Showing posts with label anger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anger. Show all posts

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Anonymous Anger Rampant on Internet

by Todd Leopold

There's a whole world of people out there, and boy, are they pissed off.
anger Pictures, Images and Photos

On political blogs, the invective flies. Posters respond to the latest celebrity gossip with mockery or worse. Sports fans set up Web sites with names that begin with "fire," hoping coaches, athletic directors and sportscasters lose their jobs.

And though there are any number of bloggers and commenters who attempt to keep their postings and responses on a civil level, all too often interactive Web sites descend into ad hominem attacks, insults and plain old name-calling. Indeed, there are even whole sites devoted to venting, such as justrage.com (one screed there was titled, "I don't give a flying f***, so f*** you") and mybiggestcomplaint.com.

This is not a world Emily Post would want to be caught in after dark.
"The Internet can be a great tool," said Sara Black, a professor of health studies at St. Joseph's University who takes a particular interest in online bullying. "Like any tool, it can also be misused."

One reason for the vitriol that emerges on the Web, experts say, is the anonymity the Internet provides. Commenters seldom use their real names, and even if they do, the chance for retaliation is slim.
"In the [pre-Internet era], you had to take ownership [of your remarks]. Now there's a perception of anonymity," said Lesley Withers, a professor of communication at Central Michigan University. "People think what they say won't have repercussions, and they don't think they have to soften their comments."

Contrast that with a face-to-face conversation, or even a phone conversation, where you can judge people's moods from facial movements or vocal inflections, observes University of Texas psychology professor Art Markman. iReport.com: Second Life avatars grapple with reduced nonverbal communication

"It's hard to be aggressive when you're face to face," he said.

Moreover, he points out, aggression often carries a subtext of power.
"A lot of times, real anger is an attempt to get control over a situation where the person doesn't usually have it," he said. In that respect, comments to blog posts are attempts to strike back.

Those power games are innately grasped by children and teens, with schools serving as a perennial social laboratory.

Cheryl Dellasega, a Penn State women's studies professor, ticks off hypothetical examples that could have come straight from the scripts to "Mean Girls" or "Heathers."
"Girls who are getting teased come home and let their [aggressors] have it by putting something on their blog and starting a rumor campaign," she said. And instead of rumors simply making the rounds among peer groups -- which can be bad enough -- "they go out to a much bigger group, a worldwide group. The impact is devastating, and it's as easy as clicking a button."

"Kids don't realize that one post can destroy somebody's life forever," she added.

Indeed, such incidents have made headlines. In 2006, 13-year-old Megan Meier committed suicide after becoming attracted to a boy on MySpace who then turned on her. The boy turned out to be a hoax created by a neighbor family that included a former friend of Meier's.

In August, The New York Times Magazine did a story about trolls, some barely out of their teens, who antagonize others for the sake of "lulz": "Lulz is watching someone lose their mind at their computer 2,000 miles away while you chat with friends and laugh," one ex-troll told the publication.

Adults aren't immune by any means. A Japanese woman, angry at her online "husband," killed his avatar after he divorced her. A South Korean actress committed suicide after being harassed by online rumors following a divorce. Celebrity gossip sites are full of snarky comments about stars; reaction from readers is often brutal, turning the story into the online equivalent of a pile-on.

Markman is quick to observe that he doesn't believe there's more anger out there. But, he said, "there are more ways of expressing it on the Internet."
"We've all had interactions with unpleasant people, but we don't confront them. We take it out elsewhere," he said. "What the Internet has created is groups of people where there are no repercussions with being too aggressive."

Indeed, though electronically transmitted anger has parallels throughout human history -- the bitter letter, the village gossip -- the speed at which it travels, and the number of people who may come in contact with it, is something new, says St. Joseph's Black.
"[Electronic] media can increase potential for violence in a number of ways," she said in an e-mail interview. "First, it introduces ideas (good and bad) that people may not have come up with on their own. Second, it is easier to depersonalize the victim, facilitating perpetration. Third, aggressive behaviors may be reinforced with points, attention or status, especially in games."

Withers has seen that first hand. She teaches a course on the "dark side of communication" at Central Michigan, involving "the mean or evil things we do on a day-to-day basis," as she describes it: cheating, for example, or lying.

As part of the course, several of her students work on a collaborative project with students at other schools, and they come together in Second Life, the virtual reality environment. If someone isn't pulling his or her weight, says Withers, others can be harsh in their judgments -- harsher than in real life, because the anger is expressed at the person's avatar. Sidebar: Dealing with anger in Second Life

Which led at least one of Withers' students to forget that the avatar was attached to a real person.
"One student went off on another student and she was sitting in the classroom a few rows behind him," she said. "He knew she was there, but didn't -- there was that distancing."

Is there a way to restore civility to the Internet? Among children and teenagers, say Dellasega and Black, it's up to parents to exercise control.

"I think parents need to take responsibility," Dellasega said. "They give kids computers and leave them alone. ... When a child is 8 or 9, the computer should be in a public place. Kids should understand that using a computer is a privilege, not a right."

Schools can also play a role, she says.
talk to the hand Pictures, Images and Photos

Black adds that parents should set clear rules on behavior and build empathy in their kids by having them reach out to those who are different.

As for adults, human nature dictates that people will always lash out at others, whether it's over a perceived insult or simply because of a power differential. Web sites may ban the worst offenders, but they'll almost always pop up elsewhere, using a different name, e-mail address or even computer.
"Some people are just bitter and angry," said psychiatrist Dr. Terry Eagan, medical director of the Moonview Sanctuary in Santa Monica, California. "Sometimes, they're against everyone, other times against a specific group. That person can get really stimulated and can say all sorts of horrible things. But I don't think it's not like they didn't exist before."

Whether the problem will get control of us, or we will get control of the problem, is in the way we face up to it, he says. Anger, he says, is rolled up with anxiety and fear, and nothing creates more fear like a lack of understanding.

"I tell patients that I'd rather know everything about people; information is powerful," he said. "When the climate of the world is more fear-based, it permeates everything."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

SITES BY VICTIMS OF CYBERPATHS
(we believe many of these people have a right to be upset and using writing as a healing & informational tool for them can be very empowering)

Cyberstalker: Felicity Jane Lowde

Marilyn McAboy

Jakob Maltese

The Laura Knight-Jadczyk Fraud

Nancy Lynne

Too Good To Be Real

Kim Stewart - Bink, Briesis, Allie

Victim of Gareth Rodger Speaks Out

One Victim of William Michael Barber Tells Their Story

Sandra Brown MA - No License


(readers -- if you know of others, please tell us!)

