Prince William has released a statement about the claims in Harry's book.

[Cherie]

And the idea that if only the media had kept stum the nasty Iranians would never know is frankly luducrous :laugh:

[user104658]

And the idea that if only the media had kept stum the nasty Iranians would never know is frankly luducrous :laugh:

FOr this to be relevant you have to believe that his words ACTUALLY angered them or that they ACTUALLY killed more people/carried out more attacks because of what he wrote. It's all spin/PR/politics/baiting ... they're focussing on it because it's being focussed on, to disrupt, to stoke the fires of division and chaos. Another clear goal of terrorism, as it happens.

[thesheriff443]

Harry is a scoobi doo character

I would of gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you press

[jet]

Harry is a scoobi doo character

I would of gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you press

Harry is never to blame for anything, it's always the presses fault, or failing that, anybodys fault but his. He and Saint Meghan are never in the wrong.:rolleyes:

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmY4JgfagAAUlXE?format=jpg&name=small

[user104658]

Harry is never to blame for anything, it's always the presses fault, or failing that, anybodys fault but his. He and Saint Meghan are never in the wrong.:rolleyes:

I've said 3 or 4 times that I don't think it was the best choice - I just also don't think it was anything that hasn't been done before in other books (entire books) by ex-military personnel - and I accept that writing about it is his choice and shouldn't be deterred by terror threats. No one should be stifled by terror threats. We don't give in to threats of terror - this is fundamental stuff.

I'd also counter that saying anything "is all one person's fault" is just as daft as saying anyone is "never in the wrong". Fault can lie in multiple places and be for multiple reasons that work in combination. I know that those who like to feast on outrage prefer to have a target in sight and point the finger squarely at that target, but it's not a reasonable or rational stance. Take the whole issue of the Royals, for example.

What's the problem with the royal family?

Rational thinking: "Oh well it's lots of things... the inherently flawed concept of hereditary rule, centuries and generations of privilege that affect all of them, clear interpersonal issues in the family going back generations, being constantly under a microscope and the pressure that must bring, being completely removed from anything resembling a normal life... the list goes on!"

Irrational thinking: "HARRY!!! And that awful Markle woman what controls all of his thinking!"

[rusticgal]

So you agree that the problem wasn't the paragraph in his book - the problem was the great honking spotlight that the media chose to shine on that paragraph. Quite right.


He can write about his experiences...just don't specify your 'kills' and compare them to chess pieces. Its called being tactful and diplomatic...

Unfortunately for Harry his careless comments have hit a nerve and they are using this as a reason to get back at him...

[Liam-]

If the gutter press, in their quest to make Harry and Meghan as miserable as possible, hadn’t sensationalised and twisted what he had said as a ‘boast’ like they did, the ‘controversy’ around it would never have reached the level it has, because anybody with any sense or rationality could see within the context of what was actually written, it was anything but

[thesheriff443]

I've said 3 or 4 times that I don't think it was the best choice - I just also don't think it was anything that hasn't been done before in other books (entire books) by ex-military personnel - and I accept that writing about it is his choice and shouldn't be deterred by terror threats. No one should be stifled by terror threats. We don't give in to threats of terror - this is fundamental stuff.

I'd also counter that saying anything "is all one person's fault" is just as daft as saying anyone is "never in the wrong". Fault can lie in multiple places and be for multiple reasons that work in combination. I know that those who like to feast on outrage prefer to have a target in sight and point the finger squarely at that target, but it's not a reasonable or rational stance. Take the whole issue of the Royals, for example.

What's the problem with the royal family?

Rational thinking: "Oh well it's lots of things... the inherently flawed concept of hereditary rule, centuries and generations of privilege that affect all of them, clear interpersonal issues in the family going back generations, being constantly under a microscope and the pressure that must bring, being completely removed from anything resembling a normal life... the list goes on!"

Irrational thinking: "HARRY!!! And that awful Markle woman what controls all of his thinking!"

