IRONSIDE Response, Part III

Sorry Ironside to go on blabbing about the subject. But the previous post was written in quite a hurry and I forgot to convey a very important implication for somebody to choose, or be chosen, to be the McCann’s scapegoat.

I approached the subject, referring to a specific person, but generalizing the whole concept.

But the Maddie case is unique. The day that I’m convinced that there was an abductor, I’ll not only apologise publicly to the couple as I will immediately start the “Maddie Abductor Fan Club”.

And you can be Fan#2, because the #1 I’ve booked for myself.

Only the most brilliant criminal mind could have hidden Maddie away from the eyes of the world for so long.

Only the finest athlete could physically achieve what he is credited for having done that night.

So we’ll be presented with what will be in a single person, the perfect intellect in the perfect body. A living god amongst us. Pity he took to crime. And a heinous one at that.

So, the day he is exposed by the methodical, resilient and professional team put together by the McCanns, be assured that at least one person, myself, will be eagerly awaiting to savor each and every feat that the horrible, but simultaneously awesome, monster was able to achieve.

You see, with all the checking on the children, all the detail-correction (some evil spirits like myself call it contradictions), all the visions, para-visions and sightings, all the publicity stunts with Maddie’s face and Maddie’s eye and all the media coverage from a supporting press worldwide, the McCanns created a monster.

A monster not for Maddie, but for themselves.

No human being is, or will ever be, able to fulfill this role adequately.

Even in this, they mucked up.

Star-Studded Dinner

From what I was able to see by all the "exclusive" photos "et al" it seems that the ONLY celebrities present, or willing to have their face photographed, at the McCann dinner were the McCanns.

I do believe that the smell of plague is starting to surround the couple...

Is it my imagination, or is the hammering in the background becoming ever so real?

IRONSIDE Response, Part II

Ironside has asked me on my thoughts about the possible re-use, by the McCanns of Mr. Hewlett.

First of all, I thought the bloke was a gonner by now. Had a friend who was diagnosed with the disease at about the same time, and unfortunately has left us quite a while ago. Not that I wish for Mr Hewlett to pass away, and hope that he’ll remain amongst us for many years to come.

But that’s to what I thought that the silence about him was all about.

He didn’t fulfill the preset requirements for stool-pigeon, and had passed away as anonymously as he had been before the McCanns invaded, in a completely inhuman and disrespectful way, his privacy.

It did escape me a thought or two that if that had been the case, of him passing away, that the same scum-press that had so vainly accused him, had now with the same vanity discarded him as useless and not even worth a mention. Fortunately he is alive.

We humans are blessed with the gift of life but not with the previledge of taking it. Many disagree with me on this.

Now about the McCanns using him again. Well, before explaining my rationale let me clarify that the McCanns have proved me wrong more than once. I’ve thought that they had a reasonable amount of intelligence, which, insistently, they’ve gone out of their way to prove me wrong.

To use Mr Hewlett, or any "Hewlett" as stool-pigeon is a VERY stupid idea. Even if he, or whoever, whispers is his last breath “I did Maddie in”.

One could be led to think that would be the only way out for all McCanns problems. Having someone confess and then go away without explaining the details.

Very pretty, with just one minor glitch. The explaining wouldn’t have to be done by the departed, but by the remaining characters of the play.

The reason for that is that until they pinpoint a “Hewlett”, we’re left around with an abductor, that could be you, me, or anybody else in this wide world (before some stupid moron starts to say that I’m admitting an abductor, let me clarify that I’m following the McCann line of thought of ramming down our throats that there was one, which as we all know, is completely ridiculous), whilst naming the abductor, or more important, officially recognizing him as THE abductor, is to narrow the storyline down to a single character.

This brings huge problems to the McCanns. I’ll give you just an example: the sweat it causes them just to hear the word “jemmied”.

As I said before, it’s not anyone that can take a fall. Details will start to appear that will contradict their version, placing them in a place somewhere between a wall and a hard place. To insist is stupid, to justify why they were “fooled” by the confessor is a very ungrateful and an exposing task.

With every sighting, they can go back and say that its unconfirmed. But with a confession, you have to say that you either believe that that person is guilty and WHY, or simply discard him.

Yes, Maddie’s body wouldn’t be found (it simply cannot for the same reason it disappeared), and a mistery would surround the whole thing. But ths mistery would mean that the “Hewlett’s” life would be scrutinized to the smallest detail, and that in turn would just make the contradictions pop-up like mushrooms.

Lest we forget, Lee Oswald was a designated stool-pigeon. He didn’t know, nor did he need to know. He just had to be at the right place at the right time and then be disposed of. A planned stool-pigeon, and even then things didn’t add up.

An unplanned one is a very, very stupid move. But they had me fooled once, so they can fool me again...

By the way, even if they came up with a slam-dunk one, they’d still have to overcome their biggest problem: explain how there was even an abductor.

Hope I made sense.

A First Response to IRONSIDE

Before writing the response your comment deserves, let me post some pics I've already posted here, which will help you understand my mindset on the subject:
 

Main idea: it's not anybody that is able, suitable or adequate to take a fall.

Secondary idea: sometimes, an "evident" fall has a boomerang effect, it hurts those that were supposed to profit from it.

1.001 days

1.000 days

Moral Genocide

Today, and in the near future, any penny that is given away that isn't directed to help Haiti's victims is immoral. Multiply this moral crime by £150, in a fancy restaurant. Add penance for hypocrisy. The bad taste of the whole thing is priceless.

Ripley's Believe It or NOT

(Jan 24th, 2010)

Dom GIRALDO 15.01.2010/21:50 Caso Joana, GA foi condenado a prisão : na sentença: "particularmente grave em pessoas têm obrigação combater crime" .Caso Maddie :"não foi conseguido qualquer elemento prova permita a um homem MÉDIO , à luz critérios da lógica , da normalidade e das regras gerais experiência , formular conclusão LÚCIDA , SENSATA , SÉRIA e HONESTA sobre circunstâncias que se verificou retirada criança apartamento, nem enunciar prognostico consistente " . Nada foi provado. O cão segundo o dono nada prova , apenas dá indicios. Cheiro a mortos ? Pode ter sido o coveiro do vizinho cemitério ter antes estado a fazer amor com uma inglesa; cheiro a sangue, foi a empregada que se terá ferido ... ADN parcial , com fertilização in vitreo ? GA não percebe nada 

 I was tipped about a newspaper column written by a Fernanda Constâncio, in the Diário de Notícias on Jan 15th, expressing her opinion about the on-going Trial (?) about the “Truth of the Lie”.

This opinion, coming from who it’s coming from, as well as its content deserves an exclusive post about it, even if only due to a certain Jorge Van Krieken commenting it favorably.

What she wrote can be summed up by giving reason for the McCann to proceed legally against Amaral, I started to read the comments in search of intelligent and coherent argumentation from the “other side” which is so scarce.

And I came upon this piece of enlightened rationale. Avoiding the task of translating the whole paragraph, as it's the same usual cr*p that we’ve grown used to, I will translate only the very, very UNUSUAL cr*p that it contains, the sentence that I put in bold: “Smell of dead? Could have been the graveyard digger from the neighboring cemetery that could have been there before making love with an English woman;”
Yes, you read it correctly. At least three times, if you did like I did.

Let’s not forget that the only one with an obscene mind here is me.

That’s an exclusive that has already been agreed upon by all parties, so I’m pretty much offended by this comment. Honestly, my sick, depraved and thwarted brain couldn’t have come up with something anywhere near this.

It’s irrelevant that graveyard diggers don’t smell of dead people as they don’t go anywhere near a body. They just dig up the grave. They just smell of dirt.

It must have been a naughty undertaker that had been romping around English (why on earth she had to be English? Any possible particular behavior from this nationality that makes a natural link to necrophilia that I’m not aware of?) damsel.

Everybody knows how that profession is known to seduce lonely housewives. Who doesn't know a joke involving an undertaker and infidelity? There are millions fo them.

I’m not sure how many funeral homes are there in PdL, but I do suggest to Mr. Dave Edgar to go on an immediate coffin-opening adventure in the area.

Another irrelevant detail, is the places where the dogs picked up the smell in the apartment: between the couch and wall, and in the cupboard. Both, reasonable places for a couple to make-love.

Don’t mock it if you haven’t tried, and I haven’t, so I’ll just take this commentator's word for it.

The scent might have been there left by the undertakers leaving his clothes lying “around” neatly bundled in between the couch and a wall, and in the shelf of a cupboard.

A known and perfectly logical behavior whilst undressing in the midst of passion: “Let’s put half of my clothes in the cupboard and the other half behind the couch.” And nowhere else, because nowhere else in the apartment was the scent picked up.

But, wait a second. If that was the case, then Kate’s clothes, where the dogs also picked up the scent in (we all know she contacted 6 (?) dead people before coming to Portugal, thus justifying the scent), would have contaminated the WHOLE apartment and the cadaver dog would have had a feast inside, which it didn't…

Nope, have to discard the clothes-discarding theory..

Left only with the love making. Gosh, what a afternoon that must have been.

As I said, its not the ignorance that is the fact. It’s the fact that the ignorance is so lightly taken as fact. And so lightheartedly written and accepted, even if only by the author, as fact, just to justify the unjustifiable.

If you’ve been invited, please don’t forget your check book. It’s on the 27th.

Believe it or not.

Pre-Success Ego Ride Syndrome (PSERS)

A comment posted on Joana & Astro's Blog, about a post that Joana transcribed from this blog:

"Who is the authoress of this rant? If she believes what she says is true,why doesn't she have the courage to put her name to it? Grenville Green 18/01/2010 22:42"

Sir,

With all due respect, and do be very parsimonious about how much of it you think is deserved as it’s a very valued resource by me, let me start by telling you that your questioning, in the manner you do it, of my use of anonymity only reveals that you’re either naïve, a fool or evil. Or that you’re all of them.

You speak lightly of courage. Do understand fully the term before throwing it around needlessly.

Don’t confuse bravado with bravery. To stop, with one’s bare hands, a train in its tracks is not being courageous at all; only being amazingly stupid. Or just desperately seeking to make news, as many will do many a strange thing to attract attention upon themselves.

I rather like to be able to live another day, without any medal but able to continue the fight, then to die in a glorious blaze and be done with my usefulness then and there.

But that’s me. I will concede you the ability in getting me all worked up to the point of almost starting angrily ranting away, as you so eloquently described my writing. Unfortunately for you, I rarely act based purely on emotion. For that I must feel passion, and you most certainly instill none.

Answering your question directly, I AM the authoress you so desperately seek. Allow me to present myself. My blog name is Textusa, as, by the way, is explicitly said and shown, and you have right here the place and the means to question and confront my opinions directly.

The link to this blog was provided by Joana in her post, as always. That fact that you took your “self-defense” there does reveal a significant amount about your personality, independently of you considering this little corner of the internet not worth your while. As also does the content of the response itself.

I being J. Doe or L. Doe, is totally irrelevant unless you wish to act legally against me, which is a threat/trait, amongst many, such as being arrogantly self-important, that you seem share with the McCanns.

That said, Textusa is and will be, until I decide or be forced otherwise, good enough to identify myself for now.

This worldwide phenomenon called Maddie has revealed to be much more important than any of its participants ever could have anticipated.

It is the first globalized crime.

In that summer of 2007, every little corner of the world turned their eyes to what was happening in Praia da Luz. In hindsight, I only remember the landing of the moon raising so much fuss for such a long period in time. Even the Pope was involved.

This is so much so, that today the blogs/forums on the subject are hit from all over the planet.

Two factions quickly formed: the Pro-McCanns and the others. If one is easily defined, the “others” presents a challenge to be named. We’re certainly not “anti-McCann”, because it’s not the couple we seek to prosecute, but ALL those that were involved in the crime that evening; and we’re not “pro-Justice” as although we do seek Justice we’re seeking about single and specific crime, so the term would be too ample.

We’re a nameless “club” with a very clear intent: for Justice to be adequately served in the case of Maddie McCanns vs. Whomever.

Although some within us have quite correctly warned that we are still far, far away from any significant victory (which may never even come as those involved are both too cunning and powerful), success is almost palpable. Maddie has unquestionably conquered the world.

So the moment the sun is to set for the culprits there will simultaneously be a grand sunrise that will light up humanity’s new heroes: those that, with an unrelenting tenacity, made the establishment bow unto the will of truth. Greatness is the least that can be foreseen for these heroes.

Thus many are now desperate in positioning, the earliest possible, themselves so that the light will shine upon them, even if only by indirect reflection.

Unquestionably, the ether world of the internet will be valued and glamorized. We bloggers and respective commentators will be pointed out as examples to be followed by the entire Human Race.

I call this the Pre-Success Ego Ride Syndrome (PSERS). Calling attention upon oneself in order for one’s effort is to stand out above ALL efforts from others. Irrelevant of the magnitude of was done.

