I guess my problem is with the "no fault" concept then, because I watched a lot of "Divorce Court" as a child, didn't know much about "no fault" marriage law, entered my marriage with the expectation that it would be permanent and not involve various forms of abuse, and my marriage certainly wasn't equitable. I certainly didn't take anything from my ex, who caused me a lot of suffering and ended up taking a lot from me. The contributions to the marriage certainly weren't equitable and the settlement definitely seemed unfair. I am certainly a happy person, but I was much happier before my marriage, which has done lasting damage to me psychologically, especially in my relationships with women (which were already a problem, I won't argue). My marriage was so bad that it would take a book to describe. I don't care to get the final word or continue personal attacks here so I'll let you have it.

I appreciate your perspective and points, but apparently you didn't go through my divorce in the "no fault" state of Oregon (actually getting re-litigated now). Also, there is no actual marriage contract, just marriage law that nobody seems to understand before signing up. And cheating is not the only form of marital abuse. Other forms can be very difficult to prove in court, but most divorce cases never reach court. BTW, you definitely don't seem like a very happy person.

You are clearly reading the voices in your own head into my words.

> how much about yourself that you're outing.

You seem to be generalizing.

> You think if someone fucks around on you, it should affect how the marital resources are divided?

Yes, because it’s basically breach of contract, and very psychologically damaging to the cheated and the children. Without some other agreement, marriage implies monogamy.

> The natural thing to do is to divide evenly. You're the one that needs to make a point for why it shouldn't be that way.

Because the contributions were not equal and one person breached the contract.

> like you're trying to justify your archaic concept of barely-not-chattel marriage with a veneer of progressiveness.

This is completely inaccurate; I cannot understand how you reach this conclusion from what I wrote.

Thanks, I seem to have interpreted differently and appreciate your explanation more than just being told to seek counseling.

I'm seriously having trouble understanding your perspective, but I enjoy arguing. Why do you think I need counseling? You seem to assume a lot about me. My point was that the cheater (or liar, or thief, or various other forms of treachery) is at fault, which should influence the algorithm, but does not. Can you refute that point? And BTW, male is not the only gender that cheats (or lies, or steals, or conducts various other forms of treachery), and sex is not the only form of cheating.

You're not counting the cost of the television used as a monitor. My brothers and I had to replace used black and white televisions occasionally until my dad finally let us have his old Trinitron, which was another amazing piece of hardware for its time.

My favorite C64 cartridge was definitely the RAM expander, though I think it may have added some other capabilities that I never used. Jumpman was a close second.

Yo read me exactly wrong. In a no fault state, the court is too cheap and lazy to try divorce as a case and divides the assets basically by algorithm regardless of who cheated. That being said, someone in a happy marriage doesn't cheat. So just end the marriage before seeing someone else. People often stay in bad marriages for the wrong reasons, such as fear or financial or thinking it's in the best interest of the children. Marriage is a problem and divorce is a problem, which are reasons that the younger generations avoid it. Marriage seems to have become a legacy concept, like the American dream itself.

Op doesn't necessarily hate women. In no fault states, divorce is generally unfair to the person that didn't lie, cheat, and steal. In this case, genders are irrelevant and exec deserves to lose because there is clear fault.

I have some Lao but can't figure out tones and vowel durations (let alone spelling or even characters, with vowels being out of order with consonants) even after spending years in the country, and the consonant sounds that don't exist in English are still impossible for me to make. Thai is even harder, IMHO. Should have leaned Sanskrit first I guess.

Original comment intended as a joke due to this very issue in America and likely elsewhere.

Two words: Golden phones.

Good point. WHO books with the carrier today? They want the booking engines to apply their policies? GLWT.

Which trains?

I knew most of this but learned a bit from you. My use of penultimate was actually an attempt at a joke in this case. English is certainly confusing as a second language sometimes, especially for those coming from languages with no articles, mininal genders, very few tenses, significant assumed context (sentences that don't require subjects or objects), and so forth. I don't understand why English needs both flammable and inflammable. Things like this are at least one source of confusion. Time for Newspeak?