The Family Children of God by insidersChildren of God Family International
Home Chat Boards Articles COG History COG Publications People Resources Search site map
exFamily.org > chatboards > genX > archives > post #27028

Jim LaMattery's ban + summary of recent posts

Posted by exFamily.org Coordinators on May 24, 2006 at 07:31:28




Jim LaMattery

breach of privacy rules & ban

Jim LaMattery has contravened our sitewide policies once again. He has breached the privacy of several individuals by naming their family names, locations, and posting unfounded and malicious comments about them. For some years now, our policies & guidelines regarding naming names have stated among other things, the following in clear text:
" exFamily.org ... understands ... there are no rights to privacy for deceased individuals ... exFamily.org ... gives due consideration to the extension if any, of rights of privacy to surviving relatives and or close associates.

"Can Exemptions 6 and 7C be applied to protect the privacy of deceased persons? No, not directly, but careful consideration should be given to whether such protection can be extended to others. After death, a person no longer possesses privacy rights . . .

"However, it is important to note that while privacy rights cannot be inherited by one's heirs, the disclosure of particularly sensitive personal information pertaining to a deceased person may well threaten the privacy interests of surviving family members or other close associates." (emphasis added)

What Jim LaMattery posted is on record in our deleted archives and logs. Jim LaMattery is solely responsible for the content he posted. exFamily.org acts solely as a publishing medium and cannot be held responsible for what the public, in this case Jim LaMattery, chooses to post.

For the same reason, we cannot alter a post, or we become co-writers sharing responsibility for the content. Individuals who post have the right to change or re-submit their own content. According to privacy guidelines, publishers should be granted that right when it comes to removing sensitive information about themselves or others.

Since Jim LaMattery has shown no intention of retracting his hurtful statements, nor of offering an apology for his wrongful comments, we reluctantly understand he will not be interested in modifying his own posts.

Why not delete? It's true that while we cannot modify a post, we can certainly delete. But censorship is a double-edged sword and can serve to erase the record of what has been publishedówhat an individual has done to break the rules. While we need to intervene to protect the privacy of the individuals harmed by Jim LaMattery, we also need to show for the record what he has done and why he is no longer welcome on our boards.

Our solution? We will quote almost in full (names and places have been removed to protect the privacy of remaining family) what Jim LaMattery has written, together with replies and comments gleaned from responses by members of the public. This way, we resume responsibility only for placing a summary and compilation online, but the individuals who posted retain full responsibility for content in their individual posts.

The following was posted by Jim LaMattery on May 21, 2006 at 21:51:22. He had been banned, but managed to start posting again, with news about a big expose of Thomas Hack. exFamily.org coordinators decided to give him a chance, but he soon showed his true colors.

In Reply to: Re: about the one who left us posted by Jewlz on May 21, 2006 at 21:20:25:

In Memory of [DG]

When I heard his last name I was struck by the irony that it was here at his memorial that I heard it for the first time. I had briefly met him once or twice before with his band mates. Iíve never been good at remembering last names but this one seemed so appropriate for David at this time. [...] He was at peace now. He could rest now.

It was at Rickyís memorial that I met David for the first time. It was a brief moment. I remember seeing him and the other band members roll through the crowded reception hall towards my table like some famous British rock group. The four stuck out because their hairdos stuck out. And I thought to myself, yeah, these guys should be Ok. Theyíve got something to live for and they already are looking like they had been discovered by a talent scout from the music industry.

We had arrived in Los Angeles early for his memorial. We mixed with the others that had come to gather to pay last respects. I didnít know anyone there. These were Davidís close friends but I didnít feel out of place. I came to hear what his friends had to say about him. I wanted to know who David was. And I had plenty of suspicions as to why the overdose. I listened to the myriad of conversations as the service was being prepared. I was beginning to understand a little about David as I put the pieces of each conversationís puzzle together.

Davidís father flew in from [...] for the memorial. I had wondered where he was when David had slashed his wrists days before the overdose. I got angry thinking about it. Davidís mother couldnít make it. I was fed-up. I bit my tongue. When would The Family make it a priority to "see" their own children?

