blonde poker forum

.....Her Majesty The Queen.




https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/11/infographic-bill-gates-most-admired-world/



(http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/06/03_queen_r_w.jpg)


 

The most admired person in the world?


(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02012/Bill-Gates_2012907b.jpg)

A loveless woman who chose duty over her children, married to an unfaithful bigot, mother of charles - an inbred (related to queen victoria through mummy and daddy) religious crackpot who meddles in political affairs and andrew a freeloading arrogant confidant of paedos.

Still we cant blame charles as he was raised by palace staff and barely knew his mummy's touch as she felt world tours and duty to be more important than showing her son love.

A woman credited with preserving the monarchy yet whose brood's completely ham-fisted attempts at moral living brought it into the worst public standing imaginable.

Who can blame them, with dear old betty as an absent mother, and an adulterous bigot as a father they had every disadvantage in life.

Still good to know we keep her in the financial and material comfort 99% of people can only dream of.

Food banks and double dip recession? Tally ho, innit.

Dispicable woman.

Makes you despair at humanity looking at some of the names on that list.

Putin in third apparently, as the most admired person on the planet? Really? Was that a restricted vote in Russia or something? The list appears to be the most recognisable/well-known people in the world, rather than admired.

It's given me an idea though...

Whatever your views on royalty (I don't really care either way), I struggle to see anything that justifies this level of hatred.

I hate what she stands for, and I do believe her to be an odious person, an awful mother and someone with a totally warped sense of morality and entiltlement.

She aint no friend of mine.

I'm sure she's gutted about that. 

You've met her I take it? 

Im sure she cares not a jot.

Ive never met her, no.

Should I admire her by default until I have met her?

Not necessarily but you seem quite to have quite a personal dislike for her.

Surely it's OK to dislike people you've never actually met?  Harold Shipman wouldn't be on my xmas card list (possibly because I don't have one, and he's dead, but you get the point) - but I never met the man. I dislike Lance Armstrong, but that's based on what I've read about him and seen on TV and other videos. 

Sounds like a lot of 'normal' families to me.

Thats no mere appearance, graham



Btw  deliberate, tikay?

In George Bedi style - here's some spam:

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=64896.0

Send it your choices as to the people you admire the most :)up

;tightend;

Ha!

I had to look at that 4 times before I got your drift.

I happen to be a great admirer of Her Majesty, The Queen, as it happens.

Knowing you (virtually) quite well from Next Door, & your usual non-confrontational, friendly & helpful demeanour, I'm really quite taken aback by what, reading between the lines, appears to be a degree of dislike for Her Wonderfulness.

Just shows how some topics - nearly said subjects which might have got "Pun of the Week"  - can be so revealing.

On a brighter note, you may well have found 2 new friends, in Camel & KMac. I'm not entirely sure, but I have a hunch they may be in your camp on this one.  

There are a few topics / people that just plain grind my gears.

Madge happens to be one of them.

Billy Graham's on the list.

 ;frustrated;

"Madge"?

MADGE?

Please.

Her Majesty, at the very minimum.

She could have your head chopped off for that, you know. Luckily for you, she's so nice that she rarely uses that power.

You do know she owns us, right?

<3 this post. 

Haha, the mother in law insists that we watch the speech on chistmas day.

I think its so she can enjoy watching me squirm in my seat.

She cooks a mean roast though.

Sometimes you just got to sell-out...

I told her she had Sky+ andshould have recorded it and that old bastard wasn't appearing on my telly.  [ ] popular.

Hmmmm.

Of course it's OK to dislike people you've never met and obvious killers, paedos, cheats etc are good examples of this.  Although I'm no follower of the Royals, I think the hatred towards them is quite often rather harsh.

Can see why it may seem harsh, and of course hyperbole and rhetorical force make points more engaging so although I most definately hate the monarchy my actual feelings towards them as people ranges from pity to fervant dislike to complete indifference. (Charles, madge and edward respectivley).

People's love of the monarchy and like of the royals as people perplexes me just as much and in much the same way I would guess.

Think its sad that we are so servile as to grant this family a smidgeon more respect than they deserve, yet alone deference.

The methodology shows that the question before - who do you admire? - was, who is the most famous person in the world? I think this probably had an effect on the outcome.

Also the sample size of nearly 14,000 seems impressive enough - but in the world wide list to get in the top 30 it shows you only needed 50 votes. So for the national tables the lower end might have only needed a handful.

It's still a bit of a weird order, makes you wonder about their other survey results.

Wow!! Seriously? 14000 people's opinions is all it takes to be considered admired worldwide??

Absolute mockery of a survey obviously.

Is Pink really one of the ten most admired people in Australia?

Good to see Bruce Lee getting a mention though.

Simialrly, I whatever you views on Royalty I struggle to see how anyone can admire the woman.

I admire the Queen, and to some extent all of the Royal Family, greatly

To admit so on here (which must be a very unusal place for a collection of British people in being quite anti-royal. Perhaps supporters just keep their traps shut) sometimes seems to open you up to ridicule and occasionally abuse though

Probably the most uneducated and ill-informed post I've read on this forum.

Geo

Probably the 2nd most uneducated and ill-informed post I've read on this forum.

Geo

<3 this post.

OK, I'll bite. 

Why do people admire the Queen?

Because she married a Greek ;)

Yes, I can see why that would show commendable courage, bravery and self-sacrifice in some circumstances.

:)

Apart from being born and living until she's old, what has she done to warrant admiration?

You can admire and support the idea of the monarchy, but to admire that woman when she is only in her position by accident of birth is perverse.

I suppose for me, a lot of it is about what she hasn't done.

I don't particularly, but I think it's a massive stretch to call her despicable.

Which is?

If she's done anything that warrants people to think of her as despicable - then fair enough (not sure what those things are, except for producing Charles and bringing him up to be the loon he is).  It's the other side I don't see any evidence for though either.  Why the admiration?

Exactly my point Kin.

Your missus deserves a bloody medal.

I don't particularly admire the Royal family but I'm happy enough with them, I just don't hate them with a passion.

Personally, I think she gets short shrift. Yes, she is born in to her title etc, however we can't fault her for that. No point asking "who would turn down the opportunity" as the haters will spout that they wouldn't accept the title etc, etc. However unless you have been in that position yuou'd never know.

My admiration is what she has done with that honourable postion. Whilst she potentially does have a veto on all things political, she leaves the politicians to get on with it and I don't think it has been evidenced that she has.

Whilst others see it as "A Jolly" when she visits other countries, this is, in effect, her occupation for want of a better phrase. Her visits are no different than trade delegates from countries or businesses encouraging trade with the UK. In itself that's quite a task as we as a Country manufacture very little these days.

This bit A loveless woman who chose duty over her children, is simply incorrect and one of the biggest pieces of nonsense I've read. She has always had a great interest in all her family.

Are we saying that any mother who chooses to send their kids to boarding schools and the like are loveless women.

I certainly wouldn't put the Royals on the top of my list in the admiration stakes, I do however understand and respect their position. If they abuse that position and it is proved then I lose any respect I had for them.

And yes, I have met most off the Royal family and have actually spent a whole day with Her Majesty and Charles in the hills at Balmoral and can assure the doubters there is a strong mother/son bond.

Of them all I most admire Anne, I have sat in her company on many ocassions and rarely will you find a better conversationalist.

Geo

I think to some people its an anachronism that a system that of inherited privilege and power should have retained its popularity.

consistently polls have shown support for a republic to be running less than 20% across the UK

perhaps respect is a better word than admire in this case

whilst of course the hereditary aspect of it is difficult to defend per se I think she's a terrific ambassador for the UK, has fulfilled her duty for over 60 years home and abroad through enormous social, demographic and economic change and through it all gives Britain a long-held standing in the world.

