How many had prior knowledge of the "system"?

"Bob" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
...



big snip

If there did happen to be a
pedophile who was caught in the act by the preacher, the chief of

police,


and Mother Teresa herself, would you think that, perhaps, he should
not

be


permitted to be alone with children? That, maybe, his wife would be
justified in leaving him in order to protect the children?

By the time she gets done telling it, Adam will be the scum wife
beater
pedophile, and Eve would have escaped to save the child.

By the time she gets done telling it, Joseph will be the scum wife
beater pedophile, and Mary would have escaped to save the child.

Whether or not there are actual pedophiles and wife beaters can not be
determined by listening to wives who would destroy their families.


Who, then, would you listen to if not the witness? If the woman goes
to

the

hospital with broken bones, and the child has bruises up and down his

body,

how can you say "Don't listen to the woman who wants to break up the
family"? I'm trying to understand what you are saying, Bob. I do not

think

marriages whould be ended on a whim, or "to find myself" or any other
nonsense.

Most do actually. In data that has been posted several times over the
past year those are the most common reasons.


Which is very sad, but does not invalidate every reason to end a
marriage.


I am not in favor of breaking up families. But sometimes there
*are* serious problems that have to be addressed from a point of
safety.

Usually not. Children are usually, statistically, safer staying with
their fathers.


But not always, Bob. I am asking about the few that are not included in
your "usually safer with their fathers"


And your answer to that *seems* to be that the woman does not have the

right

to break up the family, because she is probably lying just to get out
of

the

marriage. So, instead of making the same statement again, please tell

me

how it should be determined that an abuser is abusive enough for a
woman

to

be justified in leaving. Or how it can be determined that a man is a
pdeophile if you are not willing to listen to the wife or the kids.



One day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!"
The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no
wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there
was no wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there
was no wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town sat home and hoisted another glass of beer
because by then nobody gave a **** whether there was a wolf or not.

Females who cry "wife beating pedophile" are like the shepherd. They've
been crying the same lying crap so many times nobody gives a **** any
more whether it's true this time or not.


There are absolutely women who have abused the system, who have lied
about
fathers being abusive only to get custody of the children. These scum
are
one of the reasons the system is as badly screwed up as it is. They
should
lose custody of their children and spend some time in jail as far as I
am
concerned. But these are not the ones I am asking about.

I am asking about the women who are *truly* abused by their husbands.
About
the children who are *truly* molested by their fathers. Your comments
to
women on this forum who have offered medical and/or criminal evidence
that
they or their children have experienced this is that they are just
propogating the normal feminist lies. You can't possibly know that, but
you
claim it anyway.

So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there are
circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the
wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order to
keep
herself and her children safe?


As Ret Butler once said,

Frankly Toots, I don't give a damn.

Pretty much what I expected from you, Bob. "If it doesn't benefit me, who
gives a ****." You use the misandry of others as an excuse to validate your
own misogyny. And you try to cloak it in the same "best interests of the
children" mantra that the other side uses--but with your own special twist.
Tut, tut, Bob!

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message

snipped

So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there are
circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the
wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order to
keep
herself and her children safe?



Why bother asking? He won't answer.

True--but what he *doesn't* say shows who he is just as effectively as what
he *does* say........

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message

snipped

So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there are
circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the
wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order to
keep
herself and her children safe?



Why bother asking? He won't answer.

True--but what he *doesn't* say shows who he is just as effectively as what
he *does* say........

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message

snipped

So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there are
circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the
wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order to
keep
herself and her children safe?



Why bother asking? He won't answer.

True--but what he *doesn't* say shows who he is just as effectively as what
he *does* say........

teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
...


teachrmama wrote:


"Bob" wrote in message
...


big snip

If there did happen to be a
pedophile who was caught in the act by the preacher, the chief of

police,



and Mother Teresa herself, would you think that, perhaps, he should

not

be



permitted to be alone with children? That, maybe, his wife would be
justified in leaving him in order to protect the children?

By the time she gets done telling it, Adam will be the scum wife

beater

pedophile, and Eve would have escaped to save the child.

By the time she gets done telling it, Joseph will be the scum wife
beater pedophile, and Mary would have escaped to save the child.

Whether or not there are actual pedophiles and wife beaters can not be
determined by listening to wives who would destroy their families.


Who, then, would you listen to if not the witness? If the woman goes

to

the


hospital with broken bones, and the child has bruises up and down his

body,


how can you say "Don't listen to the woman who wants to break up the
family"? I'm trying to understand what you are saying, Bob. I do not

think


marriages whould be ended on a whim, or "to find myself" or any other
nonsense.

