Re: something nefarious

by Guest 23.12.13 14:22

Will everyone please stop all this pursefight

It's like kids in a school playground sometimes...............'tis the season of goodwill, so can we perhaps have some here?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 23.12.13 14:24

aquila wrote:
I don't think you're paranoid Curioser. I think you are disgruntled and have been disgruntled with this forum for quite a while. You have your very own thread with your very own theory. I think you are the only person on this forum to have that. It might be better to have a blog if you don't wish to be interrupted. Most of your posts I read are to moan about the forum or other posters.

@Admin

Please remove my post if it is deemed inappropriate.

Rather than jumping to an automatic reaction, I just had a look at Curioser's posts as far back as the beginning of November to check the veracity of this claim.

Sorry aquila, but 'most of your posts I read are to moan about the forum or other poster' is - in my opinion - a very unfair allegation to make, and just not true at all. An occasional few here and there, but definitely not 'most'.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 23.12.13 14:38

Châtelaine wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote: [...]

Firstly, I do not know why members of this forum assume that because the McCanns later on pretended that they hadn't made much of the coloboma to Piers Morgan, that it didn't exist in the first place and must have been photoshopped into images to prove one existed when it didn't. [...] .
***
I haven't directly addressed you before, that I remember WLBTS, but I have to now ... This is quite a non-evidential remark. They didn't "PRETEND", they "MARKETED" the coloboma, whether it existed or not is another item. They LIED. Again. That's the point. At least for me. And with that comes - quite naturally - the question: did she really have a coloboma??? And as a consequence, the question: "did they photoshop the coloboma" for their "wider agenda"?

I agree with every word of this Châtelaine, perhaps you misunderstand me :) I was addressing the idea that because they originally marketed the coloboma, and then lied about that later on, and claimed that it was "just a fleck", this implies that the coloboma didn't exist and must have been photoshopped into photographs. It's a valid question to ask, but A does not imply B in this case. I don't think I've ever said that that question shouldn't be asked and investigated, it's perfectly reasonable to do so.

'A implies B' => 'If A is true, then B must be true'

Nothing wrong with the use of the word 'pretend' though. One of the meanings is:

'behave so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not'

which I think is pretty accurate. They pretended later on that that they hadn't made much of the coloboma, when in fact they had. Maybe a translation issue here, I don't know :)

by Curioser 24.12.13 9:25

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
aquila wrote:
I don't think you're paranoid Curioser. I think you are disgruntled and have been disgruntled with this forum for quite a while. You have your very own thread with your very own theory. I think you are the only person on this forum to have that. It might be better to have a blog if you don't wish to be interrupted. Most of your posts I read are to moan about the forum or other posters.

@Admin

Please remove my post if it is deemed inappropriate.

Rather than jumping to an automatic reaction, I just had a look at Curioser's posts as far back as the beginning of November to check the veracity of this claim.

Sorry aquila, but 'most of your posts I read are to moan about the forum or other poster' is - in my opinion - a very unfair allegation to make, and just not true at all. An occasional few here and there, but definitely not 'most'.

Why thank you wlbts. Thank you for going back and reading. It's just silly accusations again. Illegitimi non carborundum.

To all you sensible forum members, have an enjoyable Holiday Season. Feel free to self-select winkwink

something nefarious