The Everlasting Consequences Of Stress & Emotions

Not that they are capable on their own to do anything about it but whatever intense stress or emotional conflict a person experiences is not only suffering for the duration it lasts but they are never forgotten and conditions to more easily experience similar stress and intense emotions in the future apart from degrading that mind.
The turmoil that has gripped Japan’s prime minister in which he initially vowed he would not resign amidst scandals involving his ministers but has now suddenly resigned and has been admitted to hospital for stress related ailments is killing him and everyone who interacts with him has a share in killing him no matter how good they think they are to him. His mind thus warped by such intense mental force or emotion or stress, stress or emotions of the same intensity will flare up again and again in the future with increasing easiness under self and other provocation so that unless he assiduously detoxifies himself by practicing seclusion and calming meditation to neutralize whatever stress, restlessness and distraction that flares up as soon as possible, he pays attention to not stretch his syllables, not change speed and loudness (something possible but most ordinary people think they have much better things to do), he is doomed as he is to be like as the Buddha said, a fly attracted to a fire to then fall and be burnt to return here again and again spilling his blood that is greater than the four great oceans.
REMEMBER THIS: IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXIST WITHOUT STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION OR INTENSE EMOTIONS EVEN HERE. EVERY TIME YOUR MIND IS ROILED BY INTENSE STRESS OR EMOTION OR SADNESS, YOU ARE NOT ONLY SUFFERING BUT HAMMERING ANOTHER NAIL INTO YOUR FUTURE COFFIN OF AGONY BECAUSE UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING TO NEUTRALIZE THE TENDENCY TO STRESS AND EMOTION IT REMAINS TO HAUNT AND THEN KILL YOU OFF.
Japanese PM admitted to hospital
Outgoing Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been admitted to hospital, a day after announcing his resignation.
Doctors said Mr Abe was being treated for a stomach complaint probably caused by extreme exhaustion and stress.
'Extreme fatigue'
Mr Abe had been facing growing calls to quit since his party lost upper house elections in July, and opinion polls showed he was increasingly unpopular.
But there has also been speculation that health problems were partly behind his decision to step down.
"I hear that the doctor diagnosed him as suffering from extreme fatigue," Chief Cabinet Secretary Kaoru Yosano told reporters after Mr Abe was admitted to hospital.
It is unclear whether he will be able to continue his duties until a successor is chosen, or whether a temporary head of government may have to be appointed.
Mr Abe's decision on Wednesday triggered surprise and criticism.

Positive as an attitude:
Quote: "In fitting with the approach that characterised his life and work, he (Pavrotti) remained positive until finally succumbing to the last stages of his illness."
Comment: What is referred to as positive is his attitude which is a standardized approach to things that occur to him, not a specific live response to a situation. Because ‘being positive’ is a standardized or generalized attitude it is false and harmful because it is based on emotion not reason. Being positive is equal to being optimistic. One should neither be optimistic or pessimistic but if one wishes to escape suffer one should approach everything that occur with equanimity, neither liking nor disliking, neither optimistic nor pessimistic.
Again being positive is being optimistic which is a form of anticipating or liking and here as everywhere else, what boils down to ordinary people’s lives is an endless litany of like and dislike that though it may be alluring at times, can and do frequently become tormenting that they then hide from the prying eyes of others.
Don’t Need To Tell You That:
Quote: Last night Gerry McCann maintained his and his wife's innocence, telling the News of the World newspaper that they did not kill their daughter. "We're entirely innocent," Mr. McCann said. "I don't need to tell you how things don't stack up. I know 100 per cent that Kate did not do anything. I know that's true from what I did that night. And in terms of what Kate knows about me, I was away from her for just 10 minutes."
Comment: If as you say, you don’t need to tell me that and yet you do so, you are generating emotional or forceful conflict in yourself by saying so and it does not matter whether he is innocent or not he is conditioning himself to intense emotional conflict that will become uncontrollable.
The reason he said that is to say it is a no brainer, you should know that or you must believe what he says. Leave others to know what if they want to know, don’t tell others what to do.
It is always an excuse never a genuine reason why the couple should behave so defensively and also attack the police as incompetent and trying to frame them. If a person is truly innocent, why should he be outraged because it is difficult if not impossible to frame someone perfectly in a fair court of law just as it is impossible not difficult to commit a perfect crime.
As a result of lifelong falsity or deceitfulness and emotionality a person can become agitated when faced with false accusations of wrongdoing but it is possible to differentiate between the emotional upset of someone who is wrongly accused (eg the drug dealer in the Australian Tony Falconio case) and someone who is correctly accused.
Gerry McCann was reported to have said the change in chain of events have made life unbearable for them. This may be to court sympathy or it may be that there are some people who when confronted with their wrongdoing, would rather commit suicide, even with their spouse and children than admit to wrongdoing which is a shame too strong for their deluded domineering minds to bear.
IF A PERSON LETS HIS YES BE YES ONLY AS JESUS COMMANDS YOU THEN HE JUST STATES ONCE THAT HE IS INNOCENT AND THE REST IS UP TO THE POLICE TO BUILD A CASE AGAINST YOU AND ADDRESSING THE CASE BUILT, YOU SHOW WHY YOU ARE INNOCENT. YOU DO NOT LAUNCH COUNTER ATTACKS TO SAY THE POLICE ARE FRAMING YOU WHICH IS SCURRILOUS UNLESS YOU CAN BACK UP WITH EVIDENCE POLICE IS FRAMING YOU.
Cross species affinity:

Yet again we see another example of animal kinship across species that surpasses even many human familial relationships. As the Buddha said all animals that may include even tiny insects are valid beings waiting for their turns to become a human that may only come once in an Age or eternity and if you do not make the most of it, you may rue in regret even another eternity.
How easy is it for you to use a hammer to bang in a nail?
How difficult would it be if you were to be forced to pull out that nail with your bare teeth?
As easy as it may be for you to get angry, upset, stressed or restlessness, you should remind yourself that each time you get angry, upset, stressed or restless you are hammering another nail into a coffin of future suffering that you must use your bare teeth to pull out if you want to exit that coffin. If you remind yourself thus you will think twice even many times before you allow yourself to become angry, upset, stressed or restless.
As Jesus said, even the man who calls his brother you fool is in danger of the fire of hell which is even more painful that having to use your teeth to pull out a nail that you defiantly hammered in.
The abandoned monkey who has found love with a pigeon
Last updated at 18:39pm on 13th September 2007
Comments (14)
They're an odd couple in every sense but a monkey and a pigeon have become inseparable at an animal sanctuary in China.
