Upload
Login or register

trollsbetrollin

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:6/03/2011
Last Login:9/28/2016
Stats
Content Thumbs: 14 total,  20 ,  6
Comment Thumbs: 392 total,  519 ,  127
Content Level Progress: 30.5% (18/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 90% (9/10)
Level 137 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 138 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Subscribers:0
Content Views:2194
Total Comments Made:187
FJ Points:406

latest user's comments

#111 - Ok I get what you are saying too. I'll try explain. I…  [+] (1 reply) 11/04/2013 on Thoughts from The Queen 0
User avatar
#138 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
well how i see it is this
wouldn't she also be considered the queen on northern Ireland
(sorry so long i had class)
im not really arguing that shes a separate entity for each more of just wouldn't by definition she also be considered this
..i am interested because Americans do not learn what she is and just go with what they hear (queen of england) no one argues this because its just Americans they are just wrong oh well
and since no one corrects them they jsut grow up wrong
but really is it wrong or just an insult
i think its not wrong she is queen of england but its not her ONLY thing she is queen of all the countries in the UK so as such she can be known as the queen of each
BUT this would be considered insulting because it demotes her power
by saying queen of england you are assuming that is her only power
its right but it shows you assume she is limited
#107 - She is not the Queen of England, just of the UK. The UK does i…  [+] (4 replies) 11/04/2013 on Thoughts from The Queen 0
User avatar
#108 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
ok i understand you and i havnt said your wrong what im saying is
its like if i ruled over all of an area i am the ruler of that area and all it includes
you have stated england is there
so how is she not also the queen of england
shed be like the queen to englands queen (i know that doesnt make much sense)
by definition she rules over england since its part of the uk
i know what your saying is right by WHY is it right
#111 - trollsbetrollin (11/04/2013) [-]
Ok I get what you are saying too. I'll try explain.

It is becuase constitutionally England and the UK are the same entity. (England also does not have any devolved power like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland does, but that is another matter.) The Queen has power over the people and land of England, but only becuase she is the Queen of the UK. Similary she rules over the other countries in the UK, but not as a seperate monarch for each one, but as a single Queen of the UK, as all the parts of the UK are one country.

Incase you're wondering this is all a part of my uni degree which is why i'm arguing it so strongly even though it is just a technicality, but you seem interested so that is good!
User avatar
#138 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
well how i see it is this
wouldn't she also be considered the queen on northern Ireland
(sorry so long i had class)
im not really arguing that shes a separate entity for each more of just wouldn't by definition she also be considered this
..i am interested because Americans do not learn what she is and just go with what they hear (queen of england) no one argues this because its just Americans they are just wrong oh well
and since no one corrects them they jsut grow up wrong
but really is it wrong or just an insult
i think its not wrong she is queen of england but its not her ONLY thing she is queen of all the countries in the UK so as such she can be known as the queen of each
BUT this would be considered insulting because it demotes her power
by saying queen of england you are assuming that is her only power
its right but it shows you assume she is limited
User avatar
#109 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
my main argument is if your the ruler of this area you are the ruler of whats within
so if i rule the country of wizow
and the city of blahblah is inside it
i am the ruler of blahblah
#103 - You are completly wrong. Are you trolling?  [+] (6 replies) 11/04/2013 on Thoughts from The Queen +1
User avatar
#105 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
eh just picking the opposite side of you because agreeing would make a short conversation
as i said tho you havnt deputed the fact that being queen of the uk includes england
also i just woke up and am extremely tired so im not sure if iv actually made sense anyways
#107 - trollsbetrollin (11/04/2013) [-]
She is not the Queen of England, just of the UK. The UK does include England but she isn't the Queen of it. England is not a seperate country with it's own monarch.
User avatar
#108 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
ok i understand you and i havnt said your wrong what im saying is
its like if i ruled over all of an area i am the ruler of that area and all it includes
you have stated england is there
so how is she not also the queen of england
shed be like the queen to englands queen (i know that doesnt make much sense)
by definition she rules over england since its part of the uk
i know what your saying is right by WHY is it right
#111 - trollsbetrollin (11/04/2013) [-]
Ok I get what you are saying too. I'll try explain.

