A big Thanx to MEL & ManyFaces4aChild, Appealing photos

Reference Forum for all information regarding translations and PT Law etc and other useful information.

Re: A big Thanx to MEL & ManyFaces4aChild, Appealing photos

Postby beaker1 » Tue May 20, 2008 5:16 pm

roisin, i think what bonny is saying is there is a line, and it's being crossed, and it's not a 3a's line, it's just a line that most people think is wrong, and it's nto the discussion matter either, it's the way it's being done.

that's the way i see it.
-----Just an opinion from a muppet.
User avatar
beaker1
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:32 am

Re: A big Thanx to MEL & ManyFaces4aChild, Appealing photos

Postby roisin » Tue May 20, 2008 5:17 pm

beaker1 wrote:roisin, i think what bonny is saying is there is a line, and it's being crossed, and it's not a 3a's line, it's just a line that most people think is wrong, and it's nto the discussion matter either, it's the way it's being done.

that's the way i see it.


Cool.
I didn't mean to be nasty. Probably this dern bronchitis! :mrgreen:
"Their reluctance to return to Portugal is a clear sign that they are guilty."
User avatar
roisin
Local Lag
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:47 pm

Re: A big Thanx to MEL & ManyFaces4aChild, Appealing photos

Postby beaker1 » Tue May 20, 2008 5:57 pm

urghhhh, hope you get rid of it soon! :(


I dont think you were being nasty, some people see something that backs up their hatred or dislike of the Mccanns and wont budge from their first thoughts even if it involves madeleine being wripped apart, and when questioned they get aggresive towards the poster because they dared to question their 'ideas' that they want to be 'facts'.
They see what they want to see and wont be swayed with evidence to the contrary. That does no good for propping up the 'anti' side one bit, and is certainly not in the spirit of wanting justice for Madeleine.

i said it before, there is only one truth, and you wont find it by being ignorant to simple picture file processes.

i'm sorry if me talking sense makes a mockery of peoples ideas, but there you go.. live with it. :wink:
-----Just an opinion from a muppet.
User avatar
beaker1
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:32 am

Re: A big Thanx to MEL & ManyFaces4aChild, Appealing photos

Postby Respect4Kids » Tue May 20, 2008 6:18 pm

beaker1 wrote:First no buddies then requests for my autrograph :bounce: :bounce:

maybe a timely reminder of an interenet saying ' diss the point not the poster '

personally i'm not unwilling to go down the pedophile theory, but not while picking over photos to back a theory up with, that's just wrong and unneccessary.

i see a lot of unreasonableness (is that even a word?) posters are unwilling to see anyone elses point of view. Even when a full picture has been produced they focus on a snippet of one and wont listen to a resonable argument of why what they are seeing isn't so. That makes 'debate' impossible and a losing battle.


personally i'm not unwilling to go down the pedophile theory


Which paedophile theory?

For the rest, no-one is picking at Madeleine Beth McCann.Nobody.It is not what Mel, I and others are saying.

My obvious conclusion to that photo is that, it supports the DISBELIEF for their [=the MCs] theory.Obviously they KNOW that the Child is NOT at the mercy of a paedo, otherwise they would not let that be public.

There are a lot more elements we can discuss or find from this photo, I expressed mine, enjoy reading others as long as it's not "spit their dummies out", I appreciate a good discussion like you and many others. And sorry for before by the way, I didn't mean to print the " :shock: " about you, it's the new(to me) tiny smiley-styles when they are in the frame that got me mistaken, I'll rectify it, this one is the one I wanted for you : 8) , hopefully it will turn out Smart as I think you are for your last night investigation work!
User avatar
Respect4Kids
New In Town
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 12:08 am

Re: A big Thanx to MEL & ManyFaces4aChild, Appealing photos

Postby CaptnMorgan » Tue May 20, 2008 6:52 pm

Well, I'm sorry, but I don't find anything odd at all about that picture. It looks like a poor quality camerphone picture. God would I hate for some of you people to see pictures of my children because at times, I let my three year old play in make up and have even helped her put it on and she hams it up for the camera but it doesn't mean she's "trying to be naughty". My daughter is 3 years old and quite the little character like I'm sure Madeleine was. I don't believe the McCann's to be innocent at all but my god!! All this "to-do" over certain pictures and my question would be why? God, it's a picture, not a sexual picture!!! I nearly died when I read the OP!!!! Magali, I'm sure that's you. This has the same connotation as that old sick thread that was locked long ago. You're the one that has a perverted gutter mind to even think about Madeleine's pictures being glammed up or putting some kind of sexual tone to them. Come on, the McCann's are guilty of a lot of things, but putting out fake sexy photos of their little daughter isn't one of them.

By the way, I have posted this as a member and not a mod.
Image
Justice for Madeleine
User avatar
CaptnMorgan
Moderator
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:04 pm
Location: Davy Jones' Locker

Re: A big Thanx to MEL & ManyFaces4aChild, Appealing photos

Postby beaker1 » Tue May 20, 2008 6:54 pm

Which paedophile theory?

For the rest, no-one is picking at Madeleine Beth McCann.Nobody.It is not what Mel, I and others are saying.

My obvious conclusion to that photo is that, it supports the DISBELIEF for their [=the MCs] theory.Obviously they KNOW that the Child is NOT at the mercy of a paedo, otherwise they would not let that be public.

There are a lot more elements we can discuss or find from this photo, I expressed mine, enjoy reading others as long as it's not "spit their dummies out", I appreciate a good discussion like you and many others. And sorry for before by the way, I didn't mean to print the " " about you, it's the new(to me) tiny smiley-styles when they are in the frame that got me mistaken, I'll rectify it, this one is the one I wanted for you : , hopefully it will turn out Smart as I think you are for your last night investigation work!

Which paedophile theory? - all i'm saying there is i wouldnt rule it out to be discussed, but i personally don't feel it has any relevance. But i wouldnt prop up that theory by using a picture of Maddie that is in the wrong context. ie - you don't know if it is a lollipop, it's just suggested it could be when you look at the photo in a perverse way, a spoon is just as valid and less sexualised if you like. it's been stated as fact it's a lollipop but you simply don't know this to be true so you can't take that further. same as the supposed 'make up' youre using a bad copy off a tv screen that is not showing the real photo or the full one, even when a better copy has been produced.

So why use
a) a snippet of a photo when there is a better example
b) not acknowledge that the 'make up' is a product of the file changes and where it came from
c) state as fact it is a lollypop

d) admit you might be wrong :wink:
-----Just an opinion from a muppet.
User avatar
beaker1
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:32 am

Re: A big Thanx to MEL & ManyFaces4aChild, Appealing photos

Postby Respect4Kids » Tue May 20, 2008 7:27 pm

Which paedophile theory? - all i'm saying there is i wouldnt rule it out to be discussed, but i personally don't feel it has any relevance. But i wouldnt prop up that theory by using a picture of Maddie that is in the wrong context. ie - you don't know if it is a lollipop, it's just suggested it could be when you look at the photo in a perverse way, a spoon is just as valid and less sexualised if you like. it's been stated as fact it's a lollipop but you simply don't know this to be true so you can't take that further. same as the supposed 'make up' youre using a bad copy off a tv screen that is not showing the real photo or the full one, even when a better copy has been produced.

So why use
a) a snippet of a photo when there is a better example
b) not acknowledge that the 'make up' is a product of the file changes and where it came from
c) state as fact it is a lollypop

d) admit you might be wrong :wink:

_________________
-----Just an opinion from a muppet.


I'm sure it's a lollipop because it shows when you work on edition programs, the types that don't add anything but that show things in a different light/way.Do your own ,try to enlarge it or something.Have you a photobucket account?It's very easy.
The photo I pasted on page 2 or so shows it (the one with an inserted text) if you care to just look.
And it's not any effect that I could have added as there is no special effect to it, just a bit more hue.
COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINSorry I was born in a free-thinking country, and I came to live in the UK 15 years ago ( Chose to come to HERE), yet I have NEVER seen this country going below levels of sheepness and gagging that poor way before!What's happening to many of you here?
Last edited by bonnybraes1 on Tue May 20, 2008 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: posters are advised to reread previous warnings on the subject of unsavoury posts.
User avatar
Respect4Kids
New In Town
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 12:08 am

Re: A big Thanx to MEL & ManyFaces4aChild, Appealing photos

Postby CaptnMorgan » Tue May 20, 2008 7:38 pm

Nothing is happening here. It just seems to me that Madeleine's pictures are being picked apart in a strange and sick way. You know the picture in my signature? I believe it was said in that other thread of that picture was that it was a glamour photo and it's not. I have a picture of my son in the bluebonnets similar to that and my daughter in the wildflowers similar to that. I'm not telling you what to think but I think you have to have a somewhat demented mind to even think thoughts like that. Sorry, but that's my opinion. You gave yours and I gave mine.
Image
Justice for Madeleine
User avatar
CaptnMorgan
Moderator
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:04 pm
Location: Davy Jones' Locker

Re: A big Thanx to MEL & ManyFaces4aChild, Appealing photos

Postby bb2002 » Tue May 20, 2008 8:15 pm

I never usually post on these type of threads (or on any threads anymore) but Ive come on to check my messages and ended up reading the first 3 pages of this thread..I wish I hadnt :(
But this is to the OP.

How anything remotely "sexual" can be seen in that photo is beyond me, and to be honest, is disturbing. It looks like a normal, cheeky shot of a little girl eating an Ice=cream with one of those knicker-bocker spoons. Why does everything ALWAYS have to be analysed and over-analysed and given a sexual edge to it? You are reading far far too much into the smallest detail imho. Madeleine is eating an icecream, big deal. Is there a certain way a 3 year old should or shouldnt eat an icecream? Is it classed as provocative if she looks a certain way, at 3 years old, while eating it?

What if a 3 year old child decided to suddenly do a handstand....does it mean she wanted to show her knickers off? :roll: Or does it mean she is JUST BEING A CHILD and doing what children do...having fun. Its getting pretty hard to stomach all these type of threads. I dont know if Madeleine was abused. Nor do you. But to continuously inject sexual meaning into the most innocent of photos to this extent is sick. I just dont see what you see, and I have to ask how you could even consider a 3 year old to look sexy and provocative, no matter HOW she was eating an icecream.
bb2002
New In Town
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:48 pm

Re: A big Thanx to MEL & ManyFaces4aChild, Appealing photos

Postby bonnybraes1 » Tue May 20, 2008 8:32 pm

This thread is now being locked again, because of continued deterioration. There are already several threads on the subject of photography, all of which can be found with the Search facility - there is no need for any more to be started.
bonnybraes1
Moderator
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:46 pm

Previous

Return to Maddy - Reference Forum and Investigations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
cron