It was the PSERS that killed 3A. Not the pinkies, in their various tonalities, but the harsh bickering between those that were consciously fighting for a spot in center stage, on the set where that glorifying spotlight is suppose to shine upon.

It’s natural for one to desire and enjoy recognition for one’s efforts in any task undertaken. But glory is a very vain and picky friend. It accepts very, very limited amount of reservations. There are thousands of movies produced every year, but only one wins the Oscar. And many, who have won it, have been forgotten and weren’t able to overcome being swallowed by forgetfulness.

If in this “movie” the Oscar for the Best Male Performance, figuratively speaking, is already taken, those for the Female and Genderless Performance are still up for grabs, although you know to whom I would give them to, were I a juror, which I’m not.

The “main” Oscars are not the subject of this post, but rather the Best Supporting and the Almost Best Supporting ones. Or even the one for the Best Way-Back-There-But-There Performance.

Fighting for those are the little vicious Success-Seeker-Bugs (SSB) populate, all filled to the brim with PSERS. A vicious deadly fight until death tears them apart. Literally.

And that is what I think you are, a Success-Seeker. My other post was a simple, albeit firm, protest against the importance, or relevance, given to a traitor to the truth in an event where truth was supposed to be worshiped.

It didn’t, it doesn’t and it won’t ever make sense.

It was nothing against you in any way. Yet you responded so angrily that I can only assume that I offended you, or that you take as personal any offense that may be directed towards that specific gentleman.

You must agree that an odd reaction, by any standard, for someone who just had a long chat with another person, to come so harshly in its defense.

Let me dismiss, very quickly, some comments made in a whitewashing attempt to clean the gentleman slate by saying that both Gonçalo Amaral and Dr. Paulo Sargento are sufficiently intelligent to see through the bloke if that was the case.

Starting with GA, only a purposefully simplistic mind is able to come up with the idea that an honoree, ANY honoree for that matter, pre-approves the invitees to his/hers honoring dinner. I can just imagine Amaral, of all people, holding a piece of paper and picking, name by name, those that he saw fit to honor him.

Totally ridiculous, right? No, not to some. Dr. Sargento is a very close friend of the gentleman. And real close friends do real unreasonable things. Especially if that close friend happens to be a pushing-manipulative-glory-seeking one.

And please don’t even start saying that just because of his professional skills he couldn’t possibly be manipulated. That is as ridiculous as stating that a cardiologist cannot have a heart problem.

My protest was not about his presence. He made sure that that was unavoidable. If I were him, I wouldn’t have set foot at the dinner, but he and I do differ both in honesty and shame standards. I didn’t care, or took notice, with whom he had had a chat with. It could have been with Mother Goose, or any of the fictitious characters that roam around in that gentleman’s head.

So I was surprised by the aggressiveness of your remark. And the senseless attack on my anonymity, an attack that I’m used to, but coming from pinkies. It was nothing against you in any way whatsoever. Yet you responded so angrily that I can only assume that I offended you.

So surprised was I that I just had to back and read that post again. Here, I must once again diverge from the intent of this post to make the following clear: the blog where I read the report is one that I respect the most, and have no reason to stop doing so. Also, I have for the author of the post, Tony Bennett, the same respect, as he just wrote what he was told.

Your name Mr Green, was totally unknown to me. As it didn’t ring any bell, my first and obvious move, in order to prepare this response, was to google up your name. Surprisingly, for someone who, according to himself, deserved an enthusiastic applause by those present in a dinner that was NOT in his honor, just because his name was mentioned by someone, it turns out that you’re basically, like me, just a nobody, or an anybody:

Opening up one of the links, I did find your name in one of Rosiepops comments, where you appear ranked third, out of fourth, on her insulting priorities. Second from last, which, with your ego, must make you feel insulted to so inconsiderably insulted:

Let us just go over the content of your report, as per written in the post:  

“So far as he’s [Grenvile Green] concerned, it was very much ‘mission accomplished’. He was able to demonstrate by his physical presence in Lisbon British support for Goncalo Amaral,” 

Could have been “a physical presence of British support in Lisbon”… but no, it had to be HIS presence. A somewhat unrealistic and egocentric view of oneself, but it can just be me being ill-intentioned in the reading. 

“As Amaral entered the court, Grenville shouted: “Good luck from England, Goncalo Amaral”. This led to a couple of British journalists taking an interest in him and interviewing him.”

Here I couldn’t avoid establishing a parallel between this and the infamous “DL on Oprah” episode.

Firstly, this kind of behavior is absolutely not tolerated in any Portuguese Court, as the people of the Country are naturally circumspect in these surroundings, and is completely unthinkable in such a press-sensitive case as the one reported.

If it happened, the kicking out of an British-Amaral.supporting citizen had been kicked out a Portuguese Court, with an obvious emphasis on the “British” part of the support to Amaral.

Well, I don’t remember reading that anywhere. Only the F-word slander stunt. It escaped me, must have.  

“He also met Joana Morais who was very friendly to him. She spent time in the court surrounded by what appeared to be translators and supporters of Goncalo Amaral. Once inside the court, he was introduced to Amaral; the two men shook hands and Grenville gave him a Grenville-style bear hug.” 

Who hasn’t heard about the famous Grenville hug? Oh, you too? I thought I was alone on this one. Important to notice the first attempt of being intimately linked with the most popular figures in this: Joana and GA.  

“Grenville got tickets for the fund-raising event on day one from his hotel.” 

Another “DL on Oprah” flashback… Tickets for a fund-raising in Portugal?

Totally out of cultural context.

I don’t recall such an event ever. It’s habitual in Portugal when one is invited to a reception/dinner for one not to pay single cent (most usual), or, if it’s the case, to expect a bill AFTER the event.

The Portuguese are very suspicious of paying anything beforehand. It’s the merchant part of their heritage. Oh, and were the tickets available in every hotel in Lisbon?  

“During the main address by one of Amaral’s supporters, Grenville heard his name mentioned. This was followed by a round of enthusiastic applause from those present. A little later on there was a reference to the work of the Madeleine Foundation.” 

A “main address”, but done by an unidentified supporter.

Maybe the microphone was passed around, so that anyone could express their gratitude to the detective. But then it wouldn’t have been a main address.

And the ticket buying beforehand made the thing much too formal for such. I wonder who was the anonymous hero that brought to the attention of all the presence to Mr. Green, lest he go unnoticed, allowing everybody to express their heartfelt gratitude through an enthusiastic applause.

