Blatherene alert

18 views
Skip to first unread message

bj_k...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 2:01:52 PM6/26/06
to
As part of a research study I'm doing, I've been "talking" with
real vampires in email, and I've noted something very disturbing.
A number of the vampires, particularly the younger ones, are
telling me that they are not worried about getting AIDS,
hepatitis, etc., from drinking other people's blood because
they have done some "research" online and learned that real
vampires cannot get AIDS. Another very disturbing thing I've
been told is that you can tell if someone has AIDS by
smelling their blood. They're being told that blood from people
with AIDS smells bad.

I don't know whether or not they're getting this misinformation
directly from Blatherene's website
[www.geocities.com/vampiricstudies/]
or just from people or places that are repeating Blatherene's
teachings or maybe there are others out there who have come
to the same misguided conclusions as Blatherene. In fact,
I don't even know if Blatherene is still posting that nonsense
on her website, but I'm becoming seriously disturbed by
seeing that misinformation popping up in teens who think
they're vampires.

Is anyone else as disturbed about this as I am? Do you know
of other sites that "teach" that crap? Is there anything that
we can do about it?

^BJ^

William R Thompson

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 3:27:33 AM6/27/06
to
bj_kuehl wrote:

> I don't know whether or not they're getting this misinformation
> directly from Blatherene's website
> [www.geocities.com/vampiricstudies/]
> or just from people or places that are repeating Blatherene's
> teachings or maybe there are others out there who have come
> to the same misguided conclusions as Blatherene.

Have you asked them for the sources of their misinformation?

> In fact,
> I don't even know if Blatherene is still posting that nonsense
> on her website, but I'm becoming seriously disturbed by
> seeing that misinformation popping up in teens who think
> they're vampires.

I've just looked at Blath's site. As ever, she's incoherent.
I couldn't find anything about "vamps can smell disease in
the blood," but that could be lost amid her logorrhea. She
now claims the "Ultraviolet" miniseries is a fictionalized
account of real events (I can't wait until she decides that the
retrovirus is disseminated through Alberto VO-5 shampoo).
Her timeline blather has dropped the deadline on her
predictions. Shades of Blade, there's also a treaty between
vampires and humans.

> Is anyone else as disturbed about this as I am?

Yes; whoever tells the kids this is exploiting them--either for money
or as an ego trip.

> Do you know
> of other sites that "teach" that crap? Is there anything that
> we can do about it?

I haven't looked for other sites. About all that can be done is
to contact the site's ISP and tell them about the dangers. It would
probably be more effective if an MD or epidemiologist contacted them.
That might get them shut down.

I don't know how to convince these kids that their "vampirism"
doesn't protect them from infections. If someone can figure out
who is conning them, it might be possible to expose the lies to them.

I suspect that the con artist(s) tell the victims "By the way, stay here
in my chat room, if you go to a newsgroup you'll run into nasty, clever
people who will tell you that you aren't a vampire."

--Bill Thompson


bj_k...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 10:17:10 AM6/27/06
to
William R Thompson wrote:
> Have you asked them for the sources of their misinformation?

So far, it's been "I don't remember" or "I heard it from so-and-so."
I'll keep questioning. I posted a cautionary note on a couple of
vampire and teenvampire meetup boards and asked them to
notify me if anyone comes across any websites teaching that
real vampires are immune to the AIDS virus. So far, no leads.

> I've just looked at Blath's site.

You're a stauncher man than me. I tried to read her site,
looking specifically for any place where she might be giving
the impression that real vampires are immune to bloodborne
diseases, but after reading a few pages of her crappola, I
can't take it anymore and have to stop. She may have
edited that particular bit from her blatherings, but at least
she doesn't appear to be the source of the sniff test for AIDS.

> As ever, she's incoherent.
> I couldn't find anything about "vamps can smell disease in
> the blood," but that could be lost amid her logorrhea. She
> now claims the "Ultraviolet" miniseries is a fictionalized
> account of real events (I can't wait until she decides that the
> retrovirus is disseminated through Alberto VO-5 shampoo).
> Her timeline blather has dropped the deadline on her
> predictions. Shades of Blade, there's also a treaty between
> vampires and humans.

She's also got a running correspondence with a real,
immortal vampire who supposedly fought in the civil war.
I'll bet that guy, if it's not actually another figment of Blath's
imagination, is laughing himself silly over the ease with which
he's been able to dupe her.

> I don't know how to convince these kids that their "vampirism"
> doesn't protect them from infections. If someone can figure out
> who is conning them, it might be possible to expose the lies to them.

I try to do that on a one-by-one basis. Without knowing where
this misinformation is coming from, it's impossible to pinpoint
the source and do anything about it. Not to mention that teenagers
are very resistant to anything that attempts to change their
mindset once they think they know the real truth about vampirism.
The best tactic I've found so far is to agree with them that real
vampires are immune to AIDS, but only if they are full, undead
vampires. So long as their hearts are still beating and they are
still breathing, they haven't completely changed, and their
human sides are still susceptible to diseases.

> I suspect that the con artist(s) tell the victims "By the way, stay here
> in my chat room, if you go to a newsgroup you'll run into nasty, clever
> people who will tell you that you aren't a vampire."

It's sad to think that there are people out there who will take
advantage of the naive in order to feed their own delusions, and
Blatherene is at the top of the list. Rexy was deluded, but he was
harmless in that his delusions were confined to his ideation. Blath,
and others like her, are more deadly because their delusions can
result in people placing their lives in peril if they believe what she
teaches. Remember the electric symbiozapper?

^BJ^

"Had I even the secret of one such mind -- did I hold the key to
the fancy of even one lunatic -- I might advance my own branch
of science..." Jack Seward, _Dracula_.

William R Thompson

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 11:40:46 AM6/27/06
to
bj_kuehl wrote:

> William R Thompson wrote:

>> Have you asked them for the sources of their misinformation?

> So far, it's been "I don't remember" or "I heard it from so-and-so."

They're lying.

If someone told me "Bill, you have superpowers," I'd remember when
and where it happened, and who told me. I'd take notes. Aside from
being a major event in someone's life, I'd want to return to the source
in case I had new questions. And "real" vampires need someone to
reinforce their delusions. Count on it, they know exactly where they
learned about vampirism.

It strikes me as unlikely that several vampire-teachers would come
up independently with the know-nothing approach, so these victims are
probably dealing with the same source. I think this is something new:
a vampire-teacher who doesn't want public recognition.

> She may have
> edited that particular bit from her blatherings, but at least
> she doesn't appear to be the source of the sniff test for AIDS.

I did a search for certain keywords (AIDs, HIV, smell) using my
browser's "Edit" function. I didn't look at her entire site, and I
assumed she spelled the words correctly. I think that if Blath
had a new idea, her ego would make her trumpet it with a
new section.

> She's also got a running correspondence with a real,
> immortal vampire who supposedly fought in the civil war.

And when asked on which side, he says "We lost"? I don't think
that "Near Dark" has worked its way into Blath's delusions.
It probably isn't glamorous enough for her. But ND would make
a disturbing template for a wannabe-vampire.

> I'll bet that guy, if it's not actually another figment of Blath's
> imagination, is laughing himself silly over the ease with which
> he's been able to dupe her.

It doesn't fit Blath's style that she would become anyone's disciple,
or tell her victims not to acknowledge that she's the source of their
delusions. If this Civil War vampire is a real person, and the source
of the sniff-test vampirism, I'd expect her to start feuding with him.
After all, he would be a rival for the job of Boss Vampire.

> The best tactic I've found so far is to agree with them that real
> vampires are immune to AIDS, but only if they are full, undead
> vampires. So long as their hearts are still beating and they are
> still breathing, they haven't completely changed, and their
> human sides are still susceptible to diseases.

That might work with some kids (along with "Wait until you're
a few years older; a too-youthful appearance is a real disadvantage
when dealing with the mortal world--look at how many alleged
adults refuse to take kids seriously.") I don't know how well it
would work with kids who have a self-destructive streak; abused
kids in particular can be reckless.

> It's sad to think that there are people out there who will take
> advantage of the naive in order to feed their own delusions, and
> Blatherene is at the top of the list. Rexy was deluded, but he was
> harmless in that his delusions were confined to his ideation. Blath,
> and others like her, are more deadly because their delusions can
> result in people placing their lives in peril if they believe what she
> teaches. Remember the electric symbiozapper?

And Chooch's detailed efforts to persuade WoofWoof that it was,
pardon the pun, a potential killer.

--Bill Thompson


bj_k...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 12:35:24 PM6/27/06
to
William R Thompson wrote:
> bj_kuehl wrote:
> > William R Thompson wrote:
> >> Have you asked them for the sources of their misinformation?
> > So far, it's been "I don't remember" or "I heard it from so-and-so."
> They're lying.

They could be, but also consider that these kids hang out on chat
forums and educate each other. It's quite possible that one kid
wrote something on MSN or IRC or in the Meetup room a couple
months ago and the other kid can't remember anymore who said
it or where they got it. Kids don't usually question the source of
their information. They're also not very good at remembering stuff
that happened in the past.

> > I'll bet that guy, if it's not actually another figment of Blath's
> > imagination, is laughing himself silly over the ease with which
> > he's been able to dupe her.
>
> It doesn't fit Blath's style that she would become anyone's disciple,
> or tell her victims not to acknowledge that she's the source of their
> delusions.

Ah, but she can use her conversations with him to delude others
into thinking that she's actually in contact with a real, immortal,
undead vampire. Not only do those doctors who are studying the
V5 virus talk exclusively to her, but so do the elusive undead. She
must be very very special to be so graced.

> > The best tactic I've found so far is to agree with them that real
> > vampires are immune to AIDS, but only if they are full, undead
> > vampires. So long as their hearts are still beating and they are
> > still breathing, they haven't completely changed, and their
> > human sides are still susceptible to diseases.
>
> That might work with some kids (along with "Wait until you're
> a few years older; a too-youthful appearance is a real disadvantage
> when dealing with the mortal world--look at how many alleged
> adults refuse to take kids seriously.") I don't know how well it
> would work with kids who have a self-destructive streak; abused
> kids in particular can be reckless.

That's another problem. "Thanks for the warning. I guess I'll just
keep on cutting myself and drinking my own blood." Out of one
hot frying pan and into another.


^BJ^

Vorsuc

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 5:19:07 PM6/27/06
to

<bj_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151344912.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

> I don't know whether or not they're getting this misinformation
> directly from Blatherene's website

What tends to happen on the more "intelligent" places is that xxx will
suggest a site, with little more than "what do you guys think?" offered. The
thread will offer up people's opinions, usually based on some personal
interaction with the person and generally a negative or positive light will
be offered.

It seems to be that xxx is merely "testing the waters" and looking to see if
sites proclaiming some of the more way out there stuff are generally
accepted as fact or not.

In the case of the ol' "Teacher to night's children" site, a lot of people
have a negative view of her. Worryingly it is NOT because the majority of
the site is clearly made up fantasy, but more because it attacks vampires
and doesn't portray them in a good light.

Those that do, people tend to be more forgiving of.

I've seen a lot of reguritation of Cath's crap, just do a search for
"inheritor vampires" and you'll see what I mean. As for the bit about AIDs,
I've heard it repeated, but not seen it on other sites.


The other problem is one of myth vs reality.

Take a look at this Yahoo! answers question about vampires getting AIDs.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060610232843AA7XV1V

It starts off as a discussion about fictional vampires of myth, but quickly
turns to those who call themselves vampires :

>Synthetic blood? If we had synthetic blood, we wouldn't need donors, would
>we?

