Yeah, blame the isp

[Ebere]

Granted, there are some pretty slimy practices out there, by ISPs...

But to blame the ISP for problems in your personal life, that you yourself brought about ?

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/810236--toronto-woman-sues-rogers-after-her-affair-is-exposed?bn=1

She screwed up. (And maybe a few other directions)

And she wants to blame somone/anyone else...

Idiot.

[iponeverything]

The husband was probably just looking for an excuse to bail. The fact that he didn't do anything to try save a marriage with two kids, tells me that he didn't want to be part of it any more anyway.

I think that she did him a favour by cheating on him and giving him an easy out, he gets to walk out and not look like a jerk..

As unfortunate as the breakup is, I feel that it would have happened regardless of her infidelity.. secret or not.

[98cwitr]

The husband was probably just looking for an excuse to bail. The fact that he didn't do anything to try save a marriage with two kids, tells me that he didn't want to be part of it any more anyway.

I think that she did him a favour by cheating on him and giving him an easy out, he gets to walk out and not look like a jerk..

As unfortunate as the breakup is, I feel that it would have happened regardless of her infidelity.. secret or not.

wow, how did you deduce such a claim?

[pwnst*r]

Haha, what a complete ****


Nagy is deeply embarrassed and ashamed about what happened. “It was a mistake,” she said of the affair. “But I didn’t deserve to lose my life over it.”

Yes, you did. Lol.

[iponeverything]

wow, how did you deduce such a claim?

Many marriages survive infidelity. The article said that she had to confront him after he had all ready left to find out how he found out. If any attempt to the salvage the relationship had been done, she would have known this information.

Call me a romantic but I think that if a relationship is otherwise fairly healthy, it would take a bit more effort to shatter it.

[sydbat]

Many marriages survive infidelity. The article said that she had to confront him after he had all ready left to find out how he found out. If any attempt to the salvage the relationship had been done, she would have known this information.

Call me a romantic but I think that if a relationship is otherwise fairly healthy, it would take a bit more effort to shatter it.WOW.

The fact that she CHEATED on her husband should be the clue here that NOTHING was going right in their marriage and it would not have survived at all in the first place. Blaming the husband because the wife cheated is pretty strange logic.

Back on topic - I read this yesterday too and thought "WTH??" I am getting tired of people blaming others for their own problems. I hope that IF this gets as far as a trial, the judge simply throws it out and makes the woman pay all the court costs and a fine for wasting the courts time.

[McRat]

If the cable company actually did make an honest mistake, they can be liable for monies that were paid to them. But not always. One version says Dad said "yes" when they called to merge accounts to save money. I wonder where Mom was when the call came?

It's like if she was going to a final job interview, and called a cab. The cab driver went to the wrong address, so she was late and didn't get the job. She can sue for the cab fare, not the lost job.

I do get a kick out of anyone who blames the husband. Apparently he was clueless:

She blames all her problems on others with a vengence.
She's the type who would risk her children's welfare to get some strange stuff.

He apparently was in love or a masochist.

Unless she was doing the guy with her kids watching, she was leaving Dad home with the kids, lying about where she was going, and trying to catch a veneral disease.

I guess it's her turn to watch the kids while dad goes out to play.

If the shoe was on the other foot, Dad caught cheating because Mom finds evidence, Mom leaves Dad with the kids, Dad loses his job over it, I don't think there would be anyone blaming Mom.

[McRat]

I do crack up over this though:

She holds a Cable Telephone Contract in higher regard than a Marriage Contract.

A lawyer is slimy enough to take such a case when he is supposed to protect the rule of law. No wonder nobody thinks much of modern lawyers.

[98cwitr]

Many marriages survive infidelity. The article said that she had to confront him after he had all ready left to find out how he found out. If any attempt to the salvage the relationship had been done, she would have known this information.

Call me a romantic but I think that if a relationship is otherwise fairly healthy, it would take a bit more effort to shatter it.

many marriages survive infidelity because of codependency, insecurity, fiscal and social responsibilities.

No self-respecting man is going to stay with a woman that cheats. Period.

Fact is that the justice system in the US is totally skewed towards the female spouse.

1. She cheats
2. You divorce her
3. She gets the kids
4. You pay child support and alimony

Where is justice in this? I'd get an awesome attorney and get half of HER stuff, the kids, and then she'll have to pay me. I don't take matters like this lightly. It's marriage...not a circus.

[abhibharti]

Lol...what should I say. The lady already said everything.

[Viva]

many marriages survive infidelity because of codependency, insecurity, fiscal and social responsibilities.

No self-respecting man is going to stay with a woman that cheats. Period.

Fact is that the justice system in the US is totally skewed towards the female spouse.

1. She cheats
2. You divorce her
3. She gets the kids
4. You pay child support and alimony

Where is justice in this? I'd get an awesome attorney and get half of HER stuff, the kids, and then she'll have to pay me. I don't take matters like this lightly. It's marriage...not a circus.

I'll have to disagree with that. Not every body believes in divorce.

[98cwitr]

I'll have to disagree with that. Not every body believes in divorce.

Yeah, let your spouse have an affair and then tell me that you still believe in your marriage. :roll: Keyword there is self-respecting

Kudos to the dude for walking out on the skank...serves her right.

[iponeverything]

WOW.

The fact that she CHEATED on her husband should be the clue here that NOTHING was going right in their marriage and it would not have survived at all in the first place. Blaming the husband because the wife cheated is pretty strange logic.


I was not blaming the husband. I didn't mean to give that impression. My point was that apparently there was a not strong bond between the two when this happened.

My point is that maybe there relationship was bad. Maybe they married for wrong reasons, maybe one or other was abusive or emotionally detached. Often these things don't rise a level high enough to justify walking away without looking bad.

[98cwitr]

I was not blaming the husband. I didn't mean to give that impression. My point was that apparently there was a not strong bond between the two when this happened.

My point is that maybe there relationship was bad. Maybe they married for wrong reasons, maybe one or other was abusive or emotionally detached. Often these things don't rise a level high enough to justify walking away without looking bad.

i can agree with this...

[cariboo]

This case isn't likely to get to far in the courts here in Canada. Our legal system is setup to stop frivolous lawsuits. The person doing the suing has to pay all the court costs, whether they win or lose, which includes a jury if they want one.

This stops many cases before they even get started.

[Zyrtec]

Fact is that the justice system in the US is totally skewed towards the female spouse.

1. She cheats
2. You divorce her
3. She gets the kids
4. You pay child support and alimony

Where is justice in this? I'd get an awesome attorney and get half of HER stuff, the kids, and then she'll have to pay me. I don't take matters like this lightly. It's marriage...not a circus.


This is very true, as it was the case between my parents. I don't particularly hate my mother, but I can't ever forgive her for hurting my father the way she did. As soon as I was of the age to have my own legal choice of which parent to live with, I immediately chose my father. She still took the cars and house though.


I think it would take some very extraordinary circumstances for a guy to take a woman back after her infidelity.

[gnomeuser]

I've been trying to look at the story without all the cheating. It appears she had a phone under her maiden name and when the husband consolidated their lines the company decided to bundle the separate phone with the consolidated bill.

The correct approach clearly depends entirely on the wording of the contracts. I would certainly also consider my separate line private and not considered for merging ever. It is on the same address but under a different name.

I think she is right to question that part. She did get herself into the personal mess, she also apparently ended it on her own prior to her husband finding out. I think that part though is up to them to work out and not part of the actual core of the complaint.

There are questions as to privacy that needs to be considered here and certainly I think she is entitled to compensation for the breach of confidentiality.

[iponeverything]

many marriages survive infidelity because of codependency, insecurity, fiscal and social responsibilities.

No self-respecting man is going to stay with a woman that cheats. Period.


A matter of self respect. The same words used to justify honour killings.

A self-respecting man would blindly judge another who chooses to salvage marriage that's worth saving.

[LeifAndersen]

I do crack up over this though:

She holds a Cable Telephone Contract in higher regard than a Marriage Contract.

A lawyer is slimy enough to take such a case when he is supposed to protect the rule of law. No wonder nobody thinks much of modern lawyers.

Okay...that's not fair to lawyers. I mean, it really is part of a good, healthy, judicial system, to give everyone a 'fair' (whatever 'fair' means. :roll: ) opportunity to represent their side of the story. Denying someone legal advice, etc. even when everything thus far points to them being guilty, is a very bad thing. (Or at least it seems that way to me).

[LeifAndersen]

This case isn't likely to get to far in the courts here in Canada. Our legal system is setup to stop frivolous lawsuits. The person doing the suing has to pay all the court costs, whether they win or lose, which includes a jury if they want one.

This stops many cases before they even get started.

Really? That's intriguing. I've always been of the impression that the loosing party should pay the court fees, well to a certain extent anyway. :) Although more times than not, it seems like I'm alone in that opinion. :)

[iponeverything]

I think it would take some very extraordinary circumstances for a guy to take a woman back after her infidelity.

Does it work both ways ;)

Every relationship is an entity distinct from the people in it. It is born with the first interaction of the people and it derives its nourishment solely from those people. If the parties take careful care of this entity and both take turns making sure that its happy, healthy and well nourished. It will grow to be healthy and strong.

A unhealthy tree snaps and falls during a storm. A strong one might just lose a few branches..

[Zyrtec]

I would surely hope it works both ways, if you mean that it would take some very extraordinary circumstances for a woman to take a guy back after his infidelity.

I also agree that a relationship is something that both parties need to work on -- but I don't think it's a good excuse to say "I cheated because you weren't working for this relationship" (just being general here). Problems can be addressed before taking such rash actions. If you don't want to address the problem and would rather jump to rash actions, it probably wasn't a good relationship to begin with.

[McRat]

Okay...that's not fair to lawyers. I mean, it really is part of a good, healthy, judicial system, to give everyone a 'fair' (whatever 'fair' means. :roll: ) opportunity to represent their side of the story. Denying someone legal advice, etc. even when everything thus far points to them being guilty, is a very bad thing. (Or at least it seems that way to me).

Having dealt with many lawyers (and continue to), I can say 99% of the Lawyer Jokes are based on truth. My favorite:


PETA SUPPORTS USING LAWYERS IN SCIENCE

San Franscisco (API) - There is a new bill coming before the California Legislature
concerning the use of lawyers for laboratory testing instead of rats. The author of the
bill, Ilene Toleft of PETA had this to say: "Laboratory rats are being abused for
needless medical experiments, so I propose they use lawyers for the following reasons:


Lawyers are more plentiful than rats.
The laboratory assistants never get attached to them.
There are things not even a rat will do. Lawyers have no such limits.

[98cwitr]

A matter of self respect. The same words used to justify honour killings.

A self-respecting man would blindly judge another who chooses to salvage marriage that's worth saving.

Clearly it's NOT worth saving...a man that justifies his spouses adultery has no self-respect, or is too afraid to face the repercussions.

[Frogs Hair]

It seems like a simple case of shooting the messenger .

[KiwiNZ]

No self-respecting man is going to stay with a woman that cheats. Period.

F

Rubbish

I have seen many marriages survive and go one to long ,loving and very successful marriages.

Also I love the way folks here stand in judgement without all the facts and without knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors. Amazing :rolleyes:

[iponeverything]

Clearly it's NOT worth saving...a man that justifies his spouses adultery has no self-respect, or is too afraid to face the repercussions.

It's a straw man, who said anything about justifying?

