Lads Holiday - Did he cheat?

Fat Pie Lot wrote: »

1) It also doesn't change that my definition of "tearing it up" might include 100 different things and yet you will still focus on "sex".


2) No. The OP was already suspicious of her OH, based on her own thoughts about the OH during his week away. This tainted her opinion when she read the message. Had she trusted the OH completely, I reckon she would have not had suspicious thoughts when reading that message (though, she would never have been on Bebo to begin with). This is a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of the OP.


3)I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if the OP wants to tackle her OH about this (as she's said herself) based on the flimsiest of reasons, that's her call. If someone were to accuse me of cheating (or anything else, really), I'd want them to have something more than paranoia and a throwaway comment on a social networking site. Depending on the OH, this could easily result in the end of their relationship even if the OH hasn't been cheating.

1) I focus on sex because that what the OP is concerned about. The ice-lolly eating theory is fine in so far as it goes but it is off-topic.

2) No she wasn't suspicious. What she wrote in the initial post was "I was
a little apprehensive about him going, [to Marbella with 9 other males - come on let's get real here!:rolleyes:] not too much, just a little". That is quite distinct from a suspicion that he will probably get up to something.

The idea that she is not entitled to be on a public forum like bebo is laughable! Anyone who has such a public profile divests themselves of any right to have it considered private. The idea that it should not have been seen is just nuts. And the idea that it is a self-fulfilling prophesy does not stand up either. The fact is if the other adolescent imbecile had not been boasting like a juvenile because he scored, there would be no evidence of anything whatsoever. But he did and it is reasonable to consider the possibility that her OH is not exactly out of step with comments (I have no way of knowing if they were 'throwaway', and even if that means whether they are true or not) specifically aimed at his bebo site.

3) I assume the OP will be more subtle than you would expect someone to be. The evidence of potential cheating is slight - though still there - and presumably the matter would be raised in a way that reflects that.

iblamebebo wrote: »

I'm 28 and he's 30 so we're a bit old for the whole Bebo malarky but I was bored in work yesterday and was looking through it. I'm not on it and as far as I knew he isn't either. We've often talked about how silly Bebo is (no offence to those who are on it!). I put his surname in, it's an unusual name, and I found his younger sisters page. He was in her friends list. He has a profile afterall. There was very little on it but I was annoyed that he had one and didn't tell me. Anyway, there was a comment left from one of the lads he was away with that read:

'How's it going man, I'm still in a heap from the hoilday, must be from all the riding!Told you
we'd tear it up over there no bother. Girls just wanna have fun! See ya over the weekend'

Now. I was sick to my stomach. He clearly cheated on me when he was over there.Also, the guy who left the comment I have only met once and I didn't particularly like him. He's a real jack-the-lad and a real Dub if you know what I mean. I don't like him hanging out with guys like that cause it always leads to trouble.

Am I jumping to conclusions here or do you think he cheated? If he cheated it is over, no second chances, no crappy explanations. How can I find out for sure and how will I approach him? I knwo he'll deny it cause that's naturally what people do when they get caught out..

Please help

Rosita wrote: »

3) I assume the OP will be more subtle than you would expect someone to be. The evidence of potential cheating is slight - though still there - and presumably the matter would be raised in a way that reflects that.

Unfortunately the OP doesn't think it's slight!

Also, so what if he has a Bebo page, it isn't a crime either, though it seems to be to the OP!

Rosita wrote: »

2) I have no inner knowledge of their relationship. I am going merely on what was on the bebo site. It is not for me to draw inferences about the level of trust, though I suspect if she does not truct him it is possible there's a good reason for that. Who knows?

As for the rest of the group, their relationships etc. - I'm not sure the OP is terribly interested in them. Who cares about them? That's for them and their partners to worry about. I simply comment on what was posted here.

But it is entirely possible that half of them are in committed relationships and there was no peer pressure to go off and screw around. It is of course entirely possible that the opposite is the case too. So what?

