Q: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Photo by KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images 
  
 Blake Hounshell, the managing editor of Foreign Policy, shared a link on Twitter about an hour ago, and prefaced it with a wonderfully understated description: “Interesting letter,” he wrote. Those who clicked on the link found a July installment of “The Ethicist,” the longstanding New York Times Magazine column taken over a little while back by Chuck Klosterman. The second letter in this particular installment was titled “My Wife’s Lover,” and it begins with what, under the circumstances, are some pretty striking opening lines. 
  
 David Haglund David Haglund is the literary editor of NewYorker.com. 
  
 “My wife is having an affair with a government executive,” it begins. “His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.)” The letter writer goes on to explain that “exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort,” and to ask whether it is OK for him to “suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project” he believes “must succeed,” or whether he is obligated to acknowledge it in some way and “finally force closure.” 
  
 Advertisement 
  
  
  
 Now, this is the part where I say that any apparent resemblance to a scandal that just broke today involving General David Petraeus, until very recently head of the CIA, and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, may be a complete coincidence. Some on Twitter have already reacted skeptically to the notion that it is anything more than that, including my Slate colleague Allison Benedikt, who commented, “What 'government executive' is not having an affair with some guy's wife?” To which Slate contributor Ruth Graham added, “would anyone really repeatedly refer to heading the CIA as a 'project'? Doesn't sound quite right.” 
  
 Graham and Benedikt may very well be correct. So I will simply note the striking juxtaposition of the letter from July with today’s news—and will also point to what, especially under the (perhaps entirely coincidental) circumstances, is a pretty remarkable answer from Klosterman. He told the letter writer that he should tell his wife he wanted to separate, “just as you would if she were sleeping with the mailman.” There was no reason, he said, to reveal the affair in a public way. Then, having offered solid advice, he went a little further: 
  
 The fact that you’re willing to accept your wife’s infidelity for some greater political good is beyond honorable. In fact, it’s so over-the-top honorable that I’m not sure I believe your motives are real. Part of me wonders why you’re even posing this question, particularly in a column that is printed in The New York Times. 
  
 ....I halfway suspect you’re writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what’s really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That’s not ethical, either. 
  
 That strikes me as an impressively insightful read of the letter writer’s motives—whoever he is. I have emailed Klosterman for comment, by the way, and will update this post if I hear back from him. ||||| Add a location to your Tweets 
  
 When you tweet with a location, Twitter stores that location. You can switch location on/off before each Tweet and always have the option to delete your location history. Learn more ||||| When a dear friend’s teenage daughter was killed in a car accident, she understandably could not bring herself to erase her daughter’s message from the family phone. That was seven years ago. My friend still hasn’t changed the message, and I find it very discomforting to hear the deceased girl’s voice every time I call. My friend says, ‘‘It’s all I have left.’’ I want to be supportive, but I worry that preserving her daughter’s voice for every caller — be it a friend or a plumber — is unhealthy. Should I say something? LINDA, PHILADELPHIA 
  
 No, you should not. While I agree that her fixation is mildly unhealthy, your personal discomfort has no bearing on what someone else wants to use as a voice-mail message (particularly if the content of that message provides her with even a grain of comfort). Would you chide your friend for keeping too many photographs of her dead daughter in the living room? This message is an auditory version of a high-school picture. 
  
 She may never get over the death of her daughter. Don’t try to make her pretend she has. 
  
 MY WIFE’S LOVER 
  
 My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me? NAME WITHHELD 
  
 Photo 
  
 Don’t expose the affair in any high-profile way. It would be different if this man’s project was promoting some (contextually hypocritical) family-values platform, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. The only motive for exposing the relationship would be to humiliate him and your wife, and that’s never a good reason for doing anything. This is between you and your spouse. You should tell her you want to separate, just as you would if she were sleeping with the mailman. The idea of “suffering in silence” for the good of the project is illogical. How would the quiet divorce of this man’s mistress hurt an international leadership initiative? He’d probably be relieved. 
  
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story |||||
A:
The New York Times has shot down speculation that the jilted husband in the David Petraeus mess wrote a letter to its Ethicist column. The letter "is NOT about the Petraeus affair, based on our factchecking," tweeted magazine editor Hugo Lindgren. "Strange, I know." As Slate notes, the story gained steam after this tweet by a Foreign Policy editor, which called attention to the advice-seeking letter printed in July. It begins: "My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) ... He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort." Gawker points out that just about everything in the letter, including the timeline of the affair, supports the notion that it was written by the husband of Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell. For the record, advice columnist Chuck Klosterman suggested a quiet separation, one that didn't publicly divulge the affair. And he ended with this: "I halfway suspect you're writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what's really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That's not ethical, either."