>>The context is that she felt wronged. She was not in danger, her life was not threatened, nor were the lives or well being of any of her loved ones. She was simply wrong in what she did. My gosh man, if we all stepped over the line every time we felt wronged, the world would be simply unliveable.
>
>Now we're talking. As I see it, both the person who does not take into account the context AND the person who accepts each and every mentioned reason as the full excuse, is wrong. It are the details that matter.
>
>I noticed that there were two mainstream types of reaction here. Those who said something like "oh well, you have apologized, so let's move on" and those who said that there's NO excuse for this behavior, never.
>
>I know that both types are a practical solution, but this can't really be said about the combination. If some adhere to the first type of reaction and some others adhere to the second type, then there are two potentially opposing groups with contradictory judgments. I think it's better to weight details to some extend.
>
>In this case I think you are underestimating the threat she has felt in certain phases. It was not a threat of life, but it was of her social life (income and the like), in her perception.

Then the perceptions need to be examined carefully. As I said before, if we all stepped over the line every time we felt wronged, the world would be a much worse place than it is. No, I'm sorry, but perceptions are not reality. The two have to be sorted out.

As far as forgiving her, well, I have nothing to forgive. She did not transgress against me. I have no animosity toward Naomi at all. In my view, she messed up. People mess up. You can't let it define the rest of your life.