"Michael "Dog3"" wrote

>> We made very bad assumptions.
>> We fessed up right away to the uncle and he's forgiving. Thank the
>> Lord for that. We didnt 'mean' bad and were just stupid.
>
> I don't think you were stupid. I think there is a miscommunication and
> the doc really wants nothing to do with the family it seems. So your
> issue is the doc and you did right to write her off.

Whole family wrote them off. It wasnt just us. Not a big family mind you
but word got about and we had nothing to do with it. Happened before we got
back stateside. No one wants to talk with them now. I get the impression
they take that against us too?

>> Want the real kicker? SIL had MIL's dog put to death instead of
>> adopted out. He was 'too much trouble'. Had we only gotten back a
>> year earlier..... He was a great dog.
>
> Ohhhhh... that makes me hopping mad. That alone, even if the other had
> not happened, would have made me completely write her off. Period.

Us too. We did do a final card last Xmas as a 'Ms Manners' sort of thing.
There will be no more after her rudest of rude return.

We do not have a good connection to the rest of the family but we have a
little bit and slowly it's growing. I have a great aunt who seems into
cheese making and another one who's sending me Maxine cartoons and petfood
coupons.

Meantime, we are happy and healthy and have 2 rescue pets, both considered
'unadoptable'. Daisy-cat spent 18 months looking for a home due to
behaviorial issues with children (still cant pick her up and not good with
kids under age 12 if they force the issue instead of letting her hide).
Cash-beagle-mix (good ol' hound doggie Johnny Cash) had heart worms and
heart damage from them and needs careful treatment the rest of his life (not
expected to see age 10 and chancy if he will see age 8).

Suprisingly the family are contacting us bit by bit. It's sort of like
'gee, didnt they have another child who we saw with his wife that one day?'

Our Uncle seems to be slowly passing our address around and we respond to
each card with well wishes and a bit on how we are. The cheese maker one
got home yard grown herbs for her use (probably didnt need'em but the
thought counts that we tried) and the one who sends us petfood coupons got
pics of our two chowing out then 'living in sin' as they slept together on
the sofa.

So, (grin) maybe I think a money tree is ok, but I'm far from unacceptable.
If I have a problem, it's that I'm apt to be too nice. Not a horrible
epithet to have when all is done and gone, to be remembered for.

Maybe not 'classy' in the classic sense, but we have fun and folks like us.

In article >,
Lou Decruss > wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:05:02 -0400, Goomba >

> >No, what I find "stingy" is the attitude that weddings are doomed from
> >the start so why waste money on such a "non-event" and that anyone that
> >does is silly and frivolous??
>
> Spending 28 grand on a party that so many need to take loans out for
> is both silly and frivolous. And a young person who "expects" parents
> to pay for it is a greedy idiot.

> If they want that kind of event they can pay for it themselves.

Sadly enough, I think it is sometimes the parents who want it. That's
how it worked for us. My parents weren't willing to spend money,
because they just didn't have it. The groom's parents are supposed to
pay for the rehearsal dinner. My mother made potato salad and bought
cold cuts. My wife wanted the wedding and reception at the church she
had grown up in. Her mother wanted something fancy. They had many
battles over this, and my wife finally agreed to have the reception at a
restaurant. It was OK, but it wasn't what we wanted.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:42:30 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Wed 18 Jun 2008 07:22:48a, blake murphy told us...
>
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:03 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue 17 Jun 2008 02:37:11p, Giusi told us...
>>>
>>>> "Wayne Boatwright" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>>>> 6.120...
>>>>> On Tue 17 Jun 2008 12:29:59p, Lou Decruss told us...
>>>>> It it became "legal" for us to married in the state of Arizona, I know
>>>>> if we would bother at this point. What would weigh heavily would not
>>>>> be our emotional investment, but what other gains we might achieve
>>>>> within the state's legal system.
>>>>
>>>> I have been to several civil partner ceremonies in the past couple of
>>>> years. Most of them have been because without it a long term partner
>can
>>>> have no rights in emergencies. One friend of a friend was forbidden to
>>>> enter the hospital room where his partner lay dying by a bitter family
>>>> who had not spoken to either of them in a decade.
>>>> Then there are inheritance issues-- in some countries you cannot leave
>>>> your estate away from family or spouse so it could be important that
>your
>>>> partner be legally a spouse.
>>>
>>>Yes, those are certainly important issues. In our case, I have no family
>>>left, and David's apparently doesn't really care, and I'm fortunate that
>>>they treat me as another son. We have made sure that our wills, living
>>>wills, and powers of attorney are carefully drafted to exclude any
>>>intervention from other parties. I suppose, however, if we had the
>chance
>>>to make it a legal union, we would end up doing so.
>>
>> i don't think you would be able to resist planning the menu for the
>> reception.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>>
>
>You're probably right, but if I go first, David will probably provide hot
>dogs and macaroni salad. :-) He is tragically cuilinarily impaired.

jeez, wayne! i meant for a wedding, not a funeral! now you've gone
and made me feel bad.

but you could, i suppose, make your wishes known that you'd prefer to
have your dead spread catered.

your pal,
blake

On Thu 19 Jun 2008 08:37:08a, blake murphy told us...

> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:42:30 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>On Wed 18 Jun 2008 07:22:48a, blake murphy told us...
>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:03 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue 17 Jun 2008 02:37:11p, Giusi told us...
>>>>
>>>>> "Wayne Boatwright" > ha scritto nel
>>>>> messaggio 6.120...
>>>>>> On Tue 17 Jun 2008 12:29:59p, Lou Decruss told us...
>>>>>> It it became "legal" for us to married in the state of Arizona, I
>>>>>> know if we would bother at this point. What would weigh heavily
>>>>>> would not be our emotional investment, but what other gains we
>>>>>> might achieve within the state's legal system.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been to several civil partner ceremonies in the past couple
>>>>> of years. Most of them have been because without it a long term
>>>>> partner can have no rights in emergencies. One friend of a friend
>>>>> was forbidden to enter the hospital room where his partner lay dying
>>>>> by a bitter family who had not spoken to either of them in a decade.
>>>>> Then there are inheritance issues-- in some countries you cannot
>>>>> leave your estate away from family or spouse so it could be
>>>>> important that your partner be legally a spouse.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, those are certainly important issues. In our case, I have no
>>>>family left, and David's apparently doesn't really care, and I'm
>>>>fortunate that they treat me as another son. We have made sure that
>>>>our wills, living wills, and powers of attorney are carefully drafted
>>>>to exclude any intervention from other parties. I suppose, however,
>>>>if we had the chance to make it a legal union, we would end up doing
>>>>so.
>>>
>>> i don't think you would be able to resist planning the menu for the
>>> reception.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>>
>>
>>You're probably right, but if I go first, David will probably provide
>>hot dogs and macaroni salad. :-) He is tragically cuilinarily impaired.
>
> jeez, wayne! i meant for a wedding, not a funeral! now you've gone
> and made me feel bad.
>
> but you could, i suppose, make your wishes known that you'd prefer to
> have your dead spread catered.
>
> your pal,
> blake
>

ROTF! There I go misinterpreting again. :-) Therer'd probably not be
enough people around to plan for something like that. A nice restaurant
would be fine with me.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Thursday, 06(VI)/19(XIX)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Cats must walk in on a dinner party
and commence licking their butt.
-------------------------------------------

Goomba wrote:

> Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:05:02 -0400, Goomba >
>
>
>>> That is sad. And I like to imagine that EVERYONE goes into a marriage
>>> *hoping* it will last.... and give it the respect and intention that
>>> such a decision warrants.
>>
>>
>> I think they'll be ok. At least for now. The dynamics of their
>> relationship put them at a worse risk than the 50%.
>
> I hope they surprise you <shrug> You never know, eh?
>
>>
>> Spending 28 grand on a party that so many need to take loans out for
>> is both silly and frivolous. And a young person who "expects" parents
>> to pay for it is a greedy idiot.
>
>
> Right. If the parents can't afford it, they pay for it themselves, AND
> do it in a manner they can afford. But 28K *is* what some can afford and
> in that case I say more power to 'em!
>
>> Remember the old saying, Give a person a fish and they will eat or a
>> day, teach them to fish and they will eat for a lifetime?
>>
>> If they want that kind of event they can pay for it themselves.
>
>
> Yup, they can. And then again many families consider weddings to be good
> family reunions, a reason to get together with old friends, business
> partners, the kids college friends and a way to share the celebration
> and joy in the event with many and generously. I don't begrudge them that.
>
Look up the term "Potlatch" such expensive parties are imo often just a
way of bragging about ones status, assumed or real.

In Native american cultures, especially the far northern ones, it is
expected of the 'leaders' to display such generosity.

--
Joseph Littleshoes

"The two main political parties ruled alternately as if by tacit
agreement. Politically they were practically indistinguishable (one
perhaps a shade more liberal) but in both camps supporters were more
swayed by personalities than by issues. Both parties were heavily
dependent on the large industrial conglomerates. Corruption was
widespread, the conglomerates dictated economic policy, and with few
outstanding exceptions, politicians' reputations were low."