and have him rubbed out before he opens his gab. Ditto with Patsy Oswald. Except Oswald was no Tippit. Lee was not supid-in fact, he was a cool, shrewd character. God, did he handle those reporters with elàn!--jeanne (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I reckon we'll never know the full truth. The cover-uppers, must curse Zabruder constantly. GoodDay (talk)
 * Why? They got away with it Zapruder or no Zapruder! Go over to the LHO talk page and you'll see what I mean. Doubters are not to be taken seriously.--jeanne (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would've been tougher for conspiracy theorist, with the Zapruder film. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the upshot is that they got away with pulling off the crime of the century.--jeanne (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fear, the truth will never be revealed. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it will be....one day.--jeanne (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep our fingers crossed. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Norm Coleman
Suits me just fine GoodDay, I've tried to be reasonable with you. It is you that has refused to listen to reason I'm afraid. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know why he's suspected and why he was allegedly getting all socky? -Rrius (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, backing himself up and 3RR. I guess he likes to target you. Sorry, mate. -Rrius (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my remark about not needing to post at my talk and his own was almost a lot more pointed. He absolutely would not respond to the points actually put to him. -Rrius (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Scotland

 * I just had a look at the Scotland talk page. I dont blame you for leaving. Why do people get so worked up over a singe word or sentence? It's not as if lives, money or property were at stake. You were sworn at and all. At least, nobody has ever sworn at me on the LHO talk page. An English editor once swore at me, on another talk page, but I did not bother to reply, although had I done so, my choice of words would have made his personal harlot blush.--jeanne (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just curious
Yes. --89.101.221.3 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion wanted

 * Your opinion is wanted on Titch's talk page. I cannot understand your silence. Out with it, GD. We want your thoughts, feelings, POV. Let's get the show on the road!--jeanne (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello :)
Hello. Sorry about not logging in. Was on the laptop and switched IP addresses to a different wifi. Didn't realize at first it changed the IP. Cheers :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainChrisD (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Succession
It's confusing because it is not well thought out. "Act as President" suggests to me that she would be "Acting President". The text suggests that if Obama and Biden had died, removed, or resigned, she would serve until January 20, 2013, just as you said. But if she has all the powers and duties of the President, that would include appointing a Vice President under the 25th Amendment. It would be strange to say that there is an Acting President and a Vice President. The statute really should set out different procedures for death, removal, and resignation; for failure to qualify, and for inability. Having the Speaker just become President makes sense for the case where the President and Vice President are gone and not coming back. Having the Speaker leave office for a temporary disability doesn't make sense. The Speaker should not be involved in a voluntary midterm disability; a Cabinet member should just take up the role. For a failure to qualify, it makes some sense to use the Speaker, but making her resign doesn't make sense.

The whole resignation thing doesn't make sense, either. It should be that the taking the oath as President vacates the legislative office, not that resigning it makes her eligible to be Acting President.

The 25th Amendment also seems to have a hole in it. It seems no involuntary vacancy can be declared if the office of Vice President is vacant. So if, after the swearing in, a chunk of the Capitol falls on Biden, killing him, and hits Obama on the head, putting him in a coma, they'd just have to make something up. -Rrius (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of us even mentioned the possibility of the Act being unconstitutional. That sets up the prospect of dueling presidents (hopefully not literally dueling). What's more, if the statute is unconstitutional, it might all be unconstitutional, which would mean there is no law providing for what happens when both offices are vacant or the officers disabled. The Act definitely needs a rewrite. -Rrius (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Narrow" and "3,000,000 vote margin" discussion
I encourage you to participate here. Tim meh  !  00:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Acting Secretaries
No. Unless they are asked to stay on, they generally resign sometime around the end of the term. Some leave a day or so early, and some leave shortly after noon on the 20th. Other than Gates, it seems only Chertoff was kept on at all. He stayed in office until this morning to ensure continuity in case of an attack during the inauguration. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy withdrew
It looks like Caroline Kennedy withdrew. It may be Cuomo after all. -Rrius (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama's inauguration

