Was about husbands who killed their wives. As usual, Oprah completely
ignored the fact that women kill their partners too (and almost as often as
the reverse, and get away with far more often) and completely typecasted the
murderers as men and the victims as women all throughough the entire show,
but let's pretend that didn't happen for a moment.

She had on the show a "former" wife beater and his wife, in fact, his THIRD
wife, talking about his history of beating and almost killing his wives
(including his current one).

Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that a violent man who
beats and controls women is able to get married three times, and we guys
can't even get a date? All his wives were at least moderately attractive
too.

In his defense, his controlling behaviour was initially triggered by his
first scumbag wife cheating on him (which Oprah mentioned only once, then
ignored).

Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous guys, only
seems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably never
hurt anyone in his life).

"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message
news:bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de...

Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous guys,
only seems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably never hurt anyone in his life).


I guess if someone chooses the grave, they want to enjoy the trip...


--
The generation that used acid to escape reality
Is now using antacid to deal with reality
http://www.dwacon.com

"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message
news:bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de... Was about husbands who killed their wives. As usual, Oprah completely ignored the fact that women kill their partners too (and almost as often
as the reverse, and get away with far more often) and completely typecasted
the murderers as men and the victims as women all throughough the entire show, but let's pretend that didn't happen for a moment. She had on the show a "former" wife beater and his wife, in fact, his
THIRD wife, talking about his history of beating and almost killing his wives (including his current one). Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that a violent man
who beats and controls women is able to get married three times, and we guys can't even get a date? All his wives were at least moderately attractive too. In his defense, his controlling behaviour was initially triggered by his first scumbag wife cheating on him (which Oprah mentioned only once, then ignored). Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous guys,
only seems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably never hurt anyone in his life).

While I am not a proponet of either domestic violence or murder, I can say
from personal experience (DH's ex), that some women deserve to be beaten.

My DH's ex has taken him to court 7 times in a futile attempt to have her
child support increased. Never mind that DH's income has not increased
significantly during the entire period of time. Never mind that it has cost
him nearly $20,000 in fees to appear at these hearings. Never mind that she
has NEVER allowed his court ordered visitation - oh yes, he COULD go back to
court and demand it (as he has done many times), but that could easily cost
another $20,000 and she still could say "at the last minute" that the
children were ill, or asleep or at their grandmothers, etc., etc., ad
infinitum, ad nauseum.

Never mind that she won't let DH's children visit his paternal grandparents
or any other member of his family. Never mind that Xmas gifts and birthday
gifts are never received by the children.

And you wonder why women get the crap beaten out of them? I can't believe
my DH never raised a hand to his ex - I would have.

SD

Shashay Doofray wrote: And you wonder why women get the crap beaten out of them? I can't believe my DH never raised a hand to his ex - I would have.

Philosophically, I agree. Socially and legally, however, a man meting
out violence to a woman is viewed very differently than a woman doing
so. You could probably get away with it, with a nice helping of
sympathy for the abuses you suffered. Your husband would get nothing
but a jail cell for his troubles.

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:53:11 +1100, "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote:
Was about husbands who killed their wives. As usual, Oprah completelyignored the fact that women kill their partners too (and almost as often asthe reverse, and get away with far more often) and completely typecasted themurderers as men and the victims as women all throughough the entire show,but let's pretend that didn't happen for a moment.She had on the show a "former" wife beater and his wife, in fact, his THIRDwife, talking about his history of beating and almost killing his wives(including his current one).Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that a violent man whobeats and controls women is able to get married three times, and we guyscan't even get a date? All his wives were at least moderately attractivetoo.In his defense, his controlling behaviour was initially triggered by hisfirst scumbag wife cheating on him (which Oprah mentioned only once, thenignored).Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous guys, onlyseems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably neverhurt anyone in his life).

what a load of ****e!

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:49:40 -0600, "Shashay Doofray" <shashay@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in messagenews:bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de... Was about husbands who killed their wives. As usual, Oprah completely ignored the fact that women kill their partners too (and almost as oftenas the reverse, and get away with far more often) and completely typecastedthe murderers as men and the victims as women all throughough the entire show, but let's pretend that didn't happen for a moment. She had on the show a "former" wife beater and his wife, in fact, hisTHIRD wife, talking about his history of beating and almost killing his wives (including his current one). Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that a violent manwho beats and controls women is able to get married three times, and we guys can't even get a date? All his wives were at least moderately attractive too. In his defense, his controlling behaviour was initially triggered by his first scumbag wife cheating on him (which Oprah mentioned only once, then ignored). Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous guys,only seems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably never hurt anyone in his life).While I am not a proponet of either domestic violence or murder, I can sayfrom personal experience (DH's ex), that some women deserve to be beaten.My DH's ex has taken him to court 7 times in a futile attempt to have herchild support increased. Never mind that DH's income has not increasedsignificantly during the entire period of time. Never mind that it has costhim nearly $20,000 in fees to appear at these hearings. Never mind that shehas NEVER allowed his court ordered visitation - oh yes, he COULD go back tocourt and demand it (as he has done many times), but that could easily costanother $20,000 and she still could say "at the last minute" that thechildren were ill, or asleep or at their grandmothers, etc., etc., adinfinitum, ad nauseum.Never mind that she won't let DH's children visit his paternal grandparentsor any other member of his family. Never mind that Xmas gifts and birthdaygifts are never received by the children.And you wonder why women get the crap beaten out of them? I can't believemy DH never raised a hand to his ex - I would have.SD

Just waite until you become the ex!

I watched Oprah for a while. The show target markets stereo-typical women
(over-emotional, victim blah blah blah) and capitalizes on "group-think"
very skillfully. Rosie followed the same formula, I couldn't tell the
difference myself between the two as far as that went. Both shows also
seemed to have an agenda. My conclusion was that anyone stupid enough to let
Rosie or Oprah represent the view of the world would let anyone else do it
as well. Life's too short.

In article <3d3zb.37148$YO4.31446@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, Amos B. Moses wrote: I watched Oprah for a while. The show target markets stereo-typical women (over-emotional, victim blah blah blah) and capitalizes on "group-think" very skillfully. Rosie followed the same formula, I couldn't tell the difference myself between the two as far as that went. Both shows also seemed to have an agenda. My conclusion was that anyone stupid enough to let Rosie or Oprah represent the view of the world would let anyone else do it as well. Life's too short.

Oprah is a commercial show targeted to suggestible women -- a great
advertising category. No wonder she does everything to cater to them.
I see nothing wrong with what's happening on oprah.

i

"Amos B. Moses" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:3d3zb.37148$YO4.31446@newssvr31.news.prodigy. com:
I watched Oprah for a while. The show target markets stereo-typical women (over-emotional, victim blah blah blah) and capitalizes on "group-think" very skillfully. Rosie followed the same formula, I couldn't tell the difference myself between the two as far as that went.

Rosie was into "Rosie-think." Her show's premise was, "I'm just like all
you people out there, except smarter and more talented and richer and more
important. Everyone, please live vicariously through me, please!"
Both shows also seemed to have an agenda. My conclusion was that anyone stupid enough to let Rosie or Oprah represent the view of the world would let anyone else do it as well. Life's too short.

"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message news:<bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de>... Was about husbands who killed their

A man watching Oprah? Now *THAT'S* sick!

john wrote:
"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message news:<bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de>... Was about husbands who killed their A man watching Oprah? Now *THAT'S* sick!

We have to see what our enemies are up too, and what they are watching ...

> While I am not a proponet of either domestic violence or murder, I can say from personal experience (DH's ex), that some women deserve to be beaten.

What's DH? De-facto Husband?

"john" <johnflash@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:5579f3e6.0312021716.30ba10d0@posting.google.c om... "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message
news:<bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de>... Was about husbands who killed their A man watching Oprah? Now *THAT'S* sick!

I watch Oprah to get an idea of the poisoning that goes into women's minds
from the feminist reigeme. The way Oprah poses subjects which affect both
men and women, it's little wonder women think it's only them who have
hurdles in life.

Know thy enemy.

Darkfalz wrote:
While I am not a proponet of either domestic violence or murder, I can say from personal experience (DH's ex), that some women deserve to be beaten. What's DH? De-facto Husband?

I think it's short for "dear husband" .

"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message
news:bqjfb6$226d14$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de... "john" <johnflash@linuxmail.org> wrote in message news:5579f3e6.0312021716.30ba10d0@posting.google.c om... "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message news:<bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de>... Was about husbands who killed their A man watching Oprah? Now *THAT'S* sick! I watch Oprah to get an idea of the poisoning that goes into women's minds from the feminist reigeme. The way Oprah poses subjects which affect both men and women, it's little wonder women think it's only them who have hurdles in life. Know thy enemy.

Why? You're ultimately going to lose anyway. And since you're apparently
not going to die in a blaze of glory after taking out as many of them as you
can, you come across more like someone who's just stalling so you can
complain some more.

> > > A man watching Oprah? Now *THAT'S* sick! I watch Oprah to get an idea of the poisoning that goes into women's
minds from the feminist reigeme. The way Oprah poses subjects which affect
both men and women, it's little wonder women think it's only them who have hurdles in life. Know thy enemy. Why? You're ultimately going to lose anyway. And since you're apparently not going to die in a blaze of glory after taking out as many of them as
you can, you come across more like someone who's just stalling so you can complain some more.

Pipe down ******. Go join Michael Jackson's support group, niggers who want
to be white should stick together.

now now, children..


"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message
news:bqjib5$23m5rm$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de... > A man watching Oprah? Now *THAT'S* sick! I watch Oprah to get an idea of the poisoning that goes into women's minds from the feminist reigeme. The way Oprah poses subjects which affect both men and women, it's little wonder women think it's only them who have hurdles in life. Know thy enemy. Why? You're ultimately going to lose anyway. And since you're
apparently not going to die in a blaze of glory after taking out as many of them as you can, you come across more like someone who's just stalling so you can complain some more. Pipe down ******. Go join Michael Jackson's support group, niggers who
want to be white should stick together.

"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message news:<bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de>... Was about husbands who killed their wives. As usual, Oprah completely ignored the fact that women kill their partners too (and almost as often as the reverse, and get away with far more often) and completely typecasted the murderers as men and the victims as women all throughough the entire show, but let's pretend that didn't happen for a moment. She had on the show a "former" wife beater and his wife, in fact, his THIRD wife, talking about his history of beating and almost killing his wives (including his current one). Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that a violent man who beats and controls women is able to get married three times, and we guys can't even get a date? All his wives were at least moderately attractive too. In his defense, his controlling behaviour was initially triggered by his first scumbag wife cheating on him (which Oprah mentioned only once, then ignored). Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous guys, only seems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably never hurt anyone in his life).

Oprah is a master of victimology. All blacks are victims, all women
are victims, etc.

PC wrote: "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message news:<bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de>... Was about husbands who killed their wives. As usual, Oprah completely ignored the fact that women kill their partners too (and almost as often as the reverse, and get away with far more often) and completely typecasted the murderers as men and the victims as women all throughough the entire show, but let's pretend that didn't happen for a moment. She had on the show a "former" wife beater and his wife, in fact, his THIRD wife, talking about his history of beating and almost killing his wives (including his current one). Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that a violent man who beats and controls women is able to get married three times, and we guys can't even get a date? All his wives were at least moderately attractive too. In his defense, his controlling behaviour was initially triggered by his first scumbag wife cheating on him (which Oprah mentioned only once, then ignored). Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous guys, only seems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably never hurt anyone in his life). Oprah is a master of victimology. All blacks are victims, all women are victims, etc.

Fits right in with the current generation. No surprise there. Everybody
is a victim. The lawyers are waiting to "help" you (at $300 an hour). Just
a phone call away...

Not going to argue the man more violent than woman thing. 15% of violent
crimes between intimate partners are committed by women; that still leaves
85% that are committed by men (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Violence by
women has been increasing for years; it's because violence is a learned
behavior. Children who witness violence are more likely to become an abuser
or a victim. So, it's no surprise violence by women is on the rise. Many
women who as children watched their mothers being beaten have learned that
strength is equated with abusive behavior. No surprise there.

And, like what difference does it make that this man's past 3 wives were
what you would call attractive?
Women, ugly and attractive, are beaten every day.

Female intuition has kept many women out of violent relationships, which is
why you've never heard about us on Oprah. Sounds like you're angry at gold
diggers...why do you take your anger out on battered women?

If you're unable to get a date perhaps it's time to look at your behavior,
or perhaps your attitude?
~Kimberlee



"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message
news:bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de...
: Was about husbands who killed their wives. As usual, Oprah completely
: ignored the fact that women kill their partners too (and almost as often
as
: the reverse, and get away with far more often) and completely typecasted
the
: murderers as men and the victims as women all throughough the entire show,
: but let's pretend that didn't happen for a moment.
:
: She had on the show a "former" wife beater and his wife, in fact, his
THIRD
: wife, talking about his history of beating and almost killing his wives
: (including his current one).
:
: Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that a violent man
who
: beats and controls women is able to get married three times, and we guys
: can't even get a date? All his wives were at least moderately attractive
: too.
:
: In his defense, his controlling behaviour was initially triggered by his
: first scumbag wife cheating on him (which Oprah mentioned only once, then
: ignored).
:
: Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous guys,
only
: seems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably never
: hurt anyone in his life).
:
:

Don't know may battered women who can pay $300 an hour.
Lots of batterers can, though.
Isn't that interesting?
~Kimberlee


"Bill in Co." <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%tvzb.27216$n56.18401@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
: PC wrote:
: > "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message
: > news:<bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de>...
: >> Was about husbands who killed their wives. As usual, Oprah completely
: >> ignored the fact that women kill their partners too (and almost as
often as
: >> the reverse, and get away with far more often) and completely
typecasted the
: >> murderers as men and the victims as women all throughough the entire
show,
: >> but let's pretend that didn't happen for a moment.
: >>
: >> She had on the show a "former" wife beater and his wife, in fact, his
THIRD
: >> wife, talking about his history of beating and almost killing his wives
: >> (including his current one).
: >>
: >> Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that a violent man
who
: >> beats and controls women is able to get married three times, and we
guys
: >> can't even get a date? All his wives were at least moderately
attractive
: >> too.
: >>
: >> In his defense, his controlling behaviour was initially triggered by
his
: >> first scumbag wife cheating on him (which Oprah mentioned only once,
then
: >> ignored).
: >>
: >> Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous guys,
only
: >> seems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably
never
: >> hurt anyone in his life).
: >
: > Oprah is a master of victimology. All blacks are victims, all women
: > are victims, etc.
:
: Fits right in with the current generation. No surprise there.
Everybody
: is a victim. The lawyers are waiting to "help" you (at $300 an hour).
Just
: a phone call away...
:
:

Kimberlee wrote: Not going to argue the man more violent than woman thing. 15% of violent crimes between intimate partners are committed by women; that still leaves 85% that are committed by men (Bureau of Justice Statistics).

Therein lies a serious statistical error: conflating violent crimes
with violent acts. I don't doubt that women commit 15% of *crimes*.
Women commit far more than 15% of *acts*. The reason for this great
disparity is that women are coddled at every level of the "justice"
system: they are less likely to be arrested, when arrested less likely
to be formally charged, when charged less likely to be convicted,
when convicted less likely to be incarcerated, and when incarcerated
are given much shorter sentences.

"Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com> wrote in message news:<1070504715.687784@prawn>... Don't know may battered women who can pay $300 an hour.

You don't need a lawyer to press charges.
Lots of batterers can, though.

Cites? Stats?
Isn't that interesting?

What's more interesting is your vast 'knowledge' of criminal law.

[snip]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:46:51 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:
PC wrote: "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message news:<bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de>... Was about husbands who killed their wives. As usual, Oprah completely ignored the fact that women kill their partners too (and almost as often as the reverse, and get away with far more often) and completely typecasted the murderers as men and the victims as women all throughough the entire show, but let's pretend that didn't happen for a moment. She had on the show a "former" wife beater and his wife, in fact, his THIRD wife, talking about his history of beating and almost killing his wives (including his current one). Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that a violent man who beats and controls women is able to get married three times, and we guys can't even get a date? All his wives were at least moderately attractive too. In his defense, his controlling behaviour was initially triggered by his first scumbag wife cheating on him (which Oprah mentioned only once, then ignored). Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous guys, only seems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably never hurt anyone in his life). Oprah is a master of victimology. All blacks are victims, all women are victims, etc.Fits right in with the current generation. No surprise there. Everybodyis a victim. The lawyers are waiting to "help" you (at $300 an hour). Justa phone call away...

They sure are. All of 'em.

********************************

Dr. P. Margarita
Coalition to Clean Up Pizza (CoCUP)

"Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com> wrote in message news:<1070504580.938821@prawn>... Not going to argue the man more violent than woman thing. 15% of violent crimes between intimate partners are committed by women; that still leaves 85% that are committed by men (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Violence by women has been increasing for years; it's because violence is a learned behavior. Children who witness violence are more likely to become an abuser or a victim.

how right you are, and as women keep bleating that they do most of the
child rearing the learned behaviour is down to them, especially as the
stats show that women abuse children(physically) more than men do

So, it's no surprise violence by women is on the rise. Many women who as children watched their mothers being beaten have learned that strength is equated with abusive behavior. No surprise there. And, like what difference does it make that this man's past 3 wives were what you would call attractive? Women, ugly and attractive, are beaten every day. Female intuition has kept many women out of violent relationships, which is why you've never heard about us on Oprah. Sounds like you're angry at gold diggers...why do you take your anger out on battered women? If you're unable to get a date perhaps it's time to look at your behavior, or perhaps your attitude? ~Kimberlee "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message news:bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de... : Was about husbands who killed their wives. As usual, Oprah completely : ignored the fact that women kill their partners too (and almost as often as : the reverse, and get away with far more often) and completely typecasted the : murderers as men and the victims as women all throughough the entire show, : but let's pretend that didn't happen for a moment. : : She had on the show a "former" wife beater and his wife, in fact, his THIRD : wife, talking about his history of beating and almost killing his wives : (including his current one). : : Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that a violent man who : beats and controls women is able to get married three times, and we guys : can't even get a date? All his wives were at least moderately attractive : too. : : In his defense, his controlling behaviour was initially triggered by his : first scumbag wife cheating on him (which Oprah mentioned only once, then : ignored). : : Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous guys, only : seems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably never : hurt anyone in his life). : :

Hi, Jester,
I don't have a law degree. I worked with battered women for six years, and
before that, I worked for attorneys in criminal and family law.
I can't even think of one woman who could afford an attorney, but most of
their husbands quickly made it to the bank, withdrew all the $$$, and then
slammed them with a custody case.
~Kimberlee


"Ritalin-Kid" <Jester_Dee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ad5b3a61.0312040644.70944ee9@posting.google.c om...
: "Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com> wrote in message
news:<1070504715.687784@prawn>...
: > Don't know may battered women who can pay $300 an hour.
:
: You don't need a lawyer to press charges.
:
: > Lots of batterers can, though.
:
: Cites? Stats?
:
: > Isn't that interesting?
:
: What's more interesting is your vast 'knowledge' of criminal law.
:
: [snip]

Hi, Gary,
If women are the predominant caretakers, it would make sense that children
are abused by women.
This is not the same, though, as learned behavior. Children learn from
watching both parents. If a child witnesses one parent beat the other,
that's what they learn.
~Kimberlee

"gary o brien" <rogue@jerseymail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b57b4077.0312040806.7a4e873a@posting.google.c om...
: "Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com> wrote in message
news:<1070504580.938821@prawn>...
: > Not going to argue the man more violent than woman thing. 15% of
violent
: > crimes between intimate partners are committed by women; that still
leaves
: > 85% that are committed by men (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Violence
by
: > women has been increasing for years; it's because violence is a learned
: > behavior. Children who witness violence are more likely to become an
abuser
: > or a victim.
:
: how right you are, and as women keep bleating that they do most of the
: child rearing the learned behaviour is down to them, especially as the
: stats show that women abuse children(physically) more than men do
:
: So, it's no surprise violence by women is on the rise. Many
: > women who as children watched their mothers being beaten have learned
that
: > strength is equated with abusive behavior. No surprise there.
: >
: > And, like what difference does it make that this man's past 3 wives were
: > what you would call attractive?
: > Women, ugly and attractive, are beaten every day.
: >
: > Female intuition has kept many women out of violent relationships, which
is
: > why you've never heard about us on Oprah. Sounds like you're angry at
gold
: > diggers...why do you take your anger out on battered women?
: >
: > If you're unable to get a date perhaps it's time to look at your
behavior,
: > or perhaps your attitude?
: > ~Kimberlee
: >
: >
: >
: > "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message
: > news:bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de...
: > : Was about husbands who killed their wives. As usual, Oprah completely
: > : ignored the fact that women kill their partners too (and almost as
often
: > as
: > : the reverse, and get away with far more often) and completely
typecasted
: > the
: > : murderers as men and the victims as women all throughough the entire
show,
: > : but let's pretend that didn't happen for a moment.
: > :
: > : She had on the show a "former" wife beater and his wife, in fact, his
: > THIRD
: > : wife, talking about his history of beating and almost killing his
wives
: > : (including his current one).
: > :
: > : Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that a violent
man
: > who
: > : beats and controls women is able to get married three times, and we
guys
: > : can't even get a date? All his wives were at least moderately
attractive
: > : too.
: > :
: > : In his defense, his controlling behaviour was initially triggered by
his
: > : first scumbag wife cheating on him (which Oprah mentioned only once,
then
: > : ignored).
: > :
: > : Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous
guys,
: > only
: > : seems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably
never
: > : hurt anyone in his life).
: > :
: > :

Hmm...

Interesting viewpoint, Spammy. What do you think is different between a
violent act and a violent crime?

In our state, the law applies equally to men and to women. What law
enforcement in our state looks at before making an arrest is "Primary
Aggressor" identification. Here's an explanation:
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/cvs/model_pol_proc/flowchart.pdf . In my state,
women are not coddled by the system, which is fine with me--no one should
receive special privileges. However, education is what is critical: There's
a huge difference between:

Man: She bit me on my arm. See?!?
Cop: Did you bite him?
Woman: Yes.
Cop: You're under arrest...

and:


Man: She bit me on my arm. See?!?
Cop: Did you bite him?
Woman: Yes.
Cop: Where was your arm at the time you bit her?
Woman: It was around my throat. He was strangling me.

This was an actual case I worked on about 5 years ago. I was amazed that a
woman came into the shelter, black and blue all over, after having been
released from jail that morning. When she was done telling me her story, I
walked her over to the prosecutor's office and had her tell her story,
including where her husband's arm was at the time she bit him, and about 4
days later, the charges were dropped. Is this coddling?

~Kimberlee


"spammy" <spammy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:e4zzb.4043$Kn2.1817@news.randori.com...
: Kimberlee wrote:
: > Not going to argue the man more violent than woman thing. 15% of
violent
: > crimes between intimate partners are committed by women; that still
leaves
: > 85% that are committed by men (Bureau of Justice Statistics).
:
: Therein lies a serious statistical error: conflating violent crimes
: with violent acts. I don't doubt that women commit 15% of *crimes*.
: Women commit far more than 15% of *acts*. The reason for this great
: disparity is that women are coddled at every level of the "justice"
: system: they are less likely to be arrested, when arrested less likely
: to be formally charged, when charged less likely to be convicted,
: when convicted less likely to be incarcerated, and when incarcerated
: are given much shorter sentences.

Kimberlee wrote: Hmm... Interesting viewpoint, Spammy. What do you think is different between a violent act and a violent crime? In our state, the law applies equally to men and to women. What law enforcement in our state looks at before making an arrest is "Primary Aggressor" identification. Here's an explanation:



How is the weather there on Uranus today?



http://www.doj.state.wi.us/cvs/model_pol_proc/flowchart.pdf . In my state, women are not coddled by the system, which is fine with me--no one should receive special privileges. However, education is what is critical: There's a huge difference between: Man: She bit me on my arm. See?!? Cop: Did you bite him? Woman: Yes. Cop: You're under arrest... and: Man: She bit me on my arm. See?!? Cop: Did you bite him? Woman: Yes. Cop: Where was your arm at the time you bit her? Woman: It was around my throat. He was strangling me. This was an actual case I worked on about 5 years ago. I was amazed that a woman came into the shelter, black and blue all over, after having been released from jail that morning. When she was done telling me her story, I walked her over to the prosecutor's office and had her tell her story, including where her husband's arm was at the time she bit him, and about 4 days later, the charges were dropped. Is this coddling? ~Kimberlee "spammy" <spammy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:e4zzb.4043$Kn2.1817@news.randori.com... : Kimberlee wrote: : > Not going to argue the man more violent than woman thing. 15% of violent : > crimes between intimate partners are committed by women; that still leaves : > 85% that are committed by men (Bureau of Justice Statistics). : : Therein lies a serious statistical error: conflating violent crimes : with violent acts. I don't doubt that women commit 15% of *crimes*. : Women commit far more than 15% of *acts*. The reason for this great : disparity is that women are coddled at every level of the "justice" : system: they are less likely to be arrested, when arrested less likely : to be formally charged, when charged less likely to be convicted, : when convicted less likely to be incarcerated, and when incarcerated : are given much shorter sentences.

