Next steps?

[rafallus]

If she decided to stay with him after his cheating, she has no right to hold the grudge for all these years (this is ridiculously hard part of staying with cheater). If she did hold it, then she is one toxic woman - your running shoes can never be more ready..

[RepairMinded]

If she decided to stay with him after his cheating, she has no right to hold the grudge for all these years (this is ridiculously hard part of staying with cheater). If she did hold it, then she is one toxic woman - your running shoes can never be more ready..

 

Not so much a "grudge" necessarily as that the entire relationship was devalued by the initial instance of cheating by one of the partners. On some level this communicated to the wife that cheating was not a deal-breaker for kidd. Beyond that it's just a matter of degree.

[Steadfast]

That's not the "only course." He could remain a part of the public discussion. Same as you, posting right now.

 

From your words it appears you have control issues RM. Add in a penchant for manipulation. Can you accept the fact that this man -or any other poster you're in contact with- not only has the intelligence to recognize their choices, but the right to decide which to choose? Even if they do not, 'repairing' it is probably not going to happen here, despite your best efforts.

 

Running away from facing the difficulties of one's own life is never a very good solution.

Agreed. But by not allowing you to be a part of it, are you assuming he is? Who's claiming to be omniscient now?

 

Sorry but you're not omniscient. Kidd might still be reading even if he chooses not to post any longer. We also know his betrayed spouse, OMW, and presumably OM might be reading it as well. And hundreds or thousands of other lurkers and members of LS might be reading it.

I might be RM, you never know. I could be sitting here in my wizard hat and cape as I type this. I can predict your response however. Sadly.

 

As for the people that are or might someday read this thread, they'll have to wade through a bunch of useless banter to find any substance. My contribution included. Again, sadly.

 

Since we're all on opposite sides of a computer screen, we're not "with" each other no matter how you want to split hairs.

This statement is most telling.

 

You do what suits you, I'll do the same, thanks.

Proof again that no matter how delicately worded, no matter how friendly the approach, you cannot and will not take advisement. This means, in my opinion, that your pride/issues/agenda are more powerful than your desire to constructively aid those that come to this forum seeking council.

 

None of us are beyond reproach RM. Here's hoping you can understand this without assuming I'm working on my own agenda at your expense. I assure you I'm not. I don't have one. It's just good advice. Take it.

[What_Next]

See the problem is that you have no control over who posts on a thread, regardless of whether you personally approve of their posts or not.

 

Of course I don't. Never said I did. Kidd will be getting the assistance he needs from those that actually want to help the situation, not further their own agenda. It's a shame the mods have chosen to let this foolishness go on in this thread. Oh well, there are other avenues that these chosen few cannot hjack. It's a waiting game until they go away anyway, they always do.

[RepairMinded]

From your words it appears you have control issues RM.

 

Not at all. You are free to post whatever, wherever, and whenever you like. I have absolutely no control over that.

 

 

 

Add in a penchant for manipulation.

 

Yawn.

 

Can you accept the fact that this man -or any other poster you're in contact with- not only has the intelligence to recognize their choices, but the right to decide which to choose?

 

No one's telling kidd what he should or shouldn't do.

 

 

Even if they do not, 'repairing' it is probably not going to happen here, despite your best efforts.

 

That's up to each person to decide.

 

 

Agreed. But by not allowing you to be a part of it, are you assuming he is? Who's claiming to be omniscient now?

 

Not allowing me to be part of what? We're all equal here.

 

 

 

I might be RM, you never know. I could be sitting here in my wizard hat and cape as I type this. I can predict your response however. Sadly.

 

Good for you.

 

As for the people that are or might someday read this thread, they'll have to wade through a bunch of useless banter to find any substance. My contribution included. Again, sadly.

 

You judge yourself too harshly.

 

 

 

This statement is most telling.

 

O.K. if you say so.

 

 

Proof again that no matter how delicately worded, no matter how friendly the approach, you cannot and will not take advisement.

 

I didn't ask for your advice, but thanks anyway.

 

 

This means, in my opinion, that your pride/issues/agenda are more powerful than your desire to constructively aid those that come to this forum seeking council.

 

As I said, your advice wasn't requested by me. But thanks anyway.

 

 

None of us are beyond reproach RM. Here's hoping you can understand this without assuming I'm working on my own agenda at your expense. I assure you I'm not. I don't have one. It's just good advice. Take it.

 

So I have to take your "advice" even though I didn't ask for it? Hmmm....who's "controlling"?

[What_Next]

And we have been helping. Just because you don't approve of it doesn't mean it isn't help.

 

Approve? Are you kidding me? It isn't my role to approve or disapprove of anything you tool. You are like a one trick pony my friend. You'll burn yourself out and find somewhere else to go, it's happened more times that I'd care to count on this board. You are as transparent as glass in terms of what your motivations are.

[GorillaTheater]

I didn't ask for your advice, but thanks anyway.

 

 

 

 

As I said, your advice wasn't requested by me. But thanks anyway.

 

Well, it's not like asking for advice from specific people is a prerequisite around here, apparently.

[Owl]

Given the extreme desire for "openness" and "honesty" and how ones past impacts a poster's credibility as a source of support and advice, I wonder if Mr Harris or Repair Minded would be willing to disclose truthfully what other usernames they've used here on LS in the past?

 

After all...that's been their methodology for trying to determine someone's credibility and ability to give sound advice so far...I'd like to see them back theirs up with their own "histories and backgrounds".

[RepairMinded]

Well, it's not like asking for advice from specific people is a prerequisite around here, apparently.

 

That's why I thanked steadfast for his generous, unsolicited advice to me.

 

I think he's wrong, of course, and merely projecting his own control issues--but that's cool.

[GorillaTheater]

You are like a one trick pony my friend.

 

Two tricks: "divorce her" and "you can't stop me from posting". Like one of those old pull-string dolls.

[reboot]

When you argue with them, you're just giving them what they want.

[Owl]

I have no other usernames, but I could ask the same question about posters of your "caliber of advice." What other accounts do YOU have?

 

 

 

LOL!! Same old Owl.

 

Absolutely none. This is the same and only account I've ever used on LS.

 

Yep...same old me.

[Owl]

I have no other usernames, but I could ask the same question about posters of your "caliber of advice." What other accounts do YOU have?

 

 

 

LOL!! Same old Owl.

 

Given this...assuming it's true of course, I'm curious about your back history.

 

What gives you 'credibility' to talk about infidelity? Were you cheated on? The cheater? Did you try to recover, leave immediately, divorce, still living with your mom? History appears to matter here...let's hear about yours so we clearly know why we should heed your advice above someone else's?

[Steadfast]

So I have to take your "advice" even though I didn't ask for it? Hmmm....who's "controlling"?

 

No need to state the obvious sir. You are correct. You did not request my advice but you clearly are in conflict with other members of this forum and that conflict has a way of affecting its usefulness. This knowledge is gained from experience. I spoke out because I believe this forum and its members have helped people in the past. You have quite rudely dismissed me and my reasoning. So be it. Please accept my apology for addressing you directly.

[RepairMinded]

Given the extreme desire for "openness" and "honesty" and how ones past impacts a poster's credibility as a source of support and advice, I wonder if Mr Harris or Repair Minded would be willing to disclose truthfully what other usernames they've used here on LS in the past?

 

"Mrs. Owl."

 

 

After all...that's been their methodology for trying to determine someone's credibility and ability to give sound advice so far...I'd like to see them back theirs up with their own "histories and backgrounds".

 

What have I posted in this thread do you actually disagree with? You haven't said. I know from other stuff that you have posted at LS, that you don't personally think sexual infidelity is a forgivable transgression in a marriage. I don't disagree with your decision, although it may not be right for everyone.

 

How do you feel about reconciliation with a spouse who has sexually cheated numerous times over a year long period? That's the relevant circumstance in this thread. If you're going to say that divorce is appropriate, I won't disagree with you.

 

So, no background check is necessary. Right?

[silktricks]

Cheating while dating is not the same as cheating during marriage, IMO because you're not standing before God and making a vow with that person. It's wrong-but that is one reason you get married- to forsake all others. You don't make that vow when dating-for obvious reasons.

 

Cheating while dating isn't even in the same universe as cheating after marriage IMO. One of the "reasons" for dating is to see if you are compatible. Unless both people have discussed and agreed that theirs is an exclusive relationship, then TBH, I don't even understand why it would be considered "cheating".

 

JMO.

[GorillaTheater]

LOL!

 

Ya and "You must reconcile for the kids."

 

"If she had flown on that plane to see OM, I would've divorced her, even though she still practically cheated on me."

 

"You've been married for 20 years compared to her one-night-stand. Go to counseling and accept her cheating."

 

"In order to "stop" her from cheating you must "gain HER respect" by setting boundaries."

 

"Why are you so bitter? You're bitter and angry because you left your spouse in a hurry. I'm superior because I'm still with my cheater."

 

"I stayed because everyone in life is most likely to cheat as is my wife, who already cheated on me."

 

Yup that's practical advice.

 

Oh, I advise divorce all the time. I just make it sound better and look better while I type it.

[GorillaTheater]

"Mrs. Owl."

 

(blah blah)

 

So, no background check is necessary. Right?

 

Well, it depends. Since it's fair game to you and your man Harris to take cheap shots at the pasts of others here, it only seems fair to give us the same opportunity. Right?

[silktricks]

LOL!

 

Ya and "You must reconcile for the kids."

 

"If she had flown on that plane to see OM, I would've divorced her, even though she still practically cheated on me."

 

"You've been married for 20 years compared to her one-night-stand. Go to counseling and accept her cheating."

 

"In order to "stop" her from cheating you must "gain HER respect" by setting boundaries."

 

"Why are you so bitter? You're bitter and angry because you left your spouse in a hurry. I'm superior because I'm still with my cheater."

 

"I stayed because everyone in life is most likely to cheat as is my wife, who already cheated on me."

 

Yup that's practical advice.

 

except, of course, no one you so like to demean has ever recommended any of these things.

[GorillaTheater]

But who took the "cheap shots" first? Certainly wasn't us.

 

Heavens no. Only a couple of simple-minded doltish rejects from ChatCheaters would do something like that.

[RepairMinded]

Well, it depends. Since it's fair game to you and your man Harris to take cheap shots at the pasts of others here, it only seems fair to give us the same opportunity. Right?

 

Except I haven't taken a cheap shot at anyone based on their pasts.

 

That's why you didn't quote me as doing so.

[Owl]

So the bottom line is that neither one of you is willing to be honest and up front about your pasts relationship status or posting status here on LS?

 

Something to hide?

[RepairMinded]

Obviously if there wasn't an exclusivity understanding, or at least inference, then it's not cheating if there is multi-"dating" going on.

 

But that's not relevant to this thread, because in this thread, kidd had made it very clear that his wife was very hurt by his cheating on her, and that he apologized, she supposedly forgave him, and they reconciled before marriage. So obviously both kidd AND his wife thought he had violated their relationship by having sex with another woman, even if it was before their marriage, and even if there was no explicit "exclusivity agreement."

[RepairMinded]

Which would be you since you know so much about the site. And honestly, recommending "reconciliation" and "counseling" at the drop of a hat is not considered innovating.

 

From what I have heard about that site, they are very hard core anti cheating, so I doubt if Mr. Harris posted there he would be a "reject." On the contrary it is far more likely that someone who could be perceived as an apologist for cheating would be "rejected" from a site like that.

 

Say what you want about Mr. Harris, he's not an "apologist" for cheating, obviously.

[RepairMinded]

No need to state the obvious sir. You are correct.

 

Thank you.

 

 

You did not request my advice but you clearly are in conflict with other members of this forum and that conflict has a way of affecting its usefulness.

 

I'm not responsible for your opinions.

 

 

 

This knowledge is gained from experience. I spoke out because I believe this forum and its members have helped people in the past.

 

O.K.

 

 

You have quite rudely dismissed me and my reasoning.

 

I haven't been rude at all. Check your own posts out, in which you call me "controlling" etc. As far as your reasoning goes, I don't agree with it.

 

 

So be it. Please accept my apology for addressing you directly.

 

Apology accepted.