Why People who suspect the McCanns get so angry at People who do not.

[Rogerandout]

My beliefs require no evidence, my mind is free.
Yours is hindered by morals & political correctness it would seem.

Not political correctness, merely moral, legal and scientific model.

[Wonderfulspam]

Not political correctness, merely moral, legal and scientific model.

Hindered nonetheless.

[pathfinder73]

When they found scent at 5A that was a good indication of what may have happened but when they found it again in the hire car and on the clothes then that's not merely a coincidence, there's a connection IMO. That is a misleading subject title and not the truth from what I've found on this forum, rather the opposite.

[Rogerandout]

I dont get angry with people who believe the McCanns no way.

I just get frustrated because in general the people who believe the McCanns only come onto the forums to disrupt the threads.

When you ask them a question it is usally answered by another question. They dont seem to have a mind of their own sadly and just go on verbatim all the time about the dogs and the DISGRACED AMARAL.

It does get tiring.

What really annoys me is I am on the fence and would quite like to have a proper grown up discussion sometimes with people who support them, but it never works that way, as the pros always end up being rude in the end.

Again your subject: Why People who suspect the McCanns get so angry at People who do not.


IS INCITFUL as usual.

Why?

I end up ignoring most of you as you cant have a decent discussion without be personal.

Its YOU or nothing...pro McCann or nothing.

There must be no room for doubters...its almost like a cult or relgion it is quite bizarre.

Even though i am on the fence, I am still open minded to evidence and ideas etc, and could be swayed if the right arguement was used.

Thank you for proving my point.

You see rational scientific, moral and forensic requirement for proof as disruption because we have no need to prove anything to support our beliefs whereas you do need this proof.

Thank you for an excellent practical demonstration of this effect.

[Rogerandout]

Hindered nonetheless.

Define which 'morals' hinder my view and define what you mean by 'political correctness.'

[slartibartfast]

The McCann's being uninvolved is the moral, rational assumption... Snip

Why?

[Redblossom]

I dont get angry with people who believe the McCanns no way.

I just get frustrated because in general the people who believe the McCanns only come onto the forums to disrupt the threads.

When you ask them a question it is usally answered by another question. They dont seem to have a mind of their own sadly and just go on verbatim all the time about the dogs and the DISGRACED AMARAL.

It does get tiring.

What really annoys me is I am on the fence and would quite like to have a proper grown up discussion sometimes with people who support them, but it never works that way, as the pros always end up being rude in the end.

Again your subject: Why People who suspect the McCanns get so angry at People who do not.


IS INCITFUL as usual.

Why?

I end up ignoring most of you as you cant have a decent discussion without be personal.

Its YOU or nothing...pro McCann or nothing.

There must be no room for doubters...its almost like a cult or relgion it is quite bizarre.

Even though i am on the fence, I am still open minded to evidence and ideas etc, and could be swayed if the right arguement was used.

Well said!

The thread title could be taken to suggest that those who believe the mccanns do not get angry....funny....

 

and quite right you are, people can believe and thnk what they want, its within their rights, but if they start throwing out rubbish, disinformation as fact, unsolicited personal abuse,constant indiscriminate name calling, stomping their feet and pontificating from some moral highground at others then of course people will get annoyed....its the attitude and words not the beliefs....you talk about civil debate, very hard with some....nigh on impossible wih others...also no one likes being told how and what to think and how to behave....brass neck at best

[Wonderfulspam]

The McCann's being uninvolved is the moral, rational and legal assumption, and no evidence is necessary to maintain this. If one believes in the possible guilt of the McCann's, one needs to produce evidence; I do not have to do so for my belief.

Define which 'morals' hinder my view and define what you mean by 'political correctness.'

It was you who spoke of morals was it not?

And for politicaly correct, see above.

[Wonderfulspam]

Well said!

The thread title could be taken to suggest that those who believe the mccanns do not get angry....funny....

 

and quite right you are, people can believe and thnk what they want, its within their rights, but if they start throwing out rubbish, disinformation as fact, unsolicited personal abuse,constant indiscriminate name calling, stomping their feet and pontificating from some moral highground at others then of course people will get annoyed....its the attitude and words not the beliefs....you talk about civil debate, very hard with some....nigh on impossible wih others...

"pontificating from some moral highground at others"

Quite.

[AnneGuedes]

Well said!

The thread title could be taken to suggest that those who believe the mccanns do not get angry....funny....

 

and quite right you are, people can believe and thnk what they want, its within their rights, but if they start throwing out rubbish, disinformation as fact, unsolicited personal abuse,constant indiscriminate name calling, stomping their feet and pontificating from some moral highground at others then of course people will get annoyed....its the attitude and words not the beliefs....you talk about civil debate, very hard with some....nigh on impossible wih others...also no one likes being told how and what to think and how to behave....brass neck at best

[Lyall]

Roger, your OP says more about you and what it is you actually care about.

[ferryman]

If you go by Amaral's version of events, Kate found Madeleine dead.  He insists that because Eddie picked up certain items of her clothing.

Kate makes a gruesome discovery (the body of her loved and cherished daughter).

Gerry is oblivious and unaware in the restaurant.

Kate pulls herself together, returns to the restaurant, communicates traumatic news to Gerry (without anyone else noticing) and Gerry pulls himself together, exists the restaurant, returns to the apartment, scoops up the body of his daughter, whisks the body past the noses of Smiths, hides (Amaral's exact word) Madeleine's body on the beach, and returns to the restaurant.

Meanwhile Kate absences herself a second time from the restaurant and re-enters (before Gerry has even got down to the beach) to raise a fake alarm.

That is arrant nonsense. 

The worse nonsense even Amaral himself rejects, before May 3rd.

For anything Amaral proposes to have the slightest chance of being right, there would have to be evidence of Kate and Gerry being simultaneously absent from the restaurant at some point between their joint arrival and Kate's alert.

There is none

Neither a plausible explanation of what might have happened to the remains of Madeleine between May 3rd and when the Renault was hired.

[Eleanor]

Roger, your OP says more about you and what it is you actually care about.

Roger cares about The Rule of Law.  Are you saying that you don't?

[Wonderfulspam]

If you go by Amaral's version of events, Kate found Madeleine dead.  He insists that because Eddie picked up certain items of her clothing.

Kate makes a gruesome discovery (the body of her loved and cherished daughter).

Gerry is oblivious and unaware in the restaurant.

Kate pulls herself together, returns to the restaurant, communicates traumatic news to Gerry (without anyone else noticing) and Gerry pulls himself together, exists the restaurant, returns to the apartment, scoops up the body of his daughter, whisks the body past the noses of Smiths, hides (Amaral's exact word) Madeleine's body on the beach, and returns to the restaurant.

Meanwhile Kate absences herself a second time from the restaurant and re-enters (before Gerry has even got down to the beach) to raise a fake alarm.

That is arrant nonsense. 

The worse nonsense even Amaral himself rejects, before May 3rd.

For anything Amaral proposes to have the slightest chance of being right, there would have to be evidence of Kate and Gerry being simultaneously absent from the restaurant at some point between their joint arrival and Kate's alert.

There is none

Neither a plausible explanation of what might have happened to the remains of Madeleine between May 3rd and when the Renault was hired.

"If you go by Amaral's version of events"

I don't.

I think before May 3rd is more likely.

[ferryman]

"If you go by Amaral's version of events"

I don't.

I think before May 3rd is more likely.

There had to be some reason for your username ...