 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / July 2009Well, well!
...after digging my way up and out of all the spam, I'm back. I guess it's been a long while since I checked in, but I am still around. I've found I'm just always busy with this or that. Things around here seem to be settling down a little. DS is out of school for the summer and finished another excellent year at school and happy to not be 8 anymore - he's eight AND A HALF!, DD1 is about to turn 4 (less than 2 weeks away now), DD2 is still in her terrible 2's - which I hope will not continue with the terrible 3's in October and DD3 is 5.5 months old now. N and I are in some serious marriage counselling, and it seems to be going well. I said I'd NEVER go back to all the garbage that was around back fall/winter last year and I didn't really. We're seeing a counsellor and it really seems to help. He's getting away from the drugs and with that said, he seems to be a much more 'normal' human being. He doesn't fly off the handle and act like a total a.s at all anymore. This is the last shot I'm willing to give for this and I've also committed to giving it a real good shot for things. I've been reading a few books that are, generally, family related. One is about "raising my 'spirited' child", another about dealing with behaviour of children and the last one is about dealing with and getting a husband to talk and aims for a good and healthy relationship. I really like the last one mentioned as I find it REALLY makes sense and what it says about the sexes really hits the nail on the head. Even things that were new to me and I didn't believe, I'd read it to N and ask him about it and he said that whatever the topic in question was, the book had it exactly right from a guy's point or whatever. Good book, anyways. I really feel that now, and for the first time EVER, we're closer to being on the same level with a lot of things and by working on our issues, we're now more of a "team" kind of (maybe that's a bad word to use and not the right one but it's all I can think of at this hour haha) So anyways... the last little while things have been going very well, especially considering how things were and how absolutely gone down the sh.tter things were. That's about it for now. > ...after digging my way up and out of all the spam, I'm back. > I guess it's been a long while since I checked in, but I am still around. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > sh.tter things were. > That's about it for now. Glad to hear things are going better for you, Kat! >> ...after digging my way up and out of all the spam, I'm back. >> I guess it's been a long while since I checked in, but I am still around. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Glad to hear things are going better for you, Kat! Yes, definitely better... Not exactly perfect or ideal - but with that said, I don't believe anything can really ever be 'perfect' - but definitely better by a fair bit. Then I realize what I started since that original post... Seems that every now and then I start a bit war of words around here :( lol > >> ...after digging my way up and out of all the spam, I'm back. > >> I guess it's been a long while since I checked in, but I am still around. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Then I realize what I started since that original post... Seems that every > now and then I start a bit war of words around here :( lol I don't think you started any war of words, Kat :) You must have posted here mostly before I joined...still, I'm glad to hear you're doing well, that your path and your efforts have brought you to a better place. Fill On Jul 27, 3:03 pm, "Kat" <xk...@none.com> wrote: > "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote in > messagenews:U6GdnQAVC-zBi_TXnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@earthlink.com... [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > Then I realize what I started since that original post... Seems that every > now and then I start a bit war of words around here :( lol I don't think you started any war of words, Kat :) You must have posted here mostly before I joined...still, I'm glad to hear you're doing well, that your path and your efforts have brought you to a better place. Fill --- I think I just happened to post on one of those days where things were destined to "pick up" haha I don't know when I was first here. Years ago, anyway. I know I had taken a fair break for a fairly long while then came back. I seem to kind of go through cycles of being around and not being around. One thing, though, with other peoples' good AND bad experiences, I've always taken what I can use (almost always with with a grain of salt) and have disregarded what I can't use ;) > On Jul 27, 3:03 pm, "Kat" <xk...@none.com> wrote: >> "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > what I can use (almost always with with a grain of salt) and have > disregarded what I can't use ;) What a novel concept! Brava Kat. :-) Vickie > > On Jul 27, 3:03 pm, "Kat" <xk...@none.com> wrote: > >> "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > Vickie Yeah. What Vickie and Kat said. > N and I are in some serious marriage counselling, and it seems > to be going well. > I'm willing to give for this and I've also committed to giving > it a real good shot for things. > I really feel that now, and for the first time EVER, we're > closer to being on the same level with a lot of things and by > working on our issues, we're now more of a "team" kind of (maybe > that's a bad word to use and not the right one but it's all I > can think of at this hour haha) > So anyways... the last little while things have been going very > well, especially considering how things were and how absolutely > gone down the sh.tter things were. And among all of the other changes you've made during this time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the "support" of the regulars here is one of them. You do the math! > And among all of the other changes you've made during this time, not > posting your issues here, and not getting the "support" of the regulars > here is one of them. > > You do the math! Perhaps the name of this newsgroup should be changed to alt.support.marriage-not-for-posting-of marital-problems-and-no-actual-support-given. >> And among all of the other changes you've made during this time, not >> posting your issues here, and not getting the "support" of the regulars [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > alt.support.marriage-not-for-posting-of > marital-problems-and-no-actual-support-given. LOL. Can we do that? Or have we already? >> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message >> news:z8WdnWbN5_JDAfTXnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > LOL. Can we do that? Or have we already? I believe intent, is only part of the input to an expected result. So yes, you could call a banana an apple, and still have the same results in either case. > > And among all of the other changes you've made during this time, not > > posting your issues here, and not getting the "support" of the regulars [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > alt.support.marriage-not-for-posting-of > marital-problems-and-no-actual-support-given. I'd find that sad, actually, since my experience here has been just the opposite. :( >> > And among all of the other changes you've made during this time, not >> > posting your issues here, and not getting the "support" of the regulars [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'd find that sad, actually, since my experience here has been just > the opposite. :( You're pretty good at giving advice, too! > >> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You're pretty good at giving advice, too! Really? That kinda stuns me. Never been one of my strong suits--most of anything I suggest is always so filtered thru my own experience and perspective that I always feel inadequate that way...always felt more of a follower of good advice than a leader of giving it :) >>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You're pretty good at giving advice, too! LOL! Yeah, as her relationship crashes and burns. >>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > LOL! Yeah, as her relationship crashes and burns. AY - Did you really need to go there? Just because we don't necessarily have the best/right answers to our own situations, doesn't mean others can't benefit from our experience. Also, we do not know both sides of Fill's relationship, nor the details. Who is to say she hasn't made excellent decisions on every step of her path? You? If you were to say yes, I'd call you a fool. I'm not sticking up for Fill, as she is perfectly capable of doing so if she so choses. I'm just pointing out a place here where you are losing the respect of others with a comment like that. You may be as raw and bracing (causes other to think), but not all situations require that you input that way. Nor should they. Regards, Bob >>>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > AY - Did you really need to go there? Well, as I explained to rj, and now to you, he relishes doing that. (You probably haven't been here long enough to know that yet :-). > Just because we don't necessarily have the best/right answers to our own > situations, doesn't mean others can't benefit from our experience. No! You don't say! :-) > Also, we do not know both sides of Fill's relationship, nor the details. > Who is to say she hasn't made excellent decisions on every step of her > path? You? If you were to say yes, I'd call you a fool. (I could really add something here, but my own well-reknown, self-modesty, prevents me. :-) > I'm not sticking up for Fill, as she is perfectly capable of doing so if > she so choses. > > I'm just pointing out a place here where you are losing the respect of > others with a comment like that. What makes you think he ever had it? > You may be as raw and bracing (causes other to think), but not all > situations require that you input that way. Nor should they. > > Regards, > > Bob >>>>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> >> Bob Bill - I have been neglectful in being a full participant on ASM, but I have been here for years. I have also seen you and every one else's posts that have posted for the last years... at least the regulars. I respect a number of you long term group participants. And just because I did not post, does not mean I did not read. I actually like many of the long term folks including AY. He has his own style, as do you. You happen to be quite a bit more PC, but his views are no less valid, if a bit "brisk". As a third party viewer I say that. That is also why I felt okay with saying what I did on the earlier post. I have learned from you, Fill, AY, Deja, and several others much that caused me to look within for what I think about my own issues, and for that I thank all of you. But I also think the dynamics of this group prevent all of us at times to see the value of some of the others. I would not try and change that. All I wanted to say here, is that you *all* add value. Isn't that the purpose here? To better understand ourselves, the ones we interact with, and to make a positive progress forward even if we are not happy? Hopefully that includes the ones we love :-) i know... I'm rambling again... But I do like and am concerned with all postings here :-) I have my own issues, but in listening, and sometimes having input, I hope to add value, and better understand my own issues and how to proceed in bettering the circumstances. Regards, Bob >>>>>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>>>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > happen to be quite a bit more PC, but his views are no less valid, if a > bit "brisk". "Brisk" isn't the right adjective. :-) But if you've been here a long time, you'd know that AY hasn't been here all that long. But then again, we may have different definitions of "long term". So who has been here a "long time"? Just a handful of us at this point. > As a third party viewer I say that. That is also why I felt okay with > saying what I did on the earlier post. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Isn't that the purpose here? For some of us, yes. (But I can think of a couple of exceptions). > To better understand ourselves, the ones we > interact with, and to make a positive progress forward even if we are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bob >>>>>>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>>>>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >> >> Bob If by long time you have a concern, is being out her on the Inet since 1983 long enough for you? If having access is before there were ISP's, is that long enough for you? Had access when it was military "alpha" sites, and schools only? Would it help you to have a measure in return to know that one of the co-authors of Berkley Unix (Evi Nemeth) was one of my Unix instructors? That one of the first systems I supported was built by Philco Ford? And if that were the case, would it matter? Also, "long term" is relative. Did I measure when you arrived? Not really, but I do know it's been a while. I was accessing before there was a graphical representation. Is that early enough? I choose to think of AY a long term participant because that is what he is. Has he been here as long as you? Who cares? The point here is he brings his business to the table, just like you do, and it did not start yesterday. Just saying.... and no, I'm not really old. Born in 1961, but had early access to much of the technology we are using today. And if I want to use the term "brisk", rather than something a bit more enthusiastic, that is my prerogative. I can choose not to be rude. I also consider myself to be a friend, rather than anonymous. That also is my prerogative. Regards, Bob >>>>>>>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>>>>>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > I was accessing before there was a graphical representation. Is that > early enough? I was talking about "how long" on this (or the cousin ASD) newsgroup(s), not how long you have been on the Internet, Bob. :-) I know you are too young to remember Edison, however. :-) > I choose to think of AY a long term participant because that is what he > is. Has he been here as long as you? Who cares? The point here is he > brings his business to the table, The trollling business? If I wanted trolling, I'd move to the coast! Hmmm, come to think of it, moving to the coast may not be a bad idea. :-) Just to set the record straight, AY has engaged in a plethora of ad-hominems, with many started by him (despite his pretenses to the contrary). (He won't admit that - it's always "started" by someone else, or is someone else's fault, etc, ad nauseum). One thing I have a hard time dealing with is dishonesty and denial, so I will call him (or anyone) out on it. > just like you do, and it did not start yesterday. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And if I want to use the term "brisk", rather than something a bit more > enthusiastic, that is my prerogative. I can choose not to be rude. Yes, you can. > I also consider myself to be a friend, rather than anonymous. That also > is my prerogative. Not sure what you mean here (as to who is anonymous - I guess you're referring to AY, who is afraid to give his name or anything else that is personal, instead relying on being rude as a game (see his disclaimer) On Jul 26, 11:19 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Innews:h4fqeg$s30$1@aioe.org, > >> dejablues <dejabl...@comcast.net> mused: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > No! You don't say! :-) Equally significantly, when we *do* make the best/right choices in our own situations, whose to say these would be best/right for someone else? > > Also, we do not know both sides of Fill's relationship, nor the details. > > Who is to say she hasn't made excellent decisions on every step of her > > path? You? If you were to say yes, I'd call you a fool. > > (I could really add something here, but my own well-reknown, self-modesty, > prevents me. :-) Bill, you're far too humble :) There is one decision I made that I am terribly ashamed of, and I will need to make an amend when the time is right. And I'm sure there will be others that come to me later, and I hope I will make good decisions on how to handle those as well. > > I'm not sticking up for Fill, as she is perfectly capable of doing so if > > she so choses. ME??? :) > > I'm just pointing out a place here where you are losing the respect of > > others with a comment like that. > > What makes you think he ever had it? "(I could really add something here, but my own well-reknown, self- modesty, prevents me. :-)" > > You may be as raw and bracing (causes other to think), but not all > > situations require that you input that way. Nor should they. > > > Regards, > > > Bob > On Jul 26, 11:19 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >>>>>>> news:z8WdnWbN5_JDAfTXnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@ posted.choiceonecommunications... >>>>>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>>>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Bill, you're far too humble :) I can't help myself sometimes. :-) > There is one decision I made that I am terribly ashamed of, and I will > need to make an amend when the time is right. And I'm sure there will [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "(I could really add something here, but my own well-reknown, self- > modesty, prevents me. :-)" Although it's almost reaching the point that I just might stop being so polite. But I don't want to sink down to $$'s level, but damn, there are limits! >>>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > AY - Did you really need to go there? Yes. If you take a look back, she set the tone for being a tough guy when, for no reason whatsoever, started down the path of constant ad hominems with me. Grant you, it doesn't bother me, but I'm simply pointing our that if you're gonna establish the tough guy persona, and if you're gonna engage in an unprovoked campaign of personal attacks, then you'd better be prepared to be able to take the unvarnished truth of your situation. >>>>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > personal attacks, then you'd better be prepared to be able to take > the unvarnished truth of your situation. Could you choose to be the bigger person and just not go there? Just asking as I have a lot of respect for both of you, and these type of snipes just bugs me. You mention the word campaign.. is it possible that it was an off day/week instead? I ask because I've been there. In fact, I was there as recent as 7/1 on another group :-( I'd rather us just all be friends. :-) Bob >>>>>> On Jul 24, 6:31 pm, "dejablues" <dejabl...