ARE YOU A CYBERBULLY? - TAKE THE QUIZ

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-bullying if 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.

Unless you want to be a cyber-bully.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND HERE

ONLINE DATING CAN BE A POOR WAY TO FIND LOVE

 by Key Sun, Ph.D.

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.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND HERE

CYBERWORLD: ASSUME ONE PERSON IS A PREDATOR

by Pat Gaudette
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.

SOURCE and FOR MORE GREAT ARTICLES - CLICK HERE

SPOTTING THE INTERNET LIAR

How can you spot a liar online? Some telltale signs of online deception from Cornell professor of Communication -- Jeff Hancock.

LISTEN NOW

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU QUESTION YOUR CYBERPATH?

from JOYFUL ALIVE WOMAN

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

original found at this site

CYBERPATHS: PROJECTING & HURLING ACCUSATIONS

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.

taken from the work of Kathy Krajco

(written in about the male-gender your Cyberpath may well be female)

The 'E-lationship'

(Sounds like Dan Jacoby, Doug Beckstead, Jeff Dunetz, and Brad Dorsky! using decent women like free cyberwhores, and lying about it! - EOPC)

These suitors aren't interested in a real-life hookup, just the virtual kind
By Diane Mapes

When it comes to online dating, we’ve come to expect deception, the posting of decades-old pictures and blatant lies about marital status, height, hair (or lack thereof). We’ve learned to deal with people who dematerialize after a few days or weeks of steady contact. “It’s the online equivalent of ‘going out for cigarettes,’ ” says one seasoned single.

Now, there’s a new online annoyance — the person who doesn’t want to meet but is all too happy to e-mail, text, tweet, IM, or scrawl on your Facebook wall indefinitely. They don’t want a real relationship as much as its virtual doppelganger.

Welcome to the world of the “elationship.”

“I’ve been involved in five or six of these,” says Rich Giorgi, a 48-year-old tech writer from Carrboro, N.C., who in recent months found a “peach” of a girlfriend and left the online scene. “One woman was always popping up on chat programs — ‘What are you doing? Where you have been?’ This went on for a month and then I proposed we meet. But she was always busy. So I called her on it and? she said, ‘I’m getting what I need out of this. There’s no need to go any further.’ So I cut it off. I didn’t have the time to waste.”

Harem scarem
Why would someone spend all that time communicating with a person they never planned to meet? Giorgi says he thinks some just like to collect “cyber-harems.”

“I have a friend who’s on a dating site and I can see that a lot of the people from the site have started following her on Facebook,” he says. “She has 12 to 15 guys all commenting on her posts and looking to get with her but she’s only interested in the attention. She’s told me plainly that she’s not interested in meeting anybody, she just wants to feel like people want her every now and then.”

Jennifer Worick, author of “The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Dating & Sex,” says people do have different agendas when it comes to dating.

“For me, the end goal is to be in a loving relationship with someone,” she says. “But for others, the end goal might be that they’re passing time, preventing boredom or just collecting men and women.”

Deception — people pretending to be something they’re not (whether it’s single or a certain gender) — can be another reason relationships stay in the virtual realm, says Patricia Wallace, psychologist and senior director of information technology at Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth in Maryland.

Another big factor: fear.

“There’s the fear of failure, the fear of rejection, the fear of making a fool of yourself,” she says. “An online relationship is perceived as being lower risk as compared to meeting in person. When you pick up the phone or meet in person, you have a lot less control over your message and your impression as compared to a Facebook wall post or an IM where you can rewrite and think about what you want to say.”

Having more control means having the ability to create a better version of you, she says, which can then be marketed to a better version of someone else.

“A woman might feel really smart and attractive when she’s online because she comes up with a lot of witty things to say, she controls the pictures that she sends and she meets a man who does the exact same thing,” says Wallace, author of “The Psychology of the Internet.” “They can have a magical interaction — a meeting of the minds, sort of — whereas meeting in person would just spoil it. He stutters; she burps.”

Long-term elationships
Incredibly, some virtual relationships last as long as the real thing.

In 2007, Elaine LaPersonerie, a 33-year-old PR maven from Manhattan, answered a Craigslist ad that kicked off an intense year-long elationship.

“At first, he made all kinds of excuses for not meeting,” she says. “The first date it was the stomach flu and then it was everything from a missed flight to a last-minute meeting to his uncle dying to getting lost to falling asleep.”

LaPersonerie says she knew something was hinky within three weeks, but became intrigued — both with the guy (there was a definite click when they talked on the phone) and with his elusive nature.

“We only corresponded via phone or IM or whatever, but he really knew who I was,” she says. “He got under my skin even though I knew something was wrong. I wanted to figure it out.”

World-class liar
What she eventually figured out was that her online admirer was a world-class liar. Although he told her he lived in New York City and would often reference weather or traffic problems as excuses why he couldn’t connect (“He’d call and say, ‘It’s raining so bad, I can’t get a taxi, things that were relevant to where I was”), he actually lived in London. LaPersonerie also discovered that an “ex-fiance” he frequently mentioned was actually another online girlfriend who, just like her, had never laid eyes on the guy.

After 12 months of e-mails, excuses, lies and late-night phone calls (all on his dime), she finally pulled the plug.

“I confronted him and he admitted he’d lied,” she says. “He said he’d put his ad up on Craigslist as kind of a spoof — he wanted to see what it was about — and never thought anything would come of it. Then he started developing real feelings for me but had spun the web of lies so big, he couldn’t get out of it. But who knows what was going on.”

LaPersonerie says she still hasn’t decided if the guy is a pathological liar or “a regular person that had a bet with a friend,” but there’s no doubt she’s come to appreciate the power of a virtual relationship.

“I’m an attractive, successful woman from a good family with great values and amazing friends,” she says. “I definitely fit into a demographic of someone you would never think could fall victim to this. But I did. And it was easy. With online dating and e-mails and texting, you can take things to a point where you still feel like you are ‘dating’ and getting attention without having to deal with all the rest. In some cases, that fantasy relationship can exist for a long time.”

The power of a pen pal
Even Worick admits she’s had online encounters that have played out like mini-relationships: a bit of flirtation, followed by some miscommunication, followed by a spat, followed by a split.

“With one guy I ‘met’ on Match.com, it was like we were playing out the whole beginning, middle and end of a relationship via text when we’d never even talked on the phone,” she says. “First he e-mails, then he begins texting all day. Then he’s guilting me out for not being available when he calls. Then I don’t hear from him for a week. Then he’s back and wants to know if there’s anything new in my personal life. Then he starts playing the hurt puppy and sending passive-aggressive texts. I finally texted him and said, ‘I think we’re having a miscommunication.’ ”

According to psychologist Patricia Wallace, e-lationships can be troublesome because of the opportunity for deception and the false sense of intimacy (“You don’t have those salient cues that would tell you to put on the brakes so you’re more intimate than you should be.”)

But that doesn’t mean they’re all bad.

“I think for some people, that kind of relationship could be quite fulfilling in itself,” she says. “We’ve always had pen pals. In the old days, they could be very meaningful.”

The key is that both parties need to be on the same page.

“Some people are looking for a spouse, some people are just looking for novelty,” she says. “They never want to meet, or at least one of them doesn’t want to meet. There’s the rub. But it’s not unheard of in the face-to-face world that one party has a longer-time commitment in mind than the other.”

What can singles do to separate the relationship wheat from the casually-minded chaff? Worick points to boundaries.

“It’s good to set up guidelines,” she says. “I think people should cut to the chase and get together as soon as possible. I also think they should communicate their preferences. Say, ‘Look, I would prefer not to text during the day but I’m happy to talk on the phone or get together.’”

Finally, she suggests singles take a long look at their own dating agenda, which can shift over time.

“You have to assess what you want out of it, too,” she says, “There have been times in my life where I’m really busy or not feeling particularly good about myself and texting and IMing is a temporary Band-Aid. It’s not a long-lasting solution, but it can give you a little sparkle temporarily.”

Diane Mapes is a Seattle freelance writer

original article found here

THE CRAZY THINGS CYBERPATHS SAY!

OH, THE THINGS CYBERPATHS SAY!

Just a few words about the reactions of online predators we have profiled or those we have helped to expose behind the scenes of this blog.

In the time this blog has been up and running - we have only heard from ONE online predator who threatened us directly with legal action. We welcomed it since we had done nothing wrong and could back up everything we had. (this is the reason for our stringent rules for exposure) Of course, this Cyberpath dropped the whole thing, still complains but has taken NO ACTUAL ACTION.

Brad Dorsky, who threatened us, seemed to think he was dealing with a bunch of vindictive teenagers on a social networking site - he thought wrong. Mr. Dorsky said he was going to his local police - we told him to please feel free as we would be happy to speak to the FBI about his contacting someone out of the country and grooming her until she was no longer a minor to talk about violent sexual acts online with her that traumatized her. (Cyberpaths love to see how far they can push you after they have brainwashed you).

Mr. Dorsky later had a friend of his write to us - wanting to know who we were, who gave us the information about them and tell us Dorsky was 'a good person.' We did not give out the name of the person who gave us the information. We are happy to post rebuttals or clarifying information.

Also, we encouraged him to seek counseling for the way he had treated his victims and even offered to help him find a counselor in their area. We never heard from him again; nor did we remove any of the postings. hhmmmm......

We have reports of cyberpaths filing restraining or cease & desist orders or DMCA Takedowns on their victims to turn it around make themselves or their families look like the hurt party. Some, we guess, have enough money to drag all their victims to court and blame them for not controlling the whole internet. Most times - they have taken doctored or 'selective' information to law enforcement to get these orders. Law enforcement is often SHOCKED when they find out they have been lied to by these seemingly 'upright citizens.'

Sheer stupidity. All to support lies.

None of the ones we know have resulted in much of anything (other than the emotional trauma) legally for the victims. All have been dropped.

- We had one cyberpath, Steven Langley Guy, write us as his EX WIFE and that "he" had tried to commit suicide because we called him 'a predator.' (why would an EX-WIFE be using his computer?? and he IS a predator)

- Then Mr. Guy wrote that he was hiring a lawyer (many of them SAY this, virtually none of them really do it!!)

- And finally - "he" wrote as the person who exposed him begging us to remove him.

ALL FROM THE SAME IP NUMBER.
These predators really think we're that stupid?

(We recently heard he's BACK AT IT AGAIN!!)

EOPC asked him for the same "proof" we ask from those who turn this information over to us. To date - NO ONE EXPOSED HERE has been able to show us any hard proof that anything we have posted here was false or fabricated by the victims who reported it. They have made-up and cobbled things together that somehow they believe exonerates them. Not one has passed the honesty test. These cyberpaths and all others remain on our site.

We can see that our cyberpaths come to this blog, searching for who is here - who posted against them. Some even search all the defamation and free speech links for some loophole. (Keith Clive , Dan Jacoby, Doug Beckstead and others, come here using anonymous proxies thinking we don't notice, LOL) Oh yes, some DO even try to change their location, their IPs or use anonymous proxies. Nice try!

Dan Jacoby has been having his buddies write and threaten us and then post things about EOPC as "that horrible site" for outing his new identities. Jacoby & his proxies "Do Protest Too Much." We would guess that his exposure cut into his preying grounds. Jacoby has also made no attempt at financial restitution for the things he duped out of one of his victims.

To all you cyberpaths; How about expending that energy you are using on your smear campaigns & attempts to re-write history instead: on making amends & talking it out with those you harmed, or in your own offline lives -- as well as getting yourselves therapy - in short: be an honest human being who doesn't use & abuse people.

• Don't just cut them off when YOU Get caught!!
• Genuinely Apologize. (Make financial restitution where necessary)
  
• If your victim asks you to leave them alone -- DO SO!
• Stop the harassment and ridiculous accusations
  
• BE ACCOUNTABLE!

PROBLEM IS, Victims: CYBERPATHS REALLY DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING BUT THEMSELVES. ANYTHING. YOU COULD BE HANGING FROM A ROPE AND THEY WOULD FIND A WAY TO BLAME YOU (like -- Lori Drew)

Remember - abuse happens in secret.

Beckstead is trying DESPERATELY to do damage control by posting articles his name appeared in every place he can. This pushes the posts about him down on Google. Beckstead hopes no one will scan past the first page or two -- that way he can say: "See, I'm a good guy!" All in an effort to counter the truth that he's an abusive, perverted online predator and to convince his new targets what a altruist he is.

Beckstead even went so far as to PHOTOSHOP pictures of himself to try to make himself look thinner (he's morbidly obese) and used a recent assignment to write about the war in Iraq (he was sent there to write) to tell potential prey he was "deployed" and imply he's an enlisted soldier. There's no crime in being fat but at least be honest. He's also filled his FACEBOOK account with old friends & friends-of-friends who all believe he's a nice guy and know nothing about his secret life; in attempt to clean up his image without any real apologies.

All we ask is these people submit to the same standards we have for our victims/targets: PROOF. Hard proof. (Funny how cyberpaths tend to think their 'words' are enough to rewrite truth and history) If we get this proof - we will of course retract and/or post rebuttals.

Like other abusers, the cyberpaths seem to have a 'script' of blame and excuses when they are exposed. Despite being miles or even countries apart, they all say basically the same things (or variations on a theme):

• [the victim] is lying/ made it all up
• [the victim] is psycho/ crazy
• [the victim] set me up
• [the victim] is obsessed with me
• [the victim] wants to ruin my life/ is the abusive one
• [the victim] runs EOPC just to harass ME
  
• [the victim] is cyberstalking/ stalking me / my family/ my friends
• I don't even know [the victim]
• [the victim] and EOPC have ruined my life; contacted my employer, friends (we never get involved with cases other than posting them with signed legal permission here. NEVER)
  
• I have hired a lawyer to deal with this (on Kristen Rhoad, one of Phil Haberman's victims - has hired a lawyer(s) or legal representative - and it seems Mr. Haberman filed false charges and is about to get a legal spanking for abusing the system)
• It never happened
• [The victim] is just jealous
• That was all planted, I never said that/ did that
• That is false, I am the victim here!
• They [the victim] abused ME!!
• I had to do something for relief. [The Victim] toyed with me/ tempted me.
• I am sorry - I have changed (while still having online affairs)
• [The victim] is just trying to ruin my life/ my happiness/ destroy my family or hurt my spouse.

There's also the extra special cyberpaths with instability and/or grandiosity problems that believe everything you say or post is somehow a message to them!

And we can't go without an extra special mention to: LORI DREW - the woman that drove a 13-year old named Megan Meier to suicide. Who, after a year of the law doing NOTHING - told Megan's mother (who lives 4 doors down) and who is fighting for justice for her dead daughter to:

"GIVE IT A REST"

Mrs. Drew - you have confirmed via your lawyer's statements: that were full of "poor me" and blame-shifting to your victim (a 13 year old victim) that you are mentally disordered. You have proved your cyberpathy - because you just did precisely what every other perverted predator here does: BLAME YOUR VICTIM!

Nathan Thomas (a.k.a. "T") asked one of Targets to please not "annoy him" once she found out. He also accused one of his many overlapping wives of CAUSING the problem because she DIDN'T STAND BY HIM (i.e. believe and support his lies). You used women for free sex, room, board - even MARRIED THEM and now you don't want them to "ANNOY YOU?"

Thomas has even gone as far as to tell a wife with whom he had an allegedly BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE that "the CIA and US Government" were going to be "mad at her" for questioning him! He'd tried to convince her he was a Special Ops Agent for the U.S. Thomas took off after that on a "secret mission" (NOT) and this wife hasn't seen him since!

Sick... just sick.

