Translate

Saturday, 27 June 2015

Any requests?

I'm flicking through trying to decide which of Textusa's longwindathons to tackle next when it suddenly occurred to me that people may have one that they would like to see translated into a human language.

If so, leave me a message here and I'll have a butchers

Thursday, 25 June 2015

The Charge of the Shite Brigade

The Textusa minions have been busy!
I am going to answer these questions over here, rather than have that jackbooted retard censoring them every five minutes.

So anyway, an idiot writes:


To Insane.
can you confirm that a human soul had been within 5a Ocean Club apartments
Human 'soul'?
I don't believe there is a test for detecting 'souls'. Perhaps you know of one?  
and if it was not Madeleine, who died in or was placed in that area to "create the Odours"?
How the fuck do I know? What is it with you people that you think you are entitled to demand answers to the unanswerable? 

Fact, 15 out of 19 indicators with Four unobtainable indicators states a match of nearly 80% to the DNA given by the parents of Madeleine from her pillow case, allegedly from the home she lived in the UK, so that gives a 1 in 5 indicator that the DNA did not belong to Madeleine!?
All of that is complete bollocks. Firstly, what is your issue with the pillowcase, or are we now all supposed to believe an FSS scientist and a police officer faked that too?

Secondly, this 15 of 19 statistic that noted Canadian fence artist Heidi Halfwit tries to bamboozle you with is completely fraudulent. The sample yielded 37 markers from at least three different individuals, 15 of which matched markers in Madeleine's profile, as one would expect in a sample procured from a vehicle used by both her parents - yes, the sample came from the car, not the apartment. The 1 in 5 statistic is completely meaningless and bogus 

You admit "Secondary contamination in the car"So who contaminated the "Odours to the vehicle if it was not Madeleine?
I suggested secondary contamination. There is no ''admitting'' to be had. Secondary contamination means by something other than the deceased, you dingbat. The dogs alerted to items such as clothing and the cuddlecat toy. They were carried in the car. QED secondary contamination. It's not difficult.  

If Madeleine has passed away, why was the Find Madeleine fund set up by Legal Experts from the UK?
How the fuck should I know? 

Hope you can provide answers Insane or Not Textusa.
Probably not the ones your little heart desired, but that's just tough.

Next


 Anonymous25 Jun 2015, 09:13:00
Thank you Not Textusa, I'm struggling anon.
Well, it's good that you can admit it. I feel we're making progress 

Actually it was nearly 3 months before Grime. 
Whatever

You don't quote study where cadaver gas persists for a year.
No I don't. What's the point - you won't read it

I can't remember what you wrote about the garden.
Tough

What was found in apt is referred to as cellular material. It produced DNA. It could have been white blood cells. If not, what was it? 

If you had read the files, specifically John Lowe's report, you 
would know that LCN DNA profiling is unable to answer that 
question. So why the fuck are you asking me?

Why did Keela alert? To what did Keela alert to?
Keela is trained to alert to blood. We don't know what Keela 
alerted to as no confirmed blood was found in the apartment

You say you believe she probably died on May 3rd in apartment.
And?

So you're implying an accident. 
I'm implying nothing

If it was an accident, her body would have made direct contact with the floor?
Are you asking me or telling me?

You don't confirm that it was likely a burglar took her - so who did?
How the fuck should I know? Do you know?

Surely there are only 3 possible scenarios which account for death in apartment?
Oh really?

- A burglar/ abductor killed her, by accident or deliberately.
- Parent/s involved in incident.
- Accident when parents absent.
If you say so
If an burglar/ abductor took her alive, there can't be cadaver odour.
Well done, Sherlock

Next

Sorry, struggling anon again.
Ah. Still-struggling anon. 

Not Textusa, you don't quote study where cadaver gas persists for a year.
You said that last time 
If it was in soil, maybe, as the information I read about chemical composition of cadaverine mentioned gas retained within soil and clay - but I'm sure without a source to emanate from, gas can't persist that long.
Oh well if you're sure, why are you asking me? 
The study I read seems to show a half life of 6 hours:
Predicted. And how is it broken down? And do you know what that actually means? 
http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/1_5-Diaminopentane.
Yeah - that's not a study, dear 

Could you provide a ref for a year for gas to linger? Other than in soil.
No I can provide a study where dogs have signalled odour after a year, but I won't bother because you won't read it. If you had read the carpet squares study by Oesterhelweg et al you would know that study already answers the question for the time period we are dealing with here.

