Yesterday, Lovefraud had an intruder. I saw this guy’s first couple of posts, which struck me as odd, but not necessarily offensive. I decided to keep an eye on him.
Before long, however, several longtime Lovefraud contributors began attacking this individual. I thought the attacks were unwarranted.
We have had occasions in the past when people started accusing newcomers of being sociopaths. I think this is a very dangerous thing to do based on a few posts that may sound different from what we generally see here.
Meaning is missing
Experts have found that 65 percent to 90 percent of the meaning in human communication comes from nonverbal cues—tone of voice, gestures, posture. That means when the primary form of communication is via words on a computer monitor, 65 percent to 90 percent of the meaning is missing.
So how can we be sure of a person’s intentions? Not everyone is an expressive writer—some people may be stiff and formal. And not everyone may speak (and write) English as a first language.
Furthermore, Lovefraud.com is not a closed, invitation-only forum. It is open to the public, so it is quite possible that we have readers who are not victims, or former victims, of sociopaths. People who have been lucky enough not to have experienced the assault of a sociopath have a very different perspective from those of us who have been there. They may wonder, in writing, what all the bellyaching is about. That doesn’t mean they are sociopaths.
We also may have people who jump into a conversation without much of an introduction. There is no prerequisite that people tell their stories before participating in the Lovefraud Blog. Someone may just want to make an observation or pose a question. The post may sound different from what we generally see. That doesn’t make him or her a sociopath.
Jumping to conclusions is not helpful. In one situation, a person was attacked in what I believe was simply a case of mistaken identity.
Negative intentions
Now, it does turn out that everyone who sensed negative intentions on the part of yesterday’s intruder was right. Checking the IP address, I found that it was the same guy who showed up a few days ago. He actually posted on another forum, where predators apparently compare notes, that he hacked into his girlfriend’s computer and found references to Lovefraud. He then invited all his cronies to launch an attack on this blog.
A few Lovefraud contributors did write to me to express concerns, which I appreciate. I was watching this individual. But I admit that he began to show his true colors after I was away from the computer, and I didn’t react quickly. Now, however, I have deleted all his posts.
Personal attacks are not tolerated
The policy at Lovefraud is that personal attacks against other bloggers are not tolerated. I ask everyone, even long-time contributors who suspect a predator, to observe this policy.
So when you believe that someone is here to cause trouble, please do not engage. Do not react. Do not take the bait. Because when we do, we just feed the beast, and the entire Lovefraud conversation degenerates.
It’s important for us to be listening to our intuition. But when we get messages that something is amiss, what should we do? In the real world, we advocate No Contact. I believe we should do the same on Lovefraud.
Remember, they’re looking for a reaction. If we don’t give it, most of them just go away.
Donna,
Thanks so much for addressing this issue. I was rather surprised at the large amount of willing users on this site who took the bait. I noticed early on what was going on and chose to ignore the obvious.
My gut told me immediately that there were red flags, and I even began to doubt myself when I saw all of the responses, however I remained true to the original feelings of deception involved in the dialogue. Not that I’m so wonderful, but just feel pleased that I am learning to listen to myself in spite of what others are doing, and again, thank you for your attentiveness to what goes on here.
Donna,
The importance of NÇ is often stressed on the blog, but I wonder if it would be helpful to some participants to include an article defining reinforcement and the extinction of negative behavior through by ignoring it. Some basic explanation of behaviorism and the craving for attention of the Cluster Bs would be useful for those who have not been exposed to such ideas and even for those who have and are struggling with NC. Gavin De Becker has a fairly good chapter on NC (chapter 8) in The Gift of Fear that may be worth summarizing.
Thanks for the update. You’d make a good investigator. 🙂
Ditto Housie
It’s pretty hard to refrain from trying to give some ‘hint’ to a ‘newcomer’ that they are being led by the nose though. But fully take on Donna’s point about ‘feeding the beast’.
I meant to say chapter 8 – not sure how the sunglass smiley face showed up there.
“In one situation, a person was attacked in what I believe was a case of mistaken identity.”
I am still seeing trouble, even this morning.
Rosa:
Read all my posts. Just read all of em. I just dont get how you see any trouble. It should be to the contrary…Im trying hard to not feel hurt or insulted or annoyed by your posts…
My goodness, MariaLisa, I have read every word of your posts.
If you recall, I believe I was the FIRST to respond to your post.
I have never made a negative comment about your posts.
I don’t know where all of the hysteria and paranoia is coming from this morning.
Please continue with your healing.
Donna, I was one of those “long time contributors” who reacted, and I realize I should NOT have reacted, because it only made the situation worse.
I tend to be more reactive when someone I care about is attacked than when I am attacked directly, and because I CARE ABOUT LF, I reacted. Currently I am hyper-reactive anyway because a dear friend is being attacked by ANOTHER psychopathic predator while she is very vulnerable and trying to put her life back together. In fact, I think SHE is handling the attack on her better than I am, because I AM SO VERY ANGRY about the totally UNJUSTIFIED attack which seems to me to be ONLY done because this predator knows she is vulnerable to professional attack at this time.
I apologize for my part in responding to the “bait”—Oxy
Rosa:
In that case I apologise. I just dont/didnt understand about whom you were talking then and it really seemed as if you were pointing at me on several occasions. But forget I thought that then and let’s continue the topics. Sorry ( and no paranoia here just a bit of confusion: also its past 7 in the evening in europe but that just as a side note)
Donna, thank you so much for addressing this issuing.
I don’t mean to complicate the situation, but to my mind, the larger problem is protecting or at least warning off people who may get in involved with trollers or disruptors because they don’t grasp what’s going on.
It’s easy for us who recognize an intruder to go no-contact.
But it’s difficult for us to watch a less experienced and possibly more vulnerable person get engaged.
On a blog, we can’t take a person aside and warn her or him, without making a public statement.
One of the strategies to deal with this situation has been to engage with the person with the single objective of getting him or her to show true colors. For no other reason than that, to clarify what we’re dealing with.
As you noted on your post, it’s not always clear to begin with. We see red flags, or some of us do. But we interact in good faith, because we’re not certain.
In the case of the intruder yesterday, I was certain from the first post. The request for personal information about how we were compromised emotionally, the failure to offer details of personal experience or seek emotional support in his introduction, and the values exhibited by the reference to “prudish women” was three strikes for me. And of all of them, the one that really rang the big bell was the “prudish women” phrase, because it was one of those “slips” that show their real values.
But other people were interacting with him in good faith, and one of them was a brand new person.
I don’t know what the answer is here. But I suggested in another post that it might work if we did two things. One is to say (honestly) to the other person that we were uncomfortable with what they wrote and ask for clarification. The other is to share our feelings with each other (around that person) if we are uncomfortable with what he’s writing.
Neither of these is flaming. And they might enable us to become more certain of what we’re dealing with.
And then, go NC.
It’s that intermediate phase, when we don’t know, that’s the problem. And when damage can be done. We’ve seen hurt feelings because of these people, a lot of interruption to the process, and valued contributors just disappearing, at least temporarily, to get themselves together again.
I know you are willing the “scrub” the blogs, and I’m grateful, as we all our, for your commitment to keep things supportive around here. But if we could find a reasonable mechanism to clarify what’s going on here, I think it would be a good thing.
Respectfully and gratefully,
Kathy