And we all said, “Gee, it’s awful. Wow, she’s terrible. What a godawful thing to do.”
And we are right. It’s awful, she is terrible and it’s a godawful thing to do.
And as we all know, Maytag does similar crap. She proclaims herself an activist “on a mission from God” and starts accusing people of all sorts of things.
And we all say, “Gee, it’s awful. Wow, she’s terrible. What a godawful thing to do.”
Here’s a more recent example of Maytag’s “activism.”
And as you can see, it is awful, and she is terrible, and it is a godawful thing to do.
What you’re seeing here is frustration being displayed on the internet. Neither of these women have been particularly effective in getting anyone to take them seriously, and they lash out at anyone and everyone.
They do it bit differently, but it’s the same basic root.
Maytag is brash, crass, loud, and obnoxious, and way out there in the open (her one good quality). Camille hides behind fake names and pretends that she is smarter than everyone else and that she’s just doing “research,” so it’s all a little more respectable. However, they are two peas in a pod.
The core of all this is a desire for “justice,” but their idea of justice consists of them sitting in the judge’s seat meting it out. The accusation is the guilty verdict, as I’ve pointed out about a bazillion times.
All of this is old news, I know, but in the last day or so, we have this:
I want to point out a few things here, even at the risk of pissing off some folks.
First, notice that Rebecca (this is Rebecca Davis’ Facebook page) says that “people” are frustrated because “we” (“we” is actually “she”) are not naming names. You know, like Maytag and Camille do. Name names.
I get messages from people frequently telling me stuff. They tell me all sorts of stories. I dutifully file away the information, and wait. I seldom use any of it (although occasionally one of those stories is very useful because the information contained therein gets my attention, so I watch and I wait), because I generally do not have proof.
I actually believe many of these stories. Some make me scratch my head a little and think, “I don’t know about that,” but a lot of them are very credible.
But you see, “credible” isn’t enough. I need proof. I knew for years that Camille had spread around the lie about Leah Hayes. But it was in a private message between me and Camille, and until Camille chose to break that confidence, I didn’t use it. Once she did that, the floodgate was opened and I posted the whole damn thing.
I also knew perfectly well that DJ Forrester did not commit suicide. I knew that Beth (nor anyone else) was not mean to her. But I couldn’t prove any of that, so I didn’t write about it, until one day when I received a copy of her autopsy report.
At that point, I could proceed and write.
That’s the responsible way to do this. Get proof of what you’re accusing somebody of doing. Maytag was either lying about Beth, or she was told lies which she naively believed and quoted, and she didn’t bother to check them out.
Camille published the Havens story based on my say-so alone and didn’t bother to do a second’s research to try to verify the facts.
This is what they do wrong. They do it over and over again, and it’s what makes them untrustworthy. It’s what makes me skeptical of everything they say.
So, does Rebecca respond to this “frustration” that she’s not naming names by explaining anything resembling that?
She hastens to reassure everyone that she has, in fact, named a name. But of course, that’s okay, to spread the accusation, because somebody else did it first. (That’s just like me buying into the Leah-is-mentally-ill thing because Camille told me that somebody at Barge ‘leaked’ her medical records—the ones that didn’t exist.) And it’s all based on anonymous crap in the GRACE report, which is a compilation of mostly anonymous crap. It’s a he said/she said thing that happened decades ago, but Rebecca feels fine in posting not only his name but all his contact information because Boz. And Jesus. And victims. And triggering.
If the supposed victim in this case wants to accuse the supposed assailant, then she needs to get a blog (they’re free) and do it in her own name. Then, if she’s lying, the alleged assailant can sue her ass for libel. Or maybe she can get some attention from the proper authorities and perhaps get “justice,” whatever that might look like.
And then Rebecca speculates about what would happen if she started naming names. And I almost fainted reading it.
She speculates that perhaps naming names would simply cause the accused person to come up with cover. He would start teaching Sunday School. He would try to do good works. This is all so he can hide his nefarious deeds, don’t you know. Of course, this means that anyone who teaches Sunday School or does nice things becomes suspect. He’s probably doing it because he raped/fondled/inappropriately touched some girl in 1978 and is hiding it.
What about not naming names because what you’re dealing with, Rebecca, is pure gossip? What about directing these very troubled people you are dealing with to the proper authorities and/or professionals (you are not one of those) and quit dabbling in vigilante justice?
What about maybe thinking that sometimes, just sometimes, people are vindictive and hateful and unstable and have agendas that you might know nothing about? What about “innocent until proven guilty”? What about, while you’re all for championing the “weak” and the “abused” and the “victims,” you consider that if we become a nation where people are convicted based on hearsay “evidence” and gossip, we might as well put on white robes and dunce caps and start burning crosses?
What about that?
Now, what I want to know is, apart from degree, what is the difference between what I have vehemently criticized Maytag and Camille for doing and what Rebecca is toying with doing?
Rebecca offers us a third style. She is not brash and impetuous like Maytag, nor is she fake like Camille. She’s probably very sincere. She oozes Jesus out of every pore. She couches everything in a spiritual cloak. She’s kind and sweet.
And she’s dead wrong.