I just read through those posts and yes, it's a bit trolling but they are valid replies to your posts and you actually kept the conversation going by responding. Can you say with certainty all posts are purely posted to harass or can you see the possibility that some of the posts are valid criticism?
One of my faults is that I give anonymous posters voices by acknowledging them. Call it kindness, graciousness. Or perhaps it is just that I like to refute claims made about my character--particularly negative ones.
There is some truth peppered in those posts, sure. That is what makes them more threatening. But what does a post about a Slate article being plagiarized by me in a blog post, made three years ago on MySpace, have to do with Morrissey, James Blunt or even what is happening in the forums today?
His posts were 90% character assassinations and taken as a whole amount to harassment and abuse, and thus troll posts:
"I am an atheist" is not controversial. Not in this hemisphere, not in this century, not when stated by someone who holds no public office, who teaches no one's children, etc.
"I am attracted by men who are cocky assholes online" is not controversial. Stupid, yes, and people will line up to tell you it's stupid. But not controversial.
"I am so intelligent that I cannot find anyone worthy of my time." Same: just stupid.
I can't imagine what you imagine your "controversial" opinions to be. People dislike you because you routinely make a really horrible impression. That's it.
Quit telling yourself lies. That's my advice to you in general. I know you'll never take it.
You're always braying you're "alone, but not lonely, " etc etc etc, but you also routinely churn out stuff like this.
Which is the lie?
Clearly, you are lonely--pathologically so--but you realize that someone who admits to being lonely is less apt to attract the interest of others. You have a very law-of-the-jungle view of social relations, always pursuing an "alpha," or trying to appear as one. This is a schematic, simpleminded model of human relations. You are so like a robot attempting to appear a human.
You are, on the contrary, incredibly socially awkward. The evidence is strewn across these forums. You also appear profoundly unattractive much of the time. Perhaps you're referring only to your physical appearance? If your Flickr is any indication, that has suffered a sudden decline of late, and it seems reasonable to theorize that this is part of what's behind the train wreck that is your recent line behavior.
You are able to charm people, then, but a substantive relationship, based on mutual give-and-take, deeper understanding, and honesty, is beyond you. I would suggest that your obvious princess complex (anyone, aside from perhaps yourself, will see what I mean by this) is responsible.
I'm familiar with your contention, in your blog and elsewhere, that you have suffered from the lack of companions and mates as intelligent as yourself. I regard that as an insane delusion on your part.
have also read your cry that your ex-husband wasn't wealthy enough for you. I'd say that complaint was rather nearer the mark.
you are usually absorbed in a frenzied effort to distract yourself from that loneliness--via online behavior that most children would be ashamed of.
Again, your princess complex. No talk of loving, only of being loved.
You are an arrogant internet addict, a person who's accomplished nothing, who spends her days insulting others.
No clarification was needed on my part. On your end, the situation seems hopeless. Narcissus has lay too long at the bottom of the pool, and no oxygen has reached his brain in ages.
You have referred in the past to having an "area of expertise," a high IQ, etc--but you keep things conveniently vague. You seem completely uneducated to me.
No, you didn't. You're whining about it now.
You are being "faulted" for being a manic, immature, obnoxious, repetitive lunatic.
What is the "argument" you're making when you (who have an eating disorder) call her fat, when you (who work in the service industry) call her poor, when you (who have no one in your life besides your son and mother) call her lonely? What is the "arguement" you're making when you endlessly praise yourself?
Why not try being civil yourself, first, and see if people stop calling you a bitch, then?
You're begging for a truce while declaring that you're winning.
"Off site research"? Examples? I think you don't realize how unattractively, and how often, you've exposed yourself on-site.
"The issues" have been made explicit. Or are you insisting that this is all because you're so interesting? You may have noticed some references to narcissism above.
I am speaking directly to you. You haven't the "courage," and assorted other qualities, to maintain a focused exchange, however.
You are also "hiding behind" a false name, and I am, as almost anyone is, far more of a "real person" than you are.
It's "than." And your regular accusations of cowardice (a little way of implying that real men would adore you!) are another aspect of your princess complex. Your complaints about anonymous posts--after defending them when they were being used to harass a suicide's family--are another aspect of your outrageous hypocrisy.
Since you just referred to yourself as such a person in another thread, I'd note that this is yet another example of your turning a discussion toward yourself and your self-image, exposing your unjustified self-regard and--as has been too seldom noticed--your self-pity.
That would be rather par for the course with you, wouldn't it? After all, you plagiarized that Slate piece about historical inaccuracies in The King's Speech for your journal.
I see you've energetically scrubbed all signs of that little crime from the web after being called on it elsewhere.
A coward and a liar, my dear, that's what you are.
Post a working link to your parroting of that article, and let people decide for themselves. The alternative is a confession of hilarious cowardice.
You plagiarized the article's content point-for-point. You know absolutely nothing about English history. Admit it. You'll feel better.
You're a plagiarist and a congenital liar, and you express yourself in the voice of a neurotic simpleton.
I've actually written that I'm not interested in your "considering" anything. This is more narcissism on your part, this idea that people pointing out your idiocy are making bids for your attention.
No comma needed. Irrelevant to what?
They think your posts on this site are stupid, at least insofar as we perform the service of being specific in the analysis of those stupidities.
You have defended anonymous posting strenuously in the past, when it meant supporting the opinions of this site's most aggressive personalities. The table turned, you cry like a newborn. Every. Single. Time.
One example of those? You don't seem to know what "ad hominem" means, just as you don't know what "sycophant" or "credulous" mean. You're really, really ignorant, so ignorant that you can't even meaningfully gauge the extent of it.
Now we're getting somewhere. You dislike that you have a record of pathological lying, manipulation, and fraud which can be referenced when pointing out your instances of those behaviors in the present. You cling to the internet in large part because it steadily provides you with fresh victims, ignorant of your past dishonesty.
If you could reply to the content of posts, rather than triangulate and form a response based on your expectations of social censure/reward re. bashing/supporting the reputation of the person who made the post, it wouldn't be. But you can't. You're too profoundly unintelligent for that. In your defense, you choose the path of the follower and boot-licker because it's all that's available to you.
I doubt we'll see this come to pass. You're too desperate for any interaction. You can turn no one away.
On the other hand, it would be a convenient means of avoiding my challenge regarding your act of plagiarism.
I don't like you in the slightest. I don't think anyone does. You are interesting because you are broken. One learns how things--organisms, machines, works of art--work by examining the ones that don't.
And I have never observed anyone as broken as yourself.
"Hitchens and Me," it's just stupid. But you've posted it elsewhere, without any mention of Hitchens or Slate, and in those instances, it's flat-out plagiarism. No question. Any professional writer would have been fired for this. You must know this. Please tell me you know this.
This is your problem, your central problem, your biggest problem, ultimately maybe your only problem: you will not stop pretending to be someone you're not.
