With Love, Meghan on Netflix

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched two episodes with my dh who chose it. When he first turned it on, I didn’t realize what it was and assumed it was a joke/parody/‘mockumentary’ type show. It is that cheesy.

She’s obviously not a real chef/cook. Her clothes are pretty but totally unpractical for a real cook. Her speech sounds like she’s trying to follow the inflections and intonations of Martha. The substantive banter sounds phony and forced. And it is so tone deaf in today’s environment and especially given MM’s previous claims about caring about social justice issues, etc. Also how do you try to present yourself as a caring, warm hostess after you’ve bashed and cut yourself off from both sides of you and your husband’s families???

She needs to find something else. This is really really bad.

Such a smart point. If these were random new neighbors and the topic of extended family casually came up and both of them were crickets when it came to siblings, parents, nieces and nephews I’d be so sketched out. Nothing makes it more obvious you’re dealing with creepy toxic messy people than, “Oh, we’re both estranged from all sides of our families…”

They’re not estranged from all sides of their families. They both still speak to their mothers’ sides of the family.

Let's be fair. Meghan's dad and sister are terrible!

Agree, sister has had her children removed from her custody multiple times. She clearly hates Meghan and has it out for her. I would be estranged from her too.

[Anonymous]

I tried it but unfortunately for her, the timing sucks. Not her fault since this was planned and filmed last year, but it’s really hard for me to enjoy watching a wealthy person craft for kicks wearing a $30,000 watch in a cottage at her $10 million home. I like her and I wish her well, but I don’t think I’ll keep watching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone made a good point above. What gracious hostess trashes family on tv?

Dear god, Jeff, I'm begging you buddy, please look into these sock puppets.

PP I think Jeff should consider whether posters like you are being paid to post by MMs team or otherwise have some personal connection

Jeff couldn't care less about these royal threads and never reads them unless absolutely necessary. If you read his daily summary, you would see that is especially true now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone made a good point above. What gracious hostess trashes family on tv?

Dear god, Jeff, I'm begging you buddy, please look into these sock puppets.

PP I think Jeff should consider whether posters like you are being paid to post by MMs team or otherwise have some personal connection

Jeff couldn't care less about these royal threads and never reads them unless absolutely necessary. If you read his daily summary, you would see that is especially true now.

I know he is no longer doing his write-up of the popular threads. I was under the impression he did read them though because I remember from old blogs he said he had to shut down several royals threads.

Not that I think this thread should be shut down by any means and it's his board so it's his call anyway, I am simply saying I think there are a few people here all pretending to agree with each other when it's really one person. I am not just saying "A lot of people are replying a lot," because I'm replying a lot to keep up with the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone made a good point above. What gracious hostess trashes family on tv?

Dear god, Jeff, I'm begging you buddy, please look into these sock puppets.

Posts like this should be posted in Website Feedback. But since you have already disrupted this thread, let me ask you how you define "sock puppet". Because you have now reported a poster who replied to your own post and asked if they are a sock puppet. That suggests an understand of "sock puppet" that is different than my own.

Is it not someone who replies multiple times? I was more referring to the fact that they replied to my post twice claiming "DP" and "PP"

A sock puppet is someone who replies to their own posts. If you reply to someone else it is not sock puppeting.

Well, learn something new every day that I was using the term incorrectly. That's my bad and I apologize to Jeff for a comment that was made in jest but came across as snarky.

I was under the impression that someone replying repeatedly and claiming to be "DP" "NP" etc. counted as sock puppeting.

Sorry, but aren’t you also replying a lot? Did you think you were a sock puppet?

See below - I am not suggesting that anyone pro- or anti-Markle is a sock puppet for replying a lot in the sense of following a normal conversation. I am more referring to people who quote the same post three times in a row saying "DP!" "NP!" or agree with themselves. I was under the impression that was sock puppeting.

When someone starts their post with new poster (NP), it means they are posting for the first time on that thread. DP means they are a different poster than the one being quoted or the previous poster (pp). Sockpuppeting is responding to your own post not replying more than once in a thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone made a good point above. What gracious hostess trashes family on tv?

Dear god, Jeff, I'm begging you buddy, please look into these sock puppets.

PP I think Jeff should consider whether posters like you are being paid to post by MMs team or otherwise have some personal connection

Jeff couldn't care less about these royal threads and never reads them unless absolutely necessary. If you read his daily summary, you would see that is especially true now.

