Sunny's request for cites

[Vertigo Swirl]

Can I just observe that I have been a member of numerous forums over the years and this is the only one where discussion has been continually stifled and disrupted by demands for cites.  Can I suggest we all follow Shining’s advice and deal with all posts on a take it or leave it basis?  If someone posts something you clearly think is lies or unproven, say so, give your reasons for saying so, provide cites of your own if you so wish and leave it to the other to stump up the counter cite if they so wish.  We can then all make up our own minds about the veracity of the claim.  Or is that too sensible?

[Mr Gray]

It’s all about trying to score points IMO.  And stifle debate.

The only reason I demanded a cite with faux outrage  from sunny was to show how ridiculous  the whole thing is... Personally I couldn't give a monkeys

[G-Unit]

In discussions people use both fact and opinion to make their points. The reader needs to know which are which in order to reply. I will use an example.

A poster posted that the people who left apartment 5J on the morning of 4th weren't interviewed by the Police.

That post is saying that there were people staying in 5J, that they left oh 4th, and that the police failed to speak to them.

As far as I know none of that is true. The cleaner of Block 5 said;

when the child disappeared only apartments A, B, D, G, H and K were occupied.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_CLEANER.htm

The booking sheets also show no occupancy of 5J, so where did the poster get the information that 5J was occupied? I have asked but have been ignored.

The poster was posting as fact something that was clearly not a fact in my opinion. They were using this invented fact to criticise the Portuguese police too.

I don't think it's acceptable to mislead others about the facts of the case. Without cites being required that would happen all the time. It puts the onus on the reader to go and find information to refute the misleading information when the onus should be on the one who posted it.

[Robittybob1]

For accuracy I think cites are necessary. 

[Mr Gray]

In discussions people use both fact and opinion to make their points. The reader needs to know which are which in order to reply. I will use an example.

A poster posted that the people who left apartment 5J on the morning of 4th weren't interviewed by the Police.

That post is saying that there were people staying in 5J, that they left oh 4th, and that the police failed to speak to them.

As far as I know none of that is true. The cleaner of Block 5 said;

when the child disappeared only apartments A, B, D, G, H and K were occupied.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_CLEANER.htm

The booking sheets also show no occupancy of 5J, so where did the poster get the information that 5J was occupied? I have asked but have been ignored.

The poster was posting as fact something that was clearly not a fact in my opinion. They were using this invented fact to criticise the Portuguese police too.

I don't think it's acceptable to mislead others about the facts of the case. Without cites being required that would happen all the time. It puts the onus on the reader to go and find information to refute the misleading information when the onus should be on the one who posted it.

so what do you think should happen to those who point blank refuse to give cite...such as sil recently

[Angelo222]

Can I just observe that I have been a member of numerous forums over the years and this is the only one where discussion has been continually stifled and disrupted by demands for cites.  Can I suggest we all follow Shining’s advice and deal with all posts on a take it or leave it basis?  If someone posts something you clearly think is lies or unproven, say so, give your reasons for saying so, provide cites of your own if you so wish and leave it to the other to stump up the counter cite if they so wish.  We can then all make up our own minds about the veracity of the claim.  Or is that too sensible?

Can I add that members can report anything to admin at any time if they feel it is inappropriate.

[Brietta]

In discussions people use both fact and opinion to make their points. The reader needs to know which are which in order to reply. I will use an example.

A poster posted that the people who left apartment 5J on the morning of 4th weren't interviewed by the Police.

That post is saying that there were people staying in 5J, that they left oh 4th, and that the police failed to speak to them.

As far as I know none of that is true. The cleaner of Block 5 said;

when the child disappeared only apartments A, B, D, G, H and K were occupied.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_CLEANER.htm

The booking sheets also show no occupancy of 5J, so where did the poster get the information that 5J was occupied? I have asked but have been ignored.

The poster was posting as fact something that was clearly not a fact in my opinion. They were using this invented fact to criticise the Portuguese police too.

I don't think it's acceptable to mislead others about the facts of the case. Without cites being required that would happen all the time. It puts the onus on the reader to go and find information to refute the misleading information when the onus should be on the one who posted it.

One thing which is a problem regarding bona fide cites is when they are truncated or taken out of context to present a particular entrenched point of view.

Maria Julia Serafim da Silva: cleaner

Regarding her job, she points out that she is the person who is responsible for cleaning Block 5,

more specifically apartments A, B, C, D, H, I, K, L, M and P,

and also states that when the child disappeared only apartments A, B, D, G, H and K were occupied.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_CLEANER.htm


The cleaner's statement about occupation refers only to the apartments which she cleaned ... one of which is NOT listed is apartment 5J.

Therefore what the cleaner is reported as saying in the files is accurate. 

But to use it as a cite maintaining which apartments were occupied or not occupied is misleading and inaccurate since her comment is only about the areas of her responsibility ... she makes absolutely no reference to the status of the other apartments in the block.

[G-Unit]

note to gunit....so it seems you are happy when sceptics dont give cites but only criticise supporters.....that does indicate quite a heavy bias in your views

I haven't said I'm happy when 'sceptics' don't give cites. That's just your assumption. I interact mostly with 'supporters', so it's their lack of cites that I notice, just as you notice the lack of 'sceptic' cites.

[G-Unit]

One thing which is a problem regarding bona fide cites is when they are truncated or taken out of context to present a particular entrenched point of view.

Maria Julia Serafim da Silva: cleaner

Regarding her job, she points out that she is the person who is responsible for cleaning Block 5,

more specifically apartments A, B, C, D, H, I, K, L, M and P,

and also states that when the child disappeared only apartments A, B, D, G, H and K were occupied.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_CLEANER.htm


The cleaner's statement about occupation refers only to the apartments which she cleaned ... one of which is NOT listed is apartment 5J.

Therefore what the cleaner is reported as saying in the files is accurate. 

But to use it as a cite maintaining which apartments were occupied or not occupied is misleading and inaccurate since her comment is only about the areas of her responsibility ... she makes absolutely no reference to the status of the other apartments in the block.

I am still awaiting a cite to support the original statement that 5J was occupied and that those occupants left on 4th May 2007. Had that cite been provided mine would not have been needed.

[Mr Gray]

I haven't said I'm happy when 'sceptics' don't give cites. That's just your assumption. I interact mostly with 'supporters', so it's their lack of cites that I notice, just as you notice the lack of 'sceptic' cites.

I don't believe  you.... You are happy to condemn supporters but not sceptics Re cites.... It's this bias you display that causes the whole thing to break down... Could you give  a cite that I don't notice lack of supporters cites

[G-Unit]

I don't believe  you.... You are happy to condemn supporters but not sceptics Re cites.... It's this bias you display that causes the whole thing to break down... Could you give  a cite that I don't notice lack of supporters cites

I replied yo your accusation and will leave it there if you don't mind. I have no desire to enter into pointless arguments with you about my thoughts and motives.

[Mr Gray]

I replied yo your accusation and will leave it there if you don't mind. I have no desire to enter into pointless arguments with you about my thoughts and motives.

I have every right to answer your posts... If you are going to condemn lack of cites then you should condemn the actions of all posters... The fact you don't want to indicates bias and is one of the reasons the rules don't work

[Brietta]

I am still awaiting a cite to support the original statement that 5J was occupied and that those occupants left on 4th May 2007. Had that cite been provided mine would not have been needed.

So easily resolved by an "in my opinion" in my opinion ... which doesn't address the conundrum of your misleading cite.

The cite you chose to provide is inaccurate because it did not provide all the information required to properly allow for independent assessment of the part you were making it say.

You used it to mistakenly confirm that the only apartments occupied in block 5 were A, B, C, D, H, I, K, L, M and P. 
Whereas we know Mr and Mrs Moyes were in residence as was Mrs Fenn ... so who else?  I doubt we will ever know that.

But what we do know is that the cleaner referred only to those apartments associated with her employment with Mark Warner and which she cleaned.

Did Thomas Cook have a similar arrangement with owners in that block? and what about owners two of whom we know were in residence because they came forward and identified themselves?

In my opinion you are blinkered to the fact that you supplied correct information to the forum but you rendered it inaccurate and misleading because of your presentation of it and that must be a consideration when supplying cites ~ they must be supplied in a trustworthy manner or they are worse than useless.

[G-Unit]

So easily resolved by an "in my opinion" in my opinion ... which doesn't address the conundrum of your misleading cite.

The cite you chose to provide is inaccurate because it did not provide all the information required to properly allow for independent assessment of the part you were making it say.

You used it to mistakenly confirm that the only apartments occupied in block 5 were A, B, C, D, H, I, K, L, M and P. 
Whereas we know Mr and Mrs Moyes were in residence as was Mrs Fenn ... so who else?  I doubt we will ever know that.

But what we do know is that the cleaner referred only to those apartments associated with her employment with Mark Warner and which she cleaned.

Did Thomas Cook have a similar arrangement with owners in that block? and what about owners two of whom we know were in residence because they came forward and identified themselves?

In my opinion you are blinkered to the fact that you supplied correct information to the forum but you rendered it inaccurate and misleading because of your presentation of it and that must be a consideration when supplying cites ~ they must be supplied in a trustworthy manner or they are worse than useless.

Are you saying that the original post was an opinion, even though it seemed to be being posted as a fact?

[Vertigo Swirl]

In discussions people use both fact and opinion to make their points. The reader needs to know which are which in order to reply. I will use an example.

A poster posted that the people who left apartment 5J on the morning of 4th weren't interviewed by the Police.

That post is saying that there were people staying in 5J, that they left oh 4th, and that the police failed to speak to them.

As far as I know none of that is true. The cleaner of Block 5 said;

when the child disappeared only apartments A, B, D, G, H and K were occupied.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_CLEANER.htm

The booking sheets also show no occupancy of 5J, so where did the poster get the information that 5J was occupied? I have asked but have been ignored.

The poster was posting as fact something that was clearly not a fact in my opinion. They were using this invented fact to criticise the Portuguese police too.

I don't think it's acceptable to mislead others about the facts of the case. Without cites being required that would happen all the time. It puts the onus on the reader to go and find information to refute the misleading information when the onus should be on the one who posted it.

When you watch the news on TV or read the newspapers they don't stop after every piece of information to provide a cite.  If you dispute what is said and can be bothered to find out more, do it yourself in your own time, otherwise it gets tiresome, repetitive and disruptive.  In any case this is only a chat forum, not a court of law, it would help if everyone didn't take themselves and their research oh so seriously all the time.  It's perfectly possible to research this case without interacting with a single McCanns supporter you know!  All in my opinion.