1. DO NOT respond to this person. Engaging with the bully often only makes matters worse. They feed off their victim’s misery and pain.
2. Make a copy of the message, photo, or video. The best way to do this is to copy the URL of the specific webpage where it’s happening.
3. Contact the website operators by phone, email and any contact submission forms that they have available on their site.
4. File a report with your local police department.
If necessary, file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). The IC3 is a partnership between the FBI, the National White Collar Crime Center, and the Bureau.
My personal suggestion is that you let your friends and contacts know what it happening and that you limit your online communication to people who are fully aware of the seriousness of cyber bullies and who will work with you to promote safety.
I also recommend that you keep screen-shots of all abuse email and texts.
In many ways I’m grateful to the bullies I’ve met over the past five years.
They have taught me that I am strong, and that I simply continue to be myself most
people will figure out the con.
Social media is a real asset for those of us who want to find ways to live past
The MakeItUltra™ Blogger Award is an award given to bloggers by bloggers for quality content, originality, and presentation. The intention of this award is to encourage connectivity and support in the blogging community and to increase exposure for individual bloggers
Here are the rules:
If you are nominated for the MakeItUltra™ Blogger Award and choose to accept it, write a blog post about the MakeItUltra™ Blogger Award in which you:
Thank the person who nominated you and post a link to their blog on your blog. Take a moment to promote the person who nominated you. * Display the award on your blog by adding it to your post and/or displaying it using a widget on your page (Save the image to your computer and upload it to your blog post). Don’t forget to use the tag #MyUltraAward when you make your post!
Answer the following MakeItUltra™ Blogger Award questions.
Lisa has a wonderful blog. We met when she visited San Francisco and I’d love to visit her in El Paso. El Paso is my second favorite city after San Francisco.
Answer the following MakeItUltra™ Blogger Award questions.
*What is your name? Matthew Robert Oliver Goldstein
*Where are you from? I live in San Francisco but I was born in Charleston, South Carolina
*How long have you been blogging and why did you start?
I started blogging in late 2014 as a way to advocate for myself within the Mental Health System and then for mental health advocacy in general. Now I blog about mental health, politics and I am a passionate advocate for ending homelessness which I view as a crime against humanity.
*Of what are you most proud?
I have done many things of which I am proud. What I’m most proud of is the success of the Gay Rights Movement and my participation in it.
*What are your blogging goals? I want to learn how to use my blog to market my photography and digital art.
*How do you spend your free time? I spend time with my partner of 24 years, writing, watching movies, gardening, and reading.
*Nominate 1-8 blogs that you feel deserve the award and provide links.
These were the three lies at the top of the Yahoo News page today.
Let’s start with this juicy half truth as a headline:
Who is Huma Abedin?
According to Vanity Fair 40-year-old Huma Abedin began working for Hillary in 1996, when she was a 19-year-old intern fresh from George Washington University assigned to the First Lady’s office.
Over the years Huma has served in several positions, with increasingly important-sounding titles. She has been Hillary’s “body woman,” her traveling chief of staff, a senior adviser, and a deputy chief of staff when Hillary was secretary of state. Now, based in Brooklyn, she is the vice-chair of Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign. But whatever the title, the job she performs for Hillary has always been essentially the same: confessor, confidante, and constant companion. It’s safe to say that over the years Abedin and Hillary have spent more time together than either has with her husband.
A former adviser to Bill Clinton describes her as “a mini Hillary.” Wherever Hillary goes, Abedin goes. In November 2008, when Hillary flew to Chicago to meet with President-Elect Barack Obama to discuss becoming secretary of state, she took Huma along. During Hillary’s grueling, nearly 11-hour congressional testimony in October about Benghazi, Abedin was there. She has been referred to as a “second daughter” to the Clintons. Others have described Hillary and Huma as like sisters.
Huma Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Her mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is Pakistani; her late father, Syed Zainul Abedin, was Indian. Both were intellectuals. When Abedin was two years old, the family moved to Jidda, Saudi Arabia, where, with the backing of Abdullah Omar Nasseef, then the president of King Abdulaziz University, her father founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think tank, and became the first editor of itsJournal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which stated its mission as “shedding light” on minority Muslim communities around the world in the hope of “securing the legitimate rights of these communities.”
