h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

blicky, You did'nt undersand "have a heart" as a phrase... Try another: Self recommendation, is no recommendation at all.

Well Jab I might have understood that if that is what you had actually put in your post.

This *is* what you put and what I was replying to.

Rule#3 Rule#1 Means there is little or nothing you can do to avoid hurt, if you have a heart yourself. Rule#2 Means getting involved with somebody without a heart is foolish at best.

I *can* understand what have a heart means, thing is there are two very similar meanings.

One the one I thought you meant was to say devoid of emotion.

The other being ignorant or careless with others emotions which is the one you meant but did not state very clearly at all.

You understood which one I meant even though my typing skills are not up to much and my spelling is often atrocious.

Now Im not saying you dont understand the subject very well, that is what I was saying in my previous reply to you. I admit that I could have been wrong because I do not actually have a clue what you mean because you obviously have a lot of trouble choosing the right words.

Try harder next time.

one love

Post 351 Galaxy Babe, bring back to frame a The_Doctor_Is_in post.

>>>When she came in with coffee dressed like that.<<<

{I'd deffo ask for custard creams! }

Probably not ignore the outfit, but transfer the image to *my woman*; should be enough of a hint, since this is an 'old friend', to tell her to give-up before she starts.

>>>What kind of wife?<<<

A normal one? A secure one? A happy one?

>>>If you lied to your wife?<<<

Richard Cranium?

>>>Feeling part of the furniture<<<

"Hello wall!" A quote that fit's eh Shirley Valentine? Happens to blokes too, well we become taxi driver to the know ingrates and the odd stranger.

>>>Second wife treated better.<<<

Yep, seen this one hapen to somebody close. A daily twist of the knife to keep you blaming you, with no end? Just have to trust your kid's to work it out themself? Hey what are Sunday's for if not to fill McDonald's with 'weekend dad's'?

"That." Would be the subject of the previous post, you had just made, the same "that" as pointed to with post number references. I refer you to my previous answer.

"Vague and allusive." Strange, you managed to take the point up (*about you get what you seek*) quite well I thought, well done you!

So your truly happy with casual relationships then, and right at the start of each you declare your intent not to go the distance?

>> So your truly happy with casual relationships then, and right at the start of each you declare your intent not to go the distance?

Yep.

B

If these are now your two possible definitions, why did you go on about "birth defect" before, (post 348 I think). if you "*can* understand" it was about emotions?

You *can* understand, yet you "don't have a clue", what at the same time?

Ahh the "obviously" gambit. In attempt to be a pedant, you're coming of as anything but a pedant.

"Try harder next time." - Words to live by?

Jab, can you do us all a favour and specify who you are replying to, and also quote the bits that you are replying to? Your posts are too confusing to understand otherwise, and I am interested in what you say, but am finding your points hard to connect and hard to follow.

For example:

>> "That." Would be the subject of the previous post, you had just made, the same "that" as pointed to with post number references. I refer you to my previous answer.


Sorry. I am still confused.



Post 358, which is the one that I don't understand, said:

>> Yes Ben, that's what I said in post 343, and again later. You get what you seek.




It appears to be in reply to 356 which said:

>> >> Ben, People lie, otherwise you'd still be happy with the first person in your life, or they with you.

This is a qote from your post 354 - is this statement the "that" which you had already said?


>> The reason I am not with my first had nothing to do with lies. Or for that mattter any of the subsequent ones.

Or this statement of mine? which is a direct repponse to the above quote.


>> The point I am making is that if you go out with a s**t, you cannot be surprised if they behave like a s**t.

Or this one of mine? which is a comment on the quote and my reply.



Post 343 reads:

>> Z (.OOoo.), depends on each case. Sure she can make it easy if she want's. Either/or yes. Wifes too?

>> You reap what you sow, go for a slag(M/F), chances are you'll get one, and what would that make you? Going right back to the thread origin, go for a woman that would carry on with a married man, what are you getting really?

Which appears to have zero direct relavence to the subject of lies, but which does have an idea which you repeat later, which is 'you reap what you sow'.



Sorry to be confused about this. If I am under some fairly direct attacks, I like to understand what grounds, exactly, I am being attacked on.

Ben

Ben, a level of decency in setting terms from day one, other's could learn from.

Would you ever want (maybe hope) or look at a need for a life partner ever?

Setting terms and understanding expectations works for me. It is something I always did unconsciously, but have started doing consciously. The goalposts have been moved on me twice, with heartbreak for all concerned, but both relationships were well worth it, both are relationships that I look back on with happiness and no regret, and I understand and endorse the reasons why both of them failed.

