[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Oh and lets not forget the "Near catastrophic car chase"

their words

their utter lies

[jet]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Got it. Rumours are ok when they're only one way, but heaven forbid any kind of mirror should be held up..

I wish you'd meet your own evidentiary standards, because articles of whispers in trashy media, isn't evidence of anything either. You're so close to actually getting it.

I don’t post BLIND nonsense from anonymous readers on gossip sites (though I certainly could) where any sad idiot can make up anything.

I post:
1.News items and articles already in the mainstream media by named reporters, 90% of the time with a LINK. Anyone is free to look up their previous work and decide for themselves the named reporter's reliability.
2.H&M’s own words and actions which anyone can hear and see for themselves.
3. My own opinion.

You, on the other hand, post as FACT stories from any old anonymous Tom, Dick or Harry, which is laughable and who LT rightly described as ‘tragic pish sources’.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by jet

I don’t post BLIND nonsense from anonymous readers on gossip sites (though I certainly could) where any sad idiot can make up anything.

I post:
1.News items and articles already in the mainstream media by named reporters, 90% of the time with a LINK. Anyone is free to look up their previous work and decide for themselves the named reporter's reliability.
2.H&M’s own words and actions which anyone can hear and see for themselves.
3. My own opinion.

You, on the other hand, post as FACT stories from any old anonymous Tom, Dick or Harry, which is laughable and who LT rightly described as ‘tragic pish sources’.

1) Posting articles of other peoples opinions and rumourmongering, isn't the win you perceive it to be.

2) their own words...with a twist of preconceived outcome.

3) Exactly, posting rumours then opining on said rumours, doesn't make it any more valid.

Is there any possible reason you could think of, as to why our true blue, royalty loving media wouldn't pick up on negative stories surrounding William, and treats Andrew better than the brown girl who hasn't paid anyone off for sex crimes?

[jet]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Is there any possible reason you could think of, as to why our true blue, royalty loving media wouldn't pick up on negative stories surrounding William, and treats Andrew better than the brown girl who hasn't paid anyone off for sex crimes?

Yes I can.
Negative stories about William are thin on the ground because he is a very private person and he concentrates on his duties and family, not feeding the media (see Harry and Meghan later).... The media I am familiar with (The Mail, the Telegraph, The Times), and most other mainstream media don’t repeat anonymous stories from some fantasist on gossip sites unless they have investigated it and they believe it has legs.

They haven’t picked up on blind ones which are meant to point to Harry/Meghan either, and I can say there is a particularly damaging one that has been doing the rounds for some time supposedly about Harry, which sounds like it could fit and be true (for that is how they reel the gullible in). Quite rightly, not a whisper in the mainstream media because they will have concluded, like the one about William, THAT IT IS MADE UP. Otherwise, they would all be on it like a fly on sh**.

When it comes to Andrew, did you READ any papers at the time all that was going on? …and after that interview he did etc? They ROASTED him. As little is seen or heard from him in ages, there is precious little to report, whereas Meghan (and Harry) say ‘here you are LOOK AT US’ to the press with their never - ending attention seeking of interviews, books, podcasts, netflix series, televised personal therapy sessions, car chases. Full of lies and victimhood and hypocrisy.
There you go.

[jet]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

1) Posting articles of other peoples opinions and rumourmongering, isn't the win you perceive it to be.

2) their own words...with a twist of preconceived outcome.

3) Exactly, posting rumours then opining on said rumours, doesn't make it any more valid.

You actually think that an anonymous reader on a gossip site has equal validity to a journalist putting a name to their piece which means their credentials can be tested?
And do you actually believe, as you seem to, that all news stories and articles by journalists are always ONLY rumour mongering? That just isn’t possible or realistic. They mainstream media publications can't just make up utter nonsense or they would be sued to hell and back, not just occasionally. There will be varying degrees of reporting, true, but they are a far cry from your fantasist on the gossip site (which makes sure they stress the tales are 'unverified').

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by jet

You actually think that an anonymous reader on a gossip site has equal validity to a journalist putting a name to their piece which means their credentials can be tested?
And do you actually believe, as you seem to, that all news stories and articles by journalists are always ONLY rumour mongering? That just isn’t possible or realistic. They mainstream media publications can't just make up utter nonsense or they would be sued to hell and back, not just occasionally. There will be varying degrees of reporting, true, but they are a far cry from your fantasist on the gossip site (which makes sure they stress the tales are 'unverified').

Here you go Jet, your mic, you just dropped it.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by jet

You actually think that an anonymous reader on a gossip site has equal validity to a journalist putting a name to their piece which means their credentials can be tested?
And do you actually believe, as you seem to, that all news stories and articles by journalists are always ONLY rumour mongering? That just isn’t possible or realistic. They mainstream media publications can't just make up utter nonsense or they would be sued to hell and back, not just occasionally. There will be varying degrees of reporting, true, but they are a far cry from your fantasist on the gossip site (which makes sure they stress the tales are 'unverified').

You'd better pick that mic back up, because the press is a disgusting institution that never ever quite reaches the bottom of the barrel. Using black peoples pictures for honky articles.

https://www.newsweek.com/ghostwritte...y-mail-1824311

A column on Meghan Markle arguing that her conflict with the royals was not about racism was ghostwritten on behalf of a Black commentator in a move labeled "appalling" by a social media analyst.

Dominque Samuels, a U.K. commentator and media personality, was bylined on a column in the Daily Mail with the headline: "This clash of the Royals was about culture... NOT colour" that was published two days after Meghan and Prince Harry's Oprah Winfrey interview.

[Cherie]

I understand people can be anti Monarchy, what I cant wrap my head around is how the anti monarchists are pro Meghan and Harry, they are still part of the monarchy just stepped back from duties, they trade on their titles, they gave their kids titles (from that awful institution) and btw Meghan is a black woman according to herself, I have never heard her refer to herself as brown although in my opinion she is much a white woman as a black one
,

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I understand people can be anti Monarchy, what I cant wrap my head around is how the anti monarchists are pro Meghan and Harry, they are still part of the monarchy just stepped back from duties, they trade on their titles, they gave their kids titles (from that awful institution) and btw Meghan is a black woman according to herself, I have never heard her refer to herself as brown although in my opinion she is much a white woman as a black one
,

Really good post. Im anti monarchy and that's pretty much my stance down to a tee. As far as race, it's a tricky one, as her mother is black, and father white, so i guess she can identify as black, or white, or brown (which is what her skin colour is). Although race doesn't play a part in any of it for me, they're just very unlikeable, whiny and entitled people who want to have their cake and eat it too. They are smart enough to know they're nothing without their royal titles though, so from a staying relevant/being in any way marketable point of view, keeping their titles makes good business sense.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Swan

Really good post. Im anti monarchy and that's pretty much my stance down to a tee. As far as race, it's a tricky one, as her mother is black, and father white, so i guess she can identify as black, or white, or brown (which is what her skin colour is). Although race doesn't play a part in any of it for me, they're just very unlikeable, whiny and entitled people who want to have their cake and eat it too. They are smart enough to know they're nothing without their royal titles though, so from a staying relevant/being in any way marketable point of view, keeping their titles makes good business sense.

If you go back to the beginning what they wanted was to be half in/half out so in no way did they want to leave all the advantages being in the monarchy had, so how bad could it have been for them given they didnt want fully out, remember when they had to change their Sussex page when Liz put her foot down, it was really only after that it all went sour as they realised they were being cut free which isnt what they wholly wanted

[jet]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

You'd better pick that mic back up, because the press is a disgusting institution that never ever quite reaches the bottom of the barrel. Using black peoples pictures for honky articles.

https://www.newsweek.com/ghostwritte...y-mail-1824311

A column on Meghan Markle arguing that her conflict with the royals was not about racism was ghostwritten on behalf of a Black commentator in a move labeled "appalling" by a social media analyst.

Dominque Samuels, a U.K. commentator and media personality, was bylined on a column in the Daily Mail with the headline: "This clash of the Royals was about culture... NOT colour" that was published two days after Meghan and Prince Harry's Oprah Winfrey interview.

I have no idea what this post is supposed to prove...
That every paper, every journalist, every article (hundreds over the last 4 years on H&M) are ALL rumour mongering/ghostwritten and have no more validity than your Mr. or Mrs.Anonymous on a gossip site, whose silly gossip you took as fact?
That is just pure nuts.
Over the years, I have come to know which named journalists (because of their proven track record of reliability and accuracy) to have trust in. I’ll stick to them, thank you, and you stick to your preference for anonymous fiction writers who you believe have equal validity. Each to their own. Deal?

[The Slim Reaper]

Has nothing to do with being pro or anti-monarchy, but it's more about the constant weird obsessions every time they breath in and breath out. Most of it is just so unhinged that it's about fairness more than anything.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by jet

I have no idea what this post is supposed to prove...
That every paper, every journalist, every article (hundreds over the last 4 years on H&M) are ALL rumour mongering and have no more validity than your Mr. or Mrs.Anonymous on a gossip site, whose silly gossip you took as fact?
That is just pure nuts.
Over the years, I have come to know which named journalists (because of their proven track record of reliability and accuracy) to have trust in. I’ll stick to them, thank you, and you stick to your preference for anonymous fiction writers who you believe have equal validity. Each to their own. Deal?

I posted about what the daily mail have been up to.

"equal validity to a journalist putting a name to their piece which means their credentials can be tested?"

I've just given you the prime example of the daily mail (one of your trusted sources) using a black persons name and picture to push an agenda.

You keep talking as though I give a sh1t about any of the rumours about William being true, it's just fun to see you wind yourself up into oblivion about it all

Again, you have no idea who is reliable, you just enjoy that they are feeding you what you want to hear/read.

[thesheriff443]

You can’t get a more reliable source than what has come out of Meghan and Harry’s own mouths and what they have said has been proven to be clear lies

Meghan was caught out lying in the high court and had to apologise for her, er er memory loss

The only people that have destroyed Meghan and Harry’s reputation is themselves

[jet]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I posted about what the daily mail have been up to.

"equal validity to a journalist putting a name to their piece which means their credentials can be tested?"

I've just given you the prime example of the daily mail (one of your trusted sources) using a black persons name and picture to push an agenda.

You keep talking as though I give a sh1t about any of the rumours about William being true, it's just fun to see you wind yourself up into oblivion about it all

Again, you have no idea who is reliable, you just enjoy that they are feeding you what you want to hear/read.

Coming from you and your 'sources', that is hilarious.

.....and sorry, but your one example means sh** all in a very wide subject matter.

[jet]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

You can’t get a more reliable source than what has come out of Meghan and Harry’s own mouths and what they have said has been proven to be clear lies

Meghan was caught out lying in the high court and had to apologise for her, er er memory loss

The only people that have destroyed Meghan and Harry’s reputation is themselves

Great post sheriff.

But…but…the press made everything that came out of their mouths all up…it’s just nasty rumour mongering - .according to Slim.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I posted about what the daily mail have been up to.

"equal validity to a journalist putting a name to their piece which means their credentials can be tested?"

I've just given you the prime example of the daily mail (one of your trusted sources) using a black persons name and picture to push an agenda.

You keep talking as though I give a sh1t about any of the rumours about William being true, it's just fun to see you wind yourself up into oblivion about it all

Again, you have no idea who is reliable, you just enjoy that they are feeding you what you want to hear/read.

You can’t talk to them Slim.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by jet

Great post sheriff.

But…but…the press made everything that came out of their mouths all up…it’s just nasty rumour mongering - .according to Slim.

[jet]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I've just given you the prime example of the daily mail (one of your trusted sources)

Try and read posts properly. I have never said the Mail is one of my trusted sources. I have said there are certain journalists who I have, over the years, found to be reliable from the Mail (because some are not) - also the Telegraph and the Times. Big difference.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by jet

Coming from you and your 'sources', that is hilarious.

.....and sorry, but your one example means sh** all in a very wide subject matter.

Who are my sources? You keep saying this, but this whole conversation started because of a joke I made, nothing involving any sources.

I know why that story about the daily mail doesn't interest you, it's because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs. It's really simple. Oh well, yes of course the daily mail does catfishing articles, but not the ones I like, they're good and honourable. It's fcuking weird.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

You can’t talk to them Slim.

It's entertainment on a Sunday evening though

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by jet

Try and read posts properly. I have never said the Mail is one of my trusted sources. I have said there are certain journalists who I have, over the years, found to be reliable from the Mail (because some are not) - also the Telegraph and the Times. Big difference.

So you only post mail articles from certain sources? And you stick to that rigidly?

[jet]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Who are my sources? You keep saying this, but this whole conversation started because of a joke I made, nothing involving any sources.

I know why that story about the daily mail doesn't interest you, it's because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs. It's really simple. Oh well, yes of course the daily mail does catfishing articles, but not the ones I like, they're good and honourable. It's fcuking weird.

Not as fcuking weird as your sh** mate.

I'll give you a chance to mind - read someone else, badly. I'm off to watch a new documentary about the Royal grandchildren.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

It's entertainment on a Sunday evening though

You be careful, they’re very fragile.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by jet

Not as fcuking weird as your sh** mate.

I'll give you a chance to mind - read someone else, badly. I'm off to watch a new documentary about the Royal grandchildren.

My sh1t was a joke that your little sensitive soul couldn't take (on behalf of poor William), so you started a 2 page discussion about sources, and now you're pretending that it was all me because you don't want to commit to what you've just said about trusted sources

Enjoy watching a programme about young children, and enjoy your evening, my dude