Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.
It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.
I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.
Support the archive
[–]disjt 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Due-Leek770[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WartimeDad 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Due-Leek770[S] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]25_years3 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
A quick story: Until I got divorced, I thought lawyers were good negotiators. I figured litigators would be trained in negotiation. I was wrong and disappointed. After watching my lawyer try to negotiate at a sit-down meeting with the opposing lawyer, I couldn't believe how incompetent she was.
I had a book at home about negotiating, written by a professional negotiator who had worked with union strikes and even Russian missile talks back in the Cold War. In fact, I still have the audio version of the book. Just ask, and I can upload it for you. It's pretty interesting.
Anyway, one of his principles was to never let negotiations settle down to a single issue, especially one that involves money. At the end of the day, if you can't agree on money, then it's over. His advice is to look for other things that can be traded. What else do you have that she wants? Example: would she take a big lump sum up-front? Would she accept a paid-off house in exchange for alimony? Those are just examples.
The point is to keep the talks going, avoid "single-issue" stalemates, consider what else is important to the opposing side.
I'm not sure this helps, but it's something to consider.
An aside: I sympathize with your problem. In my case, my wife's lawyer PROMISED her the Sun, Moon and Stars. The lawyer told my wife not to settle because she'd prevail 100% at trial. No amount of reasoning could show her she was wrong, which, of course, she was. She let out an audible gasp when the judge read his decision. But, damn, yeah, it's frustrating when she says, "Why would I settle? I'll get what I want at trial." If that's the case, then your hands are tied. Good luck, brother.
[–]Due-Leek770[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WartimeDad 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Knave7575 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Due-Leek770[S] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Knave7575 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Due-Leek770[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Knave7575 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nomdeprune 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SzDiverge 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Due-Leek770[S] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]SzDiverge 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Due-Leek770[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SzDiverge 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]pegleg_legal 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Girl_Dad42 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Due-Leek770[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sentosa14 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link