Kimberlee wrote: Interesting viewpoint, Spammy. What do you think is different between a violent act and a violent crime?

Whether you get convicted. When the source you cited talks about
"violent crimes", that's almost certainly the criterion used.
In our state, the law applies equally to men and to women.

The law may be facially neutral, but it almost certainly is not
*applied* equally.

"The law, in its infinite majesty, forbids both rich and poor
from sleeping under bridges"
What law enforcement in our state looks at before making an arrest is "Primary Aggressor" identification.

I'm quite familiar with it. In practice, it almost always means
"arrest the man", no matter who started the confrontation.
In my state, women are not coddled by the system

Uh huh. You might try comparing conviction and incarceration data.
It's quite startling how few women actually end up in jail.

"Kimberlee" (Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com) writes: Hi, Jester, I don't have a law degree. I worked with battered women for six years, and before that, I worked for attorneys in criminal and family law.

There you go, I figured that you had a WomanFirster agenda...
I can't even think of one woman who could afford an attorney, but most of their husbands quickly made it to the bank, withdrew all the $$$, and then slammed them with a custody case.

Then, the *fact* that some 84% of single family homes are headed by
women, makes no difference to you ?

BTW, many Legal Aid authorities grant free legal representation to
women, in cases where they would not, to a man.

The head of University Of Ottawa Legal Aid, a woman, BTW, once said
to me, " If you had come in here with *the same exact case that your
ex wife came in with ( Note: They took *her* case ), we would have
turned you down, *because you are a man*. "

How more blatant than that do you need ?
~Kimberlee "Ritalin-Kid" <Jester_Dee@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ad5b3a61.0312040644.70944ee9@posting.google.c om... : "Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com> wrote in message news:<1070504715.687784@prawn>... : > Don't know may battered women who can pay $300 an hour. : : You don't need a lawyer to press charges. : : > Lots of batterers can, though. : : Cites? Stats? : : > Isn't that interesting? : : What's more interesting is your vast 'knowledge' of criminal law. : : [snip]

Indeed.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Andre,
I'm sorry that you have had experiences that indicate to you that I'm a
"womanfirster." I am not; I am a familyfirster, and that to me, means
safety and respect for everyone, not just women.

Now, to address your comments:
: Then, the *fact* that some 84% of single family homes are headed by
: women, makes no difference to you ?

What's your question?

: BTW, many Legal Aid authorities grant free legal representation to
: women, in cases where they would not, to a man.

Hmm...not ours. Legal Aid in our state takes cases based on strong legal
authority, none of which allow for gender discrimination.

: The head of University Of Ottawa Legal Aid, a woman, BTW, once said
: to me, " If you had come in here with *the same exact case that your
: ex wife came in with ( Note: They took *her* case ), we would have
: turned you down, *because you are a man*. "

Looks like they're in the dark ages.
~Kimberlee

"Kimberlee" (Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com) writes: Andre, I'm sorry that you have had experiences that indicate to you that I'm a "womanfirster."

Why ? I'm happy that I've used my experiences to *learn more about
those situations in the mass of populations*...
I am not; I am a familyfirster, and that to me, means safety and respect for everyone, not just women.

Yet, you fawn over women's issues.... And, ignore men's...

Uh huh.
Now, to address your comments: : Then, the *fact* that some 84% of single family homes are headed by : women, makes no difference to you ? What's your question?

I just said it. Can't you *read* ?
: BTW, many Legal Aid authorities grant free legal representation to : women, in cases where they would not, to a man. Hmm...not ours. Legal Aid in our state takes cases based on strong legal authority, none of which allow for gender discrimination.

Free Clue: The *rest of the world*, or at least, the rest of the
continent, *isn't under any obligation* to ape yours.

People of *wisdom* understand that they need to learn about *more
than their locales*...
: The head of University Of Ottawa Legal Aid, a woman, BTW, once said : to me, " If you had come in here with *the same exact case that your : ex wife came in with ( Note: They took *her* case ), we would have : turned you down, *because you are a man*. " Looks like they're in the dark ages.

Of Feminism, yes. Moreover, this is very common all around North
America.

But, since Feminism is to men, what the KKK is to blacks...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Shashay Doofray" <shashay@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bqhg6m$21vqns$1@ID-177524.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message news:bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de... Was about husbands who killed their wives. As usual, Oprah completely ignored the fact that women kill their partners too (and almost as often as the reverse, and get away with far more often) and completely typecasted the murderers as men and the victims as women all throughough the entire show, but let's pretend that didn't happen for a moment. She had on the show a "former" wife beater and his wife, in fact, his THIRD wife, talking about his history of beating and almost killing his wives (including his current one). Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that a violent man who beats and controls women is able to get married three times, and we guys can't even get a date? All his wives were at least moderately attractive too. In his defense, his controlling behaviour was initially triggered by his first scumbag wife cheating on him (which Oprah mentioned only once, then ignored). Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous guys, only seems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably never hurt anyone in his life). While I am not a proponet of either domestic violence or murder, I can say from personal experience (DH's ex), that some women deserve to be beaten.

No women, or men for that matter deserve to be beaten, period.

"Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com> wrote in
news:1070558167.128692@prawn:
Hi, Jester, I don't have a law degree. I worked with battered women for six years, and before that, I worked for attorneys in criminal and family law. I can't even think of one woman who could afford an attorney, but most of their husbands quickly made it to the bank, withdrew all the $$$, and then slammed them with a custody case. ~Kimberlee
If they weren't dinks in the first place they probably wouldn't be
battered. I had 3 attorneys, all women...wonder if they could afford an
attorney?

"Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com> wrote in
news:1070558952.629701@prawn:
Hmm... Interesting viewpoint, Spammy. What do you think is different between a violent act and a violent crime? In our state, the law applies equally to men and to women. What law enforcement in our state looks at before making an arrest is "Primary Aggressor" identification. Here's an explanation: http://www.doj.state.wi.us/cvs/model_pol_proc/flowchart.pdf . In my state, women are not coddled by the system, which is fine with me--no one should receive special privileges. However, education is what is critical: There's a huge difference between: Man: She bit me on my arm. See?!? Cop: Did you bite him? Woman: Yes. Cop: You're under arrest... and: Man: She bit me on my arm. See?!? Cop: Did you bite him? Woman: Yes. Cop: Where was your arm at the time you bit her? Woman: It was around my throat. He was strangling me.
Yeah, my crazy ex-wife did that one. Funny part is I actually had her head
in a vise. We laugh about it now,after we run out of ammo.
This was an actual case I worked on about 5 years ago. I was amazed that a woman came into the shelter, black and blue all over, after having been released from jail that morning. When she was done telling me her story, I walked her over to the prosecutor's office and had her tell her story, including where her husband's arm was at the time she bit him, and about 4 days later, the charges were dropped. Is this coddling?
Um, sure, why not?

amanda94621@yahoo.com (amanda) wrote in
news:bbea23b7.0312041635.4cc0576c@posting.google.c om:

No women, or men for that matter deserve to be beaten, period.

Okay Gandalf...I suppose you wouldn't have kicked Smeagol either.

What the hell am I talking about? GOD I'M SO ALONE!

amanda wrote: No women, or men for that matter deserve to be beaten, period.


Unless you're obese, male, and fall asleep on the lawn. Then you
apparently deserve to be beaten to death by a gang of club happy thugs.

Just ask the Cincinnati cops and most of the news reporters and talk
show hosts.


Bob

Why? I suppose because you labeled me, first of all.
I certainly do not ignore men's issues. I work primarily with men. Yet you
once again categorize me.
See, to me, feminism means equality. It does not mean male-bashing.
However, it does not mean being bashed by someone on usenet.
See ya'.



"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bqodtm$rlo$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
: "Kimberlee" (Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com) writes:
: > Andre,
: > I'm sorry that you have had experiences that indicate to you that I'm a
: > "womanfirster."
:
: Why ? I'm happy that I've used my experiences to *learn more about
: those situations in the mass of populations*...
:
: > I am not; I am a familyfirster, and that to me, means
: > safety and respect for everyone, not just women.
:
: Yet, you fawn over women's issues.... And, ignore men's...
:
: Uh huh.
:
: > Now, to address your comments:
: > : Then, the *fact* that some 84% of single family homes are headed by
: > : women, makes no difference to you ?
: >
: > What's your question?
:
: I just said it. Can't you *read* ?
:
: > : BTW, many Legal Aid authorities grant free legal representation to
: > : women, in cases where they would not, to a man.
: >
: > Hmm...not ours. Legal Aid in our state takes cases based on strong
legal
: > authority, none of which allow for gender discrimination.
:
: Free Clue: The *rest of the world*, or at least, the rest of the
: continent, *isn't under any obligation* to ape yours.
:
: People of *wisdom* understand that they need to learn about *more
: than their locales*...
:
: > : The head of University Of Ottawa Legal Aid, a woman, BTW, once said
: > : to me, " If you had come in here with *the same exact case that your
: > : ex wife came in with ( Note: They took *her* case ), we would have
: > : turned you down, *because you are a man*. "
: >
: > Looks like they're in the dark ages.
:
: Of Feminism, yes. Moreover, this is very common all around North
: America.
:
: But, since Feminism is to men, what the KKK is to blacks...
:
: Andre
:
: --
: " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
: The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Kimberlee" (Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com) writes: Why?

Well, we can add top posting, a pernicious habit born of sheer *laziness*
to the reasons why...
I suppose because you labeled me, first of all.

You MS-spelled " accurately described ".

Labels are useful things, because they display the *contents* inside...
I certainly do not ignore men's issues.

Can't prove that by what you've written here...
I work primarily with men.

" I can't be a racist. I know some darkies... "

<laughs>
Yet you once again categorize me.

In science, describing somehting is the first step towards understanding
it...
See, to me, feminism means equality.

ROTFLMAO ! Still peddling that old piece of cow****, eh ?

Lets try this example: Suppose a movement that was about *one birth
group, only*. Could we then claim that its about *all other birth
groups*, too ?

Of course not ! That would be, well, insane, and illiterate.
It does not mean male-bashing.

NOW is to men, what the KKK is to blacks...

Note that FEMInism isn't about non-FEMI people...

HTH.
However, it does not mean being bashed by someone on usenet.

Translation: As you *refused* to bow before my *unsupported words*,
I will flounce off in the ways of all ditzy and self absorbed
wimmins... "

Thanks for *proving my point, again, toots*...

And, for once again, showing your INABILITIES, asa you were *unable*
to comment on, much less refute, *anything* I wrote below.

Your total concession noted...

<laughs>
See ya'.

" ... wouldn't want to be ya... "

Quite.
"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bqodtm$rlo$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... : "Kimberlee" (Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com) writes: : > Andre, : > I'm sorry that you have had experiences that indicate to you that I'm : > a "womanfirster." : : Why ? I'm happy that I've used my experiences to *learn more about : those situations in the mass of populations*... : : > I am not; I am a familyfirster, and that to me, means : > safety and respect for everyone, not just women. : : Yet, you fawn over women's issues.... And, ignore men's... : : Uh huh. : : > Now, to address your comments: : > : Then, the *fact* that some 84% of single family homes are headed by : > : women, makes no difference to you ? : > : > What's your question? : : I just said it. Can't you *read* ? : : > : BTW, many Legal Aid authorities grant free legal representation to : > : women, in cases where they would not, to a man. : > : > Hmm...not ours. Legal Aid in our state takes cases based on strong : > legal authority, none of which allow for gender discrimination. : : Free Clue: The *rest of the world*, or at least, the rest of the : continent, *isn't under any obligation* to ape yours. : : People of *wisdom* understand that they need to learn about *more : than their locales*... : : > : The head of University Of Ottawa Legal Aid, a woman, BTW, once said : > : to me, " If you had come in here with *the same exact case that your : > : ex wife came in with ( Note: They took *her* case ), we would have : > : turned you down, *because you are a man*. " : > : > Looks like they're in the dark ages. : : Of Feminism, yes. Moreover, this is very common all around North : America. : : But, since Feminism is to men, what the KKK is to blacks...

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com> wrote in message news:<1070558167.128692@prawn>... Hi, Jester, I don't have a law degree. I worked with battered women for six years, and before that, I worked for attorneys in criminal and family law.

Good then you should know that a battered woman does not need a lawyer
to press charges, get a restraining order, etc.

I can't even think of one woman who could afford an attorney,

Of course you can't. Your world experience comes from a biased
experience on the matter. You base your opinion on the worst cases of
abusive relationships where the women are usually at the end of their
luck (money for instance), etc.

Those women can still press charges without lawyers, and there are
plenty of programs for laywers' fees for battered women, poor women,
etc. Also, I fail to see how a REAL (not the innocent ones accused of
abuse by their ex out of spite and to get custody easier) abusive
husband could win custody. Since an overwhelming number of women win
full custody of their children, and despite the fact that women earn
less (not because of discrimination mind you) in general clearly shows
that your premise is wrong.

but most of their husbands quickly made it to the bank, withdrew all the $$$, and then slammed them with a custody case.


Of course that happens in cases you've seen. You witnessed the worst
that happens to women, and believing that is somehow a norm is
intellectual hypocrisy at worst.

There are a lot of tales of exactly the opposite happening to men.
Their ex emptied the account, sued for custody (and by the stats they
win most of the time), caused an enormous amount of trouble with the
father's visitation rights, claimed abuse when it was not the case,
spend the child support money on her new car, kept the house, the
furniture, etc., see no problems of her ex husband paying child
support even though dna tests shows he didn't fathered the child (IIRC
25% of paternity tests show the guy's not the father) and the list
goes on.

Simply applying the 'victim' syndrome on women doesn't help them one
bit imo.

[snip]

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
"Kimberlee" (Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com) writes: Hi, Jester, I don't have a law degree. I worked with battered women for six years, and before that, I worked for attorneys in criminal and family law. There you go, I figured that you had a WomanFirster agenda...

How does helping women who've been beaten mean a "WomanFirster"
agenda?

I can't even think of one woman who could afford an attorney, but most of their husbands quickly made it to the bank, withdrew all the $$$, and then slammed them with a custody case. Then, the *fact* that some 84% of single family homes are headed by women, makes no difference to you ? BTW, many Legal Aid authorities grant free legal representation to women, in cases where they would not, to a man. The head of University Of Ottawa Legal Aid, a woman, BTW, once said to me, " If you had come in here with *the same exact case that your ex wife came in with ( Note: They took *her* case ), we would have turned you down, *because you are a man*. "

OK, now I start to see what some of your bitterness is about. What
was your beef with your ex-wife?

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
"Kimberlee" (Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com) writes: Andre, I'm sorry that you have had experiences that indicate to you that I'm a "womanfirster." Why ? I'm happy that I've used my experiences to *learn more about those situations in the mass of populations*...

By "learn about...in mass populations" you mean "reading tendentious
books which are not well-supported statistically?" Or do you just
mean "watching TV?"

"Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com> wrote in message news:<1070558464.60745@prawn>... Hi, Gary, If women are the predominant caretakers, it would make sense that children are abused by women. This is not the same, though, as learned behavior. Children learn from watching both parents. If a child witnesses one parent beat the other, that's what they learn. ~Kimberlee

If the child is physically abused by the mother then that child is
learning from that behaviour, i.e. if mum hits me its ok for me to hit
others.
The two are the same, stop trying to make out that only male violence
is bad,
violence by both men and women is bad. "gary o brien" <rogue@jerseymail.co.uk> wrote in message news:b57b4077.0312040806.7a4e873a@posting.google.c om... : "Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com> wrote in message news:<1070504580.938821@prawn>... : > Not going to argue the man more violent than woman thing. 15% of violent : > crimes between intimate partners are committed by women; that still leaves : > 85% that are committed by men (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Violence by : > women has been increasing for years; it's because violence is a learned : > behavior. Children who witness violence are more likely to become an abuser : > or a victim. : : how right you are, and as women keep bleating that they do most of the : child rearing the learned behaviour is down to them, especially as the : stats show that women abuse children(physically) more than men do : : So, it's no surprise violence by women is on the rise. Many : > women who as children watched their mothers being beaten have learned that : > strength is equated with abusive behavior. No surprise there. : > : > And, like what difference does it make that this man's past 3 wives were : > what you would call attractive? : > Women, ugly and attractive, are beaten every day. : > : > Female intuition has kept many women out of violent relationships, which is : > why you've never heard about us on Oprah. Sounds like you're angry at gold : > diggers...why do you take your anger out on battered women? : > : > If you're unable to get a date perhaps it's time to look at your behavior, : > or perhaps your attitude? : > ~Kimberlee : > : > : > : > "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message : > news:bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de... : > : Was about husbands who killed their wives. As usual, Oprah completely : > : ignored the fact that women kill their partners too (and almost as often as : > : the reverse, and get away with far more often) and completely typecasted the : > : murderers as men and the victims as women all throughough the entire show, : > : but let's pretend that didn't happen for a moment. : > : : > : She had on the show a "former" wife beater and his wife, in fact, his THIRD : > : wife, talking about his history of beating and almost killing his wives : > : (including his current one). : > : : > : Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that a violent man who : > : beats and controls women is able to get married three times, and we guys : > : can't even get a date? All his wives were at least moderately attractive : > : too. : > : : > : In his defense, his controlling behaviour was initially triggered by his : > : first scumbag wife cheating on him (which Oprah mentioned only once, then : > : ignored). : > : : > : Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous guys, only : > : seems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably never : > : hurt anyone in his life). : > : : > :

Jester_Dee@yahoo.com (Ritalin-Kid) wrote in
news:ad5b3a61.0312050648.7596bf7d@posting.google.c om:
"Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com> wrote in message news:<1070558167.128692@prawn>... Hi, Jester, I don't have a law degree. I worked with battered women for six years, and before that, I worked for attorneys in criminal and family law. Good then you should know that a battered woman does not need a lawyer to press charges, get a restraining order, etc.
Quite true. In this area, certainly, all the forms are easily available
for restraining orders etc. There are classes to help (men & women) fill
out some of them, and getting a restraining order is pretty easy.

But of course the one adjudicating the case will assume that men are more
violent, because they are. Just because a woman is an annoying psychotic
***** doesn't mean you pound her face in with a Buick. Though I actually
saw a case where some idiot had for a restraining order against his wife,
who was filing against him. Seems she tried to fight back when he pinned
here down and berated her culinary skills by smashing a toaster on her
head. Poor guy.
There are a lot of tales of exactly the opposite happening to men. Their ex emptied the account, sued for custody (and by the stats they win most of the time), caused an enormous amount of trouble with the father's visitation rights, claimed abuse when it was not the case, spend the child support money on her new car, kept the house, the furniture, etc., see no problems of her ex husband paying child support even though dna tests shows he didn't fathered the child (IIRC 25% of paternity tests show the guy's not the father) and the list goes on.

Women don't know how to withdraw money from a bank--inferior intelligence
and all that. 25%? The Divine Comedy goes on...

Aha! I finally found your post (I lost it this morning; didn't mean to
ignore you).

: > In our state, the law applies equally to men and to women.
:
: The law may be facially neutral, but it almost certainly is not :
*applied* equally.

If this is the case, who is responsible for ensuring that it *is* applied
equally?
My thinking is, if you don't like it (and you, I mean generically, as in all
of us), then step up to the plate and speak up, even if your voice shakes.
It means doing something *more* than just fussing and moaning about it.
:
: "The law, in its infinite majesty, forbids both rich and poor from
sleeping under bridges"

There's a lot of things that are supposed to be infinitely wise that I think
are hogwash!

: I'm quite familiar with it. In practice, it almost always means "arrest
the man", no matter who started the confrontation.

Then again, who is supposed to fix it? It begins with awareness, then with
coordination, then with vocalization.
Which stage are you in?

: > In my state, women are not coddled by the system

: Uh huh. You might try comparing conviction and incarceration data.
: It's quite startling how few women actually end up in jail.

Hmm...I guess I'm too close to the situation to really see things from your
perspective.
From what I've seen, working from within the system in the past, things are
pretty well screwed up--equally~!
~Kimberlee

But of course the one adjudicating the case will assume that men are moreviolent, because they are. Just because a woman is an annoying psychotic***** doesn't mean you pound her face in with a Buick. Though I actuallysaw a case where some idiot had for a restraining order against his wife,who was filing against him. Seems she tried to fight back when he pinnedhere down and berated her culinary skills by smashing a toaster on herhead. Poor guy.

There is some small, but notable*, portion of domestic violence cases
where the violence is initiated by the woman. While indeed men are often
stronger and can do more damage, being physically struck by even someone
who is small and lightweight is extraordinarily humiliating; it's abusive,
and there should be no surprise that a violent response occurs in some of
these cases. A "restraining order," would of course not really be very
necessary. The man should simply leave.

I do have to say, however, that if some woman strikes her man about the
face, and then ends up getting her *** kicked, I have very little sympathy.

She shouldn't *do* that.

C//

*as in "not inconsequential."

Courageous <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:0cc1tvogc1tdlfpoprnvfoj9bm0dh5h2qe@4ax.com: I do have to say, however, that if some woman strikes her man about the face, and then ends up getting her *** kicked, I have very little sympathy. She shouldn't *do* that.
I suppose if someone hits you the natural tendency is to hit back...but it
ain't gonna' look good in court if the man has a band-aid on his face and
the woman has X-rays of her broken ribs.

"Ritalin-Kid" <Jester_Dee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ad5b3a61.0312050648.7596bf7d@posting.google.c om...

: Good then you should know that a battered woman does not need a lawyer
: to press charges, get a restraining order, etc.

That's only the beginning for most women.
Some have children with their abuser.
Some have property and are entangled by mortgage payments, joint credit
cards, utility bills, etc.
None of these are easy to get out of without the assistance of someone who
understands the system, and sometimes without an attorney.
Pro bono lawyers are available, but they're in high demand in our state, and
are usually not available for months.

: Those women can still press charges without lawyers, and there are
: plenty of programs for laywers' fees for battered women, poor women,
: etc.

When your life is threatened, it's tough to hear Legal Services say "We have
a waiting list." Usually it takes about 3 to 6 months just to get screened.

: Also, I fail to see how a REAL (not the innocent ones accused of
: abuse by their ex out of spite and to get custody easier) abusive
: husband could win custody.

In Alaska, as in other states, child custody laws are based on the child's
need to have a loving and open relationship with both parents.
It is very, very difficult to convince a judge that just because an abuser
harms a spouse that the children will be harmed as well, although statistics
and research have shown this. I've gone through several custody battles
with victims whose abusers also abused the children. The abusers were
*sometimes* ordered to successfully complete a parenting program; most,
however, were given 50-50 custody.

: Since an overwhelming number of women win
: full custody of their children,

Not in our state. Have you checked your state's custody laws?
Have you monitored domestic violence/divorce cases to see what judges are
actually doing?
In our state, it's a 50-50 thing, which I strongly believe in, unless one
parent is abusive toward the children or toward the other parent.

: and despite the fact that women earn less (not because of discrimination
mind you) in general clearly shows
: that your premise is wrong.

Our state does not base custody on finances. Most states don't.
Most states do, however, look at the ability of each parent to meet the
children's needs (which I agree with).
If Parent A earns $10 an hour and Parent B earns $25, yet Parent A is the
most qualified to get the kids to school on time, get them to doctors
appointments and social activities, and provides the most stable home,
Parent B will end up paying child support. But, Parent B will also get
plenty of visitation (as close to 50-50 as the children's schedules will
allow).

: Of course that happens in cases you've seen. You witnessed the worst
: that happens to women, and believing that is somehow a norm is
: intellectual hypocrisy at worst.

I think you're right on this point. I have worked with a few women who've
come in for legal information who were going through an amicable divorce.
I almost fell out of my chair--it wasn't something I'd heard of that often!

: There are a lot of tales of exactly the opposite happening to men.
: Their ex emptied the account,

In our state, anytime someone files for divorce an order is automatically
entered which is supposed to prohibit this.
In spite of the law, this happens all the time. I think judges need to
enforce the law.
Especially when children are involved and there is no life-threatening
situation, this is deplorable.

: sued for custody (and by the stats they win most of the time),

Which stats?

: caused an enormous amount of trouble with the father's visitation rights,

Again, unless there is abuse, this shouldn't be tolerated.

: claimed abuse when it was not the case,

Unfortunately, this does happen.
It's tough to prove abuse, and it's tough to defend against abuse.

I have worked with many, many women who've said that their abuser was a good
father and that they wouldn't want to interfere with the relationship
between dad and the kids. I've admired these women for being able to look
out for the best interests of their children.

: spend the child support money on her new car, kept the house, the
: furniture, etc.,

This was common back in the 80s.
At least in our state, and most states that I'm familiar with, it's an equal
split of assets and liabilities.

: see no problems of her ex husband paying child support even though dna
tests shows he didn't fathered the child (IIRC
: 25% of paternity tests show the guy's not the father) and the list goes
on.

In Alaska, this is the case if the child was born during the marriage (even
if the child was fathered by another man).
There are ways for a man to get around this--starting with some good legal
advice from a family law attorney!

: Simply applying the 'victim' syndrome on women doesn't help them one bit
imo.

I agree totally. The victim syndrome keeps victims powerlessness and
reliant.
I would much rather see a victim recover her power and accept personal
responsibility.
Usually, the first step toward this end is SAFETY.

It's been nice chatting with you.
I enjoy hearing others' opinions and experiences.
Thanks for sharing.
~Kimberlee

:
: [snip]

I love top posting.

(Andre Lieven) wrote "Kimberlee" writes: Why? Well, we can add top posting, a pernicious habit

Pernicious? As in how?

- Michaela

Andre

I have a client (female) who got pregnant by a guy and who afterwards
decided that she didn't want him in the child's life. (This is in Ontario)
He, of limited means went to legal aid where he successfully sued for
visitation and has on numerous occasions had to go back to court using legal
aid to get her to comply with the court orders. I can't say that I feel
sorry for her mounting legal bills. She got pregnant while married to
another man.screwed this guy while he was a patient in a hospital ( she in a
position of trust) and decided she wanted to be a sole parent. I doesn't
always work against the guys.


"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bqp6nl$o2m$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Kimberlee" (Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com) writes: Why? Well, we can add top posting, a pernicious habit born of sheer *laziness* to the reasons why... I suppose because you labeled me, first of all. You MS-spelled " accurately described ". Labels are useful things, because they display the *contents* inside... I certainly do not ignore men's issues. Can't prove that by what you've written here... I work primarily with men. " I can't be a racist. I know some darkies... " <laughs> Yet you once again categorize me. In science, describing somehting is the first step towards understanding it... See, to me, feminism means equality. ROTFLMAO ! Still peddling that old piece of cow****, eh ? Lets try this example: Suppose a movement that was about *one birth group, only*. Could we then claim that its about *all other birth groups*, too ? Of course not ! That would be, well, insane, and illiterate. It does not mean male-bashing. NOW is to men, what the KKK is to blacks... Note that FEMInism isn't about non-FEMI people... HTH. However, it does not mean being bashed by someone on usenet. Translation: As you *refused* to bow before my *unsupported words*, I will flounce off in the ways of all ditzy and self absorbed wimmins... " Thanks for *proving my point, again, toots*... And, for once again, showing your INABILITIES, asa you were *unable* to comment on, much less refute, *anything* I wrote below. Your total concession noted... <laughs> See ya'. " ... wouldn't want to be ya... " Quite. "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bqodtm$rlo$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... : "Kimberlee" (Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com) writes: : > Andre, : > I'm sorry that you have had experiences that indicate to you that
I'm : > a "womanfirster." : : Why ? I'm happy that I've used my experiences to *learn more about : those situations in the mass of populations*... : : > I am not; I am a familyfirster, and that to me, means : > safety and respect for everyone, not just women. : : Yet, you fawn over women's issues.... And, ignore men's... : : Uh huh. : : > Now, to address your comments: : > : Then, the *fact* that some 84% of single family homes are headed
by : > : women, makes no difference to you ? : > : > What's your question? : : I just said it. Can't you *read* ? : : > : BTW, many Legal Aid authorities grant free legal representation to : > : women, in cases where they would not, to a man. : > : > Hmm...not ours. Legal Aid in our state takes cases based on strong : > legal authority, none of which allow for gender discrimination. : : Free Clue: The *rest of the world*, or at least, the rest of the : continent, *isn't under any obligation* to ape yours. : : People of *wisdom* understand that they need to learn about *more : than their locales*... : : > : The head of University Of Ottawa Legal Aid, a woman, BTW, once
said : > : to me, " If you had come in here with *the same exact case that
your : > : ex wife came in with ( Note: They took *her* case ), we would have : > : turned you down, *because you are a man*. " : > : > Looks like they're in the dark ages. : : Of Feminism, yes. Moreover, this is very common all around North : America. : : But, since Feminism is to men, what the KKK is to blacks... Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Sorry Kimberlee..the stats you cite are BULL****
I know, PROOF!!!!!!!!! Right???


http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Care to comment????



"Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com> wrote in message
news:1070504580.938821@prawn... Not going to argue the man more violent than woman thing. 15% of violent crimes between intimate partners are committed by women; that still leaves 85% that are committed by men (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Violence by women has been increasing for years; it's because violence is a learned behavior. Children who witness violence are more likely to become an
abuser or a victim. So, it's no surprise violence by women is on the rise. Many women who as children watched their mothers being beaten have learned that strength is equated with abusive behavior. No surprise there. And, like what difference does it make that this man's past 3 wives were what you would call attractive? Women, ugly and attractive, are beaten every day. Female intuition has kept many women out of violent relationships, which
is why you've never heard about us on Oprah. Sounds like you're angry at
gold diggers...why do you take your anger out on battered women? If you're unable to get a date perhaps it's time to look at your behavior, or perhaps your attitude? ~Kimberlee "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message news:bqh5rp$21s2a8$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de... : Was about husbands who killed their wives. As usual, Oprah completely : ignored the fact that women kill their partners too (and almost as often as : the reverse, and get away with far more often) and completely typecasted the : murderers as men and the victims as women all throughough the entire
show, : but let's pretend that didn't happen for a moment. : : She had on the show a "former" wife beater and his wife, in fact, his THIRD : wife, talking about his history of beating and almost killing his wives : (including his current one). : : Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that a violent man who : beats and controls women is able to get married three times, and we guys : can't even get a date? All his wives were at least moderately attractive : too. : : In his defense, his controlling behaviour was initially triggered by his : first scumbag wife cheating on him (which Oprah mentioned only once,
then : ignored). : : Funny how "female intuition", that supposedly weeds out dangerous guys, only : seems to work when the guy is poor or unattractive (and has probably
never : hurt anyone in his life). : :

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: "Kimberlee" (Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com) writes: Hi, Jester, I don't have a law degree. I worked with battered women for six years, and before that, I worked for attorneys in criminal and family law. There you go, I figured that you had a WomanFirster agenda... How does helping women who've been beaten mean a "WomanFirster" agenda?

Jester Dee has already well answered that question. Go read what he
said, hes entirely right.
I can't even think of one woman who could afford an attorney, but most of their husbands quickly made it to the bank, withdrew all the $$$, and then slammed them with a custody case. Then, the *fact* that some 84% of single family homes are headed by women, makes no difference to you ? BTW, many Legal Aid authorities grant free legal representation to women, in cases where they would not, to a man. The head of University Of Ottawa Legal Aid, a woman, BTW, once said to me, " If you had come in here with *the same exact case that your ex wife came in with ( Note: They took *her* case ), we would have turned you down, *because you are a man*. " OK, now I start to see what some of your bitterness is about. What was your beef with your ex-wife?

Aside from her using the legal system to file false charges, and
getting their help to commit legal theft ?

As millions of women do, and are *assisted* by the " gender neutral "
legal authorities, such that there are divorce lawyers whose advice
to women clients is to file a false charge, for the leverage that
it'll give them in the divorce.

Go read Sanford Braver's " Divorced Dads; Shattering The Myths ",
for more, and for a horrific example of this, " The Divorce From Hell ",
by Wendy Dennis.

Relative to those, I got off very easy. And, I understand that, *and*
the context in which my case occured.

And, I used my experience as the *starting* point to *learn* about
the *societal trends* in these areas. Unlike, say, you...

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: "Kimberlee" (Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com) writes: Andre, I'm sorry that you have had experiences that indicate to you that I'm a "womanfirster." Why ? I'm happy that I've used my experiences to *learn more about those situations in the mass of populations*... By "learn about...in mass populations" you mean "reading tendentious books which are not well-supported statistically?"

And, *your* " well supported statistically " basis for this *unsupported
claim* would be... ?

Uh huh.

Translation: " Data that I don't like, is ipso facto, 'not well
supported statistically'... "

Got it.

Look up " observational bias " sometime..
Or do you just mean "watching TV?"

Non sequitur.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Michaela (michaelamackenzie05072001@yahoo.com) writes: I love top posting.

Sure, because you want to place the burden of doing your work on others...

IOW, you're... LAZY. Got it.
(Andre Lieven) wrote "Kimberlee" writes: Why? Well, we can add top posting, a pernicious habit Pernicious? As in how?

Ibid.

PLONK.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

There are many angry men out there.
Angry is fine--properly expressed anger can cause social change (angry about
drunk driving deaths, angry about child abuse, angry about rape, angry about
domestic violence, angry about child custody).

I was once on some kind of father's rights extremist "hit list" because I
hosted an online support group for battered women and because I'm outspoken
against abuse.

Anything that confuses social change with extremism or hate are unhealthy
and counter productive.
~Kimberlee

My problem with many of the "groundbreaking" exposes is that they do not
take into account:

1. Who uses the threat of violence as a means of controlling the other
partner?
2. Who maintains control in the relationship through fear?
3. Who is more physically capable of maiming or killing the victim or
children?

Well, the list goes on and on. Go to your nearest hospital and see who
comes in with the bruises, broken bones and body bags.
By and large, it's women.

Kimberlee wrote: There are many angry men out there. Angry is fine--properly expressed anger can cause social change (angry about drunk driving deaths, angry about child abuse, angry about rape, angry about domestic violence, angry about child custody).


IOW: Angry men are only acceptable in Kimberlee's prejudicial view if
men support her misandrist political agendas.

Too bad toots. Many angry men are angry AT your misandrist political
agendas. The social changes that MEN will instigate will roll back and
eliminate many of those anti-men feminist programs.


I was once on some kind of father's rights extremist "hit list" because I hosted an online support group for battered women and because I'm outspoken against abuse.

IOW: You were outspoken of your misandry. Many MEN are getting more
and more angry about that. Even more and more young women are beginning
to see that hating men and destroying marriage has left them without
decent lives.

Anything that confuses social change with extremism or hate are unhealthy and counter productive. ~Kimberlee

So change. Men are ready.

Bob

Kimberlee wrote: My problem with many of the "groundbreaking" exposes is that they do not take into account: 1. Who uses the threat of violence as a means of controlling the other partner?

Usually women. It is no longer safe for men to be in their company.
2. Who maintains control in the relationship through fear?

Usually women. Most men these days won't do "relationships" with women
any more. Its safer to run.

3. Who is more physically capable of maiming or killing the victim or children?

Women do twice as much child abuse including murder. Obviously they are
quite capable, physically, of doing so.

Well, the list goes on and on. Go to your nearest hospital and see who comes in with the bruises, broken bones and body bags. By and large, it's women.

Lie. Men and boys suffer many more broken bones and other violent
injuries than do females.


Bob

Kimberlee wrote: Or because some victims may know that if the abuser goes to jail, the victim will end up in a grave.



Feminist definition: "victim," --> n. A woman

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:
OK, now I start to see what some of your bitterness is about. What was your beef with your ex-wife? Aside from her using the legal system to file false charges, and getting their help to commit legal theft ?

So go listen to some country-western music.

Look. You are hardly unique in feeling like you got ripped off in
your divorce. Lots of people (men and women) feel that way. And many
of them (men, women, and possibly even you) have good cause to feel
that way.

But do yourself a favor: concentrate on making better choices (for
example marry someone better, or don't get married at all) and
controlling what you can control in life instead of raging against the
"system."
As millions of women do, and are *assisted* by the " gender neutral " legal authorities, such that there are divorce lawyers whose advice to women clients is to file a false charge, for the leverage that it'll give them in the divorce. Go read Sanford Braver's " Divorced Dads; Shattering The Myths ", for more, and for a horrific example of this, " The Divorce From Hell ", by Wendy Dennis.

There are plenty of horrific thins that happen to people, both men and
women. And plenty of examples where the legal system produced a
terrible result (for both men and women). I don't know why you think
men have a monopoly on victimhood, or even the majority.
Relative to those, I got off very easy. And, I understand that, *and* the context in which my case occured. And, I used my experience as the *starting* point to *learn* about the *societal trends* in these areas. Unlike, say, you...

In other words, rather than taking control and accepting
responsibility for whatever part you had in what happened to you,
you'd like to blame society?

Doug Anderson wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:OK, now I start to see what some of your bitterness is about. Whatwas your beef with your ex-wife?Aside from her using the legal system to file false charges, andgetting their help to commit legal theft ? So go listen to some country-western music. Look. You are hardly unique in feeling like you got ripped off in your divorce. Lots of people (men and women) feel that way. And many of them (men, women, and possibly even you) have good cause to feel that way. But do yourself a favor: concentrate on making better choices (for example marry someone better, or don't get married at all) and controlling what you can control in life instead of raging against the "system."


1. If nobody speaks out against an unjust system it will never change.
In a democracy it is every citizns duty to speak out against tyranny.

2. That "make better choices" is a classic example of blaming the
victim. You ought to be ashamed.


As millions of women do, and are *assisted* by the " gender neutral "legal authorities, such that there are divorce lawyers whose adviceto women clients is to file a false charge, for the leverage thatit'll give them in the divorce.Go read Sanford Braver's " Divorced Dads; Shattering The Myths ",for more, and for a horrific example of this, " The Divorce From Hell ",by Wendy Dennis. There are plenty of horrific thins that happen to people, both men and women. And plenty of examples where the legal system produced a terrible result (for both men and women). I don't know why you think men have a monopoly on victimhood, or even the majority.


There is a preponderance of terrible results for men and favorable
results for women. Claiming that overall results are the same for both
is anti-men bigotry.


Relative to those, I got off very easy. And, I understand that, *and*the context in which my case occured.And, I used my experience as the *starting* point to *learn* aboutthe *societal trends* in these areas. Unlike, say, you... In other words, rather than taking control and accepting responsibility for whatever part you had in what happened to you, you'd like to blame society?


IOW: You blame the nearest available man instead of looking at the
systematic problems in a system gone south and demanding that it be
changed. Perhaps its because of your own "white kight" prejudice
agaisnt men. If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the
problem.

Bob

I suppose if someone hits you the natural tendency is to hit back...but itain't gonna' look good in court if the...

Don't care. *She* is the abusive one in those circumstances. The
response itself isn't justified, but let's not lose track of the
initiator here. Please understand, I'm not suggesting that this
is the principle source of any major portion of male-female violence.
Rather, this is out of my dislike of a phenomenon I have observed
where certain women will feel "justified" in things like slapping men.

C//

"Kimberlee" (Kimberlee@NOSPAMhotmail.com) writes: My problem with many of the "groundbreaking" exposes is that they do not take into account: 1. Who uses the threat of violence as a means of controlling the other partner?

As DV is about 50/50, then it's logical to infer a similar tae of this,
*outside of men figuring out that, when she calls the cops, even if
she started it, HE's the one going to jail*...

So, in this area, men have more to fear...
2. Who maintains control in the relationship through fear?

Ibid.
3. Who is more physically capable of maiming or killing the victim or children?

Given that women *more frequently* harm and kill the children, to
use this to try to, falsely, suggest that women have more to fear
from men is laughable/dishonest...
Well, the list goes on and on.

Indeed it does. But, you *leave out* men's lists...

Uh huh...
Go to your nearest hospital and see who comes in with the bruises, broken bones and body bags.

This has also been explained to you, and other imbeciles who
comflate one separate thing for another.

Women, as a group, tend to be smaller than men, and weaker
than men. So, even when a woman launches the attack, which is
the case about half the time, shes more likely to suffer a
greater physical damage, due to her smaller striking power,
and lower damage resistance.

THe only thing we can infer from this, is that women who launch
such physical attacks on larger targets, IOW, men, are *extra
stupid*.

And, in the Real World, stupidity has... *consequences*...
By and large, it's women.

See above. <laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

TR_ wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: [A. Lieven can speak for himself, but since he hasn't done so yet, I'll deign to interject, and only on my OWN behalf.] And plenty of examples where the legal system produced a terrible result (for both men and women). I don't know why you think men have a monopoly on victimhood, or even the majority. I'd like for you to demonstrate where A. Lieven or anyone else who posts here claimed that men have a monopoly or even a majority on victimhood.

!!! ROFLMAO !!!
In other words, rather than taking control and accepting responsibility for whatever part you had in what happened to you, you'd like to blame society? Oh, yeah. Here's another one of those "other words" whackos. Standard reply: Yep. Those are other words, alright. They are words that you WISH had been typed so you could pretend to hold a superiour position, but unfortunately for you, those "other words" have no relationship to what the original author wrote or intended to communicate.

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic....

To read a very good article on the distinction between "couples violence"
and "patriarchal terrorism" see below:
Johnson, M. P. (2001). Conflict and Control: Symmetry and Asymmetry in
Domestic Violence. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter & M. Clements (Eds.), Couples
in Conflict (pp. 95-104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(available online for free. It is very readable because it is a talk.)
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/m/p/mpj/boothfinal2.htm

Fiebert and friends are often quoted by so-called father's rights groups who
appear to take joy in blasting feminists.
~Kimberlee

If "MEN" are as insulting as you, Bob, I doubt they'll get very far in their
efforts to advance their cause.
If you want people to hear what you have to say, you have to speak in a way
that encourages them to listen.
Insulting me doesn't do much to make you, or your cause, look good.
~Kimberlee

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FD0DCA7.8080105@hotmail.com...

: IOW: Angry men are only acceptable in Kimberlee's prejudicial view if
: men support her misandrist political agendas.
:
: Too bad toots. Many angry men are angry AT your misandrist political
: agendas. The social changes that MEN will instigate will roll back and
: eliminate many of those anti-men feminist programs.
:
:
:
: > I was once on some kind of father's rights extremist "hit list" because
I
: > hosted an online support group for battered women and because I'm
outspoken
: > against abuse.
:
: IOW: You were outspoken of your misandry. Many MEN are getting more
: and more angry about that. Even more and more young women are beginning
: to see that hating men and destroying marriage has left them without
: decent lives.
:
:
: > Anything that confuses social change with extremism or hate are
unhealthy
: > and counter productive.
: > ~Kimberlee
:
: So change. Men are ready.
:
: Bob
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Hmm.......Thanks for the heads-up.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, with the same result.
~Kimberlee

Courageous <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:knu1tv45p49fuliio2nt1trfnb9jncujgb@4ax.com:
I suppose if someone hits you the natural tendency is to hitback...but it ain't gonna' look good in court if the... Don't care. *She* is the abusive one in those circumstances. The response itself isn't justified, but let's not lose track of the initiator here. Please understand, I'm not suggesting that this is the principle source of any major portion of male-female violence. Rather, this is out of my dislike of a phenomenon I have observed where certain women will feel "justified" in things like slapping men. C//
Jeez if a five year old pinches you do you kick his ***?

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3FD0DE0A.5020204@hotmail.com:
Kimberlee wrote: Or because some victims may know that if the abuser goes to jail, the victim will end up in a grave. Feminist definition: "victim," --> n. A woman
It actually does happen, you know.

Jeez if a five year old pinches you do you kick his ***?

Are we to conclude from your metaphor that you believe that
women are like five year olds, without adult responsibilities,
or legal capacity of their own? When an adult physically
aggresses on another adult, it is a *crime*. As in "misdemeanor".
You understand this, right?

As is obvious, when a five year old "pinches you," it's not an
act of domestic violence, with a subtext of dominance and
humiliation, perpetrated upon you by an adult who should know
better, in violation of the law itself.

So what about you? Why don't *you* know better?

C//

Courageous wrote:
Jeez if a five year old pinches you do you kick his ***? Are we to conclude from your metaphor that you believe that women are like five year olds

Well, most women have the maturity of a five year-old ... It kind of
explains their selfish, impulsive, and irrational behavior ...

Kimberlee wrote: If "MEN" are as insulting as you, Bob, I doubt they'll get very far in their efforts to advance their cause.

Read your own advice sometime. MEN have heard that misandrist crap for
a century.

If you want people to hear what you have to say, you have to speak in a way that encourages them to listen.


Read your own advice sometime. MEN have heard that misandrist crap for
a century.
Insulting me doesn't do much to make you, or your cause, look good. ~Kimberlee


Read your own advice sometime. MEN have heard that misandrist crap for
a century.

Bob




"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3FD0DCA7.8080105@hotmail.com... : IOW: Angry men are only acceptable in Kimberlee's prejudicial view if : men support her misandrist political agendas. : : Too bad toots. Many angry men are angry AT your misandrist political : agendas. The social changes that MEN will instigate will roll back and : eliminate many of those anti-men feminist programs. : : : : > I was once on some kind of father's rights extremist "hit list" because I : > hosted an online support group for battered women and because I'm outspoken : > against abuse. : : IOW: You were outspoken of your misandry. Many MEN are getting more : and more angry about that. Even more and more young women are beginning : to see that hating men and destroying marriage has left them without : decent lives. : : : > Anything that confuses social change with extremism or hate are unhealthy : > and counter productive. : > ~Kimberlee : : So change. Men are ready. : : Bob : : : : : : : : : : : :

eerie rodent of unusual size & typing ability wrote: Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3FD0DE0A.5020204@hotmail.com:Kimberlee wrote:Or because some victims may know that if the abuser goes to jail, thevictim will end up in a grave.Feminist definition: "victim," --> n. A woman It actually does happen, you know.

Feminist definition: "victim," --> n. A woman

Kimberlee wrote: To read a very good article on the distinction between "couples violence" and "patriarchal terrorism" see below:

If YOU want people to listen, YOU need to stop spewing the same old hate
crap your grandmother lied to us about.

Bob

In article <3FD1711A.5040407@hotmail.com>, Bob says...Kimberlee wrote: To read a very good article on the distinction between "couples violence" and "patriarchal terrorism" see below:If YOU want people to listen, YOU need to stop spewing the same old hatecrap your grandmother lied to us about.Bob

Yeah! Listen to Bob! Wait, no one listens to Bob.

*/*

There's a line between self-defense & self-offense.
The adult thing to do would be to move away from any loonie, imo, sometimes
easier said than done it-goes-without-saying.

Courageous <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:5el2tv86m7pghg44659od4fmt72497kbb2@4ax.com:
Jeez if a five year old pinches you do you kick his ***? Are we to conclude from your metaphor that you believe that women are like five year olds, without adult responsibilities, or legal capacity of their own? When an adult physically aggresses on another adult, it is a *crime*. As in "misdemeanor". You understand this, right? As is obvious, when a five year old "pinches you," it's not an act of domestic violence, with a subtext of dominance and humiliation, perpetrated upon you by an adult who should know better, in violation of the law itself. So what about you? Why don't *you* know better? C//

xanthiax@slp.com wrote: In article <3FD1711A.5040407@hotmail.com>, Bob says...Kimberlee wrote:To read a very good article on the distinction between "couples violence"and "patriarchal terrorism" see below:If YOU want people to listen, YOU need to stop spewing the same old hatecrap your grandmother lied to us about.Bob Yeah! Listen to Bob! Wait, no one listens to Bob. */*

LOL. You did.


Bob

There's a line between self-defense & self-offense.The adult thing to do would be to move away from anyloonie, imo, sometimes easier said than done it-goes-without-saying.

There's an element of truth to this, just as there
is an element of truth to the fact that if someone
is aggressed upon physically, they are *expected*
to become seriously pissed off. That pissed off-
ness is the fault of the aggressor, who earns some
of the consequences, whatever they may be.

C//

Lol. I still love top posting.

You sure take your posts on usenet seriously
if you consider top posting "pernicious".

Btw, you might want to tell John Royer how
lazy he is too : )

- Michaela

(Andre Lieven) wrote Michaela writes: I love top posting. Sure, because you want to place the burden of doing your work on others... IOW, you're... LAZY. Got it. (Andre Lieven) wrote "Kimberlee" writes: > Why? Well, we can add top posting, a pernicious habit Pernicious? As in how? Ibid. PLONK. Andre

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 03:02:33 -0800, Michaela wrote:
Lol. I still love top posting. You sure take your posts on usenet seriously if you consider top posting "pernicious". Btw, you might want to tell John Royer how lazy he is too : ) - Michaela (Andre Lieven) wrote Michaela writes: I love top posting. Sure, because you want to place the burden of doing your work on others... IOW, you're... LAZY. Got it. (Andre Lieven) wrote> "Kimberlee" writes:> > Why?>> Well, we can add top posting, a pernicious habit Pernicious? As in how? Ibid. PLONK. Andre

Read the response before the thing responded to. That makes sense.

Monster
--
Of course I can! I'm British.

Is that what the feminists did????
Better read what you advocate brother.


"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hh1xrjuizq.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: In other words, rather than taking control and accepting responsibility for whatever part you had in what happened to you, you'd like to blame society?

What's it like to wear Blinders all day Bill? Must be hard to graze!!!!


"Bill in Co." <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5L8Ab.478$_r6.432@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net... TR_ wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: [A. Lieven can speak for himself, but since he hasn't done so yet, I'll deign to interject, and only on my OWN behalf.] And plenty of examples where the legal system produced a terrible result (for both men and women). I don't know why you think men have a monopoly on victimhood, or even the majority. I'd like for you to demonstrate where A. Lieven or anyone else who posts here claimed that men have a monopoly or even a majority on victimhood. !!! ROFLMAO !!! In other words, rather than taking control and accepting responsibility for whatever part you had in what happened to you, you'd like to blame society? Oh, yeah. Here's another one of those "other words" whackos. Standard reply: Yep. Those are other words, alright. They are words that you WISH had been typed so you could pretend to hold a superiour position, but unfortunately for you, those "other words" have no relationship to what the original author wrote or intended to communicate. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic....

On top of that she doesn't even need to be battered ....the accusation is
enough....

"Ritalin-Kid" <Jester_Dee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ad5b3a61.0312050648.7596bf7d@posting.google.c om... "Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com> wrote in message
news:<1070558167.128692@prawn>... Hi, Jester, I don't have a law degree. I worked with battered women for six years,
and before that, I worked for attorneys in criminal and family law. Good then you should know that a battered woman does not need a lawyer to press charges, get a restraining order, etc. I can't even think of one woman who could afford an attorney, Of course you can't. Your world experience comes from a biased experience on the matter. You base your opinion on the worst cases of abusive relationships where the women are usually at the end of their luck (money for instance), etc. Those women can still press charges without lawyers, and there are plenty of programs for laywers' fees for battered women, poor women, etc. Also, I fail to see how a REAL (not the innocent ones accused of abuse by their ex out of spite and to get custody easier) abusive husband could win custody. Since an overwhelming number of women win full custody of their children, and despite the fact that women earn less (not because of discrimination mind you) in general clearly shows that your premise is wrong. but most of their husbands quickly made it to the bank, withdrew all the $$$, and
then slammed them with a custody case. Of course that happens in cases you've seen. You witnessed the worst that happens to women, and believing that is somehow a norm is intellectual hypocrisy at worst. There are a lot of tales of exactly the opposite happening to men. Their ex emptied the account, sued for custody (and by the stats they win most of the time), caused an enormous amount of trouble with the father's visitation rights, claimed abuse when it was not the case, spend the child support money on her new car, kept the house, the furniture, etc., see no problems of her ex husband paying child support even though dna tests shows he didn't fathered the child (IIRC 25% of paternity tests show the guy's not the father) and the list goes on. Simply applying the 'victim' syndrome on women doesn't help them one bit imo. [snip]

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes:
Is that what the feminists did???? Better read what you advocate brother.

It is what everyone should do. Male, female, divorced, single, or
married.

What's the problem with my suggestion?
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hh1xrjuizq.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: In other words, rather than taking control and accepting responsibility for whatever part you had in what happened to you, you'd like to blame society?

Kimberlee
You have got to be putting me on????????
I give you EMPIRICAL data...you give me self serving drivel....Violence as
reported by wives????????ROTFLMAO....you just lost all credibility.....
No wonder you have no spam in your email addy...you should put NO BRAIN in
there instead.....


"Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1070674837.266716@prawn... To read a very good article on the distinction between "couples violence" and "patriarchal terrorism" see below: Johnson, M. P. (2001). Conflict and Control: Symmetry and Asymmetry in Domestic Violence. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter & M. Clements (Eds.),
Couples in Conflict (pp. 95-104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (available online for free. It is very readable because it is a talk.) http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/m/p/mpj/boothfinal2.htm Fiebert and friends are often quoted by so-called father's rights groups
who appear to take joy in blasting feminists. ~Kimberlee

Finger pointing and If/Then thinking. "If they...then I..." Not very
healthy or productive thinking. Many of us struggle with accepting
responsibility for our behavior. Sometimes we need to step back and assess
our own behavior and figure out if we need to change how we react versus how
we should respond.

Batterers (and dare I say those who support them?) justify their abuse with
if/then thinking and blaming the victim. Some men's rights movements are
much happier pointing the finger rather than asking themselves how they can
make changes in a way that is healthy for all.

Health is not a matter of getting even or blame.

Enough to qualify her for a hearing on a protective order. And even at
that, the batterer has a right to be heard in court, to present witnesses
and evidence, and to be treated fairly.
~Kimberlee


"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:br27p6$42l$1@news.eusc.inter.net...
: On top of that she doesn't even need to be battered ....the accusation is
: enough....
:
: "Ritalin-Kid" <Jester_Dee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:ad5b3a61.0312050648.7596bf7d@posting.google.c om...
: > "Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMmosquitonet.com> wrote in message
: news:<1070558167.128692@prawn>...
: > > Hi, Jester,
: > > I don't have a law degree. I worked with battered women for six
years,
: and
: > > before that, I worked for attorneys in criminal and family law.
: >
: > Good then you should know that a battered woman does not need a lawyer
: > to press charges, get a restraining order, etc.
: >
: >
: > > I can't even think of one woman who could afford an attorney,
: >
: > Of course you can't. Your world experience comes from a biased
: > experience on the matter. You base your opinion on the worst cases of
: > abusive relationships where the women are usually at the end of their
: > luck (money for instance), etc.
: >
: > Those women can still press charges without lawyers, and there are
: > plenty of programs for laywers' fees for battered women, poor women,
: > etc. Also, I fail to see how a REAL (not the innocent ones accused of
: > abuse by their ex out of spite and to get custody easier) abusive
: > husband could win custody. Since an overwhelming number of women win
: > full custody of their children, and despite the fact that women earn
: > less (not because of discrimination mind you) in general clearly shows
: > that your premise is wrong.
: >
: >
: > > but most of
: > > their husbands quickly made it to the bank, withdrew all the $$$, and
: then
: > > slammed them with a custody case.
: >
: >
: > Of course that happens in cases you've seen. You witnessed the worst
: > that happens to women, and believing that is somehow a norm is
: > intellectual hypocrisy at worst.
: >
: > There are a lot of tales of exactly the opposite happening to men.
: > Their ex emptied the account, sued for custody (and by the stats they
: > win most of the time), caused an enormous amount of trouble with the
: > father's visitation rights, claimed abuse when it was not the case,
: > spend the child support money on her new car, kept the house, the
: > furniture, etc., see no problems of her ex husband paying child
: > support even though dna tests shows he didn't fathered the child (IIRC
: > 25% of paternity tests show the guy's not the father) and the list
: > goes on.
: >
: > Simply applying the 'victim' syndrome on women doesn't help them one
: > bit imo.
: >
: > [snip]
:
:

The reviews are based on research, not drivel.
If you just don't like the statistics, that's fine.
~Kimberlee


"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:br29d6$4hi$1@news.eusc.inter.net...
: Kimberlee
: You have got to be putting me on????????
: I give you EMPIRICAL data...you give me self serving drivel....Violence as
: reported by wives????????ROTFLMAO....you just lost all credibility.....
: No wonder you have no spam in your email addy...you should put NO BRAIN in
: there instead.....
:
:
: "Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:1070674837.266716@prawn...
: > To read a very good article on the distinction between "couples
violence"
: > and "patriarchal terrorism" see below:
: > Johnson, M. P. (2001). Conflict and Control: Symmetry and Asymmetry in
: > Domestic Violence. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter & M. Clements (Eds.),
: Couples
: > in Conflict (pp. 95-104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
: > (available online for free. It is very readable because it is a talk.)
: > http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/m/p/mpj/boothfinal2.htm
: >
: > Fiebert and friends are often quoted by so-called father's rights groups
: who
: > appear to take joy in blasting feminists.
: > ~Kimberlee
: >
: >
: >
:
:

"Bill in Co." <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: TR_ wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: [A. Lieven can speak for himself, but since he hasn't done so yet, I'll deign to interject, and only on my OWN behalf.] And plenty of examples where the legal system produced a terrible result (for both men and women). I don't know why you think men have a monopoly on victimhood, or even the majority. I'd like for you to demonstrate where A. Lieven or anyone else who posts here claimed that men have a monopoly or even a majority on victimhood. !!! ROFLMAO !!!

As I expected. You cannot back up your own bluster. You already know
this and won't even try. Is that type of behaviour the basis of your
"successful" marriage?
In other words, rather than taking control and accepting responsibility for whatever part you had in what happened to you, you'd like to blame society? Oh, yeah. Here's another one of those "other words" whackos. Standard reply: Yep. Those are other words, alright. They are words that you WISH had been typed so you could pretend to hold a superiour position, but unfortunately for you, those "other words" have no relationship to what the original author wrote or intended to communicate. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic....

Accurate. Absolutely accurate, and intimidating enough to you as to be
irrefutable.

TR II


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote:
Bravo TR....well put......


.... bows graciously ...



TR II


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

The mutual admiration society of the clueless! All that's missing is Andre,
the Ibid!

TR_ wrote: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote: Bravo TR....well put...... ... bows graciously ... TR II

"Bill in Co." <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:
The mutual admiration society of the clueless! All that's missing is Andre, the Ibid!

Read it and suffer, little guy.

Hey, you're the "expert" in relationships, aren't you? How's that
marriage going, Billinco boy?



TR II TR_ wrote: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote: Bravo TR....well put...... ... bows graciously ... TR II


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:28:07 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:
The mutual admiration society of the clueless! All that's missing is Andre,the Ibid!

Heh a bunch of paranoid narcissistsTR_ wrote: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote: Bravo TR....well put...... ... bows graciously ... TR II

On 8 Dec 2003 12:39:08 -0600, "TR_" <trell133n@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Bill in Co." <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: The mutual admiration society of the clueless! All that's missing is Andre, the Ibid!Read it and suffer, little guy.Hey, you're the "expert" in relationships, aren't you? How's thatmarriage going, Billinco boy?
Tell me who is whining more? Bill or Andre?TR II TR_ wrote: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote:> Bravo TR....well put......> ... bows graciously ... TR II----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Rauni <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote: "TR_" <trell133n@hotmail.com> wrote:"Bill in Co." <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: The mutual admiration society of the clueless! All that's missing is Andre, the Ibid!Read it and suffer, little guy.Hey, you're the "expert" in relationships, aren't you? How's thatmarriage going, Billinco boy? Tell me who is whining more? Bill or Andre?


Well, the feminist thing to do would be to respond ...
"I've asked you a number of questions before, but you didn't respond, so
why should I answer you now."

For example, in the post dated Dec. 3, [Rauni <LadyWolf@newsguy.com>
wrote in news:548ssvkmrv64tusbhralovbevk4ifg6e3j@4ax.com], I asked you
several questions, few if any of them rhetorical. Clearly you were too
intimidated to respond. That's OK. You're not obligated to respond.
I'm not obligated to remind you. But I am a kind soul who'll offer you a
second chance to ignore, anyway.

Alas, I'm not a feminist; I'm not at all intimidated by feminist bluster;
so I don't mind answering directly:

Little Willy of Billinco is, by his own examples, a whiner of ignoble
achievement, much more committed to the art of whining than even a
seasoned practioner such as yourself.

Does Andre whine? I don't know. Maybe he does. If so, it should be
quite easy for you to compile a summary of his alleged whines and explain
why they differ quantitatively and qualitatively from your own or those
of your little mate Billinco.

You can do that, can't you?



TR II


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Rauni <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote:
"Bill in Co." <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:The mutual admiration society of the clueless! All that's missingis Andre, the Ibid! Heh a bunch of paranoid narcissists


Written with all the experience and authority of an advanced practitioner
of paranoid narcissism. And the author of this "mature" observation:

Rauni <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:Strangely enough, haven't heard much from Jayne on any of this.(Maybe we're all delusional)! I'm afraid she had become a soc.men sycophant, She's been posting there.

And all because this person Jayne had the sheer audacity to post to a
newsgroup that you didn't authorise for her!

How rude she was, eh.


TR II





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

No, I think it's more likely to do with age, as I said.

AFAIC the choice of whether to top or bottom post is down to instinct
(which includes the instinct to try and make life easy for your
readers, lest they refrain from reading you), individual content and
posting style. There's no single "right" way to go about replying to a
message. Big difference between e.g. a cascade thread, a scholarly
discussion, an exchange of jokes, the addition of an erratum or a
footnote (headnote?) or a good old mutual flaming session. Scrolling
is a drag (for you /and/ your reader) even where some trimming has
been done; trimming not always advisable where personal
susceptibilities are at issue; sometimes your reply has bugger all to
to with the previous message, but you want to keep it there to
preserve the tone, or because you have reason to suspect some people's
news servers may not carry it, etc. Those are just a few arguments in
favour of top posting. On top of that, you may want to (I frequently
do) deliberately exploit the reader's momentary sense of puzzlement
re: what your response has to do with the thread title or what on
earth might have been said to warrant such a peculiar reply, for
"humorous effect", i.e. just for the hell of it. And last but not
least, top posting tends to come naturally to those of us suffering
from certain variants of dyschronia (see e.g.

http://radio.weblogs.com/0100945/stories/2003/01/26/psychopathiaDyschronialis.html

), where everyday verbal conversation often exhibits its own form of
"top posting", as in the following example:

ME: maybe half-past six. Or seven. I can't remember.
HER: What do you fancy doing?
ME: I dunno. Shall we watch the news?
HER: What time is it on?

As you can see, the reply to "HER"'s question about the news is at the
beginning of the conversation, not the end; latterly I find this is
happening more and more in my everyday conversations with people. It
just seems natural somehow... but maybe that's something to do with
being middle-aged.

OB
"Little Monster" (root@localhost.localdomain) writes: > On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 03:02:33 -0800, Michaela wrote:>>> Lol. I still love top posting.>> Which is why you should trim the hundreds of lines that are not relevant to the response in question. They take up bandwidth. Bottom posting is a good way to encourage you to do this.



--

"Again, again, my enchantress!"
-- George Mikes, 'How to be a Brit'

On 8 Dec 2003 14:08:44 -0600, "TR_" <trell133n@hotmail.com> wrote:
Rauni <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote: "Bill in Co." <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:The mutual admiration society of the clueless! All that's missingis Andre, the Ibid! Heh a bunch of paranoid narcissistsWritten with all the experience and authority of an advanced practitionerof paranoid narcissism. And the author of this "mature" observation:Rauni <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:Strangely enough, haven't heard much from Jayne on any of this.(Maybe we're all delusional)! I'm afraid she had become a soc.men sycophant, She's been posting there.And all because this person Jayne had the sheer audacity to post to anewsgroup that you didn't authorise for her!How rude she was, eh.
Gosh you just illustrated my point for me!

Rauni <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote: "TR_" <trell133n@hotmail.com> wrote:Rauni <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote: "Bill in Co." <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:>The mutual admiration society of the clueless! All that's missing>is Andre, the Ibid! Heh a bunch of paranoid narcissistsWritten with all the experience and authority of an advancedpractitioner of paranoid narcissism. And the author of this "mature"observation:Rauni <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:>Strangely enough, haven't heard much from Jayne on any of this.>(Maybe we're all delusional)! I'm afraid she had become a soc.men sycophant, She's been posting there.And all because this person Jayne had the sheer audacity to post to anewsgroup that you didn't authorise for her!How rude she was, eh. Gosh you just illustrated my point for me!

Exactly! You're so overwhelmed with fear that someone you considered a
"friendly" would stray from your own little clatch to post in a newsgroup
you love to hate, you'd accuse them publicly of being a sycophant.

Pointing out feminist hypocrisy is an EASY job. You do all the work
yourselves. I just put it into words, simply for your inconvenience.


TR II


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

WHAT STATISTICS?????? The same **** that the feminists use?
You still didn't comment on the SCIENTIFIC data.......


"Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@delete~to~SENDMAILhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1070902695.318483@prawn... The reviews are based on research, not drivel. If you just don't like the statistics, that's fine. ~Kimberlee "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:br29d6$4hi$1@news.eusc.inter.net... : Kimberlee : You have got to be putting me on???????? : I give you EMPIRICAL data...you give me self serving drivel....Violence
as : reported by wives????????ROTFLMAO....you just lost all credibility..... : No wonder you have no spam in your email addy...you should put NO BRAIN
in : there instead..... : : : "Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message : news:1070674837.266716@prawn... : > To read a very good article on the distinction between "couples violence" : > and "patriarchal terrorism" see below: : > Johnson, M. P. (2001). Conflict and Control: Symmetry and Asymmetry in : > Domestic Violence. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter & M. Clements (Eds.), : Couples : > in Conflict (pp. 95-104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. : > (available online for free. It is very readable because it is a talk.) : > http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/m/p/mpj/boothfinal2.htm : > : > Fiebert and friends are often quoted by so-called father's rights
groups : who : > appear to take joy in blasting feminists. : > ~Kimberlee : > : > : > : :

When I said "Write ONE paragraph on top vs. bottom posting",
I could have been more specific.

- Michaela

"OB" wrote No, I think it's more likely to do with age, as I said. AFAIC the choice of whether to top or bottom post is down to instinct (which includes the instinct to try and make life easy for your readers, lest they refrain from reading you), individual content and posting style. There's no single "right" way to go about replying to a message.

etc.

Go back and read, John.
It's plainly scientific.
~Kimberlee

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:br2oml$8ng$1@news.eusc.inter.net...
: WHAT STATISTICS?????? The same **** that the feminists use?
: You still didn't comment on the SCIENTIFIC data.......
:
:
: "Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@delete~to~SENDMAILhotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:1070902695.318483@prawn...
: > The reviews are based on research, not drivel.
: > If you just don't like the statistics, that's fine.
: > ~Kimberlee
: >
: >
: > "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message
: > news:br29d6$4hi$1@news.eusc.inter.net...
: > : Kimberlee
: > : You have got to be putting me on????????
: > : I give you EMPIRICAL data...you give me self serving
drivel....Violence
: as
: > : reported by wives????????ROTFLMAO....you just lost all
credibility.....
: > : No wonder you have no spam in your email addy...you should put NO
BRAIN
: in
: > : there instead.....
: > :
: > :
: > : "Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
: > : news:1070674837.266716@prawn...
: > : > To read a very good article on the distinction between "couples
: > violence"
: > : > and "patriarchal terrorism" see below:
: > : > Johnson, M. P. (2001). Conflict and Control: Symmetry and Asymmetry
in
: > : > Domestic Violence. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter & M. Clements (Eds.),
: > : Couples
: > : > in Conflict (pp. 95-104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
: > : > (available online for free. It is very readable because it is a
talk.)
: > : > http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/m/p/mpj/boothfinal2.htm
: > : >
: > : > Fiebert and friends are often quoted by so-called father's rights
: groups
: > : who
: > : > appear to take joy in blasting feminists.
: > : > ~Kimberlee
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:46:12 -0800, Rauni
<LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2003 12:39:08 -0600, "TR_" <trell133n@hotmail.com> wrote:"Bill in Co." <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: The mutual admiration society of the clueless! All that's missing is Andre, the Ibid!Read it and suffer, little guy.Hey, you're the "expert" in relationships, aren't you? How's thatmarriage going, Billinco boy?Tell me who is whining more? Bill or Andre?

You
TR II TR_ wrote:> "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote:>>> Bravo TR....well put......>>>>> ... bows graciously ...>>>> TR II----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

x-no-archive: yes

Oprah's a self-indulgent bore. I wonder how many people think, as
xmas draws near, of killing themselves. The hype is so forced, and
yet it must have an impact on one's lonely thoughts---everywhere in
the media grinning, ecstatic families are shown.

Hard to take when you come back at night to a cold studio apt. without
a tree.

I think you've made a very valid point, Connie!
The media gives us the impression that families shouldn't be dysfunctional,
people aren't destroying their lives by abusing alcohol or drugs, and we've
all got enough money to buy every gadget advertised in order to be a good
parent/friend/lover...<fill in the blank>.

The reality is, many people don't have that life. Dare I say, most of us
don't?
And that's okay. That's just not what the media tries to tell us, or
perhaps what we try to tell ourselves.

I also think folks should take time out this time of year to examine their
expectations of the holidays.
Are we setting our expectations too high? Expecting something that's not
based in reality?
If so, maybe we need to take a few steps back and remind ourselves that it's
okay to be a human being!
~Kimberlee



"connie rahim" <connie.2.rahim@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:53adafbc.0312090737.fef1403@posting.google.co m...
: x-no-archive: yes
:
: Oprah's a self-indulgent bore. I wonder how many people think, as
: xmas draws near, of killing themselves. The hype is so forced, and
: yet it must have an impact on one's lonely thoughts---everywhere in
: the media grinning, ecstatic families are shown.
:
: Hard to take when you come back at night to a cold studio apt. without
: a tree.

Sorry Kim...it's plain....but it's not scientific........what controls were
used ? Who reviewed the reviewer?

"Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@delete~to~SENDMAILhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1070919603.991443@prawn... Go back and read, John. It's plainly scientific. ~Kimberlee "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:br2oml$8ng$1@news.eusc.inter.net... : WHAT STATISTICS?????? The same **** that the feminists use? : You still didn't comment on the SCIENTIFIC data....... : : : "Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@delete~to~SENDMAILhotmail.com> wrote in message : news:1070902695.318483@prawn... : > The reviews are based on research, not drivel. : > If you just don't like the statistics, that's fine. : > ~Kimberlee : > : > : > "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message : > news:br29d6$4hi$1@news.eusc.inter.net... : > : Kimberlee : > : You have got to be putting me on???????? : > : I give you EMPIRICAL data...you give me self serving drivel....Violence : as : > : reported by wives????????ROTFLMAO....you just lost all credibility..... : > : No wonder you have no spam in your email addy...you should put NO BRAIN : in : > : there instead..... : > : : > : : > : "Kimberlee" <Kimberlee@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message : > : news:1070674837.266716@prawn... : > : > To read a very good article on the distinction between "couples : > violence" : > : > and "patriarchal terrorism" see below: : > : > Johnson, M. P. (2001). Conflict and Control: Symmetry and
Asymmetry in : > : > Domestic Violence. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter & M. Clements
(Eds.), : > : Couples : > : > in Conflict (pp. 95-104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. : > : > (available online for free. It is very readable because it is a talk.) : > : > http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/m/p/mpj/boothfinal2.htm : > : > : > : > Fiebert and friends are often quoted by so-called father's rights : groups : > : who : > : > appear to take joy in blasting feminists. : > : > ~Kimberlee : > : > : > : > : > : > : > : : > : : > : > : :

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 03:02:33 -0800, Michaela wrote:
Lol. I still love top posting. You sure take your posts on usenet seriously if you consider top posting "pernicious". Btw, you might want to tell John Royer how lazy he is too : ) - Michaela (Andre Lieven) wrote Michaela writes: I love top posting. Sure, because you want to place the burden of doing your work on others... IOW, you're... LAZY. Got it. (Andre Lieven) wrote> "Kimberlee" writes:> > Why?>> Well, we can add top posting, a pernicious habit Pernicious? As in how? Ibid. PLONK. Andre

Read the response before the thing responded to. That makes sense.

Monster
--
Of course I can! I'm British.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 03:02:33 -0800, Michaela wrote:
Lol. I still love top posting. You sure take your posts on usenet seriously if you consider top posting "pernicious". Btw, you might want to tell John Royer how lazy he is too : ) - Michaela (Andre Lieven) wrote Michaela writes: I love top posting. Sure, because you want to place the burden of doing your work on others... IOW, you're... LAZY. Got it. (Andre Lieven) wrote> "Kimberlee" writes:> > Why?>> Well, we can add top posting, a pernicious habit Pernicious? As in how? Ibid. PLONK. Andre

Read the response before the thing responded to. That makes sense.

Monster
--
Of course I can! I'm British.