I forgot that Mr Green abhors anonymity. These things called details are rather bothersome, aren’t they? Notice that it was his name that originated the spontaneous collective gesture and not that of any organization that he could be linked to.  

“During the dinner Grenville asked if one of the Portuguese people would pass a gift from him to Amaral. The gift was of a fridge magnet showing a 1939 to 1945 war poster. The poster showed a child digging in the garden and his mother planting a seed against the slogan: ‘Dig for Victory’. When Grenville began to explain the link between the poster and Goncalo Amaral’s work, the Portuguese chap said: “Come and explain to Mr Amaral himself, I’ll translate for you”. Grenville went over and explained that whilst the British child was digging to plant seeds, he had been digging for the truth. Grenville told him that he’d also bought one for his own fridge at home and said that every time he looked at it he would think of Mr Amaral. When Grenville had to go when his taxi arrived, he and Stephen tried to slip away quietly but were spotted by Mr Amaral who came over to shake hands and thank him warmly for coming. He also said through a translator: “I hope you can come to Portugal again; I want to tell you that if you do you will be made very welcome.””

Not withstanding the rather negative remarking about Gonçalo Amaral’s linguistic capabilities, nor the paternalistic way by which he’s reported to have been treated, so typically British at the pinnacle of the Empire, let me tell you that passing on a gift to an honoree in room with just 60/70 people is as ridiculous as it sounds.

Your desperation to associate yourself with Amaral is such that I was quite surprised of not having read that you never are to wash your hand again…  

“At the dinner Stephen was very well received, many people chatting to him. Grenville had a long chat to Duarte Levy. He also bought Amaral’s new book: ‘The English Gag’ which he hopes to get a Portuguese person to translate for him.”  

The crucial paragraph. When I first read it, I reacted as I said I did, nothing more, nothing less. But now reading now the thing again, well, I think that it’s FAR from innocent the accidental, almost innocent, dropping of the fellow’s name in the report.

 I just wonder if it was on your own initiative, or was it on request? Don’t answer, please. Anything you say won’t be used against you. It will simply not be used.

“That’s about it, I’m sure Grenville will add a few more tales when he has a moment.” 

Ah… so all were tales then. All is explained when it’s explained well.

As if confirming all of the above, let me just transcribe on of the comments that appeared below yours in Joana’s blog. Pity she didn’t try the reception desk of any hotel in Lisbon:  

"Anonymous said... I do wish I had been able to hug Mr Amaral! Why were donors to his defence fund not told about the fundraising dinner? And who is Stephen - have I missed something? 18 January 2010 21:53"

Mr Green, may you and DL find the spotlight you so desperately seek. I don’t think either of you will, but, in any case, please don’t count on me.

Nor with so many who commented the post. We are also aware that you two aren’t alone in the quest for unmerited glory, but do take into account that I don’t take lightly attempted pulling of wool over one’s eye.

To finish, let me look at my box where I keep my “respect”. As I suspected, it’s intact.

Thank you not having me wasting any with you.


PS - To those that think that this type of post only benefits the Pro-McCanns let me say what I’ve already have said before: a sick body must be treated.

To neglect the cure, and all pain associated with it, is to kill it. I take all these comments as a virus laughing out loud upon looking on someone being vaccinating and saying “I just love the way you hurt yourself with a needle…”

Back in Business

A big thank to you all that sent nice messages wishing my health recovery. The doctor told me that either my body didn't like me, or I didn't like my body, and we had to get our act together right, and do it fast. So, I'm back, but won't be able to post with the frequency I would like. Hope you understand.

Sick Leave

The body is refusing to obey specific orders given to stay young. Must fix some of its parts before being able to take take the adequate disciplinary action, which I certainly will. Those waiting for some type of response from me, do use your imagination in the meantime. Be back soon.

Before Demanding, We Should Provide

“At the dinner [in Lisbon in support of Gonçalo Amaral] Stephen was very well received, many people chatting to him. Grenville had a long chat to Duarte Levy. (…) Joana Morais was unable to attend the dinner as she needed to upload material for her blog about the trial. She told Grenville that keeping up the blog was almost a full-time job and at busy times meant working until the early hours of the morning.” (http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2010/01/grenville-green-mccanns-libel-trial-in.html)

Sorry to be a spoil-sport in such euphoric times of watching the McCann’s sandcastle shiver while it watches the rising tide slowly but surely come in, but I must get this off my chest.

What are we demanding from the McCanns? One word: honesty.

Honesty about what happened that night. With that, consequences will follow, that one must endure as result of one’s actions. It all boils down to having the TRUTH be known.

It’s only logical that in order to demand one must first provide. Set the example. That said I was quite surprised to read the name of an already exposed conman in a post about how Court proceedings were being successful in putting in pressure on the McCanns so as to rip away, once and for all, their evil masks.

How can one criticize Branson, Kennedy or Rawlings (based only on what I've read on who to expect to attend on Jan27th) in attending the forthcoming social event to refinance the Fraudulent Fund (can’t you people understand that the ONLY reason for these events is to provide a “plausible” excuse to inject money into the fund, regardless of who attends them?)?.

They are only being friends to somebody they know is wrong, and has done wrong. Because, as all know, a really true friend is there when you need him the most.

So, all those being friendly with this gentleman, please refrain from ever again criticizing ANY of the McCann friends. If you do, you’re being an hypocrite.

Sorry, I know this isn't what you like or want to read, but this is what I have to say to be coherent with my conscience.

Liars are usually shameless people. Arrogant, egocentric and egomaniacal are devoid of shame. Put all these traits together and you’ll find the same amount of shame as you’ll find life in little Maddie’s cadaver.

I’m still waiting from him the same that I’m basically demanding from the McCanns: a truthful recognition of error, and full assumption of responsibility for deeds done. Instead, I got a lame excuse that it was personal business.

I do believe that this gentleman “forced” his way in, as only a manipulator is able. Saying an outright “no” to this kind of person takes a courage that most people don’t have.

Let me speak directly to you, whoever was responsible to invite the gentleman. I’m led to believe that his presence was a direct result of you being a True Friend of his. Not turning your back on him. But were you? A friend, I mean. I tell my friends that my friendship towards them is not revealed by helping them to run away from responsibility, but in the fact of making them face it, with all its consequence.

And is also shown by my full support to them all the painful way. If they are my friends, they understand that making ME going through the process of harboring their shortfalls, is an attitude that reveals very little friendship from them towards me.

Was this conman being your friend when he blatantly lied about his feats in a process in which you were deeply involved and to which you bravely gave your face? I don’t think so.

