Betty Boop.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:44 pm

AnneBoleyn;1459882 wrote: That's as sarcastic as HT was being. Are you bored today?

And, for the record, no, it wasn't sarcastic in the least. Snooze will be aware that it wasn't but I'd quite like everyone else to be aware too. I meant exactly what I wrote - that we are [which you can interpret either as the Royal We or the site's administration, whichever you prefer], as ever, grateful for your insight, and look forward to your next visit. You brighten whatever topic you engage in.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:01 pm

I think I'll just shut up now.

& The Crowd Roared

:yh_party :yh_clap

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:36 pm

High Threshold;1459873 wrote: Here's a hint: conceit + superiority. Put them together and what do you get
David Cameron.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:02 pm

YZGI;1459893 wrote: I take that back, Butter has yet to be mentioned.

I'm getting dÃ©ja vu a la Maria Schneider. "Bless me Father for I have sinned ...... :yh_angel "

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:04 pm

High Threshold;1459873 wrote: Here's a hint: conceit + superiority. Put them together and what do you get

I suppose I ought to have said, put them in contrast and what do you get?

Lady J · Post by **Lady J** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:35 pm

Wow! I came on tonight to post to my threads and saw this.

OK...I will step up and suggest this thread be closed.

Why do you members continue to put Jj down? Is it cuz he is not here to defend himself?

So after you like his images and the original threads he puts up you jump on the band-wagon to execute him?

I would believe he gave many of you smiles and good things.

The problem with the internet is that many read what we post as only words. They never take the time to get to know the individual; never think about the person behind those words and what they may be in need of. Many just view the surface and run with it.

I have known Jj for many years and yes, he can be looking for attention but doesn't that tell you anything? That just like why you post on this thread...that you are looking for some acknowledgment? and riding off this thread.

I will be around it anyone wants to argue the point that everyone is an individual and that is what keeps the world moving on. Jj is a very intense person...he means no harm; he is just living our his life. And no, I am not part of his Harlem (as the rumor goes) just his friend and someone who understands where he is coming from.

Lady J

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:46 pm

Lady J;1459935 wrote: .....

The problem with the internet is that many read what we post as only words. They never take the time to get to know the individual; never think about the person behind those words and what they may be in need of. Many just view the surface and run with it.

I have known Jj for many years and yes, he can be looking for attention but doesn't that tell you anything? That just like why you post on this thread...that you are looking for some acknowledgment? and riding off this thread.

....

Lady J

Any chance of the 2 of you taking that advice?

I find that there is an abundance of kindness, tolerance, sympathy and forgiveness on FG. But only if the donor doesn't feel it's misplaced. So, if you're fair-skinned stay out of the sun without sun-screening and don't shove others out from under the shade.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 12:45 am

Lady J;1459935 wrote: Why do you members continue to put Jj down? Is it cuz he is not here to defend himself?Why on earth do you think he's "not here to defend himself"? Watching is just as present as posting. Refusing to post for a while is a choice on his part, not an inability.

The reason, speaking for myself, that I "continue to put Jj down" as you put it, is that he's a serial online sexual predator. The notion that his online behaviour should be forgotten, which is rolled out on occasion, is absolute baloney. The opening post of this thread is an example of his harassment of women. His target this time is one he's aimed at more than once over the years. We're meant to sit back and laugh? I think not.

If JJ takes exception to "serial online sexual predator" I'm more than happy to add fifty example links to the site's backlog of posts from his assorted dead accounts here.

Lady J · Post by **Lady J** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:59 am

I definitely have a comment for this but it is too late for me. I don't want to misspeak.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:33 am

I'd like to just point out that i have never been sexually harassed by Jones.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:32 am

Having now read through the entire thread and what with the world and his wife chipping in and questioning why, call me naive, but i beg the question that if Jones is such a threat and sexual menace, then why on earth is he here at all ? Surely if he is so dangerous, the powers that be would want him banned for good in order to protect the female membership ? It makes no sense. Is he here because as this thread demonstrates, the truth is, it's no fun when there's no baddie to gang up on ? If he's that bad and he did post the thread to engage a female member then ban him for good but allowing him to continue here in order to see a thread and assassination on his character is pretty vindictive.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:20 am

This has gone on long enough.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:33 am

Sorry but such threads need to be out there, it's the whole point of open moderation. By hiding things away we get accused of all sorts.

