Book on Maddie tops the paperback charts

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Brave man! Marxman, I don't know about Snowflake being a wind-up merchant, I'm not sure that she'd carry on a joke for this long. I really don't know why she's here rather than on the Facebook McCann page - a much more suitable site for trusting delicate souls!

Suppose your right, but snowflake has experienced
and has studied the lot, but she/he still promotes
a steadfast gravity towards supporting a theory that
flys against proper thought.

The End Is Nigh wrote:I very much hope that nobody, nobody at all, whatever their opinion about how things came to pass, considers the disappearance of an innocent child to be "a joke".

That would be repulsive.

Agreed.

snowflake wrote:

marxman wrote:I think you will find that 'Snowflake' is
every bit a WUM.

What is a "wum"?

As you are.... Wind up Merchant

snowflake wrote:

marxman wrote:I think you will find that 'Snowflake' is
every bit a WUM.

What is a "wum"?

Snowflake, I'm quite sure that you've been around long enough to know what a wum is.

marxman wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Brave man! Marxman, I don't know about Snowflake being a wind-up merchant, I'm not sure that she'd carry on a joke for this long. I really don't know why she's here rather than on the Facebook McCann page - a much more suitable site for trusting delicate souls!

Suppose your right, but snowflake has experienced
and has studied the lot, but she/he still promotes
a steadfast gravity towards supporting a theory that
flys against proper thought.

I have and I do and I willl continue to do so and not in my opinion does it "fly against proper thought"..whatever "proper thought" does mean?

AnnaEsse wrote:

snowflake wrote:

marxman wrote:I think you will find that 'Snowflake' is
every bit a WUM.

What is a "wum"?

Snowflake, I'm quite sure that you've been around long enough to know what a wum is.

I know what the abbreviation means but not the exact meaning of that abbreviation

snowflake wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

snowflake wrote:

marxman wrote:I think you will find that 'Snowflake' is
every bit a WUM.

What is a "wum"?

Snowflake, I'm quite sure that you've been around long enough to know what a wum is.

I know what the abbreviation means but not the exact meaning of that abbreviation

Surely 'wind-up merchant,' is obvious?

AnnaEsse wrote:

snowflake wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

snowflake wrote:

marxman wrote:I think you will find that 'Snowflake' is
every bit a WUM.

What is a "wum"?

Snowflake, I'm quite sure that you've been around long enough to know what a wum is.

I know what the abbreviation means but not the exact meaning of that abbreviation

Surely 'wind-up merchant,' is obvious?

No.

@snowflake: Could you indulge me with your response to my Post timed 22.24 ?

The End Is Nigh wrote:What on earth do you find to applaud about the gullibility of people who have chosen to believe a work of fiction over and above the vast pantheon of evidence, intelligence and circumstance that suggests a rather different story?

Hello,
I don't believe the book is fiction.
If there was this "vast pantheon of evidence, intelligence and circumstance" then that would be a horse of a different colour, would it not?
Guess I'm one of the "gullible" many who have bought the book

That's all I wanted to know.

Thankyou.

("Horse" reference not understood)

Just like to say ... that Snowflake came here in the early days when we were all encouraged to voice our opinions on the case. Over at Sky we were treated dreadfully and it was so nice to come here and speak and play games with people of other opinions.IMO

Krisy22 wrote:Just like to say ... that Snowflake came here in the early days when we were all encouraged to voice our opinions on the case. Over at Sky we were treated dreadfully and it was so nice to come here and speak and play games with people of other opinions.IMO

Don't you think that it's a bit childish to play games with other's who have different opinions?

The internet is full of windup merchants who trawl the internet looking for forums, for no other reason than to have a laugh at those who are debating different topics. They must lead sad lives if this kind of behaviour is the only way they can get pleasure.

Krisy22 wrote:Just like to say ... that Snowflake came here in the early days when we were all encouraged to voice our opinions on the case. Over at Sky we were treated dreadfully and it was so nice to come here and speak and play games with people of other opinions.IMO

Snowflake, according to memberslist, has been here
from 2008, well before the vast majority of members,
and at a time when opinions were being formed and
tested by debate based on available evidence.
However, Snowflake has not altered or swayed from
her/his stance even when faced with contradictory
opinion/evidence. This, I find strange, unless the
playing of 'games' is their motivation, but this surely
dosn't actually add to forum harmony or debate?
If Snowflake would only express truthfully his/her
opinion after 4 years here, I would find it helpful
and an asset to this place.

marxman wrote:

Krisy22 wrote:Just like to say ... that Snowflake came here in the early days when we were all encouraged to voice our opinions on the case. Over at Sky we were treated dreadfully and it was so nice to come here and speak and play games with people of other opinions.IMO

Snowflake, according to memberslist, has been here
from 2008, well before the vast majority of members,
and at a time when opinions were being formed and
tested by debate based on available evidence.
However, Snowflake has not altered or swayed from
her/his stance even when faced with contradictory
opinion/evidence. This, I find strange, unless the
playing of 'games' is their motivation, but this surely
dosn't actually add to forum harmony or debate?
If Snowflake would only express truthfully his/her
opinion after 4 years here, I would find it helpful
and an asset to this place.

