Razing Ruth's niece adopted by same sex couple

[Austin]

I don't see it as a black and white issue. I can buy the main facts of Ruth's story and also suspect that some parts are embellished or manipulated a bit. So what? Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I haven't met Ruth, obviously, so I can't be sure. Big deal. I haven't met most FJers, but I think most of our members are not 50-year-old men in their boxers in their mothers' basements, either.

As I feel pretty comfortable with the main premise of Ruth's story, I wish nothing but the best for her and her sister. But as far as I know, we haven't beatified her for FJ sainthood, so people should be able to express any doubts they'd like. Ruth is well-aware that some people have their doubts. That's the trade-off she has made to keep her identity a secret, and I think she's a big enough girl to handle it.

[super skeptic]

Ditto.

Let me honor my username and add myself to this list.

[Serious_News_Junkie]

Please note that I only responded to some guy (non Gothard affiliated or so he says) and did not respond to anyone who is "local"

I personally dislike people who join just to ditch speculations that they refuse to discuss on anyone we snark on, and particularly on someone who is on the board.

Sophie, I'm having a difficult time parsing the second sentence of your reply, but it seems that you think I joined just to criticize Ruth and that you think I now refuse to discuss the issue. If you look at my join date, you'll see that I joined two days before the Ruth thread was started. And I'm more than happy to discuss the reasons people do or don't think her blog is legitimate--that's the reason I contributed to the thread. However, I'm not interested in debating Ruth's true motivation (since that would be pure speculation on my part), and I'm not going to answer every person who angrily points out that Ruth has already addressed certain concerns on her blog (as I said before, saying, "I understand why such-and-such may have caused some people concern, but I assure you I'm telling the truth" does not negate the concern in question).

By the way, your "non Gothard affiliated or so he says" line was just childish. There is a difference between being snarky and being juvenile.

EDITED because I used "join" in two different contexts, and it was confusing.

[demgirl]

Eh. I have always believed Ruth's story. I accepted that some parts were changed for reasons of anonymity, some parts were probably exaggerated for the reason that she is a human being (we all do it) and some parts are probably fuzzy due to the passage of time. I believe her for many reasons, but I don't know that it's particularly helpful to review them in this context. Regardless, Ruth has always had a choice -- accept that some people won't believe her, or verify her identity to a moderator... how much it matters to her is up to her and it's perfectly valid to question her story without any verification available. But, for the record, and for Ruth -- I believe her.

[ElphabaGalinda]

Sophie, I'm having a difficult time parsing the second sentence of your reply, but it seems that you think I joined just to criticize Ruth and that you think I now refuse to discuss the issue. If you look at my join date, you'll see that I joined two days before the Ruth thread was started. And I'm more than happy to discuss the reasons people do or don't think her blog is legitimate--that's the reason I joined the thread. However, I'm not interested in debating Ruth's true motivation (since that would be pure speculation on my part), and I'm not going to answer every person who angrily points out that Ruth has already addressed certain concerns on her blog (as I said before, saying, "I understand why such-and-such may have caused some people concern, but I assure you I'm telling the truth" does not negate the concern in question).

By the way, your "non Gothard affiliated or so he says" line was just childish. There is a difference between being snarky and being juvenile.

The only one of your concerns that I personally had issue with was that you said she didn't acknowledge the donations from her paypall, and I mentioned that she did. I'm not sure what would negate that particular concern? Since you're saying you want her to address that in your blog, which she did. And the other particular concern of yours that i didn't quite understand was the one about the ATI survivor not getting a response from her. I don't think that has anything to do with whether she's real or not though she has explained why she does not respond to such people in her blog. Not that that makes her real or not real, but what does that have to do with doubting her authenticity?

For me anyways, I think doubting Ruth is perfectly natural. I have my own reasons for mostly believing she's legit, and many people have equally valid reasons for believing some of what she says is fake. i guess I just don't understand how the reasoning you originally provided leads to doubt? Just to note, not critcizing you for having skepticism of Ruth, just don't understand the points for your "case" that you originally presented.

[Serious_News_Junkie]

I think skepticism about Ruth's identity is healthy and inevitable, given that Ruth chooses to remain anonymous. If it turns out that she is fake then I'll be disappointed, but it won't make Gothard any less the villain in the piece just because I got distracted for a while by a fake blog.

My issues were with my own skepticism about a new poster who brought old news here, possibly in order to drive traffic to his own bloglist (which carries paid adverts).

And new poster: there was no malicious attempt on my part to 'out' you to the inlaws that you had not mentioned at that point. But I am not a compatriot of yours in a war against Gothardism and you should be careful not to expect sympathy and protection here by virtue of having lurked a while and having similar opinions to some of the members here. Ultimately, we just both happen to be members of the same snark board. Your opinions are perfectly valid - you get to snark on whoever you like but so do I - you don't get to control who I snark on by moralising to me about the people "who truly deserve it".

If a newbie pings my radar then I will sometimes look them up. I did not post any direct links to identifying information about you but I did find plenty and I alerted you as well as others to the fact: seriously, if you want to protect yourself, your wife and anyone else in your life then it would be best if you take responsibility for separating out the parts of your online life that list your name address and photographs, from the parts that you'd rather keep hidden. Your identity is your responsibility.

AnnieC, I'm surprised you're web savvy enough to look up and Google my email address but don't understand how free web hosting services like Angelfire work. I get to host my "The Duggar Cult" page on Angelfire for free, and Angelfire makes money by placing ads at the top and bottom of the page. As with most free hosting sites, a person (me) who creates a free page does not receive any advertising revenue.

You are correct that I'm responsible for protecting my own identity. I thought I'd done that; however, I didn't realize that my email address would be publicly visible, and I forgot that I'd used it years ago on an online resume. I also didn't expect someone to respond to my second post by trying to expose my identity to the rest of the board. I understand that you had no way of knowing about my problems with my in-laws, and I genuinely appreciate that you did not post a link to my personal information; however, encouraging people to Google my email address still felt more like a cheap shot than snark (which, remember, means "snide remark").

I'm sorry you do not feel that we are part of the same movement to discredit Gothardism and other radical fundamentalist sects. I was under the mistaken impression that a shared disdain for such beliefs was the common thread here. I lurked for so long before joining because I wasn't sure whether this would be a good place for serious, productive discussions on the dangers of fundamentalist patriarchy. I'm starting to think I should have stuck to my own devices and left the Free Jinger community in peace.

EDITED to fix AnnieC's name. For some reason, I wrote AliceC.

[Spider Burps]

I understand that you had no way of knowing about my problems with my in-laws, and I genuinely appreciate that you did not post a link to my personal information

Whoooooa there. Someone knows the definition of "snark". Okay, Hive Vagina, we've been pwned. Best back off now before things get 4srs.

[Witsec1]

This is a minor issue, but did she ever clarify about the link to the article that was almost a year old, saying she had been interviewed and wondered if that would drive more traffic to her blog? Did she mean that the author had interviewed her for another article? I'm interested if there is going to be a follow up to that original article.

As far as Ruth's authenticity goes, there was the contact with CreakySteel's sister. I agree the same sex couple thing, I understand why people would be skeptical but I can understand it. I came from a fairly conservative evangelical background, and there were certain attitudes/ideas I shed immediately upon leaving home, and others I'm still struggling with at going on fifty - not political stands but stuff around self-worth, etc. It's just not going to be resolved until Ruth decides not to be anonymous. Caveat lector.

[Serious_News_Junkie]

The only one of your concerns that I personally had issue with was that you said she didn't acknowledge the donations from her paypall, and I mentioned that she did. I'm not sure what would negate that particular concern? Since you're saying you want her to address that in your blog, which she did. And the other particular concern of yours that i didn't quite understand was the one about the ATI survivor not getting a response from her. I don't think that has anything to do with whether she's real or not though she has explained why she does not respond to such people in her blog. Not that that makes her real or not real, but what does that have to do with doubting her authenticity?

For me anyways, I think doubting Ruth is perfectly natural. I have my own reasons for mostly believing she's legit, and many people have equally valid reasons for believing some of what she says is fake. i guess I just don't understand how the reasoning you originally provided leads to doubt? Just to note, not critcizing you for having skepticism of Ruth, just don't understand the points for your "case" that you originally presented.

If you'll point me to the posts where she explained why she doesn't respond to emails from other survivors and where she explained why she doesn't acknowledge donations, I'll take a look at that and see if there is something I missed. As I said before, simply acknowledging that others have concerns is not the same as alleviating or discrediting those concerns, but it's possible that she offered a more thorough explanation than I remember seeing.

[Witsec1]

Someone put on their bossy pants today, I'm thinking.

[Spider Burps]

Someone put on their bossy pants today, I'm thinking.

Hey now, we're talking about someone who has their very own Angelfire webpage. You don't often get a chance to meet a time traveler! We should give our utmost respect and understand how difficult it must be for this new poster to try to assimilate.

[Witsec1]

Hey now, we're talking about someone who has their very own Angelfire webpage. You don't often get a chance to meet a time traveler! We should give our utmost respect and understand how difficult it must be for this new poster to try to assimilate.

Lolz, I will try to be more understanding. I spoke up for being patient with new immigrants, I guess that includes time travelers.

[Guest Anonymous]

Hey now, we're talking about someone who has their very own Angelfire webpage. You don't often get a chance to meet a time traveler! We should give our utmost respect and understand how difficult it must be for this new poster to try to assimilate.

Get thee to the dictionary, kid, and write out what snark means 100 times before submitting your next post in draft to serious-newbie for pre-publication comments....

[Serious_News_Junkie]

But when the info on paper looked good, there might have also been the thought that it would be nice for her child to have two moms. Ruth and Rachel's father has been abundantly described as being a horrible, sexist, close-minded, controlling and relatively uncaring father in regards to his daughters' well-being.

That's a good point. It seems plausible that a daughter from a patriarchal family would see something appealing about a family with no father.

[Spider Burps]

Lolz, I will try to be more understanding. I spoke up for being patient with new immigrants, I guess that includes time travelers.

brb, cutting my hair into the "Rachel" and blasting some Hanson. Want to make our new poster feel at home :)

edited for more 1996-ish-ness

[Guest Anonymous]

AliceC, I'm surprised you're web savvy enough to look up and Google my email address but don't understand how free web hosting services like Angelfire work. I get to host my "The Duggar Cult" page on Angelfire for free, and Angelfire makes money by placing ads at the top and bottom of the page. As with most free hosting sites, a person (me) who creates a free page does not receive any advertising revenue.

You are correct that I'm responsible for protecting my own identity. I thought I'd done that; however, I didn't realize that my email address would be publicly visible, and I forgot that I'd used it years ago on an online resume. I also didn't expect someone to respond to my second post by trying to expose my identity to the rest of the board. I understand that you had no way of knowing about my problems with my in-laws, and I genuinely appreciate that you did not post a link to my personal information; however, encouraging people to Google my email address still felt more like a cheap shot than snark (which, remember, means "snide remark").

I'm sorry you do not feel that we are part of the same movement to discredit Gothardism and other radical fundamentalist sects. I was under the mistaken impression that a shared disdain for such beliefs was the common thread here. I lurked for so long before joining because I wasn't sure whether this would be a good place for serious, productive discussions on the dangers of fundamentalist patriarchy. I'm starting to think I should have stuck to my own devices and left the Free Jinger community in peace.

Mansplaining and tone arguments are going to garner you little but scorn around here.

[Witsec1]

brb, cutting my hair into the "Rachel" and blasting some Hanson. Want to make our new poster feel at home :)

edited for more 1996-ish-ness

I love that you edited this for time period correctness! Awesome. Side ponytails are more eighties, it's true.

[Guest Anonymous]

Mansplaining and tone arguments are going to garner you little but scorn around here.

And Alice? Alice? Who the fuck is Alice.....?

[Serious_News_Junkie]

And Alice? Alice? Who the fuck is Alice.....? :lol:

My bad. I meant "AnnieC." :oops:

[ElphabaGalinda]

If you'll point me to the posts where she explained why she doesn't respond to emails from other survivors and where she explained why she doesn't acknowledge donations, I'll take a look at that and see if there is something I missed. As I said before, simply acknowledging that others have concerns is not the same as alleviating or discrediting those concerns, but it's possible that she offered a more thorough explanation than I remember seeing.

Here is a post where she thanks people for donating money, and the second is where she appologizes for not acknowledging people as much. I will try to search for the other thing later, it's a bit difficult without a search function.

http://razingruth.blogspot.ca/2012/02/men-or-boys.html

http://razingruth.blogspot.ca/2011/03/sorry.html

Personally, one of the reasons I think she's real is she only posted 15 times in 2011. What's the point of having such an elaborate lie if you post so sporadically?

[Guest Anonymous]

And Alice? Alice? Who the fuck is Alice.....?

Maybe this is Alice. I'd have her round for tea and death metal. :P (And you too anniec, if you're ever in my neck of the woods.)

[Witsec1]

And Alice? Alice? Who the fuck is Alice.....?

Go ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall... cue Jefferson Starship

WANNqr-vcx0

[Spider Burps]

Go ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall... cue Jefferson Starship

WANNqr-vcx0

Ooooh my goodness, we're on the same page! I hear the name Alice and the first thing I think of is that song. The second thing I think of is that horrible "Go Ask Alice" book that was meant to be a teen's memoir, but was really written by some adult (I want to say a counselor?).

I'm also planning on naming my first daughter Alice.

[ElphabaGalinda]

Here's another quote from her blog about gifts (because I happen to have nothing better to do at work than search the blog at the moment :D

S. Sawtelle and Kate asked about gifting: I want to thank you for the offer and the love you're showing. For now, however, I want to pass on gifts from internet friends/readers. It's not that I don't appreciate what has been given to me or what you're wanting to do. It's just that that got complicated and made some people doubt the legitimacy of my blog and it's message. Just having a paypal link was seen as a request for handouts. So I can only imagine what having a bridal registry or wish list would make people say. Please let me think about it for a while. Okay? I do thank you for the sentiment.

[Guest Anonymous]

Maybe this is Alice. I'd have her round for tea and death metal. :P (And you too anniec, if you're ever in my neck of the woods.)

I love that Alice... and would definitely come for tea and death metal with you. I've spent 24 years just waiting for the chance! :dance: