Meghan Markle has ‘warped sense of reality,’ Vanity Fair writer says

[blitheringblackberries]

Interesting article

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/03/29/meghan-markle-has-warped-sense-of-reality-isnt-on-the-level-vanity-fair-writer-says/

Sorry, meant OW interview!

Nah.

Nice one! But no.

There is no uncomfortable truth I have to deal with. I don't target posters and accuse them of all sorts. When making very mild posts about W&K for instance.

How bad is... "'I am sure their relationship is fine as it is so important for them to stay together'

Awful. Shock horror! Gosh! Surprised I'm not banned for that!

no I posted the relevant bit. The next post from them regarding this was

You posted what you decided was relevant to bolster your own view. I disagree that it was all that was relevant.

Also that post you've quoted, does it not say there's no evidence of hacking? Or is it that there's no evidence of tapping and the posters use of hacking in that post was incorrect?

I now have no idea what you are talking about.

You are using tapping/hacking/bugging to try and score points. Give up. Ain't working!

But do contact MNHQ about me saying that it is important for W&K to stay together because that is shock horror and I should be banned for that lol

Nothing has been proved and one key witness has admitted his statement was false

Apologies for commenting on this rather than the thread title - which would be pointless anyway as nothing new has happened - but what the hell's going on here??

The Guardian have a reasonably good article on it, and frankly it's sounding a bit of a mess: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/29/witness-in-prince-harrys-case-against-daily-mail-owner-unreliable-say-lawyers

Calling me a stalker aka as attacking me is a great way of avoiding my comment

MNHQ should also tell some of the posters on here all day, every day to take a break for their MH (and for ours having to read the same old shit)

Just leave me alone please.

You made no comment I could answer.

Thanks. I'm off. Sleep well all.

I have no idea what you're on about? What study?

I've also not searched for any of your previous posts. I have no desire to do so. Im unsure what gives you the idea I have, unless you've mistaken me for someone else?

I've had this username for 11 months (ish) which I'm sure @MNHQ can confirm. I'm sure they can also confirm I haven't nc'd once in those 11 months.

What have I said exactly that's making me look desperate and weird? If you're going to make an accusation at least back it with some evidence.

@Puzzledandpissedoff I listened to a couple of Youtubes (only short) on this hearing by a barrister who I listen to often on all sorts of things. They are quite interesting so I'll see if I can link .

OK, so you are not accusing me of stalking you! Glad to hear it.

So I am not a NC'er.

So my comments on the use of language to make implications stands.

There is a difference between 'I am sure their relationship is fine' and ' I am sure their relationship is fine because it is important they stay together'

Why add the 'because' if it is not the cause of the relationship being fine?

I think William is punching up. She is perfect for the institution. It IS very important they stay together. If it doesn't work, it seriously could be the end of the Monarchy

you think if harry and Meghan split up the British monarchy would end?

I was just reading the thread and saw 2 posters attacking another. Tag team sprang to mind.
Rousette never name changes so they get picked on.
not calling you a name Charger before you attack me.
it’s a thread about Meghan that has become a bash Rousette.
nasty

About the way you use implication as a way of attacking while also saying you haven't attacked!

You post on a public board, so anyone can answer. Sorry you have been caught out 😂

Good night!

That was not to you. It was for @Whaeanui actually discussing the case, the thing you've claimed you want to do. I was clearing up something to gain a better understanding.

Again, I've not commented on anything you've posted about William and Kate.

Thanks, StormzyinaTCup, I'll look forward to that if you manage to find it

No-one said you should be banned

It's nitpicking and splitting hairs to make it personal.

@Roussette @Whaeanui
It really is an obnoxious, nitpicky pile-on. 🙄

I really dgaf at this stage about the minute difference between those different criminal activities - just the overall alleged criminality. If the tabloids are guilty, I look forward to them being held accountable.

the fact is he’s accused the former publisher of one of the top staff members for Charles of intercepting private communications.
It really is astonishing 😒. Have you heard any reference to this fact via bbc of any other news reports this week?

The gaslighting on here really is almost laughable.

What is your source for these revelations please

i’m not a daily Mail reader but I do like Dominic Sandbrook and he writes for them
much to the mirth of Tom Holland (on their podcasts)

Hold on, how is it a pile on when a number of people recognise and identify the same linguistic tricks being used by some posters to try to discredit other posters?

How is it not a pile on when you, @Roussette @Whaeanui @Samcro et al all start picking apart other posters comments, making thinly veiled implications or patting each other on the back?

The is no piling on. There is disagreement on the topic and disagreement with how posters are misrepresenting what other people have written.

Did anyone read Brooke Shields comments about her ex husbands (Agassi) biography written with Harry’s ghostwriter.

it seems drugs issues and that ghostwriter are a bad mix

I’d give Dominic Sandbrook a job on my staff in a second (if I was a royal) and he works for the daily mail

No doubt @MNHQ can confirm I haven't NC'ed. They might not be able to check (maybe can), but I will say, I haven't been in touch with anyone else on this thread.

The accusations show a degree of desperation.

Love Dominic Sandbrook and Tom Holland on 'The Rest is History' podcast!