Online Players, Internet Predators, Cyberpaths, Dating Site Frauds, Cyberstalkers... whatever you call them - they need to be EXPOSED! Did they take your heart? your trust? Harass you? Tell your story... Share ideas for dealing with them... ('FAIR USE LAW' APPLIES TO ALL ARTICLES)
If you think using a false identity will allow you to slander or harass people online, think again. Anonymity will not save you.
By Dan Tynan
You gotta love the InterWebs. You can get away with saying practically anything about anybody-- and if you hide behind a fake identity, nobody will ever be able to tell it’s you. Right?
Well, no. You can’t just say slander or harass someone without repercussions. If what you say or do would break a law in physical space, it will also break laws in cyber space. And I don’t care how anonymous you think you are, your identity is only a subpoena away.
(REMINDER: Every victim who's predator/ harasser has been exposed on EOPC has to sign a legally binding document that holds EOPC harmless. The post(s) is the FULL responsibility of the victim who sends the information to be posted.)
William Lawrence Cassidy found this out the hard way after he posted some 8,000 nasty, threatening, and disturbing tweets directed at one woman: Alyce Zeoli, a Buddhist leader in Maryland.
Cassidy, who also went by a variety of aliases including Tulku Urgyan Tenpa Rinpoche and Marshal Jim Duncan, probably thought he was being clever by posting the tweets via fake names. He wasn’t. He's now cooling his heels in a Maryland jail cell, awaiting trial for cyber harassment.
Per the New York Times:
… in response to a subpoena, [Twitter] revealed the Internet protocol address of the computer used to post the messages. The authorities found Mr. Cassidy at home in a small Southern California town called Lucerne Valley. Similar rants were posted on blogs that law enforcement authorities say they traced to him.
I had a tiny taste of something similar myself recently, after I made a joke about the Tea Party in a blog post. I said that before I friended anyone on Facebook I always make sure they’re not ax murderers or Tea Party members. After this lone comment prompted a handful of “news” stories on right-wing sites, I tweeted out a formal apology – to ax murderers.
You’d think I’d bitch slapped Sarah Palin while strangling a puppy. I cannot repeat here most of the nasty NSFW things these people said about me in blog comments and on Twitter.
But the worst one was the pseudonymous a**clown who made a “joke” by tweeting about my alleged fondness for kiddie porn. I informed him that he was flirting with a defamation suit, but he didn’t care – he seemed to think he was immune.
I’m not sure what these people thought they’d achieve by this campaign, but I think they proved my point about why I wouldn’t want to friend them.
Some free speech advocates argue that Twitter is a public forum where all voices should be heard. In Cassidy’s case, his alleged harassment of Zeoli seems to go well beyond free speech and into threats against her physical safety.
In my case, well, I’m a big fan of the First Amendment – I use it every day -- but I don’t think it gives you a license to slander or knowingly spread falsehoods. And I’m not alone.
“There is a whole litany of things that are not protected by the First Amendment, including illegal activity and copyright violations,” notes Bennet Kelly, a Los Angeles attorney specializing in cyber law who’s also an award-winning blogger for the Huffington Post.
Kelley often represents people who’ve been harassed or stalked online, typically by people posting anonymously or via a fake identity.
“These people think they’re immune, that they can hide their identity and get away with anything,” says Kelley. “But the victims usually have a pretty good idea of who these people are, and if not, we can investigate and find out.”
The simplest route: Take the account information and/or IP addresses used by the harasser, and demand their real identity and contact info from their service providers.
Once Kelley approaches the harassers, they usually take the offending material down to avoid further legal consequences.
Unfortunately, cyber harassment doesn’t get the attention it deserves, says Kelley. “People get all upset about cookies invading the privacy,” he says. “When’s the last time someone committed suicide over a cookie?”
TY4NS blogger Dan Tynan hasn’t sued anybody yet, but there’s still time. Visit his snarky, occasionally NSFW blog eSarcasm or follow him on Twitter: @tynan_on_tech.
The incessant ad hominem attacks on my character by Darren Mitchell Meade
would probably need a small book to adequately address each of the many
allegations. However, in the interests of brevity I will attempt to
reduce my response so as to retain the reader’s attention.
It is my humble request that parties interested in perceiving
the truth or falsity of either Darren Meade's assertions, or for that
matter my response, do consider the source of the allegations before
placing any value on the substance.
The following 30-second video clip was recorded by an unknown
person and distributed anonymously some time ago. Therein, Darren Meade
in his own words demonstrates the gleeful satisfaction he derives from
tormenting the targets of his Internet smear campaigns. In this case, it
was the renowned Stanford educated physician Dr. Scott Connelly:
VIDEO (30 Secs Long) (Explicit):
Meade Describes His Smear Campaign
Extortion, Distortion & Revenge
Darren M Meade Smears Rexxfield Founder Michael Roberts
3rd Party Verification. Any person may verify this for them selves for free with this form and fax: Central Abuse Registry IA DHS P.O. Box 4826 Des Moines, IA 50305
Fax to: 515-242-6884
"Michael had an arrest and conviction for domestic battery in 2000."
NOTE: The irony of these allegations will
not escape most readers. Darren is referring to an event on December 20,
2000 when I was wrongfully jailed overnight, and subsequently cleared.
Whereas, on that very same day, Darren Meade became subject to a
domestic restraining order filed by Laura J. Kelley who reported Darren
Meade's stalking and violent outbursts.
RESPONSE:True in part, lies in part. I was
arrested, not convicted. On December 20, 2000 my ex-wife Tracey
physically assaulted me after a customer went bankrupt owing my company
$26,000. She began kicking holes in the wall of the office with her
boots, I restrained her and she began stomping on my feet.
Photographs of holes kicked in wall by Tracey
After things cooled down I announced my intention to divorce. 45
minutes later I was in handcuffs and I spent the night in jail. However,
what Tracey meant for evil God meant for good, and I had the privilege
of sharing the Gospel with an elderly man who had intended to kill
himself when he was released the next day. At that time, the other 10
inmates in the shared cell stayed awake with myself and "Jim" listening
to this good news until about 5 am. Tracey begged me not to plead
innocence because she said her ex-husband would use my testimony against
her false allegations to gain an advantage in the custody battle of
their son Bert, my stepson. I agreed to plead no contest to disturbing
the peace. That way, I would not need to testify that Tracey filed a
false police report. Hindsight has 20/20, if only I had done things
differently, Bert & my kids would not have to have witnessed a
murder; Bert would not have been forced to participate in the crime
after the fact. More importantly, Dustin would probably be alive, and
who knows, maybe I would be back in Australia with my children?
"Michael is a bigamist"
Darren wrote:"Tracey's husband even married another woman while still married to Tracey" and "Michael and Tracey went on with their fragile marriage that finally ended in 2008."
Response: The marriage ended in March 2004 when I
survived Tracey's attempt to murder me. The judge issued an
interlocutory dissolution of marriage on December 3rd 2007. I married my
current wife in early 2008.
