Why do You ALWAYS Have to Be Right, Martyr Man?

(this wonderful article can be read in its entirety at THIS SITE. It could be a letter to any of our cyberpaths. We recommend you read the whole thing at the site linked above! - EOPC)
Dear Martyr Man,

You will always be the victim, in every situation where someone tries to get close to you. You cannot relate to women as equals. You look for a strong-willed woman, latch on to her, but envy her strength and ability to express herself openly, so you attack her in vicious little ways. Ways so subtle that you can easily and convincingly deny any wrongdoing and make HER look like the crazy one for even suspecting that you are a passive-aggressive game player.

You played similar games with women before, and this was a chief motivator for their anger and "abuse" towards you. If they struck you physically, that was not right, but when you paint yourself as a martyr, you *always* fail to mention the emotional and psychological abuse you were inflicting on THEM.That's right, Martyr. You are an abuser. You. Poor little cringing, eternally victimized you.

"But abusers scream, yell and hit, and I never do that!" you protest. "I'm not that way at all. I don't have the anger gene. I am completely incapable of anger." What you are incapable of is the truth. But I am capable of the truth and here it is.

You ARE capable of anger. In fact, you are a very angry person, as your father before you must have also been - he is clearly the one upon whom you have modeled your behavior. Like him, you were too intimidated by other people to express your anger openly, so you nursed your rage in secret and struck out instead in subtle little ways. If you were asked to do something, you made sure you "forgot" repeatedly or did a poor job. You no doubt carry this behavior on in your work and it is the reason most of the other employees don't like you. People tend not to like someone who does not do his share of the work and is sullen and resistant to new ideas. They are probably tired of your constant subterfuge and backstabbing. No doubt you also play the divide-and-conquer game, playing people off against one another.

You haven't said much about your mother, but I'll make a few educated guesses. She was a strong-willed woman who dominated you and your father, and you both resented it, but neither of you ever told her so directly. Neither of you had the courage to assert yourselves openly. So you both "got even" with her by lying, false promises, "forgetting" or otherwise sabotaging things she asked you to do, and/or withholding your attention and love.

Your mother was a model for how you view women today. As I have previously said, you go after women with strong, assertive personalities, because they fit your mother's model and because you admire them for the qualities that you yourself lack. However, you also hate them because they are strong and you are weak. Because you cannot assert yourself openly, you play psychological games designed to break them down, subvert their will, and subtly - invisibly - assert YOUR control.

That's right, Martyr Man. You want control. You are not able to control yourself and so you are controlled by others - but you resent it. So you get a feeling of control by manipulating situations with a deft, invisible hand. You "forget" that a woman asked you to do something. You "forget" NOT to do something she finds hurtful or disrespectful.

You remember to do the things YOU enjoy and want to do, and your friends think you're a great guy - the kind of guy who would do anything for his friends! (Of course you would - your reputation depends on maintaining an appearance of kindness and willingness, and anyone who doesn't know you WELL would say what a nice guy you are - you would do anything to maintain that image).... If she does something you REALLY don't like, such as attempt to leave you, you hint around at suicide and disappear, leaving her to agonize for days over your fate. Really, you're off hanging out with your buddies and drinking and having fun, but she doesn't need to know that, does she?

No doubt she has noticed the fact that after your initial, highly romantic and complimentary approach, you do a complete about-face once she's "hooked" - like Jerkily and Hyde. Once she's in a relationship with you, the kind and gentle and loving courtship behavior ceases, and the passive-aggressive battle begins. First, you begin by slowly and subtly creating distance between you - by spending less time with her every day (always her fault, because of something SHE did...) withholding your attention and affection, making sure she gets the message that your friends, your other interests, EVERYTHING else are more important to you than the person you called the love of your life. When she challenges you about this behavior, you deny it, and make her out to be irrational and crazy for even suspecting it. After all, the success of a passive-aggressive campaign depends on secrecy and camouflage.

