the McCanns

[sadoldgit]

Let's remember who called who "ignorant" shall we.

 

And let's remember which one of us is fawning over the half-formed, conjecture riddled, sensationalist falsehoods churned out by a fruitcake who thinks 9/11 was faked. Let's remember which one of us has swallowed the "Police dogs are never wrong" horseshi it. Let's remember which one of us watched four freaking hours of it.

 

But yeah, I'm the ignorant one.

 

You may well not be ignorant, but you infect this place like internet Ebola and clearly do not have a shred of empathy in your body.

I should also add that Richard Hall isnt the only one who has pointed out the inconsistencies in the McCanns (and others) statements. One detractor includes one of our most respected policemen. But hey, they didnt do it because CB Fry says they didnt. So it is all settled then.

[pap]

There isn't "plenty of evidence", sweetheart.

 

A website created by Internet nutcases primarily is not evidence. Although, to you, no doubt it's a "great resource".

 

Four hours of rambling video created by your hero Richard E Grant is not evidence either.

 

As Gemmel said, if there was enough evidence there would be a trial. There isn't, because they didn't do it.

 

Brilliantly argued.

 

"Oh no it isn't" plus "my friend says so too!"

 

How do you do it?

[pap]

You may well not be ignorant, but you infect this place like internet Ebola and clearly do not have a shred of empathy in your body.

I should also add that Richard Hall isnt the only one who has pointed out the inconsistencies in the McCanns (and others) statements. One detractor includes one of our most respected policemen. But hey, they didnt do it because CB Fry says they didnt. So it is all settled then.

 

Ah, it's not there for empathy.

 

It's there to shut debate down on any official narrative the media happens to be spinning. It recently accepted a new position, apparently. If the job title is chief shill, then assume it slept its way to the top. On this evidence, no way the promotion was performance related.

[Verbal]

Don't agree. There is plenty of evidence.

 

In your mind maybe. But then we have to remember that the quality of evidence acceptable to you includes your farcical 'look no blood Bazza' meltdown on the Lee Rigby thread.

 

Do you still believe that, by the way? That the orange hands video was real - that it genuinely showed no blood on his hands?

[pap]

In your mind maybe. But then we have to remember that the quality of evidence acceptable to you includes your farcical 'look no blood Bazza' meltdown on the Lee Rigby thread.

 

Do you still believe that, by the way? That the orange hands video was real - that it genuinely showed no blood on his hands?

 

Why is this relevant to this discussion? Especially when you said you weren't going to discuss it anymore?

 

This is a thread about the McCanns, and evidently, further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty. If you're genuinely interested in those events, why not return to the thread you left out of decency?

 

What a fkn fall from grace. Do you remember when you used to be respected around these parts? You're not even feared anymore. Done up by a mush from the council estates.

[Verbal]

Why is this relevant to this discussion? Especially when you said you weren't going to discuss it anymore?

 

This is a thread about the McCanns, and evidently, further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty. If you're genuinely interested in those events, why not return to the thread you left out of decency?

 

What a fkn fall from grace. Do you remember when you used to be respected around these parts? You're not even feared anymore. Done up by a mush from the council estates.

 

Why so evasive?

 

Simple question, simple answer: yes or no. Do you still maintain that the orange hands video showed no blood? It's relevant to this discussion precisely because it demonstrates your competence, or lack of it, in judging what counts as 'evidence'.

[pap]

Why so evasive?

 

Simple question, simple answer: yes or no. Do you still maintain that the orange hands video showed no blood? It's relevant to this discussion precisely because it demonstrates your competence, or lack of it, in judging what counts as 'evidence'.

 

I'm not going to indulge your desperate attempts to change the subject here. There's a time and a place. Go back to the thread you left out of decency. This is a thread about the McCanns.

[buctootim]

Done up by a mush from the council estates.

 

Thats the root of it. In your head fearless truth seeker Pap wins again. To everybody else its just another self induced car crash.

[pap]

Thats the root of it. In your head fearless truth seeker Pap wins again. To everybody else its just another self induced car crash.

 

To the four regular trolls that use the same old tactics. Get me some better Stonecutters. These ones are sh!t.

[hypochondriac]

To the four regular trolls that use the same old tactics. Get me some better Stonecutters. These ones are sh!t.

 

Quite a few feel the same way but gave up posting a while ago due to the relentless nature of it.

[pap]

Quite a few feel the same way but gave up posting a while ago due to the relentless nature of it.

 

Did you all PM each other or something?

 

That relentless nature thing goes both ways. The same people relentlessly try to stifle the debate by smearing, changing subject, attacking posters. Look how they've attempted to ruin this one. It's dishonest, it puts people off from posting, but unfortunately, it's what we've come to expect.

 

They doth protest too much.

[hypochondriac]

Did you all PM each other or something?

 

That relentless nature thing goes both ways. The same people relentlessly try to stifle the debate by smearing, changing subject, attacking posters. Look how they've attempted to ruin this one. It's dishonest, it puts people off from posting, but unfortunately, it's what we've come to expect.

 

They doth protest too much.

 

It's been many more than just 4 who have totally disagreed with your looney conspiracy theories and posted to that effect. No need to pm each other, the evidence is in many of these types of threads.

 

As you know, people have tried to debate it sensibly with you in the past but it's very difficult as you either resort to insults, refuse to answer the question or start another conspiracy. It's very tiring.

Edited 17 October, 2014 by hypochondriac

[pap]

It's been many more than just 4 who have totally disagreed with your looney conspiracy theories and posted to that effect. No need to pm each other, the evidence is in many of these types of threads.

 

As you know, people have tried to debate it sensibly with you in the past but it's very difficult as you either resort to insults, refuse to answer the question or start another conspiracy. It's very tiring.

 

Sorry mate, but that's nonsense. Insults are always returned, never served. If someone decides they want to interact at that level, that level is what they'll get back. This thread alone shows that it is the four trolls that introduce other conspiracies to try and prove their points. Your words are undone by the ones that precede it, sir.

 

And yes, others have disagreed with me - but it's the same four people who hound these types of threads using bully boy tactics to silence dissent. When that doesn't work, they accuse you of narcissism, make quips about your appearance despite having no rational corporeal basis for doing so and suggesting mental maladies of some kind.

 

F**k them all, I say. They've overdone it. They're done.

[CB Saint]

The problem with Pap is after several "out there" positions on certain events, I have filed him in the "Barking mad" segment of TSW. Now when I read his posts, I have an overcome a predetermined inkling that he is off on a "mad one", even if he is making a valid point.

 

Sometimes it is best to leave the horse you have flogged to death alone, as opposed to going back in for afters.

[pap]

The problem with Pap is after several "out there" positions on certain events, I have filed him in the "Barking mad" segment of TSW. Now when I read his posts, I have an overcome a predetermined inkling that he is off on a "mad one", even if he is making a valid point.

 

Sometimes it is best to leave the horse you have flogged to death alone, as opposed to going back in for afters.

 

Yeah, I get that a lot. So sensible on other issues.

 

Shining example of care in the community, me.

[Halo Stickman]

... and suggesting mental maladies of some kind.

 

Pap's mental ma lady

 

[pap]

Pap's mental ma lady

 

 

Dammit. Undone by a love of alliteration!

[Bearsy]

[aintforever]

You may well not be ignorant, but you infect this place like internet Ebola and clearly do not have a shred of empathy in your body.

I should also add that Richard Hall isnt the only one who has pointed out the inconsistencies in the McCanns (and others) statements. One detractor includes one of our most respected policemen. But hey, they didnt do it because CB Fry says they didnt. So it is all settled then.

 

There is always going to be inconsistencies in people's statements, more so in this case because they were all getting p!ssed while they should have been looking after their kids.

 

IMO the reason the McCanns have probably been ruled out is because they had little or no opportunity to make a body vanish in the time available to them. The idea that the tapas 7 are all complicit in the murder/manslaughter of a young child is not really believable so it means that the McCanns somehow, without a car and in a foreign country, managed to make a body vanish in 1/2 hour or so in-between courses of their tapas meal.

 

Can you give one possible theory of how they could have done it that ties in with the timeline of events of the day...

[Bearsy]

the could have ate her

[buctootim]

Don't think Big Kat was there.

[Bearsy]

There was 7 of them remember, all tucking into "tapas". I could easily eat one 7th of a small child in half hour of less. No probs.

