Men who marry Single Mothers are Chumps !

[Mean Mr Mustard]

Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors,
coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you.
Nothing but a sucker raising another dude's progeny.

You will have more respect with a mail order bride.

[Tiffany]

"'Kate" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 Jul 2004 14:10:00 -0700, (Mean Mr Mustard)
> wrote:
>
> >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors,
> >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you.
> >Nothing but a sucker raising another dude's progeny.
> >
> >You will have more respect with a mail order bride.
>
> I'd like to take this opportunity to wish each and every one of my
> fellow netizens a very happy troll season!
>
>

LOL!

[Byron Canfield]

"Mean Mr Mustard" > wrote in message
om...
> Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors,
> coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you.
> Nothing but a sucker raising another dude's progeny.
>
> You will have more respect with a mail order bride.

Trolls get no respect here. Get lost, idiot.

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[eggs]

"Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
news:EUeOc.177624$a24.166386@attbi_s03...

> Trolls get no respect here. Get lost, idiot.
>

Actually, trolls get plenty of respect, they just have to be good ones
....

eggs.

[xkatx]

"eggs" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
> news:EUeOc.177624$a24.166386@attbi_s03...
>
> > Trolls get no respect here. Get lost, idiot.
> >
>
> Actually, trolls get plenty of respect, they just have to be good ones
> ...
>
> eggs.
>
>
I had lots of Trolls when I was younger... Grade 4ish, this was, and I still
have them all in the little Troll bag I got from Santa when I was in gr. 4,
I think. I wanted Puppy Surprise that year, I remember, but I didn't tell
my parents, and only told Santa what I wanted. The Troll bag came in handy,
though... Anyone here remember Trolls? I think someone must... :'(

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

[Cele]

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 04:39:27 GMT, "xkatx" >
claimed:

>
>"eggs" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
>> news:EUeOc.177624$a24.166386@attbi_s03...
>>
>> > Trolls get no respect here. Get lost, idiot.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, trolls get plenty of respect, they just have to be good ones
>> ...
>>
>> eggs.
>>
>>
>I had lots of Trolls when I was younger... Grade 4ish, this was, and I still
>have them all in the little Troll bag I got from Santa when I was in gr. 4,
>I think. I wanted Puppy Surprise that year, I remember, but I didn't tell
>my parents, and only told Santa what I wanted. The Troll bag came in handy,
>though... Anyone here remember Trolls? I think someone must... :'(

I had trolls too, and that was in the mid-sixties! They've
been around at least a couple of times, I guess. I liked the
ones with pink hair. We used to play with them in the roots
of this huge old oak tree and pretend that the gnarls and
crevices were rooms and walls of woodland houses.

I'd forgotten about that.

Cele

[Donna Metler]

"xkatx" > wrote in message
news:3AjPc.152437$Mr4.51492@pd7tw1no...
>
> "eggs" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
> > news:EUeOc.177624$a24.166386@attbi_s03...
> >
> > > Trolls get no respect here. Get lost, idiot.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, trolls get plenty of respect, they just have to be good ones
> > ...
> >
> > eggs.
> >
> >
> I had lots of Trolls when I was younger... Grade 4ish, this was, and I
still
> have them all in the little Troll bag I got from Santa when I was in gr.
4,
> I think. I wanted Puppy Surprise that year, I remember, but I didn't tell
> my parents, and only told Santa what I wanted. The Troll bag came in
handy,
> though... Anyone here remember Trolls? I think someone must... :'(
>
We recently went through my MIL's house after he r death, and she must have
saved just about every toy her children were given from birth on (or at
least, the ones which hadn't been played with to destruction). One of the
things we found was a whole totebag full of trolls. So much cuter in the
pre-internet days!


> --
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
>
>

[Louise]

"Cele" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 04:39:27 GMT, "xkatx" >
> claimed:
>
> >
> >"eggs" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
> >> news:EUeOc.177624$a24.166386@attbi_s03...
> >>
> >> > Trolls get no respect here. Get lost, idiot.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually, trolls get plenty of respect, they just have to be good ones
> >> ...
> >>
> >> eggs.
> >>
> >>
> >I had lots of Trolls when I was younger... Grade 4ish, this was, and I
still
> >have them all in the little Troll bag I got from Santa when I was in gr.
4,
> >I think. I wanted Puppy Surprise that year, I remember, but I didn't
tell
> >my parents, and only told Santa what I wanted. The Troll bag came in
handy,
> >though... Anyone here remember Trolls? I think someone must... :'(
>
> I had trolls too, and that was in the mid-sixties! They've
> been around at least a couple of times, I guess. I liked the
> ones with pink hair. We used to play with them in the roots
> of this huge old oak tree and pretend that the gnarls and
> crevices were rooms and walls of woodland houses.
>
> I'd forgotten about that.
>
> Cele

Large trolls, small trolls, even trolls with gems in their bellies. I'd
almost forgotten them too. I use to love playing them and had a collection
of them all lined up on the bookshelf in my room. Best thing about those
trolls....they at least knew to keep silent ;-)

Louise

[Joelle]

> had lots of Trolls when I was younger... Grade 4ish, this was,

Oooh, I had trolls too, and a little plastic house that buckled up to keep them
in. And I made clothes for them out of felt and glue and I would brush their
hair....some of them had a jewl in their belly button

Joelle
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page - St
Augustine
Joelle

[Cele]

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 08:58:36 -0400, "Louise"
> claimed:

>"Cele" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 04:39:27 GMT, "xkatx" >
>> >I think. I wanted Puppy Surprise that year, I remember, but I didn't
>tell
>> >my parents, and only told Santa what I wanted. The Troll bag came in
>handy,
>> >though... Anyone here remember Trolls? I think someone must... :'(
>>
>> I >> claimed:
>>
>> >
>> >"eggs" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
>> >> news:EUeOc.177624$a24.166386@attbi_s03...
>> >>
>> >> > Trolls get no respect here. Get lost, idiot.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Actually, trolls get plenty of respect, they just have to be good ones
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> eggs.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >I had lots of Trolls when I was younger... Grade 4ish, this was, and I
>still
>> >have them all in the little Troll bag I got from Santa when I was in gr.
>4,
had trolls too, and that was in the mid-sixties! They've
>> been around at least a couple of times, I guess. I liked the
>> ones with pink hair. We used to play with them in the roots
>> of this huge old oak tree and pretend that the gnarls and
>> crevices were rooms and walls of woodland houses.
>>
>> I'd forgotten about that.
>>
>> Cele
>
>Large trolls, small trolls, even trolls with gems in their bellies. I'd
>almost forgotten them too. I use to love playing them and had a collection
>of them all lined up on the bookshelf in my room. Best thing about those
>trolls....they at least knew to keep silent ;-)
>
>Louise

Too true! They were friendly looking little things, as well.

Cele

[Ian]

"eggs" > wrote in message >...
> "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
> news:EUeOc.177624$a24.166386@attbi_s03...
>
> > Trolls get no respect here. Get lost, idiot.
> >
>
> Actually, trolls get plenty of respect, they just have to be good ones
> ...
>

What on earth do you mean by that?

> eggs.

[jitney]

I don't generally take a troll question seriously, but I can think of
one advantage to courting a single mom-you know how good or bad a
mother she is, rather than having to guess what kind she might
be.-Jitney

[Banty]

In article >, jitney says...
>
>I don't generally take a troll question seriously, but I can think of
>one advantage to courting a single mom-you know how good or bad a
>mother she is, rather than having to guess what kind she might
>be.-Jitney

Yep. And men had better hurry, lest she be courted by and marry a single father
whom she knows will be a good father already (and who, apparently, has escaped
the wrath of the OP).

Cheers,
Banty

[xkatx]

"jitney" > wrote in message
om...
> I don't generally take a troll question seriously, but I can think of
> one advantage to courting a single mom-you know how good or bad a
> mother she is, rather than having to guess what kind she might
> be.-Jitney

Well, on a somewhat serious note, I have a friend who has made the choice to
date a single mom. At first, I thought he was insane because when he told
me he dates single moms, I thought that it was mean and cruel, just because
I've found that B does get close and attached to my friends, both female AND
male. I figured my friend was a jerk to date only single moms because the
child(ren) would definitely get attached to him while he dates the mother,
but I guess I was wrong. He's been dating the same girl for a very, very
long time, and it seems to be a damn good relationship. I had really
misunderstood him at first and jumped to my own conclusion. (He does NOT go
around dating random single mothers, but has been dating the same girl)
His reasons for this? He does not want children of his own. He was raised
with his older sister by his mom and she had died when he was still young
and then raised by his grandparents. His dad was not around at all. My
friend said he believes that children need both male and female role models,
and he also feels that he should not be allowed to reproduce (even though I
believe that to be kind of a joke) and he's always said that the world is
already too over populated, so he'd much rather make a difference in a
child's life that is already here, rather than have children of his own.
This probably makes little sense, but you all know how I often try and still
make no sense.
Also, kind of along the lines of what Jitney said, I think I would,
personally, date a single father than a deadbeat one, because, yes, it gives
an idea of what kind of parent they already are, should any more children be
involved. (again, that makes no sense, but maybe the idea is there enough?)

Sorry, it's 9am, I'm still tired. :(


--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

[xkatx]

"Joelle" > wrote in message
...
> > had lots of Trolls when I was younger... Grade 4ish, this was,
>
> Oooh, I had trolls too, and a little plastic house that buckled up to keep
them
> in. And I made clothes for them out of felt and glue and I would brush
their
> hair....some of them had a jewl in their belly button
>
> Joelle
> The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page - St
> Augustine
> Joelle



OOOOOOH!!!! THE MEMORIES!!!!!!!!

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

[WT]

On 29 Jul 2004 14:10:00 -0700, (Mean Mr Mustard)
wrote:

>Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors,
>coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you.
>Nothing but a sucker raising another dude's progeny.
>
>You will have more respect with a mail order bride.

Call single mothers what they are, losers.

[Byron Canfield]

"WT" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 Jul 2004 14:10:00 -0700, (Mean Mr Mustard)
> wrote:
>
> >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors,
> >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you.
> >Nothing but a sucker raising another dude's progeny.
> >
> >You will have more respect with a mail order bride.
>
> Call single mothers what they are, losers.

If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive
achievement.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Autobodygal]

I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you are a
simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are the men
that can not be man enough to support the children that they have created.
Single mothers should be applauded.


"Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
news:HzsQc.78381$8_6.20487@attbi_s04...
> "WT" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 29 Jul 2004 14:10:00 -0700, (Mean Mr Mustard)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors,
> > >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you.
> > >Nothing but a sucker raising another dude's progeny.
> > >
> > >You will have more respect with a mail order bride.
> >
> > Call single mothers what they are, losers.
>
> If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive
> achievement.
>
>
> --
> "There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
> those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
> -----------------------------
> Byron "Barn" Canfield
>
>

[Zoey]

"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
.com...
> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you are a
> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are the
men
> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have created.
> Single mothers should be applauded.

I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause mothers
to be single mothers. At least, that's the situation for me. No one
understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it. For
myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be raised
because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility and
could only be a bad influence on my son. But it still hurts me when I see a
couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having something
as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.



>
>
> "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
> news:HzsQc.78381$8_6.20487@attbi_s04...
> > "WT" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 29 Jul 2004 14:10:00 -0700, (Mean Mr Mustard)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors,
> > > >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you.
> > > >Nothing but a sucker raising another dude's progeny.
> > > >
> > > >You will have more respect with a mail order bride.
> > >
> > > Call single mothers what they are, losers.
> >
> > If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive
> > achievement.
> >
> >
> > --
> > "There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
> > those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
> > -----------------------------
> > Byron "Barn" Canfield
> >
> >
>
>

[Sour Kraut]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:

>
>"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
.com...
>> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you are a
>> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
>> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are the
>men
>> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have created.
>> Single mothers should be applauded.
>
> I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
>yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause mothers
>to be single mothers. At least, that's the situation for me. No one
>understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it. For
>myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be raised
>because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility and
>could only be a bad influence on my son. But it still hurts me when I see a
>couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having something
>as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
>
>
Some times you people really amaze me. Always excuses always
justification, ya'd figure you'd get a clue eventually but I guess
that is physically impossible.

Oh well, **** off then. What a ****ing waste...
>
>>
>>
>> "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
>> news:HzsQc.78381$8_6.20487@attbi_s04...
>> > "WT" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > On 29 Jul 2004 14:10:00 -0700, (Mean Mr Mustard)
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors,
>> > > >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you.
>> > > >Nothing but a sucker raising another dude's progeny.
>> > > >
>> > > >You will have more respect with a mail order bride.
>> > >
>> > > Call single mothers what they are, losers.
>> >
>> > If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive
>> > achievement.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > "There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
>> > those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
>> > -----------------------------
>> > Byron "Barn" Canfield
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

[P. Fritz]

"Zoey" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> .com...
> > I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
are a
> > simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
> > different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
the
> men
> > that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
created.
> > Single mothers should be applauded.
>
> I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
> yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
mothers
> to be single mothers.

you've just proved yourself to be a complete moron with that statement.


> At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
For
> myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
raised
> because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility
and
> could only be a bad influence on my son. But it still hurts me when I
see a
> couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having
something
> as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
> > news:HzsQc.78381$8_6.20487@attbi_s04...
> > > "WT" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On 29 Jul 2004 14:10:00 -0700, (Mean Mr
Mustard)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends,
neighbors,
> > > > >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you.
> > > > >Nothing but a sucker raising another dude's progeny.
> > > > >
> > > > >You will have more respect with a mail order bride.
> > > >
> > > > Call single mothers what they are, losers.
> > >
> > > If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive
> > > achievement.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
> > > those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
> > > -----------------------------
> > > Byron "Barn" Canfield
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Paco]

Marriage is unnatural for men. After a few months (at most) there's no
romance,it all becomes work and it's goodbye to your life. If you want
to marry wait until you're about 60 then get a girl of 20 who you can
train. An intelligent and submissive girl is the best.



> I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
> yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause mothers
> to be single mothers.

YOU caused the problem by not using birth control and/or making a bad
mating choice.


At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it. For
> myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be raised
> because his father is an idiot

He says YOU"RE the idiot.



who didn't want to take responsibility and
> could only be a bad influence on my son. But it still hurts me when I see a
> couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having something
> as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
> > news:HzsQc.78381$8_6.20487@attbi_s04...
> > > "WT" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On 29 Jul 2004 14:10:00 -0700, (Mean Mr Mustard)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors,
> > > > >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you.
> > > > >Nothing but a sucker raising another dude's progeny.
> > > > >
> > > > >You will have more respect with a mail order bride.
> > > >
> > > > Call single mothers what they are, losers.
> > >
> > > If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive
> > > achievement.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
> > > those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
> > > -----------------------------
> > > Byron "Barn" Canfield
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

[Paco]

Marriage is unnatural for men. After a few months (at most) there's no
romance,it all becomes work and it's goodbye to your life. If you want
to marry wait until you're about 60 then get a girl of 20 who you can
train. An intelligent and submissive girl is the best.



> I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
> yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause mothers
> to be single mothers.

YOU caused the problem by not using birth control and/or making a bad
mating choice.


At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it. For
> myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be raised
> because his father is an idiot

He says YOU"RE the idiot.



who didn't want to take responsibility and
> could only be a bad influence on my son. But it still hurts me when I see a
> couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having something
> as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
> > news:HzsQc.78381$8_6.20487@attbi_s04...
> > > "WT" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On 29 Jul 2004 14:10:00 -0700, (Mean Mr Mustard)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors,
> > > > >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you.
> > > > >Nothing but a sucker raising another dude's progeny.
> > > > >
> > > > >You will have more respect with a mail order bride.
> > > >
> > > > Call single mothers what they are, losers.
> > >
> > > If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive
> > > achievement.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
> > > those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
> > > -----------------------------
> > > Byron "Barn" Canfield
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

[howldog]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:

>
>"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
.com...
>> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you are a
>> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
>> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are the
>men
>> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have created.
>> Single mothers should be applauded.
>
> I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
>yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause mothers
>to be single mothers.


nice sexist self-excusal. do another.


>At least, that's the situation for me.


that didnt take long.



No one
>understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.


probly right about that. In my own case, my ex-wife and i pretty much
just werent happy with each other; i told her i'd stick around for the
kid but she didnt want that, so she took the kid, and the courts
wouldnt let me stop her. That doesnt make me a pathetic loser, and i
knwo several guys who suffered the same situation as me, and i wouldnt
label them losers either.

[Deb]

"Zoey" > wrote in message >...
> "Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> .com...
> > I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you are a
> > simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
> > different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are the
> men
> > that can not be man enough to support the children that they have created.
> > Single mothers should be applauded.
>
> I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
> yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause mothers
> to be single mothers.

And yet, the losers are still chosen over the nice guys, and hold onto your hat,
it's women CHOOSING losers. Myself included.

At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it. For
> myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be raised
> because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility and
> could only be a bad influence on my son.

I hope you don't say this to your son or around him. Kids aren't stupid, they
realize their half of each parent, when you badmouth his dad, your badmouthing
him.


But it still hurts me when I see a
> couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having something
> as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
>
Yes it is hard.
debi - lurker



>
>
> >
> >
> > "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
> > news:HzsQc.78381$8_6.20487@attbi_s04...
> > > "WT" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On 29 Jul 2004 14:10:00 -0700, (Mean Mr Mustard)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors,
> > > > >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you.
> > > > >Nothing but a sucker raising another dude's progeny.
> > > > >
> > > > >You will have more respect with a mail order bride.
> > > >
> > > > Call single mothers what they are, losers.
> > >
> > > If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive
> > > achievement.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
> > > those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
> > > -----------------------------
> > > Byron "Barn" Canfield
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

[Zoey]

"Sour Kraut" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
are a
> >> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
> >> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
the
> >men
> >> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
created.
> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
> >
> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
mothers
> >to be single mothers. At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it. For
> >myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
raised
> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility and
> >could only be a bad influence on my son. But it still hurts me when I
see a
> >couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having
something
> >as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
> >
> >
> Some times you people really amaze me. Always excuses always
> justification, ya'd figure you'd get a clue eventually but I guess
> that is physically impossible.
>
> Oh well, **** off then. What a ****ing waste...

What "excuse" did you find in my post?

Oh, and if you don't want to read about single parents - why don't you do
the ****ing off then and not read threads from the alt.single-parents ng?

[Zoey]

"P. Fritz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zoey" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> > .com...
> > > I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
> are a
> > > simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot
of
> > > different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
> the
> > men
> > > that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
> created.
> > > Single mothers should be applauded.
> >
> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron
and
> > yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
> mothers
> > to be single mothers.
>
> you've just proved yourself to be a complete moron with that statement.

Really? How so?
So, what you're saying is that men who take off and don't take
responsibility for their children do not increase the amount of single
mothers in the world?

And you're calling me a moron! Funny.

[Zoey]

"Paco" > wrote in message
om...
> Marriage is unnatural for men. After a few months (at most) there's no
> romance,it all becomes work and it's goodbye to your life. If you want
> to marry wait until you're about 60 then get a girl of 20 who you can
> train. An intelligent and submissive girl is the best.
>
>
>
> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
> > yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
mothers
> > to be single mothers.
>
> YOU caused the problem by not using birth control and/or making a bad
> mating choice.

What "problem"? I don't remember mentioning my child being a "problem"
of any kind.

Um, not sure if you're so educated about the facts of life but, well, I
don't know how to break this to you but men also have a responsibility to
use birth control. But, you probably missed that day of sex ed. in school
right?



> At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> > understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
For
> > myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
raised
> > because his father is an idiot
>
> He says YOU"RE the idiot.

You must be a deadbeat dad. Hope you're proud of it. Consider yourself
lucky that someone was willing to procreate with you and unfortunately let
your gene pool carry on a little longer.

[Zoey]

"Gwenhyffar Milgi" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>
> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility and
> >could only be a bad influence on my son.
>
> Oh yes, the world's greatest catch! The woman who CHOSE to have a
> child with an idiot!

I didn't know he was an idiot at the time. My mistake. I still have no
regrets.

[Zoey]

"howldog" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
are a
> >> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
> >> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
the
> >men
> >> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
created.
> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
> >
> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
mothers
> >to be single mothers.
>
>
> nice sexist self-excusal. do another.
>
>
> >At least, that's the situation for me.
>
>
> that didnt take long.
>
>
>
> No one
> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
>
>
> probly right about that. In my own case, my ex-wife and i pretty much
> just werent happy with each other; i told her i'd stick around for the
> kid but she didnt want that, so she took the kid, and the courts
> wouldnt let me stop her. That doesnt make me a pathetic loser, and i
> knwo several guys who suffered the same situation as me, and i wouldnt
> label them losers either.

Read carefully before going on the defensive. I'm sorry your ex wife
took your kids from you but I didn't say that ALL men are pathetic losers
who cause mothers to be single, I said "for the most part". I'm also aware
that there are single fathers out there who are doing the same job as single
mothers and should be commended just as well. I'll also say this - courts
more often than not side with the mother on custody issues and this is not
always right either.

[rpm]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:06:49 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:

>
>"Sour Kraut" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
>> .com...
>> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
>are a
>> >> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
>> >> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
>the
>> >men
>> >> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
>created.
>> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
>> >
>> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
>> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
>mothers
>> >to be single mothers. At least, that's the situation for me. No one
>> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it. For
>> >myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
>raised
>> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility and
>> >could only be a bad influence on my son. But it still hurts me when I
>see a
>> >couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having
>something
>> >as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
>> >
>> >
>> Some times you people really amaze me. Always excuses always
>> justification, ya'd figure you'd get a clue eventually but I guess
>> that is physically impossible.
>>
>> Oh well, **** off then. What a ****ing waste...
>
> What "excuse" did you find in my post?
>
>Oh, and if you don't want to read about single parents - why don't you do
>the ****ing off then and not read threads from the alt.single-parents ng?
>
Who said he's readinf it from alt.single-parents? It's posted to
alt.support.childfree,soc.men,misc.kids,alt.suppor t.single-parents.
This is a perfectly valid discussison for soc.men.

[Zoey]

"Deb" > wrote in message
m...
> "Zoey" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> > .com...
> > > I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
are a
> > > simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
> > > different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
the
> > men
> > > that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
created.
> > > Single mothers should be applauded.
> >
> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
> > yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
mothers
> > to be single mothers.
>
> And yet, the losers are still chosen over the nice guys, and hold onto
your hat,
> it's women CHOOSING losers. Myself included.

Well, it's not like I knew he was a loser. Many losers can be very
charming and seem sincere. Some are even nice guys until they realize the
responsibility a child brings into their lives and they turn into losers
when the run for cover.


> At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> > understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
For
> > myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
raised
> > because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility
and
> > could only be a bad influence on my son.
>
> I hope you don't say this to your son or around him. Kids aren't stupid,
they
> realize their half of each parent, when you badmouth his dad, your
badmouthing
> him.

I never bad mouth my son's father in front of him or around him. That's
one of the reasons I was looking for a newsgroup with people who may be able
to relate to what I'm going through. When my son brings up his father or
says he wants to see his father I tell him that Daddy is very busy working
now. What else am I suppose to say? I tell him is father loves him but
can't spend time with him right now. Sooner or later though my son will
figure out the truth about his father. I just hope he doesn't resent me for
lying to him now. In the meantime I tell my son how precious and beatiful
he is and how so many people love him.

How old is your kid?

> But it still hurts me when I see a
> > couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having
something
> > as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
> >
> Yes it is hard.
> debi - lurker

[Timothy]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:06:49 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:

>
>"Sour Kraut" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
>> .com...
>> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
>are a
>> >> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
>> >> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
>the
>> >men
>> >> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
>created.
>> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
>> >
>> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
>> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
>mothers
>> >to be single mothers. At least, that's the situation for me. No one
>> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it. For
>> >myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
>raised
>> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility and
>> >could only be a bad influence on my son. But it still hurts me when I
>see a
>> >couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having
>something
>> >as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
>> >
>> >
>> Some times you people really amaze me. Always excuses always
>> justification, ya'd figure you'd get a clue eventually but I guess
>> that is physically impossible.
>>
>> Oh well, **** off then. What a ****ing waste...
>
> What "excuse" did you find in my post?
>
>Oh, and if you don't want to read about single parents - why don't you do
>the ****ing off then and not read threads from the alt.single-parents ng?
>
Don't even see it, incredible and I guess laughable.

**** it!!! and ****ing off right now.

[Betsy]

> I never bad mouth my son's father in front of him or around him.
That's
> one of the reasons I was looking for a newsgroup with people who may be
able
> to relate to what I'm going through. When my son brings up his father or
> says he wants to see his father I tell him that Daddy is very busy working
> now. What else am I suppose to say? I tell him is father loves him but
> can't spend time with him right now. Sooner or later though my son will
> figure out the truth about his father. I just hope he doesn't resent me
for
> lying to him now. In the meantime I tell my son how precious and beatiful
> he is and how so many people love him.
>
So you are saying, you make no effort whatsoever to allow your child to see
his father? You have made no attempt to contact your child's father for
visitation? I know I had issues with my son's father, and he made attempts
to NOT see his child for periods of time, but when he called, my son went
with his dad. When my son wanted to talk to Daddy, I called him up. When
my ex-husband decided to terminate his parental rights, because of other
legal issues, I was as honest as I could be to my son. He was six years old
at the time. I do not believe that lying to your child is appropriate. I
don't mean telling him the cold hard truth, but something he can understand.
I told my son, "Daddy has some problems right now, and decided that he
couldn't visit with you for awhile." He accepted that. The fact remains,
my son got the truth without being told, "Daddy doesn't want you anymore,"
or "You weren't important enough in Daddy's life," or whatever perceptions I
had at the time. This wasn't and isn't about ME it's about my child.
Please bear that in mind; it's better to work toward the best interest of
your child than your own personal angry agenda.

Betsy



> How old is your kid?
>

>
>

[Byron Canfield]

"Sour Kraut" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> .com...
> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
mothers
> >to be single mothers. At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it. For
> >myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
raised
> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility and
> >could only be a bad influence on my son. But it still hurts me when I
see a
> >couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having
something
> >as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
> >
> >
> Some times you people really amaze me. Always excuses always
> justification, ya'd figure you'd get a clue eventually but I guess
> that is physically impossible.

A clue? YOU talk about getting a clue? That's a laugh! Your just another
anonymous coward who lost his woman, and so now you must run down all women.
The reason you lost her in the first place is that you never had any respect
for women in the first place, asshole.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Byron Canfield]

"Timothy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:06:49 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sour Kraut" > wrote in
message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> >> .com...
> >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
> >are a
> >> >> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot
of
> >> >> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
> >the
> >> >men
> >> >> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
> >created.
> >> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
> >> >
> >> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron
and
> >> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
> >mothers
> >> >to be single mothers. At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> >> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
For
> >> >myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
> >raised
> >> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility
and
> >> >could only be a bad influence on my son. But it still hurts me when I
> >see a
> >> >couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having
> >something
> >> >as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Some times you people really amaze me. Always excuses always
> >> justification, ya'd figure you'd get a clue eventually but I guess
> >> that is physically impossible.
> >>
> >> Oh well, **** off then. What a ****ing waste...
> >
> > What "excuse" did you find in my post?
> >
> >Oh, and if you don't want to read about single parents - why don't you do
> >the ****ing off then and not read threads from the alt.single-parents ng?
> >
> Don't even see it, incredible and I guess laughable.
>
> **** it!!! and ****ing off right now.

Oh, your just so clever -- and I'll bet you think you invented the sock
puppet, too. You're just an anonymous coward.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Byron Canfield]

"P. Fritz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zoey" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> > .com...
> > > I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
> are a
> > > simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot
of
> > > different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
> the
> > men
> > > that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
> created.
> > > Single mothers should be applauded.
> >
> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron
and
> > yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
> mothers
> > to be single mothers.
>
> you've just proved yourself to be a complete moron with that statement.

There's no proof of that in the statement, and by claiming that such a
conclusion is evident from that statement, you have just poven YOURSELF to
be the moron.

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Byron Canfield]

"Paco" > wrote in message
om...
> Marriage is unnatural for men. After a few months (at most) there's no
> romance,it all becomes work and it's goodbye to your life. If you want
> to marry wait until you're about 60 then get a girl of 20 who you can
> train. An intelligent and submissive girl is the best.
>
>
>
> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
> > yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
mothers
> > to be single mothers.
>
> YOU caused the problem by not using birth control and/or making a bad
> mating choice.
>
>
> At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> > understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
For
> > myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
raised
> > because his father is an idiot
>
> He says YOU"RE the idiot.

Do your parents know you're using the computer? Perhaps you should have some
supervision when you do, as you are obviously too immature to be involved in
discussion groups.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Byron Canfield]

"Gwenhyffar Milgi" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>
> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility and
> >could only be a bad influence on my son.
>
> Oh yes, the world's greatest catch! The woman who CHOSE to have a
> child with an idiot!
>
>
> --
> "My candle burns at both ends; it will not last the night
> but ah my foes and oh my friends -- it gives a lovely light"

Many, such as yourself, can disguise their idiocy, for limited stretches.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Byron Canfield]

"howldog" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
are a
> >> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
> >> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
the
> >men
> >> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
created.
> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
> >
> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
mothers
> >to be single mothers.
>
>
> nice sexist self-excusal. do another.
>
>
> >At least, that's the situation for me.
>
>
> that didnt take long.
>
>
>
> No one
> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
>
>
> probly right about that. In my own case, my ex-wife and i pretty much
> just werent happy with each other; i told her i'd stick around for the
> kid but she didnt want that, so she took the kid, and the courts
> wouldnt let me stop her. That doesnt make me a pathetic loser, and i
> knwo several guys who suffered the same situation as me, and i wouldnt
> label them losers either.

Your anecdotal situation (ONE situation) does not, however, render all
single mothers as losers.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Byron Canfield]

"Deb" > wrote in message
m...
> "Zoey" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> > .com...
> > > I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
are a
> > > simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
> > > different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
the
> > men
> > > that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
created.
> > > Single mothers should be applauded.
> >
> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
> > yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
mothers
> > to be single mothers.
>
> And yet, the losers are still chosen over the nice guys, and hold onto
your hat,
> it's women CHOOSING losers. Myself included.
>
> At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> > understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
For
> > myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
raised
> > because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility
and
> > could only be a bad influence on my son.
>
> I hope you don't say this to your son or around him. Kids aren't stupid,
they
> realize their half of each parent, when you badmouth his dad, your
badmouthing
> him.

More important is to discuss how, though genetically half of each parent, a
person is NOT comprised of the behaviors of both parents. The behavior is by
choice, not genetic. Criticizing the behavior of the father (or the mother)
does NOT cast aspersions on the child.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Timothy]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:22:17 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> wrote:

>"Timothy" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:06:49 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Sour Kraut" > wrote in
>message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
>> >> .com...
>> >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
>> >are a
>> >> >> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot
>of
>> >> >> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
>> >the
>> >> >men
>> >> >> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
>> >created.
>> >> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
>> >> >
>> >> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron
>and
>> >> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
>> >mothers
>> >> >to be single mothers. At least, that's the situation for me. No one
>> >> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
>For
>> >> >myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
>> >raised
>> >> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility
>and
>> >> >could only be a bad influence on my son. But it still hurts me when I
>> >see a
>> >> >couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having
>> >something
>> >> >as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Some times you people really amaze me. Always excuses always
>> >> justification, ya'd figure you'd get a clue eventually but I guess
>> >> that is physically impossible.
>> >>
>> >> Oh well, **** off then. What a ****ing waste...
>> >
>> > What "excuse" did you find in my post?
>> >
>> >Oh, and if you don't want to read about single parents - why don't you do
>> >the ****ing off then and not read threads from the alt.single-parents ng?
>> >
>> Don't even see it, incredible and I guess laughable.
>>
>> **** it!!! and ****ing off right now.
>
>Oh, your just so clever -- and I'll bet you think you invented the sock
>puppet, too. You're just an anonymous coward.

Woohoo!!! The unbias middle ground comes to save the day. Offering
incite and common denominator. YOU FAIL IT!!!! Freak

[howldog]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:18:57 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:

>
>"howldog" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
>> .com...
>> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
>are a
>> >> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
>> >> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
>the
>> >men
>> >> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
>created.
>> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
>> >
>> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
>> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
>mothers
>> >to be single mothers.
>>
>>
>> nice sexist self-excusal. do another.
>>
>>
>> >At least, that's the situation for me.
>>
>>
>> that didnt take long.
>>
>>
>>
>> No one
>> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
>>
>>
>> probly right about that. In my own case, my ex-wife and i pretty much
>> just werent happy with each other; i told her i'd stick around for the
>> kid but she didnt want that, so she took the kid, and the courts
>> wouldnt let me stop her. That doesnt make me a pathetic loser, and i
>> knwo several guys who suffered the same situation as me, and i wouldnt
>> label them losers either.
>
> Read carefully before going on the defensive. I'm sorry your ex wife
>took your kids from you but I didn't say that ALL men are pathetic losers
>who cause mothers to be single, I said "for the most part".



AGAIN, thats sexist as hell, and just as bad. "For the most part men
are pathetic losers". Gee. thats a lot more comforting. LOL

**** you.



I'm also aware
>that there are single fathers out there who are doing the same job as single
>mothers and should be commended just as well. I'll also say this - courts
>more often than not side with the mother on custody issues and this is not
>always right either.
>

[howldog]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:22:18 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> wrote:

>"howldog" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
>> .com...
>> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
>are a
>> >> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
>> >> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
>the
>> >men
>> >> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
>created.
>> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
>> >
>> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
>> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
>mothers
>> >to be single mothers.
>>
>>
>> nice sexist self-excusal. do another.
>>
>>
>> >At least, that's the situation for me.
>>
>>
>> that didnt take long.
>>
>>
>>
>> No one
>> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
>>
>>
>> probly right about that. In my own case, my ex-wife and i pretty much
>> just werent happy with each other; i told her i'd stick around for the
>> kid but she didnt want that, so she took the kid, and the courts
>> wouldnt let me stop her. That doesnt make me a pathetic loser, and i
>> knwo several guys who suffered the same situation as me, and i wouldnt
>> label them losers either.
>
>Your anecdotal situation (ONE situation) does not, however, render all
>single mothers as losers.



I did not say they were. I would never say such a thing. People are
individuals and should be judged as such.

[Zoe]

"rpm" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:06:49 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sour Kraut" > wrote in
message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> >> .com...
> >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
> >are a
> >> >> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot
of
> >> >> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
> >the
> >> >men
> >> >> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
> >created.
> >> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
> >> >
> >> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron
and
> >> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
> >mothers
> >> >to be single mothers. At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> >> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
For
> >> >myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
> >raised
> >> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility
and
> >> >could only be a bad influence on my son. But it still hurts me when I
> >see a
> >> >couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having
> >something
> >> >as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Some times you people really amaze me. Always excuses always
> >> justification, ya'd figure you'd get a clue eventually but I guess
> >> that is physically impossible.
> >>
> >> Oh well, **** off then. What a ****ing waste...
> >
> > What "excuse" did you find in my post?
> >
> >Oh, and if you don't want to read about single parents - why don't you do
> >the ****ing off then and not read threads from the alt.single-parents ng?
> >
> Who said he's readinf it from alt.single-parents? It's posted to
> alt.support.childfree,soc.men,misc.kids,alt.suppor t.single-parents.
> This is a perfectly valid discussison for soc.men.

I'm pretty sure he knows he's crossposting. He should take
alt.support.single-parents out.

[Zoe]

"Timothy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:06:49 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sour Kraut" > wrote in
message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> >> .com...
> >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
> >are a
> >> >> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot
of
> >> >> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
> >the
> >> >men
> >> >> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
> >created.
> >> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
> >> >
> >> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron
and
> >> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
> >mothers
> >> >to be single mothers. At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> >> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
For
> >> >myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
> >raised
> >> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility
and
> >> >could only be a bad influence on my son. But it still hurts me when I
> >see a
> >> >couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having
> >something
> >> >as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Some times you people really amaze me. Always excuses always
> >> justification, ya'd figure you'd get a clue eventually but I guess
> >> that is physically impossible.
> >>
> >> Oh well, **** off then. What a ****ing waste...
> >
> > What "excuse" did you find in my post?
> >
> >Oh, and if you don't want to read about single parents - why don't you do
> >the ****ing off then and not read threads from the alt.single-parents ng?
> >
> Don't even see it, incredible and I guess laughable.
>
> **** it!!! and ****ing off right now.

You'll be missed.

[Zoe]

"Betsy" > wrote in message
...
>
> > I never bad mouth my son's father in front of him or around him.
> That's
> > one of the reasons I was looking for a newsgroup with people who may be
> able
> > to relate to what I'm going through. When my son brings up his father
or
> > says he wants to see his father I tell him that Daddy is very busy
working
> > now. What else am I suppose to say? I tell him is father loves him but
> > can't spend time with him right now. Sooner or later though my son will
> > figure out the truth about his father. I just hope he doesn't resent me
> for
> > lying to him now. In the meantime I tell my son how precious and
beatiful
> > he is and how so many people love him.
> >
> So you are saying, you make no effort whatsoever to allow your child to
see
> his father? You have made no attempt to contact your child's father for
> visitation? I know I had issues with my son's father, and he made
attempts
> to NOT see his child for periods of time, but when he called, my son went
> with his dad. When my son wanted to talk to Daddy, I called him up. When
> my ex-husband decided to terminate his parental rights, because of other
> legal issues, I was as honest as I could be to my son. He was six years
old
> at the time. I do not believe that lying to your child is appropriate. I
> don't mean telling him the cold hard truth, but something he can
understand.
> I told my son, "Daddy has some problems right now, and decided that he
> couldn't visit with you for awhile." He accepted that. The fact remains,
> my son got the truth without being told, "Daddy doesn't want you anymore,"
> or "You weren't important enough in Daddy's life," or whatever perceptions
I
> had at the time. This wasn't and isn't about ME it's about my child.
> Please bear that in mind; it's better to work toward the best interest of
> your child than your own personal angry agenda.
>
> Betsy

I've never told my son's father that he can't see my son. He simply
stated, about three months ago, that he wants nothing to do with his son.
This is not the first time he's done this. Whenever he's angry at me he
takes off and doesn't want contact with me or my son at all. This time he
was angry because he was suppose to drop off my son after a visitation and
he was hours late and I got upset and told him that he should at least call
if he's going to be that late. Last time it was because he was driving
around with our son without using the baby seat and I told him that wasn't
safe. He doesn't return my phone calls so I can't call him. My son is only
2 years old and he won't understand if I tell him Daddy has problems right
now. He understands that his father goes to work everyday so I tell him
that his father is working. I really don't know what else I can tell him.

I'm not sure how I'm suppose to make an effort for my son's father to
see him. If he doesn't want to see our son, there's nothing I can do about.
I'm also not sure how healthy it is for my son to have a father around for a
couple of weeks and then have no father for months. I feel as though I'm
held hostage and that unless I bend to every whim of his, he will take off
and our son because he is mad at me. I put up with a lot from that guy
because I was afraid to tell him anything that might make him mad for the
sake of our son but I don't think being a carpet for this guy is helping
anyone, including my son.

[Zoe]

"howldog" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:18:57 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"howldog" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> >> .com...
> >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
> >are a
> >> >> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot
of
> >> >> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
> >the
> >> >men
> >> >> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
> >created.
> >> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
> >> >
> >> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron
and
> >> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
> >mothers
> >> >to be single mothers.
> >>
> >>
> >> nice sexist self-excusal. do another.
> >>
> >>
> >> >At least, that's the situation for me.
> >>
> >>
> >> that didnt take long.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No one
> >> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
> >>
> >>
> >> probly right about that. In my own case, my ex-wife and i pretty much
> >> just werent happy with each other; i told her i'd stick around for the
> >> kid but she didnt want that, so she took the kid, and the courts
> >> wouldnt let me stop her. That doesnt make me a pathetic loser, and i
> >> knwo several guys who suffered the same situation as me, and i wouldnt
> >> label them losers either.
> >
> > Read carefully before going on the defensive. I'm sorry your ex wife
> >took your kids from you but I didn't say that ALL men are pathetic losers
> >who cause mothers to be single, I said "for the most part".
>
>
>
> AGAIN, thats sexist as hell, and just as bad. "For the most part men
> are pathetic losers". Gee. thats a lot more comforting. LOL
>
> **** you.

I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are the
pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not sexist.

I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked about
single fathers. See the below paragraph.

> I'm also aware
> >that there are single fathers out there who are doing the same job as
single
> >mothers and should be commended just as well. I'll also say this -
courts
> >more often than not side with the mother on custody issues and this is
not
> >always right either.

[Nan]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
scribbled:

> I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are the
>pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not sexist.

Uhm, yes, it's very sexist. On what do you base this claim?

> I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked about
>single fathers. See the below paragraph.

It's usenet. There is no requirement to respond to every part of a
post. Most often, someone who's in agreement with you will not
necessarily respond to that statement.

Nan

[Sky KIng]

In article >,
says...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
> scribbled:
>
> > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are the
> >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not sexist.


LOL...its within the women's power to NOT get pregnant...they have
better birth control choices then do men and they have more pre-birth
and post-birth choices. Give men just the same post-birth choices
unless you are a sexist and you think women deserve special treatment
and laws just for them.
>
> Uhm, yes, it's very sexist. On what do you base this claim?
>
> > I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked about
> >single fathers. See the below paragraph.
>
> It's usenet. There is no requirement to respond to every part of a
> post. Most often, someone who's in agreement with you will not
> necessarily respond to that statement.
>
> Nan
>

[Banty]

In article >, Gwenhyffar Milgi
says...
>
>On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:14:36 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gwenhyffar Milgi" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility and
>>> >could only be a bad influence on my son.
>>>
>>> Oh yes, the world's greatest catch! The woman who CHOSE to have a
>>> child with an idiot!
>>
>> I didn't know he was an idiot at the time. My mistake. I still have no
>>regrets.
>>
>
>Oh wow, even better, you didn't even wait to find out if he was an
>idiot or not before breeding with him.
>
>


The Ministry of Reproduction has decreed!

Banty

[howldog]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" > wrote:


>
> I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are the
>pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not sexist.


yes it is. that you cannot see it to be sexist, is even MORE sexist.


>
> I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked about
>single fathers. See the below paragraph.
>
>> I'm also aware
>> >that there are single fathers out there who are doing the same job as
>single
>> >mothers and should be commended just as well. I'll also say this -
>courts
>> >more often than not side with the mother on custody issues and this is
>not
>> >always right either.
>

i agree.

[Timothy]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:17:51 GMT, Sky KIng > wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
>> scribbled:
>>
>> > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are the
>> >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not sexist.
>
>
>LOL...its within the women's power to NOT get pregnant...they have
>better birth control choices then do men and they have more pre-birth
>and post-birth choices. Give men just the same post-birth choices
>unless you are a sexist and you think women deserve special treatment
>and laws just for them.

It's called entrapment and women use it all the time. Men can rape
women through coercion and women cannot. To add insult in injury male
rape victims are punished a through obligation and hopefully someday
knowledge of the fact the mother of his child is a rapist.


>>
>> Uhm, yes, it's very sexist. On what do you base this claim?
>>
>> > I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked about
>> >single fathers. See the below paragraph.
>>
>> It's usenet. There is no requirement to respond to every part of a
>> post. Most often, someone who's in agreement with you will not
>> necessarily respond to that statement.
>>
>> Nan
>>

[Banty]

In article <KGoVc.7486$9d6.7287@attbi_s54>, Byron Canfield says...
>
>"howldog" > wrote in message

>> No one
>> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
>>
>>
>> probly right about that. In my own case, my ex-wife and i pretty much
>> just werent happy with each other; i told her i'd stick around for the
>> kid but she didnt want that, so she took the kid, and the courts
>> wouldnt let me stop her. That doesnt make me a pathetic loser, and i
>> knwo several guys who suffered the same situation as me, and i wouldnt
>> label them losers either.
>
>Your anecdotal situation (ONE situation) does not, however, render all
>single mothers as losers.
>
>

Possibly, he doesn't have custody for reasons which are related to all the "****
You" and other acting up we're seeing here. Anger and/or control problems.

So his situation may not be an abberation.

Banty

[Deb]

"Zoey" > wrote in message >...
> "Deb" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Zoey" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> > > .com...
> > > > I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
> are a
> > > > simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot of
> > > > different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
> the
> men
> > > > that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
> created.
> > > > Single mothers should be applauded.
> > >
> > > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron and
> > > yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
> mothers
> > > to be single mothers.
> >
> > And yet, the losers are still chosen over the nice guys, and hold onto
> your hat,
> > it's women CHOOSING losers. Myself included.
>
> Well, it's not like I knew he was a loser. Many losers can be very
> charming and seem sincere. Some are even nice guys until they realize the
> responsibility a child brings into their lives and they turn into losers
> when the run for cover.
>
Fair enough, as for me, looking back though, there were red flags waving all
over the place. I didn't want to see them. Anyway my point was jerks come in
both sexes. We can speak from our own experience, but to tar 'all or most'
with the same brush is unfair.


>
> > At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> > > understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
> For
> > > myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
> raised
> > > because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility
> and
> > > could only be a bad influence on my son.
> >
> > I hope you don't say this to your son or around him. Kids aren't stupid,
> they
> > realize their half of each parent, when you badmouth his dad, your
> badmouthing
> > him.
>
> I never bad mouth my son's father in front of him or around him. That's
> one of the reasons I was looking for a newsgroup with people who may be able
> to relate to what I'm going through. When my son brings up his father or
> says he wants to see his father I tell him that Daddy is very busy working
> now. What else am I suppose to say? I tell him is father loves him but
> can't spend time with him right now. Sooner or later though my son will
> figure out the truth about his father. I just hope he doesn't resent me for
> lying to him now. In the meantime I tell my son how precious and beatiful
> he is and how so many people love him.
>
I'm only a lurker, but the regulars seem very supportive. I don't know how old
your son is, I tried making excuses, but i'm a bad liar. My boys are 9 and 10
and I tell them to ask him, when they have questions. They haven't bought the
'he's working' in a long time. Kids know when adults are lying, it diminishes
their opinion of you, even if your doing it for their own good. Does he see or
talk to his dad at all?

Debi


> How old is your kid?
>
> > But it still hurts me when I see a
> > > couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having
> something
> > > as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
> > >
> > Yes it is hard.
> > debi - lurker

[Nan]

On 20 Aug 2004 12:38:32 -0700, Banty >
scribbled:

>In article <KGoVc.7486$9d6.7287@attbi_s54>, Byron Canfield says...
>>
>>"howldog" > wrote in message
>
>>> No one
>>> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
>>>
>>>
>>> probly right about that. In my own case, my ex-wife and i pretty much
>>> just werent happy with each other; i told her i'd stick around for the
>>> kid but she didnt want that, so she took the kid, and the courts
>>> wouldnt let me stop her. That doesnt make me a pathetic loser, and i
>>> knwo several guys who suffered the same situation as me, and i wouldnt
>>> label them losers either.
>>
>>Your anecdotal situation (ONE situation) does not, however, render all
>>single mothers as losers.
>>
>>
>
>Possibly, he doesn't have custody for reasons which are related to all the "****
>You" and other acting up we're seeing here. Anger and/or control problems.
>
>So his situation may not be an abberation.

Hehehe, you think?

Nan

[Lee]

"Zoe" > wrote in message >...
> "howldog" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:18:57 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"howldog" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> > >> .com...
> > >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you
> are a
> > >> >> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a lot
> of
> > >> >> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers are
> the
> men
> > >> >> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
> created.
> > >> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
> > >> >
> > >> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron
> and
> > >> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
> mothers
> > >> >to be single mothers.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> nice sexist self-excusal. do another.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >At least, that's the situation for me.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> that didnt take long.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> No one
> > >> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.

So? This method of refutation is dropped by most after their
sophomore year of College.

Valid, accurate criticisms can be levied by persons who have never
been in the situation they are critiquing.

I am a man, but I can validly criticise women who chose poorly and
then have a child by their poorly chosen man.


> > >>
> > >>
> > >> probly right about that. In my own case, my ex-wife and i pretty much
> > >> just werent happy with each other; i told her i'd stick around for the
> > >> kid but she didnt want that, so she took the kid, and the courts
> > >> wouldnt let me stop her. That doesnt make me a pathetic loser, and i
> > >> knwo several guys who suffered the same situation as me, and i wouldnt
> > >> label them losers either.
> > >
> > > Read carefully before going on the defensive. I'm sorry your ex wife
> > >took your kids from you but I didn't say that ALL men are pathetic losers
> > >who cause mothers to be single, I said "for the most part".
> >
> >
> >
> > AGAIN, thats sexist as hell,

Yep.

and just as bad. "For the most part men
> > are pathetic losers". Gee. thats a lot more comforting. LOL
> >
> > **** you.
>
> I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are the
> pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not sexist.

Yes it is.

Who chose to date that man?
Who chose to have sex with that man?
Who chose to have sex with him with no birth control?
Who chose to carry the baby to term?
Who chose to carry the baby to term and keep it?

Women are always complicit in getting pregnant.

Women need to grow up and take responsibility and stop blaming men.

What the **** do you think happens if you have unprotected sex?

Almost every woman who gets pregnant wants to get pregnant because
they act in a manner that does not preclude prenancy.

Everytime.

If I were a woman and I did not want to get pregnant -

I would not have unprotected sex.
I would be on the pill.
I would have the Ru-486 in my medicine cabinet.
I would know where to get an abortion.
I would know where to give up a baby for adoption.

There are 13 or 14 ways to not become a mother.

Blaming men by stating : "more often than not men are the
> pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers."

*is* excusing a womans poor choice in 50+% of the instances.

>
> I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked about
> single fathers. See the below paragraph.
>
> > I'm also aware
> > >that there are single fathers out there who are doing the same job as
> single
> > >mothers and should be commended just as well. I'll also say this -
> courts
> > >more often than not side with the mother on custody issues and this is
> not
> > >always right either.

80% of custody is awarded to mommy.

You post is another example of people in denial or being plain stupid.

Why do women get pregnant? Because they want to.

Another example:

Is there any one over the age of 15 who lives in North America who
does not know about AIDS?

Q: Then why has anyone become infected since 1990?
A: They behave stupidly.

-Lee.

[Zoe]

"Nan" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
> scribbled:
>
> > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are the
> >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not sexist.
>
> Uhm, yes, it's very sexist. On what do you base this claim?

Reality.


> > I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked
about
> >single fathers. See the below paragraph.
>
> It's usenet. There is no requirement to respond to every part of a
> post. Most often, someone who's in agreement with you will not
> necessarily respond to that statement.

Nope, no requirement - but when a following paragraph specifically
refers to the quote that was critisized, it might be nice.

[Zoe]

"Gwenhyffar Milgi" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:14:36 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gwenhyffar Milgi" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility
and
> >> >could only be a bad influence on my son.
> >>
> >> Oh yes, the world's greatest catch! The woman who CHOSE to have a
> >> child with an idiot!
> >
> > I didn't know he was an idiot at the time. My mistake. I still have
no
> >regrets.
> >
>
> Oh wow, even better, you didn't even wait to find out if he was an
> idiot or not before breeding with him.

Again - my mistake but no regrets.

[Zoe]

"Sky KIng" > wrote in message
.net...
> In article >,
> says...
> > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
> > scribbled:
> >
> > > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are
the
> > >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not
sexist.
>
>
> LOL...its within the women's power to NOT get pregnant...they have
> better birth control choices then do men and they have more pre-birth
> and post-birth choices. Give men just the same post-birth choices
> unless you are a sexist and you think women deserve special treatment
> and laws just for them.

If a man doesn't want a woman to get pregnant, he should use a condom.
Is that complicated? If he does that then there is no issue of
post-pregnancy choices.


> >
> > Uhm, yes, it's very sexist. On what do you base this claim?
> >
> > > I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked
about
> > >single fathers. See the below paragraph.
> >
> > It's usenet. There is no requirement to respond to every part of a
> > post. Most often, someone who's in agreement with you will not
> > necessarily respond to that statement.
> >
> > Nan
> >

[Zoe]

"howldog" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" > wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are the
> >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not sexist.
>
>
> yes it is. that you cannot see it to be sexist, is even MORE sexist.

Than I am sexist.




> > I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked
about
> >single fathers. See the below paragraph.
> >
> >> I'm also aware
> >> >that there are single fathers out there who are doing the same job as
> >single
> >> >mothers and should be commended just as well. I'll also say this -
> >courts
> >> >more often than not side with the mother on custody issues and this is
> >not
> >> >always right either.
> >
>
> i agree.

I'm glad.

[Zoe]

"Deb" > wrote in message
m...
> "Zoey" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Deb" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > "Zoey" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> > > > .com...
> > > > > I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that
you
> > are a
> > > > > simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a
lot of
> > > > > different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers
are
> > the
> > men
> > > > > that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
> > created.
> > > > > Single mothers should be applauded.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete moron
and
> > > > yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
> > mothers
> > > > to be single mothers.
> > >
> > > And yet, the losers are still chosen over the nice guys, and hold onto
> > your hat,
> > > it's women CHOOSING losers. Myself included.
> >
> > Well, it's not like I knew he was a loser. Many losers can be very
> > charming and seem sincere. Some are even nice guys until they realize
the
> > responsibility a child brings into their lives and they turn into losers
> > when the run for cover.
> >
> Fair enough, as for me, looking back though, there were red flags waving
all
> over the place. I didn't want to see them. Anyway my point was jerks come
in
> both sexes. We can speak from our own experience, but to tar 'all or most'
> with the same brush is unfair.

I wasn't even refferring to all men, I was referring to men in the
context of the situation of single women. I think that most men, in the
everyday world are decent and fair people. I do think, however, that more
often than not, when there is a mother who is single, it is because the
father didn't want to take responsiblity. Of course this isn't 100% of the
cases. There's lots of cases where the husbands have died, are ill, or the
woman chose not to tell them or put them on the birth certificate.

I think that my post was taken greatly out of context.


> > > At least, that's the situation for me. No one
> > > > understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it.
> > For
> > > > myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to be
> > raised
> > > > because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take
responsibility
> > and
> > > > could only be a bad influence on my son.
> > >
> > > I hope you don't say this to your son or around him. Kids aren't
stupid,
> > they
> > > realize their half of each parent, when you badmouth his dad, your
> > badmouthing
> > > him.
> >
> > I never bad mouth my son's father in front of him or around him.
That's
> > one of the reasons I was looking for a newsgroup with people who may be
able
> > to relate to what I'm going through. When my son brings up his father
or
> > says he wants to see his father I tell him that Daddy is very busy
working
> > now. What else am I suppose to say? I tell him is father loves him but
> > can't spend time with him right now. Sooner or later though my son will
> > figure out the truth about his father. I just hope he doesn't resent me
for
> > lying to him now. In the meantime I tell my son how precious and
beatiful
> > he is and how so many people love him.
> >
> I'm only a lurker, but the regulars seem very supportive. I don't know how
old
> your son is, I tried making excuses, but i'm a bad liar. My boys are 9 and
10
> and I tell them to ask him, when they have questions. They haven't bought
the
> 'he's working' in a long time. Kids know when adults are lying, it
diminishes
> their opinion of you, even if your doing it for their own good. Does he
see or
> talk to his dad at all?

My son is 2 years old and I really don't know what else I can tell him
when he asks to see his father that isn't a lie. I would have to tell him
that his daddy doesn't care about him anymore or worse yet, insult his
father which I don't do in front of him. His ability to understand grown up
situations is rather limited right now. He just knows that he hasn't seen
Daddy for a long time. His father will come in and out of his life and as
he grows older the more this affects him when his father goes out of his
life. So, no, for the past 3 months he hasn't seen or spoken to his father.
I can't get in touch with him as he won't return my calls. I hate to see my
son get hurt like this when he is innocent in all of this.

[Zoe]

"Menden Likstra" > wrote in message
...
> "Zoey" > wrote:
>
>
> > You must be a deadbeat dad. Hope you're proud of it. Consider
> > yourself
> > lucky that someone was willing to procreate with you and unfortunately
> > let your gene pool carry on a little longer.
>
> chlorine will kill just about anything in any pool

There's a good tip!

[Nan]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:09:32 -0400, "Zoe" >
scribbled:

>
>"Nan" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
>> scribbled:
>>
>> > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are the
>> >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not sexist.
>>
>> Uhm, yes, it's very sexist. On what do you base this claim?
>
> Reality.

Whose reality?? Your anecdotal experience doesn't equal data.

>> > I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked
>about
>> >single fathers. See the below paragraph.
>>
>> It's usenet. There is no requirement to respond to every part of a
>> post. Most often, someone who's in agreement with you will not
>> necessarily respond to that statement.
>
> Nope, no requirement - but when a following paragraph specifically
>refers to the quote that was critisized, it might be nice.

I guess, if one really needs that validation.

Nan

[Byron Canfield]

"Timothy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:22:17 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Timothy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:06:49 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Sour Kraut" > wrote in
> >message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" >
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> >> >> .com...
> >> >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that
you
> >> >are a
> >> >> >> simple minded idiot! Single mothers are not losers. There are a
lot
> >of
> >> >> >> different reasons why a woman may be a single mother. The losers
are
> >> >the
> >> >> >men
> >> >> >> that can not be man enough to support the children that they have
> >> >created.
> >> >> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I agree with you - I think whoever posted that is complete
moron
> >and
> >> >> >yes - the men are more often than not the pathetic losers who cause
> >> >mothers
> >> >> >to be single mothers. At least, that's the situation for me. No
one
> >> >> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced
it.
> >For
> >> >> >myself, I'm glad that I get to raise my son the way I want him to
be
> >> >raised
> >> >> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take
responsibility
> >and
> >> >> >could only be a bad influence on my son. But it still hurts me
when I
> >> >see a
> >> >> >couple walking down the street with their kids. It's hard having
> >> >something
> >> >> >as wonderful as a kid and not being able to share it with someone.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> Some times you people really amaze me. Always excuses always
> >> >> justification, ya'd figure you'd get a clue eventually but I guess
> >> >> that is physically impossible.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh well, **** off then. What a ****ing waste...
> >> >
> >> > What "excuse" did you find in my post?
> >> >
> >> >Oh, and if you don't want to read about single parents - why don't you
do
> >> >the ****ing off then and not read threads from the alt.single-parents
ng?
> >> >
> >> Don't even see it, incredible and I guess laughable.
> >>
> >> **** it!!! and ****ing off right now.
> >
> >Oh, your just so clever -- and I'll bet you think you invented the sock
> >puppet, too. You're just an anonymous coward.
>
> Woohoo!!! The unbias middle ground comes to save the day. Offering
> incite and common denominator. YOU FAIL IT!!!! Freak

False. And here's the form of success.

Timothy is now <plonk> in the twit filter.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Byron Canfield]

"Lee" > wrote in message
m...
> "Zoe" > wrote in message
>...
> > > >> No one
> > > >> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced
it.
>
> So? This method of refutation is dropped by most after their
> sophomore year of College.
>
> Valid, accurate criticisms can be levied by persons who have never
> been in the situation they are critiquing.
>
> I am a man, but I can validly criticise women who chose poorly and
> then have a child by their poorly chosen man.

On the other hand, whether one has been in the situation or not, the data is
not available from which to draw the conclusion that one group, in total, or
the other, consists of "chumps" or "losers" as the originator of this thread
asserted.

>
> Almost every woman who gets pregnant wants to get pregnant because
> they act in a manner that does not preclude prenancy.
>
> Everytime.

See above.

>
> If I were a woman and I did not want to get pregnant -
>
> I would not have unprotected sex.
> I would be on the pill.
> I would have the Ru-486 in my medicine cabinet.
> I would know where to get an abortion.
> I would know where to give up a baby for adoption.
>
> There are 13 or 14 ways to not become a mother.


And there you DO put yourself in the position of judging something for which
you have not the frame of reference.

>
> >
> > I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked
about
> > single fathers. See the below paragraph.
> >
> > > I'm also aware
> > > >that there are single fathers out there who are doing the same job as
> > single
> > > >mothers and should be commended just as well. I'll also say this -
> > courts
> > > >more often than not side with the mother on custody issues and this
is
> > not
> > > >always right either.
>
> 80% of custody is awarded to mommy.
>
> You post is another example of people in denial or being plain stupid.

You cite no facts to back up your 80% figure, and then you insult the poster
for her paragraph that was in agreement with your assertion. And you're
calling HER plain stupid?
>
> Why do women get pregnant? Because they want to.

See above, regarding judging things for which you have no frame of
reference.
>
> Another example:
>
> Is there any one over the age of 15 who lives in North America who
> does not know about AIDS?
>
> Q: Then why has anyone become infected since 1990?
> A: They behave stupidly.

That contradicts your prior assertion that it is by conscious choice.

Do you bother to read what you write before you hit the send button? Geez!


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Byron Canfield]

"Zoe" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Timothy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > **** it!!! and ****ing off right now.
>
> You'll be missed.

Not! :)


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Byron Canfield]

"Gwenhyffar Milgi" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:14:36 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gwenhyffar Milgi" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, "Zoey" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility
and
> >> >could only be a bad influence on my son.
> >>
> >> Oh yes, the world's greatest catch! The woman who CHOSE to have a
> >> child with an idiot!
> >
> > I didn't know he was an idiot at the time. My mistake. I still have
no
> >regrets.
> >
>
> Oh wow, even better, you didn't even wait to find out if he was an
> idiot or not before breeding with him.

Well, at least she's forewarned about you. That's a comfort. The gene pool
is safe.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Betsy]

"Zoe" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Sky KIng" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
> > > scribbled:
> > >
> > > > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are
> the
> > > >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not
> sexist.
> >
> >
> > LOL...its within the women's power to NOT get pregnant...they have
> > better birth control choices then do men and they have more pre-birth
> > and post-birth choices. Give men just the same post-birth choices
> > unless you are a sexist and you think women deserve special treatment
> > and laws just for them.
>
> If a man doesn't want a woman to get pregnant, he should use a condom.
> Is that complicated? If he does that then there is no issue of
> post-pregnancy choices.
>
>

WRONG!! Condoms are not 100% protection against pregnancy. There is only
one method of birth control that is 100% accurate and that is abstinence.
Although I agree on the topic, if men are going to have sex, they should be
responsible for the consequences of that action.
> > >
> > > Uhm, yes, it's very sexist. On what do you base this claim?
> > >
> > > > I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked
> about
> > > >single fathers. See the below paragraph.
> > >
> > > It's usenet. There is no requirement to respond to every part of a
> > > post. Most often, someone who's in agreement with you will not
> > > necessarily respond to that statement.
> > >
> > > Nan
> > >
>
>

[denanson]

"Betsy" < wrote in message
> >
> So you are saying, you make no effort whatsoever to allow your child to
see
> his father? You have made no attempt to contact your child's father for
> visitation? I know I had issues with my son's father, and he made
attempts
> to NOT see his child for periods of time, but when he called, my son went
> with his dad. When my son wanted to talk to Daddy, I called him up. When
> my ex-husband decided to terminate his parental rights, because of other
> legal issues, I was as honest as I could be to my son. He was six years
old
> at the time. I do not believe that lying to your child is appropriate. I
> don't mean telling him the cold hard truth, but something he can
understand.
> I told my son, "Daddy has some problems right now, and decided that he
> couldn't visit with you for awhile." He accepted that. The fact remains,
> my son got the truth without being told, "Daddy doesn't want you anymore,"
> or "You weren't important enough in Daddy's life," or whatever perceptions
I
> had at the time. This wasn't and isn't about ME it's about my child.
> Please bear that in mind; it's better to work toward the best interest of
> your child than your own personal angry agenda.

Betsy, you should have left this in soc.men as well.It may have re-assured
some of the sceptics there that not all women are the same ;-)

Dennis

[Sky KIng]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Sky KIng" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
> > > scribbled:
> > >
> > > > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are
> the
> > > >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not
> sexist.
> >
> >
> > LOL...its within the women's power to NOT get pregnant...they have
> > better birth control choices then do men and they have more pre-birth
> > and post-birth choices. Give men just the same post-birth choices
> > unless you are a sexist and you think women deserve special treatment
> > and laws just for them.
>
> If a man doesn't want a woman to get pregnant, he should use a condom.
> Is that complicated? If he does that then there is no issue of
> post-pregnancy choices.

Nice try at sidestepping the issue...women have a clear post-birth
choice and that is to legally abandon the child NO questions
asked...just give any father that same exact right..unless you are a
sexist and you like special rights just for women. Women's birth
control is more effective..nice of you to put all the responsibility
on the man though...ONLY women get pregnant and I would tell any
daughter I had to make sure she took care of her own birth control.
>
>
> > >
> > > Uhm, yes, it's very sexist. On what do you base this claim?
> > >
> > > > I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked
> about
> > > >single fathers. See the below paragraph.
> > >
> > > It's usenet. There is no requirement to respond to every part of a
> > > post. Most often, someone who's in agreement with you will not
> > > necessarily respond to that statement.
> > >
> > > Nan
> > >
>
>
>

[P. Fritz]

"Betsy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zoe" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Sky KIng" > wrote in message
> > .net...
> > > In article >,

> > > says...
> > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
> > > > scribbled:
> > > >
> > > > > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men
are
> > the
> > > > >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not
> > sexist.
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL...its within the women's power to NOT get pregnant...they have
> > > better birth control choices then do men and they have more
pre-birth
> > > and post-birth choices. Give men just the same post-birth choices
> > > unless you are a sexist and you think women deserve special
treatment
> > > and laws just for them.
> >
> > If a man doesn't want a woman to get pregnant, he should use a
condom.
> > Is that complicated? If he does that then there is no issue of
> > post-pregnancy choices.
> >
> >
>
> WRONG!! Condoms are not 100% protection against pregnancy. There is
only
> one method of birth control that is 100% accurate and that is
abstinence.
> Although I agree on the topic, if men are going to have sex, they should
be
> responsible for the consequences of that action.

Unlike women......who don't have to be? How very sexist of you


> > > >
> > > > Uhm, yes, it's very sexist. On what do you base this claim?
> > > >
> > > > > I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I
talked
> > about
> > > > >single fathers. See the below paragraph.
> > > >
> > > > It's usenet. There is no requirement to respond to every part of
a
> > > > post. Most often, someone who's in agreement with you will not
> > > > necessarily respond to that statement.
> > > >
> > > > Nan
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Lee]

"Byron Canfield" < > wrote in message news:<GLzVc.199868$eM2.16412@attbi_s51 >...
> "Lee" < > wrote in message
> m ...
> > "Zoe" < > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > >> No one
> > > > >> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced
> it.
> >
> > So? This method of refutation is dropped by most after their
> > sophomore year of College.
> >
> > Valid, accurate criticisms can be levied by persons who have never
> > been in the situation they are critiquing.
> >
> > I am a man, but I can validly criticize women who chose poorly and
> > then have a child by their poorly chosen man.
>
> On the other hand, whether one has been in the situation or not, the data is
> not available from which to draw the conclusion that one group, in total, or
> the other, consists of "chumps" or "losers" as the originator of this thread
> asserted.
>
> >
> > Almost every woman who gets pregnant wants to get pregnant because
> > they act in a manner that does not preclude pregnancy.
> >
> > Every time.
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > If I were a woman and I did not want to get pregnant -
> >
> > I would not have unprotected sex.
> > I would be on the pill.
> > I would have the Ru-486 in my medicine cabinet.
> > I would know where to get an abortion.
> > I would know where to give up a baby for adoption.
> >
> > There are 13 or 14 ways to not become a mother.
>
>
> And there you DO put yourself in the position of judging something for which
> you have not the frame of reference.

In short - I disagree. Accurate assessments can be made by those who
have dissimilar frames for reference. It happens millions of times a
day, accurately, precisely and truthfully, all over the world.

If your intent is that I must have the frame of reference in order to
judge something, I disagree in the strongest possible fashion.

My OP states that clearly.

As one example, a person does not have to be a civil engineer to make
the accurate judgment that 'Bouncing Gertie' over the Tacoma Narrows
was an engineering failure.

You exhibit Fascistic tendencies, in the modern usage of the word.

i.e. A Fascist is someone who's pov is held above all others and their
standards are the ultimate standards to use for a given situation -
like your apparent insistence that I must have the frame of reference
of someone I am validly critiquing.

IOW you reserve the right to ignore criticism based upon dissimilar
frames of reference. How convenient for you.

BTW your opinion will have no effect upon my judgments.
I can judge all I want, and most of my judgments are very accurate and
precise and truthful.

>
> >
> > >
> > > I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked
> about
> > > single fathers. See the below paragraph.
> > >
> > > > I'm also aware
> > > > >that there are single fathers out there who are doing the same job as
> single
> > > > >mothers and should be commended just as well. I'll also say this -
> courts
> > > > >more often than not side with the mother on custody issues and this
> is
> not
> > > > >always right either.
> >
> > 80% of custody is awarded to mommy.
> >
> > Your post is another example of people in denial or being plain stupid.
>
> You cite no facts to back up your 80% figure,

These facts are common knowledge. But I will indulge your lack of
initiative.

http://www.menweb.org/throop/custody-divorce/studies/whoGets.html

77% mommy, 23% joint.

I was incorrect - mommy gets custody 91.5% of the time.

and then you insult the poster
> for her paragraph

I posted this : "Your post..."

I am referring to her post, not the aforementioned paragraph. That is
your comprehension bias kicking in.

that was in agreement with your assertion. And you're
> calling HER plain stupid?

For referring to "I stand corrected - I actually (said) that "more
often than not men are the pathetic losers who cause women to be
single mothers. That's not sexist.""

Yes, her statement is stupid.
Most men who want to be part of their children's lives *are* if the
mother allows it. The 'Deadbeat Dad' phenomenon is blown way out for
proportion - most men want to be fathers to their kids.

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/baddadmyth2.htm
"Most divorced dads have more contact with their kids than was
previously believed, he says. A 1983 study based at the University of
Pennsylvania reported that only 49 percent of fathers had contact with
their children within the preceding year. But Braver found that 90
percent had contact by either parent's account. Five out of six
fathers living in the same town three years after the divorce reported
weekly contact"

Bravers 1999 study found that more than 50% see their children.
So her statement is false, biased, sexist and stupid.

http://www.acfc.us/reports/pdfs/DTWSacBee080102Thedeadbeatdadcanard.pdf

Thus her refusal to acknowledge the truth is either 1) Denial or 2)
stupidity.
I stand by my post. She is either in denial or stupid.
Additionally, insults are not false - they are impolite.
Is what I posted true? Is she ignorant or in denial WRT who is
responsible for single motherhood and child custody?

> >
> > Why do women get pregnant? Because they want to.
>
> See above, regarding judging things for which you have no frame of
> reference.
> >
> > Another example:
> >
> > Is there any one over the age of 15 who lives in North America who
> > does not know about AIDS?
> >
> > Q: Then why has anyone become infected since 1990?
> > A: They behave stupidly.
>
> That contradicts your prior assertion that it is by conscious choice.

It does not.
Are you stupid?
Read for comprehension.

You appear to equate 'behaving stupidly' with a non-conscious choice.

People who get AIDS behave stupidly i.e. make bad choices, and those
choices result in HIV infection.
Those conscious choices - to bareback or not for example - result in
infection.

Women who 'accidentally get' pregnant also make bad choices by not
planning and being irrational wrt birth control.
They consciously chose stupidly, and results bear this out.

>
> Do you bother to read what you write before you hit the send button? Geez!

You are condescending, and inaccurate.

-Lee.

[Betsy]

"P. Fritz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Betsy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Zoe" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >
> > > "Sky KIng" > wrote in message
> > > .net...
> > > > In article >,
>
> > > > says...
> > > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
> > > > > scribbled:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not
men
> are
> > > the
> > > > > >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's
not
> > > sexist.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > LOL...its within the women's power to NOT get pregnant...they have
> > > > better birth control choices then do men and they have more
> pre-birth
> > > > and post-birth choices. Give men just the same post-birth choices
> > > > unless you are a sexist and you think women deserve special
> treatment
> > > > and laws just for them.
> > >
> > > If a man doesn't want a woman to get pregnant, he should use a
> condom.
> > > Is that complicated? If he does that then there is no issue of
> > > post-pregnancy choices.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > WRONG!! Condoms are not 100% protection against pregnancy. There is
> only
> > one method of birth control that is 100% accurate and that is
> abstinence.
> > Although I agree on the topic, if men are going to have sex, they
should
> be
> > responsible for the consequences of that action.
>
> Unlike women......who don't have to be? How very sexist of you
>
>

Whoops! I forgot a word. Should have read (my fault for not proof-reading)
"they should be equally responsible..." What I meant was BOTH parties
should be held accountable. It's only fair.


> > > > >
> > > > > Uhm, yes, it's very sexist. On what do you base this claim?
> > > > >
> > > > > > I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I
> talked
> > > about
> > > > > >single fathers. See the below paragraph.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's usenet. There is no requirement to respond to every part
of
> a
> > > > > post. Most often, someone who's in agreement with you will not
> > > > > necessarily respond to that statement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nan
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Betsy]

"denanson" <Dennis@Large .ie> wrote in message
...
>
> "Betsy" < wrote in message
> > >
> > So you are saying, you make no effort whatsoever to allow your child to
> see
> > his father? You have made no attempt to contact your child's father for
> > visitation? I know I had issues with my son's father, and he made
> attempts
> > to NOT see his child for periods of time, but when he called, my son
went
> > with his dad. When my son wanted to talk to Daddy, I called him up.
When
> > my ex-husband decided to terminate his parental rights, because of other
> > legal issues, I was as honest as I could be to my son. He was six years
> old
> > at the time. I do not believe that lying to your child is appropriate.
I
> > don't mean telling him the cold hard truth, but something he can
> understand.
> > I told my son, "Daddy has some problems right now, and decided that he
> > couldn't visit with you for awhile." He accepted that. The fact
remains,
> > my son got the truth without being told, "Daddy doesn't want you
anymore,"
> > or "You weren't important enough in Daddy's life," or whatever
perceptions
> I
> > had at the time. This wasn't and isn't about ME it's about my child.
> > Please bear that in mind; it's better to work toward the best interest
of
> > your child than your own personal angry agenda.
>
> Betsy, you should have left this in soc.men as well.It may have re-assured
> some of the sceptics there that not all women are the same ;-)
>
> Dennis
>
>
Good point, I didn't think of that. I don't like to cross post if I can
avoid it. :-)

Betsy

[Zoe]

"Betsy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zoe" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Sky KIng" > wrote in message
> > .net...
> > > In article >,

> > > says...
> > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
> > > > scribbled:
> > > >
> > > > > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men
are
> > the
> > > > >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not
> > sexist.
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL...its within the women's power to NOT get pregnant...they have
> > > better birth control choices then do men and they have more pre-birth
> > > and post-birth choices. Give men just the same post-birth choices
> > > unless you are a sexist and you think women deserve special treatment
> > > and laws just for them.
> >
> > If a man doesn't want a woman to get pregnant, he should use a
condom.
> > Is that complicated? If he does that then there is no issue of
> > post-pregnancy choices.
> >
> >
>
> WRONG!! Condoms are not 100% protection against pregnancy. There is only
> one method of birth control that is 100% accurate and that is abstinence.
> Although I agree on the topic, if men are going to have sex, they should
be
> responsible for the consequences of that action.

Of course condoms are not 100% protection but they're like 99%. But
thanks for jumping up and pointing that out. I really love the way this
newgroup is full of vicious bitter people that just love to jump on anything
anyone says. I really like the way you put the word "wrong" in big capitals
even though you admit you agree with my sentiment that men should be
responsible if they're going to have sex.

As for this newsgroup - wow, you guys are one of the most sanctimounous,
hostile groups I've come across in a long time. Jumping all over each other
at the smallest scent of blood - judging about why and how women get
pregnant, how they should deal with their children and their ex's.

Well, at least I know now why someone might have come up with the
subject of this thread - they probably read some of the things you women
were writing in this group.

Anyway - it's been a slice - and for all of you who are enraged by this
post - don't bother replying to it because I won't be reading your replies.
I think I'll go find some nicer people in, say, maybe alt.flame or
something.

[Zoe]

"Sky KIng" > wrote in message
l.net...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > "Sky KIng" > wrote in message
> > .net...
> > > In article >,

> > > says...
> > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
> > > > scribbled:
> > > >
> > > > > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men
are
> > the
> > > > >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not
> > sexist.
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL...its within the women's power to NOT get pregnant...they have
> > > better birth control choices then do men and they have more pre-birth
> > > and post-birth choices. Give men just the same post-birth choices
> > > unless you are a sexist and you think women deserve special treatment
> > > and laws just for them.
> >
> > If a man doesn't want a woman to get pregnant, he should use a
condom.
> > Is that complicated? If he does that then there is no issue of
> > post-pregnancy choices.
>
> Nice try at sidestepping the issue...women have a clear post-birth
> choice and that is to legally abandon the child NO questions
> asked...just give any father that same exact right..unless you are a
> sexist and you like special rights just for women. Women's birth
> control is more effective..nice of you to put all the responsibility
> on the man though...ONLY women get pregnant and I would tell any
> daughter I had to make sure she took care of her own birth control.

And women only get pregnant by male sperm. At least, for now.

And yes - I'm VERY sexist and think that all women should have special
rights. Like, for instance, to make the father take some responsibility for
a child he helped create, at least financially or otherwise. I wouldn't
worry though, I doubt very much that anyone want to **** you anyway. You
can always donate to a sperm bank though - and then you'll be anonymous and
won't have to contribute. Then again, you can just go find a tree somewhere
and get the same job done there.

[Betsy]

"Zoe" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Betsy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Zoe" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >
> > > "Sky KIng" > wrote in message
> > > .net...
> > > > In article >,
>
> > > > says...
> > > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
> > > > > scribbled:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men
> are
> > > the
> > > > > >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not
> > > sexist.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > LOL...its within the women's power to NOT get pregnant...they have
> > > > better birth control choices then do men and they have more
pre-birth
> > > > and post-birth choices. Give men just the same post-birth choices
> > > > unless you are a sexist and you think women deserve special
treatment
> > > > and laws just for them.
> > >
> > > If a man doesn't want a woman to get pregnant, he should use a
> condom.
> > > Is that complicated? If he does that then there is no issue of
> > > post-pregnancy choices.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > WRONG!! Condoms are not 100% protection against pregnancy. There is
only
> > one method of birth control that is 100% accurate and that is
abstinence.
> > Although I agree on the topic, if men are going to have sex, they should
> be
> > responsible for the consequences of that action.
>
> Of course condoms are not 100% protection but they're like 99%. But
> thanks for jumping up and pointing that out. I really love the way this
> newgroup is full of vicious bitter people that just love to jump on
anything
> anyone says. I really like the way you put the word "wrong" in big
capitals
> even though you admit you agree with my sentiment that men should be
> responsible if they're going to have sex.
>
> As for this newsgroup - wow, you guys are one of the most
sanctimounous,
> hostile groups I've come across in a long time. Jumping all over each
other
> at the smallest scent of blood - judging about why and how women get
> pregnant, how they should deal with their children and their ex's.
>
> Well, at least I know now why someone might have come up with the
> subject of this thread - they probably read some of the things you women
> were writing in this group.
>
> Anyway - it's been a slice - and for all of you who are enraged by
this
> post - don't bother replying to it because I won't be reading your
replies.
> I think I'll go find some nicer people in, say, maybe alt.flame or
> something.
>
>
>

Still don't think she gets it. This started as a cross post, didn't start
by a regular poster to alt.support.single-parents. Ah well, bye bye.

[Bebelestrnge0721]

>> > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
>> > > > scribbled:

>As for this newsgroup - wow, you guys are one of the most sanctimounous,
>hostile groups I've come across in a long time. Jumping all over each other
>at the smallest scent of blood - judging about why and how women get
>pregnant, how they should deal with their children and their ex's.
>
> Well, at least I know now why someone might have come up with the
>subject of this thread - they probably read some of the things you women
>were writing in this group.
>
> Anyway - it's been a slice - and for all of you who are enraged by this
>post - don't bother replying to it because I won't be reading your replies.
>I think I'll go find some nicer people in, say, maybe alt.flame or
>something.
>
LOL! !!!!!!!! That's entertainment , Damn I love reading this group......much
better .
Now off to my AA meeting to find someone to adopt my granddaughter ! :)
'Cause there is no way in hell "I" could ever help my teenage daughter raise
her baby while she finishes school , what kind of parent would do such a thing
? sheeesh !

