Are the McCanns too sensitive to alternative points of view?

[G-Unit]

The author has also written about ...
Using Technology and Social Media Ethically ... http://signewhitson.com/books/bullying-in-elementary-school/

That might be something which could be of use for the participants in organised bullying campaigns to peruse.
Particularly as the target audience is adolescent.

Do people take part in 'organised bullying campaigns'? I have seen that accusation many times, but have seen no evidence that it happens. The other day I was reading a facebook thread where someone actually said he was going to disrupt the phone lines set up for Crimewatch in 2013. Not one other person agreed with him and they all told him not to do it.

[Benice]

Who said that? No-one! it is a common tactic of bullies who have been exposed to excuse themselves with such phrases as 'I was only joking' and 'I was only teasing' when their behaviour was clearly malicious and not funny in the slightest. Most people understand how that works.

Yes I am well aware of all that.    However it seems to me the article was posted  because it contained the words ''I was only joking' and was aimed at one of our members who had said that - as some kind of proof of bullying behaviour.   If that was the case - I think it was uncalled for.    If that wasn't the purpose of posting it - then what was the reason?

On reading the article I can think of posters who are

(1) frequently sarcastic. 
(2) frequently procrastinate rather than answer questions directly.
(3) and who make statements asking why people appear to be getting upset - when there is no evidence they are.

However in the context of this forum I don't personally consider the above to be bullying behaviour. 

What I do consider to be bullying behaviour is when several people post to one another all making sneering, personal remarks about another poster - in an attempt to ridicule them for their opinions.

[G-Unit]

Yes I am well aware of all that.    However it seems to me the article was posted  because it contained the words ''I was only joking' and was aimed at one of our members who had said that - as some kind of proof of bullying behaviour.   If that was the case - I think it was uncalled for.    If that wasn't the purpose of posting it - then what was the reason?

On reading the article I can think of posters who are

(1) frequently sarcastic. 
(2) frequently procrastinate rather than answer questions directly.
(3) and who make statements asking why people appear to be getting upset - when there is no evidence they are.

However in the context of this forum I don't personally consider the above to be bullying behaviour. 

What I do consider to be bullying behaviour is when several people post to one another all making sneering, personal remarks about another poster - in an attempt to ridicule them for their opinions.

I didn't post the article or accuse anyone of bullying. I did point out that using the phrase 'I was only joking' is a common tactic used by bullies to excuse their behaviour and it is.

My point was, and still is, that forum rules don't allow personal attacks, although some people ignore those rules. When they do so I reserve the right to point it out. That doesn't mean I am too sensitive to alternative points of view. I expect alternative points of view, and defend the right of everyone to form and express their own opinions. What is unacceptable is name-calling, whether by a group or by one person. If a member disagrees with another member they should point out why. Accusing the other member of lacking certain desirable attributes adds nothing to the debate. It's akin to saying ' you are an inadequate human being so you must be wrong'. Illogical.

[Mr Gray]

I didn't post the article or accuse anyone of bullying. I did point out that using the phrase 'I was only joking' is a common tactic used by bullies to excuse their behaviour and it is.

My point was, and still is, that forum rules don't allow personal attacks, although some people ignore those rules. When they do so I reserve the right to point it out. That doesn't mean I am too sensitive to alternative points of view. I expect alternative points of view, and defend the right of everyone to form and express their own opinions. What is unacceptable is name-calling, whether by a group or by one person. If a member disagrees with another member they should point out why. Accusing the other member of lacking certain desirable attributes adds nothing to the debate. It's akin to saying ' you are an inadequate human being so you must be wrong'. Illogical.

your post would carry some weight if you were prepared to condemn both sides..there are insults form both sides and like the chicken and the egg no one seems to accept which came first

[Alfred R Jones]

That would be because you are on a forum with rules which you have broken. I don't see it as being over sensitive to point that out. Unlike the McCanns I will stand my ground because I don't care about your opinions. Your behaviour reminds me of bullies, who often try to excuse themselves by saying they were only joking.

so you've accusing me of being a bully now are you?  In what way do you feel bullied by me?  Bullying behaviour should be reported as should libellous posts.  I have reported the latter but it seems these were deemed acceptable, has my alleged bullying been deemed acceptable too?

