Thursday, 11 February 2016


Some Textaloon is getting snotty with me about a link to the fact that there are at least 45 restaurants in PdL

S/he keeps demanding a link. This is bone idleness, basically

So I'm going to put the link here and see if she notices

That shows 45 restaurants for which there are tripadvisor reviews. There may of course be others for which no reviews currently exist

Anyway, shhhh

We'll see how long it takes them to catch on......

PS - seriously, you could not write this stuff, no-one would believe you

The human skidmark came back to complain that I was ''making it up'' and that there isn't 45 restaurants in PdL

Then helpfully provided a link to a list of 64

Ooops, it's back again

It lists cafes, pubs/bars, hotels and restaurants and many have the same letter.
It can be 64 or any other number. It's not 45. I still would like to see your 45 restaurant list.

Well, it's been here the whole time :D

And your list, which is split into different categories, lists 43 as ''restaurants''

So that's slightly more than your claim that there was, er, zero  



  1. Hello NT,
    I started reading the reviews, many very positive. And found that the dates were mixed, many visits in "off season" time. Families, couples - all sorts of tourists. This contradicts the claimings of Textusa and Nuala. These reviews tell another story. For some places there are very recent reviews, and now is much more "off season" than April- May.
    So they're all hungry swingers then or what:D

  2. Well, I'm sure it must give one an appetite :D

    Yes, of course people go to all kinds of places out of season, especially families without school age kids. Thanks for that, never thought to look at the reviews in terms of the date they were posted


  3. As the McCann sceptic you said you were in Cristobell’s blog:
    1. Do you agree or not that Maddie's body was in the back garden where the dog marked?
    2. Do you agree or not that Maddie's body was below the window in the living-room where the dog marked?
    3. Do you agree or not that Maddie's body was in closet of the bedroom where the dog marked?

    1. Took your time, didn't you?

      So let's get a few things clear.
      It's not for you to decide how people describe themselves - who the fuck do you think you are?
      It's also not for you to describe what constitutes a "sceptic" and what doesn't. I don't give a rat's arse about the minutiae of what you think and frankly it's none of your fucking business about the specifics of my, or for that matter, anyone else's beliefs. You might think your bully boy tactics work with most people; you are very sadly mistaken if you think they will work with me.

      While we are at it, let's get a few more things straight. I probably know a lot more about cadaver dog alerts than you do. I certainly know a great deal more about chemistry and physics than you appear to. So perhaps you should pin your ears back, eh?

      No-one can conclusively say, in the presence of biological residues to confirm it, where human remains may have lain. Mr Grime would tell you the same. The dog alerts to the odour. The odour can be coming from remains which are still present, or from residual scent which remains inside the premises. The products of human decomposition to which the dog reacts are volatile - this means they rapidly move from a liquid state to a gaseous state. Once in a gaseous state they may adhere to surfaces or may remain in the air. You can't collect them on a swab and prove anything, but the dog may detect them. As you would know if you had read Grime's reports, the dog is encouraged to search until it detects the strongest scent, but this does not necessarily mean, in the case of residual scent, that this corresponds to where biological remains exist or where a body once lay. The gaseous residues are subject to air movements within the environment and may be stronger in the presence of the more porous surfaces. If you want to try to understand how that works, go into the house of a smoker and smell their curtains. Get it now?
      Therefore, this is what can be determined:

      That the dog gave an alert at several locations.
      That no biological residues were detected at those locations which can help to identify the source of the alerts.
      That in the absence of those residues, the source remains unconfirmed.

      If you want to extrapolate more from that in order to help your tiny, shrivelled textaloon brain deal with it, than that's entirely up to you. I don't deal in bullshit. From a scientific perspective, that is as much information as the alerts currently provide. You probably don't understand that, as you give no indication of possessing even a scintilla of scientific knowledge, so if you don't like it, that's basically just tough titties. Go and read Grime's report and see if he claims more. He doesn't.

  4. *Paragraph 3, 'Presence' should read 'absence'


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.

Messages not for publication can also be left, or you can email