Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

Her sister is a four letter word of such ill-repute and character that she has been been astranged 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.

One question, as an objective observer. The love between a father and daughter trumps most things in life. He was there for the first wedding. He supported her through her early days of navigating fame. What unspoken events made this man turn against his daughter in recent years? Maybe he is being a douche, or maybe he is reacting to a slight? Who knows! But we cannot assume automatically that she is in the right. Family law is seldom so clear-cut

cnocbui

BettyS wrote: »

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.

The British are inherently racist, a passing acquaintance with their history and colonial conduct would make that obvious. In my family tree is a British general, who had Indians tied over the muzzles of cannon, which were then fired. Their crime was to want the invaders to leave. In Australia, British soldiers used to bury aborigines in the ground vertically, with only their head above ground, and then would hold competitions to see who could completely separate the head from the torso with the fewest kicks.

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

The British are inherently racist, a passing acquaintance with their history and colonial conduct would make that obvious. In my family tree is a British general, who had Indians tied over the muzzles of cannon, which were then fired. Their crime was to want the invaders to leave. In Australia, British soldiers used to bury aborigines in the ground vertically, with only their head above ground, and then would hold competitions to see who could completely separate the head from the torso with the fewest kicks.

But I am speaking about present day Britain. I do not live in Britain, so I cannot assess the veracity of the claim that current day Britain is racist. However, I do realise that most nations would go into defensive mode if accused of racism

Be right back

cnocbui wrote: »

The British are inherently racist, a passing acquaintance with their history and colonial conduct would make that obvious. In my family tree is a British general, who had Indians tied over the muzzles of cannon, which were then fired. Their crime was to want the invaders to leave. In Australia, British soldiers used to bury aborigines in the ground vertically, with only their head above ground, and then would hold competitions to see who could completely separate the head from the torso with the fewest kicks.

Dreadful stuff but it has very little to do with modern Britain.

Yurt2

cnocbui wrote: »

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.

I'd have to disagree on her family. Meghan has a pattern of abandoning and ghosting anyone who means anything to her in her life. Her first husband, her Dad, her diplomat uncle who was sorting her career out early on when she wanted to be in the Foreign Service. Even a lot of her friends distanced themselves from her when she ditched her first husband out of nowhere.

It's one of the measures of a person I find that is usually extremely accurate when I assess people. Do they have long standing friends? Or are they constantly moving from group to group and latest person in their life is the greatest and best person ever until they are devalued and abandoned?

To me it's clear as day Meghan has some sort of personality disorder. It doesn't make her the devil, but the problems in her life are of her own creation and not necessarily of the British media's invention.

cnocbui

Yurt! wrote: »

I'd have to disagree on her family. Meghan has a pattern of abandoning and ghosting anyone who means anything to her in her life. Her first husband, her Dad, her diplomat uncle who was sorting her career out early on when she wanted to be in the Foreign Service. Even a lot of her friends distanced themselves from her when she ditched her first husband out of nowhere.

It's one of the measures of a person I find that is usually extremely accurate when I assess people. Do they have long standing friends? Or are they constantly moving from group to group and latest person in their life is the greatest and best person ever until they are devalued and abandoned?

To me it's clear as day Meghan has some sort of personality disorder. It doesn't make her the devil, but the problems in her life are of her own creation and not necessarily of the British media's invention.

Your opinions have been formed and made clear to you by the press.

cnocbui

Be right back wrote: »

Dreadful stuff but it has very little to do with modern Britain.

How naive. Football, Prince Phillip, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

Your opinions have been formed and made clear to you by the press.

And did you ring up Meghan and Harry, and have a long chat with them about their account?

Presumably your opinion was formed by the printed media also?

cnocbui

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?

He claimed he couldn't make the wedding due to being in hospital for heart surgery, or some such. How is that Meghan's fault?

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

How naive. Football, Prince Phillip, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Genuinely curious about the football one. What do you mean?

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

The British are inherently racist, a passing acquaintance with their history and colonial conduct would make that obvious. In my family tree is a British general, who had Indians tied over the muzzles of cannon, which were then fired. Their crime was to want the invaders to leave. In Australia, British soldiers used to bury aborigines in the ground vertically, with only their head above ground, and then would hold competitions to see who could completely separate the head from the torso with the fewest kicks.

Xenophobic, but not more racist than anyone else. Maybe 300 years ago, but probably not even then

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

He claimed he couldn't make the wedding due to being in hospital for heart surgery, or some such. How is that Meghan's fault?

It is not like they have the closest relationship, apart from that isolated incident

Be right back

cnocbui wrote: »

How naive. Football, Prince Phillip, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

What does today's football have to do with the examples you gave?

cnocbui

BettyS wrote: »

And did you ring up Meghan and Harry, and have a long chat with them about their account?

Presumably your opinion was formed by the printed media also?

What opinion? Pease quote it so I can be specific in reply.

cnocbui

Be right back wrote: »

What does today's football have to do with the examples you gave?

Serious, you be?

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffnt&q=football+racism+uk&ia=web

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

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.

Cnocbui, this opinion.

I grant you the facts (but not the suppositions) that you put forth may be correct. But what led to these facts? What led her father to the course of action he took?

cnocbui

BettyS wrote: »

Cnocbui, this opinion.

I grant you the facts (but not the suppositions) that you put forth may be correct. But what led to these facts? What led her father to the course of action he took?

I don't know and don't really want to know. Their business, not mine.

Yurt2

cnocbui wrote: »

Your opinions have been formed and made clear to you by the press.

Ok. And yours on her family would be similar.

As the Dude Lebowski once said: "Well that's just like your opinion man"

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

I don't know and don't really want to know. Their business, not mine.

You profess not to care, but called her estranged family scum. This does not suggest impartiality

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

Your opinions have been formed and made clear to you by the press.

I think it clear that every bodies have.

Seroius people posting KM, MM, Haz? Like they are the football mates?

My opinion, if everyone else is out of step from the fallen royals, then maybe people have it backwards

cnocbui

Yurt! wrote: »

Ok. And yours on her family would be similar.

As the Dude Lebowski once said: "Well that's just like your opinion man"

As some other ficticious character in a movie said - whatever.

valoren

cnocbui wrote: »

Your opinions have been formed and made clear to you by the press.

Again with the cognitive dissonance. Someone makes a critical post which highlights a pattern of conduct in ghosting, dumping people in which Meghan is a common denominator. This causes dissonance but to ease it you choose to believe that the poster is under the influence of a biased media and incapable of actually forming a perfectly valid opinion or deduction all on their own.

banie01

Stateofyou wrote: »

: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.

There is no hyperbole on my part.
I laid out a rather brief and initial view, you run with it as my having an agenda or motive.

TBH other than a little bit of fascination regarding the position of a POC forming an opinion of "racist" Britain based upon her limited and incredibly privileged experience while living there.

There is a gulf of difference between the African asylum seekers experience of the UK.
And that of a spouse of a royal.

You seem to take everyone's objection to your own use of hyperbole as a personal attack and an invalidation of any opinion contrary opinion.
Why?

cnocbui

valoren wrote: »

Again with the cognitive dissonance. Someone makes a critical post which highlights a pattern of conduct in ghosting, dumping people in which Meghan is a common denominator. This causes dissonance but to ease it you choose to believe that the poster is under the influence of a biased media and incapable of actually forming a perfectly valid opinion or deduction all on their own.

Quote where I have made any comment related to ghosting.

silverharp

doesnt seem like her lol

https://twitter.com/Suffragentleman/status/1367087719688642563

Be right back

cnocbui wrote: »

Serious, you be?

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffnt&q=football+racism+uk&ia=web

How is racist chanting at a soccer match similar to the examples you gave?

valoren

cnocbui wrote: »

Quote where I have made any comment related to ghosting.

You quoted the post by Yurts! which is about ghosting and said it was the press who is informing them. The takeaway is that you're implying that the ghosting is not factual because of a biased press.

Stateofyou

banie01 wrote: »

There is no hyperbole on my part.
I laid out a rather brief and initial view, you run with it as my having an agenda or motive.

TBH other than a little bit of fascination regarding the position of a POC forming an opinion of "racist" Britain based upon her limited and incredibly privileged experience while living there.

There is a gulf of difference between the African asylum seekers experience of the UK.
And that of a spouse of a royal.

You seem to take everyone's objection to your own use of hyperbole as a personal attack and an invalidation of any opinion contrary opinion.
Why?

No hyperbole, eh? The rest of that is beneath a response. :rolleyes:

banie01

Stateofyou wrote: »

No hyperbole, eh? The rest of that is beneath a response. :rolleyes:

Thanks for discussion.
It's always great when someone is able to lay out their view and interact with others to defend it, change minds or even their own positions.

Stateofyou

banie01 wrote: »

Thanks for discussion.
It's always great when someone is able to lay out their view and interact with others to defend it, change minds or even their own positions.

When you decide to have a rational discussion, let me know. :pac: