Hypocrisy and Anonymity

Since the I did the post on the P-Blog Drama, I've gotten more anonymous comments than I have in the past year. The real irony is that the vast majority of anonymous comments have either been asking for personal information from P-Momma, or posting personal information themselves. So, I've just started deleting all anonymous comments.

Apparently, a bunch of people who suffer from cranial rectal inversion disorder just don't get it. When you ask for personal information, it's really fuckin' hypocritical to ask it as an "anonymous" commenter, or with a quickly made Gmail account so you can't be easily identified.

Now, I'm going to drop into the world of conjecture, since this is a rant. So, you wanna know what I think is the reason why I've gotten anonymous comments, or names that don't link to anyone? They're scared.

They keep asking me and P-Momma to prove her innocence, forgetting that it's their responsibility to prove her guilt when they are the ones who made the allegations. They've dug themselves so deep into a hole that the only way they can get out is to keep digging until they reach China. If they had proof P-Momma had done everything they say, all they would have had to do is link to it. However, every link they've sent to me has been so full of holes that they completely ignore it in their next comment or email, and move onto something else that they think proves their case.

Then, they claim that not being able to find the obituary for P-Momma's relative proves that he doesn't exist. That's a crock. For one, Google can't find everything. If I Google Princess's real name, I don't get any hits for her. Of course, that doesn't mean she doesn't exist. She went to high school, college, became an RN, and now works at a hospital. Google can be amazingly helpful, but it can't find everything. If it could, maybe the ones making this claim could Google themselves up a brain and an argument.

The most irritating part is the plethora of claims being made. If you debunk one, they move onto another without missing a beat. They keep claiming "one more" piece of evidence, until you start thinking that they just can't count past one.

They say, "I think Penn Mommy is P-Momma's sockpuppet." You say prove it, and they claim they can't. Perhaps there could be a reason why they can't prove it. Hmmm... Maybe, P-Momma is telling the truth!

If the sockpuppet charge doesn't work, they move onto "What about the Munchausen Booklist"? A look at the booklist shows two books on Munchausens. You point out that 2 books out of 32 doensn't support their claim, and you've also never heard of someone with a psychological disorder studying their own illness. Not to mention that she isn't a Mormon (3 books), isn't a descendant of the Donner family (1 book), isn't a wilderness doctor (1 book), and doesn't have any feral children (1 book).

So sockpuppet and the booklist are debunked, what else can they throw out? Next comes the personal information. Name, address, attempts at phone numbers (sorry, they haven't got it right, yet), LiveJournal profile, and her high school webpage. You point out that just proves that she exists (duh).

If you don't find any of that convincing, they bring up her geneology, and point out that Penn Mommy doesn't show up on it. Then, you point out that the tree only shows her father's side of the family, but Penn Mommy is on her mother's side (a cousin).

Then, they bring up that P-Momma said something on a private message board. You ask for evidence, and they give you cut/paste text. When you ask for them to let you see the message board, they say it's a private message board for members only.

After that, they go silent. I find it really fuckin' ironic that I asked for them to let me see the message board for myself, but they've never responded. They've thrown so much private information out there that it wouldn't surprise me to see a chart of P-Momma's DNA in a comment or my email (from an anonymous source, of course). Yet, they don't have the guts to let me see what P-Momma said in her own words.

When I first started looking into this, I had trouble figuring out what was going on. People were making so many claims that it almost seemed they were sometimes contradicting themselves. Then, I started asking questions. Instead of answering, they started sending me things that did absolutely nothing to prove their claims.

Now, I've come realize why they can't prove P-Momma's guilt. They don't know what the hell is going on either, but they need a scapegoat.

Want to read more?

Summary only...

Trying to Clear It Up

Since Calladus and I started asking for evidence of the allegations against P-Momma, I've done some looking around at other places on the internet. There are some things I want to address to make sure everyone understands the situation.

1. This is not an example of Christian vs. Atheist.
I realize that many of us unbelievers have seen a disturbing pattern, but I could find no evidence that this was the cause of this fiasco. I found only one mention of P-Momma's atheism in a post from those making the accusations, and only three in the comments. Trying to bring it into the mix is a red herring and non-sequitur. That's why I haven't addressed it, at all.

