You're right, yes, that I as an "other" have a right to comment on something here going on between you and Dem that I'm finding very humourous. Oh, by the way, why don't you explain exactly what you meant by your convoluted and protracted quote.
Ahh. Such an interpretation of "bully," that you must hold that you feel so free to name-call and mud-sling... and then point to me as the bully. To presume my inability to read between your many lines and not see what you relentlessly attempt.
To think I'm soliciting others to gang up on you when you have already been fully engaged for a long, long time. Let's not forget that Laurie is still pouring the wine. I've only not had the chance to properly respond to your gullibility with allegations.
However, I'll take this opportunity to point out one of many lies of yours here:
Well, I don,t think so. But I consider that private lifes of non-celebrities as well is not much of my business than private life of celebrities, this as long as that does not affect my private life, I consider that they don't need my acknowledgment, or my permission to be interested in private life of celebrities if they do. Not my business.
Just an FYI ~ I'm a non-celebrity, and I do not recall seeing you or having any level of business with you in New Orleans, yet you are certainly present in that thread, despite your claims; yet very in keeping with your false claims.
Your ignorance regarding the Events is showing. It's easy as easy can be to avoid seeing, looking at, or speaking to someone. As for "weard" on the Forum, I'll take weird any day, if you represent normal.
Your ignorance regarding NOLA is showing, as well. There were no attacks face-to-face. However, there were many [with additional ones by those whose "business" it admittedly is not] compressed into one here. Once again, "seizing" the opportunity to add to what was said, as though you were there, as though you 'knew'... anything. Then, a measure more of your own insults and mud-slinging, as you self-righteously call me "bully."
Another insight that puts into perspective a number of your previous complaints about me was provided to me by you. Not that I didn't suspect it, but it's always better to get it from the horse's mouth [italics mine]:
It is because you are a male, probably. I say this because I feel better in the company of males (in term of quantity not necessarily quality)and I think they are feeling better in my company than women. Men are much more nice with me than women, in general. [/] Only jerks are jerks, this has no sex. This said when I get along well with a woman it is a really rich experience. I don't think that all this has to do with sexism. But with nature.
I too had think at 27 that my life would have been more easy if I had been born a man.
I don't focus on relationships with men, here or elsewhere. My relationship interest is with people. As for your apparent 'wish' to have been a man for the sake of 'ease' in this life, with my apologies to all the kind, gentle males here, you exhibit rather prominently some stereotypical male qualities of aggression and, yes, bullying... even to the extent of junior-high, school-yard level taunts like "Vomit!" ~ with many etc's.
Find Suzanne so you can look in her mirror.