The 12-week-old macaque - who was abandoned by his mother - was close to death when it was rescued on Neilingding Island, in Goangdong Province.
After being taken to an animal hospital his health began to improve but he seemed spiritless - until he developed a friendship with a white pigeon.
Scroll down for more...

The macaque nestles his head against his feathered friend
The blossoming relationship helped to revive the macaque who has developed a new lease of life, say staff at the sanctuary.
Now the unlikely duo are never far from each other's side, but they aren't the only ones to strike up an unusual friendship.
Earlier this year a pig adopted a tiger cub and raised him along with her piglets because his mother couldn't feed him.
And in 2005 a baby dear named Mi-Lu befriended lurcher Geoffrey at the Knowsley Animal Park in Merseyside after she was rejected by her mother.
Strike back:
Quote reporter: "They (the McCanns) are going to have to strike back because the mood among some people now seems to be 'surely the Portuguese police are working on something'."
Comment: Even journalists who are supposed to be responsible and neutral speak of striking back or using force to attack. What he said is fraught with karma because it encourages people to use force to strike back when what is needed is to use reason to appraise the situation.
There is a fine line between the police attacking the McCanns and rightfully undertaking their duties to solve the disappearance of the little girl and it is advanced false perception to think they are framing the McCanns.
Mini adult:

Even though she is still tiny she (the missing girl) is already a mini adult with pretentious airs and ‘graces’, tilting her chest forwards and to the left, neck arched to opposite side and hand scratching in a ‘cute’ way a smirking smile of pretence.
Her parents are responsible for moulding her into the actress she is but she herself is not blameless, is capable of mischief and annoying behaviour and even when she was born she was of her Father who is not God.
Blind lass to receive her degree:
It is improper or disrespectful to call a girl a lass and fraught with karma but you should call her a blind girl or lady.
It is emotion not reason that causes people to feel defiantly they are right to call a girl a lass. Insist on doing so and you may weep and gnash your teeth even for another eternity.
Jesus said the Holy Spirit will in that hour teach you what you ought to say. This may be frivolous or it may be what you ought to say, call a girl properly a girl not a lass.

Why a teacher in the mind is not possible:
Even when those who call themselves good and intelligent read what I say with reasons why it is improper and disrespectful to call a girl a lass, they may stubbornly refuse to alter their habit of calling a girl a lass, what more that a counsellor existing in the mind whose voice people cannot be sure they are hearing can teach you what you ought to say (namely call a girl a girl).
It is difficult if not impossible for a counsellor in the mind to teach that person discretely many things and what he ought to say because even when it is spelt out to them repeatedly in words, they don’t understand or misunderstand.
EVEN WHEN I TELL PEOPLE IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS DON'T CALL A GIRL A LASS THEY WOULD NOT LISTEN WHAT MORE THAT A COUNSELOR WHOSE EXISTENCE IN A PERSON'S MIND IS QUESTIONABLE CAN TEACH SO.
THE BUDDHA WHO IS THE HIGHEST BEING HAD TO COME IN ORDER TO TEACH, JESUS THE SON OF GOD HAS TO COME TO TEACH, SO IT IS TO BE EXPECTED THAT THE COUNSELOR TOO HAS TO COME IN PERSON IN ORDER TO TEACH.
Why Police Cannot Frame McCanns:
If it is true police possess fluid, blood and even hair samples that is DNA specific to Madeleine, it is impossible that police are framing the parents because Madeleine has already disappeared and her body is yet to be found so where can the police go to get significant samples of fluid, blood and hair to frame the parents?
If the McCann's accusations of police victimizing them were based on reason or truth (they did not do it) why did they not realize that it is impossible for the police to frame them because police have no contact with Madeleine to obtain specimens to plant in the car? Instead their accusations are wild, based on emotion to assume that it is credible to prove their innocence when it exposes them as irresponsible frauds.
There have been many people even highly intellectual ones who have been drawn in to side with Madeleine's parents. Why have they not similarly come to a conclusion that allegations of police frame up hold no water?
As simple as what I postulate is, why has no one else pointed this out? Even the police did not tell the public that it is impossible for them to frame the McCanns because they cannot obtain from Madeleine who has disappeared and whose body has yet to be found?
There are actually many things in life in which it is not only possible to believe (accept as true) but to know (work out with impeccable logic) what has happened and it reflects that the father of humans, even those who call themselves smart and good is not reason but force and its mental derivatives like and dislike and their offshoots the emotions.
Caught up emotionally in the swift counter accusations of police incompetence and trying to frame them to solve the case, the average person is likely to be confounded as to confess inability to tell which is true, the police or the McCanns or they might venture to say they believe or accept as true either the police is right or the McCanns have been unfairly made scapegoats. Yet in this situation (as in many situations in life) a person who is not emotionally stirred can collate or put together all the information at hand to know (not believe) who is telling a lie, the police or the McCanns.
Mr McCann was unrighteous to say he need not tell you that the police case against them did not stack up because whether they did it or not, the police against them does stack up or is logically valid or it is possible they did it.
Apparently more than a million dollars has been collected in the find Madeleine fund and so much is now at stake if they are found guilty or not because they stand to gain as trustees of this fund.
You may see how wicked and how much trouble the couple has caused others if in truth they did it but not only covered up but stubbornly refuse to climb down. If indeed they did it, they are in for horrendous karma for causing so much trouble to so many people.

Getting it all wrong:
It is because ordinary people are guilty of the same, faking they are happy and wholesome to please and impress others who are looking and they have denied they are dishonestly doing so but they are indeed enjoying themselves, being themselves that they have this perverse perception of what is false and stressful as true and good and therefore the person pictured to do so is good and cannot have killed their children.

There is no need at all to do what Mrs McCann & her husband are doing above even if they truly loved each other or the baby but all the smiling and expressed delight is for show to impress onlookers they are enjoying themselves and wonderful people when it is stressful, restless and distracting. Anyone whose behaviour is constantly churning up stress, restlessness and distraction must hate himself and hate others including the one she is seen so lovingly to adore that she often hides from others and even from herself but no matter how it is repressed, there is a murderous impulse to lash out at others that may occur privately in moments of loss of control and so if you watch actors in private they take it out on their children, their possessions (cars, Hi Fi, etc).
Rather than such pictures showing them to be wholesome people, like a coin must have two sides, a person who puts on a show like they are must have sharp long concealed fangs that no matter how they try to hide and not use must occasionally be unleashed to bite at even their loved ones. This is the reason why in moments of passion in bed even supposedly pretty or dainty female goats can bite or claw at their lovers even to cause bleeding.
TO ME THE PICTURES ABOVE DO NOT PROVE THE MCCANNS ARE WHOLESOME BUT THEY ARE LYING, PUTTING ON A SHOW THEY ARE CHARMING AND WONDERFUL PEOPLE WHEN THEY MUST SEETHE WITH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT CAN DRIVE THEM UP THE WALL TO DESIRE TO COMMIT SUICIDE OR HOMICIDE. A PERSON WHO BEHAVES LIKE THEM AS ABOVE MUST HAVE VIOLENT URGES AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT SURPRISING IF THEY DO ABUSE THEIR CHILDREN AND ACCIDENTALLY OVERDOSED MADELEINE.
IT IS NOT AN INCONSEQUENTIAL ERROR BUT A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR TO PERCEIVE THAT THE PICTURES PROVE THE MCCANNS ARE LOVELY PEOPLE INCAPABLE OF HARMING OTHERS BECAUSE THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE THAT THEY MUST POSSESS AND HIDE IRRATIONAL URGES TO HARM THEMSELVES AND OTHERS. JUST AS YOU SEE THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH HERE YOU WILL SEE THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH IN MANY OTHER (IF NOT ALL) PLACES AND YOU ARE IN DANGER OF BEING CONNED BY OTHERS.
BECAUSE IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR TO SEE WHAT IS BAD (SMILING, JOKING AND PUTTING ON A SHOW YOU ARE HAPPY) IS GOOD OR WHOLESOME YOU ARE HEADED FOR THE DESTINATION OF WRONG VIEW NAMELY HELL OR THE ANIMAL WOMB.
NEVERTHELESS IT IS NOT A BEING’S LIVE OR TRUE PERCEIVING THAT MAKES THEM SEE WHAT IS BAD (PUTTING ON A FALSE SHOW) IS GOOD BUT IT IS THEIR PROGRAMMED SEEING OR PERCEPTION AND SO LONG AS THE PERSON REFUSES TO ERASE HIS PROGRAMMED SEEING, HE WILL CONTINUE TO SEE WHAT IS BAD IS GOOD AND BECAUSE IT IS FIXED PROGRAMMED SEEING, HE IS A ROBOT HEADING FOR THE DESTINATION OF ROBOTS NAMELY THE GRAVEYARD OF FAILED ROBOTS.
An incompetent crook can still correctly prosecute you:
As the saying goes, it takes a thief to catch a thief and therefore you have serious false perception that will end in mad perception if you think that just because one of the chief inspectors involved in the case is guilty of torture, incompetence and dishonest, he MUST fail to correctly prosecute the McCanns.
It is not goodness or devotion to truth that is necessary to catch a thief just as it does not need a good cat to catch a rat but it is suspiciousness (not accepting what potential criminals say is true) and a will to attack or prosecute that means that sometimes or usually you prosecute wrongly but occasionally you prosecute correctly. No matter how incompetent or stupid a policeman is, if he can add one plus one and come up with two he can smell a rat if what the McCanns told him does not add up.
Even if a policeman is very crooked, he has his pride and pride in his police force to defend and if you give him an opportunity to prosecute you correctly, eg your story you think is so convincing about a kidnapping may be suspect to him and you foolishly leave traces of biological material of the dead girl in your hired car, then it is not impossible than for once he will prosecute you correctly not grievously.

SUSPECT: Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral, who is leading the hunt for Madeleine McCann, is to be questioned over the torture of Leonor Cipriano
I agree he looks suspicious, a brute but that does not mean he cannot correctly prosecute you if you give him a chance just as even a stupid cat can sometimes catch a rat, otherwise how will it survive in this world?
THUS THOSE WHO TOUT EVIDENCE OF THE INCOMPETENCE AND NASTINESS OF THE POLICE PROSECUTORS AS SUPPORTING THE BELIEF THE MCCANNS ARE MALIGNED ARE FLIRTING WITH FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT WILL END IN MADNESS.
I Can No Longer Be Lonely:
I now no longer can be lonely because alone by myself either meditating or not, my mind is imbued with a calm clearly thinking steadiness with few but rational thoughts, often extended periods of the absence of thoughts so that I do not miss the company of others, I desire no company from others nor court others’ approval for my views or behaviour and so I am truly free not beholden or dependent on anyone.
I can be alone in a dark place but I have no fear of ghosts as I did in the past.
Most if not all ordinary people are lying if they say or think they are independent of others or they do not suffer from loneliness. I fear no loneliness as I did in the past, but now I seek seclusion and have abandoned most of the things I held dear in the past and it is difficult for others to hurt me in words or deeds because I know it is they who are wrong not me.
JOYFUL IS THE MAN WHO CAN NO LONGER BE LONELY FOR PAINFUL IS THE MAN WHO CAN BE LONELY. NO ONE IS A MASTER OF LONELINESS BUT LONELINESS CREEPS UP OR SUDDENLY SEIZES THE VULNERABLE FOOL WHO DOES NOT REALIZE HE IS HEADED FOR MORE SUFFERING.
Judge each case by its merits:
Do not take into consideration the record of Portuguese police or the inspector in charge, how good or bad the McCanns are, they alone cannot cause the disappearance of the child or find out who did it but you focus on the evidence presented and the circumstances of what is known to decide what actually happened.
Instead if you are prejudiced against the police (instead of examining objectively what they present) or prejudiced for the McCanns (they lost their child and now police blame them) you become emotional and it is difficult for you to decide what actually happened when the evidence is sufficient to know not believe what happened.
A PERSON WHO JUDGES EACH CASE BY ITS MERIT IS A LIVE SPECIFIC TO THE OCCASION PERSON WHILST A PERSON WHO JUDGES ALL CASES BY PRESUMPTIONS OR ASSUMPTIONS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ARRIVING AT A CORRECT CONCLUSION IS A ROBOT WITH PROGRAMMED THINKING TRYING TO TUCK AND FIT REALITY INTO HIS PROGRAMMED EXPECTATIONS.
Why people are lonely:
Just as people take to alcohol to drown their sorrows, an important reason people fear loneliness and crave company is because they seek the distraction of others’ company to avoid confronting the unpleasant truth about the meaninglessness and sinfulness of their lives. They dread being alone because they dread the emptiness that may permit uncomfortable thoughts and sadness to well up.
Further because their attachment to others is based on force, the forceful attraction or stirring in speed and strength of their forces of going against self towards others and it is conditioning, they have conditioned themselves to seek the company of others that is irrational so that whenever they are deprived of the company of others they feel deprived and therefore lonely.
Loneliness is not a sign of virtue, the Buddha never complained about being lonely but loneliness is blameworthy, based on emotion or force to be attracted irrationally to the company of others, to find distraction in the company of others to avoid seeing the unpleasant truth and even if you think it is not a sign of sin, loneliness is conditioning that will end in doom like depression or anguish or panic.
At the heart of loneliness:
Going against self causing oneself insoluble stress, restlessness and distraction is at the heart of a person’s loneliness and irrational seeking others and activities (sports, music, hobbies) for company and diversion that becomes addictive.
Because the way and what a person perceives, thinks, speaks and does has unnecessary force and substance, he is constantly hurting himself and he cannot find solace in himself but must not only hate himself but deny he is hurting himself or deny he hates himself which means he must avoid confronting or coming face to face with himself that is more likely in vacant moments (alone) and less likely when he is distracted in the company of others or immersed in activity (eg sports, jogging, listening to music) but it is all in vain to try drowning your sorrows in the company of others or in activities because others are also punishing you with audio visual stimuli that stresses, make him restless and distracted.
BECAUSE ALL ORDINARY PEOPLE ARE THEIR OWN WORST ENEMIES BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSTANTLY SAYING AND DOING THINGS WITH STYLE THAT DEMANDS THE USE OF FORCE THAT CAUSES ACCUMULATING INSOLUBLE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION, THEY CANNOT BEAR VACANT MOMENTS THAT MAY FACILITATE SELF CONFRONTATION BUT THEY SEEK THE SOLACE AND DISTRACTION OF OTHERS’ COMPANIES AND DIVERSIONS THAT TOO PROVIDE NO ANSWERS AS THEY SIMILARLY WILL KILL HIM OFF.
IF A PERSON TRULY DOES NOT GO AGAINST HIMSELF, DOES NOT SAY OR DO THINGS WITH A STYLE THAT IS DESIGNED TO FALSELY DECEIVE, PLEASE, IMPRESS, INTIMIDATE OR DOMINATE OTHERS, HE DOES NOT SUFFER FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION, HE DOES NOT NEED TO HIDE FROM HIMSELF AND HE DOES NOT SUFFER FROM LONELINESS WITHOUT NEED FOR EFFORT.
Not interesting but true:
When I emailed a newspaper columnist saying that if it is true police has bodily fluids, blood and hair that is DNA specific to Madeleine they cannot be framing the McCanns because the girl is missing and they cannot access her to get specimens to incriminate her parents she replied:
Quote: A very interesting point - but as you will agree , we know very few facts indeed. Most of the stuff about DNA found in the car is leaked. so it's hard to know what to make of most of it. But I agree...
Ordinary people may see nothing wrong with the reply but it is an inappropriate reply because what I say is not an interesting point but it is the truth that if it is true police has bodily specimens, they cannot have framed her parents. Reflecting the mentality of ordinary people they must have reservations and argue and so it is she expressed reservations by saying “we know very few facts indeed. Most of the stuff about DNA found in the car is leaked. so it's hard to know what to make of most of it”.
DESPITE HER PROFESSED AGREEMENT SHE EXPRESSED RESERVATIONS OR DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY WHICH IS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE I QUALIFIED WHAT I SAID THAT IF IT IS TRUE POLICE HAS BIOLGICAL MATERIAL TRACEABLE TO MADELEINE THEN THEY CANNOT HAVE FRAMED THE MCCANNS AND SHE HAS FALSE PERCEPTION THAT WHAT I SAY IS MERELY AN INTERESTING POINT BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH THAT WILL ALWAYS HOLD, EVEN IF THE RUMORS THAT POLICE HAVE BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE FALSE.
To be alone is to be with yourself:
To be alone is to be with yourself and thus if you are not comfortable to be with yourself because you loathe yourself for saying and doing things that hurt yourself you must be uncomfortable to be alone. Thus it is people are not comfortable to be with themselves because they are their worst enemies that they are not comfortable with being alone and they seek the company of others or diversions or going overseas for holidays to escape from themselves.
If you never go against yourself, never force yourself to say or do things to please, impress, intimidate or dominate others, you never have a forceful style that necessitates you exist as a robot and necessitate you constantly use harmful force to prolong, change speed and loudness, why should you be uncomfortable with yourself and therefore be uncomfortable with being alone?
WHETHER WHAT YOU SAY OR DO HARMS YOURSELF BECAUSE IT IS UNNECESSARY (BUT NECESSARY TO DECEIVE, PLEASE, IMPRESS, INTIMIDATE OR DOMINATE OTHERS), FALSE OR INDUCES STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION IN YOURSELF IS OBJECTIVE, CAN BE DETERMINED BY GOD AND THOSE WHO DISCERN EVEN IF YOU AND YOUR FELLOW FOOLS CANNOT.
IF WHAT YOU SAY OR DO HURTS YOU, YOU MUST HATE YOURSELF NO MATTER HOW YOU CANNOT SEE OR DENY BECAUSE IT CREATES STRESS, RESTLESSNESS, DISTRACTION AND CONFLICT AND ANYONE WHO HATES HIMSELF CANNOT BE COMFORTABLE WITH HIMSELF BUT HE MUST BE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HIMSELF AND SEEK SUCCOR EXTERNALLY WHICH IS NOT A TRUE SOLUTION BUT AN ESCAPISM THAT DOES NOTHING TO YOUR CONTINUED HURTING YOURSELF BUT DELIVERS YOU TO THE HANDS OF OTHERS WHO WILL NOT ONLY ALSO KILL YOU WITH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION BUT WILL INCREASINGLY CONDITION YOURSELF TO SEEK SOLACE THAT IS NEVER THERE IN OTHERS.
IN THE SAME WAY IF WHAT YOU SAY OR DO HAS YOUR OWN BRAND OF STYLE THAT DEMANDS THE USE OF FORCE TO PROLONG, CHANGE SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE THAT STRESSES, MAKE YOU RESTLESS AND DISTRACTED YOU MUST SUFFER AND HATE YOURSELF SO THAT YOU ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH YOURSELF BUT MUST SEEK ILLUSORY SOLACE IN OTHERS AND ACTIVITIES THAT ADDICTS YOU TO KEEP DOING SO WHILST NOT SOLVING YOUR PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU STILL KILL YOURSELF WITH YOUR STYLE.
Cat A Stranger Unafraid Of Me:
Normally cats are wary of strangers but this handsome adult male cat who is likely if not certainly the father of that cute female kitten I used to have, with whom I have no relationship with although I have seen it around occasionally in the distance, displayed unusual total trust in me.
