>>>>>I'll try to be more careful with quotation marks. If I quote a previous post, AND use them around hypothetical dialog, I can see the challenge. To me, they're not THAT directive or crucial, but I'm not the reader. I thought you KNEW the position you were defending, which was best exemplified by her prior statement. Apparently, not. I also assumed you could tell when I was entering "the conversation would sound like this..." land. But okay.<<<<<
It's difficult to sort out a LOT of plain text from quotes and non-quotes. That's why I've taken to using the >>>>><<<<<< to make them stand out. Otherwise quotes get lost in the melee. Some even hit the quote button and get the [quote] code around there's, which also stands out a bit.
>>>>>"And to me it's not." Right, we don't agree on christine's motivation. So you attempted to put words in my mouth that her motivation was solely money. Not sure why...to argue Relayer in your response to me? But proper discussion happens when we respond to what other people actually say (accomplished by first reading their posts); not by mischaracterizing or changing what's been said. I'm trying to do that regarding your post right now, and consistently for christine too. <<<<<
Wasn't putting anything into your mouth. It sounded to me exactly what you were saying. She was stating that the CS had nothing to do with why she didn't want them there for summers and you said that CS was the focus of her post. Right now, your post sound smarmy and smart alec. Is that also putting words in your mouth or am I reading you right this time? As for Relayer, I can argue him person-to-person. I don't need to go through your post to do it. And frankly, I wasn't responding initially to JUST your post, but you were the last one I was reading who was lambasting the OP so I said what I did to everyone who was reading her as trying to not work with him...since I was reading it the opposite way. Proper discussion also happens when you can actually understand what the other person is going on about BTW.
>>>>>You know, I agree with you in that christine likely HAS budged in many ways on many subjects with this guy for years. But then again, who knows? But on THIS issue, she essentially said they CANNOT live with dad in the summer, because he hasn't been a good dad yet. But the ways to prove his goodness are being defined by her and not working for dad.<<<<<
Most parents though would agree with her in this instance. If a man moves off with another woman, doesn't call his kids, doesn't take the visits he HAS been given with them, turns down offers of even extra time, they are NOT being a good dad. And sending kids with him for the ENTIRE summer isn't good for the kids. I do happen to agree with her on that issue.
>>>>>While christine is ALSO saying she's offered him multiple ways for them to be with dad and that she does want that. So lets not now act like they simply can't be with him because she's apparently already offered it.<<<<<
???? Who is acting like they can't be with him? Do you mean all summer, or at all?
>>>>>And blocking it because he's disconnected with their daily life is terrible excuse making. Of course he's disconnected; he's six hours away and they aren't with him yet. This summer, they'd set up new daily life routine and then christine will be disconnected. Does it make christine bad to be disconnected? No. Wouldn't want them kept permananently by dad because of disconnection, now would we? So be fair and quit using disconnection as a reason "they can't live with him." (sorry I didn't look that quote up explicitly but I KNOW christine said something like that earlier...that's a psuedo-quote from an earlier christine1 post.)<<<<<
Who's fault is it that he lives 6 hours away? Who's fault is it that he's disconnected? Do you think he's suddenly changed and if given an entire summer, AGAINST counslor's suggestion and AGAINST the kids' desires, that he's going to suddenly be a good dad and spend that summer with them?
>>>>>I apologize for being confusing. That's not my intention. I am trying to make sense. I acknowlege that comprehension is very much due to how well I express myself.<<<<<
Agreed. It's not that I haven't read what you've stated. But I've often understood less of it than what I did read. Like above, I said you were starting to sound smarmy in the top part. Now the tone's changing. So it could simply be a communication breakdown. It doesn't mean I'm not reading it.
>>>>>However, I still don't get after suggesting much LESS than the whole summer, how I would be argued by almostheaven about the "whole" summer. It's simply misrepresenting others to argue with nonexistent positions. Because if you instead deal with the discussion accurately, your position is weakened and your logic is sketchy.<<<<<
It isn't that you are argued with about the whole summer, its the stance you, and others took, that she wasn't TRYING to compromise with him. I still disagree on that. I think she's tried compromising in various ways and he shoots them all down.
>>>>>I'm aware that apprently the only thing he said he wants is summer. And that some of us have concluded it's solely to reduce CS obligation. Doesn't change anything.
Instead of simply saying "No" christine might be able to get dad to take these already offered long weekends and the week (formerly for Christmas...it was apparently safe then, so its not more dangerous in summer right?) during the summer. He doesn't need to know their school schedule or much of anything about mom's routines then. He doesn't need to drive 6 hours for a 1 day visit. Couple it with the CS break he wants, remember money doesn't matter, and things really might happen. Things that would be good for the kids and dad, and apparently what christine WANTS.<<<<<
The difference in summer is that he wants it ALL. That's a LOT more than a week or two at a time. And it is NOT healthy for the kids when he hasn't been around all this time.
>>>>>I just don't like claims that aren't backed up by corresponding actions. Just don't make the claims in the first place and there is no hypocrisy.
As for the psyche consult, why offer Christmas and extended weekends if pyche was against kids being with dad? If he got TWO psyche consults that said there are benefits to being with his kids, would that trump your psychologist? He could you know. <<<<<
I do believe its clear that they are against the kids being with dad for MONTHS rather than WEEKS. And I agree with that stance.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: I guess I'm missing something here...
Edit
Reply
Quote