It is becuase constitutionally England and the UK are the same entity. (England also does not have any devolved power like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland does, but that is another matter.) The Queen has power over the people and land of England, but only becuase she is the Queen of the UK. Similary she rules over the other countries in the UK, but not as a seperate monarch for each one, but as a single Queen of the UK, as all the parts of the UK are one country.

Incase you're wondering this is all a part of my uni degree which is why i'm arguing it so strongly even though it is just a technicality, but you seem interested so that is good!
User avatar
#138 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
well how i see it is this
wouldn't she also be considered the queen on northern Ireland
(sorry so long i had class)
im not really arguing that shes a separate entity for each more of just wouldn't by definition she also be considered this
..i am interested because Americans do not learn what she is and just go with what they hear (queen of england) no one argues this because its just Americans they are just wrong oh well
and since no one corrects them they jsut grow up wrong
but really is it wrong or just an insult
i think its not wrong she is queen of england but its not her ONLY thing she is queen of all the countries in the UK so as such she can be known as the queen of each
BUT this would be considered insulting because it demotes her power
by saying queen of england you are assuming that is her only power
its right but it shows you assume she is limited
User avatar
#109 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
my main argument is if your the ruler of this area you are the ruler of whats within
so if i rule the country of wizow
and the city of blahblah is inside it
i am the ruler of blahblah
#101 - England is part of UK, but the country is the United Kingdom o…  [+] (8 replies) 11/04/2013 on Thoughts from The Queen +2
User avatar
#102 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
if her mom had the same name and wasnt a queen shes till the second (i dont know much about the royal family)
but as you said england is part of the uk and she is queen of the uk so she is queen of england
jsut like obama is president of florida
#103 - trollsbetrollin (11/04/2013) [-]
You are completly wrong. Are you trolling?
User avatar
#105 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
eh just picking the opposite side of you because agreeing would make a short conversation
as i said tho you havnt deputed the fact that being queen of the uk includes england
also i just woke up and am extremely tired so im not sure if iv actually made sense anyways
#107 - trollsbetrollin (11/04/2013) [-]
She is not the Queen of England, just of the UK. The UK does include England but she isn't the Queen of it. England is not a seperate country with it's own monarch.
User avatar
#108 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
ok i understand you and i havnt said your wrong what im saying is
its like if i ruled over all of an area i am the ruler of that area and all it includes
you have stated england is there
so how is she not also the queen of england
shed be like the queen to englands queen (i know that doesnt make much sense)
by definition she rules over england since its part of the uk
i know what your saying is right by WHY is it right
#111 - trollsbetrollin (11/04/2013) [-]
Ok I get what you are saying too. I'll try explain.

It is becuase constitutionally England and the UK are the same entity. (England also does not have any devolved power like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland does, but that is another matter.) The Queen has power over the people and land of England, but only becuase she is the Queen of the UK. Similary she rules over the other countries in the UK, but not as a seperate monarch for each one, but as a single Queen of the UK, as all the parts of the UK are one country.

Incase you're wondering this is all a part of my uni degree which is why i'm arguing it so strongly even though it is just a technicality, but you seem interested so that is good!
User avatar
#138 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
well how i see it is this
wouldn't she also be considered the queen on northern Ireland
(sorry so long i had class)
im not really arguing that shes a separate entity for each more of just wouldn't by definition she also be considered this
..i am interested because Americans do not learn what she is and just go with what they hear (queen of england) no one argues this because its just Americans they are just wrong oh well
and since no one corrects them they jsut grow up wrong
but really is it wrong or just an insult
i think its not wrong she is queen of england but its not her ONLY thing she is queen of all the countries in the UK so as such she can be known as the queen of each
BUT this would be considered insulting because it demotes her power
by saying queen of england you are assuming that is her only power
its right but it shows you assume she is limited
User avatar
#109 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
my main argument is if your the ruler of this area you are the ruler of whats within
so if i rule the country of wizow
and the city of blahblah is inside it
i am the ruler of blahblah
#94 - "Try being the Queen of England." Too bad s…  [+] (13 replies) 11/04/2013 on Thoughts from The Queen +2
User avatar
#135 - alhemicar (11/04/2013) [-]
nope, she's the queen of the commonwealth
User avatar
#133 - queenbee (11/04/2013) [-]
she is the queen of England, and Scotland.... and Wales, and Canada, so on.
User avatar
#125 - alexthecanadian (11/04/2013) [-]
In Canada, we call her "Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada." No big deal or nothing.
User avatar
#99 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
isnt england part of the united kingdoms
in which making her the queen of england as well
#101 - trollsbetrollin (11/04/2013) [-]
England is part of UK, but the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island. She is therefore only Queen of the UK.