You lie easily, leaving out little details like a wife you haven't yet legally severed ties to, and children that you almost never see. You haven't got a divorce, and you won't, because even though you hate your wife, you feel chained to her. You are dependent on her. It's a parasitic relationship.... I haven't the faintest doubt you have cheated on her many times and lied to her many times, and that was the real cause of the attack that so wounded you emotionally. You brought it on yourself, but you won't admit that part.

... Yet, you still cling to this desperate delusion that you are incapable of anger.

That's a lie, Mr. Martyr. One of many.

Lies undermine the trust that is vital to all relationships. But you don't care about that as long as you can feel in control. Even when control comes at the expense of love, and that is sad.

Nobody can get close to you, Martyr Man. You'll let them within a certain distance, but then you are frightened by intimacy and of your will being sublimated to another's because deep down inside you know you are not strong enough to assert your own will openly and directly.... You wither under direct confrontation, but when you are able to operate undetected, you are a cruel and effective bully.

Games You Play:

1. The forgetting game:
You are asked to do something you don't want to do. Instead of saying no, you either "forget" about it or sabotage it so badly that the results are useless. You enjoy the frustration this causes others - this is your sneaky way of asserting yourself and controlling the situation from behind the scenes.

2. The withholding game:
Once in a relationship with someone, you begin to selectively withhold your time and affection. The other person senses this pulling away and asks about it. You deny it. But you let them know, indirectly, that many other things are more important to you than they are - your friends, your work, your opera DVDs. You let them know this by leaving their company to pursue these interests without telling them you are doing so.

You enjoy the feeling of being in control, knowing you have falsely promised someone your attention later in the evening and knowing you have no intention of fulfilling that promise. You will "forget" to come back, and enjoy your evening alone knowing you are ruining someone else's. When the person confronts you about this treatment, you will act put out at the suggestion that your actions should live up to your words. You just can't remember to keep your promises!
(How many times did your Cyberpaths say "BRB" or "meet you online tonight" or even promise to meet you in person - AND NEVER COME BACK OR SHOW UP?)

.... You know full well that this the way you like your partner to feel - that way she will be more dependent on you, desperate for your attention, and under your control.

3. The lying game:
Lies roll smoothly off your tongue whenever you are confronted about your behavior and/or something you failed to mention about your past, such as being currently married and the father of two children (now that is a big thing to "forget", even if you alienated them so badly that they don't want to spend any time with you any more). Lying by omission is lying, pure and simple. But you didn't lie on purpose, you claim. No, you just forgot, or your emotional pain was so great that you just couldn't bear to tell the truth!

4. The deflecting game:
Partner becoming suspicious of your lies? No matter, just deflect the attention! Change the subject, wander off, or start ruthlessly (and falsely) putting yourself down so that she won't have the heart to be "mean" enough to pursue the matter any further. If she persists, then you play:

5. The martyr game:
This is your favorite game of all. This game allows you to escape responsibility for anything and everything by invoking your status as the most misunderstood, mistreated, helpless and victimized martyr who ever walked the earth. Nobody understands you or your pain! Don't they see that being a victim completely justifies the way you turn around and become a victimizer at will? Nobody could ever suspect poor little abused, tormented you of torpedoing relationships. (Did yours say their partner, spouse, employer or others "didn't understand them the way" you did? )

Nobody could expect such an innocent little lamb of deliberately causing emotional and psychological damage to others. Why, look at the way he cries and curls up into a helpless little ball when confronted (and when the lying and deflecting games don't work)! He could never harm ANYONE.

... The Martyr has no pity or compassion for anyone else, since he saves it all for himself.

6. The superior game:
Unlike all the other people on Earth, you're incapable of anger. You're a regular Gandhi, full of kindness and respect for all, and it's such a tragedy that other people feel the need to get angry at you. You'd never push someone's buttons until they responded in anger and then deny any wrongdoing, setting them up to look like the emotional, crazy one. You'd never get satisfaction out of a nasty little game like that, because you're too superior.

