Are the McCanns too sensitive to alternative points of view?

[Brietta]

Brietta used the word for one of two reasons.

Either she can't understand why people don't believe the mccanns, or she is here merely to defend them.

Your presence on the McCann boards is not a matter for conjecture by anyone but yourself as is mine to me.

Is there something in particular or in general in the way you address posters expressing a different point of view to yours on what is known to be a balanced forum.

Where is my name in the thread title?

Not there ... that I can see ... but apparently you see differently.

What different point of view do you hold to the Drs McCann?  Might you not consider addressing a point about that rather than directing yet another tiresome ad hominem at me

[stephen25000]

Your presence on the McCann boards is not a matter for conjecture by anyone but yourself as is mine to me.

Is there something in particular or in general in the way you address posters expressing a different point of view to yours on what is known to be a balanced forum.

Where is my name in the thread title?

Not there ... that I can see ... but apparently you see differently.

What different point of view do you hold to the Drs McCann?  Might you not consider addressing a point about that rather than directing yet another tiresome ad hominem at me

Reading your posts, it is very clear you question other peoples motives as to why they don't believe and/or support the mccanns.

Yet you dislike it when the tables are turned..

[G-Unit]

Well at least you admit all these things which is something I suppose.

Beg pardon? that post makes no sense.

[Alfred R Jones]

They did though didn't they and mores to the point by their own admission.

you claim that their biggest lie was the fund, and now you're saying that they admitted it was a lie - now kindly provide your evidence for these accusations.

[Alfred R Jones]

Beg pardon? that post makes no sense.

yes it does, if you read it in the context of the post of yours to which I was responding.

[mercury]

you claim that their biggest lie was the fund, and now you're saying that they admitted it was a lie - now kindly provide your evidence for these accusations.

It's best not to misquote people or at least try and read properly to ensure you  have the best understanding at least and not the wrong one! That's all assuming yure not deliberately doing anythng untoward of course

[Alfred R Jones]

It's best not to misquote people or at least try and read properly to ensure you  have the best understanding at least and not the wrong one! That's all assuming yure not deliberately doing anythng untoward of course

what is inaccurate about what I wrote?

[mercury]

what is inaccurate about what I wrote?

Read back and use your comprehension skills

Insider never said they admitted they lied about the fund

And before you accuse me of being insulting, you let down on your abusive posts to whoever DARES to question  and I might try and forgive you for them, fairs fair etc

 

I've no wish to discuss with you anymore, as you are being irrational as always so perhaps you can go back and carry on and take off with an answer to g unit

[Alfred R Jones]

Read back and use your comprehension skills

Insider never said they admitted they lied about the fund

And before you accuse me of being insulting, you let down on your abusive posts to whoever DARES to question  and I might try and forgive you for them, fairs fair etc

 

Insider has written that their biggest lie is the fund.  If the McCanns did not admit that the fund was a lie, then clearly and without equivocation Insider is libelling the McCanns which is against forum rules, the very forum which he or she is supposed to moderate.  Now, tell me where I have misunderstood or abused anyone for pointing out this fact?

[mercury]

Insider has written that their biggest lie is the fund.  If the McCanns did not admit that the fund was a lie, then clearly and without equivocation Insider is libelling the McCanns which is against forum rules, the very forum which he or she is supposed to moderate.  Now, tell me where I have misunderstood or abused anyone for pointing out this fact?

Do posts just go over your head? Obviously, no point carryng on trying

Insider said they lied
Insider said they lied about the fund
Insider said they admitted to their lies
Inside never said they admitted to lyng about the fund
The comment about your abuse was in general and not specific to this particular part of this discussion in this particular thread

[Alfred R Jones]

Do posts just go over your head? Obviously, no point carryng on trying

Insider said they lied
Insider said they lied about the fund
Insider said they admitted to their lies
Inside never said they admitted to lyng about the fund
The comment about your abuse was in general and not specific to this particular part of this discussion in this particular thread

Do you understand what libel is?  If so you will know that that is what Insider has done, you will also know that it is against forum rules, so what are you arguing about?

[Brietta]

Reading your posts, it is very clear you question other peoples motives as to why they don't believe and/or support the mccanns.

Yet you dislike it when the tables are turned..

I am not the subject of this thread ... those with an"alternative point of view" whatever that means, are. I see "the McCanns" are up there too.  So let's put me entirely out of the equation and concentrate on the thread topic.

Do you have an alternative point of view ... not to me, we already know that ... but to the subjects mentioned in the thread title?

Are you in accord with the subjects of the thread?

I'm sure you must have an opinion one way or t'other ... please discuss it with us ... but do try to stay on topic if you possibly can.

[jassi]

It seems to me that the only one entitled to claim something is libel is the one being libeled. Why do people insist on claiming it on behalf of others?

[mercury]

Do you understand what libel is?  If so you will know that that is what Insider has done, you will also know that it is against forum rules, so what are you arguing about?

Something which you  started and lost
Stating facts can never be libel, try again

[slartibartfast]

It seems to me that the only one entitled to claim something is libel is the one being libeled. Why do others insist on claiming it on behalf of others?

Very good point.