Friday, June 19, 2009
So I took pictures of them as they left. They did not take pics of any other house and did not even slow up a little when they went by the houses that were for sale, so I do not think they were househunting.
Why would someone take pics of my house in the pouring rain and give me a dirty look? Am I being paranoid? I do not trust Lurch or Bertha AT ALL. Especially after Bertha threatened me with her lawyer and Lurch told me on several occasions that he thinks that the law only applies to 'stupid' people. What do you guys think?
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Ooops - that is Lurch's fantasy - now for a dose of reality!
Yes, I did update my resume. And I did call everyone I knew to get a new job. However, I was looking for a job at facility 'C' and only C - Lurch had no reason (other than one or two times a year) to go there. I even sent my resume to lots of outside companies. Anything to not have to work with him. It took a couple of months to get the new job and finally move. While I had to split my time 50/50 between the old and new job during my transition period, at least I was at a different facility. That new facility, by the way, takes longer to get to and is not nearly as nice as the one I left. I would have rather stayed at facility B, but C is MUCH nicer because Lurch is not there!!! The interesting part about this whole thing is that I actually told Lurch I was taking the new job to get away from him - he had the nerve to tell me that he was still dumping Bertha and was going to prove me wrong because he loved me and wanted to be with me because I was perfect for him. It was just taking longer than he expected to get rid of Bertha. Yeah - right.
Up next: so what does Lurch do about my move???
Full disclosure - I was seriously considering looking for a new job (at any of the 3 facilities) because my boss - who was not supposed to be my boss when I took the job - was very 'inexperienced' and made some REALLY bad decisions. However, I was going to wait another year before I started looking..........................
To my readers - thanks :-)
Saturday, June 13, 2009
It appears that your goal of communicating with the people who had input to the blog was for them to stop posting, you succeeded; however, if your goal was for me to stop blogging, you failed miserably. (BTW - the number of hits to this blog has NOT declined.) I will not stop just because you threatened me. Apparently Lurch did not inform you that I don't take kindly to threats. Especially when I am right and know I did NOTHING wrong.
You know absolutely nothing about me except for what Lurch has told you (think about that for a few minutes) - and in your desperation to justify your actions, you seem to have swallowed his crap hook, line, and sinker.
It is quite sad that you are the one attempting to contact me when Lurch is the one who is totally and completely responsible. Any man of character would admit his mistake and not let you go through the anguish of contacting the person he tried to have an affair with - how humiliating for you!!! But that is Lurch - nothing is his fault and he is the victim of everything. No doubt his ego is being boosted as you vainly attempt to silence me. And he is the one responsible!!!!!! A real man would not do that. But then again, a real man would not have lied to try to have an affair with me.
There is very little that you can say that will stop me. Threats are the stupidest thing you can try. Women need to know how low a man will go to try to get sex with them and use them. They need to be armed with the right questions and know what actions to look for (words can be such pretty things, but mean NOTHING if they are not followed up with concrete actions).
Thursday, June 11, 2009
-the ides of March is simply the 15th day of March . No more, no less. From reading your comment on that I really do see that you can only see the negative side of anything from your eyes. You are full of bitterness and hate. I am sorry that you see yourself as a vicitim.
I am praying for you.
Beware the Ides of March is from the play of Julius Caesar - my comment was not negative - just a neutral observation. This reference to 'backstabbing' is well known in literature. Lurch did tell me that you do not read books, so your lack of knowledge about this is understandable.
Where do I say I was a victim? Do you really think that 'snarky commentary' is bitterness and hate?
....and for your education of others on how to avoid a married man persuing (sic) you (since this is the point of of your now edited blog)
The point of this blog (which has NEVER changed): "I had never encountered a married man who cheated before and was fascinated by the audacity of the lies he told to try to get me to have an affair with him. This blog will cover some of his bullshit. And will serve as a warning to others - what signs to look for and see if they are really serious or are just playing games." Not the same as how to avoid a married man pursuing you. You missed the point completely.
1. Do not participate. Period. Do not email. do not text. do not 'consider dating' them after they are divorced. Be strong enough to NOT engage. All marriages have problem times.
Conflicts with MY stated purpose of the blog, but works well with your version of it. Lurch did not say your marriage had problems - he said it was completely and irreversibly dead - and had been for years. He said there was no hope of ever it working out ever and the only thing left to do was the paperwork.
