Schoolyard Bullies

I bought this book, not because I’m weird and think that the subject matter is just the most fascinating thing in the world, but because I took a philosophy class a while back and the prof recommended it highly.

It’s a very detailed, fairly scholarly work with lots and lots of data, and not much in the way of lurid stories—the cover is the most titillating thing about it.

But I have enjoyed it very much, although it’s taken me a long time to read it.

I ran across a section today that I want to quote because I think it’s relevant to the subject we’ve been discussing—how to deal with bullies.  How far can we go? What is permissible? What is not?  Why?

In primitive societies (what Daly and Wilson refer to as “stateless societies”), blood feuds are often a way of life. In the section of the book devoted to revenge killing, they discuss how in these cultures, an eye-for-an-eye is often the rule rather than the exception.

However, in some cases, in some cultures, it’s possible for the two parties (the family of the victim and the family of the killer) to get together and go through arbitration of sorts and arrive at a settlement price.

There’s something like this in the Old Testament as well. Leviticus lays out all sorts of rules about what you have to pay for if you inadvertently kill another person’s slave or sheep or whatever. In these cases, it’s payment for killing.

Only it doesn’t always work. There are situations where the victim’s family simply will not accept a payment, and demand the killer pay with his life.  As Daly and Wilson quote:

“I will not carry my dead son in my pouch, ” was the furious retort of a father scorning blood money (Grimm, 1999, quoted by Goebel, 1937).

Usually the cases where a family accepts “blood money” involve accidental killings, or killings that occur as the result of a sudden fight. What we term “first degree murder” would result in a blood demand, not money.

This has come down to us in “civilized society” as the various degrees we put on charges involved murder:  first and second degree and manslaughter. We recognize that there is a difference between somebody who plots and schemes to kill another person, and a situation where sudden passion results in a fight and the fight results in death, or where the killing is totally accidental.

And that leads to the quote I had in mind:

But the ideology of obligate vengeance was not necessarily adhered to in practice, even when the death was unequivocally inflicted by another human being. In particular, the chroniclers of many societies have noted that material compensation in lieu of revenge is much more likely to prove acceptable to the victim’s next of kin if the initial homicide were unintentional. In the event of a deliberate murder, arbitration may only be possible after a revenge killing. The existence of these practices and attitudes reinforces the point that the social display of one’s will and ability to retaliate are very much the point.  It is an act of magnanimity to accept an apology for an accidental affront, but to turn the other cheek in response to deliberate aggression is mere weakness or stupidity. He who forgives a deliberate act of violence simply invites another. (from page 237, italics by the authors)

Let me repeat that last bit:

It is an act of magnanimity to accept an apology for an accidental affront, but to turn the other cheek in response to deliberate aggression is mere weakness or stupidity. He who forgives a deliberate act of violence simply invites another.

This, of course, is a description of what we would consider a “primitive” culture, but the idea struck me as valid. You can’t beg a schoolyard bully. We all know about the battered wife who forgives her husband only to be hit some more days later.

Several years ago, I believed Camille Lewis when she lied to me about Leah Hayes’ supposed mental health history. I didn’t invent the story, but I believed it. I believed it because I didn’t understand that Camille will lie freely if it advances her cause (which is Camille K. Lewis).

Leah very graciously accepted my apology for that poor behavior on my part. She did so in part because she knew that I didn’t deliberately set out to slander her, or make up a malicious lie about her. I simply believed somebody I shouldn’t have believed.

But Camille and Cathy and Fossen have literally made up lies about people. They have set out to destroy reputations, cast doubt about other people’s characters—even dead people, family members, children.  Doesn’t matter to them. They plot and scheme to do this stuff. It’s not accidental. It’s not just a bit of poor judgment.  It’s first-degree character assassination.

And that’s why we cannot “forgive” those deliberate acts of “virtual violence.”  To do so simply invites more of the same.


The Anatomy of a Fake

I started this page originally simply to list known fakes, but I think maybe that’s an exercise in futility. As soon as I out a fake, they will simply remove it and make another.

Far more instructive, I think, would be to simply show you how we deconstructed a fake (and yes, I had help doing this). If you see what they do to make one, you’ll know how to research a friend request before accepting it.

Why do people make fakes?

There are multiple reasons, and the fakes are often specially designed to serve a single purpose.

One reason they’re done is to get into groups in order to spy and grab screen shots. Another reason is to spy on people’s Facebook pages, to be able to see posts that are set to “friends only.” William Peck, for example, existed almost entirely for a screen to hide Camille while she insulted and slammed Jocelyn Zichterman. Fakes are also useful if someone has blocked you. Nearly the entire Court has me blocked, yet they troll my page regularly looking for stuff.

These people aren’t one bit ashamed of doing this stuff. They retort that because people use screen names on my blog, somehow that’s equivalent and I’m a “hypocrite.” As you’ll see, it’s not the same thing at all. The people with screen names on my blog are almost all known to me. Some of them are known to each other as well. Furthermore, the blog itself is mine, and everyone knows that.

Furthermore, a fake profile that uses the name “Jiminy Cricket” is not what I’m talking about here.  Anyone knows that is a fake. It’s the equivalent of using a screen name when commenting on the blog.

Here’s a simple fake. It’s not in any way nefarious that I can see. It’s Cathy Harris, using the name she pretends is her birth name before Cleo “kidnapped” her.

It’s relatively easy to spot this as fake. No last name. No banner photo. Almost no activity. And the cat photo sort of gives it away. She’s not trying to hide anything here.

Kim Bumhammer

Here’s another relatively simple fake.

Again, no banner photo. They’ve tried a wee bit harder here, with a visible friend list (albeit few friends), and some likes and groups and stuff.

So how do I know this is a fake?

Take a good look at the profile picture. Notice the two guys in the rear (I’ve put arrows pointing to them.) And notice the logo on their shirts?

In addition, pay attention to the ball. It’s not a soccer ball. It’s a rugby ball. This is a rugby team.

Here’s a closeup of the logo. It says “Scotland.”

And look at these two guys. Have you seen them before, each holding a rugby ball? Think maybe this is the same photo shoot on the same day?

That is a photo of the youth that were chosen to be part of the Commonwealth Youth Games as a rugby team. From Scotland. Representing Scotland. In September 2011 on the Isle of Man.

Now, is it possible that Kim Bumhammer, from Kansas City, Kansas, has a nephew or niece or some other relative or friend who was chosen to be on the Scotland Youth Rugby Team, almost four years ago? And she’s kept that same photo as her profile picture ever since she joined Facebook in February, 2012, when this photo was six months old?

Or is Kim a fake?

Linda Meeks

This one is actually gone now, as far as I can tell, so I cannot link to it, but it’s clearly a fake as well. I include it because both “Kim” and “Linda” play in a role in what’s coming down the page.

“Linda Meeks” got her profile picture from the blog of Linda Weaver Clarke, who is an author.

Here she is again, profiled and interviewed on another blog.

It is not the case that Linda Clarke is simply a pen name for “Linda Meeks.” “Linda Meeks” purported to be a Bob Jones University graduate.

As you can see, the real person, Linda Weaver Clarke, went to college in Utah and is a Mormon.

So that leads to a question. How did we figure all this out?

The first tool is to be skeptical. Real profiles have lots of different things on them. My own Facebook page has stuff about cows, farming, GMOs, alternative medicine (as a hoax), atheism, Bob Jones, politics and silly kitties as well as rescued pups. That’s some pretty diverse subject matter. Be skeptical if the profile is too narrow.

Second, if a profile has nothing posted except one meme or video or something like that after another, you’re justified in seeing a red flag. There should be commentary, at least some commentary. Keeping up a bunch of fakes takes time, and the fakers get lazy. It’s easy to just toss up a meme. It’s harder to take the time to actually write something as “Linda Meeks” or “Kim Bumhammer.” Speaking of which, where in the hell do they get these names?

Look at the visible photos. Grab them. Stick them on your desktop. Then go to Google Images. On Google Images, click on the icon of a camera to the far right of the information box. Then click on “upload an image” or drag your image from the desktop onto the page. You’ll find all sorts of stuff if the image was lifted from somebody’s website. If it’s actually Susie McDonald’s photo, you probably won’t find anything at all.

Brenda Bough

And all the preceding has been a lead-up to this one. This is probably the most elaborate fake we’ve uncovered thus far.

Go take a look at it. Hell, some of you are probably friends with “Brenda.” “She” has 240 friends. Take a look at them. See how many names you recognize. [Note: you can’t. Camille took down “Brenda Bough” after this article was published. The friend list consisted largely of BJU-related people.]

Then take a look at her photos. Notice that there are photos of “Brenda” all over, taken at different times. There’s even a couple of photos which appear to be “Brenda” with her daughter taken years apart.

