Manipulation

(We have replaced the words narcissist and psychopath with CYBERPATH for clarity)

by Kathy Krajco

The way cyberpaths interact with others makes them extremely potent manipulators. How potent? So potent that their powers of manipulation are spooky and seem downright magical.

How does the way they interact with others make them such expert manipulators? Because practice makes perfect, and they have been practicing the art of manipulation in every interaction since birth.

Indeed, in playing to the mirror of your face, that's what they're doing, isn't it? Manipulating you. Everything they say and do is entirely for effect, to get the reaction they want from you. That IS manipulation.

They're regulating, manipulating your reactions. But you aren't like them. Your reactions come from within. So, what are they ultimately regulating and manipulating? Your thoughts.

Manipulation is mind control.

Manipulation is a subtle thing. So subtle that we are usually unaware of being manipulated, unless the manipulator blows it and breaks the spell. So, manipulators are putting thoughts into our heads that we think are ours. A very dangerous thing.

Since a cyberpath isn't acting on normal human premises, since all he is doing is playing you for the reaction he wants, truth is irrelevant. Truth or lies — it's all the same to him. Whichever works. Usually that's lies.

It would be more correct to say that there is no such thing as truth to a cyberpath. Because there is no such thing as truth when playing Pretend. That's why cyberpaths beat lie detector tests. (In fact, so do many people from "shame" cultures where lying to save face of oneself, one's family, one's tribe, and one's religion is considered morally necessary and expected.)

Psychopathic types (such as Cyberpaths) are known to get so good at manipulating people that, by the time they're teenagers, they routinely fool and manipulate mental healthcare professionals, judges, prison officials, parole boards, and social workers who know they are psychopaths, are on the lookout for attempts to manipulate them, and should be immune to manipulation.

It isn't a matter of intelligence: it's a matter of practice, experience. This is because most of what transpires in interaction happens too quickly to think it through.

In playing to the mirror of your face, the cyberpath receives a steady stream of your feedback to the steady stream of words he sends. He continuously reacts to every nuance of it in "real time," if you will. An odd question from you might make him alter his choice for the next word in the sentence he is saying. Or the tone of his words. Or it might make him try to get even closer to you.

So, no matter how cunning a manipulator is, he isn't consciously analyzing your every slight reaction and fine-tuning his act to it. I say that because he can't be. That would be impossible, because no one could think that fast.

He must be relying on a lifetime of experience at this game, reacting habitually in certain ways to certain things he observes in you on the fly. In other words, this manipulation must be rather like the act of hitting a forehand in tennis.

You cannot consciously think your way through the stroke. Too many things are happening too fast. In fact, you will botch your stroke and be lucky to even connect with the ball if you try to consciously think your way through with "Watch the ball ... bend your knees ... keep your arm straight ... keep your head still ... step into the shot ... et ad infinitum." Well, that's exaggerating a bit, because there are only about 100 instructions I could list for hitting a forehand ;-)

You can't think that fast. No one can. So, you must practice that stroke enough under varying conditions to program the unconscious centers of the brain to execute it virtually automatically. When you net your shot or hit it out (provided you note how far off the shot was), your "program" is revised to get the bug out.

This phenomenon is called Natural Learning. It's how we learn to walk and talk.

That "program" isn't just a fixed set of muscle commands from the brain. It's an interactive program like a computer program. Because no two forehands are the same. Yet the more you practice, the better your forehand program, and the more effectively it faithfully produces a good forehand under widely varying conditions. You have only to make the major decisions, such as where and how to hit the ball: speed, spin, and placement. But Natural Learning is so powerful that even tactical decisions become virtually automatic in advanced players. Hence the best players in the world do very little conscious thinking while the ball's in play.

The power of Natural Learning is also illustrated by comparing experienced drivers with young drivers. Young drivers have no experience, so they must think their way through problems. Result? Crash. But with the same problem an experienced driver has no problem. He or she spontaneously makes an intuitive, instinctive move faster than the speed of thought. Result? No crash.

When playing to the mirror of your face, that must be what a cyberpath is mostly doing — relying on a lifetime of experience that allows him to react instinctively to every bit of feedback he gets from you. That's how he fine-tunes your reactions into the feedback he wants. Rather like turning the knobs on a short-wave radio.

This is manipulation. And it's occurring faster than the speed of thought, because a cyberpath has had so much constant practice at drawing the reaction he wants that most of his "moves" are virtually automatic.

This is why, I think, cyberpaths seem like machines with their knee-jerk reactions to things. But those reactions aren't knee-jerk reflexes: they are learned through experience to the point that they become habitual as second nature.

This is also why, I think, we tend to overestimate the intelligence of cyberpaths, narcissists, psychopaths, con artists, and other manipulators like dictators who con their way to power. We think they must be brilliant to be so manipulative. But even a stupid cyberpath can be extremely manipulative. Their skill is the fruit of constant practice at manipulation in every human interaction.

But it doesn't pay to underestimate them, either. That same practice makes them extremely observant and perceptive. Over time that will improve their intelligence, at least some aspects of it.

In fact, they are much more observant and perceptive than they seem. That's because all they're interested in is what they can use. So, though they block out much, what they do choose to see, they see very well. They are interested in your reactions, not you. So, they probably are more aware of how you react to things than you are.

But the only information about you they're interested in is what that can use to exploit you.

The rest they filter out of consciousness = forget.

CLICK HERE FOR A GREAT GRAPHIC OF HOW MIND CONTROL WORKS

So, never think that you are too smart to be manipulated by a cyberpath, narcissist, psychopath, or con artist. You aren't. And you surely can never beat one at his own game.

That's nothing to be ashamed of. It just means that you are an innocent who hasn't spent his or her whole life practicing the black art. So, you won't win that game.


ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND HERE

Composite Profile of a Cyberpath

Definition: The Online Predator is one who uses the mechanisms of cyber space to hunt human beings with the intent to exploit, rob, plunder and pillage their body, mind, heart and soul. This includes all ages (children or adults). Adults who prey on other adults are called CYBERPATHS.

Characteristics of a Predator:
1. Liar: (Self explanatory) His lies may sound very convincing or contain kernels of truth.

2. Deceiver: His self situation is presented as other than what it is.

3. Betrayer: He is likely to break trust.

4. Insecure: He is worried that others will be faithless.

5. Inconsistent: He will say one thing while doing another or his stories aren't consistent over time.

6. Lacking Honor: Usually while protesting that he has honor.

7. Lack of Respect: He will tend to denigrate, poke fun at or disrespect others.

8. Transient: He is unlikely to have many long term friends though he may tell you differently. He will make sure you don't have to meet any of these "friends" either.

9. Manipulator: He calculates and contrives for his own benefit to the detriment of his partner.

10. Secretive: He will tend to cloak himself and his activities. (blocking you online for days or weeks at a time with no real reason why or being online and not chatting with you)

11. Charming: If he could not steal your breath away, he would not be a successful hunter.

12. Selective: He will pick victims carefully, looking for weaknesses and vulnerability and filling those voids in their lives seemingly completely.

