-Removed-Her only interest in the stuff you posted, so far, seems to be raising an objection to you not naming the person - although there's no need to - and to suggest I am a hypocrite for NOT calling you out for plagiarism, something I do with people who blatantly try to pass off other's writing as their own. Or something like that. Bizarre. Maybe she's still very, very upset about something?
@fmf saidOkay, but why would we be interested in the views of somebody we don't know the identity of, and are not being allowed to know, (particularly since he has described the person in such glowing terms) unless there is some accompanying commentary?
He's summarizing the views of a "third party". He said so repeatedly. And he's doing this ~ surely? ~ because they are the views of the person he's described and not his own.
We all, after all, know people who have opinions.
@fmf saidI'm not saying the views of the person are creepy, nor for a moment am I saying that divegeester is creepy (I regard him as a friend, and I don't have creepy friends).
I don't feel that the views of the "third party" he's describing are "creepy". Misguided yes, misanthropic yes, paranoid, pessimistic and a bit pretentious, yes. But they are earnest and distressed, not "creepy". Unless it is divegeester you're describing as "a bit creepy", in which case I don't get what you mean.
It was probably a bad word to use, but I was referring in general to the use of some anonymous others' opinions on the forum, as per my last post. It just made me feel uncomfortable, but that's probably just me.
Tell you what, I hereby retract 'creepy', creepy's done.