@PhoenixRising
14 Years10,000+ Posts
Kryptonite (Page 4)
You are on page out of 5 | Reverse Order
^^^you have to think a few step ahead of them.
I learned this a very long time ago. The best way to outsmart someone that has the ability to f*ck with you (and their behaviour indicates they will continue to do just that) is to think many steps ahead. Long term. Don't react to them on impulse. To be clear, I am not referring to threat or self perservation. When you react out of pure emotion you run the risk of making mistakes, putting yourself at a disadvantage.
I'd like to say that I'm not at all satisfied. Also, I didn't intentionally put a bruising on him. He got hurt because my attempt to get him to stop following me led to the injury. It wasn't a fist to the fast in a fit of rage. More like a stupid idea in a fit of impatience.
Posted by PhoenixRising
^^^you have to think a few step ahead of them.I learned this a very long time ago. The best way to outsmart someone that has the ability to f*ck with you (and their behaviour indicates they will continue to do just that) is to think many steps ahead. Long term. Don't react to them on impulse. To be clear, I am not referring to threat or self perservation. When you react out of pure emotion you run the risk of making mistakes, putting yourself at a disadvantage.
Agreed
Posted by Kim31
I'd like to say that I'm not at all satisfied. Also, I didn't intentionally put a bruising on him. He got hurt because my attempt to get him to stop following me led to the injury. It wasn't a fist to the fast in a fit of rage. More like a stupid idea in a fit of impatience.
Let me take a guess you were looking for a Gorebasm.
Are you high
or...?
For those of you out there who don't know what a Gorbasm is, it's the obscene obsession with
Mikhail Gorbachev. Remember him? Quite popular. Not unlike Vlad Put, today.
Kim, when you state that it was more like a stupid idea in a fit of impatience, it sounds
to me like it was premeditated.
Premeditated Nasal Hemorrhaging has been shown to lead to a bloody nose, but had his blood
been very thin, he might have bled to death. And you would be facing trial.
Fortunately, for you, his nose clotted. No doubt it would have been stuffy.
Oh ps....
Did his eyes water when you gave him a nasal puddin' pop?
What's a puddin pop?
I don't remember anything about that to say whether they did or didn't.
Posted by Kim31
What's a puddin pop?
When you popped him.
"Kim, when you state that it was more like a stupid idea in a fit of impatience, it sounds to me like it was premeditated."
You had to wait for this to understand the part where I said my deliberate actions led to an accident?
What part of the planet are you standing on? Please tell me. I have got to know!
Posted by Kim31
I don't remember anything about that to say whether they did or didn't.
Well, what happened? You just pop him in the nose, he bled and —
Now your entire question has to be modified.
I'll wait.
Punching him is one act.
How could one act equal two? The two were one was deliberate which led to another which was an accident?
Posted by Kim31
Punching him is one act.
How could one act equal two? The two were one was deliberate which led to another which was an accident?
No, what was his immediate first reaction to your assault on his nose?
Dazed Scorp? Stunned Scorp? etc.
^^ that's what I am asking.
I didn't assault his nose. You're a disappointment, an average cheater. Passing for a student when in reality you've invested more in Cliff's Notes than actual education.
You haven't asked a question based on any of what I've said. Rephrase.
Posted by Kim31
I didn't assault his nose. You're a disappointment, an average cheater. Passing for a student when in reality you've invested more in Cliff's Notes than actual education.
—?? nevermind...
You didn't assault his nose but you punched him in the nose and his nose bled.
Seems like that's what I recall you say happened.
Did I say punch? Hmmm
Posted by Kim31
Did I say punch? Hmmm
Don't tell me you put your fingertip on his nose and rubbed it to make a wish.
Did I say punch?
Posted by FixedWater
Kim, although I am not a Scorpio Male I can say that when my Son got smoked by his Cousin, he was actually quite impressed. Just a different way of thinking about it. Maybe stalker scorp will be impressed that you gave him a bloody nose and not feel the need to initiate stinger operation #20 or whatever number he is currently at right now. Lollights up.... takes a hit. Exhales.
click to expand
Posted by Kim31
Did I say punch?
You said I punched him. MoonArtist asked why I punched him.
I don't recall ever saying I punched him. I did not punch him.
Posted by Kim31
You said I punched him. MoonArtist asked why I punched him.
I don't recall ever saying I punched him. I did not punch him.
Well... how then did he get a bloody nose?
Posted by Kim31
Funny.Since you're here answer this-
If a crab somehow gives her seemingly obsessed stalking Scorpio former friend a bloody nose, what should she expect for him to do in retaliation?
How did you give the scorp a bloody nose?
A mother's guilt over marrying a man who assaulted her child doesn't mean she is guilty of the assault itself does it?
Posted by Kim31
A mother's guilt over marrying a man who assaulted her child doesn't mean she is guilty of the assault itself does it?
