back in the saddle

[KenC]

... in response to Nah, just one-, posted by Oscar on Jan 9, 2003

n/t

[KenC]

... in response to Last post, right on cue LOL  n/t, posted by KenC on Jan 9, 2003

Oscar,
I posted this above your post so you can savor the victory.
Do yourself a favor and look up "predictable" in the dictionary.  And then "shallow". (Not intellectually profound)  LOL
KenC

[Oscar]

... in response to you WIN again!, posted by KenC on Jan 9, 2003

I posted this post so I could read your post about my post but not before your other post so I then posted my post but your post was already posted so I posted a different post so that your post wouldn't be confused with my post.  

Take a pill Ken. ;-)

[Oscar]

... in response to Last post, right on cue LOL  n/t, posted by KenC on Jan 9, 2003

.

[Dan]

... in response to Yoe?, posted by KenC on Jan 8, 2003

Maybe so.

LOL

- Dan

[KenC]

... in response to Satan?!? I Never Thought of Him as Satan..., posted by Dan on Jan 8, 2003

Dan,
I was just wondering how Yoe became Oscar's talking head.
KenC

[MarkInTx]

... in response to Not necessarily evil, posted by KenC on Jan 9, 2003

Oscar's?

I think you got it all wrong. Oscar is not the ventriloquist. He's the dummy. Look for someone else's lips to be moving whenever Oscar (or, apparently yoe) is "talking"...

[KenC]

... in response to Huh?, posted by MarkInTx on Jan 9, 2003

Mark,
It seems weird that Yoe is trying to unseat Oscar for the #1 super fan title.  How on earth did Yoe get his post in before Oscar?
KenC

[MarkInTx]

... in response to Re: Huh?, posted by KenC on Jan 9, 2003

Yes... it is a puzzle...

[Oscar]

... in response to Re: Huh?, posted by KenC on Jan 9, 2003

Yeah, seems you are attracting some negative press huh Ken?  Not usually like you.

But, have a good day.

[Oscar]

... in response to Huh?, posted by MarkInTx on Jan 9, 2003

Dummy, yeah, what were we thinking not taking Markie seriously?.  The man who married in a week for a tax deduction! LOL!  Oh Lawd, I just don't know, what are you going to do with some people...

Third marriage right?  Did you marry the first one in one day and the second in three?  Well, at least you're up to a week now. I guess that's progress..  LOL! ;-)

Aw shucks, no Jack or Yoe around either...

[Jack]

... in response to Re: Huh?, posted by Oscar on Jan 9, 2003

Oscar, don't waste your time responding to certain individuals. It's senseless.

Many contributors on this board know whose talking out there ass and there is no sense in you trying to reason with them.

Be proud of what you did and how you did it and don't lower yourself. As I tried to tell you and KenC last night, you two are professionals, leave the petty stuff behind and leave the dirty work to guys like me who can go toe to toe with any ass-hole. Yea, I know, it takes one to know one.

[Oscar]

... in response to (*/*), posted by Jack on Jan 9, 2003

I guess maybe we all like to indulge in a little "senseless" from time to time.. (some more than others)..

But you are correct, it is kinda petty and I think Ken should stop immediately.  LOL! JUST KIDDING!  We should all take a breather! ;-)

[MarkInTx]

... in response to Re: Huh?, posted by Oscar on Jan 9, 2003

Well, actually, I married the first one after a couple  years of dating. We were married for nine years, almost all of them miserable.

Just goes to show that knowing someone first is no guarantee.

And, say what you want about how "quickly" I married. But I didn't bring Victoria over here because I wasn't sure.

You need 90 MORE days to make up your mind?

Or, are you just waiting so LP thinks you're a smart guy?

Makes no difference to me.

All I know is that I am enjoying married life tremendously, my wife is amazing, AND I get a tax break -- which is more money for us to spend on other things.

You want to hold off just so you can impress some guys you've never met... feel free...

[Oscar]

... in response to Re: Re: Huh?, posted by MarkInTx on Jan 9, 2003

I don't make this post to be unkind, just real.

No Mark, your dating for 2 years and then having 9 miserable years of dating has nothing to do with other than having chosen badly.  To suggest that you did not see any warning signs at all over 2 years together is just not possible.  So the problem lay not in being "fooled" but in your willingness to ignore warning signs and possibly being co-dependent as well.  Your criteria and process of choosing were wrong.  And these things are often a pattern, patterns which are often quite difficult to break.

So because of that experience, you think that by marrying a woman you have had at best, a few weeks face to face with is better??  No.  EITHER way can work IF you have the right head screwed on, if your criteria and process for choosing a companion are solid and not skewed, by any number of things.  If your process is still wrong, it won't matter if you know her for 2 days or 5 years.

Do I need 90 more days?  YOU BET I DO!  Have I seen even one warning sign to give me pause?  No, not one, with either her or her son.  I have never been with a woman as kind, loving, patient, selfless and sincere.  But I feel that for a man not to give it at least 60 of the 90 days after such little face to face contact and a protracted long distance relationship, it would be ridiculously unwise and I cannot imagine a man on this board feeling otherwise.

I also think that in all honesty, it is rather cruel to expect a woman who has just left her entire life, family and friends coming to a completely alien culture, to rush to get married in a week!  How much better for her to have some time to adjust to new surroundings, people and new way of life.  To be able to have some time to really feel comfortable and not rushed to have a nice experience.  Geez, after a week, they can still be suffering some from jet lag!

So do I feel it was unwise to marry after a week for a tax break?  Yes, most definitely.