Investigation into McCann internet trolls launched by police

[Alfred R Jones]

The guy who made the death threats I posted earlier, who is followed by a number of McCann sceptics including Sonia Poulton, is he classed as a h8er, a sceptic, or both out of interest?  Do you stop being a member of the sceptic club when you post something abusive, hateful or threatening?  Just wondering what the rules are...

[slartibartfast]

Seven years of daily criticism crosses the line and did so many years ago IMO.  But of course it isn't just criticism is it, as well we know.   so far, not one "sceptic" on here has chosen to condemn online abuse of the McCanns, and one has publicly given it the thumbs up.

Criticism doesn't become abuse because it continues.

Most doubters here have condemned serious abuse and threats to the McCanns and don't see the point in repeating it ad nauseum. We can criticise, point at problems with their testimony, highlight other facts without abusing anyone.

WS just provides a counter balance to yourself, Davel and the choir.

[Alice Purjorick]

Can anyone shed light on what a h8er is and why Alf keeps referring to them?
Are they some kind of tribe like the Fagarwe? or is he just being sneaky to get round forum rules?
What say you Mods and Admin?

[Alfred R Jones]

Criticism doesn't become abuse because it continues.

Most doubters here have condemned serious abuse and threats to the McCanns and don't see the point in repeating it ad nauseum. We can criticise, point at problems with their testimony, highlight other facts without abusing anyone.

WS just provides a counter balance to yourself, Davel and the choir.

So the troll provides a valuable service to the oh-so-innocent criticisers like you then.  Quite.

[Alfred R Jones]

Is it against forum rules to discuss h8ers in the abstract then?  I thought the word was banned so it was not used to abuse another forum member.  What word then is acceptable to the mods to describe the large bunch of individuals who, in their leisure time like pour scorn and vitriol on the McCanns (when they're taking a little break from the serious business of criticising and questioning)?

[ferryman]

Criticism doesn't become abuse because it continues.

Most doubters here have condemned serious abuse and threats to the McCanns and don't see the point in repeating it ad nauseum. We can criticise, point at problems with their testimony, highlight other facts without abusing anyone.

WS just provides a counter balance to yourself, Davel and the choir.

Ill-informed criticism is abuse, especially coming from people who have read the files and should know better ...

[Wonderfulspam]

Is it against forum rules to discuss h8ers in the abstract then?  I thought the word was banned so it was not used to abuse another forum member.  What word then is acceptable to the mods to describe the large bunch of individuals who, in their leisure time like pour scorn and vitriol on the McCanns (when they're taking a little break from the serious business of criticising and questioning)?

Why the need to lump people together?

Oh. I know, it's for obtaining disapproval & it's a tired old propaganda technique.

Yawn.

[Alice Purjorick]

Is it against forum rules to discuss h8ers in the abstract then?  I thought the word was banned so it was not used to abuse another forum member. What word then is acceptable to the mods to describe the large bunch of individuals who, in their leisure time like pour scorn and vitriol on the McCanns (when they're taking a little break from the serious business of criticising and questioning)?

It is not just the McCanns who are on the receiving end of internet abuse at the hands(?) of those whose ethos is to be spiteful and vitriolic just for the fun of it. Do you object to all such behaviour or are you being selective? Do you consider that all who do not believe the "official line"  are actually all lumped together as your so styled h8ers?
As for those who spend an inordinate amount of time tweeting, tw..ting or facebooking or whatever about whomsoever and being generally abusive and snidey the word tosspot will do.
Oh I will not hold my breath for you reply as you have me on "selective ignore".

[slartibartfast]

Why the need to lump people together?

Oh. I know, it's for obtaining disapproval & it's a tired old propaganda technique.

Yawn.

It's even better to lump people in with real looneys, you can then treat them all as real looneys.

[Alfred R Jones]

I've started a new thread about it, and all I want to know is simply whether you think online abuse of the McCanns is justified.  If you don't want to be all lumped into the same category now's an opportunity to speak up.  Not really interested in your excuses for not answering a straight question with a straight answer. 

[Anna]

Why the need to lump people together?

Oh. I know, it's for obtaining disapproval & it's a tired old propaganda technique.

Yawn.

Lump people together?... like saying "Your lot" do you mean?

[Wonderfulspam]

Lump people together?... like saying "Your lot" do you mean?

The Bundleman believers.

Strange lot they are too.

[slartibartfast]

I've started a new thread about it, and all I want to know is simply whether you think online abuse of the McCanns is justified.  If you don't want to be all lumped into the same category now's an opportunity to speak up.  Not really interested in your excuses for not answering a straight question with a straight answer.

I condemn what I regard of abuse of the McCanns.


And before you go off on one you would have to give your definition of abuse before I could condemn that.

[Anna]

The Bundleman believers.

Strange lot they are too.

Who is bundleman? I don't recall discussing a bundleman, but may have forgotten
Anyway you have lumped these believers together, have you not?

[Wonderfulspam]

Who is bundleman? I don't recall discussing a bundleman, but may have forgotten
Anyway you have lumped these believers together, have you not?

It's hard not to, when 73% of the time the vast majority of this large bunch all sound the same.