The Truth About Ruth - Part 3

[okayobee]

Tremendous overreaction disproportionate to the situation in my estimation. All that does is create more drama and more questions. If V wanted to clarify things as to why she thought R was indeed R that would go a long way to alleviating concerns. Instead it just raises them. I don't know enough about V to have an informed opinion but what I sill say from an outsiders view point (I only visited NLQ to read about Ruth, never joined or posted) is that something here stinks.

[wild little fox]

I didn't say she was? I was asking what evidence, if any, we had. And the fact that the person doing the investigation thinks it is not likely she is.

If you have positive verification of her identity, great. That puts this question to bed then.

I apologize. I didn't intend to blame anyone or infer anything. I was giving my two cents via my experience at NLQ. :) I never, ever intend to make trouble.

[Mustang Sally]

I apologize. I didn't intend to blame anyone or infer anything. I was giving my two cents via my experience at NLQ. :) I never, ever intend to make trouble.

No, honestly, I think it's great if you have verification of who she is. Do you?

At the same time, I want people to understand that asking a question about someone's identity is not the same thing as making an accusation. Those two things seem to have become muddled in people's heads while talking about this issue, which has caused some frustration for me and some discomfort for other readers. So I just want to be clear about what I actually said, that's all.

[Mustang Sally]

Tremendous overreaction disproportionate to the situation in my estimation. All that does is create more drama and more questions. If V wanted to clarify things as to why she thought R was indeed R that would go a long way to alleviating concerns. Instead it just raises them. I don't know enough about V to have an informed opinion but what I sill say from an outsiders view point (I only visited NLQ to read about Ruth, never joined or posted) is that something here stinks.

Well, Odds did say a while back that Vyckie waters, feeds, and rides her own drama llama. Now we know why! :lol:

[Arete]

Just because someone on the internet is an asshole, doesn't mean they are RR. Yes, I read the disclaimer that no one is accusing Calulu, but I find that to be smoke and mirrors when you are asking people to provide actual evidence she is not.

[wild little fox]

In not sure what to do. I could dig up Calulu's legal name but she seems to keep it private for a reason. I'm not trying to get around the issue, I am trying to do the right thing. I was invited into a closed group and even though I left I don't want to violate that trust. It would reflect very badly on me.

I have no proof I can show you at this time :/

[Arete]

No, do not dig up Calulu's real name! That is not your job to satisfy anyone's curiosity.

[Mustang Sally]

Just because someone on the internet is an asshole, doesn't mean they are RR. Yes, I read the disclaimer that no one is accusing Calulu, but I find that to be smoke and mirrors when you are asking people to provide actual evidence she is not.

Asking a question and accusing someone is literally not the same thing. People who can't separate the two in their minds are not going to do a very good job with investigating something like this.

These two things (asking a question and looking for the answer with evidence vs. accusing someone and jumping to unsupported conclusions) have been repeatedly conflated by some readers here at FJ during this entire blow-up, which honestly makes me less likely to participate here in the future. It has been too frustrating.

I do not actually think Calulu is Ruth, and I am not trying to insinuate that she is by asking a question. I am not asking that question in bad faith - it is an honest question. You can believe me on that or not. We have no evidence to show that she is anyone but who she says she is, but absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. If you know anything about critical thinking, you will understand what that means.

I am getting really tired of this, because people here have repeatedly jumped to their own conclusions about things in response to questions, and then accused the people asking the questions of making the accusations. It's wrong.

And for god's sake, do not bring Calulu's real name here. I don't know how I have to word things, but all I am asking is IF someone has positive proof of her identity, not demanding that they show me that proof or tell me her real name. And I'm not even the person who asked the question in the first place!

I'm out. I don't think this forum is capable of responsibly handling this kind of discussion at the moment.

[Arete]

You weren't randomly asking about Calulu for giggles. If you want that kind of evidence, it is either to rule her in or rule her out. How's that for my critical thinking?

[flyawaystray]

Yeah, I agree. This has turned into a witch hunt and it's really driving me crazy. Let's stop accusing people and play nice, mmkay?

ETA: Also, the person behind Ruth has probably scammed before, and will scam again. There's really nothing we can do. Whether this person is who we all think she is or not, I think it's best to just let it go. Just my two cents.

