Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1253254256258259732

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,064 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    The language we use is now a means of pigeonholing us and accusing us of being one of the many "ists".

    Many of us use colloquial terms, or ones that were in common usage until recently, but language is now a weapon.

    The language I use with friends and family is different from what I use in work, and my conversations with the former 2 groups would have many gasping and fainting with outrage.

    It's a strange time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    walshb wrote: »
    This sums up our world today

    Everyone and their fooking mother tripping over themselves to find issues and aggro and offense and hostility...

    People simply aren't happy to be happy...when stuff is juts ok and normal and casual, people cannot handle it...

    And now ever tit around has a voice because of social media and the internet...

    Me included!!!

    There was a time when using the word ‘black’ was considered offensive, and ‘coloured’ was the preferable term. Now it’s the opposite! I can’t keep up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 55,715 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    There was a time when using the word ‘black’ was considered offensive, and ‘coloured’ was the preferable term. Now it’s the opposite! I can’t keep up.

    Yes

    I find most people still are fearful of the word black...they use dark/colored to describe

    Black people, of course, are not at all...they are proud, as they should be


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,939 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    I’d be of the same opinion as others above and I’m only in my thirties but while I’ve never been someone who is comfortable having conversations in groups, I’ve become even more so recently because I’m worried I’ll offend someone which isn’t a great way to operate.

    Context and intent in our society seem have gone the way of the dodo, because IMO both are still very important.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It must be especially hard for the older generation to keep up. Words they’ve used with no malice all their lives are overnight considered offensive without them knowing. They put their foot in it then unknown to themselves. No wonder so many people just keep to themselves and say nothing. It’s a minefield now trying to work our what’s appropriate, there’s always someone ready to take offence even when they know you meant no harm. To me, person of colour and coloured are the same bloody thing. How can one be deemed acceptable and the other offensive? Ridiculous.

    I just remembered that I AM one of the older generation! Maybe that’ll excuse my lack of political correctness!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 29,081 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Well if you feel that way then why would you correct her and say this?



    You’re clearly being pedantic just for the sake of it. A complete waste of time engaging with. You haven’t a notion tbh.

    because i did, and the statement is factually correct.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    because i did, and the statement is factually correct.

    If you know she meant no harm then there was no reason to patronisingly interject. Especially when you admit you have no clue why there is even a discrepancy between the two turns of phrases.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Back to Haz and Meg. Had to chuckle at this! “ The Duke of Cambridge, 39, and the Duke of Sussex, 36, are expected to put any tensions aside for unveiling of Princess Diana's statue on Thursday at Kensington Palace to mark what would've been their late mother's 60th birthday.

    But according to Hugo Vickers, any attempts of a reunion in London could result in Prince Harry having to answer for it when he returns to his wife in their £11million mansion in Montecito, California.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9732409/Prince-William-Prince-Harry-not-heal-long-Duke-thumb-Meghan-Markle.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,081 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    If you know she meant no harm then there was no reason to patronisingly interject. Especially when you admit you have no clue why there is even a discrepancy between the two turns of phrases.


    she was factually incorrect.
    i corrected her as to best practice today.
    get over it.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,057 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Back to Haz and Meg. Had to chuckle at this! “ The Duke of Cambridge, 39, and the Duke of Sussex, 36, are expected to put any tensions aside for unveiling of Princess Diana's statue on Thursday at Kensington Palace to mark what would've been their late mother's 60th birthday.

    But according to Hugo Vickers, any attempts of a reunion in London could result in Prince Harry having to answer for it when he returns to his wife in their £11million mansion in Montecito, California.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9732409/Prince-William-Prince-Harry-not-heal-long-Duke-thumb-Meghan-Markle.html

    I wonder how much the DM paid the biographer to exprees such an opinion? I'd love to see a leaking of their bank records.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    I've written the same sentiments I've expressed here about H&M elsewhere. I've gone through the gamut of being called a hater, of being an idiot gullible to the tabloids and a racist. The latest one is someone claiming that I am actually being paid to write negatively about them, to defame them. It's just more and more cognitive dissonance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,057 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Interesting to think that Harry is the first member of the royal family to have actually fired on the enemy in combat for several centuries.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,180 ✭✭✭Be right back


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Interesting to think that Harry is the first member of the royal family to have actually fired on the enemy in combat for several centuries.

    Prince Andrew fought in the Falklands war.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭PhoenixParker


    Prince Andrew fought in the Falklands war.

    Prince Philip fought in WW2.
    Pretty sure some brothers/sons of the Kings in WW2 & WW1 also saw combat.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,180 ✭✭✭Be right back


    Prince Philip fought in WW2.
    Pretty sure some brothers/sons of the Kings in WW2 & WW1 also saw combat.

    Actually, I think the Queen's father and uncle both served during WW1.


  • Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Interesting to think that Harry is the first member of the royal family to have actually fired on the enemy in combat for several centuries.

    Philip served with distinction in the Mediterranean during WWII for about 5 years.

    Andrew served during the Falklands - not sure how long for, but the Falklands war lasted 10 weeks. The Argentinian government planned but ultimately didn't undertake, an assassination attempt on him.

    Harry, by comparison, spent twelve weeks in Afghanistan.

    The royals have nearly always had military careers as far as I know.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,180 ✭✭✭Be right back


    Neyite wrote: »
    Philip served with distinction in the Mediterranean during WWII for about 5 years.

    Andrew served during the Falklands - not sure how long for, but the Falklands war lasted 10 weeks. The Argentinian government planned but ultimately didn't undertake, an assassination attempt on him.

    Harry, by comparison, spent twelve weeks in Afghanistan.

    The royals have nearly always had military careers as far as I know.

    Harry was only removed from the front line as the press released the story so his cover was blown. There's rumours that he was very well protected out there with own bodyguards.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,057 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Prince Andrew fought in the Falklands war.
    Prince Philip fought in WW2.
    Pretty sure some brothers/sons of the Kings in WW2 & WW1 also saw combat.

    I meant actually fired a weapon at an enemy. Neither William not Phillip did, as far as I have been able to ascertain. Prince Phillip was commended for ordering a raft set alight.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,057 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Neyite wrote: »
    Philip served with distinction in the Mediterranean during WWII for about 5 years.

    Andrew served during the Falklands - not sure how long for, but the Falklands war lasted 10 weeks. The Argentinian government planned but ultimately didn't undertake, an assassination attempt on him.

    Harry, by comparison, spent twelve weeks in Afghanistan.

    The royals have nearly always had military careers as far as I know.

    Harry served two tours in Afghanistan, comprising at least 26 weeks in total - 10 weeks for one in 2007-8 and four months the other, possibly more in 2012-13.

    I'm perfectly well aware that members of the royal family usually serve in the armed forces and that Phillip served in WW2, but is the only one I can find an account of who actually fired on the enemy personally.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,758 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    cnocbui wrote: »
    I meant actually fired a weapon at an enemy. Neither William not Phillip did, as far as I have been able to ascertain. Prince Phillip was commended for odering a raft set alight.

    Philip fought at Cape Matapan and up until late 1943 the Mediterranean theatre was a naval nightmare of near constant action.
    He was at Crete, where the Brits took heavy losses in 1941 and he also served in the far East from 44 on.

    Philips war service after 1940 was heavy and very prolonged.
    He may not have fired a rifle, but he served as a gunnery officer on a battleship armed with 15" guns and on almost every class of combatant in the RN.
    There is a school of thought that if he had remained active as a sailor, he would have made admiral.

    If your measure of action is firing a rifle?
    Then he most probably only did that during training.
    However if it is engaging in sustained combat operations against a peer force with men under your command and acquiting yourself well?
    Philip had that in spades.
    In naval service, particularly on ship.
    One orders fire, rather than pulls a trigger

    Even Andrew whilst not firing small arms, undertook extremely dangerous frontline flying duty in the Falklands.
    The picket duty in particular was hazardous and had the Argentines been a better trained force, those missions would have been a 1st strike target.
    If memory serves he ended his naval service commanding a mine sweeper?
    Also quite hazardous service.

    If memory serves, Victoria's children and grandchildren also served in combat roles.
    Arthur Duke of Connaught, and Louis of Battenburg spring to mind.
    Though Louis was a cousin and in law, he spent 40yrs in the RN became 1st sea lord and was then hounded out of service due to his perceived germaness.

    Not a fan of the royal family and the knowledge shared was gained due to my interest in military history rather than royal ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,057 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    banie01 wrote: »
    Philip fought at Cape Matapan and up until late 1943 the Mediterranean theatre was a naval nightmare of near constant action.
    He was at Crete, where the Brits took heavy losses in 1941 and he also served in the far East from 44 on...

    I wasn't trying to belittle Philip or Andrew, but people often do that in respect of Harry, labelling him a toy soldier, which is disgusting.

    I think it's a historically interesting notion that Harry is probably the first RF member to have personally engaged the enemy in a long time. If reports of him having killed a Taliban commander with a hellfire are true, then that would be an even more interesting milestone.

    I have to wonder if Philip was on any of the ships my father flew air cover for over the med in WW2.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Remember when Harry compared being at war to playing the PlayStation

    "It's a joy for me because I'm one of those people who loves playing PlayStation and Xbox, so with my thumbs I like to think I'm probably quite useful," he said.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/22/afghanistan-taliban-response-prince-harry


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,758 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    cnocbui wrote: »
    I wasn't trying to belittle Philip or Andrew, but people often do that in respect of Harry, labelling him a toy soldier, which is disgusting.

    I think it's a historically interesting notion that Harry is probably the first RF member to have personally engaged the enemy in a long time. If reports of him having killed a Taliban commander with a hellfire are true, then that would be an even more interesting milestone.

    I have to wonder if Philip was on any of the ships my father flew air cover for over the med in WW2.

    If your father flew from Gibraltar, Egypt or Malta I'd be quite confident he did tbh.
    Could be interesting to reconcile his flight log (IIRC you still have it?) With the known movements of the ships Philip served on.

    Harry's service with the AAC was intense and he did engage and fire upon the enemy.
    That tour was certainly no toy soldier role.
    There have been questions raised regarding his 2nd tour as an infantry officer.
    Not something I'd pay much heed to, because tbh even if you are being buddied up by a group of Gurkhas.
    Afghanistan is a hellish place to fight, and you don't go there and pretend ;)
    Of course he was surrounded and protected, but he volunteered to go back and to fight on foot.
    That's a ballsy move and should be appreciated for that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,057 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Remember when Harry compared being at war to playing the PlayStation

    "It's a joy for me because I'm one of those people who loves playing PlayStation and Xbox, so with my thumbs I like to think I'm probably quite useful," he said.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/22/afghanistan-taliban-response-prince-harry

    He might have been joking.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,758 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Remember when Harry compared being at war to playing the PlayStation

    "It's a joy for me because I'm one of those people who loves playing PlayStation and Xbox, so with my thumbs I like to think I'm probably quite useful," he said.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/22/afghanistan-taliban-response-prince-harry

    That was more comparing the cockpit and the interface of the Longbow Apache and it's innate "video-game" quality to a playstation IMO rather than comparing his service to being a call of duty warrior.

    He qualified as a gunner on a piece of very high tech kit that places a video feed between the gunner and the target.
    That's not an interview I'd use to hammer him tbh.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,057 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    banie01 wrote: »
    If your father flew from Gibraltar, Egypt or Malta I'd be quite confident he did tbh.
    Could be interesting to reconcile his flight log (IIRC you still have it?) With the known movements of the ships Philip served on.

    Harry's service with the AAC was intense and he did engage and fire upon the enemy.
    That tour was certainly no toy soldier role.
    There have been questions raised regarding his 2nd tour as an infantry officer.
    Not something I'd pay much heed to, because tbh even if you are being buddied up by a group of Gurkhas.
    Afghanistan is a hellish place to fight, and you don't go there and pretend ;)
    Of course he was surrounded and protected, but he volunteered to go back and to fight on foot.
    That's a ballsy move and should be appreciated for that.

    I do have his log book and a few other bits and bobs. He flew out of North Africa (Libya) mostly and was very familiar with Valetta and Egypt.

    A US Colonel and Ranger (Airborne) gave a first person account of Harry in Helmund and his account doesn't come across as if he was exactly surrounded by a ring of gurkahs at all times, quite the opposite.

    Apparently he's joined an aero club in cal. to keep his pilots licence current, which I think is a healthy thing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,057 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    banie01 wrote: »
    That was more comparing the cockpit and the interface of the Longbow Apache and it's innate "video-game" quality to a playstation IMO rather than comparing his service to being a call of duty warrior.

    He qualified as a gunner on a piece of very high tech kit that places a video feed between the gunner and the target.
    That's not an interview I'd use to hammer him tbh.

    Harry later qualified as a pilot, outright. One US military contractor that developed a massive laser cannon supplied an xbox controller to operate it with. The US Navy Viginia attack submarines come equipped with an xbox controller to operate the sensor masts. :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,758 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Harry later qualified as a pilot, outright. One US military contractor that developed a massive laser cannon supplied an xbox controller to operate it with. The US Navy Viginia attack submarines come equipped with an xbox controller to operate the sensor masts. :D

    We are gonna drag the whole thing off topic if we keep going.

    An awful lot of US tech, drones and weapon systems have been developed using XBOX/playstation controllers.
    I think at one point a custom control unit was being billed @$600k, part of the Virginia class refit and the photonics upgrade was to develop systems that were intuitive, cheap and maintainable.
    They swapped in the controllers and gained cost savings in gear and training.

    Anyway back on topic.
    I wouldn't knock his military service, it's easy to say he was coddled but the fact is whatever people may think of his current situation and choices.
    He went there twice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,859 ✭✭✭superflyninja


    valoren wrote: »
    I've written the same sentiments I've expressed here about H&M elsewhere. I've gone through the gamut of being called a hater, of being an idiot gullible to the tabloids and a racist. The latest one is someone claiming that I am actually being paid to write negatively about them, to defame them. It's just more and more cognitive dissonance.

    Its the same with so many topics these days. That sort of response is a brilliantly effective way of shutting people up and silencing them. The words used like hater etc mean nothing. It just enables easy online pile-ons. Those people are unable to argue with facts. You will notice in this thread even there are those that just dont answer with facts or argue factual points because they cant, instead striking back with more nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭giles lynchwood


    Actually, I think the Queen's father and uncle both served during WW1.


    Along with their valet and full wardrobe,groom's for their horse's and kept well away from the front as their loyal subject's were bombed to siht and back.


Advertisement