Friday, March 11, 2011

IS IT LEGAL TO EXPOSE THESE PREDATORS?

Written by the Fighter Team
(originally published December 02, 2005)

Here's the question - is it LEGAL to expose a cheater or abuser online? We remind you that this piece contains our personal OPINIONS only and was written for the purpose of consideration and discussion.
Busted
In short, it appears
the current answer is YES. But this could change in the near future.

Most of these type of sites have rules for exposing the people listed. The current interpretation seems to say if you have proof to back up what you say, and it is truthful, it is not libel or slander or defamation. But remember, laws can be changed with enough pressure.

One site that exposes cheating men recently had a group attempt to launch a lawsuit against them. Guess what happened? Other than whining & moaning about how the cheaters and their families were harmed? Not much. The cheaters' website was looking for advertisers and money to help support their "cause." (Their site & cause are now BOTH defunct) Besides, now there are so many other choices of sites available to expose people, both men and women! (Additionally, the men trying to launch a lawsuit all admitted to affairs, cheating and lying to others online... but were angry about their families being harmed. -- Sounds like Dorksy, gridney/ Yidwithlid, Beckstead, etc. Maybe they should have thought of that before they went online to prey on innocent, vulnerable women and then treat them and smear these victims when they were caught in the lies & game playing. In short, they had NO SUIT!)


This same site had a man named Todd Hollis attempt to sue them for defamation. It got to court and rather than "having his day," the suit was tossed out by the judge before it even got that far.
According to judge R. Stanton Wettick, the "Defendant’s Web site is accessible to anyone connected to the Internet anywhere in the world. Under plaintiff’s argument, defendant could be hauled into court in any state for any controversy. This result would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s understanding of the requirements of due process."

Exposure sites have very specific terms of use - honesty is a must and the legal onus is on the poster. Site owners and posters believe the men are angry they have been caught and exposed. (these cheaters & abusers always deny what they did, play the victim, say their family is being hurt or that the victim(s) 'knew what they were doing' or were psychos, scorned, etc. Always! It's a red flag that the person smearing them is attempting to defame his victim(s) so no one will listen to the REAL STORY)

Recently we were asked if most of these abusers and cheaters feel ashamed, sorry or sad about what they have done. Answer: "Not that we have seen!! In fact, it seems that they usually become indignant, angry and lash out at the person(s) that exposed the truth about them. They only "feel sorry" to try to rope the victim into saying nothing about them and to stop the tide of truth from exposing all the rest of their evil deeds."

Sad? Yes they are. Sad they got caught. And some of them do clean up their act for a few weeks, months or even years - but usually go RIGHT BACK to it and are sneakier about it next time.
If you consider that many of these people fall into a destructive sociopathic and narcissistic pattern you
will find that many of them will go to therapy or even make long, carefully-crafted confessions to their partners. They even keep tweaking their stories until they find one that works. Here's one beaut that one of our predators tells to this day, that is the exact opposite of really happened, is pure slander and leaves out a lot of pertinent facts to make them (the Cyberpath) appear the victim:

You were an old girlfriend of Yidwithlid from an upstate NY college. You used the internet to track him down after 30 years, which wasn’t too hard because he’s a published writer.

You had cyber-sex with him and then got him to agree to meet up with you. When he did meet up with you, to his horror, he saw that his ex-girlfriend from college had ballooned into a 275 lb fat pig with poor hygiene and he didn’t want to bang you.

He politely excused himself by saying he couldn’t do this to his wife. You then began stalking him and his family, driving by his house, sending letters to his wife, his parents, his in-laws, his rabbi, the police, anyone with whom you thought you could slander his good name. His poor wife was left with no choice but to report you to the police after you threatened to harm her children.

Sound familiar porkchop?


Or there's the old "she's a scorned crazy woman" that this guy uses. Or this Cyberpath who says the victim who exposed him is "mentally unbalanced." Or this guy who has sworn for the last few years it's "all lies" and he's "writing a book to tell the truth" and "suing everyone." Don't buy it!

Once they find themselves "CURED" (We use that term loosely because deep down they justify everything and see NOTHING wrong with their behaviors) they will, step by step, go right back to their predatory ways either online or off. Being an online cheater is an addiction and takes a lot of honesty and giving up personal time to break an addiction or not trade it for something equally addicting and destructive.

The worst part is these cheaters and abusers usually accuse their wounded targets of harassing both them and/or their partners/ families and even stalking them. This is nothing more than a preemptive strike.

It common for internet predators, abusers and cheaters to enlist their local police in harassing their victims by showing the police carefully selected instant messages and emails to support their claims and need to cut down the once "beloved' target."
This move sometimes makes their victims back down but usually the retributive attack can't be backed up.
  • Be careful, the law regarding internet communications is still new so ask yourself:
  • Are you exposing them to be mean or get revenge?
  • Or are you doing it to warn others and possibly stop the cyberpath from destroying themselves and their families?
  • Are you being vindictive or shedding real light on the situation?

When you point the finger at someone there are always three fingers pointing back at you. Your stories may help some potential victim see the patterns of behavior displayed by these people and avoid a lot of heartache. They may be cathartic as well. Telling is well known in psychiatric & medical communities as healing for victims.

As it stands, these communications are considered like any internet bulletin board posting as long as it doesn't contain telephone numbers or other information someone could use for identity theft.
The exposure site owners say it is a matter of opinion.

In many cases, the cheater's spouse, therapist or partner may even stand up for the cheater/ abuser. These people do "seem" so contrite. They tell them to NEVER speak to their victim(s) again. Is that right? Maybe not
. It doesn't offer an outlet for the cathartic anger and venting these exposure sites allow. It doesn't allow for healing on either side. It shows no empathy towards the victim.

Counselors for internet addiction say the cheaters should come clean with their partner AND all their victims. They also suggest trying to reframe the relationship into something more productive and honest for both people. Cutting off the victim is cruel and allows the abuser to then bend their stories without reproach, launch a smear campaign against their victims, run away from any responsibility and lie to everyone even more... including themselves. 12-Step addicts know that you must make direct amends.

