The Psycho Ex Wife

36 Responses to “Food Deprivation Conclusion: Part D - The Discussions”

1. GGRR Says:
   March 12th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

   Well done on a tough situation.

   Two things re PEW: so familiar to me that on the rare occasion when you have to break Low-contact and talk, you then get accused of being unable to communicate politely–and she says she doesn’t want to talk for “a long time.” I bet this is after her trying to break low-contact repeatedly–that’s right, just turn it around and project…

   Also–she should know that feeling hungry and not having enough to eat are not the same things. In other words, they may not be “lying” about their hunger–but they also may be getting enough to eat! Part of what causes obesity is eating for other reasons than hunger, and not knowing how to really sense that you are full.

   Do yo think the kids are too young to see “Supersize Me?”

2. Mister-M Says:
   March 12th, 2009 at 5:35 pm

   1 - There were two times where I was impolite. I mentioned them. Additionally, she mentioned them near the end of our discussion and I replied, “You are correct and I apologize for that.” She didn’t curse at me a single time.

   2 - I haven’t seen Supersize Me, but it was also part of our discussion. DW has seen it and I suggested we put it in the Netflix queue and consider watching it with the boys. We did explain the concept and the results of the guy who did it.

3. danelover Says:
   March 14th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

   If your oldest really does go on an eating binge when he gets to her home, it could be stress eating. Does she make the transition comfortable for him? Or does she stress him with accusations, grilling, etc?

   She won’t, but the concept of eating to ease the stress of the transition should be considered.

4. ruddyturnstone Says:
   March 14th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

   I think you need a major rethink.

   First of all, why can’t you even conduct a brief telephone call with your ex wife without resorting to profanity and insults? Merely apologizing for doing so doesn’t make it all go away, either. Your ex wife did not either initiate the use of vulgarities and insults, nor did she respond in kind when you used them, so, which one of you again is the “psycho?” Assuming your wife does have a mental illness, which I gather from both the title and subtitle of your blog, it is on you as the healthy one to bend over backwards to do the right thing, to keep calm, to not add fuel to the fire, for the sake of the children, if for no other reason.

   Second, you are drawing a sophist’s distinction without a difference between punishing your children for speaking about your treatment of them to your ex and punishing them for “lying” about that treatment. There can be a difference of opinion, even a difference in the remembering of facts, without anyone having “lied.” Perhaps the children were merely mistaken. More importantly, the children have a right to tell their mother how you treat them. You are attempting to short circuit that right by punishing them for “lying” when they do so. If the children lie to your ex wife, let her deal with that, even if the lie was about you. As for the children lying to you about her, you are on firmer ground, but I still think you should let it go. Again, you want your children to feel uninhibited in telling you what goes on when your ex has custody. Anyway, you only have your ex-wife’s word that they were lying, and, according to you, she’s a “psycho,” so there is no reason to believe her. There will be plenty of opportunities for you to instill in your children the importance of honesty without using either of these occasions, or ones like them, for that purpose. If the children say things TO YOU, about topics NOT related to their mother, and which you KNOW, for a FACT, to be lies, then go ahead and punish them. Of course it would be better if you and your ex were on the same page, and, in the situation you desribe, maybe there would be a different rule about statements concerning what goes on in the other’s house. But that isn’t the case. Your best bet is to keep things are separate as possible. What the kids say to her is none of your affair. Even if they “lie” about you, so what? Unless she takes you court to try to reduce or rescind your custody time, who cares? And what they say to you about her should be water over the dam, unless it is so extreme that their safety is implicated, and then, if you’re sure it’s accurate, your recourse should be to the court, not to your ex.

   Thirdly, as to the food problem, the same general rules should apply. Again, in a sane situation, you and your ex would be on the same team, and would strive to enforce similar dietary rules and practices for the children in both homes. But, you’re not, so the perfect resolution is out of the question. The next best thing you can do is to make sure that the children eat properly when you have them. It sounds like you have at least begun, if totally belatedly, to do that. Good. As for what they eat when your ex has them, again, unless you think it is so bad that a case of endangerment against her will stand up in court, just let it go. You’ve given your children the facts, as far as you know them, don’t try to put them up to defying their mother when she wants them to eat differently. If she overstufffs them, they can eat a little light when you have them. Is that the same or as good as them eating the right amount, and the right stuff, all of the time? Of course not, but, again, you and your ex can’t get together on this kind of thing, so second best will have to be good enough. To repeat: unless your ex is actually risking imminent danger to the children’s health by the way she feeds them, such that it would stand up in court as a reason to take them away from her (eg giving ice cream to a diabetic child), don’t even talk about it, not to her and not to the kids either.

   Finally, there is the question of this blog. Your children are getting older. What is to stop them from stumbling over this blog as they surf the net? Even though you are not naming names, you are providing a level of detail that would make it easy for them to recognize that their family is the subject. Do you want that? Do you want your children to hear you calling their mother a “psycho?” Also, even if the children are too young now, you do know, don’t you, that the internet can be “forever” in many cases. Even if you delete this blog in a couple of years, with the “Way back machine” and similar such tools, they might still be able to access what you have written. And, your ex might find this blog today, or tomorrow or the next day. Regardless of your feelings for her, would it do your children any good for her to see you calling her a “psycho?” Get a clue. Instead of blogging like this, keep a diary (you should be doing that anyway, so as to document the children’s diet and so forth in case any of those matters ever wind up in court), and find a friend or family member to discuss these problems with, and to vent your anger. If you can’t do the latter, hire an inexpensive therapist or counselor (you don’t need a pychiatrist, or even a psychologist) and talk with him or her for an hour or so a week.

5. GGRR Says:
   March 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

   Ruddyturnstone, you are evidently new to this Blog. I strongly suggest you review most of it thoroughly. Your comments are made in response to this one entry, and many of your objections have been well covered in the past.Many of the participants on this site are professionals who have ample experience of dealing with BPD, and lay people who have agonising experience of dealing with BPD. Unfortunately, you are speaking without a complete grounding in the background of both this Blog and the subject. What you said is not very useful for anyone, though, of course, you have a right to your opinions, It would be better, however, if you formed your opinions with better information, and not superficial assumptions.

6. Mister-M Says:
   March 14th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

   Interesting commentary ruddyturnstone…

   Ruddy says: First of all, why can’t you even conduct a brief telephone call with your ex wife without resorting to profanity and insults? Merely apologizing for doing so doesn’t make it all go away, either. Your ex wife did not either initiate the use of vulgarities and insults, nor did she respond in kind when you used them, so, which one of you again is the “psycho?”

   Well, ruddy… in the face of 14-years of false accusations, and being a human being, I do occasionally make mistakes. If you read the content of the post carefully, you would see they were a reaction (albeit inappropriate) to more of the same. I find accusations that I am starving my children… depriving my children… and creating an eating disorder both vulgar and offensive. Perhaps you do not.

   At least I had the good sense to acknowledge what she pointed out with regard to my using an expletive a single time.

   Ruddy says: ” Assuming your wife does have a mental illness, which I gather from both the title and subtitle of your blog, it is on you as the healthy one to bend over backwards to do the right thing, to keep calm, to not add fuel to the fire, for the sake of the children, if for no other reason.”

   And I do… which is why communication is kept to a minimum.

   Ruddy says: “Second, you are drawing a sophist’s distinction without a difference between punishing your children for speaking about your treatment of them to your ex and punishing them for “lying” about that treatment. There can be a difference of opinion, even a difference in the remembering of facts, without anyone having “lied.”

   Again… I have to question your reading comprehension. The children lied to me, repeatedly, about what they were consuming for lunch (in that S1, in particular, was buying 2 lunches or eating the “good stuff” out of his lunch and buying a second lunch during my time with them). I do not take PEW’s second-hand account of anything that they allegedly say to her with anything more than a grain of salt.

   Ruddy says: “More importantly, the children have a right to tell their mother how you treat them. You are attempting to short circuit that right by punishing them for “lying” when they do so.”

   Read what I wrote above. You’ve clearly misread what I wrote. The potential punishment (something that did not actually occur, we simply talked about it)… was for flat-out lying to me… repeatedly… and had absolutely nothing to do with what they allegedly told their mother.

   Ruddy says: “As for the children lying to you about her, you are on firmer ground, but I still think you should let it go. Again, you want your children to feel uninhibited in telling you what goes on when your ex has custody.”

   Thanks for the tip. That’s exactly how I already handle things with the boys.

   Ruddy says: “The next best thing you can do is to make sure that the children eat properly when you have them. It sounds like you have at least begun, if totally belatedly, to do that.”

   Wrong. This isn’t something I am doing or have done “belatedly.” It is something I have always done. Since they were put on this earth.

   Ruddy says: “Good. As for what they eat when your ex has them, again, unless you think it is so bad that a case of endangerment against her will stand up in court, just let it go. You’ve given your children the facts, as far as you know them, don’t try to put them up to defying their mother when she wants them to eat differently.”

   On this we’ll partially disagree. I flat-out told them that McDonald’s is horrible for them and they are not to order double quarter-pounders, large fries, and a large pepsi. I gave them the information that they need as to why. And, despite my reservations, gave them the tools that they need to politely decline and, if they are “forced” to go to McDonald’s - to make alternate choices.

   Ruddy says: “If she overstufffs them, they can eat a little light when you have them. Is that the same or as good as them eating the right amount, and the right stuff, all of the time? Of course not, but, again, you and your ex can’t get together on this kind of thing, so second best will have to be good enough. To repeat: unless your ex is actually risking imminent danger to the children’s health by the way she feeds them, such that it would stand up in court as a reason to take them away from her (eg giving ice cream to a diabetic child), don’t even talk about it, not to her and not to the kids either.”

   I think you will find few, if any, pediatricians who would disagree that a child putting on 20+ pounds in approximately 2-months is dangerous to their health. Particularly when it happens repeatedly.

   Ruddy says: “Finally, there is the question of this blog. Your children are getting older. What is to stop them from stumbling over this blog as they surf the net? Even though you are not naming names, you are providing a level of detail that would make it easy for them to recognize that their family is the subject. Do you want that? Do you want your children to hear you calling their mother a “psycho?” Also, even if the children are too young now, you do know, don’t you, that the internet can be “forever” in many cases. Even if you delete this blog in a couple of years, with the “Way back machine” and similar such tools, they might still be able to access what you have written. And, your ex might find this blog today, or tomorrow or the next day. Regardless of your feelings for her, would it do your children any good for her to see you calling her a “psycho?” Get a clue. Instead of blogging like this, keep a diary (you should be doing that anyway, so as to document the children’s diet and so forth in case any of those matters ever wind up in court), and find a friend or family member to discuss these problems with, and to vent your anger. If you can’t do the latter, hire an inexpensive therapist or counselor (you don’t need a pychiatrist, or even a psychologist) and talk with him or her for an hour or so a week.”

   That’s a risk I’m willing to take and a risk that I don’t believe is all that great. The level of detail is not nearly as great as you believe it to be and I will spare you the minutia as to why I believe that. Further, if an issue of discovery ever came to pass, there are effective methods by which their access can be restricted.

   I have a clue. That clue is that I am not only helping myself by doing this, but a great many others who go through the same, similar, or worse situations.

   Appreciate the tough feedback, even if I don’t agree with much of it.

7. jb Says:
   March 14th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

   May I make just one comment in response to the poster who commented this:

   “Finally, there is the question of this blog. Your children are getting older. What is to stop them from stumbling over this blog as they surf the net? Even though you are not naming names, you are providing a level of detail that would make it easy for them to recognize that their family is the subject.”

   Sadly, tragically, there are thousands of families who could read this blog and “recognize” themselves.

   I have two families in my practice alone, right here, right now, that fit this profile perfectly (right down to the ages/genders of the children, and the genders of DW’s children); the one exception being that I know for a fact that Mister-M does not live in my state.

   The life of living with, divorcing from, and attempting to parallel parent with a BPD is sickeningly common.

8. ruddyturnstone Says:
   March 14th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

   OK, where to start?

   First of all, anyone can say their ex wife or husband is BP or “psycho” or whatever. There are many websites in which people do just that. Of course, we never get the other person’s side of the story. I would suggest that all readers of this, and similar, blogs include that one, little grain of salt while they are swallowing whole the tale the blogger tells.

   Secondly, as to the children not being able to figure out this blog is about their family, should they stumble across it on the internet, I call bullshit. This level of detail–such as, to give only one of many examples, exactly what the boy had to eat at McDonald’s–is more than enough to provide identification. Also, didn’t it ever occur to you that your ex wife, or one of your children’s schoolmates, or some other third party, might figure it out, and show it to them? And then they would see it, before your mysterious “other effective methods to restrict their access” ever even entered into it. In any event, there is simply no excuse for running the risk. Just saying that you are “willing to run” it IS clueless. The risk is to the children. Not to you. As I said, talk to a relative, friend, or counselor instead. The rest of the world, your efforts at self justification by way of civic service to the contrary notwithstanding, can easily get by without this blog. This blog is for you. It’s for you to vent. As I said, vent in a way that won’t hurt your children, as in to a therapist bound by a professional code of confidentiality.

   Next, about the lying. I did read your post. You made it clear that the children would face “consequences” for what you call “lying” to your ex about what they ate at your house. Go back and read it yourself–”I undoubtedly DID say that there is going to be a discussion with potential consequences for not telling you [your ex wife] the truth.” Do you see that, Mr. Reading Comprehension? The lie the children supposedly told was to your ex wife.

   As for the food, I am glad we agree that you should feed the children correctly when you have them. I stand by the “belatedly” comment, because the children did not become obese overnight. As for what they eat when they are with their mother, of course no peditrician would agree that there is anything healthy about it. The question, though, is whether a court would see it as so extreme as to warrant changing the custody agreement. Unfortunately, it is not at all uncommon for children to eat many of their meals at places like McDonald’s. Nor is it particularly unusual for a 10-year old boy to order and eat the meal you described. So, I doubt very seriously that a court would do anything about it. That being the case, you should just let it go. Yes, tell your children about nutrition. But, no, don’t try to get them to rebel against their mother’s authority. And don’t even bother trying to get her to change her practices. Again, if you don’t have enough to go to court with (and I don’t think you do), just leave it alone. As I said, you have to settle for second best solutions because you and your wife can’t behave like reasonable adults.

   And that brings us to this point. Stop patting yourself on the back because you had the “good sense” to recognize that you had used an “expletive.” You call your wife a “psycho.” You diagnose her as having a serious mental illness, even though you admit you have no expertise in the field. But when you talked to her on the phone, she, apparently, behaved herself, while you not only used an “expletive” but insulted her repeatedly. She “provoked” you, you say, well, so what? Let her bring her false accusations to court. If your children really are overweight, I doubt the court is going to pay much attention to her claims that you are starving them. But calling her names isn’t going to help anyone. Also, you calling her “a big FAT liar” may be used by her to show that you really do have an issue with food and weight. Think before you speak.

   Something else you might consider. Your children may have lied to you about what they eat at their mother’s because they are trying to protect her. Children of divorced parents can often sense which of their parents is more vulnerable, which one is more messed up. In your case, it sounds like you are the parent who is stronger, who is getting on with your life. Your children might also feel that they can count on you, and your love, but fear that their mother might reject them if they didn’t back her up, didn’t take her “side,” and didn’t “cover up” for her.

   Unfortunately, there really isn’t much you can do about this. Just always let them know that you love them, and never take anything worse than a “neutral” stance on whatever they say their mother says or does. Everything you do for your children now, every bit of patience you show, every time you refrain from lashing out at their mother (either to her directly or through them), will be registered by them, and, in the end, they will love for it.

9. jb Says:
   March 14th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

   Ah, well, let me just make a quick comment on this one, too:

   “First of all, anyone can say their ex wife or husband is BP or “psycho” or whatever. There are many websites in which people do just that. Of course, we never get the other person’s side of the story.”

   Ruddy, you are correct. Anyone can say their ex is “psycho”, and yes, many do. I hear it all the time. Also, I witness what I refer to as “divorce-crazy” — the way that otherwise-normal people behave when they are in the middle of a divorce is a little nutty for everyone.

   And if you have never experienced firsthand the out-and-out insanity of a person with Borderline Personality Disorder (the dissociations, the cognitive distortions, the self-destructive behavior), then from the outside looking in, you will not realize that you are looking from a different frame of reference. You won’t have any way to assess the qualitative difference between “slightly idiosyncratic” and truly disordered.

   Many people who are involved in relationships with BPs have their compass knocked away from “true north” as well. They realize that something is just not right… but they get caught up in the BP’s crazy world — survivors often refer to it as “walking on eggshells”, or feeling like they are “In Oz” and need to “return to Kansas”. It doesn’t help that the BP is projecting all of their cognitive distortions onto the non-BP — thus many “nons” are quick to question themselves: “am I the crazy one here?”

   And that is truly the value of Mister-M’s site. It’s not for the bitter ex-spouse who just wants to randomly spew about their former partner. It’s for those folks who fit into that qualitatively different space. For those people for whom the nice, neat, straight-up, reasonable answers do not work and will never work. For folks who believed that they were the only ones going through this and are profoundly relieved to discover that they are not alone.

   Mister-M has been quite genuine in reporting his journey. He is quick to point out his own errors as well as those times when he has tried something that just did not work the way he thought it would.

   If you want to get into some kind “he-said-she-said” debate about looking at the other side of the story, etc., then as you pointed out, there are lots of other places on the web to do that. At this site, looking at the world from a BPD point of view is less about arguing whether or not someone has it, and more about what are we non-BPs going to do to deal with it.

10. Mister-M Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    Ruddy… I won’t go back and forth with you for very long… your contentions are as ridiculous as the PEW’s.

    At no point in the entire post did I say that she “behaved” herself.

    From the post: The discussion was, at times, animated as she would toss in her ridiculous accusations. I did call her an “asshole” once and a “big fat liar” for doing so.

    Reading comprehension… catch it.

    From the post: I undoubtedly DID say that there is going to be a discussion with potential consequences for not telling you the truth… and for not telling me the truth about the lunch situation.

    Reading comprehension… catch it.

    I didn’t “pat myself on the back” for recognizing anything nor apologizing for anything. I simply acknowledged that what I said was wrong and disclosed it here in the interest of fairness. (In other words, I was wrong for doing that.)

    Calling her a “big fat liar” is childish. It is not evidence of an obsession with weight.

    I do have experience with the mental illness field. I simply don’t have the credentials to formally make a clinical diagnosis. (Reading comprehension…. again)

    Finally… your argument about the children discovering this blog and identifying it as themselves based on a description of the McDonald’s meal might work… if they were the only children on earth who ate double quarter-pounders with cheese.

    I also have experience with people who cherry-pick only portions of quotes and stories just like you do… think about that before your next reply.

11. DW Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    Haha, I’m just laughing at these comments. I somehow doubt any of our kids would stumble upon this website. What could they possibly search for that would land them here? Kids, who are 7 and 10? LMFAO. Besides that fact is, they don’t get on the Internet when with us, and I somehow doubt that if PEW found it she would let the kids read it. That would kind of destroy her opportunity to use it against us, since if it’s so bad, allowing the children to read it would backfire on her in court.

    Secondly, if you are allowing your 10 year old who is overweight by 50+ lbs to order a meal that is over 1500 calories, 50% of which come from fat, you are an asshole. Sorry, my kids don’t eat McDonalds, period, it’s shit. And just an FYI, they gained the weight when PEW had full custody of them and Mister M only had them every other weekend, so no, he isn’t responsible. Before that when they were married, they were in a normal weight range.

    Third, no we can’t just feed them less when they are with us. We would have to feed them NOTHING, to balance the caloric intake differences between what they should eat at her house and what they actually eat. I’m pretty sure that’s unacceptable. Not only that, it would absolutely put us in precisely the position she claims we are now… underfeeding them. It’s a ridiculous suggestion.

    Fourth, I don’t think the kids would lie about getting 6 snacks a day at PEWs house to “protect her.” Or about the fact they never have vegetables and everything comes out of a box.

    We aren’t perfect, but as far as food and exercise goes, our house vs hers? We get an A+ and she gets an F.

12. ruddyturnstone Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    Blogger:

    “Ruddy… I won’t go back and forth with you for very long… your contentions are as ridiculous as the PEW’s.”

    To quote your ex wife, you do seem like someone who has to be right 100% of the time. Maybe if you weren’t so self righteous and judgmental, you and your ex would get along better.

    “At no point in the entire post did I say that she ‘behaved’ herself. From the post: The discussion was, at times, animated as she would toss in her ridiculous accusations. I did call her an ‘asshole’ once and a ‘big fat liar’ for doing so. Reading comprehension… catch it.”

    You catch it yourself, pal. She was “animated.” You found her accusations to be “ridiculous.” But you cursed and insulted. She didn’t. She may not have been Ms. Congeniality, but from YOUR OWN REPORT, she behaved herself and you didn’t.

    “From the post: I undoubtedly DID say that there is going to be a discussion with potential consequences for not telling you the truth… and for not telling me the truth about the lunch situation. Reading comprehension… catch it.”

    Again, catch it yourself. “AND for not telling me. . .” Catch that–AND–that means “in addition to,” doesn’t it. The kids were to face consequences “for not telling you [your ex wife] the truth” AND “for not telling me [yourself] the truth.” Two things calling for consequences. Two instances of them not telling the truth. Once to her and once to you. Get it?

    “I didn’t ‘pat myself on the back’ for recognizing anything nor apologizing for anything. I simply acknowledged that what I said was wrong and disclosed it here in the interest of fairness. (In other words, I was wrong for doing that.)”

    Quibble all you want to. You cursed and insulted. You admit this, but then immediately forgive/excuse yourself. Would you do this for your ex wife?

    “Calling her a ‘big fat liar’ is childish. It is not evidence of an obsession with weight.”

    Reading comprehension. Catch it. I said that phrase “may be used” by your ex wife in an attempt to prove an obsession with weight, not that it does prove one. You gave her ammunition, that was my point. As everybody but someone who has to be right all the time would have easily seen.

    “I do have experience with the mental illness field. I simply don’t have the credentials to formally make a clinical diagnosis. (Reading comprehension…. again)”

    Whatever. The point is that, according to you, you aren’t qualified to diagnose your ex wife. Yet you blithely do it online anyway. That’s actionable libel, by the way.

    Reading comprehension. It means getting the point, not quibbling over trivialities. The point is that you aren’t qualified to make that diagnosis. The point isn’t about your “experience.” By the way, was not the term I used, I said you didn’t have “expertise,” and, again, according to your own admission, you don’t. So even at your jejune, “gotcha” level, you get it wrong.

    “Finally… your argument about the children discovering this blog and identifying it as themselves based on a description of the McDonald’s meal might work… if they were the only children on earth who ate double quarter-pounders with cheese.”

    Duh, that’s only one thing. Plus their ages and genders. Plus the discussion about it. Plus the notion that the older child finished the younger child’s meal. Plus the dozens of other clues your posts provide.

    “I also have experience with people who cherry-pick only portions of quotes and stories just like you do… think about that before your next reply.”

    LOL! Your own words prove your wrong, you misquote me, then you have the nerve to say that! What a joke you are. No wonder your ex wife can’t deal with you.

    To JB

    I realize that you are a groupie. And that’s fine. But the blogger has an open commenting policy. He could have a no comments policy. He could moderate the comments. He could restrict them to those, like yourself, who are very gullible and easily convinced about people whom you don’t know, and who don’t get to provide their side of the story. But he hasn’t. Since he has ads, maybe he wants the traffic. In any event, while I appreciate your no-doubt heartfelt advice, I think I will make my own decisions as to whether or post or not. Thanks anyway, though.

    DW

    “Haha, I’m just laughing at these comments.”

    That’s nice. Is that how you respond to anyone who doesn’t necessarily buy 100% into you and your husband’s take on reality. Good open mind there.

    “I somehow doubt any of our kids would stumble upon this website. What could they possibly search for that would land them here? Kids, who are 7 and 10? LMFAO.”

    Keep laughing, dumb-dumb. Kids are often much more proficient on the internet than their parents suspect. Also, duh, kids who are the products of divorce are maybe just a little bit curious about the phenonmenon, doncha think? I wonder if the kids haven’t heard the term “psycho ex wife,” even if only through a bedroom wall? That, and one google search, and here they are.

    But, no, you and your husband are providing such a great public service bad mouthing a mentally ill woman that the risk of that can’t even be considered. What a couple of narcisists!

    “Besides that fact is, they don’t get on the Internet when with us. . .”

    And how long will that last. Plus, there is the internet at school, maybe at the ex’s house, certainly at their freind’s house, at the library etc.

    “. .. and I somehow doubt that if PEW found it she would let the kids read it. That would kind of destroy her opportunity to use it against us, since if it’s so bad, allowing the children to read it would backfire on her in court.”

    And, of course, it is so easy to predict what a “psycho” will do, because they always think rationaly, right? Maybe she would be so angry that, in her rage, she would show it to the kids before she took the time to consider its usefulness against you in court. Also, you seem to be admitting that the blog could be used against you in court, if it ever came out. That being the case, why risk it? I know, I know, you and your husband’s noble sense of public service. Couldn’t be self indulgence, could it?

    “Secondly, if you are allowing your 10 year old who is overweight by 50+ lbs to order a meal that is over 1500 calories, 50% of which come from fat, you are an asshole. . .”

