Amy D (amykae@joimail.com) writes: Tony Miller wrote: On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:33:56 GMT, Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote: Andre Lieven wrote: OK, I'll try one more time...> You MS-ed the point. Its that, if one wants to pursue a relationship,> then one should leave before one dallies. No, I didn't miss that. Just disagreed with it. In my view one Well, you "MS'ed" the double entendre... The cutesy, matootsie, use of the wors MS (a male feminist thing you know). Andre is just so cute I just want to pinch his cheeks. God I love reading his ****. It's better than "Seinfeld". Keep quoting him. -Tony What the heck does "MS'ed" mean?

Its a parody of " missed ", based on the national US periodical that
" misses " facts the most: MS Magazine.

Ergo, MS-ed. No apostrophe.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

DrLith wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:DmyRb.28830$1e.996@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... Yes, I did read some writings by them, Kath. But I did that back in HS.
Do you know how long ago that was??? I thought I had remembered that one of them was in isolation in a cabin, having an occasional visitor, once a
month. Well, I suppose it was before the invention of the World Wide Web, within which you can find easily dozens of sites that publish their works, which are public domain.

Are you suggesting that I should have refreshed my memory? Hey, just
because I forgot a little bit... well, ok, I guess a lot. But how would I
have known, unless someone corrected me? See, that's the thing with
selective memory....which I think we all have, to some extent.

Anyway, go ahead and mark me down. I guess I deserve it....

Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> wrote:
Emma Anne wrote: Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: >If instead of a goodbye hug in the car when I dropped >her off she'd invited me in for something else I have >little doubt I'd have accepted. You know, Ted, I usually don't use the following word but, I gotta say, putting yourself in the position to be alone with this woman when you feel the way you say you do above has got to be the stupidest thing in the world for you to do. Not if he wants out. Lots of people get involved in an affair to escape their marriage. And that makes it any less stupid?

Well, it's still pretty stupid, but I would say it is a bit *less*
stupid. Having an affair to get out of a marriage does *work* quite
often.

Let's go with your scenario that he WANTS to escape his marriage -- why doesn't he just grow a spine and LEAVE and spare eveyrone involved a little iota of dignity?

I agree that would be the best way to handle it. Plenty of people
choose the way I've described, however.

Caren <caren50@msn.com> wrote:
mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) wrote in message
news:<1g8818l.1xtsch11r4jws8N%mbjq@earthlink.net>... Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: >If instead of a goodbye hug in the car when I dropped >her off she'd invited me in for something else I have >little doubt I'd have accepted. You know, Ted, I usually don't use the following word but, I gotta say, putting yourself in the position to be alone with this woman when you feel the way you say you do above has got to be the stupidest thing in the world for you to do. Not if he wants out. Lots of people get involved in an affair to escape their marriage. Or to get caught and get kicked out instead of choosing to leave.

Right. That's one of the ways it works. Another is that the in-love
feeling with the paramour glosses over the pain and guilt of leaving, at
least temporarily.

Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:
Caren wrote: mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) wrote in message news:<1g8818l.1xtsch11r4jws8N%mbjq@earthlink.net>... Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:> >If instead of a goodbye hug in the car when I dropped> >her off she'd invited me in for something else I have> >little doubt I'd have accepted.>> You know, Ted, I usually don't use the following word> but, I gotta say, putting yourself in the position to> be alone with this woman when you feel the way you say> you do above has got to be the stupidest thing in the> world for you to do.> Not if he wants out. Lots of people get involved in an affair to escape their marriage. The way to escape your marriage is to get a divorce.

That's the best way, I agree. I'm not talking about how people *should*
behave, but how they *do* behave.

Emma Anne wrote:
The way to escape your marriage is to get a divorce. That's the best way, I agree. I'm not talking about how people *should* behave, but how they *do* behave.

Ahh... Emma Anne, welcome to the club! You can say that
till the cows come home, and explain it in 100 different ways.
Those with comprehension deficits won't get it. I advise
you to quit while you are ahead - unless you enjoy arguing
round and round a circle :-)

Emma Anne wrote: Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Caren wrote: mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) wrote in message news:<1g8818l.1xtsch11r4jws8N%mbjq@earthlink.net>...> Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:>>> >If instead of a goodbye hug in the car when I dropped>> >her off she'd invited me in for something else I have>> >little doubt I'd have accepted.>>>> You know, Ted, I usually don't use the following word>> but, I gotta say, putting yourself in the position to>> be alone with this woman when you feel the way you say>> you do above has got to be the stupidest thing in the>> world for you to do.>>>> Not if he wants out. Lots of people get involved in an affair to escape> their marriage. The way to escape your marriage is to get a divorce. That's the best way, I agree. I'm not talking about how people *should* behave, but how they *do* behave.

Some people, anyways.

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote:
Emma Anne wrote: The way to escape your marriage is to get a divorce. That's the best way, I agree. I'm not talking about how people *should* behave, but how they *do* behave. Ahh... Emma Anne, welcome to the club! You can say that till the cows come home, and explain it in 100 different ways. Those with comprehension deficits won't get it. I advise you to quit while you are ahead - unless you enjoy arguing round and round a circle :-)

No, I just get bored and quit after a round or two. I suppose the
person I am arguing with feels they have won, but that's their
privilege.

Well, it's still pretty stupid, but I would say it is abit *less* stupid. Having an affair to get out of amarriage does *work* quite often.

Didn't work for my husband. :P

Tracey

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
Well, it's still pretty stupid, but I would say it is abit *less* stupid. Having an affair to get out of amarriage does *work* quite often. Didn't work for my husband. :P

<hee hee!>

I think it does work for some. I've seen couples where I'm sure the
man wanted to end the relationship but for some reason wouldn't just
do that. Instead he behaved in a way (including having affairs) that
provoked the women into ending the relationship.

I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I seem to remember a
poster here with a girlfriend who liked to go to bars and flirt, and had
a big dog that she paid more attention to than her boyfriend. This
sounded like a troll, but I don't think it was. Anyone else remember
this, or am I inventing it?

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bv6c6h$cnb$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes:

[] Of course. You are one of my favorite panelists. <preen> :-) I expect to be at Ad Astra, and, of course, TTrek. The latter, with my special someone...

I was hoping she would be coming. I'm looking forward to meeting her.

[] Maybe we are using the word "values" differently. For me "values"
refers to the ideal and is something that I can and do fall short of. Indeed, that is not my use of the trm at all. I think it may be something different for you. Could you explain please? Think of it as a human equivalent of a computer operating system. It sets what my parameters for most issues are, and how I will at least start to view and consider a topic. If I find that my personal OS is deficient in an area, then I can " write " some more code to make that situation be covered under the integrated Life Value System that the " Andre OS 4.1 " is now. So, once its well enough built, and tested, then its safe for me to deal with most interactions within it's operating parameters, so that most conflicts are likely to be covered by it. Hows that ?

That is a useful analogy. And it explains my confusion.

Jayne

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:onk73bswg1.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:Well, it's still pretty stupid, but I would say it is abit *less* stupid. Having an affair to get out of amarriage does *work* quite often. Didn't work for my husband. :P <hee hee!> I think it does work for some. I've seen couples where I'm sure the man wanted to end the relationship but for some reason wouldn't just do that. Instead he behaved in a way (including having affairs) that provoked the women into ending the relationship.

Lesson 2 from "DrLith's College of Anthropological Knowledge":

A very famous (among anthropologists) analysis of Javanese culture
highlighted their extreme aversion to direct confrontation, revealing
emotions, "ruffling feathers," etc. So, the story goes, a woman who is
unhappy in her marriage and wants out would never, of course, express her
unhappiness to her husband or ask for a divorce, although
legally/religiously it may be within her right to do so. No--instead she
behaves so cantankerously (yet in an indirect way, natch) in the hopes of
driving her husband away.

Ellie wrote: Emma Anne wrote: The way to escape your marriage is to get a divorce. That's the best way, I agree. I'm not talking about how people *should* behave, but how they *do* behave. Ahh... Emma Anne, welcome to the club! You can say that till the cows come home, and explain it in 100 different ways. Those with comprehension deficits won't get it. I advise you to quit while you are ahead - unless you enjoy arguing round and round a circle :-)

Not all people behave that way.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bv6c6h$cnb$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: [] Of course. You are one of my favorite panelists. <preen> :-) I expect to be at Ad Astra, and, of course, TTrek. The latter, with my special someone... I was hoping she would be coming. I'm looking forward to meeting her.

Indeed. Many of my friends who were not at Philcon are, as well.

She and I will be together at Lunacon and I Con, so my NY zone friends
and acquaintences will have that first shot... <g>

Heck, by July, we will quite possibly be happily cohabitating.

Though, TTrek will be a partial timing issue. It starts July 2.
The day before is Canada Day, and the concert on Parliament Hill
at 9-10:30 PM is a blast. So, we'll likely drive to Toronto the
following morning.

And, I'll be with her, down south, by Sunday...
[] Maybe we are using the word "values" differently. For me "values" refers to the ideal and is something that I can and do fall short of. Indeed, that is not my use of the term at all. I think it may be something different for you. Could you explain please? Think of it as a human equivalent of a computer operating system. It sets what my parameters for most issues are, and how I will at least start to view and consider a topic. If I find that my personal OS is deficient in an area, then I can " write " some more code to make that situation be covered under the integrated Life Value System that the " Andre OS 4.1 " is now. So, once its well enough built, and tested, then its safe for me to deal with most interactions within it's operating parameters, so that most conflicts are likely to be covered by it. Hows that ? That is a useful analogy. And it explains my confusion.

Good, in that my words have sufficiently transmitted my concept.

Now, is there anything about my description that is the cause of
any confusion ?

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Ellie wrote: Emma Anne wrote: The way to escape your marriage is to get a divorce. That's the best way, I agree. I'm not talking about how people *should* behave, but how they *do* behave. Ahh... Emma Anne, welcome to the club! You can say that till the cows come home, and explain it in 100 different ways. Those with comprehension deficits won't get it. I advise you to quit while you are ahead - unless you enjoy arguing round and round a circle :-)

So your club involves disregarding anything that doesn't fit into your
neat little boxes of comprehension? You never learn ANYTHING you didn't
already know when you woke up this morning? I learn things everyday --
I learn things about myself everyday -- the day I stop learning I die.

Sorry, I'm not even sure what ya'll are talking about in this post but
it just seemed a little insulting to someone..... :)

amy

Amy D wrote:
Ellie wrote: Emma Anne wrote: That's the best way, I agree. I'm not talking about how people *should* behave, but how they *do* behave. Ahh... Emma Anne, welcome to the club! You can say that till the cows come home, and explain it in 100 different ways. Those with comprehension deficits won't get it. I advise you to quit while you are ahead - unless you enjoy arguing round and round a circle :-) So your club involves disregarding anything that doesn't fit into your neat little boxes of comprehension? You never learn ANYTHING you didn't already know when you woke up this morning? I learn things everyday -- I learn things about myself everyday -- the day I stop learning I die.

Huh?! Something bit you today?
Sorry,

You should be. This was totally uncalled for,
especially since I wasn't responding to anything you had
said.
I'm not even sure what ya'll are talking about in this post but it just seemed a little insulting to someone..... :)

Look who's talking about being insulting.
Since you like to learn a lesson everyday, here
is one for today : don't jump into discussions
that you don't know anything about.

Ellie wrote: Amy D wrote: Ellie wrote: Emma Anne wrote: > > That's the best way, I agree. I'm not talking about how people *should* > behave, but how they *do* behave. Ahh... Emma Anne, welcome to the club! You can say that till the cows come home, and explain it in 100 different ways. Those with comprehension deficits won't get it. I advise you to quit while you are ahead - unless you enjoy arguing round and round a circle :-) So your club involves disregarding anything that doesn't fit into your neat little boxes of comprehension? You never learn ANYTHING you didn't already know when you woke up this morning? I learn things everyday -- I learn things about myself everyday -- the day I stop learning I die. Huh?! Something bit you today? Sorry, You should be. This was totally uncalled for, especially since I wasn't responding to anything you had said. I'm not even sure what ya'll are talking about in this post but it just seemed a little insulting to someone..... :) Look who's talking about being insulting. Since you like to learn a lesson everyday, here is one for today : don't jump into discussions that you don't know anything about.

Hmm...food for thought.....but I find considering people who don't agree
with you as "comprehension deficit" quite insulting to someone.

amy

Amy D wrote:
Ellie wrote: Amy D wrote: Ellie wrote: > > Emma Anne wrote: > > That's the best way, I agree. I'm not talking about how people *should* > > behave, but how they *do* behave. > > Ahh... Emma Anne, welcome to the club! You can say that > till the cows come home, and explain it in 100 different ways. > Those with comprehension deficits won't get it. I advise > you to quit while you are ahead - unless you enjoy arguing > round and round a circle :-) So your club involves disregarding anything that doesn't fit into your neat little boxes of comprehension? You never learn ANYTHING you didn't already know when you woke up this morning? I learn things everyday -- I learn things about myself everyday -- the day I stop learning I die.

[]
Look who's talking about being insulting. Since you like to learn a lesson everyday, here is one for today : don't jump into discussions that you don't know anything about. Hmm...food for thought.....but I find considering people who don't agree with you as "comprehension deficit" quite insulting to someone.

That's why I said you shouldn't jump in when you don't
know anything about the discussion. I wasn't referring to
people who don't agree with me, but those who cannot
distinguish between explaining a phenomenon and condoning it.
Comprehending that simple distinction shouldn't be that hard!

Besides, everyone seems perfectly capable of attacking those who
insult them by themselves, we don't need insult police around here!

Ellie wrote: Amy D wrote: Ellie wrote: Amy D wrote: > Ellie wrote: > > > > Emma Anne wrote: > > > That's the best way, I agree. I'm not talking about how people *should* > > > behave, but how they *do* behave. > > > > Ahh... Emma Anne, welcome to the club! You can say that > > till the cows come home, and explain it in 100 different ways. > > Those with comprehension deficits won't get it. I advise > > you to quit while you are ahead - unless you enjoy arguing > > round and round a circle :-) > > So your club involves disregarding anything that doesn't fit into your > neat little boxes of comprehension? You never learn ANYTHING you didn't > already know when you woke up this morning? I learn things everyday -- > I learn things about myself everyday -- the day I stop learning I die. [] Look who's talking about being insulting. Since you like to learn a lesson everyday, here is one for today : don't jump into discussions that you don't know anything about. Hmm...food for thought.....but I find considering people who don't agree with you as "comprehension deficit" quite insulting to someone. That's why I said you shouldn't jump in when you don't know anything about the discussion. I wasn't referring to people who don't agree with me, but those who cannot distinguish between explaining a phenomenon and condoning it. Comprehending that simple distinction shouldn't be that hard! Besides, everyone seems perfectly capable of attacking those who insult them by themselves, we don't need insult police around here!

LOL...again...YOUR definition of explaining or condoning a phenomenon?
Name calling isn't cool. Yeah, I did it once and apologized. No, not
everyone is capable of standing up to people who insult them....you seem
to forget all the "little people" who are lurking and may not say you
offended them.....FWIW, I don't consider lurkers "little people" but I'm
getting the impression that anyone who doesn't actively post is a
non-issue to you...

Sorry, I kinda always rooted for the underdog and it has served me well.

amy

Amy D wrote:
.... Sorry, I kinda always rooted for the underdog and it has served me well. amy

I usually do too, but I'm not sure if it has served me well, but I feel it's
the right thing to do, (as long as the underdog isn't totally off his/her own
rocker)!

Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes:
Ellie wrote: Amy D wrote: Ellie wrote: > > Amy D wrote: > > > Ellie wrote: > > > > > > Emma Anne wrote: > > > > That's the best way, I agree. I'm not talking about how people *should* > > > > behave, but how they *do* behave. > > > > > > Ahh... Emma Anne, welcome to the club! You can say that > > > till the cows come home, and explain it in 100 different ways. > > > Those with comprehension deficits won't get it. I advise > > > you to quit while you are ahead - unless you enjoy arguing > > > round and round a circle :-) > > > > So your club involves disregarding anything that doesn't fit into your > > neat little boxes of comprehension? You never learn ANYTHING you didn't > > already know when you woke up this morning? I learn things everyday -- > > I learn things about myself everyday -- the day I stop learning I die. [] > Look who's talking about being insulting. > Since you like to learn a lesson everyday, here > is one for today : don't jump into discussions > that you don't know anything about. Hmm...food for thought.....but I find considering people who don't agree with you as "comprehension deficit" quite insulting to someone. That's why I said you shouldn't jump in when you don't know anything about the discussion. I wasn't referring to people who don't agree with me, but those who cannot distinguish between explaining a phenomenon and condoning it. Comprehending that simple distinction shouldn't be that hard! Besides, everyone seems perfectly capable of attacking those who insult them by themselves, we don't need insult police around here! LOL...again...YOUR definition of explaining or condoning a phenomenon? Name calling isn't cool. Yeah, I did it once and apologized. No, not everyone is capable of standing up to people who insult them....you seem to forget all the "little people" who are lurking and may not say you offended them.....FWIW, I don't consider lurkers "little people" but I'm getting the impression that anyone who doesn't actively post is a non-issue to you...

