Page 2 of 6

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:38 am
by Proposition Joe
That was an uberramble.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:46 am
by spen666
UpminsterO wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:07 am
Proposition Joe wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:38 am That was an uberramble.
Agreed Joe it was not a very good post and certainly not to my usual standard of excellence.

Simply Joe the message is to some on here;

1. Don't write when you are ill informed, inarticulate or full of conjecture particularly on football.
2. Do not continue the saga after a defeat of being exceptionally rude on a personal level to any Lofc team footballer or member of staff and then flip the other way the following week when we win or draw
When was she exceptionally rude on a personal level to any Lofc team footballer or member of staff?

I'm confused

Thought this was a thread about Ms Markle. Not clear she has ever publicly commented about Orient

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:34 am
by Oforever
Thor wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:10 pm Look at her history. This is her 3rd marriage, she has dumped everyone as shes climbed the greasy pole. Shes dropped her own family including her dad, she is a manipulating person, she has split up william and harry. She is only out for what she can get, she does not come across as a nice person.

Shes a former yacht girl, a former escort allegedly she is not a nice person.
It's her second marriage? Though she comes across very badly, so does Harry since he's been with her.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:45 am
by O my gawd
Dcesy_-X0AEQcId..jpg
Dcesy_-X0AEQcId..jpg (24.85 KiB) Viewed 551 times

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:19 am
by LeighO
UpminsterO wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:07 am
Proposition Joe wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:38 am That was an uberramble.
Agreed Joe it was not a very good post and certainly not to my usual standard of excellence.

Simply Joe the message is to some on here;

1. Don't write when you are ill informed, inarticulate or full of conjecture particularly on football.
2. Do not continue the saga after a defeat of being exceptionally rude on a personal level to any Lofc team footballer or member of staff and then flip the other way the following week when we win or draw
Adherence to point 1 would greatly reduce the output of many boarders (myself included).

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:03 am
by spen666
UpminsterO wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:36 am
LeighO wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:19 am
UpminsterO wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:07 am

Agreed Joe it was not a very good post and certainly not to my usual standard of excellence.

Simply Joe the message is to some on here;

1. Don't write when you are ill informed, inarticulate or full of conjecture particularly on football.
2. Do not continue the saga after a defeat of being exceptionally rude on a personal level to any Lofc team footballer or member of staff and then flip the other way the following week when we win or draw
Adherence to point 1 would greatly reduce the output of many boarders (myself included).
Since April when you joined you have posted 41 times only that's not very many.
A few on here post non stop on every subject daily often deliberately being rude to the players and certain staff members when we lose - for reasons not associated with basic decent behaviour
Rachel Markle?

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:15 am
by Howling Mad Murdock
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/50176037

They are all at it.

But his former rival Fernando Alonso told Spanish radio: "I would never release a message like Lewis. You can't send out a message one day and the next day do the opposite.

"We all know the lifestyle that Lewis has, and that Formula 1 drivers take 200 planes a year. You can't then say: 'Don't eat meat.'"


Marvelous. :)

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:34 pm
by JimbO
RedO wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:06 pm Strange that out of all the Royals, she's the one people seem to be focusing their vitriol towards. I can't imagine why.
Yawn

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:23 pm
by Proposition Joe
Oforever wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:34 am
Thor wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:10 pm Look at her history. This is her 3rd marriage, she has dumped everyone as shes climbed the greasy pole. Shes dropped her own family including her dad, she is a manipulating person, she has split up william and harry. She is only out for what she can get, she does not come across as a nice person.

Shes a former yacht girl, a former escort allegedly she is not a nice person.
It's her second marriage? Though she comes across very badly, so does Harry since he's been with her.
Why do they come across badly? Specific incidents and reasons.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:52 pm
by Thor
Frogmore alledegly spent 3m on the gaff and they don't live there.

Private planes, then tell us to cut down

Pushes Harry out of the way to greet people before him breaking protocol

Patronises the people of south Africa with hand me down clothes making them look silly

Gets her friends to leak the private letter she wrote to her dad to the press, then when her dad releases parts of it she sues the paper!

Says no one asks if I'm ok? Did she ask her dad if he was ok after his heart attack? Nope

Harry is captain general of the marines and she forces him to cancel an historic event to attend the lion king premier cos they were paid 3m from Disney, yes you read that correctly they were paid 3m pounds!

There is so much you could give examples for, she is a narcissist

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:10 pm
by Howling Mad Murdock
Thor has really got a bee in his bonnet over this one.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:46 am
by Oforever
Proposition Joe wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:23 pm
Oforever wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:34 am
Thor wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:10 pm Look at her history. This is her 3rd marriage, she has dumped everyone as shes climbed the greasy pole. Shes dropped her own family including her dad, she is a manipulating person, she has split up william and harry. She is only out for what she can get, she does not come across as a nice person.

Shes a former yacht girl, a former escort allegedly she is not a nice person.
It's her second marriage? Though she comes across very badly, so does Harry since he's been with her.
Why do they come across badly? Specific incidents and reasons.
Well that nonsense about naming godparents. Not wanting pics of baby, not wanting press to "intrude", talking about climate change whilst taking private jets. Oh and despite all that spending 2.5 million of our money doing up their house. I could go on but that's enough for now.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:22 am
by Disoriented
UpminsterO wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:36 am
LeighO wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:19 am
UpminsterO wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:07 am

Agreed Joe it was not a very good post and certainly not to my usual standard of excellence.