The thread could be reported for discussion?

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:51 am

Peter Lake;1459943 wrote: I'd like to just point out that i have never been sexually harassed by Jones.That, presumably, is meant to be amusing? The idea you can find the topic funny speaks volumes about you.

Peter Lake;1459944 wrote: Having now read through the entire thread and what with the world and his wife chipping in and questioning why, call me naive, but i beg the question that if Jones is such a threat and sexual menace, then why on earth is he here at all ? Surely if he is so dangerous, the powers that be would want him banned for good in order to protect the female membership ? It makes no sense. Is he here because as this thread demonstrates, the truth is, it's no fun when there's no baddie to gang up on ? If he's that bad and he did post the thread to engage a female member then ban him for good but allowing him to continue here in order to see a thread and assassination on his character is pretty vindictive.What we have learned from administering this site over several years is that some people continually come back under assumed names through masked IP addresses regardless of how unwelcome they are - the more unwelcome the more fun they get from pratting around that way. JJ has the high-score in this regard. We finally decided that having the chap in plain view was simply easier than policing new accounts wondering which of them was him. The fact that you're ignorant of the background is unsurprising, the fact that you attempt to interfere in the site's administration, on the other hand, isn't.

You extrapolate beyond what's been said by bringing in words like "dangerous". Nobody but you has made any such suggestion. Unpalatable, distasteful, grotesque, try those instead, they're all applicable.

There is no way of enforcing a permanent site ban on this forum. That is a practical statement of fact. That's why we don't use permanent site bans.

Burying back-history and stopping new members from discovering the antics of antisocial people like JJ before they're trapped by it is something we've learned to avoid. He's here, he's visible and the warnings are clearly posted. I suspect it's also helpful to members on other forums he might join too, but that's only a guess.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 8:03 am

Peter Lake;1459943 wrote: I'd like to just point out that i have never been sexually harassed by Jones.

Just as the lady said I too "definitely have a comment for this" but I daren't express it.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 8:20 am

TÃ½r;1459948 wrote:

You extrapolate beyond what's been said by bringing in words like "dangerous". Nobody but you has made any such suggestion. Unpalatable, distasteful, grotesque, try those instead, they're all applicable.

. Posted by Tyr

"The reason, speaking for myself, that I "continue to put Jj down" as you put it, is that he's a serial online sexual predator"

sexual predator - definition of sexual predator by Medical dictionary

Sexual predator - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Then may i suggest you pay more heed to your own wording in future ?

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 8:33 am

Peter Lake;1459951 wrote: Posted by Tyr

"The reason, speaking for myself, that I "continue to put Jj down" as you put it, is that he's a serial online sexual predator"

sexual predator - definition of sexual predator by Medical dictionary

Sexual predator - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Then may i suggest you pay more heed to your own wording in future ?

I stand by every word of it. JJ's an serial online sexual predator. I've seen him behave that way too often to be mistaken and I've offered to show examples from his assorted ForumGarden accounts. I have no reason to believe he's dangerous but he's certainly upset members here in the past with his predatory sexual behavior. I'm using the word "serial" to mean repetitive, which it might not actually mean in this context. I'm certainly not implying he drops one woman before picking on another, he does anything but.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 8:43 am

TÃ½r;1459953 wrote: I stand by every word of it. JJ's an serial online sexual predator. I've seen him behave that way too often to be mistaken and I've offered to show examples from his assorted ForumGarden accounts. I have no reason to believe he's dangerous but he's certainly upset members here in the past with his predatory sexual behavior. I'm using the word "serial" to mean repetitive, which it might not actually mean in this context. I'm certainly not implying he drops one woman before picking on another, he does anything but. Both of the links i have given and there are many more available, give the definition of a sexual predator as one who has been convicted of a violent sexual offence. The mere definition of your wording may lead others down a path which is untrue and unfair. You're right, i do not know the history of the forums problems with Jones but i just begged the question of why he was still here if he was so dangerous to women. It's akin to inviting the lecherous old uncle to the wedding and then complaining he's fondling the bridesmaids. With that, i shall bid you all good day.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:02 am

Peter Lake;1459954 wrote: Both of the links i have given and there are many more available, give the definition of a sexual predator as one who has been convicted of a violent sexual offence.Does it not occur to you that perhaps "online sexual predator" is a different term?