Who on earth do you think Ellie insulted?

And who are these "little people" to whom you refer?

Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message

This is truly comical! Talk about irony.

A person jumps into a thread she knows NOTHING about, doesn't have a
clue about what is being discussed, or if anyone is insulting anyone
else, gets on her high horse while congratulating herself for being
such a superior being, and with a very insulting tone writes:
So your club involves disregarding anything that doesn't fit into your neat little boxes of comprehension? You never learn ANYTHING you didn't already know when you woke up this morning? I learn things everyday -- I learn things about myself everyday -- the day I stop learning I die.

Claiming that someone somewhere must have been insulted!! No, I am not
making this up, here are her own words:
I'm not even sure what ya'll are talking about in this post but it just seemed a little insulting to someone..... :)

Amusing enough? No, there is more! She then goes on:
No, not everyone is capable of standing up to people who insult them....you seem to forget all the "little people" who are lurking and may not say you offended them.....FWIW, I don't consider lurkers "little people" but I'm getting the impression that anyone who doesn't actively post is a non-issue to you...

Insulting the whole population of "lurkers" by calling them "little
people" who apparently need her to defend them against some invisible
monster of a nonexistent insult that was supposedly thrown at them.

The funniest part is that she has the illusion that she's found some
underdog somewhere that she has rooted for - against what, no one
knows!!
Sorry, I kinda always rooted for the underdog and it has served me well.

At times this newsgroup can be really entertaining :-)

Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message
That's why I said you shouldn't jump in when you don't know anything about the discussion. I wasn't referring to people who don't agree with me, but those who cannot distinguish between explaining a phenomenon and condoning it. Comprehending that simple distinction shouldn't be that hard! Besides, everyone seems perfectly capable of attacking those who insult them by themselves, we don't need insult police around here! LOL...again...YOUR definition of explaining or condoning a phenomenon?

OK, I'll try to explain it in a simpler language. If someone cannot
see the difference between "X is black" and "X should be black", I am
perfectly comfortable saying they have comprehension deficit. If you
think that's insulting to them, then go ahead, defend the underdog.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:27f68249.0401290615.4d7d614e@posting.google.c om...

[] A person jumps into a thread she knows NOTHING about, doesn't have a clue about what is being discussed, or if anyone is insulting anyone else, gets on her high horse while congratulating herself for being such a superior being, and with a very insulting tone writes:

You addressed your comments to Emma Anne. It does not seem presumptious to
me that she responded to you. You were using your comments to her to make
references to a discussion in which she was not involved. All she knew
about it was that your remarks seemed insulting. So she responded with an
insulting tone. I find her behaviour quite understandable.

Jayne

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:27f68249.0401290648.666d6309@posting.google.c om... Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message That's why I said you shouldn't jump in when you don't know anything about the discussion. I wasn't referring to people who don't agree with me, but those who cannot distinguish between explaining a phenomenon and condoning it. Comprehending that simple distinction shouldn't be that hard! Besides, everyone seems perfectly capable of attacking those who insult them by themselves, we don't need insult police around here! LOL...again...YOUR definition of explaining or condoning a phenomenon? OK, I'll try to explain it in a simpler language. If someone cannot see the difference between "X is black" and "X should be black", I am perfectly comfortable saying they have comprehension deficit. If you think that's insulting to them, then go ahead, defend the underdog.

If she thinks it's insulting? It is insulting. Yes, try to explain in
"simple language" for little brains that you think can't understand big
words. I don't know what your problem is, but I've never seen you act so
vicious to anyone before.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:27f68249.0401290648.666d6309@posting.google.c om... Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message That's why I said you shouldn't jump in when you don't know anything about the discussion. I wasn't referring to people who don't agree with me, but those who cannot distinguish between explaining a phenomenon and condoning it. Comprehending that simple distinction shouldn't be that hard! Besides, everyone seems perfectly capable of attacking those who insult them by themselves, we don't need insult police around here! LOL...again...YOUR definition of explaining or condoning a phenomenon? OK, I'll try to explain it in a simpler language. If someone cannot see the difference between "X is black" and "X should be black", I am perfectly comfortable saying they have comprehension deficit. If you think that's insulting to them, then go ahead, defend the underdog.

