Pomeranian:"the "pomeranian" thing is a very lame and puerile effort by Antiwomen to insult me"

Not at all, little fella. It's a humourously accurate characterisation of your rather silly style of posting a stupidly personal comment (such as "antiseptic's wife left him so he hates all women") rather than actually addressing a topic. Lots of others have noticed the same, which is why so few other than the antiseptic-obsessed will bother to have anything to do with you.

As I said, I'm happy to call it off any time you like, all you have to do is stop acting like a pomeranian.

Pomeranian:"I've got quite a good nose for them, but everything that Master's posted here since he joined OLO recently has been both internally consistent and quite unlike anybody else's offerings in terms of structure and language."

Oh really? Do enlighten us with an analysis, won't you, little fella? You know, proof and all that? I look forward to it...

sock-puppet:"That graph is NOT, I repeat NOT, a "death statistic" graph."

Congratulations, dear, you can read, well done. you. It is also conspicuously empty of any references to TWO CHILDREN being KILLED (sic) by fireworks in or around Menindee in 1953 or any other time. Let's face it dear, in your usual hysterical fashion you made up a little lie and got caught. Silly Socky...

Antiwomen's former wife was a great appreciator of his sense of humour - so much so that she alleged assault against him. His sense of humour is also on display in his "facetious" rants about women and rugby league.

Speaking of that topic and addressing it - we're still waiting for him to provide some backing for his silly claim that most, if not all, corporate high flyers in Australia are former high-level football players. Or was that supposed to be funny too?

The onus is normally upon the person who makes a claim to substantiate it - however, in Antiwomen's world he can make whatever silly assertion he likes and it's up to others to disprove it.

I think that he's keen on fireworks because they are the only way he could get a "bang" lately.

My ex-wife never alleged any assault by me against her or anyone else. That is a fabrication of CJMorgan (otherwise known as the Pomeranian). She did lodge an application for a DVO based on her claim to have felt "intimidated" during an argument, despite claiming no actual threat or threatening action. Her claim was made in the context of her seeking to gain an increased share of the care of our 2 children.

I do not "hate all women". I don't even hate my ex-wife. She was as much a victim of the system as I was. Her Legal Aid-funded lawyers gave her bad advice and she took it. She recently said that she was glad she hadn't "won", since the children would have been deprived of their father and that would not be in their interests.

I do dislike feminism as a doctrine. I have discussed the topic with literally hundreds of people and found that very frequently, those who profess feminism are either expressing a sense of personal entitlement or are cynically expressing the prevailing dominant doctrine to gain advantage in a system that rewards conformance and punishes dissent. Both of these groups will try to stifle any discussion that questions the basis of their claim to special treatment.

My ex-wife did not "smack me around". That is a fabrication of Sancho. Having experienced the egregiously biased treatment of men within the Court system, I developed an interest in false allegations. That lead me to investigate DV perpetrated by women and I found that it causes nearly a third of all DV hospitalisations.

I do believe that genuine gender-equality within the limits of biology was achieved within our society some time ago and that further feminist-inspired promotion of the interests of women ahead of those of men will only create disadvantage for men, to the detriment of all.

I do believe that the constant demands of feminist groups and individuals for public funds is damaging and that many of those groups are not doing anything worthwhile to justify their claims.

I welcome genuine contributions to the discussion.

Antiwomen wrote that he, " developed an interest in false allegations".

I agree.

He alleged a conspiracy theory that accused women of using sexual assaults perpetrated by NRL players, in order to gain "unassailable positions of power", his words, on NRL football boards.

He claimed that "all" company boards in Australia contain high flyers who played football at top level.

He claimed that Master posts here under 4 identities.

That's just the very start. If you read his past posts where he comments on women who practice self determination and women who believe in equal gender rights (in other words women who don't conform to 'his' mould) the reader will see plenty of "false allegations" from Antiwomen, 'almost' always against women.

Yes indeed, Antiwomen definitely has an obsession for "FALSE ALLEGATION", and an obsession for anyone who does not share his assumptions and opinions about women who do not conform to 'his' mould..

And we thank him for his confession: The confession he didn't realise he was making when he admitted that he "developed an interest in false allegations" against people.

My ex-wife never alleged any assault by me against her or anyone else. That is a fabrication of CJMorgan (otherwise known as the Pomeranian). She did lodge an application for a DVO based on her claim to have felt "intimidated" during an argument, despite claiming no actual threat or threatening action. Her claim was made in the context of her seeking to gain an increased share of the care of our 2 children.

I do not "hate all women". I don't even hate my ex-wife. She was as much a victim of the system as I was. Her Legal Aid-funded lawyers gave her bad advice and she took it. She recently said that she was glad she hadn't "won", since the children would have been deprived of their father and that would not be in their interests.

I do dislike feminism as a doctrine. I have discussed the topic with literally hundreds of people and found that very frequently, those who profess feminism are either expressing a sense of personal entitlement or are cynically expressing the prevailing dominant doctrine to gain advantage in a system that rewards conformance and punishes dissent. Both of these groups will try to stifle any discussion that questions the basis of their claim to special treatment.

My ex-wife did not "smack me around". That is a fabrication of Sancho. Having experienced the egregiously biased treatment of men within the Court system, I developed an interest in false allegations. That lead me to investigate DV perpetrated by women and I found that it causes nearly a third of all DV hospitalisations.

I do believe that genuine gender-equality within the limits of biology was achieved within our society some time ago and that further feminist-inspired promotion of the interests of women ahead of those of men will only create disadvantage for men, to the detriment of all.

I do believe that the constant demands of feminist groups and individuals for public funds is damaging and that many of those groups are not doing anything worthwhile to justify their claims.
I welcome genuine contributions to the discussion.

“Hi Piper - the "pomeranian" thing is a very lame and puerile effort by Antiwomen to insult me. I treat it in probably much the same way you would if one of your 4-year old foster kids called you something that he thought was really mean.”

Oh, that’s an awful one for me because I have a shocking time keeping a straight face when they do. They do it then this horrible realization hits them of what they have just done and they freeze in place with their little eyes getting wider and wider. You do have to talk to them about it on the spot because many fret that some punishment will come later due to some of their personal histories.

My biggest break-throughs with children are when they feel they can release some anger and direct it at someone physically bigger without fear even though a little shock does set in.

“Sometimes it's best to let them get it out of their systems - sticks and stones and all that :)”

Scuse me a sec CJ - Hey ANTI! It doesn’t read well dude and you should quit it now.

“P.S. my of use English is far from infallible - in my last post I wrote "sorty" instead of "sortie"....”

Like I’d have noticed.[smile]