Threads deleted

by Guest 21.10.13 14:11

Some threads have been and will be deleted. They are serving no purpose but causing problems for the forum.

by Curioser 21.10.13 14:17

The ChillyHeat and Puddles one?

by logical 21.10.13 14:21

why my one regarding Stuart ?

by Guest 21.10.13 14:24

logical wrote:why my one regarding Stuart ?

Because you do not know who this person was, so speculation is not helpful.

by logical 21.10.13 15:01

All I asked was a simple question I wasnt speculating but apparently its ok to speculate in this forum about Credible witnesses i.e the Smiths .

Last week us so called newbies were invited to join this forum and over the past few days weve been chastised for our views which some of the older members didnt like !!!.

No full freedom of speech so in this forum ?

by Guest 21.10.13 15:06

logical wrote:All I asked was a simple question I wasnt speculating but apparently its ok to speculate in this forum about Credible witnesses i.e the Smiths .

Last week us so called newbies were invited to join this forum and over the past few days weve been chastised for our views which some of the older members didnt like !!!.

No full freedom of speech so in this forum ?

No, you can't have full freedom of speech, and it is not just this forum. You and I know perfectly well that you cannot say things that can be libellous. Now speculating about this person being on holiday in Majorca is not going to help..........there are thousands of Stuarts in the country - so how does naming this person as a guess help at all? I think the people were named anyway in the files, although I am not absolutely sure about that.

by puddles 21.10.13 15:11

Curioser wrote:The ChillyHeat and Puddles one?

I am getting a little fed up with you spouting out my ID. I asked chillyheat to back up her ramblings with facts. There is nothing to be paranoid about concerning me. I want nothing more than to see the Mccanns's locked away, but rambling on about stupid things will not help. And THAT is what chillyheat was doing. Now, Curioser please stop making out that I have some ulterior motive.

by sami 21.10.13 15:11

candyfloss wrote:
logical wrote:All I asked was a simple question I wasnt speculating but apparently its ok to speculate in this forum about Credible witnesses i.e the Smiths .

Last week us so called newbies were invited to join this forum and over the past few days weve been chastised for our views which some of the older members didnt like !!!.

No full freedom of speech so in this forum ?
No, you can't have full freedom of speech, and it is not just this forum. You and I know perfectly well that you cannot say things that can be libellous. Now speculating about this person being on holiday in Majorca is not going to help..........there are thousands of Stuarts in the country - so how does naming this person as a guess help at all? I think the people were named anyway in the files, although I am not absolutely sure about that.

I am not aware if the deleted thread, but just to let you know Candyfloss from what you have said here, yes there are details of Stuart and his wife mentioned in the files.

by Guest 21.10.13 15:15

puddles wrote:
Curioser wrote:The ChillyHeat and Puddles one?
I am getting a little fed up with you spouting out my ID. I asked chillyheat to back up her ramblings with facts. There is nothing to be paranoid about concerning me. I want nothing more than to see the Mccanns's locked away, but rambling on about stupid things will not help. And THAT is what chillyheat was doing. Now, Curioser please stop making out that I have some ulterior motive.

If they're guilty of Madeleine's disappearance.

by Guest 21.10.13 15:20

sami wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
logical wrote:All I asked was a simple question I wasnt speculating but apparently its ok to speculate in this forum about Credible witnesses i.e the Smiths .

Last week us so called newbies were invited to join this forum and over the past few days weve been chastised for our views which some of the older members didnt like !!!.

No full freedom of speech so in this forum ?
No, you can't have full freedom of speech, and it is not just this forum. You and I know perfectly well that you cannot say things that can be libellous. Now speculating about this person being on holiday in Majorca is not going to help..........there are thousands of Stuarts in the country - so how does naming this person as a guess help at all? I think the people were named anyway in the files, although I am not absolutely sure about that.
I am not aware if the deleted thread, but just to let you know Candyfloss from what you have said here, yes there are details of Stuart and his wife mentioned in the files.

Yes there are sami, I have just checked and that is what I thought, but wasn't sure, that is why a post was deleted speculating it was someone else.

Just to add, for the benefit of our new members.......no libellous comments are allowed here. I will put this here so people are aware, just 3 rules...

3 rules of the forum

1. No libellous posts allowed

2. Disruption will not be tolerated

3. Never attack a poster, only the post

by Liz Eagles 21.10.13 15:22

Curioser, you sent me an unsolicited PM a few minutes ago. May I ask why you can't spell your own name correctly? You signed it Curiouser.

by Curioser 21.10.13 15:39

puddles wrote:
Curioser wrote:The ChillyHeat and Puddles one?
I am getting a little fed up with you spouting out my ID. I asked chillyheat to back up her ramblings with facts. There is nothing to be paranoid about concerning me. I want nothing more than to see the Mccanns's locked away, but rambling on about stupid things will not help. And THAT is what chillyheat was doing. Now, Curioser please stop making out that I have some ulterior motive.

Puddles, I apologise unreservedly if I have misjudged you.

