I can only think of one thing to say about this one:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

She also greatly overestimates her capacity for killing. 70% of the American population, eh? I think 210 million people would beat Mao's record...

All hail Chairman V!

Michael...out of context of course sounds monstrous. But if you were to bring in the context, V is contrasting a life cut short with a life of utter horror and abuse.

From the view point of one who believes there is no God and really, no point to living, it is kinder to prevent a child from having to suffer through the kind of horror represented here. Why be born at all if only to suffer torment?

I believe in a God who is just and will make all things right, and so I can't agree with V, but I can understand her view. The hope we have in Christ makes the difference. If there were no such hope, I too would think some swift deaths more merciful than painful lives.

Most babies that are aborted would probably not suffer as child described in V's post, but as V was a child abused, I imagine she's far more sensitive to it's realities than you or I.

V: That’s not the point. The point is that I’m a hypocrite. That’s the really funny part!

Would it be wrong for Al Capone to get upset if someone said all Italians were gangsters?

Sounds like she's been through a heck of a lot, though.

First, Tracy I'd like to say that I meant it in jest, and I, unfortunately can have a rather dark sense of humor by modern standards.

The problem I have, and the lack of symapthy I have for these poisiontions stems from the fact that they lead to people thinking abortion is a good idea. Statements like V's is what China uses those very same arguments to justify its policies. (In fact, China has recently been forced to tone down its statements.)

One of the common errors we make is to make the laws around the exceptions, rather than the common case of having loving parents rather than sick and twisted Satan worshippers.

I'm also incredulous as to the story, and would like to see documentation on it. Her story sounds all too much like a slightly more warped Lovecraftian novel for me to take it seriously. How did she get the background story on the pro-life nurse who councelled the fledgling satanist? Also, from child psychology records that I've seen, this case would have gotten quite a bit more attention, and be documented somewhere.

There is no evidence for this, and corroborating evidence is lacking, so I wouldn't be surprised to find out if this story was made up, simply to shock people and prove her morbid and evil point.

As the instigator, I feel I should give a bit of background.

First: Of course, I also don't share V's view on "baby death." (A term undoubtedly chosen for its dramatic bluntness.)

Yet I don't find the story incredible: Are people, in the millions, all so good nothing like that happens? It would thus appear I am *more* cynical than Michael, who apparently has a *higher*, more *optimistic* view of humanity -- since I think this sort of thing happens with sad frequency. I've heard far too many reports of children being used in that fashion.

(Good heavens, one of my best friends' father was a child-molester, and the woman who decided to marry him and have his children *knew it* at the time. And that's just in my direct circle of close friends.)

And yes, I know some might argue the details don't ring true. Sorry, I've heard a number of these, and the details do ring true. Are they absurd and over the top? Yes. Cruel people are often especially dramatic and vain. They read Lovecraft too.

So my goal here wasn't to cluck at someone for not sharing my morals. (Anyone who doesn't share my morals could criticize me on the same basis. That's boring.) Given her own horrifying upbringing, she may view the abortion of an unwanted baby as the logical extension of the golden rule -- to treat others as we wish we'd been treated.

And perhaps, in the extreme example she quoted, she was even correct. Even Jesus said there were people for whom it would have been better if they'd never been born.

(Problems with V's argument, two of which even she might acknowledge: (a) we don't have perfect foreknowledge (it's not always the unwanted babies), thus (b) even if individual justifications exist, the overall impact would still be negative, and (c, if you're a theist) regardless, it's not our job to play God in this fashion.)

So the example I cited was carefully chosen as one where she violates her own dicta. Not to accuse of hypocrisy, but to illustrate a point: Prominent atheists are always insisting that atheists are *better* people because they don't have a God to keep them in line. The argument goes that it's a *lower* form of goodness to obey a rule because you think you'll be punished, and atheists (all, apparently) don't act this way. People like Sam Harris insist they obey some principle simply because they think (for reasons never ultimately explained), it's 'right'.

But, as illustrated by V, many atheists don't function that way, and *will* change their behavior if the laws disappear.

(And some theists would too, of course. I'm not trying to pick on atheists -- it's just human nature. Conversely, there are theists who would be similarly moral if they were suddenly convinced God didn't exist. In some regards, I probably would be: penalties aside, I find murder yucky and pointless. But Harris apparently imagines this falls neatly along belief-lines.)

(And of course, you have the problem with people who think odd things are 'right.' Nice that Sam Harris does what's "right", but I don't trust his sense of that, especially. Not if he's impressed with Peter Singer.)

In truth, I think V's statements here are a bit (intentionally) over the top: I don't really think she'd kill most the people she's saying if you gave her a gun and stuck her on a desert island with them. But I do also suspect there's some truth in what she says.

To address Michael directly:

I'm also incredulous as to the story, and would like to see documentation on it.

Why would you expect any? She didn't say she read this in a newspaper: she's relating what happened to a friend, the foster parents. If her story is true, there would typically be no publicly-accessible documentation for it.

It's certainly easy to find similar stories. Almost immediately:

I did see your point, I just found her aspirations humorous. Maybe I laugh at the devil a bit too much for most people. :-)

You have a way of making the things I say in one sentence much clearer: One of the common errors we make is to make the laws around the exceptions, rather than the common case of having loving parents rather than sick and twisted Satan worshippers.

Thank you.

(BTW, the thing about "some people" not being born, it was a rather specific person, Judas, who he was refering to.)

Also, I'm not saying that things like this don't happen. I've actually read reports of much more horrible things that have happened. I've also helped teach some of the children that resulted from homes like this. (I had one 9 year old who watched his mother get shot over a crack deal. He displayed violent behavior similar to what V described, so I have some direct familiarity with the modes of behaviour.) I just don't buy the details of her story, and I agree with your point about the drama and the vanity. It just doesn't add up that she could possibly have known the real parents to find out the story about some "pro-life nurse". In a case that dramatic, if CPS steps in, there is a strong attempt to make sure that the parents can never be found. Why would that story be passed on? Why give it more cedulity than any other urban legend, or random thing you read on the Internet?

There's also a complete lack of documentation, anywhere, on this case. Given the reasearch on feral children, and such strongly abused children to try and figure out how to help them, someone, somewhere should have published a case report. A six year old suicide also attracts a lot of attention. If any doctor put that on a death certificate, which it's completely possible he didn't, someone would be on top of that.

A lot of what's on her website seems false and disingenous to me. It also reminds me of writing styles I've seen in the past of people who use privileged position of 'victim' to make eggregeous points. She even seems to admit as much on her FAQ:

Look at the header at the top of my site. Does that say ‘Violent Acres: Investigative Reporting?’

No, it does not. It says: ‘Violent Acres: I’m just like you, only I’m interesting and my life isn’t devoid of meaning.’

THIS IS NOT A NEWS SITE!

I loathe the fact that I’ve even got to disclaim this, but my site is nothing more than a collection of my admittedly poorly thought out opinions. Outside of googling a statistic or two, I have put ZERO research into every piece. Honestly, most of this is stupid $@!% that popped into my mind when I was standing in line somewhere. If you read my site and then immediately change your mind about certain subjects without doing any self research because you’re under the misguided notion that my brilliance is the result of numerous studies, facts, figures, and scientific experiments, then it literally amazes me that Darwin hasn’t claimed you yet.

I would honestly not be surpised if the author wasn't even a woman. I'm getting this though reading several other articles, and a peculiarity in language she uses. I could be wrong, but hey, there's not much to go on other than a seething ball of anger that accuses Republicans of believing "that anyone who is an Atheist possesses no morals and will someday commit a crime," after calling for genocide and infanticide.

I also find that funny given the number of atheist Republicans out there... Hmmm... :-)

And I don't want to even imagine how many missing children died being used in such a manner. And it wouldn't surprise me to learn that there were large numbers of kids who had slipped between the cracks: born unregistered, or disappeared from public life in our anonymous society.

Actually, that's one of the details that makes me incredulous of the V story. Most of the children who are used in ritualistic violence like described are abductees.

I'm sure that would make more horrifying, dramatic (and implausible) storytelling if we could relate the worst details which happened beforehand. But we just have the corpse.

No, I'm sure it's all quite plausible. It sounds, from just the reports, like a typical severe abuse case.

Tell me: who are the children in those 150,000 photographs? Where is the documentation on them, their lives, and their fates?

Honestly, from what I've seen in busting a couple of these people, they are undocumenteds in South East Asia for the most part.

Unfortunately, I've been in the unenviable position of meeting these abusers, and finding out about what they did. Thankfully I didn't make a career out of it, for I would have long ago lost my mind. However, when you're sitting in a room having someone confess to bestiality and molesting a small child, and then hearing about how the parents covered it up, you gain a certain familiarity with the problem at hand, and think about certain Old Testament punishments in a much more positive light.

Michael - thanks for letting me know about your dark sense of humor...I did have a laugh about the estimate check on the number of people V could kill...lol

As far as V's "voice" not sounding female, I'd have to disagree with you there. I've read quite a bit on her site and there's nothing to lead me to believe she's not. We don't all write like gentle butterflies ;-)

Tim...I agree with Michael - you do have a way of making my points better than I do! I was going to make the point that even if this *particular* example of abuse weren't true, the principle in question (quick death at human hands as mercy or not) remains the same, but you got there first and more effectively.

And sorry for hijacking the original point of your message!

Tracey, it's not the gentleness in question, but don't you find her obsession with her genitals and expressing her femininity a tad overdone? It could be she's just crazier than an outhose rat, but I just get the feeling that there's something *wrong* with her expressions of feminine sexuality. Even from the standpoint of the "queer" texts I've been forced to read. (Ow, my head.)

The way she talks about men, in an almost idealized* fashion, also makes me think that there's something wrong with the way she's expressing male sexuality.

It's quite odd, and doesn't completely jive with most abuse victims I've talked to. Could be she's just strange.

*note, not meaning 'perfect', but removed from reality into the realm of ideas

Michael - perhaps because in this case the good guy was her (step)father and after he died, it was her *mother* that was abusive. Not unheard of, but not typical.

I'm not trying to be a V. apologist. I guess my point, ironically enough with the original intent of this post being that her statements about murder were not consistent, is that her outlook seems consistent and somewhat logical with respect to the context of her experience, even though I don't think anybody here agrees with it.

..outlook seems consistent and somewhat logical with respect to the context of her experience.. Ugh, that sounded too academic and poserish...somebody throw a bucket of cold water on me :)

I'm not trying to be a V. apologist

And I would never acuse you of such! I know your point, and where you're coming from, I just find it to be a dangerous argument.

Along these lines, I've come to appreciate a section of Catholic Canon Law recently. According to Canon Law, a person is excommunicato by force of law if they murder or help murder a child. (<cough> Guiliani <cough>) I think when we start taking extreme cases such as these, and apply the "it would have been a mercy killing" logic, it gets dangerous, and it's a flawed argument because we don't have much of any foreknowledge. (e.g. the usual Beethoven, etc. argument) The sharp dividing line in the sand this law provides is an important fundamental principle of civilization. (One we're leaving rapidly behind.)

I'll probably make a substantial comment later, but at the moment, I'm sure of one thing: V's right. She's a traffic generator. Or debate generator anyway.

I think I'll start "mommyblogging" next. ;-)

Mike:

BTW, the thing about "some people" not being born, it was a rather specific person, Judas, who he was refering to.

True. I was (perhaps over-) generalizing about his teachings about hell and sin, and had mentally linked that statement with his teaching that it would be better for people who taught believing children to sin if they'd instead had a millstone put around their neck and been thrown into the sea.

That seems to me to be a functional equivalent, but I probably shouldn't have said it quite that way.

There's also a complete lack of documentation, anywhere, on this case... someone, somewhere should have published a case report.

Again with the "published" thing. No, I'm sorry, they just don't "publish" (meaning make public) each time a foster kid does something abuse to a parent or sibling. Yes, I'm sure some documents are placed in a file somewhere. But I think I've already pointed out privacy laws.

A six year old suicide also attracts a lot of attention...

It does?

Did you notice the cited allegations -- where Michigan utterly failed to document how 61 foster children died in state care in Michigan? I've heard similar allegations about Florida, and I'd be utterly surprised to learn these were the only two.

I'm not saying this to argue or blindly defend V, I simply don't find these arguments at all consistent with my observations about government accountability -- particularly (sadly) in child-related agencies.

(You seem have a much higher view of government honesty, transparency, and reliability than I do. Would it be rude for me to suggest this is ironic, in light of which of us is (in my mind, anyway) more closely linked to the libertarian stance?)

And would it even be recorded as suicide?

Mike, in every controversy one has to choose between two or more arguments. Here, on one hand, we have an anonymous author who claims a social worker friend told her of parents who decided to carry to term and badly abuse a child -- who then ended up in foster case and eventually committed suicide.

On the other side, I am told (initially) that such a story seems unlikely, that the child's files would be a matter of public record, and that the government agency in charge would freely and publicly admit it's own failure.

I'm sorry, but I just find the second argument far more fantastic, at every turn. The former, I have no specific knowledge about, but it at least jives with my observations about how things can work in bad circumstances.

The other is completely at odds with my observations.

Perhaps my general observations are wrong -- that could be. But to convince me otherwise, one needs to specifically and directly answer my responses:

(a) Children's records are private; an associated profession can be fired or even convicted for violating such laws.

Given the hundreds of child deaths in foster care each year, I don't know why any specific case should be found on the web, especially when the alleged death wasn't directly caused by the abuse.

And I'd be very surprised if any (straight) male would have thought of being that savagely loathing towards "rockstarmommy".

hahahaha, gender argument settled!