These are from the fake Brenda Bough’s profile pictures.

See the ones I’ve outlined in red?

Note: I didn’t outline or grab all the stolen photos because this page would be much longer than it is now if I had. All the photos of people are stolen.

All the photos of “Brenda Bough” are lifted from a blog and web site belonging to Mrs. Bettie Need. Mrs. Need is a widow, a very religious lady who makes patterns for those godawful “modest” dresses for women and girls. Regardless of what I think about her patterns, she didn’t deserve to have her photos stolen like this and used in such a vile way.

Here they are in their original setting.

And here is a common ploy that the Queen and her Court use to make it look like a profile is real. They have “Brenda” talking to “Linda” (Linda Meeks, remember her?) on the phone. Exactly the same way that “Beth James” spoke on phone with Cathy Harris “many times.”

And in several other places, especially early in the profile’s existence (when they needed to establish her supposed credibility) people “like” her comments – “people” such as “Kim Bumhammer” and “Linda Meeks” – other fakes.

Once they manage to get “Brenda Bough” some credible “friends,” it’s easy to add others. People accept “Brenda’s” friend request even without knowing her because so-and-so is a friend of hers.

Here’s another example. “Brenda,” who has already established herself a little bit with a few accepted friend requests, has a nice chatty exchange with “Kim” who is trying to get her foot in the door. By talking about the non-existent mother with the non-existent cancer (oh gee whiz, deja vu or what?), people tend to believe that “Brenda” and “Kim” know each other. And of course, they do. They are probably the same person.

Now which person do you think might be behind “Brenda”?

Between the time that I started this page (several months ago – I got interrupted) and now, “Brenda Bough” has blocked me on Facebook. Wrap yourself around that a little bit. Look at “Brenda’s” friend list [NOTE: You can’t since Camille took it all down]. I have never interacted with a single one of those people. Not one. I have no mutual friends with “Brenda Bough.”

She is ostensibly an older lady, BJU graduate, who likes to sew and who posts politically conservative crap and sappy religious stuff. There is no reason at all for “Brenda Bough” to even know I exist. But she has me blocked.

I thought the page was gone and had ask someone else to look – which is when I discovered the blockage.

I will tell you why I think that Camille did this. Since we (and yes, it’s “we”) started working on this, some folks felt strongly enough that this was seriously shitty that they warned some of “Brenda’s” friends. And Camille either got word filtering back to her, or she noticed “Brenda” was being unfriended a bit, and decided I was behind it, so wham – blockage.

Now, why would Camille make such an elaborate fake profile and keep it up since February, 2012?

She does it to snoop. She’s not friends with many of “Brenda’s” friends. Look at the list.  [Again, you can’t.] They are pastors and for the most part BJU “loyalists.” And Camille is their Facebook friend whether they realize it or not. It means she can see what they post to “friends only.”

She makes provocative posts like this one, hoping that they will say stuff. In the conversation that followed this, 10 comments, “Brenda” liked almost every post. As she clicked “like” she was laughing at them.

She hopes they’ll post stuff and have conversations that will give her dirt to put on Truth Seeking Graduates and then everyone will marvel at her “sources.”

In addition, by having a profile like this, Camille can join groups that would otherwise not allow her in.

UPDATE May 4, 2015

Here is Camille, in her own words, talking about “Brenda Bough.”

So here we have Camille calling her sister-in-law and Trudy Fremont, along with 239 other people, “whores.” Not “trusting.” Not “naive.” [Trudy Fremont, for those who don’t know, is the very elderly widow of a former professor. She has lived on campus for decades.]


This is what she thinks of people at Bob Jones University. All the stuff she puts on Truth Seeking Graduates about how it’s the administration that is bad, but she loves the faculty? Bullshit. They are “whores.”

As I showed above, she stole all those pictures.

And that is the text of a letter than Camille wrote to the board members in support of Chuck Phelps. A woman who screams and yells about being an advocate for victims writes a letter like that in support of Chuck Phelps. It doesn’t matter that she did it under a fake identity.

What could possibly have been her motive? What did she stand to gain by doing that? Information? Not likely. All she did was fuel (albeit in a very small way) the feeling on the board that they were right to defend Phelps.

You see, Camille doesn’t want any change at BJU. Camille simply wants blood. She is after revenge against her former employer because they dared to let her go. It’s not about anything else or anything less.