During the jubilee two years ago, a massive success, towns went nuts for the Queen. Thousands lined the streets, hung out of windows, climbed lamp-posts to catch a glimpse of their monarch.

if you were looking at the comments section of a national newspapaer of the bbc when these issues come up you'd be in receipt of heavy flak for espousing republican type sentiments. Here the reverse can be true, very interesting

Possibly because poker players are more intelligent on average than a cross section of the general public.

come now Keith, what utter poppycock

Some of course, but the generalisation is barmy. Just look at any card-room, across any poker table. Patently not true

Almost certainly you are correct.... but it's also likely that the least intelligent poker players, are the most fervent anti-royalists.

I would back a random regular poker player to a have higher IQ than a random member of the general public at Even money for as much as you'd lay.

For a winning poker player against a random member of the public I'd have double that.

The second assertion yes, can go with that. of course the vast majority of poker players are losers though, so you are talking about a small sub-section, not the broader pool you refer to in the first statement

far from certain that the first comment applies, unprovable either way of course!

The absence of his mother and father in charles life is a matter of public record, as his resentment of his fathers somewhat cruel indifference to his son.

Where was madge when her 13 month old son was taking his first steps? On a 4month jaunt to malta with her adulterous husband. These absences where a frequent part of charles' life as a little boy BEFORE he was shipped off to a boarding school where he was rather systematically bullied .

A mother in genetics only.

Cold, absesnt loveless.

Its a matter of public record. Charles was raised by palace staff

You can fimd evidence of this quite easily:

Quick google search

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/flawed-family-this-week-the-prince-of-wales-disclosed-still-powerful-resentments-against-his-mother-and-father-but-they-also-suffered-in-their-early-years-fiammetta-rocco-delves-into-the-royal-childhoods-that-went-wrong-1443791.html

Apparently it's true that the Australians really do have a thing going on with Pink:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/08/pink-australia-truth-about-love

Haha gtf. 

What is uneducated about the first post? 

I don't have any strong views on the queen as a person since I have never met her and don't know too much about her. She does seem rather cold and staid to me. But maybe in private she is a warm, loving mum and a fantastic conversationalist. I kinda doubt it, but whatever.

However, I do have strong views on the institution of monarchy. I think it is a load of old bollocks and should be got rid of immediately. It is an anachronistic throwback to the days when certain groups of people were considered better and more deserving than others purely due to their birth. It symbolises entrenched privilege, entitlement and social stasis, and thus has no place in a modern, forward thinking and egalitarian society

If I was to meet the queen I would be expected to bow. Bow! Really? Think about that for a moment, and realise what a load of bullshit that is. It suggests that she is my better, that I should show her more respect than if I was to meet a 'normal' person. She is not my better. And she is not your better either. I ain't bowing to no-one.

do you admire David Beckham? Mo Farah? Anybody ever?

I have never been a tourist to the royal palaces, follow them in the news or particularly care about the royal family.

However it must be the most awful job to have and certainly wouldn't want it. 

I think the monarchy is fine and I hope it never goes. I'm not naive tho and realise that some members have done terrible things.  The institution makes money for the UK which is a good enough reason for me.

Hope that William is King tho and Charles steps aside. Also think that the national anthem should change to Land of Hope and Glory.

If they ever started being proactive in the political affairs then I'd be less supportive.

You mean like the unelected, un-democratic, hereditary peers in the House of Lords?  Part of the same system, no?

Yeah  I'd like to see that system be disbanded ASAP.

they are proactive in political affairs.

the queen is afforded a regular and frequent audience with 'her' prime minister.

charles managed to gag the press and prevent them from printing the furious and numerous letters he writes to politicians of all parties -in which he often admonishes them for their policies.

just wait till the bonny prince becomes king [and he will not give up his chance to rule]. he sees himself as a defender of faiths and will integrate that into his public life. he will no longer have to write his little missives as he will be granted an audience with 'his' prime minister. officially he will sign-off all policy and like his mother will get first dibs on planned policy from the incumbent party / parties.

power to the people, innit.

Yes, I admire both of those two guys.

They are talented, extremely hard working and excellent role models for children. I'd struggle to find two guys in England I admire more.

Why?

they are both elite athletes by the perverse reason of their genetics.

LOL, that is a very silly argument.

Sir Jonathan Peter Wilkinson.

I would have thought Thatcher would have been a shoe in for the list tbh.....

Beckham is certainly not an elite 'athlete' by his genetics.  That's just a stupid thing to say.  His natural talent/natural athletic ability is tiny in comparison to most footballers.  He is a classic example (alongside Gary Neville/Paula Radcliffe amongst other elite level UK sports people) of getting to the top through hard work and graft and nothing else.  In Beckham's case his carefully crafted image off the field has had a lot more to do with it on top of the hard work put in.

and i think a person to be admired.

humble roots, dedicated to excellence and making the absolute best of himself. noted for staying back after training and practicing hitting a ball over and over on his own, he wasnt gifted anything he worked for his success. and he does an incredible amount of work for charity and ambassadorial work for football and his country.

people say is over-rated, and that without his looks and lifestyle people wouldnt have held him in such high-regard. utter poppycock, if anything his looks and lifestyle overshadowed his ability. he is regarded by his peers on the continent as possessing a technique and footballing brain to be jealous of, and is seen as far exceeding his fellow english players in that regard. he ran games for united from the right wing, and they had keane and scholes in the middle.

and he is sooo dreamy, innit.

relative to the population, it's his genetics. which is obv the only thing worth comparing against.

the point is that the queen also works hard and does a very strange and difficult job rather well imo. yet people say 'well she's only there because of birth'....yeah, well so is Beckham by the same argument -  which obviously isn't true.

I agree with your post 100% until the bolded bit.   Think you are getting a little carried away at this point.  Think you are describing Scholes in the last paragraph.

I'm one of Paula Radcliffe's biggest fans, and the work and commitment she has put in its incredible. But to say she has no natural talent is inaccurate. She was an outstanding runner before she was a teenager. She's a gifted athlete. I agree that she's made the most of her talent and she's also had to overcome obstacles, including exercise-induced asthma.

She's definitely made the most of the good hand she was dealt.

its not just my opinion but that of his real madrid's teammates, his england team-mates, united teamates etc etc. infact i have not seen any of his peers describe his technque / abilty using anything other than superlative praise.

scholes himself recently waxed lyrical about beckhams technique:

"When you play football at the highest level for long enough, at close quarters with the best players day in, day out, you notice the small but significant differences in style and technique. You could compare kicking a football to a golf swing. Those footballers who really know how to address the ball have the full repertoire. They can whip a football with bend on it or hit a straight ping with no deviation either way. They don’t need three attempts to get it right, either.

David Beckham was the best I ever saw, the most natural striker of a ball I played with"


you arent born with that technique. it is honed over many years of dedication. theres nothing innate, you dont get success in sport handed to you by virtue of entering the world out of a particular vagina. its a strict and often unsentimental meritocarcy

I was at lboro uni the same years as she was and her dedication to training was incredible.  She somehow managed to get a first as well in her degree.  She clearly has a level of natural talent but nowhere near enough to get to where she has without literally 100% maxing every ounce of that talent.  There must have been hundreds of runners as talented as her/more talented as a teenager but the work ethic gets them to the very top.  I find it amazing how elite athletes find the motivation to stay so far ahead of the game for 20 odd years day in day out. 

Perhaps that work ethic, strength of mind, dedication and determination are also genetic traits, i.e, an accident of birth?

The old nature/nurture debate

A combination of nature and nurture are definitely part of that dedication and determination.  There are those with a natural talent who squander it for whatever reason.  There are those who have everything 'gifted' to them and for some reason have a self-destruct button that means they don't achieve what they were capable of.

