Author Topic: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB  (Read 358330 times)

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3090 on: February 08, 2021, 02:16:25 PM »
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?
I just enjoyed the scansion and the alliteration of it.  It was almost poetry IMO.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3091 on: February 08, 2021, 02:23:05 PM »
I just enjoyed the scansion and the alliteration of it.  It was almost poetry IMO.

I thought the thought of Rob in scanty underwear under his Kilt while herding Sheep was marginally more funny.  I mean, who would believe that?  And I don't think Rob has got any sheep, apart from a few around here, when it suits them.  And does Rob even own a Kilt?

PS.  I don't want to know about the scanty underwear.  Each to his own say I. 

Offline kizzy

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3092 on: February 08, 2021, 02:37:18 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.

Ah you have a good memory then - thats why I always apoligise for offending anyone who reads my posts.

I should have put excuse not back up.


Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3093 on: February 08, 2021, 02:59:44 PM »
I thought the thought of Rob in scanty underwear under his Kilt while herding Sheep was marginally more funny.  I mean, who would believe that?  And I don't think Rob has got any sheep, apart from a few around here, when it suits them.  And does Rob even own a Kilt?

PS.  I don't want to know about the scanty underwear.  Each to his own say I.
In that case I must have been thinking of John.  My memory isn't what it used to be.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline G-Unit

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3094 on: February 08, 2021, 03:20:10 PM »
I remember you said you liked to wear lacy women's underwear under your kilt whilst out herding sheep.

Is it just me who finds this peep into the nature of your thought processes completely off-putting, I wonder?
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 #3095 on: February 08, 2021, 03:23:20 PM »
In that case I must have been thinking of John.  My memory isn't what it used to be.

That could be pushing things a bit.  I'm not having John maligned when it comes to humour.

"Okay, Boss.  I'm on your side."

However,  John gave up Sheep back along, although he almost certainly owns a Kilt.

But he has never asked to borrow my lacy underwear.  Yet.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3096 on: February 08, 2021, 03:24:11 PM »
Is it just me who finds this peep into the nature of your thought processes completely off-putting, I wonder?

Probably.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3097 on: February 08, 2021, 03:30:14 PM »
Is it just me who finds this peep into the nature of your thought processes completely off-putting, I wonder?
Oh look, pulling the faux outrage card out the pack, nicely played.  As if I was here to turn you on anyway.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3098 on: February 08, 2021, 06:12:01 PM »
yeah well, it was a bit dark admittedly but that's the mood I'm in right now, soz.
See a shrink before it is too late.
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 Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3099 on: February 08, 2021, 06:15:53 PM »
Ah you have a good memory then - thats why I always apoligise for offending anyone who reads my posts.

I should have put excuse not back up.
How very convivial of you.  Apologies go a long way.
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 Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3100 on: February 08, 2021, 06:21:24 PM »
Oh look, pulling the faux outrage card out the pack, nicely played.  As if I was here to turn you on anyway.
possibly slightly paranoid.   As I said before it gets any worse see a shrink.  Your post was quite defensive TBH. 
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 #3101 on: February 08, 2021, 06:21:45 PM »
Oh look, pulling the faux outrage card out the pack, nicely played.  As if I was here to turn you on anyway.

Turn me on? Are you saying there was a sexual connotation in what you said? How strange.
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 #3102 on: February 08, 2021, 06:23:44 PM »
possibly slightly paranoid.   As I said before it gets any worse see a shrink.  Your post was quite defensive TBH.
How very dare you be so personal and insulting!!!
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3103 on: February 08, 2021, 06:27:09 PM »
Turn me on? Are you saying there was a sexual connotation in what you said? How strange.
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.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3104 on: February 08, 2021, 07:52:30 PM »
How very dare you be so personal and insulting!!!
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.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2021, 07:54:42 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.