UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: slartibartfast on August 22, 2018, 12:00:16 PM
-
We have seen from the Brenda Leyland case that many supporters and sceptics spend a lot of their time having a go at each rather than discussing the case. This even seems to happen on supporter or sceptic forums. Do we think that if one side stopped the other would fade away?
-
We have seen from the Brenda Leyland case that many supporters and sceptics spend a lot of their time having a go at each rather than discussing the case. This even seems to happen on supporter or sceptic forums. Do we think that if one side stopped the other would fade away?
For clarity.
Which case do you intend to discuss.
Brenda Leyland's or Madeleine McCann's?
-
We have seen from the Brenda Leyland case that many supporters and sceptics spend a lot of their time having a go at each rather than discussing the case. This even seems to happen on supporter or sceptic forums. Do we think that if one side stopped the other would fade away?
If one side stopped then the bickering would subside until members from the same side started bickering with each other. That's what usually happens isn't it?
-
We have seen from the Brenda Leyland case that many supporters and sceptics spend a lot of their time having a go at each rather than discussing the case. This even seems to happen on supporter or sceptic forums. Do we think that if one side stopped the other would fade away?
Most sites I have come across seem to be very one-sided, the opposition being pretty much excluded and yet they continue to function despite this imbalance, so probably only death and dementia will bring an end to all the bickering and attempted point-scoring.
-
Its all very subjective. What might give someone a case of the vapours might go almost unnoticed by others.
https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-mean-to-have-a-case-of-the-vapors
-
Its all very subjective. What might give someone a case of the vapours might go almost unnoticed by others.
https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-mean-to-have-a-case-of-the-vapors
Either it is acceptable to abuse other members, or it is not. Personally I would be delighted to be allowed to speak my mind freely and in the strongest possible terms (including vulgar and obscene epithets where appropriate), but either it should be allowed or it shouldn't and ALL mods, not just the ones on the other side to the abuser should deal with it.
-
Again, it depends on how you define abuse. What one person might consider abuse may not be shared by others.
-
Again, it depends on how you define abuse. What one person might consider abuse may not be shared by others.
I think you're being a little disingenuous there.
-
Whatever floats your boat VS call me what you like - no prob at all after all your only talking to the hand.
I'm never offended what anyone posts to me - just class it as their best form of defence is to attack.
Well you are lucky then for when I first experienced internet abuse 10 years ago I found it was just like being punched in the stomach. It was very hurtful and physical without there being physical contact.
I'm much different now.
-
I wonder who would be more pleased if all debate about the case was stopped,supporters or sceptics.
-
I wonder who would be more pleased if all debate about the case was stopped,supporters or sceptics.
I can answer that but then what would some supporters have to do with their days, take up knitting perhaps? ^*&&
-
I wonder who would be more pleased if all debate about the case was stopped,supporters or sceptics.
A no brainer I think.
What motive would sceptics have for closing discussion down?
-
I can answer that but then what would some supporters have to do with their days, take up knitting perhaps? ^*&&
Not once the need for the tumbrel has been taken away
Or they could always start a new forum - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stitch_%27n_Bitch
-
Aha! The earlier abuse has been wiped to be replaced with the subtler variety - bravo!
-
A no brainer I think.
What motive would sceptics have for closing discussion down?
IMO discussion is regularly closed down on this forum by sceptics - those who refuse to answer questions or to be drawn into discussing their opinions, their theories or to say what they really think, who deflect with ad homs, strawmen and other tactics. I'm all for completely open and honest exchange of views, but that doesn't seem popular with some sceptics.
-
IMO discussion is regularly closed down on this forum by sceptics - those who refuse to answer questions or to be drawn into discussing their opinions, their theories or to say what they really think, who deflect with ad homs, strawmen and other tactics. I'm all for completely open and honest exchange of views, but that doesn't seem popular with some sceptics.
I don't see much open discussion on the supporters forum's I have seen either Vertigo Swirl so I guess it works both ways. Perhaps supporters and sceptics are like oil and water - don't mix well.
-
I don't see much open discussion on the supporters forum's I have seen either Vertigo Swirl so I guess it works both ways. Perhaps supporters and sceptics are like oil and water - don't mix well.
I'm talking about on this forum, I don't pay much attention to any other forum these days.
-
IMO discussion is regularly closed down on this forum by sceptics - those who refuse to answer questions or to be drawn into discussing their opinions, their theories or to say what they really think, who deflect with ad homs, strawmen and other tactics. I'm all for completely open and honest exchange of views, but that doesn't seem popular with some sceptics.
You managed to type that with a straight face?
-
We have seen from the Brenda Leyland case that many supporters and sceptics spend a lot of their time having a go at each rather than discussing the case. This even seems to happen on supporter or sceptic forums. Do we think that if one side stopped the other would fade away?
The McCanns created the monster by their own actions so cannot now complain that it has gotten out of control. What started out as shock and compassion for most people has been tainted by the post disappearance goings on, the savage litigation aimed at destroying Amaral, the disgusting comments made against several other Portuguese police officers who were merely doing their job and the secrecy over the fund accounts.
-
The McCanns created the monster by their actions so cannot complain that it has now gotten out of control.
What monster are you referring to
-
The McCann's didn't create the net
Nor forums
Nor hatred
Nor abuse
-
You managed to type that with a straight face?
Yes, why? I always answer questions put to me, and actively want to discuss opinions and theories. Is it your opinion that I am wrong to say what I did about sceptics on this forum?
-
The McCanns created the monster by their own actions so cannot now complain that it has gotten out of control. What started out as shock and compassion for most people has been tainted by the post disappearance goings on, the savage litigation aimed at destroying Amaral, the disgusting comments made against several other Portuguese police officers who were merely doing their job and the secrecy over the fund accounts.
You were quite sympathetic towards them until fairly recently and well after most of the above things you mention, so what changed?
-
IMO discussion is regularly closed down on this forum by sceptics - those who refuse to answer questions or to be drawn into discussing their opinions, their theories or to say what they really think, who deflect with ad homs, strawmen and other tactics. I'm all for completely open and honest exchange of views, but that doesn't seem popular with some sceptics.
It must be very frustrating when people don't behave the way you think they should. .
-
It must be very frustrating when people don't behave the way you think they should. .
It is frustrating on a discussion forum when people aren’t open about their views, or prefer to be sly and secretive, or not respond at all, yes, though I fully understand the reasons why. I on the other hand pride myself in answering questions regarding my opinions on the case when asked, and always giving honest answers. I don’t believe there is any value whatsoever in any of us doing research or trying trying to crack the case, that really only leaves chat, opinions, theories, etc. I realise your view is the complete opposite, or at least I assume it us from what you’ve said.
-
It must be very frustrating when people don't behave the way you think they should. .
It must be. I mean imagine demanding to know what peoples opinions are -then shoot them down with claims of libel. Bejeasus OR demand cites. OR report them to mods to be deleted- KNown as spitting ones dummy out of ones pram. 8)><(
-
It must be. I mean imagine demanding to know what peoples opinions are -then shoot them down with claims of libel. Bejeasus OR demand cites. OR report them to mods to be deleted- KNown as spitting ones dummy out of ones pram. 8)><(
Very good - just what I thought myself, but didn't get round to posting. 8((()*/
By and large us sceptics don't do theories, preferring to probe and dissect discrepancies in the documentation and enjoting watching supporters tie themselves in knots in an attempt to explain them away 8)--))
-
Very good - just what I thought myself, but didn't get round to posting. 8((()*/
By and large us sceptics don't do theories, preferring to probe and dissect discrepancies in the documentation and enjoting watching supporters tie themselves in knots in an attempt to explain them away 8)--))
as Ive already posted sceptics dont do theories because they cannot make anything fit with their understanding of teh evidence...no knots required...abduction fits perfectly
-
Yes, why? I always answer questions put to me, and actively want to discuss opinions and theories. Is it your opinion that I am wrong to say what I did about sceptics on this forum?
To use the vernacular, it was kettle calling the pot grimey ar*e.
-
as Ive already posted sceptics dont do theories because they cannot make anything fit with their understanding of teh evidence...no knots required...abduction fits perfectly
Ooh Davel so you are either a sceptic or you have a theory then that you are prepared to share. Come on then I can't wait to read it.
-
Ooh Davel so you are either a sceptic or you have a theory then that you are prepared to share. Come on then I can't wait to read it.
then try reading my post to the end...its right there
-
then try reading my post to the end...its right there
TBH I don’t think I have ever seen you expand on your abduction theory. It’s a bit like dark matter, you can only tell it’s existence by your dismissing everything else.
-
TBH I don’t think I have ever seen you expand on your abduction theory. It’s a bit like dark matter, you can only tell it’s existence by your dismissing everything else.
no ...but you are almost correct...by showing its the only possible explanation and excluding anything else...ask any physicist.....and it seems SY agree with me...not about dark matter of course
-
no ...but you are almost correct...by showing its the only possible explanation and excluding anything else...ask any physicist.....and it seems SY agree with me...not about dark matter of course
So what is your abduction theory?
-
then try reading my post to the end...its right there
If that is all you have then you may as well be a sceptic.
So you are not prepared to elaborate on what your theory is? Of course you aren't as you dont have a theory.
Abduction is not a theory without having an idea of when, how and possibly who.
Theory
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
-
So what is your abduction theory?
that maddie was abducted by a stranger...whats your theory
-
that maddie was abducted by a stranger...whats your theory
That is not a theory that is a belief IMO.
-
If that is all you have then you may as well be a sceptic.
So you are not prepared to elaborate on what your theory is? Of course you aren't as you dont have a theory.
Abduction is not a theory without having an idea of when, how and possibly who.
Theory
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
you neee to read your own post again....
Theory
A supposition or...thats or...not and.....
aduction is a theory...theres plenty to support it if you have an open mind and understand teh evidence...the first part being there is no evidenvce of death in 5a
-
Very good - just what I thought myself, but didn't get round to posting. 8((()*/
By and large us sceptics don't do theories, preferring to probe and dissect discrepancies in the documentation and enjoting watching supporters tie themselves in knots in an attempt to explain them away 8)--))
Yeah my favorite past time. read them asnswering on behalf of the Mcs- when things don't add up... oh how about that moving door. By God that is drama at its best- worst. I mean WTF... The door was the trigger for fimding MM gone? it was more open than the last time I saw it open... it was less closed ... it was ajar. whoooosh. a bloody bad script. and they expect us to believe that cr@p rotfl....
and to crown that Kate is an Ambassador for 'missing 'people. how many has her 'high proflile' and expertese on missing people has she found? It should be a nod to the left hand side of the bars on the window, that she hasn't found her own missing child!
-
That is not a theory that is a belief IMO.
iyo...its a theory with supporting evidence imo...you talk about beliefs...what do you think a jury verdict is..its a belief ...based on the interpretation of the evidence.
-
Very good - just what I thought myself, but didn't get round to posting. 8((()*/
By and large us sceptics don't do theories, preferring to probe and dissect discrepancies in the documentation and enjoting watching supporters tie themselves in knots in an attempt to explain them away 8)--))
It's even funnier when they use their own ammunition to shoot themselves.
There has been quite a bit of that in recent times.
-
It is frustrating on a discussion forum when people aren’t open about their views, or prefer to be sly and secretive, or not respond at all, yes, though I fully understand the reasons why. I on the other hand pride myself in answering questions regarding my opinions on the case when asked, and always giving honest answers. I don’t believe there is any value whatsoever in any of us doing research or trying trying to crack the case, that really only leaves chat, opinions, theories, etc. I realise your view is the complete opposite, or at least I assume it us from what you’ve said.
One of the things I believe you have objected to is the addition of imo to posts which are opinion. I can understand your frustration if, as you say, all your posts are opinion.
A discussion based purely on opinion might be;
I think the SC judges were wrong.
I think they were right.
Unless the facts on which those opinions are based are discussed there's no more to be said.
-
One of the things I believe you have objected to is the addition of imo to posts which are opinion. I can understand your frustration if, as you say, all your posts are opinion.
A discussion based purely on opinion might be;
I think the SC judges were wrong.
I think they were right.
Unless the facts on which those opinions are based are discussed there's no more to be said.
most threads are based purely on opinion...have you not noticed
-
It's even funnier when they use their own ammunition to shoot themselves.
There has been quite a bit of that in recent times.
Indeed Alice, it is like a comedy store warm up... they tell the jokes !
One of the things I believe you have objected to is the addition of imo to posts which are opinion. I can understand your frustration if, as you say, all your posts are opinion.
A discussion based purely on opinion might be;
I think the SC judges were wrong.
I think they were right.
Unless the facts on which those opinions are based are discussed there's no more to be said.
Well indeed . how cruel of you to point out the irony. 8)><(
I want your opinion.. no no cite I don't want your opinion. ^*&&
-
as Ive already posted sceptics dont do theories because they cannot make anything fit with their understanding of teh evidence...no knots required...abduction fits perfectly
^^^this, exactly.
-
To use the vernacular, it was kettle calling the pot grimey ar*e.
Are you accusimg me of not answering questions, of not sharing my opinions and theories, etc?
-
One of the things I believe you have objected to is the addition of imo to posts which are opinion. I can understand your frustration if, as you say, all your posts are opinion.
A discussion based purely on opinion might be;
I think the SC judges were wrong.
I think they were right.
Unless the facts on which those opinions are based are discussed there's no more to be said.
Of course you have to add WHY you think they are wrong or right, that’s how discussion works. All of my posts are my opinion, as are yours. Your every post, even the purely factual ones are posted to support your opinion, the one you refuse to spell out but which we can all figure out anyway.
-
Of course you have to add WHY you think they are wrong or right, that’s how discussion works. All of my posts are my opinion, as are yours. Your every post, even the purely factual ones are posted to support your opinion, the one you refuse to spell out but which we can all figure out anyway.
If you have got it all figured out why bother asking? what makes you think some members want to discuss anything with supporters- or offer opinions to them. The supporters do not have closure ,they don't like people talking about things which are on file, in a book by the mother, and in interviews.... it hurts them. oh dear.
-
If you have got it all figured out why bother asking? what makes you think some members want to discuss anything with supporters- or offer opinions to them. The supporters do not have closure ,they don't like people talking about things which are on file, in a book by the mother, and in interviews.... it hurts them. oh dear.
The only reason you post here is because supporters post here IMO. If we all left, it would be a lot less fun for you, wouldn’t it?
-
The only reason you post here is because supporters post here IMO. If we all left, it would be a lot less fun for you, wouldn’t it?
We'd be able to have adult conversations about various aspects of the case without being interrupted by the children
-
We'd be able to have adult conversations about various aspects of the case without being interrupted by the children
do your parents know you are on the computer
-
do your parents know you are on the computer
Are you having some sort of seance in your living room Davel?
-
We'd be able to have adult conversations about various aspects of the case without being interrupted by the children
You’re another one who is only here for the sport of being spiteful to McCann supporters IMO. Without us here I think you would find it a trifle dull, but by all means prove me wrong by putting all supporters on ignore, and limit your posts to “grown up” conversations with those you approve of. I bet you don’t...
-
Of course you have to add WHY you think they are wrong or right, that’s how discussion works. All of my posts are my opinion, as are yours. Your every post, even the purely factual ones are posted to support your opinion, the one you refuse to spell out but which we can all figure out anyway.
Once you get into 'why' you are bringing facts into the discussion. That's when cites and links are needed so that both parties can check, interpret and discuss those facts.
-
Once you get into 'why' you are bringing facts into the discussion. That's when cites and links are needed so that both parties can check, interpret and discuss those facts.
Discussing facts without offering any opinion or interpretation of them is pointless and dull IMO.
-
Discussing facts without offering any opinion or interpretation of them is pointless and dull IMO.
Before you can discuss your opinions and interpretations of a fact you need to agree that a) it is indeed a fact b) it;s being interpreted correctly and c) there are no facts which contradict it. Otherwise your opinion is based on false premises.
-
Before you can discuss your opinions and interpretations of a fact you need to agree that a) it is indeed a fact b) it;s being interpreted correctly and c) there are no facts which contradict it. Otherwise your opinion is based on false premises.
lol...IMO you are the one who posted that grime stated that the the alert by eddie was suggestive of cadaver...which was untrue...and imo....on making that post...which was false...you lost all credibility
-
lol...IMO you are the one who posted that grime stated that the the alert by eddie was suggestive of cadaver...which was untrue...and imo....on making that post...which was false...you lost all credibility
Please provide a cite.
-
Please provide a cite.
I cant provide a cite at the moment...lets ask g if she denies making this post
-
I cant provide a cite at the moment...lets ask g if she denies making this post
You asked for a cite Davel it is up to you surely to show that G-Unit made a post not them to deny it.
-
You asked for a cite Davel it is up to you surely to show that G-Unit made a post not them to deny it.
It was an opinion post by Davel I disagree that a cite is absolutely require despite the fact I'd like to see the post Davel was referring to. It would be virtually impossible to find IMO
-
What Mr Grime said is recorded in the files.
The kosher files that is. The reference is: 201/07.0GALGS, p. 2477.
We are oft reminded how time marches on. Indeed it does and researchers read the court files and publish papers, outside the McCann prism, which blow holes in many of the myths promulgated by some supporters leaving them stripped bare but still insistent they are wearing a magic suit of clothes.
Anyone want a bridge or some magic beans?
-
It was an opinion post by Davel I disagree that a cite is absolutely require despite the fact I'd like to see the post Davel was referring to. It would be virtually impossible to find IMO
Just to demonstrate the points I've been making about opinions I will say that in my opinion Davel's opinion is wrong.
-
It was an opinion post by Davel I disagree that a cite is absolutely require despite the fact I'd like to see the post Davel was referring to. It would be virtually impossible to find IMO
Yes you are right Rob. I wouldn't know where to start.
-
Just to demonstrate the points I've been making about opinions I will say that in my opinion Davel's opinion is wrong.
In my opinion G-unit, your opinion is right and Davel's opinion is wrong.
-
Yes you are right Rob. I wouldn't know where to start.
well I know where to start ...ask gunit to deny the accusation
-
In my opinion G-unit, your opinion is right and Davel's opinion is wrong.
I'd like a cite for that?
-
I'd like a cite for that?
I would too...gunit can quite easily deny it...she hasnt because it is true...I doubt its been deleted and i can find it...
-
I would too...gunit can quite easily deny it...she hasnt because it is true...I doubt its been deleted and i can find it...
I think we've discussed that post before. Grime says what he did (its in the file). We read that and each of us can get different meanings from that. Who's right, who's wrong? Interpretation of what Grime says must be opinion, and criticism of that opinion is more opinion.
Can't solve it unless Grime himself explains it further.
-
I think we've discussed that post before. Grime says what he did (its in the file). We read that and each of us can get different meanings from that. Who's right, who's wrong? Interpretation of what Grime says must be opinion, and criticism of that opinion is more opinion.
Can't solve it unless Grime himself explains it further.
no...im quite precise in my responses..gunit compltetely misquoted grime
-
no...im quite precise in my responses..gunit compltetely misquoted grime
No I didn't.
-
No I didn't.
yes you did....and if its still there i will find it... you posted grime said the alerts were suggestive to cadaver odour... I corrected you and said it was his opinion...you lost all credibility with that statement...imo...lets see if i can find it
-
no...im quite precise in my responses..gunit compltetely misquoted grime
That is possible for that is what she thought he said, if what you say is true.
-
yes you did....and if its still there i will find it... you posted grime said the alerts were suggestive to cadaver odour... I corrected you and said it was his opinion...you lost all credibility with that statement...imo...lets see if i can find it
Find it then and see if we can settle this on going debate. I know G-unit is generally accurate. But find it if you can.
-
yes you did....and if its still there i will find it... you posted grime said the alerts were suggestive to cadaver odour... I corrected you and said it was his opinion...you lost all credibility with that statement...imo...lets see if i can find it
I have just done a quick search for the word suggestive. There are 3 posts using that word today and they are all posted by you Davel.
-
Find it then and see if we can settle this on going debate. I know G-unit is generally accurate. But find it if you can.
on this occasion g isnt... it may take me time to find it..and if i do i will accept a full apology
-
on this occasion g isnt... it may take me time to find it..and if i do i will accept a full apology
As they say don't count your chickens before they hatch.
-
on this occasion g isnt... it may take me time to find it..and if i do i will accept a full apology
Here you go...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9242.60
-
have you noticed how many identities alice has had..i have...no names no packdrill
As I posted them all a few weeks ago no ceegar this time chief.
I would imagine it amounts to a slack handful, say five, six or seven.
-
Here you go...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9242.60
So G-Unit in March this year said Martin Grime used the word "suggestive" and Martin Grime DID use the word "suggestive" so what is Davel's point.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
G-Unit's post
Quote from: Davel on March 10, 2018, 10:12:30 AM
What we are discussing is the false claims, Re grimes opinion... In his, statement grime says it's possible the dog alerted to cadaver... Just possible... Yet G wants to claim his opinion is that they did
He used the word suggestive, not possible. In my opinion changing a witness's words demonstrates that the poster isn't too concerned with accuracy.
A certain supporter website, when criticising the MMRG's leaflet made the same point about the word 'notoriously' was used instead of 'incredibly'.
I have quoted Grime's actual words, not my interpretation of them.
My vote goes to G-Unit.
-
post by gunit....absolute proof I am right...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9213.540
Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent, and that the alerts seemed to be suggesting a connection between the site of the missing child's disappearance, her toy, her clothes and her mother's clothes, there had to be an attempt to find corroborating evidence in my opinion.
URL http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9213.msg450539#msg450539
#
-
Have you considered Grime used both words?
"It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent
contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence. "
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence."
Both quotes are from http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm.
So it is possible and suggestive.
-
Have you considered Grime used both words?
"It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent
contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence. "
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence."
Both quotes are from http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm.
So it is possible and suggestive.
g posted ..Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent,
g is WRONG ...and i am right hence apologies...and g has no credibility imo
-
g posted ..Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent,
g is WRONG ...and i am right hence apologies...and g has no credibility imo
The sentence was her opinion and if her opinion is wrong tell her and move on. "Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent, and that the alerts seemed to be suggesting a connection between the site of the missing child's disappearance, her toy, her clothes and her mother's clothes, there had to be an attempt to find corroborating evidence in my opinion. "
I suppose it could be argued the "in my opinion" doesn't cover the whole post. Look it is opinion in my opinion.
Had she said "Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were possibly triggered by cadaver scent," that would have been more correct.
-
post by gunit....absolute proof I am right...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9213.540
Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent, and that the alerts seemed to be suggesting a connection between the site of the missing child's disappearance, her toy, her clothes and her mother's clothes, there had to be an attempt to find corroborating evidence in my opinion.
#
As I recall there was a disagreement over the meaning of the word 'suggestive' in Grime's quote.
snip/
thats right he said its suggestive...he didnt say cadaver odour triggered ther alert as you did...can you still not see your mistake
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9252.msg454170#msg454170
suggestive Synonyms
eloquent, expressive, meaning, meaningful, pregnant, revealing, revelatory, significant
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suggestive
-
As I recall there was a disagreement over the meaning of the word 'suggestive' in Grime's quote.
snip/
thats right he said its suggestive...he didnt say cadaver odour triggered ther alert as you did...can you still not see your mistake
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9252.msg454170#msg454170
suggestive Synonyms
eloquent, expressive, meaning, meaningful, pregnant, revealing, revelatory, significant
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suggestive
I've suplied the quote by you and you are, still denying it... Lol
-
As I recall there was a disagreement over the meaning of the word 'suggestive' in Grime's quote.
snip/
thats right he said its suggestive...he didnt say cadaver odour triggered ther alert as you did...can you still not see your mistake
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9252.msg454170#msg454170
suggestive Synonyms
eloquent, expressive, meaning, meaningful, pregnant, revealing, revelatory, significant
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suggestive
Whatever word you use it was not absolute proven to be cadaver odour, and knowing what Grime's opinion was is also dependent on what he actually says.
