The Article that got Raffle Ruffled.

by Autumn 17.12.09 2:27

Immediately after I had posting up David Edgar's article (The Independent 14th Sep 2009) on the 'David Edgar' thread, Raffle left a couple of highly offensive comments about me. Raffle, and anyone else who thinks it acceptable to make abusive attacks on others, should remind themselves that this is a public forum. All members should feel that they have a right to express and exchange opinions freely without being subjected to verbal abuse by others simply because they hold an opposing view.

Anyway here is the article that caused Ruffle to become angrypcuser

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/madeleine-mccann-is-in-a-secret-lair-1787032.html

by **Tony Bennett** 17.12.09 8:53

Autumn wrote:Immediately after I had posting up David Edgar's article (The Independent 14th Sep 2009) on the 'David Edgar' thread, Raffle left a couple of highly offensive comments about me. Raffle, and anyone else who thinks it acceptable to make abusive attacks on others, should remind themselves that this is a public forum. All members should feel that they have a right to express and exchange opinions freely without being subjected to verbal abuse by others simply because they hold an opposing view.

Anyway here is the article that caused Ruffle to become

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/madeleine-mccann-is-in-a-secret-lair-1787032.html

I suggest that the reason why 'Raffle' became 'ruffled' is simply because that article alone totally explodes any remaining credibility both of Edgar, who later said that Jane Tanner might have seen a female abductor, not a male one, and of the shambolic McCann private investigation team as a whole.

The McCann-believers like 'Raffle' often react furiously when confronted with embarrassing information about those they believe in.

by Guest 17.12.09 9:51

Is that better or worse than ignoring it, twisting it so it sounds different to dim witted people or getting people who post such things banned from forums, as you variously do, mr bennett, you are evidently the one with an interest in pushing a particular agenda, one that contradicts the official findings of the investigation, one that you have promised not to do any more because you acknowledge your views to be libellous and false, so perhaps you are in no position to be crowing about anything, imo.

by Autumn 17.12.09 10:32

So, Trya, next time someone posts up an article which may not be to Raffle's liking, we should just sit back and take his abusive comments in our stride. Maybe Raffles would be better advised to read up about the case and try and come up with a reasoned and rational response as opposed to the smear tactics he appears to favour when words fail him.

by Guest 17.12.09 10:40

I didn't see any abusive comments but I have seen what Mr Bennett describes as abusive comments in the past, this usually means a poster pointing out his mistakes, he doesn't much like it.

But you clearly think an abusive comment is worse than simply pretending facts don't exist, twisting them to mislead people or asking admin to ban people who point out uncomfortable facts.

by Autumn 17.12.09 10:52

tyra wrote:I didn't see any abusive comments but I have seen what Mr Bennett describes as abusive comments in the past, this usually means a poster pointing out his mistakes, he doesn't much like it.

But you clearly think an abusive comment is worse than simply pretending facts don't exist, twisting them to mislead people or asking admin to ban people who point out uncomfortable facts.

What you say makes no sense at all. I posted up an interview given by Dave Edgar, which I thought may be of some interest on here. For whatever reason, Raffle decided to respond to this with a couple of abusive posts - if he had wanted to debate the issues raised on the thread, he was free to do so. Stop defending the indefensible, Raffles comments were, imo, abusive - whether you agree with that or not is, tbh, of no interest to me.

by Guest 17.12.09 11:08

Which thread are these abusive posts on? You claim that my opinions are of no interest to you but you engaged me in this thread, I was responding to Mr Bennett in the first place not you, if you only want people to agree with what you state, rightly or wrongly then you will have a torrid time on a forum btw and if you insist on trailing around the board acting as some sort of bodyguard and protector for mr bennett, whenever he is exposed, then you are in for a tough job.

by MaryB 17.12.09 11:19

To be honest I don't think personal insults should be accepted on any forum. It is only the tactics of people who know they have no case to argue.

by Guest 17.12.09 11:28

now that I can agree with but this place seems fairly unmoderated (apart from the odd banning) and personal insults have been made since day 1 so unless the admin decide to make an announcement stating this is a rule ... ?

by Autumn 17.12.09 11:34

tyra wrote:Which thread are these abusive posts on? You claim that my opinions are of no interest to you but you engaged me in this thread, I was responding to Mr Bennett in the first place not you, if you only want people to agree with what you state, rightly or wrongly then you will have a torrid time on a forum btw and if you insist on trailing around the board acting as some sort of bodyguard and protector for mr bennett, whenever he is exposed, then you are in for a tough job.

