Roy, I am so sorry for doing that, "When did you stop beating your wife?" thing to you. I meant my question sincerely, neither cruelly nor sarcastically. I do not mean to impugn your character. You seem perfectly nice, and I think we may even agree about the Gosselins. I have no desire to scare away a kindred spirit!
I directed my question to you because I read an exchange above about 'claims' being just claims, and it raised this question in my mind. I can't be specific with people in your life because I don't know you. I actually don't mean to be specific. I actually mean, "In general, do you treat all claims equally, or do you generally consider the source as bearing on the validity of a claim?"
To show my good faith, I will answer for myself and say that I do consider the source. I treat liars' claims as suspect. I never assume anyone is lying to me, though. But if I know they lie then I dismiss their asserions until other proof is produced. How about you?
nomoredrama: I just read your exchange at the Moon blog. You clearly state that the IP's match. If you were inclined to post that information on the blog, how could you prove that it was PM's IP anyway? Isn't it just a number? If I were to "trace" it, wouldn't I just get "Bakersfield" and wouldn't that be information from when PM was supposedly hacking into PM's account anyway?
No offense taken, Saint. Here's the thing: we all know we're talking about the PM/Possum/Gosselin situation. But, since none of us know them - the sources - personally (at least I don't and I don't think anyone else does), the claims of inside information and refutations of the same are all in the realm of "I don't know."
What I have observed is each "side" willing to believe what fits their agenda.
To take it a step further, certain people have made a connection that is tenuous at best: if PM is fraud and a concoction, then everything she said about the Gosselins is also a fraud.
I don't see that as an entirely logical conclusion. She had some kind of information that made people believe her until the fraud was exposed. The information, whatever it is, was enough to prove credibility to a point. So, does the fact that PM was discredited completely discredit the information she must have gained and shared to make people believe her?
No one knows Kate personally, yet her words, which are on tape and available for anyone to use for comparisons, are taken at face value.
So, to sum up: the sources have agendas, the readers have agendas and the two are not often the same. I would be more inclined to be concerned about the objective. But that's just me.
"She had some kind of information that made people believe her until the fraud was exposed. The information, whatever it is, was enough to prove credibility to a point."
Roy I am sorry, I just don't buy it. This information was extracted from blogs. People will say what they want to make their point. Just because PM was able to read the volumes of crap that is out there and spit it back out on her blog doesn't mean any of it was credible to begin with.
She had some kind of information that made people believe her until the fraud was exposed. The information, whatever it is, was enough to prove credibility to a point. So, does the fact that PM was discredited completely discredit the information she must have gained and shared to make people believe her?
No, she didn't have information to make her credible up to a point. Not if she lives in California and has never met the Gosselins and is an entirely different person. How could she? Are we on the same page about Penn Mommy? She's a sockpuppet of a real person with no connection to the Gosselins (by her own defense.) She made up her information.
She convinced people because she is a skillfull liar. Her claims should be dismissed.
Claims aren't just claims. Some claims are more. Some are libel.
By the way, your assertion that people believe what fits their agenda is generally true. We see it all over the Gosselin blogs. It was true of me when I believed Penn Mommy, but I have absolutely no trouble at all believeing she is another person, a congenital liar at that, and dismissing everything she says, based on a ton of evidence. I'd have no trouble at all believing that a call was made to a particular agency on ANYONE controversial, understanding that calls are just calls and often determined to be based on faulty information. I just haven't seen such a claim about the Gosselins from anyone except a woman who has been shown to invent a dying son among other lies.
In other words: in the case of the Gosselins, there is no claim. There is a account known to be fiction. That's different.
She made statements about information that certain people wanted so badly to be true.
If you are referring to Julie, well she would have agreed with just about anything to make her case.
I know the Gosselins have faults. So do I. When I read on the ABC board the comments about Jon attending school and a social worker on set since last winter, I could have ran with that and posted an article. I could have left a comment on that board asking that person to contact me and asking if we could reprint the comment (sound familiar?). But I didn't because I know in today's internet world to take most of this information with a grain of salt.
I wish people would have done that with Penn Mommy. Had a little restraint. Not encouraged her. How did that site assist in GWoP's advocay mission?
This is what people don't get about most of us over here. If you want to advocate for the chidren, great. It is the method and motivation that is truely upsetting.
Roy, You said, "What I am saying, Nina, is she must have had information that made people believe she was a volunteer, an "insider." Why do you say must? Do you mean that she must have said something to Julie, the only known insider, to convince her she was the real deal? Well Julie herself said she didn't know her, they only communicated by email, and that PM shared the same experiences with the Gosselins as her. PM parrotted back to Julie what Julie told her and the blog world. That's not insider information. PM repeated what she read or she made it up.
You just said above, "What I have observed is each "side" willing to believe what fits their agenda." I think Julie also believed PM because it fit her agenda. PM is not a Gosselin insider. She is not even a Pennsylvanian! She knows NOTHING about the Gosselins.
"I just find that really odd. If that is the case then why not remove your entire blog and stop the nonesense?"
I'm thinking cover up as a result of legal action.
If her blog is up--people will trust her. If the blog is removed, people will question her. Protecting brave Jody is in Julie's best interest out in the community of anti-G's.
Now, to answer the question by justaminute The IPs were a match. We have an exact IP number that we are not going to release because there is no need. The IP has been confirmed by PM et al.
NoMoreDrama, thank you very much for you answer. It appeared that among all the discussions, there was never a clear, direct answer. Even if there wasn't a match, PM has never really explained how she was supposedly wronged by her relative.
In regards to Julie's Blog, I do hope that the reason for Jodi's retraction is indeed the one that is posted. This situation does affect her husband, her children, and herself. If we are to believe Kate's other sister's version that the only way she sees her nephews and nieces is on television, it must be very sad for Kevin and his family not to be connected to the children they helped take care of. Maybe reconciliation is in the cards. I hope for whatever will resolve the matter sucessfully.
I do hope though, that for whatever reason, Jodi was not silenced. It is a shame if for the sake of ratings and the safety of those children for this to happen.
If you want to be a consipiracy theorist, go right ahead. Questioning is fine. We have done enough research from old boards and such to know that most of what PM said was said before. The CPS stuff was taking it too far. There was CPS stuff about another couple on possum's board. It's all too coincidental for most of the posters here. It is possible that there may be "nuggets" of truth in some of the reguritated information PM posted, but I believe they are few and far between. And, half truths, don't necessarily mean it is true.
Just to answer the social worker question. There are lots of areas a human services worker can work in. Counseling, crisis intervention, sexual abuse, addiction and recovery, and so on. Most therapists who hang out a shingle (at least in my state) who are not psychologists or psychiatrists will have MSW on their sign and on their business card. When a person seeks therapy for something that bothers them and they seek a therapist, they are usually going to an MSW which is a Master's In Social Work. I can call any MSW who is a therapist (and licensed) and get an appointment and I can also have them monitor a situation that I pay them for as long as they are agreeable. Social Workers do not only work for the state. A Master's Degree in social work is a earned by study, testing and, at my school, writing a thesis.
Roy, You said: "She knows NOTHING about the Gosselins." How are you so certain of that "fact"?
My answer: She is an imaginary person. Imaginary people know nothing. They are inventions of someone else. In this case, PM is the invention of someone who denied having any connection to the Gosselins except one or two posts about them. That's how I know it as a "fact."
"In this case, PM is the invention of someone who denied having any connection to the Gosselins except one or two posts about them. That's how I know it as a "fact.""
At the risk of upsetting "mom," let me point out this imaginary person was able to prove herself to several people by providing information not previously made public.
I am not saying PM is real, I am saying the person who knew the information is real. And that the information they were able to provide was enough to convince someone else of their knowledge.
Quote: I am not saying PM is real, I am saying the person who knew the information is real. And that the information they were able to provide was enough to convince someone else of their knowledge.
Convince who? Julie? Accepting PM's blatherings because Julie believed them is worse than accepting Julie's hearsay as 'Truth'. It's accepting hearsay, delivered not even second-hand or third-hand, but fourth-hand, filtered through a discredited unconnected party. And that's critical thinking, how??
At the risk of upsetting "mom," let me point out this imaginary person was able to prove herself to several people by providing information not previously made public.
I am not saying PM is real, I am saying the person who knew the information is real. And that the information they were able to provide was enough to convince someone else of their knowledge.
Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with Tyra - there's a flaw in your logic. You are assuming that PM in fact provided Julie and/or others with actual inside information that an "outsider" would not be privy to. That's not proven, and given what we know about PM, I think the more likely explanation is that Julie accepted and vouched for PM without actually getting proof that she was who she said she was. How (or if) PM snowed Julie, I don't know. But since we haven't seen any of this "proof", I think it likely does not exist.
"At the risk of upsetting "mom," let me point out this imaginary person was able to prove herself to several people by providing information not previously made public."
At the risk of upsetting anyone...
This is what I learned about the internet.
Unless you can see it, touch it, feel it, smell it (I'll leave out taste it)...it is very difficult to prove to anyone on the internet that you are a true living and breathing person whose "truth" can be vouched for and trusted.
I came on all of this a few months ago in search of a Monkey Munch recipe. PM was not obvious in my world long enough to have been believe carte blanche she is a real live breathing person with some real live smelling information. Perhaps she was..but not to me. The same for Julie.
I used to be heavily addicted to another discussion board that was quite active and not a blog. Well...someone duped everyone by faking their death. The person was a real breathing person until their death so when they died folks were rocked to the core.
But then witnesses were able to "testify" and provide evidence that there was no death. Absolutely horrible.
When someone is outed for doing something heinous--with evidence, it pretty much invalidates everything.
On that same board, something tragic did happen to a family. A few members of the same family died under tragic circumstances. People had seen living breathing people--they posted pics of them with these living breathing people. And when the tragedy happened, it was conveyed to the on-line community and everyone was devestated. As was customary since the faked death....an link was posted to the newspaper write up--as the tragedy was that bad that it was more than just an obit. Then when the obit was published that too was posted.
(details are not necessary as I am making a generic statement)
This isn't about getting into folks private worlds--many folks grieve for people they "know" and to accept that someone died while that person never submits the "evidence" pretty much is a red flag.
We have many people die in our church community for example. We are a big parish with lots of elderly. I hear about lots of folks dying. It spreads around on prayer chains and what not. Word gets around.
To provide a published death notice or obit isn't too much to ask as it is pretty much par for the course.
While I am not all up on the PM fall down--wayy too much detailed sleuthing that I just cannot follow, in my experience it is rather unusual to keep folks so abreast of a tragic situation such as what she evidently disclosed and then just say he died and move on. Especially when another family member posts on your behalf.
I mean there's Caring Bridge and all sorts of other avenues out there. It is an avenue for families to share what is going on--and also--a validation of sorts. Probably b/c of how easy it is to do a hoax on the internet.
So the fact that folks can say she proved herself is moot.
It doesn't fit the parameters of truth. It simply doesn't.
And on the internet--you can't just believe someone b/c they share your agenda--and then proclaim they are stating the truth if you don't know them personally.
I mean--they had in the news within the past 2 years or something...some couple who lied to their employers about something related to a sick child or something. I don't recall the specifics. But they did this in real life and folks vouched for it b/c these folks were that good...too good...until they were busted.
While I cannot prove PM had a shred of falsehood any more than you could prove she had a shred of truth, the point is--it doesn't fit the test of logic at all. Not one bit.
At least in my experience. And unfortunately in my experience--the one that supposedly died...was the only one who didn't provide physical proof of death (or her accomplice anyone).
"What I am saying, Nina, is she must have had information that made people believe she was a volunteer, an "insider.""
Having information is not the same as having verifiable proof.
For example.
I could say I knew Kate personally. I could take any of the accounts of the helpers and personalize to make it sound like I was there.
I could post this on a pro-Gosselin board.
Then I could say--I don't understand why folks think she is ____. I never saw that. There was this time that she __________ (and then go into a long story about the time that this that and the other happened).
A skillful person could easily manipulate a story and make it credible to those that want it to be credible.
For those on certain forums--a skillful person could easily fabricate a story and make it sound believable if they provide "information" that seems credible to folks who need it to be credible to further their agenda.
Such as making up a story about a missing yogurt in a refrigerator and losing a helper position over it b/c Kate wanted whoever "stole" her yogurt to stay away from her home b/c she couldn't have thieves there. (this is a summary of something I read on the PM blog.)
IF you observe someone such as Kate carefully enough based on the show, based on all interviews, based on any personal speaking engagements you may have attended and based on all the fodder on the internet, it would be easy for someone gifted in the art of story to create themselves as a believable and credible character in the Gosselin story.
By the way--this technique is how Oscar winners become oscar winners. They take a movie and their invovlement in it and create something believable and trusted--so trusted that they win accolades and awards for this.
It takes a special gift to make something believable.
Some use it for creativity and good. Others use it for the not so good.
That is how "information" can be made believable when it really isn't.
This is why folks must be careful about what they read and see and what they choose to believe.
Being fake but believable is a very difficult thing to accomplish.
Roy, When the Possum story broke, her friends put up her side of the story. Part of her defense was that she took no interest in the Gosselins and had only ever written a post or two about them. Then Berlz took that part of his post down. On Oct. 9th he wrote, "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.]
Why did Possum want that taken out? Well, one part of that said she didn't even concern herself with the show. I am sure when she saw it displayed on Berlz's blog she wanted it taken down before the Gosselin bloggers saw it and called her out on it. After all, the people at GWoP had her posts from early summer. Then there were the TWoP and other forum comments. If she actually knew the Gosselins, she would not have denied even being involved with the blogs to her friends. Too bad for Possum I remember what that redacted "side of the story" claimed. She doesn't know the Gosselins, and she admitted it. Just like she admitted that the IP numbers would match because Penn Mommy was in her house. Sheez!
My advice is to consider the source when weighing claims.
Saint, To answer your question, when I said the IP's were a match, I meant a match to the screen names that were posting. In order to find the person who they matched to (Like personal info, name address, etc.) you'd have to have a court order.
When JHawksgirl1 posted here and her s/n was googled, that's how we arrived at all of this.
Basically, PM got too caught up in all of the fighting back and forth that day. She wanted so badly for someone to confirm her lie that we were rejecting her posts. At that point, we weren't rejecting much of anything. That's why jhawks raised suspicions. Her desire for drama ruined her little game.
NOW I get it. That's really sad. So basically she's saying Penn Mommy was hacking her computer on the same day she was using it as jhawksgirl too? Or Penn Mommy was stealing her screen name even though she already had one? And for CREDIBILITY? Well, that's ONE problem Possum doesn't have anymore. No one need to hack THAT computer for credibility. *snort*
Good luck with that pennant, NMD. My Philly sister said the town has been LOUD this fall. She's looking forward to her school closing for the big parade. I, myself, will be sleeping through the big win tonight.
You are not going to upset "mom." I just wanted to move ahead as the conversation was going in circles.
Saint -
I think it was "Cosmo Kramer" who said the "put a fork in me" line. It just seems so true in this scenario with PM.
Now I feel like Michael Corleone's line in Godfather III (which was terrible!) which went something like "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." LOL!
(I posted this in the "Is it exploitation" thread but its more appropriate here. I would like to hear your guys opinion.)
---------------------------------- When did Jon stop working for Bob? Also if Jon wouldn't have announced it on the show would anyone know he ever worked for Bob?
Why did Jodi wait until she was not on the show anymore to come out with such strong feelings against this show? While filming in her own home at the time was ok, but now she feels the kids are being exploited.
With all the negative publicity that has been coming out over the past few months why are shows still having them on? They are not getting anything out of it other then ratings maybe.
Who here is apart of the Neilson Family? If you stopped watching because you do not want to contribute to ratings they don't matter.
I watched J&K + 8 for many months without knowing of the existence of websites dedicated to the show. When I finally decided to get some background information, the search engine directed me immediately to GWOP. It must have been a new blog then, for I recall a brief mention of their flight from TWOP, but I didn't grasp the reason for their exile, banishment, or whatever it was that precipitated the exodus. (I realize I'm using a lot of biblical terms to describe the diaspora, but I've just looked in on GWOP and they're keening about the Gosselins' CBN appearance.)
At any rate, why was the Gosselin forum taken off TWOP? Short answers are fine; I know this is probably old stuff for you.
I wanted to make a comment about the Gosselins' appearance on Good Morning America. Kate made a statement (I'm paraphrasing here) that she believed part of why God gave her 8 children was to teach her to let go of her controlling nature and begin to let Him take control of her life. I have been thinking the exact same thing for a while now, so I think it's great that she has that mindset now and that could explain why she seems generally more relaxed in recent episodes.
Yes; I know some people think that God had nothing to do with it because she went through fertility treatments, but I believe God has a hand in every life. If He didn't want her to have 8 children, the treatments would have failed.
nomoredrama said... World Series Champs, Baby!!!!!! WOOO HOOOOO!!!!!!
Congrats, NMD. You guys should be very proud! I am glad one of the under dog teams won this year. And I am happy for Pedro Feliz (ex SF Giant for many years).
I don't think any of us regular viewers know the answer to that question. (And please - we don't need any new 'insiders', aka Penn Mommy's in the making, to come out of lurkdom and enlighten us.)
Also if Jon wouldn't have announced it on the show would anyone know he ever worked for Bob?
You mean, viewers? I don't see how we would know that.
Why did Jodi wait until she was not on the show anymore to come out with such strong feelings against this show? While filming in her own home at the time was ok, but now she feels the kids are being exploited.
Again, this is information that regular viewers cannot possibly know. It has not been discussed on the show. We can form "opinions" based on the timing of certain events (i.e. when Julie's blog went up, etc.), but it's all conjecture.
With all the negative publicity that has been coming out over the past few months why are shows still having them on? They are not getting anything out of it other then ratings maybe.
You mean, "Good Morning America", etc.? My understanding is the Gosselins have signed with a publicity firm. They are promoting their book and Kate has apparently been hired as as spokeswoman for a number of different products. I am sure their publicists are working with the bookers at various talk shows to get Kate and/or the whole family on their shows. They have one of the highest rated shows on TLC and even if there is "negative publicity" as you reference, it would seem to me that would only make the aforementioned talk shows MORE interested in booking them.
Who here is apart of the Neilson Family? If you stopped watching because you do not want to contribute to ratings they don't matter.
Yeah, not sure what you are asking here. I honestly don't totally understand how "ratings" are computed. Obviously, we know Neilson's are part of it. If you don't want to watch, don't watch. If you continue to blog about, I would think you are contributing to the "buzz" about the show, but I don't know how much difference that would make one way or another. It's pretty clear, however, that J&K is a very popular cable show at this point in time.
The simple answer: continued rule violations. TWoP has rules for posting which include no talking about other posters, only the show, and staying on topic. Both pro- and anti-Gosselins viewpoints were represented in that forum, and the discussion often got heated. Over time the the TWoP moderators had to spend more and more time keeping things civil and on topic in that forum. The forum was temporarily shut down a few times. Near the end, trolls were making regular attempts at getting the board shut down, posting stuff they knew were in violation of TWoP's policy. Finally, I think TWoP had had enough of the craziness since the forum would have required a full-time moderator/babysitter to mediate the opposing factions every day, and the forum was permanently closed.
Heather said... I wanted to make a comment about the Gosselins' appearance on Good Morning America. Kate made a statement (I'm paraphrasing here) that she believed part of why God gave her 8 children was to teach her to let go of her controlling nature and begin to let Him take control of her life. I have been thinking the exact same thing for a while now, so I think it's great that she has that mindset now and that could explain why she seems generally more relaxed in recent episodes.
I am currently reading the book and that is certainly part of the theme. Perhaps putting her thoughts into writing helped to put some things into perspective and clarify things for her.
I am sure her faith has aided her a lot in this journey. She will continue to struggle (as we all do) with those sides of her personality that cause her problems (need to control, insecurity), but I hope she has turned a corner and is more content. It will only make her a better wife and mother.
Possummomma, Penn Mommy, Jhawksgirl, Bethanna, BananaBethana, Scarlett75, Garden Lorna, Tampersay, William, Becky Haas, Karen, etc. There is one person responsible for about a dozen names out there. No doubt about it. And the list is still growing. In this massive list of comments I speculate that Possummomma already has one, maybe two new aliases in operation.
Intrigued is very correct about all of this. I have been reading all of this, carefully following link to link to link, blog to blog to blog. The writing styles, the themes, the stories all begin to repeat themselves and become quite clear. The attention seeking and argumentative style also shows up in a long comment chain. She becomes easy to pick out.
She has run scams -- some of them involving money -- on a stamping blog, the Penn Mommy blog, the Atheist blog, the Gosselin blog.
She very clearly has an illness of some sort, perhaps multiple illnesses most of which appear to be mental. Manic depressive, pathological liar, Munchhausen by Internet, etc. There are several that come to mind. The excessive blogging is clearly part of the mental issue and also an addiction. How can someone with a spouse, children, and an alleged number of physical diseases have so much time to blog all throughout dozens and dozens of blogs? Better yet, why?
We should all feel sorry for such a sick person. We should also wonder if she has committed any crimes, given the involvement of impersonation and money. It appears that others have been involved in these scams. And others have unwittingly played the role of accomplice (Berzlebub, Calludus, others).
Though I do not think this person needs any more attention by the continued discussion of this sordid story, I do think the truth needs to come out and splashed all over the place so this person perhaps get the message that this nonsense is inappropriate, dangerous, and perhaps criminal.
I think it was very good of GDNNOP to bring this to the attention of their audience, some of whom had been taken in by a fraud. And I think it's fine - even warranted - to present an argument in a space where it's being discussed or where your reasoning is being attacked. I don't think splashing this around to other sites is going to do much, though, and I don't think it's a good idea - all it will do is make this troll wallow in her persecution (and have a legitimate reason to feel persecuted, if she gets chased from blog to blog outside those involved in the topic).
People who have never heard of this situation will think you're very strange if you show up and start laying out charges against someone, and they have a tendency to support their friends against outsiders. The people who have been drawn into the situation already - people in and around the Gosselin online community; the friends she rallied around her - well, if they've bothered to follow this discussion and they still believe the story she's peddling, what else could you possibly say? They believe that this woman was victimized by her cousin and her cousin's son via computer fraud for months with no particular motive in mind and during a time when the cousin's other son was dying. They believe that the IPs are explained because one was staying with the other, using her ISP, or because one spoofed the other's IP and used her accounts. They believe the writing styles are a coincidence. They think an unknown entity popping up to say "I met Penn Mommy" is credible. They don't notice that the explanation shifts from "it's all true and she just used my ISP; Penn Mommy is real and did nothing wrong" to "I won't tell on my cousin during her time of grief" to (as per "Brian's" latest) "Corinne is a pos who's skipping away from this." What can be said against that kind of obliviousness?
I actually believe that the principal details of her "real life" (health, kids, the vast majority of her online community) are real - she's been consistent on these things (or the friends have) when consistency as a fake ID was not her strong suit (remember how she never called CPS except when she did?). Pushing the suspicion too much further without more than gut feeling or a sense that something is improbable may weaken the credibility of the accusations. Just because someone is a liar, it doesn't mean everything they say is a lie. If you start claiming that something is false when others know it's true, they have cause to doubt you instead of her.
I also don't think it would be very effective to bring this to other communities. I think people are still very, very, naive about the hazards of internet "trust." Then again, considering the amount of Snopes-worthy emails I see in my inbox, I shouldn't be so surprised. But I don't think most people really get it until someone in their own community wakes them up, whether through advice or through victimization or what have you. I don't think strangers coming in with a complicated case of sockpuppeting would do much but leave people confused and dismissive. It rankles to let someone "get away with it," but I think stating our views within relevant discussion is enough. I have no right or ability to "punish" her, no cause to think I or any of us could stop her, and no expectation that it would be worth it to try.
Thank you. It is a group effort that involves more than just the moderators here. We appreciate what everyone contributes to keep this blog ticking.
I probably should not have posted that comment because I am really not 100% sure. I found someone posting on a totally different board with a whole new identity that appeared to be recently created that sounded very familiar.
Well, now her daughter is commenting on Berlzebub's blog about how mean and unfair we all are, and how we attacked her on her own blog (?). Still maintaining that there is a "Corinne" out there responsible for it all. Seriously, what the hell? Either she's posing as her own kid (bizarre), or we are to believe that she's allowed her barely-teenaged daughter to follow this whole thing online and post in her defense? What on earth?
It's such a blatant attempt to garner sympathy and duck the issue. Pathetic.
Posing as her 13 year old daughter? I don't know why, but I'm beyond shocked. This person thinks it's ok to lie and pose as her daughter? Then again she thinks it's ok to have an entire blog of lies about a family she never met.
You got caught already. Lick your wounds and move on and let all the people that believed you move on and heal.
PM pretending to be her daughter online (and not for the first time, IMO) is the creepy cherry on the freaky sundae. Somehow after all she's done, it seems uniquely transgressive - maybe because as far as I know, the daughter is a real person and not one of her made up personae.
I called PM a vampire once and that's what I think she is - an emotional vampire. That woman gives me the willies. I feel sorry for her kids. I hope they have a good support system.
Yeah, they can't even get the spelling of Corrinne's name correct! What a sham!It was spelled with two R's and two N's. This is absolutely the lowest she could stoop to involve her daughter (whether it was to sock her or whether it really is her daughter which I doubt).
This is also making me completely suspect about the Berz Blog. He was an active blogger discussing a variety of topics pertaining to the atheist community prior to this whole possum saga. And now, nothing. Don't you think that in itself is weird?
