The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

sniffer dogs - a scenario

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Garth on 06.06.11 23:33

Anyway, its food for thought.
 
Good night!

Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Atilliator on 06.06.11 23:37

"I am told that a stiff will emit gases from post-mortem corruption after about 2 hours. This means that Madeleine's dead body must have been in that apartment for at least that amount of time. It will also mean that Cuddle Cat was adorning her body at least two hours after she died - possibly at the second apartment or in the car."

I agree and so, being as this is the case, then Madeleine (if you believe she died in that apartment which I dont) must have died BEFORE the McCanns went to dine........and obviously holding the cuddlecat.


No, I am saying exactly the opposite. I have seen some people saying that the fact that Cuddle Cat had cadavarine sticking to it meant that Madeleine died with Cuddle Cat in her arms. Romantic and maybe true. However, in order to get the cadaverine smell, the toy would have to be touching her at a time at least two hours after she had died.

The smell of cadaverine would not prove that she died in the apartment. It would mean that sometime after two hours the body was in the apartment. It might be that Madeleine died in another apartment; and, after, say, 15', she was taken to 5A. However, the blood on the walls indicates that something horrendous and probably fatal happened in 5A.

Atilliator

Posts : 25
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by newguest on 06.06.11 23:56

Garth Today at 11:33 pm
Anyway, its food for thought.
 
Good night!



I have no doubt you have given many people 'food for thought' Garth but not in the way you may have hoped I suspect.

newguest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Martin on 07.06.11 1:37

@Garth wrote:I've just watched the video and infact Martin Grimes shouts out to the dog twice to come back to the same car. Did Martine Grimes move on to the next car after the scenic? No.

So the above is enough to convince me that these dogs DO react to CONSCIOUS signals by its handler.

And that would explain why nothing was picked up in any of the other apartments wouldn't it!

He explains in the video why he called the dog, because it was sniffing the air and alerting to an odour. Obviously if the dog then loses the scent the handler calls it back to where it last indicated and they carry on until they discover the source. This is seen in the video where the dog is sniffing the air then runs around a bit until it's called back by the handler and catches the scent again. And he did carry on to all the other cars in the garage, but returned to the Scenic because it was the only one that the dog indicated. So, no it doesn't explain why nothing was picked up in any of the other apartments.

Unfortunately for TM it doesn't fit in with their innocent explanations for anything that may be found because Kate has acknowledged that the dog found cadaver scent on cuddlecat.

____________________


Martin

Posts : 75
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-05-02
Location : Kent

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by lj on 07.06.11 3:01

As general information, I posted elsewhere:

The problem with the decomposition scent development is that it is dependent on so many factors: temperature, humidity, if the deceased is a small person cq child, the general condition before death.
At least 3 factors here : temperature, humidity and Madeleine being a child favor early decompositions trends, so using a "timeline" to exclude death in the apartment is not really possible.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3289
Reputation : 168
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Martin on 07.06.11 4:52

Garth has quickly moved the topic of his own thread from questioning the reliability of the dogs to making unfounded and misleading slurs against the dog handler, Martin Grime. These slurs are based on no evidence whatsoever but they do follow a pattern employed by TM whereby they attempt to vilify and denigrate the investigators in this case. They can't stop the work of the experts being in the public domain so they resort to attacks on the person instead. The attacks in this particular matter are based on Gerry supposedly becoming an expert in the field after having done some research on the internet and finding an article which doubts the dogs reliability, and Garths erroneous interpretation of the video of the dogs in the garage.

____________________


Martin

Posts : 75
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-05-02
Location : Kent

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Guest001 on 07.06.11 6:01

In regard to cadaver dogs and for those following the Casey Anthony trial I guess we won't have to wait to much longer to find out how reliable they are considered by a jury.

Scientist: Body in Casey Anthony's trunk 'only plausible explanation'

(CNN) -- Jurors will hear more testimony Tuesday as the capital murder trial of Casey Anthony continues.

On Monday, a scientist testified the presence of a decomposing human body is the only plausible explanation for the odor in Anthony's trunk and the results found in forensic testing.

cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/07/florida.casey.anthony.trial

Guest001
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Me on 07.06.11 7:43

Oh good grief, he’s plumbing new depths now.

So despite ridiculing any notion which involves the Tapas mob as mad conspiracy theories Garth now is claiming that:

1) Grimes was on a “non win no fee” or “finders fee” to incriminate the McCann’s / prove their guilt, like some kind of ambulance chasing injury lawyer.

