On 09/07/2013 1:08 PM, George Leppla wrote:
> On 7/9/2013 11:21 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> So I guess it is true that those raised in abusive environments are
>> quick to resort to violence.
>
> Absolutely true... especially in my case. When you get hit, you hit
> back. When I started hitting back, I was so good at it that people were
> afraid of what I might do and they had good reason to fear. It was only
> with removing me from the home and gaining some maturity that I was able
> to break that cycle. Found out in later years that my mother's father
> was also physically abusive. I learned, I understood at a fairly young
> age and I broke the cycle. I have never hit a woman in anger.
>


I have never hit a woman either, but for some reason you feel it
necessary to suggest that I do.

>
>>> You want to read something into that, be my guest. If you want to think
>>> I am a wimp, just put your hands around a woman's throat in front of me
>>> and we'll find out.
>>
>>
>> Sure..... I can read into it that you take any opportunity to relive the
>> little victory you had over your abusive father. Too bad you can't give
>> a woman enough credit to deal with the problem herself.
>
>
> What you don't understand is that sometimes a woman can't or isn't
> capable of dealing with the problem herself.

Because they are inferior? They need you to stick up for them?

> That is why you see the
> same women being abused over and over again.

That happens with men and women. There are degrees of dominance. Some
people are dominant, in various ways, and some are submissive.... men
and women.



> That is why you see her
> staying with a man who is abusing her children. In your mind, that
> makes her "submissive" and "weak". You put the blame on the woman
> instead of where it belongs... on the abuser.

I put blame on who? I think that if Nigella really thought that her
husband was choking her she would have got up and left.

>
> I've told you this before and I'll say it again... every time you make a
> post on this subject, you show how ignorant you really are.

Is that a fact? There are several others who have also indicated that
there is a credibility problem with the photos and captions, that it did
not look like he was choking her. Get that into you head... choking.

On 7/9/2013 1:24 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:08:29 -0500, George Leppla
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> What you don't understand is that sometimes a woman can't or isn't
>> capable of dealing with the problem herself. That is why you see the
>> same women being abused over and over again. That is why you see her
>> staying with a man who is abusing her children. In your mind, that
>> makes her "submissive" and "weak". You put the blame on the woman
>> instead of where it belongs... on the abuser.
>>
>> I've told you this before and I'll say it again... every time you make a
>> post on this subject, you show how ignorant you really are.
>>
>> George
>
> Correct again, it was why I found I could no longer work with abused
> women, they were like moths with a candle flame and even if convinced
> to quit the abuser, it seemed so often, too often, the next male in
> their life was a carbon copy of the former.
>

Mom's father was an abuser... and she married an abuser and in many
ways, she was also abusive to her children. It is a learned behavior.
In later years, I asked my Mom about this and she said that back then,
you just accepted the abuse because "that was the way things were
done". It happens more often than you would like to think. I was able
to break the pattern (and so was my Mother) but I am not so sure about
my brothers.

When someone says "she could just leave him" they really show how little
they know about the subject.

When I see anyone trying to rationalize abusive behavior, I know that
they are either abusive themselves or very ignorant about this kind of
situation.

George L

On 09/07/2013 2:24 PM, wrote:

>> I've told you this before and I'll say it again... every time you make a
>> post on this subject, you show how ignorant you really are.
>>
>> George
>
> Correct again, it was why I found I could no longer work with abused
> women, they were like moths with a candle flame and even if convinced
> to quit the abuser, it seemed so often, too often, the next male in
> their life was a carbon copy of the former.
>


But.... it is always the guy's fault. These women bounce from one
abusive guy to the next. It sort of gives the impression that they
prefer that sort of treatment.

FWIW, when my son was in high school he dated a very nice girl, but she
was wrapped a little too tight, and her own mother was concerned about
her being, in her words, feisty. They got into an argument at our one
day and she started swinging at him. He pushed her away in self
defence. Next thing you know, she is yelling that he assaulted her. No.
He did not assault her. She assaulted him and he protected himself. I
advised him to break up with her, that there was nothing good to come
from that relationship. He found himself another girlfriend, nice, much
more reserved that the former girlfriend. The ex girlfriend and a
friend of her's attacked the new girlfriend. The girl ended up with a
concussion. Picture the ex girlfriend down the road complaining about
being abused.

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 15:26:05 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
> FWIW, when my son was in high school he dated a very nice girl, but she
> was wrapped a little too tight, and her own mother was concerned about
> her being, in her words, feisty. They got into an argument at our one
> day and she started swinging at him. He pushed her away in self
> defence. Next thing you know, she is yelling that he assaulted her. No.
> He did not assault her. She assaulted him and he protected himself. I
> advised him to break up with her, that there was nothing good to come
> from that relationship. He found himself another girlfriend, nice, much
> more reserved that the former girlfriend. The ex girlfriend and a
> friend of her's attacked the new girlfriend. The girl ended up with a
> concussion. Picture the ex girlfriend down the road complaining about
> being abused.

Sounds like an undiagnosed mental condition to me. My son's first
wife was like that. Glad I can say "first". He learned from his
mistake and picked a keeper the second time around.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 09/07/2013 2:55 PM, George Leppla wrote:
..
>
> When someone says "she could just leave him" they really show how little
> they know about the subject.


Don't worry. We know the scenario. The should leave. They can leave.
The usually won't leave. But they can.

>
> When I see anyone trying to rationalize abusive behavior, I know that
> they are either abusive themselves or very ignorant about this kind of
> situation.

That is an incredible leap of logic to suggest that someone who suggests
that a women get up and walk away from an assault or to leave an abusive
relationship must be an abuser himself. Hell, you are rationalizing it
with your excuses for them not leaving. You are so screwed up on this
matter that you can see things only in black and white. A tabloid
newspaper article had a series of photos of Lawson's husband with his
hands on her throat and saying that he was choking her. Some have
expressed doubt that he was actually choking her and you are going all
postal that we must be abusers because it was suggested that he wasn't
actually choking her. But in your mind it is a violent assault. It has
been acknowledged that it was bad behaviour, that it might be a sign of
abuse, but he was not *choking* her.

On 7/9/2013 2:36 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 09/07/2013 2:55 PM, George Leppla wrote:
> .
>>
>> When someone says "she could just leave him" they really show how little
>> they know about the subject.
>
>
> Don't worry. We know the scenario. The should leave. They can leave.
> The usually won't leave. But they can.
>
>>
>> When I see anyone trying to rationalize abusive behavior, I know that
>> they are either abusive themselves or very ignorant about this kind of
>> situation.
>
> That is an incredible leap of logic to suggest that someone who suggests
> that a women get up and walk away from an assault or to leave an abusive
> relationship must be an abuser himself. Hell, you are rationalizing it
> with your excuses for them not leaving. You are so screwed up on this
> matter that you can see things only in black and white. A tabloid
> newspaper article had a series of photos of Lawson's husband with his
> hands on her throat and saying that he was choking her. Some have
> expressed doubt that he was actually choking her and you are going all
> postal that we must be abusers because it was suggested that he wasn't
> actually choking her. But in your mind it is a violent assault. It has
> been acknowledged that it was bad behaviour, that it might be a sign of
> abuse, but he was not *choking* her.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ocking-1955564

Eyewitness accounts:

"Saatchi launched a tirade of angry words. Four times he grasped her
around the neck with Nigella, 53, looking powerless and petrified."

"At first he used only his left hand, then both. At one stage he tweaked
her nose then pushed both hands in her face. Twice Nigella jerked her
head backwards as if in fear."

“It was utterly shocking to watch,” said one onlooker. “I have no doubt
she was scared. It was horrific, *really. She was very tearful and was
*constantly dabbing her eyes.

“Nigella was very, very upset. She had a real look of fear on her face.
No man should do that to a woman. She raised her voice and got angry but
at the same time was trying to calm him down, almost like you would try
to calm down a child.

Then, after talking with his lawyer, Saatchi went to the police and
admitted what had happened and accepted a "caution".

So the pictures show him choking her. Eyewitnesses say he was choking
her and he went to the police and admitted that he was choking her.

But to you, because she didn't leave, it was her fault. She was asking
for it.

You know what... you are a fool and I'm not going to waste any more time
discussing this with you. Fortunately, men like you are in the minority
and your opinions don't seem to have much influence any more.

Geroge L

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:32:05 -0600, casa bona > wrote:

>On 7/9/2013 6:34 AM, George Leppla wrote:
>> On 7/8/2013 6:17 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 08/07/2013 7:14 PM, George Leppla wrote:
>>
>>>> Please try not to confuse things with the facts. The picture plainly
>>>> shows that he was checking her neck for swollen glands and no amount of
>>>> factual admissions will change that.
>>>>
>>>> George L
snippage...
>>
>> You want to read something into that, be my guest. If you want to think
>> I am a wimp, just put your hands around a woman's throat in front of me
>> and we'll find out.
>>
>> George L
>>
>>
>>
>Bravo George!

Agree, Bravo George!!

aloha,
Cea

"George Leppla" > wrote in message

(snip) Fortunately, men like you are in the minority
> and your opinions don't seem to have much influence any more.

Many men are amazingly ignorant about domestic violence George. Dave is
not alone in his ignorance about why women don't or can't leave. I've known
only one man who was abused and he too couldn't leave. The threats,
intimidation and constatn conditioning used by abusive men against women
were just as effective on him as they always have been on abused women.

On 10/07/2013 4:22 AM, Farm1 wrote:
> "George Leppla" > wrote in message
>
> (snip) Fortunately, men like you are in the minority
>> and your opinions don't seem to have much influence any more.
>
> Many men are amazingly ignorant about domestic violence George. Dave is
> not alone in his ignorance about why women don't or can't leave.

Oh??? My doubt was about a woman like Nigella being *choked*, not once
or twice but three or four times.... in public. And she didn't get up
an leave. Feel feel to explain it, and feel free to explain why other
abused women tolerate the abuse. I know they are reluctant to leave.



> I've known
> only one man who was abused and he too couldn't leave. The threats,
> intimidation and constatn conditioning used by abusive men against women
> were just as effective on him as they always have been on abused women.


I have limited experience with shelters from abused women. My aunt lived
in one for a while. My cousin was convinced that her father was beating
her mother because she always had fresh bruises. She had originally
taken her, and my uncles car, the the apartment she shared with someone
else. The room mate had gone to Europe for a month or two an when she
got back she booted out my cousin and aunt because cousin had not paid
the rent, had spent the rent money that had been left, had not cleaned
the apartment or washed dishes since room mate left. Cousin is bipolar
and her mother has Alsheimers. Having been kicked out of her apartment,
she moved inot the shelter with her mother, so she got to live in a
shelter for abused women even though she had never been married, had not
even had a relationship for years. The bruises were from falling,
possible mini strokes.


The sister of a friend lived in a shelter for a while. She had been
married to a guy who seemed like a nice, easy going guy. She wasn't all
there. She ended up severely depresses, and quite frankly I think she
was depressed as a teen. After having a couple kids, she got a job and
saved every penny she made until she had enough for a boob job. Almost
immediately after having the new and improved boobs installed she left
her husband. About 5 years after leaving her husband, she moved into a
shelter.


Somewhere around that time, my wife and I had a bunch of stuff to get
rid of sand she wanted to donate it to a local women's shelter. It was a
rude surprise to get down there with a big box of stuff that neither my
wife or the female staff could carry, but I was not allowed to take it
in... no men allowed.

In article >,
says...

> Oh??? My doubt was about a woman like Nigella being *choked*, not once
> or twice but three or four times.... in public. And she didn't get up
> an leave.

She did get up and leave. In tears.

Janet

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:44:47 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

snip
>
>Somewhere around that time, my wife and I had a bunch of stuff to get
>rid of sand she wanted to donate it to a local women's shelter. It was a
>rude surprise to get down there with a big box of stuff that neither my
>wife or the female staff could carry, but I was not allowed to take it
>in... no men allowed.
>
that's SOP -- there's a reason
Janet US,

"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:44:47 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>>
>>Somewhere around that time, my wife and I had a bunch of stuff to get
>>rid of sand she wanted to donate it to a local women's shelter. It was a
>>rude surprise to get down there with a big box of stuff that neither my
>>wife or the female staff could carry, but I was not allowed to take it
>>in... no men allowed.
>>
> that's SOP -- there's a reason

SOP?

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

casa bona > wrote:
>
> You lamentable pig, she DID leave, in tears!


"lamentable pig"

LOL

Janet Bostwick > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:44:47 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>>
>>Somewhere around that time, my wife and I had a bunch of stuff to get
>>rid of sand she wanted to donate it to a local women's shelter. It was a
>>rude surprise to get down there with a big box of stuff that neither my
>>wife or the female staff could carry, but I was not allowed to take it
>>in... no men allowed.
>>
> that's SOP -- there's a reason


LOL!! I can't believe "sympatico" couldn't understand the reason!!

As for the arsehole who choked Nigella........... I can't understand the
other restaurant patrons not doing anything. I wouldn't have sat back and
done nothing. He would have been injured.


--
Peter
Brisbane
Australia

Success isn't so difficult.
Just bite off more than you can chew,
then go do it.

On 10/07/2013 9:25 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>> Oh??? My doubt was about a woman like Nigella being *choked*, not once
>> or twice but three or four times.... in public. And she didn't get up
>> an leave.
>
> She did get up and leave. In tears.


After he "choked" her several times..... not after the first time?

On 10/07/2013 9:32 AM, Janet Bostwic000k wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:44:47 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>>
>> Somewhere around that time, my wife and I had a bunch of stuff to get
>> rid of sand she wanted to donate it to a local women's shelter. It was a
>> rude surprise to get down there with a big box of stuff that neither my
>> wife or the female staff could carry, but I was not allowed to take it
>> in... no men allowed.
>>
> that's SOP -- there's a reason
>


Yes. Apparently all men at the enemy and all women are natural victims.
That explains how my reality challenged cousin can get herself a free
room in a shelter with her supposedly abused mother, and how my friend's
sister got to stay in a shelter so many years after she left her husband.

Dave Smith > wrote in news:RIeDt.42858$T55.42063
@fx16.iad:

> On 10/07/2013 9:25 AM, Janet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>
>>> Oh??? My doubt was about a woman like Nigella being *choked*, not once
>>> or twice but three or four times.... in public. And she didn't get up
>>> an leave.
>>
>> She did get up and leave. In tears.
>
>
> After he "choked" her several times..... not after the first time?
>
>
>


You sound like you're backing him.



--
Peter
Brisbane
Australia

Success isn't so difficult.
Just bite off more than you can chew,
then go do it.

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

> On 10/07/2013 9:32 AM, Janet Bostwic000k wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:44:47 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>>
>>> Somewhere around that time, my wife and I had a bunch of stuff to
>>> get rid of sand she wanted to donate it to a local women's shelter.
>>> It was a rude surprise to get down there with a big box of stuff
>>> that neither my wife or the female staff could carry, but I was not
>>> allowed to take it in... no men allowed.
>>>
>> that's SOP -- there's a reason
>>
>
>
> Yes. Apparently all men at the enemy and all women are natural
> victims.



You really don't have a ****ing clue, you moron.

Not that we'd expect anyone from Canadia to have a clue.

--
Peter
Brisbane
Australia

Success isn't so difficult.
Just bite off more than you can chew,
then go do it.

On 7/10/2013 6:44 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> Oh??? My doubt was about a woman like Nigella being *choked*, not once
> or twice but three or four times.... in public. And she didn't get up
> an leave. Feel feel to explain it, and feel free to explain why other
> abused women tolerate the abuse. I know they are reluctant to leave.

You truly are clueless and seemingly proud of it!

On 7/10/2013 7:25 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>> Oh??? My doubt was about a woman like Nigella being *choked*, not once
>> or twice but three or four times.... in public. And she didn't get up
>> an leave.
>
> She did get up and leave. In tears.
>
> Janet
>
It's useless, he's already re-scripted the entire event to suit his own
needs.

On 7/10/2013 8:40 AM, Groupkillas (R) wrote:
> casa bona > wrote:
>>
>> You lamentable pig, she DID leave, in tears!
>
>
> "lamentable pig"
>
> LOL

Well look at equally self-centered Marty step in to rationalize the abuse.

Great start for the day, troll, just perfect.

