Online Daters Sue Yahoo Personals & Match.com for Fraud

Online daters sue Match.com, Yahoo for fraud

NEW YORK - It's not easy finding love in cyberspace, and now some frustrated online daters say they were victims of fraud by two top Internet matchmaking services and have taken their complaints to court.

Match.com, a unit of IAC/Interactive Corp., is accused in a federal lawsuit of goading members into renewing their subscriptions through bogus romantic e-mails sent out by company employees. In some instances, the suit contends, people on the Match payroll even went on sham dates with subscribers as a marketing ploy.

"This is a grossly fraudulent practice that Match.com is engaged in," said H. Scott Leviant, a lawyer at Los Angeles law firm Arias, Ozzello & Gignac LLP, which brought the suit.

Match "promotes the policies of integrity to protect members, and yet they themselves, we allege, are misleading their entire customer base," he said.

The company said it does not comment on pending litigation. But Match spokeswoman Kristin Kelly said the company "absolutely does not" employ people to go on dates with subscribers or to send members misleading e-mails professing romantic interest. The company has about 15 million members worldwide and 250 employees, she said.

In a separate suit, Yahoo's personals service is accused of posting profiles of fictitious potential dating partners on its website to make it look as though many more singles subscribe to the service than actually do.

Yahoo did not respond to requests for comment.

The suits, which both seek class-action status, came as growth in the online dating industry has slowed, although Web matchmaking still remains a big business.

U.S. consumers spent $245.2 million on online personals and dating services in the first half of 2005, up 7.6% from a year earlier, according to the Online Publishers Association. That's a slower growth rate compared with several years ago.

At the same time, competition among online dating services is fierce, with some sites offering newfangled features such as extensive compatibility surveys to match up people with similar temperaments and outlooks.

Allegations of 'date bait'

The Match lawsuit was filed earlier this month in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles by plaintiff Matthew Evans, who contends he went out with a woman he met through the site who turned out to be nothing more than "date bait" working for the company.

The relationship went nowhere, according to his suit. Evans says Match set up the date for him because it wanted to keep him from pulling the plug on his subscription and was hoping he'd tell other potential members about the attractive woman he met through the service, according to Leviant.

Jody Erwin Cooper

Date of Birth: 9/19/1978
Cleveland , Tennessee, United States
Hair color: Blonde; Definitely not married, engaged or living with someone; 6'2" / (188cm) tall; Average build, Chain smoker; drinks like a fish at parties; Completely out of control/an addict with drugs, Caucasian

Dating Site Alias: iwantyoutowantme1
FromWebsite: Cupid.com

Now that I have known him alot longer, I thought I would update. First of all, he's on pretty much every dating site out there. He usually puts his name in his profile.

Watch out for a good-looking, tall, blonde named Jody who lives in Cleveland, TN. He'll send messages to about 20 or so different girls a day, just to see how many "bites" he gets.

And he is a TOTAL addict. Any drug you can think of, he does it! And I do mean ANY!!!!!

He is a liar. He is manipulative. He is a very smooth talker. I thought I was pretty savvy at catching liars, but he knows exactly what buttons to push and how to finesse people.

Hce will tell you exactly what he thinks you want to hear. He can be a good friend. I give him that. He will do anything for you. Except be honest.

Just be aware that he is NOT boyfriend/husband material and with his drug problems, I don't know that he ever will be.

THIS HAS BEEN ON EOPC SINCE 2006 - if you have problems with it YOU MUST CONTACT THE ORIGINAL POSTER - HERE

ALL COMMENTS NOW CLOSED 9/28/09

BLOGGING, "FREE SPEECH" & THE CYBERBULLY

We have posted an article regarding a special sort of cyberpath: THE CYBERBULLY before. And new ones have come to our attention. People such as bloggers like this - use their forums to spread misinformation or information only THEY deem appropriate and palatable (usually by deleting comments to their posts they don't like or disagree with). That's fine - the internet is an uninhibited realm and for the control freaks and internet tyrants, this works well.

