[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Why write an essay when you can surmise a topic in a sentence?

The hatred towards her has always been ridiculous, to obsess over hating her is plain bizarre, to scour for articles to justify that hatred is bizarre. It's just all bizarre.

I repeat as I said before:
The usual, paint by numbers, unimaginative response to opinions and ideas that don't match your own.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Why write an essay when you can surmise a topic in a sentence?

The hatred towards her has always been ridiculous, to obsess over hating her is plain bizarre, to scour for articles to justify that hatred is bizarre. It's just all bizarre.

Its not hatred...its dislike. Its healthy to get your facts right when discussing something on a forum and if that involves reading articles whats the problem. Its strange how those that adore her accuse those that dont of not having facts and when they do you call out people for being obsessive...pathetic.

[LukeB]

No it’s hatred and toxic.

All because people believe gossip... anyone can write a false story about celebrities but her haters sure believe it because it’s Meghan.

[jet]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

I watch Royal documentries and you cant get closer to the truth than Royal Correspondants and associates of other members of the Royals. You cant have any more legitimate source than that. Harry and Williams fall out was so called hearsay until he admitted it on NT...these rumours dont come from no where.

Same here. They are the people to heed because over many years what they have said has turned out to be true far more often that not, and if not, there was always an element of truth to their reports.
Many just read gossip rags and don't bother seeking out reliable sources for their less sensationalistic and more measured and knowlegeable info.
But Marsh will be after you as he has always insisted that Royal Correspondents and associates are all liars and schemers and Meghan haters....

[Mokka]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Because becoming part of the Royal Family you take on a role or job if you like aswell as being a wife, husband, mother, father so your response is niave. Any job or firm you take or join has rules, dress code, expected behaviour and that includes the Royal Family because perhaps you can appreciate they are not just any family. The priviliges you get...a home, chefs, dressers, cleaners...it goes on and on. They want for nothing and it all gets paid by the tax payer.
Sadly there are a generation of people who think they can just dive in and do things the way they want to with NO RESPECT for anybody but themselves.

What you are describing is an outdated institution, not a job. A job allows you to bring your own expertise, knowledge, creativity, and individuality to it in order to complete a service or task that adds value to society. Any job you work is a two way contract and they can hire you and fire you... alternatively you can accept the job or quit.

You are describing ownership. Getting married doesn't mean your partner, their family, or the general public own you. Society has changed and evolved beyond this and the monarchy must to.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Mokka

A job allows you to bring your own expertise, knowledge, creativity, and individuality to it in order to complete a service or task that adds value to society. Any job you work is a two way contract and they can hire you and fire you... alternatively you can accept the job or quit.

Then someone who works at Next should be able to wear a Carphone Warehouse uniform and recommend iPhones to people who want to buy clothes

Being a Royal is probably like being surrounded by everything they ever wanted, while being clamped in golden manacles.

[Glenn.]

Ugh ha impact though

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by LukeB

No it’s hatred and toxic.

All because people believe gossip... anyone can write a false story about celebrities but her haters sure believe it because it’s Meghan.

That is a lot of knowledge about lots of people you don't know

Do you see that as different from gossip?

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Moniqua

all this one sided hatred of a woman so above you in terms of class, regality and decorum will do no favours to you in the long run @ the crusties and dusties of this thread

it’s no secret that hateful white people age like milk...but do you i guess?

Do you honestly think everybody who isn't in favour/isn't a fan of Meghan is a racist? What about the many black people who are anti-royal and have no time for Meghan whatsoever? Are they racist too?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

Same here. They are the people to heed because over many years what they have said has turned out to be true far more often that not, and if not, there was always an element of truth to their reports.
Many just read gossip rags and don't bother seeking out reliable sources for their less sensationalistic and more measured and knowlegeable info.
But Marsh will be after you as he has always insisted that Royal Correspondents and associates are all liars and schemers and Meghan haters....

Erm... Marsh doesn't.

Marsh asks you to provide sources and you either refuse to do so on the basis that you don't have time or continue to post links to the "gossip rags" you also claim to not read.

Funny that.

Your opinion is not influenced by tabloid spin and yet every article you ever post about them comes from the Daily Mail.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Erm... Marsh doesn't.

Marsh asks you to provide sources and you either refuse to do so on the basis that you don't have time or continue to post links to the "gossip rags" you also claim to not read.

Funny that.

Your opinion is not influenced by tabloid spin and yet every article you ever post about them comes from the Daily Mail.

Royal correspondents get their articles published in the Daily Mail, the Times etc, how else would they be read but in the press? Unless you expect them to send you a personal copy. I don't read gossip, I read their write ups alone. Are you getting it yet?

Don't lie Marsh, I used to provide plenty of sources, the articles remained unread or ignored so what was the point. I even posted all the names of the Royal Correspondents I respected so people could source what they were saying regarding Meghan and Harry, but all I got was ‘you believe THOSE people, ROYAL CORRESPONDENTS! haha’ from you. No feedback from their articles and no reference to any of them at all. It's all there in past threads, that history isn't erased yet....
I also recommended Royal documentaries but got no response. I posted links to several TV interviews with Royal correspondents and all I got was derision and again no feedback. Just the usual inane one liners aimed to poke and sneer.

Do you know how papers work Marsh? Royal correspondents write their articles which are then published in Daily’s like the Mail or the Times for example. They are usually fair enough and turn out to be accurate - criticism is given and praise is given, depending on the actions of the royal they are referring too.

The out and out gossip rags then pick up the articles and pick out bits to sensationalize often out of context for the gullible to delight in or wring their hands over whichever the case may be....you need to stop reading them, I don't. I once again patiently recommend seeking out Royal correspondents articles. You're welcome.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by jet

Royal correspondents get their articles published in the Daily Mail, the Times etc, how else would they be read but in the press? Unless you expect them to send you a personal copy. I don't read gossip, I read their write ups alone. Are you getting it yet?

Don't lie Marsh, I used to provide plenty of sources, the articles remained unread or ignored so what was the point. I even posted all the names of the Royal Correspondents I respected so people could source what they were saying regarding Meghan and Harry, but all I got was ‘you believe THOSE people, ROYAL CORRESPONDENTS! haha’ from you. No feedback from their articles and no reference to any of them at all. It's all there in past threads, that history isn't erased yet....
I also recommended Royal documentaries but got no response. I posted links to several TV interviews with Royal correspondents and all I got was derision and again no feedback. Just the usual inane one liners aimed to poke and sneer.

Do you know how papers work Marsh? Royal correspondents write their articles which are then published in Daily’s like the Mail or the Times for example. They are usually fair enough and turn out to be accurate - criticism is given and praise is given, depending on the actions of the royal they are referring too.

The out and out gossip rags then pick up the articles and pick out bits to sensationalize often out of context for the gullible to delight in or wring their hands over whichever the case may be....you need to stop reading them, I don't. I once again patiently recommend seeking out Royal correspondents articles. You're welcome.

Also Royal correspondents would not get away with going on documentaries spewing rubbish. Sadly some people won’t believe anything if it doesn’t suit their agenda...laughable.

[Marsh.]

That's a LOT OF words trying to explain away your obsession with tabloid rags Jet.

If you don't want people to think that's where you get your information, maybe don't post Daily Mail links every chance you get.

[Glenn.]

The same Daily Mail that has run literally HUNDREDS of negative stories about our Meghan? That Daily Mail?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Also Royal correspondents would not get away with going on documentaries spewing rubbish. Sadly some people won’t believe anything if it doesn’t suit their agenda...laughable.

Yes the people finding it bizarre the silly level of vitriol aimed at a woman they don't know are the ones with an agenda.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Also Royal correspondents would not get away with going on documentaries spewing rubbish. Sadly some people won’t believe anything if it doesn’t suit their agenda...laughable.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yes the people finding it bizarre the silly level of vitriol aimed at a woman they don't know are the ones with an agenda.

It maybe negativity...but it’s not vitriol. Recognise the difference.

[Ammi]

...I honestly struggle to fathom why anyone would ever spend time even in thought about someone they dislike so much and had no respect for...someone they really can’t find much positive in their character or any aspect of them...let alone the energy and time spent actively expressing such disapproval...if it were someone who in some way impacted on lives, who had some responsibility for country decision making in our own lives...but she doesn’t, she doesn’t impact in any way so spending such energy when such disdain is felt is beyond my understanding completely...


...I think sadly she has been bullied by the media and in turn, by some public as well with the constant negative comments on masse...and whatever it’s felt her character is...?...whether accurate or not or what measure of accuracy...what she’s had aimed against her is far, far worse...they’ve essentially fled for some peace and still they aren’t getting any...

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

That's a LOT OF words trying to explain away your obsession with tabloid rags Jet.

If you don't want people to think that's where you get your information, maybe don't post Daily Mail links every chance you get.

It might seem like a lot of words to someone who struggles beyond sarky one or two liners....and I see you have avoided responding to the actual content......and I thought you insisted I didn't post sources?

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...I honestly struggle to fathom why anyone would ever spend time even in thought about someone they dislike so much and had no respect for...someone they really can’t find much positive in their character or any aspect of them...let alone the energy and time spent actively expressing such disapproval...if it were someone who in some way impacted on lives, who had some responsibility for country decision making in our own lives...but she doesn’t, she doesn’t impact in any way so spending such energy when such disdain is felt is beyond my understanding completely...


...I think sadly she has been bullied by the media and in turn, by some public as well with the constant negative comments on masse...and whatever it’s felt her character is...?...whether accurate or not or what measure of accuracy...what she’s had aimed against her is far, far worse...they’ve essentially fled for some peace and still they aren’t getting any...

Well if people want to come on here and discuss and defend/support then, and no disrespect,as a forum member I don’t understand what your problem is.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Its not hatred...its dislike. Its healthy to get your facts right when discussing something on a forum and if that involves reading articles whats the problem. Its strange how those that adore her accuse those that dont of not having facts and when they do you call out people for being obsessive...pathetic.

Dislike would be not liking someone but not letting it rule your life. When you hate someone so much that you chase stories from any old source to confirm your bias and write essays on why someone is the devil incarnate, that is when dislike grows into an obsessive hatred. It's unhealthy.

I don't adore her, I don't know her. I just know bull**** when I see it and the level of hate she gets for merely existing is bull****.

[jet]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Also Royal correspondents would not get away with going on documentaries spewing rubbish. Sadly some people won’t believe anything if it doesn’t suit their agenda...laughable.

That's exactly the problem, they won't even do the research to find out if things that are said are true or not. They just spout 'haters!' 'agenda!' 'I don't understand' 'racists! etc. It would be different if they said 'Well look, this is what I found, and it refutes what you claimed', then a debate could be had.
But no, nothing at all....

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

It maybe negativity...but it’s not vitriol. Recognise the difference.

Nope. Ripping apart her and her family for no reason across the front pages is significantly more than "negative" press.

Recognise the obvious.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

It might seem like a lot of words to someone who struggles beyond sarky one or two liners....and I see you have avoided responding to the actual content......and I thought you insisted I didn't post sources?

The actual content being you denying posting links to tabloids whilst posting links to the Daily Mail? Too right I avoided it. I'm not interested in you repeating yourself and calling it "proof".

Writing a page full of words saying nothing is not worth much darling.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

That's exactly the problem, they won't even do the research to find out if things that are said are true or not. They just spout 'haters!' 'agenda!' 'I don't understand' 'racists! etc. It would be different if they said 'Well look, this is what I found, and it refutes what you claimed', then a debate could be had.
But no, nothing at all....

Imagine reading the Daily Mail and calling it "research" into a celebrity you don't like.