As Davidís friends stood one by one and spoke about him, one thing became clear, it was the one thing they all agreed on; David was at his happiest when he had his guitar in hand. What a great irony I thought to myself, he was happiest playing his own "lead." If only, I regretted, he could have been encouraged to do so from the age of two.


The above post resulted in a number of outraged responses:
Goodness gracious
Posted by PISSED OFF on May 22, 2006 at 08:01:54
In Reply to: In Memory of [DG] posted by Jim LaMattery on May 21, 2006 at 21:51:22
You went all the way there to play Dick Tracy when people were there to celebrate the life of someone they loved and to say goodbye? You say you wanted to get to know David? Yet you have no clue about whether his parents are even in TF, do you?

Re: In Memory of [DG]
Posted by one who knows loss on May 21, 2006 at 23:17:39
In Reply to: In Memory of [DG] posted by Jim LaMattery on May 21, 2006 at 21:51:22
why don't you do us a favor and bite your tongue NOW?
why not let his own father/relatives talk about their loss when they are ready?
your piece of writing is the usual self-aggrandizing, narcissistic, opportunity-seeking stuff-at-the-most-unsuspecting-moments (memorials for dead people, vulnerable widows and bereaved relatives) we have come to expect from you. you cannot feel good or better about yourself unless you put another man or parent down? do you have any respect at all for anyone or anything, death included? what a rhetorical question on my part!

Re: In Memory of [DG]
Posted by a family friend on May 22, 2006 at 01:33:44
In Reply to: Re: In Memory of [DG] posted by one who knows loss on May 21, 2006 at 23:17:39
I heartily agree. Jim should bite his tongue & keep it bit. I happen to know facts relating to the circumstances that Jim is clearly unaware of, but out of respect for the parents and the family I'm going to wait till they're able to deal with their loss, and let them speak if they so choose.
What Jim has done here is amazingly insensitive. He said, "I had plenty of suspicions as to why the overdose" (Suspicions? That's all it takes to blurt out guesses and misinformation?) "I put the pieces of each conversationís puzzle together." (He did detective work to figure out something he knows nothing about.)
Then Jim's suspicions and detective work led him to blame the parents. He became angry wondering where the father was, totally unaware of the family's personal relationships. He even seems to mistakenly assume they are in The Family. Jim said, "I got angry thinking about it. Davidís mother couldnít make it. I was fed-up." (I was fed up when I read about Jim heaping guilt on a grieving mother.)
I am going allow the family to take their time to privately grieve the loss of a brother and son and would advise Jim to let them weep without jumping to any further mistaken conclusions.
Rest in peace, David.

Re: In Memory
Posted by To Jim on May 21, 2006 at 22:09:01
In Reply to: In Memory of [DG] posted by Jim LaMattery on May 21, 2006 at 21:51:22
May I humbly request that you not dig in to judge people too quickly in this situation. You may find yourself bashing some of the few [FG]'s who have worked on amends. To a certain father, I have read your posts over the years and have been grateful.

Incredibly, Jim LaMattery responds by branching off into his ideas about DID (Dissociative Indentity Disorder) and sticks to that topic from here on, ignoring all previous and responses of outrage, and triggering many more.
Re: In Memory
Posted by Jim LaMattery on May 21, 2006 at 23:31:31
In Reply to: Re: In Memory posted by To Jim on May 21, 2006 at 22:09:01
I understand your concern. From the stories that were told at the memorial, David had been struggling for quite some time. The original poster on this subject mentioned Ricky's memorial as possibly having triggered David's relapse. This is a real possibility, particularily if David suffered from DID. I don't know that he did, but I know the probability is very high.
If David was indeed an acute case of DID then I suggest that a proper diagnosis early on would have gone a long way to helping this young man make it through these latest struggles in his life. Again, to reiterate, a person suffering from the disorder can hold onto suicide as a viable option for the stress and trauma that they suffer. In fact, it is not unnatural for them to do so. Those professionals who treat the disorder attempt to get the patient to replace the option of suicide with something else.
David was suffering deeply for the last year of his life- according to those who were the closest to him and lived with him. I can't help but wonder if those closest to him understood the complexity of his childhood and the potential for truama that he may have suffered. They may not have known that David was a prime candidate for dissociative disorder. If a sufferer of DID is diagnosised properly and early enough, the possibility exists that success can be had through appropriate "trauma work."
As to your comment about SG's and parents making amends- this is absolutely important and I would never hinder such a process.

