Maura Murray

Tang,
Obviously, the lobotomy and Chiefs selfless decision to strangle you, did nothing to enhance your personality. I find you to be more of a Steinbeck's Johnny Bear type of character, An Idiot Savant, who exists strictly as a mimic.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I stand by mine, which is that threatening JWB or anyone else with physical violence is wrong - whether I like them or not. It becomes even more cruel, in my opinion, to physically threaten someone who you believe is mentally ill. When I first came here Snowy badgered me, accused me of being someone I wasn't, until I finally got sick of it and outed myself on this thread, and she is once again annoying me on this thread right now. Am I justified in relatiating by heading over to her place and popping her one? Posting threats against her? Not that I would ever do that; just wondering where you draw the line. Perhaps a better idea for me to just ignore her posts? I think that would be the civil thing to do. JWB's annoying, badgering, taunting or cyber bullying, or whatever you want to call it, does not justify threatening him with physical violence. That's my opinion and I stand by it. If you all want to call me a hypocrite or enabler, or in Snowy's case claim to waste precious time and blame me for having wasted it, knock yourselves out. I'm off to enjoy a nice Sunday with my family.

to clarify, you came into the conversation as "amy researches".

you were eager to outreach and solicit friendship and gathering via Topix, and hid nothing about yourself in Topix conversation ; you shared your photo, your occupation and freely offered additional personal information. you stated you did so on all of the blogs your frequented, in spite of being warned.

simultaneously, you had already identified yourself to the "newbies", and had personal, offline contact with them.

coincidentally, "Amy" as Quija preceded you on Topix, the 21Forum, and the original MMM forum by many years; AMY/Quija * RESEARCHED * extensively about MM's disappearance for a number of years, until she got disgusted and left.

Beagle consistently appeared as multi-monikered, and so quite naturally, having given "Amy"/Quija a REALLY hard time....taunting her, and making accusations about her.....it wasn't a surprise that he might have transformed himself, once again, by signing on as "amy researches"...from Chicago.

blame him. or blame yourself. i don't accept your blame for choices you've made specific to your identity.

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a good friend at the Journal opinion paper in Bradford Vt and she told me that she knows of a co worker that posts on this forum. She told me that this person lives on BHR.
You asked me to come out with it so that is what I know so Far. I also know names but will not go that route unless provoked more.
you asked me to spill it so I did so don't say I called anyone out. You asked and you got. You don't ask and you don't harrass then you don't get.
- you can infer whomever you wish that I am talking about that is up to you.

Wow thats pretty sad that you would give names and locations of posters because you dont like what they say. I thought you were here because you cared about a missing person? I know we have not always agreed but Iam asking you as a family member of Mauras not to put the names and locations of posters out on a public forum.

Amy,

I'm not looking to fight with you, however, your position is indeed one of hypocrisy inmho.
To suggest that being cyberstalked and threatened by someone who is clearly having mental issues is less of a physical threat than being invited to an ass whipping by someone is naive and and very real proof that you are uneducated in these matters. I respect the fact that you preface most of your posts with the disclaimer inmho, however, your Humble opinion is strictly that. In the real world this particular issue has been through the courts of all of the states in the union and precedent has been set in every state. It is there in the statutes and I recommend you visit those statutes as they pertain to whatever state you reside in. Cyber bullying is most certainly a form of physical threat and a very scary one for the person who is being bullied as there is a mental intimidation factor not common in street or real world bullying, ie, the ability to actually know what your bully looks like.
Listen, My family is full of people that think love, understanding and hugs will resolve all of the worlds issues. I'm thankful to have sweet compassionate people in my life, but, the fact is, when the wolf is around the sheep tend to flock up and expose their flanks. God bless them, they usually put babies and old Ewes in the center, but A good sheep dog knows that to compassionately protect his flock, a good offense is the best defense.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
WHY do you feel the need. Are you the topix teacher and knoiwer of all. I do not think so.
your wires are crossed. I don't think You even remember meeting Me, or do you?

Thank you for finally outing yourself, after telling us we were wrong.

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for finally outing yourself, after telling us we were wrong.

You people are so easy.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
You people are so easy.

Very few fell for your charade. So don't go giving yourself a pat on the back.

Ridiculous wrote:

Amy,
I'm not looking to fight with you, however, your position is indeed one of hypocrisy inmho.
To suggest that being cyberstalked and threatened by someone who is clearly having mental issues is less of a physical threat than being invited to an ass whipping by someone is naive and and very real proof that you are uneducated in these matters. I respect the fact that you preface most of your posts with the disclaimer inmho, however, your Humble opinion is strictly that. In the real world this particular issue has been through the courts of all of the states in the union and precedent has been set in every state. It is there in the statutes and I recommend you visit those statutes as they pertain to whatever state you reside in. Cyber bullying is most certainly a form of physical threat and a very scary one for the person who is being bullied as there is a mental intimidation factor not common in street or real world bullying, ie, the ability to actually know what your bully looks like.
Listen, My family is full of people that think love, understanding and hugs will resolve all of the worlds issues. I'm thankful to have sweet compassionate people in my life, but, the fact is, when the wolf is around the sheep tend to flock up and expose their flanks. God bless them, they usually put babies and old Ewes in the center, but A good sheep dog knows that to compassionately protect his flock, a good offense is the best defense.

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I stand by mine, which is that threatening JWB or anyone else with physical violence is wrong - whether I like them or not." - Amy

"JWB's annoying, badgering, taunting or cyber bullying, or whatever you want to call it, does not justify threatening him with physical violence. That's my opinion and I stand by it." - Amy
********

as a point of debate, i return to the word "enabler".

as she acknowledges that JWB has annoyed, badgered, taunted, cyber bullied and threatened (i presume, to out posters), she draws the line at the threat of physical violence.

i draw the line at cyber bullying and have previously reported it to the police. it is a matter of record.

in terms of hypocrisy, it was ok for someone to threaten Beagle by suggesting he'd be tortured with bamboo shoots in response to his youtube sensations, but those threats of physical violence were deemed acceptable and forgiven, and the person was graciously welcomed back to the fold by his issuing an apology.

there seems to be a process in choosing which bad behavior is defensible, depending on the level of friendship and association.

i didn't know God was speaking directly to us by making these selective judgements on Topix.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
in terms of hypocrisy, it was ok for someone to threaten Beagle by suggesting he'd be tortured with bamboo shoots in response to his youtube sensations, but those threats of physical violence were deemed acceptable and forgiven, and the person was graciously welcomed back to the fold by his issuing an apology.
there seems to be a process in choosing which bad behavior is defensible, depending on the level of friendship and association.
i didn't know God was speaking directly to us by making these selective judgements on Topix.

So, will this ever die out?? Idk what ive done to you, or what you think Ive said to you, as in the last time saying "not taking the bait" when there wasnt any.. I have been very nice to you & you had been nice to me..what did I do all of a sudden to change that back around??

If you thought I was "trying to bait you" im sorry.. I just didnt understand & honestly there was no bait, no intentions of an argument, nothing at all as I was responding to you in an honest fashion..

Just checking in to see if Maura has been found yet. The girl who disappeared, if anyone remembers her.

hannah_b wrote:

Just checking in to see if Maura has been found yet. The girl who disappeared, if anyone remembers her.

I do

Emmett Dove wrote:

<quoted text>
So, will this ever die out?? Idk what ive done to you, or what you think Ive said to you, as in the last time saying "not taking the bait" when there wasnt any.. I have been very nice to you & you had been nice to me..what did I do all of a sudden to change that back around??
If you thought I was "trying to bait you" im sorry.. I just didnt understand & honestly there was no bait, no intentions of an argument, nothing at all as I was responding to you in an honest fashion..

there is no problem between us, Emmett, and i have no issue with you. i should not have mentioned the Beagle thing again, except i was trying to make a point. i'm done with the whole conversation....i'm knocking myself out trying to reason with people who don't want to listen or hear.
i have no issues with Maruchan, either, and agree with what he/she has been posting.
it just gets ugly....and silly....all at once.
so i extend an apology to you for any appearance of animosity. there is none coming from me to you.

Emmett,

Good to see you back!

