I don't mind it when people call Wikipedia Review members loonies. After all, I myself have a diagnosed mental illness (High-functioning autism aka Asperger's Syndrome) and I am sure many others do too. Perhaps they are just confused? Perhaps also they think that some of the things we are saying don't make sense because they are so different to what they can understand - and perhaps this is a good thing! Perhaps it means that we are showing new and interesting things to people.
I don't mind it when people call Wikipedia Review members conspiracy theorists. After all, we have just suggested that SlimVirgin was involved in MI5, and is now probably involved in a secret service. The sad thing is that all evidence suggests that this is true. Similarly, there is evidence of a lot of other things going on, and any kind of investigation that is sufficiently open is going to uncover some "out of the ordinary" things, because news flash spy agencies really do exist and they really do operate on the internet. Again, I think that this just shows how well we are going.
But when they start to call us stalkers and harassers, this is where I draw the line. That is not on, Wikipedia.
If it's coming from SlimVirgin, I call you a hypocrite, because you sent Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and Antaeus Feldspar after me and Selina to get us to stop trying to prove that you had harassed Poetlister and got her banned. If it's coming from Snowspinner, you don't know what stalking is, and if you think that police investigating you for writing in your journal in which you say that you are going to murder someone, and do not say anywhere that it's fiction, when you happen to be in a school where 10 unsolved murders happened the year before - and you think that THAT is unusual, then you are seriously lacking in any real life experience, and you need to wake up to the fact that they were doing their job, were doing what they should have been doing, and what they would do in the same circumstances again if there was a similar circumstance.
But if it is coming from random Wikipedia users who otherwise don't know a thing about us, and apparently don't have an agenda, then I seriously take offence.
Yesterday, a person calling himself "Armed Blowfish" wrote on the WikiEN-l mailing list saying that what is happening to SlimVirgin is the same kind of thing as being raped for a second time.
This absurdly offensive thing offends all rape victims and trivialises rape. It offended virtually everyone on the mailing list, and led to calls from many parties that Jayjg, who had forwarded on the message, should quit Wikipedia (Jayjg also insisted that he didn't understand what he might have done to be a central person in the whole SlimVirgin scandal).
The second aspect of this is that I myself, who am one of the central figures of Wikipedia Review, has really seriously been stalked. I have had a gun put to my head, and gotten death threats over the phone, sometimes 5 or 10 in a day, from a guy using a variety of voices and identities, who stalked me for over 6 months, whilst telling me perhaps the most horrific thing anyone could tell anyone - that he was only going to kill me in training for something far more serious. How can you even compare that kind of thing to the kind of thing that is happening to SlimVirgin? Does she have a serial killer at her front door every day? Does she?
It doesn't even compare with Julie, who was documented on http://toxicpink.net/ .
Now, they are calling ME, and Daniel Brandt, and everyone here, STALKERS! They are insisting that what we are doing, when we try to check facts to demonstrate that someone is manipulating the history of important political issues, to change truth, is the same thing - or worse apparently - than having someone put a gun to your face. And indeed, that it's worse than being called a paedophile.
Even Jayjg used the analogy of being accused of being a paedophile.
Now, perhaps Jayjg was doing this purely to seriously hurt me personally, or perhaps he just didn't know, but what Julie did, primarily, was to run a smear campaign against me, over the internet, accusing me of being a paedophile. She got me fired from my job working in a school, got me banned from all childcare centres for life, and caused incredible amounts of personal hardship for me. Does he even have an inkling of understanding as to what it is like to go in to work and have your boss tell you that they think that you are a paedophile, because someone on the internet has your real name, photograph, address, phone number, where you work, and has contacted your boss to pass on information linking to a completely unrelated newspaper story - in an entirely different country - where someone was being charged with being a serial rapist (of adult women) - and then suggested that that was me? I mean, can you imagine that kind of thing, Jayjg? Have you ever had that kind of thing happen to you? Where you were forced to change your entire career because of the smear made by someone, which you had to take 18 months to get rid of, and they got basically a slap on the wrist over it, while you lost almost everything? Do you even have a clue, Jayjg?
We have a guy here, a new user, who just got banned because someone suggested that he was a Paedophile, a Child Pornography person. Luckily, they didn't have his real name. But guess what? That wasn't Wikipedia Review doing it - because we don't do that kind of thing. That was WIKIPEDIA! Specifically, that was Snowspinner, the person who on the mailing list insisted that he had been the victim of stalking by Wikipedia Review!
And for all of this, SlimVirgin came in and encouraged the rape analogies.
If she was saying - do you, Adrian (Blissyu2), or Nathan, who have repeatedly been the victims of serious stalking, feel like you have been raped? I would say yes, and I am sure that Nathan would feel much the same. But she wasn't saying that.
SlimVirgin wrote to say that we, people who are going out of our way to stop this kind of thing, are rapists now, all of a sudden, and that the analogy is fine.
Get real SlimVirgin. You haven't even lost your job over this. You haven't even gotten banned from Wikipedia over this! What about those of us who got banned and had horrible Arbitration things about us, full to the brim with lies, spewn all over Wikipedia? You didn't even get that! You haven't even been accused of being a paedophile, let alone had a gun shoved in your face. Let alone been raped.
How dare you say this kind of thing. How dare you!
There is a line, Wikipedia, and you've crossed over it. I am sure that many of those things are libellous too. And I am sure that most courts would argue that we are the victims in this kind of outrageous attack, not Wikipedia.
Full Version: Wikipedia Review being called "stalkers and harassers"
You oughtta sue Julie. Ask the forum for help. You can get her sued for lots of money and your life back.
I have already gone down that path. The costs to sue someone of unknown identity who lives in another country were horrendous, and I didn't have close to enough money. She was sued in USA, successfully, as you can see in the web site. At least a restraining order was put out against her. I didn't see a cent. It would cost me more than the amount that I lost in order to sue her.
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 7:31am) 
I have already gone down that path. The costs to sue someone of unknown identity who lives in another country were horrendous, and I didn't have close to enough money. She was sued in USA, successfully, as you can see in the web site. At least a restraining order was put out against her. I didn't see a cent. It would cost me more than the amount that I lost in order to sue her.
Daniel Brandt would know what you can do.
It sounds like she still has you listed as a sex offender or something? Maybe you can also see the companies that fired you.
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Sat 4th August 2007, 1:13am)
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 7:31am)
I have already gone down that path. The costs to sue someone of unknown identity who lives in another country were horrendous, and I didn't have close to enough money. She was sued in USA, successfully, as you can see in the web site. At least a restraining order was put out against her. I didn't see a cent. It would cost me more than the amount that I lost in order to sue her.
Daniel Brandt would know what you can do.
It sounds like she still has you listed as a sex offender or something? Maybe you can also see the companies that fired you.
No. I was never listed as a sex offender. The whole thing was made up. Nathan saw it, so can rehash what it said, but I'll see if I can go over it here:
1) She posted my real name, photograph, real address, phone number, where I worked, and every online activity that I was involved in - all of my webpages, e-mail addresses, blogs, chat sites, and so forth to clearly identify me as a person.
2) She re-posted an e-mail that I had sent to her, which she modified, and then replied to publicly on her blog stating that she hadn't realised that my name (Adrian) was a guy's name, and immediately assuming that because I was a guy therefore I wanted to go out with her. She had also laid a trap for me, lying to me on purpose to try to trick me in to something. I can't remember all the details, but basically she called me an idiot, and told everyone she knew to attack me, and anyone who knew me in real life to really give me a good kick in the head.
3) She then posted that her 2-year-old daughter was feeling bad, and had a picture of her crying. This had absolutely nothing to do with number 1 or 2 as I'd never met her.
4) She then posted a story about a friend of hers, living in Chicago, USA, had been raped by a man who was a serial rapist, and she had contacted police about him. Many people responded to this suggesting that the man who had raped her friend was me. Julie herself didn't say this, but she didn't deny it.
5) She then posted a story about how the serial rapist was arrested in Chicago and was currently on trial for the rape of 15 different women (or something along those lines). Again people posted that it was me on trial.
6) She then posted a photograph excerpted from a story about how protesters in the town where I was living were being beaten by police. She had a caption saying "Local man Adrian..." but insisted that she instead meant Adrian McAdam, a famous football player. Adrian McAdam is black, and the man in the photograph was white. Absolutely everyone in her blog assumed that she was posting proof that I had been arrested.
7) She then posted a link to a "joke site" which, if you put in someone's real name, it then automates a smear campaign against you. She chose to set this joke site up so that it had a fake local newspaper article, reporting that I had been arrested for rape and sexual misconduct of many school students. As she had already reported that I was working in a school, many people related this to everything else.
8) She then "guessed" the password on one of my e-mail accounts, a Yahoo account, in which one of the "What is your secret question?" questions was "What is the name of your cat", and by searching the internet she had discovered what his name was (a very unusual name). Using this, she then hacked in to my LiveJournal account, and wrote a full confession that I was indeed a paedophile and had raped her 2 year old daughter. She then published this in her journal.
Combining all of these, on top of her many other nasty comments about me, she was able to convince a lot of people that I had raped her 2 year old daughter, was a serial rapist, that my local newspaper had run a story on me, that I had been photographed being arrested, and that I was currently on trial as a serial rapist.
She then passed this on to my bosses, to everyone that she could find in my local town. I was, as I said, unable to get a job for about 3 months, and unable to ever work in the childcare industry every again. I was very lucky to get my job back at the school where I had worked.
I was never on any list of sex offenders, because I hadn't done anything, nor had I been actually charged. However, a lot of childcare institutions have a rule right now that if you have ever been *ACCUSED* of any sexual misconduct against children, even if it never even gets to court, then they will never hire you FOR LIFE.
