Recently
Jumping the Relationship Gun
Dear Annie: Last month, an old boyfriend contacted me. I hadn't seen "Bud" in 30 years. We had a wonderful conversation. I visited him at his home. He even sent me a large sum of money to help pay off a mortgage bill. We now talk at least …Read more.
Trusting Cheaters
Dear Annie: I'm in my early 20s and have been dating "Aidan" for a year. He attends college two hours away. He doesn't socialize much and stresses a lot about his grades. His only real friend is "Cara," a girl we went to high …Read more.
Bare Naked Mommies
Dear Annie: I am becoming excessively annoyed by a new trend I'm seeing with my friends who have recently become parents — the "naked mommy."
I'm 27 and have not yet had children. Several of my friends are having their second or …Read more.
The Long Trip to Tenuous
Dear Annie: My father and I have never had the best relationship. He was domineering, controlling and verbally abusive to me as a teenager, and as a result, I rebelled and did things specifically to irritate him. Several times, he kicked me out of …Read more.
more articles
|
A Breakup Doesn't Always Come with a Good Reason
Dear Annie: I'd been seeing "Ralph" for more than three years. We were actually living together the last year. Ralph is 60, and I'm 55. Six months ago, he announced that he couldn't be in the relationship any longer. After a lot of talk and prodding on my part, the only reason I could get out of him was, "It's not you. It's me." What does that mean? That's not a reason.
Ralph said he still loves me, and I'm totally in love with him. But not wanting to stay where I wasn't wanted, I promptly moved out. I then found out that Ralph was seeing an old girlfriend. They spent their time going out and partying.
I've been so lost since this happened. I don't understand his reasoning. I'm hoping he'll realize we had something great together and come back to me. Everyone, including Ralph's family, wonders what's going on. Is this a late-in-life crisis? Am I wrong to keep hoping? — Unlucky in Love
Dear Unlucky: Ralph could be having a midlife crisis, but he also could simply want to be with someone else. We have no way to predict his future actions, but we will tell you that it is unwise to wait for him. Live your life to the fullest, which not only will keep you active and happy, but will allow you to meet new people, which is always a plus.
Dear Annie: My son and his wife went away for a weekend, and she accidentally left her wedding rings at home. When they returned, the rings were missing. Her 17-year-old brother, 20-year-old sister and the sister's boyfriend stayed at the house to watch their dogs. We later found out that the brother had a teenage friend over, and we think he stole the rings.
My daughter-in-law's family is a bunch of losers and thieves. Her father insists no one took the rings, and no one is doing anything about it. My daughter-in-law is a wonderful person who helps her family all the time, and this is the reward she gets. She keeps telling me she is going to file a police report, but hasn't done it.
I am beside myself. My problem is, how do I handle an upcoming family occasion? I don't want to start a war, but neither do I want these people in my house, and I don't want to be around them. What do I do? — A.
Dear A.: This is your daughter-in-law's family, and although you don't like them, you obviously care for her. That means putting up with her family now and then. If you don't trust them in your home, have the festivities elsewhere — in your son's home or at a restaurant. You also can lock up the valuables. As for the missing rings, these belong to your daughter-in-law, and she gets to decide how she wants to handle the alleged theft. It's loyal of you to be angry on her behalf, but it serves no useful purpose if it also upsets her. Please try to let it go.
Dear Annie: I read the letter from "M.," whose siblings expected her to pay $100 for a meal when she only ate a $10 salad. I have been a waitress for years and am always surprised when people have issues with splitting the check when they did not eat or drink equally. There is absolutely no reason not to ask for separate checks when you order your meal. Even if it is the restaurant's policy not to do so for large parties, it still can be done. Ask for the manager if your server hesitates. Our industry is in a slump, and we will do what it takes to make the customer happy. — L.J.E.
Annie's Mailbox is written by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar, longtime editors of the Ann Landers column. Please e-mail your questions to anniesmailbox@comcast.net, or write to: Annie's Mailbox, c/o Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century Blvd., Ste. 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045. To find out more about Annie's Mailbox and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
46 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
LW1 - He's just not into you, honey. Demanding a reason won't make one appear. He just does not want to be with you. Be graceful and let it go, and move on.
LW2 - This isn't your fight and it's not your business. This is like a game of clue... The wedding rings, in the house, with...
