Affair & forgiving 2
Ekaterina Michonova
Thanks, Victoria for writing this masterpiece for me.
I am still confused. My husband does not even want to talk about his
affair, since it is the same one that he promised 2 times to end. There
was a point when I really trusted him, especially the second time, when he
wrote me a letter of 18 pages, describing all his life and relationships
and telling me everything about this one. Now I don't think he is willing
to do so. He just avoids discussions related to the topic, gets angry and
tells me that I am paranoic. I know that I am not and I cannot stand this
way of putting me down. Last Friday I spend the night with a friend,
trying to make a statement in this way. He kept sending me e-mails and
messages in the voice mail, saying that he loves me, he does not have a
relationship and he does not see why I cannot be happy. According to him
we have all we need to be happy (of course he has his girlfriend). I don't
know why he wants to stay with me? Can someone explain this to me? There
is 1 guess - he cannot accept step children. I have a son, who lives with
his father. This woman has 3 children and he knows he cannot live with
her. So, I feel like he stays with me just because he cannot make the step
to live with her.
I am trying my best to feel good about myself in this situation and you,
folks, really helped me a lot. But I don't picture myself living without
trust and just pretending that everything is fine (on the surface).
Please, tell me how do you see this situation. I need all your support.
Love, Ekaterina
Frank
>
> Thank you, all for your support and help. You are a really great people!
> Thanks, Victoria for writing this masterpiece for me.
>
> I am still confused. My husband does not even want to talk about his
> affair, since it is the same one that he promised 2 times to end.
Well, that should be no surprise to you. He has been
caught lying so many times
to you that he no longer even wants to try. Instead he
just wants poor little
Ekaterina to just forget his sins against her.
> I don't
> know why he wants to stay with me?
Because he wants to have it all: the wife and the
floozie on the side!
>
> I am trying my best to feel good about myself in this situation and you,
> folks, really helped me a lot.
You can feel god about yourself. You did nothing wrong.
He sounds sick in the head.
> But I don't picture myself living without
> trust and just pretending that everything is fine (on the surface).
Damn rights. Put this on your refrigerator door and on
the bathroom mirror.
> Please, tell me how do you see this situation. I need all your support.
Kick him out. He will never change.
> Love, Ekaterina
Bill Borsodi
accept this? It sounded like he tried to claim it was over (for the second
time (3rd time?)) and u don't think so.
He seems to be in denial over the emotional pain this puts u
through. He is trying to not feel guilty about it and/or trying to sidestep
the fact he's hurt u and jeopardized his marriage with u. If he denies that
this should of hurt u so bad, he should read through this group's posts --
and he'll find out how painful it is to a lot of people (we're not just
making this up to get attention, it's overwhelmingly real).
NO u cannot live without trust. These issues have been thrust upon
u by his actions. If this marriage is going to survive, these issues will
have to be dealt with, preferably with the help of a counselor or mediator
that knows these issues. U can't pretend it's all just fine ... these
issues will crop up later in potentially strange ways.
There is no reason that u shouldn't know that your husband can be
trusted in the future to never go there again. That's what a marriage is
usually based on -- a partnership based on love and trust.
I sympathize with your position, it must be incredibly hard. Do
good things for yourself .. every day. ... k?
Take Care .... BillBo
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:40:06 -0500, Ekaterina Michonova
<ekat...@inka.MSSM.EDU> wrote:
>Thank you, all for your support and help. You are a really great people!
>Thanks, Victoria for writing this masterpiece for me.
>
>I am still confused. My husband does not even want to talk about his
>affair, since it is the same one that he promised 2 times to end. There
>was a point when I really trusted him, especially the second time, when he
>wrote me a letter of 18 pages, describing all his life and relationships
>and telling me everything about this one. Now I don't think he is willing
>to do so. He just avoids discussions related to the topic, gets angry and
>tells me that I am paranoic. I know that I am not and I cannot stand this
>way of putting me down. Last Friday I spend the night with a friend,
>trying to make a statement in this way. He kept sending me e-mails and
>messages in the voice mail, saying that he loves me, he does not have a
>relationship and he does not see why I cannot be happy. According to him
>we have all we need to be happy (of course he has his girlfriend). I don't
>know why he wants to stay with me? Can someone explain this to me? There
>is 1 guess - he cannot accept step children. I have a son, who lives with
>his father. This woman has 3 children and he knows he cannot live with
>her. So, I feel like he stays with me just because he cannot make the step
>to live with her.
>
>I am trying my best to feel good about myself in this situation and you,
>folks, really helped me a lot. But I don't picture myself living without
>trust and just pretending that everything is fine (on the surface).
>Please, tell me how do you see this situation. I need all your support.
>
>Love, Ekaterina
>
\=/, _-===-_-====-_-===-_-==========-_-====-__
| @___oo ( Bill Borsodi )_
/\ /\ / (___,,,}_--= bil...@dicksonstreet.com )
) /^\) ^\/ _) =_ http://users.dicksonstreet.com/~billbo/ )_
) /^\/ _) _(_ ICQ: 4673467 AOL IM: BillB0777 ___)
) _ / / _) __ (_ alt.support.Divorce Resource List is at: __) _
/\ )/\/ || | )_) (_ http://users.dicksonstreet.com/~billbo/divorce2.html )
< > |(,,) )__) (_ reply-to email masked _)
|| / \)___)\ (_ replace ? with billbo = real email address _)
| \____( )___) )___ `_==_ -==-_____-=====-_____-=====-___==__==='
\______(_______;;; __;;;
JLT_ALB
has he said he's ended it (again) in addition to this anger he shows when
you want to discuss it? Its been my experience that, when people (of any
gender) get angry at you for wanting to discuss something, and even carry
that defense to the extreme of accusing you of being paranoid, they're
covering something up. Of course, I don't know how you go about bringing
it up, how often, etc. I suppose its possible to carry the desire for
discussion and reassurance to an extreme also - and the other just grow
tired of it, be ready to move forward. But even then, he is the
transgressor - until *you* are ready to move forward, there's really
nowhere for y'all to go, is there? I'd be very untrusting of someone who
gets angry at my request for discussion, though - even if I didn't have
*any* other reasons for mistrust (and you have so many).
JMHO,
Janie
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.981104...@inka.mssm.edu>,
Ekaterina Michonova <ekat...@inka.MSSM.EDU> wrote:
> Thank you, all for your support and help. You are a really great people!
> Thanks, Victoria for writing this masterpiece for me.
>
> I am still confused. My husband does not even want to talk about his
> affair, since it is the same one that he promised 2 times to end. There
> was a point when I really trusted him, especially the second time, when he
> wrote me a letter of 18 pages, describing all his life and relationships
> and telling me everything about this one. Now I don't think he is willing
> to do so. He just avoids discussions related to the topic, gets angry and
> tells me that I am paranoic. I know that I am not and I cannot stand this
> way of putting me down.
<snip>
--
The really happy person is the one who can enjoy the scenery when he has to take a detour.
To reply via email replace "JLT" with "janiet"
JLT_ALB
totally new word for me and I love new words.
Janie
In article <01be088d$99173b00$e5f137a6@hkyxztrz>, "stephanie"
<s...@mci2000.com> wrote:
<snip>
> A love-bond is very strong compared to a limerance bond.
<snipped & trimmed>
stephanie
lying and not wanting to go in the direction where he has made a big
mistake. He could be ashamed. OR, he may indeed be still pulling nonsense
and is being defensive because of that guilt. I would like to hope that
you guys could start rebuilding instead of focusing on what he is saying is
the past.
If you find out he's still just getting his cake and eat it too, you may
want to bail. Then, ignore him for awhile (like a solid 6 months). Your
husband has a love-bond with you and a sex/limerance bond with his floozie.
When you cut him off like this, you will see his anxiety level go sky high
and any time he spends with his floozie is going to be "bad times" for him.
He'll probably try really hard to get back to you, dumping the floozie.
I've seen this happen many times. The only thing is, you're taking a
chance. A chance of losing him too. But, it'll get you out of your limbo
(only if you truly feel the affair is not over) and help you stop the
analysis paralysis thing.
That's the gamble you'll have to take if you feel you are being destroyed
by all this nonsense. If you think he's just angry because of guilt and
shame for his knowing he screwed up (people are stubborn) on you, then work
on it and rebuild! Otherwise, consider the "shut him out" completely way
for your own sanity. And, you know after those 6 months, you may realize
that YOU don't want him and close your own door - don't forget to bolt it
and chain it shut because at this point your husband will be trying to
bulldoze that door open with every promise and entreaty.
A love-bond is very strong compared to a limerance bond. If the floozie
up & left and never got back into your husband's life again, the husband's
ambivalence would be gone. Sure, he might miss the "fun" a little, but the
floozie leaving and slamming the door in his face and leaving town is not
going to take a real bite out of his heart - such is the nature of a
shallow and damaging affair.
You see it is the AVAILABILITY of the floozie that causes your husband the
"ambivalence" - now that he had dropped in that sordid and "confusing for
him" direction. In any case, during a disconnect in your marriage, your
husband did a really rotten thing and was (or is) still confused and may
(or may not) have a hard time focusing on his marriage because of the pull
of the floozie's AVAILABILITY. It ain't the pull of the floozie herself,
it is the "pull" of her availability and no-commitments good time "fun".
How many men, yourself, do you know who stepped off that cliff and ended up
marrying their "floozies"? Very few. In fact, I've known quite a few that
blame the floozie (sheesh) when the wife up-chucks and slams the door
forever. It is amazing how "distractions" during a disconnect can start
the marriage rock to shake loose and roll downhill...
For your marriage's sake, for the sake of all your years of shared history,
for the sake of any children, I wish you the very best luck. And, of
course, I hope the floozie gets a clue.
Ekaterina Michonova <ekat...@inka.MSSM.EDU> wrote in article
<Pine.OSF.3.96.981104...@inka.mssm.edu>...
> Thank you, all for your support and help. You are a really great people!
> Thanks, Victoria for writing this masterpiece for me.
>
> I am still confused. My husband does not even want to talk about his
> affair, since it is the same one that he promised 2 times to end. There
> was a point when I really trusted him, especially the second time, when
he
> wrote me a letter of 18 pages, describing all his life and relationships
> and telling me everything about this one. Now I don't think he is willing
> to do so. He just avoids discussions related to the topic, gets angry and
> tells me that I am paranoic. I know that I am not and I cannot stand this
stephanie
and stuff published! You have a real flair for words and you also have a
lot of life-experience. And, you are very introspective, studied,
observant, and self absorbed - all traits of an artist. Go for it. Write
a novel. I would definitely buy your books (even tho I don't like you at
the moment for what you are "partaking in").
JLT_ALB <J...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<JLT-041198...@1cust48.tnt2.albany.ny.da.uu.net>...
> Ummmm... its not in my online dictionary - what is "limerance"? This is
a
> totally new word for me and I love new words.
>
> Janie
>
> In article <01be088d$99173b00$e5f137a6@hkyxztrz>, "stephanie"
> <s...@mci2000.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > A love-bond is very strong compared to a limerance bond.
stephanie
you and accused you of trying to boil some bunnies....
JLT_ALB <J...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<JLT-041198...@1cust48.tnt2.albany.ny.da.uu.net>...
> Ummmm... its not in my online dictionary - what is "limerance"? This is
a
> totally new word for me and I love new words.
>
> Janie
>
> In article <01be088d$99173b00$e5f137a6@hkyxztrz>, "stephanie"
> <s...@mci2000.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > A love-bond is very strong compared to a limerance bond.
Andre Lieven
JLT_ALB (J...@earthlink.net) writes:
> I'm not sure if my input is appreciated in this matter, Ekaterina - but,
> has he said he's ended it (again) in addition to this anger he shows when
> you want to discuss it? Its been my experience that, when people (of any
> gender) get angry at you for wanting to discuss something, and even carry
> that defense to the extreme of accusing you of being paranoid, they're
> covering something up. Of course, I don't know how you go about bringing
> it up, how often, etc. I suppose its possible to carry the desire for
> discussion and reassurance to an extreme also - and the other just grow
> tired of it, be ready to move forward. But even then, he is the
> transgressor - until *you* are ready to move forward, there's really
> nowhere for y'all to go, is there? I'd be very untrusting of someone who
> gets angry at my request for discussion, though - even if I didn't have
> *any* other reasons for mistrust (and you have so many).
A very interesting thing to say, coming from a person who's in an
adulterous relationship, is proud of it, and won't say ( after posting at
very great length all about it- then becoming angered about the resulting
questions- that were not answered ) what she and the straying hubbie are
going to do, including playing with the fate of the wife in question.
" Your honor, I move for a requsion on the basis of conflict of interest ".
> JMHO,
> Janie
JMO, Andre
--
" The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some
other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "
David Gelernter, " 1939 "
JLT_ALB
cute when you're mad :-)
Janie
In article <71rhgc$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
--
Andre Lieven
JLT_ALB (J...@earthlink.net) writes:
> ROFL hon - I knew I could count on you for this perspective. You're *so*
> cute when you're mad :-)
Your inability to grasp anything about my values from my writings is truely
spectacular. I'm not " mad ", just sad for the people you are hurting.
With malice of forethought. Purposefully. Willfully. Needlessly. The
" mistake " excuse is so not happening for you, here.
The other sad part is that you are not a stupid person, but you insist upon
the stupid " right " to repeat a pattern of bad behavior, in the expectation
of a good result. Truely spectacular.
So, while I don't kill file anyone here, I do note your posts with a very
large bag of salt. In my book, you are not at this time, worthy of my trust,
or respect, and that makes you the very first person EVER I've had to say that
about on this NG. And, I hope, the last.
Finding humour in other's needlessly inflicted pain. Very telling...
Wildman
her opinion?
Some of you people need to snag a clue from somewhere...
Wildman
Andre Lieven wrote in message <71rhgc$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
>JLT_ALB (J...@earthlink.net) writes:
>> I'm not sure if my input is appreciated in this matter, Ekaterina - but,
>> has he said he's ended it (again) in addition to this anger he shows when
>> you want to discuss it? Its been my experience that, when people (of any
>> gender) get angry at you for wanting to discuss something, and even carry
>> that defense to the extreme of accusing you of being paranoid, they're
>> covering something up. Of course, I don't know how you go about bringing
>> it up, how often, etc. I suppose its possible to carry the desire for
>> discussion and reassurance to an extreme also - and the other just grow
>> tired of it, be ready to move forward. But even then, he is the
>> transgressor - until *you* are ready to move forward, there's really
>> nowhere for y'all to go, is there? I'd be very untrusting of someone who
>> gets angry at my request for discussion, though - even if I didn't have
>> *any* other reasons for mistrust (and you have so many).
>
>A very interesting thing to say, coming from a person who's in an
>adulterous relationship, is proud of it, and won't say ( after posting at
>very great length all about it- then becoming angered about the resulting
>questions- that were not answered ) what she and the straying hubbie are
>going to do, including playing with the fate of the wife in question.
>
>" Your honor, I move for a requsion on the basis of conflict of interest ".
>
>> JMHO,
>> Janie
>
>JMO, Andre
>
Wildman
you say he broke this off with this other person two different times? Why
did he have to break it off the second time? If he really loved you, that
does include fidelity, does it not?
You should divorce him based on this alone. Be finished with him. Heal, and
open a new chapter in your life book. People whom love each other, do not
hurt one another. And when they do, they damn sure don't do it again...and
they do this easily as it is in the name of the love for the other...
He seems a male version of my ex...divorce him. Dogs rarely change their
spots...took me a remarriage, redivorce to figure this one out.
Wildman
Ekaterina Michonova wrote in message ...
Andre Lieven
"Wildman" (xdre...@nospamfiaaz.net) writes:
> So because she blew all of you off...she now doesn't have any right to voice
> her opinion?
The question was about getting past the original posters husbands continuing
adultery. In a post a few minute after you sent this, you stated...
" An adulterer is an adulterer... period ".
Janie's one of those, so I for one, do not trust her, as her values, and
character ( or, lack, therof ) are too clearly on display on this issue.
Please note that I made no suggestion that she be censored, but that,
given her situation, that she was not qualified to give advice on this
issue. She has a very distinct psychological conflict of interest.
She has the right to post anything she likes... and I have the right to
post that her position is wrong, and why.
Interesting, as having read your stuff, and your continuing fascination
about Clinton ( a person who, as with Janie, you've never met, right ? )
as being an unrepentant adulterer, perhaps you can tell me how Janie's
opinion is any better.
>
> Some of you people need to snag a clue from somewhere...
Indeed. Those who practice and defend adultery need this. Are you defending
Janie's " choices " ?
Andre
Rob Austin
>gender) get angry at you for wanting to discuss something, and even carry
>that defense to the extreme of accusing you of being paranoid, they're
>covering something up
Ditto here. I agree totally.
When my ex was screwing around - and I suspected something and confronted her
about it - she actually tried to make me feel guilty about even accusing her of
it. When we received hang up phone calls from her lover, and I hit *69 to find
out who it was - she laid on the guilt so thick it's unbelieveable. She got
angry and defensive. Oh well. It's funny how she later tried to rationalize
away what she had done later on when I found out for sure. I wasn;t just angry
for the affair - I was angry for the hell she put me through, and the guilt she
bestowed upon me for "even thinking she would do such a thing." What a wench
she is!
Time for you to move on Ekaterina, as painful as that may be...
--*Rob
JLT_ALB
hear I've never heard before, I'm off to either my online dictionary or
my (recently found in a box) 3-volume webster's set.
