michelle obama doesn't even know when to touch the queen- Page 2

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 4/2/09 at 3:17pm

Do you have something against the AP?

[Scripps2]

Posted: 4/2/09 at 3:22pm

Since I don't know what AP stands for (in this particular circumstance) the answer is definitely "No".



Updated On: 4/2/09 at 03:22 PM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 4/2/09 at 4:05pm

The Associated Press.

They are the people that put out major news stories and aren't just some blog, like AF's Posts.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 4/2/09 at 4:30pm

The article you have posted a link to strongly reinforces my initial post.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 4/2/09 at 5:16pm

Which tells me you'd rather listen to a blogger than a real journalist.

Fine, that's your choice.

[nmartin]

Posted: 4/2/09 at 6:11pm

This may be a non-story; however, if Michelle Obama had gone for a quick snuggle with The Princess Royal, it would have been a WWF Smackdown.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/2/09 at 8:58pm

Is it still within protocol limits to give Angela Merkel an unwanted neck rub?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 4/2/09 at 9:50pm

I really don't mean this unkindly, but Michelle could do way better than Princess Anne.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 4/2/09 at 10:26pm

"Fly girl better get her hands off me," Elizabeth said through gritted teeth.

[shameless]

Posted: 4/3/09 at 9:14am

Was that before or after she patted her ass?

Oh, according to World News Tonight, Michelle Obama is a huge hit in the UK.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 4/3/09 at 9:27am

"Now, your majesty, don't be frightened. Just show us on this doll where the first lady touched you . . ."

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/3/09 at 9:43am

Will the First Lady and Her Majesty be joining the touring company of Rent as Joanne and Maureen? Come on, you know you want to see their take on Take Me Or Leave Me.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 4/4/09 at 8:06am

Theatrediva90016: Are we talking at cross purposes here or are you misunderstanding things?

Assuming the latter, I shall spell out in plain and simple terms, repeating myself where necessary (and if that sounds patronising and condescending that is entirely deliberate on my part) why your posts do not make rational, logical, reasoned or chronological sense:


PiraguaGuy2's post of 10:15am on 4/2/09 is linked to The Huffington Post website not the Daily Mail website. Although the Huffington Post website quotes the Daily Mail it also quotes Time magazine and therefore does not go "right to the story which isn't on the Huffington post" as you suggest in your post of 2:55pm.

(Reginald Tresillian's post of 10:35am does include a link to the Daily Mail website but nowhere have I commented on that particular article which deals with a different, though related, subject.)

Thus your post of 2:55pm is without foundation, as is part of papalovesmambos post of 2:40pm.


The incidents I refer to in my post of 2:35pm were known to me from news articles at the time they happened 17 years ago and not from any blog.

Thus your post of 3:17pm is nonsensical and your post of 5:16pm is also without foundation.

The irony here is that our personal perspectives on this subject are probably in agreement but you seem to be too dense to realise that!

I shall not respond to you again on this matter unless you actually post something well reasoned and intelligent: I have better things to do with my time than egowank someone whose posts currently show ever increasing incomprehension.



Updated On: 4/4/09 at 08:06 AM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 4/4/09 at 12:37pm

That's "plain and simple"?

All I did was post an article from the Associated Press. You seemed to think (from what I read) that an article on a blog holds more weight than onw written by an actual a professional at his job.

Why are you jumping all over me? Do you ALWAYS have to be right? You get you news from where ever you want, and I'll get mine from real reporters.