Translate

Monday, 28 May 2018

Handbags and gladrags

Evening all,

Just a quick one tonight.

Some of you may have seen Textusa's latest mad rant in which she seems to find it necessary to "out" anyone who might ever have agreed with me on any point, no matter how small or inconsequential. Some of you have been kind enough to inform her of the error of her ways, for which I thank you. Sadly, all she has achieved is to reinforce what I said - that she has a major problem with anyone who refuses to drink the Kool Aid. 

I am quietly smiling to myself imagining just how pissed off she must be that she declared she wasn't going to post again, because it is clearly driving her even more bonkers that she doesn't have recourse to arrows to illustrate her points. It probably also drives her nuts that I couldn't be less bothered by her mad ranting.

Textusa wasn't happy - she couldn't cope in a world without arrows



21 comments:

  1. I'm going to address just one comment, from Textusa's arsekisser-in-chief

    "Nuala Seaton No-one who supports the disgusting NotTextusa blog is here for justice for Maddie McCann. No-one. And what is interesting is those people who have recently come out in support of it that were silent about it for years. But NOW the NT blog is the "go to place" for the truth about Maddie? Seriously? That disgusting individual who maintains that the areas Eddie alerted to were toileting spots? Really? You support the disgusting NT person who said that?"

    Okay - let's clear this up, once and for all.

    This comes from a humorous caption I added to one of Textusa's interminable posts, specifically a diagram of apartment 5A on which she had marked areas where the dogs alerted as A,B and C.

    I substituted this:

    “The staff were getting wise to Textusa, and had drawn a map of her favourite toileting spots”.

    It was a pisstake and I make no apology for it. There was no intention whatsoever of disrespecting the child and every intention of disrespecting Textusa. (I frequently liken Textusa to an inmate in a hospital for the chronically insane, mainly because she is)

    Textusa and her feeble-minded sidekicks can repeat this as often as they please. Personally, I find it far more disrespectful to accuse witnesses of lying when they are not in a position to respond

    ReplyDelete
  2. It really is quite an unhealthy obsession.
    I'd really like people to put it all aside for a second, and really think.


    Let's look at this from a sensible perspective.

    NotTextusa, (who wouldn't have even thought of himself as that at the time) is persistently accused of being the deplorable person responsible for the "Walker" account on Twitter. Now, even those unfamiliar with Twitter will likely be aware of this person, whose insults include references to autism, cancer, and child sex abuse.

    So he sets up a blog, probably to;
    1, refute each point articulately, without risk of it not being published. And,
    2, throw a few insults back, as is a normal human reaction I'd say.
    It's only lucky that, as far as I can see, the author of this blog now known as NotTextusa, is relatively anonymous. I've witnessed the effects such disgusting accusations can have when they leak into real, day to day life; on someone I care about a great deal, and it's no joke.

    Now, whilst the NotTextusa blog was, I suppose, set up solely to refute Textusa's mad claims, does not mean it's the first or only place they've ever commented on the case.
    As Textusa has been assured on multiple occasions (which has fallen on deaf ears of course), most people know who NT is (or rather, was. Before they became NT, a necessity in my eyes, and a bloody funny one at that)


    Funny how, EVERYONE who dares show the slightest interest in what NT has to say, must be someone with an agenda.
    Well, perhaps.
    An agenda for a little less accusation, a little more honesty please?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evening Sade,

      When I first set up this blog, I outlined why, and that message appears on every page. It says:

      "For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer. Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions So if she refuses to publish your posts and you want to have your say, send them to me. I'll put them on here for you"

      The evolution which happened, with me breaking down each post, came about as she just wouldn't print the responses which questioned her, or wouldn't print them in full, thus altering their meaning.

      The blog was not established with the aim of attacking her specifically. I respond to what she and others post. As people will have noticed, I have other blogs too. Textusa comes in for more attention because for years she has produced 20,000 words of complete drivel on a weekly basis.

      Delete
    2. PS I have been reading Facebook. Now I can't sleep for laughing :))

      Delete
    3. PS, anyone who hasn't seen your other blogs, haven't lived 😃

      I suppose think of it like this. If it were the Bennett blog people were "defending", they'd be laughed out of town. But maybe not a few years back. It's a long road to nowhere 🙂

      Delete
    4. NT 28 May 2018 at 17:42

      Love laughing. Would ask for a link, but sleeping‘s too precious to me. :D

      Ag

      Delete
  3. Hi. What the f*** is she on about now?

    As far as NT and I are concerned, first I certainly do defer to the latter's knowledge and opinion on genetics. Secondly, in as far as I can understand what she is saying, she appears blindly unaware that I began stating nine years ago that the evidence of the dogs' activities is completely worthless in actually nailing the perpetrators of the disappearance, rather than just pointing a very suggestive finger towards them.

    That has nothing whatever to do with the DNA. It goes straight back to the PJ assessment/review in the Case Files, pointing out the acute difficulties in getting unsupported dog evidence accepted as admissible in court. Anyone who thinks that the stuff could get past McBride, or other UK lawyers of his calibre, and into the Old Bailey is in dreamland. Not the slightest, remotest chance: the problems of "cueing", intentionally or otherwise, that the PJ report pointed out are quite insuperable. And I say that as an active supporter of Mr Grime.

    I have not only repeated that on many occasions over the years but have also hammered home the point again and again that the active McCann supporters, without exception, just love to talk about the dogs' findings at the slightest invitation and do so, at great length, at every possible opportunity.

    Why? First, because they know that it's a safe subject to discuss without either getting themselves into a humiliating tangle, making an untoward slip about their heroes or conceding dangerous ground. Second, because it gives them the now exceedingly rare chance to "debate" and argue back about an aspect of the evidence, rather than their only alternatives since 2015: abusing Amaral and Grime, mocking and attacking other posters, making vague threats of retaliation etc. - or silence.

    And silence, not noisy, flash-talking, round and round in circles debate about dogs, is the clue to what they really fear, both for their heroes and for their self-respect. The subjects they stay absolutely silent about are the facts that matter and cannot be refuted, either on the net or in court: the evidence of collusion among the nine, the non-existence of an abductor, the silence of Jane Tanner, the pack of lies about the "checking", the transformation of a fund dedicated to the safe return of a child into a fund for the defence of her parents, the fairy story of a "deal", the revealed lies in the blogs and at the Edinburgh festival, the admission of lying in Madeleine.

    Try getting them to produce hundreds of enthusiastic posts at a time about any of those subjects: you won't succeed.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I honestly don't know what has rattled her cage - it's as if she has been sitting there for days with it all festering away like an open sore, until finally she put pen to paper as a written equivalent of casting out the devil.

      Delete
    2. john blacksmith28 May 2018 at 17:28

      "...latter's..."

      ?

      Ag

      Delete
    3. He means me. Or at least I hope he does :)

      Delete
    4. Had an interesting chat with a family member who has a degree in forensic science,among other qualifications. Gave them your assessment of the fss and pjs response to the sample from the car to read and they agreed...except to say the body could have been in the car. The problem is it could never stand up in court as just could not be conclusive. Mind you said family member has degree in criminal psychology too and reckons that they'd need a book the size of war peace to cover the mc canns. Kates definately an alcoholic going by her haggard visage alone.

      Delete
    5. Hi Nick,
      Thank you for that, very interesting.
      The car issue is a complicated one. The DNA result cannot rule her out, of course, that’s absolutely correct, and it is certainly theoretically possible, but taking into account the lack of acess to a body-sized deep freeze, I still think it is very unlikely. There are other aspects too, but I’m reluctant to go into those in this format tbh. However, I think a disinterred body would be decomposed after five weeks to the point where you wouldn’t need a dog to tell you about it. I still think, taking it all into account, that any body disposal took place that night. Would you thank your relative for me?
      I am very happy doing what I do, but if I had my time again I would specialise in forensics, it is a fascinating field.

      Delete
    6. I will do. Hadn't spoken to family member for while but was good to get their opinion. Have given them links to textusa to read her shit but they declined...said not going to get involved in what they feel is a dead in the water cold case.

      Delete
  4. I give up. Like moths to a lightbulb, this case has attracted some of the most disturbed individuals I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. I admire your tenacity, as well as your knowledge on the case, and will continue to enjoy your blogs, NT. For now though, I am going to stop commenting, posting, tweeting and blogging. I am sick to the back teeth of the hypocrisy, the liars, fantasists, the cowardice, the perverts and straight jacket wearers. I'm going to enjoy a life away from the asylum, soak up the sunshine (whilst it lasts), sleep more, free my mind, and concentrate on my family, friends, and happiness. Keep up the good work NT. You do a great job of showing up the liars, misinfo mongerers and propaganda peddlers. THEY claim you're a pro for doing so, yet by doing what they do, they're no better than the pros, just wear different badges.

    Take care, Ben.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah Ben, you've suffered more than most, often by the actions of those who claim to want justice, rather than the opposite.

      As I think I've already said tonight, none of this will affect the case (whether or not there is a "case")

      The most important thing is that we all appreciate the very real lives we're blessed with, that they always come first and unaffected by it all when we select "shut down" on the PC.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for those kind words, Ben. For what it's worth, you're always welcome here, but I certainly don't blame you for blowing off this case. Take care, and you're always welcome to leave a ''do not publish'' message if you just want to touch base.

      Delete
    3. Who is Ben please?

      Ag

      Delete
    4. Ag - look 2 posts above you :) Pseudo Nym

      Delete
  5. Evening NT and JB (or rather, morning!)

    NT, yes, you've been quite transparent about your motivations for the blog.
    But that's of no interest to those who need you to be the big bad wolf is it?! Such an inconvenience, as facts usually are.
    As for the Facebook, I'd like to point out it was definitely wild horses that dragged me into it. Ok...I admit it, it was all my own doing, it's just who I am lol.
    Not *interesting*, but worth noting for the sake of it, that Textusa has clearly enjoyed causing a little social media storm, quite clearly watching but with nothing to say to those who've graced her with response.

    JB, as always, an irrefutable comment. I still class myself as a "newbie" to the case, only really beginning to study it properly from around this time 2016.
    Even in that time I've seen things change fast ; allegiances, opinions, theories etc etc. What I've found from your writings is hardly anything has changed. In years and years. And that's because facts simply don't.
    The rest speaks for itself, though I've tried, in vain to encourage people to look a little deeper 🙄

    ReplyDelete
  6. Morning NT and everyone else

    If only Text could let go of her grudges life is too short, a couple of posters on her own blog have kindly said to let it go and move on. There is lots of posturing going on from groups who firmly believe their theories and I've noticed a big kickback lately from other areas of the internet where people just don't want to be led down the conspiracy route any longer.

    Great picture above by the way, ha ha.

    Cat.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Morning all,
    Thank you all for your interesting posts overnight and this morning. I am horrifically busy today so have just popped in to say hi and that I'll respond properly this evening when I down tools.

    Have a good day.

    NT

    ReplyDelete

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 nottextusa@gmail.com