I just want to acknowledge that I read your answer.

Goodbye

To Ferdinand

You were asked for source for your claim hat PJ were smokescreening the issue, or for some real proof that PJ were not looking for Madeleine.
These questions were put not in the spirit of debate, but as a request from us to provide a source.

The statement you made was actually libellous, and we have a duty to the site.

You also queried who was speaking, it doesn’t matter who of M and A were speaking, as sometimes our duty time has gone when a poster gets back, but we still expect an answer, not a challenge.

You failed to provide a source, or reasonable proof, and then YOU chose to leave the site.

We have an absolute right if people choose not to answer us to spam them.

” That is your prerogative, but if you are offended by being asked to clarify a remark and provide a source, and then question a reasonable request from a Moderator, you clearly have not understood the basic ground rules. And you are not quitting whilst ahead, you are evading the issue.
Goodbye ”

I have no problem to clarify a remark. In your contribution you asked about my belief in the PJ authorities and my feeling about them acting in Madeleines interest. Those are questions of opinion and as such a reasonable contribution to the debate. I have therefore answered to your comment as if I was answering to a debater.

However I don’t want to dispute on topic with moderators, when they appear in the role of a moderator, because that’s pretty much like disputing with a referee in a football match. The administrator AGW has repeatedly discouraged posters to argue with moderators, and I think he is right. It does’t make sense to argue with a referee, that’s a situation where both sides can only lose. Actually I thought that to be one of the “basic ground rules”.

I have little understanding for offering me adressing the spam folder. That’s pretty much the most unnecessary offer one could have made to me, because the last thing I want to do is post in forums where my contributions are regarded as spam. I find people who are told not to be welcome, but nevertheless try to attend other peoples parties, or websites, most embarrassing. So a simple hint that my comments are not welcome would have been sufficient - albeit at the same time I was invited to elaborate my opinion.

Even less understanding I have for being abused in absentia by a moderator - while insisting that she talks as a moderator. I understand that calling a fellow poster a “wuss” is more or less within the laws of the game, and might at worst result in a “yellow card”. I did not expect that insulting posters while in the role of a moderator was covered by the “basic ground rules”. Again a hint that I am not welcome would have been entirely sufficient.

But that’s all water under the bridge. As I said already, it was an interesting time for me to follow the story on Anorak. I thank especially the moderators and administrators who make this site possible. Meanwhile I have the feeling that we are going round in circles, and maybe the moderators are also sometimes a bit frustrated about this. After alI I could at least understand that.

So let me promise that I will from now on spam your side only occasionally, in case of major developments. I might as well send some kind of aftermath reflexion, should there ever be some kind of conclusion. But that is still a long way off.

Tschö, wa!
And again thank you!

Ferdinand: ” But I’m talking about the other witnesses. The parents will attend the reconstruction anyway, after all it’s about their child. But the witnesses, or some of the witnesses, might meanwhile be fed up to be used for the smokescreen operations of the PJ. ”

Mods and Admin [i.e. June, F.]: ” Ferdinand,
somewhat ambiguous to say the least, could you explain and back up with proof that the PJ have ’smokescreen operations’
Do you truly believe the PJ have some activities that are less than open and honest, and if so why?
Do you really feel they are NOT acting in Madeleine’s best interests? ”

——–

These are 3 questions.

Actually I didn’t say that the PJ have smokescreen operations, but that the Tapas7 might be fed up with the smokescreen operations. They are British citizens, they don’t deserve to be used as pawns in the game of a foreign police force.

With smokescreen operations I mean in particular the delay tactics in connection with the “interviews” and the “reconstruction”.

If the interviews were such important, why have they been delayed for more almost 8 months? In the end it were voluntary interviews, there is no indication that the Tapas7 ever refused to give voluntary interviews at any time earlier. Such was never suggested even by the more dubious sources available to us.

If a reconstruction is important, why is it delayed for more than a year? It should have been done as soon as possible after the crime.

And finally, if a reconstruction is now considered, why were the second round of interviews necessary anyway? Any inconsistencies could be best ruled out during the reconstruction. Remember that the issue of the reconstruction became public shortly BEFORE the interviews took place!

For your second question, I think it is save to say that the operations of the PJ are less than open. Are they also less than honest? How could I judge this? They don’t tell us what they do.

I see two possibilities:

1) They are playing for time because they are onto something. If they are planning an operation to solve the case they would not tell us, because of the secrecy laws and because it would be unwise anyway.

2) They are playing for time simply for political reasons. They cannot present a solution (for which I never blamed them), and they are in need for a face saving way out.

Which possibility it is I can’t tell.

For your third question, I don’t think that the whole secrecy matter is in the best interest for Madeleine. I would prefer to see the Portuguese authorities, the British authorities, and the parents to pull together. But as it stands, such are the laws in Portugal.

—

So much in answer of your questions on topic. I will send a final post later this day with some general remarks.

May 14th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
———————————————-

But can you dance?

…………….

I told you: cant’ act, can’t sing, can dance a little.

————————————–

In the pursuit of truth, I think I ought to own up to possessing a sonorous alto voice - does that make me a Tena lady?

Here’s a theory re Madeleine’s eye and IMO only.

When it was reported that M had the Colomba, the police advised the McCann’s not to mention it as it would be dangerous for M. McC ignored that advice and went ahead and made a huge thing of it and widely promoted it. Why?

Perhaps they didn’t want sightings from all over the place/world and have to go to those places to check them out.
–
makes sense to me

Here’s a theory re Madeleine’s eye and IMO only.

When it was reported that M had the Colomba, the police advised the McCann’s not to mention it as it would be dangerous for M. McC ignored that advice and went ahead and made a huge thing of it and widely promoted it. Why?

Perhaps they didn’t want sightings from all over the place/world and have to go to those places to check them out.

Remember Gerry saying it was a good marketing ploy? And this is stuff you see with your very own eyes on either TV interviews or Youtube and they’re absolutely jaw dropping moments.

Personally, I think M had two normal eyes. Joe public would not necessarily (in the early days) even doubt their word. There’s more to the eye condition than meets the eye if you know what I mean).

I guess none of us know them but what we do know is that they talk with their feet when it comes to sightings and, strangely enough, they’ve never worn a pair of shoes out so far.

May 14th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
271 Well hello Nemesis-As I remember it was them who first mentioned about Madeleines eye-not K&G.

—————————————————-

No; it wasn’t Kate’s parents. It was Trish Cameron:

“She’s an absolutely beautiful, wee blonde girl, blue-green eyes - one distinguishing feature is that one of her pupils runs into the iris of her right eyes. She’s an absolutely gorgeous wee girl.”

BBC, 4th May 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6623127.stm

I think they know nothing more than we know-and I feel genuinely very sorry for them as they have lost a dear grand-child.

What they think and what they say are probably 2 different things as a Mother’s love must mean they stand by their child however horrified of the seeming abandonment of their grand-daughter.

—————–

Well, it does to the dogs…
*********

Thats true!

“What results from the secrecy of justice in this case is that it prevents the access of a father and a mother to what they would like to know, which is what the police are doing to discover a thing that for them is fundamental: what happened to their child”, he concluded.

For a bright guy that’s a very silly statement.

It is quite obvious that the PJ want to know what happened to Madeleine; what the parents don’t like is any suggestion that they were what happened to Madeleine…

M and A

Am self employed and have had to learn when to cut my losses - its a tough old world out there. But my request was reasonably and politely put initially, his response to it wasn’t reasonable, and we don’t argue

Think I may book a holiday in PDL, courtesy of M3 of course.