I'm sure I'm not the only one on here who's having difficulty in understanding your point of view, C s; and who thinks that B & M didn't make a typographical error.
Is it really all that difficult to understand CS's point of view??
Here's one possible case for the defence. Forget all this stereo-typing of WG's and subs. (Implicit in a lot of comments on this thread are the stereotype notions that WG's always cheat, and subs just want bad things to happen to themselves.)
Imagine the following happened:-
Somebody employs somebody who they have reason to trust to do a job. (i.e had employed person before, they had done job before, and seemed trustworthy.) This time... perhaps influenced by a third party... the previously good worker just did a bunk with the money.
Then imagine the employer said something like "I'm really disappointed with that. I think the worker concerned let themselves down, quite possibly under influence of third party. In right circumstances I'd give him (or her) a chance to make it good to me."
That would be quite understandable wouldn't it? (Although... it wouldn't be my own thoughts in situation.)
That... I think... is all Cornish Sub has done. (I don't agree with the interpretation by Closet Freak that ALL he wanted was to meet WG again so he could forgive her.)