Most do actually. In data that has been posted several times over the
past year those are the most common reasons.


Which is very sad, but does not invalidate every reason to end a

marriage.


I am not in favor of breaking up families. But sometimes there
*are* serious problems that have to be addressed from a point of

safety.

Usually not. Children are usually, statistically, safer staying with
their fathers.


But not always, Bob. I am asking about the few that are not included in
your "usually safer with their fathers"



And your answer to that *seems* to be that the woman does not have the

right


to break up the family, because she is probably lying just to get out

of

the


marriage. So, instead of making the same statement again, please tell

me


how it should be determined that an abuser is abusive enough for a

woman

to


be justified in leaving. Or how it can be determined that a man is a
pdeophile if you are not willing to listen to the wife or the kids.



One day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!"
The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no
wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there
was no wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there
was no wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town sat home and hoisted another glass of beer
because by then nobody gave a **** whether there was a wolf or not.

Females who cry "wife beating pedophile" are like the shepherd. They've
been crying the same lying crap so many times nobody gives a **** any
more whether it's true this time or not.


There are absolutely women who have abused the system, who have lied

about

fathers being abusive only to get custody of the children. These scum

are

one of the reasons the system is as badly screwed up as it is. They

should

lose custody of their children and spend some time in jail as far as I

am

concerned. But these are not the ones I am asking about.

I am asking about the women who are *truly* abused by their husbands.

About

the children who are *truly* molested by their fathers. Your comments

to

women on this forum who have offered medical and/or criminal evidence

that

they or their children have experienced this is that they are just
propogating the normal feminist lies. You can't possibly know that, but

you

claim it anyway.

So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there are
circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the
wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order to

keep

herself and her children safe?


As Ret Butler once said,

Frankly Toots, I don't give a damn.


Pretty much what I expected from you, Bob. "If it doesn't benefit me, who
gives a ****." You use the misandry of others as an excuse to validate your
own misogyny. And you try to cloak it in the same "best interests of the
children" mantra that the other side uses--but with your own special twist.
Tut, tut, Bob!


You still really have no clue do you idiot. All you know is hate. Why
do we waste our electrons.

Bob







--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
...


teachrmama wrote:


"Bob" wrote in message
...


big snip

If there did happen to be a
pedophile who was caught in the act by the preacher, the chief of

police,



and Mother Teresa herself, would you think that, perhaps, he should

not

be



permitted to be alone with children? That, maybe, his wife would be
justified in leaving him in order to protect the children?

By the time she gets done telling it, Adam will be the scum wife

beater

pedophile, and Eve would have escaped to save the child.

By the time she gets done telling it, Joseph will be the scum wife
beater pedophile, and Mary would have escaped to save the child.

Whether or not there are actual pedophiles and wife beaters can not be
determined by listening to wives who would destroy their families.


Who, then, would you listen to if not the witness? If the woman goes

to

the


hospital with broken bones, and the child has bruises up and down his

body,


how can you say "Don't listen to the woman who wants to break up the
family"? I'm trying to understand what you are saying, Bob. I do not

think


marriages whould be ended on a whim, or "to find myself" or any other
nonsense.

Most do actually. In data that has been posted several times over the
past year those are the most common reasons.


Which is very sad, but does not invalidate every reason to end a

marriage.


I am not in favor of breaking up families. But sometimes there
*are* serious problems that have to be addressed from a point of

safety.

Usually not. Children are usually, statistically, safer staying with
their fathers.


But not always, Bob. I am asking about the few that are not included in
your "usually safer with their fathers"



And your answer to that *seems* to be that the woman does not have the

right


to break up the family, because she is probably lying just to get out

of

the


marriage. So, instead of making the same statement again, please tell

me


how it should be determined that an abuser is abusive enough for a

woman

to


be justified in leaving. Or how it can be determined that a man is a
pdeophile if you are not willing to listen to the wife or the kids.



One day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!"
The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no
wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there
was no wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there
was no wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town sat home and hoisted another glass of beer
because by then nobody gave a **** whether there was a wolf or not.

Females who cry "wife beating pedophile" are like the shepherd. They've
been crying the same lying crap so many times nobody gives a **** any
more whether it's true this time or not.


