Another Update
bioch...@earthlink.net
thinking. I had been laid off from a two-year research position in
December of 2003 and had spent the last two years living on
unemployment and a part-time retail job. Then I was diagnosed with
cancer and had to quit the retail job to get treatment. One positive
thing about all this is that it forced me to re-examine my life.
The upshot is that I decided to make a change in career. Last week I
contacted a number of technical and vocational schools looking into a
number of possible choices. This week I made a decision, and just
yesterday I was accepted into a small college in one of their advanced
computer graphic arts programs, specifically the Interactive Web Design
program. I will be starting classes on October 17. It is in walking
distance of where I live, which will in turn help me get some much
needed exercise (which my doctors have sanctioned). Yet it is also
close enough that my family can come retrieve me if I overtax myself or
something more serious happens.
Meanwhile, I have been offered an opportunity to do contract
proofreading and editing work for a company that creates training
manuals for the chemical and petroleum industries. Nothing is
finalized yet, but if it comes through I will make more than enough to
pay bills and keep Lindisfarne Press going.
So things are beginning to turn around. With these classes, my
publication schedule will slow down somewhat, but I still plan to
produce at least two books before the end of the year, and *Charnel
Feast* should be out sometime soon after the first of the year. I
won't have as much time for writing, either, but I still have a number
of stories I want to get finished sometime soon. And in addition to
the second part of the Multiple Dimensions and Mythos Beasties post, I
have plans for one about linking the Outre Gods to the holographic
principle and another that discusses the application of the sheep/goats
effect from psychic research to ghost stories.
Gotta get crackin'.
Kevin L. O'Brien
huw....@gmail.com
lifestyle/career change can work wonders.
Huw
Randy Money
What Huw said, Kevin. Take care and good luck with all of it.
Randy M.
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
Am I the only one whose jaw drops as each new scene unfolds in this
ridiculous pantomime?
Wake up people! This man is seriously taking advantage of you. It's a
text book case of 'Munchausen's By Internet'.
Several issues to consider:
1. We've all got burdens to carry. Why does O'Brien keep inflicting his
on us in such detail? Fishing for sympathy is one of the key symptoms
of Munchausen's By Internet.
2. His story about cancer is riddled with error and contradiction. He
also swings from near death ("The Big Goodbye" post) to miraculous
recovery ('The doctor says I can go home and start publishing / arguing
on the internet again!') in a manner that is wholly compatible with a
carefully manipulated lie.
3. He has a very long track record of faking documents and
conversations in alt.horror.cthulhu, which predates any conflict I have
had with the sad little geek. In fact it's true to say that everyone in
AHC believes him to be - or knows him to be - a liar.
4. Clearly the ludicrous Susan Anton does not exist. O'Brien posted
these implausible messages himself and then got caught out by an
inconsistency Tom A spotted.
5. O'Brien persistently refers to the fact that everyone is oh-so-very
concerned about him e.g. his friends (whoever they might be), his
family and his doctors. Yet, strangely, none of them advise him to
desist from his internet obsession, in particular his lying, even
though he allegedly has cancer. So do they really exist? Is this not
merely a fictional prop as per the Munchausen's diagnosis, employed by
an incredibly insecure fantasist? I don't have the big C myself, but I
would guess that most GPs and oncologists would argue that if you have
such a serious illness, the last thing you should be doing is stressing
yourself out with silly internet arguments.
6. O'Brien suddenly and very drammatically developed cancer the day
after I revealed that John Pelan's own attorney had himself unwittingly
revealed that O'Brien had been lying on Pelan's behalf. It was his
crazed response to a crisis.
O'Brien is one sick puppy and I believe it is very wrong to encourage
him in these bizarre fantasies. No doubt some of my enemies might try
to tell themselves that they are boosting O'Brien's confidence by
supporting him, but that doesn't get away from the fact that he is
still inventing ever bigger lies to prop up the smaller ones, and, as
any responsible healthcare professional will tell you, this is a recipe
for disaster.
O'Brien will have a complete breakdown sooner or later, and may do harm
to himself or others. I just want to spell that out very clearly so
that when the time comes, no one here can cite ignorance as an excuse.
smee
> Wake up people! This man is seriously taking advantage of you. It's a
> text book case of 'Munchausen's By Internet'.
So you're writing all of these lengthy messages for *our* benefit? And
to think I assumed that all of these screeds were simply a reflection
of your personal animosity for Kevin. What an old fool I've been. Well,
take 5, Chris -- I'd hate to see you bust a blood vessel on my account.
