Buck and Natalia

More thread rescuing:

When visiting my gal, I made the almost-punishable-by-death-faux-pas of sitting my shoes on the hotel bed for just a moment. I think it was at that point I learned there is a very, very scary lady lurking within my otherwise beautiful woman. I will not be making that mistake again.

haha...... are you and Slim willing to share what your Sweeties said..... or how they looked? I have not made this mistake yet but now I am little bit apprehensive about it.

Bags, bags, bags! Oh my God, how could I forget about that. My wife saves every single plastic bag we get at the store. In fact she told me to not take paperbags but plastic ones. I hope she isn't planning on selling them for kopecks in Ukraine. Since she has arrived (almost two years now) we have plastic bags everywhere. She wraps everything we get in plastic bags and buries it in the refrigerator. I have to unwrap and open everything to figure out what it is. She even wraps things that have their own refrigerated container.

Every cupboard under the sink is filled with plastic bags. I don't mind her saving them but can't we find a way to package them so they don't look like packing material for shipping things. I have to pull out bags holding bags to find things under the sink like cleanser, ant spray, mouthwash or bar soap. Every bathroom waste basket has a bag to hold trash. Before she arrived I just dropped trash in the basket and then dumped the waste into the trash can before trash day. If the waste basket was dirty it was an easy job to wash it out.

I thought that article about trying to restrict Russian women from marrying foreigners was interesting. Maybe we should line up that guy with the people responsible for IMBRA. We could set up an exchange program where we will send American women to hook up with Russian guys. After all, a lot of American women believe they are the best women in the world, so how could that not improve the Russian gene pool.

Hahahaha... good story. On a side note, do you really think Russian men would be interested?

FUNNY STORIES - FUNNY STORIES - FUNNY STORIES....... that is the theme of this thread........... althrough I could write forever about how the radical elements of the feminist movement took control and sold American women a bill of goods.

In the beginning it was mostly about equal pay for equal work..... but, as the more radical elements took control, it was transformed into "men are bad" and included "men are condescending" if they are courteous to women (e.g. opening doors, giving up seats on bus, etc.). The end result was men being chewed out or verbally reprimanded for simply trying to be nice. Most guys I know simply gave up after 2 or 3 such negative experiences. I still do it for strangers sometimes but it is a total dice roll as to whether the woman will respond positively or negatively. Accordingly, I find myself limiting my politeness to women I know (family, fiancee, etc.) and letting the others fend for themselves. Sadly, because I limit myself, the politeness that was once second nature and an automatic response is now lost. I have to think about it and I sometimes forget even with those women close to me.

mmmmmm.... even now I can not stick to my own theme. My apologies. Somebody please rescue us from the feminism topic.

Sure - but it what class should this distinction be taught? The whole problem with this issue is that the Creationist argument makes an implicit assumption that there are always two equally valid sides of the argument. I'm not sure that's really the case. Regardless, I honestly don't believe that providing some context between science and religion (basically the wider Creationism/Intelligent Design Vs Evolution debate) is particularly necessary and certainly not relevant to high-school level education of specific subjects.

Let religious ed teachers teach theology, let science teachers teach the sciences. It should be kept entirely separate and distinct. IMO there's no need, or indeed justification, for muddying the waters in any way whatsoever.

I agree with you that the Creationist theory is probably best kept out of the science room and reserved for theology or religion classes. However, I do not think that "ape-to-man" evolution theory should be taught in the science room as dogma - i.e. without also teaching that it is still heavily debated in the serious scientific community. It would also be nice if they taught that Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.... which is what most people think. Evolution could very well be part of God's grand design. However, this would probably be too much to hope for. Is a general introductory approach to this topic appropriate for High School students? That depends. If my Junior High school age children are at all representative of their age group (and I suspect they are being pretty average kids - but always special in my heart), most USA kids are already exposed to this issue long before they get to high school.

In Russia still Men are supposed to provide for family and women keep comfort at home.Normally women works for her pleasure and Man of providing food and other important stuff.

there are very many women out there that have to work for living,because they married very young and husbands turned into an alcoholics..It is very hard in a small cities to find a job.

Let me give you examples of women working for other reasons.

1. My wife and I both work hard, because if only one of us worked we wouldn't have to choose between food, energy, or shelter. As a man I must have failed her badly, because even on my future Attorney's salary it will be near impossible to afford a medium price home of $800,000 in San Francisco on just one salary.

2. My wife's sister lives in Tomsk, Russia. They too cannot afford a flat and are sharing a room in their parents home. She too is working hard and full time in order to save up 1,000,000 rubles in order to buy a one bedroom flat, and they individually make less than 10,000 rubles per month. Note: They were denied credit to buy their own flat. Her husband also I suppose failed her as a man.

3. My mother makes twice as much money as my father. Because in America registered nurses make twice as much as engineers! Unlike the other two men I described above, he was able to buy a home, but my mother works, because she wants the family to have nice things, go on vacation, and enjoy themselves rather than living pay check to pay check. He too must have failed her as man.

I do not think of it so much as "failing as a man" or succeeding. Life is life. It is tough nowadays to make it on one salary.... even my former attorney salary. Sometimes it is tough to make it on two salaries. In fact, it will be difficult financially when my finacee and her son arrive. However, we have a saying that encourages us and gives us hope: "Life may sometimes be difficult and hard..... but as long as we are together life will always be beautiful."

I do not agree about women leading everywhere ...In russia still Men are supposed to provide for family and women keep omfort at home.Normally women works for her pleasure and Man of providing food and other important stuff.

there are very many women out there that have to work for living,because they married very young and husbands turned into an alcoholics..It is very hard in a small cities to find a job.

I lived in Moscow and have a bit different idea of all these.Man do respect women much more than in america.

Just nor normal women or men go to clubs to hook up.

I was a manager in a foreigner holding and i had 40 males to manage,most of them make quite a decent money and are very good to their wives..If we talk about losers,well show me the country that does not have them:)

I am married to American,because i love him and there is no any other reason than that.I could also find russian bf,just problem is they are a bit hard to find,since most of good guys aged 28-30that are suitible for me are already married or devorced..

And younger--i am not very interested in them.so probably that is a problem.but I believe we have a great men in russia too:)

So do american women:)not all of them are feminists:)Deep inside even they would be feminine if american mammome men-that still live with parents go and do some work to provide:)

No offense meant:)

No offense taken. Thank you very much for your response. It is much appreciated.

Yes, I agree with you. Genetic evidence is very important. Interestingly, the hard science genetic evidence based on world-wide DNA blood sampling (searching for genetic markers) clearly shows that modern man did originate from a very small group of individuals..... less than 20 persons. They can even use the genetic marker evidence to trace the paths that the original group took out of Africa and the various geographic paths taken by their descendents. Oddly, this hard DNA evidence actually tends to support the Creationism theory but under the Council's resolution this hard, utterly reliable, DNA evidence probably would be banned from the classroom.

I don't agree with that. Again if we're talking high-school level biology, its unlikely the subject of evolution would be taught in anything like that sort of detail. While you do learn a lot of general theory, most science classes at that level only teach the basics. General observations that can be tested experimentally. Evolution might be glossed over - but on such a superficial level that I'm honestly not sure why there is so much focus on such a minor area of the curriculum.

True enough. The stuff I have been talking about is mostly university level knowledge. However, my kids are Junior High age and seem to be able to grasp quite a lot about both competing theories. Ideally, in High School, students would get a balanced age-appropriate presentation of all the various human origin theories and then be left free to make their own conclusions. For example, the schools could present the issue the following way: "There are various theories on human origin. One theory is Evolution that holds that man has evolved over time from a more primitive form possibly even apes. There is some geological and fossil evidence that supports this theory. Another theory is Creationism that holds that God created man in his image and that all people are descended from a single man and woman that God created. There is some genetic and DNA evidence that supports this theory. Here are the arguments pro and con for both theories. You are free to make your own conclusions."

That's a somewhat tenuous conclusion, at best. Creationism to my understanding, doesn't begin to accept any evidence that life existed more than a few thousand years ago. Having a small group of individuals as the genetic stock of modern humans hardly supports creationism.

These learned folks can explain the true relationship between Creationism and Evolution better than me:

Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God (Cliff Street Books, 1999), in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God." Dr. Miller has also called himself "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" (the 2001 PBS special "Evolution").

Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick

R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London

evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller (no relation to Kenneth) of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003)

biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999)

biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science

biologist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

biologist Joan Roughgarden, teaches at Stanford University; author of various books including Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist.

paleontologist Robert T. Bakker

microbiologist Richard G. Colling of Olivet Nazarene University, author of Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with Creator

paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe

That's a somewhat tenuous conclusion, at best. Creationism to my understanding, doesn't begin to accept any evidence that life existed more than a few thousand years ago. Having a small group of individuals as the genetic stock of modern humans hardly supports creationism.

To the contrary, most Creationists believe that the Earth and the origins of human life can be extremely ancient. The belief that you are alluding to (that the Earth is only a few thousand years old) is widely discredited and not accepted by most Creationists. It arises from a book published in 1654 by Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh, Ireland, wherein he stated that the Earth could only be a few thousand years old based on his linear calculations of the genealogies in the Book of Genesis (plus some obscure references to astrology and numerology). Most Creationists do not accept the strange beliefs of Archbishop Ussher and believe instead that the genealogies in Genesis are non-linear meaning that the Earth and the origins of human life can be very ancient indeed.

The Council's resolution is another shining example that politics and science do not mix any more than religion and science mix. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a religious theory. As such, there should be no problem teaching this subject in any religious theory class. Totally banning Creationism from the classroom (if that is the real intent) is a ham handed approach by the political thought police. Alternatively, if the intent of the resolution is to merely exclude Creationism from science classrooms but to allow it elsewhere in schools, then freedom of thought and freedom of expression are not violated. In contrast, Evolution is an actual scientific theory albeit an increasingly weak theory as applied to human origins. The two most recent ** Habilis discoveries in East Africa have totally shredded the so-called "evolutionary progression" from ** Habilis to ** Erectus to ** Sapiens. The old classroom charts showing the progression from ape to primative man to modern man are now totally in error. In short, evolutionary theory as applied to human beings is now increasingly bad science. Pushing human evolutionary theory in schools now has more to do with politics than it has to do it with actual science.

I'm not sure that's really the case - evolution is itself an evolving theory. Does anyone seriously pretend otherwise?

Evolution is certainly an evolving theory....... strongest when applied to certain animal groups but weakest when applied to human origins based on the most recent geological and anthropoligical evidence. If future discoveries strengthen the human evolutionary theory from ape to man then so be it. You follow the best evidence wherever it leads. But for now, the best evidence is pointing away from these old Darwinian classroom assumptions.

Well these days its about genetics as much as geology and anthropology. But again - if we're talking high-school education, I'm wondering why this is honestly such a big deal. Your average biology class doesn't go into that much detail - and shared assumptions at different levels of education are pretty common. That and your average science classroom teaches subjects in such a general way, that they can hardly be described as on the cutting edge of the field. Learning about Einstein and rudimentary theoretical physics doesn't give a kid much insight into the work of say, Stephen Hawking. Nor is it supposed to. You're given a grounding on which to build on by further study.

There has been a concerted campaign to get creationism slotted into science classrooms, certainly in the US; and increasingly in Europe too. The whole "Intelligent Design" angle is merely about putting a decoration of scientific legitimacy on the same old chaff.

Yes, I agree with you. Genetic evidence is very important. Interestingly, the hard science genetic evidence based on world-wide DNA blood sampling (searching for genetic markers) clearly shows that modern man did originate from a very small group of individuals..... less than 20 persons. They can even use the genetic marker evidence to trace the paths that the original group took out of Africa and the various geographic paths taken by their descendents. Oddly, this hard DNA evidence actually tends to support the Creationism theory but under the Council's resolution this hard, utterly reliable, DNA evidence probably would be banned from the classroom.

The Council's resolution is another shining example that politics and science do not mix any more than religion and science mix. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a religious theory. As such, there should be no problem teaching this subject in any religious theory class. Totally banning Creationism from the classroom (if that is the real intent) is a ham handed approach by the political thought police. Alternatively, if the intent of the resolution is to merely exclude Creationism from science classrooms but to allow it elsewhere in schools, then freedom of thought and freedom of expression are not violated. In contrast, Evolution is an actual scientific theory albeit an increasingly weak theory as applied to human origins. The two most recent ** Habilis discoveries in East Africa have totally shredded the so-called "evolutionary progression" from ** Habilis to ** Erectus to ** Sapiens. The old classroom charts showing the progression from ape to primative man to modern man are now totally in error. In short, evolutionary theory as applied to human beings is now increasingly bad science. Pushing human evolutionary theory in schools now has more to do with politics than it has to do it with actual science.

I'm not sure that's really the case - evolution is itself an evolving theory. Does anyone seriously pretend otherwise?

Evolution is certainly an evolving theory....... strongest when applied to certain animal groups but weakest when applied to human origins based on the most recent geological and anthropoligical evidence. If future discoveries strengthen the human evolutionary theory from ape to man then so be it. You follow the best evidence wherever it leads. But for now, the best evidence is pointing away from these old Darwinian classroom assumptions.

Creationism is a potential threat to human rights and any attempt to incorporate it into science must be resisted, says the Council of Europe. The council is an intergovernmental body that is responsible for, among other things, the European Convention on Human Rights.

On October 4, the council's Parliamentary Body voted in favour of its members states promoting evolution as "a fundamental scientific theory" and to "firmly oppose the teaching the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution". The resolution is not binding on the council's 47 members states.

Concerns have been increasing about the promotion of creationism in Europe. The council a number of campaigns in countries such as Britain, Turkey, France and Russia (see Nature 444: 406-407, 2006).

The Council's resolution is another shining example that politics and science do not mix any more than religion and science mix. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a religious theory. As such, there should be no problem teaching this subject in any religious theory class. Totally banning Creationism from the classroom (if that is the real intent) is a ham handed approach by the political thought police. Alternatively, if the intent of the resolution is to merely exclude Creationism from science classrooms but to allow it elsewhere in schools, then freedom of thought and freedom of expression are not violated. In contrast, Evolution is an actual scientific theory albeit an increasingly weak theory as applied to human origins. The two most recent ** Habilis discoveries in East Africa have totally shredded the so-called "evolutionary progression" from ** Habilis to ** Erectus to ** Sapiens. The old classroom charts showing the progression from ape to primative man to modern man are now totally in error. In short, evolutionary theory as applied to human beings is now increasingly bad science. Pushing human evolutionary theory in schools now has more to do with politics than it has to do it with actual science.

Why is it that russian men have such a cavalier (don't care so much) attitude towards Russian women? I have observed that many (not all) Russian men shy away from family responsibilities and let the women bear most of the load. In fact, I think Russian women do most of the real work anyways..... at home, on the job, wherever. My fiancee says that she knows how to cure many of Russia's ills. Just let Russian women run the country. [Probably not a bad idea for the USA also.... Hillary Clinton excepted.] From what I observed during my limited time in Russia, I tend to agree with my fiancee.

In contrast, many (not all) American women seem to have lost their sense of what it means to be a woman. My fiancee and I have often thought that it would benefit both Russian men and American women if they could spend some time together....... that is, if they could stand being in the same room for any length of time. Russian men might become more responsible and enlightened. American women might regain some of the feminine qualities they once had.

What makes Russian men this way? Too many women..... not enough men? They way they are brought up during childhood? Current socio-economic conditions? Would Russian men and American women benefit from each other?

What do you think?

I do not want to bash USCIS but, as a starting point, they could ask themselves why the Vermont Service Center is so much more efficient than the California Service Center.......... and then strive to make their other service centers more like Vermont. Is it management? Is it caseload per officer? Why are documents sitting 3 to 4 weeks in the California mail room but not in the Vermont mail room? Simply adopting procedures that work in other Service Centers would shave about 2 - 3 months off the total wait time for those of us not lucky enough to be processed in Vermont.

Just a thought.................

I am still a bachelor living alone so I scavange a lot. Whatever is in the refrigerator......... animals found on the road (point of impact is the most tender spot)............ tree bark....... My monthly food budget is small but I find myself spending a lot on antacids and other stomach medicines. My finacee promises that I will eat better after she arrives.

Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

- Theodore Roosevelt

Actually, I think the above quote is true for all of us daring the K1 Visa process for the sake of love.

Gotta say though, Russian men aren't exactly helping their cause. Every time I went to a night club, the dance floor was always filled with about 90% women, 10% men. All of the other men were sitting at tables huddled around themselves, getting drunk and completely ignoring the women. The night Nadya and I went out on a double date with her roommate, the roommate's boyfriend absolutely would not dance with her. I really didn't understand that at all.

That's just simple supply and demand. Over there, it's the women going to night clubs "trolling" for men.

My understanding and observation is that russian women usually fast dance together while the russian men "reserve" themselves for the slow dances with the women. The men will watch the women fast dance and, if they see one they like, they will ask her for a slow dance. Is that really the way it works? C'mon russian women (and men) .... we are waiting for you to tell us how it really is?

WONDERFUL STORIES ALL...... KEEP THEM COMING. I feel our moods already lifting.

Waiting...... waiting....... waiting..........it seems like that is all we do. We miss them. We check all the websites. We miss them even more. We look again. Nothing seems to change.

Do you have a funny story to share to help ease the pain and boredom of waiting? It can be about you and your fiancee, a cultural difference story, strange interview questions.......... anything that would be appropriate for this website.

To kick things off I will copy one of my prior posts regarding a cultural difference issue (first visit to Russian bath):

Yes, as the husband of a Russian citizen you are now subject to mandatory military service (regardless of age)

I see...well that will be interesting because I am VERY familiar with their AK-47 rifle...I've got the scars to prove it.

See if your fiancee/soon-to-be wife has any friends in management at a local hotel. If so, they may be willing to stamp your tourist VISA for you and save you the hassle and long wait of OVIR. This will be something of a fiction since you, presumably, will be staying with your fiancee rather than at the hotel. However, if the friend is a true "droog" of your fiancee, the friend may be willing to list you in the hotel register book and stamp your tourist VISA. It just depends how close the relationship bwteen the friend and your fiancee and how nervous the hotel feels about doing this since you are not actually staying at the hotel. Of course, the safest route is just to register with OVIR.

Out of general curiosity how can you tell when your application has been touched? I assume that's what that means?

If you register on www.uscis.gov and create a portfolio with your case # (WAC...), you can check the last time your case was updated on their end. And when you check your portfolio compulsively every hour, you know immediately that it has not been touched in months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :wacko:

I just saved you 13.4 minutes on the phone with a USCIS customer service rep that would have told you the same thing (ie useless info for your personal case...) You're welcome.

I am getting insane, I am going to bed (after checking my portfolio one last time of course...)

Stephan

Ah. I do check it once in a while, to try and avoid being depressed but every time I see it hasn't been changed since June 14th I just get depressed anyway. Just wondering. Thanks for the quick reply!

Night!

I feel your pain. My file status never changed from it's original NOA1 date of May 29. Day after day I looked... many times...... no change....... then WHAMMO..... my petition was approved last week. However, when I return to the USCIS Case Status Online webpage it still says my petition was received on May 29 and the September 19 approval date is not reflected nor have I received an email from USCIS stating that my petition was approved. Indeed, I only knew my petition was approved because I received a hard copy in the mail.

[

I am hoping to have my fiancee here by Christmas. If the sun, moon and stars align themselves just right and if USCIS gets their butts in gear, it may still happen. Good luck May filers.

Hahahaha... yesssssss....... I am confident that all us May filers are hoping for Christmas miracles. To have our fiancees here by Xmas...... wouldn't that be the best gift of all?

Here are some observations based on comparing NOA2 approval times on the VisaJourney website and our own personal experience:

CSC APPROVAL PERIOD ABOUT 4 MONTHS FOR NOA2's:

The California Service Center (CSC) appears to be taking approximately 4 months or so to issue NOA2's. Upon reviewing the CSC timelines on VisaJourney, approval appears to be occuring about 125 - 145 days following the NOA1 date. The USCIS website says that CSC is taking up to "6 months" to process I-129F petitions but about 4 months (give or take a couple of weeks) appears to be more accurate at the moment. This is supported by the recent approvals of many May CSC filers.

MY DANG PETITION HAS NEVER BEEN "TOUCHED":

Your petition remains a virgin and has never been "touched"? Do not become overly depressed about this. Alas, this is rather common. For many of us (including myself), our petitions are first touched and approved on the same day. Thus, USCIS Case Status Online will frequently not show any touches prior to approval.

I filed for K-1 may 18 and I am still waiting on NOA 2, after all this time of not hearing anything, I happened to notice (when looking at a copy) that I did not fill in the "place of birth" for my fiance's father on the documents I sent in. The city has changed names over the years and I meant to determine which name to use and somehow never filled it in. (he is deceased for some time now)

What are the odds they will let this slide?

Should I contact them now with this info as it might save time in the long run?

If so, how to contact them, via phone?

I am a May filer (5/2/07) and had a similar issue. I omitted some information on my petition. I asked my attorney the same questions you are asking now. He said, "Let it slide. Contacting them now will only trigger an RFE." He was right. Seven days later we had our NOA2.

I've been poking around on this forum looking for posts related to personal experiences couples have had when neither is fluent in the native language of the other. I have found some posts, but decided to start a new thread anyway. I'm particularly interested in experiences anyone would like to share about after their fiance/fiancee arrives.

First, my own (limited) experiences so far:

When Natasha and I met online, I spoke no Russian at all and she spoke English at a very basic level. Understanding spoken English is a challenge for her though. She used a program called Magic Goody to translate my English chat text to Russian, and her Russian chat text to English. We talked several times this way before I knew she was using a software translator. Being a very quick typist, I quickly purchased and installed PROMT and we began chatting exclusively in Russian simply because there was less 'lag' in the conversation. This had a very pleasant side-effect I'll discuss later.

Software translation can be very frustrating initially, and Natasha and I had our fair share of misunderstandings, but we have learned how to choose our words and phrasing to maximize the likelihood that the intended meaning of our words survives translation by the software. It's not perfect, by any means, but it is a reasonable substitute (for now) to being able to speak directly in the language of the other. Web cameras are also a great help because so much can be communicated through expressions and body language to accentuate the words we type.

Before I traveled to Russia to meet Natasha in person, I began studying Russian using Pimsleur Conversational Russian audio CDs. I found this very frustrating, although I did learn some basics - yes, no, hello, goodbye, please, thank you, understand, I, you, not, etc. I apparently don't learn well using purely audio based methods. In total, I studied this way for about 4 weeks, maybe 4 times a week, then I went to Russia.

In Russia, Natasha taught me more words (man, woman, boy, girl, market, bus, etc) but we relied upon her basic English to communicate. It was very frustrating sometimes, and if our day was going to be complex, we would use the software translator before we headed out to discuss our plans in detail for the day. My Russian responses were usually limited to yes, no, I understand, I don't understand, but we managed to spend a truly glorious 3 and a half weeks together there. Much loved by her non-English speaking family was the game "Let's have the American try and pronounce Russian words". We played this game during many meal times spent around the dining table. Someone would point to something in the kitchen and then say the Russian word for it, which I would then attempt to mimic. It was hilarious!

Since I have returned, I have decided to go as full-tilt into Russian language study as I can manage. I purchased Level 1 and 2 from Rosetta Stone and I study 3 or 4 times each week, with a goal of completing one lesson per week. Often, I will study while chatting with Natasha, and we will turn on the microphones so that she can listen and correct my pronunciation. Anyone interested (in Rosetta Stone particularly) can check my progress on my website (it's linked from my profile here on VJ). I post blog reports after each lesson and I have my grades posted in a separate section as well. I study from the 'home school' edition of the software, where the program directs my study and my progress is based on my performance, and each lesson must be passed three times where different things are emphasized (Rosetta Stone calls this the comprehensive mode). Chatting in Russian using a software translator made me at least familiar with the Cyrillic alphabet and taught me to recognize a lot of words by sight. Now that I'm learning to speak Russian with Rosetta Stone, I am finding it relatively 'easy' to pick up how the letters are pronounced. This is the pleasant side-effect of chatting in written Russian I alluded to earlier.

Learning Russian is important to me, because Natasha's Russian heritage is important to me. Eventually I wish to be able to speak directly with her parents and her family in their native language. When I was there and I asked her parents for permission to marry Natasha, we relied upon the software translator as we sat at the computer, with Natasha occasionally adding something to the conversation if she thought something was unclear. This worked at the time, but it is not what I desire with regard to speaking with her family.

I know I have, most probably, 5 to 7 months before Natasha receives her visa and I travel to Russia to bring her and her daughter to this country. I will use that time to continue my studies of the Russian language and I hope to have completed the bulk of the Level 1 material by that time. I know this will put me at no more than the advanced beginner level, and even after Natasha arrives it is my plan to continue my studies and finish Level 1 and 2 during the first 18 months or so of our being together. This will, I hope, take me to an intermediate level of Russian, and Natasha will take me to whatever level of fluency I am capable of.

Natasha may take English classes (something like ESL) and she may not - she has taken classes before and she believes that simply being here and immersed in English (and with me as her guide) will be all she requires. We will play this by ear and see how it goes. She also believes that her daughter will best learn by just being here, but I'm not as convinced of this. I know that Vika (Natasha's daughter) studies some English at her school now, so perhaps Natasha will be proven right. She usually is!

Here are two comments from other posts on this forum, which I liked and which I think are relevant:

From Jewel12:

"I have a hard time understanding how you can fall in love with a person if you don't speak a common language fluently, but there's lots of things I don't understand, so I better shut up smile.gif"

From bready99:

"This question is pretty simple to answer for me. There is more to loving each other than speaking a common language fluently. If it was that simple (just language) then there would not be so many divorces or break-ups in this country (U.S.A.) or even in the world.

To answer the question for us, it is the way we look at each other, the way we treat each other, the way she laughs or smiles at the things I do. It is how we are able to hug each other after being so frustrated with some of the things we do or say or can't say to each other. We communicate in many ways with each other and, for the most part, it is all enjoyable. We do talk to each other and we do help each other in many ways. I think being in love is all about how each person "completes" the other person. It's not just about talking and it's not all about sex, it's all about how well two people are able to relate to each other and feel good in that relationship. Love is all about feelings and emotions and how two people are able to share and communicate those feelings. Speaking a similar language is just one way of communicating those emotions. I think those of you who have difficulty understanding how two people can be in love without speaking a common language fluently will also have difficulty in understanding those people who can fall in love at first sight, but that's another topic."

Bready99, thank you. You said that so much better than I could ever hope to. Love is very much a (and I hate to use a much-overused term) synergistic thing. When everything is right, it is much more something you feel than something you say. Words are very poor instruments for communicating what we have inside of us, in our hearts. Communication is important, and those of us who have chosen a mate where a language is not shared have a tough road ahead, there is no denying that. But if our hearts are in the right place, if we are truly committed and dedicated to one another, then language shouldn't be an issue. Language is a learned thing, not an innate thing like love is (for me, anyway).

Ok, I guess I'll wrap up my first real post here on VJ. I've lurked for some time now and added a short reply here or there, but I've never delved into anything so verbosely before. Agree with me, disagree with me, even flame me, but if you have something relevant on this subject to share I'd very much welcome your words.

Kevin

Just my opinion: Anything that increases understanding and improves the relationship is helpful. Before she arrives in the USA, any russian you learn is an absolute bonus. Learn as much as you want. It can only help. It can never hurt. Indeed, your knowledge of russian can assist her as she learns english. After she arrives in the USA, you will need to excercise some time management discretion. She will need to learn english quickly in order to work and to function day-to-day. Speaking russian at home in USA should not be used to the point that it detracts from her learning of english. That being said, a person can only learn so much english during the course of a day. At first, you will probably find that she reaches her english saturation point pretty quickly during the course of a day. Once the saturation point is reached, speaking russian can be a nice break. As time passes and she learns more english, it will take her longer to reach her saturation point on a daily basis. She will toleratate english better and can absorb more during the course of a day. However, before she arrives, any russian you learn now is a bonus.