The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Business sense of the McCs.

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Business sense of the McCs.

Post by tigger on 17.04.12 14:59

Russian Doll, I'm a little surprised at your reaction.
I simply wrote that I'm not sure whether that was Maddie on the grounds of her height, the clothes she is wearing and wondered about her teeth as the front four teeth seem to fit together from this angle.
I simply said it's a pretty 3.5 year old imo and can't see any judgement in that at all. It doesn't mean Maddie was or wasn't pretty, it just means it's a pretty little girl like thousands of others.

If I had said it can't be Maddie because this girl is pretty - that would be another matter altogether.

The last time the DM ran a story on Maddie, nearly all the comments wittered on about 'the beautiful little girl' - now that did annoy me, because it implied that the beautiful bit was essential. Besides, we get the beautiful and lovely bit from her parents all the time, but nearly nothing on what she liked and what she did in her little life.

The 'beautiful' was an essential part of the marketing of brand TM imo.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Business sense of the McCs.

Post by aiyoyo on 17.04.12 15:53

@tigger wrote:Russian Doll, I'm a little surprised at your reaction.
I simply wrote that I'm not sure whether that was Maddie on the grounds of her height, the clothes she is wearing and wondered about her teeth as the front four teeth seem to fit together from this angle.
I simply said it's a pretty 3.5 year old imo and can't see any judgement in that at all. It doesn't mean Maddie was or wasn't pretty, it just means it's a pretty little girl like thousands of others.

If I had said it can't be Maddie because this girl is pretty - that would be another matter altogether.

The last time the DM ran a story on Maddie, nearly all the comments wittered on about 'the beautiful little girl' - now that did annoy me, because it implied that the beautiful bit was essential. Besides, we get the beautiful and lovely bit from her parents all the time, but nearly nothing on what she liked and what she did in her little life.

The 'beautiful' was an essential part of the marketing of brand TM imo.

Yeah, like her mum oft-chant comment "please continue to look for her, she is lovely" irks me enormously.
How can a child be anything other than lovely? It's like saying because she is lovely please look for her, meaning otherwise dont bother looking! That is a stupid thing for kate to say imo.

A child is a mini human and like all human has got dual behavourial pattern, can be good or annoying, depending on moments.
So to say a child is lovely is pretty banal.
A missing child/person needs to be searched for, period. The nature of the missing person should not be a criteria for the search!

To market the child as "lovely" or "beautiful" is pretty stupid. Because it's as if saying if the child is ugly or a menace by nature dont bother looking, how stupid is that?
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Business sense of the McCs.

Post by Nina on 17.04.12 16:00

@aiyoyo wrote:
@tigger wrote:Russian Doll, I'm a little surprised at your reaction.
I simply wrote that I'm not sure whether that was Maddie on the grounds of her height, the clothes she is wearing and wondered about her teeth as the front four teeth seem to fit together from this angle.
I simply said it's a pretty 3.5 year old imo and can't see any judgement in that at all. It doesn't mean Maddie was or wasn't pretty, it just means it's a pretty little girl like thousands of others.

If I had said it can't be Maddie because this girl is pretty - that would be another matter altogether.

The last time the DM ran a story on Maddie, nearly all the comments wittered on about 'the beautiful little girl' - now that did annoy me, because it implied that the beautiful bit was essential. Besides, we get the beautiful and lovely bit from her parents all the time, but nearly nothing on what she liked and what she did in her little life.

The 'beautiful' was an essential part of the marketing of brand TM imo.

Yeah, like her mum oft-chant comment "please continue to look for her, she is lovely" irks me enormously.
How can a child be anything other than lovely? It's like saying because she is lovely please look for her, meaning otherwise dont bother looking! That is a stupid thing for kate to say imo.

A child is a mini human and like all human has got dual behavourial pattern, can be good or annoying, depending on moments.
So to say a child is lovely is pretty banal.
A missing child/person needs to be searched for, period. The nature of the missing person should not be a criteria for the search!

To market the child as "lovely" or "beautiful" is pretty stupid. Because it's as if saying if the child is ugly or a menace by nature dont bother looking, how stupid is that?

Kate had an opportunity there to give a heartfelt plea for the return of a much loved child, but no we got she is lovely. So was the silk scarf I lost at the airport and when I was telling our daughter of it's loss, I didn't say it was lovely, which it was, I said I just love that scarf.


____________________
Not one more cent from me.
avatar
Nina

Posts : 2861
Reputation : 334
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 74

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Business sense of the McCs.

Post by russiandoll on 17.04.12 16:37

Sorry Tigger...did not split my post as I should have done.
I did wonder why pretty was mentioned in a discussion of photos where the issue diebated was height... I had recently read the post containing the quote below and I saw red, sorry if I offended you.
the rest of my rant was not at your post but looked that way I am sorry for that, I have been really annoyed at reading some recent posts which I think let this forum down, all to do with photo analysis.....Maddie's ragbag of clothes was one from one member and that one about abducting the" smaller [ easier to carry?] prettier " child was another.
I simply think value judgments are wrong, Maddie could have been Quasimodo's baby sister and it would not matter. I know the marketing of an iconic beautiful child was the name of the game, but I think people feel drawn to this case because she was young and vulnerable, whether as a believer of the parents or not. And I am sorry to say that analysing the photos for good reasons has included some unkind remarks on a little girl's appearance, when I think it is irrelevant, regardless of the marketing. I think the media not the parents painted the picture for us of the little blonde beauty.
I should have posted my rant on the other thread where I read most of the unkind remarks....not here, I just got quite cross and let rip immediately, not like me. I will think before replying in future.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Business sense of the McCs.

Post by Kololi on 17.04.12 16:52

@russiandoll wrote: look at the gap in the teeth of the girl in pool photo and playhouse photo...count front right tooth as tooth no 1 and look at gap between 2nd and 3rd tooth right hand side....identical . This is the same girl imo.

Why is there mention of "pretty" in a post about photographs? It seems rather unkind to be dissecting the appearance of a little girl. I do not think our interest in this case should be so intrusive as to be analysing facial features to the extent judgment is passed. So can we please note facial features of any children we discuss and not resort to subjective comments? I have already read a post on this forum wondering why an abductor would not have chosen smaller prettier Amelie.. beauty is in the eye of the beholder, some will find beauty where others do not see it, whether it be in male or female adults or children, so can we have respect for Madeleine please and remember that we do ourselves no favours as a forum by comments like this. It might be worth mentioning that others who look for reasons to criticise posters here will take this dissection of appearance and interpret it as an unhealthy way to be looking at a child...lets not give them grounds for any more horrible comments about this forum.
Admin I truly think no purpose is served as regards debating this case by continued remarks of Madeleine's physical attractiveness or lack of it. I do not know when or why it began, but I do not think it is justified and I hope you will advise posters of how unkind and irrelevant it is.



BINGO!!!!!! thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Business sense of the McCs.

Post by tigger on 17.04.12 16:54

empathy Glad we're friends still!

No - as I said, it annoys me so much when these posts in the DM et al come up such as ;
Let's hope that this beautiful girl will come home to her family etc. etc. So many of these. In that context it really looks as if her beauty is so important that for that reason alone she has to be found.
I despair of such values, Maddie had the misfortune to be born to the wrong parents. Imo of course.
My all time favourite photograph of her is on the handwritten poster - she looks as if she's totally absorbed in something and for once she looks relaxed and content. Wish we would know much more about her instead of having too much information about her parents, such as their sex lives.

Doubt whether the epilogue in the paperback is going to tell us anything we want to know.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Business sense of the McCs.

Post by russiandoll on 17.04.12 17:06

nice one of her on a small bicycle where she looks very carefree and happy too.
reading Kates book once was once too often, but it was on loan from the library and read and returned in 2 days, unputdownable for all the wrong reasons.

