Wednesday, 21 May 2014

It's worth a quick reminder.........

It's been a long time since Her Loonyness first let the rest of the world in on her insanity. So much so that she felt it necessary to repeat her basic thesis again.

Seems like an ideal opportunity to cast our peepers over it too. So here it is

Anonymous 20 May 2014 15:56:00,

On the basis of our utmost firm and convicted belief that there was no negligence is the FACT that there were NO dinners at Tapas during that week.

NO DINING and NO WINING at Tapas. They did that elsewhere and when they did that the children were tended to by adequate proffessionals.

One of the reasons why we’re positive there were no dinners is because there was no Big Round Table at Tapas. Why we think it is adequately expressed in our “The proof Ocean Club Reads Textusa” post (07Mar14).

For those of you unfamiliar with Textusa's pathology, this is how it works. There are three basic principles.

This is the first. The Tenets.

She gets an idea.

She declares it to be a truth. It becomes canon, a tenet, immoveable.

Everything else, however unlikely, then has to fit around the initial idea, because otherwise she would have to admit that her initial idea, or presumption, or assumption or lie was wrong. And that she won't do.

However preposterous this makes that central tenet, however poorly it stands up to the challenge, it must never be allowed to fall - because if it falls, everything else falls with it  

The second basic principle is that a  piece of evidence may be appropriated to both support her ridiculous notions on the one hand, yet utterly discounted as having any merit on the other.

There is a third basic principle too, of course. That is that having developed the idea one must then obfuscate one's own post with maps and diagrams and much much verbiage to the point that no-one has a fucking clue what the initial point was, but gaze longingly up with adoration and gasp ''Oh Textusa, you are wonderful, you have hit the nail right on the head'', without having the faintest idea what the point was, or if said nail even had a head in the first place.

So shall we see how she got herself into this? I think we should.

It really is quite simple.

Textusa decided that there was no big round table at the Tapas.

The reasons why are not important. They involved lots of diagrams and arrows and bogus calculations - that's all you really need to know.

But this gave rise to the following and rather simplistic thought process

No big round table = no tapas dinners = no neglect

And I guess she thought that was that - she had made her point and off she went, skipping into the distance to await the arrival of matron, the syringe and the night restraints.

However, there was a bit of a fly in the ointment.

Well - rather a lot of flies, actually.

In the shape of the hundreds of people who could attest in one way or another to the existence of the Tapas restaurant, the inclusion of the Tapas as a place to eat for half-board patrons, the presence of the McCanns in the restaurant and the various documentation attesting to the same.

So what was the answer? Retreat gracefully, admitting that clearly the couples had dined there, so forget the last post and let's move on?

Oh no, we can't have that.

After all, Textusa has declared a basic tenet - no table, no dinners

So there is only one possible explanation. Shall we re-create the dialogue for you? I think we should.

Red = Textusa, Blue = sane people

All the restaurant staff, the holidaymakers, the locals, the reception staff who booked the tables - all lying to cover up for the McCanns

Er - hang on - why would they do that?

*Thinks hard* - Swinging!

Swinging? But that's not even illegal. Are you suggesting that all the hundreds of people who gave statements to the PJ which in one way or another place the Tapas group in the Tapas did so as part of some huge conspiracy - even though they did not know the McCanns or each other?

Well, yes. That is exactly what she was suggesting, and continues to insist to this day. Why?

Because otherwise she would have to admit she was wrong about the table

Hang on - Martin Brunt was FILMED sitting at that table, wasn't he?

Yes he was.

Well then....?

It's  a fake

What is?

The film. It's been manipulated.

So you are saying, in all seriousness, that an international news organisation faked a moving piece of footage of their reporter sitting at a restaurant table in order to maintain an 'illusion' that the tapas group ate there?

*Through gritted teeth* Yes, that is what we are saying.

So just as a quick recap, Textusa, there never was a big round table, therefore the tapas group could not have dined there, and every account which places them there, plus all the booking sheets, plus the film footage of Martin Brunt sat at the same table - all lies, all faked?


And the table shown in Mr Amaral's recent documentary?



And how about this, from the police files?


Did the PJ also collude to ''fake'' the existence of a big round table, and ask the witnesses to indicate where each had been sitting? And then put it in the police files?




And the rest is history.......


  1. It's all beyond stupid!

  2. Yes, as my dear old gran used to say, ''the fucker's a nutbag''

  3. Agreed. Don't know who you are, but agreed. Textusa goes beyond the most far fetched assumptions to prove a point, I mean, not to prove a point.But your comments there are also very annoying for the readers who follow the case, we are all aware Textusa writes like that, no need to make an anti-blog using her alias. It's unoriginal and boring, why do that and act like a troll? It's just a theory and brings awareness to the case, people often start reading more, participate in forums and reading the files. So it's a good thing a bit of novelish writing. Why don't you start your theory and post it here highlighting where you disagree with Textusa? It would be more useful, unless you're on the McCann team, now THAT would be *****d up. You two seem like an elderly couple fighting, a bit of a muppet show...

    1. I have already answered your other post.

      I would suggest that when it comes to whether an anti-blog is required you might want to mind your own business - I don't tell you where you can post, so how about you keep your beak out of what I do, okay? If you find it unoriginal and boring, that's fine. It clearly isn't for you, so don't let the door hit you on the arse as you leave.

      I am not interested in posting ''my theory'' as you describe it, and inviting a load of halfwits to debate it with me. If I wanted to do that, I would join fucking Havern's, wouldn't I?

      The purpose of this blog, in case you couldn't read the bit at the top of the page, was to host the questions she refuses to answer, and to publish the posts she refuses to publish. Did you miss that bit?

      If you are looking for something else, you won't find it. And if you don't like what you DO find, then this place probably isn't for you. But hey, it's been emotional.

      Off you fuck.......


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.