What is a pro or an anti?

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

Inconclusive means inconclusive. The result neither increase nor decrease the possibility that Madeleine McCann contributed to the sample from the Scenic.

This is the case because it is equally possible:

1/ That Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/ That Madeleine did not contributed to the sample

giving it am evidentiary value of zero.

An inconclusive result does not rule anyone out, an exclusion does just as an inclusion conclusively rules someone in. If it is considered to be a partial DNA match, which it certainly looks like then it can be used as evidence, giving it a just a tad more value than zero.

I think that you are wrong. For this result to be placed before a jury, it would have to be supported by an expert opinion on its evidentiary value. There are two possible cases-

1/Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/Madeleine did not contribute to the sample.

The expert witness would be asked to give the probability of each in turn. As either result is equally possible (which is what inconclusive means) the expert would have to state that to be the case and that would destroy it as evidence.

We've had an expert ' opinion' ;

“ In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.”

Opinions vary considerably and in any case such as this any forensic results should have been given in terms of probabilities - Failure to exclude a "match" is not absolute, when a person is not excluded as being the source of an evidentiary DNA profile , the strength of the evidence should be given in terms of probabilities and in relation to other evidence.

That we have yet to see don't we.

must go , pleasure chatting

Nice attempt at a drive-by!

If you understood the genetics, the chances of getting the same result from the mixture of five otherwise unrelated people from Northern Europe (and in no way admitted to the McCanns) is better than fifty per cent. This is what was meant by the throw away comment about a group of random people in the FSS lab having the same markers.

Drive by? Please try not to be patronising to other members. You even had the cheek to ask me if I understood what LCN was about. You don't even know what a 'primary sample,' is.

jodel wrote:[Mquote="AnnaEsse"]

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Misguided by whom?

Misguided in their moral choice.

By whom though, have they been misguided in their moral choice?

Misguided by their own set of values.

People may be simply misguided without there being a person to cause the misguiding.[/quote]


Does Healy and McCann being "misguided" render them guilty of neglect/abandonment in moral terms (If not strictly Legal terms)?


Or do you think, like some do, that the alleged neglect didn't happen at all?

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Misguided by whom?

Misguided in their moral choice.

Oh, misguided by morals, that's a new one. And are they also as rude as you, coming on here and telling people that they "don't understand" stuff?

I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

Inconclusive means inconclusive. The result neither increase nor decrease the possibility that Madeleine McCann contributed to the sample from the Scenic.

This is the case because it is equally possible:

1/ That Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/ That Madeleine did not contributed to the sample

giving it am evidentiary value of zero.

An inconclusive result does not rule anyone out, an exclusion does just as an inclusion conclusively rules someone in. If it is considered to be a partial DNA match, which it certainly looks like then it can be used as evidence, giving it a just a tad more value than zero.

I think that you are wrong. For this result to be placed before a jury, it would have to be supported by an expert opinion on its evidentiary value. There are two possible cases-

1/Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/Madeleine did not contribute to the sample.

The expert witness would be asked to give the probability of each in turn. As either result is equally possible (which is what inconclusive means) the expert would have to state that to be the case and that would destroy it as evidence.

We've had an expert ' opinion' ;

“ In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.”

Opinions vary considerably and in any case such as this any forensic results should have been given in terms of probabilities - Failure to exclude a "match" is not absolute, when a person is not excluded as being the source of an evidentiary DNA profile , the strength of the evidence should be given in terms of probabilities and in relation to other evidence.

That we have yet to see don't we.

must go , pleasure chatting

Nice attempt at a drive-by!

If you understood the genetics, the chances of getting the same result from the mixture of five otherwise unrelated people from Northern Europe (and in no way admitted to the McCanns) is better than fifty per cent. This is what was meant by the throw away comment about a group of random people in the FSS lab having the same markers.

No no no..... the chances of someone having t same genetic match are millions to one. It's clear in the report there were what appeared to be other contributors , but it's also clear that ALL CONFIRMED COMPONENTS in the profile of Madeleine were present. So what are the probabilities of someone from Northern Europe having the exact same number of components matching Madeleine Mccann ??

Nice try too, now must really go.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

jodel wrote:[Mquote="AnnaEsse"]

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Misguided by whom?

Misguided in their moral choice.

By whom though, have they been misguided in their moral choice?

Misguided by their own set of values.

People may be simply misguided without there being a person to cause the misguiding.

Does Healy and McCann being "misguided" render them guilty of neglect/abandonment in moral terms (If not strictly Legal terms)?[/quote]

Moral standards are notoriously variable. I find their behaviour to be morally reprehensible but others may not.

I also suspect that they lied to cover their backs and that was reprehensible too.

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Misguided by whom?

Misguided in their moral choice.

Oh, misguided by morals, that's a new one. And are they also as rude as you, coming on here and telling people that they "don't understand" stuff?

I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

Please specify who has been rude. I'm sure all Members would wish to learn from their mistakes.

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Misguided by whom?

Misguided in their moral choice.

Oh, misguided by morals, that's a new one. And are they also as rude as you, coming on here and telling people that they "don't understand" stuff?

I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

You commented about people posting a lot on the McCann case, and you've notched up a helluva lot of posts in one day, mostly on one thread. Why not have a read of a few others. Try telling us, for instance what you think of the billowing curtains? Or maybe just tell us if you think there is any evidence for abduction, since you haven't ruled that out, which implies that you think there is at least some evidence for it.

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:


An inconclusive result does not rule anyone out, an exclusion does just as an inclusion conclusively rules someone in. If it is considered to be a partial DNA match, which it certainly looks like then it can be used as evidence, giving it a just a tad more value than zero.

I think that you are wrong. For this result to be placed before a jury, it would have to be supported by an expert opinion on its evidentiary value. There are two possible cases-

1/Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/Madeleine did not contribute to the sample.

The expert witness would be asked to give the probability of each in turn. As either result is equally possible (which is what inconclusive means) the expert would have to state that to be the case and that would destroy it as evidence.

We've had an expert ' opinion' ;

“ In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.”

Opinions vary considerably and in any case such as this any forensic results should have been given in terms of probabilities - Failure to exclude a "match" is not absolute, when a person is not excluded as being the source of an evidentiary DNA profile , the strength of the evidence should be given in terms of probabilities and in relation to other evidence.

That we have yet to see don't we.

must go , pleasure chatting

Nice attempt at a drive-by!

If you understood the genetics, the chances of getting the same result from the mixture of five otherwise unrelated people from Northern Europe (and in no way admitted to the McCanns) is better than fifty per cent. This is what was meant by the throw away comment about a group of random people in the FSS lab having the same markers.

No no no..... the chances of someone having t same genetic match are millions to one. It's clear in the report there were what appeared to be other contributors , but it's also clear that ALL CONFIRMED COMPONENTS in the profile of Madeleine were present. So what are the probabilities of someone from Northern Europe having the exact same number of components matching Madeleine Mccann ??

Nice try too, now must really go.

If you're talking about the swab from the Scenic, I am afraid you are wrong. The odds are not millions to one but about fifty per cent.

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

I think that you are wrong. For this result to be placed before a jury, it would have to be supported by an expert opinion on its evidentiary value. There are two possible cases-

1/Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/Madeleine did not contribute to the sample.

The expert witness would be asked to give the probability of each in turn. As either result is equally possible (which is what inconclusive means) the expert would have to state that to be the case and that would destroy it as evidence.

We've had an expert ' opinion' ;

“ In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.”

Opinions vary considerably and in any case such as this any forensic results should have been given in terms of probabilities - Failure to exclude a "match" is not absolute, when a person is not excluded as being the source of an evidentiary DNA profile , the strength of the evidence should be given in terms of probabilities and in relation to other evidence.

That we have yet to see don't we.

must go , pleasure chatting

Nice attempt at a drive-by!

If you understood the genetics, the chances of getting the same result from the mixture of five otherwise unrelated people from Northern Europe (and in no way admitted to the McCanns) is better than fifty per cent. This is what was meant by the throw away comment about a group of random people in the FSS lab having the same markers.

No no no..... the chances of someone having t same genetic match are millions to one. It's clear in the report there were what appeared to be other contributors , but it's also clear that ALL CONFIRMED COMPONENTS in the profile of Madeleine were present. So what are the probabilities of someone from Northern Europe having the exact same number of components matching Madeleine Mccann ??

Nice try too, now must really go.

If you're talking about the swab from the Scenic, I am afraid you are wrong. The odds are not millions to one but about fifty per cent.

Do tell us what your qualifications are in genetics?

jodel wrote:

Moral standards are notoriously variable. I find their behaviour to be morally reprehensible but others may not.