For any successful sportsperson, it's a combination of natural sporting/athletic talent and dedication and determination to make the most of it.  I remember watching a video I had in the late 80s of Michael Jordan, who was obviously a phenomenal talent.  It was talking about him being cut from his school basketball team one year, going away for months to train hard to get his place in the side.  They also mentioned that he grew 4-inches during that time period!  The question is would he have made the grade if only one of these things had happened? 

She's probably the greatest British athlete of all time, and without doubt she's earned that through her hard work.

Nail head

spot on.

Not sure greatest British athlete of all time.  Think that is taking it a little too far.  I would def agree the greatest British long distance athlete.

Middle England towns and villages in monarchy supporting shocker.

Definitely long-distance, struggling to think of other candidates who are challenging for best British athlete of all time. Who would you suggest?

Lots of people who achieved great things without the financial support of 'elite athlete' money's
Eric Liddell
Harold Abrahams
Roger Bannister
David Bedford
Mary Peters
David Hemery
Daley Thompson
Brendan Foster
Steve Ovett


at least three of those have better claims than Paula Radcliffe

You could easily consider Mary Rand, Jonathan Edwards & Seb Coe, too.

It's hard - impossible really - to compare different sports & different eras, but to suggest Paula is the best ever is recency bias.

Coe's world record 800 metres stood for nearly 20 years. Edwards WR was set 18 years ago & has yet to be beaten. Rand won Olympic Medals at three different disciplines.

Have to agree with this.  Coe is right up there for me in the all time UK greats.  No one got close to Edwards' WR and you know he is 1000/1 to have been a drug cheat because of his religious beliefs so that record is 100% clean.  Until i had a look at her record i had no idea she has never won an Olympic medal of any colour.  It's impossible to rank her near the all time UK greats even though she is the WR holder for the marathon.

I would go as far to say that Coe and Steve Backley put Paula only 3rd all time on the greatest ever Loughborugh University athletes thinking about it more.  Backley won 4 European Championships in a row in 12 years when winning the Euros was effectively the same as winning the Worlds/Olympics in his event in that era.  He also had 2 Olympic silvers and a bronze in the same period as well as being the WR holder in the toughest era ever for Javelin throwing.  If Backley (2nd greatest of all time hadn't run into the greatest of all time Jan Zelezny in the same era) then you would be talking about a UK athlete who literally dominated his event for 12 years straight and won virtually every gold medal available in that period.  I don't think Backley gets anywhere near the credit he deserves because his event was a field event.

Daley Thompson and Linford Christie would also definitetly be ahead of Paula imo and they are just athletes from my lifetime.  I haven't considered anyone pre 1984.  Steve Ovett, Colin Jackson, Mo Farah and Sally Gunnell would also be up for debate but probably on a par with Paula.

At one point Paula Radcliffe had the world record or world best time (where there wasn't an officially sanctioned world record) for every distance on the road from 8K up to the marathon (and still holds most of them now).  A phenomenal record.  Also, her marathon record isn't close to being beaten currently.  I think it's the opposite of 'recency bias' that means she isn't considered to the greatest British athlete by many.  That and her record in the Olympics, especially on the track.

Some of the names you mentioned are in her bracket, but others fall way short.  Linford Christie didn't dominate the sprints in the same way Paula has dominated the long-distance road races.  Christie's doping incidences also cross him off being a 'great' in my book.  Backley was very good, but as you've pointed out, wasn't the best in his field (pun intended) when he was competing - never mind all-time.

Edwards was outstanding in the triple jump, and his world record is an exceptional one as well.  Thankfully, he's also seen sense in terms of religion as well - seeing the light (or the dark), so to speak.  There's an argument for putting him up near the very top.  Coe and Thompson need to be thrown into the argument as well. 

It's a good debate though.

I agree with this. I also probably have her as the greatest, or at least top 3, and when she was at her peak, she dominated like no other athlete I've seen and everyone talked about her in those terms. It's unfortunate that her one blip came at the Olympics, had she won a gold medal there, I think there would be no debate.

At one stage she was almost as fast as the fastest men of the time.

No but the Chinese like Putin, and that is a majority already.

