[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Posts like this make you sound jealous of her. Bless.

When you don't want to acknowledge something, play the 'jealous' card.
Old hat.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Well you've just answered your own question, Fergie is not a Royal... Harry and Meghan are.

The problem is you thinking you can read their minds.

What am I reading their minds about?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

When you don't want to acknowledge something, play the 'jealous' card.
Old hat.

When you don't want to see what's infront of your eyes, make stuff up and call it "research".
Old jet.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

They have a private fortune of 34m, they won't be needing the States to fund them.

That’s also my stance .

I do love Harry though and MM is gorgeous so it’s all good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

When you don't want to see what's infront of your eyes, make stuff up and call it "research".
Old jet.

When you don't want to be bothered to inform yourself, insult people who make the effort and base their opinions on that effort. You seldom post beyond a few baity sentences.
When have you even posted an article to back your opinions? When I do, its ignored and the sneering goes on.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

When you don't want to be bothered to inform yourself, insult people who make the effort and base their opinions on that effort. You seldom post beyond a few baity sentences.
When have you even posted an article to back your opinions? When I do, its ignored and the sneering goes on.

You seem to be under the illusion that you don't insult.
You're also deluded if you think any link you may have posted holds any facts pertaining to the guff you're posting in this thread.

You're wrong on both counts.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Zizu

That’s also my stance .

I do love Harry though and MM is gorgeous so it’s all good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Quite right, Zizu.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You seem to be under the illusion that you don't insult.
You're also deluded if you think any link you may have posted holds any facts pertaining to the guff you're posting in this thread.

You're wrong on both counts.

Bait, and you'll get it back. It's your speciality, certainly trying to inform yourself isn't.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

Bait, and you'll get it back. It's your speciality, certainly trying to inform yourself isn't.

All my posts have pertained to your comments in this thread about the thread topic.

Yours appear to be becoming more about me.

Speaks volumes about the weak foundations of your argument.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

All my posts have pertained to your comments in this thread about the thread topic.

Yours appear to be becoming more about me.

Speaks volumes about the weak foundations of your argument.

Your posts consist of calling my opinions guff and made up, you ignored an article backing up my conclusions. I responded by saying your posts are baity and lacking in any substance.
At least I attempt a reasoned argument, when do you?

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by James

Posts deleted. No more insulting members.

Hi james....can you pm me the deleted posts please.

[jet]

Meghan didn't mind when her friends published cherry picked excerpts of the private letter that made her look good and her father bad. Did she take the magazine to court then - no.
When her father published the letter to put it straight he's vilified and the paper is getting sued.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

Your posts consist of calling my opinions guff and made up, you ignored an article backing up my conclusions. I responded by saying your posts are baity and lacking in any substance.
At least I attempt a reasoned argument, when do you?

They are made up as the article was nothing more than the assumptions of a journalist.

You seem to mistake those for factual evidence.

[Glenn.]

Queen Meghan sure has made an impression

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

They are made up as the article was nothing more than the assumptions of a journalist.

You seem to mistake those for factual evidence.

Not evidence, but reasoned conclusions based on the long statement the Sussexes made about leaving and wanting financial independence. Have you read it yet?
At least the journalist, and others who drew the same conclusions, are in a position to make 'assumptions', having made the effort to do some groundwork.
If I post something you think is guff, look it up and provide a link to back up your disbelief, post a refuting article or at least state reasons why you think so, otherwise its just meaningless baiting.

[Glenn.]

An assumption isn’t fact though

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

Not evidence, but reasoned conclusions based on the long statement the Sussexes made about leaving and wanting financial independence. Have you read it yet?
At least the journalist, and others who drew the same conclusions, are in a position to make 'assumptions', having made the effort to do some groundwork.
If I post something you think is guff, look it up and provide a link to back up your disbelief, post a refuting article or at least state reasons why you think so, otherwise its just meaningless baiting.

It's baiting to point out your use of the word "fact" is wildly incorrect? Ok jet.

Listening to biased journalism is not "groundwork" and does not elevate what amounts to nothing more than malicious gossip to anything more than what it is.

I don't really need to backup my post that the gossip you perpetuate is not factual and comes from no actual source. It's down to you to prove your assumptions, that's kind of how it works.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

An assumption isn’t fact though

Stop baiting by pointing out the obvious Glenn.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

It's baiting to point out your use of the word "fact" is wildly incorrect? Ok jet.

Listening to biased journalism is not "groundwork" and does not elevate what amounts to nothing more than malicious gossip to anything more than what it is.

I don't really need to backup my post that the gossip you perpetuate is not factual and comes from no actual source. It's down to you to prove your assumptions, that's kind of how it works.

C'mon Marsh. Prove I don't have an invisible unicorn in my garage.

[jet]

Reasoned assumptions are all any journalist can make. But 'reasoned' is the key word here if they are coming to conclusions from what the source themselves have said, in this case, the Sussex'es themselves.

And do I have to repeat again that I only trust the opinions of the respected royal correspondents. They have proved to be right time and time again and 'in the know' over many years - many times when I didn't want them to be. I seek out what they are saying for that reason.

So sneer at me all you like for doing some reading because it isn't what you want to hear. Time will tell.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

It's down to you to prove your assumptions, that's kind of how it works.

But you don't have to prove yours?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

But you don't have to prove yours?

Prove my what? My comment that your opinions are baseless gossip and not factual points?

It speaks for itself.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

So sneer at me all you like for doing some reading because it isn't what you want to hear. Time will tell.

Oh yes I'll sneer at what you choose as reading material but that has nothing to do with you misunderstanding fact, opinion and fiction.

Read what you like Jet, but don't pretend your fiction is fact.

[Black Dagger]

This bloke is an absolute parasite. Desperate and tacky as always.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Black Dagger

This bloke is an absolute parasite. Desperate and tacky as always.

Nice man. He was Meghans hero and worked hard to give her everything, she said so herself, until she met Harry and was too ashamed of where he lived and his appearance to let him meet her future posh husband.