Re: Men who marry Single Mothers are Chumps !

[Byron Canfield]

"Manfred Acker" > wrote in message
...
> "Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> >...
> > 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.
>
> Yes they are. They're too stupid to keep from being stuck raising a kid
> by themselves.

Not if they are smart enough to get out of a relationship witha troglodyte
like you.

>
> > 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.
>
> At least they're smart enough to not be stuck with the brat.

Don't confuse "smart" with immature and irresponsible.

> That doesn't
> change the fact that they should have their nuts cut off and fed to them.
>
> > Single mothers should be applauded.
>
> Single mothers should be laughed at and then forcibly sterilized before
> they bring more little welfare piglets into the world.

And you're a prime example of the justification for post-birth abortion.


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

[Seth]

On 15 Aug 2004 11:40:26 -0000, Manfred Acker
> wrote:

>"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
>...
>> 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.
>
>Yes they are. They're too stupid to keep from being stuck raising a kid
>by themselves.
>
>> 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.
>
>At least they're smart enough to not be stuck with the brat. That doesn't
>change the fact that they should have their nuts cut off and fed to them.
>
>> Single mothers should be applauded.
>
>Single mothers should be laughed at and then forcibly sterilized before
>they bring more little welfare piglets into the world.
>
>
I tend to agree. The only way those types can feed her self is by
spreading her legs. The average family in north america is one woman
and 1.7 kids and this is of the governments making. The government
makes single men fathers by proxy and punishes them for the selective
custody choices the government has made (ie. child tax credit went
from 32 a month to 322, it's a real ****er).


Reading willing and able. Waiting

[Byron Canfield]

"Seth" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Aug 2004 11:40:26 -0000, Manfred Acker
> > wrote:
>
> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> 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.
> >
> >Yes they are. They're too stupid to keep from being stuck raising a kid
> >by themselves.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >At least they're smart enough to not be stuck with the brat. That doesn't
> >change the fact that they should have their nuts cut off and fed to them.
> >
> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
> >
> >Single mothers should be laughed at and then forcibly sterilized before
> >they bring more little welfare piglets into the world.
> >
> >
> I tend to agree. The only way those types can feed her self is by
> spreading her legs. The average family in north america is one woman
> and 1.7 kids and this is of the governments making. The government
> makes single men fathers by proxy and punishes them for the selective
> custody choices the government has made (ie. child tax credit went
> from 32 a month to 322, it's a real ****er).
>
>
> Reading willing and able. Waiting

How is it that you cannot grasp the concept that it is not necessarily a
single mother's fault that she is single?

Perhaps because your own relationship went sour?

I've known quite a number of single mothers -- some were were so because
their former husbands, like you, were complete assholes; others were single
mothers because the fathers renegged on what was perceived by the women as a
comittment (no doubt foolish on their part to have been so trusting, but
hardly qualifying as "losers") and left them when they became pregnant.


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

[Victor]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 03:01:58 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> wrote:

>"Seth" > wrote in message
...
>> On 15 Aug 2004 11:40:26 -0000, Manfred Acker
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >Yes they are. They're too stupid to keep from being stuck raising a kid
>> >by themselves.
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >At least they're smart enough to not be stuck with the brat. That doesn't
>> >change the fact that they should have their nuts cut off and fed to them.
>> >
>> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
>> >
>> >Single mothers should be laughed at and then forcibly sterilized before
>> >they bring more little welfare piglets into the world.
>> >
>> >
>> I tend to agree. The only way those types can feed her self is by
>> spreading her legs. The average family in north america is one woman
>> and 1.7 kids and this is of the governments making. The government
>> makes single men fathers by proxy and punishes them for the selective
>> custody choices the government has made (ie. child tax credit went
>> from 32 a month to 322, it's a real ****er).
>>
>>
>> Reading willing and able. Waiting
>
>How is it that you cannot grasp the concept that it is not necessarily a
>single mother's fault that she is single?
>
>Perhaps because your own relationship went sour?
>
>I've known quite a number of single mothers -- some were were so because
>their former husbands, like you, were complete assholes; others were single
>mothers because the fathers renegged on what was perceived by the women as a
>comittment (no doubt foolish on their part to have been so trusting, but
>hardly qualifying as "losers") and left them when they became pregnant.
>
Losers might be a bit harsh but it's similar to what boys/men face.
**** it, it's not worth defending.

