All things Razing Ruth

[Peas n carrots]

Too little, too late, no? I don't understand that. Why delete it AFTER she was found at the campground, and was gone from there? Makes no sense. But are you saying there was actually a blog post where she mentioned being at a KOA in Nebraska? Because I thought there was, but I may be getting it mixed up with posts she made here.

I also find it a bit strange that she told Curious that she legally changed her name. I can't even figure out why I find that strange; I just do. Anyone else?

I could be getting FJ/blog mixed up. But I could have swore there was a post on her blog thanking the Borden's there too. She brought up the KOA incident on her June 30th blog post too, so maybe that is where I'm getting confused?

I'm super curious about the Bordens. It's certainly an unusual surname for that part of the world.

[hoipolloi]

You just never know what people will take and run with.

Have we ruled out that RR is actually Elvis or Jimmy Hoffa?

[Mela99]

Doesn't legally changing your name take money? Money that she supposedly didn't have to spend?

It does. You have to pay filing costs, and a bunch of other fees. When I was still working at the courthouse, it was about $150

[Coconut Flan]

In California it would be a minimum of $435 for the court costs alone. However, to switch to using a middle name doesn't require a legal name change. California does have a fee waiver under selected circumstances.

[Koala]

ughh, I give up. I fail at the internet tonight :lol:

I was attempting to agree with MustangSally about Ruth changing her name to explain away discrepancies.

[lilwriter85]

In California it would be a minimum of $435 for the court costs alone. However, to switch to using a middle name doesn't require a legal name change. California does have a fee waiver under selected circumstances.

I think my state New Mexico might have waivers for certain circumstances. When I was a sophmore in college, I had a few classes with a woman who was going to change her name and she said something about getting fees waived because she had been a domestic violence victim in the past.

On the topic of Razing Ruth, I have never known what to think of her. Something seemed off about her.

[Lainey]

Damn, her fangirls seem to WANT to be scammed.

I just don't understand why anyone cares so much if this is a scam or not. We're all adults. We can choose to believe her or not, without "help" from others. If people want to believe and/or donate, that's their choice. It's also their choice to doubt and not donate. It's that simple.

:wtf:

[fundiefun]

Damn, her fangirls seem to WANT to be scammed.

:wtf:

There are so many inconsistencies and her using her blog to bring in readers to donate you're darn right were gonna ask questions and not just let this go with a you can believe her or not. She's no different then the rest who have been suspected scammers being a supposed ex fundie doesn't give her a pass for people to not question her.

[anjulibai]

I don't think it's that anyone wants to be scammed, but many of us (yes, myself included) have "known" Ruth since before she started the blog, and was ofduggar on TWOP. That's been several years now. There's an emotional investment.

Frankly, until this thread, I had not noticed any inconsistencies, and anything that was pointed out in the comments of her blog I felt were a misreading of something she'd said, or something was just remembered wrong. I've had enough shit go wrong or seen it among friends and family that nothing she's gone through seemed off to me or timed badly.

I feel bad and I feel duped. I've commented on her blog over the years and given advice and encouragement (no money, I'm broke).

[Closed Womb]

I gather then that she changed her name to Mary? I wonder if it actually was her middle name or something.

This is actually pretty interesting to me. It seems like when she "came out" as Mary it was a big deal -- fanfare, behold, my REAL name. But, looking back at some of her earlier posts, I noticed that she said that some of her "father's" emails or comments were identified by the fact that they called her "Ruth Mary", Mary being her middle name, the clue that he was the person really behind the emails and/or comments. So, really, that was no announcement at all and we still don't know her first name (not that we need to, just an interesting factoid to me.)

[Mustang Sally]

There are so many inconsistencies and her using her blog to bring in readers to donate you're darn right were gonna ask questions and not just let this go with a you can believe her or not. She's no different then the rest who have been suspected scammers being a supposed ex fundie doesn't give her a pass for people to not question her.

