Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

Who here has ever claimed Amaral has no right to an opinion?  He has no right to spread untruths about others in an attempt to cause them harm or to muddy the waters, but an opinion is fine.  Just don’t defame or deliberately mislead is that too much to ask? 

[sadie]

Have you noticed how they all roll forward in unison, come to a dead stop then roll back again to repeat the process again and again and again ... ... 

Fascinating.

Reminds me of something which escapes me for the moment.  But I'll give your message some deep thought and maybe get back to you when I've analysed its true meaning

It sggests that they are organised to me and possibly have a leader


..."And the next mode of attack will be" ...  blah,blah

[G-Unit]

And The McCanns have No Rights for why?

I suggest you ask someone who holds that opinion.

[G-Unit]

Who here has ever claimed Amaral has no right to an opinion?  He has no right to spread untruths about others in an attempt to cause them harm or to muddy the waters, but an opinion is fine.  Just don’t defame or deliberately mislead is that too much to ask?

He is allowed his opinions. They have been examined in court, and no lies or defamation were detected. Your opinions are merely that also; differing opinions.

[Vertigo Swirl]

He is allowed his opinions. They have been examined in court, and no lies or defamation were detected. Your opinions are merely that also; differing opinions.

Perhaps you can provide a cite for “no lies or defamation were detected”.  No, of course you can’t, we’ve been through this several times before haven’t we?  The judge even said in the trial we are not here to determine if what was written in the book is true or words to that effect, which you seem to have conveniently and repeatedly forgotten. 

[G-Unit]

Perhaps you can provide a cite for “no lies or defamation were detected”.  No, of course you can’t, we’ve been through this several times before haven’t we?  The judge even said in the trial we are not here to determine if what was written in the book is true or words to that effect, which you seem to have conveniently and repeatedly forgotten.

That was, if you can remember it, because their task was to decide if it mirrored the investigation events and conclusions, which it did.

[Eleanor]

I suggest you ask someone who holds that opinion.

You obviously do.  That's why I asked.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That was, if you can remember it, because their task was to decide if it mirrored the investigation events and conclusions, which it did.

So do you now finally accept that the courts did not examine whether or not Amaral’s book contained defamatory and false allegations?   That it was not ever about libel but about whose rights trumped whose?   Incidentally if you can remember it the book did not mirror the investigation’s final conclusions which were that there was a lack of evidence that the McCanns were in any way involved in Madeleine’s disappearance.

[G-Unit]

You obviously do.  That's why I asked.

No I don't. Don't assume your biased opinions are facts.

[Eleanor]

No I don't. Don't assume your biased opinions are facts.

So my opinions are biased, are they?  What does that say about your opinions?

[Vertigo Swirl]

All opinions are biased, that’s the very nature of opinions.  “Biased opinions” is a tautology.  In my biased opinion. 

[Eleanor]

All opinions are biased, that’s the very nature of opinions.  “Biased opinions” is a tautology.  In my biased opinion. 

But not for Gunit, it seems.  Her comment was meant as an insult.  But then I am used to being insulted by those more ignorant than I.

[Vertigo Swirl]

What I can't quite get my head round is why sceptics will defend CB's rights to the presumption of innocence and are constantly outraged on his behalf but the same people never once expressed an ounce of indignation on behalf of the McCanns when their rights to the presumption of innocence were being trashed in the media and by Amaral.  Of course they trot out lame, victim-blaming excuses to explain their beliefs but the hypocrisy is quite clear for all objective parties to see - they only believe in human rights when it suits them.  They should be honest and say so.  I personally don't give a shit about defending CB's rights because in my opinion he forfeited them when he raped and abused. I know that it's important his rights are observed by those tasked with holding him and judging him but for me personally, nope don't care about him or his rights a jot.   

[kizzy]

What I can't quite get my head round is why sceptics will defend CB's rights to the presumption of innocence and are constantly outraged on his behalf but the same people never once expressed an ounce of indignation on behalf of the McCanns when their rights to the presumption of innocence were being trashed in the media and by Amaral.  Of course they trot out lame, victim-blaming excuses to explain their beliefs but the hypocrisy is quite clear for all objective parties to see - they only believe in human rights when it suits them.  They should be honest and say so.  I personally don't give a shit about defending CB's rights because in my opinion he forfeited them when he raped and abused. I know that it's important his rights are observed by those tasked with holding him and judging him but for me personally, nope don't care about him or his rights a jot.

Simple ..........IMO there was no abduction.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Simple ..........IMO there was no abduction.

That’s immaterial to anything I have written in my post.  IMO.