>> Would you ever want (maybe hope) or look at a need for a life partner ever?

There is someone who I would love to share my life with. Unfortunately it is not possible here and now.

Other than him? Who knows...

B

Reply to post 343, Ben. Sorry I was reliant on (i) It being a sequential post or (ii) the "this is a reply to this post" link being enough.

Ben, you appear to be of the opinion: If you go looking for a "s**t" (as you used prior), that is what you will probably end up with.[*1]

My opinion was previously posted worded:
"You reap what you sow." Plus another post in simpler language akin to the above, the post number I can provide if need that too.

Q1. Is it correct we both share this opinion tagged [*1]?

Ah.



Yep. Precisely!

B

Ben, the sequence of post:-
343,356,358,360,366,370 and this.

Good now that you and Ben are in agreement lets settle this little problem.

blicky, You did'nt undersand "have a heart" as a phrase... Try another: Self recommendation, is no recommendation at all.

Yes I do.

The reason I didnt seem to undesrtand that is because I was not talking about the phrase:"have a heart"

I was refering to the words you *had* put in your post which I had cut and pasted and did not contain that phrase.

I'll tell you what the clinics *are* full of Jab, people who don't consider themselves to be promiscuious or at risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

You only need to have sex with one person to have an STI.

Z - currently on an attachment to an STD clinic.

Reply to post 372, blickybadger.

First I'd ask of you to re-read my post 340, the first short paragraph. Then think what it says you can't do, how the following rules don't work, and any evidence of this you provide in subsequent post yourself. (Post 354 may point to this too.)

Your post (348 in particular) contains supposition, to address it and addition post would need the use of sections (copy&paste) to be fair to us both. Due to system restritions this can't occur tonight. Your understanding of this want for detail would be appreciated.

Jab, please don't take this as a personal attack, but I too am having trouble following all your replying to previous posts, especially when you go back so far.

I am also struggling with your style of posting, and your punctuation.

You appear to be well-educated and have a good command of the English language, you use words such as "supposition" in the right context, yet you persist in using an apostrophe in plurals when not needed.
e.g:
fit's/fits
Sunday's/Sundays
dad's/dads
other's/others
sound's/sounds
crack's/cracks
hang-up's/hang-ups
thing's/things
want's/wants

I feel as if post 362 (and previous postings) and post 374 were written by two different people.

Reply to post 373 Z.

Post 346, Z you said: "A combination of safe sex and regualr check-ups."

Post 354, I said: "Yea sure clinics are full of people "Just having a 'check-ups'"

Post 373, you say: "The clinics *are* full of people that don't consider themself promiscuios or at risk of sexualy transmitted diseases."

There you have it, your post 373 show's the problem with the expectation of post 346. A reliance on people to act to lower there own health due to effect of STI and fail to reduce any risk to others.

You went on to say in post 373 "you only need have sex with one person to have an STI."

{Z you can skip this bit. You only need to have sex with an STI infected person to be at risk if contracting. - I put this here since it's been 'pedant day' or something }

Your working in an STI clinic, do the really use the words "safe sex" or do they say "safer sex" when dealing with people that don't understand it just takes one?

I don't think the wrong people attend these clinics, nothing should put in the minds of people to avoid medical care. What I doubt is happening is people that have casual sex make the effort, a duty of care for themself or other's to get checked. I even doubt a paractice of "safer sex" due to the increase in STI reporting. (NW region) Heaven knows how many go untreated?

At least Jab is now making it clearer which postings he is replying to. Having re-read the last three LEDs in the light of subsequent postings, it is all a lot clearer. I think a lot of it is that ole 'on-line no-one can see you smile' thing.

I have been meaning to get further back into the backlog today, so here goes.

Koshana, 341, made some really good points.

>> The thing that occurred to me at once was the obvious oppourtunity for marriage-strengthening such a situation would present. If a 50-odd male was attracted to an energising exciting collegue - the obvious question to me is what "lack" does this highlight in his marrige and what can he do to take some of that "zing" home with him.

Such a good point.


Jab, 343

>> Going right back to the thread origin, go for a woman that would carry on with a married man, what are you getting really?

That depends on the woman and the man and the state of the marriage.

There is no way of generalising.



Jab, 345

>> Plus "in a relashionship" means exclusive by default.

Nope. That depends on the relationship.



Teuchter. 349

That sucks. Big time. You can only remain friends if you treat your partner / former partner with the respect that you would treat your friends, and trashing anyone's finals is something you just don't do.

I am with your daughter when you say "Her reply was to ask him why on earth he thought she would want to have someone like him as a friend after the way he'd treated her."

However, it is immensely sad that she is now so embittered as to give anyone else only one chance. That will make her life harder, not easier, I think.

Poor girl.



Galaxy Babe. 351.

>> what kind of wife allows you to have a one-to-one meal at youSHE has the man I always wanted, and I don't know if it was my fault, me who never pushed, or nagged him into being Mr Pleasant. I feel we both never made the effort because we were comfortable with each other, I resented his lack of effort but never said anything.

That is tough honey, and varies from the annoying to the heartbreaking. A similar thing happened with me. I am glad that he has learned and changed, and since I don't particularly want to be with him, even the new improved him, I don't really mind. But your post makes me wonder whether we could have made it if he had got his act together while we were together. I have concluded that it took a shock to his system as big as our divorce to get him to make those changes.

At least it looks as if they both have learned some lessons in life.

>> And that 30+ year relationship Bb talks about being "comfortable" - it took that long to get that comfortable, it's not something you can walk into, and it beats loneliness hands-down.

Those words should be written in fire. They are - like so many words in this thread - wise, true and learned through great pain.


Kaz, 352

>> What do you call someone who is sexually active but does consider health in that she insists on a condom but does not consider the marital or not arrangement of the other person?

Personally, I would call them a bitch. In successful affairs the mistress is always aware of the wife, and in the most successful ones she does what is necessary to protect her, including getting regular checkups, which brings me on to:


Jab, 354

>> Z, Yea sure the clinics are full of people "just having a check-up." Get real.

Well if I have the main clap-tests done more often than I go to the dentist. On the other hand I haven't managed to get an NHS dentist...


Jab, 358

>> "I love you." could be a heart felt declaration for your existence, or it could be about the way you stip them naked and ride them like Seabiscuit. The lie is they love you, when what the love is what you do for them...

>> This 'Billibobo' character, loves this woman at work? Nah, loves how she makes him feel now, today. Loves his wife, why, becase she does thing's for him, or because he values her very existance? Just as Mrs Billibobo is unaware of the lies, it does'nt mean they are not there.

Which brings us back to the problem of the multiple meanings of the word love.

Misunderstandings and misinterpretations are not lies. To lie requires an intent to deceive. It feels like being lied to, but it may not have been a lie.

Have a great big Ben and a too. Just because.

My ex-husband carried on sleeping with me (us both) until he moved in with second wife-to-be, all the while insisting that she was "just a friend" and she "meant nothing to him".

Until the night he called me by her name.

He could have plunged a knife into my heart and it wouldn't have hurt more.

I threw him out and told him I never wanted anything to do with him again.

He rang me the next day, apologized, and asked for another chance at reconciliation.

In that moment I knew I had the fate of my children in my hands, whatever I said would change all our lives.
But inside I was dead.

I told him I didn't love him any more, that he'd hurt me so much it was irrepairable.

That weekend he moved in with 2nd-wife-to-be and they've been together ever since.

I should add that he'd met her two weeks after splitting up with me the first time.

By the way, do you really think they "get their act together" because they don't want a second divorce??
I always thought the fault was mine, that I was too easy-going, and should have stood up for myself more, said what *I* wanted instead of asking him what he wanted to do all the time...

"I have concluded that it took a shock to his system as big as our divorce to get him to make those changes"
I will remember those words until I die, thank you

It's just a shame 2nd wife got the new, improved him, and my kids grew up without their dad (they were then, 8,6 & 2).

Thank you for your reply Jab. As you correctly say safer sex is used nowadays instead of safe sex, safer sex is used to mean sex with a condom.

As you also correctly say you only have to have sex with a partner who has an infection to contract one.

The problem is that you can't tell who has an infection and who doesn't. Most infections are asymptomatic for a stage, many present late with infertility and pelvic inflamatory disease, or AIDS.

So a girl you consider nice, who's only had one previous partner may have an infection she doens't know about.

A boy who's shy and quite may not have had the confidence to insist on safer sex in a one night stand that he's too shy to tell you about having in the past.

The only way you can know that a partner is free of STIs is if they've been checked out since their last partner.

Many, even most, people who have an STI caught it from a partner who they thought weren't a risk to them, perhaps they'd been in a relationship for a few months and had got bored of safer sex. Being with someone for months or even years doesn't mean that they don't have an asymptomatic infection.

When I have sex I assume that my partner has every infection under the sun - and take appropriate precautions - so it doesn't matter whether they do or not!

Why should I respect a marriage where one person cheats without being honest about it? Whats to respect about a promise made on paper, which wasn't strong enough to withstand me?

Whats selfish about wanting sex and getting it. I hardly kidnapped them and made them do it against their will, or was interested in breaking up a marriage?