I'm getting sick to my stomach here.

[Archae]

Not over anything Bush* and his goons are pulling.
(Although that's good for grabbing the Pepto-Bismol itself.)

Not over the rePukes like DeLay and his goose-steppers.

Not over Hatchling and his whine-fest about Bush*'s "candidates" for federal judgeships.

No, I'm getting seriously upset about the absolute STUPIDITY I'm seeing from some DU'ers here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=699902

Even though the public record shows the accuser here was a seriously mentally ill woman, I'm seeing statements like "She was killed by the BFEE," or "She said Bush raped her, so I believe it."

If the Freepers repost it on their site, and elsewhere, to laugh it, it's deserved.
Just because these are politicians we don't like, is not a reason to have "guilt by accusation," (that's a Freeper favorite, just look at Mia T,) or "somebody died, so it's Bush's fault."

If we want to still be taken seriously, and not dismissed as a bunch of FTB's, (Foaming True Believers) who will believe any and every con artist, whack job or hack, we should start using some simple rules here.

Making an accusation is not evidence.
Everything about the GOP and Bush* thrown out there needs to looked at carefully, and not automatically believed.

There are other off-the-deep-end nutcase "theories' being tossed around here, but the above will suffice for this post.

Rant over.

[qanda]

1. You have to admit that if this were Clinton

Regardless of how deranged this woman is or was, it would have been all over the news. I, personally, think the woman was a total loon, but that should make it all the more newsworthy. "Crazy woman who filed a totally bogus lawsuit against our wonderful President has killed herself." NEWS AT 11...

[Archae]

7. It doesn't mean SQUAT

If the name there is "Bush," "Clinton" or whoever.

Guilt by wild accusations is WRONG.

"But they did it first..." is NOT a valid excuse for this idiocy.

[qanda]

28. Maybe we're on different pages here.

I said that I thought the woman was a loon. No where in my post did I say that I thought Bush* had anything to do with her death. My problem is that this is being completely and totally ignored by the media. Can we at least agree that there's something strange about the lack of coverage this has received?

[KFC]

31. The lack of media coverage is because the accusations are ludicrous

Most people won't risk their reputation on obviously bogus claims. It doesn't merit coverage because it is obviously not true. Quite simple.

[eridani]

38. No, it's because...

the accusations weren't against Clinton. That she was a few fries short of a Happy Mean wouldn't have stopped them.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

54. The lack of media coverage is due to the fact that the...

...major corporate owners of the media don't want this story reported. Or do you still believe we have freedom of the press in this country?

[KFC]

65. Exactly

They don't want to report a bogus story. Take one look at her loony complaint and you will see what I mean.

BTW, freedom of the press does not mean that any particular media outlet is required to report every story. That would be the opposite of freedom of the press.

[qanda]

64. They never stopped them from reporting things about Clinton...

Or anybody else for that matter.

[redqueen]

80. Utter Bullshit

Kathleen Willey was a known liar and perjuror, and she is STILL used as some kind of 'source' by the VRWC. (Tweety most recently, IIRC.)

I'm not saying this woman should be believed, but that we should demand that people recognize the VRWC for what it is. We need to use this as an example of how differently the press treats Democrats and Republicans.

We should rub their faces in this glaring double-standard until the 'liberal media' becomes a punch line ONLY.

Wake up already.

Time to play hardball.

[Don_G]

2. I Keep A Healthy Supply Of Alka-Seltzer Myself

So I'm a tradationalist.

But I agree. Beliefs and accusations are NOT factual data and we aren't generally as stupid or as rabid as the Freepers by any means.

[dofus]

3. There are a lot of threads here

I've learned to ignore. Some DU posters live in their own little fantasy land.

[kimchi]

4. Hear, hear!

That theory was WAY over the edge.

[Must_B_Free]

5. New twist on the 'Lone Nut' ploy

this time the bothersome 'Lone Nut' kills herself.

nothing suspicious here, enemies of BFEE kill themselves all the time - Baxter, Hatfield, Kangas, etc.... A

I believe in coincidences and good luck, it would be foolish to suspect foul play from an honest man like Bush and his buddies. After all, he did save us from Saddam's 45 min nuclear missles and radio controlled anthrax drones.

[Archae]

6. See what I mean?

It's AUTOMATIC here.

"Oh my! A woman who accused Bush of raping her killed herself!"
"That means BUSH KILLED HER!"

Christ on a crutch.

[CatWoman]

8. however, he does have a point

[Archae]

10. WHAT "point?"

Other than "Anything Bush is accused of becomes automatically 100% true," I see no point there at all.

[CatWoman]

11. ....

