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: Jean-Pierre on April 09, 2014, 12:40:58 PM
-
I have noticed a creeping tendency on this forum for posters (on both sides) to question the expertise of their opponents.
e.g
"In response to one of my posts yesterday Davel told me that several posters have an elementary knowledge of dog handling and the use of EVRDs.
In my professional world having an "elementary knowledge" would mean one had attended at least one basic awareness course on the topic presented by an expert. I incline to the view the posters to whom he refers have not attended courses but have Googled or have read a Janet & John's guide to EVRD's "
______________
This is an internet forum, for heavens sake. Its a discussion group, not a court of law or an expert witness program. We are none of us experts in the subjects under discussion (Portuguese law, forensics, VRD, police procedure etc etc).
However, we are all able to debate intelligently, have opinions and draw conclusions based on experience, google, logical thought, discussion.
As soon as the debate turns from force of argument and logical reasoning, mixed with (hopefully) good natured humour and banter, to "what are your qualifications for saying that" we might as well all pack up and go home.
-
For me the 'expertise' or otherwise is in the quality of the posts. I will allow this thread on the basis that a frank discussion about such issues might be helpful.
Could I just add that there are many professional and former professional, academic and knowledgeable posters on the forum, their contributions must not be underestimated under any circumstances.
-
For me the 'expertise' or otherwise is in the quality of the posts. I will allow this thread on the basis that a frank discussion about such issues might be helpful.
Could I just add that there are many professional and former professional, academic and knowledgeable posters on the forum, their contributions must not be underestimated under any circumstances.
I agree with that ... but ALL views MUST be equally valid
The destruction of Herberto Janosches contribution was disgraceful
The destruction of Debunkers arguments likewise
Not to mention the brown nosing and then knifing of Dhingra. He was an expert too.
There have been several others who are experts who have also been ruthlessly scoffed at ... and have left here in disgust
Serendipity claims to be an expert on Martin Grime. Have we seen any evidence? If he is, we should all listen, but is he?
The scoffers and deliberate underminers should be banned. They are trying to prevent the truth getting out ... and one has to wonder why?
There has to be a reason
-
For me the 'expertise' or otherwise is in the quality of the posts. I will allow this thread on the basis that a frank discussion about such issues might be helpful.
Could I just add that there are many professional and former professional, academic and knowledgeable posters on the forum, their contributions must not be underestimated under any circumstances.
I agree that valuable contribution to the forum should be appreciated, although it does not, necessarily, have to be related to professional or academic credentials
For instance, I appreciated Redblossom's almost encylopedic knowledge of the case, and her ability to lay hand to relevantly sourced material whenever the need arose
Likewise, Anne Gueddes, whilst never claiming 'expertise' was able, through personal effort, to bring exclusive coverage of the libel trial in Lisbon, which added great Kudos to this forum
It is regretful that these two 'non expert' but undeniably valuable members, no longer post here
-
I agree that valuable contribution to the forum should be appreciated, although it does not, necessarily, have to be related to professional or academic credentials
For instance, I appreciated Redblossom's almost encylopedic knowledge of the case, and her ability to lay hand to relevantly sourced material whenever the need arose
Likewise, Anne Gueddes, whilst never claiming 'expertise' was able, through personal effort, to bring exclusive coverage of the libel trial in Lisbon, which added great Kudos to this forum
It is regretful that these two 'non expert' but undeniably valuable members, no longer post here
I have to point out that red also made claims that were not true....such as Kate said she did not search because it was too dark and cold...which was shown to be untrue
-
I have noticed a creeping tendency on this forum for posters (on both sides) to question the expertise of their opponents.
e.g
"In response to one of my posts yesterday Davel told me that several posters have an elementary knowledge of dog handling and the use of EVRDs.
In my professional world having an "elementary knowledge" would mean one had attended at least one basic awareness course on the topic presented by an expert. I incline to the view the posters to whom he refers have not attended courses but have Googled or have read a Janet & John's guide to EVRD's "
______________
This is an internet forum, for heavens sake. Its a discussion group, not a court of law or an expert witness program. We are none of us experts in the subjects under discussion (Portuguese law, forensics, VRD, police procedure etc etc).
However, we are all able to debate intelligently, have opinions and draw conclusions based on experience, google, logical thought, discussion.
As soon as the debate turns from force of argument and logical reasoning, mixed with (hopefully) good natured humour and banter, to "what are your qualifications for saying that" we might as well all pack up and go home.
I would agree with that. You don't, yourself, have to be a top international footballer or cricketer to watch top cricketers or footballers in action and appreciate if they are playing well or badly. You just have to understand the rudiments of the sport.
In the same way, by reading around a subject that is practised in real-life, such as dog-handling, you can certainly make informed and educated assessments on whether points of good or bad practice have been employed by practitioners in the field.
A single example will suffice. The job of any forensic team (including its canine component) is to identify and pass on to a competent forensic laboratory items of potential forensic interest in a state as closely preserved as possible to the state it was in when found. The reason for that is that you want to identify and analyse DNA from those items that might help to identify suspects or victims.
It stands to reason, then, that you don't want dogs having physical contact with items they are tasked to inspect.
And we can be sure that that imperative was taken no less seriously at PdL just because the inspection came several months after the crime, as evidenced by the fact that the process of lifting fixtures and fittings from the apartment 5a was filmed so that the bods at the FSS could have confidence best practice was followed.
-
I have to point out that red also made claims that were not true....such as Kate said she did not search because it was too dark and cold...which was shown to be untrue
What are you on about now?
Red was brilliant. She had more knowledge on this case than most of us put together.
One of the reasons Kate Mccannn gave for not searching was that it was dark.*
*Edit, having read the exact words used, I no longer believe that Kate Mccann said she didn't search 'because it was too dark'.
-
What are you on about now?
Red was brilliant. She had more knowledge on this case than most of us put together.
One of the reasons Kate Mccannn gave for not searching was that it was dark.
You obviously don't remember the exchange of posts when red eventually had to admit she was wrong
-
What are you on about now?
Red was brilliant. She had more knowledge on this case than most of us put together.
One of the reasons Kate Mccannn gave for not searching was that it was dark.
Do you have a cite for that. You really shouldn't post things like that unless you can support them
-
You obviously don't remember the exchange of posts when red eventually had to admit she was wrong
No, I don't. I think considering the contribution she made to this forum that it's rather petty and mean spirited to bring it up now she's no longer here to defend herself.
Still, I guess that if you're still trying to undermine her, it's a compliment in a way. Even without her presence, her almost limitless knowledge needs to be belittled in any way it can.
-
Do you have a cite for that. You really shouldn't post things like that unless you can support them
You're are completely right of course and I shall have a look now, in a minute*. If I can't find one, I'll edit my post.
*A Welsh phrase that translates as 'after I've brought the washing in and checked whether son number two and his GF are hungry.
-
No, I don't. I think considering the contribution she made to this forum that it's rather petty and mean spirited to bring it up now she's no longer here to defend herself.
Still, I guess that if you're still trying to undermine her, it's a compliment in a way. Even without her presence, her almost limitless knowledge needs to be belittled in any way it can.
her limitless knowledge had limits it seems...perhaps we could leave out personalities and stick with facts...cite for Kates comment
-
her limitless knowledge had limits it seems...perhaps we could leave out personalities and stick with facts...cite for Kates comment
Goodness me, Red must have really rattled your cage ... even in her absence you can't hold in the bile !
Anyway, this thread is about the value of expertise to the forum and not about the specifics of a debate you once had with a member who you harbour bitterness towards
You are taking it off topic
-
her limitless knowledge had limits it seems...perhaps we could leave out personalities and stick with facts...cite for Kates comment
This is the best I can do.
Kate: And you know Oprah...
Oprah: ...nothing can happen quick enough...
Kate: It was so dark...
Oprah: uh huh...
Kate: it was dark, erm I've never had such a long night it was dark and you're just praying for the light you know to come up to get out there it's just...
Oprah: uh huh...
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id234.html
So not exactly "we didn't search cause it was too dark".
I think now I've read that, I'll edit my previous comment to make it more accurate.
-
This is the best I can do.
Kate: And you know Oprah...
Oprah: ...nothing can happen quick enough...
Kate: It was so dark...
Oprah: uh huh...
Kate: it was dark, erm I've never had such a long night it was dark and you're just praying for the light you know to come up to get out there it's just...
Oprah: uh huh...
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id234.html
So not exactly "we didn't search cause it was too dark".
I think now I've read that, I'll edit my previous comment to make it more accurate.
Yet other people did go out 'in the dark' and searched for several hours and on subsequent days, including holidaymakers and residents of the area.
Now who didn't do that ?
Tough question, that one. 8(0(*
-
This is the best I can do.
Kate: And you know Oprah...
Oprah: ...nothing can happen quick enough...
Kate: It was so dark...
Oprah: uh huh...
Kate: it was dark, erm I've never had such a long night it was dark and you're just praying for the light you know to come up to get out there it's just...
Oprah: uh huh...
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id234.html
So not exactly "we didn't search cause it was too dark".
I think now I've read that, I'll edit my previous comment to make it more accurate.
Very gracious of you cariad...
-
Goodness me, Red must have really rattled your cage ... even in her absence you can't hold in the bile !
