Question:
Given the duration of time of Linda’s outbursts, and the content, does anyone else question the competency and responsibility of Linda’s counsellor? He’s at least complicit in what is going on. Is he in anyway legally responsible, or subject to oversight? I think the question needs asking anyway. — Larry Hoover de-blob before using 
Response:
> I hope your court session went well. > Deborah
Thanks, Deb. Yesterday was meeting with the prosecutor to go over the evidence. The trial is in two weeks. Maybe. The investigating officer was so incompetent (she lied to me about what she was doing, leading me to believe that full investigation had transpired), that there may be grounds to dismiss the charges due to failure to disclose. At the least, the trial will likely be postponed. Even my original statement is missing. Larry
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Given the duration of time of Linda’s outbursts, and the content, does >anyone else question the competency and responsibility of Linda’s >counsellor? He’s at least complicit in what is going on. Is he in anyway >legally responsible, or subject to oversight? I think the question needs >asking anyway. >I don’t know, but if Robert will reply to this string, maybe Pablo >will see it, he’s pretty knowledgeable about these things, he may have >some insight. >I hope your court session went well. >Deborah
—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Given the duration of time of Linda’s outbursts, and the content, does >>anyone else question the competency and responsibility of Linda’s >>counsellor? He’s at least complicit in what is going on. Is he in anyway >>legally responsible, or subject to oversight? I think the question needs >>asking anyway. >I don’t know, but if Robert will reply to this string, maybe Pablo >will see it, he’s pretty knowledgeable about these things, he may have >some insight.
I know she says she is seeing a "Christian psychiatrist," although I don’t know the particulars of her therapy work, the frequency of sessions, etc. She has posted that her psychiatrist is helping her "to cease being fearful of becoming angry or expressing anger, and helping [her] be willing to be angry…and use this willingness to become angry to MANIPULATE other people" (in her words, including caps). Certainly, a therapist will try to help a client become more assertive if this is an issue in the client’s life. However, in my opinion, an ethical therapist would not encourage a client to engage in manipulation of others, although there are some wacky therapists out there. My bet (and I don’t use that term to trigger Linda!) is that she is misinterpreting what he has been saying to her. I also bet she hasn’t been telling him what sorts of things she’s been posting here. If he read some of her posts, I suspect he would be very concerned about her state of mental health. One could argue that when someone is learning how to be more assertive, some amount of "overkill" may result. While this may happen, it is certainly not a justification. People are still responsible for their own behavior. If her psychiatrist is aware of the exact nature of her posts and condones them, I would not only question his ethics, but I would also question his form of Christianity. If a mental health practitioner suspects that his client is a danger to self or to others, he is ethically and legally obligated to respond in some manner. The practitioner has a duty (a) to warn potential victims, (b) to protect others from potentially dangerous clients, and (c) to protect clients from themselves. Also, if the practitioner has reason to suspect that a client is emotionally or physically harming a child, the practitioner is required to report the situation to the authorities. Having said all this, I don’t know that Linda’s online behavior has risen to the level which would invoke the duties to warn/protect or the requirement to report child abuse. Notwithstanding the crap she has been posting, no one here is in imminent danger as the result of her actions, nor do her posts reflect any suicidal ideation. Of course, I worry about her child, but the fact that she types what she types does not necessarily reflect how she treats him (although it does make me wonder). Make no mistake about my thoughts on the matter: Her displacement of anger onto other posters here is reprehensible and ugly. In the end, it speaks volumes about who she is as a person. Granted, she may be in pain (although she may deny this), but allowing it to leak out onto others in such a deliberate, constant manner is indefensible. >I hope your court session went well.
Me too.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>Given the duration of time of Linda’s outbursts, and the content, does >>>>anyone else question the competency and responsibility of Linda’s >>>>counsellor? He’s at least complicit in what is going on. Is he in anyway >>>>legally responsible, or subject to oversight? I think the question needs >>>>asking anyway. >>>I don’t know, but if Robert will reply to this string, maybe Pablo >>>will see it, he’s pretty knowledgeable about these things, he may have >>>some insight. >I know she says she is seeing a "Christian psychiatrist," although I don’t >know the particulars of her therapy work, the frequency of sessions, etc. >She has posted that her psychiatrist is helping her "to cease being fearful >of becoming angry or expressing anger, and helping [her] be willing to be >angry…and use this willingness to become angry to MANIPULATE other people" >(in her words, including caps). >Certainly, a therapist will try to help a client become more assertive if >this is an issue in the client’s life. However, in my opinion, an ethical >therapist would not encourage a client to engage in manipulation of others, >although there are some wacky therapists out there. My bet (and I don’t use >that term to trigger Linda!) is that she is misinterpreting what he has been >saying to her. I also bet she hasn’t been telling him what sorts of things >she’s been posting here. If he read some of her posts, I suspect he would >be very concerned about her state of mental health. One could argue that >when someone is learning how to be more assertive, some amount of "overkill" >may result. While this may happen, it is certainly not a justification. >People are still responsible for their own behavior. >If her psychiatrist is aware of the exact nature of her posts and condones >them, I would not only question his ethics, but I would also question his >form of Christianity. >If a mental health practitioner suspects that his client is a danger to self >or to others, he is ethically and legally obligated to respond in some >manner. The practitioner has a duty (a) to warn potential victims, (b) to >protect others from potentially dangerous clients, and (c) to protect >clients from themselves. Also, if the practitioner has reason to suspect >that a client is emotionally or physically harming a child, the practitioner >is required to report the situation to the authorities. >Having said all this, I don’t know that Linda’s online behavior has risen to >the level which would invoke the duties to warn/protect or the requirement >to report child abuse. Notwithstanding the crap she has been posting, no >one here is in imminent danger as the result of her actions, nor do her >posts reflect any suicidal ideation. Of course, I worry about her child, >but the fact that she types what she types does not necessarily reflect how >she treats him (although it does make me wonder). >Make no mistake about my thoughts on the matter: Her displacement of anger >onto other posters here is reprehensible and ugly. In the end, it speaks >volumes about who she is as a person. Granted, she may be in pain (although >she may deny this), but allowing it to leak out onto others in such a >deliberate, constant manner is indefensible. >>>I hope your court session went well. >Me too. >It is my understanding you are an alchoholic yourself,
Your understanding is incorrect. Alcohol has always made me sleepy. Oh, I might have a beer on a special occasion (perhaps 3 or 4 times a year), but I can count the number of times I’ve been intoxicated in my many years on this earth on one hand. >and it is my belief >because you are an alchoholic yourself you have constantly supported the >actions of Larry an alkie, and the actions of deborah, a mother who chose to >remain with an alchoholic…
I support Larry and Deborah because I admire their courage and their determination to grow and become whole. They do this, I might add, not at the expense of others (contrary to what you allege). >…regarding the issues with them which constantly arise >regardig their relationship with me, a child of alchoholics.
They don’t HAVE a relationship with you. What they represent to you is in your mind…a reflection of your past. I wish you could see this, but sadly, you cannot. >I think it reprehensible of you to have done so..and continue to do so…
So be it. You seem to have a tremendous need to bash others in order to attempt to make yourself feel better. It is truly unfortunate that you had to grow up in such a dysfunctional household. Sadly, this is not a unique situation. Many people have similar stories. Blaming and bashing others, however, is not going to heal the pain. It just isn’t.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The reality is you and these others are monsters. . > Sadly none of you will ever see what monsters you are including you Pablo, and > will go right on seeking to punsih anyone who can… >Can I be Grover? He was always my favourite monster. Ralph V > "Reality isn’t the way you wish things to be, nor the way they appear to > be, but the way they actually are." – Robert J. Ringer > Linda
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>Given the duration of time of Linda’s outbursts, and the content, does >>>anyone else question the competency and responsibility of Linda’s >>>counsellor? He’s at least complicit in what is going on. Is he in anyway >>>legally responsible, or subject to oversight? I think the question needs >>>asking anyway. >>I don’t know, but if Robert will reply to this string, maybe Pablo >>will see it, he’s pretty knowledgeable about these things, he may have >>some insight. >>I hope your court session went well. >>Deborah
When you switch accounts (or whatever it is you do), I can see you.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>>Given the duration of time of Linda’s outbursts, and the content, does >>>>>anyone else question the competency and responsibility of Linda’s >>>>>counsellor? He’s at least complicit in what is going on. Is he in anyway >>>>>legally responsible, or subject to oversight? I think the question needs >>>>>asking anyway. >>>>I don’t know, but if Robert will reply to this string, maybe Pablo >>>>will see it, he’s pretty knowledgeable about these things, he may have >>>>some insight. >>>>I hope your court session went well. >>>>Deborah >When you switch accounts (or whatever it is you do), I can see you. >who? me or Larry? >If you’re talking to me, that’s odd, because, I see all the posts at home..I use >two readers, Outlook espress 5 whatever and FreeAgent…but when I’m not at home >I’m using this web based reader and lots of posts are missing. All times I am >broadband connected…and with the code red viruses wreaking such havoc, I think >that is alot of the problems people are having, it’s hit or miss server >connectivity and posts just drop off, but the problems you’re having with the >few of us, I think is just contraryness on your part. ;-)
Hahaha! >But hey, maybe you weren’t even talking to me…
Nope, I was talking to you. Sorry for the confusion. When you don’t use "123.net" or "321.net" or the Godzilla stuff, I can see you. However you did what you did to post the above, I was able to see it.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>>>Given the duration of time of Linda’s outbursts, and the content, does >>>>>>anyone else question the competency and responsibility of Linda’s >>>>>>counsellor? He’s at least complicit in what is going on. Is he in >anyway >>>>>>legally responsible, or subject to oversight? I think the question >needs >>>>>>asking anyway. >>>>>I don’t know, but if Robert will reply to this string, maybe Pablo >>>>>will see it, he’s pretty knowledgeable about these things, he may have >>>>>some insight. >>>I know she says she is seeing a "Christian psychiatrist," although I don’t >>>know the particulars of her therapy work, the frequency of sessions, etc. >>>She has posted that her psychiatrist is helping her "to cease being >fearful >>>of becoming angry or expressing anger, and helping [her] be willing to be >>>angry…and use this willingness to become angry to MANIPULATE other >people" >>>(in her words, including caps). >>>Certainly, a therapist will try to help a client become more assertive if >>>this is an issue in the client’s life. However, in my opinion, an ethical >>>therapist would not encourage a client to engage in manipulation of >others, >>>although there are some wacky therapists out there. My bet (and I don’t >use >>>that term to trigger Linda!) is that she is misinterpreting what he has >been >>>saying to her. I also bet she hasn’t been telling him what sorts of >things >>>she’s been posting here. If he read some of her posts, I suspect he would >>>be very concerned about her state of mental health. One could argue that >>>when someone is learning how to be more assertive, some amount of >"overkill" >>>may result. While this may happen, it is certainly not a justification. >>>People are still responsible for their own behavior. >>>If her psychiatrist is aware of the exact nature of her posts and condones >>>them, I would not only question his ethics, but I would also question his >>>form of Christianity. >>>If a mental health practitioner suspects that his client is a danger to >self >>>or to others, he is ethically and legally obligated to respond in some >>>manner. The practitioner has a duty (a) to warn potential victims, (b) to >>>protect others from potentially dangerous clients, and (c) to protect >>>clients from themselves. Also, if the practitioner has reason to suspect >>>that a client is emotionally or physically harming a child, the >practitioner >>>is required to report the situation to the authorities. >>>Having said all this, I don’t know that Linda’s online behavior has risen >to >>>the level which would invoke the duties to warn/protect or the requirement >>>to report child abuse. Notwithstanding the crap she has been posting, no >>>one here is in imminent danger as the result of her actions, nor do her >>>posts reflect any suicidal ideation. Of course, I worry about her child, >>>but the fact that she types what she types does not necessarily reflect >how >>>she treats him (although it does make me wonder). >>>Make no mistake about my thoughts on the matter: Her displacement of >anger >>>onto other posters here is reprehensible and ugly. In the end, it speaks >>>volumes about who she is as a person. Granted, she may be in pain >(although >>>she may deny this), but allowing it to leak out onto others in such a >>>deliberate, constant manner is indefensible. >>>>>I hope your court session went well. >>>Me too. >>It is my understanding you are an alchoholic yourself, >Your understanding is incorrect. Alcohol has always made me sleepy. Oh, I >might have a beer on a special occasion (perhaps 3 or 4 times a year), but I >can count the number of times I’ve been intoxicated in my many years on this >earth on one hand. >You have told me you 12 stepped, is that a lie?
No, I have never told you I’ve been a member of any 12-step group. I have studied them a great deal and even attended a few open meetings as an observer some years ago. I have also probably done what amounts to aspects of 12-step work at various points in my life, but no, I have never been a "12-stepper." Of course, none of this explains how you’ve concluded that I’m an alcoholic. You must be mistaking me for someone else, as you did when you confused me with Mark Probert (Old York Road…remember?) Or maybe Paul Gowder is a 12-stepper. ;-) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>and it is my belief >>because you are an alchoholic yourself you have constantly supported the >>actions of Larry an alkie, and the actions of deborah, a mother who chose >to >>remain with an alchoholic… >I support Larry and Deborah because I admire their courage and their >determination to grow and become whole. >>…regarding the issues with them which constantly arise >>regardig their relationship with me, a child of alchoholics. >They don’t HAVE a relationship with you. What they represent to you is in >your mind…a reflection of your past. I wish you could see this, but >sadly, you cannot. >>I think it reprehensible of you to have done so..and continue to do so… >So be it. >You seem to have a tremendous need to bash others in order to attempt to >make yourself feel better. It is truly unfortunate that you had to grow up >in such a dysfunctional household. Sadly, this is not a unique situation. >Many people have similar stories. Blaming and bashing others, however, is >not going to heal the pain. It just isn’t. >Sounds great, but as usual its a bunch of lies, rationalizations >justifications and the complete distortion of reality of the situation
Thanks all the same, but I’m not going to rely on your version of reality. >The reality is you and these others are monsters. .
Let’s see…Godzilla is taken. I’ve always liked Mothra (I just LOVE Moll and Lola), but she’s female. Guess I’ll have to settle for Gamera. >Sadly none of you will ever see what monsters you are including you Pablo, and >will go right on seeking to punsih anyone who can…
I have done nothing to punish you. But again, believe what you wish.
Response:
>ubject: Re: Linda’s counsellor?
<snip> – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>It is my understanding you are an alchoholic yourself, >>>Your understanding is incorrect. Alcohol has always made me sleepy. Oh, >I >>>might have a beer on a special occasion (perhaps 3 or 4 times a year), but >I >>>can count the number of times I’ve been intoxicated in my many years on >this >>>earth on one hand. >>You have told me you 12 stepped, is that a lie? >No, I have never told you I’ve been a member of any 12-step group. I have >studied them a great deal and even attended a few open meetings as an >observer some years ago. I have also probably done what amounts to aspects >of 12-step work at various points in my life, but no, I have never been a >"12-stepper." >Of course, none of this explains how you’ve concluded that I’m an alcoholic. >Beside the fact you told me you been involved with 12 stepping,
Not true. >adn support groups
Yes, I’ve been involved in support groups in my past. Not 12-step groups, though. And not for substance abuse or any other sort of addiction problem. >gave you much, falsely stating you participate to give back,
No, you misunderstood me. I participate in Usenet support groups in an effort to give back some of the support I’ve received from others throughout my life. I also participate in order to learn new things. Where you ever got the idea that I’m an alcoholic or a 12-stepper is beyond me. >the main >reason I think your one of THEM is your complete and total denial fo the >reality of the situation here..
You are free to believe I am "one of them" all you want. >Folks here been behaving like monsters since day one. and my attempts to point >it out all met with your DENIAL…
It’s not about DENIAL at all. Yes, this newsgroup can be a rough place at times. I would never say, however, that "folks here [have] been behaving like monsters since day one." That is much too global a statement for me to make. I find that folks tend to get back what they put out. >a strong sign of substance abuse…..
You may way too many presumptions about people. >and since you are not on meds or is that yet another point I been misled
about, No, I am currently not on meds, except for Synthroid. I get regular bloodwork, and my dosage is spot on. >I have to assume
No, you don’t. This is what gets you into trouble. >your intense deinal a result of alchohol or street drug abuse..
Oh, so now it’s "street drug abuse?" Next you’ll be saying I have a gambling problem. >you are in fact the ome most ardently DENYING reality…
No, I’m denying your take on reality. >No matter, as of today, I proved my point…..
You’re proving something, but not your point. >It has long been my belief Fred was acted against for telling people he thought >them dregs, and no other reason. ..
Please talk to the people from asd-manic if you’d like to know why they disliked Fred so much. >It has long been my belief andrew was acted against in reality for his beliefs >and sharing them you are all BORG, and for no other reason…
You know very well it was quite a bit more than that. But if you think Andrew was treated so harshly, perhaps you should do some soul searching. After all, you were very adamant that something be done about him. >Today we all found out you all would like to sue my pdoc
"We all" found this out? That’s more of your "we all" and "you all" thinking. Way too global. I have never stated that your pdoc should be sued. Here is what I said: "I don’t know that Linda’s online behavior has risen to the level which would invoke the duties to warn/protect or the requirement to report child abuse. Notwithstanding the crap she has been posting, no one here is in imminent danger as the result of her actions, nor do her posts reflect any suicidal ideation." Exactly how do you get from this that I advocate suing your pdoc? >and make my child >suffer greatly as a consequence of my posting my belief you are ugly monstrous >people.,,,,and NO other reason, cause I been very careful no mater how >monstrous you all behaved to stick to calling those of you monsters, ugly >names…
Here’s what I said: "Of course, I worry about her child, but the fact that she types what she types does not necessarily reflect how she treats him (although it does make me wonder)." Exactly how do you get from this that I want to make your "child suffer greatly?" >you are all ready to take action against me for thinking the lot of you >responsible for the previous actions, DREGs, borg, ugly monsters…
No. In fact, I was suggesting the exact opposite. >You cannot say its for any other reason, I have done nothing but post my poor >opinion of some people and you want to take action against me for merely >that…
At least you recognize that your opinion is "poor." As for taking action against you, reread my original post in this thread. I said no such thing. >CASE CLOSED
"I OBJECT!" > you are what you are
"I’m Popeye the Sailer Man" <toot toot> >Guilty fo Being Dregs as Fred said, guilty of being Borg as andrew said, and >imo guilty of being the most ugly, atrocious people I can imagine….
