How many had prior knowledge of the "system"?

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.

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/

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.

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/

"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.

T

"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.

T

"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.

T

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:28:26 -0600, Bob wrote:

Beverly wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:26:42 -0600, Bob wrote:


Lecher9000 wrote:

My "mistake" was believing that if I "did the right thing", nothing horrible
would happen to me. I never cheated on my wife, paid her way for everything for
13 years, then she bailed out on me, with my son, because she " never loved
me". And she took me for everything she could get.


Yep, they do that, and by the time she gets done telling about it you're
the scum wife beater pedophile and she escaped to save your child.


And if she can prove the man is a pedophile? For your information,
not all pedophiles are arrested and convicted. It is a psychological
diagnoses based, in part, on the actions of the diagnosed. My ex was
diagnosed long before I ever met him. It was not until one of my
children accused him of things that I ever found out. Had I known
before we were married, he'd have no child support order for our
children because there wouldn't be any. There would have been no
divorce because there would not have been a marriage.



Yep, they do that, and by the time she gets done telling about it you're
the scum wife beater pedophile and she escaped to save your child.

QED.

I disagree. I asked if she could PROVE it, not if she claims it. I
WILL agree that many women CLAIM these things and the man is portrayed
as a horrid monster before she is done. This is why there SHOULD be a
burden of proof to the person accusing another of such.

My ex was a WONDERFUL husband. My friends were envious of my
relationship until we found out his sordid past by way of a current
accusation. The saying "too good to be true" was magnified in our
marriage. You have no idea what agony it is finding out that your
child has been molested by your spouse (at least I hope not).

While you could say I "escaped to save my children," the reality of
the matter was that the state was going to remove them if I didn't
divorce him. I was still in denial when we split... I loved my
husband dearly and could not imagine him doing the things he did.
However, living apart was not enough for the state. They demanded I
divorce him. I fought them on this issue until I nearly lost all my
children. HE was not going to be allowed access to his children
either way, why should they lose a mother too?

So no, my ex is not a scum wife beater pedophile. He is simply a man
with a mental illness that cannot be cured and makes it unsafe for him
to be alone with children. If I could have changed that, I would
have.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:28:26 -0600, Bob wrote:

Beverly wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:26:42 -0600, Bob wrote:


Lecher9000 wrote:

My "mistake" was believing that if I "did the right thing", nothing horrible
would happen to me. I never cheated on my wife, paid her way for everything for
13 years, then she bailed out on me, with my son, because she " never loved
me". And she took me for everything she could get.


Yep, they do that, and by the time she gets done telling about it you're
the scum wife beater pedophile and she escaped to save your child.


And if she can prove the man is a pedophile? For your information,
not all pedophiles are arrested and convicted. It is a psychological
diagnoses based, in part, on the actions of the diagnosed. My ex was
diagnosed long before I ever met him. It was not until one of my
children accused him of things that I ever found out. Had I known
before we were married, he'd have no child support order for our
children because there wouldn't be any. There would have been no
divorce because there would not have been a marriage.



Yep, they do that, and by the time she gets done telling about it you're
the scum wife beater pedophile and she escaped to save your child.

QED.

I disagree. I asked if she could PROVE it, not if she claims it. I
WILL agree that many women CLAIM these things and the man is portrayed
as a horrid monster before she is done. This is why there SHOULD be a
burden of proof to the person accusing another of such.

My ex was a WONDERFUL husband. My friends were envious of my
relationship until we found out his sordid past by way of a current
accusation. The saying "too good to be true" was magnified in our
marriage. You have no idea what agony it is finding out that your
child has been molested by your spouse (at least I hope not).

While you could say I "escaped to save my children," the reality of
the matter was that the state was going to remove them if I didn't
divorce him. I was still in denial when we split... I loved my
husband dearly and could not imagine him doing the things he did.
However, living apart was not enough for the state. They demanded I
divorce him. I fought them on this issue until I nearly lost all my
children. HE was not going to be allowed access to his children
either way, why should they lose a mother too?

So no, my ex is not a scum wife beater pedophile. He is simply a man
with a mental illness that cannot be cured and makes it unsafe for him
to be alone with children. If I could have changed that, I would
have.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:28:26 -0600, Bob wrote:

Beverly wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:26:42 -0600, Bob wrote:


Lecher9000 wrote:

My "mistake" was believing that if I "did the right thing", nothing horrible
would happen to me. I never cheated on my wife, paid her way for everything for
13 years, then she bailed out on me, with my son, because she " never loved
me". And she took me for everything she could get.


Yep, they do that, and by the time she gets done telling about it you're
the scum wife beater pedophile and she escaped to save your child.


And if she can prove the man is a pedophile? For your information,
not all pedophiles are arrested and convicted. It is a psychological
diagnoses based, in part, on the actions of the diagnosed. My ex was
diagnosed long before I ever met him. It was not until one of my
children accused him of things that I ever found out. Had I known
before we were married, he'd have no child support order for our
children because there wouldn't be any. There would have been no
divorce because there would not have been a marriage.



Yep, they do that, and by the time she gets done telling about it you're
the scum wife beater pedophile and she escaped to save your child.

QED.

I disagree. I asked if she could PROVE it, not if she claims it. I
WILL agree that many women CLAIM these things and the man is portrayed
as a horrid monster before she is done. This is why there SHOULD be a
burden of proof to the person accusing another of such.

My ex was a WONDERFUL husband. My friends were envious of my
relationship until we found out his sordid past by way of a current
accusation. The saying "too good to be true" was magnified in our
marriage. You have no idea what agony it is finding out that your
child has been molested by your spouse (at least I hope not).

While you could say I "escaped to save my children," the reality of
the matter was that the state was going to remove them if I didn't
divorce him. I was still in denial when we split... I loved my
husband dearly and could not imagine him doing the things he did.
However, living apart was not enough for the state. They demanded I
divorce him. I fought them on this issue until I nearly lost all my
children. HE was not going to be allowed access to his children
either way, why should they lose a mother too?

So no, my ex is not a scum wife beater pedophile. He is simply a man
with a mental illness that cannot be cured and makes it unsafe for him
to be alone with children. If I could have changed that, I would
have.

"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!

"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!