I viewed it as a veiled threat and posted what I deemed appropriate and meant every word.I read it as a veiled but unsubstantiated threat.
And yet...keld feldspar wrote:I viewed it as a veiled threat and posted what I deemed appropriate and meant every word.I read it as a veiled but unsubstantiated threat.
I asked nice this time next time I consider it cyber stalking.
She can post wherever she likes except threads I start and or as a response to any post I make.
I'm sorry if I seem a bit dense...but I'd really like to know: exactly what did loCAtek "threaten" to do? Anybody? 'splain, please. Please!!Well, I guess....I seem a bit dense
If you don't see how putting people on "notice" about a "matter" that is "now being being reviewed" by "counsel" could possibly be interpreted as a veiled threat....Very well, for the board notice and not addressed to any specific party: this matter is now being reviewed by neutral counsel.
I think (speculation obviously) that means that she's having stuff that's been posted on this board looked over by somebody who's going to let her know if she has some sort of a stalking case she can pursue against her ex...Isn't 'neutral counsel' an oxymoron?
At the time several posters were disturbed by what PMSP wrote, and said as much. Subsequently, PMSP has not made even a single post in the same vein. No one believes loCA's claim that she is currently being stalked by PMSP because her own behaviour towards PMSP gives the lie to any such claim (if one believes one is being stalked, one does not seek confrontations with one's alleged stalker and prolong contact for WEEKS the alleged stalker has given up responding to or referring to the alleged stalkee in any way).Econoline wrote:Everyone here was quite sure that what PMSP did (which involved an ex-spouse tracking Lo to this site to "keep tabs on her" and using the opportunity of her absence to post detailed, negative, unsubstantiated IRL information about her) was *NOT* cyber stalking?...and that Lo was way out of line for considering it such? (And that I was, too, when I later used that term?)
Joe Guy wrote:Why are so many people here that are usually quite logical trying to make sense out of LoCa's senseless posts?
There is nothing vaguely veiled or cryptic about what she writes.
It's all nonsensical gibberish that means exactly nothing.
Her words are only intended to keep you giving her attention.
There's no substance.
There's no hidden message.
It's all a bunch of nothing.
Wake up.
Thanks, Jim, for at least trying to answer my question, though I think you failed completely. I wasn't disputing the fact that I seemed a bit dense, I was asking for specifics on the "threat" that you, or Daisy, or Gob, or Scooter, or Keld, or anyone else inferred from those words. To my mind, a threat takes the form of "Unless [someone] does [something], I will do [something else] to [someone]." I can't figure out who she's supposedly threatening, what she's threatening to do, and under what conditions the threat will be carried out--let alone whether there is anything at all credible to it. If a statement is so vague that it neither contains nor even implies ANY of this information, I don't understand how the word "threat" is any more appropriate than the word "elephant."Lord Jim wrote:Well, I guess....I seem a bit dense
If you don't see how putting people on "notice" about a "matter" that is "now being being reviewed" by "counsel" could possibly be interpreted as a veiled threat....Very well, for the board notice and not addressed to any specific party: this matter is now being reviewed by neutral counsel.
As I pointed out, the language employed is so vague and cryptic that it could be interpreted in a number of ways, but "veiled threat" is certainly on the list of ways a rational person could logically interpret that...
