den_wolf

http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/compa...martha_verdict/ "Guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice, make false statements and commit perjury"

I still don't understand why you would want to claim her as Armenian even though she's only 1/64th Armenian. I mean yes she's Armenian fine, but do we really need to shout and yell all over the place whenever anyone is talking about her, and tell them all that she's Armenian? What's the logic behind that? Diana is overrated, as any other British royalty. If she had been a scientist, a physician, a writer, someone who struggled, did something without having totally been given it by his position in life, I would understand why people would make such a big deal out of it, but with Diana I don't understand. Sorry.

Are you saying that if someone sells you something by lying and telling you it's the cheapest on the market, or selling you something other than what he claimed to sell you, it's supposed to be legal? So by your definition, fraud would be legal?

Manipulating someone or something in order to gain money from it is a criminal offense similar to fraud.

No question is stupid. Is that because you can't answer it? I think it was a pretty straightforward question. Simple answer. You (and many Armenians) want re-assurance that we have greats on a level "approved" by the British (and other Westerners). There is nothing more to it and nothing less. It's as simple as that. The psychology of an Armenian is very easy to delve into. What makes it so good to have a 1/64th Armenian in the Royal family? Would you have claimed that some poor and unknown Englishman indeed is 1/64 Armenian? Would you even have bothered thinking about it? The answer is no.

I think you misunderstood my question then. I was asking - what are you proud of in claiming that Diana is partly Armenian? I didn't mean what are you proud of in being an Armenian.

That other outlaws haven't been caught is not a justification that she shouldn't be punished. If you want justice, you should work on getting the others convicted too, rather than advocating her release. Not that I am saying that you are doing that, but a lot of people are doing that.

I am sorry koko, but I don't see how that relates to this thread.. Maybe I missed something though. I meant, sources such as the Royal family or historians. There are a lot of Armenians out there who would say that every great person has SOME Armenian roots... That doesn't mean that they do. That Armenians make that claim does not give it any credibility. You see what I mean? You need proof that she was Armenian, and by proof I mean, documented proof, by historians and so on. Until that is available, making the claim that Diana (or whoever else) is part Armenian is just silly and honestly, pathetic. Maybe Mother Theresa was part-Armenian too?

What are you so proud of? Can you provide a credible source that PROVES that Diana was part Armenian? I am sorry, but I don't believe in "rumours." If you have a good source, I would love to take a look at it.

Why does it matter if she's 1/64th Armenian? Are Armenians so desperate to latch on to a "famous" figure? We have our own greats. Besides, she is only 1/64th Armenian (IF that is true anyway), which is close to null.

And Kerry needs to come? (no pun!! ) What about Tony "I follow Bush wherever he goes and whatever he does" Blair?

What about it? I really don't know how to make proofs about gravity. Ask me anything about discrete math, but I have no clue about Chemistry or Physics, although I've taken a course or two... (No, I'm not doing this to ruin the point you're trying to make.) But if anyone can go ahead with a proof in my place, go ahead. Can't wait to read your point, Domino.

What is obvious? I can't find anything "obvious" about it. So out of the blue, they decided to give this girl a spinal tap? Sorry, I don't understand.

So why was it done? I still don't get it..

I agree, hyebruin. I am beginning to highly doubt that this story has even 1% validity. It seems too weird and mysterious to be true. Besides, why is there no explanation as to what the whole spine thing was? Surely a good "news" story would have all the details about a case.

LOL!!! Hmmmk.. I don't really know any proofs in Physics. Not well versed in it, I'm afraid. Maybe Anonymouse can help me out here? Sorry.

Yes, but I was not talking about that . . . I was talking about the general views women have about men. That what they want is always sex, and nothing more. And that they all hate women unless it comes to that. Besides, it might appear that women have so many social pressures on them, but men have social pressures on them twice as much as women do. Just consider Armenian parents' expectations from their sons, that they get married, have a nice job, take care of them, and so on. I don't think women are asked to take care of parents financially... But I might be wrong. Anyhow, that is not to deny that men aren't more violent than women in general. I'm not arguing against that.

WOW....... :huh: :huh: :blink: I don't get it. What was the liquid thing they took from her spine?? Was it for a bone marrow transplant or something? I'm confused. Wow, so sad...

hyebruin, I (and many men, in fact) have the utmost respect for women (unless they abuse that). So I think you're generalising here. Yes, we might have it easy compared to you when it comes to ... procreation and all that, but - we have other pressures on us that women don't. And life isn't a competition between men and women, or at least I would like to think it isn't...

O.K, well, I'm not well versed in Physics, so I will stick to discrete math... Just a small informal "proof": ! p =* p =* false Taking the left side (!p = p): If p is true, then ! p is false. So we have: false = true But false = true is false. * where = is the 3 bar equivalent. But of course, you're going to say that there may be something else other than true and false. But I digress. We are talking about an example like this, here: Something is either 1 or not (which means that it's not 1, therefore, something else).

I don't know, Domino, why don't you give me an example yourself?

Well, you're right, but, how do you know that another dimension or another way of viewing is possible? You can't base your proof on it. Just like people couldn't have based their proofs on the laws of gravitation BEFORE Newton discovered them. Domino, I am talking about what humans can perceive. There might be another universe out there, but that doesn't mean I can base my proofs on its probable existence. If I can't view it from the next thing that's outside of it, I cannot observe it, which means that I cannot have a full knowledge of it.

Hmm, O.K, but how can you observe something from inside and be 100% right? Suppose you're put in a quadrangle room (square, rectangle,...), now if you're inside of it and haven't observed the room from outside, you will say that the room is square. But if you go outside, it might be circular shaped, and the square embedded in it. So your observation about earth being flat can be credible only as far as observing it from inside goes, because, well, if you look at the ground you're standing on, it's flat, right? But this observation is not credible (even if it were coincidentally right), because it was not viewed from outside.

Haha.. well, I like to cite my sources, so I guess I will be citing you as "Domino from HyeForum." LOL! But interesting points you made there. Hmm.. As for what you said about there being no proof that the earth was not flat in the past - well, it might not have been, but was there any proof or outside observation that it was flat? My point being, if they couldn't see earth from space, as we do right now, their assumptions cannot be used as proof, and the "fact" that the earth was flat should not have been used in further proofs. I don't know if I'm getting my point across...

I see your point, but many people would think it crazy to cut that foot. LOL - I can't wait to read the patch