NCFC Convention Detroit Oct. 16-18
Bob Hirschfeld, JD - Still standing up to the bastards
herself.... perhaps she has more in common with "Liz"
than she admits.
I simply ran a no-nonsense announcement of the upcoming
convention of the National Congress for Fathers and Children,
which has since 1981 had both genders on its board of directors,
and which is certainly not a "woman hating" organization.
All of your "chump" rhetoric can't change that, "crazylady."
NCFC supports Joint Custody, and agrees with you that
"Women are not better than men nor are men better than women."
One of our earliest members was a former president of N.O.W.,
before NOW's transformation from egalitarianism to male-bashing.
Drop by our web site with an open mind, if that's possible.
http://com.primenet.com/ncfc
--Bob Hirschfeld, JD Legal Educator, Grandfather, and former Custodial
Father
Crazylady <crazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.support.divorce article
<6upd9u$csr$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
> You know, it is starting to look as if you and "Liz" are both working in
> conjunction trolling this newsgroup. Your woman hating and man bashing
crap
> is getting old to say the least. Neither of you are any better than the
> other. Women are not better than men nor are men better than women. It
is
> the personality of the individual that determines whether they are a
better
> parent than the other. I would like to see your proof. Not only yours
but
> that of "Liz" as well. But it will not tell me anything I do not already
> know. And that my dear sir, is that you are a chump. Take your sorry
self
> elsewhere. No one in here has time for this crap.
>
> Crazy
>
>
>
>
>
Bob Hirschfeld, JD
http://com.primenet.com/ncfc
Crazylady <crazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<6upnbg$9sv$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
> Bob Hirschfeld, JD - Still standing up to the bastards wrote in message
> <01bdeb57$f48e71e0$d71aa5ce@kfvtjuml>...
> >Perhaps crazylady needs to look within
> >herself.... perhaps she has more in common with "Liz"
> >than she admits.
> >
> I doubt that sincerly. Your postings seem to be little more than a call
for
> all men to jump on the bandwagon of your convention which leads me to
wonder
> why exactly you bother posting here to begin with. I thought this was a
> group where people came to better themselves. Not a billboard along the
> information superhighway.
Crazylady, your claims of believing in equality are not credible.
Women can attend conventions, but when men gather to rationally
seek equality in the areas of custody and support, women like you
seem to take offense. I posted here because the issue of child
support is not OWNED by women. Men have a right to RECEIVE
as well as pay support, and to be treated fairly in the courts.
If that offends you, I am glad.
> >I simply ran a no-nonsense announcement of the upcoming
> >convention of the National Congress for Fathers and Children,
> >which has since 1981 had both genders on its board of directors,
> >and which is certainly not a "woman hating" organization.
> >
> Yes, we know. Over and Over and Over and Over....
When you cannot come up with a cogent thought, evidently you
resort to the above-quoted schoolyard nyah-nyah.
> >All of your "chump" rhetoric can't change that, "crazylady."
> >
> Never thought it would.
>
> >NCFC supports Joint Custody, and agrees with you that
> >"Women are not better than men nor are men better than women."
>
> Really, then what was the paragraph:
> "Single custodial mothers have a tragic record of ineffectiveness in
> dealing with children, including vindictive alienation from fathers,
> chronic "poor-me" financial dependency, inability to provide the
> FATHER ROLE MODEL which a child needs." supposed to mean?
Read it again, crazylady. JOINT CUSTODY is not "single custodial mothers".
The role models of both parents are needed, and Joint Custody can
provide that, if the parents allow it to operate.
> Male role model? If you knew me at all you shameless spammer you'd know
> that I am the very first to admit that I am NO man
I am tempted from your rhetoric to wonder if you are NO lady either.
>and that the presence of
> a man in a childs life is equally as important as a WOMAN'S. But then,
you
> don't know me do you. Do you think you are capable of really knowing
anyone
> with this attitude? Do you dare to try?
With the kind of histrionics you displayed in your response, is there any
value in getting to know you? Your claims of belief in the value of
a man "in a child's life" are probably subject to an unspoken,
"as long as he doesn't interfere with my CONTROL".
>
> >One of our earliest members was a former president of N.O.W.,
> >before NOW's transformation from egalitarianism to male-bashing.
>
> And this is supposed to impress me? Ha Ha Ha. There was nothing to
> transform. NOW is nothing but a group of self absorbed men haters who
took
> the idea of birth control and equal rights and bastardized it into a
> political clearing house for their own twisted agendas. Something kinda
> like what you are hinting at with your own little posts here.....
I was a member of NOW in its early days. I view the transformation
into man hating as negatively as you claim to view. The former president of
NOW
was Karen DeCrow. She supported NCM (currently named NCFC),
and she probably is as disgusted with what has become of the organization
she once headed, as I am, and as you claim to be.
>
> >Drop by our web site with an open mind, if that's possible.
> >http://com.primenet.com/ncfc
> At this point I wouldn't waste the energy in my littlest of fingers
fella.
> Crazy
OK, "gal", if you want to call me "fella", I am tempted to suggest that
you resume employing the littlest of your fingers in
stimulating whatever else "turns you on."
Paul Whitehouse
to the bastards" <nola...@nolawyer.com> wrote:
>Perhaps crazylady needs to look within
>herself.... perhaps she has more in common with "Liz"
>than she admits.
>
And perhaps you have more in common with Maury Small than you would
like to admit.
>I simply ran a no-nonsense announcement of the upcoming
>convention of the National Congress for Fathers and Children,
>which has since 1981 had both genders on its board of directors,
>and which is certainly not a "woman hating" organization.
>
Oh, pu-lease! Your statement to the effect that single mothers are
inherently defective in the arena of child-rearing is not
woman-hating? Just you watch whaty you say there, mister. My mom was a
single mom, and she did a kick-ass job of raising us. My dad chose not
to help. This single mother raised among other things a son who grew
up to raise his own son alone after the mother abandoned him.
>All of your "chump" rhetoric can't change that, "crazylady."
>
Rhetoric? I'd say you've been inside the political labyrinth just a
tad too long, laddie.
>NCFC supports Joint Custody, and agrees with you that
>"Women are not better than men nor are men better than women."
>
>One of our earliest members was a former president of N.O.W.,
>before NOW's transformation from egalitarianism to male-bashing.
>
>Drop by our web site with an open mind, if that's possible.
>http://com.primenet.com/ncfc
>
I am sure that if you can approach with an open mind then she can as
well. Don't get too cocky there, gramps. You don't walk on water.
>--Bob Hirschfeld, JD Legal Educator, Grandfather, and former Custodial
>Father
>
Me. Combat veteran, current custodial father.
>Crazylady <crazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.support.divorce article
><6upd9u$csr$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>
>> You know, it is starting to look as if you and "Liz" are both working in
>> conjunction trolling this newsgroup. Your woman hating and man bashing
>crap
>> is getting old to say the least. Neither of you are any better than the
>> other. Women are not better than men nor are men better than women. It
>is
>> the personality of the individual that determines whether they are a
>better
>> parent than the other. I would like to see your proof. Not only yours
>but
>> that of "Liz" as well. But it will not tell me anything I do not already
>> know. And that my dear sir, is that you are a chump. Take your sorry
>self
>> elsewhere. No one in here has time for this crap.
>>
>> Crazy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
I have the sinking feeling, Crazy, that speaking to either one of
these people is akin to speaking in philosophical abstract terms to
the cat.
Byte me.
GARRYOWEN!
Paul Whitehouse
<nola...@nolawyer.com> wrote:
>RE: NCFC Convention Detroit Oct 16-18 1998 see:
>http://com.primenet.com/ncfc
>
>
>Crazylady <crazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
><6upnbg$9sv$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>> Bob Hirschfeld, JD - Still standing up to the bastards wrote in message
>> <01bdeb57$f48e71e0$d71aa5ce@kfvtjuml>...
>> >Perhaps crazylady needs to look within
>> >herself.... perhaps she has more in common with "Liz"
>> >than she admits.