[Jennifer Kulp]

Do you know what a "widow" is, ASSHOLE?

[Victor]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 04:28:02 GMT, "Jennifer Kulp" >
wrote:

>Do you know what a "widow" is, ASSHOLE?
>
>
Widows, fatherless, been there done it a thousand times. Don't care to
repeat it but obviously we're going to.

Anyways, it's insensitive ******* you silly ****.

[Turin]

"Jennifer Kulp" > wrote in message >...
> Do you know what a "widow" is, ASSHOLE?


If it were what you imply, then we wouldn't need another another name
for it, Missy. It's basically a woman who lives off her husband's
insurance money - probably after poisoning him in order to inherit it
earlier.

Also having kids adds to the sympathy effect ...'po wittle widow.





- - -

This has been another enlightening moment, with:

Turin

I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_First/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_Politics/
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/socmen2
------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----

[Turin]

"Byron Canfield" > wrote in message news:<GsVTc.17555$mD.12870@attbi_s02>...
> "Seth" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 15 Aug 2004 11:40:26 -0000, Manfred Acker
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >Yes they are. They're too stupid to keep from being stuck raising a kid
> > >by themselves.
> > >
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >At least they're smart enough to not be stuck with the brat. That doesn't
> > >change the fact that they should have their nuts cut off and fed to them.
> > >
> > >> Single mothers should be applauded.
> > >
> > >Single mothers should be laughed at and then forcibly sterilized before
> > >they bring more little welfare piglets into the world.
> > >
> > >
> > I tend to agree. The only way those types can feed her self is by
> > spreading her legs. The average family in north america is one woman
> > and 1.7 kids and this is of the governments making. The government
> > makes single men fathers by proxy and punishes them for the selective
> > custody choices the government has made (ie. child tax credit went
> > from 32 a month to 322, it's a real ****er).
> >
> >
> > Reading willing and able. Waiting
>
> How is it that you cannot grasp the concept that it is not necessarily a
> single mother's fault that she is single?
>
> Perhaps because your own relationship went sour?


No, it's because those types of guys have a class mentality that
doesn't have any real use for merit based systems. If you just pay
attention, you'll see that they're talking another language entirely,
and that your precious group of single "mothers" is really going
unchallenged in terms of "women".

Essentially, they still don't have the guts to commit the cardinal sin
of criticizing women on pure behavior. They need a political pretext
that turns it into a middle class (bourgeois) vs. a welfare class
(proletariat) issue, and allows the little ladies another face-saving
social excuse. (They still fancy themselves as social sexists - even
though they've already compromised 90% of the old social order away,
and endorse it with sincerity - so, that they would be ashamed to not
appear chivalrous, as hollow as it might be.)


However, even that pretext is misleading. The actual pretext is
really the woman issue (here, the "single mother" issue). The main
agenda is really their supply-side tax bull****.

The two cover for each other, and this is necessary for the tax
issues, too, because it's politically difficult for them to seem
unAmerican by openly touting for selected classes of society. Middle
class hypocrisy might be a lot of pure self-righteous classism, but it
still ultimately falls back on posing as the little people, and on
invoking quaint old American freedoms and rights - which, somehow, the
underclasses aren't supposed to get.


Personally, I think we ought to empty the suburbs by rounding them all
up to be shot - along with their politically concocted definitions of
"terrorism". I've had enough of their political obstructionism......



- - -

This has been another pleasant conclusion, with:

Turin

I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_First/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_Politics/
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/socmen2
------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----


> I've known quite a number of single mothers -- some were were so because
> their former husbands, like you, were complete assholes; others were single
> mothers because the fathers renegged on what was perceived by the women as a
> comittment (no doubt foolish on their part to have been so trusting, but
> hardly qualifying as "losers") and left them when they became pregnant.

[Victor]

On 16 Aug 2004 06:13:30 -0700, (Turin) wrote:

>"Byron Canfield" > wrote in message news:<GsVTc.17555$mD.12870@attbi_s02>...
>> "Seth" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 15 Aug 2004 11:40:26 -0000, Manfred Acker
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
>> > >...
>> > >> 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.
>> > >
>> > >Yes they are. They're too stupid to keep from being stuck raising a kid
>> > >by themselves.
>> > >
>> > >> 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.
>> > >
>> > >At least they're smart enough to not be stuck with the brat. That doesn't
>> > >change the fact that they should have their nuts cut off and fed to them.
>> > >
>> > >> Single mothers should be applauded.
>> > >
>> > >Single mothers should be laughed at and then forcibly sterilized before
>> > >they bring more little welfare piglets into the world.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > I tend to agree. The only way those types can feed her self is by
>> > spreading her legs. The average family in north america is one woman
>> > and 1.7 kids and this is of the governments making. The government
>> > makes single men fathers by proxy and punishes them for the selective
>> > custody choices the government has made (ie. child tax credit went
>> > from 32 a month to 322, it's a real ****er).
>> >
>> >
>> > Reading willing and able. Waiting
>>
>> How is it that you cannot grasp the concept that it is not necessarily a
>> single mother's fault that she is single?
>>
>> Perhaps because your own relationship went sour?
>
>
>No, it's because those types of guys have a class mentality that
>doesn't have any real use for merit based systems. If you just pay
>attention, you'll see that they're talking another language entirely,
>and that your precious group of single "mothers" is really going
>unchallenged in terms of "women".
>
>Essentially, they still don't have the guts to commit the cardinal sin
>of criticizing women on pure behavior. They need a political pretext
>that turns it into a middle class (bourgeois) vs. a welfare class
>(proletariat) issue, and allows the little ladies another face-saving
>social excuse. (They still fancy themselves as social sexists - even
>though they've already compromised 90% of the old social order away,
>and endorse it with sincerity - so, that they would be ashamed to not
>appear chivalrous, as hollow as it might be.)
>
>
>However, even that pretext is misleading. The actual pretext is
>really the woman issue (here, the "single mother" issue). The main
>agenda is really their supply-side tax bull****.
>
>The two cover for each other, and this is necessary for the tax
>issues, too, because it's politically difficult for them to seem
>unAmerican by openly touting for selected classes of society. Middle
>class hypocrisy might be a lot of pure self-righteous classism, but it
>still ultimately falls back on posing as the little people, and on
>invoking quaint old American freedoms and rights - which, somehow, the
>underclasses aren't supposed to get.
>
Actually some groups are only sympathized when they can be identified
with. Errr... what's good for the goose is good for the gander,...pot
calling the tea kettle black....

The original chivalrous poster (loser one) was likely retaliating over
current provocation by a suggestive authority figure who make a habit
(and a pretty penny) of targeting kids..
>
>Personally, I think we ought to empty the suburbs by rounding them all
>up to be shot - along with their politically concocted definitions of
>"terrorism". I've had enough of their political obstructionism......
>
>
>
>- - -
>
>This has been another pleasant conclusion, with:
>
>Turin
>
>I have such sites to show you...
>------------------------
>http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_First/
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_Politics/
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/socmen2
>------------------------
>
>"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
>maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
>burn in hell forever and ever...."
>
>-----
>
>
>> I've known quite a number of single mothers -- some were were so because
>> their former husbands, like you, were complete assholes; others were single
>> mothers because the fathers renegged on what was perceived by the women as a
>> comittment (no doubt foolish on their part to have been so trusting, but
>> hardly qualifying as "losers") and left them when they became pregnant.

[Zoey]

"Seth" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Aug 2004 11:40:26 -0000, Manfred Acker
> > wrote:
>
> >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> 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.
> >
> >Yes they are. They're too stupid to keep from being stuck raising a kid
> >by themselves.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >At least they're smart enough to not be stuck with the brat. That doesn't
> >change the fact that they should have their nuts cut off and fed to them.
> >
> >> Single mothers should be applauded.
> >
> >Single mothers should be laughed at and then forcibly sterilized before
> >they bring more little welfare piglets into the world.
> >
> >
> I tend to agree. The only way those types can feed her self is by
> spreading her legs. The average family in north america is one woman
> and 1.7 kids and this is of the governments making. The government
> makes single men fathers by proxy and punishes them for the selective
> custody choices the government has made (ie. child tax credit went
> from 32 a month to 322, it's a real ****er).

Is your brain completely mush or do you have some control over the
nonsense you spew?

