Disturb the Sound of Silence

Silence is golden. Or is it? When a society stays silent in the face of wrong, bad things happen. Consider the Holocaust. Millions of people murdered. Billions turned a blind eye. If you asked those people if they agreed with the philosophies and actions of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich, most would have said no. So, why did they stay silent? To keep their own peace. To keep the ugliness of what was happening there from spilling over into their space. They took the position that it wasn’t their fight. It wasn’t their business. They didn’t want to hear about it, and they certainly felt no responsibility to stop it.

Oh, they vow NOW never to forget. They vow NOW never again. But it is simply too late for those millions of people who paid with their lives – slow and painful deaths in many cases – who watched as their loved ones died, while people remained silent.

Silence in the face of wrong behavior is detrimental on much smaller scales, as well. Consider the matter of incest, or if that offends our senses, an alcoholic parent, someone in a family suffering from an eating disorder, or perhaps someone with a violent temper. There is a stated or unstated agreement that this is private family business and not to be spoken of in public. Too often, though, it also isn’t talked about in private, within the family. The offended feels invalidated, while the offender feels empowered. There are no consequences for their behavior, so why should they not continue? Those who are remiss to speak out actually enable the behavior by creating an environment where these actions can continue. And so they do continue. The consequences play out in the lives of the individuals involved in a variety of ways. The directly offended may become isolated and withdrawn, develop their own inappropriate behaviors as a way of coping or lashing out, or, at the least, it may hinder their ability to develop healthy relationships outside the bounds of the walls holding in their pain. The bystanders don’t learn proper coping skills. They often feel guilt for not intervening, but may not feel that guilt or express their remorse until the situation has spiraled out of control for either the offended or the offender – or both. They wait until they no longer have the ability to do anything about the situation. Ironically, they also often become champions for outside causes, defenders of the underdog, or those unable to speak for themselves, even becoming involved in preventing the same behavior that has found residence within their own family. The offender, not having learned that certain behaviors are unacceptable will continue, often escalating thus giving themselves even more grandiose feelings of power – both imaginary and real, as they master the art of manipulation utilizing their weapon of choice. In the case of eating disorders and other self destructive behaviors, the consequences for the offender can be life long struggles and ultimately early death.

Silence can also be destructive to other types of group dynamics. Consider these quotes from Eviatar Zerubavel in his book, The Elephant in the Room:

“Silence, as the saying goes, is consent. By remaining silent about wrong behavior we normalize it, essentially enhancing its perpetuation by implicitly encouraging potential offenders to regard it as morally acceptable.”

“By enabling such collective denial, conspiracies of silence prevent us from confronting, and consequently solving, our problems…”

“Co-ignoring the elephant in the room requires a major collaborative effort on everyone’s part and is therefore socially exhausting. Not surprisingly, it can also generate a lot of tension. Indeed, the thicker the silence, the deeper the tension that builds around it.”

“Thus, ironically, partly in an effort to preserve group solidarity, conspiracies of silence often undermine that very solidarity by impending the development of honest, trusting relations that presupposes open communication. Indeed, in an attempt to “protect” groups, they often make them become somewhat dysfunctional.”




Hmm. The elephant in the room …

A perfect analogy for what is – or rather what is not happening in the anti-KK community right now. There is a member of that group who has once again contacted others with the intent of riling emotions and stirring up discontent directed at one or more other members of the group. It has been brought to our attention. It has been documented and her behavior has been publicly challenged. Yet the group remains silent, ignoring the elephant in the room. It certainly isn’t a lack of awareness. The hundreds of hits to my blog attest to the that. Solidarity is being damaged, not by the open charge of misconduct as some would claim, rather by a willingness to sacrifice that solidarity and trust by allowing this misconduct to continue unchecked and without confrontation.

It is like hearing the banging of the headboard and muffled cries behind the closed door, yet rolling over in your own bed, burying your head in the pillow to muffle the sounds so you can get to sleep, undisturbed.

Honestly, I simply don’t understand this. It really seems that people are willing to sacrifice the one (or the few) in order to keep peace in their own little space. What happens when they come for you?

Yucky, I feel so very bad that you seem to have been deemed to be an acceptable target. You say it doesn’t matter, but I know better. It matters, because YOU matter.

Silence like a cancer grows …


(edited to add: You, as an individual, know if this applies to you. If it doesn't, it doesn't. If you aren't sure, ask an objective friend.)

Same Song, Second Verse, A Little Bit Louder and A Little Bit Worse

What a fun camp song that is ... Same song, second verse ... a little bit louder and a little bit worse. Not so fun in this instance, though.

Remember this post? I truly thought that Mayberryfan had learned and grown from that experience. I thought wrong.

I would like to challenge this statement you made, Mayberryfan, on the Fascination with Kimmer thread at Low Carb Friends:
"I decided to poke a little fun at my blog because this fiasco reminds me of someone we all know. However, I didn't accuse anyone."

First of all, I hardly call your blog post "poking a little fun". I'm really sure that the comment you posted to that same post - you know, the one addressed to Ellen - was not meant as fun at all. You know the one where she said she didn't understand the double talk and innuendo. To refresh your memory, here is your reply in its entirety: "I suspect you're well aware of what's going on, "ellen". In any case, we can agree on one thing - this is worse than high school.

May I suggest you get your head out of your locker, then and keep up?"

I take it you didn't believe her name is Ellen. That wasn't just poking a little fun, was it.

Before I cover this next point, I'd like to address Jo. Jo, I hear you are unhappy with having your name attached to any of this. I will say in going back and reading the sequence of the posts on the FWK thread that you were the first to respond to Jill with a comment assuring her "we" knew it wasn't her. For the record, the only reason I mentioned you at all was that you were, in fact, the first person to reassure Jill that "we" knew she hadn't done it. I also allowed my past experiences to color my judgment. In fairness to you, there is no reason for me or anyone else to draw the conclusion that you were speaking for anyone other than yourself, nor attribute any more or any less meaning to that statement than can be attributed to most of those who penned similar sentiments. I sincerely apologize for making an inference that has no basis in fact.

I do, however, want to address the complaint that has been passed on to me that you resent being associated with trouble, particularly trouble that involves YustYucky. There are reasons for that, and one of those reasons is as Mayberryfan stated: guilt by association. It is true that we are known by the company we keep. I could say more about this, but I will only say that Jo, from this preachy blogger's point of view, if you don't want to be associated with attempting to stir up trouble, refrain from making disparaging remarks about people to others. The Internet walls have ears and those remarks have a way of coming full circle.

Speaking of making disparaging remarks, back to Mayberryfan. The second part of your statement, "However, I didn't accuse anyone." deserves a closer look. I guess the best way I can say this is you are, my dear, a liar.

Did you or did you not say the words, "When I first saw the controversy, I knew Yucky had done this and so did the other LCF'ers who gather at my forum. NO DOUBT. " (See that guilt by association thing, Jo?)

Like I said - same song, second verse. A little bit louder and a little bit worse.

Do I think you were the original anonymous poster on Nancy's blog? Don't know. Do I believe you were the anonymous poster who claimed to be a "paid sleuth"? Don't know that either - but whoever that is would be working for Heidi. She's the only one hiring. At the very least you have made a very concerted effort to arouse the passions of the anti-KK community against Yucky. After what you tried to pull with Trista, and after finding you doing the very same thing in this instance, I would not be the least bit surprised to discover that you have orchestrated this entire charade. What I am surprised about is how deft you are at pulling this bs behind the scenes while loudly declaring your innocence out for all to hear.

Let's hope there isn't Same song, third verse ...

A Message for Mayberryfan … Imagine

Sigh. I have intentionally ignored this entire situation because it just hasn’t been worthy of a response, nor worthy of the time it takes away from the real things I have going on. But, alas, now I must respond.

Imagine, if you would, a certain lawsuit principal receiving a private message asking her if she was aware of how her ex-husband happened to stick his nose into the whole KK mess, and how she would be very unhappy if she did know.

Now, imagine that principal receiving an email telling her that this blogger, as well as the Yucky blogger and the Medusa blogger had actually initiated contact with that same ex-husband while investigating HER (the principal). Imagine, just for a moment, that principal did not know this blogger he had dialoged with nor was she fully aware of all contacts this blogger had with her ex-husband in real-time. Imagine all she knew was that he tried to intimidate her and manipulate the people in this matter to meet his own ends. Imagine that lawsuit principal being told that this same ex-husband, whom at one time she actually feared, had likely been given personal information about her by these bloggers.

Imagine that this lawsuit principal had not been aware of her ex-husband’s real agenda in the whole affair, and imagine that her legal business with him had not come to the conclusion they both had sought and that the door to her relationship with him had not been closed forever. Imagine that he still wants something from her.

Can you imagine the fear that could potentially have gripped her heart? Can you imagine the angst and anger that would have boiled up in her, directed at these three bloggers who had intentionally contacted this man who held such a painful position in her past? Can you imagine how that fear might have driven her into hiding - and right OUT of the lawsuit?