First William the son posting for his mother. Now a 13yr old daughter posting for her mother. Whatever.
Pathetic is not even the word. There are some real mental health concerns with this one. If (by some stretch) her daughter did write that comment then where is Possum's husband? Because if my wife spent 24/7 online then saw my kids being dragged into it, I'd put my foot down.
I think it's very telling that none of her "characters" come out and say they are her husband. Now that I'm typing this, I'm sure he'll be the next sock. Gotta make you wonder. If I were being wronged, I would hope that I'd turn to my husband for support, not random friends, strangers, and my 13 year-old.
This woman is in love with being a victim whose honor is then defended and protected. Kind of makes ya wonder why this fantasy is the one that she needs to keep playing out. Think really hard and you'll see where I'm going with this.
I know, psychoanalysis. Can I plead job hazard? Not that I could state anything professionally about her not having met her but just from an observer's perspective...boy is there a lot there.
I can't believe she'd still be trying for vindication. I don't think she likes the attention being off of her. Everytime there's a new Gosselin post, I expect her to do something because she's no longer the center of the talk. She's the one not letting it go away and she seems determined to blame the mods on this board. It should be very easy for her to move on. She has her supporters and readers invited to her blog. Is she going to muck in this forever?
Having seen Berlzebub's last comment over there, my final question was answered about whether or not I can argue with the guy - I thought there was a chance that maybe he hadn't intended to approve "P1"'s comment, but he thinks it's more than okay for the daughter to insert herself. I posted a last time over there to sum up and throw in the towel. He's at a point where he has nothing worthwhile to say in response, and I can't think of anything else that would possibly be useful when it all falls on deaf ears. I've totally lost sight of why it's even important to me.
I'm going to retire as intrigued - I just used it as a name to comment on this because frankly, I think PMom was really unwise to leave so many trails to herself, and I feel like what I have to say should be able to stand on its own merit. I may come back to comment with an real login if no one minds. I still haven't watched more than fifteen minutes of the show, but the other issues involved - what is exploitation, what are the ethics of reality TV - are interesting and I appreciate that you're open to debate. I've enjoyed reading here so often in the last few weeks.
Intrigued, You did a very good job posting at Berlzebub's blog. I think it's been obvious since he "left town" that he had no real response to your blog-writing comparisons and sockpuppet proof. He hasn't for a few weeks now. I think he was waiting to take some great offense so that he could throw a little tantrum, then figuratively pick up his ball, and go home. He asked for links and he got links. He asked for someone to give the writing comparisons and he got writing comparisons. He could not respond, so he didn't. Now, when P1 supposedly writes in, he has time from his real life to respond with "I can't debate you." It seems to me that he CAN'T debate you, because he has to represent the losing side. It sure would be nice if he could engage in a reasonable debate without referring to his opponents in nasty terms.
I hope you stay here, too. I have a question for you, but you'll have to remain "Intrigued" for one more post. If you haven't watched Jon and Kate, how did you end up so committed to the Penn Mommy story?
I still find myself fascinated by this whole story, although I have no idea why! While I am not 100% convinced that everything presented against PM is accurate, there is obviously some deception going on.
The single thing that sticks out to me is the words of "William" posted on October 5th to willsjonah.blogspot.com.
"Jason and I started this blog to keep family apprised of my brother. My mom may post eventually. For now, however, you'll have to put up with our posts."
While that blog has long since been removed, I still can see the posts through google reader. Even at the far reaches of speculation I cannot imagine a grieving brother mistaking his dead brother for the one that is still living. That is so much more than a typo that in my opinion it screams LIAR louder than anything else I have read on the whole saga.
Several days ago, I asked why the Gosselins Without Pity crew were exiled from TWOP. My question, however, was not posted here. I came to the whole debate late, so I don't know all the history. Incidentally, I'm not allied with either your site or the GWOP blog, so I'm not trying to stir up any old controversy. I'd simply like to know a bit about what precipitated the change to a private blog for GWOP, and I certainly wouldn't ask them. You've shown yourselves to be much more courteous and level-headed than they.
Thanks, and I hope this post is in the right section of GDNNP and that it is accepted. I'm concerned: I try to follow your rules for posting, and my last post was the only one that I've had rejected.
Spanglish, thanks for answering my question about the demise of the TWOP forum on the Gosselins. I may owe thanks to others, too; I think I somehow failed to find my original question and what followed from it. I even posted the question again this morning, and I apologize for taking up more space than I needed to.
Spanglish, great name--and a very nice movie. Te agradezco mucho tu ayuda. :)
Does this crackhead never stop? Mods, she is now accusing you of not letting comments through defending her. LMFAO.... right!!!!!!! She thrives on attention. I love how she has gone about trying to delete her internet past blogs. Too bad for her they have already been seen and copied.
Found at Berz blog: A-to-the-men, brother! That's the strangest thing. I don't say it to brag, but I am known to many. My "e-friends" usually become IRL (is that how you do "In real life"?) friens. The people who are trying to defend me have known me for years. I have a few people who have made themselves known as friends who see my almost daily or weekly. I'm not a twenty-seven year old computer geek sitting in a dark studio apartment with no friends and no audience. If I wanted to talk Gosselin I had a blog to do it in. Why make another one? Real people have said they've met most (or all) of the sockpuppets. I have been told that a woman met Corinne in Colorado and told GDNNOP about it as soon as they tried to say Pennmommy was me. It didn't make it to the comments. I get at least one person per day saying "they won't publish my proof in favor of you." I can only conclude that they don't want truth. They want to have a hen house gossip session where I'll save my own egg by chucking the rest of the family nest to the farmer for scrambling.
This is my first post on any site and I've tried to be a non-participating observer, but I needed to post this:
Just reading GWOP and saw this post from a Corinne. Could it be the same Corinne aka PM? It's an actual blogger ID and not an open ID/Name. You can find it in the discussion for the latest San Diego Show. http://gosselinswithoutpity.blogspot.com/2008/11/legos-and-safaris-november-3.html
Corinne said... Honestly, this was the first week I haven't watched it - and I really don't miss Kate's constant negativity. Sounds like I didn't miss much! So, TLC, the "event I cannot miss" is coming up next week? Sorry, I'll pass.
I was wondering the same thing about Berlz and PM-- Calladus has such a strong profile in real life that I am sure he is who he says.... but the writing style of Berlz, how he treats commenters, and the way he has responded to criticism are exactly what PennMommy did and what PossumMomma seems to be doing as well.
It just gets curiouser and curiouser-- would that mean that PM got people to make donations for her own window film situation? Seriously? Assuming that is what this was used for of course... but seriously??
No matter the outcome, and who is real and who is fake, one thing is certain-- the internet is full of anonymity, so even having screennames, blogs, and hundreds of backers online does not mean the person is a living breathing human who truthfully posted all their life stories and thoughts. I'm not asking for proof, or saying they owe us anything-- just stating that at least in my mind the whole situation is very sad and should cause us all to be more careful about who we trust. (and yes, I am real-- I even have a facebook with tons of pictures of my nephew and family :)-- if anyone doubts my identity, I'll link you to my Facebook :)...)
268 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 268 of 268Roy,
I am so sorry for doing that, "When did you stop beating your wife?" thing to you. I meant my question sincerely, neither cruelly nor sarcastically. I do not mean to impugn your character. You seem perfectly nice, and I think we may even agree about the Gosselins. I have no desire to scare away a kindred spirit!
I directed my question to you because I read an exchange above about 'claims' being just claims, and it raised this question in my mind. I can't be specific with people in your life because I don't know you. I actually don't mean to be specific. I actually mean, "In general, do you treat all claims equally, or do you generally consider the source as bearing on the validity of a claim?"
To show my good faith, I will answer for myself and say that I do consider the source. I treat liars' claims as suspect. I never assume anyone is lying to me, though. But if I know they lie then I dismiss their asserions until other proof is produced. How about you?
nomoredrama:
I just read your exchange at the Moon blog. You clearly state that the IP's match. If you were inclined to post that information on the blog, how could you prove that it was PM's IP anyway? Isn't it just a number? If I were to "trace" it, wouldn't I just get "Bakersfield" and wouldn't that be information from when PM was supposedly hacking into PM's account anyway?
No offense taken, Saint.
Here's the thing: we all know we're talking about the PM/Possum/Gosselin situation.
But, since none of us know them - the sources - personally (at least I don't and I don't think anyone else does), the claims of inside information and refutations of the same are all in the realm of "I don't know."
What I have observed is each "side" willing to believe what fits their agenda.
To take it a step further, certain people have made a connection that is tenuous at best: if PM is fraud and a concoction, then everything she said about the Gosselins is also a fraud.
