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

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