[P. Fritz]

"Zoe" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Betsy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Zoe" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >
> > > "Sky KIng" > wrote in message
> > > .net...
> > > > In article >,
>
> > > > says...
> > > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
> > > > > scribbled:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not
men
> are
> > > the
> > > > > >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's
not
> > > sexist.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > LOL...its within the women's power to NOT get pregnant...they have
> > > > better birth control choices then do men and they have more
pre-birth
> > > > and post-birth choices. Give men just the same post-birth choices
> > > > unless you are a sexist and you think women deserve special
treatment
> > > > and laws just for them.
> > >
> > > If a man doesn't want a woman to get pregnant, he should use a
> condom.
> > > Is that complicated? If he does that then there is no issue of
> > > post-pregnancy choices.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > WRONG!! Condoms are not 100% protection against pregnancy. There is
only
> > one method of birth control that is 100% accurate and that is
abstinence.
> > Although I agree on the topic, if men are going to have sex, they
should
> be
> > responsible for the consequences of that action.
>
> Of course condoms are not 100% protection but they're like 99%. But
> thanks for jumping up and pointing that out. I really love the way this
> newgroup is full of vicious bitter people that just love to jump on
anything
> anyone says. I really like the way you put the word "wrong" in big
capitals
> even though you admit you agree with my sentiment that men should be
> responsible if they're going to have sex.
>
> As for this newsgroup - wow, you guys are one of the most
sanctimounous,
> hostile groups I've come across in a long time. Jumping all over each
other
> at the smallest scent of blood - judging about why and how women get
> pregnant, how they should deal with their children and their ex's.

Still clueless I see.........don't let the door hit you in the ass on the
way out.

>
> Well, at least I know now why someone might have come up with the
> subject of this thread - they probably read some of the things you women
> were writing in this group.
>
> Anyway - it's been a slice - and for all of you who are enraged by
this
> post - don't bother replying to it because I won't be reading your
replies.
> I think I'll go find some nicer people in, say, maybe alt.flame or
> something.

YAWN


>
>
>

[Sky KIng]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Sky KIng" > wrote in message
> l.net...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > >
> > > "Sky KIng" > wrote in message
> > > .net...
> > > > In article >,
>
> > > > says...
> > > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" >
> > > > > scribbled:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men
> are
> > > the
> > > > > >pathetic losers who cause women to be single mothers. That's not
> > > sexist.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > LOL...its within the women's power to NOT get pregnant...they have
> > > > better birth control choices then do men and they have more pre-birth
> > > > and post-birth choices. Give men just the same post-birth choices
> > > > unless you are a sexist and you think women deserve special treatment
> > > > and laws just for them.
> > >
> > > If a man doesn't want a woman to get pregnant, he should use a
> condom.
> > > Is that complicated? If he does that then there is no issue of
> > > post-pregnancy choices.
> >
> > Nice try at sidestepping the issue...women have a clear post-birth
> > choice and that is to legally abandon the child NO questions
> > asked...just give any father that same exact right..unless you are a
> > sexist and you like special rights just for women. Women's birth
> > control is more effective..nice of you to put all the responsibility
> > on the man though...ONLY women get pregnant and I would tell any
> > daughter I had to make sure she took care of her own birth control.
>
> And women only get pregnant by male sperm. At least, for now.

and women can avoid getting that sperm.
>
> And yes - I'm VERY sexist and think that all women should have special
> rights. Like, for instance, to make the father take some responsibility for
> a child he helped create, at least financially or otherwise.


Ah but you don't feel women should have to do the same huh? If you do
then I am sure you are against the Child Abandon Law which allows ANY
women to abandon the child NO questions asked and opt out of parenthood.
Its a clear post-birth choice that men do not have. Would you let any
man that has fathered a child legally abandon that child or do you think
only women deserve that special right? Careful now and don't let your
sexist slip show.
chuckle




I wouldn't
> worry though, I doubt very much that anyone want to **** you anyway. You
> can always donate to a sperm bank though - and then you'll be anonymous and
> won't have to contribute. Then again, you can just go find a tree somewhere
> and get the same job done there.
>
>

Been married with kids for a long time now. Try to debate the facts...if
you can and leave this childish stuff to others......k?
chuckle
>

[Nan]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:30:53 GMT, Sky KIng >
scribbled:

>Ah but you don't feel women should have to do the same huh? If you do
>then I am sure you are against the Child Abandon Law which allows ANY
>women to abandon the child NO questions asked and opt out of parenthood.
>Its a clear post-birth choice that men do not have. Would you let any
>man that has fathered a child legally abandon that child or do you think
>only women deserve that special right? Careful now and don't let your
>sexist slip show.
>chuckle

Oh ffs. Leave it to some bitter man to turn something *for the safety
of children* into "NO FAIR, *SHE* HAS MORE OPTIONS THAN ME".
The Child Abandon Law is there so that a child can be left safely as
opposed to being dumped in a garbage bin, or at the side of the road.
Trust me, no evil feminists backed this in order to stomp all over you
poor men.

Nan

[Byron Canfield]

"Lee" > wrote in message
m...
> "Byron Canfield" < > wrote in message
news:<GLzVc.199868$eM2.16412@attbi_s51 >...
> > "Lee" < > wrote in message
> > m ...
> > > "Zoe" < > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > >> No one
> > > > > >> >understands what being a single mother is until they
experienced
> > it.
> > >
> > > So? This method of refutation is dropped by most after their
> > > sophomore year of College.
> > >
> > > Valid, accurate criticisms can be levied by persons who have never
> > > been in the situation they are critiquing.
> > >
> > > I am a man, but I can validly criticize women who chose poorly and
> > > then have a child by their poorly chosen man.
> >
> > On the other hand, whether one has been in the situation or not, the
data is
> > not available from which to draw the conclusion that one group, in
total, or
> > the other, consists of "chumps" or "losers" as the originator of this
thread
> > asserted.
> >
> > >
> > > Almost every woman who gets pregnant wants to get pregnant because
> > > they act in a manner that does not preclude pregnancy.
> > >
> > > Every time.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > >
> > > If I were a woman and I did not want to get pregnant -
> > >
> > > I would not have unprotected sex.
> > > I would be on the pill.
> > > I would have the Ru-486 in my medicine cabinet.
> > > I would know where to get an abortion.
> > > I would know where to give up a baby for adoption.
> > >
> > > There are 13 or 14 ways to not become a mother.
> >
> >
> > And there you DO put yourself in the position of judging something for
which
> > you have not the frame of reference.
>
> In short - I disagree. Accurate assessments can be made by those who
> have dissimilar frames for reference. It happens millions of times a
> day, accurately, precisely and truthfully, all over the world.
>
> If your intent is that I must have the frame of reference in order to
> judge something, I disagree in the strongest possible fashion.
>
> My OP states that clearly.
>
> As one example, a person does not have to be a civil engineer to make
> the accurate judgment that 'Bouncing Gertie' over the Tacoma Narrows
> was an engineering failure.

That is nothing like your claim that you would behave in a certain way "if
you were" someone else. That sort of claim is pur nonsense.
>
> You exhibit Fascistic tendencies, in the modern usage of the word.
>
> i.e. A Fascist is someone who's pov is held above all others and their
> standards are the ultimate standards to use for a given situation -
> like your apparent insistence that I must have the frame of reference
> of someone I am validly critiquing.

No, you're putting your own definition on Fascism. You should learn how to
read and then look up the definition.
>
> IOW you reserve the right to ignore criticism based upon dissimilar
> frames of reference. How convenient for you.

Saying that you would do something IF YOU WERE SOMEBODY ELSE does not
constitute criticism -- it is pure conjecture without any basis. You just
silly.
>
> BTW your opinion will have no effect upon my judgments.
> I can judge all I want, and most of my judgments are very accurate and
> precise and truthful.

As I would expect -- no one's would -- your mind is made up and reality must
be adjusted to conform to your preconceived notions.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked
> > about
> > > > single fathers. See the below paragraph.
> > > >
> > > > > I'm also aware
> > > > > >that there are single fathers out there who are doing the same
job as
> > single
> > > > > >mothers and should be commended just as well. I'll also say
this -
> > courts
> > > > > >more often than not side with the mother on custody issues and
this
> > is
> > not
> > > > > >always right either.
> > >
> > > 80% of custody is awarded to mommy.
> > >
> > > Your post is another example of people in denial or being plain
stupid.
> >
> > You cite no facts to back up your 80% figure,
>
> These facts are common knowledge. But I will indulge your lack of
> initiative.

That's false -- no such common knowledge. And initiative is not the issue.
When you make an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you. This
aspect of debate IS common knowledge, though you are apparently clueless in
that regard, or you choose to conveniently ignore it.
>
> http://www.menweb.org/throop/custody-divorce/studies/whoGets.html

And THAT is not a cite of the study -- that is a cite of somebody else's
similar rantings where they purport to cite a study, but then provide no
specific links to it. Just another flame. The only links provided in that
piece are to other rantings by the same author.
>
> 77% mommy, 23% joint.
>
> I was incorrect - mommy gets custody 91.5% of the time.
>
> and then you insult the poster
> > for her paragraph
>
> I posted this : "Your post..."
>
> I am referring to her post, not the aforementioned paragraph. That is
> your comprehension bias kicking in.+

Your just lying now -- go back and read your own post, idiot!
>
> http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/baddadmyth2.htm
> "Most divorced dads have more contact with their kids than was
> previously believed, he says. A 1983 study based at the University of
> Pennsylvania reported that only 49 percent of fathers had contact with
> their children within the preceding year. But Braver found that 90
> percent had contact by either parent's account. Five out of six
> fathers living in the same town three years after the divorce reported
> weekly contact"

I notice that you cannot cite a link to the original article, as allegedly
published in the New York Times, but must post a link to a website that is
obviously the product of bias. And you, the one who so carries on about
"bias"...
>
> Bravers 1999 study found that more than 50% see their children.
> So her statement is false, biased, sexist and stupid.
>
> http://www.acfc.us/reports/pdfs/DTWSacBee080102Thedeadbeatdadcanard.pdf

Again, YOUR bias is showing. The not so convenient byline at the bottom of
that article on the website (notably missing from the PDF: " Glenn Sacks
writes about gender issues from the male perspective. "
>
> Thus her refusal to acknowledge the truth is either 1) Denial or 2)
> stupidity.

Truth only in your mind, therefore, denial of it is mandatory until you
prove it.

> I stand by my post. She is either in denial or stupid.

And that's NOT bias? You're an idiot.

> Additionally, insults are not false - they are impolite.

I never claimed your insults were false -- just stupid.

> Is what I posted true?

Nope.

> Is she ignorant or in denial WRT who is
> responsible for single motherhood and child custody?

Nope.
>
> > >
> > > Why do women get pregnant? Because they want to.
> >
> > See above, regarding judging things for which you have no frame of
> > reference.
> > >
> > > Another example:
> > >
> > > Is there any one over the age of 15 who lives in North America who
> > > does not know about AIDS?
> > >
> > > Q: Then why has anyone become infected since 1990?
> > > A: They behave stupidly.
> >
> > That contradicts your prior assertion that it is by conscious choice.
>
> It does not.
> Are you stupid?
> Read for comprehension.

You said women get pregnant because they want to, and then you claim people
act out of stupidity. Which is it -- intentional or negligence? You can't
seem to make up your mind (if you have one).
>
> You appear to equate 'behaving stupidly' with a non-conscious choice.

Oh contrairre -- I was remarking you you equating behaving stupidly ignoring
the potential consequences with behaving stupidly and wishing for the
consequences. You can't have it both ways, idiot!
>
> > Do you bother to read what you write before you hit the send button?
Geez!
>
> You are condescending, and inaccurate.

Again, you quite apparently just run off at the mouth and don't bother to
review what you write.



--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Sky King]

Nan > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:30:53 GMT, Sky KIng >
> scribbled:
>
> >Ah but you don't feel women should have to do the same huh? If you do
> >then I am sure you are against the Child Abandon Law which allows ANY
> >women to abandon the child NO questions asked and opt out of parenthood.
> >Its a clear post-birth choice that men do not have. Would you let any
> >man that has fathered a child legally abandon that child or do you think
> >only women deserve that special right? Careful now and don't let your
> >sexist slip show.
> >chuckle
>
> Oh ffs. Leave it to some bitter man to turn something *for the safety
> of children* into "NO FAIR, *SHE* HAS MORE OPTIONS THAN ME".

Feminist do the same thing ALL the time. Leave it to a feminist to
think its bad when men do it.



> The Child Abandon Law is there so that a child can be left safely as
> opposed to being dumped in a garbage bin, or at the side of the road.
> Trust me, no evil feminists backed this in order to stomp all over you
> poor men.
>
> Nan


Sure they did and that is the result. What do you think of the
problems listed below.
Despite law, abandoned babies in legal limbo

January 30, 2002





BY L.L. BRASIER
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER




It seemed an enlightened law: allow desperate mothers to abandon
unwanted newborns at hospitals rather than in trash bins or on church
steps so that the babies can be adopted.

But after the first year, half of the infants abandoned in Michigan
remain in legal limbo as courts grapple with unforeseen constitutional
snares.

The law, like other adoption procedures, shields details and hides
identities from public scrutiny. But interviews with attorneys, judges
and court officials and a review of available records show the law has
not worked as hoped.

"It's a mess," said Beverly Hills attorney Karen Cook, who has worked
on two of the cases in Oakland County Circuit Court.

Since the law took effect Jan. 1, 2001, 12 babies have been left at
Michigan hospitals: five in Oakland County, four in Wayne County, and
one each in Crawford, Kalamazoo and Muskegon counties. But only half
have been placed in adoptive homes because of the law's shortcomings,
especially concerning fathers' rights.

At issue is that the law allows birth mothers to give up their babies
without giving enough information to contact the fathers.

Oakland County Circuit Judge Patrick Brennan has had three abandoned
baby cases come before him, and in each, he has refused to terminate
the rights of the absentee fathers. Brennan said he is concerned that
a father may be unaware that the child was abandoned and may not to
cede his parental rights. "A parent's right to parent their child is
one of the most sacred rights we have," he said. "I don't think there
is due process of law here. I have some concerns about whether fathers
have sufficient notice."

Brennan said he envisions a case of a father emerging years later to
lay claim to a child. The law, known as the Safe Delivery Act, was
drafted after several highly publicized abandonments. One involved a
baby who died in November 1999 after being left wrapped in a shirt
outside a Warren church, and another was of a 3-day-old child who
survived being left in a cardboard box at a Lansing car wash. State
Sens. Shirley Johnson, R-Royal Oak, and Joanne Emmons, R-Big Rapids,
introduced laws that allowed parents to surrender their babies at
hospitals, police stations or firehouses, without fear of prosecution.
The law doesn't require the surrendering parent to provide information
about the other parent, although the parent is asked to do so. Johnson
dismissed criticism that the law gives short shrift to fathers:"If
you've impregnated this woman, why aren't you around?"

The law's requirement to advertise the abandonment and pending
adoption in local papers is enough notice, she said.

Johnson said the law is a success because it has saved babies, but it
has uncovered surprising facts. For one, it's not frightened teenagers
turning over babies, but women in their 20s and 30s -- including one
who said she was unmarried so she could get rid of a child without
telling her husband. The man, discovered after Oakland County workers
found a marriage license, agreed to terminate his parental rights. In
another case, a mother gave just the father's first name. His full
name was found on a personal protection order the mother had taken out
against him.

Court workers tracked down the man in the Oakland County Jail, and he
is seeking custody of the child.

In a third case, court workers discovered the mother had adopted out
two other children, and tried to use the new law for her third child
because a standard adoption took too long.

Also in Oakland Circuit Court, a baby is in foster care while a judge
refuses to proceed because the mother won't name the father.

Abandoned children who have not been adopted because of legal problems
under the new law must undergo a standard lengthy adoption while
living in foster care.

The new law was designed to cut bureaucratic tape and quickly place
babies in adoptive homes.

Lauran Howard, chief of adoption and intake support services for
Oakland County, said the law needs tweaking, particularly to address
fathers' rights.

"Once you've saved the baby at the hospital, you need to go back and
shore up the legal problems with the fathers," Howard said.

Michigan is not alone in struggling with the problem. Since 1999, 30
states have enacted laws similar to Michigan's. The father's role in
such laws is under scrutiny.

"This is bad law for fathers," said attorney Larry Leving, who speaks
nationally on the issue. Leving of Chicago said he is researching
cases that could be used to overturn Illinois' abandonment law, which
is similar to Michigan's.

"These laws, right now, are our greatest concern," he said.

[Byron Canfield]

"Sky King" > wrote in message
om...
> Nan > wrote in message
>...
> > On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:30:53 GMT, Sky KIng >
> > scribbled:
> >
> > >Ah but you don't feel women should have to do the same huh? If you do
> > >then I am sure you are against the Child Abandon Law which allows ANY
> > >women to abandon the child NO questions asked and opt out of
parenthood.
> > >Its a clear post-birth choice that men do not have. Would you let any
> > >man that has fathered a child legally abandon that child or do you
think
> > >only women deserve that special right? Careful now and don't let your
> > >sexist slip show.
> > >chuckle
> >
> > Oh ffs. Leave it to some bitter man to turn something *for the safety
> > of children* into "NO FAIR, *SHE* HAS MORE OPTIONS THAN ME".
>
> Feminist do the same thing ALL the time. Leave it to a feminist to
> think its bad when men do it.
>
>
>
> > The Child Abandon Law is there so that a child can be left safely as
> > opposed to being dumped in a garbage bin, or at the side of the road.
> > Trust me, no evil feminists backed this in order to stomp all over you
> > poor men.
> >
> > Nan
>
>
> Sure they did and that is the result. What do you think of the
> problems listed below.
> Despite law, abandoned babies in legal limbo
>
> January 30, 2002
>
>
>
>
>
> BY L.L. BRASIER
> FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
>
>
>
>
> It seemed an enlightened law: allow desperate mothers to abandon
> unwanted newborns at hospitals rather than in trash bins or on church
> steps so that the babies can be adopted.
>
> But after the first year, half of the infants abandoned in Michigan
> remain in legal limbo as courts grapple with unforeseen constitutional
> snares.
>
> The law, like other adoption procedures, shields details and hides
> identities from public scrutiny. But interviews with attorneys, judges
> and court officials and a review of available records show the law has
> not worked as hoped.
>
> "It's a mess," said Beverly Hills attorney Karen Cook, who has worked
> on two of the cases in Oakland County Circuit Court.
>
> Since the law took effect Jan. 1, 2001, 12 babies have been left at
> Michigan hospitals: five in Oakland County, four in Wayne County, and
> one each in Crawford, Kalamazoo and Muskegon counties. But only half
> have been placed in adoptive homes because of the law's shortcomings,
> especially concerning fathers' rights.
>
> At issue is that the law allows birth mothers to give up their babies
> without giving enough information to contact the fathers.
>
> Oakland County Circuit Judge Patrick Brennan has had three abandoned
> baby cases come before him, and in each, he has refused to terminate
> the rights of the absentee fathers. Brennan said he is concerned that
> a father may be unaware that the child was abandoned and may not to
> cede his parental rights. "A parent's right to parent their child is
> one of the most sacred rights we have," he said. "I don't think there
> is due process of law here. I have some concerns about whether fathers
> have sufficient notice."
>
> Brennan said he envisions a case of a father emerging years later to
> lay claim to a child. The law, known as the Safe Delivery Act, was
> drafted after several highly publicized abandonments. One involved a
> baby who died in November 1999 after being left wrapped in a shirt
> outside a Warren church, and another was of a 3-day-old child who
> survived being left in a cardboard box at a Lansing car wash. State
> Sens. Shirley Johnson, R-Royal Oak, and Joanne Emmons, R-Big Rapids,
> introduced laws that allowed parents to surrender their babies at
> hospitals, police stations or firehouses, without fear of prosecution.
> The law doesn't require the surrendering parent to provide information
> about the other parent, although the parent is asked to do so. Johnson
> dismissed criticism that the law gives short shrift to fathers:"If
> you've impregnated this woman, why aren't you around?"
>
> The law's requirement to advertise the abandonment and pending
> adoption in local papers is enough notice, she said.
>
> Johnson said the law is a success because it has saved babies, but it
> has uncovered surprising facts. For one, it's not frightened teenagers
> turning over babies, but women in their 20s and 30s -- including one
> who said she was unmarried so she could get rid of a child without
> telling her husband. The man, discovered after Oakland County workers
> found a marriage license, agreed to terminate his parental rights. In
> another case, a mother gave just the father's first name. His full
> name was found on a personal protection order the mother had taken out
> against him.
>
> Court workers tracked down the man in the Oakland County Jail, and he
> is seeking custody of the child.
>
> In a third case, court workers discovered the mother had adopted out
> two other children, and tried to use the new law for her third child
> because a standard adoption took too long.
>
> Also in Oakland Circuit Court, a baby is in foster care while a judge
> refuses to proceed because the mother won't name the father.
>
> Abandoned children who have not been adopted because of legal problems
> under the new law must undergo a standard lengthy adoption while
> living in foster care.
>
> The new law was designed to cut bureaucratic tape and quickly place
> babies in adoptive homes.
>
> Lauran Howard, chief of adoption and intake support services for
> Oakland County, said the law needs tweaking, particularly to address
> fathers' rights.
>
> "Once you've saved the baby at the hospital, you need to go back and
> shore up the legal problems with the fathers," Howard said.
>
> Michigan is not alone in struggling with the problem. Since 1999, 30
> states have enacted laws similar to Michigan's. The father's role in
> such laws is under scrutiny.
>
> "This is bad law for fathers," said attorney Larry Leving, who speaks
> nationally on the issue. Leving of Chicago said he is researching
> cases that could be used to overturn Illinois' abandonment law, which
> is similar to Michigan's.
>
> "These laws, right now, are our greatest concern," he said.

So what does a purportedly inadequate law have to do with the original
absurd claim that all single monthers are chumps? Not a thing. Again, it's
just a few bitter men who probably never did have any respect for women now
further displaying their disrespect by disparaging any group of women that
they possibly can.

Sounds like sour grapes to me -- which is a condition bemoaned only by the
loser.

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[rpm]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:08:42 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> wrote:

>"Sky King" > wrote in message
om...
>> Nan > wrote in message
>...
>> > On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:30:53 GMT, Sky KIng >
>> > scribbled:
>> >
>> > >Ah but you don't feel women should have to do the same huh? If you do
>> > >then I am sure you are against the Child Abandon Law which allows ANY
>> > >women to abandon the child NO questions asked and opt out of
>parenthood.
>> > >Its a clear post-birth choice that men do not have. Would you let any
>> > >man that has fathered a child legally abandon that child or do you
>think
>> > >only women deserve that special right? Careful now and don't let your
>> > >sexist slip show.
>> > >chuckle
>> >
>> > Oh ffs. Leave it to some bitter man to turn something *for the safety
>> > of children* into "NO FAIR, *SHE* HAS MORE OPTIONS THAN ME".
>>
>> Feminist do the same thing ALL the time. Leave it to a feminist to
>> think its bad when men do it.
>>
>>
>>
>> > The Child Abandon Law is there so that a child can be left safely as
>> > opposed to being dumped in a garbage bin, or at the side of the road.
>> > Trust me, no evil feminists backed this in order to stomp all over you
>> > poor men.
>> >
>> > Nan
>>
>>
>> Sure they did and that is the result. What do you think of the
>> problems listed below.
>> Despite law, abandoned babies in legal limbo
>>
>> January 30, 2002
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> BY L.L. BRASIER
>> FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It seemed an enlightened law: allow desperate mothers to abandon
>> unwanted newborns at hospitals rather than in trash bins or on church
>> steps so that the babies can be adopted.
>>
>> But after the first year, half of the infants abandoned in Michigan
>> remain in legal limbo as courts grapple with unforeseen constitutional
>> snares.
>>
>> The law, like other adoption procedures, shields details and hides
>> identities from public scrutiny. But interviews with attorneys, judges
>> and court officials and a review of available records show the law has
>> not worked as hoped.
>>
>> "It's a mess," said Beverly Hills attorney Karen Cook, who has worked
>> on two of the cases in Oakland County Circuit Court.
>>
>> Since the law took effect Jan. 1, 2001, 12 babies have been left at
>> Michigan hospitals: five in Oakland County, four in Wayne County, and
>> one each in Crawford, Kalamazoo and Muskegon counties. But only half
>> have been placed in adoptive homes because of the law's shortcomings,
>> especially concerning fathers' rights.
>>
>> At issue is that the law allows birth mothers to give up their babies
>> without giving enough information to contact the fathers.
>>
>> Oakland County Circuit Judge Patrick Brennan has had three abandoned
>> baby cases come before him, and in each, he has refused to terminate
>> the rights of the absentee fathers. Brennan said he is concerned that
>> a father may be unaware that the child was abandoned and may not to
>> cede his parental rights. "A parent's right to parent their child is
>> one of the most sacred rights we have," he said. "I don't think there
>> is due process of law here. I have some concerns about whether fathers
>> have sufficient notice."
>>
>> Brennan said he envisions a case of a father emerging years later to
>> lay claim to a child. The law, known as the Safe Delivery Act, was
>> drafted after several highly publicized abandonments. One involved a
>> baby who died in November 1999 after being left wrapped in a shirt
>> outside a Warren church, and another was of a 3-day-old child who
>> survived being left in a cardboard box at a Lansing car wash. State
>> Sens. Shirley Johnson, R-Royal Oak, and Joanne Emmons, R-Big Rapids,
>> introduced laws that allowed parents to surrender their babies at
>> hospitals, police stations or firehouses, without fear of prosecution.
>> The law doesn't require the surrendering parent to provide information
>> about the other parent, although the parent is asked to do so. Johnson
>> dismissed criticism that the law gives short shrift to fathers:"If
>> you've impregnated this woman, why aren't you around?"
>>
>> The law's requirement to advertise the abandonment and pending
>> adoption in local papers is enough notice, she said.
>>
>> Johnson said the law is a success because it has saved babies, but it
>> has uncovered surprising facts. For one, it's not frightened teenagers
>> turning over babies, but women in their 20s and 30s -- including one
>> who said she was unmarried so she could get rid of a child without
>> telling her husband. The man, discovered after Oakland County workers
>> found a marriage license, agreed to terminate his parental rights. In
>> another case, a mother gave just the father's first name. His full
>> name was found on a personal protection order the mother had taken out
>> against him.
>>
>> Court workers tracked down the man in the Oakland County Jail, and he
>> is seeking custody of the child.
>>
>> In a third case, court workers discovered the mother had adopted out
>> two other children, and tried to use the new law for her third child
>> because a standard adoption took too long.
>>
>> Also in Oakland Circuit Court, a baby is in foster care while a judge
>> refuses to proceed because the mother won't name the father.
>>
>> Abandoned children who have not been adopted because of legal problems
>> under the new law must undergo a standard lengthy adoption while
>> living in foster care.
>>
>> The new law was designed to cut bureaucratic tape and quickly place
>> babies in adoptive homes.
>>
>> Lauran Howard, chief of adoption and intake support services for
>> Oakland County, said the law needs tweaking, particularly to address
>> fathers' rights.
>>
>> "Once you've saved the baby at the hospital, you need to go back and
>> shore up the legal problems with the fathers," Howard said.
>>
>> Michigan is not alone in struggling with the problem. Since 1999, 30
>> states have enacted laws similar to Michigan's. The father's role in
>> such laws is under scrutiny.
>>
>> "This is bad law for fathers," said attorney Larry Leving, who speaks
>> nationally on the issue. Leving of Chicago said he is researching
>> cases that could be used to overturn Illinois' abandonment law, which
>> is similar to Michigan's.
>>
>> "These laws, right now, are our greatest concern," he said.
>
>So what does a purportedly inadequate law have to do with the original
>absurd claim that all single monthers are chumps? Not a thing. Again, it's
>just a few bitter men who probably never did have any respect for women now
>further displaying their disrespect by disparaging any group of women that
>they possibly can.
>
>Sounds like sour grapes to me -- which is a condition bemoaned only by the
>loser.


If you look at the subject line, the original claim is not that single
mothers are chumps, just the men who marry them are chumps.

[Byron Canfield]

"rpm" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:08:42 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> > wrote:
>
> >Sounds like sour grapes to me -- which is a condition bemoaned only by
the
> >loser.
>
>
> If you look at the subject line, the original claim is not that single
> mothers are chumps, just the men who marry them are chumps.

Okay, I amend that -- the original poster was claim that the men who marry
single mothers are chumps because the mothers are losers. Still sour grapes,
bemoaned only by losers.


--
Byron "Barn" Canfield
-----------------------------
"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
-- Ambrose Bierce

[hvatum]

> > http://www.menweb.org/throop/custody-divorce/studies/whoGets.html
>
> And THAT is not a cite of the study -- that is a cite of somebody else's
> similar rantings where they purport to cite a study, but then provide no
> specific links to it. Just another flame. The only links provided in that
> piece are to other rantings by the same author.

Yes, perhaps because said information can be found in books, not
online for your convience. These "books" can be located at a library,
or bought online. Here is a link to this "book" at amazon.com.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674212959/qid=1093338573/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-8540514-4419066?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

"From Dividing the Child: Social & Legal Dilemmas of Custody -
Harvard Press, 1992 - Eleanor Maccoby (Psych Dept. Stanford) and
Robert Mnookin (Stanford Law School) Based on their survey of nearly
1000 divorcing couples in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties:"

Again, you must read for comprehension not for URLs as you obviously
were.

[Byron Canfield]

"hvatum" > wrote in message
om...
> > > http://www.menweb.org/throop/custody-divorce/studies/whoGets.html
> >
> > And THAT is not a cite of the study -- that is a cite of somebody else's
> > similar rantings where they purport to cite a study, but then provide no
> > specific links to it. Just another flame. The only links provided in
that
> > piece are to other rantings by the same author.
>
> Yes, perhaps because said information can be found in books, not
> online for your convience. These "books" can be located at a library,
> or bought online. Here is a link to this "book" at amazon.com.
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674212959/qid=1093338573/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-8540514-4419066?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>
> "From Dividing the Child: Social & Legal Dilemmas of Custody -
> Harvard Press, 1992 - Eleanor Maccoby (Psych Dept. Stanford) and
> Robert Mnookin (Stanford Law School) Based on their survey of nearly
> 1000 divorcing couples in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties:"

Said book published 12 years ago is, due to the nature of paper publishing,
at least 15 years out of date, and no longer relevant to the issue of
custody where the legal decisions are in constant flux.
>
> Again, you must read for comprehension not for URLs as you obviously
> were.

Comprehension is irrelevant when nonsense is proffered.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Sky King]

rpm > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:08:42 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Sky King" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> Nan > wrote in message
> >...
> >> > On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:30:53 GMT, Sky KIng >
> >> > scribbled:
> >> >
> >> > >Ah but you don't feel women should have to do the same huh? If you do
> >> > >then I am sure you are against the Child Abandon Law which allows ANY
> >> > >women to abandon the child NO questions asked and opt out of
> parenthood.
> >> > >Its a clear post-birth choice that men do not have. Would you let any
> >> > >man that has fathered a child legally abandon that child or do you
> think
> >> > >only women deserve that special right? Careful now and don't let your
> >> > >sexist slip show.
> >> > >chuckle
> >> >
> >> > Oh ffs. Leave it to some bitter man to turn something *for the safety
> >> > of children* into "NO FAIR, *SHE* HAS MORE OPTIONS THAN ME".

She has more RIGHTS than me..surely you are for equal rights.
> >>
> >> Feminist do the same thing ALL the time. Leave it to a feminist to
> >> think its bad when men do it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > The Child Abandon Law is there so that a child can be left safely as
> >> > opposed to being dumped in a garbage bin, or at the side of the road.
> >> > Trust me, no evil feminists backed this in order to stomp all over you
> >> > poor men.
> >> >
> >> > Nan
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure they did and that is the result. What do you think of the
> >> problems listed below.
> >> Despite law, abandoned babies in legal limbo
> >>
> >> January 30, 2002
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> BY L.L. BRASIER
> >> FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It seemed an enlightened law: allow desperate mothers to abandon
> >> unwanted newborns at hospitals rather than in trash bins or on church
> >> steps so that the babies can be adopted.
> >>
> >> But after the first year, half of the infants abandoned in Michigan
> >> remain in legal limbo as courts grapple with unforeseen constitutional
> >> snares.
> >>
> >> The law, like other adoption procedures, shields details and hides
> >> identities from public scrutiny. But interviews with attorneys, judges
> >> and court officials and a review of available records show the law has
> >> not worked as hoped.
> >>
> >> "It's a mess," said Beverly Hills attorney Karen Cook, who has worked
> >> on two of the cases in Oakland County Circuit Court.
> >>
> >> Since the law took effect Jan. 1, 2001, 12 babies have been left at
> >> Michigan hospitals: five in Oakland County, four in Wayne County, and
> >> one each in Crawford, Kalamazoo and Muskegon counties. But only half
> >> have been placed in adoptive homes because of the law's shortcomings,
> >> especially concerning fathers' rights.
> >>
> >> At issue is that the law allows birth mothers to give up their babies
> >> without giving enough information to contact the fathers.
> >>
> >> Oakland County Circuit Judge Patrick Brennan has had three abandoned
> >> baby cases come before him, and in each, he has refused to terminate
> >> the rights of the absentee fathers. Brennan said he is concerned that
> >> a father may be unaware that the child was abandoned and may not to
> >> cede his parental rights. "A parent's right to parent their child is
> >> one of the most sacred rights we have," he said. "I don't think there
> >> is due process of law here. I have some concerns about whether fathers
> >> have sufficient notice."
> >>
> >> Brennan said he envisions a case of a father emerging years later to
> >> lay claim to a child. The law, known as the Safe Delivery Act, was
> >> drafted after several highly publicized abandonments. One involved a
> >> baby who died in November 1999 after being left wrapped in a shirt
> >> outside a Warren church, and another was of a 3-day-old child who
> >> survived being left in a cardboard box at a Lansing car wash. State
> >> Sens. Shirley Johnson, R-Royal Oak, and Joanne Emmons, R-Big Rapids,
> >> introduced laws that allowed parents to surrender their babies at
> >> hospitals, police stations or firehouses, without fear of prosecution.
> >> The law doesn't require the surrendering parent to provide information
> >> about the other parent, although the parent is asked to do so. Johnson
> >> dismissed criticism that the law gives short shrift to fathers:"If
> >> you've impregnated this woman, why aren't you around?"
> >>
> >> The law's requirement to advertise the abandonment and pending
> >> adoption in local papers is enough notice, she said.
> >>
> >> Johnson said the law is a success because it has saved babies, but it
> >> has uncovered surprising facts. For one, it's not frightened teenagers
> >> turning over babies, but women in their 20s and 30s -- including one
> >> who said she was unmarried so she could get rid of a child without
> >> telling her husband. The man, discovered after Oakland County workers
> >> found a marriage license, agreed to terminate his parental rights. In
> >> another case, a mother gave just the father's first name. His full
> >> name was found on a personal protection order the mother had taken out
> >> against him.
> >>
> >> Court workers tracked down the man in the Oakland County Jail, and he
> >> is seeking custody of the child.
> >>
> >> In a third case, court workers discovered the mother had adopted out
> >> two other children, and tried to use the new law for her third child
> >> because a standard adoption took too long.
> >>
> >> Also in Oakland Circuit Court, a baby is in foster care while a judge
> >> refuses to proceed because the mother won't name the father.
> >>
> >> Abandoned children who have not been adopted because of legal problems
> >> under the new law must undergo a standard lengthy adoption while
> >> living in foster care.
> >>
> >> The new law was designed to cut bureaucratic tape and quickly place
> >> babies in adoptive homes.
> >>
> >> Lauran Howard, chief of adoption and intake support services for
> >> Oakland County, said the law needs tweaking, particularly to address
> >> fathers' rights.
> >>
> >> "Once you've saved the baby at the hospital, you need to go back and
> >> shore up the legal problems with the fathers," Howard said.
> >>
> >> Michigan is not alone in struggling with the problem. Since 1999, 30
> >> states have enacted laws similar to Michigan's. The father's role in
> >> such laws is under scrutiny.
> >>
> >> "This is bad law for fathers," said attorney Larry Leving, who speaks
> >> nationally on the issue. Leving of Chicago said he is researching
> >> cases that could be used to overturn Illinois' abandonment law, which
> >> is similar to Michigan's.
> >>
> >> "These laws, right now, are our greatest concern," he said.
> >
> >So what does a purportedly inadequate law have to do with the original
> >absurd claim that all single monthers are chumps?

I didn't make that claim.


Not a thing. Again, it's
> >just a few bitter men who probably never did have any respect for women now
> >further displaying their disrespect by disparaging any group of women that
> >they possibly can.


This law will now be judged in the courts and fathers rights will not be trampled.
> >
> >Sounds like sour grapes to me -- which is a condition bemoaned only by the
> >loser.
>
>
> If you look at the subject line, the original claim is not that single
> mothers are chumps, just the men who marry them are chumps.

[Paul Griffiths]

"'Kate" > wrote in message
...

> I'd like to take this opportunity to wish each and every one of my
> fellow netizens a very happy troll season!

And to you too 'Kate. Happy Trollfest.


--
Paul Griffiths

[Lee]

"Byron Canfield" > wrote in message news:<RV4Wc.295335$a24.212837@attbi_s03>...
> "Lee" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Byron Canfield" < > wrote in message
> news:<GLzVc.199868$eM2.16412@attbi_s51 >...
> > > "Lee" < > wrote in message
> > > m ...
> > > > "Zoe" < > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > >> No one
> > > > > > >> >understands what being a single mother is until they
> experienced
> it.
> > > >
> > > > So? This method of refutation is dropped by most after their
> > > > sophomore year of College.
> > > >
> > > > Valid, accurate criticisms can be levied by persons who have never
> > > > been in the situation they are critiquing.
> > > >
> > > > I am a man, but I can validly criticize women who chose poorly and
> > > > then have a child by their poorly chosen man.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, whether one has been in the situation or not, the
> data is
> > > not available from which to draw the conclusion that one group, in
> total, or
> > > the other, consists of "chumps" or "losers" as the originator of this
> thread
> > > asserted.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Almost every woman who gets pregnant wants to get pregnant because
> > > > they act in a manner that does not preclude pregnancy.
> > > >
> > > > Every time.
> > >
> > > See above.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If I were a woman and I did not want to get pregnant -
> > > >
> > > > I would not have unprotected sex.
> > > > I would be on the pill.
> > > > I would have the Ru-486 in my medicine cabinet.
> > > > I would know where to get an abortion.
> > > > I would know where to give up a baby for adoption.
> > > >
> > > > There are 13 or 14 ways to not become a mother.
> > >
> > >
> > > And there you DO put yourself in the position of judging something for
> which
> > > you have not the frame of reference.
> >
> > In short - I disagree. Accurate assessments can be made by those who
> > have dissimilar frames for reference. It happens millions of times a
> > day, accurately, precisely and truthfully, all over the world.
> >
> > If your intent is that I must have the frame of reference in order to
> > judge something, I disagree in the strongest possible fashion.
> >
> > My OP states that clearly.
> >
> > As one example, a person does not have to be a civil engineer to make
> > the accurate judgment that 'Bouncing Gertie' over the Tacoma Narrows
> > was an engineering failure.
>
> That is nothing like your claim that you would behave in a certain way "if
> you were" someone else. That sort of claim is pure(e) nonsense.

To claim that I would behave in a certain way if I were a woman is not
nonsense - some women *are* rational, and if I were presented with the
situation I would behave as I posted.

> >
> > You exhibit Fascistic tendencies, in the modern usage of the word.
> >
> > i.e. A Fascist is someone who's pov is held above all others and their
> > standards are the ultimate standards to use for a given situation -
> > like your apparent insistence that I must have the frame of reference
> > of someone I am validly critiquing.
>
> No, you're putting your own definition on Fascism. You should learn how to
> read and then look up the definition.

No I am not.

Here is a quote:

"The term "fascist" or "Nazi" is often ascribed to individuals or
groups who are perceived to behave in an authoritarian manner; by
silencing opposition, judging personal behavior, or otherwise
attempting to concentrate power."

This is the current usage, however it does not reconcile with the
traditional definition.

Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definition

> >
> > IOW you reserve the right to ignore criticism based upon dissimilar
> > frames of reference. How convenient for you.
>
> Saying that you would do something IF YOU WERE SOMEBODY ELSE does not
> constitute criticism -- it is pure conjecture without any basis. You('re) just silly.

It constitutes what a rational being would do.

> >
> > BTW your opinion will have no effect upon my judgments.
> > I can judge all I want, and most of my judgments are very accurate and
> > precise and truthful.
>
> As I would expect -- no one's would -- your mind is made up and reality must
> be adjusted to conform to your preconceived notions.

My notions are based upon observed reality.

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked
> about
> > > > > single fathers. See the below paragraph.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm also aware
> > > > > > >that there are single fathers out there who are doing the same
> job as
> single
> > > > > > >mothers and should be commended just as well. I'll also say
> this -
> courts
> > > > > > >more often than not side with the mother on custody issues and
> this
> > > is
> > > not
> > > > > > >always right either.
> > > >
> > > > 80% of custody is awarded to mommy.
> > > >
> > > > Your post is another example of people in denial or being plain
> stupid.
> > >
> > > You cite no facts to back up your 80% figure,
> >
> > These facts are common knowledge. But I will indulge your lack of
> > initiative.
>
> That's false -- no such common knowledge.

Your ignorance is not my responsibility.

I can have all the members of AWS post; they know it.
Andre knows it, Mark, too.

And initiative is not the issue.
> When you make an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you.

The point is that my claim is *not* extraordinary - it is only insofar
as you believe it to be. To me it is a given bit of truth - a fact of
life. Most of my male friends know that mom gets custody 80% of the
time. Listeners to The Tom Leykis Show know it (approx cume 6 million
per week).

This
> aspect of debate IS common knowledge, though you are apparently clueless in
> that regard, or you choose to conveniently ignore it.

That mothers get custody 80% of the time is widely known.

> >
> > http://www.menweb.org/throop/custody-divorce/studies/whoGets.html
>
> And THAT is not a cite of the study -- that is a cite of somebody else's
> similar rantings where they purport to cite a study, but then provide no
> specific links to it. Just another flame. The only links provided in that
> piece are to other rantings by the same author.
> >
> > 77% mommy, 23% joint.
> >
> > I was incorrect - mommy gets custody 91.5% (88.5%) of the time.
> >
> > and then you insult the poster
> > > for her paragraph
> >
> > I posted this : "Your post..."
> >
> > I am referring to her post, not the aforementioned paragraph. That is
> > your comprehension bias kicking in.
>
> Your just lying now -- go back and read your own post, idiot!

The cite *is* from my post.

> >
> > http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/baddadmyth2.htm
> > "Most divorced dads have more contact with their kids than was
> > previously believed, he says. A 1983 study based at the University of
> > Pennsylvania reported that only 49 percent of fathers had contact with
> > their children within the preceding year. But Braver found that 90
> > percent had contact by either parent's account. Five out of six
> > fathers living in the same town three years after the divorce reported
> > weekly contact"
>
> I notice that you cannot cite a link to the original article, as allegedly
> published in the New York Times, but must post a link to a website that is
> obviously the product of bias. And you, the one who so carries on about
> "bias"...

The NY Times is *not* biased!?! - puhleeze.

> >
> > Bravers 1999 study found that more than 50% see their children.
> > So her statement is false, biased, sexist and stupid.
> >
> > http://www.acfc.us/reports/pdfs/DTWSacBee080102Thedeadbeatdadcanard.pdf
>
> Again, YOUR bias is showing. The not so convenient byline at the bottom of
> that article on the website (notably missing from the PDF: " Glenn Sacks
> writes about gender issues from the male perspective. "

You continue to stick your head in the sand.

Pick up a book. Read the study you Luddite.

> >
> > Thus her refusal to acknowledge the truth is either 1) Denial or 2)
> > stupidity.
>
> Truth only in your mind, therefore, denial of it is mandatory until you
> prove it.

Here is a clue: not everything is posted on the net.
Some of us read books.

Delightful logic on your part:

"I cannot read the original study on the web, ergo it does not exist."

>
> > I stand by my post. She is either in denial or stupid.
>
> And that's NOT bias? You're an idiot.

Your ignorance of the facts is not my concern.

>
> > Additionally, insults are not false - they are impolite.
>
> I never claimed your insults were false -- just stupid.
>
> > Is what I posted true?
>
> Nope.

Read the study.

You are ignorant if you continue to deny this basic fact of CS and FL.

>
> > Is she ignorant or in denial WRT who is
> > responsible for single motherhood and child custody?
>
> Nope.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Why do women get pregnant? Because they want to.
> > >
> > > See above, regarding judging things for which you have no frame of
> > > reference.
> > > >
> > > > Another example:
> > > >
> > > > Is there any one over the age of 15 who lives in North America who
> > > > does not know about AIDS?
> > > >
> > > > Q: Then why has anyone become infected since 1990?
> > > > A: They behave stupidly.
> > >
> > > That contradicts your prior assertion that it is by conscious choice.
> >
> > It does not.
> > Are you stupid?
> > Read for comprehension.
>
> You said women get pregnant because they want to, and then you claim people
> act out of stupidity. Which is it -- intentional or negligence?


Bzzt. Again you cannot see.

Intentional is not synonymous with 'wanting to.'
Negligence is not synonymous with stupidity.

Read for comprehension.

Someone who acts out of stupidity is not necessarily acting without
volition.

You can't
> seem to make up your mind (if you have one).

You cannot seem to differentiate between the concepts posted herein.

> >
> > You appear to equate 'behaving stupidly' with a non-conscious choice.
>
> Oh contrairre --

Nonsense - you posted as such above.

I was remarking you you equating behaving stupidly ignoring
> the potential consequences with behaving stupidly and wishing for the
> consequences. You can't have it both ways, idiot!

Au contraire - many women often ignore one set of consequences whilst
wishing for the remaining consequences.

i.e. Women who get pregnant while doing drugs.

Clue train:
Many women are irrational, and will make decisions based upon poorly
reasoned (by the loosest of definitions) arguments.

Some people are not too bright, and *will* consciously and willfully
chose stupid courses of action time and again, 'wanting to' each time.

Not everyone has your scintillating intellect.

> >
> > > Do you bother to read what you write before you hit the send button?
> Geez!
> >
> > You are condescending, and inaccurate.
>
> Again, you quite apparently just run off at the mouth and don't bother to
> review what you write.

In this instance, you are projecting.

Warm Regards,
Lee.

[Lee]

> Said book published 12 years ago is, due to the nature of paper publishing,
> at least 15 years out of date, and no longer relevant to the issue of
> custody where the legal decisions are in constant flux.

In the absense of anything more current, it would be accepted as
relevant with reservation. Not dismissed.

> >
> > Again, you must read for comprehension not for URLs as you obviously
> > were.
>
> Comprehension is irrelevant when nonsense is proffered.

Again, you dismiss all evidenciary presents by your standards which
flucuate to accomodate each post.

I will leave it to you to label your behavior.

Lee.

[hvatum]

"Byron Canfield" > wrote in message news:<aGUWc.228655$eM2.121865@attbi_s51>...
> "hvatum" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > > http://www.menweb.org/throop/custody-divorce/studies/whoGets.html
> > >
> > > And THAT is not a cite of the study -- that is a cite of somebody else's
> > > similar rantings where they purport to cite a study, but then provide no
> > > specific links to it. Just another flame. The only links provided in
> that
> > > piece are to other rantings by the same author.
> >
> > Yes, perhaps because said information can be found in books, not
> > online for your convience. These "books" can be located at a library,
> > or bought online. Here is a link to this "book" at amazon.com.
> >
> >
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674212959/qid=1093338573/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-8540514-4419066?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
> >
> > "From Dividing the Child: Social & Legal Dilemmas of Custody -
> > Harvard Press, 1992 - Eleanor Maccoby (Psych Dept. Stanford) and
> > Robert Mnookin (Stanford Law School) Based on their survey of nearly
> > 1000 divorcing couples in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties:"
>
> Said book

Ah, so you DIDN'T even notice that book before.

> published 12 years ago is, due to the nature of paper publishing,
> at least 15 years out of date,

Unless you can find more recent statistics these are the best we have to go by.