There are absolutely women who have abused the system, who have lied

about

fathers being abusive only to get custody of the children. These scum

are

one of the reasons the system is as badly screwed up as it is. They

should

lose custody of their children and spend some time in jail as far as I

am

concerned. But these are not the ones I am asking about.

I am asking about the women who are *truly* abused by their husbands.

About

the children who are *truly* molested by their fathers. Your comments

to

women on this forum who have offered medical and/or criminal evidence

that

they or their children have experienced this is that they are just
propogating the normal feminist lies. You can't possibly know that, but

you

claim it anyway.

So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there are
circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the
wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order to

keep

herself and her children safe?


As Ret Butler once said,

Frankly Toots, I don't give a damn.


Pretty much what I expected from you, Bob. "If it doesn't benefit me, who
gives a ****." You use the misandry of others as an excuse to validate your
own misogyny. And you try to cloak it in the same "best interests of the
children" mantra that the other side uses--but with your own special twist.
Tut, tut, Bob!


You still really have no clue do you idiot. All you know is hate. Why
do we waste our electrons.

Bob







--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
...


teachrmama wrote:


"Bob" wrote in message
...


big snip

If there did happen to be a
pedophile who was caught in the act by the preacher, the chief of

police,



and Mother Teresa herself, would you think that, perhaps, he should

not

be



permitted to be alone with children? That, maybe, his wife would be
justified in leaving him in order to protect the children?

By the time she gets done telling it, Adam will be the scum wife

beater

pedophile, and Eve would have escaped to save the child.

By the time she gets done telling it, Joseph will be the scum wife
beater pedophile, and Mary would have escaped to save the child.

Whether or not there are actual pedophiles and wife beaters can not be
determined by listening to wives who would destroy their families.


Who, then, would you listen to if not the witness? If the woman goes

to

the


hospital with broken bones, and the child has bruises up and down his

body,


how can you say "Don't listen to the woman who wants to break up the
family"? I'm trying to understand what you are saying, Bob. I do not

think


marriages whould be ended on a whim, or "to find myself" or any other
nonsense.

Most do actually. In data that has been posted several times over the
past year those are the most common reasons.


Which is very sad, but does not invalidate every reason to end a

marriage.


I am not in favor of breaking up families. But sometimes there
*are* serious problems that have to be addressed from a point of

safety.

Usually not. Children are usually, statistically, safer staying with
their fathers.


But not always, Bob. I am asking about the few that are not included in
your "usually safer with their fathers"



And your answer to that *seems* to be that the woman does not have the

right


to break up the family, because she is probably lying just to get out

of

the


marriage. So, instead of making the same statement again, please tell

me


how it should be determined that an abuser is abusive enough for a

woman

to


be justified in leaving. Or how it can be determined that a man is a
pdeophile if you are not willing to listen to the wife or the kids.



One day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!"
The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no
wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there
was no wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there
was no wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town sat home and hoisted another glass of beer
because by then nobody gave a **** whether there was a wolf or not.

Females who cry "wife beating pedophile" are like the shepherd. They've
been crying the same lying crap so many times nobody gives a **** any
more whether it's true this time or not.


There are absolutely women who have abused the system, who have lied

about

fathers being abusive only to get custody of the children. These scum

are

one of the reasons the system is as badly screwed up as it is. They

should

lose custody of their children and spend some time in jail as far as I

am

concerned. But these are not the ones I am asking about.

I am asking about the women who are *truly* abused by their husbands.

About

the children who are *truly* molested by their fathers. Your comments

to

women on this forum who have offered medical and/or criminal evidence

that

they or their children have experienced this is that they are just
propogating the normal feminist lies. You can't possibly know that, but

you

claim it anyway.

So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there are
circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the
wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order to

keep

herself and her children safe?


As Ret Butler once said,

Frankly Toots, I don't give a damn.


Pretty much what I expected from you, Bob. "If it doesn't benefit me, who
gives a ****." You use the misandry of others as an excuse to validate your
own misogyny. And you try to cloak it in the same "best interests of the
children" mantra that the other side uses--but with your own special twist.
Tut, tut, Bob!


You still really have no clue do you idiot. All you know is hate. Why
do we waste our electrons.

Bob







--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
...



big snip

If there did happen to be a
pedophile who was caught in the act by the preacher, the chief of

police,


and Mother Teresa herself, would you think that, perhaps, he
should
not

be


permitted to be alone with children? That, maybe, his wife would
be
justified in leaving him in order to protect the children?

By the time she gets done telling it, Adam will be the scum wife
beater
pedophile, and Eve would have escaped to save the child.