That is their policy, and they stick to it. Their argument is that a lot of people are too scared to go to court over it.
I tried to prosecute her, but of course she was using a fake name, apparently related to her husband being a spy working for the United States government, then situated at Pine Gap.
Incidentally, she also created a web page called http://captainamerika.com/ to document current CIA chief Michael Hayward's alleged affair with a woman called "Erika", while he was married. This bout of cyber stalking came up all over the internet again when Michael Hayward was elected to the head of the CIA a year or so ago. Her husband used an alias in reporting that, and I can't be sure which of them was primarily responsible.
She wasn't just smearing my name. She had over 15 different web sites up that smeared people's names. As far as I could tell, it was some kind of a hobby for her. From what I could gather, she was abusing her husband's resources as a spy to gather information on other people for her own amusement. Quite frankly she had no earthly reason to come after me. She just did it for fun.
Of course, I am not sure that her husband was a spy. She just said he was. Nowadays she claims that she is a lesbian. I am convinced that she never had a husband, or a daughter, and indeed that she was probably a male the whole time.
I went through absolutely everything I could at the time to get rid of it. It took 18 months just to partially clear my name, just to purge the web of all of the nasty stuff. Nowadays, the only place that keeps copies of it (and only a few tiny things) is LJ Drama, which is affiliated with Encyclopedia Dramatica. That's why I hate ED.
And for the record, no, I don't want research in to this thank you. I am sure that the page in question has been archived by web.archive.org, as well as all of the other ones that we got takedown notices issued against. I do not under any circumstances want them to be recreated. Why? Because the reality is that people skim things, and they see 6 REAL news articles, from reputable sources (they were all well known publications), then they are going to believe them. The fact that none of them had anything to do with me is something that a lot of people will very easily miss. If they then see a 7th FAKE news article, that lists my name, then they can very easily assume that, like the others, that one is real too. After all, just because you only know the name of 6 out of 7 publications, surely that doesn't imply that the 7th is fake, does it? And if they then see an 8th thing which is a CONFESSION by me, then surely that's enough?
She even admitted later that she'd hacked my account, and I even published that, and it didn't change a thing. Because people skim read. They don't look properly. Important details are missed. They don't check facts.
Oh, and of course, like every good stalker, she insisted that I was stalking her, and all of her friends, and everyone who supported her - and you - and you - and everyone else too. I did try to demonstrate that I don't have enough time to stalk 5,000 different people, and its more likely that they are stalking me, but hey who listens to logic when ganging up on people is more fun?
But anyway, back on track there, I want to know how Wikipedia can kid themselves that we on Wikipedia Review would even dream of stalking people. If I saw even one incidence of stalking on here, I would pack my bags and leave, never to return, and spit on the ground as I left. At least, if it was in any way condoned by the staff here. I am sure that Nathan at least would do the same. And to date there has been a total of one instance of stalking - Amorrow against Katefan0. Full stop period end of story. I was upset at that, and we dealt with that correctly. That's it.
Daniel Brandt is not stalking anyone. He has never published SlimVirgin's home phone number, her full address, where she works, or anything of the sort. And he is not accusing her of being a child molester, or being a bad mother, or anything that is going to cause serious stress. He is accusing her of being a secret agent and of changing history on Wikipedia.
Now, if someone called me a secret agent, I'd probably consider it to be a compliment. Then I'd probably tell them how much I hate the idea of the secret service.
I turned down a career path in to ASIO (who are the world's worst secret service) because I oppose the idea of it. Apparently I had the right um whats the word character? To be a secret agent. In Australia, you simply join the police force, or the army, then apply from there.
She even admitted later that she'd hacked my account, and I even published that, and it didn't change a thing. Because people skim read. They don't look properly. Important details are missed. They don't check facts.
Oh, and of course, like every good stalker, she insisted that I was stalking her, and all of her friends, and everyone who supported her - and you - and you - and everyone else too. I did try to demonstrate that I don't have enough time to stalk 5,000 different people, and its more likely that they are stalking me, but hey who listens to logic when ganging up on people is more fun?
But anyway, back on track there, I want to know how Wikipedia can kid themselves that we on Wikipedia Review would even dream of stalking people. If I saw even one incidence of stalking on here, I would pack my bags and leave, never to return, and spit on the ground as I left. At least, if it was in any way condoned by the staff here. I am sure that Nathan at least would do the same. And to date there has been a total of one instance of stalking - Amorrow against Katefan0. Full stop period end of story. I was upset at that, and we dealt with that correctly. That's it.
Daniel Brandt is not stalking anyone. He has never published SlimVirgin's home phone number, her full address, where she works, or anything of the sort. And he is not accusing her of being a child molester, or being a bad mother, or anything that is going to cause serious stress. He is accusing her of being a secret agent and of changing history on Wikipedia.
Now, if someone called me a secret agent, I'd probably consider it to be a compliment. Then I'd probably tell them how much I hate the idea of the secret service.
I turned down a career path in to ASIO (who are the world's worst secret service) because I oppose the idea of it. Apparently I had the right um whats the word character? To be a secret agent. In Australia, you simply join the police force, or the army, then apply from there.
Anyway, Wikipedia Review is not being libelled by this, I just thought that I would point out. It is libellous, as in it could one day lead to libel, but right now it is not.
Wikipedia Review, as a company, is not losing money because of this. We are not being shut down by our hosting company, or losing our software license, or anything like that (which is the only money relevant to Wikipedia Review). You need to be losing money, or reputation that could lead to losing money, in order for it to be libel.
In fact, in the main such ludicrous statements actually help our position here. I can find them offensive, and I am sure many others do too. But apparently some people find being called "crazies" offensive, or even they say something like "not everyone on WR is a loonie", which in itself I take some offense at - since it implies that some of us are! And are you meaning me?
See this is a time where I am thinking of just wiping this post and starting again. I guess I probably shouldn't now that people have replied to it, but you know, I am sick right now, and high on codeine and various other medications right now, overly aggressive, getting overly upset about things like this, and so forth. This is probably the result of all of this.
One thing that I find a little amusing is that when LJDrama were discussing my cyber stalking by Julie, they were using a discussion forum like this, and they were insisting that I wasn't really being cyber stalked, because my life wasn't in danger. No, but I was being called a paedophile, I did lose my job over it, I did lose a lot of money over it, and it did severely affect my reputation. And LJ Drama were ultimately proven wrong (as they were on a number of other cases too). They didn't make a retraction, or say sorry, we backed the wrong horse there. Nothing like that. They still consider Julie a welcome, lovely person, and me a troll.
I have to keep doing a double take when I see Wikipedia reacting like this. Are we to Wikipedia what LJ Drama is to Live Journal? That's what Blu Aardvark said. But I really hope that we aren't. If we were, I certainly wouldn't be involved in this. I would pack up my bags, delete all of my posts, and leave. And if we EVER engage in a single act of cyber stalking, then that is EXACTLY what I will do. At least, if we encourage it.
So if for example, we decide to pick on a user who we think is funny because they are gay, or like sex toys or something. Then we find out who they are, slag them off, publish their full name and details, and harass them. If we did anything even vaguely like that, I'd quit. I'd be out of here. I'd be long gone.
Wikipedia claims that that is what we are doing. But you go and look at http://www.ljdrama.org/ and compare it to this. Is there even the slightest, remotest comparison? (Edit: Its apparently down. Well, look at their ED article then: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/LJ_Drama )
And for the record, LiveJournal generally approved of LJ Drama. Wikipedia doesn't approve of Wikipedia Review. That's another big difference.
Wikipedia Review, as a company, is not losing money because of this. We are not being shut down by our hosting company, or losing our software license, or anything like that (which is the only money relevant to Wikipedia Review). You need to be losing money, or reputation that could lead to losing money, in order for it to be libel.
In fact, in the main such ludicrous statements actually help our position here. I can find them offensive, and I am sure many others do too. But apparently some people find being called "crazies" offensive, or even they say something like "not everyone on WR is a loonie", which in itself I take some offense at - since it implies that some of us are! And are you meaning me?
See this is a time where I am thinking of just wiping this post and starting again. I guess I probably shouldn't now that people have replied to it, but you know, I am sick right now, and high on codeine and various other medications right now, overly aggressive, getting overly upset about things like this, and so forth. This is probably the result of all of this.
One thing that I find a little amusing is that when LJDrama were discussing my cyber stalking by Julie, they were using a discussion forum like this, and they were insisting that I wasn't really being cyber stalked, because my life wasn't in danger. No, but I was being called a paedophile, I did lose my job over it, I did lose a lot of money over it, and it did severely affect my reputation. And LJ Drama were ultimately proven wrong (as they were on a number of other cases too). They didn't make a retraction, or say sorry, we backed the wrong horse there. Nothing like that. They still consider Julie a welcome, lovely person, and me a troll.
I have to keep doing a double take when I see Wikipedia reacting like this. Are we to Wikipedia what LJ Drama is to Live Journal? That's what Blu Aardvark said. But I really hope that we aren't. If we were, I certainly wouldn't be involved in this. I would pack up my bags, delete all of my posts, and leave. And if we EVER engage in a single act of cyber stalking, then that is EXACTLY what I will do. At least, if we encourage it.
So if for example, we decide to pick on a user who we think is funny because they are gay, or like sex toys or something. Then we find out who they are, slag them off, publish their full name and details, and harass them. If we did anything even vaguely like that, I'd quit. I'd be out of here. I'd be long gone.
Wikipedia claims that that is what we are doing. But you go and look at http://www.ljdrama.org/ and compare it to this. Is there even the slightest, remotest comparison? (Edit: Its apparently down. Well, look at their ED article then: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/LJ_Drama )
And for the record, LiveJournal generally approved of LJ Drama. Wikipedia doesn't approve of Wikipedia Review. That's another big difference.
