I am writing about Munchausen by Internet

I doubt that this distinction will be relevant in your writing, but in case you run into it in your research, the formal diagnosis for this kind of behavior would be Factitious Disorder. The different names can make it confusing moving back and forth between medical sources and popular descriptions of the phenomenon. Munchausen is and informal/archaic name for a subtype of Factitious disorder that isn't necessarily the subtype most resembling these internet cases.

I'm sure that it's better for you to use the term Munchausen's because it's the term that has captured the public imagination, and everyone knows it is used metaphorically rather than formally, but if you decide to look for an expert opinion in MedLine or elsewhere you should also search for Factitious.

How much do I love the word factitious? Hugely. Factitious ... fictitious...factitious.

So would you say your love for the word is....gianormous?

I'm not really going that deep into what it is, I'm just talking about what happened. But thank you!

The nice thing about Munchausen by Internet is that nobody actually gets hurt, physically. (Plenty of feelings hurt, but no injury.)

On the internet, nobody knows you're not a cancer patient. (Until such time as you tell a really huge whopper, and get caught.)

I'm not really going that deep into what it is

Yeah, I'm just being a psychology geek. The relationship to the traditional diagnosis is interesting because, as Nutty says, faking illness or misfortune to gain attention and sympathy on the internet is much less likely to result in harm to the individual than faking illness to gain attention and sympathy from the medical community. Your invisible internet friends almost never do an exploratory surgery on you or prescribe drugs that interact badly with the drugs you are already taking or put you in the hospital so often that you lose your job. So if "Munchausen by internet" gives people the attention and support that they used to get from medical professionals, without the bad "side effects" of medical care, then people are better off with the new disorder.

Except to the extent that people spend monies on gifts/cards/flowers etc. for a cause that turns out to be a scam. And that it lessens the trust one has in his/her fellow fan.

I don't recall anything of exactly that sort happening in this community (at least not since I joined in 2001), but I've had it happen with an online "friend" whose [alleged] brother supposedly died. After a long lapse in contact he seemed to forget that he'd told me that and started referring to the brother in present tense again.

Did anybody else read Matt's posting, shiver, and say "We're due?"

I mean, none of you actually know, first-hand knowledge, that I was hospitalized in Feb. The only people who can prove it are me, the hubster, and the medical bills. (I was. See above re: medical bills.)

Did anybody else read Matt's posting, shiver, and say "We're due?"

See, I find this community far more personal, intimate, and yet vibrant than others I've seen. I think it fosters an inherent trust, and a respect of that trust, within its members that disallows the possibility. In addition, it seems like a large percentage know or have met at least one other member, which dilutes the online-only nature of a community in which a Munchausen by Internet situation would arise.