Context. You're jumping to conclusions based on three sentences or so posted by a friend on Bebo, but ignoring all the other available information given by the OP. That includes her own mistrust of her OH and the fact that she only appears to know one of her OH's travelling companions but is quite prepared to tar the whole lot with the same brush, as have you in numerous posts above. The OP should be interested in her boyfriend's friends, should she not, especially if she has such a low opinion of them.


There's no evidence that the OH cheated previously. The OP would (should) have posted this vital piece of information if that were the case. In fact there's lots of info the OP should have given, but hasn't. As it stands, with what we're given in the original message, it is impossible to say that the OH misbehaved and IMO, that means it's inadvisable to be throwing accusations around based on the Bebo post.

Rosita wrote: »

3) My best efforts? You should try reading my posts. I never said there was proof of anything, and I certainly did not try to prove anything. All I said was that there was genuine reason for soem level of suspicion. which there is.

I have read them... you've picked apart the friend's message almost to the letter, yet you ignore gaps in information given by the OP or the fact the OP seems to have trust issues with her OH, instead re-iterating that there's evidence of wrongdoing or claiming that the OP's mistrust is justified and therefore not important in the accusation: “though I suspect if she does not truct [sic] him it is possible there's a good reason for that”. In fact, the mistrust is the sole cause of the accusation.

The most obvious and reasonable explanation is often the correct one and in this case, the most obvious explanation is that the OH's friend got his leg over on holiday and the Bebo post does not incriminate the OH in any way.

Rosita wrote: »

4) Hearsay is enough evidence to ask the question. Every investigation begins with what can be dismissed as hearsay. And this is not any old hearsay. It is a report of one of the group members which is not exactly your run of the mill hearsay.

A report where this third party incriminates himself for having sex, but no-one else? *strokes chin*

Fat Pie Lot wrote: »

1)Context. You're jumping to conclusions based on three sentences or so posted by a friend on Bebo, but ignoring all the other available information given by the OP. That includes her own mistrust of her OH and the fact that she only appears to know one of her OH's travelling companions but is quite prepared to tar the whole lot with the same brush, as have you in numerous posts above. The OP should be interested in her boyfriend's friends, should she not, especially if she has such a low opinion of them.


2) There's no evidence that the OH cheated previously. The OP would (should) have posted this vital piece of information if that were the case. In fact there's lots of info the OP should have given, but hasn't. As it stands, with what we're given in the original message, it is impossible to say that the OH misbehaved and IMO, that means it's inadvisable to be throwing accusations around based on the Bebo post.

3) I have read them... you've picked apart the friend's message almost to the letter, yet you ignore gaps in information given by the OP or the fact the OP seems to have trust issues with her OH, instead re-iterating that there's evidence of wrongdoing or claiming that the OP's mistrust is justified and therefore not important in the accusation: “though I suspect if she does not truct [sic] him it is possible there's a good reason for that”. In fact, the mistrust is the sole cause of the accusation.

4) The most obvious and reasonable explanation is often the correct one and in this case, the most obvious explanation is that the OH's friend got his leg over on holiday and the Bebo post does not incriminate the OH in any way.


5) A report where this third party incriminates himself for having sex, but no-one else? *strokes chin*

1) But I don't know enough details of the relationship to comment. The question was objectively asked if the bebo message raised suspicion. I think it does for reasons I have explained numerous times already. What the OP thinks or should think, in your view, of her boyfriend's friends is another matter.

2) Now if I cited a previous indiscretion as some kind of evidence of cheating is this case you'd dismiss it! All we can go on is the information given and I think there is a question to answer, that's all.

3) I can't comment on gaps in information, because they are...........er........gaps in information. I can go only on what's put in front of me. Ultimately it's up to the OP to complete the jigsaw.