[pap]

Can you give one possible theory of how they could have done it that ties in with the timeline of events of the day...

 

Don't indulge it, sadoldgit.

 

It's not interested in your opinion. It just wants to tie you up in speculation and conjecture to give its more intelligent mates some ammunition.

[hypochondriac]

Don't indulge it, sadoldgit.

 

It's not interested in your opinion. It just wants to tie you up in speculation and conjecture to give its more intelligent mates some ammunition.

 

OK so aintforever makes a post that is in no way abusive in tone and you respond by calling him "it." and then you say it's everyone else and not you.

[pap]

OK so aintforever makes a post that is in no way abusive in tone and you respond by calling him "it." and then you say it's everyone else and not you.

 

Seen it all before, guv. Using disputed points to disprove disputed points. Faux cluelessness. Requests for a theory.

 

http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

 

The above is well worth a re-review.

[hypochondriac]

Seen it all before, guv. Using disputed points to disprove disputed points. Faux cluelessness. Requests for a theory.

 

http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

 

The above is well worth a re-review.

 

It's official. Absolute fruit loop.

[pap]

It's official. Absolute fruit loop.

 

You really want to do this again?

 

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

[Bearsy]

Seen it all before, guv. Using disputed points to disprove disputed points. Faux cluelessness. Requests for a theory.

 

http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

 

The above is well worth a re-review.

 

wait, are you insinuating that aintforever or hypo is undercover feds?

[buctootim]

wait, are you insinuating that aintforever or hypo is undercover feds?

 

Yep. He thinks the forum is infested with paid government spies, 'shills' sent to disrupt his truth seeking discussions.

 

I'd be furious given the budget deficit as it is.

[pap]

wait, are you insinuating that aintforever or hypo is undercover feds?

 

Who knows?

 

They use the same tactics as disinfo people, tho'. All of their contributions are covered on that link.

 

It would be nice if they were getting paid though, if only for them.

[Bearsy]

omg!

 

i was only joking bout eating 1/7th of a small child, hypo. Don't put it on my permanent record pls

[pap]

omg!

 

i was only joking bout eating 1/7th of a small child, hypo. Don't put it on my permanent record pls

 

That's ok. Tim suggested our owner would have done similar, because he's classy. The ol' "everyone else was doing 90mph" defence.

[aintforever]

Don't indulge it, sadoldgit.

 

It's not interested in your opinion. It just wants to tie you up in speculation and conjecture to give its more intelligent mates some ammunition.

 

I happy to believe the McCanns did it if someone comes up with a believable timeline of events.

 

The reason no one can is because unless they used Bearsy's method I can't see any way Gerry could have made a body vanish when he didn't have a car and was in a foreign country.

[Whitey Grandad]

There was 7 of them remember, all tucking into "tapas". I could easily eat one 7th of a small child in half hour of less. No probs.

 

Yeah I've had some of those tapas. You can eat 20 and 10 minutes later you're ravenous.

[pap]

I happy to believe the McCanns did it if someone comes up with a believable timeline of events.

 

The reason no one can is because unless they used Bearsy's method I can't see any way Gerry could have made a body vanish when he didn't have a car and was in a foreign country.

 

You have narrowed the scenario based on the accounts of Kate McCann and David Payne. Your timeline depends on their statements being true. They contradict each other, Payne's statement is full of hesitation, and overdone assurances that everything was fine with the kids. Those accounts would fold under cross examination, so I don't think your request for a version of events within your timeline is reasonable.

 

David Payne is the last person other than the McCanns themselves to have seen Madeleine McCann alive. Read the Gaspars' statement on him and let us know whether you think his statements are reliable. The timeline you want depends on his words.

 

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id236.html

Edited 17 October, 2014 by pap
Added link

[aintforever]

You have narrowed the scenario based on the accounts of Kate McCann and David Payne. Your timeline depends on their statements being true. They contradict each other, Payne's statement is full of hesitation, and overdone assurances that everything was fine with the kids. Those accounts would fold under cross examination, so I don't think your request for a version of events within your timeline is reasonable.

 

David Payne is the last person other than the McCanns themselves to have seen Madeleine McCann alive. Read the Gaspars' statement on him and let us know whether you think his statements are reliable. The timeline you want depends on his words.

