Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

And how many have decided she's horrible and a narcissist for no good reason? See post above yours. Absolutely no proof of it whatsoever. "Estranged?" It's called a separation. And she was only married once before. They have to drive something, Jaysus.

It has not been fully confirmed. However, it has been published by several different sources that she was married twice. One marriage was previously annulled and one marriage ended in divorce.

I think that her father and sister would use the terms estranged.

Ironically, I actually think that the situation is complicated and can not make an opinion on them. However, it is your blind devotion to them that goads me and invites me to challenge you on your beliefs

Stateofyou

banie01 wrote: »

Have very little interest in this story and tbh, anything that undermines the UK's monarchy is a plus IMO.

That said, am I the only one who finds Megan trying to pontificate on race relations in Britain as being an example of extracting the urine?

Her knowledge and lived experience of the UK as anything other than the absolute pinnacle of society is at odds with her claims of discrimination?
Surely?

It's just her opinion and her experience, which she's entitled to. She hasn't even spoken about it, so why are you already labelling her talking about it to pontificating, which means to speak about something in a pompous sort of way. She hasn't even said anything yet. :-s

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

That entire slanderous rant isn't based on anything factual. It's actually bizarre any modestly intelligent adult would take it upon themselves to write something like that.
Just goes to show there certainly is a market for the rags.

You should look up the difference between slander and libel, before using legal jargon incorrectly

cnocbui

Stateofyou wrote: »

That entire slanderous rant isn't based on anything factual. It's actually bizarre any modestly intelligent adult would take it upon themselves to write something like that.
Just goes to show there certainly is a market for the rags.

Probably has a little plug on the back of the neck and jacks in with an optical fibre for a direct to brain DM feed. No critical thinking required, just give me all the gos you got, baby.

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

Probably has a little plug on the back of the neck and jacks in with an optical fibre for a direct to brain DM feed. No critical thinking required, just give me all the gos you got, baby.

But extolling all her virtues while ignoring the contradictory firsthand accounts of others like certain posters on her is critical thinking. There are three sides to every story

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

It has not been fully confirmed. However, it has been published by several different sources that she was married twice. One marriage was previously annulled and one marriage ended in divorce.

I think that her father and sister would use the terms estranged.

Ironically, I actually think that the situation is complicated and can not make an opinion on them. However, it is your blind devotion to them that goads me and invites me to challenge you on your beliefs

Oh FFS. And so what? It's her business. Her unsupportive father and HALF sister who's she's met a couple times in her whole life and grew up completely separate from? Who cares what terms they would use. And for a situation that sounds purely made up and no one's business anyway.

It's not blind devotion. As I said, I take them at face value, not mean and made up speculation. Key word you said "beliefs." Mine I at least try to base off what is known from them directly. Not bs gossip and mean speculation.

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

You should look up the difference between slander and libel, before using legal jargon incorrectly

I actually work within the legal profession thank you, I'm good. You shouldn't presume.

cnocbui

BettyS wrote: »

But extolling all her virtues while ignoring the contradictory firsthand accounts of others like certain posters on her is critical thinking. There are three sides to every story

What first hand accounts - all those anonymous ones alleged by the DM?

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

Oh FFS. And so what? It's her business. Her unsupportive father and HALF sister who's she's met a couple times in her whole life and grew up completely separate from? Who cares what terms they would use. And for a situation that sounds purely made up and no one's business anyway.

It's not blind devotion. As I said, I take them at face value, not mean and made up speculation. Key word you said "beliefs." Mine I at least try to base off what is known from them directly. Not bs gossip and mean speculation.

Her unsupportive father paid for her in college. Why do you automatically discount his account? And how do you know how much she knows her sister? And what about Harry no longer on speaking terms with his family?

There are negative accounts from people that know her. But are all of these gossip and mean speculation?

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

What first hand accounts - all those anonymous ones alleged by the DM?

Her father and sister tell their tale.

I am not saying that their accounts are correct. I am saying that why is the only true account what Meghan and Harry choose to tell us?

valoren

Stateofyou wrote: »

That entire slanderous rant isn't based on anything factual. It's actually bizarre any modestly intelligent adult would take it upon themselves to write something like that.
Just goes to show there certainly is a market for the rags.

She is ticking all the boxes. Just because someone has not been professionally diagnosed with a disorder does not mean they do not have that disorder particularly when they display the traits of that disorder. Think of another high profile person like Trump, another one who ticks all the boxes, is not formally diagnosed but is accepted as a narcissist.

You missed my point. She joined the royal family and being an intelligent person she obviously knew what it was going to entail i.e. it isn’t all tea parties and tiaras. It was the same as Middleton joining. She went through the gutter press phase, did her job, rose above it and earned her stripes. Markle, a narcissist, expects instant gratification without putting in the legwork to actually earn the same level of respect. Any entirely expected criticism in the press was exploited to play the victim. Before you accuse me of slander then perhaps align the below traits to her conduct and personality. It might be a discomfiting exercise for those who prefer to focus on the positives. You have to take the good with the bad.

·         Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g. exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).

·         Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

·         Believes that they are "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

·         Requires excessive admiration.

·         Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with their expectations).

·         Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve their own ends).

·         Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

·         Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of them.

·         Shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes

banie01

Stateofyou wrote: »

It's just her opinion and her experience, which she's entitled to. She hasn't even spoken about it, so why are you already labelling her talking about it to pontificating, which means to speak about something in a pompous sort of way. She hasn't even said anything yet. :-s

Which I have outlined.
You are incredibly defensive and quite aggressive in your rush to defend what Megan's stance may be.
Why?
You attribute far more weight to Megan's probable position, than you do those who have knowledge and experience of Megan's behaviours.
Why is that?

What affords Megan's opinion and experience any more weight than those of opposing views?

valoren

cnocbui wrote: »

Probably has a little plug on the back of the neck and jacks in with an optical fibre for a direct to brain DM feed. No critical thinking required, just give me all the gos you got, baby.

I don't read the Daily Mail. Isn't that cognitive dissonance? That people critical of Meghan and Harry must be brain dead gullible types dependent on the Daily Mail to inform their thinking because that's more palatable than someone pointing out that if it talks like a narcissist, acts like a narcissist, displays ghe signs of a narcissist then.....

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

Her unsupportive father paid for her in college. Why do you automatically discount his account? And how do you know how much she knows her sister? And what about Harry no longer on speaking terms with his family?

There are negative accounts from people that know her. But are all of these gossip and mean speculation?

Unsupportive as per recent events, obviously. But since you mention it, Meghan herself said she paid her own way. Seeing as her father is the one who has proven himself to be fake and mistruthful, I would tend to believe her account.

As regards to her sister, there is a massive age gap, they didn't grow up together and lived/worked in separate states and countries their whole lives.

How do you know Harry isn't on speaking terms with his family? He just said he zooms them with Archie. So yeah, baseless gossip there from yourself.

Stateofyou

banie01 wrote: »

Which I have outlined.
You are incredibly defensive and quite aggressive in your rush to defend what Megan's stance may be.
Why?
You attribute far more weight to Megan's probable position, than you do those who have knowledge and experience of Megan's behaviours.
Why is that?

What affords Megan's opinion and experience any more weight than those of opposing views?

:pac: Ah the ol resorting to hyperbole to try and make a point when you don't have one.

By that same logic others with the opposite view are also defensive and aggressive in their attacks.

Stateofyou

valoren wrote: »

She is ticking all the boxes. Just because someone has not been professionally diagnosed with a disorder does not mean they do not have that disorder particularly when they display the traits of that disorder. Think of another high profile person like Trump, another one who ticks all the boxes, is not formally diagnosed but is accepted as a narcissist.

You missed my point. She joined the royal family and being an intelligent person she obviously knew what it was going to entail i.e. it isn’t all tea parties and tiaras. It was the same as Middleton joining. She went through the gutter press phase, did her job, rose above it and earned her stripes. Markle, a narcissist, expects instant gratification without putting in the legwork to actually earn the same level of respect. Any entirely expected criticism in the press was exploited to play the victim. Before you accuse me of slander then perhaps align the below traits to her conduct and personality. It might be a discomfiting exercise for those who prefer to focus on the positives. You have to take the good with the bad.

·         Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g. exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).

·         Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

·         Believes that they are "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

·         Requires excessive admiration.

·         Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with their expectations).

·         Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve their own ends).

·         Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

·         Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of them.

·         Shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes

Case in point.

Aggressively defensive, right banie? Or does that just apply to those who you don't agree with.

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

:pac: Ah the ol resorting to hyperbole to try and make a point when you don't have one.

You accused a poster of writing slander (a legal oxymoron, but I will let that slide) on the basis of a post. Accusing somebody of slander is fairly aggressive and extreme, as far as posting goes

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

Case in point.

Aggressively defensive, right banie? Or does that just apply to those who you don't agree with.

Oh the irony!!!

valoren

BettyS wrote: »

You accused a poster of writing slander (a legal oxymoron, but I will let that slide) on the basis of a post. Accusing somebody of slander is fairly aggressive and extreme, as far as posting goes

And if you post critical counter points then you are obviously a Daily Mail reader. It's like the Harry and Meghan equivalent of "you are fake news".

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

You accused a poster of writing slander (a legal oxymoron, but I will let that slide) on the basis of a post. Accusing somebody of slander is fairly aggressive and extreme, as far as posting goes

Hahahahhaahha, it's a true assessment of that poster's style, obvious to anyone with a degree preference for decency and facts.

Your defense of that poster is what is actually aggressive here. How about you let them speak for themselves?

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

Oh the irony!!!

The immature hypocriticalness here is unreal.

Leaving you to all to your imaginary bloodbath here of two people you don't even know, I've better things to do with my day. No wonder the owner of those gossip rags are millionaires many times over. :rolleyes: :pac:

meeeeh

Since a gaggle of people here seem to be terribly involved in Megan and Harry you'll be glad to know half of today's The Times is dedicated to them. Just in case you want to switch to a bit more high brow reading.

BettyS

valoren wrote: »

And if you post critical counter points then you are obviously a Daily Mail reader.

No. I am not a Daily Mail reader. Nor will I proceed to justify myself to such an absurd and poorly reasoned argument. Little personal quips are the retorts of somebody who cannot make a better point.

I know several people with PhDs that read the Daily Mail. Does that make them idiots? No: it does not. Professionals, at the end of a long day may just want some light relief. It is not because somebody reads it for entertainment that they necessarily soak up all the information blindly. I don’t read it. But I am not going to be exert intellectual superiority over somebody on that basis. Each to their own. Not everybody has time to cross-reference the affiliations of the writers and editors and the story itself. Is there only one correct paper now?

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

Hahahahhaahha, it's a true assessment of that poster's style, obvious to anyone with a degree preference for decency and facts.

Your defense of that poster is what is actually aggressive here. How about you let them speak for themselves?

And now you state that I have no decency or facts?

Who are you proclaiming to when you speak in third person?

I don’t like to standby and to watch you make false assertions about other posters on the basis that they don’t agree with you

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

The immature hypocriticalness here is unreal.

Leaving you to all to your imaginary bloodbath here of two people you don't even know, I've better things to do with my day. No wonder the owner of those gossip rags are millionaires many times over. :rolleyes: :pac:

It’s lockdown. People might not be lucky enough at the moment to have other things to talk about. This is light relief from COVID and politics in general

valoren

BettyS wrote: »

No. I am not a Daily Mail reader. Nor will I proceed to justify myself to such an absurd and poorly reasoned argument. Little personal quips are the retorts of somebody who cannot make a better point.

I know several people with PhDs that read the Daily Mail. Does that make them idiots? No: it does not. Professionals, at the end of a long day may just want some light relief. It is not because somebody reads it for entertainment that they necessarily soak up all the information blindly. I don’t read it. But I am not going to be exert intellectual superiority over somebody on that basis. Each to their own. Not everybody has time to cross-reference the affiliations of the writers and editors and the story itself. Is there only one correct paper now?

I was agreeing not having a go. I was accused of being under the influence of the Daily Mail because I was critical of Meghan. (i.e. my brain get’s hacked into their social media feed). A few posts above.

It’s probably easier for supporters to believe we’re incapable of thinking for ourselves or capable of making deductions which are critical of Meghan.

BettyS

valoren wrote: »

I was agreeing not having a go. I was accused of being under the influence of the Daily Mail because I was critical of Meghan. (i.e. my brain get’s hacked into their social media feed). A few posts above.

It’s probably easier for supporters to believe we’re incapable of thinking for ourselves or capable of making deductions which are critical of Meghan.

Sorry! I didn’t mean to be in defensive mode. I just read a pile of posts from State of you 🀦ðŸ»*♀️

Completely agree with your post!!! We are moronic, semi-literate fools, whose only encounter of an epic was the pull out section of the DM

Be right back

valoren wrote: »

I was agreeing not having a go. I was accused of being under the influence of the Daily Mail because I was critical of Meghan. (i.e. my brain get’s hacked into their social media feed). A few posts above.

It’s probably easier for supporters to believe we’re incapable of thinking for ourselves or capable of making deductions which are critical of Meghan.

We must be wrong as we are critical of Meghan. I think in the coming days, the Times will have more articles on Meghan. Perhaps those she is said to have bullied will have their say.

Just wondering why her dad was good for her first wedding but not the royal wedding?

BettyS

Be right back wrote: »

We must be wrong as we are critical of Meghan. I think in the coming days, the Times will have more articles on Meghan. Perhaps those she is said to have bullied will have their say.

Just wondering why her dad was good for her first wedding but not the royal wedding?

In a way, either directly or indirectly, it has been inferred that the British population is racist. I think that this is one of the most damaging accusations. It is not surprising that the British public have gone into defensive mode.

cnocbui

BettyS wrote: »

Her father and sister tell their tale.

I am not saying that their accounts are correct. I am saying that why is the only true account what Meghan and Harry choose to tell us?

Her sister is a four letter word of such ill-repute and character that she has been estranged from Meghan for decades and is such that she is even estranged from her own children, which takes some effort. She seems to have several axes to grind and has been seeking to profit from her situation since the get-go. She is at the very least, a most hostile witness. If you are genuinly asking why I or anyone else should dismiss anything salacious she says about Meghan, then I have to admit, it's beyond my limited faculties to explain it to you.

Her father is no better, he's been back-stabbing her in a way no father should their daughter - saying that as a father with a daughter. The participant in endless glow-in-the-dark obvious cheque-book journalism. He's being paid by the DM, whose massive antipathy and bias towards Meghan is beyond obvious, so he's not just a tainted source, he's positivly a biohazzard.

That leaves Meghan and Harry, who while biased, are more than a cut above the scum who own and edit the DM and Meghan's estranged family from hell.