Of course, some hide behind the step that says "unless to do so would cause more harm." In this case the cheater convinces themselves it would harm the victim even more. Baloney. The truth is not only a great leveler but also a great healer. In fact, new programs for restorative justice bring some prison inmates together with their victims which has been proven to be very healing for both of them.


So, think about it: if you internet predators, cheaters and abusers truly want to mend your ways then trying to erase what you did online by creating new identities and blocking victims isn't the solution, is it?

Now back to the lawsuit mentioned above. The owner of the site that was threatened with a lawsuit says:
"Most of them say that the [person] who posted [the profile] is crazy, that something is wrong with [the poster]; and that they're [the abuser/ cheater] saints."

Domestic Violence advocates say this is classic and typical abuser-speak. It's never the cheater or abuser, it's always the person who found them out! Sort of a no-good-deed-goes-unpunished moment. Unlike the public posting of the locations of known, convicted sex-offenders, this does seem to be more problematic in terms of fairness.

The another site sheds more light on the process:
"I don't want to ruin someone's life.... But, I can't control if you are player and a bunch of women post things about you. That is just a karma thing."

In one case, City of Kirkland v. Sheehan, Bill Sheehan, a man in Washington State says he put up a website in an effort to make the police more publicly accountable. He published information about local police officers from the City of Kirkland and other municipalities in Washington including their names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, spouses' names and more. The police officers claimed this required them to enhance their personal and job security measures as well as expend funds in response to the listings.
The case also alleges the site caused stress to both them and their families. This allegation is similar to the one made by the group attempting to shut down the cheating man site.
busted

The ruling on the case held that the First Amendment protected the site:
"[I]n the absence of a credible specific threat of harm, the publication of lawfully obtained addresses and telephone numbers, while certainly unwelcome to those who had desired a greater degree of anonymity, is traditionally viewed as having the ability to promote political speech. Publication may arguably expose wrongdoers and/or facilitate peaceful picketing of homes or worksites and render other communication possible."

As for the cheating man site? A former U.S. attorney Scott Christie was quoted in the New Jersey Star Ledger,
"Yes, it's all legal. If I were the owners of this site, I wouldn't be concerned. They're providing an outlet for people to express their opinion. It's much like hosting a bulletin board for people with a common interest,. People are giving their opinion about other people — they're entitled to it under the First Amendment."

And this from Canada.com:
According to a privacy lawyer from Halifax, (snip)

"If the person's reputation is in Canada, and they are in Canada, and likely the person who posted the information is in Canada, there's more than enough connection for Canadian defamation law to apply," says David T.S. Fraser, chair of the privacy practice group at McInnes Cooper. But he hastens to add the statements aren't considered defamatory if they're true.

"If you're a slug," says Mr. Fraser, "it's only appropriate people know you're a slug."

And think about this: The people who post the pictures/profiles on any site are making an "allegation" — nothing more. Many of them aren't offering evidence that is irrefutable and verifiable other than their account. With sites that do, they make sure they have evidence. But what are the reasons for doing this? Is it a warning, catharsis, revenge or a credible threat? That's something the poster needs to ask themselves before they get into a very sticky legal situation.

In an article on FindLaw, writer Anita Ramasastry brought up some current cases involving exposure sites, digital information and their interesting findings. One case stated that the First Amendment does not protect all personally identifiable information in every context, even those published online. In a 6-5 decision (close), in Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc., et al., v. American Coalition of Life Activists, et al. an en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against a web site that did publish personal information of abortion doctors.

This particular case involved a website called the "Nuremberg Files." It published the addresses, photographs, addresses and other personal information of physicians and others who either provided or supported abortion services. The website also had strike throughs on the names of those who had been murdered and grayed out the names of those who had been wounded. The majority in this close decision held that the "pattern" in which the posters appeared — coupled with the fact that other abortion providers had been killed — transformed the posters into something of a symbolic threat. As such, the information was not protected by the First Amendment.

One owner of a website about cheating, abusive men says this about their site:
The Terms of Agreement and Privacy Policy are currently being re-revised and there are some terms that a woman needs to agree to before she can add a man to the database. All this basically comes down to two issues - Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment and the issue of a private person's right to privacy.

However, in a sense, aren't search engines such as Google merely large databases of information which also include personally identifying information of millions of humans?! If Google can do it, why shouldn't smaller websites such as mine be able to do it without legal reprecussions?So, okay, we have people who are exposing the misdeeds of others in a cyberspace court of public opinion. Of course this pisses off the cheaters because they want a higher threshold standard of guilt/proof or because they disagree with the concept of outting anyone publicly for what they feel should be a private matter. However, here's our personal look at another beneficial perspective of the people making these claims.

If someone posted our pictures/profiles in a database and we learned of it but it wasn't true, then we probably wouldn't waste time even rebutting it. Why? Because if we're innocent, then the burden is not on us to prove such, at least not under American jurisprudence — legal or moral. And we don't use and abuse people online or off - so we are not afraid of scrutiny. Misinformation and slander is easily proved and then we'd ask the site administrator to remove it. Threats such as being "out to get you" or "you're done" or "I will not hesitate to kill you if I see you" - are illegal and should be reported immediately to the FBI nearest where the threatener lives. (CLICK HERE for U.S. Offices)

In short - its a catharsis the victims won't get anywhere else. What are the victims of these men and women to do with their anger, pain and hurt? Suck it up and allow the abuser to move on to another victim? Tell or not tell his spouse, partner or family? Stew in their feelings?

One exposure site owner says:
It is better than going out and slashing his tires. It makes the victims feel better and gives them a way to express their bitterness and hurt."

In light of precedents like these, it's extremely likely that any law that simply tried to ban cheating men/ women sites, information aggregators like Zabasearch or "digital dossiers," would be struck down as contrary to the First Amendment. But could a more narrowly written law constitutionally restrict such sites and dossiers and be on the books soon? Some feel yes, such a law would be desirable. Some feel no, that the internet should not be restricted in such a manner as long as it does not pose a threat, symbolic or otherwise, to the persons posted as long as the information is true and proveable.


Perhaps if you are a guilty party, rather than trying to cut down the person(s) exposing you it would be better to call a qualified internet addiction counselor to stop your abusing ways. You would be doing everyone, including yourself, a favor.

