Translate

Friday, 25 April 2014

Intellectual dishonesty

Recently, in her post ''Speed'', Textusa posted the following:

''We have said time and time again, and will now repeat, that we like to be corrected. Openly. Transparently.

For logic’s sake. If things are there that need be corrected, then we must do just that. We don’t mind being shown to be wrong, on the contrary, we welcome it. To proceed uncorrected is to base following arguments on false premises.

To correct us is to be our friend. That simple, that true.

We certainly don't want to be accused of intellectual dishonesty.''

All seems quite clear, doesn't it?

She likes to be corrected
Openly
Transparently

She welcomes the correction
To proceed uncorrected is to proceed on a false premise

To correct her is to be her friend
She doesn't want to be accused of ''Intellectual dishonesty''


Let's see how good her word is.


Earlier today, Textusa posted this, as part of her post entitled ''Blackmail''

''18 sexually assaulted British white 6-10 yr old little girls in Western Algarve.

What next?''

What next indeed. Well what happened next is that I informed Textusa that she was wrong - there were nine attacks on children, not 18. So I corrected her because to correct her is to be her friend.

So I informed Textusa of her mistake.
18 burglaries, 9 resulting in attacks on children.
You are doing well. That's just the first line, and already a glaring error

She replied eventually, defending her position but without actually providing a source. She was still wrong and she was sticking to it.

 
From Scotland Yard and not any newspaper:

In March:

“Whilst not identical, there are many similar aspects to each of the incidents in that in most cases there were no signs of forced entry to the property, NOTHING WAS TAKEN, and the intruder appeared in the early hours of the morning between 02.00hrs and 05.00hrs.”

(http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t9293p50-crimewatch-update-on-madeleinemccann-case-tonight-19th-march)

In April:

“These NEW CASES ARE SIMILAR TO A NUMBER OF THE ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED TWELVE OFFENCES whereby a male intruder has gained access to holiday villas occupied by UK families in the Western Algarve.

Of the six new cases, all but one had been reported to the Portuguese police at the time of the offence. FIVE INVOLVE SEXUAL ASSAULTS on children and ONE WAS A ‘NEAR MISS'. Of particular interest to the team is that one of the new sexual assaults took place in Praia da Luz in 2005.”

(
http://www.met.police.uk/madeleine-mccann-appeal/)

I wasn't the only person to point out to Textusa that she was wrong

 
Guardian 24/4/14
James Meikle
Madeleine McCann inquiry told of more assaults.
Police .... say they now know of 9 sexual assaults and 3 "near misses" on British girls between the ages of 6 and 12 who were on holiday on the Algarve between 2004 and 2006...
British investigators are looking at 18 potentially linked incidents in the Algarve, where an intruder entered rooms in holiday flTs occupied by British families. Little, if anything, was stolen. There were in all 9 sexual assaults, 3 near misses and 6 incidents where the intruder was disturbed.

So did Textusa  mind being shown to be wrong

Little bit, yes

I assisted her by posting a link to the crimewatch video and the precise time where two officers from Operation Grange confirmed that of the first 12 burglaries, only 4 involved attacks on children

And her bad-tempered response? I will highlight my posts and responses in red to make it easier to follow. She wasn't very happy.

These are the comments we have received from Insane up to now:

Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Blackmail":

And where does it say, in your first cite from a forum, that all those cases involved an assault on a child?

You have got this wrong, and you are going to look a bit of a twerp when you realise that and have to correct yourself

Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 25 Apr 2014 19:43:00

******
Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Blackmail":

If you are still struggling textusa, to actually get your facts right, why don't the view the youtube clip from Crimewatch in March, where Andy Redwood clearly states that of the 12 break-ins they were already aware, 4 cases involved an assault on a child.

I can send you a link to it if you are still finding it all a bit difficult.

Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 25 Apr 2014 20:04:00

******
Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Blackmail":

They are probably interested because they believe they were committed by the same man.

Is that difficult to understand?

Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 25 Apr 2014 20:06:00

******
Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Blackmail":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TdlpA4lF7M&feature=player_embedded

At approximately 4'25'' and again at 7'30''

Then you can correct your post and apologise. Intellectual honesty, remember.

Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 25 Apr 2014 20:35:00

******
Now, as you can see, I have posted nothing offensive, merely pointed out her errors and given her the correct information

This seems to have annoyed her a tad

''We have published these comments so that all readers can make up their minds as to what Insane’s take on the subject is.

SY in March and now in April is making a very clear statement that there was a stranger who presented a real threat to British 6-10 yr old girls in Western Algarve.

What was the threat poised?

Sexual assault.

All of them consummated? We know that at least one was a “near miss”. So no. Does a “near miss” constitute a “sexual assault”? In terms of a potential tourist it certainly does.

The aggressor may only have been allowed to only enter a house in the middle of the night without having, for whatever reason, sexually assaulted any little girl.

But why did he enter that house in the first place?

From what SY has told the general public it wasn’t to steal. It was to sexually assault British white 6-10 yr old girls.

His modus operandi is not to burgle but to sexually assault in the middle of the night minors of a certain gender, certain nationality, certain race and certain age group.

That was his intention. No other.

If he consummated it or not is VERY relevant from the victim’s point of view but ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to a potential visitor who happens to be a parent of a British white 6-10 yr old girl.

Any parent of a British white 6-10 yr old girl who happens to believe in SY immediately strikes off Algarve off a possible holiday destination.

No potential visitor will ask “Yes, there were 18 incidents but really, really how MANY did the man indeed sexually assault the girl? Oh, only 9? Oh, then that's fine. Feel safe to take my daughter then… I would only be worried if he really got to more than 10...”

What the general public perceived from the SY’s words was that all 18 incidents are related with sexual assaults of British white 6-10 yr old girls, which is true, as that, according to SY, was the basis, or motivation, for all 18 incidents.

In none does SY say it was just a burglary. On the contrary, it says that nothing was taken.

Insane tries to divert attention from the two crucial points of the post: SY has launched a campaign of “sexual assaulting against British white 6-10 yr old girls” against the Algarve because, in our opinion, it has been left out of the loop of PJ’s investigation.

It has repeatedly requested and “requested” for it to be “joint” and all has been refused by PJ. But in desperate times one just has to request and “request” over and over again.

Conversation about this subject with Insane is over. He has his own playground as you know''

Now, we were not discussing whether parents would feel the resort was safe. The entire interaction was correcting the glaring and obvious error.

And because I corrected the error she withheld my posts and then rambled on with a feeble justification of her own incorrect position.

In particular she claimed ''Insane tries to divert attention from the two crucial points of the post''

No - I did not enter into any discussion at that point or in my later response to the post.

I merely corrected Textusa's error. Like she asked people to do.

Shall I remind you again what you said, Textusa?

We have said time and time again, and will now repeat, that we like to be corrected. Openly. Transparently.

For logic’s sake. If things are there that need be corrected, then we must do just that. We don’t mind being shown to be wrong, on the contrary, we welcome it. To proceed uncorrected is to base following arguments on false premises.

To correct us is to be our friend. That simple, that true.

We certainly don't want to be accused of intellectual dishonesty.


You have just demonstrated that not only are you intellectually dishonest you are habitually dishonest.

What a hypocrite




No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.