Hmm...well...looking at my original Knapp exposure post, it will be one year on Jan 29, 2013, since I first posted an exposure-type Knapp comment.
So, I am mistaken. It's been 1 year, not 1-1/2 years as I previously estimated. ******************* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Hey Share... > > Not that I know of. > > I posted in this thread awhile back because someone had brought up Knapp's > name and something having to do with Knapp's questionable honesty. > > So..I responded in this thread (mindfulness) regarding a snippet of my > situation with Knapp and, since I had supported him here previously, I wanted > to retract my endorsements. > > Here is a link to my initial post on here about my retraction regarding Knapp: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/303061 > > Thus I posted the few updates here (and there have been few, not many). > > The above link is not my first post on FFL, but was my first post regarding > exposing Knapp. > > I'd have to search back to find my previous postings which were about other > subjects, some of which were supportive of Knapp. > > Knapp is well know among the TMO (anti and pro) crowd. > > As far as motive? It has been (at least on here) to expose Knapp's dishonesty > in his dealings. He had continued to list himself as a cult-recovery > therapist on his professional LinkedIn page through the latter part of 2012. > I do not know if he was continuing to counsel or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > Carol, is someone on FFL availing themselves of John's services?Â Or is > > about to?Â Is that why you recently resumed posting about him here? > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Carol > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 8:52 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re- John M Knapp - Johnny Profane > > > > > > Â > > Hey again Barry, > > > > I've thought it'd be fun to have wings...ya' know, loons. They are pretty > > in flight. > > > > OK. Again your opinion is noted...because that's all it is...you're opinion. > > > > You can read my motives on my blog. But I'm sure you won't because you > > don't care which makes me wonder why you even direct a post at me. > > > > I guess you care because you want to express your opinion about me? > > > > I don't have a grudge against Knapp. To expose someone who has harmed > > others without accountability does not mean someone has a grudge. > > > > Does it still anger me that he lied like he did, that he lied about others, > > that he mistreated me, that he has psychologically raped people, that he > > has unpaid financial debts to people, and other stuff that I am not at > > liberty to share? Sure. But that's not a grudge. > > > > If I really wanted to 'at' Knapp, I could make public his very revealing > > private emails to me. But, I haven't done that. > > > > Knapp knows he lied. He may continue to lie to his new circle; I do no know. > > > > You are wrong though that I have only come here to post about Knapp. I do > > read other threads when I come here on and off. I have come here without > > ever posting anything. Prior to when someone brought Knapp in this thread > > originally...I hadn't posted about Knapp. > > > > I haven't engaged in the three descriptions you list as far as > > cyberstalking. I researched cyberstalking pretty well after Knapp went on > > his defamatory outrage. > > > > I've never approach any of Knapp's friends, family, etc., for any > > information on Knapp. > > > > I've never tried to trace Knapp anywhere. I have read his public Facebook > > page. If you think that is cyberstalking, so be it. > > > > Yes, I did monitor Knapp's online Facebook page. NY state was looking for > > him. He had skipped state and never responded to their requests when he was > > there and left no forwarding address. Little did I know at the time about > > the other outstanding judgement against him in another county in NY. NY > > state asked if I knew Knapp's whereabouts...so I read his Facebook page > > which gave Knapp's whereabouts. > > > > I've never even 'harassed' Knapp. I posted my story on my blog and on one > > other online forum. I didn't encourage anyone to join me. And no one did. > > If sharing my experience is harassment, so be it. > > > > What is the difference between whistleblowing about an organization and > > whistleblowing about a corrupt mental health therapist? > > > > And even at that...my whistle is hardly very loud. But you did say I > > 'barged' in. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks Judy. > > > > > > > > Also, I understand why Barry would view me as a "cyberstalker" > > > > based on what Knapp has stated about me. Plus, the only thing > > > > I've posted on this list in the last 1-1/2(?) years has been > > > > about Knapp. > > > > > > Duh. That's exactly it. You barged onto a forum that you have no other > > > interest in EXCEPT as a means of "getting" someone you have a grudge > > > against. I've never heard anything that Knapp said about you; I'm > > > judging you because of *your* behavior. > > > > > > > Barry may not recall that I had posted a few years prior > > > > that I was a teenage TMer and was looking at going to MMU. > > > > Then again, maybe he does recall, but I don't know why he > > > > would. It's been awhile. > > > > > > Barry doesn't give a shit. I've found both you AND your motives > > > repulsive from Day One. Since Judy seems to believe that Wikipedia is to > > > be trusted in all things, let's see what it has to say about > > > cyberstalking, eh? > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking > > > > > > > > > Please note the parts about it being a criminal offense. Note also some > > > of the typical behavior of cyberstalkers: > > > > > > * Attempts to gather information about the victim. Cyberstalkers may > > > approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain > > > personal information. > > > > > > > > > * Monitoring their target's online activities and attempting to trace > > > their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their > > > victims. > > > > > > > > > * Encouraging others to harass the victim. Many cyberstalkers try to > > > involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has > > > harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the > > > victim's name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join > > > the pursuit. > > > You're an official Cyberstalker as far as I'm concerned, and that has > > > *nothing* to do with how I feel about John Knapp. He may be the worst > > > flake in the world, but *he* is not the person who has devoted the best > > > part of a year to tracking his movements and his activities and trying > > > anything she could to harm his reputation or to get him into trouble. > > > > > > You're a fuckin' loon. The only reason Judy is agreeing with you or > > > supporting you is that she is a Cyberstalker, too, and John Knapp is one > > > of *her* ongoing victims as well, because he was instrumental in > > > revealing truths about the TM movement and Maharishi she would have > > > preferred remain hidden. The only reason Nabby chimed in is because he > > > also bears a grudge because of Knapp's TM whistleblowing, too. > > > > > > The three of you make a lovely group: > > > > > > > > > > ************ > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the end of December, 2012, I decided to bring forth Knapp's > > > 2011 > > > > > > > online defamatory posts aimed at myself and others. > > > > > > > This link contains a table of contents to Knapp's posts that I > > > am > > > > > > > bringing forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please go away. You're a stalker. Nobody cares that you > > > > > > didn't like it when Knapp refused to continue working > > > > > > with you as a patient. I have no great love for John, > > > > > > but I can certainly see why he would have decided that. > > > > > > > > > > Barry, you know exactly nothing about this. What you think > > > > > you know is wrong. Knapp is a potential menace to anyone > > > > > considering counseling with him. Hopefully he's gone out > > > > > of the therapy business for good. If so, anything Carol did > > > > > to bring this about she should be congratulated for. It > > > > > took more guts than you dream of having. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >