tf_talk | continued Thatfucker discussion

Skip to Main Content

Entry tags:

continued Thatfucker discussion

Since we've been kicked off FFA for the week, please feel free to continue the anon discussion here. Apologies if this is a big flop - I've never made a DW community before!

The rules are vaguely the same as they are over on FFA. Please refrain from being too much of an asshole, making personal attacks, posting identifying information or engaging in transfail.

ETA: If there's information you'd like to see archived (journal/blog posts related to Andy, etc.), please dump it here and link to it from the main post for discussing.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I know this is an old thread, but I can't help responding. FWIW, I'm a longtime lurker, as Andy lives fairly close by, and I was close to a member of "the posse"--she's no longer in it, but I can tell you she is STILL not the same close to 2 yrs after leaving his "orbit" (her word, not mine.) Andy completely freaks me out. He actually scares me. Not just "skeeves out" but "frightens."

I'm also quite a bit older. My first husband died 16 months after we married; my second husband, whom I divorced 23 years ago, died about five years ago from cancer, in his late forties. It's been 26 years since my first husband died and I will never *stop* missing him (and wondering what might have been.) My ex and I couldn't live together, but we stayed friends, talked, and traded gossip :) My husband and son are very good about "anniversaries" and such. I know when I talk about my first husband, it's my "beloved late husband." It doesn't mean I love my husband any less and I don't know anyone who takes it that way. My ex-husband is usually "my late good friend" since that seems more accurate. I'd never say "still" and that goes for other relatives I've lost. Yes, I've moved on. I've forgotten anniversaries, and even on them I'm not thinking of them 24/7.

Personally, I agree w. the nonny who thinks Andy is simultaneously giving "hope" to someone that he may love again, while also invoking the image of a perfect woman who made him tea & gave footrubs. (The image of someone giving Andy a footrub makes me want to puke.) In other words, a "get out of jail free" card. Now, I'm not saying Brittany was not a wonderful girl, but since he still has her "eulogy" up on his FB page, he does give one the idea that Brittany was so perfect that *no one* will ever measure up. So he's now got a card to play in any future relationship--does this make sense? After reading the eulogy, almost any girl he comes into contact with is going to feel less in comparison, try to do more & be more, and definitely give him more leeway. Because of the tragedy. He gets woobie points w/o having to do anything but invoke the image of poor Brittany.

I hope I haven't offended anyone--Brittany's death was a tragedy, certainly, but knowing what I do of Andy, I really question how much he *felt* the tragedy. If that makes sense...I'd better stop.

Since Andy's big claim is that he's no longer abusing people, would you elaborate at all what he did to your friend? How did she get away or did he kick her out for apostasy? Is there anything she's willing to share about how he treats Meg and the other posse members or what kind of bullshit he's feeding them this time?

Hmmm...how to elaborate w/o revealing details that could identify? I first started reading the AA blogs & comms b/c of her, while she was still in his "cult"--and yes, I think it's exactly that. I gently pointed her in the direction of some of the blogs once, and she hung up the phone. I only met His Majesty once, and very briefly, when she asked me to pick her up from his house. Maybe it's b/c I was conditioned to expect it, but HOLY FUCK this guy gives off a bad vibe, & I'm not usually sensitive to things like that, As for what he did, I'll just say she still has some residual issues going.

In the most general way possible, the things that she told me. I doubt any of them will be revelations to anyone who follows Thatfucker discussions:

*Andy is *still* abusing people, and not in any significantly different way from what he did to Abbey, the Bagenders, the Daydians, etc. That said, he usually knows how far he can go w. a certain person. My friend seems to have been a tad bit more gullible than say, Winnjennster (sp?) Then again, in his earlier iterations he seems to have done that too...

*Much of what he says in his tumblr (certain aspects of his college career, his art, his "care team"--esp this load of bull about his "care team" having access to his tumblr & blogs, incl the passwords (!), and a bunch of other things) is complete horseshit. I don't know if this has changed since she left, but as far as anything re: his "care team?" Yeah. Horseshit.

*While we're on the topic of his mental health...he does not have DID, nor schizophrenia. He is a sick man, yes, but not in the "paranoid delusional schiziod blah" sense, it's more "pity me b/c I'm a mentally ill WOOBIE." And don't question why his diagnosis was one thing last week & another this week, because....

*You do not question Andy on his lies, EVER, even if it's something that happened right in front of you. He can make up the most amazingly complicated stories off the top of his head to get people to do/say/believe whatever he wants.

*In fact, Rule #1 is pretty much that you just don't ever question or confront Andy. If he said one thing yesterday & another, completely opposite one today, you need to be careful, b/c he occasionally uses things like that to spring traps on people.

*People don't exactly get "kicked out" of the posse, b/c it seems like Andy has a lot more fun keeping them around...and then ignoring them, & encouraging others to do the same. So you might be in a position where you're invited but they act like you don't exist, or you'll hear about some great thing that other "members" did in your absence. Ask why you weren't invited & you'll hear everything from, "But I left you a message," to "So & so said you had to work," neither of which are true. I'm just spitballing here, but I think he does it this way partly to enjoy his "power" & partly to leave the door open, in case he changes his mind or needs something from you.

*I'm not willing to into this too far, but it seems as if Andy encourages a LOT of sexual tension/competition among the ladies to get "closest" to him, and also to "hope" it might be romantic one day. As I said, this is probably the creepiest aspect of the whole cult dynamic--I believe Abbey & Diamond have blogged about it, at least to a limited extent, but I'm not touching the sexual issues w. a ten-foot pole. Nor am I willing to discuss Meg, partly b/c I don't know much that hasn't already been said. The only thing my friend told me that I haven't seen is that "she's sticking around hoping Andy will change his mind." About what?

We can guess, but I'd prefer not to wank about it--I just hope she realizes she can have a full, normal life, and that being the Player's "groundskeeper" is not really a step forward in doing so. Something like that might be ok for a year or so in your 20s (I had a nanny gig like that during grad school) but if she plans on sticking around for "several years"??? Your 20s are the time to be building up a career & maybe a family. She needs insurance, a 401k, etc. I'm not doubting the Players are decent people, but IMO that is not a good long-term move. Hopefully she'll get her head together & it won't be long-term, but...

It's 6am here in VA, & I need to get back to bed for awhile. I hope this answers some questions...

TL,DR: Yep, Andy's still an abuser, as bad as he ever was.

Much of what he says in his tumblr (certain aspects of his college career, his art, his "care team"--esp this load of bull about his "care team" having access to his tumblr & blogs, incl the passwords (!), and a bunch of other things) is complete horseshit. I don't know if this has changed since she left, but as far as anything re: his "care team?" Yeah. Horseshit.

It seems like the only way someone would know this for sure is if Andy admitted this. Did that happen, or is this just speculation on your friend's part?

I'm not willing to into this too far, but it seems as if Andy encourages a LOT of sexual tension/competition among the ladies to get "closest" to him, and also to "hope" it might be romantic one day.

Seconding this. A ton of this went on when I knew him.

DA

It seems like the only way someone would know this for sure is if Andy admitted this.

Not necessarily. If he never goes to medical appointments, never mentions going to them, never mentions being unavailable at some point because he has to go to one, never mentions anything which happened during an appointment, never mentions anything anyone on his care team told him, and possibly doesn't even take medication every day, then the obvious conclusion is that he doesn't have the mental illness he claims to have and his care team as he presents it is non-existent.

And before anyone argues that there are people who have a true mental illness, do take meds every day, and see a therapist very regularly, but never mention any of this to people around them: I know. I'm one of those people. But we're not Andy "Let me tell you AAAAALL about my life" Blake. We don't make claims of having all the mental illnesses in the dictionary. We don't claim that we were once extremely abusive BECAUSE we were mentally ill and undiagnosed, and that we can be trusted now BECAUSE we have a big care team who keeps a very close eye on us. So really, apples to oranges.

This makes it far more likely, but it doesn't confirm anything.

I absolutely think Andy is lying, to be clear.

DA

I would say the burden of "proof" is on Andy - it says a lot if he's making this claim to his internet friends but not to anyone who interacts with him offline.

SA not to mention it's almost impossible to prove a negative, especially one as vague as "Andy doesn't really have a care team of several medical practitioners who've given him X advice."

What I'm interested in is how this friend "knows" this information. Does she have some of kind of proof we haven't seen or heard about yet, or is this friend basically just coming to same conclusion as everyone else based on the same information?

Either is fine. I just want to know which it is.

I would think "I spent time with this person IRL and don't believe the claim is true" would hold different weight than "I've read a lot about this person on the internet but don't have a relationship with them and I don't believe it."

Oh, I think it does. But when presenting something as a confirmed fact, I think it's important to know what evidence exists to back it up. "Andy is a known liar who lies, and I don't believe him after meeting him" is one thing, but it's less compelling than, say, Andy admitting to someone that he lied for reasons X, Y or Z.

Andy is a pathological liar. Him "admitting" to anything is NO proof of anything, because at any moment, he will say whatever he thinks will work best to further his interests/plans. So if he thinks that privately "admitting" to YOU right NOW that he lied about X is the best way to go, he'll do just that, with no regards to whether this is true or not - and then he'll have zero problem saying the exact opposite thing to someone else minutes later, or to you or everyone days later. That's what being "a lying liar who lies" MEANS: his word is the LAST thing you should take as a proof of anything.

NA

What you're missing is the value that exists in confirming Andy has said one thing to one person, and something else to another.

As you pointed out, sometimes this means he'll admit to things that are already thought to be "obvious" lies. Knowing this is valuable (even if the alternate story is only repeated to one person) because there is then a record of him changing his story later.

There's a reason TB posts links to images in her timeline. Simply accepting that Andy lies constantly and is not to be trusted is not as compelling as actually debunking his lies, and backing it up with proof.

Compelling to whom? Valuable to whom?

People who honestly look for the truth don't need Andy's word on anything, because either there are testimonies by far more trustworthy people contradicting him, or because what he claims is simply impossible.

People who choose to take Andy's word on anything until he contradicts himself are not looking for the truth. Quite the contrary: they are looking for reasons to believe Andy. Which means that no matter how many compelling arguments or valuable pieces of evidence you might show them, they'll still go right back to believing him anyway.

NNA

I agree with you; people looking to believe Andy will explain away any evidence to fit with his current story, and people looking for the truth will quickly learn that he's a liar and not to be trusted.

But when new people take a look at the story, they still need that first demonstration that he's a liar. They might not stumble across Abbey's blog posts right off the bat, or one of the well-sourced warning posts. I think it's valuable to document and provide evidence for as many claims as possible, so that no matter what point of the story a new person starts reading, there's a good chance they'll run into some concrete evidence.

Not everything needs evidence to be taken at face value, of course. If information comes from a trustworthy source and fits logically with other things we know, then I'm going to believe it. If there's a reasonable, non-intrusive way to get evidence, though, I see no problem with asking for it. Like the nonny a few posts above said when asking about how the friends knows the information, "Either is fine. I just want to know which it is."

But when new people take a look at the story, they still need that first demonstration that he's a liar. They might not stumble across Abbey's blog posts right off the bat, or one of the well-sourced warning posts.

Anyone "looking at the story" WILL come across posts detailing Andy's lies and abuse. It's literally impossible to go looking for Andy's story without running into one of those posts. Even Aja's fawning interview makes it clear that he has a very shady past. The only people who don't know the truth about Andy's nature are literally only those who don't know there's a story to go looking for in the first place, and those who know the story is there but refuse to read/accept it.

I think it's valuable to document and provide evidence for as many claims as possible, so that no matter what point of the story a new person starts reading, there's a good chance they'll run into some concrete evidence.

Of course it is, but such evidence has been posted for more than a decade now. It's not exactly a new thing. What's new is that the Tea Blogger is doing an awesome job of gathering all the bits and pieces of info from everywhere, and presenting them in an organized and coherent fashion. But those bits and pieces have been there all along, and any post discussing Andy's backstory always linked to one or several of those bits.

Not everything needs evidence to be taken at face value, of course. If information comes from a trustworthy source and fits logically with other things we know, then I'm going to believe it. If there's a reasonable, non-intrusive way to get evidence, though, I see no problem with asking for it. Like the nonny a few posts above said when asking about how the friends knows the information, "Either is fine. I just want to know which it is."

That's not what the nonny said, though. Here's what they said:

What I'm interested in is how this friend "knows" this information. Does she have some of kind of proof we haven't seen or heard about yet, or is this friend basically just coming to same conclusion as everyone else based on the same information?

Either is fine. I just want to know which it is.

By putting "knows" between scare quotes like that, they are directly implying that unless the friend can present some kind of irrefutable proof, then they shouldn't be believed on the topic of whether Andy has schizophrenia or DID or not, even though it's ALREADY plainly obvious he doesn't have either. People who actually have those illnesses have explained at length how it's absolutely impossible that Andy has either, so if someone who was once a friend confirms that he doesn't have them, I don't see why their word should be disbelieved unless they can absolutely prove it.

And when ANDY'S WORD is brought up as a good potential proof, I just can't take the nonny's suspicion in good faith anymore.

NA

By putting "knows" between scare quotes like that, they are directly implying that unless the friend can present some kind of irrefutable proof, then they shouldn't be believed on the topic of whether Andy has schizophrenia or DID or not, even though it's ALREADY plainly obvious he doesn't have either.

No, it doesn't directly imply that. That's your interpretation. What people are talking about is different the levels of certainty and knowledge.

For example, I know with almost absolutely certainty (baring hallucinations or a Matrix-type scenario) that I am typing on a computer right now. I would also say that I know with almost absolute certainty the sun will rise tomorrow. There are also things I know beyond a reasonable doubt, like the fact that my parents are my biological parents.

The you have facts which we can reasonably accept as true, and then after that, things we strongly suspect but cannot confirm to be facts. I am willing to accept as true that Andy is living with his parents, for example. I strongly suspect Andy has abused his sister more than we know publicly, but I cannot offer any proof of that.

When anon graciously came and shared her information, people wanted to know why her friend she came to the conclusions she did. It wasn't that people didn't believe her conclusions, or that they were interrogating her for that reason. Most people here already accept the things she posted. What people wanted to know was if her friend had any new evidence, because evidence-based information is more powerful and more useful than information based on good guesses and reasonable assumptions. That doesn't mean anon's post wasn't helpful as it was, though.

NA

And when ANDY'S WORD is brought up as a good potential proof, I just can't take the nonny's suspicion in good faith anymore.

It's not "proof" so much as evidence he's saying different shit to different people. There's also a reason we save all Andy's fauxpologies. They're a record of him rewriting history.

Also, Andy weaves a lot of the truth into his lies. Like, Andy admitted to lying to WJ about his sister. I wouldn't believe anything based on Andy's word alone, but when you add his admission that he was lying to all the other evidence, it's the cherry on top of the cake.

Hello, I'm the OP, the one whose friend was a member of the posse. I'll try to answer your questions to the extent I can.

First of all, you are all very correct that Andy's word means nothing, esp, since he uses it to manipulate --incl., as I said, saying different things to different people or even the same people as a "Gotcha" tactic. (It's pretty horrifying.) Re: his mental health "care team": My friend was deep enough in to *know,* from what appts he went to (or not) and what meds he was taking (hint: small doses of antipsychotics are often combined w. other drugs to treat depression or bipolar illness). She definitely knew there was no care team of however many drs with their dozen degrees studying Andy b/c he's he's just so damn fascinating, and that's not mental illness on Andy's part, just self-aggrandizement. I do believe he's sick, but not in any way that a therapist would help unless he *really* wanted to change. He doesn't; his behavior and sheer joy at manipulating people tells us that.

As for the idea that said care team monitors his FB & tumblr & even has the passwords, one hardly even needs proof this is untrue, although evidently Andy did mention it was. I mean, seriously--was his therapist going to go into his tumblr & edit the "WalMart fat lady" story with "Attn Readers! This is Andy's whatever, & the above story is a steaming pile?" What legit therapist would have time? But from what I heard, Andy enjoys bragging about his manipulations, and at least on this point I believe him.

But I *do* trust my friend's observations & her ability to put things together, and that's why I say I *know* what I know.

If there are any other questions, I'll try to answer them to the extent I can, and the mods are free to verify that yes, I have VA IP. As I mentioned, I just thought it was important to mention that Andy was *still* abusing people, and not even much differently than he was in the beginning. I find the man frightening,

hint: small doses of antipsychotics are often combined w. other drugs to treat depression or bipolar illness

Anxiety and insomnia, too. "Have troubles falling asleep? Your thoughts keep running? Here, take this. Yes, it's an anti-psychotic, but don't worry, it only has a sedative effect at this very low dose." I invite anyone who doesn't believe me to just Google it.

So yeah, Andy may very well have a prescription for a low dose of antipsychotic meds. But the problem is that he should be stuffed full of STRONG doses of antipsychotic meds if he were really as badly schizophrenic as he pretends to be. He claims to have lived an entire decade or so completely out of touch with reality (never mind that he would have been utterly non-functional if that were true). You don't treat that level of delusion and hallucinations with low doses of meds; he would need very high doses, and it would show. How many times will the Caps have to explain this before they are believed?

Thanks for the info and clarification, nonny!

As for the idea that said care team monitors his FB & tumblr & even has the passwords, one hardly even needs proof this is untrue, although evidently Andy did mention it was.

I almost want to laugh. What was his excuse for lying about this when he said this to your friend?

You mentioned that Andy is abusing people in a very similar way to Abbey & Brittany, and that "gullibility" is a factor. Does this mean he is still claiming to channel, or that supernatural things are occurring around him? If you can't get into specifics to protect your friend, I understand.

Thanks again, nonny!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only