Sceptics beliefs ?

[Erngath]

May I ask you why you find it necessary at a remove of almost twelve years to scorn a mother seeking information about her missing child ?

Because surely it must be obvious - I don't believe Maddie was abducted.

The same as thousands more who don't believe the mcns - version of events.

What do you believe happened to Madeleine?

[Brietta]

Would you care to support that statement ?

The worst of the abuse cannot be reproduced on this forum ... the rules just will not allow it.  As it is, I think I have skated on thin ice posting some of the exhibits from comments under newspaper articles.

[Mr Gray]

The worst of the abuse cannot be reproduced on this forum ... the rules just will not allow it.  As it is, I think I have skated on thin ice posting some of the exhibits from comments under newspaper articles.

There certainly one from a mod on this forum which would be removed if anyone posted the words used

[The General]

The worst of the abuse cannot be reproduced on this forum ... the rules just will not allow it.  As it is, I think I have skated on thin ice posting some of the exhibits from comments under newspaper articles.

Meh, you can post what you like when referencing your sources to show the level of abuse. It may be prudent to blur out some naughty words.....besides, you're a mod - moderate.
But please remember that you are referencing the basest of all vitriol and opinion. This subset of people who vent their ire appear on all social media platforms and all subjects. You only need to go to a random Youtube video and it won't take long for you to find some utterly out of proportion, borderline illiterate diatribe about the subject matter - accurate or not - supportive or not. It's a by product of the concept of free speech, in harness with an available platform. Doesn't make it right, but neither does it make it representative of the rest of the population.

[kizzy]

What do you believe happened to Madeleine?

That she wasn't abducted.

[Brietta]

May I ask you why you find it necessary at a remove of almost twelve years to scorn a mother seeking information about her missing child ?

Because surely it must be obvious - I don't believe Maddie was abducted.

The same as thousands more who don't believe the mcns - version of events.

Not that I could ever condone or participate in what I think is a vindictive twelve year long enterprise directed in the most part by faceless persons preserving anonymity but venting their spleen on a known family ... I read what you are saying in justification and (no ... actually I do not understand it).

You feel free as an individual to indulge in the scorn I asked about because ...

• you do not believe Madeleine was abducted
• you do not believe witness 'version of events'

... while at the same time aligning yourself with 'thousands' who are like minded.

I think you have summed up a sceptic belief system very well ... what you haven't done is give details of the evidence supporting why you believe what you do ... and more importantly why others think it justifies attempts to derail active police investigations into what happened to Madeleine which we have been told at the stage of the investigation when we were being given information ... are in relation to her abduction.

Care to do that?

[Erngath]

That she wasn't abducted.

Yes, you have said that before.
Do you believe Amaral's theory?

[Brietta]

Meh, you can post what you like when referencing your sources to show the level of abuse. It may be prudent to blur out some naughty words.....besides, you're a mod - moderate.
But please remember that you are referencing the basest of all vitriol and opinion. This subset of people who vent their ire appear on all social media platforms and all subjects. You only need to go to a random Youtube video and it won't take long for you to find some utterly out of proportion, borderline illiterate diatribe about the subject matter - accurate or not - supportive or not. It's a by product of the concept of free speech, in harness with an available platform. Doesn't make it right, but neither does it make it representative of the rest of the population.

It is representative of the abuse of the internet among the first of which to be let loose was abuse of the McCanns.

Many of the same people who perpetrated that abuse then are still doing exactly the same thing using much of the same abusive material.

In the context of the thread ... that interests me.

[The General]

It is representative of the abuse of the internet among the first of which to be let loose was abuse of the McCanns.

Many of the same people who perpetrated that abuse then are still doing exactly the same thing using much of the same abusive material.

In the context of the thread ... that interests me.

Trolls and abusers have been in existence since man (or woman) were scratching on cave walls with bits of flint.
Online abuse is ubiquitous and precedes the McCann's by a decade on line - PowWow, ICQ, and AOL Instant Messenger were overrun with imbeciles posting any old sh**e to whomever they chose, as it was largely unmoderated, as were most other platforms.
You see it as a focussed campaign because you're focussing on it - Joey Essex probably gets more intense online abuse, you just don't have an interest in it.