Wouldn't take much for some spooky kid desperate to seek verification they
are special to mix it all up as referring to "real vampires", especially
when a large number proclaim the ills of Hollywood and the Myths for
perverting the image of Vampires, unable to distinguish a difference between
vampires of myth and those people who call themselves vampires. No doubt
told by some idiot that the vampires of myth were just misunderstood "real
vampires".


> Is anyone else as disturbed about this as I am? Do you know
> of other sites that "teach" that crap? Is there anything that
> we can do about it?

Just do the same as always, point out why she's full of crap and refer to
the old ACV logs, where Catherene stated 7 years ago that her "virus" theory
would be proven as she was one of many involved in a study by "scientists"
who were shortly publishing a paper....

But I guess, when your an immortal, 7+ years might well seem like a short
time.


(and yes, got your mails, I'll get around to offering my thoughts this week)


-V.


bj_k...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 9:17:31 PM6/27/06
to
Vorsuc wrote:
> I've seen a lot of reguritation of Cath's crap, just do a search for
> "inheritor vampires" and you'll see what I mean. As for the bit about AIDs,
> I've heard it repeated, but not seen it on other sites.

It's on Catherene's website, on the page describing "Night-timers":

"Class 1 inheritors are mostly immune to human illnesses. They
cannot catch AIDS and other varying diseases, but can pass
them on from blood donor to blood donor."

> Take a look at this Yahoo! answers question about vampires getting AIDs.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060610232843AA7XV1V

I did a google search using the terms: AIDS blood vampires. The
page you just listed was the very first to pop up. In it, somebody asks
a question about whether or not a vampire can get AIDS by drinking
contaminated blood. The "best answer" includes the following
sentence: "Living beings that are vampiric in nature can contract
disease, but most are very resistant to disease and heal quickly."

If you scroll down through the 20-plus answers, you'll find one that
says: "Besides, 'good' vampirers can 'smell' or detect any decease
[I think s/he means 'disease'] a potential victim carries, and choose
not to bite that victim." Unfortunately, I don't seem to be able to
contact the writer (Pulse) to ask where s/he got that information.

^BJ^

William R Thompson

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 3:38:38 AM6/28/06
to
bj_kuehl scripsit:

> William R Thompson wrote:

>> bj_kuehl wrote:

>> > William R Thompson wrote:

>> >> Have you asked them for the sources of their misinformation?

>>> So far, it's been "I don't remember" or "I heard it from so-and-so."

>> They're lying.

> They could be, but also consider that these kids hang out on chat
> forums and educate each other. It's quite possible that one kid
> wrote something on MSN or IRC or in the Meetup room a couple
> months ago and the other kid can't remember anymore who said
> it or where they got it. Kids don't usually question the source of
> their information. They're also not very good at remembering stuff
> that happened in the past.

Especially when the question is "Where did you get the pot?" or "Who
left the used condom behind the couch?" or "Why weren't you in
school today?"

I can believe one or two kids not remembering where they picked
up a bit of information that they consider unimportant. But when you
get the same story from a large number of kids about something they
consider important, it suggests that they're lying. Either it's because
they know they're doing something wrong, or because they've been
told not to talk. I doubt they're scared that you'll tell their parents
about their problem; my best guess is that the victimizer has told them
"Keep quiet or I won't reveal more to you."

>> It doesn't fit Blath's style that she would become anyone's disciple,
>> or tell her victims not to acknowledge that she's the source of their
>> delusions.

> Ah, but she can use her conversations with him to delude others
> into thinking that she's actually in contact with a real, immortal,
> undead vampire. Not only do those doctors who are studying the
> V5 virus talk exclusively to her, but so do the elusive undead. She
> must be very very special to be so graced.

And equally special in choosing her followers. Of course her nonsense
is self-weeding; anyone who knows enough to ask for proof is going
to turn away from her in a hurry.

I keep looking for clues that Blath is connected to this, but I can't
convince myself that she would tell her recruits not to advertise her.

> That's another problem. "Thanks for the warning. I guess I'll just
> keep on cutting myself and drinking my own blood." Out of one
> hot frying pan and into another.

True. Infections aside, if a kid drinks enough of his blood he's going
to become anemic. The Red Cross recommends waiting six weeks
between donations of one pint of blood. That works out to about 10 ccs
of blood per day. Drinking more will run him down (and I suspect that
the vampire-teacher will tell him that the growing pallor and anemia are
proof that he's turning into a real vampire).

--Bill Thompson

William R Thompson

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 4:10:53 AM6/28/06
to
bj_kuehl scripsit:

> William R Thompson wrote:

>> bj_kuehl wrote:

>> > William R Thompson wrote:

>> >> Have you asked them for the sources of their misinformation?

>>> So far, it's been "I don't remember" or "I heard it from so-and-so."

>> They're lying.

> They could be, but also consider that these kids hang out on chat
> forums and educate each other. It's quite possible that one kid
> wrote something on MSN or IRC or in the Meetup room a couple
> months ago and the other kid can't remember anymore who said
> it or where they got it. Kids don't usually question the source of
> their information. They're also not very good at remembering stuff
> that happened in the past.

Especially when the question is "Where did you get the pot?" or "Who


left the used condom behind the couch?" or "Why weren't you in
school today?"

How many people have told you that "vampires can smell HIV"?

I can believe one or two kids not remembering where they picked
up a bit of information that they consider unimportant. But when you
get the same story from a large number of kids about something they
consider important, it suggests that they're lying. Either it's because
they know they're doing something wrong, or because they've been
told not to talk. I doubt they're scared that you'll tell their parents
about their problem; my best guess is that the victimizer has told them
"Keep quiet or I won't reveal more to you."

>> It doesn't fit Blath's style that she would become anyone's disciple,


>> or tell her victims not to acknowledge that she's the source of their
>> delusions.

