99% of the time (I simply don't want to give an absolute guarantee haha) the notification will take you straight to the comment made.

It's possible a comment was made and then deleted.

Or it's also possible it's to do with a coding bug which Winston is has been excellent at fixing and maintaining so far.

Thanks for sharing that. I did watch it. Before I say anything about it I'm really interested to know what you got from it. What insights did it provide? What facts were presented?

I don't feel it presented any relevant facts, only suspicions. And suspicions are not enough to go off of to determine a sound conclusion.

This could very well be a case of being able to tie anyone to anything if you dig deep enough and have a predetermined outcome you're looking for.

It's not my place to judge but I'm happy to state I don't trust any of them. I don't trust the Royals. I don't trust 'The Firm', I don't trust Meghan and I don't trust Oprah.

I also don't believe every word Daniel Natal says should be taken as Gospel. I love listening to his segments but I see fallacies in his work as well (such as a recent one regarding bartering and money, which was described far too simplistically to be taken seriously; and I hate scenarios like that because I can't interject and put my two cents in to allow the conversation to go further).

So the Meghan school connection, while it's not raw evidence as such, it is just interesting coincidence. Similar to how most if not all of our Australian political 'leaders' attend schools connected to Freemasons, though I think their connection is much more telling than Meghan's.

I am neither astounded nor very sceptical. If one is not to be "preselected" to represent a political party without appropriate predispositions it seems very likely that the "qualifications" for further up the food chain are even more demanding.

I am still very, very suspicious that the "Markle debacle" is an orchestrated, scripted diversion/distraction to hide or eclipse other "bothers" for the Monarchical mascot for the "chosen" and their "new order".

I agree it's interesting but not sure if relevant. The story about the nuns was harrowing. As for Piers Morgan, he jumped ship in a theatrical way. Straight into another job. His behaviour was amusing.

Geoff, you have incorrectly summarised my postion on this issue. I do believe that the assassination of Princess Diana is relevant, but I also stated the following:

"Let's put aside the more extreme allegations of "murder most foul" for a moment and just look at the prima facie evidence they present. It is not all about racism. It is about bullying and intimidation, and is very similar to the things that Princess Diana said.

Their testimony is that they were bullied into quitting, and then stripped of all their royal titles, money and protection. It's pretty nasty stuff, regardless of whatever privilege these people enjoyed in their previous life.

I almost feel that Martyn Iles watched a completely different interview to the one I saw. The interview I saw showed people who were describing an abusive relationship."

I'm actually very disappointed to see that you have gone down the groupthink rabbit hole with Martin Iles and all the right-wingers on this topic. You have no evidence at all to back up your knee jerk assertions.

I will agree that my own speculations about whether H&M know that Diana was murdered by "the Firm" as they call them, are conspiratorial and unproven.

I don't rely on these speculations to make my argument however. There is ample evidence that what we see here is an abusive relationship, and it is not even primarily about racism. It is about power. I'm amazed that you are so unwilling to even look at that angle.

This issue has led me to be increasingly distrustful of people who call themselves "conservative". I am distrustful of these people in the same way I am distrustful of people who label themselves as "left-wing" or "progressive". Both of these groups engage to alarming degree in identity politics. Neither group is capable of rising above their tribal affiliations. Both groups betray truth at a fundamental level, which is what I believe you are doing Geoff when you say that "Meghan's victim narrative is pathetic". You have no factual basis at all to make that statement, unless, by "pathetic" you mean "inducing pathos - having a capacity to move one to compassionate pity" - which is the original meaning of the word. I think however that your usage of the word "pathetic" is more in line with the modern popular meaning "pitifully inferior or inadequate, absurd, laughable".

You and Isle simply have no basis for making those assertions. It is just your bald assumption, devoid of evidence other than your prejudice against this person because she represents a political group that you dislike. In other words Geoff, you are engaging in identity politics.

Good luck with that.