On a serious note -- how is your continual armchair speculation
concerning Kevin's mental health ethically distinct from analagous
speculation numerous others have engaged in concerning *your* mental
status? Speculation that you have, incidentally, vociferously
condemned. No one has nominated me NetNanny of a.b.g.-f. (and I
certainly won't hold my breath waiting), but it would be my personal
wish to see this sort of witless and crass conjecture cease; it's both
silly and sleazy.
Yrs,
Michael
icarp...@aol.com
And let me know when I can order my copy of Charnel Feast!
Matt
bioch...@earthlink.net
Barking Toad!
One of my first classes will be Basic Drawing. That should be . . .
umm . . . interesting, especially since I can't draw worth a damn. But
I am looking forward to the figure studies! [pant, pant, pant]
Kevin L. O'Brien
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
Quite simply, you don't have the right to insult anyone with childish
name-calling because you are a compulsive liar who has been widely
exposed and humiliated for same. But more to the point, why don't you
go and document all of these lies ('updates') in a Blog? Why of why
inflict your daily updates upon these discussion groups?
We all have our crosses to bear in life (though yours is an imaginary
one), and I don't see many other people playing out their private lives
on the public stage in quite so ridiculous a fashion.
So please reserve any 'The Big Goodbye / Gosh, I'm Miraculously Cured'
twaddle for a Blog, eh?
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
If you weren't quite so obsessed in nitpicking invisible fleas on my
own rather well-maintained coat, I wouldn't wonder so much at your
ignoring the hideous vampiric tics which flourish unchecked on Pelan
and O'Brien's ragged hides.
'Susan Anton' is obviously part of a far larger deception. By all means
open your mouth wide and swallow the rancid fish-heads of 'fact' which
O'Brien seeks to nourish you with, but pray allow me the right to eat
at another restaurant.
One day O'Brien will flip totally, and people like you who have egged
him on will almost certainly have blood on your hands.
CB
Clive Barking
Benoīt Meulle-Stef
"Clive Barking" <hauntin...@hotmail.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news: 1128708569.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You and your warnings!!!!!
The sky in falling! The sky is falling! :-)
Ben
smee
> One day O'Brien will flip totally, and people like you who have egged
> him on will almost certainly have blood on your hands.
Wow! Sounds like pretty serious stuff. And once again your concern both
for Kevin and for Usenet readerdom is truly touching. Gosh, Chris,
you're quite a guy. Now if you could just point out how and when I have
been "egging" Kevin on, I can mend my ways.
Yrs,
Michael
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
Do you believe that a healthcare professional called Susan Anton posted
this message?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.ghost-fiction/msg/4c8e3405e6a5f119?dmode=source
A simply yes or no will suffice.
smee
> smee wrote:
> > Now if you could just point out how and when I have
> > been "egging" Kevin on, I can mend my ways.
> Do you believe that a healthcare professional called Susan Anton posted
> this message?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.ghost-fiction/msg/4c8e3405e6a5f119?dmode=source
>
> A simply yes or no will suffice.
No. And I've said as much on at least two prior occasions in this
forum. I thought you said you were paying attention.
Yrs,
Michael
C.S.Strowbridge
> bioch...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Am I the only one whose jaw drops as each new scene unfolds in this
> ridiculous pantomime?
>
> Wake up people! This man is seriously taking advantage of you. It's a
> text book case of 'Munchausen's By Internet'.
He reminds me of a fellow called Transcend who used to argue over on
alt.startrek.vs.starwars. He claimed to be bedridden half the time and
threatened to beat up anyone who argued with him the other half of the
time.
Transcend was more entertaining and less... what's the word... sad. He
believed his cat was psychic, how can you take a person like that
seriously.
C.S.Strowbridge
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
He sounds more fun, perhaps a genuine eccentric who did have a sense of
humour. There used to be this chap called something like the Thirteenth
Disciple who used to post the most amazing nonsense which was written
in a parody of the Old Testament. If you were having a discussion about
film stars he'd say things like "And yea the Lorde did in the three
hundredth year of his Pestilential rain demand of Ahab that he bring
forth twenty starlet virgins, one Thom Cruise and a pickled egg called
Mike and then deposit saide goods upon a platform made of green and
raised about this high etc etc..."
What I liked about him was that he never ever argued with anyone. He
just went on posting his manic, often amusing nonsense, which was
always vaguely on topic.
But there's something genuinely tragic about O'Brien. He always misses
a joke even though he pretends to ignore them, and his posts are
singularly devoid of all humour. He's the sort of guy who would write
in to a newspaper to argue that the Larry Sanders Show and The Office
were in fact serious documentaries.
bioch...@earthlink.net
Society to order.