Jim, STOP NOW, please
Posted by One who knows on May 22, 2006 at 06:56:34
In Reply to: Re: In Memory posted by Jim LaMattery on May 21, 2006 at 23:31:31
You really know nothing about what his parents had been trying to do for him and how they were trying to be there for him, and what they had to cope with themselves. YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH OF AN IDEA AT ALL. To paraphrase you, YOU know nothing about the complexity of the situation they were in.
So please take it upon yourself to cease with your speculations, and do kindly apologize for your insulting comments, even if they were coated with "may not have known" and "I can't help but wonder".
Your anger (or whatever you choose to call it) is misdirected, your suspicions about lack of parental support way off track. AND like your previous behavior, you have a real problem understanding what is appropriate, and when, and how far to carry some idea in your head.
His parents are not going to come in here to set you straight at a time like this, nor should they have to at a time like this. Back off, please.
PLEASE save you musings about whether or not his parents understood the complexity of David's condition to yourself. Please do not speculate on their relationship.
It's great that you achieved this expose thing on the Hack estate. Perhaps that is your domain of expertise, you at your best. Please don't let it go to your head.
Your energy and tenacity to investigate and hound criminals of TF befits you. Human relations on the other hand, I am really doubtful about your skills with. Your over-developed sense of self-importance "I can't help but wonder" about either (to paraphrase you).

Going on about DID DID DID DID
Posted by PISSED OFF on May 22, 2006 at 07:55:01
In Reply to: Re: In Memory posted by Jim LaMattery on May 21, 2006 at 23:31:31
If you admit openly to having DID so we know what we're dealing with, that's a step forward for you. Great. Now don't overdo it transferring and projecting everything about yourself onto everyone else. Relating to others isn't about assuming they are all just like you. Live with and fix your own frickin' DID problem and stop trying to tell everybody else they might have or probably have or propbably had a DID condition to fix too.Conditions like DID require qualified medical professionals time and proper analysis to diagnose. Nothing for you to throw about lightly and irresponsibly.If it's you you want to save from your own DID condition, please stop speculating about whether David being diagnosed with DID would have saved his life. What you did was so fricking inappropriate.

A new thread is started. An angry poster poses some important questions as to Jim LaMattery's motives:
To Jim LaMattery
Posted by PISSED OFF on May 22, 2006 at 08:19:24
You are really something. Why do you come to these boards? From what I understand you were banned a few times. When you informed us about the Thomas Hack estate purchase, was it to enlist support and cooperation, or to show off your accomplishments? As I recall, you were putting everybody else down for not doing as much as you, saying they had nothing to say if they weren't as brave getting on national television and all that jazz.
Someone asked a GOOD QUESTION which you won't answer: Why do you choose to inform others only about your own fpac site and not this one or xfamily which compared to yours, is really well set up for investigators and newcomers looking into TF? You did say something about the more voices the better, didn't you? Why won't you, when even this site links to yours on their home page?
The answer is clear to me. You are afraid of people delving into the archives and seeing your disreputable posts, finding out who you really are and how you are regarded amongst ex-members.


