"Smug" as in confident in my correctness? (def 1 Random House. Fits better than def 2: trim; spruce; smooth; sleek.) Guilty as charged. I think I'm correct. 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.
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."
And you know, disagreeing with you makes NOBODY "of low sleazy taste or quality," wherever you got that. (The New Yorker -- really? In what, a cartoon panel?). Neither does disagreeing with me. I don't think you nor christine is sleazy to have said what you have said.
"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.
But enough of dictionary fun time.
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.
Rather, beter to go with the "I wasn't replying to you, rather the whole thread" excuse which at least makes some sense, even if coupled with your admission that you didn't read the whole thread.
Sure "So therefore no summers" can be interpretted as me switching positions and proposing full summers all of a sudden. That was unintentional. I was thinking "So therefore no time in the summers." I assumed my support of compromise for less than full summers was understood by now.
[quote] 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? [/quote] No, I don't think that; I think like you and christine here. And I have consistently. And I've tried to correct anything that could (through semantic hair-splitting) be misinterpretted differently.
[quote] Or is it more concern for this poor downtrodden dad than it is for the innocent children you're showing?[/quote] I don't think I've felt or expressed that dad is poor or downtrodden yet at all. The only thing about dad I've said is that he should be doing much more than he has done, that he's way behind, he's likely motivated by money, and that he's likely going to back out anyways. Not exactly identification and sympathy. (Sorry, don't come knocking if you want sympathy for divorced/divorcing adults...that's not my specialty.)
However I do have sympathy for kids. They are distant from dad, and will likely be sad about it "for the rest of their lives" as I've said. And using that distance to continue to keep them apart from dad starts a sort of viscious cycle that spirals into no contact.
[quote] I get the impression that dad isn't going to go for anything LESS than all summer, or a reduction in support.
[/quote] Maybe. Probably right, I bet. But dad's not reading this now is he? The only discussion I'm interested in is with christine about whether SHE wants to go to court to win and refuse to compromise, or compromise. Whether SHE wants to at least broach the topic of working up to partial summers rather than go to court to refuse. Whether SHE wants to offer some CS money to a jerk in the hopes that her kids MIGHT bond during this time and thus lead happier lives, even if it hits her pocketbook now. (She did say that money was not an issue...so I thought that might be a feasible idea. But apparently she cannot affort any CS reduction at all, so be it.)
You know I actually do think christine wants to work up to more. But going to court to NOT do so is simply contrary to that.
Yeah, that last paragraph of mine was pretty half-assed now that I reread it. My point is: He's no worse for the kids now than before he moved and got his new girlfriend. So why was that added to the discussion? To justify no compromise with dad. But it doesn't belong here. The kid/dad relationship shouldn't face punishment for his divorce/girlfriend choice.