I don't see that as an entirely logical conclusion.
She had some kind of information that made people believe her until the fraud was exposed. The information, whatever it is, was enough to prove credibility to a point. So, does the fact that PM was discredited completely discredit the information she must have gained and shared to make people believe her?
No one knows Kate personally, yet her words, which are on tape and available for anyone to use for comparisons, are taken at face value.
So, to sum up: the sources have agendas, the readers have agendas and the two are not often the same. I would be more inclined to be concerned about the objective. But that's just me.
"She had some kind of information that made people believe her until the fraud was exposed. The information, whatever it is, was enough to prove credibility to a point."
Roy I am sorry, I just don't buy it. This information was extracted from blogs. People will say what they want to make their point. Just because PM was able to read the volumes of crap that is out there and spit it back out on her blog doesn't mean any of it was credible to begin with.
Did we learn nothing from this situation?
Roy,
Thanks for answering. You said,
She had some kind of information that made people believe her until the fraud was exposed. The information, whatever it is, was enough to prove credibility to a point. So, does the fact that PM was discredited completely discredit the information she must have gained and shared to make people believe her?
No, she didn't have information to make her credible up to a point. Not if she lives in California and has never met the Gosselins and is an entirely different person. How could she? Are we on the same page about Penn Mommy? She's a sockpuppet of a real person with no connection to the Gosselins (by her own defense.) She made up her information.
She convinced people because she is a skillfull liar. Her claims should be dismissed.
Claims aren't just claims. Some claims are more. Some are libel.
By the way, your assertion that people believe what fits their agenda is generally true. We see it all over the Gosselin blogs. It was true of me when I believed Penn Mommy, but I have absolutely no trouble at all believeing she is another person, a congenital liar at that, and dismissing everything she says, based on a ton of evidence. I'd have no trouble at all believing that a call was made to a particular agency on ANYONE controversial, understanding that calls are just calls and often determined to be based on faulty information. I just haven't seen such a claim about the Gosselins from anyone except a woman who has been shown to invent a dying son among other lies.
In other words: in the case of the Gosselins, there is no claim. There is a account known to be fiction. That's different.
What I am saying, Nina, is she must have had information that made people believe she was a volunteer, an "insider."
Perhaps information that has not been made available to the general blogging world and bloggers. Like a test, if you will.
So, while there is no PM, there may have been some truth in her writing. We just don't know exactly what that is. Maybe someday we will.
Roy,
She made statements about information that certain people wanted so badly to be true.
If you are referring to Julie, well she would have agreed with just about anything to make her case.
I know the Gosselins have faults. So do I. When I read on the ABC board the comments about Jon attending school and a social worker on set since last winter, I could have ran with that and posted an article. I could have left a comment on that board asking that person to contact me and asking if we could reprint the comment (sound familiar?). But I didn't because I know in today's internet world to take most of this information with a grain of salt.
I wish people would have done that with Penn Mommy. Had a little restraint. Not encouraged her. How did that site assist in GWoP's advocay mission?
This is what people don't get about most of us over here. If you want to advocate for the chidren, great. It is the method and motivation that is truely upsetting.
Roy,
You said, "What I am saying, Nina, is she must have had information that made people believe she was a volunteer, an "insider."
Why do you say must? Do you mean that she must have said something to Julie, the only known insider, to convince her she was the real deal? Well Julie herself said she didn't know her, they only communicated by email, and that PM shared the same experiences with the Gosselins as her. PM parrotted back to Julie what Julie told her and the blog world. That's not insider information. PM repeated what she read or she made it up.
You just said above, "What I have observed is each "side" willing to believe what fits their agenda." I think Julie also believed PM because it fit her agenda. PM is not a Gosselin insider. She is not even a Pennsylvanian!
She knows NOTHING about the Gosselins.
"I just find that really odd. If that is the case then why not remove your entire blog and stop the nonesense?"
I'm thinking cover up as a result of legal action.
If her blog is up--people will trust her. If the blog is removed, people will question her. Protecting brave Jody is in Julie's best interest out in the community of anti-G's.
Now, to answer the question by justaminute The IPs were a match. We have an exact IP number that we are not going to release because there is no need. The IP has been confirmed by PM et al.
NoMoreDrama, thank you very much for you answer. It appeared that among all the discussions, there was never a clear, direct answer. Even if there wasn't a match, PM has never really explained how she was supposedly wronged by her relative.
In regards to Julie's Blog, I do hope that the reason for Jodi's retraction is indeed the one that is posted. This situation does affect her husband, her children, and herself. If we are to believe Kate's other sister's version that the only way she sees her nephews and nieces is on television, it must be very sad for Kevin and his family not to be connected to the children they helped take care of. Maybe reconciliation is in the cards. I hope for whatever will resolve the matter sucessfully.
I do hope though, that for whatever reason, Jodi was not silenced. It is a shame if for the sake of ratings and the safety of those children for this to happen.
Thank you again.
"She knows NOTHING about the Gosselins."
How are you so certain of that "fact"?
Roy -
If you want to be a consipiracy theorist, go right ahead. Questioning is fine. We have done enough research from old boards and such to know that most of what PM said was said before. The CPS stuff was taking it too far. There was CPS stuff about another couple on possum's board. It's all too coincidental for most of the posters here. It is possible that there may be "nuggets" of truth in some of the reguritated information PM posted, but I believe they are few and far between. And, half truths, don't necessarily mean it is true.
Now, I'm asking politely, can we please move on?
Just to answer the social worker question. There are lots of areas a human services worker can work in. Counseling, crisis intervention, sexual abuse, addiction and recovery, and so on. Most therapists who hang out a shingle (at least in my state) who are not psychologists or psychiatrists will have MSW on their sign and on their business card. When a person seeks therapy for something that bothers them and they seek a therapist, they are usually going to an MSW which is a Master's In Social Work. I can call any MSW who is a therapist (and licensed) and get an appointment and I can also have them monitor a situation that I pay them for as long as they are agreeable. Social Workers do not only work for the state. A Master's Degree in social work is a earned by study, testing and, at my school, writing a thesis.
Roy,
You said: "She knows NOTHING about the Gosselins." How are you so certain of that "fact"?
My answer: She is an imaginary person. Imaginary people know nothing. They are inventions of someone else. In this case, PM is the invention of someone who denied having any connection to the Gosselins except one or two posts about them. That's how I know it as a "fact."
"In this case, PM is the invention of someone who denied having any connection to the Gosselins except one or two posts about them. That's how I know it as a "fact.""
At the risk of upsetting "mom," let me point out this imaginary person was able to prove herself to several people by providing information not previously made public.
I am not saying PM is real, I am saying the person who knew the information is real. And that the information they were able to provide was enough to convince someone else of their knowledge.
Quote:
I am not saying PM is real, I am saying the person who knew the information is real. And that the information they were able to provide was enough to convince someone else of their knowledge.
Convince who? Julie? Accepting PM's blatherings because Julie believed them is worse than accepting Julie's hearsay as 'Truth'. It's accepting hearsay, delivered not even second-hand or third-hand, but fourth-hand, filtered through a discredited unconnected party. And that's critical thinking, how??
At the risk of upsetting "mom," let me point out this imaginary person was able to prove herself to several people by providing information not previously made public.
I am not saying PM is real, I am saying the person who knew the information is real. And that the information they were able to provide was enough to convince someone else of their knowledge.
Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with Tyra - there's a flaw in your logic. You are assuming that PM in fact provided Julie and/or others with actual inside information that an "outsider" would not be privy to. That's not proven, and given what we know about PM, I think the more likely explanation is that Julie accepted and vouched for PM without actually getting proof that she was who she said she was. How (or if) PM snowed Julie, I don't know. But since we haven't seen any of this "proof", I think it likely does not exist.
"At the risk of upsetting "mom," let me point out this imaginary person was able to prove herself to several people by providing information not previously made public."
At the risk of upsetting anyone...
This is what I learned about the internet.
Unless you can see it, touch it, feel it, smell it (I'll leave out taste it)...it is very difficult to prove to anyone on the internet that you are a true living and breathing person whose "truth" can be vouched for and trusted.
I came on all of this a few months ago in search of a Monkey Munch recipe. PM was not obvious in my world long enough to have been believe carte blanche she is a real live breathing person with some real live smelling information. Perhaps she was..but not to me. The same for Julie.
I used to be heavily addicted to another discussion board that was quite active and not a blog. Well...someone duped everyone by faking their death. The person was a real breathing person until their death so when they died folks were rocked to the core.
But then witnesses were able to "testify" and provide evidence that there was no death. Absolutely horrible.
When someone is outed for doing something heinous--with evidence, it pretty much invalidates everything.
