In a statement released by, or read by, presumably Megan (Liana’s social media manager) and co-authored by Megan and Liana Kerzner, as I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong!) there is a passage I find to be of utmost relevance to a situation that I, and others, have found themselves in if, and when, they mention Liana in reference to anything. The paragraph in the statement outlines a highly concerning pattern of behavior, or, at least, highly concerning to me, someone innocent of criminally stalking anyone, or even colloquially stalking anyone by any reasonable standard.
Why would someone think I’m a “stalker” of any kind?
Because Liana Kerzner, as well as a couple of her pseudo-associates, for various reasons describe me as such. I don’t believe this is an effort done in concert, but individual reactions to my consistent behavior across conflicts in my life. They are not empty descriptions, but, rather, exaggerated interpretations (in my opinion) of my actions.
What they’re referring to is the following behavior, to be clear:
- Looking at their public social media posts that are available to anyone and everyone without having to friend them or pass through some other gateway;
- Taking screenshots, or recordings, of such posts, re-publishing those screenshots in my own space with [extensive] commentary, which is both public participation and easily falls under fair use;
- Re-publishing screenshots and other information given to me by friends, and other individuals, concerning activities of Liana and associates, that my friends determined I would be interested in, consisting primarily of her Patreon content and her Discord server.
- I argue her Discord server is not private, simply paywalled, which doesn’t necessarily make it private. Despite the presence of vetting and “security” protocols, not only have I been able to obtain extensive records spanning back 16 months and more, but others with increasingly distant relevance have, as well. A prime example of this is the Twitter user @Ellronn286733 posting a perfectly sized and curated screenshot of Liana Kerzner herself discussing intimate details I had shared with her in confidence. These statements were not only bizarrely mocking, but also highly inaccurate. These quite old messages, already known by me to exist, were in the hands of a seemingly random account at the drop of a hat, a ‘random’ troll to me with no substantial connection to anything involving me. In my estimation, that indicates a level of public access that is believed, and asserted, by Kerzner and her community to not be possible.
- In the end, a major point of all of this exposition is to show that I’m not in her digital ‘space.’ Other people are, sure, but I’m not. And I don’t personally tell them to do anything. I can’t be considered to be “stalking” simply because someone else does it of their own free will. That’s not my problem, nor my responsibility.
- Responding to one post with a non-blocked [yet] account on the decentralized network of social media accounts using the
atprotonetwork a year after it was posted, telling me to get fucked, to which I said, “… no thanks, how about you first.”; - “Doxxing” individuals by using their ‘in-real-life’ full names, or by posting their ‘in-real-life’ social media account profiles (also publicly accessible by anyone) in connection with accounts that had not been associated with that identity before, but which is factually connected (as already determined by me). And I do check to make sure it is factual, even if it doesn’t live up to Liana’s standards.
- Contacting one third-party after the fact when Liana gave a talk at a Canadian mental health event about mental health as a professional self-assigned peer counselor and radio host. And the sequence matters: I have written previously that I had no intention of preventing anything already set to happen, or change anyone’s mind on decisions already made as that can be interpreted as professional sabotage, especially when Liana consistently paints all of my reasonable concerns as unfounded and capricious “belly-aching” for being rejected, and more. When I did contact them publicly, and commented publicly on the situation, it was to inform them of the information that was publicly available on my website, and to encourage them to consider what was written sans Liana’s overbearing interpretation first, and then decide if Liana’s interpretation fit. I did not seek any answer or judgment.
Some may see that as stalking, and, perhaps, in a superficial sense, it is. However, the connotations that are associated with unclarified uses of the word “stalker” are anything but light. I argue it is not by use of this scenario as an illustration:
Say someone reasonably took out an order of protection on me (which has never happened, by the way). This order says that I have to refrain from contacting them, being in the same physical space as them, and dealing with them in any way. All well and good. This individual takes out an ad on a billboard that says whatever they want, the content is irrelevant. This billboard lies directly in my path that I take every day to get to work, which I use because it is the most efficient. Stalking involves the notion that I’m going above and beyond legal activity to be in contact with this person, and so, by the usage of the individuals above, I’d have to take a different route to work in order to not infringe on the privacy of the individual who placed a billboard ad out in public view. By my usage, this is ridiculous, because the public nature isn’t one of intent, but one of consent. Their intentions may be for me to not see it, to have to avoid it, but by taking out a public ad the consent is that the public, including me, can see it. You can’t be publicly private, or privately public, without descending into democratized information control and censorship.
Now that the term “stalker” has been defined, both in how I use it, and how Liana and other detractors of mine use it, let’s move to the substance of this information post:
Liana most likely talking about you, a potential “stalker,” or one already, who knows.
The paragraph in this statement, of which I’ve uploaded a copy I have been given at the end of this post, reads as follows:
Another possibly significant point is that Liana disclosed to Timely Feasts that Liana has a stalker- a woman who has been stalking her for over twelve years, who files false complaints and takes out false online personas to accuse Liana of things she did not do. This woman has been arrested, and has abused animals. Liana provided details of the stalker’s behaviour.
Despite this, Paul presented Liana with a clearly phony complaint that was sent to the Starfall ball that was apparently forwarded from Autumn. Not only did this message fat shame Liana, but it was exactly the sort of behaviour that Liana described the stalker did. Liana was diagnosed with PTSD after going to the police regarding this stalker over a decade ago. To be confronted with this fake complaint as if being accused of something was retraumatizing, and Liana told Paul repeatedly that she was experiencing PTSD symptoms after the Edmonton Starfall
Liana has described both me, and my husband Maus (as I refer to him), as “stalkers” in many previous conversations across many public channels: her Patreon, her YouTube, her Twitter/BlueSky accounts, and her Discord. Excluding Discord, she does not name us directly, but, as I’ve argued and pointed out extensively, with documentation, she does not need to name us for much of her audience to know who she’s talking about. On Discord she has actively linked my first name (which is my real legal given name) to the cancellation of BOSSFIGHT: Song of Sparklemuffin, the “cutesy” serial-killer-reminiscent moniker The Gruesome Twosome, and to my husband (“the spouse”) which, well, if you’re using my first name, a former member of the Discord server, “the spouse’s” name is implicit: Maus Merryjest, also a former member of the Discord server, collaborator, and co-host.
At the time this was occurring between Liana, Megan, Paul, and Autumn of Timely Feasts, I had not contacted anyone. The concern or claim isn’t that Liana told any of them anything about me. I have to be clear here as Liana, and others, have a tendency to highly cherry-pick, misinterpret, and re-narrativize what I write with motivations I’ve never expressed, or had, without providing any clear means of obtaining further context, something I strive to not do on both fronts.
The concern is that, now, after all that has transpired after 16 months of Liana Kerzner doubling down on falsehoods, all of which I confidently argue constitute a smear campaign involving probable lies and deceptions, definite deflections and excuses, mental health stigma, homophobia, and abuses of social-narrative involving a vulnerable disabled adult (me), all of which stem from my reaction to a video accomplishing all but one of those (homophobia) where Kerzner cancelled a game development project involving my husband (not me), Liana has announced to her audience that I’m a “known commodity” as a “stalker,” and that people “ignore” me by my own actions.
It’s the combination of “known,” “stalker,” and “ignore,” that disturbs me in that announcement, especially in the light of this document/script. I do not know where this was presumably read on camera, but I do know this script draft is legitimate. How can I be “known,” and “ignored,” unless Liana is telling people about me as a “stalker”?
I believe I can reasonably expect, then, that Liana is discussing my situation, complete with all the falsehoods, excuses, constant “mis-rememberings,” “misunderstandings,” and skewed interpretations (a polite way of saying she overlays motivations, feelings, and psychological complexes over me in the eyes of the receiver) that have always accompanied such, with every individual she collaborates with, warning them of a caricature that doesn’t exist, but which is assigned to my very real existence.
And, if true, this constitutes active defamation, regardless of whether I pursue it or not, which, at this moment, I am unable to do so.
Why defamation?
Liana would presumably be telling them any of the following, all of which she has claimed, said, or done by my interpretation and by the facts that I know are true, beginning with the most egregious:
- That I, and/or my husband Maus, are actively sending her “nastygrams,” i.e. harassing, vitriolic, hateful messages that even cross the line into death threats by invoking what happened with Charlie Kirk. This is false.
