ARRRGGGHHH! (Yes, I actually screamed.) I hate being called "defensive". It is, IMHO, about the most passive-aggressive manner in which you can characterize someone, basically implying "youre wrong and you know it" or "you have something to hide." Or, perhaps, you just like throwing the term "defensive" around because you have nothing substantive to say to bolster your own position. (Yes, yes, I am in fact a lawyer, by both training and avocation ) And, other than that very brief correction of MY OWN mis-statement(and this is not subject to any kind of dispute... it was a misstatement... the facts are the facts are the facts) I didn't see anything in my post even remotely defensive and, given what i was trying to say in those couple of sentences, I think it's a pretty fair stretch to say that even THAT was being defensive.
And i thought that that was a pretty non-frustrated sounding post. Artista has not been around the forums all that long, does not know my history, and I am really trying to be a "kinder and gentler" hoosjim. I was really not all that frustrated, at least not specifically at her.
And i wasn't trying to correct ANYBODY but myself, okay? The fact of my wife taking or not taking communion and her history thereof, as well as the time frame within which my wife was or was not taking communion is VERY pertinent information, as Holding correctly noted. As such, for me to imply-- STRONGLY imply, if you look at my original post-- that that was a recent phenomenon-- is a gross mistatement of the pertinent facts (upon which Holding relied) which needed to be corrected. That is all. I was not trying to paint my wife as a saint or anything, just trying to make sure that we are all reading from the same sheet of music (and that the notes are the correct notes, if you take my meaning. Please read and re-read my post if necessary
Maybe im making this too complicated:
1) My wife cheated on me. 2) My wife is Catholic 3) My wife stopped taking communion shortly after she cheated on me (about 11 months ago) 4) I stated that my wife only very recently had stopped taking communion. 5) What I stated in "4" was inaccurate. 6) I don't like sloppy accounts of the facts, and I gave a very sloppy account of the facts.
That's it. That's all i meant to say about that otherwise relatively inconsequential event (my misstatement, not my wife's practitioning or lack thereof of her faith).
That, and please don't brand me as a revisionist, or defensive, or backtracking EVERY time i correct the factual record. Because that's not always what i'm doing. And recently more often than not Its not what im doing.
And I am not angry at any particular person, nor am i even really "angry"... just asking for some consideration of "the way i like things". which is, to say, factually sound. Even "religiously" so.
H53/W51, R-ing 4/'18
"Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires"-Sg.of Sg 2:7
"So oftentimes it happens,that we live our lives in chains, & we never even know we have the key"-Eagles III 1:3
) And, other than that very brief correction of MY OWN mis-statement(and this is not subject to any kind of dispute... it was a misstatement... the facts are the facts are the facts) I didn't see anything in my post even remotely defensive and, given what i was trying to say in those couple of sentences, I think it's a pretty fair stretch to say that even THAT was being defensive.