When does reality become the story? Or When does the story become reality?
I often wonder when writing if I am writing about myself. The universe is made of self similar components and structures, all part of the same set of fractal mathematics and quantum components.

Are we popular or just being watched and monitored?

We love puzzles and our MySpace blog views jumping to more than 130/day was a great one. Beginning April 1st we ran a few tests to see if we could sense a pattern or behavior that might help us solve the puzzle.
There were several options to choose from:
1) We were becoming popular more than 100 blog views per day
2) We are being monitored and we only get 10-12 views for each post or change we make to our blogs
3) We are making all this up to generate zasbots for our story
4) Some combination of the above

Our first test was to see how many views we would get if we made just one entry per day. We then observed how many views we received if we posted more than once per day. We then tried posting once but editing the same post during the day. Each of these tests provided interesting data. It would appear that some small number of people or bots are looking frequently at our blog page for changes. Using the small bit of data collected it could be 3-5 checking in every 5 minutes or so and 5-8 every 15-30 minutes. Are they the same people every post? We don't know but are curious.

Speaking of MySpace, in Jan of 2007 one of those who watch and monitor us, took a screen capture of our MySpace homepage. As indicated on his website, he has been collecting information and documentation about us to demonstrate and prove his allegations. It's not too difficult to imagine how the research and data collected could or would seep into his text narratives associated with his images. I wonder how much time and research he has spent on others? Are we special? Why would anyone be interested in us? Even more curious why would our MySpace blogs be viewed? We certainly haven't promoted it. Perhaps our MySpace blog and pages have been monitored all along and we are just now observing that? We may never know unless those who read this take the time to comment on our blog or tell us who they are.

We are currently running our last test. You are a participant by viewing this blog. You can assist us in our research if you let us know what you think.

Are we popular or just being watched and monitored?

Methods of Influence
The text labeled TEXT #1 contains allegations and accusations about us and our relatives. Person NoName has taken it upon himself to declare this information as true to the world. He does not offer us opportunity of dialog to address these points, preferring to publish and promote his accusations and allegations through his website LLLies and through links placed by himself and associates. He continues to publish new content with new allegations.

The following text is excerpted from a recent update to the defaming website as of the date of this document 4/22/07 LLlies/html/timeline.html Our comments are in plain text the quoted text is in italic font.

“The fact that this digital artist began writing about “Queen Type O Negative” on January 9th, 2007 is quite interesting. On that same day, Susan posted in a public forum that we were awaiting the birth of our Granddaughter, and we were wondering if she would be type O negative, as Susan and the children are....”

The first section is from our publication about the amazing coincidences of Queen O. Susan had posted an image on DeviantArt which she removed because of the references to Type O Negative, then added the blog entry to mark its passing.

“....The Repaskys have a habit of covering their tracks by deleting or creating fantastic cover stories when they are caught in another untruth as you will notice in the journal entry of January 9th’s time stamp . They then seem to have waited several months then posted this fabrication on blogs and journals that they use to spread lies and innuendo with doctored prove. For those that do not know the entire story or more than the extremely edited version the Repaskys spread then yes I sound like a very nasty person, however, as shown here as well as on many other points the Repaskys are exposed for being individuals that make great fiction but poor researchers....”

“.....Of course if the Repaskys pattern holds true they will come up with some story the above was only a convoluted ploy and the real blog/journal entry will be some other place with a date before the one shown... If they do they have a surprise coming to them since Jan 9th is not the first time Queen Oh Negative appeared in my story lines”

Lets examine this beginning with the last section where he notes “since Jan 9th” instead of offering a date when he created the character he leaves it open. This of course provides him, the opportunity to set a date when he feels he has enough information to cover his statements on his website. Interestingly this is similar to what he alleges we do in the very same statement. Contrary to his allegation “ they will come up with some story the above was only a convoluted ploy and the real blog/journal entry will be some other place with a date before the one shown” we do not need another story. The reality is Susan posted the information about her blood type in September 2006.