I also suspect that they lied to cover their backs and that was reprehensible too.

Interesting.

I shall cogitate upon this in the land of nod.

Goodnight all.

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

flower wrote:

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

I am not able to go beyond the very limited information that we have that could decide between homicide and abduction. I do believe both to be possible, but neither to be provable.

That is my point though - I would welcome your thoughts on how an abduction could be possible - I can see hoe (C) is possible - but I have no thoughts on how an abduction could be possible - I only ask how an abduction could be possible in your mind..............

Thanks jodel - I think my thoughts have been lost amongst other posts.......... at least you debate without sarcasm bullying............

Thanks. It is pleasant to debate without abuse and other silly insults. I have been nothing but polite and rational here, yet several people seem to think that their case is advanced by using abuse and sarcasm which is a little sad.

I have a totally open mind on the matter and this seems to annoy both camps, whatever we call them.

Ok - and thanks for that.................... but I would like you to answer the question of how - in your mind only - that an abduction could be possible.....................

That is my question too AnnaEsse................

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

I think that you are wrong. For this result to be placed before a jury, it would have to be supported by an expert opinion on its evidentiary value. There are two possible cases-

1/Madeleine contributed to the sample
2/Madeleine did not contribute to the sample.

The expert witness would be asked to give the probability of each in turn. As either result is equally possible (which is what inconclusive means) the expert would have to state that to be the case and that would destroy it as evidence.

We've had an expert ' opinion' ;

“ In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.”

Opinions vary considerably and in any case such as this any forensic results should have been given in terms of probabilities - Failure to exclude a "match" is not absolute, when a person is not excluded as being the source of an evidentiary DNA profile , the strength of the evidence should be given in terms of probabilities and in relation to other evidence.

That we have yet to see don't we.

must go , pleasure chatting

Nice attempt at a drive-by!

If you understood the genetics, the chances of getting the same result from the mixture of five otherwise unrelated people from Northern Europe (and in no way admitted to the McCanns) is better than fifty per cent. This is what was meant by the throw away comment about a group of random people in the FSS lab having the same markers.

No no no..... the chances of someone having t same genetic match are millions to one. It's clear in the report there were what appeared to be other contributors , but it's also clear that ALL CONFIRMED COMPONENTS in the profile of Madeleine were present. So what are the probabilities of someone from Northern Europe having the exact same number of components matching Madeleine Mccann ??

Nice try too, now must really go.

If you're talking about the swab from the Scenic, I am afraid you are wrong. The odds are not millions to one but about fifty per cent.

There were no percentages given, this is one of the factors which should have been given -ie probabilities.

“ in the first scientific approach”
“ the report recognizes that "in a first scientific approach, the possibility of a compatibility between Madeleine's DNA profile and some of the residues that were collected (among which those that existed in the Renault Scenic vehicle that was rented by the McCanns, were in great quantity), was apparent".


really must go.

jodel wrote:I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

Really? You have been here for all of five minutes. You have bragged about your supposed "qualifications" and knowledge, God knows why. You have told us that we are all too ignorant to understand things. You have told us that we are all blinkered and incapable of seeing things outwith our own comfort zones. You have told us what we are "convinced" of. "One" is perfectly capable of debating matters, but only with respectful and civil participants. "One" does not trouble oneself with people who come to patronise and insult. Perhaps this may explain why people here are "rude" to you. You haven't exactly endeared yourself to the natives.

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:Misguided by whom?

Misguided in their moral choice.

Oh, misguided by morals, that's a new one. And are they also as rude as you, coming on here and telling people that they "don't understand" stuff?

I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

You commented about people posting a lot on the McCann case, and you've notched up a helluva lot of posts in one day, mostly on one thread. Why not have a read of a few others. Try telling us, for instance what you think of the billowing curtains? Or maybe just tell us if you think there is any evidence for abduction, since you haven't ruled that out, which implies that you think there is at least some evidence for it.

I am less interested in comments made in interviews (which are notoriously inaccurate in any case) than in matters that are at least decidable (DNA, Cadaver Odour, rules of evidence).

One possibility is that the checking timeline was a load of baloney invented to avoid being blamed for neglect and this blew up in their faces. Thus giving plenty of time for an abduction or woke and wandered.

All very reprehensible but probably never going to come to court.

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Misguided in their moral choice.

Oh, misguided by morals, that's a new one. And are they also as rude as you, coming on here and telling people that they "don't understand" stuff?

I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

You commented about people posting a lot on the McCann case, and you've notched up a helluva lot of posts in one day, mostly on one thread. Why not have a read of a few others. Try telling us, for instance what you think of the billowing curtains? Or maybe just tell us if you think there is any evidence for abduction, since you haven't ruled that out, which implies that you think there is at least some evidence for it.

I am less interested in comments made in interviews (which are notoriously inaccurate in any case) than in matters that are at least decidable (DNA, Cadaver Odour, rules of evidence).

One possibility is that the checking timeline was a load of baloney invented to avoid being blamed for neglect and this blew up in their faces. Thus giving plenty of time for an abduction or woke and wandered.

All very reprehensible but probably never going to come to court.

So, Kate McCann cannot be taken seriously in that interview about the curtains? What are you talking about? The point of the discussion about the curtains is the constantly changing description of what Kate McCann saw and what she did. And what does timelines have to do with what I asked you?

ETA: you have told us that you haven't ruled out abduction. So, there must be some reason why you think it's a possibility. What might your reason(s) be?

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

Really? You have been here for all of five minutes. You have bragged about your supposed "qualifications" and knowledge, God knows why. You have told us that we are all too ignorant to understand things. You have told us that we are all blinkered and incapable of seeing things outwith our own comfort zones. You have told us what we are "convinced" of. "One" is perfectly capable of debating matters, but only with respectful and civil participants. "One" does not trouble oneself with people who come to patronise and insult. Perhaps this may explain why people here are "rude" to you. You haven't exactly endeared yourself to the natives.

What 'qualifications' have I 'bragged' about?

Where did I call anyone 'ignorant'?

Where have I said that anyone is 'blinkered' or 'incapable of seeing things outwith (their) own comfort zones'?

Where have I told people 'what (they) are convinced of'?

That is a rather long list of unsubstantiated allegations.

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

Oh, misguided by morals, that's a new one. And are they also as rude as you, coming on here and telling people that they "don't understand" stuff?

I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

You commented about people posting a lot on the McCann case, and you've notched up a helluva lot of posts in one day, mostly on one thread. Why not have a read of a few others. Try telling us, for instance what you think of the billowing curtains? Or maybe just tell us if you think there is any evidence for abduction, since you haven't ruled that out, which implies that you think there is at least some evidence for it.

I am less interested in comments made in interviews (which are notoriously inaccurate in any case) than in matters that are at least decidable (DNA, Cadaver Odour, rules of evidence).

One possibility is that the checking timeline was a load of baloney invented to avoid being blamed for neglect and this blew up in their faces. Thus giving plenty of time for an abduction or woke and wandered.

All very reprehensible but probably never going to come to court.

So, Kate McCann cannot be taken seriously in that interview about the curtains? What are you talking about? The point of the discussion about the curtains is the constantly changing description of what Kate McCann saw and what she did. And what does timelines have to do with what I asked you?

Human memory is not like a video camera- it is patchy and unreliable. People make many errors when asked to recall actions and observations.

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

Really? You have been here for all of five minutes. You have bragged about your supposed "qualifications" and knowledge, God knows why. You have told us that we are all too ignorant to understand things. You have told us that we are all blinkered and incapable of seeing things outwith our own comfort zones. You have told us what we are "convinced" of. "One" is perfectly capable of debating matters, but only with respectful and civil participants. "One" does not trouble oneself with people who come to patronise and insult. Perhaps this may explain why people here are "rude" to you. You haven't exactly endeared yourself to the natives.

What 'qualifications' have I 'bragged' about?

Where did I call anyone 'ignorant'?

Where have I said that anyone is 'blinkered' or 'incapable of seeing things outwith (their) own comfort zones'?

Where have I told people 'what (they) are convinced of'?

That is a rather long list of unsubstantiated allegations.

Well, you implied that ELI did not understand the genetics. And as for generalisations - too many for me to be bothered to list.

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

Really? You have been here for all of five minutes. You have bragged about your supposed "qualifications" and knowledge, God knows why. You have told us that we are all too ignorant to understand things. You have told us that we are all blinkered and incapable of seeing things outwith our own comfort zones. You have told us what we are "convinced" of. "One" is perfectly capable of debating matters, but only with respectful and civil participants. "One" does not trouble oneself with people who come to patronise and insult. Perhaps this may explain why people here are "rude" to you. You haven't exactly endeared yourself to the natives.

What 'qualifications' have I 'bragged' about?

Where did I call anyone 'ignorant'?

Where have I said that anyone is 'blinkered' or 'incapable of seeing things outwith (their) own comfort zones'?

Where have I told people 'what (they) are convinced of'?

That is a rather long list of unsubstantiated allegations.

Well, you implied that ELI did not understand the genetics. And as for generalisations - too many for me to be bothered to list.

So you agree that none of Iris's wild allegations can be linked to any post I have made- I have been extremely polite.

Saying that ELI did not understand the genetics is true- he does not- if he did he would understand why the odds are fifty fifty and not millions to one against.

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Misguided in their moral choice.

Oh, misguided by morals, that's a new one. And are they also as rude as you, coming on here and telling people that they "don't understand" stuff?

I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

You commented about people posting a lot on the McCann case, and you've notched up a helluva lot of posts in one day, mostly on one thread. Why not have a read of a few others. Try telling us, for instance what you think of the billowing curtains? Or maybe just tell us if you think there is any evidence for abduction, since you haven't ruled that out, which implies that you think there is at least some evidence for it.

I am less interested in comments made in interviews (which are notoriously inaccurate in any case) than in matters that are at least decidable (DNA, Cadaver Odour, rules of evidence).

One possibility is that the checking timeline was a load of baloney invented to avoid being blamed for neglect and this blew up in their faces. Thus giving plenty of time for an abduction or woke and wandered.

All very reprehensible but probably never going to come to court.

Sorry to butt in but I presume this could also be an answer to my enquiry as to your thoughts as to how an abduction could have taken place........... I have yet to see/read a credible solution as to how an abduction could have occured - I guess I have to keep on thinking (C) is the preferred option - for me anyhow........... I am disappointed that a more reasoned answer could not have been given re the abduction......... surely someone out there can give me a reasonable answer as to how an abduction could have taken place............

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

Really? You have been here for all of five minutes. You have bragged about your supposed "qualifications" and knowledge, God knows why. You have told us that we are all too ignorant to understand things. You have told us that we are all blinkered and incapable of seeing things outwith our own comfort zones. You have told us what we are "convinced" of. "One" is perfectly capable of debating matters, but only with respectful and civil participants. "One" does not trouble oneself with people who come to patronise and insult. Perhaps this may explain why people here are "rude" to you. You haven't exactly endeared yourself to the natives.

What 'qualifications' have I 'bragged' about?

Where did I call anyone 'ignorant'?

Where have I said that anyone is 'blinkered' or 'incapable of seeing things outwith (their) own comfort zones'?

Where have I told people 'what (they) are convinced of'?

That is a rather long list of unsubstantiated allegations.

Well, you implied that ELI did not understand the genetics. And as for generalisations - too many for me to be bothered to list.

So you agree that none of Iris's wild allegations can be linked to any post I have made- I have been extremely polite.

Saying that ELI did not understand the genetics is true- he does not- if he did he would understand why the odds are fifty fifty and not millions to one against.

Now you're not even just twisting what I said, you're inventing something. I made no comment about Iris.

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

Really? You have been here for all of five minutes. You have bragged about your supposed "qualifications" and knowledge, God knows why. You have told us that we are all too ignorant to understand things. You have told us that we are all blinkered and incapable of seeing things outwith our own comfort zones. You have told us what we are "convinced" of. "One" is perfectly capable of debating matters, but only with respectful and civil participants. "One" does not trouble oneself with people who come to patronise and insult. Perhaps this may explain why people here are "rude" to you. You haven't exactly endeared yourself to the natives.

What 'qualifications' have I 'bragged' about?

Where did I call anyone 'ignorant'?

Where have I said that anyone is 'blinkered' or 'incapable of seeing things outwith (their) own comfort zones'?

Where have I told people 'what (they) are convinced of'?

That is a rather long list of unsubstantiated allegations.

Try reading back over your own posts and you will see that NOTHING I have written is "unsubstantiated". You do not impress me with your big words and I now believe that every single poster on this board can see right through you. I am getting bored with you now so I am going to ignore you, you'd be better off trotting off back to the dark side to do your crowing over there. They might appreciate you, I don't.

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

Oh, misguided by morals, that's a new one. And are they also as rude as you, coming on here and telling people that they "don't understand" stuff?

I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

You commented about people posting a lot on the McCann case, and you've notched up a helluva lot of posts in one day, mostly on one thread. Why not have a read of a few others. Try telling us, for instance what you think of the billowing curtains? Or maybe just tell us if you think there is any evidence for abduction, since you haven't ruled that out, which implies that you think there is at least some evidence for it.

I am less interested in comments made in interviews (which are notoriously inaccurate in any case) than in matters that are at least decidable (DNA, Cadaver Odour, rules of evidence).

One possibility is that the checking timeline was a load of baloney invented to avoid being blamed for neglect and this blew up in their faces. Thus giving plenty of time for an abduction or woke and wandered.

All very reprehensible but probably never going to come to court.

Sorry to butt in but I presume this could also be an answer to my enquiry as to your thoughts as to how an abduction could have taken place........... I have yet to see/read a credible solution as to how an abduction could have occured - I guess I have to keep on thinking (C) is the preferred option - for me anyhow........... I am disappointed that a more reasoned answer could not have been given re the abduction......... surely someone out there can give me a reasonable answer as to how an abduction could have taken place............

I was mentioning it in passing really- one solution that does not involve wild behaviour changes or super quick abduction is the possibility that most of the checks were fiction.

Any explanation I have seen so far requires incredible actions to occur; the above explanation is mundane and believable.

I still have no idea what happened and doubt that we shall ever know for sure.

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

Really? You have been here for all of five minutes. You have bragged about your supposed "qualifications" and knowledge, God knows why. You have told us that we are all too ignorant to understand things. You have told us that we are all blinkered and incapable of seeing things outwith our own comfort zones. You have told us what we are "convinced" of. "One" is perfectly capable of debating matters, but only with respectful and civil participants. "One" does not trouble oneself with people who come to patronise and insult. Perhaps this may explain why people here are "rude" to you. You haven't exactly endeared yourself to the natives.

What 'qualifications' have I 'bragged' about?

Where did I call anyone 'ignorant'?

Where have I said that anyone is 'blinkered' or 'incapable of seeing things outwith (their) own comfort zones'?

Where have I told people 'what (they) are convinced of'?

That is a rather long list of unsubstantiated allegations.

Try reading back over your own posts and you will see that NOTHING I have written is "unsubstantiated". You do not impress me with your big words and I now believe that every single poster on this board can see right through you. I am getting bored with you now so I am going to ignore you, you'd be better off trotting off back to the dark side to do your crowing over there. They might appreciate you, I don't.

Throwing mud and running away is a childish action.

jodel wrote:

flower wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

I have not been 'rude' to anyone. Several people have been fairly rude to me.

If one cannot debate matters (disagreement is necessary for that- and that involves suggesting that the other person is possibly wrong) then what is a discussion site for?

Not rude, but debating.

You commented about people posting a lot on the McCann case, and you've notched up a helluva lot of posts in one day, mostly on one thread. Why not have a read of a few others. Try telling us, for instance what you think of the billowing curtains? Or maybe just tell us if you think there is any evidence for abduction, since you haven't ruled that out, which implies that you think there is at least some evidence for it.

I am less interested in comments made in interviews (which are notoriously inaccurate in any case) than in matters that are at least decidable (DNA, Cadaver Odour, rules of evidence).

One possibility is that the checking timeline was a load of baloney invented to avoid being blamed for neglect and this blew up in their faces. Thus giving plenty of time for an abduction or woke and wandered.

All very reprehensible but probably never going to come to court.

Sorry to butt in but I presume this could also be an answer to my enquiry as to your thoughts as to how an abduction could have taken place........... I have yet to see/read a credible solution as to how an abduction could have occured - I guess I have to keep on thinking (C) is the preferred option - for me anyhow........... I am disappointed that a more reasoned answer could not have been given re the abduction......... surely someone out there can give me a reasonable answer as to how an abduction could have taken place............

I was mentioning it in passing really- one solution that does not involve wild behaviour changes or super quick abduction is the possibility that most of the checks were fiction.

Any explanation I have seen so far requires incredible actions to occur; the above explanation is mundane and believable.

I still have no idea what happened and doubt that we shall ever know for sure.

Sorry to sound stupid - but is that your reason for Abduction??