Divorce Number 3 Turning Nasty For Rudy Giuliani

[_Chap]

Your contribution to the thread is garbage.

Serious anger issues here? Something odd, anyway.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Your contribution to the thread is garbage.

Serious anger issues here? Something odd, anyway.

Yes, certainly, says the passive-aggressive pillow who swoops into a nice moment to make some sort or weird out-of-left-field comment and then is too cowardly to explain himself.

So. We now have three identifiable traits that make for terrible fathers:

1) Passive-aggressiveness.

2) Bitchiness.

3) Cowardice.

- Doc

eta: Whenever Chap shows up to a thread:

https://Twitter.com/Twitter/statuses/992921342881271810

[_Chap]

Your contribution to the thread is garbage.

Serious anger issues here? Something odd, anyway.

Yes, certainly, says the passive-aggressive pillow who swoops into a nice moment to make some sort or weird out-of-left-field comment and then is too cowardly to explain himself.

So. We now have three identifiable traits that make for terrible fathers:

1) Passive-aggressiveness.

2) Bitchiness.

3) Cowardice.

- Doc

eta: Whenever Chap shows up to a thread:

https://Twitter.com/Twitter/statuses/992921342881271810

What on earth is all this about?

I commented on a post by someone else as follows:

My daughter who is a school counselor says a father is his daughters first boyfriend. You[r] daughter will find a man one day who is like you.

Erm ... whether I would recommend that a daughter should look for someone like her father might depend on the father ...

That's pretty damn obvious, isn't it? There are plenty of frankly nasty guys around, and some of them have daughters. I'd hope that the poor girls would NOT end up selecting partners who resembled their dads.

And now we have all this weird stuff from DrC. God only knows why.

Oh well, it's how he passes the time, I suppose ...

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Since our resident passive-aggressive sleepyhead is positively apoplectic when someone asks a clarifying question here's a gif that probably makes more sense than his contributions on this thread today:

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/EQsMeSg

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

Oh? What kind of father would that be?

- Doc

You've had daughters, and you've never seen any men you would prefer them to stay away from? Weird.

(Oh, perhaps it wasn't a real question - you were just looking for a pointless trolling opportunity?)

Here is what your reply would have looked like were you interested in forwarding discussion.

You've had daughters, and you've never seen any men you would prefer them to stay away from?

You blew it with that last line.

You're welcome.

[_Gunnar]

Is it because your marriage is legally sanctioned by your state via licensure, etc? Would your relationship have diminished had you not sought legisaltive endorsement ?

Probably not, but how could I say for sure?. The important thing was my decision to spend the rest of my life with her and have children with her. It was just that since we were both TBMs at the time, establishing a marriage relationship with her without legal sanction via licensure was unthinkable for both of us.

[_Chap]

You blew it with that last line.

You could be right, in terms of it being the factor that led to ignition of DrC's personal fuse. But when he asked

Oh? What kind of father would that be?

in response to my comment that:

...whether I would recommend that a daughter should look for someone like her father might depend on the father

The question seemed so completely pointless (I mean, obviously there are fathers who you would not like to see a girl using as a model for a future partner) that I could not see why else he would ask it except as a trolling time wasting exercise. I mean, what was there to discuss?

On reflection, I think I can see why he got so upset: I think he took my comment as a suggestion that his own daughter would be ill-advised to use him as a model in looking for a partner, which was not my intention at all (I don't have any personal knowledge of him to enable me to decide such a question one way or another). That's the only reason I can think of for the subsequent melt-down.

[_honorentheos]

It's because he extended an olive branch to Ajax over the apparent love his daughter has for him, Chap. Clearly. And it read like you were negating that. Cam is fairly obviously asking you to walk back from implicating Ajax with your comment. Suggesting it was because Cam is insecure? Seems pretty far off the mark as well.

[_DrW]

It's because he extended an olive branch to Ajax over the apparent love his daughter has for him, Chap. Clearly. And it read like you were negating that. Cam is fairly obviously asking you to walk back from implicating Ajax with your comment. Suggesting it was because Cam is insecure? Pretty far off the mark as well.

Honor,

Thank you for posting your interpretation above of Chap's earlier comment. As mentioned before, I certainly count you among the more fair minded and empathetic posters here on MDB.

In the interest of balance, however, I did not take Chap's comment in question in the way you suggested. In fact, I was at a loss to understand Doc Cam's response to Chap until I read your possible interpretation above.

I sincerely doubt that Chap intended his comment to be taken as you suggested, or as Doc Cam apparently interpreted it. Nothing from Chap that I have read on this board has come across as mean spirited or passive aggressive, in any way, as far as I can see.

As in your case, Chap is one of the contributors whose posts I always try to read when I see his screen name pop up on the content screen.

Perhaps he should be cut a bit of slack on this one.

[_Maksutov]

It's because he extended an olive branch to Ajax over the apparent love his daughter has for him, Chap. Clearly. And it read like you were negating that. Cam is fairly obviously asking you to walk back from implicating Ajax with your comment. Suggesting it was because Cam is insecure? Pretty far off the mark as well.

Honor,

Thank you for posting your interpretation above of Chap's earlier comment. As mentioned before, I certainly count you among the more fair minded and empathetic posters here on MormonDiscussions.com.

In the interest of balance, however, I did not take Chap's comment in question in the way you suggested. In fact, I was at a loss to understand Doc Cam's response to Chap until I read your possible interpretation above.

I sincerely doubt that Chap intended his comment to be taken as you suggested, or as Doc Cam apparently interpreted it. Nothing from Chap that I have read on this board has come across as mean spirited or passive aggressive, in any way, as far as I can see.

As in your case, Chap is one of the contributors whose posts I always try to read when I see his screen name pop up on the content screen.

Perhaps he should be cut a bit of slack on this one.

Chap and Doc are two of my favorite people. I'll just eyeroll through this one.