Beloved readers, As you know we’ve had here lately and persistently the contribution of someone who is obsessively interested in our blog as seems to have a direct interest in what is written here.
Clearly a Black Hat, we’ve come to know this person by an adjective which is quite aggressive in nature. Not talking about the person, but the actual adjective by which we identify this individual.
And it’s exactly for allowing into the blog this aggressiveness, one that constantly, and most likely purposefully, accompanies this individual’s comments, that we're here to apologise.
To disassociate ourselves from all the aggressiveness contained in that particular adjective by which this individual is called, we, henceforth, shall refer to this person as “The Character” or simply TC.
Not to be mistaken with Thomas Cook. In doing so we hope to contribute to the clearing up some of the pestilent air caused by all this unpleasant and disagreeable aggressiveness that has here settled.
Avoid the use of unnecessary violent language.
Violence, as you know, is the most common weapon used by the weak. Bravado, in its essence, is nothing but a cover for fear. That alone says much about the intent of who has posted the referred comments.
The decision to post TC's comments was not an easy one, and many of them remain unpublished.
When we decided to publish those that we did, we did it for two reasons. The first was that we thought best to allow our readers to realize the constant abuse and insult that our blog is constantly subjected to, and the other, was for you to feel and understand all the despair contained in them.
This despair is for us a clear indication that we’re on the right path. TC’s comments bring nothing new, are abusive in their interpretation of posts and comments and rapidly slip into offensive generalizations.
They cling to every single possible flaw as if their life depended on it, in a desperate attempt to make a whole building crumble with a single firecracker. They’re unreasonable, because it’s impossible to quench the demands.
Not because they’re not answered, but because the answers are always deemed unsatisfactory regardless of their logic, reason and completeness.
This, together with the permanent bullying and intolerant speech, has dominated lately the comments in our blog in a very argumentative nasty way, and brought quite an unpleasant aggressive aura to it. TC’s comments are indeed off-putting.
It spoils our blog and dilutes excellent contributions from our polite readers, discouraging them from further participation.
This is obviously TC's intention, to drive away readership and readership participation. Some of our readers fell into this trap and have lapsed into arguing with TC. It’s completely understandable, as no one likes to see muddy feet in a spotlessly clean living room. Some of our readers have engaged in a quite passionate argumentation with said individual.
It is commendable for their dedicated protection of this space which is all of all of us, but has to be reprimanded for further contributing to allow this person to play his/her game. And the first to be reprimanded, are we, who published the comments, and myself, in particular, for responding needlessly to one or two of them.
Here we must pay a huge compliment to all those readers who remained calm and poised, and continued to post polite and useful comments, ignoring completely the turmoil set by TC's comments.
We were called to reason by our wonderful readers.
And when reason calls, we pay attention.
When one is wrong, the only acceptable way forward is by correcting the error as best as is possible to be done.
Thus our heartfelt apologies, as we've indeed allowed TC space to field his tactics that targeted our most polite and educated readers.
Life is hard as it is so we fully understand that there's no need to come here to obtain further anguish. So we blame no other than ourselves for distancing some of our readers.
But not all is bad, as TC has provided us with very valuable information. We’re talking obviously about TC’s recognition that the guests were indeed witnesses to a crime that involved the death of a little girl; about TC’s bringing on scene a very interesting guest, Mr. Philip Edmonds, who, as he says himself, not only photographs Maddie on May 3rd, but also says he was a “first-hand” witness to the events although he exits the scene in the early hours of May 4th.
Also about TC’s confirmation that the dog did react to blood in a spot on the floor located behind the couch in apartment 5A’s living room and about TC’s very useful mix-up between oval and round table shapes.
But that is not all we've been provided with. TC has also led us, or better said, insisted, as you’ll see, that we go, down a particularly valuable path of information.
Without TC’s indication and insistence, I don’t think we would ever discover what we did. Let me tell you as an appetizer, that it is worth all the unpleasantness that our blog has been subjected to. But that is no reason or excuse to have allowed TC’s comments.
We’re fully aware of the fact that one can learn a lot from a car wreck, but that isn’t in any way a reason for one to drive a car into a tree.
Information can, and should, be obtained by much more reasonable and sensible manner, as we've done in the past and intend to continue to do.
We hope we can recover as quickly as possible all those readers that were driven away because of this unfortunate mistake, and hope that the possible damage done to the structure of our, yours and my, blog is not significant.
Yours respectfully, Textusa
Update on Sep18, 2011, 20:24:
From reading the feedback we've received, it made us have the feeling that our readers would like us to publish BH’s comments.
Not an indiscriminate publication, but one subject to the adequate filtering and censorship.
Let us tell you that your reaction pleases us immensely.
What pleases us is not what you’ve suggested, but that you suggested it.
In fact, some valid suggestions were against what is above written. What did please us is that you’ve revealed that we’re achieving what we’ve intended, and that was, and is, to have our readers be stakeholders of this blog.
You may not share ownership, but you’ve certainly shown sharing its best interests. You’ve demonstrated that the success of this blog is not ours, as in its authors, but is ours, as in Textusa family.
We will continue do a case-by-case analysis of comments, and publish those we deem constructive or revealing, censoring them if need be.
As we’ve said, we’re fully for freedom of speech and opinion, just not for freedom of insult. Our censoring will never affect content.
Let us give you an example. One of the last comments from "The Character" (TC) that was published, was censored.
This is its original version (in bold, what was censored):
@ anon(and deranged) 2.12pm Produce any evidence that shows that booking is in any way suspicious. This is s bit different to the ''blood'' spot that wasn't - there are forensic reports which illustrate that. This is nothing more than a bizarre theory, which you can't prove.
@ Anon 2.35 Not implying anything. You seem to be doing quite enough of that to go around Also, you don't seem to understand how this works. It would appear that the tapas bar had an agreement with Mark Warner to provide dinner for up to 20 covers per night. What makes you think there was anything to prevent them accepting bookings from Thomas Cook over and above this?
There is nothing to indicate anyone got preferential treatment. Reading this blog is at times like reading the deranged nonsense on the 9/11 sites, where people seem to believe in holograms and conspiracies and missiles. It's all nuts. This entry on the booking sheet, three days after Madeleine disappeared, is meaningless. But do go on kidding yourselves, it's amusing.
This is the censored version we published:
@ anon(and (censored)) 2.12pm Produce any evidence that shows that booking is in any way suspicious. This is s bit different to the ''blood'' spot that wasn't - there are forensic reports which illustrate that. (censored).
@ Anon 2.35 Not implying anything.(censored) Also, you don't seem to understand how this works. It would appear that the tapas bar had an agreement with Mark Warner to provide dinner for up to 20 covers per night. What makes you think there was anything to prevent them accepting bookings from Thomas Cook over and above this?
There is nothing to indicate anyone got preferential treatment. (censored) This entry on the booking sheet, three days after Madeleine disappeared, is meaningless. (censored).
As you can see, only the insulting, offensive or aggressive language was cut out, leaving the relevant content intact.
Also it has become much less off-putting than certainly originally intended.
It would be naive of us to believe that TC is a single person, although it certainly does appear to be just someone who, unable to withstand the heat of the frying pan in which he voluntarily jumped in, has decided to lash out like a cornered animal.
From now on, any BH now knows that he either abides by the basic rules of education or accepts that his/her comment will not be published, or, if it is to be, it will be censored.
We also receive comments from readers who're not blatantly BH that we think best not to publish. Here is an example (by the way, it’s the only one we’ve withheld with reference with the present post this far): Can we stop this discussion about some idiot and get back to the real object of this forum please. You have a little girl still waiting for justice.
The reason for not publishing it (well, we’ve done it now, haven’t we?) is the unnecessarily aggressive language used.
If it’s from coming from a WH, than s/he should rephrase it. As we have no way of asking to have that done, we’re limited to not publishing.
It contains language we can do without, and its tone reveals a kind of support we do not seek or even want to associate with us.
If, as it appears to be, it’s from a BH, and most likely from TC, it brings nothing new, and seeks only to divert the attention away from him.
Hope this pleases who we aim to please, and that’s you, for we need your help in trekking this path.
One last note for clarification's sake, and that is to think, or even mention, that the TC acronym is referring to our friend Totally Confused is to be transparently abusive and ill-intended.