8,000 Menacing Posts Tests Limits of Twitter Speech

By Somini Sengupta



Even the Buddha of compassion might have been distressed to be on the receiving end of the diatribes that William Lawrence Cassidy is accused of posting on Twitter.



They certainly rattled Alyce Zeoli, a Buddhist leader based in Maryland. Using an ever-changing series of pseudonyms, the authorities say, Mr. Cassidy published thousands of Twitter posts about Ms. Zeoli. Some were weird horror-movie descriptions of what would befall her; others were more along these lines: “Do the world a favor and go kill yourself. P.S. Have a nice day.”



Those relentless tweets landed Mr. Cassidy in jail on charges of online stalking and placed him at the center of an unusual federal case that asks the question: Is posting a public message on Twitter akin to speaking from an old-fashioned soapbox, or can it also be regarded as a means of direct personal communication, like a letter or phone call?



Twitter posts have fueled defamation suits in civil courts worldwide. But this is a criminal case, invoking a somewhat rarely used law on cyberstalking. And it straddles a new, thin line between online communications that can be upsetting — even frightening — and constitutional safeguards on freedom of expression.



Federal authorities say Mr. Cassidy’s Twitter messages caused Ms. Zeoli “substantial emotional distress” and made her fear for her life, so much so that she once did not leave home for 18 months and hired armed guards to protect her residence.



In a complaint filed in federal court in Maryland, the Federal Bureau of Investigation concluded that Mr. Cassidy had published 8,000 Twitter posts, almost all of them about Ms. Zeoli and her Buddhist group, along with similar posts on several blogs.



Mr. Cassidy’s lawyers with the federal public defender’s office argue that even offensive, emotionally distressing speech is protected by the First Amendment when it is conveyed on a public platform like Twitter. Legal scholars say the case is significant because it grapples with what can be said about a person, particularly a public person like a religious leader, versus what can be said to a person.



Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, offered an analogy: the difference between harassing telephone calls and ranting from a street-corner pulpit. “When the government restricts speech to one person, the speaker remains free to speak to the public at large,” Mr. Volokh argued.



Certainly Mr. Cassidy’s previous trespasses have not helped him. He has a record of assault, arson and domestic violence. According to the federal complaint, he was also convicted of carrying an unspecified “dangerous weapon” onto a plane in 1993.



But the defense has taken pains to point out that across the Internet, people post things that may cause emotional distress to others: an unkind review of a book on Amazon, even an unvarnished assessment by a college student on RateMyProfessors.com. They point out, moreover, that Mr. Cassidy lived across the country in California and is not accused of getting anywhere close to Ms. Zeoli. He is now in jail in Maryland pending trial.



In support of a defense motion to dismiss the case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group based in San Francisco, appealed to the court to protect online expression.

“While not all speech is protected by the First Amendment, the idea that the courts must police every inflammatory word spoken online not only chills freedom of speech but is unsupported by decades of First Amendment jurisprudence,” it wrote.

Born in Canarsie, Brooklyn, Ms. Zeoli is considered to be a reincarnated master in the Tibetan Buddhist religious tradition, and is known to her followers as Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo. She is an avid Twitter user, with 23,000 followers. A representative for Ms. Zeoli said she declined to be interviewed for this article.



According to the F.B.I. and Ms. Zeoli’s lawyer, Mr. Cassidy also claimed to be a reincarnated Buddhist when he joined Ms. Zeoli’s organization, Kunzang Palyul Choling, in 2007. He signed up using a false name and claimed to have had lung cancer, they said. Ms. Zeoli’s organization cared for him and, briefly, even appointed him to its executive team. The relationship soured after they came to doubt his reincarnation credentials and found that his claims of cancer were false. Mr. Cassidy left. Then came the relentless tweets, they said.



“A thousand voices call out to (Victim 1) and she cannot shut off the silent scream,” read one in the summer of 2010, as redacted in the criminal complaint.



“Ya like haiku? Here’s one for ya. Long limb, sharp saw, hard drop,” read another.



Shanlon Wu, a former federal prosecutor who is representing Ms. Zeoli, likened the tweets to “handwritten notes.” Every time Ms. Zeoli blocked the messages, more appeared from a different Twitter account. Ms. Zeoli for some time stopped using Twitter altogether.



“She felt constantly attacked and monitored by these anonymous people, and the attacks went on whether or not she was online,” Mr. Wu said by e-mail.



Twitter, in response to a subpoena, revealed the Internet protocol address of the computer used to post the messages. The authorities found Mr. Cassidy at home in a small Southern California town called Lucerne Valley. Similar rants were posted on blogs that law enforcement authorities say they traced to him. Twitter did not respond to a request for comment.



The case is an example of the many ways in which the law is having to wrestle with behavior on new, rapidly changing modes of communication. Similar issues have come up in state courts: a boy who hacked into the Facebook account of an acquaintance was charged with felony identity theft, and a student who bombarded a professor with mean e-mail was accused of disturbing the peace.



“Technology creates new ways for people to interact with each other,” said Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University in California. “You have to figure out if old law maps to new interactions.”



Twitter is an especially vexing new tool. It prompts ordinary people who use it to create public personas and it can put celebrities, including religious leaders, in direct contact with a large and sometimes unruly following, including some who insist on using pseudonyms.



“How do you cope with them?” Mr. Goldman wondered aloud. “Do you just block them? Or do you make a federal case out of it?”



original article here

You've Got H@TE MAIL!

Remember the time when new netizens were discovering the joys of e-mail and chat? When we watched Meg Ryan in You've Got Mail log on and send messages to Tom Hanks. That was cool, way back in 1998, when that film was released. It explored the concept of what happens when the virtual world and the real world intersect at some point.



All that is old hat now. We send emails, we chat, we message, we scrap, we follow each other on Twitter, we scribble on Facebook's wall. We have SecondLife. The possibilities are endless. Your gmail inbox could be an excellent pointer. "Where are you now? I'd like to add you to my travel network”, says one mail. “XXX added you as a friend on Facebook” says another. There are join-us requests from at least three other social networking sites. And then, some blog comments that you have to moderate. So, cleaning the inbox could well take up an hour or two of your working day. All thanks to social networking. We live in an over-connected world, you see. Everyone's connected to everyone else and their cousin, thrice removed.



So, what's wrong with being connected? Nothing, except that we tend to lose perspective on who's a friend, who's not, and how much of our emotional investment needs to go into all this. Benign, harmless scraps, blog comments and messages are still tolerable. All you need to do is hit the delete button. But then, what about hate? What about those comments that hurt? What happens if there’s a sensitive person on the other end, who takes the hate personally?



