Duchess of Cambridge given brith

Perhaps my interpretation of such research is different to yours? Does not make me mis or under-informed.

I don't see a great deal of room for interpretation here. Time and again I have seen anti-monarchists in my life, on Twitter, in interviews etc. begin with the position that one reason to dispose of the Crown is that it is expensive for us, only to fall flat on their face when confronted with the unquestionable, unmovable facts of the situation. The monarchy makes us money, period. I'd be interested to know what leads you to believe otherwise, perhaps on my wall if it is unsuitable here.

The financials form a minor point in my overall negative view of the monarchy. Certainly not worth getting into an argument about. You'll note that I didnt begin my position on the monarchy with mention of a financial point.

No, indeed. The bile you spouted was 'All hail our new unelected benefit scrounging overlord'. This isn't relevant really, it simply flows better in this word order than any alternative, but I was confronting what I see as the objectively incorrect assertion in there, where the other main one is subjective as far as it is good or bad.

As I said; feel free to continue confronting whatever you wish. It's not something I'm going to enter into argument about.

The avatar didn't lend me towards the belief that any rational discussion of the merits of our opposing viewpoints was ever on the cards...

and your tone confirms likewise.

All hail our new unelected benefit-scrounging overlord

My tone? I invited you to debate this issue with me in a perfectly level-headed manner. Your 'tone' has not been quite so polite:

No, indeed. The bile you spouted was 'All hail our new unelected benefit scrounging overlord'. This isn't relevant really, it simply flows better in this word order than any alternative, but I was confronting what I see as the objectively incorrect assertion in there, where the other main one is subjective as far as it is good or bad.

Can't find this on Google...did you take this?

'All hail our new unelected benefit scrounging overlord' implies the royals are a financial drain on the country. This is not true if they bring more money into the coffers, which is what the evidence points to.



There, the above is a much simpler concise and understandable version of what you are trying to say, albeit it isn't as fancy and pretentious sounding as what you wrote, people might understand you more, or be willing to engage in a debate, if you didn't sound like a wannabe lawyer (or something) that is having to degrade himself by talking to a pleb

Your sincerely,
A stupid person

She's still in labour.

Your sign-off seems appropriate here given that you have dived in with a headstrong comment without properly understanding the post (or simply being unable to) and having not bothered to read through the rest of the conversation. I already made a post to the effect of your re-hash - which contained more information in as much space as yours - the post you're responding to was making a completely different point that required more to say if I was to say it properly.

No apology is given for wanting to use language with at least some degree of elegance and wit and not merely as a utility for getting meaning from A to B. If people don't understand what I am saying or are less willing to engage in debate with someone because of the way they choose to speak, that is their problem. I don't have to adjust my behaviour for the benefit of the inverted snobs and borderline illiterate of this world.