Friday, 3 February 2012

The Advocatus Attack


(Feb 3rd, 2012)

You may have not realized, but our blog has undergone a significant attack.

It’s not the first time that it's been attacked. It won’t be the last.

Fortunately, we have the readers we have, and let me tell you, that you’ve been simply outstanding. On hindsight, I have to admit that I’ve abused somewhat of your patience, but I hope I’ll be able to to have you excuse me and earn your much wanted forgiveness.

After this, we almost can say that our foes have used all the weapons listed in the yet to be written “Anti-blog Weaponry Catalog”, just to illustrate how significant this attack really was.

I imagine that if it ever that catalog is ever written, I’m sure it will sell like hot cakes…

Let’s first assume a series of things about this attacker.

First, let’s assume that he’s male, which we aren’t sure of, so that we can treat this person as he/him, instead of filling the post with slashes to encompass both genders.

Second, let’s assume that he’s a single individual, although we have reason to believe that he isn’t.

Lastly let’s call him by his last nick used, Advocatus, which we’re very much sure, is not the only one used, or in use, by this individual, in various blogs, nor was it the only one used in ours.

So when I say Advocatus likes his coffee black, I mean the Advocatus like their coffee black. Both the hes and the shes…

So, this post is about the attack recently perpetrated against this blog by Advocatus.

The technique used in this particular attack was what is known as “friendly domineering”, or the process of silencing others by talking over them, not allowing them to simply put a word in.

Have you ever you tried to start a conversation with a loudmouth? You can’t. Your role is immediately reduced to being merely the cue card between loudmouth’s sequences of monologues.

In business, these people, usually big in popularity, are very pernicious in productivity. So they’re carefully avoided in any decent project management.

For example, say a company wants to run a brainstorming session. There are two ways to go about it, the stupid way, and the smart way.

The stupid way, unfortunately the most used, is to allow everyone to voice their opinion. Usually the domineering talkers, those that are most vocal, take the floor and quickly dominate all and any conversation whilst the majority finds itself in silence.

Their silence, be aware, is not forced in the slightest way, mind you. One is simply mesmerized before such wit and eloquence that one is awed into silence. And even those that thought of saying something before the meeting, now won’t risk the risk of ridicule.

Yes, a great number of ideas were put out there, but an attentive analyst rapidly discovers that only two or three people, the loudmouths, have indeed contributed, although the room is filled up with people… The majority has remained either silent, or, if they did speak, didn't voice their own opinion, but rather agreed on others' .

How many really good ideas were lost in the process within the confinements of a timid brain? One is never to find out... in a meeting held supposedly to find ideas…

The smart way to run a brainstorming session is to take it by steps.

First, everyone is told to write down three or four ideas on a piece of paper. They are given about ten minutes or so to do that and then the papers are collected.

All ideas are put up on the board. Here, it’s important that no comment, no laughter or even a smirk is allowed, all in the sake of keeping individual confidence intact.

Once this is done, step two, which is for everyone to again write down ideas, this time after having seen many from others. This is to guarantee that anyone who, upon reading an idea from somebody else, remembers something other and this is not lost.

Each person has to write something, even if it’s “I have no further ideas”. Everyone writes and everyone hands over a piece of paper.

Step three, the voting. Secret ballot on the best three or four ideas… The math is done without publicizing the results. This is not supposed to be an election, but a method to determine the general opinion of all those contributing.

Last step, is the open debate, now and only now, and only the moderator knows which ideas are most popular.

As you can see, three quarters of the process was done in total silence, yet everyone had the opportunity to, unhindered, have his say.

In the debate, the loudmouths are now conditioned by both what was openly expressed, up on the board, as well as by the moderator’s knowledge of the current tendency.

The intent to do something constructive is then achieved, because the most valid ideas are usually those that remain on top of the table at the end.

But Advocatus has attacked. He seeks to be destructive, not constructive.

He started to wriggle himself into a position on the blog. At first a bit aggressive and domineering, then becoming friendly and quickly behaving like one of the gang without being invited.

He just waltzed into our living room, sat on the couch like any regular Archie Bunker, took off his slippers, picked up the newspaper, and was just about to take over the TV remote, man’s ultimate display in individual world dominance…

Well, as Fred so well knows, in our house, men have to behave like men.

So, before he could even get real comfy, Advocatus was shown the shortest way out.

I've spoken of his tactics, of his technique, to get in. Let me now speak of his objectives, and what was his real intent.

Please keep always present how he got himself into position, and that was by being friendly.

He did that by showing how he thinks like you, agrees with you, all to be not like you, but, most importantly, to be accepted by you, to be one of us…

In order to achieve that, the majority of his opinions, in the beginning at least, are in perfect synch with yours. They are logical and absolutely reasonable. Otherwise how would he be able to conquer your “friendship” and “trust”, and conquer his space at the cost of yours?

Never forget that no one is ever fooled by want.

Once that space has been conquered, the “friendly domineering” begins.

Ever so increasingly, the character seems to dominate the conversation. And when one is speaking, others are just listening, aren’t they?

Then, here and there, he drops a ridiculous idea, which, because he’s one of us, you either don’t pay much attention or simply “forgive” him. But that idea, pretty much ridiculous, is not exactly destined to you, but to your subconscious. Just remember, for now, the colour "yellow". In a minute you'll understand why I'm asking you to do this.

And if you do happen to notice and do correct him what answer do you get? “Sure, sure… thanks so much for correcting, but surely…”… or “Yes, but you must agree that…

Note that your correction is usually a friendly advice as opposed to contradiction, a much more assertive and aggressive stand. It’s pretty much difficult to go against a friendly voice isn’t it? You’re never that assertive, when you do that, are you?

Do those polite excuses sound familiar? Well they do because they are.

As familiar as the completely irrefutable and logical “I just don’t see why…” and “There’s absolutely no reason for…” to declare something as fact or rule it as not, isn’t it?

What does Advocatus seek? Disruption.

Keywords? Loudmouth and Cryptic.

Do look at Advocatus' interventions at JH, as he repeatedly advertised, “as of page 18”. I recommend that you go directly to page 20.

It does seem that he defends our blog passionately… but do notice how annoying it quickly becomes.

The human subconscious very quickly links the obnoxious manner with which an individual defends a thesis with the thesis itself, and after a short while no longer differentiates the message from the messenger.

Imagine that in some blog, someone defends viciously, annoyingly and obnoxiously that a certain house should be painted yellow, to name a colour out of nowhere.

This defense, to be done “viciously, annoyingly and obnoxiously” means that it was done in a aggressive and repetitive manner. You, simply tired of reading the same rant over and over again, take the most predictable, and adequate, of human attitudes, and you leave.

First objective achieved, now for the second, which is for you never to come back.

Sometime afterwards, you pick up, accidentally, again a discussion, off another topic, about the colour of that house

What do you immediately think?

“Oh no! Not THAT yellow house AGAIN!!!”.

Just the thought of reading about it one more time is like having to support chalk scraping on a blackboard for an hour. How’s that for setting one's teeth on edge?

What do you do? You leave, regretting ever having returned… will you come back? Don’t think so. Second objective achieved.

But, stop for a minute, why won’t you come back? Notice that your thought process was neither about the colour, nor about the house, nor even about what colour the house should be painted… These elements are indeed present, and visible, but look again and check if it was them that repelled you.

No, they weren't. It was the revolting way the argumentation was presented. Not the colour, nor the house. Your subconscious confused the messenger with the message.

After a certain point you were against the yellow, just because all the argumentation that supported its use simply became unbearable… But what if yellow is indeed the right colour after all? One thing we're pretty sure now, and that is if this ever should be voted we can count on someone who will defend any other colour but yellow, can't we? You.