-
g posted ..Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent
There is no suggestive... Or possible there.. Gunit is, wrong
-
Whatever word you use it was not absolute proven to be cadaver odour, and knowing what Grime's opinion was is also dependent on what he actually says.
Gunit claimed it was absolute ..I've posted the cite... No misunderstanding
-
I've shown that gunit.. A leading sceptic... Does not understand what grime had said... Point proven
-
I've shown that gunit.. A leading sceptic... Does not understand what grime had said... Point proven
I think that is unequivocal ... and why Madeleine's case demonstrates that a little knowledge and with the wording altered slightly from that recorded is a dangerous thing. In my opinion, it also demonstrates why you, Davel, are considered to be dangerous by some:)
-
I've shown that gunit.. A leading sceptic... Does not understand what grime had said... Point proven
It obviously means a lot to you to think you have proved a 'leading sceptic' wrong. I disagree though. In my opinion you have not proved your point.
-
It obviously means a lot to you to think you have proved a 'leading sceptic' wrong. I disagree though. In my opinion you have not proved your point.
Seconded.
-
Seconded.
I disagree
-
I disagree
Me too.
Following the link provided by VS http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9242.60 and reading down the posts, in my opinion make Davel's assertion one of the most verified I have ever been witness to.
-
the dogs just barked again
That’s nice.
-
Seconded.
I agree especially when Davel’s original claim #67 was that G-unit said cadaver not cadaver odour..
lol...IMO you are the one who posted that grime stated that the the alert by eddie was suggestive of cadaver...which was untrue...and imo....on making that post...which was false...you lost all credibility
IMO, Davel realised his mistake, especially when he couldn’t find a post supporting his statement, and altered his attack.
yes you did....and if its still there i will find it... you posted grime said the alerts were suggestive to cadaver odour... I corrected you and said it was his opinion...you lost all credibility with that statement...imo...lets see if i can find it
g posted ..Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent,
g is WRONG ...and i am right hence apologies...and g has no credibility imo
So Davel’s original claim has been shown to be wrong and Grime’s statement...
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
Points to it being his opinion that it is Cadaver Scent.
This appears to be an unfounded attack on another poster which will cease now.
-
Perhaps it was this part of G-Unit’s post that rankled, as she IS wrong to have written it
“He used the word suggestive, not possible. In my opinion changing a witness's words demonstrates that the poster isn't too concerned with accuracy”
Grime DID use the word “possible” so accusing Davel of not being concerned with accuracy is a personal attack, IMO.
-
Perhaps it was this part of G-Unit’s post that rankled, as she IS wrong to have written it
“He used the word suggestive, not possible. In my opinion changing a witness's words demonstrates that the poster isn't too concerned with accuracy”
Grime DID use the word “possible” so accusing Davel of not being concerned with accuracy is a personal attack, IMO.
Not in this thread but which Rob quoted from March 10th. Are you suggesting Davel has been holding a grudge?
-
Not in this thread but which Rob quoted from March 10th. Are you suggesting Davel has been holding a grudge?
IMO it’s a shame you can’t just admit I made a valid point instead of putting words into my mouth.
-
Not in this thread but which Rob quoted from March 10th. Are you suggesting Davel has been holding a grudge?
...and G-unit’s original post which actually states Grimes opinion in full...
According to the opening post, the purpose of this thread was to discuss what Martin Grime's evidence meant and if it had been misunderstood.
A lot of opinions were posted, mostly by posters who support the parents. They seem to have misunderstood the aim of the thread and haven't really addressed the question posed in the first post.
A good post in my opinion;
"To claim the alerts were to cadaver odour is factually incorrect...it has not been possible and is impossible to determine what the alerts were to...poeple have opinions...and that is all they are... To claim the alerts may have been to cadaver odour of course is correct" post #52
The above post is good because the expert who trained and used the dogs shared his opinion which has more credibility than others' because of his experience and knowledge. He said;
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
So we have an expert opinion. Grime goes on to say;
This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Some people seem to think that he's referring to forensic confirmation, but that's clearly wrong, because cadaver scent can't be confirmed by forensic tests.
So 'corroborating evidence' means something else.
Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that supports a proposition already supported by initial evidence, therefore confirming the original proposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroborating_evidence
So Eddie's unconfirmed alerts were;
G5A
Rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by the door.
Veranda outside parent's bedroom.
Garden area directly under veranda.
McCann villa
a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge
Mother and child clothing (after removal)
Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent, and that the alerts seemed to be suggesting a connection between the site of the missing child's disappearance, her toy, her clothes and her mother's clothes, there had to be an attempt to find corroborating evidence in my opinion.
The PJ tried but failed.
So for some unknown reason Davel is trying to make mountains out of molehills. IMO.
-
On topic posts only please, no disrupting.
-
IMO it’s a shame you can’t just admit I made a valid point instead of putting words into my mouth.
A valid point that should have been made nearly 6 months ago.
-
...and G-unit’s original post which actually states Grimes opinion in full...
So for some unknown reason Davel is trying to make mountains out of molehills. IMO.
I'm pointing out that gunit seems to misunderstand and has misrepresented a very important statement by grime
-
I'm pointing out that gunit seems to misunderstand and has misrepresented a very important statement by grime
...and I am pointing out that as she quoted Grimes exact words in the same post her interpretation of them based on the meaning of the word suggestive is a valid opinion to have.
-
...and I am pointing out that as she quoted Grimes exact words in the same post her interpretation of them based on the meaning of the word suggestive is a valid opinion to have.
You need to read it again..
Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent...
