When the Bullies Turned Faceless
Monty Solomon
When the Bullies Turned Faceless
By CHRISTOPHER MAAG
The New York Times
December 16, 2007
DARDENNE PRAIRIE, Mo.
LIKE most mobs, the one that pursued Megan Meier was cruel and
unrelenting. Its members gathered on the social networking site
MySpace and called Megan a liar, a fat whore and worse.
Megan, 13, fought back, insulting her tormenters with every profanity
she knew. But the mob shouted her down, overwhelming her computer and
her shaky self-confidence with a barrage of hateful instant messages.
"Mom, they're being horrible!" Megan said, sobbing into the phone
when her mother called. After an hour, Megan ran into her bedroom and
hanged herself with a belt.
"She felt there was no way out," Ms. Meier said.
Megan Meier's suicide made headlines because she was the victim of a
hoax. Lori Drew, another mother in the neighborhood, said in a police
report that she had created a MySpace profile of a boy, an invention
named "Josh Evans," and that she and her daughter had manipulated
Megan into thinking that this fabricated person liked her.
Then, after a few weeks, Ms. Meier said, girls posing as Josh wrote
MySpace messages telling Megan that he hated her. He insulted her,
and other girls - most unaware that Josh did not exist - viciously
piled on. (Later, through her lawyer, Ms. Drew, 48, denied knowing
about the hoax.)
In some ways, the hoax was a tragic oddity. Most mothers don't pull
vicious pranks, and few harassed adolescents become depressed and
commit suicide. But Megan's story is also a case study about
cyberbullying.
Cellphone cameras and text messages, as well as social networking Web
sites, e-mail and instant messaging, all give teenagers a wider range
of ways to play tricks on one another, to tease and to intimidate
their peers.
And unlike traditional bullying, which usually is an intimate, if
highly unpleasant, experience, high-tech bullying can happen
anywhere, anytime, among lots of different children who may never
actually meet in person. It is inescapable and often anonymous, said
sociologists and educators who have studied cyberbullying.
Even in this town, where Megan's name is a constant reminder of the
danger of the Web, adolescents say they love using the technology -
and some do a little bullying of their own.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/fashion/16meangirls.html?ex=1355461200&en=a54fa0bcbabb0f26&ei=5090
danny burstein
[snip]
>When the Bullies Turned Faceless
>"Mom, they're being horrible!" Megan said, sobbing into the phone
>when her mother called. After an hour, Megan ran into her bedroom and
>hanged herself with a belt.
>"She felt there was no way out," Ms. Meier said.
Sure there was. She could have simply _not_ read
the msgs, turned off the computer, logged into
different locations, etc., etc.
And if she didn't know that, her mother could have
shown it to her.
These assholes weren't on her doorstep yelling
obscenities. They were virtuals.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
***** Moderator's Note *****
As adults, you and I know that we can (and must) assign different
values to the things said by different people: strangers don't get the
same privileges as family, and our boss' orders have more weight than
requests from cow-orkers. A Thirteen-year-old hasn't had enough of
life's experiences to understand that.
The children growing up now are the first generation in history to
come of age while using electronic communication on a daily basis, and
the text messages, cell calls, IM screens and social websites are so
much a part of middle-class students' life that I feel they are hard
pressed to tell the difference between TV and reality, let alone the
difference between fraud committed by an adult and the jeers of other
teenagers.
Whether her mother could or should have intervened is a moot point:
she is dead, and the only way to honor her memory is to do what we can
to see that it doesn't happen to others, both in the short and the
longer term.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
mc
I think, in the long run, the Internet is going to have to abandon the idea
of universal anonymity. Communications are going to have to be
authenticated. There can still be anonymity when a third party is willing
to do the anonymizing and to retain the ability to unmask people who turn
abusive.
T
lo...@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address says...
I think the genie has been out of the bottle for so long that it's going
to be near impossible to put it back in.
For every shield or protection someone has put out there, someone has
come up with a way to get around it.
Prime example is BugMeNot. No more annoy-o-registers on most news sites
now. In the login field I just right click and say "Log in with
BugMeNot". 90% of the time it works just fine.
mc
news:20071217202...@massis.lcs.mit.edu...
