[Cherie]

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

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]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

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.

[arista]

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

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]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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..

[arista]

Youtube video

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

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]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

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.]

Originally Posted by jet

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]

Originally Posted by jet

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]

Originally Posted by arista

Youtube video

[user104658]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

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]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

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 . I'm sure you could have entertained yourself while I was away. Found a table leg to chew on or something.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

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

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

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]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

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?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

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?

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]

Originally Posted by jet

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 .

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

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.