The Fake Activist’s Words

From the Calgary Herald, June 20, 2012, a report that there would be no charges filed at Prairie Bible Institute:

Fossen said she was hoping charges would be laid, but if not, that the school would identify perpetrators of sexual abuse and make a point of saying their alleged crimes were wrong.

We realize that a lot of these cases cannot be proved in court. The legal system is never going to try these cases because they’re old, there’s no evidence, we don’t have the DNA, we don’t have witnesses.

So, Linda Fossen believes that even with no evidence, the supposed “perpetrators” should be identified publicly and told that they are wrong. Really? She actually said this? Surely it’s a misquote. Please let it be a misquote.

It’s not.

This is one of my favorites. It made me laugh. I am so very glad that I am not Linda’s standard for truth, since she clearly doesn’t have one.

By the way, they did, in fact, scrub that page within a few hours of my uploading “Victimizing the Dead.” I did the upload at about 6 p.m. and they started scrubbing a bit after midnight. Did one have anything to do with the other? I couldn’t say, but it sure looked like it from here.

Typical Fossen spewing of stuff. She accuses Cathy Harris’s adoptive father of running a FB page when she has no idea about whether or not that might be true. It doesn’t matter to her. She just says it, and therefore it’s so.

Um, no. Just no. The page in question started in early 2012. She doesn’t co-administer it. But, you know, in Fossenland, that doesn’t matter. She just makes shit up.

And here we have it again. The man is guilty, because Linda was “abused” by her father and she therefore knows everything. She is the Decider. I’m not quite sure why she would grant him a trial. What’s the point? She’s already declared the verdict.

And you see, if he doesn’t plead guilty, it’s not because he’s not guilty, but because he’s not “accept[ing] responsibility.”

In the same series of comments, Linda assures us that the facts of the case, which make some people doubt the validity of the charges, just make Linda more certain that he’s guilty. In her bizarre world, the more innocent you appear, the more guilty you actually are. In a YouTube video of her being interviewed on some lame Christian TV show, she stated that “1 out of 3 women will be sexually abused before they turn 20.” Do you realize what she’s saying? She’s saying that a very large percentage of men (it’s mostly men involved here) are child molesters.

I like men. To my knowledge, I have never been acquainted with one who molested children. Linda would have me believe that fully 1/3 of the men I’ve known in my life were, in fact, child molesters. I think not. A far simpler, more plausible explanation is that she’s nuts.

A little addition: Linda’s “explanation” for this is that child molesters generally abuse more than one victim, so really there are only, oh, say, 54 of them in the whole United States. (Don’t flip out. That’s a slight exaggeration.) And that is a typical defense from the “experts” who came up with that “1 out of 3 women” figure.

One in three women experience sexual or physical violence — most likely from their intimate partner. CNN, June, 2013

Note: An “intimate partner” is not part of your life when you are a minor child.

And this page from Women Organized Against Rape (WOAR) cites figures that are all over the map. I’m not sure how anyone can know how many rapes are not reported. I’d love to see the way that sort of study is done. A more honest way to put it is that X percent of assaults are estimated to be unreported.

And here’s one more, from a feminist site. At the end of the piece, there are links to several more sites.

But, what is not factored in here is this: the people citing the “1 in 3 women will be abused as a child” figure are counting those who “recover memories.” Those aren’t verifiable at all. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of women who “recover memories” of abuse name their father as at least one of their abusers. That’s a whole lot of fathers.

And let’s remember this: Linda Fossen says she was abused by two people: her father and her brother. That’s two. Cathy Harris was supposedly abused by who knows how many. Six? Fifty? And Cathy is not really unusual. Many of the “recovered memory” women, especially those who stay in therapy for a long time, “remember” more and more abusers: in addition to their fathers, they add in grandfathers, brothers, uncles, the next-door neighbor, the postman, their teachers, principals.

So, in addition to the serial molester, we have the serial accusers. I’d love to see some statistics comparing the two groups.

It’s never, ever okay to say “I do not believe that Carl McIntire raped Cathy Harris while Bob Jones Jr. watched.” Oops. It’s not okay. If Cathy Harris asserts that to be true, then, by golly, no matter how absurdly ridiculous it might be, it’s true.

But all the gavel pounding that Linda does is because, well, she’s on a “mission from God.” I think I’ve heard about that before, haven’t I?

Only wasn’t it Beth?

I guess “missions from God” are only valid if Linda approves of them.



The Fake Activist

I really like the truth. I gave up a lot for it when I deconverted from Christianity. I don’t take it lightly. And I absolutely despise fakes. Fake profiles, fake identities, fake blogs, fake accusers. This sort of thing is the modern day equivalent of anonymous letters.


Despite the fact that Facebook asks its users to use their real names, a whole of people don’t. I understand some of that. Some people are simply concerned about privacy issues. I had one Facebook friend who had two profiles – one for her family and her acquaintances, and a second one with a false name where she could interact for real. In her case, it was her parents that drove her into anonymity. In other cases, it might be an employer. I understand it.

