Translate

Saturday, 14 June 2014

Idiot.


And the winner of the Stupidest Comment of the Week is......

We would like to remind all those who think paedophilia is the reason for the cover-up that all these hundreds of thousands of British taxpayer pounds spent, according to them, were for SY to actively cooperate in helping, consciously, a NEPIOPHILE (infant-rapist) escape justice.
Reply


Possibly one of the most ridiculous claims you have ever made. And that's up against some stiff competition.
So go on then - explain how, according to you, seeing as you believe they were all swingers, Scotland Yard are attempting, deliberately, to help an enormous group of swingers escape justice.

 Postscript

A reply from Textusa

Insane,

We will, as always, gladly answer all your reasonable questions.

But before we do that, we want to have your theory, in a nutshell, as to what happened to Maddie.

In your opinion, was she abducted? What do you think happened to her?

In your opinion, were the McCanns involved in any way?

In your opinion, why SY chose those particular areas to search?

Think of this as an opportunity to educate readers.

Once you do that, we will then provide our answer. And it might surprise you.
This was my reply to her

Nope, doesn't work like that. You are the one making the claims, it's up to you to prove them. My opinions about the case have no bearing on whether you tell the truth (ha!) or not. I choose with whom I share my opinions, and you, dear, didn't make the list.  I sincerely doubt the process would ''educate'' your readers, if such a feat were even possible, which frankly, for many of them, it isn't.
So shall we try again?
Explain how, according to you, seeing as you believe they were all swingers, Scotland Yard are attempting, deliberately, to help an enormous group of swingers escape justice?

For the avoidance of doubt, I'll make this very clear.
If I had a blog in which I made claims about the case or people involved in it, it would be a reasonable expectation that I would back those claims up.

I don't. If I ever do, I will expect to provide justification for any claims I make

Textusa does. If the claims she made were fair or established as truth, that would be fair enough. However, she doesn't present them as opinion, she presents them as FACT and frequently claims to have 'proved'or established those claims. As such, I believe she should have an expectation of being challenged to provide evidence.

Textusa's reply is nothing more than an avoidance tactic, and will not be indulged. I think the reason for her squirming is quite obvious - she is totally unable to justify her claims. This will become even more apparent if she continues to refuse.

Unsurprisingly

Not surprised. We didn’t expect you to commit yourself to an opinion. We’ll just have to keep surprise to ourselves.


 We didn't expect that you would be able to provide anything with which to back up your claims, hence these avoidance tactics.
Don't worry, Textusa, we are all quite used to you making false claims. We'll stick this one on the slate with the others.

And the next day, latest bullshit instalment

We agree with readers. Whoever is unwilling to share their position with the rest of us doesn’t deserve our company. Fair is fair but enough is enough.

Not wanting to deprive readers of the surprise we had for Insane: to turn his own words against himself.

When providing an opinion about the graffiti incident he had this to say “And I doubt very much that 'simple person' believes they were helped out by all the staff of Mark Warner's and a cast of local residents to cover up a swinging holiday”

So it’s no longer the whole of PdL, or the whole ex-Pat community but just “a cast of local residents”. <- It means exactly the same thing, you mad old bat
This is what the Portuguese say “fugir com a boca para a verdade” or “to run away with the mouth towards the truth”.

He’s slowly getting there. If he had written “they were helped out by some of the staff of Mark Warner's - a cast helped actively and the remainder with their silence - and a cast of local residents to cover up a swinging holiday”, we would say he was being quite accurate. < I actually speak English, so I would never mangle my words in this incomprehensible fashion
And about his capability to speak truthfully, this is what he has to say about having a blog:

“If I had a blog in which I made claims about the case or people involved in it, it would be a reasonable expectation that I would back those claims up.
< You walked right into that one. Unlike you, I don't make claims about the case or people involved in it - do you understand the difference? You have, since the very start, accused people of a variety of crimes for which you have precisely no evidence. You make claims, I state facts
I don't. If I ever do, I will expect to provide justification for any claims I make”

So his famous highly exclusive blog about the case never existed. What a surprise
.< Oh it exists. It is, however a factual analysis of the case where we do not make claims for which there is no evidence. And stop angling for an invite, we have a 'No Riff Raff' policy
So, Textusa's answer to the question:

''Explain how, according to you, seeing as you believe they were all swingers, Scotland Yard are attempting, deliberately, to help an enormous group of swingers escape justice?''

......is that she refuses to give one. As expected


Amusing to see the mass panic from your minions, who realise you have no answer to the question, Textusa. 
It is, however, apparent from my postbag that your refusal to answer the question, and your desperate flannelling has not gone unnoticed.
You really should think before you open your mouth. It has got you into so much trouble before. You tell one fib, you have to tell a dozen more to cover it up. You made up a story about a man killing a little girl, despite the fact that there was no evidence to support this. It's nothing more or less than your rather disturbing fantasy.
You supported your fantasy with other fantasy tales
You are not someone who comments on the case. You are a sad, middle-aged woman who gets her rocks off by writing sexual fairy stories.
You don't give a shit about who you defame, demean or disturb. Your one saving grace is that no-one takes too much notice as it is more than apparent that you are completely off your rocker.

5 comments:

  1. You have this blog where you make claims about the case and about one person at least: Textusa.
    So what is your position on the questions Textusa asked you
    - was Maddie abducted or what do you think happened to her?
    - were her parents involvef in what happened to her?
    - what prompted SY to choose the 2 different locations in Luz?
    -

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mind your own business. If the day ever arrives when I want to share my opinions with some random on the internet, you'll be the first to know. If you want to know something factual about the case, ask away. If you are expecting me to speculate, piss off and stop wasting my time.

      Delete
    2. Oh, and incidentally if anyone who is not a member of the Operation Grange team - including you and Textusa - claims they know why those locations were chosen, they are talking out of their arse. You don't know, and neither does she.

      Delete
    3. Oops - she actually makes a lot more sense than you! But on you go, I'm sure your manufactured commentators will back you up....

      Delete

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.