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

S

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?

When dealing with matters of the human gonads and the
human heart, "sensibility" is one of the last things you
can possibly expect.

I have to agree with you, though... it does NOT make sense
and all I've ever heard are horror stories.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
"Stephanie Stowe" (stowe@whackthisvsac.org) writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fszncenyrc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> writes: > Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes > absolutely no sense to me. Does it EVER end well? The most common stat on this, is that relationships that begin with one person still maritally involved with another, have a *95%* rate of failure. IOW, compared to the oft cited 50% odds of divorce, those relationships have a *ten times worse* success rate ( 5% v/ 50% ). So, its not a matter of reason or logic. I don't think this is something people do expecting it to end well. It seems to be something people do when there is something they want which they don't know how to get out of their marriage. If you hang out here for a while, you'll see more than the occasional poster who desparately wants _something_ out of his or her marriage which he or she is absolutely not getting. And while it might be _possible_ for said poster to get this out of his or her marriage, said poster doesn't know how to make it happen. Balderdash.

Which part of what I said is "balderdash?"
They don't want to *admit to themselves* what they have to do. Which is, either focus on the marriage *they chose to be in*, or end that marriage, *then* pursue other situations.

In what sense are you using the term "have to do?" Obviously they
have other choices, like having the affair, and screwing up their
marriage, or in some cases, having the affair and continuing the
marriage.

These are unlikely to be good choices, but they are still choices
people make.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: "Stephanie Stowe" (stowe@whackthisvsac.org) writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fszncenyrc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu...> "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> writes:>> > Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes> > absolutely no sense to me. Does it EVER end well? The most common stat on this, is that relationships that begin with one person still maritally involved with another, have a *95%* rate of failure. IOW, compared to the oft cited 50% odds of divorce, those relationships have a *ten times worse* success rate ( 5% v/ 50% ). So, its not a matter of reason or logic.> I don't think this is something people do expecting it to end well.>> It seems to be something people do when there is something they want> which they don't know how to get out of their marriage.>> If you hang out here for a while, you'll see more than the occasional> poster who desparately wants _something_ out of his or her marriage> which he or she is absolutely not getting. And while it might be> _possible_ for said poster to get this out of his or her marriage,> said poster doesn't know how to make it happen. Balderdash. Which part of what I said is "balderdash?"

I answered that in the three lines *quoted right below*...
They don't want to *admit to themselves* what they have to do. Which is, either focus on the marriage *they chose to be in*, or end that marriage, *then* pursue other situations.

IOW, the claim of " said poster *doesn't know how to make it happen*. "
is the balderdash, *as I explained in those three lines*...
In what sense are you using the term "have to do?" Obviously they have other choices, like having the affair, and screwing up their marriage, or in some cases, having the affair and continuing the marriage.

Well, I'm presuming that such people don't have a *specific intent*
to place their lives into a toilet...
These are unlikely to be good choices, but they are still choices people make.

I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're
bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do "
is self serving excuse building balderdash.

Andre

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

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do " is self serving excuse building balderdash.

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.

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?

Someone once told me that marriage is like a diet. Even when you
plan a very sensible and well balanced eating plans, there are times
that you just crave something that you know is not good for
you! Then, it is up to your strength and resolve to resist the
temptation - and we know how many people never cheat on
their diets, right? :-)

Doug Anderson wrote:
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.

It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten
from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but
the assumption that everything that one may desire
can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4011B865.E6581722@hotmail.com... Doug Anderson wrote: 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. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic.

I don't know what I want. I want different things at different times.
I want to buy a car, on monday it's a sports car, on tuesday it's an SUV,
on wednesday it's sedan and so on and so on.......

I know how to get it, I don't don't know what I want.

Tommorow I'll want something else.

What I want, is to want nothing and to have anything if I ever do want it.

I want to live forever. I want to be young again.

Where can I buy that?

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: 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. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic.

Indeed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. There are several reasons
they may not know how to get what they want; and one of them might be
that it isn't possible!

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:
"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4011B865.E6581722@hotmail.com... Doug Anderson wrote: 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. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic. I don't know what I want. I want different things at different times. I want to buy a car, on monday it's a sports car, on tuesday it's an SUV, on wednesday it's sedan and so on and so on....... I know how to get it, I don't don't know what I want. Tommorow I'll want something else. What I want, is to want nothing and to have anything if I ever do want it. I want to live forever. I want to be young again. Where can I buy that?

How much money have you got?

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do " is self serving excuse building balderdash. 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.

That not the issue *I was addressing*...

Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...

" Re: one cheating question ".

IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.

Sheesh.
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.

OK, then they're self decieving *morons*.

Happy now ?

Andre

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

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Doug Anderson wrote: 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. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic.

Well, sure. Thats why we also have friends, other family,
work pals, acquaintences...

The idea that a marriage should provide 100% of your daily
needs of everything, is insane.

The idea that, once you agree to marry someone, of your
own free will and choice, that one ought to then grasp that
that kinda means " No more dating ", isn't rocket science.

All else is emotively enabling waffling...

Andre

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

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do " is self serving excuse building balderdash. 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. That not the issue *I was addressing*... Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*... " Re: one cheating question ". IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug. Sheesh.

So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat
because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,
but the reality is more complex.
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. OK, then they're self decieving *morons*.

I see. People cheat because they are bad, or because they are morons.

Look, even you must realize that things are more complicated than
that. After all, not all morons cheat, and neither do all bad people.

Doug Anderson wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do "> is self serving excuse building balderdash. 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. That not the issue *I was addressing*... Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*... " Re: one cheating question ". IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug. Sheesh. So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way, but the reality is more complex.

How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so, Tony
(I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in "liberalsville".
Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly understandable!

Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable, in
YOUR mindset?

Andre Lieven wrote:
The idea that, once you agree to marry someone, of your own free will and choice, that one ought to then grasp that that kinda means " No more dating ", isn't rocket science.

The question was : "why would anyone cheat
within a marriage". I was responding to that, not what
people "ought" to do. People "ought" to do a lot of
things that they don't...

Ellie wrote: Andre Lieven wrote: The idea that, once you agree to marry someone, of your own free will and choice, that one ought to then grasp that that kinda means " No more dating ", isn't rocket science. The question was : "why would anyone cheat within a marriage". I was responding to that, not what people "ought" to do. People "ought" to do a lot of things that they don't...

A more accurate assessment would be that some people will have affairs, and
some will not. ("People" is too generalized).

Why? Well, I doubt it would happen within a happy marriage--if both
people are happy with one another & in love, then there in no
compelling reason to look elsewhere. I don't know of any couple that
is happily married that cheating has occurred in personally.

Now, coming from a marriage that is in an extremely bad point right
now, I can certainly see how cheating can happen. When things are
extremely unhappy within the marriage, looking outside for it for
comfort and companionship is pretty normal, if you ask me.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:12:59 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe"
<stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote:
Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes absolutely nosense to me. Does it EVER end well?S

-----
Kim/Dreamspinner3
Visit My Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/dreamspinner3/

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... Doug Anderson wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>> 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. That not the issue *I was addressing*... Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*... " Re: one cheating question ". IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug. Sheesh. So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way, but the reality is more complex. How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so,
Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in
"liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly understandable! Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable,
in YOUR mindset?
Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife?

Kim/Dreamspinner3 wrote: Why? Well, I doubt it would happen within a happy marriage--if both people are happy with one another & in love, then there in no compelling reason to look elsewhere. I don't know of any couple that is happily married that cheating has occurred in personally. Now, coming from a marriage that is in an extremely bad point right now, I can certainly see how cheating can happen. When things are extremely unhappy within the marriage, looking outside for it for comfort and companionship is pretty normal, if you ask me.

Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. You don't have an affair while you're
in a marriage. (It's just having basic integrity and morality).
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:12:59 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Does it EVER end well? S ----- Kim/Dreamspinner3 Visit My Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/dreamspinner3/

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:
"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... Doug Anderson wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>> 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.>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>> " Re: one cheating question ".>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>> Sheesh. So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way, but the reality is more complex. How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so, Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly understandable! Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable, in YOUR mindset? Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife?

The problem is simpler. Bill has trouble understanding that asking
_why_ things happen is different condoning them.

But Bill and I have been down that road before, and he's made it clear
that its useless to go down it again.

Doug Anderson wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... Doug Anderson wrote:> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>> 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.>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>> Sheesh.>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,> but the reality is more complex. How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so, Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly understandable! Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable,
in YOUR mindset? Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? The problem is simpler. Bill has trouble understanding that asking _why_ things happen is different condoning them. But Bill and I have been down that road before, and he's made it clear that its useless to go down it again.

If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not
try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it?
But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.

urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... Doug Anderson wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>> 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.>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>> " Re: one cheating question ".>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>> Sheesh. So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way, but the reality is more complex. How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so, Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly understandable! Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable, in YOUR mindset? Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife?

Yes I do. So what? Not all would.

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.)

Ted

In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:
Then you FIRST get out of the marriage.

Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage
would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be? I
can -- in principle, anyway.

Ted

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 04:11:08 GMT, Bill in Co.
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...> Doug Anderson wrote:>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>> 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.>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat>> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,>> but the reality is more complex.>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so,> Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in> "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly> understandable!>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable, in> YOUR mindset?>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? The problem is simpler. Bill has trouble understanding that asking _why_ things happen is different condoning them. But Bill and I have been down that road before, and he's made it clear that its useless to go down it again. If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.

Well, in that case, it might help you identify a serial killer before they
start, or catch one before they kill again.

Want to try another analogy?

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 04:11:08 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>>>> 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.>>>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat>>> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,>>> but the reality is more complex.>>>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so,>> Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in>> "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly>> understandable!>>>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable,>> in YOUR mindset?>>>>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? The problem is simpler. Bill has trouble understanding that asking _why_ things happen is different condoning them. But Bill and I have been down that road before, and he's made it clear that its useless to go down it again. If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why
not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. Well, in that case, it might help you identify a serial killer before they
start,
Tell me something. Has that actually worked, in practice? (Don't think
so)
or catch one before they kill again.
And obviously once they've killed someone, the writing's on the wall..

Yes, it could be interesting to know how they think, from a psychological study
point of view. But that wasn't the point here.

urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife?

George Bush Sr., who's had an ongoing affair with a former aid. Google on
"George Bush Jennifer Fitzgerald".

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8gmQb.24427$1e.14094@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... Doug Anderson wrote:> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>> 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.>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>> Sheesh.>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,> but the reality is more complex. How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If
so, Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly understandable! Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly
understandable, in YOUR mindset? Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? Yes I do. So what? Not all would.

Then why the "liberal" comment?

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:230120042329402888%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... 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.) Ted

"Kim/Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:8gq3101kvd1j6buqjkfm60du2pl6cu1bvr@4ax.com... Why? Well, I doubt it would happen within a happy marriage--if both people are happy with one another & in love, then there in no compelling reason to look elsewhere. I don't know of any couple that is happily married that cheating has occurred in personally. Now, coming from a marriage that is in an extremely bad point right now, I can certainly see how cheating can happen. When things are extremely unhappy within the marriage, looking outside for it for comfort and companionship is pretty normal, if you ask me. On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:12:59 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote:Why? As in, why would anyone cheat within a marriage? It makes absolutely
nosense to me. Does it EVER end well?

A "Happy Marriage" is defined by the participants. What ever "deal"
they work out between them may not work for others.

Marriage is a defined contract between two people.

me too.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:230120042335565506%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be? I can -- in principle, anyway. Ted

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do "> is self serving excuse building balderdash. 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. That not the issue *I was addressing*... Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*... " Re: one cheating question ". IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug. Sheesh. So?

So, I was on topic, and you were just... blathering.
Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way, but the reality is more complex.

<yawn> Yet another Desperate Doug *empty claim*, devoid of even
any *attempt* to refute.

Learn that debate *isn't* just Monty Python contradiction sketches...
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. OK, then they're self decieving *morons*. I see. People cheat because they are bad, or because they are morons.

Would you say that people behaving *in ways almost guaranteed* to
create a poor chance at " happiness " are acting like *geniuses* ?

Amazing. You are a moral nihlist.
Look, even you must realize that things are more complicated than that. After all, not all morons cheat, and neither do all bad people.

So ? In what way does any of that blather address *anything* I said,
as opposed to what *you wish I had said* ?

Amazing...

Andre

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

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: The idea that, once you agree to marry someone, of your own free will and choice, that one ought to then grasp that that kinda means " No more dating ", isn't rocket science. The question was : "why would anyone cheat within a marriage".

And, I addressed that...
I was responding to that, not what people "ought" to do.

So ? How does that stop me from *adding* the point ?
People "ought" to do a lot of things that they don't...

Indeed. Its a good thing to remind them of it...

Andre


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

Seeker (anon-30263@anon.twwells.com) writes: In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be?

No. Because, being cheated on in such a way, tends to make the next
step being the end of the marriage highly likely.

Being left by a spouse is bad for the one being left. Most often,
being left *twice*, once for the affair, and *again*, for the divorce,
is worse than just being hit with the " I'm leaving " whammy.
I can -- in principle, anyway.

Then, specify them.

Andre

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

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: The idea that, once you agree to marry someone, of your own free will and choice, that one ought to then grasp that that kinda means " No more dating ", isn't rocket science. The question was : "why would anyone cheat within a marriage". And, I addressed that...

Actually, you didn't. You said anyone who cheated was immoral and/or
a moron. So you didn't address the "why" at all.

As usual though, thanks for playing.

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<230120042329402888%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... 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?

The line is drawn, for me, at honesty. Assuming your spouse is injured
but still capable of comprehension, then it is not cheating if you
discuss it with them first and get their blessing.

If in a permanent vegetative state where you can't discuss it first,
no, I don't think it's cheating; your marriage is basically over
anyway. It would be immoral, however, to be dishonest with your lover
and not explain that you intend to stay married to your incapacitated
spouse.

In fact, in the first instance where you have your spouse's blessing
to go outside the marriage, while it may not be cheating, it would be
immoral to take on a lover without explaining to that person that
you're in an open marriage with no intention of leaving it.
*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.)

It's only immoral if you aren't honest with your spouse and with your
lover.

jen

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4011B865.E6581722@hotmail.com... Doug Anderson wrote: 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. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic.


For me at least, I do not assume I CAN have everything I desire.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote:> The idea that, once you agree to marry someone, of your> own free will and choice, that one ought to then grasp that> that kinda means " No more dating ", isn't rocket science. The question was : "why would anyone cheat within a marriage". And, I addressed that... Actually, you didn't.

Actually, to the *non-reading impaired*, I did.

The part about " different Life Value Systems ".
You said anyone who cheated was immoral and/or a moron.

Based on my Life Value Systems. Are you suggesting that I
*have no right to mine* ?

Seel professional mental health assistance for your deep
control issues...
So you didn't address the "why" at all.

<yawn> Ibid " reading impaired "...
As usual though, thanks for playing.

Ah, you're an admitted *troll*.

Thanks for blowing your cover...

Andre

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

"Bill in Co." wrote:
If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it?

It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killers
kill their victims. In fact some people make a career out of
it. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, I agree. I was simply saying I can see how it can happen.
Believe me, I've had chances to cheat on my husband over the
years--one man begged me to leave him--but I didn't because I love my
husband and I don't believe in cheating on your spouse.



On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 04:06:48 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:
Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. You don't have an affair while you'rein a marriage. (It's just having basic integrity and morality).
-----
Kim/Dreamspinner3
Visit My Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/dreamspinner3/

I said I don't know of any couples personally.
-----
Kim/Dreamspinner3
Visit My Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/dreamspinner3/

>"Bill in Co." wrote: If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then whynot try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it?It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killerskill their victims. In fact some people make a career out ofit. Do you have a problem with that?

Jen, I'm not Bill, but I do understand the frustration of those who see
*explanations* of behavior become *excuses* for behavior.

We know, for instance, that many people who kill were abused as children. That
is, from a societal point of view, a good thing to know, as we are now aware
that, in addition to it being the moral thing to do, preventing child abuse is
in the interest of the public good.

However, too often (IMO) such information is used to try to garner sympathy for
someone who has *chosen* to do a bad or illegal thing. It is used to say,
"Well, he shouldn't' be as responsible for it, because of these factors."
Frankly, that doesn't even make sense from a logical or psychological point of
view. The vast majority of abused children DO NOT become murderers. Children
from the same family, all of whom were abused, neglected and otherwise had
horrific childhoods can make different behavioral choices, and by those
choices, choose different outcomes. This is the element of free choice in our
behavior.

Bill becomes a bit obsessed about it, but I think he has a fair point: in the
last 40 years or so there has been a STRONG trend toward lessening personal
responsibility precisely by providing explanations for the behavior in terms of
childhood trauma, or current needs/desires, or whatever.

I don't want to stop understanding behavior, but I do want our society to stop
using that understanding to prevent the consequences of choices people made, or
telling the perpetrator that "it wasn't really your fault".

Sheila

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
"Bill in Co." wrote: If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then whynot try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it?It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killerskill their victims. In fact some people make a career out ofit. Do you have a problem with that? Jen, I'm not Bill, but I do understand the frustration of those who see *explanations* of behavior become *excuses* for behavior.

But _no one_ in this thread has made excuses. So although you may
find that frustrating, it hasn't happened here.

WhansaMi wrote:

Sheila, it'd be good if you left the referenced post info
in your reply (I usually can't figure out whom you are
responding to). I wrote the above not Jen.
It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killerskill their victims. In fact some people make a career out ofit. Do you have a problem with that? Jen, I'm not Bill, but I do understand the frustration of those who see *explanations* of behavior become *excuses* for behavior.

That may be, but it's equally frustrating to see every
attempt at explaining something shut down by labeling it
an excuse. It's actually insulting.

In cases of affairs, I am always critical of people whose
first response is "what did the cheated spouse did
or didn't do to cause the affair". I believe it's totally
wrong to give the slightest amount of legitimacy to an
action which is almost never justified. But when someone
asks "why" people have affairs, the discussion is not
about whether it is justified or not, and trying to put it
in those terms is like shutting up the people who are
questioning it.

Here is a radical concept : having a "reason" to do
something doesn't make it right!

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
WhansaMi wrote: Sheila, it'd be good if you left the referenced post info in your reply (I usually can't figure out whom you are responding to). I wrote the above not Jen.It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killerskill their victims. In fact some people make a career out ofit. Do you have a problem with that? Jen, I'm not Bill, but I do understand the frustration of those who see *explanations* of behavior become *excuses* for behavior. That may be, but it's equally frustrating to see every attempt at explaining something shut down by labeling it an excuse. It's actually insulting.

Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so
thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila.
In cases of affairs, I am always critical of people whose first response is "what did the cheated spouse did or didn't do to cause the affair". I believe it's totally wrong to give the slightest amount of legitimacy to an action which is almost never justified. But when someone asks "why" people have affairs, the discussion is not about whether it is justified or not, and trying to put it in those terms is like shutting up the people who are questioning it.

Thank you for putting it like that. I've felt that way without being
able to put it into words.
Here is a radical concept : having a "reason" to do something doesn't make it right!

For some people this does seem to be a radical concept. Maybe that
_is_ why they have so much trouble with the idea of exploring why a
behavior they dislike actually occurs.

Ellie wrote:Sheila, it'd be good if you left the referenced post infoin your reply (I usually can't figure out whom you areresponding to). I wrote the above not Jen.

I misunderstood, I'm sorry.
It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killerskill their victims. In fact some people make a career out ofit. Do you have a problem with that? Jen, I'm not Bill, but I do understand the frustration of those who see *explanations* of behavior become *excuses* for behavior.That may be, but it's equally frustrating to see everyattempt at explaining something shut down by labeling itan excuse. It's actually insulting.In cases of affairs, I am always critical of people whosefirst response is "what did the cheated spouse didor didn't do to cause the affair". I believe it's totallywrong to give the slightest amount of legitimacy to anaction which is almost never justified. But when someoneasks "why" people have affairs, the discussion is notabout whether it is justified or not, and trying to put itin those terms is like shutting up the people who arequestioning it.Here is a radical concept : having a "reason" to dosomething doesn't make it right!

Agreed. And, maybe Bill jumped the gun. And maybe I did the same. I
apologize if that is the case.

But, I, at least, was not addressing the OP -- I've done that in several other
posts. I was commenting on Bill's statement and then the question of whether
or not it was legitimate to find out *why* serial killers (or adulterers, by
extension) do what they do. That is the point I was addressing in this post
-- where I think there is legitimate value in discovering why, and where I
think it becomes non-legitimate, i.e., when it is used to excuse behavior.

Sheila

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Doug Anderson wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...> Doug Anderson wrote:>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>> 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.>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat>> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,>> but the reality is more complex.>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If
so,> Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in> "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly> understandable!>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly
understandable, in> YOUR mindset?>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? The problem is simpler. Bill has trouble understanding that asking _why_ things happen is different condoning them. But Bill and I have been down that road before, and he's made it clear that its useless to go down it again. If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why
not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.

The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One cannot
solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the
vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once
that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place.

S

Can you not think of circumstances where getting outof the marriage would be worse for the cheated-uponspouse than cheating would be? I can -- in principle,anyway.

Depends on what you would classify as 'worse for the
cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be.' I can think
of plenty of financial circumstances where divorcing
would be worse, I can't think of any circumstances where
divorcing a spouse would be worse emotionally than cheating
on them.

Tracey

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) ignorantly bleated: Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes: WhansaMi wrote: Sheila, it'd be good if you left the referenced post info in your reply (I usually can't figure out whom you are responding to). I wrote the above not Jen. >It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killers >kill their victims. In fact some people make a career out of >it. Do you have a problem with that? Jen, I'm not Bill, but I do understand the frustration of those who see *explanations* of behavior become *excuses* for behavior. That may be, but it's equally frustrating to see every attempt at explaining something shut down by labeling it an excuse. It's actually insulting. Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila.

Ah, so pointing out that *you failed to read the REASON I stated*,
is an " insult "...

In which case, you must be well used to such " insults " by now...
In cases of affairs, I am always critical of people whose first response is "what did the cheated spouse did or didn't do to cause the affair". I believe it's totally wrong to give the slightest amount of legitimacy to an action which is almost never justified. But when someone asks "why" people have affairs, the discussion is not about whether it is justified or not, and trying to put it in those terms is like shutting up the people who are questioning it.

Which is NOT what I did. As I *did* offer a reason for such
behavior in some people. Namely, different Life Value Systems.
Thank you for putting it like that. I've felt that way without being able to put it into words.

<smirk>
Here is a radical concept : having a "reason" to do something doesn't make it right! For some people this does seem to be a radical concept. Maybe that _is_ why they have so much trouble with the idea of exploring why a behavior they dislike actually occurs.

Maybe thats why you repeatedly LIE about those whose points you
CANNOT refute/agrue against...

Got it, you coward.

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

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) ignorantly bleated:
Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila. Ah, so pointing out that *you failed to read the REASON I stated*, is an " insult "...

Bizarre. Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ people
cheat.

Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about how
people who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excuses
people make. No one can stop you. But that isn't how this thread
started, and it isn't the thread that most of us are contributing to.

So an accusation that I'm not addressing the thread and you are is
simply bizarre. When it comes with implications that I can't read, it
becomes insulting as well.

But I've learned not to expect anything else from you.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QayQb.142746$na.225974@attbi_s04... Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila.

Bill and Andre don't like people who ask them to think.

"Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message
news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com... "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...
If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then
why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at
it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One
cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place.

Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm
astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act
(I've thought this before)

"JWB" <jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com> writes:
"Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com... "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place. Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts.

It does seem mind-boggling sometimes, no?

Stephanie and Tim wrote: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4011B865.E6581722@hotmail.com... Doug Anderson wrote: 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. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic. For me at least, I do not assume I CAN have everything I desire.

Excellent point, and one that is often overlooked, even more so today. (Like
it's a foreign concept). This relates to the ME ME ME thing we've discussed.

WhansaMi wrote: "Bill in Co." wrote: If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killers kill their victims. In fact some people make a career out of it. Do you have a problem with that? Jen, I'm not Bill, but I do understand the frustration of those who see *explanations* of behavior become *excuses* for behavior. We know, for instance, that many people who kill were abused as children. That is, from a societal point of view, a good thing to know, as we are now aware that, in addition to it being the moral thing to do, preventing child abuse is in the interest of the public good. However, too often (IMO) such information is used to try to garner sympathy for someone who has *chosen* to do a bad or illegal thing. It is used to
say, "Well, he shouldn't' be as responsible for it, because of these factors." Frankly, that doesn't even make sense from a logical or psychological point
of view. The vast majority of abused children DO NOT become murderers.
Children from the same family, all of whom were abused, neglected and otherwise had horrific childhoods can make different behavioral choices, and by those choices, choose different outcomes. This is the element of free choice in
our behavior. Bill becomes a bit obsessed about it, but I think he has a fair point: in
the last 40 years or so there has been a STRONG trend toward lessening personal responsibility precisely by providing explanations for the behavior in terms of childhood trauma, or current needs/desires, or whatever. I don't want to stop understanding behavior, but I do want our society to
stop using that understanding to prevent the consequences of choices people made, or telling the perpetrator that "it wasn't really your fault". Sheila

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better.

> >>Where is the line between morality and immorality drawn?
It's pretty individualized. For some, the line is drawn by their religion. For some, it's drawn by the laws of their country. For some, it's drawn solely by themselves. For others, it's a combination of all of the above.

