The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

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 start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by PeterMac on 16.03.12 22:26

Madeleine', by Dr Kate McCann, Foreword, top of page 5:
"...there remains no evidence whatsoever to suggest that she has come to serious harm".
Remains? What a very strange use of English.
It permits of several interpretations, apart from the normal McCann illiteracy and inarticulacy, but even if it were that, then it is still a strange choice of word.

One of the only seriously logical interpretations is
"There was evidence, but we are now confident that we have dealt with it, and that it will never be found. We have covered everything."
Rather similar to Clarence M's notorious statement.

And then I looked again, and left no page unturned.
I wondered it this might actually be a classic 'Freudian slip'?
Wikipedia:
A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious ("dynamically repressed"), subdued, wish, conflict, or train of thought. The concept is thus part of classical psychoanalysis.
Slips of the tongue and the pen are the classical parapraxes, but psychoanalytic theory also embraces such phenomena as misreadings, mishearings, temporary forgettings, and the mislaying and losing of objects.

But then
p. 2 top "Others have seized the opportunity to profit from our agony by writing books about our daughter, several of them claiming to reveal 'what really happened'. Which is extraordinary, given that the only person who knows this is the person who abducted her on 3 May 2007." [my emphases]

So by direct logical implication and on her own admission, neither Kate nor Gerry do know what really happened.
How then can they sue anyone who purports a theory.

p. 5 top, "As will become clear in the following pages, whilst we still do not know what happened to Madeleine, there remains ..."

They admit, yet again, only 3 pages after the first time, that they do not know what happened. (though they may incidentally be admitted to destroying evidence)

Not, we should note, what subsequently happened, or where she might now be, or in what circumstances she was taken or carried away, or by whom, or why, or when .... They admit they simply do not know what happened.

It has been written, and proof read, and passed by all concerned, lawyers, T7, C-R, Old Uncle Tom Tugendhat and all - and it states very simply, and boldly, and perhaps truthfully, who knows, They do not know what happened. And that can only mean whatever allegedly occurred on the alleged night in question.

The fact that later she says "I knew", and then repeats it in italic, thus - "I knew" does not alter the fact that in the foreword, which is ALWAYS written long after the main text has been finalised, and acts in some way as an executive summary of the whole piece, she says in terms "I don't know". And repeats it 3 pages later.

What on earth are we to make of this ?


____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by PeterMac on 17.03.12 4:55

A McSyllogism.

I don't know what happened.
I don't like your theory,
Therefore - I am going to sue you.


Aristotle defines the syllogism as "a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so."
Don't you just love "Supposed". Synonymous with "assumed" or "hypothesised"

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by aquila on 17.03.12 5:03

@PeterMac wrote:A McSyllogism.

I don't know what happened.
I don't like your theory,
Therefore - I am going to sue you.


Aristotle defines the syllogism as "a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so."
Don't you just love "Supposed". Synonymous with "assumed" or "hypothesised"

I've read this three times and I still don't understand it and I want to understand it. Could you explain PM?

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by tigger on 17.03.12 6:16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The politician's syllogism, also known as the politician's logic or the politician's fallacy, is a logical fallacy of the form:
We must do something
This is something
Therefore, we must do this.
The politician's fallacy was identified in a 1988 episode of the BBC television political sitcom Yes, Prime Minister titled "Power to the People", and has taken added life on the internet.[1] The syllogism (invented by fictional British civil servants) has been quoted in the (real) British Parliament.[2]
In Yes, Prime Minister, the term is discussed between two high-ranking civil servants who are concerned that the prime minister wants to implement a scheme to reform local government due to political opposition there. In this issue, as with many other issues humorously explored by the show, the civil servants believe that doing anything is worse than doing nothing because actions tend to undermine the dominance of the civil service. They identify the politician's logic as a fallacious categorical syllogism:
All cats have four legs
My dog has four legs
Therefore, my dog is a cat.
This invalid form of argument, labeled AAA-2 among syllogisms, commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle: it says nothing about all things having four legs (the middle term) and thus the conclusion cannot logically follow from the premises (even if the premises are sound). The politician's syllogism similarly says nothing about all known "somethings" that could be done. As is common with fallacious undistributed middle arguments, it can also be seen as the fallacy of affirming the consequent when restated as an equivalent hypothetical syllogism[3]:
To improve things, things must change
We are changing things
Therefore, we are improving things.
The politician's syllogism can also be interpreted as committing the informal fallacy of equivocation, which is using one word ("something") in two different senses.