2. Do not divorce your husband to be with someone else's and then be bitter
Strange comment, but excellent advice. I certainly agree.
3. Do not 'blog' publicly with your 'on-line diary' which just points the finger at the other person when you had a choice to not be involved. You admit to being 'curoius' about how far it would go, and then where (sic) hurt when it stopped? WTF? Talk to a girlfriend. Airing dirty laundry is nothing but hurtful. Yes-note the time of my comment (like my text)....this has me not sleeping.
WTF? is right!!!!! But to follow your theme - How does not blogging publicly stop a married man from pursuing you? Does this mean that only women who blog will have a pig chasing them? I did not blog before Lurch chased me so using your logic he should not have chased me. What about before the internet existed - why did men pursue then??? So many questions.... BTW - Lurch aired your dirty laundry, not me.
I find it interesting that once I did contact you about this blog that you edited it. Changing Lurch McAddams to Lurch M. and removing your photos about your endurance ride?
???I cannot change the name of the blog. Yes, I removed two posts (only one photo) - they were not part of the blog - they were only there to let the people following the blog know that I was gone for awhile - they had served their purpose. What nefarious reason do you assign to me for removing them? and BTW - I have edited it before too!!!!! And I'll edit it again if I want to. Never to change the content - just to clarify something better.
I am sorry that you find so much pleasure hurting others.
Exactly where did I say that I found pleasure in hurting others?
Oh! and the comment about my mother? Not nice.
Wait till you hear what Lurch had to say about your mother - THAT'S really not nice. I was just commenting on what he said. And I agree totally - it was awful!! And I do mean AWFUL.
Again, you are in my prayers.
People who say that 'you are in my prayers' think that they are morally superior and are quite condescending. So quit it. Pray for yourself instead. You need help way more than I do.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
One of the ones I tried to post actually proved once again how Bertha lies.
It was addressed from Bertha to Mack and had something along the lines of 'she wouldn't even look me in the eye and just slunk away'.....and something about 'telling her that I was writing about her on the internet'........referring to a horse tack sale I went to where Bertha was also.
Well, this is what had Bertha texted me (right after the 'Learn more' text):
So which one is it Bertha - did I refuse to look at you or did I look you straight in the face? You can't have it both ways.
Mac - if you have Bertha's comment, I sure would appreciate you recreating it - thanks. I want to make sure my facts are straight.
So here is the situation - I went with a friend to a tack sale in March and Bertha was there. Awkward situation. What the hell did Bertha expect me to do - walk up to her and make a scene? The friend I was with went up to Bertha and talked to her - I did not. It seemed like the most prudent thing for me to do at the time. I neither slunked by nor looked her straight in the face. I glanced over at her, continued to look at the sale items and left with my friend - that is MY recollection of the event.
Does ANYBODY think it would have been appropriate for me to have approached Bertha at the tack sale?
BTW - As my friend and I were leaving the tack sale, Bertha trotted out of the building looking for me - she ran right to the truck as we were pulling away. Based on her comments it seems like Bertha wanted to make a scene.
Not the right place to ask questions, tho.
Damn right it was not the place for questions!!!!! If Bertha had truly wanted to talk to me she would have picked up the phone and called me months ago. Period.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Please read comment from Bertha/ 'Ides of March' on last post and my comment - then this will make sense .........................................
Bertha's first sentence in the comment section:
What I wanted to discuss with you was the removal of this blog.
This is what Bertha texted to me last month in response to "For what purpose?" (She had said 'Interesting blog. Meet to discuss?')
She starts out with the snotty "The obvious" - as if I can read her mind and know her motives. She then goes on to say "Learn more." But in her comment on the June 6 blog she says she wanted to discuss removing the blog.
Note to Bertha - if you want to have any credibility at all - DO NOT START WITH AN OBVIOUS PROVABLE LIE!!!!! People have a really hard time believing ANYTHING you say or being sympathetic to your cause if you lie to them. 'Learn more' does NOT mean 'removal of this blog' - it means the opposite. You wanted more information. And I provided it. If anyone else thinks that 'learn more' means 'remove blog' - please enlighten me.
It is beyond decency. I TOTALLY agree. What your husband did is beyond decency. How nice that we can find some common ground.
I am absolutely SICK over the content and tone of this blog. Me too! Another point we have in common. What your husband did is absolutely disgusting. And I have barely scratched the surface of what he did!