However, there are those, who when they don't like your ideas - decide to deride those who are behind the ideas personally. Sometimes these remarks are just plain mean spirited, but some? Are sexually provocative, vindictive and yes - defamatory. Full of hate and misogyny or misandry these KEYBOARD BULLIES find it very easy to try to ride someone into the ground from the protection of a nickname or a blog. Just as romance and financial cyberpaths embark on a smear campaign when found out, this bunch engages in smear campaigning, victim blaming, blame shifting and projection .


Writing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth can keep you out of trouble--both in your personal and public life--only to a point. While truth is the defense for libel and slander, it is NOT a defense for invasion of privacy and the Internet is the new frontier where not everything is clearly defined.

And even if you consider your blog a diary, that doesn't keep you safe from character defamation charges--and the cost could be as much as 23 years of your life. LINK

But are they really free to do this? Nope. They may continue to remind you how hard it is to legislate HATE SPEECH as opposed to FREE SPEECH. These are special kinds of cyber-narcissists who lead double lives - like this guy - who works an altruistic job during the day - but at night lets his thinly veiled anger, hate & arrogant snobbery run free along with his cyberbuddys in a wild case of mobbing syndrome. Oh, not everyone on this blog or blogs like this are bad. Some are intelligent enough to speak to the issues. However - blog owners like this guy are heading for trouble. And their sycophants .... er, commenters - keep trying to tell those they offend its NOT defamation, slander or libel. Or, like most of the disordered - that their victims 'simply don't know what they are talking about' -- like abusers who tell their victims its not abuse. These people like many cyberpaths - hope to define reality with their very words.


These guys have decided that they don't like the idea of a National Marriage Database, which EOPC supports - and to prove it they will make defamatory statements from their little keyboards about the two strongest proponents of this Database. O.K. In America, much of our government and our laws are based on the products of disagreement. However - comments like:

"I think it's clear that Sandra Phipps is a royal bitch," LINK

"there's Donna Layne Roberts, the authoritarian, educationally-challenged anti-bigamy activist who continues to warn TtP (and our commenters) that offending her and Sandra Phipps is a crime and that we're all going to go jail if we don't stop making jokes about anti-bigamy activists getting fucked by horses." LINK
(note - writer 'Cicero' attempts here and in other posts to characterize Ms. Roberts standing up him as a 'threat' and the database as a 'threat.' Typical abuser-playing victim-mentality Nice try Cicero)

"if by flirting you mean jacking off while I think about Sandra Phipps" LINK

"Donna Layne Robert's full threat (and others) are in the comment section of our previous posts. She is clearly a threat to free speech, liberty, moms, and apple pies. I encourage TtP readers to mercilessly mock her, and leave Sandra Phipps alone." LINK

"I'm practically licking whipcream off of Donna Layne Robert's hairy ass..." LINK

...are just plain wrong. That's not commentary. That's abuse.


"More recently, in Durango, as reported by Shane Benjamin, writing for the Durango Herald, a "Fort Lewis College honors graduate was sentenced to a total of 23 years in prison...after being found guilty of 26 felonies, including criminal libel."

One example of how he victimized was creating a Web site in a professor's name identifying her as a sexual deviant and asking anyone reading to come rape her." LINK

FROM THIS SAME ARTICLE:

"On a smaller scale, a Wisconsin Web site, FullofBologna.com, was temporarily shut down by a judge in a case that involved “anonymous messages on a bulletin board on the site. She [Winnebago County Clerk of Courts Diane Fremgen] claims those messages included libelous, sexually explicit comments."

"The lawsuit is against the Dennis Payne who operates the site and "the anonymous participant who went by the pseudonym, Mr. Imperfect." LINK

A bit more on sexually charged comments on blogs:

"Rae Langton agrees and concludes that "women as a group have rights against the consumers of pornography, and thereby have rights that are trumps against the policy of permitting pornography...the permissive policy is in conflict with the principle of equal concern and respect, and that women accordingly have rights against it" (1990, 346). Because she is not basing her argument on the harm principle, she does not have to show that women are harmed by pornography. For the argument to be persuasive, however, one does have to accept that permitting pornography does mean that women are not treated with equal concern and respect.

"we have to decide whether it is better to place a higher value on speech than it is on the value of privacy, security, equality, or the prevention of harm." LINK

Its one thing to go to exposure sites about people you've married or dated, as an article I wrote explains - to expose them. Its another to revictimize people who have already been victimized and them blame them and smear them when these victims try to find a viable solution to prevent anyone else from being victimized!

"For Stanley Fish, the issue is one of finding a balance in which "we must consider in every case what is at stake and what are the risks and gains of alternative courses of action" (1994, 111). Is speech promoting our basic values or undermining them? "If you don't ask this question, or some version of it, but just say that speech is speech and that's it, you are mystifying--presenting as an arbitrary and untheorized fiat-- a policy that will seem whimsical or worse to those whose interests it harms or dismisses" (1994, 123).

"In other words, there have to be reasons behind the argument to allow speech; we cannot simply say that the First Amendment says it is so, therefore it must be so. The task is not to come up with a principle that always favors expression, but rather, to decide what is good speech and what is bad speech. A good policy "will not assume that the only relevant sphere of action is the head and larynx of the individual speaker" (1994, 126). Is it more in keeping with the values of a democratic society, in which every person is deemed equal, to allow or prohibit speech that singles out specific individuals and groups as less than equal? The answer, according to Fish, cannot be settled by simply appealing to a pre-ordained ideal of absolute free speech, because this is a principle that is itself in need of defense. Fish's answer is that, "it depends. I am not saying that First Amendment principles are inherently bad (they are inherently nothing), only that they are not always the appropriate reference point for situations involving the production of speech" (1994, 113). But, all things considered, "I am persuaded that at the present moment, right now, the risk of not attending to hate speech is greater than the risk that by regulating it we will deprive ourselves of valuable voices and insights or slide down the slippery slope towards tyranny. This is a judgement for which I can offer reasons but no guarantees" (1994, 115).

"Again, there are many acts which, being directly injurious only to the agents themselves, ought not to be legally interdicted, but which, if done publicly, are a violation of good manners and, coming thus within the category of offenses against others, may rightly be prohibited. (1978, 97 [author's emphasis] - J.S. Mill" LINK

Maybe this is just their feeble way of driving more traffic to their low-rent blog. They should have checked their egos and engaged what, if any, brains they had before they shot off their mouths via computer. You see, those of us who have been victimized by cyberpaths and bullies? We aren't afraid of very much - in fact, by the time you read this - all their information will already be in the appropriate hands. Free Speech is a wonderful thing - until you abuse it and others in the process. We psychopath and malignant narcissist victims know this only too well.

Freedom of speech, the public diary-style of some blogs and the publication of truth isn’t enough to protect bloggers from lawsuits of libel and invasion of privacy and those charges could come from readers in nations that are governed by different laws.

So writer beware. You don't know who or where your readers are LINK

At least one of this mob has apologized:

Fighter, I'd like to personally apologize for the offensive comments that I made under the name 'Cerafyn' about your affiliate of Fight Bigamy, namely the comments directed at Sandra Phipps. I can't apologize enough to her, but I'd like to express regret for having offended you, as well. Please know that I acknowledge their immature and hateful voice, along with unforgiveable words for which I know am wholly accountable. They were, assuredly, a confusing and unjustified outburst at an undeserving group of people.



Thanks Cerafyn. You are right - unjustified, hateful and immature comments to an very undeserving group of victims. But the rest have dug in their heels with more garbage than ever spewing from these supposedly 'learned minds' who need to throw their credentials around along with their lack of common decency. So allow EOPC to inform the rest of you:

Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to verbal statements and gestures. The term defamation is often used to encompass both libel and slander.

Examples of some of the common types of defamatory statements are the following: (1) statements which make a claim about whether a person has committed a crime; (2) statements which impute the presence of an infectious or loathsome disease; (3) statements which injure a person with respect to his office, trade or business; and (4) statements which impute some lack of moral dignity. Even if the statements fit into one of these categories, which are not all inclusive, it is not defamatory if it is true.

