I was doing some internet research the other day and ended up being directed to an older ex-Hollywood writer of some acclaim, a chap named John Boni. He writes a modest blog, likely visited by very few people, and it leans Conservative on several issues he writes about. As often happens, the article I had intended to write suddenly became far less interesting after seeing something far more intriguing on Mr. Boni’s blog.
My article changed from being about something comical to something very, very sad and even a little bit frightening. What caught my attention was this post Mr. Boni made on some “twerp” named Arthur. Now I don’t know who the Hell Arthur is, but if the photo on the page is him, he is one ugly MoFo. Beyond that, however, his behavior comes off as really odd.
If you read the blog post, you’ll notice that Arthur left the writer’s website where he was arguing with Mr. Boni and started harassing Mr. Boni on his own blog, Mr. Boni deleted his comments, Arthur yelped and whined and…well… you read the blog post so you can understand that Arthur’s behavior is just plain twisted.
I became depressed for a little while. I felt bad for Arthur. From what Mr. Boni seemed to say, this Arthur fellow had such a pathetic life that he spent his time running from blog to blog writing nonsense and pestering people. Mr. Boni’s blog says Arthur had posted over ten thousand times on the writer’s blog. Holy Cow! How can anyone spend so much time doing something as pointless as posting that much on a blog? It’s one thing to post daily. There are plenty of those people out there who have awesome things to say, along with an original voice (pay a visit to Dorothy Snarker over at dorothysurrenders.blogspot.com), that makes it a pleasant, entertaining and insightful read. But for anyone to spend that much time on the computer, apparently posting little of value…it made me sad for Arthur.
I suppose Arthur may truly be mentally damaged. If so, that’s just plain unfortunate. But if he isn’t, then this young fellow needs a serious wake up call. Apparently, he can’t get a woman (which shouldn’t surprise anyone, especially if he’s always at his computer). He must not have a job. Even worse, he appears to lack a life.
Life! So precious! Every second! And in such short supply for some! I lost a cousin just last week at the age of 60. It devastated the whole family. And here’s Arthur, wasting the greatest of God’s gifts by attacking a man on an anonymous blog in the coldest and deepest reaches of cyberspace.
Wake up, Arthur!
Technology has brought many wonderful things into our lives. Computers can facilitate communication, but they can also isolate us. When I hear stories like Arthur’s, I realize that somebody needs to create a Department of Loser Deprogramming. The specialists would swoop in, remove all computers from the Loser’s home, and snap a shock collar onto the Loser’s genitalia that delivers a forceful zap anytime he touches anything with an Intel processor. At least it would give Arthur something to boast about, that something was giving him pleasure, because as it is, it sounds like he has none in his life.
So, yes, I guess a cyberstalker can be sad. Other cyberstalkers might at least strive to be remembered by taking their own life in a dramatic fashion, or murdering someone in cold blood. Others, like Arthur, are just making asses of themselves. They lack insight. They lack self-awareness. They seem to demand that others pay attention to them.
The best way to do that would be to make an imprint on the world, and put the computer in the trash.
But he won’t, and therefore will forever remain Arthur, The Sad Cyberstalker.
10 users commented in " Can A Cyberstalker Be Sad? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackMatthew –
Not that you’ll care, but 99% of the above is completely false, from the first sentence on. That’s what happens when you’re too lazy to fact-check your story and instead take as gospel the word of a guy who edits people’s comments on his blog so that they appear to agree with him.
Other than that, bravo.
Dear “Arthur”:
Your post brings to light many interesting issues, so thanks for writing.
I believe that you are missing the point of this article. I don’t need to fact-check anything because whether Mr. Boni’s story is true or not, the lesson of the article is not to spend so much time on the computer.
If “Arthur” spent less time worrying about what was written or said about him, and more time living life and enjoying all the things that life has to offer away from these machines, he’d be a happier person anyway — regardless of whether or not any part of Mr. Boni’s blog is true.
Your comment above, however, leads me to believe that you are the “Arthur” referred to and that Mr. Boni is actually correct about everything he says. It isn’t everyone (or anyone), who comments on my articles here. So I would respectfull suggest — for your own good — that you re-read my article, and then pay a visit to your local clergy to hear some words of inspiration about life.
Life is precious, Arthur, and you will find that any anger you carry within will slowly dissipate when you move away from the flickering screen and into the sunshine.
Thank you for writing.