Analysis
Person NoName may have developed his Queen O character years ago, as noted in our blogs and other postings, we believe Person NoName has monitored us, our websites, and on line activities for quite some time. We suspect beginning in June 2006 and clearly well underway by August 2006, with the camelback incident mentioned in his site. Our comment was “we had not observed any references to Queen O Type Negative before seeing his image posted on Artwanted Jan 7, 2007” We know he had access to Susan's posting on her blood type since September 2006, as does anyone choosing to look at a google of siunni9. As noted on his site he has been researching documenting us and our on line activities and most certainly our screen names and the screen names of our relatives. We can presume he had the information about Susan's blood type as early as September of 2006. To 'prove' his own claims he will have to show evidence or information that he published or copyrighted the character before that time. Although we do not know for certain, we do believe that his associate who publicly wrote on a forum provided by Person NoName ...”being shown putting my foot up Queen oh so negatives oversized rear end ROFL" does not probably refer to a 60+ year old baseball player with stomach cancer as Person NoName claims Queen O represents. We believe the context and circumstances more likely target Susan than the baseball player. But that is conjecture, it is possible the associate wants to be depicted with their foot up a 60+ year sick man's rear end. LOL

He writes that we mislead and misrepresent information, yet his site continues to provide only a portion of the reality of the incidents he writes about. The camelback incident for example: we have noted numerous times in blogs, in forums, and even an image, that this was resolved to the satisfaction of the photographer. It was an image we displayed accidentally without attribution, we then deleted it, apologized to the photographer and then sought permission and received permission to use his image. It was resolved to the satisfaction of the site administrator as well. The photographer even provided us with retroactive permission to use his photo which he acknowledged was not particularly good. On his site Person NoName makes no mention of this information and apparently prefers to provide only a view point and perspective that defames us.

We are not the only person(s) with whom Person NoName has negative interactions. Some of his issues with others appear on his website where he posts his dislike of the opinions of others. Consider his posting on para/html/response.html about a site administrator where he writes “Where is the “lie” that you are accusing me of telling? (“…but don't say you "can't enter", because that's simply a lie.”)”.

Another difference of opinion between Person NoName and the site administrator can be found here LLlies/html/linda.html where Person NoName writes: “To depend on technology as the method to monitor the integrity of a site when visual proof is presented and ignored is a true example of how well the site admin cares about the rules they have created.

What the site admin wrote (also on the same page) “...For what its worth, we'll keep our eye open, but as long as this user "lays low", following up any further on this is really a fruitless vnture, as there will always be ways to circumvent any measure we may put in place to block an individual, and any minute spent on this would be one minute less spent on actually productive development of the Site.”

As you can see the site administrator views the pragmatics of his business and his time as more important than Person NoName's complaint. To which as you can read, Person NoName responds with an allegation containing very general statements and opinion laden words such as 'presented...ignored...true example... well....cares' These all attempt to convey legitimacy while demeaning the site admin and the site he manages such as:” how well the site admin cares “
The tone and style are like that of a bully: “you are wrong, here's why, go on try and prove me wrong”. This puts the the challenged person in an awkward position. Lets look at this analytically.
1) The allegation is either true or false
2) The evidence presented is either accurate or misleading
3) The proof is either obvious or requires inside/private/specific knowledge

In the case where the allegation is false, even if it sounds true, the person being challenged must decide whether the effort to show that the allegation is false is worth the time and energy. Making false statements puts the burden on the challenged or targeted person, something bullies use as a strategy. Consider WMD and our government. Proving the statement published by the government as false required tremendous effort and cost. The bully often wins because the target often lack resources to properly defend or dispute the allegation, hence it is an often used strategy for influencing opinion.
In some instances the allegation may be partially true. For example, Person NoName alleges we violated copyright laws and has labeled us intellectual property abusers. Certainly there is an element of truth however, it was single infraction made accidentally in the passion of the moment, later rectified to the satisfaction of the photographer, site admin, and ourselves but apparently not to the satisfaction of Person NoName. By making these allegations, Person NoName puts on us and others that he targets, the burden of showing or demonstrating why his allegations are inaccurate, misleading, or false. This again favors the bully in that the effort to prove the positive is much more difficult and time consuming than it is for the bully to make the allegation.

If the allegation is true, there is no need to proceed beyond acknowledgment. However, circumstance and contextual elements could make what appears to be true less so. Consider an interaction between a thief and a target. When told by the thief, “I know you have money” a response by the target stating otherwise could be accurate especially if the target had no money on them at the time. Partial truths and false allegations are typical of any interaction intended to influence opinion. We accept them daily in our lives through the opinions expressed by others, the commercials on TV, and the spin on stories found in newspapers. We have become numb to distortions in our lives. Misleading and inaccurate information is the foundation for most opinions that we would call racist, hate focused or mean spirited. Knowing that does not reduce the impact and potential for harm caused by their allegations. We have in our society specified rules of engagement and 'rights of speech' when making allegations. One of those is the opportunity to respond.

