Community Chat

[Mersha]

@lgfan   Your observation is true.

There is a group here that gets very upset and starts the name calling when another has a different opinion on H&M from their negativity.

I have dealt with it for years.  In fact, there is an example right on this thread.

Go figure.

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@manny2 wrote:

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

@manny2 wrote:

William and Kate allow their children to be photographed. What’s the problem with that?

If it benefits Meghan, she will do it too. Right now, she just dangles their image to get the traffic over to whatever she is selling.

---

@manny2 

Oh, please .....  Just wait until Kate & Will's kids faces end up on kiddie p orn sites.  There are a LOT of sick people out there, and the CA laws have changed to protect both parents and kids likenesses.  They are smart to not show their faces.    

---

Oh, please get over kidde p orn sites. These are covert sites. I highly doubt they would use Kate and Williams’ children.

The average person posting on social media would have a higher risk.

So, no it’s easy to figure out. Meghan uses them and their image to drive whatever project she is doing.

---

@manny2   @Mersha 

Oh, so you "highly doubt" anyone would use Kate & Will's kids.

News flash .... A LOT of celebrities now do not show their children's faces ... anywhere.     

Big name celebrities around the country have gone to court when they learned their children's faces had been superimposed on nasty photos.  Paying big bucks for investigations and then finding proof and going for prosecution of the perpetrators.  The FBI got involved.   A few of these horror stories have caused the laws to be changed in CA.  

Parents have the right to control their children's likenesses in any way they see fit.  Just because you want to see the kids' photos doesn't mean you are entitled to do so.  

[pdlinda]

@Kachina624 

My first, middle and last thought on this DREARY SUBJECT!! So RIDICULOUS to see the back of the head of their daughter

I get the same "vibe" when she INSISTS on using her ROYAL TITLE in marketing materials for her various "projects." 

She has STRONG objections to everything "royal" so this is simply another tactic to gain clicks and enhance her social media presence.

[manny2]

---

@Mersha wrote:

---

@manny2 wrote:

---

@Mersha wrote:

The replies of those annoyed because H&M will not show their childrens' faces is mind boggling.

No one has a right and they do not have any obligation to show their children.  If they choose to put pictures out, such as this one, that is their prerogative.  They owe no one anything. 

No, you have no idea what motivates them to do anything.  YOU DO NOT KNOW THEM.  To say otherwise is ridiculous.

I will not fault anyone for lack of a life jacket in the picture.  I have no idea the circumstances surrounding this particular photo.

You see the anger/dislike/hate directed at them here.  We know there are loons everywhere nowadays so why take the chance with putting their photos out there.  It is just not worth it.

---

Oh, the sanctimony!

---

@manny2  Why not try responding to a thread and knock off the personal attacks on me.

It is old and tiresome.

---

I don’t think you understand you are posting on a discussion board.

That means we can comment on your post. If that is uncomfortable for you I suggest you stop posting.

[Tinkrbl44]

Insists?   Says who?

[Sage04]

For those who are concerned about Harry's daughter not wearing a life preserver why not send the picture to the authorities, or is it only done in the movies?

[KKJ]

---

@Mersha wrote:

@lgfan   Your observation is true.

There is a group here that gets very upset and starts name calling when another has a different opinion on H&M from their negativity.

I have dealt with it for years.  In fact, there is an example right on this thread.

Go figure.

---

And there are those who get very upset when others don't worship these two and everything they do. 

[Mersha]

---

@manny2 wrote:

---

@Mersha wrote:

---

@manny2 wrote:

---

@Mersha wrote:

The replies of those annoyed because H&M will not show their childrens' faces is mind boggling.

No one has a right and they do not have any obligation to show their children.  If they choose to put pictures out, such as this one, that is their prerogative.  They owe no one anything. 

No, you have no idea what motivates them to do anything.  YOU DO NOT KNOW THEM.  To say otherwise is ridiculous.

I will not fault anyone for lack of a life jacket in the picture.  I have no idea the circumstances surrounding this particular photo.

You see the anger/dislike/hate directed at them here.  We know there are loons everywhere nowadays so why take the chance with putting their photos out there.  It is just not worth it.

---

Oh, the sanctimony!

---

@manny2  Why not try responding to a thread and knock off the personal attacks on me.

It is old and tiresome.

---

I don’t think you understand you are posting on a discussion board.

That means we can comment on your post. If that is uncomfortable for you I suggest you stop posting.

---

@manny2  I don't think you understand this is a discussion board and posters are allowed to voice their opinion without being berated and bullied.

[Puppy Lips]

@jllymarie. My comment about wearing a life jacket “no matter where you are in the world” was obviously (to everyone else) meant for those on the water. Someone else posted that they may not be in California, and that wherever they were might not require that kids be in a life jacket. But thanks for moving the conversation along with a ridiculous response.

[Zernia Rose]

People can be cruel as we all know.  Prior to the birth of Archie, lots of images of Megan holding or walking a baby monkey.  I can imagine what would be the response if their faces appeared. Some positive perhaps but a lot of negative as well. Remember Lilibet's first birthday party? Lots of complaints about her dress being wrinkled, too simple. etc.  on here.  I wouldn't post their pictures at all.