Then, see what you can do to get the posting removed without a counterattack. Just talking to the person(s) you suspect posted it and working on amends honestly seems better than a Judge Judy or Jerry Springer hate-fest.


Ramasastry says in her article "... legislators should consider regulating how densely information can be collected online - regulating, that is, how thick our digital dossiers really can be. Doubtless, any attempt to do this will raise First Amendment objections. But this is one issue where privacy and the First Amendment truly clash - and the First Amendment cannot win every time."

And to the victims of these cheaters, liars, internet predators and abusers, remember: NOTHING beats sunshine and fresh air to disinfect abuse!
Tell, but do not do it to endanger the person you are angry at or their families in the process. The laws are still being worked out. These sorts of internet exposures won't go away. Think of the National Enquirer and Globe articles that have caused ugly lawsuits.

Write your representatives and tell them your concerns or feelings about internet privacy.

And if you have been cheated on? Vent but exercise caution in posting anyone's personal information.

DISCLAIMER: We are not lawyers and this article is our personal opinion. It should not be construed as legal advice, in part or in whole, in way, shape or form.

OUR ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND HERE

IS IT LEGAL TO EXPOSE THESE PREDATORS?

Written by the Fighter Team
(originally published December 02, 2005)

Here's the question - is it LEGAL to expose a cheater or abuser online? We remind you that this piece contains our personal OPINIONS only and was written for the purpose of consideration and discussion.
Busted
In short, it appears
the current answer is YES. But this could change in the near future.

Most of these type of sites have rules for exposing the people listed. The current interpretation seems to say if you have proof to back up what you say, and it is truthful, it is not libel or slander or defamation. But remember, laws can be changed with enough pressure.

One site that exposes cheating men recently had a group attempt to launch a lawsuit against them. Guess what happened? Other than whining & moaning about how the cheaters and their families were harmed? Not much. The cheaters' website was looking for advertisers and money to help support their "cause." (Their site & cause are now BOTH defunct) Besides, now there are so many other choices of sites available to expose people, both men and women! (Additionally, the men trying to launch a lawsuit all admitted to affairs, cheating and lying to others online... but were angry about their families being harmed. -- Sounds like Dorksy, gridney/ Yidwithlid, Beckstead, etc. Maybe they should have thought of that before they went online to prey on innocent, vulnerable women and then treat them and smear these victims when they were caught in the lies & game playing. In short, they had NO SUIT!)


This same site had a man named Todd Hollis attempt to sue them for defamation. It got to court and rather than "having his day," the suit was tossed out by the judge before it even got that far.
According to judge R. Stanton Wettick, the "Defendant’s Web site is accessible to anyone connected to the Internet anywhere in the world. Under plaintiff’s argument, defendant could be hauled into court in any state for any controversy. This result would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s understanding of the requirements of due process."

Exposure sites have very specific terms of use - honesty is a must and the legal onus is on the poster. Site owners and posters believe the men are angry they have been caught and exposed. (these cheaters & abusers always deny what they did, play the victim, say their family is being hurt or that the victim(s) 'knew what they were doing' or were psychos, scorned, etc. Always! It's a red flag that the person smearing them is attempting to defame his victim(s) so no one will listen to the REAL STORY)

Recently we were asked if most of these abusers and cheaters feel ashamed, sorry or sad about what they have done. Answer: "Not that we have seen!! In fact, it seems that they usually become indignant, angry and lash out at the person(s) that exposed the truth about them. They only "feel sorry" to try to rope the victim into saying nothing about them and to stop the tide of truth from exposing all the rest of their evil deeds."

Sad? Yes they are. Sad they got caught. And some of them do clean up their act for a few weeks, months or even years - but usually go RIGHT BACK to it and are sneakier about it next time.
If you consider that many of these people fall into a destructive sociopathic and narcissistic pattern you
will find that many of them will go to therapy or even make long, carefully-crafted confessions to their partners. They even keep tweaking their stories until they find one that works. Here's one beaut that one of our predators tells to this day, that is the exact opposite of really happened, is pure slander and leaves out a lot of pertinent facts to make them (the Cyberpath) appear the victim:

You were an old girlfriend of Yidwithlid from an upstate NY college. You used the internet to track him down after 30 years, which wasn’t too hard because he’s a published writer.

You had cyber-sex with him and then got him to agree to meet up with you. When he did meet up with you, to his horror, he saw that his ex-girlfriend from college had ballooned into a 275 lb fat pig with poor hygiene and he didn’t want to bang you.

He politely excused himself by saying he couldn’t do this to his wife. You then began stalking him and his family, driving by his house, sending letters to his wife, his parents, his in-laws, his rabbi, the police, anyone with whom you thought you could slander his good name. His poor wife was left with no choice but to report you to the police after you threatened to harm her children.

Sound familiar porkchop?


Or there's the old "she's a scorned crazy woman" that this guy uses. Or this Cyberpath who says the victim who exposed him is "mentally unbalanced." Or this guy who has sworn for the last few years it's "all lies" and he's "writing a book to tell the truth" and "suing everyone." Don't buy it!

Once they find themselves "CURED" (We use that term loosely because deep down they justify everything and see NOTHING wrong with their behaviors) they will, step by step, go right back to their predatory ways either online or off. Being an online cheater is an addiction and takes a lot of honesty and giving up personal time to break an addiction or not trade it for something equally addicting and destructive.

The worst part is these cheaters and abusers usually accuse their wounded targets of harassing both them and/or their partners/ families and even stalking them. This is nothing more than a preemptive strike.

It common for internet predators, abusers and cheaters to enlist their local police in harassing their victims by showing the police carefully selected instant messages and emails to support their claims and need to cut down the once "beloved' target."
This move sometimes makes their victims back down but usually the retributive attack can't be backed up.
  • Be careful, the law regarding internet communications is still new so ask yourself:
  • Are you exposing them to be mean or get revenge?
  • Or are you doing it to warn others and possibly stop the cyberpath from destroying themselves and their families?
  • Are you being vindictive or shedding real light on the situation?

When you point the finger at someone there are always three fingers pointing back at you. Your stories may help some potential victim see the patterns of behavior displayed by these people and avoid a lot of heartache. They may be cathartic as well. Telling is well known in psychiatric & medical communities as healing for victims.

