Have we learned anything new after almost 16 years?

[faithlilly]

Brietta puts it better than I did when she put that your posts
“evidence a rare vendetta of personalisation amounting to a tiresome campaign of stalking which is tantamount to abuse”.
Exactly!  And yet she tolerates it day in day out.

I post here, you respond to every post. It’s tiresome so I stop answering. That doesn’t stop you.
I move to another topic. You follow me there. I don’t post for a while there, neither do you. I start again, so do you.
I’m not sure why but you do seem rather obsessed with me.

‘A tiresome ( and rather creepy)/campaign of stalking’

Couldn’t have put it better myself.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I post here, you respond to every post. It’s tiresome so I stop answering. That doesn’t stop you.
I move to another topic. You follow me there. I don’t post for a while there, neither do you. I start again, so do you.
I’m not sure why but you do seem rather obsessed with me.

‘A tiresome ( and rather creepy)/campaign of stalking’

Couldn’t have put it better myself.

And that ladies and gentlemen is a perfect example of deflection and projection.

[Vertigo Swirl]

“ Considering every single post you’ve ever made on this forum contains a dig at Brietta underneath it”

Also you.

“ Yes it was a dig at you, inspired by your own dig at Brietta, so what?”

Please explain to me why this isn’t rampant hypocrisy on your part?

The point I was originally highlighting was that despite the fact you abuse Brietta in every post you make (which is your choice, do what you like) Brietta tolerates it and therefore accusing her of harsh moderation is inaccurate.  Also accusing her of “vile targeting” is what you do in every post you make, so that makes you a hypocrite doesn’t it?  And as you have also noted I no longer attack you in my signature line, so I guess that makes me a less regularly abusive poster than you now.

[faithlilly]

And that ladies and gentlemen is a perfect example of deflection and projection.

I should really remember the old adage…never wrestle with a pig, you’ll both get dirty and the pig likes it.

That’s why I’m taking my leave. Enjoy wallowing.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I should really remember the old adage…never wrestle with a pig, you’ll both get dirty and the pig likes it.

That’s why I’m taking my leave. Enjoy wallowing.

And that ladies and gentlemen is the perfect example of a sore loser. 
Don’t worry folks, she’ll be back!

[kizzy]

So it seems its going to be -  back to square one on the drawing board.

One [out off hundreds] of the things that has always struck me as so odd

Is why they never suspected anyone close to home.

Why was there only option -  that Maddie was taken by a stranger.

convinced enough to think it safe for twins to go in creche the next day

Why wasn't all options open...after all its not as if they were all good friends..

They never suspected anyone trusted them 100%.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MYkdgFVmrk&t=2494s


Interesting outlook to listen to -  when you have time on your hands

[Vertigo Swirl]

So it seems its going to be -  back to square one on the drawing board.

One [out off hundreds] of the things that has always struck me as so odd

Is why they never suspected anyone close to home.

Why was there only option -  that Maddie was taken by a stranger.

convinced enough to think it safe for twins to go in creche the next day

Why wasn't all options open...after all its not as if they were all good friends..

They never suspected anyone trusted them 100%.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MYkdgFVmrk&t=2494s


Interesting outlook to listen to -  when you have time on your hands

it’s not back to the drawing board.  CB remains the prime and only suspect in Madeleine’s disappearance, and that’s the way it’s likely to remain even when the slimy get is creeping around on the outside molesting and raping other women and children.

[Vertigo Swirl]

duplicate post

[Wonderfulspam]

It’s not back to the drawing board.  CB remains the prime and only suspect in Madeleine’s disappearance, and that’s the way it’s likely to remain even when the slimy get is creeping around on the outside molesting and raping other women and children.

No. This isn't fair. You can't just presume Brueckner guilty of molesting children & raping women .....in the future.  You have no idea what he's going to be doing with his life after he leaves prison & quite frankly his life is none of your business anyway. Suppose he never commits a single crime in the remainder of his life?  Will you be apologising to him for this disgraceful smear? I very much doubt it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

No. This isn't fair. You can't just presume Brueckner guilty of molesting children & raping women .....in the future.  You have no idea what he's going to be doing with his life after he leaves prison & quite frankly his life is none of your business anyway. Suppose he never commits a single crime in the remainder of his life?  Will you be apologising for this disgraceful smear? I very much doubt it.

I can do whatever I like and there’s nothing you can do to stop me.  But tell you what, you stop smearing the McCanns and I’ll stop smearing the paedo / rapist, ‘kay?

[Wonderfulspam]

I can do whatever I like and there’s nothing you can do to stop me.  But tell you what, you stop smearing the McCanns and I’ll stop smearing the paedo / rapist, ‘kay?

I think you mean ex-paedo/rapist. He hasn't raped or molested anyone in seven years & there's no evidence he's going to do so again.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think you mean ex-paedo/rapist. He hasn't raped or molested anyone in seven years & there's no evidence he's going to do so again.

no, I definitely mean paedo / rapist.

[Wonderfulspam]

no, I definitely mean paedo / rapist.

Well from now on I'll only ever be referring to Christian Brueckner as a paedo/rapist, in the past tense. Since, whilst he did commit those crimes in the past, he isn't raping or molesting anyone in the present, & there's no guarantee he will be doing so in future. I think that's only fair & reasonable under the circumstances.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well from now on I'll only ever be referring to Christian Brueckner as a paedo/rapist, in the past tense. Since, whilst he did commit those crimes in the past, he isn't raping or molesting anyone in the present, & there's no guarantee he will be doing so in future. I think that's only fair & reasonable under the circumstances.

we’ve had this tiresome argument before.  You do what you like, it doesn’t alter the fact that Christian Bruckner has a prediliction for and a long history of abusing children.  It doesn’t alter the fact that he has the propensity to tie up a woman and subject her to hours’ long sexual depravity.  If you were fortunate enough to have any women or girls in your life would you be happy for them to spend the day alone in this man’s company?  If so you’re sicker than I thought.

[Eleanor]

No. This isn't fair. You can't just presume Brueckner guilty of molesting children & raping women .....in the future.  You have no idea what he's going to be doing with his life after he leaves prison & quite frankly his life is none of your business anyway. Suppose he never commits a single crime in the remainder of his life?  Will you be apologising to him for this disgraceful smear? I very much doubt it.

Please try not to be too ridiculous.