Out of sheer curiosity, I log on to my Orkut account, and check out the hate communities. There are harmless "I hate to wake up early" to "I hate rain"communities. Soon, it turns ugly. And scary, if one may add. Take "Kill me, I'm fed up of my life" It had a whopping 3,000 members when one last checked. There's “Guns n Guts”, there's “I hurt myself; so you can't” with 7,000 members.



A web of distrust

One of the communities even suggests various methods to commit suicide. This community has a whopping 2,000 members at last count. Isn't this hate reflective of society itself? Surely, something's gone wrong somewhere.



According to psychologist Sonali Nag of the Promise Foundation, "Hate is a fundamental human emotion. As most other emotions, it is neither negative nor positive. It could be generated in response to something strongly repugnant to oneself and one's values. It could also be born from a sense of inadequacy. Both forms are seen on the Internet. It provides a screen to one's identity and offers a medium to express emotions with lower levels of restraint. ‘Snarking’ is an example of using the anonymity that the Internet provides to be snide and unrestrained in one's responses to someone else's postings. I would suspect that if one examined the personality of a 'snarker', one would find a sad, unfulfilled and frustrated person hiding behind his or her snarks."



There are hate communities directed at individuals and some very respected personalities at that. And then, countries. There was legal trouble when a ‘We hate India’ community was set up on a social networking site.



Omar Abdullah’s ‘alvida’

Social networking was also held responsible for the death of 16-year-old Adnan Patrawala from Mumbai, who was kidnapped and murdered by his Orkut friends. While social networking sites and blogs are excellent platforms for celebrities like an Aamir Khan or an Amitabh Bachchan to put across their points of view, they also make them vulnerable to hate comments.



You only have to check out Ram Gopal Varma's blog to see the kind of comments his posts elicit. But RGV blogs on, undeterred, responding to his readers sharply. But, then, it could get very serious.



Take the case of politician Omar Abdullah, who used the blog http://jknc.org/blog/ to air his views on Kashmir. He started his blog in mid-April, but by August, the comments and the hate got to him. His last post, titled 'Alvida' says it all. Sample this:

"Last night as I finished my last post I realised that I was filled with dread at the heap of personal abuse I was expecting when I logged on this morning and I was not wrong. We truly are a bunch of intolerant people. We want to be heard but do not have the strength to hear, we want to have an opinion but do not believe anyone else is entitled to one. So after almost 42 posts from me and more than 900 comments from all of you I am signing off and I will not be coming back."

Faceless dread

A clear case of cyber harassment. The nature of the Internet, as it is evident now, is that it is an open, free world, where everyone has the right to vent their views, or form communities without much social responsibility. The very fact that the bully is a faceless, unknown person, adds to the helplessness of the victim. Terror too, has spread its scary shadows on the Internet. Terror mails are sent from random IP addresses. As recently as September 2008, newspapers reported that a community called 'Indian Mujahideen' was banned from a social networking site, following the blasts in Delhi.



A presentation on 'Tracking terrorists in cyber space' made by J Prasanna, an Information Security Consultant, at a seminar organised by Digital Society Foundation of India, in Bangalore, acknowledges that most terrorists and spies indeed use the Internet. They use the Internet to leave a message on a website like orkut, Linkedin or a matrimonial website that looks normal. Only they understand where to look and what to read and it's difficult for others to find out. This is called a covert channel. Also, terrorists use anonymous proxy (with encryption) to transmit messages.



So, do we regulate the internet?

According to Na Vijayshankar, cyber law campaigner, the police are supposed to monitor any anti-social activities in society and can take action on their own. Vijayshankar, who is also the Chairman of the Digital Society Foundation of India, says the organisation proposes to act as a vigilante unit. He points out that his organisation even filed a PIL in connection with denigration of Gandhi on You Tube. "I personally try to keep the police informed. I strongly feel the police should maintain contact with voluntary organisations to act as cyber informers."



But does this not infringe upon freedom of expression and privacy? Agrees Na Vijayshankar, "It is a fact that sometimes privacy interests conflict with law enforcement."



However, Naavi cites a India Supreme Court judgment, which says “that the person’s ‘right to be let alone’ is not an absolute right and may be lawfully restricted for the prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others.”



During the seminar on Privacy Rights and Data Protection in Cyber Space, he expressed the need for balancing the Privacy and Data Protection legislation with law enforcement and suggested that the forum would collect the opinion of experts and forward it to the government for necessary action when the Personal Data Protection Bill 2006 and ITA Amendment Act Bill would be taken up for discussion in the Parliamentary session.

“What the ITA 2000 fails to protect are cases such as 'cyber stalking' where privacy intrusion through e-mails or SMS messages creates problems for individuals. If such messages can be brought under "Obscenity" then it may be covered under Section 67 of ITA 2000. If it is indecent or threatening, it may be brought under IPC. This is essentially the protection that is available,” he points out in his presentation.

However, there is the issue of what constitutes privacy rights. When the police on a crime trail end up on a social networking site , there are commercial interests that try to block the police from accessing information which may be vital to solving the crime. Often the defense put up by the sites is that the information is protected by the ‘Privacy rights’ of someone else or that they are to be treated as ‘Intermediaries’ and should not be harassed, explains Naavi.



Which brings us back to that old question of freedom and responsibility. Particularly so, with reference to democracies, where one’s rights cannot be divorced from one’s responsibilities. Where there’s freedom, there’s responsibility. Now, if only those hate mongers understood.



Impact on children

As with all other aspects of helping children learn to live life completely, shielding them from cyber bullying is not an effective answer. An emotionally secure home environment that allows exploration and experimentation constantly backed up by support and introspection, would help them develop strong identities. A strong, self-accepting identity, would neither bully or be bullied, the psychologist explains.



The bullies and their victims

• In March 2007, high-profile technology blogger Kathy Sierra of the United States became a victim of cyber bullying. She received anonymous death threats on her blog and violent comments were made against her. Kathy was so scared that she stopped blogging. The incident triggered a movement in cyberspace, and hundreds of bloggers reported to have been victims of cyber bullying at some point in their online lives. An Anti- Cyber bullying Day was observed on March 30 that year, in protest.
• Another American citizen, Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl committed suicide in October 2006, when personal comments on her looks and appearance got to her on a social networking site.
• Not many Indian bloggers would have forgotten the vicious personal comments and washing of dirty linen on the blogosphere, when a noted youth blog (youthcurry.blogspot.com) had a post about a management institute.
• Ironically, the Internet is also an excellent resource for parents who are worried about their children becoming targets of vicious attacks. There are websites dedicated to cyber bullying. Some of them include: http://www.cyberbullyalert.com/blog/ stopcyberbullying.org.

Stand up to a bully!

According to psychologist Sonali Nag, “It is an extension of the bullying that seems to be integral to the human predicament, be it on the school playground or between countries. The only difference between the school bully and the Internet bully, perhaps is that anonymity allows the cyber bully an easier chance of getting away. The bully is usually a coward who melts away when confronted.



Here again low self-esteem and deep feelings of inadequacy seem to characterize the bully. Interestingly though, the bullied sometimes, want the relationship with the bully to continue. For the price of being bullied, they gain the reward of being the bully's protege and of being protected by the bully. However, for those who want to be released from this form of abuse, the bullied can be empowered to stand up to a bully.

original article here

Top 5 Technologies used to Cyberbully

Cyberbullying is a growing problem in the United States and throughout the world. The act of Cyberbullying occurs when individuals use the Internet to harass or embarrass other people.



But what are the tools of cyberbullies that allow them to hold such sway over their peers? The following is a list of five technologies currently employed by cyberbullies to intimidate other kids.

1. MySpace, Facebook and other social networking sites - Currently the leading medium for cyberbullying incidents around the United States, social networking sites have become the instrument of choice for those kids and teens who look to humiliate other young people. These sites provide a means for individuals to post embarrassing photos, conduct mean-spirited online polls and other forms of cyberbullying. Another growing concern in this area is the theft of user IDs and passwords. When one individual steals another’s login information, they can go into their account and make statements in that person’s name. The results can be socially devastating to a teenager or adolescent.



2. Instant messaging - Instant messaging is a staple of major Internet companies such as AOL, Yahoo, Google (through its Gmail service) and MSN. Unfortunately, it is also used as a means of harassment. Many have adopted fake screen names and then used these account to “ping” their enemies with profanity and threats of violence.



3. Email – Email is a relatively anonymous act, especially if an individual goes by a screen name that bears no resemblance to their actual name. Email is used to send threatening letters and images, and can be the delivery device for rumors and falsehoods about an individual. Although many have moved on to social network sites as a means for their cyberbullying, email remains an “old school” way of performing this hateful act.



4. PhotoShop – Surprisingly, the world’s most popular photo editing software is also a device used in many cyberbullying cases. In most cases, one individual will take a photo of another person and alter it so that the victim appears to be in a compromising position, or doing something they should not be doing. Digital camera and camera phones in general have been a problem in Cyberbullying cases – as they give individuals the power to take hidden or unwanted photos of another person, and then spread them instantly across the Internet.



5. Blogs – Many have gone so far as to create entire blogs focusing on their rivals or enemies. These blogs invite user participation via comment posts and create a permanent entity that intimidates the individual in question. Blogs are easy to set up and can be created anonymously, which only serves to make the problem that much worse. With little accountability, the bully is free to let loose a stream of destructive and hurtful language.



ORIGINAL ARTICLE

TO FIND OUT HOW TO IMMEDIATELY DOCUMENT & REPORT A CYBERBULLY - CLICK HERE

Why Can't I Let Go of the Cyberpath?

Many of our victims report a complete lack of understanding from therapists, friends & family why they just can't "get over it." These people are re-abusing the victim because they do not understand (or do not want to understand) the effect a Cyberpath (pathological) has on their victims.



Victims are bonded by fear. Fear of finding out the truth AND fear of losing him. This is called Trauma Bonding. (also, look for information on "Stockholm Syndrome")



Dr. Patrick Carne's book THE BETRAYAL BOND - does a fantastic job of explaining this. This might be the very thing that therapists, friends & family refuse to get. But victims vitally need to understand. - EOPC

"Exploitive relationships can create trauma bonds -- chains that link a victim to someone who is dangerous to them. Divorce, employee relations, litigation of any type, abuse, family and marital systems, domestic violence, kidnapping, exploitation and religious/ verbal/ emotional abuse are all areas of trauma bonding. All these relationships share one thing: they are situations of incredible intensity or importance where there is an exploitation of trust or power."

- Dr. Patrick Carnes

selected excerpts:



by Dr. Patrick Carnes



About Trauma Bonding:

These people are all struggling with traumatic bonds. Those standing outside see the obvious. All these relationships are about some insane loyalty or attachment. They share exploitation, fear, and danger. They also have elements of kindness, nobility and righteousness. These are all people who stay involved or wish to stay involved with people who betray them. Emotional pain, severe consequences and even the prospect of death do not stop their caring or commitment.



Clinicians call this “traumatic bonding.” This means that the victims have a certain dysfunctional attachment that occurs in the presence of danger, shame, or exploitation. There often is seduction, deception or betrayal. There is always some form of danger or risk.



Some relationships are traumatic. Take, for example, the conflictual ties in movies like The War of the Roses or Fatal Attraction. What Lucy does to Charlie Brown (in the comic strip, Peanuts) every year when she holds the football for him to kick is a betrayal we have grown to expect. Abuse cycles such as those found in domestic violence are built around trauma bonds. So are the misplaced loyalties found in exploitive cults, incest families, or hostage and kidnapping situations.



[Victims] who remain with alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, sex addicts, [or Cyberpaths!] and who will not leave no matter what their partners do, may have suffered enough to have a traumatic bond.



Here are the signs that trauma bonds exist in your life:

• When you obsess about people who have hurt you though they are long gone from your life (To obsess means to be preoccupied, fantasize about, and wonder about something/someone even though you do not want to.)
• When you continue to seek contact with people whom you know will cause you further pain.
• When you go “overboard” to help people who have been destructive to you.
• When you continue to be a “team” member when obviously things are becoming destructive.
• When you continue attempts to get people who are clearly using you to like you.
• When you again and again trust people who have proved to be unreliable.
• When you are unable to distance yourself from unhealthy relationships.
• When you want to be understood by those who clearly do not care.
• When you choose to stay in conflict with others when it would cost you nothing to walk away.
• When you persist in trying to convince people that there is a problem and they are not willing to listen.
• When you are loyal to people who have betrayed you.
• When you are attached to untrustworthy people.
• When you keep damaging secrets about exploitation or abuse.
• When you continue contact with an abuser who acknowledges no responsibility.

About shame:

An injury to one’s sense of self forges some bonds. The self-injury becomes part of the fabric of the relationship and further disrupts the natural unfolding of the self. When this involves terror of any sort, an emptiness forms at the core of the person and the self becomes inconsolable. No addiction can fill in. No denial of self will restore it. No single gesture will be believable. Only a profound sense of the human community caring for the self can seal up this hole. We call this wound shame.



Dr. Carnes’ book: The Betrayal Bond: Breaking Free of Exploitive Relationships

~~~~~~~~~~



The concept of Traumatic Bonding has also been developed to explain the dynamics of domestic violence relationships. Essentially, strong emotional connections develop between the victim and the perpetrator during the abusive relationship. These emotional ties develop due to the imbalance of power between the batterer and the victim and because the treatment is intermittently good and bad.



In terms of the power imbalance, as the abuser gains more power, the abused individual feels worse about him - or herself, is less able to protect him - or herself, and is less competent. The abused person therefore becomes increasingly dependent on the abuser.



The second key factor in traumatic bonding is the intermittent and unpredictable abuse. While this may sound counterintuitive, the abuse is offset by an increase in positive behaviors such as attention, gifts, and promises. The abused individual also feels relief that the abuse has ended. Thus, there is intermittent reinforcement for the behavior, which is difficult to extinguish and serves instead to strengthen the bond between the abuser and the individual being exploited.



ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Bi-Polars and Internet Relationships

What Makes Internet Relationships So Desirable?

by Paula (about.com)



People are drawn to cyber-romances for the same reasons they are drawn to face-to-face romances - either they don't have a "real-life" love relationship, or there is something missing in their "real-life" love relationship. On the internet, they may indeed find what they are missing. Or, because of the partial anonymity of cyberspace - which allows lots of room for fantasy and imagination - they may only THINK they have found what they are missing.



The "exotic" and/or "magical" quality of a cyber-romances might be one factor that attracts some people. The lover's presence enters your home (or office) without the person physically being there, which feels very magical. People also enjoy the secrecy that an internet romance provides.



An internet romance can be carried out from home or office without the knowledge of others around us.



It's well known that people say and do things in cyberspace that they wouldn't ordinarily say or do in the face-to-face world. They loosen up, feel more uninhibited, express themselves more openly. Researchers call this the "disinhibition effect." When people have the opportunity to separate their actions from their real world and identity, they feel less vulnerable about opening up. Whatever they say or do can't be directly linked to the rest of their lives. They don't have to own their behavior by acknowledging it within the full context of who they "really" are. When acting out hostile feelings, the person doesn't have to take responsibility for those actions. In fact, people might even convince themselves that those behaviors "aren't me at all." In psychology this is called "dissociation."



The Problems

Online relationships can happen incredibly fast.



When involved online with someone, you don't experience the negative body language or warning signals that may occur when you meet face to face.



You are taking the other person's word on trust -

while he or she may be romancing four or five others with the same lines that you find appealing.



You may be giving a false impression of yourself due to disinhibition.



What Makes Bipolar People So Vulnerable?

Hypersexuality - hypersexuality is a real problem for the manic bipolar. Because it feels very good, and very powerful, it can be a driving force that propels all thought, all feeling, and all motive. Hypersexuality often causes us to engage in flirtatious, seductive behavior that we would never otherwise consider. Hypersexuality often causes us to abandon real relationships, and it can lead us into dangerous online (and offline) situations. Worst of all, it often causes irreparable damage to integrity, dignity, and reputation.



Perceptual problems - the bipolar often wrongly interprets subtle nuances in voice and body language even when having a physical conversation. In the surreal, artificial environment of the internet, those nuances are further limited by our inability to express them electronically. It's very easy for you - and the person with whom you are communicating - to misinterpret intentions and motives.



Poor impulse control - the desire to live in the moment (without consideration of future consequences) can be real a problem, especially during periods of mania and depression.



Poor self-esteem - bipolars often have a desperate need for attention, friendship, and validation from other human beings. These feelings make us very, very vulnerable to internet stalking, manipulation, and deceit.



Grandiosity - when afflicted with grandiosity, we think we have absolute clarity and can do no wrong. All of our decisions - even the horrifically bad ones - "feel right," and they all make perfect sense.



(be aware - many of these traits apply to psychopaths and narcissists also. Only a qualified mental health professional would be able to diagnose someone as Bi-Polar)



Part 2: Warning Signals and Self-Protection



Now suppose you have met someone via the internet who appeals to you. There are several precautions you can take and a number of warning signals to watch for - signals that can tell you the person on the other end of the chat, forum or email relationship is not what he or she appears to be.



How do you protect yourself?

Be aware of the red flags listed below.



Run your relationship past an unafflicted family member or friend for a second opinion. Listen to his or her responses. Tell your online partner up front that you will be doing this. If the online person insists that you keep the relationship a secret, it's a sure bet that there are troubled waters ahead.



If at any time your instinct tells you that something is wrong; even if you know or "think" you know that person... it probably is. Run, do not walk, to the nearest exit.



Internet Relationships: Red Flags

Some warning signs that you need to watch for in ALL romantic involvements, and especially on the internet with someone you have never really met:



Pay attention to displays of anger, intense frustration or attempts to pressure or control you.



Acting in a passive-aggressive manner, making demeaning or disrespectful comments or any physically inappropriate behavior are all red flags.



Abusive or controlling behavior: Give and take, tempered by some compromise here and there, indicates that a relationship is healthy. However, if one of the persons involved wants everything on his/her terms, then serious problems can arise. Furthermore, there are those who will become verbally, emotionally, or physically abusive if they do not get their way.



Argumentative and irritating behavior: Some people are just contrary. They will question much of what you say to them, put their own twist on it, or challenge your every thought. Basically, they are full of themselves and feel that their opinion is the only one that counts.



Sexual behavior: If your online friend is pressuring you for cybersex, you just might ask yourself the question, "how many others have there been and how many more will there be?"



Inconsistent behavior: Watch for inconsistencies in information about age, interests, appearance, marital status, job, etc. Keep notes!



Avoidant behavior: Consistent failure to provide direct answers to direct questions.



No contact numbers: If you've progressed to telephone contact, and any of the following situations sound familiar, be prepared to further investigate the possibility of a spouse, live-in, or other situation you may not be aware of:

• You have to page them for them to call you back.
• They use a separate line. If so, try calling their main line at random times.
• You can only call during certain periods of time (if this applies to you, try calling at different time periods to see who answers the phone).
• They will only call you, therefore not allowing you to call them.

Protecting Yourself Online

You may enjoy flirting online with that 25-year-old blonde female hottie with the psych degree ... but imagine how surprised you would be to discover that the "young lady" you've been flirting with online, is really a balding middle-aged male factory worker with a beer belly? The sad fact is, the person that you are involved with could be lying to you.

Deception via internet is incredibly easy.

An exchange of pictures via email means nothing. Go slowly. Meet regularly in the same chat room with others around and see how your love interest treats those others - and how the others interact with him or her.



