What is a pro or an anti?

The apt I'm talking about as well you know I am....


I stand by what I said in the beginning about you ....troll....troll...troll.

marxman wrote:good morning jodel, just got one question
for you if you would like to provide your
insight?
What store do you hold with the use of
highly circumstancial evidence when bringing
together a case before the courts?
I'm alluding to such things as behaviours,
statements, friendly witnesses, dogs, etc;

In my experience it is extremely difficult within Judges Rules on evidence to bring a circumstantial case in the UK. I am not sure about the position in Portugal, but the Portuguese Prosecutor's statement suggests that they have a similar system there.

Although there have been murder cases with no body produced, the circumstantial evidence is usually clear and direct in any such case that has been successfully prosecuted in the UK. The law is quite clear that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and such a burden is not easily met by circumstantial evidence alone

kitti wrote:The apt I'm talking about as well you know I am....


I stand by what I said in the beginning about you ....troll....troll...troll.

Calling someone a troll is often seen by rational people as a form of abuse.

What do you mean by "The apt I'm talking about as well you know I am...."

malena stool wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed. Can't you work it out for yourself?

More abuse; no debate.

In what way, exactly, is this "abuse"?

Sarcasm- "I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed."

All I have said is that I visit sites like this and find them lacking in people that give credence to an abduction and I visit sites that claim to support the McCann family but they deny credence to a homicide. Not pigeon holing- just observing the truth of the matter- the sites split into pro and anti, any site that tried to take a middle path died through rudeness and inability of each side to accept the arguments of the other side.

I find it to be a regular occurrence that most who 'visit' sites like this tend to support the McCann family and generally seem hell bent on causing disruptions on posts

I certainly do not "Support the McCann Family". I have stated specifically that I consider them as potential killers. I also consider that Madeleine may have been abducted. I can see insufficient evidence to prove that matter one way of the other. Please point out where I have "supported" the Doctors McCann.

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Fortunately this Forum doesn't fit either of the categories you espouse, being comprised largely of a broad church of people with a wide range of views.

I still don't understand why it appears de rigeur to polarise by generalisation.

Perhaps you can point me toward the posters here who believe that Madeleine was abducted by strangers. They are as rare as posters on Pro forums who admit the possibility of child killing by the McCanns. Both Hen's teeth quantities.

I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed. Can't you work it out for yourself?

More abuse; no debate.

Abuse? Why are you desperate to be a victim?

Off topic post deleted. People are quite capable of finding threads they haven't read.

[quote="AnnaEsse"]

jodel wrote:

Off topic post deleted. People are quite capable of finding threads they haven't read.

As i said, this also happens on Pro sites- polls showing them to be mainly of one view are also kicked into the long grass.

margaret wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Fortunately this Forum doesn't fit either of the categories you espouse, being comprised largely of a broad church of people with a wide range of views.

I still don't understand why it appears de rigeur to polarise by generalisation.

Perhaps you can point me toward the posters here who believe that Madeleine was abducted by strangers. They are as rare as posters on Pro forums who admit the possibility of child killing by the McCanns. Both Hen's teeth quantities.

I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed. Can't you work it out for yourself?

More abuse; no debate.

Abuse? Why are you desperate to be a victim?

From my point of view, repeatedly polarising people into generalised "camps" is a form of abuse. It's discourteous as it implies most contributing individuals are incapable of rational thought of their own. Insidious is a good word.

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

Perhaps you can point me toward the posters here who believe that Madeleine was abducted by strangers. They are as rare as posters on Pro forums who admit the possibility of child killing by the McCanns. Both Hen's teeth quantities.

I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed. Can't you work it out for yourself?

More abuse; no debate.

In what way, exactly, is this "abuse"?

Sarcasm- "I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed."

All I have said is that I visit sites like this and find them lacking in people that give credence to an abduction and I visit sites that claim to support the McCann family but they deny credence to a homicide. Not pigeon holing- just observing the truth of the matter- the sites split into pro and anti, any site that tried to take a middle path died through rudeness and inability of each side to accept the arguments of the other side.

How do you know I am being sarcastic, because actually that is a genuine observation, based on your earlier posts.

[quote="jodel"]

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Off topic post deleted. People are quite capable of finding threads they haven't read.

As i said, this also happens on Pro sites- polls showing them to be mainly of one view are also kicked into the long grass.

Yada yada. I don't give a whatsit what you think about the moderation here.

[quote="AnnaEsse"]

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Off topic post deleted. People are quite capable of finding threads they haven't read.

As i said, this also happens on Pro sites- polls showing them to be mainly of one view are also kicked into the long grass.

Yada yada. I don't give a whatsit what you think about the moderation here.

It is just interesting how the sites used by each camp have very similar methods of dealing with people who steer a middle way.

[quote="jodel"]

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Off topic post deleted. People are quite capable of finding threads they haven't read.

As i said, this also happens on Pro sites- polls showing them to be mainly of one view are also kicked into the long grass.

Yada yada. I don't give a whatsit what you think about the moderation here.

It is just interesting how the sites used by each camp have very similar methods of dealing with people who steer a middle way.

I do hope, that in the interests of balance, you are registering with a 'pro,' site and telling them this. I think they should know.

[quote="AnnaEsse"]

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Off topic post deleted. People are quite capable of finding threads they haven't read.

As i said, this also happens on Pro sites- polls showing them to be mainly of one view are also kicked into the long grass.

Yada yada. I don't give a whatsit what you think about the moderation here.

There's rude!

[quote="AnnaEsse"]

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Off topic post deleted. People are quite capable of finding threads they haven't read.

As i said, this also happens on Pro sites- polls showing them to be mainly of one view are also kicked into the long grass.

Yada yada. I don't give a whatsit what you think about the moderation here.

To be frank, I think you give people a great deal of latitude, which is a good thing - not censorship, but trying to promote discussion with nothing more than a light touch regarding breaches of rules or of decent behaviour.

Trouble is, there will always be people who take the inch they are given and stretch it way beyond the mile.

It is worth noting that when I carried out a similar poll on a pro site that insisted it was evenly balanced, all the votes cast were for the abduction definite or likely option.

[quote="jodel"]

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Off topic post deleted. People are quite capable of finding threads they haven't read.

As i said, this also happens on Pro sites- polls showing them to be mainly of one view are also kicked into the long grass.

Yada yada. I don't give a whatsit what you think about the moderation here.

It is just interesting how the sites used by each camp have very similar methods of dealing with people who steer a middle way.

Why do you persist in polarising people into two camps?

You claim to be in a different place, so why cannot everyone else find their own place in the vast spectrum between the poles?

Bizarre.

[quote="The End Is Nigh"]

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Off topic post deleted. People are quite capable of finding threads they haven't read.

As i said, this also happens on Pro sites- polls showing them to be mainly of one view are also kicked into the long grass.

Yada yada. I don't give a whatsit what you think about the moderation here.

To be frank, I think you give people a great deal of latitude, which is a good thing - not censorship, but trying to promote discussion with nothing more than a light touch regarding breaches of rules or of decent behaviour.

Trouble is, there will always be people who take the inch they are given and stretch it way beyond the mile.

There was a rumour on Twitter that I had banned someone for being a 'boring f*cker,' but I couldn't respond to that because rules of confidentiality forbid me from stating why any particular 'boring f*cker,' was banned.

[quote="The End Is Nigh"]

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

As i said, this also happens on Pro sites- polls showing them to be mainly of one view are also kicked into the long grass.

Yada yada. I don't give a whatsit what you think about the moderation here.

It is just interesting how the sites used by each camp have very similar methods of dealing with people who steer a middle way.

Why do you persist in polarising people into two camps?

You claim to be in a different place, so why cannot everyone else find their own place in the vast spectrum between the poles?

Bizarre.

Yet when the mods suggest I test the water, I post a poll and it is booted away. I suspect that if people do find it and vote that it will demonstrate that there truly is polarisation here as there is on Pro sites- they too deny it.

[quote="AnnaEsse"]

The End Is Nigh wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

As i said, this also happens on Pro sites- polls showing them to be mainly of one view are also kicked into the long grass.

Yada yada. I don't give a whatsit what you think about the moderation here.

To be frank, I think you give people a great deal of latitude, which is a good thing - not censorship, but trying to promote discussion with nothing more than a light touch regarding breaches of rules or of decent behaviour.

Trouble is, there will always be people who take the inch they are given and stretch it way beyond the mile.

There was a rumour on Twitter that I had banned someone for being a 'boring f*cker,' but I couldn't respond to that because rules of confidentiality forbid me from stating why any particular 'boring f*cker,' was banned.

When was that. I never read twitter- it is a time thief.

[quote="jodel"]

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Off topic post deleted. People are quite capable of finding threads they haven't read.

As i said, this also happens on Pro sites- polls showing them to be mainly of one view are also kicked into the long grass.

Yada yada. I don't give a whatsit what you think about the moderation here.

It is just interesting how the sites used by each camp have very similar methods of dealing with people who steer a middle way.

What's the middle way in this case? On the one hand there is a claim there was an abduction, on the other a claim something more untoward happened. What is in the middle that you believe?

[quote="jodel"]

The End Is Nigh wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Yada yada. I don't give a whatsit what you think about the moderation here.

It is just interesting how the sites used by each camp have very similar methods of dealing with people who steer a middle way.

Why do you persist in polarising people into two camps?

You claim to be in a different place, so why cannot everyone else find their own place in the vast spectrum between the poles?

Bizarre.

Yet when the mods suggest I test the water, I post a poll and it is booted away. I suspect that if people do find it and vote that it will demonstrate that there truly is polarisation here as there is on Pro sites- they too deny it.

Enough of this whinging! I'm sick of your claiming victim status. Stick to the topic, accept moderator decision or clear off!

Jodel, you seem to know a lot about nothing...



As I said before.....pros always latch onto the dogs and the DNA there is a fine line between guilt and innocence



There was a body in apt 5a....know one died BEFORE the maccans rented the apt and KNOWONE died AFTER the maccanns left the apt...the dogs indicated to cadaver....there is a child missing...so unless the mysterious abductor in less than 5 minutes got in, killed the child, left through the window with the dead child then what other conclusion are we to come up with and what conclusion are to come up with regarding the clothes...we will leave the car out off it because you seem to think it is inconclusive....you must have some thought on how it got there.

@jodel

I just don't agree with you.


Simply repeating the rather meaningless words (in the context of rational debate) Pro and Anti does not somehow render such polarisation valid.


You claim to be neither Pro nor Anti, so why is nobody else allowed to hold that same superficially sensible view?

jodel wrote:

malena stool wrote:

jodel wrote:

Iris wrote:

jodel wrote:

More abuse; no debate.

In what way, exactly, is this "abuse"?

Sarcasm- "I thought that you had us all conveniently pigeon holed."

All I have said is that I visit sites like this and find them lacking in people that give credence to an abduction and I visit sites that claim to support the McCann family but they deny credence to a homicide. Not pigeon holing- just observing the truth of the matter- the sites split into pro and anti, any site that tried to take a middle path died through rudeness and inability of each side to accept the arguments of the other side.

I find it to be a regular occurrence that most who 'visit' sites like this tend to support the McCann family and generally seem hell bent on causing disruptions on posts

I certainly do not "Support the McCann Family". I have stated specifically that I consider them as potential killers. I also consider that Madeleine may have been abducted. I can see insufficient evidence to prove that matter one way of the other. Please point out where I have "supported" the Doctors McCann.

Any disruption to this or any forum which seeks the truth of Madeleine's disappearance before defending the neglect of her parents will by default show support for the McCanns.

Jodel a poll was already done ....go Look for yourself.