As I turned the corner to scrub the rear wheel of my car I saw this handsome male cat parked beside the front wheel looking ahead without even once casting a wary eye back to see what I was doing behind his back. It did not budge or bat an eyelid when I hunched right in front of him scrubbing the front wheel and seemed to appreciate when I touched and stroked its head and body. When it was time to hose the car, I lifted it out of the way but as I let him down he lunged forward at an aging female cat just in front of him so that it scampered away (I think she may be a concubine of another dominant male cat in the area). Thus it is not that the male cat is without aggression but for some reason it felt totally at ease with me and even permitted me to lift it up out of the way.
By contrast this attractive adult female cat would be drawn to incrementally approach but watch me interact with my cats from a distance, it would enter my shop house to eat even when I was at the entrance washing the car and it even carted her litter into my shop house but because it chased off my cats I evicted her. Whenever I approached her she would move out of reach and so the behaviour of this adult male cat in being totally trusting me is unusual.
NORMALLY CATS ARE WARY ABOUT STRANGERS AND THE FACT THAT THIS WORLDLY WISE ADULT MALE CAT PERMITS ME TO COME CLOSE TO HIM, LET ME STROKE HIM AND EVEN LIFT HIM UP WITHOUT SNAPPING OR SWIPING AT ME REFLECTS HIS CORRECT JUDGMENT THAT I AM BENIGN, EVEN ANIMALS CAN SEE THAT I AM IMBUED WITH GENUINE GOODWILL THAT IS OF AN UNUSUAL NATURE BECAUSE IT IS RARE THAT ANIMALS WILL NOT RUN AWAY BUT WILL PERMIT A STRANGER TO TOUCH THEM.
Nothing interesting or boring:
When she said I had an interesting point there she is saying what I said is attractive or likeable or stirs her mental force in speed and strength in an attractive way.
What I said may be true or false, correct or incorrect but there is nothing interesting or boring about it and it is a person’s false perception that he cannot believe will end in mad perception to think it is interesting or boring.
Quote: A very interesting point - but as you will agree (it is presumptuous or false to say I will agree, I may or may not agree), we know very few facts indeed (speak for yourself not others; say “I know very few facts). Most of the stuff about DNA found in the car is leaked so it's hard to know what to make of most of it.
WHEN PEOPLE SAY SOMETHING IS INTERESTING THEY ARE EXPRESSING LIKING OR ATTRACTION THAT IS BASED ON FORCE NOT REASON AND WHEN THEY SAY IT IS BORING THEY MEAN IT IS DISLIKEABLE OR UNATTRACTIVE AND THAT TOO IS BASED ON FORCE AND NOT REASON AND THE FACT THAT THEY BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAID ‘INTERESTING’ OR ‘BORING’ IS MEANINGFUL OR LOGICAL REFLECTS THEIR ADVANCED FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT WHAT IS BASED PURELY ON FORCE IS MEANINGFUL WHEN THERE IS NO MEANING, ONLY A TRANSIENT STIRRING IN SPEED AND STRENGTH OF THEIR MENTAL FORCES THAT DISTURBS, WARPS & CORRODES THEIR MINDS.
Always only controlling:
Ordinary people all use the considerable strength and endurance of their forces of self preservation to control the tension, stress, restlessness and inability to concentrate that inexorably rises as a result of their incessant use of force to prolong, change speed and strength of force in whatever they perceive, think, speak or do in the name of impressing, pleasing, intimidating and dominating others.
Different people have different capacities to endure or tolerate the inexorable build up of tension, stress, restlessness and distraction but no matter how tough a goat you are you will finally reach a limit to your endurance and must beat a retreat to isolate yourself from others or seek respite from sleep, smoke or alcohol.
In truth stress, restlessness and inability to concentrate rises immediately a person uses force to stretch, change speed and loudness but at lower levels, being distracted by worldly pursuits and controlled well by his force of self preservation he is relatively unaware and may even think he is at the top of the world when he has never known a world that is possible that has an absence of stress, restlessness and distraction.
At moderate levels of intensity of stress, restlessness and distraction, goats may even get a kick out of it, they derive a masochistic pleasure filled with pride that they are tough and can stomach it, it is only when they struggle to control their stress, restlessness and distraction at higher levels do they become alarmed.
Because tension, stress, restlessness and distraction are conditioning, they have memory, with repeated practice or experience they can rise rapidly to intense levels out of proportion to provocation and be hard to shake off and the fool who is constantly subjecting himself to stress, restlessness and distraction in the name of getting along with others, of pleasing and impressing others is headed for mad stress, restlessness and distraction that can arise for seemingly no reason at all and be hard to shake off.
BECAUSE ORDINARY PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY UNNECESSARILY USING MENTAL FORCE TO PROLONG, CHANGE SPEED, DIRECTION AND STRENGTH OF FORCE, THEY ARE CONSTANTLY CHURNING UP STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT MUST BE CONTROLLED AND SUPPRESSED FULL TIME BY THEIR FORCES OF SELF PRESERVATION THAT AT LOW LEVELS THEY ARE USUALLY UNAWARE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION IS PRESENT IN THEM. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION HAVE BUILT UP A HEAD THAT THEY START TO BECOME UNCOMFORTABLE AND SEEK REDRESS BY WHICH TIME IT IS TOO LATE AS THEY ARE WELL SEIZED BY STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION WHICH ARE NEVER HARMLESS BUT WARPS AND CORRODES THEIR MIND PROGRESSIVELY.
Snatching pole:
Quote headline: Kimi snatches pole. England gets a hiding.
It is reflects a predilection to force that the person selects forceful words like snatch instead of takes and hiding instead of England suffers a bad defeat not realizing that he is in the process conditioning himself to use forceful words and increase his propensity for force that will end in agony and eternal punishment.
When are you going to get married?
When people ask another either in a joking fashion or as if full of concern, “when are you going to get married” they may think they mean what they say but they never mean it here as in many other places.
Their true purposes for asking the question may be to impress you they are concerned for your marriage status or to laugh at you in a ‘friendly’ manner at your lack of marriage or they want to exert psychological pressure on you to marry just to appease them.
Unless they state their intentions above which they often will deny to themselves, they cannot mean what they say and they are hypocrites.
They may delude themselves they are doing good when whether others marry or not is none of their business and should someone force himself to marry because of your teasing and he should suffer misery you have debts on your hands.
The Son of man:
It may not be a coincidence that the Buddha had not one or more but only two deputies who were both heavenly born on the same day to two different Brahmin families and there is the Holy Trinity comprising the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit who must also be a son because Jesus said all beings are sons either of light or darkness of the Father.
It is impossible that men are Jesus’ father but Son of man implies Jesus is the Son of or in regard or concerning men and so there must another or more sons who are not of man.
