Wednesday, April 1, 2015

It could happen to you

I spoke with a friend who was recently ousted from a job based on fabricated charges. She told me that she finally understood -- for the first time -- a little bit about what it was like to be me. She told me that before this happened to her, she had always just assumed that if anyone left her previous places of employment or were fired, it must have been because there was something bad about the firee that she simply didn't know about that justified the firing. 

It's a commonly held belief (and absolutely self-serving), that if something bad happens to someone, that person must be guilty. It's so common that when an even worse thing happened to a mutual friend of ours, during what became a minor media scandal the precipitated the ouster, her co-workers were quoted as saying things like, "you think you know a person, but I guess everyone is capable of darkness." When this mutual friend was eventually exonerated by her place of employment, the employer gave her a sort of a shrug of his shoulders -- yes she was innocent, but there was no way that they could re-hire her given the salacious nature of the scandal and the delicate nature of the job. Now she has no career.

Even before my own very personal experiences with the media, one of my extended family members was an integral part of a national scandal. Although she was largely kept out of the limelight for being a minor, I was able to see how dodgy even very respectable journalistic outposts were about accurately reporting the facts. There's actually a surprising amount of inferences dot connecting reported as absolute that goes on (probably true of any area of life), and there's an odd sort of hubris and self-assurance that some journalists have that their inferences have to be right, just because that is how the journalist happens to see it. 

So Jon Ronson has his book about public shaming out. I haven't read but excerpts (see here for adapted excerpt re Justine Sacco), but obviously I am a fan of the topic, given its coverage on this blog. I've never been a fan of the empath's capacity and eagerness to form lynch mobs. And I can imagine that Ronson's book may be the least loved and most controversial of his books because there is a significant portion of the population that loves lynch mobs so much that they will defend almost every aspect of them, including the capacity and authority to judge others to the point of deciding who gets to live a normal life or not. 

For instance, in his piece that reads (at least to me) largely as a defense of his own part in the Jonah Lehrer shaming, Slates's Daniel Engber quotes the observation of a theatre professor regarding the reaction that some had in learning that Lehrer was to speak at a Midwestern university: “As soon as it became clear to certain people on the East Coast that Jonah was here, I started to get phone calls from people who had no other wish than to ruin his life.” Can you imagine hating a stranger so much that years later you are still harassing him in anyway you can?

Engber gives some obeisance to the idea that he was less knight in shining armor and more misguided Crusader: 

It seemed to me that Payne might have had a point. Am I part of this East Coast mob of angry journalists, out for nothing less than Lehrer’s blood? Ronson’s book suggests as much. In the coda to his chapters on the scandal, he cites a post of mine in Slate, in which I found signs of plagiarism (among other problems) in Lehrer’s newest book proposal. Could I be, as Ronson hints, a self-appointed fury, cruelly bent on someone else’s destruction? 

He concludes, no. Why? Because even though he has done only a bit of anecdotal fact-finding (sound familiar?), he believes that Lehrer has still not owned up to what Engber imagines is scores of misdeeds. What does he base this belief on? Not much more than the fact that Lehrer's publishers never released their reports on his other books, which naturally indicates that they have something to hide: "Houghton Mifflin never published the results of its investigation, so there’s been no full accounting of the problems in Lehrer’s work. But it’s safe to say the Dylan quotes were just the tipoff for something much worse." Is that really safe to say? In what sense of the word "safe"? Safe to say in the sense that it is convenient to assume without verifying and makes Engber's piece seemingly stronger and more compelling (again, what he accuses Lehrer of having done in making "'mistakes'" that "tend to make his stories more exciting".)

Other misdeeds are that the following sentence appears in Lehrer's work and also appears in another book: "The coaches were confident that the young quarterback wouldn’t make a mistake," along with similar descriptions of what happened during a Super Bowl (probably all descriptions of the Super Bowl would be similar because they're all based on the same underlying facts of what actually happened?).  

So basically we have a menace to society on our hands in the form of Jonah Lehrer. And Engber concludes, unsurprisingly from a pitchfork wielding member of the original mob, that Jonah Lehrer should never get back into society's good graces perhaps until he acknowledges all of the mistakes that Engber thinks are mistakes, or perhaps never because how could we ever trust him again. As Engber notes himself, "there are rules to telling stories," and when we tell ourselves stories of self-justification to excuse the blood that we may have spilt in enacting justice, best to stick to the original script of -- if something bad happened to a person, they must have had it coming somehow. 

Otherwise we'd have to admit, as my friends have unfortunately had to recently, that this sort of life ruining and shaming can truly happen to anyone.


  1. "I've never been a fan of the empath's capacity and eagerness to form lynch mobs."

    Interesting - I just asked on the previous thread whether 'mob mentality' affected those with low-empathy conditions (I'm not a fan of the 'disorder' description, it's a little too 'holier than thou' for me).

    "Could I be, as Ronson hints, a self-appointed fury, cruelly bent on someone else’s destruction?"
    Only my opinion, but I would guess this is one of the differences between the mindsets of a 'socio' and a... (pausing for the right word, because I don't honestly believe it's 'empath' - too many supposed empaths really don't display the willingness to walk in shoes other than their own) 'neuro-typical' (will have to do for now).
    Self-appointed seems to be the crux of the matter.
    A socio doesn't seem to have a problem with acknowledging that their actions are self-appointed.
    The personality type that likes to 'Name and Shame' usually won't own the self-appointed label (and I've done it myself once, with a corporation, so I'm as guilty as the next person - but I'm not going to pretend I did it as anything other than the weapon I thought appropriate and efficient in that situation). It'll be shifted to "for the good of the majority" or "everybody was thinking it, I just said it" (telepathic, are we?).

    Is it empathic to attack someone on whatever level because you don't agree with them (whether it be the clothes they wear or the genes they carry)? Not to my mind.
    Is it empathic to attack someone because they are hurting someone else? Possibly, but it must needs be a slanted or biased empathy.
    Was I empathic when I took to a public forum to 'shame' a corporation so that they'd stop messing a vulnerable family member around? No, I was not. My empathy for them ended with the written warning of the actions I would take if they continued to mess around. From that moment both they and I had a clear choice: we both chose war and I happened to be the one willing to up the ante higher than they were prepared to go, so I won. But it was my choice and the motives were essentially selfish - bully the bully picking on my family. Tribalism, basically. Definitely not my proudest moment.

    1. Why categorize shaming the corporation as either being an act of empathy or of psychopathy or any other neuro-type? You perceived a threat to a family member and took action to remove the threat: Normal for any living being, no matter where they lie on the spectrum.

      There's a fine line between shaming and gloating. Shaming may or may not be effective as a tool (though it usually is to the extent that the shamed is removed from power), but it is always ugly and always somehow dehumanizes the person who shames. I think, however, the person who shames AND feels pain about shaming is quite different than the person who shames and gloats.

