Wednesday, 30 May 2018

Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me.

Evening all,

I've always been a fan of classic war films, especially - and I have no idea why this is - ones set on submarines.

My favourite bit was always when an enemy sub aimed a torpedo at the heroes and the captain called "Release countermeasures!"

The countermeasures in question was a substance referred to as "chaff", usually metal-coated glass fibres, which had the effect of blocking or confusing the enemy radar or the torpedo guidance system. It was, if you like, a great big distraction.

And that is precisely what this is:

The orderlies wondered whether to tell Textusa that she was looking into the wrong end of the shotgun, but decided it would be more fun to wait 

  • ***** ******* ****,
  • Firstly, I should explain that I have redacted the name of the person Textusa has singled out, as I don't have their permission to use it. For the same reason, I have not copied over the post they wrote which rattled Textusa's cage 

  • One must find strange such a conciliatory comment from someone who supported the attack made against this blog on the Justice for Madeleine FB group, quite surprising.
  • "Attack made against this blog" - seriously, does anyone have access to the world's smallest violin?
    Here we witness the other tactic Textusa likes to employ - attack anyone who she decides has given tacit support to her "sworn enemies". I find it pathetic beyond words. 

  • If need be we will repost the divisiveness you supported and now come here to blame us and our readers for it. Then, when we were being attacked, it seemed, that divisiveness pleased you. Have you gone to Justice to express a similar opinion or you decided only to do that here?
  • Oooh, little bit of a threat, there, as Textusa throws in a bit of "divide and conquer" just for good measure 

  • Blacksmith (who we still are waiting to know why he calls us liars)
  • It is probably because of all the lying 
  • has now sided with Not Textusa about who he highly praises the “latter's knowledge and opinion on genetics”.
  • Thanks, JB 
  • Based on what?
  • Probably my explanation of the "at least three, up to five" statistic 
  • Blacksmith has publicly said he doesn’t read us.
  • Smart move. 
  • Not Textusa’s on genetics are made by him copying what we have written and then writing his personal opinions on what we have said.
  • Excuse me? I was commenting on John Lowe's report. I wouldn't be arsed writing about what you have said unless it was to critique it, which wouldn't take long, seeing as what you know about genetics could be written on a sultana. With a marker pen. 
  • So, factually, for Blacksmith to have such a high opinion on this individual’s opinion on genetics can only come from him having read not only us but us AND Not Textusa.
  • What in the name of sanity are you on about? It's probably a good time to mention that I did actually study genetics at university and have extracted more DNA than you have had hot ketamine. 

  • Then in his sanctimonious and paternalistic quote he makes this accusation against us: “The subjects they stay absolutely silent about are the facts that matter and cannot be refuted”. Really? We return that accusation to him, where he has remained absolutely silent about facts that matter and cannot be refuted that this blog has presented. From him we have heard nothing expect saying that we’re liars. Requested to detail where we have lied, Blacksmith remains silent.
  • Well, I certainly wouldn't presume to answer for JB, but you lie as easily as most people draw breath, you demented fraud 

  • And speaking about falsehood he contradicts himself in the same paragraph. On one hand he says “the facts that matter and cannot be refuted, either on the net or in court” and then states as a fact (unable to be refuted on the net or in court) “the silence of Jane Tanner”. How does he know this to be a fact? Because he says so? What does he know what Jane Tanner has or not said to Operation Grange if even she has been asked to say something which we believe she hasn’t. Why would Operation Grange be privy with a blogger? Is this silence from Jane Tanner a fact that cannot be refuted on the net or on the court or is it simply just a made-up fact by Blacksmith? We would say the latter but, as always, Blacksmith is free to come here and prove us wrong.
  • Yadda, yadda, yadda....... 

  • (Cont)
  • Yadda........ 

  • (Cont)

    You say “maybe we cannot all agree ALL of the time” and “even if all do not agree with certain comments” and that has been instrumentally used by many to obfuscate the truth and make sure it is not outed.
  • Who is she talking to now, you ask? Well, I think it's our redacted friend, but who the fuck knows - it could be the wallpaper, frankly. 

  • That’s a myth the other side has masterfully created with enormous success that we should be respectful of differences.
  • And I no longer know who the ''other side'' is either. She could be hiding up a tree on a Japanese island, convinced the war is still on, for all I know 
  • One, one cannot and should not because there are differences and then there are differences.
  • Thank you, professor 
  • To put it in plain terms, to discuss if a certain tonality of purple is magenta or violet is a difference that should be respected and the issue debated.
  • *points at temple, makes circular motions* 

  • To discuss if black is white or if white is black is a difference that merits no consideration. Or respect. If someone keeps on insisting that something is black when everyone can see that it is white, that does not deserve any respect, nor is it being disrespectful to not respect at ALL that opinion.
  • Like whether a table exists and the inadequateness of the esplanade, for example? 

