"Puzzling People" by Thomas Sheridan - a puzzling person

[anart]

Either is Psychopath Free a support forum for victims, which was my point.

Trooper3, have you read the forum guidelines to which you agreed upon opening your account here?

 

[Chirpy]

I totally agree with you, Chirpy. I've read many of the threads at PF, and I think it's one of the most toxic forums on the web. Perhaps there are one or two exceptions, but I do think you are right that many of the moderators there are actually co-abusers in disguise. It doesn't always come out, but when it does, it isn't pretty. I think it might best be described as something like "Jr. High Mean Girls meet the French Jacobin Party."

It's toxic mainly because the members haven't integrated their shadow selves and should understand that every group has to go through storming stages as well as norming and performing but that wasn't allowed at PF which is why people were being banned before they got a chance to settle and even those who had fitted in but made one little slip up such as myself and Trooper3. If the moderators get triggered by little things that reminded them of the 'psychopath' in their life then perhaps they shouldn't be moderators. For some it's too early but for the rest they will never recover as they don't look at themselves properly always blaming other people in their lives. I could get triggered off by small things and then falsely attribute them to psychopathy because of some resemblance to a psychopath or narcissist in my life but I refuse to let myself.

I heard this weekend that if you put a group of people together 24/7 even if they do know each other a bit and have a common goal then after a week they will start falling out and having bitter arguments because that's when they are learning what each others' boundaries are. With the PF you don't get a chance to learn what somebody else's boundary is because if you cross it by accident you're out on your ear. Normal people do cross the boundaries of other people unintentionally all the time but psychopaths know full well what the boundaries are from the start and then deliberately cross them. Normal people take longer to find out what other people's boundaries are as they tread carefully around strangers and don't rush to find out too much about people they have just met.

 

[Laura]

On this forum, you have the complete opportunity to read the Forum Guidelines as many times as you need to so as to be able to get up to speed and enter the discussions without "triggering" a mod to ban you. And you can be sure that if they do ban you, it won't be because you remind them of anything except a person who has been invited numerous times to read the guidelines and either get with the program that is running here or find a place that is better suited to your preferences.

 

[Trooper3]

Yes, I have read the guide lines more than once. I have come to the understanding that unless one allows themselves to be doctrinated here to the exact beliefs that everyone else has according to their leader, you will be banned. From what I have been able to gather (as I try as hard as I can to sound as intelligent and intiminating as possible by using big words and flowery MIT phrases) the core principles of this site are based on a metal condition called psychosis, which in a sense is an over endulgence in a fantisy world made to appear real in the avoidance of one's true reality.
I hear by ban myself. With great pleasure and relief to be away from this place. I think the arrogance and sense of superiority some of the members here display is sickning. The last couple of posts here were extremely patronizing and very condesending. It was insulting to my intelligence and intent by being to here and it was insulting to the intelligence of the other people whos views were simliar to mine.

Don't even BOTHER to rebuttal to this post. You'll be waisting your time.

 

[clerck de bonk]

...
Don't even BOTHER to rebuttal to this post. You'll be waisting your time.

Indeed!

 

[Gimpy]

Normal people do cross the boundaries of other people unintentionally all the time but psychopaths know full well what the boundaries are from the start and then deliberately cross them. Normal people take longer to find out what other people's boundaries are as they tread carefully around strangers and don't rush to find out too much about people they have just met.

The boundaries for this forum are clearly spelled out in the Guidelines. Its not a mystery. Psychopaths do not care about boundaries, here we care about maintaining a good environment in which people can engage in doing research, reading, and pursue the Work. I can't speak for PF, as I'm not a member there, nor do I plan to be: I've checked them out, and its not a good fit. There's no reason to visit it, past discovering that there's nothing there to keep me returning.

If this forum is not to your liking, there is nothing keeping you here. If PF isn't the forum for you, there is nothing keeping you there either.

Why is this such an issue?

 

[Niall]

Anyway, moving on, Sheridan recently uploaded another puzzling monologue, supposedly his last:

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pXVFvJ0wVc

...in which he uses every pity ploy in the book to explain that he "writes comedy" to cope with loneliness, i.e. his foul-mouthed abuse towards women through all his years of Internet trolling was just his way of 'coping'.

Choice excerpts:

"If you have a problem with the comedy I write, then I'm sorry, that's just life. Most of the stuff I write is not smutty, that's just been picked out to prove I'm some sort of pervert or something. You just can't win... that's just what you're up against. I'm not apologising for this anyway. This is me, this is my life, I've lived this way."

Translation: I don't understand what all the fuss was about. I was just being funny towards all those women. It's their problem that they weren't laughing along with me.

"People who know me personally have no problem with this. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people on the Internet, they have a disconnect from reality... and that's why I chose to get off Facebook. I chose to get off Facebook because it was frightening to see how many people were developing a nihilistic cataclysmic self-life story. It was either very superficial or it was very doom-laden. The world is not gonna end, we're not all gonna be wiped out by some lizards, that's not gonna happen, m'k?

Translation: I left Facebook because I was exposed.

"My career as a writer is essentially finished. The two books that I've written have been smear-campaigned. There have been so many bad reviews that have been deliberately put there in a very fascistic manner... thuggish... absolute thuggery that was... like a, like a, like thug street gang... waiting for their boss to go tell them to smash a store up or something. That's the psychology of what those people are like."

Translation: People working together to expose predators are evil.

"People go on to the Internet and then through the insidious Facebook world they become... like a second life or something... that's when the really negative sides of Facebook, apart from the fact that [it is?] basically just a vast data-gathering operation to eh, to just know everything about everybody. People should not be feeding that beast at any level."

Translation: Because I can't use Facebook any more to toy with people, Facebook is now objectively evil.

"So I'm gonna soldier on. I'll probably be packing supermarket shelves for a while or working in a factory... and that's ok, that's life ok."

Translation: Cry me a river.

"I wanna thank all of you from the bottom of my heart, even the ones that attacked me, for giving me these valuable life lessons that have been so useful to me because without them I can't improve as a person, so I thank you for that."

Translation: I wasn't really attacked, but if I mimic what my attackers say when they are attacked, then it will seem like I too was attacked.

"I'm not going away, I'm going to spend more time writing. I also want to present a more positive view of the world, I'm sick and tired of all this nihilism, I'm sick and tired of all this catastrophism, I'm sick and tired of all this end-of-the-world apocalyptic stuff."

Translation: I can't stand the light of truth so I'm going to retreat into darkness.

"I won't be doing any more YouTube videos... not for a while."

So I guess that wraps up this puzzling episode. That doesn't mean Sheridan won't don a new persona and re-emerge from the woodwork in future, but I think what we can see from this experience is the power of a network to shine light on the darkness.

 

[name]

I think that this is very important.
It was started by Robin here with the assertion "by creating a scale/degree or division between us (more sane) and them (more pathological) does a great disservice to objective Truth and the vision, mission, and method of this forum".

Here's an easy way to think about the combination of category and spectrum/scale:

There are people who are born without the "organ" for conscience/abstraction. BUT they do have genetic connections to their creaturely origins. They can be very emotional and attached to animals and attached to their families though, if you observe carefully over time, you'll notice that this care and concern somehow stops when abstractions come into the picture. They can't understand psychological pain, though they can express a lot of sympathy for things they can SEE, like physical injury, or cruelty to animals. They have a hard time grokking the suffering of people at a distance or who are denoted as being very different for them. Their sympathy is very "tribal", so to say, and limited, though, as mentioned, they can be VERY emotional, usually for themselves.

So, that would be at the low end of the "no conscience scale" with psychopaths at the far end and all kinds of gradations in between:

OP<-----------------------------------------------------> Psychopaths

Then, there are the people with the genetic potential for conscience. At the low end you might find people who are very much like psychopaths only they are "made that way" by abuse, physical injury at any point in their lives, drug induced brain dysfunction, etc. These would be Charateropaths of various sorts. The "seed" of conscience they might have more or less never sprouted and grew, or if it did, it was stunted and twisted or "died on the vine."

At the high end of this scale are individuals with fully developed empathy and consciousness.

There are all kinds of gradations in between.

Characteropath<-----------------------------------------> Empath

Now, as noted, while it might seem that a characteropath is a psychopath, there WILL be differences in that in the characteropath, you will find something of an emotional nature AND an ability to deal with abstractions - they can be smarter than psychopaths. So you can see that the two lines can NOT be connected like this:

OP<------------->psychopath = Characteropath<---------------------> Empath

The reason is because of that factor: the lack of the genetic potential for the "organ" of conscience. Plus, if you put characteropaths and psychopaths side by side, there ARE differences and sometimes it can take some time of observation and experience to be able to tell the two apart.

and

The term "sociopath" was dreamed up to replace psychopath since a "sociopath" has socially visible anti-social behaviors. A psychopath may not have immediately visible anti-social behavior though generally, over time, you can get a broad picture that demonstrates definitely anti-social trends. But they can be very covert and difficult to detect. Like the "pitiful manipulator" type with absolutely no conscience who feels secret glee at getting people to do everything for them. Yes, over time, you can see how their behavior hurts others and hurts society, but they are so "pitiful" and never "mean any harm" that it is hard to call them anti-social. So, with the term "sociopath" or Anti-social personality disorder, these types escape the nomological net altogether even if they are totally Machiavellian inside.
...