Your "self-respect" has the distinct smell of bruised ego all over it and I'm not buying it. Maybe for you things are black and white, I choose a world with a little more depth.

[98cwitr]

I have seen many marriages survive and go one to long ,loving and very successful marriages.



I have too...and none of them involved infidelity.


It's a straw man, who said anything about justifying?

Your "self-respect" has the distinct smell of bruised ego all over it and I'm not buying it. Maybe for you things are black and white, I choose a world with a little more depth.

I deduced from your previous post that "...another who chooses to salvage marriage that's worth saving" has thus that man has justified himself in staying in the marriage.

No bruised ego here, just a sense of moral obligation.

[KiwiNZ]

I have too...and none of them involved infidelity.

I have , seen many. That is what I was saying.

[KiwiNZ]

Intransigent self-righteous attitudes are a greater risk to a marriage than an affair.

[98cwitr]

I have , seen many. That is what I was saying.

You said loving and successful, but by what standards?

[KiwiNZ]

On the subject of the Cellphone account the Carrier had no right to redirect the accounts with out the consent of the account holder . As she was the party that the contract was entered into with they had a contractual obligation to seek her approval first.

[McRat]

A pragmatic view...

In an era with lethal venereal diseases, draconian alimony, biased custody laws, non-fatherhood-based child-support laws, and lack of reproductive rights for men, it's more than a hurt ego, it makes financial and family-support sense to draw the line when a spouse desires to reproduce with others.

It's simple biology combined with current law.

Any man who tolerates infidelity is either ignorant of the law, mentally deranged (love-sick), or has such low self-esteem that he believes raising other men's children or dying of their VD is the best he can do if he wants a woman.

[KiwiNZ]

On the subject of the Cellphone account the Carrier had no right to redirect the accounts with out the consent of the account holder . As she was the party that the contract was entered into with they had a contractual obligation to seek her approval first

[LeifAndersen]

Having dealt with many lawyers (and continue to), I can say 99% of the Lawyer Jokes are based on truth. My favorite:


PETA SUPPORTS USING LAWYERS IN SCIENCE

San Franscisco (API) - There is a new bill coming before the California Legislature
concerning the use of lawyers for laboratory testing instead of rats. The author of the
bill, Ilene Toleft of PETA had this to say: "Laboratory rats are being abused for
needless medical experiments, so I propose they use lawyers for the following reasons:


Lawyers are more plentiful than rats.
The laboratory assistants never get attached to them.
There are things not even a rat will do. Lawyers have no such limits.


Right, just like I can say more Linux user jokes are based on truth?: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F6E2A4B6FB36CF8A
(or my favorite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajW2fDy41fY )

Having dealt with, and continuing to deal with, lawyers, I can agree, just like I agree with those (as I was once very similar to the guy in the second link)).

Still, that doesn't make lawyers bad people, even ones that take the 'obviously wrong party'.

[98cwitr]

Intransigent self-righteous attitudes are a greater risk to a marriage than an affair.

I agree...thankfully just because someone is unwilling to compromise with infidelity does not mean they are unable to compromise in other situations :popcorn:

[KiwiNZ]

You said loving and successful, but by what standards?

Many that have survived affairs and gone on to be very successful loving marriages

[98cwitr]

Many that have that have survived affairs and gone one to be very successful loving marriages

what? How does that even begin to answer the question proposed?

[lisati]

on the subject of the cellphone account the carrier had no right to redirect the accounts with out the consent of the account holder . As she was the party that the contract was entered into with they had a contractual obligation to seek her approval first

+1

[iponeverything]

A pragmatic view...

In an era with lethal venereal diseases, draconian alimony, biased custody laws, non-fatherhood-based child-support laws, and lack of reproductive rights for men, it's more than a hurt ego, it makes financial and family-support sense to draw the line when a spouse desires to reproduce with others.

It's simple biology combined with current law.

Any man who tolerates infidelity is either ignorant of the law, mentally deranged (love-sick), or has such low self-esteem that he believes raising other men's children or dying of their VD is the best he can do if he wants a woman.

I like this, you didn't use morality as part of your argument. ;)

[KiwiNZ]

what? How does that even begin to answer the question proposed?

If you do not know what a loving a successful marriage is , hmm , you will have some problems

[98cwitr]

If you do not know what a loving a successful marriage is , hmm , you will have some problems

loving and successful are measured by way of opinion (or social influence). Your idea of loving and successful could be very different from mine.

[McRat]

On the subject of the Cellphone account the Carrier had no right to redirect the accounts with out the consent of the account holder . As she was the party that the contract was entered into with they had a contractual obligation to seek her approval first

And boy do I hate those laws. What a SERIOUS PITA for those who aren't trying to sue or cheat on their spouses.

One more time, the slimeballs dictate how normal people must act.

Try to get the fixed IP number...

"SORRY, ONLY MRS. MCSWAIN IS ON THE ACCOUNT!"

Try to get a bill corrected.

"SORRY ONLY YOUR HUSBAND CAN DO THAT!!!"
:rolleyes:

I think ladies like the one who filed that frivolous lawsuit owe me about 100 labor hours of lost work because jerks like that cost me money/time on a continuing basis. Just yesterday it happened again. Could not kill a DSL account because my wife was on the other phone talking to a customer.

Oh wait. I don't sue people for stupid reasons. Sorry.:P

For you younguns, it didn't always used to be like that. Husbands and wives used to share responsibilities for the family. They didn't need to have separate lawyers to talk at the dinner table with each other. Ah, the good 'ol days...

[iponeverything]

It's a straw man, who said anything about justifying


Clearly it's NOT worth saving...a man that justifies his spouses adultery has no self-respect, or is too afraid to face the repercussions.

a man that justifies his spouses adultery



I deduced from your previous post that "...another who chooses to salvage marriage that's worth saving" has thus that man has justified himself in staying in the marriage.

justified himself in staying in the marriage.


Mix and match, whatever works.

[KiwiNZ]

And boy do I hate those laws. What a SERIOUS PITA for those who aren't trying to sue or cheat on their spouses.

One more time, the slimeballs dictate how normal people must act.

Try to get the fixed IP number...

"SORRY, ONLY MRS. MCSWAIN IS ON THE ACCOUNT!"

Try to get a bill corrected.

"SORRY ONLY YOUR HUSBAND CAN DO THAT!!!"
:rolleyes:

I think ladies like the one who filed that frivolous lawsuit owe me about 100 labor hours of lost work because jerks like that cost me money/time on a continuing basis. Just yesterday it happened again. Could not kill a DSL account because my wife was on the other phone talking to a customer.

Oh wait. I don't sue people for stupid reasons. Sorry.:P

For you younguns, it didn't always used to be like that. Husbands and wives used to share responsibilities for the family. They didn't need to have separate lawyers to talk at the dinner table with each other. Ah, the good 'ol days...

The laws are there to protect the providers and the consumers alike.

[McRat]

The laws are there to protect the providers and the consumers alike.

Not sure. I think they are there so lawyers can get 50-90% of silly lawsuits, but I could be wrong.

Those laws do nothing to protect me and my family. Exactly the opposite. In a worse case scenario they could cause serious harm to married couples if one is not available.

[KiwiNZ]

Not sure. I think they are there so lawyers can get 50-90% of silly lawsuits, but I could be wrong.

Those laws do nothing to protect me and my family. Exactly the opposite. In a worse case scenario they could cause serious harm to married couples if one is not available.

If not in place anyone could ring up your provider change the terms of your contract and you are stung with a huge bill.

[Viva]

A pragmatic view...

In an era with lethal venereal diseases, draconian alimony, biased custody laws, non-fatherhood-based child-support laws, and lack of reproductive rights for men, it's more than a hurt ego, it makes financial and family-support sense to draw the line when a spouse desires to reproduce with others.

It's simple biology combined with current law.

Any man who tolerates infidelity is either ignorant of the law, mentally deranged (love-sick), or has such low self-esteem that he believes raising other men's children or dying of their VD is the best he can do if he wants a woman.

or believes that God doesn't approve divorce?:rolleyes:

[McRat]

or believes that God doesn't approve divorce?:rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure God doesn't approve of a lot of things that lawyers say is OK; divorce is just one of them.

When I see her, I'll ask.

[KiwiNZ]

A pragmatic view...

In an era with lethal venereal diseases, draconian alimony, biased custody laws, non-fatherhood-based child-support laws, and lack of reproductive rights for men, it's more than a hurt ego, it makes financial and family-support sense to draw the line when a spouse desires to reproduce with others.

It's simple biology combined with current law.

Any man who tolerates infidelity is either ignorant of the law, mentally deranged (love-sick), or has such low self-esteem that he believes raising other men's children or dying of their VD is the best he can do if he wants a woman.

Or is intelligent , is not a redneck, and has developed the ability to forgive knowing that to err is human.

[McRat]

If not in place anyone could ring up your provider change the terms of your contract and you are stung with a huge bill.

The "dual marriage account" laws were pushed through by the banks to sell more credit.

If the account holder spouse defaults, the non-signatore is just as liable for the debt. Yup.

OPPSS!!! Didn't read that fine print on the law, eh? There was never any intention of "credit reform laws" doing much other than make banks more profitable.

But on a more profound note: If you need to keep money secrets from your life-partner, you should not be married. Laws such as "dual marriage account" laws are a way for the government to minimalize the bond of marriage. Nothing new.

In any case, like before, the plaintiff has no grounds for a $600,000 judgement. It was an accounting problem. If your spouse dies in a plane crash, you normally get about $250,000 IIRC. Not sure her need to dampen her loins is "aircraft disaster" territory.

[betrunkenaffe]

Did she enter into the contract before she was married and did she change her name to match her husbands?

If so, she is required to update the information on her account, pretty sure that's going to be in the contract.

Either way, Rogers isn't responsible for someone having an affair nor for them getting caught.

[lisati]

Ah, relationships! (Just playing a DVD of our wedding: Mrs Lisati is noticing details about who was there and how she misses her Dad, I'm noticing details about my efforts to fix up the picture & sound quality after transferring from VHS)

[iponeverything]

A pragmatic view...

In an era with lethal venereal diseases, draconian alimony, biased custody laws, non-fatherhood-based child-support laws, and lack of reproductive rights for men, it's more than a hurt ego, it makes financial and family-support sense to draw the line when a spouse desires to reproduce with others.

It's simple biology combined with current law.

Any man who tolerates infidelity is either ignorant of the law, mentally deranged (love-sick), or has such low self-esteem that he believes raising other men's children or dying of their VD is the best he can do if he wants a woman.

Combine a false dilemma with ridicule! And I do admire how you also managed to take it down a slippery slope too.

[t0p]

Ooh marrage! Ooh morals! Ooh stone the jezebel!

There's a very simple principle involved here. A person is entitled to have secrets, even from a husband/wife. Rogers' decision to consolidate the 2 accounts without the express consent of the wife led to the revelation of the secret, with disastrous results for the wife.

Forget the morality (or immorality) of cheating on a husband. Morals has nothing to do with it. It's all down to business practices.

Here's a hypothetical: you have a cellphone in your own name. Your wife doesn't like you having the cellphone. But it's your phone, it's in your name, you pay the bills. So it's yours, not hers.

Hypothetical wife calls phone company and gets your phone disconnected, or gets your personal call info revealed to her, behind your back and against your wishes.

Is this how it works in the 21st century???

[dmizer]

Ridicule does not fall within the CoC.

Thank you all for participating.