momtoall
journeyman
Reged: 06/11/07
Posts: 88
|
|
My DH and I live 4 1/2 hours away from his children, now just daughter as son lives with us but for the last 10 years we would meet 1/2 way on Friday and 1/2 way on Sunday. So we would drive just over 2 hours to pick up his kids. And it was at least 100 every weekend we had them just for transportation and meals as pick up was at 6 and drop off at 5:30 and we ended up feeding kids both ways. But we were there every scheduled visitation! No matter the weather, health, job or what we managed to be there. We met once every 4 weekends! So that meant some months we'd go two times! But we were there to maintain a relationship with those kids! We'd call every sunday night and if no one was home we left a message and called the next night. When they got a computer we got [censored] messenger to instant message with them! There is no reason distance should keep a father from being a father....IF HE WANTS TO BE A FATHER!
The only problem we had was getting bio mom to adhere to visitation schedule if holdiday's happened to force back to back weekends. We'd end up giving up a weekend to please her but then when it came time for makeup weekends when she'd need to trade for any reason sometimes we'd be stuck with back to backs and so we could easily drop 300 - 350 in costs just to get them here and home again....but we did it all the while shelling out over 800 a month to mom in CS. It was tight but we did it cause they were his kids and nothing was going to get in the way of visits! It's all in priorities!
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
>>>>>So do you. Big deal. When two people disagree, it's pointless for one to accuse the other of smugness; both think they're right.<<<<<
The smugness had nothing to do with the disagreeing but with the tone of the post. You can disagree with people without trying to act superior.
>>>>>And sorry, you really don't know what "ingratiating" means. I'm really not trying to be "charming; agreeable; pleasing." Or deliberately meaning to gain favor with my manners. I'm just trying to make sense. But that ain't "ingratiating."<<<<<
Sorry to you, but I absolutely DO know what ingratiating means. If all you want to do is claim I'm stupid and you're smart, go for it. It'll get you nowhere in the conversation and simply degrade it further as its started doing already. Continue being "smarmy" AND "ingratiating"...does it gain you something?
>>>>>And you know, disagreeing with you makes NOBODY "of low sleazy taste or quality," wherever you got that.<<<<<
I got that from Websters...as if you didn't realize. That's why it was in definition form, cut and pasted.
>>>>>"Off the wall" = the first one that comes up from dictionary.com. (Again, random house unabridged.) Keep trying, but you're striking out on the lexicon battlefront. I'm not making up what words mean; you are.<<<<<
Sorry, I prefer Websters. I don't make words up, I look them up. I just use a more widely known dictionary.
>>>>>You MIGHT have mischaracterized me unintentionally, sure. If so, your stance could/should be: "That was unintentional" and back off. But to defend your characterizations now proves them intentional. <<<<<
No YOU claimed it was intentional. I specifically stated that it wasn't and so you use THAT as your basis to further state its intentional. At this point, you're pretty well wanting nothing BUT an argument, so any further reading of your assinine shyt is pointless and I won't continue. Have fun in your little corner of the I-know-it-all world.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
Okay I will not try to act superior.
What do you think ingratiating means?
And, though this is likely going to sound superior (but I really think its not), it is a little dictionary secret that "Webster's" is used by a variety of dictionary publishers; it is by no means a "widely known dictionary" rather a noncopyrighted nonprotected moniker used to fool buyers/readers into thinking they have a more definitive dictionary because they've heard of "Webster's". However, you might mean Merriam-Webster, where it originated.
I didn't say christine was solely about money, though. You brought that up. You said you were defending her against my accusations that it was only about money. But I never made them. So why defend your statement, when your other excuse (you weren't talking to me) makes more sense?
And I think you have a smug tone in your last paragraph.
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
No my last paragraph was basically saying I'm done. Its not smug, but irritated. I came in to say that some people were being harsh in making judgment calls that they didn't think the OP was trying to compromise, that it was all about money that she was fighting full summers...that it sounded to ME as if she HAD been compromising over and over again.
You've turned it into some kind of battle ground of dictionary definitions, who's smarter than who, and every other twist imaginable to draw it further and further away. And I don't have time for it.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
I hope you do continue to respond, or PM, because I'm interested in where you're coming from or what I can do to improve my writing to effectively communicate. I've both altered my use of quotation marks and made a concerted effort to change tone to get better at this...thanks to feedback from you.
From you I a number of "smug" items, interspersed with pleas to not be treated smugly. Eg "Ummm, what part about he didn't WANT long weekends hasn't occured to you?" "Have fun in your little corner of the I-know-it-all world." Also derogatory criticisms such as "sleazy" or "assinine shyt." It's not so bad, it's just that you're asking for kid-glove treatment while not giving it. You are here opposing harshness and judgement calls, but that's what you're doing too.
Not to mention, justifying denying kids living with dad with some iffy reasoning. Dad doesn't sound like a picnic, admittedly. But for whatever reason, he's now saying he wants more time with the kids. Opposition justified in part because he left his wife, got a girlfriend, lives hours away, doesn't know school schedules, and doesn't phone often enough, and doesn't ask the right questions when he does phone. None of that hurts kids when with him in the summer!
|
christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
Motorboat,
It does hurt the kids to be thrown into a situation with a person they hardly know for the whole summer - If he interacted with them on a regular basis like phone calls, visits, it would be a different story.
For the record he no longer wants them for the summer - Admitted it was a ploy to get me to drop the DOR and erase his arrears (which I did not). The only person he is thinking about and has been for a very long time is his kids! His priorities should be his children above all else.
I know I cannot make him into the father I think he should be but something would be better than nothing@
Christine
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
Well, that's too bad for the kiddos (but not unexpected, right?)
Again, I do distinguish between a little time (in fact, specifically exactly the time amount you've already offered) to see how it goes vs throwing them elsewhere for the whole summer.
But sure, I'm all for improved phone calls and visits too. I'd work the phone call front, the visitation front, the CS front, the three day weekend front, the holiday week front, the summer fron, and any others that might resonate with this guy.
|
christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
Oops I meant to say the only person he has been thinking about is himself not his kids! Wishful thinking I guess.
Thanks,
Christine
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
>>>>>It's not so bad, it's just that you're asking for kid-glove treatment while not giving it.<<<<<
No, I made it plain and clear that I was done with trying to discuss something you obviously weren't willing to discuss without the sidelining, such as...
>>>>>Not to mention, justifying denying kids living with dad with some iffy reasoning.<<<<<
Not even CLOSE to ANYTHING I have said. So to claim that it is means you're just spinning to cause an argument and not interested in the discussion. That is why I'm no longer even bothering with it.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