What—
Don't skirt around the question, how did the scorp get a bloody nose.
Looks at everyone else: I know, "Why did the chicken cross the road? To give the Scorp a bloody nose." 😛
He got a bloody nose by following me while i ran away from him.
I walked, ran and hid on and off til the chase ended.
Posted by Kim31
He got a bloody nose by following me while i ran away from him.
Posted by Kim31
I walked, ran and hid on and off til the chase ended.click to expand
That does NOT explain how he got the bloody nose.
Stop beating around the bush and just answer the question.
Again... EXACTLY what did you do to give him a bloody nose?
It did answer the only question you've asked me relevant to what I've stated.
All of those in need of visuals, remember Adrienne Saunders in Deceived.
Posted by Kim31
It did answer the only question you've asked me relevant to what I've stated.All of those in need of visuals, remember Adrienne Saunders in Deceived.
A stalker lurks at Adrienne's loft. He comes in to Adrienne's bed while she is asleep and caresses her. He watches Mary, who is spooked by the man in her room at night. One day, as the housekeeper is finishing up her chores and leaving, she surprises the stalker who attacks her, leaving her almost dead in the bathroom and ransacking the apartment.
At work, Adrienne gets an urgent message from Mrs. Sullivan, and she rushes out to her apartment. When she gets there, the door is open, and Mrs. Sullivan is nowhere to be found. As Adrienne looks for her in the apartment, Jack appears. Adrienne slaps him and rages at his cruelty. Jack calms her down and tries to explain. He says that when Jack died, he was completely distraught and that he just sort of fell into his identity during the mourning process. He reveals that a man named Dan Sherman had discovered Jack's false identity and blackmailed him. Jack faked his death in order to escape, knowing that he would have to give up his life with Adrienne and Mary. He tells her that Sherman is insistent on having an Egyptian necklace which is in their apartment, and he asks Adrienne to look for it. As she leaves the apartment, Jack watches her from the window. Behind him, the body of his dead mother lies on the bed with a plastic bag over her head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceived
Bullshit.
In that story, the "stalker" is actually the "stalked".
To use that as a metaphore, suggests that you, Kim, are the stalker and not the stalked.
You know.... Jodi Arias is a Cancer.
Did you kill the Scorp, Kim?
Jesus!
PR, This was where I was coming from and if I could do that fancy bolding thing that you do (cause I think it's awesome Lol) I would bold a few areas here.
Section 423 of the Criminal Code of Canada
Intimidation
423. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,
o (a) uses violence or threats of violence to that person or his or her spouse or common-law partner or children, or injures his or her property;
o (b) intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats that, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him or her or a relative of his or hers, or that the property of any of them will be damaged;
o (c) persistently follows that person;
o (d) hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him or her of them or hinders him or her in the use of them;
o (e) with one or more other persons, follows that person, in a disorderly manner, on a highway;
o (f) besets or watches the place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
o (g) blocks or obstructs a highway.
Marginal note:Exception
(2) A person who attends at or near or approaches a dwelling-house or place, for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information, does not watch or beset within the meaning of this section.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 423;
2000, c. 12, s. 95;
2001, c. 32, s. 10.
(http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-423.html)
Then just a small excerpt from the Handbook for Police on how to handle harassment...
A Handbook for Police and Crown Prosecutors on Criminal Harassment
[ Previous Page |
Table of Contents |
Next Page ]
PART 2: Guidelines For Police: Investigating Criminal Harassment
The investigation of criminal harassment cases involves basic case development as well as the use of crime detection strategies. It may differ somewhat from investigation of other violent offences in that criminal harassment often involves conduct that, in isolation, appears innocent and harmless. As criminal harassment is often a progressive crime that wears down its victims over time, early, effective intervention can go a long way toward preventing more serious psychological harm and escalation of the harassment into violence or homicide. The objective of a police investigation in these cases is two-fold: to stop the harassment, as well as any other acts of violence, at an early stage; and to collect evidence to present a compelling case for prosecution. Since criminal harassment is a crime that may include a pattern of behaviour carried out against the victim over an extended period, an investigation can be time consuming and may involve numerous police reports.
(http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/har/part2.html)
The definition of harassment:
Criminal harassment
264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
Marginal note😛rohibited conduct
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
Marginal note😛unishment
(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Factors to be considered
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating factor that, at the time the offence was committed, the person contravened
(a) the terms or conditions of an order made pursuant to section 161 or a recognizance entered into pursuant to section 810, 810.1 or 810.2; or
(b) the terms or conditions of any other order or recognizance made or entered into under the common law or a provision of this or any other Act of Parliament or of a province that is similar in effect to an order or recognizance referred to in paragraph (a).
