Tuesday, 30 June 2009

Moles, Manipulators and Masters - The 3 Ms of a Mean Machine (Final Part)

(June 30th, 2009)

Facts are facts. In the previous two posts, I’ve tried to explain how they get made up and thrown at you.

How information is a powerful tool thought to be used by many, but, in fact, only few use do really it, though using those referred many as a mean to do so.

Sorry to be confusing, but this is a confusing business.

I’ve already revealed my passion for bridge and golf.

Today, I’ll bring in the one I have about sailing. A sport, hobby or whatever you want to call it that makes one nice analogy with this information thing.

For me, jut out of curiosity, I love the solitude it provides and as well as the reminder of how small one really is. But that's beside the point.

Imagine that information is like the water in which a boat floats, and the facts are the waves and the currents, in all their sizes and possible shapes. Let’s start with a motorboat. No mastery of winds involved or required at this stage. Just want to try and move it in the straightest of lines. Quite a simple task in a smooth surface, as the only waves there are the ones that you've just made.

Now, start adding some turbulence. The waves start to throw your boat in each and every other way, and everytime you try to compensate you’re only able to make things worse. And if you don’t have a reference point, you’ll find yourself perfectly lost in no time at all.

Only when you find that the wave that made your boat go port, will be followed by one that makes it go starboard, naturally compensating, will you have then found the way to success. The sea is not to be fought. It’s to be ridden, naturally. If you fight it, you face doom, if you understand it, then it’s the most delicious of play-grounds.

The same happens with information. You have to trust your instincts. And be fearless of mistakes, because you’ll make many. They’ll, in turn, will provide you valuable information on how to ride the information sea.

Never forget that pain is a privilege, not a sentence, of those who try. Those that don’t, live life painlessly, but do not live it at all.

Back to the sea analogy, and bring in the wind. That factor that influences, in such a relevant manner, the size, shape and direction of the waves.

To be able to dominate it, if you have to do one essential thing, which most sailors do instinctively but said, seems complicated to achieve: ignore the waves but never lose sight of them.

Basically, the capability to extract ONLY the relevant information from the waves and not be overwhelmed by them.

Just like in information. An art few know. And less master it. People like DL, or like Clarence Mitchell are simple waves. Their mission is to throw your boat off-course.

They are far from being wind-masters. But both have what the latter prey on: an oversized ego. DL, I believe, is simply a poor megalomaniac soul who was conveniently provided with the adequate information when thought adequate.

He became too big for his own shoes. Making stupid mistakes like the Oprah show, starting to believe that he was much more than he really was. And off he goes to Sri Lanka, Aachen and, if Joana had not stopped him short, would have been to Mars on a Monday and on the Moon the Friday before.

The norm with these small-time manipulators is that that they are manipulated themselves.

But those that manipulate them, rest not easy.

Not you, not anybody else, can dominate the sea. And when the tide changes, it changes. Nothing can be done about it. And all those that are left in the sand, (on purpose or just because) will be picked upon. By seagulls, for example.

Or just stepped on by some disrespectful idiot like myself. They will desperately wait for the next tide, but so many never survive to see it.

Wednesday, 24 June 2009

Moles, Manipulators and Masters - The 3 Ms of a Mean Machine (Part II)

(June 24th, 2009)

In any information campaign you have to provide a minimum of 90% of good, sound revealing facts about yourself.

If you want to guarantee sucess, it should be a higher percentage. It has to guarantee enough resistance to checking, cross-checking and rechecking. Only then will trust be gained.

Voluntary moles are people who do what they do normally out of pure conviction. Very rarely, although it does happen, do you see a "sell-out" amongst these people. They volunteer, driven by their firm beliefs, to undermine the adversary’s willingness to fight. Some call them traitors, I call them brave.

This volunteer thing does not happen with the other moles, the involuntary ones. These only realize that they are what they are long after they have done the damage they were designated to do. You feed the adversary with good information has I've said. He picks it up and as skeptical as he is tests it. It proves to be true. It must. He will use it and have good results. Then you feed him some more. The results evolve from good to better then good, on their way to excellence. He begins to trust your source as a good one. In journalism, a "deep-throat-scoop". And so on, until you’ve become to him, a totally trusted and irrefutable source, and he, in turn, is seen by those around him as an excellent fountain of information.

Someone they can REALLY trust to come up with key information right on time. Because that's exactly what he does. At this point there has been no damage in the enemy lines while, with the information you have provided, by him through you, there has been quite some to yours. He is a hero, you, apparently a traitor. He has now achieved the stage where he can be activated.

