Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
- Thread starter purplehaze
- Start date
StrikeForce
A Disturbance in the Force
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
Reading here on this forum which was disturbing enough to cause a little research and then of course, there was much to read by others as well, laced through out the internet. Never read these treacherous stories at night, least you never sleep ruminating about what can possibly be the outcome of our civilization with behaviour like this occupying so much of the world's energy.
Reading here on this forum which was disturbing enough to cause a little research and then of course, there was much to read by others as well, laced through out the internet. Never read these treacherous stories at night, least you never sleep ruminating about what can possibly be the outcome of our civilization with behaviour like this occupying so much of the world's energy.
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
Looks like the defamo blog about Sandra has been deleted. I tried approaching it from a few different angles.
The "sister" blog, belonging to McGrannahan (anotherhollywoodcockroach) is basically identical to the deleted blog about Sandra back through 2011, when specialized attention on Kester fizzled due to fear of the lawsuit.
Looks like the defamo blog about Sandra has been deleted. I tried approaching it from a few different angles.
The "sister" blog, belonging to McGrannahan (anotherhollywoodcockroach) is basically identical to the deleted blog about Sandra back through 2011, when specialized attention on Kester fizzled due to fear of the lawsuit.
sandrabrownma
Padawan Learner
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
It's part of the game. It will be back.
It's part of the game. It will be back.
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
No doubt that every move is calculated, but I wonder about this. I asked Mary McGrannahan outright why her blog had been deleted; did she do it herself or was it deleted by Blogger for a terms violation. Most of the recent posts were about me, and I've not done a thing except a private consultation to see if what she wrote met criteria for "libel". I gave myself permission to ask what happened :/ and M sent me what Blogger apparently sent her; Blogger software had tagged it as a 'spam blog':
This quote doesn't include the links of course, but I did follow them to read the definition of a 'spam blog', which are:
This is downright humorous on a couple of levels :D . The "irrelevant, repetitive or nonsensical text, along with a large number of links" is about as accurate a description of McGrannahan's rhetoric as you can get; her nonsense is of such an extreme that Blogger software mistook it for the word salad generated by spam bots :D
Also, SEO "manipulation" is part of spam blogging, and McGrannahan has bragged about manipulating the ranking of her blogs on Google and Bing.
Ironically, Mary McGrannahan stuffed her own blog just by being her dear "self" :D . If you click on the link now, it says the blog has been deleted.
She also sent me several, about ten, new links to new 'blogs' where she's re-copied the material, but they rank no higher than page six at least on Google. This is a great example of giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
No doubt that every move is calculated, but I wonder about this. I asked Mary McGrannahan outright why her blog had been deleted; did she do it herself or was it deleted by Blogger for a terms violation. Most of the recent posts were about me, and I've not done a thing except a private consultation to see if what she wrote met criteria for "libel". I gave myself permission to ask what happened :/ and M sent me what Blogger apparently sent her; Blogger software had tagged it as a 'spam blog':
This quote doesn't include the links of course, but I did follow them to read the definition of a 'spam blog', which are:
This is downright humorous on a couple of levels :D . The "irrelevant, repetitive or nonsensical text, along with a large number of links" is about as accurate a description of McGrannahan's rhetoric as you can get; her nonsense is of such an extreme that Blogger software mistook it for the word salad generated by spam bots :D
Also, SEO "manipulation" is part of spam blogging, and McGrannahan has bragged about manipulating the ranking of her blogs on Google and Bing.
Ironically, Mary McGrannahan stuffed her own blog just by being her dear "self" :D . If you click on the link now, it says the blog has been deleted.
She also sent me several, about ten, new links to new 'blogs' where she's re-copied the material, but they rank no higher than page six at least on Google. This is a great example of giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
Guardian
The Cosmic Force
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
LOL, I was wondering about that. Silly me, I actually thought she'd realized that Google's latest Panda update severely penalizes duplicate content. The new algorithm is specifically designed to tag Content Farms, so whereas having multiple copies used to help your SERP, now it hurts it...BIG TIME.