13. Chameleon: He will appear to fit any need perfectly and adapt to fill any desire.

14. Lacking in Self Control: At times, he may have extraordinary self control and discipline, a predator probably exhibits these characteristics in all aspects of his life. Impulsive.

It may be that the only place the predator seems to have 'honor and value' -- is in the false "Relationship" he is developing with his victim.

CAUTION

When developing a new relationship, make a conscious effort to listen to your partner's stories about their interaction with others, not just how he interacts with you. The predator may well reveal his true self through these interactions. But, you may only see this revelation if your are committed to taking every precaution for your own safety.

THEIR ACTIONS NOT THEIR WORDS TELL YOU EVERYTHING.

Predator Warning Signals:
While any of these phrases or actions may be acceptable in a given context, pay close attention when seeing or hearing them:

Phrases:
1. Do not tell ____________ about us, me.

2. (_______) is crazy! (or psycho, sick, a liar, a stalker, harassing me or out to get me) [use caution, the person saying this could be stalked BY a cyberpath... this statement alone does not make them a liar]

3. It would be best if you no longer spoke to _________.

4. I do not need to defend myself against lies. You know I am not like that.

5. They are just jealous (of me, of us, of what we have, that you have me).

6. I have never done this before. I am not that sort of person.

7. I wouldn't lie to you. I would never hurt you.


Actions:
1. Sometimes operates from innocuous web areas or chat rooms. (parents chats, music chats, classmates chats, pen pal sites, shared interest email lists or bulletin boards)

2. Has personal information which is incomplete or not verifiable or gives you vague information about themselves.

3. Becomes defensive or angry when questioned. Or says they're 'tired and gets 'offline'. (or blocks you)

4. Questions your sincerity when questioned.

5. He will usually discourage or forbid personal information checks. (DON'T LET THIS STOP YOU!! THIS IS A MAJOR RED FLAG - If they tell you "you don't trust me" then run their name and nickname(s) through search engines ASAP! And READ EVERY HIT!!)

6. He will usually discourage, schedule for certain times only or forbid the use of his home, work or cell phone number by you. Ask you not to IM him first in case he's busy (usually not alone or chatting with another victim)

7. He's badmouthing his current partner, wife, girlfriend or significant other ("they don't understand me, not enough love/ sex/ attention, etc.")

8. He starts to show lack of concern for what concerns you and/or a change in his behavior and how he talks to you after a few weeks or months. (Changes from caring about you to self-absorbed concerns)

9. You have a serious personal or job problem (sometimes because of chatting with him) and he stops chatting with you for weeks or months at a time telling you its "for your own good" or he's "trying to protect you." (The only person he really cares about protecting is himself)

10. Either refuses to or hesitates to see you for coffee in public place or wants to see you right away. Be very careful if you are in a different country than the person you are chatting with and they offer to pay your way over to "be with them."

"YOU CAN'T FALL MADLY IN LOVE WITH SOMEONE YOU HAVE NEVER MET AND SPENT SIGNIFICANT TIME WITH, IN PERSON.... and NOT SEXUAL TIME!

Personal Warning Signals:
These are items that, even if you think JUST ONE, anyone should pay attention to:

1. You feel he is just too good to be true.
2. You are hearing consistent warnings from more than one person about them.
3. Your instincts are whispering "something is not right about this person/what they are saying".

Summary:
The final best defense against an Online Predator is your own common sense and judgment. Be careful not to read into things that simply aren't there.

Always remember that they count on desires, needs, and the heat of the moment that combine to drown that judgment.

Always take a moment to step back, take a deep breath and look at a potential partner with common sense and not with neediness.

(We have used the male gender - online predators can be female as well)

CLICK HERE for a GREAT EXAMPLE!

DETECTING LIES

Are you always the last to know the truth about what's REALLY going on? Does it drive you crazy that you can't seem to pick up clues that someone might be lying, when all your friends seem to be able to spot them a mile away? Here are some telltale signs that what you're hearing might be something less than the whole truth.

(Excerpts applicable to internet communications):

Credibility
...make sure you really listen to their words. If they're explaining why they couldn't make your party, for example, see if the excuse sounds plausible. Some people, in the panic of being forced to lie, can trot out the most absurd story that is just impossible to believe. Really bad liars look skeptical as they tell their tall tale - even THEY don't look like they believe it.

Other people will fire off several excuses in a row, each one more outrageous than the last. Sometimes this list of excuses can even contradict each other, as the liar doesn't have time to think about whether his story works or not.

These are obvious examples of credibility problems, but the bottom line is to combine an awareness the messages this person is sending with his words. If they don't add up, you're entitled to question his truthfulness.


Gut instinct
But how do you deal with a more accomplished liar? What if he seems relaxed and open and has a flawless story? This kind of liar is more of a challenge, but you have a powerful secret weapon left: listen to your instincts.

Sometimes you are face to face with a professional con man or a compulsively unfaithful partner. Such people will be experienced and credible. They will have worked on controlling their reactions to the fear of getting caught out, and will seem natural and trustworthy at first glance. They've probably rehearsed their story, or used it successfully many times before without getting caught, so they are confident that you will believe it too.

In these situations, and often in spite of all the evidence before you, you will sometimes experience a strong feeling that something's not right. Even though logically the story might seem absolutely watertight, something inside you is sending you warning signals.

The biggest mistake you can ever make in such a situation is to ignore this gut feeling. You might not be able to put your finger on your suspicions - let alone explain them to anyone else - bdishout your best course of action is to just reserve judgement until you have more information. Don't accuse anyone, but don't put yourself at their mercy either. Wait until you're sure they're on the level.

Of course, not everyone deserves to be the object of automatic and chronic suspicion. But if you're not sure if someone is lying to you, pay attention. You will find that your ability to spot a lie at 50 paces becomes finely tuned and very reliable.

Written by Elizabeth Hardy
SOURCE

Cyberpaths Have Narcissistic Characteristics

(EOPC believes Cyberpaths have both Narcissistic and Sociopathic Characteristics. Many of them probably suffer from either or both Personality Disorders.

Yours does not need to have all these to be Narcissistic. A handful will suffice.)

