3 ms·

You did decide that, pursuing someone with tenacity doesn't mean there is no chance, you just decided it. In any case it really is immaterial to whether or not

You did decide that, pursuing someone with tenacity doesn't mean there is no chance, you just decided it. In any case it really is immaterial to whether or not he's a stalker anyway. Even if he did believe he had little or no chance, even if he had little or no chance, that still doesn't mean he can't try. There does not have to be any evidence his interest was reciprocated. It doesn't matter that he tried to make a movie for her to win her affection. This isn't stalking. You can't just pick words out of the statute and fit them to thought or behavior. "Targeting" -- of course you can "target" a specific person for a friendship or relationship. That isn't stalking, how else are you going to do it? You have to apply the entire test, and "reasonable person" is one of big ones here.

DoreenMichele 4y ago
You are conflating two things: A general observation I made that If there is no hope she will ever say "yes", he knows that and pursues her anyway, he is a stalker, not a hopeless romantic. and my original statement that the author sounds like borderline a stalker. At no point did I assert definitively that the author was clearly a stalker. If it looks that way to you, that's perhaps because this is an overwhelmingly male forum and I am getting a lot of replies essentially fairly strongly shooting me down and I happen to be choosing to reply to many of those replies to me. That's kind of an unfortunate numbers game on HN and it's sometimes a no-win situation if a woman chooses to make a remark on an issue of this sort and it happens to get a lot of push back. At this point, you are implying that I am not a "reasonable person" and you are doubling down on insisting I did things that I never did. That's veering into territory that the guidelines suggest should be avoided and I am stepping away from this conversation.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > A general observation I made that If there is no hope she will ever say "yes", he knows that and pursues her anyway, he is a stalker, not a hopeless romantic. and my original statement that the author sounds like borderline a stalker. That is what I am addressing, whether or not they sound like a stalker based on the article. > At no point did I assert definitively that the author was clearly a stalker. If it looks that way to you, that's perhaps because this is an overwhelmingly male forum and I am getting a lot of replies essentially fairly strongly shooting me down and I happen to be choosing to reply to many of those replies to me. I'm not arguing that you would have a tough time proving it beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court. I'm saying that wouldn't even be a consideration. It would never get to trial because there would not eve nbe probable cause. It's not stalking. Unless there was anywhere that says or suggests she asked him to leave her alone and he did not, or that he secretly followed or observed her, sent messages or tampered with her property, was violent or threatening around her, or anything of that nature. That might change things. Man going to great lengths to impress woman isn't though. > That's kind of an unfortunate numbers game on HN and it's sometimes a no-win situation if a woman chooses to make a remark on an issue of this sort and it happens to get a lot of push back. Whether or not that's true does not change that this is not stalking though. > At this point, you are implying that I am not a "reasonable person" and you are doubling down on insisting I did things that I never did. That's veering into territory that the guidelines suggest should be avoided and I am stepping away from this conversation. I do not imply that. I am saying I don't think would meet the legal "reasonable person" test, but there are lots of ways that we could disagree other than simply you being unreasonable. Mistaken in other ways in understanding of the situation, or the statute or the law, for example. Not only that if a person does not match legal reasonable person test in all their feelings on everything that doesn't make them an unreasonable person, IMO.

DoreenMichele 4y ago

You are conflating two things: A general observation I made that If there is no hope she will ever say "yes", he knows that and pursues her anyway, he is a stalker, not a hopeless romantic. and my original statement that the author sounds like borderline a stalker. At no point did I assert definitively that the author was clearly a stalker. If it looks that way to you, that's perhaps because this is an overwhelmingly male forum and I am getting a lot of replies essentially fairly strongly shooting me down and I happen to be choosing to reply to many of those replies to me. That's kind of an unfortunate numbers game on HN and it's sometimes a no-win situation if a woman chooses to make a remark on an issue of this sort and it happens to get a lot of push back. At this point, you are implying that I am not a "reasonable person" and you are doubling down on insisting I did things that I never did. That's veering into territory that the guidelines suggest should be avoided and I am stepping away from this conversation.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
> A general observation I made that If there is no hope she will ever say "yes", he knows that and pursues her anyway, he is a stalker, not a hopeless romantic. and my original statement that the author sounds like borderline a stalker. That is what I am addressing, whether or not they sound like a stalker based on the article. > At no point did I assert definitively that the author was clearly a stalker. If it looks that way to you, that's perhaps because this is an overwhelmingly male forum and I am getting a lot of replies essentially fairly strongly shooting me down and I happen to be choosing to reply to many of those replies to me. I'm not arguing that you would have a tough time proving it beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court. I'm saying that wouldn't even be a consideration. It would never get to trial because there would not eve nbe probable cause. It's not stalking. Unless there was anywhere that says or suggests she asked him to leave her alone and he did not, or that he secretly followed or observed her, sent messages or tampered with her property, was violent or threatening around her, or anything of that nature. That might change things. Man going to great lengths to impress woman isn't though. > That's kind of an unfortunate numbers game on HN and it's sometimes a no-win situation if a woman chooses to make a remark on an issue of this sort and it happens to get a lot of push back. Whether or not that's true does not change that this is not stalking though. > At this point, you are implying that I am not a "reasonable person" and you are doubling down on insisting I did things that I never did. That's veering into territory that the guidelines suggest should be avoided and I am stepping away from this conversation. I do not imply that. I am saying I don't think would meet the legal "reasonable person" test, but there are lots of ways that we could disagree other than simply you being unreasonable. Mistaken in other ways in understanding of the situation, or the statute or the law, for example. Not only that if a person does not match legal reasonable person test in all their feelings on everything that doesn't make them an unreasonable person, IMO.