Saturday, June 6, 2015

Racism and Sexism in Statement Analysis

Recently, a black family received an anonymous threatening letter (ATL) at their home in New York, telling them to move out of town.

I analyzed the letter and determined that the author was likely to be:

Black
Female
Educated, at least two years in college, or business school
Middle aged
Known to the Family
History of moving frequently
Not racist against blacks
Interested in media exposure

Analysis also showed that the anonymous threatening letter contained no threat:  it was, in deed, another "Fake Hate" scam.  You may read the full analysis

This pointed to the letter coming from a family member within the house who wrote on Facebook when it happened some statements which showed sensitivity about finding the letter itself, and declared that the next step after "Hate Crime detectives left " her home was to begin the process of Media.

It was shortly after this post that the analysis was published here, at the Statement Analysis blog.
Also shortly after publication an extremely lengthy list of moving that the family member who posted on Face Book has gone through.

More than a week later, the family has not posted about it again, including what appears to be the abandoning the "next step:  Media" process.

Silence.

What happened to the plans?

Then an advertisement from the family for a dinner was posted and it contained the similar type and spacing of the anonymous threatening letter used.

In reading comments from all around the nation as the story went national, universal condemnation of racism was noted, as was much condemnation of Long Island as "racist" and some condemnation of white people.  Few articles where there were many comments contained any comments where one questioned the authenticity of the letter.

There was also an almost universal disinterest in uncovering the author.  I read hundreds of these comments and it was rare to find anyone who showed an interest in learning the identity of the author.

When someone did show an interest, the response to this interest was strong:

"Racism!"

For example, one man wrote in showing confidence that this was "clearly" a teenager who learned his racism from his racist parents.

Another wrote that it was "clearly" the "racist community" in Lindenhurst.

Quite a few wrote it that they had "similar" experiences on Long Island, at the hands of "racists" who live there.

From the comments alone one might think that the population of Long Island is entirely racist.

The rarest of comments, however, were reserved to those who not only took a guess at who might have written the letter, but gave a reason for their guess.  Of this type, my favorite, fewest were found.  They are my favorite because they show:

1.  Interest in learning the true identity of the author, rather than condemning an entire community, as was the intention of the letter;
2.  Stating what they believed with why they believed.

In other times, this would have been referred to as "critical thinking."

Today, however, it is "hate speech."

With our scientific process we not only are able to say, "Deception indicated!" but give the reasons why we made this conclusion.  If we are wrong, we can go back to the reasons that brought us to our conclusion and correct our error. I hope it is obvious that this blog is for critical thinkers instead of a group of people who are nothing more than a "voter block" for exploitation.

This is why I urge commentators, even if they state "I think he is deceptive" to tell us, plainly, why they believe it so, even if it is just "intuition."  Even "it's just an instinct" shows that the writer recognizes a need for critical thinking, even when absent.  I do not mind "it just feels that way to me", even when someone does not know why because many times this "feeling" can be honed by principle as the person who writes, "it just feels..." recognizes, by the word "just", that this is a lower or reduced expectation here at the blog.

My favorite comment went something like this:

"I think the writer is from Russia or Poland because of the dropped articles."

In the Copiague, Lindenhurst area, there is a large population of immigrants from both Poland and Russia.  They have opened up businesses (including a nice bakery) and have integrated into the community by learning the English language and other cultural assimilations.  Learning the English language for adults is not easy and although I disagree with the commentator's conclusion, I respect that he gave a reason for it:  the articles were dropped from the letter, and the commentator has heard this from Polish or Russian immigrants as they struggle to learn the language.

Point well taken.

It showed that most people will have an opinion about who wrote this, but almost none of them were willing to state why they thought it to be so.

It was the comment that replied to this that speaks volumes of our cultural ignorance and lack of critical thinking:

"I think the writer is from Russia or Poland because of the dropped articles" was answered with:

"Great, fight racism with more racism."

To take this position is to ignore reality and stop any method to identify the author by race and subsequently, by gender, too, because that would lead to the condemnation of "sexist."

My conclusion:

The commentator who wrote, "Great, fight racism with more racism" is, himself, a racist.

He is a racist because he is using willful and deliberate ignorance to take steps to not protect the black family from potential harm.

If this had been a genuine threat (which the commentators most all agreed it is) to deliberately not discern the perpetrator is to leave the family to the whims or consequences of the threatening author.

To not profile the writer is to not protect.

I challenge the commentator:  Does not this family deserve protection?  What is it about this family that you do not want us to learn who wrote it?  Why not protect them?

Thus, the folly of the hyper-sensitivity in the cult of offense.

Imagine a group of analysts who's work is to uncover the identity of terrorists who threaten via letter, like the Unabomber.

Now imagine the group of analysts who's job is to find out the identity of the Unabomber paralyzed with fear of being charged with hate speech, hate crime, or simply losing their employment due to "racism", should they determine the race of the Unabomber, or "sexist" if they have an opinion on the Unabomber's gender.

Imagine being shouted down, in this fascist manner, so that no work is completed.  The potential victims need help, yet are left without it, due to 'political correctness.'

Can you imagine such a thing?

Can you imagine someone being in desperate need of help, yet, help can no longer be given, because the help, itself, is now labeled as "hate"?

