|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday May 04, @08:22PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This makes me so mad, some bitch can choose to *KILL* your child with impunity for free, yet the same bitch will demand you to pay for her lifesytle if she is mercifull and decides to let your child live. Not only that but the majority of people both men and women (especially women) think this is ok. How fucking stupid are people? Can they not see a double standard in this. The clincher is they are so fucking self-righteous and smug about it like it's morally good what they are fucking doing. Just like God damn nazi were about the holocaust.
What kind of fucking society do we live in where a women can kill a man's child without even his consent. What kind of fucking society do we live in where a man is told that's ok your firstborn baby is dead we'll provide free counselling for the mother and you dad, well just fuck off and hang yourself if you feel bad about it. Oh and if she chooses not to kill your child just make sure you pay, pay, pay as that's your only right and responsibility.
Fuck! My ex decided to deny me access to my child a lawyer told me that I had little chance of visitation as I was an unwed father. You know what if you bring this up with almost any women and some men they figure it's your fucking responsiblity to go to court and fight it out and if you don't then you are a deadbeat and you don't care. What kind of a fucking world do they live in, do they not see money doesn't fly out of my ass for lawyer fees. Should I fight a unwinnable battle until I'm left homeless on medication and left in a fucking cardboard box on the street and still not have access.
Yet these same bitches will tell you that a father has no rights over his kids and if he wants them he better fight and pay for them. Even the so called "independent" feminists on their forum think it's a women's right to be supported by a man, like being able to pop a fucking baby out of your cunt gives you the magical right to 18-25 years of free money.
I don't know how many times I've heard stupid fucking slogans like "A women's body a women's choice", "It takes two to tango" or a "A child (Translate: a fucking deadbeat welfare collecting mom)has the right to be supported by the father and that is his responsiblity it doesn't matter if he has access or not.".
What about my fucking right to see my daughter, where is that, I'm not a drug addict or an abuser or a child molester. When I found out my ex was pregnant that's all I thought about how great it would be to have a daughter and the times we would spend together. Of course according to the dumb bitches I talked with on chats this is impossible because all men hate kids and could give a rats ass about there child. Well I know this fucking misandrist mythology is bullshit because I do care. Then they babble on about how there ex-husbands don't pay support blah, blah, blah yeah I'm sure they don't because you probably fucking talk to them the same way you talk to me, bitch.
Fuck 'em and yes I am mad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday May 05, @02:24AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"yes I am mad."
Good. It's good that you seem mad enough to do something about it.
Things are gonna change, and you can bet your ass that, at the end of the day, I'm going to be able to say that I was a part of it.
Hey TC what's that slogan of yours? :)
You're damn right it is.
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 07, @02:43AM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
((("Hey, TC what's that slogan of yours?:)")))
Hobbes.
That would be "HOKA HEY!" (It is a good day to die.)
Or are you talking about "I have enough aggravation"? I use both, depending on my mood.
When it comes to feminists, either one seems appropriate.
-Thundercloud.
"HOKA HEY!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday May 05, @09:34AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Well normally I'm not the way that I was when I wrote this. What happened was that my ex and I did not live together and we were engaged to be married. About a month after we got engaged she found out she was pregnant. Well soon after this she decided that she didn't want to get married, from what I believe was because she thought I didn't make enough money, her traditionalist christian family I think also had something to do with this as her grandfather gave me a bunch of shit and told me I should be making at least $40 an hour before thinking about getting married to the prize winner that is his granddaughter. She gave me that line "I think we need to spend some time apart.", that way she could tell her friends that it was me not her that broke off the wedding. I did call her a few times and every time she told me that she didn't want me to call her.
When the baby was born her mother (not the babies mother but my ex's mother)phoned me and I went to see my daughter. I saw my daughter three more times after this. She then decided that it wasn't good for me to see her and told me that she would decide maybe in a couple years or so when I would be allowed to come by. So, I went to see a lawyer, the lawyer told me because I was an unwed father and I didn't meet certain requirments my chances of getting visitation of say a couple times a month I might get but it would be a long legal battle if she choose to fight it and of course there is always the possibility of false accusations which could land me in police custody for a few days to a couple weeks, incidently the legal aid society doesn't help people for custody/access cases only for criminal cases and yes the government does supply a lawyer for the mother if she makes under a certain income.
At this point I became increasingly depressed. I had saved up and was buying toys and a crib and stuff while she was pregnant hoping that after the baby was born she would change her mind about things, after all she said that she only wanted a bit of time apart (I've now found out this is a typical female dumping line, yes I was stupid to not have known this). I continued trying to call her she would hang up on me or threaten me that family members would get me if I came by to see my daughter. She also named our daughter "Chloe Oriana" just out of spite because when we had discussed names before we had decided to pick a more english name like Amanda. One thing is that she didn't go after me for support and when I offered her money or all those toys and things I bought she wouldn't accept them this wasn't out of a sense of responsibility for her choice this was also done out of spite as she knew it would hurt me if she didn't accept the things I had bought or the money I offered and it did. I was now really depressed and had a break down, I ended up being institutionalized for three months. Which she used against me with my friends and a couple years later at mediation saying that I hadn't called for three months to continue to beg to see my daughter, nevermind I was being electroshoked twice a week and injected with halodal every couple nights in a locked mental ward.
It's been about two and a half years since Chloe was born and I've now gotten married (to a nurse I met in the hospital :) something good did come out of it) and had a son with my current wife. I called my ex once since then and she still had the same attitude. I recently recieved a letter from the government about child support. My ex had applied for welfare so the government was coming after me for money. I am now a proud supporter of the almost all male "child welfare tax". Strangely enough my ex still lives with her mother and grandmother in a house they own so how she could be eligible to collect welfare is beyond me since she pays no rent and buys no food.
I also served papers to make me a legal guardian of my daughter, my wife served the papers, this was about two months ago. Funny thing is when my wife served the papers my ex told her a bunch of bullshit some of the bullshit my wife had been around to know that it wasn't true. Like for example my ex told my wife that I had never called her about my daughter, well my wife was sitting right beside me that last time I had called soon after I got out of the hospital. I called up the ex again and she has calmed down she agreed to mediation if I didn't attempt to get guardianship, I now get to see my daughter once a week. I have to be careful though because if she chooses otherwise I could have this taken away. I also used a bit of slick talking and made out gaurdianship to be more then it really is and strangly enough the family mediation person who are usually hardcore feminists kind of went along with it I think mediation worker actually wanted me to see my daughter and felt bad for me. Maybe in the future if I kiss my ex's ass enough at the visitations I might be able to bring my daughter home with me for periods of time that would make me happy.
The reason I was so upset when I wrote that last message was because that day I had felt a little bad about my daughter and I had went to a chat since my wife wasn't around to talk about it with. While I mentioned my daughter at the chat. Imediatly before I even had a chance to spell out the situation the dumb bitches started in on me. Asking me if I pay child support was the first question and then the really stupid things like why didn't I phone my ex daily and beg to see my daughter, yes I'm sure those stupid bitches would like that since most of them later began to talk about there ex's and how they are deadbeats that don't pay support. Well of course they don't pay fucking support to you if you expect them to lick your fucking boots phoning you daily and begging to see there kids. The worst though were the one or two guys on there who were such sad losers that they would be a traitor to there gender simply to try and look chivalrous so they could get a bit of webcam cybersex if they were lucky.
I'm really not sure how I could have done anything diffrently, maybe if I had known about men's groups at that time I would have contacted one and I will now if she tries to stop visitation in the future.