>>"Mom, they're being horrible!" Megan said, sobbing into the phone
>>when her mother called. After an hour, Megan ran into her bedroom and
>>hanged herself with a belt.
>
>>"She felt there was no way out," Ms. Meier said.
>
> Sure there was. She could have simply _not_ read
> the msgs, turned off the computer, logged into
> different locations, etc., etc.
>
> And if she didn't know that, her mother could have
> shown it to her.
>
> These assholes weren't on her doorstep yelling
> obscenities. They were virtuals.
That's just the sort of thing I've heard bullies say to defend their
practices.
I've done a lot of work on teaching computer ethics to the whole population
of a large university, and one thing I find is that some people are
convinced the Internet is all just a pretending game, while most of the
others see the Internet as part of real life. The first kind tend to pick on
the second. They feel that they're not "really" hurting a "real" person.
To which I reply that real people are the only kind we've got. Every
interpersonal interaction on the net has real people on both ends of it,
whether or not you know their real names and attributes.
And as for "simply not reading" the unwanted message, that's what the
defenders of spam used to say all the time -- "Just use your delete key if
you don't want to read it." When harassing messages are involved, refusing
to read them is indeed a great way to drive the perpetrator batty, but it
may not be satisfactory for two reasons: (1) The sender may well harass you
through other channels if deprived of this one; you may want to keep an eye
on your enemy! (2) If the messages are in a forum, they're still affecting
other people's perception of you, and thus damaging you by slander.
In short, "they're not real people" and "just use the delete key" are two
exhortations that I've found to be associated with what I call the Video
Game Illusion. See:
http://www.ai.uga.edu/mc/desethic.pdf
REAL PEOPLE drove a REAL PERSON to suicide here. Arguably, with better
support from others, she wouldn't have killed herself, but the fact remains
that real people intended to make her miserable, and succeeded. The fact
that computers were the communication channel doesn't make the actions
innocent.
The other thing bullies do, of course, is tell us all to develop a thicker
skin so they can go on imagining that their bullying is an innocent game and
it's the victim's fault if the victim is offended.
David Quinton
<mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
>
>When the Bullies Turned Faceless
>
>By CHRISTOPHER MAAG
>The New York Times
>December 16, 2007
as reported, somewhat less hysterically, here in the UK more than 3
weeks ago:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2216675,00.html>
Mark Crispin
>> These assholes weren't on her doorstep yelling
>> obscenities. They were virtuals.
> That's just the sort of thing I've heard bullies say to defend their
> practices.
> skin so they can go on imagining that their bullying is an innocent game and
> it's the victim's fault if the victim is offended.
The third thing that bullies do is choose victims that they perceive to
have no effective means of retaliation. A favorite tactic is to torment
the victim into lashing out visibly, but ineffectively; so that the victim
gets punished for...you guessed it, "bullying".
Recent events have shown that these perceptions can be tragically wrong if
their tormented victim chooses a form of suicide that includes mass (and
indiscriminate) retaliation.
Sadly, both parents and schools are inadequately attentive to the problem;
they sometimes even act as enablers. Nor is it specific to the USA; in
fact, it is much worst in countries (such as Japan) where intense
competition begins at primary school.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Steven Lichter
one person would push me around, I had friends on the football team so I
had some help. I for the most part ignored him. A few years later I
became a Reserve Sheriff and had the luck of pulling this person over at
a traffic stop, not knowing it was the person who had given me a bad
time until a shot time later; When we ran his id he was wanted on a
number of crimes; kidnapping, rape we the worst. I had the pleasure of
arresting him and also reminded him what he had done to me in school.
He is still in prison and will never be getting out until he is carried
out in a box. Something just come to people who wait.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2007 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
mc
"Mark Crispin" <M...@cac.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:alpine.WNT.1.00.0...@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU...
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, mc posted:
>>> These assholes weren't on her doorstep yelling
>>> obscenities. They were virtuals.
>> That's just the sort of thing I've heard bullies say to defend their
>> practices.
>> The other thing bullies do, of course, is tell us all to develop a
>> thicker
>> skin so they can go on imagining that their bullying is an innocent game
>> and
>> it's the victim's fault if the victim is offended.
>
> The third thing that bullies do is choose victims that they perceive to
> have no effective means of retaliation. A favorite tactic is to torment
> the victim into lashing out visibly, but ineffectively; so that the victim
> gets punished for...you guessed it, "bullying".
Well said. This happens on every playground -- the one who gets punished
for fighting is not the one who actually wanted the fight to occur.
Fred Atkinson
<lo...@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote:
>> The third thing that bullies do is choose victims that they perceive to
>> have no effective means of retaliation. A favorite tactic is to torment
>> the victim into lashing out visibly, but ineffectively; so that the victim
>> gets punished for...you guessed it, "bullying".
>
>Well said. This happens on every playground -- the one who gets punished
>for fighting is not the one who actually wanted the fight to occur.
I have to agree. When the victim defends himself in the
school system, the victim is usually punished as well. This is
because the schools are too scared of lawsuits, even friviolous ones.
When I was in high school, I was a school bus driver (back
then in some states, the students drove the school buses). I was
seriously assaulted by three students (at least one of them should
have already graduated, if you understand what I mean).
The school was afraid to do anything to them. They told us
that to our faces when my father went down to the school and warned
them that if another hand was laid on me that he was going to swear
out a warrant for their arrest. But they relayed that message to the
perpetrators.
No thanks to the school system, they never laid another hand
on me.
Regards,
Fred Atkinson
Fred Atkinson
<M...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
>The third thing that bullies do is choose victims that they perceive to
>have no effective means of retaliation. A favorite tactic is to torment
>the victim into lashing out visibly, but ineffectively; so that the victim
>gets punished for...you guessed it, "bullying".
>
>Recent events have shown that these perceptions can be tragically wrong if
>their tormented victim chooses a form of suicide that includes mass (and
>indiscriminate) retaliation.
>
>Sadly, both parents and schools are inadequately attentive to the problem;
>they sometimes even act as enablers. Nor is it specific to the USA; in
>fact, it is much worst in countries (such as Japan) where intense
>competition begins at primary school.
This is true.
But often, simply standing up to them is enough to end it.
Nine out of ten will back down if they think they are really going to
have to fight you. The tenth one is a chance you have to take unless
you are content to be bullied.
Other times, it is much more serious.
Fred
mc
news:2bjom3pio59q7uc3k...@4ax.com...
> But often, simply standing up to [school bullies] is enough to end it.
> Nine out of ten will back down if they think they are really going to
> have to fight you. The tenth one is a chance you have to take unless
> you are content to be bullied.
Other successful tactics:
My own: Get the audience (preferably including girls) to laugh at them.
Another: Act weird. Quack like a duck. Flail your arms. Feign a seizure.
Convince them you've gone crazy. I know a short but intelligent man who
used this to good effect in high school. All the bullies were afraid of
him.
But mainly, we need to eradicate the notion that bullying is ever tolerable
or is a "normal part of growing up."
John Mayson
>>
> Some years ago, more then 40 to be exact, while I was in High School, one
> person would push me around, I had friends on the football team so I had some
> help. I for the most part ignored him. A few years later I became a Reserve
> Sheriff and had the luck of pulling this person over at a traffic stop, not
> knowing it was the person who had given me a bad time until a shot time
> later; When we ran his id he was wanted on a number of crimes; kidnapping,
> rape we the worst. I had the pleasure of arresting him and also reminded him
> what he had done to me in school. He is still in prison and will never be
> getting out until he is carried out in a box. Something just come to people
> who wait.
In junior high and high school I tended to be in the AP (advanced
placement) classes. However not every subject was offered in AP meaning
early on one of my science classes had 40+ kids with lots of jocks, kids
from the wrong side of the tracks, and studious kids like myself.
One guy, a "less than studious" type, went to a friend of mine and asked
him for his answers for a homework assignment. My friend immediately went
to the teacher and reported him which got my friend slapped around a bit
in the bathroom (saying he was beaten up would be exaggerating). A few
days later a lineman from our football team asked me for my answers. I
said, "Well, the answer is 20 joules, but let me show you how to do it."
He was amazed I took the time to help him.
