You must not have been paying attention.
agree that you will each try to be more restrained in the future, and see if you can't put all the past charges and counter-charges to rest
There's one charge, with details. Here it is:
CH has cyberstalked Poet, that is, posted repeatedly to her both here and on her own "Poet's Corner" IHub thread in spite of her many entreaties that he desist; has driven her off SI for weeks at a time by refusing to leave her alone so that SI became emotionally costly to her; made alarming allusions to claimed cyber-intimacies; intimated that he might post them; alluded to a family situation using personal information; alluded to other personal issues he knows from PMs with the intimation he might make them public; and when SI stopped him with a standard toorabout restriction on both of them, threatened a suit so he could continue posting toorabout her.
You are suggesting the victim "be restrained in the future"? Excuse me? You are suggesting the victim "put all the... charges to rest?"
How about asking the obsessed perpetrator to stop posting to or about Poet? Would you do that, please? Include indirect engagement, all engagement, ask him to leave her alone, would you? TIA.
Maybe you could even suggest he apologize for the intimated threats, for the emotional upset he's caused her with his claims and intimations and intimated threats--that would be an auspicious step toward getting "a fresh start," I feel.
there is no practical or workable way to regulate by contract what one person says to another.
Of course there isn't! That's precisely why the only workable solution is the one that, until CH threatened to sue, was in effect, and which works, all the time, perfectly well, in cases in which no sexual fixation is involved:
It is known on SI, and to all those including me who have one in effect, as the "to or about" rule. And it's as easy as anything: Neither party posts to or about the other, or about the other's posts. Issues are not proscribed, but quoting or paraphrasing the other, that is, engaging the other, even through a third party, is proscribed.
This is neat, simple, and works. The party with whom I have such an arrangement has, as far as I've been aware, had no more trouble than I have in honoring the arrangement. I give him his space, he gives me mine, and never the twain shall meet, even indirectly. There has been not a single second of discomfiture or engagement from the minute of the toorabout reg, in a formerly extremely contentious relationship.
What's so hard about that? The proof that it's not hard is that everyone except CH finds it easy. If you're obsessed, you can't keep away. For CH, it's clearly about engagement with Poet. Engagement, at all costs.
This would be outrageous if it weren't comical:
Admit that the both of you have gone too far in this.
CH drives her off SI, former friends and allies of CH finally become so disconcerted by the unseemliness of his behavior and caddish allusions and intimations of threat that they try to broker a peace utilizing the SOP procedure, the toorabout reg, and guess what? Surprise! CH won't agree! Because... because... because...
Oh yes, I remember. Robust argument is his God.
And you have the nerve to ask POET to "admit" she has "gone too far in this"? What was "too far," leaving SI to escape engaging with him? Being horrified at his personal and caddish implications, allusions and threats? Being frightened that when he finally stopped following her from thread to thread due to the toorabout rule, he actually threatened to sue SI for the right to continue? It would sure scare me.
There is a bottom line situation here. If you can't understand why Poet feels alarm, distress and revulsion because of these unwelcome attentions, because of these violations and threatened violations of her privacy, by CH's going so far as to threaten a lawsuit so he can keep posting to her, then you won't comprehend what's going on. If you don't understand why she is profoundly upset that he won't simply agree to a STANDARD no posting to or about arrangement, then it seems fine to you to say the victim is as guilty as the persecutor.
Your suggestions are insulting to Poet and to the intelligence of everybody who has watched this situation unfold.
CH has scared Poet. He needs to back off, and to do that is simple, and works fine. Stop acting like it's complicated: No posting to or about each other. No posting directly or indirectly. No quoting, no paraphrasing. JUST LEAVE THE OTHER PERSON STRICTLY ALONE.
Then he'll be welcome on the thread his former friends created in an attempt to get him to come to his senses, and to protect his victim from his evident fixed determination to engage with her, if he can't directly, then indirectly. |