In one place the Buddha mentioned that the Powerful One or Father has two sons whom he called Tissa and Sanankumara:
Subrahma and Paramatta Brahma,together with sons of the Powerful One,Sanankumara and Tissa:They too have come to the forest meeting.Great Brahma, who stands over 1,000 Brahma worlds,who arose there spontaneously, effulgent:Prestigious is he, with a terrifying body.And ten brahma sovereigns, each the lord of his own realm -- and in their midst has comeHarita Brahma surrounded by his retinue."
In Aramaic, Jesus is Yishua and in Arab Jesus is Isa so Tissa that the Buddha mentioned may be Jesus.
There are many instances that indicate the counsellor Jesus spoke of is a physical entity who will come.
Amongst these is the fact that he said, if I do not go, the counsellor will not come to you. Because Jesus’ going is physical, he actually came to this world, the coming of the counsellor must also be physical.
Jesus also said the counsellor will dwell with you and he will not speak on his own authority but what he hears he will speak. If the counsellor is a spirit who comes in the mind of men, he does not need Jesus to tell you he dwells in your mind nor that he will not speak on his own authority. Only if the counsellor is a person who will dwell physically amongst you, who will speak as if expressing his own opinion is it understandable that Jesus should tell you that he is not speaking on his own authority but what he hears he will speak. Thus if what he speaks is what he hears and you speak against him, you are also speaking against God and will not be forgiven.
Specifics & Generalities:
All ordinary people including those who are supposed to be very intelligent and good are very good at generalities but very poor or even incompetent at specifics, which is why they miss even glaring conclusions that are possible in certain cases.
For instance that police are incompetent and frame people to solve crimes is a generality that they did not invent themselves but they copy from others and they apply it indiscriminately in the case of Madeleine's disappearance not realizing that there may be specific circumstances of this case that render this generality false. The specific or unique circumstance of this case is that police has no contact with Madeleine, she has disappeared and her body has not been found so how can police plant evidence based on material extracted from her? Based on reports that police have found body fluid, blood and hair evidence in the car so called intelligent people have already accused the police of planting evidence to solve their case.
Again it is a generality that a lone gunman driving a four wheel drive could have perpetrated the crime in the Australian outback in the case of the disappearance of Tony Falconio but the specifics of the case make it impossible any lone gunman as alleged by the girl could have done it because the couple's van was found many kilometres away from the scene of the crime which necessitates that the lone gunman must AT THE SAME TIME drive two vehicles, his and the couple's to do that.
What are generalities that form the basis of people's reasoning and perceptions?
They are such things like blacks are dirty and stupid, whites are clean and smart. All chinks (Chinese) are wogs or daggos (whatever that means), all Chinese are pigs and Malays are clean, all men only want sex, all women secretly want to be raped (therefore he did not rape her but she was asking for it). These are assumptions that they copy from others and use as rules for their reasoning or coming to conclusions. They are rote and blind and although in some or many cases they may lead to the correct conclusions this is coincidental or lucky rather than as a matter of course. For instance it may turn out the McCanns are judged as innocent, not because they are innocent because the police and judge failed to recognize that you do not need to recover the body and if police found DNA evidence in the car it cannot be planted because police cannot get the evidence to plant it or it may turn out the McCanns are innocent because it was only rumours not fact that police has bodily fluid, blood and hair evidence of Madeleine in the car.
The fact that people deal in generalities that they usually if not always did not invent themselves but copy from others is again evidence they are robots in their perceptions and reasoning rehashing from what they copied rather than attend to and examining live each case specific to its particular merits. They appear competent at reasoning or coming to the truth but it is a sham or hoax, they are fakes who resort to rehashed generalities to explain things rather than work out what happened INDEPENDENTLY in each case.
THUS THE FACT THAT EVEN THOSE WHO ARE INTELLIGENT AND EXPERTS JUMPED ON THE BANDWAGON THAT THE MCCANNS COULD BE FRAMED BY POLICE INDICATES THEY ARE ALL ROBOTS WITH ROBOTIC REASONING BASED ON GENERALITIES THEY COPIED FROM OTHERS THAT ARE REHASHED FOR THIS OCCASION THAT HAS FOUND THEM OUT BECAUSE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THIS CASE FOR POLICE TO FRAME THE MCCANNS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE BODY TO EXTRACT SAMPLES TO PLANT.
A very intelligent person is merely a superior robot who has a bigger store of data recorded in his mental hard disk that he copied by rote from others and who can retrieve faster and more appropriately for the situation at hand from his hard disk relevant information. If his library of data is flawed or false but accepted as true by society he will be successful and worshipped in society or life but he is deluded in common with his deluded society. Whatever information or reasoning that is outside what he has programmed himself he is incompetent and all at sea because he is not a live person who can treat each case that arises on its merits but a fake dependent on his library of data and retrieval from it to function and impress others how knowledgeable and powerful a reasoner he is (not).
A person of truth resorts to few generalities and when he does he ensures they are fundamental and universally applicable whilst the person of falsity or the robot resorts to generalities all the time and try to explain things through generalities. Whenever something happens he takes snapshots of the event and refers to his mental jukebox for generalities to apply to the case. Eminent people have already reacted to accuse the police of framing the McCanns with the biological evidence not realizing that this is not possible if true because police has no access to biological evidence with which to frame them.
What basic or fundamental generalities does a person of truth rely on? He relies on fundamental assumptions such as black is black and white is white not black can be white and white can be black. Good is good and bad is bad not good can be bad and bad is good. There are things that are possible and things that are impossible, not everything goes. If two views differ they are either both wrong or one but not both are correct. Because God knows and sees all, God’s view is always right and if your view differs from God, you have wrong view that is not the way to heaven but hell and the animal womb according to the Buddha.
For instance people resort to generalities like 'how could a loving parent kill her own child' to prejudice them it is not possible the McCann could do it when it is a false premise because even loving parents can kill their children 'accidentally' and then try to cover up. Another false generality is how could people shown on past photos to be looking adoringly at her baby and smiling convivially in each others’ company be guilty of killing their children? If you perceive rightly that such conduct depicted by the photos are for show, they are actually stressful than pleasurable and the person who does what is depicted is a liar putting on a show for others and must seethe even with murderous impulses that are concealed, then rather than the photos vindicating, they are incriminating.
For Jesus’ description of the counsellor to be true, there cannot be anyone else apart from the counsellor he described who can fulfil that description otherwise Jesus is false or unrighteous to say that. It is impossible for others to fulfil that description Jesus gave because all beings trapped in this world are robots who always view and reason things by rote or rehashed no matter how they delude themselves they are dynamic real live people and it is impossible for pre-programmed robots with preconceived notions to say the things the counsellor will say.