The above post is never replied to. Perhaps hoping things would die down, Jim LaMattery continues posting about his work to expose Thomas Hack, publishing private emails from Interfaith. Questions about whether he obtained permission to publish these are ignored. The outrage does not die down. "a friend" starts yet another new thread with the following:

Upset at Jim LaMattery's post
Posted by a friend on May 22, 2006 at 14:27:51
Jim LaMattery, Iím a friend of the father & Iíd like to say a few things tho Iím reluctant to speak on behalf of him or the [G] family. He & his wife are going through deep emotional pain after the loss of their son David whom they loved deeply. Iím not sure & if theyíll be coming to this board any time soon to argue with you & listen to your malicious accusations & suspicions. What you have done is extremely thoughtless & is no way to honor the dead. I do believe you owe the entire [G] family an apology.
First of all as people have already pointed out, Davidís father & mother & most of his siblings are out of the Family for quite a number of years now. I know the father well & he is a meek, sincere individual. He is one of those FGs who has gone to huge lengths to make things right with his children, taking the blame & beating himself up for all the mistakes he made as a parent. His adult children have forgiven him & compared to most dysfunctional ex-COG families they were close & loving.
Despite your suspicions about why David struggled with drug dependency & addiction the main reason was that he had an inherited weakness. Itís nothing to be ashamed of to admit that you have this disease & without condemning him in any way his parents reached out & did all they could to help him overcome this condition, traveling all the way to the States at times to try to get him into rehab. David worked really hard to overcome his dependency & became active in Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous. He had a year & a half where he was free from drug addiction before finally relapsing.
His father & his family were close to him all these last years & supported & helped him as much as they could, even financially though they are not well to do. They had a beautiful Christmas visit with him in Texas in 2004. Davidís dad repeatedly mentioned to me how his son was doing & from the way he talked about him, it was clear that he loved his son deeply. David was close to his mother & just before his overdosing, he e-mailed to wish her a happy Motherís Day. There were very good reasons why she was unable to attend his memorial but none of those reasons merited a total stranger suspiciously sticking his nose in & trying to find someone to blame. You owe the [G] family an apology.


Instead of apologizing, Jim LaMattery continues talking about DID.
Re: Upset at Jim LaMattery's post
Posted by Jim LaMattery on May 22, 2006 at 17:37:05
In Reply to: Upset at Jim LaMattery's post posted by a friend on May 22, 2006 at 14:27:51
What I am suggesting is that none of these suicides happen out of the blue. There is a definite chain of events that lead up to the decision to end oneís life, particularly young adults that have had the background of a childhood growing up in The Family International.
Some children who were born and raised in abusive environments such as The Family communes and homes most closely fit the diagnosis of DID, particularly those that have committed murder or suicide since departing from The Family. More needs to be studied about this disorder and these particular victims in order to determine what social help may be available to them.
In the meantime, without appropriate treatment, the likelihood of more suicides is on the horizon. In my study of the disorder I found that one of the first roadblocks to successful treatment is the ability of those who have it, and those that are friends and relatives of those who have it, to overcome the denial of having it. In addition to this denial, health care professionals are notorious for either misdiagnosing the disorder, or are flagrantly unaware of its existence.
Although the treatment specific to the disorder is time consuming and costly, the prognosis is rather good for the sufferer. Not all suicides attempted or completed by SGAs who have left TFI are necessarily from acute episodes of DID, but the probability is high in such a population where serial child abuse occurred. I know from personal experience that not identifying the disorder early on can lead to disastrous results.
I have no proof that [DG] suffered from DID. But I do believe that the more focus that is put on understanding the disorder and how it may help to explain the suicides and murders we see coming out of the population of children born and raised in The Family, the more we may help prevent future suicides. Some may not like my approach or conclusions, but for now these are all I have.
When I questioned when The Family would begin to ďseeĒ their children, I was speaking to the reality that TFI has not adequately addressed the resultant suicides from their organization, nor the victimization of so many of their offspring.

Skirting the issue and focusing on his theory solves nothingóthe outrage contnues.
Another thing!
Posted by One who knows on May 23, 2006 at 13:06:07
In Reply to: Immediate need posted by Jim on May 22, 2006 at 19:36:34
Jim, do you know for a fact it was suicide? [...] the cause of death, was it suicide? Or was it accidental overdose? Get your head out of your ass!

Get REAL
Posted by PISSED OFF on May 22, 2006 at 17:39:51
In Reply to: Re: Upset at Jim LaMattery's post posted by Jim LaMattery on May 22, 2006 at 17:37:05
You fucked up. You owe the [G] family an apology.

You owe the [G] family an apology
Posted by a friend on May 22, 2006 at 17:46:59
In Reply to: Re: Upset at Jim LaMattery's post posted by Jim LaMattery on May 22, 2006 at 17:37:05
Well & fine but what I am upset about is your wild speculation about everyone's motives-- David's motives, his dad's motives, his mother's motives. You walked into a funeral as a total stranger, listened to conversations & tried to put the puzzle together, & you did a poor job, yet you had the audacity to walk away from the memorial & post on a public board how mad you are at the [G] family & blame them for unknown crimes because of your suspicious mind. This is extremely harmful behavior, especially while the entire family is still grieving. Have you no respect? You owe the [G] family an apology.

Then, word from a mental health professionalóa Licensed Independant Social Worker.
DID is a made-to-order manipulative tactic
Posted by LISW
(Licensed Independant Social Worker) on May 23, 2006 at 08:59:34
In Reply to: Re: Upset at Jim LaMattery's post posted by Jim LaMattery on May 22, 2006 at 17:37:05
DID is an extremely controversial diagnosis, and there is by no means universal agreement among clinical practitioners about it. Research on DID is still coming in and quite inconclusive, so don't be too impressed with the literature until you've read all sides of the debate. You can start at wikipedia.
For someone with a personality disorder, DID is a made-to-order manipulative tactic, because the subject is known to automatically produce a divide-and-conquer dynamic among clinical practitioners. Discussion about DID in either a public or professional forum is likely to generate much heat, but not much light. And that pretty much describes JLM's MO, imo.
"Complex trauma" much better description of the psychiatric condition many SGAs are facing. It's less glamorous and controversial that DID, and the newest research on complex trauma suggests that psychiatry is a long way from finding effective, evidence-based practices to remediate many of the symptoms. At this point, the best we can hope for is to teach better coping skills, provide lots of social support, and offer medication designed to treat anxiety and depression. There is no medication for the dissociative symptoms associated with complex trauma.
There are no instant fixes, and labeling a set of symptoms "DID" doesn't confer power over the condition afflicting so many abuse survivors.

Jim LaMattery taking refuge in DID - some hard cold facts
Posted by Layperson on May 23, 2006 at 09:23:30
In Reply to: DID is a made-to-order manipulative tactic posted by LISW on May 23, 2006 at 08:59:34
Jim LaMattery
[either] claims to have DID [or claims his daughter has it]. He believes it is widespread in survivors of The Family, disrespectfully discloses that his own daughter has the disease[?], and proceeds to talk like it is lurking around the corner in just about everyone, and how they need to face up to it. It is a matter of urgency and immediate attention, over and above his apologizing for a hurtful blunder.
Jim LaMattery has a record of causing hurt and harm, and re-traumatizing survivors of The Family. Chaos and frustration invariably follows Jim LaMattery's interactions with the fragile ex-member community. His baffling and infuriating behavior many can agree, can only belong to that of a sick individual.
It may be no secret that he is sick, but I take issue with his constant refuge in his DID -- a condition which is not altogether without critics and skeptics in the medical community.
Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) was formerly listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD). The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems continues to list it as MPD.
Those who recognize DID as a psychological condition believe that it is characterized by the use of dissociation* as a primary defense mechanism**--a chronic reliance on dissociation as a means of defending causes the individual to split their psyche/identity into distinct parts.
Some psychologists and psychiatrists dissent from the manuals and regard the disorder as possibly iatrogenic*** or factitious. Skeptics claim that people who act as if they have MPD/DID have learned to exhibit the symptoms in return for social reinforcement, either from therapists, from others with DID, from society at large or from any combination thereof. By lavishing attention and care on persons diagnosed with DID/MPD, we reward them for the supposed disease.
One view is that it is normal to experience oneself as multiple and that "multiplicity" is not necessarily a disorder, that mental illness itself generally tends to be a culture-specific syndrome. Proponents of the "healthy multiple" point to multiple identities used on online communities.
Is DID a fad? Critics state that DID bears all the signs of a mass mania, like the Salem Witch Trials. DID cannot be a real disease or it would be much more widespread--but DID is limited to a spcific place (the U.S. and to a much lesser extent, other Western countries exposed to the U.S. media) and time (roughly, the period from 1976 through 1996). As media coverage spiked, cases climbed. There were 200 reported cases of MPD from 1880 to 1979, and 20,000 from 1980 to 1990 [2].
Not only is DID centered in the U.S., it is centered in a few practitioners. Per Joan Acocella, 40,000 cases were diagnosed from 1985 to 1995. Many mental health professionals claim that they have never seen a patient with DID. This concentration of diagnoses seems suspicious to critics.
Some critics argue that DID/MPD is not a disease at all and that we should not encourage it--Multiples can demand to be treated with the indulgence we afford them. Critics point to the internet where it is safer to enact different roles, such as a childlike role. This behavior is especially noticeable, where diagnosed MPD/DID multiples congregate in online forums to express themselves using the speech patterns of their "littles".
As a layperson, I am skeptical about the DID issue. Jim LaMattery if anything, makes the case for it less convincing. Afterall, he displays many classic defense mechanisms such as projection, denial, intellectualization/isolation, rationalization, repression, dissociation, idealization. Dissociation alone will not explain it, nor will it make up for the harm caused by his narcissistic abrasive self.
Regardless, I propose a general boycott of Jim LaMattery, because he invariably harms ex-members wherever he appears. The attention we heap upon him, as even I am doing now, serves only to feed some sick need of his.

* Dissociation: Separation or postponement of a feeling that normally would accompany a situation or thought. It is the main defense mechanism** listed for DID.
**SOME FREUDIAN DEFENSE MECHANISMS (Jim LaMattery seems to display these)
- Denial: An ego defense mechanism that operates unconsciously to resolve emotional conflict, and to reduce anxiety by refusing to perceive the more unpleasant aspects of external reality;
- Intellectualization (isolation): Concentrating on the intellectual components of the situations as to distance oneself from the anxiety provoking emotions associated with these situations;
- Projection: Attributing to others, oneís own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety in the way that it allows the expression of the impulse or desire without letting the ego recognize it;
- Rationalization: The process of constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process;
- Repression: The process of pulling thoughts into the unconscious and preventing painful or dangerous thoughts from entering consciousness;
- Dissociation: Separation or postponement of a feeling that normally would accompany a situation or thought.
- Idealization: Form of denial in which the object of attention is presented as "all good" masking true negative feelings towards the other.
- Isolation: Inability to simultaneously experience the cognitive and affective components of a situation.
- Substitution: When a person replaces one feeling or emotion for another.
***Iatrogenesis: a condition brought on by medical practitioners; almost exclusively used to refer to the causation of a state of ill health or adverse effect or complication caused by or resulting from medical treatment itself; it can be the result of actions by medical professionals such as psychologists, therapists, pharmacists, nurses, dentists, etc.

Jim LaMattery pushes on about DID.
Immediate need
Posted by Jim on May 22, 2006 at 19:36:34
For those who don't agree with me that the most immediate need is talking about the "why" in the suicides that we are experiencing, I suggest you go to this link:
http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=16&ID=3649
It is an article posted by "Tommy Gunn." Now, it may be a real or unreal cry for help. But what if someone around him were to get a professional to rule out the possibility of Dissociative disorder and make sure this person has stabilized. Then appropriate trauma work could be done, and then maybe the option of suicide for this person would be appropriately replaced with life-saving maintenance of his/her immediate stress. What I'm reading in the literature is that techniques can be learned with which to deal with the triggers of the stress. Persons who get triggered easily either don't have good maintenance techniques, or are not aware that employing them can help deal with the stress. Interestingly enough, the literature also implies that almost any insignificant event can trigger someone suffering from the disorder.