 * In a few hours, Obama will be sworn in. I heard on Italian TV that his inauguration is the costliest in history. I thought Obama promised to resolve the economic crisis? Funny way of going about it, Me is thinking. GD, why is it that Democrat presidents are so damned expensive? I wonder how much Michelle's dress cost the taxpayers? I hope it's a lot more chic than that red and black horror she wore when Barack won the election. It looked like someone threw red paint on the front of her dress. Since Nancy Reagan exited the White House, all of the First Ladies have dressed like hell. Cherie Blair was also a bad dresser. Carla Bruni is starting to lose her style. When she visited the Queen, wearing that grey, nun-like sack, Camilla Parker-Bowles even managed to upstage her! One can be serious and stylish at the same time.--jeanne (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Tis true; the Democrats complained over Bush's 2005 Inaugural. But, they don't dare complain about their own. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe me, GoodDay, Barack and Michelle will be expensive to maintain. When the honeymoon is over, perhaps the taxpayers will complain about it. What is your opinion on Obama's mother-in-law moving into the White House?--jeanne (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I reckon, in-laws stayed at the White House in the past. Therefore, it's not out of the ordinary & the First Daughters have grammie to keep an eye on them. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting for you to get on line, GD. I believe Mamie Eisenhower's mother lived in the WH. I feel sorry for Barack, is all I can say. It's not good to have in-laws as permanent house guests, even if the house is on the scale of the White House. Somehow, a mother-in-law can always find you.--jeanne (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Imagine what First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt went through, with her mother-in-law. Sara Delano Roosevelt stayed at the White House, until her passing in 1941. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Imagine what Franklin went through every night with Eleanor lying next to him in bed.--jeanne (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Michelle's dress? The government does not pay for the entire event. Michelle almost certainly provided her own clothes (although I hope she didn't pay for that thing. I could have covered her in papier mache and achieved the same effect). Most of the expenses are paid for by private donations. I don't understand the criticism. The Democrats were hypocritical in 2004 when they complained about pageantry in a time of war, but it didn't have to do with taxpayers. -Rrius (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I could have designed her a dress that would have knocked people's eyes out. She needs a new stylist-someone with TASTE.--jeanne (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no knowledge in fashion. But, I'll admit, if the skirt part had been above the knees, the First Lady would've been wearing a Wilma Flintstone imitation. Too bad, as Michelle is very attractive. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * She has attractive, well-developed curves, she should emphasize them not try to conceal them by wearing skirts that are too large.--jeanne (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Had I been her stylist, I'd have dressed her in midnight blue with silver. She needs rich jewel colours.--jeanne (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with well-developed curvey women, showing themselves. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

William McKinley

 * Hey, read up on his assassination. Doesn't it ring a bell with Dallas? And what about Leon Czolgosz, the anarchist? They sure knew where to find them, eh? Scary.--jeanne (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Presidential security was quite weak (one bodyguard) in 1901. Atleast, Czolgosz had the guts (or insanity) to face his victim. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Presidential security was also quite weak on 22 November 1963. How far away were they from JFK's Lincoln Continental? They should have been on the running boards.--jeanne (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Bubble Roof should've been used. Also, talk about security riskes, Prez Obama and Vice Prez Biden simultaneously walking in the Inaugural Parade? What happen to avoiding a double-tragedy. Back to McKinley/Kennedy: I'm not sure I see the conspiracy links. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * McKinley was against war with Spain, The Maine blew up in very mysterious circumstances, plus McKinley made unwise comments about outside forces plotting wars, also Teddy Roosevelt hated him.--jeanne (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GD, you should read Taylor Caldwell's Captains and The Kings. It discusses the international power-brokers and financiers who work behind the scenes.--jeanne (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm interesing. 'Tis true, the Maine explosion was a inside job. Also, remember the trouble William Randolph Hearst got into? His paper suggested McKinley should be shot. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was an accident that Hearst blew out of proportion. -Rrius (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was an accident. There was never any reason given for it's presence in Cuba. Protecting national interests, hmmmm. There were many who eagerly sought a war with Spain, including Hearst and Teddy Roosevelt--jeanne (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And there was a nice little anarchist handy.--jeanne (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr Czolgosz; he wasn't as entertaining as Mr Guiteau. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * None could compete with Lee Harvey Oswald, however.sigh --jeanne (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Booth comes close.--jeanne (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Guiteau gets my nod, as the most colorful. This guy actually thought, he was mainly responsible (due to his self-written/self delivered campaign speach), for Garfield's election. Actually felt he was due a government appointment, for his supposed services. During his Trial, he was correct in his defence, that the doctors brought about Prez Garfield's death, more so then the bullet. Charlie Guiteau was truly, a smart fool. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He was indeed odd. Italian TV once did a programme on the assassinated presidents, as well as those who died mysteriously while in office, such as Zachary Taylor. They said how Guiteau had stalked Garfield. It was also confirmed that the doctors killed Garfield by their incompetance. I still vote for Oswald as the most enigmatic and charismatic of all the famous assassins in history. McKinley's assassination was verrrrrry suspicious. You must get a copy of Captains and The Kings.--jeanne (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sakic
I only removed it because it was incorrect. No offence intended Ezc 195 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Gday, GD
Hi GD, watcha upto. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Digits vs. Words
Hi,

