Quote of the Day-Looking Back

[colomom]

~snip
Check out the 3Arguido's for yourself as there too the significance will become obvious!
Check out what they claimed about Sean regarding Madeleine's hair! ......went on for eight pages!! :crazy: :crazy:
~snip

As long as I read "opinion" which reads like an attempt to discredit an entire forum based on one person's controversial theory, I will probably be inclined to discount that opinion as an attempt to manipulate me. I don't like to be manipulated.

The 3As was created because the Mirror Forum decided that they were going to try and muzzle and silence certain posters that were expressing their anger and frustration with this case. Those posters, and those that supported them chose to create a forum where they could be free to discuss the case, even if the discussions were controversial.

Until the truth is told, and human beings are "wired" to be lie detectors, there will be more and more theories discussed and they will get more and more contentious as people try to find the truth that they sense is not being told. In my opinion, the 3As is a direct result of the principals in this case withholding and distorting the truth of what happened in Praia Da Luz.

 

[april4sky]

As long as I read "opinion" which reads like an attempt to discredit an entire forum based on one person's controversial theory, I will probably be inclined to discount that opinion as an attempt to manipulate me. I don't like to be manipulated.

Me either

Which is why I said I hoped fair minded people would choose to check it out for themselves and not just accept everything they are continually being fed.

Colomom no matter the reason it started I think we both know it's become a very sick site.
And I wouldn't like to see anyone manipulated.

Your kidding yourself if you think this is one persons opinion....Google!!

 

[Salem]

I'm gonna agree with April here. I do think the 3A's is the "Jerry Springer" of the Maddie sites. But that's okay with me. Sometimes they hit on something that does seem credible.

Having said that, isn't this thread about actual quotes from the Tapas 9 or others closely related to the case as reported in the media or GM's blog? Just from the previous posts, that was my understanding. Just a reminder of what the actual people involved have said over the last, almost 2 years? Have I misunderstood?

Salem

 

[Texana]

Texana the thread is about looking back. And we've heard them all before.

Significant for "balance," or are only your views/opinions acceptable?

Check out the 3Arguido's for yourself as there too the significance will become obvious!
Check out what they claimed about Sean regarding Madeleine's hair! ......went on for eight pages!! :crazy: :crazy:

I would hope any fair minded person would want to check it out for themselves and not just blindly accept everything they are continually being fed from this sick site. :crazy:

You might also want to check out "Anorak" too! hardly mainstream media.:waitasec: In fact they don't seem to like the media....but I think they dislike the 3Arguido's even more.

I don't read the 3Arguidos site, but I don't care if they go on all day and night about Madeleine. My point is, no journalist should condemn a place where people express their opinions about anything. Other than shopping, some up to the minute weather and news stories, that's what the Internet is all about--opinions. Journalists are distressed that they no longer control that flow of information or opinion. They need to get over that.

As for balance, April, I am surprised you question at all that only my views are acceptable. Really? Other people disagree? Oh, how astonishing.

Actually, I am open to several opinions; the only one I discard is that Madeleine was abducted--and that based on the sheer preponderance of lack of evidence for a real kidnapping. I'm quite open to opinions as to what actually happened to her.

 

[april4sky]

Texana you say you don't read at the 3A's....My point exactly!

Sorry but I think your point is pointless when you admit you don’t read there. You won't have a clue what’s going on.

It says a lot too that you don't even want to know! But no worries! if your happy to believe everything your fed it’s no ones business but your own.

And I really didn’t expect you to be open to anything I suggested Texana...so there was no surprise there!!

As for the “Acceptibility” point! Fair disagreement isn’t a problem, “Salem manages it!" but you can’t resist jumping on whatever I post can you? Whether it's a good point or not it really doesn't matter!
My posts on this thread for instance.

It's not unreasonable to suggest people might want to check for themselves where the posts are being copied from, especially if that site is sick and twisted. :crazy::crazy:

You do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about journalists.

As for your last point.....A lack of evidence in your book must make it true, Mmmmm....Just dismiss the fact that the crime scene wasn't protected because you want too, Mmmmm....plus dismiss the witness evidence because you want to, Mmmmm. :waitasec: But your open to opinions, Mmmmm.

 

[rashomon]

Here are some pictures of the (broken, smashed, jemmied) shutters I have collected Tex:

Close-up of the only fingerprint found, Kate McCann's:

Crime scene picture:

Thanks Colomom. It is the evidence alone which tells the truth in criminal and one can clearly seee that these shutters were NOt broken.
Kate's fingerprint is quite interesting too. Was this on the outside? Maybe she at first wanted to stage a scene by trying to tamper with the shutter from the outside, but then did not continue for fear of noise attracting attention?
The fingerprint needn't be connected to the crime, but every possibility should be explored. jmo

 

[colomom]

22 January 2009

Quote of the Day - Looking back on the Madeleine case

"The speculation takes you to the worst places and at that point you know the worst place would have been being charged, potentially being put in jail, certainly being detained to face charges that could have taken I don’t know years to materialise, being separated from Sean and Amelie. These sort of things were going through your mind and you're, because it's a system that you're unfamiliar with, you don’t know what could happen."

Gerry McCann, on ITV1, on 29.04.2008


By Astro: http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/01/quote-of-day-looking-back-on-madeleine_22.html

 

[colomom]

23 January 2009

Quote of the Day - Looking back on the Madeleine case

Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'

Kate McCann, answering under interrogation at the PJ in Portimão, on 07.09.2007

By Astro: http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/01/quote-of-day-looking-back-on-madeleine_23.html

 

[Texana]

Texana you say you don't read at the 3A's....My point exactly!

Sorry but I think your point is pointless when you admit you don’t read there. You won't have a clue what’s going on.

It says a lot too that you don't even want to know! But no worries! if your happy to believe everything your fed it’s no ones business but your own.

And I really didn’t expect you to be open to anything I suggested Texana...so there was no surprise there!!

As for the “Acceptibility” point! Fair disagreement isn’t a problem, “Salem manages it!" but you can’t resist jumping on whatever I post can you? Whether it's a good point or not it really doesn't matter!
My posts on this thread for instance.

It's not unreasonable to suggest people might want to check for themselves where the posts are being copied from, especially if that site is sick and twisted. :crazy::crazy:

You do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about journalists.

As for your last point.....A lack of evidence in your book must make it true, Mmmmm....Just dismiss the fact that the crime scene wasn't protected because you want too, Mmmmm....plus dismiss the witness evidence because you want to, Mmmmm. :waitasec: But your open to opinions, Mmmmm.

Really? I always post a response to you? I think you should consider that a compliment. I don't have much time these days for anything personal. I really do consider carefully which posts I can justify taking time to answer.

I certainly do have a bee in my little bonnet about journalists. I find them struggling with the issue of the internet and open forums while trying to protect their status as privileged professionals. They've always considered themselves as gatekeepers of information.

I don't have a problem with any internet forum discussing anything. I think when journalists accept that this is the way the world is, and they'll have to compete with that and deal with that, they'll be better off. The internet is basically what the Forum in ancient Rome and before that, Greece, once was--a place where ideas could be discussed, hashed out, and battled over.

 

[april4sky]

Really? I always post a response to you? I think you should consider that a compliment. I don't have much time these days for anything personal. I really do consider carefully which posts I can justify taking time to answer.

I certainly do have a bee in my little bonnet about journalists. I find them struggling with the issue of the internet and open forums while trying to protect their status as privileged professionals. They've always considered themselves as gatekeepers of information.

I don't have a problem with any internet forum discussing anything. I think when journalists accept that this is the way the world is, and they'll have to compete with that and deal with that, they'll be better off. The internet is basically what the Forum in ancient Rome and before that, Greece, once was--a place where ideas could be discussed, hashed out, and battled over.

To your first point.....If you say so Texana.

Re- Journalists. So you have a problem with them but not with any internet forum.
It's ok with you then when an internet forum discusses and tries to incite violence. :waitasec:
You are very trusting Texana......which takes us back to my original point.:waitasec:

Free speech is a privilege but it is often abused on internet forums....simply because it can be....but it doesn't make it ok.

Terrorists also use the internet....I suppose their discussions are fine too....and the press should just mind their own business. :waitasec:

 

[Barnaby]

This is a quote of the day thread right?

Sorry I am checking in here late & tired & perhaps I am overly sensitive but here we are again with confrontation & argument around you April, do we really need this? I find it so tiresome that you always manage to provoke argument! We are all here with a common purpose & it is most certainly not to goad, provoke or argue with other members!
I have refrained from replying to you for a long time now but really you are just too much!

 

[april4sky]

This is a quote of the day thread right?

Sorry I am checking in here late & tired & perhaps I am overly sensitive but here we are again with confrontation & argument around you April, do we really need this? I find it so tiresome that you always manage to provoke argument! We are all here with a common purpose & it is most certainly not to goad, provoke or argue with other members!
I have refrained from replying to you for a long time now but really you are just too much!

Oh Barnaby.
Now why is your post no surprise?

Your common purpose as you put it is loud and clear and woe betide anyone who disagree's with it!
I also thought it was a quote of the day thread....but you chose to jump on my post remember.:waitasec:

Sorry if it upsets you that I don't agree with your common purpose but I really don't.
It's not by accident that I chose the quote in my signature. :waitasec:

Perhaps you could read my posts without your common purpose Barnaby.

Or better yet the final report.

And I have as much right as you do to post here Barnaby....and to hold the views I do.

 

[Texana]

To your first point.....If you say so Texana.

Re- Journalists. So you have a problem with them but not with any internet forum.
It's ok with you then when an internet forum discusses and tries to incite violence. :waitasec:
You are very trusting Texana......which takes us back to my original point.:waitasec:

Free speech is a privilege but it is often abused on internet forums....simply because it can be....but it doesn't make it ok.

Terrorists also use the internet....I suppose their discussions are fine too....and the press should just mind their own business. :waitasec:

I don't have a problem with internet forums that are competition for journalists. (or as you first said, a bee in my bonnet.)

Why would you think that means it's ok for anyone to incite violence?

And off on your tangent--there doesn't seem to be many members of the press monitoring terrorists online. I think that's more the job of intelligence agencies and the like.

 

[april4sky]

I don't have a problem with internet forums that are competition for journalists. (or as you first said, a bee in my bonnet.)

Why would you think that means it's ok for anyone to incite violence?

And off on your tangent--there doesn't seem to be many members of the press monitoring terrorists online. I think that's more the job of intelligence agencies and the like.

From your earlier post Texana you said...

"I don't have a problem with any internet forum discussing anything".

"Anything" includes violence..."incite"

And believe me there is more where that came from. But you probably won't.

It you don't choose to check for yourself Texana thats your choice.
And if your comfortable with your decision, no worries.

The Media is a mixed bag. But some do a great job tracking terrorists.
Daniel Pearl for instance who sadly he paid with his life.

 

[Texana]

From your earlier post Texana you said...

"I don't have a problem with any internet forum discussing anything".

"Anything" includes violence..."incite"

And believe me there is more where that came from. But you probably won't.

It you don't choose to check for yourself Texana thats your choice.
And if your comfortable with your decision, no worries.

The Media is a mixed bag. But some do a great job tracking terrorists.
Daniel Pearl for instance who sadly he paid with his life.

Well, we discuss violence every day here on crime forums. That's not the same word as advocating it, is it?

As for Daniel Pearl, he wasn't sitting around reading internet chat rooms. He was out interviewing in the field. And honestly, I don't believe his fellow journalists and media outlets gave that barbaric crime enough publicity (and any movie with Angelina Jolie always seems to end up being about Jolie.)

Oh, and by the way, the customary response in the United States to a compliment is "Thank you," not "if you say so." Perhaps it's different in the U.K., of course.

 

[daffodil]

April's location is Australia.

Hi April,soooo nice to see you back again.

 

[april4sky]

Well, we discuss violence every day here on crime forums. That's not the same word as advocating it, is it?

As for Daniel Pearl, he wasn't sitting around reading internet chat rooms. He was out interviewing in the field. And honestly, I don't believe his fellow journalists and media outlets gave that barbaric crime enough publicity (and any movie with Angelina Jolie always seems to end up being about Jolie.)

Oh, and by the way,the customary response in the United States to a compliment is "Thank you," not "if you say so." Perhaps it's different in the U.K., of course.

Texana if you bothered to check for yourself you might understand the difference between discussion and incitement. :waitasec:

Oh, and by the way, it's the same response in Australia too when we receive a "compliment" ....A real one that is.

As for the press! I think you may have assumed the link to the quote I posted earlier was from a newspaper! Which may explain the "bee."
Maybe you didn't actually "check it out" but it's not a newspaper! It's a satirical publication and the press is not immune from their attention...In fact they probably receive most of it.

Texana I am the last one to defend the press...either the UK's or Portugals.
But we would probably disagree on the reason why.

 

[april4sky]

April's location is Australia.

Hi April,soooo nice to see you back again.

Hi daffodil. :wave:

Great to see you too. :blowkiss:
And thank you for the warm welcome...Soooo refreshing.

 

[colomom]

Posted: 24 Jan 2009 01:18 AM CST

Quote of the Day - Looking back on the Madeleine case

Kate even joked that Madeleine is probably giving her kidnapper a taste of her forceful character.

She said: "Madeleine is such a sociable child, so funny and engaging."

"She has a lot of personality. Her name actually means 'tower of strength'.

"She hated it when we called her Maddie. She'd say 'My name is Madeleine' with an indignant look.

"I bet she's giving whoever she's with her tuppence worth."

Kate Healy, Madeleine's mother in Mirror, August 13th, 2007

By Astro: http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/01/quote-of-day-looking-back-on-madeleine_24.html

 

[Texana]

Posted: 24 Jan 2009 01:18 AM CST

Quote of the Day - Looking back on the Madeleine case

Kate even joked that Madeleine is probably giving her kidnapper a taste of her forceful character.

She said: "Madeleine is such a sociable child, so funny and engaging."

"She has a lot of personality. Her name actually means 'tower of strength'.

"She hated it when we called her Maddie. She'd say 'My name is Madeleine' with an indignant look.

"I bet she's giving whoever she's with her tuppence worth."

Kate Healy, Madeleine's mother in Mirror, August 13th, 2007

By Astro: http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/01/quote-of-day-looking-back-on-madeleine_24.html

That is one of my most despised quotes from Kate. It is so disconnected from the reality of what Maddie would be dealing with if she was abducted, that I think it would have been far kinder and more appropriate to not allow Kate to speak at all to the media.