New Heights of insanity - Express

plebgate wrote:I just wanted to say hear, hear to Aquila's post also.

Maybe there could be a grievance thread for newbies and then the threads will not be disrupted.

As for LolaM stating that NFWTD only does short posts, good, so do I, probably because we have over the years  already said what we think.

Not many answer my posts either - what's the point really as I have said it all before.  lol.

I mainly log in most days to show support for Tony, Mr. A. , Get Em Gonc. and the Team.

For what it's worth I didn't think StraightThinking was a troll.

Lolamanola asked for people not to insult each other and then proceeded to call Tony Bennett a pedant and an arsehole.

I have asked twice on another thread why sockpuppet and straightthinking were banned, when none of their posts was abusive or potentially libellous. No answer to this query as yet, but what a surprise......a sarcastic response to thinking straight's claim to be a journalist.

 What the hell is going on at the moment?

Aquila: I don't recall Lolamanola saying that about Tony.

Russian Doll: I don't think Candyfloss is online yet. I am interested too in a reply to your query.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
Russian Doll: I don't think Candyfloss is online yet. I am interested too in a reply to your query.

Me too.

NFWTD    Recall reading those words from Lolam earlier this morning, she is certainly very wound- up about recent behaviour on this forum! Strange though that she objects to insulting language then uses it herself, a measure I guess of just how angry, fed-up and frustrated she is.
 
I must admit that in the past week or so I have been bewildered by some of the near paranoia on here regarding new members.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Aquila: I don't recall Lolamanola saying that about Tony.

Russian Doll: I don't think Candyfloss is online yet. I am interested too in a reply to your query.

snipped from Lolamanola's post (it's page 69 or 70 of this thread)

He is being padantic and an arsehole to try and eloquently push this down people's throats, when they have stated in their opinion they don't believe this. He is getting arsey trying to push this theory. I'm not going to be popular, I'm not anyway, so don't really care.

Thanks Aquila. I do know that Lolamanola has now left the building.

russiandoll wrote:I have asked twice on another thread why sockpuppet and straightthinking were banned, when none of their posts was abusive or potentially libellous. No answer to this query as yet, but what a surprise......a sarcastic response to thinking straight's claim to be a journalist.

 What the hell is going on at the moment?

I banned Lolamanola last night. I did not ban Sockpuppet or StraightThinking

thanks CF but am confused, because Tony said that both Sockpuppet and Straightthinking are " at last " banned by admin. The latter is now posting under the name Thinking Straight so clearly something has happened.


 from a post by Tony just before 8 am this morning on the thread dealing with the Smiths and till receipts [Tony was answering a post of mine, I think, because I had commented on his sarcasm towards these two]

  "Two of the most obvious new joiners, 'Sockpuppet' and 'StraightThinking', who joined wholly or mainly to promote the Smith sighting, have at last been banned by Admin. I was very rude and sarcastic towards them because they were the most obvious trolls. "

 

PeterMac wrote: 

Yes, let's get back to business - the essence of this forum.

fair enough PM will send admin a pm !

 though imo recent goings- on on the forum are INSANITY!!

 the essence of this forum is important but free speech is part of that and I think banning should be over something serious.

ThinkingStraight wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

ThinkingStraight wrote:

In fact, I am a journalist trying to get to the bottom of this case as much as anyone on here... 

Yeah, right...

And your evidence for that is what, exactly?

Thinking straight.
You say you have been on this case for six and half years,
You must therefore have your own particular 'theory' about what happened to a missing child in May 2007.
If you could just say what that is, we'd be delighted to hear it.
I have my 'theory' as everyone knows.
That dosen't mean i disagree with yours, whatever that is.
If you could just post a summary of what you think happened i'm sure you'll get a fair hearing.
After all, we all here to try to find out the truth about a missing child's disappearance, aren't we?

Tony Bennett wrote:

jowie wrote:...or completely ignored as in my post here a few pages back which was concerning Tony himself - not one response did I have which I thought was quite strange considering that the posts before were all about Tony, nor did I receive a response from him. I can see he has been posting today so I thought if I post now he may see it and get back to me. 

Good morning jowie, I have seen both your posts. I think I've answered most of your points this morning on another thread - [Kelly's Bar - Receipts, started by LancedeBoils] - with this post:

QUOTE

BRODFB wrote:

So anyone who doesn't share your theory is a McCann supporter? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

When you posted that, BRODFB, you knew perfectly well that that was not what I was saying.

I say again, and say it with force, that some new members have definitely joined these 'Smith' threads because - for whetever reason - they want to convince members here that the Smiths really did see someone.

Two of the most obvious new joiners, 'Sockpuppet' and 'StraightThinking', who joined wholly or mainly to promote the Smith sighting, have at last been banned by Admin. I was very rude and sarcastic towards them because they were the most obvious trolls.

I am aware that there are many both long-standing and newer members who are utterly baffled by my relentless questioning of the Smith 'sighting', and cannot understand why I would effectively accuse apparently honest witnesses of making something up.

I wish to say that I have simply been driven to this position by the innumerable questions I have about their evidence.

To those who suspect that I have somehow 'turned', and am now prepared to criticise Goncalo Amaral and disagree with him, let me first of all remind members where that when I was a member of The Madeleine Foundation, I ensured that we spent £1,500 of our funds (in three separate payments) on making donations to Goncalo Amaral's legal fund - dipping into my own pocket to fund our leaflets in the process.

Unfortunately I am constrained for legal reasons from explaining precisely why, but I do dare to disagree with Goncalo Amaral's conclsuion that the Smith 'sighting' is credible.

I would rather not disagree with him on this point, but, as I've said, the queries I have about their claimed recall of this bloke they saw for about one or two seconds, in the dark, and without seeing his face, are so numerous that I have to disagree, and I find their evidence incredible.

UNQUOTE

____________________


If that does not clear most of your queries up, please send me a 'pm'

I actually think the Smith sighting is a load of "who shot John".

Did they see someone yes quite possibly but at 10pm surely there would be a bit of traffic toing and froing from bars and restaraunts and residents going home etc so I am surprised they only bumped into one person.

What I do find really strange is on the night of the 3rd May 2007 the start of the holiday season, it was almost like Marie Celeste. I also believe that PDL has a large expat community so where was everyone that night and if we are to believe everyone the creche was very busy during the day, Brigitte Jez Wilkins partner said on 3rd May there were at least 10 little blonde girls running about the tennis courts so where was everyone, PDL is also popular for people from EU as well as uk...no one anywhere walking about lol.

It seems we are to believe that some Tapas 7 walked from Tapas to apartment and never saw ANYONE? We are to assume that JT only saw one person walking along the road into PDL, the Smiths sighting they only saw one person FLEETINGLY possibly carrying a child.....

Even in May it should be busier then that surely.

I have been on holiday in May and its been bustling in places like Malta which would be simlar in some aspects to PDL....etc ideal for young families and retirees....etc.

I am sure the Smiths walking home that night saw someone in the shadows head down, possibly carrying a child just not convinced it was GM or the abductor.

I believe when they went home to Ireland they heard about the child and agreed they had believed they had seen a man with a child, spoke to the Irish police, who contacted the PORTUGESE police etc. It was only AFTER the father saw GM walking down the steps of the airplane with his son that he felt it was GM as he was carrying the child the same way as the person they had seen that night in PDL.

Now we have an E fit, and it really looks like GM because I think that the Smiths have had his image in their head ..... if that makes sense.

I also think if Amaral had been able to stay on the case, he too might have realised that in the end the sighting wasnt credible.....

I still find it odd that no one was about that night.

Also why would GM be carrying a child through the streets at 10pm or even say a bit later for arguements sake 10.20 you cant be absolutley sure of time when on holiday.

I dont get why he would be there.

Also i never thought the Tanner sighting was any abductor not walking through PDL at 9.15 its madness.

Anyway I dont think the sighting is credible either, as again if it was the abductor why would he be walking through the town near to bars etc he could have been seen at anytime...now if this had been the 3rd March perhaps I could believe no one else was walking about......at 10pm.

The sightings need to be logical and neither of them were for me. This is only my opinion of course.

ThinkingStraight wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

ThinkingStraight wrote:

In fact, I am a journalist trying to get to the bottom of this case as much as anyone on here... 

Yeah, right...

And your evidence for that is what, exactly?

I believe that you are, as you say, a journalist.

But I don't for one moment believe that you are 'trying to get to the bottom of this case as much as anyone on here'.

I have evidence to substantiate that and, given a clear window of time in which to put it together, will try and put it on the forum over the next few days.

jeanmonroe wrote:You say you have been on this case for six and half years,
You must therefore have your own particular 'theory' about what happened to a missing child in May 2007.
If you could just say what that is, we'd be delighted to hear it.
I have my 'theory' as everyone knows.
That dosen't mean i disagree with yours, whatever that is.
If you could just post a summary of what you think happened i'm sure you'll get a fair hearing.
After all, we all here to try to find out the truth about a missing child's disappearance, aren't we?

I think like many on here, we have our own theories and are testing them against the "known" facts. Some like me will try and go with the simplest possible, others will prefer more convoluted and still others will try and interpret the facts to suit their own beliefs.

I will admit, I am very wary of expounding my theory for the fear of the consequences due to the litigious nature of the main protagonists.

ThinkingStraight wrote:

We can't imply that that someone has committed a crime before they are found guilty, which is why several newspapers got into trouble in Aug/Sept 2007

But that is usually not stopping you though is it? Euclides Monteira being an example.

By the way, is one of your aliases Grundwig?

Nereid wrote:

ThinkingStraight wrote:

We can't imply that that someone has committed a crime before they are found guilty, which is why several newspapers got into trouble in Aug/Sept 2007

But that is usually not stopping you though is it? Euclides Monteira being an example.

By the way, is one of your aliases Grundwig?

Please, can we get back to topic

Pennypennypenny wrote:I don't mean to sound flippant, but I know how I reacted when I misplaced a gold charm bracelet my darling mum and dad gave to me when I was a little girl. I collected charms over the years and when they died and I lost it, I was like a demented lunatic. I couldn't rest. I turned the house upside down. Going over and over trying to remember where I had last seen it.
I cannot imagine how I would feel if the bracelet had been one of my darling babies. I would be roaring like a bull. Turning over every stone, every piece of turf, ripping at everything with my bare hands. I wouldn't be able to sleep, or eat.
Those two people and their behaviour are completely alien to me. They are bizarre. They make me feel sick to my stomach.

Your reaction to misplacing a treasured item which is a tangible link to those who loved and cared for you from the time you took your first breath is entirely natural, as are your feelings with regard to how you may respond if one of your precious children went astray.

It's my belief that the psychology of the McCanns and the dynamic of their relationship is unnatural and until this is accepted there'll continue to be theories based on the writer's emotional responses which take no account of the fact that this couple exhibited depraved indifference to the welfare and wellbeing of their children and have continued to show a callous disregard for their eldest daugher, whose name they rarely speak except by way of an afterthought.

There are those who appear to be 'just like us' but whose thought processes are markedly different to those of right minded folk; once this is understood, their deviant behaviour begins to make sense - not in the sense of their behaviour being acceptable but in the sense of our being be able to comprehend how very different, how 'alien', they are from the majority of us.

I hope we'll see less of those theories which have 'panic' as being the lynchpin from which all hangs because it is not in the nature of either McCann to panic unless they are in imminent danger of being revealed for what they are. When this occurs, they rely on their well-practised ability to lie themselves out of any uncomfortable situation they find themselves in.

Ultima Thule wrote:

"It's my belief that the psychology of the McCanns and the dynamic of their relationship is unnatural and until this is accepted there'll continue to be theories based on the writer's emotional responses which take no account of the fact that this couple exhibited depraved indifference to the welfare and wellbeing of their children and have continued to show a callous disregard for their eldest daugher, whose name they rarely speak except by way of an afterthought.

There are those who appear to be 'just like us' but whose thought processes are markedly different to those of right minded folk; once this is understood, their deviant behaviour begins to make sense - not in the sense of their behaviour being acceptable but in the sense of our being be able to comprehend how very different, how 'alien', they are from the majority of us.