I was trying to nut out what it libelous. They keep saying don't post libelous stuff but I don't know what that is so I was attempting to get an description. Libel laws differ from one jurisdiction to another so I'm just trying to get it straight.

Nevermind. I will make a point not mentioning you from now on :-)

by Guest 21.10.13 15:45

I don't think there's a problem with saying for example that, in your opinion, a certain Mr and Mrs X know exactly what happened to their daughter but it would be considered libellous to state this as a fact.

Could I mention as I did on a topic which has now been removed that, if people are concerned about the way a topic is heading, they send a private message to Admin or Candyfloss about it.

Most members here are genuine but inevitably you get the odd one or two whose intention is to stir things up.

by Curioser 21.10.13 15:48

aquila wrote:Curioser, you sent me an unsolicited PM a few minutes ago. May I ask why you can't spell your own name correctly? You signed it Curiouser.

Hi aquila,

You asked me a question on the thread that has just been deleted. I was in the middle of replying when it disappeared and I got an error message when I tried to save it. I didn't know what to do so I PMed you. That's all. Don't read anything sinister into it please!

You asked me if I ever had a reply about my 'theory'? I was replying to say, no. Not yet. And that I have put some of it up in other threads. I figure admin will delete it if it's a problem.

You know, I looked at Curiouser and thought...is that right? But see, it's not a real word so the spell check always underlines it. Curioser Curiouser are both underlined here on my screen. Please don't read anything into that either. It's late and I'm tired. I'm off to bed very soon.

by Liz Eagles 21.10.13 15:51

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I don't think there's a problem with saying for example that, in your opinion, a certain Mr and Mrs X know exactly what happened to their daughter but it would be considered libellous to state this as a fact.

Could I mention as I did on a topic which has now been removed that, if people are concerned about the way a topic is heading, they send a private message to Admin or Candyfloss about it.

Most members here are genuine but inevitably you get the odd one or two whose intention is to stir things up.

May I also ask new members of this forum not to PM me and sign their own name incorrectly (Curioser, Curiouser). I'm not interested in people who want to speak to me privately about posts.

by Curioser 21.10.13 15:54

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I don't think there's a problem with saying for example that, in your opinion, a certain Mr and Mrs X know exactly what happened to their daughter but it would be considered libellous to state this as a fact.

Could I mention as I did on a topic which has now been removed that, if people are concerned about the way a topic is heading, they send a private message to Admin or Candyfloss about it.

Most members here are genuine but inevitably you get the odd one or two whose intention is to stir things up.

Thanks NFWTD. Although people are reacting to me I'm really not trying to stir. Congrats btw :-)

by Guest 21.10.13 15:54

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I don't think there's a problem with saying for example that, in your opinion, a certain Mr and Mrs X know exactly what happened to their daughter but it would be considered libellous to state this as a fact.

Could I mention as I did on a topic which has now been removed that, if people are concerned about the way a topic is heading, they send a private message to Admin or Candyfloss about it.

Most members here are genuine but inevitably you get the odd one or two whose intention is to stir things up.

It's a very difficult one, I read somewhere a few months ago that putting imo doesn't make it ok. For example if you were to say I think Mr X is imo a murder, or the P word or thief etc., then you are still besmirching their good name in a public place. We have seen that even retweeting an opinion can have repercussions. I am no lawyer, but it is always best to be safe, and even if it is your opinion re certain things to err on the side of caution. ( Most opinions though are ok if based on evidence in the files). That is what I would recommend and why sometimes posts are deleted to keep this forum safe.

by Curioser 21.10.13 15:57

aquila wrote:May I also ask new members of this forum not to PM me and sign their own name incorrectly (Curioser, Curiouser). I'm not interested in people who want to speak to me privately about posts.

You certainly may. Do you get that I trying to reply on a thread that vanished?

Nevermind. Once again, I apologise unreservedly for any errors of etiquette and/or misspellinggs. I'm off to bed.

by Curioser 21.10.13 15:58

candyfloss wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I don't think there's a problem with saying for example that, in your opinion, a certain Mr and Mrs X know exactly what happened to their daughter but it would be considered libellous to state this as a fact.

Could I mention as I did on a topic which has now been removed that, if people are concerned about the way a topic is heading, they send a private message to Admin or Candyfloss about it.

Most members here are genuine but inevitably you get the odd one or two whose intention is to stir things up.
It's a very difficult one, I read somewhere a few months ago that putting imo doesn't make it ok. For example if you were to say I think Mr X is imo a murder, or the P word or thief etc., then you are still besmirching their good name in a public place. We have seen that even retweeting an opinion can have repercussions. I am no lawyer, but it is always best to be safe, and even if it is your opinion re certain things to err on the side of caution. ( Most opinions though are ok if based on evidence in the files). That is what I would recommend and why sometimes posts are deleted to keep this forum safe.

And rightly so. I understand that you have to protect the forum and I'm with you all the way. If I ever post anything you're unsure about just delete it please. I have no problem with that at all.