This is your rationalization from three months ago for the stalking:
Whatever Poet thinks about me, I still have fond memories of our past relationship, and any breach of that relationship is neither of my choice nor my desire. But I realize it takes two to have a relationship, and I have no interest in intruding or causing pain for their own sakes.
The post of Poet's that started all this, back about a month or so ago, made negative inferences about our young men in uniform, which I took personal exception to since (as Poet well knows) my son is serving proudly in the Air Force defending the rights of certain people to continue to think and write what they do.
Poet's request that I not respond to her posts is tantamount to her asking me, if she makes such a future post, not to respond to it. That I am unwilling to do.
Message 16675664
We now all know that Poet never made "negative inferences" about "our young men in uniform."
You have, therefore, other reasons for insisting on engaging this female. It is my impression and opinion that, based on the demonstrated speciousness of the above rationalization and its proximity to references to a "past relationship" a "breach" of which is not your "desire," and skin-crawly references to "intimate" or "personal" communications" that the other motivations are obsessional, and are sexual in nature.
It is the sexual frisson of your fixation, of your intrusive comments to and about Poet that, I am sure, is so repellent to her. Why can't you understand that? It simply creeps a woman out to have a man in whom she has no sexual interest whatever, and wants no "relationship" with, keep referring to an imagined one, acting as though there is one, and even making insinuating threats that he will post personal, private communications from the past. It is just soooooo creepy and so sick and so wrong to do, Christopher. I really do think you need counseling. |
