Has the McCann's Actions Turned a Supportive Public Against Them ?

[Angelo222]

It appears you are the one under illusion

Let's have some meat on that argument Dave.  One liners just don't cut it.   

[sadie]

Be under no illusion, there are details about what happened the night Maddie was abducted which are not as they might at first appear.  There was a fabrication but it wasn't the one Mr Amaral came up with.

That's a big statement Angelo.

would you care to elaborate?  Please

[stephen25000]

It is very difficult to assess exactly what the McCann's position is in the public eye.

I have noticed that even within the Daily Mail readership, there seems to be more support than I previously thought. Most replies to McCann articles were anti-McCann, but this assesses determination to post over real analysis of beliefs. Perhaps the [ censored word] are more angry, vindictive and blaming than the pros are relaxed, excusing and forgiving, meaning that [ censored word] are more likely to post. We cannot know.

But since the Mail altered its approve/disapprove voting system where it now takes just a button press to vote, most 'pro' posts have a good majority of green thumbs up whereas most 'anti' posts have a majority of red thumbs down.

Previously they only listed the reds minus the greens as a single total, but now you can see that some posts have many votes in favour of the McCanns. Given that the Anti sites (who have much larger memberships than any pro site) regularly have threads to 'get the vote out' on Mail and other threads, I tend to believe that there is a solid majority of "Very pro, mildly Pro, generally forgiving and don't really cares" over the people who believe that the McCanns are culpable for anything more than rather doubtful childcare.

The Mail is hardly representative, as comments are screened before being printed on the web, so it is of little consequence.

A more fairer sample of public opinion can be seen on the yahoo comments pages, where there is moderation, but opinions across the spread of views are allowed.

There are of course some nutters from both sides of the fence, and their posts and the posters themselves invariably get banned.

So I suggest you have a look at those to see 'public opinion'.

[Mr Gray]

Be under no illusion, there are details about what happened the night Maddie was abducted which are not as they might at first appear.  There was a fabrication but it wasn't the one Mr Amaral came up with.

 OK Angelo...you made this statement...what do you have to back it up ...nothing

[Mr Gray]

The Mail is hardly representative, as comments are screened before being printed on the web, so it is of little consequence.

A more fairer sample of public opinion can be seen on the yahoo comments pages, where there is moderation, but opinions across the spread of views are allowed.

There are of course some nutters from both sides of the fence, and their posts and the posters themselves invariably get banned.

So I suggest you have a look at those to see 'public opinion'.

 

statistics obviously  never was your strong point

[stephen25000]

statistics obviously  never was your strong point

Wrong yet again.

I teach Stats.

 

[Aiofe]

The Mail is hardly representative, as comments are screened before being printed on the web, so it is of little consequence.

A more fairer sample of public opinion can be seen on the yahoo comments pages, where there is moderation, but opinions across the spread of views are allowed.

There are of course some nutters from both sides of the fence, and their posts and the posters themselves invariably get banned.

So I suggest you have a look at those to see 'public opinion'.

Try reading what I posted. Likes and dislikes are not moderated. Likes and dislikes seem to favour the McCann's.

[stephen25000]

Try reading what I posted. Likes and dislikes are not moderated. Likes and dislikes seem to favour the McCann's.

Try reading what I posted.

he comments on the mail are first censored, i.e. many comments never get on the web site.

I wasn't talking about the voting.

[Luz]

Fortunately more and more people are starting to open their eyes to this shameful case of obfuscation and lies.

It's high time that those that are guilty, at least of making money over a poor child's fate, to be finally unmasked.

[Aiofe]

Try reading what I posted.

he comments on the mail are first censored, i.e. many comments never get on the web site.

I wasn't talking about the voting.

But I was and that is my point- the votes suggest that the anti McCann's are in a minority, given the Oro bias on votes on both pro and anti comments.

[Aiofe]

Fortunately more and more people are starting to open their eyes to this shameful case of obfuscation and lies.

It's high time that those that are guilty, at least of making money over a poor child's fate, to be finally unmasked.

And your evidence for that statement is.....

[Aiofe]

Wrong yet again.

I teach Stats.

 

Just gone back to the text I used some fifty years ago. The example it gives is that recent research shows that statistically fifty per cent of people will die from smoking related diseases. But that tells you nothing about an individual who smokes heavily and survives to be a centenarian. It points out that statistics predicts group outcomes but is silent on specifics.

It is much the same as stochastic in Brownian motion- group behaviour is predicted but such stochastic processes cannot predict individual molecular behaviour.

[Luz]

It is very difficult to assess exactly what the McCann's position is in the public eye.

I have noticed that even within the Daily Mail readership, there seems to be more support than I previously thought. Most replies to McCann articles were anti-McCann, but this assesses determination to post over real analysis of beliefs. Perhaps the [ censored word] are more angry, vindictive and blaming than the pros are relaxed, excusing and forgiving, meaning that [ censored word] are more likely to post. We cannot know.

But since the Mail altered its approve/disapprove voting system where it now takes just a button press to vote, most 'pro' posts have a good majority of green thumbs up whereas most 'anti' posts have a majority of red thumbs down.

Previously they only listed the reds minus the greens as a single total, but now you can see that some posts have many votes in favour of the McCanns. Given that the Anti sites (who have much larger memberships than any pro site) regularly have threads to 'get the vote out' on Mail and other threads, I tend to believe that there is a solid majority of "Very pro, mildly Pro, generally forgiving and don't really cares" over the people who believe that the McCanns are culpable for anything more than rather doubtful childcare.

The online newspapers won't allow comments. Well, the majority. And when they do they tend to exclude criticism  over the McCann. If they allowed a totally free comment line, I bet 99% would be critical towards the McCann.

[stephen25000]

But I was and that is my point- the votes suggest that the anti McCann's are in a minority, given the Oro bias on votes on both pro and anti comments.

i.e. you assume the mail is representative.

N..B. People can only vote on the comments given, and not all sent to the mail are posted.

[Mr Gray]

Wrong yet again.

I teach Stats.

 

right again..there are so many poor teachers...have you not heard of random samples...that would be a true representation of the british public