I suggest that you read the comments before being so eager to leap to Raffle's defence.

Since the early days, following Madeleine's disappearance, I and many thousands of others have never believed in the the McCanns version of events. It is obvious that those who seek the truth about what happened to Madeleine, frighten the likes of you and Raffles. Every thread, even this one, is derailed by attacks on Mr Bennett which many on here will agree, are becoming tiresome. As Mr Bennett deals with the relentless and repetative quesions, usually asked in an aggressive manner, effortlessly , he doesnt need protection from anyone.
Incidentally, Trya, have you made any posts which don't mention Mr Bennett? Perhaps you would be happier on MM where there is a whole section of threads devoted to him?

Trya, some of us on here are interested in finding justice for Madeleine so go and play your silly games elsewhere.

by Honoria 17.12.09 11:40

Tony Bennett wrote:
Autumn wrote:Immediately after I had posting up David Edgar's article (The Independent 14th Sep 2009) on the 'David Edgar' thread, Raffle left a couple of highly offensive comments about me. Raffle, and anyone else who thinks it acceptable to make abusive attacks on others, should remind themselves that this is a public forum. All members should feel that they have a right to express and exchange opinions freely without being subjected to verbal abuse by others simply because they hold an opposing view.

Anyway here is the article that caused Ruffle to become

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/madeleine-mccann-is-in-a-secret-lair-1787032.html
I suggest that the reason why 'Raffle' became 'ruffled' is simply because that article alone totally explodes any remaining credibility both of Edgar, who later said that Jane Tanner might have seen a female abductor, not a male one, and of the shambolic McCann private investigation team as a whole.

The McCann-believers like 'Raffle' often react furiously when confronted with embarrassing information about those they believe in.

Says the man with absolute zero *cough* credibility

by Autumn 17.12.09 11:44

tyra wrote:now that I can agree with but this place seems fairly unmoderated (apart from the odd banning) and personal insults have been made since day 1 so unless the admin decide to make an announcement stating this is a rule ... ?

Jill has made an announcement stating that personal insults will not be tolerated and will lead to an instant ban. How much clearer do you want it?

by sunshine 17.12.09 11:47

Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:Which thread are these abusive posts on? You claim that my opinions are of no interest to you but you engaged me in this thread, I was responding to Mr Bennett in the first place not you, if you only want people to agree with what you state, rightly or wrongly then you will have a torrid time on a forum btw and if you insist on trailing around the board acting as some sort of bodyguard and protector for mr bennett, whenever he is exposed, then you are in for a tough job.

I suggest that you read the comments before being so eager to leap to Raffle's defence.

Since the early days, following Madeleine's disappearance, I and many thousands of others have never believed in the the McCanns version of events. It is obvious that those who seek the truth about what happened to Madeleine, frighten the likes of you and Raffles. Every thread, even this one, is derailed by attacks on Mr Bennett which many on here will agree, are becoming tiresome.
If that is all you are here for, why dont you go to MM where there are many threads devoted to attacking him.

Trya, some of us on here are interested in finding justice for Madeleine so go and play your silly games elsewhere.

Why do McCann disbelievers think they are the only ones who want to know the truth? Why on earth would those with an opposing view be frightened of knowing what happened? It makes no sense.I am puzzled by much these days not least your final comment about silly game playing yet you post another thread about Raffles replies to you! WHY?

by Guest 17.12.09 11:49

Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:now that I can agree with but this place seems fairly unmoderated (apart from the odd banning) and personal insults have been made since day 1 so unless the admin decide to make an announcement stating this is a rule ... ?

Jill has made an announcement stating that personal insults will not be tolerated and will lead to an instant ban. How much clearer do you want it?

that must be new.

by Guest 17.12.09 11:51

Pointing out where a man is making errors of fact is not a game, this is a childs life at stake, it couldn't really be much more serious.

by Autumn 17.12.09 12:42

tyra wrote:Pointing out where a man is making errors of fact is not a game, this is a childs life at stake, it couldn't really be much more serious.