4) I agree that the most obvious and reasonable explanation is often the correct one. That is why my suspicion would be raised by a "we'd tear it up" kind of message. You are interpreting the message to the exact letter so that if it doesn't expressly state something then it cannnot have happened. But life is more nuanced than that. It says nothing about eating ice-lollies either and that might have happened too as you have been at pains to point out. I never said the message incriminates the guy, all I said was that it is suggestive, and it certainly is that.

5) That misrepresents it. There is a clear implication in there that the other chap was involved in joint activity of some sort, that as you accepted yourself, might include sex. How you can on the one hand say that while on the other not even countenance the possibly that he may have done something beats me.

Rosita wrote: »

Clearly the bebo message does imply that he cheated.

The friend's message says:

"I'm still in a heap from the hoilday, must be from all the riding!" - But this does not expressly say that "the riding" was done exclusively by this guy. The only exclusive information claimed is that he is wrecked.

More tellingly perhaps and this has been largely ignored is when he writes:
"Told you we'd tear it up over there no bother. Girls just wanna have fun!"

Why does the "tearing it up" and girls wanting to have fun suddenly become plural?

Only the chap's lawyer could seriously argue that that the message is not deeply suggestive.

AHAHAHAHAHA. Seriously, do you think his mate is Shakespeare? Or perhaps has a doctorate in English?
All we know is:
1) we don't know anything
2) she doesn't trust her OH
3) she doesn't trust his friends

Rosita wrote: »

1) No. Shakespeare died nearly 400 years ago. I think we can rule that one out.

Good.

2) Maybe he has. I have no idea.

I'm guessing he hasn't.

But on my planet being able to go from the singular "I" to plural "we" doesn't require a doctorate in English.

Tell me, do people on your planet who go on lads weekends away to "tear the place up", use the perfect from of English when writing informal messages to their peers on internet social networking sites?

All I have done is assume that he can write basic second class standard

And that is exactly what your mistake was.

English which means roughly what it says.

Well, we know he didn't physically tear the country up, so I wouldn't scrutinise the rest of his statement from a literal point of view.

3) You are contradicting yourself.

No. I'm not.

If 1) was accurate, there's wouldn't be a 2) and 3). Indeed there might not even be a thread.

Which 2) & 3) are you talking about?

Rosita wrote: »

1) But I don't know enough details of the relationship to comment. The question was objectively asked if the bebo message raised suspicion. I think it does for reasons I have explained numerous times already. What the OP thinks or should think, in your view, of her boyfriend's friends is another matter.

The question wasn't objectively asked, though. The OP has already made up her mind before posting and the question was loaded based on what she'd written and in her own words, her OH has CLEARLY cheated. Had the message been posted without all the preamble about the holiday, her insecurities and her mistrust of the OH's friend, I'm pretty sure no-one would be suggesting that there was evidence of cheating.

Rosita wrote: »

2) Now if I cited a previous indiscretion as some kind of evidence of cheating is this case you'd dismiss it! All we can go on is the information given and I think there is a question to answer, that's all.

Of course I would. It's up to the OP to post any relevant history. However, the fact that none has been posted suggests he's behaved himself. In fact the start of the post makes the OH out to be a decent boyfriend.

Rosita wrote: »

3) I can't comment on gaps in information, because they are...........er........gaps in information. I can go only on what's put in front of me. Ultimately it's up to the OP to complete the jigsaw.

I disagree. Gaps in information are just as important as what's left in front of you. In this case, we have no idea what the group mentality of the travellers was, so tarring them all with a “they're all on holiday, so they're all bound to be rutting” comment as the OP and yourself have done is inaccurate. If you're going to offer advice or comment on the original post, then ignoring everything apart from the Bebo post surely makes your comments flawed.


So, to answer the OP's question: it's impossible to say if he was cheating. Objectively speaking, there's not even any level of reasonable doubt, however, the OP's interpretation of the Bebo message is tainted because of her insecurities/lack of trust and a lack of knowledge.

Rosita wrote: »

4) I agree that the most obvious and reasonable explanation is often the correct one. That is why my suspicion would be raised by a "we'd tear it up" kind of message. You are interpreting the message to the exact letter so that if it doesn't expressly state something then it cannnot have happened. But life is more nuanced than that. It says nothing about eating ice-lollies either and that might have happened too as you have been at pains to point out. I never said the message incriminates the guy, all I said was that it is suggestive, and it certainly is that.

You won't comment on gaps in information in the rest of the post, but you will comment on what a message doesn't say? As I've said, the only thing it suggests to me is that the OH's friend got some on holiday. Reading anything else into that message is making HUGE assumptions because there's nothing else in the entire post to suggest to me I have to look beyond the comment at face value.


If you were to come to me with that comment as your evidence and accuse me of cheating when we've only been dating a few months and you'll find yourself in Dumpsville pretty damned quickly. The message might be suggestive in your opinion. In mine it is not, which is why you'd be taking a risk to accuse me based on that message alone. See also post #80.

Rosita wrote: »

5) That misrepresents it. There is a clear implication in there that the other chap was involved in joint activity of some sort, that as you accepted yourself, might include sex. How you can on the one hand say that while on the other not even countenance the possibly that he may have done something beats me.

Yes, he was on holiday with his mates. That's your joint activity and hence the 'we'. As I've said, all of my comments are based on the OP's entire post, not just the Bebo message because the rest of the post tells us a great deal about the OP which DOES (and did) have an effect on how she interprets the Bebo message. It's subjective, which is why if she chooses to act on her gut feeling, she would have to at least consider that most of the people on this thread do not see things the way she does, so there is a real possibility that her OH will not.

Dragan wrote: »

Oh it was just in relation to the fact that you would expect the friend who posted the message to be able to make some kind of sense is all. The majority of stuff that is posted on the internet is done in a relatively poor level of English from what i can see. Throw in Bebo and the fact that friends are talking to friends, messages can be rushed and you don't really post them while worrying about outside interpretation and you can get all kinds of rubbish going on tbh.

Let's look at the message then:

How's it going man, I'm still in a heap from the hoilday, must be from all the riding! Told you we'd tear it up over there no bother. Girls just wanna have fun! See ya over the weekend


It's actually quite well and accurately written - even the vernacular. Not one misspelling if we assume 'hoilday' to be just a typo. Not one inaccurately used apostrophe.

The idea that this person cannot differentiate between "I" and "we" or is too careless in his writing to bother, while a gallant attempt to muster an increasingly desperate and unlikely defence, doesn't hold water I'm afraid.

Fat Pie Lot wrote: »

1) The question wasn't objectively asked, though. The OP has already made up her mind before posting and the question was loaded based on what she'd written and in her own words, her OH has CLEARLY cheated. Had the message been posted without all the preamble about the holiday, her insecurities and her mistrust of the OH's friend, I'm pretty sure no-one would be suggesting that there was evidence of cheating.

2) However, the fact that none has been posted suggests he's behaved himself.

3) I disagree. Gaps in information are just as important as what's left in front of you. In this case, we have no idea what the group mentality of the travellers was, so tarring them all with a “they're all on holiday, so they're all bound to be rutting” comment as the OP and yourself have done is inaccurate. If you're going to offer advice or comment on the original post, then ignoring everything apart from the Bebo post surely makes your comments flawed.

4) So, to answer the OP's question: it's impossible to say if he was cheating. Objectively speaking, there's not even any level of reasonable doubt, however, the OP's interpretation of the Bebo message is tainted because of her insecurities/lack of trust and a lack of knowledge.

5) You won't comment on gaps in information in the rest of the post, but you will comment on what a message doesn't say? As I've said, the only thing it suggests to me is that the OH's friend got some on holiday. Reading anything else into that message is making HUGE assumptions because there's nothing else in the entire post to suggest to me I have to look beyond the comment at face value.


6) If you were to come to me with that comment as your evidence and accuse me of cheating when we've only been dating a few months and you'll find yourself in Dumpsville pretty damned quickly. The message might be suggestive in your opinion. In mine it is not, which is why you'd be taking a risk to accuse me based on that message alone. See also post #80.

7) Yes, he was on holiday with his mates. That's your joint activity and hence the 'we'. As I've said, all of my comments are based on the OP's entire post, not just the Bebo message because the rest of the post tells us a great deal about the OP which DOES (and did) have an effect on how she interprets the Bebo message. It's subjective, which is why if she chooses to act on her gut feeling, she would have to at least consider that most of the people on this thread do not see things the way she does, so there is a real possibility that her OH will not.

1) I am outside of the situation. I can answer the question objectively only.

2) But this is irrelevant to me. All I have commented on is the bebo message.
If I comment on anything else I am forced to look at it through the OP's opinions and I have no way of knowing how reasonable or fair they are. The bebo comments are there in black and white, undistorted.

3) Gaps in information may be important in the abstract. But I commented on the bebo message. It is not for me to make assumptions about the gaps in information. The OP asked for opinions and I gave one, that's all. It is up to her to consider all the finer detail which I have little interest in.

4) It is impossible to say if he was cheating - I never suggested otherwise. It raises a suspicion, that's all I have ever said.

5) Once you comment on what a message does say, you are implicitly commenting on what it doesn't say anyway. Occasionally of course it is necessary to be explicit about this which is all I did.

Reading other stuff into the message is not making a "huge" assumption. You are again falling into the trap of thinking that I am accusing the guy of cheating. I'm not. All I am saying is that the bebo message leaves grounds for some suspicion.

6) Yeah, whatever. We'd best not get it together then.

7) How the OP reacts is a matter for herself and I assume she is capable of dealing with this situation without my (or your) advice. I just commented objectively on the bebo message which in my view would raise the suspicions of any reasonable and fair-minded person. It goes without saying (or at least it should) that this is a long way from an accusation or a claim of guilt.

Rosita wrote: »

2) But this is irrelevant to me. All I have commented on is the bebo message.
If I comment on anything else I am forced to look at it through the OP's opinions and I have no way of knowing ho wreasonable or fair they are. The bebo comments are there in black and white, undistorted.

But they're clearly not in black and white, are they? If they were, there'd be no interpretation and there quite obviously is. And it's hardly irrelevant if you're making sweeping statements about ten men going on holiday and screwing all round them, which you've done in more than one post in this thread.

Rosita wrote: »

4) It is impossible to say if he was cheating - I never suggested otherwise. It raises a suspicion, that'll all I have ever said.

It only raises a suspicion if you are being unreasonable and looking for more from the message than is actually there. There is absolutely nothing posted anywhere else to suggest that something other than the face value of the message should be considered.

Rosita wrote: »

5) Once you comment on what a message does say, you are implicitly commenting on what it doesn't say anyway. Occasionally of course it is necessary to be explicit about this which is all I did.


Reading other stuff into the message in not making a "huge" assumption. You are again falling into the trap of thinking that I am accussing the guy of cheating. I'm not. All I am saying is that the bebo message leaves grounds for some suspicion.

Of course it is. You're stepping outside of what the message says and instead putting your faith into what it's not saying and by your own admission, this is all based on that one message, not anything else that was said. That's a huge assumption in my opinion. Why are you looking for alternative meanings to the message when there is clearly no reason for you to do so if you're only taking the message into consideration?

Fat Pie Lot wrote: »

You're stepping outside of what the message says and instead putting your faith into what it's not saying

Where did I do that? As far as I can see youare one of the people trying to inflate my views into a full-scale accusation. All I said was that it gives grounds for some suspicion. I'd like you to show where I said otherwise.

...just so we are clear: you don't believe he cheated, you just think it's suspicious? Is that correct?