 

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id236.html

 

So you think the tapas 7 are complicit in the murder/manslaughter?

[buctootim]

Yeah I've had some of those tapas. You can eat 20 and 10 minutes later you're on the front pages of the Sun

 

again

Edited 17 October, 2014 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

David Payne is the last person other than the McCanns themselves to have seen Madeleine McCann alive.

 

Other than the abductor/ murderer you mean? Unless of course the poor girl just wandered off and got lost.

[Gemmel]

You have narrowed the scenario based on the accounts of Kate McCann and David Payne. Your timeline depends on their statements being true. They contradict each other, Payne's statement is full of hesitation, and overdone assurances that everything was fine with the kids. Those accounts would fold under cross examination, so I don't think your request for a version of events within your timeline is reasonable.

 

David Payne is the last person other than the McCanns themselves to have seen Madeleine McCann alive. Read the Gaspars' statement on him and let us know whether you think his statements are reliable. The timeline you want depends on his words.

 

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id236.html

 

But then if it was done before tea (And they got rid of the body) then there wouldn't have been to two hours required for the "Death scent".

 

You state that those accounts would fold undercrosss examination as fact - The problem is that they would have been cross examined by the police and it would appear they didn't "fold" at all.

 

Another thing to add is that this snippets of interviews, give no real context (Apart from the visit itself on the day she disappeared ) (The way the film was made) as to exactly what the answer was relating too or indeed what day (In some parts) they are talking about - They would have been interviewed for hours about the days before and after. Quoting a paragraph, that relates to something else but then applying it to a different scenario, would of course create confusion.

 

As has already been said - You could take a completely factual occurrence and ask ten people to recite as they saw / understood it and you will get many different variations. Any story can be made to look bad or cause doubt, confusion or guilt - It happens everyday in every court in the land.

 

The CCTV of the tennis court would have given pretty accurate timelines. Any big discretions would have been seized upon by the police leading to arrests etc. - There haven't been any.

[notnowcato]

There was 7 of them remember, all tucking into "tapas". I could easily eat one 7th of a small child in half hour of less. No probs.

 

What about the bones??!!! You've not thought this through..

[CB Saint]

What about the bones??!!! You've not thought this through..

 

Maybe children are like poussin. With a bit of application you can eat their bones. Anyway I m sure i heard some big fella somewhere say you can grind their bones to make bread.

[CB Fry]

Brilliantly argued.

 

"Oh no it isn't" plus "my friend says so too!"

 

How do you do it?

 

I'm not arguing anything.

 

I'm simply talking down to you.

[Verbal]

The same people relentlessly try to stifle the debate by smearing, changing subject, attacking posters. Look how they've attempted to ruin this one. It's dishonest, it puts people off from posting, but unfortunately, it's what we've come to expect.QUOTE]

 

This is as good an accidental characterisation of your own behaviour as you’ve written. Well done – even if you didn’t mean it.

 

They use the same tactics as disinfo people, tho'. All of their contributions are covered on that link.

 

It would be nice if they were getting paid though, if only for them.

 

So the McCann conspiracy, which started with the McCanns themselves, then included the Tapas Seven, the British police, Masons, and then the entire British establishment, now includes Saintsweb posters who think your posts are puerile but in your mind are paid to bring the (in your mind alone) vast importance of your ‘arguments’ (none of them are actually yours) to earth?

 

Where will it stop?

 

I’ll tell you.

 

I asked earlier whether you still believed your own (!) argument that the tampered video of Lee Rigby’s killer, with his orange hands, proved there was ‘no blood Bazza.’ Since you so testily refused to answer the question, I’ll assume you do. (I seriously doubt you could contemplate the alternative – climbing down from your fake high horse – hence your default to abuse at the mere question).

 

Bad news: the conspiro-gods have now deemed it that those who argued for ‘no blood Bazza’ were in fact part of the conspiracy covering up the false flag staging of Lee Rigby’s ‘death’.

 

The image on the right (the Bazza shot) was most definitely altered and circulated as “evidence” that “no blood” existed on the assailant’s hands. We believe this video was tampered with in order to sweep people into the trap of “debunking” the event, while distracting people from the real anomalies.

 

http://truthfrequencyradio.com/not-debunked-paul-walker-car-accident-and-london-beheading/

 

The argument is that the ‘no blood’ video was so profoundly, stupidly fake that its real intention was to discredit conspiracy theorists who regurgitated it. Now either you were one of those too stupid to realise this – or you were part of the false flag operation itself. The evidence (using your standard) points to the latter.

 

And if you were part of that conspiracy, you are – following your own rules here – part of all conspiracies, including the one about the McCanns. I suspect a similar mechanism here: you put out stuff that’s so overwhelmingly lacking in basic intelligence as to discredit conspiracy theorists and the gullible (like SOG) who take the bait. I hope you’ve been well rewarded for your sterling work, agent pap.

 

And that is the awful (or comedic, actually) fate that’s been awaiting you all along. Conspiracy theories all end up the same way. To justify ever-spiralling nonsense, they have to make the net of co-conspirators ever wider – until they themselves are swallowed up in a paranoid swamp.

 

In your case, it's already led to the edge of the abyss, where, among the conspiracy theories you've flirted with on here is Holocaust denial. To you, like other deniers, historians of the Holocaust like Alan Bullock, Hannah Arendt, Martin Gilbert, Ian Kershaw, Richard Evans, Eric A Johnson, and Edward Crankshaw must all, inevitably, be simple liars and fantasists. Primo Levi, perhaps the most damningly eloquent of Auschwitz survivors, must merely have been having a bad dream. The remains of the death camps themselves must be postwar amusement parks for the easily led.

 

I've said it before: you're either a malevolent fool or you need help. Either way, take a break and breathe some fresh air.

[sadoldgit]

There is always going to be inconsistencies in people's statements, more so in this case because they were all getting p!ssed while they should have been looking after their kids.

 

IMO the reason the McCanns have probably been ruled out is because they had little or no opportunity to make a body vanish in the time available to them. The idea that the tapas 7 are all complicit in the murder/manslaughter of a young child is not really believable so it means that the McCanns somehow, without a car and in a foreign country, managed to make a body vanish in 1/2 hour or so in-between courses of their tapas meal.

 

 

 

Can you give one possible theory of how they could have done it that ties in with the timeline of events of the day...

 

I agree that statements will often contain some inconsistencies. In this case there appear to be many. Kate's description of the bedroom when she returned for for one. The statements always seem to change in response to the police findings which seems odd. From what she says initially it would appear that the bedroom had been tampered with. As has been mention, the Payne evidence doesn't come across as the least bit convincing. They did have a car didn't they? The dogs found cadaver scent in the boot of it. There are issues about the timelines of the events of the day. I work for the CPS. We prepare cases for court. In general even if things are not 100% spot on, you get a general picture of what probably occurred in a crime. There are a number of things here that do not add up, both from the statements given by the McCanns and other members of the Tapas 7.

 

The original investigator clearly thought there was time enough to dispose of the body (if that is what happened). He stands by his original position. Apart from CB Fry who obviously knows everything, there is plenty in the case that does not add up and throwing a "conspiracy theory" tag at it doesn't help.

 

The well respected John Stalker has said that he believes that the McCanns havent told the whole truth and doesnt seem impressed about the Tapas 7.

 

None of us were there. None of us know what happened (apart from CB Fry clearly . Maybe they are completely innocent. It is a shame they have refused a lie detector test but that is their right. All I know is that there is a lot that doesnt add up and, to me, the McCanns have never seemed credible. If my child went missing I would have been pounding the streets all night. They stayed in. Gerry is quite chilling when he talks about there being no proof against them because there is no body. He also has a habit of walking out of interviews when he doesnt like the questions. All too often parents of missing/murdered children appear on our TV screens. The McCanns have never appeared as broken as the others. Perhaps they are just good at hiding their feelings? Who knows. We can argue the toss about sniffer dogs etc. What is clear though is that there is no evidence of an abduction and the McCanns original statement about the window has been discredited.

Edited 17 October, 2014 by sadoldgit

[CB Fry]

I agree that statements will often contain some inconsistencies. In this case there appear to be many. Kate's description of the bedroom when she returned for for one. The statements always seem to change in response to the police findings which seems odd. From what she says initially it would appear that the bedroom had been tampered with. As has been mention, the Payne evidence doesn't come across as the least bit convincing. They did have a car didn't they? The dogs found cadaver scent in the boot of it. There are issues about the timelines of the events of the day. I work for the CPS. We prepare cases for court. In general even if things are not 100% spot on, you get a general picture of what probably occurred in a crime. There are a number of things here that do not add up, both from the statements given by the McCanns and other members of the Tapas 7.

 

The original investigator clearly thought there was time enough to dispose of the body (if that is what happened). He stands by his original position. Apart from CB Fry who obviously knows everything, there is plenty in the case that does not add up and throwing a "conspiracy theory" tag at it doesn't help.

 

Obviously I am not the only person who think the McCanns have no case to answer. The police (in either country) don't, neither do the CPS. They are not suspects and never will be.

 

The McCann file-ers and the community of airheads perpetuating myths, half truths and fabrication to try and create "things that don't add up" when, in reality, there is nothing apart from lies, noise and hate dressed up as "we want justice for a little girl". Seriously, fu ck off.

[sadoldgit]

Obviously I am not the only person who think the McCanns have no case to answer. The police (in either country) don't, neither do the CPS. They are not suspects and never will be.

 

The McCann file-ers and the community of airheads perpetuating myths, half truths and fabrication to try and create "things that don't add up" when, in reality, there is nothing apart from lies, noise and hate dressed up as "we want justice for a little girl". Seriously, fu ck off.

 

Erm, they were suspects and the guy who ran the investigation wrote a book on the subject. Seriously, fu ck off yourself.

[CB Fry]

Erm, they were suspects and the guy who ran the investigation wrote a book on the subject. Seriously, fu ck off yourself.

Are they suspects now?

 

I mean, I'm just ignorant and you work for the CPS and everything, so you must know this stuff.

 

Are they suspects now?

[hutch]

If the CPS refers to the Crown Prosecution Service, then I'm sort of wondering what their role would be regarding a crime committed in Portugal. Or the apparently linked conclusion that lack of any action by the CPS is evidence that a crime was not committed in Portugal. I must be missing something.

 

What I seem to remember is that the police (the one's that do have jurisdiction in Portugal) presented a long list of questions to the McCanns, and they refused to answer some of them.

[CB Fry]

If the CPS refers to the Crown Prosecution Service, then I'm sort of wondering what their role would be regarding a crime committed in Portugal. Or the apparently linked conclusion that lack of any action by the CPS is evidence that a crime was not committed in Portugal. I must be missing something.

 

What I seem to remember is that the police (the one's that do have jurisdiction in Portugal) presented a long list of questions to the McCanns, and they refused to answer some of them.

 

You're not "missing anything". Dont worry, the CPS have no role.

 

The UK and Portuguese forces have been working together and after a lot of time and money the McCanns aren't suspects, much to the fury of the dribblers. And they won't ever be. So the CPS or the Portuguese equivalent won't ever be troubling old K&G anytime soon.

 

In terms of people you can "sort of wonder what their role is", how about "respected former policeman" John Stalker, one of the poster boys of the dribblers' campaign. He's got absolutely nothing to do with anything but SOG on this very thread mentions him as a supporter of his side of the argument. (Anyone who reads what Stalker actually said would know he isn't but hey "I must be missing something", too).

 

So there is plenty of total irrelevance out there, but 99% of it on the dribblers' side.

[pap]

In your case, it's already led to the edge of the abyss, where, among the conspiracy theories you've flirted with on here is Holocaust denial. To you, like other deniers, historians of the Holocaust like Alan Bullock, Hannah Arendt, Martin Gilbert, Ian Kershaw, Richard Evans, Eric A Johnson, and Edward Crankshaw must all, inevitably, be simple liars and fantasists. Primo Levi, perhaps the most damningly eloquent of Auschwitz survivors, must merely have been having a bad dream. The remains of the death camps themselves must be postwar amusement parks for the easily led.

 

I've said it before: you're either a malevolent fool or you need help. Either way, take a break and breathe some fresh air.

 

I've left the crap out at the top but I think this is probably libel.

 

I know you can't justify these claims, so it's just unsubstantiated defamation. Congrats on that.