Barry, what the hell are you saying?   

 Tell me it's not the same 'ol diatribe.
 

 Maybe I'll have time to read it later.
 

 How many posts have you written denigrating the place here, and it's 
participants, every hour, every day, letting us know what a waste of time it is 
for your to participate.
 

 That irony is lost on you.
 

 But, whatever...........................
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :

 From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :

 From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
   
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered "holy"), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: "But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure."
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their "duty" 
to stalk him, to "smack him into line day after day," as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 

It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 
 

 I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!






















Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers From Hell 
folder, 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. 

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?  :-)

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?










Reply via email to