Tracey, you just answered *how* it is drawn, not the posedquestion of *where*...
Try again, please... :-)

But, see, *I* can't draw a line between moral and immoral
for anyone but myself. I drawn mine based on one set of
criteria, others draw theirs based on another set. So, the
questions posed is not answerable with a 'where' answer,
IMO, only with a 'how' answer.
**At the same time**, just because it would be going against my belief doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. I just wouldn't be lying to myself and saying 'Well, I'm not *really* going against my moral code because of X, Y, and Z.'
Indeed. One way some people violate what *appeared* to betheir values, is to rationalise them writing " waivers "for specific cases.

I had started out my reply with a reference to 'situational
morality' and how I don't believe in it. Then I thought some
more and, to some, I probably *do* practice situational mor-
ality. I don't believe I do, but others would probably see it
that way. You see, I don't have a whole lot of set 'absolutes'
as my guide and, I believe that people who do, eventually end
up in situations where they cause unwarranted pain to others
or they go against their own moral beliefs. As an example,
someone who says 'I will never lie' will, IMO, inevitably
find themselves in a position where they either must lie or
they will cause pain to a person they love. My version of
'I will never lie' is more of a 'I will never lie for the
sole reason of saving *myself* from pain' kind of thing. So,
when I tell someone who is *not* beautiful that they are,
I am not violating my own moral code.

Tracey

Ellie wrote: "Bill in Co." wrote: If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why
not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? It's perfectly legitimate to try to find out *why* serial killers kill their victims. In fact some people make a career out of it. Do you have a problem with that?

No, I don't.

urf wrote: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message *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.) Ted

Is IS immoral. Hey Ted, don't you remember the Ten Commandments? I mean,
if your own code of morality doesn't define it, then think of the Ten
Commandments, if it helps. There's some pretty sage (moral) advice in those
commandments...

urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:8gmQb.24427$1e.14094@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...> Doug Anderson wrote:>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>> 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.>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat>> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,>> but the reality is more complex.>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so,> Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in> "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly> understandable!>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable,> in YOUR mindset?>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? Yes I do. So what? Not all would. Then why the "liberal" comment?

"Liberal" in the context of *standing for nothing*, and consequently, accepting
everything.

Andre Lieven wrote:
The other case was a male coworker of mine, who was supposedly in a very happy marriage too. But his job sent him on business trips to another site regularly, and he got caught in an affair with a woman there. He ended up in a painful divorce when the wife found out (through a very strange coincidence of someone knowing someone who knew that woman). He broke up with the woman, but to this day says he doesn't know how he let himself go that far. Easy: He *let himself* go that far.

Sure, it's always that way. I don't think he was denying that
he let himself go that far, just regretting it by questioning
his own judgment.
The best comment I've heard about the " it just happened " excuse, is from an episode of The Larry Sanders Show ( HBO ).

In his case, he didn't try to excuse his behavior.
IOW, he acted *with definit deliberation*. *Thats* how he let it " go that far "... by *his choice*.

I am not sure what "definite deliberation" means here.
If it means conscious decision, then yes, that is what
he did.
His choice, his consequence.

Yes, an unfortunate one.

My point, in case it was lost, was that it's not necessary
for a person to be unhappy in their marriage to do a foolish
thing and ruin a good life.

Stephanie and Tim wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Doug Anderson wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>>>> 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.>>>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat>>> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,>>> but the reality is more complex.>>>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so,>> Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in>> "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly>> understandable!>>>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable,>> in YOUR mindset?>>>>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? The problem is simpler. Bill has trouble understanding that asking _why_ things happen is different condoning them. But Bill and I have been down that road before, and he's made it clear that its useless to go down it again. If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why
not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place. S

OK, let me make this clearer. I see nothing wrong in trying to understand it -
in fact, I think that is a good thing! BUT don't use THAT to excuse the
behavior, and *stand for nothing*, as is happening so much these days. Do
you see the distinction? Perhaps you do, but I doubt if Doug does (due to
his exceedingly liberal slant). And that is the trouble with these times.
Bad behavior is condoned, almost expected. Personal responsibility seems to
becoming somewhat extinct. And the legal "profession" is further supporting
the trend.

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dHzQb.26116$zj7.1142@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:8gmQb.24427$1e.14094@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... urf wrote:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why*
they're>>>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>>>> 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.>>>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just
cheat>>> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,>>> but the reality is more complex.>>>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If
so,>> Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in>> "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly>> understandable!>>>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly
understandable,>> in YOUR mindset?>>>>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? Yes I do. So what? Not all would. Then why the "liberal" comment? "Liberal" in the context of *standing for nothing*, and consequently,
accepting everything.

What do you think you stand for?

I am 61. Over the years I have seen much. Some things that I once saw as
important, have changed, while other things have remained important.
I try now to be flexible. That is, to use my thinking power to decide on
an individual basis if something is important or if it is not. I try to
avoid
being a reactionary. I once suckled at my mother's breast. That was
important
to me then. It is no longer important. (Although there may be a
psychological
component.)

As an example to what I mean, I would tell you of my Vietnam days. I once
saw it as being vital to the interests of my country. I came to hate the
war.
I realized that I had been swayed by the political propaganda of the day,
much
like the young men in the book "All Quite on the Western Front".

synopsis at
http://www.digitaltermpapers.com/view.php?url=/Book_Reports/All_Quiet_On_the_Western_Front.shtml

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) ignorantly bleated: Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila. Ah, so pointing out that *you failed to read the REASON I stated*, is an " insult "... Bizarre.

Yes, your stated views, and perceptions are certainly that...
Have you even read the OP?

Yes. Have *you* ?
The thread is about _why_ people cheat.

Listen very closely, oh reading impaired one:

I ANSWERED THAT WHY.

Sheesh !
Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about how people who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excuses people make. No one can stop you. But that isn't how this thread started, and it isn't the thread that most of us are contributing to.

Net Cop Wannabe-ism noted.
So an accusation that I'm not addressing the thread and you are is simply bizarre.

Then, get professional help for *your* reading impairment...
When it comes with implications that I can't read, it becomes insulting as well.

" Insulting " n.: Accurately describing Doug's *inabilities*...
But I've learned

LIE.
not to expect anything else from you.

Translation: " AS I CANNOT refute your points on their merits, I will
call you names, instead. "

Thank you for once again, displaying your *inabilities*, so that
more people can be aware of them.

HTH.

Andre


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

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:hLGdnZWdBfTUUo_dRVn-
As an example to what I mean, I would tell you of my Vietnam days. I once saw it as being vital to the interests of my country. I came to hate the war. I realized that I had been swayed by the political propaganda of the day, much like the young men in the book "All Quite on the Western Front".

Funny you mention it. That's loaded in the DVD player as we speak (write).
Great film.

"JWB" (jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com) writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:QayQb.142746$na.225974@attbi_s04... Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila. Bill and Andre don't like people who ask them to think.

<yawn> Projection. Ad hom. Nothinig of substance. No argument. No
position. No facts.

IOW, nothing at all.

Andre


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

Tracey (rbrancher2@aol.com) writes:>Where is the line between morality and immorality drawn? It's pretty individualized. For some, the line is drawn by their religion. For some, it's drawn by the laws of their country. For some, it's drawn solely by themselves. For others, it's a combination of all of the above.Tracey, you just answered *how* it is drawn, not the posedquestion of *where*...Try again, please... :-) But, see, *I* can't draw a line between moral and immoral for anyone but myself.

OK, but you do understand that you answered a fundamentally
*different* question, from what was posed... ?

And, I would have to disagree with you. Do you never set any
moral judgements, based on various societal and legal standards ?
Can we not say that many of those are based on moral judgements ?

For instance, murder is held to be morally wrong. But, if one is
legitimately defending one's life from a mortal threat posed by
the one you killed, then that makes it be not murder, based on
the morality of having to choose a lesser harm, that of not letting
a non-aggressor be killed by an aggressor.
I drawn mine based on one set of criteria, others draw theirs based on another set. So, the questions posed is not answerable with a 'where' answer, IMO, only with a 'how' answer.

Well, would you say that any person, having made a clear and
recognisable commitment to another person, can then unilaterally
break that commitment, and show that even they are aware of the
immorality of that violation, by way of their deceit in trying
to cover up that violation ?
**At the same time**, just because it would be going against my belief doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. I just wouldn't be lying to myself and saying 'Well, I'm not *really* going against my moral code because of X, Y, and Z.'Indeed. One way some people violate what *appeared* to betheir values, is to rationalise them writing " waivers "for specific cases. I had started out my reply with a reference to 'situational morality' and how I don't believe in it. Then I thought some more and, to some, I probably *do* practice situational mor- ality. I don't believe I do, but others would probably see it that way. You see, I don't have a whole lot of set 'absolutes' as my guide and, I believe that people who do, eventually end up in situations where they cause unwarranted pain to others or they go against their own moral beliefs.

OK, and thats why a simple guidebook of such beliefs actually makes
the task of living up to them far easier, unlike with the " this
is very complex " crowd of enablers.

One such example would be the one I've already mentioned.

Another would be, is there any circumstance that makes adultery
from within a marriage, where the other spouse is not aware of
the adultery, and where the adulterer is being deceitful, so as
to not have their behavior become known to the other spouse,
not be immoarl ?

I'd say no, and I'd further say that, as any where it was moral
would be so exceptional, as to be effectively meaningless to most
people and siatuations, that the burden of proof must fall to
the claimant of the exception.
As an example, someone who says 'I will never lie' will, IMO, inevitably find themselves in a position where they either must lie or they will cause pain to a person they love. My version of 'I will never lie' is more of a 'I will never lie for the sole reason of saving *myself* from pain' kind of thing. So, when I tell someone who is *not* beautiful that they are, I am not violating my own moral code.

OK. But, thats not a test of a moral value set, as there is
room for lies which are simply a withholding of aggressive and
pointless " honesty ". Not everyone needs to know what I might
think of their clothes, for instance. Withholding that opinion
is not an immoral act, in fact, it meets a somewhat greater
morality of allowing others to not have me intrude over them
over genuinely trivial matters.

But, if I know that a friend were cheating on their spouse,
for me to maintain the friendship, without comment, would be
enabling their immorality.

As that involves a far more morality based core standard
that does their choice of clothes...

Andre

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

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: The other case was a male coworker of mine, who was supposedly in a very happy marriage too. But his job sent him on business trips to another site regularly, and he got caught in an affair with a woman there. He ended up in a painful divorce when the wife found out (through a very strange coincidence of someone knowing someone who knew that woman). He broke up with the woman, but to this day says he doesn't know how he let himself go that far. Easy: He *let himself* go that far. Sure, it's always that way. I don't think he was denying that he let himself go that far, just regretting it by questioning his own judgment.

Well, thats easy for him to do after the fact, and the act.

What would show me that his stated regret was serious, would
be actions that showed that seriousness of the regret.

When many such get caught, their " regret " tends to be more
about having been found out, not the action and choice that
they made.
The best comment I've heard about the " it just happened " excuse, is from an episode of The Larry Sanders Show ( HBO ). In his case, he didn't try to excuse his behavior.

Its possible to passive-agressively excuse one's self by not making
appropriate restitutions.
IOW, he acted *with definite deliberation*. *Thats* how he let it " go that far "... by *his choice*. I am not sure what "definite deliberation" means here. If it means conscious decision, then yes, that is what he did.

Thats what it means: conscious awareness of one's choice.
Made, in this case, by his choice *not to say no and leave*.
His choice, his consequence. Yes, an unfortunate one.

No, a *selfish* one. Nothing " unfortunate " about it.
My point, in case it was lost, was that it's not necessary for a person to be unhappy in their marriage to do a foolish thing and ruin a good life.

Enabled lack of moral values makes many stupid actions far
more possible and likely. That doesn't mean that anyone need
feel an iota of sympathy for the immoral people who *allowed
themselves* to do such stupid things.

Its proper to point out stupidity so as to NOT encourage more
of it...

Shame, and shaming, is useful in accomplishing this. Parents
understand this point, when it comes to children, and that
there are proper levels and avenues for such shame. More
adults should understand it, too.

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

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:buuk9h$7f5$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com) writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:QayQb.142746$na.225974@attbi_s04... Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila. Bill and Andre don't like people who ask them to think. <yawn> Projection. Ad hom. Nothinig of substance. No argument. No position. No facts. IOW, nothing at all.

Yet, it compels you to respond. Must have something, then.

Andre Lieven wrote:
Enabled lack of moral values makes many stupid actions far more possible and likely. That doesn't mean that anyone need feel an iota of sympathy for the immoral people who *allowed themselves* to do such stupid things.

Well, as for feeling sympathy for anybody, I'd leave it to
people who know the person and are familiar with details
of their circumstances. Aside from that, since I wasn't making
any moral judgment of the case, I don't know whether you
are agreeing with, disagreeing with, challenging, or refuting
the point of my post, which was that people in happy marriages
can fall off track and cheat too. Therefore I don't know how
to respond to your post...

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why
not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.

If your kid was failing in college, Bill, do you feel like it would
accomplish "nothing" to explore the reasons why?

DrLith wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why
not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. If your kid was failing in college, Bill, do you feel like it would accomplish "nothing" to explore the reasons why?

I thought I explained it better in the other post. The point I was trying to
make is, that you can analyze why serial killers do what they do, and (I think)
that is indeed illuminating, BUT to (realistically) expect those findings to
prevent it, or excuse it (with a pat on the back) is totally naive. Do you
get the distinction?

Bill in Co. wrote: urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:8gmQb.24427$1e.14094@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... urf wrote:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why* they're>>>>>> bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know what to do ">>>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>>>> 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.>>>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just cheat>>> because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a simple way,>>> but the reality is more complex.>>>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug? If so,>> Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out there in>> "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating is perfectly>> understandable!>>>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly understandable,>> in YOUR mindset?>>>>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife? Yes I do. So what? Not all would. Then why the "liberal" comment? "Liberal" in the context of *standing for nothing*, and consequently, accepting everything.

Which, I might add, seems to be where Doug is at, for example. To me, this is
just another form of cowardice - not standing for anything. IOW, it's the
easy way out. And it's where we are today, since there really are few
standards (that anybody is held to) anymore. Personal responsibility is
becoming rarer to see these days.

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? S

I don't know -- to "fill emotional needs" I guess. The other thing I
can't understand is how people "fall in love and get engaged" through
chat and email. :)

amy

Ellie wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: 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. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic.

Yes, that's possible -- but why don't they just leave or do they need
some fantasy land to provide the unrealistic? Want their cake and eat
it, too?

amy

JWB wrote: "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com... "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place. Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act (I've thought this before)

This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned in
this group.

amy

Seeker wrote: In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be? I can -- in principle, anyway. Ted

NO.

amy

Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes:
JWB wrote: "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com... "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... > > If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not > try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? > But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. > > The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place. Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act (I've thought this before) This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned in this group.

Au contraire. Lots of people love simplistic explanations in this group!

But JWB didn't say simplistic. He said simple. If you think these
words mean the same thing, a trip to the dictionary is in order.

"JWB" (jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:buuk9h$7f5$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com) writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:QayQb.142746$na.225974@attbi_s04...>> Yes, it is. Though in my case insults from Bill, and Andre come so> thick and fast that I don't notice them anymore. Not so from Sheila. Bill and Andre don't like people who ask them to think. <yawn> Projection. Ad hom. Nothinig of substance. No argument. No position. No facts. IOW, nothing at all. Yet, it compels you to respond.

Bzt. Sorry, that was the wrong answer, as you failed to grasp
*choice*.

Thank you for posting, and collect your copy of the clueless home
game on your way out.
Must have something, then.

Yeah, pointing out the loons can be fun...

Andre


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

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: Enabled lack of moral values makes many stupid actions far more possible and likely. That doesn't mean that anyone need feel an iota of sympathy for the immoral people who *allowed themselves* to do such stupid things. Well, as for feeling sympathy for anybody, I'd leave it to people who know the person and are familiar with details of their circumstances. Aside from that, since I wasn't making any moral judgment of the case, I don't know whether you are agreeing with, disagreeing with, challenging, or refuting the point of my post, which was that people in happy marriages can fall off track and cheat too. Therefore I don't know how to respond to your post...

Well, *you're* the one who cut out all the context.

Not my problem...

Andre

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

Amy D (amykae@joimail.com) writes: Ellie wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: 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. It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic. Yes, that's possible -- but why don't they just leave or do they need some fantasy land to provide the unrealistic?

Sure. Love of drama, the thrill of danger, being totally uncaring
about any emotional carnage done to anyone else...

Loads of specific reasons, all stemming back to, their Life Values
are *different* in this area, from those of anyone who can't
understand why anyone would do such a thing.
Want their cake and eat it, too?

Yep. IOW, " me, me, me, its all about me, f#@* everyone else ! "

There ya go...

Andre


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

Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: JWB wrote: "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com... > > "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... > > > > If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why > not > > try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? > > But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. > > > > > > The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One cannot > solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the > vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once > that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place. > Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act (I've thought this before) This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned in this group. Au contraire. Lots of people love simplistic explanations in this group! But JWB didn't say simplistic. He said simple. If you think these words mean the same thing, a trip to the dictionary is in order.

I guess in my vocabulary they are interchangeable. I don't walk around
all day with a dictionary. "Simple" worked for many, many, many MORE
years than the new wave fad of thinking.

amy

Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: JWB wrote: "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com...>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...>>>> If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why>> not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at>> it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.>>>>>> The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One> cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software> development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem> to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls beautifully into> place.> Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot.
I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act (I've thought this before) This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned in this group. Au contraire. Lots of people love simplistic explanations in this group! But JWB didn't say simplistic. He said simple. If you think these words mean the same thing, a trip to the dictionary is in order.

Some people also try to make things more complicated than they are - that way,
they don't have to stand for anything. As I said, it's just a form of
cowardice.

Amy D wrote:
It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic. Yes, that's possible -- but why don't they just leave or do they need some fantasy land to provide the unrealistic?

Maybe. But not all cheatings are the same or for the same reason.
Why don't they "just leave"? I don't know. In the few cases that
I have observed the cheaters didn't plan or even predict
what they eventually got into. They didn't intend to break their
marriage. Yes, many times it's the natural consequence of their
action, but quite a few people think they can be discreet and not
be caught -- and they usually find out that they can't!!

Notice that the thread is about "why" people cheat. I am
not giving justification, just what I think to be one of the
reasons. So I agree with you that they "shouldn't" do it but
that is besides the point.
Want their cake and eat it, too?

Yes, I think that is a common thing though. Not only for
cheating, but generally most of us want to have our cake
and eat it in various situations. Whether we can manage
to do that is a different story!

"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message
news:401302F8.2438034@joimail.com... Seeker wrote: In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be? I can -- in principle, anyway. Ted NO.

Well, following up on the previously mentioned case where the cheated upon
spouse is in a permanent vegetative state - if he or she is relying on the
health insurance provided by the cheating spouse, and he or she would lose
that insurance coverage in the event of a divorce, then getting out of the
marriage might be worse than the cheating (which the disabled spouse in this
case wouldn't even know about)

Ellie wrote: Amy D wrote: It's also possible that what they want cannot be gotten from their marriage. Not that it justifies cheating, but the assumption that everything that one may desire can be provided within the marriage is unrealistic. Yes, that's possible -- but why don't they just leave or do they need some fantasy land to provide the unrealistic?

Because they like the security and they are spineless. (It's not rocket
science, ya know).

Joy wrote: "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:401302F8.2438034@joimail.com... Seeker wrote: In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:> Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be? I can -- in principle, anyway. Ted NO. Well, following up on the previously mentioned case where the cheated upon spouse is in a permanent vegetative state - if he or she is relying on the health insurance provided by the cheating spouse, and he or she would lose that insurance coverage in the event of a divorce, then getting out of the marriage might be worse than the cheating (which the disabled spouse in this case wouldn't even know about)

Who says he HAS to cheat in this situation? That was his choice - it is not
a "need". If he feels that strongly about it - thinks it is sufficient enough
of a need, then he ought to get divorced. IOW, either **** it on the pot, or
get off of the pot.

Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: JWB wrote: > > "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message > news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com... > > > > "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... > > > > > > > If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then > why > > not > > > try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at > it? > > > But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. > > > > > > > > > > The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One > cannot > > solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the > > vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once > > that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place. > > > > Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm > astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act > (I've thought this before) This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned in this group. Au contraire. Lots of people love simplistic explanations in this group! But JWB didn't say simplistic. He said simple. If you think these words mean the same thing, a trip to the dictionary is in order. I guess in my vocabulary they are interchangeable.

So when you don't know what a word means, you just make up a
definition for it? Wouldn't work in my circles, but if you are
content to misunderstand others and to be misunderstood, I guess
that's your right.
I don't walk around all day with a dictionary. "Simple" worked for many, many, many MORE years than the new wave fad of thinking.

"Simple" is fine. Einstein said "everything should be described as
simply as possible, but no more so." The point being not to fool
yourself by describing things as being simpler than they are.

Yeah, I hate this new wave fad of thinking. We should go back to the
non-thinking days.

Brian <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> writes:

Hey Brian;
There were some good posts in the thread you abandoned (as
well as some stupid ones). You might go back and read it on
google if you haven't read it.

Doug wrote: Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ peoplecheat.Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about howpeople who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excusespeople make.

Doug, I generally try to avoid addressing you directly, but I rather feel that
I must do so this time.

Threads evolve. I have seen threads travel through a myriad of mutations,
ranging far, far away from the beginning question. So have you. I resent the
suggestion that, because I participated in one such mutation, that I am
*trying* to turn this discussion into anything at all. It is a logical step
from "Why does this happen?" to "What is the fallout from examining why this
happens?", at least in my mind. That you don't like the train of thought,
well..... I'm sorry about that, but that is your problem, not mine.

Sheila

Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes:> JWB wrote:>>>> "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message>> news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com...>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message>>> news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...>>>>>>>>>> If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then>>>> why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while>>>> you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One>>> cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software>>> development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem>>> to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls beautifully into>>> place.>>>>>>> Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot.>> I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an>> act (I've thought this before)>> This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned in> this group. Au contraire. Lots of people love simplistic explanations in this group! But JWB didn't say simplistic. He said simple. If you think these words mean the same thing, a trip to the dictionary is in order. I guess in my vocabulary they are interchangeable. So when you don't know what a word means, you just make up a definition for it? Wouldn't work in my circles, but if you are content to misunderstand others and to be misunderstood, I guess that's your right. I don't walk around all day with a dictionary. "Simple" worked for many, many, many MORE years than the new wave fad of thinking. "Simple" is fine. Einstein said "everything should be described as simply as possible, but no more so." The point being not to fool yourself by describing things as being simpler than they are.

The point is also to *stand for something*, and have some standards and
*convictions*. (Look it up in a dictionary, if you think it might register).

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:L1GQb.25431$1e.17519@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote:>> Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes:>>> JWB wrote:>>>>>> "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in
message>>> news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com...>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message>>>> news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes",
then>>>>> why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims,
while>>>>> you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem.
One>>>> cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software>>>> development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the
problem>>>> to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls beautifully
into>>>> place.>>>>>>>>>> Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to
boot.>>> I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all
an>>> act (I've thought this before)>>>> This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned in>> this group.>> Au contraire. Lots of people love simplistic explanations in this
group!>> But JWB didn't say simplistic. He said simple. If you think these> words mean the same thing, a trip to the dictionary is in order. I guess in my vocabulary they are interchangeable. So when you don't know what a word means, you just make up a definition for it? Wouldn't work in my circles, but if you are content to misunderstand others and to be misunderstood, I guess that's your right. I don't walk around all day with a dictionary. "Simple" worked for many, many, many MORE years than the new wave fad of thinking. "Simple" is fine. Einstein said "everything should be described as simply as possible, but no more so." The point being not to fool yourself by describing things as being simpler than they are. The point is also to *stand for something*, and have some standards and *convictions*. (Look it up in a dictionary, if you think it might
register).

so how does that fit into this conversation?

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
Doug wrote: Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ peoplecheat.Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about howpeople who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excusespeople make. Doug, I generally try to avoid addressing you directly, but I rather feel that I must do so this time.

Why? And why do you need to address me directly in such an insulting
way if you are going to do it at all?
Threads evolve. I have seen threads travel through a myriad of mutations, ranging far, far away from the beginning question. So have you. I resent the suggestion that, because I participated in one such mutation, that I am *trying* to turn this discussion into anything at all.

Google is your friend (though I know you aren't the sort of person who
believes that the message is formed by the actual _words_ in it; that
is left for the literal minded drones like me).

Doug Anderson wrote: whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes: Doug wrote: Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ people cheat. Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about how people who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excuses people make. Doug, I generally try to avoid addressing you directly, but I rather feel that I must do so this time. Why? And why do you need to address me directly in such an insulting way if you are going to do it at all?

Oh, give it a rest already, Doug. You do it yourself. Talking about living
in "la la land"!
You just do it more "discreetly", but you certainly do it, and most can see
right thru it. Just like using obfuscations and "redefinitions" to cover up
a lack of stance on principles.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:23:07 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> writes:Hey Brian; There were some good posts in the thread you abandoned (as well as some stupid ones). You might go back and read it on google if you haven't read it.