The consequences of "thought crimes" are not simply myriad, but, I fear, not carefully thought through on what may await us.

In my personal, subjective, internal dictionary, racism is the  hatred due to race, of a people.  It is, in my code, both illogical and a moral failure.  It is a "respecter of faces", which in ancient language, was the seeing of one's skin color, and despising them for it.

Sexism is similar in my personal, subjective, internal dictionary.  It is to despise based upon gender.

In "equal pay for equal work", I am a "feminist" as it reflects equality of pay for equality or value of work.

Whereas should a job requiring the carrying of a 150b person be given to a person who cannot carry a 150b person due to skin color or gender, it is illogical, and it is to "hate" the potential one who needs to be carried or rescued.

When 'political correctness' is put before truth, or safety, or even profit in a business, the results can be the lesson regarding the illogical.

For a person, family, or business under a threat, to be told, "We are sorry.  We cannot determine if the threat against you or your family, or business is genuine or not, nor are we permitted to attempt to learn the identity, because that would entail acquiring information based upon race and gender, and it is against the law.  We have limited resources of which to afford you some protection, but the rest is up to you", is to hate.

The original comment that prompted this article was, "Great. Fight racism with more racism" has a point, however.

Racism is not defeated by racism, no more than theft is defeated by theft, like Robin Hood, or a government demonizing and punishing the successful.

It is illogical, but it does build a very loyal voter base, as it uses the propaganda technique of "moral high ground", that is, that if you agree with us, you agree because you are morally superior to those who disagree.

Those who disagree are not simply in disagreement.


They are "hate" and "hateful" people.

The voter base is key.  Come, agree with us, because you are superior to those who disagree with us, and those who disagree with us are immoral, hateful people.

Once logic is discarded, truth is to be viewed as subjective and changeable.

I concluded that this letter was "Fake Hate."  My conclusion was based upon all the ideas and determinations in my analysis; therefore, if I am wrong, I can be corrected because we will find where it was, specifically, that I went wrong.

Profiling in Statement Analysis is very difficult work and in light of the great percentage of success in determining truth versus deception, the expectation for profiling, in particular, anonymous work, can be far too high for sound work.

A healthy skepticism should always accompany anonymous threatening letter analysis.

It is crucial for an opinion to have a basis, so that confirmation or correction may be made, if it is that truth is the ultimate goal.

38 comments:

Wendy said...

I can't seem to find any new information on this story. It got so much hype---then any references to it stopped. The family doesn't seem to be too concerned about it anymore; their 15 minutes of fame is up. Mission accomplished? I hope the police continue to work on this case so the person is identified. Will they be charged with a crime or will they be pitied?

Anonymous said...

Peter, will you be analyzing the Duggar interview by Megyn Kelly? I'd love to read your thoughts. I have long been a supporter of them but was very disappointed in them after the interview.

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

More than a week later, the family has not posted about it again, including what appears to be the abandoning the "next step: Media" process.

Silence.

What happened to the plans?


Uhm, following her facebook post, it was covered by the media, that's how we knew about it and you had some of the pictures and articles and stuff.

John mcgowan said...

It is my belief that the "fake hate note" was written by her or a joint effort with someone else to drum up buisness for her cake and deserts sales by playing the sympathy (race) card. What better way to get peoples attention than to claim to have been sent a "racist note" and have it splashed all over the media and social networks.

She is talented by looking at her FB pictures of her baking efforts. Noticeable is that people are offering her buisness and encouraging her to open up a bakery.


Hmm!!

https://www.facebook.com/ronica.copes

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
More than a week later, the family has not posted about it again, including what appears to be the abandoning the "next step: Media" process.

Silence.

What happened to the plans?

Uhm, following her facebook post, it was covered by the media, that's how we knew about it and you had some of the pictures and articles and stuff.


Uhm,

follow her Facebook post chronologically.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

John,

beginning with the post itself, and then moving from date to date, there is a consistency in sensitivity indicators beginning with answering the unasked (and unnecessary) question, "How did you find it?"

From there, we have an indication of motive, as it was already public and already the detectives had "left" (missing information at this point).

There is, within the words, an anticipation of media mobilization for "the cause" which is what has been disrupted.

There are two possible sources of disruption:

1. The police told her, "Don't go there..."

2. The analysis said, "the gig is up."

I have reason to believe that they stopped the plans to mobilize and promote. There has been no fund raising since the analysis.

I believe reason number 2 is the most likely. :)


Remember: Charlie Rogers' attorney had to put a stop to the money (I mean, the second attorney) because it elevates the scenario to potential jail time.

Peter

Anonymous said...

May 21- Copes posts on facebook about investigators "left", says next step media.

May 22- media stories begin appearing

May 23- more media stories

May 24- you begin covering the story

May 25- you post about it again.

May 28- you make a third post which is later updated by you (or your editorial staff) with multiple media sources including local TV, CNN, and Gawker.

June 6- another post, you point out you've read "hundreds" of comments on the topic; then, two weeks later, you remind us of her May 21 plan to use media, and state "Silence...what happened to that plan?"

"Uhm" it worked.

Anonymous said...

I forgot to mention on May 28 you posted her flier for a $30 per person fundraiser.

tania cadogan said...

I sent her a PM pointing out that the letter had been analysed and shown to be deceptive.
I also helpfully pointed out that although it was a misdemeanor it could also end up as a felony and neither look good on resumes.

She did not respond

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Baby Janna’s father on never calling 911: ‘Believe it or not, it never even occurred to me

INDIANAPOLIS (June 6, 2015) – More than a week after going missing, metro police are still searching for the body of missing three-month old Janna Rivera.

Last week the girl’s mother called 911, telling dispatchers the baby was dead.

Police have searched multiple locations for the girl’s body, going up against conflicting and sometimes confusing stories.

Jeff Fairbanks, Janna’s father, is the only person of interest in the case. Detectives have extensively questioned him, but no arrests have been made.

On Saturday in an email to CBS4, Fairbanks explained his side of the story.

“Finding Janna was the most important thing, at first, because that gives us closure, a chance at a respectable burial, and exoneration,” Fairbanks wrote. “However, I am afraid that window may have passed.”

Fairbanks claims he put Janna’s body in a dumpster after he said she died of natural causes.

But Fairbanks never called 911.

“Believe it or not, it never even occurred to me,” he said in the email. “Once I couldn’t save her, all I could think about were the girls downstairs…I guess, in some strange way, I was trying to protect them, because I knew she was already gone.”

Fairbanks said he put his daughter’s body in the dumpster after he “…drove around aimlessly, waiting for her to wake up, praying, thinking somehow she would. It was like I was in another reality.”

Fairbanks added, “It sickened me to the point, that, when I got home and broke down and told the family, I told them that I had buried her, because I was already so ashamed of what I had done, I couldn’t face it.”

Metro police are continuing to follow-up on leads.

“As the case progressed, we have to be able to vet through all of these stories,” Sgt. Kendale Adams said Friday, with the Indianapolis Metro Police Department. “And so there is a plethora of information coming into detectives, many theories out there, and so we have to be able to really investigate that. That takes time, that takes investigative techniques so that whole process takes time.”

Fairbanks ended the email saying his daughter is in a safer place.

“Despite how I reacted,” he wrote. “She is safe and sound, in a better place than all of us, who do bad things, and judge others, when they have never experienced trauma of this nature.”

http://cbs4indy.com/2015/06/06/baby-jannas-father-on-never-calling-911-believe-it-or-not-it-never-even-occurred-to-me/

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Farah Confronts Coach Over Doping Allegations
The double Olympic champion calls his coach to demand answers - but says he will not sack him until there is "clear evidence".


Mo Farah has confronted coach Alberto Salazar over the doping allegations that emerged this week.

The double Olympic and world champion told reporters he was angry that his "name was being dragged through the mud" following the investigation into endurance coach Salazar.

But he said he would not sack the American trainer - for now.

Farah said: "I spoke to him last night and said 'What's going on - I need answers?' He said to me 'I can prove this to you'.

"Yes, there are answers that the public are owed - I myself need to know what's going on.

"I am not leaving Alberto because I have not seen any clear evidence. If the allegations are true I will be the first to leave him."

Farah added: "It's not fair, it's not right - I haven't done anything but my name's getting dragged through the mud.

"My reputation is getting ruined, you guys are killing me but what have I done?

"It's hard. If you guys have something on me, bring it."

There is no suggestion Farah has broken any rules.

The 32-year-old, who won 5,000 and 10,000-metre gold at the 2012 London Olympics, reiterated that he had not taken any banned substances nor been offered any by Salazar.

The BBC investigation alleged that Salazar doped US 10,000-metre record holder Galen Rupp in 2002.

Rupp later became Farah's training partner.

Both Rupp, who was 16 at the time of the alleged offence, and Salazar deny doping claims.

UK Athletics has announced it will conduct an "internal audit" of the "performance management system surrounding Farah and the endurance programme".

http://news.sky.com/story/1497431/farah-confronts-coach-over-doping-allegations

tania cadogan said...

“Finding Janna was the most important thing, at first, because that gives us closure, a chance at a respectable burial, and exoneration,” Fairbanks wrote. “However, I am afraid that window may have passed.”
Note here he uses the pronoun US in relation to closure, a respectable burial and, EXONERATION
Here he shares the exoneration and thus in part the guilt.
Note also the qualifier A CHANCE
He doesn't say a respectable burial, only a chance at a respectable burial.
Why would this be?
Was something done to the body that would prevent a respectable burial, leaving only a chance at a respectable burial?
“However, I am afraid that window may have passed.”
This is close, that is distancing.
He doesn't say it has passed, only that it may have passed.
Could this be due to where he dumped her?
He tells us he dumped her in a dumpster and thus eventually into a landfill.
Depending on where the dumpster was emptied and when he told police, it is possible (although time consuming)to recover her remains.
Is it possible he dumped her in water instead and the currents would move her with the result of no one, even himself , knowing where her remains are to be found?

“…drove around aimlessly, waiting for her to wake up, praying, thinking somehow she would. It was like I was in another reality.”
He doesn't tell us he was in another reality, only that it was like he was in another reality.
If he was driving around aimlessly, will he have been caught on CCTV driving past?
Will he have been recorded where he claims he parked up to dump her remains?
No one really drives aimlessly, they drive for a reason.
In his case it would have been to find somewhere to dump the remains even if subconsciously.
Have they checked his cell phone for pings?
Did he have a satnav that perhaps recorded where he went?
Is there anything on his vehicle that could reveal where he has been?

