Barry's post is a mixture of ignorance and deliberate lies. Just for one thing, he knows I've never done anything that he cites from Wikipedia as typical of cyberstalking (nor do I believe Wikipedia is to be "trusted in all things").
Anyone who has followed his posts here, however, knows that he himself has done many of these things, repeatedly. Plus which, as Barry also knows, my beef with Knapp has always been his dishonesty, not his opposition to TM. For one example: http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/kArnUPBsOSqmjYeN4fu0AN9ZBwY3ZtyM0kk8ZzbrcVxfxXRmqeSKxZ35dE_V0ogNYPY4zgg2Ka3J_VFKPpn0-PdTcbnoTp2q/TMO%20--%20the%20Odd%20Side/Knapp%27s%20%22TM%20Crisis%22--the%20Real%20Story http://tinyurl.com/a7ykvom (This is from the FFL Files section; it has nothing to do with Carol's material.) Barry's outrage at Carol posting about Knapp is misplaced, to say the least. Knapp isn't just a "flake," he's a potentially *dangerous* flake, as Barry would know if he had deigned to read any of the material Carol has gathered. The NY State board that oversees therapists found the material that Carol provided to back up her formal complaint against him worthy of extensive investigation and appears to have decided it was reliable enough to call a hearing on the case. This is a serious matter, not just someone badmouthing a person she has a "grudge" against. Whether Barry *wants* to protect Knapp by attempting to discredit Carol is immaterial. The fact is that by doing so he *is* protecting Knapp. When the shoe is on the other foot--when TMers attempt to discredit those who make a case for the dangers of TM--he screams bloody murder. But here he is, with regard to Knapp, doing precisely what he condemns TMers for doing. --- 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. > > > > > >
