Member Since Jul 15th, 2009
Are you callmemisskate? If So, Login Here.
May 4th 2011 8:40AM The British Constitution also forbids divorced persons or those married to a divorced person to succeed to the throne of England since the King/Queen is also the Head of the Church. That disqualifies Charles since both he and Camilla are divorced. However it seems that particular law is being totally ignored by the Royal Family and the irony is that Elizabeth only became Queen because her uncle had to abdicate to marry a divorced woman. The crown went to her father as second in line and then came to her. So yes I can see why people speculate that Charles would be skipped and the Crown go to William since by law Charles is not eligible to become King.
May 4th 2011 8:34AM This is more in reply to Bob and Kenneth. It is true that there is a line of succession that the Queen does not have any say over. However, this case is a little different. One of the Rules governing succession is that a Divorced man/woman cannot be KingQueen nor the Husband/wife of a divorced man/woman. This is because the Monarch in England is also Head of the Church Of England. That's why Elizabeth's Uncle had to give up his claim to the throne and how her Father became King. He married a divorced woman. So with both Charles and Camilla divorced, He does not qualify to become King. If he takes the throne it would be illegal and against the Rules of the Church and the Monarchy.
To Kenneth I want to add that the Queen mom never gave up the throne to Elizabeth. The Queen mum was Queen consort...meaning that she was married to the King but was not in line for the throne...It does not go to the spouse of the Monarch but to the first born son, if there isn't a son then to the eldest Daughter. Since they had only two daughters Elizabeth became Queen but the spouse of the Queen never becomes King (King is a higher title than Queen) but the wife of the King does become Queen consort.
Jul 9th 2010 1:27PM let me add if you want to revive this show and people's interest in it you've got to find someone to replace Peterson that has charisma and charm. Someone like Peterson that both men and women find likeable and want to watch. I'd suggest someone like Nestor Cambell or Esai Morales. Either of these would bring both charm, charisma, that toughness one would expect from a "leader" yet they also have a caring side to them and they have great sex appeal across the board without alienating male viewers because they are both low key. Also, they would add a new dimension to the cast. Then I would have a new CSI transfer in from another shift or even say from another show like Henry Simmons character on NYPD blues who became a CSI and now is transfering to the night shift and I would suggest the new character be played by Henry Simmons or someone very like him. Tall, atheletic handsome, manly yet again having appeal to a wide audience of both male and female viewers for different reasons. To move Catherine down well we couldnt demote her but she could move herself to day shift and take a csi position to spend more time with her daughter before she goes to college (end of the season) then move back to night shift after the new commander is in place (beginning of the next season) and take her place back as his 2nd in command voluntariarly around the second or third episode as she finds that she cannot work with Eckley any longer. Now we would have things back to the status quo and a likeable group that we had to being with that has vast appeal to many instead of a limited few. Also it gives us a very diverse cast to work with and many many scenerios come to mind of 'crimes" that this group could be involved with solving and new directions to go that are intersting and hold one's attention
Jul 9th 2010 1:10PM One has to wonder if Gary character was killed off because they were aware of his drug problem. Odd that right after it was filmed he was arrested for serious drug offenses. Also explains why we haven't seen him around.
As for the cast now. I rarely watch CSI any more. It's become a middle age man's work place sex fantasy. All the likelable nice looking guys are gone but George Eads. The cast consist of middle age men and young guys that we girls would always "just be friends with." As for "Catherine" she bothers me the most. This hinting that she's slept with pretty much every guy at work, flirted or has sex fantasies about them is demeaning to women. What it says is that the one woman that slept around is promoted to the top position ergo she becomes the sterotype woman that slept her way to the top. Which is apparently okay since she's portrayed as a nypho that's slept with everyone. That always bothered me about Grisson too as it was often hinted that he'd slept with just about every woman that crossed the screen in the show.
As for Lawrence Fishburn. He is the worst of the lot. Who is going to believe that a level one CSI that's only been on the job a few months is going to be sent on a case that involves intrastate criminals? Uhhh hello!!!!! Wouldn't you send your most experienced people for that? Not the new guy that can't even find a desk or has to be told he can't bring food into the lab? He just does not fit. It's just another "old guy" added to the cast that doesn't fit and brings nothing to the show.
I wont particularly miss "Wendy" either. She was just more eye candy for the sappy middle age man's fantasy.
With the exception of George Eads, and they rarely give him much screen time anymore, the entire show has become a bunch of old guys, middle age guys, and young geeks working with a bunch of super model women that tend to 'fall' for them or the female boss that's slept around with everyone and flirts with every guy in sight. So that scenerio pretty much appeals to the older male viewers but not to many others.
