Replies

When it first came up he adamantly denied hitting the abuse button but it soon became evident that any use of the "forbidden verb" would dissappear within moments of his return to this thread.

I don't know who hit hit the first time but it wasn't me. After your 20th false accusation of crimes, I started hitting it on you, but that was long after you hit it on Silas. Regardless of whether you hit it on Silas or not, false accusations of crimes should not be allowed.

Then, sure enough, he pops up on another completely unrelated thread and, in his psychological obsession, starts whining about it there.

Just as you whined about Silas? By the way, is nolu following me now? lol

Note that the #3lunatic recently posted comments alleging that he had been falsely accused of a "crime" on this thread. For the record, this is his apparent grievance with the apparently "forbidden verb" over which he persistently hits the abuse button yet later denies doing.

As a matter of clarification, I find it pertinent to this thread to post the dictionary definition of that same "forbidden verb" that he apparently thinks to have inherent criminal quotations. That verb is defined as follows from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000:

"To follow or observe a person persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement."

As you will note, there is not so much as a single word in that definition denoting any form of a criminal act, criminal behavior, or any illegality whatsoever. It simply described a psychological affliction of obsession with another person that exhibits itself in persistent observation of that same person.

It should also be noted that all of the other definitions to this same "forbidden verb" in this same dictionary refer to it in a connotation of animal tracking and game hunting, thus the definition intended could not have been confused. As further explanatory note, I previously described and will again describe the pet lunatic's lengthy and documented posting history on this forum to include activities that fit the said "forbidden verb's" definition with precision. As a poster here he:

(1) "observe(d)...persistently" the activities of (2) "a person," in this case being a celebrity former POW, by actively posting upon, and coming to dominate in posting frequency, an abnormally high number of threads, possibly in the hundreds, pertaining to that said former POW celebrity over the course of barely a few months. In doing so he exhibited, through the frequency of both threads and posts upon those threads, that he was doing so (3) "especially out of obsession." He further exhibited a strong degree of (4) "derangement" upon the same subject by posting in excess of a thousand overtly hostile, rude, and intentionally inflamatory posts to dozens if not hundreds of other freepers who so much as even slightly differed in their own personal opinions of that same said former POW celebrity. If anyone disagrees with this characterization I (1) ask that they clarify the reasons as to why the "forbidden verb" does not apply to his very real and very well known behavior as I have described and (2) make it known to the dictionary authors that their commonly accepted definition is deficient in portraying what they believe to be a central feature of the "real" definition of that same "forbidden verb."