pam Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 Finally!!Prince William gives Diana's ring to fiancee Kate Middleton - CNN.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bini Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 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.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted November 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2010 I am opposite. I always thought William was the better looking but Harry has gotten much better looking with age. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMe Posted November 18, 2010 Report Share Posted November 18, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elphaba Posted November 18, 2010 Report Share Posted November 18, 2010 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Curmudgeon Posted November 18, 2010 Report Share Posted November 18, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 George III lives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 George III lives?Apparently ticking off the colonials is good for your health... really good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 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". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Curmudgeon Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.