2 & 2 TV video allegedly to be released on 12th October

Poppy wrote:And the sneak preview with Video 2 was about whooshing curtains Andrew.off topic but welcome to the forum the great petermac.  

Has he joined this forum?

Dee coy how do you know it is not connected to petermac?Andrew Imo peter has been a member of this forum for ages.

Poppy wrote:Dee coy how do you know it is not connected to petermac?Andrew Imo peter has been a member of this forum for ages.

Really - wouldn't of guessed that in the slightest.

Hope he is on here.

It's only my opinion Andrew and i have given myself a good guess of his user name, but i wouldn't share it cos i am sure if he wanted to post under petermac he would do' but i could be completely wrong and he isn't a member.

2+2 is the way Mr Edmonds booked his table at the tapas

Bampots wrote:2+2 is the way Mr Edmonds booked his table at the tapas

What was Edmonds really doing there. That's what I want to know. Man of his wealth staying in that dump.

IIRC he was there with his 2 children. 1+2 = 3, so who was the other.

Surely someone like him would have all sorts of bodygaurds / associates etc with him or have I been watching too many movies.

Philip Edmonds was there with his 3 children, Andrew.

It's news to me that PeterMac may be on this forum but if he is - hello there!

2&2TV followed Heidi B****, John D******, Tom C****** and 250 others

Now yesterday it said 2&2 followed 200.....Does this mean that 2&2 added a further 50 or does this mean another 50 just followed 2&2. Im not sure how Twitter does things.

I asterixed names

Funny thing....I had a few the other night and tried Twitter Didnt have a clue how to work it out so quickly left...2&2 said they were new to Twitter but managed it easily...

ChillyHeat wrote:2&2TV followed Heidi B****, John D******, Tom C****** and 250 others

Now yesterday it said 2&2 followed 200.....Does this mean that 2&2 added a further 50 or does this mean another 50 just followed 2&2. Im not sure how Twitter does things.

I asterixed names

Funny thing....I had a few the other night  and tried Twitter  Didnt have a clue how to work it out so quickly left...2&2 said they were new to Twitter but managed it easily...

If 2+2 has a Twitter account and they "follow" someone it means they have actively chosen to follow those 50 new people since the last time you checked.

If you look at 2+2 "followed" total, those are the people who have actively chosen to follow the 2+2 Twitter account.

The two actions, following and followed, are exclusive - that means, you can follow someone, but they don't necesarily have to follow you back. And there is no order to the steps. Someone can follow you, and you can decide to follow them back. Or you can seek out someone to follow, and they don't necessarily have to follow you back.

Hope this helps :-)

canada12 wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:2&2TV followed Heidi B****, John D******, Tom C****** and 250 others

Now yesterday it said 2&2 followed 200.....Does this mean that 2&2 added a further 50 or does this mean another 50 just followed 2&2. Im not sure how Twitter does things.

I asterixed names

Funny thing....I had a few the other night  and tried Twitter  Didnt have a clue how to work it out so quickly left...2&2 said they were new to Twitter but managed it easily...

If 2+2 has a Twitter account and they "follow" someone it means they have actively chosen to follow those 50 new people since the last time you checked.

If you look at 2+2 "followed" total, those are the people who have actively chosen to follow the 2+2 Twitter account.

The two actions, following and followed, are exclusive - that means, you can follow someone, but they don't necesarily have to follow you back. And there is no order to the steps. Someone can follow you, and you can decide to follow them back. Or you can seek out someone to follow, and they don't necessarily have to follow you back.

Hope this helps :-)

So in layman's and non twitter speak, this means that 2+2 have activated their account yesterday then?

There is the title, 2&2 ,why not 1&3?

Andrew wrote:

canada12 wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:2&2TV followed Heidi B****, John D******, Tom C****** and 250 others

Now yesterday it said 2&2 followed 200.....Does this mean that 2&2 added a further 50 or does this mean another 50 just followed 2&2. Im not sure how Twitter does things.

I asterixed names

Funny thing....I had a few the other night  and tried Twitter  Didnt have a clue how to work it out so quickly left...2&2 said they were new to Twitter but managed it easily...

If 2+2 has a Twitter account and they "follow" someone it means they have actively chosen to follow those 50 new people since the last time you checked.

If you look at 2+2 "followed" total, those are the people who have actively chosen to follow the 2+2 Twitter account.

The two actions, following and followed, are exclusive - that means, you can follow someone, but they don't necesarily have to follow you back. And there is no order to the steps. Someone can follow you, and you can decide to follow them back. Or you can seek out someone to follow, and they don't necessarily have to follow you back.

Hope this helps :-)

So in layman's and non twitter speak, this means that 2+2 have activated their account yesterday then?

As Ive not looked daily and seen an increase of followers, only noticed an increase this morning, I think it safe to assume that 2&2 have been active continuous, and are adding more people to follow it seems. 4 days left to get out 2 videos....Time is getting tight

I dont think now, that Brenda had any involvement...Just my guess.

ETA 2&2TV followed Adam Wagner, Joshua Rozenberg, Maya Wolfe-Robinson and 274 others
So still adding more.
https://twitter.com/2and2TV

On Youtube...

20 subscribers
3,443 views
Joined 12 Jul 2014

Im subscribed to them, so only 19 others in the world
The join date 12 July 2014, then no activity for over 2 months is a bit strange...
I really dont know what to make of it, but they are following a lot of media people on Twitter

Andrew wrote:
So in layman's and non twitter speak, this means that 2+2 have activated their account yesterday then?

No no... the date of their first tweet on twitter is September 26. So they've had an active Twitter account since at least that date. They've tweeted 136 times since then. Since then, as of now, they are "following" 353 others. And they have 208 "followers". :-)

canada12 wrote:

Andrew wrote:
So in layman's and non twitter speak, this means that 2+2 have activated their account yesterday then?

No no... the date of their first tweet on twitter is September 26. So they've had an active Twitter account since at least that date. They've tweeted 136 times since then. Since then, as of now, they are "following" 353 others. And they have 208 "followers". :-)

Sorry Canada. Didn't really explain myself properly earlier. At work and can't multitask!!

What I mean't was in a roundabout way - Have 2+2 used their Twitter account since what happened to Brenda?

Just really to rule out whether there was a connection between the two if you see what I mean?

Andrew wrote:

canada12 wrote:

Andrew wrote:
So in layman's and non twitter speak, this means that 2+2 have activated their account yesterday then?

No no... the date of their first tweet on twitter is September 26. So they've had an active Twitter account since at least that date. They've tweeted 136 times since then. Since then, as of now, they are "following" 353 others. And they have 208 "followers". :-)

Sorry Canada. Didn't really explain myself properly earlier. At work and can't multitask!!

What I mean't was in a roundabout way - Have 2+2 used their Twitter account since what happened to Brenda?

Just really to rule out whether there was a connection between the two if you see what I mean?

It would seem the answer is yes, because they are choosing to follow more twitter accounts.

Andrew wrote:

canada12 wrote:

Andrew wrote:
So in layman's and non twitter speak, this means that 2+2 have activated their account yesterday then?

No no... the date of their first tweet on twitter is September 26. So they've had an active Twitter account since at least that date. They've tweeted 136 times since then. Since then, as of now, they are "following" 353 others. And they have 208 "followers". :-)

Sorry Canada. Didn't really explain myself properly earlier. At work and can't multitask!!

What I mean't was in a roundabout way - Have 2+2 used their Twitter account since what happened to Brenda?

Just really to rule out whether there was a connection between the two if you see what I mean?

Ah, ok, gotcha.

They haven't actually tweeted anything since October 2 at 1.24 am my time, which would make it 9.24am UK time.

However, there's a sneaky way to check and see if the person behind the account is online doing anything with the account. You just look at the "following" list. Unfortunately there are never any dates given for when new people are followed by the owner of the account. But if you've made note of the last follower count on a certain date, and you notice that follower count has gone up, then someone has been actively adding new followers without actually tweeting anything.

Does that make sense?

So, if the last time you looked, they were following 350 people...and you look again today and they are following 353 people, then someone has obviously added 3 more followers. They just haven't tweeted anything.

When was the last time anyone checked the number of people they were following?

My answer too, ChillyHeat :-) You got there first :-)

ChillyHeat wrote:

Andrew wrote:

canada12 wrote:

Andrew wrote:
So in layman's and non twitter speak, this means that 2+2 have activated their account yesterday then?

No no... the date of their first tweet on twitter is September 26. So they've had an active Twitter account since at least that date. They've tweeted 136 times since then. Since then, as of now, they are "following" 353 others. And they have 208 "followers". :-)

Sorry Canada. Didn't really explain myself properly earlier. At work and can't multitask!!

What I mean't was in a roundabout way - Have 2+2 used their Twitter account since what happened to Brenda?

Just really to rule out whether there was a connection between the two if you see what I mean?

It would seem the answer is yes, because they are choosing to follow more twitter accounts.

Really don't know how Twitter works so sorry if I sound like a thicko!!!

I know for example on Facebook. I could send out 50 friend requests on a Monday. Be Dead by Wednesday and have 50 more friends by Friday if you you know what I mean.

Is it not similar with Twitter?

Go from this link in Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/user/2and2TV
Then click on their twitter tab in their banner and look...As of this moment they are following 353. I will check later if it increases.


ETA....Looked again and now they are following 370, so an increase of 17 in 5 or so minutes....2&2 are still active

388 now WTF!!!
How can they be adding so quickly ?

Am hoping now that a link might be added in video 4 that takes us to a massive information drop about this case
Its getting a bit of a feeling of an Edward Snowden type thing.... (hoping of course)

They are adding all types of media outlets...

I wonder if their name is just a take on the saying putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5...

Don't know, I suppose we'll just have to wait, though I'm not convinced it's anything to do with whooshing curtains, we've all been discussing that for ages and the McCanns have never responded, nor do I think it is anything to do with Philip Edmonds, I genuinely think he was just there for a short break with his kids, possibly because of the excellent child friendly facilities, maybe he did have business contacts there but I doubt it was anything to do with the McCanns, because remember, prior to 3rd May 07, they were nobodies, totally obscure, possibly struggling financially with a massive mortgage, not the sort of people who would associate with Edmonds, and I know people find it suspicious that someone with his wealth would be in a resort like that, but on the other hand it is in beautiful area of the Algarve and maybe the facilities just suited him for a short break?

I dont think its about Edmonds either...In the link here https://twitter.com/2and2TV , the first paragraph says a critical detail in the days following her disappearance.

Well I'm stumped, and there were so many untruths spoken by the McCanns in the days following the disappearance it would be hard to pinpoint one critical detail.

Just wish they would get on with it, I hate all this cloak and dagger stuff...and I'm very impatient