Today's moving day.  After three years with a woman I care for a lot, 
the first year was fabulous, second year was very good and the third 
year (after she asked me to move in with her), well, that's another 
story.

She had seemed so caring and accepting of my foibles in the beginning.  
But after I moved in acceptance turned to impatience and intolerance.  
Compassion was hard to come by.  I stuck around another year, including 
several months in couples counseling, trying to find common ground.  
But as time went on it just became more and more clear that we were 
mismatched.

Ah, well, live and learn, do the best you can and don't regret.  Look 
and move forward.  And that's what I'm doing.

I'm also looking forward to making money again, so that I can visit the 
UK in the not-too-distant future.

Stu

In message , Stuart Bronstein
wrote:

> Ah, well, live and learn, do the best you can and don't regret.  Look
> and move forward.  And that's what I'm doing.
> 
Life suck, but yes, we all have to move on.

> I'm also looking forward to making money again, so that I can visit the
> UK in the not-too-distant future.
> 
You'll need to earn a lot of it then, have you seen the exchange rate
recently?
-- 
Dave
mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org
So many gadgets, so little time

, Dave {Reply Address in.Sig}
:
> In message , Stuart Bronstein
> wrote:
>
>> Ah, well, live and learn, do the best you can and don't regret.  Look
>> and move forward.  And that's what I'm doing.
>> 
> Life suck, but yes, we all have to move on.
>
>> I'm also looking forward to making money again, so that I can visit the
>> UK in the not-too-distant future.
>> 
> You'll need to earn a lot of it then, have you seen the exchange rate
> recently?

It is not famous for the dollar...

Stuart Bronstein  writes
>
>I'm also looking forward to making money again, so that I can visit the
>UK in the not-too-distant future.
>
>Stu

That would be great Stu, I think I already said that privately.
Got a spare room here, buddy...

Commiseration about the relationship, our solution is we just don't live 
together.     I couldn't live with anyone else now, I don't think.
Too set in my ways, too organised, and when I try to organise other 
folks they don't like it.
-- 
Gordon H
(Remove "Invalid" to reply)

Gordon H wrote:

> Commiseration about the relationship, our solution is we just
> don't live together.     I couldn't live with anyone else now, I
> don't think. Too set in my ways, too organised, and when I try to
> organise other folks they don't like it.

That's sort of the problem.  I don't need to organize anyone else, but 
I don't want them to organize me, either.

Stu

Stuart Bronstein  writes
>Gordon H wrote:
>
>> Commiseration about the relationship, our solution is we just
>> don't live together.     I couldn't live with anyone else now, I
>> don't think. Too set in my ways, too organised, and when I try to
>> organise other folks they don't like it.
>
>That's sort of the problem.  I don't need to organize anyone else, but
>I don't want them to organize me, either.
>
>Stu
>
Simple example.
Next door is a widow, 75 y/old, very nice lady, but husband "took care 
of everything" until he died a couple of years ago.

She worries me when she leaves the house in daylight, and returns after 
dark to an obviously empty house.

So I fixed a time switch to switch on a light in the hallway, and switch 
it off around the time she goes to bed.   (Her husband had several such 
devices around the house for when they both went out).

A few days later I was in the house and found that she had unplugged the 
timer, so I made a few noises and set it up again.
After this happened about four times I have given up...
How does her brain work?
-- 
Gordon H
(Remove "Invalid" to reply)

In message , Stuart 
Bronstein  writes
>Gordon H wrote:
>
>> Commiseration about the relationship, our solution is we just
>> don't live together.     I couldn't live with anyone else now, I
>> don't think. Too set in my ways, too organised, and when I try to
>> organise other folks they don't like it.
>
>That's sort of the problem.  I don't need to organize anyone else, but
>I don't want them to organize me, either.
>
Why don't you buy them some Hammond stock, then they can ORGANize that.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

I'll get me coat.
-- 
Loretta
A smile, a song, and a bucket of lard.

in message , Stuart Bronstein
('spamtrap@lexregia.com') wrote:

> Gordon H wrote:
> 
>> Commiseration about the relationship, our solution is we just
>> don't live together.     I couldn't live with anyone else now, I
>> don't think. Too set in my ways, too organised, and when I try to
>> organise other folks they don't like it.
> 
> That's sort of the problem.  I don't need to organize anyone else, but
> I don't want them to organize me, either.