- I have repeatedly stated that I know someone to be impersonating me and my husband as a fact. I even know the identity of the person most likely to be engaging in this impersonation and have written about him: Louis Michael Cseke. My husband and I have attempted, with great effort and stubbornness, to show others who the most likely culprits are, and to encourage people to report those messages to the police and send Maus copies so that we can work towards an end of this abusive harassment campaign affecting everyone (including us). These appeals have fallen on deaf ears.
- That I am or was, at best, a Kiwi Farmer who became actively involved with the Kiwi Farms online “troll” forum, and engaged in Kiwi Farm-like behavior as an “Internet-sleuth,” including posting to Kiwi Farms while I was friends with her. This is false. I never posted to Kiwi Farms while I was friends with Liana, and I never engaged in Kiwi Farm-like behavior both on the forum, and otherwise, as I’m not an Internet troll. The truth is I was featured on Kiwi Farms as a potential side-“lolcow” target by her associate at the time Giancarlo Vanzzini under the username Shaneequa in the thread of her other associate Jessica Bryce Routhier (going under the moniker of “Poppy Diabolique”) for simply being associated with Liana (not Jessica). That’s why I was even aware of the forum, and interested in what they said about me. After my friendship with Liana ended, I did post to Kiwi Farms 3 times, all in complete defense, and was summarily permanently banned after the owner, Joshua Moon, determined I “was a pedophile.” Also false. I do not participate in anything Kiwi Farms related. I am not a troll. I also don’t “play Internet-sleuth,” and I don’t rely on Kiwi Farms to verify any factual information I do know, whether Liana decides I know it or not. I also did not taunt or knowingly “provoke” Kiwi Farms users. I didn’t even mention the name of the site until much later after the cancellation. Liana, however, did use the name of the site, defended me (beyond anything I ever asked, never demanded), and, in response to me informing her of what was happening on Kiwi Farms wrote, “Should I taunt them?” I never answered this question. Liana arguably made the Kiwi Farms situation worse for me by featuring it so broadly on her social media, which, I personally find very odd. Every character-assassinating claim on this front is false.
- That I was involved in a significant manner with the development of her crowdfunded project BOSSFIGHT: Song of Sparklemuffin;
- that she confronted me several times about my public behavior, indicating I was in some way aware that my behavior was relevant and that modulation was desired; and,
- that Maus and I are so deeply disappointed, embarrassed, and disturbed by the cancellation that we are engaging in a defamatory “hate” campaign. All of these are false.
- That I unprofessionally cancelled her services from my hosting company that she paid for as a Lifetime Package. This is false. Access to her package remains. What happened in reality is that I was personally hosting two of her other sites as a favor, for free. This was being done personally, and they were technically my packages that I was paying for, not hers. After she left my hosting, which she still has access to what she paid for, I put up notices on one of her domains (since I knew she would not suffer any contact from me or my husband) telling her how to transfer her e-mail information found in her DNS (which are public records) to her new service. There was no implied threat of service termination in that message, of which I have records. I believe now that there should have been, because Liana didn’t appear to do anything to change her nameserver or her MX records to transfer. Once screenshots from her arguably public Discord surfaced on social media, ones which I already was aware of and had personally verified, where Liana told others, falsely, that the Lifetime Package she purchased was not functional and without refund (this contract was explicitly non-refundable) I shut down the two packages that were mine to shut down, announcing that I’d done so, personally, on social media in response to this publication of this false accusation. The fact Liana can’t keep the records straight is not my problem. The fact that what she says is false regarding that situation is, and I am stating once again that her representation is completely false. I have stated elsewhere that I am willing to now make an exception and refund everything she ever paid to us. We do not want it, truthfully, nor do we need it as she has made it seem.