DP
I’m sure Jeff doesn’t care about lots of threads, but he does seem to care about bad actors/trolls/sock puppets. Or at least that’s the impression I get. He does try to moderate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched two episodes with my dh who chose it. When he first turned it on, I didn’t realize what it was and assumed it was a joke/parody/‘mockumentary’ type show. It is that cheesy.

She’s obviously not a real chef/cook. Her clothes are pretty but totally unpractical for a real cook. Her speech sounds like she’s trying to follow the inflections and intonations of Martha. The substantive banter sounds phony and forced. And it is so tone deaf in today’s environment and especially given MM’s previous claims about caring about social justice issues, etc. Also how do you try to present yourself as a caring, warm hostess after you’ve bashed and cut yourself off from both sides of you and your husband’s families???

She needs to find something else. This is really really bad.

Such a smart point. If these were random new neighbors and the topic of extended family casually came up and both of them were crickets when it came to siblings, parents, nieces and nephews I’d be so sketched out. Nothing makes it more obvious you’re dealing with creepy toxic messy people than, “Oh, we’re both estranged from all sides of our families…”

They’re not estranged from all sides of their families. They both still speak to their mothers’ sides of the family.

I’m sure Doria contains multitudes, but I’m less sure Meghan Only Mommy Came to My Wedding Sussex née Markle is in touch with other members of her mom’s side.

I don't think Doria has that many relatives, does she? Out of her three half siblings I'm pretty sure two are dead. Some people just don't have big families, I dated a guy whose dad had no family. If he was estranged from his mom's side, he wouldn't have had anyone either. (My ex's dad was one of two kids, the other brother died before having kids, so my ex had no living aunts, uncles, or cousins, on his dad's side.)

And I forgot, Meghan is close with her niece on her dad's side. She was in their docuseries.

Meghan seems to want to not think about it, but she carries DNA from her dad's side. If they're all crazy, ignorant folks who should be ostracized, then she should be concerned for her kids. Same for Harry's genetics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone made a good point above. What gracious hostess trashes family on tv?

Dear god, Jeff, I'm begging you buddy, please look into these sock puppets.

PP I think Jeff should consider whether posters like you are being paid to post by MMs team or otherwise have some personal connection

Jeff couldn't care less about these royal threads and never reads them unless absolutely necessary. If you read his daily summary, you would see that is especially true now.

I know he is no longer doing his write-up of the popular threads. I was under the impression he did read them though because I remember from old blogs he said he had to shut down several royals threads.

Not that I think this thread should be shut down by any means and it's his board so it's his call anyway, I am simply saying I think there are a few people here all pretending to agree with each other when it's really one person. I am not just saying "A lot of people are replying a lot," because I'm replying a lot to keep up with the conversation.

He only reads them when posts are being reported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone made a good point above. What gracious hostess trashes family on tv?

Dear god, Jeff, I'm begging you buddy, please look into these sock puppets.

PP I think Jeff should consider whether posters like you are being paid to post by MMs team or otherwise have some personal connection

Jeff couldn't care less about these royal threads and never reads them unless absolutely necessary. If you read his daily summary, you would see that is especially true now.

DP
I’m sure Jeff doesn’t care about lots of threads, but he does seem to care about bad actors/trolls/sock puppets. Or at least that’s the impression I get. He does try to moderate.

He does but only if posts are reported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone made a good point above. What gracious hostess trashes family on tv?

Dear god, Jeff, I'm begging you buddy, please look into these sock puppets.

Posts like this should be posted in Website Feedback. But since you have already disrupted this thread, let me ask you how you define "sock puppet". Because you have now reported a poster who replied to your own post and asked if they are a sock puppet. That suggests an understand of "sock puppet" that is different than my own.

Is it not someone who replies multiple times? I was more referring to the fact that they replied to my post twice claiming "DP" and "PP"

A sock puppet is someone who replies to their own posts. If you reply to someone else it is not sock puppeting.

Well, learn something new every day that I was using the term incorrectly. That's my bad and I apologize to Jeff for a comment that was made in jest but came across as snarky.

I was under the impression that someone replying repeatedly and claiming to be "DP" "NP" etc. counted as sock puppeting.

Sorry, but aren’t you also replying a lot? Did you think you were a sock puppet?

See below - I am not suggesting that anyone pro- or anti-Markle is a sock puppet for replying a lot in the sense of following a normal conversation. I am more referring to people who quote the same post three times in a row saying "DP!" "NP!" or agree with themselves. I was under the impression that was sock puppeting.

