|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
I have seen those studies. But, as soon as I get a chance, will also show the studies that show the damage of divorce. I will try to get it up here tonight, if I can. I've seen them. Bottom line... we can come up studies out the wazoo for each side of this. I can tell you from my own experience that I believe that children would be better off coming from a divorce home than living in a battle zone. Again, I know there are studies that would support both sides of this... so to me, they are all meaningless. (One study i will attempt to come up with that I read a while back was done by a very reputable organization dedicated to children... American Academy Of Pediatrics... found basically the same thing as the other studies I noted. This sourse is much more difficult for me to dismiss. Plus my IC who also does child therapy (and by the way he is very pro marriage) also feels that children are better off if the parenst divorce rather than live in conflict).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,957
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,957 |
Does anybody know how the law defines adultery...is it only intercourse? I don't know -- but I would think it is 'limited' to intercourse or some sort of physical act. I don't think emotional affairs would be included. Mys
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
I would define it as
Voluntary sexual relations between a married person and any person not their spouse. I would agree that it would have to include a physical act, but not necessarily intercourse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,525
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,525 |
NoodleWhy not just slap the BS in the face and say "Sorry you're hurt but do your friggin duty, why don't you?" Sometimes, doing your duty sux. Interestingly enough most BSs [myself included] had to self administer this precise slap while the rest of the world was calling them a fool. I know, noodle, and I commend each and every one for making that difficult decision. Do you think there's a difference between deciding that for yourself and having someone else tell you that you have to do it? Mys Do I think it's different? The fact is that affairs and divorces resulting from them bring about consequences...that much is inescapable. We are all confronted with difficult choices and an unattractive array of options. Nobody likes it or feels good about it. I think that putting laws in place to protect the BS and the children from the WSs actions and choices places the bulk of those consequences onto the shoulders of the person actually making those decisions and choices. Unfortunately absent those laws [being enforced] the WS is able to shirk responsibility for making their choices and allowing their former spouses and their abandoned children clean up their mess while they chase a fantasy of riding unicorns into the ethereal mists with their affair partner.
Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once ~Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712 |
Mys, Thanks for engaging in the conversation here!! I mean that. I disagree. I believe our society is "evolving" into something that cannot be maintained. We need to look at our society and stop much of what is taking place, before we lose our moral compass and end up with a nation in full crisis. Too often, people want to rules changed to fit their lifestyle. I say change the lifestyle, to fit the rules! *shrugs* The 'rules' aren't doing much good if they are so easy to discard or disregard. Relying on such 'rules' hasn't worked very well lately. It might have worked in the past, but for whatever reason (too many options available, maybe?) it's not working very well currently. No. The reason the rules arent working is because we wont enforce them! Michigan has in its laws that if you commit adultery, you have committed a sexual felony and can be imprisoned for life. Why do we have a law on the books we dont enforce. Now, I might not agree that someone goes to jail for life...but I also wouldnt argu with Michiganers deciding that is the way they want it in Michigan. But the main point is we need to enforce the rules!! Full crisis or not, we've got a mess on our hands. I know you and I probably disagree on how to go about 'fixing' the mess, but I do think we at least agree that there's a mess. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> Absolutely!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> The family is already the functional thing to do. We jsut want to do it differently. When I use a screw driver as a hammer, it doesnt work as it is intended. And doesnt work as well on a nail, as using a hammer. I don't agree. I still think the majority of people want families to function the way they used to function. There are lots of books out there about how men feel displaced as primary breadwinners and how women feel they are doing double duty (home duties and work duties). There used to be a much more sharply defined division of labor and, frankly, I think there used to be more of a 'work ethic' involved in marriage. My grandmother has told me that marriage is 'work' - you work at it and you don't always get what you want. In her day, that's what you did. And she would be correct...even today!! Smart lady! The roles have changed -- and the old paradigms don't really work anymore. People no longer fit into the traditional package. Women work and need more help around the house. People are tired because they're pulling double duty (work and child rearing) and the division of labor has been smudged. People resent doing too much and not getting enough out of it. I'm not sure whether people really are working harder or if it just seems that way. Meanwhile, people's tolerance for 'more work' has gone down. Which is why there has been a push by women to go home. Many women are changing the tide of going into the workplace, and instead returning to the home. Because they realize that they couldnt do everything. And they have begun to realize that the job isnt as important as their family or home or kids. Didnt say that. You can choose NOT to marry. Right. And, what do we do with all those people and their children? Ignore them? No. We need to make out of wedlock relationships and having kids something shameful again. We shouldnt make it "normal." We shouldnt be about reqarding immoral behavior and/or irresponsible behavior. How we do that...is open to debate. You see, I could choose not to join the military. But once I did, I couldnt choose to just up and leave one day because I wanted to do something different. I had given my word and oath. And I was going to live up to it. even if the US military forced me to do so! Or jailed me. We've all ready discussed jailing people for adultery. You can increase the consequences enough to compel people to do things but then you have to deal with managing that. Our society is running out of resources to manage that type of problem. We are running out of resources caring for two household families, divorces, child support, backed up divorce courts, etc. Again, we didnt have to expend all those reseources 50 years ago!! I understand the "change" of time. So did the Founders. It is this false notion of "change" that gives people this false notion of a "living" Constitution. We do not have a living Constitution! People say we need a Cosntitution that will conform to the times. Well, the Founders gave a way to do that...thru the amendment process. But they made it very hard to do so. Why? Because they were students of history. They understood that while there were changes throughout history in the way mankind lived...the base issues of mankind have all remained the same. They understood what was needed to govern people, to allow them to pursue happiness. And those things never change.
Sure, the family isnt out on the family farm anymore working from dust until dawn. Sure we have all of those things. But at the basis of it all, the family is still the family. A dad...a mom...and kids. The family isnt obsolete. Instead, society is ignoring what works in any generation...for choosing its own way instead. And all society continues to do is make a mess! You and I seem to be talking about different types of change. Oddly, I'm taking the more conservative stance and advocating to delay change or not change (the law to eliminate no-fault divorces) until more thought is given to what that change will bring. Even though the change is a 'change back' that doesn't put me on the bandwagon that it's going to fix anything. There were problems in the system that provided impetus to change the law in the first place. Those problems -- plus new ones -- might manifest if we decide to rewind the law. There is no clean "UNDO" button that we can click and restore things to the way things were. Problem solving would be a whole lot easier if there was. All true. But the change was originally made because we were selfish and wanted a free way out of our marriages. A no-fault way of ending the marriages. We wanted to be absolved of the rules so we could do whatever we wanted. Character is making RIGHT choices when no one is looking. Sure, you can choose not to do what is right. But society has a right to bring consequences for those wrong, dishonorable choices! Like I said, the Army could make me live up to my word. Or, if I still persisted, it could throw me in jail for not living up to my word. For not having honor and living up to my responsibilities and my promise. The key is the word choice. Eliminating options/choices does nothing to build character. I have a choice to rob a bank or not rob a bank today. I have that choice. No one can take that choice away from me. But, society CAN impose consequences for making the wrong choice!! I fought my wife tooth and nail for 4 years. And we are no back together I'm so happy for you -- truly. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Thank yoU!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> There are reasons NOT to let the other spouse go. But as I said, the aggrieved person should be the one to decide if, when and how the marriage should end. Not the wayward. now, as this law talks to...if BOTH choose to end it, then they can. But as far as I am concerned, the person that broke their word has no right in making the decisions on the marriage or how it will end. They forfeited that when they left! Just as I believe they also forfeited everything else that belongs to the family (house, money, kids, etc). The family is a unit. You choose to leave, then leave. But the family remains...all of it and all parts of it and its belongings. Forfeiting things is a different set of consequences than not allowing the person to be divorced in the first place. As I said, the law should uphold the promise...the word...the contract...between the individuals. Unless both parties decide to end the contract. As I said, it aint that difficult. We do it everyday in the Army! How are marriages fairing in the army? Not that good last I checked. horrible. But not germane to the point I was making. The marriages and spouses arent under the control of the Army. The soldier is. We CAN make them do their duty. Or we CAN jail them for not doing so. You have to be willing to really increase the consequences. I don't think our society has the stomach to raise consequences 'enough' to really make a difference (and I'm not sure it should).
Which is why I said that this society is breaking! Too simplistic, MM. Where/how are we going to find the resources to enforce all those consequences? It isnt that hard! A spouse goes to court and say they want a divorce. The other spouse says "no." Judge then says "no divorce. As a matter of fact, it would never reach court because the lawyers wouldnt even go that far without an agreement. It takes energy, time, organization, and resources. Arguably, it might be worth the expense. At some point we have to pick our priorities. Maybe we should make this a priority over say... the costly drug war.
