• Re: "Two Kings"

    From Paul S Person@psperson@old.netcom.invalid to rec.arts.sf.written on Sat May 2 08:49:23 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    On Fri, 1 May 2026 18:26:06 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
    Dorsey) wrote:
    Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
    Then he is as foolish as any (now rather old, I should think) Cuban
    exiles who expect to get their haciendas, their peons, and their sugar >>contracts back.

    Oh, I met people when I was in school in Atlanta who seemed to think that >somehow their family would get their plantations back if just those darned >Lincoln Republicans would get out of office and George Wallace would fix >everything. Generations have been taught that they suffered an injustice >and they are still hoping for repayment.
    I don't doubt it.
    And their slaves. Can't run a Southern Plantation without slaves.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From William Hyde@wthyde1953@gmail.com to rec.arts.sf.written on Sun May 3 15:31:56 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    Sn!pe wrote:
    Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 5/2/2026 11:07 PM, Sn!pe wrote:
    Graham <zotzlists@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 01/05/2026 03:50, Lynn McGuire wrote:
    [...]
    British Petroleum of whom Charles is a major stockholder,

    Do you have a source for this? None of the lists of BP shareholders
    obviously include either the British Crown or him personally.

    I too would like to see a proper citation.


    Not the best possible source, but Co Pilot says:

    "The British Royal Family's finances are partly private, but any
    significant ownership in a major public company like BP would be visible
    through:

    UK disclosure rules for major shareholdings

    U.S. SEC filings for BP's ADRs

    Institutional ownership databases

    Insider ownership reports

    Since none list Charles III, the evidence strongly supports that he does
    not own BP stock at any reportable level."

    pt

    Indeed, I would have been very surprised if it were otherwise.
    Apparently the original allegation was just a baseless slur.

    It's a popular sort of slur.

    When Canada declined to join the Iraq war of 2003, one of our
    conservative newspapers stated that the PM was influenced by the "fact",
    that his in-laws had a significant financial interest in the Iraqi oil
    fields.

    It took fifteen minutes on the internet so show that this claim was exaggerated by at least three orders of magnitude, and to see how
    someone who saw only what they wanted to see could come up with the
    quoted figure. Quality journalism!

    Conservatives love to say that liberal figures are beholden to big oil.

    Just to clear the record, I only own 25% of BP. So there!

    William Hyde
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From William Hyde@wthyde1953@gmail.com to rec.arts.sf.written on Sun May 3 15:33:21 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    Lynn McGuire wrote:
    On 5/2/2026 10:17 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
    On 5/2/2026 11:07 PM, Sn!pe wrote:
    Graham <zotzlists@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 01/05/2026 03:50, Lynn McGuire wrote:
    [...]
    -a British Petroleum of whom Charles is a major stockholder,

    Do you have a source for this? None of the lists of BP shareholders
    obviously include either the British Crown or him personally.

    I too would like to see a proper citation.


    Not the best possible source, but Co Pilot says:

    "The British Royal FamilyrCOs finances are partly private, but any
    significant ownership in a major public company like BP would be
    visible through:

    UK disclosure rules for major shareholdings

    U.S. SEC filings for BPrCOs ADRs

    Institutional ownership databases

    Insider ownership reports

    Since none list Charles III, the evidence strongly supports that he
    does not own BP stock at any reportable level."

    pt

    People like the British Royal Family own things which own other things. Trusts and such.-a Good luck drilling through them.

    It's actually quite easy when dealing with law-abiding people. See my anecdote, above.

    William Hyde

    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to rec.arts.sf.written on Sun May 3 22:12:32 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    On Sun, 3 May 2026 15:31:56 -0400, William Hyde wrote:

    When Canada declined to join the Iraq war of 2003, one of our
    conservative newspapers stated that the PM was influenced by the
    "fact", that his in-laws had a significant financial interest in the
    Iraqi oil fields.

    It took fifteen minutes on the internet so show that this claim was exaggerated by at least three orders of magnitude, and to see how
    someone who saw only what they wanted to see could come up with the
    quoted figure. Quality journalism!

    Greetings to Efc?Efca from Efc|Efc+, another country which refused to join in that
    whole Blair-Bush boondoggle. Though I donrCOt recall anybody here trying
    to accuse our Helen-Clark-led Government of having a vested interest
    in anything other than upholding international law ...
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to rec.arts.sf.written on Mon May 4 02:32:57 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    On Mon, 4 May 2026 01:47:00 -0000 (UTC), oldernow wrote:

    On 2026-05-03, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

    It took fifteen minutes on the internet so show that this claim was
    exaggerated by at least three orders of magnitude, and to see how
    someone who saw only what they wanted to see could come up with the
    quoted figure. Quality journalism!

    And fifteen minutes on the cesspool of made up shit called the
    internet constitutes quality counter-journalism?

    If you know where to look, and donrCOt uncritically accept/reject
    everything on the same basis, yes.

    Remember, cynicism is a form of gullibility, too.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From oldernow@oldernow@dev.null to rec.arts.sf.written on Mon May 4 01:47:00 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    On 2026-05-03, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

    It took fifteen minutes on the internet so show
    that this claim was exaggerated by at least three
    orders of magnitude, and to see how someone who
    saw only what they wanted to see could come up
    with the quoted figure. Quality journalism!

    And fifteen minutes on the cesspool of made up
    shit called the internet constitutes quality
    counter-journalism?

    So much for your ability to assess the quality
    of journalism....
    --
    v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
    | this line was supposed to be clever | ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Titus G@noone@nowhere.com to rec.arts.sf.written on Mon May 4 18:27:08 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    On 04/05/2026 10:12, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
    On Sun, 3 May 2026 15:31:56 -0400, William Hyde wrote:

    When Canada declined to join the Iraq war of 2003, one of our
    conservative newspapers stated that the PM was influenced by the
    "fact", that his in-laws had a significant financial interest in the
    Iraqi oil fields.

    It took fifteen minutes on the internet so show that this claim was
    exaggerated by at least three orders of magnitude, and to see how
    someone who saw only what they wanted to see could come up with the
    quoted figure. Quality journalism!

    Greetings to Efc?Efca from Efc|Efc+, another country which refused to join in that
    whole Blair-Bush boondoggle. Though I donrCOt recall anybody here trying
    to accuse our Helen-Clark-led Government of having a vested interest
    in anything other than upholding international law ...

    Now, the cowardly and incredibly thick compared to Clark, N.Z. Prime
    Minister Luxon voices personal support for the attacks on Iran which are illegal under international law though it is not suggested because of
    specific financial interest.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to rec.arts.sf.written on Mon May 4 08:38:42 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    On Mon, 4 May 2026 18:27:08 +1200, Titus G wrote:

    Now, the cowardly and incredibly thick compared to Clark, N.Z. Prime
    Minister Luxon voices personal support for the attacks on Iran which
    are illegal under international law though it is not suggested
    because of specific financial interest.

    HerCOs also previously confessed to being anti-abortion, yet at the same
    time promising not to let his personal beliefs influence the enaction
    (or not) of laws regarding same.

    rCLCourage of his convictionsrCY, he has heard of it ...
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From oldernow@oldernow@dev.null to rec.arts.sf.written on Mon May 4 12:20:51 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    On 2026-05-04, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Mon, 4 May 2026 01:47:00 -0000 (UTC), oldernow wrote:

    On 2026-05-03, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

    It took fifteen minutes on the internet so show
    that this claim was exaggerated by at least three
    orders of magnitude, and to see how someone who
    saw only what they wanted to see could come up
    with the quoted figure. Quality journalism!

    And fifteen minutes on the cesspool of made up
    shit called the internet constitutes quality
    counter-journalism?

    If you know where to look, and donrCOt uncritically
    accept/reject everything on the same basis, yes.

    Too bad that in practice "know(ing) where to
    look" on Planet Ego is looking where one is
    surest to find what confirms one's beliefs.

    Remember, cynicism is a form of gullibility, too.

    I've not heard that before, and still not
    sure I'm getting it.. but it sounds worth
    pondering.
    --
    v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
    | alt.troll.adam-h-kerman: proof that the |
    | internet sometimes gets something right | ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From William Hyde@wthyde1953@gmail.com to rec.arts.sf.written on Mon May 4 17:47:51 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    oldernow wrote:
    On 2026-05-03, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

    It took fifteen minutes on the internet so show
    that this claim was exaggerated by at least three
    orders of magnitude, and to see how someone who
    saw only what they wanted to see could come up
    with the quoted figure. Quality journalism!

    And fifteen minutes on the cesspool of made up
    shit called the internet constitutes quality
    counter-journalism?


    Actually, as these things are matters of public record, it is easy to
    follow the trail. Publishing false claims on official company sites
    invites lawsuits, delisting from stock exchanges, and possibly prosecution.

    Not such a problem for some pump and dump operation, but for a sixty
    year old corporation listed on several prominent exchanges, a quick way
    to lose a vast amount of money.

    Anyway, the "Journalists" found the same pages I did. Either they just
    lied or they were incapable of reading simple financial documents.


    William Hyde

    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From oldernow@oldernow@dev.null to rec.arts.sf.written on Tue May 5 12:22:49 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    On 2026-05-04, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
    oldernow wrote:
    On 2026-05-03, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

    It took fifteen minutes on the internet so show
    that this claim was exaggerated by at least three
    orders of magnitude, and to see how someone who
    saw only what they wanted to see could come up
    with the quoted figure. Quality journalism!

    And fifteen minutes on the cesspool of made up
    shit called the internet constitutes quality
    counter-journalism?

    Actually, as these things are matters of
    public record, it is easy to follow the
    trail. Publishing false claims on official
    company sites invites lawsuits, delisting from
    stock exchanges, and possibly prosecution.

    Lots of important sounding words/phrases. But
    in the context of the average character and/or
    honor of human beings from/in *my* experience,
    I must err on the side of safer than sorrier,
    by which I mean that I've come to believe
    that phrases/names/titles like "matters of
    public record" "official company sites", "stock
    exchanges", etc., were invented to give others
    the false sense of something being more solid
    and/or trustworthy than they actually are.

    I've no way to know whether or not "stories"
    (which I still get a kick out of as what
    journalists *themselves* call their tripe)
    are true, but seeing endless varieties - and
    often diametrically opposed accounts - what
    is allegedly the same event over the course
    of the last decade or so completely ruined the
    possibility of there being such a thing as what
    I used to refer to as "The News" anymore.

    The ridiculous bombascity of descriptions of
    alleged reality from the TDS and MAGA zones on
    political topics seems essentially a diarrhea
    icing on the aforementioned "news" cake.

    Said perhaps more simply, the internet completely
    destroyed my trust in others' accounts of
    anything and everything. It's all come to seem
    zombie automaton spewing, and I can't help but
    laugh hysterically whenever seeing anyone taking
    any of it seriously.

    Not such a problem for some pump and dump
    operation, but for a sixty year old corporation
    listed on several prominent exchanges, a quick
    way to lose a vast amount of money.

    Sounds like a nice theory that some could come
    to feel comfortable trusting. But I'm no longer
    one of them.

    Anyway, the "Journalists" found the same pages
    I did. Either they just lied or they were
    incapable of reading simple financial documents.

    If they're humans, I consider it almost
    impossible they're not lying one way or another.

    But, again, all that is in the context of what
    I've come to believe. I've no bead on so-called
    "objective reality". In fact, I consider that
    expression yet another of the aforementioned
    "important sounding words/phrases".

    Good luck in/with your faith in other humans!
    --
    v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
    | alt.troll.adam-h-kerman: proof that the |
    | internet sometimes gets something right | ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From William Hyde@wthyde1953@gmail.com to rec.arts.sf.written on Tue May 5 14:22:02 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    oldernow wrote:


    Good luck in/with your faith in other humans!

    Already had it, thanks.

    I learned so much about that complex of companies that I invested in them.

    Rarely has a crap newspaper article profited me so much.

    William Hyde
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lynn McGuire@lynnmcguire5@gmail.com to rec.arts.sf.written on Tue May 5 13:43:01 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    On 5/2/2026 6:24 PM, Graham wrote:
    On 01/05/2026 03:50, Lynn McGuire wrote:
    -aBritish Petroleum of whom Charles is a major stockholder,

    Do you have a source for this? None of the lists of BP shareholders obviously include either the British Crown or him personally.

    Nobody knows what the British Royal Family owns or what their actual
    worth is.

    One of the magazines puts it at $28 billion. I have seen others claim
    that their worth is at least half a trillion dollars. Nobody knows
    since they do not pay taxes in Britain and in fact are partially
    supported by the UK Treasury.

    https://www.instyle.com/breaking-down-british-royal-family-net-worth-11857254

    Here is a website stating that the British Royal Family was worth $88
    billion in 2017:

    https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/where-british-royal-family-ranks-170800732.html

    Lynn

    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From oldernow@oldernow@dev.null to rec.arts.sf.written on Tue May 5 19:58:08 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    On 2026-05-05, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
    oldernow wrote:

    Good luck in/with your faith in other humans!

    Already had it, thanks.

    I learned so much about that complex of
    companies that I invested in them.

    Rarely has a crap newspaper article profited
    me so much.

    Oooh la la, congratulations! A casino of
    life win!
    --
    v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
    | alt.troll.adam-h-kerman: proof that the |
    | internet sometimes gets something right | ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2