Harmed or not harmed ...that is the question

[Eleanor]

This is another argument based on semantics.

[stephen25000]

This is another argument based on semantics.

You are therefore implying implicitly anyone disappearing has not come to harm.

[Eleanor]

You are therefore implying implicitly anyone disappearing has not come to harm.

No I am not implying anything implicitly, because I don't know what has happened to Madeleine. 

Children of 3 or 4 years are adopted without coming to any great harm mentally or physically.

[jassi]

I notice I've had 2 or3 posts purged and expunged tonight, for no apparent reason.

Perhaps the mods are falling below their quota   

[Mr Gray]

for the record I have already posted on this thread that simply by being abducted Maddie has come to harm. The McCanns comments are being taken out of context  ...it is a s simple as that.

[stephen25000]

No I am not implying anything implicitly, because I don't know what has happened to Madeleine. 

Children of 3 or 4 years are adopted without coming to any great harm mentally or physically.

More supposition.

You don't know she is alive, let alone been adopted.

[Eleanor]

More supposition.

You don't know she is alive, let alone been adopted.

And nor do you.

[stephen25000]

And nor do you.

Balance of probability, and no trace of her since she disappeared.

[pegasus]

"there is no evidence to suggest that she has been harmed, in any way whatsoever"
http://youtu.be/gFZy2f2yQJA?t=3m44s

[Mr Gray]

Balance of probability, and no trace of her since she disappeared.

the balance of probability has nothing to do with certainty

[Brietta]

One description can be interpreted as being pejorative particularly to those it refers to ... the other refers to those who are sceptical of some key aspects of Madeleine's case.
I may be wrong but I have seen no one objecting to the latter.

Perhaps it is about time to find terms acceptable to both sides of the divide for preferred name options?

[Brietta]

Please remain on topic.

Please refrain from making 'goading' posts.

Thank you.

[jassi]

One description can be interpreted as being pejorative particularly to those it refers to ... the other refers to those who are sceptical of some key aspects of Madeleine's case.
I may be wrong but I have seen no one objecting to the latter.

Perhaps it is about time to find terms acceptable to both sides of the divide for preferred name options?

Of course not, why should we ?    Sticks & stones etc.

In my opinion some people are just far too sensitive.

[Mr Gray]

Of course not, why should we ?    Sticks & stones etc.

In my opinion some people are just far too sensitive.

I agree..... but those who insist that forum rules must be applied should ensure rules are applied fairly...they want their cake

[Brietta]

Of course not, why should we ?    Sticks & stones etc.

In my opinion some people are just far too sensitive.

My opinion is that if members object to a particular sobriquet ... it is merely good manners to to observe and act on that objection.