"Recusation: a plea challenging a judge for alleged interest, partiality
or other incompetency [to judge impartially]."
Interestingly, in the same area/word root is:
"Recusant: refusing to submit to authority."
While I modestly decline the assertion from Trent that I am "judge"-like
and should recuse myself from this matter (I'm no better suited to be The
Judge than anyone else here, I don't think - but thanks for the
compliment, Trent), I wholeheartedly accept the label of Recusant in this
group :-)
Janie
In article <71sgk9$606$4...@supernews.com>, "Wildman"
<xdre...@nospamfiaaz.net> wrote:
> So because she blew all of you off...she now doesn't have any right to voice
> her opinion?
>
> Some of you people need to snag a clue from somewhere...
>
> Wildman
>
> Andre Lieven wrote in message <71rhgc$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
> >
> >JLT_ALB (J...@earthlink.net) writes:
> >> I'm not sure if my input is appreciated in this matter, Ekaterina - but,
> >> has he said he's ended it (again) in addition to this anger he shows when
> >> you want to discuss it? Its been my experience that, when people (of any
> >> gender) get angry at you for wanting to discuss something, and even carry
> >> that defense to the extreme of accusing you of being paranoid, they're
> >> covering something up. Of course, I don't know how you go about bringing
> >> it up, how often, etc. I suppose its possible to carry the desire for
> >> discussion and reassurance to an extreme also - and the other just grow
> >> tired of it, be ready to move forward. But even then, he is the
> >> transgressor - until *you* are ready to move forward, there's really
> >> nowhere for y'all to go, is there? I'd be very untrusting of someone who
> >> gets angry at my request for discussion, though - even if I didn't have
> >> *any* other reasons for mistrust (and you have so many).
> >
> >A very interesting thing to say, coming from a person who's in an
> >adulterous relationship, is proud of it, and won't say ( after posting at
> >very great length all about it- then becoming angered about the resulting
> >questions- that were not answered ) what she and the straying hubbie are
> >going to do, including playing with the fate of the wife in question.
> >
> >" Your honor, I move for a requsion on the basis of conflict of interest ".
> >
> >> JMHO,
> >> Janie
> >
> >JMO, Andre
> >
> >--
> >" The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some
> >other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "
> > David Gelernter, " 1939 "
--
JLT_ALB
shouldn't really - Trent's not reading my posts anymore :-)
Janie
In article <JLT-051198...@1cust80.tnt1.albany.ny.da.uu.net>,
Daisy
To be truthful, is Trent reading anyone's post but his own? :)
Daisy
How would you like to be a rooster and have to eat with your pecker?
JLT_ALB wrote in message ...
Andre Lieven
JLT_ALB (J...@earthlink.net) writes:
> I'm such a vocabulary nut - I love learning new words. So when I read one
> hear I've never heard before, I'm off to either my online dictionary or
> my (recently found in a box) 3-volume webster's set.
>
> "Recusation: a plea challenging a judge for alleged interest, partiality
> or other incompetency [to judge impartially]."
Yep, this is the one....
>
> Interestingly, in the same area/word root is:
And, this ain't....
>
> "Recusant: refusing to submit to authority."
>
> While I modestly decline the assertion from Trent that I am "judge"-like
> and should recuse myself from this matter (I'm no better suited to be The
> Judge than anyone else here, I don't think - but thanks for the
> compliment, Trent), I wholeheartedly accept the label of Recusant in this
> group :-)
SOP of you to " take " something that you're not entitled to...
JLT_ALB
Just the little chuckle I needed (the comment and the tag both) after a
fruitless search for my car title. Gawd I hate bureaucracy and the pounds
of paper I collect over the years.
Thanks :-)
Janie
In article <71spi0$94r$1...@opal.southwind.net>, "Daisy"
<da...@terraworld.net> wrote:
> Janie,
> To be truthful, is Trent reading anyone's post but his own? :)
>
> Daisy
> How would you like to be a rooster and have to eat with your pecker?
>
>
>
> JLT_ALB wrote in message ...
> >Ooops, that was Andre's accusation, huh? I get them confused, but
> >shouldn't really - Trent's not reading my posts anymore :-)
> >
> >Janie
> >
> >In article <JLT-051198...@1cust80.tnt1.albany.ny.da.uu.net>,
> >J...@earthlink.net (JLT_ALB) wrote:
> >
> >> I'm such a vocabulary nut - I love learning new words. So when I read
> one
> >> hear I've never heard before, I'm off to either my online dictionary or
> >> my (recently found in a box) 3-volume webster's set.
> >>
> >> "Recusation: a plea challenging a judge for alleged interest, partiality
> >> or other incompetency [to judge impartially]."
> >>
> >> Interestingly, in the same area/word root is:
> >>
> >> "Recusant: refusing to submit to authority."
> >>
> >> While I modestly decline the assertion from Trent that I am "judge"-like
> >> and should recuse myself from this matter (I'm no better suited to be The
> >> Judge than anyone else here, I don't think - but thanks for the
> >> compliment, Trent), I wholeheartedly accept the label of Recusant in this
> >> group :-)
> >>
> >> > >--
> >> > >" The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some
> >> > >other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "
> >> > > David Gelernter, " 1939 "
> >>
Wildman
just that...my beliefs...my moralistic outlooks in life...again, are just
that...they are just mine...
My position on particular issues, i.e..adultery, etc, should not interfere
with my posting...and I do usually try to remain within these
bounds...sometimes I slip, sometimes I fall...for the most part though...I
try to remain neutral...
As for Clinton...there is a huge difference between some woman in NY, and
the President of these United States. When this person chooses public office
such as this level...morals and the perception of morals need to be above
reproach at all times.
I am defending Janie's right to choose what she does, who she does it with,
what she absorbs and who she absorbs it from...I am also defending Janie's
right to post without reservation as to the responses from others...as a
user in this group I expect Janie to maintain herself in a grown, mature
manner, she does this very well. Some of her adversaries do not...
As for my positions on this topic? Adultery is a sin as well as illegal in
most states. It is a crime and the victim is the unsuspecting, innocent
(usually) spouse. There for with a victim, it is a crime against the people,
in most states. I do not condone adultery, nor the participation of the
corespondent in this...I was the repeat (stupid me) victim of this very act,
I know how it feels oh to well to be betrayed in the worse possible
fashion...
In so far as your suggestive meaning that I may condone or otherwise support
adultery...you are waaaay off your rocker pal...and by the way...Janie is
not the adulterer...Kevin is...why is this so hard for some of you people to
understand?
Wildman
Andre Lieven wrote in message <71skp3$4...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
>"Wildman" (xdre...@nospamfiaaz.net) writes:
>> So because she blew all of you off...she now doesn't have any right to
voice
>> her opinion?
>
>The question was about getting past the original posters husbands
continuing
>adultery. In a post a few minute after you sent this, you stated...
>
>" An adulterer is an adulterer... period ".
>
>Janie's one of those, so I for one, do not trust her, as her values, and
>character ( or, lack, therof ) are too clearly on display on this issue.
>Please note that I made no suggestion that she be censored, but that,
>given her situation, that she was not qualified to give advice on this
>issue. She has a very distinct psychological conflict of interest.
>She has the right to post anything she likes... and I have the right to
>post that her position is wrong, and why.
>
>Interesting, as having read your stuff, and your continuing fascination
>about Clinton ( a person who, as with Janie, you've never met, right ? )
>as being an unrepentant adulterer, perhaps you can tell me how Janie's
>opinion is any better.
>
>>
>> Some of you people need to snag a clue from somewhere...
>
>Indeed. Those who practice and defend adultery need this. Are you defending
>Janie's " choices " ?
>
>Andre
>>
Andre Lieven
"Wildman" (xdre...@nospamfiaaz.net) writes:
> Andre...first of all...my opinion is just that...my opinion...my beliefs are
> just that...my beliefs...my moralistic outlooks in life...again, are just
> that...they are just mine...
No sweat, we all have them, and are all entitled to post based on them.
>
> My position on particular issues, i.e..adultery, etc, should not interfere
> with my posting...and I do usually try to remain within these
> bounds...sometimes I slip, sometimes I fall...for the most part though...I
> try to remain neutral...
>
> As for Clinton...there is a huge difference between some woman in NY, and
> the President of these United States. When this person chooses public office
> such as this level...morals and the perception of morals need to be above
> reproach at all times.
Perhaps it's that I'm not a USian ( I saw this term on another NG ), but
I don't see it. Given the sordid history of politics, and I'm not just
speaking about the US, I don't really see tham as any sorts of paragons.
Ditto for sports types. When I find one, or several, from wherever, then
I might look at them that way. But, as Kissenger said it, " power is the
ultimate aphrodesiac " and none of this is new. Look at the new Jefferson
material.
>
> I am defending Janie's right to choose what she does, who she does it with,
> what she absorbs and who she absorbs it from...I am also defending Janie's
> right to post without reservation as to the responses from others...as a
> user in this group I expect Janie to maintain herself in a grown, mature
> manner, she does this very well. Some of her adversaries do not...
She does have that right, but so does anyone here have the same right to
comment on it. Asking that some be silent on her adultery, is to judge
the words as greater than the act, itself.
She does maintain herself well... except for that teensy moral lapse...
and it is integral to her life, right now. She can change this, if she
wants to. She doesn't, thus I have no respect for her choice, and, by her
extension, her.
>
> As for my positions on this topic? Adultery is a sin as well as illegal in
> most states. It is a crime and the victim is the unsuspecting, innocent
> (usually) spouse. There for with a victim, it is a crime against the people,
> in most states. I do not condone adultery, nor the participation of the
> corespondent in this...I was the repeat (stupid me) victim of this very act,
> I know how it feels oh to well to be betrayed in the worse possible
> fashion...
Agreed. Too bad the law is not looked at by the courts...
>
> In so far as your suggestive meaning that I may condone or otherwise support
> adultery...you are waaaay off your rocker pal...and by the way...Janie is
> not the adulterer...Kevin is...why is this so hard for some of you people to
> understand?
It seemed a logical position, given your position on supporting an adulterer.
The last time I looked, adultery is defined in dictionaries as the act of
sex with a married person. Thus, even if one party is single, BOTH are
committing adultery. Your point on this reads very like a certain
president about his definition of sex. Are you sure you want to go there ?
If Kevin posted to here, and tried to be so open and wise sounding, while
decieving his wife, I have choice comments towards him, too. And, I believe
that my record here, such as it is, displays me as someone who does not use
forms of gratuitous namecalling, for any reason.
SMHO, Andre
stephanie
commiting and the resultant effect on her credibility, that should not be
equated equally to my all out attack. Anyone is allowed to post in any way
they wish. If you are so foolish (or brave or whatever) as to post
something so horrendous (and so tawdry), however "seemingly polite", you
can not expect people to always look-the-other-way. By posting such a
tell-all and inviting comments, you get them (all kinds of them).
Wildman, you have your style, your opinions. Others have theirs.
Wildman <xdre...@nospamfiaaz.net> wrote in article
<71sgk9$606$4...@supernews.com>...
> So because she blew all of you off...she now doesn't have any right to
voice
> her opinion?
>
> Some of you people need to snag a clue from somewhere...
>
Andre Lieven
"stephanie" (s...@mci2000.com) writes:
> If Andre wants to politely state his view on an act she is currently
> commiting and the resultant effect on her credibility, that should not be
> equated equally to my all out attack. Anyone is allowed to post in any way
> they wish. If you are so foolish (or brave or whatever) as to post
> something so horrendous (and so tawdry), however "seemingly polite", you
> can not expect people to always look-the-other-way. By posting such a
> tell-all and inviting comments, you get them (all kinds of them).
Well said, Stephanie, and thank you. This is what I'm sayin' here....
( And now Off to Toronto... )
Andre
robert.woodbury
there and it's very hard trusting someone after he has had an affair. It 's
a hurt that never goes away , and it's something that you never forget. If
he is still involved with this women, get rid of him!!!! You can do
better..... No one deserves to be used, and that's just what he is doing to
you. You won't feel good about yourself until you do it. Don't let him make
a fool of you any longer, let him have the other woman, someday he will
realize what he had and how much he wishes he had done different. You can be
much happier without him, trust me, I am . Take Care.......
Cindy
--
Robert C. Woodbury
rhy...@together.net
JLT_ALB
In article <71u65o$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
<snip>
> She can change this, if she
> wants to. She doesn't, thus I have no respect for her choice, and, by her
> extension, her.
Here's one of the "clues" Wildman suggested you snag hon - you have no
idea at all that I don't choose to change this, that in fact I haven't
*already* changed this. The moral outcry of this group had NO negative
impact on my feelings of the posters here. The demand that I hang my head
in public shame, for certain members here to feel good about their own
messes, shut off all further input from me regarding my decisions in this
public forum. That is the Clue, hon. The one you keep refusing to catch
hold of. You continue to condemn me for things you simply cannot know
about, because you and others shut down my willingness to interact on this
issue through your blood-lust. And, for what its worth, you will never
know my decisions on this issue :-) So keep posting as though you do,
keep making fools of yourselves (those of you who insist on this path) by
assuming things you can't know, and by posting from a position of
uninformed certainty. It just makes you look like a fool, and I have no
problems with this self-portrait of you.
<snip>
> "Wildman" (xdre...@nospamfiaaz.net) writes:
> > In so far as your suggestive meaning that I may condone or otherwise support
> > adultery...you are waaaay off your rocker pal...and by the way...Janie is
> > not the adulterer...Kevin is...why is this so hard for some of you people to
> > understand?
>
> The last time I looked, adultery is defined in dictionaries as the act of
> sex with a married person. Thus, even if one party is single, BOTH are
> committing adultery.
<snip & trim>
Adulterer - a man who has voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other
than his wife.
Adulteress - a woman who has voluntary sexual intercourse with someone
other than her husband.
Fornicator/Fornicatrix - an unmarried person guilty of having sexual
intercourse (with either a married person or another unmarried person).
[All who have had sex while unmarried can step over here in this corner
with me.]
Succubus (thanks for the new word, Heather :-) - a demon assuming female
form to have sexual intercourse with men in their sleep. [Keep on
dreaming, guys <eg>.]
More clues Andre - funny how you can find different definitions in
different dictionaries.
Janie
Spiderweb
JLT_ALB wrote in message ...
>
>Adulterer - a man who has voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other
>than his wife.
yep
>Adulteress - a woman who has voluntary sexual intercourse with someone
>other than her husband.
yep again
>Fornicator/Fornicatrix - an unmarried person guilty of having sexual
>intercourse (with either a married person or another unmarried person).
>[All who have had sex while unmarried can step over here in this corner
>with me.]
Excuse me ... while I go stand over by Janie ;-)
>Succubus (thanks for the new word, Heather :-) - a demon assuming female
>form to have sexual intercourse with men in their sleep. [Keep on
>dreaming, guys <eg>.]
Eeeeeww!! Now doesn't that sound FUN!!!!
>More clues Andre - funny how you can find different definitions in
>different dictionaries.
>
>Janie
This was great Janie ... I hope things are going better for you.
Spiderweb
JLT_ALB
via email later.
Thanks,
Janie
In article <71v5mp$1t1$1...@supernews.com>, "Spiderweb"
<wel...@clear.lakes.com> wrote:
<snip>
> This was great Janie ... I hope things are going better for you.
>
> Spiderweb
--
JOHN HANLEY
asleep.... :-)
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there 's the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause....
JPH <====guess what film he just saw....
---------------------------------
Wildman
JLT_ALB wrote in message ...
>Comments in line...
>
>In article <71u65o$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>
><snip>
>> She can change this, if she
>> wants to. She doesn't, thus I have no respect for her choice, and, by her
>> extension, her.
>
>Here's one of the "clues" Wildman suggested you snag hon - you have no
>idea at all that I don't choose to change this, that in fact I haven't
>*already* changed this. The moral outcry of this group had NO negative
>impact on my feelings of the posters here. The demand that I hang my head
>in public shame, for certain members here to feel good about their own
>messes, shut off all further input from me regarding my decisions in this
>public forum. That is the Clue, hon. The one you keep refusing to catch
>hold of. You continue to condemn me for things you simply cannot know
>about, because you and others shut down my willingness to interact on this
>issue through your blood-lust. And, for what its worth, you will never
>know my decisions on this issue :-) So keep posting as though you do,
>keep making fools of yourselves (those of you who insist on this path) by
>assuming things you can't know, and by posting from a position of
>uninformed certainty. It just makes you look like a fool, and I have no
>problems with this self-portrait of you.
>
><snip>
>> "Wildman" (xdre...@nospamfiaaz.net) writes:
>> > In so far as your suggestive meaning that I may condone or otherwise
support
>> > adultery...you are waaaay off your rocker pal...and by the way...Janie
is
>> > not the adulterer...Kevin is...why is this so hard for some of you
people to
>> > understand?
>>
>> The last time I looked, adultery is defined in dictionaries as the act of
>> sex with a married person. Thus, even if one party is single, BOTH are
>> committing adultery.
><snip & trim>
>
>Adulterer - a man who has voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other
>than his wife.
Legal definition.
>
>Adulteress - a woman who has voluntary sexual intercourse with someone
>other than her husband.
Again legal definition.
>
>Fornicator/Fornicatrix - an unmarried person guilty of having sexual
>intercourse (with either a married person or another unmarried person).
>[All who have had sex while unmarried can step over here in this corner
>with me.]
My law dictionary defines the person whom the adulterer engages sex with as
the corespondent. I can't locate my dictionary as it is amongst buried, yet,
unpacked boxes from my recent move. I will though. Encart '97 defines
corespondent as one who is charged as an adulterer with the defendent in a
divorce suit.