The 'play together, don't live together' solution has a lot of benefits.
The downside is the cost of running two homes.

-- 
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

                [ This mind intentionally left blank ]

, Simon Brooke :

>
> The 'play together, don't live together' solution has a lot of benefits.
> The downside is the cost of running two homes.

and sleeping alone when the weather is cold.

Simon Brooke  writes
>in message , Stuart Bronstein
>('spamtrap@lexregia.com') wrote:
>
>> Gordon H wrote:
>>
>>> Commiseration about the relationship, our solution is we just
>>> don't live together.     I couldn't live with anyone else now, I
>>> don't think. Too set in my ways, too organised, and when I try to
>>> organise other folks they don't like it.
>>
>> That's sort of the problem.  I don't need to organize anyone else, but
>> I don't want them to organize me, either.
>
>The 'play together, don't live together' solution has a lot of benefits.
>The downside is the cost of running two homes.
>
If she moved in here, I would lose my 25% Council Tax relief, and she 
would lose her pension credit.    If I died before her, my children 
would have a sitting tenant in their inherited house.

If we married, she would get half my company pension if I died, but that 
would exclude her from some benefits to which she is entitled if she 
lived alone again.

It's a complicated calculation, and there is the question of whether she 
would batter me to death with the cast iron frying pan if I refused to 
eat the poisoned mushrooms.
;-)
-- 
Gordon H
(Remove "Invalid" to reply)

<tDOB9JJqthLHFwL7@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid>, Gordon H :
> S
>
> It's a complicated calculation, and there is the question of whether she 
> would batter me to death with the cast iron frying pan if I refused to 
> eat the poisoned mushrooms.

:D

Michèle  writes
> <tDOB9JJqthLHFwL7@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid>, Gordon H :
>> S
>>
>> It's a complicated calculation, and there is the question of whether she
>> would batter me to death with the cast iron frying pan if I refused to
>> eat the poisoned mushrooms.
>
>:D
>
You heard that joke, did you?   :)
-- 
Gordon H
(Remove "Invalid" to reply)

Gordon H wrote:
> Simon Brooke  writes
>> in message , Stuart 
>> Bronstein
>> ('spamtrap@lexregia.com') wrote:
>>
>>> Gordon H wrote:
>>>
>>>> Commiseration about the relationship, our solution is we just
>>>> don't live together.     I couldn't live with anyone else now, I
>>>> don't think. Too set in my ways, too organised, and when I try to
>>>> organise other folks they don't like it.
>>>
>>> That's sort of the problem.  I don't need to organize anyone else, but
>>> I don't want them to organize me, either.
>>
>> The 'play together, don't live together' solution has a lot of benefits.
>> The downside is the cost of running two homes.
>>
> If she moved in here, I would lose my 25% Council Tax relief, and she 
> would lose her pension credit.    If I died before her, my children 
> would have a sitting tenant in their inherited house.
> 
> If we married, she would get half my company pension if I died, but that 
> would exclude her from some benefits to which she is entitled if she 
> lived alone again.

That is a fairly cold hearted analysis, particularly considered in the 
light of Michele's previous comment...



-- 
John Wright

This sig for rent

In message , John Wright 
 writes
>Gordon H wrote:
>> Simon Brooke  writes
>>> in message , Stuart 
>>>Bronstein
>>> ('spamtrap@lexregia.com') wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gordon H wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Commiseration about the relationship, our solution is we just
>>>>> don't live together.     I couldn't live with anyone else now, I
>>>>> don't think. Too set in my ways, too organised, and when I try to
>>>>> organise other folks they don't like it.
>>>>
>>>> That's sort of the problem.  I don't need to organize anyone else, but
>>>> I don't want them to organize me, either.
>>>
>>> The 'play together, don't live together' solution has a lot of benefits.
>>> The downside is the cost of running two homes.
>>>
>> If she moved in here, I would lose my 25% Council Tax relief, and she 
>>would lose her pension credit.    If I died before her, my children 
>>would have a sitting tenant in their inherited house.
>>  If we married, she would get half my company pension if I died, but 
>>that  would exclude her from some benefits to which she is entitled if 
>>she  lived alone again.
>
>That is a fairly cold hearted analysis, particularly considered in the 
>light of Michele's previous comment...
>
Trouble is, some of us are just died-in-the-wool romantics...and some of 
us live in the real world, where people consider assets more valuable 
than feelings.

That's probably why I'm poor.
-- 
Loretta
A smile, a song, and a bucket of lard.

John Wright  writes
>Gordon H wrote:
>> Simon Brooke  writes
>>> in message , Stuart 
>>>Bronstein
>>> ('spamtrap@lexregia.com') wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gordon H wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Commiseration about the relationship, our solution is we just
>>>>> don't live together.     I couldn't live with anyone else now, I
>>>>> don't think. Too set in my ways, too organised, and when I try to
>>>>> organise other folks they don't like it.
>>>>
>>>> That's sort of the problem.  I don't need to organize anyone else, but
>>>> I don't want them to organize me, either.
>>>
>>> The 'play together, don't live together' solution has a lot of benefits.
>>> The downside is the cost of running two homes.
>>>
>> If she moved in here, I would lose my 25% Council Tax relief, and she 
>>would lose her pension credit.    If I died before her, my children 
>>would have a sitting tenant in their inherited house.
>>  If we married, she would get half my company pension if I died, but 
>>that  would exclude her from some benefits to which she is entitled if 
>>she  lived alone again.
>
>That is a fairly cold hearted analysis, particularly considered in the 
>light of Michele's previous comment...
>
Errr, which comment of Michele's?

It is a pragmatic analysis.    Our relationship is a mutually supportive 
one at age 73, not a romantic one!
-- 
Gordon H
(Remove "Invalid" to reply)

Gordon H wrote:
> John Wright  writes
>> Gordon H wrote:
>>> Simon Brooke  writes
>>>> in message , Stuart 
>>>> Bronstein
>>>> ('spamtrap@lexregia.com') wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gordon H wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Commiseration about the relationship, our solution is we just
>>>>>> don't live together.     I couldn't live with anyone else now, I
>>>>>> don't think. Too set in my ways, too organised, and when I try to
>>>>>> organise other folks they don't like it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's sort of the problem.  I don't need to organize anyone else, but
>>>>> I don't want them to organize me, either.
>>>>
>>>> The 'play together, don't live together' solution has a lot of 
>>>> benefits.
>>>> The downside is the cost of running two homes.
>>>>
>>> If she moved in here, I would lose my 25% Council Tax relief, and she 
>>> would lose her pension credit.    If I died before her, my children 
>>> would have a sitting tenant in their inherited house.
>>>  If we married, she would get half my company pension if I died, but 
>>> that  would exclude her from some benefits to which she is entitled 
>>> if she  lived alone again.
>>
>> That is a fairly cold hearted analysis, particularly considered in the 
>> light of Michele's previous comment...
>>
> Errr, which comment of Michele's?

The one where she said (and I quote) "and sleeping alone when the 
weather is cold." Not sleeping alone when the weather is cold makes up 
for a lot.

> It is a pragmatic analysis.    Our relationship is a mutually supportive 
> one at age 73, not a romantic one!

Its as bald as Alastair Darling on the radio!
-- 
John Wright

This sig for rent

"Loretta"  wrote in message
news:uwA3QYAAalLHFwoV@trawley.demon.co.uk...

> Trouble is, some of us are just died-in-the-wool romantics...

I rather hope not.

Guy

In message <%VUXi.58195$7_4.26811@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Guy Barry 
 writes
>
>"Loretta"  wrote in message
>news:uwA3QYAAalLHFwoV@trawley.demon.co.uk...
>
>> Trouble is, some of us are just died-in-the-wool romantics...
>
>I rather hope not.
>
Well, horses for courses as the French say (usually before the entree).
-- 
Loretta
A smile, a song, and a bucket of lard.

In article ,
 Loretta  wrote:

> Trouble is, some of us are just died-in-the-wool romantics

I hope to die in rayon.

--S

In message , Susan <someone$@llondel.org> 
writes
>In article ,
> Loretta  wrote:
>
>> Trouble is, some of us are just died-in-the-wool romantics
>
>I hope to die in rayon.
>
Ain't that just sarf of Orlando?
-- 
Loretta
A smile, a song, and a bucket of lard.

Susan <someone$@llondel.org> writes
>In article ,
> Loretta  wrote:
>
>> Trouble is, some of us are just died-in-the-wool romantics
>
>I hope to die in rayon.
>
>--S

I wouldn't like to die when it was sonny either.
-- 
Gordon H
(Remove "Invalid" to reply)