Ammonite - Narcissism is much, much more than mere bragging, when it occurs in a psychopathic personality. It is a belief and attitude of supremacy and superiority over all others. They believe they are unquestioningly right and irrefutable in their beliefs. To challenge them is to risk a violent confrontation and an abusive retort. They believe their perception of the world and `reality' is absolutely correct, and that others have to be made see the world as they see it. There is usually a grain of truth as their starting point, but as they continue in a tirade of didactic and dogmatic statements, the flaws and distortions begin to appear. Similarly their actions are always justified in their minds, and they take no responsibility for their actions when clearly shown to be wrong. Then it is others to blame, they were provoked by any disagreement of the other, or at most it was a momentary lapse in their otherwise perfect personality and behaviour.
Such characters are fascinating to watch in a Court Room as they twist and wriggle, deny the obvious, fabricate, distort, and embellish their evidence and become persistently repetitive in their arguments. As they lack emotions and feelings and have no sympathy or empathy for their victims, or remorse for their malicious actions, they become frighteningly inhuman.

Chazzp.

Re smh article: How does 30 minutes of supervised contact constitute shared parenting or giving custody to a drug addicted criminal?

Further, get the facts straight. This was not ordered under the “shared parenting” laws, assuming you mean the Federal Family Law (shared parental responsibility) Act 2006, but under the Victorian Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, which does not incorporate this presumption, by the State Childrens Court and enforced by State DHS. How does this single unrelated aberration justify Federal reform that will make 40% of children fatherless supposedly to protect them?

This newspaper article is as persuasive as your previously proffered evidence that shared parenting laws force children to live with paedophiles, namely, J & W [1999] FamCA 1002 - a mentally ill Mother, who was psychologically harming the child, ALLEGED that the Father was a paedophile who had raped his son and would deliberately infect his daughter with AIDS for the purpose of preventing supervised contact to continue outside her home. She admitted she lied.

Your troll agenda is obvious. Stop boring us with half-truths and obsessive misrepresentation – women don't lie for custody advantage, yeah right. Why wasn't Ms Ellis censured

There is another deception in Ammonite's post worth mentioning.

The oft used tactic of suggesting that because someone does not support a particular solution or accept every claim made to support the proposed solution that they don't care about any of the real parts of the issue.

Eg everyone against the invasion of Iraq must not have cared at all about the way Saddam treated people. Anyone against Julia's carbon tax must not care about the environment. Anyone against the curent approach to the war on drugs much not care at all about the harm drugs do. The list could go on and on.

In short a nasty tactic used to try and misrepresent an opponenets position, it's either a symptom of extremely rigid thinking or a deliberate misrepresentation.

A return to maternal bias which is the likely net effect of the proposed changes won't improve child safety, it won't improve outcomes for any involved. It is likely to ramp up the tensions in a lot of families which are not otherwise at the extreme's by giving one parent a powerful tool to grab the kid's the family property and ongoing financial support based on little or no evidence.

Any changes to family law should work to reduce tensions for the vast bulk of families and deal with the exceptions as exceptions not the norm.

R0bert

ChazP

I know the difference - if you had actually read the posts on my thread, you would know where I was going despite the 'simplistic' heading of "bragging".

Robert

I can only post from what I sincerely believe or know to be true, nor have I stated anything that cannot be verified.

You are making a simple attempt to discredit everything I say by implying deception. Nice bit of projective transference - well done.

To you both. Unlike you I do not regard nor treat you as simpletons or liars because I disagree with SOME of your points. If you cannot respond in kind then you are simply wasting my time.

It seems pretty pointless to continue the debate with Ammonite.

Just for the sake of anyone who is questioning, like the author I think DV is an equal opportunity crime, not that women are MORE violent than men as Ammonite has claimed I've said. The closest I've ever come to that would be stats that show women initiate violence in the home slightly more often than men - hardly surprising given the campaigns against violence by men. Women harm children more often but children spend more time in their care, all other things being equal I don't think that there is a significant difference.

Men are responsible for more of the serious injuries to women and a greater proportion of spousal murders. Men are also responsible for significantly more overt child sexual abuse than women.

I think that the prevelance of emotional and psychological abuse are poorly known and do need to be treated far more seriously, again the problem being how to do so without the research ending up in the hands of those with agenda's that they put ahead of truth.

R0ber

as Fractelle, once again, falls back to the victim position...

Hahahahaha r0bert, you'll never learn.

Played like a violin.