Monthly Archives: May 2014

CyberHarassment: Exploring Solutions

Online abuse is, unfortunately, a common problem. It seems that there are some people in this world who simply get a lot of pleasure out of abusing others and the online world is a fertile ground for finding vulnerable victims. By vulnerable I’m not really referring to people who have any particular physical, emotional , or psychological vulnerabilities but rather the fact that we are all vulnerable in the online world to having our personal and professional reputations injured or destroyed.  All knowledge and information about us which is out there is available to be twisted, misrepresented, distorted, exaggerated, lies invented based on it, and otherwise abused to present us in a negative light, in public, amongst those who either don’t know us or only know us casually.

We are also vulnerable to this abuse in real life but it’s harder to do and requires more structure and organization. It’s also harder to prove that it’s going on in real life. In the online world where nothing ever really gets deleted (despite the harassers attempts to remove the evidence) it can almost always be located and therefore the allegations proven.

Someone, somewhere has almost always archived it for posterity.

So, while the lies never get erased, your refutations to the lies also never get erased. If you’ve done your job properly the truth can and will overwhelm the lie and the liars even if they outnumber you.

However, going through that process is time consuming and often quite painful because those who engage in cyberharassment and stalking often have nothing else to do. They can (and do) spend hours doing this because they are dysfunctional people living dysfunctional lives whereas those of us being targeted with this abuse are trying to lead active, normal lives and this nonsense takes us away from that.

While these stalkers and harassers are usually incredibly stupid people, they do excel at lying so you will be dealing with their false allegations with the police, social media sites, friends, family, etc. sometimes for years. In the case of psychopaths, it’s pretty much guaranteed that they’ll be on your case for years or until they get themselves incarcerated in prison or a psych ward.

This is one reason why this type of harassment can’t be ignored or swept under the carpet. The lies, if left to fester can and do take on a life of their own and become ‘truth’ by virtue of the fact that there is nothing out there refuting them.

When it comes to one’s personal and professional reputation these lies can have a deep and often immeasurable impact, especially vicious ones like the current ‘call everyone you hate a pedo’ rage.

Note that those who engage in this behavior are mentally ill in some way and it’s the mental illness that drives and motivates the stalking behavior.


As was emphasised earlier, stalking describes a behavioural problem, not a psychiatric classification per se. Several authors have reflected on the diagnostic assessment of stalkers, and generally made a distinction between psychotic stalkers (Axis I) and stalkers with severe personality pathology (Axis II). The psychotic stalker can exhibit primary erotomania, but erotomanic delusions can also result from multiple other DSM-IV disorders, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Stalking is predominantly associated with cluster B personality pathology (narcissistic and borderline personality disorders) and to a lesser extent with dependent, schizoid, and paranoid features. There are relatively few reports of stalking by classic psychopaths, and these cases are almost without exception extensions of (long) histories of domestic violence. In addition to these primary disorders, comorbid conditions, such as substance abuse or dependence and affective disorders, are frequently mentioned (Zona et al, 1993; Harmon et al, 1995; Meloy & Gothard, 1995; Mullen et al, 1999). It is worth noting that almost all diagnostic hypotheses were based on clinical impressions from uncontrolled studies. Controlled research into personality characteristics and psychopathology (based on, for example, structured interviews and standard personality inventories) is sorely lacking.  —Stalking — a contemporary challenge for forensic and clinical psychiatry 

The more seriously mentally ill the cyberharasser/stalker is, the further they will go with their abuse and lies.

If you:

  1. Challenge their story by challenging the fact that they have no evidence? Voila, evidence gets fabricated in the form of fake photoshopped screenshots, fake pedo web sites set up under the targets personal name as the domain, quoting known liars or people who have an obvious bias, etc.
  2. Expose their lies and their cowardice? Voila numerous false allegations/complaints filed with police, social media sites you’re a member of, government agencies, employers (past and present), schools, social service agencies (if you receive assistance), etc.
  3. Confront their lies? Voila they recruit other stalkers to spew them for them so that they can claim ‘they aren’t the only ones that hate you’. Suddenly you’re surrounded by a goon squad wallowing in its own filth of lies, the intent being to overwhelm the truth with the lies.