Try this......

Them that know, they know that they know. Them that don't know, they
don't know that they don't know!

Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:27f68249.0401290615.4d7d614e@posting.google.c om... [] A person jumps into a thread she knows NOTHING about, doesn't have a clue about what is being discussed, or if anyone is insulting anyone else, gets on her high horse while congratulating herself for being such a superior being, and with a very insulting tone writes: You addressed your comments to Emma Anne. It does not seem presumptious to me that she responded to you. You were using your comments to her to make references to a discussion in which she was not involved. All she knew about it was that your remarks seemed insulting. So she responded with an insulting tone. I find her behaviour quite understandable.

No, you misunderstood. I did not find Ellie's post at all insulting.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:
A person jumps into a thread she knows NOTHING about, doesn't have a clue about what is being discussed, or if anyone is insulting anyone else, gets on her high horse while congratulating herself for being such a superior being, and with a very insulting tone writes: You addressed your comments to Emma Anne. It does not seem presumptious to me that she responded to you. You were using your comments to her to make references to a discussion in which she was not involved. All she knew about it was that your remarks seemed insulting. So she responded with an insulting tone. I find her behaviour quite understandable.

Wow, this is getting really confusing for me. Am I reading the same
posts as others?! Yes, I addressed my comments to Emma Anne, without
insulting her the least bit. She didn't think I insulted her, and
responded to my post nicely. Then Amy jumped in, rudely claiming that
I was insulting to *someone*, while saying that she didn't even know
what we were talking about! If you find it understandable to insult
someone who hasn't been talking to or about you because you *think*
they might have insulted *someone* somewhere, then you and I live
under very different values and standards. I find it even more
interesting that you condone such random acts of rudeness, while
always claiming that your beliefs teach you not to be rude and
insulting to others!

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:27f68249.0401291231.45580562@posting.google.c om... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news: A person jumps into a thread she knows NOTHING about, doesn't have a clue about what is being discussed, or if anyone is insulting anyone else, gets on her high horse while congratulating herself for being such a superior being, and with a very insulting tone writes: You addressed your comments to Emma Anne. It does not seem presumptious
to me that she responded to you. You were using your comments to her to
make references to a discussion in which she was not involved. All she knew about it was that your remarks seemed insulting. So she responded with
an insulting tone. I find her behaviour quite understandable. Wow, this is getting really confusing for me. Am I reading the same posts as others?! Yes, I addressed my comments to Emma Anne, without insulting her the least bit. She didn't think I insulted her, and responded to my post nicely. Then Amy jumped in, rudely claiming that I was insulting to *someone*, while saying that she didn't even know what we were talking about! If you find it understandable to insult someone who hasn't been talking to or about you because you *think* they might have insulted *someone* somewhere, then you and I live under very different values and standards. I find it even more interesting that you condone such random acts of rudeness, while always claiming that your beliefs teach you not to be rude and insulting to others!

I misread the attributions. I thought that Emma Anne had written the first
post by Amy. I apologize.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
Wow, this is getting really confusing for me. Am I reading the same posts as others?! Yes, I addressed my comments to Emma Anne, without insulting her the least bit. She didn't think I insulted her, and responded to my post nicely. Then Amy jumped in, rudely claiming that I was insulting to *someone*, while saying that she didn't even know what we were talking about! If you find it understandable to insult someone who hasn't been talking to or about you because you *think* they might have insulted *someone* somewhere, then you and I live under very different values and standards. I find it even more interesting that you condone such random acts of rudeness, while always claiming that your beliefs teach you not to be rude and insulting to others! I misread the attributions. I thought that Emma Anne had written the first post by Amy. I apologize.

Thanks. I thought I had lost track of whom I had responded to with what!!

urf wrote:
Try this...... Them that know, they know that they know. Them that don't know, they don't know that they don't know!

A long time ago I heard an old Persian proverb which is
supposedly a beautiful poem in the original language,
but you have to accept my crude recollection of it!

Those who know, and know that they know,
can achieve anything they set their mind to.

Those who know, and don't know that they know,
wake them up, so they can realize their potential

Those who don't know, and know they don't know,
can manage a half decent life by trying.

