If The Germans Have It Almost In The Bag...

[Eleanor]

This is the first forum I've been on where goading is even registered. If there's a rule, and that's odd in itself, what's the definition? Or is it just when a moderator decides it is?
The term goading is so ambiguous and subjective that it's impossible to define. Just keep it as 'abuse' or not and leave it there, otherwise 90% of posts could be flagged as goading. Including this one.

Moderators function on the rules laid down by John.

This Forum isn't a Democracy.  So take it up with John.

[jassi]

A bit more than "Teensy" but it is a question and consequentially debatable.  However, Brietta is more than capable of defending herself against spurious accusations.

But who is to decide what is spurious?

[Eleanor]

But who is to decide what is spurious?

John.

[Vertigo Swirl]

This is the first forum I've been on where goading is even registered. If there's a rule, and that's odd in itself, what's the definition? Or is it just when a moderator decides it is?
The term goading is so ambiguous and subjective that it's impossible to define. Just keep it as 'abuse' or not and leave it there, otherwise 90% of posts could be flagged as goading. Including this one.

I've had numerous warnings for goading.  Also outlawed is sarcasm, calling someone a troll, claiming Madeleine was abducted, expressing an opinion without using "IMO" at the end of it.  It's very strict here...

[Vertigo Swirl]

Incidentally my last warning was on February 11th.  Now, I haven't turned over a new leaf so what the hell is going on?  Are the Mods on strike?

[jassi]

John.

Well that's reassuring   

[G-Unit]

Incidentally my last warning was on February 11th.  Now, I haven't turned over a new leaf so what the hell is going on?  Are the Mods on strike?

A lack of warnings doesn't equate to a lack of moderation.

[Eleanor]

Incidentally my last warning was on February 11th.  Now, I haven't turned over a new leaf so what the hell is going on?  Are the Mods on strike?

I suspect that John might have got a bit fed up with the overuse of such.

[Lace]

He released the number, if it was registered they would know who it belonged to, ergo, it was a burner - and he was looking for the person it belonged to. It was a hail Mary play that didn't pay off. That's why we're another 18 months down the line.
Is this the way of things round here, cherry pick, mangle and reply to your manufactured point?
'Clearly unsuccessful' pertains to the 'clearly unsuccessful' appeal for the caller. Quite why you expanded that to encompass the entirety of the British and German investigations only you know.

Maybe the Police were hoping the person had rang other people using the burner,   that they would recognise the number.   Doesn't look like it.    IMO the phone was used just to contact CB alone,   an accomplice IMO.

[Eleanor]

Maybe the Police were hoping the person had rang other people using the burner,   that they would recognise the number.   Doesn't look like it.    IMO the phone was used just to contact CB alone,   an accomplice IMO.

If it's a burner then that alone is suspicious.  And since the call lasted half an hour then Breuckner must know who it was.

[barrier]

If it's a burner then that alone is suspicious.  And since the call lasted half an hour then Breuckner must know who it was.

A simple payg would likely be the order of the day back then, contract were expensive .The i phone a must for those who like to look at themselves in the mirror only came out then .

[Wonderfulspam]

If it's a burner then that alone is suspicious.  And since the call lasted half an hour then Breuckner must know who it was.

Mobile phones didn't need to be registered circa 2007.
Most of my early phones were unregistered.

[barrier]

Maybe the Police were hoping the person had rang other people using the burner,   that they would recognise the number.   Doesn't look like it.    IMO the phone was used just to contact CB alone,  an accomplice IMO.

In what exactly ? being there ? shock horror men/women who reside in Luz parish use mobile phone , not forgetting the mobiles sent OG on a wild goose chase.

[G-Unit]

If it's a burner then that alone is suspicious.  And since the call lasted half an hour then Breuckner must know who it was.

I don't think it  can be assumed that unregistered phones are always suspicious. Neither can it be assumed that someone was a) using a certain phone or b) if he was, that he would remember a conversation 14 years later.

[Eleanor]

A simple payg would likely be the order of the day back then, contract were expensive .The i phone a must for those who like to look at themselves in the mirror only came out then .

But Breuckner must still know who it was.