It's quite clear from the manual of style that numbers higher than 10 are written in digital form. Please don't keep changing the Obama article. The other bios are wrong, so should not be compared to. This is a featured article and should reflect our highest standards. Thanks  Majorly  talk  03:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In a roundabout way
Thank you for the bit of trivia about the "assumed" warriors you posted elsewhere. I happened upon it and it helped put other editing troubles in perspective. Almost nothing could be as bad as having to deal with that. Just... wow. And yeah, I would bet they were serious. arimareiji (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What a way to spend a Sunday Saturday
Well that was fun wasn't it? -- Snowded  TALK  20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What a way to spend a Saturday, too. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops, time sense distorted. Book writing in Connecticut and too relaxed; flying to Halifax tomorrow so will wave to you.  Have you see his request for unblock?  -- Snowded   TALK  20:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's going on? Have you two been ganging up on someone? ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, GD, why wasn't I invited to the party?--jeanne (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Typical. All the fun is over by the time I come onto the scene.--jeanne (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it will start again in about 23 hours or a new IP address will emerge so you will get a chance Jeanne. Can't think why s/he was that aggressive, all that was needed was a discussion on the talk page.  -- Snowded   TALK  20:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (responding to Snowded,Jeanne & Titch) I wonder if the IP might be Rod Blagojevich? GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rod who? For a moment I thought you meant this Rod!--jeanne (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It ain't Stewart. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You sure it ain't  You Wear It Well a little out of time, but I don't mind...I dont object if you call collect.... No, you sure?--jeanne (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GD, you always get me started.Now i'll have to hear Roddy on YouTube--jeanne (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For laughter, check out Blagojevich on YouTube. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not now, I'm off to bed. My dream lover is awaiting me.--jeanne (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Welterweight boxing champs
I think I got it for you. The Wikisyntax requires double pipes (||) if separate entries are listed in one line. i.e.: Santos || WBO. Santos|WBO causes the system to read "Santos" as being a modifier to WBO, and since it has no clue what that is intended to mean, it just blanks out Santos' name. Hope this helps! Resolute 17:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see what is going on here. Somehow this article is set up such that the entire thing is one table, with each section divider inside the table.  If you do a section edit, the chart is broken because you are missing the headers for the table, but if you edit the entire article as a whole, you can make the changes and have it preview properly.  It is probably a good idea to change that so that each section has it's own chart. Resolute 17:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What happened at school?

 * I never asked you what happened when you refused to stand up for God Save The Queen. Were you yelled at? Or sent to the principal's office? Or kicked out?--jeanne (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no reaction at all. Nobody seem to notice. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What a drag. It's like stripping in public and nobody looking. I was always being marched to the Vice-Principal's office when I was in high school. (Hmmm, I wonder what the Vice really stood for?!)--jeanne (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sheepishly, I was a basic good student. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was a nice girl until I stated junior high, then I became a bad girl.--jeanne (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wonder what Titch was like in school?--jeanne (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I must've liked school, as I failed grades #1, 3, 7. Didn't graduate until I was nearly 21. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Better late than never--jeanne (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I went to the school of hard knocks and passed with flying colours. Titch Tucker (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It was my theory, dating young female teachers was key to success. Afterall, she'd make ya do it over & over again, 'til ya got it right. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Teenage guys have no problem doing it over and over, ah, youth...--jeanne (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You must have gone to a very exclusive school, getting one on one tuition. Titch Tucker (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like he had orgies in lieu of scholastic instruction. A bit like something out of Ancient Rome. Was one of your teachers named Messalina?--jeanne (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha!

 * GoodDay, is that you over on Commons wearing a thong swimsuit?--jeanne (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a link to this photograph? That GoodDay, he certainly gets around. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's on Commons under the category of swimwear. You cannot miss it. He's wearing a black thong (pant, pant)--jeanne (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I know where Canada gets it's national anthem from Oh Canada, oh Canada, oh.....--jeanne (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe. GD, I think Jeanne is refering to this photo, on the right. Tell me it's not you GD. I know Jeanne wants it to be for her own reasons. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now what are my reasons, Titch? Am I being accused of immorality here?--jeanne (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heaven forfend I would imply such a thing! You, like I, are as pure as the driven snow. As`for GD with those thongs, I'm not so sure. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd better not say any more, GD might want to take me to court for defamation. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite
Sorry to disappoint ya'll. That ain't me. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Welllllll, none of us have ever seen your photo, so it could be you, GD.--jeanne (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It aint me, It aint me, I aint no fortunate one, nah nah. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * She'd already bin mooned, flashed her right in front of the shoppin' centre--jeanne (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I reckon -20 Celsius (as it is on PEI), would make any nudist run like a streak. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It says that guy was snapped on a beach in Maine. That's what made me think of you--jeanne (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Never been to the USA. Their gun laws (or lack there of), isn't cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have never been to the USA? I'm surprised it being so close. Yes, the amount of guns in the USA is staggering. I lived in Texas for two years.--jeanne (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Being from the Illinois, I can tell you that Texas would give you a skewed perspective. -Rrius (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even kids in Texas go out into the woods and hunt squirrels with shotguns. Most homes in the part of rural Texas where I lived had more than five guns. That's scary, seeing as those same homes had young children living within the walls.--jeanne (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The NRA is archaic IMO. The right to bear arms stuff is too, as it was ment for defending oneself against British invaders. Incase the UK, wishes to re-colonize the USA. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What it boils down to is that nobody trusts the government. If I lived on my own in the US I'd own a gun. Women aren't safe anywhere. A girl was gang-raped by 5 men the other night in Rome.--jeanne (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope the five culprits are captured & phyiscally relieved of their manhood (to put it politely). GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fat chance. Italy is very soft on criminals. A drunk-driver killed 4 teenagers and he was punished by house arrest in a luxury apartment overlooking the sea!--jeanne (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Italy seems alot like my country. House arrests, sentences reduced, probations etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why I'm violently against the EU. Since it expanded, rapes in Italy have more than tripled! The 5 rapists were not Italians. Rape used to be rare here.--jeanne (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never fully understood the EU. It's like a semi-Mega country. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Italy is receiving the criminals from the new member's countries. In fact, the countries they left are now among the safest in the world. I don't want to name the place, lest I be accused of racism. But facing reality is not racism.--jeanne (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully against cuddeling criminals. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same here. Last night I watched Silence of the Lambs. Criminals like Lector need to be given the death penalty. They are too dangerous to be allowed to live-even protective custody isn't enough.--jeanne (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

