You know what Cat,
Hang onto your hat as by agreeing with me you may be attacked by many who disagree with with me <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.
All Blessings,
Jerry

Shinethrough - I always love your posts. I'm sorry that you are feeling attacked. I don't agree with you, but we all look at it differently I guess. I still think that the other BS has a right to know that the infidels have decided that it is okay to expose him or her to STD's, and, "IT IS REALLY NONE OF HIS/HER BUSINESS!"

Believer....
Well put.... Love this post!



Classic!

Don't forget about "I am protecting him/her by not telling "......"it would hurt her/him to know the truth"......"she/he cannot handle it"......

"it would do more harm then good".....this one really bugs me! What does that mean???!!!

Daisy



Daisy

Hi believer,
Well the very last one to know about STD's was me. OM knew what he had and so did his then W. Soon, so did my W. You see, I was the last one in the chain of events to know about STD's. Does that make more sense now?
His W already knew!
All Blessings,
Jerry

Shinethrough,

I hardly ever post, and I don't want to jump into the fray, but I did want to try to express to you why I would vote for exposure even in your case.

Since my D, I have learned that there was more than one OW, and knowing that has made a HUGE difference in my recovery. It has helped me put a lot of my WS's behavior into perspective that I could not have done if I had only known about the one OW. I am so thankful that I found out, and it has helped heal my wounds as a BS much faster and given me more peace. I'm happy to elaborate if you like. It seems almost unkind to deny her that knowledge even is she is remarried and years have passed - she has not forgotten.

I tried to read your comments and understand why you think that she would, out of anger, tell everyone and your grown sons. How do you really know that she would do that? I didn't see that answer in your responses, but it's a big thread and I might have missed it. Unless I personally knew, based on her own words, and was 1000% sure that she would do harmful things in retaliation, I would give her the peace of knowing the full truth. Yes, it stings at first, but it hurts much, much less than not knowing for months or even years.

JMO from someone who's been there. Take it or leave it. I'm going to sleep.

The above "expert" definition serves as my defense, my facts, my logic, my reason, my backing, for my opinion on what constitutes an opinion. So, my "opinion" is "right". Most others are "wrong" if they don't accept the definition I provided from an expert source. Based on this definition, I see no evidence that anyone is "stupid"



"Shoulds" and "musts" are not thought to be healthy ways of facilitating good communication...nor is labelling something as "stupid". And "dear"? I see no evidence or facts in your communication that support a fondness, thus the label of "dear", for the person you are addressing in your post.

It is my opinion that your statements are 100% accurate....for you. Mine are 100% accurate and marvelous for me! I don't know about stupid's....

heartmending and kindred opining spirits, I've been reading this back and forth with ML and all the opinions flying around, and decided to add MY opinion to the mix.

IMHO, in the "arena of ideas" (at least in the USA) everyone is guaranteed the right to have an opinion AND to speak that opinion. NO ONE is guaranteed the right that anyone "must" listen to that spoken (written) opinion. IF an opinion is to "carry weight," and perhaps be "persuasive" to others so that they might "accept" an opinion from someone else it IS incumbent upon the speaker of the opinion to "support, defend, state facts in support of the opinion that the speaker first 'formed' and then chose to accept for themselves, and NOW seeks to influence others to the same conclusion. IF it "does not matter" whether or not someone else reaches the same, or similar, conclusion that the Opiner had reached prior to "offering their opinion," THEN there is NO POINT in further discussion.

Prima facia: "Saying something," or "believing something" does NOT make it right. Anyone has the "right" to think, and even to say, whatever they wish, but that does NOT confer "rightness and/or truth" to what they are saying WITHOUT support for WHY someone else might, or should, embrace the same "opinion," (or be persuaded to be of "like mind").

Let's use a crappy analogy for a minute to illustrate this.

EVERYONE has, or had, an anal sphincter. That "right to an anal sphincter" is inherent to everyone and we, thus, "all have one." NOW, what comes out of that sphincter is totally dependent upon the individual. Sometimes it's a solidly formed opinion, based in a fully functioning body of "thought" and carefully weighs all the "food for thought" as it passes through the system and is digested and absorbed and the "nutrients of thought" are made a part of the body while the other "stuff" is slated for elimination.

