What is a Cyberbully?

Cyberbullying is sending or posting harmful or cruel text or images using the Internet or other digital communication devices. The stories are heart breaking. It involves Teens or Adults who:

Sending cruel, vicious, and sometimes threatening messages.

Creating web sites that have stories, cartoons, pictures, jokes ridiculing others.
Posting pictures of people online and asking others to rate them, with questions such “Who is the biggest ___ (add a derogatory term)?”

Breaking into an e-mail account and sending vicious or embarrassing material to others.

Engaging someone in IM (instant messaging), tricking that person into revealing sensitive personal information, and forwarding that information to others.

Posting your twisted version of event or smear against your victim on various sites. EXAMPLES OF POSTINGS

Taking a picture of a person in the locker room using a digital phone camera, or taking a photo and re-working (photoshopping) it and sending that picture to others.

Taking any discussion or reasonable criticism (such as the exposes here on EOPC) as an "attack" and then counterattacking by badgering that person/ place that exposed you.. by making a site about them or sending email criticizing them to others, simply as "payback" or to "defend yourself" (cyberpaths 'playing victim') EXAMPLE

Cyberbullying is emerging as one of the more challenging issues as more people embrace the Internet and other mobile communication technologies.

Cyberthreats are a related concern. A cyberthreat is online material that threatens or raises concerns about violence against others, suicide, or other self-harm.

There are two kinds:

Direct threats are actual threats to hurt someone or push them to commit suicide.

Distressing material provides clues that the person is emotionally upset and may be considering hurting someone, hurting him or herself or committing suicide.

from: http://www.cyberbully.org
(Many cyberpaths fall well into the category of cyberbully - especially when caught, about to be caught and exposed. The cyberbullying usually happens as part of a pre-emptive attack and smear campaign in an attempt to throw the honesty and credibility of their victims in a bad light - EOPC)

CYBERBULLYING CAN KILL

The Heart of Why We Run This Site

Yes, EOPC took on the Megan Meier/MySpace Suicide case six years ago. Why?

Because it goes right to the heart of why we run this site. Every month we get letters begging us for help or direction from those who have been targeted, seduced, used, lied to & abused and then discarded, stalked, threatened and smeared by people with internet access who think the web is one big anonymous playground. A place where you are faceless & nameless and can do or say anything you want to or about anyone with impugnity.

WRONG!

EOPC does believe that most of these people are pathological. They could be sociopathic, suffering from Destructive Narcissistic Pattern, Borderline, just evil or a combination. The consequences are very real.

The Cyberpath wants to walk away with no consequences. They become enraged when their victims ask for accountability and/or expose them... saying they are "obsessed: and "need to get over it." (scroll down to the comments in this post for an example of what one of our exposed predators said to his victim!)

Sorry, IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. Our victims are ill - often because of the abuse of the cyberpath, divorced, in debt and suffering because of these PREDATORS. In the Meier case - a VULNERABLE 13 YEAR OLD IS DEAD.

Telling helps everyone:
The Victim - Gets the validation they need. No more "get over it" or "move on" or "give it a rest." The Victims have been through trauma that has nothing to do with a simple relationship break up. They have been brainwashed, controlled, manipulated, eviscerated and tossed aside like garbage. And other human beings aren't garbage. This is a perfect example of the lack of regard & empathy the cyberpath/ pathological has for their victim(s)!

The Predator/ Cyberpath - Gets a needed & deserved accountability moment. If they want counseling or help to stop their online behaviors - they can write to us, we will try to help find some help!

We have victims on this site who have attempted suicide, self-harmed, ended up in the hospital and almost all now suffer from some degree of PTSD - which will take years, if ever, to get over. They are NOT drama mamas, over-reacting or 'dwelling' - they are INJURED. Seriously & profoundly psychologically INJURED. And anyone, including therapists or doctors, who tell them to "get on with their lives" and "move on" is re-injuring them!

Telling is a huge step in healing for victims.

This site has changed hands a few times over the years. It's run by more than one person and we will keep this site up for anyone who needs help and needs to tell their story.

Society needs to hold adults ACCOUNTABLE. Of course these predators cry "foul" and start a non-stop smear campaign against the victim. The victim was "scorned; its just revenge; the victim is trying to ruin my life/family; the victim is lying/ making it all up; the victim is over-reacting/ crazy/ a nutjob."

CLICK HERE FOR 'DO THEY EVER ADMIT THEY LIED OR TWISTED THE FACTS?'


The rest of you cyberpaths? Your pathology is showing when you minimize, trivialize or spit on the profound damage you have done to your victims and often their families as well!

While EOPC focuses on Adult-on-Adult Cyberpathy - Megan's predator was an ADULT. An ADULT who targeted, seduced, used, lied to & abused and then discarded and smeared her - and pushed Megan to suicide. Lori Drew KNEW Megan was battling ADD, weight issues and depression - but Drew didn't care.

"I've said some pretty mean things online just typing. I never realized how mean it was. Now there's no way I would do that. I would call people out if they said something like that." - Blaine Buckles

Most of our Cyberpaths DON'T CARE! Some examples:

"It was all just a game" Beckstead

"I'm the victim here; poor me" Langley-Guy

"she's crazy... she was stalking me" Dan Jacoby

"If you loved me you'd stand by my lies & fraud" Nathan Ernest Burl Thomas

"They went in with their eyes wide open" (except he coerced them with lies and his victims had NO CLUE what his true agenda was) - Jeff Dunetz/ YidwithLid

"It's all false - my wives & girlfriends set me up. I am going to sue them all, including Dr. Phil!" Ed Hicks (who is still trolling online under various fake names and fake profiles inspite of doing jail time!)

"all women are whores" Brad Dorsky.

A few of our exposed cyberpaths are so self-involved and delusional they firmly believe this site was set up BECAUSE OF THEM - by THEIR VICTIMS - just to HUMILIATE THEM.

There are links on the right to our stories, where to post your Cyberpath on the web and articles & places to get help.

To any Cyberpaths/ Predators who may be reading this - Click here.

EOPC ALSO CALLS FOR NO VIGILANTE JUSTICE - NO HARASSMENT and NO ATTACKING SOMEONE'S PROPERTY.