Who finds joy in posting things like this? Who is finding joy?
Your blog is set to strike out at others, not to educate as you claim. Don't tell me what my blog is set to do. Apparently you have not read the entire blog and its comments. Just ask Annaliisa. She is finding it helpful - as do others. There are plenty of assholes like Lurch out there - I think it is helpful to know what to look for and what to do.
Why not write in a diary? Good idea (yet another thing we agree on - damn - we could be best friends at this rate!) - this is like an online diary of sorts - with an educational bent.
Why post this publicly? To educate - read the beginning of the blog - it is clearly spelled out.
This whole thing is filled with partial information to hurt and show spite. Wow - and how did you come to that brilliant conclusion? From Lurch? The liar? The one who has something to lose - like his house? A POA every night? Oh please. Your husband has EVERY REASON to lie. What reason do I have? I never planned on you or Lurch reading it, so why would I lie? If I had wanted to show hurt/spite I would have posted the link to this blog on every local board around here as well as COTH. I then would have posted about the time Lurch had his dick out while standing on the side of the road trying to convince me to have sex with him. That would have been to show hurt and spite. You really should have thought that comment through. Are you really stupid or naive or desperate enough to believe what Lurch says? Really pathetic.......
What about all the e-mails and texts that you sent my husband? What about them? There is nothing that I have done that I am ashamed of - I would LOVE to hear how Lurch explains (lies about) those. Bring 'em on!!! No doubt he has you convinced that I was pursuing him and he was helpless against me.
Yes, we have them. Oooooooooh - So what? Somehow this sounds like a veiled threat - what do you guys think? And it sounds rather sick - your husband is trying to screw me and 'we' have my emails and texts?? I'm sorry, but that just sounds so totally fucked up. Readers - please help me out here - what do you think she is trying to say?
.What "uninterested" single woman does that for months?
Months??? You are truly sad. Is that what he told you? You think 'months' is a lot? Did you think I would say it was weeks or days? Sorry - Lurch chased after me for a year and a half!!!! (Damn - that is a long time - time just seemed to slip by!!) Again - if you had read the blog you would have seen where I clearly stated that I would have considered dating him only if he had been telling the truth about divorcing you and actually got the papers. (Note to readers - ALWAYS get the papers first - absolutely no exceptions - I don't care if his mother-in-law is on her deathbed - they are just lying in an attempt to use you and are desperately trying to buy time)
He is the one who told me it was a HUGE mistake to marry you on the rebound from his other wife and he was regretting it and that he was miserable with you. I was VERY clear from the first day that Lurch told me he loved me and wanted a realtionship with me that I WAS NOT INTERESTED IN A MARRIED MAN. What part of that do you not understand?
Lurch is the one who persisted in telling me that he wanted a relationship with me - the only thing I am guilty of is wondering how creative he would get in his lies to me about divorcing you. I told him repeatedly that I was NOT INTERESTED IN A MARRIED man - we had some very interesting arguments where Lurch told me he was divorcing you and I told him he was full of shit. He tried his damndest to convince me he was dumping you (papers first ladies.....)
Lurch chased me - DEAL WITH HIM - I guarantee he'll do it to you again, and again, and again.
Before Lurch decided he (desperately) wanted to get in my pants, I thought he was a nice person and considered him a good friend (BTW - he is universally hated at work - I thought he was just misunderstood - boy, was I wrong). He came across as considerate, witty, and hard working and in early conversation implied he was totally miserable with his life - later on he told me straight out that he was miserable and you were the reason. I'll post that email sometime. It was ALL lies to manipulate me and gain sympathy/trust. He is not the man I thought he was - he is just a POS.
Why do you post negative comments about me? What do you consider negative?
Why did you threaten me with your lawyer? Guess you found out pretty quickly you had NO CASE. By the way, on that phone call, you told me you would never contact me ever again and to never contact you - not that I ever would - 'I have nothing to say so talk to my lawyer' you said - and yet, here you are posting on my blog. Also, I bet you feel pretty stupid trying to fake me out with making your phone call a 'restricted' call - your number came through every time you texted me. And, just so you know, I have known your cell number for a long time - so it was pointless all around.
Interesting note - why on earth would anyone choose as their screen name (ides of march) something that means 'backstabber'? That is creepy in itself!
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Well, Bertha has decided to become part of the story by threatening me with her lawyer. So let me start with the beginning of this arc.
