Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i see the media is ready to try and convict another set of parents. i wish the police would keep their theories and speculations to themselves in cases such as this, until they feel they have a solid case. what if they are wrong? regardless these people will be dodging insults and death threats for the rest of their lives, guitly or not.

Originally posted by Schecter
i see the media is ready to try and convict another set of parents. i wish the police would keep their theories and speculations to themselves in cases such as this, until they feel they have a solid case. what if they are wrong? regardless these people will be dodging insults and death threats for the rest of their lives, guitly or not.

Absolutely

Why don't those cops learn? It's a shame that people like Mr & Mrs McCann have to lose a son/daughter, then get blamed for it.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Why don't those cops learn? It's a shame that people like Mr & Mrs McCann have to lose a son/daughter, then get blamed for it.

I think the real reason why the cops blamed the parents was because they just wanted them out of Portugal.

Well, they did leave a toddler alone, in a foreign place while they went out to be with their friends. There's a lot that's suspect about the case, such as DNA being found in the car three weeks after Maddie went missing.

I'm not saying the parents were involved, but it is a possibility and it absolutely has to be explored.

I do feel sympathy for the parents, but it's definitely marred by the frustration I feel towards them for leaving their children alone in the first place

Originally posted by Syren
I do feel sympathy for the parents, but it's definitely marred by the frustration I feel towards them for leaving their children alone in the first place

I agree; it's also one of the reasons why I think it is highly plausible they had something to do with the child's death, be it accidental or intentional.

Regardless though, as stated above, the police should keep their investigation sealed from the public, until they have concrete proof, in regards to the parents.

The police have to investigate all possibilities.

The papers are to blame for sensationalising it.

The police should keep those possibilities to themselves or else it is just slander and prejudices the possiblity of a fair trial.

They cannot prove anything- that is the whole point. So letting stuff like that out is just shit-stirring. And it's not just the media running with theories- the police have been intentionally leaking it.

The Portuguese police are being continuously embarrassed here.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The police should keep those possibilities to themselves or else it is just slander and prejudices the possiblity of a fair trial.

They cannot prove anything- that is the whole point. So letting stuff like that out is just shit-stirring. And it's not just the media running with theories- the police have been intentionally leaking it.

The Portuguese police are being continuously embarrassed here.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The police should keep those possibilities to themselves or else it is just slander and prejudices the possiblity of a fair trial.

They cannot prove anything- that is the whole point. So letting stuff like that out is just shit-stirring. And it's not just the media running with theories- the police have been intentionally leaking it.

The Portuguese police are being continuously embarrassed here.

The police have been shit, but it doesn't absolve the media of sensationalist behaviour.

I don't agree with the view that the papers are just innocently commenting on the police's idiocy.

Maddy is the only child in the world, apparantly.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Maddy is the only child in the world, apparantly.

-AC

Nah, she's just the only one the media cares about. Kind of expected considering her parents keep on pushing to keep this retarded 'search' on and added that their middle-high class background it's almost expected.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The police have been shit, but it doesn't absolve the media of sensationalist behaviour.

I don't agree with the view that the papers are just innocently commenting on the police's idiocy.

No, that's not what I said they were doing. You are saying the sensationalism is the media's fault- but you cannot absolve the police for that because, as I say, they deliberately leaked such sensationalist ideas to the press.

I am also highly unconvinced by this moral attack on the McCanns for leaving their kids alone. They were about fifty feet away and being checked every hour. I reckon the majority of parents do that at least semi-regularly.

It is rampant paranoia to say that parents must attach themselves 24/7 to their kids.

Originally posted by grey fox
Nah, she's just the only one the media cares about. Kind of expected considering her parents keep on pushing to keep this retarded 'search' on and added that their middle-high class background it's almost expected.

Gezzzzzz. C'mon man dont be so heartless. Yeah you got a point...but damn.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, that's not what I said they were doing. You are saying the sensationalism is the media's fault- but you cannot absolve the police for that because, as I say, they deliberately leaked such sensationalist ideas to the press.

I am also highly unconvinced by this moral attack on the McCanns for leaving their kids alone. They were about fifty feet away and being checked every hour. I reckon the majority of parents do that at least semi-regularly.

It is rampant paranoia to say that parents must attach themselves 24/7 to their kids.


I agree totally. You don't need to check kids every hour. Most parents don't. he fact the McCanns and friends were speaks volumes.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Gezzzzzz. C'mon man don't be so heartless. Yeah you got a point...but damn.

No.

They need to accept the fact that their child is dead, well... dead or being currently used by sick people for their own perverse needs.