>
>Succubus (thanks for the new word, Heather :-) - a demon assuming female
>form to have sexual intercourse with men in their sleep. [Keep on
>dreaming, guys <eg>.]
An adjective...describing you? :) Hey..is that what she defined it as???
>
>More clues Andre - funny how you can find different definitions in
>different dictionaries.
>
>Janie
Wildman
Wildman
discontent..you probably never have, and you most likely never will...
Wildman
stephanie wrote in message <01be0982$9cf430c0$2c4a37a6@hkyxztrz>...
>If Andre wants to politely state his view on an act she is currently
>commiting and the resultant effect on her credibility, that should not be
>equated equally to my all out attack. Anyone is allowed to post in any way
>they wish. If you are so foolish (or brave or whatever) as to post
>something so horrendous (and so tawdry), however "seemingly polite", you
>can not expect people to always look-the-other-way. By posting such a
>tell-all and inviting comments, you get them (all kinds of them).
>
JLT_ALB
Janie
In article <71vgat$cgi$1...@supernews.com>, "Wildman"
<xdre...@nospamfiaaz.net> wrote:
> You defined it for them. Why?
>
> JLT_ALB wrote in message ...
> >Comments in line...
<trimmed>
JLT_ALB
a.m. is sometimes a very useful time to wake up <eg>.
Janie <--who's *such* a wicked (demon) woman
In article <364338...@ix.netcom.com>, jpha...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Just wondering which one of these two parties is the one said to be
> asleep.... :-)
>
> To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there 's the rub:
> For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
> When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
> Must give us pause....
>
> JPH <====guess what film he just saw....
> ---------------------------------
> >JLT_ALB wrote:
> > Succubus (thanks for the new word, Heather :-) - a demon assuming female
> > form to have sexual intercourse with men in their sleep. [Keep on
> > dreaming, guys <eg>.]
--
Scott Williams
>Succubus (thanks for the new word, Heather :-) - a demon assuming female
>form to have sexual intercourse with men in their sleep. [Keep on
>dreaming, guys <eg>.]
>
intercourse with women.
Mary T
<snip>
>
>As for my positions on this topic? Adultery is a sin as well as illegal in
>most states. It is a crime and the victim is the unsuspecting, innocent
>(usually) spouse. There for with a victim, it is a crime against the
people,
>in most states. I do not condone adultery, nor the participation of the
>corespondent in this...I was the repeat (stupid me) victim of this very
act,
>I know how it feels oh to well to be betrayed in the worse possible
>fashion...
>
<snip>
While adultery is still part of the criminal code in a lot of states; you
won't find one that enforces it.
In my opinion, in this day and age, adultery should be upgraded and given
the same serious attention as attempted murder by law enforcement and the
judiciary --- because that is basically what it is.
When you have intercourse with someone, you are having sex with everyone
that person has ever had sex with. Genital herpes, AIDS, strains of
syphilis that cannot be cured, gentile warts ......
My ex cheated on me -- his choice was an alcoholic bar hog that slept with
anything she could get the pants off of. They are married to each other now
(wife #4) -- they deserve each other. When I ended up with Class 1 cervical
cancer and had to have a hysterectomy, I had no idea what was causing the
recurrent yeast infections that led to this --- nether did the doctors. I
know now and it pisses me off -- royally. The fear I live with makes me
real mad too-- I've been HIV negative for 5 years; but that is no guarantee.
How do you explain this to the next potential mate in your life? How do you
say I'd really like to go to bed with you; but I may put your life at risk
if I do?
Mary T
Wildman
it out...you spoiled all the fun...
Wildman
JLT_ALB wrote in message ...
>Because I'm a social worker silly - its a "helping" profession :-)
>
>Janie
>
>In article <71vgat$cgi$1...@supernews.com>, "Wildman"
><xdre...@nospamfiaaz.net> wrote:
>
>> You defined it for them. Why?
>>
>> JLT_ALB wrote in message ...
>> >Comments in line...
><trimmed>
>
JLT_ALB
little pitiful to watch. I believe in putting severely injured animals
out of their misery too.
Janie
In article <lP012.4231$gI1....@news2.giganews.com>, "Wildman"
<xdre...@fiaaz.net> wrote:
--
Happiness is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to deal with it.
Wildman
then...I am cruel that way...
Julie
anyone waiting to see you hang your head, you apparently see yourself as being center stage
here. Might want to investigate that further. The fact that you're committing adultery doesn't
mean that it's all about you...could be the adultery itself that's the issue.
Julie
JLT_ALB wrote:
> Comments in line...
>
> In article <71u65o$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > She can change this, if she
> > wants to. She doesn't, thus I have no respect for her choice, and, by her
> > extension, her.
>
> Here's one of the "clues" Wildman suggested you snag hon - you have no
> idea at all that I don't choose to change this, that in fact I haven't
> *already* changed this. The moral outcry of this group had NO negative
> impact on my feelings of the posters here. The demand that I hang my head
> in public shame, for certain members here to feel good about their own
> messes, shut off all further input from me regarding my decisions in this
> public forum. That is the Clue, hon. The one you keep refusing to catch
> hold of. You continue to condemn me for things you simply cannot know
> about, because you and others shut down my willingness to interact on this
> issue through your blood-lust. And, for what its worth, you will never
> know my decisions on this issue :-) So keep posting as though you do,
> keep making fools of yourselves (those of you who insist on this path) by
> assuming things you can't know, and by posting from a position of
> uninformed certainty. It just makes you look like a fool, and I have no
> problems with this self-portrait of you.
>
> <snip>
> > "Wildman" (xdre...@nospamfiaaz.net) writes:
> > > In so far as your suggestive meaning that I may condone or otherwise support
> > > adultery...you are waaaay off your rocker pal...and by the way...Janie is
> > > not the adulterer...Kevin is...why is this so hard for some of you people to
> > > understand?
> >
> > The last time I looked, adultery is defined in dictionaries as the act of
> > sex with a married person. Thus, even if one party is single, BOTH are
> > committing adultery.
> <snip & trim>
>
> Adulterer - a man who has voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other
> than his wife.
>
> Adulteress - a woman who has voluntary sexual intercourse with someone
> other than her husband.
>
> Fornicator/Fornicatrix - an unmarried person guilty of having sexual
> intercourse (with either a married person or another unmarried person).
> [All who have had sex while unmarried can step over here in this corner
> with me.]
>
> Succubus (thanks for the new word, Heather :-) - a demon assuming female
> form to have sexual intercourse with men in their sleep. [Keep on
> dreaming, guys <eg>.]
>
> More clues Andre - funny how you can find different definitions in
> different dictionaries.
>
> Janie
>
JLT_ALB
Janie
In article <3646F67C...@worldnet.att.net>, Julie
<jul...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> The fact that you're committing adultery doesn't
> mean that it's all about you...could be the adultery itself that's the issue.
>
> Julie
--
Happiness is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to deal with it.
To reply via email replace "JLT" with "janiet"
Julie
Julie
JLT_ALB
request, but would be more than happy to comply if you'd make it more
clear next time. Sometimes you have to be direct to get my attention :-)
Janie
In article <364720DA...@worldnet.att.net>, Julie
Andre Lieven
JLT_ALB (J...@earthlink.net) writes:
> Comments in line...
>
> In article <71u65o$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> wants to. She doesn't, thus I have no respect for her choice, and, by her
>> extension, her.
>
> idea at all that I don't choose to change this, that in fact I haven't
> *already* changed this. The moral outcry of this group had NO negative
> impact on my feelings of the posters here. The demand that I hang my head
> in public shame, for certain members here to feel good about their own
> messes, shut off all further input from me regarding my decisions in this
> public forum. That is the Clue, hon. The one you keep refusing to catch
> hold of. You continue to condemn me for things you simply cannot know
> about, because you and others shut down my willingness to interact on this
> issue through your blood-lust. And, for what its worth, you will never
> know my decisions on this issue :-) So keep posting as though you do,
> keep making fools of yourselves (those of you who insist on this path) by
> assuming things you can't know, and by posting from a position of
> uninformed certainty. It just makes you look like a fool, and I have no
> problems with this self-portrait of you.
I made my " judgement " based solely upon YOUR chosen words, " hon ".
Since you are an adulterer, by your own words, and you defended your
actions, I have every right to decide that your choices are simply
wrong, and that such choices tell me a great deal about the person.
You are much more transparent than you believe you are.
And your statement that this group " shut down " your " willingness "
about your affair, is crap. You " shut down " because you didn't get the
response that you wanted. Again, very transparent.
> <snip>
>> "Wildman" (xdre...@nospamfiaaz.net) writes:
>> > In so far as your suggestive meaning that I may condone or otherwise
>> > support adultery...you are waaaay off your rocker pal...and by the
>> > way...Janie is not the adulterer...Kevin is...why is this so hard for
>> > some of you people to understand?