  • The opinion of insisting that white is black only has the purpose to disrupt and abuses with intent and success the concept that we all should respect each other “even if all do not agree with certain comments”.
  • So basically, you want to decide what is and isn't true and reserve the right to karate chop the kidneys of anyone who doesn't believe. That's basically your position, isn't it? 

  • That’s the reason why those still debating that an abduction happened are consensually disrespected.
  • Why - because you don't agree with them? They are at least as entitled to their opinion as you are entitled to your fuckwitted fantasy about them all shagging the neighbours, surely?
  • Why aren’t they entitled to have their ridiculous opinions considered seriously?
  • Because you don't agree with them? 

  • Because they keep saying it’s white when the rest of the world can see it clearly that it is black. Ignoring them is not being disrespectful, it’s simply being reasonable and respectful to one’s own values.
  • Okay - well, I think your theories are the deranged rambles of a diseased mind. That's not being disrespectful, I'm just being reasonable. (Actually, I am, but that's beside the point) 

  • For example, when Not Textusa – with whom Blacksmith has now decided to side with
  • *cue booing and hissing noises from the balcony*

    This is so disrespectful, Textusa. You keep using this expression - "side with"
    It is utterly juvenile and ignores entirely the fact that the people concerned might actually agree with each other.
  • – says that what Eddie signalled in the backyard comes from a medieval graveyard,
  • And here is one of your lies. That is not what I said, I have already corrected you several times, yet you lack the manners to correct yourself 
  • he’s clearly stating that white is black and so does not merit the ‘right to difference’.
  • Oh do fuck off 

  • Neither does who sides with such a man.
  • And there we go again. Sides. 

  • As, we read on an image from FB recently: “you are free to choose, but you are not free from the consequence of your choice.”

    We will respond to Anslow, Thompson and Blacksmith in due time.
  • I'm sure they will be waiting with bated breath

    So now I am going to point out what someone should have pointed out to you years ago. 

    You are a monstrous control freak. You actually think you can dictate to people what they should believe and who they are allowed to associate with. If they displease you in some way, you attack them. Anyone who doesn't fall for your fairy stories hook, line and sinker walks a constant tightrope with you. It is clearly killing you that you can't just bully everyone into agreeing with you.

    You are a very sad person. Get some therapy


    1. You've hit the nail on the head above, it's so silly and childish, honestly I just can't understand why she is still carrying this on, it's ridiculous. I feel sorry for all the names that Textusa keeps bringing up on her blog. I try to write impartially on your blog and I wouldn't dream of leaving a comment over there but every post she writes is becoming more and more bizarre.

      Your comment about the sultana made me laugh.

      1. I think she's possibly had too much sun.

        Not sun - what's the word I'm looking for?

        Gin - that's it. Too much gin.

        Incidentally, I found this, which has made me laugh so much I might have to go for a lie down

        Actual, genuine quote

        "This compulsory need to lie is one thing that I have in common with the Tapas 9."

        Textusa. 20th July 2009


    2. So there it is in black and white, ha ha.


    3. Oh my. I've been too busy to look back at all this until now. Great to come back to a laugh 🙂
      It really is just ridiculous all this. I'm sure the big response will be earth shattering. What we can guarantee is that my "siding" with someone will be "outed" as being of some importance to the case. If only! If only little old me could have an effect on this case. I can assure you, I'd be doing more with such an advantage than commenting on the internet 🙄

      And yes, I do believe your recent comments on DNA etc were in reply to someone asking in the comments here weren't they? Nothing to do with replying to what was said over there.

      Well, on we go.

      1. Evening "siding" Sade :))
        I'm sorry, it's just making me laugh so much, it's so juvenile.

        Yes, the DNA stuff was in response to questions posted here - I think it was Nick? Not sure without looking back. She's one cheeky bitch!

      2. Christ, I've just seen her latest comment. Are we all involved in the 'hoax' now? Quite the double agent me, I'm so good at it I didn't even know I was taking part 😂

      3. Just read it - what the buggering bollocks is she on about? Is that what she is suggesting?! The woman has completely lost the plot.

      4. You couldn't make it up.

    4. Ah, all has been revealed. If you don't know what the fuck she's on about, you're safe, it doesn't apply to you. Unless of course she decides you're only pretending to not know what the fuck she's on about...
      I think we all know how this is going to go.

      1. Christ, she's finally flipped. Hasn't the penny dropped with her yet? I don't know how many people actually believe the shite she comes out with, but all indications are they number very few - I don't see anyone leaping to her defence, do you? At best they tolerate her, apart from a few nutters who are as bonkers as she is. So if she wants to make everyone else "the enemy" she's going to be very lonely.

      2. Indeed. The very reason all this started is because of people getting fed up of trying to decipher the endless comments on who is who and all that crap.
        One of the reasons Aileen's post wasn't approved in Justice btw, in case she's peeking in. It's simply not relevant, some would do good to learn 🙂
        Anyway, I'm away to bed. It's tiring being a double agent 😄

      3. Yes, you must be knackered, all that espionage!
        Sleep well, I've just spotted a reply she left for JB, going to copy that over then turn in. Night!


    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