And is a “friend” like that worth your friendship? That, Sir, only you can answer. However if you answer is affirmative, please don't ask any of the McCann friends & family to come foward and cooperate with justice.

I also believe that that was the reason for Joana’s absence at that dinner. I’m assuming this as this is what I would have done were I her. I probably wouldn’t have come up with such a polite excuse like she did, but she’s put a whole lot of her into bringing all of this to a successful end, and once again, has shown greatness by understanding that sometimes some things are much more important than oneself.

I would've thrown a tantrum and would have sulked and behaved like a spoiled child. But then she’s lady, and her “lie” (which, I repeat, I’m assuming solely) is acceptable.

To finish, let me state clearly that I think that there were three major things that have been decisive in this arduous process of bringing the McCanns to justice: Gonçalo Amaral, the man and the book; Joana & Astro’s blog (sorry Kazlux, but you came in later) and the 3Arguidos Forum.

Not that many others weren’t and aren’t important. They were and are and I have one time or another named them, and if I haven’t I’ve been unjust, but these, for me, were the DECISIVE ones. So, in honoring Gonçalo Amaral, we had a dinner where a conman was present and Joana wasn’t.

At least now you know my opinion on the subject.

Note: (19Jan, 07:00) Through a comment on Joana's blog, made by herself, she suggests that there is a possibility of me having used the name of Dr. Sargento's abusevely in this post. 

Not wanting to be unjust, I have withdrawn from the post any mentioning of his name. 

It doesn't alter in anyway what I meant to say in it, and as said, originally, 

I have no problem in apologizing if that, I repeat, is the case.

The Importance of the F-Word Slander Stunt

As promised, updated 16Jan, 20:20:  

Quoted from The Mirror (MARTIN FRICKLER), published 14 January 2010: 

“RANTING RAT 

As she suffers unimaginable agony, the police chief who should have been finding missing Maddy spits out vile four-letter abuse at the McCanns..  

Disgraced detective Goncalo Amaral yesterday let rip at Kate and Gerry McCann with a foul-mouthed outburst. The former policeman was asked if his book about their daughter Madeleine was hurting the couple when he barked: "No, f*** the McCanns." 

Amaral then laughed as he walked off, despite being caught on camera insulting a couple who have suffered so much anguish in recent years.” 


Quoted from The Sun (TOM WELLS and ANTONELLA LAZZERI), published 14 January 2010: 

“THE ex-cop who led the Madeleine McCann probe sparked new outrage last night after launching a four-letter tirade against the missing child's parents. Brazen Goncalo Amaral spat, "F*** the McCanns" when asked by a BBC TV reporter if he felt his wild claims about their daughter were hurting them.” 


Quoted from the Daily Star, published on 15th January 2010 

“BBC IN CURSING ‘FOUL-UP’  

BBC bosses sparked a row after accusing Goncalo Amaral of a four-letter tirade against Kate and Gerry McCann. They insisted the ex-detective said: “F*** the McCanns,” when asked by a BBC reporter if he felt his allegations were hurting the couple. 

But last night it was claimed he said: “Fala com McCanns,” which means: “Speak to the McCanns”. Asked if he had sworn, Mr Amaral replied: “Never. I don’t know what you are talking about.” 

Rival TV companies refused to broadcast the footage after their translators studied it. But it was broadcast, with the key word bleeped out, by the BBC in the East Midlands. 

A BBC spokesman said: “The exchange was recorded on camera. The swear word was bleeped out for transmission as it was clearly unacceptable to broadcast such language at 6.30pm.” 


Quoted from Sky News (MARTIN BRUNT), published on 15th January 2010 

“MY NEW BEST FRIEND 

Spare a thought for my new best friend Goncalo Amaral. I’m beginning to think the former detective in the Madeleine McCann case has a point when he complains about the British media attacking him. 

My Beeb colleague accused him of saying “F*** the McCanns” in an alleged off-guard moment when we all followed him out of court the other day. 

What he actually said was “Fala com McCanns” which means “Ask the McCanns”. The rest of us, through our interpreters, understood perfectly what he was saying. I think he needs a good libel lawyer. 

Isabel Duarte may be free when she has finished pursuing him over his book on the Madeleine case.” 


 The “Butterfly-Effect” states that the fluttering of a butterfly’s wings in China will start a chain of events which’s spiral will end up causing all the havoc of a major hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico.

To exemplify this effect there’s the worldwide proportion of an apparently, at least to its authors, “harmless” fib about a dead-turned-abducted little girl in the Algarve early May 2007, to the point of making her parents a well-known pair of celebrities.

We’re now looking at a butterfly straight in the eye. Amongst those in the business of deciphering, its common knowledge that the most frequent letter used in English, is the letter “e”. In a ciphered message, once you’re able to crack the most recurrent phenomena all you to do it is replace the respective space with referred letter and you’re left with a simple newspaper crossword puzzle to complete.

It’s not that simple, but you get the idea, I hope.

If the letter “e” is the most common, then I would almost say that the most recurrent word in English is the F-word. No, I’m not saying that whoever speaks the language is a pervert, or obscene by nature.

I’m just trying to highlight its common use.

Is there any movie or TV series nowadays without it?

You may not know it, but the F-word is the richest word ever created by mankind.

It can be used to express anything in a sentence. It can be a noun, a verb, an adverb, an interjection or whatever. I mean, f**k, f**k me if f**k can’t f**king be whatever the f**k we want f**k to f**king be. Or, as the Americans say, ain’t that just a f**k?!?

Others words, in other languages, may equal it, but none is able to surpass it.

I don’t know any other myself, and I know some languages, and I do find hard to believe that there’s another. So I stand by my statement that, linguistically, we’re before humanity’s greatest achievement: the F-word.

Its use is so common and useful that, unlike other interjections like heck, jeez, Gosh (written always with a hypocrital capital letter just in case God sees through the “scheme” and will punish us in the here-after) or bullocks, it remains pure and unaltered in its original form.

Now that’s a word if I’ve ever seen one. It has long lost its original connectivity to fornication, so it’s absolutely ridiculous the use of asterisks, bleeps or the “f-word” expression (one that I’m using in this post just to protect those who accuse me of sometimes (?) being obscene).

I do believe that many a child with Maddie’s age when she demised can fill in the blanks, or for the most sensitive, the asterisks, followed by a delicious giggle that only a child that age can, and was something Maddie lost together with her life on that May evening right before her mother’s eyes.

This to say, that the blowing out of proportions any and whichever use of this word, as is the case, can only mean precipitation, hysteria and having nothing else to do or hold on to. Summing it up, it reveals desperation.