Bit rusty on this but I learned this as:
All elephants have four legs
An elephants is a mammal
All mammals have four legs
as a fallacious syllogism.

If one said: ONLY mammals have four legs it is valid.
All elephants have four legs
Only mammals have four legs
An elephant is a mammal
is correct.

My child is missing
Some missing children are abducted
my child has been abducted.
is a good example of a fallacious syllogism.





____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by T4two on 17.03.12 8:41

tigger
My child is missing
Some missing children are abducted
my child has been abducted.
is a good example of a fallacious syllogism.

But it's also a blatant lie and not all fallacious syllogisms are blatant lies. Thanks for an interesting read goodpost

T4two

Posts : 166
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2012-01-22
Age : 68
Location : Germany

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by Ross on 17.03.12 11:09

"...there remains no evidence whatsoever to suggest that she has come to serious harm".

I saw this line in a comment here the other day, and it really does leap out. Many people looking at this case want to keep it as a simple 'whodunnit' - a crime, a perpetrator and clues to their identity. But at every turn this simplistic model does not work, there are layers upon layers, deceptions upon deceptions, and despite the best, often dogged and impeccably logical efforts of a number of people, none of us is really any closer to unravelling this whole farrago, and anyone who says definitively 'this is what happened' is doing so as a matter of belief rather than as a result of incontrovertible proof.

As Peter says, this is not a spontaneous off the cuff comment made as a lapse, but something that has been right through the vetting process. The precise words used are the precise words of choice, they have been put there for a purpose. From the simplistic view, this makes no sense at all as it suggests guilt both subliminally and as fact. The use of "remains" on the one hand subliminally suggests a corpse, and on the other suggests the removal of evidence. That phrase implicates the McCanns in at least a cover-up, yet it appears as part of their official narrative. Had the line read "…we've seen no evidence…" neither of those implications would have been injected into the discourse, yet the implicative phrase was the one used.

It is all very curious.

Ross

Posts : 205
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by tigger on 17.03.12 11:28

roses
Ross, OK if I copy and paste to Forensic Linguistics?

It looks as if they've already told us what happened, just not how.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by Ross on 17.03.12 11:43

@tigger wrote:
Ross, OK if I copy and paste to Forensic Linguistics?

It looks as if they've already told us what happened, just not how.

Or someone is telling us. Are we supposed to know? Is that part of the game?

If you think it useful, of course you may repost.

Ross

Posts : 205
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by Guest on 17.03.12 13:51

@PeterMac wrote:Madeleine', by Dr Kate McCann, Foreword, top of page 5:
"...there remains no evidence whatsoever to suggest that she has come to serious harm".
Remains? What a very strange use of English.
It permits of several interpretations, apart from the normal McCann illiteracy and inarticulacy, but even if it were that, then it is still a strange choice of word.

One of the only seriously logical interpretations is
"There was evidence, but we are now confident that we have dealt with it, and that it will never be found. We have covered everything."
Rather similar to Clarence M's notorious statement.

And then I looked again, and left no page unturned.
I wondered it this might actually be a classic 'Freudian slip'?
Wikipedia:
A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious ("dynamically repressed"), subdued, wish, conflict, or train of thought. The concept is thus part of classical psychoanalysis.
Slips of the tongue and the pen are the classical parapraxes, but psychoanalytic theory also embraces such phenomena as misreadings, mishearings, temporary forgettings, and the mislaying and losing of objects.

But then
p. 2 top "Others have seized the opportunity to profit from our agony by writing books about our daughter, several of them claiming to reveal 'what really happened'. Which is extraordinary, given that the only person who knows this is the person who abducted her on 3 May 2007." [my emphases]

So by direct logical implication and on her own admission, neither Kate nor Gerry do know what really happened.
How then can they sue anyone who purports a theory.

p. 5 top, "As will become clear in the following pages, whilst we still do not know what happened to Madeleine, there remains ..."

They admit, yet again, only 3 pages after the first time, that they do not know what happened. (though they may incidentally be admitted to destroying evidence)

Not, we should note, what subsequently happened, or where she might now be, or in what circumstances she was taken or carried away, or by whom, or why, or when .... They admit they simply do not know what happened.

It has been written, and proof read, and passed by all concerned, lawyers, T7, C-R, Old Uncle Tom Tugendhat and all - and it states very simply, and boldly, and perhaps truthfully, who knows, They do not know what happened. And that can only mean whatever allegedly occurred on the alleged night in question.

The fact that later she says "I knew", and then repeats it in italic, thus - "I knew" does not alter the fact that in the foreword, which is ALWAYS written long after the main text has been finalised, and acts in some way as an executive summary of the whole piece, she says in terms "I don't know". And repeats it 3 pages later.

What on earth are we to make of this ?

Hallo Peter Mac. Found this in the PJ files. The phrasing of 'there remains (..) seems to betray that once there WAS evidence, but it withered away, and what's more: is known to have withered away (or to have been destroyed, of course)



CONCLUSION

The analysis of the samples collected from the garden
wall of the apartment of the OC yielded the following
results:

- No synthetic fibres compatible with the fibres
received for comparison from the pyjamas were found.
- Numerous white cotton fibres were found. However, this
result should not be considered to be significant, given
that according to studies of distribution and
persistence of textile fibres it should always be
possible to find fibres of different types and colours
on any surface, white cotton fibres being very common
and without discriminatory parameters.
- In addition, the interval of time that has passed
between the events being investigated and the collection
of samples (out in the open air)
means the existence of
fibres from the date of the events is of very low
probability.

Note: The material remains archived at the SPL.

Lisbon, 23rd November 2007

Signed

Superior Specialist Machado Area Chief Monteiro

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by rainbow-fairy on 18.03.12 12:05

@Portia wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Madeleine', by Dr Kate McCann, Foreword, top of page 5:
"...there remains no evidence whatsoever to suggest that she has come to serious harm".
Remains? What a very strange use of English.
It permits of several interpretations, apart from the normal McCann illiteracy and inarticulacy, but even if it were that, then it is still a strange choice of word.

One of the only seriously logical interpretations is
"There was evidence, but we are now confident that we have dealt with it, and that it will never be found. We have covered everything."
Rather similar to Clarence M's notorious statement.

And then I looked again, and left no page unturned.
I wondered it this might actually be a classic 'Freudian slip'?
Wikipedia:
A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious ("dynamically repressed"), subdued, wish, conflict, or train of thought. The concept is thus part of classical psychoanalysis.
Slips of the tongue and the pen are the classical parapraxes, but psychoanalytic theory also embraces such phenomena as misreadings, mishearings, temporary forgettings, and the mislaying and losing of objects.

But then
p. 2 top "Others have seized the opportunity to profit from our agony by writing books about our daughter, several of them claiming to reveal 'what really happened'. Which is extraordinary, given that the only person who knows this is the person who abducted her on 3 May 2007." [my emphases]

So by direct logical implication and on her own admission, neither Kate nor Gerry do know what really happened.
How then can they sue anyone who purports a theory.

p. 5 top, "As will become clear in the following pages, whilst we still do not know what happened to Madeleine, there remains ..."

They admit, yet again, only 3 pages after the first time, that they do not know what happened. (though they may incidentally be admitted to destroying evidence)

Not, we should note, what subsequently happened, or where she might now be, or in what circumstances she was taken or carried away, or by whom, or why, or when .... They admit they simply do not know what happened.

It has been written, and proof read, and passed by all concerned, lawyers, T7, C-R, Old Uncle Tom Tugendhat and all - and it states very simply, and boldly, and perhaps truthfully, who knows, They do not know what happened. And that can only mean whatever allegedly occurred on the alleged night in question.