An eye for an eye, IMO. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alas, in our society, victims are shunned and the killers are lauded. In point of fact, the more people he kills, the higher he's esteemed. Books are written about him, films are made about his life, he receives fan mail in prison. Kids idolise him.--jeanne (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's how it goes. The mass media (TV, Movies, Books etc) want negative stuff, not positive. For example: CNN is always hoping for the worst case scenerio, always wanting to know the death toll. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at school shootings. The media goes berserk over them, and so another kid decides he wants some fame as well and he goes for his dad's shotgun.--jeanne (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Howabout the Middle East situation? it's been going on for over 60yrs. Yet North American media, calls it BREAKING NEWS whenever something happens (notice the people there, always try to get on camera). GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that.--jeanne (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blagojevich
I just got through listening to His Excellency the Governor's interview on local radio (which can be heard via the Illinois Senate here). So apparently, the whole impeachment thing is part of a conspiracy to raise income taxes, and the story of his life is a Frank Capra movie. I have no doubt the fools in Springfield will raise taxes the second he's out the door, but come on. -Rrius (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn's promotion is at hand. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Kennedy

 * GoodDay, how much do you want to bet that if Obama does not run for a second term in office, Caroline Kennedy will run for President in the 2012 election? And Obama will endorse her. What do you say about that?--jeanne (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Impossible: US Presidents choosing to not seek re-election is rare. Kennedy won't even run in the Special election for Senator from New York, in 2010. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be shocked if she gets appointed to something. Head of a federal commission, perhaps. -Rrius (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If she ran for president, perhaps in 2016, she has a good chance of winning. She'd get most of the female votes, the Irish votes, the black votes, the Hispanic votes, the Catholic votes, the Jewish votes. She wouldn't get the Texas votes nor much of the Southern votes. She's the only living child of JFK, and that would be capitalised on.--jeanne (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or she would hugely fail. She has to have a serious record, maybe the Senate was too big for her situation. A House seat would have been a better way for starting politics in her situation. 2016 will bring many primary/caucus contenders, who are as formidable (or more) as C. Kennedy. Cassandro (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, but the Kennedy name would pull in the voters.--jeanne (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that she has all the charisma of a ham sandwich. She is far to reserved to run for president in the TV era. She also has shown little desire to have that job. I get the sense that she wants to concentrate on certain causes, which is fairly easy for a legislator to do, but impossible for a president or governor. Besides, Hillary will probably run again, and she would crush Kennedy if it came down to it. -Rrius (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true. Hillary will most likely run again, and Obama will fully endorse her campaign. Caroline was always over-shadowed by a charismatic mother and handsome brother. She is rather drab and colourless in comparison. She is like many of JFK's sisters were, completely insignificant as individuals.--jeanne (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Kennedy for President? This makes me think of Edward Kennedy's failure to explain why he was running for President, in 1980. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Criminal in the Canadian Senate
The Brits have a new scandal involving their upper house, but I'm wondering about an old one in yours. Raymond Lavigne was charged with fraud in mid-August 2007. Whatever happened to the case? Has it been dismissed? Is it taking this long to go to trial? -Rrius (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of that case, I've no clue of its status. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, damn. -Rrius (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

CHARLES VII
Ok then my freind,say that corinatin dosent mark someones reign however hes still not the legal king from 1422 to 1429 henry was allready de jure king, charles was often called a rebell because he took illigeal assumption as de facto of france south of the loire river.it dosent matter its illigial and his assuption as king of france 1422 was a gesture,a claim nothing else.therefore england was united with france theroticly but charles called himeself king of france but even thought dropping the title. when joan of arc was speaking to charles she called him dauphine.(''O gentle dauphine) she said that because he wasnt crowned yet.his actual legal situation and legitmacy wasnt all to do with the corination.it was seen that to which side god gave the victory he loved more.hes legitimacy was proven in 1429 thanks to the battle of patay,lifting of the siege of orleons ect.hes corination as king of france rheims cathedral 1429 therefore should him as the new de jure ruler.the english so lost alot of there rights now to the crown so the geogrophy of the region would be seen as foriegn occupation in the north although many frenchmen thought that in the start so it was supposed under charles legal control.the english said they were claiming back what was theres.the north was seen in the english eyes in 1422 they thought france as a realm of englands.fance is therfore charles domain legally in princeple but not in practice untill 1450.henry vi may have got his corination to show he was king of france but wasnt as easier accepted legally then the possetion he had from 1422 to 1429. the dispute actually took its toal in the 1430's.in 1434 hes legal possetion almost entirely callapsed when pope martin V regognized charles as king.henry vi was thus like the english king who precceded him saying they were kings of france but was only a claim in pretense.1422 to 1429 is henry vi soveriegn reign and is a french monarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Charles VII, was (at least) the disputed King of France, along with Henry VI. Each had a control of the country. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, wot's this? Has the Hundred Years War broken out again? I thought the EU existed just to prevent such a thing from happening anew. Ironically, Henry VI was more ethnically French than Charles VII . The whole dispute stems from the Nesle Tower scandal, when Isabella of France exposed her brother's wives in adultery so her own son could become heir to the French throne upon the death of her father Philip IV. Alas, her plan back-fired when Salic Law was later introduced. This of course, barred Edward III from the French throne, thus provoking the war-which lasted longer than 100 years.--jeanne (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

HELLO.IT dosent matter if its a disputed claim charles was sought as a bastard or another product of his mother because isabella of braveria was having an affair with the duke of orleons.even some frenchmen regognized henry vi as king.the crown had to be passed to henry vi not charles vii as said in the treaty of troyes and his legal enlopement as king of france showed he was a de jure monarch not his claim even though predecesed kings of henry exrepped there title as king of france but was in pretence therefore not legall.charles usurped legal authority many time of his father and nephew he was a rebell of both soveriegn in practice.he usurped legall authority of he s father by becomming de facto of southern france.he usurped legall authority still be holding the de facto of southern france,puting up an illigial assumption as king of france,holding the title as dauphine which was actually henrys title although charles is said to be an heir in waiting from 1422 to 1429 and he continued with the armagnac party which was also illigial.hes corination made him de jure ruler and henrys legal authority including his claim started to crumble and shack.

It is like the war of henry the cruel and the war against henry II.henry the cruel (HENRY VI) was king for a time in spain but henry II of spain was illigitimate but no matter what he took illigial assumption as king of spain and thus was a rebell of the soverign.henry the cruel lost his regal reign because henry II usurped greather legall authority by crowning himeself king so thus hes regal title began. 1802 George III gave up his title as king of france.(no more claim) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 07:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, take your concerns to Talk: Charles VII of France. That's what I wanted you to originally do. GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There were also rumours as to the legitimacy of King Edward IV as well as Henry VI's son Edward, who was killed at the Battle of Tewkesbury. Isabella of Bavaria was indeed having an affair with the Duke of Orleans, but it's not certain that he fathered Charles (even had DNA tests been around in the 15th century seeing as the Duke was Charles VI's brother the tests wouldn't have proven anything conclusive). The point about the dispute is that the Valois did usurp the throne from Edward III who as the grandson of Philip IV came before King Philip VI, however, for the English to have continued to fight for the throne for over a hundred years was a bit much. A bit like Louis XV trying to claim the British throne in the 18th century as he was a direct descendant of King Charles I's daughter Henriette Anne of England. BTW, GoodDay, did you ever see the brilliant film Henry V (film) starring Kenneth Branagh? Excellent.--jeanne (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, though I found some it difficult to follow (Shakspearen linguistics), I enjoyed the movie. Would you believe I stole some of the lines where Henry is seducing Catherine & successorful tried it on a gal? GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Should have used Henry's rousing speech before Agincourt. That would have worked.--jeanne (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * King Henry has been silent of late. Also no comment on te Charles VII talk page. I was looking forward to discussing the issue as I love medieval English and French history-sometimes it's hard to take sides as in the Hundred Years War!--jeanne (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

British isles
If they are all happy to use the references, which they seem to be, they should stick to what the references actualy say. My opinion, British Isles or Great Britain and Ireland, I'm not bothered. But reliable references should be used correctly without words that are not actualy present in the text. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with Great Britain and Ireland is that the name omits the word Island or Isles. British Isles is polemic to a lot of Irish people . I have stated my preference is Celtic Isles, but that'll probably piss off the English people who adher to their Saxon roots.--jeanne (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's certainly conflicting British & Irish pride, behind that article's revert history. Every citation that's pro-alternative or pro-British Isles will be scrutinized. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why I think the next step should be asking a neutral admin for an opinion. I'll leave it to them now I've given my opinion. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the term British Isles (spoken in a whisper as Jeanne takes refuge from the nuclear fall-out under her computer table) AS Boy George says War is stupid, and people are stupid....--jeanne (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I have no problem with either and will leave it to them. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Take if from a veteran of that article's squabbles, we're better off not getting too involved. It's been & continues to be, a powdered keg. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell me about it. I'm still shell-shocked after my tentative forays onto that talkpage.--jeanne (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The bullets are already whizzing overhead,GD.Lookout!--jeanne (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe blocks, will soon be issued (and rightly so). GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The British Isles page should be renamed Trolls Paradise.--jeanne (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish anon editors were barred from editing those types of articles. All they do (with their appear out of nowhere style) is cause suspicion & more squabbling. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * IPs don't lie! LOL--jeanne (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Captains, Part II
I agree that naming replacement captains are cumbersome. However, in the case of the Islanders, you can say that Witt, Park & Weight were named alternates for this season. Sillinger who was an alternate with Witt began the season on Injured Reserve. Instead of having Witt and Sillinger as alternates, Scott Gordan rotated Sillinger, Park & Weight. I only follow the Islanders and Devils so you will have no trouble with me on that note.

By the way, since the Islanders annouced that DiPietro will be shut down for the season, shouldn't he be listed as "injured" eventhough he is not on the IR? Raul17 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fur is flying over there
I've just been told on talk BI that my opinion is irrelevent. Uh-oh, the bouncers are about to kick me out on my backside, I'm afraid. Man, is that page a minefield.--jeanne (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Humour is quickly responded to in non-humourist ways, on the subject of UK/Ireland relations. In the past, my bringing up Irish Sea, was met with few chuckles. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll soon see insults flying on the discussion page & through 'edit summaries'. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All they're doing as far as I'm concerned, is making me more of a Francophone.--jeanne (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I betcha there'd be a uproar, if Irish Isles was introduced. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Go on, I dare ya. Jump into the sea of circling sharks.--jeanne (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No way, Jose. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, they won't bite. Hee hee hee. Oh when that shark bites, with his teeth, babe, scarlet billows.....--jeanne (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as the Article title remains at British Isles, I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What else could it be called? That's it's official name. They are squabbling over nothing.--jeanne (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a bit like fighting over the weather or the sunrise.--jeanne (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eventually the content of that article, will need Arbitration. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just cannot believe the time people spend arguing over there. And then if someone like you or me offers a neutral opinion or tries to lighten up the atmosphere, they all gang up on us. --jeanne (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have as much right to give your opinion as anyone, Jeanne. I have started a request for comment on the talk page to try and get outside views on it. My only worry is that people will avoid it like the plague due to the high drama surrounding it. Go on, give an opinion (even if I don't agree with it). Titch Tucker (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the name British Isles. A pleasing alternative to me would be Celtic Isles. I was already curtly told that my opinion was not relevant. Oh, hoity-toity.--jeanne (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alot of passions stir up, around that name (British Isles). I think that article should be a historical one. Then a Britan and Ireland article could be created (as a present tense version). GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it doesn't mention Islands in that name, so is misleading.--jeanne (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * British and Irish Isles, has a ring to it. But, it would likely be struck down as original research. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it. Someone came up with British Isles at one time, was he/she accused of original research? Hoestly, GD, it sounds good and unpolemic.--jeanne (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, GD, I meant to say honestly not ho-estly!LOL--jeanne (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just gonna correct it. I've been wondering these days, when will Irish Sea be re-named, the British and Irish Sea. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, go over to the Jaws page and pose the questioin there? I can just see all those eyes rolling back in their heads and the teeth bared. Irish Sea will then have to be re-named the Red Sea!--jeanne (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nay, I brought the idea up at the British Isles page (months ago), when calls were made to change that article's title. My suggestion that Irish Sea was offensive to British, just as British Isles was offensive to Irish, didn't go over well. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The editors over there have about as much humour as my cat. Hissssssssssssssss.--jeanne (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I respect both of you for even bothering to participate at BI, I find it and Scotland exasperating. -Rrius (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The editors over there are really starting to piss me off with their elitist, closed-shop attitude. They seem to becontent running around in circles, and if people like GoodDay or myself try to lighten the atmosphere they get hissed at.--jeanne (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fashion preview for summer 2009

 * GoodDay, on the right is the preview for the trend this coming summer.--jeanne (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yuck. By the way, I won't be here (on Wikipedia) for awhile. I'm recovering from a bout of pneumonia. See ya'll in a few days. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. I wish you a speedy recovery. Take care of yourself--jeanne (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Get well soon GoodDay. Titch Tucker (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiya, GD, hope you're feeling better now. Come back here soon, this place has become the Dead Zone sans you!--jeanne (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll return fully functional, tommorrow. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hallelujah! You have been missed here.--jeanne (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Return
Thanks for all the well-wishes, Jeanne & Titch. My lungs are still kinda weak, but they'll recover fully (likely over the week-end). Has the Wikipedia world changed much, since my absense? GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. You were greatly missed. Now we can get the party started up again.--jeanne (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)--jeanne (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jeanne, yahoo. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back
Good to see you back GD. Hope your fully recovered and ready again for the madness that's wikipedia. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Titch. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings back from someone from the many hearts of Europe and I hope I will often cross your ways on the articles about the Senate and it's members. :-) Cassandro (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which Senate? American or Canadian? GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * American. :-) Cassandro (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder when Minnesota's seat will be settled? GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * NEVER!!! *Evilly cackles* -Rrius (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be the best comedy of Al Franken's life. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or the best inspiration for his colleagues. :-) Cassandro (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Also, no matter how the race ends, it makes Coleman stink. On the surface, he currently comes across as a sore looser. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way it goes is a win for both parties. If Franken wins, the Dems get another vote, and the Repubs get to use Franken for fundraising for six years. If Coleman wins, the Republicans get another vote, and the Dems don't have to cringe for fear of what outrageous thing Franken will say next or what other lefty celebrity will run for Senate. It's nice when everyone wins. Well, except for Minnesota, but they voted for Ventura that one time, so they sort of deserve it, karma-wise.

Ghouls at CNN
Yeah, it's like they want her to die. There is really no reason to think she's going anywhere. If anything, it'll be Souter going first. -Rrius (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's that "flinty Chicago toughness". -Rrius (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Party?

 * Well, have you hired the DJ yet? Let's rock and roll!!!!!!!!--jeanne (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hire? I'm too cheap. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you'll have to do the honours yourself. Don't forget to play Andrea True Connection, 5000 Volts, Bee Gees, Bay City Rollers, Chic, and Alicia Bridges, I love the night-life, I've got to boogie, I want ACTION--jeanne (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Howabout the Beatles tune, That means alot? GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I left out Patrick Hernandez and Van McCoy, Do the Hustle, boop boop boop boop... 1975 FOREVER!--jeanne (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of these people. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whaaaaaaat? Never heard of Born to Be Alive or The Hustle? Then again, you were born in 1971! Of course you wouldn't remember these songs. Sometimes it's a drag to have been born in after 1970, then again, you have fewer wrinkles as well as fewer memories. Ah, to be a time traveller like Denzel Washington in that film I saw on TV last night Deja Vu.--jeanne (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OK
Those are OK. But i guess using forty-fourth or sth. can help another non-native english speaker for the writing system of them. Cheers! C H J L Discuss 08:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Get well soon, Titch
ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Send a Message
To my fellow Wikipedians. Please send a get-well message to my ole buddy Titch Tucker. We await his return to Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, see my user page. I have dedicated my latest article to Titch as it's about a Scottish countess who was an ancestor of Robert the Bruce. I really hope he recovers fully and can return to us here at Wikipedia as soon as possible. I miss him already.--jeanne (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He'll return, I'm certain of it. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So am I. I miss him already. He's such a nice, decent person.--jeanne (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Solar eclipse

 * What do you think? Has the lightbulb grown dim? Is there a total eclipse of the sun? I believe Barack Obama is slowly losing the brilliant charisma he manifested during the election. He is now seen as worn, haggard and unsmiling. Michelle is completely ignored by the Italian media. I think she made a faux pas at the inauguration and subsequent Ball by dressing so badly, not to mention her painful gaucherie.--jeanne (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, his hair will be plenty grey & face haggard, in January 2013. Michelle is still sexy, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Gift ideas according to Roger Mortimer

 * I've heard it can be hard for men trying to buy gifts these days for their wives and girlfriends. Perfume is a worn-out cliche, flowers are a bit corny, whilst jewels can be quite expensive. I think medieval men had the right idea when they chose gifts for their wives. See what this knight in shining armour sent his Lady. I wonder what he gave her for Valentine's Day? As Bob Dylan says, Times they are a-changin--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One wonders how Roger Mortimer would have dealt with the British Isles dispute? I really wouldn't care to imagine his methods of enforcing his own POV.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never been married (too cheap), so there's never been a concern about getting a gal a gift on Valentine's Day. Hmm, body parts of your defeated opponent. Mortimer was such a romantic, eh? GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder what he gave Maud as Valentine's Day gift? Shudder. Romantic,ooooooh, yes. I've fallen in love with Mortimer despite the more than 7 centuries which separate us.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How do ya pronounce the name? Moore-timer or Moore-ta-mer. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The latter. In French it means dead sea.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah hah. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mort e mer, anglicised to Mortimer. What frolics on the BI talk page. Oh, I've added a bit more detail to my article on Lady Maud. Wanna guess who wore the sword in the Mortimer household?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing Maude. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, the method of medieval love. That must have been some party she threw. Andy Warhol and Keith Richards would have been dying to be on the guest list. Would you have fancied work as a DJ at a Mortimer victory party, GoodDay? Wonder what kind of music they'd like to hear? Richard Wagner or Marilyn Manson or maybe even the Beatles Helter Skelter?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing, one could loose one's head literally at that party. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The family executioner probably doubled as a bouncer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, a bad joke at that party, can be quickly hazzardous. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or wearing the wrong-coloured tabard. The Mortimers dress code was most likely strictly enforced and how!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Read Mortimer's epitaph here: Roger Mortimer, 1st Baron Wigmore--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He was no friend of the Welsh, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironically he had a Welsh mother: Gwladys Ddu. I wonder what our fellow editor Snowded thinks of Roger?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I reckon, he's not a fan. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In medieval days, nationalism and patriotism rarely had anyting to do with warfare and personal emnity. The squabbles were all about territory which translated into power. The Welsh Marchers possessed as much power in their demesnes as the English King did in his realm.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you had the land, you were the man. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or the woman as some were suo jure heiresses.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Will Mark Thatcher, inherit his mum's title? GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of that, actually, although I suppose he would, although Carol is his twin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesing: Mark Thatcher, 2nd Baronet and 2nd Baron of Thatcher or something like that. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, King Henry III and his son, Prince Edward should have never allowed Mortimer's men to mutilate the body of de Montfort, out of respect for the Henry's sister, Eleanor who was in point of fact, married to de Montfort. As the brother-in-law of the King, it was definitely lese-majesty for the retainers of Mortimer to desecrate his corpse in such a barbaric manner.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By the time of Monfort's demise, Henry III was quite a push-over. I'm guessing Edward was infavour of the mutilation. PS: In a different situation, Mortimer's grandson would be executed on order of Henry III's great-grandson. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After getting it on with Edward's daughter-in-law. It was Roger Mortimer not Braveheart who had intimate carnal relations with Isabella. Wow, Instant Karma at work in the 14th century! Oh, did you know the medieval word for-hmm- intercourse was rogering--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

British Isles & Ireland naming
Oh dear, I just joined the fracas at BI talk. Uh-oh, I see a battle-ax coming my way, look out, Jenny! It's Mortimer behind the visor!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's alot of editors out there (mostly Irish, I assume), who can't stand, the Republic of Ireland title. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like it. What's wrong with Ireland. Here, they say Italy, not Republic of Italy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's located on an island also called Ireland, but which it doesn't cover the whole of. Moreover, the term for the island is at least 1500 years old in English, whereas the state has only been called that since the 1930s. ðarkun coll 18:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's alot of political tension in the naming of the country. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm no longer overly concernd with what the Republic of Ireland is called on Wikipedia. Though, I used to support calling it Ireland (state). As for the article British Isles, I'm only anxious that the article title remains. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer Ireland as Republic of Ireland is too ponderous and modern for my tastes. I'm a monarchist, you know--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, the nameing of the three articles: Republic of Ireland, Ireland and Ireland (disambigous) will be settled shortly. Last I heard, a third Administrator has yet to be found, in helping solve things there. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I, for one, would not like that onerous task. Wouldn't wish to get caught in the crossfire.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've recommended Jimbo Wales for the task. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well all I can say to the person who charges into the ranks and dares brave the flailing axes and slashing swords is:Tally ho!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Costumes of the past

 * Yep, different clothing, different times. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

But the end result is, we all fade to grey.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Very true. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Love Godefrey's hat. Men's fashion has been so boring for the past 150 years. Actually Godefrey's garb would have been a la mode during the mid-1960s and later during the early 1970s glam rock era. Bowie could have pulled it off, ditto for Brian Jones.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A fellow would be laughed into seclusion today, if he wore that hat. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the past, Henry V is still seeking to re-start the Hundred Years War. See his comment on my talk page. I told him to leave the articles alone--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That fellow has become a single-purpose-editor. Going by his moniker, it's not surprising he favour the English side of the Treaty of Troyes being carried out. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also he's a terrible speller. English, can't be hist first language. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The fight on the BI talk page has heated up again, I courageously donned my suit of armour, charged into the ranks with a brave, war-like tally ho, but I think I shall desert the battlefield. My armour has lost it's sheen and the point of my saber needs sharpening. In short, I'm no Maud Mortimer! Someone is going to end up like Simon de Montfort, and I vow it shall not be moi!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That article is heading for Arbitration, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)