Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
20 September, 2007 at 11:43 am #287022
@drivel wrote:
@fastcars wrote:
@anita Gofradump wrote:
2hrs 9mins video, have u lost your mind lol.
You wouldnt expect somebody who types so much long winded cr*ap to post a “short” video do you?
That’s true fast
Spoils all the threads as far as I am concerned – you’d think he’d be able to dilute the cr*ap to some sort of more manageable diarrhoea !!!!
But whats the point of dumbing things down to such a level that only retards can grasp the faintest wisp of the original point and supporting thought behind it?
Only mindnumb idiots discuss a topic superficially and in a way that leaves interpretation open to be widely varying, a “point” by its very definition is a specific interpretation, put forth in a way that leaves as little as possible open to missinterpretation. Thats the difference between actual communication and “talking”
One gets a point across within the intended context, or attempts to. The other simply skims over a point leaving it open to be read however the readers own issues and perspectives dictate, therefore “communicating” nothing whatsoever except by chance
I COULD equally repeatedly and incessantly whinge and whine like a little girl about the enumeorous amount of vaccuous, logic bereft, oversimplified posts that dont have enough detail to even clearly state a point of any degree, but to me thats just how some people have to post either because they dont really want to actually discuss a topic or because its indicative of the depth theyre capable of thinking to simply because its not the way “I” prefer to post, but I dont
Thats youre domain it seems lol
20 September, 2007 at 9:53 am #288085So as if leaving all three kids in an unlocked hotel room to save on childminding fees wasnt bad enough, now we find out they transport the twins around in the boot to get out of having to buy or rent child seats hahaha………… :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
The thot plickens….. :shock:
20 September, 2007 at 9:41 am #287916Infact to make it clearer this is how, when translated into “miklish” I read that passage with the addition of the undertones
“Yeah yeah if it will make you feel better we feel guilty etc blah blah, whatever you want me to say if it makes you happy. But why waste time on that when the other persons guilt means mine doesnt really matter in the slightest because its them who have done something wrong, not me”
Whereas a more pallateable type of statement even if still stoic and flat would be along the lines of
“If only we had locked the door, or used the childminding service or even taken the kids with us none of this would have happened (acceptance of what SHOULD be unnavoidably obvious complicity there), we know and accept we totally let maddie down which in turn made it so easy for her abductor to take her (a mere statement of fact) and will have to live with that for the rest of our lives, but can we please focus on finding maddie and her abductors for now as our own wrong doing can be examined at a later date once the more important issue has been resolved (a far more reasonable request IMO, and one that doesnt seek to deny self responsibility or guilt, merely to postpone the discussion of it till later)”
That statement even if delivered flatly would on an instincually psychologically level and even if delivered by a sociopath who didnt actually feel any of the remorse described would still have given them a far more valid illusion of innocence IMO, even tho what was said wasnt really that different
In interpersonal communication most of what is said has already been edited and altered to fit a preconceptive aim or image either consciously, subconciously or both and as such isnt particularly valid, getting less valid the greater the reasoning for pre editing
What is hard to remove, hide or alter tho, either consciously or subconciously is the way the things are said, and the things that arent said or are totally avoided or the listener is steered away from
Those things are usually far far more important than what IS actually vocalised
20 September, 2007 at 9:36 am #287915@forumhostpb wrote:
@Bad Manners wrote:
I think you’re looking at the bottom four paragraph’s of this article Mary. :wink:
An interesting article BM. The bit you refer to I think is:
An interview with Mr and Mrs McCann was released yesterday in which they spoke about being under the “magnifying glass of suspicion”, claiming: ‘If we can get though this we can get though anything’.
In it they admit their guilt at leaving their “perfect child” alone. But they deny all claims of being involved in Madeleine’s disappearance.
“Of course we feel guilty at being at the restaurant when she disappeared,” said Kate. But she added: “That will always be so, but the person who broke in and took Madeleine is the most guilty.”
I think that the quote “If we can get though this we can get though anything” should have read “If we can get away with this we can get away with anything.”
I also note that whilst they make a half-hearted attempt to accept their personal responsibility (“… of course we feel guilty…”) they immediatly seek to shift the blame onto somebody else (“…the person who broke in and took Maddie is the most guilty”).
Leaving aside my own belief that they are a pair of callous cold-hearted manipulators …. wothout doubt THEY are the most guilty – it simply wouldn’t have happened at all if they had discharged their parental responsibilities and looked after their children properly…..
…. assuming that you buy into their half-baked and unbelievable story in the first place.
My personal interpretation of that passage is this
““Of course we feel guilty at being at the restaurant when she disappeared” said Kate”
Shouldnt they have actually have simply felt “guilt” at leaving her alone? Whether or not she was abducted?
The wording of that shows very little if any actual guilt or acceptance that they have done wrong by leaving their kids, simply that by sheer bad luck some selfish peasant stole one of their “fashion accessories”
It doesnt to me show any actual guilt, it doesnt even show a very convincing facade of pretending to be guilty, its too flat, isnt self effacing enough and just rings of a “matter of fact” re-iteration of what they think others are thinking but without any convincing level of conviction or believability
. But she added: “That will always be so, but the person who broke in and took Madeleine is the most guilty.”
Now this is interesting, what break in? They are. as has been a common factor in this conveniently skipping over quite pivotal details perhaps in the hopes people reading will be too retarded to realise. The apartment wasnt locked, there wasnt a break in, and more importantly there wasnt even a reason not to have locked the apartment, IF as were expected to believe they were in the slightest bit concerned for or paying attention to their kids safety and well being. Infact had the door been locked the alleged abductor might have walked on by not bothering to risk the noise of a break in which also would have removed the risk of one of the kids waking up and being able to simply wander off
Ittespective of displays of grief, as sociopaths wouldnt have those anyway. They SHOULD have a much better understanding of the gravity of their trail of blatant errors and stupidity and should also be (if genuine) more self critical and self effacing
But obviously if they are complicit in her dissapearance any nudge in the direction of their guilt with any real vigor would be avoided completely due to the strategic problems with it
But to non sociopaths the emotional rather than the logical is prevalent in such situations, and strategy accounts for nothing other than an appearance of clear avoidence of particular areas of speculation which wouldnt be quite so readily avoided by innocent people, not even innocent sociopaths as they would assume they dont need to avoid the areas as their actual innocence was unnavoidably incontrivertible
Guilty sociopaths tho, they would seek to consistently nudge in any other direction available
20 September, 2007 at 7:36 am #287913On all of the televised statements and interviews their statements on them leaving the kids alone were at best pathetic, their wording revolved around phrases like “we were naive” and “we made a silly mistake” or my favourite “we had a lapse in judgement” :shock:
Their wording and tone would have seemed right at home IF they had actually been talking about something like assuming tinned tomato soup didnt need sieving to check for lumps as it SHOULD be totally liquified, one of which had then choked maddy to death
Thats naiveity, thats a “silly mistake” as its reasonable to assume it wouldnt need sieving, but leaving three toddlers alone just isnt done justice by such wishy washy sentiments in the slightest
And its that very dismissive insufficient levels of realisations of the magnitude of just how irresponsibly and abhorrently selfishly neglectful they were
Had they used words such as “irresponsibly and abhorrently selfishly neglectful” more people would have far more respect and a lot more of an inclination to believe them I reckon,
but as their actual tone is a very dismissive non serious one concerning the matter of leaving the kids and the complicity in doing so re her abduction IF thats what has happened it creates a very real and very easy to understand negative view of them, and their apparent lack of depth of feelings of guilt, irresponsibility, selfishness, complacency, complicity and downright neglegtful actions opens the quite reasonable speculation to what other areas they could be equally morally vaccuous and lacking in empathethic sentiments and feelings
As I have been saying from the beginning, as small a point as that might seem it does, to me at least, suggest the quite distinct possibility that they could both be to some greater or larger extent sociopathic in their emotional understanding and feelings towards situations, people and detached from the world in general
And also that they have been wasting money on their “campaign advisors” who should have picked this sentiment up instantly and told them to fake guilt and remorse to a reasonable extent over the matter of leaving the kids alone instead of talking about it as tho it was merely them leaving a tv on standby that then started a fire that killed her because the baby sitter had been asleep and the smoke alarm batteries had been flat as that COULD be deemed naiveity and a silly mistake, deliberately leaving three kids alone isnt, in any reasonable persons view so trivial, accidental or non serious tho
19 September, 2007 at 9:45 pm #288137@sharongooner wrote:
I only allow the heating on 4 days a year total, spilt over about 8 days. Half here half there. I have energy saving bulbs like everywhere.
Thats what letting British Gas control your electric does for you. WTF do they know about electricity??!! Its all in the name!
Im not allowed to change suppliers till I catch up the defecit either :twisted:
You could always collect up all the energy saving things and see if they burn, if they do then that would cut your heating costs dramatically lol :shock:
19 September, 2007 at 9:35 pm #288135@sharongooner wrote:
Can you explain why then, I moved into a brand spanking new build last May and my electricity bill has gone from 35 quid a month to 105?
I think I have the answer goonybint
When they say “energy saving” what they really mean is that its SOOOOO expensive to heat that you have less money to spend on luxuries and socialising, which in turn means you have to walk about less which therein saves YOU energy
But I can see why you would have naively thought it meant it saved on heating energy lol :lol:
18 September, 2007 at 1:10 pm #287019@anita Gofradump wrote:
2hrs 9mins video, have u lost your mind lol.
Surely you only need to watch the first 5-10 minutes to suss out if you find it interesting enough to continue watching or not?