Who knows... investing the resources from the drug war into families might cause a significant decrease in that problem anyway. I'm open minded about it. Convincing other people of that would be a trick, though. Nah. Keep the drug war. I was involved in it for awhile. Good people doing great work! Let's get rid of the U.S. Department of Education!! It is unconstitutional anyway (education is a state function). Plus unneeded. A waste of money! Unattractive because society has made it so easy to throw it away. So, you marry someone not knowing if they are just gonna up and divorce you 6 months later. The door is always open...even a crack. When we marry, there should be a walling up of the door. Unattractive because what used to work so well for people has become emotionally confusing. It's not just the disposable nature -- it's that people have a hard time figuring out how to relate to each other. Which is another reason NOT to let them just run away! Make them work on it before scrapping it. If people dont want to uphold their word and uphold marriage and the family, then they shouldnt be married. Why should they be allowed to be in an institution they hold in such little regard?? *shrugs* I could actually live with this --- but it simply fails to acknowledge the problem of non-wedded couples and their children. As I said, unwed couples and having children out of wedlock should be dealt with as "not normal." As something "not to do." And the same. Human nature is the same. The basic parts of humanity, what drives us...is the same. All the rest is just "tools." Instead of horse...we have cars. Instead of paper, we have email. Just tools. If what drives us is the same, then why are we always talking about how the problem with society is that people are too self centered? Either they always were or something's changed. It's always been the same! look throughout history. Look in the Bible. Shoot, the original sin was all about being self-centered and doing it our way...and not following the rules. As I said, our laws are based on the Bible...like it or not. I believe/learned differently. Let's agree to disagree about this.[/quote] I know. And that is fine! I just wanted to add that what we all learn today is not what the Founders said on this subject, or meant. In depth readings into what they wrote and what they did, shows that our view today is totally wrong about what they had intended! Many site Jefferson as one who was adamnet about the separation of church and state. they use one passage he wrote (out of context) and ignore the other tons of writings that said the opposite of what we are saying he meant. All I am saying is read what they said. Read ALL of what they said. They were not unclear about this. Like my bank analogy. If I dont pay my installments, I break the contract. Now, the bank has in its right to cancel any future payments and make me pay the balance now. Or, it can choose to decide to "rehabilitate" the loan (contract) through a different payment plan.
The main thing to take away from my analogy is that the aggrieved party (the bank) got to decide the solution. Not me. It decided, and then gave to me what it decided. That is the nature of contracts. Then, we're defining the only way to break the contract is through infidelity or abuse? What about neglect? What about the rest of the vows? What's the recourse for that? Virginia doesnt define "cause" as just infidelity. Abuse, abandonment are jsut a few of the list. While somewhat true, the Commonwealth of Virginia also has in its laws that it does not recognize gay "marriages." So, Massachusetts marries two men, they move to Virginia and expect their "marriage" to be recognized in Virginia. But it is not. Reciprocity has limits. Right. And, for a while, it was a big mess because they had to pass a separate law to specifically not allow reciprocity in those cases. Mys Exactly. But the point was that Virginia had every right not to recognize laws that Massachusetts enacted!
Standing in His PresenceFBS (me) (48) FWW (41) Married April 1993... 4 kids (19(B), 17(G), 14(B), 4(B)) Blessed by God more than I deserve "If Jesus is your co-pilot...you need to change seats!"Link: The Roles of Husbands and Wives
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 131
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 131 |
MM,
I can truly see why your wife had issues with your marriage.
Rules and regulations. Rules and regulations. Atten-hut!
Do those dishes. Clean the floors.
Follow those regulations. Say what you mean, mean what you say...
On and on and on....
You just don't get it. You really don't...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,957
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,957 |
The fact is that affairs and divorces resulting from them bring about consequences...that much is inescapable. Right. No argument there. We are all confronted with difficult choices and an unattractive array of options. Nobody likes it or feels good about it. True again. I think that putting laws in place to protect the BS and the children from the WSs actions and choices places the bulk of those consequences onto the shoulders of the person actually making those decisions and choices.
Unfortunately absent those laws [being enforced] the WS is able to shirk responsibility for making their choices and allowing their former spouses and their abandoned children clean up their mess while they chase a fantasy of riding unicorns into the ethereal mists with their affair partner. I'm not opposed to finding solutions -- I'm just not sure this is the best solution there is to be found. And, like I've said before, I wish people were more skeptical in general about "solutions." I'm not saying "NO! Don't do it!" I'm just saying, let's talk/think about it and make sure it's the best course. If it can't stand up to a little discussion and a few hard questions, then maybe it isn't such a good solution, after all. Consider this: How often do you hear: "Why don't people get a divorce before cheating on their spouse? Why not just leave instead of dragging your spouse through the horror of infidelity?"Now, the 'solution' is to eliminate the possibility of someone leaving? As I said... I just don't see the point in tying someone to a relationship they don't want to be in. Nothing compels that person to behave honorably or even nicely about it. Mortorman seems to be saying the <not sure what the word is> honorableness(?) of forcing people to keep their word is the point. That argument doesn't really resonate very strongly with me because I feel that a person who is 'forced' to behave honorably hasn't earned honorable status. I can't explain it any better than that, I'm afraid. Mys
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,525
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,525 |
Rules and regulations and being accountable for your choices.....AND clean floors?
Sounds like a little slice of heaven.
MM you can come run our house anytime.
Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once ~Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,525
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,525 |
They haven't earned it Mys...
I think it really breaks down to a belief about how character is created and grown.
I believe that people grow when they are uncomfortable.
Holding someone to their contracts is NOT a far out idea. I guarantee you that if you told a bank you decided you just didn't want to pay back the money you owe them anymore they would tell you "no" too.
There is nothing wrong with forcing people to keep their word. Personally I care very little whether that inspires them to change or not...I care greatly that it offers some protection for the person [people] who are about to be defrauded.
If they are able to make those chages of character they will likely be happier, more satisfied, stronger people in the long run...but that is their choice, if they choose not too bad for them.
Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once ~Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
I know. And that is fine! I just wanted to add that what we all learn today is not what the Founders said on this subject, or meant. In depth readings into what they wrote and what they did, shows that our view today is totally wrong about what they had intended! Many site Jefferson as one who was adamnet about the separation of church and state. they use one passage he wrote (out of context) and ignore the other tons of writings that said the opposite of what we are saying he meant. All I am saying is read what they said. Read ALL of what they said. They were not unclear about this. I am a pretty patriotic person and believe the courts go beyong their intended purpose when making laws. MM... but do you realize that you are relying on a document written by a group of men that raped (because there cannot be consenual sex int he arrangement of slavery) and owned slaves. These were truly not men of God and even if they repented and changed their ways later on in life... their words need to not be considered with such reverence. As far as leaving things to the states... I am all for this except when the laws are overtly unjust... life in prison for adultery is ridiculous. The law exists as do many in this country only because they were once on the books and have never been removed. But you can rest assured that the first idiot that tries to prosecute under that statute would be vilified... and rightfully so. Im one Southern State it is illegal to have sexual relations with your wife in any bed but your marital bed. Still on the books... that would make for a crazy boring vacation. I will also tell you that although I get your point that children out of wedlock should not be the norm... it is not shameful. Not everyone believes that sex is wrong or shameful outside of marriage and to have society shame these people would result in many more abortions and a whole lot fewer adoptions. Take for example my case... I was NOT affiliated with any church and living what I would now consider a sinful life. My sons mom got pregnant and if I had not put up a fight she would have aborted him. Am I ashamed that I am now a single parent... not on your life. But I would live with incredible shame and guilt had I let my child be murdered. Your brush strokes are much too braod and even though you say you are keeping religion out of this... it iws coming through loud and clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
Holding someone to their contracts is NOT a far out idea. I guarantee you that if you told a bank you decided you just didn't want to pay back the money you owe them anymore they would tell you "no" too. But the terms of the marriage "contract" allow for divorce. Should a person be fined for infidelity...yes. Should the custody decisions take into account the infidelity...yes. Should the division of assets be weighted to the BS... Yes. Should a BS have the only say about a divorce... should they have the ability to hang on to something that the WS does not desire... NO. That would be tanamount to a life sentence for the WS AND the BS. There are good reasons for divorce and neither party should have the ability to take away that choice for the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 212
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 212 |
I'm glad this bill isn't passing in Missouri... This bill can't pass fast enough IMO. Forget about the part about having children. I wish my WW would have no recourse but to stay in the M. That way we could move past whether she is staying or going and get to working on the M again. Bring it on MO! And so what would you do if your wife just said 'screw you' and moved out? You'd be stuck with a marriage to a woman that didn't want it and couldn't be forced to live with you. You'd still lose. Next, you're going to say it would be great if you could imprison the WS in your home so that they can't leave and are forced to work on the marriage. You're going to want to take all of their rights away, like they were a convicted felon. Take a tiger, raise it from birth to be your best friend. Stick it, hungry and injured, in a cage. Now, go in the cage with the tiger and expect it to purr like a kitten and be perfectly placated because you're its best friend. I dare you. A WS will react NEGATIVELY if forced to stay in a marriage. If and when you force anyone to do anything that they are not willing to do, they will more than likely react in an opposite manner. FORGET about this bill in MO.
