Florida man accused of fraud after taking wife's name

[crazy canuck]

I used to have a pastor named Irby. What an odd name.

To me it doesn't look that horrible on paper.  But to hear it pronounced, particularly in Appalachia, it sounds very silly.

Its kind of cute if you pronounce it Herbie with a french accent.

[derspiess]

My best friend's wife's maiden name was Flippo.  Boy was she ever happy to get rid of that.  We used to (and I guess we still do) call her Flippers.

[MadImmortalMan]

I can understand insisting on it if you're more traditional or whatever. Just because I don't feel strongly about it doesn't mean it's not valid for other people. One example of it turning out bad isn't really a good way to draw a conclusion. If one partner feels strongly about it and the other doesn't, then it's not a big deal to concede either way. If both feel strongly about keeping their names, then maybe it's something to look at.

There's no such thing as a dealbreaker. Just symptoms. Too many reveals a problem. One or two is probably no big deal.

[Eddie Teach]

There's no such thing as a dealbreaker.

Oh, I think if one party wants kids and the other doesn't, that would qualify. Or if they're set on living in different countries.

[garbon]

There's no such thing as a dealbreaker.

Actually there is.

[merithyn]

There's no such thing as a dealbreaker.

I'm afraid that I don't agree with this at all.

[Lettow77]

There's no such thing as a dealbreaker.

How can you say you love her if you won't eat her poop?

[MadImmortalMan]

There's no such thing as a dealbreaker.

Oh, I think if one party wants kids and the other doesn't, that would qualify. Or if they're set on living in different countries.

Sometimes people change their mind about those things later, even if they agreed in the beginning. Especially the having kids one. If you don't want to scuttle the relationship you have to deal with it. Sometimes give in, sometimes talk it out, whatever. Otherwise, you've invested twenty years of your life into a failed relationship just because one of you got baby rabies? Not worth it.

[merithyn]

Sometimes people change their mind about those things later, even if they agreed in the beginning. Especially the having kids one. If you don't want to scuttle the relationship you have to deal with it. Sometimes give in, sometimes talk it out, whatever. Otherwise, you've invested twenty years of your life into a failed relationship just because one of you got baby rabies? Not worth it.

Once you're married, then I can see that. But there's no way I would have married a man who didn't want children on the off-chance that he might change his mind. Anymore than I would have married Jerry had I known that he was lying when he said that he would leave Chicago at some point.

There are some things that are important enough that the relationship isn't worth compromising for.

[garbon]

There's no such thing as a dealbreaker.

Oh, I think if one party wants kids and the other doesn't, that would qualify. Or if they're set on living in different countries.

Sometimes people change their mind about those things later, even if they agreed in the beginning. Especially the having kids one. If you don't want to scuttle the relationship you have to deal with it. Sometimes give in, sometimes talk it out, whatever. Otherwise, you've invested twenty years of your life into a failed relationship just because one of you got baby rabies? Not worth it.

That perspective seems odd. After all, those 20 good years suddenly don't count for anything if you decide to end it?

[garbon]

There are some things that are important enough that the relationship isn't worth compromising for.

Like self-respect.

[MadImmortalMan]

I guess I'm just a conciliatory kind of guy. 


Abuse I would not put up with. So I guess there's not a complete lack of boundaries.

[mongers]

There's no such thing as a dealbreaker.

Oh, I think if one party wants kids and the other doesn't, that would qualify. Or if they're set on living in different countries.

Sometimes people change their mind about those things later, even if they agreed in the beginning. Especially the having kids one. If you don't want to scuttle the relationship you have to deal with it. Sometimes give in, sometimes talk it out, whatever. Otherwise, you've invested twenty years of your life into a failed relationship just because one of you got baby rabies? Not worth it.

That perspective seems odd. After all, those 20 good years suddenly don't count for anything if you decide to end it?

Those are sunk costs, so shouldn't have any impact on your decision to go with the expansions.

[garbon]

There's no such thing as a dealbreaker.

Oh, I think if one party wants kids and the other doesn't, that would qualify. Or if they're set on living in different countries.

Sometimes people change their mind about those things later, even if they agreed in the beginning. Especially the having kids one. If you don't want to scuttle the relationship you have to deal with it. Sometimes give in, sometimes talk it out, whatever. Otherwise, you've invested twenty years of your life into a failed relationship just because one of you got baby rabies? Not worth it.

That perspective seems odd. After all, those 20 good years suddenly don't count for anything if you decide to end it?

Those are sunk costs, so shouldn't have any impact on your decision to go with the expansions.

That's kind of what I'm saying and counter to what MiM is saying.

[garbon]

I guess I'm just a conciliatory kind of guy. 

Seems like if a person was against having kids - not sure it'd be good for them to keep the relationship and have kids.  (Not speaking about you but just in hypotheticals.)