Teenage brother?
Young adult sister?
Sister's boyfriend?
Brother's friend?
Fact is, even if anyone wanted to do something about it, no one knows who actually took the rings. It could be any of them. Or they could have been knocked under a cabinet somewhere for all we know.
Since you do not trust your in-laws, simply deflect any suggestions that something be held at your home by saying "oh no, I'll be so busy that week, how about we meet at a restaurant?" or something like that. Then let it go, move on, and stop pushing it. Denigrating your DIL's family and reminding her of the loss of her rings is NOT helpful.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Zoe
Fri Jan 6, 2012 9:07 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1: your d-i-l is paying for the crimes of others. Being the victim of bullies must have been her thing growing up. Her bullies are her family. Tell your son to contact your home owners insurance to see what to do. And then make sure they change the locks on the house. See, it woudl have been better and cheaper to board the pets in a nice animal hotel. The trust is gone. Don't give it back.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LW1: Ralphy boy decided his eye candy was in a different dish. And being the coward, he chose this way out of the 'deal/contract/what ever else you called your live in situation. Could have been roommates with benefits. You will never see his side of things, so don't try.
Get on with your life, he has. He is not worth another second of your life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LW3: I have never gone out to eat at anytime where the wait staff has not asked if it was all one ticket. I would never expect to be on someone else's ticket unless it was a party planned as that--notified ahead of time.
Otherwise what I eat is my bill.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Joyce/MN
Fri Jan 6, 2012 9:08 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1-
I don't know who started this "It's not you, it's me" thingie, but the phrase has become a catch-all for lame excuses for total jerks who don't want to 'fess up. The Urban Ductionary translates it as "I no longer find you attractive, but I can't say that because then I'll feel guilty. Oh, by the way, good riddance." In light of the new flame in his life, it sounds like that's exactly what he meant.
Are you wrong to keep waiting? Yes, in the sense that you'd be very foolish and putting yourself in the line of more heartbreak. Not only you'll keep on hurting until you finally turn the page, but even if he did come back to you, how could you trust him not to pull the same stunt again with someone else or even the same "old" girlfriend?
Time to move on.
LW2-
As I was working at home tonight, I was lkstening to one of these forensic shows and one of the detectives assigned to the case said: It's quite often that we know exactly who did it, but proving it beyond the shadow of a doubt so we can get a conviction in court is another matter."
In this case, you don't even know exactly who did it. Evidently, it's someone connected to the 17 year-old brother or his sister, but who? It could be any one of them who just had sticky fingers and took a walk to the local pawn shop, or they could all be in cahoots. Unless one of them 'fesses up, you'll never know.
What the Annies said - it's her rings, don't get too involved in this. As for having them in your home, tell them you're renovating and the place looks like it was hit by Katrina and host them somewhere else, or lock up everything.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Fri Jan 6, 2012 9:35 PM
|
|
|
|
I believe that George Costanza came up with "it's not you, it's me"
Comment: #4
Posted by: Zoe
Fri Jan 6, 2012 9:58 PM
|
|
|
|
Translation of "It's not you, it's me" = "It's you!"
Comment: #5
Posted by: VAdame
Fri Jan 6, 2012 10:12 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1: If it's taken you 55 years to find this out, you've lived a charmed life. The sad truth is that some "men" never grow up. Don't waste another minute waiting for this jerk, and if he comes back looking for forgiveness, nooky, or whatever, look him square in the eyes and say, "Sorry, but I'm no longer available. It's not me; it's you."
Comment: #6
Posted by: Baldrz
Fri Jan 6, 2012 10:57 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1: "Ralph" is only telling you he still loves you because he hopes to keep you in the wings in case the relationship with the former ex that he dumped you for doesn't work out, or so that you can be his f-buddy in between other women. He's not worth waiting for. Move on.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Bear
Sat Jan 7, 2012 1:00 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1: Sorry, but this is not a midlife crisis at age 60. Not unless you think this guy is going to live to be 120. 60 is the "mid" of 120, not 75 or 80.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Ms. Rowena
Sat Jan 7, 2012 5:15 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1--"Six months ago, he announced that he couldn't be in the relationship any longer. After a lot of talk and prodding on my part, the only reason I could get out of him was, "It's not you. It's me." What does that mean?" It means it's you. Any more questions?
LW2--"I don't want to start a war, but neither do I want these people in my house, and I don't want to be around them. What do I do?" I don't blame you one bit. People like this rely on common courtesy and polite society in order to get away with murder with regards to their extended families. If you don't want to start a war with your DIL's family then you use subterfuge to get out of events that might involve spending any time with them. You graciously accept invitations but at the last minute you've suddenly come down with a bug, had car trouble, etc. Get the picture? You never host your DIL's family in your home; always suggest local restaurants or other public venues, then stay only the minimum length of time. The key is to never outwardly display any signs of hostility or mistrust of your DIL's family and never, ever speak ill of them in your son or DIL's presence. It's called plausible deniability and it is your friend.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Chris
Sat Jan 7, 2012 6:01 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1 - Ralph is right. It's him and not you. It's him wanting to be with someone who is not you. Nothing you can do about it.
LW2 - Good advice from the Annies but they forgot to tell you get family counseling and see a therapist.
LW3- Good info. When I eat with a group I always ask for a separate check and it's never been a problem. I always give a nice tip too.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Rick
Sat Jan 7, 2012 6:19 AM
|
|
|
|
Just dawned on me that the LW from yesterday who had to rescue her son from nasty old grandpa wasn't accused one single time of being in menopause.
We're slipping, people!!!! :>D
---------------------
Lise and Chris:
Can you two just lay off each other already? We all KNOW you don't agree on practically anything, ok? Or else email each other with your comments if you just have to say something.
------------------------
Comment: #11
Posted by: jar8818
Sat Jan 7, 2012 6:43 AM
|
|
|
|
I do not understand why anyone is being critical of Ralph here. Why does breaking up with someone make you "a jerk" or mean that you have "never grown up""?? People have every right to break up with each other, and they don't have to provide reasons if they don't want to. Maybe he is trying to spare her feelings. Maybe there are too many reasons to list. Maybe he doesn't know himself, beyond the fact that he simply wants out. Or maybe, the most likely scenario, is that he doesn't want to provide reasons because it will only lead to a long argument of denail and "I'll change", when he knows it won't do any good and therefore there is simply no reason to hash it all out.
Note that he was not seeing the old girlfriend before they broke up, so what did he do that was wrong? He didn't cheat on her. Would staying with her forever even though he didn't want to make him a mature man, and not a jerk?
I think Zoe is right. She should ask herself why she wants Ralph to spell out a reason, accept the fact that providing a reason will not change anything, and move on with her life.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Jane
Sat Jan 7, 2012 7:12 AM
|
|
|
|
By the way, Ithink the LW from yesterday with the mean FIL and 17 year old son should have dad checked out for menopause, or something (thanks jar8818) and while were at it I think Ralph is obviously bi-polar. Oh yeah, and the kid mean FIL was reaming out probalby has Asperger's which might explain why he stood there and took it....or he's really, really polite.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Rick
Sat Jan 7, 2012 7:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Ditto Jane and Zoe - with exclamation marks! What is with people assuming "Ralph" is a jerk when his heart is no longer in the relationship? Are you all saying that you never grew tired of someone and wanted out? Sure. The "It's not you, it's me" may be seen as a copout to people who want to argue endlessly over feelings, as if arguing over feelings could somehow change them. He's trying to let her down easily. Zoe nailed it. H'es not in to you anymore. Let it go. Life happens. Find someone else.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Maggie Lawrence
Sat Jan 7, 2012 7:59 AM
|
|
|
|
MsRowena @ 8 -- The LW actually DID call it a "late-in-life crisis." It was the Annies who changed it to mid-life.
Comment: #15
Posted by: VAdame
Sat Jan 7, 2012 8:09 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Jane
I think one factor has to do with the growing allergy to the "It's not you, it's me" catch-phrase. If he WILL give a reason, why can't he just say, 'I don't feel the way I used to', 'I've met someone else' or something, instead of that psycho-babble yurunda? It's all very nice to say that the dumper doesn't HAVE to give a reason, but this is in principle. In practice, the dumpee will demand one and it's perfectly normal. At a time of great emotional pain, a little more honesty would be appreciated, and the indication of respect.
And then... just leaving someone because you've lost attraction is one thing, but to keep them hanging on ("Ralph said he still loves me"), because you need something on the back burner in case the new thing doesn't work out ? Right now, the LW quite naturally clings to that sentence in the hope that it means he will eventually come back to her, and she is never able to turn the page. Very, very selfish, and totally inconsiderate of the other's feelings.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Sat Jan 7, 2012 8:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Zoe, "It's not you, it's me" has been around DECADES longer than the Seinfeld show. The first time I heard of someone saying it I was still in HS, and that was in the sixties.
Comment: #17
Posted by: moon
Sat Jan 7, 2012 9:22 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: moon
Perhaps it only went viral after the Seinfeld show?
Comment: #18
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Sat Jan 7, 2012 9:27 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1: If you were married to Ralph, he would have to give you a better explanation of why he needed to move on. You weren't married, although I would argue living together is pretty close. Lesson, LW? Don't live with a man before marrying him. I know this is not a popular opinion, but in the words of my friend from college "You should always have your own door to slam." Especially when you are dealing with a man who wants to have his cake and eat it too. Move on, work on your own happiness. He's not your problem anymore.
LW2: How do you think it makes your DIL feel when you say things like "My daughter-in-law's family is a bunch of losers and thieves. " OK, you love her, but don't you think it makes her feel like a loser to hear you say things like that? Apple doesn't fall too far from the tree and all that? C'MON! Get out of this already and as for having them over to your pristine home and perfect family? Don't. They probably think you're just as bad as you think they are.
LW3: The original LW made it clear that the family did not expect for the checks to be separate. It was pretty clear that the family wanted to split the checks evenly as some kind of bonding deal. Our advice BTL was dead on: invite them to a restaurant of your choice, don't go if they invite you to a steak house (the original LW was a vegan), or have them to your own home. Separate checks is a diversion here, and obviously the Annies did not read the content of the original letter correctly. The issue is family blackmail. Not separate checks.
Comment: #19
Posted by: nanchan
Sat Jan 7, 2012 11:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: moon
I mentioned George C. from Seinfeld because in an episode he claims to have "come up with it" :) After excessive prodding from George C. the woman in question actually says "okay, fine, it IS you!" Maybe if LW1 had kept on pushing the issue with Ralph she would have gotten a more accurate response.
Re: Jane
Thank you! I have NO idea why others are giving Ralph a hard time. He's allowed to lose interest in someone, and don't forget, he only said "it's not you, it's me" after a "lot of talk and prodding". There have been times that I've broken it off with someone for no real reason, just saying "I'm just not feeling it anymore" - if they had pushed and pushed I might have said "it's not you, it's me," too.
Re: Lise B.
"If he WILL give a reason, why can't he just say, 'I don't feel the way I used to', 'I've met someone else' or something, instead of that psycho-babble yurunda?"
He may well have said some of those things. LW1 doesn't say exactly how he broached the subject but I doubt it was as simple as "we're broke up, don't let the door hit you on your way out!"
We don't know WHY Ralph said he still loves her. Don't forget, this is after a lot of nagging and arguing and prodding from LW1. He may have said anything to try to get it to END. It is HARD to break up with someone who refuses to accept it, and sometimes you have to be creative in what you say, and sometimes you don't have the opportunity to think through your words before they come out.
And some people are just crappy at breaking up. In a way, this letter reminds me of yesterday. Is it possible that Ralph is a crappy breaker-upper? Yes. Is it also possible that he tried to do it right and go caught up in an argument during which LW1 nagged and prodded, and said something that's not up to your standards? Yes. Could he just be a huge jerk? Sure. Is there ANYTHING to be gained by clinging to this dead relationship and writing to advice columnists? NO. A big, emphatic no.
Re: nanchan
I'm not sure if you're trying to be in favour of marriage but it comes off as the opposite. Since they were not married, all LW1 has to do is get her stuff and get over it (the latter apparently being much more difficult than the former!). Imagine what she'd have to go through if they were married? Yikes.
Comment: #20
Posted by: Zoe
Sat Jan 7, 2012 1:00 PM
|
|
|
|
Once again, Ralph did NOTHING wrong. The LW is the one who did a lot of "talk and prodding" only to hear "it's not you, it's me." Well, he was right! How is that any different from saying that his feelings had changed? OF COURSE his feelings had changed! Why else would he want to move on? It may be "natural" to want explanations, but it's counter productive. What reason could he give that she wouldn't try to argue with? His feelings have changed - and how many women say "I love him but I'm not IN love with him"? Same thing. He was trying to let her down easily - and if he had been as "honest" as Lise seems to think he should have been, she'd be crying on here about how brutal he was and the same people would still be calling him a jerk.
Comment: #21
Posted by: Maggie Lawrence
Sat Jan 7, 2012 1:45 PM
|
|
|
|
Jesus, Zoe, did you catch the Lise virus? Have to respond to everybody's post as if you are the owner of the site?
Give it UP ladies! Soooooooo boring to see these long posts from you both responding to everyone else as if you own the universe.
No wonder we lose posters here. It's like being in second grade and having your teacher grade you on every word you write!
Comment: #22
Posted by: nanchan
Sat Jan 7, 2012 1:51 PM
|
|
|
|
LW 1 - Ralph probably has MAN - O - PAUSE and LW is probably going thru Menopause.
Life happens - Scheisse passiert !
LW 2 - LW probably is going thru Menopause, too. She's shouting to the world that her DIL's family are losers and
thieves and doesn't want them in her house and most likely, will NOT not let the case of the missing wedding
rings be forgotten.
Comment: #23
Posted by: Gwen
Sat Jan 7, 2012 1:54 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: nanchan
Calm down, I was trying to say all that with humor. I thought it was a humorous observation. Sorry you didn't take it as it was intended. It wasn't meant to be offensive. Maybe I should have added some smilies or something.
Comment: #24
Posted by: Zoe
Sat Jan 7, 2012 2:15 PM
|
|
|
|
And honestly nanchan if I respond to a few people in one post (two of which addressed me, two of which were relevant to the discussion) and it bothers you so much just skip over it. I like carrying on discussions, sometimes with more than one person, and no I don't always agree with everyone and vice versa. It's a discussion area. This is how I discuss and I almost NEVER mean anything to be insulting or offensive. Deal with it, or skip it.
Comment: #25
Posted by: Zoe
Sat Jan 7, 2012 2:22 PM
|
|
|
|
I don't know what's the matter with creators, but I am getting an error message every time I come to this page. And nothing refreshes..... grrrrrrr.
Machine goes to the hospital on Monday, but it's srange it only happens when I visit this site.
Comment: #26
Posted by: nanchan
Sat Jan 7, 2012 2:50 PM
|
|
|
|
@ jar8818
Re: "Lise and Chris:
Can you two just lay off each other already? We all KNOW you don't agree on practically anything, ok?..."
You'll notice if you go back through the archives that I never address Lise first. I never read her posts anymore because I rarely agree with her twisted and biased point of view. Yet, she feels the need to find some shit to say to me nearly every day because I think she can't help herself. She's a bully and a needy black hole of attention, which is why she hangs out on these forums day in and day out challenging everybody else's posts and dominating the discussion with her anecdotes and stories, as if any of us cares. I advised her once to simply skip my posts if they bother her so much. I skip hers (and I know others skip mine.) Yet she can't help herself. I could, of course do my part and simply not respond but when what she says constitutes a baseless personal attack I will call her on it. In fact, I have no doubt she's going to log in here shortly and not only deny what I've said but accuse me of attacking her. Poor Lise, the perpetual victim. Lise's memory is faulty when it comes to the things she writes and frankly, I think she's a blatant liar and a fraud. As I said, go through the archives, you'll see for yourself...if she hasn't deleted incriminating posts as she's sometimes inclined to do when someone calls her out. Anyway, sorry if I offended you. I do enjoy your posts and I hope you continue to contribute here.
Comment: #27
Posted by: Chris
Sat Jan 7, 2012 4:37 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1: I'm generally annoyed by people who have to have a valid logical reason for being dumped. He doesn't want to be with you any more, the end. The break up lines I've used (and been told) are along the lines of "I'm just not in love" or "I just don't want to be with you any more" (but kinder) and even that gets questioned: "you'd rather be ALONE than with me??" - Of course! that's the polite thing to do! The alternative is to wait until someone better comes along, THEN dump you? Is that what you'd prefer? Anyway, I digress, but the point is, when someone dumps you, bid them a fond adieu.
Comment: #28
Posted by: Steve C
Sat Jan 7, 2012 5:34 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1 - Move on... Ralph isn't worth your time and even if you couldn't see that you're no longer compatible, for whatever reason, he did, because he decided he's more compatible with whoever he's seeing now. You also aren't going to get any emotional closure from him, and frankly you shouldn't because it's a fruitless pursuit. Nobody can fill the hole left behind from an ended relationship better than you can.
LW2 - This isn't your fight. I get your being angry for your DIL and it shows how much you care for her, but it's still not your fight. Use your emotional energy to be supportive of her instead, especially as it's clear her own family isn't capable of it.
LW3 - Thank you for pointing that out. Unfortunately I think the original LW's family would give her a hard time no matter what she did... that said she'd probably be all the wiser to proactively ask for a separate check every time she dines with them from now on.
Comment: #29
Posted by: PS
Sat Jan 7, 2012 6:35 PM
|
|
|
|
@Maggie, nanchan, Chris
"she'd be crying on here about how brutal he was and the same people would still be calling him a jerk."
"Jesus, Zoe, did you catch the Lise virus? Have to respond to everybody's post as if you are the owner of the site?"
Chris's long rant
What the hell is this?
I'm coming in from a hard day's work (for someone who doesn't have a life) and I come home to a war? Again? Do you people really have NOTHING ELSE TO DO but go on a hate-Lise rampage? This is not the first time that I come home to find people have been raging about me in my absence and then blaming me. You guys have a problem and I'm not responsible for your obsessions. Follow your own advice and skip my posts of you're so allergic to me.
I'm not even gonna respond to these attacks individually - it's not worth it.
Oh, I get it - the moon is almost full.
Comment: #30
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Sat Jan 7, 2012 6:52 PM
|
|
|
|
The cowardice way Ralph did it is the issue.He should have just said, I think we are to the end of our relationship, I don't know if I want to spend the rest of life till my dying day tied down. And that is what you want. I want to still chase things from my past and not wish for things in my future. So I am telling you it is me, when it is really YOU ARE NOT WANT I WANT AT THE MOMENT. But please hang around, incase I get bored again, and we will hook back up.
Comment: #31
Posted by: Joyce/MN
Sat Jan 7, 2012 7:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Get a grip, Lise. Not everything that has your name in it is a "hate-Lise" rampage. If you're going to put my name in the same category with what nanchan or Chris said, then at least read what I actually said. You were down on the guy for not being "honest" - as if that would have helped the situation. And it would not. That is what I referred to. And that is not a "hate-Lise" campaign no matter how much you seem to want to think it is.
Comment: #32
Posted by: Maggie Lawrence
Sat Jan 7, 2012 7:47 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Maggie Lawrence
I do agree that your comment was the mildest, although it seems to have been what started the ball rolling. Which is not your responsibility, of course.
Get a grip? I wonder how YOU would react if you would consistently come home to find people raging about you for no other reason than they feel like it. Try to think about this for a minute. But it's always the same thing, if it happens to "you" ("you" being generic, not personal), it's the end of the world, if it happens to anyone else, it's nothing and anyone who minds is being a drama queen. Yeah, I post a lot, SO WHAT? I didn't know there was a limit. And I sure ain't the only one. Apart from the ONE time when I called Chris an A****** (and I'm not backing down from that one), I don't call people names and I don't call posts "ridiculous" the minute I'm not in agreement. What I do bring is arguments, same as I'm doing now. And yet I seem to be so insufferable, unbearable, as in eek eek eek there she is again, to the point where there are some who would love nothing better than to run me off with tar and feathers. Hey - what what'll THEY rage about if I did?
I have a right to post here same as you all do. And there ARE plenty who enjoy my contributions, even if they're not (potty) mouthed enough to post about it.
Comment: #33
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Sat Jan 7, 2012 8:11 PM
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to understand why people are down on Ralph. He's not hanging on to LW1, he's trying to not hurt her feelings. Having been on both sides in similar situations, I can say that he's doing EXACTLY the right thing... being honorable and telling LW1 that he wants out, rather than seeing someone else on the side, and not going thru a long rant on whatever his issues are. LW1 needs to understand that it's time to move on... not because Ralph is a rat, but because the relationship is OVER.
Comment: #34
Posted by: dave
Sat Jan 7, 2012 8:34 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: dave
"Ralph says he still loves me"
That is sending mixed messages. It is NOT honourable, it is NOT letting her down gently, because it keeps her hanging on, because it gives her the impression that he MIGHT come back - it also looks like he wants to keep her on the back burner in case his new flame doesn't work out.
I don't know where I read, "If both parties stopped caring at the same time, there would never be any heartbreak"... When you're the one who's still in love while the other one has gone cold, you'll cling to any shred of hope. That goes for both men and women. And... sometimes the hope is justified. We all know people who reconciled after a break-up, and went on happily ever after for decades. The memory of this keeps the flames of hope burning. Being told that the other one "still loves you" is wood to the fire.
It is possible he doesn't realise it and is only saying this to TRY to let her down gently... but he isn't. By saying things like that, he is (perhaps unwittingly) giving her false hopes and prolonging the pain for her.
That's why w're down on Ralph. Perhaps he doesn't realise telling her he still loves her is leading her on... but then, perhaps he just wants to preserve himself a fall-back plan. Which wouldn't be very nice, as I'm sure you'll agree. We don't know for sure which one it is... but it doesn't look good for her either way. I DID tell her to move on.
I can't speak for the others, but to me, that's what it is.
Comment: #35
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Sat Jan 7, 2012 9:55 PM
|
|
|
|
Does anyone but me think it's weird a woman would "accidentally" leave her wedding rings at home for a weekend getaway?
Comment: #36
Posted by: wkh
Sat Jan 7, 2012 9:59 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: wkh
Perhaps there's something weird about it, but probably not. I for one didn't see anything suspicious about that. Rings can be taken off for all kinds of legitimate reasons and, once they're off, they can be forgotten without there being anything freudian about it.
Comment: #37
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Sun Jan 8, 2012 12:27 AM
|
|
|
|
sigh
children
Comment: #38
Posted by: Jpp
Sun Jan 8, 2012 3:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: nanchan--Actually, you're one of the reasons I seldom post BTL here anymore.
Comment: #39
Posted by: Joannakathryn
Sun Jan 8, 2012 5:02 PM
|
|
|
|
After three years, Ralph owes the LW an honest explanation for what he's doing. It's called being a decent human being and a civilized adult. "It's not you, it's me" is an infantile cop-out, especially from someone who also claims to still love her. A lie is still a lie even if no one believes it.
Comment: #40
Posted by: Baldrz
Sun Jan 8, 2012 10:25 PM
|
|
|
|
re Baldrz: do you really think that giving LW1 what may be a pretty harsh explanation is the right thing to do? What if the explanation is "your constant nagging is driving me crazy and I have to get out"?. If the issue was something that Ralph thought LW1 could change, he probably would have told her already.
Comment: #41
Posted by: dave
Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:21 AM
|
|
|
|
jar8818--while i agree the hostility on this site is repellent, neither lise nor chris had said anything to each other at the time you posted. months ago i was soundly chewed out for bringing up a situation from the previous day and asking everyone to just knock it off. i was chewed out because so far that day, nothing disagreeable had been said.
having said that, the comment that lise seems to answer everyone's post...so what? so what if zoe answers everyone's post? isn't that what btl is for? conversation? i enjoy the dialogue that is posted here, as long as it remains civil.
Comment: #42
Posted by: alien07110
Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:46 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: dave
Actually, if that would be the reason, I think she needs to be told. Perhaps he told her before, perhaps not. Some people just bottle it up and never say a word, until the magma reaches critical build-up point, and then they either blow up or do something drastic that looks totally out of proportion. Even if he told her before, she would need to know this is what made him flee. Perhaps she'll listen then.
Comment: #43
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Mon Jan 9, 2012 6:30 AM
|
|
|
|
Lise's right, Dave. Besides, what LW1 will or won't do with the information is not for Ralph to decide. She has a right to know.
Comment: #44
Posted by: Baldrz
Mon Jan 9, 2012 6:06 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1: Read 'He's Just Not That Into You ' by Greg Behrendt and you will get all your answers.
Comment: #45
Posted by: surefoot
Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:20 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1
Stop being lachrymose over this sprat of a man. He was right when he said, "It's not you. It's me." He was the one who could not commit to the relationship. You have had some time to take this all in – now it is time to begin your life again and do things that are important to you. You should thank him for setting you free.
```
Comment: #46
Posted by: Word A Day Mate
Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