You're also superior to the rest of the world culturally - nobody is as sensitive and artistic as you, and nobody appreciates your kind of music, or appreciates it at such a lofty level. You especially love to pull this routine after you've seriously pissed somebody off. You respond with calm politeness - calm of course, since you have got the angry/upset reaction you were aiming for - and double-whammy the person by showing them how YOU never get angry because you are too superior a person to be capable of anger. (Check out how one of our Cyberpaths DENIED they 'hate' the person who told the truth about them only to go after them online, relentlessly? Did yours do this to you?)

...No wonder you're so angry at being unmasked publicly. Your games depend on your victim not knowing what's going on.

You are not interested in confronting your problems or getting any help for them. You'd rather just float through life like a spineless jellyfish, stinging anyone who ventures too near. Your behavior patterns are firmly entrenched and you are too old to change.

You like to drive women away - like to get them so fed up that they leave. That feeds your sickness in a number of ways:

* it takes the burden of decision-making off of YOU;
* it enables you to play the martyr over being left by this cruel, horrible woman;
* it gets you sympathy from your next prospect.

You like hurting other people and you have no intention of changing.

And don't bother with the "I'm a wonderful sensitive human being who would never cause anyone harm; you've misunderstood me".

Oh no. I have not. I have understood you at last.

I understand now how you messed with my mind and made me even fear for my own sanity, how you exploited me emotionally, how you hurt me to the point where I actually felt suicidal.

..... It's called PROJECTION. It's what YOU would do in such a situation, so you project your own screwed up motives onto others.

For someone who is "so wounded, so sensitive, so compassionate, so victimized, so gentle" - your letters bristle with anger, threats, and nastiness. I thought you were incapable of such things, Gandhi.

And you sure are lacking in any compassion at all for the women you've tormented - you have none for your wife and you have none for me. And no doubt you'll have none for your next victim.

You chose your life, and you choose to be this way. You choose it every day. You could change, and learn to be a person of truth, strength and integrity, but you choose not to. It's easier to sit in your sh*t and cry about how you are victimized while you are busy victimizing others.

This is the life you've chosen. You have chosen to be unhappy, and to inflict unhappiness on others.


(Does this sound like your cyberpath/abuser? - Fighter)

ONLINE ATTACKS

by Robin M.

Why So Many Feel Big When They Hide Behind A Screen

I’ve often joked that the internet is the last place that beating up women in public is still considered acceptable. Ask any woman who writes online, be it politics, women’s rights, often even parenting and more mundane social issues, and you will hear a nearly universal admittance that she has at some point been attacked for her views by at least one anonymous commenter. Not an “I disagree with you because x, y,z…” response, but a “You stupid bitch, why do you think you can write what you write.”

I used to be amazed by the vitriol. Then I was saddened. Eventually, though, I saw that as just another part of the territory when you open yourself up as a writer online.

I accepted it. We all pretty much accept it. That is the part that should make us all angry — our now inherent acceptance of the idea that if you write online, you will be harassed, especially if you are a woman.

As Nina Funell explains in this piece in the Australian, “The internet has absolutely changed the nature of public debate. The anonymity and the immediacy it gives people who want to indulge in abuse and hate… I don’t know if it actually makes it more or less dangerous [to have a public profile] but when you’re seeing a whole heap of hate speech written about you in separate forums, targeting you via email or in comments, I do know that it has a profound impact on your sense of safety…”

I’ve always been lucky to feel safe, despite opening a great deal of my private life online because of my writing about infertility and reproductive health. Although I have had my own share of comments, both with real names (I assume) attached or sent anonymously, I have learned to ignore them as simply a part of my work. I never stop to question why it should ever be a part of anyone’s “work” to deal with online harassment.

Once, things escalated beyond just comments and insults. It was a shocking realization of not just how exposed you actually do leave yourself online, but how free those who disagree with you feel it is allowable to step beyond the normal bounds of public and private life in order to “teach you a lesson” about how wrong you are about the things you believe.

I learned my lesson well. I learned that to allow someone to silence you online is to lose your power, and that when your personal life goes on line, you don’t go quiet, you identify it for what it is — an attack by someone who wants to intimidate you from acting on your beliefs. You must learn to change that attack into something that can become a positive for you, a chance to show your strength, expand your audience, whatever it is that they are trying to stop you from accomplishing.

The internet may always be the last place for attacks, especially attacks on women, to thrive. But we don’t have to accept it, we have to fight it.

original article here

Harassers Are Losing Their Anonymity...

By Yamil Berard

Imagine waking up one day and finding out that you have been labeled a thief, hooker, pimp, child abuser or tax evader on an anonymous blog.

As people ramp up their trash talk online, such harassment is becoming more common, said Kenton J. Hutcherson, a Dallas attorney who specializes in Internet defamation cases. "I see these cases every day," Hutcherson said. "I have a unique niche."

The Internet has become a Wild West of hooligans apt to besmirch the name of anybody they don't like, because they think they can get away with it under a cloak of anonymity, legal experts say.

"The real difficulties you are going to have is finding who are the John Does who are posting this stuff," said Frank Snyder, a law professor at Texas Wesleyan University in Fort Worth.

Indeed, for a while, the anonymous posters could hide. They counted on Internet service providers to refuse to unmask them.

But now, courts are ordering that they be exposed, opening the way for defamation lawsuits.

Just this week, a Tarrant County. Texas jury awarded a couple $13.8 million in a libel judgment, said to be one of the largest ever in an Internet defamation case. Hutcherson is now trying to unmask other anonymous posters who targeted three area residents, including two from Tarrant County.

He filed a lawsuit this month against "John or Jane Doe" on behalf of the three, who have been named on a Google-hosted blog as "two pimps and a prostitute." The accusations on the blog have caused "severe emotional distress," the lawsuit states.

Hutcherson says his clients are ordinary people. One, a Kaufman County woman, is a homemaker, a PTA member and a mom, he said. "She is scared to death that other people in the neighborhood will see this stuff and see that she's accused of being a prostitute," Hutcherson said.

None of the three have been charged with prostitution-related offenses, according to a check of criminal records. They did not respond to requests for comment.

Hutcherson said his clients aren't looking for a big verdict. They just want the allegations removed from the blog, known as "open secret" and affiliated with an online escort service. The blog identifies the plaintiffs as associated with Dallas brothels, a spa and another agency.

The information is easily accessible on Google, Hutcherson said.

[We are] not identifying the plaintiffs to avoid spreading the allegations.

In most of these cases, clients shun publicity, Hutcherson said. "The client in these cases is put at a difficult position because in order to vindicate their name, they have to go out there and file a public lawsuit," he said. The first goal in many Internet libel cases is to identify the anonymous poster.

To do that, the plaintiff's attorney issues a subpoena to the online service provider that hosts the pages with the defamatory content.

The provider -- Google, for example -- then typically notifies the anonymous defendant, who has 20 days to file a motion to quash the information. If no motion is filed or the court denies the motion, the provider must turn over the information, Hutcherson said. Once it is released, the defendant's real name replaces "John or Jane Doe" in the lawsuit.

Hutcherson's plaintiffs have a slam-dunk libel case if the allegations are false, Snyder said. Under age-old common law rules, it's unlawful to call a "chaste" woman a prostitute. It is called "libel per se" -- or libel that is obviously harmful.

"You're not only impugning a crime to them but implying unchastity as well," Snyder said. "If it's untrue, the common-law rule would be you get damages just by showing someone has falsely called you a prostitute."

The same rule, however, doesn't apply for men labeled pimps or prostitutes, he said. "Go back 150 years, a man who had affairs with other women was kind of admired."

Hutcherson's advice: Be careful what you post.

