Comments

View comments: 757 to 727 - 726 to 697 - 696 to 667 - 666 to 637 - 636 to 607 - 606 to 577 - 576 to 547 - 546 to 517 - 516 to 487 - 486 to 457 - 456 to 427 - 426 to 397 - 396 to 367 - 366 to 337 - 336 to 307 - 306 to 277 - 276 to 247 - 246 to 217 - 216 to 187 - 186 to 157 - 156 to 127 - 126 to 97 - 96 to 67 - 66 to 37 - 36 to 7 - 6 to 1
1. 757 james Maude and family says:
   February 21st, 2008 at 7:01 pm

   It would be great if this wee girl is found alive and in good health, but, to be honest i think that she is dead, maybe not by the parents hands, but by their neglect.
   I ask you if this had been a one parent female in a council estate, leaving the kids for 1/2 hour shall be say, and one goes missing from bed.
   Police, Social Services to take the other kids into care, she would be prosicuted for neglect and more, it may make the papers somewhere, but it would not be in for weeks and weeks. Sightings all over the world.
   If these two parents would come out and say we are so upset, we did wrong, we should hav stayed with the children, it was our fault - we all may have more feelign for thier situation - but he is arrogant and she is strange (maybe its the situation they find themselves in, i dont know).
   But to be honest i dont give a dam about these two media seekers - my and my family and friends concern is that this wee girl, aged 3 when taken, by who, to where, is missing and we must have the police find out the truth.
   If the McCanns are innocent i really feel for them having lost my daughter to 1/2 hour when she was 3 in a store - the panic!!!!
   But if they have disposed of her body - then truely i hope they roast in hell.
   From a parent and grandparent who didnt get their own childen easily and who loved and cared for them - with no nights in the pub etc.,
   Prayers for Madeleine!!!!

2. 756 Brian Boru says:
   January 9th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

   testing

3. 755 Boris Becker says:
   January 9th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

   {b}testing{/b}

4. 754 Peter O says:
   December 28th, 2007 at 8:01 pm

   767 Hideki Says: December 28th, 2007 at 12:25 am
   609 PeterO Says: December 27th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
   ++++++++++++++++

   You have nothing to back up your repeated accusations against posters other than your own twisted perversion of their words. You haven’t exposed anybody other than yourself Hideki, you are a liar, and very probably a troll, who twists and misrepresents other posters words to suit your own agenda.

5. 753 Hideki says:
   December 28th, 2007 at 12:25 am

   609
   PeterO Says:
   December 27th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
   “You have nothing to back up your repeated accusations against posters other than your own twisted perversion of their words. ”

   Talk about “repeated” — you have made this ranting unsubstantiated attack on me over and over, pasting it to every possible thread. I backed up my OPINION that you are directing the other pro-McConn posters on this forum.

   “You haven’t exposed anybody other than yourself Hideki, you are a liar, and very probably a troll, who twists and misrepresents other posters words to suit your own agenda.”

   Even in one post you are being overly redundant, repeating yourself ad nauseum. If that does not sound like Team McCann, what does? It’s positively LUDICROUS, PimperO.

   Say hello to Gerry for us, OK?

6. 752 Totje says:
   December 27th, 2007 at 8:28 pm

   517 Peter O Says:
   December 24th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
   510 Ian Says: December 24th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
   509 Totje
   I take it you are a lover of the holy pair?
   Tony is the only one to have shown a bit of mettle and challenged the holy ones, please show him a little more respect.
   ++++++++++++++++
   Now, how to have disagreement with two posters, both of whom also happen to disagree with each other

