Author Topic: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB  (Read 358329 times)

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3075 on: February 08, 2021, 07:27:44 AM »
Cite please - third time of asking.
It  is only a memory, and it has been proven that memories aren't infallible.  So no cite is required.
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 Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3076 on: February 08, 2021, 08:04:34 AM »
It  is only a memory, and it has been proven that memories aren't infallible.  So no cite is required.
I’ll temember that one in future - so I can write any nonsense without supplying a cite do long as I preface it with “I remember”.  Cool. 
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline G-Unit

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3077 on: February 08, 2021, 09:47:06 AM »
Pathetic.  Your cite fails to demonstrate that I was impressed by Kate’s “intellectual weight” using the F- word, what it does demonstrate is my empathetic understanding of why she would be so exasperated by the moronic question she was being asked and what I would have done in similar stressful and distressing circumstances.  However, I don’t think swearing your way through a podcast about a serious matter such as a case of a missing child lends the programme or its presenters any credibility, do you?

So swearing doesn't detract from the 'intellectual weight' of a person's opinions unless you say so?  @)(++(*
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 Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3078 on: February 08, 2021, 09:51:37 AM »
So swearing doesn't detract from the 'intellectual weight' of a person's opinions unless you say so?  @)(++(*
so swearing under your breath in a stressful and distressing situation such as being questioned over your daughter's disappearance is on an intellectual par with swearing throughout a 90 minute podcast regarding what happened to that young girl 13 years back?  If you say so  @)(++(*
To equate the two is pathetic whataboutery at its worst - well done.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2021, 10:09:32 AM by Robittybob1 »
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3079 on: February 08, 2021, 10:07:20 AM »
I’ll temember that one in future - so I can write any nonsense without supplying a cite do long as I preface it with “I remember”.  Cool.
I dare you to try it.  It will at least make us laugh, thinking about how bad your memory is.
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 Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3080 on: February 08, 2021, 10:09:30 AM »
I dare you to try it.  It will at least make us laugh, thinking about how bad your memory is.
I remember you said you liked to wear lacy women's underwear under your kilt whilst out herding sheep. 
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3081 on: February 08, 2021, 10:16:01 AM »
I remember you said you liked to wear lacy women's underwear under your kilt whilst out herding sheep.
You'll be claiming psychic powers as well soon too. 
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 Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3082 on: February 08, 2021, 10:25:19 AM »
You'll be claiming psychic powers as well soon too.
I have those too, I just don't like to boast about them.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline kizzy

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3083 on: February 08, 2021, 11:31:16 AM »
I’ll temember that one in future - so I can write any nonsense without supplying a cite do long as I preface it with “I remember”.  Cool.

I can write any nonsense without supplying a cite

Why do you have to have a backup -  for writing nonsense?  @)(++(*

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3084 on: February 08, 2021, 11:47:43 AM »
I can write any nonsense without supplying a cite

Why do you have to have a backup -  for writing nonsense?  @)(++(*
IMO if you remember something a forum member said and describe what you think you remember them saying on the forum, then that member has a right to challenge it.  But apparently not according to Rob, which means I can ascribe any old nonsense to any forum member and not have to back up my claim.  Hope that's clear now. 
Now, I seem to remember you saying you thought the McCanns should be loaded into a cannon and blasted to bits over the Bay Of Biscay. 
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline G-Unit

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3085 on: February 08, 2021, 12:36:17 PM »
I’ll temember that one in future - so I can write any nonsense without supplying a cite do long as I preface it with “I remember”.  Cool.

Not all nonsense requires a cite or even a preface, as can be seen by reading various posts imo.
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: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3086 on: February 08, 2021, 01:48:49 PM »
IMO if you remember something a forum member said and describe what you think you remember them saying on the forum, then that member has a right to challenge it.  But apparently not according to Rob, which means I can ascribe any old nonsense to any forum member and not have to back up my claim.  Hope that's clear now. 
Now, I seem to remember you saying you thought the McCanns should be loaded into a cannon and blasted to bits over the Bay Of Biscay.

I am presuming that this is the "Fun" John said we can have, which sometimes makes him laugh.  And God knows we need a laugh now and again.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3087 on: February 08, 2021, 01:50:38 PM »
I am presuming that this is the "Fun" John said we can have, which sometimes makes him laugh.  And God knows we need a laugh now and again.
yeah well, it was a bit dark admittedly but that's the mood I'm in right now, soz. 
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3088 on: February 08, 2021, 01:56:37 PM »
Not all nonsense requires a cite or even a preface, as can be seen by reading various posts imo.

Have a word with Rob then.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3089 on: February 08, 2021, 02:02:20 PM »
yeah well, it was a bit dark admittedly but that's the mood I'm in right now, soz.

I thought it was funny.  I mean, who would actually do such a thing?  Okay, okay.  You can think of a couple and so can I, but they would never get away with it.  Would they?