I am seriously starting to wonder if Madeleine was in Portugal in May 07, no....seriously considering if she was there. People had to be convinced she was, and with all these blonde lookalikes of a similar age who were mentioned, who knew her well enough to recognise her? I am going to read and read even if I am deemed mad.........about how often the tapas lot who knew her saw her, because if there was a gap of a year or two, maybe even they could have been fooled that she was there...and then if a sub left, of course they would think Maddie had been abducted.
It might be crazy but the whole damned case is so bizarre I think I should be cut some slack for considering that Madeleine McCann was not there at all. Didn't a creche worker state that the child who came to creche introduced herself as Maddie?...the same girl who were are told again and again would correct anyone who did not address her by her full name?
lack of DNA, lack of photos, maybe the little girl was never there in the first place.
..

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Business sense of the McCs.

Post by Genbug on 17.04.12 23:09

@russiandoll wrote: Sorry Tigger...did not split my post as I should have done.
I did wonder why pretty was mentioned in a discussion of photos where the issue diebated was height... I had recently read the post containing the quote below and I saw red, sorry if I offended you.
the rest of my rant was not at your post but looked that way I am sorry for that, I have been really annoyed at reading some recent posts which I think let this forum down, all to do with photo analysis.....Maddie's ragbag of clothes was one from one member and that one about abducting the" smaller [ easier to carry?] prettier " child was another.
I simply think value judgments are wrong, Maddie could have been Quasimodo's baby sister and it would not matter. I know the marketing of an iconic beautiful child was the name of the game, but I think people feel drawn to this case because she was young and vulnerable, whether as a believer of the parents or not. And I am sorry to say that analysing the photos for good reasons has included some unkind remarks on a little girl's appearance, when I think it is irrelevant, regardless of the marketing. I think the media not the parents painted the picture for us of the little blonde beauty.
I should have posted my rant on the other thread where I read most of the unkind remarks....not here, I just got quite cross and let rip immediately, not like me. I will think before replying in future.

Russiandoll, it was me that made the post about Amelie being a smaller, prettier, easier to carry child than Madeleine.

If my post offended you, then I am sorry but it absolutely wasn't an "unkind remark" about Madeleine or her appearance. I believe I made the post on the "why didn't you come" thread not a photo analysis thread. And it was in response to the ridiculous statement made by Merrymo that a gang may have been watching the apartment for months, waiting for the chance to snatch a child. My response was to ask Merrymo why he/she thought that they choose Madeleine to abduct and not the smaller, prettier (in my opinion) easier to handle child.

The "prettier" statement need not have been there, as I said, that is just my opinion, but the main point to my remark I still believe is valid. Why Madeleine? If we are to believe that a child was abducted (which I don't) it would make more sense if it was the smaller child that they could pass through a window and carry away easier.

Genbug

Posts : 186
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Business sense of the McCs.

Post by russiandoll on 18.04.12 9:40

thanks for that post Genbug...you don't owe me an apology ! I think I must have been having a bad day yesterday [ I have MS and going through a very rough patch, though no excuse for a strop.] I think on the contrary I owe you an apology, and have said sorry to Tigger.
Apologies too for getting the thread wrong.....I had just been reading about the photos and saw what I thought was needless remarks about a small girl's appearance to the point of saying she wore a ragbag of clothes on one photo. I know that Kate puts a silly emphasis on superficial things and it is tempting to criticise her and rightly so at times, I just hope we can do it without a hey Kate your daughter wasn't that special you know....not done by you or Tigger but by others and I am afraid that when I read that pretty word I saw red....I should not have posted my criticism on this thread but where I really got wound up.
Anyway, enough said about that.....your point was of course valid......I do not accept abduction , neither do I believe in neglect on that holiday. Let's suppose like you have done for argument's sake, that the 3 children were alone in 5a, in that bedroom, at the stated time.
The abductor esp if a paedophile who had been staking out the place as claimed.......could have planned to take a smaller child, maybe both twins.... I am sure there would have been a car and possibly an accomplice. And if doing a recce on an earlier evening as claimed, would have struck that evening ; if the coast was clear enough for a recce surely would have felt secure enough to snatch a child at that moment, definitely not the evening when the checks allegedly increased and the window [ pardon the pun] of opportunity narrowed significantly....
If age is an issue as I have heard argued re the twins.......I do not think Maddie's age fits the profile for abductions.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Business sense of the McCs.

Post by Genbug on 18.04.12 18:15

No need for apologies russiandoll, and sorry to hear you are not feeling good.

Right from the very beginning of this sad case I believed things were not as they seemed, and one of the things that always struck me was "why Madeleine?" Surely if an abductor was going to strike, he would have taken one of the smaller children? And also, as you say, none of the children actually fit the profile for an paedophine abduction, as they would like us to believe. And if, as some people like to believe, she was taken for somebody who wanted a child, again, why not one of the smaller ones?

I asked Merrymo, in response to their ridiculous statement "IMO there was more than one person involved and this had been meticulously planned for a long time at this particular apartment. They were just waiting for the right family to come along." why he/she thought that Madeleine had been targetted when there were smaller children. And why not the family who was there two weeks earlier with a three year old girl. Of course, I never got a reply!

Genbug

Posts : 186
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Fundraising for the business..

Post by tigger on 21.06.12 9:21

It's a bit long this piece, but relevant I think. The thing that has bugged me all along is the very professional fundraising and publicity right from the start.
You simply can't 'wing' it like that, it has to be thought out and prepared imo.
Just as I seem to detect the hand of a more sophisticated media manipulator than 'Mad Mitchell' (as Blacksmith calls him) - I detect an equally sophisticated fund raising expert in the background. Here is an article I came across today in McCannfiles:

Question: does anybody know if the Vancouver Sun has anything to do with the Sun?


 
Fundraisers can learn from our human response to disasters The Vancouver Sun

By Jeremy Douglas, Special to the Sun
February 4, 2011

What if I gave you $100 to donate to either (a) Sandra, a young, homeless girl whose parents abandoned her, or (b) the overall homelessness plight? Who would you give the money to? Most of you will pick Sandra even though donating to "homelessness" would go to people in a similar situation to Sandra. Why? Because we're hard-wired to care more about a victim we can identify with than a large number of people or faceless statistics, no matter how grim. That's why, according to academics, people stand by and do nothing or do not intervene early enough in the face of great tragedies, like the genocide in Rwanda. It's impossible to comprehend 800,000 individuals. They're just "lots and lots of dots."

We don't lose sleep over genocide, but we're deeply affected by one person's story, like the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This isn't right or wrong, it's simply a fact about how people comprehend individual lives. To reluctantly quote Josef Stalin: "A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic." Our brains are programmed to tune out large numbers of people and instead focus on single individuals. This tells us a lot about why we support certain causes and why, for example, 33 Chilean miners received more press coverage than 20 million flood-affected Pakistanis. The fewer the number of people the more "real" a story becomes.

To prove this theory, researchers conducted an experiment in which they gave people the opportunity to donate up to $5 to Save the Children. They could chose which area of the charity's work the money would go toward: (a) an identifiable victim (African girl Rokia); (b) statistical victims (starvation in Africa); or (c) identifiable victim with statistics (Rokia + starvation stats). Donations to an identifiable victim, Rokia, generated more than twice as much money as donations to a statistical portrayal of starvation in African. Even adding statistics to Rokia's story reduced the donation amount. Other research found that adding just one extra person to the appeal reduced the amount of the donation. The more people involved the less we are affected. People don't like numbers when it comes to compassion.

This awareness of human psychology has practical implications for charities and fundraisers. Fundraising is all about understanding people's motivations for supporting a cause -- is Anna donating to our charity because she just wants to run 10k, or does she genuinely care about the cause (or both)? Either way, her decision is rational and thought out. The decision to support one person instead of many, however, is unconscious. It has to do with the way we feel about an issue in an instant rather than stepping back and taking a rational look at it. There is something about the face and story of one individual that grabs us and makes us want to take action.

So, to maximize donations, fundraisers should focus their public appeals on one person's story, accompanied by a powerful image.

