check again.

a lovely daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

Oh boy, this moment was hilarious. He was steaming as he was walking back to the car. And the pizzas weren’t even that good.

IMO it was a very thoughtful post.

Sleep apnea runs in his family actually but we’re also working on healthier lifestyle (we both need it).

MERGE

oh snap

Look what you did fuluck

wow the new 50 shades of grey movie looks

surprised?

He drives an Audi, I also drive an Audi

Do you chain up girls in the basement?

I think it's informative to go back to the kernel of this issue:

Kristy, did not bring GW into the conversation. She didn't post anything that directly involved GW until he responded to her post about going on a date. This has been the pattern since their separation. We can go back and look at the stats if anyone disagrees, but my feeling is this has been GW's primary reason to interact with the forum recently. He used to be a regular years ago, way before Kristy so he somehow gets grandfathered in but his posting had faded into almost nothing. Then when Kristy started posting here and his outlets for interacting with her were restricted this became an outlet. It's not healthy behavior.

This was a good post.

Anyway, the "compromise" of GW not posting in 4L in exchange for Kristy not posting things that directly relate to GW presumes that posting those things is something that Kristy would do w/o GW posting in this forum, which it is not.

I tried to "like" it and then remembered where I was.

A+ point. Would read again.

So you're saying the compromise isn't a compromise & is instead exactly what Kristy wants, but you don't support it anyway. Cool story.

I'm saying that framing it as a compromise de-legitimizes Kristy's correct assertion that GW's interaction with this forum has been to monitor her behavior and the effect of that posting is harassment especially with regard to her decision to go on dates.

You have a social worker wife whose judgement I presume you trust. Why don't you show her those posts and get her take on them. Noting that this is not isolated behavior.

You're presupposing things based on your statement before that they've been divorcing for 2 years. GW's story is different. If one thinks there's an actual relationship there, it frames the whole thing differently. Legally they certainly haven't been divorcing for 2 years.

I don't think it's unusual to be curious about what your wife is saying to people you've known for 10 years & want to say something different if you think the reality is different?

I mean Daz stalks his sandwich girl on social media & we don't think that's weird.

I get it, you have a bias, & that's fine. That side could be 100% correct, buuuuut, it's kind of a naive view of the gray areas of life to just assume it is.

Kristy took the opportunity to publicly post evidence itt while GW was banned. It doesn't seem particularly draconian to say she can't do stuff like that if we keep him away from anywhere she goes here, even if she has no intention to?

There marriage has been on the rocks for at least 2 years. There's evidence of that all over this forum; so I'm not presupposing anything there. I'm also not presupposing the separation. I'm not presupposing the RO or the DA charges. I'm not presupposing what GW has said to me that he doesn't want the marriage to end. I'm not presupposing that Kristy does based on her public and private statement & the divorce order.

I never said it's unusual to be curious about what your wife is saying to people you've known for 10 years and want to say something if my view of events was different. That's also not what GW is doing.

Kristy: I went on a date.
GW: We're married!

That's not a different perspective on events. That's, "You can't do that because I'm going to make this marriage work regardless of how you feel about it."

That is not a healthy interaction.

And finally my view is not "biased" or "naive" because it disagrees with yours.

Also, JM3 I don't know if you took it this way but wasn't being snarky when I asked you to ask your wife. Imo, we're just a couple slap dicks on the internet. She has a female social worker perspective. I think it would be insightful.

No. I just don't pretend to know the truth. Way to deal with the actual substance of a solution, though.

Me: we can keep GW away from Kristy & she can't post about their personal stuff.

You: we can keep GW away from Kristy & she won't post about their personal stuff.

Cool disagreement bro. Do what you want. I'll demod from this forum. I recommend Greg or Fid to replace me if they're interested, even though they'll happily vote with your drastically different plan from mine.

This is what I literally deal with every day at work. If things are exactly the way Kristy says, of course GW is delusional & his posting is possessive & stalkery.

There's a large difference between marriages with problems, & marriages that are over.

My wife isn't going to have a different opinion on that. She would definitely be far more qualified to investigate the truth & counsel the parties, though.

I don't want to speak out of school, but I must interject on this one.

I agree with the above provided the above is correct.

However, that last bit "You can't do that because I'm going to make this marriage work regardless of how you feel about it.".. falls flat if the claims that she was ALSO trying to make it work were true.

GW has told me VERY recently that things were getting somewhat better and K wanted it to work out. IF this is true, it changes everything, imho.

Hey, I wanna play!

Is there a handicap?

That would change some things, but not the most important thing, assuming the multiple charges against GW are legitimate. People reconcile with abusive partners all the time. That doesn't mean the abuse didn't happen or wasn't that bad or wasn't his fault or isn't still ongoing.

Valid point, sir.

That goes to the question of whether we're moderating bad people or bad posts. I was told quite specifically yesterday by several people that it's our job to moderate bad posts.

But like I said y'all do you. You know, because it's so different than my suggestion & all.

I never proposed a remedy. That remedy won't satisfy Kristy either, to correct your earlier point about, "is instead exactly what Kristy wants." Kristy wants GW banned from the forum for the reasons of harassment against her, not for wanting Jack to *****.

I just wanted to point out that I don't think this is a situation where we should seek to "split the baby" or find any kind of equivalency about the % of fault attributable to each party.

Kristy has said that she doesn't and she has filed divorce papers. I think that GW's protestations to the contrary shouldn't hold much weight.

I don't think GW is a bad person.

I'm tailgate.