sixone
Lifer
- May 3, 2004
- 25,030
- 5
- 61
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: sixone
If she was married to you, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Since she isn't, let's deal with what IS, and not what should be.
Wait wait wait... you can't say "let's deal with what is" right after saying "since the wife's not here, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt".
In other words, giving the benefit of the doubt to a side of the story that, until recently, was nothing more than your own wild speculation.
Originally posted by: sixone
I would have a few choice words for her, if she was here, but she isn't, so why waste the time?
Okay, it's time get extreme. An assault victim posts a thread about how she was beaten down to the ground while leaving work.
"So, Mrs. Victim... let's get to the heart of what really matters here: What did you do to deserve the beatdown? Did you look at him crosseyed 12 years ago? Maybe you should work on making him feel better about that so you don't get beatdown again."
"Uh, are you insane?"
"Well, the attacker isn't here so I'm not going to waste my time pointing out what a prick he is. "
......
... oh wait... the victim was female... nevermind. Guess the anology wouldn't apply here.
:biggreennastypukeicon:
You're the one putting ALL the blame on the wife, who hasn't had a chance to defend herself. I never said the OP was solely to blame, but I do expect him to own HIS contributions to a bad situation.
There are no victims here. He picked her, he married her, knowing that she had this trust issue, and now he's mad that his dog is STILL barking, so to speak. And she picked him and married him, while feeling that he was unworthy of her trust, and refusing to let him earn it. If he can't take his share of the blame, why should she?
