A positive thread on Harry and Meghan (aka Thread 6)

[Mummy195]

@rousette

I'm sure you won't mind that your excellent link gets 'pinned'.

Some of the things MM did before marrying H.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282990766097301504.html

CallmeAngelina you missed the inverted apostrophe on the book quotes

Perhaps whoever produced that trash lacked the ability to find the character menu?

that only works if posters are allowed to post with out being hounded.

You seem to have a thing about "being hounded," and MNHQ also made reference to it in their deletion notice.
I've been on all these threads and not seen anyone being hounded or chased off any of them. People put their point of view and others debate with it. Same as any other thread.

But how do we know that they are "bottom feeders"? (now I am puzzled)

@MichaelMumsnet I'd be interested to know what covert racism looks like. Please could you give an example?

"Bottom feeders" apparently refers to publications that make up stories, like People magazine who have caused all the problems for Meghan around the letter she wrote to her dad.

Make up or post in good faith what five friends (who are considered reliable due to their close proximity to the person in question) said/told them to publish?

@MichaelMumsnet I'd be interested to know what covert racism looks like. Please could you give an example?

And please can you explain how it applies to critical comments about a white(,wealthy, privileged) male who was born a prince as largely comments are aimed at both?

I thought bottom feeder referred to some of the blogs linked to. One in particular was really extreme. Also possibly Blind Gossip? Although I'm not 100% about that one.

I don’t think Blind Gossip ever names people until or unless such time as the story is revealed in the media, so any links to it are not specific.

The real issue right now with their credibility is that where multiple incredulous stories they wrote about have now appeared in Finding Freedom and presented as true, it means things they write in future are more likely to be believed because they have got it right so many times in the past (I’m sure they have got it wrong far more often though but those articles won’t be remembered).

Mummy195

I'm sure you won't mind that your excellent link gets 'pinned'

Not at all.
Glad you did link it again.

@TofinoSurf
Maybe the other thread would be seen as less critical if everyone that had an interest in H&M discussed on the same thread no matter what their stance

I think that is a great idea but it becomes near impossible when a massive proportion of the posters are very antiMM and however carefully a non antiMM poster tries to ask questions or clarify a certain post, and tries to carefully word their post to avoid the incessant scrutiny from the majority, (taking far more time than other posters on there to check and re-check what they are posting because they know it will not be a post embraced by the majority) someone will find some miniscule point to pull apart. And even if you correct yourself if needs be, the point you are then trying to make is completely lost. I've also had all sorts of unwarranted personal comments levelled at me over M&H threads.

We may disagree on M&H but don't make it personal, I don't do that and I don't want it (I don't mean you Tofino)

That to be honest makes it really not easy to have reasoned discussion on just one thread. Hence this thread...
If only we could come together more and discuss rationally but sadly I think the issue, if you can call it that, is too divisive.

Please note, I am not directing this at you per se. I am answering your point.

Vivé la difference (but that doesn't seem to work with M&H unfortunately)

How embarrassing. Www.bottomfeeding.com was a joke domain name that I made up. Please don’t click on the link as it doesn’t exist.

@WurraBurra

How embarrassing. Www.bottomfeeding.com was a joke domain name that I made up. Please don’t click on the link as it doesn’t exist.

Thank goodness for that

[quote Mummy195]Anyway, on with H&M news.

An interesting report from NBC news :

[/quote] What I found most interesting about that link was all the overwhelmingly negative comments, none of which have been deleted.

If we are pinning the ‘things MM did’ link again can we raise the point that her ‘working at the American Embassy’ was an internship of a few weeks.

In the interest of balance

[quote lakeswimmer]**@MichaelMumsnet* I'd be interested to know what covert racism* looks like. Please could you give an example?[/quote]
Yes, I'd particularly like to hear Michael's reasoning regarding the poster from Harlem, who is a woc married to a black man, as Micheal hinted that her intelligent (but critical) posts were covertly racist in his deletion message. I think if you disagree with the op, you are covertly racist? Is it as simple as that?

@Nishky
This was brought up on the previous thread ... here is my reply...

'Interesting. Where did you read that?
I've read she worked there for a few months, at most, and 6 weeks at least.
All good experience.

One of my DDs worked for the Bulgarian Tourist Board over in that country for 3 months, and it goes on her CV! I think we all do that, MM is no different.'

In the interest of balance too.

I know. You replied to me.

The link was ‘brought up on the other thread’ so I guessed there was no bar to repetition

Good morning all. It looks like we have been diverted onto this thread so I hope we can all be friends.

I didn't realise it was you I replied to before. Sorry to repeat Nishky but what I feel about it obviously still stands then!

Can't see the problem with MM saying she worked there when she actually did, even if it was only for weeks/months.

I believe there is a court hearing today regarding the injunction. Not sure if we will hear much about it. I actually think it's best she is allowed the injunction, if she is claiming her friends haven't yet agreed to be witnesses for the AN case and she is saying this is something that would deter them. The names have already been speculated by other media (I won't repeat them) so I don't think there would be any surprises anyway.

The latest advice on how to hide from a drone, from the Conversation:

theconversation.com/how-to-hide-from-a-drone-the-subtle-art-of-ghosting-in-the-age-of-surveillance-143078?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20July%2029%202020%20-%201690316307&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20July%2029%202020%20-%201690316307+CID_c476bab223c712f525368f2776e7df5e&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=How%20to%20hide%20from%20a%20drone%20%20the%20subtle%20art%20of%20ghosting%20in%20the%20age%20of%20surveillance

I bet you that Gavin de Becker is peddling the exact same advice for rather more per hour, per day, to (all of) his LA clients.

This is US focused - not sure if the rules are different in the UK.

Ah - I see another thread has been zapped. MN are really doing an excellent job at sending their users to other forums. Well done. Great moderation

It's been said before but bears repetition: the criticism levelled at the Duke and Duchess is not racist. It is based on their behaviour.

How can it be racist if most of the criticism is now directed towards Harry for being a complete and utter arse?

This is a thread for positive discussion, rather than cricitism (the clue is in the name) so I hope H&M win their case against the media, which has got its own way with unscrupulous practices, selective reporting and spin for far too long.

I said on another (probably zapped) thread that I had a friend involved in an unpleasant divorce from man wealthy enough for the court case to be covered in the local press and a couple of the red tops. The reporting made her out to be a bitter, money grabbing bitch. Nothing could have been further from the truth. There were no actual lies, but selective facts with a particular angle.

Honestly, I've read posters who have repeatedly stuck the boot into Meghan claiming they have formed their opinon independently of the media. But none of have any information to form an opinion independent of the media. We don't actually know these people, so none of us really know anything expcept what is reported. Based on my experience I there is a deep vein of misogyny running through the majority of reporting. I'm thinking ofthe Daily Mail, which runs pages after pages of articles on them and really, really hates attractive, successful, happy seeing women. Or indeed, just women.