2) That Grimes purposely led the dogs to give a signal because he wanted a result against the McCann’s.

Not only are these assertions extremely libellous (Garth better hope Grimes doesn’t use Carter Ruck like you know who), but to suggest a third party expert would incriminate himself in framing a couple he hadn’t met or knew in order to make 1000 euros per day is ludicrous.

If he was doing that, would he have allowed himself to be filmed doing it? Why would he do it for the 1000 euros if it meant that if he was found out he would lose his job and reputation never mind the potential legal risk?

Where is the evidence he has done that, other than it looks leading to Garth whose qualifications in handling EVRD are unknown and who is now some barrack room EVRD handler!

The fact is for all the speculation we don’t know how he works with his dogs accurately. The only person whose words we can take as accurate are Grimes himself.

If he is prepared to put his name to a report which is to be used in a police investigation I am pretty happy to take the contents of that report seriously.

In relation to alerting next door, the files don’t show it but I recall seeing something along those lines and it turned out the furniture was from a dead person’s house. Not sure if that was internet myth though.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by LittleMissMolly on 07.06.11 8:12

@Garth wrote:If you read my post carefully Candy, all Im saying is that Martin Grimes wanted a result. He would have been paid a lot of money for those dogs. That, coupled with the fact that he may be proving the guilt of the parents into the death of their daughter would be enough to unconciously or conciously signal the dogs.................as can quite clearly be seen in the car footage.
 
And Kate Heely does have a point about the other apartments. And we all know MG KNEW which apartment the McCanns stayed in due to the coverage of the investigation in the media.
 
No prizes there............

Given that Martin Grimes earns a (very good) living from the accuracy of the dogs, wouldn't he be shooting himself in the foot by 'falsifying' results in such a high profile case? After all if he influences his dogs' searches then why would anyone bother to employ him again, let alone the FBI? His whole income rests on the accuracy of the dogs and his own impartiality.

With regard to his calling Eddie back to the Scenic ... well we aren't dog handlers and we don't know his dogs like he does, so we don't know what unconscious behaviours the dog was showing that led him to call him back.... he can doubtless tell the difference between when his dog has a whiff of something and is searching for the source and when it is just rooting around.

He's a professional and you are asking me to believe that he was involved in some kind of conspiracy for no personal gain ... he'd have still been paid whether the dogs found anything or not and falsifying results would have substantially harmed his reputation and thus his future income, so why would he bother to do such a thing - not just once during the searches but repeatedly?

You are very quick to dismiss conspiracies between the Tapas Group, where ties of friendship and loyalty exist, yet willing to entertain conspiracy where no such interest exists. You can't have your cake and eat it too Garth - where is your much vaunted logical thinking here? Where is the logic in believing that MG would deliberately try to frame the McCanns when he had no reason to do so and every reason not to mar his own reputation and those of his dogs, whom he relies on for his bread and butter?

Now I totally accept that all cadaver dogs may not be reliable ... but we aren't talking about cadaver dogs in general here - we are talking about two very specific dogs, who's record is exemplary. Eddie isn't trained using animal remains or artificial cadaverine - he has been trained using the products of human decomposition and as such has never alerted to decaying animals or any other substance.

I'm also aware that the general consensus is that cadaver odour develops after about 2 hours ... yet my own experience is that some bodies smell (even to the human nose!) almost from the moment of death. Ask any undertaker and they will tell you the same ... some cadavers are 'on the nose' from the off, whilst some aren't.

I find my own experience tends to outweigh even scientific data where that data has been collected from a limited number of samples in controlled environments ... I deal with bodies day in and day out and I know what I smell, let alone a dog who's sense of smell is far superior to mine i don\'t know

____________________
Joseph Goebbels (a man who ought to know):
If you tell a lie big enough and repeat it often enough then the public will eventually believe it

LittleMissMolly

Posts : 152
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Down boy!

Post by Marian on 07.06.11 9:41

My feelings are that, even if the evidence of the dogs was discounted for whatever reason, there are so many other factors in this strange case which can only lead to the conclusion that the McCanns are not being honest with us as to what happened.

Marian

Posts : 1147
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Guest on 07.06.11 10:01

The dog evidence has not been discounted.

It's just the McCann's and their team of supporters who are trying to discredit the dogs.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The dogs are innocent

Post by Marian on 07.06.11 10:04

Sorry Stella I didn't mean to imply that the evidence has been discounted, I know that it hasn't.

Marian

Posts : 1147
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Garth on 07.06.11 19:09

 

  Me Today at 7:43 am

Oh good grief, he’s plumbing new depths now.

