Well, apparently, all of my posts to this "friend" have been deleted. He decided to only keep the posts by those who agreed with him (i.e., his group of enablers).

This from an ultra-liberal who supposedly doesn't believe in censorship. Hmmmm....

ML, we will respectfully (I hope) continue to disagree on our Nanny-responsibilities toward other person's actions.

But you will note that I originally suggested private advisement in lieu of public stoning, so "silent" is not exactly what I would have counselled.

He didn't believe in that, when he wasn't a WAYWARD. Now, you must remember, just like when we tell BSs that their spouse is gone and a WS has replaced them, it's the same here. Your friend is gone. In his place stands WF(HAHAHA I use those initials for OW in my sitch too, only it's not Wayward Friend). Plan B his azz until DF returns.

I can only HOPE that his BW saw or hears about YOUR posts so she knows that SOMEONE is on her side. (((BW)))

But, no one sees your "private advisement" so your silence conveys endorsement. Your silence is enabling as it allows him to flaunt his adultery publicly without complaint. Nor does it do anything to burst his fantasy. That is part of the beauty and power of exposure. Standing up for my friend is not a "nanny" action, it is a caring action for another human being. Friends don't sit by idly when a "friend" harms himself.

Neverguessed, let me put it another way so you understand.

Why is it ok for him to flaunt his love of adultery on his facebook page, but not ok for writer to flaunt her condemnation of same? IF its alright for him to flaunt wrongdoing, it is certainly alright for her to object.

Don't you think that public endorsement of adultery should be met with public condemnation? What would be the purpose of silence other than moral cowardice?

@NG -

It's not pseudo-analysis.

You hypothesized two contrasting positions. Yours and ML's.

You state MLs position as if she was a fanatic. Then you go on to state your position as if you don't impose your beliefs on other people and you don't try to control other people. Which also implies ML is imposing her beliefs and tries to control people.

IMHO, you were doing nothing but trolling. But since I was trying to point out in a subtle way that you were trolling by bringing up a strawman. You didn't get it, I guess. Or you did get it and didn't care.

But then you went on to explain that you were giving writer1 two options: MLs: Bad NGs: Good.

TROLLING

[edited=cause I can]
BTW, I will always listen and try to understands MLs advice, even if I at first don't agree.
[/edited]

I agree, clark kent, and appreciate your saying so. He felt the need to distort my position out of all proportion in an effort to prop up his own. It is not missed on me that if his position were that compelling he wouldn't need to resort to such cheesy tactics.

You really can�t help yourself, can you? In my note of 09:17pm, I wrote, To prove my point, it seems now to want to start a fight with me, where one did not exist.

In my note of 09:17pm, I defy you to find anything about our two positions that indicates my recommendation to W1 that my stance is preferable to yours. (You won�t find any such marker because in many ways I can appreciate your zeal!) What I did was make plain the choice she (and we all) are going to have to, or at least should, make a priori in the way we deal with people whose insights into the damage and pains of infidelity are not as keen as ours.

But you have evidently decided that any opinion on this site MUST conform to yours. Yeah, I know you�ve got 47,000 posts to your credit, so that certainly plays to your commitment to what you think is right, for you. I also am committed to what I think is right for me.

The difference, evidently, is that I am confident enough in my own position not to insist that everyone else agree with me.

Maybe, someday, you�ll be there as well.

Evidently not confident enough to present your view - on it's own merits - without disorting someone else's view to use as a point of comparison. Maybe, someday, you�ll be there as well.

Both those statements seem to be designed by YOU to start a fight. They are provocative and rude!

Un-friended and blocked. Good riddance to this absolutely horrid and extremely self-deluded, sorry excuse of a human being.

And that's all I have to say on that matter.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{writer}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

It occurred to me that he wouldn't want to maintain any friends who don't enable him. If he ever comes out of the fog, he will remember you as the one friend who stood up for him. He won't remember all the backslappers and the moral cowards. They are a dime a dozen.

Thanks Mel. You may be right. But honestly, right now, my attitude is pretty much, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Or, as you Texans might say, "My give a damn is busted."

Good move.

Absolutely the right choice, Writer.

Jesus set a very good example for us to follow. When He sent His disciples out in His name, if they were rejected by the people of a city, they were not only to leave, they were to shake the very dust off their feet.

That's not all there was to the story. After Jesus' death and resurrection, the disciples went back through those same cities and gave them another chance. Many accepted Jesus then, who hadn't before.

So if someone sins blatantly and publicly, by all means put on your Elijah hat and call them out on it, before "shaking the dust off your feet" and cutting them from your life. But then if they repent, be open to the idea of restoring the relationship that had to be severed.

That's just plain a good way to live your life.

(((((writer)))))

You KNOW you did the right thing and you are GREAT.

BTW, I STOLE your saying and put it in my siggy. I didn't want to forget it.

EDIT

Neverguessed, maybe you should think about getting a different hobby. It was pretty obvious throughout that you were being inflammatory, as well as feeling very superior about your own position.

Any time you present someone else's position as being a polar opposite of your own, of course you are setting yourself up to seem superior.

Obviously Mel found something better to do with her new year, can't you?

(Lest the above sentence seem hypocritical, I have many better things to do with my new year than debate with you, and could only spare you the 30 seconds or so it took to type this. Happy New Year!)

EDIT