Marginal note:Reasons
(5) Where the court is satisfied of the existence of an aggravating factor referred to in subsection (4), but decides not to give effect to it for sentencing purposes, the court shall give reasons for its decision.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 264;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 37;
1993, c. 45, s. 2;
1997, c. 16, s. 4, c. 17, s. 9;
(http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-264.html)
Posted by MrFirebird
In that story, the "stalker" is actually the "stalked".
To use that as a metaphore, suggests that you, Kim, are the stalker and not the stalked.You know.... Jodi Arias is a Cancer.
Did you kill the Scorp, Kim?
now you're just making up stuff....
Jodi is, yes. But my chart mirrors that of a different notorious killer.
Posted by MrFirebird
In that story, the "stalker" is actually the "stalked".
To use that as a metaphore, suggests that you, Kim, are the stalker and not the stalked.You know.... Jodi Arias is a Cancer.
Did you kill the Scorp, Kim?
now you're just making up stuff....
Jodi is, yes. But my chart mirrors that of a different notorious killer.
click to expand
Ahhhhhhhh.
Now we're getting somewhere.
And who might that killer be that you identify with?
What do you mean?
The original point I made referred to Kim and Scorp's history, that he took it a 'tad' too far, and that she was trying to remove herself from a situation that she did not want. I am pretty literal at times and the above posts will give you the reasons why I feel the way I do.
Just to be sure, I did not post this information to be a B**ch, I posted the above information because the topic as a whole is one I have had experience with more than I care to elaborate on, and one that I am very passionate about. It is important in this type of conversation that whatever I put on the table is accurate.
That is not to say that this conversation should be held in a thread about 'kryptonite' as I feel it is worthy of it's own thread. However, for the purposes of the way this thread/conversation went, I have done due diligence as I see it.
Posted by FixedWater
The definition of harassment:Criminal harassment
264. (1) No person shall, blah blah blah..
Marginal note😛rohibited conduct
Marginal note😛unishment
(http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-264.html)
Fixed,
I noticed that Miss Lois Laws of Canada seems to enjoy stickin' her tongue out at ya.
Seems kinda immature, don't ya think?
Why are you lying about Mrs. Saunders?
Posted by FixedWater
The original point I made referred to Kim and Scorp's history, that he took it a 'tad' too far, and that she was trying to remove herself from a situation that she did not want. I am pretty literal at times and the above posts will give you the reasons why I feel the way I do.Just to be sure, I did not post this information to be a B**ch, I posted the above information because the topic as a whole is one I have had experience with more than I care to elaborate on, and one that I am very passionate about. It is important in this type of conversation that whatever I put on the table is accurate.
That is not to say that this conversation should be held in a thread about 'kryptonite' as I feel it is worthy of it's own thread. However, for the purposes of the way this thread/conversation went, I have done due diligence as I see it.
FW has much more information about the situation that I told her in private.
Posted by FixedWater
The definition of harassment:Criminal harassment
264. (1) No person shall, blah blah blah..
Marginal note😛rohibited conduct
Marginal note😛unishment
(http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-264.html)
Fixed,
I noticed that Miss Lois Laws of Canada seems to enjoy stickin' her tongue out at ya.
Seems kinda immature, don't ya think?click to expand
I noticed that too and thought WTF? Lmao .... ~try to make a serious point and this is what I get~ :d
Want to keep conversations like this alive?
Real conversations about anger, reactions, and emotional patterns in Scorpio can be hard to find. Support dxpnet to keep them available.
Every contribution helps keep dxpnet independent and ad-light.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →
I think it is a matter of perspective. While yours is focused on the natural cause and effect of what occurred between Kim and this Scorp, mine was focused on 1) the message your statement implied (on a larger scale not just Kim's situation) and 2) how she could have reacted without putting herself in a situation where she is still "looking over her shoulder" due to retaliation because of an impulsive (vs automatic) reaction.
Fight or flight refers to an automatic reaction to fear/threat. It is a reaction we actually can not control and kicks in without any thought involved---no frontal lobe cortext influence. This was not the case here. Not based on what she wrote initially. This was confirmed as soon as she stated intent, so the idea of it being a reaction to fear went out the window. Again, this was only based on what she wrote at the time of my post.
My response was not suggesting that he wasn't wrong or inappropriate for his behaviour, simply that a shift in power has occurred to his advantage because Kim allowed her emotions to get the better of her. She played into his hands. Sure maybe she got the satisfaction of bruising his ego, but he now has the satisfaction of having something over her.
I don't know any where a person can legally justify breaking someone's nose because the other person was eavesdropping on their conversation or because the person was frustrated and needed privacy. If he was a real threat prior to this point, the question will always be asked "what did you do to get him to stop?" So now she's on the defensive when he should be. Did he deserve it (that matter of debate for a few apparently). Can she justify it. Emotionally sure. Legally she can not. So who still has the upper hand? He was and is still an irritant. To outsmart a person like that, with as little stress as possible