See, just because everything in the crossed-out section of your post DIDNT happen, doesn't necessarily mean that things didn't cross over into manipulation- territory. I agree that yes, a PART of the OP's motivation was, indeed, to do the right thing. What I'm also saying is that YES, there was some manipulation present during that phone call. How MUCH manipulation? Who knows. 30%, 20%, I don't know. What I'm saying is, really, the entire phone call shouldn't have happened, because it's too triggering and too volatile at the moment to have that conversation over the phone. The email, in my opinion, was totally appropriate. That should have been the end of it, the OP should have blocked the new girlfriend and the cheating ex after stating her piece in the email. The OP should not have needed any response from the new girlfriend whatsoever. It's not ABOUT the new girlfriend. It's about the OP, wanting to do the right thing, for herSELF. Now, we're not perfect animals, and of course there's other feelings tied in to her contacting the new girlfriend. This is why, I think, that the phone call shouldn't have happened AT ALL. It's too personal, it's too invasive, it's too volatile, it's too triggering to both parties, the OP and the new girlfriend. There's too much room for error -- the error of the OP perhaps wandering over to the dark side, so to speak, that dark side being the urge to want the new girlfriend to act, or react, in a way that would punish the cheating ex.
But yes, the OP made a mistake in that she didn't keep this CLEAN. She did manage to get entangled in a phone conversation with the new girlfriend that pissed her off because she figured out that the cheating ex was now going to "get away with it". Now the OP knows that she should not be in contact with either the new girlfriend OR the cheating ex. She learned the hard way. That's tough. Unpleasant. Awkward. Disappointing. If the OP is in a future situation like this one (hopefully not), then hopefully she'll have learned that she shouldn't even remotely hope, even for a second, that the new girlfriend is gonna punish the cheating ex. It's not gonna happen. If it DOES happen, sure, Bonus, but hoping for it is seriously a cowardly move. This is why the OP will, hopefully, in the future, NOT put herself in these positions. She'll enforce her boundaries more, and won't engage the new girlfriends actively like that. Informing her in a one-way email is one thing. Engaging in a real-time interaction and then hoping for some sort of retribution is stepping over some boundaries. I still say it's inappropriate. Now to your last paragraph: 1) The ex boyfriend was harassing the op -- OK. The OP trying to get that harassment to stop by contacting the new girlfriend -- NOT OK. That is not how to get harassment to stop. You get harassment to stop by blocking the ex's phone number, email addresses, social media, and then by IGNORING HIM. If it continues to get worse, you file a restraining order against him contacting you, and you get a court date and you make it happen. You don't contact the new girlfriend -- which could be called harassment of an innocent party-- with the hopes that the new girlfriend will do something to stop the harassment, as if the new girlfriend were the cheating ex's MOM or something. 2) Yes, the new GF has a right to be informed of cheating ex's bullshit. And yes, the new GF is the one who wanted to talk to the OP after the initial email. The OP should have started no-contact and said NO to the phone call, end of story. It's not an easy choice, but nothing about no-contact is easy, right?
And I never said that I think that OP is lying about the STD. I said that I don't buy that the New GF is lying about it, and I asked you to provide some evidence that the new gf is lying. Or hell, provide some evidence that she's telling the truth. What I'm saying is that it's not really very clear if the STD thing was a lie or not. You can't just decide that something is a lie because you're pissed off about something... you have to have evidence that the new GF lied, or told the truth. We have evidence for neither -- unless I missed that part of the original post. If I did, please let me know, seriously. I just didn't think it was established as a lie or otherwise.