Talk about not learning from your mistakes.
Briseis said:
LOL, I was wondering about that. Silly me, I actually thought she'd realized that Google's latest Panda update severely penalizes duplicate content. The new algorithm is specifically designed to tag Content Farms, so whereas having multiple copies used to help your SERP, now it hurts it...BIG TIME.
Talk about not learning from your mistakes.Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
She is unable to see how she made any to learn from
It's like there is an eventual self-limiting quality to Barb/Mary/Whoever. Crystal Cox was considered no better than an insult generator by the Oregon judge who found her guilty of defamation, in that he said "most of her rhetoric was of a quality to be quickly disregarded" by the average reader.
Now, even internet 'bots are smart enough to detect low-level psychopathy.
I'm fascinated to witness a "life-cycle" of one of the short-lived internet careers of low-level pathologicals like Barb Camwell or Mary McGrannahan. How long do they last, and what is the leading cause of the end of their "career" in such a permissive environment as today's internet? When one door is shut, the next one opens, for a 'path as well as a normie. I don't have the right kind of imagination to guess at what kind of open door will be taken advantage of. I find myself hoping, "this is it, this is the end" but I know better than that.
Guardian said:Briseis said:
She is unable to see how she made any to learn from
It's like there is an eventual self-limiting quality to Barb/Mary/Whoever. Crystal Cox was considered no better than an insult generator by the Oregon judge who found her guilty of defamation, in that he said "most of her rhetoric was of a quality to be quickly disregarded" by the average reader.Now, even internet 'bots are smart enough to detect low-level psychopathy.
I'm fascinated to witness a "life-cycle" of one of the short-lived internet careers of low-level pathologicals like Barb Camwell or Mary McGrannahan. How long do they last, and what is the leading cause of the end of their "career" in such a permissive environment as today's internet? When one door is shut, the next one opens, for a 'path as well as a normie. I don't have the right kind of imagination to guess at what kind of open door will be taken advantage of. I find myself hoping, "this is it, this is the end" but I know better than that.
Guardian
The Cosmic Force
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
IF all the clicks are coming from the same IPs, it could trigger an alert within a few hundred clicks. "Artificial traffic" is also behavior seen in content farms (with a bot usually doing the clicking)
Both the repeat traffic from the same IP (or even the same C Net) and the duplicate content would increase the "spam score" considerably, identifying the second site where the identical information is posted as a "scrapper" site. The latest Panda update has caused quite a stir, and is affecting almost double the expected number of websites....20-25% instead of the predicted 12%.
_http://searchengineland.com/google-forecloses-on-content-farms-with-farmer-algorithm-update-66071
We’re evaluating multiple changes that should help drive spam levels even lower, including one change that primarily affects sites that copy others’ content and sites with low levels of original content
Damn near everything about SEO and SERP changed with the latest Panda update and what has worked well for years will now get your site burled. Duplicate content is the placement kiss of death for whichever site has the newest publish date, and multiple clicks from the same source definitely increase the spam score.
Briseis said:
IF all the clicks are coming from the same IPs, it could trigger an alert within a few hundred clicks. "Artificial traffic" is also behavior seen in content farms (with a bot usually doing the clicking)
Both the repeat traffic from the same IP (or even the same C Net) and the duplicate content would increase the "spam score" considerably, identifying the second site where the identical information is posted as a "scrapper" site. The latest Panda update has caused quite a stir, and is affecting almost double the expected number of websites....20-25% instead of the predicted 12%.
_http://searchengineland.com/google-forecloses-on-content-farms-with-farmer-algorithm-update-66071
We’re evaluating multiple changes that should help drive spam levels even lower, including one change that primarily affects sites that copy others’ content and sites with low levels of original content
Damn near everything about SEO and SERP changed with the latest Panda update and what has worked well for years will now get your site burled. Duplicate content is the placement kiss of death for whichever site has the newest publish date, and multiple clicks from the same source definitely increase the spam score.
