I think you are wrong in seeing it as punishment, except in the sense that he feels non-engagement with Poet to be punishment.
The situation before was that Poet was pretty much off of SI (and on IHub he was posting to and about her, too!)
He was begged to just do the same to-or-about that everyone else does with no problems at all because in their cases no fixations are involved.
He refused. So gallantry (and a sense of injustice) kicked in, and a thread that excluded not Poet, but CH, was created. He could come over there any time he wanted, if he would simply not engage her directly or indirectly, the way everyone else does.
You may not take posting allusions to and about purported intimate private communications and personal information you (purportedly) have from and about a woman to be impermissible behavior, but if punishment were to be the issue as opposed to simply letting everybody post together, with a [standard] to-or-about in effect, I would consider that caddish and punishment-worthy. It is certainly frightening, and would certainly make any woman who had at one time spoken to you as a friend want to flee. (The two posters who are banned there both alluded to private correspondence of a purportedly intimate nature, or tone, with an implication that it could be produced and posted publicly.) |
