FORUMS FORUMS






RLFANS.COM
Celebrating
25 years service to
the Rugby League
Community!

   WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - Kate Middleton
::Off-topic discussion.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Moderator12488No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 07 200718 years237th
OnlineLast PostLast Page
13th Oct 23 16:277th Mar 23 15:21LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Durham
Signature
Huddersfield Giants 2013 over achievers

Huddersfield Giants 2014 under achievers ??????????
Moderator

Re: Kate Middleton : Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:34 am  
WIZEB wrote:
We just require BG or Wanderer to say..............it is now. :PRAY:



I can only assume you and Jerry were not fans of Mon ty Python then.

The thoughts in FAs head are as surreal as anything , cleese, palin et al did.
WIZEB 
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach12749
JoinedServiceReputation
Nov 23 200915 years40th
OnlineLast PostLast Page
4th Dec 24 20:4521st Nov 24 16:06LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
The Hamptons of East Yorkshire

Re: Kate Middleton : Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:41 am  
Durham Giant wrote:
I can only assume you and Jerry were not fans of Mon ty Python then.

The thoughts in FAs head are as surreal as anything , cleese, palin et al did.


This debate has attained a greater surreality than any of the Pythonians could have ever wished to muster. :)
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
In The Arms of 13 Angels20628
JoinedServiceReputation
Mar 15 200916 years333rd
OnlineLast PostLast Page
23rd Aug 16 22:2023rd Aug 16 21:19LINK
Milestone Posts
20000
25000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Signature
It's been fun.

Re: Kate Middleton : Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:59 am  
KILL THIS F*@$#%/G THREAD ALREADY

:WALL: :FRUSRATED:
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Board Member2236No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jan 20 200322 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
31st Dec 18 07:4631st Dec 18 07:41LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Signature
I have only been wrong once and thats because I thought I was wrong but I was wrong I was right!

Petty authoritarians aren’t man enough to challenge the actions of a person face to face; instead they incite a forum of rumour, innuendo and half truths, and impose rude sanctions to discourage those who dare question fairness.

Anon.

Re: Kate Middleton : Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:52 pm  
I think it would be suitable to see FA and DG partake in "The Fish Slapping dance" by way of settlement(see the tube thingy).

Only thing is, they would argue for 20 pages about who had the big fish at the end :lol:
Wheels 
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Board Member18299
JoinedServiceReputation
Jun 05 200322 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
4th Dec 24 17:249th Oct 24 15:59LINK
Milestone Posts
15000
20000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
YO31
Signature
@GavWilson
Moderator

Re: Kate Middleton : Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:59 pm  
Ah, but was it really a voluntary tackle...?
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

Re: Kate Middleton : Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:08 pm  
Durham Giant wrote:
So when you put this in your post in a quote box 2 posts back this is not a made up quote ?

No. It is taking the pis5.

Durham Giant wrote:
FA Quote:I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls. It wasn't. The "joke" in most prank calls is that at the end of the call, the truth is revealed, and the humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered.

Which clearly shows that you are redefining the definition of a prank call in your head to justify your position.

Not a bit. I merely point out the (very great) difference between this prank call, as opposed to other prank calls.

Durham Giant wrote:
In your world you rule it out as a prank call ...

No. I don't. What you are again somehow conflating is the various stages of what happened.
(a) callers with funny accents talk to reception
This bit was recognisable as a pretty straightforward prank call
(b) callers get second nurse to breach patient confidentiality
In my book, that bit cannot be dismissed as a prank. The presenters no doubt intended it to be, and presumably due to youth, inexperience and getting giddy in the moment, they did it. They now regret that.
(c) radio station incredibly makes the considered decision to broadcast the recording
To broadcast the first part, they would have needed the consent of Mrs. Saldanha and her employers, but they did not get it. To broadcast the second part, (leaving aside the question of criminal offences) they would have needed the consent of the second nurse, the hospital and the patient, but they did not get it.