On that same board, something tragic did happen to a family. A few members of the same family died under tragic circumstances. People had seen living breathing people--they posted pics of them with these living breathing people. And when the tragedy happened, it was conveyed to the on-line community and everyone was devestated. As was customary since the faked death....an link was posted to the newspaper write up--as the tragedy was that bad that it was more than just an obit. Then when the obit was published that too was posted.
(details are not necessary as I am making a generic statement)
This isn't about getting into folks private worlds--many folks grieve for people they "know" and to accept that someone died while that person never submits the "evidence" pretty much is a red flag.
We have many people die in our church community for example. We are a big parish with lots of elderly. I hear about lots of folks dying. It spreads around on prayer chains and what not. Word gets around.
To provide a published death notice or obit isn't too much to ask as it is pretty much par for the course.
While I am not all up on the PM fall down--wayy too much detailed sleuthing that I just cannot follow, in my experience it is rather unusual to keep folks so abreast of a tragic situation such as what she evidently disclosed and then just say he died and move on. Especially when another family member posts on your behalf.
I mean there's Caring Bridge and all sorts of other avenues out there. It is an avenue for families to share what is going on--and also--a validation of sorts. Probably b/c of how easy it is to do a hoax on the internet.
So the fact that folks can say she proved herself is moot.
It doesn't fit the parameters of truth. It simply doesn't.
And on the internet--you can't just believe someone b/c they share your agenda--and then proclaim they are stating the truth if you don't know them personally.
I mean--they had in the news within the past 2 years or something...some couple who lied to their employers about something related to a sick child or something. I don't recall the specifics. But they did this in real life and folks vouched for it b/c these folks were that good...too good...until they were busted.
While I cannot prove PM had a shred of falsehood any more than you could prove she had a shred of truth, the point is--it doesn't fit the test of logic at all. Not one bit.
At least in my experience. And unfortunately in my experience--the one that supposedly died...was the only one who didn't provide physical proof of death (or her accomplice anyone).
"What I am saying, Nina, is she must have had information that made people believe she was a volunteer, an "insider.""
Having information is not the same as having verifiable proof.
For example.
I could say I knew Kate personally. I could take any of the accounts of the helpers and personalize to make it sound like I was there.
I could post this on a pro-Gosselin board.
Then I could say--I don't understand why folks think she is ____. I never saw that. There was this time that she __________ (and then go into a long story about the time that this that and the other happened).
A skillful person could easily manipulate a story and make it credible to those that want it to be credible.
For those on certain forums--a skillful person could easily fabricate a story and make it sound believable if they provide "information" that seems credible to folks who need it to be credible to further their agenda.
Such as making up a story about a missing yogurt in a refrigerator and losing a helper position over it b/c Kate wanted whoever "stole" her yogurt to stay away from her home b/c she couldn't have thieves there. (this is a summary of something I read on the PM blog.)
IF you observe someone such as Kate carefully enough based on the show, based on all interviews, based on any personal speaking engagements you may have attended and based on all the fodder on the internet, it would be easy for someone gifted in the art of story to create themselves as a believable and credible character in the Gosselin story.
By the way--this technique is how Oscar winners become oscar winners. They take a movie and their invovlement in it and create something believable and trusted--so trusted that they win accolades and awards for this.
It takes a special gift to make something believable.
Some use it for creativity and good. Others use it for the not so good.
That is how "information" can be made believable when it really isn't.
This is why folks must be careful about what they read and see and what they choose to believe.
Being fake but believable is a very difficult thing to accomplish.
Roy,
When the Possum story broke, her friends put up her side of the story. Part of her defense was that she took no interest in the Gosselins and had only ever written a post or two about them. Then Berlz took that part of his post down. On Oct. 9th he wrote, "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.]
Why did Possum want that taken out? Well, one part of that said she didn't even concern herself with the show. I am sure when she saw it displayed on Berlz's blog she wanted it taken down before the Gosselin bloggers saw it and called her out on it. After all, the people at GWoP had her posts from early summer. Then there were the TWoP and other forum comments. If she actually knew the Gosselins, she would not have denied even being involved with the blogs to her friends. Too bad for Possum I remember what that redacted "side of the story" claimed. She doesn't know the Gosselins, and she admitted it. Just like she admitted that the IP numbers would match because Penn Mommy was in her house. Sheez!
My advice is to consider the source when weighing claims.
As Mom would say, "Stick a fork in me, I'm done."
Saint,
To answer your question, when I said the IP's were a match, I meant a match to the screen names that were posting. In order to find the person who they matched to (Like personal info, name address, etc.) you'd have to have a court order.
When JHawksgirl1 posted here and her s/n was googled, that's how we arrived at all of this.
Basically, PM got too caught up in all of the fighting back and forth that day. She wanted so badly for someone to confirm her lie that we were rejecting her posts. At that point, we weren't rejecting much of anything. That's why jhawks raised suspicions. Her desire for drama ruined her little game.
NOW I get it. That's really sad. So basically she's saying Penn Mommy was hacking her computer on the same day she was using it as jhawksgirl too? Or Penn Mommy was stealing her screen name even though she already had one? And for CREDIBILITY? Well, that's ONE problem Possum doesn't have anymore. No one need to hack THAT computer for credibility. *snort*
Good luck with that pennant, NMD. My Philly sister said the town has been LOUD this fall. She's looking forward to her school closing for the big parade. I, myself, will be sleeping through the big win tonight.
Roy -
You are not going to upset "mom." I just wanted to move ahead as the conversation was going in circles.
Saint -
I think it was "Cosmo Kramer" who said the "put a fork in me" line. It just seems so true in this scenario with PM.
Now I feel like Michael Corleone's line in Godfather III (which was terrible!) which went something like "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." LOL!
G'nite all! :-)
World Series Champs, Baby!!!!!! WOOO HOOOOO!!!!!!
(I posted this in the "Is it exploitation" thread but its more appropriate here. I would like to hear your guys opinion.)
----------------------------------
When did Jon stop working for Bob? Also if Jon wouldn't have announced it on the show would anyone know he ever worked for Bob?
Why did Jodi wait until she was not on the show anymore to come out with such strong feelings against this show? While filming in her own home at the time was ok, but now she feels the kids are being exploited.
With all the negative publicity that has been coming out over the past few months why are shows still having them on? They are not getting anything out of it other then ratings maybe.
Who here is apart of the Neilson Family? If you stopped watching because you do not want to contribute to ratings they don't matter.
I watched J&K + 8 for many months without knowing of the existence of websites dedicated to the show. When I finally decided to get some background information, the search engine directed me immediately to GWOP. It must have been a new blog then, for I recall a brief mention of their flight from TWOP, but I didn't grasp the reason for their exile, banishment, or whatever it was that precipitated the exodus. (I realize I'm using a lot of biblical terms to describe the diaspora, but I've just looked in on GWOP and they're keening about the Gosselins' CBN appearance.)
At any rate, why was the Gosselin forum taken off TWOP? Short answers are fine; I know this is probably old stuff for you.
Thanks in advance.
I wanted to make a comment about the Gosselins' appearance on Good Morning America. Kate made a statement (I'm paraphrasing here) that she believed part of why God gave her 8 children was to teach her to let go of her controlling nature and begin to let Him take control of her life. I have been thinking the exact same thing for a while now, so I think it's great that she has that mindset now and that could explain why she seems generally more relaxed in recent episodes.
Yes; I know some people think that God had nothing to do with it because she went through fertility treatments, but I believe God has a hand in every life. If He didn't want her to have 8 children, the treatments would have failed.
nomoredrama said...
World Series Champs, Baby!!!!!! WOOO HOOOOO!!!!!!
Congrats, NMD. You guys should be very proud! I am glad one of the under dog teams won this year. And I am happy for Pedro Feliz (ex SF Giant for many years).
Yeah NMD! Now you can "get a little Philly" on whoever! LOL.
Skye said...When did Jon stop working for Bob?
I don't think any of us regular viewers know the answer to that question. (And please - we don't need any new 'insiders', aka Penn Mommy's in the making, to come out of lurkdom and enlighten us.)
Also if Jon wouldn't have announced it on the show would anyone know he ever worked for Bob?
You mean, viewers? I don't see how we would know that.
Why did Jodi wait until she was not on the show anymore to come out with such strong feelings against this show? While filming in her own home at the time was ok, but now she feels the kids are being exploited.
Again, this is information that regular viewers cannot possibly know. It has not been discussed on the show. We can form "opinions" based on the timing of certain events (i.e. when Julie's blog went up, etc.), but it's all conjecture.
With all the negative publicity that has been coming out over the past few months why are shows still having them on? They are not getting anything out of it other then ratings maybe.
You mean, "Good Morning America", etc.? My understanding is the Gosselins have signed with a publicity firm. They are promoting their book and Kate has apparently been hired as as spokeswoman for a number of different products. I am sure their publicists are working with the bookers at various talk shows to get Kate and/or the whole family on their shows. They have one of the highest rated shows on TLC and even if there is "negative publicity" as you reference, it would seem to me that would only make the aforementioned talk shows MORE interested in booking them.
Who here is apart of the Neilson Family? If you stopped watching because you do not want to contribute to ratings they don't matter.
Yeah, not sure what you are asking here. I honestly don't totally understand how "ratings" are computed. Obviously, we know Neilson's are part of it. If you don't want to watch, don't watch. If you continue to blog about, I would think you are contributing to the "buzz" about the show, but I don't know how much difference that would make one way or another. It's pretty clear, however, that J&K is a very popular cable show at this point in time.
Anya,
LMFAO at no Possums coming to give "inside info". So I changed my photo just for you.... Nothing like a pic of a caught possum.....
Monica, that is absolutely priceless!!! Best pic e v e r.
You are wicked - I love it!
It was mean....but I just get so tired all of the pro possum crap out there I wanna hurl. Anyways enjoy for the day then its back to my cat pics
"why was the Gosselin forum taken off TWOP?"
The simple answer: continued rule violations. TWoP has rules for posting which include no talking about other posters, only the show, and staying on topic. Both pro- and anti-Gosselins viewpoints were represented in that forum, and the discussion often got heated. Over time the the TWoP moderators had to spend more and more time keeping things civil and on topic in that forum. The forum was temporarily shut down a few times. Near the end, trolls were making regular attempts at getting the board shut down, posting stuff they knew were in violation of TWoP's policy. Finally, I think TWoP had had enough of the craziness since the forum would have required a full-time moderator/babysitter to mediate the opposing factions every day, and the forum was permanently closed.
Heather said...
I wanted to make a comment about the Gosselins' appearance on Good Morning America. Kate made a statement (I'm paraphrasing here) that she believed part of why God gave her 8 children was to teach her to let go of her controlling nature and begin to let Him take control of her life. I have been thinking the exact same thing for a while now, so I think it's great that she has that mindset now and that could explain why she seems generally more relaxed in recent episodes.
I am currently reading the book and that is certainly part of the theme. Perhaps putting her thoughts into writing helped to put some things into perspective and clarify things for her.
I am sure her faith has aided her a lot in this journey. She will continue to struggle (as we all do) with those sides of her personality that cause her problems (need to control, insecurity), but I hope she has turned a corner and is more content. It will only make her a better wife and mother.
Monica -
I didn't know you were a hunter!
:-)
Mom,
LOL nah not me :)
Thanks Guys! I'm heading down to the parade tomorrow!! I can't even have a meaningful discussion these days. 28 Years.....This city is on FIRE!
I can't wait to lap up the crazy!
NMD,
Have fun and stay safe with all the crazies out there.
Possummomma, Penn Mommy, Jhawksgirl, Bethanna, BananaBethana, Scarlett75, Garden Lorna, Tampersay, William, Becky Haas, Karen, etc. There is one person responsible for about a dozen names out there. No doubt about it. And the list is still growing. In this massive list of comments I speculate that Possummomma already has one, maybe two new aliases in operation.
Intrigued is very correct about all of this. I have been reading all of this, carefully following link to link to link, blog to blog to blog. The writing styles, the themes, the stories all begin to repeat themselves and become quite clear. The attention seeking and argumentative style also shows up in a long comment chain. She becomes easy to pick out.
She has run scams -- some of them involving money -- on a stamping blog, the Penn Mommy blog, the Atheist blog, the Gosselin blog.
She very clearly has an illness of some sort, perhaps multiple illnesses most of which appear to be mental. Manic depressive, pathological liar, Munchhausen by Internet, etc. There are several that come to mind. The excessive blogging is clearly part of the mental issue and also an addiction. How can someone with a spouse, children, and an alleged number of physical diseases have so much time to blog all throughout dozens and dozens of blogs? Better yet, why?
We should all feel sorry for such a sick person. We should also wonder if she has committed any crimes, given the involvement of impersonation and money. It appears that others have been involved in these scams. And others have unwittingly played the role of accomplice (Berzlebub, Calludus, others).
Though I do not think this person needs any more attention by the continued discussion of this sordid story, I do think the truth needs to come out and splashed all over the place so this person perhaps get the message that this nonsense is inappropriate, dangerous, and perhaps criminal.
Agreed, Sherlock, agreed.
I think it was very good of GDNNOP to bring this to the attention of their audience, some of whom had been taken in by a fraud. And I think it's fine - even warranted - to present an argument in a space where it's being discussed or where your reasoning is being attacked. I don't think splashing this around to other sites is going to do much, though, and I don't think it's a good idea - all it will do is make this troll wallow in her persecution (and have a legitimate reason to feel persecuted, if she gets chased from blog to blog outside those involved in the topic).
People who have never heard of this situation will think you're very strange if you show up and start laying out charges against someone, and they have a tendency to support their friends against outsiders. The people who have been drawn into the situation already - people in and around the Gosselin online community; the friends she rallied around her - well, if they've bothered to follow this discussion and they still believe the story she's peddling, what else could you possibly say? They believe that this woman was victimized by her cousin and her cousin's son via computer fraud for months with no particular motive in mind and during a time when the cousin's other son was dying. They believe that the IPs are explained because one was staying with the other, using her ISP, or because one spoofed the other's IP and used her accounts. They believe the writing styles are a coincidence. They think an unknown entity popping up to say "I met Penn Mommy" is credible. They don't notice that the explanation shifts from "it's all true and she just used my ISP; Penn Mommy is real and did nothing wrong" to "I won't tell on my cousin during her time of grief" to (as per "Brian's" latest) "Corinne is a pos who's skipping away from this." What can be said against that kind of obliviousness?
I actually believe that the principal details of her "real life" (health, kids, the vast majority of her online community) are real - she's been consistent on these things (or the friends have) when consistency as a fake ID was not her strong suit (remember how she never called CPS except when she did?). Pushing the suspicion too much further without more than gut feeling or a sense that something is improbable may weaken the credibility of the accusations. Just because someone is a liar, it doesn't mean everything they say is a lie. If you start claiming that something is false when others know it's true, they have cause to doubt you instead of her.
I also don't think it would be very effective to bring this to other communities. I think people are still very, very, naive about the hazards of internet "trust." Then again, considering the amount of Snopes-worthy emails I see in my inbox, I shouldn't be so surprised. But I don't think most people really get it until someone in their own community wakes them up, whether through advice or through victimization or what have you. I don't think strangers coming in with a complicated case of sockpuppeting would do much but leave people confused and dismissive. It rankles to let someone "get away with it," but I think stating our views within relevant discussion is enough. I have no right or ability to "punish" her, no cause to think I or any of us could stop her, and no expectation that it would be worth it to try.
And there appears to be more coming from what I can see.
Intrigued,
I completely agree with what you said. I know I had a long exchange on Moon but I realized the more I argued that this was futile.
I also agree that you can't think everything said is a lie. Throwing out accusations with no basis for proof does shake the credibility of the truth.
If it can't be proven, why bother?
I think the silence on the part of the friends is strange and I'm interested to see what happens in the weeks ahead.
Nina,
Are you teasing us? What do you see?
And by the way, you run a great little corner of the Internet, here. Well done!
Saint,
Thank you. It is a group effort that involves more than just the moderators here. We appreciate what everyone contributes to keep this blog ticking.
I probably should not have posted that comment because I am really not 100% sure. I found someone posting on a totally different board with a whole new identity that appeared to be recently created that sounded very familiar.
Thanks, Nina,
I guess someone needs a better hobby. I've had enough of "whole new identities."
Well, now her daughter is commenting on Berlzebub's blog about how mean and unfair we all are, and how we attacked her on her own blog (?). Still maintaining that there is a "Corinne" out there responsible for it all. Seriously, what the hell? Either she's posing as her own kid (bizarre), or we are to believe that she's allowed her barely-teenaged daughter to follow this whole thing online and post in her defense? What on earth?
It's such a blatant attempt to garner sympathy and duck the issue. Pathetic.
Posing as her 13 year old daughter? I don't know why, but I'm beyond shocked. This person thinks it's ok to lie and pose as her daughter? Then again she thinks it's ok to have an entire blog of lies about a family she never met.
You got caught already. Lick your wounds and move on and let all the people that believed you move on and heal.
PM pretending to be her daughter online (and not for the first time, IMO) is the creepy cherry on the freaky sundae. Somehow after all she's done, it seems uniquely transgressive - maybe because as far as I know, the daughter is a real person and not one of her made up personae.