> Ah, but she can use her conversations with him to delude others
> into thinking that she's actually in contact with a real, immortal,
> undead vampire. Not only do those doctors who are studying the
> V5 virus talk exclusively to her, but so do the elusive undead. She
> must be very very special to be so graced.

And equally special in choosing her followers. Of course her nonsense


is self-weeding; anyone who knows enough to ask for proof is going
to turn away from her in a hurry.

I keep looking for clues that Blath is connected to this, but I can't
convince myself that she would tell her recruits not to advertise her.

> That's another problem. "Thanks for the warning. I guess I'll just


> keep on cutting myself and drinking my own blood." Out of one
> hot frying pan and into another.

True. Infections aside, if a kid drinks enough of his blood he's going

the_vampi...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 8:14:21 AM6/28/06
to
I have a suggestion: I'm sure there are networks for real vampirism,
plus guidelines and etc. If it's established and been around for a
while, and is reputable (as reputable as these things can be) might it
be worth alerting the administrator to her poor information? I realize
it might not be pleasant to deal with real vampires, or those
practicing vampirism, but a quick alert to such sites and networks
might get more people involved and get them to go after her, if she's
spreading information.

Kay
www.covenhouse.com

Cathy Krusberg

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 10:08:14 AM6/28/06
to
William R Thompson wrote:

[much snippage]


> I can believe one or two kids not remembering where they picked
> up a bit of information that they consider unimportant. But when you
> get the same story from a large number of kids about something they
> consider important, it suggests that they're lying. Either it's because
> they know they're doing something wrong, or because they've been
> told not to talk. I doubt they're scared that you'll tell their parents
> about their problem; my best guess is that the victimizer has told them
> "Keep quiet or I won't reveal more to you."

But I wonder whether, for these kids, learning that vampires [they]
are immune to HIV/AIDS/whatever is the same kind of "important"
that learning they have superpowers would be. Medical science is
opaque to most laymen; we hear about things on the news or are
taught basic basics in school ("Vaccinations prevent disease, and
so does washing your hands" -- that kind of thing). Their thought
process gives the same credibility to a chat room report about
their disease immunity and to a TV report about bird flu. It's like
believing in a fad diet. Pretty soon it's an "everybody knows" (you
can lose weight by eating grapefruit/ice cream/steak), and you
really can't talk about a source.

Maybe I'm credulous, but I have no difficulty believing that kids
don't remember where they picked up a factoid, particularly one
that may be part of the culture where they hang out.

Cathy Krusberg
vhd1...@isp.com

William R Thompson

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 10:50:55 AM6/28/06
to
"Cathy Krusberg" wrote:

> [much snippage]

> But I wonder whether, for these kids, learning that vampires [they]
> are immune to HIV/AIDS/whatever is the same kind of "important"
> that learning they have superpowers would be.

Learning that you're immune to HIV (hepatitis)(the gleep) would be a
big thing to some people. It's not a great leap from "I can drink blood
safely" to "I can have sex without worrying about STDs."

> Medical science is
> opaque to most laymen; we hear about things on the news or are
> taught basic basics in school ("Vaccinations prevent disease, and
> so does washing your hands" -- that kind of thing). Their thought
> process gives the same credibility to a chat room report about
> their disease immunity and to a TV report about bird flu. It's like
> believing in a fad diet. Pretty soon it's an "everybody knows" (you
> can lose weight by eating grapefruit/ice cream/steak), and you
> really can't talk about a source.

I wouldn't expect these kids to be interested in the technical details
of how they can do whatever it is they think vampires can do (and
any explanation they got would be technobabble).

> Maybe I'm credulous, but I have no difficulty believing that kids
> don't remember where they picked up a factoid, particularly one
> that may be part of the culture where they hang out.

I don't think you're being credulous. My opinion is that if these kids
really think they're vampires, then they're going to pay attention to
all the benefits that come with the vampire package. The vampire
schtick is obviously very important to them.

--Bill Thompson


bj_k...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 12:10:00 PM6/28/06
to
William R Thompson wrote:

> "Cathy Krusberg" wrote:
> > Maybe I'm credulous, but I have no difficulty believing that kids
> > don't remember where they picked up a factoid, particularly one
> > that may be part of the culture where they hang out.
>
> I don't think you're being credulous. My opinion is that if these kids
> really think they're vampires, then they're going to pay attention to
> all the benefits that come with the vampire package. The vampire
> schtick is obviously very important to them.

>From what I'm seeing, I have to agree with Cathy, although Bill
could be right, too. Some of these kids are on MSN or IRC every
night, chatting away about being vampires. I doubt that, even the
next day, they remember who said what, and I'd be willing to
bet my firstborn that they don't ask each other where they got
each factoid or that they bother to check it out even if a source
is given.

People tend to believe what's told to them by those they trust,
like superstars, sports figures, their friends, and anyone who
supports their own point-of-view. They do not tend to trust stuff
told to them by politicians, teachers, parents, and anyone who
tries to poke holes in their bubbles. If what they are being told
fits with their own pov, I think, it simply gets re-inforced. If it
doesn't fit or opposes their pov, it gets rejected.

Also, when people read a factoid, they often do so with blinders.
For example, Catherene's website contains the following
"factoid":

"Class 1 inheritors are mostly immune to human
illnesses. They cannot catch AIDS and other varying diseases,
but can pass them on from blood donor to blood donor."

In order to fully understand what that means, the reader has to
know that class 1 inheritors, by Blath's definition, are immortal
vampires. But that little fact isn't contained anywhere in that
paragraph. It's not even on the same page. The factoid itself
pops up on a page about Night-timers, who only live 200-300
years. How many readers, particularly young ones, are going
to read Blath's blatherings closely and thoroughly enough to
completely understand what separates class 1 inheritors from
class 2 inheritors from night-timers from classical vampires
from genetic vampires, and then to bring together all that
misinformation to realize that she's talking about fictional
vampires?

