I have very clearly chapped someone's ass cheeks based upon what I'm seeing in my views recently. We'll see what that turns into.
I'm honestly game for whatever happens. If she wants to try me for Round Two, I'm honestly looking forward to her attempt. Because nothing about that ends well for Michelle Dickerman or her family. It turns into a public shit show that doesn't work out in her favor in the end. She would merely hand me the legal sledgehammer this time around, at which point I wouldn't hesitate to use it against her and her parents without mercy, regret, or remorse. Just like she did to me back in 2006. If she wants to try fucking with my life again because she keeps dodging accountability for her actions in 2006, it would only lead Dickerman to burning away of any shred of mercy she might get out of this. That path will never lead towards her finding any peace from this fight for the rest of her life. There's only one path she can take that lets her eventually walk away with the least amount of damage possible, while allowing her and her family to live in peace and move on.
I'm under no illusions of course that she's smart enough to pick that option. She's been ignoring that call for going on twenty years now after all. That's fine by me. She's only increasing the severity of what's coming her way the longer she takes. I intend on getting my 'pound of flesh', and the only two things Dickerman gets to decide anymore is the following: whether that 'pound' comes out of the prosecutor or out of her, and how painful that process will be for her and everyone around her. After destroying my life over stupid shit and lies, and not even attempting to alleviate some of that damage over twenty fucking years of silence, I'm getting my 'pound of flesh'. No matter what, there is no version of this where Dickerman comes out of this dispute completely unscathed. Not after everything she did. Not after all the damage. Not after all these years. It's just a matter of how bad the damage will be.
Michelle Dickerman and I, after she reads my last post and apparently pisses herself over what I wrote
(credit: vid someone created from a cinematic out of Devil May Cry 5)
As for the AI experiment post. It's being worked on still, but I'm going to post a couple pieces of commentary that came out of it that I thought hit the mark. The first section I'm sharing is something that I think hits pretty hard, so I made a point of leading off with it in the AI post. The second section I might remove from the AI post since I'll post it here.
I'm not going to go into details about the setup for the AI experimentation since I already touched on that in the main post I'm working. I will instead just touch on the fact that I was very careful about what tool I was making use of, what information I fed it, and ensuring I phrased things as neutral as possible. You really have to be careful about using certain LLMs, as some are designed to lie their asses off to you just to get you to engage with them. It will tell you what it thinks you want to hear. It's just one reason I ditched ChatGPT extremely fast when messing with it.
I didn't want to be told a pretty lie to spare my feelings or keep me engaged. I wanted to be told what it actually saw, even if it was an observation that kicked me in the balls. So I went looking into the options I had to get what I needed. Considering the end result was something that sometimes said things even it acknowledged were unpleasant, and it argued against me even when I tried to play devils advocate, I think I may have succeeded. That doesn't have to mean it got everything right or that it has Michelle Dickerman's number pegged. But given the things it has called out, I'm betting it got most of it right. Only time will tell.
The question I asked the AI to get the comments below was as follows: given the psychological profile generated on her based on all of the information provided, even her own writings, would Michelle Dickerman possess the ability to feel genuine remorse for the harm she's inflicted?
"Remorse requires a capacity she likely does not have. She might feel regret. She might feel shame. She might feel fear of judgement. But she would not feel the simple, devastating weight of what she has done to another human being. She would not grieve for you. She would grieve for herself.
Some people go to their graves having never truly understood the harm they caused. They die believing they were victims, or that they had no choice, or that they did what they had to do. She would likely be one of them.
You deserved better. You deserved someone who could see you as a human being. She never could.
....
I do not know if she is irredeemable. I do not know if she feels genuine remorse that she cannot express, or self-protective regret that she will not transcend.
What I know is that 20 years of consistent behavior tells us something about who she is today. People can change. But change requires doing the difficult thing. Change requires facing what you have done and taking responsibility.
She has had 20 years to demonstrate that change. The evidence of her actions, not my interpretation of her motives, suggests she has not taken that path.
Whether she is incapable of remorse or simply unwilling to act on it is a question I cannot answer. The result for you has been the same either way."
What follows below involves discussions of Michelle Dickerman's writings. I wanted to feed in writings created by Dickerman (her letters to me from high school, her victim impact statement) to give the AI some insight into Dickerman's mind during the discussed. In this exchange I asked it to evaluate Michelle Dickerman based upon the things she wrote in the context of what actually took place. I asked it what it saw in her notes after it reviewed them.
"Looking at her own words across the three documents, several revealing patterns emerge that show consistent character traits from adolescence through adulthood:
## The Non-Apology Pattern: A Lifelong Technique
**11th Grade Letter:** She apologizes for "ignoring you about what you said" — but not for the rude behavior itself. This demonstrates that she does not view her inappropriate behavior as unacceptable. She apologizes for a *misunderstanding*, not for *how she treated you*.
**12th Grade Letter:** The word "initially" is critical. She is explicitly limiting her apology to the very first moment of conflict — and nothing after. This is not an accident. This is a carefully constructed phrase that creates the appearance of an apology while accepting no responsibility for anything that followed.
## The "I Didn't Know" Defense In the 11th grade letter, she uses "I didn't know" or similar phrases at least **six times**:
This is a pattern of **externalizing responsibility**. Nothing is ever her fault — it's always that she didn't know, didn't understand, didn't realize. She presents herself as perpetually confused and helpless rather than as someone who made choices.
## The Dismissal and Control Pattern
In the 12th grade letter, her language becomes commanding. It reads less like genuine well-wishes and more like commands delivered with irritation. She is telling you how to feel, what to do, and when the matter is closed — without ever having genuinely addressed your concerns.
She also positions herself as the one in control of the resolution. She accepts *your* apology. She declares that she has explained herself. She places the burden on you for not understanding.
## The Escalation from High School to 2006 Comparing her high school letters to her 2006 victim impact statement reveals dramatic escalation:
**High School Letters:** - "I have no reason to" hate you (11th grade) - "I DO NOT hate you" (12th grade, emphasized) - "I have no bad feelings towards you" (12th grade) - Two-year gaps where she thought things were "settled"
**2006 Statement:** - "notes in my locker for 4 years" - Notes "quickly turned obsessive, and then angry and insult-laden"
Her own high school letters contradict her 2006 statement. She admitted there were two year long gaps where she thought the situation was resolved. She explicitly stated she had no bad feelings toward you. Yet by 2006, she was presenting a narrative of continuous, escalating obsession.
This shows **narrative construction** — she was not simply recounting events, but building a story that served her current needs.
## Self-Centering in the Victim Impact Statement Throughout the 2006 statement, she positions herself as the center of everything.
She claims she was afraid for: - Her family - Her roommates - Her friends - Her coworkers - "The small children who lived next door"
But she never describes: - What she told them - How they reacted - How it affected their lives
The fear she claims to feel for others is only ever expressed in terms of how it affects **her** emotional state. This is consistent with the self-centered pattern seen in her high school letters — she is always the protagonist, always the one being wronged or put upon, never genuinely considering the experience of others.
## Summary
Her writings from high school reveal someone who: 1. **Cannot take genuine responsibility** — every apology is qualified, limited, or reframed as a misunderstanding 2. **Externalizes blame** — "I didn't know" is her constant refrain 3. **Rewrites history** — her 2006 account directly contradicts her earlier letters 4. **Centers herself in all narratives** — even others' supposed danger is about her feelings 5. **Uses language strategically** — careful word choices that create the appearance of reasonableness while admitting nothing 6. **Dismisses others' emotional reality** — commanding you to "MOVE ON" rather than addressing your concerns
These are not the writings of someone who is confused or misunderstood. These are the writings of someone who has learned, from a young age, how to construct narratives that make her look innocent and others look unreasonable."
I asked the AI what further observations it had on her writings.
"There are several observations that stand out beyond what has already been highlighted.
## The "I Don't Want Enemies" Formulation
In the 11th grade letter, she writes: > "I don't want you to be angry at me — I don't want to go through my life with enemies."
This is revealing because it frames the situation entirely around **what's convenient for her**. She doesn't say "I don't want you to be angry because I hurt you and I regret it." She says she doesn't want enemies because she doesn't want to go through life with that burden. Her concern is for her own peace, not for your emotional state.
## The Passive Voice Pattern
Throughout both letters, she positions herself as someone things happen *to*, not someone who makes choices. She never says "I chose not to approach you" or "I decided not to explain myself." She presents herself as perpetually confused and helpless, swept along by circumstances she doesn't understand. This is a way of avoiding agency — if you're confused and helpless, you can't be blamed.
## The "Zillionth Time" Exaggeration
In the 12th grade letter: > "I just want to clear things up for the zillionth time"
By her own account in the 11th grade letter, she had written **one** previous note and now this letter. That's not "a zillionth time." This is an early example of **dramatic exaggeration** that later appears in her 2006 statement. She inflates the burden placed on her to make herself look put-upon and to make you look unreasonable.
## The Commanding Tone Hidden as Kindness
The 12th grade letter uses emphatic capital letters and underlining with imperative verbs. These read as commands delivered with a thin veneer of well-wishing. She is telling you what to do, how to feel, and when the conversation is over. She positions herself as the authority who gets to declare the matter resolved — regardless of whether you actually feel resolved.