"Michael has been diagnosed with a mental illness"
These excerpts for the final decree for the marriage dissolution sums this up well:
"Tracey would, at times, give information to medical care
providers, in an attempt to have physicians find that Michael has a
mental condition. She would be involved when Michael was seeing his
family physician… At one point Dr. Brinck, a psychologist, diagnosed
Michael as being bipolar….Michael was examined by Dr. Charles E. Murphy.
In Dr. Murphy's opinion, Michael is not bipolar. Dr. Murphy's diagnosis
is post-traumatic stress syndrome and ADHD. The weight of the evidence
establishes that Michael is not bipolar."
"Michael is a criminal hacker"
RESPONSE: Darren Meade attempted to extort
from me the meager sum of $5000 in October 2011. After my refusal, he
set a deadline of October 31. He followed through with his promise. In a
coup d'état he was able to persuade a Fox News Journalist that I was a
criminal hacker, and these allegations graced the front page of
FoxNews.com on January 20, 2012.
Whereas, in the following e-mail message sent by Darren Meade to
a department of justice attorney just three months before the extortion
demands, Meade describes me as a victim of the crime syndicate of which
he now tries to persuade readers I am a connected:
RESPONSE: Below is a hyper link to the
polygraph in question and as can be seen there is no reference to
"failure"; in fact the polygraph operator determines the results to be
"inconclusive" -- this does not indicate deception but rather confusion
or anxiety. There were three questions in the polygraph, one of which
was something to the effect of "do you know the identity of the second
intruder". Whereas, although I initially strenuously defended my
ex-wife's actions in the 2001 homicide, the evidence I saw with my own
eyes planted seeds of doubt as to the veracity of her account of that
fateful night. In fact, I never really believed there was a second
intruder. The investigators told me later that that was most likely the
reason the results were ambiguous. After this revelation I volunteered
for a third polygraph which is also linked below.
(1) First Inconclusive polygraph by DCI (Coming soon, copy requested from police)
(3) Subsequent polygraph results with clarified question: "If we assume there was a second man, do you know his identity?"
"Use of hacking code via the Internet to tamper with the jury convened for ex-wife's murder trial."
RESPONSE: This allegation is simply absurd.
However, if we were to entertain the suggestion for a moment, an
objective reader should be able to just as quickly dismiss it because
Darren Meade did not raise this allegation until long after my ex-wife's
murder trial; more to the point, he did not raise this allegation until
he realized that his other character attacks were not gaining the
traction he had hoped. In fact, this gradual escalation and elevation of
flaming aspersions is his modus operandi in any distortion campaign he
runs, no matter who the target.
"Witness Protection Program."
Darren M Meade alleges that: Iowa prosecutors allowed me to stay in a witness protection program so that my ex-wife's defense attorney could not serve me with a subpoena.
RESPONSE: The fallacious nature of this
allegation is evidenced by the following facts (a) the program that was
protecting my children and me was under the California Secretary of
State,
(b) the murder was being prosecuted through the state of Iowa and
(c) Iowa officials have no say in what the California secretary of state does for its residents.
"Michael Was Founded for Child Abuse and is on Central Abuse Register."
RESPONSE: This is true; however, the findings were reversed soon thereafter. Darren Meade in keeping with his distortion tactics (watch, he will start using this term to describe me soon) is
taking a snapshot in time, but not giving the reader the benefit of
subsequent events. His propensity to do this should give readers cause
to dismiss everything he writes as deceptive.
Nevertheless, the findings were based on the testimony of
Tracey Richter and Bert Pitman. Tracey is a three times convicted felon
for and Bert is being considered for criminal prosecution for perjury
during the murder trial of his mother. This is a matter of public
record.
Tracey was also found to have forged the final the force
divorce decree between the two of us, wherein she added a clause giving
her permission to get passports for our children without my permission.
Moreover, Judge Duffy, in his (genuine) final divorce decree found as follows:
"Tracey is very deviceful; She usually has a plan or
scheme to effect a purpose. The following incidents establish crafty
schemes by Tracey:….One week after Michael filed the petition for
dissolution of marriage, Tracey filed a petition for relief from
domestic abuse….Tracey used this process in an attempt to gain advantage
over Michael on the custodial…..Tracey has made attempts to establish
that Michael has committed child abuse…In fact,. she conceded that it
was not child abuse. Later, Tracey made vigorous attempts to obtain a
founded report.
There is no founded child abuse report to support
Tracey's theory of child abuse by Michael. The court finds that Tracey
has failed to establish that Michael committed child abuse…. The Court
also finds that Tracey has failed to establish a history of domestic
abuse."
"Firearm offences"
Darren wrote: "Michael Roberts is photographed with one of many handguns
he purchased in violation of Court Orders after his conviction of
Spousal and Child Abuse. The photograph is with a sniper rifle. Police
reports allege he threatened to kill a Chicago detective with a sniper
rifle and that he (Roberts) is a very good shot. Roberts is on an audio
recording with another young man he mentors discussing having this young
man kill someone to ‘protect the inner sanctum’ or Roberts new business
enterprise with a .50 caliber hollow-point bullet which just explodes
his brain, the same as used by the rifle in the photo with Roberts
above." Response:
I have never been convicted of spousal OR child abuse. [Link: Proof]
I have never owned, held, touched or fired a 50 caliber weapon.
The photograph of the rifle to which Meade refers was
taken in the late 90s, five or six years before my ex-wife temporarily
obtained a restraining order prohibiting me from buying firearms. This
order was dismissed after it was determined the allegations were
unfounded in order to gain an advantage in the child custody issues.
The police report in question was filed by Tracey's
younger brother, Detective John B. Richter of the Chicago Police
Department. He made this report on October 29, 2011 this was the
Saturday immediately following the first week of his sister's murder
trial and by this time it had become apparent that things were not going
well.
Detective Richter, to the best of my knowledge is
currently being investigated by the Chicago Police Department internal
affairs, and the civilian oversight organization to which Internal
Affairs answers called "City of Chicago Independent Police Review Authority". [Complaint ID : OPS-9432]
Coincidentally, both Darren Meade and Detective John
Richter apparently reported that unknown persons had thrown rocks or
bricks through their windows at about the same time (I do not have
dates). Darren was in California, Richter was in Illinois.
I am not in an audio recording discussing killing someone
with a 50 caliber bullet. I was present with an individual who made the
statements, and I was the person recording the conversation and who
subsequently provided them to Darren Meade and law-enforcement because
Darren Meade was the "someone" the person was fantasizing about killing.
Coming Soon: Copy of police report containing the
allegations of Tracey Richter's brother Detective John Richter dated
October 29, 2011.
"Michael bought a house for another woman in Florida in 2004."
RESPONSE:Whereas, Tracey went to Florida
first to look at houses, she sent Michael and his stepson and son to
Florida a week or two later to look at her short list. He signed a
contract on the house they both agreed was best. While Michael was in
Florida, Tracey flew to London to be with her lover Tom Buehlmann. I had
previously discovered this relationship, I confronted Tom by telephone.
He apologized and said he had no idea she was still married and
promised that it would not continue. Tracey's relationship with Tom
began late December 2003 or very early January 2004. I did not meet the
"other woman" referred to by Darren until April 1st, 2004 after I
realized that Tracey's affair with Tom was ongoing.
"Michael stole Tracey’s identity"
RESPONSE: Tracey's team is getting good
mileage out of this allegation. In 2005 or 2006, I leased a large Dell
computer/server through "DFS" which is Dell Financial Services.
Unbeknownst to me, the lease had both my name and Tracey's name attached
to it from previous purchases while we were still together. Tracey
filed a police report for identity theft, she also filed allegations in
the civil divorce process. I contacted Dell, they removed her name, end
of story.
"Michael found shell casings at murder scene."
Darren wrote:"Michael Robert claimed to
have then cleaned the home and located shell casings within an hour of
taking possession of the home that were missed by CSI investigators."
RESPONSE: This is just one of many examples
of the incompetence of the investigators and earlier prosecutor who let
the murder go unpunished for almost 10 years.
"Michael's relationship with Dustin Wehde, Tracey's murder victim."
Darren wrote:"In his mentorship of Dustin, Michael Roberts had Dustin work on creative writing exercises that often were violent in nature."
Response: Says who Darren? Please provide
original source documentation, or a witness who has not been convicted
of either murder or perjury.
"Crime Scene Photos"
Darren wrote:"The crime scene photos were shown to me personally in 2010 by Michael Roberts." (referring to a document referencing the 'pink notebook' evidence).
Response: I challenge Darren to testify to this under the penalty of perjury.
"Life Insurance on Tracey & Michael's kids"
Darren wrote: "Tracey had a considerable life insurance policy as did the children."
Response: Tracey had taken out $100,000
insurance policies on each of the three children before the murder. She
had asked me to co-sign this one night when insurance agent was in our
home, I refused because I thought the idea was repulsive. However, I
finally consented to a $10,000 funeral policy for each of the kids under
protest because she just wouldn't leave me alone. Evidently, the
documents subsequently placed before me to sign were in the full amount
of $100K as later attested by insurance agent later.
Furthermore, in the year before the murder Tracey had stacked
my life insurance policies with at least three, possibly four policies
totaling somewhere in the range of 3 to 5 million dollars. I did not
know about this until I filed for divorce in 2004 and her first husband,
Dr. John Pitman, told me I need to go looking for them. I did, and what
I found blew me away. While Tracey was visiting her lover Tom, I
received documents in the mail from lifequote.com where she had applied
for an additional $1 million in coverage of my life only a few days
before she attempted to murder me in March 2004 by drugging and
suffocation. This was followed up by an e-mail message after I diverted
Tracey's business e-mail address to mine.
"The Real Darren Meade"by journalist Anthony Roberts (NOTE: he is NO relation & this site has apparently been hijacked from him): Visit Anthony's article
Officials say people with restraining orders against them are using social networking to contact victims and victim's friends & families.
(Massachusetts, USA) A man embroiled in a domestic dispute with his estranged wife contacted her friends in an effort to see their kids, which was prohibited by a restraining order.
"She should let him see their father. She has issues with him. It shouldn't get in the way of the kids. Pass on the love," he allegedly said.
Prosecutors argued that the defendant, 38-year-old George Manchester of Fall River, violated a restraining order by trying to contact his estranged wife through her friends.
Only Manchester, who denies the allegations, did not speak to the friends directly or send them a letter.
Prosecutors say Manchester, who police say has a history of domestic violence and violating restraining orders, reached out through cyberspace on the social networking website Facebook. "Your honor, it looks like he's coming up with more creative ways to violate the restraining order without getting caught," Assistant District Attorney Kelly Costa argued last month during a bail hearing for Manchester in Attleboro District Court.
The use of social networking websites like Facebook, Twitter and MySpace by domestic abuse defendants prohibited from contacting their victims is becoming more common, authorities say, as the use of the websites has proliferated in society.
North Attleboro police Detective Michael Elliott says he's investigated numerous cases in which restraining orders were violated by people using social networking websites, as well as e-mail and cellphone texting.
"Just because it's not in person doesn't mean it's not a violation," said Elliott, who has investigated numerous cybercrimes. "Violations using the phone and violations over the Internet are very similar."
Officials at New Hope, a non-profit women's shelter and domestic abuse support agency, say technology is a good way to keep in touch with family and friends, but it also has been used to torment domestic abuse victims.
"Many of New Hope's clients have in some form or at some point had technology used against them by their abuser, and perpetrators of violence are becoming increasingly 'tech-savvy' in using various devices to abuse or locate their victims," New Hope spokeswoman Laura Hennessey Martens said. "It is important for survivors to know that while living in an abusive home or even after leaving their abuser, social media, cell phones and other technologies can continue to be used against them and may jeopardize their safety," Martens said.
In Bristol County, there have been cases in all four district courts in which defendants have violated restraining orders through text messaging or social networking sites.
In one New Bedford case, a man is alleged to have taken his ex-girlfriend's cell phone and texted her friends, threatening to kill her, said Gregg Miliote, a spokesman for Bristol County District Attorney Sam Sutter.
"We've had defendants threaten to kill victims and burn their houses down. It seems that in the past few years it is an ever more popular way for defendants to violate restraining orders," Miliote said.
There are no local statistics to show the number of incidents, Miliote said, but prosecutors in the domestic violence unit have been successfully prosecuting more and more defendants for violating restraining orders through cyberspace.
"It's not unusual," Miliote said.
A U.S. Justice Department survey released last year noted that 1 in 4 stalking victims reported some form of cyberstalking by e-mail or instant messaging - and that was based on information gathered in 2006.
With the increased popularity of social networking and smartphones within the past few years, authorities say instances of cyberstalking or prohibited contact due to a restraining order is almost certainly higher.
Social networking, whether by e-mail or websites, is becoming more popular among all age groups, with 86 percent of those 18 to 26 using social networking sites, up from 16 percent in 2005, according to a survey released last month by the Pew Research Center.
Users 30 to 49 shot up from 12 percent in 2005 to 61 percent in May 2010.
The fastest growth occurred in the 50 to 64 age group, with the figures more than doubling in one year. Last year, 22 percent said they used social networking sites, jumping to 47 percent in May 2010, according to the Pew survey.
Martens says domestic violence victims can protect themselves.
While each domestic violence survivor's situation is unique and may require different strategies to "stay ahead" of his or her abuser, some basic technology safety tips include:
If using a computer that your abuser might have access to, be sure to clear your browser. However, computer use can still be monitored and Internet use is impossible to completely clear.
It is recommended that survivors instead use a computer that the abuser does not have access to.
Keep personal or identifying information offline. Online photos and postings can be used to track victims' whereabouts. This includes photos and postings by family and friends of a survivor.
Keep in mind that, even when selecting privacy settings at the highest level of privacy, there is still no guarantee that the information will be or will remain private.
Keep in mind that cell phones, car safety tracking systems and other technologies have GPS tracking devices that can be used by abusers to locate their victims.
More information is available on New Hope's website http://www.new-hope.org
What
with Facebook, Flickr, and other fine venues for stalking "exes,"
breakups aren't nearly as final as they once were. But for your own
good, please stop following them around cyberspace. "Conventional
wisdom, and even science, has it that cutting off contact with an ex
makes for a smoother recovery," writes Tracy Clark-Flory at Salon.