DO'S AND DON'TS OF INTERNET ROMANCE

It's important to remember that online we never really know who we're talking to or what they're real motives are. Until you can internalize that fact, the internet is a dangerous place for you to be spending time.



Safety on the Net

When giving out your geographical location, limit yourself to region only, rather than the exact name of the town, province or neighborhood.



NEVER, EVER give out your work or home phone number to unfamiliar people! Establish a LONG, LONG record of trust before agreeing to do this.



If you must talk on the phone, get the telephone number to a pay telephone near you, and arrange a time when you can be at that phone. Make sure the pay phone you select is able to receive incoming calls. Be Safe!!



If you're going to put your picture on the internet, you have NO reason to believe it's going to stay where you put it. In fact, anybody can right click on an image and take it from a web site. That person that you send it to just might decide to pass it on to friends, and who would know?

Remember, once you put it up, you have NO idea where it's going.

Don't brag. You're sending an open invitation to those who would defraud you, if you tell them you own a house or two, a few cars, etc. Limit how much information you give out!



When you settle on a single relationship, make sure you set up a secondary email account to be used just for this relationship. You can quickly shut it down should things seem not right.



Now suppose the person you have met has passed all the tests and you've decided to take the next step - a face-to-face meeting.



Don't assume that because the object of your affections has not tripped any warning lights during your online relationship, it is perfectly safe to meet.

Keep in mind that when chemistry is the strongest, you are the most vulnerable.

Before you dismiss an online relationship as "harmless," remember that the lack of accountability, the ease of deception, and the anonymity provided by the keyboard all make the online relationship a potential source of instability and even danger.



If you do decide to meet someone offline:



Always meet in a public place! Don't even agree that the parking lot is a good idea - you have NO PROTECTION from anything in a parking lot, and no, your car is NOT SAFE! You can be easily overpowered, you don't know if other cars in the parking lot are safe, and nobody from within another car is likely to see you.



Always tell a friend or relative where you will be and write that information down!



Never allow yourself to be picked up for the first meeting. If you don't own transportation, get a ride from a friend, take a cab, or bus. Do not become a statistic! It is never safe to leave your home with a total stranger or to give a total stranger your address - and no matter how well you think you know someone you met online, at this point he or she IS a total stranger.



Women - never leave your purse unattended, even if the person you are meeting offers to watch it for you. Contained within your purse or whatever you carry is not only the obvious personal information, but your car and house keys. You may not notice they're gone in time.



Never leave your drink on the table or bar! If you have to go to the bathroom, or leave for whatever reason, take your drink with you. If that is not possible, dump it out! Order a fresh one when you return. Rohypnol - commonly known as the date rape drug - is not the only drug you need to be concerned about.



If possible, get a cellular phone. Even if everything goes great, what if the unthinkable were to happen and you were followed home? Lock the car, drive to a busy lighted area, and don't open your car door for ANY reason unless you see the red lights of a police car in your rear view mirror ... and even then, only open that window about an inch. You are safe inside your car if you restrict access. The cell phone is your friend - use it.



Be very aware of your surroundings! Memorize important landmarks such as where the telephone is, park in a well-lit area, and ask someone to walk you to your car in the event the meeting does not go as well as you had hoped. You only have one life, protect it!



A NOTE ABOUT STALKING AND HARASSEMENT

Cyberstalking is defined as "the use of the Internet, e-mail or other electronic communications device, including IM services, to stalk or harass a person."



Cyberstalkers usually target their victims through chat rooms, message boards, discussion forums and e-mail. Cyberstalking takes many forms such as: threatening or obscene e-mail; spamming (in which a stalker sends a victim a multitude of junk e-mail); live chat harassment or flaming (online verbal abuse); leaving improper messages on message boards or in guest books; sending electronic viruses; sending unsolicited e-mail; and electronic identity theft.



Online stalking can be a terrifying experience for victims, placing them at risk for psychological trauma and possible physical harm. Cyberstalking shares important characteristics with offline stalking. Many stalkers - online or off - are motivated by a desire to exert control over their victims and engage in similar types of behavior to accomplish this end. In many documented cyberstalking cases, the cyberstalker and the victim had a prior relationship, and the cyberstalking began when the victim attempted to break off the relationship.



Many cyberstalking situations do evolve into off-line stalking, and a victim may experience abusive and excessive phone calls, vandalism, threatening or obscene mail, trespassing, and physical assault.



Experts suggest that in cases where the offender is known, victims should send the stalker a clear written warning. Specifically, victims should communicate that the contact is unwanted, and ask the perpetrator to cease sending communications of any kind. Then, no matter the response, victims should under no circumstances ever communicate with the stalker again.



As soon as you suspect you are experiencing online harassment or cyberstalking, start collecting all evidence and document all contact made by the stalker. Save all e-mail, postings, or other communications in both electronic and hard-copy form. Record the dates and times of any contact with the stalker. If the harassment continues, you may wish to file a complaint with the stalker's Internet service provider, as well as with you own service provider.



Finally, under no circumstances should victims agree to meet with the perpetrator face to face to "work it out," or "talk." No contact should ever be made with the stalker. Meeting a stalker in person can be very dangerous.



from - about.com

Match.com Can't Screen for Sex Offenders

By Benjamin Radford



One of the world's top dating websites, Match.com, announced that it would begin checking its members against a national sex offender registry. The announcement was made about a week after a class-action lawsuit was filed against the company by two women who claim men they met through the service sexually harassed them.



Whether an attempt to ward off future lawsuits or merely a publicity stunt, the measure is nearly worthless and in fact may do more harm than good by fostering a false sense of security. There are several obvious flaws with the plan.



The first is that users on social networking and matchmaking websites typically do not have their identities verified. Thus anyone (including convicted sex offenders ) can post whatever name they wish to use on the site and easily avoid triggering a match on registries.



Even if Match.com members' names were somehow verified, names are very common. A match with a name on a sex offender registry would also require a matching address to be sure it's the same person. Anyone can rent a post office box (or use a friend's mailing address) to easily avoid triggering an alert.



Second, even if the information provided to Match.com was completely accurate, it may not match what's on the nation's sex offender registries, which are notoriously unreliable. A 2010 study of Vermont's sex offender registry found that half of the entries sampled contained significant mistakes and wrong information, including two people who should not have been listed. Audits in other states, including Georgia and Texas, found that the registry information for offenders was often wrong, incomplete and outdated.



Third, statistics show that relatively few assaults are committed by convicted sex offenders. That is, a given person (adult or child) is far more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone who is not listed on any sex offender registry than a convicted sex offender. The vast majority of physical and sexual assaults are committed by friends, family and other loved ones, not a recently met stranger hiding a sex offense conviction. This is one of the fundamental flaws of Megan's Laws and other offender notification measures: They distract attention and resources away from the greater threat.



Even Match.com's president, Mandy Ginsberg, acknowledged that the new measures "remain highly flawed." The rules of safe dating have not changed in decades: Meet in a public place, tell a friend where you're going and don't give out personal information too early.



Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine and author of six books.

original article here

Another reason to NEVER USE ONLINE DATING!

Man Violates Court Order & CyberHarasses his Ex

By Andrew Neff



(Maine, U.S.A. ) A Utica, N.Y., man was sentenced to a 41-month prison term in U.S. District Court on Friday for interstate violation of a protection order issued to his ex-wife and her family.



U.S. District Judge John A. Woodcock imposed on Jason P. Fiume, 28, the sentence recommended as part of a plea agreement by Assistant U.S. Attorney James McCarthy, who emphasized an “overwhelming need to dissuade Mr. Fiume from the kind of repeated violations” of protection orders that resulted in a two-count indictment for cyberstalking and interstate violation of a protection order.



Defense and prosecution agreed to a plea deal with a recommendation of a prison term ranging between 33 months to 41.



Woodcock — while sympathetic to defense attorney Virginia Villa’s documentation of Fiume’s childhood, which included physical abuse, the absence of a father and six years in foster care — clearly was concerned about the possibility of Fiume endangering his ex-wife and three children.



Fiume’s attempts to pay child support and receive psychological therapy while incarcerated also failed to keep Woodcock from going with the higher prison term.

“A 183-day imprisonment failed to keep him from continuing to contact [her] and it’s very apparent to me watching [her] speak that she’s terrified of you,” Woodcock told a dispassionate Fiume, who showed no emotion during sentencing or when his ex-wife began shaking and sobbing while telling Woodcock how scared she was of her ex-husband. “I think it was real and she is worried you will hurt or even kill her.”

Fiume, who had served as a U.S. Marine lance corporal, assaulted his wife on Dec. 22, 2009, and was arrested and charged. He pleaded guilty and served a six-month sentence. On June 22, 2010, the sentencing judge in New York issued a protection order that he stay away from his wife and not contact her at all. The next day, Fiume’s ex-wife began receiving constant calls from him. He was arrested again July 27, 2010.



Fiume violated a protection order when he followed his then-wife from New York to her parents’ home in Kennebec County while also sending her a series of threatening text messages and social networking site comments.



Fiume acknowledged his violation while reading a personally written statement to the judge, saying he drove to Maine to leave $300 in child support and pledging to be a father and be there for his children.



“I chose to deal with [her] mental abuse and lashed out rather than walked away,” he said.



The mother of Fiume’s ex-wife then asked for permission to address Woodcock, saying Fiume had no legal rights to his children because of court action and disputing the idea that Fiume had learned his lesson.



“My concern is in cases such as this, the courts are not a good place to litigate personal conflicts,” said Villa. “When no account is taken of the defendant’s efforts at rehabilitation, I think that’s counter to encouraging such efforts because they’re not given any credence or validity.”



Before both legal parties reached a plea deal, Fiume faced a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000.



Woodcock imposed no fine on Fiume because he could see no obvious means for him to pay a substantial amount, but Fiume did receive an automatic $100 legally mandated fine as part of sentencing.



“I’m going to give [the maximum 41 months in the plea deal’s 33- to 41-month recommendation range] because I think you need that time to be free of each other,” Woodcock added. “I hope you realize you can live your life without her. In freeing [her], you will also free yourself.”



original article here



READERS: is it just us or are there are lot of these sorts of harassment via internet cases popping up frequently as of late?

Some Take Their Hate Online

By Rob Perez



Not content with just inflicting physical or verbal abuse, domestic violence offenders are turning to the digital and electronic worlds to hound their victims.



Those who deal with restraining orders in domestic abuse cases say they are seeing a growing number of examples in which the abuser uses text messaging, public Web sites or other forms of high-tech communication to reach their targets.



Family Court Judge Michael Broderick, who presides over protective-order requests, said he is seeing more cases of abusers turning to the Internet.



He recalled one recent case in which an ex-boyfriend wrote on a public Web site that his ex-girlfriend was great in bed, wanted lots of sex and listed her home address.



The high-tech abuse is happening even though protective orders that Broderick and other judges issue prohibit any type of contact, including e-mails and text-messaging. Someone who violates a protective order is subject to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.



Allegations of high-tech abuse show up frequently on petitions for restraining orders.

"He is writing blogs about me on MySpace without my consent," one woman wrote in her petition, which alleged that her ex-boyfriend beat her, destroyed her treasured possessions and once threw her into the shower fully clothed and turned cold water on her after she refused to shower with him.



"Some blogs also contain our 'love story.' The whole world can basically read what was going on between us."

Another woman who alleged her husband physically abused her said he sent text messages about him having sex with two girls and kept referring to her as a "fat ugly whore."



One woman said her boyfriend threatened to put on the Web a video of the couple having sex — she said he took the footage without her knowledge — if she broke up with him. She broke up with him anyway but is still worried about what he might do.



The latest text message she got from him: "It's not over til I say it's over."



Some abusers take advantage of the anonymity of the Internet.



A Makakilo woman told The Advertiser her ex-boyfriend responded to her Craigslist ad, posing as a stranger. He sent a series of e-mails seeking more information about the item she was selling, then started asking personal questions about her social life. The e-mails eventually devolved into demeaning comments about her, she said.



The woman had a restraining order against the man, and she said he was using a fake name on the Internet to circumvent the court order.

When she reported the abuse to police, she was told nothing could be done because she couldn't prove the e-mails were from him, the woman said.

Sometimes, just the threat of online abuse is enough to get a response.



Ed Flores, executive director of Ala Kuola, a nonprofit that helps people file petitions for restraining orders, said a woman recently came to his office to complete paperwork seeking an order against her boyfriend, who had been physically abusing her.



While she was at the office, her alleged abuser called on her cell phone and threatened to write about their sex history on a public Web site if she went through with the petition.



The next day, Flores said, the woman called to say she wasn't going to pursue the restraining order because of her boyfriend's threat.



ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Internet Harasser Lured into Harassing Police

by John Timmer



(CANADA) A strange case of online harassment, complete with the usual police who would do nothing, may finally be coming to a close. A Montreal citizen who went by the online handle of Dave Mabus has been targeting the atheist and skeptic communities with threats and harassment for years. But Mabus' ability to target his threat was pretty limited (he often went after scientific journalists, including me), and that proved to be his downfall. Some clever Twitter users managed to redirect his rage-filled missives, first to a journalist in his home town of Montreal, and ultimately to the Montreal police department.



The person who goes by the name of Dave Mabus has apparently been at this for a while, as noted atheist PZ Myers claims to have been getting material from him for nearly two decades. Apparently inspired by fervent beliefs in both religion and the prophecies of Nostradamus, Mabus was incensed by the mere existence of atheists and skeptics who raised questions about them, such as Richard Dawkins, James Randi, and Michael Shermer. Starting with e-mail and newsgroups, Mabus sent off angry and vulgar rants to an ever-widening circle of targets. He also moved with the times, adding additional media for his anger: Web discussion boards, various blogs he opened and, eventually, Twitter.



Whatever else this behavior said about his mental state, Mabus did demonstrate impressive patience. As soon as one e-mail service or blog host closed off an account due to complaints of harassment, another would be opened. Evidence from various IP address traces showed he often connected via public computers or open WiFi hotspots scattered around Montreal.



Over time, he broadened his target list to the point of carelessness. "I don't think I ever said anything that directly set him off, in that I am not part of the atheist/skeptic community, which seemed to be his main targets," science writer Maryn McKenna told Ars. "I assume I was just collateral damage for being on the same RT strings as others he was more interested in."



I had largely the same experience, as did writer Carl Zimmer, who shared an archive of some of the e-mails he's received from Mabus over the years.



Many of these were simply vulgar rants against anyone who promoted atheism or questioned Nostradamus. But there are a number that clearly imply a threat: "Kicking in the heads of atheists one at a time...," "now we are going to bury you...," "we're this far from nuking all of you...." But many of the recipients also reported obvious threats to themselves and their families. More worrying still, the Atheist Alliance International held its convention in Montreal in 2010, a move that sparked this response from Mabus, found in one of Zimmer's e-mails: "NEW GAME WITH YOU LITTLE F*CKERS - SPEAK N DIE." And then, reportedly, Mabus' real-life counterpart did show up at the meeting.



Many others have suggested Mabus' imagery grew increasingly unnerving. "Whether he would ever get violent, I don't know," Zimmer said. "But he was a disturbing figure in many people's lives."



Behind the pseudonym

Despite his frequent use of anonymous services and public access points, Mabus apparently wasn't all that careful about concealing his identity, which is how people could tell that he had had shown up to the convention. Several of the e-mails he sent included a name in the return address: Dennis Markuze. IP addresses led to Montreal, and checks of the Montreal phone directory revealed there were only a few numbers listed with that last name. With his targets getting increasingly worried about the threats they were receiving, people started filing complaints with various law enforcement agencies, including the Montreal Police.



And, as far as anyone could tell, the complaints went nowhere. The local authorities weren't interested in acting, and most of Mabus' targets didn't even live in Canada. That eventually changed, in part due to Mabus' lack of discretion when it came to choosing his targets. One of Zimmer's tweets apparently caught the attention of William Raillant-Clark, who handles press for the University of Montreal. Calling the inaction "unacceptable," Ralliant-Clark began investigating the story and placed his results on Tumblr; he also included the Montreal Police's press account on Twitter in some of the conversation.



Here's where Mabus' thoroughness backfired. Noticing the Twitter conversation between Ralliant-Clark and his former victims, he added the journalist to his target list. And, since the Montreal police's Twitter account was also mentioned, it got a copy too. Mabus actually started sending diatribes to the local police force.



At the same time, someone named Kyle VanderBeek also became a target of Mabus' attack. The organization he works for, change.org, has an online petition system. VanderBeek set one up that asked the Montreal police to end the harassment; the system sent an e-mail to the police with each signature. By this time last week, the Montreal police had launched an investigation and were asking for the e-mails to stop, while Ralliant-Clark was being interviewed on TV. Later that evening, the latest Mabus Twitter account started issuing apologies.



By Tuesday, the police announced that they had arrested a suspect in this case. The Canadian judicial system will now decide whether his frequent threats require some sort of formal intervention.



Unfortunately, it took years of abuse and threats before anything was done; in the meantime, a larger number of people have been targeted by his threats, wasted time blocking his screeds, or had their conversations disrupted by his rants. The only consolation is that the same personality trait that allowed him to be disruptive—his indifference to the targets of his harassment—finally led him to target the Montreal police.



original article here

Wife Traumatised by Husband's Harassment

(U.K.) Fireman Ben Walker began a campaign of harassment against his estranged wife just hours after being convicted of violently assaulting her. The violent thug was convicted of punching, kicking, throttling and even holding a power drill to the stomach of Amanda in May. But the abuse did not stop after he was convicted of assault by beating and common assault.



Newcastle Magistrates’ Court heard the “obsessed and intimidating” former crew manager at Gateshead East Community Fire Station bombarded his wife with text messages leaving her “suicidal”.



Walker, 31, who has been living at his father’s house in Staffordshire since moving out of the High Heaton home the couple shared, pleaded guilty to harassment and said afterwards he hoped he could now “start his life again”.



Prosecutor Rebecca Gibson said Walker’s “vile campaign of harassment” against his wife who he met on the internet and married after a six-month romance, had started the same day he was convicted and quickly escalated.



“The Crown requested a restraining order but the defence claimed that it wasn’t necessary because Walker accepted that the marriage was over and he was going to move away,” she said.



“But since that day he has sent her over 100 text messages.”



Magistrates heard that on May 8 Walker went to his former marital home, on Southlands, and persistently banged on the door for over half an hour. When his wife didn’t answer, he waited until she left the house and then followed her and prevented her from getting out of the car.



The court also heard a Facebook page was also set up to support Walker, with 220 members, on which many “vile and threatening comments” were posted.



Ms Gibson said Amanda was “traumatised” by what had happened and that she has gone from a “happy, highly confident individual to a physical wreck”. She said: “Her peace of mind has gone, she feels a prisoner in her own home and is scared to answer the phone or socialise with friends as she fears retaliations. She has had substantial time off work due to stress and her job is at risk.



“Her faith in men has been shattered and she can’t start relationships. It’s turned her world upside down and she can’t sleep. It is an ever present worry. She will spend the rest of her life wondering if she is at risk. She is under the long-term care of her GP and at her lowest she felt suicidal.”



When arrested Walker admitted sending texts with the aim of reconciling the relationship. Denise Jackman, defending Walker, said her client had misunderstood an instruction to send future legal letters directly to Amanda as a sign she was contemplating reconciliation.



“Walker thought it was her way of wanting to sort things out,” she said. “He accepts he texted her but nobody has seen all of these 100 texts. He knows the position he’s in.



Ms Jackman added: “He met this lady and then his life went down the pan. He accepts his marriage is at an end.”



Walker was handed a 24-month community order, with supervision, and 66 hours unpaid work. He was also slapped with a two-year restraining order with conditions not to contact Amanda Walker unless through his solicitor.



Speaking outside court after the hearing last week, Walker said he wanted to put his “disastrous” marriage behind him. He added: “I’m very sorry to be leaving the North East.”



original article here

Cyberpaths -- Exposed & On The Attack

As we continue to do our exposes, readers - you will see a type of pathological who - once revealed for the narcissistic sociopathic type he/ she is - will just attack, attack, attack. Yours is not the first, nor will be the last of our cyberpaths who have done this EXACT SAME THING! - EOPC

~~~~~~~~~~



WHEN THEY ATTACK

by Kathy Krajco



(We have replaced the word narcissists with predators for clarity - EOPC)



Professionals often say that predators "overreact" to the merest unintended slights and that they fly into a rage for the slightest reason. But this view seems anthropomorphic to me. I suspect it comes from forgetting that the predator on your couch is a pathological liar.



The truth is that predators attack for no reason. In fact, they are prompted to attack by anti-reasons.



Of course the predator on your couch says he did it in self defense! He whines that the victim said or did something to slight him or anger his tender, tender feelings. Were you born yesterday? predator = pathological liar. So, why do you expect him to confess to you that he is a predator = one who attacks any vulnerable target of opportunity?



I would hate to admit how long it took me to discover this, but in my experience, what triggers a predator Attack is nothing but a vulnerable target of opportunity.



Test predators. Parade bait before them when the coast looks clear so that the narc thinks later it will just be his word against the victim's. Then watch what happens.



You can push his Attack button by having the victim be very vulnerable, like say by showing great affection for the predator and giving a heartfelt plea for some in return. (Rather like a man I knew who asked a predator to marry him and got eviscerated for it.)



How does the predator react to what should evoke his love and affection? With a savage attack, that's how. Rather like any wild predator when you ring the dinner bell for it by giving it a swipe at a defenseless creature's soft underbelly.



Except that natural predators must be hungry at the time.



On second thought, I guess predators have to be hungry, too. But they always are. For, they have the kind of hunger that increases the more you feed it.



So much for the theory that predators are just too touchy. They ain't touchy at all.



Test that too. Indeed, try to provoke a predator. You can't. Go ahead, try.

The only way to get yourself a raging predator is to tempt it with defenseless bait when it thinks no one is watching.

Now that you have your predator raging, do one more thing. Have the victim rise up rage right back it its face.



Guess what happens? Presto chango! Rage off!



Instead of a raging predator, you now have a poor little meek and gentle angel who wouldn't hurt a fly and is heartbroken at the victim being so nasty.



Welcome to The Twilight Zone. I call this miraculous phenomenon "The Transfiguration."



I am not exaggerating. You witness the instantaneous substitution of one persona for its very antithesis in the blink of an eye. You don't know whether to pinch yourself or start throwing holy water at it. Because an Academy Award winner couldn't do that that fast.



It stuns you and gives you the creeps. Indeed, one facial expression doesn't melt into the other: the whole mask changes at once.



I call a predator's faces "masks" because when you see this happen you know that's what they are. You know that what's on the face is a lie. It's the Big Chill.



A stunning revelation. The predator's very face is a lie about what is really going on in the darkness behind that mask.

from: When [Predators] Attack

~~~~~~~~~~

Some of our examples:



LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE CAUGHT MR. DUNETZ NOT ONCE - BUT TWICE - BEING A BULLY AND POSER!



ONE



TWO





Mr. Jacoby set up a website simply to threaten his victim and has been smearing her ever since. The website has since been removed.



btw, Mr. Capers? We are very aware of the threats you are issuing towards your numerous victims... and we're reporting them to authorities along with your multiple identities



~~~~~~~~~~~

Dark Soul as a Destroyer

By Sarah Strudwick

Psychopaths are known for their lack of fear, but at the same time they often have other associated personality disorders along side, such as malignant narcissism. They feel the need to have a constant fix of kind loving, empathic individuals that they can then slowly pull down to their own level. It’s a bit like the analogy I put in my book, Dark Souls, where they take a helpless spider and pull the legs off one by one—just to see what happens. Why do they do it? Because they can.

So why does the Dark Soul or psychopath feel the need to destroy their victims when the relationship is well and truly over?

Many targets complain that well after the relationship ends they are stalked by the psychopath, or they continue to bombard them with emails and spam. Sometimes they will try and befriend you on Facebook, or constantly monitor what you are doing by stalking you. Even when you have moved on with your life, recovering from financial hardship, emotional stress and so on, the psychopathic personality is not happy. With their own deep sense of self-hatred, they will often feel jealous, and may be vindictive by sending you viruses on your PC or other inconveniences. It’s their way of saying, “You think you have moved on, but I will be there in the background constantly monitoring you.”

It’s also their way of bringing you down to their disgustingly low level. On a conscious level, they know exactly what they are doing and want a reaction. They hope you will hate them as much as they hate themselves. Even if you have no evidence with them they want to continue contact, and being extremely narcissistic, it’s all about getting attention, any kind of attention. What better way to get your attention than, for example, to hack your computer or send you vile pictures on your computer? What better way for them to project their vile, angry, unowned thoughts and feelings back onto their victim, so that they do not have to own them?

Psychopaths are notorious for using sneaky underhanded tactics when it comes to playing dirty, whether it is getting the authorities or lawyers on their side, or other members of the family. They will always find a way to turn the tables back onto their victims and say they did nothing, creating crazymaking behaviour. If and when the victim finally has had enough and lashes back, the Dark Soul can then say, “See I told you she/he was crazy – look what she did!”

Because the psychopath is so sneaky, and makes sure to do everything in a way that you know they are doing it but they cannot be caught, it’s a fine line between being indifferent to them and enabling them. They end up feeling so omnipotent, they think they can actually get away with anything.

Those who have malignant narcissism and psychopathy, or sociopathic traits or both, do understand the concepts of the law and how they will only go so far. After all, it would an inconvenience for them to end up in prison.

To some degree, let them be the destroyer, but keep evidence along the way, so long as it’s not causing you physical or emotional harm.

However, when things get out of hand, let them know in no uncertain terms what evidence you have on them, because at the end of the day all they are doing is digging themselves an even bigger grave to put themselves in. Having said that, it’s not as if they need one, because they died a long time ago.

_________________________

Because psychopaths can’t relinquish power over anybody, they usually keep tabs on former girlfriends and periodically circle around them, like vultures, long after the relationships are dead. Even in the cases where they don’t maintain physical contact, they may still send you nasty emails thinly disguised as spam or other unwanted communication. (then denying they ever sent it with terms like "I never...")

This is why it’s so hard to get rid of a psychopath, long after you leave him. Because he’s egotistical and controlling, a psychopath can’t get dumped by his girlfriends and move on, the way any normal, self-respecting man would. In fact, to maintain dominance, he usually lies to others about past relationships as easily as he deceives them about current ones. He may falsely claim that he initiated breakups or portray his ex-girlfriends as disturbed. He will even set her up, sending emails or texts as her to make her appear the "crazy one."

The web of lies woven by the psychopath embraces everything and everyone in his life, past, present and future. And so the relationship cycle repeats itself, as the psychopath continually trolls for new partners, tires of current relationships, ends some of them, begins others, only to find his way back, like an unwanted boomerang, into his ex-girlfriends’ lives.

(while this article is written with females as victims; women CAN be psychopaths too)

_________________________



Remember, it is not you - it is them.