i WILL PUT THIS IN BOLD BEING AS i HAVE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION YOU JUST CHOOSE TO NOT READ THE ENTIRE POST… i CANT IMAGINE WHY YOU ARE SO STUCK ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT BUT UNDERSTAND THIS IF YOU CAN
I have read your posts, and responded to many of them in detail, only for you to totally abandon one claim or “extreme example” after another just to pick up an new, equally unreasonable claim when your prior one was questioned. “Yelling” the exact same thing you have been saying does not clarify what you’ve been saying at all, especially when you are carefully avoiding giving a straight answer to a fairly simple yes or no question (that is, you
still haven’t answered the question posed):
Yes or no: Is your position is that a person saying “no” to one particular preparation of not uncommon food ingredients should be taken to mean they should never again be presented that ingredient in any other preparation without warning, even if they had previously eaten those same ingredients in different presentations without complaint or comment?
To me, saying no to (for instance) drinking a suspension of wheat bran in sugar water does not even come close to meaning I need the additional presence of wheat bran in banana bread declared in advance if its known that I tolerate creative cooking on a regular basis and am not extraordinarily sensitive to that substance. That kind of restrictive need for exhaustive clarification once you have expressed any doubt about something may be a need you have made clear to your associates to which they have accommodated, but that accommodation to you in no way obliges the rest of the world to do so even where it is not necessary to either of the parties involved.
Now can you give me a good reason why you didnt read any of my entire posts??? and then chose to try and run me down without doing just that reading…msg #92 on page 7 answered your question and now i have answered it yet again
Actually, you TOTALLY IGNORED my response to your post #92. Completely. Didn’t address a single one of the glaring logical or factual I (or anyone else) pointed out that was in that post. It is in fact a perfect example of the wild claims you’ve been repeatedly making and walking away from when they didn’t work just to try again without stopping to think through what people have been saying to you about those examples through this entire thread.
Plus, you didn’t actually answer the question there
either since we already know that when dealing with
you that anything that might remotely impact you needs to be declared and cleared with you in advance without exception. Though what you require is a good example of the accommodations that might have to me made in that regard, it not necessarily a guide to what the general rule should be, especially contrasted to the universal obligation one spouse has to seek to preserve the health of the other.
the word “spiked” comes from the fact she herself admits to being sneaky about it, she dont normally add that to a smoothie, this was the first time for her so its "spiked"
In the context of offering a smoothie to someone who did not require any new ingredients to be declared in advance and was known to tolerate creative cooking (that is, most people other than you), if she’d added grapes for the first time would you call it “spiked” as well"? mango? plums? pears? whole oat flour? wheat bran? Just to clarify your previous connotations, are of these food substances in the same category as drugs or poison to you in general use?
But speaking of reading prior posts, through this entire thread you’ve been pointedly ignoring that the OP mentioned in
post #8 that her DH knew she frequently doctored his recipes and that he took it in stride. Even after you had been reminded of that, you keep on insisting that it is morally wrong for people to have a different level of tolerance in creative food preparation than
you do. You are effectively trying to control everyone else by insisting they follow the same protocols with each other that you have created for people dealing with you - that is not the way boundaries work. It is unfortunate that you psychologically require that level of control of your surroundings, and although I am glad you have reached a balance point in your life that works for you in your relationships, that isn’t going to be a balance point that works for most people. Simply insisting everyone should do it your way without exception just because you said so is quite presumptuous and is going to alienate many people unnecessarily. You simply can’t demand that everyone be like you.