I called PM a vampire once and that's what I think she is - an emotional vampire. That woman gives me the willies. I feel sorry for her kids. I hope they have a good support system.
Yeah, they can't even get the spelling of Corrinne's name correct! What a sham!It was spelled with two R's and two N's. This is absolutely the lowest she could stoop to involve her daughter (whether it was to sock her or whether it really is her daughter which I doubt).
This is also making me completely suspect about the Berz Blog. He was an active blogger discussing a variety of topics pertaining to the atheist community prior to this whole possum saga. And now, nothing. Don't you think that in itself is weird?
First William the son posting for his mother. Now a 13yr old daughter posting for her mother. Whatever.
Move on lady - get over yourself already.
Pathetic is not even the word. There are some real mental health concerns with this one. If (by some stretch) her daughter did write that comment then where is Possum's husband? Because if my wife spent 24/7 online then saw my kids being dragged into it, I'd put my foot down.
I think it's very telling that none of her "characters" come out and say they are her husband. Now that I'm typing this, I'm sure he'll be the next sock. Gotta make you wonder. If I were being wronged, I would hope that I'd turn to my husband for support, not random friends, strangers, and my 13 year-old.
This woman is in love with being a victim whose honor is then defended and protected. Kind of makes ya wonder why this fantasy is the one that she needs to keep playing out. Think really hard and you'll see where I'm going with this.
I know, psychoanalysis. Can I plead job hazard? Not that I could state anything professionally about her not having met her but just from an observer's perspective...boy is there a lot there.
I can't believe she'd still be trying for vindication. I don't think she likes the attention being off of her. Everytime there's a new Gosselin post, I expect her to do something because she's no longer the center of the talk. She's the one not letting it go away and she seems determined to blame the mods on this board.
It should be very easy for her to move on. She has her supporters and readers invited to her blog. Is she going to muck in this forever?
Having seen Berlzebub's last comment over there, my final question was answered about whether or not I can argue with the guy - I thought there was a chance that maybe he hadn't intended to approve "P1"'s comment, but he thinks it's more than okay for the daughter to insert herself. I posted a last time over there to sum up and throw in the towel. He's at a point where he has nothing worthwhile to say in response, and I can't think of anything else that would possibly be useful when it all falls on deaf ears. I've totally lost sight of why it's even important to me.
I'm going to retire as intrigued - I just used it as a name to comment on this because frankly, I think PMom was really unwise to leave so many trails to herself, and I feel like what I have to say should be able to stand on its own merit. I may come back to comment with an real login if no one minds. I still haven't watched more than fifteen minutes of the show, but the other issues involved - what is exploitation, what are the ethics of reality TV - are interesting and I appreciate that you're open to debate. I've enjoyed reading here so often in the last few weeks.
I read that last comment also and that whole post on that site and his response is confusing to say the least.
I have found a new screen name that I think she is now going to use - time will tell.
Thanks for your investigative work and you are welcome to post here anytime.
Intrigued -
I really enjoyed your insight and detective work. I do hope you pop in again and offer your thoughts on other topics as well. You rock!
Intrigued,
You did a very good job posting at Berlzebub's blog. I think it's been obvious since he "left town" that he had no real response to your blog-writing comparisons and sockpuppet proof. He hasn't for a few weeks now. I think he was waiting to take some great offense so that he could throw a little tantrum, then figuratively pick up his ball, and go home. He asked for links and he got links. He asked for someone to give the writing comparisons and he got writing comparisons. He could not respond, so he didn't. Now, when P1 supposedly writes in, he has time from his real life to respond with "I can't debate you." It seems to me that he CAN'T debate you, because he has to represent the losing side. It sure would be nice if he could engage in a reasonable debate without referring to his opponents in nasty terms.
I hope you stay here, too. I have a question for you, but you'll have to remain "Intrigued" for one more post. If you haven't watched Jon and Kate, how did you end up so committed to the Penn Mommy story?
saint, it's pretty random, but I'd rather not say more except that I'm stubborn. But I'm not Jon, or Kate, or Hannah or whoever else!
Well, even the possum misspelled CORRINNE.
Intrigued - I have been suspect of Berz being either a sock or in cahoots with the possum. I am trusting my gut now after the news posts.
I still find myself fascinated by this whole story, although I have no idea why! While I am not 100% convinced that everything presented against PM is accurate, there is obviously some deception going on.
The single thing that sticks out to me is the words of "William" posted on October 5th to willsjonah.blogspot.com.
"Jason and I started this blog to keep family apprised of my brother. My mom may post eventually. For now, however, you'll have to put up with our posts."
While that blog has long since been removed, I still can see the posts through google reader. Even at the far reaches of speculation I cannot imagine a grieving brother mistaking his dead brother for the one that is still living. That is so much more than a typo that in my opinion it screams LIAR louder than anything else I have read on the whole saga.
Several days ago, I asked why the Gosselins Without Pity crew were exiled from TWOP. My question, however, was not posted here. I came to the whole debate late, so I don't know all the history. Incidentally, I'm not allied with either your site or the GWOP blog, so I'm not trying to stir up any old controversy. I'd simply like to know a bit about what precipitated the change to a private blog for GWOP, and I certainly wouldn't ask them. You've shown yourselves to be much more courteous and level-headed than they.
Thanks, and I hope this post is in the right section of GDNNP and that it is accepted. I'm concerned: I try to follow your rules for posting, and my last post was the only one that I've had rejected.
Spanglish, thanks for answering my question about the demise of the TWOP forum on the Gosselins. I may owe thanks to others, too; I think I somehow failed to find my original question and what followed from it. I even posted the question again this morning, and I apologize for taking up more space than I needed to.
Spanglish, great name--and a very nice movie. Te agradezco mucho tu ayuda. :)
Does this crackhead never stop? Mods, she is now accusing you of not letting comments through defending her. LMFAO.... right!!!!!!! She thrives on attention. I love how she has gone about trying to delete her internet past blogs. Too bad for her they have already been seen and copied.
Found at Berz blog:
A-to-the-men, brother! That's the strangest thing. I don't say it to brag, but I am known to many. My "e-friends" usually become IRL (is that how you do "In real life"?) friens. The people who are trying to defend me have known me for years. I have a few people who have made themselves known as friends who see my almost daily or weekly. I'm not a twenty-seven year old computer geek sitting in a dark studio apartment with no friends and no audience. If I wanted to talk Gosselin I had a blog to do it in. Why make another one? Real people have said they've met most (or all) of the sockpuppets. I have been told that a woman met Corinne in Colorado and told GDNNOP about it as soon as they tried to say Pennmommy was me. It didn't make it to the comments. I get at least one person per day saying "they won't publish my proof in favor of you." I can only conclude that they don't want truth. They want to have a hen house gossip session where I'll save my own egg by chucking the rest of the family nest to the farmer for scrambling.
This is my first post on any site and I've tried to be a non-participating observer, but I needed to post this:
Just reading GWOP and saw this post from a Corinne. Could it be the same Corinne aka PM? It's an actual blogger ID and not an open ID/Name. You can find it in the discussion for the latest San Diego Show. http://gosselinswithoutpity.blogspot.com/2008/11/legos-and-safaris-november-3.html
Corinne said...
Honestly, this was the first week I haven't watched it - and I really don't miss Kate's constant negativity. Sounds like I didn't miss much! So, TLC, the "event I cannot miss" is coming up next week? Sorry, I'll pass.
11/04/2008 4:36 AM
Could it be her?
Does anyone else think Berlzebub is fake too?
IMO Berlz and PM are the same. I thought Call was also PM.
I was told by intrigued that Call is real and has been on the news.
I was wondering the same thing about Berlz and PM-- Calladus has such a strong profile in real life that I am sure he is who he says.... but the writing style of Berlz, how he treats commenters, and the way he has responded to criticism are exactly what PennMommy did and what PossumMomma seems to be doing as well.
It just gets curiouser and curiouser-- would that mean that PM got people to make donations for her own window film situation? Seriously? Assuming that is what this was used for of course... but seriously??
No matter the outcome, and who is real and who is fake, one thing is certain-- the internet is full of anonymity, so even having screennames, blogs, and hundreds of backers online does not mean the person is a living breathing human who truthfully posted all their life stories and thoughts. I'm not asking for proof, or saying they owe us anything-- just stating that at least in my mind the whole situation is very sad and should cause us all to be more careful about who we trust.
(and yes, I am real-- I even have a facebook with tons of pictures of my nephew and family :)-- if anyone doubts my identity, I'll link you to my Facebook :)...)
Post a Comment