I appreciate the apology and gladly accept.

"I do think she's somewhat to blame here."

You really are blaming her! When you say "This is fishy to me" or "You can't cry fouls after months!" (Because we all know no one who is abused or mentally ill is ever unaware of that fact until they reflect on the situation in a calm and sane state. Sigh.) You ARE blaming her for the situation when you says things…

When I first saw the title and artwork I thought they were remaking Highlander for a second.

Where the hell is Patrick Stewart?! Seriously, what is wrong with you?

I'd agree that donating to these campaigns is probably not the best way to help this man and his dog, but you clearly know very little about retiring service animals. Almost without exception, service animals who work in the US with police and military receive life-long pensions for their care. The expectation is that…

I do see a problem when the insurance company treats a companion animal like a disposal medical device. I think that's can fairly be labelled evil or heartless - especially if this is an arbitrary forced retirement - rather than a decision made by owner and vet about the dog's current capacity for the work. The fact…

Ugh. I knew there was a reason I never jumped on the Bloom bandwagon.

My mother worked in health care with a lot of people who had service animals, and one of my sisters is studying to train service animals for people with disabilities, so I wouldn't say I know too much. Just a lot of exposure.

Orlando needs to retire, he's almost 11 which is rather old for a working service dog of his breed. He will not longer be able to serve as Cecil's service animal, so the insurance will not longer cover Orlando's food and care - it's implied that the insurance will cover the new service animal's on-going cost, which…

And the flip-side of this is, him getting off the phone and giving her a big grateful hug for helping him get his ducks in a row to say some things to his two old friends he hadn't had the balls to say.

I'm only jumping in because you started your comment with "as an agonistic", because I want to give you something to consider when you are defending Jesus as a generally great guy.

She didn't offer prayers. She offered an insult and an condemnation.

Ugh. I don't get how someone could say "Mean people need Jesus" without realizing that packed into that sentiment is "You can't be good without God" and even worse, "People who cross me deserve Hell."

I don't think the desire for your time or involvement (excessive as it might be) qualifies as 'needy' by itself. That's not a good definition at all. The 'needy' comes into play when someone demands their requirements be met, while refusing to negotiate or listen to their partners needs or opinions.

Um, if they have an arrangement, or an agreement for non-monogamy in their marriage, then it's not cheating. Cheating still sucks.

So, I don't claim to really 'get' libertarianism, but I'm pretty sure that if the law is the only thing stopping Paul from killing someone, neither does he.

I think we are on the same page, and I certainly could have been a bit more specific in my first comment that I was addressing the cyberbullying behaviour, not the 'blaming the other woman' issue in general. The only thing I would say is that although I agree with you that directing your anger and hurt at the wrong…

I'm holding these women responsible for their cyberbullying. They are culpable for that, and I am blaming them for it. You are absolutely right that blaming the other women is easier. It is still wrong. The common reaction isn't made acceptable, or moral, just because it's common or understandable.

Because blaming their partner would mean they might actually need to *gasp* change something about their own lives, relationships, choices or living arrangements?