Translate

Friday, 11 September 2015

Because the Night, has a thousand lies..........


Well, dear friends, it had to happen eventually. Despite a petition to the EU and the emergency closure of all borders, she managed to get home.

Bugger.

Still, she celebrated by producing a blog of breathtaking stupidity, so for that we should all be grateful. I know I am.........

It is one of her more nauseating blogs, so I do recommend a strong anti-emetic before you begin. Or failing that, a bucket.

Be brave. We're going in........



Missing People

Textusa was getting very anxious - where the hell was the ladies?

BLUF: The Ocean Club booking sheets show there were more people present in the resort than the number shown added up to, more proof they were tampered with before being handed over to the PJ.
There is a prize for anyone who can work out what the fuck BLUF is supposed to stand for

Anyhoo, no, they weren't tampered with. Yes Textusa, you are still mad. 

I'll sum this up in a few words for you:

The sheets which were printed off list the guests and their number. At the end of each report there is also a series of totals. We have already seen that there is no obvious correlation with some of the totals, but seeing as it was merely a sheet to inform the staff who was staying where and with which holiday provider it makes no difference.

Sadly, that won't prevent her from rambling on about it for fucking days....... 



01. Introduction

Three times seems to be the right amount of times we break our summer breaks. We did so in 2014, and we did it again in 2015.
You are not the Prime Minister, returning home early to deal with the refugee crisis. You are a bored menopausal halfwit with nowt better to do 

For some reason the Portuguese say there's isn't a 2 without a 3.
Fascinating. Those long winter nights must just fly by.

This year we broke our breaks with our “Playful molecules”, “Sigh...” and “Dura Lex Sed Lex” posts.

On the second one, “Sigh...”, we felt the need to put a stop to the hysteria generated by a simple computer glitch.
Massive irony klaxon 




Jesus christ, woman; how do you keep a straight face?



We were successful in helping the commendable efforts of posters like Syn, Nuala and BlueBag to put a stop to all the silliness that was taking place. The subject very quickly dwindled away shortly after our post.

Did it bollocks. It rumbled on for weeks. No-one took a blind bit of notice of you, probably because they have no time for a pathologically deranged halfwit who has declared a fatwa on all large round tables 

But let's be very clear, the WBM/CEOP page thing was just pure and plain silliness.

We have in the past faced much worse clouds of clutter and have appropriately reacted to them by letting the soil naturally absorb their rain. The WBM/CEOP thunderstorm has passed and the sun has come back, so to make a mountain out of this molehill is to need a mountain of excuses when the real excuses (or reasons) ones are too inconvenient to admit or to be said publicly.
You literally have no irony receptors at all, do you? It's quite extraordinary


To use the molehill to make personal attacks is unbecoming but then again personal attacks are always demeaning to those who make them.
Oh dear - smarting because it was pointed out that you are a complete fucktard? Bless 

The positive side of the WBM/CEOP absolute silliness was that it made surface a series of individuals on both sides of the fence on this subject who passionately discussed it to its minutest technical details.

Only through genuine discussion can silliness be truly revealed and commonly understood as such. 
I'm just popping out for a refill canister for the irony klaxon - won't be a tic 

We then said how strange we found it that those same people had “forgot” or “overlooked” to discuss in depth the tampering of the Ocean Club's booking sheets, however silly our revelations could have been, and seemed perfectly content that all had been because of OCR (Optical Character Recognition), which is, honestly just a silly thing to say. And we went to the trouble of showing why it was silly to say it was all due to OCR.
They didn't forget or overlook it. They have completely ignored it because it's, as my old gran used to say, a steaming pile of shite, wank and bollocks. 