It's like how I've been called a "paedophile" by many Wikipedia users. That can't be proven, that's completely ridiculous, as most of us can figure out for ourselves.
I could sue each and every damn one of them but I'd have to prove that those accusations cost me something and it hasn't.
Even if I could, it would also cost me more money to take legal action than what I would win in such battles. Now the nearest American city, which is Watertown NY, is only slightly over two hours away (pay no attention to the directions, I live nowhere near that area) by car but still, it costs time, money, energy, resources, none of which I care to expend - even if I could legally take the needed action.
I could sue each and every damn one of them but I'd have to prove that those accusations cost me something and it hasn't.
Even if I could, it would also cost me more money to take legal action than what I would win in such battles. Now the nearest American city, which is Watertown NY, is only slightly over two hours away (pay no attention to the directions, I live nowhere near that area) by car but still, it costs time, money, energy, resources, none of which I care to expend - even if I could legally take the needed action.
Wikipedia's Request for Arbitration/Internodeuser is also libellous. However, it would only be libellous if someone could uniquely identify me (a real person) as a unique individual. They couldn't do that. They didn't know my real name, and as it turned out my IP address was shared, so their lies about me in there, taking a lot of things severely out of context, deleting diffs so that I'd lose the argument, and so forth, don't matter. What they did there didn't affect my life. It was annoying, but really I didn't worry about it all that much. I was only testing it anyway, I hadn't even gotten a personal vested interest in it.
Now, I have identified myself in a way that I can be identified as a real individual, and especially with Wikipedia's linking to an old alt.autism post that I made, where I talked about Julie stalking me, and about PA, and how they were encouraging stalking. (Go look on my userpage, linked from here, and you can see it - it proves that all that I was saying about PA all along was true, and that I was always opposed to stalking).
Because of this identification, therefore Wikipedia's Request for Arbitration/Internodeuser, which defames me, combined with my being uniquely identified as a real individual, means that I could sue them - just so long as I have suffered real life damage, or might some day suffer real life damage because of it.
Well guess what? I haven't. And I won't either, thanks to Wikipedia Review. Because the thing is that if anyone looks at that and says to me "Oh Adrian, why did you do all of these things?" then I can tell them to go to Wikipedia Review. Then they'll see that I am involved in a worthwhile endeavour here to try to help humanity, and they'll smile and say "well done", and my reputation isn't harmed. They'll be able to see that what Wikipedia has said is primarily false, and what is technically true is taken out of context severely. For example, I never once made unprovoked attacks to people - I on a few occasions responded to particularly aggressive insults. Wikipedia just chose not to link to them, and I didn't know how to use diffs. In some cases, Wikipedia admins had decided to delete the diffs. I also didn't make legal threats. I responded to legal threats. Again, there is a big difference with this. In both cases, based on the behaviour of others, I was led to believe that this was normal behaviour. If I was banned for doing something, why is it that Thebainer, Longhair, Tannin and ARYaktos all got promoted to admin because of doing the exact same thing, in terms of behaviour? They initiated it, I responded to it, yet I got banned and they got made admins? How does that work? If somebody punches you in the face, and you then restrain them and put them in a headlock, do you go to jail? No, they do. You have only defended yourself. That was exactly what I did, in wiki terms.
But that's it anyway. I can get upset about these things, and hate the idea that they might associate us, or at least me, with cyber stalking (some people here might not give a shit, but I do), but the thing is that this is not going to hurt me personally. In the end, people are going to look at these outrageous statements, and say that hey, we are the victims here, and they are the ones that are being ridiculous.
Anyway yeah I guess this is mainly cos I'm high on drugs right now, from my medication because I've got a bronchial infection. But yeah, I am pretty upset about all of this, seriously. Not this fake upset that SlimVirgin has, but real upset. Of course, I'm sure that SlimVirgin is worried that she might be finally exposed, but that's about it.
Now, I have identified myself in a way that I can be identified as a real individual, and especially with Wikipedia's linking to an old alt.autism post that I made, where I talked about Julie stalking me, and about PA, and how they were encouraging stalking. (Go look on my userpage, linked from here, and you can see it - it proves that all that I was saying about PA all along was true, and that I was always opposed to stalking).
Because of this identification, therefore Wikipedia's Request for Arbitration/Internodeuser, which defames me, combined with my being uniquely identified as a real individual, means that I could sue them - just so long as I have suffered real life damage, or might some day suffer real life damage because of it.
Well guess what? I haven't. And I won't either, thanks to Wikipedia Review. Because the thing is that if anyone looks at that and says to me "Oh Adrian, why did you do all of these things?" then I can tell them to go to Wikipedia Review. Then they'll see that I am involved in a worthwhile endeavour here to try to help humanity, and they'll smile and say "well done", and my reputation isn't harmed. They'll be able to see that what Wikipedia has said is primarily false, and what is technically true is taken out of context severely. For example, I never once made unprovoked attacks to people - I on a few occasions responded to particularly aggressive insults. Wikipedia just chose not to link to them, and I didn't know how to use diffs. In some cases, Wikipedia admins had decided to delete the diffs. I also didn't make legal threats. I responded to legal threats. Again, there is a big difference with this. In both cases, based on the behaviour of others, I was led to believe that this was normal behaviour. If I was banned for doing something, why is it that Thebainer, Longhair, Tannin and ARYaktos all got promoted to admin because of doing the exact same thing, in terms of behaviour? They initiated it, I responded to it, yet I got banned and they got made admins? How does that work? If somebody punches you in the face, and you then restrain them and put them in a headlock, do you go to jail? No, they do. You have only defended yourself. That was exactly what I did, in wiki terms.
But that's it anyway. I can get upset about these things, and hate the idea that they might associate us, or at least me, with cyber stalking (some people here might not give a shit, but I do), but the thing is that this is not going to hurt me personally. In the end, people are going to look at these outrageous statements, and say that hey, we are the victims here, and they are the ones that are being ridiculous.
Anyway yeah I guess this is mainly cos I'm high on drugs right now, from my medication because I've got a bronchial infection. But yeah, I am pretty upset about all of this, seriously. Not this fake upset that SlimVirgin has, but real upset. Of course, I'm sure that SlimVirgin is worried that she might be finally exposed, but that's about it.
For someone who's high on medication, you still make a lot of good points, so your logical thinking isn't impaired nearly as much as you think it is.
Well, on 3 different occasions I had the flu during my mid-year exams. On all 3 occasions I flunked every single exam (or if I didn't flunk, I went from top in the class to only barely passing). I have learned that such things stuff up your judgement. Whether its the illness or the medication, I am also very aggressive right now and very delusional.
i don't want to encourage drug abuse, but i love this intoxicated blissy. 
My take on the stalkers and harassers comments coming from WP is that the more they chant it, and really can't back it up, the more it just becomes noise. If you want to engage them about it on any level, ask them for proof. The person who then attempts to provide proof is then linking to a BADSITE and lacks poor judgment and empathy (per SV, ElinorD, MONGO, Crum375, et. al).
Calling WR as a whole stalkers and harassers is just part of their game, albeit a very nasty one.
My take on the stalkers and harassers comments coming from WP is that the more they chant it, and really can't back it up, the more it just becomes noise. If you want to engage them about it on any level, ask them for proof. The person who then attempts to provide proof is then linking to a BADSITE and lacks poor judgment and empathy (per SV, ElinorD, MONGO, Crum375, et. al).
Calling WR as a whole stalkers and harassers is just part of their game, albeit a very nasty one.
You can not sue for possible damages, what possible damage is there when the one who makes the accusations is behind a pseudonym attacking a person who is also behind a pseudonym? In this case, probably most being attacked and the attackers are both behind pseudonyms, no self-respecting court will accept the case. Also consider that Wikipedia was meant to be an encyclopedia not some source used to discredit its own members. It has already credibility problems on the materials editors publish, what to make of the credibility of the accusations between members? Come on dude, it isen't serious, how much it could harm you, internet slanderings like this one won't go that far.
Internet slanderings can harm you. I think I explained that in this thread. There are a number of examples where they have harmed people. But there are, if I recall, 3 main things that you need to prove:
1) You need to be able to identify that person as a unique real person, as provable to any random uninvolved person
2) You need to be able to prove that what is being said is untrue
3) You need to be able to prove that what is being said damages them physically, or harms their reputation, to the point where it causes $ value problems
In the case of Julie's accusations that I was a paedophile:
1) It had my real name, photo, address, phone number. Easy to prove it was me.
2) It said that I was a paedophile, that I was currently on trial for it. Court records can prove that I wasn't. The things she said were about entirely different people.
3) It cost me my job, made me unemployable anywhere for 3 months, meant that I can never again work with children, and had to change career paths entirely. That cost about $18,000 I figured out at one point. Ergo, that's how much I'd sue her for.
Now, that's a case where, if only I could locate her, and we didn't have all of this annoying difficulty associated with overseas cases, and of course the double jeapordy rule since she's already been found guilty of it now in the case involving Bonnie, who named me as an affected party, yet Bonnie only asked for a restraining order, means that pretty much I can't do a thing, tough luck I've lost the money.
Now, in the case of SlimVirgin, let's do the test.
1) Can we identify her as a unique individual? Yes, she's Linda Mack.
2) Can she prove that anything that we have said about her is false? No, she can't. (She also is required to have asked us to have removed it, and proved to us that it is false, which she hasn't done). If she ever does, we WILL take it down, at least the false information, or else correct it. We have already said this.
3) Can she prove that it has cost her money? No of course not. It hasn't cost her money. If she loses her job over it, then it will cost her money. But she will need to prove that she lost her job for untrue things that we said, not for true things that we said.
Now, going the other way, can we sue her?
