Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.

[kizzy]

What happened to Maddie is the question SY are trying to answer... A question sceptics such as yourself don't seem to want  answered... I want justice for Maddie... SY are her best chance

I think if that was the case they would have started the investigation from - the night Maddie went missing.

[Brietta]

I think if that was the case they would have started the investigation from - the night Maddie went missing.

What leads you to believe they didn't?

[Mr Gray]

I think if that was the case they would have started the investigation from - the night Maddie went missing.

From what I've read they did... And decided the patents weren't involved... The Portuguese confirmed there no evidence against them...

[Venturi Swirl]

Oh please - whatever is that suppose to mean VS

Surely not too difficult to work out.

[Venturi Swirl]

Yes, that is the elephant in the room. it is the same on here support the parents never question them. Nothing about what happened to Maddie. In Fact the chosen mantra is and has been she came to no harm.. yes. really.

The chosen mantra by whom?

[Venturi Swirl]

Of course they have an idea what happened to Maddie.

She was abducted/murdered/wandered off... then got abducted.
A black guy dunnit/burglars took her, or maybe they didn't.
She might be alive, or maybe dead.
Plenty of ideas, well worth 12 million quid imo.

Yeah they should have just strung up the McCanns in 2007 think of the money saved.  Who cares about the truth anyway, it’s way too difficult and costly to get to so may as well not bother.  And they say supporters don’t care what happened to Madeliene... 

[Wonderfulspam]

Yeah they should have just strung up the McCanns in 2007 think of the money saved.  Who cares about the truth anyway, it’s way too difficult and costly to get to so may as well not bother.  And they say supporters don’t care what happened to Madeliene... 

How do you know the truth isn't that the parents dunnit?
They might have done.In which case it would have been right to string them up in the first instance.

[kizzy]

What leads you to believe they didn't?

What leads you to believe they did.

[kizzy]

Surely not too difficult to work out for a clever sausage like you?

Suppose - snag is though I'm not a sausage,

Damn - seems now ill never know.

[kizzy]

Another one surely, for the 'sceptic beliefs' thread.

Not really - seems MS is a bit of a sceptic

IMO he doesn't believe Maddie was abducted.

[Venturi Swirl]

How do you know the truth isn't that the parents dunnit?
They might have done.In which case it would have been right to string them up in the first instance.

If you’d simply strung them up in the first instance then you’d never know if they dunnit or not, nor what became of Madeleine.  I suppose that wouldn’t bother you in the slightest though...

[Robittybob1]

If you’d simply strung them up in the first instance then you’d never know if they dunnit or not, nor what became of Madeleine.  I suppose that wouldn’t bother you in the slightest though...

Is the comment "I suppose that wouldn’t bother you in the slightest though.."  an ad hominem argument?

Wikipedia has this as a definition of "ad hominem fallacy" "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] The terms ad mulierem[3] and ad feminam[4] have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female.

However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[5]"

[ShiningInLuz]

Is the comment "I suppose that wouldn’t bother you in the slightest though.."  an ad hominem argument?

Wikipedia has this as a definition of "ad hominem fallacy" "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] The terms ad mulierem[3] and ad feminam[4] have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female.

However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[5]"

No, it's a highly offensive ad hom.

Go on, press the delete button.

You know you want to!

[Mr Gray]

Is the comment "I suppose that wouldn’t bother you in the slightest though.."  an ad hominem argument?

Wikipedia has this as a definition of "ad hominem fallacy" "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] The terms ad mulierem[3] and ad feminam[4] have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female.

However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[5]"

And hominem is quite, simple... And there's lots on this forum that is simply let go... It's criticising the poster rather than addressing the argument... Such SD faith referring to me as... Child-like... Which you refused to accept as ad hom whan it clearly was

[Venturi Swirl]

No, it's a highly offensive ad hom.

Go on, press the delete button.

You know you want to!

What is highly offensive about it?