UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Sunny on September 15, 2018, 03:36:09 PM
-
As we have a thread regarding why sceptics may doubt the McCanns I though we should, in the interest of balance to have one for those with a different opinion.
So, why do some people believe the McCanns and why does it appear that everything that they appear to say or do has to be justified.
Despite what some supporters say, I have found that sceptics generally are mostly different and have differing opinions as to what happened to Madeleine and what evidence is important or not,
What evidence is considered important by supporters and what made them chose to believe the couple.
I would be particularly interested to hear from those of you who have changed your views from a sceptical to a supporter position.
-
For one thing there has never, ever, EVER been a plausible, cohesive theory regarding how the McCanns hid the child’s body, when, where or why, and how they managed to do it so well, in a country that was mostly unfamiliar to them, without access to any of the tools that might come in handy for such a task, at night, without torches, car, etc etc etc. Someone post up a theory that sounds plausible and fits all the known facts then I’m ready to reconsider my position. Faithlilly and Pathfinder have both had a go but their theories are easy to rip holes in, unless you are prepared to go down the rabbit hole and believe most or all the Tapas crew are in on it too.
-
For one thing there has never, ever, EVER been a plausible, cohesive theory regarding how the McCanns hid the child’s body, when, where or why, and how they managed to do it so well, in a country that was mostly unfamiliar to them, without access to any of the tools that might come in handy for such a task, at night, without torches, car, etc etc etc. Someone post up a theory that sounds plausible and fits all the known facts then I’m ready to reconsider my position. Faithlilly and Pathfinder have both had a go but their theories are easy to rip holes in, unless you are prepared to go down the rabbit hole and believe most or all the Tapas crew are in on it too.
As you know any discussion of either mine or PF’s theories are quickly deleted so I’m at a loss at how you have come to the conclusion that you can ‘rip holes in them’.
As to going down the rabbit hole, to believe that the parents aren’t involved you’d have to ignore so many coincidences and odd occurrences that it would make your head spin.
-
For one thing there has never, ever, EVER been a plausible, cohesive theory regarding how the McCanns hid the child’s body, when, where or why, and how they managed to do it so well, in a country that was mostly unfamiliar to them, without access to any of the tools that might come in handy for such a task, at night, without torches, car, etc etc etc. Someone post up a theory that sounds plausible and fits all the known facts then I’m ready to reconsider my position. Faithlilly and Pathfinder have both had a go but their theories are easy to rip holes in, unless you are prepared to go down the rabbit hole and believe most or all the Tapas crew are in on it too.
Dispatches 2007
Presumably as this programme is 11 years old and on YouTube, this reply will be allowed to stand.
The only relevant test is occulted.
-
For one thing there has never, ever, EVER been a plausible, cohesive theory regarding how the McCanns hid the child’s body, when, where or why, and how they managed to do it so well, in a country that was mostly unfamiliar to them, without access to any of the tools that might come in handy for such a task, at night, without torches, car, etc etc etc. Someone post up a theory that sounds plausible and fits all the known facts then I’m ready to reconsider my position. Faithlilly and Pathfinder have both had a go but their theories are easy to rip holes in, unless you are prepared to go down the rabbit hole and believe most or all the Tapas crew are in on it too.
The question of the thread is why do some ardently believe the McCann's, not the sceptic point of view.
-
Dispatches 2007
Presumably as this programme is 11 years old and on YouTube, this reply will be allowed to stand.
The only relevant test is occulted.
What is the theory?
-
As you know any discussion of either mine or PF’s theories are quickly deleted so I’m at a loss at how you have come to the conclusion that you can ‘rip holes in them’.
As to going down the rabbit hole, to believe that the parents aren’t involved you’d have to ignore so many coincidences and odd occurrences that it would make your head spin.
There’s a whole thread on Pathfinder’s theory elswehere in this forum, and you know full well I have repeatedly exposed the holes in yours, and would gladly do so again given the opportunity. There are no notable coincidences or or odd occurrences pointing to parental involvement IMO, certainly none that can’t be explained, the problem is you don’t want to accept any explanation other than that the parents are lying and guilty.
-
What is the theory?
Body occultation by person/persons unknown.
-
There’s a whole thread on Pathfinder’s theory elswehere in this forum, and you know full well I have repeatedly exposed the holes in yours, and would gladly do so again given the opportunity. There are no notable coincidences or or odd occurrences pointing to parental involvement IMO, certainly none that can’t be explained, the problem is you don’t want to accept any explanation other than that the parents are lying and guilty.
Saying ‘that couldn’t have happened’ is not ripping holes in my theory VS. Apologies if this comes as a surprise to you.
And I’m sure all the coincidences and odd occurrences can be explained by even odder excuses.
-
Body occultation by person/persons unknown.
Then that is not a theory of parental involvement, sorry.
-
Saying ‘that couldn’t have happened’ is not ripping holes in my theory VS. Apologies if this comes as a surprise to you.
And I’m sure all the coincidences and odd occurrences can be explained by even odder excuses.
Saying “that couldn’t have happened” is not how I ripped holes in your theory, much as you would like to believe it was. The “oddness”is all in your mind IMO.
-
Saying “that couldn’t have happened” is not how I ripped holes in your theory, much as you would like to believe it was. The “oddness”is all in your mind IMO.
That’s exactly what you did.
-
Saying ‘that couldn’t have happened’ is not ripping holes in my theory VS. Apologies if this comes as a surprise to you.
And I’m sure all the coincidences and odd occurrences can be explained by even odder excuses.
As Clarence said, "There are wholly innocent explanations for anything the police may or may not have found."
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/quotes-of-the-day-clarence-mitchell-time-magazine--t18687.html
-
That’s exactly what you did.
Gerry couldn’t have been Smithman, and that’s a fact established by the PJ. Tell them they’re wrong then.
-
Then that is not a theory of parental involvement, sorry.
It does not exclude parental involvement.
-
Gerry couldn’t have been Smithman, and that’s a fact established by the PJ. Tell them they’re wrong then.
I was really hoping to talk about supporters, their motivation and any evidence of abduction that they would care to share.
It seems that is lacking as there has been no information apart from this last post by Vertigo Swirl. Of course Gerry McCann being Smithman or not depends upon the time of Kate's alarm being accurate timewise within a very few minutes IMO.
-
Gerry couldn’t have been Smithman, and that’s a fact established by the PJ. Tell them they’re wrong then.
That’s a supposition formed by an alibi given to him by friends. There are no independent witnesses that say he was in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
-
The question of the thread is why do some ardently believe the McCann's, not the sceptic point of view.
There don't seem to be many takers for this barrier. Just the usual deflections and opinions based on limited to no experience of "doing jobs" abroad and clearly the belief that outside the confines of their own profession the McCanns must be totally unobservant and unaware of their environment.
-
There don't seem to be many takers for this barrier. Just the usual deflections and opinions based on limited to no experience of "doing jobs" abroad and clearly the belief that outside the confines of their own profession the McCanns must be totally unobservant and unaware of their environment.
I find it very surprising Alice. I was expecting supporters to be queuing up to share reasons to believe the McCanns. However it seems to be situation normal.
-
I find it very surprising Alice. I was expecting supporters to be queuing up to share reasons to believe the McCanns. However it seems to be situation normal.
I have given my reason, it’s been pooh-poohed, situation normal.
-
I have given my reason, it’s been pooh-poohed, situation normal.
It was sort of an absence of belief in anything else.
-
I have given my reason, it’s been pooh-poohed, situation normal.
You've given your reasons of the view's of sceptics has you see it.
-
I find it very surprising Alice. I was expecting supporters to be queuing up to share reasons to believe the McCanns. However it seems to be situation normal.
I am not feeling like being mocked at the moment.
-
I am not feeling like being mocked at the moment.
Is that what you see some doing when questioning a sceptic's view?
-
It was sort of an absence of belief in anything else.
I believe the McCanns are innocent because despite my and others best efforts to figure out how they did it and got away with it, it has been impossible to arrive at a plausible, coherent narrative. It’s an Occam’s Razor type thing. The simplest explanation. is usually the right one. In this case the simplest explanation is that Madeleine was taken from the apartment by a stranger, in fact I recall you came up with the perfect abduction theory yourself, it was about two lines long. You couldn’t do that for parental involvement.
-
I am not feeling like being mocked at the moment.
Eleanor some may mock you others will simply read what you say and digest it. How are supposed to get your point across if you won't even say what that point is?
I haven't been here for very long and I have been mocked many times. I think it appears to go with the territory in discussing a case of this nature. Or so it seems to me anyway. All IMO.
-
Eleanor some may mock you others will simply read what you say and digest it. How are supposed to get your point across if you won't even say what that point is?
I haven't been here for very long and I have been mocked many times. I think it appears to go with the territory in discussing a case of this nature. Or so it seems to me anyway. All IMO.
I've already given my Theory, and been mocked. Not that I care about that, but it is a waste of time, especially as you obviously didn't read my Theory the last time.
-
I've already given my Theory, and been mocked. Not that I care about that, but it is a waste of time, especially as you obviously didn't read my Theory the last time.
Sorry Eleanor I don't remember reading your theory. I am always interested in theories from either side of the fence.
-
Sorry Eleanor I don't remember reading your theory. I am always interested in theories from either side of the fence.
I have lots of very sound reasons for supporting the McCann's... But as you have have taken exception to the accuracy of my typing I wouldn't want to share in case my typos cause you distress
-
I have lots of very sound reasons for supporting the McCann's... But as you have have taken exception to the accuracy of my typing I wouldn't want to share in case my typos cause you distress
Actually Davel that post reads very clearly. I would be very interested in your "lots of very sound reasons for supporting the McCann's"?
Please can you answer with them?
-
Actually Davel that post reads very clearly. I would be very interested in your "lots of very sound reasons for supporting the McCann's"?
Please can you answer with them?
Absolutely not... Wouldn't want to distress you with any typos...
-
Absolutely not... Wouldn't want to distress you with any typos...
Well now some people might think you don't have a lot of sound reasons to support the McCanns'.
I am prepared to put up with your typos if you will give me some reasons.
-
Well now some people might think you don't have a lot of sound reasons to support the McCanns'.
I am prepared to put up with your typos if you will give me some reasons.
If you apologise for your insulting post.. I might consider it
-
If you apologise for your insulting post.. I might consider it
A piece of advice for Sunny, don't apologise. I have read your posts for several years now and there is nothing she can learn from them that is worth that sacrifice.
-
If you apologise for your insulting post.. I might consider it
Davel I don't consider my post insulting so I am not apologising for it. Clearly you realised I was talking about yourself by the use of only one word.
Perhaps you could make more of an effort with your typing to make your posts easier to read as you clearly can as you have done in your last two posts and I am sure you are an educated man.
-
Davel I don't consider my post insulting so I am not apologising for it. Clearly you realised I was talking about yourself by the use of only one word.
Perhaps you could make more of an effort with your typing to make your posts easier to read as you clearly can as you have done in your last two posts and I am sure you are an educated man.
Your post was mostly childish but also insulting...when you apologise I wil comment on this, thread
-
Davel I don't consider my post insulting so I am not apologising for it. Clearly you realised I was talking about yourself by the use of only one word.
Perhaps you could make more of an effort with your typing to make your posts easier to read as you clearly can as you have done in your last two posts and I am sure you are an educated man.
I do hope you are going to give the same advice and encouragement regarding the effort with typing and spelling to at least one, if not two sceptic posters whose posts can often be quite challenging to decipher.
-
I do hope you are going to give the same advice and encouragement regarding the effort with typing and spelling to at least one, if not two sceptic posters whose posts can often be quite challenging to decipher.
Of course Erngath.
If davel chooses not to post on this thread with his wealth of McCann supporting evidence I expect that is his and their loss.
-
I do hope you are going to give the same advice and encouragement regarding the effort with typing and spelling to at least one, if not two sceptic posters whose posts can often be quite challenging to decipher.
Give me their names!
-
Give me their names!
@)(++(*
Ask Sunny .
He/she is now the grammarian for the forum.
I stopped doing corrections a long time ago!
-
@)(++(*
Ask Sunny .
He/she is now the grammarian for the forum.
I stopped doing corrections a long time ago!
I was going to wait until a member made a post with very bad typing and as I actually do not yet know which posters you refer to Erngath, perhaps you could kindly do the honours.
-
I was going to wait until a member made a post with very bad typing and as I actually do not yet know which posters you refer to Erngath, perhaps you could kindly do the honours.
And be the class sneak? *&^^&
-
And be the class sneak? *&^^&
Aww 8(>(( 8(>(( 8(>((
-
And be the class sneak? *&^^&
In my day at about this stage you would have been given an imposition of 100 lines. "I will answer my teacher's questions truthfully."
-
In my day at about this stage you would have been given an imposition of 100 lines. "I will answer my teacher's questions truthfully."
Probably better than getting the slipper as happened in the past.
-
In reply to the OP, I believe Madeleine was abducted therefore I believe her parents' version of events. My early gut feeling was borne out by everything I subsequently read about the case. I have shared some suspicions about who may have been involved & elements of what I perceive to have been the PJ cover-up but am unable to definitively answer the question "why?" IMO the UK Govt involvement & any PJ cover-up are 2 entirely separate & unrelated issues.
-
Probably better than getting the slipper as happened in the past.
Don't worry I had the cane and six of the best with the strap too in my time.
-
In reply to the OP, I believe Madeleine was abducted therefore I believe her parents' version of events. My early gut feeling was borne out by everything I subsequently read about the case. I have shared some suspicions about who may have been involved & elements of what I perceive to have been the PJ cover-up but am unable to definitively answer the question "why?" IMO the UK Govt involvement & any PJ cover-up are 2 entirely separate & unrelated issues.
Thank you for your honest post misty although I have to say I disagree regarding a coverup on the side of the PJ. I do however believe the Home Office were less than helpful to the PJ regarding the Portuguese requests for information.
-
Thank you for your honest post misty although I have to say I disagree regarding a coverup on the side of the PJ. I do however believe the Home Office were less than helpful to the PJ regarding the Portuguese requests for information.
Do you mean information in general or specific to the parents?
-
In reply to the OP, I believe Madeleine was abducted therefore I believe her parents' version of events. My early gut feeling was borne out by everything I subsequently read about the case. I have shared some suspicions about who may have been involved & elements of what I perceive to have been the PJ cover-up but am unable to definitively answer the question "why?" IMO the UK Govt involvement & any PJ cover-up are 2 entirely separate & unrelated issues.
Perhaps you could explain how you reached the conclusion that Madeleine was abducted?
-
In reply to the OP, I believe Madeleine was abducted therefore I believe her parents' version of events. My early gut feeling was borne out by everything I subsequently read about the case. I have shared some suspicions about who may have been involved & elements of what I perceive to have been the PJ cover-up but am unable to definitively answer the question "why?" IMO the UK Govt involvement & any PJ cover-up are 2 entirely separate & unrelated issues.
Yet OG can't see through this supposed cover up,millions wasted then.
-
Perhaps you could explain how you reached the conclusion that Madeleine was abducted?
It would appear Misty did exactly what supporters accuse the PJ of. She had a ‘gut’ feeling that the parents were innocent so accepted the evidence that supported that feeling.
-
It would appear Misty did exactly what supporters accuse the PJ of. She had a ‘gut’ feeling that the parents were innocent so accepted the evidence that supported that feeling.
Rowley with his evidence couldn't or wouldn't confirm if the poor girl was dead or alive,adding "as a team we are realistic about what we might be dealing with - especially as months turn to years".
-
It would appear Misty did exactly what supporters accuse the PJ of. She had a ‘gut’ feeling that the parents were innocent so accepted the evidence that supported that feeling.
Is Misty a policeman? Do her “gut feelings” have consequences for others?
-
Is Misty a policeman? Do her “gut feelings” have consequences for others?
If you look at the OP you will see why misty's "gut feelings" may be relevant to this thread Vertigo Swirl.
-
If you look at the OP you will see why misty's "gut feelings" may be relevant to this thread Vertigo Swirl.
Relevant to the thread maybe, but not to the behaviour of the PJ in 2007.
-
It would appear Misty did exactly what supporters accuse the PJ of. She had a ‘gut’ feeling that the parents were innocent so accepted the evidence that supported that feeling.
Actually it was a gut feeling about who had taken Madeleine. The evidence of parental innocence came later, especially after the "blood on the steps (that never was)" report emanating from Portugal around arguido time.
-
Actually it was a gut feeling about who had taken Madeleine. The evidence of parental innocence came later, especially after the "blood on the steps (that never was)" report emanating from Portugal around arguido time.
If it was a gut feeling about the abductor then you obviously thought the parents innocent.
-
If it was a gut feeling about the abductor then you obviously thought the parents innocent.
I never thought about the parents' innocence, in the same way I didn't when Holly & Jessica went missing - same gut feeling which was proven correct. It was only later in Madeleine's case that I learned matters were more complicated than just a simple abduction.
-
I never thought about the parents' innocence, in the same way I didn't when Holly & Jessica went missing - same gut feeling which was proven correct. It was only later in Madeleine's case that I learned matters were more complicated than just a simple abduction.
Of course Misty.
I think age has a lot to do with your opinion on the McCanns guilt or innocence. Supporters tend to be older and were brought up in an age when doctors weren’t questioned. The younger generation are much less rigid in their opinions having been brought up in an age where doctors aren’t only questioned by regularly see the inside of a court for malpractice.
-
Actually it was a gut feeling about who had taken Madeleine. The evidence of parental innocence came later, especially after the "blood on the steps (that never was)" report emanating from Portugal around arguido time.
Didn't you have to believe in an abduction first before wondering who did it?
-
Of course Misty.
I think age has a lot to do with your opinion on the McCanns guilt or innocence. Supporters tend to be older and were brought up in an age when doctors weren’t questioned. The younger generation are much less rigid in their opinions having been brought up in an age where doctors aren’t only questioned by regularly see the inside of a court for malpractice.
Questioning innocence is not the same as questioning a doctor's professional judgement. My age has nothing to do with it, other than granting me the wisdom the younger generation do not yet have.
-
Questioning innocence is not the same as questioning a doctor's professional judgement. My age has nothing to do with it, other than granting me the wisdom the younger generation do not yet have.
Very true Misty.
In many cultures the wisdom of the elderly in a community is respected.
Sadly in our culture it is not evidenced by some.
-
Of course Misty.
I think age has a lot to do with your opinion on the McCanns guilt or innocence. Supporters tend to be older and were brought up in an age when doctors weren’t questioned. The younger generation are much less rigid in their opinions having been brought up in an age where doctors aren’t only questioned by regularly see the inside of a court for malpractice.
I think you ar quite wrong in your assumption...as a supporter I have repeatedly said it is raesonable to question all professionals...including Grime ...but have bben told by mods that a layman has no grounds to question a professional.
-
Didn't you have to believe in an abduction first before wondering who did it?
All the circumstances reported at the time indicated abduction. As Madeleine was not located within 3 days, that merely reinforced my suspicions.
-
Very true Misty.
In many cultures the wisdom of the elderly in a community is respected.
Sadly in our culture it is not evidenced by some.
I almost feel that Faithlilly is guilty of discrimination when passing judgement on supporters.
Ageism rears its head when GPs exclude patients from their practice on the grounds they are too old & more likely to need costly treatment. Isn't that a reason why we over 50's should be more inclined away from supporting the McCanns?
-
I almost feel that Faithlilly is guilty of discrimination when passing judgement on supporters.
Ageism rears its head when GPs exclude patients from their practice on the grounds they are too old & more likely to need costly treatment. Isn't that a reason why we over 50's should be more inclined away from supporting the McCanns?
Faithlilly seems to have a problem with the old. How old is she? 20? 30? 40? What is old anyway? 50? 60? 70?
-
Faithlilly seems to have a problem with the old. How old is she? 20? 30? 40? What is old anyway? 50? 60? 70?
I will admit to being in my very early seventies..........
I certainly was brought up by parents who did not have this subservient attitude to doctors or other professionals.
Why Faithlilly assumes that the older generation have this "cap in hand" attitude to doctors is quite amusing.
However her ageist language is less amusing.
-
I will admit to being in my very early seventies..........
I certainly was brought up by parents who did not have this subservient attitude to doctors or other professionals.
Why Faithlilly assumes that the older generation have this "cap in hand" attitude to doctors is quite amusing.
However her ageist language is less amusing.
Then when you were young you were part of the counter-culture generation, when everything got turned on its head in the 60s, and respect for authority was no longer an automatic given like it was in the generations before. "Power to the People!"
-
No arguments or opinion about who is the more stupid.
-
Then when you were young you were part of the counter-culture generation, when everything got turned on its head in the 60s, and respect for authority was no longer an automatic given like it was in the generations before. "Power to the People!"
Yes part of that generation.
However I was fortunate to have parents who encouraged us to question authority, albeit my father was in a profession where respect was encouraged.
-
I think you ar quite wrong in your assumption...as a supporter I have repeatedly said it is raesonable to question all professionals...including Grime ...but have bben told by mods that a layman has no grounds to question a professional.
It’s not questioning a professional that is wrong, it is questioning a professional opinion. If you disagree with a doctor’s opinion, you get a second opinion, from another doctor.
-
It’s not questioning a professional that is wrong, it is questioning a professional opinion. If you disagree with a doctor’s opinion, you get a second opinion, from another doctor.
Precisely what I believe the Portuguese authorities did when they sacked Amaral and replaced him with Rebelo.
-
Precisely what I believe the Portuguese authorities did when they sacked Amaral and replaced him with Rebelo.
Which is relevant in what way?
-
All the circumstances reported at the time indicated abduction. As Madeleine was not located within 3 days, that merely reinforced my suspicions.
When the police statements were released didn't you question anything that the McCanns had said or done during those early times? I am thinking of the early statement by Gerry changing their entry to 5a from through a locked front door (with a key) to an unlocked sliding door at the rear as an example. These statements were only around 6 days apart.
-
When the police statements were released didn't you question anything that the McCanns had said or done during those early times? I am thinking of the early statement by Gerry changing their entry to 5a from through a locked front door (with a key) to an unlocked sliding door at the rear as an example. These statements were only around 6 days apart.
We don't know what the McCann's said as the statements were not written down verbatim in english
-
It’s not questioning a professional that is wrong, it is questioning a professional opinion. If you disagree with a doctor’s opinion, you get a second opinion, from another doctor.
So you feel you are not able to question a doctors opinion without a second doctors opinion... You are just so wrong
-
We don't know what the McCann's said as the statements were not written down verbatim in english
Surely they were close enough. Locked door with a key to unlocked patio sliding doors would surely not just occur due to translation error.
Davel I am sure I have read that you were a sceptic originally. If so what changed your mind?
-
Surely they were close enough. Locked door with a key to unlocked patio sliding doors would surely not just occur due to translation error.
Davel I am sure I have read that you were a sceptic originally. If so what changed your mind?
You are just so misinformed it's embarrassing.. Never been a sceptic.. without verbatim records we do not know what they said
-
Back Door, Front Door. Everyone was confused in the beginning.
And who said "Ardently?" There's nothing Ardent about me. All that most of us have done is to use a bit of common sense.
-
Back Door, Front Door. Everyone was confused in the beginning.
And who said "Ardently?" There's nothing Ardent about me. All that most of us have done is to use a bit of common sense.
Ah! with you now,thats where the alleged abductor comes in,confused.com.
-
Which is relevant in what way?
You said: "It’s not questioning a professional that is wrong, it is questioning a professional opinion. If you disagree with a doctor’s opinion, you get a second opinion, from another doctor." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10156.msg488689#msg488689
The Portuguese officials did just that in my opinion the professional Amaral lurched from one botch to the next ... the dogs ... the mess made of using the forensic results without any clear understanding of them ... the precipitate making Kate and Gerry arguidos with nothing to support it but I think spite and desperation. The icing on the cake though must have been getting caught mouthing off to the press about disregarding evidence,
In my opinion he was obviously found wanting or he never would have been sacked ... so he was given his marching orders and a competent professional was drafted in to take his place.
Exactly as you advocated in your post.
-
Ah! with you now,thats where the alleged abductor comes in,confused.com.
Should you not add IMO to alleged abductor?
If I type abductor I have to add IMO.
If I have to add IMO to abductor because there is no proof there is an abductor, then equally you should have to add IMO to alleged abductor because there is no proof there is not.
-
I seem to remember that because an abductor isn't proven. it has to be alleged - unless someone has changed the rules recently
Mods should know
-
I seem to remember that because an abductor isn't proven. it has to be alleged - unless someone has changed the rules recently
It's not unproven either.
So alleged should have IMO.
I never type alleged abductor because I believe there was an abductor, so I add IMO.
If a sceptic types alleged abductor they should add IMO because alleged suggests there is no abductor and there is no proof there was not.
-
I don't make the rules - I just sometimes break them 8)--))
-
Should you not add IMO to alleged abductor?
If I type abductor I have to add IMO.
If I have to add IMO to abductor because there is no proof there is an abductor, then equally you should have to add IMO to alleged abductor because there is no proof there is not.
If you say there was an abductor you are stating your opinion as if it were a fact.
If you say it is alleged that there was an abductor. that's a true statement.
-
If you say there was an abductor you are stating your opinion as if it were a fact.
If you say it is alleged that there was an abductor. that's a true statement.
If you say alleged abductor that is your opinion, not a fact.
-
Should you not add IMO to alleged abductor?
If I type abductor I have to add IMO.
If I have to add IMO to abductor because there is no proof there is an abductor, then equally you should have to add IMO to alleged abductor because there is no proof there is not.
Alleged=said to have taken place without proof.Self evident.
-
Alleged=said to have taken place without proof.Self evident.
Equally an abduction could have taken place, so to say alleged is in your opinion.
-
Equally an abduction could have taken place, so to say alleged is in your opinion.
Well seeing has the brits have spent circa £11.6 million in not finding one its hard to justify saying there is.
-
Equally an abduction could have taken place, so to say alleged is in your opinion.
I'm sure John will sort it.
-
Well seeing has the brits have spent circa £11.6 million in not finding one its hard to justify saying there is.
Indeed and as yet they haven't charged Madeleine's parents.
That would seem an easy task to do after the time and money spent?
If there was any evidence against them, of course.
-
Equally an abduction could have taken place, so to say alleged is in your opinion.
The McCanns say 'an abductor took Madeleine'. It isn't a proven fact that there was an abductor, therefore they're making an allegation. You agree with them. but have to put imo because you believe an allegation, not a fact. The correct term is alleged abductor.
-
Alleged abductor is an acceptable alternative to using IMO. There, simple.
-
Alleged abductor is an acceptable alternative to using IMO. There, simple.
I will continue to use abductor IMO.
-
The McCanns say 'an abductor took Madeleine'. It isn't a proven fact that there was an abductor, therefore they're making an allegation. You agree with them. but have to put imo because you believe an allegation, not a fact. The correct term is alleged abductor.
IYO
-
Well seeing has the brits have spent circa £11.6 million in not finding one its hard to justify saying there is.
Indeed and as yet they haven't charged Madeleine's parents.
That would seem an easy task to do after the time and money spent?
If there was any evidence against them, of course.
Not up to the brits though is it,we know that £11.6 million won't buy you an alleged abductor.
-
Not up to the brits though is it,we know that £11.6 million won't buy you an alleged abductor.
Not a Portuguese one anyway in my opinion. That would require many dotted i's and crossed t's.
-
Not up to the brits though is it,we know that £11.6 million won't buy you an alleged abductor.
Sorry I don't understand your post.