M - 01-01-03
BS (me) - 29
FWXW (her) - 25
D-Day - 05-19-06
DS - 2 1/2 years
Divorced
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 7,093
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 7,093 |
As I said... I just don't see the point in tying someone to a relationship they don't want to be in. I'm with Mysch' on this. I can't believe that any of you would want your spouse to stay if they really wanted to go. Or are you thinking that if there was no "out", they would never get to the point where they considered it and therefore would remain in that blissful state of satisfaction? If there were no way out, would we find a way to be happy together forever, having nothing else to consider? Is that it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015 |
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess I'm an optimist. I think most people are well-intentioned but ill equipped to cope with whatever is going on in our society. Maybe what needs to happen is that marriage needs to evolve into something that fits better in our society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. I believe our society is "evolving" into something that cannot be maintained. We need to look at our society and stop much of what is taking place, before we lose our moral compass and end up with a nation in full crisis. Too often, people want to rules changed to fit their lifestyle. I say change the lifestyle, to fit the rules! Mortarman - We already have a nation in full crisis that has already lost its moral compass. It has been fostered, successfully, by the "separation of church and state" crowd, even though no such thing exists in the Constitution. For what it's worth consider these things: 1. Lack of, and often denial of, Personal Responsibility, 2. The word "No" has been replaced by "political correctness," aka the "finger in the wind" determination of morals and ethics, 3. "Relativism" in all its many aspects IS the "compass" taught and used. Clearly defined "right and wrong" no longer exist for the majority, 4. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is a laboratory experiment proven out in the 200+ year experiment known as the United States of America, 5. Marriage was created, instituted, and defined by God. Where God is no longer permitted (despite the Constitutional guarantee that no law shall be passed that would abridge the "free exercise of religion" on the basis that someone might be "offended" (read political correctness and spineless), the STANDARD for what is a "marriage" is decided by committee and subject to change anytime they so desire or new members with "differing" ideas gain membership in the committee. There are NO absolutes and personal DESIRE (wants) becomes the sole determinant of "right and wrong" for each individual. Society thinks it can impose its will on the people, but only so long as the committee in charge can threaten someone with the loss of their liberty for choosing to "dare" to believe something else, 6. "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity." True then. True today. Nice to see you posting again. How goes things with your ex-Wife?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,525
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,525 |
Do you know many BSs who want to be married to someone who doesn't want to be married to them for the rest of their lives?
Something like this requires BOTH signers to consent to the dissolution of the contract when an unfaithfull partner wants to divorce.
So basically...you can't leave your spouse for your lover unless they consent.
We all know about affair dynamics...we all know that just simply being told "no" generally IS cause enough for the majority to come to their senses.
We could put the concept that your BS not only exists but has rights as well and have little booklets available at a fourth grade reading level with helpfull illustrations...
"A clue for emo".
Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once ~Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 7,093
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 7,093 |
I believe that people grow when they are uncomfortable. Possibly. Do you think you could ever let someone out of that contract, knowing they were dying inside, and care enough about them to want them to leave if they must? Or does a marriage contract make all of the above mute?...because of the contract you entered into? And is that the most loving thing to do? I believe in marriage being forever, please don't get me wrong. This is a very interesting discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015 |
Take a tiger, raise it from birth to be your best friend. Stick it, hungry and injured, in a cage. Now, go in the cage with the tiger and expect it to purr like a kitten and be perfectly placated because you're its best friend. I dare you. TheRogueX - consider this directive BEFORE choosing a mate: "Do not be unevenly yoked." Ignore at your own peril. Do we live by "instinct," or by every word that proceeds out the mouth of God?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,525
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,525 |
We are talking about limits on a WS...not unavailability of divorce ever for anyone.
Nearly all WSs think they are dying inside.
I have no problem holding people to their word whether they like it or not until or unless I consider it necessary to MY health and wellbeing to forgive the breach.
Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once ~Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996 |
I have no problem holding people to their word whether they like it or not until or unless I consider it necessary to MY health and wellbeing to forgive the breach. you promise? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,525
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,525 |
I have no problem holding people to their word whether they like it or not until or unless I consider it necessary to MY health and wellbeing to forgive the breach. you promise? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once ~Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
1 members (1 invisible),
272
guests, and
62
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
