Not to belabor the point
but I think it is an important point to be made regarding how some posters react/receive (what they consider or interpret to be) opposing points of views. Most of us (I assume) come on here to post as a (secret) pleasure. To find oneself wincing before opening a thread because one has (dared to!) insert a pov contrary to a prevailing thread consensus is not worth the wincing or the time it takes to sign on to read the hectoring posts.
There are posters who just cease posting rather than post and receive the hectoring. I am puzzled why so many posters, who I have discovered are older women at the grandmother status, feel that their pov's should trump all dissension. What is going on? What happened to the playfulness of amiable discussion on issues that are really about as fluffy as they come? None of this is as important as some political events occurring in our current world. Just saying.
This may get deleted by a moderator but I really feel this needs to be said (by a poster, and not just by moderator interdiction), especially as so many have ceased posting because of the unpleasantness. Someone has suggested to me that there are royal sites that see far more savage posting behavior, and that is what people are used to. I would suggest that if that is what (some) posters are used to then they have been desensitized to normal, courteous discourse. They have done themselves a disservice in getting so desensitized. JMO. But I do appeal to posters to think about how they receive pov's and how they (possibly) want to see everyone marching in lock-step to the (to them) 'obvious' way of seeing things.
It's tiresome.
Makes posting unpleasant. Why bother. I respect that there are many here who are convinced of their views. Okay. But other views should not then be hectored or laid open to 'laughing-out-loud' emojis. What is all that about?
I think those of us who have seen this romance move from stage to stage, progressing quietly but becoming very serious, are rather mystified that you appear to feel that it hasn't progressed to that level.
That's fine, Curryong, but (as I stated): I respect that there are many here who are convinced of their views, but
other views should not then be hectored or laid open to 'laughing-out-loud' emojis.
Please note that you subscribe to your self a superior stance ('those of us who have seen this romance move from stage to stage') and then posit (or imply) that any pov that doesn't conform to the 'more experienced' poster is spurious. (You make a large assumption regarding a poster's experience with the relationship's trajectory).
Would you agree that that hectoring of opposing pov's should not take place? BRF's members have charities that address bullying, and are lauded by so many here. It is ironic that the subtitles of bullying are not recognized on this site by (some) posters. Blind spot, I think. I actually don't think much of it (unless overtly grotesque) is intentionally mean. Not at all. I think its a blind spot. Because we cannot see the person with the twinkle in their eyes and the love in their tone we can only go by the words/text.
Hence text needs to be carefully considered. JMO.
To your point: you may be mystified but I would suggest you are mystified because you (perhaps) do not closely follow the reasoning. Quite a few have stated that the fact that Meghan and Harry have not had anything but a long-distance relationship, thinking the relationship is 'serious' (in the sense of 'imminent' marriage) is premature. The real test will be day-in-day-out living. It's hard to accept that they are at a point where marriage is a reasonable next step given the history of the relationship.
Maybe a
long engagement? Okay. But in this I think the wedding should (for both their sakes) take place in 2019/20.
Or again, earlier, on no evidence that I can see, that the couple aren't deeply in love and the relationship might be a fling or affair, nor is as serious as other people think it. Again, I've never been able to see how you could read those implications into it.
Okay, but does that then justify hectoring? Just wondering.
They are clearly in the red-hot blush of lust/love. Yes, I see that (They made sure I saw that, which in itself is curious to my mind). I also see that a great deal of effort is being funneled into making this relationship 'play in Peoria'. It's impressive. I have no doubt in my mind that Harry is determined to have this relationship result in marriage. More power to him. A man 'in love' is a force, and compelling if one is the focus of such. I just hope Meghan is up to the 'full court press' and what lies on the other side of that. Just an opinion, Curryong.
Would be great to see Prince Harry at the wedding. It reinforces the idea that they're equal partners...you travel for my good friend's wedding and I do the same for you. Especially since Meghan missed Serena's baby shower to appear at Harry's polo match.
Exactly so.
Still, if schedules don't allow it's not an indictment of their relationship.
That was not suggested. But if Harry moves heaven and earth to attend with Meghan that would signal (to me, but I am just one, after all) that there is a serious commitment. I would assume they are engaged (they just have not told the public).
It just has to do with meshing worlds, and part of that is the world of friends. Meghan attended the wedding of one of Harry's friends. The reverse makes sense, else it's too one-sided. (If they are a couple of that magnitude/depth).