>> >
>> I doubt that sincerly. Your postings seem to be little more than a call
>for
>> all men to jump on the bandwagon of your convention which leads me to
>wonder
>> why exactly you bother posting here to begin with. I thought this was a
>> group where people came to better themselves. Not a billboard along the
>> information superhighway.
>
>Crazylady, your claims of believing in equality are not credible.
>Women can attend conventions, but when men gather to rationally
>seek equality in the areas of custody and support, women like you
>seem to take offense. I posted here because the issue of child
>support is not OWNED by women. Men have a right to RECEIVE
>as well as pay support, and to be treated fairly in the courts.
>If that offends you, I am glad.
>
Making some mighty personally motivated assumptions, aren't we gramps?
Or do you honestly ascribe to the fallacious logic that to disagree
with you on one point means to disagree with you on all points? I
don't recall her making any comments at all regarding chuld support
payments to fathers here. Look back and check if yopu doubt, but so
far the only person here making that allegation is you. And it is
unfounded. And why are you lumping her together with liz? Because she
is a woman? Because she hurt your widdle feewings? Awwwww. Wake up and
bone up on reading comprehension there, Sparky - she was just as
irritated with liz' bizarre antics, you were just too wrapped up in
your own preconceptions to notice.
>> >I simply ran a no-nonsense announcement of the upcoming
>> >convention of the National Congress for Fathers and Children,
>> >which has since 1981 had both genders on its board of directors,
>> >and which is certainly not a "woman hating" organization.
>> >
>> Yes, we know. Over and Over and Over and Over....
>
>When you cannot come up with a cogent thought, evidently you
>resort to the above-quoted schoolyard nyah-nyah.
>
Sez you.
>> >All of your "chump" rhetoric can't change that, "crazylady."
>> >
>> Never thought it would.
>>
>> >NCFC supports Joint Custody, and agrees with you that
>> >"Women are not better than men nor are men better than women."
>>
>> Really, then what was the paragraph:
>> "Single custodial mothers have a tragic record of ineffectiveness in
>> dealing with children, including vindictive alienation from fathers,
>> chronic "poor-me" financial dependency, inability to provide the
>> FATHER ROLE MODEL which a child needs." supposed to mean?
>
>Read it again, crazylady. JOINT CUSTODY is not "single custodial mothers".
>The role models of both parents are needed, and Joint Custody can
>provide that, if the parents allow it to operate.
>
Exqueeze me? Baking powder? The quote she gave above was directly from
you, Man! It was cut and pasted. What issues do you think it is that
she is confusing in a cut and paste? YOU are the one that used the
phrase "single custodial mothers" in the above paragraph. If you now
are saying that joint custody can in ideal situations provide the
necessary role modeling from both parental units then I will agree.
BUT, that is if the parents allow it to operate, as you so eloquently
noted in your caveat at the end of your above paragraph.
>> Male role model? If you knew me at all you shameless spammer you'd know
>> that I am the very first to admit that I am NO man
>
>I am tempted from your rhetoric to wonder if you are NO lady either.
>
Then may we assume the freedom to assume from your rhetoric that you
are no man?
> >and that the presence of
>> a man in a childs life is equally as important as a WOMAN'S. But then,
>you
>> don't know me do you. Do you think you are capable of really knowing
>anyone
>> with this attitude? Do you dare to try?
>
>With the kind of histrionics you displayed in your response, is there any
>value in getting to know you? Your claims of belief in the value of
>a man "in a child's life" are probably subject to an unspoken,
>"as long as he doesn't interfere with my CONTROL".
>
Probably subject to such restrictions based on what specific points,
if you please? On what do you base that? Please be specific, else I
can only assume that you are hopelessly jaded by your own horrid
experiences, and expect quite foolishly that everyone else shares your
same flawed lens on which to view the world and the motivations of
others. And for the record, yes there is much value in getting to know
Crazylady. I have, and you are so far off base in your assumptions
there buddy that not only are you not even in the same ballpark, but
you aren't even playing the same friggin sport. JD or no, you still
have a bit of growing up to do.
>>
>> >One of our earliest members was a former president of N.O.W.,
>> >before NOW's transformation from egalitarianism to male-bashing.
>>
>> And this is supposed to impress me? Ha Ha Ha. There was nothing to
>> transform. NOW is nothing but a group of self absorbed men haters who
>took
>> the idea of birth control and equal rights and bastardized it into a
>> political clearing house for their own twisted agendas. Something kinda
>> like what you are hinting at with your own little posts here.....
>
>I was a member of NOW in its early days. I view the transformation
>into man hating as negatively as you claim to view. The former president of
>NOW
>was Karen DeCrow. She supported NCM (currently named NCFC),
>and she probably is as disgusted with what has become of the organization
>she once headed, as I am, and as you claim to be.
>
Oh, I see. ONLY YOUR motivations and assertions are valid, eh? You
doubt that she actually believes as she purports, but then why the
hell should we believe you when you claim to be reasonable, and NOT
woman-hating? Same coin, different side. Crazylady simply has the same
intolerance for rhetoric-blinded partisan foolishness that I have. An
asshole is an asshole is an asshole my fiend.
>>
>> >Drop by our web site with an open mind, if that's possible.
>> >http://com.primenet.com/ncfc
>> At this point I wouldn't waste the energy in my littlest of fingers
>fella.
>> Crazy
>
>OK, "gal", if you want to call me "fella", I am tempted to suggest that
>you resume employing the littlest of your fingers in
>stimulating whatever else "turns you on."
>
Oh, now we are resorting to childish masturbation references. Well, as
long as you are going to drag this down to such a subterranian level
may I humbly suggest that you go pound sand up your ass with a
particle accelerator? I hear the CERN facility in Europe is taking
reservations.
Byte me.
GARRYOWEN!
Bob Hirschfeld, JD
See: http://www.ncfc.net/ncfc
=======================================================
Paul Whitehouse <p...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<36132a20....@news.tiac.net>...
> Making some mighty personally motivated assumptions, aren't we gramps?
> Or do you honestly ascribe to the fallacious logic that to disagree
> with you on one point means to disagree with you on all points? I
> don't recall her making any comments at all regarding chuld support
> payments to fathers here.
Since you and I were not communicating with each other prior to
your above quoted idiocy, it seems irrelevant as to whether
YOU recall anything.
"Paul", you are apparently one of Liz's sycophants, or perhaps
you are a nom-de-plume of liz herself.
>
> >> >I simply ran a no-nonsense announcement of the upcoming
> >> >convention of the National Congress for Fathers and Children,
> >> >which has since 1981 had both genders on its board of directors,
> >> >and which is certainly not a "woman hating" organization.
> >> >
> >> Yes, we know. Over and Over and Over and Over....
> >
> >When you cannot come up with a cogent thought, evidently you
> >resort to the above-quoted schoolyard nyah-nyah.
> >
> Sez you.
A demonstration of Troll Paul's elegant command of the English language.
>
> >> >All of your "chump" rhetoric can't change that, "crazylady."
> >> >
> >> Never thought it would.
> >>
> >> >NCFC supports Joint Custody, and agrees with you that
> >> >"Women are not better than men nor are men better than women."
> >>
> >> Really, then what was the paragraph:
> >> "Single custodial mothers have a tragic record of ineffectiveness
in
> >> dealing with children, including vindictive alienation from fathers,
> >> chronic "poor-me" financial dependency, inability to provide the
> >> FATHER ROLE MODEL which a child needs." supposed to mean?
> >
> >Read it again, crazylady. JOINT CUSTODY is not "single custodial
mothers".
> >The role models of both parents are needed, and Joint Custody can
> >provide that, if the parents allow it to operate.
> >
> Exqueeze me? Baking powder? The quote she gave above was directly from
> you, Man! It was cut and pasted. What issues do you think it is that
> she is confusing in a cut and paste? YOU are the one that used the
> phrase "single custodial mothers" in the above paragraph. If you now
> are saying that joint custody can in ideal situations provide the
> necessary role modeling from both parental units then I will agree.
> BUT, that is if the parents allow it to operate, as you so eloquently
> noted in your caveat at the end of your above paragraph.
You appear to be enjoying "exqueezing" yourself. The original statement
referred only to Single Custodial Mothers, which comprise the vast
majority of sole custodians. A joint custodian is by definition
excluded from the class of Single Custodial Mothers.
The establishment evidently promoted by
liz and condoned by her sycophants, denies that there is a very large
incidence of maternal abuse or neglect
of children arising from institutionalized
inequitable awards of sole custody to women, and further denies
that children are harmed by institutionalized deprivation of
care and nurturance given by their fathers. The vast majority
of "parents" who PREVENT joint custody from operating are,
by any measure, female parents.
>
> >> Male role model? If you knew me at all you shameless spammer you'd
know
> >> that I am the very first to admit that I am NO man
> >
> >I am tempted from your rhetoric to wonder if you are NO lady either.
> >
> Then may we assume the freedom to assume from your rhetoric that you
> are no man?
I am a male who has succeeded many times in representing male
clients, and taking babies away from unfit mommies. To that extent,
I am proud that such mommies, their lawyers, and the
likes of you and liz may not consider me a "gentleman".
.............
> Same coin, different side. Crazylady simply has the same
> intolerance for rhetoric-blinded partisan foolishness that I have. An
> asshole is an asshole is an asshole my fiend.
You seem obsessed with the anal orifice, Troll Whitehorse.
You also seem to be one of a class of rhetoric-blinded partisan fools
yourself -- that rhetoric being that all fathers rights activists
are "rhetoric-blinded fools".
>
> >>
> >> >Drop by our web site with an open mind, if that's possible.
> >> >http://com.primenet.com/ncfc
> >> At this point I wouldn't waste the energy in my littlest of fingers
> >fella.
> >> Crazy
> >
> >OK, "gal", if you want to call me "fella", I am tempted to suggest that
> >you resume employing the littlest of your fingers in
> >stimulating whatever else "turns you on."
> >
> Oh, now we are resorting to childish masturbation references. Well, as
> long as you are going to drag this down to such a subterranian level
> may I humbly suggest that you go pound sand up your ass with a
> particle accelerator? I hear the CERN facility in Europe is taking
> reservations.
Ah yes, more anal fixation, Troll Whitehouse.
Evidently that turns YOU on.....
Bob Hirschfeld, JD
insensate tendency to attack anyone with whom he
does not agree on Usenet. This, according to his below-quoted
diatribe, apparently arises from his hatred of his own natural
father, and his proclaimed admiration for the lawyer who
usurped his natural father's role, and became Whitehouse's
stepfather.
Then, Troll Whitehouse goes on to vent his personal hatred
of Bob Hirschfeld, and attempts to distinguish this from
his transparent disdain for Hirschfeld's assertion of the
rights and responsibilities of natural fathers.
Whitehouse should check into one of the therapeutic
mental-health newsgroups. But he won't, because he
is in denial of his feelings toward his natural father,
and its extrapolation into hatred for the Fathers
Rights Movement.
Surely, he will rant onward.
Have a nice day, Whitehouse. Every rant of
yours is a futile effort to have the last word. They fail.
--Bob Hirschfeld, JD Legal Educator
Member, Board of Directors,
National Congress for Fathers & Children
Whitey <p...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<361ac456....@news.tiac.net>...
> On 5 Oct 1998 22:05:30 GMT, "Bob Hirschfeld, JD "
> <nola...@nolawyer.com> wrote:
>
> >Paul Whitehouse <p...@tiac.net> wrote in article
> ><3613266e....@news.tiac.net>...
> >> On 29 Sep 1998 03:44:52 GMT, "Bob Hirschfeld, JD - Still standing up
> >> to the bastards" <nola...@nolawyer.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Perhaps crazylady needs to look within
> >> >herself.... perhaps she has more in common with "Liz"
> >> >than she admits.
> >> >
> >> And perhaps you have more in common with Maury Small than you would
> >> like to admit.
> >
> >Never heard of that person.
> >
> Try the Fathers United For Equal Justice out of New Hampshire.
> Anyways, never mind. I take it back.
>
> >>
> >> >I simply ran a no-nonsense announcement of the upcoming
> >> >convention of the National Congress for Fathers and Children,
> >> >which has since 1981 had both genders on its board of directors,
> >> >and which is certainly not a "woman hating" organization.
> >> >
> >> Oh, pu-lease! Your statement to the effect that single mothers are
> >> inherently defective in the arena of child-rearing is not
> >> woman-hating? Just you watch whaty you say there, mister. My mom was a
> >> single mom, and she did a kick-ass job of raising us. My dad chose not
> >> to help. This single mother raised among other things a son who grew
> >> up to raise his own son alone after the mother abandoned him.
> >
> >Whitehouse has just explained his apparent hatred of fathers other
> >than himself. The carping and mewling he displays in his series
> >of ad-hominem attacks shows just what kind of a mentally
> >warped man resulted by being raised by his sole custodial mother.
> >
> SLAM! That was the trap slamming shut over your pencil-neck, Goober.
> Hatred? Oh, no, my fiend. You would have to manufacture quite a bit
> more fantasy material for you to have a hope of backing that up, or
> perhaps your reading comprehension is even worse than I had at first
> supposed. But then again, I don't suppose you even bothered to read
> any of my other posts in the group, did you? If you had you would have
> learned much more than the nuggets I have been feeding you. My point
> has been quite clearly made - that you just grab onto something small
> and run to the ends of the earth with it, bothering not to even assess
> the nugget given. Yes, my mother was largely responsible for raising
> myself and my sisters for the first few years after the separation and
> then the divorce, during which time she was busting her ass waiting
> tables and such and going to school at night. Well, my dad wasn't
> paying any child support, we had to eat somehow. In any case now she
> is one of the top three people in the state of New Hampshire qualified
> to work with deaf/blind issues in special education. I have to give
> her tons o' credit where it is due there Gramps. Anyways, what I did
> not tell you yet, but which you could easily have learned by either
> reading my other contributions to the newsgroups or checking me out
> via deja news is that by mid-teens my stepfather came into the
> picture, and he is a lawyer skilled and talented far beyond what you
> could ever dream of achieving. I have seen him argue in court, and it
> is a thing of beauty to behold. From him I get my tenacity, sense of
> justice, and my total and absolute intolerance of fools and
> dogmatically-blinded automatons. I have learned from my father's
> mistakes, and I live from my stepfather's triumphs. So once again you
> are horribly mistaken, and so far off the mark i really have to wonder
> if you are paying attention here. And, in case you have forgotten -
> and apparently you have - this is usenet, and not a courtroom. You are
> out of your element here. We actually expect you to be able to back up
> your pile of poisonous spew with something at least remotely
> resembling a fact else you must accept wide ridicule. That's the price
> you pay for stupidity here, Gramps. Deal with it or leave. Two
> choices, pick one.
> >
> >>
> >> >All of your "chump" rhetoric can't change that, "crazylady."
> >> >
> >> Rhetoric? I'd say you've been inside the political labyrinth just a
> >> tad too long, laddie.
> >>
> >> >NCFC supports Joint Custody, and agrees with you that
> >> >"Women are not better than men nor are men better than women."
> >> >
> >> >One of our earliest members was a former president of N.O.W.,
> >> >before NOW's transformation from egalitarianism to male-bashing.
> >> >
> >> >Drop by our web site with an open mind, if that's possible.
> >> >http://com.primenet.com/ncfc
> >> >
> >> I am sure that if you can approach with an open mind then she can as
> >> well. Don't get too cocky there, gramps. You don't walk on water.
> >>
> >> >--Bob Hirschfeld, JD Legal Educator, Grandfather, and former
> >Custodial
> >> >Father
> >> >
> >>
> >> Me. Combat veteran, current custodial father.
> >
> >Suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, are you?
> >
> If I were you'd have been fragged by now, Gramps. Boy, you really are
> full of every possible lame, overused bizarre cliche' and dogmatic
> assumption there, aren't you? I mean really - you go from the cliche'
> of the evil father haters ( who in your eyes are everyone who does not
> prostrate themselves in your holy presence) and rocket headlong and
> foolishly towards the "crazed combat veteran" cliche'. Really, Bob. I
> think you have been watching waaaaay too many bad hollywood movies
> there, Gramps. And despite what the voices in your head may tell you
> you still do not walk on water. I am not objecting to your supposed
> support of joint custody, Bob. Never have, despite what you may have
> assumed because I don't kiss your ass. But i DO find you a thoroughly
> repulsive and dogmatically-blinded automaton with all the morals of a
> styrofoam cup and the social charms of a rabid gorilla on crack. I
> care not about your politics but socially speaking you are without any
> redeeming social values whatsoever. Do you understand this, Gramps?
> This is completely personal at this point, okay? Now that you
> understand maybe we can move on, eh? Geez, what a loon.
>
>
> Byte me.
> GARRYOWEN!
>
Bob Hirschfeld, JD
<361ac456....@news.tiac.net>...
> On 5 Oct 1998 22:05:30 GMT, "Bob Hirschfeld, JD "
> <nola...@nolawyer.com> wrote:
>
> >Paul Whitehouse <p...@tiac.net> wrote in article
> ><3613266e....@news.tiac.net>...
> >> On 29 Sep 1998 03:44:52 GMT, "Bob Hirschfeld, JD - Still standing up
> >> to the bastards" <nola...@nolawyer.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Perhaps crazylady needs to look within
> >> >herself.... perhaps she has more in common with "Liz"
> >> >than she admits.
> >> >
> >> And perhaps you have more in common with Maury Small than you would
> >> like to admit.
> >
> >Never heard of that person.
> >
> Try the Fathers United For Equal Justice out of New Hampshire.
> Anyways, never mind. I take it back.
Oh. Dr. Maurice Small, who went on hunger-strikes
while jailed for non-support. I certainly do know him, and respect
his willingness to suffer in order to advance the cause of
other sufferers in the Fathers Rights Movement. However,
I do not recommend some of his self-destructive tactics.
Whitey
<nola...@nolawyer.com> wrote:
>Troll Whitehouse can't stand to have anyone point out his
>insensate tendency to attack anyone with whom he
>does not agree on Usenet. This, according to his below-quoted
>diatribe, apparently arises from his hatred of his own natural
>father, and his proclaimed admiration for the lawyer who
>usurped his natural father's role, and became Whitehouse's
>stepfather.
>
Bob, your propensity for seeing only what you want to see and
insisting that your pov and your spin are the only legitimate ones
indicate to me that while you may indeed be a dedicated advocate, on
the usenet you are a thoroughly repulsive excuse for a human being. It
is obvious to one and all that it is such a grievous blow to your ego
that other custodial fathers do not treat your every utterance as if
it were the word of god that you somehow feel compelled to quash any
indication of dissent by means of personal attack, creative misuse of
presented facts, and methods that if attempted in a courtroom would
likely get you tossed right the hell out. I have steted, nor have I
implied any "hatred" for my natural father; he made poor choices which
he stands by, which is unfortunate. For you to downplay the effect
that abandonment by one or both parents has on a child shows a
complete inability to declare or even speculate on what may or may not
be in the best interests of any child. In other words, if you are so
totally clueless as to the effects abandonment has on a child, why
should we consider you any kind of expert? Bottom line, Bob - my dad
renegged on his responsibilities, and someone else had to pick up the
ball. This causes me to have little sympaty for ANY deadbeat or absent
parent today, but nothing more than that. Of course, you are perfectly
free to imagine and pretend all sorts of other effects but then I am
just as free to point them out as the fraudulent products of a sick
mind that they are in reality. You are just pissed off because you
stepped in it and made a stupid assumption for all to see. Just
because you are so easily baited don't come bitching to me about it. A
man your age should not be so naive.
>Then, Troll Whitehouse goes on to vent his personal hatred
>of Bob Hirschfeld, and attempts to distinguish this from
>his transparent disdain for Hirschfeld's assertion of the
>rights and responsibilities of natural fathers.
>
The only thing transparent here is you, Bob. You are correct on one
point, Bob - I do not like you at all, Bob. However it would take a
complete ignorance of everything I have written in this and other
newsgroups or in alternate thoroughly inadequate reading comprehension
skills to come to your laughable conclusion that my disdain for you
equals disdain for the rights and responsibilities of fathers.
Apparantly your ego is so inflated that you think that the two cannot
possibly be separated, as if YOU alone have a patent on rights and
responsibilities. Please, don't insult everybody's intelligence here.
Anyone who wants to check out the REAL facts here that Bob really
would prefer people not know about me or my position on these issues
can use dejanews, or you can check out any of the other groups I
frequent, including alt.support.divorce - where you can check out the
hard time I have been giving to our good fiend liz. Bob would rather
you not read these articles and not know the facts that they present,
because they blow his fragile little fantasy world right apart.
>Whitehouse should check into one of the therapeutic
>mental-health newsgroups. But he won't, because he
>is in denial of his feelings toward his natural father,
>and its extrapolation into hatred for the Fathers
>Rights Movement.
>
The hatred you mention is only in your sick, twisted imagination, Bob.
Once again you confuse my disdain for you personally with disdain for
anything which you purport to support or agree with. You would be well
advised to take your own advice there, Gramps. I can't quite decide if
you are psychotic or just paranoid with delusions of grandeur. Worst
case scenario is you have it all.
>Surely, he will rant onward.
>
As long as you insist on lying and misrepresenting anything which
conflicts with your little fantasy world I will continue to point out
your reprehensible behavior for all who can read.
>Have a nice day, Whitehouse. Every rant of
>yours is a futile effort to have the last word. They fail.
>
Aas will your efforts to do the same, Bob. Get used to me.
Cabn't answer a single point, can you? Of course not. You stepped in
it this time. Oh, I realize you are embarassed but the least you can
do is just suck it up and be a man about it. You were wrong, and
proven so. You made a stupid assumption, which was wrong, and you were
slapped upside the head with it. YOU LOST, Gramps! Deal with it. Now,
can we move on, please?
Byte me.
GARRYOWEN!
Whitey
<nola...@nolawyer.com> wrote:
>Whitey <p...@tiac.net> wrote in article
><361ac456....@news.tiac.net>...
>> On 5 Oct 1998 22:05:30 GMT, "Bob Hirschfeld, JD "
>> <nola...@nolawyer.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Paul Whitehouse <p...@tiac.net> wrote in article
>> ><3613266e....@news.tiac.net>...
>> >> On 29 Sep 1998 03:44:52 GMT, "Bob Hirschfeld, JD - Still standing up
>> >> to the bastards" <nola...@nolawyer.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Perhaps crazylady needs to look within
>> >> >herself.... perhaps she has more in common with "Liz"
>> >> >than she admits.
>> >> >
>> >> And perhaps you have more in common with Maury Small than you would
>> >> like to admit.
>> >
>> >Never heard of that person.
>> >
>> Try the Fathers United For Equal Justice out of New Hampshire.
>> Anyways, never mind. I take it back.
>
>Oh. Dr. Maurice Small, who went on hunger-strikes
>while jailed for non-support. I certainly do know him, and respect
>his willingness to suffer in order to advance the cause of
>other sufferers in the Fathers Rights Movement. However,
>I do not recommend some of his self-destructive tactics.
Well... he also ended up being jailed for purjory as well. That was
the original warrant. Self destructive? Yeah, that's Maury all right.
I knew him before he lost his mind. Used to post to an old BBS in
Nashua called "Chuckie's Machine". He and my stepdad were good
freinds. For confidentiality concerns I cannot discuss the
circumstances surrounding the end of their freindship, at least not in
an open forum. Suffice it to say that it signaled the end of my
stepdad's foray into family law. Disillusioned the hell out of him. I
haven't seen Maury since the mid eighties, unless you count his
appearance on the wanted poster. He really should have known better
than to lie in open court under oath.
Byte me.
GARRYOWEN!