Missing Madeleine
Come join us...there's more inside you cannot see as a guest!

Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Guest on Fri 8 Feb - 14:55

C.Edwards wrote: Are you joining in with the "C.Edwards is a closet pro" brigade?

Not everyone uses such sweeping classifications - most people have minds of their own and don't simply follow like sheep.

But I'd far prefer to restrict debate to issues, not divisive remarks about individual Members so I shall gracefully bow out at this juncture.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  jeanmonroe on Fri 8 Feb - 15:12

"Not everyone uses such sweeping classifications - most people have minds of their own and don't simply follow like sheep."

Not unless your name is Isabel Martorell the fabled £32,000 lawyer for the McCanns!
Always BLEATING on about 'Madeleine WAS abducted' cos the McCanns told her.
BLAHHHH!

jeanmonroe
Golden Poster
Golden Poster

Number of posts : 996
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  C.Edwards on Fri 8 Feb - 15:22

Oh crikey... Elsewhere on the internet this forum does have some people that say it is very, very sensitive to criticism or perceived criticism. Iris's reaction to a misreading of my words is a sign that this could be true. I'm not throwing my weight around anywhere, I've just been joining in. Iris my question was posed only because you appeared to be questioning my motives in posting here. If you care to re-read my post you may see - as margaret has pointed out - that it was a question and not a statement. I have stopped, some time ago, whining and complaining. Since then it has been other users merely saying that I'm whining and complaining. I also asked where I had said any discussion was pointless. All I said was putting an exact figure on it, by guesswork as Tony has done, is pointless.

C.Edwards
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 85
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Chris on Fri 8 Feb - 15:23

Quite refreshing to see attempts to discuss legal fees being derailed

IMO whether the figure of £4m is OTT is irrelevant. The guesstimates are probably significantly more than actually expended but I would be surprised if the true figure wasn't in 7 figures. Any normal person would baulk at the thought if the focus is looking for a missing child. Putting aside the fees, the man hours by the family reviewing court papers etc must run into the hundreds if not more. Surprised that they can spare the time without it hindering "the search".

Chris
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 1607
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-05-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Claudia79 on Fri 8 Feb - 15:30

Ah, loyalties, loyalties. Interesting to analyse.

Claudia79
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 7004
Age : 37
Location : Portugal
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-25

http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Guest on Fri 8 Feb - 15:34

C.Edwards wrote:Oh crikey... Elsewhere on the internet this forum does have some people that say it is very, very sensitive to criticism or perceived criticism. Iris's reaction to a misreading of my words is a sign that this could be true. I'm not throwing my weight around anywhere, I've just been joining in. Iris my question was posed only because you appeared to be questioning my motives in posting here. If you care to re-read my post you may see - as margaret has pointed out - that it was a question and not a statement. I have stopped, some time ago, whining and complaining. Since then it has been other users merely saying that I'm whining and complaining. I also asked where I had said any discussion was pointless. All I said was putting an exact figure on it, by guesswork as Tony has done, is pointless.

Do you think I actually care about what "other people say" about this forum on the internet?
And kindly don't tell me that I have "misread" anything. I am perfectly capable of reading and understanding, thank you.
Then you tell us, in the same sentence no less, that you did not say that something was pointless - oh but wait, yes you did.
And do you honestly believe that we are all so stupid on here that we all blindly follow Tony Bennett's every word? Just because we doubt the McCanns?
Because if you do, you are in the wrong place.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  MaryB on Fri 8 Feb - 15:35

Maybe we could have a sub-section of the forum dedicated to this poster who seems to be the centre of everyone's attention at the moment. Then it would save others having to read about it when they're not really that interested in why they aren't on such a forum anymore. Who cares.

MaryB
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 1581
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  AnnaEsse on Fri 8 Feb - 15:38

C.Edwards wrote:Oh crikey... Elsewhere on the internet this forum does have some people that say it is very, very sensitive to criticism or perceived criticism. Iris's reaction to a misreading of my words is a sign that this could be true. I'm not throwing my weight around anywhere, I've just been joining in. Iris my question was posed only because you appeared to be questioning my motives in posting here. If you care to re-read my post you may see - as margaret has pointed out - that it was a question and not a statement. I have stopped, some time ago, whining and complaining. Since then it has been other users merely saying that I'm whining and complaining. I also asked where I had said any discussion was pointless. All I said was putting an exact figure on it, by guesswork as Tony has done, is pointless.

Most of us here don't give a flying feck what 'some people,' might think. As for questioning your motives, well I think that's quite reasonable since you registered in 2011 and have not posted very often or for quite a long time and then feel the need to tell us that Jill's forum has banned you. I seem to recall we had someone a while back who joined in discussions to tell us they were pointless. Bit of a waste of everyone's time that. You think it's pointless, don't join in.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18416
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Guest on Fri 8 Feb - 15:39

margaret wrote:To be fair Iris, he did ask you if you were joining in, he didn't 'tell' you.
He seems to think that there is some sort of "brigade" and that I am joining it. I actually find that quite offensive, coming from someone who has been here all of five minutes.

And Mary is right. It's making a wonderful job of derailing the entire thread. So these will be my last words on the subject.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  C.Edwards on Fri 8 Feb - 15:53

Iris wrote:
Do you think I actually care about what "other people say" about this forum on the internet?
And kindly don't tell me that I have "misread" anything. I am perfectly capable of reading and understanding, thank you.
Then you tell us, in the same sentence no less, that you did not say that something was pointless - oh but wait, yes you did.
And do you honestly believe that we are all so stupid on here that we all blindly follow Tony Bennett's every word? Just because we doubt the McCanns?
Because if you do, you are in the wrong place.

OK, I shall only do this once.

You said:
I am much more interested in why someone would register here two years ago, then post little or nothing until now. And then all they post are a) complaints and kvetching about another forum entirely and b) a thread telling us why the discussion of certain topics on here is pointless and unhelpful.

I explained why. I'd been posting on JH's. I asked what the "certain topics were" that you mentioned and asked, due to your "I'm much more interested..." line, if you were part of the "C. Edwards is a closet pro" brigade.

Your response:
How dare you tell me what I am or am not joining in! You haven't been here five minutes. I suggest you go away and learn some manners.

We are not here to listen to your whining and complaining about your "raw deal" on Jill's. Clearly Jill's has been good enough for you for the past two years, now that they have kicked you out, you think you can just come over here instead and throw your weight around? Sorry, but nobody here is impressed with your peevish behaviour.

Oh, and we will be discussing the accounts, or the fund, or anything else we like. If you find that pointless, then don't join in, it's not exactly rocket science.

Oh, and at Palmeras - you may well be a mere mortal. I actually have a mind of my own and I do not consider any other human being a "demigod". Including the McCanns, and including you.

1. I didn't tell you what you are or are not joining in. I asked a question.
2. I've been here for years. Whether I've posted much or not is besides the point.
3. You're the one being rude to me!
4. I haven't whined and complained much anyway. Certainly not for a significant amount of time. It was other people prolonging the argument.
5. I haven't been throwing my weight around
6. How do you know you speak for everyone. Maybe someone IS impressed by my peevish behaviour, eh? ;-)
7. You can discuss all you like. I've never suggested otherwise.
8. You also misunderstood Palmeras's post.

I replied and mentioned the reputation this forum has in places. I don't expect you to care, I'm making a point and you're adding weight to it by your reactions.
I pointed out you'd misread my post. Your answer: "And kindly don't tell me that I have "misread" anything. I am perfectly capable of reading and understanding, thank you." You still aren't prepared to admit that you read my question as a statement then?

