Re: One coherent theory apart from abduction

by Autumn on 07.01.10 11:49

PearlB wrote:
@Autumn wrote:
@marigold wrote:
@aliberte2 wrote:
@Ruby wrote:Do you get paid by the sneer?

Frankly, You Are Equally Unpleasant. I Have Yet to See you Contribute Anything to Intellectual Thinking on the Anti Side. You are An Attack Dog.

I know all you pro's who are in the majority on this forum would love to have it all to yourselves, where you can bitch viciously without redress to your heart's content. You ask for theories and then deride and attack all of them if they dare suggest any Mccann involvement and yet your fanciful and frankly laughable 'theory' of abduction stands no scrutiny whatsoever. What drives you? Don't you want to know what happened? These theories that are discussed that involve the Mccanns and/or friends could be the truth. The unpalatable truth - to you- is that YOU JUST DON'T KNOW. Everything I have read suggests that they at best know EXACTLY what has happened and at worst, had a direct hand in it. Why it is so important to you that they are protected at all costs, is what I would like to know. The sneering, yes sneering, adds absolutely nothing to the search for truth but is aims to belittle anyone who doesn't toe the abduction line. I can understand an impartial point of view and an 'innocent until proven guilty' attitude but the nasty little jibes and sometimes personal attacks against those who are trying to discover what happened, are bizarre and just make you seem somewhat obsessed by a couple who couldn't care less about you, yet seem to have your unbridled loyalty.

Great post, Marigold. This forum has been taken over by the crazed, obsessed McCann followers, they are obviously not interested in finding out what happended to Madeleine and care only about worshipping their heroes. I am tired of reading their gushing posts, lavishing endless praise upon the McCanns and am fast approaching the point at which I will require a sick bucket to hand, when logging on here. Were it not for the 'antis'' incisive, balanced and interesting contributions, this forum would be more like some Boyband Fanclub Website, judging by the fanatical adulaltion displayed by the 'pros'.
There are a number of members now, whose posts I no longer read as they have, imo, lost all credibility and have no wish to waste my time on them. What is clear is that they seem incapable of participating in reasoned and civilized debate and, with their incessant sneering and often aggressive posts, have ruined what promised to be a decent forum. I have long since given up on wondering or caring what drives theses people to fiercly protect a couple who have been nothing but obstructive and evasive regarding the search for the truth about the disappearance of their daughter.
Not sure which Forum you are reading . JKH posted that this was to be a place for ALL opinions. The problem is that some Antis do not like their opinions being shown up for what they are - OPINIONS. My suggestion would be for you and the others to read the Files and check out exactly what you think is Fact or Fiction.

Pearl, believe what you like, I am only here to help find truth and justice for Madeleine. You obviously are not, therefore I have nothing more to say to you.

by Guest on 07.01.10 11:51

If you wanted truth, justice and to help find Madeleine. You would not be suckered in by the many myths Autumn.

by vaguely on 07.01.10 11:53

@Autumn wrote:

Pearl, believe what you like, I am only here to help find truth and justice for Madeleine. You obviously are not, therefore I have nothing more to say to you.

With respect, only if it starts with the premise that her parents are responsible.

by Autumn on 07.01.10 12:11

@vaguely wrote:
@Autumn wrote:

Pearl, believe what you like, I am only here to help find truth and justice for Madeleine. You obviously are not, therefore I have nothing more to say to you.

With respect, only if it starts with the premise that her parents are responsible.

No, it starts with the premise that I do not believe the McCanns' 'abduction' theory. I have stated clearly where I stand and, I am sure all you 'abduction believers' would agree that it would be pointless reading and/or responding to each others' posts when we are in opposing camps on this fundamental issue.

by Slartibartfast on 07.01.10 12:15

@Autumn wrote:
@vaguely wrote:
@Autumn wrote:

Pearl, believe what you like, I am only here to help find truth and justice for Madeleine. You obviously are not, therefore I have nothing more to say to you.

With respect, only if it starts with the premise that her parents are responsible.

No, it starts with the premise that I do not believe the McCanns' 'abduction' theory. I have stated clearly where I stand and, I am sure all you 'abduction believers' would agree that it would be pointless reading and/or responding to each others' posts when we are in opposing camps on this fundamental issue.

The point is that you are starting with a presumed, unproven and unevidenced premise and anyone who disagrees with that is here to disrupt the forum.

by Guest on 07.01.10 12:28

@Slartibartfast wrote:

The point is that you are starting with a presumed, unproven and unevidenced premise and anyone who disagrees with that is here to disrupt the forum.

Sums up some of the Anti's really.they say we can debate the case, but you must agree with us first. Mention the DVD files and they believe what Morais said, yet she left out half the phrases in it that showed the McCanns were not implicated.
It will come out in the next few days in court, then there will be a mad scrambling to delete posts on some websites

by vaguely on 07.01.10 12:34

@Autumn wrote:
@vaguely wrote:
@Autumn wrote:

Pearl, believe what you like, I am only here to help find truth and justice for Madeleine. You obviously are not, therefore I have nothing more to say to you.

With respect, only if it starts with the premise that her parents are responsible.

No, it starts with the premise that I do not believe the McCanns' 'abduction' theory. I have stated clearly where I stand and, I am sure all you 'abduction believers' would agree that it would be pointless reading and/or responding to each others' posts when we are in opposing camps on this fundamental issue.

Yes, fair enough, my wording was probably not the best.

I think what I'm trying to say is that you start from a point where anything you look at is skewed by your disbelief of abduction. Other people start from different points and their view is skewed accordingly.

It just makes it difficult to look at all that follows objectively and therefore it's not seeking truth. It's backing up the position you've already taken - because that is your truth.

by Autumn on 07.01.10 12:49

@Slartibartfast wrote:
@Autumn wrote:
@vaguely wrote:
@Autumn wrote:

Pearl, believe what you like, I am only here to help find truth and justice for Madeleine. You obviously are not, therefore I have nothing more to say to you.

With respect, only if it starts with the premise that her parents are responsible.

No, it starts with the premise that I do not believe the McCanns' 'abduction' theory. I have stated clearly where I stand and, I am sure all you 'abduction believers' would agree that it would be pointless reading and/or responding to each others' posts when we are in opposing camps on this fundamental issue.

The point is that you are starting with a presumed, unproven and unevidenced premise and anyone who disagrees with that is here to disrupt the forum.

On the contrary, I say the same to you as I said to Pearl, which is, believe what you like. As I have long since rejected the 'abduction' theory, I am not in the least bit interested in reading or responding to any more ridiculous 'pro' abduction posts and only wish to discuss the case with like-minded members. I have certainly not accused anyone who disagrees with my opinion of disrupting the forum - please would you care to elaborate? I make no secret of the fact that I would like there to be a section where those of us who do not beleive that Madeleine was abducted, could discuss other aspects of the case without interruption from 'abduction-beleivers'. Likewise, those of you who believe Madeleine was abducted would most likely prefer a section where you could discuss this amongst yourselves.

by vaguely on 07.01.10 12:52

@Autumn wrote:
@Slartibartfast wrote:
@Autumn wrote:
@vaguely wrote:
@Autumn wrote:

Pearl, believe what you like, I am only here to help find truth and justice for Madeleine. You obviously are not, therefore I have nothing more to say to you.

With respect, only if it starts with the premise that her parents are responsible.

No, it starts with the premise that I do not believe the McCanns' 'abduction' theory. I have stated clearly where I stand and, I am sure all you 'abduction believers' would agree that it would be pointless reading and/or responding to each others' posts when we are in opposing camps on this fundamental issue.

The point is that you are starting with a presumed, unproven and unevidenced premise and anyone who disagrees with that is here to disrupt the forum.

On the contrary, I say the same to you as I said to Pearl, which is, believe what you like. As I have long since rejected the 'abduction' theory, I am not in the least bit interested in reading or responding to any more ridiculous 'pro' abduction posts and only wish to discuss the case with like-minded members. I have certainly not accused anyone who disagrees with my opinion of disrupting the forum - please would you care to elaborate? I make no secret of the fact that I would like there to be a section where those of us who do not beleive that Madeleine was abducted, could discuss other aspects of the case without interruption from 'abduction-beleivers'. Likewise, those of you who believe Madeleine was abducted would most likely prefer a section where you could discuss this amongst yourselves.

I think that's a horrible idea. What's the point of discussing the case with people who can't make you think?

by Autumn on 07.01.10 13:08

@vaguely wrote:
@Autumn wrote:
@Slartibartfast wrote:
@Autumn wrote:
@vaguely wrote:
@Autumn wrote:

Pearl, believe what you like, I am only here to help find truth and justice for Madeleine. You obviously are not, therefore I have nothing more to say to you.

With respect, only if it starts with the premise that her parents are responsible.

No, it starts with the premise that I do not believe the McCanns' 'abduction' theory. I have stated clearly where I stand and, I am sure all you 'abduction believers' would agree that it would be pointless reading and/or responding to each others' posts when we are in opposing camps on this fundamental issue.

The point is that you are starting with a presumed, unproven and unevidenced premise and anyone who disagrees with that is here to disrupt the forum.

Apart from abduction, I am happy to discuss other aspects of the case :)

On the contrary, I say the same to you as I said to Pearl, which is, believe what you like. As I have long since rejected the 'abduction' theory, I am not in the least bit interested in reading or responding to any more ridiculous 'pro' abduction posts and only wish to discuss the case with like-minded members. I have certainly not accused anyone who disagrees with my opinion of disrupting the forum - please would you care to elaborate? I make no secret of the fact that I would like there to be a section where those of us who do not beleive that Madeleine was abducted, could discuss other aspects of the case without interruption from 'abduction-beleivers'. Likewise, those of you who believe Madeleine was abducted would most likely prefer a section where you could discuss this amongst yourselves.

I think that's a horrible idea. What's the point of discussing the case with people who can't make you think?

by Slartibartfast on 07.01.10 13:08

@Autumn wrote:
@Slartibartfast wrote:
@Autumn wrote:
@vaguely wrote:
@Autumn wrote:

Pearl, believe what you like, I am only here to help find truth and justice for Madeleine. You obviously are not, therefore I have nothing more to say to you.

With respect, only if it starts with the premise that her parents are responsible.

No, it starts with the premise that I do not believe the McCanns' 'abduction' theory. I have stated clearly where I stand and, I am sure all you 'abduction believers' would agree that it would be pointless reading and/or responding to each others' posts when we are in opposing camps on this fundamental issue.

The point is that you are starting with a presumed, unproven and unevidenced premise and anyone who disagrees with that is here to disrupt the forum.

On the contrary, I say the same to you as I said to Pearl, which is, believe what you like. As I have long since rejected the 'abduction' theory, I am not in the least bit interested in reading or responding to any more ridiculous 'pro' abduction posts and only wish to discuss the case with like-minded members. I have certainly not accused anyone who disagrees with my opinion of disrupting the forum - please would you care to elaborate? I make no secret of the fact that I would like there to be a section where those of us who do not beleive that Madeleine was abducted, could discuss other aspects of the case without interruption from 'abduction-beleivers'. Likewise, those of you who believe Madeleine was abducted would most likely prefer a section where you could discuss this amongst yourselves.

The point is that you have rejected any theory but the one that you hold to but still maintain that you are just out for the truth.
If you want a section that discusses just the anti position maybe Jill could oblige or maybe she could purge the forum of any "McCann believers".
It's up to her.
If that does not happen then maybe you could start your own forum on forumotion?
I did not think this forum was intended to be an echo chamber but you seem keen on the idea.

by Guest on 07.01.10 13:10

They have their own forum....it is called the Madeleine Foundation forum and has 10 members :ambersuz: :yahoo:

by Slartibartfast on 07.01.10 13:17

@rockyrobin wrote:They have their own forum....it is called the Madeleine Foundation forum and has 10 members :ambersuz: :yahoo:

Is it clear of evil Pros?

by Autumn on 07.01.10 13:21

@rockyrobin wrote:They have their own forum....it is called the Madeleine Foundation forum and has 10 members :ambersuz: :yahoo:

Unless you are a member of the Madeleine Foundation Committee, you would not know how many members there are Wink

by vaguely on 07.01.10 13:22

@Autumn wrote:
@rockyrobin wrote:They have their own forum....it is called the Madeleine Foundation forum and has 10 members :ambersuz: :yahoo:

Unless you are a member of the Madeleine Foundation Committee, you would not know how many members there are

the forum gives details of member numbers - of the forum.

by Guest on 07.01.10 13:40

So Autumn, you think that its ok if you see something posted which isn't true that it should remain uncorrected?

by Guest on 07.01.10 16:04

@Autumn wrote:
@rockyrobin wrote:They have their own forum....it is called the Madeleine Foundation forum and has 10 members :ambersuz: :yahoo:

Unless you are a member of the Madeleine Foundation Committee, you would not know how many members there are

It is on the website itself how many members there are, and it still insists on a secret forum.
lol!

by Autumn on 07.01.10 17:15

@rockyrobin wrote:
@Autumn wrote:
@rockyrobin wrote:They have their own forum....it is called the Madeleine Foundation forum and has 10 members :ambersuz: :yahoo:

Unless you are a member of the Madeleine Foundation Committee, you would not know how many members there are

It is on the website itself how many members there are, and it still insists on a secret forum.

The fact that you have visited the MF website demonstrates that you have an interest in what goes on there - for the record I am not yet a member but intend to be by the end of the week thumbsup

by DCB1 on 07.01.10 17:20

You'll have to pass the spelling test - that's probably why it takes a week.

by Guest on 07.01.10 17:25

Maybe i am a member already.

by vaguely on 07.01.10 17:26

I love sentences with more than one meaning.

Wink

xx

by Autumn on 07.01.10 17:27

@DCB1 wrote:You'll have to pass the spelling test - that's probably why it takes a week.

Its ok, I keep the spell check on laugh

by marigold on 08.01.10 0:21

Here we go again, it's 'let's have a nasty little jibe at the Madeleine Foundation now' time. I would point out that there are dozens of blogs and forums that are teeming with antis, in fact those who don't believe the Mccanns seems to far outweigh those who do. For obvious reasons.
I agree wholeheartedly Autumn, this forum is useless for debating the reason for Madeleine's disappearance when there are so many pro abduction posters who aren't interested in anything other than attacking Tony Bennett and Goncalo Amaral and we are wasting our time. The Mccann devotees are blinkered. As to why they are more interested in protecting the parents than caring about Madeleine, it will remain a mystery, at least for the time being.

by marigold on 08.01.10 0:28

Pearl B. I see you state with certainty that my theory is wrong. Please tell me exactly how you know this. Also, as you are so sure whereas I was surmising, I am keen for you to share your factual knowledge with others on this forum and also forward it to the relevant authorities.

by aiyoyo on 08.01.10 1:20

We have not seen the end of diversionary tactics by the (dare I say)mccanns fighters yet!