Kidnapper must be lucky:
As a police expert said, most if not all child kidnaps are done outdoors and the kidnapper must be very daring to enter someone’s house to do so. It is possible for the kidnapping to have occurred but its success must depend on many variables that the kidnapper has no control over.
A child at that age if not sedated, can become hysterical and those with children will know that their screams can be very loud and piercing. It is unlikely that the child will go willingly especially if she is frightened by a stranger coming into her room at night so unless the kidnapper takes measures to incapacitate her immediately there is likely to be a struggle.
Permanent scowl and grin:
Look around and you may see people whose faces seem to be almost permanently glum or scowling or they readily grin or there is a permanent grin etched on their faces.
This is an indication that such forceful behaviours like scowling, being glum or grinning are conditioning or reinforcing and it reflects advanced conditioning that they and others do not realize will end in madness and torment that they now have a permanent scowl that was intended to intimidate and dominate others or a permanent grin that was intended to please (that they like you) and impress others (that they are happy).
GRINNING IS NEVER THE PLEASURE IT IS MADE UP TO BE BUT IT STIRS THE MIND (ONLY FORCE CAN STIR) AND IS FORCED TO IMPRESS OR PLEASE OTHERS AND THE PERSON EXEPRIENCES SERIOUS EVEN IMPOSSIBLE CONFLICT APART FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND INABILITY TO CONCENTRATE. GRINNING AND SMILING IS A FORM OF LYING WITH YOUR FACE, OFTEN EXPRESSED IN DENIAL. FOR EXAMPLE CONFRONTED BY AN UPSET OR UNPLEASANT NEWS THE FOOL SMILES OR GRINS TO SAY HE IS HAPPY WITH WHAT IS HURTFUL.
IF YOU YOURSELF IS KILLING YOURSELF (KNOWINGLY AND UNKNOWINGLY) WITH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT YOUR BEHAVIOR GENERATES YOU MUST BE INCURABLY LONELY BECAUSE YOU CANNOT BE YOUR OWN FRIEND IF YOU ARE KILLING YOURSELF AND IT IS FUTILE TO TURN TO OTHERS OR SENSATE GRATIFICATIONS FOR SOLACE BECAUSE ALL OTHERS ARE ALSO BOMBARDING YOU WITH AUDIOVISUAL STIMULI THAT WILL KILL YOU WITH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION. THUS IF YOU KILL YOURSELF WITH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION YOU ARE AN INCONSOLABLY LONELY MAN WITH NOWHERE TO TURN TO. IF YOU DON’T KILL YOURSELF WITH STRESS (AND LIES), YOU CAN TURN TO YOURSELF AS A REFUGE AND YOU CAN NEVER BE LONELY BECAUSE YOU HAVE FOUND A TRUE FRIEND IN YOURSELF.
Careful with your conclusions:
Even if the McCanns are acquitted it does not necessarily mean they are innocent but the prosecution is incompetent or there is too much public pressure that influenced their decisions.
The police have not stated publicly precisely what genetic evidence they have found in the car the couple hired after the child’s disappearance. If it is true there is body fluid, blood and hair specimens due to Madeleine in the car then the case against the couple is almost certain because the police cannot frame them. However police and the judge may reason falsely that because they do not have the body (therefore she may still be alive) and the DNA evidence may be spurious or even planted by police, they do not have a certain case and give the couple ‘the benefit of the doubt’.
ONLY IF THE POLICE DECLARE THERE IS NO FLUID, BLOOD & HAIR EVIDENCE IN THE CAR TRACEABLE TO MADELEINE WOULD THE PARENTS’ INNOCENCE BE CREDIBLE AS TRUE.
EVEN IF THE POLICE ACQUITTED THE COUPLE IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THEY ARE INNOCENT. THERE IS A LOT OF PUBLIC PRESSURE AS THE INVOLVEMENT OF TONY BROWN BRITISH PM SHOWS.
The mother has admitted Madeleine was hard to control and would cry for hours every day. Children usually cannot be threatened with death to remain quiet so if the kidnapper frightened her, she is likely to scream because they are robots who automatically react with screaming if something is alarming. Thus the kidnapper is likely to provoke her to scream unless he immediately overpowered her.
Is the judge God?
Only if the judge is God is his decision to acquit the McCanns infallible. If you agree he is not God then he is fallible and whatever decision he makes may not reflect the truth. You should not have absolute faith or accept as true what he rules.
Police has little to gain because if convicted the McCanns can expect a few years in jail (may be more because they did not voluntarily confessed), if they dropped the case, although it may bruise their egos they save themselves a lot of trouble and brickbats from the prejudiced lynch mob public. There is much polarization with Portuguese press behind the police and the British press hostile.
Generalities are mental rules:
Generalities are rules or guides adopted by the individuals and existing in their minds to aid them on how to make sense of things happening and if a person did not have faith in these generalities he would not have adopted them.
Hence the person who perceive and reason according to generalities, who try to fit what is happening with generalities that he may or may not be aware exists in his mind has faith in precepts or rules that the Buddha said is one of three lower fetters to future states of woe not heaven.
Police still slandered:
The McCanns who are now advised by experienced lawyers have come with the explanation that soiled personal effects of Madeleine and her siblings were transported in the boot that may explain the positive tests by police. Depending on the nature of the fluids and hair that police found this may or may not explain.
Nevertheless, they and those who berated Portuguese police have slandered them by implying they maliciously planted evidence to solve the case. It appears that police are trying to solve the case and looking at all angles and the reactions of many including the McCanns who said that the police case does not stack up is slanderous and there is punishment as great as hell for slander.
DO NOT MAKE WILD ALLEGATIONS THAT THE POLICE ARE MALICIOUS. EVEN IF THE DNA EVIDENCE IS DUE TO SOILED EFFECTS OF MADELEINE, THE POLICE DETECTED THAT ON GOOD FAITH AND DID NOT PLANT THEM AND YOU ARE SLANDERING BY IMPLYING THEY ARE VICTIMIZING YOU.
EVEN IF THE DNA EVIDENCE IS SPURIOUS WHAT I SAID STILL HOLDS BECAUSE I SAID POLICE CANNOT HAVE FRAMED THE MCCANNS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO ACCESS TO HER BODY TO FRAME THEM.
Where Is the body:
Quote: A close friend said: "The legitimate question to ask Portuguese police is: "Where is the body? Where's the evidence that Madeleine is dead?"."
Comment: Why is it that the person did not mean what he said?