The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs is an Abedin family business. Huma was an assistant editor there between 1996 and 2008. Her brother, Hassan, 45, is a book-review editor at the Journal and was a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, where Nasseef is chairman of the board of trustees. Huma’s sister, Heba, 26, is an assistant editor at the Journal.Vanity Fair News
What is the Journal of Muslim Minority affairs?
Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs is the only scholarly journal studying Muslim communities in non-Muslim societies. It provides a wealth of information about these communities that cannot be found anywhere else in documented form. It has opened up a new area of specialization in minority studies with original articles addressing the minority condition from the historical, demographic, social and economic perspective. Our research interests extend to include non-Muslim minorities living in Muslim societies, interfaith dialogue with the objective of promoting understanding, and the study of Muslim minority women who face particular and complex challenges to their minority existence while maintaining their Islamic identity. The Journal has indeed pioneered the way in examining theoretical and conceptual issues that define and explain the minority experience.
In 2012 the anti-feminist Michele Bachmannpromulgated a rumor that Huma Abedin was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a mole in the State Department.
According to Snopes.com, Bachmann’s accusations were so outrageous that:
Republican John McCain condemned them on the floor of the U.S. Senate as having
“no logic, no basis and no merit” Snopes.com
Also on snopes.com is this:
Abedin was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother, who remains editor-in-chief.
Headlined “Women’s Rights Are Islāmic Rights,” a 1996 article argues that single moms, working moms and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families. It also states that more revealing dress ushered in by women’s liberation “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.”
In a separate January 1996 article, Abedin’s mother — who was the Muslim World League’s delegate to the UN conference — wrote that Clinton and other speakers were advancing a “very aggressive and radically feminist” agenda that was un-Islamic and wrong because it focused on empowering women.
That makes Abedin no more anti-feminist than Michelle Bachmann
The Federalist, another right-wing propaganda outlet, claims that a Catholic Magazine says that Hillary Clinton’s religion, she’s a Methodist, contradicts her abortion stance.
“It’s important to note that the Church’s statements on social issues, such as abortion, represent the effort of the General Conference to speak to human issues in the contemporary world from a sound biblical and theological foundation. They are intended to be instructive and persuasive, but they are not church law and are not binding on members. Members will hold differing views on abortion. There is no requirement for members to agree with the Church’s view.”
Propaganda: “…information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.” –Oxford English Dictionary
“Black propagandais credited to a false source, it spreads lies, fabrications, and deceptions.” The Propaganda Project
There are now dozens of mini-fox networks that do nothing but spread lies.
A search for definitions of the term ‘disinformation’ turns up this from the European Parliamentary Research Service Blog which provides research and
analyses to members of the European Parliament. This blog defines disinformation
as, “the purposeful and systematic manipulation ofinformation – the broader term ‘propaganda’ dates back to the 17th century, whereas ‘disinformation’ was coined during the Cold War.”
A legitimate news outlet employs democrats, republicans, libertarians, and
people of faith. It also verifies sources, issues retractions when it makes
mistakes and does not attempt to influence public opinion by deliberately
I chose the names of three random ‘correspondents’ and here is what I found:
David Barton: He is an evangelical Christian political activistand author. He is the founder of WallBuilders, LLC, a Texas-based organization that promotes unorthodox views about the religious basis of the United States. He has been described as a Christian nationalist and “one of the foremost Christian revisionist historians”; much of his work is devoted to advancing the idea, based upon research that many historians and journalists describe as flawed, that the United States was founded as an explicitly Christian nation and that the assertion that the United States Constitution calls for separation of church and state is a “myth. He has a BA from Oral Robert’s University.
Penn Fraser Jillette:He is magician, juggler, comedian, musician, inventor, actor, and best-selling author known for his work with fellow magician Teller as half of the team Penn & Teller. He is also known for his advocacy of atheism, scientific skepticism, libertarianism and free-market capitalism.
Keith Ablow: He is a psychiatrist and contributor on psychiatry for Fox News Channel and TheBlaze. As of 2011, he was also an assistant clinical professor at Tufts University School of Medicine. He’s a Republican.
There is not a lot of political diversity at TheBlaze.
This morning I load Bing and what do I see at the top of the page:
Wasn’t this smear #debunked a week ago?
But the right-wing press still hammers it:
And these are just lies about Clinton’s health.
How much damage did decades of coordinated smear campaigns do?
According to YourNewsWire Russian Foreign Intelligence discovered that the man who purportedly leaked Hillary’s medical records was found dead.
“The Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) is reporting today that the continuing to grow list of mysterious deaths surrounding U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has increased after the father of the doctor treating her for dementia suddenly died this past weekend — and who is believed to have been behind the leaking of her most secret medical records.”
The ‘continuing to grow’ list of deaths gave me a chuckle.
None of it is true:
“…Vincent Fleck passed away while competing in a triathlon in early August 2016. However, all the rest of the story about a CIA “hit team” finding a “dead man’s switch” on Vincent Fleck’s computer is a fabrication, as is the claim about Dr. Daniel Fleck’s treating Hillary Clinton for dementia. (It’s rather unlikely a physical therapist with a regular practice specializing in sports injuries would be furtively treating a high-profile politician campaigning throughout the country for dementia.)”
Dysphasia: a language disorder marked by deficiency in the generation of speech, and sometimes also in its comprehension, due to brain disease or damage.
Trump is running a cynical campaign.
Katrina Pierson must know she’s lying.
Anyone with a search engine (who is willing to use it) knows she’s lying.
I think the GOP needs a distraction:
If right-wing media cared about the health and integrity if our next Commander-in-Chief they have plenty to run with in Trump.
They don’t care, certainly not about ethics or morality: all they want is to win the game.
But a win by cheating doesn’t make you a winner; it makes you a loser who cheats.
This detailed Aug 19, 2016 essay by John Dean on Republican efforts to smear Hillary Clinton with a perjury charge is a compelling. I am re-blogging half of it with a link to verdict.justia.com.
The Outrageously False Charges of Perjury Against Hillary Clinton 19 Aug 2016 John Dean
Endless efforts by congressional Republicans to foil or foul up Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency have hit a new low. The members of Congress involved cannot be sued for defamation, since they are protected by the “Speech and Debate Clause” of the Constitution, but the fact that they are not merely smearing the former secretary of state but are trying to send her to jail on phony charges of perjury and lying to Congress is beyond the pale of dirty politics. It is an abuse of power and their effort to criminalize politics could one-day blow-back on them and result in their going to jail on bogus charges. They are employing a tactic that could undermine democracy, so it is appropriate to get the facts out.
Unfortunately, to explain these seamy tactics takes a bit more space than the normal column, but the facts need to be placed on the record. Without understanding the underlying testimony involved it is not possible to appreciate the falsity and absurdity of the charges against Mrs. Clinton. It is easy to call someone a liar or a perjurer. Not so easy to unpack the charges. A smear like this—and Hillary has had a career of them—takes space to address and debunk, which is why it probably has not been done. I really undertook this drill for myself because I wanted to see what was going on. I believe Hillary Clinton is far too savvy and smart to lie to Congress. And as the following information shows, I am correct and she has not done so.
That two of the most powerful committee chairs in the House of Representatives have trumped up these bogus charges is stunning to me. This is not the way mature democracies like ours are supposed to operate. These men—along with their staff and the Republican leadership that are part of this ploy—are blatantly abusing congressional powers. The out-front leaders of this squalid action are Bob Goodlatte, chair of the Committee on the Judiciary and Jason Chaffetz, chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. They claim that Secretary Clinton lied during her lengthy testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on October 22, 2015. The purported basis of their claim is the statement on July 5 and testimony on July 7, 2016, by FBI Director James Comey regarding the FBI investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email system during her tenure in office. After congressional Republicans failed to criminalize her use of a private email system, they now want her charged with perjury or a criminally false statement.
On July 11, 2016, Goodlatte and Chaffetz referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for criminal prosecution. When this produced only a form letter response from the Department of Justice, and no real headlines, they had their staff plow through the record of Secretary Clinton’s marathon all day and into the night testimony on October 22, 2015, and they sent a revised letter on August 15, 2016, outlining their perjury case in four areas where Secretary Clinton’s sworn testimony is “at odds with the FBI’s findings” as reported by Director Comey, namely:
(1) Whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time; (2) whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system; (3) whether there was one, or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as Secretary of State; and (4) whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State.
Goodlatte and Chaffetz proceed to lay out what they paint as conflicts between Secretary Clinton’s testimony and that of Director Comey, suggesting that Mrs. Clinton violated two criminal statutes:18 U.S.C. § 1621, the general perjury statute, and § 1001, the provisions covering false statements. Before looking at Secretary Clinton’s testimony, and that of Director Comey which Republicans claim puts the lie to Mrs. Clinton, a brief review of these statutes (in a nutshell without citations) may be helpful.
The Perjury and False Statements Statutes
Perjury is set forth in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 1621: “Whoever having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true… is guilty of perjury.” Punishment for perjury calls for a fine and/or up to five years’ imprisonment. Stated a bit differently, the elements of perjury that would apply in Secretary Clinton’s situation are (1) knowingly and willfully making a (2) false (3) material declaration (4) under oath (5) before a properly constituted proceeding of Congress. The essence of the crime is the willful untruth of a material statement made when under oath.
In passing, from the public record it is not clear that Secretary Clinton was given the oath before a properly constituted committee, which would require a quorum. Chairman Trey Gowdy mentioned in his opening remarks that Secretary Clinton had already been sworn. Later (and sparse) press coverage indicates that as a courtesy to Secretary Clinton, she was given the oath privately. Whether she was properly placed under oath, as well as whether the statements the Republicans are calling into question are material, will be set aside for purposes of my discussion, for two reasons. First, these are technicalities and it is clear from the record that she did not lie to the committee, so the technicalities of perjury can be passed over, and secondly because Secretary Clinton is also charged with violation of the false statement statute, which does not require an oath, and some of the other niceties of perjury, I will keep the focus on the truthfulness of her testimony.
To prove perjury, it should be noted however, requires showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was made with “willful intent” and the speaker knew the statement was false. It is not perjury or a punishable false statement when the testimony results from “confusion, mistake or faulty memory.” Inconsequential inconsistencies or conflicts in testimony do not constitute perjury or false statements. An intentionally misleading but literally true answer cannot form the basis for prosecution. In short, perjury cannot be proven simply by showing the testimony of a witness is inconsistent with the statements of another witness, as the Republicans seek to do with the Goodlatte/Chaffetz letter, and with their video clips of Clinton vs. Comey testimony. Finally, to convict of perjury it must be proven by more than one witness, or one witness plus corroborative evidence.
False statement prohibition is set forth in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 1001: “Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the … legislative … branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; [or] (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation … shall be fined [and/or] imprisoned not more than 5 years.” While this statute has been subject to much criticism, its broad language has been much used. It applies to all statements, written and oral, sworn and unsworn, voluntarily given or required by law. The core of the offense is a false representation, or concealment, by willful non-disclosure, of a material fact through a “trick, scheme, or device.” While similar to perjury, a false statement under this statute is broader. In addition to not requiring the statement be made under oath, it does not require two witnesses, or one witness with corroboration.
Clearly, both statutes criminalize lies (intentional and knowing false statements) before a committee of Congress. The hard evidence, however, shows that Hillary Clinton did not lie, rather those charging her have distorted her testimony, or claimed she had information she simply did not have at the time she testified. It is pretty ugly stuff, made even uglier because it is being promoted by two high-ranking Republican chairmen who are, the facts show, trying to frame her. So let me explain what I found with each of their charges.
Spoiler: The answer to each of the following four caption questions raising the GOP charges is NO!
The Bandwagon Approach is an, “Appeal to widespread belief, an appeal to common practice and peer pressure. If the discussion is about social conventions, such as “good manners”, then this is a reasonable line of argument. However, in the 1800’s there was a widespread belief that bloodletting cured sickness. These people were not just wrong, but horribly wrong, because it made people sicker. Clearly, the popularity of an idea is no guarantee that it’s right. A common justification for bribery is everybody does it; in the past, this was also a justification for slavery.A List of Fallacious Arguments
Liberalism and Conservatism are points of view and both points of view are
needed for a balanced political debate.
Genuine conservatism is about preserving the best of our traditions while working with Liberals to move our country forward.
There was a time when liberals and conservatives agreed that respectful disagreement was in the best interest of the country.
One of my classes was U.S. History and eventually we reached the War between the States.
The teacher described the whippings and degradation of slavery.
She asked us to imagine the horror of being bought and sold.
I had never heard the evils of slavery described by my teachers in the South.
If anything they made slavery sound cozy, often pointing out that the slaves
were housed and fed.
The teacher at Russel Sage asked the class if we could imagine what it might
be like to be a slave.
I was fresh from South Carolina and had read the Falconhurstseries about a
family of slave breeders in Alabama.
I raised my hand and said: “I think it would be awful to get bred.”
“Bread?” the teacher said.
“Yes ma’am. They bred slaves for babies.”
“Where did you hear that? I’ve never heard such a thing.”
I instinctively knew that Mandingo was not a good source so I said: “People breed
livestock. Slaves was livestock.”
“Were.” She corrected. “I’ll research this tonight, and if you’re right, I’ll apologize for doubting you tomorrow.”
The next day I got an apology.
From The Character of the Southern States of America:
“By the laws of competition no one can carry on a thriving business in breeding slaves for the market, unless the rights of mothers be utterly trampled underfoot, and (to borrow Mrs, Stowe’s phrase, babies be sold by the pound; 2, The right of chastity be utterly denied to every slave woman, and the right of rape be sharply conceded to the master ; 3, All right of a slave to a wife or children, as well as to property or to a native soil, be totally exploded ; 4, The unlimited use of the whip be given to the master. Every one of these things is not only a stern reality, (and if you do not know them, I must say it is you that are ignorant, not I that misrepresent,) but they are even so cherished that no man in the South could publicly speak against any of them, without being tarred and feathered, or otherwise violently driven out.” The Character of the Southern States of America
The word “barbarism” in its contemporary sense is variously interpreted as meaning either a technologically advanced but extremely exploitative and oppressive society (e.g. a victory and world domination by Nazi Germany and its Fascist allies); a collapse of technological civilization due to Capitalism causing a Nuclear War or ecological disaster; or the one form of barbarism bringing on the other.” Barbarian Defined
We can’t win our war with barbarism, we can only win the battles.
Imagine a world that gives certain men the right of rape.
We don’t stop to consider the everyday evil we visit on the enslaved.
The extraordinary cruelty that becomes the background of daily life.
To lose the freedom to feed, house and care for your own body.
To be born into a world that denies you an education to keep you enslaved.
Barbarism is not stupid. It makes contingency plans when facing defeat.
Consider that as early as 1822 slavers discussed alternate forms of slavery:
“The average price of tradesmen and others, bought and sold in Charleston, is also considerably higher than that of field slaves, whereby the interest on capital is proportionally enhanced. Where they have not families to keep up the stock, the maintenance of two, for one efficient workman, should not be charged against them, but the insurance on life must be substituted, which, it is presumed, would there be very high. Sufficient data are not at hand to form a precise estimate of the whole expense of a Charleston black mechanic or house servant. But from the above statement, it must greatly exceed that of the field slaves. And when the draw-backs from his efficiency are considered, it is probable that the labor of white men will, on the whole, be as cheap as that of the slave.Thoughts on a Slave Revolt 1822
We win the battle against overt slavery only to have it reappear in a new form:
“In 1860, failing to solve its part of the world’s problem of equity in human relationships, the commonwealth clashed with the dominant idea of the period. In the championship of their system the planters and their neighbors were defeated, and their system was shattered as far as it could be by its victorious enemies encamped upon the field. But the pendulum swings again. Facts of human nature and the laws of civilized social welfare are too stubborn for the theories of negrophiles as well as of negrophobes. The slave labor problem has disappeared, but the negro problem remains.”The Slave Labor Problem in the Charleston District 1906
What was the solution to the problem of emancipated people of color?
The leaders of this coalition proudly describe a political strategy of taking over the U.S. government, office by office, starting with school boards, until every branch of government reflects a neo-nazi, white supremacist agenda.
Below is the official trailer for Blood in the Face:
I gathered the images in this post between 2000 and 2015.
I don’t know the source and intend no copyright infringement.
A heads up before we start:
I include a lynching postcard, which were popular among whites in the South of the early 20th Century.
If you don’t want to see these photos please stop reading.
However, if you’re unsure of why Democrats need your vote in this election I urge you to continue.
“Who the Hell’s voting for Donald Trump?”
The photo above predates 2011 because Ted Kennedy is on the enemies list. Ted Kennedy died August 25, 2009.
The shot above speaks for itself.
During Obama’s first campaign right-wing websites regularly called for his assassination.
Below is a detail from a 2009 cartoon published in the New York Post shortly after President Obama’s inauguration.
Porch monkey:commonly used in the United States as a derogatory term against African-Americans. It refers to Blacks as lazy. As if they have nothing better to do than to sit at their front porch of their home. Quora
Below is the cartoon in full:
Do I see two cops who’ve shot and killed an innocentporch monkey?
Is it possible that the derogatory and inflammatory rhetoric of white racists are in part to blame for the inflamed racial tensions that plague our nation?
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.” Donald Trump August 10, 2016.
He listens to Fox News? Here’s what he heard:
So what’s the goal of this organized movement of rich libertarians, racists, and neo-nazis?
Do they want this violence?
They say they want a return to the good old days.
Have a look at the good old days:
Will Brown was accused of assaulting a white woman.
He was 41 years old and suffered from acute rheumatism.
Brown ended up in the hands of the crazed mob. He was beaten into unconsciousness. His clothes were torn off by the time he reached the building’s doors. Then he was dragged to a nearby lamp pole on the south side of the courthouse at 18th and Harney around 11:00 p.m. The mob roared when they saw Brown, and a rope was placed around his neck. Brown was hoisted in the air, his body spinning. He was riddled with bullets. His body was then brought down, tied behind a car, and towed to the intersection of 17th and Dodge. There the body was burned with fuel taken from nearby red danger lamps and fire truck lanterns. Later, pieces of the rope used to lynch Brown were sold for 10 cents each. Finally, Brown’s charred body was dragged through the city’s downtown streets.
The best illustration is Ann Coulter, a rich white career woman who argues against women’s rights:
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president” Ann Coulter 2007
Tax breaks for women of her class are more important than her right to vote.
But that’s the point: women of her class don’t suffer the consequences of their political decisions.
The bigots with whom Ann Coulter toys will never stand down because they think they have a divine right to control the bodies and minds of people of color, gays, the poor and women.
They want a world in which they treat the rest of us like property.
Winning the fight for our rights as citizens is the beginning of another battle; the fight to keep those rights.
We have to fight now and always.
If you’re thinking of sitting out this election I ask you to consider
these words from a man who died in the fight for your right to vote:
Below is a video of clip from the 1991 Documentary ‘Blood in the Face’ .
Once you understand that a narcissist has the emotional life of a two year old they make sense.
The shamelessness, the deceit, the willingness to lie even when it isn’t necessary, the pitting of people against each other, and the need to secure a small group of eager victims who are willing to do the dirty work of spreading smears.
Now it’s on the national stage.
Here’s a rule of thumb when dealing with a narcissist: if you wonder if he’s up to something, he probably is.
They never forgive anyone who points out that no one on Earth is the smartest and best at everything; they will never forgive a correct assessment of their skill.
The narcissist that was stalking me last Summer still stalks me.
l yielded ownership of my Flickr group to her.
I don’t look at the group, give work to it, or even give the group much thought.
Because of the theft of the group I’ve learned who the people of quality
are on Flickr and I’m honored to be among them.
For the nth time, I wish I could put into words the thoughts burning in my mind. I feel that more than ever, I have expressed myself badly. I do not know how you could take interest in reading all these muddled thoughts.