We are reposting a comment from 2006 we read on one of the many blogs talking about the Megan Meier case for everyone to read. It could be extrapolated and applied to all our victim's cases:
Who is responsible? Everyone is responsible depending upon their ability to influence these events – both before and after. The media was shameful. It was not until the world at large became aware of and outraged by this that anyone local saw fit to take action. Most of that action was cynical damage control. It was window-dressing; more salt in the wound. Predictably, that has enraged the world even more.

All that evil needs to prosper is for good people to do nothing. Evil prospered. It did so, not for a day, a week or even a month. It prospered for more than a year and flourishes still. After that length of time I would say that they 'aided and abetted' this crime by continued failure to act. They aggravate things even further by a studied effort to deny their role in this.

Someone took an action. It caused a death. The local community in question appears to have made ‘littering’ the charge for such cyber-stalking crimes. That is an outrage.

A crime was committed. I am not aware of a single jurisdiction under common law that would not allow a prosecution of some kind for this crime. That the family has had trouble bringing even a civil suit is beyond comprehension. I am sure the larger community will correct that, no matter how hard the local community tries to stop it.

So many entities had some type of duty here. They all failed to do that duty. An adult stalked, SEXUALLY harassed, and drove a child to her death. You heard me right. They stalked her. An adult sexually engaged a child over the Internet. The child subsequently died. The order and temporal proximity of events shows clearly that the child died due to the actions of that adult predator. The perpetrator further harassed the grieving family after the fact. That included making a complaint to the police against the family of the dead child. If this were a movie, it would be hard to swallow the premise it is so outrageous.

I believe that a sense of remorse has an influence on sentencing. When a jury finds this predator guilty, that person’s persistent lack of remorse should inform a sentence sufficiently punitive to act as an effective deterrent. The consensus in the ‘blogosphere’ seems to be that the main perpetrator should go to jail and stay there. I agree. Why allow them to do it again?

What happened here, and then dragged on for so long without a just resolution, did not happen in a vacuum. That entire community sat by and watched this unfold with hardly a whisper of dissent. Arguments about what they could and could not do and what they actually did do only add fuel to the fire. A child is dead. We know who many of the responsible parties are. The most responsible party has admitted at least a portion of their role to the police and there exists a record of this. The entire community is aware of what has happened. Some members of that community have been aware for long enough to prosecute, convict and imprison the main perpetrator. Instead, they did NOTHING. The only official action appears to have been on a complaint AGAINST the grieving family. A child is dead, her family is destroyed and that family has seen NO comfort or redress from their local community. The only penalties extracted from the perpetrators have resulted from the widespread visceral revulsion of the world at large.

This is telling CLICK HERE

As of this writing, the link above allows a search of the St. Charles Chamber of Commerce. You will find them proudly promoting the business of the predator. Search for “Family Savings Magazine” and there they are in all their gory glory. How monstrous is that? Would you do business with members of that Chamber of Commerce? I would not. I wonder what other disgraceful self-serving lies exist on that site?

I am a web professional. I taught networking. I have been a denizen of cyberspace since before the web was born. Friends and family of mine are psychologists and educators in the schools at all levels. I am also the parent of happy healthy young girls approaching the age of the child in question. I have devoted considerable time and had expert help to make our Internet environment a safe one for my kids. I have trained the kids well to protect against such things as happened here. Even MY children could be vulnerable to such a predator. No parent, however well prepared can entirely protect his or her children when a predator attacks. We all have a stake. We must stop these predators on as many fronts as we can.

Of the litany of shameful acts here, perhaps the vilest is the continued vicious assault on the victim and her surviving family. The post-mortem defamation of the murdered child is repulsive. The attempt to make excuses for the predator is shocking. It is inexcusable. Apologists suggest that the parents should have done more. They suggest the child was somehow at fault, or defective. This is false. Any young girl could be vulnerable to such a thing. Any parent, no matter how vigilant, could have been the victim of such an act. By all accounts, the murdered child’s mother did everything in her power to prevent this. She is without blame by any standard of measure. This was a brutal act of sex-related violence on a child. Attempting to minimize or justify this by laying a shred of blame at the feet of the grieving family is disgusting. It is disgusting because it is wrong. It is doubly disgusting because they know it is wrong. It is trebly disgusting that they promote these lies for their own benefit at the expense of the victims. This family has already paid the ultimate price. Every single adult in that entire community should be ashamed that they allow this injustice to continue. Clearly, those blaming the victims are beyond shame. Nothing can redeem them. Perhaps, though, a few others have a sense of shame. They were complicit in making the family no longer able to defend themselves. Will they finally, FINALLY after more than a YEAR, stand and defend this stricken child and her broken family? I will not hold my breath.

What have any of them done to heal this family? It breaks my heart to think of that poor man sitting in his darling daughter’s room alone. I am a father, and I am simply unable to imagine it fully. My mind will not allow itself to go there. Without aid, he will likely come to even further harm. What has the community done about this? All that seems to come from that community is more self-serving excuses. They have not even the human decency to apologize. I challenge the other fathers in that community to reach out and help that grieving father. I challenge the mothers in that community to reach out and help that grieving mother. I challenge clergy, social workers and other ‘helping professions’ to reach out and help heal what is left of that shattered family. I challenge that community to stand up, take care of its own and show a little backbone and dignity to the world outside their doors.

Apologists seem to think that it was to be expected. It was not.
They seem to expect it to happen again. It should not.
They feel no sense that they should even TRY to prevent it in the future. Any future event like this is doubly on their heads.

• Who allows an adult to stalk a child and drive them to their death?
• Who deals with such an event after the fact by attempting to minimize their responsibility?
• Who, when subjected to public scrutiny for such disgrace, attempts to escape by trying to vilify and further injure the victims? We are talking about a dead CHILD here.
• What kind of monster attempts to blame a child for her own murder at the hands of a predatory adult? It is disturbing to see someone attempt to gain a tiny advantage when it comes at a great expense from another.

Surely, there must be SOMEONE with moral courage in that community. If they exist, they should champion real action to right this wrong and prevent it in the future.

Here is a hint: Step number one would be to FINALLY admit that it was wrong and accept your share of responsibility. Most would have been unaware before the fact, in the days, weeks, or even months (!) after the fact. Can anyone in that community claim to be unaware NOW?

Proposing to make a similar thing a misdemeanor insults the memory of this child and shames the community all the more. The sex-related murder of a child is not a misdemeanor. Claiming that they, meantime, cannot prosecute the existing murderer is just smarmy damage control. It does not play well with me. I doubt it plays well with anyone in the rest of the world either. I pray for the sake of that community that it sounds discordant to at least a few of those that reside there.

The people there that are responsible for law enforcement lack the skill and moral rectitude to make this right. They have amply demonstrated that. The community should replace them. They should do so before anyone else gets hurt. These incumbents can do nothing about the sex-related homicide of a child. They are not likely much use for anything else. Get rid of them right now. Whoever was sitting at those desks are plainly not as good as empty desks. Even if you do not replace them, you will be better off.

Precious few in that community seem to have any moral compass. Perhaps they can take a hint from the torrent of outrage in the larger community. What happened was wrong both during and after the fact. It continues to be wrong now. Each day they fail to act takes them further in the wrong direction.

I pray that everyone in that community with a shred of decency will DEMAND that this be resolved respectably and that they will back their demands by action.

The furor will die down, but some have indelibly etched their shame on the memory of the Internet. Anyone with the name of that community attached to their names should be able to point to effective action they have taken to correct this injustice. Otherwise, they will carry this stain with them forever. Making amends at some point is better than doing nothing. However, the longer they continue to deny their part and fail to act, the harder it will be to cleanse them of shame.

Good luck with that.

My heart goes out to that family. What happened to them is the unthinkable. They deserve help and healing. Fortunately, they have an enormous ‘mind-share’ in the world now. They can use it to get aid, even if the local community continues to resist it. Literally millions of people are aware of this now. I can find no credible evidence of anyone in the real world that does not see the mother, father and child here as blameless victims. For their daughter’s memory, I hope that mother and father can find the strength to heal and carry on. It would be the best way to honor their daughter’s memory and keep it alive.

As trite as it sounds, true healing cannot happen without forgiveness. The entire community of perpetrators does not deserve forgiveness. They are beneath it. However, the family deserves the healing they will get by taking the moral high ground ...That goes for thee and me. This is not a call for the mob to descend. It is not a call for revenge. It is a call for justice to aid in the healing. Justice helps us to forgive...

Justice calls for punishment that acts as a deterrent and sends a message. What happened was very wrong. We should acknowledge that with vigor. However, vengeance, per se, is an empty thing. It always does more harm than good. I hope the family will try to turn their hearts away from thoughts of revenge. No action they can take will be mightier than the storm that swirls around the villains now. All of those creepy people were nearly as diminished as creatures could be before this began. The people in that community that turned their backs on the injured family will not likely give comfort to the perpetrators and their supporters. They all began small, went down from there and the world diminished them even further. They are just so many insects now. There is no comfort to get from these miserable creatures. Let justice take its course, if it will. The family should cast attention to healing and honoring the memory of their beautiful child.

The world would be a better place if the people in that community were to make amends through action. That action should show genuine contrition for (to be charitable) a job poorly done. As huge a tidal shift as such a thing is, I sincerely hope that the mother and father can find forgiveness in their heart for one another and heal the rift in their marriage. They will not find more than a decade of shared love and care for their beautiful child with any other partner. They owe themselves and each other a second chance.

Finally, though it might seem that such a thing is beyond the power of prayer, I say a prayer for the mother, the father and the child and I hope anyone reading this will join me in that. Even if you do not believe in the power of prayer, the gesture has meaning

POSTED BY DEEPNORTH at BLUEMERLE

As of this writing, Lori Drew's conviction was overturned and she is free in the community!! If anyone has any more updates - please let us know.


SOME PEOPLE ARE BORN EVIL

The Online Disinhibition Effect

In light of the Megan Meier Suicide Case, the Nikki Catsouras Crash Photos harassment and much of the rage & bullying that exposed cyberpaths do to their victims and anyone else who might speak the truth about them - this article might give some insight into what drives these predators.

The Lori Drews, the Doug Becksteads, the Charles Ed Hicks', the Jeff Dunetzs, the Dan Jacobys, the Beatrice Acevedos and all those we have exposed, will be exposed - or are out there right now feeling anonymous or omnipotent behind a keyboard.


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." It's a double-edged sword. Sometimes people share very personal things about themselves. They reveal secret emotions, fears, wishes. Or they show unusual acts of kindness and generosity.

On the other hand, the disinhibition effect may not be so benign. Out spills rude language and harsh criticisms, anger, hatred, even threats. They can start their own website where what they think or feel reigns supreme. Or people explore the dark underworld of the internet, places of pornography and violence, places they would never visit in the real world. On the positive side, the disinhibition indicates an attempt to understand and explore oneself, to work through problems and find new ways of being. And sometimes it is simply a blind catharsis, an acting out of unsavory needs and wishes without any personal growth at all.

What causes this online disinhibition? What is it about cyberspace that loosens the psychological barriers that block the release of these inner feelings and needs? Several factors are at play. For some people, one or two of them produces the lion's share of the disinhibition effect. In most cases, though, these factors interact with each other, supplement each other, resulting in a more complex, amplified effect.

You Don't Know Me (anonymity)
As you move around the internet, most of the people you encounter can't easily tell who you are. System operators and some technologically savvy, motivated users may be able to detect your e-mail or internet address, but for the most part people only know what you tell them about yourself. If you wish, you can keep your identity hidden. As the word "anonymous" indicates, you can have no name - at least not your real name. That anonymity works wonders for 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."

You Can't See Me (invisibility)
In many online environments other people cannot see you. As you browse through web sites, message boards, and even some chat rooms, people may not even know you are there at all - with the possible exception of web masters and other users who have access to software tools that can detect traffic through the site, assuming they have the inclination to keep an eye on you, one of maybe hundreds or thousands of users. Invisibility gives people the courage to go places and do things that they otherwise wouldn't.

This power to be concealed overlaps with anonymity, because anonymity is the concealment of identity. But there are some important differences. In text communication such as e-mail, chat, and instant messaging, others may know a great deal about who you are. However, they still can't see or hear you - and you can't see or hear them. Even with everyone's identity visible, the opportunity to be PHYSICALLY invisible amplifies the disinhibition effect. You don't have to worry about how you look or sound when you say (type) something. You don't have to worry about how others look or sound when you say something. Seeing a frown, a shaking head, a sigh, a bored expression, and many other subtle and not so subtle signs of disapproval or indifference can slam the breaks on what people are willing to express. In psychoanalysis, the analyst sits behind the patient in order remain a physically ambiguous figure, without revealing any body language or facial expression, so that the patient has free range to discuss whatever he or she wants, without feeling inhibited by how the analyst is physically reacting. In everyday relationships, people sometimes avert their eyes when discussing something personal and emotional. It's easier not to look into the other's face. Text communication offers a built-in opportunity to keep one's eyes averted.

See You Later (asynchronicity)
In e-mail and message boards, communication is asynchronous. People don't interact with each other in real time. Others may take minutes, hours, days, or even months to reply to something you say. Not having to deal with someone's immediate reaction can be disinhibiting. In real life, it would be like saying something to someone, magically suspending time before that person can reply, and then returning to the conversation when you're willing and able to hear the response. Immediate, real-time feedback from others tends to have a very powerful effect on the ongoing flow of how much people reveal about themselves. In e-mail and message boards, where there are delays in that feedback, people's train of thought may progress more steadily and quickly towards deeper expressions of what they are thinking and feeling. Some people may even experience asynchronicous communication as "running away" after posting a message that is personal, emotional, or hostile. It feels safe putting it “out there” where it can be left behind. In some cases, as Kali Munro, an online psychotherapist, aptly describes it, the person may be participating in an "emotional hit and run."
It's All in My Head (solipsistic introjection)
Absent face2face cues combined with text communication can have an interesting effect on people. Sometimes they feel that their mind has merged with the mind of the online companion. Reading another person's message might be experienced as a voice within one's head, as if that person magically has been inserted or "introjected" into one's psyche. Of course, we may not know what the other person's voice actually sounds like, so in our head we assign a voice to that companion. In fact, consciously or unconsciously, we may even assign a visual image to what we think that person looks like and how that person behaves. The online companion now becomes a character within our intrapsychic world, a character that is shaped partly by how the person actually presents him or herself via text communication, but also by our expectations, wishes, and needs. Because the person may even remind us of other people we know, we fill in the image of that character with memories of those other acquaintances.

As the character now becomes more elaborate and "real" within our minds, we may start to think, perhaps without being fully aware of it, that the typed-text conversation is all taking place within our heads, as if it's a dialogue between us and this character in our imagination - even as if we are authors typing out a play or a novel. Actually, even when it doesn't involve online relationships, many people carry on these kinds of conversations in their imagination throughout the day. People fantasize about flirting, arguing with a boss, or very honestly confronting a friend about what they feel. In their imagination, where it's safe, people feel free to say and do all sorts of things that they wouldn't in reality. At that moment, reality IS one's imagination. Online text communication can become the psychological tapestry in which a person's mind weaves these fantasy role plays, usually unconsciously and with considerable disinhibition. All of cyberspace is a stage and we are merely players.

When reading another's message, it's also possible that you "hear" that person's words using your own voice. We may be subvocalizing as we read, thereby projecting the sound of our voice into the other person's message. Perhaps unconsciously, it feels as if I am talking to/with myself. When we talk to ourselves, we are willing to say all sorts of things that we wouldn't say to others!

It's Just a Game (dissociation)
If we combine solipsistic introjection with the escapability of cyberspace, we get a slightly different force that magnifies disinhibition. People may feel that the imaginary characters they "created" exist in a different space, that one's online persona along with the online others live in an make-believe dimension, separate and apart from the demands and...

responsibilities of the real world. They split or "dissociate" online fiction from offline fact.

Emily Finch, an author and criminal lawyer studying identity theft in cyberspace, has suggested that some people see their online life as a kind of game with rules and norms that don't apply to everyday living (pers. comm., 2002). Once they turn off the computer and return to their daily routine, they believe they can leave that game and their game-identity behind. Why should they be held responsible for what happens in that make-believe play world that has nothing to do with reality? After all, it isn't that different than blasting away at your pals in a shoot-em up video game... or so some people might think, perhaps unconsciously.

We're Equals (neutralizing of status)
While online a person's status in the in-person world may not be known to others and it may not have as much impact as it does in the in-person world. If people can't see you or your surroundings, they don't know if you are the president of a major corporation sitting in your expensive office, or some "ordinary" person lounging around at home in front of the computer. Even if people do know something about your offline status and power, that elevated position may have little bearing on your online presence and influence. In most cases, everyone on the internet has an equal opportunity to voice him or herself. Everyone - regardless of status, wealth, race, gender, etc. - starts off on a level playing field. Although one's status in the outside world ultimately may have some impact on one's powers in cyberspace, what mostly determines your influence on others is your skill in communicating (including writing skills), your persistence, the quality of your ideas, and your technical know-how.

People are reluctant to say what they really think as they stand before an authority figure. A fear of disapproval and punishment from on high dampens the spirit. But online, in what feels like a peer relationship - with the appearances of "authority" minimized - people are much more willing to speak out or misbehave. There are those online that turn every disagreement into an "attack" and they can pick & choose what they want to hear and see and tune out anything that doesn't agree with their philosophy or way of thinking.

Interaction Effects
Of course, the online disinhibition effect is not the only factor that determines how much people open up or act out in cyberspace. The strength of underlying feelings, needs, and drive level has a big influence on how people behave. Personalities also vary greatly in the strength of defense mechanisms and tendencies towards inhibition or expression. People with histrionic styles tend to be very open and emotional. Compulsive people are more restrained. The online disinhibition effect will interact with these personality variables, in some cases resulting in a small deviation from the person's baseline (offline) behavior, while in other cases causing dramatic changes.

About the Author:
John Suler, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Rider University. This article comes from his online hypertext book The Psychology of Cyberspace which describes his ongoing research on how individuals and groups behave in cyberspace. His work has been reported by national and international media, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, the BBC, and CNN.

DO THEY EVER ADMIT THEY LIED OR TWISTED THE FACTS?

"The NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) illusion of superiority is a facet of a generalized disdain for reality. These individuals feel unconstrained by rules, customs, limits, and discipline.

Their world is filled with self-fiction in which conflicts are dismissed, failures redeemed, and self-pride is effortlessly maintained. They easily devise plausible reasons to justify self-centered and inconsiderate behavior. Their memories of past relationships are often illusory and changing.

If rationalizations and self-deception fail, individuals with NPD are vulnerable to dejection, shame, and a sense of emptiness. Then they have little recourse other than fantasy. They have an uninhibited imagination and engage in self-glorifying fantasies. What is unmanageable through fantasy is repressed and kept from awareness.

As they consistently devalue others, they do not question the correctness of their own beliefs; they assume that others are wrong.

The characteristic difficulties of individuals with NPD almost all stem from their lack of solid contact with reality. If the false image of self becomes substantive enough, their thinking will become peculiar and deviant. Then their defensive maneuvers become increasingly transparent to others (Millon & Davis, 1996, pp. 405-423).

Sharon C. Ekleberry, Dual Diagnosis and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

DO THEY EVER ADMIT THEY ARE LYING OR TWISTED THE FACTS?

from this site

(EOPC believes Cyberpathy is probably an expression of Malignant Narcissism and/or Sociopathy)

We work to try to understand the essence of the narcissist. When I was trying to explain the N to a friend, she understood an N as someone not "able to face the pain of imagining they did something wrong". I wasn't sure about this so did a quick internet search on narcissists and admitting wrong and accepting fault, and got these quotes:

- The narcissist sometimes notices that something is wrong with him and with his life -- but he never admits it.

- ... the narcissist is incapable of admitting that something is wrong with HIM

- They will never admit fault, they will never say they are sorry. If something goes wrong, they will play the victim. They will blame others.

- Remember they will never admit they are wrong, they will never debase themselves with an real apology. They will never laugh at themselves.

"[I suspect my husband is a narcissist]... He tries to place blame on anyone and everyone but himself."

- Narcissists ...live for themselves, they think they can do no wrong and will not admit to wrongdoing [re: traits common to 6 year olds and adult narcissists]

- [For the narcissist] to admit to one failing, to acknowledge a mistake, even a simple human error of judgment, would be to open the door to the deep internal lack within. ... Such feelings of worthlessness are like an ocean being held back by a fragile dyke. The illusion of perfection, maintained by projecting faults onto someone else, is a barrier to be constantly tended, mended and shored up. To admit any feelings of deficiency would be the equivalent of poking a hole in the dyke, an event to be feared as a total disaster.

Narcissists blame all problems on the "all-bad." It's never the narcissist's fault; it's always someone else's.

The last paragraph speaks truly from a narcissist's perspective. It's the victim's fault.

If the two of you have a conflict, he'll tweak the facts as much as he has to to make it all your fault. (And if you EXPOSE the Narcissistic Cyberpath? Expect the SAME treatment as well as a full-tilt hate & smear-campaign!)

"His perverse way of turning everything into my fault and his blaming left me battered and exhausted."

Narcissists
Externalization of Blame -- The child cannot allow the bad feelings of being at fault for anything. He/ she/ they/ YOU are the problem!

He avoids feeling vulnerable by blaming others. The fragile self esteem cannot be punctured by taking responsibility for behavior. His script is "Do not expose me to those intolerable feelings inside. I can't handle it."

For making a change (whether great or small) implies that the narcissist has been two things they "cannot stand": imperfect (something is actually wrong with "them") and at fault ("they" actually were wrong, weak, or inferior somehow).

It can't be THEIR fault - THEY are perfect.

The narcissist says in effect, "Something doesn't feel right. I'm too special to be the cause, therefore it must be your fault."

EOPC is loaded with examples of this, here's our sampling:
(scroll over content to find embedded links)

BRAD DORSKY - According to him his victim supposedly 'led him on.' Dorsky not only tried to rage at his victim, he sent a "friend" to EOPC to find out who exposed him.

Obviously, DORSKY thought we were a bunch of barely legal kids on a social networking site; his favorite sort of target!

Dorsky said the relationship was 'consensual.' This is a common one! A relationship can not possibly be consentual when the victim does not know the truthful facts to make an appropriate decision.

• Lying to her
  
• Telling her she's the only one
• Playing mind games with her
• Moving in on her when she & her husband/ partner/ family are having a hard time
• Moving in when she's vulnerable
• Having a 'hidden agenda'

...does not make for consensual.
It does make for predatory exploitation!

CHARLES "ED" HICKS aka CHARLES GREENE - This guy's a piece of work. Said in court, to a judge, after 2 of his 7 known wives were questioned and hard, clear legal documentation was researched and presented by an Assistant D.A.: "It's false, all false." Guess that orange jumpsuit should have been a straightjacket.

Has recently gone back on dating sites under various nicknames using CHARLES HICKS or CHARLES GREENE to try to defuse people googling ED HICKS and finding out he's the 'Dr. Phil Bigamist.'

Tells people he's retired from a government job (he was fired and his security clearance revoked).

Additionally is not always honest about his criminal record on the numerous dating sites he's on now. This includes his using new names or versions of names on the dating sites.

On the Dating Sites he states his age as 56 LOL! (Shaves off about 9+ years)

(Here's the best one EOPC's heard!) Rumor has it that HICKS tells new prey he is shopping for a publisher for his book where he will tell the truth (he means his version of it a.k.a. complete fiction) and show how two of his wives 'set him up just to get on T.V. (EOPC is sure they had a great time telling the world how naive & used they were by Mr. Hicks) and have lied about him as well as them being 'mean' to his children (a.k.a. feeding, clothing, housing and taking care of his kids during their marriages while these kids sponged everything they could off them and various girlfriends of Mr. Hicks' simultaneously - just like Daddy!).