Next


 Anonymous25 Jun 2015, 11:36:00
Smells disappear:
http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=5851
As common sense tells us
Yes, smells dissipate. You do realise that answer reinforces what I 
am saying, don't you?

Cadaver odour without its source - either a body or material contaminated by a body - can only last for a limited time in air .Not a year.
Ah - obviously not. Okay dear, where does he say anything about a 
year, or for that matter, a dog?

Unless Insane can prove otherwise with proper refs.
Otherwise than what - your guesswork?

Next

Not Textusa, sorry, I told you I may be stupid, but I think I now understand some of this..
Really? And that's without waiting for, or reading, any of my replies. Remarkable..... 
M died on May 3rd but not in 5a.
Oh yes? How do you work that out? 
Gas odour in garden was old bones
And? 
(this is a primary source needed to create the gas, like a cadaver would?)
Keep going.... 
The gas stayed in the garden for nearly 3 months.
Wouldn't need to if it was a primary source, would it? Anyway, keep going..... 
The car contained no evidence of Ms body being there. Key fob was secondary contamination as was car boot
And? 
Now here is me being stupid maybe?
Oh don't sell yourself short. Probably.  
Gas wafted in from the garden and pooled in the cupboard, contaminating clothing and cuddlecat second-hand.
No - who suggested that? 

Only thing I'm still not clear about is how the car was contaminated?
Secondary contamination, dear. Do try to keep up. 
What was in the car which made Eddie bark so loudly?
Secondary contamination of cadaver odour, potentially. See, you got there, eventually.  


Any more? 

Postscript

I sent Textusa the link to this page. She took it upon herself to instead copy all the answers over, after she had fiddled about with them. 
Then came this

Evidently one cannot reason with a McCann supporter. If one could, there would be none.
McCann supporter? Where?

As Textusa knows, I am not a McCann supporter. All I am interested in is the truth. 

As can be seen Insane considers his word to be gospel and they are so sacred that he refuses to share his sources with us.
Well dear, the day you share YOUR sources for your various claims is the day you have the right to demand sources from others. I sent you sources last week. You not only could not be bothered to read them, you declared that I hadn't read them either. Daft bitch. 

Henceforth, if Insane says that birds land on their backs then birds do land on their backs. No discussion. He said it, so it is so. Gospel is his word. *hypocrite klaxon*
A bit like your claims about what happened to Maddie, or the lack of a big round table? 

Any bird seen landing belly down shall be shot on site for being a disruptor and for just doing that on purpose to contradict Insane.
I don't shoot disruptors. I have only ever withheld one post for the use of a particular obscenity I refuse to allow. However, it's clear you remove 'disruptors', ie anyone who disagrees with you, because of the lack of cogency of your argument. 


You are working terribly hard on this ''holiday'', Textusa. 

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

A tiny bit dead...........

Evening friends, guests and Textaloons


I had so much fun reminiscing about the lunacy that was the Doodle Roadshow that I thought I would revisit another belter.

Sit back and enjoy


Being Alive Is The Opposite Of Being Dead *

* This title won the trophy for the ''Most Fucking Obvious'' statement at the World Pedantic Bastards Championships 

Textusa was beginning to regret asking Fred to pose for her drawing class - never had his lack of genitals been more evident. 


We have determined, at this point, two important things about "The Stroller". 
Ah yes - The Stroller. To explain, the ''Stroller'' is the man seen carrying a child in PdL. Obviously, he needed a special name, otherwise, you wouldn't have a clue who she meant 

One is that he was NOT DISPOSING OF OR HIDING A BODY
Ah right-o. That's good, isn't it? And you determined this how - witchcraft?  

The other is that he was carrying the child with the CLEAR INTENT OF BEING SEEN carrying a blond, barefooted four year old girl, dressed in pyjamas, and so provoke an encounter that had the objective to produce one or more witnesses who would be misleaded into thinking that Madeleine Beth McCann had just been abducted. 
Okaaaaaaay............... 

These are two of the three intermediate objectives we proposed to achieve before advancing to the final one in the Smith Sighting Saga: to prove that "The Stroller" is none other than Dr. Gerry McCann
Oooh. Popcorn. Be right back  

This post, and the others that will follow it, is then aimed to achieve the third intermediate objective: to prove that the carried girl was alive 
 I’ll even add another detail to the objective: to prove that she was alive and sedated
 Right. So by the sheer power of your mind you are going to determine the identity of both, monitor vital signs and run blood tests? Goodness. Well come on then, get cracking 

For this, I’ll be breaking the theme into three parts. 
Three? Three posts? Fuck me.  

- First, this post, is to differentiate, physically, the dead from the live. Simplistically as possible, of course.
Oh, of course 


- Then, I intend to show how, and why, ANY adult carries a small sleeping toddler, under various circumstances. 
Ah ha.  

- Lastly, I intend to show how, and why, is a dead human body, namely that of a child, is transported. 
Okay. Well, that doesn't make any sense, but hey ho!  

 The proving of the sedation, is about a paragraph long, so I’m still thinking if I’ll dedicate a post to such evident evidence. That’s the plan. But you know by now how fickle I am… Let’s then not waste any more time, and get the ball rolling. 
Why, if it's only a paragraph long? 

A Portuguese “socialite”, Lili Caneças, has, in Portugal where she’s known, been much scorned for having one day said that “being alive is the opposite of being dead”. This apparently obvious statement does encapsulate much more than it seems. 
She is obviously a woman of great wit and charm, but is probably, by the sound of it, a bit thick.  

There are, I’ve heard, ongoing discussions about what is the exact moment a person dies. A very good friend of mine has told me that the last thing to go is the hearing, so, on a loved one's deathbed one should continue to speak caring, loving words, as the loved one departs before our very own eyes. 
Well, that isn't necessarily so, is it?

For starters, if they were already deaf, well, it was the first thing to go, wasn't it?

And in cases of decapitation, being run over by a train, or running full tilt into a piece of piano wire stretched between two trees, I think it's probably one of the earlier senses to check out of the building, really, although it's fair to say that ''Look out!'' or ''Duck!'' may well be the last thing they hear 

I certainly would like to go hearing such music. 
There was music?? 

But it’s not the moment of death that I want to talk about today. I intend to discuss what is PHYSICALLYdifferent from a dead body and one that is living, in a conscious state or not. 
Ah, okay. Off you go then. 

In terms of conscientiousness I would say that someone can go from fully alert and conscientious, to being completely unconscious, like when under general anesthesia. 
Okay - do you mean conscious?  Because to be awake and aware of ones surroundings means one is ''Conscious'', the opposite of which is ''Unconscious''

Conscientiousness means you are the sort of person who always finishes their homework. 


So anyhoo, you reckon that people can go from one to the other. Conscious to unconscious. Blimey, nothing much gets past you, does it?



The intermediate degrees in this scale would be to be drowsy, asleep or sedated. 
Hmmmm - there are actually scales for measuring this, but let's not quibble 

I’ll leave the comatose state out as in none of the Maddie’s scenarios is this condition referred anywhere by anyone, nor can I see any reason to be. 

The extremes of this redefined scale, full alertness and anesthesia, can be defined by OPPOSITEresponses of the nervous system to stimuli. 
Oh dear - I have a feeling I might have to quibble after all. For starters, the two states you describe are not at opposite ends of the scale, nor are they defined by ''opposite'' responses to stimuli, but rather by the presence or absence of a response. Anyway, on you go....... 

In the present case, I would like to concentrate on the stimulus originated by pain. The reaction to other different stimuli is identical as the nervous system is the same, the only one existing in a body. 
Well, that's all a load of bollocks, but anyway, we'll let it go...... 

Pain, by the way, is nothing but an alert system. The nerves warn the brain that the body is being subject to danger, and the brain, in turn, or in response, makes the body react accordingly. Feeling tired is a painful state. If the body didn’t feel this tiredness, a runner could run himself to exhaustion and literally to death. 
Er, no. But anyway I promised to let it go......... 

We, when fully conscientious, feel and react to pain, while under anesthesia this “connection nerve-brain” is completely blocked, albeit temporarily, and the brain not receiving information, doesn’t react to it. 
Oooh, this is killing me. Actually, the full mechanisms of most anaesthetics are not fully understood, especially by you, clearly. It's enough to say the body does not react to painful stimuli and leave it at that

But either conscious or fully unconscious, our blood never stops flowing. 
Well, no, we would be fucked if it did.  

And that is the main PHYSICAL difference between being dead and being alive
And finally......... 

The Chinese say that a dead body is one without energy. In a cadaver, the blood flow is inexistent, but in a living being, even if in coma, this flux continues uninterrupted. The heart beats, the blood flows. 
You know, you could have just said when the blood stops circulating, you die, and cut out all the other bullshit. 