1) Can Wikipedia Review be identified as a unique entity? Yes, we have our own domain name.
2) Can we prove that anything they have said about us is false? Yes, they have called us stalkers and harassers. Have we asked them to retract this and proven to them that it is false? Yes, we have, on both counts.
3) Can we prove that it has cost us money? No, it hasn't. So long as these accusations don't lead to us losing our domain name hosting, or the lease on our software, then it can't cost us any money.
So, for as long as SlimVirgin refuses to say what is false, and so long as we don't lose our domain name, we're in a stalemate. Wikipedia has said false things about us, but hasn't cost us anything. We haven't said anything false about SlimVirgin (not knowingly false at least).
There you go. Nobody can sue anyone, either way.
But rest assured that if SlimVirgin ever does write to us to prove that what we have said about her is false, and we accept that proof, we will either delete the offending material, or else put some kind of a note against it to indicate this. We most seriously will do this.
We are not intending to break the law here.
1) You need to be able to identify that person as a unique real person, as provable to any random uninvolved person
2) You need to be able to prove that what is being said is untrue
3) You need to be able to prove that what is being said damages them physically, or harms their reputation, to the point where it causes $ value problems
In the case of Julie's accusations that I was a paedophile:
1) It had my real name, photo, address, phone number. Easy to prove it was me.
2) It said that I was a paedophile, that I was currently on trial for it. Court records can prove that I wasn't. The things she said were about entirely different people.
3) It cost me my job, made me unemployable anywhere for 3 months, meant that I can never again work with children, and had to change career paths entirely. That cost about $18,000 I figured out at one point. Ergo, that's how much I'd sue her for.
Now, that's a case where, if only I could locate her, and we didn't have all of this annoying difficulty associated with overseas cases, and of course the double jeapordy rule since she's already been found guilty of it now in the case involving Bonnie, who named me as an affected party, yet Bonnie only asked for a restraining order, means that pretty much I can't do a thing, tough luck I've lost the money.
Now, in the case of SlimVirgin, let's do the test.
1) Can we identify her as a unique individual? Yes, she's Linda Mack.
2) Can she prove that anything that we have said about her is false? No, she can't. (She also is required to have asked us to have removed it, and proved to us that it is false, which she hasn't done). If she ever does, we WILL take it down, at least the false information, or else correct it. We have already said this.
3) Can she prove that it has cost her money? No of course not. It hasn't cost her money. If she loses her job over it, then it will cost her money. But she will need to prove that she lost her job for untrue things that we said, not for true things that we said.
Now, going the other way, can we sue her?
1) Can Wikipedia Review be identified as a unique entity? Yes, we have our own domain name.
2) Can we prove that anything they have said about us is false? Yes, they have called us stalkers and harassers. Have we asked them to retract this and proven to them that it is false? Yes, we have, on both counts.
3) Can we prove that it has cost us money? No, it hasn't. So long as these accusations don't lead to us losing our domain name hosting, or the lease on our software, then it can't cost us any money.
So, for as long as SlimVirgin refuses to say what is false, and so long as we don't lose our domain name, we're in a stalemate. Wikipedia has said false things about us, but hasn't cost us anything. We haven't said anything false about SlimVirgin (not knowingly false at least).
There you go. Nobody can sue anyone, either way.
But rest assured that if SlimVirgin ever does write to us to prove that what we have said about her is false, and we accept that proof, we will either delete the offending material, or else put some kind of a note against it to indicate this. We most seriously will do this.
We are not intending to break the law here.
That the informations on SlimVirgin are right or wrong, she can not sue you. Because from what I can understand she wants her identity to remain secret. To prove that the informations about her are wrong she has to give evidences on her true identity, which you can not expect her to do. If on the other hand the informations are accurate, she will still decide to not address the info. In both case she will do nothing about it and her inaction can not be used to confirm that either it is true or not. I will not advanture more on this, because to say the truth all this thing about SlimVirgin doesn't interest me, her name pop-on everytime so some of the stuff I've read out of curiosity.
On the defamation on you, I didn't know it was that serious.
On the defamation on you, I didn't know it was that serious.
FWIW, Double Jepoardy would not apply.
If you want some advice (but I _stress_: I am no lawyer) then you can PM me with as whatever details you want to give me.
If you want some advice (but I _stress_: I am no lawyer) then you can PM me with as whatever details you want to give me.
Bliss2yu I think you should take this matter to the press and let them all know. They will clear your name and people who read it will track her down and make her pay.
(food for thought, from Blissy, I can't remember when he said it)
Is Wikipedia Review to Wikipedia what LJ Drama was to LiveJournal?
LiveJournal supported LJ Drama (by not opposing them and protecting the users involved), while Wikipedia opposes us (and blocks almost anyone involved).
(somehow, I think my wording isn't very good but I hope you see what I mean)
Is Wikipedia Review to Wikipedia what LJ Drama was to LiveJournal?
LiveJournal supported LJ Drama (by not opposing them and protecting the users involved), while Wikipedia opposes us (and blocks almost anyone involved).
(somehow, I think my wording isn't very good but I hope you see what I mean)
QUOTE(Nathan @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 8:51pm)
(food for thought, from Blissy this afternoon)
Is Wikipedia Review to Wikipedia what LJ Drama (the precursor to Encyclopedia Dramatica) is to LiveJournal?
LiveJournal supported LJ Drama (by not opposing them and protecting the users involved), while Wikipedia opposes us (and blocks almost anyone involved).
(somehow, I think my wording isn't very good but I hope you see what I mean)
I think WP is like China, Somey is like the Dali Lama (one "l' cause he's a priest) and WR is Boulder or something. (two "l's" would be a beast)
QUOTE(Xidaf @ Sat 4th August 2007, 7:15am)
That the informations on SlimVirgin are right or wrong, she can not sue you. Because from what I can understand she wants her identity to remain secret. To prove that the informations about her are wrong she has to give evidences on her true identity, which you can not expect her to do. If on the other hand the informations are accurate, she will still decide to not address the info. In both case she will do nothing about it and her inaction can not be used to confirm that either it is true or not.
That sounds pretty much spot on.
QUOTE
On the defamation on you, I didn't know it was that serious.
It's over now. While I wanted my money back, in the end it's over, and in the end money doesn't mean as much as being able to go on with your life. It was a horrible time. But not nearly as horrible as having someone with a gun to your head. There is a world of difference between the two.
To add to the discussion: It pretty much ended the same way for me as well (similar situation as blissy), I demanded my money back, I didn't get it.
When LJ was bought by Six Apart, I asked for a review of the situation and went through the BBB process again. Obviously that failed. I thought that maybe since the company was owned by a different entity, maybe I had a chance but that was purely wishful thinking on my part.
When LJ was bought by Six Apart, I asked for a review of the situation and went through the BBB process again. Obviously that failed. I thought that maybe since the company was owned by a different entity, maybe I had a chance but that was purely wishful thinking on my part.
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 8:11am)
Yesterday, a person calling himself "Armed Blowfish" wrote on the WikiEN-l mailing list saying that what is happening to SlimVirgin is the same kind of thing as being raped for a second time.
This absurdly offensive thing offends all rape victims and trivialises rape. It offended virtually everyone on the mailing list, and led to calls from many parties that Jayjg, who had forwarded on the message, should quit Wikipedia (Jayjg also insisted that he didn't understand what he might have done to be a central person in the whole SlimVirgin scandal).
The second aspect of this is that I myself, who am one of the central figures of Wikipedia Review, has really seriously been stalked. I have had a gun put to my head, and gotten death threats over the phone, sometimes 5 or 10 in a day, from a guy using a variety of voices and identities, who stalked me for over 6 months, whilst telling me perhaps the most horrific thing anyone could tell anyone - that he was only going to kill me in training for something far more serious. How can you even compare that kind of thing to the kind of thing that is happening to SlimVirgin? Does she have a serial killer at her front door every day? Does she?
It doesn't even compare with Julie, who was documented on http://toxicpink.net/ .
Now, they are calling ME, and Daniel Brandt, and everyone here, STALKERS! They are insisting that what we are doing, when we try to check facts to demonstrate that someone is manipulating the history of important political issues, to change truth, is the same thing - or worse apparently - than having someone put a gun to your face. And indeed, that it's worse than being called a paedophile.
Even Jayjg used the analogy of being accused of being a paedophile.
Now, perhaps Jayjg was doing this purely to seriously hurt me personally, or perhaps he just didn't know, but what Julie did, primarily, was to run a smear campaign against me, over the internet, accusing me of being a paedophile. She got me fired from my job working in a school, got me banned from all childcare centres for life, and caused incredible amounts of personal hardship for me. Does he even have an inkling of understanding as to what it is like to go in to work and have your boss tell you that they think that you are a paedophile, because someone on the internet has your real name, photograph, address, phone number, where you work, and has contacted your boss to pass on information linking to a completely unrelated newspaper story - in an entirely different country - where someone was being charged with being a serial rapist (of adult women) - and then suggested that that was me? I mean, can you imagine that kind of thing, Jayjg? Have you ever had that kind of thing happen to you? Where you were forced to change your entire career because of the smear made by someone, which you had to take 18 months to get rid of, and they got basically a slap on the wrist over it, while you lost almost everything? Do you even have a clue, Jayjg?
We have a guy here, a new user, who just got banned because someone suggested that he was a Paedophile, a Child Pornography person. Luckily, they didn't have his real name. But guess what? That wasn't Wikipedia Review doing it - because we don't do that kind of thing. That was WIKIPEDIA! Specifically, that was Snowspinner, the person who on the mailing list insisted that he had been the victim of stalking by Wikipedia Review!
And for all of this, SlimVirgin came in and encouraged the rape analogies.
If she was saying - do you, Adrian (Blissyu2), or Nathan, who have repeatedly been the victims of serious stalking, feel like you have been raped? I would say yes, and I am sure that Nathan would feel much the same. But she wasn't saying that.
SlimVirgin wrote to say that we, people who are going out of our way to stop this kind of thing, are rapists now, all of a sudden, and that the analogy is fine.
Get real SlimVirgin. You haven't even lost your job over this. You haven't even gotten banned from Wikipedia over this! What about those of us who got banned and had horrible Arbitration things about us, full to the brim with lies, spewn all over Wikipedia? You didn't even get that! You haven't even been accused of being a paedophile, let alone had a gun shoved in your face. Let alone been raped.
How dare you say this kind of thing. How dare you!
There is a line, Wikipedia, and you've crossed over it. I am sure that many of those things are libellous too. And I am sure that most courts would argue that we are the victims in this kind of outrageous attack, not Wikipedia.
I strongly agree with this view. The rape and false criminal allegation analogies are very offensive, particularly to those that have actually been victims of such crimes. The moral obliviousness displayed by most of the cabalistas never ceases to amaze me. But that is a good thing; if I understood their thinking better, it would mean I think too much like them.
QUOTE(Cedric @ Sat 4th August 2007, 10:04am)
I strongly agree with this view. The rape and false criminal allegation analogies are very offensive, particularly to those that have actually been victims of such crimes. The moral obliviousness displayed by most of the cabalistas never ceases to amaze me. But that is a good thing; if I understood their thinking better, it would mean I think too much like them.
I was going to write a parody using their pumped up concern for the "flower of Wikipedian womanhood" as a basis for abuses, drawing parallels to the "Lynch Law" period of American history. I was going to link it to the Emmett Till article about the Chicago kid that got lynched in Mississippi for "disrespecting a white woman." And you know I looked at the article and thought "This is as bad as they are. There is no comparison to any injustice we might suffer on Wikipedia that allows us to even consider it." So this whole overblown hyperbole thing is just wrong. Good to remember occasionally that there are people who face problems far beyond anything we address.
QUOTE(Cedric @ Sat 4th August 2007, 12:04pm)
I strongly agree with this view. The rape and false criminal allegation analogies are very offensive, particularly to those that have actually been victims of such crimes. The moral obliviousness displayed by most of the cabalistas never ceases to amaze me. But that is a good thing; if I understood their thinking better, it would mean I think too much like them.
However, Armed Blowfish doesn't seem to be part of the clique / cabal / whatever him/herself, given that he/she was ganged up on by the clique not long ago in his/her RfA. Why he/she is siding so fervently with the clique now is a mystery.
I have e-mailed Armed Blowfish, about 15-20 e-mails each way. I'll summarise his stance (or what I interpreted as his stance):
Armed Blowfish, who seems to be a woman, had a run in with SlimVirgin on Wikipedia, which began when she was nominated for adminship, and ended when she was banned from Wikipedia. I didn't look in to the details, but from what I can gather Armed Blowfish was bullied and harassed off Wikipedia by SlimVirgin, and her friends.
Armed Blowfish did not understand why SlimVirgin did this, and tried to understand what could possess a person to behave in this manner.
On a personal note, Armed Blowfish was raped at some point in her life, and then, as with many rape victims, was raped by a second man on a second occasion. She was then raped a third, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and umpteen times, by different men. This is common with many rape victims. Once you are raped you are more likely to be raped by a second person, and if it gets to twice then it seems that you are suddenly attractive as a rape victim to all would be rapists.
There are many theories as to why this happens, including the theory that basically you somehow want it, to justify how awful you feel, or that you expect it or that you think for some reason that you are responsible for it, that it's you, not them. The attitudes of people around you, blaming you for wearing sexy clothing, or for being too friendly to others, and so forth leads to this kind of thing. It becomes a pattern, and one which is very difficult to break. Repeat rape victims get to a point where they don't even bother telling anyone if they are raped, after it has happened x amount of times, and try to pretend that they hadn't been raped.
There are also many ways to try to get out of this pattern. One way that is very effective is to bring them to justice, and have them put in prison. This not only helps you to feel better, but it also sends a warning out to other would-be rapists that you are not an easy victim. Of course there is therapy and such which has limited success. And there is confronting the people that did it to you, to try to understand why they did it to you. Research and understanding the issue are also very important.
This kind of thing, however, is not limited to rape. People who are constantly robbed, constantly beaten up by school bullies, constantly being put down, constantly being stalked, constantly being cyber stalked, and so forth, all have many of the same symptoms. Obviously, they aren't being sexually penetrated, so there are many physical aspects that are very different. But the helplessness, the feeling that you are somehow to blame for it, the feeling that nobody understands, they are all things that are much the same.
Armed Blowfish didn't articulate this very well, but quite frankly she was pretty much spot on. A perennial victim, as SlimVirgin claims to be, is in much the same way a repeat rape victim. It is insulting to rape victims because they don't think that anything else is the same, because it is unique, that nobody understands. But it is not insulting to victims. Armed Blowfish perhaps should have said that it was like being bullied by a school bully. That would have been a better analogy.
The problem, however, is that Armed Blowfish didn't in any way demonstrate that SlimVirgin was a repeat victim, or that what we were doing was in any way attacking SlimVirgin, that it was anything vaguely like cyber stalking. This is the problem with what Armed Blowfish is saying.
The thing is that we haven't said any personal details about SlimVirgin. Not her address, phone number, where she works, recent photographs, her personal history, who her parents are, or anything like this. I am sure that we could find them, but we don't want to find them, because doing that would be stalking. And the only reason why we need to find out her real name is so that we can find out what her conflict of interest is. The only reason that we need to do this is to prove that she really is changing history, and really is doing the wrong thing. If we went around and just said SlimVirgin, then it'd never make any newspapers. If all that we looked at was her diffs and linking what she was doing, then it'd soon be oversighted (indeed, the most compelling evidence we ever found WAS oversighted, and is the subject of this scandal).
The problem is that Armed Blowfish, in trying to explain to herself why SlimVirgin would behave so horrifically towards her for no reason at all, determined that she must be doing it because she was a perennial victim, because that makes sense. But Armed Blowfish attached herself to it because it made sense, and then didn't bother to look any further as to whether it was true. She refuses to look in to whether SlimVirgin is one of these people that lies about things and manipulates others.
I mean one of my ex girlfriends was in many ways like SlimVirgin. These people do exist. My ex was very overweight, and she told me that it was a genetic problem that she couldn't help - yet her sister was a thin, good looking model. Then she told me that it was because she got depressed because one of her previous boyfriends had abused me. Yet after she dumped me, she then told everyone that she was thin when she met me and that I was the reason she got fat! (Mind you, I suspected that her previous boyfriend wasn't the real reason anyway - you tend to get fat because you eat too much and don't exercise). She had also broken her arm in a horse riding accident, and when it was put in the cast for some reason it didn't heal properly, so the doctor said that he wanted to re-break the arm and go through another 3 months with a cast on her arm. She refused! So rather than get the arm re-broken so that she can live a normal life, she instead walks around with an arm that won't bend properly, and has successfully applied for a disability pension, gets extra money to help her to "cope" with it, gets to park in the disabled persons parking spots, and so forth. At one point when we were doing our exercise routines together, she wasn't watching where she was going and fell over and twisted her ankle, then broke her other leg in 5 places, requiring surgery, primarily because she was so overweight that her body couldn't handle the pressure of the fall (which was less than 2 feet/50 centimetres - it was a fairly small fall). Then she went in a wheelchair and made me do everything for her, and insisted that she would never want to get better, as she liked to be waited on hand and foot. We broke up over that, as I refused to just do everything for her for good, and told her I wanted her to get better. She used to go on to muds (games) and just play damsel in distress constantly to try to get guys to do whatever she wanted. She pretended to be thin (she was pretty, so she didn't have to pretend about that) to get what she wanted.
The thing is that people do this. I guess stereotypically its mostly women (although over the internet some men do it, often while pretending to be women), but its not necessarily gender specific.
Basically as I think of it, men typically if they are going to be abusive, they do it themselves, they are in your face, aggressive, scary, frightening, and its damn easy to prove that they've done it. Women on the other hand tend to manipulate others, lie about it, and often play damsel in distress, so that some innocent guy can come along, riding on his shiny white steed, and rescue her, while committing some horrible crime, then he goes to jail as an innocent man, while she gets away scott free. This is why over 90% of people in jails are men. Its not because men are evil while women are good. Its because men are honest about their crimes while women lie and manipulate when they do it. (Again, our justice system is yet to catch up to this fact).
Not all women do it, absolutely not. Only a very small proportion of women do. And of course only a very small proportion of men are complete and utter bastards who have no regard for others. But you can even see it with little kids - when girls are naughty, they lie. When boys are naughty, they hit people. Boys do lie too, and girls do hit people too, but generally that's the way around that it works.
This all suggests that SlimVirgin is probably a woman, and probably for her entire life has lied and manipulated people. It also suggests that SlimVirgin probably is, or at least was, an attractive woman, who can use her body to her advantage. Or at least thinks that she is attractive.
Think of James Bond movies. All of the evil women in those kinds of movies were like SlimVirgin.
It also means that SlimVirgin would make a good spy, at least a good evil spy.
Armed Blowfish, who seems to be a woman, had a run in with SlimVirgin on Wikipedia, which began when she was nominated for adminship, and ended when she was banned from Wikipedia. I didn't look in to the details, but from what I can gather Armed Blowfish was bullied and harassed off Wikipedia by SlimVirgin, and her friends.
Armed Blowfish did not understand why SlimVirgin did this, and tried to understand what could possess a person to behave in this manner.
On a personal note, Armed Blowfish was raped at some point in her life, and then, as with many rape victims, was raped by a second man on a second occasion. She was then raped a third, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and umpteen times, by different men. This is common with many rape victims. Once you are raped you are more likely to be raped by a second person, and if it gets to twice then it seems that you are suddenly attractive as a rape victim to all would be rapists.
There are many theories as to why this happens, including the theory that basically you somehow want it, to justify how awful you feel, or that you expect it or that you think for some reason that you are responsible for it, that it's you, not them. The attitudes of people around you, blaming you for wearing sexy clothing, or for being too friendly to others, and so forth leads to this kind of thing. It becomes a pattern, and one which is very difficult to break. Repeat rape victims get to a point where they don't even bother telling anyone if they are raped, after it has happened x amount of times, and try to pretend that they hadn't been raped.
There are also many ways to try to get out of this pattern. One way that is very effective is to bring them to justice, and have them put in prison. This not only helps you to feel better, but it also sends a warning out to other would-be rapists that you are not an easy victim. Of course there is therapy and such which has limited success. And there is confronting the people that did it to you, to try to understand why they did it to you. Research and understanding the issue are also very important.
This kind of thing, however, is not limited to rape. People who are constantly robbed, constantly beaten up by school bullies, constantly being put down, constantly being stalked, constantly being cyber stalked, and so forth, all have many of the same symptoms. Obviously, they aren't being sexually penetrated, so there are many physical aspects that are very different. But the helplessness, the feeling that you are somehow to blame for it, the feeling that nobody understands, they are all things that are much the same.
Armed Blowfish didn't articulate this very well, but quite frankly she was pretty much spot on. A perennial victim, as SlimVirgin claims to be, is in much the same way a repeat rape victim. It is insulting to rape victims because they don't think that anything else is the same, because it is unique, that nobody understands. But it is not insulting to victims. Armed Blowfish perhaps should have said that it was like being bullied by a school bully. That would have been a better analogy.
The problem, however, is that Armed Blowfish didn't in any way demonstrate that SlimVirgin was a repeat victim, or that what we were doing was in any way attacking SlimVirgin, that it was anything vaguely like cyber stalking. This is the problem with what Armed Blowfish is saying.
The thing is that we haven't said any personal details about SlimVirgin. Not her address, phone number, where she works, recent photographs, her personal history, who her parents are, or anything like this. I am sure that we could find them, but we don't want to find them, because doing that would be stalking. And the only reason why we need to find out her real name is so that we can find out what her conflict of interest is. The only reason that we need to do this is to prove that she really is changing history, and really is doing the wrong thing. If we went around and just said SlimVirgin, then it'd never make any newspapers. If all that we looked at was her diffs and linking what she was doing, then it'd soon be oversighted (indeed, the most compelling evidence we ever found WAS oversighted, and is the subject of this scandal).
The problem is that Armed Blowfish, in trying to explain to herself why SlimVirgin would behave so horrifically towards her for no reason at all, determined that she must be doing it because she was a perennial victim, because that makes sense. But Armed Blowfish attached herself to it because it made sense, and then didn't bother to look any further as to whether it was true. She refuses to look in to whether SlimVirgin is one of these people that lies about things and manipulates others.
I mean one of my ex girlfriends was in many ways like SlimVirgin. These people do exist. My ex was very overweight, and she told me that it was a genetic problem that she couldn't help - yet her sister was a thin, good looking model. Then she told me that it was because she got depressed because one of her previous boyfriends had abused me. Yet after she dumped me, she then told everyone that she was thin when she met me and that I was the reason she got fat! (Mind you, I suspected that her previous boyfriend wasn't the real reason anyway - you tend to get fat because you eat too much and don't exercise). She had also broken her arm in a horse riding accident, and when it was put in the cast for some reason it didn't heal properly, so the doctor said that he wanted to re-break the arm and go through another 3 months with a cast on her arm. She refused! So rather than get the arm re-broken so that she can live a normal life, she instead walks around with an arm that won't bend properly, and has successfully applied for a disability pension, gets extra money to help her to "cope" with it, gets to park in the disabled persons parking spots, and so forth. At one point when we were doing our exercise routines together, she wasn't watching where she was going and fell over and twisted her ankle, then broke her other leg in 5 places, requiring surgery, primarily because she was so overweight that her body couldn't handle the pressure of the fall (which was less than 2 feet/50 centimetres - it was a fairly small fall). Then she went in a wheelchair and made me do everything for her, and insisted that she would never want to get better, as she liked to be waited on hand and foot. We broke up over that, as I refused to just do everything for her for good, and told her I wanted her to get better. She used to go on to muds (games) and just play damsel in distress constantly to try to get guys to do whatever she wanted. She pretended to be thin (she was pretty, so she didn't have to pretend about that) to get what she wanted.
The thing is that people do this. I guess stereotypically its mostly women (although over the internet some men do it, often while pretending to be women), but its not necessarily gender specific.
Basically as I think of it, men typically if they are going to be abusive, they do it themselves, they are in your face, aggressive, scary, frightening, and its damn easy to prove that they've done it. Women on the other hand tend to manipulate others, lie about it, and often play damsel in distress, so that some innocent guy can come along, riding on his shiny white steed, and rescue her, while committing some horrible crime, then he goes to jail as an innocent man, while she gets away scott free. This is why over 90% of people in jails are men. Its not because men are evil while women are good. Its because men are honest about their crimes while women lie and manipulate when they do it. (Again, our justice system is yet to catch up to this fact).
Not all women do it, absolutely not. Only a very small proportion of women do. And of course only a very small proportion of men are complete and utter bastards who have no regard for others. But you can even see it with little kids - when girls are naughty, they lie. When boys are naughty, they hit people. Boys do lie too, and girls do hit people too, but generally that's the way around that it works.
This all suggests that SlimVirgin is probably a woman, and probably for her entire life has lied and manipulated people. It also suggests that SlimVirgin probably is, or at least was, an attractive woman, who can use her body to her advantage. Or at least thinks that she is attractive.
Think of James Bond movies. All of the evil women in those kinds of movies were like SlimVirgin.
It also means that SlimVirgin would make a good spy, at least a good evil spy.
I think that it's been fairly clear for a long time now that Wikipediots speak a Wikipidiom — a Wikipidgin ? — all their own that has only the most incidental relationship to the way that normal people talk. Words like accuracy, arbitration, bias, civility, consensus, disruptive, encyclopedia, reliability, vandalism, verifiability, and so on ad nauseum simply fail to preserve the meanings that they have in the English language.
So why should it be surprising that words like harassment and stalking should join the list of meaningless Wikipedisms?
Jonny
So why should it be surprising that words like harassment and stalking should join the list of meaningless Wikipedisms?
Jonny
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 4th August 2007, 1:46pm)
I think that it's been fairly clear for a long time now that Wikipediots speak a Wikipidiom all their own
Well, you should talk about people speaking a weird language of their own... I've always thought that your postings need a good English translation.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 4th August 2007, 1:56pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 4th August 2007, 1:46pm)
I think that it's been fairly clear for a long time now that Wikipediots speak a Wikipidiom all their own …
Well, you should talk about people speaking a weird language of their own … I've always thought that your postings need a good English translation.
Creativity in language use is not my beef — or brief — it's Wikipedia's relentless and systematic destructivity of so many important meanings that I'm deconstructing here.
Jonny
Good point, Jonny Cache.
I remember when I was a newbie there, I was told "AGF" and I asked what that was. Then they told me to go to a VFD. People were saying "original research" and I had no idea what that meant, or if it was a bad thing or not. I was told that I was a vandal, and I had no idea what that meant. What did I vandalise? I've never vandalised anything in my life. I thought that I was being accused of hacking the system. Apparently it was because I had written an article that other people disagreed with, and then when it was nominated for deletion, I did what I thought I was supposed to do, and deleted the article. Apparently doing this, while it is up to VFD, counts as vandalism in terms of Wikipedia. I didn't know that then, and still don't think that that is a good idea. If I was the only person that had written it, it was only just written, and I blanked it, then nowadays it would be a speedy delete without having to go through VFD. I did that because I was getting harassing and insulting messages in the VFDs and it was upsetting me. I was banned because I had done that, and then I was banned for responding to people who had written nasty things to tell them that they didn't know what they were talking about, and how dare they talk to me like that.
Then there was a message that I was being brought up for arbitration, another word that made no sense to me. When I asked what it meant, I was told that it was because it was too serious that a request for comment wouldn't work, and no mediation would work. None of these things meant anything to me, and nobody explained them to me.
When I asked what an arbitration meant, I was told that there was a page where people wrote on it. When I asked what I was meant to do, they told me that I had to collect diffs. What the hell are diffs? Finally, by the time that I started to understand what the hell it was all about, they had compiled the entire lot of evidence on me, and had decided that I had had ample time to write a response, and given that I hadn't written one, then I was admitting guilt. I didn't get told about a separate evidence page or anything. It was ridiculous.
And seriously, it is quite ridiculous to open a Request for Arbitration on someone who was a new user that had only first started using Wikipedia less than 3 days beforehand. That wouldn't happen today. It's absurd to do it. I didn't know wikispeak, didn't know the tools, and so forth. They told me that that's my fault, that I was meant to have spent hundreds of hours looking over everything before I made my first ever edit. Seriously, who does that?
When you buy a new game, do you read the entire manual and all help files, for 100 hours of reading, before you first play your first game? Of course not. Do you read all of the rules and every forum post before you first post to a forum? Get real.
Maybe some really weird minority of people do this, but realistically nobody does.
Wikipedia even forgets that they've invented their own language.
Even their concept of wikistalking has no bearing on actual stalking.
Wikistalking apparently means that you follow someone's contributions. Apparently what Antaeus Feldspar did, which was to auto revert everything I did with a nasty comment, harassing me, changing my user page to suit himself, un-reverting me every time that I reverted a harassing comment from him, and adding accusations about me to everyone he could find, and replying to other people's talk pages whenever I made a complaint about his harassment, wasn't wikistalking. That's actual stalking. But its okay by Wikipedia for him to do that.
But on the other hand, if you follow someone's edits because you think that they are adding misleading information to Wikipedia, and you are trying to correct it, then that IS wikistalking, and you can be banned for it - unless of course you're an admin and have said on your userpage some kind of justification for why you are doing it.
I remember when I was a newbie there, I was told "AGF" and I asked what that was. Then they told me to go to a VFD. People were saying "original research" and I had no idea what that meant, or if it was a bad thing or not. I was told that I was a vandal, and I had no idea what that meant. What did I vandalise? I've never vandalised anything in my life. I thought that I was being accused of hacking the system. Apparently it was because I had written an article that other people disagreed with, and then when it was nominated for deletion, I did what I thought I was supposed to do, and deleted the article. Apparently doing this, while it is up to VFD, counts as vandalism in terms of Wikipedia. I didn't know that then, and still don't think that that is a good idea. If I was the only person that had written it, it was only just written, and I blanked it, then nowadays it would be a speedy delete without having to go through VFD. I did that because I was getting harassing and insulting messages in the VFDs and it was upsetting me. I was banned because I had done that, and then I was banned for responding to people who had written nasty things to tell them that they didn't know what they were talking about, and how dare they talk to me like that.
Then there was a message that I was being brought up for arbitration, another word that made no sense to me. When I asked what it meant, I was told that it was because it was too serious that a request for comment wouldn't work, and no mediation would work. None of these things meant anything to me, and nobody explained them to me.
When I asked what an arbitration meant, I was told that there was a page where people wrote on it. When I asked what I was meant to do, they told me that I had to collect diffs. What the hell are diffs? Finally, by the time that I started to understand what the hell it was all about, they had compiled the entire lot of evidence on me, and had decided that I had had ample time to write a response, and given that I hadn't written one, then I was admitting guilt. I didn't get told about a separate evidence page or anything. It was ridiculous.
And seriously, it is quite ridiculous to open a Request for Arbitration on someone who was a new user that had only first started using Wikipedia less than 3 days beforehand. That wouldn't happen today. It's absurd to do it. I didn't know wikispeak, didn't know the tools, and so forth. They told me that that's my fault, that I was meant to have spent hundreds of hours looking over everything before I made my first ever edit. Seriously, who does that?
When you buy a new game, do you read the entire manual and all help files, for 100 hours of reading, before you first play your first game? Of course not. Do you read all of the rules and every forum post before you first post to a forum? Get real.
Maybe some really weird minority of people do this, but realistically nobody does.
Wikipedia even forgets that they've invented their own language.
Even their concept of wikistalking has no bearing on actual stalking.
Wikistalking apparently means that you follow someone's contributions. Apparently what Antaeus Feldspar did, which was to auto revert everything I did with a nasty comment, harassing me, changing my user page to suit himself, un-reverting me every time that I reverted a harassing comment from him, and adding accusations about me to everyone he could find, and replying to other people's talk pages whenever I made a complaint about his harassment, wasn't wikistalking. That's actual stalking. But its okay by Wikipedia for him to do that.
But on the other hand, if you follow someone's edits because you think that they are adding misleading information to Wikipedia, and you are trying to correct it, then that IS wikistalking, and you can be banned for it - unless of course you're an admin and have said on your userpage some kind of justification for why you are doing it.
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 4th August 2007, 12:02pm)
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 4th August 2007, 1:56pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 4th August 2007, 1:46pm)
I think that it's been fairly clear for a long time now that Wikipediots speak a Wikipidiom all their own …
Well, you should talk about people speaking a weird language of their own … I've always thought that your postings need a good English translation.
Creativity in language use is not my beef — or brief — it's Wikipedia's relentless and systematic destructivity of so many important meanings that I'm deconstructing here.
Jonny
There is a world of difference between poetic license and the systematic degradation of language on WP. Gnus-speak is not the same as the Gnos Poetic License.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 4th August 2007, 2:20pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 4th August 2007, 12:02pm)
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 4th August 2007, 1:56pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 4th August 2007, 1:46pm)
I think that it's been fairly clear for a long time now that Wikipediots speak a Wikipidiom all their own …
Well, you should talk about people speaking a weird language of their own … I've always thought that your postings need a good English translation.
Creativity in language use is not my beef — or brief — it's Wikipedia's relentless and systematic destructivity of so many important meanings that I'm deconstructing here.
Jonny
There is a world of difference between poetic license and the systematic degradation of language on WP. Gnus-speak is not the same as the Gnos Poetic License.
It does raise a critical question as to how we can tell the Semiotic Diffs (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva), not to mention choosing wisely, Glass-Hopper, and maybe we ought to create a new thread to divert ourselves with that bit of bizz, but I've got company coming and have to run off now.
Jonny
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 5th August 2007, 4:50am)
There is a world of difference between poetic license and the systematic degradation of language on WP. Gnus-speak is not the same as the Gnos Poetic License.
Is it really all that bad? If I go to a mud, there's mud-speak. Go to a MMORPG, and there's MMORPG speak. Talkers, well, not so much, but to some extent yes. Even this forum has some. Wikipedia probably has more than most, but even still is it so terrible? Is that a complaint?
I have an issue with the term "Wikistalking" because in my opinion any word that has the word "Stalking" as part of it should be in some way associated with stalking. "Wikistalking" is not. Stalking is a serious issue, and so is cyber stalking. So I would expect Wikistalking to be a serious issue too, but when I've seen what they consider wikistalking to be, and what some of the cases are, its clear that it is not. On top of that, and to add insult to injury, Wikipedia has no process for dealing with cyber stalking. You can't ban a user from commenting on your user page even, let alone ban them from writing to you in an article talk page. To do so you have to go through Request for Arbitration, and realistically if you are getting harassed or stalked, the last thing that you want to do is to go through something like that.
I mean Antaeus Feldspar and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters were doing it for SlimVirgin. Most likely she didn't directly order them to do it. Most likely she simply played victim and they came riding in their shining white steeds and did it for her, interpreting that what she really needed was for someone to harass the shit out of someone. But in effect, when SlimVirgin turns around and says "Oh thank you so much" to them and "I really appreciate it" and then urges admins not to listen to any complaints about their behaviour, then it is pretty darn clear that she is responsible for their stalking. That she is responsible for their harassment.
Of course, Antaeus at least seems to be some kind of a psychopath, so its possible that he just did that just because he's a whack job. And Lulu was probably involved in the issue himself to some extent, so perhaps that's why. But either way, SlimVirgin certainly encouraged harassment.
Perhaps that's why SlimVirgin is so keen to call us "Stalkers and harassers"?
One of my favorite newly defined wikipedian word is outing. From dictionary.com:
So perhaps we are being accused of taking people on pleasure trips or picnics? Or maybe we invited a few wikipedians to speak at Wikipedia Review Mania™ or invited one to play a game of football? Or did we expose a secret homosexual?
Also see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/outing. Edit at your pleasure.
QUOTE
out·ing
–noun
1. a pleasure trip, excursion, picnic, or the like: the annual outing for the senior class.
2. a public appearance, as by a participant in an athletic contest or event: The new player scored spectacularly in his second outing with the team.
3. the intentional exposure of a secret homosexual, esp. a prominent figure.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=outing–noun
1. a pleasure trip, excursion, picnic, or the like: the annual outing for the senior class.
2. a public appearance, as by a participant in an athletic contest or event: The new player scored spectacularly in his second outing with the team.
3. the intentional exposure of a secret homosexual, esp. a prominent figure.
So perhaps we are being accused of taking people on pleasure trips or picnics? Or maybe we invited a few wikipedians to speak at Wikipedia Review Mania™ or invited one to play a game of football? Or did we expose a secret homosexual?
Also see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/outing. Edit at your pleasure.
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 3:31pm)
Whether its the illness or the medication, I am also very aggressive right now and very delusional.
I am a clinical psychologist and began off and on over the past week or so to read Adrian's posts and follow the links he gave. Adrian appears to suffer from more than Asperger's. He appears to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia and perhaps other mental illnesses. People should bear this in mind when reading what he says.
QUOTE(oscarsanchez @ Sat 4th August 2007, 9:23pm)
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 3:31pm)
Whether its the illness or the medication, I am also very aggressive right now and very delusional.
I am a clinical psychologist and began off and on over the past week or so to read Adrian's posts and follow the links he gave. Adrian appears to suffer from more than Asperger's. He appears to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia and perhaps other mental illnesses. People should bear this in mind when reading what he says.
I do tend to agree that there's something up, simply because the claims about Port Arthur are so off the wall that it's inconceivable that mainstream journalists wouldn't have got involved if the claims stacked up.
On the other hand... no clinincal psychologist would (ok, should) be making diagnosis like this over the internet.
You're right, none should. It's not professional. For all we know, he could be some amateur (one of my pet peeves is when complete amateurs, who have no idea what they're talking about, presume to tell me what they think my psychological problems are).
As someone that took a Special Education class a long time ago, I have to object to some of the things being said about Asperger's Syndrome on this forum.
Asperger's Syndrome is a very mild form of autism. Individuals with Asperger's Syndrome have some difficulties with social situations but many with it go on to lead normal lives like Blissyu2, Steven Spielberg, and Stanley Kubrick (there are others, but I can't think of any more now).
I don't claim to be an expert in learning disabilities or mental illnesses like oscarsanchez here (
), but that's what I remember from my class.
Sorry for going off-topic here.
Asperger's Syndrome is a very mild form of autism. Individuals with Asperger's Syndrome have some difficulties with social situations but many with it go on to lead normal lives like Blissyu2, Steven Spielberg, and Stanley Kubrick (there are others, but I can't think of any more now).
I don't claim to be an expert in learning disabilities or mental illnesses like oscarsanchez here (
), but that's what I remember from my class.Sorry for going off-topic here.
I remember having loads of difficulties with social situations (eh, I still have the odd problem) but for me, autism was ruled out (fortunately?).
QUOTE(oscarsanchez @ Sat 4th August 2007, 4:23pm)
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 3:31pm)
Whether its the illness or the medication, I am also very aggressive right now and very delusional.
I am a clinical psychologist and began off and on over the past week or so to read Adrian's posts and follow the links he gave. Adrian appears to suffer from more than Asperger's. He appears to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia and perhaps other mental illnesses. People should bear this in mind when reading what he says.
Un-huh, and what course of treatment would you prescribe? —
Electro-Schlock?
I think we've all had an overdose of re-voltage there ...
Jonny
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 4th August 2007, 10:58pm)
QUOTE(oscarsanchez @ Sat 4th August 2007, 4:23pm)
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 3:31pm)
Whether its the illness or the medication, I am also very aggressive right now and very delusional.
I am a clinical psychologist and began off and on over the past week or so to read Adrian's posts and follow the links he gave. Adrian appears to suffer from more than Asperger's. He appears to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia and perhaps other mental illnesses. People should bear this in mind when reading what he says.
Un-huh, and what course of treatment would you prescribe? —
Electro-Schlock?
I think we've all had an overdose of re-voltage there ...
Jonny
Seeing how you never met him, directly interacted with him, developed any relationship with him, approached him with any clinical tools, taken any history, or obtained any kind of permission or consent to diagnosis, or release to discuss the same I think we should bear that in mind when reading what you say. Besides mental illness ain't catching and you sure can't catch it reading a post on a message board. I am not certain of the nature of your concern. People in this forum are capable of evaluating posts on the merits.
Spot on.
As my college psychology textbook said (paraphrased) in the mental disorder section:
"Do not try to diagnose your college roommate or anyone else (despite one's temptation to do so). It takes a long time of study and observation on any given patient to determine if he/she suffers a particular mental disorder or any at all."
"Do not try to diagnose your college roommate or anyone else (despite one's temptation to do so). It takes a long time of study and observation on any given patient to determine if he/she suffers a particular mental disorder or any at all."
regardless of any previous comments i may have made, i rather like people with mental disorders, as they often think in non conventional ways and pick up on interesting things.
QUOTE(oscarsanchez @ Sat 4th August 2007, 3:23pm)
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 3:31pm)
Whether its the illness or the medication, I am also very aggressive right now and very delusional.
I am a clinical psychologist and began off and on over the past week or so to read Adrian's posts and follow the links he gave. Adrian appears to suffer from more than Asperger's. He appears to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia and perhaps other mental illnesses. People should bear this in mind when reading what he says.
Well now.
As far as I tell, the score now stands at
The Wikipedia Review: 7
"Dr." Iknowyourecrazy: 0
Please pass on our regards to SlimLinda, won't you?
Now, I am not accusing Oscar Sanchez of lying, but some of you might be aware that over the internet sometimes people lie about their credentials. Obviously, he has used his name here, which I assume is his real name, and has said his profession. Most people who have a PhD in anything will be searchable over the internet. My father is a clinical psychologist, and he is searchable over the internet. So I would assume that if I look for Oscar Sanchez on Google then I would find something that can verify who he is.
I did a web search on Oscar Sanchez and Google gave me this list.
I am quite impressed. It seems that Oscar Arias Sánchez, born in 1940 (aged 67) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987. What a wonderful person! However, of course that Oscar Sánchez isn't a clinical psychologist! So I realised that I had the wrong guy.
So I did a second search, for Oscar Sanchez Psychologist . The best matches that I could find were an Oscar Sanchez medical student who it says was on an Educational Committee in relation to an alliance program, but does not specifically say that he is a psychologist. And one person who donated money to a psychology program. Neither of them actually verifies that they are a psychologist. Looking through the other matches, there was nothing that suggested that there exists an Oscar Sanchez who is a psychologist. Oscar Sanchez who owns a restaurant, yes. Oscar Sanchez who is involved in a law university, yes. And even an Oscar Sanchez who supports a psychology project. But no Oscar Sanchez who actually is a psychologist.
Yes, schizophrenia, ADHD and the autism spectrum all overlap, and are all misdiagnosed as each other (although it is theoretically possible to have 2 of them, or even all 3). However, all 3 are EQUAL. Hence it is incorrect wording to say something like "They have something much worse than autism, they have paranoid schizophrenia". The two are equal. Secondly, using the term "paranoid schizophrenia" is something that a modern psychologist would NEVER do, since it is insulting. They would simply say "schizophrenia". It is very outdated, about 20 years out of date, the same time as they stopped referring to bipolar depression as "manic depression". Again, this clearly indicates that this person is not a psychologist.
It is not possible to make a full diagnosis purely based on writing. Writing can be used in a diagnosis, but in and of itself it can be misleading. You need to do tests, including medical tests and movement tests.
There is also no need to warn others about a schizophrenic. There is nothing dangerous about listening to a schizophrenic. They are normal people. Indeed, on law of averages, I would guess that we probably have, using this forum, about the same amount of diagnosed schizophrenics, and diagnosed ADHD sufferers as we have diagnosed autistics. They are all relatively common conditions. And please, don't speculate as to who has what, as that is insulting. Schizophrenia for whatever reason has a negative stereotype, while the others don't (although if you ask Malber, or many others on Wikipedia, they have negative stereotypes about autism anyway).
Of course, because they overlap, it is theoretically possible that I may have schizophrenia instead, or as well as, autism.
And the final factor is that one of the symptoms of schizophrenia is delusion, which is indicative of someone believing unbelievable stories about a number of topics, and insisting that they were true. If you discount all of the evidence about PA, the court cases, the missing evidence, and all of the rest, you could use that as a factor towards a schizophrenia diagnosis for me. However, the absence of my doing that on any other topic suggests that it is not true. Many people come across unusual situations, and their reaction makes them appear schizophrenic. People who have encountered UFOs for example are often said to be schizophrenics because what they say happened is so unbelievable, and indeed some of them might be. But if it is one individual incident, then it is not schizophrenia.
For someone in their very first post to make such a statement is pretty insulting. If they are a real psychologist, then I think that I might contact my father, who is a real clinical psychologist, to see if we can contact who they work for and advise them of this grossly inappropriate conduct.
I did a web search on Oscar Sanchez and Google gave me this list.
I am quite impressed. It seems that Oscar Arias Sánchez, born in 1940 (aged 67) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987. What a wonderful person! However, of course that Oscar Sánchez isn't a clinical psychologist! So I realised that I had the wrong guy.
So I did a second search, for Oscar Sanchez Psychologist . The best matches that I could find were an Oscar Sanchez medical student who it says was on an Educational Committee in relation to an alliance program, but does not specifically say that he is a psychologist. And one person who donated money to a psychology program. Neither of them actually verifies that they are a psychologist. Looking through the other matches, there was nothing that suggested that there exists an Oscar Sanchez who is a psychologist. Oscar Sanchez who owns a restaurant, yes. Oscar Sanchez who is involved in a law university, yes. And even an Oscar Sanchez who supports a psychology project. But no Oscar Sanchez who actually is a psychologist.
Yes, schizophrenia, ADHD and the autism spectrum all overlap, and are all misdiagnosed as each other (although it is theoretically possible to have 2 of them, or even all 3). However, all 3 are EQUAL. Hence it is incorrect wording to say something like "They have something much worse than autism, they have paranoid schizophrenia". The two are equal. Secondly, using the term "paranoid schizophrenia" is something that a modern psychologist would NEVER do, since it is insulting. They would simply say "schizophrenia". It is very outdated, about 20 years out of date, the same time as they stopped referring to bipolar depression as "manic depression". Again, this clearly indicates that this person is not a psychologist.
It is not possible to make a full diagnosis purely based on writing. Writing can be used in a diagnosis, but in and of itself it can be misleading. You need to do tests, including medical tests and movement tests.
There is also no need to warn others about a schizophrenic. There is nothing dangerous about listening to a schizophrenic. They are normal people. Indeed, on law of averages, I would guess that we probably have, using this forum, about the same amount of diagnosed schizophrenics, and diagnosed ADHD sufferers as we have diagnosed autistics. They are all relatively common conditions. And please, don't speculate as to who has what, as that is insulting. Schizophrenia for whatever reason has a negative stereotype, while the others don't (although if you ask Malber, or many others on Wikipedia, they have negative stereotypes about autism anyway).
Of course, because they overlap, it is theoretically possible that I may have schizophrenia instead, or as well as, autism.
And the final factor is that one of the symptoms of schizophrenia is delusion, which is indicative of someone believing unbelievable stories about a number of topics, and insisting that they were true. If you discount all of the evidence about PA, the court cases, the missing evidence, and all of the rest, you could use that as a factor towards a schizophrenia diagnosis for me. However, the absence of my doing that on any other topic suggests that it is not true. Many people come across unusual situations, and their reaction makes them appear schizophrenic. People who have encountered UFOs for example are often said to be schizophrenics because what they say happened is so unbelievable, and indeed some of them might be. But if it is one individual incident, then it is not schizophrenia.
For someone in their very first post to make such a statement is pretty insulting. If they are a real psychologist, then I think that I might contact my father, who is a real clinical psychologist, to see if we can contact who they work for and advise them of this grossly inappropriate conduct.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.