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

[Redblossom]

The fss examination of the hair was pathetic......the scientist there went on colour? As to whther he tested or discarded any hair.....hello?  fss was also tasked to check the hair for death banding ....no response recorded..........

[colombosstogey]

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.  I only need the proof of their innocence because as far as I can see there is NON. The dogs have proven to me they are guilty of some crime. I would like however to have some PROOF of their innocence but sadly you have not given me ANY.   The DOGS NEVER LIE woof woof.

Thank you for an excellent practical demonstration of this effect.

No sadly you have proved mine. What did you answer a load of physco babble to try and prove how clever you are (or not).  8-)(--)

I have typed my answer in red for you to read.

Your not worthy I am afraid of genuine debate and sadly I have to bid you adieu AGAIN, as I cannot be bothered to read your posts anymore. IGNORED.

[Rogerandout]

sedative - noun;

a drug taken for its calming or sleep-inducing effect:

No dispute with the definition of the Oxford English dictionary definition of 'sedative' as far as I am concerned, in a contextual matter !

That is not how the words are used by professional medics. As I have pointed out, dictionaries register usage rather than real meaning.

[Rogerandout]

No sadly you have proved mine. What did you answer a load of physco babble to try and prove how clever you are (or not).  8-)(--)

I have typed my answer in red for you to read.

Your not worthy I am afraid of genuine debate and sadly I have to bid you adieu AGAIN, as I cannot be bothered to read your posts anymore. IGNORED.

I will ask you not to amend the quotes of my posts.

What I posted was:

"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."

It did not have "The Dogs never Lie woof woof" which is as stupid as it is incorrect dogs cannot lie but scientifically it is shown that they may be in error.

You seem incapable of seeing the point.

All I ever say is "We do not have enough evidence to make any decision". Unless evidence of persuasive nature is produced by the accusers (including you) my statement still holds. I do not need to substantiate the lack of evidence- it is up to you to provide it. This is a well known discovery method used in forensics and science. If you do not understand this, then you are incapable of real debate.

[Rogerandout]

I think you'll find that it is -

Publishers of http://www.oxforddictionaries.com are the Oxford University Press,

who are -

http://www.ox.ac.uk/ - Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.

It is not from the same stable as the full OED.

Let me explain for people who have a problem with understanding

The OED is a multi-volume dictionary that is seen as the best source for English usage in England. It has thirteen volumes in the edition I have from about twenty years ago- the last print edition; it is called the Oxford English Dictionary. It has a smaller brother which in two volumes describes a reduced level of definition for each word; it is called the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. There is the most commonly used single volume version; it is called the Concise Oxford English Dictionary.

About thirty years ago Robert Maxwell IIRC realised that there was a problem with the Trade Mark of the Oxfors Dictionaries, and as his affairs were conducted in Oxford at Paergamon Press, he started publishing what was essentially a knock-off dictionary published under the name Oxford Dictionaries.

Now OED had substantial records of all English usage going back over 150 years in their offices in St Giles. Maxwell's hacks in Pergamon Press produced cheap dictionaries using secondary materials as they squatted on the Oxfors name. These dictionaries have never been seen as serious competitors for the various other standards- Collins, Chambers, OED etc. Maxwell won a court case over the use of the name through the stupidity of the OED lawyers. More recently, the Oxford University Press bought out the new owners of the cheap Oxford dictionaries and are currently updating and correcting them to bring them into line with modern dictionary practice, in an attempt to save their reputation.

The Concise OED defines

sedation as "calming, especially by a sedative drug"

and

Sedative as tending to calm and soothe

and sedate as ...tranquil, equable, composed, settled, not-impulsive or lively or agitated.


None of these are quite how professionals use the terms which are:

Sedative- lowering agitation and encouraging clouding of consciousness

Analgesic- assuaging pain

Anesthetic- removing all pain

Hypnotic- encouraging sleep.


Let me assure you that if you were to have a minor operation ( brain removal for instance) and the doctor gave you only sedation rather than analgesia  or anesthetic, you would be complaining.

Analgesia is not sedation. Sedation is not analgesia

[colombosstogey]

Just to assist those who may not be aware of it, Rogerandout is debunker back here again, causing trouble as usual.  Even after his last pm-based spectacular flounce he's back in here once more pretending to be someone else.  You have to wonder why he keeps on bothering to do this.

Mods/Admin - why do you persistently let this disruptive person come on here causing trouble?

Thanks hun, I knew he was debunker and isnt he also Aiofe I have him on ignore but sometimes I just have to peak and see if he actually has posted anything to do with the case lol....but sadly I am never disappointed.

[colombosstogey]

Hmm, where have I seen this before?  Oh yes:

Just look at who wrote it. He's hopeless at hiding behind these digital masks.

The trouble is if you are a liar you have to have a GREAT MEMORY LOL.

[Lace]

I found his explanation of sedative very interesting.   

[Cariad]

If we all know it's Debunker and Debunker knows we all know, why do we have to play this rather tiresome game of pretend?

I admit that I was a doubter at the very beginning. He through me with his comments of the Hitchhiker's guide. It has become increasingly obvious though.

Debunker, since you so obviously want to be here, why don't you apologise for whatever it was you did to get yourself banned in the first place, ask to be reinstated with your original user name then play by the rules so you don't get banned again?

That's what the rest of us have to do.

[stephen25000]

Debunker says a lot of things that are interesting.  But some people are too thick to realize.

Debunker, as you know has been expelled from this forum on several occasions.

He has claimed a multiple of different professions, most recently as a pharmacist, I believe.

The 'knowledge' he quoted on here is readily available on simple research, and for some of us, already known,

[stephen25000]

It's an intellect thing.  Some people want to learn and some people don't.

'Some people want to learn....'

Which through logical interpretation means if you follow the mccann line fine, and if you don't..................

[slartibartfast]

It appears to me after a short time on here that the whole spectrum of opinions is generally tolerated by the majority of the members, which is great. There are however a few posters who just want to score points. I must admit that the title of this thread appears the wrong way round.

[Lyall]

The problem with this forum is there are too many ego's,  all fighting to score points.

Debunker might well have been expelled,  but I look at the posts not the poster.    It seems to me that Debunker seems to go off the rails when provoked and I think this is done on purpose by some people.

Debunker has a lot of very interesting information,  that some of us would like to hear.

Pomposity will eat itself. Eventually.

That's his problem, not ours.

[carlymichelle]

Likewise.

This matter of posting using different I.D's has gone on far too long.

it only proves too that in their hearts of  hearts they know there was no abductor  and they know the mcanns are guilty  of child neglect at least imo

[slartibartfast]

As usual your limited logic, intelligence and general competence let you down.  What you state does not support what you claim.

I follow the Holmes school...

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

Trouble is, there is still a lot of "anti" indications that haven't been eliminated and only Smithman for the "pros"