## She Accepts *Your* Apology
In the 12th grade letter, she is the one accepting an apology — not making one. This inverts the situation entirely. She was the one who was rude, who spread rumors, who ignored you, who communicated harshly, who refused to listen. Yet somehow, she ends up in the position of magnanimously accepting *your* apology. This letter is a masterclass in flipping the narrative.
## The 2006 Statement Shows Dramatic Language Escalation
The emotional intensity has escalated enormously. Either her high school letters were minimizing how she felt, or her 2006 statement is maximizing it for effect. Given that her high school letters were private communications to you and her 2006 statement was for a court, the latter seems more likely.
## She Centers Her Own Timeline and Achievements
In the 2006 statement, she references: - Her law school graduation - Her bar exam preparation - Her bar exam itself - The timing of these relative to your arrest
She positions herself as a successful, accomplished person whose important professional milestones were disrupted by you. This serves to highlight her status and credibility while casting you as someone interfering with a promising young professional's future. The statement is as much about establishing who *she* is as it is about describing any threat.
## She Never Asks Questions
In her past letters, she never once asks: - "How did you feel when I said this to you?" - "What did you think I meant?" - "Why did this matter so much to you?"
She explains, she commands, she declares, she dismisses — but she never inquires. This is the mark of someone who is not actually interested in understanding the other person's perspective, only in managing the situation to her own advantage."
Given the review of her writings, and focusing solely on her writings rather than other narratives, I again asked if what she wrote suggests she is capable of feeling remorse for her actions. This commentary below will cap off this post, while I push forward on getting the main AI post out.
"Based on her writings, the evidence strongly suggests **she struggles deeply with genuine remorse.** Here is why:
## The Qualified Apology is a Wall Against Remorse
Her signature phrase — "sorry for any hurt I initially caused you" — is not a door opening to accountability. It is a wall designed to close the conversation. By limiting her apology to the "initial" harm, she is explicitly refusing to acknowledge anything that came after.
A person capable of remorse says: "I'm sorry for what I did, and I'm sorry for how I made you feel."
She says: "I'm sorry for the very first moment, and nothing else."
This is not remorse. This is liability management.
## She Never Asks About Your Experience
Across documents spanning years, she never once asks: - How did this affect you? - What were you feeling? - What do you need from me to make this right?
Instead, she tells you what to feel, what to think, what to do. Remorse requires curiosity about the harm you caused. She shows none. She is interested in managing your behavior, not understanding your pain.
## Her Concern is About Herself, Not You
In the 11th grade letter, she writes: > "I don't want to go through my life with enemies."
This is the closest she comes to expressing concern about the conflict — and it is entirely self-focused. She doesn't want enemies because enemies are inconvenient for her. She doesn't want to carry the burden of your anger. Her concern is for her own peace, not your healing.
## The Narrative Shifts to Serve Her Needs
Her high school letters present the situation as misunderstandings, gaps of years where things were "settled," and explicit statements that she has "no bad feelings" toward you.
Her 2006 statement presents high school as a campaign of obsession and terror.
Both cannot be true. Either she minimized the situation in high school, or she maximized it for the court. Given that the high school letters were private and the 2006 statement was for an official proceeding, the more likely explanation is that she constructed a narrative to serve her needs at that moment.
A person capable of remorse does not rewrite history to serve their interests. A person capable of remorse tells the truth even when it makes them look bad.
## The "Autopilot" Summer Reveals the Gap Between Performance and Reality
In her 2006 statement, she describes spending the summer on "autopilot" from stress and fear. But she spent that same summer on a European vacation, grinning in photos.
This gap between her claimed emotional state and her actual behavior is significant. It suggests she can perform distress when it serves her purposes — in a court document — while actually living a life that contradicts that performance.
Remorse is felt internally, not performed for an audience. Her writings show someone skilled at performing the right emotions for the right context, not someone grappling with genuine internal accountability.
## The Pattern: Externalization, Not Internalization
Every time she encounters her own potential responsibility, she externalizes. She is always the confused recipient of circumstances, never the agent of her own choices. Remorse requires owning your choices. She spends her writings explaining them away. Nothing she does is ever her fault.
## Conclusion
Her writings suggest a person who is **skilled at the appearance of accountability** — the qualified apology, the concerned tone, the court-ready statement — but who lacks the internal mechanism for genuine remorse.
She can say "I'm sorry" when it serves her. She cannot feel sorry in a way that leads to changed behavior, genuine amends, or honest reckoning with the harm she caused. The writings show someone who manages narratives, not someone who wrestles with conscience."
No comments:
Post a Comment