    Blah, blah, blah. Who’s disputing that? What’s that cute phrase your Dear Husband likes to use. I know: Reading comprehension, catch it! The point is, no court is going to strip a mother of custody for taking her kids to eat at the number one kids chain restaurant in the country. Get it now?

    “And just an FYI, they gained the weight when PEW had full custody of them and Mister M only had them every other weekend, so no, he isn’t responsible.. . ”

    He had them twice a month, but he didn’t notice them gaining weight? How does that work?

    “Third, no we can’t just feed them less when they are with us. We would have to feed them NOTHING, to balance the caloric intake differences between what they should eat at her house and what they actually eat. I’m pretty sure that’s unacceptable.”

    I agree. But you have to do the best you can. You can’t feed them nothing. But you could have them eat light (which is what I said). Not ideal, but given that your husband and his ex wife can’t get along, what can you do? Unless you think a court is willing to dictate to her what she feeds them, or take them away from her, what other choices are there?

    “Fourth, I don’t think the kids would lie about getting 6 snacks a day at PEWs house to ‘protect her.’”

    Reading comprehension, again. What I was clearly suggesting was that the kids were lying to protect the ex when they said that they were eating the “good stuff” when they were with her. They knew that’s what you and their father wanted to hear, they knew that if they said they went to McDonald’s all the time you would be mad at her. Maybe they wanted to spare her that. She is their mother, after all. Even though you and your husband hate her, they probably don’t.

    Frankly, both you and your husband strike me as overbearing, know-it-all, dictatorial jerks. Neither one of you can stand even a little dissent in the comments section of your self-righteous website. I can only imagine how you treat a woman who has the temerity to think that, as their mother, she should have something to say about how these children are raised. Particularly if she should happen to disagree with you and Mr. Perfect.

    And that brings us to:

    “We aren’t perfect, but as far as food and exercise goes, our house vs hers? We get an A+ and she gets an F.”

    No? It sure sounds like you think you’re perfect. You not only get an A, but an A plus. Really, you shouldn’t be so hard on your self! Or so kind to her.

    Go back and read that email hubby’s ex wife sent to him. I see a plea for help. For understanding. For some human kindness. She admits that she might be wrong, and only asks that Mr. Can Never Be Wrong admit that he might not be 100% right. She concedes that the children are being fed when they are with you. She says it’s a good idea to have limited contact. She just doensn’t want to be called names and insulted and treated with “meanness.”

    But that seems to me exactly how your husband treats her. And, he’s not content to treat that way IRL, but has to set up a whole blog where he and you do nothing but air her dirty laundry, call her more nasty names, and have readers, strangers to the situation, join in the chorus of condemnation against this poor, harassed women. Give it a rest. And give this woman a break. You and your husband aren’t providing any kind of “service” to anyone. You are both just getting your jollies out of humiliating a woman whom you claim is mentally ill. That’s sick, reprehensible, and sadistic.

13. jb Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    And… back to the point at hand:

    Helping the children regain some power and control over their own health choices is a wise course, in my opinion. Helping them see for themselves the importance of exercise, portion control, good nutritional choices, etc., is a step in the right direction.

    Several years back, I dated a guy who had joint custody of two pre-adolescent daughters. At every meal, he served up the food in the kitchen and brought it to the table. My own plate was loaded (by him) with three times as much food as I could eat. Then he would tell the children that they had to eat everything on their plates or they would not get dessert.

    Naturally the daughters protested. The focus was all about “we might get fat!” And of course, Daddy told his little princesses that he would love them no matter what. They all missed the point completely.

    After a little bit of gentle coaxing, I was able to convince this Dad to shift his focus from controlling the food to teaching and educating his daughters about good health choices. It was difficult, but they managed.

    He and I no longer date (religious issue, not related to food) but we remain very good friends. He has since remarried. His older daughter is now vegan and can tell you 80 different non-meat sources of protein.

    This guy didn’t have a psycho ex wife. A little emotionally whacked from the divorce, but mostly she was getting over that and their post-divorce “moments” were more-or-less typical.

    My point is, everyone has to deal with teaching kids how to get along in the world. Eat healthy. Take care of your body. Tell the truth. Etc. We have to do that whether we are parenting in an intact marriage, co-parenting in a ‘healthy’ divorce, or parallel parenting with a PEH/PEW. As with everything else, when the focus goes back onto the children, that is when they are most likely to benefit.

14. Mister-M Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    Actually, Ruddy… we welcome dissent. We simply call into question the inaccuracies and the gross misinterpretation of facts (as I present them… only one-side to the story).

    Your follow-ups only further provide such evidence and I will stop there. Nothing can be accomplished by pointing out to you any further than we clearly already have just how wildly incorrect you are.

    Making up a new round of false allegations is insulting. Being animated is not being “behaved” and I made no mention of her “behaving” in the entirety of the post. I’ll stop there… as those figments of your reading imagination are enough without me having to go line item by line item to do the rest.

    Thanks for visiting.

15. GGRR Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 9:17 pm

    Ruddy, consider simply: if you walk in, in the middle of a conversation, and draw all your conclusions from that, without hearing the beginning or the end, without knowing the history, without knowing the context, how can you possible draw any conclusions?

    This site is not at all about bashing some poor benighted woman. It most certainly is about supporting families surviving a relationship with a person with a most destructive character disorder. If you really read further, and with an open mind you would see this.

    I am wondering how you came upon this Blog in the first place? What words did you put into the search engine? What is your agenda? What is making you react so strongly, with so little background information.

    I strongly suggest you read some of the books mentioned here on the Booklist, if you are really interested in understanding what kind of experience families affected by BPD have. Of course we need to vent. And sometimes those words are intense and extreme. Luckily, that is the only thing we are doing. We are not taking it out on innocent children or relatives. We are not terrorizing others’ lives daily.

    You really don’t have enough information to comment fairly.

16. Mister-M Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 9:22 pm

    GGRR… Ruddy doesn’t realize that, with the exception of one person (aside from DW), no one here knows me personally, I mention no names.

    Hard to imagine I’m airing my ex-wife’s dirty laundry in a libelous, objectionable way.

    If I wanted to, I could easily broadcast this with names and all. If my intention was to embarrass her directly and sully her name and reputation in any “meaningful” way - it could easily be done. I could show my family. I could show her family. I could show her co-workers, her boss, the corporate bigwigs that run her business. I could email the link to her friends, her enemies, etc.

    If I wanted to stifle dissent, I would delete Ruddy’s posts and block her from accessing this site in only a few seconds.

    I don’t do that. It’s not the purpose of this blog. End of story. Ruddy has demonstrated having no clue and it should be left at that. Obviously, Ruddy identifies with the PEW.

17. Maria Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 10:15 pm

    I couldn’t help thinking that is sounds like S1 is dealing with stress by gorging. You know that exchanges are very stressful for children, especially if one parent is prone to interrogation when kids come to their house. Gorging actually releases endorphines - like a drug. Some people who binge have reported feeling like they go into what they describe as a “trance like” state when they are binging, which helps them distance themselves from stress.

    Mr. M - I don’t agree with PEW, but I do think that S1’s symptoms are indicitive of an eating disorder, and that teaching him about proper portion sizes isn’t going to help. You should seek the help of a food addiction therapist. If nothing else, for an evaluation. I could be, and hopefully am, wrong - but you don’t want to miss important warning signs. Living with a mentally ill parent is rough on kids. It sounds like he’s having a really hard time dealing with it. We talk about how crazy a PEW makes us - imagine how hard it is on the kids. He may need help, and might benefit from talking to a neutral person.

18. ruddyturnston Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 10:20 pm

    Blogger:

    “Actually, Ruddy… we welcome dissent.”

    That’s a laugh. I took the trouble to follow some of the other posters’ advice and looked at some old threads. In every case, any commenter who does not faun all over you and your current wife, does not immediately and automatically take what you say as gospel, or does not share your views, as your ex wife would say, “100%,” is treated like shit by you in your responses. As one poster put it, you ask for comments but then “go ballistic” on anyone who even slightly disagrees with you.

    “We simply call into question the inaccuracies and the gross misinterpretation of facts (as I present them… only one-side to the story).”

    I have done nothing of the kind. I sourced all of my claims about your presentations with quotes from your own posts.

    “Your follow-ups only further provide such evidence and I will stop there. Nothing can be accomplished by pointing out to you any further than we clearly already have just how wildly incorrect you are.”

    In other words, you know I have not only gotten it right, but have documented that fact as well. You won’t respond because you can’t.

    “Making up a new round of false allegations is insulting. Being animated is not being ‘behaved’ and I made no mention of her ‘behaving’ in the entirety of the post.”

    What tripe. I never quoted you as saying that your ex wife “behaved.” You are now engaging in the oldest and least persuasive trick in the internet book. If you go back and check, what I said was that “apparently” your wife “behaved,” while you, by your own admission, did not. Just because you never used the work “behave” does not mean that I misquoted you. I didn’t quote you at all. I did not put the word “behave” in quotes. You did. What I did was paraphrase. I interpreted what you wrote. And that is not illegitimate at all. Whether the accusations were false or not, your ex wife’s statements in the phone call, as you presented them, were not uncivil. That’s all I meant when I said that she had “behaved” herself. That she was civil. She is allowed to accuse you. That, in and of itself is not misbehavior. You, by your own admission, were uncivil, you were insulting and used profanities. And that is not “behaving.” That’s all I meant and all I said. I neither misquoted you nor misinterpreted you.

    “I’ll stop there… as those figments of your reading imagination are enough without me having to go line item by line item to do the rest.”

    Again, what you really mean is that you know you’re wrong so you’ll duck the rest of the issues. Particularly on the issue of the lying, in which it is now plain for everyone to see that you are wrong.

    “Thanks for visiting.”

    My pleasure.

    GGRR:

    Don’t be so patronizing. Or so nosy. How I got here is my own affair, not yours. In any event, the site claims to welcome comments. There is nothing said about having to read all the posts before commenting on any one of them. And that is never how it works, on any site. In any event, I have now read several posts, and the accompanying comments, and I have found a clear pattern. Commenters who agree with the bloggers self serving assertions are welcomed, those who don’t are villified.

    Blogger:

    “Ruddy doesn’t realize that, with the exception of one person (aside from DW), no one here knows me personally, I mention no names.”

    Actually, I do realize that. It isn’t exactly difficult to see.

    “Hard to imagine I’m airing my ex-wife’s dirty laundry in a libelous, objectionable way.”

    Actually, it’s not. When a person defames another person in print (the internet is considered to be in print) and there are enough clues to identify that person, then that person has a cause of action for libel, even though her name was never mentioned.

    “If I wanted to, I could easily broadcast this with names and all. If my intention was to embarrass her directly and sully her name and reputation in any ‘meaningful’ way - it could easily be done. I could show my family. I could show her family. I could show her co-workers, her boss, the corporate bigwigs that run her business. I could email the link to her friends, her enemies, etc.”

    Of course you could. So what? That doesn’t mean you haven’t libelled her by what you have done. You really have no clue as to the components of a persuasive argument, do you?

    You haven’t done it that way because you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have all the sick and twisted fun of degrading and dehumanizing your ex wife in public without facing any of the consequences of doing so.

    “If I wanted to stifle dissent, I would delete Ruddy’s posts and block her from accessing this site in only a few seconds.”

    It’s he, not her, actually. And, you could do that. But it is more effective for you to lie and misrepresent, and gather your groupies around you for a nice little 2 minute hate session.

    “I don’t do that. It’s not the purpose of this blog.”

    I agree. That is not the main purpose of this blog. Its true purpose, other than, perhaps, making you a few bucks, is for you and your latest wife to enjoy yourself by lambasting your ex wife. Do you and her giggle when you read all of the nasty things you say about your ex on the internet? Your current wife calls her an “asshole,” not in the heat of the moment over the phone to her, but in cold blood, in a post directed at me. Why? Isn’t there any other way her disagreement with your ex could be expressed?

    “Ruddy has demonstrated having no clue and it should be left at that.”

    Actually, Ruddy has shown only too clearly what this blog is all about, and that’s why you won’t respond in substance and want to leave it “at that.”

    “. .. Ruddy identifies with the PEW.”

    Wow, you really have no limit, do you? I “identify” with the PEW? I don’t even know the PEW, but, I now think I know you pretty well now.

    To review.

    You say your wife has Borderline Personality disorder, although you are not qualified to make that determination. (Nor, I might add, are any of your groupies in any position to make that diagnosis either, even if they are trained professionals. That’s because no ethical professional does a diagnosis based on second hand reports over the internet, without ever even having met the person in question.) And, since there is no way of knowing whether your wife really is BP, or if that is merely your own grotesquely biased and bitter assesment (assuming it even is your true assessment and not just a gratuitous insult on your part), you are NOT providing any kind of “service” to anyone who really does have to deal with an acutal, diagnosed BP person. You are not providing any “service” at all. You are merely wallowing in your own self righteousnous and hatred.

    You call ex your wife a psycho on line. You call her an asshole, and a big fat liar over the phone. You insult your ex wife frontways, backways and sideways. You enlist your latest wife to join in the fun. And any one who comments here who can read between the lines, and who calls you out on your obvious bullshit, meets with much the same treatment. If they think that you didn’t handle some situation as correctly as you think you did, if they think that maybe you should focus more on doing what’s right by your kids, even if that means sucking it up, biting your tongue and not antagonizing your ex wife, or if they think that maybe the whole enterprize of devoting an entire webstie to ridiculing the mother of one’s children is open to question, then they must be “psychos” too. Or, at a minimum, they “identify” with “psychos.”

    What a self-satisfied, humorless, little jerk you are! If they were my children, I wouldn’t want you anywhere near them.

19. Mister-M Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    Actually, Ruddy… I’ve been resisting the urge to say it, but now I will…

    I’m not responding to you any further for the most obvious reason - you argue just like her and I realize that it is pointless to continue. As I sit here watching you continue to escalate, it’s truly the only conclusion I can draw and nothing I could possible say, do, or show you will convince you otherwise.

    Enjoy your stay.

20. Mister-M Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 10:31 pm

    Maria,

    I spoke to him about seeing a counselor he has previously seen and really, really liked. I believe it necessary, but we’ll have to navigate the forthcoming changes in insurance in order to make that happen, so it could be a little bit… hopefully a very little bit.

21. ruddyturnstone Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 10:38 pm

    Blogger:

    Actually, you said that in your last post. That I “identified” with “her.” Perhaps so, but couldn’t that be because, just maybe, you are wrong about some things? Isn’t is possible that I, and your ex wife, are not completely stupid or evil or mentally ill or whatever, and that, maybe, you might have some flaws too. Go back and look at the factual claims I made about your posts. Every one of them is documented. Yet you stubbornly refuesed to admit it, and then ducked the issue. Is this how you argue with “her” too?

    You have done all the escalating, not me. Nor is it my fault that your self serving assertions are not persuasive. Again, instead of villifying me for not buying your claims it might behoove you to re-examine them yourself.

22. Mister-M Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 11:29 pm

    Oh, Ruddy… do you even know what “vilified” means? How have I “vilified” you? By disagreeing with your assessments and inaccuracies? Do you want to be persuaded or do you just seek my attention to show everyone how ingenious you believe yourself to be?

    I’ll play for one more reply to you, you got me “on the hook” there, fisherman… in no particular order…

    - I didn’t claim you wrote that she behaved. I sometimes use quotes as a way of indicating that the term is used loosely. What you wrote indicated or implied she was behaved or otherwise civil. I did no such thing and wrote quite clearly that she was animated and tossing out her usual barrage of false accusations.

    - I am not escalating, you clearly are. You are calling readers of this blog “groupies” and making other condescending comments towards those who are also taking exception to your bizarre assessment of this specific situation.

    - You suggested that, in light of her overfeeding the children, I should feed them less when they are with me. This is ridiculous on its face and would serve no purpose other than to put us in the position to be doing exactly what she asserts - I underfeed the children. Not exactly the smartest suggestion from where I’m sitting… aside from that - underfeeding children who are being fed primarily garbage while with PEW would only add to the unhealthy dietary circumstances.

    - You claimed that I have “totally belatedly” made changes to their diet as a result of the current circumstances. That’s factually incorrect.

    - I can’t be anymore clear - in the original post and my follow-up, it is abundantly clear that I spoke/wrote about potential consequences for lying to PEW and me about the lunch situation. They were not separate statements. The quote: “I undoubtedly DID say that there is going to be a discussion with potential consequences for not telling you the truth and for not telling me the truth about the lunch situation.” I was specifically speaking of the lunch situation. I have no clue how you’ve managed to interpret that differently. You’re wrong.

    - You claimed I was patting myself on the back for apologizing for using an expletive. No, I wasn’t. I was admitting that I was an idiot for saying what I said in a knee-jerk reaction to what she was saying and how she was saying it. I admit that doing that was wrong. You’re the one who is choosing to bastardize the reason behind mentioning it. You’re (again) factually incorrect.

