Indeed [name], [name] and [name] and [name]! People who post anonymously and hide behind pseudo secret names don't want people to find out who they really are because they have deep dark secrets themselves, have untreated mentally illness or are spiritually ill and therefore can not and should not be taken seriously. It usually turns out after all the dust has settled and we see what's left are the ones who distrust the most are the ones who should be trusted the least. If anyone has looked in to the psychological phenomena and theories of blame, accusation, manipulating societal opinion...in a nutshell, what I recall is that those who defame others the loudest, 'appear' to be 100% against a specific issue, seem to hold high power in which to increase their credibility with the public are the ones that usually are the worst offenders of the specific issue and most likely they have not yet been caught. They use others in specific situations to take the blame off themselves and/or to 'appear' to the public like they abhor that sort of thing so that others would not 'believe' they would ever do something like that even if they got found out. If there is anyone with a background in psychology that would like to expand on this, please do....we'd love to hear from you!Now, this is a whole lot of crazy in one little comment. So apparently, every advocate against something is guilty of that something? Or maybe, just those "defaming" Robert Adams are guilty of molestation? I guess its a really good thing we haven't defamed him then because I would hate to have her legal mind prosecute me! In all seriousness, the idea that an advocate must have "have untreated mentally[sic] illness" is ludicrous. There are hundreds of thousands of advocates in the world, this may apply to a rare few but does not apply to all. Advocating for children is a tireless and thankless cause, it is a calling because people have witnessed first hand the unspeakable horrors that children have endured.
We also saw a comment from a "pseudo secret name" sacmom1234 on the Sacramento Bee article saying:
We are not picking on her. It is about time for anyone who is still involved to put their identity with their comments.This is one the funny things about the internet. We have screen names, aliases, nicknames and email addresses. Sure, on Facebook we can often connect a name to a user picture and even better, we may even know who that person actually is. Having a screen name or a user name on the internet is nothing more indicative than having vanity license plate on your car. Its something you recognize if you see it often enough but means nothing in terms of hiding one's identity. It is no more secret than say, writing a letter to Ann Landers and signing it Joe from Sacramento.
The other interesting part is the hypocrisy that we see over and over again from the (all too) vocal CFS supporters. "We can hide behind our 'pseudo secret names' to attack former supporters, but you can't". "We can tell half truths and outright lies, but you can't tell the truth at all". "We can attack victims and second guess their allegations, but no one is allowed to say anything negative about 'Mr. Bob'". We, the authors of this blog, have been very careful to not speculate on Robert Adams' guilt or innocence. We have said over and over again that we simply do not know if he is guilty of the charges against him. We were not there, we were not a party to the alleged abuse. What we do know is that there are a great number of facts that the Adams family does not want public in terms of the happenings at CFS. This blog does provide those publicly accessible documents and records for both supporters and non-supporters alike to view.
To close, ask yourself if you know of anyone that is not 100% against the abuse of innocent children. If you do, God forbid, is that a person you feel is a paradigm of mental health? Could you feel a person not 100% against the abuse of any living being is mentally sane? Personally, I can't fathom being one millionth of a percent ok with abuse, if that makes me mentally and spiritually ill... well, I guess that is my cross to bear.
Wow...I guess according to her, Sarah McLaughlin is a terrible animal abuser, Nelson Mandela loves apartheid, and John Lennon loved war. Interesting. Sounds like these people are masters of reverse psychology.
ReplyDeleteThat is possibly the most ridiculous thing she has said to date. So if you are outwardly against some terrible thing, you are only doing so because you are trying to cover up the fact that you secretly like that terrible thing?
Do these supporters think it makes them look good? I wonder what her own crazy logic says about her. Or wait, is this yet another thing that everyone else is guilty of but doesn't apply to the supporters?
Haha!! PSP is becoming a very entertaining peice of work. And the fact that she thinks she is absolutely correct and mentally intact is what makes it even more hysterical.
ReplyDeleteShe and The Vulture are just attention-seeking media (bleeps). They don't even have a dog in this fight.
If I were the Adams', I would ask them to please STOP advocating for CFS and Mr. Adams. The Vulture and PSP are putting a crazy spin on this, and it doesn't need to be what you perfectly described the other day--A FREAK SHOW.
Consider the most vocal "supporters".
ReplyDeleteChristian Peet...doesn't have children at the school.
PSP...doesn't have children at the school.
BG...doesn't have children at the school.
People with the least to lose trying to lead those with everything to lose. They are making the entire group look nuttier and nuttier with each additional post of nonsense.
The CFS supporters' comments are hinging on "insane". I love the fact that the MEDIA, ATTORNEYS FOR THE VICTIMS and GENERAL PUBLIC can see what these people post, and their collective mind set. You'd think someone would exercise some common sense and put a cork in some of the most vocal contributors. If anyone wants to quote comparisons, maybe Jonesville comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteSaw this and thought of PSP...
ReplyDelete"The political scientist Michael Barkun holds that a conspiracy theory is a belief which explains an event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end.[7][8] According to Barkun, the appeal of conspiracism is threefold: First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what institutional analysis cannot. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing. Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents. Third, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracy theorists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracy theorists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters' deceptions.[8]"
[7]Barkun, Michael (2003). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. University of California Press; 1 edition. p. 3. ISBN 0520238052. "a conspiracy belief is the belief that an organization made up of individuals or groups was or is acting covertly to achieve a malevolent end."
[8]Berlet, Chip (September 2004). Interview: Michael Barkun. Retrieved 2009-10-01. "The issue of conspiracism versus rational criticism is a tough one, and some people (Jodi Dean, for example) argue that the former is simply a variety of the latter. I don't accept this, although I certainly acknowledge that there have been conspiracies. They simply don't have the attributes of almost superhuman power and cunning that conspiracists attribute to them.".
Benjamin Franklin wrote articles under the names Timmy Turnstone, Ichibod Henroost, and of course, Silence Dogood. Does that mean he was proponent of tyranny and fought against the right to be free?
ReplyDelete