I've summarized my understanding of what is said above in this picture and the explanation of it below. I hope it will be found useful.

The labels "normy" and "sociopath" come from somewhere within the subculture of the pathological 6% - "normie" a despective label, "sociopath" probably designed to obscure some aspects of the phenomenon and who they are. Still, I don't think that the label "sociopath" is per se a bad thing if used correctly - it conveys the meaning of somebody who is damaging to society. "Sociopath" can be used as a general term for both psychopaths and characteropaths. If one wants to explain the phenomenon to new audiences in order to help avert damage from society, it is convenient as few people will care about the more subtle distinctions between both types of individuals. On the contrary, if one wants to study, understand and document who is what, then the label "sociopath" is not helpful.


The next line, "health scale" (or Robin's deprecated "Sane <--> Pathological" scale), applies to both "OP" and "Empath" below. It simply says that there is a range between completely healthy and completely sick individuals, with ponerized ones inbetween both extremes. There is probably a cutoff point somewhere on this scale, meaning the difference between "merely" ponerized (recoverable/healable) individuals and those who cannot be healed anymore, this being also the border between ponerized and abnormal (hereditary) people. This scale would be "measured" by applying the known lists of attributes assembled by Hare and others, and probably other attributes if/as discovered.


Next comes the OP <--> Psychopath scale, which I've labeled "(sub-) species A". OPs are according to what I remember from the Cs not "true 3D" and unable to "have soul". Psychopaths, on the sick end of this spectrum are , also according to the Cs, "failed OPs".


In the last line is the "Empath <--> Characteropath" scale, which I've inverted to put it side-by-side with above OP scale. I've labeled it "(sub-) species B". This would represent the scale from sanity to pathological of "true 3D" humans. Personally I find it confusing to call these ones "Empaths" because OPs are also able to feel empathy, albeit in their own way, what also applies to "true 2D" creatures such as dogs, monkeys, hyennae and many others. What distinguishes these from the OPs is the "ability to have soul"; the presence or (gradual) absence of empathy is in both (sub-) species the factor that distinguishes sane from sick individuals.


These both (sub-) species of humans would also represent to my knowledge what is termed "adamics" and "pre-adamics". There is a scale between what is "healthy" or sane, and what is "sick" which applies to them both, and for both, in/sanity probably shows in slightly different ways. From looking at above information, the irrecoverably pathological individuals from "(sub-) species B" (Lobaczewski's characteropaths) appear to be rendered so by external influences (rather than heredity), e.g. lesions to the brain during birth or unhealthy environmental influences, what makes them conspecific. For "(sub-) species A" OTOH, the difference between healthy and sick would appear to be hereditary - at least to me "failed OP" has the meaning that they are genetically/categorically different from other OPs, what IMO warrants to ask whether they are a third sub-species besides OPs and "soul-ables". I'd even go so far as to speculate whether even various graduations between OP and psychopath are determined genetically rather than by external influences. Remember that the Cs said something to the effect that unhealthy environmental influences don't damage the psychopaths much.


Re TS, I obscurely remember having seen his videos long time ago and having dismissed them as shallow.


BTW, for people interested in the view from the other side less the TS-style vulgarity, there are two blogs apparently written by "sociopaths" which I visit from time to time. Judging by the comments there, they have a huge following.
Narcissist World: _http://narcissistworld.wordpress.com
Sociopath World: _http://www.sociopathworld.com/


Disclaimer: All above is my interpretation of the quoted posts and/or my speculation.

 

[Chirpy]

Normal people do cross the boundaries of other people unintentionally all the time but psychopaths know full well what the boundaries are from the start and then deliberately cross them. Normal people take longer to find out what other people's boundaries are as they tread carefully around strangers and don't rush to find out too much about people they have just met.

The boundaries for this forum are clearly spelled out in the Guidelines. Its not a mystery. Psychopaths do not care about boundaries, here we care about maintaining a good environment in which people can engage in doing research, reading, and pursue the Work. I can't speak for PF, as I'm not a member there, nor do I plan to be: I've checked them out, and its not a good fit. There's no reason to visit it, past discovering that there's nothing there to keep me returning.

If this forum is not to your liking, there is nothing keeping you here. If PF isn't the forum for you, there is nothing keeping you there either.

Why is this such an issue?

I was referring to real life situations where we cross other people's boundaries as we get to know them but healthy people know when they have done this and try to make sure they don't do it again. To deny that you do this is being unrealistic and living in a fantasy world. To suggest only psychopaths do this makes you very naive and at the same time judgmental. The impression I get of this forum and the whole Cassiopaean movement is that its based on a mixture of mumbo jumbo, new age channeling and Puritan Christianity.

I was only here to find out what was going on with Thomas and to be a voice of reason. Yes, he did let me down but I am grateful to him for his books and videos as they were easy to read and made sense. Yes he did plagiarise a bit but don't all the truthers and writers of books on psychopathy as they exchange ideas in order to present the bigger picture. I am absolutely disgusted that nearly all of you here are judging him as a psychopath. He is NOT even though he did behave badly at times both in real life and on-line. Much of the blame could be placed on the sycophants for flirting with him and messing with his mind. It was no wonder he started lashing out with all the pressure he got from idiots attacking him and putting pressure on him to believe in UFO's or Jesus. It was also somewhat his fault for not slowing down after his sudden and unexpected success and taking time out for himself to lie low for a while. I now wonder if the on-line sexual humour and flirting was done in an deliberate attempt to wind up and separate himself from judgmental puritans. I don't blame him if that was his main reason.

 

[Chirpy]

That woman in the video, June: am I the only one to notice that she looks completely spent and intimidated? If so that would explain lots of what has been discussed here.
In any case seeing her made me very sad.

Maybe it's just a bad photo or she was having a bad day. I've seen photos of the same person taken within hours or minutes of each other and they look different in each photo because of the expression on their face, what was happening to them at the time or because of the skill of the photographer.

 

[anart]

Normal people do cross the boundaries of other people unintentionally all the time but psychopaths know full well what the boundaries are from the start and then deliberately cross them. Normal people take longer to find out what other people's boundaries are as they tread carefully around strangers and don't rush to find out too much about people they have just met.

The boundaries for this forum are clearly spelled out in the Guidelines. Its not a mystery. Psychopaths do not care about boundaries, here we care about maintaining a good environment in which people can engage in doing research, reading, and pursue the Work. I can't speak for PF, as I'm not a member there, nor do I plan to be: I've checked them out, and its not a good fit. There's no reason to visit it, past discovering that there's nothing there to keep me returning.

If this forum is not to your liking, there is nothing keeping you here. If PF isn't the forum for you, there is nothing keeping you there either.

Why is this such an issue?

I was referring to real life situations where we cross other people's boundaries as we get to know them but healthy people know when they have done this and try to make sure they don't do it again. To deny that you do this is being unrealistic and living in a fantasy world. To suggest only psychopaths do this makes you very naive and at the same time judgmental. The impression I get of this forum and the whole Cassiopaean movement is that its based on a mixture of mumbo jumbo, new age channeling and Puritan Christianity.

I was only here to find out what was going on with Thomas and to be a voice of reason. Yes, he did let me down but I am grateful to him for his books and videos as they were easy to read and made sense. Yes he did plagiarise a bit but don't all the truthers and writers of books on psychopathy as they exchange ideas in order to present the bigger picture. I am absolutely disgusted that nearly all of you here are judging him as a psychopath. He is NOT even though he did behave badly at times both in real life and on-line. Much of the blame could be placed on the sycophants for flirting with him and messing with his mind. It was no wonder he started lashing out with all the pressure he got from idiots attacking him and putting pressure on him to believe in UFO's or Jesus. It was also somewhat his fault for not slowing down after his sudden and unexpected success and taking time out for himself to lie low for a while. I now wonder if the on-line sexual humour and flirting was done in an deliberate attempt to wind up and separate himself from judgmental puritans. I don't blame him if that was his main reason.

Oh, please. Honestly? You are disgusted with us here for doing what you call 'judging' him (when it is actually just pointing out the facts of the situation), yet you come to this forum and judge everyone here. See the hypocrisy? Go ahead, take as much time as you need, I know it's difficult when your brain doesn't work very well. See, the difference here, Chirpy, is that we didn't go to your forum (your house) or Thomas' forum and spout judgmental nonsense. You, on the other hand, come here and in your ignorance judge things that you don't even begin to understand.

It's not even interesting because it's just so monumentally stupid. So, please, run along now and play with Thomas where you'll be much, much more happy.

 

[name]

That woman in the video, June: am I the only one to notice that she looks completely spent and intimidated? If so that would explain lots of what has been discussed here.
In any case seeing her made me very sad.

Maybe it's just a bad photo or she was having a bad day. I've seen photos of the same person taken within hours or minutes of each other and they look different in each photo because of the expression on their face, what was happening to them at the time or because of the skill of the photographer.

It is a bad video and not a bad photo. And my impression was that she not only was having a bad day, but of someone intimidated, worn out and generally behaving as a person trying to hold their last shreds of dignity together. That is how she came across to me. I might be wrong with my assessment but often one look, even in a bad video, is enough to generally know "where" a person is. In this case I had the impression that this person is not ok and I find your attempt to negate my impression by use of a generalization interesting to say the least.


And I have seen photos of the same person taken within minutes or hours of each other by different photographers where the person looks exactly the same. And I don't know why you bring this up as it has nothing to do with what we are speaking about here.


So what is your interest in contradicting my impression of that video of June and on what basis of knowledge are you doing it? Do you know her? Do you know Thomas? Are you Thomas?


Note: precisions, additions

 

[Windmill knight]

I was referring to real life situations where we cross other people's boundaries as we get to know them but healthy people know when they have done this and try to make sure they don't do it again. To deny that you do this is being unrealistic and living in a fantasy world. To suggest only psychopaths do this makes you very naive and at the same time judgmental. The impression I get of this forum and the whole Cassiopaean movement is that its based on a mixture of mumbo jumbo, new age channeling and Puritan Christianity.

I was only here to find out what was going on with Thomas and to be a voice of reason. Yes, he did let me down but I am grateful to him for his books and videos as they were easy to read and made sense. Yes he did plagiarise a bit but don't all the truthers and writers of books on psychopathy as they exchange ideas in order to present the bigger picture. I am absolutely disgusted that nearly all of you here are judging him as a psychopath. He is NOT even though he did behave badly at times both in real life and on-line. Much of the blame could be placed on the sycophants for flirting with him and messing with his mind. It was no wonder he started lashing out with all the pressure he got from idiots attacking him and putting pressure on him to believe in UFO's or Jesus. It was also somewhat his fault for not slowing down after his sudden and unexpected success and taking time out for himself to lie low for a while. I now wonder if the on-line sexual humour and flirting was done in an deliberate attempt to wind up and separate himself from judgmental puritans. I don't blame him if that was his main reason.

I almost fell off my chair when reading that. I mean, what's up with you blaming the victims? You honestly, seriously think that it is not Sheridan's fault to be so 'attractive', which causes people to flirt with him, and then the poor guy has no option but to behave like a sexual predator?!? Believe nonsense at your own peril Chirpy! You have probably heard of cases of sexual abuse in which the victim is blamed for wearing provocative clothing or whatever. Well, that's just how you sound. And that's the sort of argument that psychopaths like to use to defend themselves.

 

[no-mans-land]

Normal people do cross the boundaries of other people unintentionally all the time but psychopaths know full well what the boundaries are from the start and then deliberately cross them. Normal people take longer to find out what other people's boundaries are as they tread carefully around strangers and don't rush to find out too much about people they have just met.

The boundaries for this forum are clearly spelled out in the Guidelines. Its not a mystery. Psychopaths do not care about boundaries, here we care about maintaining a good environment in which people can engage in doing research, reading, and pursue the Work. I can't speak for PF, as I'm not a member there, nor do I plan to be: I've checked them out, and its not a good fit. There's no reason to visit it, past discovering that there's nothing there to keep me returning.

If this forum is not to your liking, there is nothing keeping you here. If PF isn't the forum for you, there is nothing keeping you there either.

Why is this such an issue?

I was referring to real life situations where we cross other people's boundaries as we get to know them but healthy people know when they have done this and try to make sure they don't do it again. To deny that you do this is being unrealistic and living in a fantasy world. To suggest only psychopaths do this makes you very naive and at the same time judgmental.

Gimpy never stated, that he/she do not cross other people boundaries and also no one here say that only psychopaths do this. Its just an assumption on your side and a proof, that you don't listen what this forum is about, because otherwise you would have seen, that we do exactly what you described in you first sentence. We doing even more, because if someone didn't notice when he crossed such a boundary, the network is going to point it out to provide a possibility to learn. Not everyone is comfortable with that as you may experience it right now.

 

[Laura]

I almost fell off my chair when reading that. I mean, what's up with you blaming the victims? You honestly, seriously think that it is not Sheridan's fault to be so 'attractive', which causes people to flirt with him, and then the poor guy has no option but to behave like a sexual predator?!? Believe nonsense at your own peril Chirpy! You have probably heard of cases of sexual abuse in which the victim is blamed for wearing provocative clothing or whatever. Well, that's just how you sound. And that's the sort of argument that psychopaths like to use to defend themselves.

Yeah, Chirpy. You probably believe that little kids are just so seductive that pedophiles have to give in to their masterful lures to be molested.