So despite ridiculing any notion which involves the Tapas mob as mad conspiracy theories Garth now is claiming that:

1) Grimes was on a “non win no fee” or “finders fee” to incriminate the McCann’s / prove their guilt, like some kind of ambulance chasing injury lawyer.

2) That Grimes purposely led the dogs to give a signal because he wanted a result against the McCann’s.

Not only are these assertions extremely libellous (Garth better hope Grimes doesn’t use Carter Ruck like you know who), but to suggest a third party expert would incriminate himself in framing a couple he hadn’t met or knew in order to make 1000 euros per day is ludicrous.
-------------------------------
 
Its amazing isn't it. This poster believes the father would carry his dead daughter to her temporary grave, in full view of anybody and then return to the table to carry on eating as if nothing had happened. lol
 
Yet, he finds the notion that a dog may react to his owners concious or unconcious body movements absolutely ridiculous!
 
And even more amusing is the fact that he claims I'm making assertions and they are libellous!
 
For clarification and ease of understanding, they are not assertions, they are suggestions open for debate.
 
Tell me the difference please Mr know-it-all, what the diffirence is in suggesting the possibility that GM was the person who carried his dead daughter and the one I have made.
 
Can't wait for the usual twisting drivel.............
 
 
 

 

Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Me on 07.06.11 19:41

@Garth wrote:

Me Today at 7:43 am

Oh good grief, he’s plumbing new depths now.

So despite ridiculing any notion which involves the Tapas mob as mad conspiracy theories Garth now is claiming that:

1) Grimes was on a “non win no fee” or “finders fee” to incriminate the McCann’s / prove their guilt, like some kind of ambulance chasing injury lawyer.

2) That Grimes purposely led the dogs to give a signal because he wanted a result against the McCann’s.

Not only are these assertions extremely libellous (Garth better hope Grimes doesn’t use Carter Ruck like you know who), but to suggest a third party expert would incriminate himself in framing a couple he hadn’t met or knew in order to make 1000 euros per day is ludicrous.
-------------------------------

Its amazing isn't it. This poster believes the father would carry his dead daughter to her temporary grave, in full view of anybody and then return to the table to carry on eating as if nothing had happened. lol

Yet, he finds the notion that a dog may react to his owners concious or unconcious body movements absolutely ridiculous!

And even more amusing is the fact that he claims I'm making assertions and they are libellous!

For clarification and ease of understanding, they are not assertions, they are suggestions open for debate.

Tell me the difference please Mr know-it-all, what the diffirence is in suggesting the possibility that GM was the person who carried his dead daughter and the one I have made.

Can't wait for the usual twisting drivel.............

Evening!

First of all having looked back on our recent postings I think its clear both of us need to ratchet down the animosity if not for common courtesy to each other than in order not to spoil the forum for other users.

I have been unhappy at the way you handle other questions and posters and I have reacted accordingly. Certainly your implied and overt threats against me haven’t gone down well either. That being said It does neither of us any credit so I’d respectfully suggest we remove the antipathy and concentrate on the issues.

Agree?

Now in relation to the points you raise, irrespective of whether it’s a suggestion you are clearly casting aspersions on the man’s credibility and professionalism. It is both defamatory and libellous because there isn’t a shred of evidence to support your suggestion and this is the man’s career and livelihood you’re trashing here.

If there was any evidence of that then I am sure he’d have been found out years ago. It goes to the heart of the nature of his job and to suggest he can “lead” the dogs to signal is as ludicrous.

The man would be out of a job and in prison within his first two or three cases.

Now in relation to the differences between the smiths sighting and the dogs evidence there is a clear and fundamental variance.

Namely there is evidence to support the Smith’s sighting in the form of Mr Smith’s 60-80% assertion in his sworn statement that he saw Gerry. Not conclusive i agree and it merits further investigation but indirect evidence nonetheless.

Irrespective of how unpalatable it is for a McCann supporter to accept there is evidence there to support that sighting.

There is no evidence either in any previous cases or indeed this case that Grimes “led” the dogs only your opinion.

That’s the difference, evidence against (uninformed) opinion.

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Garth on 07.06.11 19:59

I have been debating honestly and openly on this thread. It would appear 'others' are intent on derailing the discussion. Your first post was one of ridicule. So before your start your lecturing I would suggest you stop and look at yourself.
 
And its your reply that has prompted my new thread with a little ridicule at other posters unfortunately. Good job, well done!
 
Now my reply to your post....
 