We will examine an allegation made on his website located in the html source code LLlies/html/just_the_facts.html (TEXT #1 below) “ Tom Repasky likes to accuse others of being a plagiariser and infringer, when in reality he is the thief of much intellectual property”

There are two broad allegations made:
1) likes to accuse others of being a plagiariser and infringer
2) is the thief of much intellectual property

Note the use of the word likes and much. These words are opinions and attempt to influence and color the readers opinion. By using these terms, the allegations are misleading at best and most probably false. Let begin by examining his website for some of the words and phrases:
1) intellectual property finds 296 entries in the source html but only 10 entries in the browser visible sections
2) thief of much intellectual property is only found in the html and is listed 50 times
3) likes to accuse others is only found in the html and is listed 50 times
4) Intellectual Property abuse is found 120 times in the html and only 2 times in browser visible sections
5) copyright infringement is found 125 times in the html and only 7 times in browser visible sections
6) Tom Repasky is only found in the html and is listed 126 times
7) Tom Repasky likes to accuse others is only found in the html and is listed 50 times
As you can see, some of the phrases are not visibly expressed but are examined and indexed by google and other search sites. Very notable is Tom Repasky. Not listed in the visible text, it is listed for search engines 126 times.
Why would a person would make accusations and not visibly present them so we might comment? Why embed damaging allegations so that search engines can read and post results of searches without providing substantiation of the allegations? This behavior is similar to that of a bully or thugs. If you tell the same lie often enough and to a large enough audience, it become believable. Using this approach to influence opinion and damage the reputation of others is very typical of governments, gangs, and other organizations with secret information. By controlling what is published, only one perspective is provided.

Lets examine the phrase Intellectual Property abuse. It is found 120 times in the html and only 2 times in browser visible sections. The visible text is found on LLlieshtmljust_the_facts.html and LLlieshtmlthis_is_one_example_of_dozens_.HTM

First we will look at this page LLlieshtmlthis_is_one_example_of_dozens_.HTM. The italics are from the website, plain text are our comments.

The first visible reference to Intellectual Property Abuse.
“The Repasky’s have a history of Intellectual Property Abuse:
  This site highlights how the Repaskys have been caught infringing on copyright of another artist’s work.  The Repaskys themselves posted this information on their own website, EloquentInsanity.com:  an E-mail that came from the Admin of EyeFetch.com that states that they infringed on copyright and also harassed other members:”
Note this was a reply we received when we asked the site admin for the reasons for our account cancellation.
“Dear Mrs. Repasky -
Your membeship status at EyeFetch has been terminated due to breach of the Terms of Use you agreed upon when creating your account. Any contributions to EyeFetch are entirely volunturay and do not come with any guarantees of service or delivery of product. Furthermore, any breach of the Terms of Use automatically dissolves any right for refund. Review of your actions on EyeFetch showed a number of breaches of your agreement to honor the Terms of Use, including, but not limited to copyright infringement, harassment of other members, and abuse of your rights as account holder on EyeFetch.com. We therefore feel that we righfully terminated your account and hereby respectfully deny your claim for a refund.
Sincerely,
EyeFetch Administration"