Fairbanks added, “It sickened me to the point, that, when I got home and broke down and told the family, I told them that I had buried her, because I was already so ashamed of what I had done, I couldn’t face it
He takes ownership of having done something.
Whatever was done was enough to have sickened him.
Are we looking at sexual abuse and murder because she may have talked?
Are the remains intact?
He tells us he buried her because of What i had done
Not, because she died of natural causes and he panicked, rather because of something he had done to her.
He takes ownership of having done something to her.
Natural parental instinct would have caused him to call 911 even if she was stone cold and in rigor, there is always hope she will recover and denial of death.
Guilty people however will avoid calling 911, the fear of being caught prevents them, and, if they do decide to call, it is either via a third party which puts distance between the killer and the police, or, if they feel confident, are too dumb/ stoned/drunk/narcissistic, they will call 911 themselves and try and claim accident/a 3rd party/self defense and then leak marbles all over the place.

tania cadogan said...

cont.

“Despite how I reacted,” he wrote. “She is safe and sound, in a better place than all of us,who do bad thing and judge others, when they have never experienced trauma of this nature.”
Note here is embeddedWHO DO BAD THINGS
Note the plural BAD THINGS not the singular a bad thing.
Also note the tense.
He says DO not a.
Do is present tense.
Is what happened ongoing, was it something he had done multiple times rather than a one off?
I note also he uses the pronoun US rather than those
Who is the US he refers to?
Is he referring to the family?
I don't think so, he doesn't use the word WE which would indicates shared cooperation and unity.
He uses the pronoun US in relation to those who do bad things.
People who do bad things are never WE
They are outsiders
ALL OF US WHO DO BAD THINGS are in a bad place, if they have a religion then it means hell.
Prison is a bad place, especially if you do crimes against children. in which case, prison becomes a very bad place indeed.
and judge others, when they have never experienced trauma of this nature.”
This is close, that is distancing.
He places himself close to the trauma of this nature.
it is interesting that he used the word Trauma
Why not pain or anguish?
Trauma also means physical injury usually from violence.
Is this further leakage?
Is this why he had to dispose of the body rather than call 911?
It could not be explained away as accidental.
He also introduces JUDGE OTHERS
Is this because he expects to be judged now and later in court?
Leakage of his fear of the consequences?
He also introduces the word NATURE
Nature can mean type or kind, it can also mean the outdoors more usually the countryside.
Was she instead dumped in the countryside, perhaps in a river. lake or pond?

It is in his interest that her body isn't found anytime soon, as, the longer she is left exposed to the elements and environs, the more DNA is washed away and decomposition aided by predation will make it hard to identify a cause of death.
Claim she was put in a dumpster when she wasn't and he buys time.

Anonymous said...

Interesting posts Hobnobs, very good thoughts. Except for one or two things:

Speaking in generalities: You cannot say that NO ONE really drives aimlessly. There are billions of people on this earth and NOT ONE of them has ever driven around aimlessly? How could you possibly know this? You don't. YOU can get inside their head? No ma'am, you can't.

Also, haven't you announced on occasion that you are an atheist, one who does not believe in God, Jesus, heaven or hell? Then you cannot possibly refer to ones' final destination of hell, having done a bad thing for which they would have no forgiveness, since you don't even believe there is one? "If they have a religion it means hell." Not necessarily. There IS forgiveness.

tania cadogan said...

Anon, Just because i do not believe in any god, heaven or hell, it doesn't mean that others do.

You say there is forgiveness.
Forgiveness by whom?
Forgiveness by a god is simply an excuse to get away with a crime which is why so many find a god and religion when doing serious time.

Being forgiven by a god if one believes in one, excuses the believer from taking total responsibility for their crime and facing up to what they have done..
They can convince themselves and others that though they did evil things, everything is hunky dory because god will forgive them.
People are accepting if someone escapes justice for a heinous crime because they believe god will judge them perpetrator and punish them.
They say such as to not believe in divine retribution means facing up to the fact a monster has gotten away scot free.

Murderers and rapists doing serious time or facing death will make their peace with god, in effect forgiving themselves for what they did.
It is in effect a salve on the conscience both of the perpetrator and the public including the families of both the perpetrator and the victim.

Imagine if you commit a horrendous crime, you do not believe in god, you know there will never be forgiveness either from an invisible man and chums, the family of the victim(s) or the world in general.
Imagine having to face up to your guilt day after day till you die.
There is no redemption, there is nothing, no chance of peace, ever.
That kind of guilt will eat away in your head, never ending.

I can say people do not drive aimlessly, where they drive, even if they are not conscious of it, is controlled by their environment, the road conditions, curiosity, intent and even if they are left or right handed.

He may have claimed he was driving aimlessly.

I call bull.