• Self-centered. His needs are paramount. No one else’s count.
• No remorse for abuse, outbursts, mistakes or misdeeds. EVER.
• Unreliable, undependable. And often proud of it.
• Does not care about the consequences of his actions.
• Projects his faults on to others. High blaming behavior; never his fault. Blame and projection are primary M.O.
• Little if any conscience or ability to empathize with others.
• Insensitive to needs and feelings of others, especially his intimate partner(s).
• Has a good front (persona) to impress and exploit others. Jekyll/Hyde personality ie: public vs private behavior with partner. OTHERS often believe the front/social “Jekyll” personality and think he’s Mr. Wonderful. This serves to isolate and discredit the victim’s experience so that no one will believe he’s abusive with HER even if she tells them.
• Low stress tolerance. Easy to anger and rage. Explodes when frustrated.
• Tends to humiliate his partner(s) in public or in front of friends/neighbors.
• People are to be manipulated for his needs.
• Twists conversation to his gain at other’s expense. If trapped, keeps talking, changes the subject, blames others/his partner, or gets angry and verbally abusive. It’s NEVER his fault. He’s ALWAYS right – and perfectly innocent if there are any issues. Tries to paint himself as an “innocent bystander” or "the victim" and blames others for the issue.
• Pathological lying – often by omission.
• Tremendous need to control situations, conversations, others.
• No real values. Mostly situational. Abhors ANY request to change abusive or inconsiderate behavior in the relationship no matter WHAT he does to his partner in any situation. Will say he doesn’t want to follow any “rules” and will accuse his partner of trying to “control” him if she asks for even basic common consideration or respect.
• Often perceived as caring and understanding and uses this to manipulate.
• Angry, mercurial, moods, sudden outbursts, that he ‘forgets’ immediately, wants to ignore, or outright denies when confronted with them.
• Uses sex to control – either excessively demanding or withholding, or holds the prospect of sex with other partners over current partner’s head as a control mechanism, manufactures stories about other women who “want” him then accuses his current partner of being “insecure”. Sets her up for abuse in this fashion.
• Does not share ideas, feelings, emotions.
• Conversation controller. Must have the first and last word.
• Is very slow to forgive others. Hangs onto resentments. Continues to abuse partner over resentments indefinitely via hostile remarks, denigrating jokes. Continually either covertly or overtly angry and abusive.
• Secret life. Hides money, friends, activities, both online and off.
• Likes annoying others. Likes to create chaos and disrupt for no reason, particularly in his partner’s life and in his relationship with her both public and private – to keep her ‘off balance’. Then he denigrates HER as “unstable”. Sets her up for abuse in this fashion.
• Moody – switches from nice guy to anger without much provocation.
• Repeatedly fails to honor financial obligations, but expects others to honor theirs if they owe him money.
• Does a lot of “nice things” that his partner didn’t ask him to do then complains that she isn’t appreciative enough afterwards. “The Controlling Caretaker“.
• Seldom expresses appreciation himself. Conversation always based on whether HE gets enough appreciation, the issue of whether his partner is appreciated enough is never discussed. To him, that is irrelevant. It’s all about HIM.
• Constantly criticizing most everything his partner does/says and how / why she does and says it. Partner feels like she’s “walking on eggshells” trying to avoid his constant criticism. She feels “under his microscope” all the time.
• Calls his partner names and insults her: “You’re a spoiled brat!”, “You’re lazy!”, "You're stupid/ a pig/ a whore/ a liar/ a stalker/ a scorned woman/ insane!"
  
• Grandiose. Convinced he knows more than others and is correct in all he does. HE is NEVER wrong.
• Lacks ability to see how he comes across to others. Defensive when confronted with his behavior. Never his fault.
• Only real emotion he is likely to display is anger. Rarely expresses sorrow or hurt except for “show”.
• He breaks a woman’s spirit. Sets her up for abuse. Defines her according to HIS very negative and preconceived notions about women, then abuses her based on HIS definitions of her. Tears her down as a person. Then complains that she is “depressed” or “angry” about that as if she has no right to be angry or upset that she is being ABUSED and mentally RAPED in this fashion.
• Needs threats, intimidations to keep others close to him.
• Sabotages partner. Wants her to be happy only through him and to have few or no outside interests and acquaintances. Puts her friends/interests and accomplishments down.
• Highly contradictory.
• Convincing. Must convince people to side with him.
• Hides his real self. Always “on”.
• Kind only if he’s getting from you what he wants.
• He has to be right. He has to win. He has to look good. He will do so at all costs.This is paramount.
• He announces, not discusses. He tells, not asks. He asserts / states his opinion as FACT, never says “I think”, or “I feel”.
• Does not discuss openly, has a hidden agenda.
• Controls money of others or complains about their spending but spends freely on himself.
• Unilateral condition of, “I’m OK and justified so I don’t need to hear your position or ideas”.
• Always feels misunderstood.
• You feel miserable with this person. He drains you.
• Does not listen because he does not care.
• Only his feelings are discussed, not his partner’s because to him, partner’s feelings are irrelevant.
• Is not interested in problem-solving, only in placing blame/projecting.
• Very good at reading people, only so he can manipulate them.

Written with male in mind; could easily be applied to females as well

original post found here

A PREDATOR IN REVIEW - DOUGLAS BECKSTEAD

BECKSTEAD'S VICTIMS HAVE SENT US SO MANY UPDATES ON HIM IN THE LAST FEW YEARS - WE FELT HE WAS WORTH ANOTHER LOOK. OF COURSE, NOTHING HAS CHANGED WITH HIS NARCISSISTIC PREDATORY WAYS!
(original posting: April 2007. As always, EOPC's comments in Dark Blue)

Full Name: Douglas Stephen Beckstead
Goes by: Doug Beckstead or Douglas Beckstead
Age: 51, now in his 52nd year.
Location: Anchorage, Alaska .... though he travels both nationally and internationally.
Employed by : Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska as a civilian Historian.

Doug Beckstead or Douglas Beckstead for his business liaisons, is also commonly known by his preferred internet handle of: Dog_Driver.

Dog_Driver is Doug's preferred handle used in chatrooms, forums and message boards, where he brags profoundly, inflates the facts and "blurs the lines" between fiction and reality. (pathological lying)

Other Known Internet Nicknames:
'Grizzly Adams'
'Road Runner'
'Louis XIV'

Sometimes uses a lowercase version of dog_driver and sometimes omits
the underscore. There are likely more.

From Classmates.com (he would not be the first cyberpath to use a reunion site to find prey - Dunetz/ YidwithLid did this with his Target #1):

Beckstead's Junior High

Beckstead's High School

Beckstead is currently living in Anchorage, Alaska, has been full time since the end of September 2006. He has lived in Alaska for some years now, alternating between Anchorage and Fairbanks. He told his targets that he lived there alone, whilst in Fairbanks, Alaska - never mentioning he was married and had two children until he decided it was time.

Once he mentioned his wife he claimed to be very unhappy, stating clearly that the marriage was loveless and sexless. (sound familiar readers? probably suffering from Madonna-Whore Complex) This story would also alter considerably once he had taken all he could from you both sexually and financially, and when your questions and suspicions about his bizarre, pathological mood-swings started to "bug him."

Doug Beckstead appears to be a cruel, cunning and manipulative psychopath who is very adapt at using projection, guilt, cognitive dissonance, brainwashing mixed with word salad to get his way. He, like all cheaters & Cyberpaths will lie and try to discredit his victims. He will say whatever it takes to make sure everyone buys into his version.

Beckstead originally moved to Alaska from Utah many years ago. Receiving his masters degree in Utah. Has also lived in Souderton, Philadelphia as a child. He has moved around over the years. He used to work for the National Parks Service (U.S.) and now is employed by the Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska as a civilian historian.

Doug Beckstead admits he is the product of an alcoholic mother and a serial cheating and marrying father. From what a few of his victims reported to us, he seems to have serious mother issues. A perfect breeding ground for Destructive Narcissism.

Beckstead relies on his tales of adventure and glory hunting to capture your interest. He will profile you and mirror your likes and dislikes, even appear to be helpful in the beginning. Once he has you hooked he will then ensnare you with stories of his lifetime of woe. (Sympathy ploy)

He likes his victims younger than him, preferably married with young children (like many cyberpaths) encountering emotional and marital difficulties, perhaps separated or divorced. He does this to make sure nothing could possibly ever be "real" between he & his targets - while we have seen he tells them quite the opposite. Promises visits, trips, meetings, etc. He will pretend to care, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Beckstead will tell you about "other women having been after him" (to paint himself as an object of desire). He will, when questioned later, falsely label these women and in some cases their children by telling dreadful untruths where they are concerned. He will invent an illness or a mental condition they supposedly 'have' and in some cases make up a traumatic event that happened to those he targets to "explain that they are sick in the head" (crazy, scorned, obsessed stalker... sound familiar again, readers??) and label himself as their victim. Beware as this is all a cleverly concocted lie to ensure he gains your sympathy. His recent victims all know because he turned the tables on them in exactly the same manner.

Doug Beckstead has changed personal details, deleted original information readily available on the internet that he had placed there himself, all to try and discredit his victims. (Capers, Dunetz, Jacoby, Hicks... all of them do this same stuff!)

He has lied to Air Force personnel and has lied to his wife and family. He has lied to his "old school friends." Beckstead's sole mission is to make himself look like the victim, the good guy, when he on the internet he is anything but.

Beckstead used to travel back and forth from Fairbanks, Alaska to Anchorage on a regular basis. Now living back in Anchorage, supposedly to spend time with his adult children. But obviously to see his wife as all his victims as we soon discovered.

The one online nickname we knew him by was 'Dog_Driver'. He was caught in the act "cybering" -- acting very lude in the 'Virtual Irish Pub' chat-room, under another guise ... 'Grizzly Adams' in 2006. He admitted that it was him, excusing it by saying "he had been drinking". Although his story as to what he was really doing was somewhat different. (Usually very twisted and minimized)

Still he believed that sexually seducing women he had never met online and arranging to meet & take them out to dinner and drinks etc was ok. But we know what was on the screen and none of it was acceptable. (tried to gaslight this victims? typical: "you didn't see what you DID see")

He originally met one of his intended targets in 2001, both were paid members of the 'Virtual Irish Pub' (a chatroom - his preferred hunting grounds at the time). He charmed his way into his target's lives with stories of adventure in the Alaskan wilderness. He asked to swap email addresses and insisted that his victims sign his guest book of the his deleted website named "Dog_Driver's Musing's." After a while he encouraged his victims to stop frequenting the "VIP" -- or so he has you believe. He probably wanted his targets off the VIP so he could prey on more while manipulating them in isolation. Beckstead then encouraged them to "meet up" every day and talk on MSN, ICQ and he expected email several times every day. He insists that he calls you on the telephone, in the beginning.

He professed to be "in love" with at least one target, stating that he was "not romantically or sexually interested in anyone else" -- only her. Until the excuses (from him) stepped up, then it's open season from his point of view; on any of his used up targets once he gets bored or feels you're asking too many questions. (DEVALUE & DISCARD)

He would constantly be looking for some disagreement with his targets once he was ready to dump them and found new targets. She could not win. He just gave her excuse after excuse. Yes, there was the odd nice time, but they became less and less as did the phone calls. (he got bored and was in discard mode - he probably had a new target in sight)

It was soon discovered that Beckstead made an ongoing habit of this type of predatory behavior.

Googling his name will display some of his more recent hunting grounds. Again he uses these forums & message boards to beef up his good guy image. They are nothing more than a lure for future targets and an attempt to repair the damage he did TO HIS REPUTATION - HIMSELF.

His wife Carol is finally keeping a MUCH closer eye on him via 'Facebook'. Although Beckstead may still manage to deceive her in the same way she has become accustomed. (Remember Dunetz/Yidwithlid said he bought his wife a computer so she could check up on him? These guys can just create a new identity with new email!! How about getting some Monitoring software and putting it on their computers WITHOUT THEM KNOWING -- wives??)

Beckstead was quite friendly with a lady in Fairbanks by the name of Roberta (a grandmother). He told one victim a story once, about how she had offered him no strings sex, he turned her down because "she was much older than him and quite a large lady". (He was probably already sleeping with her - typical psychological torture of a target. Talk about other women (or hookers). (Dunetz, Jacoby, Gash and Dorsky all did this. It's also part of the LURES - to make them seem 'very desirable' to other women while putting a knife in your - the target's heart. It's a HUGE red flag - that they see online women as SEX OBJECTS only - everything else is just head games for them! They actually enjoy hurting you.)

Later, Doug forgot about that "story" and sent a picture of the both of he & this Roberta and some members of her family whilst out on a river cruise in Fairbanks. She was not 20 years older than him, as he had once told his target -- and far from "large", as he implied. He told many lies, constantly forgot what he said and tripped himself up. When refreshing his memory, he failed to reply to any email questioning him. (oh of COURSE!! Never happened!! oooops! Compulsive liar = sociopath)

If he has another extramarital romantic interest they would be secured to MSN and his email, cell phone and more recently his 'Facebook' account. He apparently did meet someone local in Fairbanks, because after a certain amount of time as he was always "busy," too busy. He always had time before and when his personal circumstances had changed, work wise etc, back to the one job, he became even busier. (Like Dunetz, remember? As soon as his Target #1s abusive husband found out and he went back to work... he was TOO BUSY. Yes - too busy now that he could afford high price hookers. Beckstead either had an in-person liaison or other online targets going.)

Further investigations via an Air Force Special Agent later revealed that his wife Carol had also reappeared on the scene in Fairbanks for a short while, prior to his final move back to Anchorage. This was unknown to his targets at the time of Beckstead's newfound & endless busy-ness.

Beckstead purposely failed to let one target know about dropping his second part-time job for quite some time (because it was a good excuse for him to spend time with his other prey). It slipped out one night in conversation. He was always fixing things for this lady in town or that lady, or some new neighbor. (Why tell her unless it was to make himself look 'gallant' and to torture her mentally? As we said - part of the LURE to make himself look "wanted" & "desireable" - again part of the LURES!) Then they would offer him 'dinner'.

There was also the "I am house sitting" excuse too. At someone's house where he "could not reply to his emails" or "would not be taking his computer". Or he "was having computer problems". Again, all plausable excuses had they not been used so many times. And all this time he was still professing his being very much IN LOVE with his target. Beckstead cruelly and deliberately lead them all on, stringing them along with his sick and twisted game plan. (sounds like Jacoby and Capers!)

His targets were expected to continue on writing, not question him and to send him things. (Double standard. Typical Cyberpath. Demanding worship while giving none)

More updates as we continue!

The Internet Cult That Stole My Son

We are posting this because these SAME BRAINWASHING METHODS are used by cyberpaths. Often more covertly but just as dangerous! - Fighter

Even by the internet's murky standards, it's deeply sinister - a website that brainwashes youngsters into disowning their families and vanishing into thin air. Here, one mother tells her chilling story

By Kate Hilpern

One Wednesday afternoon in May, when Barbara Weed's 18-year-old son Tom was right in the middle of his A-levels, he abruptly left home. 'Dear Family,' said the note he left on the doormat. 'I need to take an indefinite amount of time away from the family, so I've moved in with a friend. Please do not contact me. Tom.'

He has not been in touch with any of his relatives since.

But Tom is not a missing person: his family know roughly where he is. It's just that he won't talk to them - and they suspect he never will.

'He got hooked in by an online cult,' says Barbara. 'The website convinces vulnerable people that they should hate their parents and leave their family.'

Barbara Weed, whose teenage son Tom walked out on the family after getting involved in a 'virtual cult' on the internet

Even the wording of Tom's letter is from the website. Its founder says: 'The letter should buy you six to 12 months before your family come looking for you, and that will give you time to get used to living without them.'

Barbara did not wait that long. 'I tried to respect Tom's wishes and leave him alone, but once I discovered that the website was responsible for him leaving, I visited him at a cafe where he was working part-time,' she says.

She worked out that if she ordered a cup of tea, he would have to listen to her for about a minute. She told him that if he ever wanted to come home, he could. 'He just looked at me, shaking his head, as if to say: "You fool."'

What baffled her was how a website could have such a dramatic effect on an ordinary family, and in such a short space of time.

Barbara and her husband already had two sons - Nick, two, and John, four - when Tom was born. 'I adored Tom,' says Barbara. 'Nick was the mischievous one, and sometimes I did get cross with him, but I didn't need to get cross with Tom. He was such a joy to be with and had long, serious conversations with everyone. I always thought he would be the last one to leave home - that at 40 he might even still be here, which is ironic.'

A normal upbringing
The boys were so close in age that they all played together. Barbara took them to parks, playgrounds, theatre shows and Alton Towers. Even though money was tight, there were family seaside holidays every year.

'When Tom left, John said: "But we had a great childhood." '

By the time the boys reached adolescence, family life had become more dispersed.

'My sons each had computers in their rooms, and we all had such different schedules that family mealtimes didn't happen any more.

'Also, Tom was vegan and wanted to cook for himself, so I gave him money to buy food and he just got on with it.'

By September 2007, his elder brothers were at university and Tom had found a girlfriend.

'It's as if you wake up one morning when your children are teenagers and you realise that practically the only time you talk to them is when they're going to the fridge,' says Barbara.

But then there are moments when they do things, such as give you a present.' The necklace she is wearing was given to her by Tom after a summer holiday.

Tom and his girlfriend, meanwhile, had become increasingly interested in an online community called Freedomain Radio (FDR), which invites discussion about philosophy, politics and personal freedom.

Unbeknown to Barbara at that time, a key topic of the site - whose members seem to be mostly in their teens and 20s - is the idea that ultimate personal freedom can be gained by cutting yourself off from any involuntary relationships (ie your family) and entering into completely voluntary ones (ie your new mates online).

'I think once you get these corrupt people out of your life, you will for sure have enough room for all the new awesome, virtuous friends in the world,' said one member to another recently.

For members unsure about such drastic measures, there are podcasts with titles such as 'But my parents were really nice!'; and there is a chatroom in which members discuss how so many families are unjust.

There is also a Sunday call-in show in which the website's founder counsels callers. Often the subject is leaving your family.

Barbara recalls Tom and his girlfriend looking forward to the Sunday call-ins and spending more and more time on the FDR website.

'Tom did mention it at the time - although not their ideas about family - and I can remember alarm bells ringing when he said the man who ran it was giving him advice. I warned him that on the internet you don't know who you are talking to.'

The shock of Tom's disappearance
By November 2007, Tom's behaviour had changed noticeably. 'He wasn't spending time in his room just because he wanted to be with his girlfriend or on the computer, but because he didn't want to be with us,' says Barbara.

'One night he blurted out that when he left home he wouldn't come back and that I'd never see him again.

'At first, I thought he was talking about university - that he wasn't coming home after that. But I was puzzled by the bit about never seeing him again. He responded that we had no relationship, and that it was over.'

Barbara says she tried everything - persuasion, negotiation, compromise.

'But Tom didn't seem interested in communicating, merely in throwing accusations - for instance, that his brother John and me were fond of laughing at him, which wasn't true.

'I also began to notice that he was interpreting all family interactions as abusive.

'We did our best to be a happy family. Knowing what I do now about the website, I think Tom was being convinced by the online community that he had been cheated because he didn't have a perfect family upbringing. But who does? We really did try our best.'

Then one day in May, when Barbara got in from work, Tom had gone.

She read the note and was devastated. For a moment, she wondered if he had run away with his girlfriend (who has also since cut off her family to devote herself to FDR), but she and Tom had recently split up.

Then Barbara thought of the website and began to investigate. She quickly found references to something called 'deFOO' - the name the website gives to ridding yourself of your 'family of origin' (FOO). Then she came across Tom's thoughts posted on the site during the months leading up to his own decision to deFOO.

Internet cults
Trying to think practically, Barbara topped up Tom's mobile phone ('I was worried he hadn't even organised where he was going to live'), and the following day she phoned his school, fearful he would quit his education as hastily as he had family life. The school said that he seemed fine.

The next week, his brother Nick waited at the school all day to see him, but Tom wouldn't talk to him.

Another week passed. There was the exchange at the cafe, but besides catching a glimpse of him at a local festival and once on his bike, Barbara has not seen him since.

'In the early days, I burst into tears all the time,' she says. But now that some time has passed, she is trying to keep things in perspective.

'He could be floating down a river dead; but he's not. He could be somewhere that I don't know about, never sure if he's alive or dead; but he's not. I have to keep reminding myself that, as far as I know, he's well and happy.'

In some ways, Barbara feels relieved that he has left Leamington Spa - where the family lives and Tom was born and brought up - and gone away to university.

'I was dreading it, but it is so hard knowing I could bump into him at any time. Also, I know he is starting his new life.

'Every parent wants their child to be happy, to do well, and that's what he'll be doing. So that's great. I just wish I could be part of that - that I could give him another £50 when his student loan runs out, that I could celebrate his successes with him.'

Website founder rejects 'cult' suggestion
The Cult Information Centre, which says that several people have been in contact recently about family members recruited into cult-like organisations via chatrooms or other online means, recommends that such families try to keep up some form of contact.

'So I sent Tom a text message to wish him luck at university and tell him that I'm thinking of him,' says Barbara. 'I don't know if he would have read the message or whether he just deleted it when he saw it was from me.'

Because Tom's new 'family' is online, Barbara has - at least until recently - been able to see what he is up to. It's how she knew what A-level grades he got and it's how she knows at which university he is studying.

'I spend far too much time on the site,' she says. She logs on as soon as she gets in from work, and often doesn't switch off her computer until the early hours.

'It's a bit like he's sitting at the next table. I hear everything he's saying, but I'm not in the conversation.'

This month, however, the chatroom has been restricted to members only. 'I can't go in as a visitor any more,' she says. 'I've lost the only remaining glimpse I had of him. I don't know how he's feeling or if he needs help.'

Leah May Phillips
The dangers of cults: Leah May Phillips from Pontycymer in Wales, who tried to commit suicide this year. One of Leah's friends, Natasha Randall, 17, was found hanged in her bedroom. Her death was one of seven suicides in the small town which sparked fears the hangings were linked to an internet cult

Stefan Molyneux, the founder of FDR, who attracts many people to his website through YouTube, tells me that he simply reminds people 'that our family relationships are voluntary and you should really work, if you're unhappy in these relationships, to improve the quality of those relationships - but to remember that they do remain voluntary.

'And that gives people the motivation, I think, to try to improve them. But if you can't improve them - and we can't change other people, as we all know - for sure you should have the option to disengage.'

Molyneux, a 42-year-old former actor and IT worker, assures me that what he calls deFOO is 'actually quite rare'.

And although he and his wife (both of whom have deFOOd) are expecting a baby in December, he says on the website: 'Deep down I do not believe there are any really good parents out there - the same way I do not believe there were any really good doctors in the 10th century.'

Molyneux, whose Canadian home also hosts member get-togethers, brings up the word 'cult' before I do.

'It's the furthest thing from a cult,' he laughs. 'First of all, I don't charge anything for what it is I do. And cults isolate people.

'What I'm talking about, what I strongly suggest to people, is that they should get closer to the people they're with.

'And, of course, cults don't suggest people go to therapy to deal with their issues.'

Critics - parents predominantly from the U.S. and Canada, where most members come from - say people do pay. There's a $10 (£6.40) monthly subscription fee and you get special levels of access, according to how much more you donate, with $500 buying you the status of 'Philosopher King'. They say deFOO proves FDR does isolate people - the only people members get closer to are each other.

Some FDR members have indisputably horrific childhood stories. Some say that were beaten, others that they were sexually abused. To cut off their parents may well be their only hope for happiness.

But if you consider people of Tom's age, who invariably feel their parents don't understand them and couple this with a youthful thirst for neat philosophical answers to life's problems, then you can see the attraction and dangers of FDR.

Nothing but silence
Tom won't talk to me when I track him down, so I try to get a sense of his story from the website - I'm particularly troubled by a live call-in show from April, one month before he left home, in which he aired his passionate views about animal rights, only to be convinced by Molyneux that he is the one being treated like an animal and abused by his father, and by Barbara because she is his mother and she didn't leave his father - and for even having Tom at all.

Now, let's be clear: Tom does say that he is frightened by his father's mood swings, which sometimes cause him to throw things or shout at the cat. But the conclusions Molyneux jumps to, his manipulation of the conversation, is chilling.

The parents who talk to me do not want their names printed, and Tom's ex-girlfriend's parents won't talk to me at all.

The advice from experts is that when a parent attacks or criticises a cult, it may drive their family member further away.

I discover this for myself when I see Molyneux in the chatroom telling Tom: 'She [Barbara] misses having a victim around and so she is using the media to victimise you . . .Totally evil.'

Barbara is unfazed, saying that things had already reached rock bottom the moment Tom left home. Her marriage has since broken down, and the only good thing that has come out of all this is her relationship with her son Nick.

'We used to talk in terms of "I've got post for you" or "Can I have some money?" Now we show affection and we're really talking,' she says.

Molyneux tells me that deFOO is not inevitably for ever, but most members seem to see it as absolute. In one of his podcasts, Molyneux says people who do return to their family risk being seen permanently as unstable.

Some people do manage to leave FDR, however, and I point out that Tom is only 18. Barbara takes a deep breath.

'Tom is very strong-willed, much like I am, and when we set our minds to something we can do it. He is capable of just not coming back.'

The only time she doubts this is in her dreams. 'Sometimes I dream that Tom is standing in front of me, smiling, and I feel happy and peaceful. But then I wake up.'

ORIGINAL

June 2008 Predator of the Month: STEVE MILLER

Cyberpaths come from all walks of life. Seemingly the most inocuous and upstanding persons have secret lives where they feel powerful & invincible behind a keyboard and a screen name. A place where they brainwash, manipulate, emotionally rape and mentally pillage their targets. And walk away after having their "fun" or playing the "hurt party" when a target figures them out.

This month's Predator is a guru-wanna be, a con man and a brainwashing manipulator who hides behind THE SECRET (links at bottom). The Secret is a well-known book that preaches your intentions create your future (aka - "the power of positive thinking").

EOPC's opinion is that its a complete scam. Things like this, including some New Age movements - may be quite valid; but in the hands of certain people are perfect hunting grounds for predators. The victim barely knows what hit them when they get the inkling something's wrong. Partly because everyone's 'reading the same book.' - Fighter
One of Miller's targets tells their story (as always our comments are in purple):

In late July or early August 2007 I visited youtube and posted some comments on a video about “The Secret” a well known made video clip on information how to make manifest anything one desires in life from the book by Rhonda Byrne. I had received the DVD in the mail and wanted to follow it up further after watching it several times. I received a response to my comments on YouTube. That was when I first met Steve.

Click here for Steve's You Tube Profile

Steve was keen to know more about what I knew concerning The Secret and that he needed my honest opinion, more than the actual DVD had to offer, and it all started from there. (a typical 'set-up')
Fairly soon after we moved to MSN Messenger for further discussions on the subject. He said he had "manifested me" -- which was strange because I had no notion of looking for anyone other than someone to share & discuss knowledge with. (sounds sickly familiar to the "this was fate" or "I was meant to find you online" crap all Cyberpaths give out) I was seeking further information on "The Law of Attraction." I already had my own theories on it but I wanted to see what the experts had to say.

Steve seemed rather reserved, well spoken, courteous and did not seem put himself up on a pedestral. Sharing knowledge with him was amazing. H expressed himself well, he allowed me to talk without interrupting, he answered me & listened to me and laughed with me. His expressions, intelligence and charisma were instantly firmly planted in my mind. (sounds like how it always starts with all predators)

He did not present himself as being wise or infallible, if anything he painted very grim pictures of his surroundings, his upbringing and how he was made to live in an attic. How his mother tried to poison him by giving him food that he was allergic to and how his father constantly physically and verbally abused him. (here we go readers. This seem familiar? "the sympathy pitch" - the "abused child" ploy) I admired his courage & intelligence but there were periods when he seemed to sound very childlike or in totally incoherent. This puzzled me.

It was Steve's seemingly astounding knowledge and understanding of life itself that was quite impressive for a 29 year old. This had me in awe of him & how he seemed to 'read my mind' his fluency. This was the deciding factor that won me over to stay in conversation with him. (It's called NLP - neurolinguistic programming - its how all Cyberpaths lure, seduce, keep and manipulate their targets. Either by learning it or intuitively - these predators spin a web of "this is most amazing person I have met" or "wow! he really KNOWS me and KNOWS my thoughts" - it's all a put on.)

I remember questioning as to why he wasn't in a relationship? And why was he always on the Internet wanting to speak to me? An old woman at that for heavens sake! Surely I thought, he must have had something on his mind. Sometimes I thought he became a little anxious when I could not be online. (abuser possessiveness) Then to eliminate that insecurity from him (he wasn't insecure - he was manipulating you) I made it a point to be there for him as much as I could.

