Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

cnocbui

Clearly the Penny hasn't dropped with you that your opinions are dictated to you by the Uk tabloids.

walshb

I’d hazard an educated guess that 90 percent people who won’t deviate from the poor Meghan side is purely down to a real anti Royal stance, and nothing to do with thinking Meghan is justifiably right.

An enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine mentality!

Clear as day this vibe!

If the Brits won’t have Meg for their Queen, the Yanks better prepare to accept her as their Prez. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/meghan-markle-considering-running-president-23713022
The Donald says that he’ll run against her. Should be a great contest.

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Brits won’t have Meg for their Queen, the Yanks better prepare to accept her as their Prez. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/meghan-markle-considering-running-president-23713022
The Donald says that he’ll run against her. Should be a great contest.

Probably one of the very very few people I’d vote Trump over!

cnocbui

walshb wrote: »

I’d hazard an educated guess that 90 percent people who won’t deviate from the poor Meghan side is purely down to a real anti Royal stance, and nothing to do with thinking Meghan is justifiably right.

An enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine mentality!

Clear as day this vibe!

I'm not really anti. Given the supposed tourist income all that palaver generates, I believe the business case for them and the cost is pretty strong, so given they are a net positive in financial terms regarding taxpayers, I don't see a problem. I don't think the Queen should be head of state for Australia and NZ though, despite having her original signature on something.

MoonUnit75

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Brits won’t have Meg for their Queen, the Yanks better prepare to accept her as their Prez. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/meghan-markle-considering-running-president-23713022
The Donald says that he’ll run against her. Should be a great contest.

Cries and bitches to a global audience about flower girl dresses. Wants access to the nuclear codes.

cnocbui

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Cries and bitches to a global audience about flower girl dresses. Wants access to the nuclear codes.

You are confusing her with Kate. She was attempting to set the record straight in response to a false allegation.

acequion

walshb wrote: »

I’d hazard an educated guess that 90 percent people who won’t deviate from the poor Meghan side is purely down to a real anti Royal stance, and nothing to do with thinking Meghan is justifiably right.

An enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine mentality!

Clear as day this vibe!

Careful there walshb as you really are rattling the many Meghan fans on this thread.:pac:

The whole thing was a great diversion for 24-36 hours for me personally and then the grim realities of coping with life in a pandemic occupied all my attention again. It really is a storm in a tea cup, a big mouth drama queen blabbing her woes about her in laws to the world, with her weak little husband nodding along. A yawn fest at this stage.:rolleyes:

walshb

cnocbui wrote: »

You are confusing her with Kate. She was attempting to set the record straight in response to a false allegation.

Hold on..

Kate cried and bitched to who?

Jaysus, that would be scoop of the century?m..

Waiting for it now. Ready to blame Kate/RF due to some petulant nonsense immature story being conjured by the media..

Your take is pretty much Markle esque...allegations with eff all substance and credibility..

retro:electro

cnocbui wrote: »

Clearly the Penny hasn't dropped with you that your opinions are dictated to you by the Uk tabloids.

And yours dictated by bitchy gossip blogs.

cnocbui

walshb wrote: »

Hold on..

Kate cried and bitched to who?

Jaysus, that would be scoop of the century?m..

Waiting for it now. Ready to blame Kate/RF due to some petulant nonsense immature story being conjured by the media..

Your take is pretty much Markle esque...allegations with eff all substance and credibility..

Your favourite vestibule reading matter claimed it to be so:

Revealed: How Kate was ‘left in TEARS after Princess Charlotte’s bridesmaid dress fitting' in the run-up to Meghan’s wedding – amid rumours of a rift between the sisters-in-law

Kate, 36, was said to be 'feeling quite emotional' following the dress fitting
It comes after it was suggested Kate and Meghan, 37, 'don't really get on'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6433099/Kate-Middleton-TEARS-Princess-Charlottes-bridesmaid-dress-fitting-Meghans-wedding.html

If the story is untrue, then it serves as a good example of the opinion shaping Markle hit-pieces the Uk press have been engaged in relentlessly.

extra gravy

walshb wrote: »

I have many accurate and succinct posts made on this thread..

Just decided my first for the day would be short and sweet, and right to the point!!!

So, people, has the penny dropped about Markle?

"Accurate and succinct posts" - only in your own head. You're a grown man (I probably shouldn't assume this) that's spent a week insulting a woman you've never met based on your own assumptions about her rather than any actual real evidence. All done under the guise of "I'm entitled to my opinion" which actually translates to you as "I can say whatever the fück I like". Your posts are just embarrassing at this stage.

cnocbui

retro:electro wrote: »

It’s a gossip blog. You can’t get much worse. ...

retro:electro wrote: »

One guy even linked to a gossip blog called “celebbitchy” as a genuine source

retro:electro wrote: »

Pretty rich coming from someone who used a bitchy gossip blog as a genuine source.

retro:electro wrote: »

And yours dictated by bitchy gossip blogs.

Are you feeling Ok? Are you having short term memory problems, forgetting what you did earlier in the day, where you put your reading glasses?

It's just you seem to be repeating yourself a bit as if you are forgetting already having said things...

Stateofyou

retro:electro wrote: »

And yours dictated by bitchy gossip blogs.

Says the poster participating in slating a woman every day all day on an online bitchy thread. :rolleyes:

walshb

extra gravy wrote: »

"Accurate and succinct posts" - only in your own head. You're a grown man (I probably shouldn't assume this) that's spent a week insulting a woman you've never met based on your own assumptions about her rather than any actual real evidence. All done under the guise of "I'm entitled to my opinion" which actually translates to you as "I can say whatever the fück I like". Your posts are just embarrassing at this stage.

