Kane from Kaneshow divorcing and crying on air right now

[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.

Just do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

um, that was the pp's point. :/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's something that hasn't been mentioned yet in this forum, since we're all discussing every faucet of the Kane Show. Laura is way to good for John. And I don't just mean by appearances. I happen to know her pretty well from school, she's definitely on another level. I don't see it lasting very long. And you can fault the girl for dating him just for the perks such as going to concerts and meeting celebs and getting fans for her Youtubes

Facet* not faucet...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So was couch cat fake too?

I am ashamed to actually admit that I wondered the same thing. Because that cat is adorable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I meant to correct it from 7 to 5, as the PP said 7. I am hungry, and severely lacking coffee. Thanks for catching that. >.< Oops!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just do it.

this thread is getting boring, leak it.

[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!

3:07 also used Pete

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

So there's an acceptable time limit to stay married to someone with ocd? Because I thought the point was to work thru shit in a marriage. As someone with manic ocd I understand all to well what it means to walk thru each day. The way that n walked out was unacceptable and disrespectfful to her entire family. She created chaos where structure was needed. She left in a way that implied her or her kids life was in danger of their safety was in jeopardy. Again disrespectful and irresponsible. She may want to get her own mental health checked out rather than using Ps ocd as her excuse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I meant to correct it from 7 to 5, as the PP said 7. I am hungry, and severely lacking coffee. Thanks for catching that. >.< Oops!

Actually no..that was my point. I just worded it confusingly. Whatever, I'm still hungry and severely lacking coffee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

um, that was the pp's point. :/

The original poster already addressed that they messed up the dates...I guess you skipped over that post though...whether it's 5 months or 7 months doesn't change any of the context of the actual post though, so who knows why you choose THAT to be hung up over...lmao

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

3:07 also used Pete

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

So there's an acceptable time limit to stay married to someone with ocd? Because I thought the point was to work thru shit in a marriage. As someone with manic ocd I understand all to well what it means to walk thru each day. The way that n walked out was unacceptable and disrespectfful to her entire family. She created chaos where structure was needed. She left in a way that implied her or her kids life was in danger of their safety was in jeopardy. Again disrespectful and irresponsible. She may want to get her own mental health checked out rather than using Ps ocd as her excuse

They both put in a lot effort to work through their issues. If you think she didn't then you're very naive. P's version of events has already been dissected tirelessly and shown to not be possible they way he said it happened ..let's not have this discussion all over again. I would reserve your judgment until you know the real story.

[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

You must punch babies, just to watch them cry. Jerk.

[Anonymous]

Leak the audio! Leak the audio!

[Anonymous]

Please leak the audio!

As a reader of N's blog, if you go through the archives you find evidence they had a tough marriage. Sometime two people just were not supposed to marry one another. It could be as simple as that.

They both seem like great parents. The picture of N leaving Kane painted was eerily similar of a family member. There's a part of me that wonders if Natasha masked putting money away with her spending.

[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!

I'm actually a guy, but I'm glad that I fueled your delusions so well LOL. I guess it's true, the brain will see what it wants to see...are all Kane fans this thirsty haha

[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'm actually a guy, but I'm glad that I fueled your delusions so well LOL. I guess it's true, the brain will see what it wants to see...are all Kane fans this thirsty haha

how did that person come off as thirsty? He/she stated they thought it was N. That's not the definition of thirsty. AT ALL. Check yo' self.