[Brietta]

Meh, you can post what you like when referencing your sources to show the level of abuse. It may be prudent to blur out some naughty words.....besides, you're a mod - moderate.
But please remember that you are referencing the basest of all vitriol and opinion. This subset of people who vent their ire appear on all social media platforms and all subjects. You only need to go to a random Youtube video and it won't take long for you to find some utterly out of proportion, borderline illiterate diatribe about the subject matter - accurate or not - supportive or not. It's a by product of the concept of free speech, in harness with an available platform. Doesn't make it right, but neither does it make it representative of the rest of the population.

I think it is tenable to suggest that "... utterly out of proportion, borderline illiterate diatribe about the subject matter - accurate or not - supportive or not." in relation to the abuse of the McCann family has dedicated followers which could be considered makes it representative of them as a whole.

For confirmation of that, one only has to read some of the comments left behind by them.

[Erngath]

Trolls and abusers have been in existence since man (or woman) were scratching on cave walls with bits of flint.
Online abuse is ubiquitous and precedes the McCann's by a decade on line - PowWow, ICQ, and AOL Instant Messenger were overrun with imbeciles posting any old sh**e to whomever they chose, as it was largely unmoderated, as were most other platforms.
You see it as a focussed campaign because you're focussing on it - Joey Essex probably gets more intense online abuse, you just don't have an interest in it.

I had to google  to find out who is Joey Essex.
I doubt he has been been subjected to even a fraction of the abuse directed at Madeleine's family.
Like Brietta I too am interested in why this one particular case has attracted so much vitriol and abuse.
This has lasted nearly twelve years!

[Brietta]

Trolls and abusers have been in existence since man (or woman) were scratching on cave walls with bits of flint.
Online abuse is ubiquitous and precedes the McCann's by a decade on line - PowWow, ICQ, and AOL Instant Messenger were overrun with imbeciles posting any old sh**e to whomever they chose, as it was largely unmoderated, as were most other platforms.
You see it as a focussed campaign because you're focussing on it - Joey Essex probably gets more intense online abuse, you just don't have an interest in it.

Please direct me to hundreds if not thousands of platforms many of which have been in existence for the sole purpose of abusing a single family for over twelve years ... when you can achieve that I will assume you are comparing like with like.
If you cannot achieve that ... might you consider the abuse levelled at that family is unconscionable.

[jassi]

I had to google  to find out who is Joey Essex.
I doubt he has been been subjected to even a fraction of the abuse directed at Madeleine's family.
Like Brietta I too am interested in why this one particular case has attracted so much vitriol and abuse.
This has lasted nearly twelve years!

Don't think you'll find the answer here.

[kizzy]

Not that I could ever condone or participate in what I think is a vindictive twelve year long enterprise directed in the most part by faceless persons preserving anonymity but venting their spleen on a known family ... I read what you are saying in justification and (no ... actually I do not understand it).

You feel free as an individual to indulge in the scorn I asked about because ...

• you do not believe Madeleine was abducted
• you do not believe witness 'version of events'

... while at the same time aligning yourself with 'thousands' who are like minded.

I think you have summed up a sceptic belief system very well ... what you haven't done is give details of the evidence supporting why you believe what you do ... and more importantly why others think it justifies attempts to derail active police investigations into what happened to Madeleine which we have been told at the stage of the investigation when we were being given information ... are in relation to her abduction.

Care to do that?

Would you care to show the evidence that Maddie -  was abducted.

Just been listening to the podcast 9 -  there are so many doubts and inaccuracy about so-called evidence.


It's not as cut a dried as you think B - or try to make it out to be.

[jassi]

Please direct me to hundreds if not thousands of platforms many of which have been in existence for the sole purpose of abusing a single family for over twelve years ... when you can achieve that I will assume you are comparing like with like.
If you cannot achieve that ... might you consider the abuse levelled at that family is unconscionable.

I fancy you exaggerate somewhat - unless you can demonstrate otherwise.