      Sometimes you've got no choice but to expose someone, to prevent them from doing more harm; in which case you'd better have solid proof. Bernie Maddoff comes to mind -- how many people lost their life savings? Did Bernie deserve _not_ to shamed after bilking multi-millions? Would he have stopped had he not been caught and exposed?

      Shaming is a blunt instrument and should be a last recourse. But sometimes it's necessary to protect others from future harm. To prevent the fox from being invited into the henhouse.

    2. Hi Spook (sorry I didn't reply earlier)
      I was trying to express that naming and shaming is universal but that the difference lies in how willing a person is to admit the underlying motive. The only difference between the two named groups is that I think a socio is less likely to lie to themselves about their motives.

      I do agree that gloating speaks loudly to motive. And I did feel quite satisfied when the corporation finally pulled up their socks and just did what they'd been promising to do for over 4 months. Nevertheless, someone within that corporation probably caught some flack for letting it go that far, so I'm still not proud of myself (I have an overactive guilt gland: it's a pain but but it has its uses too). I acted in a way of which I do not generally approve and I don't like it when I make myself a hypocrite :)

    3. Hi SansDire, Well, don't beat yourself up: No one's perfect. I think a bit gloating comes instinctually for most people. Guilt is only useful if it tools our awareness, raises consciousness; post-raised awareness it becomes corrosive. As I'm sure you well know. We all have our cross to bear . . . socio, empathy and normal. (How I loathe the reification of labels -- they're handy but they concretize a mental construct)

      I'm not convinced that socios don't lie to themselves -- the ones I know lie to themselves about their motives all the time (or so it seems, maybe it's a show). In fact, I don't see much honesty about self-motives in all people (including myself), as it seems that so much of a person is driven by unconscious forces. I know I've often been shocked after doing deep soul searching about why I really did something. Even when we write in a diary, pen our confessions, we tend to slant them in a way that makes us look heroic somehow. It's natural, perfectly human to want to be the shining (or dark) knight of our own tales.

    4. Hey Faust.
      Don't worry - I usually stop once I've got myself on the floor ;)

      Well, I know that some have spoken of 'almost believing the mask' but I focused on the 'almost'. There's no real way for me to know from the outside.

    5. SD, Lol at you tussling with yourself on the floor!

      It's a perfect metaphor for what I was trying to say and what you also stated: There's no real way for me to know.

      If there's no real way for me to know myself, that is, the totality of my mental, physical, spiritual and emotional beingness, how can I ever really truly know what goes on inside of others?

  2. The masses of people are nothing but "reactive machines," who blame
    thier problems on other people. "It's your fault that..."
    One has to do what one is loath to do. Realize that life is unfair, and cultivate
    contentment from within. If that's too much, you can accept the alternative:
    obliviation until God raises you from the dead and God judges you.

    1. Yes, Scapegoating certainly seems to play a large part - shifting the focus *away*.
      Although I have a private theory that 50% of life's unfairness is actually down to people being unfair to people and only the other 50% is attributable to "lightning strikes" (i.e. things over which people have no control at all). Unfortunately I can't find any realistic way to test this particular theory ;)

    2. I should qualify that last sentence: I can't find any realistic way that is morally acceptable to me to test this particular theory. I'm sure an experiment could be devised. I'm not sure it *should* be devised.

    3. I've been borrowing from the Aspergers/Autistic community and using the "neuro-typical" terminology. I think the Aspies got this one right.

      By the by, before I began learning about S/P-pathy, I thought I fit somehow on the autistic spectrum. I do have some traits that are consistent, but that "label" always felt like an itchy, ill fitting suit.

    4. I think spectrum is a term that should be applied across the whole of humanity. Experience would suggest that I am not strictly neuro-typical, but I am basing that on what I have discovered about how other people appear to think and how I tend to think, not on a formal diagnosis. I spent a lot of time trying to work out why so many misunderstandings (on both sides) seemed to occur and then realized the effort was rarely reciprocated. Now, on the everyday level, I don't try so much - I just mentally shrug it off. Unless my rage were to get out of control again, I don't see the need for a diagnosis and my chance at a brain MRI is past.

      I got into the whole subject of empathy/sociopathy out of curiosity as to how emotions work (fear and anger I can see the evolutionary point of, but the secondary emotions?) and what exactly is the neuro-somatic process by which they are invoked. So far, nothing concrete, but a lot more information available now than when I started. The atypical spectrum fascinates me, as the flip side of that coin. And of course both sides of a coin can tarnish, which I also find interesting, and both sides can shine - even more interesting.

      "that "label" always felt like an itchy, ill fitting suit." I have the same problem but with the word human :D
      In the end, the only label I am comfortable with for myself is "me".

    5. Yep! I used to joke that I was looking for the zipper on my skin so I could take it off. Got me some strange looks.

      I went through a few weeks a while back where I was thinking about how to get my DNA sequenced and my brain fMRI'd and all that fun stuff (and not implode the kids college fund in the process).

      Where I came down though was, "once you have that information, now what? There ain't a damn thing you can do about any of it that you aren't already doing."

      Now, if I were asked and I could be convinced that the data will be treated in a way that is acceptable to me, I'd go for it out of curiosity. But it's not something I would go looking for.

    6. You might be able to get it done as part of a study, if you really wanted it, as a way around the cost. A win-win (you get knowledge, they get knowledge). But I agree it might not satisfy anything other than your curiosity.

      If it weren't for the stigma still attached to the label/idea of sociopathy even when no criminal behaviour is present (as proven unfortunately for M.E.), knowledge in this area might be further advanced than it is. Mankind's knee-jerk reactions scupper the boat again.

    7. It's the "they get the knowledge" part that cooled my heels.

      Most commercial outfits are doing the DNA stuff cheap so they can build a database (think "Google" - in fact, there's a connection...). There isn't much out there to govern how that information can and can't be used and I don't expect the "workoholics" in DC are in any hurry to come up with anything that might shackle "job makers." (and it would be a distraction from the "distractions")

      That's why the only solution at this point would be to spend ~$10k to have the lab work done where the universities have it done and the results reviewed by people you hire (and sign NDA's). Near as I can tell, that's the only way to maintain control of the information. Not worth it.

      Being part of study...maybe...but recruiting for those sorts of things is usually done from specific populations. Not looking to join any "populations" at the moment -

    8. A study would normally be bound by confidentiality rules, I think. Which was why I thought it might be the place to go. But yes, you'd have to look beyond the mere institution and see who's funding it.

      The 'populations' issue is the current Catch 22. Stigma naturally makes eligible high-functioning socios unwilling to come forward, which means that the only studies are done with low-functioning socios, which means that the stigma gets reinforced. Vicious circle (hand me that sword, Alexander - I know, that was a knot, but same principle).

      If I were ever to set up a study like this (and if I had a few 100K going spare I probably would consider it), I think I would have to put in place some very strict guards against confidentiality being broken. Numerical identifiers instead of names, professional level in industry rather than job title, possibly a geographic region in place of address - so that, even if confidentiality were breached, the people who volunteered to take part in the study were protected. After all, otherwise it would only take one moment of 'weakness' on the part of one member of staff to blow the subjects' lives out of the water. I wouldn't take that risk with someone else's life.

    9. I should add: there would also have to be a control group of people who believed they were empathic, who would have the same level of identity protection, and would be tested in exactly the same way.
      No 'subject' of the study would seen by any other 'subject'. Interviews and tests would be conducted in such a way as to minimize any chance of 'accidental' recognition.

      (That's it, I've gone off on one now :D)

    10. Who is looking and what are they looking for? That's the part I'm not keen on - might not be "our condition" at all...

      And, as you indicated, what's "normal" anyway?

    11. In the above scenario it would be me, the scientist(s) involved (Fallon, for preference), and presumably the volunteers taking part :D
      Can't speak for the others, but I'd be looking for clues as to any neurological indicators of how the spectrum works (both groups). It might dispel some of the pitchfork-waving to have such a study made. I'm guessing the volunteers would take away the same increased knowledge of how their brains work.

      Normal is kind of the point: to dispel this myth of normal. Show that there really isn't any such thing - we're all variations on a theme.

      By the way, names and all personally identifying information would not be erased or kept secret under the above scenario - they would never be taken in the first place (only non-identifying information). Can't be reconstructed if it was never there.

      But that's what I mean by having to look beyond an institution. The above scenario was my 'solution' to that problem, a way around the Catch 22.

    12. You do realize I like to try on hypotheses the way some people like to try on clothes?

    13. I was more going for the paranoid side of things - say, diabetics are suddenly considered a threat to society (it's a straw man, I know...). There really aren't any laws preventing them from selling that list to whoever decided that the world cannot continue with diabetics - at least not that I'm aware of.

      As I recall, it's mostly insurance companies funding this sort of stuff - and I'm not too fond of that whole racket either...

      Eventually, I hope that there will be some legislation to cover this sort of thing properly, but I don't see any of those "fine folks" in DC looking that way any time soon.

      Sure, if Dr. Fallon asked me to participate (and the NDA's were acceptable - which I expect they would be given his status/visibility/etc.), I'd go for that study. It's the "why in the world would they ever think to ask me?"

    14. Well, this is almost spooky - first the mob mentality thing and now I find this on the Huffinggluepost -

      Last paragraph: "We will do our best to keep your information secure, but ... there is a small risk,"

      Yeah...that's what I thought...I'll pass.

  3. We are all responsible for everything we experience, the good and the bad. We are attracting everything via what we dwell on most. People tend to think about us what we think about ourselves. Some people have no shame, because they feel there is nothing to be ashamed of. And I agree, there isn't. Shame is a game your parents play to keep you in line.

  4. THe shamers are just jealous

  5. What you think I should be ashamed of, I am most proud of.

  6. I would say that I'm less inclined towards mod mentality - one simple example (where it turned out I was wrong) is Mel Gibson. When he went on his first rant calling a cop "sugar tits" and blaming Jewish people for the world ills, my reaction was, "the guys was being a drunk asshole - nothing to see here."

    When second round of bad behavior came out I was less understanding, but mostly I just stopped wanting to watch his movies - his personality gets in the way now. I can't see past his obnoxious behavior to enjoy the story. I'm not interested in "punishing him." That's not my job in this world. I just want to enjoy the movie I paid to see

    1. I feel the same way about Mel. His obnoxious personality overwhelms his movies. Mind you, I was having difficulty before his rants: The Passion was too horribly spiritually sadistic to watch. I think Mel secretly counted every Roman whip lash, every saintly drop of blood.

    2. Who cares about his personal life? Mel Gibson is an epic director. Have you ever seen Apocalypto? It is action-packed, awesome, and ground-breaking, from beginning to end. I don't think it received as much acclaim as it should have, no doubt on account of the media coverage pertaining to the scandals in his private life.

      I don't care what people say about someone's personality. If someone's work is of a high caliber, his professional accomplishments should be evaluated on the basis of merit.

      I thought the Passion of Christ was good. A bit long and tedious, perhaps (I found myself bored with the drawn out crucifixion scene) but well-portrayed and Scripturally accurate.

    3. Thanks for posting it twice HLH :D (I did read your other post but appreciate the extra effort.)
      I must have missed the second round and I'm afraid that I didn't watch The Passion. I remember feeling faintly disappointed by the first rant and he went down in my estimation of him as a person. Mainly because it struck me as so whiny.

    4. Why should anyone allow someone's personality to influence their perception of that person's work?

      I don't get it. I can't stand Woody Allen's films, but his being a lying pedophile is not what makes me dislike his movies.

      I understand that I am in the minority, here. I think it has something to do with my tendency to hyper-compartmentalize everything.

    5. Do you think maybe it interferes with the 'willing suspension of disbelief' process? That's the only reason I can think of on first pass.
      And maybe A's hyper-compartmentalizing bypasses that that block.
      (Okay, I'm probably asking too many questions as usual :D I'll shut up for a bit and go do something visual to shut my brain up.)

    6. @Faust: I never saw PotC - not my cup of tea (a glossy rehash of the bible - meh).

      @A: I'm not a WA fan either - too whiney for me. But I've never been keen on his work.

      MG didn't used to bother me (I loved the Mad Max movies as a kid) - just another macho asshole (I see one of those in the mirror every day). But he has gotten progressively more outspoken and obnoxious over time to the point where his work doesn't interest me anymore. It might be great work, but I'm just not interested in anything he has to say at this point - again, not a punishment or shunning, just, "you lost me buddy."

      @SD: I'm glad you saw that I posted it twice. I thought "recycling" it might be funny given the subject matter.

      The second round was his threatening his (then) wife on tape - she released it. Listening to it, he struck me as a narc and that's what did it for me. It was a truly childish meltdown - hard to take the guy seriously after that.

    7. I thought "Get The Gringo" with Mel Gibson was great. I never thought of his drunken screaming about jews or whatever Hollywood hates him for.

    8. Haven't seen it. You should watch Apocalypto if you haven't already. I'll check out Gringo.

    9. Harry, I was 'forced' by a family member to PoC. As for MadMx, I enjoyed his rebel spirit, too.

      His threats to his wife - ugh. Turned me off big time. And I used to think he was hunk, so it was a double whammy, so to speak.

      Anon, Apocalypto had great visuals but, I'm afraid the story didn't grab me all that much. Not sure why except it felt utterly predictable. I dunno about Gringo . . . the trailer looked so-so to me. But hey. To each his own when it comes to art and entertainment.

    10. "I was 'forced' by a family member to PoC."

      In some states resistance might qualify under a "stand your ground" law. 8P~

      The last MG movie I can recall enjoying is Payback - Kris Kristofferson was great in that -

  7. I don't tweet, don't follow media gossip. So, the NYT article on shaming was rather shocking. It's hard to believe that an off-hand joke about AIDS and race or donglers can cause such a stupid ruckus that results in getting fired. Are we that bloody bored? So much in denial of our own un-PC remarks? Does everything we say have to sound like Ann Landers or Mary Whitehouse?

    It's tragic and ridiculous that these people lost their jobs over these lame comments. For people to compare careless statements with crimes-against-humanity shows how twisted and out of touch we've become. For all the fuss, time and energy spent, the shamers could have raised money to build a house for a family in Africa had they focused their energy more positively.

    I guess this just proves what RA has been saying all along: human beings are doomed. When the bomb goes off no one will even notice because we'll all be too busy howling blood for over some stupid, carelessly thumbed twitter.

    1. We're not doomed yet - we have the power to save ourselves still. Whether or not we'll wake up and bother? Hmmmm. Not sure.
      But I do agree our energies (as in 1st world humans) could be much better spent. (Then again, what am I doing right now? :D)

    2. I recall reading recently that Chris Rock doesn't play universities any more because there's always some group claiming to be offended. From the bit, it sounded like he wasn't alone.

      My undergrad was at a school known for protests and enforcing PC speak and the like. I used to joke that being a straight, white, male, meat eater that smoked and was studying chemical engineering (think oil refining) pretty much made me the complete package of what was wrong with the world. They didn't bother actually ask me what I thought of anything - they were all too happy to tell me.

      I did the only thing I knew how (at the time) - I turned up the "asshole" knob just to watch them make themselves crazy trying to get me upset.

      Some people just want attention and others just want to complain. But, everyone seems to take this shit way too seriously.

    3. You could've joined the armed forces - that would've been the cherry on the cake for them ;) Although bit of a commitment just for the sake of a joke.

      Sometimes I think being PC has become a secular form of religion. Being PC just for the sake of being PC gives me that same "Hmmmm" reaction.

    4. I would sport an NRA hat from time to time. 8)~

    5. HL, "I would sport an NRA hat . . . "

      Lol. You and I share more than a fair bit of feisty humor. I used to enjoy going to conferences with astronomers and then afterwards, at the bar, revealing that I was an astrologer. Got a Noble prize winner so upset he smashed his glass of beer on the table, told me that people like me made his job hell. I said, Well, At least my universe is big enough for both astronomers and astrologers. Had to leave the bar after that; he was foaming at the mouth.

      Now I know this sounds like I enjoy causing trouble . . . sometimes that's true. But how could I resist? It was too funny, and anyway, why be so serious? You'd think I'd poked a hole in his identity or something equally heinous.

    6. One of my favorite gags at the moment - and the sun will be setting on it shortly - is going with Ma to get he kids immunized. I sit fairly quiet while Ma does all the talking. At the end the doc will usually ask something like, "do you have any questions?"

      I give a bit of a furrowed, dumb look and say (speaking slowly), "which one gives them the ah-tism?"

      One doc quite literally rocked back on her heels. Everyone ends up laughing - but that look of, "oh shit!" is truly delicious.

      That's the sort of trouble I get up to these days for the most part -

    7. Some of those prof types are pretty high on themselves. They don't like being upstaged. I would have loved to have watched that little spectacle.

    8. :) I would have laughed harder had you been there -- I was the lone cosmic maverick present that night.

  8. I have been waiting for someone to share this post. This has actually made me think and I hope to read more. Thanks a lot for sharing with us.

  9. One of my clients was involved in a "scandal" that got national media attention, despite the details of the scandal having no factual basis. It was amazing to see how such a story can take on legs of its own through nothing more than anger, paranoia, and conjecture. The outrage petered out when facts came to light. It was fun for a week or two, though.

  10. Somewhat tangential: Speaking of the media and people taking a beating - does the whole Bill Cosby affair strike anyone else as being something of an orchestrated "drip feed?"

    It seems like every few weeks there's another woman coming out with a story. Even if the stories are true (I have no actual opinion on it - other than some elements are hysterically funny), the way the stories are rolling out slowly, one or two at a time just as the last one falls off the news feed - strikes me as odd.

    1. Yep. And even if he did take those women- does that mean that one should boycott all his films and shows? I don't personally think so, or operate that way.

    2. Er, *rape*. Stupid autocorrect. Same difference, though. :)

    3. I'm indifferent to Cosby - some of his stuff is funny (the old, "The Beatings Will Now Begin" routine still gets a chuckle out of me. And the whole, "go ahead and used a meme generator when people are mumbling about rape - how bad could that be?" Priceless.)

      I haven't followed this story that closely - just to notice the "drip, drip, drip" element and it did seem relevant to the thread. However, he hasn't opened his mouth to say anything too stupid on the subject that I've heard (again, not paying that much attention).

      "If" the allegations are true - nothing proven yet that I have heard - then I would expect the police would be taking action and the facts should be sorted out in court and the appropriate actions taken.

      He is fairly wealthy, so I don't expect it will happen, but...

      Also, I'm not advocating boycotting MG or anyone else. I was just commenting that over the years his personality (narcissism) have grow to the point where he no longer interest me. Not punishment or boycotting - just lost interest.

      I picked MG because it was just one of many examples in my life - and one that I thought would be accessible to many people - where I wasn't particularly drawn into the mentality of the mob - that really was the question at hand.

      Didn't want to start a six moth flame war or anything...

    4. I wasn't suggesting that you do, personally. I was just referencing the fact that many people have.

      A *six month* flame war about anything is ludicrous, but a movie? How anyone can care that much about something so trite is beyond me. I'd lose interest in 4.7 seconds, unless I was really digging into someone's weaknesses and enjoying the process of flaming them, in and of itself. Even then, I'd get bored after a couple of exchanges.

      It doesn't occur to me to judge a person's work on the basis of their personality. Whether or not I like someone is irrelevant to whether or not I find their work compelling. As I mentioned earlier, that is surely related to the way in which I compartmentalize things.

    5. LOL! No worries A - that was why I referenced that. I agree with all of black little heart that a six month flame war is just down right silly to me too.

      For me it might be that I tend to try to figure out what motivates the artist and to understand how that translates to the screen (or book or song or whatever). In his case the ego has become such a loud voice for me it overshadows and drowns out most any other messages.

      In his case, everything is some expression of his ego or religion. I'm not religious, so that angle doesn't interest me and paying attention to anyone else's ego for any length of time is annoying to me.

    6. That's interesting.

      I'm trying to think of an instance in which this might be the case for me...........

      But I can't- except hypothetically.

      If someone killed my immediate family member, and happened to produce a great work of art, I'd probably despise it, no matter what. Considering that, I guess it is a matter of how close that person is to me. So I guess a degree of empathy *is* involved- at least, of the cognitive variety. If Bill Cosby raped *my* offspring, I wouldn't boycott his work so much plot to castrate him.

      On a related tangent, my father always told me with a sardonic, proud laugh that he pitied any guy who might try to rape me. I've outright decked men who have tried to grope me on the dance floor. They get a single warning- and I always secretly hope that they will refuse to heed it, just so I can get a good whack in. After all, it isn't as though a bouncer will remove *me* for indecent, disruptive behaviour. All I have to do when accosted by a thug-in- charge is look pretty, act wounded, and prey upon his chivalry. Then sneer sideways at the asshole who dared to cross me as he is escorted out the door. :D

    7. For the sake of argument, Bill Cosby is guilty of everything and more (I don't know - eating puppies with the wrong kind of wine). He goes to trial - and that will be expensive. So he tours, writes a book, whatever to raise money. Let's say it is funny beyond anything he's done in a long time. Would you pay?

      Remember, he is guilty without question of being a serial rapist (a really sad one too, if you ask me...) in this scenario. At this point, the purpose and motivation for this contribution is to save his ass and avoid responsibility. Would that change how you view the work?

      I'm not saying there is any right answer - just exploring the idea. (and not "trying" to be any more of an asshole than usual 8)~).

      I wouldn't want to participate because I wouldn't want to enable him wiggling out - that would strike me as unfortunate.

      RE: Your Tangent: LOL! My sister used to do the same thing - hysterical! I would crack me up to her wallop someone - didn't happen often - she's a force of nature so people would usually capitulate early. I think they knew they were out gunned and didn't want their friend to see them get their ass kicked by a girl. That was fun -

      Her other zinger she would trot out from time to time is to put her finger under a guys chin an say, "my eyes are up here sweetheart." That usually got the blubbering and scurrying off -

    8. Alright. But since you're allowed to make definitive statements in this hypothetical scenario- so am I. :)

      For the sake of argument- yes I would. In fact, I would arrive early, to be sure to get a seat right up front... And then, at precisely the right moment, after an apt joke.... Just as the laughter was dying down, I'd abruptly make a few hard-hitting, succinct comments right out of left field with the portable wireless microphone I borrowed from an acquaintance in theatre.

      I would call him on being such a revolting and pathetic specimen that he literally has to knock women unconscious, just to get laid... That not even skanky, STD-addled gold-diggers would willingly fuck such a crotchety, disgusting old man, in spite of all of his money and influence. I would deride him for being so sexually incompetent that he can only get it up for corpses- but only after pumping himself full of the cheap, generic Viagra that he can no longer afford.

      I might make a crack or two about how the days when people laughed *with* him are over... Reminding him that he is now a washed up, irrelevant joke who has turned himself into a freak-show that people pay for the privilege of publically laughing *at*.

      By this time, a security guard is escorting my ass out of the building.... but just before I can get hauled away, I might ask him whether he'd rather get sodomized by a vanilla or chocolate Pudding Pop... After all, enquiring minds want to know. ;)

      Does that answer your question? :D

    9. LOL!!! Well, hell, in a case like that I would pay and then some. I wouldn't want to miss that!!! Maybe I could even give the guards something to do to buy you time! 8D~

      You are fun to play with!!!

    10. ...and I wasn't thinking "cat and mouse" as much as "in the same sandbox."

    11. I understood what you meant, Jerry... No explanations necessary.

  11. @SD: I'll answer your question regarding mob mentality here, since it is related to today's blog entry. It's a long response; please bear with me.

    I do think I am less susceptible to mob mentality- to the point where I refuse to partake in it at all. I find this type of groupthink utterly repelling.

    I once attended a Pentecostal Church service where everyone started hopping around while "speaking in tongues", on cue, as soon as the Pastor did. Not only is this totally unscriptural, it is ridiculous. I got so irritated that I had to leave. It was as though I was surrounded by a bunch of morons who couldn't think for themselves. That is probably why I don't go to church. I can't stand being around people who feed off of each other in this way. It repulses me. I don't need their community, affirmation or friendship. I just want to be left alone, most of the time. If I do participate in church related functions, it is to serve others in a very pragmatic capacity. I wonder if M.E. relates to church (temple?) services in the same way.

    I'll repost something I wrote yesterday because it is pertinent to today's topic, as well as our conversation about films, and the general tendency for people to shun the work of individuals they don't like- regardless of its caliber or utility.

    "Psychopathy is a label which certainly and singularly stigmatizes the person bearing it. M.E. can no longer teach. I founded and run a medium-sized organization. If I were to proclaim loudly and proudly that I am hypersexual, sadomasochistic sociopath whose father did jail time for ripping someone's ear off (yes, he really did) you can be certain that I would not be doing myself any political favors. xD

    Of course, you'll never find a bunch of sociopaths banding together for "emotional support", or to cry on each others' shoulders about being unfairly persecuted, like a bunch of whiny victims on We don't need societal valuation or affirmation. We'll just keep maneuvering deftly within your ranks, besting you at your games, and hiding in plain sight."

    If I were to be totally honest about who I am, what I have done, and some of the things I enjoy, there are people within my organization who would shun all of the good work I do on behalf of my community, simply because of *who I am*, and the influences which have shaped me. That is part of the reason I appreciate this blog. I am totally transparent, here.

    I can't be open and transparent where I work, because some of these folks would refuse to even sit at the same table as me thereafter- in spite of the fact that I am the founder and CEO of an initiative that really helps my community.

    1. Another way in which I recently witnessed this mob-mentality concerns that stupid "50 Shades of Grey" film.

      Otherwise rational people in my circle if acquaintances started going on about how those who engage in such practices are "sick, depraved and belong in jail". The notion of meaningful consent was thrown out the window in favor of the "abuse" card: A person who willingly allows themselves to be subjected to such acts is an abused victim, and the one perpetuating them is a sick sadist.

      My partner and I regularly engage in acts that make 50 Shades of Grey seem positively tame, by comparison. And we switch it up, so this business of victim/abuser doesn't hold any water whatsoever in our case. But if certain people were to find out about this, it wouldn't matter that my husband and I have a good marriage. We would become sick, perverted criminals in their eyes.

      This is yet another case of misconceptions based upon misunderstanding. I have no desire to prove to anyone that what we do is "o.k"- it is a private matter that does not concern anyone else, so I just laugh it off.