But mainly, it reveals a biased mind. A preset one that is only willing to hear only what it filters. One thing is sure: it reveals a basic, animalistic type of personality. And animals usually live in herds and are known to have a commonly understood language to communicate between each other.

Things do tend to get out of control, especially in uncontrolled mind. There might be intent in being so biased, or there might only be hatred. Or profit. Or all of the above. Only one of these preformatted minds could even think that ANYONE would come out of a Court-room and utter an offense against or about a counterpart. I only see two possible reasons for one to do that: having lost the litigation, and in an insane furious outburst of having lost all, directed to the adversary who is the easy target to blame; and the other is having lost sanity completely.

Neither was the case in the interview with Gonçalo Amaral. Not even Gerry McCann would do it in one of his typical temper-tantrums, that’s how impossible I think it would be.

The British Tabloids are expected to do hateful, judgmental and with little or no research reporting. They please the ignorant that they want to keep on coming back for more.

The already referred language code existent and understood only between and by animals. But now, we have BBC making this type of thing. Oops. Now what?

Let me take just one step back. We are hearing all these things about the Portuguese coppers taking a stand saying, under oath, that Maddie not only is DEAD as her parents faked an abduction and helped conceal her body.

Yes, this has been reported submerged in the expected offensive language against Amaral and in the victimizing one in favour of the scum. But, take all the clutter away, that is the information that is coming out.

Responsible people, with adequate responsibility at the time of the events, are pinning on the couple a series of very serious accusations and are quite adamant on the little girl’s death. You don’t have to be exceptionally bright to start to wonder…these guys ARE cops. They handled the issue first-hand. What is the reason for their hatred against the McCann? Why are they doing it? What is there that makes us suspect that the Portuguese cops don’t do their job?

These suspicions are based solely upon baseless suspicions of disgracefulness, corruption and nasty drinking habits, thrown at us time and time again by tabloid-reporters. As if the Brits could give ANY moral lesson about drinking etiquette.

Corruption, where? And is Amaral treated by the Portuguese in any way that he should feel embarrassed? I see only that type of behavior coming from the McCanns.

They MUST know more than the Press does. Yet, they are treated as liars long before they even take the stand… Like as if they’re purposefully and cruelly hurting the holy couple. Well, that’s because they hate the Brits. That’s the only plausible explanation. Wait a minute, either I wasn’t paying attention, but I don’t remember the when or why there was a racial issue here to start with.

I only remember that suddenly the Portuguese cops turned to pigs the moment they called the McCanns arguidos.

Something certainly smells fishy here, and it isn’t of sardine, one’s mind continues to think, I think.

Back to the BBC blunder. Tried to get the link for the video and nothing exists anymore. I haven’t seen it yet, and somebody is being very careful in making sure that I don’t.

Me and the whole wide world. Didn’t know censorship was so prolific in the UK…

Even my friends at The Sun linked a video with Gerry rambling on about how innocent they were and how they wanted to cooperate and all that crap that we all know by heart at this point in time.

The F-word reporting was, to say the least, premature, and in whatever angle you look at it, it’s intentionally biased against a specific character in this story.

You simply don’t confuse “fala” or “fale” with “foda” or “fodam-se” (the Portuguese don’t require any asterisks as of April 1975) unless you’re looking for which and any way to smear somebody much before he has even had the opportunity to open his mouth.

The message is loud and clear: the British Press, ALL of it, is like a rabid dog ready to pounce on Amaral, and will, given the slightest opportunity, jump on him and rip his throat apart.

Why, one cannot avoid asking. Let me invert the roles in this episode. Leet me establish some parallels: SIC is Sky News, Expresso is The Sun and RTP is BBC. Suppose that the Expresso, in its online edition, announces that RTP has reported that that Gerry McCann had said, exiting the Court-room when asked something by a TV reporter had intentionally insulted the Portuguese inspector by barking a “F**k Amaral”, and walked away with a smile on his face.

Pretty unbelievable stuff, right? You would think so, wouldn’t you?

As this had come from RTP, my brain would assume it as truthful.

But pretty soon reality would sink in and very quickly see that it was not. That would make me start to wonder on the reasons that RTP would have to have to have lied so blatantly, so offensively, so out of proportion, about Gerry.

See where this is heading? I know for a fact that at least a couple of people who are demanding an official retraction from BBC. And from what I know of them, they will be as tenacious as a bulldog on a Postman’s leg. Only a vet will pry them away from that leg.

 The forthcoming BBC retraction will confirm the viciousness of the English Press, not only the Tabloids, against Amaral.

People will start to question what kind of reporting has been done on this subject. Has all been based on emotion? Why on earth would the BBC of all news agencies put foul words on the mouth of someone who didn’t say them?

Then the subsequent adding up of one on one will start. The little girl WAS Brit. This is NOT taking British stand against Portuguese. It’s all a shameful smoke screen to protect some Brits who’ve hidden the fact that their British daughter is dead.

F***K, (or “Oh My Gosh”, for the more sensitive) UK is HELPING animals to get away with murdering a BRITISH child!!!

This, together with the prospect of this book and its content being in the news for a long, long time in the forthcoming projected legal battles, can only lead to one conclusion: The time to bail out is NOW.

If this Trial was the iceberg upon the McCann’s Titanic, then this F-word Slander Stunt, was the confirmation that the water is going to overflow compartment after compartment.

The unsinkable is about to sink. What was a mistake of judgment by a reporter will catalyze the McCann’s fall. Like a butterfly fluttering its wings.

Sky News is already talking of libel… and guaranteeing that THEY understood the thing correctly immediately. I bet my bottom dollar that in many an editing room there has been given the order to start producing McCann-crucifying stories.

How they with this trial in Portugal, could “finally” get their hands on the Amaral’s book and were absolutely flabbergasted on how cunning the couple and friends have been. That they, the Press, the victms, were used by these evil scheming scum, and that, unfortunately for society, there’s no longer a death sentence in the UK.

Yes, there will be blood. The British pride will demand it. The runaway train has left the station. There simply is no stopping it now. The best that can be done is to contain the damage. I bet all the earnings out of the previous bet that right now, David and Gerry are putting on all their possible, and then some, pressure on their governmental “friends” to get them off the hook on this one.

But there are some things that are impossibilities. Let us remember that Gerry had gone back for reinforcements before this. If things were bad, now they’re much, much worse.

You want to do your part? Well, it’s pretty simple. Just join the party, and demand a public retraction from the BBC.

The more the merrier. Then, when it’s published, as it will be, by the BBC and Tabloids do find a nice and comfortable couch and enjoy the show.

Political Comissar

I
t's so nice to feel the warmth of friendship right next to you when you need it the most...

Nobel Stupidity Prize of the Millennium

I remember reading somewhere that this move by the McCanns on the Amaral's book must have been the stupidiest move ever known to mankind. Now I remember, it was right here.

Amaral was contorting himself just for a chance to have his day against you, and what do you go and do? Give him not only the chance, but the FULL media coverage for it. You dumbasses.

Had you ANY need to have heard what you heard today in Court? In a Court? I thought you were allergic to them after you suffered a serious reality-absence syndrome in May 2007... Had you any need to feel the vile felt by those that you've accused, wrongly as is your MO, to have vilified you? Nope, but you insisted to through it all. You sad nincompoops.
 

The timing was brilliant. To ask a restraining order on a book when its sale-curve wasn't going anywhere but down. You took so long to make a move against the man, which you haven't, and then go ahead in attacking his book on his homeground? Where the f*ck was your mind?!? You dim-witted lot.

Now something that you've used to your full advantage will now turn back and bite viciously your backide: the Portuguese Justice System And it will hurt. Really, really hurt. It's a vicious, vicious animal. You thick-heads.

It's unbelievable slow, inexplicably burocratic, and inexplicably easily exploited. You know that as you've milked it as much as was humanly possible. But when one is ahead, what is one's most common mistake? To be sloppy. And when the sloppy are also stupid and arrogant as you are, what's the outcome? A hint: let me laugh-out-really-loud. You morons.

A common legal process in Portugal, takes an average of 5 years. A mediatic one such as yours can take up as much as... well, let the Casa Pia one finish (it started back in 2002) and I'll tell you. You laughable losers.

Hmmm... let's check out the possibilities. Say you win. Then come the appeals, one after the other, until even YOU will feel disgusted of having your own vomit being thrown back at you, time and time again. Hearing the self-evident death of your daughter over and over again, with you, Gerry, exploding your head off in arrogant delusional anger while your partner shakes her head in a useless wimped "no, no, no..." with the expected added dramatic tears coming down her unwillingly twitching eye. Amaral has a good lawyer team behind him. He has a Law Degree himself. You'll get a real fight on his homeground. You'll have to defend with blood, sweat and tears every single inch of the way. You may win stage after stage (because, as I'll say next, I cannot see how the establishment, not you, can afford to lose this), but you've lost all. You idiots.

Say you lose. Me thinks of an expression to describe the situation... something like "deep sh*t". And do repeat freely the word "deep". Will you be able to contain all the hell that wants to break lose? That's like a humungous quantity of water pressing against the walls a feeble dam, that once burst will wash away everything in its destroying path. I mean, your buddies at SIC in Portugal and The Sun in the UK are having a pretty hard time reporting events as they are right now, imagine their desperation if the book gets back on sale. What fantasies will they be able to come up to justify that a Portuguese Court hs found it completely viable to circulate on the streets? Specially if this first stage ends AFTER the general elections in the UK? Do pray that doesn't happen, you ludicrous lot.

And all because of what? Because YOU voluntarily opened this can of worms. Your can of worms. The nightmare that has been wrecking up your nerves and has kept you up all these nights. You did it. All by your little brilliant selves. Oh, how hard it has been to keep my poise until today, and keep all this to myself, lest you give up before you heard what you heard today. It's the beginning of the end, and you ignited it. You brainless samples of human beings.

Yes, Gerry, do go "back to work" because the seat is getting unbearably hotter by the minute. Don't worry, those that "believe" that you have "work" back home that is imperative you attend to it right now, although it was never that important on your celebrity-father-of-an-abducted-girl tour of conferences, lectures and other crap. They've "bought" the "abduction", so why won't they buy this one too? It's quite clear to you, and them, that you planned your so-called "work" because you thought that this would take only a day or two in Sardineland, and were caught off-guard because it wasn't. They are as senseless as you obtuse, nonsensical sods.

Well, Gerry and Kate, do enjoy your "McCann's Exclusive Pandora's Box Adventure Ride". It will be quite thrilling, to say the least. To all of us, but mainly to you. Even you know that, albeit your remarkable and exceptional stupidity.

Update 14 Jan 2010: taken from the SKY NEWS website:


Hmmm... should I take them to Court for breach of copyright?

The Circus of Justice

Many things have been said about this symbol. At least, I’ve been told many meanings of it.

To the most depraved, well, we that are NOT that depraved can easily see in which direction simplicity might take imagination. Did I just call you a pervert? No, I won’t apologise because I thought the same, one time or another.

As said, that is simplicity. There are other ways to look at it. For example, I’ve heard that it's about feminine and masculine energies, although I was never told where which category each color represented. Only that black was bad. Mean, evil, bad. White, good, pure.

Never have I been told why is black related with negativity. It’s just a colour, or scientifically, the absence of it. Nothing else, nothing more. Yet, we each have a dark (bad) side and there are white (good) witches.

Bigoted social mind-formatting that we all are victims of, exploiting the fear that darkness instills in us.

Yes, I could go racial, using the same bigotry. Out of all, for me, the best explanation/interpretation for this symbol is the one that states that the more you’re something the nearer you are to become its exact opposite.

Place yourself in the circle, rotating along its edge, and you can check that whenever you’re placed where the color is largest, it’s also where you’re nearer to its opposite. This identifies quite clearly where Portuguese Justice stands.

Written by so many so-called intellectuals with the clear intent of it being more humane, just and fairest of all, it has ended up exactly the opposite of that.

Linking this to the trial about Gonçalo Amaral’s book, let’s look at the hard facts. Free of any reason outside the theoretical model.

An event happened, a child disappeared. Killed, abducted, whatever. The adequate party, the Portuguese Legal System, BASED ON WHAT IS KNOWN, came OFFICIALLY to the conclusion that there was NO wrong-doing or ill-faith, and thus decided to stop at once any further expenditure of its resources on the subject, or, for the common human being, archived the process, ceasing any investigation until NEW evidence is presented that is to justify the re-use of the aforementioned resources.

Somebody then publishes a book, with THE SAME information that IS KNOWN, that basically contradicts the above findings, conclusions, and most important, decisions.

That person is obviously challenging the legal establishment. Its then legitimate for the system to react and defend itself, as it's assumed that the referred system is right as it is the one that has set the whole rules in the first place.

Forget about the McCanns. Imagine that YOU were WRONGLY charged with shoplifting. The Police, after investigating thoroughly, found out that there wasn’t any evidence to support the charges against YOU.

Somebody then decides to publish a book where YOU are accused of the referred shoplifting. For Justice, before its blindfolded eyes, somebody (YOU) is being accused, privately, of what she, Justice, whilst representing adequately society, already has examined and decided upon that there should be NO accusation.

Based on this rationale, the McCann claim is quite legitimate. And, as is written, the Portuguese Justice has to attend to it, as it has. And most likely condemn Amaral accordingly. I see no other option, praying that I'm wrong.

Otherwise the establishment will have to recognize that, with the KNOWN INFORMATION, it decided wrongly. And will have to explain why. A big no, no.

The book in question contains no lies. From the author, that is. Us, who’ve read it, know that it’s quite clarifying in a very polite and peaceful way. The truth is easy to explain. The lies are all imbedded upstream, where they should have never been in the first place. But are.

The McCanns have exploited this very well. They know all too well (one cannot help wondering how and why...) the flaws of the system and explore them to the limit. Example of that is Portuguese “justice secret”. Nothing is more ridiculous. Created to protect the investigation, has ended up, instead, protecting, in a completely legal manner, the criminals no matter how big a crime they have committed.

No one has used it this mechanism as well as the Jekyll & Hyde from Rothley have. I dare say that without it, the scum would have lost right off from square one.

Another ridiculous legal mechanism is this thing called "injuction". The Portuguese Legal System is so inefficient that, by its creation, recognizes, all on its own, its total inability to provide what it is supposed to provide: Justice. Basically, all it says is: “we cannot provide you with a timely answer for your problem, but in case that we LATER find out that you are guilty we'll start condemning you as of NOW”.

That’s presumption of guilt in system supposed to protect the presumption of innocence to the utmost.

If, like I hope, the Court finds no reason to stop the sale of the book, nobody will assume the losses of sales between the time of the injunction and of the final decision. That's unjust.

If it finds reason to condemn, nothing justifies this preemptive condemning action. Unjust it is.

The Legal System in any society exists to demonstrate, in clear and concise terms, to its every single member that any and all infringement of the set rules, by itself, will be sanctioned accordingly, adequately and with justice.

The Portuguese have tried so hard to reach this end-state, that they have reached exactly the opposite.

The message sent out from the McCann case is quite clear: YES, YOU MAY KILL YOUR OWN CHILD. If this isn’t perverse, I don’t know what is.

This unintentional James Bond's kind of licence to kill is, whatever consequences I may suffer with the statement, the blunt truth. You just have to have the right friends. Ask any Portuguese about what they think, and that is the answer you’ll get. They may not put it as bluntly as I, but, bottom line, that’s what they’ll say.

And that’s why the McCanns felt the need to enter the Court through the side door. They know exactly what the Portuguese think of them. They know that the Portuguese had access to the information they desperately are trying to hide.

This said, I don’t condemn the ongoing Court procedures. It's just something the Law allows, and nobody is jumping the fence here. What I do condemn is the fact that it's allowed what is allowed.

It’s sad that Humanity having overcome two millenniums and a decade, placed a man on the moon, elected a black man as President of its most powerful nation, is still discussing a content of a book. Any book. Be it Salman Rushdie or José Saramago. Or Gonçalo Amaral. Very sad. Specially if you’re a part of the system that is doing it.

ANY country, in this day and age, should be ashamed to be discussing the legality of the content of any book (I’m obviously excluding child-pornography and those incentivizing violence and terrorism).

But, on the disgraceful scale, Portugal is, in my opinion, wrongly discussing it, while in UK it is being hidden. Much worse, and completely absurd. This is what justice has become:
 
Post Scriptum – Where is the linkage, that I cannot see, about Maddie, the “abducted” child, and a "state secret"? Specially when, for the common citizen, there is none between the child, its parents, its parent’s friends, anybody else around the child and whichever state.

So, as it has been requested, it’s completely pertinent to be assumed as FACT that THERE IS a connection. One that only a privileged few know what it is.

So, subsequent FACT is that only a privileged few know what exactly happened. And cannot speak about it. As an assumption, one could imagine that Maddie was abducted to jeopardize UK’s national interests and is this state now being blackmailed by the kidnappers. Or should I say, TERRORISTS. No,

I’m not being delusional. This is the only way I can honestly link Maddie with any possible “national security”, using the abduction crap.

If somebody knows any other way, please do enlighten me. Things are so self-evident that only the willing blind PRETEND not to see. And for these there isn't any medical miracle that can give them the eyesight that they don't wish to have anyway.

Yes, the King walks stark naked, and yet it's insisted, endlessly, that the cloth was handmade by the most skilled craftsmen.

1 Picture, 1.000 Words (...or More)

McCanns Suing Bloggers

Just read at Joana's that the enlightened duo have the intent expressed on the title.

The idea seems ridiculous at first. The time it takes to create a new blog with the materiel in question, added with the cloth of anonimity and subjective legal jurisdiction issues, one might think that these samples of human waste, were, once again, being what they are best at: stupid.

Like trying to destroy a colony of ants by defying each of its members to a 15 three-minute rounds of boxing (a sport chosen purposefully, as is civilized as the behavior of the aforementioned couple). Just taking the time factor as relevant, an impossible task.

What these jackasses want, is to bring it on. To show the meek how powerful they are through their powerful lawyes. That's how RC make a living. They scare the hell out of any possible opponent, independent of reason, just by having the legal "warfare" that they possess.

In the compared fight above, the first 100, 200, 10000 ants stand no chance. But we all know the end result.

Many a time in history, if not all the time, the might has lost against the will. And, McCanns, I, for one, will not confuse YOUR despair for will.

One last note. I don't know if it's true, but I like to believe it is, that in WW I, the British and German forces called a truce on Christmas Eve. It's said that they celebrated together, and had a soccer match on Christmas Day. On the next day they fought against each other galantly, as only soldiers know how to fight to comply with the absurdities dictated by politicians.

That is called dignity amd to fight such an opponent is an honour.

You, McCanns, have none of it. You're disgusting. You're evil. Your methods and tactics are cowardly.

Gerry and Kate, do me a favour after you've read me (and please convince all your friends to do the same): stand up and walk to the nearest mirror, look attentively to the reflection on the other side, and be ashamed of what you. Be ashamed of that face for the rest of your lives.

Do entertain me.

I know you will, because I know that's EXACTLY how you feel, in the midst of self-convincing hypnotisation you live in. And that will NEVER, EVER go away.