Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Pop Quiz: Facebook Post for Analysis

This comes from New England and is posted on social media.  

We have seen a great increase in "fake hate" reports since the 2016 election.   

Is this yet another, or does the subject have a legitimate complaint? 

Put your thoughts in the comments section.  Analysis will be posted later.  

1.  First, is it a genuine threat? 

2.  Secondly, what do you believe the writer has revealed about herself or himself?  

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.  

For formal training for law enforcement, business, or other professionals in need of deception detection, click HERE


"3rd time in a week that joyriding teenagers flew past me screaming vicious slurs to get their kicks, mock-inviting me to satisfy their clearly chronically unsatisfied manhoods. I'm filing an e-complaint of civil rights violation with Healey's office this time. Enough is enough."


rob said...

sorry, big OT


He's back

Bobcat said...

1. Fake

2. This person is proud of their vocabulary and enjoys dramatic creative writing.

They are a blog troll.

Bobcat said...

Correction - please disregard the blog troll comment.

elf said...

Third time in a week - we take note of the number 3 being used. The period of time is important to the subject.
that joyriding teenagers flew past me-
the subject wants us to know that the teenagers were having fun and going quickly
screaming vicious slurs to get their kicks-
screaming seems sensitive, more desparate?
What made the slurs 'vicious '? Subject mentions 'to get their kicks' which equals the teenagers having fun (kicks and joyriding would be like pleasurable activities, mentioned more than once equals sensitivity )
Mock inviting me - is the subject offended that itt wasn't a sincere invitation?
To satisfy their clearly chronically unsatisfied manhoods- reference to sexual acrivity. Demeaning the teenagers. How is it clear to the suspect what the manhood of the teenagers is? The subject just now makes a vague mention to who the teenagers were by using the word manhood.
I'm filing an e complaint of civil rights violations with healys office this time - strong statement. The subject says 'this time' like it's happened or been threatened to happen before. Did the subject think of calling after other prior incidences?
Enough is enough - putting an end to the statement signalling no further information will be provided.
I think the vagueness of the statement indicates deception.

Anonymous said...

"3rd time"
We take note of where the subject starts his statement. There is an incomplete beginning to the statement. It should read, "This is the 3rd time..." or something similar. The number 3 is sensitive as it is often called a liar's number.

"in a week" - time frame

"that" - distance. If this is a victim of verbal abuse, it can be justified or expected.

"joyriding teenagers" - not just teenagers. The word "joyriding" is unnecessary and should be considered sensitive.

"flew past me " - not just drove, but flew. Their speed is very sensitive. Consider how fast one must be traveling relative to "flew." If they were traveling so fast, how can their age (teenagers) be verified? Not just slurs, but vicious slurs.

"screaming vicious slurs to get their kicks" - interesting choice of words. I wonder how old the "victim" is. Slurs are already offensive. Vicious is unnecessary and therefore sensitive.

"mock-inviting me to satisfy their clearly chronically unsatisfied manhoods." - Reference to sexual activity. Obviously the wording being portrayed is "suck my d*ck" or something similar. I wonder if the OP is a female. Men are more blunt when referring to sexual activity.

"I'm filing an e-complaint of civil rights violation with Healey's office this time."
e-complaint - is this not severe enough for an in-person, formal complaint? What are the civil rights that were violated?

"this time" - It has happened before. Why wait until now to file? Were other violations of rights not severe enough to report?



Peter - is this subject a college-aged female? Also, considering that the teenagers flew past, how would they have time or scream slurs AND invite her to "satisfy" them?

According to MASS Atty General Healey's office, it does not appear that there were civil rights violations. The OP makes no mention of the slurs involving race, color, national origin, religion, age, ancestry, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.

I'd really like to know where she was and what she was doing when this allegedly took place.


Steve said...

It did not happen three times in a calendar week, but in the past seven days

I believe the missing "I" in the beginning is playing to her "victim status" and may also be a result of short hand post from a mobile device.

Note that there are slurs that are not "vicious." Q. What makes these vicious? A. Mock-invitation to satisfy their manhoods.

She knows that they are “mock” invitations. She feels the need to explain that they are not real. Most would understand that without her saying so. This shows extra sensitivity and possibly where the real motive behind her being offended lies.

She is very degrading towards their “manhoods.” This appears to indicate heightened sensitivity towards male chauvinism.

She views lewd comments the same as civil rights violations. Lewd comments are what are considered “Vicious” which leaves to question if they are more “vicious” then racial slurs.

The use of "teenagers" shows that she's an adult.

I believe that this is the rant of a female and a feminist who has an axe to grind against men objectifying pretty women. She believes that objectification of women is on the same level as, or worse than racial discrimination.

I include the qualifier of "Pretty" because she showed the need to mention that their invitation was a "mock-invitation."

New England Water Blog said...

Peter, I stand corrected on the gender as the name was ambiguous and the primary photo was of a woman. This was posted by a man. He references being a gay man in several posts.


I believe the author is a female. She uses emotion with the statement "Chronically unsatisfied manhoods". Additionally she uses the liar's number "3". Based on this, I believe this is a false report.


I should add that it is an older female. I meant to add that above. Using college age and teenagers highlights this, for me.

I did go back and forth over the gender. At first I thought a gay male but then I read it again and it comes across as a female.

Anonymous said...

Well yeah that was obvious to me it was not a woman that wrote it. As a woman myself, anytime a guy has yelled stuff at me Ive never had the sense it was a "mock invitation". It is disgusting being objectified as a woman...that's why I eliminate so many people who attempt to date me....there is a fine line between someone saying "Youre beautiful" (most of them are snakes also) and someone writing stuff like "Wowzah!" or actually writing crass stuff like "I wanna jump your bones"...That turns me off so fast...it is so disgusting cause its crass...Its absolutely disgusting when men objectify me...it's like calm down and act like a man you scumbags!!!! It's not sexy...either extreme is not appealling...if someone doesnt get that by the time theyre 40 Im like "Take a walk bozo!"

Anonymous said...

Ive had men who are very respectful who say to me "Youre beautiful"...I find to be acceptable and complimentary. The other ones it just seems so needy, like you know what I have enough problems I dont some guy foaming at the mouth...absolutely disgusting the ones that make you feel like youre being rated even though its highly rated...its like "Who asked you? Go back under your rock." That is how I feel about 95-99% of men.

C5H11ONO said...

1. First, is it a genuine threat? No, but if tracked down and questioned, will then pursue a civil rights violation.

2. Secondly, what do you believe the writer has revealed about herself or himself?

She revealed to us that she thinks of herself as "hot sh*t" that is constantly barraged by "joyriding" teenagers mock-inviting her to satisfy their clearly chronically unsatisfied manhoods.

She also revealed her ignorance as well as her own consciousness about it. She was trying to come across as eloquent in her words, but did not realize that when she wrote “clearly chronically unsatisfied manhoods” she was using two adverbs together. A no-no to the true erudite. She’s an imposter of sorts.

