happy, that was a reference to the fact that boys are used to being called names by girls and have learnt not to retaliate by age 10 or younger. This is a common experience for boys, while girls learn the converse - that boys are fair game and must not retaliate. You obviously learnt that lesson particularly well.

The inference that it had anything to do with my mother was yours alone, grub.

I'm glad you identify so strongly with my analogy of the dog and bone, it must be quite apt.

happy:"Nat MACH had about 25 members, but it is dormant."

So to claim that you "write on behalf of" an organisation with that name is in fact telling a big fat lie, isn't it? I'm sure you'll correct that with Graham Y, won't you? Are you also a member of PALE? The modus operandi is very similar and the locations are not far apart either.

Antiseptic, you wrote “...as a man I’M used to being called much worse by women and had grown accustomed to moderating MY responses by the time I was perhaps 10.” You were NOT referring to boys in general. You wrote in the first person.

You have done nothing but prove my contention that you relate to violent men who falsely deny their violence because you also falsely deny your own violence. You should be aware that calling me a grub and dog with a bone just because I don’t hold to your unsustainable position is abusive and devaluing violence.

If you are prepared to repeatedly diminish my humanity in cyberspace this way, what were you prepared to do to the women in your personal intimate interactions? Is it any wonder you advocate for potentially abusive men in general?

Here’s something for you to chew over- I have supported some men falsely accused of violence because I recognise genuine domestic violence in a relationship. One off events are not DV. You on the other hand, repeatedly engage in verbal devaluing violence. Unlike you, I recognise violence and abuse when I see it, written or otherwise.

I have also supported certain fathers when they have unjustly been excluded or obstructed from contact with their children. So I am not the one aptly “using splitting (black and white thinking) as a central defense mechanism.”

And you said it- “The use of splitting also implies the use of other defense mechanisms, namely DEVALUATION, idealization and DENIAL.” What is calling me; a human being, a “dog” and “grub” other than devaluation of me and denial of your verbal abuse? Go look in the mirror and dare to mendaciously tell yourself that you are not violent and abusive.

Patricia, you're simply digging yourself in deeper. Your behaviour is just like those abusive women who try to pretend that the other person must have misunderstood when they take exception. In this case, however, you've written them down; too bad, so sad, you're in print. Strangely enough, when I insisted that I and the ex should only communicate by email, she decided that was a bad idea and she should only communicate via the deniable medium of the telephone. She's smart, if sociopathic.

Have you notified the Forum administration of your changed author profile? I suggest "Patricia used to claim to write on behalf of a group, but had to revoke her claim when it was pointed out that the group did not exist.".

Unlike you, I recognise dishonesty and an attempt to appeal to (invented) authority.

No Antiseptic, I am not digging myself in anywhere. I am not the one who has called you a “dog” and a “grub”. You did this repeatedly. I have not dehumanised and debased you just because you don’t agree with me. You have; a number of times.

What has “the ex should only communicate by email” have to do with any of this? Clearly some ex partner of yours has accused you of violence. Of course, rather than take responsibility for your violent and abusive behaviour, like your behaviour towards me and others on this forum, you choose to deny your abusive behaviour and fatuously call her “sociopathic.”

If you cannot be respectful with those you disagree with, go away.

If you do not take responsibility for your patent abuse, don’t accuse others of dishonesty.

I made a mistake in the following post:

>> Antiseptic

You hurt so much. I cannot take away your pain, only you can heal yourself.

But if you harm my sisters, do not expect mercy.

Posted by Ammonite, Sunday, 10 July 2011 2:39:36 PM <<

The last line should have read:

"But if you harm my sisters and brothers, do not expect mercy."

Obviously this has been deliberately used to imply some sort of sisterhood conspiracy. Fact is abusive men harm other men as well as women and children.

Which was why I tried to post some positives for all the men in my life who have been of great help and significant consolation to me, at times when I really needed that help. As a result I am not bitter towards men, just saddened and disturbed by bullying whether it is enacted by men or women. However, on these pages there has been terrible bullying by some and I WILL speak out about it and I will NOT be silenced. No one can punch me to the floor here.

Extract from the Age - 19 June 2011: "Last year, 35,720 reports of family violence were made to Victoria Police - up from 33,896 the year before. Yet when we look at crime statistics, we barely glance at the ones that take place between spouses. The data is telling: in the 12 months to March this year, there were 647 assaults (including family violence) per 100,000 people - an increase of 2.1 per cent from the previous year. Take out family violence cases and the assault rate decreases by 2.7 per cent over the same period. That's just the tip of the iceberg. The statistics don't reveal the full extent of the problem because many women are too scared to report they're being abused or are convinced they won't get help.... Intervention orders against violent perpetrators are being breached, women and children are waiting months for crisis accommodation or long-term housing and too often the system turns a blind eye to those most at risk. That partly explains why one woman is killed almost every week by a partner or ex-partner, according to national homicide figures. Or why every year, the Women's Domestic Violence Crisis Service gets about 25,000 calls on its hotline - an average of 67 calls a day. The culture around family violence has improved since a code of practice has encouraged police to report assaults, rather than view them as a private matter. Laws introduced by the former Labor government and extended by Baillieu have given police the power to issue after-hours ''safety notices'' to protect victims and remove perpetrators from the home. But there's still a long way to go."
This shows that domestic violence is far from being a minor problem that some would like to believe, it is not a `feminist' issue, and that those involved in Fsamily Law proceedings are extremely unlikely to be making `false' allegations.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/lets-not-forget-about-crimes-other-heartland-the-home-20110618-1g944.html#ixzz1RrPFJUN8