When the heart stops, irrigation of cells is stopped, and these start to loose their tonicity, their elasticity, their strength. All living cells die, and decomposition begins, which is, by the way, quite a "lively" process that we’ll talk about later on. Not on this post. When we will talk about cadaverine. 
Did you just google this and throw in a lot of long words? I think what you are trying to say is that muscles lose their tone. Continue........ 

Once the blood stops flowing, so does the energy that we’ve taken in stop reaching the cells intended to receive it. So rightful are the Chinese. 
The Chinese know Jack Shit. If you meant that cellular respiration ceases, you would be right. Of course, you didn't mean that because you don't know what it is, but I digress....... 

Now let’s look how this energy is used when we’re alive and well. We keep ourselves upright due to a multiple chains of miracles, some call it factors, in this gigantically complex thing that we simplify by calling it a body. 
''Multiple chains of miracles''  ''Factors''

Hmmm.

Generally, we keep ourselves upright by the use of our skeleton and our skeletal muscle, but that's what you meant, isn't it? Rather than all that woo......

What a wonderful machine is the human body. Structured by the skeleton, its balance centered at the inner ear, but it’s our muscles, held together to the bones by ligaments, that give us the form we have. So the key element here is muscle
The muscles are not ''held together to the bones by ligaments'' dear. Ligaments join bones together. I think you meant tendons 

When we’re born, we haven’t enough muscular mass to be able to hold our head on our own. We grow, and so grows our muscular mass, but it’s a while before we have enough of it to enable us first to stand upright, then to walk, to run, to jump, etc. 
It's nothing to do with muscular mass. It's to do with strength. A baby lacks the strength in the muscles of the neck to pull their head forward unaided. 

Once able to stand upright, the wonderment of balance happens. Make a voluntary movement such as the lifting of an arm, and just imagine all the calculus that would be required to determine the compensation needed due to the unbalancing just provoked and all necessary muscular reactions involved to compensate it... The body is continuously keeping its "balance status" information updated in a process that still today makes any computer green with envy. 
It's not that complicated, but anyway........ 

This then results in a miraculous myriad combination of contracting and distending of muscle that makes us continue upright. 
Some of your regulars may be unfamiliar with the concept of walking upright. They should take special note 

All involuntary, all instinctive. Nothing short of amazing is what a living human body is able to achieve millions of times a day. 
Er no. You are talking about skeletal muscles, the muscles used for movement. Nothing involuntary about that, or instinctive. Although rumours that you are unable to walk and chew gum at the same time are very unkind, even if true.  

But loose the structure, by breaking a leg, or loose the balance, through excessive intake of alcohol, and what happens? Pray the ground is soft. 
If you break a leg, that's skeletal. If you hit the sauce, it's neurological. Neither make your muscles fly off. 

Ask, if you enjoy being cruel, any athlete to stand up after he’s pulled a leg muscle. No structure, no balance, no muscle… and verticality is mission impossible. 
Bullshit. It'll just hurt, is all. He's not going to flop about like Helenmeg in a mud wrestling contest 

It’s clear the effect of death on structure: unless death occurs as consequence of body damage, it’s none. It’s also clear the effect of death on balance. Any which way one goes, balance is gone. But what is the effect of death on the muscle mass? 
Okay, let's stop there. 

There is no immediate effect on the muscle mass.

Once stopped being oxygenated, the muscles close shop. That simple. 
The muscles are no longer being supplied with oxygenated blood. The tissue starts to die. The muscles do not, however, suddenly start flinging themselves about with gay abandon, leaving a svelte corpse minus the six-pack they had in life 

When you’re unconscious, asleep, sedated or anesthetized, the blood irrigation continues. When you’re dead, it stops. 
Seriously, can we get you on Mastermind. Name: Textusa. Specialist subject: The bleeding obvious. 

So the muscle mass, that had helped or even been essential to the verticality of the human being, now produces the OPPOSITE effect. Not only doesn’t the muscle mass help, as it contributes, due to its natural weight, to make the body become even a greater victim of gravity. 
What bullshit. I really could go on at length explaining the difference between mass and weight, but all you really need to know is that the muscle mass is unchanged, the effect of gravity is unchanged, unless you were planning on jettisoning it into space or strapping it to the Mars Lander, but inertia certainly becomes an issue as the body can no longer move itself.

Anyone who wants a lesson on the difference between weight and mass come and see me afterwards 

To understand, just go to your local butcher and pick up a boneless piece of meat. It will just droop on your hand. But that same piece of meat, when it was alive and irrigated, was an energized muscle filled with strength. 
That's because it was still attached to the cow, you fucking idiot. 

It alone moved mass, lifted a leg, shook a head, or even made a whole body jump, but now it needs the same bone it mastered to keep the memory “alive”of the shape it once had. 
If a sirloin steak starts running about a field, eating grass and hurdling fences then you have real problems 

So, as Lili Caneças so rightfully said, and only the ignorant scorned, to be dead IS the OPPOSITE of being alive. 
Fuck me. All that to basically get to ''Dead things can't move'' 

 In a dead body, as all muscle has now become useless and soft, all of it would just drop off the body, by gravity, were it not for the ligaments tying them to the bones and for the skin that still maintains their shape.
This really is absolute cobblers. Seriously, in the late 19th century when you went to school, did you do any dissection? Did you do any science at all?

A dead body does not suddenly slough off all it's musculature. And they are NOT tied to the bones with ligaments! Jesus. 

They say it takes 60 muscles to make a frown and only 30 to smile. Add, say, 10 that don’t either smile or frown and subtract 20 that do both, you end up, when the body is dead, with 50 face muscles that are doing something other than you’re used to see them doing: just drooping. 
Are you reading this out from something that fell from a Christmas cracker? I have never heard such nonsense in all my life. 

A question, Textusa. What do those muscles do when you are asleep? Droop, perhaps, so you can attractively drool all over your beloved, or even Fred? 

That’s why the face of someone who has passed away, although resembling the person we remember alive, looks completely different. A dead person just looks dead. Not asleep, not drugged. Stone cold dead. 
No it doesn't. 

A drowsy, sleeping or a sedated body is not to be confused with a dead one. 
Why? Because it's doing the Gay Gordons with those special gravity-defying muscles it has?

The first are alive, maintain muscle control. This may be diminished, in different degrees, by the received stimuli in the brain.
A recently dead body looks just like an actually alive body, unless of course it has a vital organ  - like a brain - missing, or a gaping wound where the chest used to be. Of course if you watch for a while you will notice the lack of breathing. I always find that's a big give away.
It’s easy to understand that the further we are into unconsciousness, the less information is passed on to the brain. 
I assume you were deeply unconscious when you wrote this, then....... 

Proportionally, the head is the heaviest part of our body.
Not in your case 
Our neck muscles do miracles every single day of our lives. 
They do what nature designed them to do 

We’re all familiar with the comical head nodding of someone who, sitting, starts to fall asleep. In this instance, the nerves supposed to inform the brain that the neck muscles are straining, delay somewhat this transmission. This makes pain accumulate up to a point where the brain receives all this information at once and reacts accordingly, usually with an exaggerated upward snapping of the head. This immediately alleviates the pain, and so the head due to its weight, drops, restarting the muscle straining. The next cycle is shortened because the “pain” starting point of the muscles is already elevated, so the brain response is earlier…. 
What the fuck are you on about? What ''pain''?

Unless you have prepared the area so that a nodding head plunges into glass shards or glowing embers, the stimulus isn't pain. It's ''Oh shit, I'm falling asleep''

Your readers must know this more than most 

This demonstrates, that although reacting slowly the brain maintains full control of the muscles of the body.
No it doesn't. When you are asleep your brain is not waving your legs about, is it? 

That’s the reason why a child adapts its head on the shoulder of an adult when full asleep, either by turning it or finding a more comfortable position. 
It's just getting comfortable 

Under sedation, the body reacts similarly as in sleep, the main difference is that it’s temporarily is unable to wake up, whilst, when sleeping, if the pain is too great, one does wake up. 
This is entirely dependent on the level of sedation 

In a dead body, trying to keep the head vertical is like trying to balance a pumpkin on top of a straw. The only support it has is the linkage between the spine and the skull, no structural help from the muscles. So the commonly seen “backward flopping” of the head in a dead human, or humanoid, body like in the picture below, when a gorilla holds her dead baby in front of her
A dead baby that never developed the strength in the neck muscles anyway, in all likelihood

And what makes you think a person under heavy sedation, unconscious or comatose is any different? You think they can control their head? Those are voluntary muscles, dingbat. 
Family reunions were always an emotional time for Textusa
A perfect example of this lack of muscular support of the neck to the head is a newborn baby. 

