Read the postings to dozens of previous threads, here and elsewhere, the countless variations from water on the pathetic theme of the harm done to water, and not just by me, more so by jenyar and kotoko.
So.Fucking.What.
That's Water's problem.
Not yours.
It doesn't matter what Water does or did.
What she's not doing is posting about you.
She's not going about the forums describing in detail (or in general or in any manner) the details of your pirvate liffe.
She's not saying a damn thing about you. She's not blaming you for her pain or misery.
She's not even posting at all.
So stick that up your pussy.
I never posted a "Recovering after Relationships topic to a public forum.
Oh no!
Look at what big bad Water did at some other forum.
She posted a thread on recovering from bad relationships.
That's something that dear, sweet Ron would never do.
I mean, it's not giving out any personal dirt or invading privacy or anything like that.
Let's all villify her now. She's a bad disgusting girl.
Ron.
Will you ever understand that this isn't about Water?
Is it possible for you to understand that?
Your defense of your actions is that Water is a piece of shit, apparently.
"Ron. You've been a despicable bastard in your pulbic airing of dirty laundry in the case of Water."
"But, Water is a bad girl who has lots of growing up to do. Here look at her dirty panties."
You continually act as though you expect to people to agree with you once you've shown more panties.
"Oh. You're right. Those panties smell bad. Carry on."
You.Are.Pathetic.
If you'd rather not encourage attention to personal grief, then don't.
Personal grief? I thought it was all out in the public eye.
You know. That's where you like it, right? All out in the public where everyone can see that your name is Ron Harvey from the UK and that you're ashamed of nothing in your life. Your underwear isn't dirty because Water's panties are. It's all rather logical, yes?
Please, by all means, shut up and mind your own business.
Yes. Please do.
Nobody here called for you or anybody else to comment in this fashion on a personal issue.
This, Ron, is a public forum.
Are you now aware of the difference between public and personal space?
You invite people to comment by the mere fact of you posting.
You are, in fact, on a soapbox in Speaker's Square (or whatever the hell that is), shouting at the top of your lungs.
You really expect people not to comment?
It was then invert_nexus, not me, who deliberately interjected with post #1124694 to make a personal issue of it.
No, Ron. Try to pass blame all you like. But, the fact is that your entire argument is rooted in your situation with Water. Because James wouldn't let you go on and on and on and on about her. Flinging your mud. Trying to defend your actions (to people who don't care) by attacking her actions.
Remember this:
"In the mean time James R is the great protector of the whiners, the hard done by minorities, the cry-baby juvenile manipulators of authority, the too senstive to take it types, the bad losers, the lame ducks, the furtive cripples and cretins of the World, or those at least who affect to be so. Press the report button; whine enough to James; play possum and call it stalking and he may yet try to prevent me from posting to reply to you."
That's you, Ronnie. And the target of that attack is quite clear although not clearly stated in this particular instance. You'll note that I also didn't bring her name up specifically, I called her your cybergirlfriend. You always escalate the situation. Because you find it necessary to bring in more dirty panties from your stockpile to try to wipe the mud off your brow.
It doesn't work.
You also said this:
"James R denied the responsibility. When I answered, on a previous occasion, he deleted the post. He deliberately denies the right to reply."
James has already stated and you have not denied that the 'previous occasion' you speak of is back when you were doing your stalking.
YOU brought it up.
More?
"I have set up internet sites before, for different issues on previous occasions, the greatest problem with which is to reach the intended target. there as here.
In the instance I refer to it would miss the target, to aim elsewhere.
It is all about targets and how to shoot."
Look at the language used. Very indicative.
Good old Ron. Shooting at targets. He must, you see, aim elsewhere for he is incapable of targetting himself despite his claims in some other thread about spending so much of his life observing 'himself'. (I still chuckle at that.)
Now. You're talking about James here. But I also think that you're speaking of Water. There's a bit of a double meaning to this. Your ire against Water was raising increasingly in the series of posts prior to this.
That's why you continue to post here? To reach her target?
I find this one just damned funny:
"...yet another needless attempt to educate me."
Look at you. So pissy about James trying to 'educate' you. But you have made it your life's defense that Water was so in need of an education. One which you were more than prepared to give. And even now continue to try to give. So much so that she ran away from the forum to get away from you... and you congratulate that as a successful act of your education of her.
Good old Ron. Him's a swell teacher. Him should be a moderator so he can teach all of us.
My interests are not the issue here. I am not so important. It is about the moderation of the forum.
Your issue is the moderation of the forum (at large, no longer just the religious forum. (Remember. Those posts you mentioned deleted were NOT in the religious forum, aye?)) does not allow you to seek your interests. Your interest being stalking.
Children take support for granted. Adults earn their keep.
And more condescension from the high and mighty educator.
Thank you, teacher.
Please. Go back to teaching James why he should let you get back to the important business of showing everyone Water's skid marks.
I won't bother you anymore.
The permission she thus gave was not even personal to me, but general. The name had been used, openly, by herself, and by others who posted here, by c7ityi_, and by sworn enemies such as kotoko and Jenyar, but with no objection.
It's not the name that is the big problem, bud. It's just the first sign.
She got what was coming to her.
Aye. That bitch.
Show us some more panties.
As I have also pointed out on a previous occasion, the precedent for citing from personal messages was set not by me but by the complainant, not to mention a habit of betrayal of personal messages in subsequent personal messages.
As has been pointed out ad nauseum. Two wrongs don't make a right.
As has also been pointed out, did you report it? No. So shutup.
You're useless.
