Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/07/2003 1:43:51 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
To: nickcarraway
The NYT...More adventures in clowny town.
2 posted on 11/07/2003 1:45:31 PM PST by metalboy (Liberals-Nuke `em from orbit. It`s the only way to be sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway

3 posted on 11/07/2003 1:45:57 PM PST by Thinkin' Gal (<541>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
Ahh... The New York Slimes
All the smut that's fit to make up.
4 posted on 11/07/2003 1:46:44 PM PST by WinOne4TheGipper (Using Occam's Razor to shave the hairy beast of liberalism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; Loyalist; =Intervention=; PianoMan; GOPJ; Miss Marple; Tamsey; ...

Schadenfreude

This is the New York Times Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.


5 posted on 11/07/2003 1:46:53 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
You would think they would be overjoyed and would publicize this immediately.
6 posted on 11/07/2003 1:47:15 PM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
Royal British buggery? You don't say!
8 posted on 11/07/2003 1:48:05 PM PST by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
"savior of the world"

9 posted on 11/07/2003 1:48:24 PM PST by evets (Warning: graphic images.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
"This should never have been published!" a top newsroom source explained Friday evening.

Lyall reported: "No one would say what the rumor was. Not the British newspapers, which were writing long, innuendo-laced articles about it. Not the television commentators, who were discussing it with acrobatic opacity. Especially not Prince Charles, who seemed to be hoping it would just go away...

"The allegation (although no one has said so publicly) has to do with purported sexual contact between Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, and Michael Fawcett, one of his closest advisers." Developing..."

10 posted on 11/07/2003 1:49:05 PM PST by Flux Capacitor (Jindal 2003!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
NYT NEWSROOM TURMOIL OVER PRINCE CHARLES GAY RUMOR
Fri Nov 07 2003 16:45:11 ET

Top editors at the NEW YORK TIMES panicked and ordered a story killed after London-based reporter Sarah Lyall filed a dispatch alleging rumors of Prince Charles and a sexual affair with one of his closest advisers!

The story appeared on the TIMES's internet website for 20 minutes -- before top editors ordered it immediately removed, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"This should never have been published!" a top newsroom source explained Friday evening.

Lyall reported: "No one would say what the rumor was. Not the British newspapers, which were writing long, innuendo-laced articles about it. Not the television commentators, who were discussing it with acrobatic opacity. Especially not Prince Charles, who seemed to be hoping it would just go away...

"The allegation (although no one has said so publicly) has to do with purported sexual contact between Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, and Michael Fawcett, one of his closest advisers."

Developing...


12 posted on 11/07/2003 1:49:10 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
Was this the throne-shaking story the butler is supposed to be releasing? Good grief - British aristocrats have been buggering one another since Algore invented it in AD 100. I think it's kinda like a lodge initiation.

Well, I might have my history wrong there. It may have been earlier than that.

14 posted on 11/07/2003 1:49:57 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
And to think that instead of being King, he really wanted to be Queen.
15 posted on 11/07/2003 1:51:59 PM PST by AxelPaulsenJr (Proudly Not Reading The Headlines Since 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
...or gay advisor.....

Hmmmm, what to do.....

16 posted on 11/07/2003 1:52:20 PM PST by TrebleRebel (If you're new to the internet, CLICK HERE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
Oh my, wondered if this was the case of the non story. Some are saying he watched as someone else was raped, but what I heard this morning made me think he was the culprit himself, hmmm!
19 posted on 11/07/2003 1:54:06 PM PST by ladyinred (Talk about a revolution, look at California!!! We dumped Davis!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
This was the plot of a really great BBC mini-series "To Play the King." Was it based on reality?

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0108962/
22 posted on 11/07/2003 1:55:30 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
I wonder if Queen Elizabeth will provide the same "solution" to this problem as the king in Bravehart did...
31 posted on 11/07/2003 1:59:11 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
PRINCE CHARLES GAY RUMOR

Why would anyone think that?


33 posted on 11/07/2003 1:59:36 PM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
Just this morning I was wishing for a diversion story for the media to pick up on. Kobe, Peterson and now Jessica are real old. I was wishing for something like a Hollywood liberal caught in a scandalous murder of their lover's spouse. Something to just let the mind take a break for awhile.

I got my wish when the Prince swished onto the scene.

How in the heck will they make this be the President's fault?

35 posted on 11/07/2003 2:00:36 PM PST by Republican Red (Karmic hugs welcomed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
Is he gay or just British? There's a subtle but important difference.
43 posted on 11/07/2003 2:04:18 PM PST by Fifth Business
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
Aack! What are they saying about me?


44 posted on 11/07/2003 2:04:28 PM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
This sort of thing has been around a long time. Edward I's son was reported to be gay and was dealt with rather summarily with a hot poker.

That said, if this is true, Charles will never be king. And if the boys turn out to be buggerers too, that's the end of the German monarchy.

48 posted on 11/07/2003 2:06:42 PM PST by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo [Gallia][Germania][Arabia] Esse Delendam --- Select One or More as needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson