OK. I appreciate the thoughtful response.
Here are a couple of points that I am standing on.
1) I made several public statements on these threads declaring my intentions to refrain from flaming others as an um...growth goal. I also made public apologies to anyone whom I may have offended by past practices. I have been tested maybe intentionally, maybe not on the level of commitment I am willing to keep toward this goal. So, the bottom line, I can take it and I can dish it out; I choose not to. The point is once making that commitment, I established boundaries for my own engagement. I continue to have heated arguments over topics or issues but stop short of personal flaming or attacking behavior. Others can do what they want but I feel an obligation to stop my self at a certain point and to request that of others who are engaging me.
"You started using the h word after her first nasty post, not after her fourth."
I referenced a previous post from her inwhich she had expressed a strong desire not to talk to me. So, I did not consider this the first post. In addition I used the word "if." That is "if you do not want to talk to me, then, bla bla bla." She acknowleged the conditions and stated her position as being above the standard for not posting to someone who doesn't want you to. It was here that I declared emphatically that I did not want her to post to me. Of all the people on the thread who may have some inkling about this issue I guessed you would be the one who would fall on the extreme end of the opinion continuum. I was wrong but perhaps there is some conflict of interest.
..."in your position:"
..."for those who do not wish to linger in increasing pain with a terminal illness, I wish for them any end they desire- including assisted suicide. You will give death to criminals, but not to people who really want it- now isn't THAT ironic?..."
I would be very happy to begin a discussion at on this point. I was, in fact, in the middle of a pretty good one along these lines. But if there is no discussion allowed, this is just an annoying catapult of dung. I certainly have the right to ask that it be stopped without having my manhood be put into question. X states she can do what ever she wants and that I can do likewise. I was aware that JLA, Poet, and You however would be hard pressed not to take issue with me had I insisted on rebuttle with X, once her demand that I not talk to her was established. Poet noted that it had been established.
"Actual harassment. Protracted. Seemingly obsessional. Over dozens of posts and on more than one site. Carried on so persistently that the object of the 'attentions' becomes frightened. Referring to the fixated-on object's family. Sexual insinuations. Insinuations that the harasser is in possession of compromising personal material, and intimations that he will post material of a perhaps intimate nature in public in spite of denials that such exist."
This definitely seems to qualify. It is not, however, where everyone else draws the line.
"...and if you call the person back"...
In such cases a person has no valid claim unless they make a point to tell the aggressor to stop on each and every occassion. Ignoring does not establish an offence. Telling some one to stop and being over ridden does. A response of "stop" on the thread is not like a telephone call back in that this is more like an ongoing dialogue than one that is ended and restarted by telephone calls back and forth. The declarations by X that it will not stop adds another level, as does the use of offensive and belittling put downs.
"I do not defend X's posts to you after the one above, which you called, on this boxing ring thread, harassment."
Again the conditions were established prior to the post you refer to. If that doesn't help you, then remember that I made it clear to X that "if this is her venue then I want her to stop" other wise it is annoying and constitutes harassment. She her self qualified the "if/then" criteria in the subsequent posts.
"I'll show you harassment."
Don't bother. I was the first to publically declare a complete disengagement from that situation.
"I just don't think that exchange was a banning one. Especially on a Boxing Ring."
I don't ban people. I understand that X recieved a warning as did I. I am not privy to what happened beyond that but if X was banned it was for her behavior beyond the warning. |