>>
>> The last time I looked, adultery is defined in dictionaries as the act of
>> sex with a married person. Thus, even if one party is single, BOTH are
>> committing adultery.
> <snip & trim>
>
> Adulterer - a man who has voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other
> than his wife.
>
> Adulteress - a woman who has voluntary sexual intercourse with someone
> other than her husband.
So, is Kevin your husband, Janie ? I didn't think so....
>
> Fornicator/Fornicatrix - an unmarried person guilty of having sexual
> intercourse (with either a married person or another unmarried person).
> [All who have had sex while unmarried can step over here in this corner
> with me.]
There is a hell of a difference between fucking a single person, and
a married person. It's the other spouse. Thats why it's adultery for both
of the people in the affair, no matter that one may not be married.
Sophistry ill becomes you, Janie.
>
> Succubus (thanks for the new word, Heather :-) - a demon assuming female
> form to have sexual intercourse with men in their sleep. [Keep on
> dreaming, guys <eg>.]
>
> More clues Andre - funny how you can find different definitions in
> different dictionaries.
It strikes me that you're scanning for more convivial dictionaries for the
same reason that W.C. Fields read the Bible late in his life...looking
for loopholes....
Back from Toronto...
Julie
b.s. like your non-response below. Says quite a lot, actually.
Julie
JLT_ALB
alike, Julie, I'm going to spend a few momenst helping you on this one.
Go to the archives and read my posts to those who were direct with me
*prior* to Steph unleashing her personal dose of midnight-madness venom on
me (my original post appearing on 10/26 at 18:58 - the venom appearing in
the wee morning hours of 10/30 - so you only need search for my replies
dated 10/27-10/29). You will find, upon doing this tiny bit of research,
that your assertion below is incorrect. Just to help you along a litte (I
know how tiring archive searches can be), here is an example (from 10/27
at 08:51) of how I responded to one of the *most* direct replies to my
original post:
> > stephanie wrote:
> > Janie, he needs to work on those things with his life-mate. He has his
> > life - why should he let that all crumble for you?
> Kevin wrote (almost simultaneously [on IRC]):
> 21:57: Kevin->my life isnt bad Janie, with the exception of close intimacy,
> without you, the rest is good
>
> Kind of the same words, huh? Thank you stephanie, from the depths of my
> heart - those were the words that made the first sizeable crack in my
> denial, and "the walls came tumbling down."
Once you've cleansed your mind of this incorrect ASSumption by reading the
archives for the facts, perhaps you can actually comprehend that I reserve
my deflection skill for those who are *in my opinion* going on and on with
an issue that died a long time ago and really doesn't deserve continued
attention. Most people get the clue after one or two such defelctions,
and leave it be. Ahem... is it I who want to be the center of attention,
or you who keep pushing me there with these continued whippings of a horse
so dead its starting to smell?
Okay - good deed done. I'm honestly through with this Julie, have been
for days now. You deserved a small amount of additional attention because
- hmmmm . . . because I have read some posts from you that seem to show a
whole person who is sometimes capable of thoughtful interaction, not just
a mindless flamer or troll. But honestly Julie, don't you think its time
for this to be put to rest? Do you see anyone else here (besides Andre)
continuing to discuss this? Isn't that also a clue?
:-)
Janie
In article <36485711...@worldnet.att.net>, Julie
<jul...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
--
Keep your heart right, even when its sorely wounded.
To reply via email replace "JLT" with "janiet"
ICQ#22924224
Andre Lieven
Julie (jul...@worldnet.att.net) writes:
> A clue for you to snag - you were the one who posted the whole mess in the
> first place. As for anyone waiting to see you hang your head, you
> apparently see yourself as being center stage here. Might want to
> mean that it's all about you...could be the adultery itself that's the issue.
>
> Julie
Thank you very much, Julie. You are exactly right, in that my " issue " wiith
Janie is her choice to come to this NG, and post in great detail, that she
is involved in an adulterous affair, and that she was/is expecting a lot of
" support " for this decision.
I can't and won't give any such support to any person who persists in
committing a harmful and stupid course of action. I also have the right
( as do we all ) to make my own " judgement " about such a person's
character. Our actions speak very loudly to this. Much more so than our words,
no matter how well chosen.
Based upon her own words, and nothing else, I would say that Janie is a
very intelligent woman. Thus, it saddens me to have read of her and Kevin's
self made " situation ". There surely is enough mendacity in the world that
there is no need to deliberately create any more.
And, I'll say it once more... adultery is NOT a " mistake ". Mistakes are
events which occur by accident. As adult humans, we are always able and
responsible to avoid doing wrong. No one lands upon the sexual organs
of another " by accident ". It's a conscious choice. It's wrong. Defending
it displays poor character. Learning from it, and understanding that it is
wrong, and NEVER to be defended or repeated, shows gained wisdom. Some here
have done this. Based upon her own words, Janie has not.
>
> JLT_ALB wrote:
>
>> Comments in line...
>>
>> In article <71u65o$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > She can change this, if she
>> > wants to. She doesn't, thus I have no respect for her choice, and, by her
>> > extension, her.
>>
>> Here's one of the "clues" Wildman suggested you snag hon - you have no
>> idea at all that I don't choose to change this, that in fact I haven't
>> *already* changed this. The moral outcry of this group had NO negative
>> impact on my feelings of the posters here. The demand that I hang my head
>> in public shame, for certain members here to feel good about their own
>> messes, shut off all further input from me regarding my decisions in this
>> public forum. That is the Clue, hon. The one you keep refusing to catch
>> hold of. You continue to condemn me for things you simply cannot know
>> about, because you and others shut down my willingness to interact on this
>> issue through your blood-lust. And, for what its worth, you will never
>> know my decisions on this issue :-) So keep posting as though you do,
>> keep making fools of yourselves (those of you who insist on this path) by
>> assuming things you can't know, and by posting from a position of
>> uninformed certainty. It just makes you look like a fool, and I have no
>> problems with this self-portrait of you.
>>
>> <snip>
>> > "Wildman" (xdre...@nospamfiaaz.net) writes:
>> > > In so far as your suggestive meaning that I may condone or otherwise support
>> > > adultery...you are waaaay off your rocker pal...and by the way...Janie is
>> > > not the adulterer...Kevin is...why is this so hard for some of you people to
>> > > understand?
>> >
>> > The last time I looked, adultery is defined in dictionaries as the act of
>> > sex with a married person. Thus, even if one party is single, BOTH are
>> > committing adultery.
>> <snip & trim>
Wildman
continuing screwing each other while wrecking a marriage...it is ok". Who
Andre? Your abilities of observation are astonishing...
That I recall..to date...there has been no one who stated even in the
slightest manner that this is an ok behavior...
Are you confusing our support for her in maintaining her right to privacy
and basically telling you to piss off in regards to her not posting what it
is you and a few others want to read? Is this the support you are referring
to? If it isn't, please do share with me exactly what support you are
referring to...
Wildman
Andre Lieven wrote in message <72c8ks$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>>> > She can change this, if she
>>> > wants to. She doesn't, thus I have no respect for her choice, and, by
her
>>> > extension, her.
>>>
>>> Here's one of the "clues" Wildman suggested you snag hon - you have no
>>> idea at all that I don't choose to change this, that in fact I haven't
>>> *already* changed this. The moral outcry of this group had NO negative
>>> impact on my feelings of the posters here. The demand that I hang my
head
>>> in public shame, for certain members here to feel good about their own
>>> messes, shut off all further input from me regarding my decisions in
this
>>> public forum. That is the Clue, hon. The one you keep refusing to
catch
>>> hold of. You continue to condemn me for things you simply cannot know
>>> about, because you and others shut down my willingness to interact on
this
>>> issue through your blood-lust. And, for what its worth, you will never
>>> know my decisions on this issue :-) So keep posting as though you do,
>>> keep making fools of yourselves (those of you who insist on this path)
by
>>> assuming things you can't know, and by posting from a position of
>>> uninformed certainty. It just makes you look like a fool, and I have no
>>> problems with this self-portrait of you.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> > "Wildman" (xdre...@nospamfiaaz.net) writes:
>>> > > In so far as your suggestive meaning that I may condone or otherwise
support
>>> > > adultery...you are waaaay off your rocker pal...and by the
way...Janie is
>>> > > not the adulterer...Kevin is...why is this so hard for some of you
people to
>>> > > understand?
>>> >
>>> > The last time I looked, adultery is defined in dictionaries as the act
of
>>> > sex with a married person. Thus, even if one party is single, BOTH are
>>> > committing adultery.
>>> <snip & trim>
Andre Lieven
"Wildman" (xdre...@fiaaz.net) writes:
> So who has defended this? Who in here has yet to say.."Jainie, Kevin,
> continuing screwing each other while wrecking a marriage...it is ok". Who
> Andre? Your abilities of observation are astonishing...