I don't usually agree with what Snowflake writes, but I think she has expressed her opinion truthfully. She posts in support of the McCanns and posts on the "Light a candle," thread hoping that Madeleine will be found alive. I think that about sums things up truthfully and I haven't seen her being rude to anyone.

kathybelle wrote:

Krisy22 wrote:Just like to say ... that Snowflake came here in the early days when we were all encouraged to voice our opinions on the case. Over at Sky we were treated dreadfully and it was so nice to come here and speak and play games with people of other opinions.IMO

Don't you think that it's a bit childish to play games with other's who have different opinions?

The internet is full of windup merchants who trawl the internet looking for forums, for no other reason than to have a laugh at those who are debating different topics. They must lead sad lives if this kind of behaviour is the only way they can get pleasure.

Kathybelle

No I don`t think it childish to play games on that thread with people of other opinions than my own.

If you look on the Light a Candle thread you will see the posts from this poster. Think, if this poster was a WUM really don`t think they would not have bothered with this.

Just dont want to get on the level of name calling here ..unlike other forums. I believe that is why we are still here after all this time.
t
Just my own opinion ...thats all.

There an old sales maxim which reads, "Nothing succeeds like success". Getting a book to the top of the bestseller list would no doubt generate additional interest and of course sales. It is therefore quite possible that the concept of purchasing quantities of a specific book yourself at selected outlets in order to get it to the top of their lists of bestsellers is not entirely an alien one for many publishers. In the long term it is far cheaper than having to accept returns of unsold books for shredding and recycling. Just a thought - I'm not accusing anyone of anything; simply trying to understand the discrepancy between the reports of very heavy discounting and other reports of how successful the book is.

[quote="marxman"]

Krisy22 wrote:Just like to say ... that Snowflake came here in the early days when we were all encouraged to voice our opinions on the case. Over at Sky we were treated dreadfully and it was so nice to come here and speak and play games with people of other opinions.IMO

Snowflake, according to memberslist, has been here
from 2008, well before the vast majority of members,
and at a time when opinions were being formed and
tested by debate based on available evidence.
However, Snowflake has not altered or swayed from
her/his stance even when faced with contradictory
opinion/evidence. This, I find strange, unless the
playing of 'games' is their motivation, but this surely
dosn't actually add to forum harmony or debate?
If Snowflake would only express truthfully his/her
opinion after 4 years here, I would find it helpful
and an asset to this place.


Marxman

When i said play games ..I did mean on the games thread.

I think Snowflake has made in very clear where they stand over all these years. They have not changed their opinion of what they think may have happened to Madeleine and neither have I .Rightly so as we are all entitled to that.

Thats what is so good on this forum .. no name calling. Things often get a bit hot when there is no news but always cooled down nicely by Anna and Claudia ...thank goodness.

Just my humble opinion.

AnnaEsse wrote:

marxman wrote:

Krisy22 wrote:Just like to say ... that Snowflake came here in the early days when we were all encouraged to voice our opinions on the case. Over at Sky we were treated dreadfully and it was so nice to come here and speak and play games with people of other opinions.IMO

Snowflake, according to memberslist, has been here
from 2008, well before the vast majority of members,
and at a time when opinions were being formed and
tested by debate based on available evidence.
However, Snowflake has not altered or swayed from
her/his stance even when faced with contradictory
opinion/evidence. This, I find strange, unless the
playing of 'games' is their motivation, but this surely
dosn't actually add to forum harmony or debate?
If Snowflake would only express truthfully his/her
opinion after 4 years here, I would find it helpful
and an asset to this place.

I don't usually agree with what Snowflake writes, but I think she has expressed her opinion truthfully. She posts in support of the McCanns and posts on the "Light a candle," thread hoping that Madeleine will be found alive. I think that about sums things up truthfully and I haven't seen her being rude to anyone.

Thank you Anna .. expressing what I am trying to say and so much better.

T4two wrote:There an old sales maxim which reads, "Nothing succeeds like success". Getting a book to the top of the bestseller list would no doubt generate additional interest and of course sales. It is therefore quite possible that the concept of purchasing quantities of a specific book yourself at selected outlets in order to get it to the top of their lists of bestsellers is not entirely an alien one for many publishers. In the long term it is far cheaper than having to accept returns of unsold books for shredding and recycling. Just a thought - I'm not accusing anyone of anything; simply trying to understand the discrepancy between the reports of very heavy discounting and other reports of how successful the book is.

T4two

Thank you for getting back on track.

Yes I do agree with you there Krisy22. Imagine the grief a sceptic would receive on a cesspit like JATYK2! It is good that anyone is welcome here providing they aren't abusive but it is hard to fathom out someone who never waivers in an opinion despite all the evidence which renders it impossible. That applies to any situation, not just this one.

As for the sales figures, I think it's too early to come to any conclusions yet.

T4two wrote:There an old sales maxim which reads, "Nothing succeeds like success". Getting a book to the top of the bestseller list would no doubt generate additional interest and of course sales. It is therefore quite possible that the concept of purchasing quantities of a specific book yourself at selected outlets in order to get it to the top of their lists of bestsellers is not entirely an alien one for many publishers. In the long term it is far cheaper than having to accept returns of unsold books for shredding and recycling. Just a thought - I'm not accusing anyone of anything; simply trying to understand the discrepancy between the reports of very heavy discounting and other reports of how successful the book is.

This thought had crossed by mind too, but heavy discounting is actually common for newly published books especially on Amazon and in Supermarkets, so I don't necessarily believe there is a causal link. But there might be.

kathybelle wrote:

Krisy22 wrote:Just like to say ... that Snowflake came here in the early days when we were all encouraged to voice our opinions on the case. Over at Sky we were treated dreadfully and it was so nice to come here and speak and play games with people of other opinions.IMO

Don't you think that it's a bit childish to play games with other's who have different opinions?

The internet is full of windup merchants who trawl the internet looking for forums, for no other reason than to have a laugh at those who are debating different topics. They must lead sad lives if this kind of behaviour is the only way they can get pleasure.

:hi:Krisy

I'm sorry I misunderstood your post, when you were saying it was nice to come on here and play games with people of other opinions, I thought you meant that people were coming on here, purely to make fun of peoples opinions and have a laugh at their expense.

By the way I wasn't making any slur on Snowflake, I might not agree with what she says, but she says it without malice. Unlike some of the McCann supporters on other forums.

I have not seen a single copy of the new book anywhere here. The first version was sold as paper back and had pride of place in stores such as Tesco. This time around there was none. I have looked each week whilst shopping. Definately not there. My local book store has a separate section for the top twenty best sellers. Up to last Thursday it was not in this section either.

As it stands at the moment, even if I wanted to go out today and buy a copy, I know of no store with it in stock here.

snowflake wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:What on earth do you find to applaud about the gullibility of people who have chosen to believe a work of fiction over and above the vast pantheon of evidence, intelligence and circumstance that suggests a rather different story?

Hello,
I don't believe the book is fiction.
If there was this "vast pantheon of evidence, intelligence and circumstance" then that would be a horse of a different colour, would it not?
Guess I'm one of the "gullible" many who have bought the book

Snowflake

I'm a McCann critic and by reading your posts, I am presuming you are a McCann supporter. I have no problem with you being a McCann supporter, you are entitled to your views and you are not rude to anyone when you post.

Some McCann supporters, believe that the McCanns have played a part in Madeleine's disappearance, but they sympathise with them, because they have a missing child. Some McCann supporters, believe the McCanns played no part at all in Madeleine's disappearance.

Do you believe the McCanns have played no part in Madeleine's disappearance and can you please tell me why?

I have asked this question to McCann supporters many times, but I've never been given an answer.

I believe the McCanns are involved with Madeleine's disappearance and I'll give you some of the reasons why. I'll keep the reasons short, because I am going out shortly.

(1) If Madeleine was abducted, she was abuducted while she was left without supervision, while her parents were out.

(2) If Madeleine wasn't abducted, she must have been taken away by someone with the McCanns blessing.

(3) The McCanns admitted they never searched for Madeleine.

(4) The McCanns lied to the police about the events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.

(5) Kate McCann phoned a Merseyside Priest who she knew and asked him to fly over to PDL as soon as possible. She asked her mother for the telephone number of the Priest, within one hour of her discovering Madeleine was missing. Then she made the actual phone call to the Priest at around 2am.

Kate's mother Susan Healy, revealed in a media interview, that her daughter had asked for the Priests number and had phoned the Priest. Mrs Healy also said that she couldn't understand why her daughter wanted the Priest to fly over to Portugal as soon as possible, because her daughter were not religious. They only attended church for baptisms, weddings and funerals.

(6) Gerry McCann wrote in one of his blogs, that they would be arranging a fund raising day. He said that the day wouldn't be on the 1st anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, it would be sooner than that.