Have fun guys, just clean up after yourselves when your done, okay?
Kevin L. O'Brien
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> name-calling because you are a compulsive liar who has been widely
> exposed and humiliated for same. But more to the point, why don't you
> go and document all of these lies ('updates') in a Blog? Why of why
> inflict your daily updates upon these discussion groups?
>
I'll make a deal with you, Barky.
You stop:
posting personal attacks against people and
crossposting disputes from other newsgroups
and I'll stop:
posting updates of my personal life and
calling you the Barking Toad.
I'll even address you as "MR. Barker to you". How's that? Do we have
a deal?
Kevin L. O'Brien
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
I'm making no deals with you. We (the large majority of people who know
you to be a liar) hold all the trump cards.
But I will say this: I shall happily stop ridiculing your health
updates if you stop posting them. Furthermore, should you ever have the
decency to admit that you've told several lies, excusing them perhaps
as some sort of health crisis linked to your private life (which they
quite probably are), then I'll stop banging on about them.
I very much doubt you'll do that, though. You view the truth as a
competition and history as a malleable commodity. You are also so
cripplingly insecure that you aren't willing to trust others to forgive
you and move on.
I can't speak for Mr Strowbridge, Vanek etc etc, but I am pretty sure
that nobody wishes to be locked in eternal combat with you. However,
you *have* told several silly lies, and your stubborn refusal to admit
this is I believe the single biggest obstacle in your life.
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
What a dirty mind you have. You have a preference for trying to spilt
your enemies up, having an almost pathological fear that they might
join forces against you.
I'm no expert, but I'm starting to wonder if you were bullied at school
and retreated into your own private little world. This perpetual
outrage at people pooling poor opinions of you seems like a sublimated
emotion.
Besides, I'm happily married, I would guess that CS is in a normal and
stable relationship, whilst you're the only one who appears to be
lonely and single. I would therefore think twice in future about all
this references to masturbation were I you, lest people draw
conclusions about your interest.
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
OK. So who do you believe invented Ms Anton and faked the messages from
her?
(To save time I'll answer for you; you can always correct me if you
disagree.)
Answer: Kevin O'Brien.
So now we get to the real issue. If O'Brien invented Anton and faked
these messages, what grounds are there for believing he has cancer?
After all, if he lied about the one he could easily be lying about the
other.
Moving on: inventing fake doctors and lying about cancer is a serious
issue. You and I wouldn't do it; few people would. In fact, it's an
extremely rare phenomena according to one expert in the field. Now, if
O'Brien feels the need to go to such extremes, then surely it is
reasonable to assume that there is something wrong with him mentally?
And if that's the case, don't you risk doing him more harm by implictly
encouraging him?
My belief is that he won't desist from creating these fantasies of his
own accord. I also believe they will get wilder and wilder, resulting
in the chance of a serious breakdown. I favour taking a firm line with
him - telling him that his lying will not be tolerated - and then
offering him absolution if he mends his ways.
They say that a thief within the ranks disrupts and unsettles a
workplace; I think a liar has a similar effect in a newsgroup.
CB
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
>
You consider masturbation to be dirty? What a prudishly backward,
Victorian mind YOU have. ;-)
>
> Besides, I'm happily married, I would guess that CS is in a normal and
> stable relationship, whilst you're the only one who appears to be
> lonely and single. I would therefore think twice in future about all
> this references to masturbation were I you, lest people draw
> conclusions about your interest.
>
[blinks in surprise] Um, Barky, masturbation is being used in this
context metaphorically. You seem to be unfamiliar with this aspect of
writing, considering the mistaken criticism of Ramsey Campbell's
fiction you tend to make. Let me quote from a writer's handbook:
"The most effective way to make an abstraction concrete is by metaphor
--- a single vivid image that illustrates an idea. [A] warm puppy, for
example, is a metaphor --- an instantaneous representation of
innocence, contentment, and love, a hundred times more vivid and
meaningful than a dozen paragraphs of description or explanation"
A good example of a metaphor from Ramsey's fiction is "proscenium of
the fireplace". Depending upon the context where the metaphor is
found, it can have two possible meanings. In modern theatre, a
proscenium is the area of the stage between the curtain and the
orchestra. It is where the actors present themselves to the audience
after the play to receive the latter's applause. A mantlepiece of a
fireplace can act as a proscenium when it is used to display works of
art, family heirlooms, or anything else the host is proud of and hopes
will receive comment. Conversely, in ancient theatre, the proscenium
was the stage itself, where the action of the play took place. The
hearth of a fireplace would be a proscenium in this case, because that
is where the fire burns.