This is when from you start to provide him with false information with one of two goals: either to make the enemy act the way you want him exactly to; or to shatter the mole’s credibility.

The first has the obvious reason of allowing you to inflict the greatest, decisive damage possible. With the information before, he was able to win battle after battle. But moving like a mouse after peanut-butter on a trap, he's headed for doom. Total defeat, unconditional surrender. The mole’s role was to undermine the perception of truth about that last given information: what was false was taken for the truth. With disastrous results.

The second goal seems, at first, to be a contradiction. Total nonsense. You've gone about constructing a reliable source within the enemy camp, with quite damaging effects on your own and then you decide to “waste” all that hard work by destroying his credibility. Why? It all boils down to perception. Provide him with a piece of information that will prove to be disastrous. So scandalously false that will make him lose face among his friends.

Obviously it can’t be a blatant lie, but something that will swallowed whole as the whole prior information fed, but once gone through the natural filtering will reveal him as the fraud that he doesn’t even know he is.

So what’s to gain from that? By this exposure, all his previous "truthful" information will be questionable. The apple principle. Yes, it was true, but has come from a mole. A disgusting being. So, from then on all that was thought reliable has now a high probability to have been planted, as, by the way, was.

So when you said you’d go left, as you really mean to go, the other side NOW wonders why that piece of information got to him, via the mole, an ex-hero, now a repulsive being, and thinking that he can outwit you, starts to prepare himself for a move from you to the right.

You’ve muddled up all his perception capabilities. He is lost in the sea of information before him incapable of deciding which, of all the apples, those that are healthy, and those that have to be contaminated.

The higher the stakes, the less risk he is able to take. So he discards the whole basket and goes and gets his apples from somewhere else. From your side of the fence, well, you’ve just managed to convince your adversary that a whole lot of pretty truthful information is “false” and can act, now, accordingly.

The problem with using moles is what is common in all human activity: the fact that they are human. With all their flaws. Two very important ones: vanity and ambition.

Qualities when moderate, but in excess they’re intolerable shortfalls. Especially in this activity. (to be continued... next week)

Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Moles, Manipulators and Masters - The 3 Ms of a Mean Machine (Part I)

(June 23rd, 2009)

I’ve had my say about Mr. Duarte Levy, and don’t want to waste any more of my precious time on him. To do so would be granting him an importance that he’s far from deserving.

I want to speak about moles, manipulation and, of course, mole manipulation.

Henceforth I’ll use Mr Levy’s pseudonym’s initials “DL” because his case is fresh on our minds and that rather facilitates getting my message across, but would like it to make clear that it’s not about or because of him.

I could use Mata Hari as an example, but that’s a story that history has to clarify to a yet acceptable margin of error.

Treason is a very hard pill to swallow. Nothing shakes our foundations more then the betrayal of trust. We perceive a friend as a safe haven from hardships of life.

When this falters, we feel exposed, unprotected, cheated on. If that particular foul friend also happens to be a partner, in business or just intent, then the pain from betrayal is exponentially increased.

The sense of purpose is lost as all is left is a vacuum where once was what was perceived as shared value. Strength is lost because who we perceived as burden-sharer is not only not helping but hindering, on purpose and with malice, all effort and focus.

As you can see, perception is the key. That’s why it’s imperative to understand its mechanism. Basically, it’s an individual, subjective, interpretation of the surrounding reality, based upon various facts and factors captured and gathered by all our bodily senses and filtered by the common one.

We unconsciously stack these facts one upon another, unwittingly establishing the relationships between them, be they contradictory or complementary. This results in the provision, from one to oneself, of a broader picture about any given subject.

That picture is what we "perceive" as the reality of a particular subject. Each of us has stacked a series of "bricks" for every conceivable thing.

We make these blocks in various tonalities of “truth”, according to our perception, or what we constructed it to be, to be more exact.

This is what I call the “edifice of truth”.

Let’s just say that the tone of real truth is white. The lighter the edifice, the more solid it is, the darker, the quicker it gets ignored. All said, it’s quite clear that these so called edifices are very subjective in nature. All depend on the individual who creates them. Very much like the opinion you have about me right now.

Sometimes, truth is simple and plain. Not even subject to discussion. But reality shows that truth and simplicity, even though truth IS simple, are very seldom seen together. It's not the truth that is at stake but it’s, supposed, consequences.