Consequently, we see "best answers" on Yahoo questions
that boil down into another factoid like the following: "Living


beings that are vampiric in nature can contract disease, but

most are very resistant to disease and heal quickly." Nothing
at all about this referring to immortal vampires.

On top of all that, many of these young people actually seem
to believe that they ARE immortal, that because they have
undergone some sort of ceremony that somehow changed
them into vampires or, because they were born with a vampire
gene or infected with the vampire virus, they are going to
live for a looooong time and don't have to worry about getting
sick or dying. It's not a big leap between believing that they
are now immortal or, at least, long-lived vampires and
concluding, therefore, that they are immune to the HIV virus.

Add to that a factoid like the one also found on that Yahoo
page: "'good' vampirers can 'smell' or detect any ['disease']


a potential victim carries, and choose not to bite that victim"

and what you have is a recipe for a disaster just waiting to
happen.


^BJ^

Vorsuc

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 2:26:54 PM6/28/06
to

"William R Thompson" <wrth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:2mqog.13848$o4.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> I keep looking for clues that Blath is connected to this, but I can't
> convince myself that she would tell her recruits not to advertise her.

You're assuming that Cath is directly telling these kids this. Like I said
in my post, what happens is they read the site, aren't sure if it is
bullshit or not, so refuse to quote sources as then they accept they believe
the suff and fear the reply of "oh man, that site's full of crap and so are
you."

These are people looking for validation, not conflict so they'll do all they
can to avoid it.

-V.


Vorsuc

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 2:29:00 PM6/28/06
to

"William R Thompson" <wrth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:jHwog.2732$NP4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>My opinion is that if these kids
> really think they're vampires, then they're going to pay attention to
> all the benefits that come with the vampire package. The vampire
> schtick is obviously very important to them.

Less so these days, most "Vampire houses" have followed Strigoii's (Todd)
lead and actively advertised they do not drink blood, do not condone blood
drinking and are a "spiritual house". These days, the philosophy and imagery
used by the vampire orgs has more to do with Satanism and Reiki than
Dracula.


-V.


Vorsuc

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 2:38:37 PM6/28/06
to

<the_vampi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151496861.1...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

>If it's established and been around for a
> while, and is reputable (as reputable as these things can be) might it
> be worth alerting the administrator to her poor information?

Key word there is "reputable".

There was a huge flame war involving Cath back in the logs of ACV.

The reason was due to inaccuracies in her "psychic vampire" pages. She was
using the definition of the term from Dion Fortune (incidentally where Todd
and Michelle took the term from originally) and using it to apply to "real"
people, describing them as soul stealing demons looking for eternal (astral)
life.

After a great deal of arguing over usenet (always a productive endeavour),
Cath basically refused to budge, stating that those responding were but a
mere handful of the "psychic vampires" out there.

So, I told various groups, boards and orgs to contact Catherene, email her
and have those who call themselves psychic vampires explain they weren't out
to hurt people, prey on the elderly or become some kind of astral demon.

Finally Cath, bitterly, gave in and announced on ACV she'd be updating and
changing her pages.

The update? She changed a sentence that said *all* psychic vampires were
essentially evil, to *some*.


So, yeah... feel free to email her and let her know. I'm sure she'll get
right on it.


-V.


bj_k...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 2:53:56 PM6/28/06
to
Vorsuc wrote:
> Finally Cath, bitterly, gave in and announced on ACV she'd be updating and
> changing her pages.
>
> The update? She changed a sentence that said *all* psychic vampires were
> essentially evil, to *some*.
>
> So, yeah... feel free to email her and let her know. I'm sure she'll get
> right on it.


Having been through a similar scenario with Catherene on alt.vampyres,
in which we tried to get her to see how dangerous it was for her to say
that vampires are virtually immune to AIDS and other diseases, and
after checking her website just yesterday to find that sentence still
there, I don't believe that appealing to Catherene will have any
effect. She absolutely believes what she writes to be truth.

The answer, if there is one, does not lie in the realm of Catherene's
sense of logic or concern for others.

^BJ^

the_vampi...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 4:23:35 PM6/28/06
to
bj_k...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Having been through a similar scenario with Catherene on alt.vampyres,
> in which we tried to get her to see how dangerous it was for her to say
> that vampires are virtually immune to AIDS and other diseases, and
> after checking her website just yesterday to find that sentence still
> there, I don't believe that appealing to Catherene will have any
> effect. She absolutely believes what she writes to be truth.
>
> The answer, if there is one, does not lie in the realm of Catherene's
> sense of logic or concern for others.

In which case, she could be considered a cult leader. Maybe alerting
the FBI or other peeps trained in dealing with cultist and their
behavior would be in order.

Kay
www.covenhouse.com

William R Thompson

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 4:52:42 AM6/29/06
to
the_vampire_akisha wrote:

> In which case, she could be considered a cult leader. Maybe alerting
> the FBI or other peeps trained in dealing with cultist and their
> behavior would be in order.

Unfortunately being a cult leader isn't a crime. Blath might
even have a legal defense if one of her students comes down with
a lethal infection. She could claim that she never told anyone
"you are immune to all infections." As near as I can tell from that
incoherent mass of words on her site, she qualifies her statements
so that she never says "this means you are definitely a vampire"
and "this means you are absolutely immune to infections." I
wonder if she has ever told any of her students that "yes, you
are a vampire."

--Bill Thompson

William R Thompson

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 4:58:02 AM6/29/06
to
"Vorsuc" wrote:

> "William R Thompson" wrote:

>>My opinion is that if these kids
>> really think they're vampires, then they're going to pay attention to
>> all the benefits that come with the vampire package. The vampire
>> schtick is obviously very important to them.

> Less so these days, most "Vampire houses" have followed Strigoii's (Todd)
> lead and actively advertised they do not drink blood, do not condone blood
> drinking and are a "spiritual house". These days, the philosophy and
> imagery used by the vampire orgs has more to do with Satanism and Reiki
> than Dracula.

Which pretty much eliminates these groups as a source of the
blood-sniffing, disease-proof vampire concept.

--Bill Thompson


William R Thompson

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 5:21:32 AM6/29/06
to
"Vorsuc" scripsit:

> "William R Thompson" scripsit:

>> I keep looking for clues that Blath is connected to this, but I can't
>> convince myself that she would tell her recruits not to advertise her.

> You're assuming that Cath is directly telling these kids this.

Good point. But even if she's doing it through whatever renfields she
has on the payroll, it's hard for me to imagine that she wouldn't want
them to mention her as the source of their wisdom. Possibly one of
her students has decided to go into business for himself.

BJ's working on the assumption that Blath is involved; my assumption
is that Blath isn't involved. Probably only one of us is right.

> Like I said in my post, what happens is they read the site, aren't sure if
> it is bullshit or not, so refuse to quote sources as then they accept they

> believe the stuff and fear the reply of "oh man, that site's full of crap
> and so are you."

Maybe, but first the kids would have to recognize that the site is full of
crap.
In that case there would be no problem.

> These are people looking for validation, not conflict so they'll do all
> they can to avoid it.

I think it's just as likely that they would reveal their sources to get
validation.
And I can't imagine that every member of a large group would give the
same "I don't know" type of answer when asked about their source.
One way to get validation is to try to convert a sceptic to your point
of view, and that would involve telling the sceptic where they learned
about vampires.

Now that I think of it, I wonder if these would-be vampires are
interested in vampirism itself. Maybe their attitude isn't "I can become
a vampire, and one of the many benefits is that I can catch HIV/AIDS,"
but rather "I want to have unprotected sex, and I hear that vampires
can't get any STDs."

I must be getting old, because sex wasn't the first thing I thought of.

--Bill Thompson


William R Thompson

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 5:30:58 AM6/29/06
to
bj_kuehl wrote:

>>From what I'm seeing, I have to agree with Cathy, although Bill
> could be right, too. Some of these kids are on MSN or IRC every
> night, chatting away about being vampires. I doubt that, even the
> next day, they remember who said what, and I'd be willing to
> bet my firstborn that they don't ask each other where they got
> each factoid or that they bother to check it out even if a source
> is given.

There is one reason why they'd have to remeber something about
where they learned about vampirism: if they want to become a
vampire, they would have to know how to become a vampire
(where to get bit, who can give them the Alberto VO-5 virus,
whatever). I'd expect at least one of your respondents to
remember where they learned about vampires, if only to know
who to pester with their turn-me requests.

--Bill Thompson


bj_k...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 10:12:59 AM6/29/06
to
William R Thompson wrote:
> BJ's working on the assumption that Blath is involved; my assumption
> is that Blath isn't involved. Probably only one of us is right.

Actually, after doing a little asking around and perusing Catherene's
current website, I'm more of the opinion the scenario goes something
like this: Ask A where she got it from, and she'll tell you B. Ask B
where he got it from, and he'll tell you C. Ask C where s/he got it
from... well, you get the point. If Blath figures in there, I think
it's down around L, M, or N.

If they mention a favorite book or a place where I can read more about
their brand of vampirism, it's someplace like _Cirque du Freak_ by
Darren Shan or _The Psychic Vampire Codex_ by Michelle Belanger.
I've not read these, but I've got Belanger's on order. Shan's is
fiction, Belanger's is supposedly fact. After reading it, I'll maybe
have a better idea, although Belanger's book deals with psivamps,
not blood-drinkers. It IS worth noting that no one has mentioned
"The Book of Nod" or the Temple of the Vampire as their information
source, but that may be due to the sources of my subjects. I may
not have tapped into the VtM or the Satanism crowd yet.

> I think it's just as likely that they would reveal their sources to get
> validation.

Honestly, I think they get it from chatting with each other. If so,
you have the gossip effect...I heard it from X, I heard it from Y, and
I heard it from Z, therefore it must be true.

> And I can't imagine that every member of a large group would give the
> same "I don't know" type of answer when asked about their source.

It's not "a large group." It's only about 3 or 4. The disturbing thing
is that they're all teens, young ones at that. I'd like to ask them
whether they've gone through Nutkeeper's "classes", but I don't
want to direct them there if they haven't. Then I'd become part of
the chain of misinformation.

> Now that I think of it, I wonder if these would-be vampires are
> interested in vampirism itself. Maybe their attitude isn't "I can become
> a vampire, and one of the many benefits is that I can catch HIV/AIDS,"
> but rather "I want to have unprotected sex, and I hear that vampires
> can't get any STDs."

Sex may figure into it somehow, but I'm not sure how strongly. I've had
two teenie vamps tell me that they were "awakened" [that's the term
that's popular now...note how it suggests an innate origin as opposed
to being "turned" by someone else] when they began to feel hunger for
something. One said he just started to eat more [A 14-year old boy
who DOESN'T eat a lot? :)]; another said that she thought it was sex,
but she volunteered that she is still a virgin. Both ended up deciding
that the "hunger" was for blood, not food or sex.


^BJ^

Vorsuc

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 11:50:23 AM6/29/06
to

"William R Thompson" <wrth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:wYMog.3141$NP4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Vorsuc" scripsit:

>
> BJ's working on the assumption that Blath is involved; my assumption
> is that Blath isn't involved. Probably only one of us is right.
>

Like I say, from vamps who post such questions to Sanguinarius.org and such
like, I can say you are both right. Her *site* is involved but not her
directly. I'm rather of the same opinion that if she knew people were
quoting her site, she'd want it stamped, trademarked and in glowing neon
letters that the "teacher to night's children" was the source.

> And I can't imagine that every member of a large group would give the
> same "I don't know" type of answer when asked about their source.
> One way to get validation is to try to convert a sceptic to your point
> of view, and that would involve telling the sceptic where they learned
> about vampires.

Like BJ said, most of the time it isn't "a large group", but one or two
individuals approaching a large group. In the majority they are teens, new
to vampires and looking for acceptance.

You have to put it in context of the vampire community. These people are
cautious of ANY new people ("bah you can't become a vampire, you must be
born one like me") and looking for a quick way to show them the door.

As a new person, if you walk in, declare come statement and then announce it
as coming from a site/group/book that isn't favoured by the group, prepare
to be shown the door.

Sure, you'd expect them to know what is bullshit themselves, but there's
plenty of groups that sprout their own bullshit too. So when you walk into a
group, desperate to be a "vampire" and be one of them (for whatever
reasons), who's to say that while they believe that a vampire is a
combination of human and "the immortal" that rewrites DNA, that they will or
won't believe that they are immune to AIDs or that Cath's particular site is
accepted or not.

> but rather "I want to have unprotected sex, and I hear that vampires
> can't get any STDs."

Closer to the truth than we'd like to admit. A couple of rants recently by
vampires have been with respect to "gatherings" being little more than
orgies. Having heard of a story of one person being warned not to attend
such an event or they husband would be stolen from them, there's certainly a
dark, sexual aspect for a lot of those who call themselves "Vampires".


-V.


bj_k...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 7:24:37 PM6/29/06
to
Vorsuc wrote:

> "William R Thompson" <wrth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > BJ's working on the assumption that Blath is involved; my assumption
> > is that Blath isn't involved. Probably only one of us is right.
>
> I'm rather of the same opinion that if she knew people were
> quoting her site, she'd want it stamped, trademarked and in glowing neon
> letters that the "teacher to night's children" was the source.

And here I sit biting my nails because I have a few minors who have
answered my call for my vampire study. I don't know what to do with
them. They have important information to convey--like alerting us to
the fact that they are being told they are immune to AIDS or that,
not to worry, you can smell diseases in a person's blood and
choose not to drink from them.

Yet, I'm afraid that some parents might see my correspondence
with their teenager and go through the roof. For example, I just
had a teen vampire ask me whether or not she could drink her
boyfriend's blood because he was A+ and she was O-. If I
answer correctly (yes, you can), am I providing her with a
truthful answer or am I encouraging her to drink blood? I wonder
how someone as nutso as Catherene can post her crap on the
internet for years and years, while I sit here worrying about
just one angry parent?

> You have to put it in context of the vampire community. These people are
> cautious of ANY new people ("bah you can't become a vampire, you must be
> born one like me") and looking for a quick way to show them the door.
> As a new person, if you walk in, declare come statement and then announce it
> as coming from a site/group/book that isn't favoured by the group, prepare
> to be shown the door.

Don't we always scream, "Read the FAQ!" (Well, not lately, but surely
in the past.) In most groups, newbies who show up NOT versed in the
lingo suffer greatly. They get flamed mercilessly. Most leave and find
forums with other newbies like themselves, where they exchange bits
and pieces of misinformation.

Let me tell you, it's even worse if you're a legitimate researcher.
I remember the "researchers" that have come through our doors in
the past. Most were students writing term papers. No one has yet
tried to do what I'm doing...an academic study on a Ph.D. level.
So many "researchers" have gone before me with soured results.
If I don't already speak the lingo (which differs from forum to forum),
I'm immediately dissed to the max. Fortunately, my past
experiences with being flamed mercilessly on a.v. has given me
the backbone I need to withstand the stillettos.

Ah, well, I'm just bitching. I guess I air my concerns here because
I appreciate the intelligence of this community. I find very few
of my colleagues at UWM know anything about horror movies
much less "real" vampires." I appreciate everyone's input.

> Sure, you'd expect them to know what is bullshit themselves...

A person desparate for answers may grasp at anything...logic put
aside

William R Thompson

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 2:03:32 AM6/30/06
to
bj_kuehl wrote:

> And here I sit biting my nails because I have a few minors who have
> answered my call for my vampire study. I don't know what to do with
> them. They have important information to convey--like alerting us to
> the fact that they are being told they are immune to AIDS or that,
> not to worry, you can smell diseases in a person's blood and
> choose not to drink from them.

> Yet, I'm afraid that some parents might see my correspondence
> with their teenager and go through the roof. For example, I just
> had a teen vampire ask me whether or not she could drink her
> boyfriend's blood because he was A+ and she was O-. If I
> answer correctly (yes, you can), am I providing her with a
> truthful answer or am I encouraging her to drink blood?

A truthful answer? How about something like this:

"The question isn't 'can you,' but 'should you'? You *can* catch
diseases by drinking the blood of an infected person.

"Listen to the people who tell you that this is safe. Notice that
they never give you a straight answer. Either they can't tell you
where they learned about drinking blood--or they'll say things
like 'most vampires' are immune to AIDS and 'usually' vampires
have extraordinary healing powers. It's never 'ALL vampires
are immune.' If you catch a disease by drinking blood, they'll
shrug and say they never told you that *you* were safe."

> I wonder
> how someone as nutso as Catherene can post her crap on the
> internet for years and years, while I sit here worrying about
> just one angry parent?

Blath has no conscience.

> Let me tell you, it's even worse if you're a legitimate researcher.
> I remember the "researchers" that have come through our doors in
> the past. Most were students writing term papers. No one has yet
> tried to do what I'm doing...an academic study on a Ph.D. level.

Has anyone studied disease transmission among different types of
vampires? My hunch is that you'd find two types of people in that
set: one group that takes extraordinary health precautions, and one
group that's deathly ill.

--Bill Thompson

William R Thompson

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 2:28:55 AM6/30/06
to
"Vorsuc" wrote:

> "William R Thompson" scripsit:

>> "Vorsuc" scripsit:

>> BJ's working on the assumption that Blath is involved; my assumption
>> is that Blath isn't involved. Probably only one of us is right.

> Like I say, from vamps who post such questions to Sanguinarius.org and
> such like, I can say you are both right. Her *site* is involved but not
> her directly.

Could be. I pity any kid who's read all of her dribble . . . but
to anyone who knows nothing about science and medicine, it
may sound impressive.

>> And I can't imagine that every member of a large group would give the
>> same "I don't know" type of answer when asked about their source.
>> One way to get validation is to try to convert a sceptic to your point
>> of view, and that would involve telling the sceptic where they learned
>> about vampires.

> Like BJ said, most of the time it isn't "a large group", but one or two
> individuals approaching a large group. In the majority they are teens, new
> to vampires and looking for acceptance.

If they're trying to join an established group of vampires, they might be
safe.
I'm guessing that the adults in a community would have enough sense not to
involve minors in high-risk activity. On the other hand, if this is a
matter of
kids spreading a new urban legend among themselves, they don't have any
sort of adult protection.

>> but rather "I want to have unprotected sex, and I hear that vampires
>> can't get any STDs."

> Closer to the truth than we'd like to admit. A couple of rants recently by
> vampires have been with respect to "gatherings" being little more than
> orgies. Having heard of a story of one person being warned not to attend
> such an event or they husband would be stolen from them, there's certainly
> a dark, sexual aspect for a lot of those who call themselves "Vampires".

So a group of real vampires might turn away some kid who has more
hormones than sense, but a group of Realll Wampyrres might have
lower moral standards.

--Bill Thompson


bj_k...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 3:22:06 PM6/30/06
to
William R Thompson wrote:
> bj_kuehl wrote:
> > I just had a teen vampire ask me whether or not she could
> > drink her boyfriend's blood because he is A+ and she is O-.

> > If I answer correctly (yes, you can), am I providing her with
> > a truthful answer or am I encouraging her to drink blood?
>
> A truthful answer? How about something like this:
> "The question isn't 'can you,' but 'should you'? You *can* catch
> diseases by drinking the blood of an infected person.

That's pretty much what I did. I told her that disease immunity
only works if you are a fully undead vampire. Fortunately, all
of the vampires I've talked with seem to realize that they aren't
dead/undead, so it's not too difficult to jump from that
realization to recognizing that their human side is still able
to catch AIDS, hepatitis, etc.

I then told her that drinking, even just tasting, someone else's
blood is unsafe no matter what...no if, ands, or buts. After
prefacing my reply in that way, I told her the truth...that
matching blood types is important if the blood is going to be
entered into one's own blood system, such as in a transfusion.
Eating or drinking blood of another type will go through the
digestive track just like any other "food."

I also warned her about drinking fresh blood. The human
digestive system can handle cooked blood, as in English
blood pudding or Polish blood sausage. But large amounts
of fresh blood can have an emetic effect...that is, it can make
you puke.

Whether or not she's going to go ahead with drinking her
boyfriend's blood, I don't know. I can say only that I answered
her question truthfully and that I sufficiently warned her about
the problems of drinking blood.

What I don't know is how much blood a person can drink
before puking it out? Small amounts, like you might get by
licking a cut or swallowing during a typical nosebleed, don't
seem to elicit the puke reflex, so how much is too much?

Back when people went to abbatoirs in order to down a glass
of cow's blood, how much did they drink at one time? Was
the blood fresh, heated, or diluted in some way? How often
did they frequent the abbatoir? Can you build up a tolerance
to drinking blood so that you can drink more and more of it
after awhile? Anyone know anything about the process of
blood-drinking at the abbatoirs?

> Has anyone studied disease transmission among different types of
> vampires?

Interesting question. I've found nothing in the literature about
such a study. Anyone know of one?

> My hunch is that you'd find two types of people in that set:
> one group that takes extraordinary health precautions, and
> one group that's deathly ill.

There are a number of subsets. There are those who like the
taste of blood, much like someone else might like the taste
of chocolate, and who satisfy that taste by cutting themselves
and drinking their own blood. Similarly, there are those who
satisfy the taste by using animal blood or eating raw meat.
Some try to combat the liking by following a vegetarian diet,
which expressedly forbids eating meat or drinking blood.
Others say that they switch to psivampirism and that seems
to lessens their dependence on blood.


^BJ^

William R Thompson

unread,
Jul 1, 2006, 2:16:56 AM7/1/06
to
bj_kuehl wrote:

> What I don't know is how much blood a person can drink
> before puking it out? Small amounts, like you might get by
> licking a cut or swallowing during a typical nosebleed, don't
> seem to elicit the puke reflex, so how much is too much?

I googled alt.vampyres for keywords "blood," "vomit," "nausea,"
"stomach" and "ammonia," in differebt combinations, and came
up with the old threads on the topic. Somewhere along the
line we decided that the limit was around 50 cc.s of fresh blood.

I ran across the term hematemesis, but if any MDs know how much
blood will cause vomiting, they haven't posted the numbers on-line.
There's no way to measure how much blood is released by a
gastric ulcer; the medical issue is whether or not the vomiting occurs.

Klaatu/THF had some information that the vomiting was caused
when a large amount of blood coagulated in the stomach, forming
an indigestible lump. I don't know his source on that.

> Back when people went to abbatoirs in order to down a glass
> of cow's blood, how much did they drink at one time? Was
> the blood fresh, heated, or diluted in some way? How often
> did they frequent the abbatoir? Can you build up a tolerance
> to drinking blood so that you can drink more and more of it
> after awhile? Anyone know anything about the process of
> blood-drinking at the abbatoirs?

I'd never heard of that practice. I know that the Maasai mix
cow's blood with milk, and drink it uncooked

> Others say that they switch to psivampirism and that seems
> to lessens their dependence on blood.

That's convenient for them, and the explanation would probably
give Honest Igor a good laugh.

--Bill Thompson


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Message has been deleted
0 new messages