Another good metaphor from his fiction is "winter trees". Everyone who
lives in a temperate climate knows what a tree looks like in winter,
hence this metaphor is very effective at projecting the specific image
that Ramsey wanted to convey.
So when I use the word masturbation as a metaphor, I am refering to any
group of posters who spend considerable time and bandwidth making fun
of someone, especially if their victim does not reply. The
metaphorical masturbation refers to the idea that, while these posters
believe they are being witty and clever, all they are really doing is
stroking each other's egos and getting off on insulting their victim.
Now, your homework for the day is to create ten metaphors that paint a
vivid picture of an idea., then exlain what the metaphors are suppose
to mean. I expect the results on my desk first thing tomorrow morning.
Class dismissed.
Kevin L. O'Brien
bioch...@earthlink.net
The Barking Toad responded with insults and extortion threats.
My response: [shrugs] Suit yourself.
Kevin L. O'Brien
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> OK. So who do you believe invented Ms Anton and faked the messages from
> her?
>
> (To save time I'll answer for you; you can always correct me if you
> disagree.)
>
> Answer: Kevin O'Brien.
>
LOL! This from a toad who was just outed for fabricating his own
emails.
To quote Tweety Bird: "Oh, what a hypotwit!"
Kevin L. O'Brien
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
1. It was for Smee to respond (if he wanted to), not you.
2. I'm quite sure that John Pelan knew I would publicise the emails
which he has been bombarding me with, so that he could then dismiss
them as paranoia or fabrications.
3. *Everyone* thinks you invented Susan Anton and faked her posts.
4. There is IP proof proving you faked the Susan Anton emails. Thusfar,
Smee, Tom Alaerts and Chris Roden have, in addition to me, all
expressed acute scepticism about Ms Anton's existence, whereas not one
single person has said they believe in her existence.
I suspect that the only unresolved issue in most people's minds is
this: does Kevin O'Brien believe his own lies?
haunte...@hotmail.com
I don't think anyone deserves to be lectured about the art of the
metaphor by a bad writer such as yourself. Your references to
masturbation were inappropriate, ugly and revealing, it's that simple.
If Mr Strowbridge and I wish to share a public joke about your
compulsion to tell lies then we shall. There's nothing you can do to
stop it, except of course, by desisting from lying.
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> I don't think anyone deserves to be lectured about the art of the
> metaphor by a bad writer such as yourself.
>
Then ask Reggie Oliver to explain metaphors; I don't care. But you
need to have someone explain it to you.
>
> If Mr Strowbridge and I wish to share a public joke about your
> compulsion to tell lies then we shall. There's nothing you can do to
> stop it. . . .
>
LOL! I'm not trying to stop you; I don't even want to try to stop you.
The more you engage in this behavior (and the more strongly you try to
justify it), the more immature you look. In fact, when you said that
last, I had a mental picture of you with your thumbs jammed in your
ears and waving your finger as you stuck your tongue out. I hope you
keep doing doing this for days, that way if anyone asks what the deal
is with you, I can direct them to posts such these to read for
themselves.
So by all means, I encourage you and Strowbridge to yuck it up all you
want, and I won't interfere. Have a good time, guys.
And do educate yourself on the use of metaphor, for your own good.
Kevin L. O'Brien
smee
> OK. So who do you believe invented Ms Anton and faked the messages from
> her?
>
> (To save time I'll answer for you; you can always correct me if you
> disagree.)
>
> Answer: Kevin O'Brien.
>
> So now we get to the real issue. If O'Brien invented Anton and faked
> these messages, what grounds are there for believing he has cancer?
> After all, if he lied about the one he could easily be lying about the
> other.
I'll try and keep this brief. I'm increasingly uncomfortable about the
amount of time I'm spending debating these points with you; nothing is
ever resolved and I'd much rather be doing something I actually enjoy.
This is *your* issue; it's not mine and I categorically refuse to
discuss it in public. Not only is it off-topic, but I find your
gleeful interest in the matter positively ghoulish. I previously
challenged Kevin regarding his "Susan Anton" posts not because the
deception was so clumsily handled, but because of my very strong
feelings as regards the public labeling of individuals as
psychiatrically disabled. Frankly, in hindsight, I'm sorry I entered
the fray; it was probably a mistake on my part.
> Moving on: inventing fake doctors and lying about cancer is a serious
> issue. You and I wouldn't do it; few people would. In fact, it's an
> extremely rare phenomena according to one expert in the field. Now, if
> O'Brien feels the need to go to such extremes, then surely it is
> reasonable to assume that there is something wrong with him mentally?
