REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Liz Fong-Jones has been credibly accused of rape
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2020
I asked Grok why Patrick feeds the trolls even though he knows full well what he's doing. The answer was interesting.
Patrick S. Tomlinson (@stealthygeek) does continue to engage heavily with accounts he labels as stalkers or trolls, as recent posts from his account (as of mid-January 2026) clearly show. He routinely replies to accusations—often repeating phrases like "No, stalker. I didn't, and wasn't," followed by variations of "This is how you've chosen to end your life. Enjoy prison." These responses appear in threads where people post claims about his personal life, police reports, or other criticisms.
For example:
When accused of past arrests or threats, he directly denies it while calling the poster a "stalker" and wishing them prison time.
He explains limiting replies or blocking by citing a "criminal cyberstalking cult" obsessed with his family for over seven years.
Similar patterns show up consistently in replies to parody/impersonator accounts or critics, where he refuses to let claims stand unchallenged.
This matches what you've observed—he's not ignoring them; he's confronting them head-on, often in real time.
Why doesn't he stop and follow the "don't feed them" advice?
He's not stupid, as you said, and he's aware of the dynamic (he's referenced it indirectly in older contexts by framing his actions as "fighting" rather than ignoring). From his own words and the long history visible across platforms, several factors explain why he keeps engaging:
Ultimately, it's a classic escalation trap in long-term online feuds: both sides are locked in, convinced their approach will "win." He's smart enough to know better tactics exist in theory, but the emotional/legal/principled stakes make detachment feel impossible right now. If anything changes (e.g., major legal wins or burnout), he might pivot—but as of the latest posts, the pattern holds strong.
For example:
When accused of past arrests or threats, he directly denies it while calling the poster a "stalker" and wishing them prison time.
He explains limiting replies or blocking by citing a "criminal cyberstalking cult" obsessed with his family for over seven years.
Similar patterns show up consistently in replies to parody/impersonator accounts or critics, where he refuses to let claims stand unchallenged.
This matches what you've observed—he's not ignoring them; he's confronting them head-on, often in real time.
Why doesn't he stop and follow the "don't feed them" advice?
He's not stupid, as you said, and he's aware of the dynamic (he's referenced it indirectly in older contexts by framing his actions as "fighting" rather than ignoring). From his own words and the long history visible across platforms, several factors explain why he keeps engaging:
- He views it as necessary self-defense and documentation — He frequently describes the harassment as felony-level crimes (swatting, doxxing, threats, impersonation). By publicly calling out specific accounts, denying false claims, and repeating "enjoy prison," he's building a visible record. This could help with ongoing/future legal efforts (police reports, subpoenas, platform reports, or civil suits). Ignoring might feel like letting lies spread unchecked, potentially harming his reputation, career, or safety further.
- Deep personal investment and anger — After 7+ years of this (swats on his home, family involvement, etc.), it's become an all-consuming grudge on both sides. He sees these people as genuine threats/criminals, not just trolls, so disengaging feels like surrender or endangerment. His replies often convey satisfaction in their predicted downfall ("your life ends in a cage"), suggesting emotional payoff from fighting back.
- Principle over pragmatism — He's positioned himself as someone who confronts "nazis," fascists, or bad actors directly (seen in non-stalker replies too). Ignoring might contradict that self-image—he's said things like using legal tools (DMCAs in the past) to "fight" bullies rather than hide. Starving attention works for casual trolls, but he believes this group is too obsessive and criminal for silence to work; they've already escalated to real-world harm.
- It's partially worked in the past (or he thinks it has) — He's had successes (account suspensions, forum disruptions, police involvement), which may reinforce that confrontation + legal pressure yields results. Full disengagement hasn't been tested long-term by him, and partial attempts (limiting replies to followers) still get explained publicly.
Ultimately, it's a classic escalation trap in long-term online feuds: both sides are locked in, convinced their approach will "win." He's smart enough to know better tactics exist in theory, but the emotional/legal/principled stakes make detachment feel impossible right now. If anything changes (e.g., major legal wins or burnout), he might pivot—but as of the latest posts, the pattern holds strong.