So, what are the solutions?

What can we do to deal more effectively with such lunacy online. Aside from having those who engage in this abuse carted off to their local Psych Ward in strait jackets or to prison. While that will certainly help resolve the problem, it isn’t the easiest thing to do and in the mean time we all have to survive the crazies.

While we can’t change the fact that there are seriously disturbed people out there in the world, many of whom have access to the Internet and are going to be causing problems for innocent, sane, rational people … there are often small things that can be done that end up having a big impact … and some big things.

The big things that we can do are to follow a policy of

  1. exposing their lies,
  2. confronting them publicly with their lies
  3. giving them the attention they seem to want by publicizing who they are and what they are doing with the hard evidence we’ve gathered while exposing their lies.

Let the truth come out. Let the truth be louder than the lies and overwhelm the lies.

Whether they’re targeting individuals or groups shouldn’t matter because the issue here is the stalking and harassment. Nothing else. Ignoring it, pretending it will go away, sticking our heads in the sand will destroy those targeted whether they’re groups or individuals. The only time walking away helps is in personal altercations where neither person takes up stalking and harassing. In those situations the best solution is to walk away so that things don’t escalate. That doesn’t work in stalking and harassing situations so we need to learn to identify the difference when we’re deciding on a strategy.

These stalkers and harassers will get publicity and attention and possibly recruit a few people in the process but many will also be alerted to who they are. It won’t be so easy for them to engage in their cons, manipulations, scams, and computer crimes with this type of attention because the attention they’re getting involves exposing them. Ripping off their masks and letting everyone see who and what they really are.

Some of the little things we can do are covered in this recent article from Wired provided some interesting examples and insight into this issue:

Curbing Online Abuse Isn’t Impossible. Here’s Where We Start BY LAURA HUDSON

According to the article, a simple process like providing a specific and detailed explanation for why someone was banned reduced the recidivism of the bad behavior dramatically whereas not providing an explanation resulted in a ‘disturbingly high’ recidivism rate.

The team also found that it’s important to enforce the rules in ways that people understand. When Riot’s team started its research, it noticed that the recidivism rate was disturbingly high; in fact, based on number of reports per day, some banned players were actually getting worse after their bans than they were before. At the time, players were informed of their suspension via emails that didn’t explain why the punishment had been meted out. So Riot decided to try a new system that specifically cited the offense. This led to a very different result: Now when banned players returned to the game, their bad behavior dropped measurably. –Extract from Curbing Online Abuse Isn’t Impossible

A solution like this actually accomplishes three things which are excellent for the consumer of the service.

  1. The user has a clear understanding of what the behavior that was considered negative is, and knows that if they want to stay on the site they can’t engage in that specific behavior again.  This creates a solid deterrent for that negative behavior.
  2. The support staff are required to properly examine the issue and provide a specific reason, presumably with the evidence that the person did indeed violate the rules. This has the benefit of ensuring that Support staff do their jobs properly and can actually justify the suspension (or lack of suspension based on a complaint). That is they can justify it based on actual written policy rather than just an arbitrary spur of the minute, get this off my desk fast, decision or I feel sorry for person A, I’m on their side and will help them even though the person isn’t doing what person A says they’re doing, etc.
  3. Most importantly, any sense of injustice or unfairness at the decisions is also removed because everything has been properly explained and justified. This, in and of itself, can lead to self-correcting behavior. Justice has been done.

Of course, the person might find the standard itself objectionable which is a different issue but one that should be addressed by any social media site which actually wants to be a comfortable place for their users. They could have a special forum where these types of discussions can occur directly with Support staff or Development staff. Explanations will resolve 90% of the issues and the other 10% probably need to be fixed. If they can’t be fixed, people are kept informed and things are unlikely to get out of hand. Or, at least less often, than they would without these measures in place.

The reality is that the current recidivism rate for ‘bad’ behavior is disturbingly high on sites like Twitter and Facebook, and the decisions to remove or leave items being objected to are arbitrary, inconsistent, and frequently not based on the written site rules/policy.

Frequently items which obviously violate the social media site’s policy are left while items which don’t obviously violate the social media site’s policy are removed and the posters suspended, banned or otherwise punished despite the fact that they didn’t violate any policy or rule.

I’m currently in a battle with Twitter and have been for a nearly a month to get my business Twitter account unsuspended. Twitter refuses to interact with me to provide any explanation, rationalization, or justification for their arbitrary (and unjustified) actions.

I have provided a detailed refutation to Twitter (in several emails now) including the tweets that I was tweeting at the time my account was suspended based on a false complaint, and screenshots of Twitters own interface showing that at least one allegation is completely bogus and without any merit. This has, so far, been completely ignored.

Not only is this frustrating to the user who is the target of cyberbullying / harassment and being further victimized by false accusations of allegedly doing what is actually being done to them, but it enables and encourages the cyberbullies and harassers to take things further and further. After all, their scam worked.

And you can rest assured they will be smugly gloating about the fact that it worked while coming up with ways to escalate things even further. Of course, they’ll blame you for the escalations. How dare you stand up to their abuse and do so publicly. That’s cyberbullying them according to their sick and twisted thinking. Lol.

To Facebook’s credit, they have banned certain people from Facebook because of their ongoing bullying and harassing behavior, defamations, lies, etc. They closed down over 20 Facebook sites set up by one person for no other purpose than to personally attack, defame and spread lies about social activists on Facebook. Particularly anti-pedophilia social activists. This person is just one of a group of people that are part of this current harassment campaign and instigating numerous others into senselessly targeting innocent people who are anti-pedophilia social activists.

All this accomplishes, of course, is to protect the real pedophiles since those who are going after the anti-pedophilia social activists are attempting to discredit and defame them. These same groups as well as other groups are also targeting numerous others like the parents of bullied children who have committed suicide. They publicly call the children who have been viciously sexually exploited online ‘sluts’ and ‘whores’ and other derogatory terms while blaming the victims themselves and their parents for the crimes.

The article proposes the following and I agree because it’s focusing entirely on the behavior that’s exhibited rather than the content of what is said. What is said only matters when it leads to negative behaviors and on those grounds free speech has always had some limitations.

You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a theater when there is no fire, because of the impact that will have on behavior. You could start a riot which could result in both panic and physical injury for no justifiable reason.

CyberBullying and harassment are the same. When you falsely call someone a Pedo or Pedo enabler and post it all over the web in numerous blogs, web sites, torrents, pastes, on DarkNet with personal information in Doxbin, etc. etc. there is an impact not only to the person targeted but to others who might decide to interact in negative ways with the target because of those false allegations.

So, this isn’t about free speech. It’s about bullying and harassing behaviors.

Extracted from the article:

What would our social networks look like if their guidelines and enforcement reflected real-life community norms? If Riot’s experiments are any guide, it’s unlikely that most or even many users would deem a lot of the casual abuse, the kind that’s driving so many people out of online spaces, to be acceptable. Think about how social networks might improve if—as on the gaming sites and in real life—users had more power to reject abusive behavior. Of course, different online spaces will require different solutions, but the outlines are roughly the same:

•    involve users in the moderation process,
•    set defaults that create hurdles to abuse,
•    give clearer feedback for people who misbehave,
•    and—above all—create a norm in which harassment simply isn’t tolerated.

–Extract from Curbing Online Abuse Isn’t Impossible

Comments Off on CyberHarassment: Exploring Solutions

Posted by on May 26, 2014 in CyberBullying, CyberHarassment, CyberStalking


Tags: , , , , , ,

A Response To Philip Rose – Updated

Update. June 4, 2014. A Response To Philip Rose’s new blog attacking me with defamatory libel. Scroll down or search June 4 to view the Update.

Well it seems that I have attracted the attention of yet another Internet loon and assailer of legitimate social activists and social activism. These idiots are a dime a dozen on the Internet and a few of them can put a sentence together that is grammatically correct. Aside from the fact that their reasoning skills tend to leave a great deal to be desired, they can sometimes come across to some people as … well … almost normal.