[Byron Canfield]

"Zoey" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Seth" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 15 Aug 2004 11:40:26 -0000, Manfred Acker
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >Yes they are. They're too stupid to keep from being stuck raising a kid
> > >by themselves.
> > >
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >At least they're smart enough to not be stuck with the brat. That
doesn't
> > >change the fact that they should have their nuts cut off and fed to
them.
> > >
> > >> Single mothers should be applauded.
> > >
> > >Single mothers should be laughed at and then forcibly sterilized before
> > >they bring more little welfare piglets into the world.
> > >
> > >
> > I tend to agree. The only way those types can feed her self is by
> > spreading her legs. The average family in north america is one woman
> > and 1.7 kids and this is of the governments making. The government
> > makes single men fathers by proxy and punishes them for the selective
> > custody choices the government has made (ie. child tax credit went
> > from 32 a month to 322, it's a real ****er).
>
> Is your brain completely mush or do you have some control over the
> nonsense you spew?

He apparently does not have any such control -- only enough control to post
under different names to make it appear as though he has support for his
idiocy.


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

[hvatum]

"Byron Canfield" > wrote in message news:<GsVTc.17555$mD.12870@attbi_s02>...
> "Seth" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 15 Aug 2004 11:40:26 -0000, Manfred Acker
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >"Autobodygal" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >Yes they are. They're too stupid to keep from being stuck raising a kid
> > >by themselves.
> > >
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >At least they're smart enough to not be stuck with the brat. That doesn't
> > >change the fact that they should have their nuts cut off and fed to them.
> > >
> > >> Single mothers should be applauded.
> > >
> > >Single mothers should be laughed at and then forcibly sterilized before
> > >they bring more little welfare piglets into the world.
> > >
> > >
> > I tend to agree. The only way those types can feed her self is by
> > spreading her legs. The average family in north america is one woman
> > and 1.7 kids and this is of the governments making. The government
> > makes single men fathers by proxy and punishes them for the selective
> > custody choices the government has made (ie. child tax credit went
> > from 32 a month to 322, it's a real ****er).
> >
> >
> > Reading willing and able. Waiting
>
> How is it that you cannot grasp the concept that it is not necessarily a
> single mother's fault that she is single?
>
> Perhaps because your own relationship went sour?
>
> I've known quite a number of single mothers -- some were were so because
> their former husbands, like you, were complete assholes; others were single
> mothers because the fathers renegged on what was perceived by the women as a
> comittment (no doubt foolish on their part to have been so trusting, but
> hardly qualifying as "losers") and left them when they became pregnant.

Ah, so there are two possible reasons why a mother could is single:
A: The mother is a saint, and the father was an asshole and left.
B: The mother is a saint, and the father was an asshole and left.

This presents three problems:
A. Why is the woman having childern with an asshole?
B. Why is the woman having childern with an asshole?
C. Why is the woman having childern with an asshole?

[Byron Canfield]

"hvatum" > wrote in message
om...
> Ah, so there are two possible reasons why a mother could is single:
> A: The mother is a saint, and the father was an asshole and left.
> B: The mother is a saint, and the father was an asshole and left.

You seem to think that because people don't subscribe to YOUR all-or-nothing
scenario that they, too, are insisting on an all-or-nothing scenario. That
is the hallmark of an asshole -- you have no frame of reference to consider
the many possibilities.
>
> This presents three problems:
> A. Why is the woman having childern with an asshole?
Answer: He disguised his true nature until after he made her presumably
dependent on him.

> B. Why is the woman having childern with an asshole?
Answer: He was a latent asshole and the tendencies didn't make themselves
known until AFTER the children were born.

> C. Why is the woman having childern with an asshole?
Answer: She thought she might be able to change him (this, and only this, of
the three, qualifies as being a reason without merit -- an asshole will
never change into anything else).


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

[hvatum]

> You seem to think that because people don't subscribe to YOUR all-or-nothing
> scenario that they, too, are insisting on an all-or-nothing scenario. That
> is the hallmark of an asshole...

Drumroll please...

> I've known quite a number of single mothers -- some were were so because
> their former husbands, like you, were complete assholes; others were single
> mothers because the fathers renegged on what was perceived by the women as a
> comittment (no doubt foolish on their part to have been so trusting, but
> hardly qualifying as "losers") and left them when they became pregnant.

And here is your all-or-nothing scenrario! (You think that men are
assholes, and women are always innocent of any blame, right?).

I'm not presenting an all or one scenario, simply showing that it goes
both ways.

[Byron Canfield]

"hvatum" > wrote in message
om...
> > You seem to think that because people don't subscribe to YOUR
all-or-nothing
> > scenario that they, too, are insisting on an all-or-nothing scenario.
That
> > is the hallmark of an asshole...
>
> Drumroll please...
>
> > I've known quite a number of single mothers -- some were were so because
> > their former husbands, like you, were complete assholes; others were
single
> > mothers because the fathers renegged on what was perceived by the women
as a
> > comittment (no doubt foolish on their part to have been so trusting, but
> > hardly qualifying as "losers") and left them when they became pregnant.
>
> And here is your all-or-nothing scenrario! (You think that men are
> assholes, and women are always innocent of any blame, right?).
>
> I'm not presenting an all or one scenario, simply showing that it goes
> both ways.

No, that's what others were showing -- that the premise of the thread, being
all-inclusive, was false. You have now changed your story, where previously,
you were trying to support the original premise, that the single mothers
were all losers. Again, you try to foist your all-or-nothing scenario on
others. Ain't gonnna wash.


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

[hvatum]

"Byron Canfield" > wrote in message news:<7zAXc.317353$a24.110918@attbi_s03>...
> "hvatum" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > You seem to think that because people don't subscribe to YOUR
> all-or-nothing
> > > scenario that they, too, are insisting on an all-or-nothing scenario.
> That
> > > is the hallmark of an asshole...
> >
> > Drumroll please...
> >
> > > I've known quite a number of single mothers -- some were were so because
> > > their former husbands, like you, were complete assholes; others were
> single
> > > mothers because the fathers renegged on what was perceived by the women
> as a
> > > comittment (no doubt foolish on their part to have been so trusting, but
> > > hardly qualifying as "losers") and left them when they became pregnant.
> >
> > And here is your all-or-nothing scenrario! (You think that men are
> > assholes, and women are always innocent of any blame, right?).
> >
> > I'm not presenting an all or one scenario, simply showing that it goes
> > both ways.
>
> No, that's what others were showing -- that the premise of the thread, being
> all-inclusive, was false. You have now changed your story, where previously,
> you were trying to support the original premise, that the single mothers
> were all losers. Again, you try to foist your all-or-nothing scenario on
> others. Ain't gonnna wash.


Sorry you interpreted it that way. I was just offering other
possibilities in contrast to your all-or-nothing scenario. I was not
intending to back up the original premise of the thread.

[Byron Canfield]

"hvatum" > wrote in message
om...
> "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
news:<7zAXc.317353$a24.110918@attbi_s03>...
> > "hvatum" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > > You seem to think that because people don't subscribe to YOUR
> > all-or-nothing
> > > > scenario that they, too, are insisting on an all-or-nothing
scenario.
> > That
> > > > is the hallmark of an asshole...
> > >
> > > Drumroll please...
> > >
> > > > I've known quite a number of single mothers -- some were were so
because
> > > > their former husbands, like you, were complete assholes; others were
> > single
> > > > mothers because the fathers renegged on what was perceived by the
women
> > as a
> > > > comittment (no doubt foolish on their part to have been so trusting,
but
> > > > hardly qualifying as "losers") and left them when they became
pregnant.
> > >
> > > And here is your all-or-nothing scenrario! (You think that men are
> > > assholes, and women are always innocent of any blame, right?).
> > >
> > > I'm not presenting an all or one scenario, simply showing that it goes
> > > both ways.
> >
> > No, that's what others were showing -- that the premise of the thread,
being
> > all-inclusive, was false. You have now changed your story, where
previously,
> > you were trying to support the original premise, that the single mothers
> > were all losers. Again, you try to foist your all-or-nothing scenario on
> > others. Ain't gonnna wash.
>
>
> Sorry you interpreted it that way. I was just offering other
> possibilities in contrast to your all-or-nothing scenario. I was not
> intending to back up the original premise of the thread.

I never proposed an all-or nothing scenario. That was the doing of the
original poster, whose all-or-nothing scenario was severely debunked -- and
YOU came to his defense, and by doing so, took the stand of supporting his
all-or-nothing scenario. You can deny it all you want, but the thread
contains the record of your nonsense.


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