Men who marry Single Mothers are Chumps !
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Mean Mr Mustard - 29 Jul 2004 22:10 GMT 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.
'Kate - 29 Jul 2004 22:29 GMT >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!
Tiffany - 29 Jul 2004 22:50 GMT > >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors, > >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'd like to take this opportunity to wish each and every one of my > fellow netizens a very happy troll season! LOL!
Paul Griffiths - 26 Aug 2004 21:34 GMT > 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.
 Signature Paul Griffiths
Byron Canfield - 29 Jul 2004 23:31 GMT > 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.
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
eggs - 30 Jul 2004 02:06 GMT > Trolls get no respect here. Get lost, idiot. Actually, trolls get plenty of respect, they just have to be good ones ...
eggs.
xkatx - 02 Aug 2004 05:39 GMT > > 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... :'(
 Signature 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 - 02 Aug 2004 08:01 GMT >> > Trolls get no respect here. Get lost, idiot. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >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
Louise - 02 Aug 2004 13:58 GMT > >> > Trolls get no respect here. Get lost, idiot. > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > 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
Cele - 02 Aug 2004 18:08 GMT >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 04:39:27 GMT, "xkatx" <xkatx@shaw.ca> >> >I think. I wanted Puppy Surprise that year, I remember, but I didn't [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >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 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Louise Too true! They were friendly looking little things, as well.
Cele
Donna Metler - 02 Aug 2004 13:54 GMT > > > Trolls get no respect here. Get lost, idiot. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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!
Joelle - 02 Aug 2004 15:13 GMT > 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
xkatx - 03 Aug 2004 16:16 GMT > > had lots of Trolls when I was younger... Grade 4ish, this was, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Augustine > Joelle OOOOOOH!!!! THE MEMORIES!!!!!!!!
 Signature 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?
Ian - 02 Aug 2004 22:08 GMT > > 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 - 03 Aug 2004 08:29 GMT 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 - 03 Aug 2004 15:46 GMT >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 - 03 Aug 2004 16:15 GMT > 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. :(
 Signature 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 - 05 Aug 2004 00:02 GMT >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 - 05 Aug 2004 16:42 GMT > >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors, > >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Call single mothers what they are, losers. If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive achievement.
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
Autobodygal - 12 Aug 2004 21:58 GMT 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.
> > >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors, > > >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive > achievement. Zoey - 19 Aug 2004 03:46 GMT > 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.
> > > >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors, > > > >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive > > achievement. Sour Kraut - 19 Aug 2004 05:01 GMT >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >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, f.ck off then. What a f.cking waste...
>> > > >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors, >> > > >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive >> > achievement. Zoey - 20 Aug 2004 02:06 GMT > >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Oh well, f.ck off then. What a f.cking 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 f.cking off then and not read threads from the alt.single-parents ng?
rpm - 20 Aug 2004 02:24 GMT >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you >are a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Oh, and if you don't want to read about single parents - why don't you do >the f.cking 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.support.single-parents. This is a perfectly valid discussison for soc.men.
Zoe - 20 Aug 2004 19:25 GMT > >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you > >are a [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > alt.support.childfree,soc.men,misc.kids,alt.support.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.
Timothy - 20 Aug 2004 04:07 GMT >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you >are a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Oh, and if you don't want to read about single parents - why don't you do >the f.cking off then and not read threads from the alt.single-parents ng? Don't even see it, incredible and I guess laughable.
f.ck it!!! and f.cking off right now.
Byron Canfield - 20 Aug 2004 16:22 GMT > >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you > >are a [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > f.ck it!!! and f.cking 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.
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
Timothy - 20 Aug 2004 16:27 GMT >> >"Sour Kraut" <WienerSchnicel@borgborg.co.uk.ca.au.us.bin> wrote in >message [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >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
Byron Canfield - 21 Aug 2004 04:58 GMT > >> >"Sour Kraut" <WienerSchnicel@borgborg.co.uk.ca.au.us.bin> wrote in > >message [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > 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.
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
Zoe - 20 Aug 2004 19:25 GMT > >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you > >are a [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > f.ck it!!! and f.cking off right now. You'll be missed.
Byron Canfield - 21 Aug 2004 04:58 GMT > > f.ck it!!! and f.cking off right now. > > You'll be missed. Not! :)
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
Byron Canfield - 20 Aug 2004 16:22 GMT > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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, a.shole.
