I thank Judy for her reply. You really can't GET a more accurate picture of how the cyberstalker sees reality than this.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Since I'm obviously one of the people Barry is libeling with > the term "cyberstalker," I'll contribute my interpretation of > what Barry describes: > > Starting way back when, person A harasses and picks fights > with person B. Person B repeatedly makes mincemeat of him. > > After many years, person A, to save some shreds of self- > respect, decides to stop directly harassing person B. > > Person B is happy with this, because she doesn't get any > backtalk when she points out his bad behavior (which has by > no means been limited to his attacks on her). > > Person A is unable to tolerate being called out on his bad > behavior so relentlessly and accurately. So he attacks > person B indirectly in post after post. Of course each > time he does this, person B makes mincemeat of him again, > and he can't do anything about it because he can't be > seen to be engaging with person B. > > Person B, again, finds this situation deeply satisfying. > > Person A develops various strategems to make him seem to > himself in his own eyes to have "dumped" person B, but, > sadly, nobody else is fooled. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > Contrary to popular belief, IMO it's not about vengeance, or > > retribution, or any of the other equally petty motivations often > > attributed to chronic cyberstalkers. In my opinion, it's about > > attention. > > > > In almost all cases of cyberstalking, if you go back far enough, what > > you find is a case of someone who has glommed onto another human being, > > and the "high" they get from interacting with them, one-on-one. It > > really doesn't *matter* what the nature of the relationship was, or > > whether there was any real "high" there or whether the future > > cyberstalker imagined it -- they *got off* on the interaction, so it was > > "real" to them. > > > > And then the other person cut them off at the pump. > > > > They dumped them. > > > > The dumpee, of course, feels insulted at being publicly dumped, but that > > IMO is not the real motivating factor. It's the having been "cut off at > > the pump" thang that matters. > > > > For most normal human beings, what you do after having been dumped is > > MOVE ON, and don't dwell on it any longer than is necessary. For the > > cyberstalker, this is almost biologically impossible, because they have > > become so habituated to the object of their obsession's attention that > > they feel somehow deprived without it. > > > > So the QUEST, for the cyberstalker mentality, becomes How To > > Re-establish The Connection: "How do I get this person to respond to me > > again?" > > > > The various tactics used by cyberstalker vary -- harassment, insults, > > flattery, escalating to begging, pleading, and near-libelous accusations > > -- but the intent is always the same: "Talk to me again. Interact with > > me again. Give me an opportunity to lure you into yet another direct > > confrontation, the end product of which will be to establish to unseen > > lurkers that I have bested you." > > > > Stupid stalkees fall for this shit. Experienced stalkees rarely do. > > > > That's all. This was Just Another Turq Rap, posted over coffee at my New > > Favorite Cafe. It's just thrown out onto the Internet like spaghetti > > thrown against the refrigerator, to see whether it "sticks." No one need > > reply to it, unless they feel that my rap describes them personally, and > > they're so affronted by that description that they feel they just *have* > > to respond. > > >
