Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
Hey MsFreeSpirit23, what's up girlfriend?? :D
Guardian, I thought of that too, my name (Kim Stewart) is serendipitous. Still, Mad Mary has managed a profile of me on datingpsychos.com which was disappointingly bereft of goodies. I guess there just isn't enough "goodies" to be discovered about me. Besides, I had no idea that Mary and I had actually dated. Imagine that? I'm always the last to know. If I had known she wanted to date me, I'd have had to hurt her feelings, so I'm glad it's already "over" between us
Speaking of algorhythms, the knee jerk reaction of Mary McGrannahan and Barbara Camwell Ness to being exposed is to commence a frenzy of "expose's" on who exposed THEM. As if the counter-expose' will drown it out?
The pathological person does not ignore the "truth". They simply do not recognize the existence OF "truth", that there are objective facts existing beyond the pathological's opinion of them. The pathological person is "solipsistic", existing in a 100% self-referential paradigm, and that includes me and you: We are perceived as cardboard cut outs, paper dolls that they can dress and give little voices to or rip up during a tantrum.
To pathologicals like Mary and Barbara (perhaps they are psychopaths?), the "truth" is what they DECLARE. Their declarations establish truth. If they say it, and want to believe it, it is therefore TRUE.
This isn't even "thinking", this is pre-rational processing, and utterly NORMAL in children below the age of 7 or 8. It is "cute" and annoying when your four year old insists she did not break the vase, even though you saw her throw her Barbie at it and saw it smash. When a full grown adult plows through life INSISTING via pre-rational processing, it is DANGEROUS. You can pick a four year old up and put her in time out. You can't do that with an adult who responds to life as a four year old, though.
IMO, this is why neither Mary or Barbara use facts that can be verified in their attacks on others. When we say "back up your accusations with facts" they do not know what we are talking about. They just called you a stalker, isn't that a fact? Because they said it? Because they DECLARED it?
This is why Mary McGrannahan, especially, name calls like a furious four year old, because to HER, it is powerful, meaningful, her name calling really DOES "NAME". She's gotten herself and God the Word mixed up LOL!! We see a very lost soul out of contact with the Mothership, but Mary sees herself AS the Mothership.
These two women are LOST. They can't compete in the normal world of work and relationships, and have found niches (like limpets, for instance) clinging to the work of others. Except, unlike limpets, they parasitize their hosts, get pulled off/ripped out/chased away, and move on to the next unsuspecting host. Wash, rinse, repeat
Our hopes in exposing these two are that there will be fewer and fewer unsuspecting hosts. I personally HOPE there is enough residual goodness, or the possibility thereof, that when Mary McGrannahan and Barbara Camwell Ness experience the natural consequences of their behavior, they will take that as an opportunity to turn it around. The trouble with that is, to "turn it around" implies a more sophisticated Self than either of them seem to have.
On Monday I posted my own contribution to the "expose'" on my LiveJournal, and like rain in Olympia, I've gotten at least twenty threatening comments. I've had to delete the comments and ban the FOUR LiveJournal "identities" with the same IP addys from commenting. I wonder how many LiveJournal accounts a person can register from the same IP before someone catches on?
I keep getting my hopes up that this poor hot mess will stop THREATENING and just DO IT, you know? So far, my son is a drug addict and has a criminal record she keeps PROMISING to post everywhere. REEEEEEEALLY? Alas, I'm always the last to know
Guardian said:msfreespirit23 said:
Well then I think you're gonna love the validation yet to come hon
It takes me a longggg time to research predators like Barbara and her pet "mini-me" Mary, partially because they've been at it so long, and partially because I think I only missed full blown OCD by a couple of chromosomes
I MUST know the whole story and I thank you for your willingness to fill in some more of the gaps.
Actually on this particular occasion it was Barbara/Mary (they were both using the remote connection 96.229.138.82 at the time) using an address that was very close to one Melissa used in the past to impersonate her. I do understand what you mean though, I have several examples of them both impersonating other people.
My goal is to publish about both of them (and a couple of their co-horts) before x-mas, so your timing is golden! I'm currently researching Mary's most recent patron, a woman who owns a Pet Training/walking/sitting service by the name of "Monika Magness" I do not as yet know if she's knowingly colluding with Mary, or if she's Mary's next mark?
Thanks to Mary, we now know that Andrew "Dino" Ness is fully aware of Barbara's cyberstalking and on-line fraud in the abuse support communities. As I suspected, Dino Ness has been aware of Barbara's activities all along, and he may well be actively involved in EOPC. Needless to say, Mary didn't go about verifying this information as I would have, but she has an huge advantage over me in that she doesn't have to worry about harming an innocent person. Only LOTS of research can prevent this and Mary has the attention span of a gnat on crack.