Dunetz/ YidwithLid (some simple web searches showed out he'd changed his nickname from Gridney to Yidwithlid and now calls himself Sammy Benoit) told Target #2 "if you love me you will leave me alone and let my wife heal" (wait! He'd told Target #2 he didn't love his wife anymore and loved only HER! So in 3 days - after getting caught - he totally changes his tune? REAL Love doesn't do that!)

Jeff Dunetz/ Yidwithlid told Target #1 "its over" and he would help get her children taken from her. Over? What's over? It never started!

Now he makes his victims out to be some sort of attack-bots.

To this day Dunetz (like all of them) still blames Target #1 only for exposing him to his job, his family, etc and implies all the hooker postings and ads for casual sex were 'planted' or 'made up' (forensic recovery by police has shown us they were from HIM, not planted or made up at all) - which we can say - she did not do.

It's too easy to say that victims are doing it for revenge. But often, they aren't! She felt compelled to go to police to protect her children - and look what happened: A $2million a year brothel ole Dunetz/ Yidwithlid was going to for about 3-4 years - was BUSTED!

Recently Yid With Lid went so far as to send a statement that this whole thing was because Target #1 was "jealous" that he wouldn't "bang" Target #1 because she is fat & ugly and (most hysterical) he "didn't want to hurt his wife." Very third grade. Obviously, the expensive hookers, phone sex and other women were of no consequence in hurting his wife. Despite him trying to tell everyone that his victims are jealous and planting it all.

from Dunetz's own "mouth":
I have 30 years in marketing. I already twist facts for a living.

from Yid's blog

______________

They all want victims to DROP it when THEY CAUSED PROFOUND TRAUMA TO THEIR TARGETS!

Victims:

Don't drop it! Your pain is not NOTHING!!

THE CYBERPATH FEELS ZERO RESPONSIBILITY TO THOSE THEY HAVE USED & ABUSED! To them you're an object, just some words on a screen - not even real!

IN FACT, THEY BLAME THE VICTIM FOR TELLING!!

To make the point about how these predators have no feelings or feel the least bit sorry for what they do to you. Think about how they belittle, smear & blow you and your trauma off.

And yes, its trauma - make no mistake.

They can see or emphasize with THEIR pain (they are such MARTYRS!) but your pain, the pain they caused? According to them, you have no right to feel bad! Only a really personality disordered individual has SUCH A LACK OF EMPATHY.

Don't listen to them anymore! Don't listen to anyone telling you they're O.K. and you're bad for being traumatized and not "forgiving & forgetting." You KNOW BETTER!

Anyone (friends, family, counselors) telling you to "Move on" or "get over it" is further abusing you because:

EMOTIONAL RAPE IS A STATIC EVENT.

It is FROZEN in the psyche of any compassionate human being. Since friends, family and clueless doctors may have never been through this sort of thing; and predators have NO REAL FEELINGS - they see it as a blip on their radar. An inconvenience. To them.

Why do you think, victims - that Cyberpaths show so much scorn for you once you find them out?

BECAUSE NOW YOU KNOW THE TRUTH and TRUTH is the one thing they can't handle.

There's a difference between obsession and JUSTICE.

After THESE CYBERPATHS' START, ENCOURAGE and LEAD ON THE VICTIM and then toss them away like trash - traumatizing them; the only thing for victims to do is TELL. Telling is the first step towards HEALING!

(of course there's the predators who start outright SMEAR CAMPAIGNS against those who have found them out, exposed them or questioned them. Doing this is as unoriginal as the "scorned woman" accusation and we don't buy it either.)

And if your predator says they have "changed - turned over a new leaf" - "please leave me alone to get on with my life." If they have really changed? They will take the time - how ever long that takes (days, months, years) to talk things through with you - fully admit & acknowledge what they did to you and their spouses/ families and make amends.

If they tell you "my therapist says I can't talk to you" - kow that therapy has not caught up with this sort of interpersonal exploitation. That would be fine if you went into the online relationship knowing the truth IN THE FIRST PLACE. But you didn't.

They used you like an object, a thing, something they click off like the computer itself - and you deserve better. Besides, they are only using therapy as a COVER.

If they say "it will hurt/ upset my partner if I talk to you" find out exactly what they told their partner about you. Did they paint you as the bad one to get their a** out of the doghouse? Probably! If they say that they are still lying - to you, to their partner and themselves.

HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!

(there are cyberpaths, such as Clive, Doug Beckstead and Dorsky that have tried to erase their tracks and rewrite history but don't know much about web archives and data retrieval. NOTHING ever really disappears on the web.)

Charles Ed Hicks said, IN COURT - IN FRONT OF A JUDGE, after 2 of his ex wives testified against him and hard proof of his fraud and bigamy was entered into the record that it was "False, ALL FALSE" Rumor has it - he's writing a book to 'set the record straight.' Maybe O.J.'s publisher is interested? LOL

Did we mention after a year in jail for Bigamy, Hicks was recently tossed out by another woman in Charleston, S.C. and is back online using the name CHARLES HICKS, BILLY MATTHEWS or CHARLES GREENE? Trolling for his next victim?

Do you think they learn? change? NO! They just play on their next victim's compassion and willingness to believe in them.

Also the winner, by 98%, of the lines married predators (those that admit they are married) give to their victims:

My [spouse] is cold to me/ the marriage is dead/ won't have sex with me/ its over ...but I am staying because of the kids/ money and I don't love [my spouse] anymore... our marriage is only on paper....

It's so predictable that it's sad. Truly sad. As sad as the fact that to these predators, victims are merely objects to use.

And as we have said many many times - please at least Google or search on the person you are chatting with's name and nickname(s) and read EVERY PAGE OF ENTRIES THAT COMES UP. If they are pressing you for a meeting - we have links to background check agencies on the right and for a small fee you can find out everything you need to know.

If anyone tells you "if you do a check on me then you don't trust me/ love me" - DO THE CHECK ASAP! If you find them on a site warning you - BELIEVE IT. If they tell you "don't speak to so and so, they will lie about me or my relationship with them" or "she's a scorned woman" - SPEAK TO THAT OTHER PERSON ASAP AND GET THE TRUTH!!!!!

REMEMBER: People who are honest have nothing to hide.

MORE: VERBAL ATTACKS OF THE SOCIOPATH

...ONLY AFTER ONE THING

by Jill Papworth

OFT warns against scammers who build fictitious profiles on dating websites and befriend other users before asking for cash. Con artists on dating websites may ask for money to cover urgent medical treatment for a family member

Romantics should be on their guard against internet dating scams that can not only rip you off financially but also break your heart. The latest scam alert from the Office of Fair Trading warns that the increased potential to meet people online is being used by criminals to con people out of their money.

"Romance fraudsters" target singles columns and dating websites to search for victims. They create fictitious online profiles and send out unsolicited emails or letters, often with fake photographs, using the trust they build up to persuade their victims to part with large sums of money in frauds that can go on for years.

These typically involve the scamster telling their victim they want to meet them but are stranded without the money to travel or cover visa costs. They may also say that they or a family member require urgent treatment for an illness. The OFT says in one recent case a British national was kidnapped after travelling to west Africa expecting to be met by someone with whom they had established an online friendship. The individual had no idea that the online 'friend' was the fictional creation of a criminal group. The victim was assaulted, imprisoned for four days, and was released only when a ransom was paid.

"All fraud is destructive but dating scammers are particularly ruthless as they abuse the emotional trust and attachments that people invest when looking to meet someone," says Heather Clayton, senior director of the OFT's consumer group. The OFT says dating site users should take the following steps to avoid becoming victims:

• Know what you are paying for and what the dating agency promises to provide in return.

• If you receive any requests for money, be suspicious, even if you have known the person for a number of weeks.

• Be sceptical and ask yourself simple questions, for example, "Why am I the only person who can help them, when I have just met them?"

• If you meet somebody unknown to you, always meet in a public place and take a friend with you for support if you are unsure.

The Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) adds that if you do decide to travel to meet an online friend, particularly if you go abroad, tell someone trustworthy where you are going, plan regular contacts and agree what they should do if you miss a contact.


original article found here