When someone starts their post with new poster (NP), it means they are posting for the first time on that thread. DP means they are a different poster than the one being quoted or the previous poster (pp). Sockpuppeting is responding to your own post not replying more than once in a thread.

This
Can I get a tutorial on these acronyms?

DP
PP
OP
NP

bc I’d think that OP and NP could be used in different ways and still be accurate. I’d assume someone could be a NP, as example, even if they had previously posted on the thread if it is a long thread and they are jumping in to a new part of the conversation that they haven’t previously been involved in.

And couldn’t OP refer to the poster of the original thread, but also the poster of a particular sub conversation being quoted on a larger thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone made a good point above. What gracious hostess trashes family on tv?

Dear god, Jeff, I'm begging you buddy, please look into these sock puppets.

PP I think Jeff should consider whether posters like you are being paid to post by MMs team or otherwise have some personal connection

Jeff couldn't care less about these royal threads and never reads them unless absolutely necessary. If you read his daily summary, you would see that is especially true now.

I know he is no longer doing his write-up of the popular threads. I was under the impression he did read them though because I remember from old blogs he said he had to shut down several royals threads.

Not that I think this thread should be shut down by any means and it's his board so it's his call anyway, I am simply saying I think there are a few people here all pretending to agree with each other when it's really one person. I am not just saying "A lot of people are replying a lot," because I'm replying a lot to keep up with the conversation.

He only reads them when posts are being reported.

Well, it seems he jumps in elsewhere as well. Like when someone uses his name or I’d assume if there are banned words used.

[Anonymous]

OP is the original poster of the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone made a good point above. What gracious hostess trashes family on tv?

Dear god, Jeff, I'm begging you buddy, please look into these sock puppets.

Posts like this should be posted in Website Feedback. But since you have already disrupted this thread, let me ask you how you define "sock puppet". Because you have now reported a poster who replied to your own post and asked if they are a sock puppet. That suggests an understand of "sock puppet" that is different than my own.

Is it not someone who replies multiple times? I was more referring to the fact that they replied to my post twice claiming "DP" and "PP"

A sock puppet is someone who replies to their own posts. If you reply to someone else it is not sock puppeting.

Well, learn something new every day that I was using the term incorrectly. That's my bad and I apologize to Jeff for a comment that was made in jest but came across as snarky.

I was under the impression that someone replying repeatedly and claiming to be "DP" "NP" etc. counted as sock puppeting.

Sorry, but aren’t you also replying a lot? Did you think you were a sock puppet?

See below - I am not suggesting that anyone pro- or anti-Markle is a sock puppet for replying a lot in the sense of following a normal conversation. I am more referring to people who quote the same post three times in a row saying "DP!" "NP!" or agree with themselves. I was under the impression that was sock puppeting.

When someone starts their post with new poster (NP), it means they are posting for the first time on that thread. DP means they are a different poster than the one being quoted or the previous poster (pp). Sockpuppeting is responding to your own post not replying more than once in a thread.

Thank you, I am the one confused by it who reported a couple posts and this was helpful.

What is it called when someone claims they are a DP or NP and they actually are not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the exchange when the pot with her specially made creamer boiling over was funny and telling. Her reaction was super defensive. Seemed random to leave in the show.

She is tense as hell. That tight little exchange with Mindy Kaling was not a one off.

+1 very revealing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone made a good point above. What gracious hostess trashes family on tv?

Dear god, Jeff, I'm begging you buddy, please look into these sock puppets.

PP I think Jeff should consider whether posters like you are being paid to post by MMs team or otherwise have some personal connection

Jeff couldn't care less about these royal threads and never reads them unless absolutely necessary. If you read his daily summary, you would see that is especially true now.

I know he is no longer doing his write-up of the popular threads. I was under the impression he did read them though because I remember from old blogs he said he had to shut down several royals threads.

Not that I think this thread should be shut down by any means and it's his board so it's his call anyway, I am simply saying I think there are a few people here all pretending to agree with each other when it's really one person. I am not just saying "A lot of people are replying a lot," because I'm replying a lot to keep up with the conversation.

He only reads them when posts are being reported.

Well, it seems he jumps in elsewhere as well. Like when someone uses his name or I’d assume if there are banned words used.

I think he has it set so that banned words can't actually be posted.