REGARDING PAGHAT AND GOOD FATHER
Lori Engebretson
called):
My family and Good Father have been friends for quite some
time. I have seen him with his daughter and know his ex
also, until YOU have ALL the facts I would suggest that you
stop the harrassment of the guy.
None of you know what he has gone through, I have and have
witnessed it first hand. There are ALOT of GOOD FATHERS out
there get get trashed by the feminazi that just want to have
the children for a tool to get TAX FREE MONEY, all you know
who you are and just use the fathers for the WALFARE
DEPARTMENT. My suggestion to you is go to school and GET A
JOB!!! maybe then ALL the GOOD FATHERS in this world can get
a fair shake.
I am so glad that several Cngress men & women like my ideas
for REFORMING the Child Support, Custody & Visitation laws,
if I can get them changes (which I know I can do) you will
be deeply saddened because the free ride will be over! Good
luck!!!!
Thank you
paghat
<lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> Ms. PagHat (I believe that is what the feminazi's like to be
> called):
>
> My family and Good Father have been friends for quite some
> time. I have seen him with his daughter and know his ex
> also, until YOU have ALL the facts I would suggest that you
> stop the harrassment of the guy.
The chump has told blatant lies on UseNet tripping himself up with his own
words. This was only the blithest of his lies:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 18:13:35 GMT, Goodfather told me:
>You're the liar. I DON'T want her to go to jail.
But on Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:29:06 GMT, Goodfather wrote:
>I want the bitch in jail!
I merely reply to his public display of mental illness & hate. I know it
stems from suffering, but that suffering comes from within his own ego,
the damage of which he has ascribed to his mother who he likened to his
ex.
Hulking wussies who pretend to be in fear of their very lives from little
women who break up with wussies WOULD go running to family friends &
members claiming they're being "harrassed" on UseNet. READ UseNet. "Usenet
is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea" [Gene Spafford,
1992]. It's full of trolls, flamers, liars, ignorant wussies like your
pal, & bitch-jews like me. To crab about getting flamed on UseNet is like
voluntarily signing up for a boxing match & crabbing someone slugged you.
Your pal has been hurling out of both ends of his body & I've merely
pointed out a few of his lies & obvious delusional interpretations. Some
of what he says may be true but he pads it out with nonsense then forgets
what nonsense he posted & so tells a different wopper the next time.
Anyway, he posted that he isn't reading my posts, so how can he even know
I've pointed out he's a wussy. He shouldn't complain, there are some other
embittered dweebs on UseNet willing to say how evil all their exes are &
how good & decent wussy liars are.
His belated claim of being a BATTERED spouse convinced me he was
unsalvagable. Battered spouses end up in hospitals with broken arms, eyes
swollen shut, in need of stitches. Your pal has claimed variously to have
been mildly assaulted thrice but didn't file charges, to have been
scratched once but is pissed off because no prosecutor will ever take a
couple scratches seriously, & finally escalated his claim to having lived
as a battered spouse though the former claims were of mild post-break-up
encounters. All this without ever having been injured. He insults spouses
&/or aging parents &/or children who actually HAVE been battered & have
medical documentation that horrifies.
Hulking wussies who misrepresent everything as victimizing them would
think being called out for their amazing lies is harrassment. Such wussies
should tell their lies somewhere else than on UseNet, somewhere where it's
not a cinch for any number of people to easily point out discrepencies,
pathetic attempts at manipulations, & outright whoppers. The problem with
liars is they never can keep their stories straight & your pa typically
trips himself up every other post.
If you'd read what he's been writing, you would know he gives tit for tat
-- he's as much a flamer as anyone, flaming his ex, flaming the
prosecutor, flaming the system, flaming anyone who notices he's a
UseNetNut. But he's sufficiently vulgar I'd say he's found the correct
medium, where even lying nutballs have equal access & free speech to flame
me or whoever they please. So after participating in flames, THEN to go
whining to you about it is like he jumped in the sandbox, claimed all the
toys were his, failed to steal everything because the other kids could
tell he was a wuss, so he ran home crying to mommy someone hit him -- who
immediately went to the playground to protect her child, who she used to
dress up in girl-dolly clothes too. I'm sure in his future he will be
telling stories of how Paghat the Feminazi battered him. The loon merely
batters himself.
It's also the trait of violent wussies to always attempt to do as much
damage as they can even while playing at the "I'm the victim" schtick.
It's what he's doing here, flaming & crying victim simultanously. I
extrapolate from his behavior here that his ex's assaults upon him are
equally delusional. Anyone so stupid as to post lies on UseNet & then feel
"harrassed" to be flamed (despite no unwillingness to flame right back) is
very likely not going to be mistaken for a good father in court either. My
first advice to him was to try not to sound like a loon, not in a legal
setting at least, as a judge will see it immediately. His response was to
get loonier on UseNet. And I bet he'll do the same in court. And thereby
lose his battle. Justly if that's his best behavior.
> I am so glad that several Cngress men & women like my ideas
> for REFORMING the Child Support, Custody & Visitation laws,
> if I can get them changes (which I know I can do) you will
> be deeply saddened because the free ride will be over! Good
> luck!!!!
And if you didn't listen to the lying misrepresentations of your wussy
chum, but had read what I have actually written on the topic of child
custody, you would know that I am fully in favor of shared custody in lieu
of child support -- I believe it should be the norm for separated couples
with other options reserved for when one or the other parent is a loon or
otherwise not a suitable parent. But if both parents are equally qualified
shared custody should be the rule of the day.
Your pal has at the very least revealed a definite lack of common sense, a
complete lack of honesty, & brought his sanity into question. I would
personally doubt any judge would find him qualified for custody. But then
yr right, I don't know the mom. While rinkydinkfather is a highly
questionable case, it's possible his ex is equally a wacko -- she had a
wacko's child after all, there could be something else wrong with her too
-- & both being equally unqualified as parents might as well ruin the
kid's life jointly.
-paghat the ratgirl
> Thank you
Lori Engebretson
Go get a job and stop bellyaching! You want to attack someone you have started
with the right person I work for an attorney, so go right ahead I will have
you off of your server if necessary.
Please do not respond to this, no one will answer it and leave the poor
unsuspecting fathers that only want their rights preserved with their children
alone.
And yes I have read your posts and you talk out of both sides of your mouth,
so go take your BS elsewhere, I along with all the other Good Fathers out
there do not want to hear your long posts. I shur hope to god that you are not
a mother because if you are I do feel for your children.
Thank you
Vern Klauhammar
<lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
[blah blah...]
If you work for a big tough lawyer who is capable of pulling the plug
on public discourse in Usenet., why can't s/he get your dear friend
"goodfather" the sympathetic counsel he needs?
Vern
paghat
<lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> Paghat:
>
> Go get a job and stop bellyaching! You want to attack someone you have started
> with the right person I work for an attorney, so go right ahead I will have
> you off of your server if necessary.
BWAAhahaha! Here's a typical post from Lori Engebretson, from over in one
of the porno newsgroups:
In article <38F508EF...@uswest.net>,
Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> married couple seeking single female slave to live 24/7 in
> Minnesota.
> You will be taken care of quite well, limits will be
> respected!
>
> Plesse e mail with
> name
> age
> (if you do not live in minnesota, you must be willing to
> relocate)
> interests
> You also must be bi sexual and enjoy erotic spanking, and
> more
> Your experience (prefer novice
>
> Thak you
> lori
>
But since Lori sometimes construct literate sentences & other times is
clearly illiterate, it's up for grabs whether it is Lori or Bruce
Engebretson posting at any given time. They have a vendetta against
Bruce's ex -- who I gather didn't want to be a sex slave.
Yeah, I'm sure they're WELL connected with attorneys. Wacky ones who post
in the men's rights newsgroups about us Jewish feminazis they hope to
enslave. Fat chance, you ridiculous spanking-fetishists.
If this lori (or bruce) had the IQ of a potato s/he'd know how to use a
killfile to avoid people who make them loose their minds this easily,
instead of threatening netcopping to your superiors. Wussy bondage &
discipline dinkuses getting all upset being outgunned by an amazon, they
must be REAL bad in their fetish-bed, & no wonder they need to advertise
for a third party to move to Minnesota to liven up their dull lives. And
if lori/bruce does learn to use a killfile, maybe s/he'll be kind enough
to teach Mr Gooberfather "I'm Abused On UseNet" Wussy how to use his,
supposing he's really not having more fun doing, as he has elected so far,
participating in a flame-war outside the safe haven of the Men's Rights
And Women Are Evil newsgroups he has frequented in the past.
Funny how all of Gooberfather's "friends" & family members are actually
trolls from the porno & men's rights newsgroups spread out around the
country. They all lie like dogs.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
<ham...@sixpak.net> wrote:
Lori & Bruce Engebretson have been advertising on UseNet for a young
female bisexual sex slave to move in with them in Minnesota. Hey, as a
dyke who in her youth made a few bucks on the side tying up & beating the
crap out of just these kinds of stinkbugs, I'm not not the one to pass
judgement on Lori's decision to be Bruce's sex slave -- & help him find a
younger babe to join in. But from 1998 to the present it seems no one
wants to take joyous advantage of their extraordinary offer. I noted the
first ad they ran for a sex slave demanded she be MUCH younger than either
Lori or Bruce. Sounds like THEY'VE created a safe haven for children there
in the middle of the frozen state.
And supposing they ever even met Gooberfather outside the Men's Rights
Newsgroups -- where Lori is pissed her husband has to pay his ex child
support -- it was probably at a spanking convention & Gooberfather was the
only paying client they managed to bait into their wussy B&D tent.
-paghat the ratgirl
Clave
message news:39090D7D...@uswest.net...
>
> Paghat:
>
> Go get a job and stop bellyaching! You want to attack someone you
> have started with the right person I work for an attorney, so go
> right ahead I will have you off of your server if necessary.
<...snip mindless vitriol and gobs of unnecessarily quoted text...>
Is everyone appropriately frightened? I know *I* am.
Good God! She works for a lawyer! Apparently one who doesn't know what the
First Amendment's about! I find that pretty frightening indeed.
Get a fucking life of your own, Lori. And learn how to work your goddam
editor.
Jim
Vern Klauhammar
Interesting. I just checked my sub-basement for a Y.F.B.S.S., but I
discovered to my dismay that youth is a fleeting condition, so I'm
afraid I have nothing to offer Lori. It's too bad because she sounds
like a very nice lady.
Vern
Eric da Red
Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
>Ms. PagHat (I believe that is what the feminazi's like to be
>called):
>
>My family and Good Father have been friends for quite some
>time. I have seen him with his daughter and know his ex
>also, until YOU have ALL the facts I would suggest that you
>stop the harrassment of the guy.
You are a bit confused. The Poster Known As Goodfather started this mess
by dumping interminable tales of woe into this public forum. People who
do that, especially people who initiate veiled and not-so-veiled insults,
deserve whatever they get.
If I cared, I would love to hear all the facts. The operative words here
are "all" and "facts". Reading one side of a custody dispute fails the
"all" test.
>None of you know what he has gone through, I have and have
>witnessed it first hand. There are ALOT of GOOD FATHERS out
>there get get trashed by the feminazi that just want to have
>the children for a tool to get TAX FREE MONEY, all you know
>who you are and just use the fathers for the WALFARE
>DEPARTMENT. My suggestion to you is go to school and GET A
>JOB!!! maybe then ALL the GOOD FATHERS in this world can get
>a fair shake.
You care so deeply about Goodfather's painful situation that you can't
think of anything better to do with it than to turn it into a tiresome
Limbaughesque rant.
I'm glad you are not my friend.
--
ShrubQuote Of The Week: "I think the vice president is probably going to
have to explain what he meant by some of the things in [Earth In The
Balance], to share with us the philosophy behind some of the standards in
the book." -- Shrub, who has never read the book.
Eric da Red
paghat <pagsterSP...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>BWAAhahaha! Here's a typical post from Lori Engebretson, from over in one
>of the porno newsgroups:
>
> Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
>> married couple seeking single female slave to live 24/7 in
>> Minnesota.
>> You will be taken care of quite well, limits will be
>> respected!
Hmmm ... the phrase "no feminazis need apply" is conspicuous by its
absence.
>Funny how all of Gooberfather's "friends" & family members are actually
>trolls from the porno & men's rights newsgroups spread out around the
>country. They all lie like dogs.
Please don't mention dogs to these people, they have enough weird habits
already.
paghat
<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
> "Lori Engebretson" <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote in
> message news:39090D7D...@uswest.net...
> >
> > Paghat:
> >
> > Go get a job and stop bellyaching! You want to attack someone you
> > have started with the right person I work for an attorney, so go
> > right ahead I will have you off of your server if necessary.
>
> <...snip mindless vitriol and gobs of unnecessarily quoted text...>
>
>
> Is everyone appropriately frightened? I know *I* am.
>
> Good God! She works for a lawyer! Apparently one who doesn't know what the
> First Amendment's about! I find that pretty frightening indeed.
I think what she meant is she HAS a lawyer cuz she often needs one. She
tells me to get a job not knowing I own my own business & am doing just
fine, whereas Bruce & Lori's position is -- what? If we suppose this
really is Lori & not Bruce posting, her husband has been a notorious
lay-about who fought hard to stay on Workman's Compensation -- while
people I know with serious handicaps have preferred to get jobs. A blind
friend works for a company manufacturing paper-making kits; a vet with his
legs blown off works full time in a veteran's support center. But this
Bruce Engebretson's luckiest day was when he scored workman's comp. He
got to stay home and have Lori advertise on the net for someone to move
from civilzation to their house in the middle of nowhere to help them in
their spanking-fetish menage a trois fantasies.
My guess is they remain marginally employable, being a mite unsound. By
contast, Brucie's ex, constantly maligned en abstentia in the men's
newsgroups in language similar to Lori's flames of me, is a sensible
attractive woman who married way too young the WAY wrong guy. She went
back to school to study (my god!) physics & astronomy & has her head on
tight. A judge quickly decided Julie would provide a more stable
environment as regards custudy, & in harrassment lawsuits sense, no judge
has wavered in this obviously correct choice. A real let-down for a dad
who could've expected even more state monies with which to access porn on
the net, had he gotten custody. So Lori/Bruce spend their copious free
time posting to UseNet that Julie's evil, Paghat needs a job & will be
hearing from their lawyer, & will someone please be their sex-slave. No
wonder they're big supporters of Gooberfather.
-paghat
Goodfather
pagsterSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
> In article <3908F127...@uswest.net>, Lori Engebretson
> <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> > Ms. PagHat (I believe that is what the feminazi's like to be
> > called):
> >
> > My family and Good Father have been friends for quite some
> > time. I have seen him with his daughter and know his ex
> > also, until YOU have ALL the facts I would suggest that you
> > stop the harrassment of the guy.
>
> The chump has told blatant lies on UseNet tripping himself up with his own
> words. This was only the blithest of his lies:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 18:13:35 GMT, Goodfather told me:
>
> >You're the liar. I DON'T want her to go to jail.
>
> But on Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:29:06 GMT, Goodfather wrote:
>
> >I want the bitch in jail!
>
> I merely reply to his public display of mental illness & hate.
Do you imply that all people feel exactly the same and hold exaclty the
same opinions about all things at all times? Could it not be possible
that when the latter post was made, it was immediately after learning
that the King County prosecutor refused to move on my behalf for the
simple fact that I am a man? That is how I felt at that moment, but upon
reflection I had the opportunity to reconsider. It is possible for
individuals to experience more than one reaction or to reflect upon a
statement and to come to better terms. Do you deny that if I had
irrationally burst through the front door of the house of my child's
mother and attacked her by shoving and scratching her and overturning
furniture as she did in my home after being told to leave, that I would
be imprisoned for it?
I know it stems from suffering, but that suffering comes from within
his own ego, the damage of which he has ascribed to his mother
I ascribed no such suffering to my own mother who is a loving,kind
woman. My suffering comes from being assaulted in my own home and from
being deprived, yes, by the mother of my child, of my parental rights.
All things equal, I should have the same amount of time and priveliges
with my daughter and I have done nothing to warrant being deprived of
those thins.
who he likened to his ex.
The message identification number for that post is located where,
madam? I contend that you are making that up.
>
> Hulking wussies
"Hulking wussie"? I'm neither. I shouldn't have to be small in order
to gain fair protection under the law and I'm not a wussie for asking fot
it. My Ex broke into my home and attacked me. I may be 6' 4" tall and
weigh 280 or I may be 5' 10" tall and weigh 130. It shouldn't matter. I
deserve equal treatement under the law.
who pretend to be in fear of their very lives from little women who
break up with wussies WOULD go running to family friends &
members claiming they're being "harrassed" on UseNet.
I don't call what you do harrassment. It is a joke.
READ UseNet. "Usenet
> is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea" [Gene Spafford,
> 1992]. It's full of trolls, flamers, liars, ignorant wussies like your
> pal, & bitch-jews like me.
I am Jewish so that is not a slur that I would use. My Ex hates Jews
which is one reason why she is trying to keep my child away from me.
To crab about getting flamed on UseNet is like voluntarily signing up
for a boxing match & crabbing someone slugged you.
I have made no such "crab" to my family or friends.
>
> Your pal has been hurling out of both ends of his body
My bodily functions are perfectly intact.
& I've merely pointed out a few of his lies & obvious delusional
interpretations.
You've merely accused me of child abuse, spousal abuse and other
things that you made up.
Some of what he says may be true
and little of what you say is true, manhater.
but he pads it out with nonsense then forgets what nonsense he posted &
so tells a different wopper the next time.
No, I do not do this. I made an angry post saying that I wanted my
bitch ex thrown in jail. I reconsidered this and realized that putting
her in jail would not be in the best interest of my child and I made that
clear on Usenet. I do want her fined or otherwise reprimanded by the
courts. She assaulted me. She should not get away with it because this
gives her the thumbs up to do it again. The next time it might by my
little girl who gets shoved or scratched.
> Anyway, he posted that he isn't reading my posts,
I changed my mind. Are you so fragile a human being that you cannot
accept change? Have you seen a counselor? Please,consider doing so. Your
uncontrollable rage towards men is sad. There is help for you but you
have to want it before it will work. Attacking innocent people won't make
you feel any better.
so how can he even know I've pointed out he's a wussy. He shouldn't
complain, there are some other embittered dweebs on UseNet willing to
say how evil all their exes are
Do you really feel that all exes are evil? I believe that everyone
has elements of both good and evil. This includes my Ex. She can be a
kind mother, attentive, loving. She has done some evil deeds. One of
them was assaulting me. For that she should be penalized by the law.
There are other components of her being that are good. People are not
comprised soley of their evil deeds. I feel sorry for you that you think
so.
&
> how good & decent wussy liars are.
>
> His belated claim of being a BATTERED spouse convinced me he was
> unsalvagable.
I'm lucky then that I do not have to rely upon what you believe.
Battered spouses end up in hospitals with broken arms, eyes
> swollen shut, in need of stitches.
Igrnorat. Not all of us do. There is all kinds of battery and
assault.You are talking like a sexist pig now, manhater.
Your pal has claimed variously to have been mildly assaulted thrice but
didn't file charges,
I did file police reports.
to have been scratched once but is pissed off because no prosecutor
will ever take a couple scratches seriously, & finally escalated his
claim to having lived as a battered spouse though the former claims were
of mild post-break-up encounters.
Battered women have also reported cases of having lived with their
husbands for a long time and because of those emotional ties not dealt
with their assaults early in the history of the abuse. It's common. What
would you do if a man entered unlawfully into your house and shoved you
hard while you were holding a 3 year old turned over furniture and
scratched up up?
All this without ever having been injured.
All this without ever having been injured to your specifications
which mean nothing.
He insults spouses &/or aging parents &/or children who actually HAVE
been battered & have medical documentation that horrifies.
I do no such thing, manhater. Some of us will die from cancer.
Others will die of gunshot wounds to the head. At the end, we will all be
dead. Some are wounded seriously. Others are not, but at the end, no one
has the right to burst into another persons house and assault them with
physical violence.
> Hulking wussies who misrepresent everything as victimizing them
There is no misrepresentation here. And I have never said that
"everything" victimizes me. My Ex did break into my house and assault me,
though and I am a victim of domestic abuse by her.
would think being called out for their amazing lies is harrassment.
I've told no lies about this situation. However, you have. You have
told many lies about me.
Such wussies should tell their lies somewhere else than on UseNet,
So now she's attempting to moderate. This woman has a control issue!
somewhere where it's not a cinch for any number of people to easily
point out discrepencies, pathetic attempts at manipulations, & outright
whoppers.
Or, as in your case, make them up because you are a manhater.
The problem with liars is they never can keep their stories straight &
your pa typically trips himself up every other post.
Whatever the reason that you lie so much, paghat, I sympathize with
you and I hope you will look for help.
>
> If you'd read what he's been writing, you would know he gives tit for tat he's as much a flamer as anyone, flaming his ex, flaming the
prosecutor, flaming the system, flaming anyone who notices he's a
UseNetNut.
That defines your own behavior. Not mine.
But he's sufficiently vulgar I'd say he's found the correct medium,
where even lying nutballs have equal access & free speech to flame
me or whoever they please.
I thought you said I shouldn't post on usenet. Now you're saying I'm
in the right place. Aren't you the one who believes that all people
should have the same beliefs about the same things at all times? You are
very confused.
So after participating in flames, THEN to go whining to you about it is
like he jumped in the sandbox, claimed all the toys were his, failed to
steal everything because the other kids could tell he was a wuss, so he
ran home crying to mommy someone hit him -- who immediately went to the
playground to protect her child, who she used to
> dress up in girl-dolly clothes too. I'm sure in his future he will be
> telling stories of how Paghat the Feminazi battered him. The loon merely
> batters himself.
I went to no one with these claims. You did post your words on
usenet. Anyone can read them. Lori read yours. Paranoid and a liar,
paghat?
>
> It's also the trait of violent wussies to always attempt to do as much
> damage as they can even while playing at the "I'm the victim" schtick.
Would you say that if I were a woman?
> It's what he's doing here, flaming & crying victim simultanously.
There is no rulebook which says that victims of domestic violence
have to take lies and insults from people like you and turn the other
cheek. You're behaving like an asshole, so I'm calling you an asshole.
That lends no credence to your claims other than I am defending myself
against your biased, manhating attacks.
I extrapolate from his behavior here that his ex's assaults upon him
are equally delusional.
Tell that to my eye witness and the police who photographed my
injuries.
Anyone so stupid as to post lies on UseNet & then feel "harrassed" to
be flamed (despite no unwillingness to flame right back) is very likely
not going to be mistaken for a good father in court either.
Between the two of us, you are the person who has posted the lies on
useent and you also complain that I defend myself so you will likely not
be seen as a good father in court.
My first advice to him was to try not to sound like a loon,
A loon telling someone else not to sound like a loon?
not in a legal setting at least, as a judge will see it immediately.
His response was to get loonier on UseNet. And I bet he'll do the same
in court. And thereby lose his battle. Justly if that's his best
behavior.
Loonier than you? Impossible. You have shown public approval for
domestic violence.
>
> > I am so glad that several Cngress men & women like my ideas
> > for REFORMING the Child Support, Custody & Visitation laws,
> > if I can get them changes (which I know I can do) you will
> > be deeply saddened because the free ride will be over! Good
> > luck!!!!
Not likely to happen since you are a loon. You have shown public
approval for domestic violence.
> And if you didn't listen to the lying misrepresentations of your wussy
> chum, but had read what I have actually written on the topic of child
custody, you would know that I am fully in favor of shared custody in
lieu of child support -- I believe it should be the norm for separated
couples with other options reserved for when one or the other parent is
a loon or otherwise not a suitable parent. But if both parents are
equally qualified shared custody should be the rule of the day.
This is inconsistent with your beliefs that domestic violence is
acceptable, that being assualted in one's own home is alright if the
assailant is a woman.
>
> Your pal has at the very least revealed a definite lack of common sense, a complete lack of honesty, & brought his sanity into question. I would personally doubt any judge would find him qualified for custody.
Two of them did. My Ex kept pushing and lying until she found one
who didn't approve of joint physical custody.
But then yr right, I don't know the mom. While rinkydinkfather is a
highly questionable case, it's possible his ex is equally a wacko -- she
had a wacko's child after all, there could be something else wrong with
her too -- & both being equally unqualified as parents might as well
ruin the kid's life jointly.
Your expectations of absolutes and black ane whites among men and
women shows the world how far removed from reality you are, manhater
paghat.
> -paghat the ratgirl
>
> > Thank you
>
Goodfather
Seeking joint custody of my beloved daughter- because she needs both of
her parents....not just one.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lori Engebretson
you have ther are people that HATE human life, and make up lies about people
that no one even knows.
GO TO FUCKING HELL, IF I HERE ANY MORE ABOUT LIES BEING SREAD ABOUT ME AND MY
HUSBAND THERE WILL BE PROBLEMS. I AM LEAVING IT AT THAT.
And as for you Ms. Fat pighat...my husband unlike you has NEVER and will
NEVER collect unemployment he can't he has his own very successful business
so there fatso!
And I don't mind him paying for the children even though they are not his
children, I just hate that the child support goes to a fatass person like
yourself.
SO STOP ATTACKING ME AND MY FAMILY AND SPREADING LIES!
You can do and say what you want but I am unsubscribing to this phony BS
list, I have read the other post that ALL you have made and I found them to
be very funny.
Eric da Red wrote:
> In article <3908F127...@uswest.net>,
> Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >Ms. PagHat (I believe that is what the feminazi's like to be
> >called):
> >
> >My family and Good Father have been friends for quite some
> >time. I have seen him with his daughter and know his ex
> >also, until YOU have ALL the facts I would suggest that you
> >stop the harrassment of the guy.
>
> You are a bit confused. The Poster Known As Goodfather started this mess
> by dumping interminable tales of woe into this public forum. People who
> do that, especially people who initiate veiled and not-so-veiled insults,
> deserve whatever they get.
>
> If I cared, I would love to hear all the facts. The operative words here
> are "all" and "facts". Reading one side of a custody dispute fails the
> "all" test.
>
> >None of you know what he has gone through, I have and have
> >witnessed it first hand. There are ALOT of GOOD FATHERS out
> >there get get trashed by the feminazi that just want to have
> >the children for a tool to get TAX FREE MONEY, all you know
> >who you are and just use the fathers for the WALFARE
> >DEPARTMENT. My suggestion to you is go to school and GET A
> >JOB!!! maybe then ALL the GOOD FATHERS in this world can get
> >a fair shake.
>
> You care so deeply about Goodfather's painful situation that you can't
> think of anything better to do with it than to turn it into a tiresome
> Limbaughesque rant.
>
> I'm glad you are not my friend.
>
Lori Engebretson
Before you go bs people get your facts straight I have not nor have ever been Bi sexual, and if you must know Bruce and I are both very well educated unlike you . I graduated with honors from Northwestern and Bruce from University of Chicago, now if you want to start with education where did you go to school?
Another thing is that before you go flaming someone get your facts right again...Bruce has an ex wife that has stolen my idenity to make him look bad in court so the stupid bitch could keep the $1,000.00 per month so she can sit on her fat lazy ass like paghat!
Now for the last and final of this nonsense...the Appealate Court has
just awarded custody of the children to Bruce & I and yes we are happily
married not looking for anyone to live with us. We had a problem with the
ex wife and both states involved have taken action in going after her because
she hs and still is using my idenity. So before you go runing my life think
before you write. If you want I will post my diploma and GPA for all you
loosers!
Lori
.
paghat wrote:
In article <RWiO4.572$l51....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, "Clave"
<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
> "Lori Engebretson" <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote in
> message news:39090D7D...@uswest.net...
> >
> > Paghat:
> >
> > Go get a job and stop bellyaching! You want to attack someone you
> > have started with the right person I work for an attorney, so go
> > right ahead I will have you off of your server if necessary.
>
paghat
<goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote:
> Do you imply that all people feel exactly the same and hold exaclty the
> same opinions about all things at all times?
Let's say we have a bunch of clowns, low IQ horny bastards abandoned by
younger wives & girlfriends about the time they were old enough to vote,
plus a few general losers whom impartial judges found inadequate as dads &
unworthy of custudy, shared custody, or anything mroe than weekly
visitations, which they will rarely live up to. Let's say all these clowns
& losers get together in a newsgroup together & share some real some
exaggerated horror stories (in between their visits to porno websites &
advertisements for love slaves) & pat each other on the back saying "hang
in their buddy" every time some pathetic angry geek says he wants to kill
his ex or put her in jail or pretends he's personally the Ideal Man On The
Planet but no judge will see it. Then yes, the idea that these dittoheads
with ditto personalities would all think alike is to be expected.
I've read that pathetic dads-rights groups where you were only
occasionally called the moron that you clearly are -- though I'm happy to
see SOME guys there think you're a tard. The men I know who are parents
don't have the same issues the majority of these pathetic excuses for men
have. One single dad chum of mine gripes that there are no
diaper-changing stations in the men's bathrooms though most women's
bathrooms have great areas to change the kids -- he feels punished that
just because MOST dads would never change their kids' diapers so no
allowance is made for the fact that some do -- but he well knows women did
not design these bathrooms, do not own the buildings the bathrooms are in,
& it has never occurred to him to blame his ex for the myriad problems a
single dad faces daily. He deals with it by asking women friends to go
with him into the women's cans -- the changing statiosn are usually in an
area outside the toilet area -- & I've done this with him several times.
No woman has EVER complained that a man came in to use the changing
stations. All were delighted to see an involved dad with a cute baby & all
agreed it was only fair he got to use the only changing station that
existed. Women are all but invariably reasonable when the men are. And
only pathetic excuses have to spend their whole lives filled with a sense
of loss & hatred over being left.
There are hundreds of cultural, legal, & social discrepencies, injustices,
& stupidities of gender bias both in favor of, & against, men in this
society -- just as there are for women. Many of these issues could be
intelligently addressed by intelligent men together with other intelligent
men. But whenever there is an opportunity for women to look in on what
they ACTUALLY discuss -- as in your several men's rights newsgroups --
there is precious little intelligence & one hell of a lot of gynophobia,
misogny, unthinking bitterness, & blind ignorant belief in their own
abject innocence & lack of blame that their lives are fucked up -- & in
wussy cases like yours a pretence of victimhood because women had the good
sense to get out. By contrast there is damned little about children per se
that isn't framed in a "me me me" selfish account, with the kids cited
merely to prove your personal greatness. And proving thereby the opposite.
> Could it not be possible
> that when the latter post was made, it was immediately after learning
> that the King County prosecutor refused to move on my behalf.
You've been posting that same shit for weeks contradicting yourself in
cycles -- you never grow, you never learn, you rarely take one step
forward without taking two back. So you're lying now just as you were
lying when you claimed never to have said you wanted the bitch to go to
jail. Keep track of your lies better, you won't trip yourself up every
bloody day. Even a few of your supporters in the men's rights newsgroups
have started wondering why you post the same shit again & again & never
seem to get past Square One no matter how good the advice offered. You
can't control a public Prosecutor's action & make them do something
against your wife without PROOF of the improbable things you've claimed.
In the case of a history of physical abuse, if it weren't a COMPLETE
fabrication you'd have AT LEAST medical records if not police accounts
proving this history of battery you keep ranting on & on about & which you
hope will provide some sort of legal angle in your favor. All it really
does is discredit your other claims as well, like being a good father, &
lessons the chances of getting what you want.
> Do you deny that if I had
> irrationally burst through the front door of the house of my child's
> mother and attacked her by shoving and scratching her and overturning
> furniture as she did in my home after being told to leave, that I would
> be imprisoned for it?
Not bloody likely, no. My eskimo gal-pal once pushed a stranger off a
ladder while he was in the process of breaking & entering her second floor
flat. He was hurt falling two stories from the window onto the roof of a
car. Tami was found guilty of battery, had to pay a stiff fine, was given
probation against threat of jail time, & had to pay both the would-be
robber's hospital expenses & the cost of fixing the roof of the car he
squashed. Real injury induces real legal repurcussions -- even against
skunks like the guy with the ladder, or you. Faux pretences of victimhood
on the other hand are not to be taken up with a prosecuting attorney but
with a mental health professional.
And since I've been a volunteer in the crisis & rape clinics I have a LOT
of experience with women SEVERELY abused who can do precious little about
it until there are years of documentation accumulated & multiple
hospitalizations. Some bastard out on bail & stalking his estranged spouse
with a gun & all the shelter can do is try to find a safe location for her
& her kids why these dangerous psychos do pretty much as they please.
There are problems with the justice system failing to put your ex in jail
for scratching you is not one of them. That you would focus months of
hostility on this fake problem & won't let go of it strongly suggests
you're disturbed. It will NOT help you when a judge looks at your case to
have left this trail of evidence of your disturbed processes. A judge is
quite likely to be an at least once-divorced parent & would LIKE to find
something in your favor -- but if all he sees are the facts then you're
out in the cold.
One big problem of too many "men's rights" crazies is you can't focus on
the ACTUAL gender injustices & inequities that impact men unfairly.
Rather, you have to pretend every woman who shot some bastard in the face
automatically got away with it while every man who said "boo" from the
opposite side of the street went to jail because it was inside the
100-foot restraining order. The statistics are quite different. Women who
commit lesser crimes than men serve longer sentences. That's the actual
well-studied gender bias of the legal system for all felonious crime.
Believe it. If your assinine claims had merit she'd've right then & there
been hauled away to jail & booked. Seattle police do nowadays take
domestic disputes VERY seriously & fail to act primarily in cases that
have no sound basis on which to act.
> I ascribed no such suffering to my own mother who is a loving, kind woman.
You specifically blamed some of your own problems on your mother not
permitting a relationship with your daddy -- or, rather, your belief that
you had no relationship with your father because your mother wouldn't let
him. That's a pretty damning claim & probably not a very perceptive claim
at that. So she raised you alone -- you make it her fault rather than her
heroism. Your dad didn't hang around to be a role model -- & that's her
fault too. This explains why so much of your sense of self is invested in
your ex, but it says nothing positive about your own capacity for the
ideal fathering ability you would like people to believe. You have hung
yourself on your own sundry canards & mythopoeicisms. You have a problem
with mothers because you have a problem with your own. I'm sure you love
her too, that's no contradiction, but you've admitted to problems with
your mom & you did so in the context of condemning your ex -- the contrast
was yours & it does seem to be one of your motivating psychological
quirks. There's only one person to blame for your lack of connection with
your dad. Your dad.
> My suffering comes from being assaulted in my own home and from
> being deprived, yes, by the mother of my child, of my parental rights.
A mother cannot deny you visitation rights if you are legally &/or
biolgically the father. If you have been denied parental rights that has
been done by a judge. Judges do NOT deny parental rights easily so he must
have had EXCELLENT reason to deny you. If you think custodial parenting is
the only parental "right" you have & without it you have nothing, then
that's one more delusion you need to rethink.
Most fathers in America have spent less than 15 minutes a day with their
children (up from seven minutes a day twenty years ago). Even if all you
had was weekend visitations that's an opportunity to have WAY more time
with your kid than most dads care to have. Take advantage of what you have
& stop being a wussy about what you don't have, what by your own behavior
& imperception you seem not to merit.
> "Hulking wussie"? I'm neither. My Ex broke into my home and attacked
me. I may be 6' 4" tall and
> weigh 280 or I may be 5' 10" tall and weigh 130. It shouldn't matter. I
> deserve equal treatement under the law.
The allegation that you were assaulted you've made repeatedly in the
desire to drum up support for a broad revenge. Fathers usually have great
stories to tell about their kids -- whether or not their relationship with
the mother survived. You have only this angst against your ex & a single
generic claim of good fatherhood. So I don't believe you.
But I did believe it when you admitted to the prosecuting attorney you're
much bigger than your alleged assailant. Now you backpeddle (as is your
habit) in order to justify your unjustifiable self -- claiming you might
be a scrawny little squirt of a wussy rather than a big hulking
beer-bellied wussy. What makes you a wussy isn't the fact that you pretend
to be assaulted, but EVERYthing about your approach to these issues, your
huge & childish pretence of victimhood makes you a wussy. I've seen people
with broken limbs hanging bent who whined less than you.
> I don't call what you do harrassment. It is a joke.
I will certainly allow that the "harrassment" claim & idiotic threat of
sending attorneys after me for flaming your wussy ass was the sin of your
supporter(s) Lori/Bruce -- & I responded to their sins as such. But you
should look at what kind of second-rate pieces of human scum in search of
"young female sex slaves" think you're in the right in these matters, &
consider the slogan "with friends like these who needs enemies." In a few
years your own daughter could be on the net reading their public request
for a young female sex slave who'd be well cared for.
> READ UseNet. "Usenet
> > is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea" [Gene Spafford,
> > 1992]. It's full of trolls, flamers, liars, ignorant wussies like your
> > pal, & bitch-jews like me.
>
> I am Jewish so that is not a slur that I would use. My Ex hates Jews
> which is one reason why she is trying to keep my child away from me.
Again, your supporters, both of them, have called me a nazi -- feminazi
but still nazi -- not concerned that I lost about half my immediate
forebears to the Nazis. Again, this is the only kind of support you seem
able to conjure up. It should tell you something.
So, meshugenah, where's your synogogue? And what the FUCK were you doing
living with an antiSemite bitch, eh? You're clearly making this crap up as
you go along. If I accept the possibility that you have some Jewish blood
in your background, one thing that is absolutely a fact: if your ex has
learned to hate one snivelly-ass little Jew like you that does not an
antiSemite make.
> To crab about getting flamed on UseNet is like voluntarily signing up
> for a boxing match & crabbing someone slugged you.
>
> I have made no such "crab" to my family or friends.
You certainly have whined & crabbed it's what you do primarily. But I will
allow that it was Lori claimed to be your immediate family friend of many
years, so I replied believing that. I now understand Lori/Bruce live in
the midwest, know you mainly from mens rights newsgroup posts, & you're
responsible only for your own lying claims, not theirs.
[congratulations on almost making a little sense this time, but as nothing
else is even close to worthy of reply, it's clipped for space]
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
<lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> I am making a post today about reasons NOT to move to Seattle, because all
> you have ther are people that HATE human life, and make up lies about people
> that no one even knows.
Fun-knee! We're all so sad yr not on your way to the Northwest! There's a
great s/m scene here, though -- you wouldn't have to post your
pornographic pipedreams on UseNet if you did show up. An old friend of
mine runs a dungeon specifically for nurds -- nursie dweebs &
schoolteachers who don't dare get tattoos or show up at work bruised, so
it's perfect for wussy B&D spanky fetishists like you. And membership is
so cheap it's practically free. I'm sure you'd be welcome (not Bruce
though, just you, my old pal only loves gals who're cruisin' for a
bruisin', & she teaches splendid fisting technique to boot).
> GO TO FUCKING HELL,
As fucking-hell is probably your bedroom, & I already said I would NOT
submit to being your dreamed-of sex slave even if I were young enough to
suit you & Brucie's requirement, I think I'll pass on that offer for now.
> IF I HERE ANY MORE ABOUT LIES BEING SREAD ABOUT ME AND MY
> HUSBAND THERE WILL BE PROBLEMS. I AM LEAVING IT AT THAT.
Is that a promise to do nothing whatsoever since no lies have been spread??
> And as for you Ms. Fat pighat...my husband unlike you has NEVER and will
> NEVER collect unemployment he can't he has his own very successful business
> so there fatso!
Sad for him his record of workman's comp is posted on the net:
"Appellant Bruce Engebretson suffered a disabling, work-related back
injury. As a result of his injury, appellant received a disability
insurance payment of $5,300 and a workers' compensation award of $4,300.
The parties used these sums to make home repairs and improvements, buy a
used pickup truck, and cover other household expenses. Appellant has not
worked outside of the home since his injury. Until June, 1994"
So perhaps you should sue the state of Minnesota for posting legally
posting legal documents full of so-called "lies":
http://www.courts.state.mn.us/library/archive/ctapun/9612/448.htm
If your condition has improved since then, great, even nutballs deserve
success. But if your successful business is bringing in money that
conflicts with Brucey's right to workman's compensation, perhaps you
better be careful what you admit on the web. It could end up forwarded to
IRS or Minnesota authorities.
> And I don't mind him paying for the children even though they are not his
> children, I just hate that the child support goes to a fatass person like
> yourself.
So, you're saying I was once married to Bruce??? My cover is blown! Glad
you specified I didn't bare his kids though -- perish the thought.
> SO STOP ATTACKING ME AND MY FAMILY AND SPREADING LIES!
The only "lie" you bothered to correct appears to be completely true
judging by Minnesota court documentation. I never lie. I'm capable of
error, everyone is, & you can certainly correct errors if you spot any.
But if denying facts is your idea of a correction, I'll just be correcting
the corrections.
> You can do and say what you want but I am unsubscribing to this phony BS
> list, I have read the other post that ALL you have made and I found them to
> be very funny.
Then why leave? There's so few opportunities for a good laugh in the
middle of Nowhere Minnesota.
-paghat the ratgirl
Clave
news:8ecqvg$l06$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<...>
Hey Pags -- with this guy's single-minded devotion to one topic (himself),
his level of paranoia, and his command of brevity, does he or does he not
bear more than just a passing resemblance to a certain Karkookski?
Jim
Lori Engebretson
NEVER even married in the state of Minnesota, so the case that you are reading
(which is a joke that you know how to read is totally WRONG)
WHY DON'T ALL YOU IDIOTS IN SEATTLE LEARN TO REACH THE RIGHT CASES AND NOT MAKE UP
LIES ABOUT PEOPLE!!!
Clave
>
> I am making a post today about reasons NOT to move to Seattle, because
> all you have ther are people that HATE human life, and make up lies
> about people that no one even knows.
<...>
You generalize to a whole community the size of Seattle the attitude of a
few people on Usenet? Good God, I didn't realize anyone that blitheringly
stupid could survive to adulthood, much less breed.
Before you piss yourself in public any further, I suggest you take some time
to just sit back and read a few newsgroups before posting to them. I mean
really -- do you wander into parties thrown by people you don't know and
then piss and moan when it becomes apparent that you don't know anyone or
have the slightest clue what's going on? That ain't the fault of the rest
of the partiers, honeypie.
Truth be told, I haven't seen much that indicates that you're really female,
anyway. Your account's only three weeks old, and I have a strong hunch that
you're really either a "Goodfather" (sure he is) sockpuppet, or a
misogynistic friend from soc.men.who.cant.deal.with.women.
Not that it matters. It's clear *what* your are, even if I don't know who.
> You can do and say what you want but I am unsubscribing to this phony BS
> list
Ass/screen door -- you know the drill.
Ta,
Jim
paghat
In article <3909F686...@uswest.net>, Lori Engebretson
<lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote 4/28/00 re Bruce's child support
payments:
"And I don't mind him paying for the children even though they are not his
children"
In article <390A03D3...@uswest.net>, the same day Lori Engebretson
<lorieng...@uswest.net> added as an afterthought:
> the Appealate Court has awarded
> custody of the children to Bruce & I
The problem with liars is if they ever do tell the truth no one believes
them & as their contradictions mount up they could say "Water is a liquid"
& someone would have to pull down a science text to make sure. And here's
whopper to add to whopper:
> and yes we are happily married not looking
> for anyone to live with us.
So once again I repost this weird gal's own advertisement for a female sex
slave as posted in the spanking fetishist newsgroup & previously with
variant wording amidst UseNet personal sex ads. I'm sure Brucie put her up
to it because dykes see this all the time, manipulative jerkoff husbands
using ego-damaged wives to make their appeals to other women for sex:
-----
In article <38F508EF...@uswest.net>,
Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> married couple seeking single female slave to live 24/7 in
> Minnesota.
> You will be taken care of quite well, limits will be
> respected!
>
> Plesse e mail with
> name
> age
> (if you do not live in minnesota, you must be willing to
> relocate)
> interests
> You also must be bi sexual and enjoy erotic spanking, and
> more
> Your experience (prefer novice
>
> Thak you
> lori
>
------
And that's "Thwack you" not "Thak you" silly.
As the writing style is perfect & the e-address & ISP & everything's a
match, there is no doubt as to the authenticity of the sex slave posts --
it would take too great a genius to imitate such cretinism as Lori's.
> So before you go runing my life think before you write.
I'm not running your life though I'm quite sure you're not running it very
well either. --- ohhh, you meant Ruining. If you leave UseNet no one will
remember you within two days -- take heart in the fact that your "fame"
here is very transient & unimportant & you "matter" not one whit. There's
no reason to feel permanently humiliated for being such a dumbass in a
public forum. If losing a flame war that you started in a newsgroup you
have no previous connection with ruins your life, just find something else
to do with your minimal talents.
> If you want I
> will post my diploma and GPA for all you loosers!
> Lori
BWAhaha, okay, I'll bite. Though why in the world you have this desire to
convince me or this newsgroup you actually went to school -- in an era
when all but the most hopeless trash has done so -- is beyond me. Why this
profound ego damage & need for the old pagster's affirmation? Could it be
playing sex slave to fulfill Brucie's masturbation fantasies has finally
damaged your ego so much you need to prove to me you got past the third
grade? Jizo-sama!
It is true however, now that you bring it up, that I'd hate to think they
really give out diplomas at the University of Chicago without teaching
rudimentary language skills, so I will, in the absence of a gif file
showing said diploma, assume your marvy education is as faux as everything
else you've brought up.
-paghat the ratgirl
Paul Mitchum
> Paghat:
>
> Go get a job and stop bellyaching! You want to attack someone you have started
> with the right person I work for an attorney, so go right ahead I will have
> you off of your server if necessary.
One sure way to lose the respect of anyone nearby on usenet is to
threaten to have a person removed from their ISP for anything other than
direct threats to life and limb. The laughable threat you're making is
called 'netcopping,' but it should be called 'netcoppingOUT.'
> Please do not respond to this, no one will answer it and leave the poor
> unsuspecting fathers that only want their rights preserved with their children
> alone.
Another way to demonstrate complete cluelessness about usenet is to tell
someone not to respond to your posts.
> And yes I have read your posts and you talk out of both sides of your mouth,
> so go take your BS elsewhere, I along with all the other Good Fathers out
> there do not want to hear your long posts. I shur hope to god that you are not
> a mother because if you are I do feel for your children.
Certainly there must be fathers who are in a real jam, and who are
victims of the system. Your friend doesn't seem to be one of them.
Paul Mitchum
Goodfather <goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote:
> > The chump has told blatant lies on UseNet tripping himself up with his own
> > words. This was only the blithest of his lies:
> > On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 18:13:35 GMT, Goodfather told me:
> >
> > >You're the liar. I DON'T want her to go to jail.
> >
> > But on Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:29:06 GMT, Goodfather wrote:
> >
> > >I want the bitch in jail!
> >
> > I merely reply to his public display of mental illness & hate.
>
> Do you imply that all people feel exactly the same and hold exaclty the
> same opinions about all things at all times?
If you felt differently at the time you didn't want her to go to jail,
you could have said, "..but now, I feel differently about it." Or you
could have said, "..I've changed my view, because my lawyer says I can't
get it." Or you could have said, "..maybe I shouldn't talk about this on
usenet, since people will figure me out and I'll be flamed."
Instead you made yourself out to look like a manipulative jerk, which
may or may not be the case, but you sure look like one from here.
paghat
<goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote:
> Hats off to you, Lori.
> GF
Keep that little hat on or she'll give you a disease.
Lori Engebretson
paghat
<lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> SIMPLY PUT PAGHAT THE RATGIRL what are you miss perfect can't even research a
> law case right
> Next time you decide to call someone trash look
Hey, munchy-putz, I said only trash doesn't get any schooling nowadays.
You said you've had plenty of schooling. So why did you assume I meant
you? Heh. If you feel like the lowest trash don't blame me for that, cuz I
never bothered to say you were even by implicatioin.
> in the morror you ignorant
Whadda kidder. No one's as stupid as you pretend to be, are they? You're
just a troll from alt.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk trying to make the men's
rights newsgroup regulars look even sillier than can be? All I need to
know now is should I look in the morror tomorror or today?
> ugly stupid F****** A** bumb B**** C***!! may be those are words that you
> understand
You're giving yourself away, Brucie-boy. Does Lori even exist?
-paghat
Paul Mitchum
> > So perhaps you should sue the state of Minnesota for posting legally
> > posting legal documents full of so-called "lies":
> > http://www.courts.state.mn.us/library/archive/ctapun/9612/448.htm
[..]
> It would be nice if the fat ass bitch PIGHAT got her story straight, Bruce was
> NEVER even married in the state of Minnesota, so the case that you are reading
> (which is a joke that you know how to read is totally WRONG)
>
> WHY DON'T ALL YOU IDIOTS IN SEATTLE LEARN TO REACH THE RIGHT CASES AND NOT
> MAKE UP LIES ABOUT PEOPLE!!!
>
WHY DON'T YOU JUST SAY SOME... er, 'scuse me... had the caps lock on.
Why don't you just say something like: "Paghat, did you ever think that
maybe there are more than one Bruce Engebretsons in Minnesota?"
See, if you said it that way, then you might not seem so shrill and
reactionary. The way you've chosen to address it, you seem to be making
desperate attempts to backpedal.
--
"They're having virual sex / They're eating virtual food
No wonder these puppets are always in a lousy mood."
Lori Engebretson
You know something you are right, my mother always taught you catch more flys with
honey...oh well. It gets gets very frustrating when you have someone that thinks
that they know what they are talking about and get everything wrong.
And yes there are many people named Bruce Engebretson here in Minnesota, but instead
of Paghat saying that my husband was the looser and we were living on workers
comp...don't you think that she could have asked if that was the Bruce Engebretson
we were talking about?
And all that I wanted to do was to say that yes she "paghat" was wrong and the our
friend Good Father was wronged and that he is a very good father, he just was at
witts end because he was having a problem finding legal counsel and time for filing
his motions was drawing near, and I could not file them for him since we do not live
in Seattle.
You have to admit that it was paghat that started this nonsence by saying that we
were the ones posting on for a sex slave, I have never nor ever will do anything
like that, I tried to tell her that but again she insisted that it was us never
asking if it was or not, but instead when I say something I have the documentation
to back up what I say and I do have the documentation that it was not us but our
neighbors posting and using our phone lines that is directly from US West (we all
know who they are?) the problem has since been corrected, but she never thought to
ask, she just assumed, and that is also wrong.
Anyway, like I said before I am sorry that I offended any of you but I also feel
that paghat owes me an apology.
Lori
Paul Mitchum wrote:
> Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> > > So perhaps you should sue the state of Minnesota for posting legally
> > > posting legal documents full of so-called "lies":
> > > http://www.courts.state.mn.us/library/archive/ctapun/9612/448.htm
> [..]
> > It would be nice if the fat ass bitch PIGHAT got her story straight, Bruce was
> > NEVER even married in the state of Minnesota, so the case that you are reading
> > (which is a joke that you know how to read is totally WRONG)
> >
> > WHY DON'T ALL YOU IDIOTS IN SEATTLE LEARN TO REACH THE RIGHT CASES AND NOT
> > MAKE UP LIES ABOUT PEOPLE!!!
> >
>
paghat
Mitchum) wrote:
> Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> > > So perhaps you should sue the state of Minnesota for posting legally
> > > posting legal documents full of so-called "lies":
> > > http://www.courts.state.mn.us/library/archive/ctapun/9612/448.htm
> [..]
> > It would be nice if the fat ass bitch PIGHAT got her story straight,
Bruce was
> > NEVER even married in the state of Minnesota,
Who the fuck cares WHERE they got married. The court documents don't say
they were married in Minnesota so what kind of a snappy comeback is that,
you poor wee freakazoid.
> so the case that you are reading
> > (which is a joke that you know how to read is totally WRONG)
> >
> > WHY DON'T ALL YOU IDIOTS IN SEATTLE LEARN TO REACH THE RIGHT CASES AND NOT
> > MAKE UP LIES ABOUT PEOPLE!!!
>
> WHY DON'T YOU JUST SAY SOME... er, 'scuse me... had the caps lock on.
>
> Why don't you just say something like: "Paghat, did you ever think that
> maybe there are more than one Bruce Engebretsons in Minnesota?"
>
> See, if you said it that way, then you might not seem so shrill and
> reactionary. The way you've chosen to address it, you seem to be making
> desperate attempts to backpedal.
Since Minnesota posts these case results at a government website, if there
WERE two Bruce Engstroms with identical custody cases that failed in
court, there'd be reports posted on both Bruce Engebretsons, but there's
only one. My only question currently is whether Lori exists or if she is a
support-figment of Bruce's screamingly demented imagination. My natural
prejudices are that women are never THAT crazy in THAT direction, hence it
has to be Bruce. But I think it would be glorious if there really WERE a
Lori Nutball Engebretson because commonplace nutball Bruces are a dime a
dozen & a rare actual Lori would be more interesting. If only Brucie's
imagination, though, was "Lori" chosen because a Lori is a fruit-eating
bird & Bruce is some kind of fruit?
My sweety was reading the Lori posts & my replies, hooting & giggling all
the way through (she's much gentler than I & usually tells me to not be so
hard on people, but even a sweetypie like her can't help but laugh at such
pathetic foibles as "Lori" evidences). I'd suggested to her that Bruce &
Lori both existed & both were posting as Lori, because sometimes Lori can
spell halfway well & construct coherent sentences, & sometimes Lori is
obviously an illiterate boob who makes no sense at all. My sweety
disagreed with me. She says it's one person posting (probably a guy) &
coherency is related to percentage of Wild Turkey flowing through his
veins (or hers, which seems less & less likely).
-paghat the ratgirl
Lori Engebretson
you suggested and still she is attacking...."Paghat, yes it does matter where they
were married and divorced. I never said the divorce was finalized in Minnesota
because it wasn't so Mr. Engebretsons case would never have made the the web site,
so there again she is ASSUMING something that is again wrong.
Paghat as far as attacking me be my guest because you are the funny one long post
that say nothing.
Paghat try looking in a phone book for Minnesota just to see how many people are
named Bruce Engebretson...and stop refering to my husband as a loser like you and
your "sweetie pie" how cute for a fag.
Lori
Paul Mitchum wrote:
> Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> > > So perhaps you should sue the state of Minnesota for posting legally
> > > posting legal documents full of so-called "lies":
> > > http://www.courts.state.mn.us/library/archive/ctapun/9612/448.htm
> [..]
> > It would be nice if the fat ass bitch PIGHAT got her story straight, Bruce was
> > NEVER even married in the state of Minnesota, so the case that you are reading
> > (which is a joke that you know how to read is totally WRONG)
> >
> > WHY DON'T ALL YOU IDIOTS IN SEATTLE LEARN TO REACH THE RIGHT CASES AND NOT
> > MAKE UP LIES ABOUT PEOPLE!!!
> >
>
> WHY DON'T YOU JUST SAY SOME... er, 'scuse me... had the caps lock on.
>
> Why don't you just say something like: "Paghat, did you ever think that
> maybe there are more than one Bruce Engebretsons in Minnesota?"
>
> See, if you said it that way, then you might not seem so shrill and
> reactionary. The way you've chosen to address it, you seem to be making
> desperate attempts to backpedal.
>
paghat
<lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> Paul:
> You know something you are right, my mother always taught you catch more flys
> with honey...
If you want to eat horseflies & maggots, your own cow turds will best do
the trick for ya.
> You have to admit that it was paghat that started this nonsence by saying that
> we were the ones posting on for a sex slave, I have never nor ever will do
> anything like that,
As net naifs, I've no doubt you're sorry you posted that stuff before you
realized newsgroups could be accessed from anywhere in the world & this
kind of stuff could harm your custody battle. But it's y'all all right. No
damned question about it.
> Anyway, like I said before I am sorry that I offended any of you but I also
> feel that paghat owes me an apology.
I'm sorry you're such a lying dweeb.
There, happy?
-paghat
Lori Engebretson
We do not have to worry about the custody battle it is over and yes Bruce won, the
children have to be up here in Minnesota in 30 days, so HA HA HA to you fatso!
And I really do feel sorry for you especially if you have reproduced because it is
your children I feel sorry for I have read you back posts and any woman that is for
Domestic Violence is a very poor excuse of a human and an even poorer excuse for a
female.
The work that my boss and I are trying to do in Washington is for the good of
Fathers to gain more rights and have greater access to their children and the one
thing that I know I am right on is the accurate research I have on the subject after
having to deal with this for the past five years.
So I guess that if that is the best that you can do, it will have to do considering
the research I have on you and the lies that I have found you in here.
So, yes thank you and I hope that you have the best low life a troll can have. I am
sorry that you are so bitter and I do have to say that you will be in our prayers on
church (I know that you probably don't know what that is) on Sunday.
And remember your lies about my husband and I won't harm us I don't know why you are
getting on that subject the Appellate Court (You know there are other Appellate
Courts other than in Minnesota) has already made the ruling. And I don't know why
you are talking like y'all but that is okay I have friends in the South also. so,
get off the custody issue you can hurt us.
Thank you for the left handed apology, I realize someone like you can't be nice
being so bitter and not knowing where you stand or what you want.
May the good God watch out for you and your"sweetie pie"
LE
paghat wrote:
> In article <390A410A...@uswest.net>, Lori Engebretson
paghat
In article <390A4969...@uswest.net>, Lori Engebretson
<lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> Paghat:
> We do not have to worry about the custody battle it is over and yes
Bruce won, the
> children have to be up here in Minnesota in 30 days, so HA HA HA to you fatso!
>
> And I really do feel sorry for you especially if you have reproduced
because it is
> your children I feel sorry for I have read you back posts and any woman
that is for
> Domestic Violence is a very poor excuse of a human and an even poorer
excuse for a
> female.
Mo one believes your lies any more, Bruce. You've denied that posts made
from your computer were yours though the coded tracking on them is
identical & all sorts of nonsense -- an irrational answer for everything,
always in a hysterical mixed up tone of tone full of self-contradictions
doubtless brought on by your drunken haze.
> The work that my boss and I are trying to do in Washington is for the good of
> Fathers to gain more rights and have greater access to their children
and the one
> thing that I know I am right on is the accurate research I have on the
subject after
> having to deal with this for the past five years.
If that had even an iota of truth you would've sounded like such a
profoundly ignorant putz with only emotions & no knowledge of the topic
you out of the blue purport to specialize in In Washington, yeah right.
> So I guess that if that is the best that you can do, it will have to do
considering
> the research I have on you and the lies that I have found you in here.
What a goof, full of hatred & thunder in a manner winners never express.
> So, yes thank you and I hope that you have the best low life a troll can
have. I am
> sorry that you are so bitter and I do have to say that you will be in
our prayers on
> church (I know that you probably don't know what that is) on Sunday.
Jesus doesn't like you either.
-paghat
Lori Engebretson
Hi, I am writing you from Mrs. Lori Engebretsons computer. I am her boss, and let me
tell you something, I have read all of your posts and they are a joke.
As for some of the items that you have been saying regarding Lori & Bruce not that
they have to justify anything to you but their neighbors tapped into their US Wet
Phone lines and unless you have someone that works at us west that is telling you a
story I was there when they arrested the neighbor and he admitted it. Now for the
second item this debate over Lori & Bruce there is a Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Engebretson he
was not nor never has been married by the State of Minnesota and never was or hs
been divorced in the State of Minnesota. The case YOU are referring to is a case
that is here in Minnesota where the parties involved were and have been long time
residents.
As far as your attacks on Lori personally she is the best paralegal I have ever had
also she is a damn good lobbyist and we are trying to fight for Fathers Rights here,
the most important thing should be the well being of the children and the biggest
part of raising children is the home life that they come from. Lori has fought for
several fathers in regards to custody, visitation, child support & modification. Now
if you want to attack, please do but attack all of the fathers that are fighting for
custody, reasonable visitation with their youngsters and to be a part of the child's
life. Why don't you attack them not just someone trying to help the cause.
As far as coded tracking that just means that it comes from their account not their
computer.
Nevertheless, I would suggest that the personal attacks on Bruce & Lori stop. You
are the one hurting a good cause, but maybe you want the fathers rights where they
are at now.
Bruce has always been and will continue to be a very good father to his children, he
has always paid his child support, but his ex wife had some mental illness and
started to drink ammonia, and threaten to kill herself and her children. That is
when Lori petitioned the Appellate Court and filed for Sole Custody, whit supervised
visitaion...and this past week the Appellate court handed down is ruling that the
children be turned over to Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Engebretson in 30 days. So now you have
some facts and try and get those straight. Mr. Engebretson has never been in a
drunken haze as you put it. Just for your information Mr. Engebretson does not even
drink, nor does Mrs. Engebretson drink. So, there again get the facts straight.
Even though this is a news group you should ask questions not just make an
assumption of facts that you have no idea of what happened or what is going on. And
yes Mrs. Lori Engebretosn is scheduled to have appointments with several Senators
and House members this week and we will all be in Washington including the children
that Mr. & Mrs. Engebretson currently have. Thank you very much for the time and
please remember we should be concentrating on the children here not attacking each
other.
Mr. Brian Telander, ESQ.
Telander & Telander, Assoc.
paghat wrote:
> In article <390A4969...@uswest.net>, Lori Engebretson
Paul Mitchum
> My sweety was reading the Lori posts & my replies, hooting & giggling all
> the way through (she's much gentler than I & usually tells me to not be so
> hard on people, but even a sweetypie like her can't help but laugh at such
> pathetic foibles as "Lori" evidences). I'd suggested to her that Bruce &
> Lori both existed & both were posting as Lori, because sometimes Lori can
> spell halfway well & construct coherent sentences, & sometimes Lori is
> obviously an illiterate boob who makes no sense at all. My sweety
> disagreed with me. She says it's one person posting (probably a guy) &
> coherency is related to percentage of Wild Turkey flowing through his
> veins (or hers, which seems less & less likely).
>
> -paghat the ratgirl
So, uhm, what's the goal of the game, pag? What do you win if you figure
out who is who?
Beetlejuice
> Next time you decide to call someone trash look in the morror you ignorant
> ugly stupid F****** A** bumb B**** C***!!
Wow. What did you major in at Northwestern, exactly?
Goodfather
Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> It would be nice if the fat ass bitch PIGHAT got her story straight, Bruce was
> NEVER even married in the state of Minnesota, so the case that you are reading
> (which is a joke that you know how to read is totally WRONG)
>
> WHY DON'T ALL YOU IDIOTS IN SEATTLE LEARN TO REACH THE RIGHT CASES AND NOT MAKE UP
> LIES ABOUT PEOPLE!!!
>
Lori, haven't you checked the "paghat rules of posting booklet"? It
says that only one person in each state is allowed to have the same name.
Don't judge Seattle by paghat and company. The only reason she posts here
is to be bitter and attack men or women who like men. She has been
bitterly rejected by all of the ngs in her own country. Reject deluxe!
Unstable individual, that paghat, but I hope she overcomes her bias
against men and all of her sexual hangups and her approval of assault and
domestic violence. What a weird thing for a woman to endorse. Domestic
violence. What a weird thing for a so called feminist to protest, a post
about sexual freedom. Hats off to you, Lori.
GF
John C
You've quoted so many feminist lies and misrepresentations of stats it's
hard to know where to begin, so I won't. Most of what you've written here
is just pure hate speech with no intelligence behind it.
Comparing custody to the presence of baby changing stations in public places
is an amazing demonstration of your room temp IQ.
The amazing lie about your gal pal brought tears to my eyes. Laughing.
The femi-lie about rape and the difficulty of prosecution was another laugh
riot. If fems were not making knowingly false accusations at a rate of 50%
to 70% then maybe the real victims would be believed easier.
The femi-lie about conviction rates and incarceration rate apparently got
the genders confused. (this may be a generic problem for you) Try coming
up with a cite for that whopper.
Your fantasies that any man would be treated fairly by an amerikan family
court in a custody/restraining order issue is another laugh riot. You
should read more than feminist propaganda to get an accurate world view.
"A mother cannot deny you visitation rights if you are legally &/or
biologically the father." I'm sure all the divorced men in the world will
be happy to learn this bit of news.
Do you post here just to get beat up? Do you have some psychological
problem that makes to seek out public humiliation? Or are you just a low
watt adolescent with access to daddies computer?
Get a life.
John C
paghat wrote in message ...
paghat
Mitchum) wrote:
> paghat <pagsterSP...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > My sweety was reading the Lori posts & my replies, hooting & giggling all
> > the way through (she's much gentler than I & usually tells me to not be so
> > hard on people, but even a sweetypie like her can't help but laugh at such
> > pathetic foibles as "Lori" evidences). I'd suggested to her that Bruce &
> > Lori both existed & both were posting as Lori, because sometimes Lori can
> > spell halfway well & construct coherent sentences, & sometimes Lori is
> > obviously an illiterate boob who makes no sense at all. My sweety
> > disagreed with me. She says it's one person posting (probably a guy) &
> > coherency is related to percentage of Wild Turkey flowing through his
> > veins (or hers, which seems less & less likely).
> >
> > -paghat the ratgirl
>
> So, uhm, what's the goal of the game, pag? What do you win if you figure
> out who is who?
It's like doodling on the phone book. An end in itself. Some witless idiot
appears from nowhere flaming me from their very first post -- & I, when
challenged to a boxing match, often say sure why not. It is beginning to
get boring though -- I've actually begun to feel pity for the LoriBruce &
that's a bad sign. The LoriBruce seems increasingly a boozy depressive
making up stuff & personalities as s/he goes along, for some peculiar
reason all designed to convince me (why me? of all people?) that s/he
though barely literate in cycles is a scholar; though with a fuse WAY
shorter than Charlie Manson's would be trusted in front of congress by a
lobbyist for father's rights; though evincing little expertise on custody
rights is a specialist in the topic; though miserably showing no signs of
joy or success in this life claims with amazing coincidence to have Just
This Minute While Flaming Back At Paghat gotten custody of children that
s/he admits aren't even Bruce's kids & that's supposed to be a trump
card?? (if it were true, UseNet would suddenly have seemed way less
important for a while doncha think); demands that nobody believe those
postings in the spanking fetish group & sex personel ad ng are really
Bruce/Lori's though the NON-anonymized pathways show that the posts are
authentic; adds rather desparately that those posts were created by a
neighbor with a phone-tap (uh-uh, phone taps don't work that way -- the
lie should've been Broke Into My House At Night And Used My Computer);
claims to have put together a revenge-dossier on me but flames me for
imaginary things that are completely inapropos of my life. A good flame
war has opponents who can both be wittily evil & this has been a bit
one-sided, sort of like if Oscar Wilde had been pitted against Baby Huey.
Being flamed by someone like the LoriBruce who manifests borderline
personality traits instead of intelligence CAN be intriguing for a while,
but when it gets to point of looking like a medical emergency for the poor
dinkus, it does tend to silence the guffaws & cause a bit of worry. There
HAVE been UseNet woowoos who became so involved in their flame-posts they
committed suicide upon realizing they would never successfully construct a
convincing alterate reality in this mileau.
-paghat
Lori Engebretson
that you have believing your lies. Just so you know I have a computer programmer
and the attorney that I work for here today and ALL of my computer lines have to
be redone. I know that is WAY over your head, since all you can do is talk out of
both sides of you mouth. It is over I can't say that it has been a pleasure
because its been a joke (you and your gal pal talk about dykes)!
The subject has gotten way off base and the Fathers Rights group I am lobbying
with we need to stay focused on the issues and not get into a pissing war with
anti everything people!
Thank you for you time and effort to make people believe that my husband is a
looser and that I am a stupid idiot and trash...but the only loosers here are the
fathers just wanting to be with and watch their children grow up. I know that my
husband is not a looser because he has a very successful business and we have a
court order getting his children.
So take your hateful lies and just sit on it!
LE
paghat
<lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> Paghat:
There IS a bumpkinish DuPage county attorney named Brian Telander, who got
his mug in the news a couple times as one of the clutch of defenders of
the Dupage 7, whose defending troupe the Chicago Tribute likened to O-J's
dreamteam hillbilly style, so -- a celebrity in LoriBruce's trailer!
However, since professional lobbyists travel with their own laptops, it
doesn't make sense to post from the LoriBruce's station when the LoriBruce
is already suspected of creating sockpuppets. It isn't the least
convincing that the above piece of nonsense was written by anyone other
than LoriBruce -- as were the spanking fetish posts -- directly from
LoriBruce's computer -- with who knows WHAT kind of excuse for it invented
next. "Mr Telander had his laptop with him but he dropped it & it broke"
or "Mr Telander doesn't own any computers because attorneys don't need
them nowadays, so we loaned him ours." LoriBruce's posts are always
nearer to coherent in the mornings, after sleeping one off, but just wait,
by the end of the day it'll be back to the "You morron fatty whoe" style
of comment that has made the LoriBruce such good fun to see act out.
The above almost convinced me the LoriBruce had a friend over (being
convinced s/he has any friends at all is a plus for the LoriBruce), even
if only a random john from elsewhere in the trailer park pretending to be
a defence attorney. But the meaningless boasts sewn into the narrative are
of the the ego-damaged "I'm inteligint! I em to!" type frequently
exhibited by LoriBruce. So until this public defender Brian Telander
reposts the above bit of silliness from the offices of Telander &
Telander, I'm not really going to believe any functioning attorney can be
this foolish & still come up with rent FOR the office.
There ARE amateur lobbyists galore & some of them are indeed rubes, but
they rarely last an hour in the big city if they honestly believed someone
who communicates like this is capable of addressing congress:
In article <3909F686...@uswest.net>, Lori Engebretson wrote:
> GO TO FUCKING HELL, you Ms. Fat pighat... so there fatso!
or this:
In article <390A3195...@uswest.net>, Lori Engebretson, by now too
deep in the cups to remember how to spell, wrote:
> look in the morror you ignorant
> ugly stupid F****** A** bumb B**** C***!! may be those are words that you
> understand
> From what I understand about you you know those words all to well because I
> have done some background on you too Miss Street Whoe!
This is the level of intellect going on there in the LoriBruce mind. If
the LoriBruce's defence attorney really were a lobbyist & not a rube or a
LoriBruce sockpuppet, he'd've told his "employee" that s/he has behaved
moronically & seems so obviously a marginal personality that he is afraid
what LoriBruce will do when unconvincing fabrications are challenged by
congressmen. But noooo, this rube thinks hysterical psychotic-break
episodes like Fuck You You Morron Strete Whoe Fat Cunt such as the
LoriBruce relies on are actually HELPFUL in achieving equitable custody
rights without gender bias in the United States. Right. A functing
attorney thinks the LoriBruce makes sense but that my innocuous flaming of
a complete tard hurts the cause.
The reality is that LoriBruce's insane acting-out on UseNet -- whether as
sockpuppets or not -- is completely meaningless & acceptable & has no
lasting importance anywhere. Sure, it's archived forever, & future
individuals who suddenly realize the LoriBruce is a twinkus can access
LoriBruce's crazy old posts even twenty, thirty years from now. But so
what? If it hurts the LoriBruce's emotional wellbeing then s/he should
stop being an idiot on UseNet, or seek professional counselling so that
being an idiot doesn't hurt so much. That a defence attorney should be
called in at the crack of dawn to make excuses for the LoriBruce is like a
cartoon version of a second-rate opera.
-paghat the ratgirl
ssl...@attglobal.net
paghat wrote in message ...
> That a defence attorney should be
>called in at the crack of dawn to make excuses for the LoriBruce is like a
>cartoon version of a second-rate opera.
>
>-paghat the ratgirl
P-H-, you're not being paranoid enough for a proper UseNet flame war.
You should overlook the amatuerish writing in the posting (yes, lawyers are
often fools, but rarely illiterate fools, but so what?) and focus on the
time of
the posting alone.
You could then conclude that Mr. Telander DID make the posting. Then
the question becomes "What was he doing at that location at that hour?"
And, more significantly, what did he do in the preceding 8 hours or so?
And, are there photographs to prove it?
I used to look up to you as a flame artist, Paghat. As a brilliant
technician
of the techinque of driving your enemy nuts. Now I'm devastated. Broken
hearted. You coudda bin somebudy, Paghat! You cudda bin a contender!
paghat
> paghat wrote in message ...
>
> > That a defence attorney should be
> >called in at the crack of dawn to make excuses for the LoriBruce is like a
> >cartoon version of a second-rate opera.
> >
> >-paghat the ratgirl
>
> P-H-, you're not being paranoid enough for a proper UseNet flame war.
>
> You should overlook the amatuerish writing in the posting (yes, lawyers are
> often fools, but rarely illiterate fools, but so what?) and focus on the
> time of the posting alone.
>
> You could then conclude that Mr. Telander DID make the posting. Then
> the question becomes "What was he doing at that location at that hour?"
>
> And, more significantly, what did he do in the preceding 8 hours or so?
>
> And, are there photographs to prove it?
>
> I used to look up to you as a flame artist, Paghat. As a brilliant
> technician
> of the techinque of driving your enemy nuts. Now I'm devastated. Broken
> hearted. You coudda bin somebudy, Paghat! You cudda bin a contender!
Yeah, I passed up some opportunities & deserve to lose points. I think by
then I was getting tired cuz it was too much like stomping on flies that
were already spinning on their backs, instead sharp-beaked buzzards worthy
of the fight, & my heart was no longer in it.
-paghat
Vern Klauhammar
>
>paghat wrote in message ...
>
>> That a defence attorney should be
>>called in at the crack of dawn to make excuses for the LoriBruce is like a
>>cartoon version of a second-rate opera.
>>
>>-paghat the ratgirl
>
>P-H-, you're not being paranoid enough for a proper UseNet flame war.
>
>You should overlook the amatuerish writing in the posting (yes, lawyers are
>often fools, but rarely illiterate fools, but so what?) and focus on the
>time of
>the posting alone.
>
>You could then conclude that Mr. Telander DID make the posting. Then
>the question becomes "What was he doing at that location at that hour?"
>
He's moonlighting as a U.S. West technician. He's there with duct
tape in hand.
>And, more significantly, what did he do in the preceding 8 hours or so?
>
>And, are there photographs to prove it?
>
>I used to look up to you as a flame artist, Paghat. As a brilliant
>technician
>of the techinque of driving your enemy nuts. Now I'm devastated. Broken
>hearted. You coudda bin somebudy, Paghat! You cudda bin a contender!
>
She needs a better opponent. Responding to "Lori Engebretson" is a
waste of good ascii.
Not that it hasn't been an amusing thread...
Vern
Eric da Red
Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
>I am making a post today about reasons NOT to move to Seattle, because all
>you have ther are people that HATE human life,
Come now, the Mariners aren't THAT bad.
> and make up lies about people
>that no one even knows.
>
>GO TO FUCKING HELL,
No thanks, I've already lived in Detroit.
>And as for you Ms. Fat pighat...my husband unlike you has NEVER and will
>NEVER collect unemployment he can't he has his own very successful business
>so there fatso!
Oh no, not the "f" insult! Poor paghat, someone please check up on her to
make sure she's still breathing.
>You can do and say what you want but I am unsubscribing to this phony BS
>list,
Ok. In accordance with seattle.general's Unconditional Satisfaction
Guarantee, your subscription fee will be promptly and cheerfully
refunded.
--
ShrubQuote Of The Week: "I talked to my little brother, Jeb -- I haven't
told this to many people. But he's the governor of -- I shouldn't call
him my little brother -- my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas..."
Shrub, referring to his little brother Jeb, the governor of Florida.
Eric da Red
Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
>SIMPLY PUT PAGHAT THE RATGIRL what are you miss perfect can't even research a
>law case right
>ugly stupid F****** A** bumb B**** C***!! may be those are words that you
>understand
>From what I understand about you you know those words all to well because I
>have done some background on you too Miss Street Whoe!
No matter how abusive and incoherent you become, paghat will not be your
sex slave.
Sorry.
Goodfather
berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
> In article <3909F686...@uswest.net>,
> Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> >I am making a post today about reasons NOT to move to Seattle, because all
> >you have ther are people that HATE human life,
>
> Come now, the Mariners aren't THAT bad.
GF_ NO, but the equal treatment under the law of men is that bad. My
Ex broke into my house and assaulted me and the Seattle prosecutor's
office turned away with no reaction to her at all. It's fine for women
to assault men in Seattle, or so they would have you believe.
Goodfather
--
Seeking joint custody of my beloved daughter- because she needs both of
her parents....not just one.
paghat
<goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote:
>
> GF_ NO, but the equal treatment under the law of men is that bad. My
> Ex broke into my house and assaulted me and the Seattle prosecutor's
> office turned away with no reaction to her at all. It's fine for women
> to assault men in Seattle, or so they would have you believe.
>
> Goodfather
Is that the 387th or 388th time you've reposted versions of that lie? Yr
like a broken record. Take your meds.
-pathat the ratgirl
Path: rQdQ!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!drip171
From: pagsterSP...@my-deja.com (paghat)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Message to Seattle women "It's ok to batter men!"
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:19:58 -0700
Organization: shiny buttons inc
Lines: 158
Message-ID: <pagsterSPAM-ME-NOT-2704000619580001@drip171.
References: <8e8p3b$3m3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Xref: rQdQ seattle.general:170487
In article <8e8p3b$3m3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, goodf...@anonymous.to wrote:
> What follows is a copy of a letter (names omitted) that I sent to
> King County Prosecutor, Cynthia Szeker, after she determined not to file
> charges against my Ex for bursting through the door of my house and
> assaulting me. It seems that my scratched up arm was not hurt "enough" to
> warrant assault charges! As for the tresspassing? I guess we'll just let
> that one go by, too. Thus far, Ms. Szeker has totally ignored this
> letter and my pleas for help. If I were a woman, would this have been
> ignored if a man had burst through my door and attacked me? I think not.
> There is a clear bias against men in the Seattle court system. All she
> has to do is make a verbal claim and they slap an order of protection on
> me. I make a claim WITH A WITNESS and they do nothing. Funny, ain't it?
> Seattle's message to women, "Go ahead! It's ok to batter men!"
You previously claimed (I mean, you lied) that you did not file charges
against her solely because of your glorious concern for your child &
because of your precious efforts to get along with an unreasonable mother
of said child. Now you admit you wanted her to go fucking away to prison
for leaving kitty-scratches on one of your arms & you got laughed out of
the prosecutors office as any snivelling failure at life should be.
You, sir, tell so many lies that you can ONLY be dismissed as an
unreliable witness to your own life. Bare in mind, if someone in the legal
system can tell you're nothing but a prissy dickwad, they'll want to beat
you within an inch of your life themselves. "Save Me Save Me from the
little woman! I'm scarrrrred!" will just have them stand there staring at
you with their mouths agape in wonder that such a lumbering dumb ox could
also be such a profound sissy.
Your letter to Szeker reflects the emotional sufferings of a raving nut.
For a raving nut to be taken seriously you will have to produce more than
kitty-scratches as evidence that even the perceptions of a raving nut
might occasionally have some merit. Keep paperwork from the MEDICAL
fascilities that treated you for each of the near-death beatings that have
left you in fear for your very life. It would help to have the Police
Report for each day of such occurrence, with the officer's clear statement
that you were found unconscioius in a trashcan where the dangerous little
woman deposited you. Afraid for you life -- I'm sure you are -- because
the mentally ill irrationally fear all kinds of things.
The reason you aren't taken seriously is because ANY raving nutball can
write a pissy hysterical letter like yours but only someone for whom some
portion of your scenario is true could produce the evidence of concussions
or bodily injury that might put some tiny portion of the onus for your
hysteria & mental illness on some guilty party rather than all the fault
of your fucked up brain chemistry.
You can't be taken seriously by a prosecutor because your lies are too
transparent, your creative ability to construct these alternative
realities is not cohesive, you contradict yourself from post to post & day
to day leaving a trail of evidence against yourself, & your purportedly
fearing for your life with nothing but a scratch on the arm makes you out
to be a jabbering jiblets-for-brains needs-his-meds loon.
I now understand why you rely on UseNet for assistance on your custody
problems. UseNet is a great place to construct faux realities. I'm the
princess of monaco & you're the good father, right.
If you behave well then a pissed off ex can't hurt your fatherly rights.
Behave as you have been behaving -- like a mentally ill wussie -- & your
chances are just going to continue to spiral downward. Get your act
together, pops. Focus.
-paghat the ratgirl
> Honorable Cynthia Szeker, Prsecutor
> in and for King County, Washington
> 710 Second Avenue, Ste. 144
> Seattle, Wa. 98104
>
> Dear Ms. Szeker:
>
> I am writing to you because a miscarriage of justice has
> occurred with respect to a violation of my basic rights as a
> citizen to receive protection under the law. I plead with
> you to listen to me because I may well end up dead or
> seriously injured and then it will be too late. I am
> someone's father. My daughter needs me so I beg you to
> please take this seriously.
>
> On ________________,2000, (MY EX)
> tresspassed into my home and physically assaulted me
> while I was holdilng my child. It was not the first time.
> She had been violent with me before in the presence of our
> small child. I have never exercised physical violence upon
> Ms. X, nor anyone else. Not ever.
>
> I am a victim of domestic violence and I am being ignored
> by the system. Please forgive me for saying this, but I
> believe that it is largely due to the fact that I am a man. I
> know that if I had walked into my assailant's home
> uninvited and attacked her as she attacked me, I would be
> in jail right now.
>
> Upon three different occasions, (MY EX) has given false
> statements to the police and has
> filed orders of restraint against me as a calculated
> maneuver to obtain custody of our daughter . She had the
> whole thing planned very carefully. She is a highly
> intelligent individual who realized that it would be to her
> distinct advantage to cry "wolf" even though she had never
> been atacked,hurt, injured in ANY way by me. Not ever. I
> remember her quoting a passage from a magazine to me
> once about how one of the signs of an abusive relationship
> is when a man cuts up a woman's clothing. No more than a
> month later she cut up her own clothing and told the police
> that I did it. That was only the beginning. All the while, she
> was plotting to take my child away from me and I was too
> naive to see that she was simply building a case. She did it
> very well considering the fact that she had *no* evidence,
> that in each incident, her word was all that was needed. In
> our last court appearance, she succeeded. She simply went
> to the judge, showed him the restraining orders against me
> and managed to reduce me from my child's primary
> caretaker to a twice a month visitor in my baby's life. Ms.
> Szeker, I do not abuse women. I don't abuse men, either. I
> have never been in a physical altercation in my entire life.
>
> It is unfortunate that there are "bad" men out there. It is
> unfortunate that there are bad fathers. I just don't happen
> to be one of them. Not only is (MY EX) a woman, she is a
> minorty woman, beautiful and small, intelligent and
> articulate. Forgive me for being trite, but evidently that
> was all the courts needed to in order to penalize the "big,
> bad caucasion man".
>
> After I sought help from a counselor and with the help
> from loving family and caring friends, I vowed never to be
> abused again. After this last time that Ms.X attacked
> me, I tried to seek help. I ran into dead end after dead end.
> Does she really have to seriously injure me before you will
> help me? I may be dead next time. Judging from my
> treatment in this matter, Ms.X has the right to walk
> into my house and blow my brains out and I have to sit
> back and allow it to happen.
>
> Ms. Szeker, I implore you to please, please listen to me! I
> am a victim here!
whadda maroon.
> I am afraid of this woman. Yes, I am
> larger than she is. However, I have been physically
> assaulted by her in my own home, and I need help! I
> wish to press charges. This woman is the mother of my
> child. If she is physically abusive to me, how do I know she
> will not be physically abusive to my child? I want to press
> charges against her. I want to give her the message that
> she cannot break the law, that she cannot make her own
> laws. I have lived a crime-free life, always trying to respect
> others. Why is it that in this system I must be penalized
> because there are "bad" men out there who abuse? I hate it
> that this is true and I would do anything to change that.
> However, in this case, I have been abused. It is not just a
> "little domestic incident". I ask that you please help me
> prevent this from happening again. Please.
>
> Sincerely,
> goodf...@anonymous.to
snaz
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Goodfather
pagsterSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
> In article <8el5lo$c4l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Goodfather
> <goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote:
> >
> > GF_ NO, but the equal treatment under the law of men is that bad. My
> > Ex broke into my house and assaulted me and the Seattle prosecutor's
> > office turned away with no reaction to her at all. It's fine for women
> > to assault men in Seattle, or so they would have you believe.
> >
> > Goodfather
>
> Is that the 387th or 388th time you've reposted versions of that lie? Yr
> like a broken record. Take your meds.
>
> -pathat the ratgirl
>
prosecutor's office turned away with no reaction to her at all. IT's
fine for women to assault men in Seattle, or so they would have you
a statement to the prosecutor. (paghat gets real upset when she can't
control people. Her posts start to get real irrational.)
Goodfather
Eric da Red
> berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
>> In article <3909F686...@uswest.net>,
>> Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I am making a post today about reasons NOT to move to Seattle, because all
>> >you have ther are people that HATE human life,
>>
>> Come now, the Mariners aren't THAT bad.
> GF_ NO, but the equal treatment under the law of men is that bad. My
>Ex broke into my house and assaulted me and the Seattle prosecutor's
>office turned away with no reaction to her at all. It's fine for women
>to assault men in Seattle, or so they would have you believe.
I've known women who were beaten to near-death by their boy"friends" and
husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any charges were
filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
Richard Soyack
>
> In article <8el5lo$c4l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Goodfather <goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote:
> >In article <sgs1ihb...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
> >> In article <3909F686...@uswest.net>,
> >> Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I am making a post today about reasons NOT to move to Seattle, because all
> >> >you have ther are people that HATE human life,
> >>
> >> Come now, the Mariners aren't THAT bad.
>
> > GF_ NO, but the equal treatment under the law of men is that bad. My
> >Ex broke into my house and assaulted me and the Seattle prosecutor's
> >office turned away with no reaction to her at all. It's fine for women
> >to assault men in Seattle, or so they would have you believe.
>
> I've known women who were beaten to near-death by their boy"friends" and
> husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any charges were
> filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
What purpose does your comment serve, other than as a troll?
Rich Soyack
Clave
news:8el5lo$c4l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <sgs1ihb...@corp.supernews.com>,
> berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
> > In article <3909F686...@uswest.net>,
> > Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >
> > >I am making a post today about reasons NOT to move to Seattle, because
all
> > >you have ther are people that HATE human life,
> >
> > Come now, the Mariners aren't THAT bad.
>
>
> GF_ NO, but the equal treatment under the law of men is that bad. My
> Ex broke into my house and assaulted me and the Seattle prosecutor's
> office turned away with no reaction to her at all. It's fine for women
> to assault men in Seattle, or so they would have you believe.
God *DAYM* but you're a one-note flute.
Are you related to Jim String?
Jim
Paul Mitchum
> My Ex recently broke into my house and assaulted me and the Seattle
> prosecutor's office turned away with no reaction to her at all. IT's
> fine for women to assault men in Seattle, or so they would have you
> believe. My house mate was a witness to this whole event. She has given
> a statement to the prosecutor. (paghat gets real upset when she can't
> control people. Her posts start to get real irrational.)
>
> Goodfather
Have you gone to the press? Like, legitimate media. Like, the paper, or
TV news. And did they turn your story away?
paghat
<richs...@home.com> wrote:
> Eric da Red wrote:
> >
> > I've known women who were beaten to near-death by their boy"friends" and
> > husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any charges were
> > filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
>
> What purpose does your comment serve, other than as a troll?
>
> Rich Soyack
Now Rich, are you that stupid? The number one cause of death in women
under the age of 25 after automobile accident is a boyfriend or husband
killing her. Fact. Live with it. That compares to a liars claim he was
once scratched post-relationship?
One in three women will be violently assaulted by a husband or boyfriend
in their lifetime (ref Report of the American Psychological Association
Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, 1996)
According to Bureau of Justice statistics, just 5% of all annual violence
against men is perpetrated by a domestic partner -- usually a woman but
sometimes a male partner. That means 95% of violence against men is not
domestic violence. The other 95% incidents are perpetrated primarily by
men against men outside the home.
According to the BoJ stats, 28% of all annual violence against women is
perpetrated by domestic partners -- usually a man but sometimes a female
partner. The other 72% violent attacks of women are likewise perpetrated
primarily by men against women.
For one year specifically, 1994, 21% of all violent victimizations against
women were perpetrated by boyfriends or husbands, while only 4% of violent
victimizations of men were perpetrated by a girlfriend or wife.
By BoJ stats, then, between one-sixth & one-fifth of resources for
domestic abuse should be used to assist men, in order to achieve need
equity. If they are not, the goal of Men's Right for an equitable system
would be to see that between one-sixth & one-fifth of such resources ARE
used in ways that assist men. However, at least half the incidents of
violence against men by women is in self-defence, & BoJ stats show finally
that the chance of being victimized by a parter is 10 times greater for a
woman than a man. So really only one-tenth of resources should be
targetted to assist men.
The statistics are consistent across racial boundaries; the myth that
Latino husbands, for instance, are more violent than regular ol' white
guys turns out to be just that, a myth. The men's rights movement is
primarily white guys who believe themselves innocent or pretend to believe
so. Men use custody battles to further their abusive goals: statistically,
BATTERING FATHERS ARE TWO TIMES MORE LIKELY TO SEEK CUSTODY OF A CHILD
[Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force
on Violence and the Family,1996, p. 40.] This explains the violent
emotions of Men's Rights advocates -- not their loss of loved ones but
their loss of individuals over whom they believed they had power &
authority like unto gods regarding who lives, who dies, & who is beaten to
a bloody pulp. Because men who beat women are twice as likely to beat
children & twice as likely to seek custody of these children, advocacy of
child protection demands that fathers seeking custody be very carefully
investigated. It may feel unfair to nonviolent fathers but the unfairness
stems from the behavior of other men, not from gender biases favoring
women. Of any ten fathers seeking custody of a child, five WILL have a
history of severe abuse of their wives &/or children. Therefore even
non-abusive men, if they care about children, will agree this has to be
taken into consideration & investigated. The fact that so many men's
rights activists are outraged by this essential concern for the well being
of women & children makes their motivations suspicious indeed.
Young women ages 19 to 29 are in the highest risk category, & the most
likely to be murdered by their male domestic partner. Women age 46 or
older are at significantly reduced risk. Two-thirds of the male abusers
were between 24 & 40 years of age -- meaning overall, older men beat &
murder younger women. [Bureau of Justice stats]
Continuing BoJ stats: The OVERWHELMING majority of domestic violence is
heterosexual men beating or murdering heterosexual women. In BoJ sample
years 1994 & 1995, 90 and 95% of victims wre women; 95% (both years) of
the perpetrators were men. One MIGHT argue that this does not diminish the
issues regarding that 5% of male victims, except the stats include women
who strike back exclusively in self-defence, & the numbers of men who
could be categorized with the same kind of victimization that is
commonplace against women -- such men exist but their numbers of
infinitisimal, whereas in among men's rights rhetoric these are a large
ignored class, though the best they've come up with THIS week to compare
to the death & hospitalization of hundreds of thousands of women &
children is gooberfather who pretends he got scratched by his ex after no
domestic relationship existed.
Make no mistake. The majority of violence by women against men in domestic
situations is self-defence [see Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention
& Treatment Programs, National Resource Council and Institute of Medicine,
p. 42, 1998)
The stats on murder are more interesting still.In no fewer than 70% of
domestic abuse cases that result in the dead partner, it is the woman who
dies [BoJ stats]. In a Florida study, men were four times more likely to
murder their female partners in domestic violence [Florida Governor's Task
Force on Domestic Violence, 1997].
In all, while men are ten times more likely to beat their partners
severely enough to result in hospitalization, men are only four times more
likely to KILL their partners! This indicates that when women DO fight
back, they do so with a vengeance. They are still vastly outnumbered by
murdering men, but it is interesting that the disparity is somewhat
reduced. Therefore abusers DO have reason to be afraid.
These partner homicides differ greatly by gender. In the overwhleming
majority of wives or girlfriends killing their partners, it was in self
defence, while NONE of the the cases of men murdering female partners were
self defence [Florida taskforce]
And what about the children? In homes where men beat girlfriends or wives,
children are 1,500 times more likely to be abused as well [BoJ stats].
In the Florida task force study, just over one-fourth of domestic
homicides were men killing children under the age of ten. Frequently the
child was killed in the midst of beating a wife or girlfriend.
A rational Men's Advocacy program would demand that laws protecting women
be written & enforced in a gender-neutral manner so that the RARE case of
men honestly being in a similar situation is fairly assessed & prosecuted.
But to argue the problem is noticeably a two-way street is just insanity &
no man who cares about men, women, & children in any reasoning way
supports such insanity.
The factual imbalances are justly reflected in current law, but men's
rights activists are trying to undermine justice. Because a policy of
"dual arrest" in domestic violence police intervention is spreading in
American law enforcement, the number of women arrested for taking
defensive action is on the rise. In the last several years, the number of
women put in jail for self-defence has grown each year, & arrests of women
are disproportionately higher in dual-arrest communities without regard
for the fact that the majority of violence perpetrated by women is in
self-defence. Men's Right victory? Yes. Perpetuating men's right to murder
& abuse women & children.
-paghat the ratgirl
Wilbur Streett
>In article <390F052E...@home.com>, Richard Soyack
><richs...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Eric da Red wrote:
>> >
>> > I've known women who were beaten to near-death by their boy"friends" and
>> > husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any charges were
>> > filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
>>
>> What purpose does your comment serve, other than as a troll?
>>
>> Rich Soyack
>
>Now Rich, are you that stupid? The number one cause of death in women
>under the age of 25 after automobile accident is a boyfriend or husband
>killing her. Fact. Live with it. That compares to a liars claim he was
>once scratched post-relationship?
Lie. Provide some proof.
>One in three women will be violently assaulted by a husband or boyfriend
>in their lifetime (ref Report of the American Psychological Association
>Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, 1996)
Which has been TOTALLY DISPROVEN several times.
The report included raising your voice as "violent attack". The report
included name calling as "violent attack".
>According to Bureau of Justice statistics, just 5% of all annual violence
>against men is perpetrated by a domestic partner -- usually a woman but
>sometimes a male partner. That means 95% of violence against men is not
>domestic violence. The other 95% incidents are perpetrated primarily by
>men against men outside the home.
The BOJ statistics are not based on anything OTHER THAN PROSECUTIONS, twit.
>According to the BoJ stats, 28% of all annual violence against women is
>perpetrated by domestic partners -- usually a man but sometimes a female
>partner. The other 72% violent attacks of women are likewise perpetrated
>primarily by men against women.
.. and less then 4% of the abuse of children is done by the Father. But
you don't mention that, now do you?
There are plenty of studies that show that men are abused MORE OFTEN by
women than the other way around.. and more severly, since some women
don't know how to control their tempers. (like you).
>For one year specifically, 1994, 21% of all violent victimizations against
>women were perpetrated by boyfriends or husbands, while only 4% of violent
>victimizations of men were perpetrated by a girlfriend or wife.
Only based on the PROSECUTIONS. Not actual studies of the people involved.
<blathering snipped>
Wilbur
--------------------------------------------
Putting A Human Face On Technology ;-)
--------------------------------------------
Literally! http://www.monmouth.com/~wstreett/FaceIT/
paghat
WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett) wrote:
> pagsterSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
> >One in three women will be violently assaulted by a husband or boyfriend
> >in their lifetime (ref Report of the American Psychological Association
> >Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, 1996)
>
> Which has been TOTALLY DISPROVEN several times.
>
> The report included raising your voice as "violent attack". The report
> included name calling as "violent attack".
Either you're swallowing propoganda or you are merely lying. Violent
assault statistics include exclusively physical assault, not verbal,
otherwise the stats might indeed be gender-parallel since women are good
at yelling back.
The stats have been TOTALLY PROVEN over & over again by a variety of
methods -- hospital cases, police report cases, statitscal sampling
studies, & interviews with purported victims including men. Where you get
your propogandistic delusions are from select statements from fair &
balanced researchers such as Roland Maiuro, a national expert on domestic
violence who
works at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. His findings are
selectively misrepresented by men's rights activists. For instance, I saw
a men's rights child abuser quote: "national surveys that do look at the
overall rate of violence of men toward women and women toward men have
found that the rate is about equal," yes, inclusive of yelling in some of
these surveys; but when I found what Maiuro had actually written, what the
men's rights activist left out was the ACTUAL conclusion: "When you look
past those percentages, into the context, much of women's violence is in
retaliation to men's violence. And when you look at serious injuries, 90
percent are those of women. And when you look at homicides from domestic
violence, the gap also closes somewhat; the split is not 90 percent female
victims, but more like 60 percent female and 40 percent male, although
women, after years of abuse, often feel so threatened that they kill men."
Mairuo is regarded a men's rights activist who ultimately asks that the
violence itself be addressed & not the gender of the perpetrator, but even
he cannot "fix" the stats to change the fact that men are more inclined to
attack women, women are more apt to be killed, women are less apt to be
instigators, & murder of a spouse other than in self defence is almost
exclusively a crime of men against women.
Until you accept the reality you cannot address what injustices are real.
By mixing your desire to believe that it is primarily unprovoked men who
are victimized, you will never begin to sort out men's criminal behavior
from men's victimization.
> >According to Bureau of Justice statistics, just 5% of all annual violence
> >against men is perpetrated by a domestic partner -- usually a woman but
> >sometimes a male partner. That means 95% of violence against men is not
> >domestic violence. The other 95% incidents are perpetrated primarily by
> >men against men outside the home.
>
> The BOJ statistics are not based on anything OTHER THAN PROSECUTIONS, twit.
I provided citations of several studies including studies of hospital
emergency room reports -- the stats are always roughly the same no matter
the source. Most stats encompass police reports, not court cases. Several
encompass hospital emergency room reports.
> >According to the BoJ stats, 28% of all annual violence against women is
> >perpetrated by domestic partners -- usually a man but sometimes a female
> >partner. The other 72% violent attacks of women are likewise perpetrated
> >primarily by men against women.
>
> .. and less then 4% of the abuse of children is done by the Father. But
> you don't mention that, now do you?
Holy sick-minded fuckmeister, are you making this up as you go along? The
same percentage as men as women who are primary caretakers raise children
neglectfully -- unbathed, unfed, ignored, slapped. Women with a history of
abuse are apt to attract & live with boyfriends who are abusers, so these
women's mental health problem is they endanger their children by the kind
of men they are willing to allow in their homes. The statistics on violent
& sexual assault on children is vastly in favor of men being the
perpetrators, whether or not one controls for primary caretaker
percentages -- any many in the vicinity of a child is apt to be a danger,
sad to say. I posted the stats on this last week, & Gooberfather posted
underneath these stats how he didn't give a shit. Typical.
> There are plenty of studies that show that men are abused MORE OFTEN by
> women than the other way around..
I gave cites. You gave none. There are none. The biggest advocate of men
in this regard having solid scientific credentials is Mairuo whose
analysis of the extant literature, even though wanting to side with men in
so far as siding with men is supportable, does not support your foolish
unfounded assertion.
> and more severly, since some women
> don't know how to control their tempers. (like you).
It's not my blood pressure that's rising. It's yours sending you to an
early grave. What you're showing here is the manner by which men just get
angrier & angrier at mouthy broads until you explode -- either with heart
disease or murder.
> >For one year specifically, 1994, 21% of all violent victimizations against
> >women were perpetrated by boyfriends or husbands, while only 4% of violent
> >victimizations of men were perpetrated by a girlfriend or wife.
>
> Only based on the PROSECUTIONS. Not actual studies of the people involved.
Based on numerous studies from independent sources actually, predominantly
on hospital emergency room reports & first-encounter police reports, NOT
on prosecutions. Sorry buddio, you just don't know squat. And you're
worthless even to an effective men's movement if you never wise up but
just continue to prove the men's movement is a bunch of hysterics &
violent revengeful tards.
-paghat the ratgirl
> Wilbur the Mule
Paul Fritz
> In article <390F052E...@home.com>, Richard Soyack
> <richs...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric da Red wrote:
> > >
> > > I've known women who were beaten to near-death by their boy"friends" and
> > > husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any charges were
> > > filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
> >
> > What purpose does your comment serve, other than as a troll?
> >
> > Rich Soyack
>
> Now Rich, are you that stupid? The number one cause of death in women
> under the age of 25 after automobile accident is a boyfriend or husband
> killing her. Fact. Live with it. That compares to a liars claim he was
> once scratched post-relationship?
>
> One in three women will be violently assaulted by a husband or boyfriend
> in their lifetime (ref Report of the American Psychological Association
> Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, 1996)
>
> According to Bureau of Justice statistics, just 5% of all annual violence
> against men is perpetrated by a domestic partner -- usually a woman but
> sometimes a male partner. That means 95% of violence against men is not
> domestic violence. The other 95% incidents are perpetrated primarily by
> men against men outside the home
>
>
> According to the BoJ stats, 28% of all annual violence against women is
> perpetrated by domestic partners -- usually a man but sometimes a female
> partner. The other 72% violent attacks of women are likewise perpetrated
> primarily by men against women.
>
>
> For one year specifically, 1994, 21% of all violent victimizations against
> women were perpetrated by boyfriends or husbands, while only 4% of violent
> victimizations of men were perpetrated by a girlfriend or wife.
>
> By BoJ stats, then, between one-sixth & one-fifth of resources for
> domestic abuse should be used to assist men, in order to achieve need
> equity. If they are not, the goal of Men's Right for an equitable system
> would be to see that between one-sixth & one-fifth of such resources ARE
> used in ways that assist men. However, at least half the incidents of
> violence against men by women is in self-defence, & BoJ stats show finally
> that the chance of being victimized by a parter is 10 times greater for a
> woman than a man. So really only one-tenth of resources should be
> targetted to assist men.
You analysis and assumed result fail a simple validity test. You have attempted
to lump "all violence against men as a resultant figure for domestic violence
assistance for men. Typical feminist ploy. You completely ignore the fact that
women commit more domestic violence then men, but then that doesn't fit your men
bad, women good agenda.
The statistics are consistent, women are violent.
Half of spousal murders are committed by wives, a statistic that has been stable
over time.
The l985 National Family Violence Survey, funded by the National Institute of
Mental Health and supported by many other surveys, disclosed that women and men
were physically abusing one another in roughly equal numbers. Wives reported
that they were more often the aggressors. Using weapons to make up for physical
disadvantage, they were not just fighting back.
While 1.8 million women annually suffered one or more assaults from a husband
or boyfriend, 2 million men were assaulted by a wife or girlfriend, according to a
l986 study on U. S. family violence published in the Journal of Marriage and
Family. That study also found that 54 percent of all violence termed "severe" was
by
women.
The Journal for the National Association of Social Workers found in l986 that
among teenagers who date, girls were violent more frequently than boys.
Mothers abuse their children at a rate approaching twice that of fathers,
according to state child-protective service agencies surveyed by the Children's
Rights
Coalition.
Because men have been taught to "take it like a man" and are ridiculed when
they feel they have been battered by women, women are nine times more likely to
report
their abusers to the authorities.
% of murder victims in domestic violence 55.5% 44.5%
% of spouses acquitted for murder of a spouse 1.4% 12.9%
% of spouses who receive probation for murdering a spouse 1.6% 16.0%
Average sentence (in years) for murdering a spouse 17.0 6.0
When children are murdered 61% of the time it is by the mother. "Source: Murder in
Families" - Dept. of Justice, July 1994.
In 1975 and again in 1985, Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles and others
conducted one of the largest and most respected studies in family violence ever
done. What
they found, confounded conventional wisdom on the subject: Not only are men just
as likely to be the victims of domestic violence as women, the study showed that
between 1975 and 1985, the overall rate of domestic violence by men against women
decreased, while women's violence against men increased. Responding to
accusations of gender bias, Straus re-computed the assault rates based solely on
the responses of the women in the 1985 study and confirmed that even according to
women, men are the ones more likely to be assaulted by their partner.
There is no question that while men on average are bigger and stronger than women,
they can do more damage in a fistfight. However according to Professors R.L.
McNeely and Cormae Richey Mann, "the average man's size and strength are
neutralized by guns and knives, boiling water, bricks, fireplace pokers and
baseball bats."
A 1984 study of 6,200 cases found that 86% of female-on-male violence involved
weapons, contrasted with 25% in cases of male-on-female violence. McLeod, Justice
Quarterly (2) 1984 pp. 171-193.
Of every 100 families, 3.8 experience severe husband-to-wife violence, but 4.5%
experience severe wife-to-husband violence. (Straus, Gelles, Steinmetz , Behind
Closed
Doors: Violence in American Families (1980).
A 1985 study of Texas University students, Breen found that 18% of men and 14% of
women reported a violent act by a romantic partner. In the same study, 28% of
married men reported that their wives had slapped, punched or kicked them. (Shupe,
Stacey & Hazlewood. "Violent Men, Violent Couples (1986) Chapter 3.
In another study, 15.5% of men and 11.3% of women reported having hit a spouse
while 18.6% of men and 12% of women reported been struck by a spouse. Nisnoff &
Bitman, Victimology 4, (1979), pp. 131-140.
Prevalence and Stability of Physical Aggression Between Spouses: A Longitudinal
Analysis by O'Leary, K.D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J. and
Tyree, A.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1989, Vol. 57, No. 2, 263-268
American Psychological Association
"According to self-reports, 31% of the men and 44% of the women indicated that
they had engaged in aggression against their partners in the year prior to
marriage... At 18
months after marriage, the prevalences of spousal aggression during the year prior
to the assessment were 27% and 36% respectively, for men and women. At 30 months
after marriage, the prevalences of spousal aggression for the previous year werw
25% and 32% for men and women, espectively...
>
>
> The statistics are consistent across racial boundaries; the myth that
> Latino husbands, for instance, are more violent than regular ol' white
> guys turns out to be just that, a myth. The men's rights movement is
> primarily white guys who believe themselves innocent or pretend to believe
> so. Men use custody battles to further their abusive goals: statistically,
> BATTERING FATHERS ARE TWO TIMES MORE LIKELY TO SEEK CUSTODY OF A CHILD
more of the feminist mantra
>
> [Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force
> on Violence and the Family,1996, p. 40.] This explains the violent
> emotions of Men's Rights advocates -- not their loss of loved ones but
> their loss of individuals over whom they believed they had power &
> authority like unto gods regarding who lives, who dies, & who is beaten to
> a bloody pulp. Because men who beat women are twice as likely to beat
> children & twice as likely to seek custody of these children, advocacy of
> child protection demands that fathers seeking custody be very carefully
> investigated. It may feel unfair to nonviolent fathers but the unfairness
> stems from the behavior of other men, not from gender biases favoring
> women. Of any ten fathers seeking custody of a child, five WILL have a
> history of severe abuse of their wives &/or children. Therefore even
> non-abusive men, if they care about children, will agree this has to be
> taken into consideration & investigated. The fact that so many men's
> rights activists are outraged by this essential concern for the well being
> of women & children makes their motivations suspicious indeed.
Except for the fact that women abuse children more
>
>
> Young women ages 19 to 29 are in the highest risk category, & the most
> likely to be murdered by their male domestic partner. Women age 46 or
> older are at significantly reduced risk. Two-thirds of the male abusers
> were between 24 & 40 years of age -- meaning overall, older men beat &
> murder younger women. [Bureau of Justice stats]
>
rest of propaganda snipped
paghat
real...@excite.com (Laura Gjovaag) wrote:
> mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) scribbled these words:
>
> >Have you gone to the press? Like, legitimate media. Like, the paper, or
> >TV news. And did they turn your story away?
>
> I saw a letter to the editor of the Seattle Times yesterday that is a dead-
> ringer for Goodfather's story.
>
> http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi-
> bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=lett01&date=20000501
>
> -Laura
Good call. He was asking people to watch for his case in the paper, but he
wanted us to believe it was going to be something journalistic rather than
one of his raving posts in a letter column.
-paghat
Eric da Red
>> > berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
>> >> In article <3909F686...@uswest.net>,
>> >> Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I am making a post today about reasons NOT to move to Seattle, because all
>> >> >you have ther are people that HATE human life,
>> >>
>> >> Come now, the Mariners aren't THAT bad.
>>
>> > GF_ NO, but the equal treatment under the law of men is that bad. My
>> >office turned away with no reaction to her at all. It's fine for women
>> >to assault men in Seattle, or so they would have you believe.
>>
>> husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any charges were
>> filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
>What purpose does your comment serve, other than as a troll?
You are seriously confused. I'm over here in seattle.general, minding my
own business, distributing bon mots to my one or two appreciative fans.
While romping in this pleasant electronic playground I and numerous other
happy folk were blindsided by a presumed guy named Goodfather who sought
some sort of positive supportive response for his implausible story.
Normally I let professional victims alone, feeling that simply being
themselves is enough punishment for their transgressions. Alas,
Goonfather just would not stop his incessant tirades in this most
inappropriate of places. While not matching the cogency of paghat's
trenchant responses to Goonfather I felt obliged to assist my
seattle.general chums in my own small way to free ourselves of this
crossposting blight.
In other words, not a troll.
Though spared by the Fates and careful selection from suffering a divorce
myself I've watched many occur to friends and relatives. In some cases
the male half of the dissolved partnership was genuinely abused both by
the former spouse and by the court system. This is a rarity. In any
case, it's only possible to determine this after hearing all sides of the
conflict, a treat to which we've been denied.
There are several internal aspects to Goonfather's unlikely tale that
erode his credibility. For one, innocent men who are victimized by the
court system tend not to broadcast this fact repeatedly and without
invitation to an anonymous forum. For another, men who are good fathers
and love their non-custodial kids don't usually boast of this fact in
tones drenched in self-pity to total strangers.
Eric da Red
Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>"Goodfather" <goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote in message
>news:8el5lo$c4l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
>> > In article <3909F686...@uswest.net>,
>> > Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >I am making a post today about reasons NOT to move to Seattle, because
>all
>> > >you have ther are people that HATE human life,
>> >
>> > Come now, the Mariners aren't THAT bad.
>>
>> GF_ NO, but the equal treatment under the law of men is that bad. My
>> Ex broke into my house and assaulted me and the Seattle prosecutor's
>> office turned away with no reaction to her at all. It's fine for women
>> to assault men in Seattle, or so they would have you believe.
>God *DAYM* but you're a one-note flute.
>
>Are you related to Jim String?
Sheesh, lets hope not. Imagine Goonfather fully armed at all times ...
brrr, just too frightening.
Richard Soyack
>
> In article <390F052E...@home.com>,
> Richard Soyack <richs...@home.com> wrote:
> >Eric da Red wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <8el5lo$c4l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> Goodfather <goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote:
> >> > berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
> >> >> In article <3909F686...@uswest.net>,
> >> >> Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >I am making a post today about reasons NOT to move to Seattle, because all
> >> >> >you have ther are people that HATE human life,
> >> >>
> >> >> Come now, the Mariners aren't THAT bad.
> >>
> >> > GF_ NO, but the equal treatment under the law of men is that bad. My
> >> >Ex broke into my house and assaulted me and the Seattle prosecutor's
> >> >office turned away with no reaction to her at all. It's fine for women
> >> >to assault men in Seattle, or so they would have you believe.
> >>
Oh, okay, not just a troll but a pompous troll.
Rich Soyack
Clave
news:390F5472...@home.com...
<...>
> Oh, okay, not just a troll but a pompous troll.
I suggest you look in your own little playground for the troll, sir. Nobody
here in s.g initiated this crossposting.
Frankly, when special-interest one-note-ponies like Goonfather (thanx, Eric)
go trolling in strange newsgroups, they deserve what they get.
Seattle.general happens to be pretty gentle compared to some places I'm
tempted to re-crosspost some of this drivel (Eric, Pags -- you two know
where I mean).
You misogynistic whiners can circle-jerk yourselves and kiss each others'
asses as much as you want, but if you do it outside the newsgroups you've
set up for that purpose and you get your knickers charred, don't go calling
the people who did the charring "trolls."
In other words, if you don't like the heat, trim the fucking headers
already. Nobody invited you here, and nobody will miss you when you're
gone.
Jim
Richard Soyack
>
> "Richard Soyack" <richs...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:390F5472...@home.com...
>
> <...>
>
> > Oh, okay, not just a troll but a pompous troll.
>
> I suggest you look in your own little playground for the troll, sir. Nobody
> here in s.g initiated this crossposting.
>
> Frankly, when special-interest one-note-ponies like Goonfather (thanx, Eric)
> go trolling in strange newsgroups, they deserve what they get.
> Seattle.general happens to be pretty gentle compared to some places I'm
> tempted to re-crosspost some of this drivel (Eric, Pags -- you two know
> where I mean).
Oh, a threat. I can't tell you how impressive you are, hunched over
your keyboard, making threats.
>
> You misogynistic whiners can circle-jerk yourselves and kiss each others'
> asses as much as you want, but if you do it outside the newsgroups you've
> set up for that purpose and you get your knickers charred, don't go calling
> the people who did the charring "trolls."
You forgot the "or else."
>
> In other words, if you don't like the heat, trim the fucking headers
> already. Nobody invited you here, and nobody will miss you when you're
> gone.
Heat? Hardly, you are just a little computer troll.
Rich Soyack
Wilbur Streett
>In article <390f2488....@news.monmouth.com>,
>WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett) wrote:
>
>> pagsterSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
>> >One in three women will be violently assaulted by a husband or boyfriend
>> >in their lifetime (ref Report of the American Psychological Association
>> >Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, 1996)
>>
>> Which has been TOTALLY DISPROVEN several times.
>>
>> The report included raising your voice as "violent attack". The report
>> included name calling as "violent attack".
>
>Either you're swallowing propoganda or you are merely lying. Violent
>assault statistics include exclusively physical assault, not verbal,
>otherwise the stats might indeed be gender-parallel since women are good
>at yelling back.
The study that you are referencing did not only include physical assault in
it's statistics.. Sorry you are wrong.
But I notice that you didn't respond to the request to provide proof of the
first claim that you made. About how women under 25 are most likely to be
injured by their boyfriend...
Gee, I guess that the NIH just made up their stuff, and all of the other
studies that show your claims are quite false don't mean anything huh?
Provide a single national study reference that supports your claims, and
I'll provide 2 for every one that you provide that trash your claims.
>Until you accept the reality you cannot address what injustices are real.
>By mixing your desire to believe that it is primarily unprovoked men who
>are victimized, you will never begin to sort out men's criminal behavior
>from men's victimization.
Gee, I know the difference just fine. I also know that men are the victims
of the criminal justice system, and women aren't, which is the gender bias
that Good Father was documenting.
But, please, continue to reference a study from a local women's domestic
violence center rather than the truth. After all, our taxpayer dollars are
funding the women's center, but there isn't a SINGLE men's center.
But, hey, you won't address that either.
>> >According to Bureau of Justice statistics, just 5% of all annual violence
>> >against men is perpetrated by a domestic partner -- usually a woman but
>> >sometimes a male partner. That means 95% of violence against men is not
>> >domestic violence. The other 95% incidents are perpetrated primarily by
>> >men against men outside the home.
>>
>> The BOJ statistics are not based on anything OTHER THAN PROSECUTIONS, twit.
>
>I provided citations of several studies including studies of hospital
>emergency room reports -- the stats are always roughly the same no matter
>the source. Most stats encompass police reports, not court cases. Several
>encompass hospital emergency room reports.
Police refuse to file.. and when they have filed, NOW has gone crazy. Just
a few months ago the police started removing women from the household as
they do to men when the women is the one that has perpetrated the violence,
and NOW went crazy. I know of enough stories first hand to know that you
don't know what you are talking about.
But hey, I also taught a self defense class to about 65 women, so please
try to pain me as someone that doesn't know what is going on.
>> >According to the BoJ stats, 28% of all annual violence against women is
>> >perpetrated by domestic partners -- usually a man but sometimes a female
>> >partner. The other 72% violent attacks of women are likewise perpetrated
>> >primarily by men against women.
>>
>> .. and less then 4% of the abuse of children is done by the Father. But
>> you don't mention that, now do you?
>
>Holy sick-minded fuckmeister, are you making this up as you go along?
Nope. NIH statistics. The women that did the study was pissed off that it
wasn't documented.
<snip>
>
>> There are plenty of studies that show that men are abused MORE OFTEN by
>> women than the other way around..
>I gave cites. You gave none. There are none. The biggest advocate of men
You gave no cites.. You claimed the BOJ. That's not an unbiased source.
>in this regard having solid scientific credentials is Mairuo whose
>analysis of the extant literature, even though wanting to side with men in
>so far as siding with men is supportable, does not support your foolish
>unfounded assertion.
It's not foolish or unfounded. You just can't handle it. Step father's
aren't fathers.
>> and more severly, since some women
>> don't know how to control their tempers. (like you).
>
>It's not my blood pressure that's rising. It's yours sending you to an
>early grave. What you're showing here is the manner by which men just get
>angrier & angrier at mouthy broads until you explode -- either with heart
>disease or murder.
FYI, I have low blood pressure. But I didnt' say anything about your blood
pressue, I said that you can't control your temper, which is obvious.
>> >For one year specifically, 1994, 21% of all violent victimizations against
>> >women were perpetrated by boyfriends or husbands, while only 4% of violent
>> >victimizations of men were perpetrated by a girlfriend or wife.
>>
>> Only based on the PROSECUTIONS. Not actual studies of the people involved.
>
>Based on numerous studies from independent sources actually,
Nope.. then you would have referenced them.
>predominantly
>on hospital emergency room reports & first-encounter police reports,
Gee real, men don't go to hospitals for a bruise.. but even the ER stats
don't support your claims.
>NOT
>on prosecutions. Sorry buddio, you just don't know squat. And you're
>worthless even to an effective men's movement if you never wise up but
>just continue to prove the men's movement is a bunch of hysterics &
>violent revengeful tards.
You specifically referenced prosecutions.. BOJ is not the National
Institution of Health, whose statistics disagree with your claims.
But just to show that you really have no clue, here is a reference that I
just got today..
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:
AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 117 scholarly
investigations, 94 empirical studies and 23 reviews and/or
analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically
aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships
with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample
size in the reviewed studies exceeds 72,000.
Wilbur
henri...@my-deja.com
berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
> In article <8el5lo$c4l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Goodfather <goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote:
> >In article <sgs1ihb...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
> >> In article <3909F686...@uswest.net>,
> >> Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I am making a post today about reasons NOT to move to Seattle,
because all
> >> >you have ther are people that HATE human life,
> >>
> >> Come now, the Mariners aren't THAT bad.
>
> > GF_ NO, but the equal treatment under the law of men is that
bad. My
> >Ex broke into my house and assaulted me and the Seattle prosecutor's
> >office turned away with no reaction to her at all. It's fine for
women
> >to assault men in Seattle, or so they would have you believe.
>
> I've known women who were beaten to near-death by their boy"friends"
and
> husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any charges
were
> filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
Really. Would it bother you if he'd defended himself?
Clave
> Clave wrote:
> >
> > "Richard Soyack" <richs...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:390F5472...@home.com...
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > Oh, okay, not just a troll but a pompous troll.
> >
> > I suggest you look in your own little playground for the troll, sir.
> > Nobody here in s.g initiated this crossposting.
> >
> > Frankly, when special-interest one-note-ponies like Goonfather
> > (thanx, Eric) go trolling in strange newsgroups, they deserve what
> > they get. Seattle.general happens to be pretty gentle compared
> > to some places I'm tempted to re-crosspost some of this drivel
> > (Eric, Pags -- you two know where I mean).
>
> Oh, a threat. I can't tell you how impressive you are, hunched over
> your keyboard, making threats.
No threat intended. I don't initiate crossposts in existing threads. Not
everyone is as classless as you and your friends seem to be.
> > You misogynistic whiners can circle-jerk yourselves and kiss each
others'
> > asses as much as you want, but if you do it outside the newsgroups
you've
> > set up for that purpose and you get your knickers charred, don't go
calling
> > the people who did the charring "trolls."
>
> You forgot the "or else."
Why would "or else" be necessary?
> > In other words, if you don't like the heat, trim the fucking headers
> > already. Nobody invited you here, and nobody will miss you when you're
> > gone.
>
> Heat? Hardly, you are just a little computer troll.
Once again, you miss the point. Lemme splain in smaller words.
I never claimed to be applying any heat -- you and your ilk seem to be all
hot & bothered about other people. If you don't like what you're reading,
use your killfile or stop crossposting.
Or, you could just go back to kissing Myles' ass. I really don't give a
damn.
Hugs,
Jim
Richard Soyack
You might try taking your own advice.
>
> Or, you could just go back to kissing Myles' ass. I really don't give a
> damn.
Myles? I haven't really been following this thread. I just happen to
dislike little people who try to act all brave because they are hiding
behind a computer screen.
Rich Soyack
henri...@my-deja.com
> <richs...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric da Red wrote:
> > >
> > > I've known women who were beaten to near-death by their
boy"friends" and
> > > husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any
charges were
> > > filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
> >
> > What purpose does your comment serve, other than as a troll?
> >
> > Rich Soyack
>
> Now Rich, are you that stupid?
Not that you're incabable of engaging in a discussion without resorting
to insults.
<snip>
> The men's rights movement is
> primarily white guys who believe themselves innocent or pretend to
> believe so.
Justify this statement. You're saying that men's rights advocates are
either _believe_ themselves innocent or pretend to believe, implying
that no men's rights advocates are innocent. Why?
> Men use custody battles to further their abusive goals: statistically,
> BATTERING FATHERS ARE TWO TIMES MORE LIKELY TO SEEK CUSTODY OF A CHILD
I've seen this one before. Its strikes me as a feminist means of
discouraging men from seeking custody. In essence, it tells divorcing
men to obey their wives, pay their child support, and shut their
mouths. This is female supremacist to the core.
> [Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task
Force
> on Violence and the Family,1996, p. 40.] This explains the violent
> emotions of Men's Rights advocates -- not their loss of loved ones but
> their loss of individuals over whom they believed they had power &
> authority like unto gods regarding who lives, who dies, & who is
beaten to
> a bloody pulp.
Speaking of getting upset over loss of control, try suggesting to an ex
wife that her ex husband be relieved of his child support obligation
unless she allows court-ordered visitation. Imagine the response.
From what would the anger stem other than loss of control over a
portion of the man's income or loss of total control over a child to
whom another is equally related.
> advocacy of child protection demands that fathers seeking custody be
> very carefully investigated.
Here it is again. Use your silly statistics like a crowbar to hammer
men who seek custody. Why? Because they obviously don't know their
place.
> It may feel unfair to nonviolent fathers but the unfairness
> stems from the behavior of other men,
So these non-violent fathers have only themselves to blame for the
unfairness, eh? After all, people of their birth group allegedly made
it necessary, and we all know that birth groups are monoliths. The
individuals contained therein aren't really individuals, right Rat?
By the way, it doesn't _seem_ unfair. It _is_ unfair.
> not from gender biases favoring
> women. Of any ten fathers seeking custody of a child, five WILL have a
> history of severe abuse of their wives &/or children.
I call bullshit on this. Provide a cite.
> Therefore even
> non-abusive men, if they care about children, will agree this has to
be
> taken into consideration & investigated. The fact that so many men's
> rights activists are outraged by this essential concern for the well
being
> of women & children makes their motivations suspicious indeed.
Not that you would ever try to silence your political opponents by
accusing them of being child abusers.
Look, if you want to prove that no man can be trusted, its not
sufficient to say that blah blah percent of murders are committed by
men and blah blah percent of assaults are committed by men and yadda
yadda yadda. You have to show that a substatial percentage of men
behave violently. You can't. Your twisted statistics are just a ploy
to silence those who oppose you. The fact that you get so angry at
those who do oppose you is further evidence of this. You tip your hand
when you viciously assault Goodfather for daring to reveal that his
wife had attacked him.
Credibility isn't a boomerang. If you throw it away, it doesn't come
back. Remember that the next time you make some bullshit claim without
providing a cite. And remember that the next time you provide line
after line after tiresome line of cites that really don't mean
anything. Also, provide a link. Don't just cut and paste. You're too
full of hatred to be trusted not to doctor whatever you find out there.
Grey Wolf
posted the following satanic message in <390F6214...@home.com>
[ SNIPPED ALL OF IT ]
Would you two P-U-L-E-E-Z-E take it outside? Just wait 'til your father
gets home....
--
Grey "enter clever nickname here" Wolf
Keep the Earth clean.... it isn't Uranus
Clave
>
> Clave wrote:
<...>
> > I never claimed to be applying any heat -- you and your ilk seem
> > to be all hot & bothered about other people. If you don't like
> > what you're reading, use your killfile or stop crossposting.
>
> You might try taking your own advice.
*I* happen to be enjoying myself. *I'm* not complaining about what *you*
write. I'm just enjoying seeing you tailwalk across four newsgroups
simultaneously.
> > Or, you could just go back to kissing Myles' ass. I really don't
> > give a damn.
>
> Myles? I haven't really been following this thread.
> I just happen to dislike little people who try to act
> all brave because they are hiding behind a computer screen.
"Act all brave?" Aren't you cute. You must hate everyone on Usenet then.
Including yourself.
Know who *I* dislike? Clueless buttinski mouthbreathers who jump into the
middle of threads they haven't "really been following."
Toodles,
Jim
Clave
news:MPG.1379069ad...@news.earthlink.net...
> After an evening of playing 60s rock music backwards, Richard Soyack
> posted the following satanic message in <390F6214...@home.com>
>
> [ SNIPPED ALL OF IT ]
>
> Would you two P-U-L-E-E-Z-E take it outside? Just wait 'til your father
> gets home....
Shux, Mr. Wolf -- he just followed me home. Honest.
Jim
Grey Wolf
following satanic message in <lKJP4.1637$Z71.190005@dfiatx1-
snr1.gtei.net>
If no one claims him, you'll have to keep him.
paghat
<paul...@voyager.net> wrote:
>
> You analysis and assumed result fail a simple validity test. You have
attempted
> to lump "all violence against men as a resultant figure for domestic violence
> assistance for men. Typical feminist ploy.
Neat how you could quote nothing from my posting to support that.
> The statistics are consistent, women are violent.
The statistics are consistent indeed. Women WILL become violent in self
defence. Men become violent over issues of power & control & loss thereof.
Women will kill boyfriends & husbands who beat them regularly. Men will
kill girlfriends & wives who do not beat them at all.
> Half of spousal murders are committed by wives, a statistic that has been
> stable over time.
Year by year the percentages of spousal murders are pretty much around the
area of 70% of the dead are women killed by men, 30% of the dead are men
killed by women. The women become killers almost exclusively in self
defence. The men who kill were never endangered. Women tended to kill
after numerous escalating physical assaults & hospitalizations. Men killed
when the beatings would no longer keep their wives & girlfriends in the
home.
> The l985 National Family Violence Survey, funded by the National Institute of
> Mental Health and supported by many other surveys, disclosed that women and
> men were physically abusing one another in roughly equal numbers.
That appears to be true in a few studies that are not suspect, when the
violence is defined in such a way as to include pushing, shoving, &
slapping that results in no injury whatsoever, not distinguishing these
from injury assaults that are predominantly male against female. Across
the board these same studies continue to break down these statistics &
show that the vast majority of women's aggression is self defence; that
women were hospitalized with severe injuries far more often than men; &
the main threat to men's safety is still other men, not spouses, while
spouses are indeed the major threat to women.
The murder statistics though never exceeding 35% women as the murderers
additionally show that these murders usually follow long histories of
injuries requiring the woman be hospitalized, whereas men kill women
primarily when the women finally try to leave or because escalating
beatings "accidentally" did her in. Studies that prove women push men as
often as men push women, but men hospitalize, maim, & murder women in far
higher numbers, are hardly worthy of citing as proof of the need for more
protection of men. All men have to do to be safe from women is to stop
beating the crap out of their wives or girlfriends.
> Wives reported
> that they were more often the aggressors. Using weapons to make up for
> physical disadvantage, they were not just fighting back.
> While 1.8 million women annually suffered one or more assaults from a husband
> or boyfriend, 2 million men were assaulted by a wife or girlfriend, according
> to a l986 study on U. S. family violence published in the Journal of
Marriage and
> Family. That study also found that 54 percent of all violence termed "severe"
> was by women.
> The Journal for the National Association of Social Workers found in l986 that
> among teenagers who date, girls were violent more frequently than boys.
You are clearly misusing information to prove the opposite of what these
studies proves, judging by this last one, which I have read. The study
shows that a very alarming percentage of girls & women became violent on
dates in order to protect themselves from rape. How strange that
comparatively few men had to fight off women trying to rape them.
> Mothers abuse their children at a rate approaching twice that of fathers,
> according to state child-protective service agencies surveyed by the
> Children's Rights Coalition.
Primary caretakers are more apt to abuse than parents who are absent, yes,
& your statistic isn't a bad one if we compare biological mother as
primary custodian to biologoical father as absent & deadbeat. By far the
GREATER aggressors, however, are stepfathers & boyfriends, who are the
primary abusers & murders of children (cites below where you misrepresent
this again).
> women are nine times more likely to
> report their abusers to the authorities.
That has never been shown to be the case by any peer reviewed science, but
it is often repeated by chumps who have beaten their wives.
> % of murder victims in domestic violence 55.5% 44.5%
> % of spouses acquitted for murder of a spouse 1.4% 12.9%
> % of spouses who receive probation for murdering a spouse 1.6% 16.0%
> Average sentence (in years) for murdering a spouse 17.0 6.0
You cut-&-past that from Stuart Miller's baseless diatribes with fake
statistics. It is completely false. Some of your other statements of
"fact" are from Miller & you cite virtually nothing else so I must assume
you know NOTHING about what you're talking about but have just read some
mindlessly lying propogandist. If you want to be taken seriously READ the
studies instead of relying on Men's Rights website misrepresentions.
Studies conducted in Canada, the US & England all find independently that
95% or more of domestic abuse is male against female. A typical study by
Dr. Martin Schwartz which shows that 92% victims seeking emergency room
treatment after spousal abuse are women. Now you might be able to show
some of those hospitalized women pushed their spouses to support your
wacky contentions, but no evidence the man was bruised anywhere but his
knuckles. Eighty-seven percent of men murdered in the U.S. are killed by
other men [Department of Justice stats] & most violence against men is
male to male, period. Your only enemies are each other. Period.
As Dr. Jack Straton has written, "It makes logical sense to focus our
attention and work on the vast problem of male violence (96 percent of
domestic violence) and not get side-tracked by the relatively tiny (4
percent) problem of male victimization." The 3 to 4 percent stat comes
U.S. National Crime Surveys (based mainly on first-contact police
reporting, NOT on "conviction rates only" as men's rights loonies keep
pretending) & on separate studies by Martin Schwartz And Deirdre Gaquin.
> When children are murdered 61% of the time it is by the mother. "Source:
> Murder in Families" - Dept. of Justice, July 1994.
You are either lying outright, or gullibly committed to your secondary &
merely political sources that have lied to you. Here are the
scientifically valid realities:
"One of the most interesting new findings that demonstrates the critical
importance of better information is that most physical abuse fatalities
are caused by enraged or extremely stressed fathers and other male
caretakers (Levine et al, 1994; Levine et al, 1995). These men primarily
assault infants and very small children by beating their heads and bodies,
shaking them violently, intentionally suffocating them, immersing them in
scalding water, and performing other brutal acts."
Such findings have in the last five years' worth of studies uniformly
shown that the previous MYTH that women (being primary caretakers) are
more apt to murder their children than are fathers or boyfriends. Indeed,
ALL peer-reviewed & credible findings have turned that hoary old
assumption upside-down. Mothers turn out NOT to be the culprits when abuse
& neglect leads to death.The adult most dangerous to an infant or small
child is male - including birth fathers, stepfathers, and boyfriends.
Period. Absolutely. No scientific debate on this AT ALL. But when issues
of child abuse & neglect that do not lead to death are weighed, primary
caregivers are indeed the culprits.
So, how did the Dept of Justice end up with such statistics in 1994
(statistics which, by the way, induced a spate of studies that proved the
Dept of Justice had erred). It is interesting that when statistics from
emergency rooms, police reports, statistical sampling interviews, AND
convictions show that fathers & boyfriends are by far the majority
aggressors, men's rights activists tell the whopper that these statistics
are based on convictions only, & women just get away with it more (though
all criminal prosecution statistics show that women are convicted of just
about anything at higher percentages than are men, & serve longer
sentences than men for identical crimes). The stats I provided in a recent
post that were from multiple sources were falsely "challenged" on this
very basis, mistaking wide-ranging Bureau of Justice stats for the useless
& hopelessly dated Dept of Justice stats -- so you dickwads dismiss DoJ
stats when you don't like them but cite them where you wish they proved
something they do not prove. While the stats I provided were NOT based on
convictions alone, the DoJ stats ARE conviction rates.
What these conviction statistics actually show is that gender bias is more
likely to find guilty & imprison FOR murder women who kill their kids, but
men are more apt to plea-bargain accidental manslaughter or a lesser crime
& so avoid being counted in the convicted murderer charges. The murder
rates per se, as opposed to the murder convictions, establish CONCLUSIVELY
that boyfriends, fathers, & stepfathers are the majority child-murderers,
but when it comes to trial, the mother is more apt to serve time. This is
because mothers carry a cultural & mythic weight of blame even if it is
their drunken boyfriend who killed the kid. It's also a relic of the fact
that children's lives are not greatly valued in the criminal justice
system. Again, by statistics, the younger the victim, the shorter the
prison term.
By calling "manslaughter" a high percentage of deaths perpetrated by men
against children, & calling "murder" those similar deaths perpetrated by
mothers, only then are 55% of convicted child-murderers mothers [The Third
National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect]. The statistic does
not hold if actual child deaths are counted rather than convictions for
murder per se. Also weeding out male child-murderers OTHER than biological
fathers, only 6% to 10% of child murderers are fathers. A child is 73
times more apt to be killed in a household in which a mother cohabits with
a man who is not relatedto the child. A single father living alone is very
unlikely to kill his child (though it happens). A single mother living
alone is more likely to kill her child but as for the single father the
numbers aren't high. This last comparative statistic would make single
fathers seem safer custodians by a small margin, but the obvious fact is
most fathers don't WANT to raise children & do not attempt it. The few who
do, since it is generally by choice, they're usually good at it. Single
women cast into poverty with a child & having no family support system of
any kind are responsible for 3 child murders for every 1 child murder by a
single dad. If all the drunken unemployable slobs out there were given
their kids, though, do you really think this comparison would stand? And
even with the reality as it stands, it remains -- a child is 73 times more
endangered by having a man other than a biological relative in the house.
Children with an adult living in the house who is not a biological
relative are six times more likely to be fatally abused than children
living in a house with only biological relations. The vast majority of
these adults are stepfathers or boyfriends -- but any adult not involved
in childcare or not related increases risk to the child. Academy of
Pediatrics believes this is indicative of a biological component to child
abuse fatalities. This finding is detailed at length in a paper by Dr.
Michael Stiffman of Health Partners Research
Foundation [and see UPI Science News October 19 1998].
Among animal models we may find further clues to the biological reason men
kill children they are not related to. Male lions, for instance, when they
displace an aging lion to take over a pride, immediately kill all the
cubs, so that their own genetic line prevails. So perhaps men are simply
biologically prone to killing children. And just as female lions permit
this type of slaughter to occur upon accepting a new male to mate with, so
too a great many women strive to cover-up murders of their children by
boyfriends & stepfathers. That's mere frightening speculation, but it's
where the findings of the Academy of Pediatrics point.
If anything "good" comes from these FACTS, it is this: biological fathers
are the primary instigators of deadly violence agaisnt their children at
rates between 6% and 10%. That's still way too many but the point is it is
boyfriends & stepfathers who are the greater danger. When ONLY biological
fathers & biological mothers are compared for murder rates, the mother can
look more dangerous, to the tune of 55% in the most damning statistical
analyses; & to the tune of biological mothers being 2.6 times more
dangerous to their children than biological fathers if no other causative
factors are added in.
Some stats are really worthless & men's rights activists invariably chose
the ones that are inadequate. Statistics gathered by Child Protective
Services in Western Washington, for instance, fail to include information
who is single not cohabiting & who is cohabiting, but mixes all this data
into a jumble that seems to indicate a natural mother (but is she single
or cohabiting?) is 2.6 times more likely to harm (not kill in this case,
but harm) her child than is a natural father; for every 3000 children a
natural father harms, a mother harms 7500 children. But better statistics
would indicate the motehrs live alone in poverty, the fathers cohabit with
an equally abused mother, so we can't make much of the Puget Sound stats
as given. The same stepfathers injure 5.8 times as many children than do
stepmothers. But once again, these stats can't really be used to show
anything definitively because we can assume stepfathers to outnumber
stepmothers in the community of child caretakers so of course their abuse
numbers would be higher -- the same reason single mothers' abuse numbers
are high when they're the only caretaker in proximity. I have tried
throughout these "stat posts" to site only peer-reviewed science and
credible statistical data, so would throw out the Puget Sound study
immediately, but I have seen that 2.6 times as many nasty mothers
statistic bandied about locally by men who do not know the source, the
context, or the meaning, & either chose not to have seen or really didn't
see that the 2.6 times nastier stat excludes all other men who come in
contact with a child. And even at that, these comparative Good fathers
beat the crap out 3000 kids each year, sufficiently to have them removed
from Western Washington homes & tossed into a foster system where they
stand a good chance of further abuse.
I will address your citationss of those crackpots Gelles & Straus
separately, because they're REAL crazy hamsters biting off their own nuts.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
> In 1975 and again in 1985, Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles and others
> conducted one of the largest and most respected studies in family
violence ever
> done. What
> they found, confounded conventional wisdom on the subject: Not only are
men just
> as likely to be the victims of domestic violence as women, the study
showed that
> between 1975 and 1985, the overall rate of domestic violence by men
against women
> decreased, while women's violence against men increased. [nonsense shortened]
The Straus reports depend largely on self-reporting. Relying on angry men
filling out forms, & stats that do not distinguish shoving-as-violence
from breaking someone's neck & leaving her in a wheelchair. There was
almost zero underlying science to Straus's primary report. It was the
equivalent of a study founded on what a bunch of ignorant yobs in a men's
rights ng claim, not asking them to prove a word of it. This is why the
names Straus & Gelles pad out many a "Men's Rights Bibliography", with
feature articles in men's magazines (including soft core pornographic),
but blessed little published as peer-reviewed journals. And actual
scientists have debunked them repeatedly.
The earlier Straus & Gelles material you cite, two-decades outdated even
if it had ever been credible, was intentionally biased as Gelles has
recently confessed in an op-ed piece he wrote for Women's Quarterly:
"First, the measure assessed acts of violence, not outcomes - so it did
not reflect the consequences of those acts. Second, it did not assess who
struck whom, or whether the violence was in self-defense." "Not assessing
outcome" means who got hospitalized (mostly women) & who wasn't even
bruised (mostly men) was not considered; a woman's yelling or a harmless
shove was judged equal to a man putting a woman in the hospital. Gelles
is still insanely devoted to putting more women in prison, but at least he
no longer pretends his "science" has merit.
Gelles & Straus's overall loony-toons "Battered Husband Syndrome" was
borrowed from a no-science 1975 anti-feminist manifesto written by Suzanne
Steinmetz, a kind of minor league Phyllis Schafley. It's almost a comedy
that Steinmetz based her Battered Husband Syndrome theory on interviews
with 57 couples among whom not even one man had been battered. Straus &
Gelles picked up on the BHS fantasies minus the "H", & have been
thoroughly laughed out of town by every creditable researcher, many who
are also men but not cranks as well, as Gelles & Straus are.
For example, Jack C. Straton, PhD, a founder of Men Against Rape so
perhaps an enemy of yours, noted "The most recurrent backlash against
women's safety is the myth that men are battered as often as women." And
"Even if we ignore all of the previously mentioned flaws in Straus' CTS
studies, they are bad science on a second set of grounds." Straton's
showed that Straus incorporated systematic statistical errors that skewed
results in some cases by 10,000% !!! Straus admits to having a "theory" &
setting out to support that "theory." He thrives on controversy. But
science? Not a bit.
Studies that "support" Straus, as Dr Straton has unveiled, are those that
include such specific cases as a women severely abused as long as 15 years
counted as participating in mutual violence on the basis of a single slap
in the face. The important NCS study shows that for every one man
hospitalized by a woman's assault, 46 women were hospitalized after being
assaulted by a boyfriend or husband (add in self defence issues & that one
in 46 jumps becomes even less significant).
All your citations seem are equally faux so I won't pull out any other
authentic sources. You're easily refuted throughout but your men's rights
buddies may well not care what's true anyway. If you had bothered to check
your facts you wouldkn't have appeared quite so stupid. I've read lots of
men's rights stuff so I know where such assholes are coming from. You
might try getting information form multiple sources to better prepare
yourself next time
In years past I have worked in the Seattle Crisis Clinic & handled many
men as well as women in crisis. We were trained to help whoever needed
help. I know a lot about these issues first-hand & through published
articles. My passion both positive & negative comes from KNOWing what I am
talking about, not from having been abandoned by someone or suddenly
divorced like most of the men's rights crazies. You, Paul, read a couple
men's rights propoganda pages & felt qualified to take on individuals with
actual knowledge. You are not qualified. GET qualified. If you learn a few
real things in this world, you will either not sound like such a dunce
arguing for things that have no basis in reality (meaning you could argue
for baseless things with convincing rheteoric rather than sounding like a
dunce who can cut-&-paste men's website lies), or you might even discover,
by god, you're not one of those fucking bastards, & you'll want to join
Men Against Rape instead.