> And if that's the case, don't you risk doing him more harm by implictly
> encouraging him?
>
> My belief is that he won't desist from creating these fantasies of his
> own accord. I also believe they will get wilder and wilder, resulting
> in the chance of a serious breakdown. I favour taking a firm line with
> him - telling him that his lying will not be tolerated - and then
> offering him absolution if he mends his ways.
Give me a break, Chris. This newly-found concern of yours for Kevin is
complete and utter horseshit. You wouldn't cross the street to piss on
him if he were on fire.
> They say that a thief within the ranks disrupts and unsettles a
> workplace; I think a liar has a similar effect in a newsgroup.
I'm also having a little trouble coming to grips with your recent
anxiety regarding the welfare of this newsgroup; especially given that
you've more or less single-handedly turned it into a cesspool long
before Kevin's arrival on the scene.
Yrs,
Michael
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
I too am growing tired of your constant distortion and exaggeration. So
let's return to the facts and just leave them open to interpretation
shall we?
* Kevin O'Brien has a long history of lying which predates my
acquaintance with him. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Check the AHC
archives.
* No one believes that Susan Anton actually exists. As Tom Alaerts
pointed out, O'Brien was at home when he posted messages from the same
IP address that Ms Anton's emails came from. Then there's the fact that
Anton's email address included the word 'O'Brien' in it. Finally, who
has ever heard of a doctor coming online in such a fashion?
By all means vent your spleen by suggesting that I am cloaking my
interest in the matter behind feigned altrusitic concerns, but please
don't expect me to agree with you. Free speech reigns here, so when
O'Brien keeps banging on about his fake illness, I am damn well going
to comment as and when I see fit.
If you don't like that, I suggest you speak to O'Brien directly, or
else learn to live with it, because, somewhat inconsistently, you
expect me to live with his series of ridiculous 'updates'.
TTFN,
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> Then there's the fact that Anton's email address included the word
> 'O'Brien' in it.
>
Um, no, it didn't. If you go to
and look at the email address, you'll see that its
'silv...@earthlink.net'. No "O'Brien" anywhere to be found.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Clive Barking
worries that he has so much trouble getting in touch with his feminine
side! He needs to come to Galilee and take the Sacrament.
carnage_lee
>
>
>and look at the email address, you'll see that its
Quite true Kevin. However if you google the above supposed email
address for Ms. Anton you get 2 hits:
http://genforum.genealogy.com/martz/messages/179.html
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gcf2000/SurnameRegistry/archive2.html
Which give the name for the poster in each case as Patricia O'Brien -
hey isn't that your mothers name?
Here's a little more - the following is taken from the 2nd link:
silvrepen - 05/27/00 19:16:50
My Name:Pat O'Brien
My Email:silv...@earthlink.net
Surname 1: Snyder
Surname 2: Benschneider
Surname 3: Rothermel
Surname 4: Seider
Surname 5: Double
Surname 6: Highland
And the following from your biography:
( http://www.clare.ltd.new.net/KLOB/webpages/biography.htm )
===
Though my grandparents and most of my aunts and uncles are dead, I have
more cousins than I can count. My family history is a bit jumbled, and
I am just starting to get it straightened out. However, I can say that
so far as I know I am not related to anyone famous. My paternal
ancestry is dominated by two families, the O'Briens and the Doubles,
while my maternal ancestry is dominated by the Seiders and the Snyders.
===
Lee
/
Lee
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> Quite true Kevin. However if you google the above supposed email
> address for Ms. Anton you get 2 hits:
>
> http://genforum.genealogy.com/martz/messages/179.html
>
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gcf2000/SurnameRegistry/archive2.html
>
> Which give the name for the poster in each case as Patricia O'Brien -
> hey isn't that your mothers name?
>
Yes, my mother's name is Patricia, but she doesn't have an email
address and never has had one. There are a huge number of O'Briens in
America alone, and a good many of them are no doubt named Patricia as
well. Are they all my mother? Somehow, I don't think so. Is every
Patricia O'Brien directed related me? Again, somehow I don't think so.
The fact that a woman named Patricia O'Brien had this email address
five years ago is an interesting coincidence, but it's still just that,
a coincidence.
>
> Here's a little more - the following is taken from the 2nd link:
>
> silvrepen - 05/27/00 19:16:50
> My Name:Pat O'Brien
> My Email:silv...@earthlink.net
> Surname 1: Snyder
> Surname 2: Benschneider
> Surname 3: Rothermel
> Surname 4: Seider
> Surname 5: Double
> Surname 6: Highland
>
> And the following from your biography:
> ( http://www.clare.ltd.new.net/KLOB/webpages/biography.htm )
> ===
> Though my grandparents and most of my aunts and uncles are dead, I have
> more cousins than I can count. My family history is a bit jumbled, and
> I am just starting to get it straightened out. However, I can say that
> so far as I know I am not related to anyone famous. My paternal
> ancestry is dominated by two families, the O'Briens and the Doubles,
> while my maternal ancestry is dominated by the Seiders and the Snyders.
> ===
>
As I found out tracing my family heritage, there are also a ton of
Doubles, Seiders, and Snyders as well, the vast majority of which share
no relationship with me or my ancestors whatsoever. No doubt there are
other people (besides me) who are descended from people with the same
four names as I am, including some people named Patricia O'Brien. Are
they all suppose to be related to me? Somehow I think not.
I guess the real question is, can you prove that the woman named
Patricia O'Brien who had that email address five years ago is someone
closely related to me? If you cannot, then a coincidence is still as
viable an explanation as the claim that I fabricated the emails using a
relative's address.
Remember, correlation is not causation; to claim otherwise without
proof is to invoke a logical fallacy.
Kevin L. O'Brien
carnage_lee
> address and never has had one. There are a huge number of O'Briens in
> America alone, and a good many of them are no doubt named Patricia as
> well. Are they all my mother? Somehow, I don't think so. Is every
> Patricia O'Brien directed related me? Again, somehow I don't think so.
>
> The fact that a woman named Patricia O'Brien had this email address
> five years ago is an interesting coincidence, but it's still just that,
> a coincidence.
Yes, it certainly is a coincidence, isn't it?
We can say that the silvrpen email address was used by a woman
(Patricia O'Brien) in January 2000 who posted the messages as evidenced
in my previous post, agreed?
So unless this Patricia O'Brien stopped using the email address before
September 2005 (which we'll assume to be true-for the moment) then
there's a case to say that she and Ms. Anton are the same person.
Perhaps she got married in the last five years, hence the change of
surname (and she also changed her first name)? So this would mean that
this Patricia O'Brien (totally unrelated to you) now known as Susan
Anton a staff psychologist (at UCH hospital?) ends up being assigned to
your care.
Wow - now that's what I call a coincidence! I guess it really is a
small world after all. You must have had loads to talk about, besides
your condition I mean.
What if Patricia O'Brien had in fact stopped using the silvrpen email
address? Then that would be another coincidence your psychologist
choosing the same email address that was used by someone who had the
same name as your mother. I bet you both had a good chuckle about that
when you both realised... after all Christopher Roden has already made
the connection and told you about it, hadn't he?
> I guess the real question is, can you prove that the woman named
> Patricia O'Brien who had that email address five years ago is someone
> closely related to me? If you cannot, then a coincidence is still as
> viable an explanation as the claim that I fabricated the emails using a
> relative's address.
You are quite right Kevin, both the scenario's I outlined as well as
the option that you did indeed fabricate the message from Ms Anton
using an email address once used by your mother, are equally valid.
Occam's razor anyone?
Lee
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> Yes, it certainly is a coincidence, isn't it?
>
And without evidence, all your speculation past this point is just
that, speculation. It serves well as innuendo, but as proof of foul
play? Sorry, but I've seen creationist musings that were better
substiantiated than this.
>
> We can say that the silvrpen email address was used by a woman
> (Patricia O'Brien) in January 2000 who posted the messages as evidenced
> in my previous post, agreed?
> So unless this Patricia O'Brien stopped using the email address before
> September 2005 (which we'll assume to be true-for the moment) then
> there's a case to say that she and Ms. Anton are the same person.
> Perhaps she got married in the last five years, hence the change of
> surname (and she also changed her first name)? So this would mean that
> this Patricia O'Brien (totally unrelated to you) now known as Susan
> Anton a staff psychologist (at UCH hospital?) ends up being assigned to
> your care.
>
> Wow - now that's what I call a coincidence! I guess it really is a
> small world after all. You must have had loads to talk about, besides
> your condition I mean.
>
> What if Patricia O'Brien had in fact stopped using the silvrpen email
> address? Then that would be another coincidence your psychologist
> choosing the same email address that was used by someone who had the
> same name as your mother. I bet you both had a good chuckle about that
> when you both realised... after all Christopher Roden has already made
> the connection and told you about it, hadn't he?
>
> You are quite right Kevin, both the scenario's I outlined as well as
> the option that you did indeed fabricate the message from Ms Anton
> using an email address once used by your mother, are equally valid.
>
There is, however, one difference. Since it is impossible to prove a
negative, I cannot prove that I did not fabricate the email (after all,
even if Ms. Anton sent you a signed letter on hospital stationary
backing up my story, how could I prove that is not a fabrication
either?). Therefore, the onus is on you, as the accuser and the
proponent of the alternative explanation, to prove that I did fabricate
the email. Until you do, the coincidence expalantion becomes the
default position unless hard evidence of a fabrication can be produced.
As I said in the previous email, correlation is not causation, in the
absence of proof.
>
> Occam's razor anyone?
>
Occam's Razor does not apply; either you have proof of a fabrication or
you do not. If you do not, then the coincidence explanation, as the
null hypothesis, is the more likely result.
Occam's Razor does, however, apply for a completely different
situation. If I were to create such a hoax, I wouldn't have used a
relative's email address, one that could easily be traced back to me,
especially with all the free email account services available on the
Internet. So what would be more likely, that I am so incompetent and
stupid as to use a relative's address or that it is all a coincidence?
Granted the answer to that question can be colored by your own
subjective opinion of my intelligence, but if it is examined
dispassionately and logically, the answer is fairly clear: assuming I
possess the normal level of human intelligence, coincidence is the most
likely answer, no matter how improbable it might seem to you.
Until you can present some hard evidence of an actual act of
fabrication on my part, I am finished with this discussion. I will not
waste time trying to prove the existence of another human being to
someone who has already made up his mind.
For the same reason, I'm not going to ask that you prove you are real
rather than just a sockpuppet of the Barking Toad.
Kevin L. O'Brien
carnage_lee
> Until you can present some hard evidence of an actual act of
> fabrication on my part, I am finished with this discussion. I will not
> waste time trying to prove the existence of another human being to
> someone who has already made up his mind.
I've not asked that you prove Ms. Anton exists. I'm fully prepared to accept
that Ms. Anton (as your psychologist) does indeed exist - I just can't
believe that she actually posted those messages.
We shall just have to agree to differ.
> For the same reason, I'm not going to ask that you prove you are real
> rather than just a sockpuppet of the Barking Toad.
>
Thanks, I've always assumed that I was real...
Anyway, all the best and I hope your treatment goes well and you make a full
recovery.
Lee
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> Thanks Kevin,
>
> I've not asked that you prove Ms. Anton exists. I'm fully prepared to accept
> that Ms. Anton (as your psychologist) does indeed exist - I just can't
> believe that she actually posted those messages.
>
> We shall just have to agree to differ.
>
Thank you for making your opinion plain and unambiguous.
>
> Thanks, I've always assumed that I was real...
>
I appreciate your graciousness in the face of my being a jerk again,
and my apologies for my bad temper.
>
> Anyway, all the best and I hope your treatment goes well and you make a full
> recovery.
>
Thank you for the kind sentiment, I greatly appreciate it.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
Boy, are you fast running out of coincidences. When I read some of your
posts, I imagine Richard Nixon standing at the gates of Heaven arguing
his case.
I think you need to learn something, No'Brain. It is this: we don't
escape blame just by being able to string together a very convoluted
excuse. This isn't a maze or a computer game, it is real life.
The probability that you are telling the truth - and that's what we are
talking about here, probabilities - is extremely small. Because of
this, and because of your track record in compulsive lying, everybody
thinks you invented Susan Anton.
So you see, impressions and likelihood counts for infinitely more than
your oh-so-implausible excuses.
CB
(Still reeling from encountering someone who would lie about having
cancer.)
Tux Wonder-Dog
even he's forgotten) ...
Good Grief! Is it possible to come to this newsgroup to discuss an author
who we all know was in fact a trifle batty and who suffered a lot of
things, including a very low self-esteem - without having someone intent on
attacking someone for behaviour which if it is true - and I can't so won't
say either way - is no worse than any other person, and which is not unlike
the author we (I assume) happen to like?
Is there anything else to be said? Other than I think this is an ideal
topic for Kevin O'Brien, etc, to turn into a superlative Cthulhuesque
horror - the identities that snap, the memories that bite; beware the
Hauntedriver and shun the frumious Carnacki!
Time to sleep with the Old Ones, folks! This pathetic escuse for a flamewar
has just about run its day!
Wesley Parish
Carnacki The Ghost Finder wrote:
>
> bioch...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> Last week, when I was confined to my bed, I had a chance to do alot of
>> thinking. I had been laid off from a two-year research position in
>> December of 2003 and had spent the last two years living on
>> unemployment and a part-time retail job. Then I was diagnosed with
>> cancer and had to quit the retail job to get treatment. One positive
>> thing about all this is that it forced me to re-examine my life.
>>
>> The upshot is that I decided to make a change in career. Last week I
>> contacted a number of technical and vocational schools looking into a
>> number of possible choices. This week I made a decision, and just
>> yesterday I was accepted into a small college in one of their advanced
>> computer graphic arts programs, specifically the Interactive Web Design
>> program. I will be starting classes on October 17. It is in walking
>> distance of where I live, which will in turn help me get some much
>> needed exercise (which my doctors have sanctioned). Yet it is also
>> close enough that my family can come retrieve me if I overtax myself or
>> something more serious happens.
>>
>> Meanwhile, I have been offered an opportunity to do contract
>> proofreading and editing work for a company that creates training
>> manuals for the chemical and petroleum industries. Nothing is
>> finalized yet, but if it comes through I will make more than enough to
>> pay bills and keep Lindisfarne Press going.
>>
>> So things are beginning to turn around. With these classes, my
>> publication schedule will slow down somewhat, but I still plan to
>> produce at least two books before the end of the year, and *Charnel
>> Feast* should be out sometime soon after the first of the year. I
>> won't have as much time for writing, either, but I still have a number
>> of stories I want to get finished sometime soon. And in addition to
>> the second part of the Multiple Dimensions and Mythos Beasties post, I
>> have plans for one about linking the Outre Gods to the holographic
>> principle and another that discusses the application of the sheep/goats
>> effect from psychic research to ghost stories.
>>
>> Gotta get crackin'.
>>
>> Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> Am I the only one whose jaw drops as each new scene unfolds in this
> ridiculous pantomime?
>
> Wake up people! This man is seriously taking advantage of you. It's a
> text book case of 'Munchausen's By Internet'.
>
> Several issues to consider:
>
> 1. We've all got burdens to carry. Why does O'Brien keep inflicting his
> on us in such detail? Fishing for sympathy is one of the key symptoms
> of Munchausen's By Internet.
>
> 2. His story about cancer is riddled with error and contradiction. He
> also swings from near death ("The Big Goodbye" post) to miraculous
> recovery ('The doctor says I can go home and start publishing / arguing
> on the internet again!') in a manner that is wholly compatible with a
> carefully manipulated lie.
>
> 3. He has a very long track record of faking documents and
> conversations in alt.horror.cthulhu, which predates any conflict I have
> had with the sad little geek. In fact it's true to say that everyone in
> AHC believes him to be - or knows him to be - a liar.
>
> 4. Clearly the ludicrous Susan Anton does not exist. O'Brien posted
> these implausible messages himself and then got caught out by an
> inconsistency Tom A spotted.
>
> 5. O'Brien persistently refers to the fact that everyone is oh-so-very
> concerned about him e.g. his friends (whoever they might be), his
> family and his doctors. Yet, strangely, none of them advise him to
> desist from his internet obsession, in particular his lying, even
> though he allegedly has cancer. So do they really exist? Is this not
> merely a fictional prop as per the Munchausen's diagnosis, employed by
> an incredibly insecure fantasist? I don't have the big C myself, but I
> would guess that most GPs and oncologists would argue that if you have
> such a serious illness, the last thing you should be doing is stressing
> yourself out with silly internet arguments.
>
> 6. O'Brien suddenly and very drammatically developed cancer the day
> after I revealed that John Pelan's own attorney had himself unwittingly
> revealed that O'Brien had been lying on Pelan's behalf. It was his
> crazed response to a crisis.
>
> O'Brien is one sick puppy and I believe it is very wrong to encourage
> him in these bizarre fantasies. No doubt some of my enemies might try
> to tell themselves that they are boosting O'Brien's confidence by
> supporting him, but that doesn't get away from the fact that he is
> still inventing ever bigger lies to prop up the smaller ones, and, as
> any responsible healthcare professional will tell you, this is a recipe
> for disaster.
>
> O'Brien will have a complete breakdown sooner or later, and may do harm
> to himself or others. I just want to spell that out very clearly so
> that when the time comes, no one here can cite ignorance as an excuse.
--
"Good, late in to more rewarding well." "Well, you tonight. And I was
lookintelligent woman of Ming home. I trust you with a tender silence." I
get a word into my hands, a different and unbelike, probably - 'she
fortunate fat woman', wrong word. I think to me, I justupid.
Let not emacs meta-X dissociate-press write your romantic dialogs...!!!