Those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know,
will remain in the darkness of ignorance all their life.

Bravo!! This I love!!


"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40198CA7.3F77BFC1@hotmail.com... urf wrote: Try this...... Them that know, they know that they know. Them that don't know, they don't know that they don't know! A long time ago I heard an old Persian proverb which is supposedly a beautiful poem in the original language, but you have to accept my crude recollection of it! Those who know, and know that they know, can achieve anything they set their mind to. Those who know, and don't know that they know, wake them up, so they can realize their potential Those who don't know, and know they don't know, can manage a half decent life by trying. Those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know, will remain in the darkness of ignorance all their life.

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <e5n08egsw0.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Then I think you are making an error. There are plenty of people who want things out of their relationship and don't know how to get them. To lie or cheat in response to that is immoral of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they may really not know how to get what they want out of their relationship. Where is the line between morality and immorality drawn? Suppose your spouse had an accident which rendered him or her in a permanent vegatative state -- or perhaps just the mental state of an infant. Would it be immoral to seek to have your needs for physical and emotional intimacy be met by someone else, even though you were still married to that spouse? *Is* having an affair under conditions where you sincerely believe your spouse cannot fill your needs immoral -- or just unwise? (No, I'm not seriously looking for an excuse -- just pushing the limits of the discussion.)

Reread my second paragraph. Does it involve telling lies by comission or
omission? In other words, does it involve doing things that you feel
you must hide from your spouse?

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Reread my second paragraph. Does it involve telling lies by comission or omission? In other words, does it involve doing things that you feel you must hide from your spouse?

While I'm deliberately not answering your question, let me make the
observation that my wife *does* believe in lying when telling the truth
would be uncomfortable for the hearer and telling the lie does not place the
hearer in harm's way. Her favorite examples of this were the times when
one of our kids didn't want to do something one of his friends wanted him to
do but didn't want to flat out say so -- for fear of damaging the
friendship -- so he was allowed to say his mother didn't want him to and let
her take the blame. For whatever reason, I cringe whenever I hear that --
for *that* does seem to violate one of my principles.

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Reread my second paragraph. Does it involve telling lies by comission or omission? In other words, does it involve doing things that you feel you must hide from your spouse? While I'm deliberately not answering your question, let me make the observation that my wife *does* believe in lying when telling the truth would be uncomfortable for the hearer and telling the lie does not place the hearer in harm's way.

But this should be about what _you_ believe in, not what she believes
in. You have to behave correctly according to your moral beliefs, not
according to your wifes.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<onk73bswg1.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>... Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:Well, it's still pretty stupid, but I would say it is abit *less* stupid. Having an affair to get out of amarriage does *work* quite often. Didn't work for my husband. :P <hee hee!> I think it does work for some. I've seen couples where I'm sure the man wanted to end the relationship but for some reason wouldn't just do that. Instead he behaved in a way (including having affairs) that provoked the women into ending the relationship. I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I seem to remember a poster here with a girlfriend who liked to go to bars and flirt, and had a big dog that she paid more attention to than her boyfriend. This sounded like a troll, but I don't think it was. Anyone else remember this, or am I inventing it?

You're hallucinating again Doug :-)

In article <eqk73911xo.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
But this should be about what _you_ believe in, not what she believes in. You have to behave correctly according to your moral beliefs, not according to your wifes.

But it wouldn't be right for me to be so blatantly and uncaringly
dismissing her standards by my willingness to do so in front of her.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<310120041951115706%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <eqk73911xo.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: But this should be about what _you_ believe in, not what she believes in. You have to behave correctly according to your moral beliefs, not according to your wifes. But it wouldn't be right for me to be so blatantly and uncaringly dismissing her standards by my willingness to do so in front of her. Ted

A lot of things aren't right Ted. You talking about and having
feelings for the pharmacist. You keeping your wife in the dark.
Which "not right" things are okay and which are not? I have much more
respect for a man who is honest about his feelings than one who is
sneaky. Sneaky is passive aggressive with the facade of not wanting
to hurt someone.

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <eqk73911xo.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: But this should be about what _you_ believe in, not what she believes in. You have to behave correctly according to your moral beliefs, not according to your wifes. But it wouldn't be right for me to be so blatantly and uncaringly dismissing her standards by my willingness to do so in front of her.