As it stands, these communications are considered like any internet bulletin board posting as long as it doesn't contain telephone numbers or other information someone could use for identity theft.
The exposure site owners say it is a matter of opinion.

In many cases, the cheater's spouse, therapist or partner may even stand up for the cheater/ abuser. These people do "seem" so contrite. They tell them to NEVER speak to their victim(s) again. Is that right? Maybe not
. It doesn't offer an outlet for the cathartic anger and venting these exposure sites allow. It doesn't allow for healing on either side. It shows no empathy towards the victim.

Counselors for internet addiction say the cheaters should come clean with their partner AND all their victims. They also suggest trying to reframe the relationship into something more productive and honest for both people. Cutting off the victim is cruel and allows the abuser to then bend their stories without reproach, launch a smear campaign against their victims, run away from any responsibility and lie to everyone even more... including themselves. 12-Step addicts know that you must make direct amends.

Of course, some hide behind the step that says "unless to do so would cause more harm." In this case the cheater convinces themselves it would harm the victim even more. Baloney. The truth is not only a great leveler but also a great healer. In fact, new programs for restorative justice bring some prison inmates together with their victims which has been proven to be very healing for both of them.


So, think about it: if you internet predators, cheaters and abusers truly want to mend your ways then trying to erase what you did online by creating new identities and blocking victims isn't the solution, is it?

Now back to the lawsuit mentioned above. The owner of the site that was threatened with a lawsuit says:
"Most of them say that the [person] who posted [the profile] is crazy, that something is wrong with [the poster]; and that they're [the abuser/ cheater] saints."

Domestic Violence advocates say this is classic and typical abuser-speak. It's never the cheater or abuser, it's always the person who found them out! Sort of a no-good-deed-goes-unpunished moment. Unlike the public posting of the locations of known, convicted sex-offenders, this does seem to be more problematic in terms of fairness.

The another site sheds more light on the process:
"I don't want to ruin someone's life.... But, I can't control if you are player and a bunch of women post things about you. That is just a karma thing."

In one case, City of Kirkland v. Sheehan, Bill Sheehan, a man in Washington State says he put up a website in an effort to make the police more publicly accountable. He published information about local police officers from the City of Kirkland and other municipalities in Washington including their names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, spouses' names and more. The police officers claimed this required them to enhance their personal and job security measures as well as expend funds in response to the listings.
The case also alleges the site caused stress to both them and their families. This allegation is similar to the one made by the group attempting to shut down the cheating man site.
busted

The ruling on the case held that the First Amendment protected the site:
"[I]n the absence of a credible specific threat of harm, the publication of lawfully obtained addresses and telephone numbers, while certainly unwelcome to those who had desired a greater degree of anonymity, is traditionally viewed as having the ability to promote political speech. Publication may arguably expose wrongdoers and/or facilitate peaceful picketing of homes or worksites and render other communication possible."

As for the cheating man site? A former U.S. attorney Scott Christie was quoted in the New Jersey Star Ledger,
"Yes, it's all legal. If I were the owners of this site, I wouldn't be concerned. They're providing an outlet for people to express their opinion. It's much like hosting a bulletin board for people with a common interest,. People are giving their opinion about other people — they're entitled to it under the First Amendment."

And this from Canada.com:
According to a privacy lawyer from Halifax, (snip)

"If the person's reputation is in Canada, and they are in Canada, and likely the person who posted the information is in Canada, there's more than enough connection for Canadian defamation law to apply," says David T.S. Fraser, chair of the privacy practice group at McInnes Cooper. But he hastens to add the statements aren't considered defamatory if they're true.

"If you're a slug," says Mr. Fraser, "it's only appropriate people know you're a slug."

And think about this: The people who post the pictures/profiles on any site are making an "allegation" — nothing more. Many of them aren't offering evidence that is irrefutable and verifiable other than their account. With sites that do, they make sure they have evidence. But what are the reasons for doing this? Is it a warning, catharsis, revenge or a credible threat? That's something the poster needs to ask themselves before they get into a very sticky legal situation.

In an article on FindLaw, writer Anita Ramasastry brought up some current cases involving exposure sites, digital information and their interesting findings. One case stated that the First Amendment does not protect all personally identifiable information in every context, even those published online. In a 6-5 decision (close), in Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc., et al., v. American Coalition of Life Activists, et al. an en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against a web site that did publish personal information of abortion doctors.

This particular case involved a website called the "Nuremberg Files." It published the addresses, photographs, addresses and other personal information of physicians and others who either provided or supported abortion services. The website also had strike throughs on the names of those who had been murdered and grayed out the names of those who had been wounded. The majority in this close decision held that the "pattern" in which the posters appeared — coupled with the fact that other abortion providers had been killed — transformed the posters into something of a symbolic threat. As such, the information was not protected by the First Amendment.

One owner of a website about cheating, abusive men says this about their site:
The Terms of Agreement and Privacy Policy are currently being re-revised and there are some terms that a woman needs to agree to before she can add a man to the database. All this basically comes down to two issues - Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment and the issue of a private person's right to privacy.

However, in a sense, aren't search engines such as Google merely large databases of information which also include personally identifying information of millions of humans?! If Google can do it, why shouldn't smaller websites such as mine be able to do it without legal reprecussions?So, okay, we have people who are exposing the misdeeds of others in a cyberspace court of public opinion. Of course this pisses off the cheaters because they want a higher threshold standard of guilt/proof or because they disagree with the concept of outting anyone publicly for what they feel should be a private matter. However, here's our personal look at another beneficial perspective of the people making these claims.

If someone posted our pictures/profiles in a database and we learned of it but it wasn't true, then we probably wouldn't waste time even rebutting it. Why? Because if we're innocent, then the burden is not on us to prove such, at least not under American jurisprudence — legal or moral. And we don't use and abuse people online or off - so we are not afraid of scrutiny. Misinformation and slander is easily proved and then we'd ask the site administrator to remove it. Threats such as being "out to get you" or "you're done" or "I will not hesitate to kill you if I see you" - are illegal and should be reported immediately to the FBI nearest where the threatener lives. (CLICK HERE for U.S. Offices)

In short - its a catharsis the victims won't get anywhere else. What are the victims of these men and women to do with their anger, pain and hurt? Suck it up and allow the abuser to move on to another victim? Tell or not tell his spouse, partner or family? Stew in their feelings?

