Belly:"how easy we fell for a story that said AS was WARRIOR for equal rights migrant rights, ext."

Erm...only the ideologues did that, Belly. it's easy to manipulate people who want to see everything in terms of "my enemy's enemy is my friend", since all you have to do is show some "solidarity" and they'll be jumping to join the conga-line of suckholes.

AS made a good point, too: if TPP didn't want his emails, why did she not say so clearly in private to him? From the way i read it, she was simply binning them, rather than acting on her dislike for them. If what he says is correct (and TPP hasn't contradicted him) the first time he was actually told they weren't wanted was on this forum.

ISTM that TPP was simply playing to the crowd and the rush of support for her shows this to have worked well for her. Bronwyn was, as she often is, a sensible voice urging restraint, but the rest were simply looking for a lynching, especially Foxy.

Frankly, Jewels has gone down a long way in my estimation as a result.

On a personal note, I have never bothered to debate AS because it's simply not possible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who seems not to possess the requisite language skills and who cannot therefore respond in a nuanced manner, quite apart from the fact that, like some others, his rants are largely unanswerable in any rational way.

Belly, you're a good bloke but as a Unionist you must know that some people are simply milkers of the system. One of the jobs of any shop steward is working out who's staunch and who's not and backing them accordingly. Perhaps you've been away from the shop floor a bit too long?

Anti you may be right, maybe I should have abused him in e-mail but everyone I did ask about it said to remain silent – I did state clearly (but obviously too politely) I was married and not available. I did tell him, several times.

Anti if I ran around reading your posts and deciding every single one was a secret message to me and then I e-mailed you a few times a day with translations you would think I was nuts wouldn’t you? A person who would do that would also misinterpret any private reply and would increase their correspondence because of the attention (even negative attention).

I said something in public because I got cross, it annoyed me that he was trying to tell Foxy her marriage wasn’t good – I think this was directed at me and an unfair thing to do to her.

You don’t want my defense or me to contradict anything; you don’t want an example of what has been said to me in private. It is humiliating to me, it is more than filthy. I shut up for weeks and my next course of action was to leave OLO so it would stop – hubby suggested this course of action although I was starting to get a real vibe of OLO being tainted anyway.

You blame me because others have defended me? It’s alright; I know you always take the other side in everything so I’m thinking this isn’t personal either.

What should I say? What do you want to hear? I told him, he wouldn’t hear it.

TPP:"You don’t want my defense or me to contradict anything"

Not true at all, Jewels. I read your posts with interest and I'd have thought you to be sufficiently discreet to try the back-channel route first. I don't know what sort of things you got, nor do I want to, but it should have been a simple thing to get hubby to write a "p!ss orf, mate, she's taken" to AS if you didn't want to do so yourself.

When I divulge my details to someone, I expect discretion and I act the same way. What is private is private, regardless of the mode of meeting.

From your response, I think you probably feel much the same way, but got angry that he wouldn't take silence for "go away" and overreacted.

It's interesting that this ties in well with the discussions about sexual ethics arising from Nina Funnell's article.

It seems that we all have a lot to learn about how others receive our communications.

TPP:"You blame me because others have defended me? "

No, I say you have the responsibility for taking a private matter public before trying to resolve it in private. I also give you the responsibility for choosing to correspond back-channel in the first place. AS has the responsibility for his actions, but they'd not have occurred if you'd not chosen the path in the first place. What did you hope to talk about back-channel anyway?

TPP:"I told him, he wouldn’t hear it."

Did you explicitly say, "I'm not remotely interested in having a relationship with you, I'm married and I like my life"? It seems to me that AS has such poor English and is so determined to hear only what he wants to that you'd have to be that clear. That's not your doing, but you have to take it into account when dealing with him, surely?

I'm sure you've learnt a fair bit out of your encounter, and I hope AS has, so all's well that end's well, eh?

Anti I think what I had learnt from a similar encounter years ago was that an aggressive “get the hell away from etc..” can have awful consequences with some people. When it comes at you in the form of some kind of infatuation and you throw it back in their face it can become very nasty and painful.

So this time I take the friendly “this isn‘t logical” “I am married” “go find a single lady” approach and when I realise the message isn’t being understood and encouraging further “yuck” replies I stop sending any.

I haven’t learnt anything except every situation is different and I get it bloody wrong 99% of the time with men.

Hubby would happily have told him to bugger off but I could see that being translated badly. It’s too hard to explain Anti – he decided I was some sort of prisoner in my home and that I should call the police. All public posts, even songs I sent people he decided were really to him. He thought people on OLO by their responses to me were either approving or disaproving of us running away together.

Silence was the only thing that made sense but I think I knew it was going to appear in public as he kept saying he was going to say something.

But I am now regretting I said anything first.

G'Day All,
AS how about leaving the topic alone & give it all a big miss. If you had of apologised for YOUR wrong at first then you probably could have got yourself out of the garbage & could have probably earned a little respect out of it all. People do like to see one eat humble pie & I couldn't see where many here would be that different.
I said before that TPP has & still is communicating with me in relation to my sons case & I have found TPP to be an honest & caring person who is interested in different things in life & the search of knowledge in the things that TPP might not know much about.
AS there is no way that you could read into the posts of TPP anything like what you are trying to imply, take notice of Foxy, Belly & others have your self seen to & if you want to contact me to give me a serve then graysond49@yahoo.com is my e-mail take your garbage out on me but leave TPP alone & the others here OK.
Thanks all have a happy day & may your Lord shine on you all well.from Dave.

Dear Piper,

I'm going to sound like a broken record here -
but I'm going to repeat, you did nothing wrong!

The man committed a criminal offense. Plain
and simple.

You don't owe anyone further explanations -
this is not about 'lynching,' anyone.
A person who's lived and worked in this country for over
16 years - gets an income of over $60,000 as he claims -
as well as having the high IQ he claims to have -
should by now at least be able to understand the basic
concepts of the words - "NO! -I'm happily married!"
and for someone who says that they are 'for human rights,
migrant rights, workers rights - all sorts of rights,'
he certainly did not show any respect for the rights of
a women he claims to have fallen in love with.

The fact that Anti... doesn't get it, is somewhat disappointing.
However not surprising I guess, - considering his past anti-
female stands on so many issues.

Now however, let it go Piper - enough said on this topic.
Chalk it up to an experience that you definitely could
have done without - but one that will hopefully never
happen again. Ever!

Big hug.