Doug --

I actually did read the posts. I contemplated coming back and I guess
I decided to for now. I simply find I spend more time on here
defending my actions then really discussing the problem. People are
so quick to attack one another. It kind of tears at you after awhile.

--Brian

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:04:02 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:
Doug Anderson wrote: whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes: Doug wrote:> Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ people> cheat.>> Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about how> people who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excuses> people make. Doug, I generally try to avoid addressing you directly, but I rather feel that I must do so this time. Why? And why do you need to address me directly in such an insulting way if you are going to do it at all?Oh, give it a rest already, Doug. You do it yourself. Talking about livingin "la la land"!You just do it more "discreetly", but you certainly do it, and most can seeright thru it. Just like using obfuscations and "redefinitions" to cover upa lack of stance on principles.

At least he doesn't stand there with his arms folded, blaming the
world for all of it's unpleasantness. That's all you've done since
I've come on here. "The people of today's generation..." It's all the
same crap with you. I've gotta say, you must have really gotten
screwed over in the past. You're so bitter.

--Brian

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KuFQb.25393$1e.3459@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Joy wrote: "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:401302F8.2438034@joimail.com... Seeker wrote:>> In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>,> Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:>>> Then you FIRST get out of the marriage.>> Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage> would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be? I> can -- in principle, anyway.>> Ted NO. Well, following up on the previously mentioned case where the cheated
upon spouse is in a permanent vegetative state - if he or she is relying on
the health insurance provided by the cheating spouse, and he or she would
lose that insurance coverage in the event of a divorce, then getting out of
the marriage might be worse than the cheating (which the disabled spouse in
this case wouldn't even know about) Who says he HAS to cheat in this situation? That was his choice - it is
not a "need". If he feels that strongly about it - thinks it is sufficient
enough of a need, then he ought to get divorced. IOW, either **** it on the
pot, or get off of the pot.

I didn't say he HAD to cheat. The question I was addressing is whether or
not there could be circumstances where getting out of the marriage would be
worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be. I think the
scenario I mentioned was one. It didn't address the morality of cheating or
not cheating, only a specific situation in which it would be worse for the
cheated on spouse to get out of the marriage.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:21:01 -0500, "Joy"
<fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:
"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:KuFQb.25393$1e.3459@newsread2.news.pas .earthlink.net... Joy wrote: "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:401302F8.2438034@joimail.com...>>> Seeker wrote:>>>> In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>,>> Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:>>>>> Then you FIRST get out of the marriage.>>>> Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage>> would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be? I>> can -- in principle, anyway.>>>> Ted>> NO. Well, following up on the previously mentioned case where the cheatedupon spouse is in a permanent vegetative state - if he or she is relying onthe health insurance provided by the cheating spouse, and he or she wouldlose that insurance coverage in the event of a divorce, then getting out ofthe marriage might be worse than the cheating (which the disabled spouse inthis case wouldn't even know about) Who says he HAS to cheat in this situation? That was his choice - it isnot a "need". If he feels that strongly about it - thinks it is sufficientenough of a need, then he ought to get divorced. IOW, either **** it on thepot, or get off of the pot.I didn't say he HAD to cheat. The question I was addressing is whether ornot there could be circumstances where getting out of the marriage would beworse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be. I think thescenario I mentioned was one. It didn't address the morality of cheating ornot cheating, only a specific situation in which it would be worse for thecheated on spouse to get out of the marriage.
I don't think any two situations are alike so really, what's the
point? I don't think too many people sit down one day and decide,
"what the hell, I'm going to go screw someone else." As I said in a
previous post, for me, it was quite gradual. In fact, it started out
as 15 minute breaks together over a few month period of time, then
lunches, and then finally an after work thing with a group of people.
About a year later, we were going to the movies and sitting in the car
listening to music. At the time, I was simply enjoying the fact that
someone wanted to actually talk to me. I had no idea what it would
lead to or how it would affect my marriage. I honestly didn't think I
had much of a marriage left so if I'm being perfectly honest, I didn't
care.

--Brian

"Brian" <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:csn6101ebcb3mappbngqij4k8sq77e2ipr@4ax.com...
JWB -- You're not making any sense. If we had intimacy problems before the affair, then why the hell focus on what happened afterwards?


Because it matters a lot.


I've never ignored my responsibility in all of it, but my wife and I sat down and decided to give our marriage a 2nd try. This was not something I decided or she decided alone. This was done together and also in front of a counselor.


That's good to hear.


That means we both bring to the table the things we want worked on and go from there. I have done my part in this and all I'm asking is that my wife does the same. To be honest I told my wife about this group and the discussions that take place. I even went as far as telling her about my recent post and the attacks that followed.


I don't think anyone "attacked" you, Brian. I don't think you like what I
and a few others had to say, but I doubt you can show me a mean spirited
"attack".


We were laying in bed at the time and I asked her if she though her lack of interest had anything to do with what happened a year ago. She seemed very genuine in her answer which was "no, I don't feel any different towards you then I did before so that's not it."

Good. That helps. But she had a lack of interest before that. I knew that.
What I was saying that her lack of interest in "finding a solution" might
lay in the affair (and maybe not).

I'm glad you came back.

Ignore my other postings to Doug about this issue - pure speculation written
before I read this.

"JWB" <jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:UpJQb.259518$0P1.92087@twister.nyc.rr.com...
but Brian wasn't coming to ASM and going to counseling before the affair - that is clear.

answering myself because I am incorrect on the above. At least the ASM part.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:37:43 GMT, "JWB" <jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com>
wrote:
"Brian" <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:csn6101ebcb3mappbngqij4k8sq77e2ipr@4ax .com...I don't think anyone "attacked" you, Brian. I don't think you like what Iand a few others had to say, but I doubt you can show me a mean spirited"attack".

Oh no? I remember one thread quite well. Back around July, maybe
June, I asked if anyone had ever thought about divorcing while their
spouse was pregnant. Well holy **** it started. People treated me
like some kind of monster. Bill could hardly believe his eyes and in
fact, ever since then, added little lines here and there about "at
least I'm not the one thinking about leaving my pregnant wife." When
in reality, it was a conversation that my wife and I had together. We
talked about separating because it had gotten THAT bad. I had
basically asked if anyone else here had gone through that and because
of my question, I had to endure several days of attacks. So yes, I
feel that because I have displayed a temper in the past, that has
jaded how everyone views me around here.

I do have a temper. That's painfully obvious. It's something that
I've struggled with my whole life. I've never hit anyone over it,
never lost a job, and never lost a friend. But still, it's something
serious that I do try to control, more so now that I have two young
children. It's something that I've even talked to my counselor about.
But you'll have to forgive me if I let loose occasionally through
Usenet. When I first came on here, I didn't really care who I
offended and who I didn't. I had no idea I'd still be here a year
later talking to the same people. You see, I had never spent that much
time on the newsgroups, especially not one bedded with such delicate
material. Is this making any sense? I see now that relationships form
on here and people say...for a LONG period of time. If I had known
that, if I had been previously exposed to that, then perhaps things
would have been different.

--Brian

..I'm glad you came back.

For what it's worth, I'm glad I decided to leave too.

--Brian

Brian <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> writes:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:04:02 GMT, "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:Doug Anderson wrote: whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:> Doug wrote:>> Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ people>> cheat.>>>> Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about how>> people who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excuses>> people make.>> Doug, I generally try to avoid addressing you directly, but I rather feel> that I must do so this time. Why? And why do you need to address me directly in such an insulting way if you are going to do it at all?Oh, give it a rest already, Doug. You do it yourself. Talking about livingin "la la land"!You just do it more "discreetly", but you certainly do it, and most can seeright thru it. Just like using obfuscations and "redefinitions" to cover upa lack of stance on principles. At least he doesn't stand there with his arms folded, blaming the world for all of it's unpleasantness. That's all you've done since I've come on here. "The people of today's generation..." It's all the same crap with you. I've gotta say, you must have really gotten screwed over in the past. You're so bitter.

I think this must be what Bill means by "standing for something."

Although I'm not sure if he really means to be standing for lynch mobs
and teen pregnancy.

JWB <jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com> wrote: Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act (I've thought this before)

It's not uncommon for relatively intelligent people in real life to use
venues like USENET to blow off steam; they'll occasionally sound otherwise
uncharacteristically like idiots in the process.

This is especially when it comes to contentious subjects like morality and
politics.

"Brian" <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kin610hmeetp3hlf578vjheauiu6b908lm@4ax.com... On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:23:07 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:Brian <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> writes:Hey Brian; There were some good posts in the thread you abandoned (as well as some stupid ones). You might go back and read it on google if you haven't read it. Doug -- I actually did read the posts. I contemplated coming back and I guess I decided to for now. I simply find I spend more time on here defending my actions then really discussing the problem. People are so quick to attack one another. It kind of tears at you after awhile. --Brian

A suggestion about defending your actions... Don't. Take from the folks who
have meaningful info to give and just ignore the rest. Nothing says you have
to answer.

Just a thought.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4KFQb.14926$U%5.99379@attbi_s03... Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: > JWB wrote: > > > > "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in
message > > news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com... > > > > > > "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > > news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... > > > > > > > > > > If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable
causes", then > > why > > > not > > > > try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while
you're at > > it? > > > > But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution to every problem is an understanding of the
problem. One > > cannot > > > solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software
development, the > > > vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be
solved. Once > > > that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place. > > > > > > > Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to
boot. I'm > > astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all
an act > > (I've thought this before) > > This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned
in > this group. Au contraire. Lots of people love simplistic explanations in this
group! But JWB didn't say simplistic. He said simple. If you think these words mean the same thing, a trip to the dictionary is in order. I guess in my vocabulary they are interchangeable. So when you don't know what a word means, you just make up a definition for it? Wouldn't work in my circles, but if you are content to misunderstand others and to be misunderstood, I guess that's your right.

There is a woman at work who does this.Makes me nuts. "To me, project
management means..." Instead of having a discussion on how to improve
project management practices, we wind up debating the meaning of the term.
And she is my boss. Makes me truly wacky.
I don't walk around all day with a dictionary. "Simple" worked for many, many, many MORE years than the new wave fad of thinking. "Simple" is fine. Einstein said "everything should be described as simply as possible, but no more so." The point being not to fool yourself by describing things as being simpler than they are. Yeah, I hate this new wave fad of thinking. We should go back to the non-thinking days.

>> Doug wrote: Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ peoplecheat.Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about howpeople who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excusespeople make. Doug, I generally try to avoid addressing you directly, but I rather feelthat I must do so this time.Why? And why do you need to address me directly in such an insultingway if you are going to do it at all?

Doug, your insistence that people who hold a different opinion than yours must
either (a) not have all the information, or (b) not have comprehended what they
read or (c) are generally stupid, is insulting. *This* is why I don't discuss
anything with you. You will not allow for the possibility that I look at the
same information and come to different conclusions, interpret things
differently.

You know what? We can look at the same body of evidence, know all the same
information, and be exactly as smart as one another, and come to different
conclusions. Yes! It is possible! Because we can start off with different
assumptions about what the goals should be and we can place different levels of
importance on different pieces of information. Yet, whenever I disagree with
you, your first response is that I didn't read correctly. Your second is that
I shouldn't draw *this* conclusion from what I read. And, I'm done with that
condescension.
Threads evolve. I have seen threads travel through a myriad of mutations, ranging far, far away from the beginning question. So have you. I resentthe suggestion that, because I participated in one such mutation, that I am *trying* to turn this discussion into anything at all.Google is your friend (though I know you aren't the sort of person whobelieves that the message is formed by the actual _words_ in it; thatis left for the literal minded drones like me).

What do I need to Google? I'm saying that one branch of this thread has/had
gone in the direction of "What do we do with the answer to 'Why do people
cheat', when we have it?", and that is par for the course on Usenet. If you
don't want to participate in that branch of the conversation, don't! But, if
others do, that is entirely up to them.

Sheila

"JWB" <jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<XuJQb.259519$0P1.165841@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
Good. That helps. But she had a lack of interest before that. I knew that. What I was saying that her lack of interest in "finding a solution" might lay in the affair (and maybe not).

Yes, the affair would be quite an understandable excuse for Brian's
wife to walk away right now and not try to find a solution. But she's
not doing that, is she? She is continuing on with counseling.

jen

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
Doug wrote: > Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ people >cheat. > >Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about how >people who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excuses >people make. Doug, I generally try to avoid addressing you directly, but I rather feelthat I must do so this time.Why? And why do you need to address me directly in such an insultingway if you are going to do it at all? Doug, your insistence that people who hold a different opinion than yours must either (a) not have all the information, or (b) not have comprehended what they read or (c) are generally stupid, is insulting.

But that insistence is in your imagination. On the other hand, this
being USENET, I feel free to ask people what they base their opinions
on, and to dispute with them if their information seems inaccurate.
*This* is why I don't discuss anything with you.

If you believe that you've accurately described me above, I don't
understand why you felt you needed to make an exception to your policy
of not responding to my posts.
You will not allow for the possibility that I look at the same information and come to different conclusions, interpret things differently.

Nonsense, of course I do. But when you explicitly base your
disagreement with me on something I haven't said, I will point that
out. You don't generally like that much.
You know what? We can look at the same body of evidence, know all the same information, and be exactly as smart as one another, and come to different conclusions. Yes! It is possible! Because we can start off with different assumptions about what the goals should be and we can place different levels of importance on different pieces of information. Yet, whenever I disagree with you, your first response is that I didn't read correctly.

Although you may disagree with me because we hold different opinions,
it has often been true that you disagree with something I never said.
Your second is that I shouldn't draw *this* conclusion from what I read. And, I'm done with that condescension. Threads evolve. I have seen threads travel through a myriad of mutations, ranging far, far away from the beginning question. So have you. I resentthe suggestion that, because I participated in one such mutation, that I am *trying* to turn this discussion into anything at all.Google is your friend (though I know you aren't the sort of person whobelieves that the message is formed by the actual _words_ in it; thatis left for the literal minded drones like me). What do I need to Google? I'm saying that one branch of this thread has/had gone in the direction of "What do we do with the answer to 'Why do people cheat', when we have it?"

I've missed that branch. I've seen two branches:

branch 1: why do people cheat.

branch 2: responses to the effect that "anyone who tries to answer
branch 1 is offering excuses."

Branch 2 is insulting to the people participating in branch 1.

If you could point out any posts on "what do we do with the answer,"
I'd like to see them.
, and that is par for the course on Usenet. If you don't want to participate in that branch of the conversation, don't! But, if others do, that is entirely up to them.

Indeed. So then what it is you resent about my post which you replied
insultingly to? I've made no attempt to keep people from
participating in the "those who look for reasons why people who cheat
are offering excuses" branch. In fact how could I?

>> >> Doug, I generally try to avoid addressing you directly, but I ratherfeelthat> I must do so this time.Why? And why do you need to address me directly in such an insultingway if you are going to do it at all? Doug, your insistence that people who hold a different opinion than yoursmust either (a) not have all the information, or (b) not have comprehended whatthey read or (c) are generally stupid, is insulting.But that insistence is in your imagination. On the other hand, thisbeing USENET, I feel free to ask people what they base their opinionson, and to dispute with them if their information seems inaccurate. *This* is why I don't discuss anything with you.If you believe that you've accurately described me above, I don'tunderstand why you felt you needed to make an exception to your policyof not responding to my posts. You will not allow for the possibility that I look at the same information and come to different conclusions, interpret things differently.Nonsense, of course I do. But when you explicitly base yourdisagreement with me on something I haven't said, I will point thatout. You don't generally like that much. You know what? We can look at the same body of evidence, know all the same information, and be exactly as smart as one another, and come to different conclusions. Yes! It is possible! Because we can start off withdifferent assumptions about what the goals should be and we can place differentlevels of importance on different pieces of information. Yet, whenever I disagreewith you, your first response is that I didn't read correctly.Although you may disagree with me because we hold different opinions,it has often been true that you disagree with something I never said. Your second is that I shouldn't draw *this* conclusion from what I read. And, I'm done withthat condescension.> Threads evolve. I have seen threads travel through a myriad ofmutations,> ranging far, far away from the beginning question. So have you. Iresentthe> suggestion that, because I participated in one such mutation, that I am> *trying* to turn this discussion into anything at all.Google is your friend (though I know you aren't the sort of person whobelieves that the message is formed by the actual _words_ in it; thatis left for the literal minded drones like me). What do I need to Google? I'm saying that one branch of this threadhas/had gone in the direction of "What do we do with the answer to 'Why do people cheat', when we have it?"I've missed that branch. I've seen two branches:branch 1: why do people cheat.branch 2: responses to the effect that "anyone who tries to answer branch 1 is offering excuses."Branch 2 is insulting to the people participating in branch 1.If you could point out any posts on "what do we do with the answer,"I'd like to see them., and that is par for the course on Usenet. If you don't want to participate in that branch of the conversation, don't! But,if others do, that is entirely up to them.Indeed. So then what it is you resent about my post which you repliedinsultingly to? I've made no attempt to keep people fromparticipating in the "those who look for reasons why people who cheatare offering excuses" branch. In fact how could I?

And, here we go round in circles.... again.

I'm done!

Sheila

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
And, here we go round in circles.... again. I'm done!

OK. But don't blame me for starting the merry-go-round this time.

Doug Anderson wrote:
I know I will get a lot of heat for this, but I find it hypocritical that people who condemn affairs as the worst offense against marriage have no problem saying "just leave first". Talk about taking divorce lightly!! There are many people who have been able to pull their marriage back together after an affair, so obviously THEY wouldn't have thought that their spouse should've left instead of stray. And I am sure there are many others who would feel much more devastated by the announcement that their spouse is leaving them for good, than hearing that they've been cheated on. Well, I don't know if hypocritical is the right word.

Maybe it isn't. I was using it referring to those who supposedly
take the marriage vows very seriously, and condemn affairs
as breaking the "vow of fidelity" in, and yet have no
problem saying break all the vows and leave instead!

>whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes: And, here we go round in circles.... again. I'm done!OK. But don't blame me for starting the merry-go-round this time.

Doug, I find this amusing. You have both (1) addressed me with specific
challenges (not questions, I'd like to point out, challenges, in an adversarial
tone) in this thread AND (2) spoken about me in the third person in derogatory
terms in this thread.

I defy you to find a time that I have *ever* done the second to/about you in
the third person as you do to me with some regularity. It is frankly, quite
rude. And, yes, it is a way of starting the merry-go-round.

You may also note that I do not address you directly. I don't like interacting
with you. I find your tone offensive when you address me. Still, you persist,
not only addressing the substance of my post, but asking questions that only
*I* can answer. I can't stop you from doing that, but, please do not suggest
that you aren't pushing this merry-go-round as hard as you can when you do it.

Sheila

>I defy you to find a time that I have *ever* done the second to/about you inthe third person as you do to me with some regularity.

That was supposed to be:

"I defy you to find a time that I have *ever* done the second to you, i.e.,
spoken to/about you in the third person in a negative way, as you do to me
with some regularity."

I thought I cut and pasted, but I guess I just cut!

Sheila

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes: And, here we go round in circles.... again. I'm done!OK. But don't blame me for starting the merry-go-round this time. Doug, I find this amusing. You have both (1) addressed me with specific challenges (not questions, I'd like to point out, challenges, in an adversarial tone) in this thread AND (2) spoken about me in the third person in derogatory terms in this thread.

I thought you were done!

Well, if I did any of this, it was _after_ you attacked me.

Since we're on the subject of hypocrisy; you accuse me of saying that
you can't read, and yet a few months ago after agreeing we were going
to stop attacking each other, you (unprovoked) referred to me as a
functional illiterate (someone who can read the words, but not get the
overall meaning).


You are continually hostile towards me, but take no responsibility for
that and blame the hostility completely on me.
I defy you to find a time that I have *ever* done the second to/about you in the third person as you do to me with some regularity.

I don't do this to you at all, let alone with regularity.

As far as a time you did it to me, I refer you to where you called me
a functional illiterate.
It is frankly, quite rude.

It is, yes. And you do it.
And, yes, it is a way of starting the merry-go-round.

And when you called me a functional illiterate, I refused to get on
that merry-go-round that time.
You may also note that I do not address you directly.

But you've chosen to do that now.
I don't like interacting with you. I find your tone offensive when you address me.

Likewise, especially when you are attacking me.
Still, you persist, not only addressing the substance of my post, but asking questions that only *I* can answer.

Again, you started this merry-go-round. I didn't start addressing you.

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
I defy you to find a time that I have *ever* done the second to/about you inthe third person as you do to me with some regularity. That was supposed to be: "I defy you to find a time that I have *ever* done the second to you, i.e., spoken to/about you in the third person in a negative way, as you do to me with some regularity."

OK. I've already done it. If you don't find what I said sufficient,
I can go get the exact quote from google.

>I actually did read the posts. I contemplated comingback and I guess I decided to for now. I simply findI spend more time on here defending my actions thenreally discussing the problem.

Then stop defending your actions, Brian. Reply to the
ones that you feel are only addressing the issues you
have raised and ignore the others.

Tracey

>Well, if I did any of this, it was _after_ you attacked me.Since we're on the subject of hypocrisy; you accuse me of saying thatyou can't read, and yet a few months ago after agreeing we were goingto stop attacking each other, you (unprovoked) referred to me as afunctional illiterate (someone who can read the words, but not get theoverall meaning).

No. I said that people hear things with different ears. In fact, I
specifically said, at one point, that neither was better or worse, but that
people talking in one language and people hearing in another was going to cause
problems.
You are continually hostile towards me, but take no responsibility forthat and blame the hostility completely on me. I defy you to find a time that I have *ever* done the second to/about youin the third person as you do to me with some regularity.I don't do this to you at all, let alone with regularity.

Doug wrote:
Bizarre. Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ people
cheat.

Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about how
people who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excuses
people make. No one can stop you. But that isn't how this thread
started, and it isn't the thread that most of us are contributing to.>>>

This is an insulting and derogatory tone, IMO, and I wasn't even talking to you
at this point!!

What I don't understand is *why* you persist on addressing me at all, either
directly, or talking about me? I'd be PERFECTLY happy if we agreed not to talk
to or about one another. I've tried that unilaterally, but it didn't work. Is
that something we can agree to?

Sheila

>>Since we're on the subject of hypocrisy; you accuse me of saying thatyou can't read, and yet a few months ago after agreeing we were goingto stop attacking each other, you (unprovoked) referred to me as afunctional illiterate (someone who can read the words, but not get theoverall meaning).

Piggybacking: actually, the agreement was that if either of us felt that
something the other said was hostile, we were supposed to ask if it was meant
that way. I guess you didn't.

I didn't either (in this thread), but it would seem that, now that you are
bringing up this months-old thread, that you have been smoldering with this
hostility for a while. I've noticed it in other threads, in the way you
"confront" me. I've ignored it to this point. I should have asked, I guess,
about this one, but after watching this happen over the last few months ( I
would assume that it being borne of the fact that you *thought* I called you a
"functional idiot"), I guess I didn't care anymore.

Sheila

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Doug Anderson wrote: I know I will get a lot of heat for this, but I find it hypocritical that people who condemn affairs as the worst offense against marriage have no problem saying "just leave first". Talk about taking divorce lightly!! There are many people who have been able to pull their marriage back together after an affair, so obviously THEY wouldn't have thought that their spouse should've left instead of stray. And I am sure there are many others who would feel much more devastated by the announcement that their spouse is leaving them for good, than hearing that they've been cheated on. Well, I don't know if hypocritical is the right word. Maybe it isn't. I was using it referring to those who supposedly take the marriage vows very seriously, and condemn affairs as breaking the "vow of fidelity" in, and yet have no problem saying break all the vows and leave instead!

Because you've MS-ed the *context* of, if one is intent on breaking
their marital vows anyway, one might as well be honest about that
*intent*, and make it official.

Why do so many people have a problem with the concept that marriage
means " no more dating " ?

Andre



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

"Brian" <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kop610p91nfef3i5uee67gif919vshotml@4ax.com... On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:37:43 GMT, "JWB" <jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com> wrote:"Brian" <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:csn6101ebcb3mappbngqij4k8sq77e2ipr@4ax .com...I don't think anyone "attacked" you, Brian. I don't think you like what Iand a few others had to say, but I doubt you can show me a mean spirited"attack". Oh no? I remember one thread quite well. Back around July, maybe June,


I was talking about the recent thread. You left because you felt attacked.


I asked if anyone had ever thought about divorcing while their spouse was pregnant. Well holy **** it started. People treated me like some kind of monster. Bill could hardly believe his eyes and in fact, ever since then, added little lines here and there about "at least I'm not the one thinking about leaving my pregnant wife." When in reality, it was a conversation that my wife and I had together. We talked about separating because it had gotten THAT bad. I had basically asked if anyone else here had gone through that and because of my question, I had to endure several days of attacks. So yes, I feel that because I have displayed a temper in the past, that has jaded how everyone views me around here. I do have a temper. That's painfully obvious. It's something that I've struggled with my whole life. I've never hit anyone over it, never lost a job, and never lost a friend. But still, it's something serious that I do try to control, more so now that I have two young children. It's something that I've even talked to my counselor about. But you'll have to forgive me if I let loose occasionally through Usenet. When I first came on here, I didn't really care who I offended and who I didn't. I had no idea I'd still be here a year later talking to the same people. You see, I had never spent that much time on the newsgroups, especially not one bedded with such delicate material. Is this making any sense? I see now that relationships form on here and people say...for a LONG period of time. If I had known that, if I had been previously exposed to that, then perhaps things would have been different.

I used to have a temper too. I can't tell you what I did to fix it, but I
have.

Well, one thing that does help is I excersize. I'm on a treadmill every day,
I lift weights, and hit a heavy bag I hung up in the garage. I have found my
inner stress has gone way down since I started excersizing regularly (and
I've gotten a lot stronger).

JWB

"Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:178ce1-22n.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... JWB <jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com> wrote: Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act (I've thought this before) It's not uncommon for relatively intelligent people in real life to use venues like USENET to blow off steam; they'll occasionally sound otherwise uncharacteristically like idiots in the process. This is especially when it comes to contentious subjects like morality and politics.

Good point.

WhansaMi wrote: Doug wrote:> Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ people> cheat.>> Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about how> people who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excuses> people make. Doug, I generally try to avoid addressing you directly, but I rather feel that I must do so this time. Why? And why do you need to address me directly in such an insulting way if you are going to do it at all? Doug, your insistence that people who hold a different opinion than yours
must either (a) not have all the information, or (b) not have comprehended what they read or (c) are generally stupid, is insulting. *This* is why I don't discuss anything with you. You will not allow for the possibility that I look at the same information and come to different conclusions, interpret things differently. You know what? We can look at the same body of evidence, know all the same information, and be exactly as smart as one another, and come to different conclusions. Yes! It is possible! Because we can start off with different assumptions about what the goals should be and we can place different levels of importance on different pieces of information. Yet, whenever I disagree with you, your first response is that I didn't read correctly. Your second is that I shouldn't draw *this* conclusion from what I read. And, I'm done with that condescension.

Exactly so. You have a way of stating things so eloquently, and yet directly,
Sheila.

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
Well, if I did any of this, it was _after_ you attacked me.Since we're on the subject of hypocrisy; you accuse me of saying thatyou can't read, and yet a few months ago after agreeing we were goingto stop attacking each other, you (unprovoked) referred to me as afunctional illiterate (someone who can read the words, but not get theoverall meaning). No. I said that people hear things with different ears. In fact, I specifically said, at one point, that neither was better or worse, but that people talking in one language and people hearing in another was going to cause problems.

Look. I can't believe you really want to do this. But here it is
where claim that I say that you can't read when we disagree:

Sheila:
Doug, your insistence that people who hold a different opinion than yours must either (a) not have all the information, or (b) not have comprehended what they read or (c) are generally stupid, is insulting.

And here is where you claim that I'm a functional illiterate:
there are people whose communication style is more global/conceptual and those whose communication style is more prone to focussing on the individual words. Yours (Goober -- and mine) seems to be more of the former; Doug's tends to be more of the latter.

So much for "I defy you ..."
You are continually hostile towards me, but take no responsibility forthat and blame the hostility completely on me. I defy you to find a time that I have *ever* done the second to/about youin the third person as you do to me with some regularity.I don't do this to you at all, let alone with regularity. Doug wrote:>Bizarre. Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ people cheat.

You quote this comment, not directed to you, out of context. This was
in a response to _Andre_, not to you. You claim that I referred to
you in a derogatory way 6 times. I don't believe I had done it even
one time before you started attacking me. I don't believe I've done
it since either, but I've been less temperate after you attacked me,
so I'm not 100% sure. I am sure about before; I went and re-read my
posts.
Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about how people who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excuses people make. No one can stop you. But that isn't how this thread started, and it isn't the thread that most of us are contributing to.>>> This is an insulting and derogatory tone,

I'm sorry you see it that way. I see it as a statment of fact. I
guess this is an example of how two different people can read the same
thing differently. Nevertheless, the "you" and the whole comment was
in a response to Andre. And certainly my tone with him wasn't
over-friendly, but that isn't so surprising since every second word he
writes in response to my posts is an insult.

That _is_ the topic that you were contributing to, and as Ellie
pointed out (and you agreed) it is insulting to the rest of us to have
you (and Bill and Andre) respond to posts about _why_ as if they are
posts about _excuses_).
IMO, and I wasn't even talking to you at this point!!

There is email for private communications.

In that particular communication you implied that people were using
the "why" in order to make excuses. You agreed that you had done this
(to Ellie) and apologized for jumping the gun.
What I don't understand is *why* you persist on addressing me at all, either directly, or talking about me? I'd be PERFECTLY happy if we agreed not to talk to or about one another. I've tried that unilaterally, but it didn't work. Is that something we can agree to?

If you want me to agree not to respond to things you've posted in
threads I am interested in, I won't agree to that. If it is important
to you that I not use your name, I can probably agree to that. It's
sort of like parliamentary procedure. There are various
circumlocutions like "the poster to whom I'm responding" and so on.
Is it OK if my newsreader quotes your name when I quote you?

I will agree to not attacking you, and I haven't. You decided to
attack me in this thread. I won't agree to not responding when you attack.

[And for the record, I responded very temperately when you
called me a functional illiterate (though you ignored my response to
your 3rd person disparaging remarks about me)].

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
Since we're on the subject of hypocrisy; you accuse me of saying thatyou can't read, and yet a few months ago after agreeing we were goingto stop attacking each other, you (unprovoked) referred to me as afunctional illiterate (someone who can read the words, but not get theoverall meaning). Piggybacking: actually, the agreement was that if either of us felt that something the other said was hostile, we were supposed to ask if it was meant that way. I guess you didn't.

The issue for me that time wasn't whether it was hostile or not. It
was simply insulting. But I decided to just roll with it.
I didn't either (in this thread), but it would seem that, now that you are bringing up this months-old thread, that you have been smoldering with this hostility for a while.

No, I haven't. But after metaphorically turning the other cheek in
that case, I didn't feel like rolling over when you attacked me this
time.

And then you "defied" me to find an example of a 3rd person
disparaging remark you'd made about me, so it was a natural one to
bring up.

Does the fact that I found such an example mean that I've been
smoldering with it?

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0401250545.7e12a0c0@posting.google.c om...
If she is going to stay, she is going to have to get over the affair eventually. That's a given. It seems she's made that choice so far. So why can't this group put it in that perspective?

I agree. Hopefully, from what Brian recently said, she's not viewing the
affair as a reason for continued strain. I'll drop that angle based on what
he said.

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: I know I will get a lot of heat for this, but I find it hypocritical that people who condemn affairs as the worst offense against marriage have no problem saying "just leave first". Talk about taking divorce lightly!! There are many people who have been able to pull their marriage back together after an affair, so obviously THEY wouldn't have thought that their spouse should've left instead of stray. And I am sure there are many others who would feel much more devastated by the announcement that their spouse is leaving them for good, than hearing that they've been cheated on. Well, I don't know if hypocritical is the right word. Maybe it isn't. I was using it referring to those who supposedly take the marriage vows very seriously, and condemn affairs as breaking the "vow of fidelity" in, and yet have no problem saying break all the vows and leave instead!

Yes, I see. Maybe the attitude one has is related to how one feels
about marriage. You could look at it like a beautiful rigid crystal.
One false move, and it shatters irretrievably.

Or you could look at it like a sturdy tree. You don't want bad things
to happen to it, but if car runs into it, or if the gypsy moths are
particularly bad one year, it may have the strenth to survive and
recover.


Part of it also has to do with the fact that people have affairs for
different reasons. Some do it because they are done with the marriage
and have given up. For people in that category, it would have shown
more integrity if they had told their spouse "I'm done with the
marriage and want to leave." And this still gives the opportunity to
try to fix the marriage before the damage of the affair is done.

But there are other cases I know about where people have had affairs
with no intention of leaving their marriage, and the marriage has
survived. Should they have had the affairs? Probably not (at least
not without the permission of their spouse). But they shouldn't
necessarily have gotten divorced first either.

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4013E7CC.1320013F@hotmail.com>... Doug Anderson wrote: I know I will get a lot of heat for this, but I find it hypocritical that people who condemn affairs as the worst offense against marriage have no problem saying "just leave first". Talk about taking divorce lightly!! There are many people who have been able to pull their marriage back together after an affair, so obviously THEY wouldn't have thought that their spouse should've left instead of stray. And I am sure there are many others who would feel much more devastated by the announcement that their spouse is leaving them for good, than hearing that they've been cheated on. Well, I don't know if hypocritical is the right word. Maybe it isn't. I was using it referring to those who supposedly take the marriage vows very seriously, and condemn affairs as breaking the "vow of fidelity" in, and yet have no problem saying break all the vows and leave instead!

There are people who take their marriage vows seriously enough to
agree that part of marriage is being honest and another part is not
sleeping with another person. I hardly find that hypocritical if the
vows are broken. There are some people who have been in relationships
where their partnerhas cheated on them (I have). The particular scene
for me was incredibly theatrical, involved a woman who lived in my
apartment complex slamming on my door (my Sig other was with me).
Not only did I not know that he was screwing a neighbor of mine, but
she also worked with him. Sure, we weren't married and thank god we
didn't get married, but I can tell you what that did to my self
esteem. Not to mention how embarrassed I was in front of a bunch of
neighbors (a small complex where most of the people were my friends.)

At any rate, what I'm trying to say is that we all bring to our
marriages/relationships, history. Our history affects who and how we
are regarding various issues. For someone who has been hurt before
(from infidelity) I can see why leaving the marriage first is a
strong feeling for some.

Another point is that people often say what they "would" do if in the
situation. The fact remains that unless you have experienced it, you
really don't know what you would do. I have stayed in situations that
I said I would NEVER. As I get older, there are things that I will
tolerate now that I wouldn't have when I was younger. And vice verse.

I do understand why a person would not want to stick around a cheating
spouse and in my opinion is has little to do with giving up easily.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:07:50 GMT, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:
I actually did read the posts. I contemplated comingback and I guess I decided to for now. I simply findI spend more time on here defending my actions thenreally discussing the problem.Then stop defending your actions, Brian. Reply to theones that you feel are only addressing the issues youhave raised and ignore the others.Tracey

I guess I'll have to start doing that. It's a little hard when so many
people chime in about concurring with this and that without really
knowing the details.

--Brian

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:45:47 GMT, "JWB" <jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com>
wrote:
"Brian" <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:kop610p91nfef3i5uee67gif919vshotml@4ax .com... On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:37:43 GMT, "JWB" <jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com> wrote:"Brian" <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:csn6101ebcb3mappbngqij4k8sq77e2ipr@4ax .com...>I don't think anyone "attacked" you, Brian. I don't think you like what Iand a few others had to say, but I doubt you can show me a mean spirited"attack". Oh no? I remember one thread quite well. Back around July, maybe June,I was talking about the recent thread. You left because you felt attacked.I asked if anyone had ever thought about divorcing while their spouse was pregnant. Well holy **** it started. People treated me like some kind of monster. Bill could hardly believe his eyes and in fact, ever since then, added little lines here and there about "at least I'm not the one thinking about leaving my pregnant wife." When in reality, it was a conversation that my wife and I had together. We talked about separating because it had gotten THAT bad. I had basically asked if anyone else here had gone through that and because of my question, I had to endure several days of attacks. So yes, I feel that because I have displayed a temper in the past, that has jaded how everyone views me around here. I do have a temper. That's painfully obvious. It's something that I've struggled with my whole life. I've never hit anyone over it, never lost a job, and never lost a friend. But still, it's something serious that I do try to control, more so now that I have two young children. It's something that I've even talked to my counselor about. But you'll have to forgive me if I let loose occasionally through Usenet. When I first came on here, I didn't really care who I offended and who I didn't. I had no idea I'd still be here a year later talking to the same people. You see, I had never spent that much time on the newsgroups, especially not one bedded with such delicate material. Is this making any sense? I see now that relationships form on here and people say...for a LONG period of time. If I had known that, if I had been previously exposed to that, then perhaps things would have been different.I used to have a temper too. I can't tell you what I did to fix it, but Ihave.Well, one thing that does help is I excersize. I'm on a treadmill every day,I lift weights, and hit a heavy bag I hung up in the garage. I have found myinner stress has gone way down since I started excersizing regularly (andI've gotten a lot stronger).JWB
I've actually dropped a lot of weight and have gotten in shape for a
number of reasons. One being what you described above. Two, for my
health. I'd like to be in shape and healthy when my kids are
teenagers. And third, I've done this for my wife. I've tried little
things to make myself more attractive to her. I've toned up, shed 30
pounds, and have, believe it or not, improved my state of mind because
of my increased health. They are small changes, but changes that I
felt were necessary. I found myself being one of those guys who was
letting himself go after getting married. I wasn't sure if that was
part of our problems or not so I made a point to fix it. The response
from my wife has been pretty positive so it's helped.

--Brian

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:08:44 GMT, "JWB" <jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com>
wrote:
"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c8cb5319.0401250545.7e12a0c0@posting.g oogle.com... If she is going to stay, she is going to have to get over the affair eventually. That's a given. It seems she's made that choice so far. So why can't this group put it in that perspective?I agree. Hopefully, from what Brian recently said, she's not viewing theaffair as a reason for continued strain. I'll drop that angle based on whathe said.

At least that's not what she tells me. We're working on 100% honesty
because of all this and if she's not being honest now, then we have no
chance.

--Brian

Doug Anderson wrote: whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes: Well, if I did any of this, it was _after_ you attacked me. Since we're on the subject of hypocrisy; you accuse me of saying that you can't read, and yet a few months ago after agreeing we were going to stop attacking each other, you (unprovoked) referred to me as a functional illiterate (someone who can read the words, but not get the overall meaning). No. I said that people hear things with different ears. In fact, I specifically said, at one point, that neither was better or worse, but that people talking in one language and people hearing in another was going to cause problems. Look. I can't believe you really want to do this. But here it is where claim that I say that you can't read when we disagree: Sheila: Doug, your insistence that people who hold a different opinion than yours must either (a) not have all the information, or (b) not have comprehended what they read or (c) are generally stupid, is insulting. And here is where you claim that I'm a functional illiterate: there are people whose communication style is more global/conceptual and those whose communication style is more prone to focussing on the individual words. Yours (Goober -- and mine) seems to be more of the former; Doug's tends to be more of the latter. So much for "I defy you ..."

Nope.
It does NOT say you are a functional illiterate, but you CHOOSE to see it that
way, Doug. Those are YOUR perceptions, and yours alone.

"Brian" <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d52810dnvgt1fl7hdilolu9pqc2jqkd6bd@4ax.com...
I've actually dropped a lot of weight and have gotten in shape for a number of reasons. One being what you described above. Two, for my health. I'd like to be in shape and healthy when my kids are teenagers. And third, I've done this for my wife. I've tried little things to make myself more attractive to her. I've toned up, shed 30 pounds, and have, believe it or not, improved my state of mind because of my increased health. They are small changes, but changes that I felt were necessary. I found myself being one of those guys who was letting himself go after getting married. I wasn't sure if that was part of our problems or not so I made a point to fix it. The response from my wife has been pretty positive so it's helped.

Good for you. A little exercise never hurt anyone.

As far as being in better shape... *sigh*... I really could drop 20 lbs and
get to 200. But I find I am too fond of bad food and an occasional beer or
three. But I'm big overall, so I wear it well. Plus, recent blood tests show
I am very healthy as far as blood pressure, cholesterol, and diabetes go.

>whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:Well, if I did any of this, it was _after_ you attacked me.Since we're on the subject of hypocrisy; you accuse me of saying thatyou can't read, and yet a few months ago after agreeing we were goingto stop attacking each other, you (unprovoked) referred to me as afunctional illiterate (someone who can read the words, but not get theoverall meaning). No. I said that people hear things with different ears. In fact, I specifically said, at one point, that neither was better or worse, but that people talking in one language and people hearing in another was going tocause problems.Look. I can't believe you really want to do this. But here it iswhere claim that I say that you can't read when we disagree:Sheila: Doug, your insistence that people who hold a different opinion than yoursmust either (a) not have all the information, or (b) not have comprehended whatthey read or (c) are generally stupid, is insulting.

Yes, that is my conclusion after interacting with you, at least as it pertains
to me. You act incredulous; you ask me how I could possibly draw such
conclusions; you insist that I tell you *where* it says this or that. I find
all of those things insulting.
And here is where you claim that I'm a functional illiterate: there are people whose communication style is more global/conceptual and those whose communication style is more prone to focussing on the individual words. Yours (Goober -- and mine) seems to be more of the former; Doug's tends to be more of the latter.So much for "I defy you ..."

That would only pertain if I had said that one style was BETTER than the other.
I didn't. In fact, I said this in the **same** post (interesting that you
didn't post this part...)
I don't think either form of communication is better or worse; just
different>>


So, in that context, I don't see how you could say that I was slamming you.

Doug wrote:>>Bizarre. Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ people cheat.You quote this comment, not directed to you, out of context. This wasin a response to _Andre_, not to you.

That's what I meant by "in the third person" -- bringing me in, IMO,
gratuitously, in order to insult me.

Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about how people who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excuses people make. No one can stop you. But that isn't how this thread started, and it isn't the thread that most of us are contributing to.>>> This is an insulting and derogatory tone,I'm sorry you see it that way. I see it as a statment of fact. Iguess this is an example of how two different people can read the samething differently. Nevertheless, the "you" and the whole comment wasin a response to Andre. And certainly my tone with him wasn'tover-friendly, but that isn't so surprising since every second word hewrites in response to my posts is an insult.That _is_ the topic that you were contributing to, and as Elliepointed out (and you agreed) it is insulting to the rest of us to haveyou (and Bill and Andre) respond to posts about _why_ as if they areposts about _excuses_).

Whoa. I never agreed that that meandering was insulting to ANYONE. I don't
believe it is. I believe it was a legitimate branch of discussion. It seems
to me that you chose to include me in your post to Andre as a "here she goes
again" kind of thing, and THAT is insulting.

There is email for private communications.In that particular communication you implied that people were usingthe "why" in order to make excuses. You agreed that you had done this(to Ellie) and apologized for jumping the gun.

I apologized for quoting one person instead of another. I also said that I may
have jumped the gun in that no one had specifically SAID that these
explanations were exuses, although I think that a simple sentence or two
prefacing my post would have solved that. I did NOT apologize for the content
of the post. I thought, and still think, it is an appropriate line of
thinking in the thread. If others were interested in it, that part of the
thread would take off. If they weren't, it would die. Didn't matter to me one
way or another, but it was not meant to be an "insult".
What I don't understand is *why* you persist on addressing me at all,either directly, or talking about me? I'd be PERFECTLY happy if we agreed not totalk to or about one another. I've tried that unilaterally, but it didn't work.Is that something we can agree to?If you want me to agree not to respond to things you've posted inthreads I am interested in, I won't agree to that.

No, I'm not asking that. You can post your opinion all you want in regard to
something I've said. I would appreciate if you would not ask *me* to "justify"
my position to you. I won't. I have no desire to justify any of my positions
to you.

If it is importantto you that I not use your name, I can probably agree to that. It'ssort of like parliamentary procedure. There are variouscircumlocutions like "the poster to whom I'm responding" and so on.Is it OK if my newsreader quotes your name when I quote you?

Certainly. As I have said, you are entitled to your own opinion. But, I don't
see where it has to be in the form of either engaging me in conversation, or
saying, "Well, in response to that stupid post SHEILA left.." Why is it
impossible to simply state your opinion without berating anyone else's? I
disagree with many folks in here. I state MY opinion. I try not to attack,
question, or berate anyone's else's. I don't set up *MY* argument on the back
of anyone else's... my opinion can stand alone. I don't need to have anyone
else to contrast mine to.

Sheila

In article <c8cb5319.0401250551.60cdeaa0@posting.google.com>,
shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
For what it's worth, I understand you, Brian.

Me too. (I haven't had time to even look at this thread since I last
posted something to it -- some 150 posts ago! -- so I just glanced at
what seems like the most recent post in it. Later, maybe...)

Ted

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:

That would only pertain if I had said that one style was BETTER than the other. I didn't. In fact, I said this in the **same** post (interesting that you didn't post this part...)

I think it is implicit that a style that understands the meaning of
the writer is better than a style concentrating on the meaning of
individual words of the writing.

Don't you agree with that?

It seems disingenuous to claim those two
styles are of equal value, or to claim that you believed they were of
equal value when you wrote that.
I don't think either form of communication is better or worse; just different>>

That is not what is implied in that paragraph.
So, in that context, I don't see how you could say that I was slamming you.

I didn't say that. I said it was a derogatory remark about me made in
the third person. You defied me to produce an example.

Doug wrote: >>>Bizarre. Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ people cheat.You quote this comment, not directed to you, out of context. This wasin a response to _Andre_, not to you. That's what I meant by "in the third person" -- bringing me in, IMO, gratuitously, in order to insult me.

You haven't been brought in yet. That "Bizarre" remark was directed
at Andre.

You are brought in below where I try to distinguish between two topics
being discussed in this thread.
Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about how people who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excuses people make. No one can stop you. But that isn't how this thread started, and it isn't the thread that most of us are contributing to.>>> This is an insulting and derogatory tone,I'm sorry you see it that way. I see it as a statment of fact. Iguess this is an example of how two different people can read the samething differently. Nevertheless, the "you" and the whole comment wasin a response to Andre. And certainly my tone with him wasn'tover-friendly, but that isn't so surprising since every second word hewrites in response to my posts is an insult.That _is_ the topic that you were contributing to, and as Elliepointed out (and you agreed) it is insulting to the rest of us to haveyou (and Bill and Andre) respond to posts about _why_ as if they areposts about _excuses_). Whoa. I never agreed that that meandering was insulting to ANYONE.

I didn't say anything about meandering. I'm not sure why you brought
that up. I was referring to this exchange:

Sheila: Ellie:That may be, but it's equally frustrating to see everyattempt at explaining something shut down by labeling itan excuse. It's actually insulting.In cases of affairs, I am always critical of people whosefirst response is "what did the cheated spouse didor didn't do to cause the affair". I believe it's totallywrong to give the slightest amount of legitimacy to anaction which is almost never justified. But when someoneasks "why" people have affairs, the discussion is notabout whether it is justified or not, and trying to put itin those terms is like shutting up the people who arequestioning it.Here is a radical concept : having a "reason" to dosomething doesn't make it right!
Agreed. And, maybe Bill jumped the gun. And maybe I did the same. I apologize if that is the case.
I don't believe it is. I believe it was a legitimate branch of discussion. It seems to me that you chose to include me in your post to Andre as a "here she goes again" kind of thing, and THAT is insulting.

"Here she goes" what? Doing thread drift? Nothing wrong with thread
drift. I included you and Bill, because it was the three of you who
were writing about excuses. (There may have been others at that
point, but I don't think so.)
There is email for private communications.In that particular communication you implied that people were usingthe "why" in order to make excuses. You agreed that you had done this(to Ellie) and apologized for jumping the gun. I apologized for quoting one person instead of another.

I don't understand what you mean by this.
I also said that I may have jumped the gun in that no one had specifically SAID that these explanations were exuses, although I think that a simple sentence or two prefacing my post would have solved that. I did NOT apologize for the content of the post.

I understood you to be apologizing (to Ellie) for implying that people
who were answering the "why" were providing excuses. That was what
offended Ellie, and that was what I didn't like, and that was what it
appeared you were apologizing for.
snipIf you want me to agree not to respond to things you've posted inthreads I am interested in, I won't agree to that. No, I'm not asking that. You can post your opinion all you want in regard to something I've said. I would appreciate if you would not ask *me* to "justify" my position to you. I won't. I have no desire to justify any of my positions to you.

1. I didn't ask you to do that in this thread. In fact I can't remember
the last time I asked you to justify anything to me. I certainly
don't make a habit of it.

(I do make a habit on usenet of asking somebody why they believe
something if they state it as a fact. This is not something I feel
any need to apologize for, but it certainly can start arguments.)

The only thing I did in this thread related to you at all is include
your name on a list of people who were discussing using "why" as
"excuses."

And you were discussing that, no?

So why the big "I resent..."
If it is importantto you that I not use your name, I can probably agree to that. It'ssort of like parliamentary procedure. There are variouscircumlocutions like "the poster to whom I'm responding" and so on.Is it OK if my newsreader quotes your name when I quote you? Certainly. As I have said, you are entitled to your own opinion. But, I don't see where it has to be in the form of either engaging me in conversation, or saying, "Well, in response to that stupid post SHEILA left.."

2. Are you asserting that I've ever posted anything like that? Or that
I've done so in this thread?
Why is it impossible to simply state your opinion without berating anyone else's?

It is quite possible. And that is what I've done.

3. When you ask a rhetorical question like that in dialog with me the
implication is that I have berated you. There is no place in this
thread where that is true (at least before you attacked me; I suppose
it is possible I berated you afterwards, and if so I apologize, but it
was in response to being berated by you, in this thread).
I disagree with many folks in here. I state MY opinion. I try not to attack, question, or berate anyone's else's. I don't set up *MY* argument on the back of anyone else's... my opinion can stand alone. I don't need to have anyone else to contrast mine to.

Is this meant to imply that the opposite is the case for me?

4. I'm genuinely asking this. Because when you post something about
_you_ do, with emphasis, the rhetorical effect is to accuse the
people you are having dialog of doing the opposite.

I could go through the thread again, but if the opposite is true for
me, it certainly hasn't been true here. And I don't think it is true
generally.



I numbered some things above. They feel like hostile accusations to
me. In general when you get agitated with me, you accuse me of
interacting with you in an unpleasant way. No doubt there is some
accuracy to that.

But in the numbered points above, I point out where it feels to me
like you are attacking me in an unpleasant, (slightly) indirect way by
characterizing your own behavior in a positive way with the
implication that I do otherwise.

I recognize that you genuinely feel that way. But I don't think there
are any examples of those things in this thread. Which makes me think
that something about this interaction is at least as much about you as
about me. I can't possibly placate you by not doing things I'm
already not doing.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:46:22 GMT, "JWB" <jwbspamnomore3333@excite.com>
wrote:
"Brian" <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:d52810dnvgt1fl7hdilolu9pqc2jqkd6bd@4ax .com... I've actually dropped a lot of weight and have gotten in shape for a number of reasons. One being what you described above. Two, for my health. I'd like to be in shape and healthy when my kids are teenagers. And third, I've done this for my wife. I've tried little things to make myself more attractive to her. I've toned up, shed 30 pounds, and have, believe it or not, improved my state of mind because of my increased health. They are small changes, but changes that I felt were necessary. I found myself being one of those guys who was letting himself go after getting married. I wasn't sure if that was part of our problems or not so I made a point to fix it. The response from my wife has been pretty positive so it's helped.Good for you. A little exercise never hurt anyone.As far as being in better shape... *sigh*... I really could drop 20 lbs andget to 200. But I find I am too fond of bad food and an occasional beer orthree. But I'm big overall, so I wear it well. Plus, recent blood tests showI am very healthy as far as blood pressure, cholesterol, and diabetes go.
I've been thinking about getting a physical but not sure if my
insurance would cover it. Since I've lost 30 pounds, drink about 2
gallons of water a day, and eat a total health diet, I'm wondering
what impact it's had on my internal health. I've noticed I don't get
sick anymore and I generally feel pretty good.

--Brian

"Brian" <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pao610l0dtl7m8khbqfc8b6fhh6qg52r4h@4ax.com... On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:21:01 -0500, "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:KuFQb.25393$1e.3459@newsread2.news.pas .earthlink.net... Joy wrote: > "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message > news:401302F8.2438034@joimail.com... >> >> >> Seeker wrote: >>> >>> In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>, >>> Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. >>> >>> Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the
marriage >>> would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be?
I >>> can -- in principle, anyway. >>> >>> Ted >> >> NO. > > Well, following up on the previously mentioned case where the cheatedupon > spouse is in a permanent vegetative state - if he or she is relying
onthe > health insurance provided by the cheating spouse, and he or she wouldlose > that insurance coverage in the event of a divorce, then getting out
ofthe > marriage might be worse than the cheating (which the disabled spouse
inthis > case wouldn't even know about) Who says he HAS to cheat in this situation? That was his choice - it
isnot a "need". If he feels that strongly about it - thinks it is
sufficientenough of a need, then he ought to get divorced. IOW, either **** it on thepot, or get off of the pot.I didn't say he HAD to cheat. The question I was addressing is whether
ornot there could be circumstances where getting out of the marriage would
beworse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be. I think thescenario I mentioned was one. It didn't address the morality of cheating
ornot cheating, only a specific situation in which it would be worse for
thecheated on spouse to get out of the marriage. I don't think any two situations are alike so really, what's the point? I don't think too many people sit down one day and decide, "what the hell, I'm going to go screw someone else." As I said in a previous post, for me, it was quite gradual. In fact, it started out as 15 minute breaks together over a few month period of time, then lunches, and then finally an after work thing with a group of people. About a year later, we were going to the movies and sitting in the car listening to music. At the time, I was simply enjoying the fact that someone wanted to actually talk to me. I had no idea what it would lead to or how it would affect my marriage. I honestly didn't think I had much of a marriage left so if I'm being perfectly honest, I didn't care. --Brian

The breakthrough question to ask yourself is.......

What was your intention during those 15 minute breaks? It is not a
simple question either. You have to take your emotional frame of
mind of that time out of the equation as well as divest yourself of
your ego and defense mechanisms.

For your information, I make no statement as to the rightness or
wrongness of your behavior. I have no moral, ethical or moral position
on you or anything you have done.

WhansaMi wrote: whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:> Well, if I did any of this, it was _after_ you attacked me.>> Since we're on the subject of hypocrisy; you accuse me of saying that> you can't read, and yet a few months ago after agreeing we were going> to stop attacking each other, you (unprovoked) referred to me as a> functional illiterate (someone who can read the words, but not get the> overall meaning). No. I said that people hear things with different ears. In fact, I specifically said, at one point, that neither was better or worse, but that people talking in one language and people hearing in another was going to cause problems. Look. I can't believe you really want to do this. But here it is where claim that I say that you can't read when we disagree: Sheila: Doug, your insistence that people who hold a different opinion than yours must either (a) not have all the information, or (b) not have comprehended what they read or (c) are generally stupid, is insulting. Yes, that is my conclusion after interacting with you, at least as it
pertains to me. You act incredulous; you ask me how I could possibly draw such conclusions; you insist that I tell you *where* it says this or that. I find all of those things insulting.

That's my conclusion, too, Sheila. (Actually, I think it's a fact, but Doug
won't ever step up to the plate and acknowledge that).
And here is where you claim that I'm a functional illiterate: there are people whose communication style is more global/conceptual and those whose communication style is more prone to focussing on the individual words. Yours (Goober -- and mine) seems to be more of the former; Doug's tends to be more of the latter. So much for "I defy you ..." That would only pertain if I had said that one style was BETTER than the other. I didn't. In fact, I said this in the **same** post (interesting that you didn't post this part...) I don't think either form of communication is better or worse; just different>> So, in that context, I don't see how you could say that I was slamming you. Doug wrote:>>> Bizarre. Have you even read the OP? The thread is about _why_ people>>> cheat. You quote this comment, not directed to you, out of context. This was in a response to _Andre_, not to you. That's what I meant by "in the third person" -- bringing me in, IMO, gratuitously, in order to insult me. Now you and Bill and Sheila can try to turn it into a thread about how people who cheat are bad or stupid, or about what kind of excuses people make. No one can stop you. But that isn't how this thread started, and it isn't the thread that most of us are contributing to.>>> This is an insulting and derogatory tone, I'm sorry you see it that way. I see it as a statment of fact. I guess this is an example of how two different people can read the same thing differently. Nevertheless, the "you" and the whole comment was in a response to Andre. And certainly my tone with him wasn't over-friendly, but that isn't so surprising since every second word he writes in response to my posts is an insult. That _is_ the topic that you were contributing to, and as Ellie pointed out (and you agreed) it is insulting to the rest of us to have you (and Bill and Andre) respond to posts about _why_ as if they are posts about _excuses_). Whoa. I never agreed that that meandering was insulting to ANYONE. I don't believe it is. I believe it was a legitimate branch of discussion. It seems to me that you chose to include me in your post to Andre as a "here she goes again" kind of thing, and THAT is insulting. There is email for private communications. In that particular communication you implied that people were using the "why" in order to make excuses. You agreed that you had done this (to Ellie) and apologized for jumping the gun. I apologized for quoting one person instead of another. I also said that I may have jumped the gun in that no one had specifically SAID that these explanations were exuses, although I think that a simple sentence or two prefacing my post would have solved that. I did NOT apologize for the content of the post. I thought, and still think, it is an appropriate line of thinking in the thread. If others were interested in it, that part of the thread would take off. If they weren't, it would die. Didn't matter to me one way or another, but it was not meant to be an "insult". What I don't understand is *why* you persist on addressing me at all,
either directly, or talking about me? I'd be PERFECTLY happy if we agreed not to talk to or about one another. I've tried that unilaterally, but it didn't work. Is that something we can agree to? If you want me to agree not to respond to things you've posted in threads I am interested in, I won't agree to that. No, I'm not asking that. You can post your opinion all you want in regard to something I've said. I would appreciate if you would not ask *me* to "justify" my position to you. I won't. I have no desire to justify any of my positions to you. If it is important to you that I not use your name, I can probably agree to that. It's sort of like parliamentary procedure. There are various circumlocutions like "the poster to whom I'm responding" and so on. Is it OK if my newsreader quotes your name when I quote you? Certainly. As I have said, you are entitled to your own opinion. But, I don't see where it has to be in the form of either engaging me in conversation, or saying, "Well, in response to that stupid post SHEILA left.." Why is it impossible to simply state your opinion without berating anyone else's?

Good question.
I disagree with many folks in here. I state MY opinion. I try not to attack, question, or berate anyone's else's. I don't set up *MY* argument on the back of anyone else's... my opinion can stand alone. I don't need to have anyone else to contrast mine to. Sheila

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:24:06 -0500, "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote:
"Brian" <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:pao610l0dtl7m8khbqfc8b6fhh6qg52r4h@4ax .com... On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:21:01 -0500, "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:KuFQb.25393$1e.3459@newsread2.news.pas .earthlink.net...> Joy wrote:> > "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message> > news:401302F8.2438034@joimail.com...> >>> >>> >> Seeker wrote:> >>>> >>> In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>,> >>> Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:> >>>> >>>> Then you FIRST get out of the marriage.> >>>> >>> Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of themarriage> >>> would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be?I> >>> can -- in principle, anyway.> >>>> >>> Ted> >>> >> NO.> >> > Well, following up on the previously mentioned case where the cheatedupon> > spouse is in a permanent vegetative state - if he or she is relyingonthe> > health insurance provided by the cheating spouse, and he or she wouldlose> > that insurance coverage in the event of a divorce, then getting outofthe> > marriage might be worse than the cheating (which the disabled spouseinthis> > case wouldn't even know about)>> Who says he HAS to cheat in this situation? That was his choice - itisnot> a "need". If he feels that strongly about it - thinks it issufficientenough> of a need, then he ought to get divorced. IOW, either **** it on thepot, or> get off of the pot.>I didn't say he HAD to cheat. The question I was addressing is whetherornot there could be circumstances where getting out of the marriage wouldbeworse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be. I think thescenario I mentioned was one. It didn't address the morality of cheatingornot cheating, only a specific situation in which it would be worse forthecheated on spouse to get out of the marriage. I don't think any two situations are alike so really, what's the point? I don't think too many people sit down one day and decide, "what the hell, I'm going to go screw someone else." As I said in a previous post, for me, it was quite gradual. In fact, it started out as 15 minute breaks together over a few month period of time, then lunches, and then finally an after work thing with a group of people. About a year later, we were going to the movies and sitting in the car listening to music. At the time, I was simply enjoying the fact that someone wanted to actually talk to me. I had no idea what it would lead to or how it would affect my marriage. I honestly didn't think I had much of a marriage left so if I'm being perfectly honest, I didn't care. --BrianThe breakthrough question to ask yourself is.......What was your intention during those 15 minute breaks? It is not asimple question either. You have to take your emotional frame ofmind of that time out of the equation as well as divest yourself ofyour ego and defense mechanisms.For your information, I make no statement as to the rightness orwrongness of your behavior. I have no moral, ethical or moral positionon you or anything you have done.
I was just enjoying the fact that I had someone in my life who was
interested in me, someone who seemed thrilled just to sit and talk.
That's how it all started out anyway.

--Brian

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:18:39 GMT, Bill in Co.
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: DrLith wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. If your kid was failing in college, Bill, do you feel like it would accomplish "nothing" to explore the reasons why? I thought I explained it better in the other post. The point I was trying to make is, that you can analyze why serial killers do what they do, and (I think) that is indeed illuminating, BUT to (realistically) expect those findings to prevent it, or excuse it (with a pat on the back) is totally naive. Do you get the distinction?

Do you get the distinction between preventing it and excusing it?

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:18:39 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: DrLith wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...> If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why> not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at> it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. If your kid was failing in college, Bill, do you feel like it would accomplish "nothing" to explore the reasons why? I thought I explained it better in the other post. The point I was trying to make is, that you can analyze why serial killers do what they do, and (I think) that is indeed illuminating, BUT to (realistically) expect those findings to prevent it, or excuse it (with a pat on the back) is totally naive. Do you get the distinction? Do you get the distinction between preventing it and excusing it?

You can't prevent it. Because you can't control the way people are raised.
Next?

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:52:29 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:
Tony Miller wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:18:39 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: DrLith wrote:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...>> If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why>> not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at>> it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.>> If your kid was failing in college, Bill, do you feel like it would> accomplish "nothing" to explore the reasons why? I thought I explained it better in the other post. The point I was trying to make is, that you can analyze why serial killers do what they do, and (I think) that is indeed illuminating, BUT to (realistically) expect those findings to prevent it, or excuse it (with a pat on the back) is totally naive. Do you get the distinction? Do you get the distinction between preventing it and excusing it?You can't prevent it. Because you can't control the way people are raised.Next?

Oh so it all comes down to how we were raised. What a crock of ****
you are, Bill. Have you anything rolling around in that head of yours
worth saying?

--Brian

"Brian" <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d6j8105cbbs2d7d0au95tb2kgr6pi2r6o0@4ax.com... On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:24:06 -0500, "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote:"Brian" <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:pao610l0dtl7m8khbqfc8b6fhh6qg52r4h@4ax .com... On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:21:01 -0500, "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote: > >"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:KuFQb.25393$1e.3459@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... >> Joy wrote: >> > "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message >> > news:401302F8.2438034@joimail.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> Seeker wrote: >> >>> >> >>> In article
<sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>, >> >>> Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. >> >>> >> >>> Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of themarriage >> >>> would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would
be?I >> >>> can -- in principle, anyway. >> >>> >> >>> Ted >> >> >> >> NO. >> > >> > Well, following up on the previously mentioned case where the
cheated >upon >> > spouse is in a permanent vegetative state - if he or she is
relyingon >the >> > health insurance provided by the cheating spouse, and he or she
would >lose >> > that insurance coverage in the event of a divorce, then getting
outof >the >> > marriage might be worse than the cheating (which the disabled
spousein >this >> > case wouldn't even know about) >> >> Who says he HAS to cheat in this situation? That was his choice -
itis >not >> a "need". If he feels that strongly about it - thinks it issufficient >enough >> of a need, then he ought to get divorced. IOW, either **** it on
the >pot, or >> get off of the pot. >> > >I didn't say he HAD to cheat. The question I was addressing is
whetheror >not there could be circumstances where getting out of the marriage
wouldbe >worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be. I think the >scenario I mentioned was one. It didn't address the morality of
cheatingor >not cheating, only a specific situation in which it would be worse forthe >cheated on spouse to get out of the marriage. > > > I don't think any two situations are alike so really, what's the point? I don't think too many people sit down one day and decide, "what the hell, I'm going to go screw someone else." As I said in a previous post, for me, it was quite gradual. In fact, it started out as 15 minute breaks together over a few month period of time, then lunches, and then finally an after work thing with a group of people. About a year later, we were going to the movies and sitting in the car listening to music. At the time, I was simply enjoying the fact that someone wanted to actually talk to me. I had no idea what it would lead to or how it would affect my marriage. I honestly didn't think I had much of a marriage left so if I'm being perfectly honest, I didn't care. --BrianThe breakthrough question to ask yourself is.......What was your intention during those 15 minute breaks? It is not asimple question either. You have to take your emotional frame ofmind of that time out of the equation as well as divest yourself ofyour ego and defense mechanisms.For your information, I make no statement as to the rightness orwrongness of your behavior. I have no moral, ethical or moral positionon you or anything you have done. I was just enjoying the fact that I had someone in my life who was interested in me, someone who seemed thrilled just to sit and talk. That's how it all started out anyway. --Brian

Just a guess but I believe the list below will be familiar

intention
attraction
positive feedback
excitement
denial of intention
justification
remorse/regret
self loathing

rearrange the words anyway you like.

No matter what anyone tells you, it is a very human thing.

Keep the feeling that you had. The one where someone in your life
was interested in you and was thrilled to be with you. Keep it.
Use it as a marker for the rest of your life. You know what
you want now. Just figure out how to get it. There is, as the is
with many human things, a paradox. To get the the most out of life,
you have to be prepared to give a lot.

Perhaps your affair was the unconscious pin that pricked the pimple
that had been your life to that time. Now it is all out there. Now there is
no turning back. What you had was not good enough. What I would want
is not to resurrect my old life but to give birth to a new one. A life that
is constructed to my ideals of what my life should be.

Good luck.

Caren wrote:
Maybe it isn't. I was using it referring to those who supposedly take the marriage vows very seriously, and condemn affairs as breaking the "vow of fidelity" in, and yet have no problem saying break all the vows and leave instead! There are people who take their marriage vows seriously enough to agree that part of marriage is being honest and another part is not sleeping with another person.

Yes, I am one of them, and said nothing contrary to that.
I hardly find that hypocritical if the vows are broken.

As I explained, I believe that it is hypocritical to claim to
take the marriage vows seriously, and at the same time
don't consider divorce as breaking the vows of marriage.
There are some people who have been in relationships where their partnerhas cheated on them (I have).

I don't pretend to understand the pain you must have suffered.
As a person who hasn't faced infidelity in my marriage
I cannot imagine how I would react if I did. But I know that
the thought of divorcing my husband, for any reason, is totally
devastating to me.
I do understand why a person would not want to stick around a cheating spouse and in my opinion is has little to do with giving up easily.

Oh I agree. I would never tell someone who has been cheated
on to stay in the marriage. It's very much understandable that
they can't. In my own case, I am not sure if I can survive it,
because the most important thing in our marriage is the very
high respect that we feel for each other. Aside from being
hurt I am not sure if I can respect my husband enough to stay
married to him. But as you said, I don't know. This is what I
think now, and I may react differently if something like that
happened. One thing I am sure of though. I don't want my husband
to leave me without giving me a chance to see if I can get over
the pain, if he doesn't really want to leave. I don't think it is more
honorable for him to "leave first".

Seeker wrote: In article <sbmQb.24417$1e.23768@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Then you FIRST get out of the marriage. Can you not think of circumstances where getting out of the marriage would be worse for the cheated-upon spouse than cheating would be? I can -- in principle, anyway.

So can I.

Tai

Bill in Co. wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:8gmQb.24427$1e.14094@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...> urf wrote:>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message>> news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...>>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why*>>>>>>> they're bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know>>>>>>> what to do ">>>>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.>>>>>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>>>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just>>>> cheat because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a>>>> simple way,>>>> but the reality is more complex.>>>>>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug?>>> If so, Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out>>> there in "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating>>> is perfectly understandable!>>>>>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly>>> understandable, in YOUR mindset?>>>>>>>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife?>> Yes I do. So what? Not all would. Then why the "liberal" comment? "Liberal" in the context of *standing for nothing*, and consequently, accepting everything. Which, I might add, seems to be where Doug is at, for example. To me, this is just another form of cowardice - not standing for anything.

You are wrong, Bill. Both in believing that Doug stands for nothing and that
he is a coward. I won't argue with you because you've made your mind up but
I also won't let what you say go unchallenged.

Tai

Brian wrote: On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:07:50 GMT, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote: I actually did read the posts. I contemplated coming back and I guess I decided to for now. I simply find I spend more time on here defending my actions then really discussing the problem. Then stop defending your actions, Brian. Reply to the ones that you feel are only addressing the issues you have raised and ignore the others. Tracey I guess I'll have to start doing that. It's a little hard when so many people chime in about concurring with this and that without really knowing the details.

Brian, try to be selective based on the posts you know to be closest to the
truth of your situation - even if it means you have to let your mind take
you down a few painful paths in the process. You don't have to respond to
the posts which seem to be unfair or completely off track. At no time is it
ever necessary for you to feel that you have to justify yourself to any of
us. It's yourself who needs to be satisfied - you and your wife.

Tai

Tai wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: urf wrote:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:8gmQb.24427$1e.14094@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...>> urf wrote:>>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message>>> news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...>>>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why*>>>>>>>> they're bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know>>>>>>>> what to do ">>>>>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.>>>>>>>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>>>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>>>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>>>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>>>>>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just>>>>> cheat because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a>>>>> simple way, but the reality is more complex.>>>>>>>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug?>>>> If so, Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out>>>> there in "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating>>>> is perfectly understandable!>>>>>>>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly>>>> understandable, in YOUR mindset?>>>>>>>>>>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife?>>>> Yes I do. So what? Not all would.>> Then why the "liberal" comment? "Liberal" in the context of *standing for nothing*, and consequently, accepting everything. Which, I might add, seems to be where Doug is at, for example. To me, this is just another form of cowardice - not standing for anything. You are wrong, Bill. Both in believing that Doug stands for nothing and that he is a coward. I won't argue with you because you've made your mind up but I also won't let what you say go unchallenged. Tai

I did not say HE was a coward, I said IT (that stance, attitude, and belief
system) was an act of cowardice. I would expect you to see the difference,
Tai. And as for whether or not Doug "stands for things", and is "convicted"
in doing so, I've said what I believe, based on what I've read here. There is
always some "extenuating circumstance", and things are "never as simple as they
appear to be" (translation: we won't define ourselves, with any nailed down
convictions)

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o53Rb.27947$zj7.19305@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Tai wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: Bill in Co. wrote:> urf wrote:>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message>> news:8gmQb.24427$1e.14094@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...>>> urf wrote:>>>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message>>>> news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...>>>>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why*>>>>>>>>> they're bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know>>>>>>>>> what to do ">>>>>>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>>>>>>>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just>>>>>> cheat because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a>>>>>> simple way, but the reality is more complex.>>>>>>>>>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug?>>>>> If so, Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out>>>>> there in "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating>>>>> is perfectly understandable!>>>>>>>>>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly>>>>> understandable, in YOUR mindset?>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife?>>>>>> Yes I do. So what? Not all would.>>>> Then why the "liberal" comment?>> "Liberal" in the context of *standing for nothing*, and consequently,> accepting everything. Which, I might add, seems to be where Doug is at, for example. To me, this is just another form of cowardice - not standing for anything. You are wrong, Bill. Both in believing that Doug stands for nothing and
that he is a coward. I won't argue with you because you've made your mind up
but I also won't let what you say go unchallenged. Tai I did not say HE was a coward, I said IT (that stance, attitude, and
belief system) was an act of cowardice. I would expect you to see the
difference, Tai. And as for whether or not Doug "stands for things", and is
"convicted" in doing so, I've said what I believe, based on what I've read here.
There is always some "extenuating circumstance", and things are "never as simple as
they appear to be" (translation: we won't define ourselves, with any nailed
down convictions)

Perhaps the things he "stands" for are simply "different" things than you
"Stand" for?
Moreover since people stand for many things perhaps "some" of the things you
"stand" for are the same as his convictions.

Of course, if you simply don't like him or what he has to say then none of
this matters.

I do think that monagamy is the easiest and emotionally safest course for
me but many 'hobbies' have the potential for negative outcomes. Tai

I've never heard it expressed quite this way but I like it.

Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Tony Miller wrote: Do you get the distinction between preventing it and excusing it? You can't prevent it. Because you can't control the way people are raised. Next?

So there's the core of it: deep down, you're a determinist, and we have no
free will?

You may be right, but there are a lot of factors beyond just how someone is
raised, and intervention can help people. Very often problems -- whether
with character, or diseases -- do not spring forth full-blown in individuals
(yes, I know there are exceptions) and intervention _early_ can make all the
difference. It's very true with physical disease, but it's also true with
behavior... a man who gets caught, and called on "innocent flirting" in such
a way as to have real, but not marriage-ending, repercussions a lot less
likely to go on to have an affair... and someone with violent tendencies
who's caught before hurting another person (let alone killing them) may well
be helped before it escalates.

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: Well, I don't know if hypocritical is the right word. Maybe it isn't. I was using it referring to those who supposedly take the marriage vows very seriously, and condemn affairs as breaking the "vow of fidelity" in, and yet have no problem saying break all the vows and leave instead!

They might well feel that some of the vows, and the marriage, are already
broken at the point their partner would WANT to have an affair. I'm not
saying I agree with it, but it's back to the whole "I have sinned in my
heart" thing, I think.

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o53Rb.27947$zj7.19305@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Tai wrote:

[] You are wrong, Bill. Both in believing that Doug stands for nothing and
that he is a coward. I won't argue with you because you've made your mind up
but I also won't let what you say go unchallenged. Tai I did not say HE was a coward, I said IT (that stance, attitude, and
belief system) was an act of cowardice.

That is wrong too. Your insistence on putting everything in a box looks
like a fear of complexity. That is what seems to me like the act of
cowardice.

I would expect you to see the difference, Tai. And as for whether or not Doug "stands for things", and is
"convicted" in doing so, I've said what I believe, based on what I've read here.
There is always some "extenuating circumstance", and things are "never as simple as
they appear to be" (translation: we won't define ourselves, with any nailed
down convictions)

When you "stand for things" you sound to me like you are judgmental and
self-righteous. Doug, on the other hand, acknowledges that human beings are
complex. There is nothing cowardly about this. It is simply the truth.

Jayne

Jayne

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:52:29 GMT, Bill in Co.
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Tony Miller wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:18:39 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: DrLith wrote:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...>> If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then why>> not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at>> it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.>> If your kid was failing in college, Bill, do you feel like it would> accomplish "nothing" to explore the reasons why? I thought I explained it better in the other post. The point I was trying to make is, that you can analyze why serial killers do what they do, and (I think) that is indeed illuminating, BUT to (realistically) expect those findings to prevent it, or excuse it (with a pat on the back) is totally naive. Do you get the distinction? Do you get the distinction between preventing it and excusing it? You can't prevent it. Because you can't control the way people are raised. Next?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Bill? Let me help you. I'll
give it to you again.

Do you get the distinction between preventing it and excusing it?

I'm asking you because you seemed to place them on a level almost implying
they were related somehow.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Posted A new edition just for you.

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jGzQb.26115$zj7.18614@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... urf wrote: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message *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.) Ted Is IS immoral. Hey Ted, don't you remember the Ten Commandments? I
mean, if your own code of morality doesn't define it, then think of the Ten Commandments, if it helps. There's some pretty sage (moral) advice in
those commandments...

You did? I thought there was only one, carried down the Mountain, by Moses.

urf wrote: Posted A new edition just for you. "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:jGzQb.26115$zj7.18614@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... urf wrote: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message>> *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.)>> Ted Is IS immoral. Hey Ted, don't you remember the Ten Commandments? I mean, if your own code of morality doesn't define it, then think of the Ten Commandments, if it helps. There's some pretty sage (moral) advice in
those commandments...

urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:o53Rb.27947$zj7.19305@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Tai wrote: Bill in Co. wrote:> Bill in Co. wrote:>> urf wrote:>>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message>>> news:8gmQb.24427$1e.14094@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...>>>> urf wrote:>>>>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message>>>>> news:gykQb.24270$1e.116@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...>>>>>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>>>>>>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said they can't/don't make them. I specified *why*>>>>>>>>>> they're bad choices, *and* why the claim of " I don't know>>>>>>>>>> what to do ">>>>>>>>>> is self serving excuse building balderdash.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That not the issue *I was addressing*...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me help you a bit more: Spot *the title of this thread*...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Re: one cheating question ".>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOW, this thread is *about cheating*, Doug.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sheesh.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So? Does it make your life simpler to believe that people just>>>>>>> cheat because they're bad? I guess that wraps things up in a>>>>>>> simple way, but the reality is more complex.>>>>>>>>>>>> How so? Are you "rationalizing away" their behavior now, Doug?>>>>>> If so, Tony (I think it was) was right - you really ARE way out>>>>>> there in "liberalsville". Next thing you'll say is that cheating>>>>>> is perfectly understandable!>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I would say to you, Doug just what ISN'T perfectly>>>>>> understandable, in YOUR mindset?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ya think there was ever a "conservative" that cheated on his wife?>>>>>>>> Yes I do. So what? Not all would.>>>>>> Then why the "liberal" comment?>>>> "Liberal" in the context of *standing for nothing*, and consequently,>> accepting everything.>> Which, I might add, seems to be where Doug is at, for example. To> me, this is just another form of cowardice - not standing for anything. You are wrong, Bill. Both in believing that Doug stands for nothing and
that he is a coward. I won't argue with you because you've made your mind up but I also won't let what you say go unchallenged. Tai I did not say HE was a coward, I said IT (that stance, attitude, and belief system) was an act of cowardice. I would expect you to see the
difference, Tai. And as for whether or not Doug "stands for things", and is
"convicted" in doing so, I've said what I believe, based on what I've read here. There
is always some "extenuating circumstance", and things are "never as simple as they appear to be" (translation: we won't define ourselves, with any nailed down convictions) Perhaps the things he "stands" for are simply "different" things than you "Stand" for?

Well, name something he has gone on record for (without having some extenuating
circumstances and/or excuses and/or escape clauses).
Moreover since people stand for many things perhaps "some" of the things you "stand" for are the same as his convictions. Of course, if you simply don't like him or what he has to say then none of this matters.

Well, I don't like it when someone is insulting, and denies that he was
insulting, and thinks he alone has the correct answer, because anyone who
disagrees with him has a reading comprehension problem (or whatever), as Sheila
already explained.

Well, I don't like it when someone is insulting, anddenies that he was insulting, and thinks he alone hasthe correct answer, because anyone who disagrees withhim has a reading comprehension problem (or whatever),as Sheila already explained.

And the irony flows....

Tracey

Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Tony Miller wrote: Do you get the distinction between preventing it and excusing it? You can't prevent it. Because you can't control the way people are raised. Next? So there's the core of it: deep down, you're a determinist, and we have no free will?

I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that you and I and others are not
(pragmatically) going to be able to *eliminate* the problem of serial killers
and child molestation, because we can't control how THEY are raised, because of
their being raised in abusive family environments. What, are you going to go
door to door, and remove all the abusive parents in this country? It's
impossible (but boy is it needed). But yes, you MIGHT be able to reach and
save some. And of course I think that's important.
You may be right, but there are a lot of factors beyond just how someone is raised, and intervention can help people. Very often problems -- whether with character, or diseases -- do not spring forth full-blown in individuals (yes, I know there are exceptions) and intervention _early_ can make all the difference. It's very true with physical disease, but it's also true with behavior... a man who gets caught, and called on "innocent flirting" in such a way as to have real, but not marriage-ending, repercussions a lot less likely to go on to have an affair... and someone with violent tendencies who's caught before hurting another person (let alone killing them) may well be helped before it escalates.

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:o53Rb.27947$zj7.19305@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Tai wrote: [] You are wrong, Bill. Both in believing that Doug stands for nothing and
that he is a coward. I won't argue with you because you've made your mind up but I also won't let what you say go unchallenged. Tai I did not say HE was a coward, I said IT (that stance, attitude, and belief system) was an act of cowardice. That is wrong too. Your insistence on putting everything in a box looks like a fear of complexity. That is what seems to me like the act of cowardice. I would expect you to see the difference, Tai. And as for whether or not Doug "stands for things", and is
"convicted" in doing so, I've said what I believe, based on what I've read here. There
is always some "extenuating circumstance", and things are "never as simple as they appear to be" (translation: we won't define ourselves, with any nailed down convictions) When you "stand for things" you sound to me like you are judgmental and self-righteous. Doug, on the other hand, acknowledges that human beings are complex. There is nothing cowardly about this. It is simply the truth. Jayne Jayne

I haven't met anyone in life who is not a bit judgemental, so let's get that
one out of the way right now. It's just that SOME think they are not the
least bit judgemental.

Human beings are complex? Agreed. So therefore we'll have no standards, and
allow all behaviors, right? Disagree. That's exactly what has happened in
the last few decades, with all this PC politically correct bull****.
Everything is ok, there are no standards, we'll be sure to offend no one, and
consequentally we'll stand for nothing.
/end rant

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%hcRb.27513$1e.21428@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: When you "stand for things" you sound to me like you are judgmental and self-righteous. Doug, on the other hand, acknowledges that human beings
are complex. There is nothing cowardly about this. It is simply the truth. I haven't met anyone in life who is not a bit judgemental, so let's get
that one out of the way right now. It's just that SOME think they are not
the least bit judgemental.

Some people try to avoid being judgmental. You seem to think that judging
and comdemning others makes you more virtuous because you are taking a
stand. You seem to make a point of being judgmental. It certainly doesn't
make you virtuous within my value system.
Human beings are complex? Agreed. So therefore we'll have no
standards, and allow all behaviors, right? Disagree.

I'm not sure that I have ever heard anyone say that and I definitely have
not seen anyone on this group claim that we should have no standards and
allow all behviours. Specifically, I have never seen Doug say this.
That's exactly what has happened in the last few decades, with all this PC politically correct bull****. Everything is ok, there are no standards, we'll be sure to offend no one,
and consequentally we'll stand for nothing. /end rant

I have moral standards for which I stand . Nevertheless, I value avoiding
offending people. I also value understanding and compassion, qualities
which you seem to lack.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:%hcRb.27513$1e.21428@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: When you "stand for things" you sound to me like you are judgmental and self-righteous. Doug, on the other hand, acknowledges that human beings
are complex. There is nothing cowardly about this. It is simply the truth. I haven't met anyone in life who is not a bit judgemental, so let's get that one out of the way right now. It's just that SOME think they are not the least bit judgemental. Some people try to avoid being judgmental. You seem to think that judging and comdemning others makes you more virtuous because you are taking a stand. You seem to make a point of being judgmental. It certainly doesn't make you virtuous within my value system. Human beings are complex? Agreed. So therefore we'll have no standards, and allow all behaviors, right? Disagree. I'm not sure that I have ever heard anyone say that and I definitely have not seen anyone on this group claim that we should have no standards and allow all behviours. Specifically, I have never seen Doug say this.

Then show me where he has given a standard that we should follow in our
society. (Same for anybody else who wants to be PC - let's see it
unequivocally stated, right here and now, for the record)
That's exactly what has happened in the last few decades, with all this PC politically correct bull****. Everything is ok, there are no standards, we'll be sure to offend no one,
and consequentally we'll stand for nothing. /end rant I have moral standards for which I stand . Nevertheless, I value avoiding offending people. I also value understanding and compassion, qualities which you seem to lack.

Nope, you're wrong there. Unless you mean having understanding and compassion
for ALL behaviors - in which case, you are right.

Tracey wrote:Well, I don't like it when someone is insulting, anddenies that he was insulting, and thinks he alone hasthe correct answer, because anyone who disagrees withhim has a reading comprehension problem (or whatever),as Sheila already explained. And the irony flows.... Tracey

Well, at least I've admitted being arrogant. I don't deny it, all the time.
And tell everybody else that they must have a reading comprehension problem.

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote:
I know I will get a lot of heat for this, but I find it hypocritical that people who condemn affairs as the worst offense against marriage have no problem saying "just leave first". Talk about taking divorce lightly!!

No heat from me. This makes a lot of sense.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4012A8BB.DC459975@hotmail.com... Stephanie and Tim wrote: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message For me at least, I do not assume I CAN have everything I desire.

What if you feel like you are getting *nothing* you desire -- or, at least,
none of what's really important to you?

Ted

"Kim/Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:1h8510lg29kk9tm6h0flimiol7lv2nqm41@4ax.com... Yes, I agree. I was simply saying I can see how it can happen. Believe me, I've had chances to cheat on my husband over the years--one man begged me to leave him--but I didn't because I love my husband and I don't believe in cheating on your spouse.

Suppose he hadn't begged you to leave, but just have an affair. Can you
imagine circumstances where you might have said yes?

Other than in brief conversations over the drugstore counter I was with the
"pharmacist" for the first time in over three months last night -- we both
were back again in the small prayer/book group we go to and as we have often
before we rode together (I drove this time.) She was in a very vulnerable
state for a variety of reasons and it was clear she trusted me enough to
share it with me. 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.

Ted

>If instead of a goodbye hug in the car when I droppedher off she'd invited me in for something else I havelittle 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.

Tracey

Tracey (rbrancher2@aol.com) writes:If instead of a goodbye hug in the car when I droppedher off she'd invited me in for something else I havelittle 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.

Who was it who said " Lead me not into temptation " ?

Andre ( An atheist ) <g>


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

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bv3p6v$o2v3a$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4012A8BB.DC459975@hotmail.com... Stephanie and Tim wrote: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message For me at least, I do not assume I CAN have everything I desire. What if you feel like you are getting *nothing* you desire -- or, at
least, none of what's really important to you? Ted

There are two things to do:

- work on the marriage and make it work, assuming you have a partner who
will do the same
- get out of the marriage

If you are getting the big zero from the relationship, I do not see other
options.

Oh, I suppose abject misery would be an option for some.

S

But don't forget whom is that supposed to be said to.

This to Tracey -- if I'm going to find myself in a tempting situation, can
you think of a better person for it to be with than one who has known me for
20 years, has already had an affair with a married man and vowed not to do
it again, has been through a divorce and counselling herself, knows what I
feel about her and what I'm trying to deal with, has an associate in
ministry degree from a nationally-respected seminary, and has completed a
gruelling year of training to become a chaplain?

Ted

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bv3vo3$6h3$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... Who was it who said " Lead me not into temptation " ?

"Seeker" (tedds212removethis@yahoo.com) writes: But don't forget whom is that supposed to be said to.

OK, so the Bible means that, if you cna't say it to whom its said to,
there, its meaningless ?

Wow, Vatican 3 was really liberal... <g>
This to Tracey -- if I'm going to find myself in a tempting situation, can you think of a better person for it to be with than one who has known me for 20 years, has already had an affair with a married man and vowed not to do it again, has been through a divorce and counselling herself, knows what I feel about her and what I'm trying to deal with, has an associate in ministry degree from a nationally-respected seminary, and has completed a gruelling year of training to become a chaplain?

Given the record of not a few priests... yes.
Ted "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bv3vo3$6h3$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... Who was it who said " Lead me not into temptation " ?

Andre

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

Steph

It is very wrong to cheat in a marriage. And, it can be avoided. Apart
from the man/woman who is just a lowlife without integrity toward
his/her marriage commitment....there are things that can happen in a
marriage that can 'move' a spouse closer to the lure of an extra marital
affair should the conditions arise; in the book, 'His Needs Her Needs-
how to Affair Proof a Marriage' , the author (Dr. Willard Harley,
Phychologist) lists the 5 MUST HAVE NEEDS of a husband and wife within
a marriage. ANd..if any one of those is missing...it sets the person up
for an affair. Thus, it is encumbant upon both spouses to fill one
anothers major needs and be aware of the danger , if they are not met.
I do believe that nearly all extra marital affiars that happen could
have been avoided if the spouses were doing their part at meeting needs.
O course, i am not condoning affairs and im not saying they are
justified ; im just saying how they happen and what can be done to
prevent them from occuring.

Good question you asked.,. Steph.

Norm






"When death is chasing you in the emergency room, there are NO atheists
! " ... Cardiologist and Author of : To Hell and Back -- Dr. Maurice
Rawlings.

In article <13035-40159B47-285@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net>, I BE
Norman <NormanHere@webtv.net> wrote:
5 MUST HAVE NEEDS

For those of us too lazy to read the book, would you mind summarizing
those needs? (yes, this is a trick question -- I'm sure there are many
who argue that *none* of them are needs -- they are just desires and
can be easily foregone.)

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bv41nr$nrtuv$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... But don't forget whom is that supposed to be said to. This to Tracey -- if I'm going to find myself in a tempting situation, can you think of a better person for it to be with than one who has known me
for 20 years, has already had an affair with a married man and vowed not to do it again, has been through a divorce and counselling herself, knows what
I feel about her and what I'm trying to deal with, has an associate in ministry degree from a nationally-respected seminary, and has completed a gruelling year of training to become a chaplain?

She sounds like a person who would be destroyed by having an affair with
you. No matter what is going on with your wife, if you care about this
other woman, stay away from her.

Jayne

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes:
I didn't get that from Doug's comments or from anyone else's. Yet, I did, and I'm not the only one.

No you aren't. But you and Bill are the only ones.
When a person cannot ever criticise a deceitful action such as cheating, and repeatedly seeks to find hypothetical excuse scenarios for it, what does that tell you ?

What person would you be referring to? Not me.

"Whisper" <whisperishere@bctonline.com> wrote in message
news:lsiRb.111$WC3.2297@ord-read.news.verio.net... I never said I didn't cheat..I did.. we were still legally married..and I still have feelings of guilt to this day (not that for "hurting" my X but for going against my beliefs)...and its been over 5 years (btw I never
told my X)
[]

It is hard to carry guilt feelings like that. My husband says that guilt is
helpful when it prevents us from doing bad things but harmful when it stays
on and drags us down. Have you thought about what you need to accept
forgiveness?

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bv4bln$52o$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bv3upn$4cr$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... []> Most often, in my consideration and experience, such people more try> to avoid *the overt appearance* of being judgemental. This, in fact,> makes them still judgemental, just in a dishonest manner, which is> an additioanlly Not Good Thing... I think you are right about that. However, in my own case, I genuinely wish to avoid being judgmental. To what specific purposes ? And, can you envision any drawbacks to that position ? It's part of my religious beliefs. I'm used to my religion having drawbacks, so a few more won't make a difference. <g> []> Now, if one is rigourous with applying such Life Value Systems with> *one's self, first*, then yes, one does earn the right to comment,> without fear of self contradiction, on the issues in debate. When I apply my standards to myself I see how often I fall short of my ideals. It leaves me with little desire to condemn others because I am so aware that I too deserve to be condemned. For what actions ? While none of us are " perfect ", thats not the goal, since its pretty much unattainable. Rather, what is attainable, is the avoidance of major transgressions, such as not cheating on one's marriage, or monogamous relationships, coupled, perhaps, with not committing any felonies... :-) The human capacity for self-justification is endless. People can tell themselves that the sins they have not committed and/or are not tempted to are the major transgressions. Meanwhile, they can decide that the ones they do commit are the minor ones. I do not see a reason to put myself in a category as better than other people. []> It may not. It depends on the context. In the context of one of Bill's rants about things were so much better in the good old days, I find it hard to be patient with him. They really get on my nerves. Yet, in some ways, he has a point. The abuse excuse ( See the book by Alan Derschowitz ( sp? ) of the same name ) is far, far too often used to excuse behavior that used to be considered inexcusable. This is not to say that *everything* was better, fifty years ago. But, it does mean that *some things were*. I completely agree that some things were better fifty years ago. My problem with Bill's rants is that he does not seem to acknowledge that some things were worse.

That's not true. I've acknowledged that our technology is better now
(whether or not we are able to responsibly handle it), and that there is more
protection against abuse, and that there is less racial discrimination.
Every time, every culture, does some things wrong and some things right.

In article <G%bRb.27475$1e.19524@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:
You did? I thought there was only one, carried down the Mountain, by Moses.

Even on that point there's some disagreement -- there are three
versions in the Bible itself, you know (and that's not even counting
the different translations and transcriptions.)

Ted

In article <bv4arp$o5v66$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne
Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
She sounds like a person who would be destroyed by having an affair with you. No matter what is going on with your wife, if you care about this other woman, stay away from her.

I continue to find it interesting (at least) that only those who do not
know us personally say that we should stop being friends. As I've
said before, there are two people who know both her and me personally
very well and both know the whole story and both have been in positions
where they could have told either or both of us to stop seeing each
other the ways we have and neither has done so. Yes, they have both
counselled both of us (separately) on how to maintain our friendship
but neither has even hinted that we should stop it.

Ted

It kind of comes and goes...not a constant thing...it would be easy to
"justify" my actions...but I hope I learned something from it..and can move
past eventually

I think more of the guilt is associated with the failed marriage than the
cheating itself. but its all tied together..I know in my heart I did
everything I could to make it work..and it still failed..and I may never
truly know why.

Kass


"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:bv4eav$o03in$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "Whisper" <whisperishere@bctonline.com> wrote in message news:lsiRb.111$WC3.2297@ord-read.news.verio.net... I never said I didn't cheat..I did.. we were still legally married..and
I still have feelings of guilt to this day (not that for "hurting" my X
but for going against my beliefs)...and its been over 5 years (btw I never told my X) [] It is hard to carry guilt feelings like that. My husband says that guilt
is helpful when it prevents us from doing bad things but harmful when it
stays on and drags us down. Have you thought about what you need to accept forgiveness? Jayne

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PcjRb.28742$zj7.16491@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:

[] I cannot think of any circumstances under which I would feel justified
to withhold compassion from another. Well good. Why don't you go have some compassion for the rapists and
child molesters and serial killers, then? (I don't believe you if you say you
do). Aha! You still think you do? OK, let's suppose it happened to your
child. Are you going to be compassionate towards the perpetrator? If you say
yes, I don't believe you, and I think you are in denial.

If you can read my mind there is not much point in me talking to you.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:PcjRb.28742$zj7.16491@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: [] I cannot think of any circumstances under which I would feel justified to withhold compassion from another. Well good. Why don't you go have some compassion for the rapists and child molesters and serial killers, then? (I don't believe you if you say you do). Aha! You still think you do? OK, let's suppose it happened to your child. Are you going to be compassionate towards the perpetrator? If you say yes, I don't believe you, and I think you are in denial. If you can read my mind there is not much point in me talking to you. Jayne

Are you going to answer my question, for that specific example? YOU were the
one who said YOU were all compassionate and forgiving.

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:260120041947484563%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <bv4arp$o5v66$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: She sounds like a person who would be destroyed by having an affair with you. No matter what is going on with your wife, if you care about this other woman, stay away from her. I continue to find it interesting (at least) that only those who do not know us personally say that we should stop being friends. You seem to be deliberately putting yourself in the way of temptation to do something that will greatly harm everyone involved. Andre makes a very good point with his reference to "Lead us not into temptation". How can you pray that if you are not doing your part to avoid temptation? As I've said before, there are two people who know both her and me personally very well and both know the whole story and both have been in positions where they could have told either or both of us to stop seeing each other the ways we have and neither has done so. Yes, they have both counselled both of us (separately) on how to maintain our friendship but neither has even hinted that we should stop it. In my time reading this group I have seen how you turn a large number of threads into ways to talk about an affair would be justified in your circumstances. You look to me like an affair waiting to happen. As I recall, you claim to be a Christian. If so, then these words of Jesus apply to your situation: "You have heard it was said `Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye cases you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." Matt 5:27-29 Are you going to listen to these two people you have found to tell you what you want to hear or are you going to listen to Jesus? The figure of speech he uses in this passage does not mean you should literally gouge out your eye. It means you should remove from your life anything that is likely to lead you to adultery. Remove your friendship with this other woman and throw it away. Jayne

Ummm. Jayne? I really don't think he wants to! (was that ever on the
table?)

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:260120041947484563%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <bv4arp$o5v66$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: She sounds like a person who would be destroyed by having an affair with you. No matter what is going on with your wife, if you care about this other woman, stay away from her. I continue to find it interesting (at least) that only those who do not know us personally say that we should stop being friends.

You seem to be deliberately putting yourself in the way of temptation to do
something that will greatly harm everyone involved. Andre makes a very good
point with his reference to "Lead us not into temptation". How can you pray
that if you are not doing your part to avoid temptation?
As I've said before, there are two people who know both her and me personally very well and both know the whole story and both have been in positions where they could have told either or both of us to stop seeing each other the ways we have and neither has done so. Yes, they have both counselled both of us (separately) on how to maintain our friendship but neither has even hinted that we should stop it.

In my time reading this group I have seen how you turn a large number of
threads into ways to talk about an affair would be justified in your
circumstances. You look to me like an affair waiting to happen. As I
recall, you claim to be a Christian. If so, then these words of Jesus apply
to your situation:

"You have heard it was said `Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that
anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with
her in his heart. If your right eye cases you to sin, gouge it out and
throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for
your whole body to be thrown into hell." Matt 5:27-29

Are you going to listen to these two people you have found to tell you what
you want to hear or are you going to listen to Jesus? The figure of speech
he uses in this passage does not mean you should literally gouge out your
eye. It means you should remove from your life anything that is likely to
lead you to adultery. Remove your friendship with this other woman and
throw it away.

Jayne

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WFjRb.28811$zj7.15619@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:PcjRb.28742$zj7.16491@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: []> I cannot think of any circumstances under which I would feel justified
to> withhold compassion from another. Well good. Why don't you go have some compassion for the rapists and
child molesters and serial killers, then? (I don't believe you if you say
you do). Aha! You still think you do? OK, let's suppose it happened to
your child. Are you going to be compassionate towards the perpetrator? If
you say yes, I don't believe you, and I think you are in denial. If you can read my mind there is not much point in me talking to you. Jayne Are you going to answer my question, for that specific example? YOU
were the one who said YOU were all compassionate and forgiving.

Yes, I have compassion for rapists, child molesters and serial killers and I
hope I would if it were my child. You don't believe my answer. So what is
there to say?

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:WFjRb.28811$zj7.15619@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:PcjRb.28742$zj7.16491@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: []>> I cannot think of any circumstances under which I would feel justified to>> withhold compassion from another.>> Well good. Why don't you go have some compassion for the rapists and> child molesters and serial killers, then? (I don't believe you if you> say you do). Aha! You still think you do? OK, let's suppose it> happened to your child. Are you going to be compassionate towards the> perpetrator? If you say yes, I don't believe you, and I think you are> in denial. If you can read my mind there is not much point in me talking to you. Jayne Are you going to answer my question, for that specific example? YOU were the one who said YOU were all compassionate and forgiving. Yes, I have compassion for rapists, child molesters and serial killers and I hope I would if it were my child. You don't believe my answer. So what is there to say? Jayne

You "hope you would" if it were your child who was raped? That's pretty
evasive, and very non-definitive. Surely you can be more definitive than
that: Just try to imagine it, and think about your daughter, and how scarred
SHE would be - and perhaps for life. And if you could look the rapist in the
eye, and say, "I forgive you" for destroying my daughter.

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5XjRb.28101$1e.9311@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:WFjRb.28811$zj7.15619@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:PcjRb.28742$zj7.16491@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...>> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>> []>>> I cannot think of any circumstances under which I would feel
justified to>>> withhold compassion from another.>>>> Well good. Why don't you go have some compassion for the rapists
and>> child molesters and serial killers, then? (I don't believe you if
you>> say you do). Aha! You still think you do? OK, let's suppose it>> happened to your child. Are you going to be compassionate towards the>> perpetrator? If you say yes, I don't believe you, and I think you
are>> in denial.>> If you can read my mind there is not much point in me talking to you.>> Jayne Are you going to answer my question, for that specific example? YOU
were the one who said YOU were all compassionate and forgiving. Yes, I have compassion for rapists, child molesters and serial killers
and I hope I would if it were my child. You don't believe my answer. So what
is there to say? Jayne You "hope you would" if it were your child who was raped? That's pretty evasive, and very non-definitive. Surely you can be more definitive than that:

Never having been in the situation I do not know what I would do. I know
what I hope I would do.
Just try to imagine it, and think about your daughter, and how scarred SHE would be - and perhaps for life. And if you could look the rapist
in the eye, and say, "I forgive you" for destroying my daughter.

I would want to forgive the rapist. I would pray that I could forgive the
rapist.

Jayne

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uQjRb.28821$zj7.28346@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:

[] Are you going to listen to these two people you have found to tell you
what you want to hear or are you going to listen to Jesus? The figure of
speech he uses in this passage does not mean you should literally gouge out
your eye. It means you should remove from your life anything that is likely
to lead you to adultery. Remove your friendship with this other woman and throw it away. Jayne Ummm. Jayne? I really don't think he wants to! (was that ever on
the table?)

If he is a Christian then that is not relevant. As far as I understand
Christian teaching, adultery is wrong, Seeker is not in special
circumstances that make it ok, and he has an obligation to take even drastic
measures to avoid being tempted to it.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:5XjRb.28101$1e.9311@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:WFjRb.28811$zj7.15619@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message>> news:PcjRb.28742$zj7.16491@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...>>> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>>>> []>>>> I cannot think of any circumstances under which I would feel justified>>>> to withhold compassion from another.>>>>>> Well good. Why don't you go have some compassion for the rapists and>>> child molesters and serial killers, then? (I don't believe you if you>>> say you do). Aha! You still think you do? OK, let's suppose it>>> happened to your child. Are you going to be compassionate towards the>>> perpetrator? If you say yes, I don't believe you, and I think you are>>> in denial.>>>> If you can read my mind there is not much point in me talking to you.>>>> Jayne>> Are you going to answer my question, for that specific example? YOU
were> the one who said YOU were all compassionate and forgiving. Yes, I have compassion for rapists, child molesters and serial killers and
I hope I would if it were my child. You don't believe my answer. So what is there to say? Jayne You "hope you would" if it were your child who was raped? That's pretty evasive, and very non-definitive. Surely you can be more definitive than that: Never having been in the situation I do not know what I would do. I know what I hope I would do. Just try to imagine it, and think about your daughter, and how scarred SHE would be - and perhaps for life. And if you could look the rapist in the eye, and say, "I forgive you" for destroying my daughter. I would want to forgive the rapist. I would pray that I could forgive the rapist. Jayne

But do you think you *would*? I'm not asking if you would like to be
God-like here, I'm asking what *would* happen - in reality? (to the extent
you can project it)

I mean, even if you can't forgive him, it's really not the end of the world to
admit that!!

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:uQjRb.28821$zj7.28346@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: [] Are you going to listen to these two people you have found to tell you what you want to hear or are you going to listen to Jesus? The figure of speech he uses in this passage does not mean you should literally gouge out your eye. It means you should remove from your life anything that is likely to lead you to adultery. Remove your friendship with this other woman and throw it away. Jayne Ummm. Jayne? I really don't think he wants to! (was that ever on the table?) If he is a Christian then that is not relevant. As far as I understand Christian teaching, adultery is wrong, Seeker is not in special circumstances that make it ok, and he has an obligation to take even drastic measures to avoid being tempted to it. Jayne

Well, I don't think he is a devout Christian - based on what's going on here -
or he wouldn't be doing this. Right?

caren50@msn.com (Caren) writes:
How about a certain type of immaturity such as a need for instant gratification, how about lack of self control, how about self esteem issues and needing to get their esteem and kudos from as many people as possible, how about selfishness? Thinking of the here and now, rather than the impact that it will have on others, whether the affair is revealed or not.

These things certainly seem to be factors for many who cheat.
The women and men that I know who have or are cheating, are immature and they are indeed quite self centered. I can also say that the men and women that I know who have or are cheating, every single one of them is a serial cheater.

I know one person quite well who cheated exactly once, in a
40-something year marriage. This person is neither immature nor
self-centered. I know others who fit your description.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: I didn't get that from Doug's comments or from anyone else's. Yet, I did, and I'm not the only one. No you aren't. But you and Bill are the only ones.

<yawn> Can't back up any of your claims, eh ?

No surprise...
When a person cannot ever criticise a deceitful action such as cheating, and repeatedly seeks to find hypothetical excuse scenarios for it, what does that tell you ? What person would you be referring to? Not me.

Denial: Not just a river in Egypt, oh constant apologist...

Andre


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

Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: > JWB wrote: > > > > "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message > > news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com... > > > > > > "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > > news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... > > > > > > > > > > If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then > > why > > > not > > > > try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while you're at > > it? > > > > But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One > > cannot > > > solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software development, the > > > vast majority of work lies in understanding the problem to be solved. Once > > > that is done, everything else falls beautifully into place. > > > > > > > Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot. I'm > > astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an act > > (I've thought this before) > > This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned in > this group. Au contraire. Lots of people love simplistic explanations in this group! But JWB didn't say simplistic. He said simple. If you think these words mean the same thing, a trip to the dictionary is in order. I guess in my vocabulary they are interchangeable. So when you don't know what a word means, you just make up a definition for it? Wouldn't work in my circles, but if you are content to misunderstand others and to be misunderstood, I guess that's your right. I don't walk around all day with a dictionary. "Simple" worked for many, many, many MORE years than the new wave fad of thinking. "Simple" is fine. Einstein said "everything should be described as simply as possible, but no more so." The point being not to fool yourself by describing things as being simpler than they are. Yeah, I hate this new wave fad of thinking. We should go back to the non-thinking days.

Oh, really -- so, Doug, COMPLICATED is better, eh?

I used to think complicated and was quite miserable -- now I subscribe
to "KISS" -- Keep It Simple, Stupid.

amy

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:21:53 GMT, Bill in Co.
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:WFjRb.28811$zj7.15619@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...

<Snip>
Yes, I have compassion for rapists, child molesters and serial killers and I hope I would if it were my child. You don't believe my answer. So what is there to say? Jayne You "hope you would" if it were your child who was raped? That's pretty evasive, and very non-definitive. Surely you can be more definitive than that: Just try to imagine it, and think about your daughter, and how scarred SHE would be - and perhaps for life. And if you could look the rapist in the eye, and say, "I forgive you" for destroying my daughter.

Don't worry Jayne. Thieves think that everyone steals. Bill thinks that
everyone is bitter and vindictive.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Ellie wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: I know I will get a lot of heat for this, but I find it hypocritical that people who condemn affairs as the worst offense against marriage have no problem saying "just leave first". Talk about taking divorce lightly!! There are many people who have been able to pull their marriage back together after an affair, so obviously THEY wouldn't have thought that their spouse should've left instead of stray. And I am sure there are many others who would feel much more devastated by the announcement that their spouse is leaving them for good, than hearing that they've been cheated on. Well, I don't know if hypocritical is the right word. Maybe it isn't. I was using it referring to those who supposedly take the marriage vows very seriously, and condemn affairs as breaking the "vow of fidelity" in, and yet have no problem saying break all the vows and leave instead!

LOL, are you referring to me? I only typed one little word, "No". :)

amy

Doug Anderson wrote: Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: > I know I will get a lot of heat for this, but I find it hypocritical that > people who condemn affairs as the worst offense against marriage > have no problem saying "just leave first". Talk about taking divorce > lightly!! There are many people who have been able to pull their > marriage back together after an affair, so obviously THEY wouldn't > have thought that their spouse should've left instead of stray. > And I am sure there are many others who would feel much more > devastated by the announcement that their spouse is leaving them > for good, than hearing that they've been cheated on. Well, I don't know if hypocritical is the right word. Maybe it isn't. I was using it referring to those who supposedly take the marriage vows very seriously, and condemn affairs as breaking the "vow of fidelity" in, and yet have no problem saying break all the vows and leave instead! Yes, I see. Maybe the attitude one has is related to how one feels about marriage. You could look at it like a beautiful rigid crystal. One false move, and it shatters irretrievably. Or you could look at it like a sturdy tree. You don't want bad things to happen to it, but if car runs into it, or if the gypsy moths are particularly bad one year, it may have the strenth to survive and recover. Part of it also has to do with the fact that people have affairs for different reasons. Some do it because they are done with the marriage and have given up. For people in that category, it would have shown more integrity if they had told their spouse "I'm done with the marriage and want to leave." And this still gives the opportunity to try to fix the marriage before the damage of the affair is done. But there are other cases I know about where people have had affairs with no intention of leaving their marriage, and the marriage has survived. Should they have had the affairs? Probably not (at least not without the permission of their spouse). But they shouldn't necessarily have gotten divorced first either.

Sorry, but I've stated before that "infidelity" would be a deal-breaker
-- I've gone above and beyond my wifely duties as far as commitment go.
It was worth every minute of pain! And it's in the past and a done deal
<gotta love dissociation!> But infidelity would be a deal-breaker --
actually, FWIW, I wouldn't want to know.....he's out on the road -- I
believe 110% in his faithfulness....we've come too far and he wouldn't
jeopardize it for a cheap piece of ***. But I wouldn't want to know.
Don't tell him that.

amy

"Bill in Co." wrote: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:uQjRb.28821$zj7.28346@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: []> Are you going to listen to these two people you have found to tell you what> you want to hear or are you going to listen to Jesus? The figure of speech> he uses in this passage does not mean you should literally gouge out your> eye. It means you should remove from your life anything that is likely to> lead you to adultery. Remove your friendship with this other woman and> throw it away.>> Jayne Ummm. Jayne? I really don't think he wants to! (was that ever on the table?) If he is a Christian then that is not relevant. As far as I understand Christian teaching, adultery is wrong, Seeker is not in special circumstances that make it ok, and he has an obligation to take even drastic measures to avoid being tempted to it. Jayne Well, I don't think he is a devout Christian - based on what's going on here - or he wouldn't be doing this. Right?

Well, I'm barely agnostic and I would find it totally wrong in my world.

amy

Amy D wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote:>> Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes:>>> JWB wrote:>>>>>> "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in
message>>> news:iwyQb.78$VP1.74421@newshog.newsread.com...>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message>>>> news:wfmQb.24426$1e.12128@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to look for whys as excuses or "justifiable causes", then>>>>> why not try to analyze why serial killers kill their victims, while>>>>> you're at it? But in the end, what does it accomplish? Nothing.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The solution to every problem is an understanding of the problem. One>>>> cannot solve problems by just doing any old thing. In software>>>> development, the vast majority of work lies in understanding the>>>> problem to be solved. Once that is done, everything else falls>>>> beautifully into place.>>>>>>>>>> Bill's an electrical engineer-type guy, and a college professor to boot.>>> I'm astounded he doesn't grasp these simple concepts. Maybe it's all an>>> act (I've thought this before)>>>> This is quite bizarre -- I thought usually "simplistic" is shunned in>> this group.>> Au contraire. Lots of people love simplistic explanations in this group!>> But JWB didn't say simplistic. He said simple. If you think these> words mean the same thing, a trip to the dictionary is in order. I guess in my vocabulary they are interchangeable. So when you don't know what a word means, you just make up a definition for it? Wouldn't work in my circles, but if you are content to misunderstand others and to be misunderstood, I guess that's your right. I don't walk around all day with a dictionary. "Simple" worked for many, many, many MORE years than the new wave fad of thinking. "Simple" is fine. Einstein said "everything should be described as simply as possible, but no more so." The point being not to fool yourself by describing things as being simpler than they are. Yeah, I hate this new wave fad of thinking. We should go back to the non-thinking days. Oh, really -- so, Doug, COMPLICATED is better, eh? I used to think complicated and was quite miserable -- now I subscribe to "KISS" -- Keep It Simple, Stupid.

I think Doug likes "complicated", because that way, he can be PC and totally
non committal (meaning safe) about things, as is in such high fashion these
days.

See, when you subscribe to PC, you can "never be wrong", because you never
stated anything for the record. And they can just debate the meaning of words
all day!!

Tony Miller wrote: On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:21:53 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:WFjRb.28811$zj7.15619@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... <Snip> Yes, I have compassion for rapists, child molesters and serial killers and
I hope I would if it were my child. You don't believe my answer. So what is there to say? Jayne You "hope you would" if it were your child who was raped? That's pretty evasive, and very non-definitive. Surely you can be more definitive than that: Just try to imagine it, and think about your daughter, and how scarred SHE would be - and perhaps for life. And if you could look the rapist in the eye, and say, "I forgive you" for destroying my daughter. Don't worry Jayne. Thieves think that everyone steals. Bill thinks that everyone is bitter and vindictive.

Nice try, Tony. Don't dodge the issue above. Can you answer it, or is that
too committal for you, too?

Bill in Co. wrote: Tony Miller wrote: On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:21:53 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:WFjRb.28811$zj7.15619@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... <Snip>> Yes, I have compassion for rapists, child molesters and serial killers and> I hope I would if it were my child. You don't believe my answer. So what> is there to say?>> Jayne You "hope you would" if it were your child who was raped? That's pretty evasive, and very non-definitive. Surely you can be more definitive than that: Just try to imagine it, and think about your daughter, and how scarred SHE would be - and perhaps for life. And if you could look the rapist in the eye, and say, "I forgive you" for destroying my daughter. Don't worry Jayne. Thieves think that everyone steals. Bill thinks that everyone is bitter and vindictive. Nice try, Tony. Don't dodge the issue above. Can you answer it, or is
that too committal for you, too?

Or did you already answer it, and I missed it? Let's see. You would
forgive your daughter's rapist, or else you would be labeled as being bitter.
Was that what you meant?

Amy D wrote: "Bill in Co." wrote: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:uQjRb.28821$zj7.28346@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: []>> Are you going to listen to these two people you have found to tell you>> what you want to hear or are you going to listen to Jesus? The figure of>> speech he uses in this passage does not mean you should literally gouge>> out your eye. It means you should remove from your life anything that is>> likely to lead you to adultery. Remove your friendship with this other>> woman and throw it away.>>>> Jayne>> Ummm. Jayne? I really don't think he wants to! (was that ever on> the table?) If he is a Christian then that is not relevant. As far as I understand Christian teaching, adultery is wrong, Seeker is not in special circumstances that make it ok, and he has an obligation to take even
drastic measures to avoid being tempted to it. Jayne Well, I don't think he is a devout Christian - based on what's going on here - or he wouldn't be doing this. Right? Well, I'm barely agnostic and I would find it totally wrong in my world. amy

I guess we need to have a book "burn in", then, huh? Meet ya outside, at
half past twelve, at Ted's place...!

Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes:
snip acres of text Oh, really -- so, Doug, COMPLICATED is better, eh?

No. Not what I said. Simple is good, but only when it is also
correct. If you've oversimplified to the point where things are no
longer correct, then more complicated is better.

It is simplistic to believe the sun goes around the earth, even though
that might be what our first guess would be.

The truth is both more complicated (because it involves accepting that
the earth is moving even though it _seems_ to be holding still) and
simpler (because it does a better job of explaining observed
phenomena.
I used to think complicated and was quite miserable -- now I subscribe to "KISS" -- Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Good when it works. But you have to be willing to accept that not
everything is simple. Or at least not as simple as at first glance.

Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: > > I know I will get a lot of heat for this, but I find it hypocritical that > > people who condemn affairs as the worst offense against marriage > > have no problem saying "just leave first". Talk about taking divorce > > lightly!! There are many people who have been able to pull their > > marriage back together after an affair, so obviously THEY wouldn't > > have thought that their spouse should've left instead of stray. > > And I am sure there are many others who would feel much more > > devastated by the announcement that their spouse is leaving them > > for good, than hearing that they've been cheated on. > > Well, I don't know if hypocritical is the right word. Maybe it isn't. I was using it referring to those who supposedly take the marriage vows very seriously, and condemn affairs as breaking the "vow of fidelity" in, and yet have no problem saying break all the vows and leave instead! Yes, I see. Maybe the attitude one has is related to how one feels about marriage. You could look at it like a beautiful rigid crystal. One false move, and it shatters irretrievably. Or you could look at it like a sturdy tree. You don't want bad things to happen to it, but if car runs into it, or if the gypsy moths are particularly bad one year, it may have the strenth to survive and recover. Part of it also has to do with the fact that people have affairs for different reasons. Some do it because they are done with the marriage and have given up. For people in that category, it would have shown more integrity if they had told their spouse "I'm done with the marriage and want to leave." And this still gives the opportunity to try to fix the marriage before the damage of the affair is done. But there are other cases I know about where people have had affairs with no intention of leaving their marriage, and the marriage has survived. Should they have had the affairs? Probably not (at least not without the permission of their spouse). But they shouldn't necessarily have gotten divorced first either. Sorry, but I've stated before that "infidelity" would be a deal-breaker

No need to apologize. If it is a deal-breaker for you, then that's fine.
It doesn't appear to be a deal-breaker for everyone.
-- I've gone above and beyond my wifely duties as far as commitment go. It was worth every minute of pain! And it's in the past and a done deal <gotta love dissociation!> But infidelity would be a deal-breaker -- actually, FWIW, I wouldn't want to know.....he's out on the road

Well, this may be common too. Infidelity where one partner wouldn't
want to know. One gets the impression that this used to be common,
but I wonder if it still is. We put a higher premium on honesty in
marriage (I think) than we used to. From my perspective this is a
good thing, but it may result in fewer cases where an infidelity is
kept secret.

What did I tell ya, Amy? :-)

Doug Anderson wrote: Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> writes: snip acres of text Oh, really -- so, Doug, COMPLICATED is better, eh? No. Not what I said. Simple is good, but only when it is also correct. If you've oversimplified to the point where things are no longer correct, then more complicated is better. It is simplistic to believe the sun goes around the earth, even though that might be what our first guess would be. The truth is both more complicated (because it involves accepting that the earth is moving even though it _seems_ to be holding still) and simpler (because it does a better job of explaining observed phenomena. I used to think complicated and was quite miserable -- now I subscribe to "KISS" -- Keep It Simple, Stupid. Good when it works. But you have to be willing to accept that not everything is simple. Or at least not as simple as at first glance.

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QrlRb.28912$zj7.5170@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:5XjRb.28101$1e.9311@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

[] Just try to imagine it, and think about your daughter, and how scarred SHE would be - and perhaps for life. And if you could look the
rapist in the eye, and say, "I forgive you" for destroying my daughter. I would want to forgive the rapist. I would pray that I could forgive
the rapist. Jayne But do you think you *would*? I'm not asking if you would like to be God-like here, I'm asking what *would* happen - in reality? (to the
extent you can project it)

I think that I would. In the past, I have been able to forgive those who
have wronged me. I forgave the man who raped me. Of course, having my
daughter raped would be worse.
I mean, even if you can't forgive him, it's really not the end of the
world to admit that!!

I am telling the truth to the best of my ability.

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:260120041947484563%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <bv4arp$o5v66$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: She sounds like a person who would be destroyed by having an affair with you. No matter what is going on with your wife, if you care about this other woman, stay away from her. I continue to find it interesting (at least) that only those who do not know us personally say that we should stop being friends. You seem to be deliberately putting yourself in the way of temptation to do something that will greatly harm everyone involved. Andre makes a very good point with his reference to "Lead us not into temptation". How can you pray that if you are not doing your part to avoid temptation?

" The Lord helps those *who help themselves*... "
As I've said before, there are two people who know both her and me personally very well and both know the whole story and both have been in positions where they could have told either or both of us to stop seeing each other the ways we have and neither has done so. Yes, they have both counselled both of us (separately) on how to maintain our friendship but neither has even hinted that we should stop it. In my time reading this group I have seen how you turn a large number of threads into ways to talk about an affair would be justified in your circumstances. You look to me like an affair waiting to happen.

Indeed.
As I recall, you claim to be a Christian. If so, then these words of Jesus apply to your situation: "You have heard it was said `Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye cases you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." Matt 5:27-29 Are you going to listen to these two people you have found to tell you what you want to hear or are you going to listen to Jesus? The figure of speech he uses in this passage does not mean you should literally gouge out your eye. It means you should remove from your life anything that is likely to lead you to adultery. Remove your friendship with this other woman and throw it away.

The idea that a man and a woman can be the sorts of friends where *both
will disrespect* one's marriage, is clear proof that thats not a
friendship, its a booty call connection...

If one is a true friend, one will not try to get the other to do whats
wrong, and one won't try to do wrong, one's self.

Andre

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

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:06:54 GMT, Bill in Co.
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:uQjRb.28821$zj7.28346@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: []> Are you going to listen to these two people you have found to tell you what> you want to hear or are you going to listen to Jesus? The figure of speech> he uses in this passage does not mean you should literally gouge out your> eye. It means you should remove from your life anything that is likely to> lead you to adultery. Remove your friendship with this other woman and> throw it away.>> Jayne Ummm. Jayne? I really don't think he wants to! (was that ever on the table?) If he is a Christian then that is not relevant. As far as I understand Christian teaching, adultery is wrong, Seeker is not in special circumstances that make it ok, and he has an obligation to take even drastic measures to avoid being tempted to it. Jayne Well, I don't think he is a devout Christian - based on what's going on here - or he wouldn't be doing this. Right?

My word, you are also clueless about religion. Didn't you know that we
are all sinners? (Well, maybe you don't believe YOU are). Church is a
hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:42:17 GMT, Bill in Co.
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: Tony Miller wrote: On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:21:53 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message>> news:WFjRb.28811$zj7.15619@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... <Snip>>> Yes, I have compassion for rapists, child molesters and serial killers and>> I hope I would if it were my child. You don't believe my answer. So what>> is there to say?>>>> Jayne>> You "hope you would" if it were your child who was raped? That's pretty> evasive, and very non-definitive. Surely you can be more definitive than> that: Just try to imagine it, and think about your daughter, and how> scarred SHE would be - and perhaps for life. And if you could look the> rapist in the eye, and say, "I forgive you" for destroying my daughter. Don't worry Jayne. Thieves think that everyone steals. Bill thinks that everyone is bitter and vindictive. Nice try, Tony. Don't dodge the issue above. Can you answer it, or is that too committal for you, too? Or did you already answer it, and I missed it? Let's see. You would forgive your daughter's rapist, or else you would be labeled as being bitter. Was that what you meant?

See, Bill, I'm not going to play your game. If I said that I would
endeavor to forgive those who hurt me or mine, you'd say I was lying, or I
really didn't mean that, because someone like you who has little
compassion in his heart, doesn't believe it's possible for his fellow man.

I say it's not only possible, it's attainable.

Also, forgiveness helps the one forgiving. This doesn't mean that I don't
want the person to be punished. He can rot in jail while I forgive him
and hope that he turns his life around in prison and that God judges him
mercifully in the hereafter.

-Tony

PS: Touched a nerve, didn't I, Bill. I got you responding to me twice in
the same post. This implies a knee-jerk reaction. ;)



--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
PS: Touched a nerve, didn't I, Bill. I got you responding to me twice in the same post. This implies a knee-jerk reaction. ;)

I've noticed this isn't especially unusual for Bill. If the current
object of his scorn doesn't follow up promptly enough, Bill will often
follow up his own post.

Tony Miller (tony@cigardiary.com) writes: On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:06:54 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:uQjRb.28821$zj7.28346@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: []>> Are you going to listen to these two people you have found to tell>> you what you want to hear or are you going to listen to Jesus? The>> figure of speech he uses in this passage does not mean you should>> literally gouge out your eye. It means you should remove from your>> life anything that is likely to lead you to adultery. Remove your>> friendship with this other woman and throw it away.>>>> Jayne>> Ummm. Jayne? I really don't think he wants to! (was that ever on> the table?) If he is a Christian then that is not relevant. As far as I understand Christian teaching, adultery is wrong, Seeker is not in special circumstances that make it ok, and he has an obligation to take even drastic measures to avoid being tempted to it. Jayne Well, I don't think he is a devout Christian - based on what's going on here - or he wouldn't be doing this. Right? My word, you are also clueless about religion.

LOL !
Didn't you know that we are all sinners?

Thats a *starting point* from which to *stop commiting overt acts of
sin, NOT a starting point from *which to commit more acts of sin, and
then... excuse them all*...
(Well, maybe you don't believe YOU are). Church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints.

One goes to a hospital to... get *better*. Not to *deliberately
relapse*...

Andre

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

In article <bv4386$f7g$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, Andre Lieven
<dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
OK, so the Bible means that, if you cna't say it to whom its said to, there, its meaningless ?

No. I was just wondering who *you* thought the sentiment "lead me not
into tempation" was being addressed to.

Ted

Seeker (anon-30263@anon.twwells.com) writes: In article <bv4386$f7g$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, Andre Lieven <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote: OK, so the Bible means that, if you can't say it to whom its said to, there, its meaningless ? No. I was just wondering who *you* thought the sentiment "lead me not into tempation" was being addressed to.

I was of the view that the sentiment expressed in that statement,
was perfectly adaptable to this topical situation.

If one doesn't want to *be* tempted, one doesn't take distinct
actions that are a guarantee of being in such temptation.

IOW, " It just happened " is a self serving lie, born of a desire
to avoid personal responsibility, for both the act, and how one
*set it up*.

Andre

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

>This to Tracey -- if I'm going to find myself in atempting situation, can you think of a better personfor it to be with than one who has known me for20 years, has already had an affair with a marriedman and vowed not to do it again, has been througha divorce and counselling herself, knows what Ifeel about her and what I'm trying to deal with,has an associate in ministry degree from a nationally-respected seminary, and has completed a gruellingyear of training to become a chaplain?

Ted, have you ever noticed that when someone mentions
something that they feel you should be doing or should
not be doing, you always find a way to rationalize why
it's perfectly okay for you to do it? My point is that
you should NOT be putting yourself in situations that
tempt you at all. Your response is 'but, here's why it's
okay for me to do it.'

And, since you brought it up, my opinion of 'the pharma-
cist' after all of the above is not a good one either.
You point out all of the reasons why it's 'okay' for you
to continue doing what you're doing. IMO, the things you
mention *should* make it clear to her that *she* shouldn't
be in that position either. The things you mention above
don't make her 'safe', they make it so that, IMO, she's
behaving inappropriately, too. I cannot believe that *any*
ministry training recommends that you continue to counsel
and to be in intimate, one-on-one situations with someone
who is married and has professed their love for you.

Tracey

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:QrlRb.28912$zj7.5170@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:5XjRb.28101$1e.9311@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... []> Just try to imagine it, and think about your daughter, and how scarred> SHE would be - and perhaps for life. And if you could look the rapist
in> the eye, and say, "I forgive you" for destroying my daughter. I would want to forgive the rapist. I would pray that I could forgive the rapist. Jayne But do you think you *would*? I'm not asking if you would like to be God-like here, I'm asking what *would* happen - in reality? (to the extent you can project it) I think that I would. In the past, I have been able to forgive those who have wronged me. I forgave the man who raped me. Of course, having my daughter raped would be worse. I mean, even if you can't forgive him, it's really not the end of the world to admit that!! I am telling the truth to the best of my ability.

OK. Then I'm impressed that at least someone (you) can do that, Jayne. And
btw, I'm really sorry to hear about what happened to you. It just sends
shivers up my spine. I just can't "process" these abuse cases very well; I
don't how you do it. I think it's your religious conviction, though.

Tony Miller wrote: On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:42:17 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: Tony Miller wrote:> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:21:53 GMT, Bill in Co.> <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:>> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message>>> news:WFjRb.28811$zj7.15619@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...>> <Snip>>>>> Yes, I have compassion for rapists, child molesters and serial killers>>> and I hope I would if it were my child. You don't believe my answer.>>> So what is there to say?>>>>>> Jayne>>>> You "hope you would" if it were your child who was raped? That's pretty>> evasive, and very non-definitive. Surely you can be more definitive
than>> that: Just try to imagine it, and think about your daughter, and how>> scarred SHE would be - and perhaps for life. And if you could look the>> rapist in the eye, and say, "I forgive you" for destroying my daughter.>> Don't worry Jayne. Thieves think that everyone steals. Bill thinks that> everyone is bitter and vindictive. Nice try, Tony. Don't dodge the issue above. Can you answer it, or is that too committal for you, too? Or did you already answer it, and I missed it? Let's see. You would forgive your daughter's rapist, or else you would be labeled as being
bitter. Was that what you meant? See, Bill, I'm not going to play your game. If I said that I would endeavor to forgive those who hurt me or mine, you'd say I was lying, or I really didn't mean that, because someone like you who has little compassion in his heart, doesn't believe it's possible for his fellow man.

I have little compassion in my heart? How would you know that? That's BS.
But if you mean by that that I have little compassion in my heart for child
molesters, rapists, and serial killers, yes, that is true, and I won't deny
that.

Tony Miller wrote: On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:06:54 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:uQjRb.28821$zj7.28346@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: []>> Are you going to listen to these two people you have found to tell you>> what you want to hear or are you going to listen to Jesus? The figure of>> speech he uses in this passage does not mean you should literally gouge>> out your eye. It means you should remove from your life anything that is>> likely to lead you to adultery. Remove your friendship with this other>> woman and throw it away.>>>> Jayne>> Ummm. Jayne? I really don't think he wants to! (was that ever on> the table?) If he is a Christian then that is not relevant. As far as I understand Christian teaching, adultery is wrong, Seeker is not in special circumstances that make it ok, and he has an obligation to take even
drastic measures to avoid being tempted to it. Jayne Well, I don't think he is a devout Christian - based on what's going on here - or he wouldn't be doing this. Right? My word, you are also clueless about religion. Didn't you know that we are all sinners? (Well, maybe you don't believe YOU are). Church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints.

We are not all "sinners", if you use some reasonable yardstick, are we?
Mother Teresa wasn't one, was she? Well, ok, she probably had a few sins,
but let's be fair here - her "sin count" was probably near zero. So I
wouldn't classify her as a "sinner", per se - would you?

Amy D wrote:
Maybe it isn't. I was using it referring to those who supposedly take the marriage vows very seriously, and condemn affairs as breaking the "vow of fidelity" in, and yet have no problem saying break all the vows and leave instead! LOL, are you referring to me? I only typed one little word, "No". :)

No, I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the often
expressed view that if someone is about to cheat on their
spouse, they should leave first (of course, if they left, it
wouldn't be cheating anymore, would it?!). I don't consider
leaving the marriage because one is tempted to cheat more
honorable than cheating while married. In today's environment
of disposable marriages divorce is seen as just another action
that a married couple can take if they face some obstacle. I
don't see it that way.

You mentioned in another post that "infidelity" would be a
deal-breaker. That's perfectly understandable. I may feel
that way too, if I face it (I don't know how I would feel).

Many people cannot continue the marriage after
infidelity and I never will say that they should.
The point was not whether the cheatee (!) should or
shouldn't leave, but whether it is better for the
cheater to have left already! In other words, if your husband
was tempted to cheat and didn't have enough integrity to
avoid it, would it be more *moral* for him to leave
you and go about his lust, or just go about his lust! In the
first case you have no say in the matter. In the second, you
can decide to live with it, leave him, work on your marriage,
or whatever else. And in the mean time, if you have any children
they may have a chance of keeping their intact family if the
two of you are able to work it out.

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lXwRb.28745$1e.5701@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Tony Miller wrote:

[] My word, you are also clueless about religion. Didn't you know that we are all sinners? (Well, maybe you don't believe YOU are). Church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints. We are not all "sinners", if you use some reasonable yardstick, are we? Mother Teresa wasn't one, was she? Well, ok, she probably had a few
sins, but let's be fair here - her "sin count" was probably near zero. So I wouldn't classify her as a "sinner", per se - would you?

I'm sure she considered herself a sinner. This is a basic tenet of
Christianity. All people are sinners and therefore all people need God's
forgiveness. Seeing oneself as a forgiven sinner makes a big difference in
how one relates to the world.

Jayne

I have little compassion in my heart?

It's easy to be compassionate towards someone who is
downtrodden, poor, abused, with medical/physical challenges.
The true test of a compassionate person is to find compassion
in their hearts for the ones who are, as far as outward
appearances go, not 'loveable'.

Tracey

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:s%wRb.28757$1e.17719@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Amy D wrote: No, not at all. The need for "companionship" is a need -- I can't think of the official word for it, sorry. But is it really? Was it so for Thoreau? Was it so for Emerson? I
don't know. It seems like SOME are able to get by, w/o depending on it.
Maybe they're lucky - they will never be disappointed or hurt. Or maybe they
are unlucky, because living like that is only a shell of an existence.

Admit it, Bill. You've never actually read anything by Thoreau or Emerson,
nor do you have much of a clue what "Walden" was all about. (hint: Thoreau's
"secluded isolation" was about 1.5 miles from town, a hundred yards from the
main road, and a quarter mile from the railroad. He had a constant stream of
visitors (including Emerson, of course, who owned the land).

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:270120040841412314%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... To push the analogy, if someone *is* too poor to afford to eat, there are sources of charity that offer them free food (and lodging and other necessities) so they need not steal. Where is one to go if his or her emotional needs aren't being met?

If you are living with/married to someone who theoretically has the
capability to provide you with food and yet does not, for whatever
reason--you will be denied food stamps unless you move out on your own.

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MMwRb.28726$1e.22938@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:QrlRb.28912$zj7.5170@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:5XjRb.28101$1e.9311@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... []>> Just try to imagine it, and think about your daughter, and how
scarred>> SHE would be - and perhaps for life. And if you could look the
rapist in>> the eye, and say, "I forgive you" for destroying my daughter.>> I would want to forgive the rapist. I would pray that I could forgive
the> rapist.>> Jayne But do you think you *would*? I'm not asking if you would like to be God-like here, I'm asking what *would* happen - in reality? (to the
extent you can project it) I think that I would. In the past, I have been able to forgive those
who have wronged me. I forgave the man who raped me. Of course, having my daughter raped would be worse. I mean, even if you can't forgive him, it's really not the end of the
world to admit that!! I am telling the truth to the best of my ability. OK. Then I'm impressed that at least someone (you) can do that, Jayne.
And btw, I'm really sorry to hear about what happened to you. It just sends shivers up my spine. I just can't "process" these abuse cases very well;
I don't how you do it. I think it's your religious conviction, though.

It was a long time ago and was not violent. I don't even know how fair it is
to call it rape. It fits today's definition of date rape and that is how I
thought of it for many years. However I've come to question that way of
talking.

Anyhow, there is no question that my feelings about forgiveness are based in
my religious views.

Jayne

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Amy D wrote: Maybe it isn't. I was using it referring to those who supposedly take the marriage vows very seriously, and condemn affairs as breaking the "vow of fidelity" in, and yet have no problem saying break all the vows and leave instead! LOL, are you referring to me? I only typed one little word, "No". :) No, I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the often expressed view that if someone is about to cheat on their spouse, they should leave first (of course, if they left, it wouldn't be cheating anymore, would it?!). I don't consider leaving the marriage because one is tempted to cheat more honorable than cheating while married.

You MS-ed the point. Its that, if one wants to pursue a relationship,
then one should leave before one dallies.

If one only wants a one time booty call, then one ought not do that,
while married. When one is single, one can try for as much casual
booty as one might desire.
In today's environment of disposable marriages divorce is seen as just another action that a married couple can take if they face some obstacle. I don't see it that way.

Yet, adultery is a major killer of marriages...
You mentioned in another post that "infidelity" would be a deal-breaker. That's perfectly understandable. I may feel that way too, if I face it (I don't know how I would feel).

Indeed. Few people would list, say, a fondness for late night
cracker eating in bed as a deal breaker.
Many people cannot continue the marriage after infidelity and I never will say that they should. The point was not whether the cheatee (!) should or shouldn't leave, but whether it is better for the cheater to have left already!

Don't you thnk that its better to not be in a marriage, when
choosing to pursue other relationships ?
In other words, if your husband was tempted to cheat and didn't have enough integrity to avoid it, would it be more *moral*

No. Less *immoral*. Degrees of bad.
for him to leave you and go about his lust, or just go about his lust! In the first case you have no say in the matter. In the second, you can decide to live with it, leave him, work on your marriage, or whatever else. And in the mean time, if you have any children they may have a chance of keeping their intact family if the two of you are able to work it out.

The point was to the one contemplating the dalliance...

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:s%wRb.28757$1e.17719@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Amy D wrote: No, not at all. The need for "companionship" is a need -- I can't think of the official word for it, sorry. But is it really? Was it so for Thoreau? Was it so for Emerson? I don't know. It seems like SOME are able to get by, w/o depending on it. Maybe they're lucky - they will never be disappointed or hurt. Or maybe they are unlucky, because living like that is only a shell of an existence. Admit it, Bill. You've never actually read anything by Thoreau or Emerson, nor do you have much of a clue what "Walden" was all about. (hint: Thoreau's "secluded isolation" was about 1.5 miles from town, a hundred yards from the main road, and a quarter mile from the railroad. He had a constant stream of visitors (including Emerson, of course, who owned the land).

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.

In article <bv6a9p$oqabl$1@ID-132000.news.uni-berlin.de>, DrLith
<drlith@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you are living with/married to someone who theoretically has the capability to provide you with food and yet does not, for whatever reason--you will be denied food stamps unless you move out on your own.

But if that person is demonstrably disabled -- can't provide you with
the food -- then you can.

Ted

Seeker (anon-30263@anon.twwells.com) writes: In article <bv6a9p$oqabl$1@ID-132000.news.uni-berlin.de>, DrLith <drlith@hotmail.com> wrote: If you are living with/married to someone who theoretically has the capability to provide you with food and yet does not, for whatever reason--you will be denied food stamps unless you move out on your own. But if that person is demonstrably disabled -- can't provide you with the food -- then you can.

Said disability must be proven, first. Saying " My husband/wife doesn't
understand me " in, say, a bar, does not costitute such a proof.

Andre


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

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
should not leave the marriage if they really don't want to. Keeping
a marriage together is important in my view. Yes, the wronged
spouse may choose to leave the marriage, and they are well
justified to do so, but the one who is going to cheat shouldn't
make that decision for their spouse. Of course this doesn't
apply to people who cheat because they feel their marriage is
already dead. In those case, I agree that they should end it
first. But as I said before there are many people who slip
while being relatively happy in their marriage and with no
intention of breaking it. The fact that their action may end
up in the breakup of the marriage is a different matter.
If one only wants a one time booty call, then one ought not do that, while married.

Duh... no one said anyone "ought" to do otherwise.
Don't you thnk that its better to not be in a marriage, when choosing to pursue other relationships ?

It is better not to be in a marriage in the first place!
If you ARE in a marriage, and against all good judgments
are going to pursue something on the side, you are bad bad
bad (so you understand I am not condoning it)!! But if you
really don't want to break your marriage you shouldn't. Your
spouse may do it anyway when they find out - but then again,
they may choose not to break the marriage.

You may find out the grass is not greener, or
even if it is greener it's not worth breaking your precious
marriage, or you may just get it out of your system and
commit not to ever do it again and ask your spouse for
forgiveness, and.... you may even find out that your spouse
also prefers to stay in the marriage regardless of all the
pain you have caused them, and perhaps chooses to work
on it with you.

All I am saying is that "leave the marriage first" is not
a more moral or compassionate advice, even for the
wronged spouse. In fact, in my view it's the least
moral option of all. The best being, of course, wising
up and removing oneself from temptation to begin with.

That's all. And now I will stop this circular argument.

Tracey wrote:I have little compassion in my heart? It's easy to be compassionate towards someone who is downtrodden, poor, abused, with medical/physical challenges. The true test of a compassionate person is to find compassion in their hearts for the ones who are, as far as outward appearances go, not 'loveable'.

Yes, I don't know how one can be compassionate towards child molesters (or what
have you), except to realize they had a really crappy dysfunctional upbringing,
but still, if it were YOUR kid that was adversely affected and permanently
scarred for life......

DrLith <drlith@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:270120040841412314%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... To push the analogy, if someone *is* too poor to afford to eat, there are sources of charity that offer them free food (and lodging and other necessities) so they need not steal. Where is one to go if his or her emotional needs aren't being met? If you are living with/married to someone who theoretically has the capability to provide you with food and yet does not, for whatever reason--you will be denied food stamps unless you move out on your own.

Good point.

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:
If instead of a goodbye hug in the car when I droppedher off she'd invited me in for something else I havelittle 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.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:09:37 GMT, Bill in Co.
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Tony Miller wrote: On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:06:54 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:uQjRb.28821$zj7.28346@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...>> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>> []>>> Are you going to listen to these two people you have found to tell you>>> what you want to hear or are you going to listen to Jesus? The figure of>>> speech he uses in this passage does not mean you should literally gouge>>> out your eye. It means you should remove from your life anything that is>>> likely to lead you to adultery. Remove your friendship with this other>>> woman and throw it away.>>>>>> Jayne>>>> Ummm. Jayne? I really don't think he wants to! (was that ever on>> the table?)>> If he is a Christian then that is not relevant. As far as I understand> Christian teaching, adultery is wrong, Seeker is not in special> circumstances that make it ok, and he has an obligation to take even drastic> measures to avoid being tempted to it.>> Jayne Well, I don't think he is a devout Christian - based on what's going on here - or he wouldn't be doing this. Right? My word, you are also clueless about religion. Didn't you know that we are all sinners? (Well, maybe you don't believe YOU are). Church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints. We are not all "sinners", if you use some reasonable yardstick, are we?

What "reasonable yardstick" do you propose you use, you pompous ***? My
sins aren't sins, your sins are?
Mother Teresa wasn't one, was she? Well, ok, she probably had a few sins, but let's be fair here - her "sin count" was probably near zero. So I wouldn't classify her as a "sinner", per se - would you?

Of course I would. She wasn't a perfect person. She did her best to
remain true.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:35:42 GMT, Bill in Co.
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Tracey wrote:I have little compassion in my heart? It's easy to be compassionate towards someone who is downtrodden, poor, abused, with medical/physical challenges. The true test of a compassionate person is to find compassion in their hearts for the ones who are, as far as outward appearances go, not 'loveable'. Yes, I don't know how one can be compassionate towards child molesters (or what have you), except to realize they had a really crappy dysfunctional upbringing, but still, if it were YOUR kid that was adversely affected and permanently scarred for life......

But what if it was YOUR kid... But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if
it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR
kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what
if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR
kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what
if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR
kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what
if it was YOUR kid...

You better hit the record, Bill. It's skipping.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

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

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller wrote:
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).

Yes, I know. I just choose to ignore this kind of
nonsense. There is a legitimate discussion about affairs
and divorce, and that's what I have been addressing. These
little Andre-talks are way too repetitive and boring for me
to respond to.

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:<40157F2B.101@aol.com>...If instead of a goodbye hug in the car when I droppedher off she'd invited me in for something else I havelittle 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. Tracey


Ted gets a thrill out of standing at the edge of a cliff, hoping that
somebody might push him and knowing that most likely no one will. It
adds some drama to his life.

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bv41nr$nrtuv$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de>... But don't forget whom is that supposed to be said to. This to Tracey -- if I'm going to find myself in a tempting situation, can you think of a better person for it to be with than one who has known me for 20 years, has already had an affair with a married man and vowed not to do it again, has been through a divorce and counselling herself, knows what I feel about her and what I'm trying to deal with, has an associate in ministry degree from a nationally-respected seminary, and has completed a gruelling year of training to become a chaplain? Ted

Ted,

I knew a woman who seemed to specialize in affairs with ministers and
priests. They are not immune to this stuff. Nevertheless I tend to
agree that there won't be an affair because that pharmacist not
interested in one, although she probably likes having a guy around
who's that interested in her.

What I get from your statement, if really true, is that you'd have an
affair if given the opportunity. So the only difference between you
and someone who has cheated is the fact that the target of your love
and lust isn't interested. That's not much of a distinction and I
don't know how you can really believe that continuing to see this
woman isn't harming your marriage. I also don't know how you can call
the relationship you have with the pharmacist a "friendship". It is
clearly *not* that.

You might as well be cheating.

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bv3vo3$6h3$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... Who was it who said " Lead me not into temptation " ?

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 droppedher off she'd invited me in for something else I havelittle 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.

Emma Anne (mbjq@earthlink.net) writes: Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:If instead of a goodbye hug in the car when I droppedher off she'd invited me in for something else I havelittle 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.

Indeed. In a passive agressive attempt to make the wronged
spouse appear the " bad " one.

Andre

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

Tony Miller (tony@cigardiary.com) writes: 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).

A diss of male Festering Femmeroids, yes.
Andre is just so cute I just want to pinch his cheeks.

Your homo-erotic desires are not of interest to me.

No means no !
God I love reading his ****. It's better than "Seinfeld". Keep quoting him.

Seek professional mental health care for your control issues.

Andre

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

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Tony Miller wrote:> 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). Yes, I know. I just choose to ignore this kind of nonsense.

Translation: " As I *cannot* answer it, I ignore it. "
<laughs>
There is a legitimate discussion about affairs and divorce, and that's what I have been addressing.

Ah, so when you term it so, its " legitimate ".

Control issues, Tony's over there ->.
These little Andre-talks are way too repetitive and boring for me to respond to.

Yet... you just did.

Hypocrite much more ?

Andre


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

Jingle Bells (jinglebells5555@yahoo.com) writes: Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:<40157F2B.101@aol.com>...If instead of a goodbye hug in the car when I droppedher off she'd invited me in for something else I havelittle 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. Tracey Ted gets a thrill out of standing at the edge of a cliff, hoping that somebody might push him and knowing that most likely no one will. It adds some drama to his life.

You noticed that too, eh ?

Drama queens and drama kings. Feh. Grow *up*.

Andre




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

Jingle Bells (jinglebells5555@yahoo.com) writes: "Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bv41nr$nrtuv$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de>... But don't forget whom is that supposed to be said to. This to Tracey -- if I'm going to find myself in a tempting situation, can you think of a better person for it to be with than one who has known me for 20 years, has already had an affair with a married man and vowed not to do it again, has been through a divorce and counselling herself, knows what I feel about her and what I'm trying to deal with, has an associate in ministry degree from a nationally-respected seminary, and has completed a gruelling year of training to become a chaplain? Ted Ted, I knew a woman who seemed to specialize in affairs with ministers and priests. They are not immune to this stuff. Nevertheless I tend to agree that there won't be an affair because that pharmacist not interested in one, although she probably likes having a guy around who's that interested in her.

Indeed.
What I get from your statement, if really true, is that you'd have an affair if given the opportunity. So the only difference between you and someone who has cheated is the fact that the target of your love and lust isn't interested. That's not much of a distinction and I don't know how you can really believe that continuing to see this woman isn't harming your marriage. I also don't know how you can call the relationship you have with the pharmacist a "friendship". It is clearly *not* that.

Absolutely. Being faithful *only by a lack of opportunity to
screw someone else*, is hardly being " faithful "...
You might as well be cheating.

The intent is quite there.
"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bv3vo3$6h3$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... Who was it who said " Lead me not into temptation " ?

Andre


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

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.

Tony Miller wrote: On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:09:37 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Tony Miller wrote: On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:06:54 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>> "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message>> news:uQjRb.28821$zj7.28346@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...>>> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>>>> []>>>> Are you going to listen to these two people you have found to tell you>>>> what you want to hear or are you going to listen to Jesus? The figure>>>> of speech he uses in this passage does not mean you should literally>>>> gouge out your eye. It means you should remove from your life anything>>>> that is likely to lead you to adultery. Remove your friendship with>>>> this other woman and throw it away.>>>>>>>> Jayne>>>>>> Ummm. Jayne? I really don't think he wants to! (was that ever on>>> the table?)>>>> If he is a Christian then that is not relevant. As far as I understand>> Christian teaching, adultery is wrong, Seeker is not in special>> circumstances that make it ok, and he has an obligation to take even>> drastic measures to avoid being tempted to it.>>>> Jayne>> Well, I don't think he is a devout Christian - based on what's going on> here - or he wouldn't be doing this. Right? My word, you are also clueless about religion. Didn't you know that we are all sinners? (Well, maybe you don't believe YOU are). Church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints. We are not all "sinners", if you use some reasonable yardstick, are we? What "reasonable yardstick" do you propose you use, you pompous ***? My sins aren't sins, your sins are? Mother Teresa wasn't one, was she? Well, ok, she probably had a few sins, but let's be fair here - her "sin count" was probably near zero. So I wouldn't classify her as a "sinner", per se - would you? Of course I would. She wasn't a perfect person. She did her best to remain true.

BTW - "just doing your best" doesn't necessarily cut it.

Tony Miller wrote: On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:35:42 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Tracey wrote: >I have little compassion in my heart? It's easy to be compassionate towards someone who is downtrodden, poor, abused, with medical/physical challenges. The true test of a compassionate person is to find compassion in their hearts for the ones who are, as far as outward appearances go, not 'loveable'. Yes, I don't know how one can be compassionate towards child molesters (or what have you), except to realize they had a really crappy dysfunctional upbringing, but still, if it were YOUR kid that was adversely affected and permanently scarred for life...... But what if it was YOUR kid... But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid... You better hit the record, Bill. It's skipping.

Did you ever definitively answer the question, Tony, or did u wuss out (like
here)?

"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.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:40:04 GMT, Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com>
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 oneWell, you "MS'ed" the double entendre... The cutesy, matootsie, use of thewors MS (a male feminist thing you know).Andre is just so cute I just want to pinch his cheeks.
LOL that is funny. I bet he has no clue how stupid his canned remarks
are.God I love reading his ****. It's better than "Seinfeld". Keep quotinghim.-Tony

"Bill in Co." wrote: Tony Miller wrote: On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:35:42 GMT, Bill in Co. <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Tracey wrote:> >I have little compassion in my heart?>> It's easy to be compassionate towards someone who is> downtrodden, poor, abused, with medical/physical challenges.> The true test of a compassionate person is to find compassion> in their hearts for the ones who are, as far as outward> appearances go, not 'loveable'. Yes, I don't know how one can be compassionate towards child molesters (or what have you), except to realize they had a really crappy dysfunctional upbringing, but still, if it were YOUR kid that was adversely affected and permanently scarred for life...... But what if it was YOUR kid... But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid...But what if it was YOUR kid... You better hit the record, Bill. It's skipping. Did you ever definitively answer the question, Tony, or did u wuss out (like here)?

If it was my kid I would probably have to fight urges of killing the
bastard in court. Sorry if that makes me a bad mom and bad human
being. Hopefully, if I did kill him I would be granted the same
forgiveness of all the child molester sympathizers and "God".

amy

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?

amy
-- "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Emma Anne wrote: Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:If instead of a goodbye hug in the car when I droppedher off she'd invited me in for something else I havelittle 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? 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?

amy