for the record i never claimed that you mis understood what it means to approch the question in other words than those of 'in.. vest.. i.. ga.. tion.. s'. possible mirical? you tell me wy not? i'm being ob-tus ok. but im in tent ion al. your history focus's only on particuler propetie s as they suit you and not me. how about being a bit more au-thentic? i'm not into your an alysis. i will start to investigatt you and i think by doing that i will find you out as kno kind of socal-ist. youre un der ly ing me and there is no point you denying it please. i,m always particulrr. your theo ries are derive-ative. from me. they are so in correctly also. which is worse i say. i have mis con cept ions and i do not trust yuo. we met, after phone calls and you said voice was you'r wife but wasn't, but you whre nothing as you said. so it went re-ally badly. that is'nt me. it is you. it is not that i beleeved you before that. but i had to think truth enough to give it ago, of course that is the way we must always ' be '. if you had gone a-head and ab-ducted me playfully in your carboot and then to sale then as i now now you would have been terrerble to me as i cold not help myself against that and your. in a new way i am really thru with you in all ways that it is poss to be. so it is final and over and ter min a ted. i will as well re-port back to mod,er,ator s and put a note in bold on my blog so i can expos you to otherrs. that is a duty and i think it is right. i won't be argued away from that. this was not a mis under s tand ing. you commerced upon me in way we had not agreed. that has left its trace s in every stage on me. ive talked to a friend and he agrees. the way you spoke to me, about your notions, was terror-ble. i fun da mental ly say you make mistaks, about my naturr, into terms pro phound ly not my own. that fects the way i think of you.