Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
- Thread starter purplehaze
- Start date
sandrabrownma
Padawan Learner
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
I got lost in the fog of reading that. Years ago before I went to graduate school I worked for attorneys for a few years. As I was reading that I kept thinking, who wrote this? This is not written by an attorney. There were items discussed that read like a Harlequin romance novel crossed with an attempt at explaining victimology 101. Additionally, there was nothing the Plaintiff did wrong except have an affair (but was redeemed for having had it evidently by the courts in that document because of protecting the person she was having an affair with) yet everything the Defendant did was wrong. In fact, the court understood, was sympatheic towards her 'coerced' affair and even offered plausible reasons WHY she had the affair.
But by far the most telling was how the forensic psychological testing was referred to several times--which would never be discussed in that way with that language, was always only referred to as 'favorable' when referencing herself (which is not how forensics discuss their findings--LOL!) but suggested NPD for him with neurosis? Lots of details on his diagnosis and nothing much except repeated 'favorable' labels for her.
Hope forensic psychologists didn't spend too much time or too much money on their degrees when they could simply write 'favorable' and be done with it and saved themselves years of education.
I got lost in the fog of reading that. Years ago before I went to graduate school I worked for attorneys for a few years. As I was reading that I kept thinking, who wrote this? This is not written by an attorney. There were items discussed that read like a Harlequin romance novel crossed with an attempt at explaining victimology 101. Additionally, there was nothing the Plaintiff did wrong except have an affair (but was redeemed for having had it evidently by the courts in that document because of protecting the person she was having an affair with) yet everything the Defendant did was wrong. In fact, the court understood, was sympatheic towards her 'coerced' affair and even offered plausible reasons WHY she had the affair.
But by far the most telling was how the forensic psychological testing was referred to several times--which would never be discussed in that way with that language, was always only referred to as 'favorable' when referencing herself (which is not how forensics discuss their findings--LOL!) but suggested NPD for him with neurosis? Lots of details on his diagnosis and nothing much except repeated 'favorable' labels for her.
Hope forensic psychologists didn't spend too much time or too much money on their degrees when they could simply write 'favorable' and be done with it and saved themselves years of education.
sandrabrownma
Padawan Learner
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
In a previous posting I said Well in that case maybe Andy isn't the only one Barbara has that kind of relationship with--someone who either funds or helps her online goals might also be a partner in something or other....
I was referring to not the S&M thing but that Barbara and Mary have a sort of sadistic pathological parenting type of relationship. To support and please Barbara, Mary carries out Barbara's missions, even if the consequences to herself (and yet not directly for Barbara) are negative. Sort of the abused-child-loves-the-parent-anyway kind of dynamic. It's hard to explain otherwise why someone takes all the risk and hides the behavior of the original instigator. Smacks of Dr. Patrick Carnes Betrayal Bonding theory.
In a previous posting I said Well in that case maybe Andy isn't the only one Barbara has that kind of relationship with--someone who either funds or helps her online goals might also be a partner in something or other....
I was referring to not the S&M thing but that Barbara and Mary have a sort of sadistic pathological parenting type of relationship. To support and please Barbara, Mary carries out Barbara's missions, even if the consequences to herself (and yet not directly for Barbara) are negative. Sort of the abused-child-loves-the-parent-anyway kind of dynamic. It's hard to explain otherwise why someone takes all the risk and hides the behavior of the original instigator. Smacks of Dr. Patrick Carnes Betrayal Bonding theory.
Guardian
The Cosmic Force
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
Sure explains a lot. You truly do NOT want to know what I'm learning about the NY/North East SM/BD communities. I will say that those I've been studying are adults, exercising their free will, and I do support that...but dammmnnnnnnn.
"Pain BAD" is not the rule, and they're piercing body parts I don't even want to get cold. It's a whole different world, but if the theory is correct, Barbara will have pulled her usual routine on one (or more) of their forums too.
Oh, and I got a great contact for custom sewn silk clothing. :)
sandrabrownma said:
Sure explains a lot. You truly do NOT want to know what I'm learning about the NY/North East SM/BD communities. I will say that those I've been studying are adults, exercising their free will, and I do support that...but dammmnnnnnnn.
"Pain BAD" is not the rule, and they're piercing body parts I don't even want to get cold. It's a whole different world, but if the theory is correct, Barbara will have pulled her usual routine on one (or more) of their forums too.
Oh, and I got a great contact for custom sewn silk clothing. :)
Guardian
The Cosmic Force
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
I just saw a comment Mary left on your blog, that's yet another example of how delusional she is, or how stupid she thinks we are?
I googled both Kim Stewart and Kimberly Stewart, and there is NOTHING about you on the first page of results, or the second, or the third, or the forth...and then I got bored of reading about Rod Stewart's daughter and her new baby.
Once again, Mary's lies are soooo easy to disprove.
kim stewart - About 164,000,000 results
kimberly stewart - About 13,400,000 results
Once again though, I have to admit, I did chuckle at "Goongoddess"
Briseis said:
I just saw a comment Mary left on your blog, that's yet another example of how delusional she is, or how stupid she thinks we are?
I googled both Kim Stewart and Kimberly Stewart, and there is NOTHING about you on the first page of results, or the second, or the third, or the forth...and then I got bored of reading about Rod Stewart's daughter and her new baby.
Once again, Mary's lies are soooo easy to disprove.
kim stewart - About 164,000,000 results
kimberly stewart - About 13,400,000 results
Once again though, I have to admit, I did chuckle at "Goongoddess"
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
You gotta google "Kim Stewart Tumwater" to get the five or six results before you start seeing the Kim Stewart who graduated from Tumwater High School in whenever and then Rod's daughter.
Every single one of those sites were authored by Mary.
She's on Installment Number Nine on Kim Stewart/Bink/Briseis/Goosemama on her san dra and hollywood co ckroach blogs. If you want to dip your toe into how Mary perceives reality, they are good examples. She does deliberately spin stuff, but she also just plain writes it out as she plainly sees it.
I've commented to her a couple of times, when I just refused to stop myself, to point out (uselessly) that the way she processes the information for her "expose's" reveals much that she wouldn't want revealed about her mental state.
You gotta google "Kim Stewart Tumwater" to get the five or six results before you start seeing the Kim Stewart who graduated from Tumwater High School in whenever and then Rod's daughter.
Every single one of those sites were authored by Mary.
She's on Installment Number Nine on Kim Stewart/Bink/Briseis/Goosemama on her san dra and hollywood co ckroach blogs. If you want to dip your toe into how Mary perceives reality, they are good examples. She does deliberately spin stuff, but she also just plain writes it out as she plainly sees it.
I've commented to her a couple of times, when I just refused to stop myself, to point out (uselessly) that the way she processes the information for her "expose's" reveals much that she wouldn't want revealed about her mental state.
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
I saw what you point out too, though never had experience with these kinds of documents other than when I went over them with my lawyer to divorce the ex.
Can you imagine the look on the judges face when he had to read that crap? I wonder if he even read all of it, tossed it off to his assistant to glean any possible important points. I'm referring to the two Quash requests.
I've read a LOT of Barb Camwell Ness's own personal writing, and her style is very particular. Her "important points" she underlines and puts in italics are the same "important points" she bangs on over and over again. I think I could pick out her writing style in a blind test. Barb can't NOT tout her disabled status, her Mosby's dictionary of medical diagnoses that result in her disability, and her "emotional affair" which debilitated her further . . . even when she was a member of Trubb les Catbox, her posts more often than not included suffering from a disease symptom, or being abused because she was too weak or in pain to get out of bed. She seems to draw sustenance from the victim role. It's integral with who she is and what she wants known about herself.
sandrabrownma said:
I saw what you point out too, though never had experience with these kinds of documents other than when I went over them with my lawyer to divorce the ex.
Can you imagine the look on the judges face when he had to read that crap? I wonder if he even read all of it, tossed it off to his assistant to glean any possible important points. I'm referring to the two Quash requests.
I've read a LOT of Barb Camwell Ness's own personal writing, and her style is very particular. Her "important points" she underlines and puts in italics are the same "important points" she bangs on over and over again. I think I could pick out her writing style in a blind test. Barb can't NOT tout her disabled status, her Mosby's dictionary of medical diagnoses that result in her disability, and her "emotional affair" which debilitated her further . . . even when she was a member of Trubb les Catbox, her posts more often than not included suffering from a disease symptom, or being abused because she was too weak or in pain to get out of bed. She seems to draw sustenance from the victim role. It's integral with who she is and what she wants known about herself.
Guardian
The Cosmic Force
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
So at worst, if someone from your old High School looks you up, they might see Mary's pages, and not invite you to the Tumwater High School Reunion? This is supposed to be a bad thing?
I'm guessing Mary has never been to a High School reunion?
Briseis said:
So at worst, if someone from your old High School looks you up, they might see Mary's pages, and not invite you to the Tumwater High School Reunion? This is supposed to be a bad thing?
I'm guessing Mary has never been to a High School reunion?
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
I guess I'm sure enough that if someone who knows who I am but doesn't know me well, and reads Mary's blogs, that Mary's crazy will outshine all else. I hope anyway. If a person is prone to read and believe that kind of invective, then they are they type to say or write it about someone else, and even if they are a potential new boss, I wouldn't want to work for a person like that.
Potential employers are my "at worst" case scenario, although I plan to stay where I am until I throw my back out for good :D and have to get a desk job. So my worst case scenario is already "handled", sorta. Mary has not managed to make an impression on my current employer after twice trying. The folks I've surrounded myself with, who's opinion of me matters, are not the type to change their mind about me because of a nutjob's defamo blogs. I think Mary knows deep down that this is a little "war" between me and her only. I have friends from the support network who do read my blog and know of Mary, but I tell them unless they want the same kind of attention, stay out. Laugh with me about it, but don't put yourself in her line of fire.
As with reading Barb Camwell Ness's dream documents, Mary's daily verbal diarrhea gives insight into how pathological people tick. It's a subject who's fascination hasn't let up once for the last five years.
@Gimpy: bless you, you ask why I read BCN's stuff if it hurts me so much :) If it hurt me, I wouldn't be reading it. I mean, caused me direct "damage". I can see how it COULD, and so I do wonder if there's the possibility of focusing on the negative. I'm an oncology nurse, and have to be careful to manage the extreme sadness my job can cause, and probably (I haven't thought this through til you mentioned it) I do a similar thing when I find out something new about BCN. I have a little farm, I love the critters, I do rescue ducks and geese about to be eaten from Craigslist, I love to write and research my interests on the internet, have a bunch of artistic hobbies that I enjoy.
SOMEONE has to be willing and able to face the 'paths and do what needs doin' about them. Can't say the American Psychological Association or shrinks or the criminal justice system is able to handle ALL of the manifestations of these creeps in folks' daily life.
Guardian said:Briseis said:
So at worst, if someone from your old High School looks you up, they might see Mary's pages, and not invite you to the Tumwater High School Reunion? This is supposed to be a bad thing?
I'm guessing Mary has never been to a High School reunion?
I guess I'm sure enough that if someone who knows who I am but doesn't know me well, and reads Mary's blogs, that Mary's crazy will outshine all else. I hope anyway. If a person is prone to read and believe that kind of invective, then they are they type to say or write it about someone else, and even if they are a potential new boss, I wouldn't want to work for a person like that.
Potential employers are my "at worst" case scenario, although I plan to stay where I am until I throw my back out for good :D and have to get a desk job. So my worst case scenario is already "handled", sorta. Mary has not managed to make an impression on my current employer after twice trying. The folks I've surrounded myself with, who's opinion of me matters, are not the type to change their mind about me because of a nutjob's defamo blogs. I think Mary knows deep down that this is a little "war" between me and her only. I have friends from the support network who do read my blog and know of Mary, but I tell them unless they want the same kind of attention, stay out. Laugh with me about it, but don't put yourself in her line of fire.
As with reading Barb Camwell Ness's dream documents, Mary's daily verbal diarrhea gives insight into how pathological people tick. It's a subject who's fascination hasn't let up once for the last five years.
@Gimpy: bless you, you ask why I read BCN's stuff if it hurts me so much :) If it hurt me, I wouldn't be reading it. I mean, caused me direct "damage". I can see how it COULD, and so I do wonder if there's the possibility of focusing on the negative. I'm an oncology nurse, and have to be careful to manage the extreme sadness my job can cause, and probably (I haven't thought this through til you mentioned it) I do a similar thing when I find out something new about BCN. I have a little farm, I love the critters, I do rescue ducks and geese about to be eaten from Craigslist, I love to write and research my interests on the internet, have a bunch of artistic hobbies that I enjoy.
SOMEONE has to be willing and able to face the 'paths and do what needs doin' about them. Can't say the American Psychological Association or shrinks or the criminal justice system is able to handle ALL of the manifestations of these creeps in folks' daily life.
Gimpy
The Living Force
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
Kudo's to you for being able to wade through that much crap...I can't do it.
Good to know you've got healthy outlets...that makes a huge difference in dealing with all the idiots.
One of the goals of therapy in my case was to shed enough 'psychic armor' to develop transparency, to be able to share authentic feelings with other people. The cost of it was maintaining healthy boundaries with idiots and creeps. Past a certain point, in BCN's case it was four paragraphs, my inner BS detector states: "And you're reading this dreck...why?"
Part of what got me into the mess I'm currently in health wise was thinking that being an 'armor plated beech' would be enough to endure the machinations of people like BCN day in and day out. All it did was wreck my health and assist in turning me into a hermit by circumstance. Keeping that much armor made any healthy relationship almost impossible, so I got rid of it over the years. It also means I'll ask folks engaged in the job of exposing/dealing with idiots/creeps why they're bothering...in case its doing more damage than you think it is, so you can step back now and then to breathe. (Literally, without the EE program I'd be a Nutter again.)
Were I healthy, I'd be right beside you.
Kudo's to you for being able to wade through that much crap...I can't do it.
Good to know you've got healthy outlets...that makes a huge difference in dealing with all the idiots. One of the goals of therapy in my case was to shed enough 'psychic armor' to develop transparency, to be able to share authentic feelings with other people. The cost of it was maintaining healthy boundaries with idiots and creeps. Past a certain point, in BCN's case it was four paragraphs, my inner BS detector states: "And you're reading this dreck...why?"
Part of what got me into the mess I'm currently in health wise was thinking that being an 'armor plated beech' would be enough to endure the machinations of people like BCN day in and day out. All it did was wreck my health and assist in turning me into a hermit by circumstance.
Keeping that much armor made any healthy relationship almost impossible, so I got rid of it over the years. It also means I'll ask folks engaged in the job of exposing/dealing with idiots/creeps why they're bothering...in case its doing more damage than you think it is, so you can step back now and then to breathe. (Literally, without the EE program I'd be a Nutter again.)Were I healthy, I'd be right beside you.
sandrabrownma
Padawan Learner
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
I recently returned from a cyberstalking national conference that was aimed at the new legal approaches that are having success (as well as technical equipment and processes that were taught by cyber-techno organizations that provide support to law enforcement, FBI, etc.). It was encouraging to see what's happening with this issue.
I also recently got to meet one of the authors of the book GoogleBomb whose victim was awarded $11 million dollar judgment against her cyberstalker so we are seeing where these cases are turning.
Just like this one listed below that sounds identical to what Mary and Barbara do. No surprises because pathology always does the same thing but here again, another $1 million dollar judgment against the 'investigative reporter' (oh isnt that what Mary calls her self?). The tides are a-changing! Seems there is more to claiming to be an investigative reporter than cranking out 'blogs' which are not investigative with the language of a foul mouthed teenager.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/business/media/when-truth-survives-free-speech.html?_r=1&ref=davidcarr
I recently returned from a cyberstalking national conference that was aimed at the new legal approaches that are having success (as well as technical equipment and processes that were taught by cyber-techno organizations that provide support to law enforcement, FBI, etc.). It was encouraging to see what's happening with this issue.
I also recently got to meet one of the authors of the book GoogleBomb whose victim was awarded $11 million dollar judgment against her cyberstalker so we are seeing where these cases are turning.
Just like this one listed below that sounds identical to what Mary and Barbara do. No surprises because pathology always does the same thing but here again, another $1 million dollar judgment against the 'investigative reporter' (oh isnt that what Mary calls her self?). The tides are a-changing! Seems there is more to claiming to be an investigative reporter than cranking out 'blogs' which are not investigative with the language of a foul mouthed teenager.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/business/media/when-truth-survives-free-speech.html?_r=1&ref=davidcarr
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
When the judge reviewed the plaintiffs claims of defamation, he threw most of them out because he said the language and rhetoric were so over the top a reasonable reader wouldn't buy it. But one "accusation" was such that the judge did accept it, because it included "provable assertions of fact".
Whatever THAT is? Anyone have a definition of this for a non-legal person, in this context?
The article concludes with the author saying wistfully, "To bad there isn't an algorhythm for truth."
I'm pretty sure there IS an algorhythm for truth, the problem is using it ain't near as fun as dirt, conspiracy and intruige.
When the judge reviewed the plaintiffs claims of defamation, he threw most of them out because he said the language and rhetoric were so over the top a reasonable reader wouldn't buy it. But one "accusation" was such that the judge did accept it, because it included "provable assertions of fact".
Whatever THAT is? Anyone have a definition of this for a non-legal person, in this context?
The article concludes with the author saying wistfully, "To bad there isn't an algorhythm for truth."
I'm pretty sure there IS an algorhythm for truth, the problem is using it ain't near as fun as dirt, conspiracy and intruige.
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
So when Mary states on the blogs or defamo sites that I brag about stealing medications from patients at work, is that a statement of fact, or fiction? She uses my full name and the name of my employer on the defamo sites.
Guardian said:
So when Mary states on the blogs or defamo sites that I brag about stealing medications from patients at work, is that a statement of fact, or fiction? She uses my full name and the name of my employer on the defamo sites.
sandrabrownma
Padawan Learner
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
Yes, that even though most of the postings were the rantings of what appears to be mental illness, he still chose an entry and ruled on ONE entry of $1 million dollars. So, there is something to be had in any of the pages of madness--that there was still something he could rule on. I think that's important to note so while many of defamation blogs are a glaring billboard for mental illness, it's still not a loophole. The judge still found one page that was coherent enough to rule on.
The internet is still relatively new and law is still catching up. But the links I provided point to the fact that some of the loopholes of the past (ie, they are obviously mentally ill, 1st amendment covers everything, or the internet is to vast to police) are now being addressed in lawsuits, new technology that offers innovative ways of tracking and loopholes that are sewed up. So even mental illness or tyrannical blogging, (however you want to refer to it) has now met it's consequences.
I have not seen where any of these judgments have been low dollar amounts. They have really been going after them. Part of the pathology is the believe that nothing will ever happen to them...which is fine. These cases are proof that isn't true.
Yes, that even though most of the postings were the rantings of what appears to be mental illness, he still chose an entry and ruled on ONE entry of $1 million dollars. So, there is something to be had in any of the pages of madness--that there was still something he could rule on. I think that's important to note so while many of defamation blogs are a glaring billboard for mental illness, it's still not a loophole. The judge still found one page that was coherent enough to rule on.
The internet is still relatively new and law is still catching up. But the links I provided point to the fact that some of the loopholes of the past (ie, they are obviously mentally ill, 1st amendment covers everything, or the internet is to vast to police) are now being addressed in lawsuits, new technology that offers innovative ways of tracking and loopholes that are sewed up. So even mental illness or tyrannical blogging, (however you want to refer to it) has now met it's consequences.
I have not seen where any of these judgments have been low dollar amounts. They have really been going after them. Part of the pathology is the believe that nothing will ever happen to them...which is fine. These cases are proof that isn't true.