Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Sociopaths recognizing each other and manipulation

A reader asks whether sociopaths can recognize each other, and what's the deal with sociopath charm and knowing the right thing to say, etc.:
I think sociopaths can recognize each other. I imagine it's like con artists stumbling across each other -- there are so many shared tricks, that it's easy to see part of yourself in the other person. But not all sociopaths are the same, so that wouldn't be universally true, and I think some sociopaths are more open about manipulation, etc. than others. So it depends. But I have found other sociopaths by doing a delicate dance of disclosure and eliciting information before sharing my own. But there could be others that I have just never known about, so it is hard to say what percentage of sociopaths I am successfully able to detect.

Manipulation is a lot about reading the other people for their reactions in a trial and error sort of way. Imagine the best "yes men." They pretty much just throw out a lot of opinions, see which one their target seems to latch onto, and then reemphasize that particular one. Most people are expecting to see some things and not others, so you just watch for those signs in their face. If it seems like you are getting off, you'll see a look of confusion or disgust, after which you quickly backpedal and go the opposite way. Otherwise you'll see signs of apathy or approval. I imagine it is a lot like a blind man feeling his way through an unfamiliar room. I do the same thing in interviews or first dates, and I think everyone does it to a certain extent. We sort of give vague answers to feel people out and avoid committing on anything until the other person commits first.

Hmm, what are some of my favorite manipulation movies/books? Housesitter, Dangerous Liaisons, Being John Malkovich... also The Art of Seduction and The 48 Laws of Power are very good resources. I do categorize people, but don't really have standard lines the same way pick up artists or con artists seem to have. So I guess it is more intuitive, and by that I mean there is an excessive amount of data mining going on in a seemingly innocent conversation. Or if I'm feeling lazy, or am in a group, I put on a show for everyone, tell some charming story, or engage the group in the story of someone else there -- trying to be a curator of the interesting, the cultural, the entertaining. Actually I was just talking with a friend who knows what I am and she said she sometimes wishes she could be me in group settings -- always entertaining, charming, intoxicating. My gut tells me it can be taught, and those resources I mention above are starting points. The real thing keeping most people from being charming, I think, is that they are unwilling to devote their entire energy and attention to someone else. They remain afraid that they are not coming off well, or self conscious, or whatever else it is that keeps people from diving into a role, so they never can be as affective as someone who can keep the focus entirely on the other person. I don't know to what extent that can be learned...

42 comments:

  1. 'Like speaks to like' is the common cliche; but a sociopath that crosses paths with a kindred sociopath will most likely find the other uninteresting (or unappealing)- at least in the long run. Coupling different spectrums or opposite genders might spark an interest, but really we're quite boring without a trick up our sleeve or a person or group to dismantle.

    I'm also firmly convinced that a sociopath's sex appeal lies in a dual ability to maintain mystic, while creating comfort. So probably no fucking either.

    Yeah, sounds dull.
    ReplyDelete
  2. That was my experience with my S friend in terms of how he would throw stuff out there and gauge my reaction to it. I thought at the time he was just messed up and let it slide. Perhaps I liked other things and would let it slide. I would sort of bash him with a short lecture when he would say something which I found absurd which initially was often. Thinking retrospectively, I gather he must have thought me extreme because many of his feelers were of an extreme nature. Though I think he did later have one true insight which probably was a decent part of the reason why I didn't suss him out as to his exact nature.

    It would probably be difficult to manipulate someone with a lot of "integrity", because as soon as you are off and do any backpedaling, you are communicating yourself as creating stuff as opposed to genuine expression of what you feel or really think. Especially if your feeler and a later expression are contradictory. At a minimum, this should throw up secret warning bells. As well, some charismatic attention hog like behavior right away I think gives someone away as someone who needs to dominate, control or is needy, attempting to control empty air space etc,.

    I think in addition to many people not having a lot of integrity, many are not really aware that a sizable part of the population are missing a sort of sense they have. We see blind people, deaf people etc and know what this looks like, the consequences etc. People don't consider that one could lack a C sense and what the consequences/implications of this are. I think awareness of this could be beneficial to those with C sense in general.

    I bet non S could learn this stuff quite well, but not apply it as effectively as S. But then again, maybe they could.

    As far as s/s goes, I suppose S's could possibly work together in some sort of way, and I imagine their way of relating would be different than standard s/n relationships.
    ReplyDelete
  3. interesting thought aspie, might someone with unbending integrity be the true archnemesis of a sociopath?
    ReplyDelete
  4. Sounds like the plot of a stephen king novel. But I imagine an S would just avoid a difficult target/one that gets them quickly or doesn't allow or calls out that processing. Gaslighting is probably less of a realistic option in this case. The high integrity one "perhaps" would steer clear as well as their would be no point in engaging them.
    ReplyDelete
  5. their would be = there may be
    ReplyDelete
  6. Not really gaslighting, but projection in trying to manipulate others against one who gets them or doesn't allow them to S.
    ReplyDelete
  7. I would guess the true archnemesis of a sociopath is a woman with BPD lol. I have a friend like this and she can be extremely vicious and hateful. She likes abusive bad boy types and going nuts on them when they get abusive in a way that offends her.
    ReplyDelete
  8. A person with unbending integrity is highly exploitable. Anyone predictable is. Which makes "aspie" and I agree on the BPD woman thing. I've said it here before: A male sociopath's blind spot is someone (typical BPD) that would sacrifice their own survival and happiness for revenge - even having the first line of offense causing their own injury to be 2x more than what they inflict.

    I've seen it, not pretty. Not with women tho. I would guess the blind spot for a female sociopath is ... ??? Herself?
    (or is it me against the world?)
    ReplyDelete
  9. Nothing special about what you do, m.e.. Hate to tell you that it sounds pretty average...
    ReplyDelete
  10. Sounds like sociopaths make for good actors...
    ReplyDelete
  11. I think they are brilliant actors but their real brilliance is in their knowing exactly what you need to know/see for you to see them in a way they want you to. For example, they may not be able to do certain behaviors (straight up abuse for example) with high integrity people as with other people... but they wouldn't want to because it doesn't make sense. They would use these people if possible for character study and for character reference and for the thrill of doing that. They are good at using people in the best way for them and knowing what that best way is.

    I know this guy (the S subject can make you a little paranoid lol) who never in a million years would I suspect as "evil". To me he comes off as sort of silly, very glib and utterly harmless. I do pity him slightly and maybe can relate to his high energy. The only possible clue is the glibness.

    I notice some other people consider him very shallow and don't really care for him and some really like him or put up with him for some reason.

    Ok. I was thinking the other day based on his glibness could he be S? He is the last person in the world I would think would be. So, I began to forget about him, and just look at the situation around him. The situation around him suggests it is highly likely. Glib. Very irresponsible with bills in a way that doesn't make sense. Doesn't stay at "places" long. Wife extremely possibly off'ed self after going crazy.

    If I do just a slight amount of looking, and these are just things I know already, it is highly suggestive. And that's without considering what one or two people have said behind his back that suggested he may not be as he seems, presented in an odd fearful way. He may in fact not be an S and it is all coincidence. But if he is, he presents an extremely sophisticated facade.

    If one senses something off with someone, it may pay to covertly check them out. That is the only way I think to discover them. You have to put your ego aside and look at things as they are. And if things are suggestive, be very careful what you do next.
    ReplyDelete
  12. Perhaps it is not really so sophisticated. Maybe if your intent was to "control" as many people as possible, this often noticed S characteristic of a superficial, glib persona is a perfect matrix to work off with in various ways.

    Perhaps the best defense against S is, in addition to developing good self esteem/self respect, to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in all things.
    ReplyDelete
  13. "Perhaps the best defense against S is, in addition to developing good self esteem/self respect, to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in all things"

    I would also add ... And knowing S exists and what it looks like.
    ReplyDelete
  14. You know, I watched the dr phil show the other day. First time I've ever seen it. I think it was on the 11th. The show was about this girl name chloe and her relationships with her parents and her "boyfriend" dusty.

    I think the boyfriend just screamed "s". He did this very s thing with his eyes when he had to come up with an answer, this fast shifty rapid back and forth action. He also just seemed malevolent. The girl seemed to maybe be a budding bpd'er or some version or perhaps is just feeling the S manipulation strain.

    Dr phil seemed to be retarded. The parents had somewhat of a clue, especially the father.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way it came off to me.
    ReplyDelete
  15. Here is an interesting link that shows signs of S.

    http://transsociopathica.blogspot.com/

    I know my friend (the one I was close to) had many of these. High testosterone seems to characterize them. Perhaps sussing them out is not difficult at all if you are aware of their characteristics.
    ReplyDelete
  16. Here is a direct link.

    Just scroll down a little.
    ReplyDelete
  17. "I know this guy (the S subject can make you a little paranoid lol) who never in a million years would I suspect as "evil". To me he comes off as sort of silly, very glib and utterly harmless. I do pity him slightly and maybe can relate to his high energy. The only possible clue is the glibness.

    I notice some other people consider him very shallow and don't really care for him and some really like him or put up with him for some reason."


    Sounds like a Narcy I know. I would say to save your pity; one can be pitiful yet undeserving of pity itself. We have a mutual friend who most definitely has Aspergers and he tends to sympathize with the Narcy more than he ought to. Although he did provide me with an interesting comment before I met said Narcy; "He's cunning like a fox." No one believed him of course based on Narcy's "harmless" character, but I could tell there was something different about them.

    -

    "Perhaps sussing them out is not difficult at all if you are aware of their characteristics."

    Perhaps for identifying the dim ones or those who don't have access to the internet or the DSM. Anyone with half a brain would avoid acting "glib and superficial" once it has already been defined as a sociopathic/psychopathic trait, except perhaps for a Narcy :)

    As for physiological traits, I wouldn't bother. There are too many "normal" people who exhibit the same types of symptoms, so you're better off reading peer-review journals on physiology and genetics than some random internet blog.

    I actually came across that blog a while ago and the thought did cross my mind that it might be M.E.'s idea of a joke; acting like an excessively paranoid and self-deluded empath as a way to attract more paranoid and self-deluded empaths for laughs.
    ReplyDelete
  18. I like to think I'm pretty good at recognizing sociopaths, but who knows? Those I do notice seem to exhibit a mix of deliberate and seemingly pointless behavior. Instead of expressing themselves in a way that paints a cohesive picture of their identity, complete with flaws, their social interactions almost always point toward a directed purpose. I would guess that the incomprehensible behavior is both a way to probe and a way to through people off... a bit of noise.

    Usually, the identity "picture" they paint has more to do with me and others around them than anything else. There's very little independent personality that can't be attributed to a purpose. That's the biggest queue for me.

    I'm pretty ambiguous, myself, so sociopaths have a hard time aligning themselves to me. I lie and act a lot, and it really catches my attention when people seem to latch onto my lies and acts in ways that normal people wouldn't, especially when my subtle contradictions lead them into related contradictions without losing the scent of their purpose.
    ReplyDelete
  19. "As for physiological traits, I wouldn't bother. There are too many "normal" people who exhibit the same types of symptoms, so you're better off reading peer-review journals on physiology and genetics than some random internet blog"

    I agree but I would argue that it may be best to consider as many sources and different types of sources as possible. You can never cross check enough imo. This way you can accumulate a wide ranging criteria to apply and are less likely to be wrong with large amounts of hits. Plus, S's always have chaotic pasts, it appears. If you get enough hits to warrant secret investigation, you will find out because S often creates a history of a mess of lies and hate in their wake. A suspected S is a caught s. It's just waiting there to be found, if you can determine what you are dealing with based on known various behaviors and traits.

    Funny, I thought that that blog may be an S playing around too but in examining it further it doesn't seem like it. I sometimes feel like some of these "aspie" forums and thought behind certain issues have some S influence behind them. And they probably do.
    ReplyDelete
  20. If I had to pick one word that characterizes them that word would be misdirection. They are like magicians.
    ReplyDelete
  21. "You can never cross check enough imo. This way you can accumulate a wide ranging criteria to apply and are less likely to be wrong with large amounts of hits. Plus, S's always have chaotic pasts, it appears. If you get enough hits to warrant secret investigation, you will find out because S often creates a history of a mess of lies and hate in their wake. A suspected S is a caught s. It's just waiting there to be found, if you can determine what you are dealing with based on known various behaviors and traits."

    I would say that background checks are probably more effective than physiological ones. It is funny that I myself have low blood pressure (as it is genetic along with my sociopathy/psychopathy/whatever people want to call it these days) as it has been mentioned to be a symptom as well. I'm still reluctant to put much stock into that though.

