Translate

Friday, 9 October 2015

Identity theft

Afternoon all

Well, Textusa hasn't graced us with a proper post this week, which is just as well, as I am still dredging my way through last week's turgid offering.

Instead, she has treated us to an account of her meeting with her fellow losers, complete with partially obscured pictures.

"Oooh Textusa, don't you look glamorous'' purr the optically-impaired minions.

"Oh it's not really us" simpers Textusa

So who is it, then?

Well it took me precisely two seconds to find out.


Definitely NOT Textusa, May I and the other one no-one can remember 

Roughly the same length of time it took Textusa to bin my posts on the subject

You see, according to Textusa :
''We consider that anything that is published publicly on the internet (that includes our work) is public and can be used publicly.''
Which would be lovely, were it true. Unfortunately for her, it isn't. Moreover, as the identities of the ladies in the photographs is very easy to discover, this could also be regarded as Identity Theft

So here they are. Oh, I have dropped them a line too, just to keep them 'in the picture'

*Chortle *

Postscript

Within a short time of Textusa publishing her post, I contacted her to ask whether she has sought permission to use the images above. She claimed she didn't require permission. She is wrong.
I told her it only takes two minutes to find the original
She refused to publish that post or others which followed

Instead, she made this claim:
Reason for censoring: It's no one's business who these women are and what they do.

In the posts they only represent smiling women. That's why we censored their faces. 

To find out who they are, one has to go significantly and intentionally out of one's way and try to guess what keywords we used to find these random pictures.

No, they don't. I told her that, but she refuses to listen. So I will show you how:

1) Place cursor on image
2) Right click
3) Scroll down to ''search google for image''
4) Wait for google to locate image

2 seconds was a bit generous, tbh. More like 1 second......




7 comments:

  1. The mystery of Madeleine, that is what it is. I am a normal person, with a normal job, but for some reason, after so many years I am still intrigued about this mystery.

    During this time, I have read both textusa and not textusa, a battle of wills is apparent.

    Sometimes simplicity overules complexity and vica versa, I fear in this case neither applies.

    There is evidence and opinions that point to certain scenarios, eliminate speculation and there the truth may lie.

    In my opinion this mystery will never be solved, it may be time, for me at least to let it go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Textusa borderline insane!

      Facts and fiction blog.

      But two things worry me,

      Child neglect and cadaver.

      Thoughts?

      Delete
    2. Well, not for a second do I believe the alerts were false or because of handler cueing. That would have to be some cueing to make 2 dogs alert in exactly the same spot, especially as the first one is out of sight when he alerts - so it would have to also involve ESP on the part of the dog!
      A single false alert would be one thing - but numerous false alerts I do not accept, and it is utterly contradicted by the results in controlled studies.

      The idea that the children were not left alone is preposterous. They clearly were, there are too many independent witness for this to be in doubt.

      Personally I do not believe this case will be solved unless someone talks or remains are found. If remains are found I believe they won't be far away - depending on how far the nearest landfill site is, in all likelihood.

      Delete
  2. 3) Scroll down to ''search google for image''

    Just thought I should point out that step 3 is only available if you're using Chrome. None of Internet Explorer, Firefox & Safari have it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that Andy.
      Chrome users now account for around 65% market share, apparently, way ahead of any other, so hopefully the majority will be able to see for themselves, but that's really useful to know. Cheers

      Delete
  3. Strange that it works for me on firefox.

    ReplyDelete

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.