The things that stood out for me were:
“3rd time in a week” – 3 is simply flagged here as the liars number.
“joyriding teenagers flew past me” – if the teenagers are joyriding, how could they fly past her. Joyriders aren’t speeders. She chose to call them “teenagers” which is gender neutral. Why did she choose to call them joyriding? She also wanted to convey that they “flew” past her. How can you be a speeding joyrider?
Were they all males? This is the best description she has of them. Joyriding teenagers. I think this is a great time to identify what they look like, but she didn’t/couldn’t.
“screaming vicious slurs to get their kicks” – she went on to explain why these joyriding teenagers were screaming vicious slurs at her. It was to get their kicks. Why did she have a need to explain why they were doing what they did. If this were true, I could care less why they would scream vicious slurs at me. She found it important to explain why.
“mock-inviting me to satisfy their clearly chronically unsatisfied manhoods.” – this is the statement where because of the choice of words she is coming across as pompous or pretentious.
Interesting to note here is that they were not inviting her to satisfy their manhoods, but “mock-inviting” her. What is mock-inviting? Mock in this sentence would mean, fake/not true. She is better off telling us what exactly they were saying to her, but she didn’t/couldn’t. First she claims they are vicious slurs, now they are “inviting” her to satisfy their manhoods. This is not vicious is it? It’s “inviting”.
“clearly” – is an unnecessary word, and this is the language of someone that wants us to believe her.
“I’m filing an e-complaint of civil rights violation with Healey’s office this time” – Where were her civil rights violated? She didn’t tell us. Anyone that screams “vicious slurs” would not have the gentle title of “joyriding teenagers” and they wouldn’t be “inviting” anything. She isn’t filing a complaint, but rather an e-complaint. A complaint is a complaint regardless of how you file it. She wants us to know she is going to do it on-line. Why? To demonstrate that she is computer savvy, again trying to come across as knowledgeable.
--The writer was unable to tell us what those "vicious slurs" and "inviting" words were used. Interesting combo.

Anonymous said...

Amyl Nitrite, Its a guy that wrote it. Prob a trans-guy whos mad he looks like a guy in a dress instead of a woman. She/he/it should be happy its not a woman!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

She was using two adverbs together??? You made up a grammar rule?

Anonymous said...

A guy with a primary picture of a woman wrote this? Really?

Anonymous said...

Whoever wrote it certainly is pretentious--I'll give you that...the pretentious language certainly is a "clue". Hmmm who uses pretentious words a lot?

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

The Latest on a Pennsylvania handyman accused of serial child rape:

3 p.m.

A Pennsylvania handyman accused of serial child rape says he "never inflicted any pain on a child, nor would I want to."

Fifty-eight-year-old William Charles Thomas spoke by video during a brief court appearance Tuesday on 51 charges, including five counts of child rape.

Authorities say Thomas kept a "perverse shrine" in his trailer that included as many as 1,000 pairs of used girl's underwear, more than 1,000 images of child pornography and written accounts of sexual abuse of children. Authorities are urging other victims to come forward, saying Thomas wrote about molesting children as far back as the 1970s.

The (Easton) Express-Times (http://bit.ly/2jZkvLn ) reports that Thomas says he's "not the evil, disgusting person that people are making me out to be."

Thomas is jailed after failing to post bail.


12:45 p.m.

Authorities say a Pennsylvania handyman accused of serial child rape kept a "perverse shrine" in his trailer — 1,000 pairs of used girl's underwear — and documented his crimes in hundreds of disturbing, graphic images and writings.

Fifty-eight-year-old William Charles Thomas was arraigned Tuesday on 51 charges, including five counts of child rape. Authorities are urging other victims to come forward, saying Thomas wrote about molesting children as far back as the 1970s.

Bucks County District Attorney Matthew Weintraub calls Thomas a "real-life boogeyman."

Police in the Philadelphia suburbs say they began an investigation after the owner of a trailer Thomas had just renovated found a piece of plywood on which Thomas had written about sexually assaulting two young girls.

Thomas could not be reached for comment in jail. Court documents do not list an attorney who could comment on his behalf.


What stood out to me is

he "never inflicted any pain on a child, nor would I want to."

No reliable denial.
he minimises what the child would have endured, if pushed on his definition of child rape, would it include physical pain whereas in his mind since there was no pain it could not be rape?

Did he groom first i wonder?

Hey Jude said...

I think male to female transgender, offended at not 'passing', not appearing desirable, and being the object of fun to teenagers. 'Flew by' - unlikely to have heard more than a word or two. Is she offended they 'flew by' for the third time - rather than stopped? 'Flew by' - is that like a 'flying visit'? That is where she starts, which is her priority - for the third time joyriding teenagers 'flew by' her. Did she actually want them to stop?

'Vicious' slurs - what are the slurs, and why describe them as 'vicious'? - any slur is vicious if really it is a slur. Why not say what they were 'screaming' if she heard, and if it were so offensive as to cause her to intend to file a complaint. Vicious, screaming - is that need to persuade and an element of storytelling? I think when someone needs to explain why someone said or did something, it is related to storytelling.

Clearly chronically unsatisfied manhood' - Projection? In what sense 'clearly'? Why does she use three words in speaking about their manhood. Why that 'focus'?

There is not a physical threat to the complainant, as she says each time they 'flew by' and that they 'mock invited her' - her choice of word and an invitation is not generally regarded as a threat. It is a strange thing to say in the context - was she offended that the invitation was 'mock'? She is angry because they flew by her for the third time and mocked rather than engaged?

Civil rights complaint makes me think transgender - she is not claiming racism, or sexism - more 'mock' sexual harassment, so far as I can see.

Three times in a week - out walking alone, maybe looking enough like a drag-queen to draw mockery. She says 'vicious' though - so did they maybe call her more than a 'tranny'? Better had not suspect her of street-walking in order to raise funds for sexual reassignment surgery, especially if she might be a heterosexual. jogger out running off the Christmas weight gain, or a gay guy walking his dog....
Even so, the 'complaint' that they 'flew by', and the focus on their manhood and 'satisfied' and 'unsatisfied' makes me wonder if she is a frustrated sex worker who is annoyed by not getting young clients.

Anonymous said...

I doubt it's a sex worker, probably just the average complaining transgender. They oftentimes try to be dramatic with faux-PMS...if only they had to have the real thing, they'd be begging to change back into a woman.

I shouldn't be so hard on all men, not all are disrespectful. There is one decent guy who hasn't displayed any of these characteristics (yet), it's my own fault if I remain so judgemental and don't give him a chance. I rather quite like him, I think all this anger is a remnant of bad experiences, I can't stay stuck in it, he wants a chance, I should just give him one, and I will. He's handsome, pleasant, and complimentary, and hello self! That's a good thing!!! And he's very handsome :)

Anonymous said...

I think it's a middle age gay man whose longstanding partner just died.

Maryjane said...

What the heck?

elf said...

Also the word 'clearly' is used to persuade? And isn't that part derogatory towards the teens also?

Hey Jude said...

It is weird that 'she' goes on about their 'manhood' - if someone is insulting or sexually harassing, would that be the victim's expected reaction - to mock their manhood? I wouldn't think so. It sounds bitter, and like like something rehearsed or mulled over. Is it maybe an insult once personally received which the complainant took to heart and saved to later apply to others?

Anonymous said...

Thinking Bruce Jenner wrote this?

Sara said...

When I was much younger I was "cat called" often. I found it offensive. Now, at almost 50, I find it complementary. It doesn't happen often at all, but when it does, I'm like "Woo hoo. I still got it". Even though I know I don't "still have it", it makes me feel good, attractive, and young again however briefly.

lynda said...

As soon as I read "chronically unsatisfied manhood" I pegged it for a gay man. "Mock-invite" also gay man.

Women just don't talk like that.

Anonymous said...

3rd=3, liars favorite number.
"joyriding" additional words...
mock-inviting...poster upset it is only pretend.

clearly, chronically unsatisfied..way too many words.

Vicious slurs...All slurs are vicious.
I AM THIS TIME, This =close.The person is male. I AM= definite.

This person is telling the truth as far as filing a complaint. This person is lying concerning what happened.

My reasoning is the events he will be filing a complaint about did not happen, as he states. Yet, he will go file his complaint, to gain attention.

Unknown said...

"vicious slurs" - qualifying the severity of the slurs because the word has been watered down and applied to things most wouldn't consider "slurs", at least within the language understood by the company this person keeps.

"joyriding teenagers" - no mention of having seen them steal the car, so it seems like the word "joyriding" is used to paint the teens as definitely being up to know good. Perhaps to justify this person reporting their behaviour, as the person doesn't really believe that being screamed at is enough reason to report the incident.

Over-emphasis on manhood and the assumption of a need to have it validated by the person - the person had an involuntary positive reaction to being "screamed" at, i.e. they automatically felt validated in themselves by having caught the teens attention.

"screaming" - used to describe high pitched and loud vocalisations of kids and women. Usually associated with fear, upset, distress when used negatively, or excitement and hyperactivity when used positively. Not used to describe loud noises coming from men or teenage boys, so this is curious.

I think there was an incident of this nature, but it wasn't as bad as the person is trying to convey. They are trying hard to belong to a particular group and show they are just like that group, by showing the right amount of disdain and frustration at being "screamed" at by strangers in passing. Also has an air of being Munchausens-y, in that it reads over-all like an exaggeration of the incident in order to harvest sympathy and attention from this person's peers.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

An analyst in training submitted analysis that I may post...

stay tuned


Anon "I" said...

I think this person is deceptive. The event does not constitute a serious threat as they
"flew by."

The person mentions filing a complaint by e-file. I would think this means
they are educated enough to be quite computer literate.

The civil rights statement would apply if there was an absolute, physical threat. Other than that, what rights can he/she claim to have been violated or can this be counted as a free speech (although crude) issue? What identifying factors are present for LE to catch the right group of teens? This person seems aware of the buzz-words "civil rights," but maybe does not have a full grasp of what that means. Civil rights do NOT protect someone from being offended. Although, if things don't change, I can imagine it being introduced as a petition... Heading to hell in a handbasket.

Also, this person is aware of who to complain to making them aware of a person who is in government or law, they may be parroting second-hand knowledge since Healey doesn't have a first name or title/position mentioned. Who, pray tell, is Healey? (Rhetorical question... I am quite capable of looking Healey up if I can't sleep without knowing....)

Anonymous said...

Deceptive: #3, missing pronoun, too much unnecessary info and too little necessary info.

CLEARLY transgender. Exaggerating or lying to gain sympathy and to enrage people so they will help fight his transgender-rights battle, like so many other groups, who have "won" through manipulation of people's emotions with lies.

He needs an army to fight for garnering protective measures for his kind (special rights, not equal rights). It's the only way they can demand the acceptance they think they deserve. Get the govt involved and change the laws rather than see a shrink and acknowledge THEY have the problem, not society. Once the laws support them, they can bully and ostracize like the rest of them.

I think the e-complaint comment could indicate the need for anonymity. He might be concerned that showing up in drag to complain may not garner much sympathy. Or perhaps that is what he's hoping to covertly convey: the expectation of further persecution (from the police this time) to gain even more sympathy. Though I think the e-complaint plan is a lie to make the alleged incident seem severe enough to complain about. He claims he didnt complain previously, I believe, to insinuate he is a martyr for tolerating his alleged victimization. He wants us to think he is now so traumatized that he has no choice but to complain.

The need to sound intelligent is possibly to make himself seem (or feel) worthy, important. It could easily be faux pretentiousness or arrogant narcissism.

If this is a fb post, then his friends know what he is, so he doesnt need to elaborate on personal details. I bet his entire fb page is public.

Unknown said...

"3rd time in a week that joyriding teenagers flew past me screaming vicious slurs to get their kicks, mock-inviting me to satisfy their clearly chronically unsatisfied manhoods. I'm filing an e-complaint of civil rights violation with Healey's office this time. Enough is enough."

I believe this statement is from a gay male who wants to be accepted and invited to joyride and perform sexual acts.

Joyriding - he brings the words joy into his statement.

Flew past- if they flew past him then how did they have time to scream vicious slurs and mock invite?

Mock-invite - he wants to be invited.

Satisfy/unsatisfied - the word satisfy appears twice indicating sensitivity. He wants to satisfy and be satisfied.

I'll comeback to correct my amauture analysis when I've learned more about SA.

Unknown said...

Flew by - could mean dismissal? He smiled at the cute boys but they flew by him.

I believe this man needed some attention so he posted about his fake hate crime that may have been loosely based on his real experiences.