Author Topic: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB  (Read 358013 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3105 on: February 08, 2021, 08:01:12 PM »
I'm talking about your post.  Your post had paranoid overtones.  Oh so you never tried to insult me to begin with, is that right? See now I'm showing paranoia.
No, I was not trying to insult you, it was a joke, John said we needed to be more humorous so I just trying to do my bit.  It’s not my fault if no one shares my sense of humour.  8(8-))
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3106 on: February 08, 2021, 08:28:05 PM »
No, I was not trying to insult you, it was a joke, John said we needed to be more humorous so I just trying to do my bit.  It’s not my fault if no one shares my sense of humour.  8(8-))
Yeah and I'm just continuing the joke, saying you need to get your head read.
I'll even give you the cite before you ask for it.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg639422#msg639422
« Last Edit: February 08, 2021, 08:31:38 PM by Robittybob1 »
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 #3107 on: February 08, 2021, 09:06:11 PM »
Yeah and I'm just continuing the joke, saying you need to get your head read.
I'll even give you the cite before you ask for it.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg639422#msg639422
And I remember that I was continuing your joke by pretending to be offended, no need for a cite as it’s what I remember.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3108 on: February 08, 2021, 09:25:36 PM »
And I remember that I was continuing your joke by pretending to be offended, no need for a cite as it’s what I remember.
Well, that is good that even if I say "you need to see a shrink" you can just laugh it off.

Which is a bit of a worry isn't it?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2021, 09:35:55 PM by Robittybob1 »
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 #3109 on: February 08, 2021, 09:38:15 PM »
Well, that is good that even if I say "you need to see a shrink" you can just laugh it off.
I actually would love to see a shrink and that isn’t a joke.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3110 on: February 08, 2021, 09:44:35 PM »
I actually would love to see a shrink and that isn’t a joke.
What would be holding you back?  I never found it that helpful myself (It didn't change me).  But it was good to be able to show others that I didn't have a problem.

Could you change?
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 G-Unit

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3111 on: February 08, 2021, 09:55:53 PM »
I believe wearing women’s lingerie if you’re a man is a sexual kink, yes.  Strange it may well be, even stranger that you had to ask, especially when you’d already claimed to be thoroughly put off by my thought processes.  What exactly was it about them that repelled you so?  Do explain.

I just couldn't understand why it popped into your mind. Kilts, sheep and ladie's underwear? Very weird and pretty far out imo. It's probably just not my kind of humour.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2021, 10:19:27 PM by G-Unit »
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 #3112 on: February 08, 2021, 11:09:04 PM »
What would be holding you back?  I never found it that helpful myself (It didn't change me).  But it was good to be able to show others that I didn't have a problem.

Could you change?
Into what?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3113 on: February 08, 2021, 11:10:59 PM »
I just couldn't understand why it popped into your mind. Kilts, sheep and ladie's underwear? Very weird and pretty far out imo. It's probably just not my kind of humour.
Probably not, no, you obviously don’t find Monty Python, Dick Emery, The Two Ronnies, Les Dawson, Carry On that sort of typical old school, British humour very funny.  No matter. 
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline G-Unit

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3114 on: February 09, 2021, 12:34:05 AM »
Probably not, no, you obviously don’t find Monty Python, Dick Emery, The Two Ronnies, Les Dawson, Carry On that sort of typical old school, British humour very funny.  No matter.

Were they into making jokes about men wearing kilts with women's underwear while chasing sheep? I must have missed that. I don't see Monty Python as as old school at all.
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 #3115 on: February 09, 2021, 07:16:21 AM »
Were they into making jokes about men wearing kilts with women's underwear while chasing sheep? I must have missed that. I don't see Monty Python as as old school at all.
Monty Python was 50 years ago.  That’s half a century.  In my book that’s quite old school.  All the afore mentioned enjoyed dressing up in women’s clothing for a laugh, and a bit of bawdy humour, I remember kilts featuring in Carry On Up The Khyber.  As for the sheep, I didn’t say “chasing sheep”, I was alluding to Rob’s background in animal husbandry and coming from NZ.  It really does kind of rip the arse out of things when you have to explain a throwaway aside to someone with a sense of humour bypass but hopefully we can move on now.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Myster

It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline The General

Subject Matter Expert - Hobos.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3119 on: February 09, 2021, 09:55:43 AM »
Which one is you?
Neither but I'd give Michael Palin one.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".