On 10/22/2014 6:47 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
*From:* salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :
Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers From Hell folder,
/It looks like maybe Ann pushed one of Barry's buttons. LoL!/
I seem to remember her being the person who claimed to know for sure that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would indicate that they were in communication, right? So my bet is that Ann's "audience" is in fact the person who has been directing her stalking efforts from behind the scenes.

She certainly seems to have taken over the role of principle Barry hater - and you have to admire the gusto!

Indeed. Even *Judy* never admitted to having read my book as research material with which to better stalk me the way Ann has admitted to doing lately. Wasn't it Judy herself who once defined stalking as follows: "I might also point out that searching the Web for information to use against somebody is standard cyberstalking behavior." -- Judy Stein, FFL, 11 February 2013

But I don't read any of it either, it's too easy to tell from message view what a post is going to be about with some people. Judy was considerate and always started a Barry post with "Note that Barry says...." so we knew we could safely scroll past those. If Ann wants anyone to read anything that isn't "Bawee" related she should take up that technique or suffer the realisation one day that nobody real is reading what she obviously spends a lot of time typing.

I've really never understood those who feel that I or others might be "missing" important information by merely scanning the Message View of their posts and skipping the rest. One would really have to be a cretin to NOT know what one of these people were going to say in their posts from the first couple of lines of them. It's not, after all, as if they have that much *range* in the things they say. With Ann, one appearance of "bawee" is a guaranteed tipoff that she needed her Hate Fix for the day and that it's safe to skip the post in which she tried to shoot it up.

Sometimes you have to admit that you just don't like someone and let them get on with whatever it is they do. Continually going on about it is pointless.

And continuing to claim that she's not obsessing on me while *obviously* obsessing on me is not only pointless, but more than a little insane.

But I have similar feelings with TV, some people complain that most of it is crap but if it wasn't there'd be no time to do anything else! My glass is clearly half-full.

But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest that...uh...overestimating one's "audience" IS, in fact, a sign of mental illness. For example, several times now over the years I have asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all the issue of whether anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by simply ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who *do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly refused to do this, all while insinuating that he has "friends" here, as if the fact that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people he was told to stalk means that they actually believe his claim to be enlightened. Heck, even *Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is enlightened. Nabby probably thinks David Lynch and the occasional scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, but he doesn't think Jim is. Says a lot, right? :-)

It's strangely comforting to know that there are some things that Nabby doesn't believe. It betrays a thought process of some sort going on in there that doesn't depend on youtube for confirmation. Good for him.

What, after all, would you or anyone else sane THINK of someone who actually *did* believe Jim's claims to be enlightened? The prospect of such a person existing is almost scarier than Jim existing. :-)

The clear "sign of poor mental health" IMO is the fact that these people -- at this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- seem to feel that they have not only the right but a "duty" to harass and stalk those on this forum they don't like. I suggest that what they're really trying to do is SILENCE these people they stalk, because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged stalkers *pretend* that they're doing this stalking "for the good of the forum," or "to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what these liars might say," but of course we all know that the members of the original Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* were deranged stalkers.

I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve's sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to what they write. I don't read their posts, so they're not talking to me. even though they often pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers to reply to their stalker posts, so it would seem that they aren't really talking to these people they're claiming to be "protecting," either. Thus it seems clear that they are either talking exclusively to each other (a strong psychopathic trait among similarly-insane inmates in asylums) or to themselves (an even more psychopathic trait).

Wouldn't it be much more sane just to IGNORE the writings -- and the writers -- they don't like? Feeling the need to "get" the writers or "smack" them in several posts a day...for months, or even years...seems almost *by definition* insane to me. The lurking reporters have confirmed that they see Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve this way, as cult apologists stalking critics of their cult. Why can't the stalkers themselves see it?

Maybe they are just lonely and need a peer group to get strokes from? I'm sure they'll let us know later ;-)

I think that's actually a lot of it. They clearly spend an awful lot of time trying to get each other to slap them on the back. I've seen pre-teens with less need to be "recognized and applauded by their peers" than this bunch. Yet another example of what the long-term effects of TM do to a person...

Reply via email to