If, as I presume, you are talking about Dave Edgar, take it up with him or 'The Independent' which published the article - I agree, he does seem to regard the disappearance of a missing child as a game but, then again, so have all the other McCann PIs.

by Guest 17.12.09 13:00

No, the man who makes consistent errors of fact is Tony Bennett but I suspect you already know that.

Dave Edgar is a hired investigator, his job is to try and find Madeleine Mccann, by revisiting evidence and looking at every possibility, I have no idea why this should rattle you so much?

by Autumn 17.12.09 13:11

tyra wrote:No, the man who makes consistent errors of fact is Tony Bennett but I suspect you already know that.

Dave Edgar is a hired investigator, his job is to try and find Madeleine Mccann, by revisiting evidence and looking at every possibility, I have no idea why this should rattle you so much?

Trya, you cannot force people to subscibe to the abduction theory - there is absolutely no evidence to support. There are many possibilities as to what might have happened to Madeleine and we should discuss ALL of them.

by Bea_Reasonable 17.12.09 13:14

True Autumn, no more than shoving inaccurate leaflets in people's faces can force them to pick up a pitchfork.

by Autumn 17.12.09 13:23

Yet another reasonable suggestion to move things forward shut down.

by Slartibartfast 17.12.09 16:56

Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:No, the man who makes consistent errors of fact is Tony Bennett but I suspect you already know that.

Dave Edgar is a hired investigator, his job is to try and find Madeleine Mccann, by revisiting evidence and looking at every possibility, I have no idea why this should rattle you so much?

Trya, you cannot force people to subscibe to the abduction theory - there is absolutely no evidence to support. There are many possibilities as to what might have happened to Madeleine and we should discuss ALL of them.

There is evidence.

You just reject it.

There is the eyewitness testimony of Jane Tanner.

by Guest 17.12.09 16:57

Someone is droning on about supposed abusive posts to them, then starts a new thread to have a go at someone. never mind

tick tock, I hear a cage rattling, slowleeeeee slowleeeee and all that........

by Autumn 17.12.09 16:59

Slartibartfast wrote:
Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:No, the man who makes consistent errors of fact is Tony Bennett but I suspect you already know that.

Dave Edgar is a hired investigator, his job is to try and find Madeleine Mccann, by revisiting evidence and looking at every possibility, I have no idea why this should rattle you so much?

Trya, you cannot force people to subscibe to the abduction theory - there is absolutely no evidence to support. There are many possibilities as to what might have happened to Madeleine and we should discuss ALL of them.

There is evidence.

You just reject it.

There is the eyewitness testimony of Jane Tanner.

Lets discuss other possiblilities of what may have happened or you not open to other theories?

by Slartibartfast 17.12.09 17:06

Autumn wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:No, the man who makes consistent errors of fact is Tony Bennett but I suspect you already know that.

Dave Edgar is a hired investigator, his job is to try and find Madeleine Mccann, by revisiting evidence and looking at every possibility, I have no idea why this should rattle you so much?

Trya, you cannot force people to subscibe to the abduction theory - there is absolutely no evidence to support. There are many possibilities as to what might have happened to Madeleine and we should discuss ALL of them.

There is evidence.

You just reject it.

There is the eyewitness testimony of Jane Tanner.

Lets discuss other possiblilities of what may have happened or you not open to other theories?

Theories need to be backed up by facts.
That's where I have a problem.
The facts in the case point away from Kate and Gerry.
Every anti would laugh at this statement but the big questions have yet to be answered by anyone.
Why, where, when, how?
There is no evidence to suggest that they did anything or how they would have carried it out.
To accept that they did means that one has to accept too many things that are highly unlikely.
Those questions above are the reason that they are not arguidos
There have been endless discussions about all kinds of possibilities that have had no foundation whatsoever.
Like the masonic paedophile political conpiraloon nonsense for example.

by Autumn 17.12.09 17:10

Of all the possibilities of re what happened, abduction seems that least likely, aswell as there being not much to support it apart from Kate saying so, evidence seems to point away from that theory, too.