Text 12723, 161 rader
Skriven 2010-11-30 09:49:18 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 12650 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Marriage
================
28 Nov 10 14:04, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MvdV> Hello Roy,

 MvdV> On Saturday November 27 2010 16:12, you wrote to me:

 RW>>>>>> I asked if Rosa was/is aware that you're not sure of your
 RW>>>>>> marital status.

 MvdV>>>>> Wrong assumption again. Nowhere did I state that I am unsure
 MvdV>>>>> of my marital status.

 RW>>>> Not an assumption, but a deduction. By reading the words you
 RW>>>> used, you didn't have to say it.

 MvdV>>> You assumed that I was unaware of my marital status.

 RW>> Nope.

 MvdV> Yes, you did. here are your words that imply it:

 RW>>>>>> I asked if Rosa was/is aware that you're not sure of your
 RW>>>>>> marital status.

And you're still not sure.

 RW>>  You used the 'wife' word and stumbled along trying to undo what
 RW>> you said, just like you're doing now.

 MvdV> I am not denying the use of the word "wife". You wrongly assumed
 MvdV> that the use of the word in that context implies a formal wedding.
 MvdV> You were wrong in that.

Definition of WIFE: a female partner in a marriage.

Definition of MARRIAGE: 1 the state of being united to a person of the
opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual
relationship recognized by law: 2 an act of marrying or the rite by which
the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and
attendant festivities or formalities

 MvdV>>> A wrong assumption,

 RW>> I didn't make an assumption, it was deduction.

 MvdV> You apparently do not know the difference.

Keep that mirror handy.

 MvdV>>> I was aware of my marial status all the time.

 RW>> Of course you were, but you tried to get out of admitting that you
 RW>> were married by clouding the discussion with more bullshit to cover
 RW>> it up.

 MvdV> If you had simple answered my question of "why do you want to
 MvdV> know", we might have avoided all your confusion.

If you had offered a mere yes or no to the original question, we wouldn't
have to go thru more of your evasive bullshit to get to this point.

 MvdV>>> Then why not query that somen else instead of me?

 RW>> Just making my case.

 MvdV> You have no case.

Neither do you.

 RW>>>>>> When two people are married, they're referred to as a couple
 RW>>>>>> or husband and wife.

 MvdV>>> By some.

 RW>> By everyone who knows the difference.

 MvdV> Wrong.

Right. You're still claiming that the word 'wife' could mean Rosa is your
girlfriend. That's wrong and you know it.

 RW>> I'll forgive your error if you'll just admit it.

 MvdV> Nothing to forgive as there is no error on my part.

You deny that 'wife' means what it actually does. That's an error on your
part.

 MvdV>>> And in this part of the world, sometimes they refer to each
 MvdV>>> other as "girl|boy friend".

 RW>> I can't say that you're right or wrong in that, but you're wrong in
 RW>> saying so. ("not over here" is a standard excuse you've used for so
 RW>> long, it doesn't carry any weight anymore)

 MvdV> Nevertheless that is how it is. Over here married people sometimes
 MvdV> refer to each other as "girl|boy friend". That is a fact.

I'd believe 'friend', but it's hard to believe that a married person would
still refer to his wife as a girlfriend. That's pure stupidity.

 MvdV>>>>> which does not stop them from being friends.

 RW>>>> I would hope not.

 MvdV>>> So that what is the problem with calling Rosa my girl?

 RW>> Because she is no longer your girl, she's your wife.

 MvdV> She is also my girl.

So, she's under 18yo?

 MvdV>>>>>>> Rosa is not my slave, I do not command her.

 RW>>>>>> Of course you don't, that shoe would be on the other foot if
 RW>>>>>> she were your wife.
 MvdV>>>      ^^^^
 MvdV>>> Now you assume again that she is not my wife...

 RW>> English 101 goes over your head, again.

 MvdV> The words "would" and "were" signal a condition that is not
 MvdV> satisfied. It is your language skills that are failing.

No, they indicate a situation that could or did exist, but you're unaware
of it.

 MvdV>>>>> Wrong again.

 RW>>>> LOL! I don't think so.

 MvdV>>> You had better refrain from thinking at all.

 RW>> And be like you? No thanks, I like thinking.

 MvdV> Does not mean you are a good at it...

Does not mean that you understand English 101, either.

 MvdV>>> Better stick to mud throwing. That is the thing you are good at.

 RW>> You shouldn't worry about that, it doesn't cling to you very well

 MvdV> I know. I have developed a large degree of immunity by being in
 MvdV> your line of fire.

You mean you've learned how to duck...

 RW>> Of course, when you roll in it, you do look kinda muddy.

 MvdV> I have no plans to roll over.

You don't have to roll over anymore, it's all over you now.


                R\%/itt

 "Peltier was responsible for the close range execution of FBI agents..."
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)