[G-Unit]

your post would carry some weight if you were prepared to condemn both sides..there are insults form both sides and like the chicken and the egg no one seems to accept which came first

 I can only speak fr myself. If I am the target of personal attacks I will respond. I do condemn insults whoever they are from and to, and i suggest that anyone attacked in such a manner points out what is happening and that the rules are being broken just as I do. Everyone has the freedom to report such attacks also, although that's not something I do because I was brought up not to tell tales and to fight my own battles. I think I've done it once since I joined the forum, and that was an exceptional case.

[G-Unit]

so you've accusing me of being a bully now are you?  In what way do you feel bullied by me?  Bullying behaviour should be reported as should libellous posts.  I have reported the latter but it seems these were deemed acceptable, has my alleged bullying been deemed acceptable too?

I haven't accused you of bullying me Alfred, and I don't feel bullied by you at all. I commented that your attempt at passing your posts off as a joke reminded me of the way bullies behave, as that's a well-known ploy of the bully. I'm sure you wouldn't dream of attempting to bully another member. Probably you just have a unique take on what is or isn't funny.

[Alfred R Jones]

I haven't accused you of bullying me Alfred, and I don't feel bullied by you at all. I commented that your attempt at passing your posts off as a joke reminded me of the way bullies behave, as that's a well-known ploy of the bully. I'm sure you wouldn't dream of attempting to bully another member. Probably you just have a unique take on what is or isn't funny.

so you don't think I'm a bully, I just remind you of one, I see.  Well I don't think you're an un-empathetic  humourless over-sensitive flower either, but your posts just reminded me of one, glad that's sorted.

[G-Unit]

so you don't think I'm a bully, I just remind you of one, I see.  Well I don't think you're an un-empathetic  humourless over-sensitive flower either, but your posts just reminded me of one, glad that's sorted.

Unfortunately that's a little late, it was perfectly clear what you meant when you made the remarks. Do I detect some over-sensitivity on your part? There's a lot of protesting going on. You seem to have a similar outlook to the Mccanns. in that anyone who disagrees with you is lacking in some way? They have also resorted to name-calling when people have disagreed with their viewpoint.

[Benice]

Unfortunately that's a little late, it was perfectly clear what you meant when you made the remarks. Do I detect some over-sensitivity on your part? There's a lot of protesting going on. You seem to have a similar outlook to the Mccanns. in that anyone who disagrees with you is lacking in some way? They have also resorted to name-calling when people have disagreed with their viewpoint.

When have the McCanns claimed that anyone who disagrees with them is lacking in some way.  All they have ever done is object to vicious lies and disinformation being spread about them and have taken action against those who command large audiences, like newspapers, Amaral with his book and Tony Bennet who took his campaign off the internet and into their village.   

That's how any normal person would react to such disgusting treatment imo.   I find it inexplicable that some people apparently cannot comprehend that.

[Alfred R Jones]

Unfortunately that's a little late, it was perfectly clear what you meant when you made the remarks. Do I detect some over-sensitivity on your part? There's a lot of protesting going on. You seem to have a similar outlook to the Mccanns. in that anyone who disagrees with you is lacking in some way? They have also resorted to name-calling when people have disagreed with their viewpoint.

Most of the recent protesting on this thread appears to be from you objecting my voiced opinion of you and your posts.  It's kind of boring now so, to help move things on, I'd like to explore this earlier comment of yours a little further:

"Why should I feel empathy with people when I don't know what the truth is?"

By your own admission you don't know what the truth is.  The McCanns might be innocent of hiding their kid's body, they might be guilty.  That seems to be your position.  Given that you agree they might be innocent then can you see why, if they are innocent, they might have been moved in the traumatic aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance to grab the nearest paper-based product (which just happened to be Madeleine's activity book), tear off the cover and jot down a timeline for the police?  Or are you of the opinion that, no matter how innocent they are, the use of her book for this purpose was an unforgiveable act of vandalism, because Kate felt sure Madeleine had been abducted?

[Mr Gray]

And a person can also be guilty even without that evidence.

Yes... Cipriano was found guilty and thre was no evidence at all

[stephen25000]

Yes... Cipriano was found guilty and thre was no evidence at all

Off topic.

[Alice Purjorick]

Off topic.

Aw c'mon. Cipriano is a staple. You know like rice is to China so Cipriano is to the faithful.
It hasn't been rolled out for a while so let's have a laugh.

[stephen25000]

Aw c'mon. Cipriano is a staple. You know like rice is to China so Cipriano is to the faithful.
It hasn't been rolled out for a while so let's have a laugh.

Too true.

They have nowhere else to go.