dilligaf Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Just like the religion debate - the agnostics are accused by the believers of hiding from the evidence that the believers know to be true, and agnosticism isn't accepted as a legitimate point of view: we're the ones who have been taken in; as Quilp says oh the irony. My position on this issue is doubt, I do not think anyone has enough evidence to justify the vitriol and obsession this case generates. The problem with saying that is those who are sure will bombard you with their proof, but I'm not emotionally invested in it, I'm not interested in your claims to have solved this case. Those whose job it is to collect, weigh up evidence and prosecute people don't agree that any case has been made. Until they do and that case is heard, overcomes a defence and is accepted by a jury I'm honest enough to say I don't know the details. Unlike Dilligaf who clearly wants to put on his black cap and bang down his gavel. You stated yesterday that you little about this case ! Today you say nobody has enough evidence ! How do you know that if you've read next to nothing about it? I have never claimed to have solved this case, so I don't know why you used that phrase. I never understand how "scientists" can write page upon page to prove the earth is not flat, yet don't seem to read about what is a very strange case like the McCanns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 It's that vacuum inside their heads China; that always needs filling, always needs answers, explanations, reasons, and closure. An opportunistic media, and the new social media with its viral paranoia, generates and fills that space. If Millie Dowler's killer hadn't been found, then the conspiracy spotlight would have lasered in on Millie's father. But instead they've got that fat evil bastard Bellfield to fill the hole in their imagination, and boy does he fill it. Case and conspiracy closed, 'nothing to see here', we've got our man, literally and imaginatively. Christ, this is a piss poor thread. Like me, you are just stating your opinion. No different eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 When I have evidence that is useful to a case, and can show people how to collect and interpret that evidence, I do so. That mind set is useless in this instance. Those whose opinion matters disagree with you, Dilligaf, and so you raise class etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 No, I was not there, (nor were any Jury members or Judges !) but I have read just about everything published about this case, both here, in Spain and in Germany. And to think some folks need alcohol and sex to have fun.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 No, I was not there, (nor were any Jury members or Judges !) but I have read just about everything published about this case, both here, in Spain and in Germany. And to think some folks need alcohol and sex to have fun.... Don't believe everything that you're told ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 No, I was not there, (nor were any Jury members or Judges !) but I have read just about everything published about this case, both here, in Spain and in Germany. And to think some folks need alcohol and sex to have fun.... Don't believe everything that you're told ! Unlike some on here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 No, I was not there, (nor were any Jury members or Judges !) but I have read just about everything published about this case, both here, in Spain and in Germany. And to think some folks need alcohol and sex to have fun.... Don't believe everything that you're told ! Unlike some on here... WHAT ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I am a parent. Am I like Chinahand? Only from a million miles away. What irks me is that you'll claim, like others, that you've read up on this subject and feel informed. I posted a link to a rebuttal site, did you bother to read that? Probably not. It's about the whole story not just the lazy self-satisfying conjecture spouted by conspiracy theorists pissing down their legs, smug in false knowledge. But I have read up on it and read the Police reports witness statements and just about everything I have seen about the case. Just about everything you've chosen to read. What makes your opinion any more informed than mine (or about 95% of others)? I'm not claiming I'm any more informed than you, just a little more open about that which I read. And where you get this figure of 95% from is beyond me. You're insinuating that 95% of all the people interested believe the McCann's are guilty. Utter nonsense! . You believe what you have read just like I believe lots of the stuff I've read. Whether I believe it is another matter, I recognise a tract of unsubstantiated and un-evidenced conjecture when I read it. I think the link you posted was bollocks, you think it's fact. Which post? The scientific rebuttals? Suit yourself but it doesn't hold any merit for you to claim you've ''read all about this case'', which I absolutely doubt is the case. Also can't understand the bitterness and swearing in your posts towards those of us with opposing views to yours. ''Those of us...'' Ah, closing ranks now are you? It still doesn't back up the theory that the McCann's murdered or had anything whatsoever to do with Madeleine's disappearence. As I said before, we ALL form our opinions from what we hear, see and read. That includes every Joe Public, Judge and Jury member who have not been at the scene of any of the crimes. We all form our opinions from a subjective stand-point. This is influenced by what we choose to believe from the media we read, watch and listen to and the tittilation value of the subject matter. This headline-grabbing story will've sold more newspapers than most other stories of the decade. Amen. Says the " Unshakable Atheist". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 what interests me pongo is how some very intelligent people can be so accepting of what they are told, even to the point of not looking at any evidence, then state things as truth and gospel and be so certain that they are right. no offense chinahand, it's not just you. im not saying you are wrong but how can you be so certain you are right? The irony in this post is staggering and sum's up nicely the ambiguity of conspiracy theorists and their sources. Scientists say that Hydrogen is the commonest element in the universe. I'd disagree. Stupidity is. (Attr. to F. Zappa and plagiarised with pleasure) must admit i did think at the time "fucking hell, thats a bit rich coming from me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Just like the religion debate - the agnostics are accused by the believers of hiding from the evidence that the believers know to be true, and agnosticism isn't accepted as a legitimate point of view: we're the ones who have been taken in; as Quilp says oh the irony. My position on this issue is doubt, I do not think anyone has enough evidence to justify the vitriol and obsession this case generates. The problem with saying that is those who are sure will bombard you with their proof, but I'm not emotionally invested in it, I'm not interested in your claims to have solved this case. Those whose job it is to collect, weigh up evidence and prosecute people don't agree that any case has been made. Until they do and that case is heard, overcomes a defence and is accepted by a jury I'm honest enough to say I don't know the details. Unlike Dilligaf who clearly wants to put on his black cap and bang down his gavel. a fine analogy chinahand and sure to appeal to the quilpsters agnostic spirit, only trouble is you have got the sides the wrong way round. you and quilp are the religious zealots in reality you arent really questioning, just accepting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Also can't understand the bitterness and swearing in your posts towards those of us with opposing views to yours. You frequently end your posts with the wanker gesture. Should those be read as an expression or as a signature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Also can't understand the bitterness and swearing in your posts towards those of us with opposing views to yours. You frequently end your posts with the wanker gesture. Should those be read as an expression or as a signature? That's mainly for PK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Also can't understand the bitterness and swearing in your posts towards those of us with opposing views to yours. You frequently end your posts with the wanker gesture. Should those be read as an expression or as a signature? That's mainly for PK. Errr less of the "mainly" if you don't mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Also can't understand the bitterness and swearing in your posts towards those of us with opposing views to yours. You frequently end your posts with the wanker gesture. Should those be read as an expression or as a signature? That's mainly for PK. Errr less of the "mainly" if you don't mind! OK sorry, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Just like the religion debate - the agnostics are accused by the believers of hiding from the evidence that the believers know to be true, and agnosticism isn't accepted as a legitimate point of view: we're the ones who have been taken in; as Quilp says oh the irony. My position on this issue is doubt, I do not think anyone has enough evidence to justify the vitriol and obsession this case generates. ... Those whose job it is to collect, weigh up evidence and prosecute people don't agree that any case has been made. Until they do and that case is heard, overcomes a defence and is accepted by a jury I'm honest enough to say I don't know the details. a fine analogy chinahand and sure to appeal to the quilpsters agnostic spirit, only trouble is you have got the sides the wrong way round. you and quilp are the religious zealots in reality you arent really questioning, just accepting I accept I don't have nearly enough knowledge to go on a public forum and make any accusation or insinuations about what happened in this case. I am fascinated with, but disturbed by, the mindset of those who think they do. Stinky are you really saying I am being a religious zealot for thinking like this? Can you try again Stinky, that doesn't make sense to me. Life is about priorities and arranging your priorities to ensure you are able to fulfil your potential. I accept that I'm not going to spend enough time to be able to have an informed opinion on this issue. The evidence simply isn't available - unlike a flat earth! I also think it is highly unlikely that someone sitting behind a computer in the Isle of Man is going to be able to gather enough information to do this either. You clearly disagree, and really that is the main issue between us - don't bombard me with other people's blogs or youtube videos, rather you need to explain why you think these are better than the official investigation. Why should I take them seriously. You think I'm accepting a flawed police investigation when I should be questioning it. Dilligaf's statement about class went to the heart of the matter. Stinky, my understanding is you, Dilligaf etc think the establishment is being manipulated by, or is protecting, the McCanns and they are using their position to stymie a proper investigation. I'm being a sheep for accepting the official investigation. I don't think this is an evidence based point of view, but you are the person calling me an unquestioning religious zealot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.