I don't necessarily agree with the start of your analysis, but I'll let that pass for the moment. Let's get to the heart of the issue.
It couldn't happen here because of your refusal to accept the resolution(s) proposed.
That is, I think, misleading. I was willing to accept a "to or about" on the terms as you laid them out earlier today. The problem was basically that Laz wanted me to agree not even to post about topics that Poet was actively involved in posting about. I assume he took that position after consultation with Poet, though since I don't have access to their PMs, I can't prove that.
You did an excellent job of laying out the understood meaning of to or about, and I have been willing to accept those all along. But Laz, presumably on instructions from Poet, wanted to go further than that. That, it seems to me, was an act of inequity.
I accepted it for a time because I felt there might be some use in demonstrating clearly to those who had been persuaded otherwise that I had no obsession with Poet, no need to post to or about her. So for several months I voluntarily demonstrated that those concerns were not valid. But that time has passed, and it is time for equity to return. |