She and Barbara recently had a falling out, and Barbara apparently posted some nasty pictures of Mary on Filthy Liar.
Then Mary did the same to Barbara, but Barbara quickly manipulated Mary into concentrating her efforts on Kim Stewart instead. Mary doesn't understand that posting defamation about someone who has a common name and who shares that name with a celebrity, is a useless endeavor ....but Barbara does. Anything Mary (on anyone) writes about someone who shares the same name as Rod Stewarts daughter will be forever buried in the deepest regions of google's search returns. That's just how their algorithm works.
So Barbara now has Mary busy chasing her tail, and probably thinks she's home free. She's not. When I and several of her other victims do publish, it will be proven facts, not the profane drivel Mary wastes her time on. Barbara has been systematically infiltrating and sabotaging support and/or recovery communities for more than a decade, and Mary has been her willing Renfield for a good portion of that time.
They can only be stopped if their victims come together and publicly expose and denounce their actions, en-mass ...and that's gonna happen. As a bonus, I get to meet some really kewl women in the process. Thus far, they haven't fixated on any azzhats except each other
Hey MsFreeSpirit23, what's up girlfriend?? :D
Guardian, I thought of that too, my name (Kim Stewart) is serendipitous. Still, Mad Mary has managed a profile of me on datingpsychos.com which was disappointingly bereft of goodies. I guess there just isn't enough "goodies" to be discovered about me. Besides, I had no idea that Mary and I had actually dated. Imagine that? I'm always the last to know. If I had known she wanted to date me, I'd have had to hurt her feelings, so I'm glad it's already "over" between us
Speaking of algorhythms, the knee jerk reaction of Mary McGrannahan and Barbara Camwell Ness to being exposed is to commence a frenzy of "expose's" on who exposed THEM. As if the counter-expose' will drown it out?
The pathological person does not ignore the "truth". They simply do not recognize the existence OF "truth", that there are objective facts existing beyond the pathological's opinion of them. The pathological person is "solipsistic", existing in a 100% self-referential paradigm, and that includes me and you: We are perceived as cardboard cut outs, paper dolls that they can dress and give little voices to or rip up during a tantrum.
To pathologicals like Mary and Barbara (perhaps they are psychopaths?), the "truth" is what they DECLARE. Their declarations establish truth. If they say it, and want to believe it, it is therefore TRUE.
This isn't even "thinking", this is pre-rational processing, and utterly NORMAL in children below the age of 7 or 8. It is "cute" and annoying when your four year old insists she did not break the vase, even though you saw her throw her Barbie at it and saw it smash. When a full grown adult plows through life INSISTING via pre-rational processing, it is DANGEROUS. You can pick a four year old up and put her in time out. You can't do that with an adult who responds to life as a four year old, though.
IMO, this is why neither Mary or Barbara use facts that can be verified in their attacks on others. When we say "back up your accusations with facts" they do not know what we are talking about. They just called you a stalker, isn't that a fact? Because they said it? Because they DECLARED it?
This is why Mary McGrannahan, especially, name calls like a furious four year old, because to HER, it is powerful, meaningful, her name calling really DOES "NAME". She's gotten herself and God the Word mixed up LOL!! We see a very lost soul out of contact with the Mothership, but Mary sees herself AS the Mothership.
These two women are LOST. They can't compete in the normal world of work and relationships, and have found niches (like limpets, for instance) clinging to the work of others. Except, unlike limpets, they parasitize their hosts, get pulled off/ripped out/chased away, and move on to the next unsuspecting host. Wash, rinse, repeat
Our hopes in exposing these two are that there will be fewer and fewer unsuspecting hosts. I personally HOPE there is enough residual goodness, or the possibility thereof, that when Mary McGrannahan and Barbara Camwell Ness experience the natural consequences of their behavior, they will take that as an opportunity to turn it around. The trouble with that is, to "turn it around" implies a more sophisticated Self than either of them seem to have.
On Monday I posted my own contribution to the "expose'" on my LiveJournal, and like rain in Olympia, I've gotten at least twenty threatening comments. I've had to delete the comments and ban the FOUR LiveJournal "identities" with the same IP addys from commenting. I wonder how many LiveJournal accounts a person can register from the same IP before someone catches on?
I keep getting my hopes up that this poor hot mess will stop THREATENING and just DO IT, you know? So far, my son is a drug addict and has a criminal record she keeps PROMISING to post everywhere. REEEEEEEALLY? Alas, I'm always the last to know