Philip Rose is one of these. The problem is that when you scratch the surface, his deceptions reveal themselves rather quickly.

For example, I apparently deserved a mention in his blog because (how dare I) sign a petition asking that Mr. Rose be investigated by the police for his harassment activities against the friends and family of Amanda Todd.

Petition Requesting The Sussex Police Investigate Philip Rose.

Mr. Rose is quite proud of these activities and like all typical cyberharassers and bullies flogs his abuse under the flag of free speech obfuscating the fact that free speech does not, nor has it ever, protected the right to lie, defame, abuse, harass and bully innocent people. Those are specific legal restraints on free speech because they are associated with behaviors that society doesn’t find acceptable and they exist in most countries. You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a theatre, when there isn’t a fire, because of the dire consequences. Same applies to bullying and harassment. It’s a damaging behavior and an activity that’s the problem. Not speech, in and of itself.

Those countries with hate speech laws are even more constrained.

Now, I personally don’t agree with hate speech laws. However, if they exist in a country and they are being violated by someone like Mr. Rose, then the fact that he’s committing a crime is a reality he has to live with, as is the possibility of being charged and convicted for that crime and associated crimes like criminal harassment. If you don’t want to risk being charged for such things, don’t engage in such activities.

Now, because Mr. Rose didn’t appreciate the fact that I was one of the signatories of that petition, of course, Mr. Rose posted a link to a blog which defames me because if he suggested people search me under my name (like he did suggest people do with Tim Wheeler and Jay Marshall), they would find that I have refuted these defamatory allegations on that blog in numerous places, done so thoroughly, and exposed the creator of that blog and the creator of that Google document as liars who are acting in collusion with each other. Both have been exposed numerous times and by other social activists as well as me.

I have no doubt that Mr. Rose found my refutations all over the place and read them. It’s pretty hard to miss them.

Yet he doesn’t mention them. Is this your idea of being ‘thorough’ Mr Rose? Frankly if you google my name, you’re going to hit one of my refutations of these defamatory libel and lies, long before you hit the defamatory libelous blogs. It’s impossible to miss them.

So, when Mr. Rose makes the statement: “The Internet is a cesspit of lies and fraud. There are a few good eggs in the basket, but true crusaders are few and far between.” …

He is quite correct. However, his statement is, in my opinion, an example of projection in that his blog is far more reflective of the cesspit than those individuals he takes to task.

I also find it interesting that my name was just one of many – so one has to wonder why my name comes up so prominently in his mind. Did he research everyone who had signed it? Nearly a hundred people? If you go to the list you actually have to dig to find it.

One interesting cyberbullying/harassment phenomenon that I’ve noticed is that in recent years, these psychos (my opinion although a lot probably are psychopaths and sociopaths) are getting together and backing each other up in their lies, obvious frame-ups, misrepresentations and getting little goonie squads together to gang up on those social activists that stand up to them.

It is typical for cyberbullies and harassers to play the white knights and saints while villifying the genuine social activists. You see this frequently with arm chair/keyboard warriors like Mr. Rose who screech long and loud from their blogs about all manner of nonsense while contributing very little that is constructive to the public domain and the issues at hand.

This is one of the key ways of differentiating between those who are nothing but disruptors of social activism and those who are genuine, legitimate social activists.

We, the legitimate social activists, do make constructive contributions as well as offer strong critiques of and stand up to these disruptors.

Update. June 4, 2014. A Response To Philip Rose’s new blog attacking me with defamatory libel.

Mr. Rose has now removed the blog post which links my name to a Defamatory Libelous post written by Heather Martin. Thank you, Mr. Rose.

This was, of course, the deceptive behavior which I was referring to here. But now he continues his deception by disingenuously asking what his deception was as if he didn’t know and after removing it. Lol.

The Internet looney tunes are hilarious as well as so flagrantly obvious in their lame attempts to engage in their deceptions that their nonsense is quite easy to expose.

Here is his other deception. Just to make it perfectly clear to him since it’s possible he genuinely doesn’t know although frankly I doubt it.

Mr. Rose, I was just one amongst many who signed the petition against you. The fact that you chose to publicize my name in particular along with that of Timothy Wheeler which you have now removed was the indication to me that you are acting in collusion with other cyberbullies who have been targeting me directly for well over a year with defamatory libel and flagrant lies.

You are not a thorough researcher. You are quite self-serving and, in my opinion, rather stupid, in the nonsense that you flog because if you weren’t you wouldn’t have fallen for their scam.

In addition, deceptions like ‘guilt by association’ are further evidence of your stupidity. In your new blog post which names me again, you conflate the alleged actions of others with me and by doing so imply that I have done what you’re alleging that they do and that I am somehow mentally ill because I don’t accept your assessment of their behavior.

Given that you have been quite deceptive in your allegations against me, I have no reason to believe that you are being truthful in your allegations about others and your allegations don’t constitute evidence. It really is as simple as that.

I read your blog previous to signing the petition and all I saw was a man with the attitudes of dinosaur engaging in the age old ‘blame the victims for the crime’ game that many of us serious social activists fought to eliminate in the 1970s in the areas of domestic violence, rape and other crimes. It is nothing more than a hate blog which directly and quite viciously attacks numerous young people who have been the victims of a vicious crime as well as their grieving families. Young people make mistakes and engage in silly and often inappropriate behavior. That’s a fact. They don’t deserve to be bullied and harassed until they’re driven to suicide and then be defamed after they’ve died for those mistakes. Nor do their grieving families deserve to be attacked for standing up for their children.

In addition, the fact that you

  1. removed that blog post naming me, Timothy Wheeler and Jay Marshall which contained the link to the Defamatory Libelous post written by Heather Martin (did Timothy Wheeler scare you? Lol),
  2. have written a new blog which names me and not Timothy Wheeler or Jay Marshall,
  3. and are engaging in defamatory libel by baselessly asserting that I’m allegedly mentally ill without any evidence to indicate that I am, simply because I object to your bullying and harassment of innocent people,

tells me that your collusion with these other cyberbullies continues.

I don’t waste my time debating with deceptive Internet Loons, cyberbullies and cyberharassers.

I regularly debate honest rational people who are actually interested in serious discussions on these important social issues. We often disagree and accept the fact that we are entitled to our differences of opinion. Of course, we aren’t brow-beating individuals over the head with our opinions or using them to bully and harass them. In other words, we don’t target people.

That doesn’t mean that we won’t defend ourselves when we have been personally targeted or defend others who are being personally targeted, which is what I do in this blog.

You should be aware that WordPress identified your comment as Spam which is why I didn’t see it until I noted that you mentioned it on your blog.

Who am I to argue with WordPress? I have decided to leave it in the Spam folder which WordPress has determined that it belongs.

If you had been a serious researcher you would have contacted me privately first. Instead you went on a public attack based on numerous baseless assumptions which you continue to make.

As the dinosaurs used to say, “You made your bed, you can sleep in it.”

The Trollinator Site

Glenn Canning: Philip Rose is Christopher Rowe






Tags: , , ,

Hollywood and Pedophiles

Hollywood and Pedophiles

Stephen Shellen’s acting career in the 1990s was destroyed when he began investigating the abuse of his own children. Organized Stalking techniques were used against him. Similar to those used by the Church of Scientology. It is suspected that individuals in those rings or those leading those rings are either Pedophiles themselves or closely connected to Pedophile circles. He has also been the target of some very malicious cyberharassment and stalking.

lara trace hentz

I had heard something about several figures in Hollywood who are pedophiles. The Church is not the only place where children are molested. The people that own/run pretty much everything are apparently above the law and are bored and find children to molest… it’s like the psychopaths are in charge! A cop will shoot an unarmed citizen for jay-walking but won’t attempt to stop this child trafficking, abuse, sacrifice….everyone seems to look the other way for $….

View original post

Comments Off on Hollywood and Pedophiles

Posted by on May 7, 2014 in CyberStalking

%d bloggers like this: