Melissa Reeves:Say it isn't so!
KL Robinson
I cannot believe that our jennifer would do such a thing as
sleeping with Jason Brooks (as reported in the new June Playgirl)
Oh, the horror of it all!! I guess she got tired of playing Ms.
Goody-two-Shoes, and wanted a taste of the seedier side of life.
Poor Scott Reeves! If I was him, I would have booted her out
right then and there! I think Missy needs therapy to seperate her
daytime job from her personal life...
And who out there thinks that Jason needs to leave?? They
shouldn't allow him to stay, especially since Melissa will "not be
back, EVER." And he's a party to all of this! Don't forget that,
my friends . . .
I'm in such shock! I've got to call my shrink . . .
Garlic Peel
<headers added- please remember to use them!>
In article <4pmpe6$ag6$2...@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>,
KL Robinson <10427...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>I cannot believe that our jennifer would do such a thing as
>sleeping with Jason Brooks
"Our Jennifer" didn't sleep with Jason Brooks. Jennifer is
a character on a soap opera. The rumor suggests that Melissa
Reeves had an affaire with Jason Brooks. The two are very
different.
>Oh, the horror of it all!! I guess she got tired of playing Ms.
>Goody-two-Shoes, and wanted a taste of the seedier side of life.
"Seedier side of life"? Are some of us stuck in the 1800's?
If the rumors are true, Melissa had an affaire with a co-star;
it's not like she was turning tricks on Hollywood Bvd. or
something.
>Poor Scott Reeves! If I was him, I would have booted her out
>right then and there!
Nothing like righteous indignation, eh? Except if the rumor
was true, Scott probably had the empathy and humanity to consider
the situation from more than just his anger, and tried to make
things work between them. I personally can't imagine throwing
away my Beloved and family based on an indiscretion. But
then again, I have somewhat different views on "infidelity",
though I do agree that if one feels one needs a sexual partner
outside the primary relationshipo, one should negotiate, not lie
about it.
>I think Missy needs therapy to seperate her
>daytime job from her personal life...
*I* think folks who make personal recommendations (like therapy)
when they don't know but one fraction of the story should strive
for more perspective.
>And who out there thinks that Jason needs to leave?? They
>shouldn't allow him to stay, especially since Melissa will "not be
>back, EVER." And he's a party to all of this! Don't forget that,
>my friends . . .
I'm no Jason Brooks fan, but firing him based on his *personal*
life is totally wrong, IMHO. Unless someone commits a crime
(and no, adultery is not a crime, thankfully, the lawmakers in
the US have not gone *that* far to tie laws and morality)
they should not lose their job for something that goes on in
their personal life. I was horrified at the suggestion that
Jeff Griggs (Jude St.Clair) was fired because of his involvement
in gay porn, and I'm horrified at the thought that someone thinks
an actor should lose his/her job due to a personal choice
>I'm in such shock! I've got to call my shrink . . .
Unless your post was very tongue-in-cheek and I missed it, I think
perhaps your idea of calling your shrink might not be off the mark.
There seems to be a problem with judgemental-ness, and with separating
reality and fiction.
TTFN,
Garlic
(might not have bothered, but the judgemental nature and slant of this
post bugged me)
--
_______________________________Valerie's Mate_____________________________
Ariel and felines Scorpio Pook Misty Zipper Vixen Jazmyn HollyB's Mom
http://www.savina.com/~june
"While at my feet, eternity draws ever sweeter plans for me" Robert Plant
Eplin
Garlic Peel wrote:
>I'm no Jason Brooks fan, but firing him based on his >*personal*
>life is totally wrong, IMHO. Unless someone commits a >crime
>(and no, adultery is not a crime, thankfully, the >lawmakers in
>the US have not gone *that* far to tie laws and morality)
But Garlic, adultery is on the books as a crime in many states and
municipalities in the U.S...it's just not prosecuted anymore (and that's a
pity ... such betrayal is tantamount to murder, in my opinion).
Michael Kersey
gar...@ftp.netgate.net (Garlic Peel) wrote:
>"Seedier side of life"? Are some of us stuck in the 1800's?
>If the rumors are true, Melissa had an affaire with a co-star;
>it's not like she was turning tricks on Hollywood Bvd. or
>something.
Ding!Ding! Round two has begun! I'm here Garlic and back with a vengance.
Garlic, how can you possibly excuse away her behavior? And don't say ya
did'nt because that's exactly what you did.
> Except if the rumor
>was true, Scott probably had the empathy and humanity to consider
>the situation from more than just his anger, and tried to make
>things work between them.
Possibly. Never make an important decision based on anger.
But
>then again, I have somewhat different views on "infidelity",
>though I do agree that if one feels one needs a sexual partner
>outside the primary relationshipo, one should negotiate, not lie
>about it.
>
Oh Lord! "Negotiate?" And what if the other partner does'nt want to
"enter into negotiations"? What does the person who "needs" another
sexual partner do?
>*I* think folks who make personal recommendations (like therapy)
>when they don't know but one fraction of the story should strive
>for more perspective.
You know the same fraction that that the person you responded to knows.
You're fraction was so insightful that you felt confident that he lacked
perspective?
but firing him based on his *personal*
>life is totally wrong, IMHO.
That's a legal matter. On a moral issue, Jason and Melissa failed
miserably.
>There seems to be a problem with judgemental-ness, and with separating
>reality and fiction.
Everyone who takes a stand against something is judgemental in your
opinion. If no one called a spade a spade, if no one called something
right or wrong then we'd have no need for the word 'judgemental'. Being
judgemental, Garlic, is not a bad thing. Furthermore, I like people who
are 'judgemental'. At least I know where I stand with them. I don't have
to guess what their morals are.
Should Scott have left Melissa? I truly believe that only he can make
that decision. If he had asked me, I would've suggested a little time
apart to think things over. Distance can help put perspective on these
things. And you know me. I would like to see the parents stick together
and work through this instead of throwing in the towel. On second
thought, I really believe Scott made the right decision. I doubt she did
it with Jason for the sake of sex. If it was for sex, she could've gotten
that from Scott. Point is , it was probably her way of sending him a wake
up call. To let him know that there were problems. She should've done it
in a better way, but the damage is done.
Michael
>(might not have bothered, but the judgemental nature and slant of this
>post bugged me)
And I might not have bothered, but the judgemental nature and slant of
your post bugged me. You need to go get some professional help woman
cause your morals are all out of whack.
Lauren Crowley
LAWard
Well, I have to say that more and more I have been convinced that the
affair isn't only "possible" it's likely. As to whether or not Scott
should have left her? How should *I* know. That's their business.
Technically Days has no reason to fire Jason Brooks over this (And I
CANNOT STAND) Jason Brooks. Unless it was something that happened *at
work* then I don't think that his affair is the criteria for whether or
not he's "fired." Doesn't make me respect or like him though.
LAWard
is he naked in Playgirl?<<<
Not that I know of. . .but in a Soap Opera Update interview he's said he's
"posed" for Playgirl four times now and that in at least *one* session he
*was* nude. . .and his mother-in-law went ballistic about it. And that he
"just *couldn't understand" just because he's "free with his sexuality"
yada, yada, yada. . .the SOU article did not impress me about his taste or
his morality. It's a free country and he can do what he likes. . .but I'm
not impressed.
Garlic Peel
In article <4po9j6$9...@tribune.concentric.net>,
Michael Kersey <kers...@concentric.net> wrote:
>gar...@ftp.netgate.net (Garlic Peel) wrote:
>
>>"Seedier side of life"? Are some of us stuck in the 1800's?
>>If the rumors are true, Melissa had an affaire with a co-star;
>>it's not like she was turning tricks on Hollywood Bvd. or
>>something.
>
>Ding!Ding! Round two has begun! I'm here Garlic and back with a vengance.
Oh, joy.
>Garlic, how can you possibly excuse away her behavior? And don't say ya
>did'nt because that's exactly what you did.
No, I didn't. And I can say that if I want to. I simply stated that
I didn't think "seedy" was an appropriate term to use.
>>then again, I have somewhat different views on "infidelity",
>>though I do agree that if one feels one needs a sexual partner
>>outside the primary relationshipo, one should negotiate, not lie
>>about it.
>>
>Oh Lord! "Negotiate?" And what if the other partner does'nt want to
>"enter into negotiations"? What does the person who "needs" another
>sexual partner do?
Yes, "negotiate". One of the cornerstones of a good relationship,
imho. If one partner would like a more open relationship, and the
other wouldn't, then I guess they'd have to determine if they're
compatible enough to stay together, and how important each
of their values are to them on the issues. Like I said,
negotiate. Discuss. Talk.
>>*I* think folks who make personal recommendations (like therapy)
>>when they don't know but one fraction of the story should strive
>>for more perspective.
>
>You know the same fraction that that the person you responded to knows.
>You're fraction was so insightful that you felt confident that he lacked
>perspective?
It seemed clear in the person's *post* that sie was lacking perspective.
I had the entire post in front of me when I made that suggestion, not
a fraction of it, and so felt based on the information available that
more perspective would help. I made no particular personal suggestions
regarding the Missy/Jason/Scott situation, as the original poster did.
>That's a legal matter. On a moral issue, Jason and Melissa failed
>miserably.
If judged by *your* morals. And perhaps Scott's. But you cannot(!)
force, assume, make, or desire everyone to have *your* morals.
Were I in a similar position as Jason and Melissa, I'd likely discuss
the attraction for each other with my spouse rather than to
simply act on it, but I certainly don't feel I'm in a position to
make any judgements about their having "failed miserably". I also
don't know that they *didn't* have such a discussion, but it seems
unlikely. That's just what I would have done in their shoes.
>Everyone who takes a stand against something is judgemental in your
>opinion. If no one called a spade a spade, if no one called something
>right or wrong then we'd have no need for the word 'judgemental'. Being
See, I don't believe there *should* be a word "judgemental".
Or at least not in the context. We need to make judgements, decisions
about what *we* will and will not do, but we have no right,
absolutely no right to make pronouncements of right and wrong against
others whose morals, ethics, beliefs, etc. do not agree with ours.
We can state that their facts are right or wrong, and we can
say what we might have done in their position, and we can certainly
take a stand for things, but only in our own lives. I'm speaking
here of moral decisions, btw, not things that bring physical
harm to others (i.e. I believe it is "wrong" to murder).
>are 'judgemental'. At least I know where I stand with them. I don't have
>to guess what their morals are.
I generally don't worry too much about what people's morals are, as
long as I have experienced that their actions are in keeping with
what I want in my life. Morals and judgements have been behind many
of the ills our civilization has been beset with, imho.
>Should Scott have left Melissa? I truly believe that only he can make
>that decision.
Agreed.
>>(might not have bothered, but the judgemental nature and slant of this
>>post bugged me)
>
>And I might not have bothered, but the judgemental nature and slant of
>your post bugged me. You need to go get some professional help woman
>cause your morals are all out of whack.
Excuse me???? Please clarify, because I think I just heard you
say that I needed "professional help" based on my morals!?!
Does everyone who does not embrace the moral stance you do need
such help? Does that also cover folks not of your religious
persuasion? How about your cultural group/ethnicity? If
that last sentence was *not* tongue in cheek, than I think the
veracity of your post is called into question.
TTFN,
Garlic
(doing fine until the end... then... <gape>)
Rj Sam
Didn't you ever learn that you aren't supposed to believe evrything you
read, and especially from PLAYGIRL, give me a break !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jen
Calvin "TMS" Swanson
It used to be that if a person cheated the worst consequence were a
broken heart and maybe a sexually transmitted disease that a little shot
would cure. This is no longer the case; betrayal can mean sickness and
death. I have no clue as to what happened with Reeves or Brooks and I
don't care. Every person has to suffer the consequences of their own
actions as well as unfortunately the person with whom they chose to
sleep.
I am sure that the viewing audience misses Melissa Reeves in her role as
Jennifer. I do also. But lets also admit that TPTB had saddled her with
a lame, spineless storyline prior to her departure and have saddled us
with a talentless substitute with a continuing lame and spineless
storyline.
Feel free to comment
Deb Swanson
Kristen Clute
BTW, I appologize in advance for the length of this reply. It apparently
hit a hot button w/ me.
In article <4po9j6$9...@tribune.concentric.net>, Michael Kersey
<kers...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> gar...@ftp.netgate.net stated:
(To start with, Garlic Peel, while I may not always agree w/ her opinion,
as far as I can tell in my many moons on the 'net, is a very intelligent
woman. If nothing else, I respect her posts because they reflect a
thoughtful, insightful, non-judgemental and "non-kneejerk" <is that even
a word?> :-) responsive view as opposed to the snap decisions formulated &
posted by people who have *no* clue [but apparently plenty of opinions]
about the private lives (of which we're not privy) of actors or individual
people in general. Now that I've written the above, I want to say that I
would have written this response agreeing with anyone who wrote such a
cohesive post. Great form June!
Garlic wrote:
> Ding!Ding! Round two has begun! I'm here Garlic and back with a vengance.
> Garlic, how can you possibly excuse away her behavior? And don't say ya
> did'nt because that's exactly what you did.
June hardly needs me to "stand up for her", but I don't *even* consider
Garlic's assertion that (and I quote):
"> "Seedier side of life" <"? (quoting the original poster) Are some of
us stuck in the 1800's? Melissa had an affaire with a co-star; it's not
like she was turning tricks on Hollywood Bvd. or something",
as a possible or implied excuse or defense of Missy Reeves' "alledged"
affair. Michael, please tell me where you so masterfully uncovered the
subtext detailing Garlic's pardon and/or approval of Reeves' behavior.
She posted not an excuse, a defense, or an encouragement for *anyone's*
behavior.
Just a quick request, when June (or anyone else) is in charge of stating &
governing the beliefs, principals, morals & opinions of everyone on the
'net, *please* let me know. ;-)
Garlic again:
> >then again, I have somewhat different views on "infidelity",
> >though I do agree that if one feels one needs a sexual partner
> >outside the primary relationship, one should negotiate, not lie
> >about it.
Michael:
> Oh Lord! "Negotiate?" And what if the other partner doesn't want to
> "enter into negotiations"? What does the person who "needs" another
> sexual partner do?
Obviously, exactly what was implied. If the other partner doesn't want to
"enter into negotiations", they (the first sexual partner) will do
whatever the hell they want to do. A least in the negotiation example,
the 'adulterer' (for lack of a better word right now) gave it a try by
attempting to discuss it w/ their partner (whatever the outcome) instead
of deceiving them from the get-go & continuing to do so. Some couples
seem to have no problem w/ open relationships. You or I, (or Garlic, for
all we know) may not agree w/ that & say 'Adios Love of My Life'. But,
you know what? In other people's lives if we don't agree, it's just too
damn bad for them! Melissa & Scott are adults & didn't ask for our
opinions or beliefs on infidelity.
> >*I* think folks who make personal recommendations (like therapy)
> >when they don't know but one fraction of the story should strive
> >for more perspective.
> You know the same fraction that that the person you responded to knows.
> You're fraction was so insightful that you felt confident that he lacked
> perspective?
No one (Garlic, John Tesh, Spiderman, anyone else) said that the info she
knew was more insighful or complete. Having said that, in my eyes (and in
my unqualified yet vociferous opinion), the fact that Mr. X (for lack of a
better moniker. I forgot what the orig. poster's name is; sorry) who
automatically diagnosed the 'patient' and prescribed a method of treatment
to someone based on his or her assersion that:
"Missy needs therapy to seperate her daytime job from her personal life.."
truly baffles me by being somewhat simple-minded, ignorant, & without a
firm grasp on reality. Where does it say unequivocally *anywhere* in the
tabloids, the 'net, the soap mags, Scott, Jason, or from Melissa herself,
that she can't tell the difference between fact & fiction? Nowhere. What
she chooses to do or not do, so far, hasn't been established anywhere as a
psychiactric disorder, sign of mental illness, instability, depression,
whatever. If she does, in fact however, choose to enter into therapy (and
who knows if she has or hasn't already), who's to say that it's even about
this alleged incident?
>>Again but firing him based on his *personal* life is totally wrong, IMHO.
> That's a legal matter. On a moral issue, Jason and Melissa failed
> miserably.
Michael, when did you become judge & jury on the jubject of morality &
legality? Morally, infidelity may very well be considered a "*BAD*"
thing, but who are you to decide once and for all? The courts have no say
on adultery unless it's used as grounds for marital separation/divorce.
That's a religion thing (or were you hoping they'd try the Scarlett Letter
thing?) unless a) it's a legal matter in terms of DOOL's contractual
obligations. In that case, then you're correct. If the courts have no
law re: any person who commits adultury, then they, the legal system has
no right or juristication to mete out punishment on this one.
From the way you stated your above retort, I don't know about others, but,
boy I'd be pissed if whomever occupies the Oval Office/Supreme
Court/House/Congress has the omnipotence to be able to insist that their
religious beliefs & opinions should & will declare that the teachings of
the "Good Book" replace the Constitution. Based upon that, if they then
also had the ability to impose sentence upon me (or friends of mine or
you) at their whim, I'm guessing that in this country, that well, it just
wouldn't go over very well. You know, I'm not a history maj., but if I
recall correctly, the above has already been tried & judging from the way
things are now, it didn't seem to work all that well.
> Everyone who takes a stand against something is judgemental in your
> opinion.
I'm forced to disagree w/you here (wow, there's a surprise). Garlic
(who's by no means the only one) & several people have had differing
opinions over the years. They've agreed to disagree & call it a draw if
they can't agree, or ignore each other. No one (in my 4 years on the
group) has been labled judgmental or difficult unless a poster has a
proven track record for starting disagreements just for the hell of it.
In fact, June is one of the few people who will encourge the poster she's
disagreeing w/ to restate their case to see if the two can come to an
agreement or to make sure June's not taking it as it wasn't intended.
> right or wrong then we'd have no need for the word 'judgemental'. Being
> judgemental, Garlic, is not a bad thing. Furthermore, I like people who
> are 'judgemental'. At least I know where I stand with them. I don't have
> to guess what their morals are.
Liking judgemental people is your right & priviledge. However, being
judgemental can really limit your horizons. Just out of curiosity, are
you only judgemental about things you have the absolute & complete facts
about or when it's convenient for you or do you make your judgements based
on sweeping generalizations? (Ok, I know that sentence came out snotty,
but I truly didn't mean for it to) For sush a moral & upstanding person,
you seem quite willing to forget the admonishments, "Judge not, lest ye be
judged yourself" and "You can't know a man until you've walked a mile in
his shoes". Personally, I prefer to remain open-minded. One never knows
what one may discover if they haven't closed all of the doors they didn't
agree with. Hmm, who knows if & when the 'net & the WWW would have been
created if the creaters were populated by folks who had constantly ruled
it out as a stupid idea.
> Michael
>
>
> >(might not have bothered, but the judgemental nature and slant of this
> >post bugged me)
>
> And I might not have bothered, but the judgemental nature and slant of
> your post bugged me. You need to go get some professional help woman
> cause your morals are all out of whack.
After reading this post (and all of the threads) a ton of times, I still
have yet to find Garlic being judgemental at all. And Michael, you know
I'm just not usually a hostile type of person, but who on God's Green
Earth designated *you* as the arbitrater of whether or not June or Alex
Trebek or Satan himself needs professional [mental] help, based on morals
which were not only never stated, but never even implied???? If you were
a licenensed practitioner (therapist/counseler/nurse/doctor) of mental
health, & this is the kind of crap you recommend to patients, I'd have
your name constantly circulated within the AMA & have your professional
life ruined before you could blink your self-righteous eye. As it stands
though, it's quite obvious that you've never *even* encountered a mental
health professional during your pronouncements of morality & goodness! Oy
Vey! (oops, I'm probably going to Hell now, huh Michael, for not being a
bible-thumping-fire & brimstone-God-fearing-Christian?)
Kristen, think I'll go judge the neighbor kids on their volume level now...
--
"Sure. Fine. Whatever."
The X-Files' Agent Dana Scully - _Syzygy_
Michael Kersey
gar...@ftp.netgate.net (Garlic Peel) wrote:
>Yes, "negotiate". One of the cornerstones of a good relationship,
>imho. If one partner would like a more open relationship, and the
>other wouldn't, then I guess they'd have to determine if they're
>compatible enough to stay together, and how important each
>of their values are to them on the issues. Like I said,
>negotiate. Discuss. Talk.
>
Whatever happened to "love,cherish, honor and forsake all others."
Marriage is great because a person is saying " I want to spend all my
life with you. Our lives are intertwined from here on..." How does a
third person fit into this scheme?
>If judged by *your* morals. And perhaps Scott's. But you cannot(!)
>force, assume, make, or desire everyone to have *your* morals.
It's not *my* morals Garlic. It's a universal belief. At least it used to
be that way...that a person would not cheat on their mate. That
infedelity was wrong. And the whole world practically has tried it and
has it really helped people and couples grow stronger? I don't think so.
But unlike the Dark Ages, etc... I don't force people to accept my
beliefs. No one will suffer harm from me because they don't believe the
way I do. However, I choose to associate with couples who are married and
share the same values as I do. That way there are no conflicts like you
and I have. Ex- I was friends with a married couple. Both were good
looking. Had three beautiful children. Had a successful business that
many of us used(hairstylists). We used to go skiing on the lake, picnics,
Six Flags Over Georgia etc...Turns out, he'd been cheating on his wife
for a good while. As soon as I found out, that was it. He is DIRT in my
eyes. I never spoke to him again. I cut him off right then and there. And
all his friends did as well. His business dropped, because nobody wanted
to be seen with him. He ran a family business but he did'nt act like a
family man. Instead, he was running around with pants down like a stupid
teenager. She and the children have moved on. I stay in touch with them
and look after them, but he can rot in hell. Furthermore, I do believe in
forgivness. But, he was not sorry. He ruined his marriage and the
marriage of the woman he was 'seeing'. He did'nt care. He was not sorry
at all. ANd that is why I never spoke to him again. Because he would'nt
admit that it was wrong. This belief of not cheating on your mate pretty
much cuts across racial, religious, national boundaries, etc... People
not of my religion still believe pretty much the way that I do on this.
That cheating is WRONG!!!
BTW, I am proud of cutting off the son of a bitch.
>Were I in a similar position as Jason and Melissa, I'd likely discuss
>the attraction for each other with my spouse rather than to
>simply act on it
Still, what if you're mate does'nt want to 'share you'?
>See, I don't believe there *should* be a word "judgemental".
>Or at least not in the context. We need to make judgements, decisions
>about what *we* will and will not do, but we have no right,
>absolutely no right to make pronouncements of right and wrong against
>others whose morals, ethics, beliefs, etc. do not agree with ours.
And what happens when someone does something to you that you consider
wrong but they consider right?
>We can state that their facts are right or wrong, and we can
>say what we might have done in their position, and we can certainly
>take a stand for things, but only in our own lives. I'm speaking
>here of moral decisions, btw, not things that bring physical
>harm to others (i.e. I believe it is "wrong" to murder).
Question: why is murder wrong?
Morals and judgements have been behind many
>of the ills our civilization has been beset with, imho.
Bull. Most of the ills have come from those who chose to violently force
someone to have values in which case the violator was not really a moral
person to begin with.
>Excuse me???? Please clarify, because I think I just heard you
>say that I needed "professional help" based on my morals!?!
>Does everyone who does not embrace the moral stance you do need
>such help? Does that also cover folks not of your religious
>persuasion? How about your cultural group/ethnicity? If
>that last sentence was *not* tongue in cheek, than I think the
>veracity of your post is called into question.
You read it right Garlic. There was no tongue in my cheek on that one. I
was incensed at the last line of your post underneath your signature and
I promptly went and erased the smileies that I had put in my post. And
after reading that post of yours, I believe your credibility is in
question. Actually, it's not in question. I have no doubt that you don't
have any. It was hard for me to say to you earlier last month' you
should'nt be a lesbian'. What place is it of mine? But to sit there and
qualify infedelity is outrageous and I won't stand for that. I'm not
going anywhere. Anytime you post with your pov, i'll be right behind you
to give the other side.
Virtually everybody believes adultery is wrong. Even those who are doing
it. Trust me. I realize now that you did'nt just have a lack of respect
for 'traditional relationships' i.e.heterosexual marriages because you
are a lesbian. You just disrespect all marriages period. You have a total
lack of respect for fedelity. You have this 'no barriers, no boundaries
do what feels good attitude' Garlic and trust me you will get hurt
someday for it.
Being non-judgemental is fine. To a point. But if you go the extreme of
not judging anything, then someone is going to get hurt. Someone is going
to get away with 'murder'.
Michael
show...@delphi.com
Ever think that something or SOMEONE made up her mind to do this ? In all
the interviews with her husband he gives the air of someone that would have
made a good husband in the 50's when the husband did ALL the talking and the
wife stayed home and quiet. I can't imagine someone leaving a semi-new
marriage for an affair if something wasn't right at home! > Poor Scott Reeves!
> daytime job from her personal life...
Michael Kersey
show...@delphi.com () wrote:
> Ever think that something or SOMEONE made up her mind to do this ? In all
>the interviews with her husband he gives the air of someone that would have
>made a good husband in the 50's when the husband did ALL the talking and the
>wife stayed home and quiet. I can't imagine someone leaving a semi-new
>marriage for an affair if something wasn't right at home! > Poor Scott Reeves!
I've no doubt that there were problems in the marriage before the affair.
The affair is just the symptom of the problem. What the problem is I
don't know, but I do know having an affair is not going to help. As for
Scott doing all the talking...Maybe that is a condition they agreed upon
as to staying together. Maybe he's trying to get control over a situation
that went out of hand.
Michael
Julie Cizenski
Is this round three of "Missy's departure"? I can't believe some of
the things I am reading here. Don't have time to respond to people
individually, and I'm not flaming anyone, but ...
1.) Is seems you have tried and convicted Missy on the basis of a rumor.
I don't know who started the rumor. Suppose Missy had an enemy on the
set, ever think of that? Anyone can start a rumor, anyone can pretend
they are connected with the show, and even the most honest sources can
get bad information at times. Take information you hear with a grain of
salt, folks. I am not saying that it's not true, I really don't know
what happened. They had lots of solid evidence on OJ and yet he walked.
2.) As for the article appearing in Playgirl, it's still the same rumor,
just in paper form. Someone could have pulled it right off the net, for
all we know. If it's in a magazine, it must be true?? I hope none of
you believe that one!! The mags, especially the rags, are full of lies
and half truths. On occasion, people sue them for printing garbage.
Most of the celebrities realize that once it's been printed, the damage
is already done, and suing won't fix it, and might make things worse.
3.) Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. That may not be an
exact quote, but I'm sure you know what I am talking about. Yes,
adultery is wrong, and it's a sin, according to most religions. If the
rumor is true, then Missy and Jason are guilty of committing a sin, but
it's not our place to judge them. They are human beings, just like the
rest of us, and they make mistakes too. They have to make peace with
themselves, their spouses, and their God. They have to live with their
mistake for the rest of their lives. I don't think anyone out here has
the credentials to judge Missy and Jason. After all, I was raised to
believe that gossiping was a sin. We are so bad, aren't we? <G>
4.) While having an affair can break up a marriage, the affair is just a
symptom of a marriage that's in trouble. Happily married people don't
have affairs!! If Missy did make an error in judgment, I am glad that
Scott is trying to work things out with her. It takes a lot of hard work
and love to repair this kind of damage, but in the end, their marriage
could be all the stronger because of it. If Scott and Missy want to work
things out, they must love each other, so who are we to say it's wrong.
As for Jason, if it's true, I hope he's working on his marriage now, and
that he's fessed up to his wife.
Julie(Peanutbutter Cup)
Kristen Clute
Egads, I'm jumping into this one too. No other post in recent years has
pissed me off this much and I've never intentionally insulted another
poster, but this time I felt it was warranted. Seems as if Mr. Kersey
feels the need to *again* make judgements about people he knows absolutely
*squat* about & I refuse to sit here and let him babble on as the self
appointed 'Morality King'!
In article <4ptk61$k...@liberator.concentric.net>, Michael Kersey
<kers...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> gar...@ftp.netgate.net (Garlic Peel) wrote:
>This belief of not cheating on your mate pretty
> much cuts across racial, religious, national boundaries, etc... People
> not of my religion still believe pretty much the way that I do on this.
> That cheating is WRONG!!!
Michael, do you read the posts or just continue to blather? *NOWHERE* has
Garlic or anyone else said that they believed cheating was right or ok!!!
The only things stated have been the assertions that no one else has the
right to judge the way Melissa lives her personal life. You may not agree
w/ Missy's (alledged) actions, I don't agree w/ them either, but out of
this silly discussion of an actress' life, where the hell do you get off
proclaiming that Garlic is an immoral person in need of psychiatric
assistance based purely on your belief system? (this is in reference to
the rest of this crap response to Garlic)
> >Were I in a similar position as Jason and Melissa, I'd likely discuss
> >the attraction for each other with my spouse rather than to
> >simply act on it
>
> Still, what if you're mate does'nt want to 'share you'?
Well, duh Michael! Use your little brain for God's sake. If your
mate doesn't want to share you, then the relationship is over. Is that
too hard for you to figure out? BTW, you'll also notice that Garlic said
she'd discuss it w/ her mate rather than simply acting on it. So, again I
ask you to please point out to me where she has excused Missy's actions or
agreed w/ them?
> >[...] we have no right,absolutely no right to make pronouncements of right
> >and wrong against others whose morals, ethics, beliefs, etc. do not agree
> >with ours.
>
> And what happens when someone does something to you that you consider
> wrong but they consider right?
I can't speak for Garlic, but if someone does something to me that *I*
consider wrong, I'll discuss it w/ them. I'm assuming you would do the
same. It may not get resolved to yours or my satisfaction, but that's all
we can do unless we have a legal recourse. In the context of this subject
(Melissa Reeves), I'll type slowly so you can understand it,
she did nothing wrong to us and therefore we
have no right to pass judgement on her.
> > [...] I'm speaking here of moral decisions, btw, not things that bring >
> >physical harm to others (i.e. I believe it is "wrong" to murder).
>
> Question: why is murder wrong?
Are you really this stupid or is it just an act? If you read her
statement, she says, and I quote, "I'm speaking here of moral decisions,
btw, not things that bring physical harm to others". Question: does
murder not bring physical harm to another? Oy!
> >Excuse me???? Please clarify, because I think I just heard you
> >say that I needed "professional help" based on my morals!?!
> You read it right Garlic. [...]I was incensed at the last line of your post
> underneath your signature and [...] I believe your credibility is in question
> Actually, it's not in question. I have no doubt that you don't have any.
Hmmm, Garlic has no credibility because under her name it says 'Valerie's
Mate', among other things????? And that incensed you? My, my, but your
blood pressure must be a serious health risk for you.
>It was hard for me to say to you earlier last month' you should'nt be a
>lesbian'. What place is it of mine?
Oh Ok, I get it now! It's not your place to say that Garlic being a
lesbian isn't ok, but it's *totally* ok to say that she needs professional
help because of it? Wow, I had no idea that you were so knowledgable
about everything which involves other people's beliefs which differ from
your own!!!! Please o'wise one, show me the way to Nirvana.
>But to sit there and qualify infedelity is outrageous and I won't stand for
>that.
Michael, I triple-dog-dare you to go back through this thread and find one
single, teeny, tiny, sentence or phrase from Garlic condoning or
encouraging infidelity. You won't find one.
>I realize now that you did'nt just have a lack of respect for 'traditional
> relationships' i.e.heterosexual marriages because you are a lesbian. You just
> disrespect all marriages period. You have a total lack of respect for
> fedelity.
Unless you know waaaaayyyyy more about her than anything I've learned from
her posts, you are a raving lunatic! I challenge you to find one shred of
evidence in *any* of Garlic's posts which suggest that she has a lack of
respect for marriage (hetero or homo) or fidelity!! Oh and Mikey, if
you're going to keep throwing the word "fidelity" around, learn to spell
it please.
Look Michael, your beliefs & values are yours. I can't change them. I
can't take them away from you. I can't say they're stupid & then *poof*
they magically become stupid. That's one of the great things in life; you
can believe & value what you want. By the same token, Garlic's beliefs &
values are hers & she has the same rights & priviledges regarding them as
are afforded to you. She didn't attack you or your values, why do you feel
that you have the right to attack her? You may very well believe that
she's going straight to hell because she's a lesbian, but that has zero,
nada, zip to do with the topic of this discussion - Melissa Reeves'
alleged affair.
You have maganged to take a discussion where Garlic was basically agreeing
w/ you on adultery, but was disagreeing w/ the public trial of Melissa & you
turned it into a hatefest. When you start slamming someone (because their
values or beliefs differ from yours) who's been around here for ages & has
always been open-minded, fair, thoughtful, hilarious, and *never* mean
just for the sake of being mean, you're opening up yourself to a whole new
world of irritation. No, I'm not attempting to threaten you, I'm just
giving you a head's up. Have a nice day.
> Michael
Kristen, one of those damn *hetero*sexuals (Michael, that was just for you
so you won't assume I'm some other lesbo that Garlic's screwing around
with; what w/ her lack of respect for fidelity & all) who firmly believes
that what other people do in their personal lives is none of my %$*&%$#
business & I have no right to judge them!
Michael Kersey
kcl...@qualcomm.com (Kristen Clute) wrote:
>Egads, I'm jumping into this one too. No other post in recent years has
>pissed me off this much and I've never intentionally insulted another
>poster, but this time I felt it was warranted. Seems as if Mr. Kersey
>feels the need to *again* make judgements about people he knows absolutely
>*squat* about & I refuse to sit here and let him babble on as the self
>appointed 'Morality King'!
>
Oh, but Garlic can make all the moral judgements she wants while we who
disagree with her must stay silent. And that is exactly what she did. She
chastised some other poster, like a little baby, for calling Melissa's
actions "seedy". Yes Kristen, Garlic WAS QUALIFYING ADULTERY!!When she
says something like 'it's not like she's walking the streets or
something' she is lessening the importance of what Melissa(allegedly)
did.And Jason too.
>Michael, do you read the posts or just continue to blather? *NOWHERE* has
>Garlic or anyone else said that they believed cheating was right or ok!!!
Garlic did'nt need to come right out and give her stamp of approval. She
said 'one should negotiate' and that adultery was not 'seedy'. Is that
not approval? I never accused anyone else of condoning adultery. Only
Garlic has.
>The only things stated have been the assertions that no one else has the
>right to judge the way Melissa lives her personal life. You may not agree
>w/ Missy's (alledged) actions, I don't agree w/ them either,
Then what are you bitching about? Would you let your kids hang around a
woman or a man that goes out and screws someone else like there's no
tomorrow?!?
but out of
>this silly discussion of an actress' life, where the hell do you get off
>proclaiming that Garlic is an immoral person in need of psychiatric
>assistance based purely on your belief system? (this is in reference to
>the rest of this crap response to Garlic)
Nice judgement call! You know ...the "crap" part.Because she does not
share even the most common or basic beliefs known to mankind. Honesty,
etc...There is and can be no excuse for what Melissa did, so why bother.
>Well, duh Michael! Use your little brain for God's sake. If your
>mate doesn't want to share you, then the relationship is over. Is that
>too hard for you to figure out?
So just like that it's an ultimatum. Let me do someone else or you do'nt
love me. Hahahahah!!!
BTW, you'll also notice that Garlic said
>she'd discuss it w/ her mate rather than simply acting on it.
I'm not impressed.
So, again I
>ask you to please point out to me where she has excused Missy's actions or
>agreed w/ them?
Read her post, or read the above all over again. After reading her
chastising comments about the use of the word 'seedy', if you come back
to me and say this is not excusing it, then we can't talk cause we don't
have anything in common.
I'll type slowly so you can understand it,
>
>she did nothing wrong to us and therefore we
>have no right to pass judgement on her.
>
Thank you Kristen. I'm so uh, duh, mentally retarded. No make that
mentally challenged. I'm not as duh smart as thu are.
As a matter of fact I have every right to pass judgement on someone. I
have the freedom of assembly, or in this case, the right not to
assemble(associate) with an individual.
>> > [...] I'm speaking here of moral decisions, btw, not things that bring >
>> >physical harm to others (i.e. I believe it is "wrong" to murder).
>>
>> Question: why is murder wrong?
>
>Are you really this stupid or is it just an act? If you read her
>statement, she says, and I quote, "I'm speaking here of moral decisions,
>btw, not things that bring physical harm to others". Question: does
>murder not bring physical harm to another? Oy!
Does not cheating on your mate bring physical harm? Emotional distress? A
heavy heart? Oy back at you!
Why is murder wrong? You say we should'nt pass judgement on someone else
so tell me why it's wrong. Why is child molestation wrong? Should I not
pass judgement on one, since he/she is not murdering?
>Oh Ok, I get it now! It's not your place to say that Garlic being a
>lesbian isn't ok, but it's *totally* ok to say that she needs professional
>help because of it?
Whatever. How though, could she expect to make someone with my beliefs
see my way clear to condoning her lifestyle if she does'nt even hold some
basic values in a relationship close to her heart. How could I say "hmmm
her lifestyle is o.k. " when I can't get past the fact that she condones
adultery?
Wow, I had no idea that you were so knowledgable
>about everything which involves other people's beliefs which differ from
>your own!!!!
Live and learn. Now you know.
>Michael, I triple-dog-dare you to go back through this thread and find one
>single, teeny, tiny, sentence or phrase from Garlic condoning or
>encouraging infidelity. You won't find one.
I found plenty. If you agree with me on not cheating, as you say you do,
then why are you using her words to defend your position? She absolutely
did it. Case closed. There is no doubt.
>Unless you know waaaaayyyyy more about her than anything I've learned from
>her posts, you are a raving lunatic!
No, I am not. I am a very well spoken, polite individual known around
work as a nice, honest guy. It probably would make Garlic feel better if
I was a raving lunatic because then she would have a good reason for not
listening to a word I say. But i'm not a lunatic. I'm pro life, but i've
never protested in the streets. I'm not enthralled with the gay
lifestyle, but I don't beat up homosexuals, egg their houses, slash their
tires, etc...My value judgements, Kristen, are for me and I make a
judgement and if they don't meet the standards, I don't have anything to
do with them. And these standards are not impossible. They're not
extraordinary. Pretty simple concepts to grasp. Fact is, it seems a lot
more fashionable fpr people to say " Oh, I never judge anyone, I'm so far
above that..blah blah blah". But I won't do it. I have no problem not
hanging out with people who don't meet my standards.
I challenge you to find one shred of
>evidence in *any* of Garlic's posts which suggest that she has a lack of
>respect for marriage (hetero or homo) or fidelity!! Oh and Mikey, if
>you're going to keep throwing the word "fidelity" around, learn to spell
>it please.
Show me the correct spelling. I did'nt claim to be an English Major.
>
> She didn't attack you or your values, why do you feel
>that you have the right to attack her?
Uhh, yes she did. First, I wrote a post a month ago on the importance of
keeping a two parent family together and strong as it pertained to the
characters on DOOL. Well, next thing I know , i've gotten a letter from
Garlic hesitantly labeling me homophobic, sexist,whatever... For the most
part, the conversation was civil. But Garlic always takes a person to
task for any damn thing they say that she does'nt agree with. She could
have let the comment someone made about adultery being 'sleazy' slide.
But no.. She has to go and make a federal case out of a paragraph or two.
Nobody appointed her the guardian over the newsgroup to defend or promote
morality. But she has taken it upon herself. And she has forced people
with differing viewpoints to, ironically , go 'into the closet'. You
would'nt believe the amount of private e-mail I got from people thanking
me for standing up to Garlic when all I really wanted to do was talk
about the piss poor examples Kate and Marlena were setting. People are
reluctant to get into long conversations with this woman for what reasons
I don't know. I think Garlic has some bizarre spell over the ng:)
You may very well believe that
>she's going straight to hell because she's a lesbian,
I absolutely, unequivocally do not believe Garlic will 'fry in hell' for
being a lesbian. Shocked?
but that has zero,
>nada, zip to do with the topic of this discussion - Melissa Reeves'
>alleged affair.
Agreed. And if you read my post again, with an open mind ,you'll see that
her sexuality was not an issue. It was her CAVALIER ATTITUDE TOWARDS
MARRIAGE GAY OR STRAIGHT.
>
>You have maganged to take a discussion where Garlic was basically agreeing
>w/ you on adultery, but was disagreeing w/ the public trial of Melissa & you
>turned it into a hatefest.
Again, she was not agreeing with me. If she and I agreed on THAT, we
would not be having this conversation today.
When you start slamming someone (because their
>values or beliefs differ from yours) who's been around here for ages & has
>always been open-minded, fair, thoughtful, hilarious, and *never* mean
>just for the sake of being mean, you're opening up yourself to a whole new
>world of irritation. No, I'm not attempting to threaten you, I'm just
>giving you a head's up.
Hey, you can threaten me if you want. Bring it on. My bad side is a very
dangerous place to be. Garlic is not open minded. If she were then she
would let things slide. She would let people have their say without
berating them or chastising them like a litte child. And I will be here
on RATSM, if for nothing else, than to give the opposing view on a
subject that Garlic and I do not agree on. I won't go away. And if I
irritate you, so what?
Michael
Michael Kersey
kcl...@qualcomm.com (Kristen Clute) wrote:
>Egads, I'm jumping into this one too. No other post in recent years has
>pissed me off this much and I've never intentionally insulted another
>poster, but this time I felt it was warranted. Seems as if Mr. Kersey
>feels the need to *again* make judgements about people he knows absolutely
>*squat* about & I refuse to sit here and let him babble on as the self
>appointed 'Morality King'!
>
Oh, but Garlic can make all the moral judgements she wants while we who
disagree with her must stay silent. And that is exactly what she did. She
chastised some other poster, like a little baby, for calling Melissa's
actions "seedy". Yes Kristen, Garlic WAS QUALIFYING ADULTERY!!When she
says something like 'it's not like she's walking the streets or
something' she is lessening the importance of what Melissa(allegedly)
did.And Jason too.
>Michael, do you read the posts or just continue to blather? *NOWHERE* has
>Garlic or anyone else said that they believed cheating was right or ok!!!
Garlic did'nt need to come right out and give her stamp of approval. She
said 'one should negotiate' and that adultery was not 'seedy'. Is that
not approval? I never accused anyone else of condoning adultery. Only
Garlic has.
>The only things stated have been the assertions that no one else has the
>right to judge the way Melissa lives her personal life. You may not agree
>w/ Missy's (alledged) actions, I don't agree w/ them either,
Then what are you bitching about? Would you let your kids hang around a
woman or a man that goes out and screws someone else like there's no
tomorrow?!?
but out of
>this silly discussion of an actress' life, where the hell do you get off
>proclaiming that Garlic is an immoral person in need of psychiatric
>assistance based purely on your belief system? (this is in reference to
>the rest of this crap response to Garlic)
Nice judgement call! You know ...the "crap" part.Because she does not
share even the most common or basic beliefs known to mankind. Honesty,
etc...There is and can be no excuse for what Melissa did, so why bother.
>Well, duh Michael! Use your little brain for God's sake. If your
>mate doesn't want to share you, then the relationship is over. Is that
>too hard for you to figure out?
So just like that it's an ultimatum. Let me do someone else or you do'nt
love me. Hahahahah!!!
BTW, you'll also notice that Garlic said
>she'd discuss it w/ her mate rather than simply acting on it.
I'm not impressed.
So, again I
>ask you to please point out to me where she has excused Missy's actions or
>agreed w/ them?
Read her post, or read the above all over again. After reading her
chastising comments about the use of the word 'seedy', if you come back
to me and say this is not excusing it, then we can't talk cause we don't
have anything in common.
I'll type slowly so you can understand it,
>
>she did nothing wrong to us and therefore we
>have no right to pass judgement on her.
>
Thank you Kristen. I'm so uh, duh, mentally retarded. No make that
mentally challenged. I'm not as duh smart as thu are.
As a matter of fact I have every right to pass judgement on someone. I
have the freedom of assembly, or in this case, the right not to
assemble(associate) with an individual.
>> > [...] I'm speaking here of moral decisions, btw, not things that bring >
>> >physical harm to others (i.e. I believe it is "wrong" to murder).
>>
>> Question: why is murder wrong?
>
>Are you really this stupid or is it just an act? If you read her
>statement, she says, and I quote, "I'm speaking here of moral decisions,
>btw, not things that bring physical harm to others". Question: does
>murder not bring physical harm to another? Oy!
Does not cheating on your mate bring physical harm? Emotional distress? A
heavy heart? Oy back at you!
Why is murder wrong? You say we should'nt pass judgement on someone else
so tell me why it's wrong. Why is child molestation wrong? Should I not
pass judgement on one, since he/she is not murdering?
>Oh Ok, I get it now! It's not your place to say that Garlic being a
>lesbian isn't ok, but it's *totally* ok to say that she needs professional
>help because of it?
Whatever. How though, could she expect to make someone with my beliefs
see my way clear to condoning her lifestyle if she does'nt even hold some
basic values in a relationship close to her heart. How could I say "hmmm
her lifestyle is o.k. " when I can't get past the fact that she condones
adultery?
Wow, I had no idea that you were so knowledgable
>about everything which involves other people's beliefs which differ from
>your own!!!!
Live and learn. Now you know.
>Michael, I triple-dog-dare you to go back through this thread and find one
>single, teeny, tiny, sentence or phrase from Garlic condoning or
>encouraging infidelity. You won't find one.
I found plenty. If you agree with me on not cheating, as you say you do,
then why are you using her words to defend your position? She absolutely
did it. Case closed. There is no doubt.
>Unless you know waaaaayyyyy more about her than anything I've learned from
>her posts, you are a raving lunatic!
No, I am not. I am a very well spoken, polite individual known around
work as a nice, honest guy. It probably would make Garlic feel better if
I was a raving lunatic because then she would have a good reason for not
listening to a word I say. But i'm not a lunatic. I'm pro life, but i've
never protested in the streets. I'm not enthralled with the gay
lifestyle, but I don't beat up homosexuals, egg their houses, slash their
tires, etc...My value judgements, Kristen, are for me and I make a
judgement and if they don't meet the standards, I don't have anything to
do with them. And these standards are not impossible. They're not
extraordinary. Pretty simple concepts to grasp. Fact is, it seems a lot
more fashionable fpr people to say " Oh, I never judge anyone, I'm so far
above that..blah blah blah". But I won't do it. I have no problem not
hanging out with people who don't meet my standards.
I challenge you to find one shred of
>evidence in *any* of Garlic's posts which suggest that she has a lack of
>respect for marriage (hetero or homo) or fidelity!! Oh and Mikey, if
>you're going to keep throwing the word "fidelity" around, learn to spell
>it please.
Show me the correct spelling. I did'nt claim to be an English Major.
>
> She didn't attack you or your values, why do you feel
>that you have the right to attack her?
Uhh, yes she did. First, I wrote a post a month ago on the importance of
keeping a two parent family together and strong as it pertained to the
characters on DOOL. Well, next thing I know , i've gotten a letter from
Garlic hesitantly labeling me homophobic, sexist,whatever... For the most
part, the conversation was civil. But Garlic always takes a person to
task for any damn thing they say that she does'nt agree with. She could
have let the comment someone made about adultery being 'sleazy' slide.
But no.. She has to go and make a federal case out of a paragraph or two.
Nobody appointed her the guardian over the newsgroup to defend or promote
morality. But she has taken it upon herself. And she has forced people
with differing viewpoints to, ironically , go 'into the closet'. You
would'nt believe the amount of private e-mail I got from people thanking
me for standing up to Garlic when all I really wanted to do was talk
about the piss poor examples Kate and Marlena were setting. People are
reluctant to get into long conversations with this woman for what reasons
I don't know. I think Garlic has some bizarre spell over the ng:)
You may very well believe that
>she's going straight to hell because she's a lesbian,
I absolutely, unequivocally do not believe Garlic will 'fry in hell' for
being a lesbian. Shocked?
but that has zero,
>nada, zip to do with the topic of this discussion - Melissa Reeves'
>alleged affair.
Agreed. And if you read my post again, with an open mind ,you'll see that
her sexuality was not an issue. It was her CAVALIER ATTITUDE TOWARDS
MARRIAGE GAY OR STRAIGHT.
>
>You have maganged to take a discussion where Garlic was basically agreeing
>w/ you on adultery, but was disagreeing w/ the public trial of Melissa & you
>turned it into a hatefest.
Again, she was not agreeing with me. If she and I agreed on THAT, we
would not be having this conversation today.
When you start slamming someone (because their
>values or beliefs differ from yours) who's been around here for ages & has
>always been open-minded, fair, thoughtful, hilarious, and *never* mean
>just for the sake of being mean, you're opening up yourself to a whole new
>world of irritation. No, I'm not attempting to threaten you, I'm just
>giving you a head's up.
Hey, you can threaten me if you want. Bring it on. My bad side is a very
HForcier
In article <4q3o8r$b...@liberator.concentric.net>, Michael Kersey
<kers...@concentric.net> writes:
>kcl...@qualcomm.com (Kristen Clute) wrote:
>>Egads, I'm jumping into this one too. No other post in recent years has
>>pissed me off this much and I've never intentionally insulted another
>>poster, but this time I felt it was warranted. Seems as if Mr. Kersey
>>feels the need to *again* make judgements about people he knows
absolutely
>>*squat* about & I refuse to sit here and let him babble on as the self
>>appointed 'Morality King'!
>>
>
>Oh, but Garlic can make all the moral judgements she wants while we who
>disagree with her must stay silent. And that is exactly what she did. She
>chastised some other poster, like a little baby, for calling Melissa's
>actions "seedy". Yes Kristen, Garlic WAS QUALIFYING ADULTERY!!When she
>says something like 'it's not like she's walking the streets or
>something' she is lessening the importance of what Melissa(allegedly)
>did.And Jason too.
>
>
snipped the rest, way too much stuff to keep reposting:
I am writing this from having been the one to commit adultery and also
from being someone that is considered open minded. Adultery is a moral sin
(no matter who your God is), it is heartbreaking for all involved, my
heart broke when I did it and my heart broke when I told my husband, his
heart broke when he found out. I had tried to talk to him about the
problems but they did not get solved. Adultery is a selfish act done by
people that are not mature enough to deal with the real world, nor do they
care about anyone's feelings but their own. When you make a commitment to
someone(no matter what type of relationship it is) you do not have the
right or the choice to look at another person and want to have sex with
them. The only exception in for those people that have made the choice to
have an "open relationship". For those that think that you can solve your
problems by going to someone else, you need to sit back and think about
someone other than yourself.
And lastly (I am running out of steam) I don't think that Garlic was
really condoning adultery, only that you should talk to your partner and
discuss any attraction to another person. I also don't think that Michael
was being all that judmental, I think it was as he said, "This is my
opinion".
As a footnote, whatever happened there are 5 people who's lives will never
be the same again and who will never have the same trust in the ones they
love as they once did....(Melissa, Scott, their daughter, Jason, and his
wife)
Holly
Miss Tiffany
Hey!
What's up with the DOOL Spoilers for this week? Barb?.....
HForcier
In article <4pmvhh$7...@ss.netgate.net>, gar...@ftp.netgate.net (Garlic
Peel) writes:
> I personally can't imagine throwing
>away my Beloved and family based on an indiscretion. But
>then again, I have somewhat different views on "infidelity",
>though I do agree that if one feels one needs a sexual partner
>outside the primary relationshipo, one should negotiate, not lie
>about it.
>
>
I'm no Jason Brooks fan, but firing him based on his *personal*
life is totally wrong, IMHO.
Okay I usually do not respond to these kind of post as I feel they have
nothing to do with DOOL but I must have my say........
Most actors have a MORAL CLAUSE in their contracts and if the RUMOR is
true then both Melissa and Jason broke that. ie Melanie Griffith getting
preggers unmarried with a married mans child, she almost lost her movie
contract.
As for not leaving someone over an idescretion, well that is a PERSONAL
choice but for the masses we would like to think that BEFORE you get
married and have children that you have made the choice NOT to fool
around, otherwise you made a bad choice, am I the only one that was told
by my parents, "You've made your bed, now you have to lay in it".
Michael Kersey <kers...@concentric.net>wrote
On second
thought, I really believe Scott made the right decision. I doubt she did
it with Jason for the sake of sex. If it was for sex, she could've gotten
that from Scott. Point is , it was probably her way of sending him a wake
up call. To let him know that there were problems. She should've done it
in a better way, but the damage is done.
Almost forgot about this Michael, I am sorry but she did sleep with him
for the sex, if she had done it for any other reason then she would not
have left the show and she would have left her husband. As for letting him
know that there were problems, well I would think that talking to him
would have been a hell of a lot better and at the least she should have
seperated from him before sleeping with anyone else. The damage IS done
but we as a society have gotten very lax in our morals, I don't care about
sexual preference but with AIDS I should think that only the VERY stupid
would sleep with more than one person.
A personal opinion, Melissa and Jason can not love their spouses as much
as they love themselves, or they would not have put their own feelings
first.
HForcier
I don't know much but I know what I don't like
I know that my post is judgemental.
LAWard
Sheez! Lay off Garlic already. She expressed an opinion and whether you
agree with her or not it's not something you should lynch her for! It's
alright to disagree you know. She has a differeing opinion from you--
fine. she's is perfectly entitled to have it. No one said that a
newsgroup has to have a consensus of opinion!
Lisa
Garlic Peel
In article <4ptk61$k...@liberator.concentric.net>,
Michael Kersey <kers...@concentric.net> wrote:
>gar...@ftp.netgate.net (Garlic Peel) wrote:
>
>>Yes, "negotiate". One of the cornerstones of a good relationship,
>>imho. If one partner would like a more open relationship, and the
>>other wouldn't, then I guess they'd have to determine if they're
>>compatible enough to stay together, and how important each
>>of their values are to them on the issues. Like I said,
>>negotiate. Discuss. Talk.
>
>Whatever happened to "love,cherish, honor and forsake all others."
For couples who agree that they both want to have that kind of
marriage, great. But not everyone feels that way, and society
has no right (nor do individuals) to penalize, denigrate, insult
or *judge* people who chose such a relationship.
>Marriage is great because a person is saying " I want to spend all my
>life with you. Our lives are intertwined from here on..." How does a
>third person fit into this scheme?
Any way the couple wants the third person to, or not to. By agreement.
>It's not *my* morals Garlic. It's a universal belief. At least it used to
>be that way...that a person would not cheat on their mate. That
Um, no. It is *not* a universal belief, no matter how much you'd
like it to be so. There are many, many open marriages, group
marriages, open relationships, and other forms and varietys of
unions that are every bit as important and sacred to the people
who are in them as the traditional "forsaking all others"
marriage. Just because *you* don't choose to have a relationship
like this does *not* give you the right to negate those who do.
>way I do. However, I choose to associate with couples who are married and
>share the same values as I do. That way there are no conflicts like you
You are welcome to associate as you wish, obviously, and it makes sense
that you should choose to involve yourself with like-minded
individuals, just as I generally choose to involve myself with those
who think similarly.
>Six Flags Over Georgia etc...Turns out, he'd been cheating on his wife
>for a good while. As soon as I found out, that was it. He is DIRT in my
How very righteous of you. Did you speak to him at all to discover
why he felt it necessary to cheat, or did you just cut him off
in a judge and jury kinda way?
>marriage of the woman he was 'seeing'. He did'nt care. He was not sorry
>at all. ANd that is why I never spoke to him again. Because he would'nt
>admit that it was wrong.
So if he'd been properly contrite, you would have forgiven him?
>This belief of not cheating on your mate pretty
>much cuts across racial, religious, national boundaries, etc... People
>not of my religion still believe pretty much the way that I do on this.
>That cheating is WRONG!!!
There are people that believe this. There are people who don't. There
are people in relationships in which there is no such thing as cheating.
Personally, I believe that cheating is a kind of lie, and I generally
don't feel that lying is conducive to a good relationship, which is why I
said in my earlier post that I felt strongly that a couple should
discuss fidelity (like they discuss other parts of the relationship,
like what kind of neighborhood in which to live, whether to have children
and how many, etc) and come to some sort of agreement on it. If both
partners determine after discussion that they do wish to be faithful
to one another, than a breach of that fidelity (cheating) would, to
me, be the same as any breach of agreement and would need to be
worked through in some satisfactory fashion (including ending the
relationship). I don't believe infidelity is some special class of
wrong behaviour, breach of agreement, etc. though. And I don't
necessarily think it's "seedy", just a poor choice that would seem to
require working through to some mutually satisfactory end.
>>Were I in a similar position as Jason and Melissa, I'd likely discuss
>>the attraction for each other with my spouse rather than to
>>simply act on it
>
>Still, what if you're mate does'nt want to 'share you'?
Then, I choose to be with that person under that circumstances
(faithful) or choose to find someone else with whom I am more
compatible. My Beloved and I have discussed this and have decided that
we do not wish to have significantly intense relatiohships with
others (i.e. sexual) but do wish to occasionally bring a third
person into our bed. My prior husband and I had an open relationship
and it worked out very well (we are divorced, yes, but that had more
to do with our desired living situation than anything else, he
was tending towards a more frugal and less consumerist lifestyle
and I wanted certain niceties, and we're still great friends and love
each other dearly). It all depends on what the couple want.
>And what happens when someone does something to you that you consider
>wrong but they consider right?
I try to discuss it with the person to come to some common ground
(i.e. "I don't care if you do that to other people, but please
don't do it to me, since I don't care to be treated that way").
If there's no common ground, I generally remove myself from that
person's proximity, because I have no right to make that person
change what they're doing if they wish to do it.
>>take a stand for things, but only in our own lives. I'm speaking
>>here of moral decisions, btw, not things that bring physical
>>harm to others (i.e. I believe it is "wrong" to murder).
>
>Question: why is murder wrong?
As I said, because it brings physical harm to others. There
is an important distinction between what you do with other consenting
adults and something done to someone against their will.
> Morals and judgements have been behind many
>>of the ills our civilization has been beset with, imho.
>
>Bull. Most of the ills have come from those who chose to violently force
>someone to have values in which case the violator was not really a moral
>person to begin with.
Huh?
>>Excuse me???? Please clarify, because I think I just heard you
>>say that I needed "professional help" based on my morals!?!
>>Does everyone who does not embrace the moral stance you do need
>>such help? Does that also cover folks not of your religious
>>persuasion? How about your cultural group/ethnicity? If
>>that last sentence was *not* tongue in cheek, than I think the
>>veracity of your post is called into question.
>
>You read it right Garlic. There was no tongue in my cheek on that one. I
>was incensed at the last line of your post underneath your signature and
>I promptly went and erased the smileies that I had put in my post. And
You mean this one?
(might not have bothered, but the judgemental nature and slant of this
post bugged me)
What ever incensed you about that line??? The original post was very
judgemental of Melissa Reeves, imho, without a clear picture of all
the information and personalitites involved, and while I considered
not commenting, the very judgementalness called me to express my
opinion. Why did that bother you so much? And how in the world can
you draw conclusions about my morality from what I've expressed
so far on a limited number of topics? Or is morality, as far as
you're concerned, entirely based on sexual behaviour?
>after reading that post of yours, I believe your credibility is in
>question. Actually, it's not in question. I have no doubt that you don't
>have any.
Does this follow for anyone who does not believe as you do? You
did not address my question above- do you recommend therapy and
deny credibility to anyone who does not feel/belive/think the same
way that you do? Are there any colours in your world, ir os it all
just black and white?
>It was hard for me to say to you earlier last month' you
>should'nt be a lesbian'. What place is it of mine? But to sit there and
Damn right you have no right to tell me what my sexual behaviour should
be.
>qualify infedelity is outrageous and I won't stand for that.
I'm suggesting negotiation, and noting that in my opinion, infidelity
is *not* the end of the world, nor is it the worst betrayal of trust
that can happen. In my original post, I simply noted that the poster
was out of line suggesting Melissa Reeves needs therapy, was "seedy",
and deserved to lose everything based on her infidelity. I also noted
that had it been me, I would have handled the situation differently,
although I realize we do not have all of the facts and may never know if the
affaire really happened or not.
>Virtually everybody believes adultery is wrong. Even those who are doing
Virtually everybody you know, perhaps. And FYI, I tend to believe
there are better ways to handle attractions if one is in a committed
relationship, and that cheating is the least honest, effective
and healthy way to deal with such things.
>it. Trust me. I realize now that you did'nt just have a lack of respect
>for 'traditional relationships' i.e.heterosexual marriages because you
>are a lesbian. You just disrespect all marriages period. You have a total
>lack of respect for fedelity.
I have a great deal of respect for people who create relationships
with others based on discussion, negotiation, respect for boundaries
and needs, and mutual agreement. I tend to believe that one should
take no part of a relationship for granted, but should negotiate
all aspects as they come up, particularly if one chooses to santify
the relationship by marriage. I deeply respect most of the married
people I know, because they have entered into the relationship in
agreement of various tenets including honesty, findelity (whether
they practice it or not), love, respect, etc. However, it appears
that *you* totally lack respect for people who do not share your
beliefs, values and "judgements".
>You have this 'no barriers, no boundaries
>do what feels good attitude' Garlic and trust me you will get hurt
>someday for it.
Wrong. I believe that folks should make their own decisions, set
their own boundaries, and respect the decisions and boundaries
of others. I believe in negotiation and discussion and communication.
I believe in making decisions that work for you, and also take into
consideration the needs of others, where others are involved. But I
don't believe in making personal pronouncements of other people's
decisions, actions and choices, because I am not them, and can not
then judge them. And I also feel the need to speak out when others
make such pronouncements, and express my feelings about such things,
though I would never say that that person *shouldn't* be making
pronouncements of right/wrong, etc.
I am *deeply* offended and seriously angered by your repeated assertions
of what my morals, values and beliefs are, based on a very small
amount of exposure and knowledge of me. There are many things I
could say based on this anger and offense, but as I generally try
to present a more rational and logical voice in my posts, I will
decline.
TTFN,
Garlic
(not sure if this is worth continuing...)
LAWard
I am sure that the viewing audience misses Melissa Reeves in her role as
Jennifer. I do also. But lets also admit that TPTB had saddled her with
a lame, spineless storyline prior to her departure and have saddled us
with a talentless substitute with a continuing lame and spineless
storyline.
Feel free to comment
Deb Swanson<<<
Now *THIS** is something I can agree with WHOLE
HEARTEDLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lisa
LAWard
>>1.) Is seems you have tried and convicted Missy on the basis of a
rumor. <<
Well, circumstantial evidence sort of exacerbated it.
Kristen Clute
In article <4q3o8r$b...@liberator.concentric.net>, Michael Kersey
<kers...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Oh, but Garlic can make all the moral judgements she wants while we who
> disagree with her must stay silent. And that is exactly what she did. She
> chastised some other poster, like a little baby, for calling Melissa's
> actions "seedy".
First off Michael, Garlic "chastised" the other poster because he declared
that he couldn't believe that "our little Jennifer" had an affair. Garlic
pointed out that "Jennifer" is a character; Melissa is a real person. I
believe her point was to let the original poster know that there, is in
fact, a difference between fantasy & reality.
>Yes Kristen, Garlic WAS QUALIFYING ADULTERY!!When she
> says something like 'it's not like she's walking the streets or
> something' she is lessening the importance of what Melissa(allegedly)
> did.And Jason too.
What Garlic said is, "> "Seedier side of life" <"? (quoting the original
poster) Are some of us stuck in the 1800's? Melissa had an affaire with a
co-star; it's not like she was turning tricks on Hollywood Bvd. or
something",
Please show me where she was lessening the importance of fidelity? She
stated facts: a) Mrs. Reeves & Mr. Brookes alledgedly had an affair
b) Mrs. Reeves is not a prostitute. Now, would you like to disagree with
me on either of those two points? They seem crystal clear to me.
> Garlic did'nt need to come right out and give her stamp of approval. She
> said 'one should negotiate' and that adultery was not 'seedy'. Is that
> not approval? I never accused anyone else of condoning adultery. Only
> Garlic has.
She said, in her opinion, people should be able to negotiate what will or
won't work for them. I still don't see that as a qualifier. She did not
say that *adultery* wasn't "seedy" I took it to mean that the word "seedy"
wasn't really the most appropriate word to use to describe the incident.
And was questioning the wording (in addition to the orig. poster's grasp
on reality). According to my Webster's, seedy is defined as: 1)
containing many seeds 2) gone to seed 3) having tiny bubbles (said of
glass) 4) shabby, rundown 5) feeling or looking physically bad or in low
spirits.
Tell me please, how does the word seedy apply in this situation? As to
your other assertion that you never accused anyone of condoning adultery?
Huh? Do you even read what you write? You just YELLED, not 5 paragraphs
above, "Garlic WAS QUALIFYING ADULTERY!!! Care to explain your secret
definitions of words the rest of us don't know? Are you telling me that
condoning (to forgive, pardon, or overlook [an offense]) & qualifying
(give a specific right to; license; to moderate; soften [to qualify a
punishment]) are not fairly synonymous?
> Then what are you bitching about? Would you let your kids hang around a
> woman or a man that goes out and screws someone else like there's no
> tomorrow?!?
Look Michael, get your head out of your ass & really *read* what people
write!! I'm not bitching about anything that has a thing to do w/ Melissa
Reeves & whether or not I agree w/ what she does in her personal life.
I'm "bitching" because you couldn't just shut-up & quit proclaiming that
everyone should live their lives according to the rules of Michael! I
jumped in when you continued to flagellate Melissa (do you need me to give
you the definition of flagellate before you use it incorrectly?) & then
posted a really ignorant, uninformed, & unnecessary flame to Garlic.
*That's* what I'm bitching about. Do you get it yet? Do you have any
inkling of what I've been saying to you in these posts?
> >this silly discussion of an actress' life, where the hell do you get off
> >proclaiming that Garlic is an immoral person in need of psychiatric
> >assistance based purely on your belief system? (this is in reference to
> >the rest of this crap response to Garlic)
>
> Nice judgement call! You know ...the "crap" part.
Hey, if it walks like a duck...
> Because she does not share even the most common or basic beliefs known to
> mankind. Honesty, etc...There is and can be no excuse for what Melissa
did, so
> why bother.
Whether Garlic shares what you perceive as the most common or basic
beliefs of mankind is *totally* irrelevant! You know Michael, at one
time, one of the most basic beliefs of man was that the world was flat.
So, please, *qualify* why the most common beliefs known to mankind, matter
a bit in this particular situation. I'm going say it again, *no one*
excused what Melissa alledgedly did. Hmmm, maybe if I say it enough
times, it'll get through.
> >Well, duh Michael! Use your little brain for God's sake. If your
> >mate doesn't want to share you, then the relationship is over. Is that
> >too hard for you to figure out?
>
> So just like that it's an ultimatum. Let me do someone else or you do'nt
> love me. Hahahahah!!!
Yep, it's an ultimatum if that's the way you see it. To put it in your
base terminology, "Let me do someone else or [else...]" You're the one
who said negotiating isn't moral or whatever, so what's left? If someone
is going to have an affair, who cares about ultimatums right? That should
be the least of the problem. "The Laws Of Society" according to Michael,
dictate that infidelity is morally wrong - so who cares about ultimatums
or even nicey-nice discussions? Pick logical arguments Michael.
> BTW, you'll also notice that Garlic said
> >she'd discuss it w/ her mate rather than simply acting on it.
>
> I'm not impressed.
Didn't ask you to be. I was pointing it out again since you seem to have a
problem w/ reading comprehension.
> Read her post, or read the above all over again. After reading her
> chastising comments about the use of the word 'seedy', if you come back
> to me and say this is not excusing it, then we can't talk cause we don't
> have anything in common.
Guess we're not gonna' talk then. I think I adequately pointed out what I
thought the deal was with the wording, so if you're still going to be
stubborn
about it, that's totally fine w/ me.
> Thank you Kristen. I'm so uh, duh, mentally retarded. No make that
> mentally challenged.
Just out of curiosity, why'd you decide to change it to the Politically
Correct version?
>I'm not as duh smart as thu are.
I never said that either. I only wanted to reiterate what I'd already
said 15 times since you still seemed incapable of understanding it. Hit a
brick wall, thought I'd try a different tack.
> As a matter of fact I have every right to pass judgement on someone. I
> have the freedom of assembly, or in this case, the right not to
> assemble(associate) with an individual.
Yo, Michael, you can pass judgement all you want. It just seems to me
that for such an upstanding, moral, spiritual person as you claim to be,
you certainly don't care to follow the recommended guidelines of charity.
I noticed you also blew off the "Judge not lest ye be judged yourself". I
guess that doesn't apply to you?
> >Are you really this stupid or is it just an act? If you read her
> >statement, she says, and I quote, "I'm speaking here of moral decisions,
> >btw, not things that bring physical harm to others". Question: does
> >murder not bring physical harm to another? Oy!
>
> Does not cheating on your mate bring physical harm?
I don't know, I've never cheated on my mate. Do you know something I
don't know? What physical harm are you talking about? Are you referring
to a possible disease? If you are, then no, cheating doesn't
automatically bring physical harm. That was easy.
>Emotional distress? A heavy heart? Oy back at you!
> Why is murder wrong? You say we should'nt pass judgement on someone else
> so tell me why it's wrong. Why is child molestation wrong? Should I not
> pass judgement on one, since he/she is not murdering?
This doesn't even deserve to be dignified by an answer. Figure it out
yourself God..err, I mean Michael. By arguing every single, little
point with a preposterous rebuttal, you only make yourself look stupid.
And from your questions above, am I to assume then that you don't see
anything wrong w/ murder or child molestation?
> How though, could she expect to make someone with my beliefs
> see my way clear to condoning her lifestyle if she does'nt even hold some
> basic values in a relationship close to her heart.
Here's one of the pivotal elements of this discussion; Garlic *never*
expected or asked you to condone her lifestyle. On the flip side, she
also never asked you to condemn her lifestyle. You chose the low road.
You attacked. You got self righteous. She never insulted your lifestyle
once.
> I'm not enthralled with the gay lifestyle, but I don't beat up homosexuals,
> egg their houses, slash their tires, etc...
So you don't physically attack homesexuals, you verbally do it. Oh that's
so much better then!
> My value judgements, Kristen, are for me and I make a
> judgement and if they don't meet the standards, I don't have anything to
> do with them.[...] I have no problem not hanging out with people who don't
> meet my standards.
But see here's the deal Michael. You have no problem not hanging w/
people below your standards, so why continue to demean Garlic when it's
obvious that her lifestyle doesn't meet your standards? You should have
no problem walking away.
> > She didn't attack you or your values, why do you feel that you have the
> > right to attack her?
>
> Uhh, yes she did. First, I wrote a post a month ago on the importance of
> keeping a two parent family together and strong as it pertained to the
> characters on DOOL. Well, next thing I know , i've gotten a letter from
> Garlic hesitantly labeling me homophobic, sexist,whatever...
Is she right? From what I've seen so far, I think she may have a point,
but that's just my opinion.
> part, the conversation was civil. But Garlic always takes a person to
> task for any damn thing they say that she does'nt agree with. She could
> have let the comment someone made about adultery being 'sleazy' slide.
> But no.. She has to go and make a federal case out of a paragraph or two.
And in turn you could have let her comment slide, but no you had to make a
federal case out of a paragraph or two. BTW, I'm not excusing myself
here, I could have let the whole thing slide too, so I guess we're just
all guilty.
> Nobody appointed her the guardian over the newsgroup to defend or promote
> morality. But she has taken it upon herself. And she has forced people
> with differing viewpoints to, ironically , go 'into the closet'.
If you have opinions that you care to share in a public forum, be prepared
to back them up if other people disagree w/ them. That's pretty much a
"universal & common belief of the 'net".
> would'nt believe the amount of private e-mail I got from people thanking
> me for standing up to Garlic when all I really wanted to do was talk
> about the piss poor examples Kate and Marlena were setting.
You're right, I probably wouldn't believe the amount of private e-mail you
get. It's always interesting to me how people bring that up as
justification. If you truly believe you have all the right info & don't
have any doubt in what you're saying, then why do you need validation from
other people saying they agree w/ you? Don't you feel confident enough in
what you're saying w/o back-up?
> I absolutely, unequivocally do not believe Garlic will 'fry in hell' for
> being a lesbian. Shocked?
Not shocked, pleasantly suprised, in fact.
>Garlic is not open minded. If she were then she would let things slide.
By the same token, you just placed yourself in the "closed mind" category
by not letting things slide either. In fact, wrt the subject of
infidelity, she very well may let things slide, you on the other hand
won't. So, the term "open minded" is a bit subjective isn't it? Do you
not agree?
>I won't go away. And if I irritate you, so what?
Exactly! So what? Pretty much says it all. So, then if Garlic's values and
beliefs are different than yours, so what? If Missy had an affair, so
what? Shouldn't that be the attitute of this whole thing rather than
condemning someone because they think or feel differently than you?
> Michael
Kristen, who promises she won't get into another long-winded debate &
appologies to Garlic if I've been out of line by continuing to use your
name in this discussion.
Michael Kersey
gar...@ftp.netgate.net (Garlic Peel) wrote:
>For couples who agree that they both want to have that kind of
>marriage, great. But not everyone feels that way, and society
>has no right (nor do individuals) to penalize, denigrate, insult
>or *judge* people who chose such a relationship.
Obviously, Scott felt that he and Melissa had that kind of relationship.
So, in that context my comments are appropriate.
>How very righteous of you. Did you speak to him at all to discover
>why he felt it necessary to cheat, or did you just cut him off
>in a judge and jury kinda way?
Judge and jury kinda way. He "felt" the need to cheat, because his wife,
in his opinion was'nt the same woman he married 10 years ago. You know, a
sexy young thang. After 10 years and three kids, she looks great. He just
wanted to trade her in for a younger model. The woman he cheated with has
been divorced by her husband. I cut him off because a choice had to be
made. Stand up for her or him. I can't stand up for his behavior, and i'd
never be able to look her in the face if I stayed friends with her
husband.
BTW, I just found out today that an old couple who are friends of mine
have split up because he is gay. We won't go there:) !!
>So if he'd been properly contrite, you would have forgiven him?
If he'd been sorry, yes. But he does'nt feel he's done anything wrong. I
guess destroying the lives of his wife and three kids is petty when
you've got hot sex waiting back at home for you with your new lover.
>
>>This belief of not cheating on your mate pretty
>>much cuts across racial, religious, national boundaries, etc... People
>>not of my religion still believe pretty much the way that I do on this.
>>That cheating is WRONG!!!
>
>There are people that believe this. There are people who don't.
Majority feel as I do. I agree that there are others who have a different
viewpoint. But, again, Scott and Melissa had a two person relationship by
all accounts and that is within the boundaries of where my comments lie.
Not on open relationships, gay marriage, polygamy, etc...
>Personally, I believe that cheating is a kind of lie, and I generally
>don't feel that lying is conducive to a good relationship,
Exactly. Cheating is stealing. Melissa stole Scott's trust. Jason stole
his wife's trust.
I don't believe infidelity is some special class of
>wrong behaviour, breach of agreement, etc. though. And I don't
>necessarily think it's "seedy", just a poor choice that would seem to
>require working through to some mutually satisfactory end.
You should be a U.N. negotiator.
>What ever incensed you about that line??? The original post was very
>judgemental of Melissa Reeves, imho, without a clear picture of all
>the information and personalitites involved, and while I considered
>not commenting, the very judgementalness called me to express my
>opinion.
What determines though what is judgementalness? You took a look at that
post and judged it to be judgemental. It was a judgement call. I've no
problem with that if you at least own up to the fact that you're
judgemental.too. We all are.
>Does this follow for anyone who does not believe as you do? You
>did not address my question above- do you recommend therapy and
>deny credibility to anyone who does not feel/belive/think the same
>way that you do? Are there any colours in your world, ir os it all
>just black and white?
I have no doubt that you DO NOT need therapy. You're clear on your
positions . I just am at the very opposite end of the belief scale.
In my original post, I simply noted that the poster
>was out of line suggesting Melissa Reeves needs therapy, was "seedy",
>and deserved to lose everything based on her infidelity.
Why could'nt you just let the poster have her say? Must you follow up
everything you don't agree on with a morality speech? If you cease and
desist(?) so will I.
Miohael
Michael Kersey
NDM...@prodigy.com (Julie Cizenski) wrote:
>3.) Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. That may not be an
>exact quote, but I'm sure you know what I am talking about. Yes,
>adultery is wrong, and it's a sin, according to most religions. If the
>rumor is true, then Missy and Jason are guilty of committing a sin, but
>it's not our place to judge them. They are human beings, just like the
>rest of us, and they make mistakes too. They have to make peace with
>themselves, their spouses, and their God. They have to live with their
>mistake for the rest of their lives. I don't think anyone out here has
>the credentials to judge Missy and Jason. After all, I was raised to
>believe that gossiping was a sin. We are so bad, aren't we? <G>
>
>4.) While having an affair can break up a marriage, the affair is just a
>symptom of a marriage that's in trouble. Happily married people don't
>have affairs!! If Missy did make an error in judgment, I am glad that
>Scott is trying to work things out with her. It takes a lot of hard work
>and love to repair this kind of damage, but in the end, their marriage
>could be all the stronger because of it. If Scott and Missy want to work
>things out, they must love each other, so who are we to say it's wrong.
>As for Jason, if it's true, I hope he's working on his marriage now, and
>that he's fessed up to his wife.
>
>Julie(Peanutbutter Cup)
Thanks a lot. Most of what you said I agree with and you hit on the
points that I was really trying to get across. The main one being : IF
Jason and Melissa had an affair, it was wrong.
I don't believe everything I hear or read. 'Specially on the net.
And if it has'nt been figured out already, I was defending the person who
started this post. She made a comment that Garlic Peel did'nt like and I
took issue with the rebuttal. Oh well, I think you've put out this little
brushfire. Until the next one...
Michael
McCandless Management
I think you people having such a "hissy fit" over the reported actions of
Melissa Reeves need to go back to the article in Playgirl and read what it
said. The word used was "tryst." That does NOT mean they were caught in bed
together. Look it up in the dictionary and I think your whole diatribe will
for naught.
Thanks for listening.
Bonbon
Rick Rashid
On 20 Jun 1996 15:39:09 GMT, mccan...@citynet.org (McCandless
Management) wrote:
No, instead of "in bed together"......,maybe they were doing it on the
floor????
I love the dictionary and "proper" and precise use of the English
language too......
but ----
the word "tryst" as defined by the dictionary is one thing...the way
it is actually used by Playgirl is quite another...and all that really
matters in this as a GOSSIP item is how the word is used by the gossip
reporter! The item was printed in Playgirl and not in the dictionary
- therefore the meaning of the item must be judged by its source not
by some semantic/grammatical hair-splitting.
Frankly, I'm really sorry I originally posted this whole Playgirl
thing - calling attention to the article in the first place...it has
upset too many people. From here on in - everybody can find their
own gossip and dig through the magazines themselves.
Bye.
Rick Rashid
Garlic Peel
In article <31ca9b56...@news.interport.net>,
Please don't feel bad or be sorry, Rick- I was most interested
in the reposting, and only commented when another poster seemed
to be having a difficult time separating reality from a tv show.
I'm not particularly "upset", and if Michael, among others, was,
he seems to be over it. LRC/Kristen wasn't "upset" with the
original post, either.
Any post has the potential to become a thread with a life of its
own... so again, I hope you don't have any lingering bad aftertaste
from this whole thing- I personally enjoy your comments, and
appreciate your presence here.
TTFN,
Garlic
(who has seen the most innocuous posts turned flambe')
Garlic Peel
In article <4q4tn8$p...@liberator.concentric.net>,
Last comments on this dying thread- thanks, LRC, for your well-
done replies (if I haven't thanked you already- but it was worth
two, if I have).
>>For couples who agree that they both want to have that kind of
>>marriage, great. But not everyone feels that way, and society
>>has no right (nor do individuals) to penalize, denigrate, insult
>>or *judge* people who chose such a relationship.
>
>Obviously, Scott felt that he and Melissa had that kind of relationship.
>So, in that context my comments are appropriate.
I guess it's obvious. We really don't know what was going on
with any of the parties involved.
>>why he felt it necessary to cheat, or did you just cut him off
>>in a judge and jury kinda way?
>
>Judge and jury kinda way. He "felt" the need to cheat, because his wife,
>in his opinion was'nt the same woman he married 10 years ago. You know, a
>sexy young thang. After 10 years and three kids, she looks great. He just
Clearly, he is/was a pretty shallow individual.
>BTW, I just found out today that an old couple who are friends of mine
>have split up because he is gay. We won't go there:) !!
Why ever not?
>viewpoint. But, again, Scott and Melissa had a two person relationship by
>all accounts and that is within the boundaries of where my comments lie.
>Not on open relationships, gay marriage, polygamy, etc...
You took me on for chiding a poster who strenuously blurred the line
between a fictional character and a real person who's life is for
the most part, unknown. Then, when I stated that cheating wasn't
the most horrible thing in the universe, and that there were other
ways to run a relationship than monogamy, you informed me I needed
professional help. Neither of us restricted our comments to Scott
and Melissa, though my original intent was to get some clarity from
the (long lost) original poster.
>>Personally, I believe that cheating is a kind of lie, and I generally
>>don't feel that lying is conducive to a good relationship,
>
>Exactly. Cheating is stealing. Melissa stole Scott's trust. Jason stole
>his wife's trust.
If rumors are true, yes.
> I don't believe infidelity is some special class of
>>wrong behaviour, breach of agreement, etc. though. And I don't
>>necessarily think it's "seedy", just a poor choice that would seem to
>>require working through to some mutually satisfactory end.
>
>You should be a U.N. negotiator.
Was I just complimented or insulted?? :^)
>What determines though what is judgementalness? You took a look at that
>post and judged it to be judgemental. It was a judgement call. I've no
>problem with that if you at least own up to the fact that you're
>judgemental.too. We all are.
I took a look at the original post and noted that the poster was
making sweeping assumptions about morality that I disagreed with.
In a sense, I was playing devil's advocate, though it was different
in that I actually believed the things I was saying (and I'm
not sure a devil's advocate actually always does).
>I have no doubt that you DO NOT need therapy. You're clear on your
>positions . I just am at the very opposite end of the belief scale.
Abrupt reversal of opinion, there. And while it matters not one
whit to me if you think I need therapy or not, it is open of
you to concur that other viewpoints besides your own are equally
valid (that *is* what you were saying, yes?).
> In my original post, I simply noted that the poster
>>was out of line suggesting Melissa Reeves needs therapy, was "seedy",
>>and deserved to lose everything based on her infidelity.
>
>Why could'nt you just let the poster have her say? Must you follow up
>everything you don't agree on with a morality speech? If you cease and
>desist(?) so will I.
I did let the poster have hir say, what could I do about that?
I'm not the moderator of this group- there isn't one, and for
that I'm damn glad. But what was so wrong with me having *my*
say about what sie said? I honestly *don't* follow up everything
I disagree with, and I hardly think what I've posted here and in
the past were "morality speeches" (*immorality* speeches, perhaps).
But if a post rubs me the wrong way, I will likely comment on it.
If that offends or upsets you, so be it, but I'm not going to
curb my opinions, or the sharing of them, because *you* (or anyone
else) wants me to.
If that means we have these little go-rounds from time to time,
than that's fine. But I have no plans for "ceaseing and desisting",
when I feel there are things that need to be said, and I'm in
a good position to say them.
TTFN,
Garlic
(not visiting as frequently, but still pretty vocal)
472...@xavier.xu.edu
<MAJOR SNIPPAGE>
> work as a nice, honest guy. It probably would make Garlic feel better if
> I was a raving lunatic because then she would have a good reason for not
> listening to a word I say. But i'm not a lunatic. I'm pro life, but i've
> never protested in the streets. I'm not enthralled with the gay
> lifestyle, but I don't beat up homosexuals, egg their houses, slash their
> tires, etc...My value judgements, Kristen, are for me and I make a
> judgement and if they don't meet the standards, I don't have anything to
> do with them. And these standards are not impossible. They're not
> extraordinary. Pretty simple concepts to grasp. Fact is, it seems a lot
> more fashionable fpr people to say " Oh, I never judge anyone, I'm so far
> above that..blah blah blah". But I won't do it. I have no problem not
> hanging out with people who don't meet my standards.
I have tried like hell to stay out of any conversation with Michael (Remember
the FAQ says ignore trolls and they go away :-) ), but this is too much.
Who the hell do you think you are, Michael? Who appointed you judge of
what is right? I don't avoid judging people to be "fashionable" I do it
because tolerance is what is right, and what Christ taught us. (In case
you've forgotten that line about casting the first stone.) None of us
has any business or any reason to worry about what Melissa Reeves or anyone
else does in the privacy of their bedroom. We have no right to be angry with
her. (Other than of course for the fact that now we are stuck with the Recast
From Hell :-) )
And, I just want to point out, if you really don't hang out with people "who
don't meet your standards" how come you spend all this time spewing your
egotistical garbage on a newsgroup to people who are perfectly happy the
way they are and don't want to hear it?!
>I won't go away. And if I irritate you, so what?
Well, that's what kill files are for! PLONK!
> Michael
Rick
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to even one minute
of my life."-Howard Roark in the Fountainhead
Michael Kersey
"Those who know us know what we are about and that we are working
together on our family. We request fans respect our privacy..."
Scott Reeves uttered words to that effect immediately after Melissa left
the show. I'm only going by memory and i'm sure someone will correct me.
That's fine. But there is a point that i'm trying to make and i'll get to
it in a second.
After this, i'm not going to say anything more on the Melissa/Scott/Jason
rumor and I know that it's going to make many on the ng infinitely happy.
I just want to make a few facts clear.
A) I never condemned Melissa or Jason to hell. I condemned the action of
adultery. If the rumor is true, I do not think it is an unforgivable sin.
B) I don't need to or have to show forgiveness towards Melissa. Why? She
never did anything to me. If Scott has been able to forgive her, then I
certainly can as well. I don't know her. She does'nt even know I exist.
So how could I 'forgive her'? Again, I condemned ADULTERY, not their
worth as individuals. Since I never condemned her I can't very well be in
a position to 'forgive her' can I? I would condemn adultery all over
again if need be. I won't defend myself for condemning it.
In retrospect I am guilty of something. I admit it. I am guilty of
indulging in what is essentially idle gossip about three people i've
never met. Which was in direct opposition to what Scott had asked their
fans not to do immediately after she left. Putting myself in their shoes,
I would not like my personal pain splattered all over the InterNet. I and
everyone else who either started these threads, responded to them or just
read them is as guilty as I am. So, from here on out, i'm going to keep
in mind what Scott asked his fans to do, and since I happen to think
Scott is a nice guy, i'm going to drop the subject from here on as it
pertains to the newsgroup.
Michael