May 26th 2010 9:19PM THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!!! I am so glad that others see this bias and really what amounts to Rigging the entire contest. I'm really tired of it and like you this is my last season watching. ALthough by week 5 most of our group had enough or Nicole and Derek and just tuned out anyway. We had a group of several 1000 that watched each season together online in a chatroom. Last Season The vast majority of us were disgusted to see the judges gushing over Derek and Mya and the total unfairness of him being partnered with a Professional Dancer. Luckily enough voted that they did not win the finals then this season....TO turn on and see him once again partnered with a professional dancer was unreal. And what made it worse, no matter if any of the other couples did better in the one on one dances Derek and his partner were always awarded first place. For example in the swing contest, Erin and Maks were the best couple out there period. No one else even came close yet (SURPRISE) Derek and Nicole came first. For the last two season EVERY head to head dance Derek and his partner were given first place it did not matter what couple actually performed the best. It's bad enough to watch them gush, and to hand every mini competition to Derek and his partner but what really pisses me off is that they think the viewers are to stupid to see what they are doing and MY GOD IT's so blatant that even Stevie Wonder could see it. Derek and Mya did the same steps every week.EVERY WEEK no matter what dance they were suppose to do and what happens...HIGH SCORES....Derek and Nicole did whatever the heck they wanted and got high scores. THey broke holds, they did lifts, in one dance they didnt bother to do any of the actual steps the dance required but they got 10..tell me how to you get 10's in a dance competition when you don't even do the required steps? What made this even worse it was the same week that Erin was deducted points because she dropped her shoulder ONCE for a few seconds...WTF a beginner is held to a higher standard than a professional Dancer?????This was week after week after week. Erin/Maks, Anna/Evan actually danced better than Nicole most weeks, but the biased judges were gonna make sure that NIcole and Derek won. THey tried last season with Derek/Mya and failed. This season they took no chances double scoring on final results night and I really feel that they made sure to score Evan low enough to overcome his viewer votes to ensure that Nicole won. I don't trust ABC anymore this was so blantant a set up for Derek and Nicole to win....that basically it was rigged. IT was no victory they set it up to make sure she won it not be viewer votes but by the judges. And I really really doubt that she got enough viewer votes each week to stay on but they greased the wheel. Way to many people saw this for what it was. Our group went from a little over 2000, until the night of the swing dance there were a little over 500 of us left and after the swing dance I had enough and dropped out myself. We received an email shortly after that, that the group was down to less than 200 and so many were disgusted with what was going on with this season and pulling out that the owner shut down the room entirely. The final email we received last night was after last nights final he has decided not to open it again next season unless there is enough interest from the group. I will write and thank him for his years hosting for so many of us and as much as I will miss our gathering, I have no desire to watch DWTS ever again. They rigged the show to get the outcome they wanted, and I hope they enjoy it. I think it will cost them dearly it already has this season.
As for athletes an athlete isn't a professional dancer, athletes and actors are pretty even, athletes have agility true but actors have stage presence and acting ability so both of them bring something to the show but neither of those things equate to a professional dancer being brought in and passed of (or attemtped to be passed off as a beginner.
Dec 11th 2009 4:50PM First: Not sure where all these posts about her uterus being the medical problem came from. She had gallstones and the pain from that caused teh contractions. Thats why she was airlifted to the hospital. That is the underlying cause of the premature birth. IT could happen to anyone during any pregnancy.
Having said that. I am not a fan of the Duggar family. I do not think it shows a healthy happy lifestyle. Those kids are not normal. As far as parents, The "parents" only parent the two youngest at the time the rest of the kids are raised by the older siblings. So basically they have about one year with mom, one with dad, then they are past off to the older sibling to be raised. I feel for those kids they have spent almost their entire lives being "parents" to their younger brothers and sisters. And the "school" they school themsleves on the computer while the younger ones run around them being a distraction and there's no "parent" there who stops it. So even when "in school" they are having to parent their younger siblings. The youngest school age ones get time with michelle but again its not without other kids running screaming all around them. How can they focus or concentrate? I notice Josh did not go to college and I do wonder if that is because he simply did not have the educational background to get into college or because his parents had him so brainwashed that he fears getting in the real world and interacting? It does surpise me since both the Duggars had normal childhoods and went to college had friends and a normal social life. Are they afraid that their kids cant resist temptation if they are in the real world?
Sorry I just do not see a well adjust family there. Sweet kids that deserve a normal life with real friends and relationships yes, kids that should be kids and not minature parents responsible for raising that ton of kids their parents had. I don't see the Duggars as rolemodel either because they do not show a happy well adjusted family that also has the life skills to live and handle the real world.
Also, the Duggars are hypocrites. It their early shows Michelle said they didnt even own a tv. Didn't believe in it. Yet they are on TV themselves? What does that tell you? Christian principles are that your beliefs go beyond yourself you are not to be a stumbling block for others. So if you belive that tv is not a good thing and didnt have one for yourself or your family its wrong to be ON TV encourageing others to watch. They have changed their stance on that and now they do have a tv, but she says they monitor what the children are allowed to watch. One has to wonder if their principles would have changed if they were not on tv themselves.
Finally, and for me the biggest point..it's not about how many children the parents can raise. A person having all the children they can raise is fine..but Michele and JimBob are not raising all these children. Really open you eyes and watch..the older children are raising the younger children they are the parents. So, yes its past time for them to stop, they should have stopped when they realized they were no longer able to manage being the parent to all their kids and began pawning off the duties of parent to their older children. Then is the time to stop because you already have more kids than you can be parents to if you have to pawn them off on other to care for and to raise.
Jul 15th 2009 8:31AM children can wander off in a moment. No matter how diligent you are or what a great parent you are no one can watch a child 24/7 and it doesn only take a second. My understanding is this happened in the monring which is the time most children do wander off morning and late evening.
As for the ads on here..instead of adding to the problem by posting messages about the ads, try two things.
1) report them to AOL as spam on the boards
2) Contact the FTC and report them and their company as advertising on the boards without paying an advertising fee.