So what actual searching was there?

[Alice Purjorick]

                         I did not read your post ... nor shall I till you stop playing juvenile games.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough ... I find scoring wholesale through what I have posted rude and offensive as it is no doubt intended to be ... do please grow up and try to show a bit more respect.

The solution is in your own remit. Stop posting on the same principle as Parkinson's Law.
Respect is earned not demanded.

[Brietta]

The solution is in your own remit. Stop posting on the same principle as Parkinson's Law.
Respect is earned not demanded.

Forum rules demand it.

I have no control over the actions of other posters on this forum ... if they wish to behave offensively towards me that reflects on them ... not me.

It is interesting however that the adopted technique of 'debating' what I post is to deface the post and suggest the fault is mine for such delinquent behaviour.

No surprises there with a well tested practice over eight + years of excusing the offender by blaming those offended against.

[stephen25000]

Wrong thread Stephen.

Really.

Take that up with davel, whose I was respond in to.

[stephen25000]

Forum rules demand it.

I have no control over the actions of other posters on this forum ... if they wish to behave offensively towards me that reflects on them ... not me.

It is interesting however that the adopted technique of 'debating' what I post is to deface the post and suggest the fault is mine for such delinquent behaviour.

No surprises there with a well tested practice over eight + years of excusing the offender by blaming those offended against.

Don't you realize other participants on here find your posts rude and arrogant, to them ?

[Alice Purjorick]

Forum rules demand it.

I have no control over the actions of other posters on this forum ... if they wish to behave offensively towards me that reflects on them ... not me.

It is interesting however that the adopted technique of 'debating' what I post is to deface the post and suggest the fault is mine for such delinquent behaviour.

No surprises there with a well tested practice over eight + years of excusing the offender by blaming those offended against.

In my case I viewed it more as deleting irrelevant dross to highlight the paucity of substance rather than delinquent behaviour.

[misty]

In my case I viewed it more as deleting irrelevant dross to highlight the paucity of substance rather than delinquent behaviour.

So you didn't understand from Brietta's post who had actually pre-empted any official court hearing to declare Madeleine dead?

[faithlilly]

Who knows?  I know for one, as does anyone with an ounce of sense.

Bottom line Alfie. In accordance with British law Redwood would not legally have been allowed to admit the McCanns were under investigation, even if they were.

You can continue to insult anyone who understands that and you very well may be correct about the McCanns not being suspects but you cannot be certain of it simply by relying  on what Redwood said. He had no choice.

[Benice]

Bottom line Alfie. In accordance with British law Redwood would not legally have been allowed to admit the McCanns were under investigation, even if they were.

You can continue to insult anyone who understands that and you very well may be correct about the McCanns not being suspects but you cannot be certain of it simply by relying  on what Redwood said. He had no choice.

But he is allowed to tell a big fat LIE to the GBP!   Seriously?      Do you think that whenever we read that the McCanns are being kept up to date with SY investigations - those are big fat lies too?  And it's all part of a devious plan to lull the McCanns into a false sense of security - and then SY are going to pounce on them - and arrest them?

Faith - I think your deep desire for Andy Redwoods statement saying they are not suspects NOT to be true - has caused your imagination to run away with you.

They are not suspects or even persons of interest.   Neither are their friends.   Anyone who thinks that is ever going to change is in for a big disappointment IMO.   

[Brietta]

In my case I viewed it more as deleting irrelevant dross to highlight the paucity of substance rather than delinquent behaviour.

A trend has been introduced whereby my posts have been treated with discourtesy by other posters who have adopted the technique employed by you.

I asked Mercury to desist only yesterday.

Am I to believe that these are random incidents ... or am I to believe that these are examples of bullying and trolling which if not organised are being copied.

In future I will probably ask Admin to be the judge rather than appeal to better natures which your post above show may very well be lacking.

[faithlilly]

But he is allowed to tell a big fat LIE to the GBP!   Seriously?      Do you think that whenever we read that the McCanns are being kept up to date with SY investigations - those are big fat lies too?  And it's all part of a devious plan to lull the McCanns into a false sense of security - and then SY are going to pounce on them - and arrest them?

Faith - I think your deep desire for Andy Redwoods statement saying they are not suspects NOT to be true - has caused your imagination to run away with you.

They are not suspects or even persons of interest.   Neither are their friends.   Anyone who thinks that is ever going to change is in for a big disappointment IMO.

So Benice do you think legally Redwood could have intimated the McCanns were parsons of interest ? Wasn't Karen Matthews treated as the victim of a terrible crime even while we now know she was being investigated ? Weren't we told in that case too the the mother of the missing girl was being kept up to date with developments ?

[Alfred R Jones]

Bottom line Alfie. In accordance with British law Redwood would not legally have been allowed to admit the McCanns were under investigation, even if they were.

You can continue to insult anyone who understands that and you very well may be correct about the McCanns not being suspects but you cannot be certain of it simply by relying  on what Redwood said. He had no choice.

What is this law you keep going on about, specifically?

Redwood had the choice to  make no comment or to be non commital.  Instead he made an unequivocal statement which you are still struggling to come to terms with.

[Mr Gray]

What is this law you keep going on about, specifically?

Redwood had the choice to  make no comment or to be non commital.  Instead he made an unequivocal statement which you are still struggling to come to terms with.

All questions would have agreed before ...redwood would have known he was going to be asked the question and would have agreed to be asked the question being asked

[stephen25000]

All questions would have agreed before ...redwood would have known he was going to be asked the question and would have agreed to be asked the question being asked

Redwood is no longer of any consequence.

He came, 'investigated' , found nothing and then retired.

[slartibartfast]

Forum rules demand it.

I have no control over the actions of other posters on this forum ... if they wish to behave offensively towards me that reflects on them ... not me.

It is interesting however that the adopted technique of 'debating' what I post is to deface the post and suggest the fault is mine for such delinquent behaviour.

No surprises there with a well tested practice over eight + years of excusing the offender by blaming those offended against.

Maybe if you removed the faux outrage and off topic sound bites and stuck to factual counter arguments you may get more respect from other posters.

[Brietta]

Maybe if you removed the faux outrage and off topic sound bites and stuck to factual counter arguments you may get more respect from other posters.

            Thank you for that gem ... Moderator???  Nothing at all to say to those breaking forum rules.