Where does evidence end and speculation take over?

[John]

Many times on this forum we have seen the words evidence and speculation used to explain the same event such is the difference in the individuals perception.  There have been claims that there is evidence that Madeleine was abducted and counter claims that there is no such evidence and what it amounts to is merely speculation.  By the same token there have been claims that Gerry was seen carrying a child down near the beach at 10pm yet over time this has been shown to have been untrue since the evidence and indeed the proof places him at the tapas restaurant at that time. What starts out in many cases as evidence of one thing often ends up being evidence of another.

It was claimed by davel that most of the forum is based on speculation but I corrected him by stating that although speculation is part and parcel of many discussions, there has to be a sizeable element of evidence contained within the debate for it to be considered legit.  A forum based on truth and justice therefore cannot afford itself the luxury of allowing debates to take place merely on the basis of speculation.

You could say one mans truth is another mans speculation.

[Mr Gray]

Many times on this forum we have seen the words evidence and speculation used to explain the same event such is the difference in the individuals perception.  There have been claims that there is evidence that Madeleine was abducted and counter claims that there is no such evidence and what it amounts to is merely speculation.  By the same token there have been claims that Gerry was seen carrying a child down near the beach at 10pm yet over time this has been shown to have been untrue since the evidence and indeed the proof places him at the tapas restaurant at that time. What starts out in many cases as evidence of one thing often ends up being evidence of another.

It was claimed by davel that most of the forum is based on speculation but I corrected him by stating that although speculation is part and parcel of many discussions, there has to be a sizeable element of evidence contained within the debate for it to be considered legit.  A forum based on truth and justice therefore cannot afford itself the luxury of allowing debates to take place merely on the basis of speculation.

You could say one mans truth is another mans speculation.

 But posters are continually allowed to post speculation without evidence

[Carana]

Quote from: John on Today at 07:05:25 PM

    In you opinion.  Fortunately the truth is somewhat different as this forum is based on evidence and facts with an acceptable level of speculation thrown in where appropriate.

    This forum has never tolerated lies or liars.


Thanks for that clarification, John. Does this also apply to certain posters who haven't backed 99% of any assertions (as opposed to opinion) on here so far?

[jassi]

But posters are continually allowed to post speculation without evidence

Is that not what speculation is ?

[Wonderfulspam]

Where's the evidence John for a poster to state yesterday that Maddie died from a broken neck and her body was thrown in a bin.

Well excuse me for purporting a theory,

Where is the evidence of abduction, why is it ok for people to promote that theory without any evidence?

[Wonderfulspam]

But posters are continually allowed to post speculation without evidence

Furthermore., why is it acceptable to point the finger at burglars, paedos, gypsies & tractor drivers without a jot of evidence against them.

I call that blatant hypocrisy.

[CPN]

Well excuse me for purporting a theory,

Where is the evidence of abduction, why is it ok for people to promote that theory without any evidence?

exactly what I was about to post, WS.  And constantly refer to "the abductor" as if it were a proved fact

[Mr Gray]

exactly what I was about to post, WS.  And constantly refer to "the abductor" as if it were a proved fact

 well I object to his phrase "chucked her in the bin"..you don't , so that says a lot about you.

[stephen25000]

exactly what I was about to post, WS.  And constantly refer to "the abductor" as if it were a proved fact

Precisely CPN.

The supporters of the Mccanns consistently put forward the abduction as a fact, it isn't.

Then they invite other theories which they want to be put forward, as they may be considered libelous, even though they are theories, merely to attack the poster.

Allegedly of course.

[Mr Gray]

You don't half make assumptions - and like to add insults. That phrase is not one I like, actually, or would use myself.  That does not detract from the point I made.

 yes it does..you supported the post ..disgraceful

[stephen25000]

I've never said it was a fact....again you show your poor attention to detail.. I cannot believe you studied a science

Several actually.

Wrong on that one too.

Your pretense at not supporting the abduction has worn thin along time ago.

[CPN]

yes it does..you supported the post ..disgraceful

I supported the idea behind the post, not the language.  Surely you can see the difference?  If not well....

[Wonderfulspam]

I supported the idea behind the post, not the language.  Surely you can see the difference?  If not well....

 "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

[CPN]

 "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Another way of saying it! 

[Mr Gray]

I wasn't going to sentence them.
I have my own opinions, that is all. And as we are often reminded in here, none of us will make any difference to anything anyway so I really don't see a problem myself.

 you can say what you like afaiac...as I hope can I... John directed a post towards me saying that this forum is based on evidence...with an acceptable level of speculation... I suppose it depends on who decides what acceptable is