- That she sufficiently anonymized us in her highly professional statement (this is Liana’s claim) and that we inserted ourselves, making any negative feedback or consequences of our situation solely on us. This is factually untrue. What Liana Kerzner arguably did is called indexical targeting, and it objectively worked. If she was responsible and had thoroughly anonymized the individuals involved, what occurred afterward would not have occurred and I, particularly, would not have had any reason to identify myself, which I did in order to provide a counter narrative. What Liana Kerzner often accomplishes with her “good faith” anonymization is foster the following situation: her audience is aware of who she’s talking about through a sitcom-like narrative continuity despite the superficial contents being unidentifiable. However, mostly on YouTube, with the slightest effort, most anyone can determine who she’s talking about most of the time. In fact, others will often ask the target if she is talking about them, which, if she’s not referencing anyone through inference, how does that happen? But, ultimately, if the target says anything about it, particularly in contradiction to what Liana has said, then, their objection is completely on them and any negative effects of her mention, or their rebuttal, are thus their responsibility. Her claim of sufficient anonymity is false, and I’ll prove it, as well, the entire pattern of behavior is a farcical travesty.
- That I wrote a blog post whose primary topic was a sexual encounter with another child as a child, and that I portrayed it in a highly negative, abusive light where the other child was my victim, all in an effort to gain attention or notoriety, and that this negatively affected her project and linked her name to someone who feigned confusion at the response and who may, in fact, have pedophilic interests and/or engage with pedophilic content. All of this is profoundly false.
- To be clear, I did not even write that scenario. Liana should be very aware of exactly what I wrote as we discussed it at length in our Telegram exchanges, and exactly why I was upset at the false narrative being read into, i.e. manufactured, on Kiwi Farms. I never mentioned a specific event, let alone another person or victim, and that was one very short paragraph in a post primarily about my future projects and frustration with my present situation and perceived identity. The post wasn’t “about” that scenario I didn’t write.
- I was not confused at any point. I didn’t feign confusion. I have since apologized three separate times publicly for the mistake of writing that paragraph in such a distasteful way, and that it wasn’t my intent to truly disturb or traumatize anyone and that I would not write something like that again, no excuses.
- I have not expanded on the situation, which Liana has disclosed on her Discord in an effort to mock the notion that it was even traumatic, even though the scenario she describes didn’t actually happen. The events and dynamics she describes are inaccurate and paint an entirely different situation. I have no plans to ever talk about that aspect of my life publicly moving forward.
- That I have hindered or sabotaged her choice of career, which, if she’s telling people this as a precaution, is implicit. I have not contacted anyone except that one third-party nor have I sought out every corner of the Internet to publish my concerns and grievances, unlike other detractors past. I feel no need to. However, take note of the first item: if a message not easily attributed to the stalker she describes in those paragraphs, being Emily Schooley aka “Stalker-Chan,” then, of course, now, the most likely other suspect would be my husband and myself. After all, we allegedly sent her a veiled Charlie Kirk-invoking death threat, and, according to her Discord, evidence it’s us.
- On that note, I can easily explain whatever “evidence” the impersonator has provided to Liana to encourage her to come to this conclusion. I don’t know what it is specifically, but Liana has demonstrated, twice, that things that have been published and available on my website and social media (when I was using it) ending up other places on the web, leads her to believe I’m somehow involved in its dissemination. That I work with a shadowy network of stalkers and haters, coordinating publication against her. This is summarily false and beyond belief, given that all other detractors want nothing to do with me in a very public way. The feeling is mutual. This leads me to believe she is either not aware of what’s on my site or social media, from which the impersonator has demonstrably reproduced verbatim content, or she is aware but reaches the conclusion publicly regardless. The conclusions she reaches are not the objective facts. Her conclusions, and subsequent claims, are false.
- In terms of my publication having an effect on her choice of career, I reasonably argue that 1) I have a right to publish what I’ve published, using her name, as everything I’ve published is factual 2) Liana is not entitled to good SEO, good press, or my silence, despite behaving as if she is. I claim the latter due to the multiple letters and messages without prejudice we’ve received from Dr. Mark Bourrie, her counsel stating that we are violating Liana’s civil rights (making this a civil case) and in order to not do that we must essentially remove everything we’ve ever published regarding Liana, using her name, from the Internet. I live in the United States, have no interest in the laws of Canada, and everything I write is factual or clearly delineated as my sole opinion, and so, I’ve concluded, after Dr. Bourrie’s highly unprofessional, perhaps unethical correspondence (in my opinion alone), that I need not fulfill any of Liana’s demands by proxy. What’s true is that Liana is arguably intimidating me with her seemingly famous media critic lawyer as she has already admitted to her Discord audience that what I’m doing is not illegal in the United States. Left unsaid is the fact that this indicates any judgment will most likely not be enforced in my jurisdiction, making the letters pointless. This is an effort to stifle my free expression and limit my public participation on personal grounds.
- That the approximately five year ‘in-real-life’ relationship, one I considered a close friendship, was littered with potentially abusive conflict, characterized by particularly immature, aggressive, self-involved, and nonsensical hyperlexical indignation. This is false.
- That I’m a self-loathing “buzzsaw of lunacy” who was seeking expectant “head pats” from a red-headed female, and when not receiving these, or affirmation that I was a “good person,” at best, or “not a bad person” at worst, my true nature revealed itself. This nature is rife with misogyny and transphobia as evidenced by my unreasonably harsh treatment of her and her friends, perhaps even the worst of all of my behavior towards anyone. All of this is false, and not backed up by the facts; facts Liana Kerzner may not know and which she is deeply irresponsible in assuming she does.
- That I have an “unacceptable lack of impulse-control” which is a highly coded and misleading way to describe my behavioral decisions, particularly online, that don’t line up with what Liana wants or expects anyone who is rational, by her highly subjective standard, to do. This is not a lack of impulse-control, which implies chaos, and thus danger, but rather a failure to live up to Liana’s highly normative standards. My “impulses” consist solely of her assumptions. This type of language is mental health stigmatizing as it employs clinical language to effectively pathologize dissenting social attitudes and behaviors. This, likewise, is false.
- In reality, I explained my attitude, choices, and likely behavior, all of which is pretty predictable and consistent as evidenced over the last 16 months, to Liana both online and in-person at PAX West. At the time Liana expressed approval at best, and unconcerned neutrality at worst. She never expressed direct displeasure, disturbance, or concern regarding who I am and what I do during the entire relationship until our exchange right before the cancellation of the project. Liana has publicly acknowledged this, stating that she guessed Maya Angelou was right, once again, that when “someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time.” This is a very dramatic way to say the following principle of respect: when someone tells you something about themselves, take them at face value until you have a reason not to; don’t disbelieve them simply because you think you know better. Liana has gone to great effort to make her not believing me when I told her what to expect from me somehow still my problem and fault for simply not being what she thinks I should be in the first place. She could have told me that, but she didn’t, and effectively robbed me of choice and autonomy.
- That I attempt to silence her, “try to actively take away [her] free speech rights,” and not allow her to walk away when, according to her and her public advice, I have no control over any of that. Her decisions and actions aren’t under my control nor are they my responsibility. I have not done anything to keep her from talking about me, or the situation, or her interpretation of the situation (often as fact), and this is shown by her bringing it up repeatedly over the last 16 months on whatever platform she decides. So, this claim of direct or indirect censorship is false.
- That there is a pattern of targets anyone can notice that demonstrates my transphobia, misogyny, and other negative behaviors, when, in reality what supposedly shows a pattern is only a slice in a string of interactions involving various people of all backgrounds, creeds, nationalities, races, and sexual expression. Contentious or not, asshole or not, there is zero targeting on my end based on the accidental identity of any one person, especially not on their gender and the color of their hair. Her examples are cherry-picked and easily explained by many of the individuals belonging to the same social circle. Her claims of transphobia, misogyny, and potentially criminal stalking and harassment are false.
- That I have lied about the situation, either directly or through omission. That the things I have written and my own clearly delineated interpretations are lies that I’m knowingly telling. That my husband, Maus, is a habitual liar that lies to me, and everyone, all the time, even allowing her Discord members to entertain the notion that he’s a narcissist and a mythomaniac. I haven’t lied once, and I endeavor to always state the truth as best I know it, and I know a lot. I have only written the truth, and what I have written will stand up under scrutiny, be it public, or by the law. I can back up everything I say, and write, with evidence and reason.