But the FACT these sheets were tampered with is far, far from being a silly thing and in our opinion does deserve a very serious discussion.
They were not tampered with. Let's get that quite clear. Claiming it repeatedly does not magically make it come true; it just makes you look as if you have Tourettes  

FACT is that we have shown VERY CLEARLY that they have been tampered with in our “Irrefutable proof” post.
No you haven't. As I showed in my 'whichever the fuck it was' post 
As we said, detractors said all was explained with OCR without explaining how such a sophisticated version of such software was able to recognise handwriting and doodles and and reproduce them digitally and then mumble up simple typed wording.
No they didn't 

FACT is that we have also shown in our “Definite proof” post that the Ocean Club computer didn’t add up correctly the different types of apartments (T1, T2, T3, T3F, T4, T3FP and T3FB) which it had listed.
And I showed that it made fuck all difference 

FACT is that also in our “Balance: unbalanced” post we showed how the reason some had given for Tapas to be handed these sheets was ridiculous as the listed balances, or “saldos”, were also not correctly added up by the computer.
Yes they were. 

Many, many FACTUAL mistakes supposedly made by a single computer with direct implications to the Maddie case.
Nope. And nope. For all your deranged rambles you never even attempted to show any relevance to Madeleine 
Strangely (or not) they weren't discussed anywhere while a more than evident computer glitch that erroneously dated a webpage deserved a heated and passionate discussion.
Not strange at all. Most people know you are off your rocker. 

These are FACTS.
No, they are not facts. Facts are statements which can be and have been demonstrated to be true. Repeatedly claiming a load of old shite does not magically turn it into the truth. 
And the FACT that apparently they don't adapt to the theories of some doesn't make them any less FACT. They exist, they need an explanation for existing.
You are a very silly woman.

You have no knowledge of or understanding of the table collated at the end of each daily report. As such, you cannot possibly determine why the columns do not total what you think they should.  


We have given ours. We wait for others to explain how these FACTS fit into their theories.
Better take a seat, then. No-one else is thick enough to attach any meaning or relevance to them

In the last paragraph of our “Sigh...” post we said “about the Ocean Club booking sheets, an instance where again the computer is blameless, we are not finished. We will be coming back to them with quite interesting finds. Of the reasonable kind, the kind people apparently prefer to pretend to ignore.”
No-one cares. No-one 'pretends to ignore'. They actually do ignore, because you are talking out of your massive flatulent arse. 


That said, today, we are going to show another FACT about these booking sheets:
No you're not 
how, not surprisingly, the number of people listed present was also incorrectly added up by the Ocean Club computer.
Oh noes! Really? *Yawn* 

The computer shows there were more people than the same computer says that there were.
The bastard. Er, hang on - the computer says there were more people than the computer says there were? The same computer? So the computer is always right. But it's also always wrong. It's all getting a bit existential, isn't it? 

Just like it happened with its adding up of apartment type and “saldos”. One computer in particular with a very serious mathematical disorder.
Okay - computers are just big calculators. Put shit in, get shit out.  

Now, dear friends, the best advice I can give you with respect to the next section is to glance over it the way you would glance over the "What's On in Leicester'' newsletter (basically a big piece of paper with ''Fuck All'' written on it) Just relax your eyes and let them drift gently on to the next red bit. Trust me, you won't be missing anything..........


02. Ref columns 

We will now look at how many people, on each of these days, are listed as having been there.

Data from SHEETS: this information is in two of the columns in the booking sheets: “Ad” (Adulto/Adult) and “Cr” (Crianças/Children) below in red and blue respectively:


Data from TABLE: at the end of each day, or group of 4 pages, the values of the columns above are supposedly added up by the computer and shown as per table below:
Are they?

Well that's strange. You see, there is no correlation at all between the list and the table. The columns do not correspond, and neither do the labels.  

For example - the list contains 14 columns

The report, however, contains 21 columns.

Only a handful of columns contain numerical data which could be totalled - the rest is information such as names and dates

There is no correlation between the majority of columns in the list and the report totals - for example, the list allocates 56 apartments with a T2 code - the report totals 151. Or possibly 67, which may refer to those occupied, Without more information, who knows?

This is not a spreadsheet with column totals. It is a list with a selected report at the bottom. 

There is only one quantity which correlates. The spend. 

The 'Saldo' column - yes, that's right, the one you earlier said was incorrect -  is absolutely spot on to the cent. Add up each total in the list and it matches the total on the report = 4180.80

The column headings for these in the summary tables are “Adu.” (Adulto/Adult) and “Cri.” (Crianças/Children).

So what? It's not the purpose of the report 


03. OCR (im)precisions

To those alleging that OCR (Optical Character Recognition) malfunction is solely responsible for the inconsistencies we have found in these booking sheets we would love an explanation to how fascinatingly selective this OCR program would have to have been to only confuse “0” (zero) with “O” (capital letter O) and never confuse any other number with any other letter.

For example in these 24 pages (615 to 638) it never confuses any “5” with a “S” nor any “8” or “3” with a “B”.

But then it's quite ridiculous to even think OCR  was present in the reproduction process as what sort of program would, as we have already said, recognise with amazing accuracy handwriting and doodles (according to our detractors) but then confuse typed letters and numbers, isn't it?

We all know that no OCR was involved in the reproduction of these pages.
So what? No-one has suggested that is the case with respect to the numerical values. It was suggested it could be a factor in the typos

To say otherwise is just to be silly or to try to hide the sun with a sieve as the Portuguese say.
So what?

Textusa has been so busy trying to find discrepancies that she has failed to see that the purpose of this report was there all the time. I have already pointed this out to her, but she's too fucking thick to take it on board

All the report needs to say is:
Who is in which accommodation? 
Which holiday company are they with?
How much do they owe us?




04. Adults and children same price?

Also interesting to note is that there's a family, the DUNFORDs, occupying an apartment but no one knows how many people were in this family:
Why is that interesting? Could be a simple error. Could be that they never arrived - plenty of people have to cancel because of illness or bereavement. What possible relevance does it have to Madeleine? 


We would think that the number of people occupying an apartment would be a field with a mandatory entry but apparently it wasn't the case in the Ocean Club that week in 2007.
So? 

For how many people was this family charged for and on what basis?
Mind your own business. 

The “sloppiness” with which these columns were supposed to have been filled is quite evident. When one is counting “adults” one must realise that one is not counting grown-ups but counting what the computer assumes to be adults because the receptionists frequently put adults and children together.
So what? As I have demonstrated, the list contained all the information the end user needed 

For example, we know that the McCanns were 2 adults and 3 children. For some inexplicable reason, the receptionist introduced the whole family as adults:
So what? That appears to be how most entries were made. Other reports listed everyone in detail, so why repeat it? 


For the Ocean Club computer Maddie, Sean and Amelie McCann are adults and are counted as such.
So what? That is consistent throughout the report

The fact they are children does not alter the mathematical operation taking place when queried. Asked how many adults were there in the McCann family the computer will always return the same value: 5
On that list, yes. And? 

One then must wonder what the children column was there for.
Who knows. Maybe they used to use it but no longer needed to. It's not important 

The receptionists, and there were quite a number of them, apparently couldn't care less in filling in or not the field of this column correctly when they just put the number of children together with the adults.
What do you know about it? They presumably filled in what they needed to fill in. I doubt they cared about the sensibilities of a deranged halfwit sitting at home making shit up. 

One would think those 2 columns, adults and children, existed to allow the computer to calculate the right amounts due as usually in hotels children pay less than adults but it seems that in the Ocean Club the prices for both were the same, which we note, is highly unusual in the industry.
Are you completely stupid? Oh yes, sorry, of course you are. For one, they did not book their holiday with the Ocean Club, but with the holiday company - Mark Warner or Thomas Cook. Secondly, you pay for package holidays before you go, not while you are there. Nothing on that report relates to how much they are paying, does it?  

Maddie, Sean and Amelie McCann were, apparently, to be charged as adults. 
Bullshit. These tables have nothing whatsoever to do with what they were paying for the holiday 


05. # ADULTS

As we said when one counts adults in these booking sheets one is in fact counting what the computer assumes to be adults.

As we showed, the McCanns were 2 adults and 3 children but the computer counts them as adults. In the end, when asked to count the number of adults present in a day, the computer will return a number of which 5 are the McCanns.
So what? It's perfectly clear that they just entered the total number of guests. Get over it.  

To simplify we have created a “database” blog, “Ocean Club Booking Sheets”, where we detail from where exactly on the booking sheets we have obtained the information and how we have reached the conclusions we have.
I wouldn't bother, dear readers, it's all shite 

a. Adults listed on pages 615 - 618:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 615 - 618”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 615 to 618:

As I have already pointed out, the report quantities do not correlate with the columns in the table. You are making the assumption that they should. 
Except the T4, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F, T3FP and T3FB) is added up correctly.

Note we are not counting the DUNFORDs, they would make the difference bigger.

72 of 328 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 21.95% of adults being disregarded. Or to put it in another way, there were more 28.13 % of adults than the 256 computer says there were. 

b. Adults listed on pages 619 - 622:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 619 - 622”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 619 to 622:


Except the T4 and T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F and T3FB) is added up correctly.

71 of 330 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 21.52% of adults being disregarded.  Or to put it in another way, there were more 27.41% of adults than the 259 computer says there were. 
So by now the penny should be dropping that what you are assuming is a total number of adults is actually not. Of course it will take a while, given that you are as dense as a meteorite, but that's okay, we'll wait........ 

c. Adults listed on pages 623 - 626:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 623 - 626”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 623 to 626:


Except the T4 and T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F and T3FB) is added up correctly.

74 of 355 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 20.85% of adults being disregarded. Or to put it in another way, there were more 26.33% of adults than the 281 computer says there were.
Penny still not dropped? Oh dear.......... 


d. Adults listed on pages 627 - 630:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 627 - 630”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 627 to 630:


Except the T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F, T4 and T3FB) is added up correctly.

82 of 368 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 22.28% of adults being disregarded. Or to put it in another way, there were more 28.67% of adults than the 286 computer says there were.
Oh dear. I always knew you were thick, but really......... 

e. Adults listed on pages 631 - 634:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 631 - 634”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 631 to 634:


Except the T4 and T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F and T3FB) is added up correctly.

79 of 350 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 22.57% of adults being disregarded.  Or to put it in another way, there were more 29.15% of adults than the 271 computer says there were.

f. Adults listed on pages 635 - 638:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 635 - 638”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 635 to 638:


Except the T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F, T4 and T3FB) is added up correctly.

86 of 360 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 23.89% of adults being disregarded. Or to put it in another way, there were more 31.39 % of adults than the 274 computer says there were.

g. Overall differences for # adults: 


On average, of the 348.50 adults listed daily, 77.33 (22.18%) of them were disregarded,

Also, and also on average, there were 28.51% more adults (please remember that there are children included in these numbers) listed than the 271.16 stated by the computer in the various totals tables.
Right - let's come to the next issue.

Your use of the word ''disregarded''

What is your justification for that? No-one has stated to you or anyone else that the table at the end of the report delivers a total for the adults staying, does it?

As we have already determined that there is a difference between the number of apartments coded as a T2 in the list, and listed as a T2 in the table, and that there is no correlation between the columns in the list and the columns in the table, why would you expect there to be a correlation between the number of adults in the list and the total number of adults in the table?

You have also completely ignored the columns which follow after the ones you have decided represent totals. One totals 77 - a figure close to the ''discrepancy'', incidentally. 

Because you don't know what those totals represent, you have no idea if some guests may be counted in more than one column, which looks perfectly possible.

You see what you have done is to assume. You have assumed that the total in the column labelled ''adu'' represents the sum of all the guests staying at the resort. Yet the fact that it does not correlate with the information above should tell you that this clearly isn't the case.

There is nothing wrong with the computer. It adds up the 'Saldos' column to the cent.

The problem lies solely with your interpretation of the tables at the end of each report, and the fact that you are thick. 


06. # CHILDREN

As we have said above, many children were registered as adults. This explains why of the 795 registries present in the Booking sheets, only 74 (just less than 10%) have children registered. 

We have already pointed out that the receptionists, and there were quite a number of them, couldn't care less filling in this field properly or not, as it seems as we noted that it apparently was standard procedure to put adults and children in the same field.
Is there really any need to be quite so offensive? ''Couldn't care less''?

It seems it was standard practice. Who the fuck are you to criticise them for it?

Plus, if it wasn't for the BALLINGERs one would be able to say that only families with only ONE child could have children put in computer as children.

If it wasn't for that 1 particular registry, we could almost state that this column only accepted “0” and “1” values.

Only BALLINGER has a “2”.

Of the 795 registries only 1 is a “2”, the BALLINGERs..

Of the 74 registries with children, 73 of them are “1”.

Fascinating. 
Why is it fascinating? The last time I was this fascinated was when I was stuck in a hospital waiting room with only a Stanley Gibbon's stamp album for company. I had to be revived twice.....

Like we did with the adults we will show here how and from where we got the information for pages 615 to 618. For pages 619 to 638 we will provide the respective links.
Why? What is the point endlessly repeating the same old shit? Is it because you hope your minions will gaze up at you, starry eyed and croon ''Oh Textusa, you are so clever''?

a. Children listed on pages 615 - 618:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 615 - 618”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 615 to 618:


This, as will be seen, will be the only day where the totals of # children between table and sheets differ, in the case by 1.

The subtotals for apartments T1 and T2 are not added up correctly.

b. Children listed on pages 619 - 622:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 619 - 622”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 619 to 622:


The subtotals for apartments T1 and T2 are not added up correctly.
By now it should be sinking into your deranged cranium that there are discrepancies evident in the way the apartments are coded. But why settle for that when you can weave a good conspiracy out of it? 

Now normally dear readers I would chop out the next pile of interminable wank, but this time I am going to leave it. You'll see why. Now, cover me - I am going in.......

c. Children listed on pages 623 - 626:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 623 - 626”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 623 to 626:

 
The subtotals for apartments T1 and T2 are not added up correctly.

d. Children listed on pages 627 - 630:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 627 - 630”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 627 to 630:


The subtotals for apartments T1 and T2 are not added up correctly.

e. Children listed on pages 631 - 634:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 631 - 634”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 631 to 634:


The subtotals for apartments T1, T2 and T3 are not added up correctly. 

f. Children listed on pages 635 - 638:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 635 - 638”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 635 to 638:


The subtotals for apartments T1, T3 and T3F are not added up correctly.

g. Overall differences for # children:


Although there's only the difference of 1 in the totals, the subtotals are wrongly added up with no plausible explanation whatsoever.


07. Consolidated data adults + children


On pages 615 - 618,  of the 337 people listed, 71 (21.07%) were disregarded, 26.69% more than the 266stated by the computer on page 618.

On pages 619 - 622, of the 340 people listed, 71 (20.88%) were disregarded, 26.39% more than the 269stated by the computer on page 622.

On pages 623 - 626,   of the 366 people listed, 74 (20.22%) were disregarded, 25.34% more than the 292stated by the computer on page 626.

On pages 627 - 630, of the 380 people listed, 82 (21.58%) were disregarded, 27.52% more than the 298stated by the computer on page 630.

On pages 631 - 634,  of the 365 people listed, 79 (21.64%) were disregarded, 27.62% more than the 286stated by the computer on page 634.

On pages 635 - 638,  of the 378 people listed, 86 (22.75%) were disregarded, 29.45% more than the 292stated by the computer on page 638.

The point of providing the data in a table is to save you presenting it as you have just done above - so why have you done both? Are you being paid by the inch? And what the fuck are the percentages for?

On average: of the 361 people listed daily, 77 (21.36%) were disregarded, 27.17% more than the 284 stated by the computer.
No, not disregarded. As we have established, the column you are treating as the total number of guests does not correlate with the totals on the list. We can also determine that there is nothing wrong with the computer's ability to add up, as the saldos column is correctly added.

Which means that the table does not say what you think it says 


This is FACT. 
No, Textusa. As ever, you start with an idea and try to make the information fit your theory. You should know by now that it never works.  