Anyway, this thread is about the value of expertise to the forum and not about the specifics of a debate you once had with a member who you harbour bitterness towards
You are taking it off topic
As you are taking it off topic I have to reply to your accusations and insults against me...no bile ...no bitterness...just a desire for that truth as without the truth we will get nowhere
-
Yet other people did go out 'in the dark' and searched for several hours and on subsequent days, including holidaymakers and residents of the area.
Now who didn't do that ?
Tough question, that one. 8(0(*
the thread is re expertise
-
the thread is re expertise
Indeed the lack of expertise or for that matter anything, in the mccanns searching for their 'beloved' daughter.
People can be judged on what they fail to do. 8)-)))
-
Indeed the lack of expertise or for that matter anything, in the mccanns searching for their 'beloved' daughter.
People can be judged on what they fail to do. 8)-)))
The tread is about expertise..not the mccanns...if you want to start a searching thread I will answer all your questions on there...otherwise ..on topic please
-
The tread is about expertise..not the mccanns...if you want to start a searching thread I will answer all your questions on there...otherwise ..on topic please
I did discuss expertise, or rather more accurately, the lack of it.
-
Very gracious of you cariad...
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I don't mind holding my hand up to it and I don't see it as losing face. I'm glad you pushed for the cite (which I should've tried to produce before posting anyway) otherwise I'd probably still have believed that.
My first exposure to the intricacies of the Mccann case was via my news feed on facebook as one of my friends posted in that group. I've spent a long time unlearning some of the 'facts' I picked up there. I guess the job isn't quite finished yet.
I have a great deal of respect for Redblossem and I won't just sit back and watch you or anyone talk about her when she isn't here to defend herself.
SNIP///
IMNEO the problem with this whole case is that there is no clear evidence of abduction and no clear evidence of parents/tapas 9 involvement.......if you like, my glass is half empty, your's is half full. I fall on the half empty side because my brain tells me that the suspicious activity which has surrounded certain aspects of this case is abnormally high.
That me! I could've written that! I'm jumping on your boat, buzz.
-
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I don't mind holding my hand up to it and I don't see it as losing face. I'm glad you pushed for the cite (which I should've tried to produce before posting anyway) otherwise I'd probably still have believed that.
My first exposure to the intricacies of the Mccann case was via my news feed on facebook as one of my friends posted in that group. I've spent a long time unlearning some of the 'facts' I picked up there. I guess the job isn't quite finished yet.
I have a great deal of respect for Redblossem and I won't just sit back and watch you or anyone talk about her when she isn't here to defend herself.
That me! I could've written that! I'm jumping on your boat, buzz.
That's fair enough but you must accept that I have very right to comment on a post
-
That's fair enough but you must accept that I have very right to comment on a post
Yes, as do I. Hence this debate about a post Red made once which the mods aren't going to thank us for, since it's more stuff for them to have to whoosh.
-
Goodness me, Red must have really rattled your cage ... even in her absence you can't hold in the bile !
Anyway, this thread is about the value of expertise to the forum and not about the specifics of a debate you once had with a member who you harbour bitterness towards
You are taking it off topic
Perhaps you could point out the bile and bitterness in my statement....
"her limitless knowledge had limits it seems"
I think you owe me an apology
-
Yes, as do I. Hence this debate about a post Red made once which the mods aren't going to thank us for, since it's more stuff for them to have to whoosh.
It takes a least two to have a debate so you can hardly put the blame at my door
-
It takes a least two to have a debate so you can hardly put the blame at my door
When did I put the blame at your door? I just agreed that you could comment on any post you liked and so could I!
Can we leave it there please? I don't want to get in to a 'you started it, no you started it' row.
-
Yet other people did go out 'in the dark' and searched for several hours and on subsequent days, including holidaymakers and residents of the area.
Now who didn't do that ?
Tough question, that one. 8(0(*
Pretty please change your mantra or start a thread why you think the Mccanns are crap parents and keep it there. Every single thread lately has been derailed by your silly comments. Equally, the comments about Goncalo being a crap detective shouldn't be brought into every bloody thread. It's 2014 we've heard it for the last six years or so. We know what the Mcanns/Goncalo should / shouldn't have done, move on.
-
You are right, but the reasons why people are still going on about the McCann's being bad parents is because it is true also people are yet still defending them for their despicable actions. By doing this it irritates people because it is not normal in any way for a PARENT to do this!
I understand what you are saying, some posters defend them and others don't. There is no reason for every thread to be derailed because of it. Should have it's own thread then people can give their opinions there instead of spoiling every thread.
-
In my view the problem is that some posters claim expertise and expect their expert input to be accepted by posters but there is no evidence either in the content of the posts or offered in some other way by the poster as to whether that content is genuine or not.
It is perfectly acceptable for people to post anything and say this is my expert opinion so long as that opinion can be challenged and then defended. If the only defence to any challenge is, "I am right, you are wrong, now stop arguing" then the claim to expertise can, in my view, rightly be questioned.
It becomes even more insidious if the moderators then state that no challenge is allowed and posters who challenge this expert will be warned or potentially be banned.
It is even more insidious still if the challenge is supported by good evidence but the "expert" provides nothing to support his or her original claim. Then there literally is no debate, just propaganda being issued by the "expert".
It then becomes a waste of time posting because anything which goes against the "expert" will simply be deleted.
If I post something which I cannot support with evidence then that is open to challenge and if others post evidence which contradicts it good on them.
If I post something from my personal knowledge, for example from a conversation with a lawyer, I cannot expect it to be accepted here as expert evidence. You have no way of knowing how I might have forgotten what was said, twisted what was said or even made up what was said. You can either accept it or dismiss it. You can challenge it and offer evidence against it and weigh up the responses.
That is how I believe things should work with those offering "expertise" on a forum.
-
In my view the problem is that some posters claim expertise and expect their expert input to be accepted by posters but there is no evidence either in the content of the posts or offered in some other way by the poster as to whether that content is genuine or not.
It is perfectly acceptable for people to post anything and say this is my expert opinion so long as that opinion can be challenged and then defended. If the only defence to any challenge is, "I am right, you are wrong, now stop arguing" then the claim to expertise can, in my view, rightly be questioned.
It becomes even more insidious if the moderators then state that no challenge is allowed and posters who challenge this expert will be warned or potentially be banned.
It is even more insidious still if the challenge is supported by good evidence but the "expert" provides nothing to support his or her original claim. Then there literally is no debate, just propaganda being issued by the "expert".
It then becomes a waste of time posting because anything which goes against the "expert" will simply be deleted.
If I post something which I cannot support with evidence then that is open to challenge and if others post evidence which contradicts it good on them.
If I post something from my personal knowledge, for example from a conversation with a lawyer, I cannot expect it to be accepted here as expert evidence. You have no way of knowing how I might have forgotten what was said, twisted what was said or even made up what was said. You can either accept it or dismiss it. You can challenge it and offer evidence against it and weigh up the responses.
That is how I believe things should work with those offering "expertise" on a forum.
You're talking about Serendipity aren't you ?
It sticks in your craw that this member has established credibility without disclosing personal details on the open forum
We all know what happens when those who express doubts about the McCanns disclose their identities ... nasty stuff
So you have to accept that Admin has been provided with verification ... and that's that
-
You're talking about Serendipity aren't you ?
It sticks in your craw that this member has established credibility without disclosing personal details on the open forum
We all know what happens when those who express doubts about the McCanns disclose their identities ... nasty stuff
So you have to accept that Admin has been provided with verification ... and that's that
I am talking about the only real way a forum can operate.
it does not stick in my craw at all.
I see it as a real flaw in a forum though when real debate cannot proceed, when evidenced posts are simply dismissed and/or deleted without proper explanation, when material cannot be legitimately challenged.
-
Pretty please change your mantra or start a thread why you think the Mccanns are crap parents and keep it there. Every single thread lately has been derailed by your silly comments. Equally, the comments about Goncalo being a crap detective shouldn't be brought into every bloody thread. It's 2014 we've heard it for the last six years or so. We know what the Mcanns/Goncalo should / shouldn't have done, move on.
For you 'move on' then would equate for ignoring what they did, and as Madeleine's fate has not been ascertained for sure, there remains the possibility she died in the apartment.
As to 'derailing', that is the mantra adopted by certain mccann supporters to deflect criticism. On that basis, you and they should 'move on'.
-
You're talking about Serendipity aren't you ?
It sticks in your craw that this member has established credibility without disclosing personal details on the open forum
We all know what happens when those who express doubts about the McCanns disclose their identities ... nasty stuff
So you have to accept that Admin has been provided with verification ... and that's that
It's a false statement to say serendipity has established credibility as posters are questioning that credibility and there is no facts to support it... I don't take your word for it...why should I ...have you established your credibility..certainly not. When you describe quite innocuous post as being full of bile and bitterness...you have no credibility.
-
It's a false statement to say serendipity has established credibility as posters are questioning that credibility and there is no facts to support it... I don't take your word for it...why should I ...have you established your credibility..certainly not. When you describe quite innocuous post as being full of bile and bitterness...you have no credibility.
Has anybody? - other than the handful who have ably demonstrated their their credentials as complete arseholes?