Luckily for this particular lawsuit principal she DOES know this blogger. She DOES know all of the circumstances surrounding her ex-husband’s interjection into this whole affair. She is NOT any longer afraid of him. And she also knows that the lead attorney in the class action lawsuit of which she is a principal was fully apprised of the situation AS IT UNFOLDED, including the true identity of the blogger involved.

Mayberryfan, enough is enough. The fact you involved an innocent party in your vendetta speaks volumes about you. When you posted on various message boards, impersonating Kimmer, you likely crossed a legal line. This time you are really close to intimidating a witness. I HAVE the emails you sent to this particular lawsuit principal. I also have her replies. Other lawsuit principals have been alerted to this tactic that you now seem intent on employing. Your lies and manipulations are going to do nothing but continue to backfire on you. Your reputation is shot. Do you really believe anyone can trust you after what you have done, and continue to do? If they do, they certainly do so at their own risk. You not only tried to scare the wits out of this particular principal, you told bold face lies in your attempt to do so. I must say, reading that email made me immediately think of Heidi and how she so coolly and easily twists the truth and outright fabricates scenarios to suit her purpose.

You didn't lie? Well, here are just a few examples, all of which you can find in your own copies of those emails:

You have NOT left the Fascinated board. You log on there almost every single day.

The matter of Yucky’s blog post and conversations with Christin on her blog - that was not the result of any great investigation. It was a matter of public knowledge. On top of that, it wasn’t Christin’s fundraiser, it was Jimmy Moore’s for her benefit. And she wasn’t trying to put together the cruise. She was promoting the cruise that IS going to happen, btw (for more information, please check here.

Martina’s Martini showed up on the scene before any of us on LCF or anywhere for that matter were even aware this lawsuit principal HAD an ex-husband. Lucky for me this has all been established unequivocally. In fact, I learned who Martina’s Martini was from John T, via one of the other lawsuit principals. Too bad you didn’t believe Kat. She told you the truth. I guess she must be part of this big reckless pursuit of anyone even remotely connected to the Kimkins scandal, as you say.

You couldn’t possibly be referring to your own public treatment and ‘investigation” into the Luper family, or Sam Redman, could you? Oh, of course not. Calling people scammers and pedophiles without anything to substantiate those claims doesn’t count, right? There are others. Would you like me to point you to your own comments to prove my point?

The disagreement I had with you had nothing to do with Martina’s Martini showing up on the scene. It had to do with your public chastising of Yucky for her questioning of Christin and her motives - long after Martina’s Martini had faded into distant memory. It had to do with you being a hypocrite. It had to do with the fact that you have shouted down countless people on the FWK threads, you have slandered people way beyond the scope of any “investigation” or legitimate questioning as to whether they have any connection to the KK matter. And yet you had the unmitigated gall to call out Yucky for asking sincere questions. Those questions, by the way, lead to REAL dialog and a true friendship being forged between her and Christin. That must just torment you.

In fact, the big brouhaha, as you called it, that you “left” Fascinated over had to do with a post that you swear I plagiarized of someone you happen to call a friend (who’s pleas to let this drop you have simply refused to honor, in true friend fashion of course). Do you not see the hypocrisy, once again? The post that I “stole” was “stolen” from Kimkins.con. It wasn’t your friend’s, nor her “mole’s” property to start with. So you have been busy trying to discredit me for stealing stolen material. I’m not real sure why you don’t GET THAT. Oh, and the little so many hours and minutes ago tags at the top of those posts? They are put there by the Kimkins.con server, not your friend. And for the record, your friend NEVER attempted to contact me in regards to this matter. Nor did anyone else, for that matter. Your cryptic comment on my blog was just too clever. I didn’t get it.

You seem to reserve your ire over “copying” material for special circumstances, eh? Only those cases that don’t involve one of your favorite personalities. To quote someone I read recently, “Geez, there are some real nit-pickers in this world.” Oh, I guess that was you.

Oh, and I can’t speak for Medusa or Yucky, but I’ll tell you what I told Sam Redman. I’m not interested in writing a book about all this, though I do think it would be an interesting read.

You want to expose my identity? Go for it. If it is all that important to you, try. Of course, you will have to prove it, too. And Lord help you if you are wrong. But before you do, ask yourself this question: Just who, besides Heidi, would benefit from knowing that information? If helping Heidi doesn’t matter to you - or is your goal - then you just go for it.

Whose side are you on in this matter, anyway? From where I sit, it looks like you are on YOUR side.

For the sake of this lawsuit - STOP.