And she knows the struggle all too well, having tracked an ex from
Flickr to Twitter until she realized that the ring on his finger wasn't
"merely an engagement ring."
Not only
was he already married, but Clark-Flory had to see a live-tweeted photo
of him standing in the aisle. "It’s one thing to realize that the man
you once wanted to marry" has moved on, she writes, "and another to be a
virtual witness to it." Clark-Flory digs up studies to make her case,
like one that finds "Facebook stalking ... may obstruct the process of healing" and another
in which 30% of college students admit to posting status updates "to
taunt or hurt" an ex.
The only problem: "It’s never been easier to
secretly keep tabs on exes," writes Clark-Flory, "and it’s never been
harder not to."
How "innocent" chats and e-mails nearly destroyed my marriage by David Bauer
"Here." With tears streaming down her face, Dawn,* my wife of five years, stormed into my office at work and tossed a list on my desk. "I need you to stop at the grocery store on your way home. I have to pick up the kids." "What's wrong?" I approached her, but she waved me away."You never talk to me, and you expect me to tell you what's wrong? Forget it!""Dawn, please. Sit down and tell me why you're so upset.""Not here. Later." She left before I could argue further.I didn't try to stop her. Dawn knew. Somehow she'd discovered the secret I'd concealed for months. I'd fallen in love with another woman.Dawn and I had been high school sweethearts. I couldn't wait to marry her. But our marriage soon began to unravel. Close ties to her family, who lived nearby, constantly interfered with our time as a couple. Dawn didn't see the need to separate from her parents and put me first. She ran to them when we had a disagreement. If we went out for dinner and a movie, she invited them along.
Over time, I began to feel like a child waiting to join a kickball team, raising my hand and shouting, "Pick me! Pick me!" Jealousy grew, poisoning our marriage.In a heated argument one night, I demanded, "If I asked you to choose between me and your parents, whom would you choose?" Without speaking she answered my question.Four years into our marriage, Dawn and I had drifted apart. I'd grown weary of being rejected, emotionally and sexually. Her excuses for refusing my sexual advances ranged from fatigue to lack of interest. One night in bed, I massaged her back and legs, knowing it was a turn on to her. She responded with a perfunctory kiss on the lips. "Not tonight, David. Maybe tomorrow." She rolled over and went to sleep, leaving me dejected and hurt. Before long we were having sex only once every couple months. I envied my married friends who described frequent, healthy sexual relationships. As my resentment grew, I began to wonder what I'd ever loved about Dawn. A change of scene Needing a change, I enrolled in a local community college. I met Stephanie my first semester. We attended several classes together. I learned her father worked for the same company I did, and Stephanie and I both had a child the same age. She was stuck in an unsatisfying relationship with her live-in boyfriend; I was disillusioned in my marriage. We connected instantly, sharing long conversations over lunch, in-between classes, and sometimes even during class.Second semester, Stephanie and I didn't have any classes together. Deprived of the opportunity to see and talk with each other, we started to chat over the Internet. I also created a new e-mail account strictly for our correspondence. Our instant messaging began as a way to communicate during class, similar to the way I'd passed notes as a kid.
But the sessions grew more frequent, and soon I was chatting while at my job and late at night while doing homework. Our physical separation provided a false sense of security when our conversations and e-mails turned gradually more flirtatious.Stephanie stood out from other women I knew. She was free spirited-intelligent, funny, and carefree. But most important, she was attentive and non-judgmental. As our friendship grew, so did my romantic feelings. Inside, though, I was conflicted. Though I knew I was breaking my vows, I felt Dawn's rejection justified my feelings for Stephanie. I often cried out to God through journaling and poetry. I knew he'd forgive me if I repented. But at the same time, I blamed God for allowing my marriage to fall apart. And frankly, I wasn't ready to repent.
The great divide Sensing the growing chasm between us, Dawn sought ways to spend more time together, clearing her calendar of events planned weeks in advance. She made certain we ate supper together and cooked my favorite foods. I stubbornly resisted her efforts. "How was your day?" she'd ask when I came home from work."Fine," I'd reply, then ignore her. Although I knew I should work on my marriage, I was still angry about Dawn's loyalty to her parents and her sexual rejection of me. I wanted to hurt her as badly as she'd hurt me. Months earlier I'd planned a romantic, 5th-anniversary trip to Cancun. As my relationship with Stephanie intensified, so did my desire to get out of the trip. One week before we were to leave, Dawn and I had a heated argument."We may as well cancel our trip to Cancun," I said. "I don't want to waste the time or money when all we do is fight."
Shocked, Dawn began to sob. I cancelled our reservations the next day. Four weeks passed. One day at work an instant message from Stephanie popped onto my screen. "I need to tell you something, but I don't know how." Replying back, I urged, "You can share anything with me.""It's really personal and I don't want to look foolish.""Okay," I said, "if it makes you feel better, send me an e-mail."Sure she was going to confide her feelings toward me, I logged onto my e-mail account. I read her message, savoring every word."The last several weeks have been great," she wrote. "I know you're married, which makes this a lot harder." My heart pounded in my chest as I read on. "I've realized I have feelings for you. I often imagine what it would be like to kiss you."Elated, I replied back, "Me too."For the first time in months, I felt needed and wanted. I looked forward with anticipation to kissing Stephanie. A few weeks later, at a remote picnic spot, we shared our first kiss. My heart said I'd found paradise; my head screamed, What are you doing? Although we never progressed past kissing, each time we kissed the pull to go further strengthened.
As I continued to withdraw from Dawn, she became angry. "You touch that laptop more than you touch me," she complained."Welcome to my world," I muttered, remembering her sexual rejections. "David, I've tried. Won't you ever forgive me?" "You've pushed me away for years. It's too late to fix things."I thought about Stephanie, how she gave me the attention I craved. She soothed my wounded ego with compliments and love notes, filling a void in my heart. I began to believe she was my soul mate. I was in love.
Walking a tightrope Late one night I was instant messaging Stephanie, when Dawn sat up in bed."What are you working on?""Homework," I replied.A message from Stephanie popped up, and I quickly minimized it."What was that?" Dawn asked.Adrenaline rushed through my body. "An Internet advertisement." I knew my sneaking around was wrong. I buried myself in work and school, no longer wanting to be home. Fearing my relationship with Stephanie would be discovered, I limited my contact with family and church friends. I knew I should end things between us, but I wasn't strong enough.Six weeks had passed since Stephanie and I admitted our feelings for each other. One night after skipping class to be with her, I returned home to receive a call from Alex, a family friend. He asked if I'd meet with him. "I've seen changes in you," Alex told me when we got together. "Your priorities have shifted. You're investing far more time in school and your friends there than in your wife and son." He proceeded to share how, as a young husband and father of three, he'd cheated on his wife with a female college instructor. "David, I can see my past living out in you." For some reason I confessed my relationship with Stephanie, and that I was ready to leave Dawn and our son, Drew, for her. Alex listened patiently, making one request—that I allow him to arrange for Dawn and me to meet with a marriage counselor. I promised I'd think about it.
Secrets revealed The next day, Dawn confronted me in my office. Alex must have told Dawn about Stephanie.I stewed as I drove home from work that night, bracing myself for the confrontation to come. How dare Alex tell Dawn!When I arrived home Dawn's face was puffy and tear-stained as she prepared supper. After an uncomfortably silent dinner, I tucked Drew into bed. Walking downstairs, I found Dawn sitting on the couch, waiting. I sat on the floor and said, "Is there anything you want to ask me?""Who is she?" Dawn asked. "How long has this been going on?" I told her Stephanie's name and that we'd been involved for six or seven weeks. "Do you love her?" "I think so," I admitted. "I'm not sure I can end the relationship. How did you find out?" Dawn started to cry. "Alex told Mom and Dad. When I stopped by their house this afternoon, Mom was crying. They didn't want to tell me what was wrong, but I guessed."It figures, I thought angrily. Once again Dawn's parents had come between us. I felt I was on trial as I confessed everything—that I'd become emotionally involved with Stephanie through e-mails and instant messaging, and that the affair was on the verge of becoming sexual. I hoped Dawn would give up on us. Since I didn't have the courage to end our marriage, I wanted her to do it.
When I revealed that Stephanie's mother attended the same woman's group as Dawn, her control snapped. "What?" she yelled. "It's her?" Eyes flashing with anger, she ran to the basement. Grabbing a plastic baseball bat, she beat it against the stacks of Rubbermaid containers and cardboard boxes. "You're nothing but a liar!" she wailed loud enough for me to hear her upstairs. "How could you betray me like this?" I stood in the kitchen, torn between anger and shame.You drove me to it, I thought bitterly. You chose your parents over me, so I chose Stephanie over you.Dawn finally came upstairs, red-eyed and exhausted. "What are you going to do?" she asked."I don't know.""I'm willing to work through this," she said. "But it's your decision. Either you end your relationship with Stephanie, or it's the end of our marriage."
The next five days were the darkest I've ever experienced. My secret was out. Our family and church friends knew what I'd done. Inside me, a spiritual battle raged. I replayed the notes, the cards, the conversations, and the physical attraction that drew me to Stephanie. Though ashamed, I didn't want the fantasy to end. A few days later I received a letter from a respected friend. I wept as I read her loving admonishment. "I fear that if you turn your back on Dawn and Drew, you'll forever be haunted by deep regrets and wounds that will never heal completely. Yes, God forgives, but we must bear the 'blisters of the heart.'"I wept most of that night. Dawn stayed with me, comforting me.The next day I knew what I had to do. I e-mailed Stephanie that I'd decided to work out things with Dawn and was ending the relationship. "Please don't contact me anymore," was my final statement.Stephanie responded angrily. "I wish you'd made that decision earlier so I didn't end up hurting people I care for!" Two days later Dawn and I entered marital counseling. As we talked, I was able to make Dawn understand how deeply she'd hurt me. "I felt as if you loved your parents more than me," I confessed. "I'm so tired of feeling rejected. So I decided it was less painful if I pulled away from you.""I'm sorry I made you feel that way," she replied. "I'm completely committed to fixing our marriage, whatever the cost."As we worked to bridge the distance between us, physical love became a catalyst for our healing. "I need to be close to you," Dawn told me. "I feel as if we're becoming one again." While it took just weeks for my heart to stray, restoring our marriage took much longer. At times I questioned if staying with Dawn had been the right decision. When we fought, I'd recall the good times Stephanie and I had shared, and I was tempted to pick up the phone or e-mail her. Dawn had doubts as well. "I still don't trust you 100 percent," she confessed nearly two years later. "Sometimes when we fight I wonder if you're still sneaking around."More than five years have passed. Rather than involving her parents in our disputes, Dawn now seeks counsel from two women. They help her see when she's right, when she's wrong, and how to grow in her role as a wife.Though my job requires that I correspond with colleagues, male and female, through e-mail and instant messaging, I limit my conversations to work-related topics. If a conversation drifts to a personal tone, I end it. I also meet with six other men to share, study, and pray on Sunday mornings.As Dawn and I continue to rebuild trust, we're committed to being honest about our feelings and thoughts and with each other. * names have been changedDavid Bauer is a pseudonym for an author living in Minnesota.
(EOPC DOES NOT AGREE with always cutting off the 'other woman' who was truly a pawn in all this - 'David' could have taken a break from Stephanie, and worked to reframe their friendship after working on his marriage. Though some therapists say cut it off - it makes life MUCH TOO EASY for the cyberpath & traumatizes the victims (often the spouse/ partner AND the other woman). We don't agree.
Considering he & Stephanie never physically consummated things - and that Stephanie was very supportive to him - it also ends what could be a decent friendship. The current advice of just 'cutting it off' is turning out to be more harm than help psychologically to victims. And far too easy for the predator. Especially for the other 'person' who is often a pawn or target.'David' could have introduced the 2 women eventually if he wanted - and worked on his marriage while making appropriate amends to Stephanie. Stephanie got hurt and used, and now this writer is talking about how great it all was for him to save his marriage.While saving the marriage was a good thing, where does that leave the 3rd person? Something's not right.... Our 10 cents - EOPC)
The Don Juan motif has fascinated artists and thinkers for centuries. As far back as the 17th Century, Tirso de Molina created the archetype of the hero as proto-trickster, promiscuous manipulator, sublime lecher. Mozart's Don Giovanni is an elaboration on the theme, an opera that overwhelms the senses with the sheer vitality of an entity who can only be described as a raw force of nature. Moliere and Lord Byron, among others, bring him to life. Bernard Shaw, in an interlude in his play, Man and Superman, consigns him to an honorable place in Hell. In the modern era, cartoonist Jules Pfeiffer wrote the successful play, Harry, The Rat With Women, depicting the sad/funny shenanigans of an otherwise ordinary guy using women for recreational sex. The film Alfie, dating from the same period, enumerates the many "conquests" of a Cockney truck driver. The seducer remains the hero of song and saga, at least of the pop culture media.
The sexual predator, that dark and mysterious figure, the "stranger", unpredictable, hinting at danger, tinged with violence... what is there that so attracts women to him? Truly, there seems something almost magical about those few men who seem able to mesmerize women at will. What secret do they possess that gives them this power, this intensity, this animal magnetism?
Users and manipulators is the key phrase. Such men have learned to spot and sniff out vulnerable women, the "wounded birds", the ones most susceptible to their particular brand of sorcery. They have mastered the art of "pushing the emotional buttons" of their fellow humans, exploiting the feelings and weaknesses of hurt people (and is not most everyone hurt?), playing women like a musical instrument. In their single-minded pursuit of pleasure, of self-gratification, they leave behind them a string of victims. These are haters of women, exploiters of human weakness, parasites, sociopaths*.(CYBERPATHS)
These . . . fancy-grade hit-and-run drivers leave numerous
victims in their wake . . . Roger Shattuck, Forbidden Knowledge
This little deviation into the dark alleys of the criminal mind and the underside of human nature yields insight into the sad emptiness of the career seducer. There is little to envy in these creatures. They lead meaningless lives, and each successive "conquest" does nothing to fill the screaming, hungry void within. There is little to admire, considering the pain and wreckage they leave behind.
What a chimera, then, is man! What a novelty, what a monster, what a chaos, what a subject of contradiction, what a prodigy! A judge of all things, feeble worm of the earth, depositary of the truth, cloaca of uncertainty and error, the glory and the shame of the universe. Blaise Pascal: Thoughts, chap. x.
Behold the man, the man of action, the ruthless hero of myth and saga, society's darling. Here is this rugged doer of deeds, the rough-and-ready "go getter", the one who grabs what he wants without pausing to think... the aggressive stranger, the cowboy, the soldier, the gangster. Contemptuously, he shoves past that quiet guy in the corner, the shy one, the one ridiculed by family and friends as a "wimp", a "mouse", a victim, as perhaps something less than a man.
According to the latest sociological dogma, females are genetically wired to be attracted to "alpha" males, those who are most assertive and aggressive. This seems all too true of some women. Aggressive men seem to get women, to attract women, many women, because of their semblance of strength, the swagger of the domineering male. Yet, what type of women are these? Fragile, unsure of themselves, swayed by instinct, emotionally damaged, running on autopilot . . .
Only a nuance, a subtle shade of difference separates aggressiveness from its less respectable cousin, aggression, the use of force to gain one's ends. With this in mind, understand aggressiveness as a sign of immaturity, of fear . . . of weakness, of blind stupidity. It is the crudest mode of social interaction, the blunt instrument, the bludgeon.
It is the "bull in a china shop" syndrome, a behavior pattern that gets its practitioners typed as boors, thugs, and worse. There is an immediacy about them, a brutal spontaneity, for they recognize no tomorrow. Unfeeling, unbridled, unburdened by remorse, they loot, despoil, and ruin. Behind them, they leave poisoned relationships, broken trust, betrayal, and despair.
Often our cyberpaths, once found out and/or exposed turn into a cyberbully to silence their victims. We have had threats of lawsuits against victims. (No predator really wants their lies or cover-up exposed!)
Other predators have threatened their victims' families, children, friends, jobs, reputations. Two even started hate sites about their victims, blaming them for everything. Both were even so childish as to think she was US!! (They only see their exposes and not the slew of the rest of them!!)
Our very first exposed predator, Charles 'Ed' Hicks still claims its "all false" and is back online doing the same all over again as well as being WANTED for jumping probation! In fact he tells new potential victims he's suing his ex-wives, Very Bad Men, Dr. Phil and the court system in Virginia for their supposedly false accusations and writing a 'tell-all' book with the 'truth!' LOL. Don't hold your breath, readers.
Of course there's the old "SHE'S JUST A SCORNED WOMAN" or "HE'S A JILTED LOVER" excuses in cyber affairs. Real life affairs use them too when the predator wants to play victim and make everyone feel sorry for him - including new targets. It's a joke. (Our advice? The minute you hear that 'scorned woman' defense? Make it your business to contact this 'scorned woman' or 'jilted man'! Someone with no secrets or destructive agenda wouldn't care if you spoke to their ex! Same applies to women predators.)
So let's find out - did your online love or cyber-friend turn into a cyberbully? Or were they a cyberbully all along? from: DEATH BY 1000 PAPERCUTS:
Cyber-harassment, cyber-stalking, cyber-group bully, cyber-Gossip: all of these categories fall under the tactics of a cyber-bully.
Here is a quiz, take it and see it you’re a cyber-bully or if you've ever pulled some other cyber-bullying tactics during your time on-line.
Have you ever done this?
1.Signed on with someone else’s nic and password to get information. While this does not seem like cyber-bullyingif this information was to be used for ill-will, then, yes, it is cyber-bullying.
2. Sent an email or online greeting card from someone else’s account. Again, some may claim that this is not cyber-bullying, if the email or online greeting is used to stalk or harass someone, then it falls under cyber-bullying.
3. Forwarded a private IM or email without permission. This could be construed as a “grey” area. After all, it’s merely passing on a private email or IM and some would argue as fairly innocuous.
It boils down to intent.
Was the private conversation/email sent to someone or others with the intent to spread gossip or do harm? While most likely the victim may never know their communication has been forwarded to others, this is still harmful to that person. This is not direct cyber-bullying, more like back-stabbing cyber-bullying tactics.
4. Hacked into someone’s PC, website or blog Not only is this cyber-bullying but also cyber-stalking and illegal. A 33-yr-old man in Florida was just sentenced to prison for 110 years after being convicted of hacking into MySpace teenaged girl’s PC’s.He threatened to harm to them or their families if they didn’t send him lewd photos.
5. Sent a virus or Trojan Horse? This is malicious behavior with intent to do harm.
6. Posted rude, nasty or vicious (miscontrued) comments about someone online Back to intent.Some blogs or forums can get heated and contentious but if someone’s intent is to solely post rude, nasty or vicious comments about another poster then this is cyber-bullying and cyber-gossiping.
7. Teased or frightened someone during IM chats Teasing that goes over the line, that is meant to chip away someone’s self-esteem. The victim cries foul, the perpetrator claims “teasing.”Boo! (Not that kind of fright)Frightening someone can mean making threats to do harm.
8. Joined in a clique on a blog, website or chatroom that enjoyed driving other posters offsite Not often talked about are the “community” blogs or chatrooms where “like-minded” posters form cliques. Part of their activities are to single out other posters for the sole purpose of driving the target off the site. This is often done in the guise of “for the good of the blog or chatroom.”
9. Accused someone of a crime online without proof The person who is unfairly accused of committing a crime online usually has nowhere to turn. The accusers are for the most part, anonymous, the “accusation” gets spread without proof.
10. Followed someone across the Web Kept track of other online posters, following them from blog to blog, chatroom to chatroom, site to stie. This is a form of soft-core Cyber-stalking. Not the same as showing up at their door but enough to creep anyone out. (Cyberpaths do this to see if any of their victims are "talking about them" to anyone else and then raging on as "being the victim" themselves!)
(many of our victims feel that they need to find out if their cyberpath is "doing it again" or "harming anyone else." EOPC does NOT consider that cyberstalking but accountability as well as compulsory in order to stop these predators from throwing one life away to start destroying another) Did you answer "yes" to any of these?
Only you know the answer to that question. If you did, maybe it was a one-time occurrence. Only you know the answer to that one, too.
If you were guilty of any of these actions, you should think about changing your behavior.
Some people believe that recent research on online dating/matching sheds a new light on understanding attraction, love, and romantic relationships. I argue that, however, although the internet has helped few find romantic relationships and marriages, the research has overlooked various defects and problems associated with this type of "contact." I will examine a couple of them.
The research findings can be summarized as followings:
1. Online daters tend to fill in the information gaps with positive qualities in a potential partner; on the other hand, everyone wants to make the self appear as attractive as possible to potential dates by exaggerating the self desirable traits.
2. There are gender differences in both preference and messaging behavior on online dating sites. Women weigh income more than physical characteristics, and men sought physical attractiveness and offered status-related information more than women.
3. The service users preferred similarity on a variety of (mainly demographic) categories (including child preferences, education, and physical features like height, age, race, religion, political views, and smoking).
It is accurate to say that the research findings showed some behavior and attitudes of the online daters who joined the internet community with different motivations, expectations and backgrounds, but it is inaccurate to assume the behavior and attitudes reflect real interpersonal attractions. This is because the online dating/matching (as provided by the commercial websites) lacks the basic ingredients for developing real love. The most evident problem involves its use of several categories (plus a few photos) for the daters to predict and decide the effectiveness and success of their further interactions with one another. This type of artificial "contact" contradicts the process of meaningful interpersonal interactions (to be explained), which generates love and attraction.
To explain the problem, I need to first elucidate the ingredients for love and the meaningful interactions.
The basic ingredients for love As demonstrated by studies on interpersonal attraction, creating and maintaining love involves validating communications between the partners on a variety of issues, including understanding and concern for the partner's personal and emotional needs, developing companionship, physical attractiveness, cultivating and nurturing physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual well beings, respecting, supporting, forgiving, accepting and encouraging, expressions of appreciation and affection: sexual pleasure and fidelity, commitment, shared activities, as well as the absence of controlling, defensiveness, contempt, stonewalling, and blaming, among other factors.
To accomplish the above tasks, the partners need to engage in the meaningful interactions (face-to-face interactions, including both verbal and nonverbal communications), which allow one person to give to and receive from the other. (Although online daters may be able to exchange messages after they pass each other's initial screening on the basis of evaluating the category-based information, the process is the opposite of the interaction-based attraction). The meaningful interactions depend on two factors: (1) the right opportunities (the right time, place, persons, and further communications) and, (2) the right mind (absence of biases about the self and others).
The right opportunities are significant. Although psychological research on attraction has identified several variables, such as disclosure reciprocity (revealing intimate aspects of oneself to others), mutual eye gazing, mutual reward, similarity and physical attractiveness, these variables are worthless unless people who possess the attributes and tendencies have the opportunities to implement them to the targets of attraction.
On the other hand, the right mind is more important factor. Why have some individuals who have encountered good opportunities of meeting their ideal mates lost the chances to develop the desired relationships? The answer is that mostly they have the dysfunctional mind, with the emotional baggage of fear, anxiety or other mental conflicts and past hurts in interpersonal situations. They fear experiencing invalidation from the target of attraction because they use superficial categories to define the self and others as well as to predict the effectiveness of their possible relationships, ignoring the affection messages from the real people who are attracted them. All categories are just the maps or substitutes of social reality, not the reality itself. When people use categories to predict an interaction (but not pay attention to the other's real communications, they will produce two outcomes: a) avoiding love from right individuals, and, b) approaching the wrong person(s).
This kind of distorted cognitions can only be rectified through the regular and meaningful interactions, which help individuals find out that they are worthy others' love and appreciation.
The problems with online dating It is clear that online dating has at least two problems. First, it is an opposite of face-to -face interaction. Second, it does not help heal the emotional pains of some online daters. Online dating is a category-based, rather than an interaction-based process. In the category-based process, one uses some concepts to predict both possibilities of acceptance and rejection by the others. It is an artificial type because both rejection and acceptance by the daters are not about the rejection and acceptance of real persons, but of the imagined or perceived attributes of their categories.
People never fall in love with categories (even eHarmony's use of personality traits as the basis of matching does not represent real diverse human experiences and characteristics), because only real interpersonal process can create the feeling of love. Love is created and maintained by the process of meaningful communications (including validating accurate perceptions and invalidating inaccurate perceptions of interpersonal reality). Online dating cannot do so. Additionally, love is highly individualistically based. One loves another person because the Mr. Right or Ms. Right is unique individual in one's eyes.
I make a distinction between online communications and online dating/matching. New computer technology has greatly expanded people's potential and freedom to communicate with one another, some of which may generate love and romantic relationships, but online dating/matching, at least in its current format, has restricted the freedom.
In the virtual world, assume that at least one person in a chat room or a forum is a predator and act accordingly.
Don't post personal details in an open forum; don't assume that a private, religious or parenting, etc. forum is any safer. On the Internet, there is no 100% safe place.
Don't email personal details to strangers no matter how understanding and solicitous they may appear.
Don't give out personal details when you're using chat or Instant Message programs even if the other person seems to give these details to you. They may have given you false information in an attempt to build up your trust.
Even if you feel you can trust the person you've been chatting or emailing, don't give out your address, phone number, or last name. With internet searches, someone with even one personal detail can probably find out where you live and more.
If you're planning to meet someone you've met online, make your first meeting in a fairly busy public place and take a friend along.
If you don't want to take someone with you, at least give them details of who you're meeting, where you're meeting, and when you'll be back to work or home.
No matter how the sparks fly at that first meeting, don't invite him or her back to your place.
No matter how comfortable you feel at that first meeting, don't take a drive with them or let them drop you off at your home.
Trust your "gut." There is no need to force yourself to like someone. That's exactly the point of meeting face-to-face: to see if the "bond" you feel for this person is real or illusion. Have you been betrayed by your spouse? Have you come to the Web for comfort and support? Have you trusted in virtual friends and been hurt when they've betrayed you? After being betrayed in real life, why would you think a virtual relationship would be any safer from betrayal? Behind that keyboard, all those many miles away, is a real person, not a perfect person.
Remember Ted Bundy? He was an absolute charmer. I'm not implying that your online friend is another Ted Bundy but until you are absolutely certain he or she isn't, play it smart and safe.
replace the word ABUSER with CYBERPATH - and the behaviors will be the same. How Your Abuser Might React to Being Questioned About their Behavior
When you confront your abusive friend/relative/significant other/employer/co-worker/neighbor/acquaintance about their abusive behavior, there are 5 things that you can usually expect:
Anger – They will likely get angry at you for daring to question them.
Defensiveness – They may try to blame you for their behavior, or try to make you think it’s your fault.
Diversionary Tactics – They may try to make you feel guilty for confronting them about their treatment of you (or their behavior in general), or accuse you of being jealous. They will usually also turn the tables by accusing you of the same things you brought up (that’s called Projection).
Lies – They may lie to you (this can and often does fall under Diversionary Tactics)
Silence – They may simply clam up and refuse to talk about the abuse.
The above are all Primary Tactics of the Abuser/Narcissist/Cyberpath– learn them well
After the relationship is over or When they are Exposed
Cyberpaths project their faults and failings onto their victims (bad character flaws/deeds) , but they also project their feelings, and beliefs onto the victim also.
These beliefs the Cyberpath hold could be about themselves, the victim or others.
You can think of "projection" as the Cyberpath posing in the image of your face, they are projecting (throwing) all those bad flaws, deeds and beliefs about themselves unto you.
These feelings or beliefs might be positive ones or negative ones.
Positive Projection
Projecting positive things onto the victim he is using her as a mirror so the good deeds are "reflected" back unto him. Making him appear as the one who is marvellous, grand, worthy etc (his grandiose false image)
Negative Projection
Same thing - The Cyberpath projects his bad deeds, habits, thoughts and belief onto the mirror (The Victim) in order to make her appear that she is at fault and these "Negative things" are hers and not his.