Now, if the intention of he who defended so vigorously the yellow was for that colour never to used, whatever the circumstance, he has just gained an ally, while you're thinking you were his enemy

The messenger, who in the storybooks tales always gets shot, in this instance not only delivers the message as he walks away with deserved grin on his face.

The idea behind Advocatus’s attack was to, by inundating the blog with friendly, but irrelevant, repetitive, space-filling comments, tire you out and make you leave.

I hope you now understand why Textusa is seldom heard of in the net.

No, it’s not because of declared BHs attacking it viciously, but mostly due to how BHs, dressed as WH, go about providing their “absolutely innocent” opinions on the blog. Diligently, tirelessly. We particularly love the candid use of the verb “to bark” that we see often.

However, amazingly, the facts that Textusa addresses seem to be familiar to all.

It’s quite entertaining to watch, today, being discussed, yesterday’s ridiculed ideas

The cryptic part, is summed up in what I told Advocatus when I sent him off to play somewhere else: “To misinform, it's not to be cryptic, but to be cryptic, most of the times, if not always, it's to misinform.

Guess what our friend had to say about that, in an unpublished comment? “The above is very cryptic, LOL!”. You couldn’t get any better than that.

But the issue is not a laughing matter. How many times have we heard the words “freemasonry”, “paedophilia”, “drugging” and “secret experimentation”?

I won’t go much into the use of these words but I can tell you that any intentional rumour is always based not only on popular fears and popular ignorance, but mostly on what people fear from what they ignore.

How many times have you been told to read between the lines? How many enigmatic comments have you read that lead you nowhere but to a maze after maze until you’re not exactly sure in which one you’ve found yourself lost in…

If Advocatus is really so full of certainties, he, like us, and many other bloggers, both BH and WH alike, should set up his own space. But he won't because that's not what he seeks, he seeks to disrupt what others have created and he doesn’t want, or can stand, to see it so proudly standing.

But, Textusa, say you, many times you have posted many an enigmatic post

True.

But the difference resides in the intent. You see, the amount of information that we have still to put out there is still immense.

Read the amount that we’ve already put out.

Take into account the resistance we’ve found. The need to explain, in the tiniest detail, each step we took along this path we’re trekking.

You can easily understand that the only way to do it, was the way we did it. Bit by bit. Enigma by enigma, certainly, but we’ve tried always to answer the questions we’ve put out there.

We’ve always based our statements on fact and on logic. Never have we departed from supposition, considering it fact. And much less to deduce fact from fact that is based only on supposition.

Our blog has been very methodological… in being methodological.

Our purpose is to inform. People like Advocatus do their best to disinform.

By having you assume the all the unpleasant characteristics of the character he created, he tries very hard to create the feeling that those who defend Textusa are nothing but loonies.

Then, the BHs, from all sides of their fences, and believe me there are many sides to that particular fence, may be able to say that we’re nothing but a dozen crazy lifeless souls.

In fact, this smearing campaign is the only uniting factor they share: to drive as many people away from this subject as is possible.

The less people that are out there that still care, the better for them. All of them.

Do go now and scrutinize blogs, those supposedly WH, and do really understand their content.

I, for one, make our blog completely available for such analysis, and I trust your ability to do it.

Let me make it very clear, that I’m not saying that we’re the only WH blog around. There are many like us and their work deserves as much recognition, if not more than ours.

In the end, all those truly WH, have nothing to fear from this scrutiny, do they?

Now, to finish the post the way I started it, let me talk about how I abused your patience.

We have to confess, that we caught, very early on, on to Advocatus game. The how and why, we’ll refrain from explaining, but it wasn’t that difficult, because, you, our beloved readers, did the same.

You warned us through PMs, asked us what the hell was going on… you spotted very quickly that this character was intentionally polluting

I'm of the opinion that our blog is feared by the BHs for two reasons: its content and its readers. If both were quantifiable, then I’d say they’re feared in equal parts. You’ve shown them again that Textusa is one united, committed and passionate family.

