Myths

[debunker]

What does it take for a contention to be elevated to the Myth section?

[faithlilly]

What does it take for a contention to be elevated to the Myth section?

Repetition.

[sadie]

Enough repetition ... and disinformation becomes propaganda

[debunker]

What does it take for a contention to be elevated to the Myth section?

Repetition.

Pleased that you have stopped the silly and childish name game.

Always makes me feel good when someone changes their behaviour for the better.

Repetition by ill-informed anti-mccanns leads to myths.

Decision by a neutral Mod decides when a myth is confined to the Myth section here. Judging by comments made by John makes me think that there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth (and a mass exit of [ censored word] accusing this as being a Pro board and that John is one of Debunker's socks.)

[gilet]

'Always makes me feel good when someone changes their behaviour for the better.'

Me too bedbunker 

Are you that immature in real life or is immaturity simply a trait of your online persona or does the immaturity you attempt to hide in your real life demonstrate itself through your online persona?

Why do you act so stupidly when the discussion is about a missing little girl? Are you trying to mock that child with such immature and pathetic behaviour or precisely what do you think you are gaining by making up pathetic names as you are doing?

[debunker]

'Always makes me feel good when someone changes their behaviour for the better.'

Me too bedbunker 

De rien fishfanny 

[Eleanor]

'Always makes me feel good when someone changes their behaviour for the better.'

Me too bedbunker 

De rien fishfanny 

Stop it.  You are making me laugh, and it's frightening the cat.

[faithlilly]

@ gilet

As you let the rather childish epitaph of [ censored word ] be applied to all posters who doubt the McCanns without comment I hope you'll please excuse me if I ignore your rather amateur attempt at psychoanalysis-from-afar.

[gilet]

@ gilet

As you let the rather childish epitaph of [ censored word ] be applied to all posters who doubt the McCanns without comment I hope you'll please excuse me if I ignore your rather amateur attempt at psychoanalysis-from-afar.

As you will see from my posts here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1143.0 and here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1143.msg32400#msg32400 there is very good reason to call those people [ censored word ]s. Anyone who fraternises with such disgusting people on their sites is in my view a lazy or deliberate supporter of that hate.

There is no psychoanalysis from me by the way, merely a question to you.

And I will add a further question.

Can you point to any post you have made which has not been either immature or disruptive, a post which has actually been about the case and which has offered evidence to back up your views on the case?

[faithlilly]

@ gilet

For debate you read disruption. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable on a forum that is rather more partisan than here.

[gilet]

@ gilet

For debate you read disruption. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable on a forum that is rather more partisan than here.

Sorry, I do not mean debate, I mean disruption.

How can you possibly lie about your immature name calling of people and call it debate? It is pure disruption as all readers here can see.


The challenge remains.

Can you point to any post you have made which has not been either immature or disruptive, a post which has actually been about the case and which has offered evidence to back up your views on the case?

[faithlilly]

@ gilet

Name any poster I have called a derogatory name, as you have, such as [ censored word ] or evil and I will answer your question ?

[gilet]

@ gilet

Name any poster I have called a derogatory name, as you have, such as [ censored word ] or evil and I will answer your question ?

Your problem here is that I have offered evidence to back up my claims that the people I have called evil and [ censored word ]s are such.

That you do not seem to think it is hateful to call people the names used, for example, on that disgusting Facebook site is your problem. I know that most people here and in the real world think such disgusting name calling is hateful and therefore that those people who do it, and those who condone are [ censored word ]s.

That you do not seem to think it is hateful or even evil to denigrate the parents of a missing child who have committed no crime with lies and biased videos is your concern. I know that most people here and in the real world would call such hounding of the parents evil and hateful.

That you don't even seem to realise that such things are wrong tells us a great deal about you.

It is a fact that your name calling of people in your childish way is simply a sign of your immaturity.

I only call people the names when I post the proof that the name is perfectly applicable to their behaviour.

You on the other hand do it as some kind of immature and childish game.

A big difference and I am sure that others can recognise that difference.

[stephen25000]

@ gilet

Name any poster I have called a derogatory name, as you have, such as [ censored word ] or evil and I will answer your question ?

Indeed Faithlilly.

A general examination of the forums, does reveal that the largest 'share' if that term is appropriate, originates in the 'pro mccann' forums, not even counting the some of the  filth  on places like twitter, through people such as 'muratfan'.

To those who use the same language, such as the word '[ censored word ]s', I place under the same blanket,mwhether they pretend to be neutral or not.

[gilet]

@ gilet

Name any poster I have called a derogatory name, as you have, such as [ censored word ] or evil and I will answer your question ?

Indeed Faithlilly.

A general examination of the forums, does reveal that the largest 'share' if that term is appropriate, originates in the 'pro mccann' forums, not even counting the some of the  filth  on places like twitter, through people such as 'muratfan'.

To those who use the same language, such as the word '[ censored word ]s', I place under the same blanket,mwhether they pretend to be neutral or not.

[ censored word ]s and evil are terms which I use with evidence and with good reason.  Your apparent condoning of such vile behaviour by your refusal to see that the terms are valid is your problem.

The terms that Faithlilly uses about fellow posters are merely immature and childish game playing.