Updated = McCanns v Bennett

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.

"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!

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.

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".

Ah, loyalties, loyalties. Interesting to analyse.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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..