Thursday, September 6, 2012

4 x 100 again

Short on time; here we go.

L1: Interesting that this sort of issue would arise after forty years of marriage. In one respect, this could be as innocent as Richard Sackbutt's mother inviting a homeless woman home for the night, only this has turned into an extended stay, which is a number of steps too far. Perhaps decades of ministering have not had a good effect on H1, who has taken it on himself to assume more authority than is good for him. Perhaps, too, LW1 and H1 have let spousal communication fall into such a state of disrepair that this problem is more symptom than cause.

L3: This could be a technical question. To what extent does the Jewish faith play a central role in this question? It could be a great deal. Odd that all the tales of the Old Bailey contain no open Jews, when there are many lawyers and judges as openly Christian as Soapy Sam Ballard. My main question here is why LW3 would assume that she couldn't ask BF3 about the non-invitation. Under what kind of code are these families operating that everything done must proceed under such a veil of secrecy and second-guessing of motivations rather than open discussion? How Venetian.

L4: The answer is secondarily about the dog and primarily about the human relationship. As far as the dog is concerned, if stepparent were more accurate than co-parent, then a significant but unequal contribution would be quite in order. Co-parent could go either way, but the human relationship is probably more to the point. What is the couple's overall financial style? How does money affect their general decision-making process and influence? What does this request tell LW4 about BF4's conduct and character? Where is the relationship going? Do both parties agree? There is much too little information provided by LW4 here.

L2: I call a foul on the Prudecutor here. Nobody who suggested Operation Brokeback Ambush in deadly seriousness can make any sort of claim about being all twisted up inside over military witch hunts. At most, the Prudecutor did what Mr Knightley suggests Emma did during the four years when she was supposedly labouring to bring about the match between Mr Weston and Miss Taylor, that she just had a stray thought to that effect one day and repeated it to herself every so often. A case can be made for staying, but on balance leaving wins. My sympathies to LW2.

No comments:

Post a Comment