Linda, if you wish to be associated with Fred and Andrew, have a blast.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>ubject: Re: Linda’s counsellor? ><snip> >>>>>>It is my understanding you are an alchoholic yourself, >>>>>Your understanding is incorrect. Alcohol has always made me sleepy. >Oh, >>>I >>>>>might have a beer on a special occasion (perhaps 3 or 4 times a year), >but >>>I >>>>>can count the number of times I’ve been intoxicated in my many years on >>>this >>>>>earth on one hand. >>>>You have told me you 12 stepped, is that a lie? >>>No, I have never told you I’ve been a member of any 12-step group. I have >>>studied them a great deal and even attended a few open meetings as an >>>observer some years ago. I have also probably done what amounts to >aspects >>>of 12-step work at various points in my life, but no, I have never been a >>>"12-stepper." >>>Of course, none of this explains how you’ve concluded that I’m an >alcoholic. >>Beside the fact you told me you been involved with 12 stepping, >Not true. >>adn support groups >Yes, I’ve been involved in support groups in my past. Not 12-step groups, >though. And not for substance abuse or any other sort of addiction problem. >>gave you much, falsely stating you participate to give back, >No, you misunderstood me. I participate in Usenet support groups in an >effort to give back some of the support I’ve received from others throughout >my life. I also participate in order to learn new things. >Where you ever got the idea that I’m an alcoholic or a 12-stepper is beyond >me. >>the main >>reason I think your one of THEM is your complete and total denial fo the >>reality of the situation here.. >You are free to believe I am "one of them" all you want. >>Folks here been behaving like monsters since day one. and my attempts to >point >>it out all met with your DENIAL… >It’s not about DENIAL at all. Yes, this newsgroup can be a rough place at >times. I would never say, however, that "folks here [have] been behaving >like monsters since day one." That is much too global a statement for me to >make. I find that folks tend to get back what they put out. >>a strong sign of substance abuse….. >You may way too many presumptions about people. >>and since you are not on meds or is that yet another point I been misled >about, >No, I am currently not on meds, except for Synthroid. I get regular >bloodwork, and my dosage is spot on. >>I have to assume >No, you don’t. This is what gets you into trouble. >>your intense deinal a result of alchohol or street drug abuse.. >Oh, so now it’s "street drug abuse?" Next you’ll be saying I have a >gambling problem. >>you are in fact the ome most ardently DENYING reality… >No, I’m denying your take on reality. >>No matter, as of today, I proved my point….. >You’re proving something, but not your point. >>It has long been my belief Fred was acted against for telling people he >thought >>them dregs, and no other reason. .. >Please talk to the people from asd-manic if you’d like to know why they >disliked Fred so much. >>It has long been my belief andrew was acted against in reality for his >beliefs >>and sharing them you are all BORG, and for no other reason… >You know very well it was quite a bit more than that. But if you think >Andrew was treated so harshly, perhaps you should do some soul searching. >After all, you were very adamant that something be done about him. >>Today we all found out you all would like to sue my pdoc >"We all" found this out? That’s more of your "we all" and "you all" >thinking. Way too global. >I have never stated that your pdoc should be sued. Here is what I said: "I >don’t know that Linda’s online behavior has risen to the level which would >invoke the duties to warn/protect or the requirement to report child abuse. >Notwithstanding the crap she has been posting, no one here is in imminent >danger as the result of her actions, nor do her posts reflect any suicidal >ideation." >I didnt say you advocated it, they are advocating it and failed to address it >properly, as totally out of line, I have absolutely no desire to to anything >but rant and rave…express my feelings etc and that poses no danger to me, or >anyone else, trather than tell them thats ridiculus, she is no danger to >herself or anyone else, seh just rants and raves, you talk about imminent >danger and obfuscate the realiyt, inyou whhow ridiculus it is you play along, >encouraging this insanity here….
If you recall, Larry had asked a question about counselor liability. I attempted to respond to his question by explaining my take on that particular subject. I also suggested that from where I sit (which is in front of a computer screen), you do not seem to be a danger to yourself or to others, nor is there evidence that you have been abusing your child. If you think that’s "failing to address it properly," then tough luck. <balance snipped>
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>>ubject: Re: Linda’s counsellor? >>><snip> >>>>>>>>It is my understanding you are an alchoholic yourself, >>>>>>>Your understanding is incorrect. Alcohol has always made me sleepy. >>>Oh, >>>>>I >>>>>>>might have a beer on a special occasion (perhaps 3 or 4 times a year), >>>but >>>>>I >>>>>>>can count the number of times I’ve been intoxicated in my many years >on >>>>>this >>>>>>>earth on one hand. >>>>>>You have told me you 12 stepped, is that a lie? >>>>>No, I have never told you I’ve been a member of any 12-step group. I >have >>>>>studied them a great deal and even attended a few open meetings as an >>>>>observer some years ago. I have also probably done what amounts to >>>aspects >>>>>of 12-step work at various points in my life, but no, I have never been >a >>>>>"12-stepper." >>>>>Of course, none of this explains how you’ve concluded that I’m an >>>alcoholic. >>>>Beside the fact you told me you been involved with 12 stepping, >>>Not true. >>>>adn support groups >>>Yes, I’ve been involved in support groups in my past. Not 12-step groups, >>>though. And not for substance abuse or any other sort of addiction >problem. >>>>gave you much, falsely stating you participate to give back, >>>No, you misunderstood me. I participate in Usenet support groups in an >>>effort to give back some of the support I’ve received from others >throughout >>>my life. I also participate in order to learn new things. >>>Where you ever got the idea that I’m an alcoholic or a 12-stepper is >beyond >>>me. >>>>the main >>>>reason I think your one of THEM is your complete and total denial fo the >>>>reality of the situation here.. >>>You are free to believe I am "one of them" all you want. >>>>Folks here been behaving like monsters since day one. and my attempts to >>>point >>>>it out all met with your DENIAL… >>>It’s not about DENIAL at all. Yes, this newsgroup can be a rough place at >>>times. I would never say, however, that "folks here [have] been behaving >>>like monsters since day one." That is much too global a statement for me >to >>>make. I find that folks tend to get back what they put out. >>>>a strong sign of substance abuse….. >>>You may way too many presumptions about people. >>>>and since you are not on meds or is that yet another point I been misled >>>about, >>>No, I am currently not on meds, except for Synthroid. I get regular >>>bloodwork, and my dosage is spot on. >>>>I have to assume >>>No, you don’t. This is what gets you into trouble. >>>>your intense deinal a result of alchohol or street drug abuse.. >>>Oh, so now it’s "street drug abuse?" Next you’ll be saying I have a >>>gambling problem. >>>>you are in fact the ome most ardently DENYING reality… >>>No, I’m denying your take on reality. >>>>No matter, as of today, I proved my point….. >>>You’re proving something, but not your point. >>>>It has long been my belief Fred was acted against for telling people he >>>thought >>>>them dregs, and no other reason. .. >>>Please talk to the people from asd-manic if you’d like to know why they >>>disliked Fred so much. >>>>It has long been my belief andrew was acted against in reality for his >>>beliefs >>>>and sharing them you are all BORG, and for no other reason… >>>You know very well it was quite a bit more than that. But if you think >>>Andrew was treated so harshly, perhaps you should do some soul searching. >>>After all, you were very adamant that something be done about him. >>>>Today we all found out you all would like to sue my pdoc >>>"We all" found this out? That’s more of your "we all" and "you all" >>>thinking. Way too global. >>>I have never stated that your pdoc should be sued. Here is what I said: >"I >>>don’t know that Linda’s online behavior has risen to the level which would >>>invoke the duties to warn/protect or the requirement to report child >abuse. >>>Notwithstanding the crap she has been posting, no one here is in imminent >>>danger as the result of her actions, nor do her posts reflect any suicidal >>>ideation." >>I didnt say you advocated it, they are advocating it and failed to address >it >>properly, as totally out of line, I have absolutely no desire to to >anything >>but rant and rave…express my feelings etc and that poses no danger to me, >or >>anyone else, trather than tell them thats ridiculus, she is no danger to >>herself or anyone else, seh just rants and raves, you talk about imminent >>danger and obfuscate the realiyt, inyou whhow ridiculus it is you play >along, >>encouraging this insanity here…. >If you recall, Larry had asked a question about counselor liability. I >attempted to respond to his question by explaining my take on that >particular subject. >I also suggested that from where I sit (which is in front of a computer >screen), you do not seem to be a danger to yourself or to others, nor is >there evidence that you have been abusing your child. >If you think that’s "failing to address it properly," then tough luck. ><balance snipped> >Addressing it properly would have been to call it the hatemongering by >hatemongerers, rather than address it seriously, for crying out loud.. >What is wrong with you? Do you invest so much ofyourself in the efforts to get >"andrew" you cannot see the reality that these people are everybit as sick and >hatefilled as anderew ever was.. >andrew was silenced and we were treated to the ugliest posts ever posted on >this NG by Anna, then deborah, about andrew, fred and bob whalen.. >Meanwhile I sought some info on ASD-Manic and hopper posting unadultered hate >bout shawnee, who if anyone deserves support its people like shawnee.. >You are sick to support Deborah and her hatemongering here, and then like her >welcom robert and Linda c to help out once I called what they do hatemongering >worse than andrews.. >you lost perspective… no grasp or simply totally unwilling to address the >reality cause of your own investment… in the andrew thing…but get real…I >didnt start this hatemongering, I ahve objected to it from the start of it, and >am being thorougly abuse with your support for calling hatemongering >hatemongering.. >When Larry jumps on the hatemongering bandwagon and it just so inflames me, he >hold himself as changed and better, but man oh man is he ready to get right in >on the devils side of a hatefest… >I am not perfect either, got some other issues come up in these things, as >well, and I am not the best person to react to the evil mongerers, but since >the best person, some one like you didnt, the job feel to the least capable by >default… >and its too bad that in fighting them, my own problems show in all their >ugliness…. >But my problems are not the problem here…the problem here is the >hatemongering caused by posters like deborah or larry, and their welcoming >linda and robert..and now the trolls… >One thing I do not have a problem with Pablo is a grasp of realiyt… unlike >you it seems, but you are totally unwilling to grasp the reality of this >situation. >So dont post as if your grasp of reality is dead on, casue in this scenario, >you are not… I am not a hatemongerer for calling the hatemongerers >hatemongerers… >I understand if you brand evil it reacts,,,but I also understand if you dont >brand evil it acts..and I rather have thse hateful posters posting hate about >me for merely calling them hatemongerers, than giving the sick sadistion advice >these kind do to earnest posters.. >Better to brand evil and keep it defending itself, then let it ACT >To dignify an answere to such a hateful sick post,,, ugly, ugly ugly.. >"Reality isn’t the way you wish things to be, nor the way they appear to >be, but the way they actually are." – Robert J. Ringer >Linda
—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
>You are sick to support Deborah and her hatemongering here, and then like her >welcom robert and Linda c to help out once I called what they do hatemongering >worse than andrews..
Fuck you too, the only hate the comes across is your hatered towards Linda and I and Andrew, you fucking crucified him you fucking cunt. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
> When Larry jumps on the hatemongering bandwagon and it just so inflames me, he > hold himself as changed and better, but man oh man is he ready to get right in > on the devils side of a hatefest…
What hateful thing did I say about you, Linda? > and its too bad that in fighting them, my own problems show in all their > ugliness….
Oh, so true. > But my problems are not the problem here…the problem here is the > hatemongering caused by posters like deborah or larry, and their welcoming > linda and robert..and now the trolls…
Oh, so not true. > One thing I do not have a problem with Pablo is a grasp of realiyt… unlike > you it seems, but you are totally unwilling to grasp the reality of this > situation.
Oh, so confused. > So dont post as if your grasp of reality is dead on, casue in this scenario, > you are not… I am not a hatemongerer for calling the hatemongerers > hatemongerers…
Oh, so very confused. > I understand if you brand evil it reacts,,,but I also understand if you dont > brand evil it acts..and I rather have thse hateful posters posting hate about > me for merely calling them hatemongerers, than giving the sick sadistion advice > these kind do to earnest posters..
Oh, so very very confused. > Better to brand evil and keep it defending itself, then let it ACT
Oh, so very very very confused.
Response:
<snip> >If you recall, Larry had asked a question about counselor liability. I >attempted to respond to his question by explaining my take on that >particular subject. >I also suggested that from where I sit (which is in front of a computer >screen), you do not seem to be a danger to yourself or to others, nor is >there evidence that you have been abusing your child. >If you think that’s "failing to address it properly," then tough luck. ><balance snipped> >Addressing it properly would have been to call it the hatemongering by >hatemongerers, rather than address it seriously, for crying out loud..
I choose to reply to posts as I see fit. >What is wrong with you? Do you invest so much ofyourself in the efforts to get >"andrew" you cannot see the reality that these people are everybit as sick and >hatefilled as anderew ever was..
Oh, so now you’re backtracking and saying that Andrew WAS "sick and hate filled?" Which is it? Was he "sick and hate filled" or simply an innocent, misunderstood chap? Andrew invaded the support groups. He was trying to disrupt things, mostly due to his many off-line dilemmas. He took his anger and pain out on support group members. The people who reacted so strongly did so because of what Andrew was doing. YOU WERE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. After Andrew left, you kept up with it. Some of these people (and not me) told you to stop…it was done…over with…and that’s when your nose got out of joint. You resented being criticized for going on and on about it. You made several posts about how you couldn’t let it go because you said Andrew had emotionally harmed you so severely. Then you inserted yourself in the ongoing disagreements between Hopper and Shawnee (which was none of your business), in part because Hopper had been one of the folks to tell you to let the Andrew thing go. Hell, even Bob Whelan told you to let it go. But you wouldn’t. And now, you’re turning it all around and blaming nearly everyone but yourself. Your hypocracy is staggering, Linda. I used to try my best to help you through stuff…both in posts and in emails. I really did. I even tried to explain to others that you were still upset about what Andrew had done. But you continued to pick and pick. And you still pick and pick. The world, it seems, is your scab. I truly hope that one day you find some peace. <SNIP>
Response:
> When Larry jumps on the hatemongering bandwagon and it just so inflames > me, he > hold himself as changed and better, but man oh man is he ready to get > right in > on the devils side of a hatefest… > What hateful thing did I say about you, Linda?
So far, Linda has never answered that question. Because she can’t. Ralph V
Response:
>What hateful thing did I say about you, Linda?
Can’t answer that one, right? > I am far from confused…I been here read all the posts of these people for a > year and know exactly what is what here in terms of reality… > Linda
I didn’t say YOU were confused. Though, if you want to believe that, that’s your choice. Larry
Response:
says… >ubject: Re: Linda’s counsellor? >What hateful thing did I say about you, Linda?
<deborah and anna and several others posted the sickest more hatefilled posts ever posted here etc. etc. I knew you wouldn’t answer. You never answer when I ask a quote of something hateful I said. Mabye if you can’t find something, you can look up all the hate I threw Andrew’s and Fred’s way in google.
Response:
I am confused…I been here read all the posts of these people for a year, even though they think I know how to killfile and know exactly what is what here in terms of reality even though I am not in reality… and the reality, as I have decreed in my own mind is the minute andrew was silenced, deborah and anna and several others posted the sickest more hatefilled posts ever posted here not only about andrew, but about Bob Whalen on this NG… Keep in mind, I don’t know what I’m talking about. Meanwhile on the manic NG. I have no idea whats happening. I thought Hopper and other posters were sickly and most hatefully posting against shawnee to run her off that NG. I was wrong. I butted in where I wasn’t wanted on the issue on the Manic NG successfully seemingly… but really I’m a ditz and don’t know what I’m doing… but when I attacked posters on the issue of the hatemongering of deborah and anna here, this hatefest began, and I’m whining now, because Deborah knows the reality her posts called me on calling posters hatemongerers. Pablo supported Deborahs and annas. I’m glad he did. Pablo and Deborah then welcomed Robert and Linda manic depressives to our NG to ASDMed. Wasn’t that nice? and now several trollls are here… and I am the leader of all of them. I was not in the best condition to fight another battle against hatemongering immedialtely following andrew being brought to justice, but when those better able like Pablo choise to say and do nothing about my erroneously called hatemongering of deborahs…against andrew even when he left, agains bob, just to keep it going…I stood up again to fight and show everyone just what an ass I can be. It does get to me,,,, and thats no excuse either, but I am the one who started this hatemongering and am the one who will accept any attack on me, see the reality it will be me being put on reality, my grasp of reality is not "Reality isn’t the way you wish things to be, nor the way they appear to be, but the way they actually are." – Robert J. Ringer Linda
Comments