On 7/10/2013 9:05 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 9:32 AM, Janet Bostwic000k wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:44:47 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>>
>>> Somewhere around that time, my wife and I had a bunch of stuff to get
>>> rid of sand she wanted to donate it to a local women's shelter. It was a
>>> rude surprise to get down there with a big box of stuff that neither my
>>> wife or the female staff could carry, but I was not allowed to take it
>>> in... no men allowed.
>>>
>> that's SOP -- there's a reason
>>
>
>
> Yes. Apparently all men at the enemy and all women are natural victims.
> That explains how my reality challenged cousin can get herself a free
> room in a shelter with her supposedly abused mother, and how my friend's
> sister got to stay in a shelter so many years after she left her husband.
>
Lots of abuse in your family, eh Dave?

On 7/10/2013 9:02 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 9:25 AM, Janet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>
>>> Oh??? My doubt was about a woman like Nigella being *choked*, not once
>>> or twice but three or four times.... in public. And she didn't get up
>>> an leave.
>>
>> She did get up and leave. In tears.
>
>
> After he "choked" her several times..... not after the first time?
>
>
Do shut up, pig.

On 7/10/2013 10:05 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 9:32 AM, Janet Bostwic000k wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:44:47 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>>
>>> Somewhere around that time, my wife and I had a bunch of stuff to get
>>> rid of sand she wanted to donate it to a local women's shelter. It was a
>>> rude surprise to get down there with a big box of stuff that neither my
>>> wife or the female staff could carry, but I was not allowed to take it
>>> in... no men allowed.
>>>
>> that's SOP -- there's a reason
>>
>
>
> Yes. Apparently all men at the enemy and all women are natural victims.

WOMEN in a shelter for ABUSED WOMEN are generally there because they
have been abused by MEN. The "no men" rule makes a lot of sense to
rational people... but maybe not to you.


> That explains how my reality challenged cousin can get herself a free
> room in a shelter with her supposedly abused mother,


Supposedly? You know for a fact that she was or wasn't? One of the
very typical parts of an abusive relationship is that the victim helps
keep it a secret. Unless you are a fly on the wall, you have no idea
what their personal situation was.


> and how my friend's
> sister got to stay in a shelter so many years after she left her husband.

You do know that there are more than one type of shelter and a person
doesn't have to be married to get into one? Shelters for abused women
are very specific about who they admit and the women who live there are
usually granted admission only after a screening by law enforcement
personnel... and social worker. You don't just walk up to the door and
knock.

There are also homeless shelters for women, re-hab shelters for women,
half-way houses for women and other variations. And one more point...
you don't have to be married to be in an abusive relationship. You
don't even have to be living with the abuser... but that is probably
more than you are capable of understanding.

George L

George Leppla > wrote in
:

> On 7/10/2013 10:05 AM, Dave Smith wrote:

(crap from DS snipped)

.. but that is probably
> more than you are capable of understanding.
>


Dave Smith = Clueless from Canadia.


--
Peter
Brisbane
Australia

Success isn't so difficult.
Just bite off more than you can chew,
then go do it.

On 7/10/2013 9:22 AM, I'm back wrote:
> Dave Smith > wrote in news:RIeDt.42858$T55.42063
> @fx16.iad:
>
>> On 10/07/2013 9:25 AM, Janet wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> Oh??? My doubt was about a woman like Nigella being *choked*, not once
>>>> or twice but three or four times.... in public. And she didn't get up
>>>> an leave.
>>>
>>> She did get up and leave. In tears.
>>
>>
>> After he "choked" her several times..... not after the first time?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> You sound like you're backing him.
>
>
>
He is!

On 7/10/2013 9:56 AM, I'm back wrote:
> George Leppla > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 7/10/2013 10:05 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> (crap from DS snipped)
>
> . but that is probably
>> more than you are capable of understanding.
>>
>
>
> Dave Smith = Clueless from Canadia.
>
>
+1

On 10/07/2013 11:50 AM, George Leppla wrote:
> On 7/10/2013 10:05 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 10/07/2013 9:32 AM, Janet Bostwic000k wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:44:47 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> snip
>>>>
>>>> Somewhere around that time, my wife and I had a bunch of stuff to get
>>>> rid of sand she wanted to donate it to a local women's shelter. It
>>>> was a
>>>> rude surprise to get down there with a big box of stuff that neither my
>>>> wife or the female staff could carry, but I was not allowed to take it
>>>> in... no men allowed.
>>>>
>>> that's SOP -- there's a reason
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes. Apparently all men at the enemy and all women are natural victims.
>
> WOMEN in a shelter for ABUSED WOMEN are generally there because they
> have been abused by MEN. The "no men" rule makes a lot of sense to
> rational people... but maybe not to you.


Like I said.... all men are the enemy. I was not expecting to take it in
to the individual women in their rooms. I could not even take it into
the building, not even to the lobby to meet with someone on staff.



>
>
>> That explains how my reality challenged cousin can get herself a free
>> room in a shelter with her supposedly abused mother,
>
>
> Supposedly? You know for a fact that she was or wasn't? One of the
> very typical parts of an abusive relationship is that the victim helps
> keep it a secret. Unless you are a fly on the wall, you have no idea
> what their personal situation was.

There is no reason to think that she was. She had a few bruises
consistent with falling. She was in the early stages of Alzheimer's and
had had several small strokes.

My father and his brother tried to get hold of her at the shelter
but.... the no men rule. Her own brothers?????? So my mother called,
but it was my cousin who answered the phone and said she could not speak
to my aunt, that she (cousin) wanted everyone to leave them alone.



>
>
>> and how my friend's
>> sister got to stay in a shelter so many years after she left her husband.
>
> You do know that there are more than one type of shelter and a person
> doesn't have to be married to get into one? Shelters for abused women
> are very specific about who they admit and the women who live there are
> usually granted admission only after a screening by law enforcement
> personnel... and social worker. You don't just walk up to the door and
> knock.

I know that it was a shelter for abused women. I know that her brother
and her mother wondered why she would be in it, since she had not been
abused in her marriage and had had no contact with her ex husband for years.

>
> There are also homeless shelters for women, re-hab shelters for women,
> half-way houses for women and other variations. And one more point...
> you don't have to be married to be in an abusive relationship. You
> don't even have to be living with the abuser... but that is probably
> more than you are capable of understanding.
>

Nor does it have to be a male who is the abuser. Violence is as common
in ******* relationships it is in male-female relationships.
Unfortunately, that seems not to fit the anti male agenda.

On 7/10/2013 11:55 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:24:54 +0000 (UTC), "I'm back" >
> wrote:
>
>> Dave Smith > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On 10/07/2013 9:32 AM, Janet Bostwic000k wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:44:47 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>> Somewhere around that time, my wife and I had a bunch of stuff to
>>>>> get rid of sand she wanted to donate it to a local women's shelter.
>>>>> It was a rude surprise to get down there with a big box of stuff
>>>>> that neither my wife or the female staff could carry, but I was not
>>>>> allowed to take it in... no men allowed.
>>>>>
>>>> that's SOP -- there's a reason
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. Apparently all men at the enemy and all women are natural
>>> victims.
>>
>>
>>
>> You really don't have a ****ing clue, you moron.
>>
>> Not that we'd expect anyone from Canadia to have a clue.
>
> And you're in Australia where they just treated a female PM so
> badly?????????
>

Touche!

On 7/10/2013 11:57 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:56:01 +0000 (UTC), "I'm back" >
> wrote:
>
>> George Leppla > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On 7/10/2013 10:05 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> (crap from DS snipped)
>>
>> . but that is probably
>>> more than you are capable of understanding.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Dave Smith = Clueless from Canadia.
>
>
> Listen, don't blame Canada for the likes of him.
>
Fair enough, Canada also gave us Peter Jennings and Neil Young!

casa bona > wrote:

> Consider that many here now believe you may be an abuser. Consider
> that many may be right.

"Now" believe? You mean because *you* have enlightened them? ROTFL! Is that
why everybody calls you out?

Consider that you have no room to call anyone out for anything. Oh wait, I
forgot. You're a psycho obsessed stalker who can rationalize anything in the
name of delivering the moral message we all so desperately need. Never mind.

--�
MartyB
- Groupkillas® (tang®) Supreme Exalted Leader and President for Life

"You and Spin work aff-f like sick little children with an unlimited
tree branch of pinatas."
-Casa bona

On 7/10/2013 12:01 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> Nor does it have to be a male who is the abuser. Violence is as common
> in ******* relationships

You're climbing farther and farther out on that limb, abuser...

On 7/10/2013 12:15 PM, Groupkillas (R) wrote:
> casa bona > wrote:
>
>> Consider that many here now believe you may be an abuser. Consider
>> that many may be right.
>
> "Now" believe? You mean because *you* have enlightened them? ROTFL! Is
> that why everybody calls you out?

There are a number of people here expressing the same opinion to and of him.

Does that irk you?

Are you an enabler of abuse against women too?

> Consider that you have no room to call anyone out for anything. Oh wait,
> I forgot. You're a psycho obsessed stalker who can rationalize anything
> in the name of delivering the moral message we all so desperately need.
> Never mind.
>
> --�
> MartyB
> - Groupkillas® (tang®) Supreme Exalted Leader and President for Life
>
> "You and Spin work aff-f like sick little children with an unlimited
> tree branch of pinatas."
> -Casa bona
>

Project away, group-killer, your record is clear.

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:46:55 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

>
>
>"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:44:47 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>>
>>>Somewhere around that time, my wife and I had a bunch of stuff to get
>>>rid of sand she wanted to donate it to a local women's shelter. It was a
>>>rude surprise to get down there with a big box of stuff that neither my
>>>wife or the female staff could carry, but I was not allowed to take it
>>>in... no men allowed.
>>>
>> that's SOP -- there's a reason
>
>SOP?
>
>--
standard operating procedure
Janet US

"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:46:55 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:44:47 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>Somewhere around that time, my wife and I had a bunch of stuff to get
>>>>rid of sand she wanted to donate it to a local women's shelter. It was a
>>>>rude surprise to get down there with a big box of stuff that neither my
>>>>wife or the female staff could carry, but I was not allowed to take it
>>>>in... no men allowed.
>>>>
>>> that's SOP -- there's a reason
>>
>>SOP?
>>
>>--
> standard operating procedure

Thank you. Yes, that makes sense!
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 7/10/2013 9:08 PM, John J wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:09:37 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2013 11:55 AM, wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:24:54 +0000 (UTC), "I'm back" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave Smith > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/07/2013 9:32 AM, Janet Bostwic000k wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:44:47 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Somewhere around that time, my wife and I had a bunch of stuff to
>>>>>>> get rid of sand she wanted to donate it to a local women's shelter.
>>>>>>> It was a rude surprise to get down there with a big box of stuff
>>>>>>> that neither my wife or the female staff could carry, but I was not
>>>>>>> allowed to take it in... no men allowed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> that's SOP -- there's a reason
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Apparently all men at the enemy and all women are natural
>>>>> victims.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You really don't have a ****ing clue, you moron.
>>>>
>>>> Not that we'd expect anyone from Canadia to have a clue.
>>>
>>> And you're in Australia where they just treated a female PM so
>>> badly?????????
>>>
>>
>> Touche!
>
> Not really. That female PM became PM in the exact same manner.
>
Pot kettle, and so on.

"John J" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:09:37 -0600, casa bona > wrote:

>>>> Not that we'd expect anyone from Canadia to have a clue.
>>>
>>> And you're in Australia where they just treated a female PM so
>>> badly?????????
>>
>>Touche!
>
> Not really. That female PM became PM in the exact same manner.

It wasn't HOW she was removed or even the FACT that she was removed that is
causing ire amongst Australian women voters. What IS really ****ing off
Australian women voters is that the person she deposed spent 3 years
leaking, feeding journalists ammunition and sucking up to older male voters
with his 'poor me, I was the legitimate PM and I was deposed' routine. The
stupid electorate believed it and sadly he's now back and he's proving to be
the same pathetic egomaniac he was last time he was in power (and sadly, I
voted for his party last time round but won't be this time).

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:08:56 +1000, John J > wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:09:37 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>
>>On 7/10/2013 11:55 AM, wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:24:54 +0000 (UTC), "I'm back" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave Smith > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/07/2013 9:32 AM, Janet Bostwic000k wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:44:47 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Somewhere around that time, my wife and I had a bunch of stuff to
>>>>>>> get rid of sand she wanted to donate it to a local women's shelter.
>>>>>>> It was a rude surprise to get down there with a big box of stuff
>>>>>>> that neither my wife or the female staff could carry, but I was not
>>>>>>> allowed to take it in... no men allowed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> that's SOP -- there's a reason
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Apparently all men at the enemy and all women are natural
>>>>> victims.
>>>>
>>>> You really don't have a ****ing clue, you moron.
>>>>
>>>> Not that we'd expect anyone from Canadia to have a clue.
>>>
>>> And you're in Australia where they just treated a female PM so
>>> badly?????????
>>>
>>Touche!
>
>Not really. That female PM became PM in the exact same manner.

They haven't the slightest idea what they're talking about, yet it
doesn't stop them from have a very firm opinion on it at the same
time, LOL

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:28:24 +1000, "Farm1" >
wrote:

>"John J" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:09:37 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>
>>>>> Not that we'd expect anyone from Canadia to have a clue.
>>>>
>>>> And you're in Australia where they just treated a female PM so
>>>> badly?????????
>>>
>>>Touche!
>>
>> Not really. That female PM became PM in the exact same manner.
>
>It wasn't HOW she was removed or even the FACT that she was removed that is
>causing ire amongst Australian women voters. What IS really ****ing off
>Australian women voters is that the person she deposed spent 3 years
>leaking, feeding journalists ammunition and sucking up to older male voters
>with his 'poor me, I was the legitimate PM and I was deposed' routine. The
>stupid electorate believed it and sadly he's now back and he's proving to be
>the same pathetic egomaniac he was last time he was in power (and sadly, I
>voted for his party last time round but won't be this time).

I like you Fran, but from what I know of you, you're not fully
disclosing your involvement with the Gillard and/or the Labor Party?

Anyway, the main thing I take issue with is your claims about women
voters being '****ed off':

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"JULIA Gillard's attempts to ignite a gender war against Tony Abbott
have failed, with the Prime Minister's personal support crashing to
record lows and the Opposition Leader now matching her standing among
women. "
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226669081181

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"EXCLUSIVE: Tony Abbott is now more popular as leader among women
voters than Julia Gillard"
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshom...gynist-speech/


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Julia Gillard will go down in history both as the first female and
one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers of Australia.

After calling a 2013 election, her personal popularity went further
into free-fall as her party moved towards an inevitable landslide
defeat.

Disenchanted voters lost trust in her, her party became paralysed by
leadership tensions, key supporters abandoned her, traditional Labor
electorates swung into Opposition territory and the Liberal party
enjoyed resultant popularity from the sidelines.

FEMINISM
As Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Gillard no doubt instantly
became an important role model for millions of girls and young women.

And when she unleashed a furious tirade against sexism and misogyny in
Parliament in October, it quickly became worldwide news, striking a
chord with women everywhere." But when the ex-Prime Minister used
gender as a means of undermining political opponents in a speech
warning of “men in blue ties” at a function earlier this month, it was
widely criticised as a stunt and fell flat.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most women simply saw straight through Gillard's ploy, simple as that.

Julia Gillard: the best thing to ever happen to the Liberal Party.
Unfortunately.

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:04:52 +1000, John J > wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:28:24 +1000, "Farm1" >
>wrote:
>
>>"John J" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:09:37 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Not that we'd expect anyone from Canadia to have a clue.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you're in Australia where they just treated a female PM so
>>>>> badly?????????
>>>>
>>>>Touche!
>>>
>>> Not really. That female PM became PM in the exact same manner.
>>
>>It wasn't HOW she was removed or even the FACT that she was removed that is
>>causing ire amongst Australian women voters. What IS really ****ing off
>>Australian women voters is that the person she deposed spent 3 years
>>leaking, feeding journalists ammunition and sucking up to older male voters
>>with his 'poor me, I was the legitimate PM and I was deposed' routine. The
>>stupid electorate believed it and sadly he's now back and he's proving to be
>>the same pathetic egomaniac he was last time he was in power (and sadly, I
>>voted for his party last time round but won't be this time).
>
>As long as neighbourhood thug Abbott doesn't become PM. Rudd seems to
>have a slightly bigger chance of preventing that than Julia "Live By
>The Sword Die By The Sword" Gillard.

I never thought I'd say this, but I'd much rather Labor stayed in the
political wilderness for two terms. They are *that* bad.
With any luck, the current crop of losers will be replaced with new
blood. I see little to be gained by have Labor and Rudd as PM, as much
as I loathe Abbott.