The structure is there, and the balance is irrelevant at this stage. What is lacking in muscle strength. If it’s not EXTERNALLY supported, it falls. Just like the head of a corpse. 
Or an unconscious adult 

Just another reminder of the cycle of life, we end as we’ve begun. 
No we don't. 

This post, as I said, was just for you to differentiate, physically, between being dead and being alive. Not spoken about the "The Stroller", that will come in later posts. 
Oh fuck 

But now you can understand at least one argument in proving that the carried girl was alive. Would "The Stroller" risk walking approximately 500 metres, and back, with a newborn’s uncontroled wobbling head on his shoulder? 
It wasn't a newborn. And any deeply asleep child will be exactly the same 

And head for a stairs?  

None of the three Smith witnesses stated that he was holding the child’s head:
So? One would not need to, unless the route home had involved running rapidly backwards and forwards, or perhaps a spot of ice skating.  
Textusa carried Fred junior with care - one false move and his muscles could all fly off.
 
THAT is something that would be noticed.

As would anyone carrying a corpse, apparently, as according to you at the moment they die all their muscles fly off and detach from the skeleton, leaving them as, essentially, a person-shaped bag of goo.

Idiot. 

Monday, 22 June 2015

All Our Loonydays

Well, friends and demented followers of Textusa, it's all gone a bit quiet.

Textusa is pretending to be on holiday, although we all know in reality she is compulsively googling Cadaverine like a wanking chimp.

So I thought it might be fun - for me, anyway - to have a look at an older post about which I have yet to write. I thought I would start with this one, for no particular reason other than the sheer ball-shrivelling silliness of the whole thing.

Enjoy!

Tapas Quiz Night, Question #3/?

Textusa's followers wish she would get the fuck on with it


QUESTION: Was it boring to work at the Tapas Bar?

ANSWER: Yes, it must have been, particularly if you were responsible for the bookings.
Oh I don't know. Loudmouthed Brits shouting ''Another 4 bottles of red, Pedro, and get a move on, I've got a kid to check'' must have livened up proceedings considerably 

This last weekend we were invited for lunch by another couple to go to a somewhat fancy and busy restaurant, one where you best book before, or wait for a while until you get to have a table.
Christ, they are getting very fussy in the Twilight Home for the Criminally Insane, aren't they? 

My friend had booked a table for the four of us.
Yes, I always find that booking a table for the correct number of diners is a huge help. Well done that friend. (gripping stuff, isn't it?) 

You may guess by now that as soon as we were greeted by the Host, my eyes were glued to thereservation book.
Of course they were 

It was a plain, unmarked, agenda, A4 size, a day per page, bought at any stationery shop, that was opened on the page of the day we were in.
Well, bugger me. That's amazing. Fancy that. Would you Adam and Eve it? Open on the correct date, you say? Clearly, these people are on the ball. 

The information on it was simple, plain and efficient, in other words, to the point.
And why not? 

There were two sets of information on the day’s page.

One, for those like us, who had booked in time and had a table assigned, and the other for those who had tried to book but didn’t have a table or had just arrived and were willing to wait.
Never! Two sets of information? Isn't technology wonderful? 

For the first set, the information was made up of the customer’s surname, the number of people in total and his/her contact, and, lastly, a number which I presumed was there to indicate the table’s number.
Is that it? No blood group, no emergency number to call in the event of abduction, no secret code for the Holy Grail?  

For the second set there was only the customer’s surname and the total number of people that wished to be seated.
Jesus, really? Well, you just can't get the staff nowadays 

All the names of each one of the sets were written in separate lines, leaving none in-between. However the two sets were separated by two or three lines left blank.
At any point did the Maitre d' say ''Excuse me madam, would you kindly get your enormous conk out of my diary, you nosey bitch'' ?  

The Host checked my friends name and to which table we were assigned to, and neatly proceeded to draw a line across my friend’s "line". Noticed that two thirds of the names on the page had already been “lined” across, and looking around the room, the number of filled up tables conferred with that fact.
Fascinating *yawn* 

The Host then accompanied the four of us to a table where he withdrew the “reservado” that had been put on it for us, and helped me and my lady friend to sit down. Nice to be treated that way, even if it’s the gentleman’s job to do so…
Helped them to sit down, tightened the straps, replaced the knives and forks with a blunt spoon...... 

We had our lunch, delicious and totally unhealthy, and half way through it I decided to go and powder my nose.
For those who don't know, ''Powder my nose'' is twee lady crap for ''I needed a wee'' 

As per the first international rule of womankind, never written but always complied, a lady never goes alone to the washing room, so headed that way with friend, letting the hubbies alone so they could to pay us the so ever deserved compliments behind our backs.
Poor Fred, a man condemned to a life with that loon  

By “coincidence” on the way back we passed by the Host, and I took the opportunity to congratulate him on the elegance of the place and told him that I had noticed that they had only had reservations for lunch, so asked him if they didn’t take any for dinner.
As you do..... 

He answered that it was more critical for lunches on the weekends, and that for both dinner and lunches during the week, the bookings were mostly made in order to have a specific table, than for the need to have "a table".

In any case, they used two separate books, one for lunch, the other, which he pulled for beneath the counter and showed me, for dinner.
How utterly fascinating  

My friend really felt pleased that her husband's choice of restaurant had pleased me so much that I was considering having sometime dinner there.

But, you ask, what has all this to do with being boring, or not, to work at Tapas Bar?
You were letting us experience true boredom?  

Remember that Textusa’s Tapas Quiz Night (TTQN) revolves EXCLUSIVELY around the “Tapas Bar Sheets” (TBS) that some have had the audacity to call it “Tapas Bar Reservation Sheets”.
The bastards 

So the answer to the question is quite simple:

Yes, it must have been terribly BORING to work at Tapas Bar, because at least whoever was responsible for the “reservations” had to have some free time in excess, so that had had the time to draw a FLOWER on what is supposed to be the Reservation Book of the restaurant:
So that's what this is about; a flower. Okay  
This was no ordinary doodle. It was a Black Ops doodle, put there by the government black hats. Or something. 


These types of scribbles/drawings (they may flowers, geometric figures or random lines) are done when one of the following occurs:

- one is talking on the phone (not applicable to Tapas Bar reservations as you’ll see), and although listening to the conversation draws these things on the nearest piece of paper, as if to keep the body busy while the mind is concentrated on something else,

- one is in a meeting, BORED, or not that concentrated on the subject at hand, and distracts oneself with these kind of scribbles,

- one is BORED, say, at the reception, and draws these things to help to pass the time.

So, it must have to have been really, REALLY, boring for the person that worked at Tapas Bar as responsible for bookings, so much so that at some point there was nothing better to do with the time than to draw a FLOWER on one of the “Tapas Bar Sheets”
Well, thank you Dr Freud. 

So people doodle. This is hardly brand new information. So what the fuck are you on about? 

But is it really so?

I tried, in the first part of the post, to describe what a Reservation Book really is all about.

Noticed how much the Host actually handled the book? Just in the exact measure of need.
So your sample size for the sake of comparison is, er, one

It's not a huge study, is it? 

A book like that is to get information and to discharge it. A rather “blunt” and “to-the-point” kind of book. 

Simple and straightforward.

It’s not a book to take messages, nor for one to go dwindling about it. Get the information, write it down. Use the information, discharge it. Simple, plain and OBJECTIVE.

None of the reasons described above to scribble seem apply to the handling of any Restaurant Booking Book. As we’ve seen their use is quite precise.
It is precisely the kind of thing people doodle in, you mad old bat.  

Remember, you had to queue, from 11 a.m., (instead of going straight to the beach with the family or friends) just to get a table at Tapas for dinner. It certainly doesn’t make sense to be able to book by phone, otherwise that would be an unacceptable advantage over those that were delaying the trip to the beach just to guarantee a table for dinner. Completely unfair, and would be protested.

So, whoever was responsible for writing down all the booking information, as correctly and accurately as it should be, was, or should have been, COMPLETELY focused on whatever s/he was writing. Not scribbling flowers.
Well, perhaps you could declare a fatwa, or have them executed, for daring to stray from your norms. I mean, it must be suspicious, yes?  

But, say you, it could be that when all the people that had queue up had done their respective booking, couldn't the person (whoever it may be, because we’re never told who it might have been) responsible for the booking just go and sit on one of the nearby tables and patiently wait for possible reservation latecomers, and then, there and there, draw such a lovely flower?
What the actual fuck are you wittering on about? 

First, talk about being over-staffed.

Second, if that were so, why the need for a queue?

Third, from the TBSs themselves we can see that the demand wasn’t that great so if there was so much free time (because we’re dedicating a person exclusively to this task and customers were not responding as expected albeit the “queue”) why draw only one flower?
What the buggering bollocks is a ''TBS'' ? 

Wouldn’t be natural for the sheet to be filled up with them?

So now you are complaining that there aren't enough flowers? Make your fucking mind up 

And please don’t go and say that the person didn’t draw more just to keep the sheets tidy… ONE or MANY flowers, have the exact same unprofessional, untidy effect on any working paper…
Oh, right-o 

And to say that the person decided that day to make the page a little prettier than usual, is forgetting that that object, the reservation book, is for internal use, and not to please customers nor to impress the boss with artistic initiatives. Also do read further on about " coincidence".
It's a fucking doodle. Get over it. 

The only possible LOGIC reason for that flower to be there would have been for a customer, when it came his turn on the queue to reach the “Reservation Desk”, to not know what exactly he wanted to book and start a conversation with whomever s/he would have been with about what they wanted effectively, and the “host/ess” would be patiently waiting for the outcome while drawing away…
It's a fucking doodle 

But although the only logic possibility, is it REALLY logic?
It does not require logic. It's a doodled picture of a flower, Get a grip, loonypants. 

Just imagine how the remainder customers in the queue react to such behavior from such a customer. I know what I would do and say, but that's silly old me.
They would probably have a discussion about it and decide there were no tapas dinners 

So why on earth was that flower drawn up?
It's a fucking doodle. 

I think the clues to this mystery lie on two factors: date and handwriting.
Of course you do

First, the date. Notice how the flower is drawn up on what one has to call “Universal Coincidence Day”, May 3rd, 2007. The day when every possible coincidence that could happen, just happened, by coincidence. The flower is just one other.
Oh right. So now the flower is a secret cipher meaning ''The child will disappear tonight. Bring the car round, Alphonso''  

Second, the handwriting. Notice the different slant between the handwriting on the TBSs of May 1st and2nd, and the one that is on the 3rd. This tells me that if it wasn’t done by a different person, at least it was done in a different time, and we’re beyond saying that they were done on the dates they were supposed to have been done.
Nope, it's clearly the same hand 


This change in handwriting tells us that the May 3rd TBS was REDONE 
No it doesn't. And there is no change in handwriting evident.  TBS - Tapas Booking Sheet. Phew, I would never have slept 

Probably more than once. 
Bullshit.

By the way, the handwriting is so fascinating that it merits a TTQN of its own later on the contest.
I don't want to fucking know. 

The flower tells us that it served to mark that particular sheet. The sheet that would be scrutinized. The sheet for the night Maddie was supposed to have been abducted.
So you are seriously claiming the flower was a secret signal? You are off your head, missus 

To make sure that the information on it would be the desired, and only the desired one.

Those pieces of paper probably went around many hands. For negotiation, for agreement, for confirmation, but also for “chickening” out.
Chickening out. Okay. Of what? Oh hang on, let me guess - the cover up. So it was planned days ahead? But that doesn't fit in with your retard theory,  dickhead.

The apparent fact that the TBS had to be redone indicates that people changed their minds some times while they were being crafted. The names that are there now, are there FOREVER, and nobody will ever know, at least for certain, which names were pulled out.
Ah - so they were given a choice, were they? Like signing up for an excursion.

''Sign here for the trip to the ruined chateau, here for the wine-tasting, here for the birdwatching boat trip and here to cover up the death of an infant. Have a nice day''. Of course, it all makes sense now.  

But, as I said, it might all be me just letting my imagination get the better of me.
You don't fucking say? 
After all, boredom is boredom, and it could have been terribly, terribly boring to have been the one chosen to take down the bookings for dinners at the Tapas Bar.
If it involved sitting in the baking heat with a pen, some paper and a conspiracy to arrange, I'm sure it was a right pain in the arse.

By the way, just to finish, isn’t a flower such a feminine thing to draw?
Yes indeed. Would have been much more interesting to draw a farting elephant. Your point is? 


Post Scriptum:
A reader has raised the possibility of the flower not being a flower but "someone attempting to doodle over something that was written and later decided they did not want others to be able to view what was originally written, hence the doodle". We, as always, will let the readers make their own judgment:
Yes, you are correct. Your reader is as fucked up as you are  
The Flower of death and conspiracy. Blooms only in the presence of a big round table