They also need to accept that it is largely their fault. No intelligent person (especially people such as themselves) would allow a child of 4-5 on their own. I don't care if they were 'looking back every hour or so' that's bullshit. None of this would of happened if they had the common sense to either...

A. Take the kid/s with them
B. Hire a baby-sitter.

Rarely does a predatory attack when there is a visible presence whom can identify them .

The papers mollycoddle them because they know if they don't they will anger a large amount of readers. The police want them gone and this thing over with because it reveals how truly inept they are. Everyone wants this sordid mess to be over with save for the parents who keep on pushing .

Truly Hope deserved to be in Zeus's Box

Nah, I still don't buy that criticism; yoiu can say kids need to be watched 24/7 all you like but I still call bullshit back at you on that one, nor do I think the majority of families actually do that.

Man, I'm totally out of the loop on this one.

Would someone mind explaining what the scenario was when the girl was nabbed?

While I do see your point Ush, 4-5 may be a little young to be left to explore for hours, but then again, I might be imagining this wrong.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, that's not what I said they were doing.

I didn't say that you said that. That's the impression I get from the case, which is what I was addressing.


Originally posted by Ushgarak

You are saying the sensationalism is the media's fault

It's not their fault, they are actually creating it. It's undeniable. Who else is? The police are telling them the information, but as I said, I don't say they are blameless.

Originally posted by Ushgarak


but you cannot absolve the police for that because, as I say, they deliberately leaked such sensationalist ideas to the press.

Yeah, well. I'm not.
Originally posted by Ushgarak


I am also highly unconvinced by this moral attack on the McCanns for leaving their kids alone. They were about fifty feet away and being checked every hour. I reckon the majority of parents do that at least semi-regularly.

It is rampant paranoia to say that parents must attach themselves 24/7 to their kids.

Apparently it wasn't enough. They were very young to be unsupervised, in my opinion- but not for the reasons that transpired, more to do with what can occur in homes when children aren't supervised properly.

Originally posted by inimalist
Man, I'm totally out of the loop on this one.

Would someone mind explaining what the scenario was when the girl was nabbed?

While I do see your point Ush, 4-5 may be a little young to be left to explore for hours, but then again, I might be imagining this wrong.

The family were on holiday in Portugal. The parents were at a bar, quite close to their apartment, and the children were left back at the apartment. They came to check on them at intervals.

Originally posted by grey fox
Everyone wants this sordid mess to be over with save for the parents who keep on pushing .


The media don't; it's gold for them.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom


The media don't; it's gold for them.

That; is true.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nah, I still don't buy that criticism; yoiu can say kids need to be watched 24/7 all you like but I still call bullshit back at you on that one, nor do I think the majority of families actually do that.

Yeah and furthermore even if they had left them for a much shorter time they probably still would have got blamed. As far as im concerned the police dont really give a **** and their like "oh well another kid has gone missing."

Yeah, they're clearly giving it little or no attention.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The family were on holiday in Portugal. The parents were at a bar, quite close to their apartment, and the children were left back at the apartment. They came to check on them at intervals.

children?

what happened to the others?

how old were they?

lol, or maybe i could go look it up myself

Originally posted by inimalist
children?

what happened to the others?

how old were they?

lol, or maybe i could go look it up myself

Nothing happened. There are two others, twins. Either aged one or two.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nah, I still don't buy that criticism; yoiu can say kids need to be watched 24/7 all you like but I still call bullshit back at you on that one, nor do I think the majority of families actually do that.

Of course !

Because a 5, 1 and 2 year old can clearly look after themselves better then any babysitter could.

The McCanns f*cked up. If this happened in OUR country they'd be prosecuted. Just because your in a place where leaving your kid alone isn't illegal doesn't mean you should do it.

Originally posted by grey fox
Of course !

Because a 5, 1 and 2 year old can clearly look after themselves better then any babysitter could.

The McCanns f*cked up. If this happened in OUR country they'd be prosecuted. Just because your in a place where leaving your kid alone isn't illegal doesn't mean you should do it.

It's not illegal to leave a kid alone in the U.K.

Originally posted by Zebedee
It's not illegal to leave a kid alone in the U.K.

It is when there is potential for risk.

Originally posted by grey fox
It is when there is potential for risk.

As I said There is no legal minimum age when you can leave your child at home alone.

There is no legal minimum age when you can leave your child at home alone. It's up to the parents to decide when they think their children are ready to be left, and it is probably one of the hardest decisions you make as your child gets older. It's not helped by all the horror stories you hear in the media, homes burning down, strangers at the door, Madeline McCann. As parents we want to protect our children, but we must also teach them how to rely on themselves and be independent from us.

http://www.allaboutyou.com/parenting/parentskills/children-home-alone/

She magazine online

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nah, I still don't buy that criticism; yoiu can say kids need to be watched 24/7 all you like but I still call bullshit back at you on that one, nor do I think the majority of families actually do that.

i think you mean to say "horseshit"

Originally posted by Zebedee
As I said There is no legal minimum age when you can leave your child at home alone.

There is no legal minimum age when you can leave your child at home alone. It's up to the parents to decide when they think their children are ready to be left, and it is probably one of the hardest decisions you make as your child gets older. It's not helped by all the horror stories you hear in the media, homes burning down, strangers at the door, Madeline McCann. As parents we want to protect our children, but we must also teach them how to rely on themselves and be independent from us.

http://www.allaboutyou.com/parenting/parentskills/children-home-alone/

She magazine online

Yes there is, it is an offence worthy of investigation by social services, to leave a child who's under the age of twelve alone.

Originally posted by grey fox
Of course !

Because a 5, 1 and 2 year old can clearly look after themselves better then any babysitter could.

The McCanns f*cked up. If this happened in OUR country they'd be prosecuted. Just because your in a place where leaving your kid alone isn't illegal doesn't mean you should do it.

Err, no, they would not be prosecuted, that is absolutely ridiculous.

As to saying that you cannot leave them alone in case they electrocute themselves... she was in bed! You saying you need to stay with them all darn night?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Yes there is, it is an offence worthy of investigation by social services, to leave a child who's under the age of twelve alone.

That's actually not true. It's all about "risk assessment". The McCanns would argue they were checking on Maddie more than they would overnight if she was sleeping and so the risk were assessed.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/helpandadvice/parentsandcarers/homealone/homealone_wda35965.html



What the law says

The law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone. However, it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk.

How do you decide if you can safely leave a child alone?

There are many important things to consider before you decide to leave a child alone. These include:

Originally posted by Zebedee
That's actually not true.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/helpandadvice/parentsandcarers/homealone/homealone_wda35965.html



What the law says

The law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone. However, it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk.

How do you decide if you can safely leave a child alone?

There are many important things to consider before you decide to leave a child alone. These include:

Whether the child is at risk is what social services would investigate. If you were reported to be leaving a five year old at home, to social services, you would be investigated. They will look at your reasons for doing so, any kind of dangerous materials in the house (this could even be something like an iron).

My dad's the director of social services in the south west, I've heard some horrible stories of parents and children having to be parted.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Whether the child is at risk is what social services would investigate. If you were reported to be leaving a five year old at home, to social services, you would be investigated. They will look at your reasons for doing so, any kind of dangerous materials in the house (this could even be something like an iron).




Social Servies might investigate, personally I would doubt it given the fact two health professionals the people social services go to for advice had done the risk assessment. That aside if a child is being checked on as often as they say, it would be debateable if it was even considered left alone. Social services in a case where a death or abduction had occurred would investigate. I doubt again given the parental risk assessment they would be able to do anything and given these parents positions I am certain they would not.

Just a bit of advice Chil, it's not agood idea to give out personal info online, particularly if your dad has a high ranking public sector job. I've edited who your Dad is out of my post, you might want a Mod to do that to the post above.

Originally posted by Zebedee
Social Servies might investigate, personally I would doubt it given the fact two health professionals the people social services go to for advice had done the risk assessment. That aside if a child is being checked on as often as they say, it would be debateable if it was even considered left alone. Social services in a case where a death or abduction had occurred would investigate. I doubt again given the parental risk assessment they would be able to do anything and given these parents positions I am certain they would not.

Just a bit of advice Chil, it's not agood idea to give out personal info online, particularly if your dad has a high ranking public sector job. I've edited who your Dad is out of my post, you might want a Mod to do that to the post above.

Yeah it's a good point about the checking up. But it's undeniable that it was a very dangerous place for 3 children to be left alone, foreign places and all that. (already previously been mentioned by others).

Yeah, but the thing is my full name's in my e mail address. If someone really wanted to they could probably, I don't know find out where I live. Any hot females are welcome to give it a shot.
Though yeah, it probably wasn't wise posting that.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, no, they would not be prosecuted, that is absolutely ridiculous.

As to saying that you cannot leave them alone in case they electrocute themselves... she was in bed! You saying you need to stay with them all darn night?

If a foreign country. In a Villa. WITH THE PATIO DOORS WIDE-OPEN.


Really i'm surprised that the other two weren't taken as well.

How old were the other kids? Where they in the house when she got kidnapped? Ok GF answered my question.

Originally posted by grey fox
If a foreign country. In a Villa. WITH THE PATIO DOORS WIDE-OPEN.