It is important, always, to expose liars and scammers who prey on people's emotions and money. It is important not to cross any lines in doing so (e.g. tracking someone down in person or whatever) but that doesn't mean it's still not possible or not right to use publicly available information to expose someone who has lied to people.

I don't know for sure whether Ruth has done so, but I don't think it's wrong for people to want to find out, and to do some research for that purpose. I will never understand people who are like, "If you think it's a scam just don't READ anymore!" They're basically saying, "I want to believe this, so don't you go ruining my fun even if she is scamming other people!" I can see, "Don't donate if you think it's a scam," but we're supposed to just ignore the whole thing and pretend it doesn't exist if we have good reason to think it's a lie?

No. That's not how it works. People who lie and scam deserve to be exposed. Not stalked or threatened, but exposed.

[nokidsmom]

Sure, maybe it's a coping mechanism. Maybe it was a little bits of fun, pretending to be a teenage mom here, a college student there, with some truth thrown in for authenticity.

But, it becomes ethically abhorrent, to me, once she solicits money to fix her imaginary woes. YMMV.

I do agree this is probably the case. Enough of fiction to go "what?" and enough of truth to go "ok that makes sense". So a lot of us osillate between believing and not believing or somewhere in between.

However, I do have to agree with Closed Womb, that when money is solicited by playing on peoples' sympathy for difficulties that are not true is what takes it to an unethical level.

[Lainey]

It is important, always, to expose liars and scammers who prey on people's emotions and money. It is important not to cross any lines in doing so (e.g. tracking someone down in person or whatever) but that doesn't mean it's still not possible or not right to use publicly available information to expose someone who has lied to people.

I don't know for sure whether Ruth has done so, but I don't think it's wrong for people to want to find out, and to do some research for that purpose. I will never understand people who are like, "If you think it's a scam just don't READ anymore!" They're basically saying, "I want to believe this, so don't you go ruining my fun even if she is scamming other people!" I can see, "Don't donate if you think it's a scam," but we're supposed to just ignore the whole thing and pretend it doesn't exist if we have good reason to think it's a lie?

No. That's not how it works. People who lie and scam deserve to be exposed. Not stalked or threatened, but exposed.

Yes! This is exactly how I feel about it, but you put it into words, and much more eloquently than I could.

[NurseNell]

Doesn't legally changing your name take money? Money that she supposedly didn't have to spend?

I changed my name, it wasn't expensive. I think it was about $100. I had to bring to court 2 witnesses who had known me for several years. The judge asks a few questions and approves, or doesn't, the name change. Then you have to get several certified copies of the court order, $10 each where I lived.

[bionicmlle]

I don't think it's that anyone wants to be scammed, but many of us (yes, myself included) have "known" Ruth since before she started the blog, and was ofduggar on TWOP. That's been several years now. There's an emotional investment.

Frankly, until this thread, I had not noticed any inconsistencies, and anything that was pointed out in the comments of her blog I felt were a misreading of something she'd said, or something was just remembered wrong. I've had enough shit go wrong or seen it among friends and family that nothing she's gone through seemed off to me or timed badly.

I feel bad and I feel duped. I've commented on her blog over the years and given advice and encouragement (no money, I'm broke).

Agree with your post, especially the bolded. I hadn't really given the donations too much thought in the past because I figured there probably wasn't much money but upon reflection, I suppose there certainly was. Especially given her exposure on NLQ. I believed her blog but also never really gave it a whole lot of critical thought, I suppose??

Has Vyckie said or posted anything about this?

[RealityTVRN]

I've always thought the title of the blog indicated a dissociative identity disordered patient seeking to find a way to raze (completely destroy; "scrape to the ground") one identity ("Ruth"). I know "Ruth" means "Friend/Companion" and I've always seen that as a clue too. IF it's true that she has DID, then the blog makes a lot more sense to me. The various "identities" all have different stories and different perceptions of events.

When I saw that this thread had taken this turn, for some reason, something an old psych professor said to me came to mind...that the very best pathological liars don't even have to use parts of the truth because they actually begin to believe what they create. She also said that often, they want to leave clues, so that they can feel intellectually superior when no one can figure out the scam. (I am heavily paraphrasing a lecture I sat through 15 yrs ago, and I am a nurse, not a psychologist--so if someone wants to expound/correct me, please feel free!!). Anyway, that thought process led me to google [redacted] and librarian, California. Sure enough, there is a [redacted], in greater LA, who is a librarian at a university. Now, I DON'T think that is "Razing Ruth". I think she might have found this person (much like Catfish) out there and tried to copy parts of her life. I have to wonder if there are other strange "coincidences" in the blog.

Take this all worth a grain of salt. And please forgive the grammar and rambling--it's been a long day.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

I've always thought the title of the blog indicated a dissociative identity disordered patient seeking to find a way to raze (completely destroy; "scrape to the ground") one identity ("Ruth"). I know "Ruth" means "Friend/Companion" and I've always seen that as a clue too. IF it's true that she has DID, then the blog makes a lot more sense to me. The various "identities" all have different stories and different perceptions of events.

When I saw that this thread had taken this turn, for some reason, something an old psych professor said to me came to mind...that the very best pathological liars don't even have to use parts of the truth because they actually begin to believe what they create. She also said that often, they want to leave clues, so that they can feel intellectually superior when no one can figure out the scam. (I am heavily paraphrasing a lecture I sat through 15 yrs ago, and I am a nurse, not a psychologist--so if someone wants to expound/correct me, please feel free!!). Anyway, that thought process led me to google [redacted] and librarian, California. Sure enough, there is a [redacted], in greater LA, who is a librarian at a university. Now, I DON'T think that is "Razing Ruth". I think she might have found this person (much like Catfish) out there and tried to copy parts of her life. I have to wonder if there are other strange "coincidences" in the blog.

Take this all worth a grain of salt. And please forgive the grammar and rambling--it's been a long day.

:? This totally creeps me out. Wow.

[TheJewAmongUs]

I think it's unfortunate that these threads were merged, making this one kind of unreadable at 40 pages. Josh Duggar has like a million threads, why couldn't Razing Ruth have 2?

Anyway, the first red flag for me was when she broke her leg. I also posted a question in a comment over a year ago asking why she said in the blog everything was going ok, but the donation button stayed up without any explanation of why she needed donations. I used my real name, because it didn't seem like a big deal. Well, I was called every derogatory name a female can be called by other commenters. I know she has a lot of rabid defenders, but I think there were probably sock puppets too. I also noticed similarities in the writing of Ruth's posts and the alleged comments and emails from her family that convinced me the blog was fake. For example, the double spacing between sentences. I doubt that's a SOTDRT thing.

I've never even bothered posting in one of these threads before after the one time I commented on her blog, because I decided that voicing my doubts in this situation would only end with more support for someone I was convinced was writing a work of fiction. It does irk me personally that people are being scammed via the donation link, but at the same time, Blogger allows people to write fake blogs and PayPal doesn't seem to care how people solicit money, so there wasn't anywhere to report it, which I would have done if I thought either company would have shut down her account.

[Coconut Flan]

That could be exceedingly creepy, if true.

Along the line of potential clues she could have left for us, her birthday on FB is April 1.

[RealityTVRN]

I know that you can probably Google any number of terms together and get hits on it, so I don't think this is conclusive either...but a published APA re: same sex couples and adopting newborns (up to a month old, I believe) was written by a professor at the University of Virginia and her doctoral student named Rachel. This was pretty big news in 2010 when it was published. She continues to do research (at least up to Jan 2013) regarding adoption and same sex couples. Of course, I don't mean to imply that she could actually be the sister of this researcher. I doubt anyone will ever be able to figure out her real name and details because I don't think she gives any clues to who she actually is--and I think that is for the best.

[RealityTVRN]

That could be exceedingly creepy, if true.

Along the line of potential clues she could have left for us, her birthday on FB is April 1.

Oh geez...Really?!?!?!?

[Just Not Good]

All the creepy Google-her-life coincidences are creeping me out. (Redundant. I know!)

I only discovered R/M recently and I was TOTALLY sucked in. I tend to fall for hard luck stories no matter what, and I'm glad I didn't fall hard enough to send her money, because... yeah. I'm dumb, and I can see myself doing that, even though I KNOW no one is going to hire a research librarian long distance. (I really just assumed she was working as a library page at $14/hr.)

[Lainey]

What threads were merged? I thought there was only one, and it was just moved back here from Chatter.

ETA: I can't shake this. From the link about Munchausen-by-Internet that someone posted:

Based on more than 100 cases of Munchausen by internet shared with me via my Munchausen website, I have arrived at a list of clues to the detection of false internet illness claims that I first developed for the Southern Medical Journal. The most important are:

1. The posts consistently duplicate material in other posts, in books or on health-related websites.

2. The characteristics of the supposed illness emerge as caricatures.

3. Near-fatal bouts of illness alternate with miraculous recoveries.

4. The claims are fantastic, contradicted by subsequent posts or flatly disproved.

5. There are continual dramatic events in the person's life, especially when other group members have become the focus of attention.

6. There is feigned blitheness about crises that will predictably attract immediate attention.

7. Others apparently posting on behalf of the patient (eg family members, friends) have identical patterns of writing.

I'll say it again--who was getting the most attention during Alectogate? Alecto. So who comes along with a story about a dramatic email in which someone accused her of being Alecto? Ruth. :think:

[Oddeverything]

If anyone is expecting a reply from Ruth, especially an apology for doing this, I wouldn't hold my breath. Were any of us to find her real identity, if Ruth apologized for taking money under scam-like circumstances, she would open herself up to legal consequences. It would be super cool if she were to come back over here and post an explanation, or even post one on her blog, but I also don't see that happening. She will likely post something along the lines of "You meanies made me shut down my blog, hope you're happy for persecuting me!" and that will be the end of it.

(And I know so much about these sorts of situations because I found myself dragged into a factitious online situation, My information from my blog and surgical pictures got used in a Catfish-like situation and after that happened, I read every book Marc Feldman wrote and learned all I could about factitious disorders, Munchausen by Internet and malingering online. These people behave in a manner that follows such a script that it's almost easy to know what they will do next. But maybe she'll deviate from type.)

People like Drea make me despair. I never know what to think about them. If someone was driving like a lunatic on her street would she tell those whose cars were hit or who had to swerve into yards to get out of the way that they were adults and everyone should make the decision whether or not to use the road? Or would she want the person to stop driving like a lunatic?

But, in a sense, is why this site exists. There never seems to be a shortage of people willing to put the onus of protection on the victims and to excuse the worst people do because they personally see no harm in it. Bleah.

Oh, and one other thing: The comments here and there from people claiming to know who she is, like the rabbit commenter, could be real but chances are they are sock puppets. If anyone has hours to spare reading, Google "piece of fakey" or "Janna St. James." Janna St James has been has been running emotional scams online for years and IRL for decades and got sued by one of her victims. In the case where she got outed, she had dozens of sock puppets, complete with male and female voices on the phone, different handwriting, and individual e-mail addresses and IP addresses. With that in mind, a couple of comments here and there confirming Ruth's identity mean little.

[Oddeverything]

I think it's unfortunate that these threads were merged, making this one kind of unreadable at 40 pages. Josh Duggar has like a million threads, why couldn't Razing Ruth have 2?

Tomorrow I am going to update the master list of alarm bells Ruth set off for me and others and will repost it here so that people new to the thread or just in over their heads with all this info will have access to the information we are all taking about without having to go back 20 pages to find it.