In an attempt to NOT threadjack Binder....

You said on his thread:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Ethan - who cares about damage control in Plan B?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Plan B, where there is no contact between spouses, the WS is left to wonder why you told xyz.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say, let them wonder - and let them vent on someone else - like OM!
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Without applying it to my sitch, how does it fit with the BS removing themselves from A? Doesn't it show, if anything, an indirect involvement?

And to use me, as an example, if I expose to OM3's parents today (hypothetically) would that not indicate to the affairees that I'm waiting, hanging, pining......

How does this fit in the "big picture?"

Ethan

<small>[ September 09, 2004, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: thefurnitureman ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by thefurnitureman:
<strong>Without applying it to my sitch, how does it fit with the BS removing themselves from A? Doesn't it show, if anything, an indirect involvement?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hi Ethan - I couldn't agree more, it seems to "violate" Plan B. Hence my earlier remark that all exposure ought to be over and done with as a prerequisite to Plan B.

And if you exposed to OM3's folks at this point, you would be contradicting YOUR plan and likely not gaining ground due to the "uninvested" vantage point they have.

In Binder's case, he had a dilemma whether to expose to his Mom - an invested observer - whom he wanted to protect from anguish. We maybe should have tried to convince him to do this prior to Plan B, if we had remembered the details or if he had told us - can't remember what he posted.

Regardless, I don't necessarily agree that Plan B "detaches" a BS from the affair - only from the WS. If exposure opportunities arise after entering Plan B and there's a chance to gain some ground, why not expose?

So, speaking of "stand ins", do you like the designated hitter rule? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

WAT

You've lost me with the stand-in comment.....

But, no, not a big fan of the DH.....

Ethan

"Stand in" could be a pseudonym for "OP", huh? a "designated hitter." <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Yikes.....

Thought about that after I posted. And no, not a big fan, in both reality and ummm...pseudo-reality.......