The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are reported to be furious after a French magazine published topless photos of the duchess in a French magazine. The publication Closer printed the pictures, taken during the couple's holiday at the French chateau of the Queen's nephew, Lord Linley.

The photos are blurry and taken with a long lens but are clearly of the royal couple, the BBC's Paris bureau says. There are four pages of photos of the couple with Kate topless in several. They were told about the magazine's plan to publish the photos during breakfast in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on their Asian tour.

It has emerged that British newspapers were offered photographs last week but turned them down. BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt says: "Royal officials say they accept the photos are genuine and the couple are furious.

"They believe a "red line" has been crossed. The couple cannot believe someone would take such photos and publish them.

"The officials stress the couple couldn't have gone to a more secluded location in France. They were a "young couple enjoying a holiday". "There has been a significant hardening of William and Kate's response to the publication of the topless photos."

The royal couple continued with their nine-day tour, which is part of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations, on Friday by visiting a mosque in Kuala Lumpur. On Thursday, the duchess gave her first official speech abroad while visiting a hospice in the capital.

"Providing children and their families with a place of support, care and enhancement at a time of great need is simply life changing," she said. She said the couple were "hugely excited" to be in Malaysia, after they had started their tour in Singapore.

The emergence of the magazine photos follows the controversy over the publication of pictures of a naked Prince Harry, Kate's brother-in-law, which were taken in a Las Vegas hotel room last month.

>>>>>>>The future of the magazine...

... screwed!!

Übergeek 바둑이: ... a Monty Python moment..

I don't.

less of the stereotyping please.

Artful Dodger:

> But to be clear, the God of the universe is not the god of Islam. Islam's god is Satan. Sad but it's true.


Assumption #1: Satan exists
Assumption #2: God exists
Assumption #3: You can prove assumptions 1 and 2 above.
Assumption #4: God and Satan are different entities.

Of course, what happens if these assumptions are wrong. I would challenge both Christians and Moslems to prove scientifically and without a doubt that their gods exist and that Satan exists.

Of course, Christians and Moslems want to see their gods as being different, even though both religions have their origins in the Judaism of Abraham, which is predated by the monotheism of the Zoroastrians, and that in turn is predated by the cult of Theus Pater among the Protoindoeuropeans.

N' building a PC only starts with one decision.

.. Intel or AMD?

That is, if you want to stick to and develop your system... resourcefully and economically.

I chose AMD as the socket system was more flexible on what CPU's.... later I learnt, with the right motherboard... you may get a chip that is better than stated through a process called unlocking.

It's the same as building an engine.

Artful Dodger: really..

Not a pantheist.

"...Origen was a prolific writer in multiple branches of theology, including textual criticism, biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, philosophical theology, preaching, and spirituality. Some of his teachings, however, quickly became controversial. Notably, he frequently referred to his hypothesis of the pre-existence of souls. As in the beginning all intelligent beings were united to God, Origen also held out the possibility, though he did not assert so definitively, that in the end all beings, perhaps even the arch-fiend Satan,[5] would be reconciled to God in what is called the apokatastasis ("restitution")..."

Sadly alot of his work, as with many gospels were burnt by Christian factions arguing about who's version is right.. along with stabbing, clubbing and other bad mannered activities.

(V): He was mostly orthodox and confirmed God as creator etc. he did have a few wild ideas but wasn't a pantheist.

Artful Dodger: Second law of thermal underware? What's the first law?

No, wait... never mind. If it doesn't itch that's all I need to know.

Artful Dodger: Origen said it in 250AD.

And it doesn't itch

Iamon lyme: have you heard of the second law of thermal underwear? It used to be Weight=Warmth. But that's no longer true. Arctic fabric technology is lightweight fabric and surpasses thermal undies for heat capture. Another theory debunked.

(V): I let go a lot. Nancy yell then.

Dang ipad

Iamon lyme: Pictures...n' anything else they feel morally obliged to point out.

Yet an old Zen saying stipulates the peacefulness of letting goooooooooooooo. .... ... ooooooooooooo

Artful Dodger: Haha. Not but

(V): well that's more new age of ya. I feel better now. Now god is a cow fart. The material world is not God but yes God created it all. It is not god however. As you said, God just is. He is infinite with no beginning. Material can be traced to a beginning. And then there's that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics . It cuts short the infinite by an infinite.

(V): [ BIG ONES!! ]

Women, dresses, or pictures?

Iamon lyme: Nearly as surreal as a The Daily Mail complaining about how women dress... then confirming this with pictures ... BIG ONES!!

Artful Dodger: "Oh wait....now I'm confused....just a sec.."


LOL ~~~~ Hey, I know the feeling! Is it just me, or is it getting surreal in here?

Artful Dodger: Now you are creating legion, a separation. All is of God. everything... even the little parasites that bury themselves into sheep's eyes.

.... or the little fishy that smells ... and then bury's itself in your!!!!

Artful Dodger: I could say I can say three words that nudge my brain into ... .... ... .... I cannot and will not try to describe it. It is.

But to be clear, the God of the universe is not the god of Islam. Islam's god is Satan. Sad but it's true.

Gotta run. I just agreed with V publicly and I have to find a confessional quick!!!

Wait, I"m a Protestant. I'll just tell the puppies. They understand me.

(V): What??? Crap!!! YOu just made sense! What's up with that??? But you're right and I agree. The finite describing the infinite. It's not possible. How can we describe that which we cannot fully comprehend? It's better that way. I would hate for God to be limited to my puny understanding of HIM.

Artful Dodger: Well some points seem to be hard to get across. I know what I mean.. but in that lies a problem.

I cannot define a God that inherently has no real description that is fit. As soon as you try to define then you do not.

That principle I understand easily.. Moses had the same problem didn't he

Iamon lyme: make that squares

Iamon lyme: jules talks in circles

Iamon lyme: It is enough.

"If he can tell me about the god or gods he truly believes exist then okay, he's not an atheist."

Believing, belief.. that is a statement that leaves doubt.. Are you telling that a fellow son of God as laid down in plain text in the Bible is not to aim to.. .... ....

.. Ok, Christ... did he as our brother just believe!!!

Wouldn't that lead to "..a constant state of indecision..."

Iamon lyme: Oh yeah, well prove to me that it's not up to an atheist to prove there is a god. Or I mean to disprove there isn't a God. Oh wait....now I'm confused....just a sec....

..



Never mind. Needed to jump start the brain. Carry on. I"m better now.

Bwild: [ no...I mean its really not up to an athiest to prove there isnt a god. ]

That's not what I was asking him to prove... in fact, I've never asked anyone to try proving that.

Iamon lyme: no...I mean its really not up to an athiest to prove there isnt a god.

Bwild: [ I'm not an atheist. ] ~ Prove it.

"Iamon lyme: its really the other way around."

Do you mean it's up to me to prove he is? Or did you mean something else?

He made the statement that he is not an atheist. That's fine, but so far he hasn't said anything that would make me believe that he isn't. It can't be the other way around because it's not up to me to back up or disprove his statement. Based on everything I've seen him say up to this point I believe he is an atheist, so it's puzzling that he would say that he isn't and then act as though that's all that needs to be said.

If a duck told me he is not a duck, I'm not going to believe him unless he can back up that claim with something (anything) resembling evidence of him not being a duck. It's as simple as proving (demonstrating) that he is actually some other kind of bird.

If he can tell me about the god or gods he truly believes exist then okay, he's not an atheist.

And if he doesn't want to tell me, then that is okay too. But the only way someone can back up the statement he is not an atheist is to demonstrate some kind of belief in a god or gods. And I don't mean some high ideal or fuzzy idea about the universe, or some cheap workaround about how he is the god that he worships, and therefore he cannot be an atheist.

The guy can build his own computer, but he can't explain why he isn't an atheist? I'm not interested in playing word games with him, and I assume his grasp of the English language is adequate... but maybe that's where I've made my mistake, maybe I've assumed too much. How hard can this be?

Iamon lyme: its really the other way around.

Long-Form Birth Certificate Of Obama Is A Forged Document http://www.westernjournalism.com/long-form-birth-certificate-of-obama-is-a-forged-document/ via @WestJournalism

And hey morons, it's not a claim to say he wasn't born in the US. It's a claim that the released birth certificate IS forged. What's up with that?

Israeli Science Website: Former Netanyahu Adviser: Obama Birth Certificate a forged document. ...: http://youtu.be/QwP6-4ec4e8 via @youtube

NPH said heaven is really great.. Jesus does like to PaRtYyyyy

Artful Dodger: as you will judge yourself by context.

Never said anything about not loving my neighbor. But we are to judge.

Artful Dodger: Love thy neighbour as thyself...

Judge.. love.. see??

Iamon lyme: He's missing the obvious fact that the Bible does say we are to judge.

Abba John the Dwarf said, 'a house is not built by geginning at the top and
working down. You must begin with the fundations in order to reach the top.
They siad to him, 'What does this saying mean?' He said, 'The foundation is
our neighbour, whom we must win, and that is the place to begin. For all the
commandments of Christ depend on this one.'

Abba Poemen said that Abba John said that the saints are like a group of
trees, each bearing different fruit, but watered from the same source. The
practices of one saint differ from those of another, but it is the same Spirit
that works in all of them.

Abba John said to his brother, 'Even if we are entirely despised in the eyes
of men, let us rejoice that we are honoured in the sight of God.'

Iamon lyme: Somehow you miss the poetry?

.. You've never walked the dessert have you!!

(V): quidquid supernatat vestra navicula

Several citizens ran into a hot argument about God and different religions, and each one could not agree to a common answer. So they came to the Lord Buddha to find out what exactly God looks like.

The Buddha asked his disciples to get a large magnificent elephant and four blind men. He then brought the four blind to the elephant and told them to find out what the elephant would “look” like.

The first blind men touched the elephant leg and reported that it “looked” like a pillar. The second blind man touched the elephant tummy and said that an elephant was a wall. The third blind man touched the elephant ear and said that it was a piece of cloth. The fourth blind man hold on to the tail and described the elephant as a piece of rope. And all of them ran into a hot argument about the “appearance” of an elephant.

The Buddha asked the citizens: “Each blind man had touched the elephant but each of them gives a different description of the animal. Which answer is right?”

Iamon lyme: No.

"I don't need to be judgemental to understand the distinction between a day of final judgement, and judging words and actions."

Final judgement as an entire world event or a personal level final judgement? IMO there is no 'end of the world' final judgement as the message is then taken out of context. Yet it is still a message to prevail.

"Are you able to comprehend that if no one were able to judge themselves, or what they do, or what they say, that (literally) nothing could get done? You would be in a constant state of indecision."

As in personal reflection... I can understand that, of one tossing off a bad limb. But, in that... what is.. is.

"Frankly, I'm relieved that only God is qualified to judge my soul. If it were left up to nincomepoops to arbitrarily decide if I was good enough or not, I would truly have reason to be afraid."

Then you accept as a fellow person in the body of Christ (as written we are all part of) that I do not listen to "nincomepoops". .. I remember a great Zen story on this point!!

(V): [ So you know what judging means now? ]

I'm saying you are confusing different meanings of the word judgement by ignoring context. Whether intentionally or not you are implying there is only one meaning. I won't be the judge of whether you do this intentionally or not. But I will say that I don't need you to interpret the Bible for me, especially in light of your not being able (or willing) to acknowledge something as simple to understand as this.

I don't need to be judgemental to understand the distinction between a day of final judgement, and judging words and actions.

Are you able to comprehend that if no one were able to judge themselves, or what they do, or what they say, that (literally) nothing could get done? You would be in a constant state of indecision.

Frankly, I'm relieved that only God is qualified to judge my soul. If it were left up to nincomepoops to arbitrarily decide if I was good enough or not, I would truly have reason to be afraid.

The Col: Our biological difference engine would come into effect. Old school no water.

(V): Would "judging" a hot dog eating contest include points for form? or just pure numbers ingested