But throughout the whole thread the vast majority of your posts have been to take offence at any perceived criticisms of a woman none of us have met.

So in response to your labelling my posts embarrassing. It’s a simple right back atcha here..

I find it a wee bit odd that the Markle “criticisms” have you so defensive.

valoren

Read a good summation on Sky News Australia.

"Condemn everyone, name no one. The tactic of an unworthy person". I'd include Harry in that assessment.

The Gayle King commentary is a brilliant example of the flying monkey concept employed by narcissists.

extra gravy

walshb wrote: »

But throughout the whole thread the vast majority of your posts have been to take offence at any perceived criticisms of a woman none of us have met.

So in response to your labelling my posts embarrassing. It’s a simple right back atcha here..

I find it a wee bit odd that the Markle “criticisms” have you so defensive.

I find it equally as odd that you are so aggressive in your vilification of her, which is exemplified by the actual exaggerated criticisms in your posts not "perceived" ones as you claim.

*waits for the "i'm entitled to my opinion" response*

anewme

extra gravy wrote: »

I find it equally as odd that you are so aggressive in your vilification of her, which is exemplified by the actual exaggerated criticisms in your posts not "perceived" ones as you claim.

*waits for the "i'm entitled to my opinion" response*

The aggression is weird to be honest.

And as for succinct and accurate :pac::pac:

walshb

extra gravy wrote: »

I find it equally as odd that you are so aggressive in your vilification of her, which is exemplified by the actual exaggerated criticisms in your posts not "perceived" ones as you claim.

*waits for the "i'm entitled to my opinion" response*

But this is just it..

Your constantly taking offence to any perceived Markle criticisms, and labelling them aggressive..

I find it odd you, a complete stranger to her would be feeling like this..

retro:electro

cnocbui wrote: »

Are you feeling Ok? Are you having short term memory problems, forgetting what you did earlier in the day, where you put your reading glasses?

It's just you seem to be repeating yourself a bit as if you are forgetting already having said things...

I just like to remind you every time you get on your high horse about the reading habits of others which, evidently, is a lot!

Tokyo

walshb wrote: »

Has the penny dropped for the “poor Meghan” brigade yet?

cnocbui wrote: »

Clearly the Penny hasn't dropped with you that your opinions are dictated to you by the Uk tabloids.

retro:electro wrote: »

And yours dictated by bitchy gossip blogs.

Stateofyou wrote: »

Says the poster participating in slating a woman every day all day on an online bitchy thread. :rolleyes:

Mod: the three four of you, take 48 hours away from the thread.

extra gravy

walshb wrote: »

Your constantly taking offence to any perceived Markle criticisms, and labelling them aggressive

From my recollection...

<mod edit: your recollection is incorrect.>

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

Clearly the Penny hasn't dropped with you that your opinions are dictated to you by the Uk tabloids.

This is gas!
You're the only person in This thread on about the daily mail, all the time. I have never even seen the paper in real life!
I don't read newspapers, never a UK tabloid. Neither do I look at any of those magazines of celebrities etc. I don't go into celebrity gossip websites. I'm not even on Facebook.
Where do you think my opinions come from?

anewme

bubblypop wrote: »

This is gas!
You're the only person in This thread on about the daily mail, all the time. I have never even seen the paper in real life!
I don't read newspapers, never a UK tabloid. Neither do I look at any of those magazines of celebrities etc. I don't go into celebrity gossip websites. I'm not even on Facebook.
Where do you think my opinions come from?

Well they are not allowed post back, but it's not fair to say that this poster is the one taking their news from The Daily Fail.

valoren

valoren wrote: »

Read a good summation on Sky News Australia.

"Condemn everyone, name no one. The tactic of an unworthy person". I'd include Harry in that assessment.

The Gayle King commentary is a brilliant example of the flying monkey concept employed by narcissists.

Did you just use the word "monkey" loosely connected to a "woman of colour"?

RACIST!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad:

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Well they are not allowed post back, but it's not fair to say that this poster is the one taking their news from The Daily Fail.

Posted that before their ban I think, but, I didn't say they took their news from it, they post about the Daily Mail constantly throughout this thread.
I have never even seen the paper IRL.
But, don't mean to post about someone who isn't here, I was making the point that people make up their own minds up.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Posted that before their ban I think, but, I didn't say they took their news from it, they post about the Daily Mail constantly throughout this thread.
I have never even seen the paper IRL.
But, don't mean to post about someone who isn't here, I was making the point that people make up their own minds up.

The "Daily Mail" smear is meant to be one of those self-evident disqualifiers of somebody's opinion. For a lot of people on the left, it's on a similar level to the Stormfront website.

In reality it's a mildly conservative but sensationalist website but with a lot of pictures of celebrities. Pretty tame. It's almost the counterpoint to the Guardian on the left wing, but doesn't seem to have as consistent, synchronised an ideology as the Guardian does.

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

The "Daily Mail" smear is meant to be one of those self-evident disqualifiers of somebody's opinion. For a lot of people on the left, it's on a similar level to the Stormfront website.

In reality it's a mildly conservative but sensationalist website but with a lot of pictures of celebrities. Pretty tame. It's almost the counterpoint to the Guardian on the left wing, but doesn't seem to have as consistent, synchronised an ideology as the Guardian does.

Now, the Daily Mail is a right wing tabloid. To label it mildly conservative is not being straight about it.

extra gravy

walshb wrote: »

Two absolute cretins....

walshb wrote: »

they are media whores........

extra gravy wrote: »

<mod edit: your recollection is incorrect.>

If you say so.

Tokyo

extra gravy wrote: »

If you say so.

Mod:

While neither bathes the poster in glory, there is a world of difference between calling someone a 'whore' and a 'media whore'. Don't bring this to the thread again.