Whilst doing this, the Cyberpath is in effect using the victim as a dumping ground. (Almost everything that has happened to the Cyberpath, including his own mistakes - is blamed on the victim.)
Slandering The Victim
When Cyberpaths slander their victims , they have two objectives. One is projection and the other is to "dirty a bright spot in your character" with whatever slander they are projecting at you. It's as though any shine on your image diminishes the glow of their glory.
This is of course the mentality of the rapist, who must tear others "down off that pedestal"
Projection and smearing at the same time isn't hard for the Cyberpath, in fact it's uncanny how Cyberpaths manage to accomplish it. It's all in the way they word their "line" on you. They are glib and amazingly adept at "killing two birds with one stone"
They not only ditch one of their faults, they muddy one of your virtues in the process.
Note: In doing this, the Cyberpath isn't attacking your faults and shortcomings, he is attacking your virtues and accomplishments. Consequently when he is conducting a campaign of character assassination against someone, the arrows he shoots never hit one of that person's real flaws
The Cyberpaths False image contains the virtuous qualities in other people's characters , and their images have had those virtuous qualities replaces with the flaws in the Cyberpaths character. In other words, the Cyberpath steals your virtues and dumps on you his faults.
In doing so, the Cyberpath is stealing your identity, pulling an identity switch with you, piecemeal.
It's kind of magical , an illusion created with nothing but words, which can warp perceptions by making anything of anything. For example: let's say that the Cyberpath is stingy and that one of your virtues is that you are outstanding for you generosity. He hates the glow of that shiny spot in your character, because it serves as foil to his stinginess, making it more noticeable by contrast. So he muddies your image and glorifies his image by misappropriating your generosity to himself and misappropriating his stinginess in you.
How? he goes around lying about how much she gives to charity and about helping people out all the time. More important (since one must be careful and subtle about boasting) , he just makes everything she does sound generous. He also goes around telling lying stories about you , stories that you are "stingy". More important, he makes everything you do sound stingy, however generous it manifestly is.
Normal people do not project. They may sometimes smear, but not in such a calculated , manipulative fashion.
Normal People Vs The Cyberpath
Normal people - Project when put on the defensive
Cyberpaths - Project in unprovoked attacks
Normal people don't smear themselves off on just anyone. They wouldn't dream of harming those near and dear. Or those they 'need'.
Cyberpaths see people as objects and nothing more, so they smear people off to anyone who will listen as thoughtlessly as we smear ourselves on a towel. For no other reason than to cause pain.
Normal people are likely to shake themselves off on whoever happens to be near at the moment. So they sometimes project a flaw off onto someone who actually has it.
Cyberpaths project ironically, accusing those with the corresponding virtue of a vice
Normal people stick to slander (which has some degree of truth to it) rarely engaging in calumny (lies) when they do calumniate someone, they at least have a natural reason for animosity toward the target.
Cyberpaths are perverted, there is no natural reason for what they do, they do it because they want to and because they can.
Normal people who do calumniate someone, they don't go hog-wild and calumniate that person so badly and so widely as to destroy them and ruin their whole lives.
Cyberpaths go hog wild , they are mental children and therefore as dangerous with their mouths as an angry five-year old with an assault weapon. Often, once exposed, they will often publish blogs or make posts on sites about how bad or dangerous the victim is. They accomplish this by rewriting and tweaking history to view them as the victim.
The Cyberpath is likely to smear off on someone he owes gratitude to, because needing help damages his image. He repays help as thought it were an insult , a threat. He must devalue it by devaluing the giver of it, as if such a contemptible person is incapable of really helping someone as grand as he.
Normal people don't do it because damaging others makes them feel good. In fact, doing this makes a normal person feel ashamed. But it makes a Cyberpath feel grand.
When it's fully conscious calumny a Cyberpath is spreading , he just thinks it's funny that people are such idiots that he can get away with it, feeding them ridiculous lines about others. Lines that are preposterous in the light of the target's known conduct. Cyberpaths will all let it be known at one time or another that they had nothing but contempt for the people who believed them. A Cyberpath views his success at lying as proof that he is brilliant and that all mere mortals are as stupid as sticks.
Cyberpaths are not projecting guilt so much as they're projecting shame. In fact, it may well be that they have no concept of guilt and have it confused with shame. Which is pain. So this wicked behaviour is a way to ditch their pain onto you. It's a psychological painkiller, a drug, and that's why causing you pain makes him feel good.
Here is an example of a famous smear that illustrates how it works.
The first thing people noticed about Jesus of Nazareth was that, unlike the other prophets, he spoke on his own authority, appealing only to logic, and never prefaced his teaching with "God says...." This is but one of many example of his exceptional care to avoid blasphemy. He went way beyond custom in this regards. His tremendous reverence for the name of God was his most glaring virtue, but he put everyone , including the prophets, to shame in this.
Okay, so , if you or I wanted to smear Jesus, blasphemy would be the last thing we'd accuse him of, right? Because that accusation would be laughed at as a joke.
Or would it?
Well, whether people would get the joke or not, we're normal, so we'd accuse him of something believable, like being a drunk or something. But that isn't the way a Cyberpath thinks.
The narcissistic in the Sanhedrin who plotted against Jesus went right for that greatest shining virtue of his in leveling the charge of blasphemy against him. They just had to muddy it o'er.
Unbelievable. Yet the people believed it!
And consider the source of this accusation. Look who's accusing him of blasphemy. The Sanhedrin, blasphemously acting in the name of God.
In other words, in the very act, they were projecting the blot of their sin onto his outstanding virtue.
Unbelievable. Yet the people believed it.
Near the beginning of the Spanish Inquisition, a Spanish archbishop or cardinal (whose name I forget) remarked that the accusations leveled by the Inquisition were so widely believed because people are much readier to believe the unbelievable than the obvious. He said a mouthful.
Cyberpaths are projection machines, I am convinced that projection is a knee -jerk reflex in them. That is, whenever a moment of self-awareness threatens to let them know a flaw in their character they're revealing or some bad deed they are doing, they instantly go into denial about it (Repressing conscience of shame) by projecting the semblance of that flaw or misdeed off onto the handiest scapegoat- usually the very victim of whatever abuse they are dishing out.
How's that for maximum irony? Hence, while hurling a hailstorm of wild accusations at you, you can count off one of them being that you are hurling wild accusations at them. Every single time. They can't help it. I think they have been twisting their thinking for so long (since early childhood) that twisted thinking is hard-wired into their brains. I think projection is such an ingrained habit in them that often they're unaware they are doing it at times.
Projection is such a reflex in them that they give themselves away by some of the accusation they hurl. For example, if a Cyberpath says he fear you might attack him physically, look out" he is at least pondering whether to attack you physically. If he says he fears you might get into his bank account or spend his money, know that he is at least pondering getting into yours and spending your money. Every single time!
Cyberpaths are not the only people who project. But they are different in that they have done it so much for so long that they do it like a machine - automatically, every single time. They rarely hit one of target's real faults. Instead the accusation is a joke, smearing one of that person's virtues as a vice.
If you think using a false identity will allow you to slander or harass people online, think again. Anonymity will not save you.