[Mustang Sally]

You weren't randomly asking about Calulu for giggles. If you want that kind of evidence, it is either to rule her in or rule her out. How's that for my critical thinking?

Ruling someone out is not the same thing as accusing them. In this situation, it is totally warranted to rule people out when their identities are not confirmed.

It is binary thinking to assume that either you believe someone is innocent OR you ask a question and believe automatically they are guilty by asking the question.

Another person asked this question in the first place, and you can read my response to them - viewtopic.php?p=593274#p593274 - This was not my question, but asking a question is not a witch hunt.

[Curious]

Did NLQ take down the RR story? If not it seems weird to say that people can't discuss a story they have actually posted on their site. Maybe members there have valid concerns they would like to bring up and they aren't just trying to cause problems? I'd think by now, since it's gone to basically a member's only type of site, they would have a pretty good handle on which members are looking for a "safe space" and which ones are "troublemakers."

Maybe they were getting too many questions for their "valid" members and rather than discussing it, they placed a ban. Because nothing looks like I'm a reasonable person like saying NO! We will NOT have a discussion.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Justdrea81]

Curious, I thought the exact same thing. The story is still up there as of this morning.

I left this comment on NLQ. I hope we get a response, but I doubt we will:

Why would comments about a featured NLQ author be forbidden? I'm not trying to start trouble. I'm just utterly confused. I first learned about this said author from this site. So if the site endorses her, why can't she be mentioned????

Their commenting policy doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[okayobee]

Yeah, I agree. This has turned into a witch hunt and it's really driving me crazy. Let's stop accusing people and play nice, mmkay?

ETA: Also, the person behind Ruth has probably scammed before, and will scam again. There's really nothing we can do. Whether this person is who we all think she is or not, I think it's best to just let it go. Just my two cents.

I don't see a with hunt, I see people worrying there's a witch hunt. A question isn't an accusation.

There are many people whom RR has scammed - either as RR or PM. Understanding how that happened not only gives closure to the people duped but also helps people spot scammers in the future. Scammers have patterns, tells, habits, areas of interest and sock puppets. Exposing PM and RR's patterns, etc. will help spot her more quickly in her next scam. People questioned RR early on and suspected her to be PM. It's taken years to actually reach the point of saying yes, RR is PM. I don't think letting it go at this point is a possibility - too much is now known. All the details are coming out. If this info can be used to stop PM/RR in her next (or current) ruse - great. Why stifle that effort?

[Jen0925]

Wow, Vyckie made a f*!$ing mistake...no one here has accused her of wrongdoing, and truth-about-ruth.com was careful not to place any blame. But she can't just own up to a simple mistake at the hands of a known scammer? Talk about holding a grudge, geesh.

I still don't blame her for believing "Ruth" but this response makes her look really immature.

I think it's more than that, because she vouched for Ruth being real, either literally or implied, I'm not sure which.

[wild little fox]

Calulu and her name are listed as moderator under comments at NLQ's Pathos site. She also has a FB page.

I am not blaming anyone. I don't handle conflict well and, Sally, I apologize for misreading your post. The reason I'm here is to learn how to navigate conflict because this is a good forum to do so. I did not read your post carefully enough. My bad!

[Mustang Sally]

[redacted] Calulu and her name are listed as moderator under comments at NLQ's Pathos site. She also has a FB page.

I am not blaming anyone. I don't handle conflict well and, Sally, I apologize for misreading your post. The reason I'm here is to learn how to navigate conflict because this is a good forum to do so. I did not read your post carefully enough. My bad!

Please don't post her name! I asked you specifically not to post it here!

I understand you think we have a conflict, but we don't in my eyes. All I was asking was WHETHER you had confirmation of her identity. I emphatically did NOT want you to post it here. Please remove her name from your post.

[fakepigtails73]

I think that some people do this because they *think* it's all fun and rainbows to be disabled or to have xxx disease. It's no secret that I'm disabled and I have had people tell me "oh you're so lucky, you don't have to go to work every day" or "I wish I could be on vacation every day!" Yeah cause chronic pain and not being able to walk more than 20 feet is TOTALLY like a vacation! They don't think about all the bad stuff that comes with conditions, they just think of the "fun" (in their mind), the extra sick days, the extra time off, the people willing to help you etc.

It used to really bother me, when I was very first disabled because I loved my job and I WANTED to be working. I hated having to sit around doing nothing all the time, I was quite miserable. I didn't feel well enough to do anything physically, but mentally I was dying on the vine from watching tv all the time and nothing else. It was horrible and then having people tell me they wanted to trade places. I would just burst into tears and be all NO! It's awful! I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy. Which confused a lot of people, I think.

They don't understand that it's not all the "perks" because they don't really have the bad stuff to deal with, which is why people that really have chronic conditions are like yeah...no.

WTF to what I bolded in red. :wtf:

Seriously, again, WTF???

Some people are weird, and not just in an "excentric" way.

[flyawaystray]

I don't see a with hunt, I see people worrying there's a witch hunt. A question isn't an accusation.

There are many people whom RR has scammed - either as RR or PM. Understanding how that happened not only gives closure to the people duped but also helps people spot scammers in the future. Scammers have patterns, tells, habits, areas of interest and sock puppets. Exposing PM and RR's patterns, etc. will help spot her more quickly in her next scam. People questioned RR early on and suspected her to be PM. It's taken years to actually reach the point of saying yes, RR is PM. I don't think letting it go at this point is a possibility - too much is now known. All the details are coming out. If this info can be used to stop PM/RR in her next (or current) ruse - great. Why stifle that effort?

The thread is moving too fast, so I guess I missed something. My apologies. I was just worried that with all the speculation, it would turn into a witch hunt.

I know RR and PM have scammed. And I get a lot of people here believed the story (hell, I believe it, too), and donated money.

But, there's speculation about Ruth's real identity and I'm not sure if we'll ever know if she is Ruth or not 100 percent and I would have for an innocent person to get hurt. At the same time, the real scammer should be found out, so I'm conflicted.

[wild little fox]

Please don't post her name! I asked you specifically not to post it here!

I understand you think we have a conflict, but we don't in my eyes. All I was asking was WHETHER you had confirmation of her identity. I emphatically did NOT want you to post it here. Please remove her name from your post.

Gotcha :) we are fine. I was filtering things through my own stuff.

[Mustang Sally]

wild little fox: Yes, we are fine! Thank you.

[Mecca]

Yeah, I agree. This has turned into a witch hunt and it's really driving me crazy. Let's stop accusing people and play nice, mmkay?

ETA: Also, the person behind Ruth has probably scammed before, and will scam again. There's really nothing we can do. Whether this person is who we all think she is or not, I think it's best to just let it go. Just my two cents.

The mentality of letting things go and not questioning is exactly what has allowed this scam to go on for as long as it has.

People should be able to make up their own minds about what they believe with the evidence that is and what will continue to be presented. I completely understand that these types of situations can make some people uncomfortable and we do need to be cautious in not accusing innocent people, but that is NOT what is happening here. Asking a question does not equate to a witch hunt.

[Marilla-Cuthbert2013]

Wow! You don't lurk around for a couple of weeks, and you miss a lot! I am still trying to catch up on this thread.

I wanted to believe RR was real, but I will admit that doubt first creeped in when she mentioned Isaiah. Was it in the comments or the blog itself (I can't find it anymore)? She mentioned Isaiah's family business (medical coding). So I googled, ATI-IBLP, medical coding, and the only thing that came up was the ATI family with the court reporting business. The idea that one of their sons could be Isaiah is very comical to me, mainly because they don't seem to travel to the homeschool conferences. But I wanted to believe her, so I figured one day we would find out who Isaiah was (but in the meantime, everytime the fundie wedding bells rang...I would wonder was this Isaiah? Yes, I even asked myself that when David and Priscilla got married!). So help me, I looked up blogs at the Indianapolis Home School Convention 2011, and the families with blogs, with sons around the same age and none of the seem to be "Isaiah". In fact I even said to myself... It can't be C, he has taken way too many pictures of E for it to be him, I think he wants to court her... but what if it was one of his brothers?

So as much as I doubted Isaiah...I did not become a true doubter until she blogged about her job offer and move to Chicago. I wish it was the lack of a Masters Degree that sent the red flags flying, or the fact that gloom and doom followed her to Chicago.

For me the red flags were Ellie, her father's obituary, and her non-ATI brother, but like I said I wanted to believe so I didn't take my doubts seriously, even when I googled Mary Ruth, Library Science, California State University, Graduation 2013, and found nothing:

1. Non-ATI Brother: So her brother is willing to risk his own relationship with his family to help not only her but Rachel when they leave, and keeps her up to date on what is going on in the family, but will not help her out financially becuase it will risk nuetrality (are there two anti-ATI brothers or only one)? He will only help her if she moves to Nebraska (was it Nebraska?) to be a Nanny to his family? That even though he is not ATI, he still believes in headship? She says this is her closest brother, but yet opts to stay at a KOA in Nebraska and not visit him on her way to Chicago (did I make up Nebraska?)? That didn't make sense to me.

2. Her Father's Obituary: In the week after she announced her father died, I looked up all of the funeral homes in NW Arkansas. Even if they did not have an obituary published, the funeral homes will still list the names of the people whose services they are still coordinating, and none of the men had families remotely close to her family (when I googled the names of those without obits). Also, she mentioned that after her father passed her mother planned to move with the children to Illinois. Really? She is moving to Chicago, and her mother is moving to the same state... I remember saying after she announced that she was moving to Chicago...that this is setting us up for a year of stories of her trying to reconnect with her Mom, reconciliation, and her Mom and younger siblings leaving ATI and the struggle to do so.

3. It was not the birth of Ellie, or the adoption of Ellie that raised a red flag. It was leaving Ellie to move to Chicago. For someone who doesn't have a stable support system, it seemed as though Ellie's Mothers while keeping their distance, were still keeping her in their lives, and were becoming her family too. Why would you leave that? (Whatever happened to the cousin she was dating?) It just didn't make sense, if Ellie was the one good thing in her life, and her visits with Ellie were so very precious to her, why would you leave her behind for the great unknown...even for a dream job? To me it made more sense to stay and try and get a job at a university in CA, and working on your Masters Degree that way. That is how a lot of my friends completed their Masters degrees.

There were times I wanted to donate, but didn't, and I am glad that I didn't. I believe that there is a "Ruth" is out there. That she is finding the courage to leave. I guess I wanted to believe in her story not for her sake... but for the sake of future Ruths out there. Does that make sense?

Anyway, thank you to everyone who took the time and effort to connect the dots. I wanted to believe, so I chose to ignore the holes, even when I doubted her. I still wanted to believe her..so in the end I ignored the nagging doubts too.

[mcc6676]

Hi all, I'm Mary, a new member, mostly lurking. I came here after reading a lot about RR and feeling something was amiss. I think all of the information and posts have been very interesting and enlightening and I feel kinda sick to my stomach about someone taking advantage of generous people.

My doubts started based on two things:

1. Rachel's open adoption. Putting aside the lesbian couple aspect of it, I just found the amount of interaction that RR had with Ellie to be very hard to believe. Unless these two women were the most open people ever and really wanted to keep Ellie's birth family in the loop and active in her life, it just seems a bit far fetched. Especially when RR intimated that they would be coming through Chicago to see her.

2. I am an assistant dean at an academic library in California and do a huge amount of hiring for paraprofessional and professional positions. There is no way in Hell that we would ever hire someone based solely on a phone interview. Hell would have to freeze over before we hired based off of a phone interview AND someone from out of state. We generally get 50-60 apps for paraprofessional positions and we tend to look at the local candidates first. I find it impossible to believe that in Chicago, with UI-UC having a highly reputable library program, that any library would hire someone from out of state based on a phone interview.

Other than that, I am just following the story....I have mixed feelings of pity and and anger. I truly hope there is some closure so that folks can feel better and move on.

Nice meeting, y'all!

[flyawaystray]

The mentality of letting things go and not questioning is exactly what has allowed this scam to go on for as long as it has.

People should be able to make up their own minds about what they believe with the evidence that is and what will continue to be presented. I completely understand that these types of situations can make some people uncomfortable and we do need to be cautious in not accusing innocent people, but that is NOT what is happening here. Asking a question does not equate to a witch hunt.

Well here's the thing. You can out Ruth as much as possible, but Ruth will just move on to a new scam and there's really nothing that can be done to prevent it.

I've only been a member since Sept of 2012, so I really don't know what went on before that. I do know Ruth was supported by FJ as a whole, and I know people were piled on for questioning her during the Yuku days.

I am okay with others disagreeing and I am for everyone doing what they feel is right. I just don't want anyone inside and outside of the board to get hurt.