But this isn’t about fake profiles to protect the innocent. This is about fake profiles used to attack other people. It’s hiding in the shadows slinging mud. It’s also a lie. And when asked directly about this, Linda, via her fake profiles, just lied. Over and over again.


At one point, I asked her how she could possibly know all about the current “survivor war” when her profile had only been created about three days previously. She replied that her sister was on Facebook and kept her current. It was so lame it made me laugh, but the fact that Linda is inept doesn’t change the fact that she lies.


Linda did a rant on the now-defunct Truth Seeking 2nd Edition page confessing that she was using two fake profiles. Of course, she says that she used them because she wanted to defend her friend Cathy Harris, who is apparently incapable of doing so herself. Here are snippets from that “confession.”


It seems that Linda has been “defending” Cathy Harris for quite some time now. Joanne Cummings was a new one, but Bee Malone has been around for quite a while.

So here are some excerpts from Linda’s very long rant.


Naturally, in Linda’s view, her fake profiles are entirely justified because she, like Superman, is on a mission.


Bee became so obviously fake that Linda switched to a new fake profile, Joanne.


What Joanne and Bee had to say is irrelevant here. The point is that this woman doesn’t mind hiding behind fake profiles and lying incessantly when it suits her. For the record, I have never had a fake profile on Facebook, ever. My current profile is almost entirely public. As Camille K. Lewis put it (while using her fake profile):



And while this is clearly not Linda Fossen, it’s an example of yet another fake profile. Nobody seems to think this is in any way odd or wrong or maybe just not a good idea. This person claims to be an attorney, which we now know was a lie,  and sees no irony in doing so while using a totally fake identity to threaten other people with legal action.

NOTE:  Beth James was Cathy Harris.

Have you ever gotten an anonymous letter? I have. It’s not pleasant. What it leads to is suspicion – of everyone. You wonder, who could this fake person be referring to? Who are my friends? Who are the people who are not my friends?

All three of the women I’ve talked about here on this web site know exactly who I am and how to contact me. I have never hidden a single thing I’ve said about any of them. I’m not one bit ashamed of any of it, nor do I regret any of it. But they bash people and talk about them and malign their characters and lie about them, and they do so from the relative safety of anonymity.

It’s not about “setting up a Facebook page.” It’s about honesty. It’s about allowing other people to have opinions that differ from yours without beating them mercilessly until they either run and hide or submit.


In the Footsteps of Franklin

In the early part of the 18th century, Benjamin Franklin was in Philadelphia working as an apprentice to his brother who was a printer. In those days, newspapers were local, generally with a relatively small circulation, and the letters to the editor were avidly devoured by readers, who read them, answered them, copied them and shared them.

You know, something like a status update on Facebook.

Franklin wanted in. He didn’t want to just clean up around the shop and learn to set type. He wanted to write. But he was only 16 years old. You can imagine the delight with which his brother would have received an article Ben wrote and submitted for publication.

So Ben did something that was very common practice in those days.

He created a pen name.

He called himself “Silence Dogood” and wrote a series of letters to the editor (his brother) and caused no end of speculation as to his identity.

No one ever guessed who he was—he finally revealed his identity and his brother was really peeved.

But the important thing is that nobody thought that “Silence Dogood” was really a widow writing these letters. They knew the name was a pen name.

Writers still use pen names from time to time today. Sometimes authors do it, especially if they write more than one genre of book, so that their romance novel fans don’t think that the horror story they wrote is a romance novel.

And people who comment on the internet do it.

Only today, on the net, we call them “screen names.”

It’s a rich tradition. In many ways, social media is very like those small newspapers dotted all over the country—they were driven by readers, not by advertisers. Revenue came from sales of the papers, not by sales of ads. There was a back and forth, a true conversation, even heated arguments  (see Thomas Jefferson and John Adams if you want some glorious insults to fling about) that make a lot of Facebook fights look tame indeed.

Let’s suppose for a second that one of the Disaffected came over here and began commenting using a screen name.

Do you think I care for one second if they do?

I would be delighted to have any of them join the conversation and if they want to use a screen name, that’s fine. What do you think would happen?  Are they going to be able to present cogent reasonable arguments that convince me that I am wrong?  More power to them if they can. That would be great and I would readily admit the error and correct it (I already did this before, so it’s nothing new.)

Brenda Bough was not a screen name. Brenda Bough was a fake identity. The intent was not to engage in a conversation without revealing that you’re a 16-year-old boy. The intent was to spy, to gain access to remarks, conversations, photos, and information that was not intended to be shared publicly.

I know who most of the people are here who are using screen names. There are a few I don’t know, but I don’t care. The rules are the same for everyone, from Linda Fossen to Tita Wyatt and Fly on the Wall.

Those who choose to use screen names do so for a reason and nobody needs to know what that reason might be. They are following a very highly respected tradition, and I will not invade their privacy.

Maybe, like Ben Franklin, Fly is only 16 years old.