Many times, I must say, we were tempted to put a stop to Advocatus, for your sake, but it was for that exact reason, your sake, that we allowed it to go on the way we did.

We just had to let him play his little game.

Not for fun, but because only after he exposed himself fully would this post make sense and I sincerely hope you understand.

About us being flattered, even if momentarily with this attack, let me please clarify that the flattering has absolutely nothing to with the individual, but only due to having realized that the BHs deem our blog such a worthy target for such “heavy artillery”.

We’re fully aware that this menace will surface again under a new identity. And we’ll probably be initially fooled, after all, we’re nothing but human. We don’t mind that, being initially fooled, because, as said, the menace's first messages not only support and reinforce our views, but show how really the BHs know that what we say is true

Once we detect that Jekyll and Hyde are but one, then, let me quote Advocatus on one of his many unpublished comments:

“Hi again textusa ladies,

I didn't think you were going to print my last comment, so I went to bed :O)

Game over.

No it is not, not until...”

Sorry, did we interrupt you? It’ll happen often, I’m afraid.



Post Scriptum: For the sake of transparency and information sharing with our readers, we’ll show Advocatus comments we've received since he was told that his game was over.

Notice two things. One is that he seems to completely loose his footing and does take some time to realize that the couch that he thought he was about to sit on no longer was there, and when he fell on hard wood, it wasn’t the family room, but the front porch.

The other, is it just me, or do I detect a little bit of “insanity” in his wordings? Like “I see you keep messing with the blog replies. One minute they are there, the next they are not, or altered.

You be the judge:


Comments received on the "Where Have All The Gentlemen Gone?" post:

Posted by Advocatus to Textusa at Feb 1, 2012 4:25:00 PM:

Hi again textusa ladies,

I didn't think you were going to print my last comment, so I went to bed :O)

Game over.

No it is not, not until some people go to gaol for a very very long time. We could start with Gordon Brown, for example, for perverting the course of justice, oh, and being a war criminal and bully, and a cowardly despicable weasel, to boot.

Blame it on the nose, if you want.

Your nose is wrong in this case my dears. Despite all the ultra paranoid accusations flying in my direction –

[3 blogs back I said "There is IMHO far too much paranoia going on at all the forums. If Bennett loses in April, it will be all over the news. If he wins, no big deal, it was just a minor court breach. Thanks to Bennett's gross stupidity, he has got the while anti-McCann supporters into a fine old pickle. All he had to do was 1. Not agree to the draconian terms in the first place, and, 2. If agreeing to then, simply shut up, because you have agreed to be muzzled, gagged. And this bloke thinks he's a lawyer? It's a lose-lose situation for the ant-McCann supporters, those seeking justice for Maddie, may she Rest in Peace."]

- I am simply here, like we (mostly) all are, to try and make sense of this case and see where it goes.

*******************

Posted by Advocatus to Textusa at Feb 1, 2012 4:26:00 PM

contd.

There’s nothing cryptic about this case. It’s simple and straightforward.

I think your assertion above is, at a minimum, misconceived.

If you think it is so simple, perhaps you could tell us in a few short sweet sentences, as few as possible (to keep it simple, right?) what is so "simple and straightforward" about this case.

It is highly likely (according to the EVRD dogs and other evidence) that Maddie died in apt 5a.

So she died either:

1. accidentally

2. by design

If 1, then she cannot have died accidentally on the evening of the 4th (not enough time), because at 00.01 minutes on the 5th the Telegraph online edition had details of the case. By the morning of the 5th in Luz, the place was crawling with spooks, journos, diplomats and other unsavory characters. Therefore if poor Maddie died earlier than the "faked abduction" of the 4th, then we have a whole host of evil people involved in this cover-up.
All of whom should go to gaol.

If 2, malice aforethought with multiple cases of mens rea, then obviously it is far far worse for all concerned. All she be banged up for a very very long time.

Always was. In fact, the only baffling thing about it is how such a simple and straightforward case was able to gain and maintain such an enigmatic aura.