2. Why am I defending P-Momma?
For one, she's a friend. The allegations made against her are serious, and since people are attempting to drag a friend through the mud I took it upon myself to deal with it.

3. Why isn't P-Momma dealing with it herself?
Perhaps she trusts friends like Calladus and I with her back, so to speak. This ordeal blindsided her, and she didn't know what was going on. She called me in a panic, and I'm the one who locked her blog. If everyone will notice on my last post concerning this, she even left a couple of comments herself (which one commenter seemed to miss).

Of course, there's also the issue of those who are making the allegations not listening to what she has to say, or even letting her defend herself. On their blog, they aren't even letting us defend her. They're more intent on "get[ting] back to business and mov[ing] forward". Sorry, but they've made some serious claims and they need to prove it.

4. What will it take to prove the allegations?
Well, I'm a skeptic. The greater the claim, the greater the evidence needed to prove it. It took a while for people to actually get the idea and start giving me links to the claims. Before that, all of the links were to hearsay, or a forum from those making the claims. The problem is that none of the links that were finally provided did anything to back up their claims. If anything, it seemed that they were so desperate to be right that they were grasping at anything that might come close to giving them a reason.

Okay, now I'm going to review the evidence that was shown to me:

1. The "Munchausen's Booklist": That was just pathetic. Two books out of thirty-two, and that was supposed to somehow support the allegations. Further, I'd love to find out if anyone with a psychological disorder actually studies it while they aren't being treated for it. (FYI, the claim that she's doing all this for research for a TV show smells of desperation)

2. The P-Family Tree: This one I got via email. They claimed that P-Momma's distant relative didn't exist, because it didn't show up in her lineage on Geneology.com. Unfortunately, the research they did was on her dad's line, and the distant relative in question is from her mom's side. Yet, they still said "THEY DO NOT EXIST PERIOD!"

3. P-Momma's LiveJournal Profile: Supposedly if she claims a group as friends, then she must be one of them. I find that interesting because that would also mean she's an ex-mormon. [sarcasm]Damn it... She lied again. She's been saying she was Catholic [/sarcasm]

4. Something she said on a private board: Well, since it's private, I can't read it. They sent me a cut/paste, but I'm not taking that as evidence. That doesn't prevent quote mining, taking things out of context, or even just typing everything up from scratch the way you want it to be.

5. P-Momma's Sockpuppetry: There's been some talk of P-Momma sockpuppeting, but no evidence other than hearsay about some IP addresses. Considering the claims bein made, and the number of people who didn't use their own account, or even a name (I got more anonymous comments in that post than I have since I've been blogging) I find that deeply ironic. The really funny thing is that also went for the email. Granted, the person making the claim does not have any effect on the claim itself, but I find it hypocritical that those so willing to publish the information on P-Momma were so reluctant to let me know who they actually were.

Basically, I'm to the point of getting pissed. No one making the claims is willing to back it up. They even wanted me to do the legwork for them, in quite a few cases. Now, it seems they just want to drop it. Unless they want to type up a full retraction of the allegations, then they'd better back them up with evidence.

Want to read more?

Summary only...

Catching Up

I'm collecting a list of people who want to view P-Momma's blog if she ever starts blogging again. I'll also use it as something to forward to her, in case she wants to get in touch with anyone. So, if you're interested, email me and I'll put you on it.

Also, I've updated my commenting policy to include a block of anonymous comments. You can make it your name, your pets name, a random series of letters and numbers, or even the barcode from a box of Cheerios. I don't realy care.

Want to read more?

Summary only...

Comment Moderation Enabled

I've had to implement comment moderation, because I keep getting comments giving out information that some may not want on the World Wide Web. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Want to read more?

Summary only...

P-Blog Drama

Okay, here's the story as I've heard it.

P-Momma has been linked to some comments made on another blog, because a distant relative stayed with P-Momma for a while. The relative used P-Momma's internet connection, and made some comments on that blog.

Well, here's P-Momma's side of the story:
[quote removed at P-Momma's request. Basically, you can read what she told them on their blog, but they say it she's lying.]

Well, I did a bit of back checking. On the blog that made the accusations, the first mention of P-Momma's blog was in this post.

Now, you'll have to forgive some incomplete information, because they don't provide links to some past details and I haven't had time to see if I can find them.

In that first post, that references P-Momma, they don't actually call her by name. However, as someone who's a frequent visitor, and moderator/author, to her blog I recognized the references. If you visit the link, you can find out everything they said, but there was one part that got my attention.

Reading through this woman’s blog, she appears at times to be fairly normal. The subject of the blog, incidentally, is one that is certainly incongruous with the persona that Penn Mommy presented – this blogger is a fervent atheist (which made me a bit queasy, considering how many times PM and “William” entreated posters to pray for “Jason”). She appears to have issues with certain choices the Gosselins have made - possibly their religious devotion and the fact that they chose to have multiples. This may explain how she became involved in the Gosselin blogosphere and made the decision to create Penn Mommy.
[emphasis mine]

I'll leave out the "poisoning the well" concerning her atheism, because the part that struck me is in bold. I checked P-Momma's blog, since I still have access, and I could only find one post that even referenced the Gosselins in passing. There were only two posts that referred to Jon and/or Kate. The first is the one previously linked, and the other is about someone else named Kate. Granted, P-Momma didn't agree with Jon and Kate, but one post doesn't imply the obsession that the other blogger implies.

Then, in another post they make a tenuous connection to P-Momma, and spin a conspiracy theory out of it. I tried to make a comment there, but it never made it through moderation. They've even made statements about IP addresses, but haven't backed it up. Although, someone actually gave me phone numbers. IP addresses, while traceable, aren't as much of an invasion of privacy as a phone number.

Well, I did a phone number check, on two sites (here and here), and actually found a name for one of them. It definitely wasn't P-Momma, and none of the phone numbers were the one that I have for her.

The first number the anonymous commenter gave me just kept ringing. The second number didn't have anyone in the household that went online (plus the P-Family isn't hispanic), and the third is a disconnected/not in service number. The one phone number I did contact thanked me for letting them know. Know how I found all that out? I actually called them instead of just putting them online for the world to see, and saying they were involved in some sort of drastic conspiracy theory.

Now, following all of this is difficult, because the accusing blogger doesn't use links to support what they say. The only things they link to are the main websites, and screen captures that they took themselves. Apparently, they've never heard of Google Cache. (Hint: That's how you can still read the posts that I linked to from P-Momma's now invite-only blog.) Their evidence, besides the IP addresses, Bakersfield, and the "phone numbers". Well, they say that a comment was made on their blog from the same IP address, which P-Momma tried to explain above, and that there are similar postings between P-Momma and her supposed sockpuppet.

One is about a cease and desist posting by P-Momma, and another about a cease and desist the supposed sockpuppet had received (They didn't link to it, so I'm not sure where to find it). They insinuate that this means both bloggers must be the same one, but they ignore two other possibilities. The first could be simple coincidence, or the supposed sockpuppet could have actually faked it and gotten the idea from reading P-Momma's blog. Neither one of those actually incriminates P-Momma, though.

Then, there's P-Momma's postings about P3's appendicitis. You read P-Momma's account in the quote at the beginning, but I noticed something that the accusers had on their blog.

On this particular blog, the poster states that her five-year old daughter had recently been stricken with appendicitis. The name and age of the daughter are identical to that mentioned in an email from "William" that mentions the girl as a second cousin who is also ill with appendicitis.

Ummm... Doesn't that support P-Momma's explanation?

Basically, unless they can give some better evidence, the only way you'd buy it is to put on a tin-foil hat. Ironically, they won't even let P-Momma explain. Here's Guinevere's decision concerning P-Momma.

We are not posting comments from the woman who calls herself Possummomma/Penn Mommy. Nor comments that quote her words on her other blog. We're not trying to stifle discussion, but we've decided that we do not want to give her a voice. All she has done so far is lie, and it's caused a lot of harm.
[emphasis mine]

Well, they are not only not giving her a voice, but I haven't seen one other comment on their blog being skeptical of P-Momma's involvement. Perhaps it's coincidental, but I do find it suspicious. Especially since the comment I left never made it through moderation.

According to the same comment that included the phone numbers, P-Momma also has several sockpuppets. Including "Bananabethana, pennmommy, Corinne, BK, and who knows who else are all her sockpuppets. David is another." I'll bet that'll be a surprise to Bethanna who's emailed me and I compared her IP address to P-Momma's. Sorry, that didn't check out. As far as the others, they'll have to do better than "they all live in Bakersfield". Bethanna is a neighbor, and I found a post (which I won't link to since it included names) where David talks about actually knowing P-Momma outside of cyberspace. Considering how many people I chatted with via email during the fundraising effort, P-Momma has no shortage of online friends who actually know her in real life too.

Basically, what it boils down to is the folks at GDNNOP forget that what they're doing isn't just something that stops when you shut down your computer for the night. There are real people out there that your actions affect. Since it was an anonymous comment, I have no idea who left those phone numbers. However, doing so before verifying that the phone numbers where of people actually involved (let alone people that wanted their phone numbers put onto the fucking WORLD WIDE web) was just idiotic.

Before you make accusations, start giving out people's real names and phone numbers, and spreading crap around you'd better make damn sure that what you are saying is the truth. I honestly don't care what PennMommy said on their blog or any other. What I care about is that they involved a friend of mine, and called her a liar, fraud, and con artist.

That's where they crossed the line. P-Momma's life is difficult enough without a bunch of prima donnas who worship a "reality" TV show making it worse.

Want to read more?

Summary only...

P-Momma's Blog

I've received several emails concerning P-Momma's blog being changed to invite only. The truth is, she's possibly going to quit blogging entirely. There's been some recent drama, again. It could be the last straw.

I'm planning on doing a post about it, but I'm having to wait until I have the time. Just keep checking back, and I'll hopefully have it posted, soon.

Want to read more?

Summary only...

What is Good?

The hardest thing about debating is the terms used. The word theory comes to mind. In common vernacular its meaning is closer to hypothesis, than what the word means in a scientific context.

Then, there are the words that are purely subjective. Ask any person what that particular word means, and you're likely to get a different definition from each person. Also, there's the circular definitions of words, such as "good" being "right" being "good". Which brings us to why I'm writing this post.

On a post from another blog I got into a discussion with MInTheGap (it's a way down in the comments). I won't go into too much detail, but one of the points he brought up was:

The point is that you have to nail down what is “good”– how is it defined? What does it mean? Can “good” change?

Considering debates I've had and seen, this is a very important point. I have seen people imply that you can't be good without being a Christian, and also people saying that there would be no such thing as good if there was no God. I'm not going to belabor either of those points though. Instead, I'm going to try to come up with a definition of good.

First, a good action has to do with its effect. That effect is on you and everyone else. All actions have either a positive, neutral, or negative effect. A positive is a benefit, a neutral is no change, and a negative is a detriment.

In order for it to be "good", the action must have a positive effect on someone. If the action is non-negative, but has no benefits for anyone, then it's a neutral effect and makes no change whatsoever. It isn't helping anyone.

We are left with the action needing to have a positive effect on someone. Of course, the larger the number of people it benefits, the more "good" the action is. However, what if the action only benefits the person performing it? Even if the action has a neutral effect on everyone else, it is not necessarily a "good" action. That action is egocentric, and effects the fewest number of people possible without having completely neutral effect.

*Further, what about a good action that has a negative effect on someone else? For instance, if you were to try to correct a negative effect against someone (the victim(s) of a crime) then the person who caused the negative effect (the criminal) may suffer a negative effect (incarceration). However, correcting that action gains a positive effect for those who suffered the original negative effect. So, you can think of it as the negative against the punished person is canceled out by their negative effect against the person they victimized.*

So, in order for an action to be "good" it must:

1. Have a non-negative effect on everyone.


2. Have a positive effect on someone.


3. Not apply a positive effect only to the person performing the action.


4. *If it does have a negative effect on someone, that effect must be to counter a negative effect that someone caused before.*

If anyone is interested in discussing this, please leave a comment. I've started becoming very interested in philosophy, recently, and the subject of the subjectivity of "good" has been something I've been thinking about for a while.

So, if you have anything to add, even if it's just agreement, let me know.

(Note: *...* means edited to add on Oct. 2, 2008)

Want to read more?

Summary only...