Textusa had been studying the data so long she had completely lost the ability to speak English, reverting to a Pedro-esque spanglish 

08. Conclusion

Clearly, very clearly, there was the intent to show that fewer people were present in Luz than there really were.
No there wasn't. In fact, the very suggestion is idiotic. The report lists each party by name, together with the number of guests. Are you suggesting that anyone perusing this would ignore that information and instead just rely upon the unlabelled table at the end of the report? That someone lowered the total, but left all the names on? That is like trying to hide an elephant by painting a camouflage pattern on his toenails

Only the willingly blind, AKA the intellectual dishonest, can after 4 posts (“Irrefutable proof”, “Definite proof”, “Balance: unbalanced” and this one) continue to say that all is due to a faulty character recognition software either when making copies of these lists to hand over to the authorities or by PJ when making the DVDs that were handed out.
No, this has nothing to do with that. The OCR may have accounted for some of the apparent typos, it has nothing whatsoever to do with your latest flight of fancy, lunatic. 

One also has to add to the blame of this amazing OCR version for the typed characters found among handwritten wording in the crèche sheets as shown in our “3 penguins in the desert” post.

We know people will always believe what they want to believe but now we would like to add to that that some will just keep on saying they believe in what they don't believe at all.

We know they don't and many others like us don't. We know that they are bound to say they believe in something when they don't.

A shamelessness we silently enjoy observing. And by we, we don't mean just the team.
What?! 

Okay  let's summarise

Each day a report was printed. That report detailed the guests by apartment, the number of guests in the party, and a running total of the extras charged to their bill. It was for use by the tapas restaurant, who would have all the information they needed. There is no legend to explain each of the data at the end of the report, so you cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from it

You have however decided that the resort ''disregarded'' a proportion of the guests each day. And clearly they did this prior to Madeleine disappearing, following what you claim was an ''accident'',  because at least two of these reports date from before she disappeared........  

So they named them all on the sheets, then didn't add them into the total?

And they did this before Madeleine disappeared

And you still maintain that this means they ''tampered with the sheets'' do you?

Tampered with them before Madeleine disappeared? Because there is the small matter of the date already being present. And the guest accumulated charges.

Maybe they sent someone up to fly around the sun very very fast and turn back time, eh?

We now hope that all those who say they lost all respect they ever had for us because we adamantly refused to discuss the technicalities of the WBM/CEOP computer glitch, will now rise up and show how indeed superior they are to us and discuss technically, to its minutest details, the discrepancies we have found and exposed in the booking and crèche sheets.
Well, I never had any respect for you, but as I have shown your discrepancies are bullshit 

Those with less technical capabilities we suggest they discuss why would the Ocean Club management want to convey the idea to the PJ that there were less people in Praia da Luz than really were there.
They didn't.

If you are seriously suggesting that handing over a report which listed 320+ people, but showed a lower total at the end was ''trying to convey there were fewer people there'' then you are even thicker than I think you are, and I already think you are thicker than the Berlin wall.

So let's see - how would that conversation have gone?

"Ah Inspector, I have those figures you wanted. As you see, the report shows that there were 250 guests here"

"Thank you, sweaty menopausal lady. But what is this - the total says 250 but there are 320 people listed here!"

"Oh Bolleaux"



And we're only counting those who appear on the sheets because the number probably is higher but impossible to calculate as we don't know how many had their names deleted from the sheets when they were tampered with.
Ah - so now you were saying they deleted the names from the sheet? 

But, you dozy cow, you are claiming there were MORE names than the total suggested. So which is it? Because you can't have it all ways. 

We won't hold our breath though waiting for the technical and non-technical discussions to happen. We'll just put on a smile that just says we know you've read us, you naughty, naughty you. 
You really do have an over-inflated sense of your own relevance, don't you?

I don't know if you understand this, but your posts are widely used to sort the wheat from the chaff. If they believe your nonsense it labels them as likely to be irredeemably stupid and not worth bothering with. 

About the number of “missing people” VERY significant conclusions can be made but we will speak of them about that in the future.
Oh I bet you will. Except they are not missing, are they? 

I'm missing out her postscript as it bored me into a coma

PS

A response has come flooding in, so I thought I would share it with you

Insane/Not Textusa has said this in his corner of the internet:

“I'll sum this up in a few words for you:

The sheets which were printed off list the guests and their number. At the end of each report there is also a series of totals. We have already seen that there is no obvious correlation with some of the totals, but seeing as it was merely a sheet to inform the staff who was staying where and with which holiday provider it makes no difference.”

And also says this:

“Well that's strange. You see, there is no correlation at all between the list and the table. The columns do not correspond, and neither do the labels.

For example - the list contains 14 columns

The report, however, contains 21 columns.

Only a handful of columns contain numerical data which could be totalled - the rest is information such as names and dates

There is no correlation between the majority of columns in the list and the report totals - for example, the list allocates 56 apartments with a T2 code - the report totals 151. Or possibly 67, which may refer to those occupied, Without more information, who knows?

This is not a spreadsheet with column totals. It is a list with a selected report at the bottom.

There is only one quantity which correlates. The spend.

The 'Saldo' column - yes, that's right, the one you earlier said was incorrect - is absolutely spot on to the cent. Add up each total in the list and it matches the total on the report = 4180.80”

No correlation at all between sheets and table. Let’s play a daily game and just fill out sheets with numbers and let the staff solve the riddle.
What riddle? Do you seriously think some waiter from the Tapas could be found late at night going over the reports and sobbing ''...but there are too many T1 apartments! My life is finished...." 

About the “saldos” or balances, we showed very clearly they were clearly tampered with:
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/05/balance-unbalanced.html
No you didn't 

The “saldos” were different from what stated in the sheets for apartment types to what each of these types of apartments added up to in the sum up table.
Because the apartment types are inaccurate 

Plus, in 3 of the 6 days in question, the full total was wrong.
Oh calamity 

About the apartment types not being correctly added up, Insane had this to say to explain why it happened:

“It should tell you that the totals are meaningless in terms of the conclusions you are attempting to draw. There cannot be more families than there are apartments in which to house them, but the fact that there are apparently more customers occupying a one bedroom apartment than there are one bed apartments, and fewer occupying a two bedroom apartment than the report lists should raise the possibility that some customers are EITHER WRONGLY CODED OR HAVE BEEN UPGRADED FROM A ONE BED TO A TWO BED, which is not uncommon especially out of the main season. The O'Briens for example are shown as occupying a T1, when they occupied a two bed apartment. SOME NUMBERS CORRELATE if you just count the ones on a Mark Warner holiday, BUT OTHERS DON'T, SO THAT ISN'T A FULL EXPLANATION.”

To this day we’re still holding our breath waiting for this FULL EXPLANATION
I don't give a tuppenny fart, dear. I'm not losing any sleep over it. You're the one who claims there is tampering afoot, whereas I couldn't give a shit 


4 comments:

  1. As always funny albeit particularly 'Kelmanesque' this week - will draw the usual disapproval from elsewhere

    However, having done my own independent column analysis I reckon both you and the fair lady have missed a far more subtle explanation

    Its actually a simple 'swingometer' measuring encounters

    The differences in row and column numbers - and any corresoponding differences in certain sum values - in part - reflect the often intricate interactions between various booking parties - across and with aforesaid parties (and individuals in each) !

    Calculations must also account for not only each encounter but also number of events per match (and - depending upon positional rearrangement - number of events per event); a form of secondary outcome in research speak - Gerry in particular understands that type of rigorous research methodolgy, which of course underpins evidence-based swing-scores

    I will spare you the rather complex mathematical algorithmic stuff - suffice to say - when read by the Swingtree Pro analysis suite - the numbers are readily translateable into usable form.

    Though I am uncertain as to what particular ultimate aim such values have - given the seemingly global nature of this circus..its quite possible that data is used to compile the International Swinger League Table...with those occupying top-slots from various regions qualifying for some form of 'Mondial de Swing'

    I could say more but...well... best left unsaid as I'm sure will you agree

    ReplyDelete
  2. Since this is all about swinging..... Anonymous hits the nail on the head..... 1+1=2 (even if it's 3 in the column numbers )
    But wasn't this about Maddie?
    Why do we always forget about this.....
    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Textusa knows it's nowt to do with swinging, but she nailed her knickers to that theory and can't get out of it.

      Delete

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.