Matthew Mayer
Matt –
That’s just hilarious. And sad. And so damn typical of the Boni-ites. Boni writes a bunch of lies about me, and you use that as a jumping-off point for your own bizarre little screed, and then freely, gleefully admit that you don’t care whether or not there’s any basis in truth for it. Boni says “Arthur has over 10,000 posts on this one board” and you don’t even take half a second to wonder what period of time those posts are spread out over, or what the posts consisted of or how long they are on average, or anything.
It’s like marveling over someone saying “I drank 100 gallons of milk!” and not asking or even wondering, “Gee, is that in a week? A year? A lifetime? Oh, who the hell cares, 100 gallons is a lot of milk!”
I’ve seen plenty of dishonest and irresponsibly sleazy posts in my time, and a large percentage of them at good ol’ Bonilogue. But I gotta give you props, man…I’ve never seen anyone so proud, smug and candid about their dishonesty, irresponsibility and sleaziness.
Kudos!
Hello Arthur, and thanks again for writing.
I’m not sure why you classify this article as a “bizarre screed”. The article, even without using you as an example, is about a much grander lesson that appears to be lost on you (although ironically and luckily for my readers, you turned up).
The point which I made very clearly is that, in my opinion, a person who runs from one internet forum to another and now to another (this one) chasing down what people say about you (especially when you are not identified with anything other than a first name) is not time well spent.
The article encourages people who engage in such obsessive behavior to change. Of what possible value is there to run around wasting precious time on such silly things? One day, hopefully many years from now, you will look back and wonder how much time and energy you could have saved by just letting these things go. It’s sad, very sad, that you continue to waste your life behaving this way.
Permit me to ask: what do you hope to achieve by this?
On the other hand, the idea that you are now here perpetuating this behavior only serves to drive home my point that much more to my readers.
Milk, by the way, is good for the human body. 100 gallons over a long period of time (which is your point) is good for strong bones and teeth.
Posting 10,000 times on any internet board (and I don’t care over how many years it is) is too much, period. And it does absolutely nothing for the human body except wear it down little by little. The same applies to your soul, which shrivels just a bit more each time you post there, or here, chasing your tail and giving those who mock you even more ammunition.
But I’ll enquire of Mr. Boni over what period these posts occur, to make you happy. I’d say if it’s anything under ten years, you may want to seek some kind of counseling. The behavior exhibited is obsessive and regrettably does fit the definition of “cyberstalking”.
Again, thank you for writing.
Matthew Mayer
Matthew …
I learned through the internet grapevine that you somehow had found my blog and read my months-old post about my little cyber encounter with Arthur, which you linked.
The matter has lain dead as far as I was concerned, but since his replies here tells only part of the story, I’d like to fill in the blanks and reveal just how twisted was the relationship he was intent on pursuing.
Since Arthur is big on fact checking, here are some that he conveniently omitted.
First, I told him very directly that I didn’t want him posting on my blog. He claimed that I was afraid of negative comments and I clearly stated and reiterated that is simply was HIM. I hated him and thought he was toxic. But still he returned and I deleted, as I had promised, and he continued whining and complaining as expected.
One would think that being told he wasn’t wanted is enough to keep him out of the neighborhood, but he kept returning and I kept deleting.
After a few months of blessed absence, he returned. Instead of deleting him, this time I had hoped to discourage him by editing his comments in a way that made it seem like he agreed with me.
Did this do the job? Nope. He whined, complained, called me a coward and made an issue of it on the other common site we both belong to, making enough of a mess there that he was given a cyber injuction by the moderators to keep his petty fight with me out of their forums.
Do one see a sickness in this? I do, and as you rightly point out, Matthew, it’s being made manifest right here. This sad man is addicted … to himself and … to me. Mention my name, and he’ll be there.
Of course, it’s unfair to talk about Arthur without first getting a full psychiatric work-up, but personally I’ve seen enough to lock my doors and give him very wide berth on the street.
Thanks for the opportunity to reply. I hope it clears things up a bit.
Oh, I checked the post count. It’s now over eleven thousand posts since his join date of October 2004, which averages out to about eight and one half posts per day — on that site alone. He links to many other sites in his posts there, so I’d say his computer is his life.
JohnB of Bonilogue.com
Dear JohnB, thanks for writing.
I guess I should thank you for your post, except it has had the effect of making me feel even more sorry for Arthur. Although “sorry for” may not be the proper phrase at this point.
His behavior goes way beyond what your blog postings indicated. This truly is the behavior of an obsessive with extremely low self-esteem.
It’s one thing to get into a flame war with someone on a forum. It is quite another to follow an individual to another forum, be told he isn’t wanted there (and is hated and toxic), only to repeatedly return and be repeatedly told he (still) isn’t wanted there.
But to then return to the original forum and make such an ass of himself that he is reprimanded there are the actions of a deranged individual.
And now, like a vampire invited into a home, Arthur now blesses this blog. Lucky for me. I’ve never had a theory actually be proven on the same page that it was originally postulated on.
Eleven thousand posts, whether over a 4-year period or longer, is problematic. What we see here is behavior in which an individual projects his psyche onto a machine and, further, into a virtual world where social mores are not reflective of reality.
Arthur’s energy, which appears to be all raw rage generated by low self-esteem and an overall feeling of powerlessness, literally flows into and out of the computer. His behavior, which would never be acceptable in the real world and earn him solid beatings and cause him to be rightly ostracized, becomes acceptable in a virtual world where he has nothing physical at risk.
However, as more than one psychiatrist has pointed out, the incessant interaction with the virtual voices of cyberspace can become addicting to those who are socially retarded. In cyberspace, at least they are being listened to and, in your case, rightly mocked.
Arthur, I’ll try this one more time. I would advise you to unplug your computer and not post anywhere for a period of three months. I would also recommend some psychiatric counseling to break your addiction. For no other reason, I 100% guarantee that your quality of life will improve. I certainly believe that your incessant need to respond to the posts of other people will vanish when you realize you are engaged in a fruitless endeavor.
>>I’m not sure why you classify this article as a “bizarre screed”.
It’s bizarre in that it takes some unconfirmed information – Boni’s version of the story (and we’re talking about a guy here who actually edits the posts of people who disagree with him to make it look like they completely agree with him, so we’re not talking about an impressively high bar of integrity here)- and disguises itself at a supposedly insightful bigger lesson (“Posting too much on message boards is bad for you”…or something), when in fact it’s actually just an excuse to hurl unprovoked insults at me, whom you don’t even know. That’s how.
>>The article, even without using you as an example, is about a much grander lesson that appears to be lost on you (although ironically and luckily for my readers, you turned up).
Except that since a lot of it is wrong, it’s an empty lesson.
>>The point which I made very clearly is that, in my opinion, a person who runs from one internet forum to another and now to another (this one) chasing down what people say about you (especially when you are not identified with anything other than a first name) is not time well spent.
Yeah, that’s really not a good point, especially since I don’t “run from one internet forum to another,” the way Boni has led you to believe. The writers’ blog is a window I keep open while I’m at the computer because it’s a great source of, among other things: advice, information about events, camaradarie, laughs, friendship, industry networking, and the occasional opportunity to mow down right-wing lies and blather. Some people there also link to their own blogs. Boni is one of them. I started visiting his site because I was morbidly curious if he was just as intellectually dishonest and bone-headed there as he was on our board. And oh, how my expectations were wonderfully surpassed.
As far as how I found THIS one…um…Boni linked to it, so it’s not like it took a lot of sleuthing on my part. The reality of the situation is that Boni is engaging in nasty smear tactics against someone he doesn’t even know…and you’re helping him. Congrats. (Incidentally, much of what he says above is false as well. Do you care? Guessing not.)
>>The article encourages people who engage in such obsessive behavior to change.
Except as you said above, you don’t care whether or not Boni’s version of the story, which falsely paints me as an “obsessive” because I visited his blog and posted a few rebuttals there, was factual. So you’re basing your entire stupid premise on what is, in fact, just a bunch of lies and half-truths that Boni spewed forth on his blog one day because he didn’t like my attacks on his arguemnts, so he went the cowardly route and attacked me personally.
>>Of what possible value is there to run around wasting precious time on such silly things?
We agree that Bonilogue is a waste of time. And since it only has about three visitors in total, it’s a far bigger waste of John’s time than mine.
>>Permit me to ask: what do you hope to achieve by this?
In this particular case? I was (and am) informing you that you accepted a bunch of lies as gospel, and then based a column on it. Call it a favor, offering some advice for the future: It makes you look like a shithead. Thank me later.
>>On the other hand, the idea that you are now here perpetuating this behavior only serves to drive home my point that much more to my readers.
I see. Writing an entire column named “Can a Cyberstalker be Sad?” in which almost all the “facts” are wrong, and thus the entire premise is based on fiction, is not silly, but telling the person who wrote it how un-factual their story is…that’s silly. Got it.
>>Posting 10,000 times on any internet board (and I don’t care over how many years it is) is too much, period. And it does absolutely nothing for the human body except wear it down little by little.
Well, see, here’s where you reveal that you don’t know what you’re talking about. As John ALMOST got right, it comes out to an average of less than 8 posts per day. Some of those posts are one word long, like “Bump.” Some of them are just a link or a picture. Some of them are a one-line quip or a couple movie titles. These take about a few seconds each. Even adding in the time it takes to read what leads to the posting, it only adds up to an average of a few minutes each post. On average, I spend more time at the gym, so make fun of me for being a health nut, why don’t you.
As for what good they do…Well, let’s see…I’ve made a whole bunch of smart, witty and wonderful friends (online and off), I’ve learned a lot, I’ve sharpened my reading, writing, and research skills, I’ve gotten countless pieces of advice and recommendations for films, books, travel and events, enabled a whole lot of other friendships via the events I’ve organized, met one woman who is now the partner of my best friend and mother of their two children, gotten feedback on my scripts and enabled others to exchange feedback on theirs, and yes, I’ve even gotten writing jobs resulting from the relationships I’ve made as a result of my posts. Without getting into too much detail, I can tell you that one writing job alone I got from there has paid for a year’s worth of my rent.
So your premise that I’m just wasting my time with all these posts, even WITHOUT all the Boni lies, really doesn’t hold a drop of water. Nice try, though!
>>The behavior exhibited is obsessive and regrettably does fit the definition of “cyberstalking”.
Right, okay. In response to a couple rebuttal posts of mine at his blog (which he ENCOURAGED us to go to by linking to it), and a couple comments on his blog at our writers board, John posts this long screed (actually, TWO, if I’m not mistaken) that consists almost entirely of insults and lies about me (he even scoured the web to find a photo of me that he could ridicule), then not being satisfied with that, feeds the “story” to you to take up where he left off, and then when I respond, he comments on THAT (with still MORE lies)…and I’M the “cyberstalker.”
Whatever, man. But here’s the one thing I WILL agree with you on: It indeed is a poor use of time to post at Bonilogue, considering that John deletes or edits any comments he doesn’t like (no problem with that, I take it, Matt? Putting people’s names on words they’ve never said and actually said the OPPOSITE of?), so I have indeed taken the advice of everyone at the writers board, which is that I should stop posting there, because life is too short to waste on sleazy, cowardly assholes like Boni.
And, apparently, you.
I’m done here.
Best,
A
Dear Arthur:
I’d like to first thank you for what can only be characterized as an truly paranoid and insane post, littered with personal insults and a defensive tone.
When I place the coherence of Mr. Boni’s posts up against the deranged ravings you’ve posted above, I am quite convinced that it is Mr. Boni who speaks the truth for, as Shakespeare noted, “the lady doth protest too much”.
The steadfast refusal on your own part to see your own failings, and the addiction to which you’ve succumbed, serves only to demonstrate the depth of your psychological dementia. This is highly regrettable.
The inability to take responsibility for your own actions is also troubling. Mr. Boni did not force you to visit his forum repeatedly, even after being told to go away repeatedly. And while you accuse Mr. Boni of wasting time on a blog with “three visitors”, it follows that your repeated unwelcome visits would indeed constitute the very sad waste of time you deny you are engaging in.
Further, Arthur, nobody forced you click on the link Mr. Boni has graciously provided on his blog. You did it yourself. I don’t buy you being “morbidly curious”. The truth, which you really must accept, is that you cannot fathom the possibility that somebody, somewhere is talking about you. In fact, I’ve made another post about you somewhere on the internet. Let me know when you find it, as I’m sure you’ll spend an appropriately obsessive time searching for it.
An “average of a few minutes per post” (say, 3) on 11,000 posts adds up to 22 full days, or 66 working days, or 3 months of your life….gone. And I am also loathe to believe it’s only a few minutes, as the post above likely took much longer.
I am somewhat pleased that you have made some “friends” on your writer’s board. On the other hand, they are virtual “friends”, and I am now partly convinced that they don’t even exist. I certainly don’t believe you got a writing job off of this board, as I don’t think anyone in their right mind could read your obsessive-paranoid posts and give such a loose cannon employment.
Again, I implore you to stop deluding yourself. You are indeed the cyberstalker, running around the internet, clicking on links that might somehow make mention of you.
It’s a filthy, soul-sucking addiction you have, Arthur. You need to just let it go.
The first step in addiction recovery is to admit you have a problem. You do, Arthur, and it’s time to get help. Serious help.
Artie, your posts are so long and dreary that I’m going back to my stone, and I won’t let you pull me out.
You were born about ten thousand posts ago
But there’s nothing in this world that you can know
Do go out and get a life
Cease engaging in this strife
And perhaps you will stop cutting off your nose.
welcome to the land of fruit loops.
ladies and germs, let’s give it up for the king of crazy….arthur!
Leave A Reply