We are still waiting for the evidence of irrational hatred towards Meghan and harry on here from you?? You

[rusticgal]

If the gutter press, in their quest to make Harry and Meghan as miserable as possible, hadn’t sensationalised and twisted what he had said as a ‘boast’ like they did, the ‘controversy’ around it would never have reached the level it has, because anybody with any sense or rationality could see within the context of what was actually written, it was anything but


Harry and Meghan have done nothing but slaughter the Press....the Press picked apart their interview with Oprah to expose the lying pair. Did they really think the press wouldn't do the same with the anticipated Book. Harry's wording was poor and thoughtless on a number of issues...he only has himself to blame.

...but then Harry is NEVER to blame is he..:laugh:

[arista]

ieoAMsUiDhE

[jet]

I'd also counter that saying anything "is all one person's fault" is just as daft as saying anyone is "never in the wrong". Fault can lie in multiple places and be for multiple reasons that work in combination. I know that those who like to feast on outrage prefer to have a target in sight and point the finger squarely at that target, but it's not a reasonable or rational stance. Take the whole issue of the Royals, for example.

What's the problem with the royal family?

Rational thinking: "Oh well it's lots of things... the inherently flawed concept of hereditary rule, centuries and generations of privilege that affect all of them, clear interpersonal issues in the family going back generations, being constantly under a microscope and the pressure that must bring, being completely removed from anything resembling a normal life... the list goes on!"



It’s reasonable to point the finger at a target who has made himself a great big sitting duck target, along with his wife. Since they left the Royal family, this pair, who initially said they left to avoid media scrutiny, have bombarded the world with zoom calls, podcasts, magazine interviews, radio interviews, TV interviews, now a book. In everything they have done, the Royal family or the Press are THEIR target. Wouldn't you agree that it is H&M who are feasting on outrage and are being irrational?
Meanwhile the Royals, whatever their problems, carry on with their duties with dignity and patience, not shooting their mouths off about each other in public. Mabye that's what you would like, as you have never criticised Harry and Meghan for doing so, but it’s not going to happen, they keep their family issues private, or try to, like most families do.

BTW, as you say its daft to say anyone is ‘never in the wrong’ , in their war with the Royals and the media, could you quote the instances in his book where Harry has told of how he and/or Meghan were wrong? (I haven’t read it, so those admissions could be there - I’ve just heard they are not.)

[jet]

Irrational thinking: "HARRY!!! And that awful Markle woman what controls all of his thinking!"

Why do you often construct grammatically incorrect sentences to ram home how thick you think people are when they don’t agree with your opinions

ETA: I think Meghan is behind many of his actions and has been from the start, but not all.

[Glenn.]

Why do you often construct grammatically incorrect sentences to ram home how thick you think people are when they don’t agree with your opinions

Seems pretty accurate to me

[thesheriff443]

Why do you often construct grammatically incorrect sentences to ram home how thick you think people are when they don’t agree with your opinions

ETA: I think Meghan is behind many of his actions and has been from the start, but not all.

Looks like ts/sb/bs as left the thread for a nap

[Beso]

What's captain cold cock been up to now?

[Cherie]

ieoAMsUiDhE

:joker:

[user104658]

We are still waiting for the evidence of irrational hatred towards Meghan and harry on here from you?? You

There's a thread right here with hundreds of posts and there was another deleted thread with more, and I'm sure a few dozen old threads if you scroll down the last couple of years. This is a "can't see the woods because of the trees" situation. They are literally everywhere.

The problem is, you're waiting for me to link to specific posts so that you can say "That aint an example of hatred lol" and really who has time to waste on that?

[user104658]

Looks like ts/sb/bs as left the thread for a nap

I have a grown up job that means I can't just dick around on TiBB all day any more Sheriff - sorry to disappoint :joker:. I'm sure you could have entertained yourself while I was away. Found a table leg to chew on or something.

[user104658]

Why do you often construct grammatically incorrect sentences to ram home how thick you think people are when they don’t agree with your opinions

I feel you've answered your own question there jet - though it's not "when people don't agree" it's specifically hyperbole when the opinion isn't backed by anything at all, other than maybe an "everyone can see..." or "it's obvious that...". I don't think opinions that are contrary to my own are dumb if they're backed up with sound reasoning.

ETA: I think Meghan is behind many of his actions and has been from the start, but not all.

I bet she was hiding in the Apache pulling the trigger for him as well eh :joker:

[jet]

I feel you've answered your own question there jet - though it's not "when people don't agree" it's specifically hyperbole when the opinion isn't backed by anything at all, other than maybe an "everyone can see..." or "it's obvious that...". I don't think opinions that are contrary to my own are dumb if they're backed up with sound reasoning.



You do know that an opinion is an opinion? That this is a BB discussion forum, not an Open University debating course forum?
Obviously people have to adhere to your stringent specifications when stating their thoughts or they are dumb - in your arrogant opinion.

[jet]

There's a thread right here with hundreds of posts and there was another deleted thread with more, and I'm sure a few dozen old threads if you scroll down the last couple of years. This is a "can't see the woods because of the trees" situation. They are literally everywhere.

The problem is, you're waiting for me to link to specific posts so that you can say "That aint an example of hatred lol" and really who has time to waste on that?

You aren't backing up your statement about 'irrational hatred' with any sound evidence TS. You need to adhere to your own high standards - "there are hundreds of posts" doesn't really cut it now, does it? :smug:

[user104658]

You aren't backing up your statement about 'irrational hatred' with any sound evidence TS. You need to adhere to your own high standards - "there are hundreds of posts" doesn't really cut it now, does it? :smug:

The evidence is the number of posts and the number of threads. Maybe you didn't understand the forest/trees idiom? I'll sum it up just in case;

The allegory is basically that there's two people standing in a forest, and one of them says to the other to "look at the forest". The other looks around and says, "What forest? I can't see any forest... all of these trees are in the way!"

You're asking me for evidence of the forest, when you need only have a glance around to see that there's nothing but trees all around you jet.

If you still don't understand why I can't give "more evidence", I really can't help you.

[user104658]

You do know that an opinion is an opinion? That this is a BB discussion forum, not an Open University debating course forum?
Obviously people have to adhere to your stringent specifications when stating their thoughts or they are dumb - in your arrogant opinion.

Harsh - the quality of debate in SD is significantly better than what you'll find on an OU course forum :umm2:.

[jet]

The evidence is the number of posts and the number of threads. Maybe you didn't understand the forest/trees idiom? I'll sum it up just in case;

The allegory is basically that there's two people standing in a forest, and one of them says to the other to "look at the forest". The other looks around and says, "What forest? I can't see any forest... all of these trees are in the way!"

You're asking me for evidence of the forest, when you need only have a glance around to see that there's nothing but trees all around you jet.

If you still don't understand why I can't give "more evidence", I really can't help you.

The number of posts and the number of threads is only evidence that Harry and Meghan are serial attention seekers and we find their psyche's and bizarre actions interesting and entertaining to discuss. That isn't evidence of 'irrational hatred'. You'll have to do better and practise what you preach.

[Glenn.]

The evidence is the number of posts and the number of threads. Maybe you didn't understand the forest/trees idiom? I'll sum it up just in case;

The allegory is basically that there's two people standing in a forest, and one of them says to the other to "look at the forest". The other looks around and says, "What forest? I can't see any forest... all of these trees are in the way!"

You're asking me for evidence of the forest, when you need only have a glance around to see that there's nothing but trees all around you jet.

If you still don't understand why I can't give "more evidence", I really can't help you.

You’re talking to a brick wall. Literally zero point trying to reason with them, you’ll go mad. They’re too bitter to understand anything other than what they want to understand.

[jet]

Harsh - the quality of debate in SD is significantly better than what you'll find on an OU course forum :umm2:.

I wouldn't know, but it seems you have been there - did you call them dumb too, or worse?

[thesheriff443]

I have a grown up job that means I can't just dick around on TiBB all day any more Sheriff - sorry to disappoint :joker:. I'm sure you could have entertained yourself while I was away. Found a table leg to chew on or something.

Well maybe you should stay off of tibb in the day and concentrate on the job you are getting paid for because your employer is not getting what he is paying you for which is a full days work

Don’t try to be clever or add a joker thinking you are funny because you will gat called out on hypocrisy.

[Crimson Dynamo]

A grown up job

:laugh2:

[Swan]

It's amazing the lengths the irrational worshippers will go to justify these 2 royals. Even the American left are laughing at this mega rich and privileged "the world is against us, poor us" couple now :laugh:

[Beso]

Hope you got home ok SB.

[arista]

https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-4e66a61d-65ce-4f3a-83a6-6f66bc2d668f.png

[rusticgal]

NO….Harry wouldn’t do such a thing :nono:

[user104658]

Well maybe you should stay off of tibb in the day and concentrate on the job you are getting paid for because your employer is not getting what he is paying you for which is a full days work

Don’t try to be clever or add a joker thinking you are funny because you will gat called out on hypocrisy.

Actually, when you work on a screen you're supposed to have a break from the screen every hour for health and safety reasons :hee:. Regular breaks aren't just encouraged, they're required!

If I choose to spend that time on a smaller screen on my phone arguing with you fine folks on here, instead of taking a little walk or making a cuppa... Well that's my own risk to take isn't it.

Also to be totally honest, back when I was being paid by the hour, 75% of the job was just "being there" and I spent even more time on this bloody place than I do now :laugh:

[hijaxers]

NO….Harry wouldn’t do such a thing :nono:

Endless bigging himself up wow we're all shocked.

[rusticgal]

The list of inaccuracies in his book is reaching the same figure of lies they told Oprah…:laugh:


….all of it told by themselves and not twisted by the media…

[Beso]

https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-4e66a61d-65ce-4f3a-83a6-6f66bc2d668f.png

I suppose that wasnt bragging either.

[The Slim Reaper]

1617238273562116097

[Crimson Dynamo]

imagine posting a tweet by that maryqueen

:laugh2:

omfg

[The Slim Reaper]

As it is just a tweet posting the guys statement versus the paper headlines, I don't really see who posted it being an issue :shrug:

[Crimson Dynamo]

scobie

https://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-ughh.gif

[thesheriff443]

As it is just a tweet posting the guys statement versus the paper headlines, I don't really see who posted it being an issue :shrug:

The headlines don’t match what he said
He had nothing but praise for harry but said nothing was done on the spure of the moment
And it was written in the book probably by the ghost writer

[The Slim Reaper]

The headlines don’t match what he said
He had nothing but praise for harry but said nothing was done on the spure of the moment
And it was written in the book probably by the ghost writer

So when he said in his statement "I certainly didn't say it was complete fantasy," and then the headline said it's "complete fantasy" in quotes, then what is the explanation in your view?

[thesheriff443]

So when he said in his statement "I certainly didn't say it was complete fantasy," and then the headline said it's "complete fantasy" in quotes, then what is the explanation in your view?

The news paper manipuled what he said
But did harry tell the ghost writer the story as it was written or did the ghost writer manipulate what harry said

[hijaxers]

The news paper manipuled what he said
But did harry tell the ghost writer the story as it was written or did the ghost writer manipulate what harry said

Who knows ??? Megan's prob got a ghost writer going full on with her ' truth '

[thesheriff443]

Who knows ??? Megan's prob got a ghost writer going full on with her ' truth '

The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

Harry and Meghan definitely don’t live by the above sentence.

[bots]

So when he said in his statement "I certainly didn't say it was complete fantasy," and then the headline said it's "complete fantasy" in quotes, then what is the explanation in your view?

it was the army captain that said it was a complete fantasy, is he not allowed an opinion either?

[The Slim Reaper]

it was the army captain that said it was a complete fantasy, is he not allowed an opinion either?

What? Who tried to deny anyone an opinion? Weird post, but ok.