Prince William officially engaged

[pam]

Finally!!

Prince William gives Diana's ring to fiancee Kate Middleton - CNN.com

[Just_A_Guy]

I can see using a ring that belonged to Diana. But given how that marriage turned out, one would think superstition would keep Prince William from using her engagement ring for his own fiancee.

[Maureen]

Yes, finally! Although when I heard he gave his mother's engagement ring to Ms. Middleton, I felt a little uncomfortable. It might seem superstitious, but I hope the ring brings them good luck and not doom.

M.

[Maureen]

I can see using a ring that belonged to Diana. But given how that marriage turned out, one would think superstition would keep Prince William from using her engagement ring for his own fiancee.

Great minds! :)

M.

[Bini]

I've lost touch with the latest gossip/news relevant to the UK. Wow. I always thought Harry was the better looking out of the two brothers but William has certainly become more handsome with age! The ring is not my style but like I'd argue if it were given to me from a Prince..

[pam]

I am opposite. I always thought William was the better looking but Harry has gotten much better looking with age. :)

[PrincessMe]

In all honesty I didn't even think that it could be considered a bad omen until people started saying it. I just figured it was more a sign of how special she was more than a foreshadowing.

I agree with Bini. Not a fan of the ring.

[Elphaba]

It didn't occur to me the ring might be a foreboding symbol, though I can understand why people might think that. I just thought it was a lovely gesture in that he did it to include his mother in his happiness.

Elphaba

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

One more reason to thank our Founding Fathers for giving these bums the heave-ho. Now if we could just do the same for Brangelina.

[Maureen]

One more reason to thank our Founding Fathers for giving these bums the heave-ho....

But Captain, have you not noticed that these particular "Royal" bums are alive and kicking while the Founding Fathers are not?

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

George III lives?

[Dravin]

George III lives?

Apparently ticking off the colonials is good for your health... really good.

[Maureen]

George III lives?

I'm talking about the 21st century royals. The FF's may have given their ex-royals the heave ho but their progeny is alive and kicking. And they even get invited to visit.

M.

[FunkyTown]

But Captain, have you not noticed that these particular "Royal" bums are alive and kicking while the Founding Fathers are not?

M.

Touche!

She makes a good point, Captain: If the founding fathers are so smart, why are 100% of them dead?

Don't go in to politics: You'll end up dead.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, 100% of all living royals are not dead, either. That's statistically significant! 100% is all of them! Ask Moe - 100% definitely is all of them.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm talking about the 21st century royals. The FF's may have given their ex-royals the heave ho but their progeny is alive and kicking. And they even get invited to visit.

M.

Our FF's progeny are also alive too. We call them "congresscritters".

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

But Captain, have you not noticed that these particular "Royal" bums are alive and kicking while the Founding Fathers are not?

M.

So is Mark Hoffman and I don't want to hear anything about him either.

[Maureen]

Our FF's progeny are also alive too. We call them "congresscritters".

I don't even know how to say that word, it's not easy. :)

M.

[Maureen]

So is Mark Hoffman and I don't want to hear anything about him either.

Really? People like Mark Hofmann are kind of fascinating, IMO.

M.

[MarginOfError]

Touche!

She makes a good point, Captain: If the founding fathers are so smart, why are 100% of them dead?

Don't go in to politics: You'll end up dead.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, 100% of all living royals are not dead, either. That's statistically significant! 100% is all of them! Ask Moe - 100% definitely is all of them.

Actually, it isn't statistically significant because when a proportion is either 0 or 1, the corresponding variance is undefined. Which means the two groups are incomparable. Kind of like Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris--you'd think you could compare them, but there's really just no way to compare Chuck Norris to anyone/thing.

[Dravin]

Actually, it isn't statistically significant because when a proportion is either 0 or 1, the corresponding variance is undefined. Which means the two groups are incomparable. Kind of like Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris--you'd think you could compare them, but there's really just no way to compare Chuck Norris to anyone/thing.

Not quite true. The fury and power of Chuck Norris can be compared to a Category 5 Hurricane. Though it is an understatement and admittedly poetic instead of literal in nature. Has anyone measured the amount of energy in one of Churck Norris' round-house kicks? Do numbers even go up that high?

[Wingnut]

Actually, it isn't statistically significant because when a proportion is either 0 or 1, the corresponding variance is undefined. Which means the two groups are incomparable. Kind of like Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris--you'd think you could compare them, but there's really just no way to compare Chuck Norris to anyone/thing.

Au contraire.

[FunkyTown]

Actually, it isn't statistically significant because when a proportion is either 0 or 1, the corresponding variance is undefined. Which means the two groups are incomparable. Kind of like Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris--you'd think you could compare them, but there's really just no way to compare Chuck Norris to anyone/thing.

HEY! I believe my post specifically said to ask if 100% is all of them.

And I stand by that.