The fact that later she says "I knew", and then repeats it in italic, thus - "I knew" does not alter the fact that in the foreword, which is ALWAYS written long after the main text has been finalised, and acts in some way as an executive summary of the whole piece, she says in terms "I don't know". And repeats it 3 pages later.

What on earth are we to make of this ?

Hallo Peter Mac. Found this in the PJ files. The phrasing of 'there remains (..) seems to betray that once there WAS evidence, but it withered away, and what's more: is known to have withered away (or to have been destroyed, of course)

CONCLUSION

The analysis of the samples collected from the garden
wall of the apartment of the OC yielded the following
results:

- No synthetic fibres compatible with the fibres
received for comparison from the pyjamas were found.
- Numerous white cotton fibres were found. However, this
result should not be considered to be significant, given
that according to studies of distribution and
persistence of textile fibres it should always be
possible to find fibres of different types and colours
on any surface, white cotton fibres being very common
and without discriminatory parameters.
- In addition, the interval of time that has passed
between the events being investigated and the collection
of samples (out in the open air)
means the existence of
fibres from the date of the events is of very low
probability.

Note: The material remains archived at the SPL.

Lisbon, 23rd November 2007

Signed

Superior Specialist Machado Area Chief Monteiro
Does anybody know who this Chief Monteiro is? Granted it could be a popular name in Portugal, but isn't the co-ordinator this time a Helena Monteiro?

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by PeterMac on 19.03.12 8:00

p. 3
We've met many wise people along the way who have stressed the importance of not being derailed by those with their own agenda. It has proved to be good advice.
and
As long as we are acting in her interests, we will withstand whatever slings and arrows we must face.

So what has changed ? Why doesn't TB fit into this category ?

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by aquila on 19.03.12 8:11

@PeterMac wrote:p. 3
We've met many wise people along the way who have stressed the importance of not being derailed by those with their own agenda. It has proved to be good advice.
and
As long as we are acting in her interests, we will withstand whatever slings and arrows we must face.

So what has changed ? Why doesn't TB fit into this category ?

I don't think anyone fits into this category. The only ones being derailed by their own agenda are the very ones who are under scrutiny on this forum. The Mc's have more facets than a cut diamond.

as for acting in Madeleine's interest (strangely I use her name and don't say 'her') well they will have to prove that.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by PeterMac on 19.03.12 8:23

"Acting in her interests.."
As in refusing to cooperate with the police
As in publishing her eye defect
As in employing M3
As in employing Halligen
As in spending money from the "Fund" on the mortgage
As in visiting places where they knew she was not. (Rome, Washington DC)
As in.....

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by aquila on 19.03.12 8:27

@PeterMac wrote:"Acting in her interests.."
As in refusing to cooperate with the police
As in publishing her eye defect
As in employing M3
As in employing Halligen
As in spending money from the "Fund" on the mortgage
As in visiting places where they knew she was not. (Rome, Washington DC)
As in.....

As in blaming everyone for their daughter's disappearance

As in blaming the Portuguese police for being inept

As in blaming...well just about everyone really

but hey, suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous FORTUNE.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by rainbow-fairy on 19.03.12 8:29

As in:
Telling the world how 'perfect' her genitals are!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by aquila on 19.03.12 8:55

As in... the belief that they could possibly be global ambassadors for missing children and highlight the plight of parents who have suffered those 'slings and arrows'.

As in...doing absolutely nothing useful for the parents of other missing children other than to promote themselves. You only need to look at the 10k run on 17th of this month to see they had pictures of Madeleine on their running vests (makes me wonder who paid for that and what other parents had pictures of their missing ones did the same).

As in...dropping the 10k run from the findmadeleine website within hours of the run ending and NO updates.

As in...a website of their own creation that hasn't given a single personal update since December 2011.

As in...a fund that has no transparent accounting.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by rainbow-fairy on 19.03.12 9:17

@aquila wrote:As in... the belief that they could possibly be global ambassadors for missing children and highlight the plight of parents who have suffered those 'slings and arrows'.