Well, " Jainie " did post all the nonsense with some point, which she
does not now wish to admit. None of us do this for NO reason, the question is,
what is that reason ? Since she was quite clearly happy about her choice
to be in an adulterous situation, I infer from that that she considers this
to be a good thing, at least for her. Beyond that, she claims that she
" shut down " on the topic once she got some negative feedback. I read the
posts in question, and it is my judgement that no one " flamed " her.
She reacted to posters who took her to task for her stated behavior.
It is fair to assume that, when one speaks of their acts in a positive way,
the person in question believes that these actions are good.
Further, please read what I actually DID write. I stated that she was
looking for such " support ". Clearly, as Julie also states, Janie
" shut down " upon not getting said " support ".
>
> That I recall..to date...there has been no one who stated even in the
> slightest manner that this is an ok behavior...
Exactly what I said. So, did you actually read what I wrote, before
posting this question ?
>
> Are you confusing our support for her in maintaining her right to privacy
> and basically telling you to piss off in regards to her not posting what it
> is you and a few others want to read? Is this the support you are referring
> to? If it isn't, please do share with me exactly what support you are
> referring to...
And, as I've said before ( man, some memories... ), Janie has every right to
do and write whatever she wants. Just as I, and everyone else, have every
right to make " judgements " based upon what that person chooses to do and
say. Further, I have only posted on this, in answer to Janie's posts aimed
at ME, which I also have every right to do. As does Julie, and anyone else
that Janie " targets " in this manner.
Put it very clearly... if Janie would just SHUT UP about her adultery,
no one would belabour the point. That's also at HER choice. For her, or
for that matter, for you to bitch about responses to her, is sophistry.
Again.
I note that you have no comment on Julie's excellent points below.
As she and I seem to be ( and please correct me if I'm in error, Julie )
in some agreement about Janie, what's your beef in all this, Wildman ?
Can I aslo assume that you agree with my comments about the nature of
adultery If not, why not ? How do you see this question ? Therin lies
a dialogue, not in the " huffy " way that Janie threw in her
" bombshell ", then ran for cover at the responses.
> Wildman
>
>
> Andre Lieven wrote in message <72c8ks$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>>
>>Julie (jul...@worldnet.att.net) writes:
>>> A clue for you to snag - you were the one who posted the whole mess in
>>> the first place. As for anyone waiting to see you hang your head, you
>>> apparently see yourself as being center stage here. Might want to
>>> investigate that further. The fact that you're committing adultery
>>> doesn't mean that it's all about you...could be the adultery itself that's
>>> the issue.
>>>
>>> Julie
>>
>>Thank you very much, Julie. You are exactly right, in that my " issue "
> with
Wildman
Andre Lieven wrote in message <72dpja$l...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
>"Wildman" (xdre...@fiaaz.net) writes:
>> So who has defended this? Who in here has yet to say.."Jainie, Kevin,
>> continuing screwing each other while wrecking a marriage...it is ok". Who
>> Andre? Your abilities of observation are astonishing...
>
>Well, " Jainie " did post all the nonsense with some point, which she
>does not now wish to admit. None of us do this for NO reason, the question
is,
>what is that reason ? Since she was quite clearly happy about her choice
>to be in an adulterous situation, I infer from that that she considers this
>to be a good thing, at least for her. Beyond that, she claims that she
>" shut down " on the topic once she got some negative feedback. I read the
>posts in question, and it is my judgement that no one " flamed " her.
>She reacted to posters who took her to task for her stated behavior.
>It is fair to assume that, when one speaks of their acts in a positive way,
>the person in question believes that these actions are good.
Relevancy would be???
>
>Further, please read what I actually DID write. I stated that she was
>looking for such " support ". Clearly, as Julie also states, Janie
>" shut down " upon not getting said " support ".
"is involved in an adulterous affair, and that she was/is expecting a lot of
>" support " for this decision.
>
>I can't and won't give any such support to any person who persists in
>committing a harmful and stupid course of action. I also have the right"
Hmm...
>>
>> That I recall..to date...there has been no one who stated even in the
>> slightest manner that this is an ok behavior...
>
>Exactly what I said. So, did you actually read what I wrote, before
>posting this question ?
>
>>
>> Are you confusing our support for her in maintaining her right to privacy
>> and basically telling you to piss off in regards to her not posting what
it
>> is you and a few others want to read? Is this the support you are
referring
>> to? If it isn't, please do share with me exactly what support you are
>> referring to...
>
>And, as I've said before ( man, some memories... ), Janie has every right
to
>do and write whatever she wants. Just as I, and everyone else, have every
>right to make " judgements " based upon what that person chooses to do and
>say. Further, I have only posted on this, in answer to Janie's posts aimed
>at ME, which I also have every right to do. As does Julie, and anyone else
>that Janie " targets " in this manner.
>
>Put it very clearly... if Janie would just SHUT UP about her adultery,
>no one would belabour the point. That's also at HER choice. For her, or
>for that matter, for you to bitch about responses to her, is sophistry.
>Again.
Try and grasp this concept Andre...I do not not give a rats ass what part of
life you are stuck in with all of this adultery stuff...really I do not..I
do find you amusing as with Stephanie, Julie and everyone else who has been
biting on Janie's hook...she is playing you 3 very well...
>
>I note that you have no comment on Julie's excellent points below.
Excellent is a matter of opinion...thank you for sharing yours with me...now
back to relevancy...
>As she and I seem to be ( and please correct me if I'm in error, Julie )
>in some agreement about Janie, what's your beef in all this, Wildman ?
Why do you ask?
>Can I aslo assume that you agree with my comments about the nature of
>adultery If not, why not ? How do you see this question ? Therin lies
I am sure there is somewhere in your mind an adequate reason for this
question...when I see it..I will answer it..
>a dialogue, not in the " huffy " way that Janie threw in her
>" bombshell ", then ran for cover at the responses.
Again...we see things differently...she didn't ask for your support...she
didn't (from what I saw) ask for your understanding...she merely wanted to
know what people thought. That is all, nothing more, nothing less...yet you
3 are having a pretty rough time with her refusal to cater a response to
you...
Wildman
chi...@usa.net
> Again...we see things differently...she didn't ask for your support...she
> didn't (from what I saw) ask for your understanding...she merely wanted to
> know what people thought. That is all, nothing more, nothing less...yet you
> 3 are having a pretty rough time with her refusal to cater a response to
> you...
>
> Wildman
Wildman, that is exactly what she got... people's thoughts and opinions.
Janie herself wrote the following words in her first post about her
situation. She welcomed all responses. And then she backpeddles... why?
Most likely because we didn't buy into her justifications. In the last
quote, she now blames the group for her shutting down because she
received exactly what she asked for, their thoughts and opinions???
Oh, yes, makes absolute sense to me. Shifting the blame.
Heidi
http://x13.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=405369038.1&CONTEXT=910877845.1755774988&hitnum=447
"Another deep breath... I'm not going to ask anyone not to flame me, or
to refrain from giving me knee-jerk quick answers that I might not
appreciate. First of all, anyone who wants to write either a hostile or
a knee-jerk reply to what I have to say is free to do so. I won't be
offended by it." and
"Also, I know a lot of people are going to just flat-out say I'm dead
wrong, no dialogue required. That's okay too - you're entitled to your
opinions, and truth-to-tell a part of me thinks that too :-)
http://x13.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=409043869&CONTEXT=910877845.1755774988&hitnum=135
Andre Lieven
(chi...@usa.net) writes:
> Wildman wrote:
>
>> Again...we see things differently...she didn't ask for your support...she
>> didn't (from what I saw) ask for your understanding...she merely wanted to
>> know what people thought. That is all, nothing more, nothing less...yet you
>> 3 are having a pretty rough time with her refusal to cater a response to
>> you...
>>
>> Wildman
>
> Wildman, that is exactly what she got... people's thoughts and opinions.
> Janie herself wrote the following words in her first post about her
> situation. She welcomed all responses. And then she backpeddles... why?
> Most likely because we didn't buy into her justifications. In the last
> quote, she now blames the group for her shutting down because she
> received exactly what she asked for, their thoughts and opinions???
>
> Oh, yes, makes absolute sense to me. Shifting the blame.
>
> Heidi
I will also add that I read all of the posts in question ( presuming that
my ISP didn't lose any of them... still I do recall these examples ), and
Heidi is quite right.
The point of asking for thoughts and opinions in such a place as this,
is to be a part of a dialogue. For Janie to then petulantly claim that
the dialogue is to " blame " for her unwillingness to discuss her
actions, choices, consequences, and responsibilities is shifting of the
responsibility. The same shifting of the responsibility that Janie
displayed when she blamed Kevin's wife for Kevin and Janie having an
adulterous affair. A pattern emerges, and it speaks to Janie's value
system. To comment on that is very " on topic ", as it shows the
thinking patterns of a conscious adulterer.