Bertha sends me a text message at 1:59am on 5-11-09 -
Interesting Blog. Meet to discuss?
Note the time of the text!! The only other person to annoy me with text messages in the middle of the night was her husband, Lurch. He would let me know he was missing me (yeah, right) or to tell me that he was flying out of town the next morning. Yes - it did annoy me and I DID tell Paul that I did not care where he was going and that he should be telling that crap to his wife - not me. Anyhow, I get this text from her.
My first thought was "You have got to be kidding." My second thought was "You have got to be kidding." My third thought was "You have got to be kidding." Is she crazy? Why on earth would I want to discuss anything with her?
So, I text back during normal waking hours:
"For what purpose?"
I can't imagine what the hell she would want from me - it is pretty obvious from my blog that I can't stand her husband. And I found it hard to believe that she found it 'interesting.'
The only place I would have met her would have been at the police station after they frisked her for weapons. (Lurch had told me that she was prone to violence when she was angry - and I would not take a chance in case he was actually telling the truth).
IMO she was up to no good. And, just like her husband, she proved me right with her stupid, childish phone call to threaten me with her lawyer.
Next: What she claimed she wanted.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
"Truth" is an absolute defense against defamation. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 411 (1967). Consequently, a plaintiff has to provide convincing evidence of a defamatory statement's falsity in order to prove defamation.
The law does not require that a statement must be perfectly accurate in every conceivable way to be considered "true." Courts have said that some false statements must be protected for the wider purpose of allowing the dissemination of truthful speech. The resulting doctrine is known as "substantial truth." Under the substantial truth doctrine, minor factual inaccuracies will be ignored so long as the inaccuracies do not materially alter the substance or impact of what is being communicated. In other words, only the "gist" or "sting" of a statement must be correct.
The substantial truth defense is particularly powerful because a judge will often grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant (thus disposing of the case before it goes to trial) if the defendant can show that the statement the plaintiff is complaining about is substantially true, making the defense a quick and relatively easy way to get out of a long (and potentially expensive) defamation case. "
"In Virginia, the elements of a defamation claim are publication of an actionable statement with the requisite fault on the part of the defendant. To be “actionable,” the statement must be a false statement of fact that harms the plaintiff's reputation in the community or deters other persons from associating with him or her. "
Monday, June 1, 2009
It had to be done on my terms, or it would never work. We were making me feel like a complete failure. So I "ended it".
"We" were making me (Lurch) feel like a complete failure???? WE?? What planet is he on? I told the AH to leave me alone while (if) he took 'care of business' (ie - get a divorce) and I am making him feel like a failure? Is he crazy? His terms: give him a POA on the side while he continues to tell me he is getting a divorce - any minute, just wait and see...... (Reality: the holidays were coming and I wanted to be with the people I really cared about.....you are not one of them)
Ended 'it'??- Lurch makes it sound like as if we were dating - only in his sick, twisted mind!!!
BTW - Lurch IS a failure - as a husband, father, son, friend, employee, boss, co-worker, trainer, human being etc.
And this was his reason for starting - yet again!!
It (ending it) was much easier at first, I guess because I was angry. But you were always "there" - always on my mind. Little reminders everywhere. Looking at news stories and laughing with you. Thinking of all the things that make you you and made me fall in love with you. Wanting to be with you.
Angry? I tell him to do the right thing and he is angry at me? What a guy - trying to make ME feel guilty. Wanting to be with me? Yeah right - he goes home to his (clueless) wife everyday and thinks I am stupid enough to believe he has asked her for a divorce. Earth to Lurch - when your unemployed wife is publicly making plans for the upcoming horseshow season (that takes lots of $$$) that is a clue that she has no plans to move out. How dumb does Lurch think people are? Or, the reality of it is, how dumb does Lurch think I am?
If he really meant it: If a man TRULY loves you, he will move heaven and earth to make it happen - no matter what. When a man tells you it has to be done on 'his terms' and he does nothing but flap his gums and try to make YOU feel guilty - RUN! They don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
Up next - the 'divorce' list.
To the people who do not like this blog - DO NOT READ IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT!!!! No one if forcing you to click on it.
To the person who is texting me in the middle of the night - please grow a spine and call me during the day - otherwise, leave me alone. You obviously have my cell number and I have no clue what you are really trying to say/ask. Your messages are contradictory and I don't feel like answering you in 160 characters or less.