Sailing Boat and Clocks

Once again, this blog finds itself under criticism, which, was we've shown before, we welcome, for knowing not to be the beholders of the truth, many times many readers have, and we hope will continue that to happen, enlightened and corrected us.

This time from a poster called “widowan” who wrote the following comment on MMF:  

“However IMO textusa seems to take 2 and 2 and get 16, then declares it is "logic" 

- I've seen this from him or her so many times, I'm sorry but this seems like bullsh*t to me. She builds a straw man based on conjecture then knocks that down and draws meaningless conclusions from her assessment. 

I don't see this big clue or conspiracy around someone doodling a flower, unless all other reservation sheets were reviewed and no doodles appeared elsewhere on other nights or on other papers in the reception area. 

I also don't see the handwriting change, apart from the l in Oldfield they look identical as to how the names are written. 

So it was boring? How sinister is that? how can one take the presence of a doodle - a flower which would have taken ten seconds to draw - and deduce that the paper was rewritten and the flower somehow there to indicate something about madeleine - being feminine? 

The handwriting is also feminine. The job of reservations desk is often held by a young woman. as far as being unprofessional - pah! You should see my notes from today's 2 hour meeting. I did a really good picture of a sailboat and several clocks, just imagine what textusa would make of those "clues".

How can one say reservations clearly could not be taken by phone as it would be clearly "unfair" to people who would not accept this unfair advantage offere to others ? Ridiculous. 

It's the way reservations are often taken where I come from, you phone them in. Reservation desk is a boring job and the doodle could be done at any time, nothing is researched here as to who took the reservations, whether by phone or in person, at the front desk - where the person has tons of time on their hands and the reservation sheet ready to hand - or at the Tapas itself. 

The Tapas 9 party made reservations at some point for every night after the first bad experience going to the Millennium and it appears as if the same person copied the same names down for several nights in a row as you would do - same order - same names - same writing - if someone made reservations for several nights, at the same time. 

Rewriting the same sentence or words over and over your handwriting does change slightly, possibly out of boring repetition and wishing Oldfield or whoever, Payne, would go away so you can continue to text your BFF or get on with other tasks. 

This is worthless as far as I'm concerned - I don't see what she is getting at or much if any logic behind her assumptions.”

Dear Widowan,

Say you “I don't see this big clue or conspiracy around someone doodling a flower, UNLESS all other reservation sheets were reviewed and no doodles appeared elsewhere on other nights”, so we all can, by LOGIC and LOGIC alone, assume that YOU DO then see it a as BIG CLUE or CONSPIRACY around someone doodling a flower.

You see, in ALL OTHER reservation sheets that we’ve been able to see, there are NO other doodles, so your own “UNLESS” excludes this NOT being a BIG CLUE or CONSPIRACY. All according to you.

And before you attempt to say that I’m cropping just some of your words out of context, because I’m leaving out that you also mention “other papers in the reception area”, let me just say that you, unwittingly, bring to light up a very IMPORTANT issue to this whole subject (albeit of little importance to the post that you criticize): THE RECEPTION.

What RECEPTION are you talking about? I know of only one, located around about 250 yards East of the Tapas Complex.

A reception would be the normal place where all bookings would take place done in a normal touristic facilities such as hotels. But we’ve already seen that the Mark Warner Ocean Club is far from being normal, and there’s no criticism in this statement, it’s just so because of its layout, far from normal, spread out all over PdL.

That’s why we’ve read from various reviews that the bookings for the various activities at the OC were done at The Mill.

This was/is done for practical and LOGICAL reasons as that’s the place where guests gather in the beginning of each day, for breakfast.

 If the RECEPTION which you mention is the one that everyone knows, the one down by the toddlers crèche, near the adults only pool, are you, by any chance, linking the “the other papers in the reception area” from there with the Tapas Booking Sheets (TBS)?

Because if you are, then you’re basically stating that “Tapas Reservation Book” (in whatever shape or form) went back and forth, DAILY, between the Tapas and the OC Reception. That’s a lot of yardage for any book. Even for a fairy tale one. Besides being ILLOGICAL and completely absurd, does go against the fact that Rachael begs for a table for Tapas AT TAPAS, as well as the strange but noted need for people to queue up AT TAPAS to get a table for dinner.

So, apparently the book did REMAIN AT TAPAS, meaning that there was absolutely no linkage between it, and whatever was being doodled down at the OC Reception, as the booking was done at TAPAS.

The fact that you bring up possible doodles, done about 250 yards away, for the most varied and VALID reasons, “on other reception papers” to validate your argumentation is as useful to achieve that objective as your own sailing boat and a lot of clocks: ABSOLUTELY NOT. Simply a distracting argument.

But that is if you’re referring to the OC Reception, right? You could, however be mentioning a RECEPTION at TAPAS? What RECEPTION? Where is it LOCATED? Why we’ve never heard about it? What “other reception papers” could one find there? Pool chair reservations? And who was supposed to man this supposed TAPAS RECEPTION? “The job of reservations desk is often held by a young woman”, besides being sexist and wrong, is too vague.

Do offer what you demand, and do supply names please. Who was the person, or persons, supposed to be at the “TAPAS RECEPTION”? If you’re able to answer this, you’ll be solving one of the biggest mysteries of this whole saga.

Should I stop asking questions or do you think I should continue as I have yet to be sufficiently LOGICAL for you to understand that what I’m basically saying is that there was NO RECEPTION at TAPAS?

“I also don't see the handwriting change, apart from the l in Oldfield they look identical as to how the names are written.” If you cannot see the difference in the “f” in the same surname between what was written on May 1st and 2nd, with what was written on May 3rd, then you’re being WILLINGLY BLIND.

By the way, the different “l” to which you so attentively refer to is between May 1st and 2nd but is identical between May 2nd and 3rd., which is what matters as this last, is the day of the ONLY doodle on the TBSs.

And you remain to be willingly blind if you don’t notice the different “r” in Obrien, the different “n” all over, the evident different handwriting slant in Obrien, Mccann and Payne, just to say the most evident, as differences can also be seen in the various “a” and “e”…

You seem overlook (I say more intentionally than not) that we’re before someone trying to imitate somebody else’s handwriting, so similarities ARE to be expected. The differences may be minor (which they aren’t) but are existent.

So unlike your capability to see, in this case, the differences in the handwritings, your statement “I also don't see the handwriting change” is crystal clear to us all.

Now let me thank you for saying “…and deduce that the paper was rewritten and the flower somehow there to indicate something about madeleine - being feminine? The handwriting is also feminine”. Coming from YOU it then becomes proved that it is of feminine authorship most of what is written in the TBSs of May 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. If I had said so, you’d probably go and say that you'd know a million of young MALE teenagers that write like that and that I would have been over my head with assumptions. So, thank you, most earnestly.

And I thank you, once again, for your “…as far as being unprofessional - pah! You should see my notes from today's 2 hour meeting. I did a really good picture of a sailboat and several clocks, just imagine what textusa would make of those "clues".”

Here, again, in your attempt to criticize me, you end up reinforcing my reasoning. First, I never said that doodles made anyone look unprofessional. What I said, and maintain, is that doodles make a PIECE OF PAPER look unprofessional. There’s a huge difference from what I said and what you attempt to imply I say.

And I did say that a doodle in a RESERVATION BOOK is inadequate and unrealistic, UNLESS the book would be located in a place or circumstances whereby the person responsible for it would find himself/herself inactive for a period of time.

I referred the only two LOGICAL situations that that would happen: waiting for a customer to decide whatever s/he wanted to book, or be seating in a nearby table waiting for “reservation latecomers”. Both highly unlikely but, nevertheless, both LOGICAL, so both considered. If you know any other, please feel free to enlighten us all.

But, it's about the doodling itself, that YOU CONFIRM what I said. I questioned that if there had been there time to doodle, why only a SINGLE doodle on that sheet of paper? You answer the question on the clearest terms coming from experience: “I did a really good picture of a sailboat and several clocks”. Notice the plural. I rest my case on this one, thanks to you.

Next you bring up the “RESERVATION BY PHONE”. “How can one say reservations clearly could not be taken by phone as it would be clearly "unfair" to people who would not accept this unfair advantage offere to others ? Ridiculous. It's the way reservations are often taken where I come from, you phone them in.”

First, if you had the chance to book by phone, would you stand in a queue at 11 a.m to do so, instead of going to the beach or to some other fun family activity? Second, and pardon me to ask again, but what RECEPTION would one phone to? Third, yes, it would be unfair.

All you have to do is read the reviews on TravelAdvisor, and see how many people grump about how guests that booked through MW got preferential treatment over those that booked with Thomas Cook.

Now, you’re standing in line, in your flip-flops and beach towel, and when your turn comes, someone rings in and reserves the last table available. Would you just smile, accept you fate and try again the next day? Would that be YOUR LOGIC?

“Reservation desk is a boring job and the doodle could be done at any time, nothing is researched here as to who took the reservations, whether by phone or in person, at the front desk - where the person has tons of time on their hands and the reservation sheet ready to hand - or at the Tapas itself.” As you accuse us of lack of research, please do answer the unanswered questions you raise to base your accusation upon: - who took the reservations? - were the reservations done by phone or in person? - were the reservations done at the front desk or at the Tapas itself? Don’t bother to answer the third question, for that was, unlike you adamantly state, researched. It was done at Tapas.

Unless you want to say that not only Rachael is lying as are also some of the OC Staff (remember the famous queue…).

But, by all means, DO ANSWER the first two! Your answers would be a great help and I, for one, will be eager to read them.

Then, for someone who accuses others of lack of research you go and say “The Tapas 9 party made reservations at some point for every night after the first bad experience going to the Millennium”.

It was not “at some point in time”. It was on Sunday, and that is very important, and it wasn’t the “T9”, but Rachael Manpilly.  

“…and it appears as if the same person copied the same names down for several nights in a row as you would do - same order - same names - same writing - if someone made reservations for several nights, at the same time. Rewriting the same sentence or words over and over your handwriting does change slightly, possibly out of boring repetition” is absolutely correct, except for the fact that that same person decides, out of the blue, to innovate when it came to brackets and made them all different.

Oh, and to change the handwriting on the TBS for May 3rd.

And doodle a flower there.  

“…and wishing Oldfield or whoever, Payne, would go away so you can continue to text your BFF or get on with other tasks.” together with “This is worthless as far as I'm concerned - I don't see what she is getting at or much if any logic behind her assumptions.” However stating that whoever wrote down the names had other tasks to do or had to text her BBF (?), are perfectly LOGICAL assumptions for you, aren’t they?

And I do wish to know what you're trying to get at by bringing Payne's name out of nowhere...

Lastly, let me end with your first paragraph. One thing is to disagree, which you’re absolutely entitled to, another is to be insulting with your “I'm sorry but this seems like bullsh*t to me”.

Don’t worry (as if I was that you were) I wasn’t offended. I just want to show the readers, through LOGIC, with what exact mindset you wrote your criticism, and understand its exact value.

But what you said something that I cannot let slide. It has to be pretty much clarified.

You say “However IMO textusa seems to take 2 and 2 and get 16, then declares it is "logic" - I've seen this from him or her so many times”

Please do tell, under the penalty of false accusation, where and when have I stated that 2 and 2 was any different from 4, as you’ve seen this from me SO MANY TIMES.  

YOUR silence will be assumed by me as a recognition that your criticism is baseless, and meant only to deceive the readers of this blog.