Mr. W, you've got mail.

Hmm, perhaps I am guilty of feeling this as well in regards to this thread. Thank you for pointing that out, SC.


Thanks for this, too, Mr. W, especially the bold part. I am heartened!

I really resent this attack.

I started this thread to seek clarification on a legal issue, and I believe we have received as much clarification as we can get on a public message board. We have not been provided with evidence of successful suits over FB exposure, but we have seen reference to cases where FB exposure stopped the affair, without an ensuing trial.

It has taken some back-and-forth for the issues - walls vs private messages, job consequences, defamation and all the rest - to be sifted through, but we have done so with civility. Where a weak argument has been recognised it has been challenged. There have been strongly-expressed views, but there is nothing wrong in this.

To read now that the thread has been "rife with personal attacks", that "valuable posters" have been "run off", that we have created "an environment of perpetual attack" and that, most astonishingly, Tawandabelle has been given "2x4s" is incredible. I challenge you to show me ONE instance of a personal attack, on Tawandabelle or on anyone else.

I posted before I saw your "heartened" response, Mrs V.

maritalbliss, I am absolutely committed to my M.

I haven't read a whole lot of new threads or SAA threads lately. I have spent more time in recovery and 101. I haven't read all of the discussions about exposure and didn't really realize I was beating a dead horse, so to speak.

I do acknowledge that I sometimes have my own personal struggle with shame over what I did 4 1/2 years ago. Sometimes the more I talk/write about it the more shame I feel. But then I really want something valuable to come from all the wreckage I caused; I want to make a difference if possible. It's a balancing act - too much talk and I get stuck in the shame, never talking about it means I can't use the experience to be helpful.

Sometimes love must be tough. I can handle the tough as long as there is the love - haha. I'm still a wienie at heart, which is why my DH's absolutely Christlike love for me is even more amazing.

I apologize. I really made this last few pages all about me. And I HATE that. This is supposed to be all about saving marriages.

Sugar, I am SO not attacking you, so I hope this isn't directed to me. I think this thread is great.

Nonononono!!

It was directed at the post I quoted!

Thanks for the support, bliss.

I do hope we can lay the question of attacks to rest now.

Not just quite yet.


And I gave you a legal answer. No one has disputed that the claims listed might be colorable claims based upon this scenario. What has been said is that they are hard to prove.

I gave an off the top of my head list of what might be out there. I never suggested that those claims were anything but viable.


This qualifies as an attack leveled by you at me.

Let�s look at actions. If I were as described, I would be popping into every exposure thread issuing dire warnings about possible legal ramifications.

I don�t. I read and root for the spouse. It�s a hard choice, but all indications are that it may be the only choice that will save the M.

You remember in Sixth Sense when the kid tells Bruce Willis �I see dead people�?

I am a trial lawyer. I see lawsuits. I see them EVERYWHERE. I see lawsuits where a lay person wouldn�t think of them and half the lawsuits I see are ones that an office lawyer wouldn�t see.

One of the reasons I am a good lawyer is that I think out of the box and ahead of the curve.

I can�t sign a field trip permission slip without seeing a lawsuit. I can�t walk in my neighborhood with my dogs without seeing a lawsuit.

I have seen lawyers twist facts beyond recognition.


Just because it is legally cognizable does not mean it is meritorious.

All a claim needs to be is colorable and the lawyer can ethically file.

You asked a question that I mistakenly thought was sincere.

I gave you an answer that has morphed into me being a vindictive, unrepentant, self-serving anti-exposure alarmist.

I have no idea whether it has happened IRL. I was simply answering the question you posed.

This wasn�t anyone�s thread, so I thought it was informational. Had it been someone�s thread, I would not have responded for fear that my answer might be a factor in the decision.

There are things in the standard exposure letter I would tweak towards avoiding the downside risk of litigation. There are things in almost every document carrying legal weight that I would tweak towards avoiding that downside risk. That doesn�t make the downside risk probable or me right.

I think any faithful spouse who feels it would be helpful in their sitch should expose like mad � but with care -- to anyone they think may be helpful towards ending the A and supporting both spouses and the M.

You, SugarCane, haven't a single clue as to what is going on in my life. You do NOT get to attack me without rebuttal based upon some initials in my sig line.

No, I own that one. But I think we're all set to rights, so woohoo!

I attacked your words, but that is hard to demonstrate since you have removed what you said.

Obviously, from this, we are not.

Then approach your new actions with pride, instead of shame.

I get you, I just have the other end of the yardstick here.

Hell, I'm still in the middle of the dang coaster, holding on, but reaching out to others, and saying "Man, that double-helix backwards loop is a doosy" helps.

The connection to addiction recovery here is astounding. Most of us with that WS or BS tag have been through hell - and I don't discount a remorseful WS in the least. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I have no idea how I could handle being the only one responsible for the decisions that have lead my family into the worst crisis it will ever face.