Really i'm surprised that the other two weren't taken as well.

Right ok....so....maddie deserves to be killed and molested then?

Originally posted by grey fox
If a foreign country. In a Villa. WITH THE PATIO DOORS WIDE-OPEN.


Really i'm surprised that the other two weren't taken as well.

Now you are just spouting untruth- the patio doors were not wide open. They weren't locked but that is hardly the same thing.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Now you are just spouting untruth- the patio doors were not wide open. They weren't locked but that is hardly the same thing.

Feh , the result is all the same.

Either way , when you have a child you gain responsibility. Your life becomes 90% focused upon said child. Leaving the child alone to go on the piss isn't what I'd call 'Model Parenting' .

Originally posted by grey fox
Feh , the result is all the same.

Either way , when you have a child you gain responsibility. Your life becomes 90% focused upon said child. Leaving the child alone to go on the piss isn't what I'd call 'Model Parenting' .

Well you know what. Something tells me that they didnt intend to get piss drunk like your making it out to be. Its probably a case of "It wont happen to me" and they were niave. Nobodies perfect and im sure they wont do something like that again.

child One: Madeline born May 2003. 4 years old

child Two: Twin A 20 months old

child Three: Twin B 20 months old.

Reckon the Parents were confident in their self preservation abilities
while they were 'eating out'

Is she dead?

Can the news focus on more important things now? Or give its attention to another kidnapped girl, because there are other kids besides Madeleine.

-AC

Originally posted by don't shiv
child One: Madeline born May 2003. 4 years old

child Two: Twin A 20 months old

child Three: Twin B 20 months old.

Reckon the Parents were confident in their self preservation abilities
while they were 'eating out'

.......that is kinda ****ed up.

Originally posted by Alfheim



Right ok....so....maddie deserves to be killed and molested then?

If you honestly deduced that from his post, you are severely deficient in comprehension.

Either way it's a ridiculous comment.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
If you honestly deduced that from his post, you are severely deficient in comprehension.

Yeah? This is what I deduced

Originally posted by grey fox

They need to accept the fact that their child is dead, well... dead or being currently used by sick people for their own perverse needs.


1. they need to give up on Madeliene.


Originally posted by grey fox

They also need to accept that it is largely their fault. No intelligent person (especially people such as themselves) would allow a child of 4-5 on their own. I don't care if they were 'looking back every hour or so' that's bullshit. None of this would of happened if they had the common sense to either...

2. Hey its their fault anyway.

Originally posted by grey fox

The police want them gone and this thing over with because it reveals how truly inept they are. Everyone wants this sordid mess to be over with save for the parents who keep on pushing .


3. The parents are stupid, therefore they should forget about it.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom


Either way it's a ridiculous comment.

No it wasnt stupid at all. GF seemed to be implying that the parents were stupid and this therefore justifies a bigger reason to forget about the whole thing. Im saying regardless of wether its their fault or not if their is chance that she is still alive they shouldnt give up.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yeah? This is what I deduced



1. they need to give up on Madeliene.




2. Hey its their fault anyway.



3. The parents are stupid, therefore they should forget about it.



No it wasnt stupid at all. GF seemed to be implying that the parents were stupid and this therefore justifies a bigger reason to forget about the whole thing. Im saying regardless of wether its their fault or not if their is chance that she is still alive they shouldnt give up.

None of that even remotely implies him thinking she deserved to be molested. You're continuing the stupidness.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
None of that even remotely implies him thinking she deserved to be molested. You're continuing the stupidness.

No no no no no. He doesnt think that she deserves to be molested he thinks that they should give up on her. Didnt I explain that in my last post?

The point being if you give up while there is a chance that she is still alive may increase her suffering. Your supposed to be intelligent....context.

Originally posted by Alfheim
No no no no no. He doesnt think that she deserves to be molested

That's exactly what you originally said.

Originally posted by Alfheim

Right ok....so....maddie deserves to be killed and molested then?

The point you now make isn't related.

Originally posted by Alfheim
No no no no no. He doesnt think that she deserves to be molested he thinks that they should give up on her. Didnt I explain that in my last post?

The point being if you give up while there is a chance that she is still alive may increase her suffering. Your supposed to be intelligent....context.

*You're.

Wait.

Even in that context how does it mean he's saying she deserves to be molested and killed?

What a fool.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Is she dead?

Can the news focus on more important things now? Or give its attention to another kidnapped girl, because there are other kids besides Madeleine.

-AC


think of the other children AC

What others?

Maddy isn't the only one to ever be kidnapped?

Ridiculous.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What others?

Maddy isn't the only one to ever be kidnapped?

Ridiculous.

-AC

That's not what I meant. It's not even a clever attempt at humour, obviously it failed.

I know for a fact that occasionally this kind of topic brings in people who would say things like "Oh there are millions of children in Africa or China dying and lost and etc..." which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

So, to save these people time and effort. I'll do it for you guys.

There are millions of children in Africa and so on...and blah, blah, and blah.

Good enough?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I know for a fact that occasionally this kind of topic brings in people who would say things like "Oh there are millions of children in Africa or China dying and lost and etc..." which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

So, to save these people time and effort. I'll do it for you guys.

There are millions of children in Africa and so on...and blah, blah, and blah.

Good enough?

Good enough

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
That's exactly what you originally said.

I orginally said what? That he said that she deserved to be molested? Context.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom

The point you now make isn't related.

Rubbish. They are related to a previous post of GF and his most recent point relates to it. The parents are stupid forget about it.


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
*You're.

Wait.

Even in that context how does it mean he's saying she deserves to be molested and killed?

What a fool.

-AC

Er he snot saying that she deserves to be killed and molested. Didnt I explain that? Didnt he say that the parenst should give up on her? Didnt he further justify that they should give up on her because they were stupid? If they give up on her and shes still alive wouldnt that means she would suffer more?

Originally posted by Zebedee
Good enough

Glad to help.

It's not irrelevant, it's just pointing out the confusion as to why this one girl deserves the attention.

-AC

Originally posted by Alfheim
I orginally said what? That he said that she deserved to be molested? Context.

What context? You quite clearly said it, now you are attempting to weasel out, and fooling nobody. You quite clearly (so clearly that it's written in this very thread) inferred from his comments that he thinks she should be killed and molested. If you didn't, then you need to work on your communication skills. IE, don't plainly say things that you don't mean, then spend pages weaselling out when it goes wrong.


Originally posted by Alfheim

Rubbish. He said that they should give up on her, he also implied that because of the parents stupidity that further justifies that she they should give up on her.

So what? Why does that mean he is saying she deserves to be killed and molested?

Reminder:
Originally posted by Alfheim

Right ok....so....maddie deserves to be killed and molested then?

Originally posted by Alfheim

Er he snot saying that she deserves to be killed and molested.

I know he's not, that's my point. How can you say that and still attempt to weasel out? It's actually a new depth of stupidity (Czarina excepted). That's why you are completely wrong, and just lack the sense to stop digging a hole.

Originally posted by Alfheim

Didnt I explain that?

No. What you did, is this.

Make a pathetic comment:

Originally posted by Alfheim

Right ok....so....maddie deserves to be killed and molested then?

Confirm you were wrong:
Originally posted by Alfheim

No no no no no. He doesnt think that she deserves to be molested

Continue to try to support the original comment:
Originally posted by Alfheim

The point being if you give up while there is a chance that she is still alive may increase her suffering.

Then you carried on revolving until you had penetrated a fair few layers of the Earth's crust.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Er he snot saying that she deserves to be killed and molested. Didnt I explain that? Didnt he say that the parenst should give up on her? Didnt he further justify that they should give up on her because they were stupid? If they give up on her and shes still alive wouldnt that means she would suffer more?

Then why say he did? Why imply he did, rather?

It's not context. It's idiot-text.

-AC

You know someone is confused when they simultaneously support and deny their original point.

I dont know something tells me that if I asked Gf wether the girl desrved to be molested and killed....something tells me he would say she wouldnt.

The fact of the matter is his posts implies certain things

1. The parents where stupid
2. He then used this as a reason to justify giving up on her.

Did he not do that?

Originally posted by Alfheim
I dont know something tells me that if I asked Gf wether the girl desrved to be molested and killed....something tells me he would say she wouldnt.

The fact of the matter is his posts implies certain things

1. The parents where stupid
2. He then used this as a reason to justify giving up on her.

Did he not do that? So let's sum up.

You were claiming that his saying they should give up means she deserves to be molested and killed.

Still stupid.

If he'd deny it, why ask and imply such a stupid thing? To know he isn't saying that is to make your suggestion that he did, even more stupid.

That's what we are confused about.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
So let's sum up.

You were claiming that his saying they should give up means she deserves to be molested and killed.

Still stupid.

Answer the question.

Originally posted by Alfheim
I dont know something tells me that if I asked Gf wether the girl desrved to be molested and killed....something tells me he would say she wouldnt.

The fact of the matter is his posts implies certain things

1. The parents where stupid
2. He then used this as a reason to justify giving up on her.

Did he not do that?

If he did do that, how does it imply he feels she deserves to be killed and molested?

It doesn't. We all know that.

So that begs the question;

WHY say it then?

Idiot.

-AC

Originally posted by Alfheim
Answer the question.

Wait, you dive around the thread like Neo and then demand answers to irrelevant points?

Keyword: stupid.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If he did do that, how does it imply he feels she deserves to be killed and molested?

It doesn't. We all know that.


If he uses the parent stupidity as a reason to give up on her that could increase her suffering if she is still alive. It doesnt matter how you spin it the child could end up suffering more due to the stupidity of the parents. Its that simple.

Regardless of how stupid the parents are you should keep on searching dont use the parents stupidity as an excuse. Whats so hard to understand. What so this doesnt make any sense?

Im thinking to myself am I actually backpedaling and I honest to god cant see GF saying that she deserved to be moletsed. I dunno im explaining this stuff and all I can see is that you dont want to understand what im saying. Theres no point in quoting me where I said "So she deserves to be raped and molested", if you dont understand the context in whioch it was meant.

Ummm, I think all parents have left their children for a short period of time, once the children are already in bed asleep (which is what I am getting from this).

There are really 2 ways of reading the situation, there is the fantasy world and the real world. In a fantasy world, people are always perfect. They have not but altruistic motivations and are always responsible. In the real world, people are flawed. In a fantasy world, heinsight is moral measure, whereas in a real world, heinsight is know to have some rosy colour to it.

Every parent has made a descision where there was the possibility of harm coming to their child. Its unrealistic to think otherwise. I don't know if I'd leave my almost 2 year old for a period longer than 20-30 min even if they were asleep, but its really not THAT far fetched of an idea.

To add to that, the idea that the parents would be responsible for the actions of a kidnapper is retarded.

and ya, I don't watch tv, but if this is the new "white chick missing on some carribian island" I would agree with it being more than overblown

Originally posted by Alfheim
If he uses the parent stupidity as a reason to give up on her that could increase her suffering if she is still alive. It doesnt matter how you spin it the child could end up suffering more due to the stupidity of the parents. Its that simple.

Regardless of how stupid the parents are you should keep on searching dont use the parents stupidity as an excuse. Whats so hard to understand. What so this doesnt make any sense?

SHE COULD suffer more, he's not saying "Yes, she deserves everything.", you implied he meant that, then said you knew he didn't. So retract it, as you should.

YOU make no sense. Stop making new points and just admit your first implication was false.

-AC

Originally posted by Alfheim
If he uses the parent stupidity as a reason to give up on her that could increase her suffering if she is still alive.

This statement is completely, completely different to the statement:

Originally posted by Alfheim


Right ok....so....maddie deserves to be killed and molested then?

Your continual attempt to avoid acknowledging this is making you look increasingly silly.

Further, if you can show exactly where he said the parents should let her continue to suffer because they are stupid, that'd be great.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
This statement is completely, completely different to the statement:



Yeah but what did I mean by that....


Originally posted by Victor Von Doom

Your continual attempt to avoid acknowledging this is making you look increasingly silly.

Further, if you can show exactly where he said the parents should let her continue to suffer because they are stupid, that'd be great.

I think I said that he said that the parents should give up on her and used their stupidty as an excuse to further justify this.

Originally posted by grey fox

The police want them gone and this thing over with because it reveals how truly inept they are. Everyone wants this sordid mess to be over with save for the parents who keep on pushing .

Are you trying to convey a simpleton?

-AC

No it seems to me that GF post there is saying that one of the reasons why the police wnat to forget about it is because it shows how stupid there parents are. Regardless of how stupid the parents are you should keep looking.

Dunno man looks like you just want an argument.

Why are you so unwilling to admit you were wrong to suggest he is saying she deserves to be molested and killed?

Just admit you were wrong and we can move on to further points.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why are you so unwilling to admit you were wrong to suggest he is saying she deserves to be molested and killed?

Just admit you were wrong and we can move on to further points.

-AC

I dunno maybe your right but the things is ive admitted to being wrong many times on this forum, so I dont see how I see how this case is any different. What I say here is me trying to explain what I was trying to say and you being argumentative because you get a kick out of calling people 'stupid'.

Im thinking this over in my mind. This is what GF said

Originally posted by grey fox
If a foreign country. In a Villa. WITH THE PATIO DOORS WIDE-OPEN.


Really i'm surprised that the other two weren't taken as well.

Now looking at his earlier post where he states that the police want to give up on the whole thign because it makes the parents look stupid ......what did I mean by this?????

Originally posted by Alfheim



Right ok....so....maddie deserves to be killed and molested then?

Is it completely absurd to think that I meant "What so you should give up on the kid because the parents were stupid?"

Originally posted by Alfheim
I dunno maybe your right but the things is ive admitted to being wrong many times on this forum, so I dont see how I see how this case is any different. What I say here is me trying to explain what I was trying to say and you being argumentative because you get a kick out of calling people 'stupid'.

Im thinking this over in my mind. This is what GF said



Now looking at his earlier post where he states that the police want to give up on the whole thign because it makes the parents look stupid ......what did I mean by this?????



Is it completely absurd to think that I meant "What so you should give up on the kid because the parents were stupid?"

Stop being such a weasel.

You suggested that he believes she deserves to be killed and molested based on absolutely nothing, you clearly meant it. So admit you were wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Stop being such a weasel.

You suggested that he believes she deserves to be killed and molested based on absolutely nothing, you clearly meant it. So admit you were wrong.

-AC

I dunno I think your looking for an argument are you happy now? I tell you what why dont you read my last post again and THINK about it instaed of being a hot head.

Maybe, maybe im backtracking but mmmmm I dunno....I even remebered me thinking about Gfs response. I even remember myself knowing that his response would be "no".

in hindsight leaving the family with their grandmama while they worked on child number four would have been a good idea.

never seen a family vacation where the family is checked into the local day care centre first thing in the morning picked up in the evening and put to bed early before the sun sets day after day after day

for The dad, a heart surgeon who works full time spending quality time with his children would be fairly rational behaviour

says on Wiki the neighbour would hear the children crying for 75 minuites at night for mum

Then WHY say it and why imply that's what he meant?

Because you believed he meant that.

Just admit it. Stop being such a coward.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then WHY say it and why imply that's what he meant?

Because you believed he meant that.

Just admit it. Stop being such a coward.

-AC


You know what **** it. Maybe your right. I'll admit to being wrong. I do however think that he did use the parents as an excuse to give up on the kid.

Play nice Alpha.

*shrug*

What do you mean "Play nice"?

He was wrong, he refused to admit it and dragged the point out.

-AC

I dunno maybe your right but I kinda get the impression you just like calling people stupid.

A: The stupid parent left the doors wide open.

B: What so the kid should get moletsed and raped?

Dunno man something tells me if you made an effort you could see that means "what so the kid should suffer because of the parents stupdity" ie if the parents were with kid when mag got snatched the police would be less pissed off and would try harder

Why?

What you were doing was stupid. You said something you meant, then when you were pulled up, rather than admit wrong you spent pages trying to twist and justify it rather than just saying it.

Either way it's done.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why?

What you were doing was stupid. You said something you meant, then when you were pulled up, rather than admit wrong you spent pages trying to twist and justify it rather than just saying it.

Either way it's done.

-AC

A: The stupid parent left the doors wide open.

B: What so the kid should get moletsed and raped?

Dunno man something tells me if you made an effort you could see that means "what so the kid should suffer because of the parents stupdity" ie if the parents were with kid when mad got snatched the police would be less pissed off and would try harder.

*shrug*

I dunno maybe your right but it really baffles me that you cant deduce the above. I dont like not admitting when im wrong.

Originally posted by Alfheim
A: The stupid parent left the doors wide open.

B: What so the kid should get moletsed and raped?

Dunno man something tells me if you made an effort you could see that means "what so the kid should suffer because of the parents stupdity" ie if the parents were with kid when mad got snatched the police would be less pissed off and would try harder.

*shrug*

I dunno maybe your right but it really baffles me that you cant deduce the above. I dont like not admitting when im wrong.

For crying out loud...

You said: "So she deserved to be killed and molested then?".

Only to say you meant; "The kid should suffer because of their stupidity?".

He's not saying either, but neither of those comments are similar.

Just admit it, you thought he was saying she deserved to die and be molested, he wasn't saying anything of the sort.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
For crying out loud...

You said: "So she deserved to be killed and molested then?".

Only to say you meant; "The kid should suffer because of their stupidity?".

He's not saying either, but neither of those comments are similar.

Just admit it, you thought he was saying she deserved to die and be molested, he wasn't saying anything of the sort.

-AC

I got the impression that he was using the parents stupidity as an excuse as further justifcation for giving up. He wasnt doing that?

OK lets be constructive here lets be real diplomatic and cultured like and agree that there are a lot of kids running around half naked in africa and Canada.

It doesn't MATTER if he was or not.

What matters is, you believed and suggested that he was saying she deserves to be molested and murdered.

He did not.

Ok?

-AC

Wowie Zowie ,all the big-wigs of the GDF are talking 'bout little 'ol me

Anyone want me to 'clear my statements up'.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't MATTER if he was or not.

yes it ****ing does because thats what I ****ing meant and thats what he was implying. The parents were stupid **** it.


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

What matters is, you believed and suggested that he was saying she deserves to be molested and murdered.

He did not.

Ok?

-AC

No not ****ing ok

READ IT!!!!!! Stop ranting read, let the god damn thing sift throguh your mind then make a comment.

A: The stupid parent left the doors wide open.

B: What so the kid should get moletsed and raped?

Dunno man something tells me if you made an effort you could see that means "what so the kid should suffer because of the parents stupdity" ie if the parents were with kid when mad got snatched the police would be less pissed off and would try harder.

Come on guys don't get to heated over things.

Ok forget it.

forgiving and forgetting good good

Originally posted by Alfheim
yes it ****ing does because thats what I ****ing meant and thats what he was implying. The parents were stupid **** it.

He wasn't implying that she deserves to be killed and molested, fact.

Originally posted by Alfheim
No not ****ing ok

READ IT!!!!!! Stop ranting read, let the god damn thing sift throguh your mind then make a comment.

A: The stupid parent left the doors wide open.

B: What so the kid should get moletsed and raped?

Yes, exactly. How did you get that from "The stupid parents left the doors open."? He's saying they should have maybe expected that their child wasn't entirely safe, not that she definitely deserved rape and molestation, which is what you decided he meant, then said he didn't mean.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Dunno man something tells me if you made an effort you could see that means "what so the kid should suffer because of the parents stupdity" ie if the parents were with kid when mad got snatched the police would be less pissed off and would try harder.

No, you made a stupid deduction and you have been proven to be wrong.

-AC

Now....I think the parents and the police should continue looking for mad. What the parents did is in the past they should not give up.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He wasn't implying that she deserves to be killed and molested, fact.



Yes, exactly. How did you get that from "The stupid parents left the doors open."? He's saying they should have maybe expected that their child wasn't entirely safe, not that she definitely deserved rape and molestation, which is what you decided he meant, then said he didn't mean.



No, you made a stupid deduction and you have been proven to be wrong.

-AC

Its not just that post it his earlier post as well I already explained.


Originally posted by grey fox
No.

They need to accept the fact that their child is dead, well... dead or being currently used by sick people for their own perverse needs.

The police want them gone and this thing over with because it reveals how truly inept they are. Everyone wants this sordid mess to be over with save for the parents who keep on pushing .



This post and the other post implies. The parents were stupid **** it forget about it.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Its not just that post it his earlier post as well I already explained.




This post and the other post implies. The parents were stupid **** it forget about it.

YES. It implies they were stupid, not that she deserves to be killed and molested, which is what YOU got out of it, what YOU said he meant.

You then retracted it, you were wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oh stop being an idiot.

Look, this: "What so she deserves to be molested and raped?" is entirely different to this: "what they should give up on the kid?".

They are two entirely different questions. You said and meant the first, you were wrong, he never implied that, ever. You got it out of his post for NO reason and were proven wrong. You were wrong to say it.

-AC

Forget it. Next time i'll try to be more precise when I type a post.

It's not about context.

You suggested something completely wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not about context.

You suggested something completely wrong.

-AC


Anyway I edited my post...maybe your right. I dunno I personally got the impression he was saying "**** it the parents were stupid. Oh well thats life, these things happen."

Originally posted by Alfheim
Forget it. Next time i'll try to be more precise when I type a post.

Moving on. I think the police and the parents shouldnt give up looking for her.

In any case, saying 'they should give up on the kid'- which is, lest we forget, not exactly what he said- is not the same as the bizarre conclusion at which you arrived.

When a life support machine is switched off, it doesn't mean the person deserves to die.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Anyway I edited my post...maybe your right. I dunno I personally got the impression he was saying "**** it the parents were stupid. Oh well thats life, these things happen."

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
In any case, saying 'they should give up on the kid'- which is, lest we forget, not exactly what he said- is not the same as the bizarre conclusion at which you arrived.


Why bother?

If my time is going to be wasted for pages, I don't see the harm in finishing the job.

Why did you bother?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
If my time is going to be wasted for pages, I don't see the harm in finishing the job.

Why did you bother?

I felt like being hypocritical.

It's that pedo Christian Brueckner?

Originally posted by Robtard
It's that pedo Christian Brueckner? yup, it is indeed Rob. As I said in the first post of this thread, that family deserve closure at least.

The family is long due for closure.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1639451/madeleine-mccann-christian-brueckner-physical-examination-latest

Is this the thread where everyone got banned?

Originally posted by Blakemore
Is this the thread where everyone got banned? Nah