Johnny Martin

Spot on. If tedious bawbaggery was a bannable offence, then there'd be plenty in the line before Thorongil. As you say, it's not even handed at all. Hopefully admin reconsider this decision and bring Thorongil back.

A quick glance at today's posts confirm why this place is seen as a laughing stock by many.

You're very easily upset.

Eh? Not sure what you're trying to get at. I'm a member so I think I should know. He's not an Orangeman.

He is not and never has been a member of the Orange Order.

The longer time goes on, the more I'm convinced that the SNP are the dodgiest party ever known to man. Humza Yousaf will win this, mark my words. Wingsy exposing yet more underhand, rule breaking behaviour here https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1632445147383312386?s=20

Abuse, but you'll get away with it because you're SNP. Or maybe you'll be made to change your name again.

The new leader will be Angus Fibertson.

Your lack of knowledge, as well as inability to understand the points presented to you and use of foul, bitter and nasty language, have left me with no other option but to cease communications. Have a good day.

They've got nothing on him. Same as the whole Muller fiasco.

I've already stated that I don't see it as profiting when you take her unique circumstance into account, which you don't want to do. You either misunderstand what whataboutery actually is, or the motive behind my mentioning of inheritance. Anyway, agree to disagree? This is getting a bit nasty now. I don't want to end up in a slagging match.

What have I not acknowledged? I try to cover everything. I do see it as them as inheriting a country, but they then delegate power to Parliament and take a back seat. This is far more than inheriting mere national office or influence. It is indeed nearly 2023, and like I previously said, we now believe in tolerance rather than jealousy and bitterness. I ask you to take that on board, please. Whataboutery isn't something I engage in, and your KKK analogy is as weak as it is poor. Anyway, agree to disagree? (This time for real? )

Literal facts are fine. Problems arise when people like you reframe, twist and give their own take on the facts. The royals do inherit a country, and it's 2022.. not 1500. In 2022 we believe in tolerance; not bitterness and jealousy. Many on this board will indeed have been provided with all sorts of things because of who their parents are. There's no point in striving for every single person in life to start on a level playing field. It's impossible.

Yeah. That's all it is

That's not how I see it Ant. I don't see them as being elevated or profiting, but being born into unique positions where they serve their country for life. Many on this board will have benefited from inheritances from their parents. The difference with the Royals, is that they're getting a country.

Sorry, but she's clearly dodgy as f***.

I think they accept them because the social positions are their birthright. They also have a duty to fulfil the roles in question.

Sorry, but I just don't think it does. Agree to disagree?

Having higher social and/or political positions than others does not equate to having a sense of superiority or superior bloodlines. You're really scraping the barrel now.

Neither.

Me having an opinion on the situation doesn't mean I'm speaking for them. You said they think they have a superior bloodline, which implies a general superiority, like the way white or black supremacist racists go on, You then pointed to their position at the top of a hierarchical, hereditary system as proof of this, stating that they are 'socially superior' - a goalpost move if anything! It makes no sense. As for everyone else, chill out a bit eh?

I didn't speak for them at all. Being higher up a hereditary system does not equate to them being superior or having a superior bloodline. Your attempt to equate social superiority with these just doesn't hold up, and comes across as an attempt to move the goalposts.

I've already addressed the 'nobility question'. Do keep up.

I don't feel qualified to speak for them at all. There's just nothing to suggest that they consider themselves as being superior to others or having superior bloodlines to others. It just means they are higher up in the hierarchical system. To answer you - Having a higher social rank in a class system does not make one superior at all, nor does it mean they have a superior bloodline.

No, I'm not a hereditary aristocrat That definition backs up my stance. Zero about superiority, never mind superior bloodlines. The royals are just at the top of a hereditary system. Your claim that they consider themselves to have superior bloodlines to everyone else is just plain false.