Re: All 70 comments published on the 'Harlow Star' website (70 comments were published, not 45 as stated earlier)

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.12 10:39

Jean wrote:Thank you Tony and Tigger for the clarification or should that be clarence-ification.

Hi, Jean, the officialspellings are 'clarrie-fy' and 'clarrie-fication', as shown in the latest edition of 'The UK Online Media Dictionary':

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

clar·i·fy verb kler-ə-fī, kla-rə- fī
clar·i·fied
clar·i·fy·ing
clar·i·fi·ca·tion

Alt. sp. Also spelt clarrie-fy{see Note 4 below}

clar·rie·fy
clarrie·fi·ca·tion

Definition of CLARIFY/ CLARRIE-FY

[To follow]

by Guest 03.11.12 10:50

I don't know if this has been posted before - other changes in the language since 2007.

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/new-reference-material.html

by ShuBob 03.11.12 14:14

Tony Bennett wrote:[...]Here's our collection of 'Issues of Concern' about Clarence Mitchell, published in our 6-page leaflet: "Clarence Mitchell: A MASTER MEDIA MANIPULATOR". [...]

For me, one of the worst things Clarence Mitchell has done which confirmed to me (my opinion of him) that he has no interest whatsoever in Maddie's plight is when he gave a talk on 18 October 2007- just over a month after the McCanns had been declared suspects in the disappearance of their daughter- titled:

“Missing Madeleine McCann: The Perfect PR Campaign”

by aiyoyo 03.11.12 16:35

No kidding! Is that title for real?

Oh dear, so revealing.........talking about shooting oneself in the foot!

by Guest 03.11.12 20:49

Interesting to read the pros and cons all wrapped up at the foot of one misleading press report. As far as the negative comments are concerned it is apparent to me that there are two major divisions a) Those who are opposed to the thoughts, words and deeds of Tony Bennett and b) those who are opposed to Tony Bennett full-stop. If the two respective elements could disregard their prejudices and see what he is genuinely trying to achieve in the interest of a missing child then I think much of this animosity could be avoided.

by RS5 03.11.12 21:24

Gillyspot wrote:
RS5 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Welcome RS5, oops thats another post.Over 2000 posts alone welcoming new members

Thank you. Another post welcoming a new member. Yet another wasted moment in your life

The current attacks on Tony Bennett are interesting. I have the whole weekend to mull over them.

No welcome is ever wasted. If you take time to read the evidence & understand it in the McCann case then you we see what we are talking about.

IMO K & G are not "proven innocent" of anything not least neglect. Anyway Welcome to our forum. Madeleine needs the truth & nothing less. Just my thoughts though.

Actually I went on to state (on Harlow Star website) that they should do an exposay on the McCanns Ltd Co "fund" & where donated money was spent - bearing in mind family were entitled to "financial assistance" that seems to have been whooshed. Still part of my comments were approved - that is something.

Hello. gillyspot, and thank you for the welcome.

I was making a rather sarcastic reference to a barbed comment in a previous post by a now-departed member. I get exactly where you are coming from.

by roy rovers 03.11.12 21:34

Gollum wrote:Interesting to read the pros and cons all wrapped up at the foot of one misleading press report. As far as the negative comments are concerned it is apparent to me that there are two major divisions a) Those who are opposed to the thoughts, words and deeds of Tony Bennett and b) those who are opposed to Tony Bennett full-stop. If the two respective elements could disregard their prejudices and see what he is genuinely trying to achieve in the interest of a missing child then I think much of this animosity could be avoided.

Basically two categories of interest in this case:

1) Those who believe the redtops fed by the Mccann PR machine (PROS).

2) Those that have read into the case - even by just a little (ANTIS).

by Guest 03.11.12 22:03

C.Edwards wrote:Whoa... hold on to the attack dogs for a minute. You *could* interpret PauliPevsner's "amusement" comment (as I do) that the amusement comes from the performance of those on the forums, not the subject of the discussion itself which, pretty obviously, is no cause for amusement so some high horses need to be climbed off here.

This is another trait of forums on both sides. Post something that isn't canon for the location and you very quickly get suspected of being "one of them". but sadly there are no forums where that can happen and you very quickly get jumped on for holding a contrary opinion. As appears to have happened to PauliPevsner here, to be honest.

edit: ah, looks like the discussion moved on whilst I was posting...

Don't get your drift, what do you mean by saying "There are those of us that would quite happily debate on both sides of the fence"? I haven't been a member of this forum for very long but in that time I haven't seen any strong bias of opinion that could be considered prohibitive to differing viewpoints. If a member is obviously trying to disrupt the general harmony of the forum then they must expect to be unpopular.

The danger as I see it is when members favour another purely because that other has agreed with the member on one or more occassions. That I think is where the bias enters into the forum, not a difference of opinion.

All 70 comments published on the 'Harlow Star' website (70 comments were published, not 45 as stated earlier)