Topic : 01/01 Revenge of the Exes

I watched the show, and even though it seemed pretty clear that Dr. Phil and the audience were leaning toward Todd Hollis's point of view, for an officer of the court, I thought he acted and sounded surprisingly unreasonable and juvenile.  

I can understand him being frustrated and upset, but it seems obvious to me that he hasn't spent a lot of time litigating a case before an actual judge, or he would know that talking over the top of somebody like an uneducated bully isn't going to win him any points.  Any validity to his argument was lost by his poor communication skills, lack of professionalism and scare tactics.

I think the suit is frivolous on its merits, what few were presented.  Sticks and stones, Todd.  If you were truly worried about future employers Googling your name, you have only succeeded in calling more unfavorable attention to yourself by going on Dr. Phil and posturing as a victim.  In my opinion, you weren't credible. 

As far as the argument that Tasha is the editor of the web page and is liable to compensate Todd monetarily for what members of her website have posted, I think that's just bull.  I think it would be REALLY irresponsible for a court to set that kind of precedent.  Can you imagine the caseloads in our already backlogged judicial system? 

Disclaimer:  This posting is my opinion pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.   

I am not for Tasha, or against her. I am not for Todd, or against him. I am for truth, justice, and  gift with purchase.

(Hands on hips shouting DO DO DOOOOOOOOO)

My husband is Australian, and they (generally speaking, of course, cannot offend even one Aussie, god forbid) are so laid back they are practically unconscious. Being indignant requires energy so it has to be something extraordinarily important to him, personally, to make an eye lid even flicker.

Age of consent here is 14.

That only applies in criminal cases. It wouldn't bother me a bit  because the people that matter already know what the truth is. Those that don't know me will believe whatever they want, and finally anyone that believes anything just because they see it on the internet is an idiot, and they don't matter anyway.

      My husband left me and our two children for another woman. Was I hurt? You bet. Angry too. I'm human, what can I say. After that passed what I would have liked most was to have maybe 15 minutes with her to let her hear about the other side of her "prince charming" without the "she's just bitter he left her" defense. I'm not talking about "he doesn't bring me flowers or do the grocery shopping" type of complaints. What I would like to let her know is that for every hour spent talking to you ( before he walked out) he told his kids to go away and not bother him, to the point where they were reluctant to even approach him and ask him anything. You got compliments and sweet words, we got insults (me and our kids). You got long conversations, we got yelled at. He'll spend time with you, on the few occasions where he spent time with us, he made it clear through words and actions that he'd rather be elsewhere. Why did I stay with him? I look back and have no idea. He wasn't like this at first and it took some serious counselling for me to come to grips with how badly we were treated.

     Maybe that's what this web site is about. Having the chance to warn other women what their prince charming is really like under the mask. To hear the other side of the story. For any of those who feel compelled to point out that when my husband left, he only left me and not our children...they now have a father who rarely calls, never for more than a few minutes, and constantly cancels his visits with one excuse after another. I just wish I could ask her, is this the type of man you want in your life?

I was the recipient of a revenge type assault on my reputation long story, here is the short version:

My ex stalked.  I found a wonderful group of supportive people online at a much publicized message board, founded by and promoting an author.  A group of us were talking of setting up a nonprofit.  I wondered about a few of the people involved, specifically the two most gung-ho and wanting control.  One seemed to be who he said he was, although he was not very disclosing, and that was troublesome.  The other one, well, she was a legend in her own mind.

I let the others know what I had learned.  We searched together and found more.  We opted out, and went back to the well-known stalking support site, for personal support and to give back and help others.

The two people we had doubts about followed us there, and went balistic, flame war ensued.  We asked and asked the moderators / the author for help, to stop it.  The author advertises her message baord as moderated (one time a stalker posted his victim's name and address, and it took us many emails, many phone calls, and over 24 hours to get the victim's info off the bboard), and had little luck.  I and several others wrote to the individual board members, and still no help....

A month or two later, a man who had published a little, mostly on online "peer reviewed" publications, and coauthored computer books, came on and came at us.  He denigrated us, made convoluted arguments, name called and then quickly modified his posts, and grew close to the two people we left, angry that we had opted out.  The "researcher" and the disgruntled joined forces.  The researcher threatened the popular stalking bboard with a law suit - poof! his posts, which did much to show the real man, were gone.

We moved on.  A couple months later, the "researcher" published an article about reactive stalking.  His slant - us stalking victims had reactively stalked the two people we had exposed.  No, we had exposed them simply amongst ourselves, and in self-defense on the public bboard in answer to specific attacks.  He got the article published in a little known journal, online, and the journal touts "peer review". 

The article claimed we had (by talking just with ourselves, not posting anything except to refute the two's claims) stalked the two people.  We simply opted out and stood up for ourselves.

When a copy of the article showed up at the National Crime Victims' Center, we were very hurt.  We felt re-victimized.  The name of the article is "Reactive stalking: a new perspective on victimisation" and is at findarticles, FYI  NCVC took the article down after I talked with them by phone, but the person I talked with said, "But it was peer reviewed....".

We contacted Jayne Hitchcock at WHOA, as we respected her.  The "researcher" had cited her as a supporter, to give himself credibility.  Also, in the middle of the attacks against us at the stalking bboard, the man had also denigrated her, one of us emailed the comment to her, and she directly answered him.  Boy, did he backpeddle fast.  So she knew the man.  She basically told us to go away.

And on and on.  See how convoluted this grows?

I thought I had been realistic about the web.  I thought I took people with a grain of salt.  But, in my experience, the same chickening out and political thought processes happen online.  and I seemed to have forgotten that.

I have three jobs and a real life.  So do the other REAL victims in this story.  We certainly do not have time to campaign against someone.  We certainly do not have the inclination, either.  Life is too short.

I understand the feelings of wanting revenge.  But people that take that too far may be the ones who are more screwed up than the people that messed with them in the first place.  At least, in a self-sufficency or self care way.

And, remember, online is the perfect place to be a legend in your own mind.

And peer review means nothing.  A bunch of jerks can peer review another jerk's piece.

And people with fragile egos ar narcissitic inclinations, can and do use the limitations of online to assault others.

I am not speaking to any situation talked about above, only to my own crappy experience.