She gets called Queen Elizabeth the Second, but she should technically only be the first, as she is the first queen that the UK has had that is called Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth the First was queen of England, not the UK.
User avatar
#102 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
if her mom had the same name and wasnt a queen shes till the second (i dont know much about the royal family)
but as you said england is part of the uk and she is queen of the uk so she is queen of england
jsut like obama is president of florida
#103 - trollsbetrollin (11/04/2013) [-]
You are completly wrong. Are you trolling?
User avatar
#105 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
eh just picking the opposite side of you because agreeing would make a short conversation
as i said tho you havnt deputed the fact that being queen of the uk includes england
also i just woke up and am extremely tired so im not sure if iv actually made sense anyways
#107 - trollsbetrollin (11/04/2013) [-]
She is not the Queen of England, just of the UK. The UK does include England but she isn't the Queen of it. England is not a seperate country with it's own monarch.
User avatar
#108 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
ok i understand you and i havnt said your wrong what im saying is
its like if i ruled over all of an area i am the ruler of that area and all it includes
you have stated england is there
so how is she not also the queen of england
shed be like the queen to englands queen (i know that doesnt make much sense)
by definition she rules over england since its part of the uk
i know what your saying is right by WHY is it right
#111 - trollsbetrollin (11/04/2013) [-]
Ok I get what you are saying too. I'll try explain.

It is becuase constitutionally England and the UK are the same entity. (England also does not have any devolved power like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland does, but that is another matter.) The Queen has power over the people and land of England, but only becuase she is the Queen of the UK. Similary she rules over the other countries in the UK, but not as a seperate monarch for each one, but as a single Queen of the UK, as all the parts of the UK are one country.

Incase you're wondering this is all a part of my uni degree which is why i'm arguing it so strongly even though it is just a technicality, but you seem interested so that is good!
User avatar
#138 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
well how i see it is this
wouldn't she also be considered the queen on northern Ireland
(sorry so long i had class)
im not really arguing that shes a separate entity for each more of just wouldn't by definition she also be considered this
..i am interested because Americans do not learn what she is and just go with what they hear (queen of england) no one argues this because its just Americans they are just wrong oh well
and since no one corrects them they jsut grow up wrong
but really is it wrong or just an insult
i think its not wrong she is queen of england but its not her ONLY thing she is queen of all the countries in the UK so as such she can be known as the queen of each
BUT this would be considered insulting because it demotes her power
by saying queen of england you are assuming that is her only power
its right but it shows you assume she is limited
User avatar
#109 - quotes (11/04/2013) [-]
my main argument is if your the ruler of this area you are the ruler of whats within
so if i rule the country of wizow
and the city of blahblah is inside it
i am the ruler of blahblah
#35 - Lawyer detected 09/18/2013 on Ja! 0
#10 - The cone gets taken off, another one gets put on. It's the cir…  [+] (3 replies) 09/10/2013 on Be Proud of Your... 0
User avatar
#14 - poisonormints (09/10/2013) [-]
I think health and safety nazi's have stopped it though, they just leave it up there so no one falls putting another one back up
User avatar
#25 - cheatmasterjunk (09/10/2013) [-]
I've heard people suggest to replace it with a brass cone or something, but I know they won't because someone will just put a real one on top of that!
User avatar
#27 - poisonormints (09/10/2013) [-]
yeh haha xD, plus itd just look stupid, we've been used to the orange traffic cones too long
#8 - It might be considered as modern art now but it started back i…  [+] (10 replies) 09/10/2013 on Be Proud of Your... +2
User avatar
#9 - cygnuswithasmile (09/10/2013) [-]
Ha, I walk by GOMA almost every day and I just assumed the musuem did it on purpose. Turns out there's an ongoing thing between the people and the police between putting a cone up there and taking it down. Today I learned something.
#20 - paulyginooly (09/10/2013) [-]
I walk past that nearly every day aswell
be ma pal
#37 - cygnuswithasmile (09/10/2013) [-]
Naw ya dobber, get tae fuck.
User avatar
#19 - cowinspace (09/10/2013) [-]
Students have been doing that for longer tha GOMA has existed there. They did do some stuff where they put decorated cones on it, but that was only for the length of the exhibition it was for.
#11 - learned (09/10/2013) [-]
no
#12 - learned (09/10/2013) [-]
after reading.
yes
#10 - trollsbetrollin (09/10/2013) [-]
The cone gets taken off, another one gets put on. It's the circle of life for Glasgow
User avatar
#14 - poisonormints (09/10/2013) [-]
I think health and safety nazi's have stopped it though, they just leave it up there so no one falls putting another one back up
User avatar
#25 - cheatmasterjunk (09/10/2013) [-]
I've heard people suggest to replace it with a brass cone or something, but I know they won't because someone will just put a real one on top of that!
User avatar
#27 - poisonormints (09/10/2013) [-]
yeh haha xD, plus itd just look stupid, we've been used to the orange traffic cones too long
#6 - Reminds me of the horse in Glasgow that always seems to have a…  [+] (19 replies) 09/10/2013 on Be Proud of Your... +36
#33 - CrabFace (09/10/2013) [-]
Oh my god wtf is this
#32 - seizure (09/10/2013) [-]
Isn't the person the one with the cone on his head, and not the horse?
User avatar
#34 - graydiggy (09/10/2013) [-]
Refer to the post below me.
#23 - apothicary (09/10/2013) [-]
Hehe I love living in Glasgow
#17 - rieskimo (09/10/2013) [-]
It's better than the lame surfer we have here in Newport, Rhode Island... people just put shoes on his feet.

Picture related, the dumb statue.
User avatar
#13 - thepouchka (09/10/2013) [-]
I heard from a friend that its "illegal" to take it off now.
Its part of glasgow culture.
User avatar
#18 - cowinspace (09/10/2013) [-]
That's not true, it was spread by a newspaper here as a joke. It is, however, so common now that the police/council don't even bother removing it unless extremely high winds are expected.

Besides, if they didn't remove it then the statue wouldn't be able to show off new types of cone.
User avatar
#7 - cygnuswithasmile (09/10/2013) [-]
Yeh, except that was on purpose and is considered 'Modern Art'. It does kind of sum up the city perfectly though.
#8 - trollsbetrollin (09/10/2013) [-]
It might be considered as modern art now but it started back in the 1980s (if not before) as a practical joke which as you say perfectly shows the more light hearted and funny side of Glasgow.
User avatar
#9 - cygnuswithasmile (09/10/2013) [-]
Ha, I walk by GOMA almost every day and I just assumed the musuem did it on purpose. Turns out there's an ongoing thing between the people and the police between putting a cone up there and taking it down. Today I learned something.
#20 - paulyginooly (09/10/2013) [-]
I walk past that nearly every day aswell
be ma pal
#37 - cygnuswithasmile (09/10/2013) [-]
Naw ya dobber, get tae fuck.
User avatar
#19 - cowinspace (09/10/2013) [-]
Students have been doing that for longer tha GOMA has existed there. They did do some stuff where they put decorated cones on it, but that was only for the length of the exhibition it was for.
#11 - learned (09/10/2013) [-]
no
#12 - learned (09/10/2013) [-]
after reading.
yes
#10 - trollsbetrollin (09/10/2013) [-]
The cone gets taken off, another one gets put on. It's the circle of life for Glasgow
User avatar
#14 - poisonormints (09/10/2013) [-]
I think health and safety nazi's have stopped it though, they just leave it up there so no one falls putting another one back up
User avatar
#25 - cheatmasterjunk (09/10/2013) [-]
I've heard people suggest to replace it with a brass cone or something, but I know they won't because someone will just put a real one on top of that!
User avatar
#27 - poisonormints (09/10/2013) [-]
yeh haha xD, plus itd just look stupid, we've been used to the orange traffic cones too long