One exposure site owner says:
It is better than going out and slashing his tires. It makes the victims feel better and gives them a way to express their bitterness and hurt."

In light of precedents like these, it's extremely likely that any law that simply tried to ban cheating men/ women sites, information aggregators like Zabasearch or "digital dossiers," would be struck down as contrary to the First Amendment. But could a more narrowly written law constitutionally restrict such sites and dossiers and be on the books soon? Some feel yes, such a law would be desirable. Some feel no, that the internet should not be restricted in such a manner as long as it does not pose a threat, symbolic or otherwise, to the persons posted as long as the information is true and proveable.


Perhaps if you are a guilty party, rather than trying to cut down the person(s) exposing you it would be better to call a qualified internet addiction counselor to stop your abusing ways. You would be doing everyone, including yourself, a favor.

Then, see what you can do to get the posting removed without a counterattack. Just talking to the person(s) you suspect posted it and working on amends honestly seems better than a Judge Judy or Jerry Springer hate-fest.


Ramasastry says in her article "... legislators should consider regulating how densely information can be collected online - regulating, that is, how thick our digital dossiers really can be. Doubtless, any attempt to do this will raise First Amendment objections. But this is one issue where privacy and the First Amendment truly clash - and the First Amendment cannot win every time."

And to the victims of these cheaters, liars, internet predators and abusers, remember: NOTHING beats sunshine and fresh air to disinfect abuse!
Tell, but do not do it to endanger the person you are angry at or their families in the process. The laws are still being worked out. These sorts of internet exposures won't go away. Think of the National Enquirer and Globe articles that have caused ugly lawsuits.

Write your representatives and tell them your concerns or feelings about internet privacy.

And if you have been cheated on? Vent but exercise caution in posting anyone's personal information.

DISCLAIMER: We are not lawyers and this article is our personal opinion. It should not be construed as legal advice, in part or in whole, in way, shape or form.

OUR ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND HERE

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Teen gets probation for email threats to ex-girlfriend


By HEATHER MCLAUGHLIN

A 14-year-old boy who used MSN to threaten a former girlfriend, a teacher at his school and another student has received 12 months supervised probation.

The teenager sent a computer e-mail message Nov. 14 to the girl to say that when he showed up at school he was going to show her a gun or a knife. He also said that he was on cocaine.

When adults became aware of the threats, they contacted the school, which in turn, contacted Fredericton Police Force, said Crown prosecutor Robert Murray in provincial court Thursday.

A search of the teen's locker did turn up a knife, Murray told Judge Julian Dickson during the sentencing hearing.

As a consequence, he was suspended from attending his middle school.

Defence counsel Sylvain Pelletier said the boy's family got him started in counselling in January after the incident and he has been attending sessions with a counsellor.

He has been receiving educational services and wants to return to school, Pelletier said.

"I wasn't going to do anything. I was just mad at the time," the youth told the judge.

"You can't threaten to kill people. It's just totally unacceptable behaviour."

The judge sentenced the teenager to report to a probation officer during his 12 months of supervised probation, keep the peace and be of good behaviour, attend school and obey the rules and have no contact with any of the three people he threatened. The judge further ordered that he attend anger management sessions.

Teen gets probation for email threats to ex-girlfriend


By HEATHER MCLAUGHLIN

A 14-year-old boy who used MSN to threaten a former girlfriend, a teacher at his school and another student has received 12 months supervised probation.

The teenager sent a computer e-mail message Nov. 14 to the girl to say that when he showed up at school he was going to show her a gun or a knife. He also said that he was on cocaine.

When adults became aware of the threats, they contacted the school, which in turn, contacted Fredericton Police Force, said Crown prosecutor Robert Murray in provincial court Thursday.

A search of the teen's locker did turn up a knife, Murray told Judge Julian Dickson during the sentencing hearing.

As a consequence, he was suspended from attending his middle school.

Defence counsel Sylvain Pelletier said the boy's family got him started in counselling in January after the incident and he has been attending sessions with a counsellor.

He has been receiving educational services and wants to return to school, Pelletier said.

"I wasn't going to do anything. I was just mad at the time," the youth told the judge.

"You can't threaten to kill people. It's just totally unacceptable behaviour."

The judge sentenced the teenager to report to a probation officer during his 12 months of supervised probation, keep the peace and be of good behaviour, attend school and obey the rules and have no contact with any of the three people he threatened. The judge further ordered that he attend anger management sessions.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Minnesota Man Sentenced for Shaming Website


An Eagan man has pleaded guilty to attempting to coerce a man he believed to be a love rival, also admitting to disorderly conduct.

Emmett Salberg, 45, had for years poked fun at local officials as the creator of two websites that had resembled the city of Eagan's website. That had led to such confusion on the public's part, and embarrassment for the city, that the city council agreed last June to buy the two Web domains from him for $2,000.

Then, a year ago, Salberg was charged with two counts of attempted coercion and another count of harassment in a different matter, in which he allegedly created a website to publish insults and images of a man who Salberg believed had an affair with his wife. He allegedly tried to collect $5,000 from the man to pull down the website, according to the charges.

On Wednesday, Salberg pleaded guilty in Dakota County District Court to attempted coercion and another charge that had been added, misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Judge David Knutson sentenced Salberg to six days in jail, with credit for three days served, and four years on probation. He must attend a court-ordered anger-management course and pay restitution, but the amount has yet to be determined.

Salberg also was ordered to shut down the domain in which he had published the derogatory material and to submit to random checks by authorities of his Internet use.

Minnesota Man Sentenced for Shaming Website


An Eagan man has pleaded guilty to attempting to coerce a man he believed to be a love rival, also admitting to disorderly conduct.

Emmett Salberg, 45, had for years poked fun at local officials as the creator of two websites that had resembled the city of Eagan's website. That had led to such confusion on the public's part, and embarrassment for the city, that the city council agreed last June to buy the two Web domains from him for $2,000.

Then, a year ago, Salberg was charged with two counts of attempted coercion and another count of harassment in a different matter, in which he allegedly created a website to publish insults and images of a man who Salberg believed had an affair with his wife. He allegedly tried to collect $5,000 from the man to pull down the website, according to the charges.

On Wednesday, Salberg pleaded guilty in Dakota County District Court to attempted coercion and another charge that had been added, misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Judge David Knutson sentenced Salberg to six days in jail, with credit for three days served, and four years on probation. He must attend a court-ordered anger-management course and pay restitution, but the amount has yet to be determined.

Salberg also was ordered to shut down the domain in which he had published the derogatory material and to submit to random checks by authorities of his Internet use.

Friday, May 28, 2010

BECKSTEAD - SEXUAL HARASSER? NOT HIM!

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

(originally published in April 2007)

Here's a key email exchange with Beckstead & just one of his targets illustrating the depth of his lying and twisting things around to suit himself (like they all do).

It begins with this Target asking again for some straight answers. Beckstead of course, changes the story completely from what he had originally told her.

The word salad, gaslighting and twisting of reality again! (just like Hicks, Dorsky, Dunetz/ YidwithLid, Thomas, Haberman, Capers...) The emails speak volumes by themselves. More lies. Painting himself as the victim. Same **** -- different receptable.

Remember these types are pathological and actually BELIEVE their lies as they are saying them. There is very little continuity of reality for them and they bend the truth to suit themselves.

And the damage to the emotional health of the targets is immense and often impossible to fully repair.

Our comments in Dark Blue. - EOPC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ONE OF BECKSTEAD'S TARGETS ASKS FOR THE TRUTH:
To: dog_driver@XXX.com
Subject: Very Important
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007
Hi,

I need to ask you an important question. You probably won't like it, but I need to know. You told me the story of how you had to leave Anchorage all of those years ago because of that sexual harassment suit against you in Anchorage.

You said that the woman had sexually harassed you, but she turned it around on you and you were fighting it but ran out of cash etc. (lies, projection - we'd bet he just ran away and left with no closure. Ns rarely fight unless they have money & friends in high places.)

You said that you could not stay in Anchorage that is why you had to move away to Fairbanks to work.

Well how come now, as in late last year, you could move back there to Anchorage and live and work after everything that you told me i thought that you could never return to live and work?? (may not even have been a true story... or partly true... or he is on the lam...?? This is very good catch on this target's part - of his LIES LIES LIES.)

I really would appreciate an honest answer to this ASAP. I think of all the questions you have refused to answer, ignored or just plain diverted around, I need to know. And I need to know the full story about those kids in XXX. I need some truth and honesty. You owe me that much.

Was any of that true or just used as a sympathy ploy? Not accusations, but you started to tell the story and I should have pushed for answers then and there. I need the answers now, in full. (poor target, she thinks he's going to be honest with her? Well, she's probably JUST catching on that he's PATHOLOGICAL. Cyberpaths are incapable of truth or honesty no matter WHAT THEY SAY OR HOW YOU ASK. and he's going to be angry because she KNOWS the truth. They all get angry with those that figure them out.)

Please don't try and talk around it as I know what was said and written at the time. (but he will anyway) I do not want to fight but I deserve to know the truth. (you do, but you will never get it) It has bothered me a great deal of late, especially in light of everything else that has taken place.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MORE QUESTIONS FOR BECKSTEAD TO TWIST
To: " Doug Beckstead"
Subject: Re: Very Important
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007

Thanks for answering this straight away. But, I don't understand why she, your (former boss) would want to sleep with you, when, as you said, she was "climbing the ladder horizontally".

What would she have stood to gain from sleeping with you? As you said she was your boss, not the other way around. Surely she would have chosen someone above her station in the company, in order to get what she wanted? And surely she would have known that you were married with kids etc? (because that's a cyberpath's STOCK ANSWER: 'she's scorned,' 'she's obsessed with me,' 'she's after me,' 'she won't let go,' blah blah blah blah. The reality is usually that the woman got sick of HIS harassment or lying or whatever. In Beckstead's mind - he's the most desirable man on the planet. LOL)

And you DID say that you had to leave Anchorage because of her in order to get work to support your family, that things were so bad there at the time! Your story has changed a lot. And I always remember you telling me of two children walking to school in XXX, that you stopped to offer them a lift and things were said by their father?

Was that after the teenager incident then? I have to ask because things have changed somewhat and I have a different set of stories in the memoirs. (BINGO!)

These new versions seem odd, especially as they were held back by you for so long. Does not add up.

Similar to XXX and the letters from your friends being withheld and you not finding out until years down the track.

Something else that is odd, did you realise XXX was listed down as having lived in Fairbanks at your address in XXX Street as well? It is listed on zabasearch.

Just thought you should know.
me

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

On 1/30/07,
Doug Beckstead wrote:

No, no, no, no, no, you've got everything all mixed around. (gosh this sounds like Gridney/ Yidwithlid, Jacoby or Thomas trying to rewrite reality... they ALL try to make you think YOU got it wrong or to bend time & space. The mixed up one is BECKSTEAD.)

I have not had any sexual harrassment suit against me. I had a former boss in Anchorage (a female) get all pissed off at me because I would not sleep with her. I found out about it a few years later from another woman I used to work with in the NPS in Anchorage. She and I were good friends and it bothered her when she learned some of the things that supervior had done to try and sabotage my career. She is the one I've told you about who is climbing the ladder at the NPS horizontally. She sleeps with anyone who she thinks she can get ahead with. That's also one reason why I couldn't figure out what her interest was in me. (because Doug is oh so desirable! remember LURES OF THE ONLINE PREDATOR: 'make yourself an object of desire')

As for the one teenager in XXX, her parents started rumors about me after I was attacked by their dog and had my hand and side seriously injured. I think it was an attempt to try and get something going against me to try and fight off a potential lawsuit I might bring against them over their dog. I had no intention of suing them to begin with. (say what??)

Again it was a number of years later that I found out about the rumors. I learned about it, again from two co-workers who lived in XXX. In both cases I asked them why they did not say anything when they were happening and both of them said that they (and everyone else in XXX) knew that they were just lies.

That's all there is to it. (because that's all the lying you feel like doing right now?)

Me


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

From: Doug Beckstead
Date: Jan 30, 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Very Important

I don't have any idea why my former boss wanted to sleep with me. It happens to be that sexual harrassment on the job goes both ways. It is becoming more and more frequent today as more and more women are moving into positions of authority. I am only going on what I was told by a close friend. (notice how he moves the talk away from himself and his actions immediately... that last line about being told by a 'close friend'? Is a doozy!! Beckstead's so righteous! LOL)

Why is it that you seem to be so obsessed, and yes, it is clearly an obsession on your part, about trying to dig up anything you can on me and my background. (why do you think Doug? You played with her mind & her emotions? Spoke to her CHILDREN!? No straight answers? Playing with her mind? YOU CAUSED THIS DOUG! No one but YOU! How dare you put these women on the defensive!

It gets BORING how all these cyberpaths call their targets 'obsessed' persons & 'stalkers' as soon as the Target figures them out or asks for answers. It must be in their playbook)

As for XXX being listed at my XXX Fairbanks I have no idea why nor anything about it. As for your zabasearch that is getting pretty damn close to stalking me if you are trying to search out every little bit of information on me. (here we go - she's 'a stalker'. And Beckstead - you're a lying narcissistic cyberpath. She did NOTHING illegal. Zabasearch is a PUBLIC website with PUBLIC information. You encouraged her interest, you lied to her, you toyed with her & her children. You pursued her. You caused her distress and -- now because she asked for an HONEST ANSWER, she's 'a stalker.' Can't these predators think of something new? Beckstead you truly are pathetic.)

As for the situation in Anchorage, you are confusing a number of different issues and topics. (here comes the word salad) I had to go back to Fairbanks because after my park was combined with another park when the superintendent of my park retired for medical reasons, I was forced to work under a woman who was a radical lesbian who quite literally hated men. (ok here it goes - this boss probably didn't like Doug, saw what he was - so now she's 'a lesbian.' And what's wrong with lesbians. Is this the same boss who tried to supposedly "seduce him"?) It was a well known fact. (gosh they all say "it was a fact" or "this is the truth" or "a true story" or "everyone knows"... yeah right, maybe on your planet, Beckstead)

I was forced
to return to Fairbanks to keep my job. I had been working for the park out of Fairbanks since 1994 when I moved to Fairbanks to take a job to further my career. (is that even a complete sentence?) My superintendent's retirement was a surprise to all involved. The park had personnel problems dating back many years prior to my accepting the position there. (yes, couldn't be Beckstead could it? anyone BUT Beckstead -- NEVER his fault!)

After XXXXX retired pressure was put on the remaining staff to either leave the organization or to quit. I chose to fight for what was rightfully mine. When I requested the opportunity to work from Anchorage doing the same job, for the same administration (park) it was denied by the same supervisor (this is not the one who wanted me to sleep with her). (The verbal diarrhea here is all over the place - he must be angry that he'd had to think up YET ANOTHER cover story that incorporated all his old lies, like Dunetz/ YidwithLid - sheesh, he should have contacted Lissa Daly for help with this one. This is where they all trip up over time; keeping THEIR OWN LIES STRAIGHT.)

There are many others working for the NPS in Alaska who have been working from duty-stations remote from their parks (specifically working from the Anchorage office). This request was denied to me on the grounds, and I quote, "Because we can." I filed a law suit against the NPS for discrimination. In the end I invested approximately $5,000 in attorney's fees and the suit was never settled because they managed to run me out of money. Had I the resources to continue the fight I would have won. (of COURSE you would have Beckstead... the Equal Opportunity Employment people would have helped you IF you'd had a real case... $5K or not. This is another assertion that you're a martyr)

As for the bits and pieces of things from XXX that you are obviously confusing, the part about running into them in town comes from the fact that when I originally told you what happened, I stated that I had been at their house thinking that XXX was home as I had seen XXXX and the girls in town a short time earlier. (word salad... tossed... a few times)

When I walked up to the house their dog ran out barking and acting aggressive and yet at the same time friendly toward me. When I reached down to pet him, he attacked me severely injuring my hand and in a second assault biting my left side. (Animals always know, don't they?) I managed to get back into my truck and drive back toward town and on the way I met XXX and XXXX (he was not in the truck when I saw them earlier). XXX and I went to the village clinic where I was bandaged up and received a large antibiotic shot. (notice how he's embellished even more on this story... next thing you know he's going to be rushed by Medivac out of Alaska by Sarah Palin!)

I decided to spend another night in XXX and not drive the 400 miles back to XXX that day. When I was checking into the motel I learned that I was the third person the dog had attacked. The townspeople were quite upset about the whole thing. (the whole town is up in arms over Beckstead's dog bite?)

After the attack, XXX and XXXX paid for my follow-up doctor visits -- which I felt was only fair given the fact that it was their dog that attacked me. (of COURSE, he felt it was fair - not that uh... its the law and their homeowners insurance would have demanded it - Beckstead the Almighty -- like King Solomon -- felt it was only fair)

Four years later I first learned about the rumors that they had started in town. (rumors... hmmm...) They were afraid that I would sue them over the incident. They knew full well that they were at fault and that they had a vicious dog. Had I known what they were doing after it happened I certainly would have brought a suit against them. (how dare they talk about the great Doug Beckstead?)

I asked the individual who told me about it why he hadn't said anything earlier and he said, "Because we (meaning the townspeople) all knew it was a lie." Several years later I asked another friend about it and he said the same thing. (years & years later? so the whole town stood by you huh? Defend Sir Beckstead!)

If you don't believe me, and it is quite apparent to me that you don't, then I am just going to walk away and not look back. (read: thank you for giving me an excuse to dump you and make it seem as if you are at fault.) You who seem to think you have all the facts down pat are obviously fixated on something (here he goes again - gaslighting and saying his target is "fixated" when she's obviously confused by Beckstead's non-stop B.S.), and you are wrong almost across the board. I received half a dozen text messages (several of them were broken into pieces for whatever reason the phone does that) from you all of which contained more angry accusations. (Truth hurts don't it Doug? Especially when one of your OBJECTS that you like to play with only when you feel like it, asks be treated like a HUMAN BEING! Sounds again like Dorsky, Dunetz/ Yidwithlid, Hicks, Campbell... when the Target finds out and demands humane treatment - they see what they were to these predators: PREY)
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
I do not owe you an apology for anything. (because cyberpaths & narcissists never apologize because they are 'never wrong')
If I am sorry about anything then it is that I am sorry for confiding personal information in the first place. (and for not being able to keep it all straight -- sounds like Beckstead's scared that he's been found out!)

As for the future, that's not going to happen again. Ever. (you're right its not... now everyone knows. You're busted!)


MORE ON BECKSTEAD

Popular Posts

Blog Archive