   While I respect Tony Bennett for having the “mettle” to see through his action against the McCann’s, I am of the opinion that he was potentially interfering with an ongoing criminal investigation by attempting to bring his child neglect action. Best to wait until the investigation is concluded and charges brought, or not, before third parties muddy the waters, in my opinion.
   But Totje, I really can’t agree with some of your others suggestions in 509:
   Does it matter whether they have refused to answer 1 question, or a 1,000 questions? They are allegedly refusing to answer questions. They and their friends are allegedly un-cooperative to the investigation. This hardly seems the behaviour of parents hell bent on finding their missing daughter?
   Arguido/suspect… They are suspects, period. We can argue over the strict definition of the word and its implication. The most generous interpretation I think you you can put on it is that the PJ believe the McCann’s know somewhat more about the events leading up to and following Madeleine’s disappearance than the McCann’s have currently admitted to. Oh yes, and their refusing to answer some questions…
   Re child neglect. As I’ve said above, I don’t believe this should be pursued outside of the current criminal investigation. That said, the McCann’s have never attempted to deny suggestions that they left their children alone whilst they dined on successive evenings. Rather, they seem quite happy for this accusation to be in the public domain if only because it helps make their child minding arrangements on the evening of May 3rd appear to be their “normal routine”, in my opinion. In fact, we know nothing about their child minding arrangements on evenings prior to May 3rd, rather we have to take the McCann’s word that whatever it was, it was “normal”.
   **************
   Peter O, as you know I like your posts! You know how to pinpoint things!

   Yes, not answering the questions does look suspicious. On the other hand if I remember correct [and the papers quoted the lawyer correct] Gerry answered all questions and Kate didn’t. We don’t know what and/or what kind of questions were asked and not answered. The police may ask arguido’s direct accusatory questions, which would not be legal otherwise. The lawyer was present, so it’s possible he told her not to answer some questions? I was merely stipulating the point that over here within seconds rumours become facts and 1 question [or 10 or 20] become 200 or more. Let’s try to stick to the facts as far as that’s possible [not necessary while theorising].

   Re arguido. They were made arguido. Mr Murat asked to be named arguido [! Why if he’s got nothing to hide?]. Arguido’s have more rights to protect them then witnesses. I agree with you that it looks like or it’s likely they [T9} know something they’re not telling. Not sure if they didn’t tell the PJ. On the other hand in case they didn’t trust Amaral or didn’t trust him any more, I can imagine they wouldn’t tell him everything they know. Or if he twisted and turned their words as Hideki does yours and other posters words ……. ? Stupid, nevertheless human. I do hope they’ve become wiser since Rebelo took over!

   Re Tony Bennet. As I’ve stated several times, I appreciated his efforts although I thought the timing wrong. When the investigation is over, case closed, noone accused, THEN it’s the time to have a go for it. OR when someone else then the parents is caught and convicted. WE might agree it’s neglect, but it’s up to a court to decide whether its really neglect according to the law and what their punishment should be.

   And now I still don’t know how the fund for prosecuting the parents for neglect is doing …..

7. 751 Totje says:
   December 27th, 2007 at 7:50 pm

   I promised I wasn’t running and would be back to answer. So here I go!