"People get behind the computer and they think they're anonymous and are not going to be held liable so they do things they normally would not do," he said. "They have this sense of empowerment. ... The way they act on the Internet is different than they way they act normally. The problem is that the Internet is the real world and it affects real people ... causes real damage."

original article found here

SOME OF THE INNER WORKINGS OF A CYBERPATH

(taken from the work of Lundy Bancroft) 
The cyberpath is controlling; he insists on having the last word in arguments and decision making,

he may make rules for the victim about her movements and personal contacts, such as forbidding her to contact or to see certain friends, online or offhe is manipulative

he misleads people inside and outside of the family/ close friends about his abusiveness

he twists arguments around to make other people feel at fault

he changes times & dates to cover himself

he turns into a sweet, sensitive person for extended periods of time when he feels that it is in his best interest to do so

his public image usually contrasts sharply with the online reality

he is entitled; he considers himself to have special rights and privileges not applicable to other family members

he believes that his needs should be at the center of the target's agenda, and that everyone should focus on keeping him happy


he typically believes that it is his sole prerogative to determine when and how sexual relations will take place, and denies his partner the right to refuse (or to initiate) sex; he may even moralize to her when it is him that is the sex addict

he usually believes that work should be done for him, and that any contributions he makes to those efforts should earn him special appreciation and deference

he is highly and often subtly demanding 
he is disrespectful; he considers his targets less competent, sensitive, and intelligent than he is, often treating her as though she were an inanimate object

he communicates his sense of superiority in various ways


after a break-up or negative event with the target, the cyberpath sometimes becomes quickly involved with a new partner whom he treats relatively well; sometimes he carries on multiple affairs slowly & painfully dropping one for the other

cyberpaths are not out of control, and therefore can be on "good" behavior for extended periods of time - even a few years - if they consider it in their best interest to do so

the new target may insist, based on her experience with him, that the man is wonderful to her, and that any problems reported from the previous relationship must have been fabricated, or must result from bad relationship dynamics for which the two cyberpath and a former target are mutually responsible. The cyberpath can thus use his new partner to create the impression that he is not a risk.




When caught:
Cyberpaths increasingly use a tactic I call "preemptive strike," where he accuses the target of doing all the things that he has done.

he will call his target a "predator too!"

he will say that she was 'harassing' him and his friends/family, that she was extremely "controlling" (adopting the language of domestic violence experts), and that she was 'unfaithful' and/or 'also at fault'.

he will call her: a scorned woman, crazy, a stalker, obsessed with him, jealous, etc ....

BELIEVE NONE OF IT!!

(remember that females can just as abusive & controlling as men)

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

Don't Shoot the Messenger: Google Can't be Held Responsible for Defamatory Blog Posts

by Tom Gardner

A High Court judge has likened Google to a graffiti strewn wall in a landmark judgement which says it cannot be held responsible for libellous or offensive content.

Mr Justice Eady said the internet giant was not bound by laws governing publishers, giving the company widespread immunity from English defamation laws.

In the judgement, which will have huge implications for freedom of speech in this country, he said: ‘It is no doubt often true that the owner of a wall which has been festooned, overnight, with defamatory graffiti could acquire scaffolding and have it all deleted with whitewash.’

'We should never have liberated France': David Starkey courts yet more controversy by claiming nations should be left to free themselves from oppression. His case against Google Inc over reactions to a blog labelling him, without justification, as a drug dealer and a thief, is now dead in the water.

Mr Tamiz sued over eight stinging ‘comments’ made in reaction to a blog posted on Google’s Blogger.com platform.

Amongst other things, they accused him of being a drug dealer and having stolen from his employers.

The judge said the allegations could not necessarily be dismissed as ‘mere vulgar abuse’ and it was ‘not altogether surprising’ that Mr Tamiz chose to sue Google as most of the posts were anonymous and it would have been difficult to track down those responsible.

But the judge was stinging of Google's lateness in reacting to Mr Tamiz's compaint, saying there was a ‘considerable delay’ before the blogger was contacted and the posts were removed.

Payam Tamiz was forced to resign as a Conservative candidate in last year's local council elections after posting inappropriate comments on the internet referring to women.

Mr Tamiz said: ‘I understand that my Facebook remarks were inappropriate and I unreservedly apologise for the offence they have caused. However, I feel it is important to put the remarks into context. They were made long before I was a member of the Conservative Party and long before I entered the political arena. They were made at a time of personal trouble and difficulty and I never intended for them to be interpreted as an unfair generalisation for the women of Thanet. I am deeply saddened that they have been taken out of context and misconstrued. I have resigned from the Conservative Party in the hope that this affair, which is being exploited and distorted by the opposition, does not damage the Party's electoral success...'

Catrin Evans, for Google, argued ‘it has no control over any of this content’ and, far from being a publisher, is merely ‘a neutral service provider’.

The judge said: ‘Google Inc makes the point that it has no way of knowing whether the comments complained of were true or not, or subject to some other defence in law.

‘It argues that it cannot reasonably be expected to investigate and determine the truth or falsity of allegations made by bloggers’.

He added: ‘One needs to be wary of analogies when considering modern technology, but it may perhaps be said that the position is, according to Google Inc, rather as though it owned a wall on which various people had chosen to inscribe graffiti. It does not regard itself as being more responsible for the content of these graffiti than would the owner of such a wall’.

Mr Justice Eady added: ‘I would be prepared to hold that it should not be regarded as a publisher, or even as one who authorises publication, under the established principles of common law. As I understand the evidence, its role, as a platform provider, is a purely passive one. I would rule that Google Inc is not liable at common law as a publisher.’

Google Inc sought almost £28,000 in legal costs against Mr Tamiz, but the judge said that figure was ‘somewhat disproportionate’ and cut it by one third.

He added that Mr Tamiz had been ‘confronted by allegations about drug dealing and stealing from his employers which no one suggested were remotely true’ and could not be blamed for going to court to remove the smear from his character.

The court heard Mr Tamiz is ‘not a man of means’ and the judge acknowledged that he ‘may not be in a position to meet’ Google’s legal costs bills, £5,000 of which he was ordered to pay within 28 days.

original article here

Bill Targets Cyber-Impersonation

by Alejandro Martínez-Cabrera

Two months ago, a San Jose Mercury News reporter received a profanity-laced e-mail critical of one of her stories. More than a year before, a similar e-mail was sent to a long mailing list of hundreds of Silicon Valley industry, labor, political and community leaders.

The sender of the e-mails appeared to be Carl Guardino, the chief executive of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents the high-tech industry. The problem: He didn't actually send it.

"This absolutely misrepresented me in a very harmful way," he said. "It was completely out of character and it depicted me in a very bad light."

Guardino was the victim of online impersonation, and he soon found out he wasn't alone - friends, colleagues and relatives had stories of usurped identities and tarnished reputations. Unfortunately for them, the state law on impersonation was written in 1872 and is not equipped to deal with the digital age.

But a bill making its way through the Legislature is looking to change that. Inspired by Guardino's story, state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, introduced a bill in June that would make it a misdemeanor to maliciously impersonate someone.

If Simitian's bill passes, online impersonations with the purpose "of harming, intimidating, threatening or defrauding" would be punishable with a maximum fine of $1,000 and one year in jail.

But while supporters believe the law urgently needs to be updated to punish and deter malicious impersonators, privacy advocates worry that such legislation might easily cross the line and threaten people's First Amendment rights.
Political commentary

Simitian said his bill is not going after those who create fake Barack Obama Facebook profiles for political commentary, or the likes of Fake Steve Jobs, Newsweek writer Daniel Lyons who poses as Apple's chief executive in his satirical blog.

Instead, the bill is meant to deal with miscreants whose impersonations range from the naughty to the outright sinister.

In recent years, impersonators have tweeted under the names of Maya Angelou, Kanye West and St. Louis Cardinals' manager Tony La Russa, to name a few. Revenge-seekers and pranksters have embarrassed their victims in front of potential employers and created smears that are difficult to remove from the Web. Students have posed as teachers to harass other kids.

In one case in December, a Wyoming woman was raped in her home by a man responding to a Craigslist ad looking for "a real aggressive man with no concern for women" to fulfill a rape fantasy. However, she didn't post the ad - it had been her disgruntled ex-boyfriend, a Marine stationed in California who was posing as her. Similar stories abound, online abuse experts said.

'No recourse'
The Internet "makes it so easy for stalkers and harassers to ruin somebody's life with a few keystrokes, and there's little to no recourse for victims to try and undo the damage," said Jayne Hitchcock, president of the volunteer organization Work to Halt Online Abuse, who was a victim of cyberstalking.

No one seems to know how widespread the problem is, but Hitchcock said she has noted more complaints about MySpace, Twitter, Facebook and e-mail impersonations.

"I probably see it more often than I'd like to through our organization," she said.

But when it comes to addressing the problem, not everybody is convinced Simitian's approach is the best. Corynne McSherry, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the scope of Simitian's bill was defined too loosely and could have a negative effect on freedom of speech. For one, she said, the definition of harm needs to be narrowed.

"Harm is a pretty broad term. That could just mean that you undermined a politician's reputation. I'm concerned that the nature of 'harm' is too vaguely defined," she said.

McSherry also expressed concern that the bill would not protect some forms of parody and satire on the Internet that involve impersonation.

For instance, she pointed to the Yes Men, activists that the foundation is representing in a lawsuit filed against them by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In October, the group held a fake news conference posing as chamber representatives who promised the organization would no longer lobby against climate-change legislation.

"It was a very effective form of satire that was really useful in provoking some form of debate," McSherry said. "I don't think it's Sen. Simitian's intent to shut down this form of freedom of speech but I believe it's what this bill can do."

Simitian's bill names "credible" impersonators that act without consent, but, McSherry said, "Just requiring that an impersonation is credible is not going far enough to protect the type of political speech I'm talking about."

And even though she supports the spirit of Simitian's bill, Hitchcock questions whether it's enforceable, considering the need to educate law enforcers on online abuse issues and the jurisdictional problems relating to cybercrimes.

"Unless the victim and the harasser are both in California, it's going to need a lot of collaboration between law enforcement agencies and the states. And if (the impersonator) is in another country, good luck. But it's a start," she said.

Hard to enforce
Danielle Keats Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland who has written extensively about the role of the law and online abuse, believes the proposed law will have challenges based on the enforcement difficulties and the broadness of its interpretation.

But even if the bill in its current form becomes law, Citron said, the statute might have an overall positive effect. At its most basic level, the measure might help change attitudes about what's permissible, she said.

"The legislation is trying to take the lead on this emerging technology that people are abusing, and teaching them how to treat each other," she said. "It's an important point we shouldn't forget."

She added: "But we also have to get the law right."

original article here

Over 400 Online Bullying Incidents in Wales in 2011

(U.K.) Almost 400 incidents of cyber harassment and bullying were investigated by police in Wales last year, we can reveal.

Victims of abusive, threatening or harassing messages sent via social networks included teenagers as young as 14.

The problem has increasingly hit the headlines in recent months with celebrity victims Katherine Jenkins and former Miss Wales Imogen Thomas complaining publicly about being subjected to vitriolic online attacks.

Away from such high profile cases, in the South Wales Police force area alone 331 harassment-related incidents classed as “e-crime” were investigated, but resulted in just three arrests.

A Freedom of Information request identified 46 cyber crimes in the Dyfed-Powys Police area, resulting in 12 arrests. Offences included 10 hate crimes, one kidnapping and one threat to kill. Eight victims were under the age of 20. In North Wales, where 18 crimes on social networks were recorded, police investigated one offender for harassment while using a false identity.

Two cases were referred to the High Tech Crime Unit in Gwent, involving harassment messages, and e-mails sent to trustees of an organisation alleging homophobic harassment and bullying. However no further action was taken.

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) Centre is currently running a programme called Thinkuknow to educate children and young people about the dangers of “trolling” they face online.

A spokesman said: “Trolling is a description given to someone’s online actions that are deliberately inflammatory or abusive. It ranges from posting a nasty comment on a social networking profile, or a football forum to extreme and persistent abuse.

“It could include harassment, bullying or anything that causes distress to another. The effects can be devastating. Too few people realise that in acting this way online you can quickly break the law. People may think they can remain anonymous when they are online, that they can say and do things they wouldn’t dream of doing in real life without consequences.”

A spokesman for eCrime Wales said: “The e-Crime Partnership, which includes the four Welsh police forces, works to raise awareness of e-crimes of all kinds. The fact that these incidents are now being reported by the public reflects the fact that people in Wales are becoming more aware of the issue generally and of the importance of passing details of such attacks to the police.”

Jonathan Bishop, a South Wales-based internet expert who recently ran a Trolling Academy tutorial, said that as the numbers of arrests were low, fixed penalties and Asbos should be used against cyberbullies for less severe offences. It would be more appropriate then if local authorities, particularly where vulnerable persons are affected, used their powers under New Labour’s anti-social behaviour legislation to issue fixed-penalties to those who harass others, he said. “Local authorities also have the powers to apply for Asbos against persons, which could tell the cyberbullies that they can go to jail for up to two years if they continue their abuse.”

Criminal cases involving the malicious use of false identities on social networks are becoming increasingly common.

In August James Edward Dunn, 28, from Middlesbrough, was jailed for seven years for raping a 15-year-old girl he had lured into meeting by lying about his age on Facebook.

At the time the investigating officer, Detective Constable Jolene Morrison, had urged teenagers who use Facebook to “only speak to people that they know” and to be aware that the person they think they are talking to may not actually be that person.

In September Sean Duffy, 25, from Reading, was jailed for 18 weeks for taunting the families of four dead teenagers on online tribute sites.

And in November, police in Mid Wales vowed to crack down on “trolls” after a 14-year-old sex abuse victim was subjected to an online smear campaign after her attackers were brought to justice.

Mr Bishop, a town councillor for Treforest, said the use of false identities – by “Snerts” who post messages to harm others, and “E-Vengers” who are driven to harm others they feel have wronged them – is a serious problem.

original article found here

Anonymous Anger Rampant on Internet

by Todd Leopold

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

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.

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!)

Twitter Stalking is Protected Free Speech

by Andrew Couts

(San Francisco, U.S.A.) Saying mean, terrible, even violent things about someone on Twitter or blogs is free speech protected by the First Amendment, a judge has ruled.

A San Francisco judge has declared that cyberstalking on Twitter and blogs is constitutionally-protected free speech, reports The New York Times. The ruling is a victory for the First Amendment. But like all things worth fighting for, it comes at a price.

Here’s what happened: A Buddhist religious leader in Maryland named Alyce Zeoli became friends with a man named William Lawrence Cassidy. At some point, the two had a falling out. Cassidy took the mature route, and began posting thousands of messages on blogs and Twitter, often using pseudonyms, that aggressively disparaged Zeoli. Some of them even called for her death.

Understandably distraught, Zeoli then worked with the FBI to have Cassidy arrested, which he was, based on interstate stalking laws. Cassidy, the government argued, had caused Zeoli “substantial emotional distress.”

This, however, was not enough to convince Judge Roger W. Titus, who declared that Cassidy’s actions, while distasteful, were not enough to set a precedent that could cause serious harm to the entire foundations of speech on the Internet.

“[W]hile Mr. Cassidy’s speech may have inflicted substantial emotional distress, the government’s indictment here is directed squarely at protected speech: anonymous, uncomfortable Internet speech addressing religious matters,” wrote Judge Titus, in his official order.

Titus ruled that, because no one was forced to read Cassidy’s posts and tweets — as opposed to a “telephone call, letter or email specifically addressed to and directed at another person” — they are considered free speech, not harassment, just as personal bulletin boards of the colonial era fell under the protection of the First Amendment, which “protects speech even when the subject or the manner of expression is uncomfortable and challenges conventional religious beliefs, political attitudes or standards of good taste.”

One of Zeoli’s lawyers, Shanlon Wu, told the Times that Zeoli was “appalled and frightened by the judge’s ruling.” It is not yet clear whether there will be an appeal to the ruling.

original article found here

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.