Madeleine

[les middy]

according to you lot you never catch anything, or cant, maybe thats why you come out with hurtful things about other poeple,

 

steve

oi you leave me out of this

 

i can catch fish and do on a regular basis

 

the others i cannot speak for

[Huge_Vitae]

according to you lot you never catch anything, or cant, maybe thats why you come out with hurtful things about other poeple,

 

steve

Better be careful, ColinW might pretend to like you at the moment but he isn't always going to be on your side.

 

Please leave me a personal opinion on what is a 'hurtful' thing to say. Perhaps I can assist you a little bit more.

 

I'd also be careful because you have obviously found the posts on here were I readily admit to having never caught a fish in my life, or is that supposition, assumption or ignorance on your/my part.

 

PS. Dear ColinW, following your kind words I have not corrected the spelling mistakes on this post. Don't want to be a bully or anything.

[ColinW]

Better be careful, ColinW might pretend to like you at the moment but he isn't always going to be on your side.

 

I can agree with someone making sensible comments without "pretending to like him". Similarly I can disagree with you without disliking you. I've never met either of you

 

PS. I think you mean "...where I readily admit...", with a H. Easily done, isn't it?

[billy50000]

steve good

 

if you are a commercial fisherman then what exactly would you know about catching fish??(just wondering)

 

it doesnt require much skill dragging a net around really does it!!!

 

if your not a c fisherman then excuse my question,and regarding not being able to catch anything(i do most times)us real fisherman always have days where we blank`thats fishing`

 

tbh i think commercial fisherman have ruined the fishing in most areas due to over netting etc(my opinion of course)

 

back to the macanns

ps i was looking through news reports about the % the dna matched and its amazing how the % differs from website to website reports and news papers:)

 

im just waiting for the macann pair to break and admit something:)all the police need is a body and the true account can be told!

 

in this day and age its not unheard for a parent to top thier own kid!!

and this COULD be the biggest coverup todate(or attempt)

Edited September 14, 2007 by billy50000

[snotty]

I read today the police want to question Mrs McCann again regarding the 40 questions she refused to answer the first time around... what's that about 'if you have nothing to hide you've nothing to fear'

I just can't see why you would refuse to answer questions.

 

It also alleged in todays reports that Mr.McCann is rather less than a 'modern father' in that he doesn't do much to help his wife look after the kids. She was reported to be worn out coping with Madeleines 'over activity' ...just like most normal 3 year olds then.

 

It is so easy to see why many people are now doubting the McCanns version of events, they really haven't done themselves any favours.

[kleinboet]

Sorry I haven't been posting (been on holiday to butlins, Minehead) but I have been following the news down there. It would appear that the McCanns want to have the vehicle tested themselves as they say the evidence was 'planted'????? (this from the Guardian)

I want to know how somebody can plant Maddies blood and DNA in a vehicle that was rented two weeks after she went missing AND IS STILL MISSING!! Where did they get the material to 'plant'?

The gutter press are saying that the samples that were sent to British labs show that the blood was Maddie's and it also showed that she O/D'd on sleeping tablets!!

[Huge_Vitae]

PS. I think you mean "...where I readily admit...", with a H. Easily done, isn't it?

 

It's called bait Colin, In other places it's called a trap.

 

In a Court of Law it is called a leading or Investigative question. I did not wish to elevate our little disagreement any further and was prepared to leave it as stated, but I decided to leave you the opportunity to further the argument if you wish. As you have decided you are so much smarter and so much better than me, and have posted as such then lets lock horns and see shall we. Bearing in mind that I have not started this but I retain the right to post in my own defence.

 

I have made comment regarding your apparent support of Steve's position yet I note:

 

Well I finally found someone describing the size of pair trawls. Since it was a submission to parliament I hope it doesn't rate as "rumour and inaccuracy".

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c.../88/3120306.htm

 

As for me grouping all commercial fishermen as "lawbreakers and pariahs" (your words not mine) well as it happens that IS how I see them, an opinion formed by watching their behaviour in my local area and reading about what they get up to elsewhere in the media (court appearances etc NOT rumours). I have read on here that it is impossible to make a living legally out of fishing and yet they DO make a living. From that I can only draw one conclusion.

 

Steve is, by your admission, rightly or wrongly a Commercial Fisherman. Apparently a "Perriah" ( An outcast in society and lowest of the low) You know this to be true as you have read it in Newspapers and by watching their behaviour. Well done you, you super person amongst us all. You are able to read something in a newspaper about a particular group or doctrine in society and then apply YOUR opinion to all others who YOU see fit into the Type Cast you yourself (yourselves) wish to give them.

 

You have read the reports, or gathered information on this incident from what you have seen or read, from which you have formed an opinion that you have decided to defend. That is your right and equally that is my, and others on here own right.

 

 

I've never met either of you

 

Exactly, you have no knowledge of either of us yet you choose to post in support of him, who you previously rebuke just because of his occupation, without knowing what choice he had to follow that course in his life, and ATTEMPT (rather poorly) to gain some feeble kudos over me because my opinion differs from yours.

 

How sad it is that you walked the line that I knew you would take. How was I able to identify and type cast you so quickly?

 

But then, I only CLAIM to have experience in such matters.

 

But I think I will leave my last comment as a reply to one of your other posts.

 

with apologies to the two folks who responded to this non-contributory diatribe, I'm removing this remark and their responses in hopes that an important question can get some decent discussion.

 

Pro, con, your choice but with some content please.

 

Newt

[ 28. September 2005, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Newt ]

 

If you want to post constructive statements, or those that you believe are worthwhile posting, then, please continue to do so, that is what we are all here for. If you wish to post childish insults or attempt to show that you are the smartest frog in the pond make sure you look around to see who can jump higher. I will hold a rational, reasonable discussion with anybody. I will not sit back and shut up because somebody wants to trade insults.

 

P.S. I will add a few other slight mistakes to my posts to keep yew interested. Let's see how long you wish to continue. I have more important work researching my family TREE.

[Cranfield]

"Perriah" ?

Do you mean "pariah" ?

 

 

 

 

Joke, just joining in the wrong spelling etc., lark. :lol:

[Huge_Vitae]

"Perriah" ?

Do you mean "pariah" ?

Joke, just joining in the wrong spelling etc., lark. :lol:

 

My mistake there Cranfield. And one that I will admit to.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Huge_Vitae

[captain cojones]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6995499.stm

 

i was interested to see the Mccanns choice of legal advisor.

i wonder what their chances would be, of winning against a european arrest warrant?

slim i would have thought.

he would not of course, be qualified to stand in court and represent them in portugal.