Junior high became high school and he would come to me from time to time
for help with his homework even though we had no classes together. During
my junior year the captain of my cross country "stole" the girlfriend from
the football team's quarterback. We were in the lockerroom and were
surrounded by the quarterback and various other players who started a
fight not only with our captain, but us as well. Just as quickly as it
started I saw football players flying through the air. It was the lineman
I had befriended with other linemen who told the QB he was leave us alone
and if he didn't then he might just miss a key block in the next game.
I went to junior high and high school in the 1980's. I have heard horror
stories from others in that era about bullying. I honestly can't remember
a case where I felt bullied. I think the way you approach bullies is key
how they will treat you. I also really didn't care what people thought of
me, so picking on me wasn't very fun. I just shrugged and walked on.
But I can think of a few people it'd be fun to get to arrest and send to
prison for life. :-)
John
--
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
John Mayson
>
> I've done a lot of work on teaching computer ethics to the whole population
> of a large university, and one thing I find is that some people are
> convinced the Internet is all just a pretending game, while most of the
> others see the Internet as part of real life. The first kind tend to pick on
> the second. They feel that they're not "really" hurting a "real" person.
This is actually something I've had to remind other adults of. You might
be mad and you might be tempted to fire off an angry email, but there is a
human being who had nothing to do with your bad experience on the other
end of that email. If you lash out and attack that person you probably
will not get your issue resolved the same way if you respectfully lay out
your complaint.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
a number of very excellent points.
> To which I reply that real people are the only kind we've got. Every
> interpersonal interaction on the net has real people on both ends of it,
> whether or not you know their real names and attributes.
Good point. On the rec.arts.tv newsgroup there is some very nasty
celebrity gossip and name calling. I tend to doubt that celebrities
bother reading Usenet, but that stuff, throw in the subject line, is
awfully vitriolic. The originators of such posts make no apologies
for it and laugh from the safety of internet anonymity.
> And as for "simply not reading" the unwanted message, that's what the
> defenders of spam used to say all the time -- "Just use your delete key if
> you don't want to read it." When harassing messages are involved, refusing
> to read them is indeed a great way to drive the perpetrator batty, but it
> may not be satisfactory for two reasons: (1) The sender may well harass you
> through other channels if deprived of this one; you may want to keep an eye
> on your enemy! (2) If the messages are in a forum, they're still affecting
> other people's perception of you, and thus damaging you by slander.
Very important point. Nasty messages can be placed in the subject
line of email or on forums so they're still seen even if the recipient
wants to delete them.
Society also plays a role in encouraging bullying. TV shows regularly
characterize characters as either cool and desirable, or nerdy/geeky
and undesirable. Of course the stars of show are always the most
attractive and poised with the greatest clothes. In most shows, it's
perfectly ok to dump on the nerd/geeks, not to want to have anything
to do with them and portrayed them as such.
My impression that among kids today the pressure to be "cool" and
stylish is worse than ever. Girls have to have exactly the right
amount of sexiness, too little means they're bland/BORING, too much
and they're a slut. Boys must be studs/jocks.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Sure there was. She could have simply _not_ read
> the msgs, turned off the computer, logged into
> different locations, etc., etc.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. To function today, people MUST read
their emails and participate in certain forums; school assignments and
the like are often communicated in that manner. One just can't walk
away from their computer.
Nasty insults are often sent in the SUBJECT line of emails and forum
posts. That means the victim cannot escape from seeing them, even if
they don't bother opening the detail; the subject line has it all.
In addition, it's very unfair to expect the victim to change their
lifestyle and give up something. Shouldn't the bully be the one
compelled to modify behavior?
mc
news:1a47c5a6-d64d-4daa...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
> In addition, it's very unfair to expect the victim to change their
> lifestyle and give up something. Shouldn't the bully be the one
> compelled to modify behavior?
WELL SAID! And we've been through the same thing regarding computer
breakins ("you deserve to be broken into if you don't have the latest and
greatest security measures"), spam ("you should sign up with a spam
filter"), and to some extent even the Do-Not-Call List shows this
misconception, since it requires a special action on the part of people who
want to avoid being victims.
In a civilized society, the strong protect the weak. On a "frontier," only
the strong are safe. On this particular frontier, we seem to have too many
locksmiths and no sheriffs.
Mark Crispin
> In a civilized society, the strong protect the weak. On a "frontier," only
> the strong are safe. On this particular frontier, we seem to have too many
> locksmiths and no sheriffs.
Interestingly, the historicial frontiers were actually quite peaceable
places.
When the Washington Post defended Washington DC's gun ban by stating that
Washington DC "is not Dodge City in the 1800s", firearms enthusiasts
gleefully pointed out that during Dodge City's "wild west" heyday of
1876-1885, Dodge City had a total of 15 homicides, with the worst year
being 1878 when 5 people were murdered. Washington DC, by contrast, had
169 homicides in 2006.
The reason is simple. Life on the frontier was dangerous, and required a
great deal of cooperation. Far from being the mythical "rugged
individualists" who survived alone, settlers on the frontiers were
completely interdependent, not only on each other, but also on the local
indigenous people.
What we have on the Internet today is not a frontier but rather anarchy.
Some of us are once bitterly resented DARPA's (and later DCA's) control of
the network during the 1970s and 1980s have come to rue the fact that we
got exactly what we demanded: anarchy.
Sadly, when law and order is ultimately re-established on the Internet,
the military dictatorship of the past will look like a model of
benevolence by comparison. All we have to do is look at the players
screaming the loudest about "Internet governance" to see what horrors the
future will bring.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> In a civilized society, the strong protect the weak. On a "frontier," only
> the strong are safe. On this particular frontier, we seem to have too many
> locksmiths and no sheriffs.
Very true.
In the ealry days of the public Internet (as opposed to when it was
restricted to a select community), advocates were strong on
"openness". They figured it would all work out on its own. Sit
around and sing Kumbayah.
What naivety! What stupidity! The minute computers got terminals and
log ons, hackers arose to break in; this was back in the 1960s. Also,
as we well know. pioneer hackers were using Blue Boxes to break into
the Bell System network. The moment the Internet left the select
community hackers, pornographers, and others jumped in.
The moment the Internet went public proper authentication controls
should have made an integral part of it. Communications should not
have been accepted without meeting such protocols.
Today, there are vested interests against tight controls. Businesses
like the ease of e-commerce and don't want to encumber consumers with
tougher log-ons and checks.
But that makes one wonder who eats the cost of fraud? Do the credit
card companies write it off?
Another issue is hacking, fraud, theft, and viruses originating from
foreign countries, such as Russia and other former Soviet block
units. Why don't they just embargo such countries until they get
their act together?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> When the Washington Post defended Washington DC's gun ban by stating that
> Washington DC "is not Dodge City in the 1800s", firearms enthusiasts
> gleefully pointed out that during Dodge City's "wild west" heyday of
> 1876-1885, Dodge City had a total of 15 homicides, with the worst year
> being 1878 when 5 people were murdered.
I would question such statistics of the "wild west" in that I suspect
many shootings were not classified as "homicide", but perhaps self-
defense or not classified at all. I also can't help that some
homicides, perhaps grudge satisfactions, were written off as self-
defense depending on the influence of the shooter.
When someone pulls a gun on you, it's pretty hard to pull your own gun
because the bandit will shoot you before you get it out. There's a
reason they say and expect "hands up!". Accordingly, I'm not sure how
owning guns helped defend a home that much. As you put it,
organization helped defend people, not individual action.
Further, Dodge City was an organized city. Some of the problems of
the "wild west" occured in smaller communities where there was limited
law enforcement and outlaws could overpower locals.
> What we have on the Internet today is not a frontier but rather anarchy.
> Some of us are once bitterly resented DARPA's (and later DCA's) control of
> the network during the 1970s and 1980s have come to rue the fact that we
> got exactly what we demanded: anarchy.
Very true.
> Sadly, when law and order is ultimately re-established on the Internet,
> the military dictatorship of the past will look like a model of
> benevolence by comparison. All we have to do is look at the players
> screaming the loudest about "Internet governance" to see what horrors the
> future will bring.
Exactly who are those "players" ? What military dictatorship?
I, as a private individual, want to see an end of the anarchy so I
could freely surf the net without worrying that some innocent looking
site is actually host of a malicious virus or spyware, or do business
on the 'net without worrying that the site is a fraud.
Scott Dorsey
>
>In the ealry days of the public Internet (as opposed to when it was
>restricted to a select community), advocates were strong on
>"openness". They figured it would all work out on its own. Sit
>around and sing Kumbayah.
And for the mos part it worked.
>What naivety! What stupidity! The minute computers got terminals and
>log ons, hackers arose to break in; this was back in the 1960s. Also,
>as we well know. pioneer hackers were using Blue Boxes to break into
>the Bell System network. The moment the Internet left the select
>community hackers, pornographers, and others jumped in.
And for the most part, the hackers were welcomed and accepted. The notion
of wanting to explore the network was generally approved of, and most folks
left guest accounts for people who wanted to explore.
>The moment the Internet went public proper authentication controls
>should have made an integral part of it. Communications should not
>have been accepted without meeting such protocols.
Then it wouldn't have been the internet any more. The internet was never
intended for what it got used for.
You see, while the network had no problem culturally integrating hackers,
the notion that it would have to deal with advertisers and marketing people
was totally foreign, and THOSE folks were not well-integrated at all.
>Another issue is hacking, fraud, theft, and viruses originating from
>foreign countries, such as Russia and other former Soviet block
>units. Why don't they just embargo such countries until they get
>their act together?
Lots of folks do. For example, at work we don't accept any e-mail from
Korea because of the amount of spam originating there. Telecom content?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
***** Moderator's Note *****
On re-reading, I realize that I don't agree with Ms. Hancock's
original logic. The pheapers who explored AT&T's LD network weren't
_altering_ the basic functions of the network, they were using it for
things that it's administrator's didn't _like_.
Computer hackers, OTOH, are much more likely to repurpose the machines
they crack, turning a website into a secret IRC server, etc.
This seems a very subtle difference, I know, but I'm in a mood to
split hairs.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
mc
news:20071227162...@massis.lcs.mit.edu...
> On re-reading, I realize that I don't agree with Ms. Hancock's
> original logic. The pheapers who explored AT&T's LD network weren't
> _altering_ the basic functions of the network, they were using it for
> things that it's administrator's didn't _like_.
>
> Computer hackers, OTOH, are much more likely to repurpose the machines
> they crack, turning a website into a secret IRC server, etc.
>
> This seems a very subtle difference, I know, but I'm in a mood to
> split hairs.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
Back in the 1990s, I had to say that to every 15-year old "eleet hacker" who
got caught breaking into our computers: We DON'T KNOW whether you're benign
or malicious; a substantial proportion of crackers are malicious (and they
all claim to be benign); so we have to do a lot of tedious clean-up after
you even if you're benign; and that's why we don't tolerate "benign"
break-ins.
T
fatk...@mishmash.com says...
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:18:13 -0500 (EST), Mark Crispin
> <M...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> >The third thing that bullies do is choose victims that they perceive to
> >have no effective means of retaliation. A favorite tactic is to torment
> >the victim into lashing out visibly, but ineffectively; so that the victim
> >gets punished for...you guessed it, "bullying".
> >
> >Recent events have shown that these perceptions can be tragically wrong if
> >their tormented victim chooses a form of suicide that includes mass (and
> >indiscriminate) retaliation.
> >
> >Sadly, both parents and schools are inadequately attentive to the problem;
> >they sometimes even act as enablers. Nor is it specific to the USA; in
> >fact, it is much worst in countries (such as Japan) where intense
> >competition begins at primary school.
>
> This is true.
>
> Nine out of ten will back down if they think they are really going to
> have to fight you. The tenth one is a chance you have to take unless
> you are content to be bullied.
>
>
I remember in 3rd grade there was a kid who used to bug the hell out of
me, try to start fights, etc.
One day after school I cornered him, grabbed him by the neck and started
slamming his head against a brick wall.
He survived but never bothered me again. Nor did anyone else. Sometimes
you have to set the expectations first.
***** Moderator's Note *****
On that note, I'll close the "Bullies" thread.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator