Blogger Nigel Nessling avoids prison after downloading 40,000 indecent images.

[Mr Gray]

It's quite ironic that two posters here who know most about his posts are sceptics....I don't think I ever saw any of his posts

[stephen25000]

It's quite ironic that two posters here who know most about his posts are sceptics....I don't think I ever saw any of his posts

Not really.

He posted on Amazon, and then abruptly stopped.

[Erngath]

Either you knew what he was in which case your bad, otherwise why the outrage?

Because Alice  knew when he made that post that Nessling had been convicted of an appalling crime but yet chose to call supporters Disciples.
But just keep making excuses.

[stephen25000]

Because Alice  knew when he made that post that Nessling had been convicted of an appalling crime but yet chose to call supporters Disciples.
But just keep making excuses.

How many times have people who supported Amaral, been called disciples of him or even worship him, by some McCann supporters  ?

[G-Unit]

It's quite ironic that two posters here who know most about his posts are sceptics....I don't think I ever saw any of his posts

I don't post unless I research. It didn't take long to read his posts because most of them were hurriedly deleted.

[Lace]

Post 3 page 1
I started the thread because I want to explore how easy it is for people like Nessling to deceive others. He presented himself as someone who cared deeply about missing children but at the same time his actions meant he was condoning/encouraging child sex abuse.

The thread has been very enlightening and I have learned a great deal. I hoped that the thread might lead people to reflect on the manner in which the case is discussed and perhaps decide to disassociate themselves from people like Nessling. 

In my opinion that hasn't happened. Nessing and his posting style have been defended and excused. No-one seems to have considered that his style and tactics might simply appeal to others with a desire to join in and be nasty, regardless of the cause.

In my opinion the means are just as important as the ends.

The thing is G Unit,   youi are posting as a sceptic,  so you wouldn't have taken his comments very well would you?   His posts were aimed at sceptics who abused the McCann's and claimed they were guilty.   If he was an sceptic or you a supporter and you read his posts,  would you see it the same way?

I can honestly say I tried to be as polite as possible when commenting on this case,   but I didn't get the same attitude when being replied to.    I was told I needed to wake up,  not be so naïve that anyone can see they are guilty,   as well as being called some very choice names and being accused of being in a paedophile ring.  So you see it works both ways.

[G-Unit]

The thing is G Unit,   youi are posting as a sceptic,  so you wouldn't have taken his comments very well would you?   His posts were aimed at sceptics who abused the McCann's and claimed they were guilty.   If he was an sceptic or you a supporter and you read his posts,  would you see it the same way?

I can honestly say I tried to be as polite as possible when commenting on this case,   but I didn't get the same attitude when being replied to.    I was told I needed to wake up,  not be so naïve that anyone can see they are guilty,   as well as being called some very choice names and being accused of being in a paedophile ring.  So you see it works both ways.

The thing is, Lace, I don't agree with abusive behaviour whoever does it. I too have been abused but refuse to retaliate in the same manner.

[G-Unit]

This is my opinion, which I hoped might give people pause for thought. Nessling was well aware that his activities could be discovered if his computer was examined but he continued committing his vile crimes for years.

At the same time he was presenting himself as a fine upstanding caring person by involving himself in the Madeleine McCann case. His self-appointed role was to support Madeleine's parents by viciously attacking those who were suspicious of their abduction theory.

I think his attacks on two named people went beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour, as did his attacks on those he grouped together under the heading of 'anti's'. I think they revealed that he was an angry and bitter man who used the case to vent those feelings.

Anyone who behaves in a similar way should be shunned, in my opinion, but Nessling was encouraged and applauded by some because of his support of the McCanns.

Perhaps in the future people will think twice about supporting anyone who thinks they can say whatever they like about others so long as they are on the right 'side'. It doesn't help any cause if such angry and vindictive people support it in my opinion. Such people exist on both 'sides' and should be condemned and shunned by both sides. They have latched onto a tragedy and turned it into a slanging match.

[Mr Gray]

I think it was aimed at those who admired him before his crimes were discovered. Admiring and encouraging a nasty vindictive person was OK, it seems, but not a sex offender. We all have different standards, it seems. 

Some of those admiring him can be seen in the comments here, even Isabel Duarte. Really? Who knows.

 https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/hello-world/#comments

I dont see any admiration for Nessling just people liking his site and supporting the Mccanns throug their abuse.
I think the fact they did not suspect he was  a paedophile is neither here nor there...paedophiles are usually deceptive

[Mr Gray]

This is my opinion, which I hoped might give people pause for thought. Nessling was well aware that his activities could be discovered if his computer was examined but he continued committing his vile crimes for years.

At the same time he was presenting himself as a fine upstanding caring person by involving himself in the Madeleine McCann case. His self-appointed role was to support Madeleine's parents by viciously attacking those who were suspicious of their abduction theory.

I think his attacks on two named people went beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour, as did his attacks on those he grouped together under the heading of 'anti's'. I think they revealed that he was an angry and bitter man who used the case to vent those feelings.

Anyone who behaves in a similar way should be shunned, in my opinion, but Nessling was encouraged and applauded by some because of his support of the McCanns.

Perhaps in the future people will think twice about supporting anyone who thinks they can say whatever they like about others so long as they are on the right 'side'. It doesn't help any cause if such angry and vindictive people support it in my opinion. Such people exist on both 'sides' and should be condemned and shunned by both sides. They have latched onto a tragedy and turned it into a slanging match.

Your argumnet holds no water...there are several examples of abusive comments by sceptic posters who are condoned...supported and admired

[slartibartfast]

Your argumnet holds no water...there are several examples of abusive comments by sceptic posters who are condoned...supported and admired

It becomes a question of what is abuse.

[Mr Gray]

It becomes a question of what is abuse.

it is a question of what one person considers to be abuse...so again the argument is merely subjective and therefore of no value. The next problem is that  am not allowed to post examples of abuse due to censorship on the forum...therefore any reasonable debate is impossible

[Benice]

This is my opinion, which I hoped might give people pause for thought. Nessling was well aware that his activities could be discovered if his computer was examined but he continued committing his vile crimes for years.

At the same time he was presenting himself as a fine upstanding caring person by involving himself in the Madeleine McCann case. His self-appointed role was to support Madeleine's parents by viciously attacking those who were suspicious of their abduction theory.

I think his attacks on two named people went beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour, as did his attacks on those he grouped together under the heading of 'anti's'. I think they revealed that he was an angry and bitter man who used the case to vent those feelings.

Anyone who behaves in a similar way should be shunned, in my opinion, but Nessling was encouraged and applauded by some because of his support of the McCanns.

Perhaps in the future people will think twice about supporting anyone who thinks they can say whatever they like about others so long as they are on the right 'side'. It doesn't help any cause if such angry and vindictive people support it in my opinion. Such people exist on both 'sides' and should be condemned and shunned by both sides. They have latched onto a tragedy and turned it into a slanging match.

G - I have been genuinely puzzled by what it is you are trying to achieve.   Why you are singling out one person  because he committed a crime in his private life which no-one following the McCann case could possibly have known about is a mystery to me.    It seems to me you are using his crime to criticise and pass judgement on other people in the most unjust way.

As you know  - for all the nasty opinions posted about sceptics/and Amaral  on the net - there are just as many nasty opinions posted about supporters and the McCann family on the net.   

So what's to be done?    IMO we can't control other people's behaviour on other sites and so the abuse will continue,  but we can make sure our own forum does not degenerate in that particular direction.

All we have to do is remember to  'Attack the posts and not the posters.' 

It really is that simple imo.

AImHo

p.s. My last post on this subject.

[Mr Gray]

G - I have been genuinely puzzled by what it is you are trying to achieve.   Why you are singling out one person  because he committed a crime in his private life which no-one following the McCann case could possibly have known about is a mystery to me.    It seems to me you are using his crime to criticise and pass judgement on other people in the most unjust way.

As you know  - for all the nasty opinions posted about sceptics/and Amaral  on the net - there are just as many nasty opinions posted about supporters and the McCann family on the net.   

So what's to be done?    IMO we can't control other people's behaviour on other sites and so the abuse will continue,  but we can make sure our own forum does not degenerate in that particular direction.

All we have to do is remember to  'Attack the posts and not the posters.' 

It really is that simple imo.

AImHo

p.s. My last post on this subject.

Once we start to look at posts by posters on other forums then posts on all other forums become relevant to this site and I think that is a can of worms that some would prefer not to be opened

[Mr Gray]

When we have discussed abuse here many times there is a continual claim that someone else started it. Several time s I have called for and end to all abuse and sniping but certain posters just have not been interested. So ..again...I am quite happy to see the end of all abusive and sniping commnents...lets stop...does anyone want to try it...the answer is yes or no....it really is that simple