and that you not have to steer so clear of Poet that you cannot allude to substantive information or points she made, as long as the post is impersonal.
You just don't get it, I'm afraid.
Not a chance in a million years. Not in a billion years.
At least not if he'd done to me what CH has done to her, there wouldn't be. "Not to have to steer so clear of..."? Yes!-- to have to steer entirely, completely, clear of.
He has tormented her. Harassed her. For a long time. The sexual smell, innuendo, insinuation, of his posts to her, and about her, is strong. He continues to insist on referring to a "relationship." A "very strong" one. Her wishes about this mean nothing. They seem only to inflame him.
Do not forget his intentionally sadistic posts.
Even today, either from a subtle, cleverly implemented sadistic impulse or from being wildly insensitive to what is appropriate and would be reassuring at certain junctures, he posted in a way that let her know he was lurking on her thread.
You didn't even mention a retraction or an apology--yet his insinuations stand! Months of insinuation stand, unproven yet unretracted!
And you didn't mention IHub, where he lurks. Oh yes, I forgot: he just liked the nice quote he picked up on her thread! Why is he hanging out on her thread, given her stalking fear-- and letting her see that he is?
If I were Poet, I would accept an agreement if CH, who has behaved sadistically and dishonestly
1) acknowledged that there is nothing under the ice to justify his treatment of her-- either that or post her pm's or em's that justify it, and let us judge.
2) apologized for the distress inflicted on me and on my husband.
3) apologized to my husband for posting this after he asked me to leave his wife alone:
"Did you see, Poet, that E claimed that we have no relationship? How wrong she is.
We've had a relationship for years, now, and we still have one.
Sometimes it's been very strong, sometimes it's been a bit strained, sometimes it's been rocky..." (How do you think Poet's husband felt about this?)
4) agreed never to post to or about her OR about any point she makes. None. Ever. Not to quote her, not to speak to her points directly or indirectly. To stay away. Far away. Talk to others only, about other things.
5) IHub to be included. Mars to be included. Everyplace and anyplace to be included.
However, I don't believe that Poet will accept the above. She avoids even DAR because he goes there.
I don't believe Laz will inflict on her CH's ability to do what you propose, "not have to steer so clear of Poet that you cannot allude to substantive information or points she made, as long as the post is impersonal."
Because CH has been proven to be profoundly untrustworthy. And obsessed. And cruel. And nasty. And conscienceless.
He wrote on April 26, "Nor am I sure why you would so strongly object to my posting them. They were quite nice. But we can probably work something out to keep them private if that's your strong desire."
That was a blackmail attempt.
Now she has called the blackmailer's bluff. She is willing to have her private life and family life exposed to prove that there is no justification for his mistreatment of her. |