I think, however, that also means you probably are not going to be able to successfully "mommyblog". Thank heavens. :)

It does?

Yes, it does. In all the research on suicide, the suicide of a six year old is a huge abberation. If it was reported in the death certificate, which I admitted, is possible it wasn't, people would have gotten the case report. There are enough researchers desparate for the 'breakthrough' that someone would have published a case report on this, and added it to their research.

It's also an abberation in terms of ritual child abuse in several ways. That would have attracted attention.

In addition, there's a huge hole in how she got the knowledge about the nurse who counceled her to not have an abortion. The chain of events leading to this blogger knowing about that would be extremly improbable. One, someone would have had to tell the case worker who placed the child in the foster home. At what point did that happen? Then the case worker would have had to tell this foster parent, several down the chain by her own accounts, who then would have had to have passed it along to V.

In addition this friend with the 'patience of Gahndi' telling V about what this child did, especially at former foster care sites was illegal by child privacy laws, and if she had the permits to take a child this screwed up, she would know that, and would also know that by this being published, she would be jeapordizing her license.

Therefore, all that put together, along with the sum of personal experience in the field, I call BULL! :-)

Perhaps parts of the story are true, but I find it greatly embellished with her own imaginations.

As to the gender, there is something disingenous about how she writes. It's forced, meant to be controversial, and just off by a little bit. I could easily be wrong about her on this, but it's not quite right. I recognize some of the aspects of her writing as being from a person who is trying to use their position as victim to take a privileged stance in writing and gain attention.

However, read her take on male sexuality, in her latest posts, it's not very good. She took a very shallow view of men, not something that completely jives with the 'loving father vs. shallow mother' thing.

Most of this is a gut call as to her gender, but what I do know is there is something off in her posts. Just off enough to make me question the authenticity of the image she protrays of herself.

BTW, the Republican comment had very little to do with *her*, but with her statement about Republicans. More mockery on my part.

While I was mowing the lawn, a clearer way of expressing my questions about V's writing occurred to me. All of this is solely my intuition, and that's all I can really say. Take it with the usual dosage of salt.

Much like ideas leave calling cards throughout history, crazinesses leave calling cards throughout what a person says. Through the unfortunate problem of being a freak magnet, and having a family that's psychologically unstable, I've discovered that different crazinesses also leave different calling cards. (This is why I used to own a DSM-IV)

I see a calling card of one type of crazy in one part of her writing, but there's a different type of crazy that seems more forced in what she says. What she writes about isn't what she thinks is true, but what she wants to be true.

Basically, I get the impression that this blogger is a person I wouldn't want to have as a friend, and would rather keep further than arms length, to avoid the drama that has to surround her — i.e crazier than an outhouse rat.

Mike: A six year old suicide also attracts a lot of attention...

Tim: It does?

Mike: Yes, it does. In all the research on suicide, the suicide of a six year old is a huge abberation.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not comprehending your complaint: You can't have it both ways, admitting, in one breath, that even you think it might not have even made it onto the death certificate, and, in another, alleging that the story is fishy because it's just so unlikely that we would fail to know about a six-year-old suicide.

Nor is it clear, even if it was recorded as a suicide, that your contention is correct: that we'd be able to look up the details and life story publicly and easily link it up with the child V allegedly describes.

And you again haven't dealt with the point I just made about Michigan not being able to account, at all, about the deaths of dozens of foster children.

In addition, there's a huge hole in how she got the knowledge about the nurse who counceled her to not have an abortion.

You finally got around to pointing out the only detail I thought was suspect.

Although I don't think this is a "hole", as you allege, according to V's own account, the testimony must be at least fifth hand (nurse -> parent -> social worker -> foster parent -> V) I think there's no reason to give it credence. (Nor especially deny it either, given that it's about as mundane as asserting she purchased a Mr. Pibb at a restaurant.)

On one hand, I could see a woman in troubled circumstances visiting a pregnancy counseling center, having second thoughts, and then resenting the child once born. Or I could see her hearing that advice from a relative, and the social worker writing down the wrong thing. Or I could see a "progressive" social worker incorrectly deducing, from some vague note, that it must have been a pregnancy resource center that led her to keep her kid.

On the other hand, I could see V or her friend messing up that part of the story too, for less than nefarious motives.

(On the third hand, I could also see the author of "V" making up the entire story. But I can't see someone relaying the story reasonably truthfully and then just inserting this false one detail. My point here, again, isn't assert I know V is telling the truth. My concern is rather about people somewhat closer to me.)

In addition this friend with the 'patience of Gahndi' telling V about what this child did, especially at former foster care sites was illegal by child privacy laws...

