Alright I am sure you have heard about the skit before the MNF game about Terrel Owens and the desperate housewives chick. Who do you think went to far do you think the Channel went to far about it or do you think the FCC is just blowing this way out of water. I read something that totally blew me out of the water today also. Michael Powell the head of the FCC said that skit was to racially disturbing. I am far from being a racist and I do not see anything wrong with a black man and white woman or a white man with a black woman. I believe Powell is taking this to far. I dont want anybody the head of the FCC that is a racist.

I just didn't like heo fact TO was in it. I really wish there was a DB or LB that would put a good hurtin on that guy. He's a great wo but has got to have the biggest mouth in th NFL. Prime Time wasn't even has bad as this fool. At least put someone in the commercial with some class...

Hot chicks in commercials can't be bad...

The FCC is leading the crusade at home. Fear them.

Another conspiracy. what are GH's buzz words for the next 4 years ? The Zealot evangelical rihgtwing Christians have panted chips into everyones brains to control their minds. Except left wing whacko's that rationalize everything with a conspiracy.

TK: I do not see any sort of conspiracy. That is usually the domain of paranoid right wing survivalist and such.

What I do see is evangelical Christian groups exercising ever more control of the airwaves to assure us that, God forbid, we see a peek of a womans breast or use the seven words certain to doom us all to hell. (Oops, I hope Hell isn't one of the words.)

There are some VERY repressed folks out there that think a woman's breast is somehow dirty. (Folks who ask that capital artwork be draped, and who tell us 9 11 happend bacause God is angry about our immoral ways.

I thought the GOP favored free choice and freedom of thought. Seems to me that folks who don't want to see such awful things as a womans bare back,which was all that was revealed in the commercial, or those nasty breasts could simply change the chanel.

If no one wanted to watch such awful stuff, the ratings would drop and the stations would stop showing it. Pure capitalism, the bulwark of the GOP. Right?

Dave,

"What I do see is evangelical Christian groups exercising ever more control of the airwaves to assure us that"

And the left wing liberals have had their way for over 40 years with the airwaves steadily going down hill. Why object to making it more reasonable? I personally do not mind the content and I know I can turn the station. But try driving down the road with your kids and hit a few buttons on the radio. Network TV is even worse.

"If no one wanted to watch such awful stuff, the ratings would drop and the stations would stop showing it. Pure capitalism, the bulwark of the GOP. Right?"

No it's called dumbing down. Pandering to the lowest common denominator.

TK:

IMHO Rush the druggie and O’Riely, who admits no wrong, are the epitome of the dumbing down of America. But unlike some, I recognize that I should not try to impose my values on others. They did that in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.But we are freeing them to be able to make their own choices.

If you think a boob is a nasty thing, then shield your children from them, that's your issue. But no one should be able to dictate what I choose to watch.


BTW I see more of what you would call dumbed down programming on Fox than on any other channel. That's fine with me; I just change the channel if I don’t like what I see.

Hey what the heck the Yanomamo of the Amazon walk around with their Clamhammers dangling. It's completely natural and I am sure the NA's of this region did the same. So since it' s natural and cultural to the PNW lets go for it here.

"If you think a boob is a nasty thing, then shield your children from them, that's your issue. But no one should be able to dictate what I choose to watch. "

How is anyone dictating what you watch. you are free to watch what you want. As far a free media remember that the public owns the airwaves and leases them to private business with the understanding that they have an obligation to act in the publics best interest as defined by that public. The majority of people rule in this case not the minority.

I doubt that if the local store that your grandkids or maybe your wife, mom or grandmother frequent started displaying 1000 types of porn magazines in full view around every cash register you would support it.

As one who has been dumbed down by TV... huh..huh...huh... he said clamhammer!!!

Right along the lines of what I was going to say Aunty.

America has serious hang ups with the naked body and sexual issues.

Hey LT have you seen the women that choose to breast feed in public? Now you know why booze and sex are so closely tied. My god if i wanted to see mud flaps I would tail gate a dump truck

"It's a baby feeding appendage and should be acceptable."

Why does that make it more acceptable than what nudist feel about the rest of the body. Hey why whould someone have to find a rest room down town to take a dump when there is a perfectly good street gutter right there. Hey the chinese cannot be wrong and they are a majority. Oh! thats right breast feeding fits your def of whats acceptable and what others feel is acceptable is wrong. I keep forgeting about the double standard.

A man should NOT have to hide in a nasty bathrrom someplace to take a leak or a dump. it's even more natural than breast feeding and unlike breast feeding you cannot live with out it and you have no choice but to go.

Aunty, since they voted for morals, values, and ethics there's a new line of Crusader Red Burkas being shipped to your local Wal-Mart as we speak.

"a new line of Crusader Red Burkas"

They are called Muu muu's here

wow, MNF to socks with sand in 'em. We have come full circle..

And nobody thinks TO is an A$$?

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

This board is going the way of nwfishing.com

He's the biggest ass in the NFL...........and that's saying something.

Are you afraid of tits Rory?

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

Not at all.

I'm afraid of the shriveled up utters which is what most of the hairy armpitted, vegan, unbathed patchuli smelling fema-nazis have that insist on sharing them with the whole world.

Now if the woman in SundayMoney's Avatar wants to give nurishment to her child in public....that's fine.

:D

I don't think there's anything wrong (or 'dirty' as the 'enlightened' left likes to say) with breast feeding on public.

What I think is wrong is all the free plubicity this stupid show is getting from this liitle stunt...and that fact that millions of people are talking about it is proof that it worked.

The increased talk (interest) in Nicolette Sheridan's MNF spot will certainly bring higher ratings to her show the next time it's on.

That will ensure that we at some point see another 'titalating' spot/stunt on network TV to cause contreversy and increase interest in a star or show.

Anybody read any good books lately??

The feminazi's are all about a womans right to choose and branding men the enemy. Men are pigs if they object to the Le Leche leauge prowling the hospitals pressuring woman to breast feed. The feminazi's also have made sure that all women get asked if they are being emotionally or physically abused when they check in. Maybe they would not object to right wing groups letting women know that warehousing their kids in day cares and using nannies is detrimental to the kids and society and that it makes them bad mom's or that it's OK for a woman not to choose to breast feed and it does not mean she is a bad mother.

KK, There is hope for you

Speaking of TV and highjacking a thread, has anyone here ever seen the BBC documentary--

"7-UP"?

It was one of the most interesting things I've ever seen on TV. It was inspired by the Old Testament verse/saying (don't ask me where)~Give me a child until he's 7 and I'll give you the man.

It was originally filmed in post WWII England in the 50's w/ a group of 7 year old classmates--it studied the way they behaved and filmed them for an entire year at their school and the way they were raised by their parents and their homelife.

It then studied the exact same kids at their school and homes @ 14 and then again a @ 21 @ 28 and lastly when they were 35.

It was absolutely amazing to see that the same characteristics in their personalities at all the age levels from 7 to 35. The people they were at 7 were basically the same at 35~just a little bigger.

If anyone knows of this BBC series that was on PBS or where I might be able to get a tape of it please let me know.

Aunty I agree and I am not trying to stir the pot with my next comment it is more a question.

I am all for women’s lib, don’t get me wrong. However I have often wondered if the Super Moms, the ones that want to be moms and have a career are were part of the problem with today’s society started.

Before women’s lib the moms stayed home and the house hold made ends meat on one budget. Then so many women went to work that a big majority of house holds had extra cash. Businesses found out they could raise prices, causing the house holds with non working moms to go to work to now afford ends meat. Now you have a society where both mom and dad work to get by when in the past we didn’t have to do this. Just a thought what do ya guys think? Again if moms want to work that is there choice I am just throwing out a thought. Is this what happened?

LT,

Back in those days you had one car a 1200 sf home with a small yard. If you had a boat it was a wooden row boat and the family vaction was to eastern wa. to go camping. As a kid I had two pairs of pants may 3 or 4 shirts and one pair of shoes. You took care of them because they had to last. We did not have a lot of toys we had to use our imaginations. A soda was a luxury and a cup of coffee for the folks was at home.

IMHO that does not sound like the avg. family today anywhere. It sounds like only the poor people that dropped out of school or made bad choices or just have below avg. desire or intelligence. Every one else as 10x the material possesions today vs. 40 years ago.

king

What you said makes sense to me

Any they're not any happier.

DanS,

Very true, even with mom dad and the kids on Prosac and every other happy pill made.

The simple life = happiness.

:D :p

I wonder why so many think making more dough will make them happier. It won't.

Fishing will make them happier.

For the love of money is the root of all evil

"Just about every single mom out there MUST work. Would you want them all to be on welfare instead?"

No I would like to see them make better decisions to start off. Being a single mom is just as preventable as aids

KK you should run for gov on that platform

We could even ammend the const. some day so even a liberal could be president and then run you

I hear ya king... but there IS something to be said for taking a couple of 'happy pills' (not Prozac... but some DO start with a P but mostly an O or a V ) and watching a movie by the fire on a rainy night.


You are also right about the simpler life. I was MUCH happier when I didn't have 2 mortgages, a stock portfolio, and an income in the 30% tax bracket...

Ahhh the good 'ol days...

Yep it's always smart to treat the exception as the rule.

Aunty M,

Your last post was a beaut. So true. Gotta' love it.

Sorry TK, but you earned it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Aunty I am with you. TK that comment you made was one of the most worst comments I have ever seen on this board I will say if I had any respect for you it is gone now. I know you dont care but I believe there is more than me on this board that feels that same way now after that loser comment.

Salmo,

"Wrong again. Single mothers may be divorced OR widowed, and it may very well NOT be their fault"

Your agreement with this statement shows how far men have fallen. Specifically in the NW. So lets add psuedo male to your list . The above statement is clearly the view of the feminist and their apologists.. It's a sexist statement that gives men all the power and women no responsiblity in the choices in their lives and relationships. Plainly that men are evil monsters that victimize women and women are not smart enough and must accept that role in life. Even sadder is the fact that so called enlightened men repeat such BS. Woman have at least 50% of the responsibility for their relationships good or bad. If a woman finds her self a single mom for any reason she has the ability to rise above it and prosper. It's well documented and well studied.

So Aunty:

You are trying to tell us that the woman in the shelter doesn't deserve some blame for choosing a bad partner? Some how that seems a little short sighted to me. How many girls out there will only date the bad boy? Seems to me that is the start of the of the road to the shelter.


As far as the research goes why don't one of you post some links supporting your positions. Seems like interesting reading.

TK,

Now you’re truly pathetic. Sure, single motherhood is as preventable as AIDS. Wouldn’t we like to see everyone make better decisions to begin with? However, as omnipotent as you act like you believe you are, you already know that the only people who do not make mistakes (TK excepted, no doubt) are those who do nothing.

Living a human life and avoiding all mistakes are mutually exclusive. While it would be nice if more women were more discriminating (to the woe of the inadequate males they befriend), under the best of probable circumstances, some women will make the wrong decision. Some men are good at deceit, and a woman stuck with such a guy makes the “better decision” when she finally decides to leave him. Does such a woman bear the entire burden of fault? It appears that you’re saying she does. If so, that strikes me as pathetic, but not surprising in regards to you.

Each party bears a share of responsibility, but the outcome isn’t necessarily a 50:50 split. Every person controls him or her self only. Even you cannot control the choices others make or the path they choose to follow. Coupled with the fact that people do change, most relationships become something different than they once were. The desired outcome is that they would improve, but that isn’t always the case, and the one partner isn’t necessarily the cause for the choice made by the other, and isn’t able to force the desired path on the other. In those cases, a split is the best outcome, and fault is pretty irrelevant, benefitting neither party.

So if any woman who finds herself a single mom can rise above it and prosper, why don’t you share that recipe - that’s so well studied and documented - with the thousands of people who could no doubt make good use of it?

Usually you’re pretty entertaining as a pompous a$$, but this one was pretty low, even for you. Nonetheless, I hope your turkey turns out perfect and you have a happy Thanksgiving.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Aunty have I told you latly that I love you

Salmo,

lot of words there for saying nothing. Libs hate to be held personally responsible and so it goes they do not hold others responsible. It's the reason the divorce rate is over 50%. Add this topic to your list of must reads along with the middle east because you are clueless.
Anything that is a choice is preventable.

Aunty:

I didn't balme the women first, or more, nor did I defend the things that happened to those other women. I simply said that if you choose a bad partner then sometimes bad things happen, and you deserve SOME of the blame.

Vic,

Women have been getting away with blaming men for everything for so long it is habitual at this point. They do not even see that they are degrading their own sex in the process.

Aunty:

Where did I say that it is OK to abuse kids? Where did I say we should let those guys off the hook? Why is the woman who chooses a bad partner or who chooses to stay in a bad relationship teflon? Choosing to stay in an abusive rlationship is bad for kids too...

Don't get me wrong... In my opinion there is no reason for a man to hit a woman or child. If I had knowledge of a situation where a friend or family member was involved on either side, I wouldn't allow it to continue.

FYI: I am not trying to be abrasive, or stir the pot. I genuinely find this interesting, and appreciate the exchange of ideas.

TK,

Well look who's calling who clueless! You said,
"Anything that is a choice is preventable." That will be true just as soon as certainty is a given. No person can know, with absolute certainty, that the person they are considering marrying will not turn into an abusive or intolerable partner. Therefore, the only way to prevent making a wrong choice is to choose to do nothing. As I said in my previous post, the only people who don't make mistakes are those who do nothing. That includes you, but you're so self rightous that it doesn't seem likely you'd ever be aware of it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,

"No person can know, with absolute certainty, that the person they are considering marrying will not turn into an abusive or intolerable partner." Maybe not 100% but there are ways to reduce the chances significantly. One thing any seasoned crime investigator will tell you is application of Occams Razor solves in the high 90% of most cases. It is true for other areas of life as well. I am sure you are familiar with it.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

Wow, this one is pretty deep. Unfortunately, there is not a "one size fits all" cause or solution to the "victim paradigm here." We would all like to have nice, concise reason as to why violence occurs generically in families, but studies regarding "why" do not come to a finite societal cause or genetic disposition.

Tk, Achem's razor is used as an exercize in logic, and by no means it is used by anybody to determine any kind of an absolute for anything. Used to have alot of fun with it in collage.

BW,

It tells us that the simplest answer is generally correct and should be looked at before more complicated theories. In this example individual choices leading to a predictable outcome. Crime investigasstors will also tell you that victims act like victims and regression analysis models can be used to develop psychological profiles of potential abuse victims as much as they can identify abusers. BTW I see many more women abusing men in my daily life than I see the classic male abusers. One is more generally accepted than the other in our society.

Actually is says

" All things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the best."

Just a little different from what you said. As far as criminal investigators are concered it could only be used to give them some sort of direction to persue.

An example

TK is an intellect of almost Freudian magnitude. Able to solve all the countries ill's before lunch.

OR

It's all so much BS.. :p

Busted

Aunty:

"except for the dirtbags like the above who prefer never to take responsibility but instead, blame others."

If you were refering to me then that is a pretty bold statement considering you don't know me. I am not sure how this got personal. For my part I have tried to be respectful of your views and offer another side. I thought the whole idea of this forum was to exchange ideas and hopefuly learn from each other.

All the prerequisites exist for abuse to take place before the abuser is even known. The victim just needs to make the choice of abusers. The variables are independant of sex. However sex changes the order of the varaibles. Much like substance abuse,obesity etc.our society accepts symptoms as cause rather than the cause itself. There is more money to be made treating symptoms.

Glad to know I haven't reached dirtbag status.

I will say the women that I know, who have been in abusive realtionships, have been in more than one (I can think of 2 that I know). I know it isn't very scientific, but in my mind it seems to back up the choice thing.

There are some simple tests one can take that are predictors of abuse in relationships. It's easier to blame it on someone else or give it a medical name than to accept responsibilty for the reasons we make choices in life and deal with it proactively. Your companies insurance policy is more likely to pay a larger ammount for any treatment if the condition is given a name other than choice. You are then free to repeat the behavior as society and then industry have accepted financial responsibility for your choices. The majority of abuse cases involve susbstance abuse again if you subscribe to the ADA it's a disease and not a choice so the resposibility is not yours. The whole system is geared around avoiding responsibility. Don't get me started on ADD, ADHD and similar

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

Vic,

I'd bet you a G Loomis rod that those two women you know who have been in more than one abusive relationships both grew up in a household with either a non-existant father/positive male role model or had a dysfunctional relationship with the one who was there.

TK, What the ADA and other organizations are saying is Some people are more susceptible to become dependant of certain things than others. It is NOT always by choice.

Not to be criticle but there is a difference between reading a lot of books and being well read.

BW,

I know full well what the intent of the ADA is and the majority of it is BS. The majority of it is treating the symptom rather than the cause. To put things in a box to make it easy to justify certain actions given our societies structure.Take substance abuse as an example as it applies to this topic. The ADA does not require or set a side diagnosis and treatment of all underlying causes to the susbstance abuse as a requirement of diagnosis and treatment of the symptom. Meaning you meet the criteria by simple diagnosis and most corporate insurance programs will pay for treatment of the "disease" never treating the whole person just the "disease" which is really just a symptom of other causes. The number one cause of recidivism is not treating underlying causation of the abuse. Happy ,fullfilled ,content whole individuals do not make the choice to abuse substances. They are many socitites on earth that allow of blind studies to thses behaviors.

Sorry RB. I am not willing to part with any of my sticks.

It is driving me crazy... what is your moniker's name?

Your blue collar, Readers digest conclusions on this issue are well demonstrated by your last post "when children are abused, it's their faults. When a person is a victim of a drive by shooting, it's their own fault. If someone busts your car window and steals stuff, it was their own fault"

In no instance is the other party consenting to enter into a relationship in your examples.

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

The avatar is 'Triumph the Insult Comic'

The moniker name itself (Rory Bellows) is an obscure charactor reference from the TV classic 'The Simpsons'

To his credit, Goharley was the first one who was enlightened enough to figure it out.

The issue being discussed was never about permission our fault it was about choice. Specifically being a single mom for any other reason than the death or debilitating injury of their spouse.

Rory: I thought I heard the name Rory bellows on a recent Simpsons rerun. I ws so dumb I though it was a coincidence. I was planning on telling you about it. Doh . . now I get it! Yes, I watch the Simpson and am proud of it!

BW,

Loved your Achem's razor analogy with TK as the example. I couldn't possibly have said it better myself. Thanks for stating it so clearly.

It's getting hilarious. At this point in this thread, we have TK urging the identification and treatment of a root cause instead of symptoms. Yet in earlier threads regarding terrorism, he was all about treating the symptom - killing terrorists - and dismissing identifying and treating the root cause of what causes people to become and commit terrorist acts against the U.S. It looks like our own forum genius, TK, is a practitioner of, if not believer in, situational logic.

TK,

Earlier in this thread you stated that, "single motherhood is as preventable as AIDS." You allowed for no exceptions, indicating that every woman can know with absolute certainty whether she is entering into a relationship with a potential jerk or abuser. Even then, you weren't allowing death or dibilitating disease as exceptions. Your use of absolutes - were certainty does not and cannot exist - discredits the potential value you might add. Hence, that's why when you claimed you're an interesting person, I disagreed and suggested you're really just an entertaining pompous a$$. But it's just the choices you make . . .

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Aunty my money's on you for kicking TK's a$$

Salmo,

It's interesting how you read things with your supoerior scientific pomposity.

"he was all about treating the symptom - killing terrorists - and dismissing identifying and treating the root cause of what causes people to become and commit terrorist acts against the U.S. It looks like our own forum genius, TK, is a practitioner of, if not believer in, situational logic."

I asked you 6 months ago to pontificate on the root cause of radical Islam. All you could do was talk about how anxious you where over the discussion. Pleasse feel free to start another thread to discuss the root causee and how to treat it and I will join in and bonk you like the Brat you are. I nthe words of your favorite president " bring it on!"

Back to the topic.


"Earlier in this thread you stated that, "single motherhood is as preventable as AIDS." You allowed for no exceptions,"

How is this an absolute? Aids is not 100% preventable because you can get it from other than choice. Contracting aids can be from Sexual contact ,IV drug use etc. are all choices. Just like entering into a poor relationship is a choice. Both have many tests that can eliminate most of the risk. Yet our society puts little value on stable relationships and resposibility and more on personal freedom. That being given kids rasied by single parents and the issues that revolve around it are acceptable byproducts. So I would guess that your problem is that you do not think through the problem before you start pontificating. Maybe being anxious is the root cause more than ego or intelligence.

"Yes, men DO have a choice NOT to abuse TK. You BLAMED the woman.

Please show me where I blamed abused women 1 time ?

I will address you no longer until you can or apologize.

You know what is scary? He thinks he is making scence.

BW,

I can cite source after source for my postion can you?

Tk

I don't think anyone here dosn't think you haven't done some research. A large part of my job is in research. The problem is you also have to correlate it and then draw an intelligente conclusion. You kind of fall down on that part.

You try to paint with too broad of brush, and when someone calls you on it you cannot argue your possition with any success. You have in fact lost in every exchange with Salmo G (I wonder if that will get me a fishing trip,) and AuntyM ( have gone fishing with her a couple of times). What is sad it you have not even realized that you have been out argued. That is what we find so entertaining. Anyway I have some real work to do so have a nice day.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BW:
[qb] Tk

The problem is you also have to correlate it and then draw an intelligente conclusion. You kind of fall down on that part.

You try to paint with too broad of brush, and when someone calls you on it you cannot argue your possition with any success.

Too funny.. way accurate description of the King.... I do enjoy reading his views however.. sort of like watching a car crash in slow motion.

Soooooo Aunty, can I come to dinner?

Desperation, I have to cook for myself for a week. No one should have to eat what I cook.

BW,

The problem is you also have to correlate it and then draw an intelligente conclusion. You kind of fall down on that part.

Prove it ! just saying it does not make it so.

Two great friends are Phd Psychs practicing in Marriage and family therapy forgive me if I take their view over yours. Your view might make sese to the lay person but as you might be aware research and application sometimes are counter intuitive.

BRun,

You talk pretty big for a guy that is not smart enough to make a phone call and then when he screws it up does not take responsibility for it and tries to stick the company for his mistake. But then again 28% is like everyone in your universe

That is just proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. They have the Phd's and I am sure they could speak on the subject with far more expertise than you or I.

By the way you should not take it for granted that there are no PHD's or other wise highly educated people on this board. You would be surprised.

Anyway I'm done with this, as entertaining as this has been I have more importand things to be doing.

Right, the 28% of a states population is a small amount thing... one of your better foot in mouths to date... Classic proof of your analitical skills.

About this current issue you are arguing.. I don't know much of anything about abusers and battered women etc... but do know you threw some rather broad statements out there.. and as data you offer up some freinds who are PHD's or some crap.. as if that means anything to anyone. I am surprized that you have not "completed some sort of 6 year investigation into this very subject " or other B.S and expect that people believe it simply because you say so...

Truth is, you start out with some basic truths and then screw it all up when you go into the data analysis mode.. Get in over your head, then don't know how to pull out of the nose dive.

I am betting that you would be an intresting person to ride in a car with for 2000 miles.. I doubt I would learn anything but it would be good conversation none the less.

BW,

Petty typical of this site. Stick your nose in generalize, slam and then check out when challenged. I kno I know it's everyone else's fault for not following your self imposed rules and mythical guidelines. Salmo does the same thing

BRUN,

All I said was that being a single mom was a choice casued by poor decision making. That has yet to be refuted in any way shape or form. Others tried contend that other factors make single moms mostly laying the resposiblity on men. Then they morphed it into abuse and took it down other rabbit trails to emotionalize an arguement that they could not refute. There was no data presented on either side just opinion. I can back my position up with data and numerous studies. I doubt the others can.

Ok I'm back

You said being a single mother was a choice.

Some brought up spoucel abuse as an example of how that is not always correct.

Your responce was to slam them an call it a small minority, and say they could tell if a male was going to become an abusive husband.

That my be true if they all had that PHD your friends have, (they all don't).

Like is said you paint with too large of brush. and when someone gives an example of how you are not correct you just blow over it.

You know just for fun I had a conservitive friend here at work (who is also very highly educated) read your posts, and all he wanted to say was ....

"GET OFF MY SIDE"

I think Terrell Owens is to blame... Is this not where this all started ??

In summery... Monday night football causes single mothers who can't breast feed in public so they marry a guy that beats them up. ( Not really but pretty darn close if you read the past posts)


Sound silly ??? Your right !!! it is but thats where its at.. who or how it got there is anyones guess.

AuntyM... My wife would pound me stupid if I were to disagree with you on that !!!! She gets pretty wound up about those types of things. I asked her on the phone today if she thought that women who choose men that batter them knew in advance that it would turn out that way.... She said.. " I don't think they know it at the time because they are blinded by love but people around them can see it from the very start if they pay attention ".. Thats not a Phd talking thats just another woman who has seen a lot in her life.

So, she brings up the example of a guy I used to work with. He was a strange dude... total control freak. One day he did not show up for work. Our boss called his house and his wife said he ran off with all their money and would not be comming back. Long story short, they found him in the crawl space under their house two weeks later. She shot him six times while he was asleep. She said that it was because he had threatend to kill her " again".. All the other people at work were shocked... but I was not really surprized.. little things about him screamed wife beater ( always berating women behind their backs, always talking down to them ).. In the end, she is out at the Pen because she could have left at any time. She got 25 - life and I believe that he really did what she said. She did some interviews talking about the experiance. She said it was worth it being in prison and him being dead. She stated that know one knows how much fear a man can put in your head while he is pulling your hair with a gun in your ear while stuffing your head into the kitchen floor.. pretty graphic stuff. His family wanted her to get the death penalty.. There has been some speculation about her getting out sooner.

BW,

"Your responce was to slam them an call it a small minority, and say they could tell if a male was going to become an abusive husband."

Care to point out what I said? If thats a slam then so be it. I said there are very predicitive test that point to behavior types based on regressive analysis models. They can be admisistered by non professionals and results given and interpreted. Marriage and family counselors that are not PHd's use them so do many business and the military. Personality profiles have been widely used for 40 years.
Anyone getting married without one or several and a years worth of counseling is foolish IMHO.


Like is said you paint with too large of brush. and when someone gives an example of how you are not correct you just blow over it.

Blow it up is more like it.

":You know just for fun I had a conservitive friend here at work (who is also very highly educated) read your posts, and all he wanted to say was ....

"GET OFF MY SIDE" "

For some reason you and a few others here think that their is safety in numbers and that if more than 2 people here agree with you it makes you right and your point valid. Your point or lack of one stands on it's own merits or lack of . Have your highly intelligent conservative pal join the discussion if he wants to make a point.

My point stands that being a single mom is as preventable as aids. Refute it or walk.

Plop.......Plop.......Fizz......Fizz...oh what a relief it is.........

Most things in life are unless you are looking for wiggle room and someone to blame.
In every case of where there is a single mom you can trace it back to a choice except in the case of death or debilitating illness. Every single time and you cannot point to one case to refute it.

BTW not taking an action is a choice, ignorance to a cause is a choice.

Domestic abuse potential can be predicted everytime . The signs are very apparent early in the relationship.
Choosing to have children when the signs are apparent only compounds the issue.

I hear they're going to be build a new shelter in Seattle for lightly battered women.
-----------------------------------------------------------

It's called the 'Tempura House'.

I have been in the risk management field most of my career. My team can build a Regression analysis outcomes based model that can predict human behavior of almost any type. The primary reason that people are so predicable is that 99.9% of all humans are unable to compartmentalise their behaviors. Meaning they cross all areas of their lives. We have data banks full on human behaviors and billions of outcomes of different behaviors to mathmatically formulate models. You can ask as few as 9 and as many as 100 questions and pattern a persons behavior with less than a 1/10 of 1% error rate. It's how insurance companies, banks,credit card companies, the govt and many other industries and organizations assess risk. Big brother has been around along time and you are measured by it everyday unless you live in a cave.

Envy is a terrible thing.

YAWN!!!!

Aunty I agree 100% on the breast feeding deal. Give me a breast any day over a bottle.

It's envy here is the proof. You where you where born to be a hideous beast with no means but you choose to remain uneducated to do nothing with your life more than to act like a man on a web site dominated by men. An absolute horror and failure of a woman. I know some real ugly or fat women that at least got an education and did something with their life besides latch onto a man and then pretend to be one on a web site in their old age.

You know what, that was uncalled for. Here is hoping you are not long for this web site.

BW,

I could respect your opinion if you had a similar reaction to posts where she personally attacked me. I have not responded to her insults for over 90 days to see if she would quit . She CHOSE to continue. I have said my peace now I am done with her for good.

TK Nice sentence. Was that English? Yes, that Aunty sure is an uneducated dope. You sure showed her.

Game over. Aunty won.

Hey Dave it passed Word spell and grammar check Hey your vote really means alot btw it really will tear me up for quite a while

Holy Snikkies!!! I knew I resorted to posting here for comic relief but this is far beyond my wildest dreams....

Wow King.... I always thought you were a loser but damn dude you did not have to prove it... thats the first piece of data from you I have ever seen.. and hope its the last one.

To theking--- makes me really GRUMPY to read that crap at 5:12 am. You also need to study domestic violence a little more.