Regarding defamation on a blog, if you are hosting a blog, and providing interactive services such forums or comment section, or even participating in these forums, you could find yourself facing a claim for defamation if you are involved in the publication of false harmful statement - even if you are not the author of the statement, and have no editorial control.

Additionally, even if you are not the original author, and have no editorial control, you could be liable if someone publishes a defamatory statement on your site or service. LINK

Never ever take this sort of thing lying down. There's only one way to beat a bully - stand up to them. Look out cyberbullies - rev up the cyber-shredders too. The accountability train just pulled in.

UPDATE: The posters over at the site in question in the above post think they are having a field day at EOPC's expense.

In brief.... we are 'crazy' and wear a 'tin foil' hat; this site has too many font colors; we are skating on thin legal ice (projection at its finest here, folks), we are guilty for reprinting the offending comments (LOL - guess they don't read us much huh?) and we are goat ****ers. Can't thank them enough for bringing traffic here, alerting people to the cyberbulling aspect of blogs and the brief moments of laughter. Carry on! - Fighter

ASSAULTED BY COP SHE MET ONLINE

A woman assaulted by a police officer she met through the internet is warning other women to be aware of the risks.

The 33-year-old mother of two was fresh from a violent relationship when she met Constable Andrew Rae from Christchurch through a dating website last year.

But far from the protector she believed he would be, Rae ended up bashing her several times after moving into her house.

He even punched her in the stomach a few days after she had abdominal surgery, and still had stitches. He would also practise his police holds on her tiny body.

Rae quit the force in mid-March, several weeks before being charged over the attacks on her.

He pleaded guilty in the Christchurch District Court this week to three charges of assaulting the woman.

He was fined nearly $4000 – $500 for each charge, $390 court costs and $2000 reparation to his victim.

The mother is speaking out to warn women to be careful letting men they meet online into their lives. "He was in a caring profession, but he abused that position of trust," said the woman, who does not want to be named.

"He totally controlled my life. He's a predator and unfortunately, these types of men are using the internet to gain access to vulnerable women."

Rae did not want to comment. His lawyer, Jonathan Eaton, said Rae was under extreme pressure at the time of the acts, for reasons explained in court and suppressed by Judge Brian Callaghan.

"The sentencing judge accepted that those pressures had led him to act in a manner that was quite out of character," Eaton said.

Police spokeswoman Maggie Leask said it was inappropriate for the police to comment.

The woman began chatting to Rae through emails in April last year. They swapped phone numbers and agreed to meet. They hit it off in the first week and had a brief sexual relationship.

In May last year he moved into her house as a flatmate for four months but Rae's behaviour quickly changed, said the woman.

"Within a few days of moving in he became very volatile. He started putting me down, saying things like, `you're too skinny'," she said.

"He also started what he called play fighting, but I didn't like it. I was ill and only 47kg at the time."

The woman said Rae would practise his police moves on her. When she resisted his play fighting, he would threaten her. "He said he could charge me with female assaults male and could have my daughter taken off me."

Once when Rae pinned her against the wall, she lashed out and scratched his back, drawing blood.

"He punched me in the stomach with a closed fist and said 'you f... bitch'."

Soon after, Rae handed the woman a yellow Women's Refuge card, telling her she would need it shortly, she said.

"It frightened me because I think he knew that he could be violent towards me in future," she said.

A few days after arriving home from abdominal surgery in August last year, Rae punched her in the stomach without warning.

"He just lashed out. It wasn't an angry punch. We hadn't been arguing. I was standing, he was sitting at the table and he just punched me," she said. "I said 'I've just had surgery' and he just said `sorry'."

The woman said she was scared of reporting the assaults to the police because of his threats and the fear she would not be believed.

But the final straw was when Rae attacked her for accidentally breaking a statue, while her daughter was home.

The daughter told her teacher at school what had happened.

Rae was interviewed and charged by police, initially with five assault-related counts. He pleaded guilty this week to three of them.

The woman said the police needed to improve their psychological screening of recruits.

"His threats and comments like `do you know what they do to cops in prison?' stopped me from calling the police for help," she said.

