Re: Diversion tactics; Sharon

More | Report Post

FF,
I no longer hope you are right, I am convinced that he is the sort who can simmer for a
long time until something sets him off and his anonymity adds to the impression. When
someone continually engages in abusive behavior despite entreaties to stop, this is a sign
of serious mental disorder. Have you ever been the target of unwanted and/or unwarranted
personal attention out of proportion to actual interaction or relevance?

About my remark, "..not even FF", he doesn't seem to like you either, but I also confused
him briefly with BB and was thinking of the name-calling and such that he engaged in
towards you.

On 2/16/08, ff wrote:
>
>
> DD, Sharon:
>
> I'm still not sure I understand what DD means by "...not even ff".
>
> Regarding his posts below, that's pretty much in line with the way he started out
> posting, using whatever tact he thought may offend the worst for each person he
> attacked. You just don't recall the posts, which appear to have been deleted. He
> thinks that "bottom of the barrel" tact works best on you and DD.
>
> Now, what type of person would do that? Yeah, you're right. But as far as being a
> threat, in my experience that behavior usually indicates the opposite, no threat at
> all.
>
> ff
>
> On 2/16/08, Sharon wrote:
>> FF,
>>
>> I am not certain that Deborah sees this the exact same way that I do, but what her
>> words of "not even FF" mean to me, is that this guy likes to pick on and try to
>> intimidate and scare women. There is something that is quite creepy about his posts
>> in many ways. There appears to be an unexplained underlying anger - that has
> nothing
>> to do with the mold issue - an a need to intimidate women -in particular Deborah-
>> while hiding behind a pseudoname.
>>
>> If you were a female and you knew this guy lived close to you and seems to know much
>> about your personal life beyond info from this chatboard - as Mike B does with
>> Deborah - wouldn't the below statement/questions creep you out?
>>
>> And, as stated in his own words, he has chosen to track me and write malicious lies
>> on the Internet because I came to Deborah's defense. I know that sometimes we play
>> hard on these boards in sparring over the mold issue. BB is a prime example. But BB
>> does not cross the line of being personal, creepy and ask inappropriate questions
>> while letting it be known he is physically nearby, like Mike B does to Deborah.
>>
>> I really am concerned that there is something not right with this guy who goes by
>> pseudoname of Mike B. And I have been for a long time. That's why I came to
>> Deborah's defense in the first place. I am hiring an attorney on Monday to find out
>> who this guy really is. I would never forgive myself if something happened to
>> Deborah because we took no steps to stop her internet stalker, who lives close to
> her.
>>
>> Don't you find the below creepy, given that he has let it be known he is
>> geographically close to Deborah? This is just a small example of what this guy has
>> been doing for quite some time:
>>
>> "On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>> For the umpteenth time, my name is not important; I have no financial interests
>> in this.
>>
>> How did your husband die? Where is your child that lived with you while you
>> were allegedly exposed to chlordane, etc.?"
>>
>> "On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>> ....."It was on this same board where you and I were first "introduced" after you
>> stuck your nose into my discussions with Deborah Davitt."
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/16/08, ff wrote:
>>>
>>> DD:
>>>
>>> Can you explain what you mean by "...not even ff".
>>>
>>> ff
>>>
>>> On 2/16/08, Deborah wrote:
>>>> This is how it starts, when he feels cornered, he begins getting personal, then
>>>> nasty, and it escalates from there.
>>>>
>>>> He is as unimportant as his name, maybe this is why he chooses the medium of the
>>>> internet where he can remain anonymous and feel powerful. Note that he doesn't
>>> use
>>>> this form of attack on the men, not even FF.
>>>>
>>>> Mike B,
>>>>
>>>> See my post to BB on the other board about reasonable expectations.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Are you, or have you ever been married?
>>>> 2. Do you have children, if so, how are they?
>>>> 3. Have you, or anyone you know, been personally impacted by indoor exposure to
>>> mold?
>>>> 4. What is your name and occupation?
>>>> 5. Do you have any personal issues you wish to share that might explain your
>>>> personal obsession with myself and Mrs. Kramer?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>>>>> For the umpteenth time, my name is not important; I have no financial interests
>>>>> in this.
>>>>>
>>>>> How did your husband die? Where is your child that lived with you while you
>>>>> were allegedly exposed to chlordane, etc.?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
>>>>>> Mike B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What did you say your name was?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what is your interest in this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have financial interests in this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
>>>>>>> I remain unconcerned. Intimidate away, it is what you try to do best.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, in the legal arena, words are often re-defined for purposes
>>>>>>> of litigation. Again, I said, I like juries....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I bear some resentment toward the landlords that poisoned me and failed to
>>>>>>> disclose defects in the places they put out to lease despite my informing
>>>>>>> them of my health issues. Would a mother have some remaining ire against
>>>>>>> someone who promulgated a paper based on a single rodent study and testified
>>>>>>> as an expert using that same paper, despite having no clinical experience,
>>>>>>> that was used in an unsuccessful attempt to deny a claim made by said
>>>>>>> mother; a reasonable person might? I believe a decent, reasonable person
>>>>>>> might try to warn an unsuspecting public of a grave and imminent danger
>>>>>>> being perpetrated upon them. I believe Sharon Kramer is a decent, reasonable
>>>>>>> person; I fail to hold her detractor in a similar light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What this man did, he did for hire. And the conclusion he reached is suspect
>>>>>>> by many, including real doctors and researchers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> "I like juries for matters this controversial, especially when someone is
>>>>>>>> being retaliated against by someone who has a grudge."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, that's frickin hillarious. Are you saying Kelman should have a
>>>>>>>> jury trial because Sharon Kramer has a grudge against him? The appellate
>>>>>>>> court seems to think she does:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Additionally, there was other evidence presented which could support a
>>>>>>>> finding KRAMER HAD A CERTAIN ANIMOSITY AGAINST KELMAN. Kelman gave an
>>>>>>>> expert opinion in Kramer's lawsuit against her insurance company seeking
>>>>>>>> damages caused by the presence of mold in her home. Kelman stated there
>>>>>>>> did not appear to be a greatly increased level of risk of mold inside the
>>>>>>>> home compared to the levels in the air outside the home. While the Kramer
>>>>>>>> family eventually settled and recovered damages from the insurance
>>>>>>>> company, a reasonable jury could infer that KRAMER HARBORED SOME
>>>>>>>> ANIMOSITY TOWARD KELMAN for providing expert services to the insurance
>>>>>>>> company and not supporting her position." Emphasis mine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Secondly, this was a pretrial matter where Sharon Kramer filed a motion
>>>>>>>> to strike the Kelman suit because Kramer thought it was a silly old SLAPP
>>>>>>>> suit. No jury hears pretrial motions. The court does, though, and it held:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Kramer brought a section 425.16 motion to strike the complaint. The
>>>>>>>> court denied the motion, concluding that although Kramer had sustained
>>>>>>>> her burden of showing the complaint fell within the scope of section
>>>>>>>> 425.16, subdivision (e)(3) and (4), Kelman and GlobalTox had sustained
>>>>>>>> their burden of showing a probability they would prevail on their libel
>>>>>>>> claim."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally, you will have a tough time defending yourself for your
>>>>>>>> statements about Kelman based on your "I like juries" defense for
>>>>>>>> ignoring a court's ruling. Especially when you make essentially the exact
>>>>>>>> statement that Kramer did and for which she is now being sued.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best of luck with that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I like juries for matters this controversial, especially when someone is
>>>>>>>>> being retaliated against by someone who has a grudge. Exposing the
>>>>>>>>> fallacies that impact public health in a paper written and promulgated
>>>>>>>>> by a principal in the company might make the exposee a bit testy. I'd
>>>>>>>>> be curious to see if any of the "deciders" were ever involved in any
>>>>>>>>> cases using where the disgruntled party was used as an expert witness,
>>>>>>>>> either behind or in front of the bench; that would include law partners,
>>>>>>>>> firms, other businesses, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In this case, it was "judges" - the trial judge, and an appellate
>>>>>>>>>> panel of judges who affirmed the trial judge.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>" So, you're willing to defend your statement based upon "the paper
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the transcripts" even though there has been a finding by a
>>>>>>>>>>>> court which says that the doctor did not alter his testimony?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When you say the "court", do you mean a judge or a jury?