Edit…

But I do understand your affinity for your fellow McScam supporters…

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

Unsubstantiated nonsense.

“You’re posts would carry so much more credence if you avoided the temptation to descend into personal attacks on other posters, in my opinion.”

Nonsense. You know the context of this thread. These two posters attacked me, and blatantly lied about what I have written.

My derisive responses are not attacks, but rather a bit of bantering intended to show I now no longer have the slightest respect for either of them.

Your own posts would carry more credence if you refrained from accusing others of “attacking” posters when they are in fact defending themselves.

But I do understand your affinity for your fellow McScam supporters…

And

947 Hideki Says: December 10th, 2007 at 8:33 am

You’re posts would carry so much more credence if you avoided the temptation to descend into personal attacks on other posters, in my opinion.

“Waist of time to discuss the matter with you.”
Haist makes waist. You’re not a very thoughtful poster, IMO.

“About who’s doing the lying, I suggest you use a mirror.”
Your lies were specifically pointed out. I suppose you and Chenier cannot win any arguments without lying. It’s become a habit, eh?

“Your verbal diarrhea says it all: your talking nonsense.”
“Your” unable to think clearly and have trouble writing sentences. Verbal constipation, I suppose. lol

“Have a nice life.”
“Your” so cute, for a troll… good luck at learning to write English, dearie. It might come in handy some day.

“And the paid paedophile point… derives from his/her posts 204

‘And as for the trolls on forums such as this, the idea that there are certain sensitive points that must be protected at all costs explains why there are certain pro-McConn trolls (I will not name names) who prowl around pretending to be critical of the McCanns on all of the points that are NOT sensitive. This puts them in a position to steer discussion away from the sensitive points, without exposing themselves as pro-McConn.The most obvious pro-McConn posters are just a foil for the ones who are doing the serious patrolling and damage control. Reading and posting very carefully, one can see what are the “sensitive points”. How very fascinating.’”

Hmmmm… THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL IN THAT QUOTE ABOUT you or anyone being a “paid paedophile”. YOU ARE LYING again. I was talking about trolls on this forum — some are sophisticated and some are not.

“And then at 242 Hideki cited a post of mine, saying:
‘Remigius, this is an example of what I meant…’I find it hilarious that Hideki could imagine that I am ‘doing the serious patrolling and damage control’…”

Post 242 was not referring to Post 204. I certainly did not mean that you were capable of anything serious requiring competence. I merely meant that you are a McScum troll, IMO.

“though rather less hilarious about his/her inability to grapple with the idea that s/he is doing his/her best to provide, unintentionally, I am sure, Clarence with an easy ride…”

You should try writing posts that make some sense, express well-defined opinions, and avoid habitual lying. Even trolls should aspire to that much. Good luck with it.

What is this talk about pole dancing for heavens sake? I know this is supposed to be a satire site but come on, we are here for that child are we not? We all want to know what happened dont we? She has just vanished, gone, disappeared can one of you really intelligent people ( and there is a few) give me your true opinions about what you think really happened that night

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

If we knew the answer to your question we wouldn’t be here discussing the ‘possibilities’ endlessly. I don’t have an opinion about “what” happened, because I don’t know. I do however believe that Madeleine’s parents, and possibly some of their friends and family, know rather more about the events leading up to and after Madeleine’s disappearance than has come to light thus far, in my opinion.

wendycas

Sorry to be late, just jumping in here….

Listen, there are many factors that come in when judges and/or jurors evaluate witnesses, but if a witness appears to seek celebrity or publicity in ANY small way, such actions (like posing for newspaper pics or giving interviews) tend to put them into the “unreliable” category.

Pole dancing, hanging in bars, per se won’t matter. But when it’s done publicly, with pics in the news, I think the average judge/juror would tend to think their eyewitness testimony would be less credible than that of a like-minded person who sought no celebrity, who didnot behave sensationally.

The pole-dancing thing shows a certain amount of immaturity. NOw of course, young people do tend to be immature. Perhaps the nannies just like to have fun. And that’s cool! But testifying in murder/homicide/kidnapping inquiries and trials (should it ever get so far) means that prosecutors are going to be carefully combing for mature witnesses who seem reliable and trustworthy.

The prosecutor may not even put the nannies on the stand if he finds their stories unworthy of belief, and designed to merely promote their own celebrity. If, say (and only for example) the McCanns are accused of murdering their daughter and altering the crime scene, the only choice is for the McCanns to call the nanny/ies in their defense. And at THAT time, the prosecutors can then elect to cross-examine the nannies, and bring up all the pole dancing and drinking, etc. And it is relevant–i.e., one could ask, were you drinking or pole-dncing on the night in question? No? Well, why not? Didn’t you take the nannyjob to have a good time in Portugal and earn a few bob so you could return to Londan and have even more good times?

Yes, the pole dancing thing does affect their credibility.

and it opens the door to a plethora of other questions about their personal lives.

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

As I remarked to others yesterday. My wife and mother in law have both been photographed pole dancing. They have both been known to over imbibe, albeit very occasionally. Would I believe them if they appeared on a witness stand somewhere and declared they really had seen pigs flying over our house? Absolutely!

Character assassination, because that’s what it is, is commonplace in courtrooms. Responsible people get shit faced occasionally, some more than others. Whether someone is a self seeking publicist or a shy retiring wall flower is actually irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether the evidence/testimony they offer is credible. Either side can/will seek to credit/discredit a witness.

The “news value” in that “story” is that someone with a link to a famous missing person case likes to party. There is no “news value” in reporting that presumably thousands of people around the country do much the same thing on any given Friday or Saturday nights. i.e. The girls behaviour is not “unusual” and therefore it can equally be argued their actions do not effect their credibility.

Sorry to be late, just jumping in here….

Listen, there are many factors that come in when judges and/or jurors evaluate witnesses, but if a witness appears to seek celebrity or publicity in ANY small way, such actions (like posing for newspaper pics or giving interviews) tend to put them into the “unreliable” category.

Pole dancing, hanging in bars, per se won’t matter. But when it’s done publicly, with pics in the news, I think the average judge/juror would tend to think their eyewitness testimony would be less credible than that of a like-minded person who sought no celebrity, who didnot behave sensationally.

The pole-dancing thing shows a certain amount of immaturity. NOw of course, young people do tend to be immature. Perhaps the nannies just like to have fun. And that’s cool! But testifying in murder/homicide/kidnapping inquiries and trials (should it ever get so far) means that prosecutors are going to be carefully combing for mature witnesses who seem reliable and trustworthy.

The prosecutor may not even put the nannies on the stand if he finds their stories unworthy of belief, and designed to merely promote their own celebrity. If, say (and only for example) the McCanns are accused of murdering their daughter and altering the crime scene, the only choice is for the McCanns to call the nanny/ies in their defense. And at THAT time, the prosecutors can then elect to cross-examine the nannies, and bring up all the pole dancing and drinking, etc. And it is relevant–i.e., one could ask, were you drinking or pole-dncing on the night in question? No? Well, why not? Didn’t you take the nannyjob to have a good time in Portugal and earn a few bob so you could return to Londan and have even more good times?

Yes, the pole dancing thing does affect their credibility.

and it opens the door to a plethora of other questions about their personal lives.

Edit

You have said it much better than I could. McCann sympathizers like PeterO are very comfortable with this sort of behavior, but how typical is PeterO? If the trial is one by jury, will the jury consider that this witness’s testimony is as unreliable as the (then) defendants? That seems likely to me. JMO.

++++++++++

More unsubstantiated nonsense.

Edit…

Just another typical example of a pro-McConn’s distortion of another’s posting. I clearly did not state any opinion that “there was nothing wrong” with the girls’ behavior; nor did I say there WAS anything wrong.

Edit….

++++++++++

More unsubstantiated nonsense.

December 9th, 2007 at 7:41 am
635
chenier Says:
“Stevo’s grasp of the rules of English grammar appears to be somewhat slim. The ‘appears to’ governs the first part of the sentence, not the second. I can only suggest that s/he goes away and embarks on an educational tour of clauses and sub clauses.”

My apologies to Totje, for in my last post I mistakenly ascribed this ridiculous comment to her. Therefore, there was no particular irony in Totje having written an impenetrable meandering nonsensical sentence.

” the use of the word ‘defendants’ to describe the arguidos ”

As already explained, I used the word “defendants” because I was talking about a hypothetical future court case in which the Wild Nanny was testifying.

“Claiming that Jaqueline Gold’s offer of reward money constituted a ‘a donation intended to thank the McCanns for their patronage’ is wholly unsustainable…”

I didn’t claim that. Both you and Totje have been lying about my statements.

” and enables anyone with a vested interest in deflecting criticism from the fragrant duo to dismiss this blog as the rantings of ignorant fanatics. ”

They will dismiss this blog as a Playground of Liars if too many people make posts like you do.

“Stevo’s descent to ad hominem abuse is on a par with Hideki’s claim that I am a paid paedophile.”

A disgraceful lie. I never called you or anyone else a paedophile. And I have no idea what you are being paid for, either. Are you being paid to tell lies about anti-McCann posters? Just a question.

————————————————-

I see that Hideki’s unique brand of revised reality has struck again.

As I pointed out yesterday, in a forum where all we have are words, it seems distinctly strange to tell lies about the posts which are there for all to see.

Claiming that it’s all right to decribe named individuals as ‘defendants’ is unacceptable, however vivid one’s fantasies about the future are. The mods and admin have made that point clear.

Claiming that ‘I didn’t claim that’ ‘Jaqueline Gold’s offer of reward money constituted a ‘a donation intended to thank the McCanns for their patronage’ is downright farcical: see Hideki’s post 116, 8th December in which s/he said:

‘But do you have any EVIDENCE that it was a “personal” donation, and not a donation intended to thank the McCanns for their patronage. I didn’t think so.’

And the paid paedophile point, which Hideki has helpfully edited to exclude ‘paid’
derives from his/her posts 204

‘And as for the trolls on forums such as this, the idea that there are certain sensitive points that must be protected at all costs explains why there are certain pro-McConn trolls (I will not name names) who prowl around pretending to be critical of the McCanns on all of the points that are NOT sensitive. This puts them in a position to steer discussion away from the sensitive points, without exposing themselves as pro-McConn.
The most obvious pro-McConn posters are just a foil for the ones who are doing the serious patrolling and damage control. Reading and posting very carefully, one can see what are the “sensitive points”. How very fascinating.’

And then at 242 Hideki cited a post of mine, saying:
‘Remigius, this is an example of what I meant…’

I find it hilarious that Hideki could imagine that I am ‘doing the serious patrolling and damage control’, though rather less hilarious about his/her inability to grapple with the idea that s/he is doing his/her best to provide, unintentionally, I am sure, Clarence with an easy ride…

“Can I say that before chenier and Hideki disappear… It was no big deal, there isn’t a gulf between their POVs, but it was just a minor glitch.”

Could be. I’m not overly familiar with Chenier’s long-term POV. I’m responding to specific posts on specific topics.However, Chenier’s propensity for outright lying and deliberate distortion does not seem “minor” to me.

“I didn’t know whether to step in and do a mediation service, but I’m a newbie, and don’t have that right.”

Well-intentioned mediation is appreciated. Being a newbie, though, I wonder if you fully understand Chenier’s true position re: the McCanns. The posts I read put her firmly in the pro-McScum camp.

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2007/12/gore-and-slasher-films-are-no-laughing.html

My apologies to Totje, for in my last post I mistakenly ascribed this ridiculous comment to her. Therefore, there was no particular irony in Totje having written an impenetrable meandering nonsensical sentence.

” the use of the word ‘defendants’ to describe the arguidos ”

As already explained, I used the word “defendants” because I was talking about a hypothetical future court case in which the Wild Nanny was testifying.

“Claiming that Jaqueline Gold’s offer of reward money constituted a ‘a donation intended to thank the McCanns for their patronage’ is wholly unsustainable…”

I didn’t claim that. Both you and Totje have been lying about my statements.

” and enables anyone with a vested interest in deflecting criticism from the fragrant duo to dismiss this blog as the rantings of ignorant fanatics. ”

They will dismiss this blog as a Playground of Liars if too many people make posts like you do.

“Stevo’s descent to ad hominem abuse is on a par with Hideki’s claim that I am a paid paedophile.”

A disgraceful lie. I never called you or anyone else a paedophile. And I have no idea what you are being paid for, either. Are you being paid to tell lies about anti-McCann posters? Just a question.

“Hideki, or should I call you hiccups?”

What you should endeavor to do is eliminate personal remarks.

“Didn’t feel good, did it, my little attack?”

Your attack showed your incompetence and dishonesty (among other things).

“Now imagine, just imagine, I know it’s hard for you, that the McCanns are innocent about what happened to Madeleine -except for leaving her and the twins alone, thus opening “the small window of opportunity” for an abductor…”

The McCanns have defiantly insisted that a paedophile network is involved. They give no reason. So therefore they are NOT ” innocent” in that they are definitely hiding some kind of knowledge that permits them to be sure a paedophile was involved. JMO. Moreover, they can never be “innocent, except for ” child neglect. The child neglect makes them directly responsible for the disappearance.

” how do you think your innuendo would hurt them? ”

What innuendo? Do you mean the POSSIBILITY that Gerry is a paedophile, and/or is involved with paedophiles? That is NOT innuendo. That is a mere logical possibility. To reiterate for you, the logical reasoning is as follows:

IF AND ONLY IF
Madeleine was “taken” (abducted or body removed) by a paedophile.
AND
Gerry took Madeleine OR knows who took Madeleine.
THEN
Gerry is a paedophile OR Gerry knows a paedophile.

Now, on top of this logic, we have the McCanns, (from the beginning, and now through their paid detectives Metodo3) pointing their finger at Murat. Murat was once (in news reports) linked to paedophile networks by his computer. Gerry refused to answer a simple question whether or not he knew Murat.

“Or your remark about those girls, who just had fun…”

Your opinion is that the nannies “just had fun”. My opinion is that the Witness Nanny amongst them probably further damaged her credibility as a witness for the McCanns.

“So it’s ok you can hurt … in that case you should expect a boomerang effect. Duck!”

I suppose this is your justification for attacking me, and for lying (several times) about what I wrote. No need for me to duck. To the contrary, I learn from pro-McScum responses such as yours.

“Btw I don’t mind discussing the possibility she was accidently -or not- killed, or wandering out of the apartment and got killed or abducted, abducted from the apartment for illegal adoption, nor the possibility she was abducted by a paedophile (although it makes my stomach turn, thinking about that) but this is in fact irrelevant.”

I find it amusing that you were lecturing Stevo about clauses and sub-clauses, and then wrote a meandering sentence like this.

“Relevant though is to try to find out about existing paedo networks, where they are, how they work and who’s in it. And trying to find out where they could/would have taken the little girl.”

Luckily for us the McCanns have done that, and their Metodo3 private detectives have already determined where Madeleine was taken — Morocco. BTW, how do YOU propose to “find out about existing paedo networks” — do you propose to ask Gerry for information?

It’s also worth remembering that Rebelo, who replaced Amaral, is an expert on the subject. IMO that is why he was put in charge.