It just sickens me that WH is stooping to such lows. I've been nothing but above board including letting him know of what bills or mail do come to my home. It's just so absurd.

It's like he's just looking for ways to irritate. I'm getting better about not getting upset...now it's just par for the course...but it is ridiculous nonetheless. Nor do I fully understand the affair fog...is this part of it or just escalation into nasty due to the pending divorce?

My guess is that this is part of him waking up to the fact that he has no control over you anymore. He is used to being the center of your world, and you've gone dark, and he desperately wants to "get to you" some how in order to feel relevant in your life. With the IM, he's not getting direct feedback from you so he grasps about for issues (even if he's making them up) that he believes your IM will have to pass to you. Just to know he made you think about him that day.

He's like a 5 year old who left his toy truck out in the rain and mud, and kept ignoring Mommy when she said to put it away. Until one day he saw his neglected truck in the trash. Then suddenly he had a major crying, screaming, sobbing, begging melt down - wanting his truck back. Suddenly he was obsessed with the truck he didn't even remember he had the day before.

Not to compare you to a toy truck! But hopefully you get the idea. If he does feel nasty toward you it's probably just misplaced anger because you're not letting him use and abuse you anymore. He's losing/lost control over you.

His emotions are as rational as those of a drunk five year old. You can never really figure him out, and even if you did, what good would it do?

Your IM should not be informing you of such nonsense. But I'm sure you already know this. The Question is "are you ever going to start a true Plan B?"

Well IM thought it relevant to tell me he didn't get his CC stmt and felt since it was bill related she should ask me. I've told her business only...which she's pretty good at....now... But she thought CC stuff was business.

But...I am NC...WH emails are blocked...his cell is blocked...I'm dark on social media with deactivated accts. He and I have no communication except thru my IM.

The point is that you are not in "no contact", because your IM tell you things that she should know not to, such as that he accused her of being you. That is not business, and it is not urgent.

The amount of contact flowing from him to you via the IM means that you are in just as much contact as if he were emailing you directly. The point of an IM is not just to make sure that messages go through another person - that would be stupid; it is to make sure that you hear nothing at all about him, and that has never happened.

Your frequent posts with questions about why he is so cruel to your are yet another form of indulgence; you are thinking about him, and writing about him ALL THE TIME - and I'm sorry to say that some posters here are indulging you in this by replying to your musings and giving you yet more thoughts to feed on.

Your husband is being cruel to you because he is a drug addict, an alcoholic, violent and an adulterer. He is not going to be kind to you in this divorce because drug addicts and alcoholics do not act from a basis of decency. He has gone back to being the man he was for most of his life, and even if OW dumps him tomorrow, he will still be that man, until he undertakes a long course of drug and alcohol rehabilitation.

You need to tell your IM not to pass ANYTHING on to you now, because there is nothing you need to deal with before your court date. And try to stop posting about him; you are making things worse for yourself because you won't physically try to stop yourself from focusing on him. This forum is in fact feeding your addiction.

Sugar you are right. It is like an addiction. I feel anxious and sad and desperate.

But why is your IM feeding your addiction? Why doesn't she know by now that you should not be hearing anything at all about your H?

She sent me the texts about the credit card and in that text was the part about me being her. She is 70yrs old and didn't know she could copy and paste AND delete parts of a text. I taught her how to do that this morning over the phone.

I don't think she is purposefully feeding my addiction. At 70 I just don't think she's that technologically savvy. I asked her to not tell me anything that is not business several times but now I know why things are slipping through....she didn't know she could edit what she forwarded.

It may be time to get another IM. She is not helping you the right way, and inadvertently feeding into your obsession with WH.

She is sending you his actual text messages?

Oh my word, this is so wrong. You are not supposed to see communications from him.

She is supposed to ask you IN HER OWN WORDS anything that is urgent. If it isn't urgent, she should not be contacting you. She should not be chatting about him to you, and she should CERTAINLY not be sending you his text messages.

This is in the basic Plan B information provided on this forum. How is it that you do not get that? Why do you and she STILL not see that reading his text messages is a form of contact, and that contact with him hurts you?

What is the point of having an IM, if all she does is forward you his text messages?

Yes she has been forwarding me his text messages. That is how all the stupid crap gets thru. When I asked her why she sends me the bogus crap she said she just forwards his business text. It's during that convo that I figured out she didn't know how to edit. Can you post me the IM link again....I read it once and not again since.

You see, I don't think this is inadvertent at all.

I think Always encourages all this contact. I don't think she has ever had a proper conversation with her IM about what she is being asked to do, and how to do it properly.

I don't think she has told the IM that she only wants to hear from WH if he 1. ends his affair and 2. has been on a rehabilitation programme for a few months, and is drug and alcohol free, and has undergone an effective anger management course.

I don't think she has told her that, since they have no kids, and since he moved out months ago, there really should not be anything urgent to pass on.

I don't think she has told the IM that she is supposed to filter the urgent messages - which means to pass on the core issue without actually forwarding the email or text.

I don't think she tells the IM that a specific rant should not have been passed on at all.

I think she asks her IM whether she's heard from WH, and uses the IM to check on WH. She does not use the IM to actually disconnect from WH.

This woman is 70, but that should not mean that she cannot understand things. We have judges and politicians older than that - and whether we like or hate their policies, that is not to do with their age. 70 is not over the hill. If this woman really is incapable of understanding clear instructions on her role, then of course she should not be used - but her being 70 is not an explanation of why this is going so wrong.

An IM is only as good as the job description. She cannot do a good job if she has never been told clearly what to do, and what not to do. This IM is being used for contact, rather than for no contact, and that is because Always wants it that way.

You're not serious about this.

Yes I read it one time

What I meant was - you are not serious about cutting contact with your WH. If you were, you would have read that thread properly more than once. If you were serious, you would be desperate to find a way of stopping the hurt that contact causes.

This sentence says it all. You are addicted to your WH's words and you are holding on to each message as if it's a treasure. Are you reading the other texts multiple times?

You need to break free from this dependency...

No I don't re-read his texts. I delete them.

I notice you don't answer all the things I've said to you, and you do not respond to the core message that I am trying to convey. Instead, you reply instantly when you can refute a very specific suggestion about something that is, frankly, rather incidental.

The fact that you delete his texts does not make the central argument of what I've said untrue.