Additionally he says he plans to 'take legal action" against the producers of "Dr. Phil" and the WE show VERY BAD MEN who profiled him and showed him a bad light and ruined his good name!

Good luck with that, Mr. Hicks... Maybe now that O.J.'s in jail Hicks can help keep on looking for that illusive "real killer."

WILLIAM MICHAEL BARBER - back in jail after leaving the State in which he was incarcerated without permission and found having a false Social Security Card & Number and falsified identity papers on him. (After his wives and victims repeatedly told probation officers he would do it again and he was let out of jail early anyway!)..

BARBER was also profiled on the WE show VERY BAD MEN. He was released October 2007 so be careful! Spread the word about this serial predator! Don't you think these people would be thrilled they are so famous?

Sammy Benoit/ GRIDNEY/ YIDWITHLID - Where to begin with this one?
1. EOPC ran his expose for the third time in June 2007. This time he became of aware of it and he attacked one of his victims as the sole person causing him "public embarrassment." He gave no acknowledgment that his real name and location were not used by us on this site, at this same victim's request.

No mention that his new nickname and website are now linked to yet another 'false personna and location' made up by him.

No thank you for the consideration one of the victim he decided to bully showed his family. Typical of the backwards reactions of pathological persons!


2. Sammy Benoit/ Jeff Dunetz/ Yidwithlid blames just one person for all the postings about him despite her trying to get them taken down in March of 2007. (Now which one of EOPC's victims really controls the internet? All our Cyberpaths swear its THEIR victim!)

On a website she finally felt she had to make to combat the relentless smear, she had documentation stating the primary reason site owners, including us, would not remove him - because SHE WAS NOT THE PERSON WHO HAD POSTED HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

All Cyberpaths have this "because THEY say it's so - has to be REALITY!" trait... please re-read the paragraph at the top of this article for our take on this pervasive trait of Cyberpaths

And as she said on her site (which she closed for a while to try to calm things down - to no avail we would guess - considering Dunetz is a remorseless bully), IF she (or anyone) had done something that heinous and he has hard proof -- Why isn't she in jail or doing community service? Why hasn't he sued her? (Our guess? Because then the REAL TRUTH about him and his escapades would come out!)

3. Dunetz swears it was 'consensual', but also neglects to mention that none of their targets knew they:

• had online casual sex partner-wanted ads since 2000 (he started up with the first victim we know of in 2002)
• was seeing sexual escorts at brothels (two brothels are now closed in part to him threatening this same victim, her going to the police and the police finding out that he was posting online about his exploits at this brothel. [By the way, Yidwithlid -- this Madam is BACK IN BUSINESS! But you probably know that already] Good going, GRIDNEY / YidwithLid!)
• the police found his computer to be full of porn and his credit cards traced back to phone sex lines from 1999/ 2000

-----------------------

1. Did any of his targets know this?
2. Did he tell any of his targets he was lying and it was 'just a game' to him?
3. Did his targets know he was playing with their emotions & using them for freebies?
4. Did we mention he's tried to erase it all and say it never existed or was planted? (His excuse is that its "hurting his wife" - since he was doing this since 1999; according to police - why didn't he think about that the FIVE years PRIOR to victimizing these women?)
5. And what do these targets have to do with HIS sex addiction?

Sound familiar?

Again -

A relationship cannot possibly be consentual when the victim does not know the truthful facts to make an appropriate decision.

• Lying,
• telling her she's the only one and you've never done this before,
• playing mind games with her,
• moving in quickly on her when she & her husband/ partner are separating,
• not supporting her when her husband/partner finds out about their online affair and abuses her worse,
• knowing she's mentally & emotionally vulnerable,
• as well as having a 'hidden agenda' does not make for consensual.

It does make for predatory exploitation.

According to these predators their victims aren't allowed be hurt, complain or look for support either. And they just deny, deny, deny. How's that for 'nice guys'?


DOUG BECKSTEAD - an "investigator" from the Air Force Base which Beckstead's associated wrote us and subsequently one of his victims trying to find out who she was, get her to phone them, etc etc. How much should we bet that it was one of Beckstead's buddies trying to be sure which of his online victims blew the whistle on his online predation so Beckstead could attack her?

Beckstead came here and ALSO tried to say it was "all a game" and his victims "knew what they were getting into." Incredible gall, but familiar. Again, Beckstead neglects to factor in that:

• Lying,
• telling her she's the only one,
• playing mind games with her, moving in on her when she & her husband are having problems,
• lying to other targets about your numerous online affairs & porn addiction,
• while knowing she's emotionally vulnerable,
• as well as having a 'hidden agenda'

DOES NOT MAKE FOR CONSENSUAL.
IT DOES MAKE FOR PREDATORY EXPLOITATION.

Again:
A relationship cannot possibly be consentual when the victim does not know the truthful facts to make an appropriate decision.

Guess what! Beckstead was mentioned in the same Air Force Base's newspaper so - he must have been looking to clean up his image before they added to his overblown ego. Rumor has it he's got another victim 'on the hook' already. Watch out, he likes to portray those used-up sources of his as MENTALLY ILL - when in fact these cyberpaths appear to be the ones with 'mental issues.'

He's even tried to tell people that her exposure of him only HELPED HIM... and hurt his victims! LOL - too much protesting, huh? Don't we already know what he's telling his latest victim?

All the stuff he's posted (and continues to post) all over the web - trying to drown out the truth and glorify his 'reputation' when he's really a predator!

JULIA BISH-JUDAH-HUNT-McGOVERN? Just look at her interview. That says it all about how 'innocent' she considers herself after meeting men online and marrying them without even meeting them in person, among other things.

Completely nuts and a serial predator!

PHIL HABERMAN - click here for an update on this story. Haberman continues to use the legal system against ANYONE who has his number and speaks out about it.


UPDATE: LORI DREW - the real "Josh Evans" and Tormentor of the Late Megan Meier - who not only sued the Meiers for a destroyed foosball table but when she ran into the Meiers told them to "give it a rest" about her CAUSING Megan's suicide. Sick beyond belief. Convicted on 3 misdemeanor counts, may face civil action.


DAN JACOBY - turns to his "old standby" of smearing his victim, saying she's 'crazy' and doesn't have the "love of God in her heart." Of course he owes his victim money for things she bought him (he told her he was divorced and broke - NOT!).

