Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case

[slartibartfast]

Absolute total rubbish.....gunit has admitted there is no evidence against the mccans...does it not occur to you that is why they are supported...as for personal connections that you know exist...please explain as you have stated this as a fact

You yourself say your son studied under Gerry?

[stephen25000]

You yourself say your son studied under Gerry?

Indeed, Slarti.

Imagine that.

[Alfred R Jones]

Most of what you say about sceptics is your personal opinion. I have been abused because I don't swear and don't like the mindset of those who think it's acceptable. I have been accused of thinking I'm perfect because I wouldn't leave small children home alone in an unlocked apartment. I have been accused of thinking I have superior intelligence and all I can say is I'm intelligent enough not to constantly break the forum rules.

You like issuing challenges, but not accepting them. I asked for evidence which could have 'ruled out' the McCanns, and you respond by asking for a theory showing how they did it. Does that mean that the only reason you believe they're innocent is because no-one has produced a theory which you believe is credible? Has it never occurred to you that no-one wants to 'convert' you? If there was an evidence based coherent theory of parental involvement they would have been arrested by now, surely? All there is is peculiarities in their behaviour and narrative which leads some to be sceptical of them. Others see their behaviour as perfectly natural. Each to his own, I say.

Everything Slarti said about McCann supporters is personal opinion, everything I think about you is my personal opinion, your veiled insult regarding my intelligence has been noted.  Now here's a funny thing - again my personal opinion - "sceptics" like to think that they are free thinking, going against the flow, non-sheeple, justice seekers, kicking against the shady forces of the "High ups" who control society, yet when that sort of spirit is displayed here on this forum (not going with the flow, being prepared to take a risk, challenging authority etc) this is seen by you as a lack of intelligence.  Perhaps you could explain how not conforming to the status quo = a lack of intelligence?
As for the challenge you believe you have thrown down at me, I have already answered this question a thousand times in one way or another over the years.  The fact that you don't or won't accept what I say is not my problem really.

[G-Unit]

People have given some reasons as to why they support the McCanns, but none of the posts explain why they become so incensed that they resort to insults if others criticise the parents. That seems to stem from an emotional approach to the case. Sceptics seem to me to have a less emotional, more objective approach.

[Alfred R Jones]

Most of what you say about sceptics is your personal opinion. I have been abused because I don't swear and don't like the mindset of those who think it's acceptable. I have been accused of thinking I'm perfect because I wouldn't leave small children home alone in an unlocked apartment. I have been accused of thinking I have superior intelligence and all I can say is I'm intelligent enough not to constantly break the forum rules.

You like issuing challenges, but not accepting them. I asked for evidence which could have 'ruled out' the McCanns, and you respond by asking for a theory showing how they did it. Does that mean that the only reason you believe they're innocent is because no-one has produced a theory which you believe is credible? Has it never occurred to you that no-one wants to 'convert' you? If there was an evidence based coherent theory of parental involvement they would have been arrested by now, surely? All there is is peculiarities in their behaviour and narrative which leads some to be sceptical of them. Others see their behaviour as perfectly natural. Each to his own, I say.

Quite.  It's all subjective - you think the McCanns are odd, unlikeable, mendacious (shades of Lindy Chamberlain here) and based on this you've let your collective  imaginations run riot - others look at the facts of the case without the biased goggles you are obviously viewing the case through.

[jassi]

People have given some reasons as to why they support the McCanns, but none of the posts explain why they become so incensed that they resort to insults if others criticise the parents. That seems to stem from an emotional approach to the case. Sceptics seem to me to have a less emotional, more objective approach.

Yeah,  I've noticed that, too.

[Alice Purjorick]

Yeah,  I've noticed that, too.

Haven't we all.

[G-Unit]

Everything Slarti said about McCann supporters is personal opinion, everything I think about you is my personal opinion, your veiled insult regarding my intelligence has been noted.  Now here's a funny thing - again my personal opinion - "sceptics" like to think that they are free thinking, going against the flow, non-sheeple, justice seekers, kicking against the shady forces of the "High ups" who control society, yet when that sort of spirit is displayed here on this forum (not going with the flow, being prepared to take a risk, challenging authority etc) this is seen by you as a lack of intelligence.  Perhaps you could explain how not conforming to the status quo = a lack of intelligence?
As for the challenge you believe you have thrown down at me, I have already answered this question a thousand times in one way or another over the years.  The fact that you don't or won't accept what I say is not my problem really.

My comment about breaking forum rules wasn't directed just at you Alfred, it was a general observation.

Once again you are generalising about the thoughts and personalities of 'sceptics'. I think the sceptics are as different as any other random group of people with just one interest in common. I expect the supporters are just as varied and would never assume they must share other characteristics.

I joined the forum to discuss the case. I'm not interested in insulting people or attracting points for doing so because a) insulting people probably means I'm losing the argument and can't think of a better response and b) being sanctioned or banned limits or stops me from joining in discussions, so it's counter-productive.

I am capable of challenging authority if I feel that it's necessary. I have never found it necessary on this forum because the people running it and moderating it are doing me a favour by providing me with a platform to express my opinions freely so long as I keep to the rules. I would be biting the hands that feed me by making their jobs harder. They are doing me a favour and in return I respect them when they do their job, even if I privately disagree sometimes.

I'm not surprised that you won't attempt to list the reasons why you support the parents because I've never seen anything at all credible in the time I've been on the forum; just opinion, attempts at emotional blackmail and outrage if anyone suggests they are less than perfect and above suspicion.

[carlymichelle]

My comment about breaking forum rules wasn't directed just at you Alfred, it was a general observation.

Once again you are generalising about the thoughts and personalities of 'sceptics'. I think the sceptics are as different as any other random group of people with just one interest in common. I expect the supporters are just as varied and would never assume they must share other characteristics.

I joined the forum to discuss the case. I'm not interested in insulting people or attracting points for doing so because a) insulting people probably means I'm losing the argument and can't think of a better response and b) being sanctioned or banned limits or stops me from joining in discussions, so it's counter-productive.

I am capable of challenging authority if I feel that it's necessary. I have never found it necessary on this forum because the people running it and moderating it are doing me a favour by providing me with a platform to express my opinions freely so long as I keep to the rules. I would be biting the hands that feed me by making their jobs harder. They are doing me a favour and in return I respect them when they do their job, even if I privately disagree sometimes.

I'm not surprised that you won't attempt to list the reasons why you support the parents because I've never seen anything at all credible in the time I've been on the forum; just opinion, attempts at emotional blackmail and outrage if anyone suggests they are less than perfect and above suspicion.

well said  again emotional blackmail is used    quite oftern by mcann supporters

[G-Unit]

Quite.  It's all subjective - you think the McCanns are odd, unlikeable, mendacious (shades of Lindy Chamberlain here) and based on this you've let your collective  imaginations run riot - others look at the facts of the case without the biased goggles you are obviously viewing the case through.

Once again you are telling me what I think about the McCanns. To be perfectly clear, my doubts about them are not based on my opinion of their personalities, they're based on verifiable facts in the case. That's why I post lots of cites.

[Mr Gray]

You yourself say your son studied under Gerry?

My son studied medicine at Leicester where Gerry was a tutor
Lots of students and lots of tutors
Is that the personal connection you are talking about
Who else were you referring to

[Lace]

  exactly   everybody is entitled to their own opinion but if you  say anything bad about the mcanns supporters  want  you  silenced ??

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion carly that is why we are debating the case,  there would be no debating if everyone agreed would there?

AS to wanting anyone silenced if they say anything bad about the McCann's,   well.  I wouldn't want them silenced I would want to know why they are saying it,  and debate their views.

I get a bit sick and tired when people say things such as 'McCann worshippers'   or similar just because I think the McCann's are innocent.

[slartibartfast]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, being unwilling to listen and counter opposing views is little pointless in a discussion forum.

[Mr Gray]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, being unwilling to listen and counter opposing views is little pointless in a discussion forum.

And who are you saying is guilty of that

[slartibartfast]

And who are you saying is guilty of that

I was leaving that as an exercise for the readers.