In the words of Mother Teresa, "If I look at the mass, I will never act. If I look at the one, I will."

Jeremy Douglas is a professional fundraising consultant. jerdouglas@gmail.com

unquote.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Business sense of the McCs.

Post by Guest on 31.10.12 17:43

I wonder why they registered Cuddlecat.co.uk May 13 ..Then they soon after changed it to findmadeleine, wich really should have been the first choice anyway. Why this order ?

I also see if you go back to may 2007 the reward is on their website. Wonder when that was removed and why?

The page from the first day, on the bottom , says this:

Note: This is a private initiative and is in not endorsed by any Law Enforcement Authority. Is it a public service designed to help to reunite a little girl with to her parents. Please help if you can. We apologize in advance for stealing these images from a number of web sites. If you wish us to remove them we will, but we think it is the best interests of Madeleine to keep them here.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090430184459/http://www.cuddlecat.co.uk/

If you go to may 20 this article is on their page, and a big picture of her fleck in the eye that they did not do much of !


Madeleine parents believe she is safe
The parents of missing four-year-old Madeleine McCann said they had taken "tremendous strength" from the "warmth and spiritual outpouring" from all around the world.



Gerry and Kate McCann issued a brief statement from the Portuguese holiday resort of Praia da Luz 11 days after their little girl disappeared from their hotel room.
The pair said they were "fully supporting" the police investigation into their daughter's abduction and reaffirmed their belief that their daughter is safe.
Mr McCann said: "Until there is concrete evidence to the contrary, we believe Madeleine is safe and is being looked after".
Madeleine's mother also emphasised that the couple had no intention of returning to Britain from Portugal in the immediate future.
A British legal team has flown to Praia da Luz to help them and has launched a special "fighting fund" to help in the hunt for Madeleine.
A statement from the International Family Law Group, the firm instructed by the McCanns, said details of how people could make donations would be released within days.
A QC, Michael Nicholls, has also been instructed by the family as their determined battle to find Madeleine enters another week.
Madeleine's uncle John McCann, who lives in Glasgow but was in Praia da Luz last week, said the lawyers would play a liaison role and would not interfere with the criminal investigation.
A spokesman for the International Family Law Group said yesterday: "Gerry and Kate are very grateful for all the support and generous offers of help that they are receiving.
"Details of how contributions can be made to help get Madeleine back to the safety of her own family will be made available in the next couple of days."
The McCanns were among around ten British people who have been re-interviewed by police in recent days to clarify their statements.
This week some of the witnesses are expected to appear in court behind closed doors to record their evidence before they go back to the UK.
The McCanns themselves are not expected to be asked to take part.
The procedure, known as "memory for the future", means taped statements can be shown during a future trial so the witnesses do not have to return to appear in court.


http://web.archive.org/web/20070520195327/http://www.findmadeleine.com/

Here is their picture side from early start. As we can see "they did not do much" out of her eye

http://web.archive.org/web/20070522043942/http://www.findmadeleine.com/pictures/

Oh on the early days they acually had a fund money counter on their webside. According to it they had by May 22 2007 £115.856.92
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Business sense of the McCs.

Post by tigger on 31.10.12 18:40

So the lawyers were hard at work getting the mcCanns to receive donations so that they could get paid?

Moa, that 'family photograph' really hurts me, take away Maddie and it's believable, but Maddie looks totally as if she doesn't belong. Nobody touches her, she's not looking at the camera and she's not looking that well either imo.

Clever you getting the wayback pics. If you look at McCannfiles, there's one early site where they misspelt the name Madeleine.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Business sense of the McCs.

Post by Guest on 31.10.12 18:45

@tigger wrote:So the lawyers were hard at work getting the mcCanns to receive donations so that they could get paid?

Moa, that 'family photograph' really hurts me, take away Maddie and it's believable, but Maddie looks totally as if she doesn't belong. Nobody touches her, she's not looking at the camera and she's not looking that well either imo.

Clever you getting the wayback pics. If you look at McCannfiles, there's one early site where they misspelt the name Madeleine.

what
avatar
Guest
Guest


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