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
P. Fritz - 19 Aug 2004 05:40 GMT > > "Autobodygal" <AMcEntire@Carolina.rr.com> wrote in message > news:KRQSc.191817$tH1.9592799@twister.southeast.rr.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" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in message > > news:HzsQc.78381$8_6.20487@attbi_s04... > > > "WT" <boy@trailerpark.org> wrote in message > > > news:mmq2h05jagn6refmv73rkms68hre94r62t@4ax.com... > > > > On 29 Jul 2004 14:10:00 -0700, macusr023@yahoo.com (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 - 20 Aug 2004 02:08 GMT > > > > "Autobodygal" <AMcEntire@Carolina.rr.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > 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.
Byron Canfield - 20 Aug 2004 16:22 GMT > > > > "Autobodygal" <AMcEntire@Carolina.rr.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > 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.
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
Paco - 19 Aug 2004 08:22 GMT 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive > > > achievement. Zoey - 20 Aug 2004 02:13 GMT > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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.
Menden Likstra - 21 Aug 2004 01:55 GMT "Zoey" <zoe_s@hotmail.com> 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
Zoe - 21 Aug 2004 02:32 GMT > > 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!
Byron Canfield - 20 Aug 2004 16:22 GMT > 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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 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.
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
Paco - 19 Aug 2004 09:10 GMT 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive > > > achievement. Gwenhyffar Milgi - 19 Aug 2004 12:05 GMT >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!
 Signature "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"
Zoey - 20 Aug 2004 02:14 GMT > >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.
Gwenhyffar Milgi - 20 Aug 2004 20:08 GMT >> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility and >> >could only be a bad influence on my son. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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.
 Signature "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"
Banty - 20 Aug 2004 20:19 GMT >>> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility and >>> >could only be a bad influence on my son. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >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
Zoe - 21 Aug 2004 02:10 GMT > >> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility and > >> >could only be a bad influence on my son. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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.
Byron Canfield - 21 Aug 2004 04:58 GMT > >> >because his father is an idiot who didn't want to take responsibility and > >> >could only be a bad influence on my son. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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.
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
Byron Canfield - 20 Aug 2004 16:22 GMT > >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! Many, such as yourself, can disguise their idiocy, for limited stretches.
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
howldog - 19 Aug 2004 14:18 GMT >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >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.
Zoey - 20 Aug 2004 02:18 GMT > >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 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.
howldog - 20 Aug 2004 17:40 GMT >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you >are a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >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
f.ck 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. Zoe - 20 Aug 2004 19:42 GMT > >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you > >are a [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > f.ck 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 - 20 Aug 2004 19:55 GMT > 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 - 20 Aug 2004 20:17 GMT > > 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? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nan Timothy - 20 Aug 2004 20:37 GMT >> > 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >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? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Nan Zoe - 21 Aug 2004 02:12 GMT > > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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? > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > Nan Betsy - 21 Aug 2004 09:35 GMT > > > > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are > the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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? > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > > > Nan P. Fritz - 21 Aug 2004 14:59 GMT > > "Zoe" <zoe_s@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:DjxVc.37518$Tr.1800880@news20.bellglobal.com... > > > > "Sky KIng" <laughing@home.net> wrote in message > > news:MPG.1b916a10e164fd8989adb@news.snet.sbcglobal.net... > > > In article <i4ici0hevs7ajvfu25071pb6gmer3a25na@4ax.com>, nlb63@yahoo.com > > > says... > > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" <zoe_s@hotmail.com> > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
Betsy - 22 Aug 2004 00:58 GMT > > > > "Zoe" <zoe_s@hotmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > 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? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > Zoe - 22 Aug 2004 02:29 GMT > > > > > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are > > the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 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.
Betsy - 22 Aug 2004 09:59 GMT > > > > In article <i4ici0hevs7ajvfu25071pb6gmer3a25na@4ax.com>, > nlb63@yahoo.com [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > 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 - 22 Aug 2004 10:15 GMT >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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >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 - 22 Aug 2004 14:29 GMT > > "Betsy" <eweber1@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:XODVc.2855$O%4.963@nwrddc04.gnilink.net... > > > > "Zoe" <zoe_s@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:DjxVc.37518$Tr.1800880@news20.bellglobal.com... > > > > > > "Sky KIng" <laughing@home.net> wrote in message > > > news:MPG.1b916a10e164fd8989adb@news.snet.sbcglobal.net... > > > > In article <i4ici0hevs7ajvfu25071pb6gmer3a25na@4ax.com>, > nlb63@yahoo.com > > > > says... > > > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:42:51 -0400, "Zoe" <zoe_s@hotmail.com> > > > > > 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 a.s 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 - 21 Aug 2004 14:02 GMT > > > > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are > the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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? > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > > > Nan Zoe - 22 Aug 2004 02:38 GMT > > > > > I stand corrected - I actually that "more often than not men are > > the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 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 f.ck 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.
Sky KIng - 22 Aug 2004 14:30 GMT > > > > In article <i4ici0hevs7ajvfu25071pb6gmer3a25na@4ax.com>, > nlb63@yahoo.com [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > 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 f.ck 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 - 22 Aug 2004 18:30 GMT >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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >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
Sky King - 23 Aug 2004 13:44 GMT > >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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 - 23 Aug 2004 17:08 GMT > > >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 [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > > "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.
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
rpm - 24 Aug 2004 04:14 GMT >> Nan <nlb63@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:<nrlhi01fdqpvn1t1v5co3haq5npq8ki8ta@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] >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 - 24 Aug 2004 06:25 GMT > >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.
 Signature Byron "Barn" Canfield ----------------------------- "Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." -- Ambrose Bierce
Sky King - 25 Aug 2004 15:23 GMT > >> Nan <nlb63@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:<nrlhi01fdqpvn1t1v5co3haq5npq8ki8ta@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >> > 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. [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > >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. Zoe - 21 Aug 2004 02:09 GMT > > 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.
Nan - 21 Aug 2004 04:15 GMT >> > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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
howldog - 20 Aug 2004 20:28 GMT > 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. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >not >> >always right either. i agree.
Zoe - 21 Aug 2004 02:12 GMT > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > i agree. I'm glad.
Lee - 21 Aug 2004 02:08 GMT > > >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you > are a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > 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 > > > > f.ck 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 f.ck 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. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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.
Byron Canfield - 21 Aug 2004 04:58 GMT > > > >> No one > > > >> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 - > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > 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: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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!
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
Lee - 21 Aug 2004 22:47 GMT > > "Zoe" < zoe_s@hotmail.com > wrote in message > news:<OCrVc.35493$Tr.1686906@news20.bellglobal.com >... [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > 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. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > 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.
Byron Canfield - 22 Aug 2004 18:42 GMT > > > "Zoe" < zoe_s@hotmail.com > wrote in message > > news:<OCrVc.35493$Tr.1686906@news20.bellglobal.com >... [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 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. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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.
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
hvatum - 24 Aug 2004 10:11 GMT > > 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/r ef=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 - 25 Aug 2004 05:35 GMT > > > http://www.menweb.org/throop/custody-divorce/studies/whoGets.html > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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/r ef=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.
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
Lee - 27 Aug 2004 05:04 GMT > 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 - 27 Aug 2004 06:25 GMT > > > > http://www.menweb.org/throop/custody-divorce/studies/whoGets.html > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 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.
Lee - 27 Aug 2004 05:01 GMT > > "Byron Canfield" < barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com > wrote in message > news:<GLzVc.199868$eM2.16412@attbi_s51 >... [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > 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. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > 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 > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 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! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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.
Byron Canfield - 20 Aug 2004 16:22 GMT > >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 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.
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
howldog - 20 Aug 2004 17:40 GMT >> >> I think that a lot of people would agree with me when I say that you >are a [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >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.
Banty - 20 Aug 2004 20:38 GMT >"howldog" <nope@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> No one >> >understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >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 "f.ck You" and other acting up we're seeing here. Anger and/or control problems.
So his situation may not be an abberation.
Banty
Nan - 20 Aug 2004 21:10 GMT >>"howldog" <nope@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >So his situation may not be an abberation. Hehehe, you think?
Nan
Deb - 19 Aug 2004 20:23 GMT > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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
> > > > >Yeah that's right ...... that's how your family, friends, neighbors, > > > > >coworkers and even the single mother you're wedding will see you. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > If they lost a husband with your sensibilities, that's an positive > > > achievement. Zoey - 20 Aug 2004 02:29 GMT > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 Betsy - 20 Aug 2004 07:38 GMT > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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? Zoe - 20 Aug 2004 19:33 GMT > > I never bad mouth my son's father in front of him or around him. > That's [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > 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.
denanson - 21 Aug 2004 13:11 GMT "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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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
Betsy - 22 Aug 2004 01:01 GMT > "Betsy" < wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Dennis Good point, I didn't think of that. I don't like to cross post if I can avoid it. :-)
Betsy
Deb - 20 Aug 2004 20:55 GMT > > "Zoey" <zoe_s@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:<WvUUc.26569$Tr.1218578@news20.bellglobal.com>... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 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? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes it is hard. > > debi - lurker Zoe - 21 Aug 2004 02:20 GMT > > > "Zoey" <zoe_s@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:<WvUUc.26569$Tr.1218578@news20.bellglobal.com>... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > 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.
Vognan Rastavelli - 21 Aug 2004 01:38 GMT >> Yes it is hard. I bet he says that to all the girls
Byron Canfield - 20 Aug 2004 16:22 GMT > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 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.
 Signature "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
Manfred Acker - 15 Aug 2004 12:40 GMT > 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.
|
|
|