Simply Joe the message is to some on here;

1. Don't write when you are ill informed, inarticulate or full of conjecture particularly on football.
2. Do not continue the saga after a defeat of being exceptionally rude on a personal level to any Lofc team footballer or member of staff and then flip the other way the following week when we win or draw
Adherence to point 1 would greatly reduce the output of many boarders (myself included).
Since April when you joined you have posted 41 times only that's not very many.
A few on here post non stop on every subject daily often deliberately being rude to the players and certain staff members when we lose - for reasons not associated with basic decent behaviour
Eh?

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:57 pm
by Proposition Joe
Oforever wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:46 am
Proposition Joe wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:23 pm
Oforever wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:34 am

It's her second marriage? Though she comes across very badly, so does Harry since he's been with her.
Why do they come across badly? Specific incidents and reasons.
Well that nonsense about naming godparents. Not wanting pics of baby, not wanting press to "intrude", talking about climate change whilst taking private jets. Oh and despite all that spending 2.5 million of our money doing up their house. I could go on but that's enough for now.
Not wanting press intrusion and being concerned for the environment is coming across badly? Righto.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 2:46 pm
by spen666
Proposition Joe wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:57 pm
Oforever wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:46 am
Proposition Joe wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:23 pm

Why do they come across badly? Specific incidents and reasons.
Well that nonsense about naming godparents. Not wanting pics of baby, not wanting press to "intrude", talking about climate change whilst taking private jets. Oh and despite all that spending 2.5 million of our money doing up their house. I could go on but that's enough for now.
Not wanting press intrusion and being concerned for the environment is coming across badly? Righto.


Using a voluntary TV interview to complain about press intrusion or
Lecturing the world about climate change whilst flying around on jaunts in private jets

These sort of hypocritical actions for some strange reason never go down well with some people

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 pm
by Proposition Joe
Odd, cos Prince Charles doesn't attract the same vitriol for banging on about the environment despite his own dubious antics, nor does Prince Andrew. Just can't she's black work out she's black what the difference she's black could be.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:16 pm
by Ronnie Hotdogs
Oforever wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:46 am
Proposition Joe wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:23 pm
Oforever wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:34 am

It's her second marriage? Though she comes across very badly, so does Harry since he's been with her.
Why do they come across badly? Specific incidents and reasons.
Well that nonsense about naming godparents. Not wanting pics of baby, not wanting press to "intrude", talking about climate change whilst taking private jets. Oh and despite all that spending 2.5 million of our money doing up their house. I could go on but that's enough for now.
Didn’t the other princess married to the other brother spend bundles doing up their house at our expense? I don’t remember the same sort of hatred aimed her way then (or now). I just can’t work out what’s different this time? 🤷🏾‍♀️

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:13 pm
by Oforever
Well they didn't refuse to name godparents and complain about press intrusion etc etc

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:09 pm
by F*ck The Poor & Fat
Howling Mad Murdock wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:10 pm Thor has really got a bee in his bonnet over this one.
Yeh, but it’s an organic bee and a green bonnet. Or was that bee a green hornet.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:22 pm
by Howling Mad Murdock
dOh Nut wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:09 pm
Howling Mad Murdock wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:10 pm Thor has really got a bee in his bonnet over this one.
Yeh, but it’s an organic bee and a green bonnet. Or was that bee a green hornet.
Thor ferk sake! :P

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:09 pm
by Ronnie Hotdogs
Oforever wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:13 pm Well they didn't refuse to name godparents and complain about press intrusion etc etc
They did complain about press intrusion. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19595221

So come on, what’s everyone’s real issue with this new princess? 🤷🏾‍♀️

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:16 pm
by Tom Chance
RedO wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:09 pm
Oforever wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:13 pm Well they didn't refuse to name godparents and complain about press intrusion etc etc
They did complain about press intrusion. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19595221

So come on, what’s everyone’s real issue with this new princess? 🤷🏾‍♀️
Ok, I'll say it for you. She's a bloody Yank ! Happy now.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:33 pm
by Thor
Proposition Joe wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 pm Odd, cos Prince Charles doesn't attract the same vitriol for banging on about the environment despite his own dubious antics, nor does Prince Andrew. Just can't she's black work out she's black what the difference she's black could be.
Err she doesn't see herself as black, she puts down on forms shes white. Dont believe me use google and you'll see her profiles showing exactly that.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:35 pm
by Thor
RedO wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:16 pm
Oforever wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:46 am
Proposition Joe wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:23 pm

Why do they come across badly? Specific incidents and reasons.
Well that nonsense about naming godparents. Not wanting pics of baby, not wanting press to "intrude", talking about climate change whilst taking private jets. Oh and despite all that spending 2.5 million of our money doing up their house. I could go on but that's enough for now.
Didn’t the other princess married to the other brother spend bundles doing up their house at our expense? I don’t remember the same sort of hatred aimed her way then (or now). I just can’t work out what’s different this time? 🤷🏾‍♀️
She does not live in that cottage for a start.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:54 pm
by Stowaway
F**king state of this thread.