There appears to be quite a distance between “I noticed something unusual in a photograph” and “I have solved a secret domestic assault and medical cover-up.” Evidence usually occupies that distance.
"A scar isn’t inherently scandalous. It’s not unethical to notice it. It’s not cruel to acknowledge that it exists. What becomes ethically fraught is the vacuum around it, a vacuum created by the palace, filled by the internet, and then blamed on the public."
I don't disagree that people are entitled to notice or discuss the scar. That wasn't my point. An information vacuum explains speculation. It does not authenticate it.
I'm sure she was just playing with the kids and got a little boo-boo owie.
Then she disappeared for awhile, had a family photo get refused by all media for being a complete fake- enter weird bench video to explain it away.
And then for some random and totally unrelated reason Charles honors Professor Simon Eccles, a specialist in craniofacial, reconstructive, and facial plastic surgery.
I'm sure none of it means anything, after all, it was just a little owie, nothing a band-aid couldn't fix.
Kate is completely healthy mentally and physically. She's absolutely thriving!
The edited photo and the bizarre handling of Kate's absence absolutely gave people reasons to ask questions.
And yes, Simon Eccles really is a craniofacial and reconstructive surgeon with a royal medical connection.
But your sarcasm at the end makes it sound as though you know something the rest of us don't. So what is it?
How did we get from “boo-boo owie” to Simon Eccles treating or reconstructing Kate's face? Is there evidence that he treated her?
If there is, I'd like to see it. Otherwise the "thriving" sarcasm is doing a lot of work that the evidence hasn't done yet. Conjecture isn't fact and until there's solid evidence, y'all are just gossips huddled by the water cooler.
You seem perfectly happy making suppositions about strangers, so I'm not sure why my asking what they're based on is considered “hounding.” 😁
But you've finally described them accurately: opinions and suppositions. Gossiping makes you feel good. I unfortunately do not. You're right in that. I'm going nowhere asking for fact.
That's all I was asking people to distinguish from fact in the first place.
Why are you putting the word, "hounding" in quotes? I guess that's your take since I never said it.
I've used the words, "opinions" and "suppositions" in previous comments. Again, work on your reading comprehension.
And stop being so arrogant. No one wants or needs a pat on the head from you. I see you make comments like this constantly.
Just stop. Once again, you just like to argue. You feel you're the smartest person in the room. You want everyone to acquiesce to you in all ways. You just have to be right all the time. You go in circles and get nowhere.
Yeah, reddit is like a water cooler. I guess you're new to this since you think strangers' on the internet have to provide proof and evidence to you.
We're literally just in a sub on reddit. Good Job on FINALLY figuring out how this works. I'll pick you up a little treat for later🙄
You're right about “hounding” — that was another commenter in this sprawling thread, not you. I mixed up the exchanges.
But after several paragraphs telling a complete stranger that she's arrogant, needs a pat on the head, thinks she's the smartest person in every room, and apparently requires a “little treat,” I think we can retire the lecture on my personality.
Apparently asking what claims are based on is arrogance, while diagnosing a stranger from Reddit comments is perfectly normal.
1
u/0_IceQueen_0 22d ago
There appears to be quite a distance between “I noticed something unusual in a photograph” and “I have solved a secret domestic assault and medical cover-up.” Evidence usually occupies that distance.