"Setfree: I don't see anyone here excusing the father for his actions in any way"

That is exactly what I was trying to say BigK (but with a lot more words LOL) I was in no way trying to excuse what the father did to his children; I was objecting to the pretense that the adulterers bore no responsibility in the death of those children.

The media missed so many opportunities to educate, warn and prevent with their shoddy coverage of this tragedy IMHO.

The adulterers parrotted all the typical fog-speak all adulterers mouth while under the fog influence. There was the WW complaining that she was no longer 'in love', maybe never had been... There was a claim that the 'marriage was over' before the adultery started yet it was also revealed that the OM was at the home doing concrete work, discussing the status of the marriage with both the WW and the BH (basically casing the joint IMHO) BEFORE the separation took place, let alone a divorce. This WW did not decide the marriage had problems, go to counselign and work on the marriage, realize the marriage wasn't going to make it, then get a divorce, THEN stay single long enough to recover from a divorce and become a whole person, and then meet the OM. The OM states that basically HE decided that the BH's marriage wasn't going to make it so therefore he deemed it OK for him to step in.

The interviewer should have challenged the adulterers claims and given factual information about adultery. Info could have been given on how to cope with such a betrayal, how to handle the intense feelings of hurt, humiliation, and anger.

And the spin the WW is putting on all this is chilling to say the least. She claims her BH is innocent? She thinks it MUST have been an accident? And nobody is questioning her sanity and ability to safeguard the child she has now? I think she had to convince herself it was just an accident because she doesn't want to deal with ANY thought about how her adultery contributed to the death of her children. The woman's dangerously delusional. Defending her adultery is STILL her number # priority.

The way the OM was referred to as a hero repulsed me. Obviously he realized it was too late to save the children. The only motive he had to dive into the water was to 'save' his own reputation, to exploit a tragedy to be a hero poser, to desperately try to shed some shame for what he helped cause.

The only hero was the ten year old who tried to save the lives of his little brothers.

And as those little boys died they tried to understand the incomprehensible - that their own daddy had left them to die. How incredibly sad. AND long before that tragic day those same three little boys had observed Lord knows how many examples during the adultery of how little their mommy cared about them and their daddy. They had already been trying to cope with the sick message that their mommy loved the OM more than her husband, marriage, children, and family. They probably took some comfort in knowing that at least their daddy still loved them until the day he took his anger and vengence out on them. BOTH parents emotionally abused those boys AND BOTH parents made choices resulting in their death.

Frankly it would have been better if the media had not covered this at all, not interviewed the adulterers. The adulterers certainyl should not have been portrayed as victims in any way. Pro-adultery myths were reinforced while effective legal ways of combatting adultery were ommitted. The info which can help betrayed spouses to stop their WS's adultery is the same info that can help prevent such tragedies. The sooner a betrayed spouse learns of and applies effective anti-adultery tactics the sooner the adultery ends and the less damage is done to all involved. The media has a responsibility to research and report the facts about issues they cover.

Totally agree MM.

The sins of the fathers are visited even unto the third and fourth generation.I agree with you that the dominoes continue to fall indefinitely in the wake of an a.

The concept of revenge is a basic human reaction and is the result of the primal instincts taking control. I believe the potential for extreme reaction is there in all of us. It is only the higher intellectual levels of reason that over ride the short term nature of a primitive desire to even the score.

Maybe the intensity of that depth of feeling is equal to [or inversely proportional to] the heights of the fog.

The conclusion given in many court cases that the balance of the mind was disturbed as the verdict after some tragedy has occured is quite accurate.

That is something we are all striving to achieve-- a balance between the emotional and intellectual sides of the brain. I certainly know that the balance of my mind was severely disturbed after d day

Better questions - better responses

Unless the adulterers are movie stars or politicians or unless the betrayed spouse loses their grip on sanity (per the adulterers' agenda and persistant efforts BTW) and commits some horrible act, adultery itself is apparently not newsworthy enough for the media to cover.

The thousands upon thousands of people on this planet who each day are struggling with the deepest form of betrayal and cruelty are pretty much left to try to deal with this on their own with little knowledge of effective methods to combat the evil of adultery. The trauma inflicted on the betrayed by the adulterers are of no apparent concern to the media. It is only when, in an extremely minute pecent of adultery cases, that one of the betrayed reacts in a horrible way that the media becomes interested.

And then the media is primarily interested in sensationalism. The message given to the public is in no way intended to explore what could have been done to prevent such a tragedy. The media irresponsibly fails to even question the pro-adultery myths and justifications that help keep this epidemic of adultery going. No info about effective, safe, sane ways to not merely cope with but to actually combat adultery are given to the betrayed in the audience.

What if the media applied this same sort of coverage to other tytpes of social problems, other epidemics?

What if the ONLY media coverage we heard of the AIDS epidemic were sensational news coverage if/when an AIDS patient killed somebody out of a desire to punish the person who infected him? What if the media didn't think it was newsworthy to give the public any factual info about AIDS prevention? What if info about AIDS prevention, AIDS medical treatment and research, funding drives, groups to assist, etc. just weren't deemed newsworthy?

What if the ONLY time we heard about starvation was when a violent act was committed by somebody who was living in a starving village?

What if the only time we heard about rape was when somebody killed a rapist for revenge? (Yes, I do realize in this specific case the betrayed husband killed his children instead of his adulterous wife - apparently because he felt that would hurt his wife the most - BUT in MOST cases of a betrayed person doing something violent it is against the adulterers.)

Every time a house fire is covered on tv, they remind us to install smoke detectors and tell us how to respond - get out first, then call the fire department. And they pretty much tell us about every house fire that happens, they don't wait until some sensational murder is linked to a fire and then decide it's newsworthy.

Every time there is a car accident we hear about it on the news - not just the road rage accidents when somebody went berserk.

When there is another school shooting there is lots of media investigation into what may have led to somebody doing such a terrible thing, what might have prevented it, what can be done to prevent it from happening again, where students can get help to cope with it, etc.

But with adultery the adulterers are free to wreak whatever devastation they want in the lives of their betrayed spouse and children and their is no media attention until some betrayed spouse's sanity cracks. Thousands upon thousands of adulterers enjoy pointing and laughing at the reactions of those they've betrayed on a daily basis, then when one of those betrayed does something REALLY crazy everyone points and shakes their heads in disbelief and disgust.

Again, I am in no way saying that there should NOT be shock and disgust at such horrible crimes. I'm just wondering why all the horrible, disgusting things the adulterers do which started the whole mess is not also covered and responded to with disapproval.

Maybe the answer to that question is because there isn't enough geniuine concern for the victims of adultery? Apparently even when innocent chidlren get killed as an end result of adultery, it's not considered too high a price for the pleasure adultery offers? Info could be offered that could help decrease adultery and thereby help prevent such tragedies. But maybe the fact that preventing such tragedies would involve confronting adulterers and combatting adultery is not acceptable because there is a greater desire to protect adultery than the victims of thsoe violent crimes? Again, adultery as some sort of sacred cow that the media doesn't dare harm.

What SHOULD the media have asked those adulterers in the interview?

What SHOULD the interviewer responded to what those adulterers said in the interview?

Knowing that thousands upon thousands of adulterers and their victims were watching, what information did the media have an opportunity and responsibility to give which could help prevent future tragedies?

OK, first off, I object to the piece being entitled: "Sins of the Father". A better, more honest title would be: "Sins of the Parents" or "Sins of Adultery" Actually I'm rather surprised the word 'sin' was actually even uttered by the media.

"This Sunday, Cindy Gambino reveals the dreadful truth — how jealousy and revenge destroyed her family."

Actually that should have been:
"This Sunday, Cindy Gambino reveals the dreadful truth — how ADULTERY, jealousy, and revenge destroyed her family."

And the very next thing the audience could have been told is that this was a needless tragedy that could have been avoided if the betrayed husband had only known about and applied MB techniques to stop the adultery and save his marriage and family from the destruction of adultery.

CINDY GAMBINO: "The last two years have been a living ******. I don't believe you can go to ******, I think we are already there. I think there's only heaven because, as far as I'm concerned, I live ****** every day."

IMHO the reporter should have responded: So according to your beliefs you don't think you will ever have to stand before God someday and answer for how your adultery ultimately led to the deaths of your sons?

If I were the reporter I'd also ask:
If you could go back in time to when you started spending time alone with the OM, complaining to him about your marital problems, would you do anything differently knowing where that path ultimately led to? If you could have seen into the future, known in advance that your desire for the OM would cost your children's lives, would you still have chosen to get involved with the OM?

CINDY GAMBINO: "I think there's a difference between love and being in love. I loved him but I was never truly in love."

OK THIS was a very important missed opportunity for the interviewer to inject some facts about adultery and the 'love' vs 'in love' fog talk. The fact that after a certain time in ANY relationship this shift in feelings is common and perfectly normal - not in any way an indication that the marriage is over - could have been stated. It could have been pointed out that BOTH partners in the marriage have a responsibility to purposefully put deposits into each other's love banks in order to feel 'in love' again. At the very least the reporter could have commented that no longer feeling 'in love' is a typical justification employed by adulterers.

Awesome posts MM. Again.

awesome posts, meremortal!

MM, would you mind emailing me about an unrelated subject? I have a question about something that is really off topic. Thanks: ohmelodylane@aol.com

OK, just to clarify, I DO believe that the father who killed his three sons IS responsible for what he chose to do. I also believe his adulterous wife and her adultery partner are equally responsible for their adultery AND the deaths it resuled in.

SetFree, I totally agree with you that once somebody becomes an adult they should be held accountable for their behavior, not their parents. IMHO there should be no 'adult chidlren', that once a person comes of age (assuming they have no mental disabilties), and get to start participating in adult activities (driving, sex, drinking, etc.) they simlutaneously should be held as accountable as an adult. They don't get to blame mommy and daddy anymore. BUT that doesn't mean that influence magically disappeared. It's still there, it's just that adults are to be held responsible for dealing with that influence.

BUT it is also still true that those who made the choices to create that influence in the first place still set it in motion and still are ALSO responsible for whatever fallout ultimately accurs. More than one adult can bear responsibility for something after all.

The following link partially explains what I believe about responsibility. However IMHO the author fails to acknowledge that even when we are reacting to something we are still to be held responsible for our reactions. I guess my belief would be better described as when two people are in a relationship each is equally responsible for the situations they choose to create for the other person to react to INCLUDING the other person's reaction, AND how they themselves react to the situations the other partner creates. So where the author claims the reacting person is 0% responsible for how they react, I disagree. But where some believe that the initiator of a situation is 0% responsible for the outcome, just because the person reacting is 100% for how they react, I also disagree. This is the equation that assigns the MOST responsibility to ALL adults involved for ALL the choices they make AND all the consequences of THEIR choices. The math is different because IMHO each person is 100% responsible for the situations they choose to create therefore each person is 100% responsible for the possible outcomes of that chosen path, PLUS each person is 100% responsible for how they choose to respond to situations, even those created by somebody else. I do not believe an adult can be excused from responsibility for their choices OR from responsibility for how others react to their choices.

Also, (warning more math) IMHO it's like a Zenn diagram, with the adultery being the larger set that all the possible reactions are a subset of. If the larger set had never existed the probability that the most extreme, statistically rarest, reaction in the subset would have ever occurred is practicially nil.

http://www.divorceasfriends.com/responsibility.html