For convenience and shorthand, we refer to the whole incident as 'the prank call'. But the combination of (b) and (c) is what I have an issue with. And also why this prank call was different from a typical prank call.

Also for completeness, whilst I am replying, I'm almost certain that these points did not escape you. I reply just in case they bizarrely did.

Durham Giant wrote:
In your world you rule it out as a prank call ...

No I don't, however many times you pathologically lie that I did.

Durham Giant wrote:
...because

The Truth is revealed afterwards

The radio station stated very clearly they tried to contact the hospital 6 times to do exactly what you asked.

The hospital say the radio station never spoke to them. I have no reason to doubt it, do you? If they "tried", that indicates they knew they should; so if they failed, why not wait until they succeeded? I find it is not hard to get through to any hospital I've ever tried to ring.

I presume as evidence they have tapes of these attempts to get through? (I refuse to believe that they made five or whatever proper efforts to phone, but nobody picked up.

Durham Giant wrote:
The listeners when it was introduced knew it was a prank call

Quote: humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person.

Again your interpretation . The humour could also be in the ludicriousness of it all, the funny accents, the cheek of laughing at the establishment.

It could be, but all this misses the point. It is NOT FUNNY to get a nurse to reveal confidential patient data.

I should interject here that, contrary to your implication, I have already agreed that, had the "funny accents" etc led merely to an exchange between presenters and reception, and she had twigged, and eventually terminated the call, then some may have found it funny; I didn't, but that's not relevant. No harm would have been done. The call would be a self-contained prank, and provided the nurse and hospital agreed to it's transmission, then would all have been hunky dory.

But this was not a prank call like any other prank call. As I keep saying. Because the presenters fooled the first nurse, and got put through. THAT is where the joke, such as it was, ends and where the call clearly should have ended. Receiving confidential patient information by deception is not a prank, it is an offence, and it isn't funny. It doesn't matter who the patient is.

So they should not have carried on and done that but, again as I have said, I do not particularly blame them as clearly they didn't think on their feet, and made the wrong decision. But the radio station, OTOH, made the considered decision to broadcast despite the plain breach of patient confidentiality and despite the lack of any consent.

And even if they had broadcast without consent, I would suggest no harm would have befallen Mrs Saldanha, if she had not been fooled, and had not put the call through to anyone, even if using the material without her consent would be pis5poor behaviour.

Durham Giant wrote:

Quote: Here, though, the pranked person was never considered.

Yet you do not know this. It may have been considrered but ignored. But in your world your interpretation is all that matters.

I don't know it, but 'considering but ignoring' would in my book be far worse than not having considered.

Durham Giant wrote:
None of these mention your charcteristics as being defining of a prank call.

Which definition says a prank call can cause a nurse to divulge confidential patient information?

Durham Giant wrote:
Now if you had said

Quote: FEROCIOUS AARDAVARK SHOULD HAVE SAID I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls. It wasn't, BASED ON MY DEFINITION OF A PRANK CALL The "joke" in most prank calls is that at the end of the call, the truth is revealed, and the humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered.

I could have agreed with your post.

This is odd. I gather from that, the penny has finally dropped and you now almost understand my point. But I am not trying to define or redefine a prank call, which would be neither sensible nor necessary. I am pointing out why this prank call was different from your average ranch stash prank call.

I said what the joke "in most prank calls" is. The use of the word "most" clearly allows for the existence of other types of prank calls, and therefore, by definition, is not an attempt at a definition. Even to a word-twister like your good self.

But I do note that, in any case YOU AGREE with what you see as my "definition"; so it turns out you ONLY objection is you thought I was offering a dictionary definition of "a prank call", despite my use of the word "most". You have kicked up an argument over what turns out to be yet another failure to properly read my words. Well done.

Durham Giant wrote:

Still in Aardvark world albeit not in the real world you are always right. I suggest you discuss this with your psychiatrist.

