Re: Princess Diana : Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:18 pm  

Standee wrote:

your lack of respect and knowledge is noted

I don't have any respect for you. And you're right, I have no knowledge who your gormless avatar is.

do you always have an avatar that looks nothing like any woman you'll ever get within 100 miles of?

Not always. I have had an avatar of Jose Mourinho before.

I've been within about 40 miles of the young lady in my avatar. Could've met her too, if I'd wanted to. Not quite that sad though.

Re: Princess Diana : Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:21 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I don't have any respect for you. And you're right, I have no knowledge who your gormless avatar is.

Not always. I have had an avatar of Jose Mourinho before.

I've been within about 40 miles of the young lady in my avatar. Could've met her too, if I'd wanted to. Not quite that sad though.

it's nice to know ignorance and arrogance abound on the Sin Bin

I am sure you'll make someone proud one day, an undertaker perhaps.

Re: Princess Diana : Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:25 pm  

Standee wrote:

it's nice to know ignorance and arrogance abound on the Sin Bin

I am sure you'll make someone proud one day, an undertaker perhaps.

Who is your gormless avatar of? Why should I know who he is?

Re: Princess Diana : Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:30 pm  

I have respect for Johnny Whiteley's achievements in RL. It's still a gormless photo though. If you had enough respect for him you'd have got a better pic and wouldn't post like a tvvat while using his pic.

Re: Princess Diana : Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:36 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

No point arguing with you when you've got your head up your ar5e.

Translation: you know you made a prat of yourself, but think going ad hominem will somehow make you look clever. It doesn't. Now, about that point. Was there one, or are you conceding it?

Re: Princess Diana : Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:21 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Translation: you know you made a prat of yourself, but think going ad hominem will somehow make you look clever. It doesn't. Now, about that point. Was there one, or are you conceding it?

No, you made a prat of yourself with the moronic comment that the "police" don't have jurisdiction in foreign countries to charge the McCann's with child neglect.

I made the point that it would have been the Portuguese police who charged them with child neglect.

You then said that it wouldn't be the Portuguese police charging them, as they looked into that possibility and didn't.

I posted from wikipedia which outlined the fact that the Portuguese police named them as suspects in the murder of their child.

So when exactly do you think the Portuguese police were considering charging the McCann's with child neglect? Before or after they thought that the McCann's killed their child?

And you were clearly the one to go ad hominem with your "Is there a point in there somewhere, struggling for attention?"

Re: Princess Diana : Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:24 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

No, you made a prat of yourself with the moronic comment that the "police" don't have jurisdiction in foreign countries to charge the McCann's with child neglect.

I made the point that it would have been the Portuguese police who charged them with child neglect.

Ah, so you felt that a "moronic" comment nevertheless justified a serious reply. Interestingly dotty.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

You then said that it wouldn't be the Portuguese police charging them, as they looked into that possibility and didn't.

Aye. Not much gets past you, does it?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I posted from wikipedia which outlined the fact that the Portuguese police named them as suspects in the murder of their child.

Yes, this being a random bit of old news which had nothing whatsoever to do with the point relating to child neglect. Except, of course, in your head, where I understand it was, you thought, some killer point. But why would you think that? Let's see:

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

So when exactly do you think the Portuguese police were considering charging the McCann's with child neglect? Before or after they thought that the McCann's killed their child?

Ah! Great! Heavily laden with sarcasm, but you reveal that you actually think that it's an either-or scenario. You don't think the Portuguese authorities are smart enough to consider all possibilities? Is that it? or what?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

And you were clearly the one to go ad hominem with your "Is there a point in there somewhere, struggling for attention?"

This is not ad hominem. This is referring directly to a post made by you. Not to you. You made a post, the relevant point of which was not discernible. I challenged the lack of point. I suggest you look up "ad hominem".

Oh, btw, I think that the Portuguese authorities were considering whether or not the McCanns should be charged with child neglect from the early part of their investigations. Why do I think this? Because they said so.

Wow! That shocked you, didn't it! You thought you had another killer point there, and yet again instead all you have is egg on your face. If you want to check, confirmation of this was released on 28th May 2008 in official court documents released by the Supreme Court of Justice in Evora. These, inter alia, showed that one of the things the police were looking into was abandonment, for which you can be jailed in Portugal for up to 10 years, but the prosecution would have to prove an intention to neglect the child.

Sorry to pis.s on your self righteous bonfire again, but you do set yourself up.

Re: Princess Diana : Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:41 am  

Oh, for goodness' sake, you're all missing the point ... how will it all affect my house price?
That's the key issue here.

Re: Princess Diana : Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:19 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Ah, so you felt that a "moronic" comment nevertheless justified a serious reply. Interestingly dotty.

It wasn't a *serious* reply. It was a simple pointing out that they do have police in Portugal.

Yes, this being a random bit of old news which had nothing whatsoever to do with the point relating to child neglect. Except, of course, in your head, where I understand it was, you thought, some killer point. But why would you think that? Let's see:

I'd made the point at great length in posts previously that a child neglect charge on parents who had lost a child to abduction (and possibly murder) was unnecessary when they were already suffering the loss of that child.

Ah! Great! Heavily laden with sarcasm, but you reveal that you actually think that it's an either-or scenario. You don't think the Portuguese authorities are smart enough to consider all possibilities? Is that it? or what?

The Portuguese authorities weren't smart enough to correctly analyse the DNA evidence before them and wrongly declared the McCann's as suspects in her killing. So I don't think they would have been particularly interested in pursuing a neglect case against them at that time.

Wouldn't pursuing a neglect case by charging the McCann's of leaving her alone that night have slightly got in the way of their theory that one, or both, of them were actually murdering Madeline?

This is not ad hominem.

Just stop ****ing lying. The "struggling for attention?" was a clear jibe. A slightly more subtle jibe was the "Is there a point in there somewhere"

This is referring directly to a post made by you. Not to you. You made a post, the relevant point of which was not discernible. I challenged the lack of point. I suggest you look up "ad hominem".

I suggest you go eff yourself.

Oh, btw, I think that the Portuguese authorities were considering whether or not the McCanns should be charged with child neglect from the early part of their investigations. Why do I think this? Because they said so.

So why did you chime in with your "I know we're in Europe an' all, but I'm still not 100% certain that the police have jurisdiction over alleged offences in forrin countries."?

Wow! That shocked you, didn't it! You thought you had another killer point there, and yet again instead all you have is egg on your face.

All I have on my face is the excrement that has been spat out from your mouth.

If you want to check, confirmation of this was released on 28th May 2008 in official court documents released by the Supreme Court of Justice in Evora. These, inter alia, showed that one of the things the police were looking into was abandonment, for which you can be jailed in Portugal for up to 10 years, but the prosecution would have to prove an intention to neglect the child.

They were looking into a neglect charge and ultimately rejected it. As I've been saying all along a neglect charge was inappropriate this pretty much supports what I've been arguing from the start.

Sorry to pis.s on your self righteous bonfire again, but you do set yourself up.

You are full of s**t.

Re: Princess Diana : Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:00 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

The Portuguese authorities ... I don't think they would have been particularly interested in pursuing a neglect case against them at that time.

Nice swerve, but your point was that you incorrectly believed they didn't investigate child neglect. Why not just accept that?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Wouldn't pursuing a neglect case by charging the McCann's of leaving her alone that night have slightly got in the way of their theory that one, or both, of them were actually murdering Madeline?

The question wasn’t whether it “got in the way”, just that the child neglect issue was actively considered, contrary to what you thought.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Just stop ****ing lying.

I haven’t started lying, and don’t intend to. Once again, you clearly have no clue what ad hominem means. It is nothing to do with real or perceived "jibes”, though goodness knows your posts aren’t short of those. There's nowt wrong with a good jibe, and frankly ridiculing your drivel is also entertaining, though not as funny as the picture I am getting of your cheeks reddening and your saliva spluttering onto your screen.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I suggest you go eff yourself.

See, that's what I'm talking about. Debate for 12 year olds. Embarrassingly pathetic.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

All I have on my face is the excrement that has been spat out from your mouth.

Oh, grow up, man!

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

They were looking into a neglect charge

YAY! The penny has finally droipped! Do I get an apology, then?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

As I've been saying all along a neglect charge was inappropriate this pretty much supports what I've been arguing from the start.

No, what you actually said was :-

So when exactly do you think the Portuguese police were considering charging the McCann's with child neglect? Before or after they thought that the McCann's killed their child?

That’s you thinking you're taking the pi*s. that’s you ridiculing the idea that the Portuguese police were considering child neglect. That’s you claiming through your clumsy rhetorical question that they DID NOT LOOK INTO A NEGLECT CHARGE. Sadly turns out that you were 100% wrong.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

You are full of s**t.

You really need to calm down. I should also point out that this is illogical, since if on your face there is excrement that I spat out, then I couldn’t at the same time still be full.