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

walshb

end of the road wrote: »

i know what i said, what you said and then what i said.
my previous post is very simple, the truths have been listed, the people claiming they aren't truths have helped, unintentionally, to show that those truths may in fact be so, via their inability to show otherwise with reliable proof.

What?

My question could not have been simpler.

What truths about the RF did the interview throw up?

If you can’t list them, fine. We’ll move on.

And another thing: there are a lot more British folks scathing of that bull interview than Irish. Ten times + our population and all that.

Did you carry out some detailed analysis on Ireland v Britain as regards their views on the interview?

And what is the issue with posters on this thread slating the interview?

end of the road

walshb wrote: »

What?

My question could not have been simpler.

What truths about the RF did the interview throw up?

If you can’t list them, fine. We’ll move on.

your question was simple and it was answered.
not my fault or problem if you don't like the answer but it was given.

walshb wrote: »

And another thing: there are a lot more British folks scathing of that bull interview than Irish. Ten times + our population and all that.

not really, or at least if they are, they aren't as angry over it as 1 or 2 posters on here.
perhapse there is ranting and whining over on facebook or twitter but tbh i wouldn't use those as a barometer for anything.

walshb wrote: »

Did you carry out some detailed analysis on Ireland v Britain as regards their views on the interview?

didn't need to, a quick look around a couple of discussion forums was enough for me in terms of what i was looking for.

walshb wrote: »

And what is the issue with posters on this thread slating the interview?

slating the interview? it's gone wayyyy beyond that now hasn't it.
the real issue is
1. irish people getting so angry and offended on behalf of a foreign institution who's members have more important things to care about then irish people.
2. slating a woman on the basis of what is effectively nothing or what amounts to a particular paper or individual says it's true therefore it is, creating a narrative about her that has nothing to show it, and then using the twisting of non-issues in to the biggest issue in the world so as to back up that created and want to be the case narrative which is then used to have a go at her, where should she do the opposite of what she is being accused of she would still face the same nonsense.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

Just because Harry only gave the details of one conversation doesn't mean more didn't happen, he didn't clarify and say actually there was only one conversation that happened when were first met.

When he was asked by Oprah to elaborate on this conversation, he said "but it was right at the beginning". Such construction of the sentence excludes other possibilities.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

i know what i said, what you said and then what i said.
my previous post is very simple, the truths have been listed, the people claiming they aren't truths have helped, unintentionally, to show that those truths may in fact be so, via their inability to show otherwise with reliable proof.

Some Untruths told by Meghan
1 They got married 3 days before the big do
2 Archie was denied a title because of his colour
3 The timing of the comment regarding future children’s colour. Haz said early in the relationship. Meg said when she was pregnant.
4 Crygate. According to some, Kate wasn’t even there. It was her nanny who accompanied Charlotte to the fitting.
Trouble is that the false claim that they’d gotten married 3 days before the big do has cast a huge cloud over the rest of the interview and allegations.

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

When he was asked by Oprah to elaborate on this conversation, he said "but it was right at the beginning". Such construction of the sentence excludes other possibilities.

But sure that could just be taken as the conversations surrounding skin colour started from the very beginning, it doesn't exclude more conversations possibly taking place while Meghan was pregnant.

Leg End Reject

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Some Untruths told by Meghan
1 They got married 3 days before the big do
2 Archie was denied a title because of his colour
3 The timing of the comment regarding future children’s colour. Haz said early in the relationship. Meg said when she was pregnant.
4 Crygate. According to some, Kate wasn’t even there. It was her nanny who accompanied Charlotte to the fitting.
Trouble is that the false claim that they’d gotten married 3 days before the big do has cast a huge cloud over the rest of the interview and allegations.

I believe someone also posted proof that they were in discussions for their lucrative contracts a year before they left too.

walshb

end of the road wrote: »

your question was simple and it was answered.
not my fault or problem if you don't like the answer but it was given..

Ok, so you have still not listed the truths about the RF in the interview..

I am well aware allegations were given...

We all know this.

Please get back to me when you have unearthed these truths.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

whatever about british people being angry over their institution coming under a bit of an attack, it seems a small minority of irish people are more angry then the british public could ever be, which is quite concerning if i'm honest given it's a foreign institution as far as this country is concerned.
even looking at UK discussion forums the anger is non-existant really, simple disagreement over them doing the interview but nothing more.

Are you presuming this by this thread?
You don't know the nationalities of any posters, nor their place of residence.

FileNotFound

Sure tis a grand old day when Harry the Racist says his family are racists.
No doubt they are and thats where he got it from himself.


Either was Meg went from second rate actress to a somebody thanks to the group she hates. Sure after wrecking her own family whats the harm in wrecking another.


Its great craic watching hypocrites having a go at each other. Both sides for of sh1t - that's my solid view.

walshb

FileNotFound wrote: »

Sure tis a grand old day when Harry the Racist says his family are racists.
No doubt they are and thats where he got it from himself.


Either was Meg went from second rate actress to a somebody thanks to the group she hates. Sure after wrecking her own family whats the harm in wrecking another.


Its great craic watching hypocrites having a go at each other. Both sides for of sh1t - that's my solid view.

One side is having a go..

The RF have said nothing offensive or derogatory in retaliation. They have kept dignified and solemn.

FileNotFound

walshb wrote: »

One side is having a go..

The RF have said nothing offensive or derogatory in retaliation. They have kept dignified and solemn.

Thats true, but I'd be surprised if there is no truth in any of it. Besides Andrew is enough for the RF to be ashamed of.

I don't even mind them, If i had to pick a side in this argument I'd prob fall on the side of the RF just because a blind donkey could see the tale being spun on Oprah - not what was said but how (Oprah said most - almost like they had legal review the wording to ensure no comeback - and Oprah lied saying off the cuff).

I find it good entertainment... And the comments sections are top class.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

But sure that could just be taken as the conversations surrounding skin colour started from the very beginning, it doesn't exclude more conversations possibly taking place while Meghan was pregnant.

It does. He actually exactly repeated the question he had been asked: How dark the skin of kids will be. He even corrected Oprah about kids not a child, so it indicated even further that it was before any pregnancy because it was a general, not a particular question.

I am no longer keeping this line of conversation with you. You prefer to be fooled by them. Your choice,

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Some Untruths told by Meghan
1 They got married 3 days before the big do
2 Archie was denied a title because of his colour
3 The timing of the comment regarding future children’s colour. Haz said early in the relationship. Meg said when she was pregnant.
4 Crygate. According to some, Kate wasn’t even there. It was her nanny who accompanied Charlotte to the fitting.
Trouble is that the false claim that they’d gotten married 3 days before the big do has cast a huge cloud over the rest of the interview and allegations.

1. was a misunderstanding of what was probably a practice session.
2. was a belief based on the conversations in relation to the race of the baby, incorrect certainly but not a deliberate mistruth.
3. both can be accurate.
4. probably both of them cried, non-issue either way, and the claim that kate wasn't there doesn't look to be reliable when examined, but still a non-issue either way.
the incorrect statement, ultimately a misunderstanding that they’d gotten married 3 days before the big do has cast a huge cloud over the rest of the interview and allegations for those who there is no chance of them believeing the allegations anyway, so it's meaningless ultimately.

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I believe someone also posted proof that they were in discussions for their lucrative contracts a year before they left too.

they never denied that they were in discussions, they simply said they weren't interested in deals, which could mean anything.
chances are they weren't interested in those particular deals at the time, but then better offers were made which they were interested in.
perfectly fine and quite right that they should earn a living.

FileNotFound wrote: »

Sure tis a grand old day when Harry the Racist says his family are racists.
No doubt they are and thats where he got it from himself.


Either was Meg went from second rate actress to a somebody thanks to the group she hates. Sure after wrecking her own family whats the harm in wrecking another.


Its great craic watching hypocrites having a go at each other. Both sides for of sh1t - that's my solid view.

i think megan's own family wrecked themselves via their own hands really.
the father who tried to use the media to imotionaly blackmail his daughter into talking to him, when she did reach out and he threw her under the bus.
you couldn't ask for a better parent could you?

Leg End Reject

JoChervil wrote: »

It does. He actually exactly repeated the question he had been asked: How dark the skin of kids will be. He even corrected Oprah about kids not a child, so it indicated even further that it was before any pregnancy because it was a general, not a particular question.

I am no longer keeping this line of conversation with you. You prefer to be fooled by them. Your choice,

There's only so much twisting of reality you can respond to.

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

It does. He actually exactly repeated the question he had been asked: How dark the skin of kids will be. He even corrected Oprah about kids not a child, so it indicated even further that it was before any pregnancy because it was a general, not a particular question.

I am no longer keeping this line of conversation with you. You prefer to be fooled by them. Your choice,

Well so far I've been told I've been fooled, gullible and obtuse for not bending my view point or maybe, just maybe there's another way of looking at things that some refuse to acknowledge.

Ms2011

Leg End Reject wrote: »

There's only so much twisting of reality you can respond to.

First thing we agree on!

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

1. was a misunderstanding of what was probably a practice session.
2. was a belief based on the conversations in relation to the race of the baby, incorrect certainly but not a deliberate mistruth.
3. both can be accurate.
4. probably both of them cried, non-issue either way, and the claim that kate wasn't there doesn't look to be reliable when examined, but still a non-issue either way.
the incorrect statement, ultimately a misunderstanding that they’d gotten married 3 days before the big do has cast a huge cloud over the rest of the interview and allegations for those who there is no chance of them believeing the allegations anyway, so it's meaningless ultimately.



they never denied that they were in discussions, they simply said they weren't interested in deals, which could mean anything.
chances are they weren't interested in those particular deals at the time, but then better offers were made which they were interested in.
perfectly fine and quite right that they should earn a living.







i think megan's own family wrecked themselves via their own hands really.
the father who tried to use the media to imotionaly blackmail his daughter into talking to him, when she did reach out and he threw

her under the bus.
you couldn't ask for a better parent could you?

1. Like Meg, I’ve been married twice. I know exactly when the ceremonies took place.
2. Harry would have known the deal.
3. Not really. Either a conversation took place early in the relationship or after the wedding when Archie was on the way.

Too many mistruths or differing recollections to do other than question the Sussexes agenda.

anewme

Ms2011 wrote: »

Well so far I've been told I've been fooled, gullible and obtuse for not bending my view point or maybe, just maybe there's another way of looking at things that some refuse to acknowledge.

There are many people who see there is another way of looking at things.

You havent been fooled or are gullible at all.

walshb

Gullible, fooled, naive, ignorant, oblivious , obtuse, or any other description

There are some who won’t see or hear, for whatever reasons, that what is very clear to others...

Excusing it with maybes and what ifs and you can’t prove that he/she lied etc etc..

This is how I see it with anyone who gives these pair any credence for that Sh1t show contrived rubbish..

JoChervil

anewme wrote: »

There are many people who see there is another way of looking at things.

You havent been fooled or are gullible at all.

Of course, Meghan is a living proof of it.

ceadaoin.

So the defense of the wedding thing is that they were both so stupid they thought a rehearsal was actually the real thing? I mean there's no other way anyone would actually think that other than complete ignorance and stupidity. Is that more believable than them just lying? Not really

Be right back

And he's back in the UK! Pity he didn't make the trip earlier to see his grandfather before he died.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

1. Like Meg, I’ve been married twice. I know exactly when the ceremonies took place.
2. Harry would have known the deal.
3. Not really. Either a conversation took place early in the relationship or after the wedding when Archie was on the way.

Too many mistruths or differing recollections to do other than question the Sussexes agenda.

1. the US and UK may have different rules and all else in relation to weddings, so because you know how things work under irish law does not mean megan can't misunderstand a serimony in the UK, given there will likely be differences between it and the US.
2. he may not necessarily.
3. both could have taken place, there is nothing that could prevent that from being the case.
no mistruths, 2 incorrect statements and 1 situation where both have different experiences which is plausible, so nothing really there that would make any questioning of anything reliable.

walshb wrote: »

Gullible, fooled, naive, ignorant, oblivious , obtuse, or any other description

There are some who won’t see or hear, for whatever reasons, that what is very clear to others...

Excusing it with maybes and what ifs and you can’t prove that he/she lied etc etc..