"Andrew stated that as I had a past, and because he was a police officer, he could do this. No one would believe me. He threatened to have me put under surveillance."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

MORE U.S. WORKERS ARE BEING FIRED FOR E-MAILS

BY LORE CROGHAN -- DAILY NEWS BUSINESS WRITER

When in doubt, leave it out - especially concerning E-mails.

An increasing number of workers are losing their jobs because of E-mail violations, according to an annual survey of about 300 companies released today.

A third of employers in the study sacked staffers in the past year for violating workplace E-mail policies. That's up from about one in four last year.

"People don't see a difference between phone conversations and E-mail - but legally, there's a really big difference," said Keith Crosley of tech firm Proofpoint, which conducted the survey with Forrester Consulting.

The participants came from public companies, higher education, government and nonprofits with 1,000 employees or more.

Nearly 40% of the employers in the survey have staffers whose job is to read other staffers' E-mails. And almost half the employers regularly check the contents of the E-mails their people send.

An alarming number of workers don't realize they're being watched - and could get in trouble - despite highly publicized corporate scandals.

Prosecutors used incriminating E-mails to help build their criminal case against Enron founder and former CEO Ken Lay - and now he's facing a sentence of up to 165 years behind bars.

Former Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher - who had been married for 50 years - was forced to resign after his affair with a female colleague came to light. The sexually explicit E-mails he sent her - on his company's E-mail system - became embarrassing evidence.

Former Merrill Lynch analyst Henry Blodget praised stocks in public but derided them as dogs in E-mails - and was barred for life from the securities industry.

"E-mail lives on forever," Crosley said. "Big companies archive their E-mails - they're required to, for all kinds of regulatory reasons."

Employers have a problem with employee blogging, too.

For the first time, the survey queried companies about their policies concerning blogs and message boards - and found 7% of the respondents had fired people in the past year for breaking the rules.

Retailers, wholesalers, telecom firms and utilities were among the most likely firms to fire workers because of E-mail infractions, Crosley said. Employers weren't asked exactly why workers got the ax. But Crosley has heard plenty of anecdotes.

Some firms have rules against using the company E-mail for personal messages - and that's all it takes. Another likely firing offense is sending messages with "unacceptable content" - such as racist or sexist jokes, or smutty stories or pictures. Other people lose their jobs because they use workplace E-mail for criminal behavior like stealing customers' credit card or Social Security numbers, he said.

Employers have good reason to worry about employee E-mails. In the past year, a quarter of those in the survey were ordered by courts or regulators to hand over E-mail records. But the survey suggests they aren't doing enough to prevent misconduct. Though more than 80% of these firms have written policies outlining acceptable E-mail use, just half gave workers formal training on E-mail policies in the past year. Crosley hopes the survey is a wake-up call to managers to educate their employees about acceptable E-mail usage.

Workers should ask bosses or tech departments what the rules are - pronto.

And they should remember Crosley's rule of thumb:

"At work, don't put anything in an E-mail you wouldn't want the whole world to see."

http://www.nydailynews.com

EOPC wants to add - DON'T PUT ANYTHING ONLINE YOU DON'T WANT THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE. Why? Because many message boards, for example... have online archival backup so even if you think you've erased it? Its there. In cyberspace.... just waiting like a ticking bomb!

Computer evidence retrieval is also easier than you think - even if you swear you've erased something. Personal email accounts are archived by the account originators as well.

Remember our first Predator of the Month, Ed Hicks? He was caught using his government job's email to carry on with his numerous wives and girlfriends all at the same time!

BE CAREFUL!!! and remember: if you meet someone online who tells you either of the following:

1. "Please don't check up on me/ surf on my name/ etc.... if you do it proves you don't trust me"

2. "Please don't save any of our instant messages or emails"

MASSIVE RED FLAGS!! In both cases - do the opposite!!! Because that someone isn't telling you something. So check them out and save those instant messages. Don't say we didn't tell you! - Fighter

MANY HIGH PROFILE INDIVIDUALS HOOKED ON THE INTERNET

Online anonymity preserves their privacy but sometimes at a cost

"In light of the story about Serena Williams on admitting her compulsive online shopping habit, it is important that we recognize the addictive power of the Internet," according to Dr. Kimberly Young, a clinical psychologist and director of the Center for On-Line Addiction.

"High profile individuals such as Serena are drawn to the anonymity that cyberspace affords. From community leaders to celebrities, these are individuals whose anonymity has been taken away due to their local or national status. They constantly feel exposed and powerless to gain their privacy back," explains Dr. Young, author of Caught in the Net, the first recovery book for Internet addiction. "The Internet becomes the one place in the world where they can go without being recognized, placing those in the public spotlight at greater risk to develop an unhealthy habit towards the Internet. Having privacy again is intoxicating, even if it is only virtual. In Serena’s case, she wore wigs to disguise her identity while shopping, when that failed, she turned to the Internet which became out of control."

Research studies by social scientists have long studied the impact of anonymity on human behavior. Findings show that most individuals are less inhibited and more risk taking if they lacked accountability for their actions. According to a recent survey conducted at the Center for On-Line Addiction, 83% of their clients reported anonymity as the single most important reason for why they initially got hooked on the Internet. "Anonymity is so empowering that we have seen people from all walks of life engage in acts that they otherwise would not have such as view pornography, make up online personas in chat rooms, gamble, play violent games, and even bid on eBay," adds Young

According to the latest figures, more than 120 million Americans are online and a recent survey found that therapists across the country are seeing a steady rise in the number of cases related to cyber-triggered problems. Young warns,

"Instant access is available to the masses as more consumers surf the Internet, so we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of a nation wide mental health trend that will need more and more clinical attention in the future. And for celebrities and public figures, addiction problems will easily worsen because they are more afraid to seek help because of the impact it will have on their careers and images."

The Center for On-Line Addiction

Computer Spying: Some Good Reasons To Do So

GOOD REASONS TO SPY ON THE COMPUTER
from:
http://www.Probe.org

Relationships are constantly being tested and destroyed by sexual affairs that start from online conversations. If you have high suspicions of an Internet affair, finding out the truth before more action is taken is extremely important.

Legitimate Reasons for Spying
1. Children may be exposed to pornography and may develop unhealthy attitudes towards sex and women. Materials unsuitable for children-pornography, racism, bomb making instructions, descriptions of violence and sites that promote alcohol, gambling, smoking and drug use-can easily be found on the internet.

2. Spying to regain trust in yourself.
Noticing changes in your partner's behaviour, sensing something different probably made you confront him/her about this. Once confronted, a cheater's first answer usually is denial. A part of you wants to belive your partner but another part of you knows the truth. To deny this part of you, which knows the truth, creates a tremendous internal turmoil. If the truth as you suspect it is confirmed, you know at least that you can trust yourself. You are not crazy!! Spying is a way to confirm your suspicions and trust more fully your gut feelings.

3. Spying to maintain contact with your partner.
You feel your partner moving away from you. You dont talk as much as you used to. (Spying is a way to know about your partner's life, interests, desires.) You probably feel you dont know him/her anymore. You need to maintain contact with this stranger who once was well known. You miss the connection and try to find some way to maintain the ties.

4. You want to know where you stand in your relationship and how to deal with it.
You want to know the truth. You suspect something is wrong and you have to know exactly what. You want to know how serious is that problem. You know that is difficult maintaining your sanity when you dont know what you have to face. You are not willing to stand and wait. You are a person of action. You want to work out your relationship one way or another. You want to get on with your life. You want to know the truth, face the truth, deal with the truth and be free.

5. Spying to protect yourself medically.
You need to know when a third party is sexually brought into your relationship. Online sexual activities may be followed by physical contact with others, with a highly risk of acquiring HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases. Your partner might feel too guilty or ashamed to inform you of the medical dangers. Its about your health and you have to know.

6. Protecting yourself legally in case of separation.
You need to take protective steps if you feel your relationship might end. An affair implies lying, betrayal and deception emotionally aswell as financially or in other areas of the relationship. With the "evidence" you have you can protect yourself legally if you take it to the court. Whether you need to protect yourself legally depends on the kind of affair facing you and the character of your spouse. If you are thinking of separating from your spouse means you suffered enough emotionally and you need to take the steps to protect yourself against other damage this relationship might cause you.

7. Secrets destroy relationships.
Keeping a secret has a strong impact on the person suspecting it as well as on the person keeping it. Feelings of guilt, shame and all the measures that need to be taken to keep the secret can cause serious emotional damage.

A secret can interfere in someone's life in various ways. People become physically ill, sometimes seriously so. People become depressed. People start doing crazy things. Children start acting out, stop achieving, become listless or exhibit a host of other symptoms. Children, or the next generation, often carry the emotional load.

You want to spy because you don't want to live with a secret.

You want to discover the truth. You want to feel the freeing power of the exposed secret and the opportunity it offers for healing, resolution, a rich relationship and a full life.

8. Spying to spice up our life.
Sometimes we need an adrenaline rush to make our life interesting. We create scenarios about emotional triangles, or we live it just to spice things up. Maybe one of the reasons for an affair is this adrenaline rush. Or, you may spy to keep the sense of being alive a part of your life.

----------------------
Is Spying an Invasion of Privacy?
It is well known how many cheaters react when they are "caught in the act". Outrage can be intense:

"How dare you? I never thought you'd degrade yourself to that level! How could i trust you if you go behind my back like that? This is none of your business. Now you know it is your fault! Dont be surprised if one day i'll be gone! How could i love anyone that would do something like that to me???" and so on...

Usually the person having the affair does not see or will not admit the duplicity of his/her clandestine behavior. The cheater make you feel like the evil one, the one who destroyed your relationship with spying. It is not right, but having an affair or keeping a secret is much worse. Were you the one destroying the trust or the intergrity of your relationship by spying? No, of course not! The integrity of the relationship has been destroyed through the affair. the lack of trust came from him/her keeping a secret.

The affair shattered the promises and mocked the vows that the two of you made. The affair invaded your relationship and damaged every part of it little by little. Spying does not destroy the relationship, it is an attempt to find out the truth and resolve the pain and deception, to attain health and sanity.

Spying is often used to grasp the reality of the situation. We need to find the truth. Only the truth can help us regain trust in ourselves, our relationship, our life.

---------------------
Are You Prepared for What You Might Find?

Have you thought about what you might find spying? Can you imagine the worst thing you might discover? How would you handle that? Are you ready to handle the worst thing that could happen?

You can ask yourself a few questions to determine how prepared you are for what you might find:

1. Do I know what I might face? Have I educated myself to handle affairs, even the worst ones? Do I know what I have to do to get thought the crisis? Can I maintain my calm and not get lost in destructive thoughts and feelings?

2. How do I usually deal with emotional pain? How have I handled it in the past? If it gets unbearable, do I have a therapist to contact immediately and see soon to help me through the difficult times?

3. Do I have friends or family to morally support me if I discover the worst? Have I told them I might need them? Do they know exactly how they can help?

4. Do I have a strategy for what I might find? Do I have a strategy for different scenarios? Do I have a plan to confront or not confront my spouse? How, when, where, under what circumstances will I confront him/her?

5. Do I have a strategy for protecting myself? What will I need to do to keep myself functioning somewhat effectively?

6. Is there someone I can count on to be objective, who can help me develop strategies and goals for confrontation and self-care and keep me focused and working on these strategies and goals?

-------------------------
Spying is Not Revenge

You spy because you want to know the truth, because you want to get on with your life, because you want to be free! Dont use what you find as ammunition for revenge. Revenge would question your integrity as a person, would lower your personal standards. There is nothing to gain with revenge.

Of course, you may have wonderfully violent fantasies of what you would really like to do to him/her and the other person. This is very normal. But, don't act them out. It would only make you feel as low as they are.

You spy because the truth will set your free. You spy because you want to be free from all the doubts, all the secrets, all the disappointment. You have to set your focus on you in that difficult time, so you can break free from the affair quicker. the sooner the two of you can face each other without any other influence, the better of you and your relationship will be.

You dont have to share new found information with family, friends, children or the spouse of the other person. It is just between you and your spouse. A concern about sexually transmitted diseases or health risks might be an exception. If it is important to share such information, do so without much fanfare or drama.

If you pursue legal action, any information obtained though spying might be helpful to your attorney. Having "evidence" does have some impact in particular states or districts.

ANOTHER ONLINE DATING SITE SCAM

Mishawaka, IN - In the search for true love, the popularity of Internet dating is booming.

Unfortunately, this popular way to date is also becoming a breeding ground for scam artists as one Mishawaka woman found out.

Online daters beware
Being a busy Bethel College assistant professor doesn't leave a lot of time for finding love.

"I was just looking like everybody else does," said Professor Angela Myers.

Like millions, Angela turned to the Internet to find that special someone.

"I actually had broken up with my boyfriend in November and started looking for something to make me feel like I'm still out there, I'm available, I'm active in looking for dating and that kind of thing," explains Angela.

That's when Angela came across this online dating service called, Executive Christian Dating.

"They were very good about saying you're not doing this out of desperation, your not doing this out of some crazy need, you're doing this as a step in life, that you want to find somebody to live your life with and that's a good thing and its worth the money to put forth," said Angela.

Before she paid any money to become a member, Angela did her homework first.

"By using these seals, I looked up these Internet standards," says Angela. She also called the company to get references from people who used the service.

"He said, 'well, because a lot of our clientele are very concerned about privacy, they didn't want their name to be used as a reference'. Ok. I guess that makes sense," Angela said.

Feeling confident this was a reputable dating service, Angela paid Executive Christian Dating just over $900 for a six-month membership to have a counselor match her interests with other clients.

"It was nice to sort of say, here's somebody who knows me and they're going to sort of do the filtering first," says Angela.

After that process started, Angela emailed her first match.

When she didn't get a response, Angela touched base with her counselor.

Angela says her counselor told her, "Well you need to remember that they may be out of town or something like that."

Feeling skeptical, Angela emailed her match in Goshen. She says, "His first response was that he had never heard of this Executive Christian Dating."

That was the same response from Angela's other profiles.
After days of no response from her possible matches, Angela received and email from her first match; However, she found out that the responders had never heard of Executive Christian Dating.

"Are you aware of this and he emailed back and said, 'no', he had been part of Yahoo Personals," explains Angela.

Not getting the matches she paid for, Angela says she felt scammed by Executive Christian Dating. "I'm just a person looking to find a guy to spend my life with and these people are taking advantage of people like me -- who just are out there trying to do the best we can," she says.

NewsCenter 16 discovered Executive Christian Dating is taking advantage of others too. The Federal Trade Commission received 11 complaints this year.

"As far as we know, everybody who has sent money to these places have sent money, lost money and not gotten a date out of the deal," explains South Bend Fraud Investigator Dominic Zultanski. "A majority of them had dollar loss value complaints totaled up to over $11,500 dollars."

Zultanski looked into Angela's case and found several red flags.

"They were using an almost anonymous way of transaction of money. They were then using an anonymous way of corresponding with them by mail and the only phone number that came back to them was in Canada," explains Zultanski.

Executive Christian Dating also goes by other names based on people's preferences, including Executive Jewish Dating.

"There's no doubt in my mind there's many more victims then we even come close to knowing about," says Zultanski.

Calls and emails NewsCenter 16 made to Executive Christian Dating were not returned.

"Classically if you take it down to bare bones, it's nothing more than fraudsters finding something people would jump at or want to get immediately. Throw some bit of emotion in there, this case being love and making it sexy then next thing they do is they're going after your pocket book," says Zultanski.

For Angela, it is a lesson in the hi-tech world of love she'd soon like to forget.

Online dating tips
However, we do have some advice to protect yourself in the world of Internet dating.

* Try not to pay too much money up front. Sign up for a couple of referrals, and if you're pleased, then pay for more.

* Choose a dating service that's been in business for a long time under the same owner.

* Find out if the dating service you're considering has had any complaints with the Better Business Bureau and your state's attorney general's office.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE