Originally posted by FMFsimply blocking her would have achieved the same thing, but thats not what you wanted, you wanted to humiliate her, that's why you handed out the private text.
I beg to differ. There has been no more abuse. And as far as I am concerned the channel of communication remains open.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think someone who sends a message full of sexual insults and demands that I stop posting on the public forums on threads where he has posted, and threats to tell the web site things that will get me a life ban [my paraphrasing] has not earned the recipient's "trust". The web site took no action against me at all - for passing the PM on to about a couple a dozen people [not even a note of caution or reprimand] - although both you and galveston75 claimed in public that you had complained to the web site.
Was that the instance where he thought you were gay and asked that you stop stalking and pursuing him because he was not interested in your unsavoury advancements? Yes I think your revealing this private correspondence was a heinous betrayal of trust.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Simply blocking her"would have cut off the possibility of more civilized communication in the future. But, even if I'd blocked her, I'd still have passed the PM on to other people.
Simply blocking her would have achieved the same thing, but thats not what you wanted, you wanted to humiliate her, that's why you handed out the private text.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe accused me of of being a homosexual predator stalking him and making unsavoury sexual advances towards him and said he was going to tell the web site about it. Bizarre. And yet, to your way of thinking, he had every right to "trust" me. I remember you lying about that message in public at the time. You insisted there was no reference to sex in it even though you claimed to have read it.
Was that the instance where he thought you were gay and asked that you stop stalking and pursuing him because he was not interested in your unsavoury advancements? Yes I think your revealing this private correspondence was a heinous betrayal of trust.
Originally posted by FMFPerhaps if you refrained from stalking and harassing him he would not have construed your behaviour in the way that he did? From what I can recall he intimated to you that he was not gay and not interested in your advancements. Clearly this type of thing does not happen in a vacuum and your own behaviour leaves little to be desired. Interesting that we seem to have a similar scenario here again, your betrayal of a confidentiality and the seeking of self justification are perhaps symptomatic of a motive that seeks expression through humiliating other people. What other reason could there have been in you publicly sharing a private correspondence? Have you thought about how unsavoury that makes you appear?
He accused me of of being a homosexual predator stalking him and making unsavoury sexual advances towards him and said he was going to tell the web site about it. Bizarre. And yet, to your way of thinking, he had every right to "trust" me. I remember you lying about that message in public at the time. You insisted there was no reference to sex in it even though you claimed to have read it.
12 Dec 16
Originally posted by FMFI somehow get the impression that she will think twice before sending you a PM again. I know I certainly would.
"Simply blocking her"would have cut off the possibility of more civilized communication in the future. But, even if I'd blocked her, I'd still have passed the PM on to other people.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePerhaps if you refrained from stalking and harassing him he would not have construed your behaviour in the way that he did? From what I can recall he intimated to you that he was not gay and not interested in your advancements. Clearly this type of thing does not happen in a vacuum and your own behaviour leaves little to be desired. Interesting that we seem to have the same scenario here again, your own betrayal of a confidentiality and the seeking of self justification are perhaps symptomatic of a motive that seeks expression through humiliating other people. What other reason could there have been in you publicly sharing a private correspondence? Have you thought about how unsavoury that makes you appear?
In both cases, sharing the correspondence with friends was a response to the bizarre abuse, insults and threats contained in it ~ so that other people would know what I knew about Suzianne and galveston75. Neither had any right to secrecy about their behaviour. Abusive people can try to erect a web of secrecy around what they do, but there is no reason why decent people should have to put up with it.The added benefit was that neither poster insulted or threatened me in PMs again.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou still remember pleasant and civil PMs which saw us sharing some music we'd made and you still remember how I helped you track down some folk music you were interested in, and you've stated pretty clearly that you cannot remember any "unsavoury correspondence" between us by PM of any kind ~ nor at any time in the past ~ and yet you can, nevertheless, see fit to say [of me] "he's been blocked since I cannot remember when. Corresponding with FMF in public is hazardous enough, in private is just downright asking for it as you have found out to your chagrin". I think you have somewhat of a deficit in the common decency department, robbie.
[b]Simply because I cannot recall what the nature of any unsavoury correspondence which might have transpired doesn't mean that it did not exist or that I have fabricated its existence, it simply means that I cannot recall it. /b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe obviously disagree. I have been very clear as to how I have arrived at my view. The credibility of your view is undermined by your strangle brandishing of the words "confidential", "trust" and "betrayal".
I think simply blocking you is the most prudent option. No personal correspondence will be divulged to third parties and your insatiable appetite to humiliate other users can find expression elsewhere.
If Suzianne feels, as you suggest, humiliated by people knowing what was in the message she sent me, then she perhaps ought not to have sent it in the first place.