It seems to be very important to you to end your posts by referring to "my psychiatrist" or some such. Does this reveal some sub-conscious need to self-congratulate your own posts by self-declaring some imaginary victory, and repeatedly declaring your opponent psychiatrically ill? For my part, I would suggest you discuss the thread with your English teacher. If you haven't got one, you need one. Not an insult, genuine advice.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

Re: Kate Middleton : Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 pm  
Horatio Yed wrote:
KILL THIS F*@$#%/G THREAD ALREADY

:WALL: :FRUSRATED:


Twenty five thousand views? You can't disappoint so many addicted viewers, surely?
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach519No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jan 21 200817 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
20th Dec 14 10:3920th Dec 14 10:39LINK
Milestone Posts
500
1000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530

Re: Kate Middleton : Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:58 pm  
How many types of prank phone calls can there be? A prank phone call is a prank phone call is a prank phone call! In FA world there appears to be an infinite number of variations, each a little sub set of the genre.

At the risk of sending Bradford's finest legal mind into another bout of outraged footstamping, could this whole sad episode not be a prank call at all, but rather a hoax?

I simply offer this up in the quest for accuracy.....
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

Re: Kate Middleton : Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:11 pm  
rumpelstiltskin wrote:
How many types of prank phone calls can there be? A prank phone call is a prank phone call is a prank phone call!


:lol:

:SHOOT:
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
In The Arms of 13 Angels26578
JoinedServiceReputation
Mar 08 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
6th Jul 17 23:1930th Apr 17 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
On the set of NEDS...
Signature
Image


ebay's Rugby League Bargains ¦ Boost Your eBay Sales ¦ Recommended Amazon Stuff ¦ Get a Free Ink Cart!!! ¦ Quins RL T-Shirts, BRAND NEW DESIGNS

Re: Kate Middleton : Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:16 pm  
I think we'll end this here.
Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 198 guests

REPLY

Subject: 
Message:
   
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...

Return to The Sin Bin


RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
5m
Film game
karetaker
6025
6m
Out of contract 2025
ratticusfinc
73
12m
New Players
Deadcowboys1
152
53m
Accounts
Miserybusine
155
Recent
IMG scores
Shifty Cat
277
Recent
Transfer Talk V5
Emagdnim13
563
Recent
DoR - New Coach - Investor & Adam - New signings
Chris71
4076
Recent
All time academy produced Super league era side
MjM
3
Recent
Shirt reveal coming soon
vastman
62
Recent
2025 Kits
Liam666
33
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
1m
Shirt reveal coming soon
vastman
62
2m
2025 Kits
Liam666
33
2m
2025 Season tickets
Bully_Boxer
30
2m
Rule Changes
Rugby Raider
5
2m
Accounts
Miserybusine
155
2m
2025 Kit
Bullseye
22
3m
Jerome Luai
Zig
21
3m
Season pass roll call
Yippee try y
40
3m
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Zig
8
3m
Refs referring it to video as a try or not
Warrior Wing
54
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Forget-me-not Childrens hospice
H.G.S.A
1
TODAY
All time academy produced Super league era side
MjM
3
TODAY
Wigan warriors 2022 away shirt
WWste
4
TODAY
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Cokey
3
TODAY
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Zig
8
TODAY
Rule Changes
Rugby Raider
5
TODAY
Player Contracts
Trojan Horse
4
TODAY
Fans Forum 12 Dec 11th
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Laurie Daley returns as NSW origin coach
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
2025 Challenge Cup
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Challenge Cup
BigTime
6
TODAY
Friendlies
Deadcowboys1
3
TODAY
Sam Luckley likely to miss the beginning of new season
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Frankie Halton sign new deal
ColD
2
TODAY
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
HU8HFC
29
TODAY
Trinity shop Sunday opening
phe13
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS
RLFANS Match Centre
Matches on TV
Thu 13th Feb
SL
20:00
Wigan-Leigh
Fri 14th Feb
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Castleford
SL
20:00
Catalans-Hull FC
Sat 15th Feb
SL
15:00
Leeds - Wakefield
SL
17:30
St.Helens-Salford
Sun 16th Feb
SL
15:00
Huddersfield-Warrington
Thu 20th Feb
SL
20:00
Wakefield - Hull KR
Fri 21st Feb
SL
20:00
Warrington-Catalans
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Wigan
Sat 22nd Feb
SL
15:00
Salford-Leeds
SL
20:00
Castleford-St.Helens
Sun 23rd Feb
SL
14:30
Leigh-Huddersfield
Fri 28th Feb
SL
20:00
Huddersfield-Hull FC
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Salford
SL
20:00
Leigh-Catalans
Sat 1st Mar
SL
14:30
Wakefield - St.Helens
SL
21:30
Wigan-Warrington
Sun 2nd Mar
SL
15:00
Leeds-Castleford
Thu 6th Mar
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Leigh
Fri 7th Mar
SL
20:00
Castleford-Salford
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wigan 29 768 338 430 48
Hull KR 29 731 344 387 44
Warrington 29 769 351 418 42
Leigh 29 580 442 138 33
Salford 28 556 561 -5 32
St.Helens 28 618 411 207 30
 
Catalans 27 475 427 48 30
Leeds 27 530 488 42 28
Huddersfield 27 468 658 -190 20
Castleford 27 425 735 -310 15
Hull FC 27 328 894 -566 6
LondonB 27 317 916 -599 6
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wakefield 27 1032 275 757 52
Toulouse 26 765 388 377 37
Bradford 28 723 420 303 36
York 29 695 501 194 32
Widnes 27 561 502 59 29
Featherstone 27 634 525 109 28
 
Sheffield 26 626 526 100 28
Doncaster 26 498 619 -121 25
Halifax 26 509 650 -141 22
Batley 26 422 591 -169 22
Swinton 28 484 676 -192 20
Barrow 25 442 720 -278 19
Whitehaven 25 437 826 -389 18
Dewsbury 27 348 879 -531 4
Hunslet 1 6 10 -4 0
RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
5m
Film game
karetaker
6025
6m
Out of contract 2025
ratticusfinc
73
12m
New Players
Deadcowboys1
152
53m
Accounts
Miserybusine
155
Recent
IMG scores
Shifty Cat
277
Recent
Transfer Talk V5
Emagdnim13
563
Recent
DoR - New Coach - Investor & Adam - New signings
Chris71
4076
Recent
All time academy produced Super league era side
MjM
3
Recent
Shirt reveal coming soon
vastman
62
Recent
2025 Kits
Liam666
33
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
1m
Shirt reveal coming soon
vastman
62
2m
2025 Kits
Liam666
33
2m
2025 Season tickets
Bully_Boxer
30
2m
Rule Changes
Rugby Raider
5
2m
Accounts
Miserybusine
155
2m
2025 Kit
Bullseye
22
3m
Jerome Luai
Zig
21
3m
Season pass roll call
Yippee try y
40
3m
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Zig
8
3m
Refs referring it to video as a try or not
Warrior Wing
54
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Forget-me-not Childrens hospice
H.G.S.A
1
TODAY
All time academy produced Super league era side
MjM
3
TODAY
Wigan warriors 2022 away shirt
WWste
4
TODAY
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Cokey
3
TODAY
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Zig
8
TODAY
Rule Changes
Rugby Raider
5
TODAY
Player Contracts
Trojan Horse
4
TODAY
Fans Forum 12 Dec 11th
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Laurie Daley returns as NSW origin coach
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
2025 Challenge Cup
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Challenge Cup
BigTime
6
TODAY
Friendlies
Deadcowboys1
3
TODAY
Sam Luckley likely to miss the beginning of new season
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Frankie Halton sign new deal
ColD
2
TODAY
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
HU8HFC
29
TODAY
Trinity shop Sunday opening
phe13
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS


Visit the RLFANS.COM SHOP
for more merchandise!