Glenn's Cult?: distorting truth

August 30, 2009

It's not what you know???????

ChrisPCD Says:

August 27th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
"Just because someone isn't convicted of something doesn't mean they're not guilty."

True. But it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. :)

This is PRECISELY how battering men get away with abuse!!!!! This is what must be stopped!!!!!

Oh and welcome to Petunia's lair ChrisPCD. I see this is your first time here (probably not your last). Oh and one side note to my favorite (gag puke cough) fr - have you found what you are looking for yet? You have been to my site more than everyone else combined nearly over the last week. If you are looking for something and cannot find it why not just email me you boobhead. Won't say your name but you know who I am talking about :-)

She is back!!!!

Ahh a voice of reason among the many quaks.

jeana Says:

August 27th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
There may not be enough evidence of domestic violence, but enough that the judge would rather be safe than sorry. Just because someone isn't convicted of something doesn't mean they're not guilty.

This is what PROTECTIVE MOTHERS have been saying all along. DV does hot happen in the open as shown in this video:

Domestic violence happens in secret - behind closed doors. Who sees it? Nobody except the victim and the perpetrator. Maybe the chidlren who generally are either too young to testify (unless the abuse escalates to murder) or too aligned with the abuser after years of being told their mother is stupid. Just search for Susan Still. Her 13 year old son was forced to video tape his father beating his mother. This is about the only time you will hear of abuse being corroborated. Any other time it is NEARLY ALWAYS a he said she said situation.

So jeana it is a welcome sight for sore eyes to see you back and posting again. Welcome back to the insanity!

The shift in NCM percentages?

Well here we have it again. RF again playing games with numbers when it suits him.

Cough. "The shift in favour of fathers...has occurred in America?" When? Did I fall asleep for 30 years? Just in case facts matter, U.S. Census Bureau data show that, in 1993, 84% of custodial parents were mothers. By 2005, that number had plummeted to...84%!

How many single parent homes existed in 1993 RF? And how many exist now in 2005? Hmmmmmmm makes one wonder. Lets take a quick break while I research these numbers

Still looking :-)

Still searching

Hang in there almost there

TADA!!!!!!!!

Click HERE to read the true statistics on single parents homes. According to this website there were 7 million single parent homes in 1990. So 84% of that is 5.88 million single mother led households. Now this is not specified as to single mom because she has always been single or because she is divorced - just single mother led households. And according to this website 13.5 million single parent households. Now this would equate to 11.34 million.

This site also says this: The proportion of single mother families grew to 26% and single father families grew to 5% by 2000 (from 12% and 1% respectively in 1970). Single mother led households doubled over this time period where the single father led households grew at a rate of 5 times. So a 100% increase versus a 500% increase. HMMMMMMMMMMMM..........

WARNING!!!!!!

WARNING!!!!
I must warn all who come to this blog about clicking any links I provide. Unless I state this is a safe website you should take precautions in visiting any site listed as an MRA/FR site. To do so one could open up oneself to being stalked, hunted down, victimized, and even in worst case scenario - assaulted in real life or even killed. The men (and sometimes women) who post on the MRA/FR sites can be dangerous. One nly needs to read the venom spewing from their moouth to see evidence of that. I also post this due to the recent blogs and forums I have discovered over the last few weeks. These will slowly be added to the Cult Wall Of Shame. Please take adequate precaution when visiting these sites.

Fair Use Doctrine

Section 107 of the Copyright Act, entitled, "Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use," is the statutory codification of the fair use doctrine. This judicially developed concept strives to balance the public's need to know and be informed against authors' incentives to create. The copyright law contemplates that fair use of a copyrighted work without permission shall be for purposes such as (1) criticism and comment, (2) parody and satire, (3) scholarship and research, (4) news reporting and (5) teaching, and that such fair use will not result in the infringement of a copyrighted work. As one may expect, authors and publishers usually take a restrictive view of the fair use doctrine, while users of copyrighted materials generally take a more expansive view.

http://www.publaw.com/work.html

Thank you too!!!!

I am now friends on a message board with a wonderful man. And you all thought we hated men :-) We despise abusive controlling men and women. We like men and women who are decent, honest, and caring. I will say no more as I do not want to ruin this. But those who fight this same fight, keep going!!! We are being seen and our message is getting out there.

Thank you. And thank you for the important work that you do. It gets my dander stirred up when little men hide behind a pen or a computer and spew out fear, hate and stuff that they think makes them look like "real men" but in fact exposes them for the big bullies that they really are. My father and mother are both deceased. But my dad treated my mother the way every man should treat his wife. She was the Queen in our home and he doted on her like she was still his sweetheart until the day she died at age 84. Abraham Lincoln once said, "The greatest gift a father can give to his children is to love their mother." So many men are unhappy with their own lives and they blame women. That way they don't have to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings. Sad. Pathetic. Again, thank you for your very good and important work.

And thank you for giving us hope as well - the hope that there are good and decent people out there - both men and women.

My blog, My rules.....

I would like to welcome everyone who has arrived here - no matter the road you traveled. I only have some very simple rules. Please try to keep your comments clean (I am a mom and as such I do not like extreme vulgar language). I despise the "c" word so it will never be published. Otherwise I will be very lax as I want this site to be a release to those of you who have an issue with the MRAs in general and Sacks and his followers in particular.

I must also slide this little disclaimer in here too (just to protect myself from those pesky little creatures called lawyers and those MRAs who would think they will file a lawsuit or something silly like that against me). I am using YOUR WORDS on this site as well as publishing my opinion of those words. Nothing more, nothing less. I am "not" responsible for comments made by others on my site and if MRAs can behave then they might very well be allowed to post here. Like I said, this is intended to be a release for the women who have been attacked on various sites online to have a little comic break from these constant attacks.

I am posting this blog and all of my comments as a naturally born citizen of the United States and am exercising my right to free speech.

I must also caution my followers and posters against posting any identifying information. This is for your own safety, as I foresee this blog quickly becoming a very hated tool against MRAs who abuse and those who assist them. I mus also make one additional rule concerning posting other people's (such as our exes) personal information. I have been through a very nasty divorce and I know how our exes can react. As such I must make it a number one rule, as much pleasure it would give us, against posting any information which could identify our exes. First names (or initials if the name is uncommon) is fine but no last names. This will be enforced on this blog, unlike "other blogs."