I'm not a forced father even though I respect the guys that are stuck in that position since thousands of women every year kill babies if they don't want them. I suppose I'm a forced non-father? I want to be one but I can't and I tell you if she came by and dropped off my daughter I would be happy to take care of her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday May 05, @09:53AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
This depression chat I had went to, I didn't go on and be confrontational I just went there to get some support and they immediatly went on the attack as soon as I mentioned that I had a daughter that doesn't live with me. I just wanted to unwind. I didn't go there and talk about politics or men's activism or child support or anything like that I just started talking about my feelings of losing my daughter.
Some of the things they said are unbelievable, just crazy shit, most of them seemed to have this attitude that men owe them something simply because they breathe. It may have actually been good since getting so pissed off took my mind off the depressive thoughts I was having and after they went on the all out attack I got to say some things to them that I can't say to my ex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very well said. I just wish more men would wake up and say the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"A women's body a women's choice"...
Women could still have their choice to abort or not; the state could take custody of any child born, on the grounds that it is jealously interested in the best interests of the child, and can protect those interests more effectively than any individual, including the mother or father.
In the present arrangement, the state is reducing its liability as much as possible. It's also acting according to the reproductive wishes of women, not men.
Perhaps the advice to "keep it in your pants" should be taken very seriously, in the following sense: any man choosing to engage in sexual activity with a woman probably ought to have known his partner several years. Given that women have so many reproductive options and resources, as compared with the primitive and punitive "keep it in your pants" option available to men, it would be wise for men to wait years before engaging in sexual activity with women, whose legal options are such that men are reduced to having to trust women regarding their reproductive choices. That level of trust takes years to develop; decades even.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 06, @09:59AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
That's right you could be married for years and you could have your children taken away from you at best or have them murdered before they are born at worst. Not to mention your livelihood taken away at moments notice.
It's ironic that it seems the only 'safe sex' a man can have is with a street prostitute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, now that you've reminded me that women have control over virtually every aspect of reproduction and its consequences, not just of its consequences. A man enjoy the vast spectrum of reproductive choices from keeping it in his pants to possibly impregnating a woman and waiting to see whether she wants to have their baby, whether she wants him out of her life except for his child support check, whether she'll marry him, whether, if she's married to him, she'll divorce him and make him pay for the privilege of taking his children and his home away from him, possibly falsely accusing him of abusing their children, if she feels like it.
Actually, there are other reproductive choices women have, even if a man keeps it in his pants: she can name the wrong man as the father, who may be relentlessly pursued by state agencies to pay child support, even if he has proof that he kept it in his pants. His age isn't an issue: the state can demand child support from a twelve-year-old statutory rape victim.
What a wonderful array of reproductive choices men have! Women should consider the immense spectrum of sophisticated reproductive choices available to men, before they smugly admonish men to "keep it in their pants." There's obviously no need to consider the slightest possibility of asymmetry between men and women's reproductive choices--the great "principle" that men have all the power--as the preceding illustrations overwhelmingly demonstrate--means that many such questions that might otherwise have been entertained, even by astronomically powerful intellects, can be casually dismissed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 07, @02:59AM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
The sad thing is, is that men, in general, are now learning what we Indians have known for two hundred years, plus.
...We do NOT live in a democracy. and equality is bogus.
That SHOULDN'T be the way it is. But un-fortunatly, it is.
...For now...,
-Thundercloud.
"HOKA HEY!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday May 05, @03:31AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I really lost it with with this link to http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art19990 3.html
and I decided to give her a piece of a sane mind in response to such immorality:
-------------------------
Sent to: Laura Wish Morgan
Executive Editor, Divorce Litigation
goddess@supportguidelines.com
(P.S. did anyone get a load of the endless hate-trail from the shyster-bitch with the groucho-marx eyebrows and the giraffe-neck?)
-------------------------------------
In re: your article:
Both men and women have reproductive rights and responsibilities. By virtue of biology, because a woman is the one to bear the child, it so happens that men must exercise their rights not to bear children earlier than women, that is, in the bedroom and not at the abortion clinic or the courtroom.
------------------------------------
Typical women's logic.
Ever hear of the "last clear chance" doctrine, you shit-eating cunt?