It is not given that this is Grimes opinion... The statement is false
-
We seem to be seeing some passion now, don't we? I've been pursued on and off for months because another poster thinks he's right and I'm wrong. As the disagreement is over the interpretation of someone's words neither party can 'prove' anything, it comes down to opinions in my opinion..
I suggest it stops now and we agree to disagree because no-one can win an argument about opinion.
-
You need to read it again..
Given that Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent...
It is not given that this is Grimes opinion... The statement is false
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler
cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour.
This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops
handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and
investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search.
I don’t believe Grime thought the dogs alerted to anything else.
-
We seem to be seeing some passion now, don't we? I've been pursued on and off for months because another poster thinks he's right and I'm wrong. As the disagreement is over the interpretation of someone's words neither party can 'prove' anything, it comes down to opinions in my opinion..
I suggest it stops now and we agree to disagree because no-one can win an argument about opinion.
It is not about interpretation... It's, about you posting something that isn't true... As I have clearly shown
-
It is not about interpretation... It's, about you posting something that isn't true... As I have clearly shown
But not your original claim, nor your second claim but a third claim that was discussed nearly 6 months ago. Please desist.
-
It is not about interpretation... It's, about you posting something that isn't true... As I have clearly shown
OK, what, in your opinion, is untrue in my post?
Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent"
-
OK, what, in your opinion, is untrue in my post?
Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent"
That statement is untrue... Grimes opinion was that the, alerts, were suggestive of cadaver scent..
Nowhere has grime said the alerts were triggerred by cadaver scent
-
That statement is untrue... Grimes opinion was that the, alerts, were suggestive of cadaver scent..
Nowhere has grime said the alerts were triggerred by cadaver scent
Define 'suggestive'.
-
Define 'suggestive'.
You are trying to show your interpretation supports what you have said...you seem to want to quote your opinion as, fact
Grime used the words possible and suggestive... Neither imply certainty
-
You are trying to show your interpretation supports what you have said...youvseem to want to quite your opinion as, fact
Are you saying that the whole argument arose because I didn't post this?
"In my opinion Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent"
-
Are you saying that the whole argument arose because I didn't post this?
"In my opinion Grime's opinion was that these alerts were triggered by cadaver scent"
You stated it as fact... When it wasn't... As you now seem to realise
-
You stated it as fact... When it wasn't... As you now seem to realise
I acknowledged back in March that it was my interpretation of what Grime said, so why are you still talking about it?
-
I acknowledged back in March that it was my interpretation of what Grime said, so why are you still talking about it?
I didn't see your acknowledgement.. It might have been better if you had corrected your post... And why all the denials last night and this morning... Why not just say your post was not correct
-
I didn't see your acknowledgement.. It might have been better if you had corrected your post... And why all the denials last night and this morning... Why not just say your post was not correct
Probably because it wasn’t what you originally complained about.
-
Probably because it wasn’t what you originally complained about.
I think its setled now and gunit has admitted her error
-
I think its setled now and gunit has admitted her error
Agreed, she acknowledged it as her opinion in March.
-
see post above
Davel please change topic.
-
The saga of G-unit and the old post is now over. Any more reference will be deemed disruption.
-
you neee to read your own post again....
Theory
A supposition or...thats or...not and.....
aduction is a theory...theres plenty to support it if you have an open mind and understand teh evidence...the first part being there is no evidenvce of death in 5a
What evidence would you expect if a death in 5a had occurred.?
Redwood 2014.
“There is always the potential that she didn’t leave the apartment alive. What is important for us to do is consider all the options,” he said.
-
What evidence would you expect if a death in 5a had occurred.?
Redwood 2014.
It's, quite possible she died in 5a... But there is no evidence of death
-
There would have been evidence- it could have been removed!
-
It's, quite possible she died in 5a... But there is no evidence of death
So you have a closed mind as to other possibility's of what happened save an abduction.
-
So you have a closed mind as to other possibility's of what happened save an abduction.
Not at all... I dont put abduction at 100%...
-
Do people feel passionately about this case? I find it interesting for various reasons but I don't have any burning desire to see a particular outcome. Whatever happened to Madeleine it's a shame, but awful things happen to innocent children every day.
-
What evidence would you expect if a death in 5a had occurred.?
Redwood 2014.
Interesting question, for if a body lies in a room for some time and is then removed there may be no physical traces left behind.
If someone was stabbed or beaten to death you would expect blood, maybe lots of it. If someone was strangled or suffocated , there would be no such evidence. merely the scent of cadaver.
-
Do people feel passionately about this case? I find it interesting for various reasons but I don't have any burning desire to see a particular outcome. Whatever happened to Madeleine it's a shame, but awful things happen to innocent children every day.
I would simply like to see it solved... Whoever is, responsible.
Sceptics seem to think posters like myself just want protect the McCanns and are emotionally involved with them... Carly thinks I'm in love with Kate... Utter tripe
-
I would simply like to see it solved... Whoever is, responsible.
Sceptics seem to think posters like myself just want protect the McCanns and are emotionally involved with them... Carly thinks I'm in love with Kate... Utter tripe
It's some of the utter tripe (imo) posted in defence of the McCanns which makes people seem emotionally involved in protecting them at all costs.
-
It's some of the utter tripe (imo) posted in defence of the McCanns which makes people seem emotionally involved in protecting them at all costs.
Could you give an example to support your claim... What do you mean by protecting them at, all costs... Just sceptic meaningless mantra... Afaiac...
Can't you accept the reality that some if us, who have followed the case for sone years... Know a lot about it... And believe... Based on the evidence that Maddie was almost certainly abducted...
-
Could you give an example to support your claim... What do you mean by protecting them at, all costs... Just sceptic meaningless mantra... Afaiac...
Can't you accept the reality that some if us, who have followed the case for sone years... Know a lot about it... And believe... Based on the evidence that Maddie was almost certainly abducted...
Doesn't make you right though.
-
Doesn't make you right though.