There are those who’ll do just about anything to avoid that the truth, as they know it to be, to be “officially” confirmed. That, as per rules of a civilized society, would implicate a rather serious punishment.

So they are not set to defend the truth, but their own behinds for obvious and understandable reasons. They need to, not want, tear down the edifice of truth.

But to deconstruct you need to understand first the construction. So who you going to call? Hardly the ghostbusters. You need people that understand people. That can read people like they read a book, because they’ve wrote it. Information experts.

No, not Clarence Mitchell. That was an unfortunate error of casting as I one day I'll explain. He’s an unfortunate soul that the manipulators curse having around every single day. He’s a nut totally misplaced in a well oiled machine. Enough to make a well serviced engine cough up in pain.

No, these people are good. To understand how all this is played you have to first understand two major concepts of this business: the fooling-fooled relationship and the apple principle. Both are simple, but often overlooked. The first is states that no conman gives you a heads-up before he fools you.

These people don’t wear t-shirts with “I’m going to fool you” stamped on it. Nor have a tattoo on their forehead saying “basically, I’m mean”. Everyone of us has been fooled one time or another.

Except Bill, my dear American buddy. He adamantly states that he has NEVER been fooled in his whole life, and guarantees that he won’t be in the future. However he says that, from time to time, he has paid, more or less expensively, more or less painfully, for a lesson in life.

I tend to agree with him, but one lesson that life has taught me and Bill is that life only lets you know that you’ve learned a lesson AFTER it has been ministered.

So, I’m rather amazed when people who are shocked by fooled by those that they thought were incapable of such. And even more so with people that guarantee that such and such person is incapable of a dishonest act.

The second principle, the apple one, is that you only need one rotten apple to spoil the whole basket. All others, no matter how healthy they may be, will, from then on, be looked upon with suspicion.

A very rewarding ratio, if you’re set on disruption, obtained from just a single fruit.

Those that think that I’m pinpointing DL are way off target. Let me remind you that the edifice of truth is made out of “bricks”, supposed facts, not people. (to be continued)

Saturday, 20 June 2009

Mr Duarte Levy - an Opinion

I got a rather harsh comment from someone I quite respect about the picture I posted in the previous post. This has precipitated me into now publishing the text below, which, therefore, goes incomplete:  

“When I first thought about writing this, it was fresh news. Then Joana, rightfully so, spoiled the whole surprise, exposing Duarte Levy as who he really is. 

Stale bread does make nice toast, so do keep up with me. 

Lying is addictive. It offers physical pleasure to the one who lies. Either through the real feel of gratification from a non-existing merit; or from the absence of the expected pain after avoiding the merited punishment. Both are very pleasant physical sensations. Very addictive. 

And as per any other addiction, one only realizes how much one depends on the habit when one has overstepped the boundaries set by reason. Basically, after one has exaggerated, and feels the shame in everybody else’s eyes. Or even repulsion. But then, it’s too late. 

Mr. Duarte Levy is a pathological liar. I say I am, and I’m not. Or maybe I am. He doesn’t say he is, but through his actions and words proves exactly that. 

I first started to suspect with the “24-photo” episode. 

We’re still waiting, to this day, for them to be printed from the memory stick that surely is implanted in Mr. Levy’s skull. A journalistic exclusive of his, certainly, that isn’t to be revealed lightly, if ever at all. 

Then, suspicions became assumptions with the alleged Oprah presence. Typically a case of a liar going into exaggeration without realizing how ridiculous and condemning it is what he alleges. Jane Tanner started the trend, but many have followed it. 

To be on Oprah is a pretty hard task to achieve for anybody RESIDENT in the US. For someone, man or woman, to fly from Europe with the intent of just watching the referred show, it’s close to impossible. 

Plus, the Oprah the site quite clearly states that you CANNOT choose which show you wish to watch. You apply and, if you get SELECTED, you BUY a ticket that gets you to see whatever guests are invited to appear on the show that you were lucky enough to get a ticket. 

With the McCanns, I heard that they were going to appear in the beginning of May. Just for argument’s sake, I’ll say that the couple came to an agreement to appear in the time between the mid and late April. That is little over a month from the end of the season, meaning NO tickets, all sold out. 

You just don’t go on Oprah, because you happen to want to. You don’t go on Oprah just because you want to see a certain celebrity. 

