> > > So Judy made Sal threaten Emily " snip > > > > > M: This is instructive in how things spin out of > > control here... > > turquoiseb: > My perception of when it was exactly that Judy went > bat shit crazy... > So, it's all about Judy?
Non sequitur. "(Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises." http://tinyurl.com/as6b7 LoL! > > M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control > > here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like > > "traumatizing" and "vicious attack" Raunchy's "brutally" > > in their imagination of an email they have not seen? > > Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was > > (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated > > what was said to make it all more newsworthy. > > > > And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now > > turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. > > It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it > > before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, > > are a felony in some states and are a growing concern > > monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about > > liability. If something actually happens after it is > > claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue > > everyone in sight. > > > > The language we use here matters. Please stop turning > > your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't > > even read) into something more exciting by making it > > sound more sinister. It pushes the bent tack in the box > > toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to > > Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. > > > > Ravi, please retract your claim that this email contained > > something threatening. It did not. Not even close. This was > > wrong for you to put on a public board. > > For your information and that of other people, here > are some quotes from a paper I found while researching > an article recently on the Internet and its dangers called > "Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal > terrorism." A few quotes in it struck me as remarkably > parallel to the situation you and others find themselves > in on Fairfield Life. Highlighting mine: > > Stalking is a problem that affects millions of people and > causes them great stress and diminishment of quality of > life. Stalkers and obsessive pursuers clearly incorporate > any means that facilitate their pursuit, and one of the > increasingly available means of intrusion is the advent > of cyberspace technologies. Taken broadly, cyberstalking > is `the use of the internet, email, or other electronic > communications devices to stalk another person'... > > This quote is more to the point, relating the > newer crime/complex of cyberstalking to an older, > more established psychological profile of pathology, > called ORI, or Obsessive Relational Intrusion. It > echoes theories I didn't know existed in formal > psychology, but interestingly have suggested here > myself, especially about the cyberstalkers seeking > a kind of intimacy that is lacking in their real lives, > and going *most* crazy when this perceived sense > of intimacy with the object of their obsession -- even > though it's not real, and exists only the stalker's mind > -- is interrupted, and their delusional sense of "intimacy" > withdrawn. See if this sounds somewhat familiar to > you, Curtis, both with regard to how Judy has reacted > to you withdrawing from the endless arguments she > once was able to lure you into, and with regard to > how Robin reacted when you similarly "cut him off > at the pump," attention-wise. Highlighting mine: > > Stalking is closely related to a phenomenon referred to as > obsessive relational intrusion (ORI). ORI is the unwanted > pursuit of intimacy through the repeated invasion > of a person's sense of physical or symbolic privacy. > Most stalking is a form of ORI, but the two phenomena are > not isomorphic. Some stalking, for example, is purely for > the sake of terrorism or destruction, as with political or > underworld assassinations. In contrast, ORI does not have > to be threatening, as in a socially unskilled paramour > simply annoying or pestering an object of affection. > Despite these differences, research shows that even relatively > mild efforts at such courtship often cross the threshold of > threat and fear by virtue of their repetition, > inappropriateness, timing, and/or oddity. Furthermore, > most stalking cases evolve from prior relationships > in which one party is pursuing efforts to re-establish > intimacy, or exacting revenge for having the intimacy > removed from their lives. Thus, although stalking and > ORI are conceptually distinct phenomena, their domains > overlap extensively. > > My perception of when it was exactly that Judy went > bat shit crazy at her current levels is when you finally > perceived that she was attempting to force ongoing > arguments onto you as a kind of sick form of intimacy, > and you blew her off. She hasn't been quite sane since. > > Same with Robin. It wasn't anything you actually *said* > to him in your interactions with him, it was the fact that > you got tired of him and withdrew your attention, which > he perceived as a loss of intimacy. An intimacy that never > really existed, except in his own mind. >
