Are the McCanns too sensitive to alternative points of view?

[Brietta]

Hmmm ... why are we deliberately being taken off topic yet again?  We already have a new thread on libel so why not take the discussion there?

Nobody got anything at all to say about the hypersensitivity of the innocent people to the alternative points of view mentioned in the topic.

How about a definition of what these so called alternatives are all about, someone must know ... or why start a thread about it?

[G-Unit]

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

I admitted what things?


Quote from: G-Unit on Today at 10:24:45 AM
When I say I don't know, that is a factual statement. You also don't know. As neither of us know we are both free to make whatever observations and insinuations we wish, and we do.

The difference is that you then start posting personal accusations at me. I am unable to feel empathy. I am making myself look foolish. I am unpleasant. I am insensitive to criticism, in fact I relish it.

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

[Alfred R Jones]

I admitted what things?


Quote from: G-Unit on Today at 10:24:45 AM
When I say I don't know, that is a factual statement. You also don't know. As neither of us know we are both free to make whatever observations and insinuations we wish, and we do.

The difference is that you then start posting personal accusations at me. I am unable to feel empathy. I am making myself look foolish. I am unpleasant. I am insensitive to criticism, in fact I relish it.

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

There you go!

[mercury]

Hmmm ... why are we deliberately being taken off topic yet again?  We already have a new thread on libel so why not take the discussion there?

Nobody got anything at all to say about the hypersensitivity of the innocent people to the alternative points of view mentioned in the topic.

How about a definition of what these so called alternatives are all about, someone must know ... or why start a thread about it?

Alfred started the libel issue
As for innocent people , this has not been established, has it?!! So who are you to keep bandying it about as fact? Just asking

[mercury]

There you go!

Another example of your inability to read properly? Oh dear. But bless if it's true.Must  have got you all wrong all along, maybe

[G-Unit]

This thread was created using a post of mine discussing the closing down of the Mccann's twitter thread. They seemed to be upset because people were expressing opinions that they didn't like. I said they didn't seem to want to allow other opinions, only their opinions. That's achievable with the media, but not online. It's a fact of the internet that a variety of opinions will be expressed. Anyone objecting to that freedom has two choices; retreat or discuss. The Mccanns chose to retreat, complaining as they went. At least their webmaster did, on their behalf.

Surprisingly, they have had the twitter account for a long time and have managed to deal with any problems. Quite what changed we don't know, but they blamed Kerry Needham for allowing followers on her twitter account who criticised the McCanns.

[G-Unit]

There you go!

I was quoting what you said about me in your personal attacks. Imagining that I was admitting anything says volumes about your reading comprehension.

[Brietta]

Alfred started the libel issue
As for innocent people , this has not been established, has it?!! So who are you to keep bandying it about as fact? Just asking

MC – How did the book hamper the investigation?

EL says that if everybody thought Madeleine had died then nobody would look for her. If people thought the parents were involved, they wouldn’t help.

MC – But when the book was published the McCanns were no longer arguidos.

EL says the public, according to the US, is very important to find missing children.

MC – If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?

EL says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.

MC – People don't know?

EL hesitates, she says the majority don't.

MC – Are the McCanns ashamed of what is said in the book?

EL answers yes.

MC – Why ?

EL says the public believes they had covered up and then asked for money to search for Madeleine.


MC – The fact they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?

MC is judge, Maria de Melo e Castro ... I think she could safely be classed as an expert in Portuguese Law and she seems to be "bandying about" the undoubted truth that the Drs McCann ARE INNOCENT.  A fact you may not like but a fact nonetheless.


EL says the fact they are innocent necessitates they must find Madeleine. They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says.

MC – In which way is it different?

EL doesn't answer, she is obviously upset. The judge says she may leave. Previous witness Mrs Susan Hubbard gets up immediately and follows EL out of the court room.
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/Libel_trial_Day_1b_Emma_Loach.pdf


Now that we have established that the Drs McCann are innocent ... may we try to get into the topic of the thread.

It is really quite easy.
There was you thinking one thing, who knows what that may have been ... and there, I have sorted it for you with some accurate information.  So one bone of contention or alternative view point solved quite simply.

What's your next problem and we'll see if we can sort out the truth of it as easily?

[mercury]

Nice try Brietta but 1/10
I thought you were more intelligent, oh well, I sometimes get stuff wrong

[slartibartfast]

MC – How did the book hamper the investigation?

EL says that if everybody thought Madeleine had died then nobody would look for her. If people thought the parents were involved, they wouldn’t help.

MC – But when the book was published the McCanns were no longer arguidos.

EL says the public, according to the US, is very important to find missing children.

MC – If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?

EL says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.

MC – People don't know?

EL hesitates, she says the majority don't.

MC – Are the McCanns ashamed of what is said in the book?

EL answers yes.

MC – Why ?

EL says the public believes they had covered up and then asked for money to search for Madeleine.


MC – The fact they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?

MC is judge, Maria de Melo e Castro ... I think she could safely be classed as an expert in Portuguese Law and she seems to be "bandying about" the undoubted truth that the Drs McCann ARE INNOCENT.  A fact you may not like but a fact nonetheless.


EL says the fact they are innocent necessitates they must find Madeleine. They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says.

MC – In which way is it different?

EL doesn't answer, she is obviously upset. The judge says she may leave. Previous witness Mrs Susan Hubbard gets up immediately and follows EL out of the court room.
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/Libel_trial_Day_1b_Emma_Loach.pdf


Now that we have established that the Drs McCann are innocent ... may we try to get into the topic of the thread.

It is really quite easy.
There was you thinking one thing, who knows what that may have been ... and there, I have sorted it for you with some accurate information.  So one bone of contention or alternative view point solved quite simply.

What's your next problem and we'll see if we can sort out the truth of it as easily?

Probably a translation error.

[Alfred R Jones]

I was quoting what you said about me in your personal attacks. Imagining that I was admitting anything says volumes about your reading comprehension.

dear me, you really don't have a sense of humour do you?  Talk about too sensitive..

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

  Better tell that to the forum owner then and see if you can get the rules changed.

[Alfred R Jones]

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

I was told in no uncertain terms some time ago by the owner of this forum that it was against forum rules to state implicitly or explicitly that the McCanns had lied.  If the rules have changed, then I will stand corrected - perhaps Admin could clarify?

[mercury]

I was told in no uncertain terms some time ago by the owner of this forum that it was against forum rules to state implicitly or explicitly that the McCanns had lied.  If the rules have changed, then I will stand corrected - perhaps Admin could clarify?

Do you have problems in following discussion? Insider never libelled the Mccanns, he merely repeated their own words
You may as well accuse the Mccanns of libelling themselves, the argument would be better
And before you bleat any more please go and read post 454, good lad

[Alfred R Jones]

Do you have problems in following discussion? Insider never libelled the Mccanns, he merely repeated their own words
You may as well accuse the Mccanns of libelling themselves, the argument would be better
And before you bleat any more please go and read post 454, good lad

no more. bleating from me.  Happy to let Admn decide who's right and who's wrong.