Are the McCanns too sensitive to alternative points of view?

[slartibartfast]

Then there are Sex cleanup tissues, coconuts, back gardens.

[Mr Gray]

Check out the did Eddie and keela work together before PDL, Ferrymans  total intransigence is worthy of a gold medal itself, go on...


 

another one...you are struggling too...how many sceptics have claimed the mccanns called sky news before the police

[mercury]

Then there are Sex cleanup tissues, coconuts, back gardens.

Not forgetting the mushrooms

[faithlilly]

If you cannot appreciate the intentionally deletrious significance of starting polls on the amount of money being spent on searching for Madeleine or organising a letter writing campaign to MPs objecting to the same ... that is not my problem.

Polls like this one being pushed by the OFM webmaster :

"Please vote no. We cannot give-up on Madeleine. There is an abductor out there and they will strike again. It's vital we find Madeleine and who took her. Thank you for continuing to keep Madeleine in your heart. http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2015/09/have-your-say-should-we-continue-the-search-for-madeleine-mccann

Edited to add... The way this poll is worded, it's confusing. The headline says one thing, but the poll says another. The poll asks if the search should be called off. Choose, "No, let's keep searching."

[Alice Purjorick]

I think toxic is exactly the word of the moment which describes both the posters and the posts which have been directed at Madeleine and her family.
It is not mine ... I have merely borrowed it because it is so apt.  The words I would use to describe these people are as numerous as the grains of sand on Praia da Luz beach ... each and every one of them would not be allowed to be used on the forum.
So for the time being toxic it is.
How strange it's use should be so significant you felt pressed to mention it.

If you cannot appreciate the intentionally deletrious significance of starting polls on the amount of money being spent on searching for Madeleine or organising a letter writing campaign to MPs objecting to the same ... that is not my problem.

Strange you should mention that Madeleine is " ... most likely dead child" ... how does that make the actions of these people appropriate when she may equally be very much alive?

Wadda yer mean by "intentionally deleterious significance" Brie?
Maybe you should rephrase it in order that it makes sense.
I get the idea you are maybe playing to the guest gallery.

[Mr Gray]

Then there are Sex cleanup tissues, coconuts, back gardens.

eddie did alert to a sex clean up tissue...eddie alerted to a coco nut....next,,,
as a moderator do you think you should be taking this thread so off topic

[mercury]

another one...you are struggling too...how many sceptics have claimed the mccanns called sky news before the police

You asked for another one so I gave you one, stop complaining when you receive what you asked for..you going to check it out or not? If not why not? It's an example of a supporter not accepting a truth when proved.... What's sky news to do with anythng, not moving the goalposts perchance?? Sigh

 

[ferryman]

The only interview I know of that Gerry walked out of was the one where although it was made clear beforehand that they were not allowed to discuss the case as that would be breaking the secrecy laws -  the first thing the interviewer did was ask questions about the case.

IIRC Gerry pointed that out as he wearily left the room.

As for the 48 questions - have you ever read them?   IMO Amaral and co had already decided Kate was guilty and now they needed to come up with a motive - and that was the main aim of that interview.   

Questions like the following are a clue to the direction they were going in IMO.  Especially question No. 41.

39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?

40.  Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?

41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?

I would omit 3 letters from that post (repeated, so that's 6 letters): IMO.

Otherwise, bang-on right ....

[mercury]

Wadda yer mean by "intentionally deleterious significance" Brie?
Maybe you should rephrase it in order that it makes sense.
I get the idea you are maybe playing to the guest gallery.

Ooer....never thought of that! Sounds about right

[Brietta]

I disagree, the sceptics are interested in the truth no matter what.

That is your opinion ... and indeed it reflects what they say.

I am basing my opinion on their actions.

[Mr Gray]

You said I would struggle and I gave you an example straight away?

you did not give me an example of "some" supporters...you gave me an example of "one" supporter

[Mr Gray]

You asked for another one so I gave you one, stop complaining when you receive what you asked for..you going to check it out or not? If not why not? It's an example of a supporter not accepting a truth when proved.... What's sky news to do with anythng, not moving the goalposts perchance?? Sigh

 

Your Jack Russell irrational antics force me to put you on ignore yet again

I didn't ask for another one so your whole post is worthless

[Alice Purjorick]

another one...you are struggling too...how many sceptics have claimed the mccanns called sky news before the police

Who knows? but we know Jon Corner released photos to the press on their [McCann's] behalf in the early hours of 4th May 2007.

[mercury]

That is your opinion ... and indeed it reflects what they say.

I am basing my opinion on their actions.

Not going to qualify and quantify then? If not, why not?

[Mr Gray]

Who knows? but we know Jon Corner released photos to the press on their [McCann's] behalf in the early hours of 4th May 2007.

which proves b....r all as you no doubt realise