Does not look good

[Yodrak 7]

john_and_marlene,

Fair enough, but in my experience divorce courts bend over backwards to be sure that the people before them know what their rights are and understand what they are doing. They will protect a person from themselves if they think that the person was not in a position to know that they did something that might have been detrimental to their own best interests.

The devil will be in the details, and we could each make up a set of details that would make opposing positions both look iron clad. I understand your point and I sense that you understand mine, so until we have a situation with all of the details presented ... have a good weekend.

Yodrak

Yodrak,

You make a good arguement for why the agreement would be voided, but even you do not indicate that the reasoning is because the signer did not read the agreement before signing. If you'll read my later post you'll see I do agree they can be voided for the same reasons you have stated here, but not simply because it wasn't read before signing. I stand by my post which does not disagree with your reasoning here.

john_and_marlene,

I fear that you are the one who is wrong. My impression is that the family courts have tended to be rather strict about protecting both party's interests as defined in family law, and prenutial agreements that effectively void state family law to the possible detriment of one party or the other are scrutinized very carefully. If there is any indication that a person was pressured or not fully advised of and understanding of their rights with regard to a prenuptial agreement the agreement may be thrown out.

Yodrak

If she doesn't read it, and signs it, without having her own independent counsel represent HER best interests, it won't be worth the paper it's written on.

So all I have to do the next time I don't want to be bound by an agreement I signed, I just have to say I signed it without reading it and my obligation is removed????? I think you are wrong.

[PurrSuede 0]

I would have gladly signed one...but we talked about that BEFORE he came over here....but...neither of us own anything or have any money so it was a moot point....but that is one of those REALLY serious issues you should discuss...like religion, kids, stuff like that...

Yeah, well Caroline, I didn't have a lot of money before she came over, I'd spent it on the wedding and the honeymoon, and buying a new house for us... and I had bought a 2nd car BEFORE we got married, under community property laws, that was ~mine~ sole and separate, but you know, go figure, my ex-wife, an immigrant as you know...

wanted one of my cars, wanted cash from the equity in the house I bought after we got married... she wanted a hell of a lot more and tried to get it... I had to fork out $12,000 to her just to watch her walk away...

So even if I didn't have any money, she found a way to get some out of me... I know for a fact she went to several lawyers who told her to take what was on the table from me, there was nothing more she could get...

Ya know, I used to believe "love will keep us together..."

I guess when the going got tough... the tough got going... and she's still going... with the funds she got from me... LOL

I didn't believe in pre-nups either, I'm in a community property state, figured I could always prove she got here with a suitcase two years ago since she's an immigrant...

And she still walked off with thousands of dollars... I had to float a home equity loan just to get money for her out of the equity in the house... I sure as hell didn't have it in cash...

LOL

So for all you lovebirds out there... I hope you keep your nest feathered cuz you just never know what can happen... and DO investigate the divorce laws in your state BEFORE you get married...

Trust me, I'm glad I did, and I still got scr*wed, though it sure could have been worse...

-- Dan

I plan on being married forever, however it only takes one(person) to file for divorce.

Oh so true.

I'm too old and mean to subscribe to a lot of the sentimental avows of eternal devotion and trust I've seen etched out here.

On the other hand, I'm a dreamer and a lover and I'll take the ####### shoot of putting my heart, as well as my possessions, on the line.

Because my wrath, if provoked, will be just as eternal as my commitment was.

I took the ####### shoot... and rolled 'snake eyes' it seems...

I planned on this being the ONE, the one that would last...

Guess that God/dess had other plans.... LOL

Trust me, I'm wrathful, but I'm the one who filed... after she tried to trump up a DV visit from the police when we were having an arguement... their finding was "domestic disturbance, no evidence of violence by either party"... but realize she had done that once...

I wasn't going to stick around and found out what other bull-cr*p she could come up with... I'm the one who filed for divorce... I'm the one who paid for everything from start to finish... including what I mentioned above...

-- Dan

[Veiled Princess 1]

If she doesn't read it, and signs it, without having her own independent counsel represent HER best interests, it won't be worth the paper it's written on.

So all I have to do the next time I don't want to be bound by an agreement I signed, I just have to say I signed it without reading it and my obligation is removed????? I think you are wrong.

You are correct... the only time I believe that excuse can be used is if it's in a language you can't read fluently or you're illiterate.