Post by **Peter Lake** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:30 am

TÃ½r;1459956 wrote: Does it not occur to you that perhaps "online sexual predator" is a different term? Then again, inappropriate wording. The definition given by all for online sexual predator indicates children involved.

Definition of Internet predator

Urban Dictionary: online predator

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:46 am

Peter Lake;1459958 wrote: Then again, inappropriate wording. The definition given by all for online sexual predator indicates children involved.

Definition of Internet predator

Urban Dictionary: online predator
If you reed what you've linked to you'll find your statement is false. As will anyone else reeding your link.

I think you're just stirring, to be honest. Ineptly.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:50 am

TÃ½r;1459956 wrote: Does it not occur to you that perhaps "online sexual predator" is a different term?

Perhaps you would care to explain this, maybe to give a definition of "online sexual predator" because, at this moment it seems to be bordering on being a libellous statement. Unless you can prove that your accusation is true, you are leaving yourself open to the possibility of being taken to task by the recipient of your written slur on his character ! I think that you may find that 'chatting up' various ladies online does not necessarily constitute 'sexual harassment' .

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:54 am

I must say, I liked the 2nd definition of Online Predator on Urban Dictionary even more...

2.) A mammal belonging to Order Carnivora (tigers, grizzly bears, timber wolves, wolverines, raccons, etc.) with an internet connection.

1.) Doug is an online predator. He's in chat rooms or on MSN all day trying to hook up with young girls. What a sicko.

2.) Zippy the Squirrel was killed by an online predator. I didn't even know that a grizzly bear could type!

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:55 am

I much preferred it when this thread was simpler to understand: Those for - and those against J. Now there are so many skirmishes on either flank that I'm truly confuddled. :yh_silly

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:56 am

G#Gill;1459962 wrote: Perhaps you would care to explain this, maybe to give a definition of "online sexual predator" because, at this moment it seems to be bordering on being a libellous statement. Unless you can prove that your accusation is true, you are leaving yourself open to the possibility of being taken to task by the recipient of your written slur on his character ! I think that you may find that 'chatting up' various ladies online does not necessarily constitute 'sexual harassment' .

It can, as you say, be tested. I'm aware of the nature of libel. "Bordering on being a libellous statement" isn't even remotely a breach of any law. It's "bordering" in that, if my statements are false, what I've said might be libelous. Fortunately, what I've posted is true and consequently isn't a libel.

As for 'chatting up' various ladies online does not necessarily constitute 'sexual harassment' I agree, though it damn well can when JJ's doing it, given the way he does it. The opening post of this thread is an example of sexual harassment.

JJ, along with everyone else on this site, has my full name and address should he wish to take matters to a formal level. I note that his own identity is hidden by his onscreen name - quite how his character can be smirched when his identity is hidden I've no idea.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:02 am

TÃ½r;1459960 wrote: If you reed what you've linked to you'll find your statement is false. As will anyone else reeding your link.

I think you're just stirring, to be honest. Ineptly. Stirring ? For pointing out with four links that your choice of words may be the wrong choice of words in this particular case? An internet pest who attempts to engage members online into sexual contact is another world to a convicted violent offender or a pedophile often associated with the term " internet sexual predator".

I have more than adequately demonstrated how your wording may be viewed by others with links. Perhaps you could provide an alternative link to show your own meaning?

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:05 am

G#Gill;1459962 wrote: I think that you may find that 'chatting up' various ladies online does not necessarily constitute 'sexual harassment' .

Then my timid, but romantic, PM forays to your heart went undetected, did they? :yh_battin

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:07 am

I think the ambiguity here is that the term "Online Sexual Predator" is primarily used to refer to paedophiles which, to my knowledge, is certainly not the case here.

I think the term "Online Sexual Harasser", if there is such a term, would be more appropriate.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:08 am

Peter Lake;1459967 wrote: Stirring ? For pointing out with four links that your choice of words may be the wrong choice of words in this particular case? An internet pest who attempts to engage members online into sexual contact is another world to a convicted violent offender or a pedophile often associated with the term " internet sexual predator".

I have more than adequately demonstrated how your wording may be viewed by others with links. Perhaps you could provide an alternative link to show your own meaning?

We know "online", do we?

We can manage "sexual"?

Do we have difficulty with "predator"?

English is pretty simple really.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:10 am

Quote from Tyr:- Fortunately, what I've posted is true and consequently isn't a libel.

Prove it ! We only have your word that your statement is true, so show some proof please.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:11 am

That this thread has taken on the JJ Spirit-of-Saint-Friction must be immensely gratifying to JJ himself! Even in his absence â€¦.... it's all about HIM!!!!!!!! :yh_rotfl

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:17 am

TÃ½r;1459970 wrote: We know "online", do we?

We can manage "sexual"?

Do we have difficulty with "predator"?

English is pretty simple really.

I'm very sorry to say this, but I find what Tyr has said in this latest post is exceedingly sarcastic and uncalled for. Tyr you are being insufferably insulting to a member, and I don't think that is a good example of behaviour on Forum Garden. Certainly not from somebody who is supposed to be part of the administration team !

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:26 am

This thread is closed until everyone calms down.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:45 am

Here is the bosses take on JJ for those that have forgotten

Post link

Now that I have located FG's official position on the issue the continuation of this thread in the current way is pointless.

I am happy to re-open the thread as long as people aren't creating a scene.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:36 pm

I agree with Gill. JJ has never harassed me. On the contrary, he has shown himself to be a welcoming friend. Betty, your link shows nothing. Big deal.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:49 pm

AnneBoleyn;1460016 wrote: I agree with Gill. JJ has never harassed me. On the contrary, he has shown himself to be a welcoming friend. Betty, your link shows nothing. Big deal.

That link takes you to Bryns position on JJ if you don't feel his word is the final word on the matter then keep going.

His history *is* relevant and *will* be held against him - he has already received a number of warnings about his behaviour and this *will* be taken into account when considering the way we react to any further infringement. The thread he posted *will* be interpreted in light of previous behaviour.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Thanks Betty, but I have nothing more to say for now, just wanted to liberate the thread so it can die on it's own & not be buried alive. Besides, I wanted to agree with Gill & compliment her post.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:35 pm

G#Gill;1459973 wrote: I'm very sorry to say this, but I find what Tyr has said in this latest post is exceedingly sarcastic and uncalled for. Tyr you are being insufferably insulting to a member, and I don't think that is a good example of behaviour on Forum Garden. Certainly not from somebody who is supposed to be part of the administration team !

The trouble I find with some posters is that they appear incapable of understanding the written word, and Peter Lake's citing of those two online definitions is a perfect example.

Here they are, if you've not looked...

The first: 1. A person who uses the Internet to locate and lure his intended sexual prey, especially children.

And the second: 1.) (n.) a sexual predator who uses chat rooms, instant messenging, or social networking sites for the purpose of flirting with and meeting others for illicit sexual experiences. Pedophiles, hebephiles, and pederasts who encourage secret meetings or solicite sex with their targeted demographic through these methods are considered to be online predators.

I agree entirely with the definitions, they're sound, they're accurate.

And what does Peter Lake do with them? First of all he misrepresents them entirely and quite simply makes things up. The word I really need here is "lies".Both of the links i have given and there are many more available, give the definition of a sexual predator as one who has been convicted of a violent sexual offence.

They do? Where?? They do no such thing.

Where does he go next?The definition given by all for online sexual predator indicates children involved.

They do? Where?? They do no such thing.

He's even aware that he's lying through his gritted teeth. He has to bring in weasel words:An internet pest who attempts to engage members online into sexual contact is another world to a convicted violent offender or a pedophile often associated with the term " internet sexual predator".Let's assume he actually means to write "another word for" rather than "another world to" so the sentence makes some form of coherent statement. Do you see the "often"? The "often" means he recognizes that there are times when the term "internet sexual predator" is used WITHOUT implying "a convicted violent offender or a pedophile". Why's he weaseling with "often"? Because he knows his statements simply don't conform to the definitions he quoted in the first place.

"Especially children" means sometimes without the involvement of children, okay?

"A sexual predator who uses chat rooms, instant messenging, or social networking sites for the purpose of flirting with and meeting others for illicit sexual experiences" is a great definition for the words "online sexual predator", they're fine. The definition goes on to say X Y and Z fall into that category. So do lots of other behaviors. X Y and Z are not exclusive.

If you want to know what the term "online sexual predator" means, look up "online", and "sexual", and "predator". It's not sarcasm, it's anger at being deliberately jerked around for the sake of jerking.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:06 pm

Gill asked you to prove and i asked you to provide your own link to show your definition of online sexual predator. You have not done either, yet turned this into an attack on me to divert the attention away from your inappropriate wording. Had you used the words online , sexual and predator in different sentences then you may have a point but you did not. You used the three together in unison to describe his behaviour. Now you call me a liar when i have provided two links with the definition of online sexual predator and both mention children and peadophile and the mere fact that anyone searching for a definition of online sexual predator, seeing those words, may or may not deduce that Jones is one. I am not disputing his behaviour in the past but online sexual harassment is worlds away from a sexual predator, online or not.

It's always the same with you when anyone god forbid dares question that of which you have written. I have been polite and civil in my posts yet personal attacks always come when it appears you are backed into a corner. Do you have a link to a definition of online sexual predator that in no way indicates a peadophile ?

Here's more links that go down the line of a online sexual predator being to groom children.

Internet Dangers

Online Predators - Child Safety - Microsoft Protect

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:15 pm

Peter Lake;1460031 wrote: Gill asked you to prove and i asked you to provide your own link to show your definition of online sexual predator. You have not done either, yet turned this into an attack on me to divert the attention away from your inappropriate wording. Had you used the words online , sexual and predator in different sentences then you may have a point but you did not. You used the three together in unison to describe his behaviour. Now you call me a liar when i have provided two links with the definition of online sexual predator and both mention children and peadophile and the mere fact that anyone searching for a definition of online sexual predator, seeing those words, may or may not deduce that Jones is one. I am not disputing his behaviour in the past but online sexual harassment is worlds away from a sexual predator, online or not.

It's always the same with you when anyone god forbid dares question that of which you have written. I have been polite and civil in my posts yet personal attacks always come when it appears you are backed into a corner. Do you have a link to a definition of online sexual predator that in no way indicates a peadophile ?

Here's more links that go down the line of a online sexual predator being to groom children.

Internet Dangers

Online Predators - Child Safety - Microsoft Protect

Firstly, is this central to the discussion or is it a side show?

Secondly, given that the dictionary definition is conditional it does not preclude the meaning that was clearly used.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:27 pm

Firstly, I wish to thank Anne for her kind words

Secondly, I wish to say that I wish Tyr would refrain from splitting hairs ! Tyr you say that you are not being sarcastic, but that you are expressing anger, well I've said this before (quite a few years ago) and I'll say it again. Please, when you are making a point, would you write your thoughts in a more polite and less aggressive manner. It really doesn't take a lot of effort (yes I admit to being a tad sarcastic there !) and it will not cause upset to the intended recipient. It really is not necessary to be so aggressive, bordering on rudeness. A point can be made quite seriously without the insulting undertones. Go on, Tyr, give it a try (Gill smiles invitingly - I've written that as I know you don't like those emoticons and I just wanted to show that I was smiling and not frowning ....... or sticking my tongue out...........or making any rude hand gestures etc !)

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 8:34 pm

I think everyone understands the meaning behind the phrase, and probably pretty much agrees with the underlying intent. It all comes down to a simple error in phrasing. I don't believe anyone was intentionally accusing anyone else of being a paedophile.

Furthermore, although the term "Sexual Predator" may not be technically restricted to children, it must be accepted that this is the generally accepted meaning, in the same way that "Rape" is not restricted to Male attacks on Women - it can happen the other way round. It's just accepted that way (not that I'm accusing anyone here either - just an possible example of misinterpreting something).

Let's calm down, everyone, and accept that it was simply an incorrect term to describe an action where the actual meaning, taken in the context of everything else, was self evident.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:31 pm

We've decided to take the train to Kristianstad today. It's been rather warm these last days though it looks as though it might rain a bit today. Oh well, never mind â€“ we'll be spending it in a museum. Our Henrik loves museums and Olga always packs a lovely basket lunch, with a thermos of coffee. Mmmmmm! Now, if I can only rouse everyone from their sleep â€¦.........

Anyone care to come along or meet us there? :driving:

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:34 pm

High Threshold;1460042 wrote: We've decided to take the train to Kristianstad today. It's been rather warm these last days though it looks as though it might rain a bit today. Oh well, never mind â€“ we'll be spending it in a museum. Our Henrik loves museums and Olga always packs a lovely basket lunch, with a thermos of coffee. Mmmmmm! Now, if I can only rouse everyone from their sleep â€¦.........

Anyone care to come along or meet us there? :driving:

Would love to, but not sure I can make it in time. Better start without me, this time.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:46 pm

LarsMac;1460043 wrote: Would love to, but not sure I can make it in time. Better start without me, this time.

Pity, but it's our own fault. Next time we'll give notice in advance.

:):)

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:48 am

It's an interesting position to have reached, I think. We have general agreement but at the same time I'm invited by several members to post links to JJ's old posts made under different accounts which are now closed - not just invited, a better word would be commanded. Gill and Peter both insist that I put these links into this thread.

I'm out until evening but okay, you summoned them up, I'll link to the squalor. I'm quite happy to have a central repository here in this thread to direct newbies to if JJ gets tackily amorous in public again. It's not a pretty sight. Whether this will in fact make Gill and Peter happy I've no idea but we can push ahead and find out.

So far, for the record, we have the following descriptions of JJ's online behavior on ForumGarden posted into this thread:

Peter Lake: An internet pest who attempts to engage members online into sexual contact

FourPart: I think the term "Online Sexual Harasser", if there is such a term, would be more appropriate.

Peter Lake: I am not disputing his behaviour in the past but online sexual harassment is worlds away from a sexual predator, online or not.

Gill only goes so far as 'chatting up' various ladies online does not necessarily constitute 'sexual harassment', but I do so like the "not necessarily" as a get-out from going all the way to acknowledging JJ's behavior constitutes sexual harassment.

And, for competeness, Peter asks "Do you have a link to a definition of online sexual predator that in no way indicates a peadophile?". Yes, Peter. The perfectly good definitions you provided links to. I've already said they're good definitions. Try reading what I wrote and this time focus harder.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:12 am

TÃ½r;1460049 wrote: ... I'm .... commanded ..... to put these links into this thread. I'm out until evening but okay, you summoned them up, I'll link to the squalor.

Does this mean you won't have time come with us to Kristianstad either? Jesus. Forget Jones and come along with us instead.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:23 am

High Threshold;1460052 wrote: Does this mean you won't have time come with us to Kristianstad either? Jesus. Forget Jones and come along with us instead.

Good lord man, I'm five hours from the nearest airport! To get there I would definitely start from somewhere else!

eta: Nearest civilian international airport. I'm discounting grass strips and Coastal Defence helicopter bases.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 3:43 am

TÃ½r;1460049 wrote: It's an interesting position to have reached, I think. We have general agreement but at the same time I'm invited by several members to post links to JJ's old posts made under different accounts which are now closed - not just invited, a better word would be commanded. Gill and Peter both insist that I put these links into this thread.

I'm out until evening but okay, you summoned them up, I'll link to the squalor. I'm quote happy to have a central repository here in this thread to direct newbies to if JJ gets tackily amorous in public again. It's not a pretty sight. Whether this will in fact make Gill and Peter happy I've no idea but we can push ahead and find out.

So far, for the record, we have the following descriptions of JJ's online behavior on ForumGarden posted into this thread:

Peter Lake:An internet pest who attempts to engage members online into sexual contact

FourPart: I think the term "Online Sexual Harasser", if there is such a term, would be more appropriate.

Peter Lake: I am not disputing his behaviour in the past but online sexual harassment is worlds away from a sexual predator, online or not.

Gill only goes so far as 'chatting up' various ladies online does not necessarily constitute 'sexual harassment', but I do so like the "not necessarily" as a get-out from going all the way to acknowledging JJ's behavior constitutes sexual harassment.

And, for competeness, Peter asks "Do you have a link to a definition of online sexual predator that in no way indicates a peadophile?". Yes, Peter. The perfectly good definitions you provided links to. I've already said they're good definitions. Try reading what I wrote and this time focus harder.

Enough! It happened and it is in the Garden for those that wish to to find.

I do not want it resurrecting and being brought into the limelight again.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 3:46 am

Bryn Mawr;1460058 wrote: Enough! It happened and it is in the Garden for those that wish to to find.

I do not want it resurrecting and being brought into the limelight again.

Ah.

They were insisting, that's all.

Don't tell I, tell Ee.