By the time she gets done telling it, Joseph will be the scum wife
beater pedophile, and Mary would have escaped to save the child.

Whether or not there are actual pedophiles and wife beaters can
not be
determined by listening to wives who would destroy their families.


Who, then, would you listen to if not the witness? If the woman
goes
to

the

hospital with broken bones, and the child has bruises up and down
his

body,

how can you say "Don't listen to the woman who wants to break up
the
family"? I'm trying to understand what you are saying, Bob. I do
not

think

marriages whould be ended on a whim, or "to find myself" or any
other
nonsense.

Most do actually. In data that has been posted several times over
the
past year those are the most common reasons.


Which is very sad, but does not invalidate every reason to end a
marriage.


I am not in favor of breaking up families. But sometimes there
*are* serious problems that have to be addressed from a point of
safety.

Usually not. Children are usually, statistically, safer staying
with
their fathers.


But not always, Bob. I am asking about the few that are not
included in
your "usually safer with their fathers"


And your answer to that *seems* to be that the woman does not have
the

right

to break up the family, because she is probably lying just to get
out
of

the

marriage. So, instead of making the same statement again, please
tell

me

how it should be determined that an abuser is abusive enough for a
woman

to

be justified in leaving. Or how it can be determined that a man is
a
pdeophile if you are not willing to listen to the wife or the kids.



One day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!"
The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was
no
wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but
there
was no wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but
there
was no wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town sat home and hoisted another glass of
beer
because by then nobody gave a **** whether there was a wolf or not.

Females who cry "wife beating pedophile" are like the shepherd.
They've
been crying the same lying crap so many times nobody gives a ****
any
more whether it's true this time or not.


There are absolutely women who have abused the system, who have lied
about
fathers being abusive only to get custody of the children. These
scum
are
one of the reasons the system is as badly screwed up as it is. They
should
lose custody of their children and spend some time in jail as far as
I
am
concerned. But these are not the ones I am asking about.

I am asking about the women who are *truly* abused by their
husbands.
About
the children who are *truly* molested by their fathers. Your
comments
to
women on this forum who have offered medical and/or criminal
evidence
that
they or their children have experienced this is that they are just
propogating the normal feminist lies. You can't possibly know that,
but
you
claim it anyway.

So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there
are
circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the
wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order
to
keep
herself and her children safe?


As Ret Butler once said,

Frankly Toots, I don't give a damn.

Pretty much what I expected from you, Bob. "If it doesn't benefit me,
who
gives a ****." You use the misandry of others as an excuse to validate
your
own misogyny. And you try to cloak it in the same "best interests of the
children" mantra that the other side uses--but with your own special
twist.
Tut, tut, Bob!

What else would you expect from the NG moron.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
...



big snip

If there did happen to be a
pedophile who was caught in the act by the preacher, the chief of

police,


and Mother Teresa herself, would you think that, perhaps, he
should
not

be


permitted to be alone with children? That, maybe, his wife would
be
justified in leaving him in order to protect the children?

By the time she gets done telling it, Adam will be the scum wife
beater
pedophile, and Eve would have escaped to save the child.

By the time she gets done telling it, Joseph will be the scum wife
beater pedophile, and Mary would have escaped to save the child.

Whether or not there are actual pedophiles and wife beaters can
not be
determined by listening to wives who would destroy their families.


Who, then, would you listen to if not the witness? If the woman
goes
to

the

hospital with broken bones, and the child has bruises up and down
his

body,

how can you say "Don't listen to the woman who wants to break up
the
family"? I'm trying to understand what you are saying, Bob. I do
not

think

marriages whould be ended on a whim, or "to find myself" or any
other
nonsense.

Most do actually. In data that has been posted several times over
the
past year those are the most common reasons.


Which is very sad, but does not invalidate every reason to end a
marriage.


I am not in favor of breaking up families. But sometimes there
*are* serious problems that have to be addressed from a point of
safety.

Usually not. Children are usually, statistically, safer staying
with
their fathers.


But not always, Bob. I am asking about the few that are not
included in
your "usually safer with their fathers"


And your answer to that *seems* to be that the woman does not have
the

right

to break up the family, because she is probably lying just to get
out
of

the

marriage. So, instead of making the same statement again, please
tell

me

how it should be determined that an abuser is abusive enough for a
woman

to

be justified in leaving. Or how it can be determined that a man is
a
pdeophile if you are not willing to listen to the wife or the kids.



One day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!"
The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was
no
wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but
there
was no wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but
there
was no wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town sat home and hoisted another glass of
beer
because by then nobody gave a **** whether there was a wolf or not.

Females who cry "wife beating pedophile" are like the shepherd.
They've
been crying the same lying crap so many times nobody gives a ****
any
more whether it's true this time or not.


There are absolutely women who have abused the system, who have lied
about
fathers being abusive only to get custody of the children. These
scum
are
one of the reasons the system is as badly screwed up as it is. They
should
lose custody of their children and spend some time in jail as far as
I
am
concerned. But these are not the ones I am asking about.

I am asking about the women who are *truly* abused by their
husbands.
About
the children who are *truly* molested by their fathers. Your
comments
to
women on this forum who have offered medical and/or criminal
evidence
that
they or their children have experienced this is that they are just
propogating the normal feminist lies. You can't possibly know that,
but
you
claim it anyway.

So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there
are
circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the
wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order
to
keep
herself and her children safe?


As Ret Butler once said,

Frankly Toots, I don't give a damn.

Pretty much what I expected from you, Bob. "If it doesn't benefit me,
who
gives a ****." You use the misandry of others as an excuse to validate
your
own misogyny. And you try to cloak it in the same "best interests of the
children" mantra that the other side uses--but with your own special
twist.
Tut, tut, Bob!

What else would you expect from the NG moron.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
...



big snip

If there did happen to be a
pedophile who was caught in the act by the preacher, the chief of

police,


and Mother Teresa herself, would you think that, perhaps, he
should
not

be


permitted to be alone with children? That, maybe, his wife would
be
justified in leaving him in order to protect the children?

By the time she gets done telling it, Adam will be the scum wife
beater
pedophile, and Eve would have escaped to save the child.

By the time she gets done telling it, Joseph will be the scum wife
beater pedophile, and Mary would have escaped to save the child.

Whether or not there are actual pedophiles and wife beaters can
not be
determined by listening to wives who would destroy their families.


Who, then, would you listen to if not the witness? If the woman
goes
to

the

hospital with broken bones, and the child has bruises up and down
his

body,

how can you say "Don't listen to the woman who wants to break up
the
family"? I'm trying to understand what you are saying, Bob. I do
not

think

marriages whould be ended on a whim, or "to find myself" or any
other
nonsense.

Most do actually. In data that has been posted several times over
the
past year those are the most common reasons.


Which is very sad, but does not invalidate every reason to end a
marriage.


I am not in favor of breaking up families. But sometimes there
*are* serious problems that have to be addressed from a point of
safety.

Usually not. Children are usually, statistically, safer staying
with
their fathers.


But not always, Bob. I am asking about the few that are not
included in
your "usually safer with their fathers"


And your answer to that *seems* to be that the woman does not have
the

right

to break up the family, because she is probably lying just to get
out
of

the

marriage. So, instead of making the same statement again, please
tell

me

how it should be determined that an abuser is abusive enough for a
woman

to

be justified in leaving. Or how it can be determined that a man is
a
pdeophile if you are not willing to listen to the wife or the kids.



One day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!"
The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was
no
wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but
there
was no wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but
there
was no wolf.

The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf!
wolf!" The people of the town sat home and hoisted another glass of
beer
because by then nobody gave a **** whether there was a wolf or not.

Females who cry "wife beating pedophile" are like the shepherd.
They've
been crying the same lying crap so many times nobody gives a ****
any
more whether it's true this time or not.


There are absolutely women who have abused the system, who have lied
about
fathers being abusive only to get custody of the children. These
scum
are
one of the reasons the system is as badly screwed up as it is. They
should
lose custody of their children and spend some time in jail as far as
I
am
concerned. But these are not the ones I am asking about.

I am asking about the women who are *truly* abused by their
husbands.
About
the children who are *truly* molested by their fathers. Your
comments
to
women on this forum who have offered medical and/or criminal
evidence
that
they or their children have experienced this is that they are just
propogating the normal feminist lies. You can't possibly know that,
but
you
claim it anyway.

So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there
are
circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the
wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order
to
keep
herself and her children safe?


As Ret Butler once said,

Frankly Toots, I don't give a damn.

Pretty much what I expected from you, Bob. "If it doesn't benefit me,
who
gives a ****." You use the misandry of others as an excuse to validate
your
own misogyny. And you try to cloak it in the same "best interests of the
children" mantra that the other side uses--but with your own special
twist.
Tut, tut, Bob!

What else would you expect from the NG moron.