Don't be daft, Winston. You're not "honouring" anything but crookedry by providing cover for criminals even if they are rellys.

But I am deeply suspicious that touted "Markle debacle" is nothing more than a thick smokescreen to distract attention from other more bothersome accusations against this particular august institution.

Should Harry honour his Mother?...

The thing for me is, I haven't been given sufficient information/evidence to have trust in ANY of the Royal Family. Harry happens to be one of them.

If Harry somehow proves himself, then I'm happy to change my mind.

Based on the points I listed in my much longer comment, I have been given information/evidence to have trust in the practice of honouring thy Father and thy Mother (when all other laws are being upheld).

If Harry has chosen not to honour his Father and other family members BECAUSE they have broken multiple other laws, then he has strong justification for not following through with the honour rule himself. But right now, he has not brought forward anything substantial to show they are criminals, so his justification is not there.

Having prejudice (so called Racism) is not a crime, if no activity of harm against another takes place. If the harm has taken place, then Harry, please show us. Please expose the truth, if that is your genuine goal.

This means, if others have been penalised or held down, had their freedoms restricted because of the colour of their skin in the past, then expose it. Give us examples. Show the world who they have harmed. Saying that they're being oppressors towards you and only you is a little rich...

Just to be clear as well, I'm not in any way defending the Royal Family.

The only one I'm defending here is Martin and his justified loyalty to the commandments.

After the assassination of JFK in 1963, Kennedy's wife Jackie cut ties with the United States and married the Greek tycoon Aristotle Onassis. She never once mentioned any public concerns about the official narrative about what happened to her husband. She did however engage the services of private investigators in order to discover what really happened. High profile people are not free to speak out about what they know about high crimes and misdemeanors. The risks for them and their families are very serious.

The same would apply to Harry and Meghan. Harry looks like a thoughtful person. I suspect that he knows what happened to his mother. I don't vilify him for not speaking out about it.

From watching the interview I don't get the impression that there was any intention to embarass the royal family or harm them. Quite the contrary, it appears that H&M were both being bullied, and that this reached an intolerable point when Meghan started to entertain thoughts of suicide.

Let's put aside the more extreme allegations of "murder most foul" for a moment and just look at the prima facie evidence they present. It is not all about racism. It is about bullying and intimidation, and is very similar to the things that Princess Diana said.

Their testimony is that they were bullied into quitting, and then stripped of all their royal titles, money and protection. It's pretty nasty stuff, regardless of whatever privilege these people enjoyed in their previous life.

I almost feel that Martyn Iles watched a completely different interview to the one I saw. The interview I saw showed people who were describing an abusive relationship. Such things are not uncommon in this world. You can choose to disbelieve them of course, that is what Piers Morgan did, with dramatic flair, walking out of the studio and quitting his job (only to jump straight into a new job with Fox).

Martyn Iles doesn't outright say he disbelieves them, he just quotes Biblical law. Has he even considered the points I raised here? I don't get that impression. It's disappointing, but his call. I just won't look to him for great insight so much in the future.

I think that's the last I will say about this topic, or I will just end up repeating myself.

Your divine Majesty, Mr Leni. Of course Mr Red Hairy should honour his mother.

Do you mean to imply that anyone, anywhere, is automatically guilty (by media or "popular" acclaim) of an unforgivable indiscretion according to some undefined precept unless they can prove themselves innocent of all arbitrary accusations? Hmm. The barely post pubescent intelligentsia don't inspire much confidence.

Just about all of these "curly" questions have been addressed and thought through way more than a thousand years ago.

'Strooth! Leni! Talk about making idols! Mathematics, physics etc. don't exist as some "Astral being" divorced and separate from our reality. There is no maths, physics, chemistry, etc. except that there is some physical or metaphysical reality that contains them.

