Does anyone really believe for a second that the Tapas 7 could maintain a story?

[Mrs. B]

  If you were to ask any sceptic whether they would agree to become accessories to the crime of aiding and abetting the disposal of a dead child, they would say 'No way!'  - and so why would they think that 7 other perfectly normal, ordinary people would be any different to them.   Especially as some of them were not even close friends of the McCanns.s

Benice, why are you so sure a "sceptic" would say "no way !" ? I wouldn't say so. Does it prove I'm not a "sceptic" ?

Did you misunderstand the question, Anne? Because your reply implies that you WOULD agree to cover up the death of of a child for one of your friends? Surely, you didn't mean that.....

[AnneGuedes]

I understood very well.
I observe it happens in courts that a person prefers lying to admitting the crime he/she's accused of, because admitting is psychologically unbearable. The gathered evidence is so incriminating that the sentence will be very tough if he/she denies. But he/she does.
It's easy to figure that out. In the case of a paedophile it happens not rarely : better spend your life in jail with a shadow of justice's mistake, than risk the despise of your daughter.
Had I a friend in a terrible situation, I would certainly not say "no way" without meditating before.

[Mrs. B]

Fine, you'd be OK with covering up the death of a child for a friend. I fully understand.

[sadie]

Excuse me ... but Christ Almighty.


I cannot believe what I am reading.  To even consider covering up the reason for the death of a child, of any one, is beyond belief to me.

[Mrs. B]

Hmm, yes, makes you wonder what question will pop up next. "How many of the Tapas group friends were murderous lunatics with psychopathic tendencies" or similar...

[AnneGuedes]

Excuse me ... but Christ Almighty.


I cannot believe what I am reading.  To even consider covering up the reason for the death of a child, of any one, is beyond belief to me.

Then you'll probably go to heaven and I'll go to hell for not rejecting a terrible question with a saint "no way" !

[sadie]

I am no saint Anne, but I would never dream of doing what you think is OK





BTW.  I am not religious.  I do not believe in Heaven and Hell.  They were invented by religious organisations to keep the people in order and on their side.

[AnneGuedes]

I am no saint Anne, but I would never dream of doing what you think is OK

Do you realise Anne, that you have now lost your integrity






BTW.  I am not religious.  I do not believe in Heaven and Hell.  They were invented by religious organisations to keep the people in order and on their side.

Sadie, I've not judged you but your "you now lost your integrity" does.
I didn't use "OK" nor said more than this : I would meditate if a friend asked for my help. I'm an atheist but I'm not deaf to others, especially when I love them.

[sadie]

  If you were to ask any sceptic whether they would agree to become accessories to the crime of aiding and abetting the disposal of a dead child, they would say 'No way!'  - and so why would they think that 7 other perfectly normal, ordinary people would be any different to them.   Especially as some of them were not even close friends of the McCanns.s

Benice, why are you so sure a "sceptic" would say "no way !" ? I wouldn't say so. Does it prove I'm not a "sceptic" ?

Anne.

I know that you are compasionate in ways.  You have shown that to me on another thread and i thank you for that.

To remind you of what you said above.  Prior to this, I had noticed you and Icabod as having integrity, the most of the [ censored word] and the most balanced arguments. 

Some have none, but I will not name them

I shall remove my words about your having lost your integrity and leave others to judge from what you said.

[debunker]

No, his exact words, if I recall correctly, was "with the help of whom".

If we are working on assumptions,  we could assume that the  'help'  came from just one of the tapas friends then   ?  ...  or two perhaps ? 

Which changes the composition  of the thread premise markedly

All seven friends  being aware and complicit is as unlikely enough as  to be almost inconceivable   ...  but just one or two others  sharing a dark and terrible secret  ? 

That is not quite so unfathomable

"whom" is interrogative, not relative.

Your English usage is interesting to the point of indeciperability.

What do you mean by that statement?

[AnneGuedes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_%28pronoun%29
Very decipherable for a anglophone.

[Mrs. B]

Good, while you're at it - look up VERBATIM QUOTES

[debunker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_%28pronoun%29
Very decipherable for a anglophone.

You misunderstand

'Who' is interrogative and relative-

Interrogative: "Who's there?",

Relative: "The man who wore the hat."

Whom is a form of the relative type of 'who', never the interrogative.

It always means 'to', or 'from', or 'with' etc as a relative pronoun in its objective form.

Please do not pretend to understand the niceties of English when you are not as skilled as you think you are.

[debunker]

And don't always trust Wikipedia.

One of its examples is so wrong as to be laughable!

[registrar]

Anne Guedes

for a forum to expose your shortcomings of the correct usage of the English language

you probably could have not picked a worse one than this

translator that you are (not)