It's clear you don't know fuck about the law except how you feminist hose-bags can use it to screw men out of their money to fertilize your maggot-eggs, even sinking as low as RAPING the unconscious.
Did it ever occur to you that these courts might be biased? Or don't you care, as long as it turns your trick? Typical female moral relativism and situational ethics.
"Any differing treatment accorded men and women ... is owed not to the operation of [state law] but to the operation of nature."
This is likewise bullshit logic in that the "operation of nature" doesn't apply in light of access to abortion and the last clear chance created thereby; you can't mix what the man "knew" as binding to responsibility while at the same time holding him liable for what he DIDN'T know.
Of course, this casuistry probably due to that "Extra X" syndrome; trying to reason with anyone missing their "Y" chromosome is like arguing with someone missing any of the less important OTHER 45.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She may have argued cases based on these outcomes, and has likely won many of them, but it isn't incumbent of her to seek a specific truth. She is seeking a specific AGENDA. Lawyers do what they can to serve their clients and, as coldly immoral as it can be, that's their job. In most cases it is the BEST ARGUMENT that wins out, not the true right or wrong of a situation. She makes a cold and truly despicable statement at the end of the column, but so what? Why blame her for being good at what she does? This is America, and capitalism rewards those that strive to win at any legal (and, sometimes, illegal) cost.
Wanna be angry, get pissed, blow off some steam at someone? Write to the judges in superior courts that rule on such matters. Write to your congressman, senator, city council members. Write to them and tell them what you have read, how you feel, and what you want done to right these wrongs. Start a group that supports men who have been wronged, gather up some donations, then begin fighting back one case at a time. Remember, it only takes one victory to set precedent, and from there you can cut your own path.
But calling this woman a ‘cunt’ surely won’t help the situation. Hell, if I was her, and I received a letter speaking to me in such a manner, I’d do whatever it took to rat fuck the person that wrote the letter AND their cause.
Eloquence in argument softens your opponent, makes him/her think about the conclusion, the results, the efficacy of one’s momentum. Only clowns try to win arguments by throwing a pie in the face (pun fully intended).
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Lawyers do what they can to serve their clients and, as coldly immoral as it can be, that's their job."
So because what she chooses to do is written down on a piece of paper under the label of job description we shouldn't be mad at her for her "coldly immoral" behavior? I disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you can disagree. However, as I stated, a lawyer's job is to argue law and, like it or not, I'd much rather have a litigator looking out solely for my own good than a Socrates wannabe who's consumed with doing the right thing when the line's drawn in chalk and difficult to see.
What about when the line is clearly evident? I still want a lawyer to defend me, regardless of good and bad and right and wrong. I want a lawyer that'll fight tooth and nail and take that line and smear it all over the floor then redraw it in my favor. I want a lawyer that can point the finger at me, call me disgusting and repulsive behind closed doors, then walk out with a smile and bright eyes and state emphatically that I'm innocent. I want a lawyer that knows the law, and knows how to set or change the direction of precedent through the art of persuasion. I want a lawyer that will win my case.
Yep, that's what I want.
And if the judiciary can’t tell the difference between the correct interpretation and a specious contrivance, then get off your butt and write your local representative and complain. Complain that government is setting law so woefully vague that lawyers are finding and exploiting loopholes the size of Texas. Complain not to those that argue laws on merit, but to those that make and uphold the laws .
Government makes the rules, government enforces the rules, lawyers argue the rules, and judges uphold (and sometimes reset) the rules.
BTW: I wrote it incorrectly; should read "immoral is it may be."
I'm blushing.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'd much rather have a litigator looking out solely for my own good than a Socrates wannabe who's consumed with doing the right thing when the line's drawn in chalk and difficult to see. "
I'd much rather have an employee that does whatever I order as best they can than one who will only operate within moral boundries, but that doesn't mean others "shouldn't get mad" if that employee does immoral things. Especially when it harms them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't 'her' ... it is the 'laws' and those that make them.
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It isn't 'her' ... it is the 'laws' and those that make them."
Its not an either or issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He seems to suggest that lawyers are beyond criticism. It's a trueism that they aren't. This one states correctly that as the law stands, men have to exercise their reproductive choices earlier than women, or else face up to 21 years or more of child support liabilities. It's just a review of case law, as far as I can tell; prehaps there was a hint of smugness that men have such limited reproductive optione.
In any case, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that lawyers are beyond criticism. They can be more or less ethical, and some have been known to be scurrilous. I side with Plato's Crito: if you live in a state, you implicitly agree to live by the laws of that state; that means, among other things, you have a duty not to subvert the law by hiring shady lawyers to argue your case.
Maybe ppm is trying to say that this particular lawyer didn't say anything objectionable, ouly it came out as, "It isn't 'her' ... it is the 'laws' and those that make them." That's not quite the same, however. Moreover, if the laws discriminate against men, one does have a legitimate gripe with lawyers who advocate discriminatory laws. This is one place where the charge of pomposity enters. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 07, @01:51AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, I think we've hopefully got this straightened out.
On a related note, I just read a good piece by AH, here, about writing letters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But calling this woman a ‘cunt’ surely won’t help the situation. Hell, if I was her, and I received a letter speaking to me in such a manner, I’d do whatever it took to rat fuck the person that wrote the letter AND their cause.
You mean, you'd be too emotionally overwhelmed to judge the cause on its own merits, and would proceed with the "rat fucking" in lieu of the understanding you suggest. Well that's just common sense. Here here!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Olaf,
do you not understand the gist of my post?
Let's recap, shall we? Man sends woman letter outlining his disappointment in her professional legal stance as it pertains to litigating mitigating paternity. She reads it. In the letter, man makes some valid points. Woman reads them. Then, man descends to using irrational and abusive language towards woman. Woman is offended. Woman possibly considers retaliation. If and when she does, man wonders why woman is so unkind to him.
Dramatic fictional example is as follows – debate transcript:
Woman: In closing, DNA testing has shown Mr. Jones to be the father of baby Julie, and is therefore responsible, through existing precedent, for her partial support. I know Mr. Jones has been wronged here, but we must follow the law as set forth in A vs B, C vs D, and, most importantly, y vs z!
Man: Ya know, you’re just a stupid fucking cunt. I was raped, bitch! Don’t you fucking get it? How fucking stupid are you? Huh?
Judge: Mr. Jones, I’m holding you in contempt of court. Your repulsive, beastly vernacular has earned you a place amongst those that have been remanded into custody. I can only hope that someday you find it within yourself to proceed upright rather than dragging your troglodytic knuckles on the ground.
Woman whispers to man on the way out of court: I sure hope you enjoy your stay in county, because I’m now going to proceed with pressing charges of intimidation against you. Oh, and I hear that tonight’s menu consists of half a hotdog, half an apple, and half a pint of water. Damn these budgets cuts, huh?
Lesson adjourned.
As for the 'rat fucking' phrase: If a specific man thinks 'cunt' is a term worth using in a letter to plead the case for men being mistreated by the court system, then why should I, in leveling criticism towards this specific man, assume that he'll understand the term reciprocity?
I would ask that all of the readers on this site use some strategy when directing comments towards those that pursue perfectly legal tactics to oppress us. Otherwise, we won’t win a damn thing.
Now, what were you asking about common sense?
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hell, if I was her, and I received a letter speaking to me in such a manner, I’d do whatever it took to rat fuck the person that wrote the letter AND their cause....
Now, what were you asking about common sense?
Where is the common sense being applied in your emotional suggestion to "rat fuck" someone who used abusive language to you in making a point? You could choose to note the emotional components, and not respond to them, and respond or not to the intellectual components, or else, you could "retaliate" with what you call "rat fucking." Great. Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee,
I like how you pick a line from one post, then a line from another post and try to apply them out of context.
So, you're saying that this lady should be expected to be unemotional (i.e., held to a higher standard) when attacked by someone that thinks 'shit eating cunt' is an appropriate comment to make? You really believe that emotion isn't a part of it? You really believe that using such base language won't inflame someone and, when it does, they should be expected to calm their reaction and see through it?
Yes, your logic and understanding with respect to human nature is really flyin' high today! Good job!
Understand that I used the term ‘rat fucking’ towards anonymous to make a point about the language in question. Through his own written statements, anonymous has clearly shown that he understands this type of reference more clearly than other references I would have rather used. However, since it is apparent that you are unable to comprehend the entire post in question, I’ll make it even more clear for you: Attack an obviously sophisticated and capable opponent with crude instruments and no strategy, and you will be eviscerated. Don't believe me? Just ask the Republican Guard how they're doin'. Ask the Russian military strategists (the very same group that provided Iraq with war potentials and solutions) how they feel about their battle plans now that America obliterated their tactical assumptions.
This thread is dead for me, olaf. If you don’t get it by now, I can only hope that you get it someday soon.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How fatuous of you. I suppose you're congratulating yourself for second guessing how the lawyer would respond to an inappropriate comment (it was inappropriate), and for your stunningly brilliant suggestion that the lawyer would be justified in "rat fucking". Pretend that you didn't write what you wrote, and that I don't comprehend your moronic nonsense, if it suits you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 06, @11:55PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't get angry at each other.
Many men here are actual victims of this horrific system. Others are friends/relatives of such victimes. When you go through such a hellish experience, you are going to write some rude letters!
However, ppm is right when he points out that insulting letters don't achieve as much. There are several guides to writing letters here and there. On this thread, for example, BoyGenteel has some suggestions regarding letters about misandry on television.
However, if someone does something immoral, then we cannot excuse that person just because she has economic motivation. Feminists will write angry letters to anyone they choose, with the result that many publishers are afraid to publish books on men's issues by Warren Farrel etc. just to avoid controversy. People should realize that they will be getting complaints for anything anti-male they do and plan their actions accordingly.
Anyway, let's be contstructive, open-minded and understanding here. Getting angry at each other is an absolute waste of time. Take a look at some feminist website, then you'll remember who the real enemy is - and more importantly, we will remember how much work there is to do!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, ppm is right when he points out that insulting letters don't achieve as much. There are several guides to writing letters here and there. On this thread, for example, BoyGenteel has some suggestions regarding letters about misandry on television.
And he's wrong when he suggests that the reason one shouldn't write insulting letters is that one risks being "eviscerated" or "rat fucked" by a potentially more sophisticated and heavily armed opponent, and that more sophisticated and havily armed opponents will invariably crush the fleas who dare to insult them. There are more compelling and less fatuously pompous reasons having to do with being civilized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 07, @12:26AM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I'd like to say that the article was a good article, and can be easly used in support of men's rights, so in my opinion there is no reason to write an angry letter to the author.
Also the 'as', in 'achieve as much' is a typo. It should read:
"However, ppm is right when he points out that insulting letters don't achieve much."
But the point everyone should remember is that we should direct our efforts to productive goals, and not argue with potential allies, on this board or anywhere else!
As far as the letter, I'd write an apology letter. In your letter mention that what is going on is terribly wrong, and things need to change. If you like, you can use a variation of the hellish experience paragraph from my last post as an excuse.
But please, let's not waste time fighting each other, there is far too much at stake.
-same anonymous user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 07, @12:34AM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
That's true. But polite, firm and powerful letters are better.
Anyway, we're all in this together, so I don't think we should fight. I'd rather take an insult from ppm, or mars, or anyone else on this board than have to go through what has been described in some of these articles, or what I have seen go on in the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 07, @03:13AM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah.
Fightimg feminists is much more constructive.
(and FUN, too!) (^_^)
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
