--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: > > I do believe you are onto something here...
So do I. As quite a few have noted, there are remarkable similarities in the ways that both Judy and Robin lure people into ongoing confrontations/arguments with them, an interaction that they both seem to perceive as "intimacy." But the even greater similarity is what happens when they think that "intimacy" -- which, as noted before exists only in their minds -- is either "withdrawn," or "betrayed." Both IMO are triggers for their biggest psychological/emotional hot buttons. How many times here have we heard both of them rant and rave about the horrible, evil practice of *not wanting to talk with them any more*. In their minds, this is some kind of Cardinal Sin. But an even greater hot button seems to get pushed when someone they have come to believe they have succeeded in "getting on their side" suddenly either "sides with" someone they have categorized as an enemy or adversary, or even appreciates them, compliments them, or has a normal, friendly conversation with them. This is invariably reacted to as if it were a form of betrayal. Case in point: how Judy has reacted recently to a few people she considered "hers" having friendly conversations with either you or me. Shortly after this happens, she finds occasion to light into them and attack them, usually over some nitpick that some- times seems to be unrelated, but IMO isn't. Watch what she'll do with Share after her posts today declaring more affinity for the Curtis-Susan-Steven "take" on this latest brouhaha. As for WHY these two individuals think and react this way, I don't really have a clue. If I had to speculate, as an armchair non-trained psychiatrist, it's that both have *serious* issues with rejection. Someone or someones rejected them in the past, and now whenever anyone does in the present, they go more than a little crazy behind it. In itself that would normally be just sad, and deserving of our pity and our compassion. But when they actively try to *harm* the person they feel has "rejected" them? Then in my opinion they've strayed over the line into cyberstalking, and pathological behavior. All of this just my untrained opinion, of course... > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > So Judy made Sal threaten Emily " snip > > > > > > 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. > > >
