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 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

Post by bristow on 19.03.12 13:09

@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

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

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 13:46

@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.

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 rainbow-fairy on 19.03.12 14:18

@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
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.

____________________
"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 rainbow-fairy on 19.03.12 14:39

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

____________________
"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 Kololi on 19.03.12 19:25

@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"?

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.


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

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 Kololi on 19.03.12 19:43

@bobbin wrote:
@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.


I too found it a tadge of an eye opener that Mrs McCann was so descriptive with this particular statement but I think Bobbin, you have nailed it really.

We may find it an eyeopener, or innappropriate as you mention, but all those people that proof-read etc for whatever reason didn't stop it being included. Maybe they weren't shocked by it or maybe they may have suggested that it should be removed but she made the decision to leave it in despite their advice. What shocks one person may not necessarily shock somebody else. Whilst my eyes only widened, I am pretty sure that my mother's eyes would have popped right out.

I also think there could be mileage in Bristow's thoughts that her profession allows her to comfortably use that word in the context. And of course, not wishing to let anyone down, maybe as this is her first book that she has written she simply didn't think it through that perhaps her vivid description might be viewed as some to be innappropriate.


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 Angelique on 20.03.12 7:56

Regarding page 129:

I think Kate failed as a parent and as a Doctor towards Madeleine - to afford the same respect and confidentiality that she would have by law given to her patients.

I wonder why?

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by rainbow-fairy on 20.03.12 8:36

@Angelique wrote:Regarding page 129:

I think Kate failed as a parent and as a Doctor towards Madeleine - to afford the same respect and confidentiality that she would have by law given to her patients.

I wonder why?
Good point, Angelique...
By law, Kate was duty bound to report herself and the other Tapas for neglectful parenting (if, of course, you believe the children were ever left alone, which I don't)
I think, sadly, that Madeleine - whether during her life or just afterwards - has been treated like an accessory, an extension of Kate if you like. When do we EVER know Maddie, who she was, what she really liked, even what she looked like?
No, I'm convinced that 'Madeleine' - either through luck or design - became a nondescript commodity to Team McCann.
My heart breaks for her Sad

____________________
"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 tigger on 21.03.12 6:14

The style of the book and the similes Kate uses aren't her own imo.
She must have had some or other ghost writer to help her. The type of writer with a sensationalist input and heaps more imagination than Kate.
A writer who'd be good at conjuring headlines such as 'did paedophiles watch us all the time?' The spicier, the better.

Left to Kate it would have been 'whoosh-clunk' and then she was gone, you know?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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