Madeleine

[Softus]

can you imagine how they must feel about that,i bet it chews them up on the inside every day.

Now Softus, on the basis that they did actually lose Maddy to person or persons unknown, which on the balance of probability would seem to be exactly what happened, I think that you could probably imagine quite well just how they would feel.

You might want to believe that, but you're (a) wrong, and (b) misguided in even posing that question.

I can imagine how I would feel, based on the couple of times that a child of that age has got out of my sight for an instant. If that's what you meant to ask, then I can imagine that, because I can remember the feeling that I had when it happened to me. However, I don't think that I would have exposed any child of mine to the risk that they appear to have done, so it's something of a non-sequitur. I think this because, when the children were young, I used to assume that every person who more than glanced at them was a convicted pædophile, and therefore seal off every opportunity for such a crime.

Notwithstanding all that, it doesn't matter what I can and can't imagine, because you (and many others) are just trading probabilities, which is the precise thing that I avoid doing, especially in an emotive scenario like this.

Or do you wear a tin foil hat, perchance?

Ha ha ha ha ha. Is that what you do, then? You just poke fun at people with whom you disagree?

 

[Shytalkz]

You know, as well as I do, that the likelihood is that the kid was taken by others, without their tacit or implicit approval. Ergo, you would be likely to have a more than reasonable idea of how they would be feeling. Indeed, your extreme paranoia about your own kids suggests that that would be the case. To suggest thay you have a complete non-comprehension of any emotional feeling on their part is, I would wager, more of a wind-up than any comment I have made, flippant or otherwise.

Or are you just a solipsist? Cogit ergo sum and anything else has too many variables for you to know/think/feel/emote about, one way or the other?

Pass me the bacofoil, must try it for size

 

[Bilioustrumpstaine]

Question. The Maddie fund is into 7 figures, why don't they offer the fund as a reward for Maddies safe return.

 

[Softus]

You know, as well as I do, that the likelihood is that the kid was taken by others, without their tacit or implicit approval.

I have no way of assessing the likelihood, but you go right ahead and believe what you want to believe.

Ergo, you would be likely to have a more than reasonable idea of how they would be feeling.

Interesting theory. Wrong, but interesting.

Indeed, your extreme paranoia about your own kids suggests that that would be the case.

I have, and had, no paranoia. Paranoia is an irrational feeling, whereas I assessed the risk (probability and impact) and decided that the impact was not worth the gamble, no matter how small the probability.

To suggest thay you have a complete non-comprehension of any emotional feeling on their part is, I would wager, more of a wind-up than any comment I have made, flippant or otherwise.

I've not suggested any lack of emotional feeling. I've just observed that I'm not inclined to have one until I know more facts.

Or are you just a solipsist? Cogit ergo sum and anything else has too many variables for you to know/think/feel/emote about, one way or the other?

This has nothing to do with me. I didn't take the child, or leave her alone, or create a media circus, or appear on television, or tell different stories to different people.

If you prefer to think that my refusal to believe what you do is some kind of personality disorder, then please do that. It doesn't make you right, and the personal comments from you just make you look foolish.

 

[Shytalkz]

I have no way of assessing the likelihood, but you go right ahead and believe what you want to believe.

It's not a question of belief, per se, but, based purely on likelihood, the likelihood is more that their child was taken, as opposed to them having some hand in it. If it wasn't and the opposite was the norm, then the news would be full of such stories and we'd all be going "Aww shucks, another kid gets "disappeared" by its parents, what is the world coming to?".

Interesting theory. Wrong, but interesting.

Only a solipsist would say that.

I have, and had, no paranoia. Paranoia is an irrational feeling, whereas I assessed the risk (probability and impact) and decided that the impact was not worth the gamble, no matter how small the probability.

Then that would not be a rational response to an infinitisimally small probability, would it? There's a probability of some amount that you will have an accident each and every time you get into your car, but does that stop you driving it? I know that the probability of me actually getting hurt doing a bungee jump is pretty small, but knowing that doesn't make me think, ok I'll give it a go and I steer well clear - an irrational thought process and, as such, paranoia. Yet I'll happily hop on a motorbike, where the odds are much, much greater of getting hurt...

I've not suggested any lack of emotional feeling. I've just observed that I'm not inclined to have one until I know more facts.

Then, as the facts as they stand at present are not to the level that you require to allow yourself to express any form of emotion, by definition you do not have any emotional feeling at this point in time about it, is that not the case?

This has nothing to do with me. I didn't take the child, or leave her alone, or create a media circus, or appear on television, or tell different stories to different people.

And?

If you prefer to think that my refusal to believe what you do is some kind of personality disorder, then please do that. It doesn't make you right, and the personal comments from you just make you look foolish.

I never expressed or implied any sort of pd - although as time wears on... . It's not a question of who thinks they're right and v v: I just find it strange that you can profess to be devoid as to any empathy with the most likely emotions that the McCanns felt and are feeling, yet can muster enough of some kind of energy to even bother making the completely emotionless comments in the forum about it that you do.

 

[securespark]

Shy... We will have to beg to differ.

Indeed

Once may be a mistake but I cannot accept repeated acts of child abandonment is a mistake.

"Abandonment" is somewhat of a harsh term to use. That to me is parents fekkin off on holiday abroad and leaving the kid at home alone to fend for itself; going out to get drugs and not returning for several days; and so forth. Reckless, stupid, thoughtless, chancing their arms, maybe, but not abandonment.

Abandonment is exactly what it is. To use your eloquent phrase ( ), they were "fekkin off" for a meal a drink & a laugh leaving the kids at home (albeit a temporary one) alone to fend for themselves. Not once, but on several occasions

several days

Abandon in my dictionary is defined as "to desert, to leave behind".

The length of time is not specified.

 

[Shytalkz]

Semantics. The lifeblood of forums the world over .

Edited to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abandonment

 

[Softus]

Only a solipsist would say that.

I can't align solipsism with the egalitarian act of sharing knowledge and experience on an Internet DIY forum, so I would be mildly entertained to watch you attempt it.

I have, and had, no paranoia. Paranoia is an irrational feeling, whereas I assessed the risk (probability and impact) and decided that the impact was not worth the gamble, no matter how small the probability.

Then that would not be a rational response to an infinitisimally small probability, would it?

Clearly I'm going to say that it would, so you'd be better off asking someone else.

There's a probability of some amount that you will have an accident each and every time you get into your car, but does that stop you driving it?

No, because it's my life in my hands, not children whose care I'm implicitly assigned.

Yet I'll happily hop on a motorbike, where the odds are much, much greater of getting hurt.

Me too, so at least we have that much in common.

I've not suggested any lack of emotional feeling. I've just observed that I'm not inclined to have one until I know more facts.

Then, as the facts as they stand at present are not to the level that you require to allow yourself to express any form of emotion, by definition you do not have any emotional feeling at this point in time about it, is that not the case?

Not quite; it isn't a matter of preventing myself from expressing emotion - I'm not a Vulcan. If I felt emotion about it I would express it. If you read the entire topic you'll find evidence of me having already done that. Moreover, it was my gut feeling when watching the mother on TV that led me to post on this old topic. The precise opposite of solipsism, I would suggest.

This has nothing to do with me. I didn't take the child, or leave her alone, or create a media circus, or appear on television, or tell different stories to different people.

And?

...so your desire to focus on some perceived and alleged emotional disfunction on my part is utterly irrelevant to the topic in hand.

If you prefer to think that my refusal to believe what you do is some kind of personality disorder, then please do that. It doesn't make you right, and the personal comments from you just make you look foolish.

I never expressed or implied any sort of pd - although as time wears on... .

OK, but you have now, so just carry on thinking that if it pleases you.

It's not a question of who thinks they're right and v v: I just find it strange that you can profess to be devoid as to any empathy with the most likely emotions that the McCanns felt and are feeling, yet can muster enough of some kind of energy to even bother making the completely emotionless comments in the forum about it that you do.

If telling me that you find me strange is your best summary of the last few exchanges on this topic, then I could have saved you a lot of time and admitted at the outset to being strange.

It's nice to end on a note of agreement.

 

[megawatt]

You tell him Softy boy ... I think

 

[Trazor]

You tell him Softy boy ... I think

When two egotists meet, it's an I for an I.

 

[Shytalkz]

Yet I'll happily hop on a motorbike, where the odds are much, much greater of getting hurt.

Me too, so at least we have that much in common.

Oh why didn't you say ...what's your ride?

 

[Softus]

Huge, black, throbbing, enormous, throbbing, black, British, (and did I mention throbbing?), Sprint ST.

You?
____________________

Edit: oh b*gger, I'm hijacking...

 

[Shytalkz]

749. With Termis naturally! Very nice vibrations, 3250rpm causes a particularly tingly harmonic response...

 

[securespark]

You didn't mention "throbbing", Softus..

 

[Softus]

It was implied though, and any biker would know that I was thinking it.