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

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?

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"?

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 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"?

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.

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 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 wrote:

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 you have read me wrong.

I am fully aware that you don't just have to be a doctor to recognise damaged tissue, I suppose I should have said that maybe she wrote what she did because she is/was in the medical profession and perhaps is more 'conditioned' than a non GP to such things and therefore finds it easy to write such things. Yes I agree it's profoundly troubling that she mentions the book is for Madeleines siblings and what sane mother would want them to read such stuff.
At no point did I suggest that you or anyone should diminish their discussions of Kates statement, and I was using the word 'unsavoury' in relation to perhaps the real reason Kate wrote that statement.

Surely we are all allowed to voice our individual opinions on each matter.

bristow wrote:

bobbin wrote:

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 you have read me wrong.

I am fully aware that you don't just have to be a doctor to recognise damaged tissue, I suppose I should have said that maybe she wrote what she did because she is/was in the medical profession and perhaps is more 'conditioned' than a non GP to such things and therefore finds it easy to write such things. Yes I agree it's profoundly troubling that she mentions the book is for Madeleines siblings and what sane mother would want them to read such stuff.
At no point did I suggest that you or anyone should diminish their discussions of Kates statement, and I was using the word 'unsavoury' in relation to perhaps the real reason Kate wrote that statement.

Surely we are all allowed to voice our individual opinions on each matter.

I see your point now Bristow, apologies if I misunderstood your meaning...the problems of the written word....
I read your first statement, "With regard to the description on page 129, I think that too much is being made of that sentence" as meaning that other posters were placing too much importance on the statement.

In as much as I agree with you entirely that we should all be allowed to voice our individual opinions, it seemed that your sentence was suggesting that we should not be making so much out of the statement as we were.

I acknowledge that doctors may speak perhaps a little more 'graphically' because of their more frequent exposure to 'physical' matters, nevertheless, the fact that Kate McCann, in the role of mother and author, chose to speak of her own little daughter in this way, and that Carter Ruck, and any other advisers overviewing her book before publication, let such inappropriate description go through, is highly questionable and the motives need to be examined.

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"?

Ha! I've been off filling haynets for hungry horses for the last few hours so blissfully unaware of this ridiculous comment.
Kololi, WHY do you feel the need to always add that stupid smiling flower when you make a bitch comment? To try to make your comment ambiguous? You do it when you bitch to Tony, don't start on me!
If you've got nothing constructive to add and just post comments about other posters that could even be construed as vaguely libellous, why bother? Really?
Its not my obsession, its your hero Kate's. As I've stated elsewhere, I've never thought of ANY genitals as 'perfect'.
And, I find anyone who talks about their child like someone they are eyeing up really disturbing. And I will not apologise for that. These things should not be swept under the carpet. If YOU don't find the things Kate has written disturbing, then maybe that says more about you than me.

So, what would you like us all to 'let go of' next? It might suit you for us all to let go of all of it but that is not going to happen, sorry.

bobbin, aquila thank you for supporting me in my absence, a big red rose for each of you :)

aquila wrote:

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"?

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.

Most certainly I will remember it and hopefully others will too.