Just look at the friend list. [You can’t.] Think about the deception that is going on here, actively, right now, today. Camille calls this “whistleblowing” and thinks she’s some sort of hero for doing it.

I call it pitiful.

Please look at the friend list. If you have mutual friends with “Brenda,” please send them the link to this page. They have a Peeping Tom looking in their window. [Thankfully, that page is gone.]

Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that “Brenda” is not Camille’s only fake. Of course, we already know that William Peck is another, but there are probably numerous others. Cathy is adept at pulling off this sort of stunt as well, and probably has a dozen aliases.

But more importantly, be aware that this is what the Queen and her Court do. This is why I bitch about fake profiles. This is what I’m talking about. Not using screen names on a blog where everyone knows that it’s my blog or that it’s Camille’s blog. This is not clever. It’s deceptive. It’s lying. It’s theft.

I know that “some people are saying” that Camille is having a crisis of faith. But I’ll tell you flat out. The atheists I know are moral people. They don’t do this sort of shit. We do not want her. You guys can keep her.




Paulsen For President

In the late sixties, a comedian named Pat Paulsen appeared on the Smothers Brothers TV show, and did a comedy routine satirizing political editorials. He was completely dead-pan, and said outrageous stuff, and a whole lot of nothing most of the time. The forerunner of Stephen Colbert, he was just hilariously funny during a period when politics wasn’t a bit funny or even pleasant.

Inevitably, he began “running for President.”  He traveled around the country, “campaigning” to adoring crowds.

One of his most memorable lines was the campaign slogan: “If elected, I will win.”

You can see some of his stuff in the series of videos I’ve posted above. That’s one of six.

I could not find a film clip of him doing it, but he used to get up in each town where he appeared and say, “Oh, I love Birmingham. Mrs. Paulsen and I have often discussed how when we retire, we’re going to retire to Birmingham. We love it here.”

And ditto in Denver. And in Syracuse. And in Charlotte.

And always with this serious expression and total “sincerity.”

The routine was funny enough that it has remained legendary in our family.  It’s a symbol of insincerity.  We look at each other and say, “I love this town. When we retire, we’re going to live here.” And then we laugh.

Fast forward:

I once told the story of my encounter with Dr. Bob Jones, III to a friend. Before I got even the first part of it out, he wrote: “I believe you.”

I believe you.

I was a little stunned. Why wouldn’t he believe me?  What in the world was that about?  Furthermore, he hadn’t heard the whole thing. How would he know if he believed me or not, when he didn’t even know what I was going to say?

I’ve told lots of people that story over the 51 years since it happened, and that was the first time anyone ever responded like that. When I recounted the story on the original Bob Jones University survivor’s group, a couple of guys expressed doubt about parts of it. They clearly didn’t believe some of the details. But that didn’t surprise me or even bother me.

My worth as a human being doesn’t come from what other people think about the veracity of some 51-year-old story. Besides that, any 51-year-old memory is subject to being pretty flawed, so I don’t even know if it’s totally true in every single detail.

But this knee-jerk “I believe you” thing was different. It just felt different. It felt rote, automated, not thoughtful—just reactive.

It was quite a while (like months) before I realized what was wrong.  It was automated. This friend had swallowed the line that one must never, ever doubt a “victim’s” story, ever.  One must always express total belief. So he was doing that. Only my little story had nothing at all to do with sexual abuse, and he made the error of saying it way too soon, before he’d even read it all.

My friend was channeling Pat Paulsen. He was just repeating the same thing to everyone, regardless of what crap they tell him. Doesn’t matter. What if I had gone on to tell him that Dr. Bob III had sprouted horns right in front of me, and that his skin had peeled back, and he was really a reptile from Sauron disguised as a human being?

I believe you.

It sounds so comforting and accepting and I know my friend thought it was the right thing, the politically correct thing, to say.

But it’s hollow when repeated in Pat Paulsen fashion. He went all over America making fun of politicians who do the same thing.

Almost nine years ago, we lost our son, Nathan. In the years since his death, I have heard people describe him many times. They use all sorts of words: beautiful, talented, infuriating, driven. Those are just a few.

But the most commonly used word is “real.”


One musician said this: If Nathan told you that your performance was good, you knew it really was. It meant more than when other people said it, because he didn’t say it unless he really meant it. He didn’t say it to be polite, or to make you feel good about yourself. He said it because he thought it was good.

That, to me, is the ultimate legacy.