"To our usual readers, Insane is not a strange name. This character has become as familiar as the barking, just calling for attention, from the next door's neighbour’s dog in the middle of the night. Useless and irritating.
To the new readers, let us tell you who Insane has told us about who s/he is.
Insane -we know now- he's not pro McCann, even says s/he runs an Anti blog. A such supersecret one, so much so, that the fact that you’ve even read a single word here has caused that you’ve been automatically banned from there. Sorry, too late, no harm meant. Only if you could return what you’ve just read…
However, this, we imagine, must bring Insane huge problems. You see, according to Insane's own rules, s/he's certainly being continuously kicked out of his/her own blog by him/herself for having been here. Insane does read this blog, so is unacceptable in Insane's one.
This means that Insane has to go through all that bothersome process of registering, having to verify if him/herself, Insane, is as trustworthy as Insane demands (and intelligent worthy as well) for one to be there accepted and so receive the respective authorized password.
Multiply this by the times Insane has to do the just above described for every single time s/he comes to this blog (that is basically every time a new post or comment is published) and you can understand the living hell Insane is going through (we know that Insane’s life is far from pleasant, but that has nothing to with this blog).
We also know that Insane believes that Gerry McCann and David Payne are paedophiles(sorry readers, this is from an unpublished comment from this character which we intend to use later on).
Insane ABSOLUTELY believes in Mrs Fenn, Carpenter and ALL of the Ocean Club Staff. All "credible" witnesses irrelevant the contradictions between their statements.
Insane also believes in a certain Priest, which we’ve been unable to identify, as this blog is supposed to have said that a “Priest” has lied. We’re still waiting for Insane to tell us whichPriest is s/he referring to.
Insane also believes fully in the Tapas Watersports on May 3rd and the Tapas dinners, all through that fateful week.
Insane does say s/he has his/her own theory, and although refusing to share it, at least with us, we’ve been able to deduce that s/he believes that the McCanns did do it. What exactly they've done, is, as per Insane's will, to remain a secret known only to a few.
Insane justifies the "McCanns did do it" statement with the unquestionable and sound argument of “we all know they did it”, and that should suffice to quench the curiosity and reasoning of the rest of us common mortals, because, Insane not only to seems to KNOW what others KNOW at a certain point in time and place, as s/he's ABSOLUTELY SURE how everybody is to THINK.
Insane does reminds me of a certain Professor that I had in College that during one of his classes modestly stated that ".. I once attended a Conference where out all the hundreds present there were no more than ten people who really understood about what was going on, but geniuses, real geniuses, there were only three of us...". I did say "modestly" because, after all, he did accept to share the stage with two others...
But the way Insane speaks about the McCanns & Co brings us to the last trait of his personality we wish, for now, we wish to call your attention to. S/he accuses them of the most infamous things, insults them with the most outrageous adjectives, showing a total lack of fear from being sued by them, completely disregarding the example set by the huge sums of money that the Tabloids were forced to pay up.
But, on the contrary, s/he has an obsession of suing the authors, commentators and even you readers of THIS blog, saying that s/he represents the happy lawyers of MANY people.
We can only suppose, that these MANY people are those that laugh alongside him/her, somewhere in some dark corner of the internet, or not, about what is written in this blog. It must be in real far corner of the net, because we haven't heard one little echo of what is claimed.
But let’s get to what has brought us here, and that is the extraordinary comment left, and published, by our friend, Insane, made on Feb 27th:
"Morning, brain donors.
I see you have all had your daily allocation of paranoia pills.
Here's a question for you - how come the police in Portugal didn't cotton on to any of this, eh? They were actually there, took statements from the Tapas bar workers and many holidaymakers- yet they seem to have believed them, when they said the McCanns dined in the Tapas. After all, they also had the reservation sheets and access to the bills for additional drinks which had been rung through - but you prefer to believe Textusa's version based on her claims about the table in a restaurant she has never seen, and a load of half-baked claptrap about the restaurant not being open for business at all.
Now she has turned her rabid attentions to the choice of clothing Fiona Payne adopted for a visit to the beach with her children. They look like perfectly normal holiday clothes to me, but then I am still in possession of my marbles.
So what Textusa is really telling you, her merry bunch of thickos, is that the PJ and Sr Amaral got it all wrong. They went to that restaurant, spoke to all the staff and took their statements, and never once realised that they were being had. Then they did the same with the holidaymakers - and were had by all of them. And of course don't forget that Mrs Fenn must have taken them for a load of idiots too, if Textusa is to be believed.
Now she is telling you that the PJ are too thick to realise that although the tapas group were dressed for a stroll on the beach with the kids, Fiona seems to have turned up dressed for theHunt Ball, or perhaps a night at the opera. Perhaps they didn't realise because, to them, a summer skirt and top seems perfectly appropriate garb for the beach.
I see Textusa has already had to backtrack on this once - believe me, she will cling on like a drowning woman to a piece of flotsam to the remaining shreds of her lunatic theory
Oh incidentally - did Textusa mention that prior to the statements being taken from the tapas workers, the PJ had actually gone to the restaurant the day after Madeleine's disappearance, and taken a brief statement from the staff who were there, contacted by phone the ones who weren't? Their versions of events did not change between then and when they gave their formal statements. But were Textusa to be correct, they had all been contacted, as had all the holidaymakers and all leant on to give the same version of events. Namely that they observed the McCanns and their friends dining at the Tapas.
Well isn't that amazing? Not even 24 hours had gone by, and already Mark Warners were involved in a huge cover up, and had all the workers and guests singing from the same hymn sheet. And the police never realised.
Now can you understand how utterly ridiculous Textusa's claims are? Not only do they require the swiftly organised co-operation of a large number of workers, who would all go on to sing from the same hymn sheet, but also the complete agreement of every holidaymaker who had dined there too - amazingly organised overnight by the MW staff. When they weren't out all night searching for Maddy, of course. And all to help a group of people to whom they had no previous connection (Awaits usual thicko response - ''how do you know they weren't connected?'')Oh, and a police force who were too thick to get it
Because if you can't, it really does illustrate why I refer to you all as brain donors."
A dog bites, not because it has teeth. He bites for a reason, the teeth being only the tools nature has provided for him to express whatever he wishes to convey. He may bite out of fear, he may bite out of rage, or he may not even bite, just by an ostensive show of teeth, by gnarling. A threat that puts together sound and sight.
Understand why he’s biting, and you’ll understand the purpose with which the dog is using his teeth.
A dog may bite, as I said, due to fear or for self-preservation, or he may bite to assure that you don’t tread on ground his keeper doesn’t want you step on.
This is usually well highlighted with a “beware of the dog” sign, and the breed of the animal is usually a menacing one.
The dog then bites not to protect himself, but to protect something, or someone, from you or your curiosity. You, not wanting to be bitten, back off, thus assuring that that something, or someone, remains untouched.
There’s a saying that a barking dog doesn’t bite. I’m afraid to say that my experience dictates that not to be true, but the intent of the saying is to explain that the barking is the last loud resort that a “dog” has to threaten you with something when he has nothing else to threaten with, beside the threat itself.
Insane’s comment has two interesting things about it. One is that it reveals who s/he’s “barking” for, and the other is that s/he may be barking not only for others as for Insane’s own sake also."