The wheels of poetic justice certainly turn quickly: one day after I suggested that her name be made public, Gotnews.com released it.
I also said I was curious as to what other lies Jackie had told in the past. Sure enough, the Gotnews.com article said:
We can also confirm that Jackie Coakley has misled other students at both her high school and her college about her past sexual relations with men.
(Details will evidently be forthcoming.)
Here's her picture:
This is the scary thing about sociopaths: they rarely look scary. Look at her picture, then look at my picture at the right of the blog. Who looks more like your mental image of an evildoer?
Posts
26 comments:
John Craig,
Are you a mind reader? I came to your site with the intention of providing the GoNews link, but based on your new post, it appears I must have already done so!
For some reason, I expected her to be ugly. Like, Lena Dunham-ugly. I have no data to back it up, I just expected it.
Remnant --
Sorry, it was a mistake. It was "Jokah Macpherson," not you, who provided the information on her real name after the previous post. Got my wires crossed and named you by mistake, just corrected it in the post above. (My only excuse is that I wrote the post way past y usual bedtime.)
Anon --
There are two pictures of her that I've seen, and I used the more flattering one above. (The other one still doesn't make her look quite Dunham-like though.)
I think the reason you expected that was because you associate her with strident anti-male feminism.
It's hard for me to believe that Jackie didn't expect (and maybe even hope) that her real name would eventually make its way to the press. In this computer age there's surely no privacy and if she shared her story (whether real or make-believe) even with a few friends, she had to know it would come out. Does this fit with a sociopath's characteristics - a desire to be famous, or infamous as the case may be? --Audrey
Audrey --
It does, at a certain level, though I'm sure Jackie had thought she would gain fame as a victim and not as a hoaxer.
Sometimes - though probably not in this case -- sociopaths are happy just to gain infamy. There have been a few serial killers who have even laid claim to more victims than they actually had, in an effort to seem more "accomplished."
And I really hope "Gotnews" got it right. If Jackie Coakley isn't the real accuser, she'll likely be a very rich girl after the legal fallout. I don't imagine a simple retraction would heal the damage like a nice payout. --Audrey
Audrey --
That would be a hard one to get wrong, especially with a number of sources having said that she is the accuser.
Interesting. Yes, sociopaths "rarely look scary" - the one's that I've known haven't been all that scary looking, but each one was destructive in his/her own way. They all were extroverts, being fun to be around. Every one that I have known has been a liar, a thief, sexually promiscuous, etc.
-birdie
Oh, yes, Jackie is pretty, attractive. She also looks like she'd be a fun person to have around, but, I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her. If she were in my house, I would lock up (hide) my money, my jewelry, important documents, etc., not wanting her to have access to anything of value.
-birdie
Birdie --
Look at the bright side. At least she wouldn't accuse you of rape.
Did you see the news about James Watson?
You know how he's been ostracized and had his reputation trashed since making those comments about race and intelligence? He put his Nobel prize medal up for sale to raise money since I guess his income has suffered lately. A Russian billionaire who owns Arsenal football club bought his medal off him for £2.6 million and then handed it back to him.
Steven --
No, I hadn't heard it, that's wonderful news. It's outrageous that a man can be stripped of his social position and wealth merely for telling the truth these days.
Guess those Russian billionaires aren't entirely bad after all.
John~
When I look at your photo there on the right....I'm reminded of a box of fuzzy kittens. Good day sir!
Spike --
Are you calling me a pussy?
I certainly was not my good man.
That made me chuckle...:)
Spike --
Okay, then you're still on my good side….
ya well a man would have put him on the ol' shitlist and whooped him. you pussy.
Ten feet --
I'm not arguing with you.
Especially if you're ten feet tall.
The Guardian are still saying she was raped:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/09/rolling-stone-threw-a-rape-victim-to-the-misogynist-horde
The strange thing about the guardian lately is that most of the commenters seem to be critical of the articles on the identity politics type stuff, which is really a big part of the guardian. It seems like a real gap is opening between the liberal intelligentsia and the common people. I'm getting the impression the opinions expressed on blogs like yours are not that uncommon after all and common sense is alive and well, despite the brainwashing.
I'm also starting to think that the guardian just want to pull in the punters, even if they trash it.
John, if you ever get the urge to punch somebody, just step back and take three deep breaths and calm yourself down. Then step forward and punch him. You'll be more accurate and he wont expect it :-D
Steven --
What a load of tripe. Just goes to how how to the Left, the facts don't matter. It's all about the posturing.
Coincidentally, after you told me about James Watson selling his Nobel, I Googled that and came across a couple articles in the Guardian about it, and one of them said that he richly deserved his infamy for being such a horrible racist. And the guy who wrote it, Mr. Rutherford, is supposedly a scientist himself. He has none of the facts on his side, but once again, it's all about the posturing, sowing what a good person you are.
You're absolutely right about the gap between the media/brainwashers and the common folk (like me). The great thing is, the media are overplaying their hand, and thus alerting people to their lies.
Very funny regarding the punching. I don't think I've seriously punched anyone nice I was in tenth grade; that's almost half a century. Maybe that means it's time to do it again.
Yes, I like your conclusion. Its about time. I have only had one real fight in my life, if you don't count boxing sparring (and constantly wrestling with friends- we didn't go easy). I was a pretty shy kid- not a natural fighter at all, although I remember perversely enjoying it when I did fight.
In that Rutherford article, he claims that race holds no water as a scientific concept.
I think i'm going to quit reading and commenting on the guardian. Its not so sporting anymore when so many people are agreeing. Its getting to be a waste of time and I've had enough of it.
Steven --
With your boxing experience, you'd probably get the better of most fights now.
Rutherford's an obvious idiot. Or a "useful idiot," as the communists used to say.
Yes, the media seem to lose credibility every day. I think that for some of them, pushing the party line is a matter of keeping they robs. If any of them ever decided to tell the truth, as I and other bloggers do, they'd lose their jobs.
I don't know how much you've been following the new republic thing, but chris hughes has some thin lips. he's the first person I've noticed with this feature since reading your hypothesis. he seems to have bought it when his hubby was for office and no longer found it as interesting after he lost. seems kind of Machiavellian.
Ten feet --
You're right, he does have somewhat thin lips. Whenever I see a picture of him, though, what I'm usually struck by is how much he looks like a wimpy choirboy. I never saw him as sociopathic, though, at least from what i've seen so far. He's just a guy with a lot of money who basically lucked out by being Mark Zuckerberg's college roommate, and as a result, thinks he's smarter thane is.
As far as The New Republic goes, I think Hughes bought it with the intention of supporting a liberal magazine he'd always agreed with, but then got frustrated at its lack of profitability and tried to "modernize" it for the internet age, and that's causing some resentment and upheaval. The far more Machiavellian character over there was Marty Peretz, the magazine's founder, though he didn't really overlap with Hughes. And my impression is that Leon Wieseltier, the eminence grise over there when Hughes arrived, also had an ego which required some accommodation. But, these are somewhat superficial impressions, I haven't followed it all that closely.
Post a Comment