The "bodies" are all set up originally to work pretty much the same and the resulting opinions that are evacuated from the sphincter are all pretty much the same. BUT THEN we begin to change the "diet," to start taking in "different" sources of food and it begins to "change" the digestive process and it begins to change WHAT will be absorbed and what will be "spewed out for others to see." The system its self may begin to "malfunction" because of problems in the diet, the environment, the genetic propensities that were inherited from preceding "Opiners" in the family, etc.. The net result is that things CHANGE.

One can look at this a "set of beliefs, opinions, Standards, etc.," that differ from person to person but that DO NOT support the "rightness" of the opinion. Instead of well-formed, solid, opinion coming out of the sphincter, now what somes out is called "diarhhea," sometimes "run-of-the-mill runny," and sometimes "explosive.

Further, in keeping with the analogy, sometimes the "internal malfunction" that affects the formation of the "opinion" is so bad that "outside intervention is needed to reestablish "some" control before more serious, and potentially life threatening, problems happen because of the "untemptered" or "misinformend" bodily functions that result in a "well formed opinion." When that happens we get things like Ulcerative Colitis, that cause severely distorted "normal opinion" formation and the realization that current "opinions" may not be right and/or may need to detoured, permanently or 'for a while', to provide a functioning "opinion formation system" so that FEELINGS don't dominate and control our intended rational function.

Hence a "new sphincter" is created, but this one comes out the front-side abdomin. The "old opinion" is still there, it's just no longer functioning and is superfluous.

"We all have 'em" is NOT the same thing as "all is well" with the functioning or the formation of the "opinions" that are deposited upon the world. We all wipe (hopefully), but there ARE tests to evaluate the "normal functioning" of the system based upon an EXAMINATION of the resulting "opinion." "Occult blood," for example, leads those "listening" to the "opinion" to OPINE that further examination of what is CAUSING the opinion to be formed is warranted and needed despite the "Opiner's" protestation that "all is well in their opinion formation process."

Thus, we can OPINE, and even BELIEVE, that something, like gravity, is NOT TRUE. We can even temporarily suspend (or appear to suspend) the TRUE EFFECT of gravity (as in the "vomit comet" aircraft or in spaceflight that moves us far enough away from the gravity well of Earth). The truth is still there operating regardless of "appearances." The "circumstance" MAY affect more quickly or more slowly the EFFECTS of the truth, but they do NOT alter or invalidate the truth. If, instead of being in Space, someone who thinks (is of the opinion that) that gravity doesn't exist and decides to step off the top of a skyscraper building to SHOW their opinion is just as "valid" as someone else's opposing opinion, they will find out MUCH FASTER than someone who is further away from the "gravity well," that their opinion is seriously in need of review based upon circumstances AND the fact that TRUTH operates INDEPENDENT of anyone's "opinion." If not, they may seriously hold to their opinion, despite "Truth," and others will do the "wiping" of what remains when "OPINION" that matters runs up against TRUTH that supercedes.

It is the priniciple behind such things as "ACTIONS based in choice come before FEELINGS." Allowing "feelings" or unsubstantiated "opinion" (just because we all have the "right" to a sphincter) to dominate truth and reason IS a recipe for disaster in the long run. "Fantasy world" opinions lead to "rationalizations and justifications for selfish behavior," the "ulcerative colitis" reactions of "common sense" and "right and wrong" being set aside in deference to "opinion." That, in turn, leads to a philosophy (or opinion) that "I'm okay, you're okay" REGARDLESS of what the "truth" is.

In that sort of opinion...."Anything goes!" simply because HAVING a sphincter imbues a "false sense of security" on the outgoing opinion that "all is well" inside in the "formation process." Sometimes, though, REALITY has a way of FORCING our attention and MAKING us realize that what we "thought was right" was in fact, NOT RIGHT.

Infidelity is one of those things. And ALL who are affected by it need to KNOW the truth IF the lack of truth could result in further harm to them, especially if someone else's "opinion" is that they should not be warned about a potential life-threatening, or at least "way-of-life-threatening," "opinion" held by someone who "lives and eats and prepares the food that is to be eaten" with them.

If the source of the hazard is no longer "involved with them or involved with the 'harmful diet,' there may be no need to warn anyone about a "healed condition" whereby the Colitis is under control and the "Temporary sphincter can be closed and the "original one" can be reconnected to a now functioning system of "good opinion" formation.

Crappy way to think about it perhaps, but it could be another opinion that provides more "food for thought."

Or just think of it as an Allergy to some food that the unsuspecting spouse may EAT because they are unaware that the meal was prepared with, and includes, something that WILL have a negative response in their life. The "allergy" might just be GAS (and of little consequence or potential for harm in their future), or it could be a life threatening allergic reaction requiring outside intervention to help restore health and prevent death.

God bless.

But.....this is just your "opinion." Right? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />




Good for you! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Sorry FHers,
But I'm looking over e-cards and trying to get into the V-day spirit.

HAD to STOP reading at analogy & Sphincter . <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Just not meshing those well at the moment. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I will say it again; if an "opinion" is to be taken seriously, it must be supported with reason, facts, logic. All opinions are not legitimate; some should be outright dismissed because they are just flat out stupid and cannot be supported using reason or good judgement. Sure, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but they are not entitled to be taken seriously if they can't support their opinion. Nor can you say that right and wrong don't apply to opinions; of course they do. That might be said about matters of taste, but the same can't be said about opinions. Some opinions are clearly right and some are clearly wrong.

That being said, most of the issues on this thread are not matters of opinion, but matters of FACT. The definition of an opinion is a belief NOT SUPPORTED by positive knowledge or proof. Simple common sense meets the criteria of "postive knowledge" when we assert that it is the AFFAIR that has harmed penaltykills marriage, and not the exposure. The fact that it is her affair that caused the damage is not a matter of "opinion," but a matter of FACT. It is a fact that can't be successfully disputed. [and not for lack of trying on this thread]

Simple common sense dictates that exposure does not harm, but affairs do. For example, if the OMW had exposed that pk had won an award, we wouldn't be here saying that exposure is harmful. Penaltybox was hurt by pk's actions and nothing else. In short, this is a game of blame the victim-kill the messenger where the victim has become the lightening rod for pain in their marriage.

And what has happened on this thread is what always happens when someone has a weak, untenable position that cannot be supported using facts, reason and logic: they turn to personal attacks. When presented with FACTS and reason that counter their beloved position, they lash out in anger and hostility. And that is what has happened here.

top rope - Ya, but the 'stuff' coming out COULD be "Valentine Red" in honor of day!!!

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

NOT TRUE. This is only YOUR opinion. IT isn't mine. My wife gives me her opinion quite often and I DO take them seriously WITHOUT her having to support them with any reason, facts or logic. I take them SERIOUSLY. So THAT ALONE PROVES your statement as wrong. Get off the "self righteous" horse. It is only YOUR opinion that to be taken seriously that it has to be supported with reason, facts or logic. Seems like on another thread I heard you preaching to us all about how YOUR "gut" feelings are ALWAYS right.( a lie in itself for another conversation) Gut feelings can NOT always be supported by reason, facts or logic. So, by your own standards we should not take gut feelings seriously. It is YOU who has the opinion that they can't be taken seriously, not mine. You don't speak for me.



Sure, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but they are not entitled to be taken seriously if they can't support their opinion.[/quote]

SEE wife comment above: You seem to be stuck on trying to prove yourself right because you have had a couple of people tell you they won't back their opinions and don't need to and you like to argue. They are right ( you do like to but can't admit it despite the facts) and you are wrong. They DON"T need to give me or you any reasons whatsoever to have an opinion. By not giving reasons, does not make their opinion any less credilble than yours. QUIT SPEAKING FOR OTHERS. You are not speaking for me on who or what I feel people are entitled to say or feel or think when they give an opinion. If they want to give me reason for an opinion, then fine. If not, that is fine too. It doesn't make them less entitled to be taken seriously if they choose not to tell me. YOU are the one who keeps preaching differently as if your opinion on opinions are fact. They are NOT.


You may want to consider your own marriage because you seem to have become the "self appointed" Harley spokesperson. Does your hubby know how much time you spend on here? Looks to me like some days are almost all day long. Is he aware of this? Does he really PJOA with you being on here all hours of the day? My opinion is that he is not "exposed" to the truth of your "addiction" to this site. The facts do seem to point that my opinion has merit. Does it not?



Just wondering.... Thank you in advance....

If you take opinions seriously that make no sense and cannot be rationally defended, then that is your own personal shortcoming. But it doesn't mean anyone else is obliged to take such "opinions" seriously. No one is entitled to be taken seriously, especially if their opinion cannot be defended. And that is my opinion and I have a right to it. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Using your OWN principles that ALL opinions are equally legitimate, you have forfeited any basis on which to condemn my opinion. Do you see that? If any opinion is legitimate, no matter how indefensible, as you assert, you have forfeited the right to criticize anyone's opinion. EVEN MINE.

You sound extremely hostile, keep. Thanks for your concern about my marriage, but somehow I read that more as a cheap shot than sincere concern. Cheap shots say more about you than they do me.

Hi Believer,
Thanks for the thought. I try not to take myself too seriously most times.
You wrote; Well I actually agree with that notion but such was not the case in my sitch. OM'sXW was M'd to him for 5 years. She already knew of his STD during their M.
In the end, I was the only one who didn't know, and I'm the one who required treatment.
Thanks for your post.
All Blessings,
Jerry

Hi neverthesame,
Thanks for the input. I,m sorry your M ended in D, but we each must decide what we can live with and what we can't.
You stated: Makes sense to me but consider the fact that his xw already knew there was more than one infedelity.
Would adding my W's name to that list have made any more difference? I don't know? Perhaps you could tell me from your prospective? When you found out there was more than one, did you have a need at that point to know who each and every one of them were, complete with all the details?
You would have had toknown this woman as I did. She was a very self-centered vindictive person who would have exposed my wife to all her colleagues in the industry simply as an act of revenge and nothing more. Since my youngest son also works in this industry, he would have been part of the fallout.
Thanks for your post. It still gives me food for thought, but I still don't think in my case I was wrong for deciding the way I did.
All Blessings,
Jerry

Keeponmovn4ward, you are so right. Of course, this is only my opinion, but my opinion is valid for me, and just because ML says it is wrong, doesn't mean that it is.

My sole purpose in posting to ML originally was to ATTEMPT to have her be able to see a different point of view, to see that not every situation is cut and dried, particularly when there are CHILDREN INVOLVED (are you listening, white daisy?) Instead, she chooses to tell everyone that she is right, they are wrong, and if you don't agree with her (or as she likes to put it, support your position with fact), you are stupid. I just wanted to tell you that I find your posts straightforward, accurate, and to the point.

In my post I asked: "Who among us is the same person in our 20's, as our 30's, as our 40's? Who among us has not had recognized character flaws within ourselves that we have selfcorrected in private? Who dosen't have unflattering secrets we chose not to share?"

I notice that none of the posters who are so quick to criticize penaltykill and myself for our opinions answered that question. But then again, someone who considers who own intuition to be "ALWAYS RIGHT", would of course not be expected to recognize any flaws of her own.

peanltybox, I, along with many others, do fully "see" and understand your "different point of view." That is not the issue. The issue is that we REJECT IT.

What you attempted to do was convince us that it was the OM's wife who caused the pain in your marriage by exposing your W's affair to you instead of your wife's affair. This is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of FACT. It is a matter of fact that it was your W's affair that caused your pain. If she had not had something so devastating to reveal, you wouldn't be hurt. Yet you wrongly blame the OMW, her other victim, for telling you.

You chose to kill the messenger rather than blame the correct source.

Can you imagine someone gettting MAD at the police instead of the bookkeeper when the police warned him his bookkeeper was embezzling money from him? Wouldn't that be silly? "Bad police!! you hurt me and my children!"

The OMW did not put herself in that position, your W and the OM did that. The exposure was simply a consequence of the affair.

Further, I don't try to pass off my "instincts" as FACT. Instincts are instincts. Facts are facts. And all the instinct following in the world will not make your kill the messenger position RIGHT. It ain't. Nor can you defend it, which makes you angry.


But isn't this exactly what YOU are doing; telling me I am wrong? Do you actually think it is a virtue to impart views you think are WRONG? Doesn't everyone assert views they think are RIGHT? If it is WRONG to assert you are RIGHT, then why are you doing that very thing? Or are you admitting you are wrong?

I'd really prefer you back this analogy up with fact or else I will reject it. what if the police was corrupt and decided to turn in the bookkeeper because the bookkeeper wouldn't give him a bigger cut of the money?

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I hope PB and PK are doing well.

And I would prefer that you recognize that a hypothetical cannot be backed up with "fact" because it is a hypothetical. lol

My point being hypothetical or not your police analogy is wrong here unless you believe police like to see people hurt when they tell them bad news. Usually the police are completely univolved. Yes it was PK's A that hurt PB, but it sounds like the OM's wife enjoyed seeing the pain.

I have to say Melody Lane, you do like to argue, hypothetically speaking of course <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

You really like this website don't you!