Why do you stick around this forum?

crystal_richardson_ wrote:Yes, you are wrong. I didn't even know my posting yesterday had a particular impact on either of us.

You left the thread with

crystal_richardson_ wrote:anyway jomp, this isn't a very productive convo. so I think we're done here and i have to go anyway.

crystal_richardson_ wrote:Wait a second, wasn't it you who said you gave up on love? That the reason why Jomp being unable to love you in the 'normal' sense is not a problem for you is because that is no longer a relationship expectation for you?
And now you're saying your relationship is superior in love?

OMG, ok I have an autistic son who you remind me of in so many ways it's not funny.
I have said that I do not need Jomp to tell me he loves me. I understand he doesn't grasp what love actually entails but hey I have also stated that NO ONE does, it varies in everyones eyes.
He treats me very well, does anything I need and I do the same for him. That is how a relationship works, that is what I consider to be love or part of it.
He does things without hesitation as I do.
You read everything so literal it's hard to even type this without thinking you'll come back with some f*cked up reply.

crystal_richardson_ wrote:

CrackersnCheese wrote:

crystal_richardson_ wrote:
He has emotional needs similar to mine. We understand each other.

Does he know you're on a forum telling people he is that f*cked up?

I don't say he is 'fuked up'.

And isn't that the purpose of this forum?

by saying he is like you isn't calling him f*cked up?

CrackersnCheese wrote:

crystal_richardson_ wrote:Yes, you are wrong. I didn't even know my posting yesterday had a particular impact on either of us.

You left the thread with

crystal_richardson_ wrote:anyway jomp, this isn't a very productive convo. so I think we're done here and i have to go anyway.

I think you read into that a little too much

crystal_richardson_ wrote:I know but this is about you.

Is it? I thought it was about you.

If it's a serious misunderstanding of our relationship then you really are more f*cked up than I first thought. It should have been clear to everyone the light-hearted exchange going on between Crackers, Wooster and MacB. If you don't understand this then I seriously doubt you're able to have any type of relationship, including friends.

If it's not a serious misunderstanding then you must have a reason for doing it and the most likely one is that you're trying to have a dig at me, her or both of us, which is what Crackers mentioned in one of her first posts this morning.

Either way, I have no real interest in this exchange, over and above amusement.

That much defensiveness, one can't help but think there is some truth to it.

But whatever you say.

Mr. No One wrote:Actually I thought it was a pathetic attempt to get him to abuse you in some way by challenging his manhood.

So what's the reflection in that woman's eyes?

I wish her much luck if that's what she was attempting Oddly, I have full confidence this would never happen.
I have no idea what is in the reflection. When I look at that picture I get almost lost in thought, her eyes are intense.

crystal_richardson_ wrote:I was actually hoping to hear more from Jomp...not you speaking for him. Do you feel the need to?

Not particularly, I do feel I am within reason to comment when you have splattered my name throughout most of your commenting.

I do want to add that sometimes things are written in jest(so far most things you have mentioned) and you seem to take everything so literal that you can't see when that is. It's a shame Crys that you seem to take so much pleasure in finding the faults instead of really trying to understand.

crystal_richardson_ wrote:That much defensiveness, one can't help but think there is some truth to it.

But whatever you say.

There was no defensiveness in any of what I just wrote Crystal. How could you perceive it that way?

Seriously, did you not recognise the type of conversation that Crackers was having with Wooster and Macb?

justonemoreperson wrote:Was just made to sit in the kitchen with the dog while the Tesco delivery guy turned up.

At least I can now see the funny side of this ****.

Now.

Was this in jest?

crystal_richardson_ wrote:

CrackersnCheese wrote:

crystal_richardson_ wrote:Yes, you are wrong. I didn't even know my posting yesterday had a particular impact on either of us.

You left the thread with

crystal_richardson_ wrote:anyway jomp, this isn't a very productive convo. so I think we're done here and i have to go anyway.

I think you read into that a little too much

Possibly
Just as you did with this little beauty

"Her rushing in to speak for you kind of signals that you can't or shouldn't entertain what I am suggesting."

here's another secret
Jomp was asleep

crystal_richardson_ wrote:

justonemoreperson wrote:Was just made to sit in the kitchen with the dog while the Tesco delivery guy turned up.

At least I can now see the funny side of this ****.

Now.

Was this in jest?

Do you seriously have to ask?

So you decided all by yourself to sit in the kitchen while you were angry?

That's not what that suggests.

Less literally, it could be interpreted to mean that she merely suggested that you go sit in the kitchen.

But for some reason I don't believe that's what happened.

And how about denying you sex when you're angry? I don't think there is a non-literal interpretation that could change the fact of that matter.