Yes, it is my opinion. My opinion is based on the footage in the video and hence why I stated this:
 
   

 

 
I haven't lost the plot Candy, but I am making observations from the evidence in the footage.
 
There is no question that MG made a beeline for that car.
 
You draw your own conclusions from that.

 
Aspersion

1. a positive statement, usually made without an attempt at furnishing evidence

Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by The Shelfstacker on 07.06.11 21:56

Garth, what is "honest" about this:

Aspersion:
1. a positive statement, usually made without an attempt at furnishing evidence

When the dictionary definition is this:

as·per·sion   
[uh-spur-zhuhn, -shuhn]
–noun
1. a damaging or derogatory remark or criticism; slander: casting aspersions on a campaign rival.
2. the act of slandering; vilification; defamation; calumniation; derogation: Such vehement aspersions cannot be ignored.

I'd be grateful for an honest answer.

The Shelfstacker

Posts : 122
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Me on 07.06.11 22:51

@Garth wrote:I have been debating honestly and openly on this thread. It would appear 'others' are intent on derailing the discussion. Your first post was one of ridicule. So before your start your lecturing I would suggest you stop and look at yourself.

And its your reply that has prompted my new thread with a little ridicule at other posters unfortunately. Good job, well done!

Now my reply to your post....

Yes, it is my opinion. My opinion is based on the footage in the video and hence why I stated this:



Oh dear God.

What part of :

“That being said It does neither of us any credit so I’d respectfully suggest WE remove the antipathy and concentrate on the issues.”

Don’t you understand?

An olive branch was offered to you to show some magnanimity, some nobleness , some humility to me and your fellow forum members.

Instead you chose to go all “Kevin The Teenager” on my attempts to try and bring some civility to our discussions.

I guess the old saying “manners maketh man” didn’t reach you down there in your Plymouth caravan did it?

Well let the record state I did try to build bridges but my offer was rebuked by your lack of decorum, respect and well if we’re being honest, class.

At least I tried, eh?

Now we’ve got that out of the way let’s get to your point.

You asked me the difference between the Smiths sighting and your opinion on Grimes.

I carefully pointed out to you the important difference between the Smiths sighting and your “opinion” on Grimes, but let me repeat it for you:

Smith’s sighting = case evidence
Garth watching Dog video for 5 minutes = uninformed opinion

You chose to reply to my post (after your kevin the Teenager pout) by confirming it was your opinion.

I knew that already. Have you not heard the saying that opinions are like ars*holes in that everyone’s got one?

Your opinion is meaningless in this matter. You have no expertise in this field. You are not in a position to speak authoritatively about this subject therefore your opinion carries no validity in this matter and even less in comparison to Mr Grimes’.

Are you suggesting because you have watched a video of Grimes & his dogs for 5 minutes we should value your opinion (given to us over a discussion forum) that he is leading the dogs over and above Martin Grimes sworn police statement backed up by God knows how many years of police work and training?


Deary me!

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Garth on 07.06.11 23:08

Your quite an arrogant so and so arent you Mr I know it all.
 
Do you think you are some bleedin lecturer or summat and that no one elses opinions matter apart from your own?
 
you said this
 
Are you suggesting because you have watched a video of Grimes & his dogs we should value your opinion (given to us over a discussion forum) that he is leading the dogs over and above Martin Grimes sworn police statement backed up by God knows how many years of police work and training?
 
What I am TELLING you is that I formed an opinion on what I saw in the video. You said my 'assertions' were baseless and attacked the good name of GM. They werent baseless at all and I didnt attack him.
 
Now keep on track on clock out......yorkshire laddy............or is it yorkshire pudding   
 
  
 
 



 

Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Guest on 07.06.11 23:14

We won't have comments like that thank you Garth, one more and everything you post will be deleted. It's up to you.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Kololi on 07.06.11 23:15

Apologies Candy - think I was typing at the same time as you so have deleted it.


Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Guest on 07.06.11 23:20

@Kololi wrote:Apologies Candy - think I was typing at the same time as you so have deleted it.


No problem Kololi, thank you thumbsup

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Me on 08.06.11 7:46

@Garth wrote:Your quite an arrogant so and so arent you Mr I know it all.

Not at all, you just bring the worst out of me with your refusal to discuss things amicably and politely and refusing to act like an adult when i asked you to remove the animosity in our exchanges.

@Garth wrote:Do you think you are some bleedin lecturer or summat and that no one elses opinions matter apart from your own?