   516 Tony Bennett Says:
   509 Totje: “He [T Bennett] is spreading rumours, and unfounded accusations…”
   REPLY TB: Talking of ’spreading rumours and unfounded accusations’:
   TB: 1. There was an abductor
   REPLY : how do you know this is a rumour? Any real proof of that if even the PJ can’t/doesn’t exclude it from the investigation?
   *****
   TB: 2. The abductor was a paedophile
   REPLY: also suggested by the police. And IF there was an abduction the most probable explanation.
   *****
   TB: 3. The abductor was 5′ 7″
   REPLY: why not? Any proof s/he wasn’t? The witness stated it, and it’s not proven [yet] to be wrong.
   ******
   TB: 4. The abductor hid behind the bedroom door then opened the windows and shutters and climbed through the window
   REPLY: we don’t know, nor can we proof this is not correct. The abductor [IF any] could also have passed the child through the window. And btw it was guessing/speculating in hindsight and even suggested by the police [about the hiding].
   *****
   TB: 5. The Portuguese police are incompetent and corrupt (see also approved pro-McCann prayer for 3rd December)
   REPLY: yes in every country’s police [and other organisations] force will be a few rotten apples. Nevertheless this prayer and the ‘approval’ is imo nonsense.
   *****
   TB: 6. We were checking the children every half-hour
   REPLY: maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. I guess the cops know this by now [eyewitnesses/cctv etc.]
   *****
   TB: 7. The Portuguese police have deliberately framed us
   REPLY: link please? Wasn’t it a mother, sister or a journalist who suggested it? They might feel it like that, on the other hand it might be true? We can’t be sure now, can we? I’m sure it’s best to leave it to Rebelo to check everything, even his collegues.
   *****
   TB: 8. Portugal is crawling with paedophiles
   REPLY: of course, so is Gambia, Thailand, the UK, Germany, The Netherlands, the USA etc. They’re everywhere, some even disguised as tourists!
   *****
   TB: 9. Madeleine is probably in Portugal/Spain/Moroocco/North Africa
   REPLY: sightings!!!! Some or all might be right, or wrong! And that is normal in such cases!
   ******
   TB: 10. Metodo 3 are not doing their job properly
   REPLY: it looks like that. On the other hand, who knows what’s going on behind the screens?
   *****
   TB: 11. The PJ have not searched for Madeleine properly
   REPLY: did they find her?
   ******
   12. TO BE CONTINUED
   REPLY: please do go on, this is easy and fun!

8. 750 Peter O says:
   December 27th, 2007 at 2:22 pm

   763 Hideki Says: December 27th, 2007 at 7:20 am
   749 June Says: December 26th, 2007 at 1:07 am

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

   Hideki, you are a liar, and very probably a troll, who twists and misrepresents other posters words to suit your own agenda.

9. 749 Hideki says:
   December 27th, 2007 at 7:20 am

   749
   June Says:

   December 26th, 2007 at 1:07 am
   “Another thing, the barn. What became of that is anyone’s guess but the police know and are slowly building their case. ”

   Remember, it was two locations they found — a shallow hole dug in the ground AND a well or mine shaft.

   762
   Peter O Says:

   “Hideki… You are a liar who twist other posters words to suit your own “narrow” agenda”

   Whatever you say, Pimpo. But I QUOTED your posts in
   758
   Hideki Says:
   December 26th, 2007 at 9:33 am

   No need to twist your already-contorted defense of child neglect.

10. 748 Peter O says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 6:04 pm

    758 Hideki Says: December 26th, 2007 at 9:33 am
    PeterO Joins Chenier as Champion Pro-McScam Liars
    Pimp and Ho — what a pair!
    688 Peter O

    Hideki: “PeterO once had a nifty potential defence for Gerry: maybe Madeleine was already dead, and if so Gerry could not have been negligent of her!”

    Peter O lies:

    “Peter O said no such thing. More invented drivel by Hideki.”

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

    Hideki… You are a liar who twist other posters words to suit your own “narrow” agenda

    You are as likely to be a paid pro-McCann poster as anyone else in here.

    The McCann’s have taken legal advice and, if their public pronouncements are to be believed, are unlikely ever to be charged with “child neglect”. However, people like yourself keep raising this issue.

    Why would you do that?

    Perhaps you are blinded by your hatred of the McCann’s and are unable to comprehend that bizarre and unacceptable as their child minding arrangements are, they may sadly not fall foul of any legal “child neglect” laws.

    Perhaps on the other hand, you are indeed a paid pro-McCann poster and your job is to keep discussing this issue rather than the possibility that Madeleine was indeed already dead on the evening of May 3rd.

    Whichever it may be, you are a liar who is quite prepared to twist other people’s words to suit your own narrow agenda.

11. 747 Remigius says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 2:36 pm

    758 Hideki

    Hideki,

    Waste not y0ur breath. It’s good to correct the lies.

    But what they seek is to engage you away from analyzing theories involving homicide.

    By the way, my neighbor’s pet snake Irma is missing. Shall we call Metodo?

    Didn’t they say Madeliene was coming home by Christmas? Perhaps they meant “next” Christmas….

    This whole thing with the telephone tips is simply to create diversion, just as your attackers are doing here. The tel tip thing is simply a created ruse to enable Team McCann to complain that the PJ are just focusing on the McCanns and that bloody blue bag, and just ignoring all the…the…evidence! No wonder they haven’t found Madeleine yet! THey need to track down and interview some 350-plus “callers!” with “tips!”

    Just a ruse.

    Blue bag, blue bag…..Focus on that.

12. 746 Remigius says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    Ade, Ian, Stevo, Brandon flours & all,

    Happy Holidays! I’ve been away a bit.

    PErhaps while Metodo continues its Madeleine retrieval, it could locate that missing blue bag as well. I bet the PJ don’t have it. But they may certainly have a pic of it. OR perhaps the tennis instructor GM used has a really strong, unshakeable memory of it.

    Madeleine was certainly small enough to fit inside it.

    Transport to the acid vat.

13. 745 Ann says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 9:35 am

    758
    Daisy Says:

    December 26th, 2007 at 9:04 am
    ———————————————————–

    I wouldn’t trust Metodo 3 to look for my lost cat !! also - I thought there was this “hotline” the McCrims had set up for calls ? where was this actually routed to ?

14. 744 Hideki says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 9:33 am

    PeterO Joins Chenier as Champion Pro-McScam Liars
    Pimp and Ho — what a pair!
    688
    Peter O

    Hideki: “PeterO once had a nifty potential defence for Gerry: maybe Madeleine was already dead, and if so Gerry could not have been negligent of her!”

    Peter O lies:

    “Peter O said no such thing. More invented drivel by Hideki.”

    Why don’t you refer to yourself as “I”, PeterO? Trying to make it look like someone else is defending you? LOL. Yes, you DID write that drivel — I did not invent it. Stop your lying denial. Here it is:

    773
    Peter O

    Peter: “Madeleine can only have disappeared whilst being neglected by her parents if indeed she was abducted. You can’t have it both ways.”

    I reponded: Your logic is exceedingly deficient, apparently due to your focus on your favorite specific scenarios. No abduction? Still, the McCanns neglect could have led to an intruder/paedophile killing the girl. Their neglect could have led to the girl’s death due to sudden allergic reaction. Their neglect could have led to a sedated girl having a fatal fall while wandering in a delirium.

    Peter: “If they are directly responsible for Madeleine death then, certainly on May 3rd, she wasn’t neglected because in all probability she was already ‘missing’.”"

    There it is, PeterO. You said it. If they killed Madeleine, then they could not have neglected her, because she was already gone. Brilliant piece of DRIVEL, PeterO. I could not even invent such crap if I tried.

    I responded: There you go again, using the typical pro-McCon strategy of covertly insisting that if others claim Madeleine is dead, then they must be claiming that the McCanns are “directly responsible” by which you clearly mean some direct action (such as hitting her). I have just pointed out that an intruder could have killed her, she could have died by allergic reaction (which can happen hours or days after an injection), or she could have had a fatal fall after waking up. In all of these cases the McCanns’ neglect is what leads to the girl’s death.

    In effect, you are arguing that IF THE MCCANNS KILLED THE GIRL AND LIED ABOUT THEIR CHILD NEGLECT, THEN THAT PARTICLUAR NEGLECT COULD NOT HAVE PLAYED A ROLE IN HER DEATH.

    Peter: “If you have satisfied yourself that my arguments are “superficial” then I’m happy for you.”

    If you are happy with your foolish argument, good for you. Sorry, I can’t think of any other word better than “superficial” (or “pro-McCann”) to describe the reasoning you employ to “argue” that the McCanns should not be prosecuted for neglect.

    You are only referring to ONE of many possible death scenarios — that the girl died prior to the Tapas drinking/game session by Kate’s hand (or Gerry’s) and that the parents were LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING, including their neglect, their meager checking, etc. Yes, I grant you that IN THIS CASE, the neglect initially falsely admitted would have been a lie, and so could not have been responsible for the death…

    …as I pointed out, there are other ways that the girl could have died while being neglected — intruder, sedative reaction, fatal fall while wandering, to name just 3 of them.
    ———————————————
    Well, PeterO, there you have it, your stupendous “argument”:

    If the McCanns killed Madeleine, then they could not have neglected her. (Fantastic premise! LOL)

    Suppose: they neglected her.

    Therefore she is not dead, and was abducted.

    (Huh?)

    That apparently was the only crap you could dredge up to support your ridiculous contention that the McCanns would benefit from being prosecuted for child neglect. I’m not sure why I even wasted my time dissecting such shite.

    And it’s no wonder you now want to lie , and falsely claim I am INVENTING THIS DRIVEL, when it all came out of your own pro-McConn delusory logic, into your own ludicrous post.

    Happy pimping, PeterO!

15. 743 Daisy says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 9:04 am

    #
    757
    Ann Says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 8:54 am

    755
    Daisy Says:

    December 26th, 2007 at 8:29 am
    Apparently, the Christmas appeal by the McCanns generated more than 200 calls, which could have new leads. Let’s hope!
    —————————————————————

    Don’t you just have to be a little bit sceptical of ” new leads” after all this time ? Anyone who suddenly comes up with “new sightings” after 8 months must be terminally inattentive not to have seen and taken notice of, everything that has gone before, including all the “heart-rending” pleas by K. McCrim et al to date…so why now ??

    —-

    Sometimes people don’t remember details straight away, or someone has decided to come forward after not wanting to be involved in anything in the beginning. Who knows!

    The only thing that worries me is that these calls apparently went to Metodo3. Are they telling the truth about the actual number of calls they received? Maybe I’m wrong and the calls went to crimestoppers/police.

16. 742 Ann says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 8:54 am

    755
    Daisy Says:

    December 26th, 2007 at 8:29 am
    Apparently, the Christmas appeal by the McCanns generated more than 200 calls, which could have new leads. Let’s hope!
    —————————————————————

    Don’t you just have to be a little bit sceptical of ” new leads” after all this time ? Anyone who suddenly comes up with “new sightings” after 8 months must be terminally inattentive not to have seen and taken notice of, everything that has gone before, including all the “heart-rending” pleas by K. McCrim et al to date…so why now ??

17. 741 Daisy says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 8:37 am

    #
    743
    lilith Says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 12:14 am

    EDIT

    Anyone seen Cuddlecat lately?

    EDIT

    —–

    There is Cuddle Cat (in her handbag) (Christmas Eve)

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/maddie/article619725.ece

    There is NO Botox in that face!

18. 740 Daisy says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 8:29 am

    #
    754
    Ann Says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 6:30 am

    749
    June Says:

    December 26th, 2007 at 1:07 am
    ok, all let’s think about that blue bag. When we say, blue, what comes to mind is sky and or a soft BLUE…but we are saying blue and they are showing a DARK blue bag. To my mind the only way to get a child into a bag of that size would be to dismember the body. Is that everyone else’s gross thinking or what? I can’t see a child of that size being stuffed into a tennis bag except in pieces. I am trying to be realistic here…of course it has been done.

    …………………………………………………………..

    Red Herrings comes to mind, I would like you all to go out and purchase a sports bag, colour doesn’t matter, can be blue if you insist in the spirit of correctness, then stuff a four year old in it and try to carry it …

    When you return from the osteopath, and your spine has been re-arranged, contemplate the possibilities of that bag being a) around - Gerry says he never had one, the tennis coaches say he never had one and b) being used for that purpose .

    I had a break from here yesterday but find on my return, we are all just mulling over the same old things and nothing new has happened, which is a shame because I think we all want closure if only to find out “Who-dunnit? ” ……………….

    —

    I agree with you regarding the bag! My feeling is that we are being fed a lot of “rubbish”, either by the Media or the Police, as a distraction from what really might be happening behind the scenes!

    Apparently, the Christmas appeal by the McCanns generated more than 200 calls, which could have new leads. Let’s hope!

19. 739 Ann says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 6:30 am

    749
    June Says:

    December 26th, 2007 at 1:07 am
    ok, all let’s think about that blue bag. When we say, blue, what comes to mind is sky and or a soft BLUE…but we are saying blue and they are showing a DARK blue bag. To my mind the only way to get a child into a bag of that size would be to dismember the body. Is that everyone else’s gross thinking or what? I can’t see a child of that size being stuffed into a tennis bag except in pieces. I am trying to be realistic here…of course it has been done.

    …………………………………………………………..

    Red Herrings comes to mind, I would like you all to go out and purchase a sports bag, colour doesn’t matter, can be blue if you insist in the spirit of correctness, then stuff a four year old in it and try to carry it …

    When you return from the osteopath, and your spine has been re-arranged, contemplate the possibilities of that bag being a) around - Gerry says he never had one, the tennis coaches say he never had one and b) being used for that purpose .

    I had a break from here yesterday but find on my return, we are all just mulling over the same old things and nothing new has happened, which is a shame because I think we all want closure if only to find out “Who-dunnit? ” ……………….

20. 738 Daisy says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 3:38 am

    #
    751
    Tinsel Says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 3:14 am

    What I’ve been thinking is that since the kids’ crying was reported to management, Kate could have been made very angry about that.
    Control freaks, though they mean to be model mothers, can become the family psycho if their kids embarrass them publically.
    I’ve seen a family member that had a similar reaction to public embarrassment.
    The embarrassment could have been the catalyst for the accidental death.

    –

    Being a parent is the hardest job on Earth! Trying to be a GOOD parent is even harder. I don’t think there is a parent in the World who has not lost control at some stage or another, either by yelling or smacking their kids. Not good, I know, but it does happen. BUT, that is far from being a “killer”, accidentally or not. We are not talking about a young baby, which could be injured by shaking (or the like) very easily. We are talking about an almost 4 y.o. child and it would take a lot of force to do something to that child to actually kill her. Most kids that die at the hands of their parents, show sign of physical abuse which can be seen by teachers, friends, other relatives, etc. There doesn’t seem to be a history of physical abuse in this case. Emotional abuse by abandonment? YES!!

    Much has been said about the star reward system that they allegedly used with Maddie. Many parents use “reward systems” (recommended by many child experts!) to teach or correct certain behaviours and that doesn’t mean anything either.

    The ONE thing that they did wrong was to leave young kids unattended. But it is a far cry from saying that they actually are the ones directly responsible for her disappearance (whatever that may mean?). They are responsible for leaving them alone, though.

21. 737 Tinsel says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 3:14 am

    What I’ve been thinking is that since the kids’ crying was reported to management, Kate could have been made very angry about that.
    Control freaks, though they mean to be model mothers, can become the family psycho if their kids embarrass them publically.
    I’ve seen a family member that had a similar reaction to public embarrassment.
    The embarrassment could have been the catalyst for the accidental death.

22. 736 mary says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 1:36 am

    669 Chatelaine
    Checked out Stevo’s site on Diane Webster. Don’t know how old the photo is but she certainly does’nt look like an old lady in it - quite attractive and looks middle aged. Some of the posters here made it sound like she was ready for a zimmer frame!
    Why do we get told so little about these people considering how high profile this case is?

23. 735 June says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 1:07 am

    ok, all let’s think about that blue bag. When we say, blue, what comes to mind is sky and or a soft BLUE…but we are saying blue and they are showing a DARK blue bag. To my mind the only way to get a child into a bag of that size would be to dismember the body. Is that everyone else’s gross thinking or what? I can’t see a child of that size being stuffed into a tennis bag except in pieces. I am trying to be realistic here…of course it has been done.

    The issue of the bag is interesting. IF the photos show he had the bag and someone most likely at the tennis courts said, or have said, and I’m sure this has been investigated…that he had the bag, yet he DENIES having the bag…it gets you to wondering why he is lying.

    Another thing, the barn. What became of that is anyone’s guess but the police know and are slowly building their case. Perhaps we will hear from the police soon.
    I think the ones who are constantly trying to foist their story of abduction onto the world, will be sadly and rudely awakened one of these days. And everybody loses, especially the precious child, who is already lost.

    I will say that it must have been a horrible horrible accident involving the mother
    for the body to be concealed and then hidden and taken away in such a manner…I stick to my “other child” theory…or perhaps accidental at the hands of the mom…at any rate, something will break and soon. This case will be solved. People need to be packing their overnight bags, is what I think…for their stays in the slammer!

24. 734 Châtelaine says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 12:47 am

    746
    chenier Says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 12:44 am

    the offspring tells me that a transient ischaemic attack is more to do with neurology than cardiology, referring to something more akin to a stroke than a heart attack…
    —–
    Yes, indeed and a serious warning to be listened to as a forbode to se a stroke …
    Good night Chenier & offspring!

25. 733 Châtelaine says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 12:45 am

    745
    Mark Says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 12:23 am
    742 Chatelaine

    —
    Where are you based, Mark?
    So “funny” to “correspond” with people you don’t know, neither where they are [hence a 7/7 24/24 correspondence here...]

26. 732 chenier says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 12:44 am

    683
    Gloria Smudd Says:

    December 25th, 2007 at 7:27 pm

    ——————————————————————
    Gloria,

    the offspring tells me that a transient ischaemic attack is more to do with neurology than cardiology, referring to something more akin to a stroke than a heart attack…

    Happy Second Day of Christmas!

27. 731 Mark says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 12:23 am

    742 Chatelaine

    Indeed. A sad topic but nice to correspond.

    M

28. 730 Châtelaine says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 12:20 am

    743
    lilith Says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 12:14 am

    Cuddlecat did not behave well at all last night….yelling, scared in the dark alone …kate HAS to to decide what his faith will be..
    Anyone seen Cuddlecat lately?
    —–
    Lilith, thanks for the pictures.
    Have you noticed that sometimes she has a black-ish patch above her eyebrow? Doesn’t mean anything, but still…

    Wishing you a good night. And hope to see/read you tomorrow
    

29. 729 lilith says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 12:14 am

    http://cache1.gettyimages.com/xc/74205366.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1935A6DEC864C2BC5D93DC312D01D7A7DE4
    Cuddlecat did not behave well at all last night….yelling, scared in the dark alone …kate HAS to to decide what his faith will be..
    Anyone seen Cuddlecat lately?

30. 728 Châtelaine says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 12:12 am

    A very good night to all. It’s been a pleasure!
    If only our reason to blog would be a different one …
    Let’s hope for the truth.. SOON
    [and then continue about art, music, family, dogs, food, ... life ...?]

31. 727 Châtelaine says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 12:07 am

    738
    Mark Says:
    December 26th, 2007 at 12:01 am
    681 Chatelaine
    682 Gloria

    Thank you. We will see what 2008 brings.

    Kids are stuffed full of food and in bed. Dog sleeping with turkey-bloated stomach. Ex wife also happy and liked her present. Me? enjoying a bottle of Lussac St. Emilion bordeaux.

    Happy Xmas to all. x
    —
    Lussac St. Emilion bordeaux.
    Really?
    I had 96 bottles delivered yesterday for my cellar!
    I’ll think of you, when I open another one

View comments: 757 to 727 - 726 to 697 - 696 to 667 - 666 to 637 - 636 to 607 - 606 to 577 - 576 to 547 - 546 to 517 - 516 to 487 - 486 to 457 - 456 to 427 - 426 to 397 - 396 to 367 - 366 to 337 - 336 to 307 - 306 to 277 - 276 to 247 - 246 to 217 - 216 to 187 - 186 to 157 - 156 to 127 - 126 to 97 - 96 to 67 - 66 to 37 - 36 to 7 - 6 to 1