[Kirsten L 0]

I took the ####### shoot... and rolled 'snake eyes' it seems...

I planned on this being the ONE, the one that would last...

Guess that God/dess had other plans.... LOL

Trust me, I'm wrathful, but I'm the one who filed... after she tried to trump up a DV visit from the police when we were having an arguement... their finding was "domestic disturbance, no evidence of violence by either party"... but realize she had done that once...

I wasn't going to stick around and found out what other bull-cr*p she could come up with... I'm the one who filed for divorce... I'm the one who paid for everything from start to finish... including what I mentioned above...

-- Dan

Dan, I think that's the exactly the point, that I was tryin got make earlier, though...It shouldn't be a ####### shoot. True, you can never know anything for certain. Not really. But there are probabilities in this world. How long did you know your fiancée before you married her? How much time did you spend with her in person? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Kirsten L

[rebeccajo 14]

How long did you know your fiancée before you married her? How much time did you spend with her in person? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

Kirsten, honestly, I feel like you are asking out of the need to try and prove a point. You seem to be truly opposed to pre-nups, but honestly they aren't the worst thing out there.

How well you 'know' a person prior marriage doesn't mean jack #######. In a marriage, which is a long term deal, people and circumstances change.

I was married for 26 years. Life circumstances caused my ex-husband to change. By the time we divorced he wasn't even close to being the person I married. And I guess I wasn't either.

I've had a really tough time reading all the postings over the last few days about this subject. There is so much starry-eyed drivel in these threads.

Bottom line is you don't know what is going to happen to you in your lifetime. Some people feel a pre-nup can 'feather a nest' to prevent some sort of disaster. Sort of like marital insurance.

At the end of the day, if it all goes down the toilet, everybody still gets hurt and everybody still loses. If some folks want a pre-nup, let them have it. If they don't then fine. This topic is rather like politics and religion, and the endless 'I'm right and you're wrong' thumping just seems pointless to me.

[Kirsten L 0]

How long did you know your fiancée before you married her? How much time did you spend with her in person? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

Kirsten, honestly, I feel like you are asking out of the need to try and prove a point. You seem to be truly opposed to pre-nups, but honestly they aren't the worst thing out there.

How well you 'know' a person prior marriage doesn't mean jack #######. In a marriage, which is a long term deal, people and circumstances change.

I was married for 26 years. Life circumstances caused my ex-husband to change. By the time we divorced he wasn't even close to being the person I married. And I guess I wasn't either.

I've had a really tough time reading all the postings over the last few days about this subject. There is so much starry-eyed drivel in these threads.

Bottom line is you don't know what is going to happen to you in your lifetime. Some people feel a pre-nup can 'feather a nest' to prevent some sort of disaster. Sort of like marital insurance.

At the end of the day, if it all goes down the toilet, everybody still gets hurt and everybody still loses. If some folks want a pre-nup, let them have it. If they don't then fine. This topic is rather like politics and religion, and the endless 'I'm right and you're wrong' thumping just seems pointless to me.

Wow...I don't think I ever said that just because I don't believe in prenups, other people couldn't think differently than me or mutually choose to have one. That is indeed up to them. Nor am I starry-eyed. I think I am quite realistic--simply in a different direction than a prenup would lead. I think differently about this issue than you and others do. I asked a question not to drive home a point with a sledgehammer but because I am indeed curious. Perhaps the gentleman will tell me that he knew this woman very well indeed. I was interested in the response I would hear.

I am perfectly willing to be persuaded of the value of points of view opposite my own--as I think I demonstrated pretty clearly the other day in relationship to your post about the couple you know. I'm simply curious about whether or not a healthy foundation was truly laid for the described union (and subsequent dissolution) or whether it was indeed a ####### shoot, as the gentleman so colorfully put it. Me, I'm always gathering data to reassess my points of view so I can either prove or DISprove my own positions. I like to be on the side of accuracy whenever possible. I'm pretty honest that way. But there's no way for me to truly evaluate unless I ask pertinent questions.

I don't believe I'm being (or have been) offensive in any way. In fact, I'd say I've been pretty amiable and diplomatic in the way I've approached this discussion. It feels to me like because your patience is at an end with my point of view and/or this discussion, you're trying to shut me down. I think that's unfair, and I won't let you do it. If the gentleman doesn't want to answer my question he will indicate that either by his words or his silence. I'll accept that. But I don't believe there's anything so terrible about asking the question for the sake of discussion and curiosity. I think it's an interesting discussion we've been having. I'd like to pursue it a little further if other people are interested and contributing. If you don't want to do so, that's certainly your option. Is the potential validity of another point of view really so uncomfortable...?

Do I know that things change over time? Yup. Do I think the basic character of a person changes much over time, though? No, not really. I think that's much rarer. I think if you take the time to truly know someone at the beginning, you'll generally (not always, but usually) have a pretty good idea of the behavior of which they will or won't be capable later.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Kirsten L

[BelwinMills 0]

In this day in age I wouldn't be with someone if they wouldn't sign a prenup agreement for me. It is just protecting your items that you had before the marriage. This is just my 2 cents.

[rebeccajo 14]

Do I know that things change over time? Yup. Do I think the basic character of a person changes much over time, though? No, not really. I think that's much rarer. I think if you take the time to truly know someone at the beginning, you'll generally (not always, but usually) have a pretty good idea of the behavior of which they will or won't be capable later.

You haven't been offensive. But you are naive. And I'm not trying to shut you down. You simply haven't lived a long term relationship, and no matter how you want to go on and on about what people will do during one, you haven't got a true point of reference. You have an opinion, and you may have statistical data, but you haven't been there. There's a world of difference once you have.

I spent more time in my previous marriage than some of the posters here are old. It wasn't all bad and I'd be lying if I said it was. But it certainly was eye-opening. The changes that happen to two people in a relationship have many more dimensions than 'character'. Life ebbs and flows and things happen that character can't compensate for. Peoples values can change, and as they age their needs change. Some of the changes are good - some are not.

Do you know what I believe makes a marriage last? Well, it ain't 'love'. And it isn't character. It isn't devotion, it isn't trust, and it isn't about some document signed either before the marriage or after.

Two things.

It's about a hunkered down in the mud when the times are tough commitment. It's realizing that there are going to be times when you probably LOATHE your spouse and the situation you are in at the moment. But that you aren't going to walk because tomorrow is a new day.

And respect. For feelings and needs. Changing needs and changing feelings.

Commitment and respect. Held in high value by both partners. That's what will see something through till the end.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

I agree with rebeccajo... I was married for 15 years and the man I married was not the same man who tried to kill me 15 years later.... so you never can say it will last forever....

I think a prenup has its place if that is what both parties want.... just a shame the OP and his SO had not discussed it before she made the move to the US...

Kezzie

[Kirsten L 0]

Do I know that things change over time? Yup. Do I think the basic character of a person changes much over time, though? No, not really. I think that's much rarer. I think if you take the time to truly know someone at the beginning, you'll generally (not always, but usually) have a pretty good idea of the behavior of which they will or won't be capable later.

You haven't been offensive. But you are naive. And I'm not trying to shut you down. You simply haven't lived a long term relationship, and no matter how you want to go on and on about what people will do during one, you haven't got a true point of reference. You have an opinion, and you may have statistical data, but you haven't been there. There's a world of difference once you have.

I spent more time in my previous marriage than some of the posters here are old. It wasn't all bad and I'd be lying if I said it was. But it certainly was eye-opening. The changes that happen to two people in a relationship have many more dimensions than 'character'. Life ebbs and flows and things happen that character can't compensate for. Peoples values can change, and as they age their needs change. Some of the changes are good - some are not.

Do you know what I believe makes a marriage last? Well, it ain't 'love'. And it isn't character. It isn't devotion, it isn't trust, and it isn't about some document signed either before the marriage or after.

Two things.

It's about a hunkered down in the mud when the times are tough commitment. It's realizing that there are going to be times when you probably LOATHE your spouse and the situation you are in at the moment. But that you aren't going to walk because tomorrow is a new day.

And respect. For feelings and needs. Changing needs and changing feelings.

Commitment and respect. Held in high value by both partners. That's what will see something through till the end.

Rebeccajo,

I think you toss around words pretty easily without knowing whereof you speak. I am not quite as naïve as you seem to believe. I have seen and experienced some pretty bad things in my day...in my family of origin, for one...in the marriages in my extended family for two...in the marriages of close friends for three. Naïve isn't even vaguely a word that describes me.

In addition, I am quite aware of what it is ALREADY (from personal experience) to wish I was somewhere, anywhere but with a current partner. I also know very well what it means to stick it out because: 1) something better is coming; 2) because it's the right thing to do, and; 3) because I loved the person. You know the tiniest bit about me...and yet you presume certain things.

Please, please stop saying things you can't verify. I maintain a particular stance and even argue a point, but I don't assume things about your life or anyone else's here. That would be unfair. In fact, asking questions is the way I make sure that I am NOT wrongly making assumptions. You are very much making assumptions about me and my life, though. I find it sad and wrong.

I have a different point of reference than you. It leads me to another point of view than yours and many of the people here. In many ways, I suppose, one could say my point of view is faith-bound, but I don't believe exclusively so. I think that one could argue many of the same points I argue without believing in God at all. I understand that sometimes a prenup may be necessary or advisable. But I think as a general rule, they are not.

We do not fundamentally disagree, as far as I can see from what you have most recently written, about what it takes to make a marriage work. I never said trust was the only factor required. Certainly commitment and respect are enormous factors in a healthy marriage. But I believe those things, too, arise out of a process of getting to know one another, of bonding, that cannot come if certain steps are skipped in the process of building a relationship. Knowing someone well before you get married will also tell you if they're someone you can respect...if they truly respect you...and if it is worth committing to them.

Nothing can take the place of time and experience in the early and pre-marriage stages of a relationship when it comes to building a solid foundation for a HEALTHY lifelong partnership.

Sometimes things do change. I'm not denying that fact. There are things like progressive mental illness or life-and personality-altering trauma that can indeed make someone a different person than the one you married. I think, however, that if we're talking about an average couple, an average marriage, one might safely say that the better you know your spouse before marrying them, the better off you will be in finding ways to continue working together to get through whatever comes.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Kirsten L

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Do I know that things change over time? Yup. Do I think the basic character of a person changes much over time, though? No, not really. I think that's much rarer. I think if you take the time to truly know someone at the beginning, you'll generally (not always, but usually) have a pretty good idea of the behavior of which they will or won't be capable later.

You haven't been offensive. But you are naive. And I'm not trying to shut you down. You simply haven't lived a long term relationship, and no matter how you want to go on and on about what people will do during one, you haven't got a true point of reference. You have an opinion, and you may have statistical data, but you haven't been there. There's a world of difference once you have.

I spent more time in my previous marriage than some of the posters here are old. It wasn't all bad and I'd be lying if I said it was. But it certainly was eye-opening. The changes that happen to two people in a relationship have many more dimensions than 'character'. Life ebbs and flows and things happen that character can't compensate for. Peoples values can change, and as they age their needs change. Some of the changes are good - some are not.

Do you know what I believe makes a marriage last? Well, it ain't 'love'. And it isn't character. It isn't devotion, it isn't trust, and it isn't about some document signed either before the marriage or after.

Two things.

It's about a hunkered down in the mud when the times are tough commitment. It's realizing that there are going to be times when you probably LOATHE your spouse and the situation you are in at the moment. But that you aren't going to walk because tomorrow is a new day.

And respect. For feelings and needs. Changing needs and changing feelings.

Commitment and respect. Held in high value by both partners. That's what will see something through till the end.

Rebeccajo,

I think you toss around words pretty easily without knowing whereof you speak. I am not quite as naïve as you seem to believe. I have seen and experienced some pretty bad things in my day...in my family of origin, for one...in the marriages in my extended family for two...in the marriages of close friends for three. Naïve isn't even vaguely a word that describes me.

In addition, I am quite aware of what it is ALREADY (from personal experience) to wish I was somewhere, anywhere but with a current partner. I also know very well what it means to stick it out because: 1) something better is coming; 2) because it's the right thing to do, and; 3) because I loved the person. You know the tiniest bit about me...and yet you presume certain things.

Please, please stop saying things you can't verify. I maintain a particular stance and even argue a point, but I don't assume things about your life or anyone else's here. That would be unfair. In fact, asking questions is the way I make sure that I am NOT wrongly making assumptions. You are very much making assumptions about me and my life, though. I find it sad and wrong.

I have a different point of reference than you. It leads me to another point of view than yours and many of the people here. In many ways, I suppose, one could say my point of view is faith-bound, but I don't believe exclusively so. I think that one could argue many of the same points I argue without believing in God at all. I understand that sometimes a prenup may be necessary or advisable. But I think as a general rule, they are not.

We do not fundamentally disagree, as far as I can see from what you have most recently written, about what it takes to make a marriage work. I never said trust was the only factor required. Certainly commitment and respect are enormous factors in a healthy marriage. But I believe those things, too, arise out of a process of getting to know one another, of bonding, that cannot come if certain steps are skipped in the process of building a relationship. Knowing someone well before you get married will also tell you if they're someone you can respect...if they truly respect you...and if it is worth committing to them.

Nothing can take the place of time and experience in the early and pre-marriage stages of a relationship when it comes to building a solid foundation for a HEALTHY lifelong partnership.

Sometimes things do change. I'm not denying that fact. There are things like progressive mental illness or life-and personality-altering trauma that can indeed make someone a different person than the one you married. I think, however, that if we're talking about an average couple, an average marriage, one might safely say that the better you know your spouse before marrying them, the better off you will be in finding ways to continue working together to get through whatever comes.

Putting the above commentary into perspective, vis-à-vis this conversation, let's not forget that we are members of an immigration forum that is principally oriented towards aliens that are immigrating as a result of either K visas or immediate relative petitions.

While I note that your profile shows that you spent nearly 2 years in France with your fiancé, that is by no means the norm. Not that spending a vast amount of time wouldn't be preferred before making the choice to marry a foreign born individual, mind you, but it's simply not possible for many. You may indeed have the privilege of feeling that you had adequate time to "get to know" your beloved, before commencing this process, but even several years spent in another culture, may not sufficiently prepare one for marriage and its related ups and downs. Unfortunate as it is to contemplate, time will tell that.

I agree that one can have a general sense of the sincerity of one's partner and evaluate their character at 'this time and under these circumstances' and make an informed decision on the potential for something to go awry in the future. But once again, it is rendered down to speculation. One is speculating that given certain characteristics, given current conditions, the other will behave in 'this way or in that way'. No one can have a guarantee, however.

And in cases where prenups are critical, yes, I'd be willing to state that they are essential in some circumstances, often the need for a prenup is not always predicated solely on the personal desires of the presenter. In families of significant wealth, or potential inheritance, there is familial pressure and a sense of obligation to next of kin to protect the assets, that has to be addressed and accommodated. It isn't simply a decision that one can make out of one's own need.

Edited October 22, 2006 by diadromous mermaid

[DeadPoolX 9]

Having read this entire thread, I felt I might as well weigh in on the value of pre-nuptial agreements. I'm not going to say a thing about the OP and his SO; that's already been decided and there are most likely circumstances beyond which I know or could possibly understand (at this point in time), so I feel I shouldn't be making accusations or assumptions.

Now, as far as pre-nups are concerned, I feel that if one or both parties have assets to protect coming into the marriage, then a pre-nuptial agreement is probably the best course of action. It's highly unfortunate, but you cannot predict the future and in a world where many marriages do end in divorce (and I don't mean "friendly divorce" either), it might be better to protect what you have before entering into the marriage. Obviously, whatever you procure while in the marriage together might be up for grabs, but what you had before it would still belong to you.

Far too often, I've heard about men and women who've had half their assets ripped away from them (usually men by women, statistically speaking...) by their former partner and had their life reduced to shambles. When you have a lucrative business and a fat bank account, you can never be too sure that the person who's with you is interested in you for you or for your money, belongings and what you can do for them. Maybe that seems paranoid and very untrusting, but unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there today who are like this.

I told my fiancee about the OP's story (and the ensuing debate that's still raging on), and she's given me her opinion on pre-nuptial agreements, and I've given her mine as well. Basically, we both agree that it'd be wrong for someone to literally take half of someone else's assets, regardless of the situation, but...if one person has given up their time and energy (and possibly their career) to raise a household, then they should be compensated in some way from a divorce, even if it is minimally.

So that's pretty much it from me. Yes, I know this was a long post, but seeing as how I haven't posted in this thread before--and I have no intention of posting again, unless specifically responded to or question about something I wrote--I figured I might as well write everything I wanted to the first go-around.

[SirLancelot 1]

But I believe those things, too, arise out of a process of getting to know one another, of bonding, that cannot come if certain steps are skipped in the process of building a relationship. Knowing someone well before you get married will also tell you if they're someone you can respect...if they truly respect you...and if it is worth committing to them.

Nothing can take the place of time and experience in the early and pre-marriage stages of a relationship when it comes to building a solid foundation for a HEALTHY lifelong partnership.

This I-129F petition process dramatically slows down the marriage process for all of us. Just consider all the eloping which takes place in Las Vegas in the US. This process requires/demands all of us to take things slowly. I think the OP was indeed doing what you're suggesting, albeit the moment at which he proffered the pre-nup is where most who disagree with his actions are having the hang-up. I tend to agree with Mermaid that the timing should not matter.

Fundamentally I tend to accept pre-nups so I don't see what timing has to do with it. Either one accepts the idea of true love and forgets about any financial security the spouse will offer, or one fully embraces the idea of true love and marries not caring about money/financial security at all. This may be from a man's prespective of course, but when a man sees a woman quickly agreeing to a pre-nup without hesitation, that overwhelmingly demonstrates to the man that she's truly and sincerely in love with him--not with his wealth or assets. The women on here may not see it this way, but I'm sure most of the men--if they are truly honest with themselves--will agree that not much else can demonstrate to them the woman's true love than easily agreeing to sign a pre-nup without hesitation. If I were to do a pre-nup, I may even tear up the pre-nup immediately once I've seen my SO's positive reaction without hesitation. (Obviously this is based on a man having significant wealth and assets to protect. If the man is a pauper, then he should consider himself lucky when a woman wants to marry him, as it would be for him only--not for money--that the woman is marrying him--out of love and nothing more.)

I will tell you the first thing that will enter a wealthy man's thoughts if the woman reacts strongly when suggested a pre-nup is that she's in it for the money. Why else would she even care otherwise? If the marriage lasts, then nothing from the pre-nup even matters. It's only if she's already thought of what may happen when there is a divorce that she'd react so negatively to a pre-nup. That is how the man will see it.

But I know that's not the prespective most women see it from. It's interesting how differently people see things. It also matters greatly if the individuals have lots of assets or none at all.

The OP did learn more about the SO prior to marriage and it simply was too much for him. I think it was wise and prudent that they didn't end up marrying. Or else a divorce probably would have followed shortly and they the man could have lots a significant portion of his assets.

Could he have treated the SO better upon asking her to leave, probably. Should he have purchased plane tickets for her daugher and her? Probably. But I suspect there's a lot more to the story that we've not heard. I'm sure she did something that's pretty awful in his eyes to make him treat her the way he ended up doing. If you look at his complete posting history, he wrote very positively about his SO and championed her often. For him to suddenly change, something must have happened. Just like a divorce really, but thankfully they hadn't married yet. Just as in a divorce, I wouldn't expect a man to willingly do all that for his ex-wife, unless compelled by a court.

We are missing a big slice of the entire picture.

[rebeccajo 14]

Rebeccajo,

I think you toss around words pretty easily without knowing whereof you speak.

No. I just don't mince them.

I haven't had the experience of a fancy education. All my larnin' is at the school of hard knocks.

And religious perspectives shouldn't be used to back up a point, in my opinion. They are just that - perspectives. They don't make a person smarter or dumber.

I don't know why you are so touchy about what I have to say, honestly I don't.

Unless you are trying harder to convince yourself with your words than you are to convince me.

[Kirsten L 0]

Rebeccajo,

I think you toss around words pretty easily without knowing whereof you speak.

No. I just don't mince them.

I haven't had the experience of a fancy education. All my larnin' is at the school of hard knocks.

And religious perspectives shouldn't be used to back up a point, in my opinion. They are just that - perspectives. They don't make a person smarter or dumber.

I don't know why you are so touchy about what I have to say, honestly I don't.

Unless you are trying harder to convince yourself with your words than you are to convince me.

Sometimes, Rebeccajo, a little diplomacy goes a long way. With that, I retire. I do not apoloize for my education. I am grateful for it. And it unfortunately includes the school of hard knocks.

I hope someday you will lose the bitter edge bestowed upon you by your particular life education. Maybe that's what it will take for you to stop feeling threatened as you so clearly do. I hope you know that it was never my goal to make you feel threatened in any way...only to be heard and understood (whether you agree or disagree with my perspective).

I will never wish you ill, Rebeccajo. It is not in me. I only wish you did not feel such animosity toward me and what you wish to perceive me to be--however incredibly wrong you are.

My best to you.