The Repasky’s have placed this behind a password protected wall trying to hide their libelous actions. “
Bold added added above to libelous for clarity in the text below
Note that we removed the content as requested by an associate of Person NoName and created a password controlled directory so that he might have something to write about. Note also the use of the word libelous in his comments about the email. I see nothing even remotely related to libel in the email above. Do you? Would posting this be somehow libelous? Comments made to influence opinion always include words of value or sentiment. Again the use of generalizations (their libelous actions) making an allegation (trying to hide), offering as evidence his failed attempt to access the information. The burden of proof being ours. Bully behavior often requires the target to perform some task or labor to acquire the desired results. Consider the school bully who says “Give me some money or I'll beat you up”. The teacher who says “Unless someone confesses, everyone will have to sit here in silence until the class is over”. Parents, teachers, managers all have to confront this and provide guidance without being a bully. It is possible to exhibit the behaviors and not be a bully if the underlying motivations are to produce positive results. In this case the task is to prove the allegation “trying to hide” as incorrect, which I just did. However, the website author will not likely update his site to incorporate the information we provide. We assume this because there is relevant information concerning the camelback incident that has yet to be added to his site, while he continues to add new content. We suspect this is due to the nature of the information as it discounts or diminishes the impact and story he presents, as he alleges above about Tom Repasky “...when in reality he is the thief of much intellectual property”.
It appears to us that Person NoName provides no alternative but to seek action to have the defaming information and unfounded allegations removed.
This email quoted above certainly references the camelback incident. The underlying reason for the account cancellation (the last straw that broke the camels back as it were lol) was my posting an image on my own free membership account and then Susan making a comment on it. This is not expressed specifically in the above email, it was however one of the circumstances and contextual reasons for the cancellation. This little bit of information missing in his presentation of the 'facts' is significant, as is the resolution of the camelback incident from the photographers perspective, who by the way is the only person authorized to claim that we infringed on his copyright. As noted above, this was neither enforced nor claimed as action against us, rather the photographer provided retroactive permission to try and defuse the harassment we were receiving.
Person NoName focuses on information that is partially true and evidence that does not stand the test of time (we were given permission). He omits the information that we never intended to gain money or fame from the posting (it is not a great quality photo) which are the basis of any copyright Infringement case. We made a mistake, an error in our posting. We admitied it publicly.
Is this one incident cause for continual and on going harassment, publication of defaming and slanderous material, and promotion of this information through email and private messages? Probably not, there are certainly other issues as well beyond the scope of this paper which could be cited. However, this appears to be the basis for his comment “The Repasky’s have a history of Intellectual Property Abuse”
This is the second page of only two on his site containing Intellectual Property Abuse. LLlieshtmljust_the_facts.html there are 118 other instances of Intellectual Property Abuse but not visible unless you read the html, are a search engine, or have graphics disabled on your browser. The plain bold text are the comments we added.

“History of Intellectual Property abuse:
• The Repaskys were cited on eyefetch.com for infringing copyright and harassment of site members, as well as breeches of terms of service. In a rather incredible display of arrogance, the Repaskys posted on one of their personal web sites the termination email they received from the Eyefetch.com admin. “

This references the previous section, email and text discussed above.

• On various web sites that the Repasky’s own and operate there are copyright infringements, plagiarized passages, defamatory and libelous statements to numerous to mention here but a small sample has been supplied as supporting documentation
The sample in the line above was a link to the page discussed above. Note the generalizations and value laden phrase “to numerous”. The only example provided is the same example.

• Conclusion:The Repasky’s have no regard for the Intellectual Property of others, nor do they feel that any rules are applicable to them, and those rules may be ignored at their discretion. "

In the conclusion are generalizations with value laden words such as “no regard..any rules” He states “The Repasky’s have no regard for the Intellectual Property of others” This is false. However proving this is impossible. The best we, or for that matter anyone accused as we are in the above, could hope to do is show or demonstrate by our lives and behaviors otherwise. It is likely everyone will at some time in their lives fail to achieve some metric or criteria established as the norm for members of our society. That failure, whatever it may be, does not constitute total failure. Not all bullies at school grow up to become bullies as adults. To assume total failure based upon one or two samples of failure is why racism still exists and hate crimes continue. The coloring of all interpretations with preformed biases can cause serious communication issues. Behaviors can change as well as opinions.
The only example provided in these sections are about a specific instance that has been resolved to the satisfaction of everyone except apparently Person NoName. We would not have apologized to the camelback photographer if we had no regard, nor would we attribute content when appropriate. His statements implie a complete lack of ethics and integrity. We are offended that such statements are made and feel defending or countering this allegation is a complete waste of time. Proving a positive statement such as “I am good” would require a lifetime of observation and study. Proving it wrong only requires observation and study until the 'wrong' occurs. A single wrong does not totally negate the statement “I am good” but it does satisfy the observer who as Person NoName demonstrates can proclaim “They are bad” without qualifying or describing why “they might be good” Techniques used by those who seek to manipulate and influence the opinions of others. Generalize, use value laden words, allege something, leave the proof up to the target. Just watch a TV commercial if you want to see this process in action.

We were told about the site from someone who received a link to the site in an email reply to a comment made on Person NoName's image in February 2007. Although we do not know when his website was first published, we do know he began work on it in the late summer or early fall of 2006 based on the last modified date of some assets used on his website. We also know that the content published required a lot of research to determine and acquire our various account/screen names at the many community website sites we participate in or are studying as part of our research.

Copyright © 2007 Flicker Light™ Studio