I was in the middle of school at the time and this relationship resulted in my not concluding the course; after paying $500.00 for it! (classic - many of our victims report losing friends, losing jobs, losing relationships, losing class time - because of their going out of their way to meet the NEEDS of the Cyberpath). Crazy as it seemed, I felt at the time that Steve was more important than some stupid boring subject. I see now how I wasted way too much time on HIS crap instead of focusing on my own!

The first thing that threw me about him was the fact that he claimed he liked older women. Around 40. When I told him I was much older than that he did not seem to be worried about it or shy away from me. (of course not, he figured he had one on his hook. Women around 35-55 are the perfect targets for many of these Cyberpaths. They are usually at a crossroads in their lives. Vulnerable - intellectually and/or emotionally. And perfect prey.) I thought he did not want to hurt my feelings or that he was being kind by not giving me the brush right away. I kept waiting for him to disappear but it never happened.
He continued to 'seem' to be very keen to talk to me. (He probably had to be online most of the day to keep an eye on ALL HIS TARGETS, including her) In turn that made me feel bad because I had all these "doubts" about him and shad tarted to not really want to have anything to do with him. To me, it seemed peculiar for a young man to be interested in chatting with a much older woman. When I questioned him about it he stated that he could not be with a younger woman because they wanted babies and because of his genetic disease and defects it was not possible for him to have children. (oh boy - more "sympathy & pity party" stuff. Another Martyr Man. Like Beckstead, always sick - needy - etc.)

The first thing that entered my mind was that women 40-plus would have accumulated some savings by then and maybe divorced and at a vulnerable age according to statistics; as opposed to younger women hunting for an eligible young man. (you got that right on!) I thought that he was up to something suspicious with a motive or hidden agenda, but still I could not put my finger on it.

He had got so deep in my head in a very short space of time that I could not get out (each and every one of our victims has reported THIS SAME EXACT THING!) Despite knowing that he was up to no good.

It used to infuriate him when I doubted him (RED FLAG - its does for ALL OF THEM. Once you question them about reality - they either get very angry, change the subject, stop talking to you for a period of time, claim you HURT them or give you a completely fabricated & obtuse response) I thought, why would he be so concerned about what I thought of him?

I realized the whole thing did not add up from the start. The contradictions started to be much more apparent and gave me all the more reasons for doubting him. However there was nothing substantial or said to prove anything at that point in time; other than my gut feelings.

(more on Steve Miller as this month progresses)

HOW TO 'CHECK THEM OUT'

WHY CON MEN SCAM

SPOTTING THEM

$150 MILLION BATTLE TO KEEP "THE SECRET"

ABOUT "THE SECRET"

THE TRUTH ABOUT "THE SECRET"

RHONDA BYRNE & "THE SECRET"

Lori Drew - Finally Indicted in MySpace Suicide Case

As we said back when this case came to public light, Lori Drew broke a lot of laws. We will never understand why the prosecutor in her area gave her a pass. He should be investigated too.

Megan Meier (left)/ Ashley Grills (right)
But now, Mrs. Drew's chickens have come home to roost. Ashley Grills, the girl Drew tried to blame Megan Meier's suicide on -- came clean about Drew's involvement and now the U.S. District Attorney, Thomas O'Brien has filed an indictment against Drew.

We can only pray that Drew gets the jail time for her immature & malicious intentions towards poor Megan Meier.

This case will set a precedent for those who wish to pursue charges against their predators for INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. Predator often do the same things Mrs. Drew did - use false identities, lure vulnerable persons into online relationships, smear them, bully them and discard them - leaving adult victims with serious PTSD and other problems. In our opinion, Megan Meier was a young girl who deserved a lot better than being set up and yes -- pushed to suicide by a remorseless person like Lori Drew.

REMEMBER: The Courts & Prosecutors INITIALLY said "THERE WAS NO CASE." But Tina Meier (Megan's mother) and people like us - the bloggers, who the press tried to smear as a "cybermob," kept after this case.

Victims - NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP PURSUING JUSTICE!!!!!!!

United States Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien

Central District of California

_____________________________________
MISSOURI WOMAN INDICTED ON CHARGES OF USING MYSPACE TO 'CYBER-BULLY' 13-YEAR-OLD WHO LATER COMMITTED SUICIDE

LOS ANGELES – A Missouri woman was indicted today on federal charges for fraudulently using an account on the social networking Web site MySpace, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Thomas P. O'Brien announced today. The woman posed as a teenage boy who feigned romantic interest in a 13 year-old girl, who later committed suicide after the "boy" spurned her and told her, among other things, that the world would be a better place without her.


Lori Drew, 49, of O'Fallon, Mo., was named in a four-count indictment returned this morning by a federal grand jury. The indictment charges one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress on the girl who, because of juvenile privacy rules, is referred to in the indictment only as M.T.M.

The indictment alleges that Drew, along with others, registered as a member of MySpace under the name "Josh Evans." Drew and her co-conspirators then used the Josh Evans account to contact M.T.M. and began what the girl believed was an on-line romance with a 16-year-old boy. In taking those actions, the indictment alleges, Drew and her co-conspirators violated MySpace's terms of service that prohibit users from, among other things, using fraudulent registration information, using accounts to obtain personal information about juvenile members, and using the MySpace communication services to harass, abuse or harm other members.

After approximately four weeks of flirtatious communications between "Josh Evans" and M.T.M., Drew and her co-conspirators broke off the relationship. Within an hour, M.T.M. had hanged herself in her room. She died the next day.

"This adult woman allegedly used the Internet to target a young teenage girl, with horrendous ramifications," said U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien. "After a thorough investigation, we have charged Ms. Drew with criminally accessing MySpace and violating rules established to protect young, vulnerable people.

Any adult who uses the Internet or a social gathering Web site to bully or harass another person, particularly a young teenage girl, needs to realize that their actions can have serious consequences."

To become a member of MySpace, individuals are required to submit registration information – including name and date of birth – and have to agree to certain terms of service that regulate their use of the Web site. Among other things, MySpace terms of service require prospective members to provide truthful and accurate registration information; to refrain from using any information obtained from MySpace services to harass, abuse or harm other people; to refrain from soliciting personal information from anyone under 18; to refrain from promoting information that they know is false or misleading; and to refrain from posting photographs of other people without their consent. The indictment alleges that Drew and her co-conspirators violated all of those provisions.

"Whether we characterize this tragic case as 'cyber-bullying,' cyber abuse or illegal computer access, it should serve as a reminder that our children use the Internet for social interaction and that technology has altered the way they conduct their daily activities," said Salvador Hernandez, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI in Los Angeles. "As adults, we must be sensitive to the potential dangers posed by the use of the Internet by our children."

The conspiracy count carries a maximum statutory penalty of five years in federal prison. Each count of accessing protected computers, each of which alleges that the access was for the purpose of intentionally inflicting emotional distress on M.T.M., carries a maximum possible penalty of five years in prison.

An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Drew will be summoned to appear for an arraignment in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles in June.

This case was investigated by special agents with the FBI in St. Louis and Los Angeles.

Our deep thanks to Denise Marhoefer of the Defense Foundation for Children USA for her help and sending us this information.