Is there some universal law I’m not aware of that says if someone watches the first few minutes of a programme they HAVE to watch all of it even if they dont like it? :shock:
But as an aside, lets say for a moment as its something I do believe that the 2 hrs and 5 minutes programme is “potentially” one of the most important programmes ever made and uncovers one of the largest lies and possibly one of the largest cases of genocide and mass murder ever perpetrated outshadowing even the jewish holocaust
But at just over 2 hours long its far tooooooo loooooooong to “bother” with
Yet most people who wouldnt be able to bother with something SOOOOOO LOOOOOONG will be spending far more time than that most weeks watching such brain rotting crap as eastenders, hollyoaks, sitcoms and anything else that helps them escape from reality or having to think
And we wonder why the country is screwed lol
Well DUH!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
18 September, 2007 at 12:59 pm #287017@drivel wrote:
@ubermik wrote:
@drivel wrote:
@johnboy25 wrote:
Just out of curiosity Drivel – what theories are there behind 11/11?
I was trying to add a spice of humour to a topic that has gone well OTT in here – but the fact remains that most of the hysterical anti_McCanns are the same people who hold the ridculous conspiracy theories – says something about the kind of folks they are !!!!
Open minded ones with the ability to think freely is a good description with many of the rather ludicrous cover stories the majority of people brainwashed into swallowing without question
If something cant stand up to scrutiny it doesnt deserve to be regarded as believable, and when the powers that be discourage something being questioned that alone is more than enough reason to question it meticulously
And when the weight of respected scientific opinion at least equals or outstrips the “accepted” explaination it becomes a combination of naiveity, stupidity and fear not to question things
And all the unbelievable conspiracy theories ??? created by whackos !!!!!
it’s mind numbing Uber – surely you have more intelligence than thatBut what is “unbelievable”??
At one point it was unbelievable that the world could be round, it was unbelievable that something like watergate could happen, it was unbelievable that we could land on the moon, and to some still is lol :lol:
The thing here is that some theories ARE observations of factual high level conspiracies, some with mal intent and some simply because the average joe doesnt need to know all the facts and probably wouldnt grasp the complexities anyway, some are indeed complete whacko notions and some are a mixture of both
But to assume anything called a conspiracy theory is whack is the real idiocy, each should stand or fall on its own merits and many wont be able to be conclusively proven one way or the other meaning its niether fact nor whack in a factually indisputeable sense
Luckily for the powers that be the mass majority are good sheep, they wont and in many cases arent capable of questioning or forming their own views so over time the need to hide actual conspiracies has declined and the ability of the population to not want to, or not be able to question what they are told has increased proportionately
So now we are at the stage where some of the actual genuine conspiracies are huger and harder to believe than some of the ficticious demented theories of yesteryear
And as long as so many people believe something is nonsense just because the powers that be attach the label of “conspiracy theory” the actual conspiracies will continiue to be more overt and increase in magnitude and exagerations or dimminuitive claims will also continue to increase in an eviroment that means they dont have to be susbtantiated due to never being questioned en masse
One of the best examples I’ve seen to date which to be honest I would have ridiculed myself perhaps 5-10 years ago is this one
The “ludicrous demented conspiracy theory” seems to have far more corroborative evidence and actual scientific fact to back it up than the accepted political theory and yet its still classed as almost heracy just to question its validity
Some times the bigger the lie the easier it is to get away with as people are less likely or inclined to think something so huge could be a lie, so if you want the day off work on cup day rather than saying you have sickness and diorhea saying a relative died of a heart attack the night before is far more believable as an example
Infact as for
@drivel wrote:
surely you have more intelligence than that
Surely actual intelligence is the use of the mind? The ability to open mindedly look at all sides of an issue without prejudice and formulate a unique perspective and opinion?
Dismissing something merely because loads of people tell you its hogwash is hardly a sign of intelligence or thinking on any level, its simply following pre programmed social conditioning to do as one is told
After all, no harm comes from questioning and scrutinising such things, infact even with totally nonsensical ones it can be quite a laugh or interesting on various levels. Yet many fight against even looking at any opposing evidence as tho they are scared their perspective might be altered and will ridicule and criticise things they havent and wont even look at first
Is THAT intelligence? Or fear?
18 September, 2007 at 11:53 am #287015@drivel wrote:
@johnboy25 wrote:
Just out of curiosity Drivel – what theories are there behind 11/11?
I was trying to add a spice of humour to a topic that has gone well OTT in here – but the fact remains that most of the hysterical anti_McCanns are the same people who hold the ridculous conspiracy theories – says something about the kind of folks they are !!!!
Open minded ones with the ability to think freely is a good description with many of the rather ludicrous cover stories the majority of people brainwashed into swallowing without question
If something cant stand up to scrutiny it doesnt deserve to be regarded as believable, and when the powers that be discourage something being questioned that alone is more than enough reason to question it meticulously
And when the weight of respected scientific opinion at least equals or outstrips the “accepted” explaination it becomes a combination of naiveity, stupidity and fear not to question things
-
AuthorPosts