StrikeForce
A Disturbance in the Force
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
Well, I suppose that 'someone' must appear to read it. And the reading level of it is, well, what grade would you say that is? Primary school perhaps so adults aren't likely to find vulgarity and ignorance worth that much time investment so she must click away herself in order for her to appear to have any readership. And quite the hefty dose of the perception that for instance that dear Briseis's life is 'ruined' because she posts about her. They don't quite see that other people's lives have a depth and a quality to them that these types do not. That someone's life would not be only focused externally on what others say--that they have a life beyond dreadful journalism or being lost in "Am I who a disordered person says I am?".
It seems rather evident that with the amount of damage they must get done within 24 hours, they must spend a great deal of time working at this and so they themselves do not have an external life and thus think that Briseis life is reflective of their lives. It is the tragic youngest of the defense mechanisms you see in their thinking. So primitive. Wouldn't most people think that if you have to click and click in order to fake a readership base that your efforts are not successful. You aren't reaching the masses with your efforts. Instead to them, there seems no difference between people have read it or people have not read it.
To understand this disorder, one must take their brain and put it in a jar on a shelf because it does no good for helping to understand their behavior.
Well, I suppose that 'someone' must appear to read it. And the reading level of it is, well, what grade would you say that is? Primary school perhaps so adults aren't likely to find vulgarity and ignorance worth that much time investment so she must click away herself in order for her to appear to have any readership. And quite the hefty dose of the perception that for instance that dear Briseis's life is 'ruined' because she posts about her. They don't quite see that other people's lives have a depth and a quality to them that these types do not. That someone's life would not be only focused externally on what others say--that they have a life beyond dreadful journalism or being lost in "Am I who a disordered person says I am?".
It seems rather evident that with the amount of damage they must get done within 24 hours, they must spend a great deal of time working at this and so they themselves do not have an external life and thus think that Briseis life is reflective of their lives. It is the tragic youngest of the defense mechanisms you see in their thinking. So primitive. Wouldn't most people think that if you have to click and click in order to fake a readership base that your efforts are not successful. You aren't reaching the masses with your efforts. Instead to them, there seems no difference between people have read it or people have not read it.
To understand this disorder, one must take their brain and put it in a jar on a shelf because it does no good for helping to understand their behavior.
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
To them, there is no difference between their assumptions of "other people" and actual "other people". 'Paths lack a fundamental ability to distinguish their distorted perceptions from frank reality. 'Paths can feel a sense of belonging, even respect, where there is none, simply because they unconditionally accept and respect themselves. You can put a 'path on a deserted planet and in a couple hundred years he'll have a religion, politics, a healthcare system and a couple of wars because they can grow an entire world out of their own self-generated bullsh*t. In a simplistic way, this whole forum seems to be about following the "smell". It's not a good place to be if you smell
I've seen some scary sniffing happening here.
To them, there is no difference between their assumptions of "other people" and actual "other people". 'Paths lack a fundamental ability to distinguish their distorted perceptions from frank reality. 'Paths can feel a sense of belonging, even respect, where there is none, simply because they unconditionally accept and respect themselves. You can put a 'path on a deserted planet and in a couple hundred years he'll have a religion, politics, a healthcare system and a couple of wars because they can grow an entire world out of their own self-generated bullsh*t. In a simplistic way, this whole forum seems to be about following the "smell". It's not a good place to be if you smell
I've seen some scary sniffing happening here.Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
I'm not sure McGrannahan will be able to resist using the "smell theme" for my gmail inbox barrage tomorrow. That woman is a human insult generator. I'll bet nobody here has been so creatively and relentlessly insulted as myself in their entire life time, and I have witnesses to prove it. Well, maybe Guardian has. Yeah, I'm sure she has.
I'm not sure McGrannahan will be able to resist using the "smell theme" for my gmail inbox barrage tomorrow. That woman is a human insult generator. I'll bet nobody here has been so creatively and relentlessly insulted as myself in their entire life time, and I have witnesses to prove it. Well, maybe Guardian has. Yeah, I'm sure she has.
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
I'm right there with ya. Dozens of websites have been created just to insult and defame me. The instant my name is mentioned anywhere on the net in any positive context, the defamers show up to start insulting and defaming. This has been going on for ten years.
Briseis said:
I'm right there with ya. Dozens of websites have been created just to insult and defame me. The instant my name is mentioned anywhere on the net in any positive context, the defamers show up to start insulting and defaming. This has been going on for ten years.
StrikeForce
A Disturbance in the Force
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
"You can put a 'path on a deserted planet and in a couple hundred years he'll have a religion, politics, a healthcare system and a couple of wars' -- I enjoyed a chuckle from this! You are quite witty.
Brieis, if you've had all the email barrages you can take (and I imagine they are repeating themselves by now because how much vulgarity is actually constructive or creative)-- why not block her?
"You can put a 'path on a deserted planet and in a couple hundred years he'll have a religion, politics, a healthcare system and a couple of wars' -- I enjoyed a chuckle from this! You are quite witty.
Brieis, if you've had all the email barrages you can take (and I imagine they are repeating themselves by now because how much vulgarity is actually constructive or creative)-- why not block her?
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
To Laura: yes, I've spent time reading some of those sites, and apart from ad hominem attacking, each defamer admits somewhere in there that they USED to be involved with you and yours, but now aren't. This must be the most common kind of defamation there is
but yet it has been harmful.
Like Sandra said once, (I'm paraphrasing) "It's not so much that the defamatory statements are believed, it's that you have a crazy person associated with you, and what people do NOT want is that crazy person anywhere near them. So you, the defamed one, have reputation issues. No one else wants that crazy person glomming onto THEM, too." I seriously paraphrased that, but it was Sandra's idea, and it really hit home with me.
Therefore, what comes out of McGrannahan and Camwell Ness may easily translate into nonsense to a reasonable person. However, stink is stink, no one wants to cuddle the person sprayed by a skunk any more than the skunk :D
To StrikeForce: I have had reasons to allow contact to continue, ones I made very clear to them. Those reasons will not continue forever, of course. I told her/them flat out my intention was to stop them from hurting other people. I haven't been "alone" so to speak, or doing this without support, because I'm telling you, reading some of that personal defamation stuff is sickening, and I mean that literally.
When I ended my abusive marriage, I blocked all avenues of personal communication or contact with him, and it's been close to six years since I've had any contact with him except during the divorce trial, and that was by speakerphone because the idjit had gotten himself thrown in prison. I can DO "no contact". With Mary and Barbara, though, I wanted to be a part of the solution to more people than myself. I have made this abundantly clear to her/them repeatedly.
To Laura: yes, I've spent time reading some of those sites, and apart from ad hominem attacking, each defamer admits somewhere in there that they USED to be involved with you and yours, but now aren't. This must be the most common kind of defamation there is
but yet it has been harmful. Like Sandra said once, (I'm paraphrasing) "It's not so much that the defamatory statements are believed, it's that you have a crazy person associated with you, and what people do NOT want is that crazy person anywhere near them. So you, the defamed one, have reputation issues. No one else wants that crazy person glomming onto THEM, too." I seriously paraphrased that, but it was Sandra's idea, and it really hit home with me.
Therefore, what comes out of McGrannahan and Camwell Ness may easily translate into nonsense to a reasonable person. However, stink is stink, no one wants to cuddle the person sprayed by a skunk any more than the skunk :D
To StrikeForce: I have had reasons to allow contact to continue, ones I made very clear to them. Those reasons will not continue forever, of course. I told her/them flat out my intention was to stop them from hurting other people. I haven't been "alone" so to speak, or doing this without support, because I'm telling you, reading some of that personal defamation stuff is sickening, and I mean that literally.
When I ended my abusive marriage, I blocked all avenues of personal communication or contact with him, and it's been close to six years since I've had any contact with him except during the divorce trial, and that was by speakerphone because the idjit had gotten himself thrown in prison. I can DO "no contact". With Mary and Barbara, though, I wanted to be a part of the solution to more people than myself. I have made this abundantly clear to her/them repeatedly.