No, i'm saying precisely the opposite of this. I'm saying my opinion is as irrelevant as yours on this subject. We have no expertise in the matter nor in how the dogs are trained and deployed to be able to make an informed opinion about the validity of their work.

We therefore have to take the police report given by the expert at face value. If another dog handling expert comes forward and says MG led the dogs then you have a point that merits further investigation. As far as i'm aware not one of the McCann's team have claimed this after gerry's first panic outburst that the dogs were led. Which even he then never repeated again.

They're called experts for a reason and you're not qualified to cast aspersions on their work just becuase their conclusions counter your pre-conceived idea that the Mccann's are innocent.

It's really that simple.

@Garth wrote:you said this

Are you suggesting because you have watched a video of Grimes & his dogs we should value your opinion (given to us over a discussion forum) that he is leading the dogs over and above Martin Grimes sworn police statement backed up by God knows how many years of police work and training?

What I am TELLING you is that I formed an opinion on what I saw in the video. You said my 'assertions' were baseless and attacked the good name of GM. They werent baseless at all and I didnt attack him.

I know what i said and i stand by it. You are spectacularly missing the point.

What you fail to see is that whilst anyone can have an opinion just by holding an opinion doesnt mean you are right, if you havent got any facts or evidence on which to base that opinion.

So where is your evidence that Grimes "led" the dogs, given you haven't got a clue how the dogs are handled? You think he led the dogs but how do you know having never handled an EVRD dog yourself?

Therefore your assertions ARE baseless becuase you are not speaking from a position of absolute knowledge or fact on the subject.

At the same time you have clealry defamed and libelled MG. Here's what you said:

@Garth wrote:On the contrary, Mr Grimes would want to help convict killers of a child, which is what the PJ invited him in for wasnt it!

Not forgetting the money he would earn!


@Garth wrote:If you read my post carefully Candy, all Im saying is that Martin Grimes wanted a result. He would have been paid a lot of money for those dogs. That, coupled with the fact that he may be proving the guilt of the parents into the death of their daughter would be enough to unconciously or conciously signal the dogs.................as can quite clearly be seen in the car footage.

You think by "not forgetting the money he would earn" for convicting child killers isn't attacking him???

I'd wager if Grimes saw this he would have a different opinion. I'm sure most others would agree as well.


@Garth wrote:Now keep on track on clock out......yorkshire laddy............or is it yorkshire pudding

Oh dear. Your putdowns need some real work. You want me to lend you a hand in creating some good ones?

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

casey anthony

Post by joyce1938 on 08.06.11 11:44

well done guest 001,we maybe should all try to watch some of the court case that has been ongoing this week and a lot about using DOGS TO FIND SCENTS,cant tell the way to get to it ,but sure you will be able to do so if you want to,its live at present different times of day.joyce1938 Sorry i did not name the case ,its about casey anthony in USA it is current and will continue today i think.

joyce1938

Posts : 813
Reputation : 93
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 78
Location : england

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Garth on 08.06.11 15:38

I know what i said and i stand by it. You are spectacularly missing the point.

What you fail to see is that whilst anyone can have an opinion just by holding an opinion doesnt mean you are right, if you havent got any facts or evidence on which to base that opinion.

So where is your evidence that Grimes "led" the dogs, given you haven't got a clue how the dogs are handled? You think he led the dogs but how do you know having never handled an EVRD dog yourself?

Therefore your assertions ARE baseless becuase you are not speaking from a position of absolute knowledge or fact on the subject.

At the same time you have clealry defamed and libelled MG. Here's what you said:

=========================

You know, I dont know why I even bother replyin to you because you have an odd way of looking at things.

I have an opinion. And my opinion is based on what I observed. Whether my opinion is right or wrong is immaterial because it is, exactly what I have stated, an opinion.

Last comment removed by Stella

Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

Post by Me on 08.06.11 17:26

@Garth wrote:You know, I dont know why I even bother replyin to you because you have an odd way of looking at things.

I have an opinion. And my opinion is based on what I observed. Whether my opinion is right or wrong is immaterial because it is, exactly what I have stated, an opinion.

Last comment removed by Stella
Why do you think that having an opinion without supporting evidence or facts to back it up is odd?

It's common sense, surely? You form an opinion based on the facts or evidence supporting that opinion? You have neither facts nor evidence to support your opinion.

Therefore in most right thinking people's minds your opinion is not valid and cannot be taken seriously by others.

If i said i think in my opinion the world will end tomorrow, would you just accept that as a valid opinion or laugh at it for the nonesense it is becuase it has no credible evidence or facts to support it?

It's the same prinicpal.

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum