|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So does she lose custody? Where is the sexual assault charge if she was licking their faces?
This women should only be allowed to see her son under supervised visitation, and custody given soley to the father.
Where is the info on what happens to the kid?
I hate these articles, and I get so angry at these stupid women who do these things to their children.
TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Normally when one gets sentenced, doesn't he/she typically get like 90 days, or 1 year or 10 years?
What is this 3 to 15 months. This must be some sort of conditional thing. What kind of conditions? 3 months if she attends AA and gets her signatures from them? Maybe seeks counsuling? Sounds more like probation. Is she really going to do anytime? Is this like a suspended conditional thing or something?
Again sentence from 3 to 15 months. . .which is it for real?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My ex-wife got 5 months for DV. However, she was free to be released up to 3 1/2 months earlier if there was space on the DV probation docket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that's the weirdest thing about this case [this was on the board before] is that no info is given about what happens to the kid - what kind of laws would let her retain control over her kid when she has shown she 'loses control' to the point of sexual assault and trying to intoxicate her son and friends. And if it is the same story, also endangering their lives by getting a kid without a permit to drive a car.
And yeah, it grosses me out, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that she was Drunk too.
Can anyone say "non incorpus sana"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:41 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm probably wrong but should it be "non in corporo sano"?
Hotspur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ooops. Sorry about the fractured Latin, I was trying for "not in sound body". My bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:40 AM April 9th, 2004 EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
The important thing is that the dative case follows a preposition, and not the nominative case as in your first post.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. Next time I'll consult a reference before I try any half-remembered Latin again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The old "pills and alcohol" excuse.
Women seem to be allowed to use this one anytime. Men go to jail for it. Witness the baby-killer who recently got time in a looney bin rather than jail. She was on coke and booze when she killed her boys.
Yep, yep, yep, switch the genders, a man killing two baby girls, and you can be sure he'd be in a maximum security pokey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't really think it was an excuse. It sounded more like a detail... look:
Johnson says her unusual behavior was fueled by pills and alcohol.
Women seem to be allowed to use this one anytime. Men go to jail for it. - mc99
She did go to jail for it. 15 months. Keep reading the article next time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:00 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
"The old "pills and alcohol" excuse."
Perhaps she heard at a domestic violence conference, that if she was drunk and had sex with a male(s), the drunkeness would relieve her of all responsibility for her decision to engage in seuxal activity. In that situation she would then be free to cry, "Rape!" I remember reading a poster at a domestic violence conference, "Just because I'm drunk doesn't mean you can rape me."
Isn't it ironic that a woman can be just that drunk, get behind the wheel of a car, drive off, kill a man, and be charged with murder or man slaughter? Shouldn't they excuse a woman for that too? Shouldn't they instead charge the dead man with attacking the car of a druken woman with his body? "Just because I'm drunk doesn't mean you can wreck my car."
I'm surprised they didn't charge the boys with sexual assault in this case, after all, as domestic violence advocates teach us, "She was a druken female and not responsible for her behavior."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you saying that if a woman is drunk that you can rape them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:28 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
"Are you saying that if a woman is drunk that you can rape them?"
Are you saying that if a man and woman have been drinking by mutual consensus, and the woman consents to have sex with the man, then next day she changes her mind and files rape charges, that the man should go away to prison for most of the rest of his life?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, I never said anything like that. Actually I didn't say anything. See the little question mark? Yeah, it was a question.
But this is what you said - Perhaps she heard at a domestic violence conference, that if she was drunk and had sex with a male(s), the drunkenness would relieve her of all responsibility for her decision to engage in sexual activity. In that situation she would then be free to cry, "Rape!" I remember reading a poster at a domestic violence conference, "Just because I'm drunk doesn't mean you can rape me."
I understood the first part of your statement. That some women feel that they are not culpable of their decisions when having sex under the influence of alcohol. No disagreement there from me.
Where you lost me was the next part where you described a rape prevention poster. I fail to see the connection. If a woman was actually raped while drunk, it is not her fault. Many women are date raped while under the influence of alcohol and because of their willingness to drink the alcohol they often feel at fault for the rape. The poster clearly states this and is attempting to make women aware that their decisions against sex even when drunk are valid.
Your tone insinuates that you disagree with the poster. So, are you implying that when women are drunk that they are allowed to be raped?
I am just asking for a simply clarification because your point was poorly constructed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:37 AM April 9th, 2004 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
Your tone insinuates that you disagree with the poster. So, are you implying that when women are drunk that they are allowed to be raped?
Absolutely not, consensual sex is not rape even if two people are drunk and the woman chooses to lie about the consent the following day and that is all I said. Why would a woman do something like that? Money, the money she can get in civil court, using the gender feminist scam laws against men that so many states actively promote against innocent men. Shame on you for trying to twist my words.
Those words at the top in italics are your words not mine. The point I was trying to make before you so illogically went off course was that the woman in this story sexually abused those boys, then tried to use her drunkenness to excuse herself of her criminal behavior, just like a lot of women do when they lie about consentual sex by crying rape after they change their minds a day or two later (after the sex). Women should be held to the same level of accountability as men, but they are not. Where is the shield law for a man who is falsely accused of rape? The female who was convicted should take full responsibility for her action.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listen loony bin. You are the one who doesn't understand the message of a simple rape poster.
Secondly, this crack whore never used alcohol as an excuse. It was simply a detail in the article. You are assuming that because she was drunk she used it as an excuse even though that concept IS NO WHERE IN THE GODAMN ARTICLE. But keep reading things in a way that makes you seem insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow the rantings of a complete fucking idiot,dipshit first of all the article states quite clearly and i quote"Johnson says her unusual behavior was fueled by pills and alcohol." using caps in your post to say the excuse of alchohol wasnt used doesnt make the truth go away.
But you are right the message of the rape poster is very simple,go anywhere near a drunk women and you leave yourself open to any charge she decides to level at you.You see the reality is that sex with a drunk women is not by definition rape even though the laws and this very simple poster are trying to make this very simple nightmare a reality.
Come on and bark for me doggy!!!
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:06 AM April 10th, 2004 EST (#79)
|
|
|
|
|
“Listen loony bin. You are the one who doesn't understand the message of a simple rape poster.”
Obviously, I understand it more clearly than your bigoted perspective allows you to see. The poster intimates that “Reasonable women” who choose to get drugged and drunk and have sex with males have no responsibility for their actions, whereas an average man in the exact same situation bears full culpability. In your next comments in your posting, that I quote below, it appears you are using the same logic in trying to excuse the female in that rape poster quotation. In your logic, in both cases, it appears it ultimately comes down to "what a reasonable woman would assume" even if drugged and drunk..
I am happy to see that some judges are getting more and more clued in to that radical/gender feminist scam queen mentality. Listen to his words, . "'I think you need to get a big message that this is totally unacceptable,' St. John said." IMHO, I think you and your radical/gender feminist ilk need to get that same message. The news article also states, “Mercer County Judge Christopher St. John scolded Patricia M. Johnson, 35, of Hermitage, as he sentenced her...”
Your 2nd sentence:
“Secondly, this crack whore never used alcohol as an excuse. It was simply a detail in the article. You are assuming that because she was drunk she used it as an excuse even though that concept IS NO WHERE IN THE GODAMN ARTICLE. But keep reading things in a way that makes you seem insane.”
From the two news stories that have been posted:
#1 “Johnson says her unusual behavior was fueled by pills and alcohol.”
“She pleaded guilty last month to a misdemeanor corruption charge and furnishing alcohol to minors.” ABC7Chicago.com
#2 “She also said her behavior was atypical and fueled by pills and alcohol.” Post-Gazett.com
Let’s see, it appears these statements are being made in a court of law, and the woman is saying her behavior is “atypical” (not typical) and “fueled by pills and alcohol.,” I take that to mean she's saying she normally doesn't behave the way she did, and the reason she behaved they way she did was because of the “pills and alcohol.”
Again, you are saying, “this crack whore never used alcohol as an excuse.” The Oxford Dictionary definition of excuse (as a verb) is, #1 “to overlook or pardon (an offense or person committing it) because of circumstances or some other reason. #2 to justify a fault or error, #3 to release from an obligation or duty, to grant exemption to. (as a noun) a reason put forward as a ground for excusing a fault, etc.
When Ms. Johnson offered this explanation, most likely in a court of law, I do consider that to be a feeble reason put forward as a ground for excusing a fault, etc. otherwise she could have kept her mouth shut 100%, and just pled guilty. The information in this story could have come from personal interviews, but normally reporters just take it from the court records.
You will also notice that I have set forth this entire explanation in a clear manner without ever once engaging in the personal attacks that characterize your postings. Your ungracious insults and profanity used against me in the course of normal conversation are a form of battery, and I suggest that you get professional help to deal with your violent rage, and please don’t just seek that help from those mainstream domestic violence quacks who are so bigoted that they refuse to see that female abuse is a major problem in the western world today. In the future please try harder to keep your comments on topic, without resorting to the attacks on people who are just presenting their opinions
Lastly, I noticed that you used profanity, taking Gods name in vain, even though you testified previously in a posting that you do not believe there is a God. Have you had a change of heart, are you just a hypocrite who insincerely makes claims your words prove you don’t believe, or is there some other excuse for your behavior?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:18 AM April 10th, 2004 EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
"...it appears you are using the same logic in trying to excuse the female in that rape poster quotation."
Opps, let's make that "...it appears you are using the same logic in trying to excuse the female 'as' in that rape poster quotation."
Sorry, I didn't check the grammar well enough on that one.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:46 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"A Pennsylvania mom is going to jail -- for allegedly stripping at her teenage son's birthday party."
Note that the media use the word "allegedly" even though she was found guilty.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:49 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't seen ANY coverage in the news about this. (big suprise, I guess.)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why would you? This is silly local news.
And if you lived in Chicago you would have seen it. Did you notice what website the article was on? That's, right Channel 7 local news.
No secret conspiracy to hide news. You just don't live in Chicago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know Chicago was local to PA!
"April 5, 2004 (MERCER, PA) — A Pennsylvania mom is going to jail -- for allegedly stripping at her teenage son's birthday party."
This is probably being covered by some of ABC's affiliates nationwide, probably not all stations chose to run it. Take that as you will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She pleaded guilty only to the alcohol to minors charge: She pleaded guilty last month to a misdemeanor corruption charge and furnishing alcohol to minors.
She denied the stripping charge (although what the hell could she remember considering how badly cranked she was) hence the use of the term ALLEGEDLY.
So the media wasn't trying to paint her as a victim, they're just wording it specifically and your reading into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:33 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
"She denied the stripping charge (although what the hell could she remember considering how badly cranked she was) hence the use of the term ALLEGEDLY.
So the media wasn't trying to paint her as a victim, they're just wording it specifically and your reading into it."
I disagree. Obviously, the woman didn't admit to "stripping," but what about the Judge?
It sounds to me like the biased media is once again, not doing their job by portraying this woman as less than guilty, but let's just read it together so there can't be any false accusation about reading anything into the story.
The news headline states, "When go-carts fell through, mom allegedly stripped at son's party"
The article states, "Prosecutors charged that 35-year-old Patricia Johnson provided the entertainment when plans to ride go-carts fizzled..."
So let's see, what do we have so far? It was "alleged" by prosecutors she stripped, and she was "charged" with providing "entertainment."
ENTERTAINMENT? What kind of ENTERTAINMENT?
The article says, "Authorities say Johnson bought beer for her son and three friends -- and licked their faces while she did her striptease act."
The article further states, "Thursday, a judge sentenced Johnson to serve three to 15 months in jail." Ah, Sentenced! To be "sentenced" one must 1st be "convicted." To be "convicted" (by definition), "allegations" must 1st be "proven."
O.K. lets string all the big words together now: Alleged, Charged, Prosecuted, Convicted, Sentenced.
Uh, uh, wait a minute your honor I'm not guilty. I didn't strip. The article says, "But Johnson didn't admit she stripped for the 13- to 16-year-old boys at a hotel."
However, once again, the article says, "Authorities say Johnson bought beer for her son and three friends -- and licked their faces while she did her striptease act."
Does this newspaper consider the judge who convicted this woman to be an authority? I don't know if they do, but I do. I interpret this article to be saying that the judge believed the woman defendant "licked their faces while she did her striptease act," and that this Judge convicted her of that.
IMO, this is a poorly written article and therefore, an ambiguous piece of journalism so I may not have interpreted everything accurately. There may have been other factual inaccuracies in this story. Regardless of that, based on the information available in this story, that is my interpretation of the reported events and their outcome.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allegation - an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable.
Yes, she was charged that is why it is an allegation. Even though she was convicted it would still be an allegation without any solid proof (i.e videotape).
I am sure that the allegations are coming from the other children that she stripped for but since she is in disagreement about her actions it is still an allegation. The testimonies of the children are considered circumstantial not filling the criteria as fully supportable evidence (yes this is where a debate could occur) but with a 15 month sentence and no sexual battery charge it does seem that the only thing they could solidly prove was her giving drugs/alcohol to minors.
And yes, the judge did sentence her. But without solid proof of the allegation, it still stands as an allegation. The conviction is a legal function outside of the determination of whether or not something is or is not an allegation.
So, sorry, you are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:21 AM April 9th, 2004 EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
"And yes, the judge did sentence her. But without solid proof of the allegation, it still stands as an allegation. The conviction is a legal function outside of the determination of whether or not something is or is not an allegation. So, sorry, you are wrong."
Here is a link to a more clear reading of the events IMO, Mom who stripped at son's party gets prison, scolding Isn't funny how this headline reports the "stripping" without pointing out that it is only an allegation. Maybe you should write them a letter too. The story does offer this additional piece of supporting evidence, "Johnson acknowledged allowing the boys to drink alcohol and participating in horseplay with them."
She admitted her "entertainment" was "horseplay," but denied it was "stripping." I guess this case ultimately came down to "what a reasonable woman would assume" even if drugged and drunk. Isn't it also funny how children's circumstantial testimonies have been used to convict so many men of child abuse allegatons, but here the word of these boys is not accepted.
Ray
(click) Judicial Chivalry
(click) Sexist Justice
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, I know you two are in the middle of a pissing contest, but can I interject?
I believe that if this was a man who allegedly stripped in front of his teenage daughter and her friends, after buying them beer, and licked their faces this discussion would be a little different. Just reverse the genders and it becomes pretty clear cut. And why is that?
Xamot, you may or may not agree with my theory, but let's take it a step further:
Where is your "believe the victim" cry? I mean, aren't you a LITTLE disturbed that there is no mention of "children being sexualized"? or anything like it in the article? How old were these kids? Let's take a look:
13- to 16-year-old youths
And, she was convicted. Now, to be fair to Xamot, it's not clear what the hell they meant by the "corruption" charge. That could have been the party, the beer, or the stipping. But, AGAIN, these were 13-16 year old KIDS. And AGAIN, if these had been GIRL children the charges, IMHO, would have been more substantial and more coverage and more "victims advocates" would have been lined up and quoted.
THE POINT IS THE COVERAGE WAS DIFFERENT BECAUSE "MOM" DID IT, AND NOT DAD.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:35 AM April 9th, 2004 EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
"victims advocates"
Ah yes, where were the victims advocates for the males?
Answer: In our bigoted gender feminist system males don't get victims advocates, only females. That too is just a part of the domestic violence industry conspiracy against men, a sub part of the whole Western world gender feminist conspiracy against men. Anyone who denies that is ignorant, ignorant, ignorant of the american and entire western world legal system. Thank you Steven.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What criteria do the media use to decide whether she was “stripping” or “exposing herself”? It seems that when men are accused of being naked in front of teenage females they’re always exposing themselves, never stripping.
My opinion is that stripping implies that there is consent from a willing audience and it sounds far less depraved than the guy in the park wearing a trench coat. But when minors are involved should it really be seen differently?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:02 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
We are all for EQUALITY!!!!!! WE LOVE IT, we just think men are not trated nice enough. EQUALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sdanjhcdjvefijnvefnv fnrw\nnv r vw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahm, I motion for a Score -1, for "Possibly Intoxicated", "Incomprehensible Blither-Blather", or "Had Seizure on Keyboard".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:46 AM April 9th, 2004 EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
Folks, we are officialy under attack, in my oppinion.
The last thing we want to do is let them get under our skin. That is what feminists want.
They want us angry, confused and disorganized.
They WANT us to say "abusive" and "hateful" things, and I think we all know why..., They are trying to force a reaction. Do NOT give in to them.
Do not give away your power to them. And the surest way to do that is to let them make you angry, or "loose control".
We can tell them that we are for TRUE EQUALITY for the genders all we want, it will NOT change their minds about us or our movement.
Remember they HATE MEN. They are prejudiced towards us. As an Indian, if there is one thing I've learned, it is that prejudice is as single minded as it is small minded. The prejudiced person has already made up his or her mind about their target of hate. No ammount of reason, logic or proof, physical or otherwise can change a prejudice mind when it is made up.
So any attempt at trying to get these "trolls" to see reason will always meet with failure. They do not understand logic, common sense or common decency. It is not through these ways that we will prevail. But nor shall we prevail by letting them "get to us".
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:09 PM April 9th, 2004 EST (#75)
|
|
|
|
|
You're right. Thanks for the wise advice. We will overcome feminist hate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can we all stop yelling here. Good grief, these trolls are getting annoying.
They are not even intelligent trolls, just blathering idiots.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:43 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
You are a feminist. We here at mensactivism.org support rights for women. Ignore the troll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:02 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
What's your problem with women's rights? My WlFE votes and is active, she also makes a lot more money than me. I usually stay home and care for the kid and cook the food. She is wondeful and can beat any hooker in the things that count the most. She is a district manager at one of the biggest food retailers in the country, ever heard of shop-rite? Her friends are great to and every sunday they bring me out with her to the bar for some laughs, and don't think she only has girlfriends, there are some great guys at "The Crooked Rail" it has the best BLT samwitches there. Go off yourself troll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:20 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
"Your "WlFE" is a bitch."
Another comment from a gender feminist type of personality. Shame on you. You are a batterer. You need help, and not from the parrots in the domestic violence industry who refuse to recognize that females like you are violent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:10 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Never, you are just trying to discredit this site. The feminist will see this and think we are against womens rights, we aren't!
We agree with them on the following issues:
Abortion Rights
Domestic Violence
No-Fault Divorce
Equality of the sexes
We only think that it should be TRUE eqaulity, right now it's too much infavor of women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...such as abortion, gun control, prayer in schools, capital punishment, et cetera are not really under the jurisdiction of this board. I'm sure if you polled the members here on any of these, you'd get just about every position under the sun. We are simply about ensuring equality between the sexes, with an emphasis on men's rights.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wtf? how doe's relegating different issues onto other boards make you a communist? you don't use logic how come you always use a complet lack of sense in all your post? i'am conused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"wtf? how doe's relegating different issues onto other boards make you a communist? you don't use logic how come you always use a complet lack of sense in all your post? i'am conused"
Moi?
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not you, you're the fucking communist. El Trollo is the one who doesn't make sense.
[I'm joking around, don't take offense!]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that's what i meant to say. this troll sure is confusing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:24 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Please speak for yourself, and sign it. Everyone has their own version of that list in different nuances of meaning, although I do agree with you that men and women should be treated eqaully under law. It's still a free country in some ways even though the gender feminists are doing everything they can to disempower all males to the point they have no rights.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahem. Actually, I disagree with three of the four issues you listed. In fact, some of the most outspoken and influential MRAs (Prof. Steven Baskerville, for instance) would, I imagine, vehemently disagree with at least part of your list. Alas, that is the great thing about the our movement. Unlike feminism, we are open to debate, discussion, dissent, and multiple viewpoints on such issues. Hence, we can disagree about the particulars of the domestic violence industry (for instance), and still both promote men's rights and be part of the same movement.
It makes the lockstep conformity over at NOW look absolutely ridiculous, eh?
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous posters shouldn’t post, It gives people the excuse to rant excessively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:48 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
It seems the site is being subjected to unprecedent levels of troll attack. A troll (or trolls) is posting garbage and then the same troll(or trolls) is posting garbage in reply. The aim is to discredit the site and discourage genuine posts. More active moderation of posts is probably needed.
Hotspur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems the site is being subjected to unprecedent levels of troll attack.
Yeah I wonder whats up. This is the most I have ever seen. Must be children home from school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:16 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"It seems the site is being subjected to unprecedented levels of troll attack.
Yeah I wonder what’s up."
I think they are afraid of the truth. God knows they've spent enough time lying that they should be. This site has recently had some really great men and women coming on and writing excellent pieces about the evils that: women's studies, women's commissions, the domestic violence industry, gender feminism, militant feminism, radical feminism, etc. have been committing against innocent men. Keep up the good work everyone. I congratulate you, and even the trolls are paying tribute to you in their own warped sort of way.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:55 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I was getting all excited that there were lots of posts to read, but quickly became disappointed. *sigh*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:25 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
I've been a lurker on this site for a long time. Now that it's under attack by trolls, it's time for me to register.
I suggest that other supporters of men's rights do likewise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea. I'm re-registered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:19 AM April 9th, 2004 EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
My email is still screwed up, but as soon as it's fixed I, too, will re-register.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Come on in and join the party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...are separate topics that have their own forums. They don't really have anything to do with this case.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey white boy, ( i known your white because no black guy i known fucking types like there trying to be black) well outside of lame catch prhases and mysogeny you posts seemed to consist of well... catch pharses and mysogeny
don't come back now ya' hear
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:46 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
Race is never an issue here.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sorry, it was just kind of obvious. besides it i really hate those white guys (btw i'am white) who try to act so black that they just are obvious posers. but again i'am sorry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:01 AM April 9th, 2004 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what the hell is this???!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:30 AM April 9th, 2004 EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to be a concentrated attack by a number of feminists.
This website is no secret to them. In fact it is a danger to them. This is thier way of wageing war on not just this website but on men's rights and men's rights activists, in general.
They see and KNOW that we as men are finaly begining to organize. And what better way to disrupt organization than to cause chaos?
That is what is happening.
But they will fail.
Perhaps we should fight fire with fire and go to all the feminist websites we can find and do some trolling of our own...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These "other" Trolls reads just like Xamot.
It looks like our "Shock and Awe" Force is an Army of 1 Halfwit. :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:58 PM April 9th, 2004 EST (#72)
|
|
|
|
|
That could be. It would be easy enough for Xamot to post anonymously at one point then post with his (her?) handle elsewhere in the thread.
Either way the results I mentioned are still this person(s) desired goal. To fragment and disorganize.
Hmm, kind of like a Troll-terrorist.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:01 PM April 9th, 2004 EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I am neither shocked nor awed by all this, just a bit annoyed.
I have enough aggravation.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:59 AM April 9th, 2004 EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, You're not impressing any one with those kinds of statements. You're not winning anyone over with them either.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The statement above calling "most english speaking women" sluts does NOT represent the views of the vast majority of regulars of mensactivism.org.
We support equality between the genders, and rail against phony equality that favors one gender over another.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, as a women who has been here for over a year, none of the regular posters are mysoginist. This is a direct assault from an unknown to discredit our board. They must be pretty desperate if all they can do is terrorism. Logic and facts are supporting our views.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's the Madcap Mysogynist, I don't know where he's been recently. But yeah, the majority of our posters might get a good deal frustrated with women on more than one occasion, but don't have the irrationality to bother with the frothing-at-the-mouth hatred radical feminists seem to muster for men.
I don't know how long I've been on the board, nigh on three years? roughly? I remember when lady rivka got chased off the board, not because of not liking the male posters, but she started getting threatening emails and guestbook comments, she thought it was from posting here. I wonder if that was an earlier terrorism effort?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:31 AM April 10th, 2004 EST (#82)
|
|
|
|
|
THAT'S what happened to Lady Rivka????!!!??
O my GOD!
Rivka, if you're out there, come home...,
I don't know of anyone here that wasn't HAPPY to have you here, includeing me!
I miss your posts.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