I have faced that decision myself, multiple times. However, my B remains, and now I have to add another layer of protection to myself. I no longer have the delusion; she would never do that to me.


It is recovery. It is like AA meetings; it takes all types, and takes all stories. Yours counts, too TB.

SB... you always have me on my toes. One moment, I want to shake you, and ask what the hell is wrong with you - the next, you show your true breadth, depth, and potential. Sometimes, I think your issue is that you possibly have more heart than spine. You get all hurt and offended, and you retreat, albeit loudly.

You stated it yourself; sometimes lawyers twist the facts into an unrecognizable tangle of deceit. This is what I meant, way back when I said you carry that professional attitude. Your inner lawyer is just too loud sometimes.

Soften up. This is an anonymous, public forum. If you know how to back up your claims, back them up. No need to join in the mud slinging.

Nice try.

Let's list it out, just from this page:

Vindictive.

Dodgy

Self Serving

Unrepentant

That is directed at the person I am, not my words.

It is an unambiguous, completely unjustified character assasination.

Own it. Or don't.

But if you choose not to, consider being slow to suggest that others should own their stuff.

Oddly, you are oblivious to the type of lawsuit we see the most: DIVORCE. Which most often occurs when an affair is not exposed. We don't see lawsuits about exposure, we see lawsuits for divorce. That reflects a concern, not for the victim, for the perpetrator.

sb,

I own those words. I haven't removed MY posts. I stand by my posts. Everyone can see what I wrote. Can we say the same for you?

Some of the words in the list (like "dodgy") are directed at your words, and some of them are directed at the persona you have created in your many posts here, not just in the ones to this thread.

There have been posts where you have said that if your H had done the things that WSs are advised to do here on MB, you would have left. For example, you have ridiculed the idea of giving your H full access to your computer. You have said something to the effect that if your H had told people about your affair (not just on FB; anywhere) you would have walked.

Several posts like these have led me to see you as unrepentant. I'm not going to look up your old posts now, but I might do so another day, if you think I should.

It is 3AM here in England. TBC another time, if you wish.

I'm confused. That was my obviously poor attempt at levity to smooth over what I thought was a finished misunderstanding. I'm going to go back to the sidelines now and let the original thread carry on!

I would agree with this characterization based on your effort to scare BS's into not exposing.


True. Cannot defend her position and defends her arguments by claiming she is "objective" when it is clear she is not.


Absolutely. It's like the bankrobber who protests jail sentences for bank robbers. You have an emotional investment in condemning exposure and have even told others you would have left your spouse if he exposed your affair.


Trying to scare BS' into not exposing definitely reflects a lack of remorse, and most certainly a lack of repentance.


It was very accurate and very justified.


I'll be your huckleberry.

dang, you forgot the most important one!! click here

Please point out to me a single thread where I have tried to scare a faithful spouse's into not exposing.

Please point me to a single thread where I have commented on a faithful spouse's decision to expose.

Please point me to a single thread where I have posted a single word to an exposing faithful spouse.

I THOUGHT this was an informational thread where ideas as opposed to advice were being exchanged.


Since I don't have a position, I cannot possibly defend it.

What I had was a list. A list is not a position. A list is a list.


Again, please point out where I have ever tried to scare anyone out of exposure.

You can't do it because I haven't because I make it a point to never post on those threads because while I believe it is a good strategy, it trips my legal wires and I am fearful that any sort of cautionary signal I might inadvertently send might lead to a bad decision.

I hate it when the facts get in the way of a theory.

ALL I did was answer a question and try to explain how the system MIGHT work. If you have another lawyer on these boards who has represented both plaintiff and defendant in every cause of action I listed in a variety of different contexts and argued the evidentiary issues raised in these soft torts during discovery and through trial, THEY ARE REALLY QUIET.

If you have a lawyer on this board who completely disagrees with me that those might be colorable claims THEY ARE BEING VERY QUIET.

Why do you need to vilify me? You haven't the faintest idea what my life is like. You have not the first clue what I am doing for my M or what he is doing to me.

What purpose does it serve to attack me for answering a question on which I have professional expertise on an informational thread?

Why am I even having this conversation when I was sincerely just trying to help by answering what looked like a sincere question?

Abusing you?

THEN LEAVE.

Nobody here would vilify you for leaving an abusive spouse. NOBODY.

Is this the reasoning you use to paint every act of repentance, remorse, and reconciliation of a WS toward a BS as some type of stigmatized attck of the WS?

Is this why you project all over other the husbands of other women?

Adultery is damaging to everyone within it's blast radius, Seeking. That is why it is wrong. It can't be justified, and it is abuse.

If he is abusive, that is no justification for adultery, and your adultery is no justification for abuse.

If he is abusive, LEAVE. If he isn't, then quit alluding to it as some pity-driven flaccid trump card.