Well that is obvious - GB intervened, in order to make sure that some secrets did not make it into the public domain. Aiding and abetting dear old Gordon were the British establishment, all layers it would seem, right to the very top. It has probably either all been either some diabolical long term Tavistock production (as George Galloway may have alluded to), or the Tavistock brigade have humped on the bandwagon for their own agenda to go forward. And with Pat Brown turning up, it is likely to be the next OJ tee-vee spectacular in the USA, followed just like the Knox girl's case in Italy. Which will feed the UK and Portugal frenzy - remember both countries are bankrupt, and our masters like diversions (such as this case, the Olympics etc) whilst our economies are trashed and looted by the same masters.

If we are covering up a murder or even a "faked abduction"/accidental homicide/hiding of a corpse scenario, then this case is far from being "simple and straightforward"...

But a simple attentive look, as simple as the case, is enough to understand that that is not even that baffling.

Over to you, please lay it out in XYZ fashion, so that we can all understand your mindset.

To misinform, it's not to be cryptic, but to be cryptic, most of the times, if not always, it's to misinform.

The above is very cryptic, LOL!

The only big question that will remain unanswered (as many small details of the case unfortunately will) is the why the parent’s did what they did, but that’s not cryptic, it’s just sick and morbid.

OK now we are getting somewhere - from your last paragraph, it seems you think the scenarios I lined up above are more or less correct? There was either an accident or there was premeditation. Can't be both - in which case where does the establishment cover-up fit in? What is GB (in both senses, Brown + great Britain) covering-up? What activities in Portugal are so heinous that a little girl's life should be trampeled in such a disgusting manner?

Nice try. If it’s any consolation, we were flattered. Momentarily.

I think your nose(s) need(s) blowing, into a pretty pink handkerchief! LOL!

Not guilty, M'Lud!

*******************

Posted by Advocatus to Textusa at Feb 1, 2012 4:28:00 PM

Ross said...

"Confusion is best."

The best place to hide a pebble is in a pile of pebbles.
Feb 1, 2012 10:12:00 AM

What about a body?

*******************

Posted by Advocatus to Textusa at Feb 1, 2012 4:32:00 PM

Advocatus/Gerry M.,

"Confusion is best"

...

That's it, right? All part of the deceiving game.

If you think I'm Gerry m you are off your trolley.

*******************

Posted by Advocatus to Textusa at Feb 1, 2012 5:01:00 PM

From London's Evening Standard

Detectives from the homicide squad were asked to examine the case of the missing three-year-old after the Prime Minister acted on the request of Madeleine's parents. A spokesman for Kate and Gerry McCann said: "They have always been very appreciative of the time and resources that the British police and Home Office have committed to the search for Madeleine and they are grateful that the review is ongoing."

Note this - years to complete?

Yet another whitewash...

say the inquiry could take years to complete and they have played down hopes of a major breakthrough

*******************

Posted by Advocatus to Textusa at Feb 2, 2012 2:20:00 AM

Advocatus,

Game over. Blame it on the nose, if you want.

There’s nothing cryptic about this case. It’s simple and straightforward. Always was. In fact, the only baffling thing about it is how such a simple and straightforward case was able to gain and maintain such an enigmatic aura. But a simple attentive look, as simple as the case, is enough to understand that that is not even that baffling.

To misinform, it's not to be cryptic, but to be cryptic, most of the times, if not always, it's to misinform.

The only big question that will remain unanswered (as many small details of the case unfortunately will) is the why the parent’s did what they did, but that’s not cryptic, it’s just sick and morbid.

Nice try. If it’s any consolation, we were flattered. Momentarily.

I see you keep messing with the blog replies. One minute they are there, the next they are not, or altered.

Why don't you just be honourable, and print my replies.

Answer my legitimate questions.

This is not a game, and you are playing games with replies here, and my responses.

Over to you, ladies.

Advo

*********************



Comments received on the "Textusa's Phone Hacking Scandal #2" post:

Posted by Advocatus to Textusa at Feb 2, 2012 2:27:00 AM

Hi again textusa ladies,

I didn't think you were going to print my last comment, so I went to bed :O)

Game over.

No it is not, not until some people go to gaol for a very very long time. We could start with Gordon Brown, for example, for perverting the course of justice, oh, and being a war criminal and bully, and a cowardly despicable weasel, to boot.

Blame it on the nose, if you want.

Your nose is wrong in this case my dears. Despite all the ultra paranoid accusations flying in my direction –

[3 blogs back I said "There is IMHO far too much paranoia going on at all the forums. If Bennett loses in April, it will be all over the news. If he wins, no big deal, it was just a minor courJt breach. Thanks to Bennett's gross stupidity, he has got the while anti-McCann supporters into a fine old pickle. All he had to do was 1. Not agree to the draconian terms in the first place, and, 2. If agreeing to then, simply shut up, because you have agreed to be muzzled, gagged. And this bloke thinks he's a lawyer? It's a lose-lose situation for the ant-McCann supporters, those seeking justice for Maddie, may she Rest in Peace."]

- I am simply here, like we (mostly) all are, to try and make sense of this case and see where it goes.

There’s nothing cryptic about this case. It’s simple and straightforward.

I think your assertion above is, at a minimum, misconceived.

If you think it is so simple, perhaps you could tell us in a few short sweet sentences, as few as possible (to keep it simple, right?) what is so "simple and straightforward" about this case.

It is highly likely (according to the EVRD dogs and other evidence) that Maddie died in apt 5a.

So she died either:

1. accidentally

2. by design

If 1, then she cannot have died accidentally on the evening of the 4th (not enough time), because at 00.01 minutes on the 5th the Telegraph online edition had details of the case. By the morning of the 5th in Luz, the place was crawling with spooks, journos, diplomats and other unsavory characters. Therefore if poor Maddie died earlier than the "faked abduction" of the 4th, then we have a whole host of evil people involved in this cover-up.
All of whom should go to gaol.

If 2, malice aforethought with multiple cases of mens rea, then obviously it is far far worse for all concerned. All she be banged up for a very very long time.

Always was. In fact, the only baffling thing about it is how such a simple and straightforward case was able to gain and maintain such an enigmatic aura.

Well that is obvious - GB intervened, in order to make sure that some secrets did not make it into the public domain. Aiding and abetting dear old Gordon were the British establishment, all layers it would seem, right to the very top. It has probably either all been either some diabolical long term Tavistock production (as George Galloway may have alluded to), or the Tavistock brigade have humped on the bandwagon for their own agenda to go forward. And with Pat Brown turning up, it is likely to be the next OJ tee-vee spectacular in the USA, followed just like the Knox girl's case in Italy. Which will feed the UK and Portugal frenzy - remember both countries are bankrupt, and our masters like diversions (such as this case, the Olympics etc) whilst our economies are trashed and looted by the same masters.

*******************

Posted by Advocatus to Textusa at Feb 2, 2012 2:45:00 AM

To the person above, Fagan, Geraghty, Tanner,, Gerry M, et cetera.

Rhat is what I mean when I say this blog is cryptic.

I am still waiting for some answrs, but I think the three amiguettes are not gonba play ball.

This is yet another dishonest Naddie blog.

Shame on you.

14 comments:

  1. Good riddance! Let's see how long it takes for another Insane/Advocatus to make an appearance ... in any case I ain't leaving - end of story!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Duraste pouco...
    "Aviso a navegaçao"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pessoas como esta ( ou estas) têm uma personalidade sociopata portanto, eles insistem, insistem e insistem. Não vão desistir de boicotar e de aparecer perante as luzes da ribalta porque para eles isto é a definição de felicidade. São uns pobres de espírito que se julgam importantes pois pensam que estão em missão.

    People like this (or these) have a sociopathic personality therefore, they insist, insist and insist.

    Will not give up the boycott and to appear before the spotlight because for them it is the definition of happiness.

    They are poor in spirit who think they're important because they think they are on a mission.

    E, parece que já reiniciou!

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I didn't think you were going to print my last comment"

    Unless you want to disrupt, why then submit it in the first place?

    This is a "Ooops, I've just confessed, moment" from Insane/Advocatus

    ReplyDelete
  5. On davidicke forum, Advocatus behaving like we expected him to:

    On page 2:

    http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=171088&page=2
    02-02-2012, 01:54 PM

    “now banned by textusa

    apparently all the mccann fora are run by somewhat disingenuous people

    ask some tricky questions you get banned

    this is what caused my banning

    Where Have All The Gentlemen Gone?

    26 comments

    http://textusa.blogspot.com/

    this is what textusa said to me, advocatus, says her nose smells a mccann rat

    paranoia is rife over there

    these are her ludicrous comments about the case, which i asked her to back up



    (transcription of Textusa’s “game over” comment)


    to which i replied

    days later, still no answer

    which leads me to believe they are playing games and full of bluff and merde


    (transcription of his repetitive comment)


    So that's it, textusa is as nutty as a fruitbat if she thinks this case is "simple and straightforwrad"

    she cannot back up anything she says

    nothing”



    And on page 3:

    http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=171088&page=3
    03-02-2012, 03:08 AM

    “Tried again at glp, banned, lol

    There has been a blog running in Portugal since 2007, about this case.

    I am very concerned at how the blog owner, a woman called textusa, is manipulating folks.

    I have just had a run-in with her and her small gang, and I asked perfectly fair ang logical questions.

    After her ludicrous initial statement, she has susequently refused to print our little discourse.

    This woman is a fraud, and a coward, and needs to be now banned by textusa

    apparently all the mccann fora are run by somewhat disingenuous people

    ask some tricky questions you get banned”

    (Advocatus follows this with the transcription of the comment above, including the SAME repetitive comment. He must really love it and think how bright he was when he wrote it up. It's surely hanging over his mantlepiece by now!)

    ReplyDelete
  6. BHs, don't mess with Tex!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "This woman (Textusa) is a fraud, and a coward, and needs to be now banned by textusa"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon 5:34, that comment was made at 03-02-2012, 03:08 AM, the last one in the post was on 02-02-2012, 2012 2:45 AM. Reading both, seems like this person is either desperate to get back or a bit drunk. He must've really thought that he had everyone fooled.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That guy( Adv) has a distorted personality. When he receives a NO, becomes paranoid.
    What was/is being disclosed here that makes him so desperate?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Befriend an anti blog
    Become demanding
    Banned
    Be a campaigner to declare anti's are really pros

    Doing it on Icke's blog defeats the object
    Find another respectable blog next
    Didnt work on JM as few people bothered to respond to multiple personality Rui Roskoff

    ReplyDelete
  11. If you get paid for results, but you don't get results, you don't get paid.
    If A is employed as a BH then he will be out of pocket.
    If just an attention seeking disruptor, he isn't being rewarded for that either.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Doesn't Advocatus even read the blog he attacks? Or does he think we readers don't read?
    Where the logic in the assertion that "she cannot have died accidentally on the evening of the 4th (not enough time), because at 00.01 minutes on the 5th the Telegraph online edition had details of the case"?!?
    How long does he think it takes up for a paper to put up an online page? 4 hours? Hasn't he heard about something called "latest news" or "live news"? So because a paper puts up an online page at midnight, she CANNOT have died that evening. Cadaverine takes about an hour to develop, so according to Advocatus, Maddie could have been killed while the GNR was in apartment and still the Telegraph publish the online page at that time!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. What is Advocatus on about 4th and 5th May?????

    What happened to 3rd May?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ups, you're right Anon 11:32. maybe Textusa is really being unfair to Advocatus, as he may be talking about a completely different case from Maddie's!!!

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Textusa