Author Topic: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.  (Read 58307 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline G-Unit

Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #375 on: May 15, 2017, 09:10:15 AM »
What a fuss just because people are asked to stop referring to one of the theories of what happened to Madeleine as if it was the only possible answer! Why can't they accept that there are other possibilities?
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline carlymichelle

Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #376 on: May 15, 2017, 09:12:33 AM »
What a fuss just because people are asked to stop referring to one of the theories of what happened to Madeleine as if it was the only possible answer! Why can't they accept that there are other possibilities?

i agree   why are they  so upset they cant   say abduction?  why are  they so keen on abduction?? anything to protect gerry and kate??

Offline carlymichelle

Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #377 on: May 15, 2017, 09:30:04 AM »
there is NO     evidence  that maddie was abducted  though so i dont think posters should be allowed to post it as fact jassi    do you?? 

Offline Robittybob1

Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #378 on: May 15, 2017, 09:36:07 AM »
there is NO     evidence  that maddie was abducted  though so i dont think posters should be allowed to post it as fact jassi    do you??
Because we don't know what evidence the PJ and SY have we can't say "there is NO evidence that maddie was abducted".  You would only be correct if you say "there is no evidence that I know of  that maddie was abducted"
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline jassi

Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #379 on: May 15, 2017, 09:38:21 AM »
there is NO     evidence  that maddie was abducted  though so i dont think posters should be allowed to post it as fact jassi    do you??

I'm all for live & let live, tempered with a bit of mickey-taking.

Things that are not proven should not be stated as fact, but other than that I simply not interested in the various mantra.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2017, 09:39:59 AM by Eleanor »
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline carlymichelle

Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #380 on: May 15, 2017, 09:42:03 AM »
I'm all for live & let live, tempered with a bit of mickey-taking.

Things that are not proven should not be stated as fact, but other than that I simply not interested in the various mantra.


i agree   and  some posters  lump other posters   together with amarals  beliefs etc   me personally  i dont give  a   rats you know what what amaral thinks....... i have my own  mind and ideas

Offline G-Unit

Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #381 on: May 15, 2017, 09:46:51 AM »
i agree   why are they  so upset they cant   say abduction?  why are  they so keen on abduction?? anything to protect gerry and kate??

They can say abduction though, just not continue to promote it as a fact. All they have to do is change their language slightly.

Instead of 'it's obvious Madeleine was abducted' they can say 'I think it's obvious'
Instead of 'the abductor did this or that' they can say 'an abductor may have'

It's not so hard, is it?

Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #382 on: May 15, 2017, 09:49:19 AM »
They can say abduction though, just not continue to promote it as a fact. All they have to do is change their language slightly.

Instead of 'it's obvious Madeleine was abducted' they can say 'I think it's obvious'
Instead of 'the abductor did this or that' they can say 'an abductor may have'

It's not so hard, is it?
Anyone with even a scintilla of intelligence is not going to confuse some anonymous poster's blatherings on a forum with established fact are they?
So if I write "it's obvious madeleine was abducted" then it's obviously MY OPINION and not an established fact.
It's not rocket science is it??!

Offline Eleanor

Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #383 on: May 15, 2017, 09:49:38 AM »
They can say abduction though, just not continue to promote it as a fact. All they have to do is change their language slightly.

Instead of 'it's obvious Madeleine was abducted' they can say 'I think it's obvious'
Instead of 'the abductor did this or that' they can say 'an abductor may have'

It's not so hard, is it?

Absolutely correct.

Offline G-Unit

Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #384 on: May 15, 2017, 09:52:17 AM »
Absolutely correct.

Thank you Eleanor.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Eleanor

Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #385 on: May 15, 2017, 09:54:14 AM »
Thank you Eleanor.

Je vous en prie.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #386 on: May 15, 2017, 09:55:18 AM »
They can say abduction though, just not continue to promote it as a fact. All they have to do is change their language slightly.

Instead of 'it's obvious Madeleine was abducted' they can say 'I think it's obvious'
Instead of 'the abductor did this or that' they can say 'an abductor may have'

It's not so hard, is it?

right and instead  of  saying maddie was taken  from her bed by an abductor    they can  say  maddie may have been   taken  from her bed  etc   i think a little bit less emotional  descriptions

Offline Lace

Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #387 on: May 15, 2017, 10:04:53 AM »
I think most people will have realised that as Madeleine was 3.  Rowley erred when he stated that, "However she left that apartment, she has been abducted."  It was an irresponsible comment for any senior copper to make publicly on national TV after stating that they must keep all options open.  It made him look really foolish imo.

Mark Rowley also said that the investigation into the McCann's was done by the Portuguese and that it was done and dusted that they didn't want rumours going around that they were investigating the McCann's.   THEN he went on to say the McCann's were parents of a missing child,   however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted.   So what do you think he means?    Parents of a missing child,  seems to say that she is still missing that the McCann's have done nothing.    The options could mean that they don't know where she is or whether she is dead or alive,   not that the option of the McCann's being involved.

Anyway as to the abductor argument,  what is wrong with the 'In my opinion'   quote as it is what we have been doing for a long time.


Offline Lace

Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #388 on: May 15, 2017, 10:06:42 AM »
right and instead  of  saying maddie was taken  from her bed by an abductor    they can  say  maddie may have been   taken  from her bed  etc   i think a little bit less emotional  descriptions

Or we could just add 'in my opinion,  IMO'   couldn't we?

Offline carlymichelle

Re: The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
« Reply #389 on: May 15, 2017, 10:08:38 AM »
i think john rightly  wants  an open minded forum  and he thinks abduction shouldnt be mentioned just  what  i think because  there is no evidence of  abduction