@comcast.net> >>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Could you choose to be the bigger person and just not go there? I am the bigger person in that I didn't respond in kind. OTOH, I see no reason to be tactful in her case either. > You mention the word campaign.. is it possible that it was an off > day/week instead? No. >>>>>>> On Jul 24, 6:31 pm, "dejablues" <dejabl...@comcast.net> >>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > No. Okay.. maybe you didn't respond in kind at the time. Why did you respond the way you did *this* time? It sure seems to me you popped out of the woodwork with negative things to say. (LOL! Yeah, as her relationship crashes and burns.) This was neither constructive, or polite. And if you did not respond back when you felt you had issue, you are at this point in time. Bob > > Innews:h4k583$btk$1@news.eternal-september.org, > > Bob Muncie <bob.mun...@gmail.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Bob Just for the record, my relationship (I assume we're talking about the relationship with STBX) is neither crashing nor burning, and it hasn't been for quite some time now. You'd have to go back to when-- November?--to find it in crash-n-burn state. It's simply over, awaiting the final legal decree. In news:c66ee23f-8159-428d-9023-aebaf4b53f56@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, phelbooth <phelbooth@gmail.com> mused: > Just for the record, my relationship (I assume we're talking > about the > relationship with STBX) is neither crashing nor burning, and it > hasn't > been for quite some time now. You'd have to go back to when-- > November?--to find it in crash-n-burn state. LOL! 'How dare you say that my dog is sick and dying. The sitruation is nowhere near that bad. He's dead!' Amazing!  SignatureNOTICE: I treat everything which anyone posts in Usenet as nothing more than a work of fiction with no basis in fact or reality whatsoever. Every comment in every one of my posts is nothing more than a useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must never be taken seriously or as having any positive value to anyone for any reasons. I never assume that there's any more to a story than what I have read, no matter what else the author or anyone else may have posted anywhere. Be advised that my remarks are that of an ignorant layperson, and no one should ever base their decisions upon them under any circumstances. > In > news:c66ee23f-8159-428d-9023-aebaf4b53f56@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must never be taken > seriously or as having any positive value to anyone for any reasons. Yup, that about summarizes it. At least that's honest. > I never assume that there's any more to a story than what I have > read, no matter what else the author or anyone else may have posted > anywhere. Be advised that my remarks are that of an ignorant > layperson, and no one should ever base their decisions upon them > under any circumstances. On Jul 27, 1:00 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > In > >news:c66ee23f-8159-428d-9023-aebaf4b53f56@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > layperson, and no one should ever base their decisions upon them > > under any circumstances. Seconded. Well summarized. > On Jul 27, 1:00 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Seconded. Well summarized. The worst part about it is that he seems proud of it. I guess that's part of the trollin' mindset. On Jul 27, 2:30 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > On Jul 27, 1:00 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > The worst part about it is that he seems proud of it. I guess that's part > of the trollin' mindset. Hey Beams--nice to be online when you are--I actually did agree that the sick-dying dog was worse than the dead one :) - that's what I meant by well summarized - just to clarify :) > On Jul 27, 2:30 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > just to clarify :) What??? You mean I mistook what was being well-summarized??? Send me to the gallows! :-) On Jul 27, 2:45 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > On Jul 27, 2:30 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > What??? You mean I mistook what was being well-summarized??? Send me to > the gallows! :-) It'll have to one of them double-gallows, since my response wasn't positioned in a way to be clear. Shame on us! Any ideas about who-is-most-likely-to-let-the-neck-slicer-fall? > Okay.. maybe you didn't respond in kind at the time. Why did you > respond the way you did *this* time? It sure seems to me you > popped out of the woodwork with negative things to say. (LOL! > Yeah, as her relationship crashes and burns.) This was neither > constructive, or polite. And if you did not respond back when > you felt you had issue, you are at this point in time. Bob, I appreciate your attempts at mediation, or attitude modification, or whatever your motivation might be. It seems well intentioned. But here's the thing....... IMO, every group or organization takes on a sort of persona of its own, and as it does so, it tends to attract and keep members consistent with its development, and tends to expel or repel those who are not. Therefore, in many cases, and without any conscious attempt to do so, some groups can enter a vicious cycle in which they perpetuate a particular kind of behavior which its members believe is perfectly normal and acceptable because, after all, 'everyone else in the group acts that way'. In this case, this group, in general, has adopted the persona of providing a certain kind of 'support'. It has also established its own 'in crowd' mentality. The problem is that, IMHO, the kind of support it provides can be enormously harmful to those who least need any additional harm to befall them. (e.g., Xorra, Cait, Kat, Jen, etc...) And as much as I'd like to say that it's as well intentioned as your comments to me might be, I can honestly say that I do not believe that it is. Conversely, I think very many people come here to scratch a certain itch. They come here to prove their bona fides as compassionate, tolerant, and morally high standing individuals, and post accordingly no matter how much harm it may do others. For instance, one prevalent theme of the responses made to people in search of help is to pile onto those posters worst fears and speculations about their spouses. Someone can come here in a moment of weakness or despair looking for validation that their worst opinion about their spouse is true by posting a highly slanted version of a story, and there'll be no shortage of responses here providing that exact validation in the name of 'support'. Never mind that the most helpful response might be to explore that story a little bit to test its veracity, or to try other ways to get that person to see things in a different light. Responders want to prove their compassion, and so they'll just jump on the bandwagon. There's a case in point right here this morning. Someone posted about finding an email or one series of emails that was vaguely described as inappropriate between her DH and another woman. "I find an email he has been communicating with a girl half my age at work. It appeared he didn't really want to be with her as much as he wanted the attention of a younger woman. The emails weren't real suggestive but it hurt to know that he wanted that kind of attention elsewhere." To that, one response of 'support' takes it as a given that her DH is 'flirty' by nature. What? The OP describes herself as the jealous type anyway, and so who knows what she's put the guy through, or whether those emails are really inappropriate or not, and yet, almost by decree, she's given the 'support' to reinforce the notion that he's 'flirty by nature', even though the OP never suggested any such thing! And if I challenge that 'support' what I'll get is that it's just support for what the OP already believes. Do any of us really want to be supported in our worst fears regarding our spouses? Do we? Well, I've gone on long enough. But the bottom line is that I have no use for people like Fill who have proven that they have no platform from which to criticize how others view support, and yet engage on a tear to vilify people who disagree with them nonetheless. And I have no problem making it perfectly clear that people like her who are so consumed with anger that they can't engage in any kind of reasonable debate (which is probably why her life is a disaster) are in no position to offer any kind of 'support' to anyone. I respect your option to disagree with me on this matter. >> Okay.. maybe you didn't respond in kind at the time. Why did you >> respond the way you did *this* time? It sure seems to me you >> popped out of the woodwork with negative things to say. (LOL! >> Yeah, as her relationship crashes and burns.) This was neither >> constructive, or polite. And if you did not respond back when >> you felt you had issue, you are at this point in time. Trimmed a ton of stuff, cause you were so in depth with your response, I can only respect you. > I respect your option to disagree with me on this matter. I appreciate you recognize what I was attempting. But did you actually reply to my original question? I think not. I realize nobody is happy with everyone else's point of view, and some will never be in some cases. That does not excuse rudeness. Tell me you were not that. I would call you a liar. Misplaced feelings or not, you both have lots to add to this forum. I know as I've read tons from both of you over time. Why is there a need to be rude, rather than just respectful? I don't understand how two people as bright as you both are, can't choose to just disagree on some things, and just move along. Am I just stupid here? Bob >>> Okay.. maybe you didn't respond in kind at the time. Why did >>> you respond the way you did *this* time? It sure seems to me [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I appreciate you recognize what I was attempting. But did you > actually reply to my original question? I think not. I think I did, as you say, in depth. The short version of why I replied as I did now is this..... I have no problem very giving my very plain response to the suggestion that Fill has good advice to offer given how her approach to relationships has played out in her own life. I would've been more tactful had I thought that Fill needed that, but by her own standards, she's proven that she does not. > I realize nobody is happy with everyone else's point of view, > and some will never be in some cases. That does not excuse [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > along. > Am I just stupid here? Not at all. I remain perfectly happy to agree to disagree. I've always demonstrated that penchant with Fill. I even had some encouraging and complimentary comments to make to her when she first joined the group. But that was met with totally unprovoked ad hominems from her for reasons which I can only assume were to endear herself to the other regulars here. After more of that than with which I cared to deal, I simply adopted the approach of either totally ignoring her, despite months of her snipping at me at every opportunity, or of once in a great while offering my unvarnished opinion of the value of her opinions. I remain, as always, willing to agree to disagree with anyone until it becomes rather obvious through protracted postings that this willingness is not reciprocated. At that point, it's either ignore, or be bluntly honest. I've chosen mostly the former, but sometimes, the latter. >>>> Okay.. maybe you didn't respond in kind at the time. Why did >>>> you respond the way you did *this* time? It sure seems to me [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > or be bluntly honest. I've chosen mostly the former, but sometimes, > the latter. Notice how it's always everybody elses fault. Wonder why that is..... <snip> >despite months of her > snipping at me at every opportunity > <snip> > >> despite months of her >> snipping at me at every opportunity Notice how one sided this is. Gee, what a surprise. Who's playing the victim card here? >>> Okay.. maybe you didn't respond in kind at the time. Why did you >>> respond the way you did *this* time? It sure seems to me you [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I appreciate you recognize what I was attempting. But did you actually > reply to my original question? I think not. He won't, Bob. But what surprises me is that you would even expect it, considering how long you've been here. > I realize nobody is happy with everyone else's point of view, and some > will never be in some cases. That does not excuse rudeness. Tell me you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > know as I've read tons from both of you over time. Why is there a need > to be rude, rather than just respectful? It's called trolling. As he essentially says in his disclaimer, it's all a game to him. >>>> Okay.. maybe you didn't respond in kind at the time. Why did you >>>> respond the way you did *this* time? It sure seems to me you [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > It's called trolling. As he essentially says in his disclaimer, it's all a > game to him. One can always hope that things straighten themselves out... maybe with a proper push? Sort of like your comment one post up was unnecessary, unless the the intent was to get in a cheap shot. I know this has been going on a long time amongst you. That does not stop me from wishing it would end. Bob >>>>> Okay.. maybe you didn't respond in kind at the time. Why did >>>>> you respond the way you did *this* time? It sure seems to me [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > I know this has been going on a long time amongst you. That does > not stop me from wishing it would end. I fully agree. That's why, for the most part, even though they've been trying to get me to bite literally for years now, I almost always avoid them. Check it out. BTW, my disclaimer in no way suggests that I take this as a game. OTOH, I want to make it clear that because anyone can post the most outrageous stuff here, that I have no choice but to assume that everything here is just a story which may or may not be a work of fiction. I also want to make it clear that contrary to what some people would have others believe about their qualifications, that I have no trouble acknowledging that I know nothing about interpersonal relationships except what my own experiences have taught me, and that just because it works perfectly for me doesn't mean that it'll work for anyone else. Some people find it so foreign to admit that what they have to say might be less than helpful to anyone else that they derive some sort of pleasure in pointing out that I'm willing to admit that I know it might be true of what I have to say. But as you suggested Bob, I think that just makes me the bigger person by contrast. Anyway, moving on......... >>>>>> Okay.. maybe you didn't respond in kind at the time. Why did >>>>>> you respond the way you did *this* time? It sure seems to me [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > BTW, my disclaimer in no way suggests that I take this as a game. ROFL! I am once again reminded of something I heard awhile back (ok, it was a long while back, so I may have it slightly wrong): "Forgive them Lord, for they cannot see..." I realize it's probably before your time, though, and will fall on deaf ears anyway. > OTOH, I want to make it clear that because anyone can post the most > outrageous stuff here, that I have no choice but to assume that > everything here is just a story which may or may not be a work of > fiction. Of course you do. > I also want to make it clear that contrary to what some > people would have others believe about their qualifications, that I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > might be true of what I have to say. But as you suggested Bob, I > think that just makes me the bigger person by contrast. You're not a "bigger person", but keep up the denials. >>>>>>> Okay.. maybe you didn't respond in kind at the time. Why did >>>>>>> you respond the way you did *this* time? It sure seems to me [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > You're not a "bigger person", but keep up the denials. It's "forgive them father as they know not what they do". And yes, you currently know what you are doing Bill. I realize I'm dealing with a longterm animosity, but thought you and the others might be in a mood to listen, rather than just snipe. Bob BTW, Bob, just for the record....... A while back, I reached out to each of the people here who I thought had a problem with me, and apologized, without qualification, not only for anything which I might've done which could've offended them, but for the things that I knew that I did that did offend them. A couple of people took it and moved on, which was OK with me even if it wasn't reciprocated. That's not why I did it, and so I was cool with it. But a couple of notables not only rejected it, but used it as the basis to intensify their vitriol. I guess they're afraid of something or other, although I can't figure out what it is. Anyway, I know that in my heart, I tried, and I failed, but I did try. The rest now, is up to them because except for mild amusement, I've moved on. > BTW, Bob, just for the record....... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > try. The rest now, is up to them because except for mild amusement, > I've moved on. ROFL. Thanks for the laugh. > BTW, Bob, just for the record....... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > try. The rest now, is up to them because except for mild amusement, > I've moved on. AY - I must have missed it (while I read a lot, I miss things), but that doesn't mean that things can't be better today with a little effort. I applaud what you did in the past. Can we give it another shot now? I know being nice is difficult when not being supported, and those you are having issue with are not doing the same thing. I would still appreciate you trying. Bob > > Innews:h4l4kb$nol$3@news.eternal-september.org, > > Bob Muncie <bob.mun...@gmail.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Bob How 'but The Boy Who Cried Wolf? >>> Innews:h4l4kb$nol$3@news.eternal-september.org, >>> Bob Muncie <bob.mun...@gmail.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > How 'but The Boy Who Cried Wolf? Than I would say that a third or fourth try is still something I'd appreciate. Bob > >>> Innews:h4l4kb$nol$3@news.eternal-september.org, > >>> Bob Muncie <bob.mun...@gmail.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Bob Nope. The third time he cried wolf, he got 'et >>>>> Innews:h4l4kb$nol$3@news.eternal-september.org, >>>>> Bob Muncie <bob.mun...@gmail.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Nope. The third time he cried wolf, he got 'et I believe that was a choice thing... but nothing is permanent unless written in stone. You are not a stone... right? Bob > >>>>> Innews:h4l4kb$nol$3@news.eternal-september.org, > >>>>> Bob Muncie <bob.mun...@gmail.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Bob Only when I'm rolling... >>>>>>> Innews:h4l4kb$nol$3@news.eternal-september.org, >>>>>>> Bob Muncie <bob.mun...@gmail.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Only when I'm rolling... Is it okay if I let on you made me LOL on that response? That is exactly why I like you, and the others that are here on a regular basis. You all add value. Bob >> BTW, Bob, just for the record....... >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > but that doesn't mean that things can't be better today with a > little effort. Please Bob. After months and months of effort on my part, including apologies, and years and years of sniping on their part, which continues to the current day, I am the one who's supposed to go out of my way to try to appease them again instead of simply ignoring them? > I applaud what you did in the past. Can we give it another shot > now? As I said a few times now, but I guess you keep missing it, yes, I can. Obviously, I need at least something to work with. Frankly, I'm confused why you're trying to convince me to stop ignoring them when I am perfectly happy to keep doing so. > I know being nice is difficult when not being supported, and > those you are having issue with are not doing the same thing. > > I would still appreciate you trying. OK Bob, for no other reason than to prove to you that it's useless, I'll try very sincerely and very clearly once again. To Bill & Fill, I am very, very sorry for ever having offended you, which I know that I did do, and I very much regret any other instances where I've ever inadvertantly said anything to which you may have taken any offfense. To Bob, Please know that I mean that sincerely, and that you can republish the above as many times for them as you wish. The ball now, as it has been for quite some time, is in their court. >>> BTW, Bob, just for the record....... >>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > the above as many times for them as you wish. The ball now, as it > has been for quite some time, is in their court. AY - That didn't sound very sincere (a lot of caustic in that olive branch), but I will personally accept the concept, and your effort. Bill & Fill - Can things start over now? That would require that the arrows out of dark stop. From both directions. Lets all pretend that we can be friends, and move forward from there.... Bob >>>> BTW, Bob, just for the record....... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > olive branch), but I will personally accept the concept, and > your effort. That amazes me. Really. If you're truly interrested in reconcilliation, why would you come to such an interpretation? I don't know what words I'd have to use to convince you of my sincerity, but I took my best shot, and there it is. [snip] >>>>> BTW, Bob, just for the record....... >> AY - That didn't sound very sincere (a lot of caustic in that >> olive branch), but I will personally accept the concept, and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > [snip] AY - Sorry if I sounded non-positive. I really would like a positive result. As I said previously, I like all of the parties involved, and that is exactly why I'd like a positive result. My bad... Consider me a friend. Bob >>>> BTW, Bob, just for the record....... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > AY - That didn't sound very sincere (a lot of caustic in that olive > branch), I think you read it right. > but I will personally accept the concept, and your effort. We'll see. Of course, it's pretty easy to do if you just walk away and block someone - that doesn't require any effort, meaning, it's really insincere. Just an insincere platitude, in other words. > Bill & Fill - Can things start over now? That would require that the > arrows out of dark stop. From both directions. See above. > Lets all pretend that we can be friends, and move forward from there.... > > Bob >>>> BTW, Bob, just for the record....... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> apologies, and years and years of sniping on their part, which >> continues to the current day, I want to get this straightened out, and put all the cards on the table. Ummm. That is not true, and it is completely one-sided. That is NOT what happened. It was a TWO way street, and you most certainly did your part (and to many in here) in spades. So let's set the record straight. >> I am the one who's supposed to go out >> of my way to try to appease them again instead of simply ignoring [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> ever inadvertantly said anything to which you may have taken any >> offfense. Sounds really sincere. >> To Bob, >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > AY - That didn't sound very sincere (a lot of caustic in that olive > branch), but I will personally accept the concept, and your effort. No, it didn't. The proof is in the pudding - let's see if we can have some meaningful exchanges, or whether it's just a platitude, and he walks away from it by avoiding it. That's the true test. Otherwise, it rings hollow. > Bill & Fill - Can things start over now? That would require that the > arrows out of dark stop. From both directions. > > Lets all pretend that we can be friends, and move forward from there.... > > Bob >>>>> BTW, Bob, just for the record....... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] >> >> Bob Bill - Lets suspend the issues for the moment. If AY was sincere, and you were willing to listen, can you? I pointed out my disbelief (no weight on either side), but that does not mean the expression was not honest. Would you be willing to let the old dog lie? I think that would have benefits on both sides of the fence. Bob >>>>>> BTW, Bob, just for the record....... >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > Bill - Lets suspend the issues for the moment. If AY was sincere, and > you were willing to listen, can you? IF. And only IF. I have yet to see any concrete evidence of that, as measured by actual and appropriate responses to me, or Fill, or whomever (some have left here already). And not just to third parties. (That's just meaningless platitudes). > I pointed out my disbelief (no weight on either side), but that does not > mean the expression was not honest. The proof is in the pudding. If he (or anyone) opens the door and proves it, by not simply avoiding it, and running away from it, then we'll see. Otherwise it rings hollow. > Would you be willing to let the old dog lie? Could be. As I said, the proof is in the pudding. Actions speak louder than empty words or platitudes. > I think that would have benefits on both sides of the fence. Agreed. Trimmed only because I wanted to make this short :-) > Agreed. Bill, Fill and AY - You all realize this is a point in time that all can be friends, right? Please accept the fact that we *all* would like to be friends. If you want, bang on me a bit.. I don't mind. I really would like the nice things such as friendship be here for all of you. You all have stuff I want to be part of. I really want you to be all a part of those feelings without the need to snipe. Want to snipe? Point it at me... I will absorb it, and than point it harmlessly elsewhere. Bob > Trimmed only because I wanted to make this short :-) > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Bob I don't think you should have trimmed it. You cut out the relevant points that STILL need to be addressed, and, as of yet, have not. By cutting it out, they never will be addressed, so this will go nowhere. Let the whole truth be seen, not some stripped down and edited portions of it. THAT will be the true test, not these snippets. >> Trimmed only because I wanted to make this short :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > truth be seen, not some stripped down and edited portions of it. THAT will > be the true test, not these snippets. Bil - If it makes a difference, I was not being selective in my snippage. I only snipped because the post was long. Will that preclude you being able to just be a nice fellow? I'd like it if all just went to thew same pool naked, Sort of takes the wind out of everyone's sails... and all seem to be nice. Bob >>>>> Okay.. maybe you didn't respond in kind at the time. Why did you >>>>> respond the way you did *this* time? It sure seems to me you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> He won't, Bob. But what surprises me is that you would even expect it, >> considering how long you've been here. As I said, he won't, you'll kindly notice. Gee, I wonder why that is??? >>> I realize nobody is happy with everyone else's point of view, and some >>> will never be in some cases. That does not excuse rudeness. Tell me you [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > One can always hope that things straighten themselves out... maybe with > a proper push? Not for *some* people, Bob. Particularly the ones who are incapable of "looking within" themselves, and always blame others for "misunderstandings", or "their mistakenly guided help" (snort). > Sort of like your comment one post up was unnecessary, unless the the > intent was to get in a cheap shot. What comes around, goes around? Or, to each according to what they have sowed (reaping what one sows, and all that.. :-) > I know this has been going on a long time amongst you. That does not > stop me from wishing it would end. Maybe it will end when $$ actually reveals some honesty, integrity, and humility. I'll leave the light on for ya, Bob. But I won't be waiting up. :-) >>>>>> Okay.. maybe you didn't respond in kind at the time. Why did you >>>>>> respond the way you did *this* time? It sure seems to me you [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > humility. > I'll leave the light on for ya, Bob. But I won't be waiting up. :-) Bill - I appreciate you and your input also. That's why I ask and know you are capable of restraint also. I'm not asking you to be Jobe, just open minded. All of you here are very smart, so it's make a choice, not war. Bob >>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >LOL! Yeah, as her relationship crashes and burns. Y'know, AY, you really ARE something of an a$$hole. LOL... However, I often find myself agreeing with you. <grin> Wonder what that makes me? rj >>>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > LOL... He relishes being an a.s. > However, I often find myself agreeing with you. > > <grin> > > Wonder what that makes me? Hmmm. (There may be a problem there) >>>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Wonder what that makes me? Afraid. >>>>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Afraid. We could all choose to just stop the snipes. RJ- That includes you... If you want to be an a.s, it is easy to be one. How about you choose to be a friend? That requires more effort, but it does have benefits. Being an a.s has none. Bob >>>>>> On Jul 24, 6:31 pm, "dejablues" <dejabl...@comcast.net> >>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > We could all choose to just stop the snipes. I already did. I've ignored Bill for years now. Can he say the same? > >>>>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this > >>>>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Bob Can't we just all get along? ROTFLMAO YK >>>>>>>>> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >>>>>>>>> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > YK Are you being sincere? Than yes. Being an a.s? Than no. Bob > >>>>>> .. > >>>>>>>> .. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Bob Guess I'm an a.s then. YK >> And among all of the other changes you've made during this >> time, not posting your issues here, and not getting the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > alt.support.marriage-not-for-posting-of > marital-problems-and-no-actual-support-given. Given the destructive nature of the responses given in the name of 'support', I agree. FYI, this was the unedited post, and not an edited version. Leave the editing to those experienced in it (the NY Times comes to mind) Bill in Co wrote: > Bob Muncie wrote: >> Bill in Co wrote: [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > > Agreed. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.