I think that as both police forces are not investigating the McCanns then I think I am most probably right
-
I think that as both police forces are not investigating the McCanns then I think I am most probably right
You are very wrong as we the public don't know who or what SY are investigating. I do know though that the PJ have to investigate my complaint.
-
You are very wrong as we the public don't know who or what SY are investigating. I do know though that the PJ have to investigate my complaint.
Have to? Why do they "have to"?
-
You are very wrong as we the public don't know who or what SY are investigating. I do know though that the PJ have to investigate my complaint.
We know the McCanns have not been interviewed under caution... Nor, are they arguidos... So how, are they being investigated...Sutton told us they weren't too
-
I would simply like to see it solved... Whoever is, responsible.
Sceptics seem to think posters like myself just want protect the McCanns and are emotionally involved with them... Carly thinks I'm in love with Kate... Utter tripe
I would simply like to see it solved... Whoever is, responsible.
How would you feel D if GA was right - and mcns involved.
-
I would simply like to see it solved... Whoever is, responsible.
How would you feel D if GA was right - and mcns involved.
I would be totally shocked... But have some relief it was solved... But I can't see it happening... Ga based his theory on his misunderstanding of the evidence
-
I would be totally shocked... But have some relief it was solved... But I can't see it happening... Ga based his theory on his misunderstanding of the evidence
So there was evidence then. - GA just misunderstood the evidence.
-
I would simply like to see it solved... Whoever is, responsible.
How would you feel D if GA was right - and mcns involved.
Therein imo lies the problem with OG,they cannot close and say the McCann's weren't involved to do that they must have evidence to the contrary in which case it won't close, they can (and I believe its how it will end) say they can find no evidence against anyone.
-
Therein imo lies the problem with OG,they cannot close and say the McCann's weren't involved to do that they must have evidence to the contrary in which case it won't close, they can (and I believe its how it will end) say they can find no evidence against anyone.
That is possible unfortunately.
-
A valid point that should have been made nearly 6 months ago.
I made the point and I wasn’t a member of this forum 6 months ago.
-
Therein imo lies the problem with OG,they cannot close and say the McCann's weren't involved to do that they must have evidence to the contrary in which case it won't close, they can (and I believe its how it will end) say they can find no evidence against anyone.
Or they could say they have insufficient evidence to bring anyone to court.
Dependent upon what crime has been committed OG may have no say in the matter.
-
Or they could say they have insufficient evidence to bring anyone to court.
Dependent upon what crime has been committed OG may have no say in the matter.
But I doubt if they will say they have insufficient evidence to show the McCanns are innocent.
-
But I doubt if they will say they have insufficient evidence to show the McCanns are innocent.
I would agree as they might be expected to show it.
-
I made the point and I wasn’t a member of this forum 6 months ago.
You were when it was discussed.
-
I would agree as they might be expected to show it.
What something like a blank CD titled "Evidence against the McCanns".
-
What something like a blank CD titled "Evidence against the McCanns".
At least there would be no danger of a mistranslation claim 8(0(*
-
What something like a blank CD titled "Evidence against the McCanns".
Not really, from your previous comment we would expect a CD with stuff on marked “Evidence of the McCanns Innocence” though IMO that would be blank too.
-
But I doubt if they will say they have insufficient evidence to show the McCanns are innocent.
Its not the job of the police to determine innocence, their role is to collect evidence with a view to bringing a successful prosecution against whom ever.
-
Not really, from your previous comment we would expect a CD with stuff on marked “Evidence of the McCanns Innocence” though IMO that would be blank too.
Well I suppose they could at least dub on a dramatic music track to set the scene.
This one would have the right tempo IMO https://youtu.be/DeXoACwOT1o
-
Its not the job of the police to determine innocence, their role is to collect evidence with a view to bringing a successful prosecution against whom ever.
Shame no one told amaral that
-
You were when it was discussed.
Was I? I only noticed G-Unit’s pompous but inaccurate put down of Davel recently though. Surely I’m not expected to read every word written on the forum? Is there now a statute of limitations re: commenting on posts?
-
Was I? I only noticed G-Unit’s pompous but inaccurate put down of Davel recently though. Surely I’m not expected to read every word written on the forum? Is there now a statute of limitations re: commenting on posts?
Those are the rules!
-
Those are the rules!
So how long after a post is made before you are forbidden from commenting on it further?
-
Those are the rules!
That you cannot look back at posts made some time ago and comment.?
Is that what you mean?
-
That you cannot look back at posts made some time ago and comment.?
Is that what you mean?
I'm sure you are expected to read and remember the PJ files and the entire forum. - Just joking.
-
So how long after a post is made before you are forbidden from commenting on it further?
That surely would be ridiculous?
-
I'm sure you are expected to read and remember the PJ files and the entire forum. - Just joking.
Possible for some, not me. @)(++(*
-
Possible for some, not me. @)(++(*
Me neither, but that is what is expected.
Confirmed here: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10045.msg483152#msg483152 "when asked none of them admit, so far, to having read the official files".
-
That surely would be ridiculous?
This forum was a very different place 5 years ago. Resurrecting old posts made under different moderation regimes can only cause disruption.
-
This forum was a very different place 5 years ago. Resurrecting old posts made under different moderation regimes can only cause disruption.
I didn't say five years but surely the more stringent moderation has been in place for almost a year at least.
-
I didn't say five years but surely the more stringent moderation has been in place for almost a year at least.
So is it a free for all now to see who can find the most citeless posts going back 1 year? Sort of a variation on an egg hunt?
-
So is it a free for all now to see who can find the most citeless posts going back 1 year? Sort of a variation on an egg hunt?
If a poster makes a claim.... And there is a post made 6 months ago that contradicts that claim... Then I think it's, quite legitimate to post it..... How old was the post relating to my son that you, recently posted ...just checked... It was 3 years old today... Happy birthday to the, 3 year old post you resurrected
-
So is it a free for all now to see who can find the most citeless posts going back 1 year? Sort of a variation on an egg hunt?
Exactly, it becomes pointless. The only reason for using old posts as cites is to support or counter someone’s claim not as the basis of a new argument.