      Psychopathy is treated in a similar fashion. This term has become synonymous and interchangeable with "crazed axe murderer" in the popular media. But unless those of us with sociopathic traits bother to educate people regarding the true nature of this condition, the public perception will never change. That is why I respect what M.E. does to this effect through this blog.

    2. Ever see Pentecostals anoint someone with oil and then, literally, shake the demons out of them?

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. Trying again. I just finished a day of being tested for senility. 

      Whaddaya think? You've been ignoring me for quite a while here (most humans mostly ignore everyone else/ Because ignoring each other is sort of the "default position” for humans, as we are by definition narcissistic), but if you have been paying attention, what's your diagnosis? How senile am I? Here's a quiz. There are no correct answers.

      1. Will I die from a stroke before I lost all touch with reality?

      2. Will I go senile and when I have my stroke not realize I am dying from a stroke?

      3. Will human beings go extinct by the end of the 21st Century?

      4. Will we start a colony on Mars before we destroy the earth?

      5. Will the aliens from another star system land on earth and save us from ourselves?

      Yup. I'm senile. Go back to ignoring me.

    5. I kept nodding my head yes and yes to A's response. Yes !!! Perfect. I like the way you think.

    6. Ugh. I'm sure you realize that "go back to ignoring me" is a transparently passive-aggressive plea for attention. "Humans are by default narcissistic" is just an excuse you tell yourself to detract from the fact that people ignore you because you are so damned upleasant, most of the time.

      You're not senile, Flaccid- just bitter and angry. It would be better if you let it go before you croak. An open mind is better than an open wound. They can fester until they're fatal, you know.

    7. Thanks, Chickadee.

    8. Hi A - thanks for the answers (I did read the one referencing your foundation) and length with content is never a problem for me :D

      I tried to keep my question an open one but (as you could probably tell) I do think that the different mode of thinking - analytical rather than emotional - would lead to a significantly reduced 'danger' of succumbing to mob mentality. And I think it's something from which the majority of humans could learn to great benefit.

      :D Don't get me started on that book. I've not read it because people whose literary opinions I respect told me it was poorly written and repetitive. But from what I've heard the author didn't know much about the true power dynamics of sub and dom. I could be wrong: as I say, I've not read it so it's not really fair of me to comment.
      On the other hand the amount of hoo-hah about it reminds me of the reactions to Madonna's videos in her pointy-bra phase. Polarized and mostly knee-jerk - little thought involved. Plus, it's fiction. Human trafficking is real. I know which bothers me more. Sometimes I think humans just distract themselves (or allow themselves to be distracted) in order not to deal with the 'real' problems. I'm probably as guilty of that as anyone else though ;)

      To the problem of the knee-jerk reaction as it pertains to 'high-functioning' neuro-atypical persons... Oh, sometimes I wish I could invent a little misting spray that would shut down whatever it is (and I suspect it's a form of fear) that makes some people so narrow-minded. But then I'd be taking away their free will, so even if I had it I couldn't use it. I suppose I just wish they'd stop claiming so hard to be civilized and try actually being it.

    9. "To the problem of the knee-jerk reaction as it pertains to 'high-functioning' neuro-atypical persons... "
      Badly constructed sentence.
      "To the problem of the knee-jerk reaction as it pertains to *society's reactions to* 'high-functioning' neuro-atypical persons... " That's what I meant.

    10. I didn't bother with any of the 50 shades stuff - that really bores me. it was just another "bodice ripper" to me - yawn...

      But sex sells - always has and always will. People love to be both titillated and outraged - S&M will give them that. Madonna figured that out and exploited it brilliantly as is Lady Gaga now.

      The beat goes on -

    11. SD said: "from what I've heard the author didn't know much about the true power dynamics of sub and dom. I could be wrong: as I say, I've not read it so it's not really fair of me to comment."

      My partner and I don't have a dom/sub relationship outside of the bedroom, so I cannot comment on that particular dynamic, either.

      For us, s/m is merely sensation-oriented play. Personality- wise, we are both fairly dominant, but I am generally the one who initiates sex, "suggests" what we should do, and takes the lead, whether I am on top, or topping from the bottom. I like being in control. :)

      It is the power-exchange that makes this kind of sex delicious. Holding someone's life in your hands- even just within the context of role-play, is heady stuff. The kinds of things we do should not be attempted in casual relationships, unless one happens to have a death wish. A great degree of mutual trust is required- and that takes time to cultivate. People who look to "50 Shades" as a "how-to" manual for sadomasochism will not find what they are searching for.

      As HL pointed out: "50 Shades" is really no different than a "bodice -ripper" style romance novel. In fact, it is more "culturally sensitive", because at least it gives a passing nod to consent. I couldn't get through the book- even the "good parts" were ruined by an excessive concern with hard limits and the whole love story angle (No blood, knives or punching? Really? What's the point? Lol.) Having not had the stomach for the first, I certainly didn't read the next two. Apparently Ana "tames" Christian and transforms him from a sexual sadist to a romantic, gentle lover, because she ultimately cannot stand their dynamic.

      The books with the deceptively "romantic" covers I used to sneak as a little girl contained brutal rape scenes that far exceed anything in "50 Shades"- but there weren't any wailing feminist groups or concerned citizens brigades to protest their content, at the time.

      As Faust pointed out in another post, people nowadays love taking offense at everything and anything. Society has enshrined the victim. Speaking one's mind, if it is outside the status quo, makes one an intolerant hater. And "hate" must be squashed, at any cost!

      My husband and I watched a "Pride Parade" with so much glitter and rainbows that it made us want to vomit. I mean, wtf? Why do you need everyone to celebrate what you do behind closed doors by dressing up in feathers, and hugging everyone in a feel-good explosion of sparkles and unicorns? I am not "advocating hate and intolerance" in saying this, but I want nothing to do with the LGTBTIFUCKYOU community- and I am bisexual! I resent having agendas of any kind forced down my throat.

      Live and let live. Speak and let speak. My thinking that unisex bathrooms catering to gender-confused individuals is stupid does not constitute a bloody hate crime. Not everyone has to agree with everyone all the time for civility to reign. In my view, freedom of expression should always trump someone's non-existent "right" to not be offended.

    12. Hi, A.

      How do you feel when you reread a post of yours like the one above afterwards?

      I'm curious if you surprise yourself with your own words in terms of hearing who you are in your own words. My point is I feel you write when you have that manic energy in you, I don't buy that this is your normal. Something kicks you up in manic energy occasionally, what is it?

    13. No, I don't surprise myself at all. I can be quite prolific when I am bored, or interested in a subject. I re-read my post. What I wrote accurately reflects my thoughts on mob mentality, and though I produced it quickly, it does not strike me as incoherent, disjointed, or manic.

      I am not bipolar, if that is what you are suggesting, B. I have never been depressed a day in my life. This is indeed my normal. I am a mentally active person.

    14. "I'm curious if you surprise yourself with your own words in terms of hearing who you are in your own words."

      What, specifically, do you think I might be surprised at in myself, as described by my own words?

      My open admission to being into rather hardcore s/m? My seeming "intolerance" for the LGTBQ brigade's desperate need for social approval and affirmation?

    15. Nope, it's the manic energy in general, but thank you for answering, it's totally conceivable that it's your general energy level, just happens to be higher than normal.

      I felt this way when I read my own notes from the past (as in 15 years ago). I don't have that sort of manic energy anymore (comparing to my own past energy, not yours) and it somehow is disturbing me because it tells me how I must have frustrated some of my loved ones who are darn low in energy (even now with my reduced energy).

      You're lucky that your hubby matches your energy level. All power to you.

      I really enjoyed your what you would've done to Cosby. I wish someone did that to him one day (let him answer if it's not the truth, but catch him to ask him in a rough manner).

      I don't have mob mentality in general but the preacher-pedophile combo characters really get me ruffled. Drp, drip, drip coming out is truth in my belief. I'm with you in that if the resulting work is outstanding I can give credit to the work while totally dissing the character, but people whose morals hurt other people do deserve some sort of punishment in my book. A married couple with an adventurous sex life is not a cause for not hiring in an arena they excel, but a pedophile who sure can play would not be employed in my orchestra.

    16. I might want to employ him- just to expose, denigrate, humiliate and then fire his ass. :P

  12. I have proof that God exists, but most people are oblivious to it.
    For example, look at the big controversy about that proposed law in Indiana.
    Fags feel they would be discriminated against so they are in an up roar.
    It's total media and pressure group disinformation. It's not unlike the "hands up
    don't shoot" fairy tales of a few weeks ago.
    Queers and blacks are NOT the true victims. The true victims are Christ fearing
    God fearing whites.
    So what will God do? He will allow the U.S.A. to DIE. America will become one
    extended misconcegenationist "spring break." The U.S. will cave in on itself.
    What will remain here will be quasi-human animals who will fornicate 23 hours
    out of every 24. Egypt and Iran will be more powerful then here.

  13. New movie with (rumored) psychopathic core: Nightcrawler. Anyone seen it, opinions..?


    2. I tried watching this the other night but I fell asleep about 20 minutes in.

      Did you (or anyone) watch it? If so, do you think it's worth another shot at trying to stay awake for? :)

  14. Daima güncel tek film izleyebileceğiniz en iyi adrestesiniz.En iyiyerli filmlerin hd kalitede bulabileceğiniz ve türkçe dublaj film izleyerek keyifli zaman geçirebileceğiniz bir film sitesi üzerinde çalıştığımızı ve sizler için en iyi aksiyon filmleri izleyebileceğiniz güzel bir site yapmaya çalıştığımızı belirtmek isterim. Kaliteli animasyon filmleri izleyebileceğiniz ve en önemlisi tek part film izleyebileceğiniz bir sistem kurmanın gururunu yaşadığımızın bilincindeyiz. Keyifli zamanlar geçirmeniz dileğiyle.

  15. Shame is a huge part of my life. Not good, not bad. I don't think I can feel it though or if I think I even want to. All I know is I like speaking my mind even if I 'should' be ashamed of what I think, and I am what people might call 'overconfident'. It just doesn't work on me. I get off on the fact that the shame doesn't work on me when everyone thinks it should, and so I'm the one who feels good and everyone else could have too, but they chose to be left out by staying safe with the mob.

  16. M.E.,

    Your thoughts from a prior post: "I consider myself a truthseeker, although I'm not sure if there's complete overlap with curiosity. I have always thought that maybe it was because I grew up living in the warped reality of a narcissist and in a lot of ways also lived in my world of my own imagination in which I was this powerful figure, that I always wanted to be sure to distinguish between real life and make believe, unlike my father?"

    Every father has his "modus," and each one of us (as progeny) sees it under a certain lens:


    Up there, on a hill, the oak tree reigns in silence,
    pulsating year after year through hale, unearthly limbs.
    I and many before me have known it to be there ─
    still “breathing” in their minds,
    untroubled by death, triumphant every instance
    the wind whipped up a challenge, or a soul asked it for guidance.

    “Ma non manca in me coraggio. Non mi perde o mi confondo.
    Se cadesse ancora il mondo, nulla mai temer mi fa.”
    The oak tree: active member of “Academia and the Nature League,”
    Founder of Fight and Plead: Saw Machines Sting,
    deserves our deference ─
    still standing there judged by the scales of time,
    yet growing in significance and worth.

    Today, the oak is still important.
    “Why are you different? Why are you that way?
    If you don’t get in line, we’ll lock you away….”

    After we die scaled by time,
    the oak outlives us,
    anchoring roots swaying powerful, stalwart branches.
    up there, on the hill, forever silent.
    “Ma non manca in me coraggio. Non mi perde o mi confondo.
    Se cadesse ancora il mondo, nulla mai temer mi fa.”

    “Che ti par del bel concerto, Padre?”

  17. M.E.,

    This is yet another, finely-constructed post. Likewise, and being familiar (in toto) with the context and themes of the books you've mentioned, I have never cared for pitchfork wielding, lynch mobs and their pungent concoctions.

    As to this part of your post:

    “Other misdeeds are that the following sentence appears in Lehrer's work and also appears in another book: "The coaches were confident that the young quarterback wouldn’t make a mistake," along with similar descriptions of what happened during a Super Bowl (probably all descriptions of the Super Bowl would be similar because they're all based on the same underlying facts of what actually happened?).”

    I know that “…everything happened for a reason, and would come to good, gave him a laughing equanimity...”
    “Unbroken” :)

  18. I would like to add a few words about these lines, M.E. Since I wrote about "Padre," I did not mean to "directly" connect these words to Mozart's Don Giovanni (within that specific context). The "Padre" I described in my thoughts/poem above was actually the opposite of Don Giovanni's character (including the ideas about women and his actions). Since they appealed to me, I simply chose these words out of context.

    “Ma non manca in me coraggio. Non mi perde o mi confondo.
    Se cadesse ancora il mondo, nulla mai temer mi fa.”

    If I were to select a character, emphasizing the fact that I would not want to create any confusion in the image that I devised, the "Padre" in my thoughts/poem was actually more like the Commendatore in Mozart's "Don Giovanni." As it were, the courageous and stately Commendatore is a more fitting portrayal and/or "personification."

  19. How I Get My Husband Back With The Help Of Dr Brave

    An amazing testimony on a spell caster who brought my husband back to me. My name is Natasha Johnson,i live in Florida,USA,and I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven {7}months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website {},if you are in any condition like this,or you have any problem related to "bringing your ex back. So thanks to the Dr Brave for bringing back my husband ,and brought great joy to my family once again. { }, Thanks..

    Sent from my MetroPCS 4G Wireless Phone

  20. "Otherwise we'd have to admit, as my friends have unfortunately had to recently, that this sort of life ruining and shaming can truly happen to anyone."

    We keep reading that psychopaths are rational and logical. How then could ME, who regards herself as intelligent, go and national TV (albeit in a bad disguise) to publicize a book in which she admits deliberately 'ruining' people and expect to keep her job teaching at a religious-run university? This is not about mob mentality as much as it is about complete lack of common sense.

    She should be grateful to have friends who make sympathic noises. Most people would just be scornful.

    1. She was being transparent and honest about aspects of her personality that most people would revile her for. I haven't read her book, but she probably tries to avoid indulging these impulses much of the time- or at least, attempts to channel them in a way that does not cause too much harm. If I talked openly about certain facets of my character (some I have not even shared here- and I have been more open on this blog than anywhere else) I am sure the proverbial shit would hit the fan.

      Sociopathic personalities are not monstrous, but our sadistic proclivities understandably rub people the wrong way.

      Speaking of sublimation... If I were a lawyer as opposed to an entrepreneur, I would revel in shredding assholes in a courtroom. I am sure that in some ways, the process would be like a satisfying, drawn out, mental orgasm for me. Lol.

      When I get a bit older, and have more time on my hands, I may do just that- despite the fact that my partner thinks that I shouldn't feed these tendencies. I disagree with him on that.

      I was made with sharp claws. Why shouldn't I use them appropriately? :P

    2. Rational, logical thought tends to ignore emotional responses. The response to M.E. being identified was emotional.

      Also, M.E. has admitted in the book she still struggles with impulse control: having brought out the book and had a mostly positive, interested, reaction she may not have anticipated the sudden switch to negative that occurred when she ceased being a faceless, anonymous, entity and was 'outed' as a particular person.

      I've met enough so-called empathic people who have 'ruined' other people. They'll tell you it's not their fault and give multiple reasons to excuse their behaviour; they won't tell you it was, essentially, because they wanted to do it. Even though, ultimately, it was - they chose to do it.

      This is where the labels become dangerous.

    3. Addendum to the above - M.E. might not have *fully* anticipated the sudden switch. She probably anticipated a certain risk.

    4. "The response to M.E. being identified was emotional."

      I disagree SansDire, it was an entirely rational and logical response from a religious organisation running a university. They have an ethos and to deviate wildly from it would require an emotional (ie, extremely compassionate) response. But instead, they stuck to the script, as anyone could have anticipated they would.

      "She probably anticipated a certain risk."

      If she wanted to ditch her teaching career, she could have done so on terms that were more favorable to her, and in her own good time. Again, that would have been the rational, intelligent approach.

    5. Explain the ethos, please (as in quote their ethos to me), because I'm not convinced.

      Unless she was a cruddy teacher (in which case, why didn't they boot her out earlier?), as a non-criminal socio who avowed the positive influence of her (and their) faith I don't see a rational reason for it. I see a very high likelihood of parental objections (or even perceived objections) driving the decision. That could equate to financial rationalism, although fear-driven, but then they just behaved in the same way as M.E.

      I didn't say M.E. wanted to ditch her teaching career. I meant that she might have under-estimated the difference between reactions to an anonymous book and a named person. (Which must needs be an emotional reaction, since the admissions lay in the book.)

    6. Anonymous (4:26 AM and 2:58 PM),

      Your thinking/analytical discernment is erroneous. You sound like A.

    7. Yes, yes, Teo. Everyone on this blog who disagrees with you has fallacious thinking, and sounds like me.


      Anon... Perhaps it is not so much that M.E didn't care, or that she underestimated people's illogical reactions, so much as it was that the book was simply more important to her, and thus well worth the "risk".

      The future belongs to the bold. Sometimes you just have to throw caution to the wind, let the chips fall where they may, and enjoy the ride.

    8. I like this explanation A. Although the bellyaching about people 'ruining and shaming' her suggests she might not be enjoying the ride.

  21. How I Get My Husband Back With The Help Of Dr Brave

    Hello everyone, My name is Mary-Owen, a citizen of USA; am 42 years of age..we got married for more than 11 years and have gotten two kids. thing were going well with us and we are always happy. until one day my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very confused by the way he treat me and the kids. later that month he did not come home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce that he hate me and do not want to see me again in his life, i was mad and also frustrated do not know what to do,i was sick for more than 2 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never believe in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted Dr Brave for the return of my husband to me, they told me that my husband have been taken by another woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want us to divorce. then they told me that they have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to me and the kids, they casted the spell and after 1 week my husband called me and he told me that i should forgive him, he started to apologize on phone and said that he still live me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the spell that he Dr Brave casted on him that make him come back to me today,me and my family are now happy again today. thank you Dr Brave for what you have done for me i would have been nothing today if not for your great spell. i want you my friends who are passing through all this kind of love problem of getting back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact Dr Brave ,if you need his help you can contact him through his private mail: or you can contact him through his website and you will see that your problem will be solved without any delay.

  22. Hi everyone, I do hope my post gets read and hopefully helps somebody along the line.i will never forget the help Dr Brave render to me in my marital life., My name is Mary Owen from London , UK, a 34 year women, you cannot believe what this spell caster Dr Brave just did for me!!! Was this all a magic?? "This is totally a Easter miracle for me lol" My mouth are short of words. “I got a divorce from my husband when I was six months pregnant with my second child. We had only been married for a short time and had another child who was 1 year old. We had been arguing and quarreling nonstop since the day our first child was conceived, no love nor trust from him anymore so he divorced. And all these whiles, I have been trying all different means to get him back, I also tried some different spell casters from other countries, but none of them could bring Richard back to me. It was only Dr Brave who guaranteed me an urgent 48 hours spell casting, and he assure me that my husband will be with me before Easter day. I am writing to offer my thanks and deep gratitude to you for keeping your promises, and for using your gifted and great powers to bring him back today 2nd of April 2015.. I was thrilled to know that you are specialized in reuniting Lovers. I never thought, in my whole life, that I would be writing to thank someone for casting a love spell on my marriage, but that day has arrived! I have never been happier in my life, and I feel like all of my dreams has turned into reality now. Thank you, Dr Brave , for helping me through the worst times of my life, for being such a great spell caster, and for giving me a love spell that has brought me so much joy. If you doubt his ability, trust me. You should take a chance. It pays off in ways you could never even imagine, Contact him through his website: or his Email: . thank you so much sir


Comments on posts over 14 days are SPAM filtered and may not show up right away or at all.

Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies


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.