why are people who suspect the mccanns attacked?

[Alfred R Jones]

I don't recognise who or what you are referring to Carew,  but I do know that a poster from here (wonderfulspam) posted that:-
---------------------
''All McCann supporters are creepy old paedophiles.

The evidence speaks for itself.''
-------------------------------------------------------

And that is just one example of his vile posts - there were plenty more just as offensive  -  which of course were quickly removed and so maybe not seen by many posters.

Are you surprised that people elsewhere who did see them were appalled and so commented?

Now it's McCann supporters on this forum who have allegedly called sceptics "paedophiles" according to the person who started this thread (and which was approved of by Admin!)  Perhaps the OP thought Wonderfulspam was a McCann supporter, though they'd have to be a bit dense to come to that conclusion...?

[stephen25000]

Neither your post nor Carew's post above mean a thing to me ... they are unintelligible to those not 'in the know' ... I don't even know if the use standard English would help ... I would recommend a try at using it though.

Just try typing in what was given on google, and you will find those repulsive sites all too easily.

[sadie]

So you were there sadie and witnessed all these events ? &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

Got loads of pointers that you folk have never dreamt of.   

[Carew]

I don't recognise who or what you are referring to Carew,  but I do know that a poster from here (wonderfulspam) posted that:-
---------------------
''All McCann supporters are creepy old paedophiles.

The evidence speaks for itself.''
-------------------------------------------------------

And that is just one example of his vile posts - there were plenty more just as offensive  -  which of course were quickly removed and so maybe not seen by many posters.

Are you surprised that people elsewhere who did see them were appalled and so commented?

Well, yes I was "surprised" at the comments......( an understatement, actually!)

Weren`t you surprised, then?

Those who assume the high moral ground should not feel that responding in kind ..........or worse.........is appropriate.

Was it appropriate to respond by referring to posters here as "child rape enthusiasts?"

[Alice Purjorick]

Just try typing in what was given on google, and you will find those repulsive sites all too easily.

It is prudent to pretend they are a figment of an overactive sceptics imagination if you are one of the faithful.
Finding out they [the sites referred to] actually exist would cause a serious overload I am sure.

[slartibartfast]

It is prudent to pretend they are a figment of an overactive sceptics imagination if you are one of the faithful.
Finding out they [the sites referred to] actually exist would cause a serious overload I am sure.

A bit difficult if they use virtually identical names...

[Alice Purjorick]

A bit difficult if they use virtually identical names...

Random occurrence; incorrectly translated; sometime words have two meanings; 
 

[Alfred R Jones]

Well, yes I was "surprised" at the comments......( an understatement, actually!)

Weren`t you surprised, then?

Those who assume the high moral ground should not feel that responding in kind ..........or worse.........is appropriate.

Was it appropriate to respond by referring to posters here as "child rape enthusiasts?"

Is it appropriate that a forum member here should give the impression that he is such a thing?  Albeit he was probably joking (if you can call a comment about child rape a joke)  but still, it does rather lower the tone don't you think?

[Brietta]

Yes, I am quite sure you could and yes, I have kept to the thread title.

What more should I have done?

First you imply that "attacks" possibly only exist in my "fevered imagination" and request examples, not generalisations.

I therefore supply specific copies of posts freely available out there for all to read.....and you maintain that you can`t understand the English.

Next is the inevitable stock riposte that you could do the same re attacks on the McCanns.

I know that.....but it misses the point.

Maybe just a simple acknowledgement that nasty threatening "attacks" on doubters do happen, rather than the denial you seem to put so much energy into?

I accept that it is difficult for those who grab the high moral ground for themselves to admit that their fellows can be every bit as nauseating as those they feel are their moral inferiors.

      Having read Benice's post I now understand exactly why I could not make head not tail of yours.

[Carew]

      Having read Benice's post I now understand exactly why I could not make head not tail of yours.

Oh..........I reckon you can make "head and tail of it" all right............You just don`t like what`s been revealed about those you believe to be "morally superior".

i.m.o. of course.

Keep going though,......denial and rationalisation beckon and will win through for you in the end!   

[stephen25000]

Got loads of pointers that you folk have never dreamt of.   

So what.

Do pointers make prices for peeps ?

[stephen25000]

Oh..........I reckon you can make "head and tail of it" all right............You just don`t like what`s been revealed about those you believe to be "morally superior".

i.m.o. of course.

Keep going though,......denial and rationalisation beckon and will win through in the end!   

 

[Alfred R Jones]

Oh..........I reckon you can make "head and tail of it" all right............You just don`t like what`s been revealed about those you believe to be "morally superior".

i.m.o. of course.

Keep going though,......denial and rationalisation beckon and will win through for you in the end!   

What exactly do you think you have revealed?  Can you explain?

[stephen25000]

What exactly do you think you have revealed?  Can you explain?

The nature of the devout mccann supporters.

[Lace]

The nature of the devout mccann supporters.

Reading that post that Carew posted,   the person is saying he/she is taking screen shots of someone supporting child rape,   I fail to see why that is taken as attacking an anti, unless you can enlighten me.