-paghat the ratgirl
>
> rest of propaganda snipped
(that's right, I clipped the rest of your insupportable propoganda)
paghat
<goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote:
> In article <sgu10s...@corp.supernews.com>,
> berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
> > In article <8el5lo$c4l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Goodfather <goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote:
> > >In article <sgs1ihb...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
> > >> In article <3909F686...@uswest.net>,
> > >> Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >I am making a post today about reasons NOT to move to Seattle,
because all
> > >> >you have ther are people that HATE human life,
> > >>
> > >> Come now, the Mariners aren't THAT bad.
> >
> > > GF_ NO, but the equal treatment under the law of men is that bad. My
> > >Ex broke into my house and assaulted me and the Seattle prosecutor's
> > >office turned away with no reaction to her at all. It's fine for women
> > >to assault men in Seattle, or so they would have you believe.
> >
> > I've known women who were beaten to near-death by their boy"friends" and
> > husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any charges were
> > filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
>
>
> How do you know it's only a "couple of scratches"? In fact, she
> clawed me deeply and a lot more than a "couple of scratches". She also
> shoved me and overturned my coffee table and violently jerked my child
> out of my arms. That's all beside the point. I am sorry that women have
> been battered and that their assailants have walked away. People who
> assault other people should be punished for it. The severity of the
> injuries is only secondary. She came into my house - MY HOUSE- and
> assaulted me. That isn't right. Even if I hadn't been injured at all,
> which I was, it still isn't right.
>
> Goodfather
Better go back to cutting & pasting the lie as you had it nicely
formulated for a while. You're doing the shifting-realities thing again.
And that door she broke down, I hope you didn't replace it with the same
balsa wood.
-paghat the ratgirl
Paul Mitchum
> >I provided citations of several studies including studies of hospital
> >emergency room reports -- the stats are always roughly the same no matter
> >the source. Most stats encompass police reports, not court cases. Several
> >encompass hospital emergency room reports.
>
> Police refuse to file.. and when they have filed, NOW has gone crazy. Just
> a few months ago the police started removing women from the household as
> they do to men when the women is the one that has perpetrated the violence,
> and NOW went crazy.
How, exactly, did NOW go 'crazy?'
paghat
> In article <pagsterSPAM-ME-NO...@drip171.drizzle.com>,
> pagsterSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
> > Men use custody battles to further their abusive goals: statistically,
> > BATTERING FATHERS ARE TWO TIMES MORE LIKELY TO SEEK CUSTODY OF A CHILD
>
> I've seen this one before. Its strikes me as a feminist means of
> discouraging men from seeking custody.
Funny how you can dismiss the actual source in order to dismiss it as a
feminist trick. Let's restore the whole statement:
Men use custody battles to further their abusive goals: statistically,
BATTERING FATHERS ARE TWO TIMES MORE LIKELY TO SEEK CUSTODY OF A CHILD
[Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force
on Violence and the Family,1996, p. 40.] This explains the violent
emotions of Men's Rights advocates -- not their loss of loved ones but
their loss of individuals over whom they believed they had power &
authority like unto gods regarding who lives, who dies, & who is beaten to
a bloody pulp. Because men who beat women are twice as likely to beat
children & twice as likely to seek custody of these children, advocacy of
child protection demands that fathers seeking custody be very carefully
investigated. It may feel unfair to nonviolent fathers but the unfairness
stems from the behavior of other men, not from gender biases favoring
women. Of any ten fathers seeking custody of a child, five WILL have a
history of severe abuse of their wives &/or children. Therefore even
non-abusive men, if they care about children, will agree this has to be
taken into consideration & investigated. The fact that so many men's
rights activists are outraged by this essential concern for the well being
of women & children makes their motivations suspicious indeed.
> In essence, it tells divorcing
> men to obey their wives, pay their child support, and shut their
> mouths. This is female supremacist to the core.
No, in essence it tells divorcing men that they should look at their own
motivations & be sure those motivations are pure, since for the majority
of men they are not pure. To be found credible in a court of law they had
better NOT have a history of abuse, & they had better have all along
conducted themselves in a manner that does not incite suspicion that they
are just another tiresome member of the MAJORITY who ask for custody only
out of revenge.
Most men don't want custody -- it's how this all got started in the first
place, since primarily men have both written the laws & applied them. If
you are sincerely in the minority who would like to be more than a
once-a-month or sometime-around-Christmas-if-its-easy dad, then you should
WELCOME scrutiny that puts you squarely IN the minority who (a) wants
custody or ideally joint custody, & (b) are not pretending to require
custody out of revenge & as an extension of their long history of abuse.
"A" and "B" are in fact the majority & are a great harm to children as
well as spouses & ex-spouses. Permitting them hide in your midst just
lessons the chances of obtaining what is rational & right in your desire.
But if you are in fact a member of the A & B class, you will not be able
to follow this advice, because it is probably too late for you ever to
prove to anyone you are on the level.
> Speaking of getting upset over loss of control, try suggesting to an ex
> wife that her ex husband be relieved of his child support obligation
> unless she allows court-ordered visitation.
No father of merit wants to deprive the child of financial support, nor
does the law permit it, so you create straw dogs -- unless your point is
you don't WANT to help out with the kid & you resent losing that option.
Court-ordered visitation rights cannot be withheld; if a mother is being a
jerk about it you have to be more heroic than she, but you will always win
if all you're after is court-ordered visitation privileges be permitted;
she has no choice in THAT matter.
The sad fact is many men are so eager to get out from under their
obligation to support their offspring they readily agree never to come
around & pester an ex-wife in her new life -- just so long as she stays
off welfare & in no other manner causes the government to come after
another standard issue deadbeat father.
I regard your statement as evidence of inferior fatherly intent. To regard
any financial oblilgation to your child as a weapon against that child's
mother is untennable. You have two obligations when a mother has primary
custody: Never let that child down by failing to BE a father taking full
advantage of visitation rights (even if an unreasonable ex doesn't make it
easy), & don't wheedle out of your financial obligation toward that child.
These two obligations exist in tandem. One does not depend on the other.
> Imagine the response.
> From what would the anger stem other than loss of control over a
> portion of the man's income or loss of total control over a child to
> whom another is equally related.
The anger MEN feel in having to support their children is the real issue.
Some women will get upset that men don't give a shit & so use the law to
force him against his will to support the kid. I think they should,
because even more women will try to use men's unwillingness to pay legal
support as a method of getting the damned asshole out of her life
altogether, & I think mothers should not do that. I believe kids love even
asshole fathers (let alone nice ones) & a really good mother will bend
over backward to fascilitate a relationship even if the father is not very
willing. But for a connected father with fatherly motivations, what the ex
does or does not do that is annoying about is a big red herring. Both
legal child support, and reasonable visitation rights, should be
maintained at all times by whatever effort the father has to take,
hopefully with the mother raising hell about it, but even if she does.
I believe shared custody should be more the norm so that each parent's
financial responsibility remains within the child's homes. Those who say
having two homes is not rooted enough for a kid are dunces. It's great to
live two places, but it is easier if neither parent is a nut. However, it
is men who set up the current system because the majority of men would be
horrified by the prospect of having to be primary caretaker of a child for
six months out of every year (too many who would consider figure they can
foist the responsibility onto grandma, nanny, or stepmother).
> > advocacy of child protection demands that fathers seeking custody be
> > very carefully investigated.
>
> Here it is again. Use your silly statistics like a crowbar to hammer
> men who seek custody. Why? Because they obviously don't know their
> place.
You would think so as you've given evidence in this very post that you'd
like personally wheedle out of child support or use it as a weapon against
an ex. But fathers who live up to all their responsibilities & for reasons
of fatherly love seek a more equitable custody arrangement will not want
their chances spoiled by the greater number of men who want revenge, &
would be glad to see these men wheeded out at the beginning.
> > It may feel unfair to nonviolent fathers but the unfairness
> > stems from the behavior of other men,
>
> So these non-violent fathers have only themselves to blame for the
> unfairness, eh?
What about "the unfairness stems from the behavior of other men" do you
find confusing? It does not say "from the behavior of himself." Wanker.
It's the violent father's who have themselves to blame.
[remaining idiocy clipped, as that one was revealing enough]
-paghat
paghat
<mrm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <pagsterSPAM-ME-NO...@drip171.drizzle.com>,
> pagsterSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
> > In article <390F052E...@home.com>, Richard Soyack
> > <richs...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Eric da Red wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've known women who were beaten to near-death by their boy"friends" and
> > > > husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any
charges were
> > > > filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
> > >
> > > What purpose does your comment serve, other than as a troll?
> > >
> > > Rich Soyack
> >
> > Now Rich, are you that stupid?
>
> > -paghat the ratgirl
>
> No, but you are. Anyone who advocates domestic violence as you do is
> just stupid. In all of this I have never said that men who are victims of
> domestic violence should be protected instead of women. I have tried to
> make the point that anyone - INCLUDING MEN- who is assaulted should
> receive equal protection under the law.
That's already a matter of law, Myles old spunk, not that an ignorant yob
like you gives a shit what's true. Damn I wish Letty would post the facts
in here at the seattle group at least, though I understand her
unwillingness to jump in with all your pro-rape buddies in your Men's
Right To Kill Children newsgroups. They've shown they don't care how much
you lie. The fact is, you were never once assaulted by Letty, but you're
committed to your own madness.
-paghat
paghat
<goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote:
> paghat is too stupid to follow the point. The point isn't who
> batters who the most anyway. What she says is like saying that if blacks
> commit the most crime then any black who is a victim shouldn't be helped
> because blacks (hypothetically) commit more crime.
Blacks don't commit the most crimes. Your suggestion that they might do so
jibes well with your equally false claims against Letty.
> My issue is that I was assaulted by a woman
Only if you paid her by the hour.
> (or it could have been by a man and I would still be
> raising the same issues)and that I did not get fair treatment under the
> law because of my sex
or because of your unutterable lack of credibility & your tendency to tell
so many lies that even if there were something true in there, no one
sensible could believe it.
> and of my assailant's sex. paghat likes to
> downgrade the severity of my injuries and play that card like it matters.
> It doesn't. She's wrong.
Thanks for admitting that to you, indeed, degree of injury or reality of
actual threat doesn't matter to you. Most of us outside your psycho men's
group had already noticed you don't think degree matters. Happily the law
does care.
> Any person who is assaulted by another person
> deserves the right to seek justice be that a man, a woman or a child. I
> was assaulted in my own home and I was denied that right and paghat can
> whine 'til the sun don't shine no mo' but she is still stupid and she is
> still wrong and she still can't even follow the point of a discussion.
> Domestic violence is wrong regardless of the sexes of the assailants and
> of the victims.
>
> Gooberfather
Letty never laid a hand on you Myles. You've been a lifelong professional
at playing victim & are just up to old tricks established by the time you
were six. A chap from Austin tells me that you were always a pathetic
little momma's boy making shit up to get attention, always claiming
someone on the playground hit you or pushed you off the swing, when all
that really happened is you threw rocks at girls. You always bullies
behind every tree, but nobody really bothered to bully you, you were too
disgusting to even touch.
-paghat the ratgirl
Goodfather
berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
> In article <8el5lo$c4l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Goodfather <goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote:
> >In article <sgs1ihb...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
> >> In article <3909F686...@uswest.net>,
> >> Lori Engebretson <lorieng...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I am making a post today about reasons NOT to move to Seattle, because all
> >> >you have ther are people that HATE human life,
> >>
> >> Come now, the Mariners aren't THAT bad.
>
> > GF_ NO, but the equal treatment under the law of men is that bad. My
> >Ex broke into my house and assaulted me and the Seattle prosecutor's
> >office turned away with no reaction to her at all. It's fine for women
> >to assault men in Seattle, or so they would have you believe.
>
> husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any charges were
> filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
How do you know it's only a "couple of scratches"? In fact, she
clawed me deeply and a lot more than a "couple of scratches". She also
shoved me and overturned my coffee table and violently jerked my child
out of my arms. That's all beside the point. I am sorry that women have
been battered and that their assailants have walked away. People who
assault other people should be punished for it. The severity of the
injuries is only secondary. She came into my house - MY HOUSE- and
assaulted me. That isn't right. Even if I hadn't been injured at all,
which I was, it still isn't right.
Goodfather
--
Seeking joint custody of my beloved daughter- because she needs both of
her parents....not just one.
Goodfather
pagsterSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
> In article <390F052E...@home.com>, Richard Soyack
> <richs...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric da Red wrote:
> > >
> > > husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any charges were
> > > filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
> >
> >
> > Rich Soyack
>
> Now Rich, are you that stupid?
> -paghat the ratgirl
No, but you are. Anyone who advocates domestic violence as you do is
just stupid. In all of this I have never said that men who are victims of
domestic violence should be protected instead of women. I have tried to
make the point that anyone - INCLUDING MEN- who is assaulted should
receive equal protection under the law. I have also tried to make the
point that if I had gone into my Ex's house as she went into mine and if
I had assaulted her as she did me, I would be in jail. I do not believe
in domestic violence. You,paghat, are the person who wrote yesterday
that I should have the shit beaten out of me. That shows that you are a
very stupid person. Domestic violence against women is wrong but
domestic violence against men is just as wrong.This isn't a contest.
Goodfather
>
> >In article <390F052E...@home.com>, Richard Soyack
> ><richs...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Eric da Red wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I've known women who were beaten to near-death by their boy"friends" and
> >> > husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any charges were
> >> > filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
> >>
> >> What purpose does your comment serve, other than as a troll?
> >>
> >> Rich Soyack
> >
> >under the age of 25 after automobile accident is a boyfriend or husband
> >killing her. Fact. Live with it. That compares to a liars claim he was
> >once scratched post-relationship?
>
>
> >One in three women will be violently assaulted by a husband or boyfriend
> >in their lifetime (ref Report of the American Psychological Association
> >Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, 1996)
>
> Which has been TOTALLY DISPROVEN several times.
>
> The report included raising your voice as "violent attack". The report
> included name calling as "violent attack".
>
> >against men is perpetrated by a domestic partner -- usually a woman but
> >sometimes a male partner. That means 95% of violence against men is not
> >domestic violence. The other 95% incidents are perpetrated primarily by
> >men against men outside the home.
>
> The BOJ statistics are not based on anything OTHER THAN PROSECUTIONS, twit.
>
> >perpetrated by domestic partners -- usually a man but sometimes a female
> >partner. The other 72% violent attacks of women are likewise perpetrated
> >primarily by men against women.
>
> .. and less then 4% of the abuse of children is done by the Father. But
> you don't mention that, now do you?
>
> don't know how to control their tempers. (like you).
>
> >women were perpetrated by boyfriends or husbands, while only 4% of violent
> >victimizations of men were perpetrated by a girlfriend or wife.
>
> Only based on the PROSECUTIONS. Not actual studies of the people involved.
>
>
> Wilbur
paghat is too stupid to follow the point. The point isn't who
batters who the most anyway. What she says is like saying that if blacks
commit the most crime then any black who is a victim shouldn't be helped
because blacks (hypothetically) commit more crime. My issue is that I was
assaulted by a woman (or it could have been by a man and I would still be
raising the same issues)and that I did not get fair treatment under the
law because of my sex and of my assailant's sex. paghat likes to
downgrade the severity of my injuries and play that card like it matters.
It doesn't. She's wrong. Any person who is assaulted by another person
deserves the right to seek justice be that a man, a woman or a child. I
was assaulted in my own home and I was denied that right and paghat can
whine 'til the sun don't shine no mo' but she is still stupid and she is
still wrong and she still can't even follow the point of a discussion.
Domestic violence is wrong regardless of the sexes of the assailants and
of the victims.
Goodfather
Goodfather
when men are assaulted and when women are assaulted, they should be
treated equally before the courts. Sometimes men do batter. Sometimes
women do. Regardless of who does the battering, the person who is
assaulted should be treated with respect and have an equal chance to seek
justice be that person a man or a woman. paghat believes in domestic
violence against men. Yesterday she said I deserved to have the shit
beaten out of me. I don't believe in domestic violence in any form
against men or women.I don't believe men should assault women or women
should assault men and when they do assault I don't believe that one
whole sex should be ignored for not being what people like paghat
percieve as the "good" one. My new lawyer is making headway, though and
paghat is going to see some changes in Seattle sooner than she thinks.
Goodfather
In article <390f41a7$0$95091$2c3e...@news.voyager.net>,
Paul Fritz <paul...@voyager.net> wrote:
> paghat wrote:
>
> > In article <390F052E...@home.com>, Richard Soyack
> > <richs...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Eric da Red wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've known women who were beaten to near-death by their boy"friends" and
> > > > husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any charges were
> > > > filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
> > >
> > > What purpose does your comment serve, other than as a troll?
> > >
> > > Rich Soyack
> >
> > Now Rich, are you that stupid? The number one cause of death in women
> > under the age of 25 after automobile accident is a boyfriend or husband
> > killing her. Fact. Live with it. That compares to a liars claim he was
> > once scratched post-relationship?
> >
> > One in three women will be violently assaulted by a husband or boyfriend
> > in their lifetime (ref Report of the American Psychological Association
> > Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, 1996)
> >
> > According to Bureau of Justice statistics, just 5% of all annual violence
> > against men is perpetrated by a domestic partner -- usually a woman but
> > sometimes a male partner. That means 95% of violence against men is not
> > domestic violence. The other 95% incidents are perpetrated primarily by
> > men against men outside the home
>
> >
> >
> > According to the BoJ stats, 28% of all annual violence against women is
> > perpetrated by domestic partners -- usually a man but sometimes a female
> > partner. The other 72% violent attacks of women are likewise perpetrated
> > primarily by men against women.
>
> >
> >
> > For one year specifically, 1994, 21% of all violent victimizations against
> > women were perpetrated by boyfriends or husbands, while only 4% of violent
> > victimizations of men were perpetrated by a girlfriend or wife.
> >
> > By BoJ stats, then, between one-sixth & one-fifth of resources for
> > domestic abuse should be used to assist men, in order to achieve need
> > equity. If they are not, the goal of Men's Right for an equitable system
> > would be to see that between one-sixth & one-fifth of such resources ARE
> > used in ways that assist men. However, at least half the incidents of
> > violence against men by women is in self-defence, & BoJ stats show finally
> > that the chance of being victimized by a parter is 10 times greater for a
> > woman than a man. So really only one-tenth of resources should be
> > targetted to assist men.
>
> You analysis and assumed result fail a simple validity test. You have attempted
> to lump "all violence against men as a resultant figure for domestic violence
> assistance for men. Typical feminist ploy. You completely ignore the fact that
> women commit more domestic violence then men, but then that doesn't fit your men
> bad, women good agenda.
>
> The statistics are consistent, women are violent.
>
> Half of spousal murders are committed by wives, a statistic that has been stable
> over time.
> The l985 National Family Violence Survey, funded by the National Institute of
> Mental Health and supported by many other surveys, disclosed that women and men
> were physically abusing one another in roughly equal numbers. Wives reported
> that they were more often the aggressors. Using weapons to make up for physical
> disadvantage, they were not just fighting back.
> While 1.8 million women annually suffered one or more assaults from a husband
> or boyfriend, 2 million men were assaulted by a wife or girlfriend, according to a
>
> l986 study on U. S. family violence published in the Journal of Marriage and
> Family. That study also found that 54 percent of all violence termed "severe" was
> by
> women.
> The Journal for the National Association of Social Workers found in l986 that
> among teenagers who date, girls were violent more frequently than boys.
> Mothers abuse their children at a rate approaching twice that of fathers,
> according to state child-protective service agencies surveyed by the Children's
> Rights
> Coalition.
> Because men have been taught to "take it like a man" and are ridiculed when
> they feel they have been battered by women, women are nine times more likely to
> report
> their abusers to the authorities.
> % of murder victims in domestic violence 55.5% 44.5%
> % of spouses acquitted for murder of a spouse 1.4% 12.9%
> % of spouses who receive probation for murdering a spouse 1.6% 16.0%
> Average sentence (in years) for murdering a spouse 17.0 6.0
>
> When children are murdered 61% of the time it is by the mother. "Source: Murder in
> Families" - Dept. of Justice, July 1994.
>
> In 1975 and again in 1985, Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles and others
> conducted one of the largest and most respected studies in family violence ever
> done. What
> they found, confounded conventional wisdom on the subject: Not only are men just
> as likely to be the victims of domestic violence as women, the study showed that
> between 1975 and 1985, the overall rate of domestic violence by men against women
> decreased, while women's violence against men increased. Responding to
> accusations of gender bias, Straus re-computed the assault rates based solely on
> the responses of the women in the 1985 study and confirmed that even according to
> women, men are the ones more likely to be assaulted by their partner.
>
> There is no question that while men on average are bigger and stronger than women,
> they can do more damage in a fistfight. However according to Professors R.L.
> McNeely and Cormae Richey Mann, "the average man's size and strength are
> neutralized by guns and knives, boiling water, bricks, fireplace pokers and
> baseball bats."
>
> A 1984 study of 6,200 cases found that 86% of female-on-male violence involved
> weapons, contrasted with 25% in cases of male-on-female violence. McLeod, Justice
> Quarterly (2) 1984 pp. 171-193.
>
> Of every 100 families, 3.8 experience severe husband-to-wife violence, but 4.5%
> experience severe wife-to-husband violence. (Straus, Gelles, Steinmetz , Behind
> Closed
> Doors: Violence in American Families (1980).
>
> A 1985 study of Texas University students, Breen found that 18% of men and 14% of
> women reported a violent act by a romantic partner. In the same study, 28% of
> married men reported that their wives had slapped, punched or kicked them. (Shupe,
> Stacey & Hazlewood. "Violent Men, Violent Couples (1986) Chapter 3.
>
> In another study, 15.5% of men and 11.3% of women reported having hit a spouse
> while 18.6% of men and 12% of women reported been struck by a spouse. Nisnoff &
> Bitman, Victimology 4, (1979), pp. 131-140.
>
> Prevalence and Stability of Physical Aggression Between Spouses: A Longitudinal
> Analysis by O'Leary, K.D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J. and
> Tyree, A.
>
> Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1989, Vol. 57, No. 2, 263-268
> American Psychological Association
>
> "According to self-reports, 31% of the men and 44% of the women indicated that
> they had engaged in aggression against their partners in the year prior to
> marriage... At 18
> months after marriage, the prevalences of spousal aggression during the year prior
> to the assessment were 27% and 36% respectively, for men and women. At 30 months
> after marriage, the prevalences of spousal aggression for the previous year werw
> 25% and 32% for men and women, espectively...
>
> >
> >
> > The statistics are consistent across racial boundaries; the myth that
> > Latino husbands, for instance, are more violent than regular ol' white
> > guys turns out to be just that, a myth. The men's rights movement is
> > primarily white guys who believe themselves innocent or pretend to believe
> > so. Men use custody battles to further their abusive goals: statistically,
> > BATTERING FATHERS ARE TWO TIMES MORE LIKELY TO SEEK CUSTODY OF A CHILD
>
> more of the feminist mantra
>
> >
> > [Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force
> > on Violence and the Family,1996, p. 40.] This explains the violent
> > emotions of Men's Rights advocates -- not their loss of loved ones but
> > their loss of individuals over whom they believed they had power &
> > authority like unto gods regarding who lives, who dies, & who is beaten to
> > a bloody pulp. Because men who beat women are twice as likely to beat
> > children & twice as likely to seek custody of these children, advocacy of
> > child protection demands that fathers seeking custody be very carefully
> > investigated. It may feel unfair to nonviolent fathers but the unfairness
> > stems from the behavior of other men, not from gender biases favoring
> > women. Of any ten fathers seeking custody of a child, five WILL have a
> > history of severe abuse of their wives &/or children. Therefore even
> > non-abusive men, if they care about children, will agree this has to be
> > taken into consideration & investigated. The fact that so many men's
> > rights activists are outraged by this essential concern for the well being
> > of women & children makes their motivations suspicious indeed.
>
> Except for the fact that women abuse children more
>
> >
> >
> > Young women ages 19 to 29 are in the highest risk category, & the most
> > likely to be murdered by their male domestic partner. Women age 46 or
> > older are at significantly reduced risk. Two-thirds of the male abusers
> > were between 24 & 40 years of age -- meaning overall, older men beat &
> > murder younger women. [Bureau of Justice stats]
> >
>
> rest of propaganda snipped
Goodfather
when men are assaulted and when women are assaulted, they should be
treated equally before the courts. Sometimes men do batter. Sometimes
women do. Regardless of who does the battering, the person who is
assaulted should be treated with respect and have an equal chance to seek
justice be that person a man or a woman. paghat believes in domestic
violence against men. Yesterday she said I deserved to have the shit
beaten out of me. I don't believe in domestic violence in any form
against men or women.I don't believe men should assault women or women
should assault men and when they do assault I don't believe that one
whole sex should be ignored for not being what people like paghat
percieve as the "good" one. My new lawyer is making headway, though and
paghat is going to see some changes in Seattle sooner than she thinks.
America.
Richard Soyack
Poor baby.
Rich Soyack
Richard Soyack
>
> In article <8enrbt$bhe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Goodfather Myles Cochran
> <mrm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > pagsterSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
> > > In article <390F052E...@home.com>, Richard Soyack
> > > <richs...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eric da Red wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've known women who were beaten to near-death by their boy"friends" and
> > > > > husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any
> charges were
> > > > > filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
> > > >
> > > > What purpose does your comment serve, other than as a troll?
> > > >
> > > > Rich Soyack
> > >
> > > Now Rich, are you that stupid?
> >
> >
> > No, but you are. Anyone who advocates domestic violence as you do is
> > just stupid. In all of this I have never said that men who are victims of
> > domestic violence should be protected instead of women. I have tried to
> > make the point that anyone - INCLUDING MEN- who is assaulted should
> > receive equal protection under the law.
>
> like you gives a shit what's true. Damn I wish Letty would post the facts
> in here at the seattle group at least, though I understand her
> unwillingness to jump in with all your pro-rape buddies in your Men's
> Right To Kill Children newsgroups. They've shown they don't care how much
> you lie. The fact is, you were never once assaulted by Letty, but you're
> committed to your own madness.
Now I see your point! You need a place to come and say things you never
had the nerve to say while you are looking someone in the eye. My
apologies.
Rich Soyack
Clave
I sit in awe, stranded almost wordless by this scathing riposte. I have no
more little words to offer from my hiding place behind my computer. My
bravery in shreds, I retire, defeated utterly, from this, my Usenet
Waterloo.
You're too much for me.
Jim
Wilbur Streett
>> Police refuse to file.. and when they have filed, NOW has gone crazy. Just
>> a few months ago the police started removing women from the household as
>> they do to men when the women is the one that has perpetrated the violence,
>> and NOW went crazy.
>
>How, exactly, did NOW go 'crazy?'
Political actions, getting members to write articles, circulating the story
of police upholding the law when women break it. Most recently they have
put together the "public information center against father's rights". Go
check out their web site.
Wilbur Streett
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote in message
>news:39100d85....@news.monmouth.com...
>> mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>>
>> >> Police refuse to file.. and when they have filed, NOW has gone crazy.
>Just
>> >> a few months ago the police started removing women from the household
>as
>> >> they do to men when the women is the one that has perpetrated the
>violence,
>> >> and NOW went crazy.
>> >
>> >How, exactly, did NOW go 'crazy?'
>>
>> Political actions, getting members to write articles, circulating the
>story
>> of police upholding the law when women break it. Most recently they have
>> put together the "public information center against father's rights". Go
>> check out their web site.
>
>Please provide exact URL to this particular "public information center" - I
>was just at the site,and there doesn't seem to be ANY indication of this
>portion.
I didn't bother to dig up the stuff..
I got the email..
But since John Knight was claimed to be the "leader" he bothered to archive
them:
http://fathersmanifesto.org/now.htm
Eric da Red
Richard Soyack <richs...@home.com> wrote:
>Clave wrote:
>>
>> "Richard Soyack" <richs...@home.com> wrote in message
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> > Oh, okay, not just a troll but a pompous troll.
>>
>> I suggest you look in your own little playground for the troll, sir. Nobody
>> here in s.g initiated this crossposting.
>>
>> Frankly, when special-interest one-note-ponies like Goonfather (thanx, Eric)
>> go trolling in strange newsgroups, they deserve what they get.
>> Seattle.general happens to be pretty gentle compared to some places I'm
>> tempted to re-crosspost some of this drivel (Eric, Pags -- you two know
>> where I mean).
>Oh, a threat. I can't tell you how impressive you are, hunched over
>your keyboard, making threats.
So, we've now established that you don't the meaning of "troll" or
"threat". Fortunately, this deficiency on your part is easily remedied.
There are organizations that will gladly help you get that GED you
obviously need. Not only will this accomplishment improve your vocabulary
skills, it will provide you with a much-needed boost in self-esteem.
--
ShrubQuote Of The Week: "I talked to my little brother, Jeb -- I haven't
told this to many people. But he's the governor of -- I shouldn't call
him my little brother -- my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas..."
Shrub, referring to his little brother Jeb, the governor of Florida.
Eric da Red
Goodfather <goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote:
>In article <sgu10s...@corp.supernews.com>,
> berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
...
>> I've known women who were beaten to near-death by their boy"friends" and
>> husbands only to see the perps walk away from charges, if any charges were
>> filed. Your couple of scratches don't impress me at all.
> How do you know it's only a "couple of scratches"? In fact, she
>clawed me deeply and a lot more than a "couple of scratches". She also
>shoved me and overturned my coffee table
Oh, you didn't mention the coffee table. That puts a different spin on
this matter. Lethal injection is too good for someone who abuses
furniture.
> and violently jerked my child
>out of my arms.
Was this before or after you stuffed the kid in the garbage can?
> That's all beside the point.
You are beside every point.
*plonk*
Eric da Red
Paul Mitchum <mil...@usa.net> wrote:
>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>
>> >I provided citations of several studies including studies of hospital
>> >emergency room reports -- the stats are always roughly the same no matter
>> >the source. Most stats encompass police reports, not court cases. Several
>> >encompass hospital emergency room reports.
>>
>> a few months ago the police started removing women from the household as
>> they do to men when the women is the one that has perpetrated the violence,
>> and NOW went crazy.
>How, exactly, did NOW go 'crazy?'
Go to http://www.now.org/press/press.html and review NOW's press releases.
I didn't find any evidence of craziness. Maybe they went crazy in
private.
Eric da Red
Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>"MoonShyne" <moons...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>>> >How, exactly, did NOW go 'crazy?'
>>>
>>> Political actions, getting members to write articles, circulating the
>>story
>>> of police upholding the law when women break it. Most recently they have
>>> put together the "public information center against father's rights". Go
>>> check out their web site.
>>
>>Please provide exact URL to this particular "public information center" - I
>>was just at the site,and there doesn't seem to be ANY indication of this
>>portion.
>I didn't bother to dig up the stuff..
Gosh, what a surprise.
>I got the email..
>
>But since John Knight was claimed to be the "leader" he bothered to archive
>them:
>
>http://fathersmanifesto.org/now.htm
In which not one citation of a NOW document is included.
As expected.
Eric da Red
Goodfather <goodf...@anonymous.to> wrote:
> Either side can find statistics to back up a point
This is the mantra of the statistically illiterate.
Richard Soyack
>
> In article <390F58CC...@home.com>,
> Richard Soyack <richs...@home.com> wrote:
> >Clave wrote:
> >>
> >> "Richard Soyack" <richs...@home.com> wrote in message
> >> news:390F5472...@home.com...
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>
> >> > Oh, okay, not just a troll but a pompous troll.
> >>
> >> I suggest you look in your own little playground for the troll, sir. Nobody
> >> here in s.g initiated this crossposting.
> >>
> >> Frankly, when special-interest one-note-ponies like Goonfather (thanx, Eric)
> >> go trolling in strange newsgroups, they deserve what they get.
> >> Seattle.general happens to be pretty gentle compared to some places I'm
> >> tempted to re-crosspost some of this drivel (Eric, Pags -- you two know
> >> where I mean).
>
> >Oh, a threat. I can't tell you how impressive you are, hunched over
> >your keyboard, making threats.
>
> So, we've now established that you don't the meaning of "troll" or
> "threat". Fortunately, this deficiency on your part is easily remedied.
> There are organizations that will gladly help you get that GED you
> obviously need. Not only will this accomplishment improve your vocabulary
> skills, it will provide you with a much-needed boost in self-esteem.
Poor baby, you feel that your little playground is being invaded. Poor
baby. Now don't go stomping your feet or holding your breath too long.
Rich Soyack
Clave
Careful, Eric. These "poor baby" remarks *destroyed* me.
Jim
henri...@my-deja.com
pagsterSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
> In article <8enpih$9ij$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, henri...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>
02050011...@drip171.drizzle.com>,
"Math class is hard!"
-the original talking Barbie
Useless idiot, let me take a few lines to explain some basic statistics
to you. "Men who seek custody are twice as likely to be abusive" does
not translate to "Half of men who seek custody are abusive." In
providing a cite for the former and using that cite to argue in favor
of the latter, you reveal your tragic, staggering incompetence in using
questionable statistics to further your political goals. If you're
going to be sleezy, mouth-bellowing cave-ape feminazi, get if fucking
right!
<snip of Paghat mouth-frothing like a pre-muenstral version of the
Tazmanian Devil>
> No, in essence it tells divorcing men that they should look at their
own
> motivations & be sure those motivations are pure, since for the
majority
> of men they are not pure. To be found credible in a court of law they
had
> better NOT have a history of abuse, & they had better have all along
> conducted themselves in a manner that does not incite suspicion that
they
> are just another tiresome member of the MAJORITY who ask for custody
only
> out of revenge.
Majority schmajority. Your pitifully inept attempt to prove that
statement failed as I have shown above. And as far as putting men who
seek custody through the butch-dyke feminist ringer, you'd apply the
same standard to women if you really cared about children since women
commit more child abuse than men. You rationalize that by saying that
more women are primary caregivers, but do you really know if men would
be more abusive if _they_ were primary caregivers? No, but your
obvious hatred of men leads you to believe so.
"Whaaaa, whaaaa, why do you accuse me of hating men John, whaa whaa"
you ask? Let me enlighten you once again. Being a user of my-deja,
its easy to observe that you've been following Goodfather around like
a rabid Yorkshire Terrier feverishly yapping at him for daring to
contradict your dogmatic belief that all women are as clean and pure as
the wind-driven snow. You're a harasser, and what motivates
harassers? Why hatred of course. Consider yourself unmasked.
> Most men don't want custody --
Cite it or you're Queen Bullshit as usual.
<snip>
> I regard your statement as evidence of inferior fatherly intent.
And I regard this statement as evidence of lesser intelligence. Have
you ever had a hypothetical discussion in your life. ARe you aware
that Im not even a father but made the aforementioned statement for the
sake of discussion? Are you aware that this really isn't about me but
rather the Orwellian nightmare through which you would feverishly put
fathers who commit the heresy of daring to oppose their irreproachable
wives?
Not very far out of the trees are you. Or perhaps its just the
feminist tendency to condemn.
<yadda yadda yadda>
> > > It may feel unfair to nonviolent fathers but the unfairness
> > > stems from the behavior of other men,
> >
> > So these non-violent fathers have only themselves to blame for the
> > unfairness, eh?
>
> What about "the unfairness stems from the behavior of other men" do
you
> find confusing? It does not say "from the behavior of himself."
Wanker.
> It's the violent father's who have themselves to blame.
Fine, I worded it wrongly. Sue me. (actually, being a feminist, you
might). The point is that you are punishing good fathers for the
actions of the minute percentage of fathers who are abusive. You
justify this using a stastic to which you arrived erroneously.
"But John, the good fathers have the bad fathers to blame for their
predicament." No, they should blame the self-praising, moralistic
feminists who decided that they should be responsible for the actions
of bad men.
> [remaining idiocy clipped, as that one was revealing enough]
The only idiocy here is you snipping a portion of text to which you
were too cowardly and/or incompetent to respond and then calling
someone else stupid for having written it.
And speaking of calling me stupid, what staggering academic or
professional achievements so convince you that you must be more
intelligent than me? Did you get secretary of the month?
Within the snipped portion, I made a request. I asked you to make the
leap from "Men who seek custody are twice as likely to be abusive" to
"Half of men who seek custody are abusive." I know you can't, but I'd
love to watch you wallow in your own pathetic lack of ability and then
wonder why you need affirmative action to compete on a level field with
men.
And in case you're curious, here's why you can't make the leap.
Suppose 0.25 percent of divorcing fathers are abusive. Further suppose
that 0.5 percent of fathers who seek custody are abusive. In this
_hypothetical_ case, it is indeed true that men who seek custody are
twice as likely to be abusive. It is not true that half of men who
seek custody are abusive. See the difference? Probably not. Because
you cited the former statement and not the latter, and because you
pointed to the former as evidence of the latter, you are a total,
complete, slobbering, bargain basement moron with nothing better to do
than harass men who admit to having been abused by women.
paghat
[clip raving lunacy]
> "Whaaaa, whaaaa, why do you accuse me of hating men John, whaa whaa"
> you ask?
No one asked that. But in fact it's straight women, not dykes, who learn
to hate men. I get along with dozens of men cuz I don't have to go home
with one & get the crap beaten out of me. Not having much of personal
investment in men I can look at them pretty objectively. I can see what a
pathetic waste of humanity you & your type happen to be, worthy of all the
pain you've created for yourselves & blamed women for, & I can see how
most of the men I encounter daily are pretty regular joes, creative,
witty, & fun -- as you've never been except among your pathetic maggots
posing as men.
> Let me enlighten you once again.
You couldn't enlighten the inside of your own shoe with a thousand watt bulb.
> Being a user of my-deja,
> its easy to observe that you've been following Goodfather around
Whadda maroon. He crossposts from your hate-spewing anti-woman newsgroup
over here where the misogynists, though not altogether lacking, are
amusing. I've never pursued him anywhere. He on the other hand has split
the threads to carry this amusing flame war on in multiple threads instead
of one or two, & flamed me in threads where he's not participating. I
don't mind being flamed. I consider it an invitation to a boxing match.
And while I rarely bother to box with such wussy weaklings as you &
gooberfather, since the issue is a good one, I've bothered. Next you'll be
claiming I pursued YOU with this shit because I responded to your evil
hatred of women. It's so funny how you faux-macho cretins always need to
feel like victims as you victimize. Can your inferiority complex be a
complex when you really are inferior?
> like
> a rabid Yorkshire Terrier feverishly yapping at him for daring to
> contradict your dogmatic belief that all women are as clean and pure as
> the wind-driven snow. You're a harasser, and what motivates
> harassers? Why hatred of course. Consider yourself unmasked.
Poor babwee, feeling harrassed to have your hate-spewing newsgroup replied
to by someone who knows all about it! Well blame your precious lying
Gooberfather for my presence. He's the one that crossposts outside the
safety of your corkscrew-tailed oink oink hate group.
> > Most men don't want custody --
>
> Cite it or you're Queen Bullshit as usual.
Men both wrote the laws & apply them -- if men as a class wanted children
women wouldn't have a chance of keeping children. Women neither wrote the
laws nor hold the majority of judgeships (& in the past held nearly none).
If it's "hard" for men to gain custody, don't ask how women got so
powerful as to cause you all this trouble -- ask why men shaped the laws
to keep from having to "suffer" the "consequences" of fucking.
Deadbeat & absentee fathers are still the rule. The "exceptions" are not
to be found in men's rights newsgroups which are hate & propoganda
vehicles primarily & attract venomous losers at life foremost. And I say
that after having looked really hard for anyone who really understands how
gender bias in law DOES work badly & has nothing whatsoever to do with
preferencial treatment of women.
I'll snip & not waste time on the rest of your raving crazed nonsense, but
as you actually had the STUPIDITY to demand "proof" that dads by & large
abandon children & wheedle out of support, that's so easily done that it's
the perfect example of how everything else you blew your wad posting is
equally nonsense.
Each year 40,000,000 deadbeat dads have to be threatened by one or another
child support agency to get them to pay child support. These are mainly
brought to light when a mother & child fall into poverty & seek social
welfare services. The 40 million deadbeat dads would jump considerably if
the greater majority of women who get along fine without their kids'
fathers help were reported.
Though men's rights literature states that 95 percent of dads pay child
support & maintain regular contact with children, the actual statistics
are that only 20% of dads with court orders to pay child support do so.
[U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stats]. The "best" study
from a men's rights point of view (& frequently quoted out of context by
men's rights liars & clowns) is derived from census analysis which showed
that of nearly 10,000 custodial mothers, 25% received no assistance of any
kind from the fathers. Of the remaining 75%, fully one-third received only
a fraction of what the court order required or permitted. So the best case
scenario is that half of all fathers despite the risks they take with new
enforcement possibilities STILL don't care very much. The tragedy, of
course, is these statistics count only dads who actually were told by a
court to provide support. Of women among that ten-thousand who had not
sought legal redress, 42% received no help whatsoever from fathers. A
trick of this study which men's groups play is to suggest comkplience with
child support raises to 90% where joint custody is established -- but what
that actually says is that even without having to pay child support to a
custodial parent, there's STILL 10% of dads who will not support their
children in accordance with a court decree.
Now men's rights group like to say fathers don't support their children
primarily because they can't afford to -- at the same time these men's
rights nutballs say that if men had custody or shared custody the
percentage who could afford it would jump dramatically. Both can't be
true, but that's what men's rights group insist is true. The "I'm poor"
excuse is probably TRUMPETED as often as men's rights groups say, but the
reality is that the average child support obligation in the Untied States
is only $173 a month (as of 1998, DHHS stats) up from $152 a month in
1994. My seventeen year old nephew could afford that with his ten hour a
week job at Herfy's. These same deadbeat fatjers spend more $173 each
month just on beer & cable.
Simone Spence (in her book "1-800-DEADBEAT") documents how men evade
responsibility for children: by skipping town, hiding assets, claiming
they're not the father, quitting work so they have no assets they can be
forced to share with children or arranging to be paid "under the table."
The "I'm not the real father" routine doesn't work so well since the
uniform child support act was passed because support enforcement officers
can demand paternity testing -- & DHHS statistics show of the hundred
thousand or so tests required of deadbeats dads, the vast majority show it
was a pretty dumb gambit as most are indeed the biological fathers.
All you dumbass failures at life are really good at using your hatred of a
middle-of-the-road organization like NOW as some peculiar excuse to
dismiss studies that have nothing to do with women's groups of any kind.
Simultaneously you rely on propagandistic anti-woman organizations with
faux statistics like those trumped up by Gelles & Straus & you pretend
you've made sense. You make no sense at all. You're just pissing in the
wind. The sad thing is if you would STOP pissing in the wind you might be
of some USE in overcoming gender inequity in law. But that would require
getting along with women's organizations & cleaning up your pathetic act.
CONSTRUCTIVE changes in law would strengthen the right of fathers to keep
a custodial mother from moving to another state, or regard a mother's
legitimate need to move to another state as a stonger reason to award
joint custody so the child can live part time with both parents. I
personally believe those should be the only two options when both parents
are reasonably capable: Either the custodial parent sticks around so
visitation is a cinch, or custodianship is shared. To focus on THAT as a
reasonable, rational goal would give men's rights fuck-ups too few
opportunities to trash their ex-wives & women generally. Men's rights
bobo-brains would rather focus their energy on getting more women thrown
in jail for acting in self defence, & fewer men thrown in jail for being
aggressors. I wish my observation were untrue & perhaps it IS untrue of
dads who are NOT bleeting & squeeling on the net -- but my quest for men's
rights activists who didn't sound like butt-ass crazy loons has turned up
none. Though there are plenty of very aware & intelligent men in other
venues, such as in Men Against Rape, or in Men4Change.
-paghat the ratgirl
Paul Mitchum
> mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> >> Police refuse to file.. and when they have filed, NOW has gone crazy. Just
> >> a few months ago the police started removing women from the household as
> >> they do to men when the women is the one that has perpetrated the violence,
> >> and NOW went crazy.
> >
> >How, exactly, did NOW go 'crazy?'
>
> Political actions, getting members to write articles, circulating the story
> of police upholding the law when women break it. Most recently they have
> put together the "public information center against father's rights". Go
> check out their web site.
>
> Wilbur
Are those or are those not the exact things that the father's rights
movement is doing? Are YOU going 'crazy?'
paghat
supporters crossposting from the men's hate groups have decided truth =
manhating, I gave some thoughts today to my joy of flaming the arses of
cretinous fugheads, & not withstanding that this week alone I also flamed
the LoriBird who at least CLAIMED to be female (but mkay actually have
been Bruce so I guess even that must've been man-bashing) -- oh well --
so, Paghat sweet dear, do you hate men? Hey, I'm misanthropic all around!
And proud of it! Gender of the fughead has very little to do with it --
humanity just broadly stinks -- save for me & my pals of course, we're
swell.
I think it's become fairly clear that I like men a lot more than these
men's rights bozos like themselves. If they didn't hate themselves they
could see a bit farther than their noses. But if it makes me a manhater
for not caring much about the feelings of ignorant parrot-boys angry &
disillusioned because their love lives went all to hell . . . then
nine-tenths of the men I've known in my many decades on earth are
manhaters too.
But I find something like this, by Professor Bob Connel:
http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-Dec-1996/connell.html
& I know there's nothing wrong with men. It's just these crossposting
loonies from the men's hate groups that need a hot fondu poker inserted in
their peckers.
We must never mistake retro cavemen for radicals either. For a sample of
how cool RADICAL men can be, this is almost as nice as Professor Connel's
piece:
http://www.achillesheel.freeuk.com/article16_4.html
Oh yeah, & looking through my old bookmarks, I see I still have Michael
Flood's Pro-Feminist Men's Politics FAQ marked:
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/CommunitySupport/Men4Change/prof.html
rereading a bit of that for a moment actually made me PITY the men's
rights loonies. Because if they could just absorb some of the realism &
decency & idealism of Michael's take on things, then even these crazy
thugs would find an awful lot of men's needs really COULD be met if they
would first stop blaming women for the way things are in their lives.
But strangely enough I don't even like politics. Boring. When crossposting
yobs with very ignorant political agendas appear & want a flame war with
me, I'm pretty good at & enjoy it, so I'm happy to oblige. Especially
since my politics are very sound & intelligent & theirs are not, that
makes it easy to mix it up & make them reveal themselves as yobs again &
again. In this regard, a brain is almost as good as a gun when the
opposition lacks either.
But frankly I can get more excited in the pet rats newsgroup talking about
my ratties, or over the flamy artbell ng where creative insolence abounds
& rarely about politics. I find myself mixing it up with people who
probably think Michael Flood is an airy fairy & it's wrong to teach
Spanish to kids in Florida schools -- dumbasses but I like them anyway. I
do have trouble with rapists, child molestors, & these low-end men's
rights loonies whose homosocialized all-male agenda would put women &
children & even decent men at risk.
-paghat the ratgirl