CLICK HERE TO DISCUSS THE MEGAN MEIER CASE

RELATED POSTS:

WEB HOAX LED GIRL TO KILL HERSELF

MYSPACE HOAX VICTIMS' FAMILY SEEKS JUSTICE

PUBLIC OUTCRY ON THE MEGAN MEIER CASE

A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY EOPC RUNS THIS SITE

EOPC ATTACKED ON TV OVER MEGAN MEIER CASE

JUSTICE FOR MEGAN MEIER

SUPPORT FOR OUR STAND ON THE MEGAN MEIER CASE

MEDIA PEES ON MEGAN AND TELLS BLOGGERS ITS RAIN

THE MEGAN MEIER CASE

NO APOLOGY, EVEN IN DEATH, FROM MEGAN'S 'MURDERER'

LORI DREW: PREDATOR OR INTERNET MARTYR?

LORI DREW: HAPPY; MEGAN MEIER: DEAD

MYSPACE SUICIDE CASE: NOT OVER

MYSPACE SUICIDE CASE - SOME TRUTH AT LAST

Calling In Pros to Refine Your Google Image

By Susan Kinzie and Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writers

At the height of the cyber-abuse, Sue Scheff, a consultant to parents of troubled teens, would type her name in a Google search box and brace herself: Up would pop page after page of attack postings.

Sue Scheff is destroying lives. She is a con. She takes kickbacks. She is the biggest fraud there ever was.

The stream of negative comments began in 2002 after a woman who had sought advice from Scheff turned on her. The postings appeared on PTA Web sites in Florida, where Scheff lives. On bulletin boards and online forums. There were even YouTube videos threatening her.

She sued for defamation and won an $11.3 million verdict, but the attacks only got worse. In December, Scheff turned to ReputationDefender, a year-old firm that promised to help her cleanse her virtual reputation. She no longer dreads a Google search on her name. Most of the links on the all-important first page are to her own Web site and a half-dozen others created by ReputationDefender to promote her work on teen pregnancy and teen depression.

"They created Sue-Scheff.net," she said. "They created SueScheff.net. They
created SueScheff.org. . . . They created my MySpace account, for God's sake. I didn't know how to do any of this stuff."

Google's ubiquity as a research tool has given rise to a new industry: online identity management. The proliferation of blogs and Web sites can allow angry clients, jealous lovers or ruthless competitors to define a person's identity. Whether true or not, their words can have far-reaching effects.

Charging anything from a few dollars to thousands of dollars a month, companies such as International Reputation Management, Naymz and ReputationDefender don't promise to erase the bad stuff on the Web. But they do assure their clients of better results on an Internet search, pushing the positive items up on the first page and burying the others deep.

Still, Google is continually refining its search methods, which means that today's fix may not work tomorrow.

"This is a game that nobody can completely win," said Chris Dellarocas, a University of Maryland information systems professor.

Dodging Mudballs
The e-mails from friends started showing up three years ago in the Washington lobbyist's in-basket: Have you seen this?

Over decades in the capital, she had developed a thick skin. But after she took on a foreign regime as a client, an online magazine bashed her. The story was factual, but the tone nasty. Then a blogger wrote that she slept with someone to get a big contract. A political blog posted an e-mail she had written about secret campaign strategy. Truth mixed with rumor. Rumor mixed with lies.

Concerned friends sent her the links. Potential clients would say they had read about her on the Web.

Like Scheff, she realized that the items that made her cringe came up high on the Google results page and stayed there, month after month. Her firm depended on her reputation. The lobbyist would speak only on condition of anonymity because she did not want the attacks to resume.

"There's no policing, no rules, no standards," she said. Bloggers are "cowboys," she said. "It's the wild, wild West."

Then one day she heard a talk by Nino Kader, founder of International Reputation Management (IRM) in Washington. His new company, he said, could reshape a person's online image.

She signed up.

IRM aims to get lots of information out there about clients, in various places, so that a search gives a more complete and nuanced profile of who they are. Kader started with a printout of the top 100 hits on a Google search and went through them one by one, asking whether individual results -- such as her campaign contributions -- were good, bad or neutral.

He asked what she wanted the world to know about her. Then he started digging for good things, like an op-ed piece she had written and television interviews she had given that he could post on YouTube. He pitched stories about her to various publications. And he created links from popular sites to those online stories to entice the search engine.

Now her firm's Web site is the first result and other good ones follow.

Still, a story she hates remains on the first page.

"I'm in the early stages," she said. "I've already seen progress."

Companies like IRM try to outthink Google. Search engines comb the Web with complex and ever-shifting algorithms, evaluating relevance and authority by looking at many factors: Is this a government Web site? How many people have linked to it? And so on.

The point is, said ReputationDefender founder Michael Fertik, "Google's not in business to give you the truth, it's in business to give what you think is relevant."

The goal is to get Google and other search engines to seize on relevant sites that contain positive information on their clients and to downplay the rest.

Google does not object in principle to people adding positive content to outrank the negative. But a spokeswoman said in an e-mail, "if you use spammy and manipulative techniques to get this positive content to rank highly, we may take action on it."

Some companies create promotional Web pages for their clients with coding that makes them appealing to Google or create blog pages linking to the client's own site, ensuring they'll rise to the top.

Image Makeover
Geoffrey VanderPal knew politics was a nasty game, but the candidate for Nevada state treasurer wasn't prepared for the blog attacks. Supporters of his opponent posted charge after charge. He briefly considered suing.

But many of his tormentors were anonymous. And U.S. courts have generally protected Web site hosts from civil actions such as defamation, though that may be changing. Besides, he knew as a public figure he'd have a higher burden to prove libel.

When VanderPal lost the Democratic primary last August, he returned to private life as a financial planner. But the blog postings lived on, prominently, at the top of the Google results page. Potential clients avoided him.

He wanted to suppress the negative information about him, both true and false, so he turned to ReputationDefender.

The firm at first tried a low-tech approach: a polite request to a blogger to remove a post about his personal finances. But the blogger declined, saying the item was a matter of public record. Asking politely has backfired in a small number of cases, Fertik said, with Webmasters sometimes posting and mocking the requests.

So Fertik's team, which works from a Silicon Valley office, offered VanderPal its premium service, using various techniques to promote VanderPal's own site and suppress the blogs. That service now starts at $10,000.

Within weeks, VanderPal began to see "a remarkable difference." Though a few nasty comments are still up there, the first three pages are mostly clean.

"Everything's wrapped up in your reputation," said VanderPal, 34. "If you don't have that, you don't have much."

The reputation firms won't take on everyone. Fertik says ReputationDefender won't work with clients who want to suppress violent crimes, for example.

The clients the firms accept are varied: a real estate mogul wanting to move past a decade-old transgression, a prominent academic falsely accused of murder, a hedge fund manager who doesn't like seeing his old New York Times wedding announcement on Google years after he divorced and remarried, a college student who regretted once dressing up as a prostitute at a Halloween party.

Then there was the businessman who paid a Securities and Exchange Commission fine a few years ago.

"Does a person in this situation have a chance to start again?" Fertik asked. "Should this be the first or second thing that shows up on the Internet? Is it fair?"

ReputationDefender decided to work with him.

Staff researcher Bob Lyford contributed to this report.
Hat Tip To "Survivor" for this find!