I believe in coincidences and good luck, it would be foolish to suspect foul play from an honest man like Bush and his buddies. After all, he did save us from Saddam's 45 min nuclear missles and radio controlled anthrax drones.

[Archae]

13. Except...

That statement has absolutely nothing to do with this woman, her accusations, her obvious mental illness, or her death.

[CatWoman]

15. ok -- how about this

George Bush has restored honor and dignity to the White House.

[Archae]

18. It still has NOTHING to do with it!

Now, keep it to the ISSUES here!

[CatWoman]

19. exactly!!

[dennis4868]

56. Anything Bush is accused of becomes automatically 100% true,"

Well that was the standard used against Clinton for about 9 years, right? Why did that same standard stop at the door of Bush?

[Dogmudgeon]

24. There's something behind it

It's not just hatred or a desire for drama. People are willing to believe the worst about Bush because he's proven, so many times, that he's willing to flout the laws of the land and common sense, and has done so on many occasions. And he's done it with audacity, without shame, secure in his own belief that he's been annointed by God Himself.

It's also different than the Conservative jihad against Clinton. The anti-C movement is motivated by hatred, rage, and disgust; they also have a set of well-marketed explanations which they believe without much argument. On the other hand, the anti-B movement is driven by fear and and a sense of the unreality of it all. When you're lied to consistently, you know something is dreadfully wrong, but you don't know exactly what it is. Most people lack a way to articulate their fear, so they're inclined to believe the first semi-reasonable explanation they hear. And yes, I think Team Bush has played upon the Dependency-Debilitation-Dread cycle that breaks the minds of victims of crime, kidnap and terror.

There's Dependency -- he's made the Administration the only source of information, but the only thing we know is that he's lying. Debilitation -- people are a lot more frightened of the future than they were in 2000, and everything Bush does makes it worse. Dread -- Waiting for the other shoe to drop. How much longer can we continue with a Chief Executive at the helm of the Ship of State who is intent on steering us into an ice pack?

I agree that a lot of the demonization of Team Bush is nonsensical, and enough is as nonsensical as the demonization of Clinton that the Commentariat has picked up on it. But Bush continues to run the country like it was his own privately-held business, continues to keep the public uninformed and misinformed, and it leads to its own unique kind of craziness.

The wacky reactions of many DUers don't surprise me at all.

God help us if he's playing this kind of game with the leaders of the other countries we deal with.

--bkl

[KoKo]

26. Thanks for that great observation, "BareKnuckled." I hope Archae can

read it in the spirit it's intended. And, Archae, I'm one of those who puts on the :tinfoilhat: here alot. But, "Bareknucled" explanation is the true one. How do we know it isn't what we think it is?

Don't read those threads if they bother you...really. I know I read stuff I'm sorry I have some times..but there are "honest" questions about Bush and why so many people associated with him and used by him seem to be "silenced." Some of us are just more prone to trying to solve mysteries and so we put our Sherlock Holmes caps on and "go at it." That's another reason you see so much of this. And, there's alot of cynicism that he has gotten a free ride his whole life propped by his "care takers."

I think most DU'ers thought that poor woman was deranged when the story first appeared, maybe a year ago. But the conclusion was reached after a long debate on a thread where there was much arguing back and forth. I've not read the new thread about her suicide, but imagine it will be the same in the end. I think when we do debate things here (no matter how hot the arguments are)we usually come up with rational thoughts at the end. And, sometimes because of folks like you who chime in.

:-)'s and Peace!

[Dogmudgeon]

34. Thanks, KoKo!

Archae is no fool, but crazy season gets to everybody. I don't think it was so much a call for silence as for sanity. But like Viktor Frankl observed after being in a concentration camp, it's the insane who are sane when placed in an insane situation.

Tinfoil hats are most effective -- IMO -- when they give us clues to solve the mystery; they usually aren't solutions themselves. It's kind of like a primitive use of The Scientific Method. The paranoid test reality by forming a wild-assed hypothesis, and testing that against reality. Forensically, the same method is used to solve crimes, but I'm afraid most people do not have the demeanor of a seasoned detective.

But I'm no paragon of sanity, either. In addition to being affected by political PTSD, I had what some people would call a "nervous breakdown" this summer after the death of a family member, eviction from my apartment, being forced out of a job I had recently gotten after 2 years of unemployment, and a bad medication reaction. I'm also prone to apocalyptism, and recently there have been things in the Wonderful World of Nature that have been freaking me out. All of this forced me to sit down and put my emotions on ice for a little while so I could figure out what I was doing.

As Maximum Leader Bush leads America deeper and deeper into poorly-controlled panic, more people will find themselves climbing the walls of their minds. I am very unerstanding of people in pain, but I also don't have much hope that we'll find our way out of it any time soon.