I hope we'll see less of those theories which have 'panic' as being the lynchpin from which all hangs because it is not in the nature of either McCann to panic unless they are in imminent danger of being revealed for what they are. When this occurs, they rely on their well-practised ability to lie themselves out of any uncomfortable situation they find themselves in.
-----------------------------------------------

My bolding. An extremely insightful summation of the personality types IMO.

Sunday May 6, 2007: Speaking after the mass on the Algarve, Mr McCann told reporters: "We continue to hope for the best possible outcome from this for us and for Madeleine."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Priceless. Now THAT'S honesty.

We want, or we're hoping for, "the best possible outcome from this for us and for Madeleine." were the words GM used on the occasion of their first televised appearance on the evening of 4 May 2007. 

There's nothing like telling it like it is, is there?

ultimaThule wrote:We want, or we're hoping for, "the best possible outcome from this for us and for Madeleine." were the words GM used on the occasion of their first televised appearance on the evening of 4 May 2007. 

There's nothing like telling it like it is, is there?

***
That's what the Professor said, ultimaThula: That's HONESTY
 

It is known that the Smiths made their first statements in Ireland.
Does any of you can tell us where to find them?

ultimaThule wrote:

Pennypennypenny wrote:I don't mean to sound flippant, but I know how I reacted when I misplaced a gold charm bracelet my darling mum and dad gave to me when I was a little girl. I collected charms over the years and when they died and I lost it, I was like a demented lunatic. I couldn't rest. I turned the house upside down. Going over and over trying to remember where I had last seen it.
I cannot imagine how I would feel if the bracelet had been one of my darling babies. I would be roaring like a bull. Turning over every stone, every piece of turf, ripping at everything with my bare hands. I wouldn't be able to sleep, or eat.
Those two people and their behaviour are completely alien to me. They are bizarre. They make me feel sick to my stomach.

Your reaction to misplacing a treasured item which is a tangible link to those who loved and cared for you from the time you took your first breath is entirely natural, as are your feelings with regard to how you may respond if one of your precious children went astray.

It's my belief that the psychology of the McCanns and the dynamic of their relationship is unnatural and until this is accepted there'll continue to be theories based on the writer's emotional responses which take no account of the fact that this couple exhibited depraved indifference to the welfare and wellbeing of their children and have continued to show a callous disregard for their eldest daugher, whose name they rarely speak except by way of an afterthought.

There are those who appear to be 'just like us' but whose thought processes are markedly different to those of right minded folk; once this is understood, their deviant behaviour begins to make sense - not in the sense of their behaviour being acceptable but in the sense of our being be able to comprehend how very different, how 'alien', they are from the majority of us.

I hope we'll see less of those theories which have 'panic' as being the lynchpin from which all hangs because it is not in the nature of either McCann to panic unless they are in imminent danger of being revealed for what they are. When this occurs, they rely on their well-practised ability to lie themselves out of any uncomfortable situation they find themselves in.

I think you have pretty much described Narcissistic/Psychopathic personality types that we see in some of these people with a missing child. It's all about "them".

Joss wrote:
I think you have pretty much described Narcissistic/Psychopathic personality types that we see in some of these people with a missing child. It's all about "them".

 what catches my eye when reading about sociopaths and narcissists is their belief that they are not responsible to any authority and any actions they take will have no consequence. They believe everything they do is the right way and can't go wrong which leads to silly decisions.

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Priceless. Now THAT'S honesty.

Honesty.

But rare, subconscious and totally unintended honesty. IMO

DIBarlow wrote:

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Priceless. Now THAT'S honesty.

Honesty.

But rare, subconscious and totally unintended honesty. IMO

***
IMO if we could be bothered to search a bit more, we would find more of their rare, subconscious and totally unintended honesty ...  

Châtelaine wrote:
IMO if we could be bothered to search a bit more, we would find more of their rare, subconscious and totally unintended honesty ...  

That might merit its own thread - Honesty from all concerned
The night we found her
Find the body and prove we killed her
The Fund will be used mostly for legal costs   (paraphrased)
If she hurt herself, why would that be our fault   (also paraphrased)

There are hundreds.
Perhaps we could put them together -  with references.