-
Has anybody? - other than the handful who have ably demonstrated their their credentials as complete arseholes?
On this point we are in total agreemnet
-
There was no insulting of any poster here in my earlier post which has been removed.
To summarise it, I said that if someone wishes to be seen as an expert their credentials for that expertise should be available and not just dictated to members.
If a person cannot answer challenges supported by evidence with anything other than "shut up, I'm right" the expertise does not enhance debate.
And if supposed expert posters posts are removed then it is reasonable to wonder what they contained which necessitated moderators removing them.
Genuine forum debate and seeking the truth demands that people explain themselves properly.
-
This is probably slightly off topic as Serendipity has never claimed to be an expert. He/she is a very well informed person whose credentials I have established as genuine. I spoke to them again today and was given lots of new information which I would love to share but cannot at this time for legal reasons. I am hopeful that Mr Grime will be able to post once the Madeleine investigation is wrapped up.
-
This is probably slightly off topic as Serendipity has never claimed to be an expert. He/she is a very well informed person whose credentials I have established as genuine. I spoke to them again today and was given lots of new information which I would love to share but cannot at this time for legal reasons. I am hopeful that Mr Grime will be able to post once the Madeleine investigation is wrapped up.
Don't ask me how I know John...but this case will never be wrapped up.
-
Don't ask me how I know John...but this case will never be wrapped up.
I would expect it to be wound down even if not solved. SY cannot go on chasing ghosts for ever.
-
I did not rubbish the dogs. I was talking about evidence, but included the dogs
Mr Grime:-No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
I didn't imply you did and sorry if you took it that way.
Despite no physical evidence being found to support them, the behaviour of the dogs sets alarm bells ringing in some peoples heads, resulting in the rubbishing of the dogs, their training and their trainer, whenever possible.
-
I would expect it to be wound down even if not solved. SY cannot go on chasing ghosts for ever.
I agree and don't expect it to be solved...so I don't see how Grime will comment if it merely shelved
-
I didn't imply you did and sorry if you took it that way.
Despite no physical evidence being found to support them, the behaviour of the dogs sets alarm bells ringing in some peoples heads, resulting in the rubbishing of the dogs, their training and their trainer, whenever possible.
No problem Jassi,
What are we allowed to question and debate, if not evidence pertaining to the disappearance?
-
As far as I'm concerned, people can debate whatever they like, just as long as they don't tell lies and interpret the few facts that there are dishonestly, while passing it off as the truth.
-
As far as I'm concerned, people can debate whatever they like, just as long as they don't tell lies and interpret the few facts that there are dishonestly, while passing it off as the truth.
That's fair enough, as long as all are happy to accept the truth of course!
-
Yeah. The difficulty being that nobody knows what the truth actually is. 8(0(*
-
Yeah. The difficulty being that nobody knows what the truth actually is. 8(0(*
Correct, something I have been saying ever since my first post on this forum.
Those who claim to know that the McCanns "done it", whatever that IT might be are simply wrong. They don't know the truth about the situation.
Just as anyone who proclaims it is categorically a case of abduction is wrong. They don't know the truth of the matter either.
This is why it is incumbent on posters to question every single detail about the case and not for whatever reason to claim that such questioning is attacking people or creating enemies of people. It is not, it is simply the most sensible way of attempting to get a little closer to the underlying truth.
A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ Files which are hosted on a blog site. They may be the most accurate details of the case we have but are they 100% genuine, are they complete as released by the PJ. Given the way in which they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that.
Some are seen as more expert on the case than others because they have a good grasp of the files and can find details within them quickly. It would be a shame if that expertise was flawed because the files themselves might not be completely accurate.
-
I think it is great to have experts in their field posting opinions either to correct misconceptions, answer points put to them and just to generally keep the debate on track. Just so long as they don’t patronise and take over.
-
Correct, something I have been saying ever since my first post on this forum.
Those who claim to know that the McCanns "done it", whatever that IT might be are simply wrong. They don't know the truth about the situation.
Just as anyone who proclaims it is categorically a case of abduction is wrong. They don't know the truth of the matter either.
This is why it is incumbent on posters to question every single detail about the case and not for whatever reason to claim that such questioning is attacking people or creating enemies of people. It is not, it is simply the most sensible way of attempting to get a little closer to the underlying truth.
A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ Files which are hosted on a blog site. They may be the most accurate details of the case we have but are they 100% genuine, are they complete as released by the PJ. Given the way in which they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that.
Some are seen as more expert on the case than others because they have a good grasp of the files and can find details within them quickly. It would be a shame if that expertise was flawed because the files themselves might not be completely accurate.
Goodness me ... I'm astonished at the number of propoganda techniques you managed to incorporate into a single post !
The most obvious, of course in the pure Antirationalism of the first portion of your post :
Those who claim to know the McCanns "done it", whatever that IT might be, are simply wrong. They don't know the truth about the situation.
Just as anyone who claims it is categorically a case of abduction is wrong. They don't know the truth of the matter either
What you did there was promote the idea that there are no such things as valid, reliable facts or hard evidence, just various conflicting opinions. Those who, like you, use this antirationist method of propogada often claim ;
"It's just my opinion versus your opinion and it's all so controversial that we can't really know anything for sure"
That is a dodge to avoid admitting the truth ... Yes, we can know some things for sure
There's a little bit of 'Escape via Relativism' in that section of your post too ... the generalized, "everybody has their own opinion" implying that every opinion is backed up with equally valid or equally compelling evidence ( which is not true of course )
The next paragraph in your post, whilst using a bit of 'conflation' ( telling us what is incumbent on us if we are to be considered good posters ) is not really relying on any particular propaganda technique, but is, I suspect merely another dig at Serendipity, whose acceptance by this forum is stuck firmly in your craw
Then we come to :
A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ files which are hosted on a blog site. They may be the most accurate details of the case that we have but are they 100% genuine, are they complete as released by the PJ, Given the way they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that.
At first glance that paragraph is classic 'Straw man' ... propping up an absurd hypothetical situation that never really happened ( the 'doctoring' of the police files ) but it is more than that in propaganda terms
You are also using the technique of of 'Spurious delegitimization of evidence' ... in an attempt to discredit the police files with nothing more than innuendo
And to your concluding paragraph :
Some are seen as more expert on the case than others because they have a good grasp of the files and can find details within them quickly. It would a shame if that expertise was flawed because the files themselves might not be completely accurate
You've excelled yourself there !
You incorporate a bit of the 'stroking ploy' by refering to those who refer to the police files when supporting a opinion as 'experts' on the case ... but then pick up the 'delegitimize your opponent' technique by implying their expertise might be flawed
Then it's back to the old staw man, where you, once again present the entirely hypothetical case of the police files having been tampered with in some way, and propose that this purely hypothetical suggestion somehow presents us with a dilemma
You are an accomplished propagandist Gilet, but, if I might say, you do tend to over-egg the pudding
-
Goodness me ... I'm astonished at the number of propoganda techniques you managed to incorporate into a single post !
The most obvious, of course in the pure Antirationalism of the first portion of your post :
Those who claim to know the McCanns "done it", whatever that IT might be, are simply wrong. They don't know the truth about the situation.
Just as anyone who claims it is categorically a case of abduction is wrong. They don't know the truth of the matter either
What you did there was promote the idea that there are no such things as valid, reliable facts or hard evidence, just various conflicting opinions. Those who, like you, use this antirationist method of propogada often claim ;
"It's just my opinion versus your opinion and it's all so controversial that we can't really know anything for sure"
That is a dodge to avoid admitting the truth ... Yes, we can know some things for sure
There's a little bit of 'Escape via Relativism' in that section of your post too ... the generalized, "everybody has their own opinion" implying that every opinion is backed up with equally valid or equally compelling evidence ( which is not true of course )
The next paragraph in your post, whilst using a bit of 'conflation' ( telling us what is incumbent on us if we are to be considered good posters ) is not really relying on any particular propaganda technique, but is, I suspect merely another dig at Serendipity, whose acceptance by this forum is stuck firmly in your craw
Then we come to :
A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ files which are hosted on a blog site. They may be the most accurate details of the case that we have but are they 100% genuine, are they complete as released by the PJ, Given the way they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that.
At first glance that paragraph is classic 'Straw man' ... propping up an absurd hypothetical situation that never really happened ( the 'doctoring' of the police files ) but it is more than that in propaganda terms
You are also using the technique of of 'Spurious delegitimization of evidence' ... in an attempt to discredit the police files with nothing more than innuendo
And to your concluding paragraph :
Some are seen as more expert on the case than others because they have a good grasp of the files and can find details within them quickly. It would a shame if that expertise was flawed because the files themselves might not be completely accurate
You've excelled yourself there !
You incorporate a bit of the 'stroking ploy' by refering to those who refer to the police files when supporting a opinion as 'experts' on the case ... but then pick up the 'delegitimize your opponent' technique by implying their expertise might be flawed
Then it's back to the old staw man, where you, once again present the entirely hypothetical case of the police files having been tampered with in some way, and propose that this purely hypothetical suggestion somehow presents us with a dilemma
You are an accomplished propagandist Gilet, but, if I might say, you do tend to over-egg the pudding
Excellent post Icabodcrane. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Goodness me ... I'm astonished at the number of propoganda techniques you managed to incorporate into a single post !
The most obvious, of course in the pure Antirationalism of the first portion of your post :
Those who claim to know the McCanns "done it", whatever that IT might be, are simply wrong. They don't know the truth about the situation.
Just as anyone who claims it is categorically a case of abduction is wrong. They don't know the truth of the matter either
What you did there was promote the idea that there are no such things as valid, reliable facts or hard evidence, just various conflicting opinions. Those who, like you, use this antirationist method of propogada often claim ;
"It's just my opinion versus your opinion and it's all so controversial that we can't really know anything for sure"
That is a dodge to avoid admitting the truth ... Yes, we can know some things for sure
There's a little bit of 'Escape via Relativism' in that section of your post too ... the generalized, "everybody has their own opinion" implying that every opinion is backed up with equally valid or equally compelling evidence ( which is not true of course )
The next paragraph in your post, whilst using a bit of 'conflation' ( telling us what is incumbent on us if we are to be considered good posters ) is not really relying on any particular propaganda technique, but is, I suspect merely another dig at Serendipity, whose acceptance by this forum is stuck firmly in your craw
Then we come to :
A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ files which are hosted on a blog site. They may be the most accurate details of the case that we have but are they 100% genuine, are they complete as released by the PJ, Given the way they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that.
At first glance that paragraph is classic 'Straw man' ... propping up an absurd hypothetical situation that never really happened ( the 'doctoring' of the police files ) but it is more than that in propaganda terms
You are also using the technique of of 'Spurious delegitimization of evidence' ... in an attempt to discredit the police files with nothing more than innuendo
And to your concluding paragraph :
Some are seen as more expert on the case than others because they have a good grasp of the files and can find details within them quickly. It would a shame if that expertise was flawed because the files themselves might not be completely accurate
You've excelled yourself there !
You incorporate a bit of the 'stroking ploy' by refering to those who refer to the police files when supporting a opinion as 'experts' on the case ... but then pick up the 'delegitimize your opponent' technique by implying their expertise might be flawed
Then it's back to the old staw man, where you, once again present the entirely hypothetical case of the police files having been tampered with in some way, and propose that this purely hypothetical suggestion somehow presents us with a dilemma
You are an accomplished propagandist Gilet, but, if I might say, you do tend to over-egg the pudding
To nick Esty's turn of phrase, if Gilet's posts all all pie crust and no filling, this is the finest fillet steak stewed slowly for hours till it's so tender it just melts in your mouth, with a gravy as thick and flavoursome as any ambrosia.
-
To nick Esty's turn of phrase, if Gilet's posts all all pie crust and no filling, this is the finest fillet steak stewed slowly for hours till it's so tender it just melts in your mouth, with a gravy as thick and flavoursome as any ambrosia.
Is that effort supposed to demonstrate intelligence or is it just a rather pathetic attempt at abuse?
Either way, it reflects very badly on the poster.
-
Goodness me ... I'm astonished at the number of propoganda techniques you managed to incorporate into a single post !
The most obvious, of course in the pure Antirationalism of the first portion of your post :
Those who claim to know the McCanns "done it", whatever that IT might be, are simply wrong. They don't know the truth about the situation.
Just as anyone who claims it is categorically a case of abduction is wrong. They don't know the truth of the matter either
What you did there was promote the idea that there are no such things as valid, reliable facts or hard evidence, just various conflicting opinions. Those who, like you, use this antirationist method of propogada often claim ;
"It's just my opinion versus your opinion and it's all so controversial that we can't really know anything for sure"
That is a dodge to avoid admitting the truth ... Yes, we can know some things for sure
There's a little bit of 'Escape via Relativism' in that section of your post too ... the generalized, "everybody has their own opinion" implying that every opinion is backed up with equally valid or equally compelling evidence ( which is not true of course )
The next paragraph in your post, whilst using a bit of 'conflation' ( telling us what is incumbent on us if we are to be considered good posters ) is not really relying on any particular propaganda technique, but is, I suspect merely another dig at Serendipity, whose acceptance by this forum is stuck firmly in your craw
Then we come to :
A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ files which are hosted on a blog site. They may be the most accurate details of the case that we have but are they 100% genuine, are they complete as released by the PJ, Given the way they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that.
At first glance that paragraph is classic 'Straw man' ... propping up an absurd hypothetical situation that never really happened ( the 'doctoring' of the police files ) but it is more than that in propaganda terms
You are also using the technique of of 'Spurious delegitimization of evidence' ... in an attempt to discredit the police files with nothing more than innuendo
And to your concluding paragraph :
Some are seen as more expert on the case than others because they have a good grasp of the files and can find details within them quickly. It would a shame if that expertise was flawed because the files themselves might not be completely accurate
You've excelled yourself there !
You incorporate a bit of the 'stroking ploy' by refering to those who refer to the police files when supporting a opinion as 'experts' on the case ... but then pick up the 'delegitimize your opponent' technique by implying their expertise might be flawed
Then it's back to the old staw man, where you, once again present the entirely hypothetical case of the police files having been tampered with in some way, and propose that this purely hypothetical suggestion somehow presents us with a dilemma
You are an accomplished propagandist Gilet, but, if I might say, you do tend to over-egg the pudding
There are three significant problems with your post.
Firstly it does not in any way answer any of the actual points I made.
Secondly it demonstrates precisely why people should not pretend to expertise which they do not possess. You have attempted to use terminology with which you are not overly familiar and have shown that lack of familiarity by being unable to use them correctly.
Thirdly, the fact that it is nothing more than a pretentious attempt at abuse shines through in a way you hoped it would not.
Not even a nice try, I am afraid.
Now, can you actually answer any of the points I made in the post or is that your best effort?
-
Is that effort supposed to demonstrate intelligence or is it just a rather pathetic attempt at abuse?
Either way, it reflects very badly on the poster.
It was praise for Icabod's excellent post. Not everything is about you.
If I wanted to be abusive, you notice words along the lines of "oh shut up you pompous old windbag"
Since my post contained non of the above, you can rest assured that nothing I wrote was aimed at you.
-
As John has said...posters can be judged by their posts...and serendipity's post did not impress
-
As John has said...posters can be judged by their posts...and serendipity's post did not impress
Perhaps that should be judged in context.
i.e. If more information is ever revealed.
-
Perhaps that should be judged in context.
i.e. If more information is ever revealed.
One of her first posts sated that Amnesty was now not listing amaral re torture, as it had been established that torture had not taken place....the post is still there...
This is 100% wrong...That's one thing that I have judged her on
-
Was Serendipity ever declared an expert on torture?
serendipity was never declared an expert on anything..and quite rightly to by the standard of her posts
-
serendipity was never declared an expert on anything..and quite rightly to by the standard of her posts
So davel, why exactly should we take your word on anything either ???
P.S. Are you disputing what John said about Serendipity ?
-
So davel, why exactly should we take your word on anything either ???
everyone should use their own judgement...
-
everyone should use their own judgement...
Indeed we do. 8)-)))
-
So davel, why exactly should we take your word on anything either ???
P.S. Are you disputing what John said about Serendipity ?
Just seen your PS..What did john say?...not a lot...very vague...called her the real deal...asked him what this meant but never got an answer
-
Just seen your PS..What did john say?...not a lot...very vague...called her the real deal...asked him what this meant but never got an answer
Serendipity is the real deal. His/her knowledge of Grime and the dogs is extensive. They are not an expert, never ever claimed to be an expert so lets keep a sense of proportion about these issues.
I was not aware of the comments about Amnesty International but it is true that they no longer list the Cipriano case within their material on torture. Putting a paper bag over ones head and hitting it with a cardboard tube must rank amongst the most subtle of torture techniques ever. Serendipity merely pointed out that Leonor was found guilty of lying about the torture.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2690.msg91456#msg91456
-
Serendipity is the real deal. His/her knowledge of Grime and the dogs is extensive. They are not an expert, never ever claimed to be an expert so lets keep a sense of proportion about these issues.
I was not aware of the comments about Amnesty International but it is true that they no longer list the Cipriano case within their material on torture. Putting a paper bag over ones head and hitting it with a cardboard tube must rank amongst the most subtle of torture techniques ever.
thanks for clearing that up John. Amnesty no longer list the cipriano case because it is concluded ...not as serendipity claimed...that amnesty accepted that torture had not taken place..this was a gross misrepresentation of the facts by serendipity..the post is still there for all to check
-
Didn't want to start yet another new thread just for this so put it here because it shows "expertise" by a 3-yr old boy in getting out of door alone and going exactly where he aimed, the indirect relevance to the case being that its an example that a child can leave a property alone (and also that a child can get into a small place you would not expect them to be able to).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/missing-boy-found-in-bowling-alley-claw-machine-9265142.html
-
Didn't want to start yet another new thread just for this so put it here because it shows "expertise" by a 3-yr old boy in getting out of door alone and going exactly where he aimed, the indirect relevance to the case being that its an example that a child can leave a property alone (and also that a child can get into a small place you would not expect them to be able to).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/missing-boy-found-in-bowling-alley-claw-machine-9265142.html
Indeed, some children and especially the precocious ones can be unpredictable.