Kane from Kaneshow divorcing and crying on air right now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate on John all you want, but he definitely loves Laura. He's proud of her and gets giddy over her when someone calls in and complements Laura. I think they're sweet together.

I didn't say anything about him not loving her. But is it reciprocated. For all we know she's just comingalong for the ride just like N

Pray tell how nat came along for a ride... She's been with Pete since he was a nobody...or do you always just assume that anyone that gets a divorce is automatically a gold digger? Just curious

She put up with somebody with severe OCD and ADHD for over 8 years, that's no small task. She Probably lasted longer than I would have and most other woman on here hating on her. Divorce is more common than you have been led on to believe my friend.

I am absolutely convinced this is Natasha. No doubt in my mind. Not one other post referred to Kane/P/Peter as "Pete". This poster knows him!

3:07 also used Pete

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate on John all you want, but he definitely loves Laura. He's proud of her and gets giddy over her when someone calls in and complements Laura. I think they're sweet together.

I didn't say anything about him not loving her. But is it reciprocated. For all we know she's just comingalong for the ride just like N

Pray tell how nat came along for a ride... She's been with Pete since he was a nobody...or do you always just assume that anyone that gets a divorce is automatically a gold digger? Just curious

She put up with somebody with severe OCD and ADHD for over 8 years, that's no small task. She Probably lasted longer than I would have and most other woman on here hating on her. Divorce is more common than you have been led on to believe my friend.

I am absolutely convinced this is Natasha. No doubt in my mind. Not one other post referred to Kane/P/Peter as "Pete". This poster knows him!

3:07 also used Pete

Every time I now post, I'll use Pete and you'll think I'm Nat!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate on John all you want, but he definitely loves Laura. He's proud of her and gets giddy over her when someone calls in and complements Laura. I think they're sweet together.

I didn't say anything about him not loving her. But is it reciprocated. For all we know she's just comingalong for the ride just like N

Pray tell how nat came along for a ride... She's been with Pete since he was a nobody...or do you always just assume that anyone that gets a divorce is automatically a gold digger? Just curious

She put up with somebody with severe OCD and ADHD for over 8 years, that's no small task. She Probably lasted longer than I would have and most other woman on here hating on her. Divorce is more common than you have been led on to believe my friend.

I am absolutely convinced this is Natasha. No doubt in my mind. Not one other post referred to Kane/P/Peter as "Pete". This poster knows him!

I am, too. And to me the dead giveaway is the use of "my friend". She uses that a lot, had used on air and on her blog. The combination of the two makes it pretty clear.

just because they were together long term and before he was successful doesn't mean she wasn't a gold digger. in fact, i'd argue that the continuous breakups and then reunions were signs at least one of them knew they weren't compatible but they were continuing to try to make it work anyway... maybe that person was N and she chose to stick around because by that point he was becoming successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate on John all you want, but he definitely loves Laura. He's proud of her and gets giddy over her when someone calls in and complements Laura. I think they're sweet together.

I didn't say anything about him not loving her. But is it reciprocated. For all we know she's just comingalong for the ride just like N

Pray tell how nat came along for a ride... She's been with Pete since he was a nobody...or do you always just assume that anyone that gets a divorce is automatically a gold digger? Just curious

She put up with somebody with severe OCD and ADHD for over 8 years, that's no small task. She Probably lasted longer than I would have and most other woman on here hating on her. Divorce is more common than you have been led on to believe my friend.

I am absolutely convinced this is Natasha. No doubt in my mind. Not one other post referred to Kane/P/Peter as "Pete". This poster knows him!

I am, too. And to me the dead giveaway is the use of "my friend". She uses that a lot, had used on air and on her blog. The combination of the two makes it pretty clear.

just because they were together long term and before he was successful doesn't mean she wasn't a gold digger. in fact, i'd argue that the continuous breakups and then reunions were signs at least one of them knew they weren't compatible but they were continuing to try to make it work anyway... maybe that person was N and she chose to stick around because by that point he was becoming successful.

I have no cat in this fight. I couldn't care less if she was a gold digger or not. I'm not going to argue either point anyway. I am just a long time Kane show follower who has heard Natasha speaking and read her blog enough times to be able to read that as if she was saying it. I'm convinced it was her just as I am convinced they are both reading this.

[Anonymous]

Yeah because both Pete and Nat have nothing better to do with their time right now.....seriously. The woman doesn't even have time to post on her blog. Why would she waste time on here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So was couch cat fake too?

Oh dear god no!! Please tell me couch cat wasn't fake?!

Wow. You must think reality TV is real too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah because both Pete and Nat have nothing better to do with their time right now.....seriously. The woman doesn't even have time to post on her blog. Why would she waste time on here?

Have you read her blog? If you had, you'd know that the reason she hasn't posted there (not only since Friday, but in months) is not lack of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So was couch cat fake too?

Oh dear god no!! Please tell me couch cat wasn't fake?!

Wow. You must think reality TV is real too

I have no idea what couch cat was.

Some reality TV is legit, but most of it isn't.

[Anonymous]

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz.... I really want to post the audio to liven this thread up. Natasha is letting us all down with her lack of response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz.... I really want to post the audio to liven this thread up. Natasha is letting us all down with her lack of response.

Then do it. Stop teasing us!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So was couch cat fake too?

nooooo please say it ain't so!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah because both Pete and Nat have nothing better to do with their time right now.....seriously. The woman doesn't even have time to post on her blog. Why would she waste time on here?

it's not lack of time causing her not to post. Anyone that posts on other forms of SM as much as both of them do certainly has time to read this forum as well.

[Anonymous]

I really believed couch cat was real!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except for the fact that she did already attempt to respond with that IG post about finally listening to the audio that she quickly deleted on Friday. So it would seem that she is not opposed to responding--she may be trying to craft another, presumably better, response.

Or it could be that she was faster than Peter at realizing that social media isn't where their marital problems belong. It could be anything really it just depends how cynical you are when reading into it.

Regardless Pete put her in a position where she HAS to respond eventually for her own sake... Not because she wants to ..lol she never asked for any of this to turn into public discussion

Are we forgetting that she is the one that posted an entire blog detailing their marital and personal problems in March/April? And then both of them went on to do a TV interview partially about it? I don't think we can deny that BOTH of them are equally addicted to the forum that social media provides for airing their grievances.

Uhhhh...her blog post was about how they had problems and how they worked through them and that there was light at the end of the tunnel...so I have to question whether you even bothered to read it because the majority of it is positive...and you are comparing it to Kane trashing her on air which was 100% negative.... Yea...try again...

Oh please. I stated that they both used the media to discuss their personal info. Whether you determine it to be good or bad info they are sharing is beside the point. You can't exploit your life on social media and then cry about the other person doing the same thing because they're not exploiting the "good" things. You also can't claim to take the high road when you're responding to them and then deleting it. Helloooo....

We all know that everyone uses social media, nothing new there...but you are essentially saying that because she posted 7 months ago about how she overcame the hurdles of marriage and was closer to her husband a s a result of it, that it somehow is analogous to Kane going on air and trashing her.
I'm not referring to my opinion, simply letting you know since you clearly didn't read her blog post that the subject was very clearly about how they got through their problems and about unconditional love and as well as how there was light at the end of the tunnel now that they worked through it... You would have to be a pretty shallow person to see that and say it's comparable in any way at all to Kane going on air and trashing her by saying "Natasha did this and this and this". Making her out to be a crazy woman and leaving it at that. I can't tell if your joking for the sake of trolling or if you are really that naive...lmao I guess someone is wearing their "My Man!" Shirt today

In case you skipped that like you did N's blog, essentially what I said is that her discussing 7 months ago how they overcame the hurdles in their marriage does not in any way translate to "turning her divorce into a public discussion" that was 100% Kane airing his dirty laundry. Which is why this discussion never started till after that.

High five for math! February to July is 7 months instead of five! Woohoo!

Though I suppose that means I'll get old faster...Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except for the fact that she did already attempt to respond with that IG post about finally listening to the audio that she quickly deleted on Friday. So it would seem that she is not opposed to responding--she may be trying to craft another, presumably better, response.

Or it could be that she was faster than Peter at realizing that social media isn't where their marital problems belong. It could be anything really it just depends how cynical you are when reading into it.

Regardless Pete put her in a position where she HAS to respond eventually for her own sake... Not because she wants to ..lol she never asked for any of this to turn into public discussion

Are we forgetting that she is the one that posted an entire blog detailing their marital and personal problems in March/April? And then both of them went on to do a TV interview partially about it? I don't think we can deny that BOTH of them are equally addicted to the forum that social media provides for airing their grievances.

Uhhhh...her blog post was about how they had problems and how they worked through them and that there was light at the end of the tunnel...so I have to question whether you even bothered to read it because the majority of it is positive...and you are comparing it to Kane trashing her on air which was 100% negative.... Yea...try again...

Oh please. I stated that they both used the media to discuss their personal info. Whether you determine it to be good or bad info they are sharing is beside the point. You can't exploit your life on social media and then cry about the other person doing the same thing because they're not exploiting the "good" things. You also can't claim to take the high road when you're responding to them and then deleting it. Helloooo....

We all know that everyone uses social media, nothing new there...but you are essentially saying that because she posted 7 months ago about how she overcame the hurdles of marriage and was closer to her husband a s a result of it, that it somehow is analogous to Kane going on air and trashing her.
I'm not referring to my opinion, simply letting you know since you clearly didn't read her blog post that the subject was very clearly about how they got through their problems and about unconditional love and as well as how there was light at the end of the tunnel now that they worked through it... You would have to be a pretty shallow person to see that and say it's comparable in any way at all to Kane going on air and trashing her by saying "Natasha did this and this and this". Making her out to be a crazy woman and leaving it at that. I can't tell if your joking for the sake of trolling or if you are really that naive...lmao I guess someone is wearing their "My Man!" Shirt today

In case you skipped that like you did N's blog, essentially what I said is that her discussing 7 months ago how they overcame the hurdles in their marriage does not in any way translate to "turning her divorce into a public discussion" that was 100% Kane airing his dirty laundry. Which is why this discussion never started till after that.

High five for math! February to July is 7 months instead of five! Woohoo!

Though I suppose that means I'll get old faster...Sad.

Wrong! For example, Feb 1 to March 1 is one month, not two. So Feb 1 to March 1, March 1 to April 1, April 1 to May 1, May 1 to June 1, and June 1 to July 1 equals 5 months.