It was necessary (& predictable) that you would change the subject to her misguided (imo) and self-destructive attempts to get an apology from CH, who was at that point leaving her alone.
BUT let it be remembered: the coming back and the asking for an apology behavior had not occurred at the time you joined the Lawyers' Gang of Two against the victim, or in your Lord of the Flies metaphor, the Piggy-figure.
Some people can be their own worst enemy, and Poet, like Piggy, is one of them, imo. (I suppose we are all neurotic in that way, from time to time. You are certainly your own worst enemy, btw, imo, at least as documented on SI.)
This is perfect X:
Poet loved it. ALl of it.
You're wrong, X.
I know Poet, and Bill, and her history, and what's going on in her family, a lot better than you do.
Two facts can coexist, and do. It's my opinion that 1) Poet should not have posted toorabout her persecutor or yearned for an acknowledgment or apology from him, and doing so was neurotic on her part (she would agree, I believe); AND 2) Poet was his victim, and suffered harm at his hands, and at yours. You became the Gang of Two.
And think for a minute about what it means if you were, and are, operating in ignorance, X. If in fact, Poet was suffering a recurrence of extreme PTSD symptoms, as opposed to enjoying the party you feel CH threw for her.
X, do you care if you are wrong? If you had known, Poet was ill and becoming more and more ill as CH continued the process, threatened to sue in order to be able to continue it, would it have changed your behavior?
My guess is that it wouldn't have. Because I think you got off on it. Here's part of the reason I'm convinced of that:
Poet loved it. ALl of it.
That's usually expressed, X, as "She asked for it," and "You know you love it baby."
The sentiment is a commentary on the speaker's id, not on the victim's. |
