I just dont get it

by cockerspaniel on 17.06.13 11:39

I have just been looking at a link from another poster to Uk justice forum. I have looked at similar pro sites and the one thing I cannot fathom is the fervent belief in the Mccanns innocense to the detriment of reasonable debate.It always seems to lead to name calling and who can shout the loudest.Usually it seems to me to be the PRO lot, and they will not hear of reasonable debate and have one mantra, which is "they have never been proved guilty of anything" Surely if only ONE thing out of this whole sorry affair can be proved is that "You should NEVER leave your small children unattended ANYWHERE, EVER!" That in my book is a crime, and as a father of 3, a crime they are GUILTY of in my book. And a crime which I dont ever see them being proved "innocent" of. Unless of course we are all wrong and actually they just forgot and they were having dinner indoors after all.

by **tigger** on 17.06.13 12:18

You could try to read 'New career opportunities' June 2012 by Textusa- scroll down a bit to find the article.
This one deals with professional disrupters and the reason for them.

http://textusa.blogspot.nl/search?updated-max=2012-07-02T22:17:00%2B01:00&max-results=7&reverse-paginate=true&start=14&by-date=false#uds-search-results
Textusa blog does not allow copy/pasting so the only way is to plough through it. Textusa's articles are hard to read, but if you persist you will find such gems as:

The difference between them is that in the first instance their objective is to separate you and the others from the truth so that their truth prevails; and in the second, for the exact same reason, they want to separate you from the others and the truth.

and:
- the other novelty from this piece of news is the need for such a business to have been created.
[..] there was a need felt for the existence of disrupters to that such a business was set up.
[..] Firstly because the internet turned everyone's PC into a personal limitless library.

[..] Up to now, the 'opinion makers' owned the 'opinion' and because they owned it, they owned the 'truth'. That stopped being so from the moment you, the common citizen, were able to intervene in real time.
As they then stopped being able to mould the 'truth' unhindered they reacted with the only thing they could do and that was to act on the convictions with which you believe the truth to be, thus the need for a professional disrupter.
Someone paid to make you turn away from your own convictions. [..] the only thing they can do is to bully you away from other readers before you contaminate them.
unquote

Long pieces, well worth a read.

by cockerspaniel on 17.06.13 12:57

Thanks Tigger, im on it !

I just dont get it

I just dont get it

Re: I just dont get it

Re: I just dont get it

Most recent topics