    - Since you keep repeatedly making the claim that she behaved herself, I will continue to keep pointing out that this is factually incorrect and that I neither said nor otherwise implied that she was behaving herself. This is something you created. I left quotes out of this entire paragraph so as to avoid any miscommunication that I am somehow quoting you quoting me quoting whatever. She didn’t behave. You can misbehave without using the word “asshole” one time and saying “big fat liar.”

    - You wrote: “Again, catch it yourself. “AND for not telling me. . .” Catch that–AND–that means “in addition to,” doesn’t it. The kids were to face consequences “for not telling you [your ex wife] the truth” AND “for not telling me [yourself] the truth.” Two things calling for consequences. Two instances of them not telling the truth. Once to her and once to you. Get it?

    Wrong. The boys lied to her AND they lied to me ABOUT THE LUNCH SITUATION. What did they lie to her about? THE LUNCH SITUATION. What did they lie to me about? THE LUNCH SITUATION. While for someone like you, it might have made it easier to write, …for lying to you about the lunch situation and for lying to me about the lunch situation…” However, it’s not necessary.

    - You claim that I forgave and excused myself for cursing. That’s factually incorrect. I did no such thing. Regardless of why I did it, it was wrong and I was an idiot for doing so.

    - I did “catch it” (on the big, fat liar comment). I simply said it is not indicative of an obsession with weight. Did you catch that?

    - As for diagnosing my ex-wife… while there may be a time or two that I don’t specifically say it (not sure), I clearly and consistently post that I am not qualified to make a formal diagnosis and that I strongly suspect her as suffering from BPD. I say this as I have researched and studied the condition along with many others and am qualified in terms of my education on the condition to “suspect” that to be the case. So, save for the possibility that I have stated “she has it” - I can point out (perhaps) dozens or more times where I clearly define it as a suspicion or strong suspicion… therefore, you are “mostly factually incorrect.”

    - You say, “Reading comprehension. It means getting the point, not quibbling over trivialities.” Yet, you’ve been back here many times today (I can tell you how many times, for how long, how you got here, from where you’re posting, and much, much more) to just that. Very interesting. At least I have an excuse for being here so often. You?

    - You take exception to my name-calling and then call DW a “dumb-dumb.” Project much?

    - You say, “Neither one of you can stand even a little dissent in the comments section of your self-righteous website.” That’s factually incorrect. Your comments are here as are those of anyone else who has disagreed with me/us. You see, dissenters are welcome. Maybe you should pick up a dictionary and look up “dissent.” Obviously, I’m not going to agree with a little, a lot, or all of what anyone has to say here. Apparently, that’s what you want or believe you’re entitled to here. You’re not. I can stand it. If I couldn’t - your comments wouldn’t be here.

    - You wrote, agreeing with ONE other poster who said something similar, that I “go ballistic” in the face of dissent. That’s factually incorrect. I haven’t gone ballistic. I’ve been calm, rational, and at least at the beginning, rather tolerant of your bizarre feedback.

    - You say, “In other words, you know I have not only gotten it right, but have documented that fact as well. You won’t respond because you can’t.” That’s factually incorrect. Not only have you gotten a good portion of it wrong, I have responded, because I can.

    - Libel: In order to have an action of libel, it would have to have substantial negative impact on the alleged target publicly. They also need to be FALSE and damaging. She’ll have a very tough time proving any of what I’ve posted here to be false. You are, again, factually incorrect.

    - You wrote: “I agree. That is not the main purpose of this blog. Its true purpose, other than, perhaps, making you a few bucks, is for you and your latest wife to enjoy yourself by lambasting your ex wife.” This is factually incorrect as countless numbers of “groupies” can attest.

    - You wrote: What a self-satisfied, humorless, little jerk you are! This is factually incorrect. I’m full of humor. A great many people, friends, family, loved-ones, and groupies will attest to that. And would that be the similar type of vulgar, childish name-calling that you’ve been railing against in my original post… again?

    - You say, “You really have no clue as to the components of a persuasive argument, do you?” This is factually incorrect and I think I’ve proven my point. I know you won’t be convinced that this has been pretty darn persuasive, but I’d bet a LOT of money (if I had any) that few will argue that I have been anything less than completely persuasive where you’re comments are concerned.

    Thanks for playing.

23. SC Says:
    March 15th, 2009 at 12:37 am

    Ruddy needs laid. I’m just sayin…..

24. Deb Says:
    March 15th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    Ruddy doesn’t get it, nor ever will, she’s way too defensive to be open minded at all. I would guess that she found your site here, by googling “psycho ex-wife” hoping to find something on her XH.

    Her position is so much like PEW’s. *gag me*

    I think PEW needs to get some information about diabetes in children…it’s becoming epidemic due to overweight children. But, then, she’d probably go too far the other direction.

25. ettvy Says:
    March 15th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    Ruddy is a troll. Don’t feed the troll.

26. ruddyturnstone Says:
    March 15th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

    Blogger:

    “I’ll play for one more reply to you.. .”

    That’s funny, I thought I read somewhere that you were done respoding to me. Can’t even keep your word on that, can you? So much for your credibility.

    “I didn’t claim you wrote that she behaved.”

    Misleading to the point of outright dishonesty. You stressed that you had never used the word “behave,” clearly implying that I misquoted you when I used it. I did no such thing, as I didn’t quote you at all.

    This is also a good spot to make a general point. Can’t you ever concede anything, no matter how trivial? Must you always be, as your ex says, “100% right?” You acted as if I misquoted you. It is now firmly established that I didn’t. No big deal. Can’t you just let it go?

    “What you wrote indicated or implied she was behaved or otherwise civil. I did no such thing and wrote quite clearly that she was animated and tossing out her usual barrage of false accusations.”

    It seems to me that being “aninimated” is not the same thing as “misbehaving.” Nor is making an accusation the samthing as being uncivil.

    But, let’s leave semantics aside, and get back to the real point, which I made in my first post and which you have successfuly evaded thus far with your word games. I came here expecting to see “psycho” behavior on the part of your ex wife. But in the very first post I read, I see crazy behavior on your part, and not on hers. You cursed and insulted. She didn’t. OK, she was animated. OK, she made accusations. But that’s not being a “psycho.” You couldn’t keep your cool. You couldn’t act rationally. You were the one to behave childishly, emotionally, and in an out of control manner. You were the one acting like a “psycho.”

    That’s the substance of it. And no amout of revisionism or parsing of language on your part is going to change it.

    “I am not escalating, you clearly are. You are calling readers of this blog ‘groupies’ and making other condescending comments towards those who are also taking exception to your bizarre assessment of this specific situation.”

    You can’t even keep up the charade of this accusation for the paragraph it takes you to make it. You call my assessments “bizarre,” while at the same time eschewing any responsiblity for the escalation of hostilities. What, is that meant as a compliment?

    As for your groupies, go back and check the record. See who was the first to “condescend,” them or me. See who jumped on my first comment with, “Tut tut, Ruddy, you just don’t understand the situation the way we sages do. I’m sure you mean well with your completely inaccurate and wrongheaeded statements, but we would all be better off if you did some homework first (and here is some suggested reading) and then, if you must, come back and disturb our little circle jerk later. Ta-ta.”

    In the main exchanges, I find it too tiresome to recite the whole back and forth, but, again, if you check the record, you will see that I tried, for at least my first two posts, to adopt a constructive attitude. And you, and your current wife, responded by repeatedly questioning my “Reading Comprehension” (Catch it!) and by outright laughing at me.

    In any event, why so thin-skinned? No one forced you to conduct your private business on the internet. No one forced to allow comments, and unmoderated ones at that, on your little blog. Those were all your choices. Tough noogies if some of those commenters turn out to be less worshipful to you than you would like them to be.

    “You suggested that, in light of her overfeeding the children, I should feed them less when they are with me. This is ridiculous. . . ”

    For the umpteenth time, I realize that is not an ideal solution. The question is, is there a better one? You can’t force your ex wife to change her ways. As I said, I doubt a court will force her to. So, what’s left? Putting your children up to defying her? Is that likely to be helpful?

    In any event, it was a suggestion on my part. If you don’t like it, don’t do it. Why must you and your current wife beat a dead horse “refuting” it over and over again?

    “You claimed that I have ‘totally belatedly’ made changes to their diet as a result of the current circumstances. That’s factually incorrect.”

    From the information provided by you and your latest wife, the children became obese while you were seeing them every other weekend. Thus, it seems clear that you did not take action until the damage was done, and after the problem should have been obvious. I pointed this out to your current wife, and she had no answer.

    “I can’t be anymore clear - in the original post and my follow-up, it is abundantly clear that I spoke/wrote about potential consequences for lying to PEW and me about the lunch situation. They were not separate statements. The quote: ‘I undoubtedly DID say that there is going to be a discussion with potential consequences for not telling you the truth and for not telling me the truth about the lunch situation.’ I was specifically speaking of the lunch situation. I have no clue how you’ve managed to interpret that differently. You’re wrong.”

    Wow. You are stubborn. And ridiculous. Look at the friggin quote again. Particularly this part:

    “. . .there is going to be a discussion with potential consequences for not telling you the truth. . .”

    Who is the “you” in that statement, if not your ex wife? The statement is taken from your email to her.

    The interpretation that you said that there would be potential consequences for lying to her, to your ex wife (in addition for lying to you) is unavoidable. You are making yourself look stupid by arguing this point when it is so clear, in black and white, from your own email, as you reported it, that you are wrong.

    And this goes back to the general point I made earlier. Why can’t you ever concede fault, no matter how trivial the matter. In your first response to me, you said that you did not in fact punish your children, either for lying to their mother or to you. OK. Great. I agree that was the right thing to do. But why must you argue ad nausium, and in direct contradiction of your own email, that you didn’t threaten to do it?

    You are a control freak. There is no other explanation for it. The children are a million times better off with their mother, even if she takes them to McDonald’s and supersizes them everyday, than they are with you.

    “You claimed I was patting myself on the back for apologizing for using an expletive. No, I wasn’t. I was admitting. . .”

    The point is that you acted like a “psycho.” When your ex wife does so, she IS a “psycho,” at least according to you. But when you do so, your excuse/justification/rationalization is immediate and complete. Your “admission” is the merest of prefaces to your self-serving avoidance of all responsibility, and blame, for your own actions.

    “Since you keep repeatedly making the claim that she behaved herself, I will continue to keep pointing out that this is factually incorrect and that I neither said nor otherwise implied that she was behaving herself. This is something you created. I left quotes out of this entire paragraph so as to avoid any miscommunication that I am somehow quoting you quoting me quoting whatever. She didn’t behave. You can misbehave without using the word “asshole” one time and saying ‘big fat liar.’”

    Um. . .didn’t you already cover this? You cursed and insulted. She didn’t. One can misbehave in other ways, but you didn’t present any. That’s why I said that your ex wife “apparently” behaved herself. That was the impression conveyed by YOUR REPORT of the phone call. That she was civil, at least. And that you weren’t.

    “You wrote: ‘Again, catch it yourself. “AND for not telling me. . .” Catch that–AND–that means “in addition to,” doesn’t it. The kids were to face consequences “for not telling you [your ex wife] the truth” AND “for not telling me [yourself] the truth.” Two things calling for consequences. Two instances of them not telling the truth. Once to her and once to you. Get it?’

    Yes I did. But again, didn’t you already cover this?

    “Wrong. The boys lied to her AND they lied to me ABOUT THE LUNCH SITUATION. What did they lie to her about? THE LUNCH SITUATION. What did they lie to me about? THE LUNCH SITUATION. While for someone like you, it might have made it easier to write, …for lying to you about the lunch situation and for lying to me about the lunch situation…” However, it’s not necessary.”

    Boy, you are either really dense or really good at obscufication. Yes, the children lied about the same thing in both instances. I understand that. I understood that from the beginning. The point, for the 11 millionth time, is that they lied on two occasions, once to your ex wife and once to you.

    What I originally said was that I didn’t think it was right for you to punish the children for lying to their mother, no matter what the lie was about. And you agreed and said that you hadn’t, in fact, done that. That should have been the end of the matter. But you just can’t let it go. You have to not only be right in what you did, but must make sure there is no chance that you ever even threatened to do something that might be seen as wrong. You must be perfect in every way, and, if the facts suggest otherwise, so much the worse for them.

    What are you going on and on about? And why? Once again, it is clear from your own damn email that you did threaten to punish the children for lying to their mother. Why deny it? Especially when you simultaneously present the language that proves your denial is wrong?

    You’re obsessive.

    “You claim that I forgave and excused myself for cursing. . . .”

    Dude, you already made your pitch on that one too. You don’t get two bites at the apple for every issue in one post.

    “I did ‘catch it’ (on the big, fat liar comment). I simply said it is not indicative of an obsession with weight.”

    More density. I never said it was. I said that your ex wife might try to pitch it that way to a court. Do you see the difference? Or do we another go-round on this trivial issue too?

    “As for diagnosing my ex-wife… while there may be a time or two that I don’t specifically say it (not sure), I clearly and consistently post that I am not qualified to make a formal diagnosis. . . ”

    And blah, blah, blah. You do not have the qualifications necessary to diagnose your wife. Period. You have no idea what mental illness she has, or even if she has any at all. As far as I can tell, you are just one of any nunber of ex husbands who doesn’t like his ex wife. That dislike may very well be justified, but you have no business “playing doctor” at her expense.

    “You say, ‘Reading comprehension. It means getting the point, not quibbling over trivialities.’”

    Yes. Don’t you agree?

    “Yet, you’ve been back here many times today. . .”

    Non sequitor. How many times I come here has nothing to do with being good at reading comprehension. At reading for meaning. At separating the essential points from the trivial.

    “You take exception to my name-calling and then call DW a ‘dumb-dumb.’ Project much?”

    No. Check the record. That was AFTER you Dear Wife had twice said that she was laughing at me. Was that polite on her part?

    “You say, ‘Neither one of you can stand even a little dissent in the comments section of your self-righteous website.’ That’s factually incorrect. Your comments are here as are those of anyone else who has disagreed with me/us. You see, dissenters are welcome.”

    Yes, they are welcomed to stay and be ridiculed by you, your latest wife and your accolytes.

    “Obviously, I’m not going to agree with a little, a lot, or all of what anyone has to say here. Apparently, that’s what you want or believe you’re entitled to here.”

    What I thought I might be “entitled to” was an honest hearing and debate. Instead, when I meticulously document everything I say, I get accused of not being good at “Reading Comprehension.” I know how to read for meaning. It’s pretty insulting to be told by someone that I don’t. And it’s particularly irritating when it is clear beyond all doubt that my interpretations were well founded. Then I get laughed at by your latest wife. And condescended to by your groupies. Somehow, all of that doesn’t feel very “welcoming” to me.

    “I can stand it. If I couldn’t, your comments wouldn’t be here.”

    There are other ways of stifling dissent than outright censorship. And you practice most of them.

    “You wrote, agreeing with ONE other poster who said something similar, that I ‘go ballistic’ in the face of dissent.”

    Yes, but that was only one example. There were others I could have chosen. Dissenters are not well treated here. That is my experience, and the experience of other posters before me.

    “That’s factually incorrect.”

    Wrong. It’s a matter of opinion. “Going ballistic” is a metaphorical statement. Whether your behavior fits that methaphor is not a purely factual question.

    “I’ve been calm, rational, and at least at the beginning, rather tolerant. . .”

    Exactly wrong. I was calm, rational and constructive at the beginning. You became increasingly belligerent and dismissive in each response to me.

    “I have responded, because. . .”

    But, again, didn’t you say you wouldn’t?

    “Libel: In order to have an action of libel, it would have to have substantial negative impact on the alleged target publicly. They also need to be FALSE and damaging. She’ll have a very tough time proving any of what I’ve posted here to be false. You are, again, factually incorrect.”

    You would probably have to prove the truth of your assertions. Calling someone a “psycho” and accusing them of having a mental illness is considered defamatory per se. So she wouldn’t have to prove damages or negative impact. In addition, there are other tort theories she might try, like invasion of privacy, and so on. You are taking a completely private person and, potentially, exposing her to public ridicule. You’re playing with fire.

    In addition, I wonder what the family court judge in your case would think of this website?

    “You wrote: ‘What a self-satisfied, humorless, little jerk you are!’”

    Yes.

    “This is factually incorrect. I’m full of humor. A great many people, friends, family, loved-ones, and groupies will attest to that.”

    So, does that mean you agree that you are self-satisfied and a little jerk! Really, though, do you think you blowing your own horn impresses me?

    “You say, ‘You really have no clue as to the components of a persuasive argument, do you?’”

    Uh huh.

    “This is factually incorrect. . .”

    Is that so?

    “. . .and I think I’ve proven my point. I know you won’t be convinced that this has been pretty darn persuasive, but I’d bet a LOT of money. . . that few will argue that I have been anything less than completely persuasive where you’re comments are concerned. . .”

    Um, you’re not helping your cause here. Appeal to the crowd? Logical fallacy? Do those phrases ring any bells?

    “Thanks for playing.”

    Brilliant. Did your ten year old teach you that one, or your seven year old?

    SC:

    And who taught you that one? A five year old?

27. Mister-M Says:
    March 15th, 2009 at 3:44 pm

    And here you have the classic theme I’ve discussed here many times. The “Classic Lose-Lose” scenario.

    In this example, when I don’t reply… ruddy declares victory!

    When I do reply… ruddy declares victory!

    You win, Ruddy! LOL.

28. Maria Says:
    March 15th, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    Ruddy reminds me of the PEW’s. Maybe she is the PEW?? We should ignore her. They hate that.

29. SC Says:
    March 15th, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    Your momma! Oh snap.

30. April Says:
    March 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am

    I am always late weighing in (or wait, maybe that makes me weight obsessed too).

    There are so many things I would like to comment on but I have to be completely honest, reading some of Ruddy’s comments is like trying to navigate through one of our own PEW’s emails. Long, boring and usually not relevant.

    On the topic of libel: “You would probably have to prove the truth of your assertions. Calling someone a “psycho” and accusing them of having a mental illness is considered defamatory per se. So she wouldn’t have to prove damages or negative impact. In addition, there are other tort theories she might try, like invasion of privacy, and so on. You are taking a completely private person and, potentially, exposing her to public ridicule. You’re playing with fire. ”

    Libel must be false and it must be damaging or it isn’t libel. She would have to prove it false, she would also have to prove that it was damaging. She would also have to prove that it can be connected to her as there are no names, locations or anything else that can be used to connect this blog to her or even to Mister M’s real name. Mister M has the emails, text messages and telephone call recordings of everything he posts here; she can not dispute their validity. Invasion of privacy wouldn’t work either because once you email someone, send them a text message or call them, it is no longer private. Depending on the jurisdiction, Mister M, as a party to the conversation may have the right to record all conversations without her consent or knowledge. However, I do believe I read that Mister M had told her he was recording conversations.

    As someone who has to deal with a psycho ex-wife I can tell you that Mister M’s stories are substantially similar to my own stories and those of many other people who have read this site. There is simply not enough information on this blog to identify Mister M, DW, the children or the PEW.

    Often, when someone comments on this site they are either so glad to find out that they are not alone and they agree with most of what Mister M says because they have lived through it (your so-called groupies) or they have never had to live through the hell that is a borderline ex-spouse and they simply don’t understand and are not the least bit nice about their own comments. The very fact that Mister M allows these comments and doesn’t delete them goes completely against all of the accusations you make about him.

    I would challenge Ruddy to live Mister M’s life for a month and have to deal with the PEW. Or come and live mine, or GRRR’s, jb’s or DW’s. You have no idea how it feels to walk a mile in these shoes, to constantly have your life, your marriage your own children and your step-children used against you, not as pawns but as battering rams. Until you have lived through this threesome and woken up every day wondering what drama and unrest the unwelcome party will bring to your life today you just don’t understand.

    Mister M publishing his stories, thoughts and suggestions on how to deal with this situations does a great service to those of us who do have to deal with this on a regular basis. The suggestions Mister M has made on this site and by email to me privately have brought back a great sense of peace to my own life and I will be eternally grateful to him and DW for having the courage to publish their story.

    If that makes me a groupie, so be it. I will go back to waiting for Mister M to throw me his underwear. But if you don’t like the soundtrack for this movie, perhaps you should change the station and listen to something more your speed. Maybe Disney.com has a fairytale ending for you . . . you won’t find one of those here. No matter how many times you kiss them, the PEWs are still frogs.

31. Jennaratrix Says:
    March 16th, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    Wow. Just, wow. Just the fact that he came back here and wrote War & Peace five times is enough to make you stop and think for a minute.

    But having said that - I have had some of the same thoughts myself while reading. I have wondered about the privacy of Mister-M and his family - but expressed those thoughts to him in private, and have been reassured that he has protections in place to make sure that his ex and his children don’t run across this site and/or recognize themselves if they do. And whether or not *I* was reassured, in the end it is his decision; once that concern has been expressed, it behooves the commenter to let it go.

    I have also thought on more than one occasion that Mister-M can come across as stubborn and impossible to convince. That comes with the territory of reading a blog written from the perspective of one person in a situation where more than one person is involved. I don’t always agree with everything that comes out of Mister-M’s mouth as if it was prophecy; in fact, I disagree quite frequently. But it comes down to this: this is his house. He has invited me into his house. It is common courtesy when invited into someone else’s house not to shit on the rug.

    It is fine to disagree. But there is a way to do so that is not combative; and if you can’t figure out how to do that, you should just keep your mouth shut. Ruddy failed at common courtesy; even if he was right in any of his assertions, he was rude about it. And that is the reason people got upset. Or at least, the reason I found his comments useless, since I don’t want to speak for anyone else.

32. Thunderstrike78 Says:
    March 16th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    Holy cow! I take one weekend off and World War III breaks out!

    I couldn’t even make it through all of the comments, they’re so ridiculous. LMFAO! “He called me a big FAT liar, your honor! He obviously has a problem with fat people! He said the word! He did! He did!” ROTFLMAO!

    The whole thing is ridiculous. Once someone accuses you of the kinds of things that Mister-M’s PEW has accused him of, I think using a single expletive in a conversation is pretty tame. Commendable, even. Mister-M, I salute you on your restraint. God knows I wouldn’t blame you if you were a little less restrained.

    While I agree that we welcome dissent, let’s not argue just for the sake of arguing, which I’m pretty sure is what’s going on here. I can’t believe that any reasonable person would take issue with disciplining children for telling lies. Sure, we can get into all the minutae about who the lie was told to, why, blah blah blah, but a lie is a lie is a lie, and (most good) parents find them unacceptable. And no, as responsible parents, we cannot “let things go” simply because they do not meet a judge’s standards of evidence. Courts of law and responsible parents do not operate on the same standars, nor should they. Moreover, I know of no good, responsible parent who could stand by and watch his or her child balloon up to being 50 pounds overweight without at least tryin to step in and do something about it. I cannot agree with anyone who advocates a laisse fair approach toward parenting.

    So let’s all take a deep breath, resist that temptation to add fuel to the fire, and walk away. We all knew that one or more PEWs would find this site eventually. Now we have to apply low/no contact rules to this site when we identify them.

    I think we’ve all learned that life will be a lot easier if we can do that.

33. Mister-M Says:
    March 16th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    Jennatrix… a lot of my developed sense of stubbornness is evident in this very discussion. I am a consummate defender of self. This is learned behavior having lived in an environment where my every move, motivation, act was questioned to the nth-degree and in some of the most bizarre and wild ways. When you spend 10+ years in a defensive posture, it becomes a pretty hard habit to break.

    The number 1 person on the list of those who knows I am not even close to the perfect partner, perfect parent, perfect person… is me.

34. Jennaratrix Says:
    March 16th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    What I have to remember when I come here is that my situation is not nearly as extreme as many of yours; our EW, while she may be P, is also far away and, at least for the moment, fairly dormant. I am simply not dealing with a lot of the bullshit that you all are on a regular basis. So when I read something and think “wow, that’s kind of extreme,” I tend to assume that there is a damn good reason for the reaction you had, and one that I may not necessarily be able to relate to. Other people obviously did not give you that same benefit, and I find that unforgivable. There is just no way to convince someone who has not experienced this level of insanity that you know what you’re doing and what you’re dealing with. The problem I had with Mr. Trollypants is that he was unable to acknowledge that he just might not know what the eff he was talking about, and by standing in judgment and refusing to acknowledge even the possibility that yeah, it really is that freaking insane, he just sounded like a hypocritical, judgmental, uninformed doofus.

    Like I said, I may not always agree, but I hope to hell I at least know when to keep my opinion to myself. It’s something a lot of people on this planet could stand to learn, and unfortunately, anonymous forums tend to bring those people out of the woodwork.

35. SWAT Says:
    March 19th, 2009 at 9:49 am

    Like you April… I am a little late catching up on the posts!

    Ruddy… the comments and forums are left open and not moderated so we can laugh and talk about dumbasses like you that don’t have a clue!

36. Mick Says:
    May 11th, 2009 at 7:45 am

    I’m just dumbfounded. Seriously.

    Ruddy’s last post was two thousand, seven hundred and one words long (including quotes). 2 7 0 1.

    I’d laugh if it didn’t piss me off so much.

Leave a Reply