Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

But you seem to think that everybody who says anything against them is some heinous villain.

People don’t like that they profess about charity and the environment from a private jet

YOU don't like it. Speak for yourself. Harry has addressed their occasional use of private jet and the reasons why. Perhaps you might look into that, you know, what he actually has to say and what his goals are with Travelyst.

Are you making bigger moves than Harry in relation to sustainable future travel? Isn't that the main thing? Why are you so focused on the occasional times a royal prince may need to fly privately instead of choosing to be supportive of someone actually doing something about a massive problem? It's ridiculous.

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

You bemoan the bullying that Meghan faced but you make very nasty comments to other posters. It’s a two-way street

Oh really? Where's my "very nasty comments?"

You can either retract that ridiculous personal attack or I will report your comment.

Edit: from you:

Hilarious! You better go back to law-school, my friend

Rich.

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

YOU don't like it. Speak for yourself. Harry has addressed their occasional use of private jet and the reasons why. Perhaps you might look into that, you know, what he actually has to say and what his goals are with Travelyst.

Are you making bigger moves than Harry in relation to sustainable future travel? Isn't that the main thing? Why are you so focused on the occasional times a royal prince may need to fly privately instead of choosing to be supportive of someone actually doing something about a massive problem? It's ridiculous.

I am highlighting some of the issues that people may have with these people. I don’t think that anybody should be condemned to trial by social media or the media. However, it is worth asking why people turned against them?

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

Oh really? Where's my "very nasty comments?"

You can either retract that ridiculous personal attack or I will report your comment.

You asked the poster what age are you, implying they were immature?

You cannot win with your illogical arguments, so you threaten me with the moderator. The last vestiges of a failing debate

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

I am highlighting some of the issues that people may have with these people. I don’t think that anybody should be condemned to trial by social media or the media. However, it is worth asking why people turned against them?

You have decided to highlight baseless media and gossip, that's all. You've fed into the multi-million pound bullying industry which only makes them rich and society worse off. Well done.

But you think they should be "condemned" to trial by boards users? What's the difference? It's form of social media is it not.

Be right back

Stateofyou wrote: »

Or maybe you don't have to be so mean spirited and assume the worst about people you don't know. Because that's totally normal behaviour in real life, right?

You say "Disney tale" I say being kind and looking for what is actually known and not just thinking the worst of people and making things up in one's own head.

You would think they hang out with paedophiles or something, the level of nastiness they receive. Where's the pages long thread or any criticism about Prince Andrew's behaviour? What have H&M done that even come anywhere close to that, yet its them who deserve the attacks? Hmmm

Prince Andrew should have the book thrown at him. Rumours about his rudeness for years before the Epstein connection. I can't see it happening though.

Baggly

Mod

Stateofyou - you can either calm it down or stop posting.

Either way, please go have a read of the AH charter for yourself.

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

You asked the poster what age are you, implying they were immature?

You cannot win with your illogical arguments, so you threaten me with the moderator. The last vestiges of a failing debate

Exactly.

And I might need to reiterate that. Because it's not about winning or whatever else you imagine (like you're being threatened), it's taking a stand against the baseless bullying I see against people I admire for the good they're doing. They could be another corrupt or shallow or shady famous person, but they're not.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stateofyou wrote: »

Take it up with the journalist who wrote the article about them. They're usually some degree of nasty written diarrhoea anyway.

It’s a quote. Harry would have had to say those words for them to be placed in quotation marks. I’m not sure why I’d have to “take it up with the journalist”. Or why I’d bother. I’m reacting to an article. I doubt the journalist would be interested in my thoughts.

Banana Republic 1

Meanwhile in let them eat cake land....

Stateofyou

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s a quote. Harry would have had to say those words for them to be placed in quotation marks. I’m not sure why I’d have to “take it up with the journalist”.

The EXCERPT from the article is in quotes. It's obviously a description of what he said. I should think that it's obvious, and Harry didn't write the article himself describing his own statement. Wow.

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

You have decided to highlight baseless media and gossip, that's all. You've fed into the multi-million pound bullying industry which only makes them rich and society worse off. Well done.

But you think they should be "condemned" to trial by boards users? What's the difference? It's form of social media is it not.

I apparently advocate a bullying industry, but you are the victim of a personal attack? Hmmm...

We are not condemning. We are discussing. But have our democracy declined to the point that we are no longer allowed to discuss, lest we be accused of bullying?

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

I apparently advocate a bullying industry, but you are the victim of a personal attack? Hmmm...

We are not condemning. We are discussing. But have our democracy declined to the point that we are no longer allowed to discuss, lest we be accused of bullying?

Yes, that is my opinion. Where did I say I was a victim - I didn't. More hyperbole.

"We are not condemning?" Go have another read especially of valorem's posts, and explain how that's not condemning.

There's a difference between discussing facts (which are in short supply here), and insisting you know who another person is, what they think, and then attack their character.

Doesn't Harry also have an open case for the hacking of his phone?

cnocbui

BettyS wrote: »

I am highlighting some of the issues that people may have with these people. I don’t think that anybody should be condemned to trial by social media or the media. However, it is worth asking why people turned against them?

You seem happy enough with them being tried and convicted by the UK gutter press. And then to disingenuously state it's 'worth asking why people turned against them.' Exhibit A: the Daily Mail.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stateofyou wrote: »

The EXCERPT from the article is in quotes. It's obviously a description of what he said. I should think that it's obvious, and Harry didn't write the article himself describing his own statement. Wow.

The bit I was reacting to (bolded below) is in quotation marks. That means that it was something he said. I bolded the whole sentence in the other post but it was the “every girl’s dream” bit that was the focus of my reaction. If he didn’t say those words, they wouldn’t have been placed in quotation marks.

Wow indeed.

Stateofyou wrote: »

Harry sweetly revealed trying on a tiara was "every girl's dream," and he wholeheartedly agreed with Meghan's tiara of choice, the Queen Mary's bandeau tiara. "Funnily enough, it was the one that suited the best," Harry added. "The one that looked the best on you without question. I shouldn't have really been there—but an incredible loan by my grandmother."

Stateofyou

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The bit I was reacting to (bolded below) is in quotation marks. That means that it was something he said. I bolded the whole sentence in the other post but it was the “every girl’s dream” bit that was the focus of my reaction. If he didn’t say those words, they wouldn’t have been placed in quotation marks.

Wow indeed.

You had bolded the words "sweetly revealed" but that has changed now. You must have edited.

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

You have to hand it to the Queen, here she is recently bitch-slapping Meghan like a boss:

any idea what she was attending or who told her what to wear?
you don't really think the Queen decides these things herself do ya??

cnocbui

bubblypop wrote: »

any idea what she was attending or who told her what to wear?
you don't really think the Queen decides these things herself do ya??

It was a diplomatic reception, amusingly enough, given the deliberate in-your-face lack of any diplomacy. She might as well have flipped the bird to a photo of her grandson and his wife.

If she wears what she is told to, well that would just underline my previous criticism of her. I think it's beyond coincidence she's wearing that particular item given the tabloid controversy. I suspect if she was abideing by the instructions of 'others', they would have been more diplomatic.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stateofyou wrote: »

You had bolded the words "sweetly revealed" but that has changed now. You must have edited.

No, I didn’t edit it. If I had, there’d be a timestamp underneath my post saying that I had edited the post (unless the edit happened within something like two or three minutes). I posted my replies to you on that the subject of that post well outside that very short time limit so if I had edited the post, the timestamp would be there. You are accusing me of dishonesty here. Please take that back.

Baggly

Mod

Thread is closed for review.

Baggly

Mod

I have asked my comods to review this thread and we agree that it does not fall under the remit of the AH charter. Given this is a long running thread that was initially hosted in AH for lighthearted discussion, but is far from it now, im going to keep it locked.

If you wish to start a new thread in CA, you may do so. I would advise you to read the local charter there before you do so.