Sussex's snubbed on both sides of the Atlantic

[susan12345678]

Harry and Meghan will be invited to the coronation - by necessity - but this toxic pair will be kept at a careful arm's length by all and sundry, excluded from the balcony or carriage procession, and probably positioned somewhere suitably inconspicuous. Most of the family will be wary of them, most will wherever possible avoid them and the crowds will likely boo them. There will be no lucrative photo ops with William or Kate. The Wales children will be in the limelight, but Harry and Meghan's children will be excluded, due to age.

Meanwhile, over in the States, where they no doubt expected to be feted when they planned their dramatic departure from the UK, opinion polls reveal them to be less popular now than even Prince Andrew. South Park mocked them to general acclaim and The Cut published a contemptuous piece about the possible relaunch of the Tig last week.

They've been snubbed and excluded from every big social event, from the Met Gala to Obama's birthday party and Elton John's Oscar's bash. The only parties they have attended have been those hosted by social pariahs like Ellen de Generes.

They are coming across as increasingly desperate and embarrassing. It's hard to to see any possible comeback from here.

This thread had been dominated by just two posters who have posted 178 times now between them in "defence" of Harry.

There is your obsession.

If Harry is so wonderful, happy and successful whay does he need defending?

Yes, sorry that's what I meant. That the accusations (of being paid) were the deleted poster kindly making suggestions as to why anyone would be so invested in defending Harry. Because otherwise it doesn't make sense (unless obsessed).

Sorry, my post was in reply to/ agreeing with Blip.

It is a real shame that so many people cannot accept that others simply just disagree with them.

I have mostly lurked but it has been interesting to see the charge of people who don’t share the OP’s worldview being called all sorts (paid for representatives of the Sussex squad, bots, Russian trolls, foreign saboteurs- hence the discussion of time differences (as if there is not a late shift forum on this very board 🙄)).

I think the toxicity claim is really interesting- the OP wrote a very inciendary post in which seemed to be informed by a very negative view. Her first couple of paragraphs were factual but the language chosen to convey those facts was very apparent the view she held and the last paragraphs were pure conjecture on her part. The apparent negativity about things she couldn’t possibly know about brought many people who don’t frequent this board to comment on the OPs belief system and reflected to her that perhaps she needed to step back and consider looking at things from a more positive perspective (of course not as politely).

This led to claims that a klaxon had gone out to Sussex supporters hence the push back she was getting rather that very real people were concerned about how much space she gives to people she really doesn’t like very much (which is putting it mildly).

How patronising are you? feel free to accuse the actual OP of obsession. The person who compiled a list of alleged snubs to prove that H&M are social pariahs 😂

I also find the maths calculations interesting - I managed to sample the first six pages. up to then my numbers differed to the previous poster above - positive posts and negative posts were mostly evenly matched (35 posts to 32 posts) and there were about 18 posts which were neutral. Of the positive posts 10 were from a single poster and of the negative the OP had 6, 8 were from a single poster and 8 from another poster. I was not able to sample the entire thread - but as someone who has read it - this seems to match my perception.

Good. Well done them.

You are hilarious! It's 'kind' to label posters of being paid Russian trolls when you don't get total agreement on a very unpleasant opening post... yeah, that's really kind !

I shall keep posting as long as I want. I might fill this thread up with nonsense just to skew your big brother poster monitoring tactics! Because it makes me laugh.

Defending? I'm very vocal about not agreeing with everything H&M do. Some simply can't stand the fact that OP is being called out for trying to create a hate thread.

Because people continue to mock, hate and abuse. A poster yesterday accused Meghan of snarling at an aide and staggering around the last time she visited in the UK. Such vileness needs to be called out and it will continue to be.

Because threads like these are bullying and increasing in toxicity.

@skullbabe You put it so much better than me. You have nailed it with your post of 06.52

But the OP was just being 'kind'

Apparently 🙄

That's a non sequitur. I'd just leave the OP to stew in her own juice or report if that's how you feel. These threads don't affect M&H one jot

How do people work out the maths on this?
Absolutely genuine question: is there an easy way (always my preferred option) or do you have to laboriously count up posts and divide one person's posts by the total number and multiply by 100...

If I've got that right?

Ditto. Me too. And will get called all sorts for doing so, and have to put up with personal attacks and monitoring of where I post and how often.

You couldn't make it up!

The bottom line is... some posters just have to accept not everyone thinks H&M are vile disgusting toxic unpleasant human beings.

That is the crux of the matter.

Yep manually counted so only up to page six

True. It's a total time waster! And every now and again I disappear because I can't be arsed and those posters who hate so much do stew in their own toxic juice.

But I suppose it's like politics for me... every now and again I stand up for what I believe in.

Lordy!

That's dedication for you! And we're the ones obsessed?!!

skullbabe

Thank you for replying. I was hoping I'd not forgotten maths completely.

Well, tbh, while I was clamped to the sofa while masses of building work was going on, I'd have been tempted to work out some statistics so I'm grateful to skullbabe.
I wouldn't call it obsessed - I know I've wondered how threads might skew.
Who are the "we" in And we're the ones obsessed?!!?

so agree

I would say.. those that monitor others by poring over a threads statistics so that they can say that frequent posters are 'obsessed'.

I don't care a fig how many times someone posts! I don't monitor posters' names. The OPs posts will stand out because they are a different colour. But apart from that, I'm more interested in the content of the post, as opposed to who the poster is and how many times they've posted.

Roussette

I would say.. those that monitor others by poring over a threads statistics so that they can say that frequent posters are 'obsessed'

I totally see that might seem obsessed. When I've nothing to distract me, I might have tried to do the same (although not as successfully).

But I was asking who you meant by "we" in the post:

Lordy!

That's dedication for you! And we're the ones obsessed?!!

in reply to skullbabe

Too many deletions on the first six pages (and interesting to see who they were) and Annastasia1 sounds like she must have been a real 🍑.

I missed what Annastasia1 said - they'd been deleted by the time I counted. I did not count deleted posts in my numbers.