OWoman Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 My guess. Her husband has no backbone. It is very easy to see by her posts and the way he apparently let his wife treat him until OWoman swooped in and rescued them all. She needs to remind himself that she is the good guy in all this and did what had to be done to save this family from the wicked wife and mother. Her husband is too wishy washy to boost her ego so this reminder helps. Your guess.... is wrong.
OWoman Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 Ya know OW, you and I may not always agree, but I find this to be the most disgusting thing you have ever said. The Holocaust was a very real historical tragedy. It was not as you say "gossip". If you feel that way take a trip to any Holocaust museum meet a survivor and listen to their story. See the permanent tattoo on their arm. Here about how they were separated from family and friends to live in ghettos. Only to find later that everyone they loved and cared about were dead. Then tell me that history is gossip. For you to compare your H's wife to Hitler says a lot about his taste in women. I cringe at what you are teaching that poor little stepchild of yours. This type of ignorance is truly what separates us and keeps the world in turmoil. JMO BTW, you are the one that brought Hitler into this thread, I'm just giving my opinion about your post. I don't find those type of references amusing or funny, but that's just me I guess. HN, if you think I was comparing the xW to Hitler, then you patently misunderstood my post. I was comparing the instance of the way one knows about someone like Hitler, with the instance of the way I know about the xW. Through evidence. Corroborated accounts. Observed consequences. All of which should have made it very clear to you that I certainly do not regard the Holocaust as "gossip" - the exact opposite. I lost family and have friends who are direct survivors of concentration camps. I do not need some anonymous person on an internet forum telling me what I have lived as truth. My comment on "history being gossip in books" - which had nothing to do with the holocaust - was a facetious comment related to the methodology of historiography. I have a number of friends who are historians and who publish regularly - creating the history that is taught in schools. Oral history is very in vogue right now - so if one considers what one hears from several reliable sources, corroborated with solid evidence - as "gossip" - which is what another poster referred to it as, I was merely quoting - then yes, that which appears in history books is "gossip", because it is no more or less reliable than the means by which I have come to know what I know about the xW. If you have issues with the misplaced use of the term "gossip", please take them up with NF who was the one who used the term - I merely challenged it.
gopher Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 HN, if you think I was comparing the xW to Hitler, then you patently misunderstood my post. I was comparing the instance of the way one knows about someone like Hitler, with the instance of the way I know about the xW. Through evidence. Corroborated accounts. Observed consequences. All of which should have made it very clear to you that I certainly do not regard the Holocaust as "gossip" - the exact opposite. I lost family and have friends who are direct survivors of concentration camps. I do not need some anonymous person on an internet forum telling me what I have lived as truth. My comment on "history being gossip in books" - which had nothing to do with the holocaust - was a facetious comment related to the methodology of historiography. I have a number of friends who are historians and who publish regularly - creating the history that is taught in schools. Oral history is very in vogue right now - so if one considers what one hears from several reliable sources, corroborated with solid evidence - as "gossip" - which is what another poster referred to it as, I was merely quoting - then yes, that which appears in history books is "gossip", because it is no more or less reliable than the means by which I have come to know what I know about the xW. If you have issues with the misplaced use of the term "gossip", please take them up with NF who was the one who used the term - I merely challenged it. I truly mean no offense by this, just an observation. But, you have a hard time admitting when your wrong or apologizing, don't you?
GreenEyedLady Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 lol I guess your non answer is answer enough. NF: You should know by now what I'm about...I don't give information to satisfy inquiring minds...TMI and all that... You seem defensive...Do you fear you are being gaslighted again? Or taking your unhappiness in your M out on other posters on the board? Tsk, tsk, it's not beneficial for you to misplace your anger... Some of us are very happy, I will pray that for you too...
OldEurope Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 hmmm well clothing, personal style, body language says a lot. Maybe they could tell exactly what type of woman you were and sadly she was right. She probably warned him that night about you... What might that be: perhaps highly-educated, graceful and elegant? What is with this troll-under-the-bridge sniping about, anyway? When a thread asks whether an OW, ex or current, has met or seen the W, is it at all possible for the BS-es to participate in an objective manner? This is a forum for women in complicated affairs--in which, may I remind you, there are MMs, whether purely egotistical or deeply emotionally distraught, who are passionately interested in participating to begin with. The good majority of OW here are trying to extricate themselves from these situations. Raising the tension levels of already charged exchange on these threads does little to help or be constructive... OE
OWoman Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 I truly mean no offense by this, just an observation. But, you have a hard time admitting when your wrong or apologizing, don't you? How does someone - willfully or accidentally - misunderstanding and misrepresenting my post make ME wrong? Anyone reading my OP with the slightest degree of attention would have understood my meaning. Claiming I said something else, and then demanding that I apologise for saying what I didn't say, is just bizarre. apologies for the t/j
herenow Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 How does someone - willfully or accidentally - misunderstanding and misrepresenting my post make ME wrong? Anyone reading my OP with the slightest degree of attention would have understood my meaning. Claiming I said something else, and then demanding that I apologise for saying what I didn't say, is just bizarre. apologies for the t/j Just to be clear "I" never asked for or expected any apology. Just the fact that the name "Hitler" was brought into a thread on this forum is appalling to me. There are many other ways to make a point without bringing up a person who committed such horrible crimes against humanity. It's makes no difference to me how his name was used, IMO it was absolutely inappropriate and disgusting. Especially from a person who states that she has first hand knowledge of the pain and chaos he created. JMO that's all. I'm sorry for the t/j as well.
gopher Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 How does someone - willfully or accidentally - misunderstanding and misrepresenting my post make ME wrong? Anyone reading my OP with the slightest degree of attention would have understood my meaning. Claiming I said something else, and then demanding that I apologise for saying what I didn't say, is just bizarre. apologies for the t/j Using Hitler at all in a post is extreme, there are an infinite number of other analogies that could be used...and sometimes, just because you believe it to be inoffensive, doesn't mean that it is inoffensive...but, I get that your belief system is different than mine. End of TJ.
Stepone Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 Do I know the wife of my MM? She used to be my best friend They live ten gardens away.
Recommended Posts