@ Snowy - Thanks.. I fully understand the point you were trying to make, I just replied a lil to quick without thinking.. Its all good :-)

@ Ridiculous - Thanks bro! Just been busy working the sacraments at church & promised myself not to try & argue on the net in 2013 :)

@ Hannah - Yes, thats what I asked about last night.. Said there was some news on Renners, I checked it but all I seen was him asking a guy to return a call from years prior..

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
You people are so easy.

That's what one might think if they are arrogant enough to think that changing their name will fool everybody into thinkin they are someone else. You were the one that was easy...to recognize.
I do understand though why you would want to rid yourself of Columbo as a moniker.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I stand by mine, which is that threatening JWB or anyone else with physical violence is wrong - whether I like them or not. It becomes even more cruel, in my opinion, to physically threaten someone who you believe is mentally ill. When I first came here Snowy badgered me, accused me of being someone I wasn't, until I finally got sick of it and outed myself on this thread, and she is once again annoying me on this thread right now. Am I justified in relatiating by heading over to her place and popping her one? Posting threats against her? Not that I would ever do that; just wondering where you draw the line. Perhaps a better idea for me to just ignore her posts? I think that would be the civil thing to do. JWB's annoying, badgering, taunting or cyber bullying, or whatever you want to call it, does not justify threatening him with physical violence. That's my opinion and I stand by it. If you all want to call me a hypocrite or enabler, or in Snowy's case claim to waste precious time and blame me for having wasted it, knock yourselves out. I'm off to enjoy a nice Sunday with my family.

Amy I think what is upsetting is that you are defending someone that has been trying for months and likely years to find out where I live. He seems to be trying very hard lately and even involving other people. What do you think he wants to know this for? Why is he trying to hard and for so long? I've asked him why he wants to know so badly but he hasn't answered. What do you think might happen when he does find out where I am? Any ideas because I've got a few.
You have also stated to me that you have felt so fearful of this person and the many weird emails you were being sent that it actually made you ill. You know exactly how dangerous this can get and yet you have made the decision to defend this person.
And Amy no one badgered you to out yourself here. When you started posting you had your picture on display and were completely open about who you were, where you lived and even where you worked.
I PM'd you thinking that you didn't know how dangerous it was to do that and explained that you never know who you are replying to. You told me that you have been in several forums and have always been open with who you are.
Remember the disturbing calls to your workplace and the disturbing emails you told us about? But just a couple of days ago I saw you put your e-mail addy on this forum for someone and everyone to see. I say this with no ill intent but the only one outing you is you. This will be my last post about this. You of course are free to defend who you wish to. We all must do what we have to do.

I wonder who everyone will pick on tomorrow?

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
to repeat, in a constructive way, oo00oo, which, by the way, is a clever and respected moniker by its constancy, findmaura is late to the Kenney/McKay/Floyd discussion and study.
the very active event and follow-up concluded a number of years ago. most everything she reads on a blog and one volume of mostly fiction has been discussed, witnessed, dissected and, like MM's disappearance, the subject has been tainted by lies of omission and skewed facts.
the idea that McKay mjght have had something to do with MM's disappeasance is yet another red herring.
the takeaway from reading articles in the media, blogs, and participating in discussion boards, imo, is that one must be discerning, not gullible.
and, as in life, there is an advantage to being authentic, present, and responsible to oneself and others.
claims made about others without the ability to provide proof are irresponsible and reflect on one's poor judgement to pass along misinformation and gossip.

Please provide facts to back-up your insistance that its not possible?And whats up with your bruised face photos on the internet in regard to your Mckay connection?I find it curious that you fly off the handle every time I broach the subject.

i regret that you are mistaken on both counts.

i am sorry not to be able to help you find Maura in the places you are looking; or anywhere, for that matter.
i didn't know McKay. did you?

if someone defends the honor of another, does that mean they are related?
are you related to Maura Murray? how so?

why does Maura's eye appear to be bruised in the online police mugshot?
how is this related to her disappearance?

Find Maura seems to think that everyone who disagrees with her is related to Mckay in some way. Interesting obsession. Find Maura may I ask; Do you know the muffin man?