As in...doing absolutely nothing useful for the parents of other missing children other than to promote themselves. You only need to look at the 10k run on 17th of this month to see they had pictures of Madeleine on their running vests (makes me wonder who paid for that and what other parents had pictures of their missing ones did the same).

As in...dropping the 10k run from the findmadeleine website within hours of the run ending and NO updates.

As in...a website of their own creation that hasn't given a single personal update since December 2011.

As in...a fund that has no transparent accounting.
Do you mean to tell me, aquila, that Kate and Gerry still haven't put a joyous update on their website, gushing at their relief at 'the big step forward' of the review/possible re-opening despite it being what they've asked for all along? Really???
I'm shocked... Wink Wink Wink

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by aquila on 19.03.12 9:29

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@aquila wrote:As in... the belief that they could possibly be global ambassadors for missing children and highlight the plight of parents who have suffered those 'slings and arrows'.

As in...doing absolutely nothing useful for the parents of other missing children other than to promote themselves. You only need to look at the 10k run on 17th of this month to see they had pictures of Madeleine on their running vests (makes me wonder who paid for that and what other parents had pictures of their missing ones did the same).

As in...dropping the 10k run from the findmadeleine website within hours of the run ending and NO updates.

As in...a website of their own creation that hasn't given a single personal update since December 2011.

As in...a fund that has no transparent accounting.
Do you mean to tell me, aquila, that Kate and Gerry still haven't put a joyous update on their website, gushing at their relief at 'the big step forward' of the review/possible re-opening despite it being what they've asked for all along? Really???
I'm shocked... Wink Wink Wink

The more I look at their outdated website with increasingly less information and the schmulzy stuff with always a direct pointer to giving them money, the more I feel sick to my stomach.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by Kololi on 19.03.12 9:57

@rainbow-fairy wrote:As in:
Telling the world how 'perfect' her genitals are!

You ought to let that go now. It's starting to sound like an unhealthy obsession. Remember the saying, "methinks the lady doth protest too much"?

flower

Kololi

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by rainbow-fairy on 19.03.12 10:00

@aquila wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@aquila wrote:As in... the belief that they could possibly be global ambassadors for missing children and highlight the plight of parents who have suffered those 'slings and arrows'.

As in...doing absolutely nothing useful for the parents of other missing children other than to promote themselves. You only need to look at the 10k run on 17th of this month to see they had pictures of Madeleine on their running vests (makes me wonder who paid for that and what other parents had pictures of their missing ones did the same).

As in...dropping the 10k run from the findmadeleine website within hours of the run ending and NO updates.

As in...a website of their own creation that hasn't given a single personal update since December 2011.

As in...a fund that has no transparent accounting.
Do you mean to tell me, aquila, that Kate and Gerry still haven't put a joyous update on their website, gushing at their relief at 'the big step forward' of the review/possible re-opening despite it being what they've asked for all along? Really???
I'm shocked... Wink Wink Wink

The more I look at their outdated website with increasingly less information and the schmulzy stuff with always a direct pointer to giving them money, the more I feel sick to my stomach.
It may sound heartless but I can't bring myself to look at it at all.
Honestly, when I read daft students and dippy grandmothers who should frankly know better, wittering about how Maddie is 'still a live findable child' it makes me want to weep. The power of the madia at work. It is NOT heartless NOR 'vile' to be realistic enough to accept that the odds she didn't die in that apartment are $illions to one. What is heartless about wanting justice and a proper burial for a little girl who no longer has her own voice?
In Kate's fantastic prose ; 'Those who could do something and chose not to are complicit' (paraphrased)
Granted, I can't do much, but what I can do - spread the word about the McCanns lies - I shall carry on doing until the case is resolved.
Here til the end...

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by Miraflores on 19.03.12 10:46

It is NOT heartless NOR 'vile' to be realistic enough to accept that
the odds she didn't die in that apartment are $illions to one.

Nor would it be heartless to say that even if Madeleine had been abducted the chances of her being alive now would be extremely slender. Gerry's insistance that they have no evidence that she has come to any harm stretches credulity to breaking point. I would have thought that, by definition, a small child being snatched from the only family she knew was harm.

What is
heartless about wanting justice and a proper burial for a little girl
who no longer has her own voice?
Who could disagree with this?

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by bobbin on 19.03.12 11:15

@Kololi wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:As in:
Telling the world how 'perfect' her genitals are!

You ought to let that go now. It's starting to sound like an unhealthy obsession. Remember the saying, "methinks the lady doth protest too much"?

flower

Quite the reverse Kololi, and far from being an unhealthy obsession, we should let NOTHING go, until the truth is known.

Most particularly we should not seek to 'bury' that horrendous reference on page 129 of her much publicised book 'madeleine' where Kate McCann sees fit to use the very description of her daughter's genitals, that will by now be known by thousands, even apparently intended for her other children to read about their lost older sister.

Kate McCann has defiled her daughter (daughter's memory) by making such overt reference to a part of her body that should have been and remained into posterity, absolutely sacrosanct.

Kololi, perhaps it is you 'who doth protest too much'.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by aquila on 19.03.12 11:41

@bobbin wrote:
@Kololi wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:As in:
Telling the world how 'perfect' her genitals are!

You ought to let that go now. It's starting to sound like an unhealthy obsession. Remember the saying, "methinks the lady doth protest too much"?

flower

Quite the reverse Kololi, and far from being an unhealthy obsession, we should let NOTHING go, until the truth is known.

Most particularly we should not seek to 'bury' that horrendous reference on page 129 of her much publicised book 'madeleine' where Kate McCann sees fit to use the very description of her daughter's genitals, that will by now be known by thousands, even apparently intended for her other children to read about their lost older sister.

Kate McCann has defiled her daughter (daughter's memory) by making such overt reference to a part of her body that should have been and remained into posterity, absolutely sacrosanct.

Kololi, perhaps it is you 'who doth protest too much'.

Allelujah rainbow-fairy

A message to Kololi. Whilst you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone on this forum, you do not have the right to attack another poster. There is a protocol and may I suggest you conform to it.


aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Post by bristow on 19.03.12 12:36

With regard to the description on page 129, I think that too much is being made of that sentence.

I should imagine that in KMs training as a GP she would have been taught what to look for in the case of child abuse, may well have seen photographs during her training and could have seen it in her surgery with her own eyes and applied that to her own daughter. I should imagine that a lot of people in certain professions unfortunately become more conditioned than the average Joe with such horrors.

Yes it is information too much and possibly there are unsavoury reasons for her writing it, as I don't believe a word the Mcs say.

bristow

Posts : 823
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-11-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

not just doctors

Post by bobbin on 19.03.12 12:59

@bristow wrote:With regard to the description on page 129, I think that too much is being made of that sentence.

I should imagine that in KMs training as a GP she would have been taught what to look for in the case of child abuse, may well have seen photographs during her training and could have seen it in her surgery with her own eyes and applied that to her own daughter.

Yes it is information too much and possibly there are unsavoury reasons for her writing it, as I don't believe a word the Mcs say.


You don't have to be a doctor to see or recognise torn tissue, or damage of any sort for that matter, in an area that should not know the light of day.

We all have eyes, and anybody can recognise damaged, bruised, torn tissue when we see it, you don't have to be 'trained'.

The point is that the Page 129 description is NOT the sort of information that you would want your younger children to discover any time in their lives or have published, for all time, in a widely read book.

It is not a forensic observation, written up in a forensic report, it is imagery, graphic and awful information, put out by a mother, about her daughter. THAT is the point.

To suggest that we should diminish our discussions of Kate McCann's statement, is to say that 'if it is unsavoury, we should turn a blind eye, and not be so inquisitive or we may be seen as prurient'.

The full weight of our abhorance at such a statement should not be reduced to some sort of nicety or politesse, it is fully valid to
keep drawing attention to the fact the Kate McCann saw fit to 'publish' such a statement and to ask ourselves "WHY ?"

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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