Back child support

[Brent]

Oh my goodness. Poooooooooor little Eric. You can cut and paste all the crap you want, but it won't erase your past. Nice try at muddying the waters, though. Too bad it didn't work.


>Yes, I deny and am still calling you a liar...

So...you never got any kind of certificate from Universal Life Ministries that said you were a "reverend"? Really??  You claimed you did. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

Are you saying that you *never* claimed to be a "Reverend", and you *never* signed your posts that way? Are you sure? Think carefully, Eric. (I know that's hard for you.)


>You have heard others repeat lies.  You have heard others take
>things that I have stated out of context.  You yourself, are
>guilty of these things.

Sorry Eric, but I've seen your rantings with my own eyes. Do you deny that you used to sign your posts on Divorcesource with a tagline about "Anti-Feminazi Piglet Swords" or something to that effect? Hmmm? Are you actually going to deny that?




>Just how can one defend himself from lies?  One can not.

Lol, your problem is that you can't defend yourself from the TRUTH.



>So, show your proof or admit your true agenda either by
>refusal to do so or by adding more lies.

Like I said before, do your own homework. Prove what I say is untrue, Eric. Are you actually denying the stuff about the "Piglet Sword" and denying that you hate gays? After the stuff you and your little buddy "Jay" used to spout off about, can you really deny that? Your credibility is shot, pal.



>Can I provide the proof?  You bet.  I don't need to do the
>research.

Lol, why don't we ask Captain Jim about these other things? Afraid you might not fare so well? Hmmm?

Since you're willing to use Captain Jim  as a character reference, why don't I invite her to come over here and tell us ALL of her opinions about you and your past actions. Would that be okay with you? (Don't answer, I'm going to do it regardless of what you "agree to it" or not.)

Perhaps we could ask Maury what he thinks of you and FIRM? He's seen your posts for years, so his opinion should be well-grounded, don't you think?

And as for your penchant for cutting and pasting tons and tons of irrelevant crap into your messages to help confuse the issue, that won't help you a bit here.  Try and focus Eric, and answer the questions if you dare.

[FIRM]

Yes, I deny and am still calling you a liar...just as shown in Carey Roberts article.

How convenient...how cute...how you keep changing the context of your questions and therefore, rhetorical conclusion(s).

I have never denied that I am an ordained minister from ULC.  It was originally posted as a joke-even though, the federal government recognizes me as an ordained minister.  Once I saw the reactions from those that detract from ESP to promote their ideas of sole custody such as Captain Jim, I use it occasionally because it is a truth that they can not deny (what with the federal government and every state that I know of recognizing the ULC and their ordained ministers as legally sanctioned ministers) and it bugs them...just like you who apparently has no respect for the founding fathers of this country and other people that believe in God.  Besides, you are still lying.  I paid $5 bucks, not $20...  And, if you have been following me as closely as you imply, you would know this...

Speaking of Captain Jim, ask her (glad to see that you recognize her for what she is) how she posts in multiple names to deceive others and how she likes to post porn on a family rated site...

Speaking of my "signature line" on a known militant feminist site such as Divorce Source, just what is so menancing and threatening to you about the following that is obviously stated in jest that you extrapolate and twist as you do most things that you fear and do not understand into me advocating killing?


"For those that don't know...  ;)

Eric is the  (original)  hater  and slayer of man hating feminazi pigs!

Off with their freak'n heads!

CEO of Eric's Magical Anti-feminazi piglet Sword (Still under 3 million dollars and selling like hotcakes!) (patent pending) (copy righted) (Sheath, Magical Sword Polish and honing stone, extra)  (Free shipping and handling)

CEO of Toilet Paper & Toilet Seats (TP, up, over & down. TS, up. It's the law. Eric's law...)

Now (no pun intended) let's hear back from my feminazi pig admirers how I am a "killer,"  "hate ALL women," am a "kook," and truly believe the above beheading and TP stuff that I post in fun...  C'mon...you can surely say something denigrating...  Show us your stuff!  ROFLMAO @ you PIGS!"

So, go ahead, since you a losing this detraction of yours from really helpful stuff for others, call in your goon squad that gang up on others with lies that you promote about me.  It certainly won't be the first time, nor the last.

Yeah...go ahead and make SPARC a circus as you do elsewhere with your repeated lies.  

Hopefully, Waylon will read this thread as requested by me and put a stop to your outright lies, twisting of the truth and taking things out of context to disparage someone that feels that children have the RIGHT to be parented by BOTH parents as equally as possible, promotes equality and the Constitution as an instrument written in stone and is not a "living document" that can change with the whims of a few that don't have morals nor religion such as you, Brent.

Eric

P.S.:

Is your problem that you really believe that I can sell a make believe sword for $3,000,000?

Is your problem that you picture me as the CEO of your toilet whenever you have the urge?

Here's another suggestion:  Grow up.

[Brent]

>How convenient...how cute...how you keep changing the context
>of your questions and therefore, rhetorical conclusion(s).

Not at all, just trying to get you to admit the truth for a change.



>I have never denied that I am an ordained minister from ULC.

No, but it took 5 posts before you would admit it. And now people know what a joke you are. Do you know how insulting it is to REAL ministers and pastors to have someone like you pretending to have religious credentials?

If you're a ordained minister, where's your church, Eric? Where and when was the last time you gave a sermon? I'm dying to know, lol.

 
>It was originally posted as a joke-even though, the federal
>government recognizes me as an ordained minister.

And you claimed to be doing "god's work", using your $5 certificate to "legitimize" your claim. LOL!!!
And no, you weren't posting it as a joke, you really wanted people to think you had some actual religious background...which you don't.




>(what with the federal government and every state that I know
>of recognizing the ULC and their ordained ministers as legally
>sanctioned ministers)

Oh, so now the Federal Government is your buddy since they "recognize" your "religious" affiliation. Weren't you the one claiming that the government was the "main problem" in divorce and custody where men are concerned? But now they're okay, since they turn a blind eye towards your bogus credentials. The ULC is a joke, and NO ONE takes them seriously....except you.



>apparently has no respect for the founding fathers of this
>country and other people that believe in God.  

Lol, yeah, whatever. I have respect for this country, but not fakers like you who inhabit it.




>And, if you
>have been following me as closely as you imply, you would know
>this...

No, I never said I "follow you closely". What I said was that I've seen your hateful disruptive rantings for years now. Following you closely would be a waste of valuable time. The fact is Eric, you have NO credibility at all. None.

Wanna tell us why the Indiana CRC got rid of you, or is that just another story too?



>Speaking of Captain Jim, ask her (glad to see that you
>recognize her for what she is) how she posts in multiple names
>to deceive others and how she likes to post porn on a family
>rated site...

Oh yeah, and YOU'VE never ever posted under another name, right? Give me a break, you had so many names on Divorcesource that people needed an Excel spreadsheet to keep track of them.




>Speaking of my "signature line" on a known militant feminist
>site such as Divorce Source, just what is so menancing and
>threatening to you about the following that is obviously
>stated in jest that you extrapolate and twist as you do most
>things that you fear and do not understand into me advocating
>killing?
>



>Eric is the  (original)  hater  and slayer of man hating
>feminazi pigs!

Oh yeah, what could be offensive about that? Do you think that kind of dumbass ranting does the father's movement any good at all? No, it makes real father advocates look like whackos.


>Off with their freak'n heads!

Again, is this stuff the mark of a credible, rational person?


>
>CEO of Eric's Magical Anti-feminazi piglet Sword (Still under
>3 million dollars and selling like hotcakes!) (patent pending)
>(copy righted) (Sheath, Magical Sword Polish and honing stone,
>extra)  (Free shipping and handling)

Wow, so clever. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously? With intelligent commentary like that, I just can't understand why SPARC, ACFC, and other groups aren't begging to affiliate with you.




>CEO of Toilet Paper & Toilet Seats (TP, up, over & down. TS,
>up. It's the law. Eric's law...)

See above. Do you think that this is the kind of thing that reputable father's groups want on their masthead? Aren't father's issues a little more important than your toilet paper fetish?



>
>Now (no pun intended) let's hear back from my feminazi pig
>admirers how I am a "killer,"  "hate ALL women," am a "kook,"
>and truly believe the above beheading and TP stuff that I post
>in fun...  C'mon...you can surely say something denigrating...
> Show us your stuff!  ROFLMAO @ you PIGS!"

Yeah, this'll make 'em wanna join you. Fer sure.



>So, go ahead, since you a losing this detraction of yours from
>really helpful stuff for others, call in your goon squad that
>gang up on others with lies that you promote about me.  It
>certainly won't be the first time, nor the last.

Sorry, I don't have goon squad, and certainly wouldn't need one to put you to bed. I have asked Captain Jim to verify some of what I recall with regards to your behavior. I'm sure you won't have a problem with that because you cited her as a character reference earlier. Let's see what she has to say, shall we?





>
>Yeah...go ahead and make SPARC a circus as you do elsewhere
>with your repeated lies.  

SPARC has avoided becoming a circus because we don't encourage you to post here. This isn't your personal "free for all" zone, Eric. Try to pull the same disruptive crap here as you've done on Divorcesource and Dadsdivorce and see what happens.  I told you before, you're welcome to post here, participate in the discussions, etc etc, but SPARC isn't going to be your toilet bowl. Got that?




>Hopefully, Waylon will read this thread as requested by me and
>put a stop to your outright lies, twisting of the truth and

Lol, this may come as a BIG SHOCK to you, but I don't think Waylon is a huge fan of yours either. He's a very fair-minded guy but make no mistake- he's not interested in having you spout any of your classic crap here either.

Now, because of your comment I'm guessing you've probably emailed him asking him to spank me or reprimand me. Unless the world has started spinning backwards that just ain't gonna happen.

I haven't heard from him yet, but I doubt you'll get the reaction you want. You seem to forget that he knows you, and that your prior stated opinions of him haven't been forgotten. He has a looooooooooooong memory.

He and I disagree on some things but I doubt he'll be sympathetic to you on this.


>taking things out of context to disparage someone that feels
>that children have the RIGHT to be parented by BOTH parents as
>equally as possible, promotes equality and the Constitution as
>an instrument written in stone and is not a "living document"
>that can change with the whims of a few that don't have morals
>nor religion such as you, Brent.

Blah, blah, blah, Eric. You're raving again. Time to up your meds?

[FIRM]

Word your questions with truth and not lies, Brent.

Word your responses with truth and not lies, Brent.

All you have done is twisted what I have said.

You kinda remind me of this:

Angry Harry's Blog

by Angry Harry

30 Reasons Why Feminists Really Are 'Feminazis'

Nope. AH has not yet written Part III of his explanation of how it is that multi-cellular organisms and multi-peopled organisations are so amazingly similar.

He has been far too busy!

And he keeps being distracted from writing it.

And one major recent distraction was caused by an email from T who wanted to know why anti-feminists keep insisting that feminism and Nazism are very similar.

Well. The reason is this.

The Nazis were around well before the heavy-duty violence and the gas chambers. And for quite some time they operated in a manner that paralleled in many ways the more recent activities of feminists.

Furthermore, feminist and Nazi ideology have a lot in common.

AH very occasionally receives an email saying that it is outrageous to compare feminism with Nazism - because it somehow trivialises the terrible experiences of the Jews in the Germany of the 1930s.

But making the comparison does not do this at all.

It does the opposite.

It brings to the attention of people the kind of forces that gave rise to Nazism and, as far as men are concerned - particularly the white ones - it makes them understand a little better the horribleness of discrimination and demonisation.

Furthermore, most Jewish groups do not actually highlight the holocaust in order to gain everybody's sympathy.

They do it so that people can LEARN!

They do it so that people can see if something heinous is creeping up on us.
Anyway.

Here are 30 similarities between feminism and 'early' Nazism.

Feminism and Nazism have both ...

discriminated against individuals on the basis of their genetic code.

promoted the view that the targeted group was inferior genetically and behaviourally, e.g. see AH's Men Bear a Striking Resemblance to Slugs.

promoted propaganda that led to the targeted group being labeled as 'parasites', e.g. see AH's Steven Jones - A Parasite?

promoted propaganda that led to the targeted group being constantly ridiculed e.g. see Incredible Shrinking Y by Maureen Dowd

promoted propaganda that led to the targeted group being laughed at even when mutilated e.g. Bobbit jokes.

demonised the target group by labeling them as perverts and sexual criminals, e.g. see Put Up or Shut Up by Wendy McElroy

sought to break the target group away from their families e.g. see The Federal Bureau of Marriage? by Professor Stephen Baskerville.

promoted the view that the targeted group was responsible for most of the major ills in society.

disseminated lies and disinformation about the targeted group in order to further promote their own ideology, e.g. see Msinformation by Professor Christina Hoff Sommers.

disseminated lies and disinformation about historical matters, e.g. see AH's Did Women Really Want To Go Out To Work?
used intimidation, threats and coercion to prevent their opponents from speaking out e.g. see AH's Feminists are nasty things .

promoted the lie that the privileged group consisted of innocent 'victims' of the targeted group e.g. "women have been oppressed throughout history."


demanded special privileges in the workplace for members of the privileged group e.g. preferential job placements for women.

discriminated against the targeted group in educational matters and in the workplace e.g. see AH's Well Done the Girls?

perverted the justice system so that members of the targeted group were easily discriminated against in the law e.g. in family courts.

arranged matters so that accusers from the privileged group could be shielded by anonymity in the courtroom e.g. in sex-assault cases.

arranged matters so that defendants from the targeted group had to 'prove' their innocence e.g. in sex-assault and domestic violence cases.


arranged matters so that members of the privileged group could capriciously define what, legally, was to be deemed 'a crime', e.g. where nowadays the 'feelings' of women rather than the behaviours of men are the determinants of what constitutes 'a crime' e.g. see The Real Goal Of Feminism by Antonia Feitz - 18 min.

arranged matters so that members of the privileged group could capriciously define how the law was to view certain matters e.g. a fetus inside a woman can now be deemed by her - at her whim - to be a worthless piece of tissue or a prospective baby - with all the ramifications of this - regardless of how the father might feel about it all e.g. see AH's Rant Against the Child Support Agency . (Also sexual harassment etc.)

arranged matters so that the law punished members of the targeted group more severely than members of the privileged group for the very same crime e.g. in domestic violence and murder cases.

arranged matters so that members of the targeted group were made responsible for the choices and behaviours of members of the privileged group e.g. in paternity fraud cases where duped fathers still have to pay child support.



arranged matters so that members of the privileged group who harmed, or even murdered, members of the targeted group were shown undue leniency - and were often actually applauded for their actions, e.g. see Killer given domestic violence award and AH's Loose Women .


arranged matters so that the law punished members of the targeted group severely for even trivial offences - e.g. domestic violence, sexual harassment.

arranged matters so that members of the privileged group earned a right to the property of members of the targeted group for no other reason than that they were members of the privileged group e.g. alimony, child custody.

arranged matters so that certain speech or attitudes directed against the privileged group were criminalised e.g. biased 'hate speech' laws.

demanded subservience to the prevailing ideology and to the government.

effectively controlled the mainstream media and the academic institutions and arranged for them to present a dishonest and dishonourable point of view in support of their ideology.


consistently highlighted and exaggerated the achievements and the suffering of the privileged group while downplaying the achievements and the suffering of the targeted group e.g. see Human Rights are not for Men by Melanie Phillips.


ran government-funded educational courses in universities (e.g. Women's Studies, Title IX) and in schools to promote the privileged group at the expense of the targeted group.


persisted in a long term campaign of hatred toward the targeted group, e.g. "Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle." "Men think about sex every 15 seconds." etc. Also see AH's Permanent Menstrual Tension .

Bar the heavy violence and the gas chambers - which came towards the end of the Nazis hold on power - feminism and early Nazism are surely very similar indeed!

[Brent]

>Word your questions with truth and not lies, Brent.

You have a tough time with the unadulterated truth, don't ya, Eric? You like your sanitized version to be the one that gets heard. Too bad. You can't shut me up, intimidate me, or get me removed. That must really get your panties in a bunch, huh? lol




>Word your responses with truth and not lies, Brent.

I doubt you could even define the word "truth", Eric. It's just not in you, is it?



>All you have done is twisted what I have said.

All I've done is brought your long history of hateful and disruptive behavior to people's attention. Everyone told you to "shut up and stop acting like an ass", they TOLD you that your raving and hateful actions would come back to haunt you....and it has. Imagine that.

http://dadsdivorce.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16508


And pasting a bunch of crap in here ISN'T going to prevent me from saying what I intend to say. Go ahead, Eric- cut and paste alllllll you want. If it gets too crapulent it'll just be removed.

All it shows is that you're desperately trying to derail this thread and draw attention away from the fact that you have no credibility, no standing, and no chance of ever being taken seriously. You won't admit or take responsibility for your past actions, so don't expect a whole lot of sympathy from me.

I watched you pretty much destroy the Divorcesource forums with your 100+ posts a day full of ranting and hateful crap. That's NOT going to happen here, believe me.

You can't pretend that you never said these things, nor can you pretend that you're being taken out of context. Face it, the only thing you can do is to serve as a bad example.

[FIRM]

Your hatred for and of me has clouded your ability to think rationally.

Anybody can see that you will say anything to denigrate me.

Anybody can see that you are lying.

Anybody can see that if you really had something on me, you would publish it.

You don't.

I have no credibility?

LOL

Feminist myths and tricks frequently used to disrupt true discussion or debate


The following information arose from and existed in the cut-and-thrust of the Newsgroups environment.

Phil wrote:

We are grateful to Steve Reynolds who originally made the post below and

http://www.socmen.org/main.htm (socmen.org) which maintains a link to the post.

Note the link given now needs updating since Google took over Deja.com .


Feminist myths and tricks frequently used to disrupt discussion

---------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:50:55 GMT

[Posted in alt.mens-rights and soc.men]

The purpose of this FAQ is to briefly _identify_ prominent Feminist myths and tricks that are frequently used to disrupt good discussions, and by doing so, to give alt.mens-rights the tools to move onto better discussion; to _focus_ instead of just endlessly defending against the same old anti-male slander.

The purpose is not to argue or to prove anything to anybody. If you're interested in more substantive material, I suggest starting with the WWW

page (Not affiliated with this FAQ or with me):

http://www.vix.com/men/index.html

After some myths I include concise rebuttals and/or pointers to further information. Don't be misled: this is not an effort to fully explore and rebut the Feminist nonsense in question. It is a short _reminder_ of what's wrong with that particular Feminist lie, nothing more.

Feminist generally follow up this FAQ with attacks, regardless that it's not directed to them nor intended to substantively prove anything. To them, everything is a move in their "men bad, women good" game. They don't want us to identify and name their lies. And that's a good reason to do it.

I urge you not allow these myths to derail discussion of other issues, even other related issues. If they have not got a clue yet, you can bet they won't get a clue from anything you say. Instead, I suggest simply cutting-and-pasting from this file, as some have done.

The myths below have had more than a fair hearing - they have had billions of hearings, here and almost everywhere else on the planet. We in alt.mens-rights have heard and debunked these myths literally hundreds of times. I strongly suggest we refuse to re-discuss them endlessly. These little snippets of Feminist hatred have had their chance already. You don't owe them another one.

I feel that any self-respecting people after having addressed the myths _once_ should not have tolerated them any further. We don't need to be complicit in our own defamation.


Myth: Men (or white males) have it great. Men are well provided-for by society.

False. On _this_ planet, men are second class citizens in many ways.
This is the most cancerous myth of all and those who proselytize it are quite beyond civilized discussion.


Trick: The preponderance of male legislators (male columnists, etc.)
demonstrates male power.

False and sexist. This is known as "The Frontman Fallacy": looking at
what _sex_ influential people are instead of looking at _what they actually
do_. Most legislators, male and female, show favoritism to women's interests.

Female circumcision is committed almost entirely by women, yet no-one
says female circumcision demonstrates female power.


Trick: Social institutions not specifically dedicated to women are therefore specifically dedicated to men. "Males have _everything_ else in their favor."

False. It seems that for every issue, Feminists claim that all _other_  issues except the one in question are working in men's favor, and never acknowledge that they say this about every issue!


Trick: Well, in the past and in faraway places, males had it so good and women were treated horribly.

Not credible. This trick conveniently places the assertion far enough away that you can't easily check it, but where the Feminist propaganda machine can still churn out horror stories to fit its agenda.


Myth: Domestic violence is committed primarily by men against women.

False. National studies, such as Steinmetz, such as Straus & Gelles, and

such as McNeely, have repeatedly shown the rates men->women and women->men to be almost exactly equal. See
http://www.vix.com/pub/men/domestic-index.html


Myth: We have to admit domestic violence _is_ committed by women, but
it's just because they were abused, so it's still the man's fault.

False again! Researchers such as Coromae Mann have concluded "I would
not define these women as battered women, I would say they are battering
women".


Myth: The single largest cause of injury to a woman in the U.S. is domestic violence.

False. And considering the millions of injuries in the US from other sources, numerically ridiculous.


Myth: Women earn $0.XX per man's $1.00 for the same work. (The $0.XX claimed varies wildly)

False. This myth refuses to take into account important considerations such as actual hours worked (!), training, job commitment, etc.


Myth: Men control more money than women.

False. Men work for and earn more money, but women control more than 65% of  US personal wealth, and spend 4 consumer dollars for every consumer
dollar that men spend.


Myth: Women's standard of living falls after divorce while men's rises.

False. This myth is based on an "advocacy" study by Lenore Weitzmann that has been long debunked, for use of unrepresentative samples, misleading arithmetic, insistence on counting payments from the ex-husband to the ex-wife as if he still possessed the money, and so forth. Weitzmann openly broke the American Sociological Association's Code Of Ethics but has yet to be disciplined for it.


Trick: "Feminist" and "woman" are interchangeable terms. The opposite of
"Feminists" is "men". Feminist interests and women's interests are interchangeable terms.
False and absurd. Our opinion of all women could never be so low.


Trick: I'm a male and I agree with the Feminists that [particular
Feminist lie]

Not impressed. You're far from the first man to sell out their own. You may believe that as what you call a "male" you're in the perfect position to backstab men's rights, but we've heard it all before.


Myth: Choice for men is about men trying to evade parental responsibilities.

False and sexist. In the US, choice for men would give men only the rights women have had since Roe v Wade, nothing more. It would not let the man compel the woman to abort. See http://www.nas.com/c4m/


Trick: People who oppose Feminists are "threatened by strong women"

It is manipulative and arrogant to imply that the only flaw feminists could possibly have is to be "too strong".


Trick: Feminists just want equality. Feminism is about people.

The anti-male nature of Feminists is so obvious, so huge, so outrageous, that to discuss this myth would only dignify it undeservedly. And we've all noticed that purveyors of this trick don't object when the "Why should Feminism do anything for men" trick is used.


Trick: Why should Feminism do anything for men? Why don't men form their own groups instead of demanding that Feminism behave itself?

We do, and obviously we lack the political clout of Feminism. But given Feminism's constant use of appeal to pity, it is enormously hypocritical to now say "Who cares about you, we got ours!" And we've all noticed that purveyors of this trick don't object when the "Feminism is about people" trick is used.


Myth: Differences in the skills and behaviour of men and women are all  caused by socialisation. Thus in principle all women can do most jobs as well as all men.

There is an enormous middle ground between biological determinism and cultural determinism. Both extremes are ridiculous. We should not accept the socialization-causes-it-all theory as "the alternative" to biological determinism.


Trick: Women have it worse because violence against women is increasing
at a faster rate than violence against men.

This is the Fallacy of Confounding the Derivative with the Function. Men have it much worse, as evinced by the two major U.S. Department of Justice  crime measures. The actual victimization rates for women are still much lower than those of men.


Trick: You can't criticize Feminism because no statement you make is true  of _all_ Feminists.

This trick tries to block discussion by making it impossible to express  your thought. The writer simply specifies that by "Feminism", he means mainstream Feminism, misandry. Another approach is to qualify the term: "Gender Feminism", "Biofeminism", or "Radical Feminism". And if Feminism really was so random, by the same token you wouldn't be able say anything positive about it.


Trick: Well _I_ don't approve of [some particular Feminist evil]. Only some rare radical Feminists do. Maybe.

If you genuinely don't, then we weren't criticizing _you_. But generally the statement is part of the old good cop / bad cop routine. Do you eve actually criticize the misandrists? Ever advance new arguments against Feminist policies or actions? Ever spread the word about the latest Feminist outrage? Or do you just tell _us_ to stop holding Feminism
accountable?


Trick: There is no Feminist agenda. I must have been away when the agenda was handed out

That tactic has become a favorite one to deflect criticism about the  activities being conducted on their behalf. Movements don't exist without agendas, nor can they be effective without a fairly high degree of uniformity among their supporters.


Trick: I don't speak for Feminism, just for myself. I'm not accountable for Feminism. Feminism is not accountable for me.

Fair enough if it came from a real non-Feminist. But if you have argued in defense or support of Feminism, you have shown your colors and we won't  forget it for your convenience. It's also fair to hold Feminism accountable  for you if other Feminists refrain from significantly criticizing you.


Trick: You're a misogynist!

Misogyny has a precise meaning: Hatred of women _as a class_. Those who use
the term irresponsibly are both unfairly pretending there's much more  misogyny than there really is and also demonizing people. If someone calls  you a misogynist just because you are in conflict with an individual woman or you don't support special priveleges for women, they owe you a huge
apology. (But good luck getting it)


Trick: No man can know how awful childbirth is.

False. We have wives, sisters, mothers, female friends, and so forth, and we have a pretty good idea of what is and is not involved. We're not about to be bluffed into giving more sympathy than is merited or bullied into playing dumb.


Trick: You're just as bad as the feminists. They hate men, you hate feminists.

Come off it. Anyone who can't see the difference between hating a birth-group (men) and hating a hate-group back (feminists) needs to pull their head out.


Trick: Anyone who opposes Feminism is a reactionary who wants to go
"back to the past". Feminism is "progress".

Anti-feminists are not neccessarily traditionalists. The author is a proud  anti-feminist and is not a traditionalist. And not everyone agrees that Feminism is "progress". On the contrary, most here think Feminism has been a disaster.


Trick: Why is SO IMPORTANT to you to argue about [some particular gende issue]?

You should be asking this of Feminists, not of Antifeminists. The Feminists  invented the "Which sex has it worse?" issue with all its variations and invented countless lies about it. It was only when the lies were thrown in our face over and over that we realized we had to defend men. Why attack Antifeminists for defending men, and say nothing to Feminists for attacking men in the first place?


Trick: Men are responsible for wars. This justifies many sorts of manbashing, including the all-male draft.

You mean, men _are sent_ to war. Surely sending a birth group to their deaths does not justify further discrimination against that group.

Trick: You're not a woman so you could never understand.

And when's the last time you told a female Feminist she could never hope to understand because she's not a man? And so the only people who can comment on gender issues are people who have had sex change operations?


Suggested answers for more general tactics, so that you don't have to
knock yourself out phrasing a new answer every time they use the old tactic:

Suggested response to obvious Feminist lies:

Thank you for demonstrating once again that Feminists will say anything and listen to nothing.

Suggested response to Feminist backpedalling:

As usual, the Feminist response to being caught at something stinky is to simply crank out more lies and disingenuity.


Suggested response to Feminists disputing common sense:

Thank you for another example of how Feminists need to destroy common sense.


Suggested response when Feminists indicate they just don't care about fairness:

Thank you for demonstrating once again the moral bankruptcy of Feminism.

Suggested response when a Feminist relates suspicious anecdotal "evidence":

"On the Internet, no-one knows your tales are lies" - or so you Feminists seem to think.

If you wish to claim that these myths are in fact true, you're too late.

You've had your hearing and you convinced me and others that purveyors of these myths will never be honest or reasonable.

I wish to thank those who have commented constructively on this FAQ.

---

Steve Reynolds

"Feminism is to female as racism is to race."
 
http://www.mens-network.org/femimyths.html

[Brent]

Pardon me while I delete the 99.5% of your post that was pasted in junk.


>Your hatred for and of me has clouded your ability to think
>rationally.

If that were true, what would that say about you? You're just a loveable, misunderstood guy and I'm off my rocker? I don't think so, Eric.




>Anybody can see that you will say anything to denigrate me.

I don't have to say anything, I just have to point to what you've done. And if what you've done is good, honest, and laudable how could it possibly denigrate you?

If my referring to your behavior makes you look bad, who the hell is to blame for that, Eric? It's not like I directed your actions or behavior for the last several years.



>Anybody can see that you are lying.

Well, why don't we just let people decide for themselves? I think you've left enough of a history so that the question of who and what you are is pretty easily answered.

Really, Eric, do you think I dislike you because everything you do is so wonderful and makes so much sense?

No, it's because you're the Poster Boy for groups like NOW, who love to promote the idea that father advocates are raving, frothing, fruitcakes who should be regarded with equal parts amusement and revulsion.

I believe that you really, truly do want to help fathers. It's your methods that have led me to my opinion of you. You're the kind of guy that would  fix a Ming vase with a sledghammer.




>Anybody can see that if you really had something on me, you
>would publish it.

"Have something" on you? Please, you don't rank that high on the scale. That'd be like "having something" on the guy that begs for nickels at the freeway on-ramp. You're just not that important. You're like Madanna- completely irrelevant except as a subject for gossip.

It's not a question of having anything on you, it's your whole act, your schtick. It's just, I dunno, hollow. Tired. You've beat that dead horse for so long it's turned into ketchup. You need to get some new sound bites or something.



>I have no credibility?

That's correct, Eric, you have no credibility with any reputable parenting or father's organization on the net. Not one.



>Feminist myths and tricks frequently used to disrupt true
>discussion or debate

This was the 99.5% irrelevant junk that was removed. You have nothing to say, but you got a library of articles you can cut and paste from. Whoopee.

Next time maybe you could try to come up with some actual thoughts. That'd be refreshing.

[FIRM]

I have to give you credit where credit is due....  You do exactly what Hitler would do...

Mein Kampf extract
Hitler wrote in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ...

[Brent]

>I have to give you credit where credit is due....  You do
>exactly what Hitler would do...

LOL!! When all else fails, compare 'em to Hitler, right? hahahah

If you think the old "You're like Hitler!" argument is going to impress anyone here, you're even dumber than I thought. lolololol

Why am I not surprised that you would cite something from "Mein Kampf"? You had lots of chances to make a cogent argument, to put forth your points, and the best you can do is quote from Adolph Hitler? Is Hitler a hero of yours or something?


Anyway, your complete and total failure to answer any of the questions I raised proves my point completely.

Standing by for more cut 'n paste from the master of kookiness.  Cut 'n Paste, Cut 'n Paste, Cut 'n Paste, Cut 'n Paste....but never an ounce of meaning or reason in any of it.

Have you stopped spouting all those bible verses, Eric, or has that still in fashion for you? Remember all the hellfire and brimstone you were calling down on everyone, and how you were condemming everyone but yourself and that little maggot "Jay" to the Eternal Fires Of Damnation?

Remember that? Or do you deny you went through a major bible-spouting phase, then completely abandoned it? Tell the truth now....

[FIRM]

No, I do not remember that.  You can't either.  Why?  It never happened.

Have others started posts about religion and I gave my thoughts with Biblical quotations?  You bet I have!  You did too (anti-Christ).

Again, you make all sorts of accusations, but you can not back them up.

You have repeatedly stated that I advocate killing judges.  You can't prove it and I can prove that I did not.

You have repeatedly state that I advocate killing women.  You can't prove it and I can show your reference that is obviously stupid.

You state that I have a "calling from God."  You can't prove it and you refuse to publish any such statements.  Why?  Because it never happened.

You state that I am part of some "white race" thingy.  You can't prove it and you certainly can not publish any such nonsense written by me.  Why?  Because it never happened.

You state that I am cahoots with "Jay."  The only thing that you can prove is when he published Biblical quotations making his points because others were interested, that I added to those quotations.

I am not afraid to say that I am a Christian and am appalled by your accusations, lies and twisting of what I say.

You are evil.  Pure evil in every sense of the word.

Again, you espouse the "Great Lie."

Mein Kampf extract
Hitler wrote in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ...

So, since you are a liar, twister of other's writings, obviously...  YOU HAVE AN AGENDA.

My agenda is to push for the rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting (ESP), the Constitution and TRUE equality that any dictionary defines the word.

So, just what is YOUR agenda to be lying about me as you do?  Just what could that be?

Hmmmmm...

Sure makes me wonder and puts the onus on you...

Eric