Oh please. Now you're apparently answering my argument (that we wouldn't know all the gory details, and be able to pin it down to the kid in question) by saying that we couldn't even have a vague second-hand anonymous account, published on an anonymous blog.

Well, again, which is it? Either we must all be able to look up the gory facts in sufficient detail to support your first allegation, or it's soooo secretive that the foster mother, even wouldn't be likely tell a trusted friend.

I take what seems a rather reasonable middle stance: While I don't think such an event would be officially, publicly, documented for you to view on the web, nor do I think it's impossible that a foster mother might confide the ordeal to a friend.

But apparently my view is supposed to be the least probable of the three offered here.

Mike, are you being serious here, or just playing?

Therefore, all that put together, along with the sum of personal experience in the field, I call BULL! :-)

You're welcomed to call it an emu, for all I care. As I said previously, the counterarguments you're offering here strike me as considerably less likely than the purported story itself. And I've carefully stated why at each juncture.

Perhaps parts of the story are true, but I find it greatly embellished with her own imaginations.

You see, here's the part which I just don't get. She's supposed to be NOT honest about being female, or about having a good view of men, or any of the other myriad of things you've accused her of dishonesty on.

(And there are so many it's hard to think you're really picking and choosing. Rather, I can't help get the impression of grasping, especially regarding arguments which strike me (see above) as mutually exclusive. Again, I'm not claiming to know your inner motives, but it certain comes across that way on the printed page.)

I don't know what V knows of this story. But I'm reasonably certain your guess about her is less likely to be based on substantial evidence than her relationship to the claimed facts of this case.

I could understand someone doubting the story itself. (Moreso if I could agree with any of their arguments.) But I do not understand being so certain -- certain enough to accuse a real person of dishonesty in that manner -- that if embellishment or dishonesty were involved, it must have come from V herself and not, say, her alleged friend the foster parent.

And, again, I don't even find the story that absurd. Nor does it strike me as necessary for her point, so I'm not sure why she'd bother to make it up.

As to the gender, there is something disingenous about how she writes.... I recognize some of the aspects of her writing as being from a person who is trying to use their position as victim to take a privileged stance in writing and gain attention.

I agree completely with the second statement: of course she wants attention. And of course she's using her life, including it's tragedies, for that end. She doesn't want you to know it, on her sleeve, and she may not admit it, but I agree with you completely: at points she's deliberately using the most shocking phrasing possible. Like Christopher Hitches, she strikes me as a polemicist. ("First I have to get your attention.." he says.)

And?

I don't see how the two statements are positively correlated. Wanting to draw attention to the events of one's life isn't proof she's a man: if anything it's more evidence she's a woman (or an extremely perceptive and talented male fictionalist).

Look at my blog: Concerning my life, it's almost sterile. And look at yours: you post about political stuff, and Michelle much more often brings it back to her life experiences.

However, read her take on male sexuality, in her latest posts, it's not very good. She took a very shallow view of men...

Again, please provide specific examples: I hate guessing about vague allusions. I've read probably six or seven of her posts which touch on men and sex.

But guess I will, apparently...

Yes, she portrays men as interested in getting sex from women. (And she portrays women as loving to be dominated sexually, BTW.) And? I wish I could object but in many cases she's entirely right.

And in those posts, she's telling men how to get that sex from women, in ways she doesn't find morally objectionable. Yeah, she's a real man-hating feminist in those posts. ;-)

So I'm not sure how this is supposed to conflict with her apparent affinity for and sympathy with fathers and men in general.

Most of this is a gut call as to her gender, but what I do know is there is something off in her posts.

Okay, gut call then. I respect that and won't argue about it per se. But honestly I don't get the specifics offered so far.

I see a calling card of one type of crazy in one part of her writing, but there's a different type of crazy that seems more forced in what she says. What she writes about isn't what she thinks is true, but what she wants to be true.

Let me ask you a question: The people in your family who exhibited this particular "type of crazy" -- what gender were they? Predominantly male? Predominantly female? Or both, in equal numbers?

Basically, I get the impression that this blogger is a person I wouldn't want to have as a friend, and would rather keep further than arms length, to avoid the drama that has to surround her...

Other than the Nyquil story (which apparently people thought she made up) and her childhood, I don't think she portrays her life as particularly dramatic in the classic sense of being "turbulent". She tells a story with a lot of flair and bluster (read: profanity) but the concrete details usually consist of some kind words to a clerk or an occasional rebuke (usually in far less profane terms) to a stranger.

She doesn't claim to sleep around, she has a kid and a dog and works buying low-end rental properties. No drug use, no vacations, no affairs.

Perhaps self-deception is in portraying her life as relatively normal and boring these days?

Mike,

In my experience, most people who are crazy in a self-absorbed way, and tend to say what they want to be true aren't perceptive enough (indeed, are usually yet to encounter reality) to write the kind of things she writes.

As a very minor point of clarification, that doesn't way in to this argument except as something for both sides to chew on, there are a few things about the abuse story that if they proved true people would lose jobs. My extensive experience in dealing with abused children has made me pretty knowledgeable about how CPS really works.

CPS would not have known or disclosed anything about the nurse. Since they are obligated to protect the child's privacy they would have disclosed the nature of the abuse (minus details), current behaviors (minus details again) treatments, and any legal restrictions. A vast majority of the actual details would be sealed.

There are actually many documented cases in which even the nature of the abuse was not disclosed to foster parents. Which has been a cause of many other types of abuse against other children by these children. Foster parents are also not allowed to follow up on former foster children. Once they leave their care they don't hear about them again unless they come back to their custody.

So I don't know if V made it all up or added details, or if it's true, or what. I do know that her friend disclosing any information about this child would be grounds for this friend to lose the ability to be a foster parent among other legal consequences. Somehow I doubt if her friend would really want that. Although I suppose some foster parents don't care. It's a horribly over burdened system. You sometimes have to work pretty hard to get caught.

I know this kind of abuse occurs because I had friends growing up that were and I've just spent the past ten years working with kids that have. There are plenty of kids that get lost in the system. Supposing they are lucky enough to make it to the system (sad but true) at all. It's all tragic.

So just a little clarification on how the system works for what ever it's worth.

I almost forgot one of my brothers friends (who is an honorary member of my family at this point) mother gave him and his brother Nyquill every night before before bed. What not even he found out until he was older, was that she was (and is) mentally unstable. She's in the full time care of a family member in Detroit now. His childhood was full of odd and abusive things like that. He's actually a very wonderful person and is working on his masters degree.

Ah! My naïve brother! You see, Jerry Seinfeld made his career off of noticing those details. It's called people watching, and has very little to do with how a person behaves in the real world. I remember sitting in a coffee shop with people quibbling about insignificant details of life just like what V describes, and how offensive these minor evils are, yet they would do HUGE evils and be proud of it. Gnat, meet camel — camel, gant. Her recent posts on sexuality makes her fit right in with this social grouping I've seen. (The I'm a bi-slut-married-something-or-another/I'm cool because I blur the line and embrace my inner evil posts.)

That post would fit right in with those discussions. (It's kinda creepy how well it would, actually...) There's an ennui that compliments it, saying, well, that's life and we'll always treat each other like crap. Unless they're angry, and then they'll complain about these things.

People paying attention to other people doesn't mean they care about *them*, just how they behave. Kinda like liberals. :-)

Also, paying attention to other peoples behaviour can help one feel superior to the dirty masses. (One of the more evil temptations in the world if you ask me... ;-) )

Once again, the discourse here fits in with my intuition.

CPS would not have known or disclosed anything about the nurse...

That makes sense. At least officially.

There are actually many documented cases in which even the nature of the abuse was not disclosed to foster parents...

I can believe that entirely.

So I don't know if V made it all up or added details, or if it's true, or what.

In all honesty, I don't either.

I do know that her friend disclosing any information about this child would be grounds for this friend to lose the ability to be a foster parent among other legal consequences...

I agree with you. But I think many of us tell close friends things, for one reason or another, we technically shouldn't -- at least as far as our employer is concerned.

Ah! My naïve brother! You see, Jerry Seinfeld made his career off of noticing those details. It's called people watching, and has very little to do with how a person behaves in the real world.

As a Seinfeld affictionado, I must disagree: yes, he made social observations, but no, he didn't usually see both sides of a question.

For example, there's a skit where he's abusing a woman behind the counter at a rental agency for not holding the reserved car. In the scene, he shows no sympathy or cognizance for the fact this is not the person who sets the policies. Nor does he recognize that consumers often made such reservations and then abandoned them.

It's Seinfeld ranting about things which have happened to Seinfeld. As much as I admit to having enjoyed many Seinfeld episodes, the thing I just pointed out to you, the thing I found refreshing -- the sensitivity to both sides and concern for the maltreated -- was absent.

I remember sitting in a coffee shop with people quibbling about insignificant details of life...

I'm sorry, but we seem to be talking at cross purposes again. I may not have made it clearly enough, but point above was that V noticed common maltreatments which most write off as insignificant (but which I consider important) -- and had clearly put herself in both pair of shoes, so to speak.

You answer this with a reference to discussing the "insignificant details" of life.

If you were really discussing insignificant details, then the situation wasn't at all analogous. I agree that bad people can notice "details" of human interactions. My point was that her comments showed a strong sense of empathy for people such situations. There and in other posts.

(On the other hand, if you meant you were discussing similar everyday maltreatments, but that you view them insignificant, then I don't understand how you could criticize her as callously justifying them.)

... yet they would do HUGE evils and be proud of it.

So where would you see her as doing "HUGE evils" and being proud of them? Again, this is akin to my last request where I asked you to point out where her real life is filled with big, ugly, narcissistic drama, as you alleged.

Isn't there some kind of requirement, when we make such accusations, for us to provide some kind of specific justification for them?

And if you admit she doesn't do any huge evils, then what are you on about? Or are you accusing her of unseen evils we don't know about?

Her recent posts on sexuality makes her fit right in with this social grouping I've seen... The I'm a bi-slut-married-something-or-another...

Hmmm. I thought she wasn't even a woman, Mike.

I again must disagree. Why? I'm reading over the posts you've referenced. Yes, she talks trash. (Which, again, I really don't like.) But no, she disowns the label "slut" and says "I've never actually had sex with a woman" and admits she's frankly not attracted to real-life women.

So, again this fits the profile I've described above: big talk on the blog, but in the real life bits she relates, nothing particularly shocking.

There's an ennui that compliments it, saying, well, that's life and we'll always treat each other like crap...

I think the whole point of the post I pointed out was that she was implicitly assuming, by giving out such advice, that people didn't need to behave that way all the time.

I’ve decided to write a guide describing some of the behavior that both parties can adopt to make the entire dining experience more pleasant for everyone.

That doesn't sound, to me, like she's justifying or even resigned to such bad behaviors, as you seem to be alleging.

... Kinda like liberals. :-)

But liberal polemicists don't pay attention to or understand the motivations of conservatives. That's precisely my point here.

Also, paying attention to other peoples behaviour can help one feel superior to the dirty masses...

I could be dense, but I'm also not seeing where V sees herself as an elite rising far above "the dirty masses". (Indeed, it seems to be another contradictory complaint, following, as it does, the apparent contention she's justifying said bad behavior.)

True, she is clearly unhappy about certain trends (bad parenting, understandably) but, as far as I'm seeing, she doesn't seem to view herself as especially superior on that basis. Any more than I would, anyway.

Once again, the discourse here fits in with my intuition.

Perhaps it does, but I again can't see how your generalizations above fit in with any parts of "the discourse" being referenced (by which I assume you mean her articles). And I hoped that by citing the relevant bits of text that I could show this was a bit more than a "gut feel".

-------

To recap, you had alleged her life *must* be dramatic, because you were so sure she fit some type. I pointed out that her life didn't seem all that dramatic, and asked for specific examples.

You refer me to a group of posts in which she again talks big online, but again does nothing particularly bad and admits she's never even been with a woman. But she's still guilty of bad things because, once again, she reminds you of a certain social group.

So must I again point out she doesn't apparently fit into that social group, as judged by actual behavior, if her writings are any evidence at all? And must I again ask for counter-evidence, or otherwise, that you simply concede the (I had assumed, rather tiny and non-controversial) point, like a gentleman?

Or will we allege the alternative: that she's not being honest about her mundane life, and claim that she's fabricating a more boring present-day existence than she actually has? (I mean, if she's lying about her gender, and a story of child abuse, why not accuse her also of lying about having a relatively boring real life?)

(To the contrary, I suspect part of the reason she's so mad at the "mommybloggers" need for online attention is that she fears the same impulse in herself, amidst what's actually a normal, mundane, humdrum life. Only she draws attention using deliberately over-the-top and provocative language rather than photos of her face and body. My two cents. "My life is just like yours, only it has MEANING." Of course if she's truly an atheist, that's the one thing it can't ultimately have.)

V sure isn't Jesus (and might even be entirely fictional), but this is the oddest thing: she seems to set you off so that you'll criticize her in exactly opposite terms. This is getting disturbing and, V entirely aside, I'd appreciate it if you'd honestly address the trend I'm pointing to here.

Why are you so obsessed with accusing this writer of all manner of evil? If you'd said the story sounds too over the top, purely on subjective grounds (or had you zeroed in earlier on the one thing I thought was suspicious) that'd I'd buy.

But instead it seems there's no end to your charges against her: She, and not any friend, made up a story of child abuse. We'd know. Or we wouldn't. And she's not really a woman -- sure doesn't sound like one (and thus perhaps the whole site is fictional). Her views of men are abnormally positive. Or negative, perhaps. But no, she's actually a married slut. And her life must certainly be an ongoing drama, damaging all those around her. And she supposedly justifies the bad behavior of others and yet possibly views herself as above it.

What are you basing all that on? A gut feeling?

Logically, it doesn't even add up. Nor do you retract a previous allegation (she doesn't sound female!) before moving on to the next one (she sounds just like a slut). You seem to slide over specific questions. (Such as the gender of the crazy people in your family, or a request to clarify where she's anti-male, as you alleged.) And none of the seemingly blatant contradictions I point out even seem to phase you.

What is going on here?

First, I didn't call her a slut, she called herself a slut. Read the latest entries. She acted proud about it, like it's a badge of honor to be called a 'slut' and a 'stipid evil bitch'. She says things like:

"If you’re reading this Kim-whatever-the-$^#$-your-last-name-is, call me. My payment for your grievous misdeed will include a bottle of wine followed by two hours of unbridled passion."

"I would $^$# a woman 6 ways from Sunday, but I am absolutely horrified by the idea of being in a committed relationship with one."

Need I say much more?

Obviously I'm not the only one who developed the theory about her not being female — I'm obviously not the only one who has studied enough about psychology to know that there's somethig wrong. I used the feminine terms simply because it's a convinient place marker, instead of the deragatory he/she, which is all to similar to it. This is still a person.

I have been reading through her pages and there are a lot of things that don't add up. Such as the fact that she claims to be over 30 on one page, and yet, in her story about when she was 15, Kurt Cobain is already dead. So she's not quite 30 by historical precedence.

This isn't a huge deal, but as I read her writings I come up with all kinds of stuff that doesn't quite add up. She also attests to as much in her FAQ, which I quoted.

I'm not trying to accuse her of being all kinds of evil — I'm accusing her of being disingenuous.

Part of this is because I had to deal with another person who held a discourse much like this. Also an abuse victim. Also used the fact that she was an abuse victim to justify her behaviour, and hold on to it, much like the people in "The Great Divorce". A lot of the way V speaks is right in line with the way that woman spoke. Like I said, it's a common thread. (One thing in my 'not quite a woman' postulation is that this woman was also quite the misogynist.)

That, and 90% of the normal, sane, well-balanced people I know have one thing to say after reading her posts: "Wow, that's one crazy &$#&@." While not being certain, that's a good indication that somethings wrong.

As to who is crazy in my family, it's not something I'd like to go into in a public forum. Both genders are accounted for, however. None of the write as well as V, nor have as well developed logic or perceptive abilities, and they're a different kind of crazy anyway. (Much more on the narcissistic side you talked about earlier.)

As far as accusing her of doing evil, I never have. For all I know she could lead a boring life. All I said was that your argument about her perceptiveness making her good is invalid. The "for a better dining experience" is quoted marketing speak. It's a rhetorical device that doesn't mean either if she's serious or just commenting.

So, yes, it's a gut feeeling. However, do you know why I'd use a gut feeling — because gut feelings keep you alive and well in the absence of logically being able to determine things. There isn't enough information here to fill in the gaps, but my brain still reads danger signs galore. I give a lot of credit to God for making such a wonderful pattern matching device. Sometimes it's wrong, but I have the strong feeling that it's right here.

There's probably a bit of argumentation and quotation I could do to back my position, but seeing as this is not a particularly important issue in the world, is based on my training in a non-science, personal experience, etc., it's not quite worth the effort to do that.

In addition, some of this was just postulation as I was writing, such as the female/male thing. I was reading her work while typing, and was curious to see if anyone else saw this. Obviously someone else did. :-) You can probably guess that she has severe issues with self-loathing. For that I hope she finds the cure, and let's go of such a burden.

(In fact, one of the things that I find is that there is probably a core ambivalence* in her as to her opinion of herself. There's the "I'm superioir" vs. the "I suck".)

However, a person who claims to be rejoicing in the slaughter of innocents has lost a lot of respect in my book. If there's any emotion there, that, by itself, would trigger it. Then backs it up with a story that I find implausible on many levels. If, in the highly probable case that she made it up, that is a nice, distilled form of evil, because it helps lead people down the path to hell, based on a fantasy in her head.

I'd much rather she quote something real, like the horrors of the RUF, or Russian orphanages, or any number of real horror stories that go on every day, than something I find totally implausible.

---

* in the real sense of ambivalence, opposing views at conflict

* Also, as an aside on the "mommyblogger" thing, I think you're right on. Look at her "best of" page where she quotes her 'Technorati', etc. scores.

The wonderful wife had some nice input after that last post. She seems to think we're both missing each others arguments, and that the biggest concern is that you find me too judgemental of V.? (Along with me thinking you're giving her too much credit?)

Perhaps it's just the Torquemada in me coming out... :-)