Translate

Tuesday, 8 May 2018

Massive bollocks

Have you ever read a bigger load of bollocks than this?


As readers can see, we have published comments regarding Totman after we said we wouldn’t.
Quelle surprise 


We’re human and we do make wrong decisions and that was a bad decision.
I think I'd like that confirmed with a DNA test, please? 


In our defense, readers must understand that engaging in a debate with Insane is like being inside an unfunny Dead Parrot sketch, over and over again, with us telling him that the bird is dead and him saying that he’s only resting as no vestiges of blood have been found in the cage.
I never debated it with you, you bonkers old hag 


We shouldn’t let that frustration ever influence our decisions, and we mostly haven’t, but seldomly we do.
Are you kidding me? You have a tantrum every week 


When we made our decision, we overlooked the phenomenal opportunity that this blog was given by the Totman episode.
Yes, how could you possibly turn down the chance to have a go at another innocent person? 


The truth is that we were blinded by the ridiculousness of the article and we failed to see the blessing it was for the truth.
No, the truth is you were taken to task, shown up for the lying bullshitter you are, so had a tantrum 


We maintain all of the above. Even the self-importance. We only withdraw not accepting comments about Totman.
Well, we didn't think you would withdraw the self-importance, you deluded arsebiscuit 


He was a distraction but when one scrambles to distract more often than not one makes things worse for oneself. This was such a case for the other side.
Ah - ''the other side'', or as we know them, the sane people 


As far as we know, for the last 9 and a half years we have been the only ones implicating others outside the T9. The only other person implicated has been Robert Murat for reasons we have disagreed publicly and which are related with the Smith sighting.
You have been the only twats insisting they were all in on it, that's for sure 


Outside that, we are the only ones saying that guests, Ocean Club staff, Mark Warner staff and British immigrants are in on the hoax.
It's nothing to be proud of, you fucking womble 


The Totman article, however ridiculous it may be, is very serious about one thing: the Totmans and the Weinbergers are playing a game. Why, it must be asked.
I really, really, really hope they sue you 


Finally we see published uncontested evidence that people supposedly unrelated with the T9 are willing to lend their names to distort truth in this case. Why?
No - you see more evidence that you can twist to your own agenda and it's contested loudly by anyone with half a brain, a criteria which excludes most of your Textaloons


So, it will be interesting to watch how people will fit Totman/Weinberger into their narratives.
Well, these are completely innocent people, so no doubt you will call them worse than shite 


How do Totmans/Weinbergers fit in the negligence narrative? And in the paedophilia narrative? And in the death before May 3 narrative?
They don't, you tinfoil-hatted loon 


We will be interested to know how, so we’ll be watching.

For example, look at this tweet from Insane’s BFF Tigger, replying to Insane’s supporter K9:
*cough* Stalker *cough* 


https://mobile.twitter.com/gcnjones/status/993563939119206401
“tigger@gcnjones
Replying to @K9Truth
V interesting. Both Weinberger and Totman extra helpful. Both nr Salisbury?
7:51 pm · 7 May 2018”

Oh Tigger, we have covered that so many times. Weren’t you listening? Do revisit this, for example:
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/03/its-all-baloney.html
Yes do revisit it, Tigger, a ramble through 10,000 words of utter gobshittery will make a refreshing change! 


And the comment from Anonymous we withheld and are now publishing:

“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The help and the tennis - comments continue II": 
I hope it is now sinking in to people, and it appears to be (when reading forum posts), that guests at the OC that week were linked in their purpose for being there. When looking at the guests who were there that week, do people find it strange just who was taking their 'holidays' in a low class holiday accommodation, off peak week in April / May 2007? A little easy research tells us that many were well paid professionals... it certainly looks like there was common goal for being there and it certainly wasn't to play golf! Regardless of whether you believe swinging was the common goal (and I certainly do) , people must now be acknowledging that it was not just a coincidence that found these people together in the OC. 
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 8 May 2018, 10:47:00”
She sounds as mad as you 


So we have revised our decision not to receive any more comments about the Totman article (we already had).
Of course you had 


The debate about Operation Grange questioning the McCanns can now wait. 
Too many difficult questions? 


We will return to it. For example, we will thank PeterMac for proving us right as well as continue to show how wrong he is when he says: “And then he [Textusa] starts on about "arguido" status and says it does not exist in England. It is exactly [in bold] the same as being interviewed under Caution with a lawyer present, and everything recorded on tape or video”
And this will be the bit when you pick over the definition to highlight the differences, hoping that people will forget what you claimed, namely that to interview the McCanns in the UK would be to disqualify any future action against them in Pt, which was of course utter cobblers 

I can guarantee, readers, that she is massively kicking herself for the ''retirement'' stunt which she can't back out of now

20 comments:

  1. Definitely kicking herself. She can't even use arrows and mysterious diagrams to illustrate her point now. Not that they ever shed any light of course...

    And what's with "we mostly haven't but seldomly we do"? So...you mostly haven't / not very often you do? You do realise they both mean the same thing Textusa? Lol!
    As for the BFF comment, how childish. And the government are running their investigation on the say of her blog right?!

    Delilah :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I bet she's currently concocting her next article about you.

    I've been thinking about the latest Totman story to appear in the media and where it could have come from and my guess is someone who does not want the truth to emerge. The article firstly plants the idea that Tannerman and Totman are two different people and then secondly plants the idea that grange will be closed. Why would this man be named in the media, it's wrong, I'm wondering whether naming him could damage any future court case and I don't know the answer to this, could this be the objective. Don't feel like you have to give your opinion as you may find your comments being used in the next Text article, ha ha.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Latest Blacksmith posted today, another good article.

    http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/stranded-by-events.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for that, always enjoy his blog.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Textusa seems to be having a seizure at the prospect of Tigger and I disagreeing.
    Try to understand this, you loony - unlike you, I do not require some kind of blind obedience to my “truth” the way you and Baldylocks Bennett do. You ought to try it some time with the few remaining readers you have

    ReplyDelete
  6. To the anon who replied to this:

    I haven't published it because I think it's a really good idea and I don't want to give the game away, if you get my drift? ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get your drift.

      Delete
  7. The McCanns must have heard about Textusa by now, I wonder just what they think of her accusing them of swinging for all these years?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm sure they must have; they probably have a good laugh at her expense. There is no way they will ever sue her; she's simply not high profile enough

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why so adamant about posting

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, I can't be arsed dissecting any of her recent pronouncements as they seem to consist of her quoting the Blacksmith Bureau and then saying why ''it couldn't have happened''
    I'll just say to those endlessly screaming "He was going the wrong way!" you might want to consider that you don't know where he was going or that Tanner wasn't mistaken about his direction of travel - eyewitness evidence is notoriously inaccurate. The fact remains that the presence of Dr Totman carrying his daughter in the vicinity that night, looking very much like the man Tanner originally described, before the combined contributions of the Tapasniks morphed him into "Swarthy Stranger carrying Madeleine", throws enough doubt on her sighting to rule it out as warranting further investigation.

    I have seen some ridiculous arguments over the years, including one which was that the child carried by Smithman couldn't have been Madeleine as one witness described her as having ''long sleeves'' and not short sleeves.

    This is not how the police work. It isn't a case of "Get one wrong and you're out" like some Saturday night quiz show. They work on the balance of probabilities and do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    On the balance of probabilities, Jane Tanner saw Dr Totman that night. And as for bleating that she would have recognised him because Gerry played tennis with him - are you fucking serious? Have a word with yourself.

    Anyway, because she is now just endlessly rambling, I am going to comment on an archive piece instead. Have a nice day :D

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree, it's been interesting to watch the debates going on. Blacksmith to me makes the most sense, I believe he is right and any leaks from the MET would prejudice any future trial. The fact a name has been leaked makes me think that some game is being played and this may be the first of many leaks. As I've said before don't feel like you have to respond as Text is just waiting for your opinion to put in her next article.

    Have a nice weekend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi,
      It's funny how she was going to be so busy this weekend she couldn't defend her false claim that to interview the McCanns in the UK would scupper any future prosecution in Portugal, but she has been able to find time to write the following:

      "Reply

      Textusa12 May 2018, 10:27:00
      Major foot in mouth by Insane/Not Textusa.

      From his blog:

      Anonymous9 May 2018 at 17:30
      The McCanns must have heard about Textusa by now, I wonder just what they think of her accusing them of swinging for all these years?

      Not Textusa10 May 2018 at 10:45
      I'm sure they must have; they probably have a good laugh at her expense. There is no way they will ever sue her; she's simply not high profile enough

      ********

      So Insane thinks accusing people of swinging is reason enough to sue? Really?

      Seriously, Insane… really?

      So one accusing another of doing something completely and perfectly legal AND according to you something that no one cares about anymore deserves one getting sued about?

      Do note, Anonymous speaks only of swinging, Insane is the one speaking about suing.

      PS: Insane, please memorise this. It will save us the trouble of having to repeat ourselves when in the future you will demand proof “of that false claim” of us saying that you think swinging is worth suing for."

      As my initial comment is further up this page, everyone can see what I wrote. To address the dozy old bint, swinging isn't a crime - lying to the police in the middle of a police investigation is, and that, amongst other things, is what she has accused them of.
      But they won't bother to sue her because she's far too unimportant

      Delete
  12. I've given up attempting to discuss this on Textusa's blog now. It's plain to see that no matter what is presented, there will always be a 'but'. It's akin to banging your head against a brick wall.
    So let me be outed now as a pro, as a NT 'bestie', as a shill, WHATEVER you like and do ask me if I give a damn.
    I'm sick to the back teeth of people discarding someone's offerings on this case for no other reason than that person may have slated them (translation: disputed your 'facts')

    NT , I'm not alone amongst many who I consider credible people when I say I find your stance on this case sensible, measured and intelligent. Ive not seen you demand cult-like agreement on your every thought, and I've not seen one word that would convince me you are anywhere near a McCann supporter. Obviously I see the reason why some have labelled you as such; you're not in Rothley with a pitchfork for one, you traitor!

    So I've already earned the PretendyAnti badge from CarlaSpade, bring on the rest.
    And good evening to you NT 🙂

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And a good evening and warm welcome to you, Sade :D I have been reading your comments next door with interest, and sharing your frustration - she would make a nun kick a hole in a door.
      I don't mind that she gets things wrong; it's her complete refusal to accept that she might be or to respect anyone else's opinion which truly irks me.
      Anyway, it's very good to have you here. Make yourself at home

      Delete
  13. Thank you, and yes that is the problem, there are many who have different views on certain aspects of the case and still manage to get on - respect each other even!

    Anyway, interesting (or maybe not) news this morning, the official find Madeleine website has been suspended.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has it? The facebook one? I wonder why

      Delete
    2. No, the actual website. Suspended by the host I think. It's probably nothing, but I'm sure the only other time it's been actually suspended was when they hadn't renewed their registration, it was back up in a day or two.

      Delete
    3. Had a look - yes, it's due for renewal and hasn't been done, so either an oversight or they are letting it lapse; a possibility, as they don't really use it any more

      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.

Messages not for publication can also be left, or you can email nottextusa@gmail.com