Can People Who Doubt the McCanns Safely Debate on This Forum ?

[gilet]

Stalking ? Is this just not reproducing postings on social media that are in the public domain ? I thnk the question was are these attributed to Anne who posts on here or are they those of another Anne ?

Do I have to justify who I'm not ?
Really scary mentalities here !

Its simple really.

Are you telling us that it is pure coincidence that another Portuguese resident called Anne Guedes (you have already said that is your real name) is posting about the McCanns?

Or is it you and you lied about your activity?

Which is it that you are claiming?

Don't you see all this is pure abuse, eventually defamatory ? These names are very common.

So you are claiming categorically that it is not you posting as @aacg and that it is pure coincidence that two people with a similar style in English, both called Anne Guedes, both with similar views on the McCann case and both claiming to be based in Portugal are posting on the issue?

Very, very interesting indeed!

There is nothing defamatory in what I have posted by the way. I have simply asked legitimate questions about the comparison between two online posters. I thought you believed in legitimate questions or is that only when they are not directed at you personally?

[AnneGuedes]

I feel you are being bullied on this thread Anne,  and I am appalled that others have been 'tracking you down' on the internet   (  makes me feel a bit queasy )

I think you should report this personal hounding to the mods

Thank you, Icabodcrane. I did. I feel horrible. Those ugly words are like hounds (whoever they're addressed to). I wish I understood why people behave this way, makes me cry I don't.

[icabodcrane]

Your concern for your fellow poster is touching. However you are forgetting it was Anne Guedes who made the claims about her Twitter etc. activity, not others.

Are you really saying that she should be allowed to lie about those claims or are you suggesting it is pure coincidence that @aacg happens to have the same name as the poster you are so touchingly being protective of?

When people make claims here they should expect to be challenged to support those claims.

I have asked the simple question did she lie or is she claiming its all a terrible coincidence? Others have noted that there is plenty of evidence of this other poster doing what Anne Guedes here claims she does not do? So did she lie or is it a coincidence?

What do you think?

You feel it is proper and acceptable for forum members to have their personal internet use  'investigated'  by other members  ? 

You think it is proper and acceptable to hound a fellow member  and stalk their on line activity ?

You are scarey gilet

[John]

You can use them by all means Luz.

Thanks, much obliged.

I've added another one: intellectual midget

Problem is when you use them with other words.   

[icabodcrane]

Please calm down everyone or I will lock this thread.

Past disputes on other forums should not be brought here.

Well said

[John]

Please calm down and take 5 everyone or I will lock this thread.

Past disputes on other forums should not be brought here.

[gilet]

Please calm down everyone or I will lock this thread.

Past disputes on other forums should not be brought here.

Apologies but when a poster makes a specific claim about her posting history of her own volition as Anna Guedes did here, to make her own point, then is it not fair that those who know that either there is a remarkable coincidence of names, styles etc can challenge the claim she made or should we just ignore it?

However as she has now claimed that its is pure co-incidence (I think) by referring to the fact that the name is very common I will let the matter rest.  Thats not to say that I  believe the claim though, because if it was really true I suspect there would have been a robust denial. None came.

[gilet]

Your concern for your fellow poster is touching. However you are forgetting it was Anne Guedes who made the claims about her Twitter etc. activity, not others.

Are you really saying that she should be allowed to lie about those claims or are you suggesting it is pure coincidence that @aacg happens to have the same name as the poster you are so touchingly being protective of?

When people make claims here they should expect to be challenged to support those claims.

I have asked the simple question did she lie or is she claiming its all a terrible coincidence? Others have noted that there is plenty of evidence of this other poster doing what Anne Guedes here claims she does not do? So did she lie or is it a coincidence?

What do you think?

You feel it is proper and acceptable for forum members to have their personal internet use  'investigated'  by other members  ? 

You think it is proper and acceptable to hound a fellow member  and stalk their on line activity ?

You are scarey gilet

It wasn't me who made the original post about this. It was Anne Guedes herself. She claimed not to follow people on Twitter.

I stalked no-one. I have a good memory and know of the Anti-McCann poster @aacg called Anne Guedes.

It was a perfectly fair question to ask was she lying about her other posting or was it pure coincidence.  Though she has now half-heartedly suggested it is coincidence it is difficult to credit. Nonetheless that is what she has implied and I must accept that.

[stephen25000]

gilet, I believe you said this.

"Everyone can see that I have not defamed Amaral who incidentally is a convicted criminal and a disgrace to the police force for his actions in another missing child case (but of course you have completely ignored that proven aspect of the man's character haven't you?"

Note the words  ' a disgrace to the police force '.

That is an opinion of yours, and not a fact, therefore can be classified as defamation.

Since if you don't count that as defamation, you can't complain if people view the Mccanns in the same way as regards what they failed to do in PDL.

[AnneGuedes]

The French budget minister recently confessed he had a secret account in Switzerland.  Some politics around were amazed and explained why : He did such a robust denial in Parliament, we believed him !
You see, appearing and being shouldn't be mixed up.
I wish you could understand the harsh tone of your posts, suddenly, reminded me of an episode of my childhood : little stones thrown at me in the school-yard because, in an history class about religions, my pals had discovered I wasn't a catholic.

[gilet]

gilet, I believe you said this.

"Everyone can see that I have not defamed Amaral who incidentally is a convicted criminal and a disgrace to the police force for his actions in another missing child case (but of course you have completely ignored that proven aspect of the man's character haven't you?"

Note the words  ' a disgrace to the police force '.

That is an opinion of yours, and not a fact, therefore can be classified as defamation.

Since if you don't count that as defamation, you can't complain if people view the Mccanns in the same way as regards what they failed to do in PDL.

Utter and absolute rubbish. It is not simply my opinion of the man. Its a statement of fact. It is a disgrace that a serving policeman should firstly get a criminal conviction for covering up something his officers had done in relation to the torture of a parent in a missing child case. And it is a disgrace that a serving police officer should be breaking the rules regarding leaking information and discussing the case with a journalist.

I can post clear evidence that his behaviour was disgraceful. Some of that evidence comes from his own confession of the behaviour written in his own book.

When anti-McCanns learn that opinion based on genuine evidence is not defamation and opinion simply based on mindless rumour and speculation is defamation then debate may progress. Till then I know that my statement that Amaral is a disgrace to the police force is accurate fact and therefore not defamation.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

thanks gilet, but I would prefer a reply from the poster herself.

[icabodcrane]

@Icabodcrane

I am reminded of the fact that you never did explain the discrepancy in your post where you mentioned Twitter whilst claiming not to be on Twitter? Any comment?

I am not 'on'  twitter  ...  I have not signed up and I do not tweet,  but can read it

I am not  'on'  facebook ...  I have not signed up and therefore cannot view

I do not post on any forums other than this one and digital spy  (  although I can view them )

...  how about  you ?   


   

[amaraltheofficeboy]

"
Speaking personally, I  hope there are no more delays in the libel case in Portugal, and then we shall see whether the Mccanns can prove libel there."

I agree with that

[John]

I must say I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments because the Amaral debacle has caused so much trouble far outside the corridors of justice.   It is about time we found out if Amaral is as good as he makes out to be or if he is just another cop with tunnel vision and an incapacity to realise when he is wrong.