>>>>>"Smarmy" as in unctious, ingratiating, excessively flattering? Nope. Do you know the definitions of the words you use?<<<<<
See, now you sound "smarmy" again, and yup, I can use a dictionary. I gradiated 6th grade ya know. Smarmy as in:
1 : revealing or marked by a *****smug***** (greatly so), *****ingratiating***** (precisely), or false earnestness <a tone of smarmy self-satisfaction — New Yorker>
2 : of low sleazy taste or quality
>>>>>"Smart alec" kind of. I do get sarcastic with people who mischaracterize others intentionally, toss pejoratives without knowing meaning, and pass responsibility for their own reading off on writers. But really, I'm aware that the more straightforward I can be, the better things go, so I'll keep it dry.<<<<<
I'm the opposite. I tend to get smart alec with people who claim to know what other people are up to when they don't have a clue. You may BELIEVE any mischaracterization is intentional, but the problem here...you don't know me at all. You may THINK your writing is wonderful. But being as you pick a completely off the wall definition of smarmy, I have to really wonder.
>>>>>I'm opposing the subsequent leap to "...so therefore no summers!"<<<<<
And you think that's good for the kids? Against their therapists trained suggestions and against the kids wishes, you really think its best to dump them for an entire summer into that uncomfortable of a situation with someone who's shown so little care for them? You don't think starting out smaller is best for them? Or is it more concern for this poor downtrodden dad than it is for the innocent children you're showing?
>>>>>But you said you weren't bothering to read through it... ?<<<<<
If there are parts I don't read, they are parts I don't respond to. I don't generally take to book writing.
>>>>> I don't know how else to explain that I'm not arguing for 12 weeks (or necessarily 6 or 2).<<<<<
Well considering your statement above this, the one that said "I'm opposing the subsequent leap to "...so therefore no summers!""...it appears you ARE arguing for 12 weeks. You say "summers", as in the full summer, not a portion thereof. Then you'll state you're not arguing for that. And you claim I'm "intentionally" mischarcterizing?
>>>>>Look at this as an opportunity not a standoff...go back to the table because he seems to be motivated, probably by money, for summertime. Work up to anything more than 0 during the timeframe he supports using the motivation that moves him. Rather than 'winning' by forcing the old schedule that failed. <<<<<
I'm not opposed to that, and I somehow don't feel like Christine is either. However, I DO believe dad will be opposed to it. From what he's turned down so far and what's been said about his move, the OW, etc., I get the impression that dad isn't going to go for anything LESS than all summer, or a reduction in support.
>>>>>And digging in to keep it as is (which resulted in LESS than WEEKS). Rather, they all SHOULD be finding ways to work towards MONTHS, not WEEKS (or less) with dad. Really. But self-righteousness might prevail over the best interests of the children.<<<<<
Really? Who wanted to keep it like that. Christine offered WEEKS, and stated specifically that she wanted to work up to more.
>>>>>The other common breakdown of reason this represents is he is exactly the same guy that you say would be "good" if he hadn't moved out for the new girlfriend, or if he called more. But really, he's no more awful (or good) for the kids now than ever.<<<<<
I guess you'll have to translate that last paragraph for me. I'm probably intentionally not comprehending it. But as for being good, unless he's abusive to the kids, he'd certainly be a better father being there than taking off and not bothering to try and keep in contact with them. You disagree with that?