-
If a poster makes a claim.... And there is a post made 6 months ago that contradicts that claim... Then I think it's, quite legitimate to post it..... How old was the post relating to my son that you, recently posted
We established that you made 2 false claims about G-unit before finally finding one ( which had been settled at the time ) to complain about. A very different scenario. Anyway that has been put to bed so no more posts on it.
-
If a poster makes a claim.... And there is a post made 6 months ago that contradicts that claim... Then I think it's, quite legitimate to post it..... How old was the post relating to my son that you, recently posted ...just checked... It was 3 years old today... Happy birthday to the, 3 year old post you resurrected
Davel remember it was not me that made that post all I did was try to provide cites. So apology please. Also remember I am still due at least 2 cites from your good self they are on sedation and centreparks. I am sure there was a third too.
-
This forum was a very different place 5 years ago. Resurrecting old posts made under different moderation regimes can only cause disruption.
I believe you did say five years ??
-
You are the one... And sunny who raised it again... If you keep raising it expect a response
Davel I did NOT make a post about your son all I did was give cites. Apologise and retract. I wasn't here 3 years ago or even 3 months ago remember but I found some mentions of him by you to provide cites.
-
Davel remember it was not me that made that post all I did was try to provide cites. So apology please. Also remember I am still due at least 2 cites from your good self they are on sedation and centreparks. I am sure there was a third too.
I gave the cites required... Was it you who claimed I posted on another forum... I'm still waiting for the cite.
-
I gave the cites required... Was it you who claimed I posted on another forum... I'm still waiting for the cite.
Davel I am waiting for my apology for when you claimed i made a post about your son.
I didn't claim you posted on another forum as far as I remember I said other supporters could well also post on another forum. If I named you then I can't remember.
-
Davel I am waiting for my apology for when you claimed i made a post about your son.
I didn't claim you posted on another forum as far as I remember I said other supporters could well also post on another forum. If I named you then I can't remember.
Read thebpost again.. I said you resurrected a post from 3 years ago.... And you then posted it... ...looks like you owe me an apology
-
I gave the cites required... Was it you who claimed I posted on another forum... I'm still waiting for the cite.
No you did NOT Davel. I will say no more to you for the time being while I cool down.
-
I joined the internet discussion via Sky news whose news and the BBC news I read early morning.
I followed the updates about Madeleine's disappearance and noticed there was a comments option.
I clicked on that and read the comments.
I remember my first post which was in response to someone posting about Gerry's "fat ugly sister."
I couldn't believe the attack on the sister of a missing child.
And here I am.
-
No you did NOT Davel. I will say no more to you for the time being while I cool down.
You are making an accusation... You need to prove it.. And as most of the posts have, probably been wiped... You won't be able to
-
You are making an accusation... You need to prove it.. And as most of the posts have, probably been wiped... You won't be able to
At 5 to 8 you said you had found the post you were objecting to, please link to it to enable everyone to judge the merit of your claim.
-
At 5 to 8 you said you had found the post you were objecting to, please link to it to enable everyone to judge the merit of your claim.
Are you sure... I think you are wrong again.. At 7.55 I made a post that showed a post sunny had resurected was 3 yrs old... What are you talking about
-
Are you sure... I think you are wring again
It’s hard to tell, that why I asked you to link to what you are objecting to.
-
It’s hard to tell, that why I asked you to link to what you are objecting to.
The post I was objecting to.. Made around a month ago... Has been removed ...it referred to a post made 3 years ago
Ie sunny was resurrecting a post made 3 years ago
-
The post I was objecting to.. Made around a month ago... Has been removed ...it referred to a post made 3 years ago
Ie sunny was resurrecting a post made 3 years ago
Can you just spell it out for once. It would help us decipher what the problem is.
-
Can you just spell it out for once. It would help us decipher what the problem is.
I have spelt it out..
Sunny eas criticising posters for resurrecting old posts when she resurrected, a post that was, 3 years old... Is that clear now
-
I have spelt it out..
Sunny eas criticising posters for resurrecting old posts when she resurrected, a post that was, 3 years old... Is that clear now
...and is I said earlier in this thread...
“The only reason for using old posts as cites is to support or counter someone’s claim not as the basis of a new argument.”
-
...and is I said earlier in this thread...
“The only reason for using old posts as cites is to support or counter someone’s claim not as the basis of a new argument.”
Yes I know... As I did last night... I thought the case, was closed
-
...and is I said earlier in this thread...
“The only reason for using old posts as cites is to support or counter someone’s claim not as the basis of a new argument.”
Which was exactly why I shared the older post. Thank you Slartibartfast 8((()*/
-
Which was exactly why I shared the older post. Thank you Slartibartfast 8((()*/
And exactly why I shared the older post last might
-
...and is I said earlier in this thread...
“The only reason for using old posts as cites is to support or counter someone’s claim not as the basis of a new argument.”
So old posts can be used ?
How old?
-
Which was exactly why I shared the older post. Thank you Slartibartfast 8((()*/
some people complain for the sake of complaning imo @)(++(*
-
...and is I said earlier in this thread...
“The only reason for using old posts as cites is to support or counter someone’s claim not as the basis of a new argument.”
Isn’t that what I did? But was chastised for not doing so 6 months earlier before I joined the forum or something. All these new rules and regs, could we be issued with a user’s handbook please?
-
Isn’t that what I did? But was chastised for not doing so 6 months earlier before I joined the forum or something. All these new rules and regs, could we be issued with a user’s handbook please?
From my POV any post over a week old is history as far as arguments are concerned.
-
From my POV any post over a week old is history as far as arguments are concerned.
Some people will remember what you said 15 years ago, let alone last week. I thought that was a female trait, but judging by this forum maybe not. @)(++(*
-
Some people will remember what you said 15 years ago, let alone last week. I thought that was a female trait, but judging by this forum maybe not. @)(++(*
I know exactly what you mean. &^^&*
-
I know exactly what you mean. &^^&*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQxM5rJ-uiY