Jacoby? Mr. Nice Guy? 1. Well turns out this predator took webshots of his victims during chat sessions without telling them and threatens to post them online if they expose him. Then he changed and scrubbed everything and went to the police to say his victim was "harassing" him. Why would you need to do that Dan, if you were HONEST?

Guess what? These women LOVED you and you can't do anything wrong if you love someone. The scumbag liar? is YOU! Besides what kind of sicko-perv picks on vulnerable women trying to recover from prescription drugs??


The two things all our predators seem to universally hate:

1. being called an abuser
2. being called a PREDATOR

Ouch!! -- yet their victims are not allowed to feel hurt or pain? That's the cyberpath's sociopathic self - the real self with no empathy - coming out.

Do you think that when these predators behind a keyboard find out they are wrong about their assumptions they apology to us or their victims? go ahead and guess!

The "scorned woman" defense. The "they are lying/ making it all up/ obsessed with me/ stalkers/ just jealous/ never happened" defense. The "she had it coming" excuse!

You name it - you'll hear it with these people. Unfortunately sometimes their families or friends still believe them. Until its too late and they are caught doing it again.

Do we see a pattern here? As it says above: IT'S NEVER THEIR FAULT. MUST BE THE INVISIBLE PERSON OR THEIR VICTIM! NEVER THEM!

By the way, any Cyberpath who wants to write a full and accurate confession as well as an open, honest apology to any of the victims they have hurt, caused emotional & mental trauma, forced into counseling, caused rifts in their families, raged at, used and abused... we would be more than happy to publish it for you and see to it your victims get a copy of your healing words as well.

ARE YOU A CYBERBULLY? - TAKE THE QUIZ

Often our cyberpaths, once found out and/or exposed turn into a cyberbully to silence their victims. We have had threats of lawsuits against victims. (No predator really wants their lies or cover-up exposed!)

Other predators have threatened their victims' families, children, friends, jobs, reputations. Two even started hate sites about their victims, blaming them for everything. Both were even so childish as to think she was US!! (They only see their exposes and not the slew of the rest of them!!)

Our very first exposed predator, Charles 'Ed' Hicks still claims its "all false" and is back online doing the same all over again as well as being WANTED for jumping probation! In fact he tells new potential victims he's suing his ex-wives, Very Bad Men, Dr. Phil and the court system in Virginia for their supposedly false accusations and writing a 'tell-all' book with the 'truth!' LOL. Don't hold your breath, readers.

Of course there's the old "SHE'S JUST A SCORNED WOMAN" or "HE'S A JILTED LOVER" excuses in cyber affairs. Real life affairs use them too when the predator wants to play victim and make everyone feel sorry for him - including new targets. It's a joke. (Our advice? The minute you hear that 'scorned woman' defense? Make it your business to contact this 'scorned woman' or 'jilted man'! Someone with no secrets or destructive agenda wouldn't care if you spoke to their ex! Same applies to women predators.)

So let's find out - did your online love or cyber-friend turn into a cyberbully? Or were they a cyberbully all along?
from: DEATH BY 1000 PAPERCUTS:

Cyber-harassment, cyber-stalking, cyber-group bully, cyber-Gossip: all of these categories fall under the tactics of a cyber-bully.

Here is a quiz, take it and see it you’re a cyber-bully or if you've ever pulled some other cyber-bullying tactics during your time on-line.

Have you ever done this?

1.Signed on with someone else’s nic and password to get information.
While this does not seem like cyber-bullying if this information was to be used for ill-will, then, yes, it is cyber-bullying.

2. Sent an email or online greeting card from someone else’s account.
Again, some may claim that this is not cyber-bullying, if the email or online greeting is used to stalk or harass someone, then it falls under cyber-bullying.

3. Forwarded a private IM or email without permission.
This could be construed as a “grey” area. After all, it’s merely passing on a private email or IM and some would argue as fairly innocuous.

It boils down to intent.

Was the private conversation/email sent to someone or others with the intent to spread gossip or do harm? While most likely the victim may never know their communication has been forwarded to others, this is still harmful to that person. This is not direct cyber-bullying, more like back-stabbing cyber-bullying tactics.

4. Hacked into someone’s PC, website or blog
Not only is this cyber-bullying but also cyber-stalking and illegal. A 33-yr-old man in Florida was just sentenced to prison for 110 years after being convicted of hacking into MySpace teenaged girl’s PC’s. He threatened to harm to them or their families if they didn’t send him lewd photos.

5. Sent a virus or Trojan Horse?
This is malicious behavior with intent to do harm.

6. Posted rude, nasty or vicious (miscontrued) comments about someone online
Back to intent. Some blogs or forums can get heated and contentious but if someone’s intent is to solely post rude, nasty or vicious comments about another poster then this is cyber-bullying and cyber-gossiping.

7. Teased or frightened someone during IM chats
Teasing that goes over the line, that is meant to chip away someone’s self-esteem. The victim cries foul, the perpetrator claims “teasing.” Boo! (Not that kind of fright) Frightening someone can mean making threats to do harm.

8. Joined in a clique on a blog, website or chatroom that enjoyed driving other posters offsite
Not often talked about are the “community” blogs or chatrooms where “like-minded” posters form cliques. Part of their activities are to single out other posters for the sole purpose of driving the target off the site. This is often done in the guise of “for the good of the blog or chatroom.”

9. Accused someone of a crime online without proof
The person who is unfairly accused of committing a crime online usually has nowhere to turn. The accusers are for the most part, anonymous, the “accusation” gets spread without proof.

10. Followed someone across the Web
Kept track of other online posters, following them from blog to blog, chatroom to chatroom, site to stie. This is a form of soft-core Cyber-stalking. Not the same as showing up at their door but enough to creep anyone out. (Cyberpaths do this to see if any of their victims are "talking about them" to anyone else and then raging on as "being the victim" themselves!)

(many of our victims feel that they need to find out if their cyberpath is "doing it again" or "harming anyone else." EOPC does NOT consider that cyberstalking but accountability as well as compulsory in order to stop these predators from throwing one life away to start destroying another)

Did you answer "yes" to any of these?

Only you know the answer to that question. If you did, maybe it was a one-time occurrence. Only you know the answer to that one, too.

If you were guilty of any of these actions, you should think about changing your behavior.

Unless you want to be a cyber-bully.

ORIGINAL (and more great posts!) HERE

Adults Responsible for Internet Abuse, Too

Almost all of our cyberpaths bully and torment their victims when they find out they have been busted & exposed. Victims who are already physically and emotional sick with PTSD and trauma. However, shaming the only justice they will recieve until laws change. Vigilantes? We think not. - EOPC
Cyberbullying isn't just a problem among adolescents. Adults engage in it, too. From online vigilantism and angry blogs to e-stalking and anonymous ranting on newspaper Web sites, grownups can be as abusive as the meanest schoolhouse tyrant.

The suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier in 2006 thrust adult cyberbullying into the open. The Dardenne Prairie, Mo., girl killed herself after receiving cruel messages on MySpace from impostors posing as a 16-year-old boy named "Josh Evans."

Lori Drew, the mother of one of Megan's friends, was accused of participating in the hoax along with her teenage daughter and a former teenage employee. Drew has denied sending messages to Megan.

While questions remain about Drew's role, the case has left no doubt that the Internet is rife with adult cyber passion.

After the suicide came to light, an outraged mother several states away ferreted out Drew's identity and posted it on a blog.

Soon, "an army of Internet avengers ... set out to destroy Lori Drew and her family," forcing them from their home and "vowing them no peace, ever," newspaper columnist Barbara Shelly wrote. "Who are these people who have made it their business to destroy her? They are a jury with laptops, their verdict rendered without insight into the dynamics of two families or the state of mind of a fragile 13-year-old girl or even a complete explanation of what actually occurred."

Internet shaming is a growing cultural phenomenon, but Daniel Solove, a professor of law at George Washington University and author of the 2007 book "The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet," said it can backfire.

"Internet shaming is done by people who want actually to enforce norms and to make people and society more orderly," he said.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Adults Responsible for Internet Abuse, Too

Almost all of our cyberpaths bully and torment their victims when they find out they have been busted & exposed. Victims who are already physically and emotional sick with PTSD and trauma. However, shaming the only justice they will recieve until laws change. Vigilantes? We think not. - EOPC
Cyberbullying isn't just a problem among adolescents. Adults engage in it, too. From online vigilantism and angry blogs to e-stalking and anonymous ranting on newspaper Web sites, grownups can be as abusive as the meanest schoolhouse tyrant.

The suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier in 2006 thrust adult cyberbullying into the open. The Dardenne Prairie, Mo., girl killed herself after receiving cruel messages on MySpace from impostors posing as a 16-year-old boy named "Josh Evans."

Lori Drew, the mother of one of Megan's friends, was accused of participating in the hoax along with her teenage daughter and a former teenage employee. Drew has denied sending messages to Megan.

While questions remain about Drew's role, the case has left no doubt that the Internet is rife with adult cyber passion.

After the suicide came to light, an outraged mother several states away ferreted out Drew's identity and posted it on a blog.

Soon, "an army of Internet avengers ... set out to destroy Lori Drew and her family," forcing them from their home and "vowing them no peace, ever," newspaper columnist Barbara Shelly wrote. "Who are these people who have made it their business to destroy her? They are a jury with laptops, their verdict rendered without insight into the dynamics of two families or the state of mind of a fragile 13-year-old girl or even a complete explanation of what actually occurred."

Internet shaming is a growing cultural phenomenon, but Daniel Solove, a professor of law at George Washington University and author of the 2007 book "The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet," said it can backfire.

"Internet shaming is done by people who want actually to enforce norms and to make people and society more orderly," he said.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Guilty Verdict Overturned in Megan Meier Suicide Case

EOPC hopes this acquittal is appealled. Drew says she 'didn't read MySpace's Terms of Service. Ignorance may be bliss but it shouldn't stand up in court!

If you would like to contact Judge Wu and let him know why you disagree with his decision, please send an e-mail to his attention at his court clerk's e-mail.

javier_gonzalez@cacd.uscourts.gov

by Carolyn McCarthy

Lori Drew, the woman convicted of using a hoax MySpace profile to harass a teenage girl to the point of suicide, was acquitted by a Los Angeles judge on Thursday, Wired reported.

Judge George Wu overturned Drew's guilty verdict, which was issued in November, saying that if Drew had been convicted of a felony in the case, she would already have been sentenced. But because she was convicted of three misdemeanors -- a significantly lighter offense than prosecutors originally sought -- the constitutionality of the guilty verdict was less clear.

Drew, a Missouri resident, had been convicted of three misdemeanor counts of "accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress," each of which could have resulted in a year of jail and a $100,000 fine. But she hadn't been convicted of conspiracy, a felony that could've led to up to 20 years in prison.

The tragic situation unfolded in 2006, when Drew, her teenage daughter, and an 18-year-old employee of the family created a fake MySpace profile for a fictitious teenage boy that they used to harass one of Drew's daughter's classmates, 13-year-old Megan Meier. Meier hanged herself.

This was a situation in which traditional law did not align smoothly with the realities of the digital world: the prosecutors' argument was rooted in a terms of service violation, since MySpace officially outlaws impersonation and fictitious accounts.

Last year, the Electronic Frontier Foundation urged the courts to dismiss the case because of the precedent it could set. "Criminal charges for a 'terms of service' violation is a dramatic misapplication of the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), with far-ranging consequences for American computer users," the EFF said at the time, and argued that it could result in criminal charges for something as innocuous as a minor using the Google search engine.

Drew's lawyers had argued that the law being used against the defendant was vague and flawed, which the judge upheld Thursday when he threw out the guilty verdict. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is typically used against malicious hackers.

According to Wired, the judge argued for nearly 45 minutes with U.S. Attorney Mark Krause over the specifics of the CFAA.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

If you would like to contact Judge Wu and let him know why you disagree with his decision, please send an e-mail to his attention at his court clerk's e-mail.

javier_gonzalez@cacd.uscourts.gov