Exposure: Is it an Intervention? or Revenge?

Mistaken by a cyberpath as an attack.

A predator/ narcissistic cyberpath is complicated but simultaneously transparent when confronted with exposure of their motives.
They are always about the next fix, so if a situation becomes difficult and they find that it is not making them feel good they will blame shift and start looking for the next target. They can never admit and are incapable of realizing that 110% they did it to themselves!

...it was never, ever about you. It was always about them. All about their relentless and all-consuming pursuit of the nectar of supply. You simply made yourself available for feeding upon. You were an means to an end. Nothing more. Yeah, that smarts.

...They don't see you. It's not about you. It will never be about you. You didn't exist for them as a fully feeling and sentient human being. They can not properly assess your value as a person. You are only as good as the nectar of attention you can give them. No matter how great the quality, at some point they get bored. All you'll get for thanks is a door in your face and a big kiss off. They are nothing more than big children who play with their toy for days, weeks, months. Then one day they lose all interest in the toy and kick it aside for another... you've been drastically and catastrophically demoted. All in a moment, a twinkling of the narcissist's eye.

They've moved on to another source and leave you to the licking of your wounds. Lick your wounds, but don't work on that too long. You have reason to be thankful. You are no longer being used. You are no longer someone's sycophant, slave or fall-back supply source. Been dumped by a narcissist? Thank the God in Heaven for your new lease on life and resolve to not again be taken in by a parasitic narcissist.

They are not worth the tears you're shedding for them. You are weeping over the relationship you thought you had, but never did. - SOURCE

Next time they will be more careful not to get caught or figured out. And the next target gets to be on the receiving end of the heightened game.

But what if they have been EXPOSED?

The script has to change now. What does that mean?

Effort. Now they have to work harder to keep up the lie. Reputation, ego, image, humiliation. 


Now their avenues for prey have been depleted downward.

Now the blame shifting has become their only weapon. Make it the other person's fault, but don't stop there. Do it up big. Make themselves the victim . Turn it around and play the "poor me" card.


They will attack you, smear you, turn you into the enemy, lie about you, defame you and even engage others in helping to 'bring you down.'

Always notice that at no point do they think about who they hurt, stop to feel bad about the pain they caused someone else. At no point can they see that they need to STOP and realize that if it has gotten this bad, it is time to reevaluate themselves and get help. No, narcissists are incapable of this moment of self awareness. They don't have the internal mechanisms for this sort of deep introspection. They can SAY they do - but they do NOT.


Even though its time to wake up... They Can't. They simply CAN NOT.

This doesn't happen because of their entrenched belief that they are superior to everyone. Oh, they may apologize to the wife/husband/partner; go to counseling for a few weeks and bamboozle the counselor; even tell a minimized, white-washed, spun story of "what really happened" according to them - but those they preyed on? Well, its THE PREY'S fault isn't it?

NOT!

Then they keep finding outlets, ways to escape reality. New identities, new websites, new emails. Putting you on exposure sites. Even if they say they do - they don't stop. Ever.
Being Exposed is an Intervention. Our Intervention for them. And they will only see it as a full frontal attack. So don't stop. DO THE INTERVENTION... but do it for you and others.
The ways they respond confirms its the real truth which they exposed - ALL BY THEMSELVES.

DEFINING SPIN

by Michael Roberts of Rexxfield

(Watch Michael's story on 60 Minutes)

Victims of Internet smear campaigns must understand the sociopath's or narcissist's expert employment of “SPIN” in their online smear campaigns. This is singularly the best way to begin to understand the way I and many others have found ourselves so frequently gasping in their wake of carnage.

When executing their anti-social agendas, their modus operandi is to sprinkle enough truth in any given lie to add credence to their deceptions.  

Alternatively, sometimes they will “kitchen sink it”, that is to say, they overdose the performance with too much information; the end result is very muddy waters in which no reasonable person can navigate. The kitchen-sink approach is often reserved as a "last stand" when the sociopath's make-believe walls begin to crumble bolstered only by charm, persuasion, sophistry and divide/conquer tactics.

If a lawsuit for Internet libel is to ensue, it is important to put the "spin" on the back burner and build your case around the clear statements of fact that can be proven to be deceptive, thus making for a stronger case. As for the spin, you will need to persuade the judge or jury that the statements were woven in a way so as to cast a false light on the facts. You would need to show that the spin would reasonably be understood to be an expression which would attack a person's integrity or moral character and/or expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule and /or deprive the person of the benefits of public confidence and social dealings and /or injure the plaintiff in the maintenance of his or her business.

Read Also: How to avoid dismissal of libel lawsuit under Anti-SLAPP legislation.

THE PRACTICAL DEFINITION OF “SPIN”:
The most common referents for spin are:

• a form of deception which tries to redirect the way (or whether) one thinks about an issue and / 
• or; a way of giving a positive or negative cast to a story.

Spin at its best:

• Cannot be factually disproved. 
• Looks like it is addressing an issue directly but is not.

In early 2009, I was told by a libel victim who read these pages that he almost cried with relief because he had found others who know exactly what they are going through. 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND HERE

Man's Blog about Ex-Girlfriend Ordered Down

Takedown of Man’s Blog Harassing Ex-Girlfriend Upheld

by David L. Hudson, Jr.  -- First Amendment Scholar

A Minnesota trial court did not violate the First Amendment rights of man by entering a harassment-restraining order that forced him to remove a blog about his relationship with his former girlfriend.

Andrew John Arlotta and Ann Johnson had a romantic relationship from late 2008 to September 2009. After the relationship ended, Arlotta continued to contact Johnson against her wishes. Johnson successfully obtained an HRO for six months that prevented Arlotta from violating her security or privacy or contacting her by any means.

Two days after the HRO went into effect, Arlotta created a blog called “Help Anna Johnson” that documented his relationship problems with Johnson. It questioned her mental health and stability. Arlotta sent messages about the blog to her relatives, friends and high school classmates. He also sent a message to her employer.

As a result of the blog, Johnson obtained another order from the court imposing an additional restraining order that was to last until March 2062 — for 51 years. The new HRO ordered Arlotta to remove his blog about Johnson from the Internet.

Arlotta appealed the trial court’s order. He contended that the new HRO was an unconstitutional prior restraint on “pure speech” in violation of the First Amendment. Prior restraints are laws, regulations or orders that place significant pre-publication hurdles on speech or prevent speech from occurring altogether.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals determined in its Dec. 12 opinion in Arlotta v. Johnson that the order was legitimate because Arlotta had engaged in a pattern of conduct that substantially violated Johnson’s privacy. The appeals court also rejected the idea that the HRO order was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The state has a compelling interest in protecting Johnson from harassment, the appeals court said, further concluding that Arlotta did not engage in protected speech, but unprotected harassment.

“Because the HRO prohibits unprotected speech, we conclude that it is not an impermissible prior restraint,” the court wrote.

Minnesota law allows harassment orders to remain in place for up to 50 years. The appeals court reduced the effective period of the order against Arlotta by only one year.

original article found here