The response is what anyone could expect:
immediate need my ass
Posted by excog on May 23, 2006 at 02:19:45
Trying to get an apology from Jim LaMattery is like trying to get a Coke from a machine that only sells root beer.
Look, the guy is sick. I mean only a sick person behaves like that. At least the ones who die, who are in pain, are the ones who FEEL and REALIZE what's fucked up. They are very human in that respect.
Jim LaMattery exhibits signs of some serious personality disorders, and his dealings with the numerous people he has burned should suggest caution in treating him like a 'normal' person. You can expect 'normal' people to apologize when they insult a family who just lost one of their members. In fact you can expect normal people not to say or do the stuff Jim LaMattery does when memorials take place.
Do him a favor and let him be. He will never get the psychiatric attention he so badly needs because he thinks he is perfectly fine. Everybody else has a problem, and DID is now lurking everywhere. I am the next poster to be "diagnosed," I suspect.
I will not post again because Jim LaMattery has a burning, all encompassing, driving need to feel the center of attention. When people die he seems to love taking center stage calling the shots telling everyone what the problem and need du jour is...some sort of glamour leech if I may say, that gets activated when blood spills. (I am sure a wannabe writer like him who plays Dick Tracy at funerals will appreciate the sense of aesthetics of my writing style.)
I really would like for other posters to realize how sick this poor speci-man is when they start requiring from him apologies that he is not even able to comprehend. I would say pity the weak, as only truly strong people can acknowledge their faults or their madness...and pity the devoid of humanness and understanding. It is a spectacle to say the least.
If he goes too far, the coordinators can always click a button as they have had to do in the past.
And may the ones who can't be hurt ANY MORE rest in peace, as this is the "immediate need" right now.

excog is spot on
Posted by wow on May 23, 2006 at 00:26:26
In Reply to: immediate need my ass posted by excog on May 22, 2006 at 23:00:55
You say what I feel, and you say it so well, so eloquently. JLM is very very dangerous. He is not going to change, so stay out of his way. In the UK, he could have an ASBO served on him ( AntiSocial Behavior Order) and he would have ot be quiet. Cna the coordinators ban him again? He seems to create havoc wherever he goes. I think that the further harm he has inflicted on the [G]s is outrageous, and that he has used this forum to do so is lamentable. I'm almost starting to feel sorry for the Interfaith people, who have agreed to work with him. Should someone warn them of the cost of associating with JLM?

DID making you (not) do it?
Posted by PISSED OFF on May 22, 2006 at 19:54:37
In Reply to: Immediate need posted by Jim on May 22, 2006 at 19:36:34
Is your DID responsible for your refusal to make a simple acknowledgement that you got it wrong and you went too far? Is DID responsible for making you unashamedly continue talking about DID? Are you [dissociating] yourself from the need to face your mistake, apologize and retract your statements? Or is that plain old bull-headed Jim who never apologizes?

Re: DID making you (not) do it?
Posted by Q. Ree-asli on May 22, 2006 at 20:49:55
In Reply to: DID making you (not) do it? posted by PISSED OFF on May 22, 2006 at 19:54:37
The protagonist of Jim's magma opus is named Bul.

Re: Immediate need
Posted by Observer on May 22, 2006 at 20:17:57
In Reply to: Immediate need posted by Jim on May 22, 2006 at 19:36:34
Jim, if you feel it's such an immediate need then go over to MovingOn & post your advice there. I read the cry for help & the posts by Tommy Gunn's peers & they seem to be on top of the situation & counseling him as best they can. If you want to diagnose him as a DID sufferer, why not do it on MovingOn? Or have you been banned from posting there?
I personally will not join such a discussion, either here or there. It comes across as ill-advised & pompous for us as FGs, who aren't even medical doctors or health care professions, to 'diagnose' what we think are SGs' problems. If offering your unsolicited advice is such an issue for you that you can't let it rest, then start a discussion on your own board.

question for Jim Lamattery
Posted by Swede on May 23, 2006 at 03:13:05
In Reply to: immediate need my ass posted by excog on May 23, 2006 at 02:19:45
Dear Jim Lamattery, When you choose to show such bad character, how can it help your work? Surely it is important to have credibility? The whole world can see that you are made of. If only a simple apology you are incapable of giving when you are clearly wrong, people will suspect your agenda when you try to explain about the TFI crimes. TFI can say you are a unbending individual who doesnt understand apologies and they will have a point. Just to look at these posts from you. What do you think?

There is another whole string where Jim LaMattery brings up the issue of DID repeatedly, and the thread ends with this:
Re: Oh no you DID-n't!
Posted by Jim LaMattery on May 22, 2006 at 18:32:37
In Reply to: Oh no you DID-n't! posted by orient express on May 22, 2006 at 17:24:02
If you are familiar with DID, what would you say is a commonality between Ricky, Charles, and other SGAs that you know suffered repeated abuse that fit the diagnosis of the disorder? Would you content that they do not or did not have DID? Do you have an idea of why the murders and suicides? These are my central questions at this time because they seem the most immediate. Preventing another suicide seems more important to me than exposing another leader of TFI. Both may go hand in hand. Another young man has taken his life and I believe that now more than ever is an appropriate time to ask why.

DID doesn't do it
Posted by PISSED OFF on May 22, 2006 at 18:46:07
In Reply to: Re: Oh no you DID-n't! posted by Jim LaMattery on May 22, 2006 at 18:32:37
Priorities! Talking about DID is diddley-doo. The central question at this time should be when you are going to apologize for your blunder of insulting the [G] family. Just because you choose to ignore the posts and talk about DID does not make the problem go away. DID doesn't do it. Preventing the [G] family from suffering another minute from your unretracted unqualified and uniformed comments is more important than your pet theory and self-determined crusade on how to save lives. No Jim, now that another young man has taken his life in trying to relieve his pain, you should be asking why you are causing more pain to his family. Now more than ever. Fuck that pet theory of yours, we're not asking about whether DID made them do it more, than why you're so thick-headed you won't admit you were wrong and apologize.

Re: DID doesn't do it.
Posted by susie on May 24, 2006 at 01:28:07
In Reply to: DID doesn't do it. posted by PISSED OFF on May 22, 2006 at 18:46:07

I'm extremely dubious about this whole DID thing. I know it is a legitimate syndrome but it seems to me that it is not as common as Jim may be touting.
It was previously referred to as Multiple Personality Disorder which was doubted by many specialists to be an existing complaint.
I'm sure DID exists but it seems to me it is an very extreme outcome due to repeated and SERIOUS childhood abuse usually before the age of nine.
Now we all know that there have been serious child abuse in the Family but that doesn't mean that every kid that was in the Family now suffers from DID which is what Jim would have us believe.
Don't get me wrong, some SG's may be suffering from DID and other problems such as (I think more commonly) PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder but lets leave diagnoses to the professionals.
Also I would like to publicly say that losing a member of your family to suicide or accidental overdose is not something to be laying blame about. That poor family needs all the love and support possible. To bury your child is one of the saddest things a parent can do so leave aside the judgements Jim and let these poor people grieve in peace!

Finally, this one from Farmer:
What's the matter with you, Jim materia/mater???
Posted by Farmer on May 23, 2006 at 11:51:41
In Reply to: In Memory of [DG] posted by Jim LaMattery on May 21, 2006 at 21:51:22
Good that you go to funerals.I bet it's easier for you, to arrive at the mentioned memorials, than for them, who have to fly all the way in from [...].Good to be better than others!?!How come I always had the inkling, that you're very pushy,pretty insensitive & proud person, even though with a very big measure of self-esteem, good drive for justice etc...but man, you're in the wrong movie, playing the wrong part.
Be not only authentic, but also kind..see your own lacks for a change...let's hope, you're not earning your salt & butter by giving advise to people. And yeah, please play the what's in a name game, TF loves that...but not only them...nomen est omen.What's the mattery with you?