Then on to your piece de resistance... "Then you tell us, in the same sentence no less, that you did not say that something was pointless - oh but wait, yes you did." This is called a straw man argument. You can look it up. You're saying I said something different to what I actually said and then you're arguing with that instead. I said, " I also asked where I had said any discussion was pointless. All I said was putting an exact figure on it, by guesswork as Tony has done, is pointless." Can you not see the difference? I am asking where I said discussion was pointless. I go on to say that putting an exact figure on something that doesn't need one and cannot ever be proven is pointless. Not discussion, the actual act of monetizing something that cannot possibly be backed up with evidence.

You go on to say, "And do you honestly believe that we are all so stupid on here that we all blindly follow Tony Bennett's every word? Just because we doubt the McCanns? Because if you do, you are in the wrong place." Can you just explain why you think I have said that and where? This is another straw man argument you have put forward.

Iris, if you're going to pick on me for whatever reason, please be more specific and accurate when explaining what I've done wrong!

C.Edwards
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 85
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  C.Edwards on Fri 8 Feb - 15:54

AnnaEsse wrote:
C.Edwards wrote:Oh crikey... Elsewhere on the internet this forum does have some people that say it is very, very sensitive to criticism or perceived criticism. Iris's reaction to a misreading of my words is a sign that this could be true. I'm not throwing my weight around anywhere, I've just been joining in. Iris my question was posed only because you appeared to be questioning my motives in posting here. If you care to re-read my post you may see - as margaret has pointed out - that it was a question and not a statement. I have stopped, some time ago, whining and complaining. Since then it has been other users merely saying that I'm whining and complaining. I also asked where I had said any discussion was pointless. All I said was putting an exact figure on it, by guesswork as Tony has done, is pointless.

Most of us here don't give a flying feck what 'some people,' might think. As for questioning your motives, well I think that's quite reasonable since you registered in 2011 and have not posted very often or for quite a long time and then feel the need to tell us that Jill's forum has banned you. I seem to recall we had someone a while back who joined in discussions to tell us they were pointless. Bit of a waste of everyone's time that. You think it's pointless, don't join in.

AnnaEsse... PLEASE, tell me where I've said a discussion is pointless.

C.Edwards
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 85
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  almostgothic on Fri 8 Feb - 15:55

MaryB wrote:Maybe we could have a sub-section of the forum dedicated to this poster who seems to be the centre of everyone's attention at the moment. Then it would save others having to read about it when they're not really that interested in why they aren't on such a forum anymore. Who cares.
You're right.
Maybe the sub-section could be called:

C. Edwards, Sandpaper, Brillo Pads and Other Abrasives.


When style detracts from meaning and substance, it is not a recipe for good debate.

almostgothic
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 2945
Location : Lost in the barrio
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-03-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Guest on Fri 8 Feb - 15:58

jeanmonroe wrote:"Not everyone uses such sweeping classifications - most people have minds of their own and don't simply follow like sheep."

Not unless your name is Isabel Martorell the fabled £32,000 lawyer for the McCanns!
Always BLEATING on about 'Madeleine WAS abducted' cos the McCanns told her.
BLAHHHH!


Ah, yes - How could one forget!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Panda on Fri 8 Feb - 16:02

AnnaEsse wrote:
C.Edwards wrote:Oh crikey... Elsewhere on the internet this forum does have some people that say it is very, very sensitive to criticism or perceived criticism. Iris's reaction to a misreading of my words is a sign that this could be true. I'm not throwing my weight around anywhere, I've just been joining in. Iris my question was posed only because you appeared to be questioning my motives in posting here. If you care to re-read my post you may see - as margaret has pointed out - that it was a question and not a statement. I have stopped, some time ago, whining and complaining. Since then it has been other users merely saying that I'm whining and complaining. I also asked where I had said any discussion was pointless. All I said was putting an exact figure on it, by guesswork as Tony has done, is pointless.

Most of us here don't give a flying feck what 'some people,' might think. As for questioning your motives, well I think that's quite reasonable since you registered in 2011 and have not posted very often or for quite a long time and then feel the need to tell us that Jill's forum has banned you. I seem to recall we had someone a while back who joined in discussions to tell us they were pointless. Bit of a waste of everyone's time that. You think it's pointless, don't join in.
Well, this thread has been lost because of the petty name calling and accusations. AnnaEsse, as a Moderator you can see that 2 threads have been taken up with C Edwards, , cant you stop this before other threads are spoilt. I have no axe to grind about C Edwards , he in fact started posting O.K. I go out for a few hours and the C Edwards thread has morphed on to here.

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  chrissie on Fri 8 Feb - 16:03

MaryB wrote:Maybe we could have a sub-section of the forum dedicated to this poster who seems to be the centre of everyone's attention at the moment. Then it would save others having to read about it when they're not really that interested in why they aren't on such a forum anymore. Who cares.


chrissie
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 3277
Age : 55
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Guest on Fri 8 Feb - 16:04

Glad to see this Thread has taken a turn for the better since my afternoon nap.



Ah, sorry, I must not be fully awake yet - it's gone downhill.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Claudia79 on Fri 8 Feb - 16:06

I sense someone will probably have to go look for another forum soon where he/she will complain about two previous fora. Call it intuition.

Claudia79
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 7004
Age : 37
Location : Portugal
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-25

http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Angelina on Fri 8 Feb - 16:13

Claudia79 wrote:I sense someone will probably have to go look for another forum soon where he/she will complain about two previous fora. Call it intuition.

I'd call it an itchy finger

Angelina
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 2927
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2008-08-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Guest on Fri 8 Feb - 16:19

Claudia79 wrote:I sense someone will probably have to go look for another forum soon where he/she will complain about two previous fora. Call it intuition.


I've update the original "whining" Thread with thoughts on this (Anna kindly moved it elsewhere, not that ultimately it has made much difference!)

Some folk seem to repeatedly find themselves right when all around them are wrong. Odd that.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Claudia79 on Fri 8 Feb - 16:19

Angelina wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:I sense someone will probably have to go look for another forum soon where he/she will complain about two previous fora. Call it intuition.

I'd call it an itchy finger

That's also an acceptable approach!

Claudia79
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 7004
Age : 37
Location : Portugal
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-25

http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  AnnaEsse on Fri 8 Feb - 16:23

Claudia79 wrote:I sense someone will probably have to go look for another forum soon where he/she will complain about two previous fora. Call it intuition.

You've got that psychic nature Claudia.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18416
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Claudia79 on Fri 8 Feb - 16:49

AnnaEsse wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:I sense someone will probably have to go look for another forum soon where he/she will complain about two previous fora. Call it intuition.

You've got that psychic nature Claudia.

It's freaky sometimes, Anna!

Claudia79
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 7004
Age : 37
Location : Portugal
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-25

http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  AnnaEsse on Fri 8 Feb - 17:05

Claudia79 wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:I sense someone will probably have to go look for another forum soon where he/she will complain about two previous fora. Call it intuition.

You've got that psychic nature Claudia.

It's freaky sometimes, Anna!

I don't know how you cope Claudia.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18416
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Karen on Fri 8 Feb - 17:12

Court case IN DETAIL!

With thanks to littlemorsals BLOGSPOT

http://littlemorsals.blogspot.co.uk/

Its very long - well worth the read especially the Mike Gunnill bit.

Karen
Golden Poster
Golden Poster

Female
Number of posts : 635
Location : The Netherlands
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  malena stool on Fri 8 Feb - 17:20

Claudia79 wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:I sense someone will probably have to go look for another forum soon where he/she will complain about two previous fora. Call it intuition.

You've got that psychic nature Claudia.

It's freaky sometimes, Anna!

freaky ???? Magic Potions more like..



malena stool
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Male
Number of posts : 13244
Location : Spare room above the kitchen
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-10-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Sponsored content Today at 23:27


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum