The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.

[Alice Purjorick]

There is still plenty of mileage in discussion of the abduction as one retired cop after another goes to print with his opinion ... which one of them has cast his hat into the ring along with Amaral's?

You could say that about Galilieo Galilei, Nicolaus Copperknickers and the first white geezer who discovered the Duckbilled Platypus.

i.e were general folk too stupid to believe or too afraid to go off piste as you might say ?

[Alfie]

You may well do. You didn't make it clear it was your belief, you posted it as fact.

Jesus wept.

[Alfie]

Anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to work out that when "the abductor" is being discussed, it is an abstract theoretical abductor and that it shouldn't be necessary to write 'the theoretical abductor' every single bloody time.  Grow up moderators!

[John]

Anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to work out that when "the abductor" is being discussed, it is an abstract theoretical abductor and that it shouldn't be necessary to write 'the theoretical abductor' every single bloody time.  Grow up moderators!

I have to disagree Alf, when someone refers to Madeleine's 'abductor' they should use the term 'supposed abductor' or 'claimed abductor' or a similar term. Abduction has never been established, it is merely a claim.

By the same token, it is incorrect for someone who believes she was killed to refer to the perpetrator as Madeleine's 'killer'.

[Mr Gray]

I have to disagree Alf, when someone refers to Madeleine's 'abductor' they should use the term 'supposed abductor' or 'claimed abductor' or a similar term. Abduction has never been established, it is merely a claim.

By the same token, it is incorrect for someone who believes she was killed to refer to the perpetrator as Madeleine's 'killer'.

It's getting a bit silly John
There are lots and lots of instances where posters are posting opinion as fact
Should we keep pointing them all out

First poster claim the alleged abductor left no forensic trace
That is not a fact
None was found but it may well have been there but missed

[stephen25000]

I have to disagree Alf, when someone refers to Madeleine's 'abductor' they should use the term 'supposed abductor' or 'claimed abductor' or a similar term. Abduction has never been established, it is merely a claim.

By the same token, it is incorrect for someone who believes she was killed to refer to the perpetrator as Madeleine's 'killer'.

Thank you for clarifying the situation John.

[John]

.
absolutely....maddie may still be alive

Good point too, in which case the term will be Maddie's presumed captor. 

[Alfie]

This is getting really silly now.  Are we to receive points if we talk about an abductor and not a theoretical abductor?

[John]

It's getting a bit silly John
There are lots and lots of instances where posters are posting opinion as fact
Should we keep pointing them all out

First poster claim the alleged abductor left no forensic trace
That is not a fact
None was found but it may well have been there but missed

I don't see anything silly about it, abduction is but one of several VALID theories.  As for forensic evidence that a stranger entered the apartment, as you rightly state, none was found.  Posters are therefore correct to post this fact.  It is up to others to point out as you have done that there may have been forensic evidence of an intruder but it wasn't found.

[Alfie]

John perhaps you could fix it so that when a person types the word "abductor" what appears on the screen are the words "theoretical abductor" - save us the bother of having to remember every time 

[John]

This is getting really silly now.  Are we to receive points if we talk about an abductor and not a theoretical abductor?

No but repeating such a claim despite being warned previously is viewed as disruption.

You forget that the hundreds of people who access this forum every day as guests might not be as well informed about the case as those who register and post.  Posting 'abductor' as if it were an established fact is misleading.

[Brietta]

I firmly believe that whether by entering the apartment or whether by encountering her in the street that Madeleine was abducted.

I have no issue with qualifying anything I have to say with reference to the fact that the abduction theory has not been proved, although 'I would say' or even 'in my opinion', Jane Tanner's sighting comes very close.

I think Stephen's solution will go a long way to 'tidying up' discussion ... this forum is an even handed one and may I say, as a moderator I have allowed posts to remain on the threads which I thought questionable leaving it to John's unbiased editing to sort things out.

That problem for me and subsequent editing will be reduced. 
This is sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander with the removal of ambiguity ... and probably no bad thing as far as the integrity of the forum is concerned.

[John]

I firmly believe that whether by entering the apartment or whether by encountering her in the street that Madeleine was abducted.

I have no issue with qualifying anything I have to say with reference to the fact that the abduction theory has not been proved, although 'I would say' or even 'in my opinion', Jane Tanner's sighting comes very close.

I think Stephen's solution will go a long way to 'tidying up' discussion ... this forum is an even handed one and may I say, as a moderator I have allowed posts to remain on the threads which I thought questionable leaving it to John's unbiased editing to sort things out.

That problem for me and subsequent editing will be reduced. 
This is sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander with the removal of ambiguity ... and probably no bad thing as far as the integrity of the forum is concerned.

Most posts will have been edited to remind the reader that abduction is but one theory. Anything which cuts down on this editing is to be welcomed.  Maybe now that the subject has been raised posters will take heed.

The other technical difficulty of course is that a body cannot be abducted.

[Mr Gray]

I don't see anything silly about it, abduction is but one of several VALID theories.  As for forensic evidence that a stranger entered the apartment, as you rightly state, none was found.  Posters are therefore correct to post this fact.  It is up to others to point out as you have done that there may have been forensic evidence of an intruder but it wasn't found.

posters are not correct to post that teh alleged abductor left no forensic trace....they should claim no forensic trace was found....there are lots and lots of other examples so i will just highlight them as they arise

[Alfie]

No but repeating such a claim despite being warned previously is viewed as disruption.

You forget that the hundreds of people who access this forum every day as guests might not be as well informed about the case as those who register and post.  Posting 'abductor' as if it were an established fact is misleading.

As it happens I often post about a "theoretical abductor" simply to pre-empt the whingeing retorts of "what abductor?" It is a pain though.  Anyone interest enough in this case to click on this forum will know that Madeleine's disappearance in an unsolved mystery and won't stupid enough to think that references to an abductor means an abductor has been established as fact.