He has the corpse of a child he claims died a natural death yet he failed to call 911 lying in his car.
His intent was to dispose of her remains and avoid the consequences of his actions.
Therefore he would have been driving around thinking of how to dispose of a corpse, somewhere out of the way, somewhere where he would not be seen by passing traffic or people.
He would also be looking for somewhere he felt6 safe, somewhere he was comfortable with and familiar with.
he would be looking for somewhere known to him that he knew or felt confident in that the body would not be found easily such as passing traffic, hunters, dog walkers etc.
He would look for somewhere where she could be covered, either by burial or water or a ditch/mineshaft/well etc.

By the way, it is quite easy to get inside someones head, we all do it everyday when we listen, we watch, we act and react.
People tell you who they are if you are willing to learn and listen

It is also worth noting you chose to remain anonymous, now why would that be?
Do you not want to be linked to your own words?

Note a correction it should be

Also note the tense.
He says DO not DID

have a pleasant day :)

Anonymous said...

Oh please! You, John and Peter are the only ones who aren't anonymous, yet you never critisize, say Lemon or Trustme for being anonymous. Should we question them as not wanting to be linked to their words?

Anonymous said...

She posts anonymously plenty. She's bragged about how she does it for "work" and gets a kick that her bosses don't figure it out. There are tells in her posts that she does it here, too.

Anonymous said...

Here we go again. Another big long billy-do of self defense prattle by Hobs defending her non-beliefs and other know-it-all babble.

She, Hobnob, aka Tania, aka as many other convenient aliases, posts under plenty of anonymous names and brags about it. She even told me that I could post as a different gender than I really am, changing names whenever I like, going back and forth and so on. Deceitful much?

She claims that we give ourselves away? OH, is that so! If it were, she would already know who I am... Duh! I've been reading and posting here FOR YEARS. Sure, she's a mind reader too.

She is the very same one who gave her height as 4'14", as if to make herself sound shorter than she really is; this being more accurately a standard
height measurement of 5'2". Like she doesn't know the correct way to state her height. 5'2" is not an uncommon height at all, she just wants us to think she is this tiny little short woman (IFF she is even a woman)! Talk about being (or attempting to be) deceptive!

tania cadogan said...

Dear anon, Lemon and TrustmeIgetit have chosen a name. It may not be their given name, that is their choice.
It does allow us to identify their posts, as you oh so helpfully pointed out.
It also allows them and shows us they take ownership of their posts.

If they post something insightful we can see it was from them as they have taken ownership of it.

If they post something funny, we can see them taking ownership of said post.

If they post something dumb, we see the ownership of the words.

If they were to post something nasty we again see ownership of the words.

The same applies to myself, Peter and John.
For myself and Peter we are up front and centre and take ownershp of our words.
We stand by what we write, come what may.
John McGowan could be his real name, it could also be a nom de plume.
It is the name he goes by in the blog, it also means he like us, takes ownership of his words good or bad.

It gets interesting then.
There are options to allow the commentator to use what i call a disposable name.
It can be anything a hotchp[otch of letters and numbers and even characters. it can be something the commentator relates to in some way be it a name, an object, a taste a smell, well you get the picture.

Even though it is a disposable name and does not link back to anything to identify the commentator, it again allows them to take ownership of their words, even if only for that comment.
It is them making the choice to select a name of whaever kind and then comment.
Even though none here know the identity of the commentator, we accept the name and the ownership of their words.

Remember this is a statement analysis site and everything posted on it can and wil be analysed, critqued, corrected, and, if applicable encouraged or ignored.

Now then, the anonymous option interests me.
It interests me because to me it means the author does not take ownership of their words.
They refuse to say i wrote this and i stand by it, instead they hide away and say i wrote this or maybe i didn't, i will not take ownership of what is written.
This could be down to shyness, a fear of being pounced on by regulars who may dispute or outright disagree with what was written a fear or being identifiable on the net, it could be to disrupt a post, to be contrary to what ever is commented on just because,it could be for many reasons, each to their own.

When an anonymous makes an interesting post, brings an interesting point to the fore, perhaps something we have missed, we encourage them to choose a name (see above), praising them and giving them the confidence to stand by what they said.
It means we can then say xyz mentioned this and it then caused us to rethink or examine closer the relevant text.
it makes it easier when referring to something previously if we can say xyz noticed this or pointed out that or introduced a case we weren't familiar with or aware of.

When anonymous's stay anonymous i ask why? what is their need that they hide away from their words.

It is also worth noting that everyone has their own typing style.
it is akin to handwriting, they will use certain words and abbreviations, they will use specific slang and emoticons.
How they write a sentence, use and misuse pronouns and tenses.

It seems i struck a sensitive note with you anonymous, why would that be?

Have a pleasant evening

John mcgowan said...

Anonymous said...

June 7, 2015 at 5:05 PM

Oh please! You, John and Peter are the only ones who aren't anonymous, yet you never critisize, say Lemon or Trustme for being anonymous. Should we question them as not wanting to be linked to their words?


Hi Anon,

Order noted. Thanks for the compliment!

Fundamentally, as Tania has Succinctly expressed above. If someone has nothing to hide, and or an agenda (which over time they give themselves away. After all this is an SA Blog) Take a name. Open an account. You can then add an Avvy, and no one can post pretending to be you or whomever. It is unique to you. Responses then can be answered to a name (which is more personal) and builds up rapport. Yes, people can open up numerous accounts (seen it, identified it). Well, you get the picture :)
...................

*Someone uses a lot of cap?