He does not mean what he said because he knows police do not know where the body is and he is not interested in the police telling him where the body is but he is curtly or derisively (emotions) reminding the police that they do not have the body and therefore they have no case against her parents. If you think that ‘you have no case because you have no body to prove she is dead’ is the same as asking ‘where is the body’ you may be correct or you have advanced false perception that will end in your mad perception. Therefore here as many places else people think they mean what they say and say what they mean but they don’t. As a result they are hypocrites heading for woe not heaven.
The rationale behind this is again not specific to this case but it is based on a generalisation he deems infallible and wants you to similarly subscribe to as infallible that in order to prove a murder you must produce a body to establish that the person is dead. Because Madeleine's body has not been found she may be alive and because she may be alive you cannot charge anyone with her murder, therefore 'get lost'.
It implies that even if the McCanns did it, police must put up and shut up unless they produce the body. This is the wrong human view that it does not matter if I did it, prove that I did it when the right view is the opposite, it does not matter whether it can be proved but what matters is did you or did you not do it?
It was said by an expert that hair found in the car can be determined to be from a dead body or dropped off a living person because there are detectable differences in the growth patterns. Even if there is no reference DNA for Madeleine because she is now missing, if the DNA of the blood found was very similar to the McCanns and their children but differed from them, it must have come from Madeleine and not them and therefore Madeleine’s dead body was in the car.
If this is the case you do not need a body to confirm that she is likely if not certainly dead and her body was carried in the car.
If the bodily fluid, blood and hair in the car can be proven to come not from the McCanns but from Madeleine in quantities that cannot be due to spurious contamination then the McCanns have some serious explaining to do because she had already disappeared by then so how come so much material is in the car?
Further through indiscretions, the McCanns may have email or recorded spoken evidence what they knew happened to Madeleine that they did not tell and that would incriminate them even without a body.
WHEN SOMEONE ASKS, ‘WHERE IS THE PEN’ HE WANTS YOU TO TELL HIM WHERE THE PEN IS BUT WHEN HE ASKED ‘WHERE IS THE BODY’ HE DOES MEAN HE WANTS YOU TO TELL HIM WHERE THE BODY IS BUT HE MEANS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO WORK OUT FOR YOURSELF AND EVEN THEN YOU CANNOT BE CERTAIN THAT IS WHAT HE MEANT LIKE ‘YOU HAVE NO CASE AGAINST MY FRIENDS BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO BODY’. HE MAY MEAN MANY OTHER THINGS IF YOU CARE TO EXERCISE YOUR IMAGINATION OR FALSE PERCEPTION. IF YOU DO NOT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE AND HEADED FOR PERDITION.
Why did the McCanns React So Hysterically?
You could say the McCanns 'went ballistic' with outrage at suggestions by police they killed Madeleine during their interrogations and refused to answer many questions and afterwards Gerry McCann haughtily said he need not tell you that the police's case did not stack up.
By proffering an explanation for the presence of DNA evidence in the boot, they are now admitting police has a case to suspect them.
Police have a right to suspect the McCanns in their effort to solve the case. Just because you do not like being suspected for reasons best known to you does not mean you are entitled to launch a broadside against them and in so doing you are not only accruing karmic debt for attacking and slandering but you are conditioning yourself to emotional false perception that whatever people say or do that you do not like equals hostile when it is not hostile but not liked by you because it disadvantages you.
In this situation when confronted with evidence of wrongdoing a person who is innocent and righteous may be shaken and will express surprise by saying they are surprised by the presence of incriminating evidence but there must be explanation and they might even come up with the correct explanation that it may be because they kept Madeleine's personal effects in the boot.
A person who is innocent but unrighteous will be angered to hurl abuse at their accusers and even though they may be innocent by so doing they are incurring serious karma.
A person who is guilty when confronted by evidence that is compelling as in this case is to be expected to retaliate (counter accuse) to act as if they are innocent and detract from the matter at hand, namely the presence of hard to explain incriminating evidence. They may falsely perceive the police is attacking them when the police is presenting them with unpalatable facts and because they perceive they are being attacked they cannot resist launching emotional counter attacks.
THUS THE EMOTIONAL IRRATIONAL COUNTER ATTACKING BY THE McCANNS MAY REFLECT THEY ARE INNOCENT BUT UNRIGHTEOUS (LESS LIKELY) OR THEY ARE GUILTY AND STRIVING TO DETRACT FROM THE MATTER AT HAND.
The reason that the McCanns have now come to a more rational refutation of the case against them may reflect they have now employed experienced defence lawyers ('handlers') who can teach them what to say and work out plausible explanations for whatever the police can accuse them of.
Quote: Kate and Gerry McCann have challenged the Portuguese police to produce their daughter Madeleine's body to prove they killed her.
Without it, their lawyers believe, it will be extremely difficult for authorities in the Algarve to press charges.
The couple threw down the gauntlet as it emerged Portuguese prosecutors want to seize Mrs McCann's private diaries and her husband's laptop computer.
Comment: It is totally unnecessary to issue challenges to the police and it is driven by aggression which is a form of ill will to impress others you are innocent. Foolish people feel that if they are seen to throw police the challenge or dare they must be certain they are innocent when it may be all bluff that draw more suspicions.
Of what use is it to dare the police? You have false perception that will end in mad perception if you think you challenging is meaningful when it is mere bravado.
Quote: Mr McCann's sister, Philomena McCann, said the possibility that police might seize the toy was a 'disgrace', adding: "It would be extremely distressing for Kate because she has seen it as a symbol of her daughter since she went missing.
"Why on earth do they ask for the toys now? Why didn't they think of this before?"
Comment: You may not like the idea of the police confiscating your belongings but there is nothing disgraceful about this except in your advanced false perception and to unrighteously imply police are disgraceful. Do not ask frivolous questions, the police may have relevant reasons and circumstances may have changed so that they now want the item. The questions are therefore based on emotional hostility or derision not reason.
Reference DNA for Madeleine may be found on her favourite toy or in hair found at her home in UK or on her clothes and so police may have reference DNA to compare what they found in the car.
Quote: The 39-year-old doctors have strenuously denied ever harming Madeleine and are devastated the hunt for her has been overshadowed by an attempt to 'set them up'.
Comment: If the police have set them up why have they bothered to explain that the DNA evidence may be spurious therefore acknowledging police did not plant DNA in the car?
One slip and the game is up:
One slip by the alleged kidnapper and his game may be up. Even if he may have taken precautions to silence Madeleine it only takes a moment for a child to scream and that will alert adults nearby. Children usually cannot be threatened with death to remain silence because they may not understand the concept of death and so threats to remain silent will not work with children and unless the kidnapper made sure she cannot scream, one slip and his cover may be blown.