Fun Stuff > CHATTER

Blog Thread III : Look Who's Blogging Now

<< < (743/802) > >>

JD:
\o

Lines:
Rachel, best of luck with all that. That's probably one of the worst things ever, so I'm sending good vibes your way.

Liz:
Rachel you're employed, getting married, and the mother. There is basically no way you CAN'T win. And after you do,  you and Jon can kick his ass.

pen:
I know!  I mean, I know i'm going to have no problem winning the case.  It's just added stress that I even have to go to court in the first place that really sucks.  I tried being reasonable with visitation rights and stuff, but he's been pushing for more and more, and it's unrealistic.  He even said that when we "decide on something" that he wants to go to court anyway to put it in writing.  I don't think he realizes that they're going to force him to get off his ass, get a real job and start actually paying for something.  Ugh... it's just stupid.

Thanks for all the good vibes.  I really need them right now.

Graphite:
Good luck pen; family law stuff is exhausting and rough, and it sucks that you have to deal with it.

I've never understood why people are so intent on having a matching number of bridesmaids to groomsmen, or only having 3 when they want 4. Admittedly bridesmaid dresses are expensive so you might want to limit the number of people who will be getting them (or limiting the number that you subsidise - I've no idea of the appropriate tradition here), but they do not necessarily need to be wearing the full-on matching dresses to qualify as bridesmaids. Wouldn't you want to just pick the people most important to you to form your wedding party - which could well include women who are more important to the groom and men more important to the bride, so maybe some groomsmaids and bridesmen - and go with that?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page