Re: Facebook Comments Gone!

by waiting for justice 29.09.14 22:23

After a quick catch up, there seems to be a lot vanishing at the moment.

Something seems to be going on.

by maebee 29.09.14 22:43

sonic72 wrote:Anybody got a link to this Pam Gurney's site please? I keep hearing about it but yet to see a link for it.

Here you go sonic: https://www.facebook.com/pamela.gurney.7?fref=ts

Not much to see here now.

by Guest 30.09.14 8:48

waiting for justice wrote:After a quick catch up, there seems to be a lot vanishing at the moment.

Something seems to be going on.

Don't you just love living in a free society?

Facebook Comments Gone! - Page 2 Article-1386999-0C0D365C00000578-866_306x423

by Guest 30.09.14 8:58

[size=32]May to call for new powers to ban extremist groups[/size]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29414574

And they don't mean just terrorists.

Anyone with questions and opinions they don't like.

David Cameron included people who question 9/11 in his recent speech.

It's not just men with little mustaches and military uniforms that are a danger to freedom.

Men (and women) in suits.

Freedom disappearing, slice by slice.

by **PeterMac** 30.09.14 9:05

The closing of the website has obviously spurred people across the world and there was a dramatic surge in sales yesterday

3

Two on the co.uk site and one more on the .com site - so total US sales now = 3

by aiyoyo 30.09.14 9:38

Gawd, that was funny. Made my morning.

Bet S and S are chuffed not by the chiffre movement in single digit.

At this rate the Publisher may demand a refund for their advance for a poorly constituted bewk.

Who would think (not the publisher obviously) that a pair of veteran journalists and near win pull-what's-it writers could produce such a diabolical dog poo poo for a definitive account; and have their pretentious attempt to exculpate the mccanns objected to in greater digit than book sale digit. Rabid PG's comments alone is in greater number than book sale number. Lordy, I've never seen anything like it.

The whooshing means the promotion of the bewk on FB is effectively purged by the authors, bringing forth the question why they wish not to be associated with it.

by **PeterMac** 30.09.14 10:09

aiyoyo wrote:
The whooshing means the promotion of the bewk on FB is effectively purged by the authors, bringing forth the question why they wish not to be associated with it.

What if they have stumbled across a piece of evidence or listened to an argument, or watched a video, or researched one of the pieces of advice or questions and suggestions for further - or even proper - research, given by the many Commentators
which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that their thesis was totally incorrect
and that the McCanns were, and are, definitively and conclusively involved.

That might be enough.

by HelenMeg 30.09.14 10:36

Perhaps they realise they have been moved like pawns..

by jeanmonroe 30.09.14 11:17

Some of PG's more 'rabid' er 'comments' on THEIR (S&S) FB page were possibly 'libellous' and as it was their FB page they'd be liable to 'defend' against any 'claim'.

Not forgetting that S&S possibly infringed 'copyright' from 'bloggers', without permission, themselves.

by **PeterMac** 30.09.14 11:25

Or perhaps they began to realise that the only people who still believe that the McCanns had NOTHING to do with the disappearance of Madeleine,
(including one supposes creating the Opportunity for whatever they say happened)
clearly have undiagnosed psychiatric issues.

. . . Not Guilty of Malfeasance of any kind . .
is simply a stupid thing to say, when they admit they abandoned their children five nights in a row in an unlocked apartment.

by The....truth 30.09.14 11:29

PMac
I have the same thought.

What if they have realized that they have been duped ?

What if they they were presented with a version of the truth which they were led to believe was the only truth ?

by juliet 30.09.14 11:37

If they researched at all they would be very much aware that nothing the McCanns say adds up. From paragraph one their book is just a cobbled together propaganda exercise. Who asked them to write it? Do we know?

by Angelique 30.09.14 11:44

What is strange though is that the web and cookies also have a kind of "outing the Truth" even if one is trying to disparage it don't you think?

by jeanmonroe 30.09.14 11:51

Thetruth wrote:PMac
I have the same thought.

What if they have realized that they have been duped ?

What if they they were presented with a version of the truth which they were led to believe was the only truth ?

S&S could have easily 'asked' themselves, "WHY did the McCann's and their family and friends, LIE about 'how' the burglator 'broke into' the apartment to 'abduct' Madeleine?"

S&S could have easily 'asked' themselves "WHY didn't a single McCann family member, or their T7 'friends', actually 'search' for their 'missing' family member in the days and months they were 'guests' of MW, in Portugal, (gratis) following Madeleine's 'disappearance'?"

S&S could have 'asked' many 'pertinent and relevent' questions, "to establish the material truth about what happened to Madeleine McCann, regarding her 'disappearance' by way of asking DP what exactly were the 'few things' he 'knew' about 'it'.....................but they DIDN'T.

WHY NOT?

How can S&S possibly describe themselves as 'investigative' journalists when they DON'T actually 'investigate' anything?

'WILLINGLY, DUPED' I'D SUGGEST!

by bobbin 30.09.14 11:59

jeanmonroe wrote:
Thetruth wrote:PMac
I have the same thought.

What if they have realized that they have been duped ?

What if they they were presented with a version of the truth which they were led to believe was the only truth ?

S&S could have easily 'asked' themselves, "WHY did the McCann's and their family and friends, LIE about 'how' the burglator 'broke into' the apartment to 'abduct' Madeleine?"

S&S could have easily 'asked' themselves "WHY didn't a single McCann family member, or their T7 'friends', actually 'search' for their 'missing' family member in the days and months they were 'guests' of MW, in Portugal, (gratis) following Madeleine's 'disappearance'?"

S&S could have 'asked' many 'pertinent and relevent' questions.....................but they DIDN'T.

WHY NOT?

How can S&S describe themselves as 'investigative' journalists when they DON'T actually 'investigate'?

'WILLINGLY, DUPED' I'D SUGGEST!

and if so, then maybe the paymasters have called for the lock-down, seeing that the exercise has caused more damage than repair.
Another own goal ? spin

by jeanmonroe 30.09.14 12:25

bobbin wrote:
and if so, then maybe the paymasters have called for the lock-down, seeing that the exercise has caused more damage than repair.
Another own goal ?

TOO LATE, METHINKS!

S&S HAVE, and GAVE, a HUGE 'heads up' to people by publishing 'acknowledgements', in their book, to many, many, 'hater' blogs, sites!

I'm sure there WERE many people that didn't have 'a clue' about who Pat Brown was/is, but they KNOW now, thanks to S&S 'book'!

And i'm sure the 'new' people have NOW done their own 'research' on the 'sites' S&S publicised/acknowledged in their 'book'

Perhaps we should be 'applauding' S&S for the free publicity, they have freely given to, er, 'non-believer' sites.

Even to the extent of giving free publicity to PB's, GA's 'books' and various 'blogs' in their 'book'

So, i for one, 'applaud' S&S for giving more, superb, FREE 'publicity' to 'other' sites, publicity that 'other' sites couldn't have possibly 'dreamed of'.

Hats off to S&S, i say! clapping1

(i'm sure S&S will now cross me off their 'list' of 'vigilante, troll, hater') winkwink

by whatsupdoc 30.09.14 12:30

PeterMac wrote:The closing of the website has obviously spurred people across the world and there was a dramatic surge in sales yesterday

3

Two on the co.uk site and one more on the .com site - so total US sales now = 3

I thought a few books would sell to researchers but nobody expecting to discover the truth would have bought a copy.

by Snifferdog 30.09.14 13:03

It was an own goal, and it seems as though the pile of poo that Clarence was sitting on can't be hidden any longer.
Imo tptb slipped up Badly, They underestimated the knowledge and intelligence of the long suffering public who are concerned that something very wrong and awful has happened to Madeleine. Some are concerned that the case is not being investigated properly, and that the McCanns are protected by tptb. The public who have spent millions of precious hours collectively, studying this case for seven long years to date.
Tptb thought they could hire some authors, whose credentials would cause all sheeple to go Ahhhh! and accept the McCanns lies, because Winter and Goose said so.... BUT IT FLOPPED. glee

Imo They who have a lot to lose will stop at nothing to secure themselves. For some reason Jill Dando springs to mind here.. Rip Jill Dando.

by Brian Griffin 30.09.14 23:19

Enid O'Dowd wrote:The removal of all the posts including Ms Pamela Gurney's saves me the expense of finding a good libel lawyer.

I made a polite comment about the book and its unanswered questions and she responded including the comment 'you have caused your fair share of trouble for the McCann couple as we all know.' My comment did not last very long but her response to it was left!

All I have done is to ask legitimate questions about the Fund.

And write a fiction book 'Fateful Decisions' about two mothers who were rather careless with their childcare arrangements. Did Kate get the book for last Xmas? Maybe she didn't like it? OMG!

I am wondering if we will now see media stories about the authors having to take all comments about their new book off their Facebook page due to a troll attacks?

You should have kept them Enid, as saved web-pages, print screen captures and on a camera too. It's always good to have ammunition when the mode of battle shifts. In my opinion, as always.

by Guest 30.09.14 23:46

Brian Griffin wrote:
Enid O'Dowd wrote:The removal of all the posts including Ms Pamela Gurney's saves me the expense of finding a good libel lawyer.

I made a polite comment about the book and its unanswered questions and she responded including the comment 'you have caused your fair share of trouble for the McCann couple as we all know.' My comment did not last very long but her response to it was left!

All I have done is to ask legitimate questions about the Fund.

And write a fiction book 'Fateful Decisions' about two mothers who were rather careless with their childcare arrangements. Did Kate get the book for last Xmas? Maybe she didn't like it? OMG!

I am wondering if we will now see media stories about the authors having to take all comments about their new book off their Facebook page due to a troll attacks?
You should have kept them Enid, as saved web-pages, print screen captures and on a camera too. It's always good to have ammunition when the mode of battle shifts. In my opinion, as always.

I'm new to twitter, but came across this and hope it's okay to share here? (Mods please delete if not allowed)

All credit goes to 'Win', who tweeted this link to a scribd document (author credited as NW) containing 43 pages of the deleted comments from Winters and Goose facebook page, including Pam Gurney's finest.

The 'tweet'...
Win @winnower1 wrote
Is anyone else having trouble w/ #McCann tag? Anyway - here are some of the comments deleted by Summers & Swan: scribd.com/doc/241191730/…
12:24am - 28 Sep 14

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/241191730

I got to page three and it says to view the whole lot, you must download the free scribd app, which I'm off to do in a mo so I can have a read up

Might be helpful to you Enid?

by Rogue-a-Tory 30.09.14 23:59

Pamela Gurney

What a complete twit.

Yes, I spelt that correctly big grin

by Brian Griffin 01.10.14 0:07

aiyoyo wrote:
At this rate the Publisher may demand a refund for their advance for a poorly constituted bewk.

I know you were probably being facetious, but the contract will have been signed by both parties and the advance will have been paid wih certain considerations in mind (i.e. delivery of manuscript by due date). Beyond those contractual considerations the publishers cannot claim for anything beyond. I'll bet they didn't see this coming though!

Unless this 'failure' was planned, they are now in fire-control mode.

Oh, and shit sticks!

In my opinion!

by Brian Griffin 01.10.14 0:11

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:Pamela Gurney

What a complete twit.

Yes, I spelt that correctly

I'm glad you did because the other thing is useful!

In my opinion!

by aiyoyo 01.10.14 15:10

Brian Griffin wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
At this rate the Publisher may demand a refund for their advance for a poorly constituted bewk.
I know you were probably being facetious, but the contract will have been signed by both parties and the advance will have been paid wih certain considerations in mind (i.e. delivery of manuscript by due date). Beyond those contractual considerations the publishers cannot claim for anything beyond. I'll bet they didn't see this coming though!

Unless this 'failure' was planned, they are now in fire-control mode.

Oh, and shit sticks!

In my opinion!

It's not uncommon for up-and-coming writers not to be paid an advance and only paid after manuscript is viewed and accepted by publisher. In the case of established writers like Mr & Mrs Winters they would have been paid an advance, especially if the publisher is the same one that published all their other books, believing they can deliver a money making product. Just shows you betting on the same horses is not a guaranteed win all the time.

by Guest 01.10.14 16:19

aiyoyo wrote:It's not uncommon for up-and-coming writers not to be paid an advance and only paid after manuscript is viewed and accepted by publisher. In the case of established writers like Mr & Mrs Winters they would have been paid an advance, especially if the publisher is the same one that published all their other books, believing they can deliver a money making product. Just shows you betting on the same horses is not a guaranteed win all the time.

We don't know that.

Maybe they were sponsored and were well paid before it went anywhere near a publisher.

Maybe it was ghost written.. the use of the word "haters" and any critical research suggests it.

Maybe they handed it over to the publisher without an advance or a small one because that was part of the sponsorship deal.

We don't know.

by Brian Griffin 01.10.14 17:34

We don't know, but it is common practice for a big company like Hachette to pay an advance if the book was commissioned to be written especially. If S&S wrote the book first and then looked for a publisher, it might be a different story. I imagine they would be regretting this book now, especially Swan, as I imagine her career still has more active years left than doddery, old hubby! Why so few sales?

In my opinion.