Anonymous said...

You didn't strike a nerve. You were the one who brought up the topic of anonymous posting after taking offense to a critique of your analysis, as if the point the poster made is somehow less valid depending on who says it. I just pointed out the hypocrisy of your preoccupation with anonymous posting and that it always follows somebody saying something that, to borrow a phrase, "strikes a nerve."

Nothing special though. "Straw man" is a common logical fallacy that "commentators" utilize when they can't keep up with the points made.

Anonymous said...

Yes, thanks "John." I remember all that being very important to both Tania and the troll with Tourette's syndrome. Your advocacy for it puts things in a new light, though. Thanks again :)

John mcgowan said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, thanks "John." I remember all that being very important to both Tania and the troll with Tourette's syndrome.


Hi Anon,

I noticed you used the article "the" troll with Tourette's syndrome, without introduction? Do you know whom "the troll" is with "Tourette's syndrome". Language you introduced. I'm intrigued. "Tourette's Syndrome" using your words. What is your " personal internal subjective dictionary" definition of "Tourette's syndrome"?

Anonymous said...

"I noticed you used the article "the" troll with Tourette's syndrome, without introduction? "

Yes I expected my intended audience to get the reference.

"What is your " personal internal subjective dictionary" definition of "Tourette's syndrome"?

I'm intrigued you didn't ask about "troll" since it came first in order. Maybe you caught the reference.

By "Tourette's Syndrome," I mean a lack of impulse control with language that would best be treated by some sort of medical professional, and isn't a condition that only stems from a weak moral constitution (but doesn't preclude it either ;).

Anonymous said...

Anon,

I am the anon who wrote the posts to Hobnob @ 7:11 p.m. last night and @ 10:41 a.m. yesterday morning, wherein I questioned just two issues in her previous long analysis even though I complimented her overall analysis; I do not believe I was out of line in pointing out her error in speaking in generalities in her broad and sweeping statement that 'no one drives aimlessly' (in the entire universe as if she would know this by some sort of mental telepathy with the whole world at large?);

further questioning her atheist views which have nothing to do with statement analysis as a whole inasmuch as there are billions of people who do believe in God, Jesus, heaven and hell that do not commit dishonest and/or criminal practices; AND many who do not believe in God, Jesus, heaven and hell and who are professioning atheists who also do not commit these infractions. My point being, what is her point in throwing her non-beliefs out there continuously, as if to discredit anyone who DOES believe in God, Jesus, heaven and hell, or says they do, like they are all liars? She loves to point out how criminals profess to turn to God in prison and get forgiveness as if none ever do and they are all fakes and liars; again, she would know this by some sort of mental osmosis with everyone in every prison?

The fact is, she lost her creditability with me a long time ago with this ridiculous nonsense in that she never fails to find a way to comingle her christianity insults in nearly every one of her statement analysis posts. It appears that her main goal is to lead others into her atheistic beliefs, (or cause them to have to defend their Christian views which is a total waste of their time with her dead soul); since she nearly always resorts to this.

She does not realize that those who search for and believe in unseen things above of a spirit nature are very broadminded people of depth, whether good or bad, or rightly or wrongly, something she is sorely lacking in. That is not to say that some are not hypocrites and some are not liars but the mission of this statement analysis is not to judge the soul and/or the subjects' Christian beliefs, or other posters Christian beliefs and practices, nor is it her place to think she is competent to do so.

Bottom line, she has no real perspective of any true depth and no conscience, being the schemer that she is, which she thinks is oh so clever, and there is no way she could actually influence me in any of her posts. Not in the long run, although I was willing to give her credit for her otherwise fine points of analysis.

The fact is, you either agree with her every word 100% or she pounces. Again and again. Now she wants me to give myself a name so she can sling more insults at me by name. Yeah, right. She's tried this on me before...

Child Advocate said...

Peter,

Are you going to do an analysis on the Dugger interview? I'm curious about your view of their interview on Fox.

Anonymous said...

Why the silence on the Duggar interviews?

Anonymous said...

ummm..... I wonder.

No offense meant, but could the silence have some political connotation?

I mean, the Duggers are heavy weight republicans, aren't they?

Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

Oh geez- he already said no. Give it a rest.

Political reasons? The Duggar case is being blown way out of proportion for political sport. Fifteen year old boys stick their hands up 5 year old girls' dresses all the time. It means nothing. Rite of passage, right?

Anonymous said...

Take us back to 2002. How did you first learn that this was a problem with Josh?
JIM BOB DUGGAR, “19 KIDS AND COUNTING”: Well, 12 years ago, we went through one of the most darkest times that our family have ever gone through, and our son Josh came to us on his own, and he was crying. And he had just turned 14, and he said that he had actually improperly touched some of our daughters. And it was —
MICHELLE DUGGAR, “19 KIDS AND COUNTING”: We were shocked. I mean, we were just devastated. I don’t think any parent is prepared for a trauma like that. And I think we had one way of hope and that Josh had a tender conscience, and he was the one that came and shared on his own even though the others really didn’t know anything of his wrongdoing.
KELLY: This is a young boy who has come to you with shocking information. What did he say? I mean, how did you respond to him? What was that like, that exchange?
M. DUGGAR: There was so much grief in our hearts. I think as parents we felt, we’re failures. You know, here we tried to raise our kids to do what’s right, to know what’s right. And yet one of our children made some really bad choices, and I think as a parent, we were just — we were devastated.
KELLY: Did he explain why? I mean, was that a question that you asked?
J. B. DUGGAR: He said he was just curious about girls, and he had gone in and just basically touched them over their clothes while they were sleeping. They didn’t even know he had done it. And so we went, and the first thing was to protect the girls. And so we went in —
KELLY: The girls all slept together?
M. DUGGAR: Hm-mm.
J. B. DUGGAR: Yes. The girls had two bedrooms at the time.
KELLY: How many girls are we talking about?
J. B. DUGGAR: We had five girls at the time.
KELLY: OK.
J. B. DUGGAR: So, anyway, he went in and said he had done this, and so we, first off, of course, really talked to him and then we went and talked to all the girls, the children.
M. DUGGAR: It was so important for us as parents to talk to our girls and make sure that nothing else had happened.
KELLY: So, what did they say?
M. DUGGAR: One by one, as we talked with them, none of them were aware of Josh’s wrongdoings.
KELLY: So they learned about it from you.
M. DUGGAR: Yes.
J. B. DUGGAR: Yes. Yes.
KELLY: At that point, he had said that he had done this to how many of the girls?
J. B. DUGGAR: That was to two.
KELLY: OK. But neither one had any recollection of it.
J. B. DUGGAR: They did not know.

Anonymous said...

KELLY: And what was their reaction when they learned it from you?
J. B. DUGGAR: They didn’t — they really didn’t know. Actually, what happened was we asked them at first if anything happened. And then it was after some other things happened that we actually shared with them, and we actually — but we took a lot of steps. And first we tried to deal with this in-house as parents. We were in shock and we were trying to figure out what was the next step. But really, looking back, we did the best we could under the circumstances.
KELLY: You’re saying, what am I going to do? You’re saying, he says he’s touched two of the daughters, and you don’t know what to do, right?
J. B. DUGGAR: Didn’t know. Because at that point now nobody knew about it besides Michelle and I and Josh. And so we thought, what do we do with this information? And the girls, we talked to them, and they didn’t know that anything had happened because they were asleep. And so we talked to him, we put all kinds of punishments on him, we watched him, like, all the time. I took him to work with me, and he just — I mean, we just poured our life into it.
KELLY: Like when you went to bed at night during that time frame, were you scared? Were you worried? You know, he’s 14, he’s having this problem. What’s going to happen when we go to sleep?
J. B. DUGGAR: Right. Nothing ever happened like that again in the girls’ bedrooms after that.
KELLY: OK.
J. B. DUGGAR: OK. So, we had safeguards that protected them from that. But there was another incident where — two different incidents where the girls were, like, laying on the couch, and it was — he had touched, like, over the couch and actually touched their breast while they were asleep. And so
M. DUGGAR: Over their clothes.
J. B. DUGGAR: — over their clothes. And so it was a very difficult situation. But as we talked to other parents and different ones since then, a lot of families have said that they’ve had similar things happen in their families. And so — I mean, this is, for us, of course, this is public shame that our son did this back 12, 13 years ago.
KELLY: When you heard that the behavior had resumed, describe what that was like for you.
J. B. DUGGAR: We thought, you know, at first that Josh, you know, was on the road to mend at first, but he was still a kid, you know, and he was still a juvenile. He wasn’t an adult. And so there was a couple more times that he came and told us what he had done, and we were just devastated.
All of these — again, this was not rape or anything like that, this was like touching somebody over their clothes. There were a couple incidents where he touched them under their clothes, but it was like a few seconds and then he came to us and was crying and told us what happened, and it was after that third time he came to us is where we really felt like, you know what? We have done everything we can as parents to handle this in-house. We need to get help.
And that’s actually when we went to outside folks and we asked some very close friends if they could come over, and some of my best friends came over. We talked about it, and so at that point we pulled Josh out of the home, and we knew of a man who mentors young men, and he really helped young men who had made unwise choices in their lives to get straightened out, and he was running a little training center in Little Rock, Arkansas. And under the roof of that training center, he had Little Rock Police Department on one side, then you had a prison minister on the other. And he said Josh could come down there and actually do some construction work with him and he would counsel him and work with him and hopefully get him straightened out.

Anonymous said...

KELLY: Some people have said, why did they wait? Why didn’t they go to the authorities or go for the counseling at the very first time he came to you?
J. B. DUGGAR: You know, I talked to somebody that worked at one of those juvenile youth sex offender facilities, and he described how they actually take care of these situations down there, and the success rate is not very good. And so we felt like that going from a perspective of really reaching his heart first would be important, and so that’s the reason we sent him down to Little Rock to work with this man.
KELLY: Did legal ever pop into your mind? Like we may have legal obligations?
J. B. DUGGAR: You know, what? As parents you’re not mandatory reporters. The law allows for parents to do what they think is best for their child. And so we got him out of the home, and we sent him down to this place, and that was really probably the best decision we made through this whole process, because it was at that place — this was the first time Josh has been out of the home.
KELLY: He was 15 at this point.
J. B. DUGGAR: He had just turned 15. And it was that the point that he came into himself, and God really worked in his life. As a matter of fact, he broke. And he went and asked God to forgive him. He went back and asked those who he had offended to forgive him. But we felt like the last jurisdiction of who to make things right with was the law.
KELLY: And we’ll going to get to that in one second. The subsequent incidents after the first one involved daughters who were awake, at least a couple of them?
J. B. DUGGAR: There was a couple, yes. And they didn’t really understand, though, what happened.
KELLY: Yes. What —
M. DUGGAR: It was more his heart, his intent. He knew that it was wrong. But in theirs they weren’t even aware. They were like, you know, it wasn’t — to them they didn’t probably even understand that it was an improper touch.
KELLY: I know that the ultimate one before you really got help involved a very young daughter, and I’ll avoid the age because I don’t want to identify anyone specifically, but a single digit. I mean, what was that like for you to hear? You know, one, you must have thought for some time this is a pubescent boy, I don’t know what he’s going through, but he’s testing. But when it moves to a young daughter —
J. B. DUGGAR: Right. At that point, that’s when we pulled him out of the house and we said, he can’t be here. And so, we pulled him out and then, he went through working with that man —
KELLY: Yes. He goes through counseling.
J. B. DUGGAR: Yes.
KELLY: And then when he was done with the counseling, this is not like a licensed therapist, it’s somebody, a Christian-based —
J. B. DUGGAR: Christian based. But I’ll tell you why.
KELLY: Treatment facility.
J. B. DUGGAR: It really had a huge impact on his life. And it really, that was the turning point in his life. And this man really reached his heart.
KELLY: And before Josh went away, you know, in the period where the girls knew, and he knew and you knew when you’re living in the house together, what was that like? I mean, what was the dinner table like?
J. B. DUGGAR: Well, we tried to make things as normal as we can, but also, you know, Michelle and I both were keeping an eye on Josh, you know, all the time and watching his behaviors, watching his attitudes.

Anonymous said...

KELLY: And prior to him leaving, were you concerned for the safety of your daughters?
M. DUGGAR: Well, we definitely put safeguards in our home.
J. B. DUGGAR: Yes, and we also talked to our daughters and reminded them about wrong and right touch and about if anybody ever touched you in a wrong way for you to come and tell your mom immediately.
M. DUGGAR: Immediately. And we tell them that you have a safe place to share your heart. And so we were trying to protect and watch and make sure that their hearts were safe, they had a safe place to talk, and at the same time putting boundaries and safeguards up in our home.
J. B. DUGGAR: Yes. We weren’t going to give up on Josh.
(END VIDEOTAPE)

Anonymous said...

KELLY: And what was their reaction when they learned it from you?

J. B. DUGGAR: They didn’t — they really didn’t know. Actually, what happened was we asked them at first if anything happened. And then it was after some other things happened that we actually shared with them, and we actually — but we took a lot of steps. And first we tried to deal with this in-house as parents. We were in shock and we were trying to figure out what was the next step. But really, looking back, we did the best we could under the circumstances.

KELLY: You’re saying, what am I going to do? You’re saying, he says he’s touched two of the daughters, and you don’t know what to do, right?

J. B. DUGGAR: Didn’t know. Because at that point now nobody knew about it besides Michelle and I and Josh. And so we thought, what do we do with this information? And the girls, we talked to them, and they didn’t know that anything had happened because they were asleep. And so we talked to him, we put all kinds of punishments on him, we watched him,like, all the time. I took him to work with me, and he just — I mean, we just poured our life into it.

KELLY: Like when you went to bed at night during that time frame, were you scared? Were you worried? You know, he’s 14, he’s having this problem. What’s going to happen when we go to sleep?

J. B. DUGGAR: Right. Nothing ever happened like that again in the girls’ bedrooms after that.


They want us to believe they handled it well.

Question: Based on their language, what can we reliably say the parents did to protect the girls in the house at this point?

Child Advocate said...

I apologize for asking a question you already answered. I had to scroll back to the Chandra Levy post to find your comment.

I never watched the show either. My hinky meter is going off on the parents minimizing Josh's actions in the Fox interview. I am curious if I used my limited SA skills correctly.

Anonymous said...

I am not going to attempt to perform statement analysis on the Duggers' interview; however, I do wonder why Jim Bob took Josh to the Sheriff's office to make a report of the touchy feely molestations in 2006 since the Duggers say the 'on top of the clothes' molestations had occurred in 2002/2003 when Josh was 14 and 15, that he confessed to them three times, he had subsequently been cured in the rehab friends' program they sent him too and it never happened again;

but now comes 2006 andu Josh is 18 or 19 by this time, but Jim Bob decides to make a police report of it for to five years later? Why? How did it come about that Josh was taken to the Sheriff's Offfice to report the earlier abuses that were no longer being perpetrated?

I will say that if the Duggers are being truthful and none of the girls were actually penetrated, they had the right to try to get help for Josh as they saw fit, which they did, without bringing anyone else into their devastating family problem. I might have taken the same action in my own home.

To Anon @ 11;54: fourteen/fifteen year old boys do NOT stick their hands up five year old girls' dresses all the time! Something is wrong with you if you believe this. Get help.

Anonymous said...

Haha- I'll get help if you get a sarcasm detector ;)