Good to see that Bill Gates is in the top 10 of almost all the big countries.

And for Germany:

7. Vladmir Putin

If Charles had been a Tudor prince he’d already have been dispensed with, says grace dent http://ind.pn/1Ak3Vfj 

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B83CZ69CEAEKxVD.png)

I don't think Radcliffe quite gets there. Seven London/New York/Chicago Marathon wins and six World Championships of various types is incredible, but there's the blot of no Olympic medals, so some of those mentioned must rank higher than her. But surely Farah has moved ahead of all the others now, excellent as they were. His Olympic and World Championships would be enough, but he has done plenty more than that - the most successful athlete from any country in the history of the European Championships, for example.

And he beat the cube...

But that's ignoring her achievements on the road and at cross-country. Farah is fantastic, but he benefitted from Bekele being injured and others not being quite up to the standard. He's also flopped at the marathon so far, and on the road in general, so does that discount him from being the greatest? Paula produced world best times across a whole range of distances. Had Farah done that? Does winning a particular championship that happens at a certain time every four years constitute the mark of greatness? If so, then Farah would be ahead in the greatness stakes.

Does Messi and Rolando never having particularly brilliant world cups mean they can never be considered the best footballers? I know football's a team game ago it's different, but I've often heard that a player can't truly be a great until they've shone at the top stage - the world cup. But surely that's nonsense? I'm sure Best, Giggs, Dalglish and others would disagree.

The World Cup, for footballers, and the Olympics for athletes, are two completely different things.
A footballer can be exceptional, and never play in the World Cup (George Best), or never have a realistic chance of winning it (George Weah, or maybe even Ronaldo). Obviously, as a largely individual sport, Athletics/The Olympics, means that you are not reliant on the relative strength of your team mates.

I don't think anyone is denying that Paula Radcliffe has been a great athlete, but it's a stretch, given her poor record at World Championships/Olympics, to put her as the best ever British athlete.
I would certainly have Farah, Coe and Thompson above her.

Farah has recorded sub 3:30 for the 1500m, sub 13min for 5000m and sub 27min for 10,000m. Of all the great athletes over the years, not one of them has ever achieved all three of those before.

What about athletes whose events aren't at the Olympics?  They can never be great athletes?

Yes, all fantastic times. None of them world best/records though?  I too think he's one of the best British athletes of all time, but I just don't think he's as great as Paula. Her dominance in road racing was absolute. The 'blot' on her greatness being her track record, well Mo has the bot on his greatness being his road record.  Maybe time will help Mo and he'll go on to excel on the road as well.  But he hasn't done what Gebrselassie or Bekele managed on the road when they made the transition. Of course, this doesn't stop him being a great on the track.

Lord Coe, who probably knows a bit about athletics, is in the Mo camp.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/athletics/mo-farah-become-britains-greatest-2172972


Brendan Foster seems to think the same.



On 10 August 2013, Farah held off a run by Ibrahim Jeilan to win the 10,000 m event at the World Championships in Moscow. The victory was his fourth global title. On 16 August 2013, Farah won the 5,000 m event, in the process becoming double world and Olympic champion. After this victory, BBC commentator Brendan Foster and Sebastian Coe called Farah 'Britain's greatest ever athlete'

I think the Camel covered this a while ago on a sports thread, but if Seb Coe isn't a former drugs cheat, I'll eat my keyboard.

about as likely as edwards being a cheat imo

Would be gutted if that was the case, but must be likely some successful Brits from that era were less than clean.

Highly doubtful that anyone who has made it to the top of their sport in the last 30 year wasn't on some type of performance enhancer. 

Wouldn't be right to point the javelin at anyone in particular.

If you study his career you'll see it's more than a little likely unfortunately.

I find it hard to believe this of Coe given his very high profile and establishment leanings. Surely the 'story' would have had a wider airing than a few sideways digs on the Internet by now.

Maybe his profile and establishment leanings would help ensure it's kept quiet (if there's anything to keep quiet)?