Stay tuned, cobber, meanwhile consider that "a thing (like a system) cannot cause itself to exist out of nothing". Metaphysical "stuff", like order, does not exist except where there are "things" (even metaphysical concepts, as in mathematics) to be ordered.

I don't know what you're trying to say. Are you saying that Physics does not exist out of nothing but that God created Physics?

Or are you saying nothing exists at all?

Everything as far as we know has a precursor up until the point of Physics or Mathematics.

What is your precursor to these?

I'll try to keep it simple, Leni, one thing at a time.

Physics. For example: The well known, easily demonstrated, "Laws of Motion" are entirely meaningless, don't even exist in the absence of bodies moving or to be moved. The Laws don't cause motion they only describe what happens.

So you're prescribing to the idea that if you hold a pen out in front of you and let go of it, there is no law of gravity which makes it descend to the floor, but rather just that describing the descent from your hand to the floor is just a description which for some reason conveniently is always labelled gravity description, despite it repeatedly happening every single time the action is performed.

If this is true, do you suggest the word 'law' be removed from existence, since it's a word describing something which doesn't exist at all?

No, Leni. Physical Laws are not inventions that make things happen they simply describe what does happen.

Let's recapitulate a most general form of "the scientific method".

Step 1; Observation. something is seen to happen.

2; Question. Why is this so?

3; Hypothesis. Suggested possibilities to be tested for conformity to known principles and experiment.

4; Theory. An hypothesis that passes testing is deemed to be a possible, or even likely, explanation for the observed phenomenon.

5; Law. If it can be proved that there are no, and can be no, exceptions to the theory then it is accepted as a "law" of physics, chemistry, etc.

The "law" doesn't make it happen; it is simply a statement that "this is what does/always will happen" in the prescribed instance.

If you accept the words printed in the Bible as your rule book for life then you are just accepting words written by men who had the fantastic arrogance, audacity and hubris to assert that these words were dictated by God. What a swindle!

If you agree with the words as printed for rational reasons which you can understand and explicate using your own intellect, then it's a different proposition. But how can you rationally support such a hollow dictum as "honor thy mother and father"? It is insufficient and needs all kids of qualifiers to make it intellectually acceptable. If your father were a murderer or child rapist, for example, how would "honor" him?

I totally understand that in the brutal world of the Old Testament there was no expectation of what we would call justice or human rights. Rules were brutal and served to regulate society. Concept of "fairness" and "dignity" had little currency back then, and maybe that was the best they could do in that era.

If I were to have the arrogance and hubris to rewrite the Bible I would rephrase it to something like:

"Give your parents the basic respect due to all human beings, and honor them when and if they deserve it, but not simply because they exist."

I'm glad that I made the above comment before I had viewed the vid you linked to or I might have been more scathing about your silly appraisal.

What authority, "fantastic arrogance, audacity and hubris" do you claim to exalt yourself to supreme arbiter of the nature and purpose of reality?

In any "philosophical" discussion you've gotta start from commonsense premises. The main one of which that is particularly pertinent to this "discussion" is the simple statement that: "a thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist". It is such a bother to diabolical narcissists that they simply evade the issue altogether and just assume that Nothing is relentlessly turning itself into Everything with no Cause, observable Mechanism, or Purpose in contradiction to all the known and easily demonstrable physical laws we can see always and everywhere.

Honour your father and mother is, appropriately, the very first Commandment after our obligations to God and it reinforces the obvious fact that we cannot create ourselves physically or metaphysically. We are a product of our parents AND the familial/social environment right up to and including father Nation and mother Culture.

Honouring them is not a servile, silly sycophancy but an earnest desire for their good.

Let's get down to basics, Geoff.

The only alternative to an omnipotent creator is the impossible assertion that Nothing is relentlessly turning itself into Everything for no purpose.

To propose that an aimless "survival of the fittest" is more magnanimous and less cruel than a purposeful Creation in which free willed creatures may repudiate their purpose and be eliminated by various agents is more than a bit daft.