Just go on the site and try to apply. All is done by phone; with so many rules that only an idiot lies about having been there. An idiot, if you’re a woman, because it’s a show assumingly directed to women, so the public is predominantly female. On any of Oprah’s shows, basically all the men seen are those that were invited. 

For a man, resident outside the US, to lie about having been there, incognito, you have to be an outright lunatic. 

Lastly, but not least, the McCanns did not travel alone. Nor were they alone for one minute, between the time they got off the plane and got back on it. They had staff working for them. Making sure that everything went smoothly. 

For example, certifying that the audience reacted adequately. There are four known faces which are present to any pro-McCann: Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Sargento, Hernâni Carvalho and Duarte Levy. 

They have appeared many times “Tardes da Júlia” on TVI, a Portuguese TV Channel. You can add Joana Morais and Paulo Reis to this list as their faces appear on their blogs. ANY of these six people wouldn’t be allowed to enter the premises. The security is tight, and we’re not talking about thousands of people, but of around a hundred, or little more. 

Anybody walking in has their ID’s confirmed. If you buy an Oprah ticket for someone else and you don’t go, that person is not allowed to enter. Even if presenting his/her ticket. So when I heard that a big, burly, bearded man, alone, known publicly to be hostile to the guests had been able to infiltrate the Oprah show, my reaction was… “yeah, right…. don’t think sooooo….” 

Imagine Gerry McCann sitting, INCOGNITO and UNDETECTED, in one of “Tardes da Júlia”. 

But since he was “on our side”, and we human tend to partisan, instinctively both forgiving all the flaws of our friends and augmenting those of our enemies, I just assumed that he had got hold of a tape beforehand and was just going into a somewhat exaggerated bragging mode. It’s a proven fact that men will always be boys.

Even so, it didn’t feel right. But it was THE Duarte Levy, that I suspecting. So simply quieted down my suspicions. But the “100K € - 500K €” suing thing, a subject so dear to me, was the drop that made the cup fill over. Did he take me for a fool? 

A scoop of that magnitude was to be revealed by a blogger?!? Didn’t, just for a second, cross that megalomaniac brain of his that it wouldn’t have a follow up from the “official” media? Even from the crappy one. Or mainly from that one. Or did he think himself THAT important that the papers would just follow suit, just because HE was the source? 

Doesn’t he have enough intelligence to know that suing is an absolutely forbidden territory for the McCanns? Whenever they approach the subject, they are very, very, very careful about it. Limiting to themselves to the underlining of the threat without compromising to the actual deed. 

That is McCann 101. First Chapter, paragraph #1: McCanns cannot sue 

This apparent disconnect between the said word and the brain that has command it to say it, is a known trait of the McCanns, and here we have a follower and believer. So, as I was about to trash the gentleman when Joana (after having called him a liar a couple or so times) writes what only a passionate heart is able. 

That post made me rest my case about Nuno Duarte, AKA Duarte Levy, being a conman, a liar, a megalomaniac.”

I intend to continue by writing my point of view on why Duarte levy has acted the way he has. How manipulative people can be manipulated.

How all this has become a testing ground on information warfare. Let us not forget that those we face (which are and will remain faceless, obviously not the T9 or CM) are the best in the business.

It’s my opinion that Duarte Levy, voluntarily or not, has become a MOLE that has undermined the credibility of all those that seek justice for the truth that we know happened.

I have the faintest idea on whether or not he was/is on the payroll from the McCanns. That, for me, is irrelevant. Through his lies he has tried to profit, or has profited, illegitimately, from Maddie’s death, thus becoming none better than the child’s parents.

If I’m wrong about Duarte Levy, I’ll have no problem in apologizing and will certainly trash, on the same terms, Joana Morais for defaming such an honorable man.

However, a simple analysis is enough to detect that Duarte Levy’s behavior has the same irrationality as of the abductor that olympically jumped through a window holding a 4 year-old child in his arms.

It’s not my sympathy for Joana that moves me against Duarte Levy, or the McCanns. It’s all about Justice. For Maddie, for Portugal, for the UK and for basic citizenship. And that, in my book, is above all and any friendship.

Weren’t it to be so, I would be a hypocrite in criticizing the McCann friends for their given protection of the couple.

I’ll trash anybody who I find obstructing justice by cooperating in the protection of McCanns. A couple of common criminals who arrogantly avoid what they deserve, due only to an incomprehensible amount of protection they enjoy.

And if I, one day, am found to be a mole (after this episode I began to suspect even about myself), I expect to receive the same harsh treatment.

But don’t try to defame me, for those that read me I know that they know and trust that such will not slow me down. I write in accordance with own conscience with no hidden agenda or any type of pursuance of glory.

Just short notes about three other issues:

About the GNR receiving money. Didn’t surprise me, if it’s true. Nobody at that time anticipated the importance that all this would have.

Gerry’s nightwalk, if it also happened, is in accordance with Maddie’s death that night.

About the Portuguese PGR decision not to reopen the process, came as such a surprise that I couldn’t avoid a yawn.

Thursday, 18 June 2009

The usual double standard

A pearly comment from a Pro-McCann, on http://www.joana-morais.blogspot.com/:  

"Anonymous 14:33 - You're not exactly right - unfortunately the FBI and Scotland Yard have also questioned Amaral's competency and they don't seem to think he knew what he was doing - so, nope it's not only the British papers who question his competency. As Amaral is no longer a PJ, he should give up dreaming about questioning the McCanns - he should worry more about himself. Didn't he also refuse to answer questions in court?"

And taken from The Sun:
Retired UK policemen Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley flew to Germany hoping to speak to Raymond Hewlett, who is said to have been staying an hour's drive from the McCanns' Portuguese holiday flat when the little girl vanished in May 2007.”

Thus it can be deduced, from the McCann point of view, that retired cops ONLY from civilized nations as the UK are allowed to question people suspect of having something to do with Maddie’s disappearance (even if the people to be questioned have NOTHING to do with it), whilst retired cops from Portugal should just give up on their dreams (even if the people to be questioned have ALL to do with it).

The saddest thing about this is that although how much absurd it really is, it couldn’t be more truthful, as reality seems to be proving.

Sunday, 14 June 2009

Toilet Paper

Back from a short holiday, where I enjoyed the company of dearest of friends. Mostly Brits, and Bill, my American pal who I can count on to make me laugh, even in the most awkward of situations.

I’ve already revealed my passion for bridge. Now I reveal another: golf. And don’t ask me any others I may have, for I may answer, and you may blush…

In a gentleman’s game where Etiquette is a must, there is no other place where a lady is better treated than on a golf course.

On these days, the Maddie affair keeps coming up. The shake of the head seems to be the generic physical demonstration of the shame felt. One of the players placed a very interesting, rhetoric, question, to the group:

"Since when is crap taken seriously? No one, in the UK, who has an IQ slightly above moronic (that excludes you Jane) takes seriously the news that the tabloid print. 

Unless if you want to know about crap. Then you go where crap is better examined and analyzed. 

The fountain of crap-knowledge itself. If a subject gets its relevance ONLY from crappy press, then the issue is, by nature, total crap. 

So why all the fuss about what crap has to say about the Maddie issue? The sightings, the suspects and now, about the patsy? Crap. Nothing but. Have you read it, in the UK, about this anywhere else? Shouldn’t that simple fact PROVE that it’s the most absurd piece of crap that civilization has been able to come up with?"

We all looked at each other in utter silence, before going into head-shaking mode.

Then, Bill, hit the ball right into the nearest pond. Immediately he said:

“Hey, I know a new golf term we could start to use: to “McCann” a ball. 

Y’know, when you know what has happened to it and everybody else also does too, but YOU, regardless of that, state that something else happened to it, and play the stroke all over again as if what you just invented was assumed by ALL as reality... ”

Monday, 8 June 2009

The Final Bow

They say a swan sings a final majestic chant before it dies.

Never heard one do that, and I don’t like to live my life in accordance with hearsay. I prefer “The Final Bow”.

For one reason, is that I’ve seen many, some I wished for that moment never to come whilst for others it was never too soon.

Then, unlike the so said chant of the above stated animal, it’s not a final attempt to leave behind a memory to justify its existence, but more of subjecting oneself to the judgment of those we stood on the stage for in the first place.

That terrific moment in an artist’s profession is one of eternity. Much can happen, and of the much that happens all will be squeezed into what ultimately becomes what history will register as that particular performance.

The performer knows exactly what he merits at that particular moment. His vanity might fool him a little, but only just that. In the end, when the head bows, there may be applause, heartfelt or pitied, or, in the most harsh of judgments, silence.

When there is applause, the artist may go for an encore. This might be risky, or a certainty. The longer he/she takes to come back, the more certainty there is.

But, there are some performer’s who having worked, so, so hard, to get the leading role, that simply refuse to get off the stage no matter how many tomatoes they get thrown. It’s much more the fear of the silence, the painful recognition of how poor a performance, than shamelessness.

Mr. Gordon Brown, in the end the curtain does closes, and the public does leave you alone on the stage. Please, have some dignity. That’s all you still can salvage.

Your performance is over, whether you like it or not. And we all know how much you hate things that you cannot control. But, this one, you must simply let go.

With your exit, I hope that information manipulation from the highest institutions of the Country will cease, and the truth about Maddie will finally be able to see broad daylight.

Saturday, 6 June 2009

Such Gracefulness from a “Disgraced” Man...

They say that one picture is worth a thousand words.

Sometimes a picture, as is the case, hardly says more than little of the thousands of words that a book may contain, in whatever language it was written, translated or to be translated yet…

Friday, 5 June 2009


It seems that times are changing. The “McCann plight” is getting ever so more ridiculous with each day. People worldwide just don’t care anymore, because they know how guilty the McCanns are and have, by now, overcome the bemused stage and simply are fed-up of reading the same things about this farce over and over again.

The British, both in-Country and ex-pats, are also getting tired of the same. These have only the added detail that since they are the ones that have been subjected to the harshest of your “puppet-treatment”, they remain curious on when and how will all this sad circus end.

Mr. Gordon Brown descent seems to be on unstoppable crescendo. His fall is hanging in the balance between highly likely and certain.

The support in which that McCanns have so relied upon, seems to be slipping away. Even the latest suspect makes a mockery of all this by demanding money for his testimony. How much lower can this issue go?

NOW is the time to for you all to rethink all your editorial strategies on the Maddie folder. You know that.

Cope with what the future is likely to bring. But before you leave the McCanns out to dry on their own, and throw upon them all the evil and blame for being capable of, shamelessly, fooling ALL, including YOU, let me be the first to please ask you, much in anticipation, to spare me all the forthcoming whining.

Please do not play the victims in a play where you CHOSE to play a decisive role. You were never fooled by them. So please don’t say you were. You cooperated actively and deliberately in having their horrendous lie be kept alive, and, much more serious, to be told as the truth.

Please don’t waste time analyzing how things got so out of control and what measures can be taken to avoid the same to ever happen again. We all know what you could have done.

It was an editorial choice. You were, are and will be entitled to choose to broadcast whatever you wish to. But you were, are and will suffer the consequences, be they positive or negative, of that same choice. In this case, you chose to help the McCanns & friends.

The McCanns & friends, as I’m sure you know and time is to prove, are criminals. When you gave so much more of your airtime and page space in aiding the conveyance of a lie in opposition to whatever tried to prove its falsity, you clearly showed what your editorial choice was.

Yes, you did report about both sides. But it was very clear and consistent which side was emphasized by you. What is completely unclear is the why. Whatever it was, I do hope that it was worth it.

From watching and reading your coherence on the subject, it was a conscious decision. Whoever took it, is, in my opinion, totally soulless.

The day that it will be proved that the McCanns & friends are indeed the foul-doers we all know they are, is coming. Soon.

That day will prove their guilt, but will also prove that you helped these criminals, through your conscious choices; to forfeit the justice they were due when it was due to them.

This time lapse which you helped create meant the creation and existence of a fraudulent fund that deceived so many innocent and gullible people worldwide, used with the sole purpose of paying the expenses of defending those that did not deserve a defense paid for by anonymous citizens.

Your help was significant in that. Not unique but very relevant. Without it, people wouldn’t be as convinced in giving away their savings, wasting them on the human waste that the McCanns & friends really are.

Legally, I haven’t the faintest idea how much responsibility you behold, if any at all, but morally, you know how we all will look upon you. Credibility, was what we expected from you. There two types of media: the serious, and the other.

The first, enjoy a certain degree of credibility, which, in turn, brings in profitable advertising. The latter, well, if trash is handed out, trash is received gleefully. Which also brings in profitable advertising, but not as credible as the other.

You know what I mean. You, theoretically, belong to the first, but on the Maddie issue behaved as the latter.

So, when the McCanns are finally revealed as the monsters they are as you always knew they were, please do refrain to catch the same bus as the other media, which have courageously defended the truth.

I know you will catch it anyway, but will ask anyway.

Thursday, 4 June 2009

Happy Birthday, Gerry!

Well, you never know... it might just well be your last one in freedom, for a long, long, long time. Or so many hope.