This is how I see it with anyone who gives these pair any credence for that Sh1t show contrived rubbish..

sure, but you still remain incorrect.

the fact that maybes and possibilities and all else are more plausable then what is being used to back up the narrative against her shows that ultimately so far nothing being used to have a go with her is sticking, or is anything more then bottom of the pile stuff that wouldn't even make first world problems.

walshb

end of the road wrote: »

1. the US and UK may have different rules and all else in relation to weddings, so because you know how things work under irish law does not mean megan can't misunderstand a serimony in the UK, given there will likely be differences between it and the US.
2. he may not necessarily.
3. both could have taken place, there is nothing that could prevent that from being the case.
no mistruths, 2 incorrect statements and 1 situation where both have different experiences which is plausible, so nothing really there that would make any questioning of anything reliable.






sure, but you still remain incorrect.

the fact that maybes and possibilities and all else are more plausable then what is being used to back up the narrative against her shows that ultimately so far nothing being used to have a go with her is sticking, or is anything more then bottom of the pile stuff that wouldn't even make first world problems.

Everything you have posted is exactly my point. Deflection, excuses, maybes, can’t proves, red herrings..

Exactly like what you’d expect a defender to do..

As clear as crystal what these pairs were at...

end of the road

Be right back wrote: »

And he's back in the UK! Pity he didn't make the trip earlier to see his grandfather before he died.

certainly if he was unable to get back earlier for whatever reason that is indeed unfortunate.
but guess what, sometimes unfortunately people who emigrate are unable to get back to see an ill loved one, that ill loved one sadly passes away and they are having to scramble to get back for the funeral.
very unfortunate situation but unless we are going to have a go at everyone in this situation then realistically there is nothing to have a go at harry for here either.

Be right back

end of the road wrote: »

certainly if he was unable to get back earlier for whatever reason that is indeed unfortunate.
but guess what, sometimes unfortunately people who emigrate are unable to get back to see an ill loved one, that ill loved one sadly passes away and they are having to scramble to get back for the funeral.
very unfortunate situation but unless we are going to have a go at everyone in this situation then realistically there is nothing to have a go at harry for here either.

Apparently it was known within the family that it was a matter of time after he left hospital, so he did have opportunity to travel before now.

end of the road

walshb wrote: »

Everything you have posted is exactly my point. Deflection, excuses, maybes, can’t proves, red herrings..

Exactly like what you’d expect a defender to do..

As clear as crystal what these pairs were at...

when stuff being used to have a go at someone can easily be explained away with more plausible explanations then the individuals having a go at the individual have a huge problem.
it's clear as crystal what you want these 2 to be at, but that's very different to them specifically being at something.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

1. the US and UK may have different rules and all else in relation to weddings, so because you know how things work under irish law does not mean megan can't misunderstand a serimony in the UK, given there will likely be differences between it and the US.
2. he may not necessarily.
3. both could have taken place, there is nothing that could prevent that from being the case.
no mistruths, 2 incorrect statements and 1 situation where both have different experiences which is plausible, so nothing really there that would make any questioning of anything reliable.

sure, but you still remain incorrect.

Ya. You’re right. Everyone else is wrong.

1. Surely to goodness they’re not so stupid as to think that the secret wedding was the real deal?
2. It might explain their ignorance of matters of royal titles.
3. I doubt if one conversation regarding colour had taken place, let alone two!

end of the road

Be right back wrote: »

Apparently it was known within the family that it was a matter of time after he left hospital, so he did have opportunity to travel before now.

maybe it was known, maybe it was suspected, realistically we probably won't know for definite for a bit at least.
either way, it wouldn't necessarily equate to an opportunity for harry to travel back, assuming it was absolutely the case that he didn't.
i'm sure the tabloids might have reported on it had he done so but maybe in this case they might have grown up for once given the situation and not bothered.
things are not always so simple unfortunately especially where a family member has emigrated.

walshb

end of the road wrote: »

when stuff being used to have a go at someone can easily be explained away with more plausible explanations then the individuals having a go at the individual have a huge problem.
it's clear as crystal what you want these 2 to be at, but that's very different to them specifically being at something.

This reads as just more mumbo jumbo type deflection...

I know what they were at. Of course, can’t prove be it. Nobody can.

And that’s the beauty of it for them...the whole **** show was engineered to be as misleading and vague as possible, but it didn’t wash with me and many others. Their bull and contradictions and misdirections were clear to see.