It seems you Antiseptic, are the one with the difficulties, not with the English language, but not admitting that you are violent.

Nevertheless, let me get this simply straight-

You Antiseptic called me Patricia a “grub”, because I Patricia, exhibit all of the characteristics that your mother would have described by that word.

You Antiseptic, didn't call me or anybody else a dog: dogs are among my favourite “creatures”.

The definition of a “creature” is:

"1. an animal, especially a nonhuman...”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creature

So let me get this straight-
Thus, according to you I am a “creature”, a “grub”, an animal or a non-human. Why? Because I don't agree with you.

You wrote:
"The narcissist is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity."

It seems to me that you are “excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity” and you do this by calling me and others de-humanising names. You don't argue without debasing those that do not agree with you. It's no wonder you don't want the definition of DV expanded.

You reckon you didn’t call us “dogs”, but I think you did. These are YOUR words-

“Chaz, trying to hold a sensible discussion with you is like trying to hold a sensible discussion with the dog about taking her bone away: there's no chance of a meeting of minds when one of the parties sees a nice, big juicy bone just itching to have the marrow sucked out and the other one is trying to make sure there's no mess, but it's certain that there'll be lots of whining as the bone is taken away and possibly the odd bit of snapping in the greedier and less-disciplined members of the species.
There are lots of SUCH DOGS in the Family Law industry, mostly hiding out in the maternal bias KENNEL and only emerging to GROWL whenever a human appears to be taking an interest in their bone supply. “
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 9 July 2011 4:19:09 AM”

I think you are fooling yourself.

Yes Patricia, it's all about you...

No, it's all about you calling me and those you do not agree with on this forum "grub", "creature" and "dogs".

You are the one using debasing, dehumanising and thus violent words.

Yet you are the one advocating for "falsely accused fathers"
all the while using violence with your words.

Care to explain the contradiction without calling PEOPLE names such as "grub", "creature" and "dog"?

Is that even possible?

Anti one of the problems of adopting the style you use is that it gives an excuse to focus on the style rather than the substance of the debate. I know some don't need much excuse or will invent one if it's not available but that's not entirely the case here.

Why not take the parlimentary approach, retract the name calling and express your regrets for any unintended offence that may have been taken? Then maybe Patricia might be able to turn her mind to the topic.

Patricia has been so preoccupied with Anti's comments that she has not been able to express any concern over ChazP cherry picking the anti male parts of a report nor ChazP's uggestion that kid's witnessing violence against their dad's and step dad's would be non-existant despite what appears to be the same report providing on the same page the numbers which were 1% different to the number of kids witnessing violence aginst their dad's and step dads.

Patricia been so bothered by name calling on a web forum where insults are unfortunately all to common that she has been unable to address the blatent attempts to portray DV and child abuse in a genderised manner which does not reflect the reality.

So Anti how about it you retract the name calling (and any alleged name calling) and help Patricia move on.

R0bert

Robert

This is gonna be interesting...

helloooooooooo??

Waiting to hear a retraction of the name calling......"grub" "creature" "dog" etc. In some parts a retraction is properly thought to be called an apology.