(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.