Before I forget, thanks again for the kind words.

--bkl

[sandnsea]

9. Evidence

It would be nice if people would base their opinions on evidence instead of pretending to be some sort of all-knowing clairvoyants. It's embarrassing when it's about things like this, it's dangerous when it's about real issues.

[neuvocat]

12. Don't tell anyone what to say around here.

You don't like the topic of a conversation then don't stick around to hear it. Avoid it instead of going on some sort of self-righteous ramblings just because you're pissed off with how people are acting on these boards.

[Archae]

14. Ok...

But don't come whining to me if and when Freepers and such use it to call every one of us a bunch of barking loons.

[CatWoman]

16. I'm of the opinion

that if each and every one of us donated 100 dollars to Free Republic and/or a similar right wing institution, they would still look at us that way.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Why care what someone who damns you think? Or calls you?

[Isome]

21. In case you didn't notice... they've always called us that.

It doesn't matter if we never entertained a single topic of discussion that wasn't sanctioned by the RNC itself, they'd still call us loons, 'libruls', bleeding hearts, traitors, nutty, 'morans', 'envirowhackos', intellectually dishonest, etc.

[belle]

29. Do you really care what the Freepers think??

I agree that there are good reasons for not seizing on every anti-Bush story as the gospel, but making us look bad in the eyes of FR isn't one of them, for Chrissake.

[neuvocat]

73. WHO THE FUCK IS WHINING, HUH????

AND WHAT THE FUCK MAKES YOU THINK ANYONE WOULD COME TO YOU ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, HUH?

YOU'RE THE ONE WHO CALLED JIMMY CARTER AND WALTER MONDALE "CAPTAIN PEANUT AND WONDER BOY!" YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID HE'D RATHER VOTE FOR REAGAN OVER CARTER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

AND NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO PISS AND MOAN ABOUT HOW YOU THINK PEOPLE SHOULD ACT AROUND HERE AND YOU CAN'T EVEN DO THAT RIGHT.

You want conformity? Fine. Why not just put alerts out on your ass for posts like this, huh? You happen to be insulting everyone here and this is just the kind of behavior that has been openly discussed by the adminstrators here regarding disruptive posts.

Besides, who the fuck do you think is going to agree with you? The freepers? The ones who put up that insane crap about 911-which you posted a link to here?

You think that a group of warmongering pussies who laugh at someone's death (Left Eye) is some authority on good manners? Good god get a grip because the people you want approval from is a sad and sorry lot.

[CatWoman]

83. to echo neuvocat

YOU'RE THE ONE WHO CALLED JIMMY CARTER AND WALTER MONDALE "CAPTAIN PEANUT AND WONDER BOY!" YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID HE'D RATHER VOTE FOR REAGAN OVER CARTER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Archae -- your credibility was shot the moment you posted that crap. I remember it vividly. And I'll never forget it. I look at you so differently now. Now maybe you can understand my earlier posts on this thread.

[Ripley]

17. Who's telling you what to say?

This person has his right to rant as much as Starpass does. Or are there only certain DUers that are allowed to voice their dislike for certain posts and/or posters?

[bearfartinthewoods]

41. all that is needed for insanity to rule is for the sane to say nothing

post, object, fight the nuts. keep this place credible

[Catherine Vincent]

20. I was the one who said that I believe her.

In actuality, I don't. I don't know much about the case except what I read here and other websites. But the reason I said I believe her is because right wing nuts believe every accusation about Clinton. This is tit for tat. I am only acting like a republican.

You can call it stupid, I don't give a shit. If this topic is brought up here and on other boards, I will continue to slander Bush as a rapist just as it was done to Clinton.

So there!

[CatWoman]

22. *giggle*

that's funny!!

"so there!!!!!"

bwahahahahahahaha

I feel ya, Cat :hi:

[bearfartinthewoods]

39. no, it's not funny...it's stupid

backing obviously bogus shit dilutes the real outrages. we lose credibiity and dulls the edge of the real issues. we allow ourselves to be dismissed as flakes and bush is unscathed,

silly tit for tat revenge isn;t worth it in the long run.

[CatWoman]

52. stupid????!!!???????

one woman's comedy is another man's stupidity.

stupid???!!!!!!

what I find funny is stupid to you?

who the fuck are you???

perhaps in this case stupid really is as stupid does.

[bearfartinthewoods]

61. it's a stupid thing to do

anytime you throw away credibility, waste credibility it's a stupid thing to do. credibility is hard to come by. it needs to be protected so it can serve us. for example...we are totally exasperated because the country isn't outraged by the lack of a proper investigation into 911. have you considered that part of the reason for that outrage is that people have heard the ridiculous claims that no plane hit the pentagon or that beam weapons blew up the plane over PA and laugh?

people hear stupid theories like that over and over and over and it dulls their interest in serious questioning on the serious issues.

so promoting the ridiculous, even not shooting down the ridiculous wastes our credibility and that is counter-productive and stupid.

[Catherine Vincent]

76. What's stupid is someone having the word "FART" as a part of their name...

"people hear stupid theories like that over and over and over and it dulls their interest in serious questioning on the serious issues."

Maybe if you changed your name, people here would look at you more seriously.

<snicker>

[CatWoman]

78. right on cat!!!!

double <snicker>

[bearfartinthewoods]

81. since you seem to have never heard the 'why 'of bearfarts.............

bearfarts is the name adopted by a group of people who were commrades during the vietnam war protests on the occasion of their getting booted out of a coffee shop around 3AM for the crime of not having a place to shower for the previous three days.

i carry the name with hopes that some of the other bearfarts may stumble in here and say "hey,,,where did you get that name" and we can reconnect.

so snicker all you want,

[Catherine Vincent]

86. So you're hoping to talk to someone about smelly protestors?

I'm not snickering now, I'm laughing. LOL!

[CatWoman]

87. I'd kick you out of my shop too

sitting around passing gas.

How uncivilized!!!!!!!

nother <snicker>

[politicat]

23. Actually, from my shrink's perspective....

Mr. Politicat and I were talking about this over dinner and he said something that made me think....

"Was she mentally ill before the date of the alleged incident?" he asked.

Actually, I don't know on that, but I saw where he was going with this. (Realize I have no opinion on what happened or if she was telling the truth or a delusion.)

If she was sane before the incident, and then no one would believe her afterwards, being disbelieved might have affected her mental health.

I've seen this happen in cases where partner A in a marriage is delusional and Partner B is not, but with long exposure to A's delusions, B slowly becomes delusional. I've also seen cases where true events have been called a lie so often that the patient comes to believe they didn't happen (which causes severe cognitive dissonance and can cause severe mental illness.)

If she was sane, the incident happened and disbelieved, she might become insane, or be *perceived* to be insane.

If she was insane, it happened and disbelieved, she might have become more unstable, but that does not detract from the fact that the incident happened.

If she was insane and it did not happen and was disbelieved, it's no big deal. The insane make all sorts of claims.

If she was sane, it did not happen and was disbelieved, it's also no big deal.

But I'd give a molar to see those medical records.

Politicat

[Kanary]

27. "Gaslighting"

"If she was sane before the incident, and then no one would believe her afterwards, being disbelieved might have affected her mental health."

There are also medications that can cause insanity.......

Kanary, not standing under any gaslights for the duration...

[Ardee]

25. sorry to disagree

For eight long years we saw Clinton's penus blamed for everything from global warming to the local ball team losing a game. Bush did it, dammit, Bush did it all, he does it every day and he will continue to do it until we send his rancid ass back to Crawford Texas!

Why on earth do you care what Freepers think anyway? For years the GOP has been throwing as much excrement against the wall as they could and it worked to a degree in that people think Saadam was responsible for 9/11 and other blatant lies. We must go on the attack and I believe that Bush personally murdered that poor woman and her
(and his) unborn child.....so there.

[BadFaith]

32. So what you're saying is...

Liberals and those who consider themself left-of-center should resort to any and all tactics available in order to promote their agenda? Even if it means further polarization of the electorate, a degeneration of public discourse, and outright stupidity?

Tossing about these allegations are wrongheaded, both in principle and in practice. The people who produced the "Clinton Chronicles" video, in which the former President was accused of everything from cocaine smuggling to murder, have by no means entrenched themselves in the minds of the public as having a modicum of integrity or veracity. Most don't even know who they are, or have even heard of the tape. The GOP members principally involved in the impeachment "slog" have been written off by the public at large as hypocrites and extreme partisans. And polling data indicates that more and more people (those who aren't frothing right-wingers) are correctly believing there was an attempt to mislead them into supporting the war.

Even if you take the infantile notion to heart that "they did it, so should we", it would be best to recognize that such tactics, in the end, simply don't work. All they do is serve the cause of turning more and more people off from even participating in political discourse, and certainly discouraging them from seeking elected office themselves. Is that what you want? People so tuned out of the political process that they don't even care who's saying what, as its probably all lies anyway, and vote based upon the criterion of who looks better on television? Or with whom they'd want to have a BEER??

I know, perhaps we should just do away with debate and campaigns altogether, and select the President of the United States through a Reality TV format! Yeah, let's just see which candidate has the least amount of baseless accusations thrown against him/her, and give THEM the Oval Office. Perhaps we can listen to them all sing, and cast votes like they do on American Idol (Hell, that show attracted as much or more voters than recent political elections). Or see who can eat the most elephant testicles or pig feces without vomiting, that's a test of TRUE character and political integrity!

I guess it's easier than letting our policy ideas and the truth win the day.

[Ardee]

48. Dont get your hands dirty

take the high road, remain aloof from the struggle, sit up there on your ivory tower and look with disdain at the fray, turn your nose up at those who are actually in the trenches.

Give me a break, you and your ilk are responsible for the disintegration of a once noble party, further your sanitary version of the political discourse in this nation is mighty fine in the classroom and works not at all in the real world.

[smirkymonkey]

70. I agree completely -

the problem with our party is that we always advocate taking the high road while the republicans kick the shit out of us. And who gives a flying f**k what people who have ZERO credibility think of ours??

Does anyone have absolute proof that this incident did not happen and that there is no connection whatsoever to *? If not, then allegations MAY have some validity.

What I would like to know is why so many (especially male) DUers are so convinced the accusation was completely bogus? There are a lot more things to be outraged about than someone making a possibly false accusation against *. Who cares even if its wrong - after all, the Pukes entire platform has been along the lines of "if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth".

Personally, when it comes to getting this bastard and his kind out of office, nothing is too low or illegitimate.

[belle]

30. What is it that has you so apoplectic, exactly?

Is it really how "we" look to other people (Freepers or not)? Or are you upset because everybody on these boards isn't living up to your standards? There are nearly 35,000 people here. You get all kinds. Some people agree with you. Others don't. If they're genuinely "nutcases," do you really imagine that they're going to go "gee, you're right, we'll become more sensible" because you scold them?

[bearfartinthewoods]

40. believing that there are 35000 of us is also delusional <grin>

[CatWoman]

55. Is that really hard to believe

or is that stupid, too?

[bearfartinthewoods]

63. well since every freeper who ever registered

and then got tombstoned is included in that number

and every DUer who suddenly found themselves with a DU name that they no longer liked and re-registered is included in that number

and anyone who ever registered and then lost interest and doesn't come here anymore is included in that number

and every DUer who was ever tombstoned and then slipped back with a new name is included in that number

and since Skinner has repeatedly said that the 35,000 member number is no way near accurate i'll let it up to you to determine if believing there are 35,000 of "us" here at DU is delusional or
stupid.

[Dogmudgeon]

33. We should cut Archae a break, too

Militant disbelief is as much a reaction to D-D-D as is conspiracy theory spinning. Archae is no more privy to What's Really Happening than anybody else, and s/he also has to deal with the situation like everybody else. At least Archae won't be misled by a harebrained theory -- but risks being misled into a kind of blindness. (No, I don't think this will happen to Archae, but the risk is still there for most doubters of the corruption inherent in our current cabal of leaders.)

Either state of mind is OK by Team Bush. Crank up the pressure ... believe it or don't, but fear it anyway.

I don't want to fall into the error of psychologizing every little thing that happens, but too much of today's politics falls into the that category. The effect is like a massive "special op," even if it's an unintended blow-back. We are a painfully stressed-out culture, and it's a novel kind of stress, since most of our physical needs are taken care of. Instead, there's that sense of dread and confusion, with no tangible solution to any of it.

Almost 30 years ago, Frank Zappa used a line in one of his early works (I think it was in Absolutely Free or maybe We're Only In It For The Money) that went "scab of a nation, driven insane". He obviously intended to apply it to the anti-youth reaction that was happening in the late 1960s, but it was a timeless line. "Driven insane," and we're not the first. The Russians, the Germans, the French all had their turns; the results were horrendous in each case.

Conspiracy theories are useful because they give clues to where we should investigate; aggressive disbelief can keep up from falling for every explanation hook-line-and-sinker. But I think we have to keep in mind that we've entered the Haunted House phase in world history, and getting spooked is now a part of reality.

--bkl

[gate of the sun]

35. it's a bit convenient that the poor woman is dead

and that's really a point that should not be "simply" dismissed. I'm sorry but the poster Archae is not able to see that. Nothing is as simple as it seems these days. Sure it's a possibility it was "suicide" pure and simple but it's just as likely that it wasn't....

[bhunt70]

36. I dont think thats the main point.

The point about the woman oor the suicide, What I got from Archae's post is that we shouldn't just jump on any "Bush Bash" soundbite, theory, post or slugline and proclaim it the gospel without a little bit of investigation.

When we jump to conclusions it makes us look as reactionary as some of our detractors. Atleast thats what I got form Archae's post. I could be wrong.

[Archae]

37. You're not wrong.

We like to jump on and laugh at the Freeper-types like "Mia T," who obviously blames any and all the Clintons when she(he?) gets a hangnail.

So that's why I see a bit of hypocrisy, laughing at Mia T's obvious psychosis, while embracing a psychotic woman who simply had her fixation on George Bush.

That was my whole point.

It's really easy to yell "conspiracy," especially when the person being "conspired against" happens to oppose the same people we oppose.

But without REAL EVIDENCE, it falls right off the deep end, into the same cesspool as the "Clinton bodycount" hawkers, or "A plane didn't hit the Pentagon" hacks, or the Rosewell "crashed flying saucer" con artists.

[iverglas]

47. and if I may add

"Embracing a psychotic woman who simply had her fixation on George Bush" (assuming for the sake of argument that this was the situation) is exploitive and not something that I would wish to be a party to.

My point is that we owe it not only to ourselves not to uncritically embrace such persons and their allegations, but to the people themselves.

She no more deserves to be sword wielded in the battle against Bush than she would deserve to be used against her own interests by Bush.

It is not to our credit to treat anyone else as an instrumentality in the service of our own interests and goals, however noble they might be.

If the woman was delusional, it is entirely possible that the response to her public allegations both negative and positive added to the anxiety that led to her suicide. (Again, assuming suicide for the sake of argument.)

Not making one's self look foolish, and not making unfounded and unprovable allegations against one's adversary as a matter of principle, are wise guidelines.

But not exploiting other people in whatever one's cause might be, which is what is done when they are used without regard for their own interests, is also an honourable rule to follow.

.

[smirkymonkey]

84. What is the BFEE Body Count

these days anyway?

[iverglas]

42. may I offer another perspective on the problem?

I think that one problem people have in assessing stories like these -- quite apart from tinfoil -- stems from the fact that most people have very little experience with mental illness (in other people, that is).

Few people have had the kind of direct contact with individuals who have illnesses that cause delusions that gives them a basis for distinguishing delusional from non-delusional thought processes. I am not expressing an opinion on this particular case -- I'm just saying that there are people in this world who *do* have delusions, and delusional thought processes.

One common manifestation of that phenomenon is for the individual to believe that someone in a position of power is persecuting him/her (or conversely, is in love with him/her).

When I practised refugee law, I met more than my allotted share of delusional people. They sought me out, and my good friends in the non-immigration bar referred them to me, to get them out of their own offices. I was the end of the line, and I had to be able to make a determination as to whether the person was rational and was indeed a victim of some persecution, or the victim only of his/her disease.

In the former case, I represented the person; in the latter, I decided that I would be the end of the line and not send the poor individual circling around the bar and the legal system -- I would simply say that I was sorry, I did not believe that s/he had a case, and no, I did not know of another lawyer I could refer to, but I could recommend a doctor if the person had any concerns s/he wanted to discuss with a doctor.

One day, after I had politely ushered yet another sufferer of "Eastern European syndrome" (everyone's out to get me, especially the government) from the waiting room, I turned to my secretary and said, "There goes another paranoid schizophrenic!" In awe, she said, "How can you tell?!" You too can tell, I said. And you can -- maybe not always from a distance as in the Bush-rape story, but you can at least ask the questions that enable you to maintain a healthy scepticism.

The thing usually is: the story is credible in the sense that it is not hard to imagine the person or persons that the victim accuses of wrongdoing being guilty of the wrongdoing. But the question is: why would that person or persons be doing wrong to the person claiming to be the victim?

I had a client who maintained that the forces of Oral Roberts were following her around the continent and had blown up her car in Alaska. (Practising in Canada is fun -- we get all the unfortunate USAmerican sufferers of delusions coming up and renouncing their US citizenship to try to stay in Canada.) Well, maybe the forces of Oral Roberts would do something like that; but to her? Why? No credible explanation.

Another client claimed to have been a confidant of Jonas Savimbi in Angola. The glossy photos in a book produced by the Angolan armed opposition (I kid you not -- shiny pix of guys on tanks) that he claimed to be him with Savimbi really just weren't. Had I *believed* that he was tight with Savimbi, I would never have taken his case; I didn't, I just believed he was sick.

If one looks at other aspects of the person's life and what s/he says about other things, one can spot other indications of delusions. People will seldom feel persecuted *only* by someone important. Of course, the problem for someone like the person's lawyer is that the person will often decide that the lawyer is persecuting him/her too. ;) (E.g. if the lawyer is not in the office when s/he arrives without an appointment, and doesn't believe that the lawyer isn't there and thinks the lawyer is just refusing to see him/her ... and walks out in the hall and smashes the plate glass mirror ...)

I used to wonder whether, if we lived in a society without classes and without religions, there would be any paranoid schizophrenics. Seriously! If they didn't have the Queen and the President and Stasi and Oral Roberts and Julia Roberts to be persecuted by/loved by, and God to whisper in their ear, what would they do??

People with these problems generally just reach some sort of equilibrium in which they can cope with them. Of course, some of them do become more dangerous. I used to worry about pushing the wrong button when I interviewed people with these problems, and I would get furious with people (other lawyers, my damned party head office) who would just send them to me with no notice, sometimes resulting in my secretary being alone in the office with a delusional person in a state of anxiety, not a great situation.


So my sincere advice: if you haven't got personal experience with people who have a delusional mental illness, seek information and opinion from someone who has.

It is NOT demeaning or disrespectful to suggest (with proper grounds) that someone has a mental illness. In fact, it is unhelpful to treat a person with a mental illness as if his/her delusions are truth. In point of fact, there is simply nothing that a layperson can do for such a person most of the time -- feeding the delusions by treating them as credible and offering help for acting on them is not going to solve the problem, or help the person to come to some kind of enlightenment about the non-reality of his/her beliefs. And attempting to persuade the person of that non-reality is not going to help either. Offering the least possible input into the delusional thought process, in any direction, is the best course of action for the layperson.

Now, that's not to say ... okay, the cliché: even paranoids have enemies. Yes, a delusional person can really be a victim of persecution or other wrong-doing. And of course there is the added factor that people with these problems are in fact vulnerable to being harmed.

But one has to ask one's self: Why would --

<Queen Elizabeth / Bush / Stasi / Savimbi / Roberts / Roberts / God>

be

<inviting / sexually assaulting / persecuting / hanging out with / following / loving / whispering to>

-- this individual? Aren't there a lot of more dastardly / more productive things s/he could be getting up to??

Don't shut your otherwise healthy scepticism in the closet out of what may be misguided concern for the well-being of a person with problems. At least, that's my own layperson's advice.

.

[info being]

69. Don't you hate it...

when you go to all the trouble of posting something as well-articulated as that, and nobody responds?

I mean, yes, your post could have been a lot more succinct, but well said nonetheless.

[chiburb]

74. Iverglas has a way of shutting people up...

With his intelligent, thoughtful, logical posts. I've seen him "clear the room" before (especially in religious threads), and I look forward to seeing it again.
In other words, I agree with you!

[Q]

43. Is this yet one more subject we're not supposed to even mention?

- It's a pretty long list now. We've also been told by various posters that 'we' look like 'nuts' for discussing Bush's* desertion status...or about election fraud...9-11 or Bush's* lies that pushed this nation into war.

- What else shouldn't we talk about so that we don't look like nutcases to the nutcases?

- I have a better idea. Allow a free flow of information and let the chips fall where they may.

[NNN0LHI]

44. Glad to see your back Q n/t

[Q]

45. Thanks...

...just needed a couple days off to recharge the batteries...so to speak.

[Archae]

51. Have you hit your head jumping to conclusions?

"- It's a pretty long list now. We've also been told by various posters that 'we' look like 'nuts' for discussing Bush's* desertion status...or about election fraud...9-11 or Bush's* lies that pushed this nation into war."

Name JUST ONE DU'er, that has said it's "nuts" for discussing Bush's past record with the TANG, the 2000 election fraud, 9-11 screwups or Bush's lies about Iraq.

Just one.
I haven't.
Because these are LEGITIMATE concerns to nail the Squatter on!

Not wild rumors from those who believe an insane woman.

"- What else shouldn't we talk about so that we don't look like nutcases to the nutcases?"

Ever hear of the phrase, "Don't give ammo to your enemy?"

"- I have a better idea. Allow a free flow of information and let the chips fall where they may."

Sure thing.
Then we should allow any and all of the Freeper disrupters rant and scream too, without any fear of being tombstoned.

[adriennel]

58. this happened to me last week

actually, I responded to a DU post just last week by someone asking "when are we going to stop discussing Bush's actions on the morning of 9/11?" I responded to the effect of "we'll stop talking about Bush's actions on the morning of 9/11 when he stops using 9/11 as his justification for everything from this bougs war to the crackdown on civil liberties and freedom of information". I stand by that statement.

To me, the fact that the President of the United States continued reading a book to school children, then flew around the nation "for his own protection", while the United States was under attack, while thousands of people tragically lost their lives, is NOT leadership. It is cowardice. And I am not going to stop talking about it, because to do so would only help Bush.

Be careful of making generalizations about people, DUers and otherwise.

[qanda]

67. Q...

I really did miss you! I'm glad you decided to stay.

[ElementaryPenguin]

77. Right on, Q!

I for one am not losing a single wink of sleep worrying about what either freepers or mainstream, head-in-the-sand, uninformed America thinks of us DU/Grassy Knoll Club types! Let us proceed with our relentless (and sometimes seemingly ridiculous) pursuit of the truth!

[Cheswick2.0]

46. yup, cause mentally ill women are never raped

:shrug:

and the BFEE wouldn't do anything in their own self iterests.

[Guaranteed]

71. I've worked for a long time

with the mentally ill. Most of them are great, caring people, but many of them are also very delusional. It's odd that a sixty year old woman could believe so strongly that she's pregnant with quintuplets when she hasn't even had sex in years, but, nevertheless, it happens.

Of course it's possible that this lady was raped. But most of the time when you hear this from people with a history of saying these kinds of things, it's not true.

[WoodrowFan]

49. AMEN AMEN AMEN!

AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN!! Tell it Archae! Alas, the DU has it's own crowd of left-wing freepers, willing to believe any ide,a no matter how stupid (Bush killed his babysitter!) because they hate Bush.

[Q]

53. Left wing freepers?

- How do you know it's only 'left-wing' freepers discussing these stories? And why does a discussion of this or any other story equate with 'hating' Bush*? What if people simply want to know the whole truth about Bush* despite all the efforts to coverup his past?

- Your prejudices are showing.

[Classical_Liberal]

50. There is no rule against being a loon or gullible

here. There is also no way to tell if someone is serious or not in an online forum. They might be disrupters. They day we start trying to get people fired, and stalk them and disrupt their speeches is the day we may equal FR, but we happily aren't there yet.

[adriennel]

57. Hatfield

I think some of the buzz around this story stems from the 'suicide' death of "Fortunate Son" author J. Hatfield. Now, I don't know what happened with Hatfield, but I do know the Bush cronies seriously pressured him and the book's publisher to cease and desist. It didn't work. We still have the book but unfortunately we lost Hatfield.I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but from what I've read, his death is a little suspicious.
excellent book, BTW, get your hands on a copy and read immediately!

[info being]

59. I've always thought people here were a little dense

Sorry to say...their hearts are in the right place, but shees.

[ProfessorGAC]

60. I Beg Your Pardon!

People here are a little dense?!? And, you are the grand oracle of what, again? Superior life form to the rest of us cretins?

Sweeping generalizations are bad form by anyone using them. Failing to specify which people is about as sweeping as one can get.

I think you need to reflect on your posts a bit more before you hit "Post Message". Then you won't insult a thousand people when you were thinking about 3 or 4 or 10.
The Professor

[info being]

66. Nah, not 3 or 4...

I mean the general tone. I don't pay attention to avatars so I don't know who its coming from.

I can't figure out whether its all the censorship that leads to this tone or what. It would be interesting to have a "free speech zone" at DU where nothing could be censored and people would get called on their stupid statements.

Just my opinion.

[ProfessorGAC]

68. People Get Called On Stupid Statements All The Time

They just get deleted if the stupid statement is refuted with insults.

But, there are plenty of folks here who challenge opinions on a regular basis. Opinions devoid of facts or sound theory are regularly debunked.

So, your point again was. . . ?

And, you're still generalizing toward any and all who post here. So, you won't respond to that part of my post, why?

See, i told you people will challenge other posters who make unsubstantiated posts!
The Professor

[adriennel]

75. then why are you here?

are you including yourself in the "dense" generalization of DUers?
I'd like to call you out on that stupid statement. What's your education?

[Walt Starr]

62. Who cares what Freepers think?

We have far more open debates than those Bushbots ever have.

If somebody comes up with a theory you disagree with, I suggest you post your opposition.

Fuck what anybody else thinks about how we debate issues on DU.

[incapsulated]

72. Although I think she was mentally ill...

and there is no case against Bush on this one, it is also true that it never stopped the media when it came to Clinton. Or any other powerful Democrat, for that matter.

As for what people believe on DU, it's hardly the first time I've thought that paranoia was overcoming reason. The truth is the further you go to the left or right politically, the more conspiracy theories and paranoia you find.

There is no point arguing with those that believe, though, so I mostly ignore them.

Although, I must admit, there have been a few occasions where I have changed my mind about certain theories, and those "nuts" have been right.

:tinfoilhat:

[criticalwords]

79. What do you expect?

It's the same stupidity that leads them to support Dean!

Absolutely stupid...

...spit.

[CatWoman]

82. hey!!!!!

them's fighting words!!!!!!

[chiburb]

85. Ignore him...

He said the same thing about Clark while praising Shelton.
I DO think though that he should identify himself as an Edwards supporter...

(Gotta love the search function!)