>
> http://x13.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=405369038.1&CONTEXT=910877845.
> 1755774988&hitnum=447
> "Another deep breath... I'm not going to ask anyone not to flame me, or
> to refrain from giving me knee-jerk quick answers that I might not
> appreciate. First of all, anyone who wants to write either a hostile or
> a knee-jerk reply to what I have to say is free to do so. I won't be
> offended by it." and
>
> "Also, I know a lot of people are going to just flat-out say I'm dead
> wrong, no dialogue required. That's okay too - you're entitled to your
> opinions, and truth-to-tell a part of me thinks that too :-)
>
>
> http://x13.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=409043869&CONTEXT=910877845.
> 1755774988&hitnum=135
> "You continue to condemn me for things you simply cannot know about,
> because you and others shut down my willingness to interact on this
> issue through your blood-lust."
" Blood-lust ". Very amusing....
Wildman
welcome yours" in her posts...yes she did ask for responses...but she never
said she would follow the advice, recognize the responses, or even change
her ways...that is what has these folks in the uproar they are in. It isn't
a matter of her receiving the replies...it is a matter that she refuses to
post what these three would like to read...which I would only gather could
be...she is sorry, she will stop, and that she is a slimebag for doing what
she is doing.
I do not see any of the above 3 being posted to anyone by her, it doesn't
indicate in any manner whether she knows she is right or wrong, and it
doesn't indicate in any manner that she has remorse...it simply states to
the world she is not going to answer specific questions, and/or post
"correct" posts for these people. And now, she baits them...they bite, and
it is humorous watching them fight over the bait.
chi...@usa.net wrote in message <364AEC...@usa.net>...
>Wildman wrote:
>
>> Again...we see things differently...she didn't ask for your support...she
>> didn't (from what I saw) ask for your understanding...she merely wanted
to
>> know what people thought. That is all, nothing more, nothing less...yet
you
>> 3 are having a pretty rough time with her refusal to cater a response to
>> you...
>>
>> Wildman
>
>Wildman, that is exactly what she got... people's thoughts and opinions.
Yes..and she also got the bonus prize of being referred to as a whore,
bitch, asshole and many other nicks, and they were not opinions..they were
pure duragatory comments directed to insult her..
>Janie herself wrote the following words in her first post about her
>situation. She welcomed all responses. And then she backpeddles... why?
Did she really backpeddle?? Or did she preserve her right of privacy in her
life...
>Most likely because we didn't buy into her justifications. In the last
>quote, she now blames the group for her shutting down because she
>received exactly what she asked for, their thoughts and opinions???
She never asked to be referred to in a duragatory manner...that is when her
tables turned...she toyed with them from that point on. One can only beat
their head against the wall for so long prior to stepping back and
re-evaluating why they were banging their head against the wall to begin
with...Janie did this, and now she follows the path she is now taking...and
she will do so without regards to anyones post in here...that is pretty hard
stuff for some to swallow.
>
>Oh, yes, makes absolute sense to me. Shifting the blame.
>
>Heidi
>
>http://x13.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=405369038.1&CONTEXT=910877845.17557749
88&hitnum=447
>"Another deep breath... I'm not going to ask anyone not to flame me, or
>to refrain from giving me knee-jerk quick answers that I might not
>appreciate. First of all, anyone who wants to write either a hostile or
>a knee-jerk reply to what I have to say is free to do so. I won't be
>offended by it." and
I didn't see anywhere, thus far, where she took offense to anything which
was directed in her general direction. Something else that cracks me up...is
the fact they publically bash her for doing him..and he is the married
one...he should be the problem...they are his vows, his institution *he* is
breaking...not her. This one always stumped me.
>
>"Also, I know a lot of people are going to just flat-out say I'm dead
>wrong, no dialogue required. That's okay too - you're entitled to your
>opinions, and truth-to-tell a part of me thinks that too :-)
I interpret this as publically acknowledging that she will be blasted for
her position..and she expects this behavior from certain posters.
>
>http://x13.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=409043869&CONTEXT=910877845.1755774988
&hitnum=135
>"You continue to condemn me for things you simply cannot know about,
>because you and others shut down my willingness to interact on this
>issue through your blood-lust."
I agree with this statement as well. Once she refused to post that she was
wrong, had regret, and was going to end it...the shit broke loose, and she
either had a choice..constant defense..or the manner in which she took...the
5th, and toy with them in the background.
Wildman
JLT_ALB
tip) emerged after I gave my opinion on the shared responsibilities of all
parties in intimate and personal relations. I see it so clearly now -
geeezz, Wildman, you could have given *me* a clue.
Those who came unglued, and began with the direct hits using profanity and
name calling, rather than just expressing opinions that differed from
mine, are the ones who are terrified of that share of responsibility for
the failure of their marriages my post triggered. Not responsibility for
the choice of the spouse who gave up on the marriage but failed to leave
it before moving on to someone else. That is a specific poor and
thoughtless choice that in itself deserves a separate thread - how we cope
with loss of what we value (communication and intimacy in our marriage).
No, the problem for you three who can't let this die, who have to attack
personally through name calling, is that I pointed out the responsibility
that the cheated-on spouse bears in the marriage prior to the poor choice
of adultery made by the cheating spouse. And even after that betrayal has
happened (the adultery), what is the other spouse continuing to do (or not
do) that continues this marriage that now has three instead of two parties
to it?
This isn't a judgment about anyone, hon. Honestly. Geeezz I know as well
as anyone all the reasons (including love, fear of abandonment, etc.) why
we stay in bad situations. Its just that until that cheated-on spouse
learns to take power for themselves, they'll just keep getting hurt over
and over again. That was the point of my post about responsibility and
accountability. I'm sorry if you perceived it to be blaming or finger
pointing at you because you were cheated on - it wasn't meant that way -
it was about empowerment.
Whew - I was really beginning to worry about y'all's intelligence! This
explains so much, now I know why you're being irrational on this one topic
when you often show reasonable rational thought on other topics.
Janie
In article <72erk7$r...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
<snip>
> The same shifting of the responsibility that Janie
> displayed when she blamed Kevin's wife for Kevin and Janie having an
> adulterous affair. A pattern emerges, and it speaks to Janie's value
> system.
--
A sense of humor reduces people and problems to their proper proportions. --Arnold H. Glasow
chi...@usa.net
The "shit broke loose" when her true colors started showing through. Her
first post deceived many, and there have been many posters that have
been challenged when their story changes and the truth finally starts
showing itself.
As far as the "bonus prize"... to be expected when posting to usenet
especially when the subject matter is a volatile one. I've been here two
years and this whole saga was really very tame.
Toying with people, playing games... yeah, some people get a real big
charge out of that. I've met quite a few in my life, I divorced one of
them.
Heidi
> >"You continue to condemn me for things you simply cannot know about,
> >because you and others shut down my willingness to interact on this
> >issue through your blood-lust."
>
Julie
perspective. It's also getting pretty amusing.
Do I owe you for the analysis? Oh, right. :-) A good part of your assertion is correct. I was able
to see much more clearly that I didn't have a marriage to break apart, or one that I valued enough
to want to hold on to. Where you lose it is in the ASSumption that you understand how anyone here
has dealt with adultery, or what they've gained from it. "We three" have most likely experienced
some similar aspects, but not all.
Quite frankly, without his and his now-wife's relationship, I very likely wouldn't have had to the
guts to go out on my own. I would have stayed a lot longer than was healthy for any of us, and the
goals I'm accomplishing now may not have existed, or would be a lot further into the future than
they are now. There feeling of betrayal at first, I think, is horribly painful. I wouldn't trade
that experience for anything, though.
In my own situation, it isn't me who has any issue with my ex or his wife. She, however, is an
extremely unhappy person who can't deal with me in a manner even resembling civility or politeness.
My life is my own, and hers is tied to someone who commits adultery. And in their case the old
point about once a cheater, always a cheater is true. I learned a long time ago that I didn't need
to be bitter. Their own consequences were far more difficult than anything I could have conjured
up, and I think it's very sad.
In the case of the threads involving you and your relationship, I do have an opinion on adultery,
but I also have a separate opinion on how you've handled them. I don't remember having called you
any "names". I do remember posts from you using "hon" and "sweetie" in a condescending manner. I do
remember thinking that you can be quite arrogant and manipulative, but I'll have to look it up to
see if I wrote it.
Julie
JLT_ALB wrote:
> In article <72erk7$r...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>
> <snip>
Julie
This is a discussion group. We're discussing. As happens in a lot of threads, there has been quite a lot of heat, probably because it's a very emotional topic. Oh well.
Julie
Wildman wrote:
>
>http://x13.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=409043869&CONTEXT=910877845.1755774988
&hitnum=135
>"You continue to condemn me for things you simply cannot know about,
>because you and others shut down my willingness to interact on this
>issue through your blood-lust."
I agree with this statement as well. Once she refused to post that she was