- That I post screenshots and transcripts that do not tell the whole story, or that I edit them, alter them, crop them, or otherwise misrepresent them and the context surrounding them to “make her look bad.” In essence, that my report of the situation, and the evidence I present, is tainted and unreliable by virtue of it coming from me. She has also suggested that having too much evidence and records is an indicator that this was a planned plot from the beginning, which, I don’t know how I could ever pull it off given my alleged unacceptable lack of impulse control. That was sarcasm. All of these claims are false. In fact, I will shortly be publishing the entire context of our relationship just as Liana Kerzner herself has wished someone would do.
- That I have violated her, her lawyer’s, and her community’s privacy. I have not published anything that isn’t arguably public, and I have avoided publishing anything about a third party that is personal and irrelevant. I do not believe in covering up and picking up the moral slack of abusers, however, and so, anyone’s published details are in relation to their involvement with Liana, their comments, and the fact that Liana Kerzner violated my trust and my privacy in the first place. Even according to Liana, I need not forgive her. Since Liana Kerzner decided, as a professional communicator, giving her the maximum benefit of the doubt, to make this a public affair, that’s how I have pursued the matter. These claims, from my point of view, are false.
- I published Mitchell Jura’s information, a former client of Liana’s as Liana Kerzner disclosed it to me in order to demonstrate the breaches of privacy Liana is willing to engage in when personal conflict arises between her and the vulnerable individuals she provides services for, some of which have serious mental health concerns. His “doxxing” rests on Liana’s inability to maintain his private medical history, not on me. I never agreed to keep anything about that secret, as I never worked with Liana.
- I published the public social media profiles of Giancarlo Vanzzini, a client Liana Kerzner referred to my husband for creative consultation on his novel, Outcast. Maus was never operating anywhere near the realm of peer counseling when interacting with Giancarlo, and had never agreed to honor any sort of agreement Liana had with Giancarlo. This was an independent endeavor free from any professional expectations or agreements Liana may have established, contrary to how she has described it on Discord. I published the details of Giancarlo’s public social media profiles after a continuous harassment campaign (and I use that descriptor very selectively) amounting to emotional/verbal abuse in which he positioned himself as a socially-correcting troll that would “bully” me into being a better, more healthy person while also actively attempting to drive a wedge between me and my husband of 21 years. This was all done under a presumably anonymous “alt” (alternate account) starting with my husband, and moving on to me, days after Giancarlo started consulting with my husband. Liana speaks of Giancarlo “hitting on me,” like it was a sexual spat, when, the reality is that he dismissed me on purpose, and then “hit on me” by insulting me on top of it in a highly inappropriate fashion as himself. Soon after, the “alt” account turned its attention to me, and eventually, Giancarlo featured me on Jessica’s Kiwi Farms thread. Giancarlo was still an associate with Liana Kerzner during all of this. I investigated and determined that Giancarlo Vanzzini was behind all of it, factually, and needed no confirmation of this fact. Liana has portrayed this determination as irresponsible because I didn’t actively ask my abuser if it was true. She decided I didn’t know, when, in reality, I did. She has disputed the timeline of ignoring transphobia that my husband laid out in a video where he highlighted that she ignored potential issues in her community with this individual despite her statements in her Discord lining up with this timeline just as Maus described it. Her community seems to not notice, or, not care. Claims that we were unprofessional, arbitrary, vindictive, or had conflicts of interest in “doxxing” Giancarlo are unfounded and false. When I finally linked Giancarlo to these accounts publicly, Liana took it upon herself to publicly defend the Kiwi Farmer against my lack of impulse control on social media. I sat on all of this information for a year. It just doesn’t line up. It’s false.
This is not an exclusive list, there is more, but this is most representative. If Liana is telling other people she’s potentially working with about me (and my husband) while continuing to make these claims, and especially if an impersonating message shows up and I then end up blamed for it because of these claims, then, as I have come to understand it, it does not matter if she names us. It is defamation.
I’ve said before and I’ll say it again that we are currently not interested in pursuing defamation charges, especially across international borders. For one, we simply can’t afford it. Secondly, we are more interested in pursuing the truth and getting the truth out there so people can make up their own minds than imposing our wills upon Liana’s life and choices no matter how much she feels we are.
I have written previously that this is resolved for me personally, and I mean that on an emotional level. I have written that there’s nothing anyone can do to stop the course of events that I’m now carrying out. This is in part to demonstrate that I’m not doing things in order to get Liana’s attention, or to get her (or anyone) to talk to me, or that I’m seeking her approval or her apology. I’m not. These are false motivations Liana continuously ascribes to me and others all while proclaiming they don’t make any sense in the long run.
They don’t make sense because they’re just not true, not because we’re crazy.
I mean, I don’t know how much more normative and mental health stigmatizing it can be, but, here we are.
On that note, the personal, emotional note, I have this to say:
- My husband and I had little investment in Liana’s intellectual property. Maus obviously was invested in the scope of creating the game and as a fan of Liana’s content. I was only invested circumstantially because I was Liana’s friend. If I wasn’t Liana’s friend, I wouldn’t give two shits about it. This isn’t a judgment. Her ideas, characters, and message are great, love it, but, it’s not my thing. This is important, as it amounts to us not being nearly as invested as Liana likes to paint us in her Discord in what she was allegedly working on (more like phoning it in, in my opinion). I have dozens of amazing ideas I can work on, and I do. We do not need Liana at all. Maus now regrets spending a considerable amount of time on the game, struggling under Liana’s leadership, when he could’ve been working on mine when I was in a good place to work on it. I’m working to get back there now. Feel free to guess what set me back.
- That’s right, I was in a good place to work on it. During the early days of development, which I was not involved in, I was starting work on a novel concept I’m still working on: a narrative-based game engine called Miwaku Engine. I was also porting a parser from an academic paper to PHP and GDScript, as well as creating a TRS-80 Color Computer III emulator in Godot for my own future game project which is still in development. I was actually quite productive during that time. It was the next year when my chronic treatment-resistant depression flared up again, I was hospitalized, and then I started doing electro-convulsive therapy (ECT). ECT is not a one and done deal. It is a prolonged period of sessions where they induce miniature seizures in the brain. It was during that entire period that Giancarlo featured me on the thread, and it was during the later part of these procedures, where they were shooting electricity directly into my brain, that Liana confronted me on my behavior, for the first and last time. Maus as well had two relatives dying, and a third death situation going on. Liana describes that situation (and everything leading up to it) as triggering her PTSD, and that’s what explains most all of her behavior… which, I don’t understand why that’s so relevant given I have a severe personality disorder that’s only ever acknowledged in full when it arguably “makes” me look bad, otherwise my disability is irrelevant (her recent words, just last week). I find the asymmetry incredibly painful.
- We didn’t try to take over her project. We didn’t want to purchase it from her. We didn’t need to make it. We didn’t see this as a shot to make all our dreams come true. We weren’t riding on Liana’s coattails or fame, and in fact, I’d argue that it was the other way around in terms of talent and necessity. We weren’t upset the project was getting cancelled, as that happens, however, Liana only mentioned to Maus that she was going to cancel the project. I was unclear on this at the time, but I was fine with that part. She did not tell either one of us what she was going to say, what she’d reveal, what she’d “blame” it on, or anything like that. There was no “disbelief” on our end about any of that because she never told us. There wasn’t anything to disbelieve. These facts run counter to the narrative propped up in her Discord that she told us anything and we didn’t take her seriously. Oh no, quite the opposite, as I’ve repeatedly said:
- Liana early on acknowledged that I told everything she needed to know about what to expect from me when she lamented she should have “believed me the first time” when “I told her who I was.” It is Liana, in fact, that didn’t believe me when I did just that. There wasn’t anything for me to not believe when it comes to Liana because she never actually told me who she was or her honest opinion, given what she has now claimed were her true thoughts and feelings about her relationships with us. I had no idea any of the things she talks about now were even problems until she said them after.
- And that’s the second thing: Liana claims she repeatedly confronted us about our behavior and about what I was saying and doing online. She did talk to me about it, but it was never a confrontation. There was never any indication of a problem, an upset, a disagreement, or any real request that I do anything different, until, suddenly, there was. She did not tell me a damn thing was wrong until everything was wrong.
- And that’s the third thing: If Liana had told me what was up, that she was invested in my online behavior, and in her name being featured on Kiwi Farms in connection with “harassment” of a trans woman (which, no, they characterized it as simply the Twitter beef it was), and so on; essentially, if she had been up front that my behavior and expression was to be monitored, modulated, and checked simply because I was Maus’ spouse, I would have actually ended the friendship immediately, moving her to my husband’s colleague, and I would have encouraged Maus to terminate his role in the project. I don’t roll like that. And so, you can then see why, perhaps, I didn’t know anything about anything until it was too late. It wasn’t useful for me to know.
- Liana likes to come up with and posit, to a near factual degree (it’s never clarified), with all of her peer counseling group moderating narrative authority behind it, entire psychological complexes for me (and for others, including my husband) that just aren’t reality. Honestly, I find her psychological analyses to be extremely shallow and self-involved. They mostly consist of very obvious projection (I’m not guessing, I can point right to it; the contradictory examples and hypocrisy are present in almost every video she makes), and this incredibly insecure, and creepy, Gen X heterosexual female fantasy of the man-child male wanting their very existence validated and affirmed by the all consuming amazing woman and any failure to give that creates maniacally deranged hateful beasts of social burden and chaos. Uh… no. Not one thing she has ascribed to me psychologically has actually fit. Not one interpretation of my beliefs or philosophy, nor one explanation of my motivations has been accurate. Not one. She reminds me of the couple in-patient psychiatrists I have encountered who literally have nothing to offer me because they aren’t interested one iota in what I say, but more in verifying everything they think I’m supposed to be in any way they can so they’re always right. One of them certified me for 90-days. The power struggle is real. If Liana bothered to actually get a license or be educated, she would be that entirely useless, perhaps dangerous, doctor. That facility was suspended for compliance issues shortly after. I’ve really really been there. Please, think about what you just read.
- Her community is absolutely deranged. They repeat toxic behaviors Liana models. One member of her Discord, NaomiPaulPoru, went on at some length about how she had some interaction with me, like perhaps a private chat or something, on Twitter back in the day, and I expressed a frustration with my YouTube channel to her that mainly consisted of me simply being overly concerned, even pathologically desperate, for attention. I’ve looked back in all my records, as I have every single post and conversation I’ve ever had online going back 30 years (real deal) and I have found only one public Tweet that might qualify, and that would be a gross misrepresentation. At worst, Naomi has concocted a relationship with me with a particular bent that was manufactured purely in her imagination. And why? If you read through Liana’s Discord, it’s obvious that these types of things are done by members like Naomi mostly for a sort of clout, a display or claim that might make them relevant in the mean-girl holier-than-thou atmosphere. Naomi goes on to declare that she also thinks my affinity for furry is just a front, something I use to try to get attention rather than anything meaningful to me or anyone else, whereas her cross dressing is profoundly meaningful. Anyone who’s known me for any period of time is most likely rolling their eyes. A response to that isn’t even necessary, it’s that preposterously and embarrassingly ridiculous, it stands on its own. Naomi, and anyone else there, stop making up shit about me that never happened thinking no one will ever check up on it. You obviously haven’t actually interacted with me if you thought that wasn’t going to happen.
I have written and written and written so many things. It’s all over the place and disorganized, I know. The site sucks, I know. It’s because, believe it or not, this is a personal side-project at the moment. I’m actually busy working on a number of things that have not hit the Internet… yet.
Aileyn, take note, because you desperately need to realize this:
Acting as if everything that exists must be somewhere on the Internet, and if there’s nothing there, then you can tell that our lives are just vacuous wastelands, is peak terminally online.
You dear, not me.
And the other clamoring minions too:
You don’t seem to realize how absolutely fucktastic you sound when you explain, condescendingly to a 42-year-old man and 47-year-old man who aren’t even there, that it’s necessary to learn how to deal with disappointment and bad feelings in life to be an adult.
Uh… yeah. We know that.
Who in the absolute fuck do you people think you are?
What’s actually happening is that I’m not dealing with what has happened, the actual feelings I actually have in regards to what Liana has actually done, in a way that Liana has approved of and has taught you passes for mature.
I’m telling you now, it’s not.
Stop.
Here’s the Google Doc I’m referencing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FAeTgTdpf6dhHok3vAH2u5HY80jRlfNW-0eR2GRISbQ/