Translate

Thursday, 8 November 2018

Big. Round. Fucking. Table.

Enough of this nonsense




If you can put this on full screen, watch it, yet still say it does not clearly show a big round fucking table then you need:

1. Specsavers
2. A psychiatrist.
3. To be sectioned.

I am not even going to bother going through the fucking IKEA catalogue of tables Sextabusa has assembled because it amounts to no more than trolling and I am fairly sure s/he is wanking away to the attention like a bored chimp.

Don't bother leaving comments saying "..but it's Brunt!!" because the answer will be "So fucking what?"

Grow the fuck up, Bruce, you utter gobshite. Just because you managed to get three people, all of whom are too stupid to pull their own knickers up without a diagram, to believe this cobblers doesn't mean that you have any chance with anyone in full possession of their faculties.

And now here are some cats jumping in the air. Enjoy



37 comments:

  1. http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/

    A must-read, as ever.

    as is http://laidbareblog.blogspot.com/2018/11/taking-pisa.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was funny...😂😂
      So Nicholas is real..

      Delete
    2. 😂😂😂 excellent.

      Delete
  2. “People like us!”

    ReplyDelete
  3. People like you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are the two of you planning to burst into song?

      Delete
  4. I think this line from a textaloon sums up Textusa's fan base quite nicely.
    About Ben T;
    "You seem to unnerve him so I will be reading your blog religiously from now on."
    As I said go JB the other day - the only readers of that asylum now have one interest; to cosy up to anyone who goes against a group of people who insist on facts.
    One of them is even so brazen as to find it hilarious when a pal on Twitter rips the piss out of Textusa, then ramble on for weeks about how disgusting NT is for the same. Nowt queer as folk 😃

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People like us - do facts.

      Delete
  5. There are discourses that "do", that do things with words or make things disappear, as the oval table. It is not exactly a "performative" in the Austinian sense of the term (how to do things with words), but there are discourses that operate. Like the jemmied shutters. Why would you open them in order to stage an abduction through the window, making your babies risk a pneumonia, if it's enough to claim they were open ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which brings it all back to the difference between "claims" and "proof". Like the claim from the mc canns that night about the jemmied shutters,disseminated to all and sundry. The proof being that this could not have happened due to the shutter design. This is where i don't understand genuine believers in the mc canns. As soon as gerry changed his statement about what doors he used when his claim about the shutters were exposed as fraudulent,he was shown to be a liar. At that point the question becomes "what his he hiding by lying?" Textusa and bennett are cut of the same cloth....your "claims" are backed with no "proof" and you have been caught lying. The question is why? What are you hiding?

      Delete
    2. There's an enormous difference, on the topic of make believe, between GMC claiming the shutters and window were open and T claiming the table was neither big nor round nor actually existed, GMC was a victim and victims in the demeaning dictatorship of emotion are systematically sanctified, being right or wrong is irrelevant, they suffer full point and if you doubt them, you're a monster.

      Delete
    3. @11:09

      Anne, with respect, I paraphrase you to avoid misunderstanding.

      Irrespective of the truth value of his statements, GM was sanctified as a suffering victim in a certain emotional state, full stop. If one doubts him/his statements, one is a monster.


      8 Nov @22:41

      Why open the shatters to stage abduction through the window if it's enough to claim they were open?

      It might appear that when ‘the jemmied shutters’ were first mentioned, not by Gerry, the ‘sanctification’ of the couple was not yet on the horizon. Initially, their thinking could’ve been influenced by the commonly held truism ‘seeing is believing’.

      Ag.

      Delete
    4. Well said Ag...and seeing the claim was bs by just examining the shutter...seeing was also disbelieving.

      Delete
    5. I wasn't alluding to "jemmied" but to "open" shutters, i.e not the narrative told to family/friends, but the narrative told to the PJ.
      I suggest you look in a dictionary what paraphrasing means.

      Delete
    6. Some interesting points indeed. No need to paraphrase, Ag, Anne's point was quite clear :)
      One of the most fascinating aspects of this case is the tendency of commentators from all points on the McCann compass to hone in on the peripheral detail rather than taking a wide-angle view. At times, the focus narrows to the very specific, which can take people widely off course.

      If I may use an example, I have on numerous occasions seen it claimed that the child carried by ''Smithman'' could not be Madeleine because Aoife Smith described her as wearing short sleeves when Madeleine's top was long-sleeved.

      At the risk of entering into a stunningly ill-advised debate about sleeve length - Thank you, Len - I can assure you that no police force would rule out a potential sighting on that basis.

      Textusa's position is that no table existed because she hasn't seen a picture of it.

      Except she has.

      However, Textusa's theory depends heavily on the table not being present, therefore she rejects and will continue to reject any picture showing the table in the tapas bar. There will always be a reason why that ''can't be the table''

      The important thing not to lose sight of is that Textusa also ignores the testimony of all those who worked there, who dined there, or who investigated, because they are all contrary to her ''world view''

      There is no point arguing with her, therefore, over the position of the table or why it was clothed or unclothed. It was there. The McCann party ate at it. Move along the bus


      Delete
    7. "I have on numerous occasions seen it claimed that the child carried by ''Smithman'' could not be Madeleine because Aoife Smith described her as wearing short sleeves when Madeleine's top was long-sleeved."
      I've seen that too and it really freezes your blood respecting the belief issue.
      Who hasn't read or heard that the shutters and the window perhaps were not broken, but surely were open since the MCs found them in this state ?

      Delete
  6. The BRT did not exist.They only ate in the Tapas on the Thursday.
    The Textusa sisters have researched it.They know their stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolute bullshit. You are, with respect, a fucking simpleton.

      Delete
    2. Rather and only a belief, like the unicorn, both invisible and pink. The skeptic doesn't have to refute the "unverifiable" bases of the belief, it belongs to the believer to prove them.

      Delete
    3. Indeed, Anne!

      Btw, if you have a moment, could you please have a look at my question (7 November 2018 at 13:22) on a previous blog.
      http://nottextusa.blogspot.com/2018/11/table-wot-table.html?showComment=1541596969445#c1489668003644888578

      Ag

      Delete
    4. I had a look and I answered. Btw it is a French site.

      Delete
    5. AnneGuedes 10 November 2018 at 18:25

      Thank you, Anne, that’s very kind of you.

      Ag

      Delete
  7. Our reliable sources have once again provided brief extracts from day two of the trial.

    https://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  8. A KFC will never be the same again..
    😂😂

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi NT.
    I would ask Textusa this but I fear my comment will go unpublished so I am putting it here if that is ok?
    Why doesn't Textusa say if they are male or female to clear up the confusion?
    If the cross dressing/gender thing is true,I suppose he/she can be whatever they want as and when the mood takes them.
    It would be helpful to know though.
    With Textusa being well known in McCann land,why is he/she anonymous too?
    I am posting here as anon but I'm a nobody and Textusa isn't.
    Textusa should have the courage of their convictions and 'come out' IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi there,

      I'm obviously publishing your post, but I'm going to add this.
      I don't care who Textusa is or which gender s/he identifies as and I don't think we have any obligation to disclose that to anyone with whom we are not in a personal relationship of some kind. Some people in the McCann discussion world we inhabit choose to disclose their names, some don't. Some who don't may have extremely valid reasons not to which are nothing to do with the case.

      So discuss it, by all means, but I can't endorse or support you on this.

      Delete
    2. The only problem with gender, in comments, is grammatical. Using inclusive forms (s/he and his/her) for pronominalization is boring and doesn't work for orality. Some specific word should be invented, because the neuter form creates ambiguities that could only be suppressed by reducing pronominalization (in itself a regression in the evolution of language).
      In written language "it" and "its" could have a capital letter when representing a person, but orally ?) : Anonymous Nov5 3:17pm thinks that Its question wasn't answered. If It reformulates it, it will surely be answered.
      Using the plural generates mental confusion : Anonymous Nov5 3:17pm thought their question wasn't answered. They has reformulated it, they now is expecting a reply.
      Do you like it ? I don't !

      Delete
    3. I am flummoxed as to why it would be ‘helpful to know’ and really appreciate your stance on this NT. Couldn’t agree more.

      I was extremely concerned to see on Twitter recently, a tweeter being threatened with being outed on account of their apparently appalling behaviour, the threat being later wholly endorsed on FB by an associate of the issuer of the threat.

      Who gets to decide whether such outings are justified? And if this were to become the norm, just how long would it be until the less scrupulous in this fraught little community of ours took it upon themselves to manufacture grievances in order to justify outing those who wish to remain anonymous?

      It’s a dangerous road to go down and I sincerely hope your response here is noted by all concerned. Thanks again, NT.

      Delete
    4. I agree, Anne. Do you think the language will evolve naturally, now many people describe themselves in non-binary terms?

      Delete
    5. Hi Anon,
      I feel very strongly on the subject. The only people entitled to demand my name or any personal details are those with a statutory right to them. That does not include bloggers or some scrote on twitter. We can form any opinions we require on the basis of what someone writes, I think.

      Delete
    6. @ Anon 15:29

      Who was the tweeter/FB group that this was all about?

      Delete
    7. People make the language evolve, grammarians can't just prescribe normative grammar, they have to observe and describe new variations. It should become a must among transgender people to initiate some form that will represent a human being who feels neither feminine nor masculine nor neuter.
      Anonymous/Nicknamed posters might be of 2 kinds : those who don't want their name to be revealed but understand that revealing (or inventing) their gender will facilitate communication, and those who mainly don't want their gender to be known. The first could call themselves AnonymousM and AnonymousF. The second often use deceptive nicknames that sound female or male. When furthermore they use the majesty plural "we" instead of "I", the reader starts wondering, if still reading..

      Delete
    8. Thanks for that, Anne; I do find it rather fascinating and I guess we have the adoption of the word ''Gay'' as an example. So just as we can learn a great deal from DNA about the origins and evolution of a community or people, the same can be said of their language and vocabulary? So interesting.

      Delete
  10. Court reports. Final. A surprise result.

    https://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally support your comments on your latest blog, JB. Any sense of decency appears to be an alien concept to some people

      Delete
    2. Hi JB. I didn't realise you were unaware. Unfortuntely plenty of people were informed back in September when Textusa plastered it all over its blog in a fashion more despicable than a red top rag. After 10,000 words or so copying over every mention it could find, it proceeded to insist it was you and NT who had named her - not directly but by the information given - therefore it considered its conscience clear.
      Just who it was trying to convince is anyone's guess. It's reminders like these that make me retract my thoughts of mental illness; the creature behind that blog is simply abominable. And smug about it.

      Delete
  11. I remember that scenario well.. Nicholas first named the lady on Twitter, then Tex named her on her blog, but only after knowing the lady had sadly passed.. Not sure if Nicholas knew that but Tex definetly did.. Nowhere was the lady named on here or on the Bureau.. What Tex did in those months of August was quite disgusting.. I've spotted many lies..
    I also found a comment from myself where I said Bale2 wasn't Walker.. I was wrong, it was..

    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