Who is talking about blatant and uncaring? Or being dismissive? You
can start a conversation, but ultimatly you have to live by your
standards.

Seeker wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Reread my second paragraph. Does it involve telling lies by comission or omission? In other words, does it involve doing things that you feel you must hide from your spouse? While I'm deliberately not answering your question, let me make the observation that my wife *does* believe in lying when telling the truth would be uncomfortable for the hearer and telling the lie does not place the hearer in harm's way. Her favorite examples of this were the times when one of our kids didn't want to do something one of his friends wanted him to do but didn't want to flat out say so -- for fear of damaging the friendship -- so he was allowed to say his mother didn't want him to and let her take the blame. For whatever reason, I cringe whenever I hear that -- for *that* does seem to violate one of my principles. Ted

I really don't see how this relates to lying in an adult marriage.
Sometimes children need a little extra protection until they are mature
enough to stand convicted in their choices and beliefs. As long as it
isn't a consistent pattern of parenting <sheltering the child from
choices> no harm, no foul.

But in an adult marriage I don't think it can be functional with those
type of lies to "protect" the other partner. Your wife is an adult and
if she doesn't HAVE to ability to stand by her choices and beliefs
without you protecting her then you are doing her NO SERVICE by
continuing on with the "parental" treatment.

Or do you shelter her because you know the entire "problem" is YOUR
problem rather than hers?

amy

Chrys wrote: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:27f68249.0401290648.666d6309@posting.google.c om... Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message > That's why I said you shouldn't jump in when you don't > know anything about the discussion. I wasn't referring to > people who don't agree with me, but those who cannot > distinguish between explaining a phenomenon and condoning it. > Comprehending that simple distinction shouldn't be that hard! > > Besides, everyone seems perfectly capable of attacking those who > insult them by themselves, we don't need insult police around here! LOL...again...YOUR definition of explaining or condoning a phenomenon? OK, I'll try to explain it in a simpler language. If someone cannot see the difference between "X is black" and "X should be black", I am perfectly comfortable saying they have comprehension deficit. If you think that's insulting to them, then go ahead, defend the underdog. If she thinks it's insulting? It is insulting. Yes, try to explain in "simple language" for little brains that you think can't understand big words. I don't know what your problem is, but I've never seen you act so vicious to anyone before.

Nah, I could just decide that since she doesn't see it as I do she is
"comprehension deficit". End of discussion for me. :)

amy

>I really don't see how this relates to lying in an adult marriage.Sometimes children need a little extra protection until they are matureenough to stand convicted in their choices and beliefs. As long as itisn't a consistent pattern of parenting <sheltering the child fromchoices> no harm, no foul.But in an adult marriage I don't think it can be functional with thosetype of lies to "protect" the other partner. Your wife is an adult andif she doesn't HAVE to ability to stand by her choices and beliefswithout you protecting her then you are doing her NO SERVICE bycontinuing on with the "parental" treatment.Or do you shelter her because you know the entire "problem" is YOURproblem rather than hers?amy

Amy, this is pretty much what my husband said with regard to his first
marriage. He wanted to be in a marriage with an ADULT. He wanted her to be
honest about what she felt and what she did. He didn't want to be guessing
about her. He wanted to be in a relationship where they would work things out
*together*, rather than her keeping it inside.

Of course, how it happened was that she didn't tell him what she felt, would be
passive-aggressive and manipulative in order to get what she wanted, and when
she still didn't get it (because he had no idea what "it" was!) she ended up
having an affair. BTW, she also didn't take responsibility for that,
either.... that was his fault as well.

Yeppers.... I certainly see some parallels here.

Sheila

Seeker <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jingle Bells" <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f804e152.0402022306.4f5218fe@posting.google.c om... To be fair Ted, you have to admit that you are cutting off a fair amount of yourself from your wife as well. You have to be willing to accept the scary parts of intimacy if you want the good parts. I understand that. The question is -- how do we move from where we are to that point? It is obviously not a simple matter of "just doing it" -- I can't bring myself to disclose those scary parts to her either in little doses or all at once.

I think I've spotted your difficulty right there. You *can* - you just
are choosing not to. Only you choose to open you mouth and say the
things you want to say - or not to do that.

Stephanie Stowe wrote:
Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Does it EVER end well?

I don't know, maybe you should ask my ex-wife :)