    The times where I think that upbringing might not be indicative is when a person is born an S/P into an otherwise loving family. It might also be difficult to identify someone who happens to be female and uses their abusive childhood as leverage for appearing as a victim, which tends to be much more believable than if they were male.
    ReplyDelete
  22. "I would say that background checks are probably more effective than physiological ones"

    I was just referring to a person who might suspect he is dealing with an S. He would base this on observing the suspect s's behaviors, physiological traits, intuitive feeling etc ... not just any one thing ...leading into this idea that one may be dealing with a suspect S and a thorough secret investigation may be warranted. Which very likely will uncover the S. The gold standard in diagnosing the S is the secret background check. The symptoms, which may indicate something else or be off, point to a need for the gold standard test.

    If you had low blood pressure, animals seem to die around you, you engage in mild jeck/hyde behavior...any one of these things alone may not indicate S but together they may be suggestive.. this picture may indicate the need for gold standard testing.

    Yeah pity play seems to be heavily relied on.
    ReplyDelete
  23. "You can never cross check enough imo"

    By this I mean when you are collection information about something, in this case characteristics of s, whether it is from the dsm, from assorted psychologists/psychiatrists, from sites that apppear to be written by s, from a site that likens S to demons entities, to forum experiences, to your own experience etc, you can never get enough of this.... and all this filtered against each other yields some likely candidates for qualities and traits that can then be noticed and then further determinations can be made imo.
    ReplyDelete
  24. I think in the long run, these tests are really only meant for those S/P's who cause any tangible form of harm to society (murder, rape, arson, extortion, fraud etc.).

    Those of us under the radar have adapted and learned how to hide or redirect our tendencies much better than those who are unable to gauge their abilities and impulse levels. The harmful effects of sociopathy/psychopathy seem only be just that; behavioural effects of a mind wired differently than most. The difference seems to lie in the thought processes and level of emotions required to function harmoniously within society. Without a society, empathy would be useless. Likewise, one cannot be "malicious" if there's no one around to be malicious toward. Sadism, however, is somewhat different, but I won't get into that now.
    ReplyDelete
  25. To add; ever notice how selective empathy is? "Normal" people feel more for those whom are close to them and actively hate those who smite them. Another glaring instance of this is in self-professed empaths who enjoy meat on a regular basis with complete disregard to the ethics of their behaviour while still maintaining that they are humane and moral individuals.

    There seems to be no logical consistency in how empathy is used, yet so much importance is placed upon it, as if it is the end-all be-all standard of humanity.
    ReplyDelete
  26. We are tribal, Ishtar. Anything outside of our tribe is inhuman and an enemy. Opposing political parties, different sexual orientations, food animals... all outside of the tribe.

    It makes perfect sense.
    They just don't see it.
    ReplyDelete
  27. To add; ever notice how selective empathy is? "Normal" people feel more for those whom are close to them and actively hate those who smite them"


    Hate is a very self destructive emotion. Anybody harboring hate is not healthy. To have momentary hate or strong dislike I think is natural at points but to hold on to it is not good. But i think there is some sense to love and "hate" in the context of empathy. Empathy doesn't mean flowers and butterflies. It just means you can feel how another may feel or share emotions. It's a sense of connection. If someone is harming you and you dislike or hate them, empathy is kind of irrelevant. You empathize that they are not respecting you, which creates anger. Even with someone you really dislike, empathy (and c) may come into play preventing one from just lashing out as you may think well if i do this to him he will feel this... do I really want to do that... is it really warranted. That's even in the context of emotional heat or rage which can disrupt rational thinking. But then again, I don't believe being empathetic in any case means one is not capable of being unjust.

    The meat thing I think has some truth to it. If humans are natural omnivores with diets that include meat, than meat eating is just. We need nutrients they provide. It is natural. We can argue whether is true or not. I think it is. Factory farming, on the other hand, in which animals are treated as less than zero, and is sort of an abomination, is a very easy way to eat meat. It is everywhere. To east otherwise will entail more cost and effort. Many don't do it.
    ReplyDelete
  28. ^^ This is exactly the kind of self-justification and defensive attitude I come across when testing many empaths' belief systems.

    Feelings of guilt typically leads one to fear being labeled a hypocrite, and thus causes one to compulsively deny any implications of it.

    Such is the life of an empath.
    ReplyDelete
  29. Feelings of guilt typically result from one behaving hypocritically or unjustly or against conscience. The fearing of the hypocrite label is a possibility. Compulsively denying it is not necessarily an outcome.

    I find it interesting that those who are C/E blind have so many thoughts and opinions on it that result in actions that benefit them. So many opinions on how light enters the cornea, on the color spectrum, on eye color, yet blind as a bat with no real experience of what they speak of.
    ReplyDelete
  30. C/E blind = C/E sense-less
    ReplyDelete
  31. Ishtar:
    "Feelings of guilt typically leads..."

    Aspie:
    "I find it interesting that those who are C/E blind have so many thoughts and opinions on it that result in actions that benefit them. So many opinions on how light enters the cornea, on the color spectrum, on eye color, yet blind as a bat with no real experience of what they speak of."
    --

    I'm not quite sure what you're going on about since I did say "typically."

    Emotions and similar abstract concepts aren't all that easily definable by anyone. Can you define with any certainty what justice/love/freedom/intelligence/guilt/good/evil/free-will are? Thousands of years have passed and yet we still haven't arrived at any universally accepted definition for any of these terms.

    How can you be so certain we (S/P) don't understand or have emotions albiet different from yours? Can you even trust your own sight? You see colour and say that an apple is red, but in actuality it is merely a reflection of the colour red. There is nothing inherent in the apple that contains "redness." Optical illusions are another thing. I likewise find it interesting how sure people are of themselves in their own understanding of the world.

    On the other hand, I admit I may be mistaken, but I'm willing to accept the facts as they present themselves. However, I'm unwilling to yield to mere anecdotal evidence by those who are unwilling to admit the same.
    ReplyDelete
  32. I am not absolutely certain of anything.

    It is said that S lack a conscience and empathy and experience emotions shallowly if at all save for fear and anger. The behavior of S suggests this. Some suggest that repressed anger drives them and fear empowers them etc. The "best" ones tend to manipulate people and enjoy "breaking hearts".

    I am not really sure how anyone else experiences things. I suppose one way to get an idea is to ask questions, read around and observe actions and assume nothing.

    If you are blind, missing the sense of sight, then you can't see the apple to begin with to have a discussion about your perception of the apple or redness. If we consider the conscience a sense, and you are missing it, how can you talk rationally about it on the same level of someone who has it when you don't know it? Personally, I believe C is a sense affected by conditioning. I don't believe it is simply all conditioning. Evidence I've seen suggests it. I could be wrong.

    I suppose many S consider conscience just conditioning that their superior intelligent brains reject and they see things as they are and this is further confirmed by their ability to reverse engineer people or fool them. The proof is in the work. But really, why do any of that at all? Why waste time with people? Why not work on solving complex mathematical equations or doing something interesting. Why not take the intellect and get a decent job and do something revolutionary etc. The opinion of N by S seems to be not of the highest variety so why do all that to begin with? For anti socials, s is extremely social.

    One possible reason is that S could be driven by rage, driven to harm whatever the rationalization, they could be wired in a way to experience pleasure when another feels pain (a reverse on the normal way), feel empowered in fearful situations (another reverse) and seek this out to satisfy it. Seems like wiring to me. Same as those with conscience sense. Of course the environment plays a role, especially in shaping the frequency of the expression of certain traits.
    ReplyDelete
  33. Billy ThompsonFeb 18, 2010 09:34 PM
    No, Ishtar, he can't. The fool can't even define "personal unfairness," which he used in an earlier argument. I suspect he didn't even know what he was saying, and I doubt he does now, either. He probably just "feels" that he's right and spits out whatever comes to mind.

    So silly.

    Hey, Aspie. Have you ever seen a mad man waving his hands around, seemingly without a point? I assure you that his delusions are real to him, and if you tried to tell him he's being foolish, he'd make a remark similar to the one you just made. You can't see them, so obviously you have no place to talk, right?

    It's too bad that neither you or the mad man can put their delusions into coherent speech.
    ReplyDelete
  34. Quite right, Billy Thompson.

    There is clearly a contradiction in the act of one claiming others to be limited in knowledge while making sweeping generalizations based one's own limited experience in the perspectives of those whom they criticize.

    Instead of backtracking, Aspie, why not state ahead of time your justifications for making your claims? This isn't meant to be a personal attack, rather, it would make your comments more comprehensible, thus limiting the risk of you appearing irrational and defensive.
    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its funny to read this forum from an outsiders point of view. How you guys are arguing. My favorite is when you get into technicality about whether a sociopath can understand a conscious. I wonder if you even care or if you just want to be validated. I mean, its interesting because as a sociopath your concious is your defining factor, yet it ought to be irrelevent to you.
      Delete
  35. I like to think I'm pretty good at recognizing sociopaths, but who knows?

    Peter, based on the past comments you have left. A good example is your messing with DCW or whatever aliases he used on here. I’m basing my opinion that you messed with him on his reactions, since you deleted a bunch of your comments afterwards though. Based on your comments and your more serious views on certain topics, I'd say you are good at recognizing them and the fakes, he was a fake right?

    Anyways, I’m curious to know if you consider yourself sociopathic at all?
    ReplyDelete
  36. manipulation is a lot about reading the other people for their reactions in a trial and error sort of way. imagine the best yes men, they pretty much just throw out a lot of opinions, see which one their target seems to latch onto, and then reemphasize that particular one. most people are expecting to see some things and not others, so you just watch for those signs in their face. if it seems like you are getting off, you'll see a look of confusion or disgust, after which you quickly backpedal and go the opposite way.

    lol, i thought i was special. but is it really manipulation if you do it automatically? and isn’t it just getting to know someone better?

    i find people love to reveal themselves, and what’s on their minds, if you let them do the steering after you throw out a few suggestions, and sometimes i can learn more about a person afterward by reviewing the contents of the conversation.
    ReplyDelete
  37. Zoe; I was thinking the same. I thought everyone did some form of this as a way of getting to know others. Having learned early on that people generally love talking (read: boasting) about themselves, I almost always make a point to be the listener rather than the speaker. It certainly takes pressure off of me for having to share anything personal about myself (most irritating questions include "how are you feeling?" and "what are you thinking?").

    It's interesting how willing people are to share their life stories to anyone willing to listen, often trusting them just because they're willing to listen. Perhaps this is based on the false preconception that good listeners are thoughtful and patient people, therefore they must be trustworthy.

    Having a reputation for being a substitute shrink and thus gaining access to that sort of information is useful though, sociopath or otherwise.
    ReplyDelete
  38. Having learned early on that people generally love talking (read: boasting) about themselves, I almost always make a point to be the listener rather than the speaker. It certainly takes pressure off of me for having to share anything personal about myself (most irritating questions include "how are you feeling?" and "what are you thinking?").

    i get that. it used to annoy me but now i just make something up. the people who ask don’t really want the truth. and wouldn’t be able to understand anyway.

    so i was thinking today, it’s not really communication if it’s one way is it? maybe that’s when it feels like manipulation to the other person, when they realize they don’t know you at all. it must feel like such a betrayal. it must seem incomprehensible to them that the other person could completely change the way they are, just like that. or maybe it is communication - an exchange of ideas, or a physical exchange - but without true connection, a sharing of being, where you’re really seeing each other.
    ReplyDelete
  39. It's very difficult to discern what constitute as manipulation when any or absolutely all information one shares about oneself may be used in a way to manipulate their behaviour to some degree.

    For example, we might know that a child enjoys ice cream and tell them that if he does "A" then he will get ice cream. That to me is a form of manipulation; when you use information about a particular person in order to direct the way in which they act/react in a given circumstance.

    Another instance is knowing that your partner enjoys talking about a certain subject when you may not enjoy it but you do so anyway to placate them and avoid conflict.

    Everyone has a choice in how they pursue their actions depending on how their actions affect others. As far as I'm concerned, we all manipulate to some degree, and it certainly is not exclusive to sociopaths.

    I suppose one reason someone may appear to be manipulative is if they have more information on you than you do on them. The more information one has, the more options one has for manipulation, but not necessarily that the person will exhaust those options.
    ReplyDelete
  40. "The high integrity one "perhaps" would steer clear as well as their would be no point in engaging them."

    We recognise and want to kill on sight but can't in normal circumstances - so yes, avoid.
    ReplyDelete

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.