Study: 30% of mothers and 40% of fathers are abused during a pregnancy

[CaptDMO]

I am still waiting for you to answer my question:  How could a 2-1 ratio of women to men in the sample skew the results of the studies in question?  I suggest you answer my question.  You have made a claim and now you need to back it up.  This is a direct request for the admin.  If you don't reply you will get a warning.

I am waiting to hear this.

Why don't you explain why it wouldn't since you like to pretend to have all the answers?

If it didn't skew the results why would so much effort be put into setting the "study" up in such a way?

If you need to give me a warning because you feel I'm breaking a rule of the forum; go ahead.

But you may want to examine this thread for abusive posts.  I think Gonzo may have stepped over a line or 2 or 3.  There is a rule against that you know.

Edit to add link:

http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=13627.msg150159#msg150159

Is there a rule about not answering to a question to your approval?

I guess that's a still no answer

Leeet's seeee.....

The logical approach is to bring up the issue again.  Resorting to violence to fight violence?  How stupid is that?

The ploy seems to work well for folks
that call on the men with guns and sticks and violently applied restraints.
Worked pretty good for the founders of the USA, as well as the Allies of WW1 and II.
As we speak it serves those that are intervening on behalf of girls, from the raveges of "honor" killings, rape as punishment, and stoning.

Threatening to kill to bring an issue forward?

Yep, Some state governments do it all the time, to deter men from raping and killing women. (but not other men)

Sounds familiar doesn't it?  Seems I remember there are groups that call it jihad.

Actually, a jihad is a religious vow to kill, not a threat. It comes from folks in a land where vows made under the shadow of their religion are kept. No "mulligans", no "But I didn't MEAN it that way!"
Sophist (look it up) and disingenuous analogy.

[who me?]

and also who me, I said misinterpreted, not misrepresented...........................I think  you were thrown off by our discussion on the child support thread

Yeah, whatever.  Misinterpreted, misrepresented.  Either way it isn't the first post of yours that I've read where you were  screaming that violence is the way to handle it.

Storm Front..........yep, I read that post you did with the use of the "n" word.  Unneeded it was, uncalled for............you bet.   Bigoted, you got it.

Then there was the DEA reference.  Comparing blowing up the DEA wasn't it?  Comparing that to the man murdering his wife?  Trying to make it sound as if he was making a political stand?  Oh yeah, something to cheer about.

Like I said, the mindset is the same used to validate the jihad garbage.  But if that's the can you choose to live in; enjoy the company.  I'm sure ossama will love your support.

If you don't mean it that way; don't say it that way.  But since you did, don't get upset when someone calls you on it.

And uh, I have not been thrown by anything you post.  Your posts are waaaaaaaaay too simple to throw anyone.

Who Me?, serveral things you  said in previous post are outright false

1. I have NEVER used the "n word" on this forum, that was another poster
2. I NEVER said anything about blowing the DEA up.........................what you are talking about  was when I compared  twhat the child support dude  did to   me going out in the woods and doing a nazi cook and turning myself in at the reigeonal DEA office

you really owe me an apology for indicating I a) used racial insults and B)advocating the blowing up of a building

If you did not use the "n" word; I apologize for the accusation.  I may have you confused with another poster.

As to the DEA remark; I took it as it was written.  If it was not your intent you need to choose your words more carefully.  Because it did come off sounding as if you were advocating violence as an answer.

Take the time to read your posts before hitting the post button.  Make sure it says exactly what you mean.  If you do not mean to say that violent acts are the answer; don't post things that insinuate such.

[Cordell Walker]

who me?, I will repeat again
a) I never used a ricail slur on this forum, EVER
b) I did not  mention blowing up a DEA building in any way


I repeat.............the slur in question was NEVER AT ANY POINT  USED BY ME ON THIS FORUM

[Cordell Walker]

and also who me, I said misinterpreted, not misrepresented...........................I think  you were thrown off by our discussion on the child support thread

Yeah, whatever.  Misinterpreted, misrepresented.  Either way it isn't the first post of yours that I've read where you were  screaming that violence is the way to handle it.

Storm Front..........yep, I read that post you did with the use of the "n" word.  Unneeded it was, uncalled for............you bet.   Bigoted, you got it.

Then there was the DEA reference.  Comparing blowing up the DEA wasn't it?  Comparing that to the man murdering his wife?  Trying to make it sound as if he was making a political stand?  Oh yeah, something to cheer about.

Like I said, the mindset is the same used to validate the jihad garbage.  But if that's the can you choose to live in; enjoy the company.  I'm sure ossama will love your support.

If you don't mean it that way; don't say it that way.  But since you did, don't get upset when someone calls you on it.

And uh, I have not been thrown by anything you post.  Your posts are waaaaaaaaay too simple to throw anyone.

Who Me?, serveral things you  said in previous post are outright false

1. I have NEVER used the "n word" on this forum, that was another poster
2. I NEVER said anything about blowing the DEA up.........................what you are talking about  was when I compared  twhat the child support dude  did to   me going out in the woods and doing a nazi cook and turning myself in at the reigeonal DEA office

you really owe me an apology for indicating I a) used racial insults and B)advocating the blowing up of a building

If you did not use the "n" word; I apologize for the accusation.  I may have you confused with another poster.

As to the DEA remark; I took it as it was written.  If it was not your intent you need to choose your words more carefully.  Because it did come off sounding as if you were advocating violence as an answer.

Take the time to read your posts before hitting the post button.  Make sure it says exactly what you mean.  If you do not mean to say that violent acts are the answer; don't post things that insinuate such.

YOU DO HAVE ME CONFUSED WITH ANOTHER POSTER
I DID NOT USE THAT TERM AND IF YOU  USE THE SEARCH ENGINGE INSTEAD OF TALKING OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU WILL FIND OUT I DIDNT

[who me?]

I am still waiting for you to answer my question:  How could a 2-1 ratio of women to men in the sample skew the results of the studies in question?  I suggest you answer my question.  You have made a claim and now you need to back it up.  This is a direct request for the admin.  If you don't reply you will get a warning.

I am waiting to hear this.

Why don't you explain why it wouldn't since you like to pretend to have all the answers?

If it didn't skew the results why would so much effort be put into setting the "study" up in such a way?

If you need to give me a warning because you feel I'm breaking a rule of the forum; go ahead.

But you may want to examine this thread for abusive posts.  I think Gonzo may have stepped over a line or 2 or 3.  There is a rule against that you know.

Edit to add link:

http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=13627.msg150159#msg150159

Is there a rule about not answering to a question to your approval?

I guess that's a still no answer

Leeet's seeee.....

The logical approach is to bring up the issue again.  Resorting to violence to fight violence?  How stupid is that?

The ploy seems to work well for folks
that call on the men with guns and sticks and violently applied restraints.
Worked pretty good for the founders of the USA, as well as the Allies of WW1 and II.
As we speak it serves those that are intervening on behalf of girls, from the raveges of "honor" killings, rape as punishment, and stoning.

Threatening to kill to bring an issue forward?

Yep, Some state governments do it all the time, to deter men from raping and killing women. (but not other men)

Sounds familiar doesn't it?  Seems I remember there are groups that call it jihad.

Actually, a jihad is a religious vow to kill, not a threat. Sophist (look it up) and disingenuous analogy.

If that's what you want to align yourself with don't expect much result.

[/quote]

I know exactly what the word means.  But thanks for you input anyway.

The means do not justify the end.  Proposing violence is not the way to approach anything if you expect to be taken seriously.

[Cordell Walker]

I want to know why instead of finding out that  I WASNT THE ONE WHO USED THE SLUR and then giving me an unqualified  apology, you chose to  say "if you didnt say it, I apologize"

[who me?]

who me?, I will repeat again
a) I never used a ricail slur on this forum, EVER
b) I did not  mention blowing up a DEA building in any way


I repeat.............the slur in question was NEVER AT ANY POINT  USED BY ME ON THIS FORUM

I apologized for the mistake on my part.  What part of that do you not understand?

The DEA statement is up for interpretation.  Don't post things like that even in jest.  It isn't cute, not funny, and makes no points at all.

[Cordell Walker]

apology accepted

what are you talking about about the DEA thing............................where did I mentioned blowing it up or setting it on fire; I dont understand where you got that?

[Cordell Walker]

who me?, I will repeat again
a) I never used a ricail slur on this forum, EVER
b) I did not  mention blowing up a DEA building in any way


I repeat.............the slur in question was NEVER AT ANY POINT  USED BY ME ON THIS FORUM

I apologized for the mistake on my part.  What part of that do you not understand?

The DEA statement is up for interpretation.  Don't post things like that even in jest.  It isn't cute, not funny, and makes no points at all.

I qouted the post you are referring to in the  child support murder thread............read it again and realize that you interpreted it to mean violence because YOU WANTED TO

[Cordell Walker]

who me?, I will repeat again
a) I never used a ricail slur on this forum, EVER
b) I did not  mention blowing up a DEA building in any way


I repeat.............the slur in question was NEVER AT ANY POINT  USED BY ME ON THIS FORUM

I apologized for the mistake on my part.  What part of that do you not understand?

The DEA statement is up for interpretation.  Don't post things like that even in jest.  It isn't cute, not funny, and makes no points at all.

actually you really fell short of an apology because you said IF I didnt say it  and you MIGHT have me confused.......................I DIDNT AND YOU DID HAVE ME CONFUSED............an unqualified apology with no if and may would be very classy of you ma'am.

[CaptDMO]

The DEA statement is up for interpretation.

Oh, so SOMEBODY ramped it up withtheir interpretation?

Don't post things like that even in jest.  It isn't cute, not funny, and makes no points at all.

Ah.. if only  interpretations of assault between
intimate partners, as well as interpretations of (ultimately proven as falsely vindictive) rape claims were treated with such reverence!

Otherwise, thanks for your continued tips on what, and what NOT, others should post.

[Cordell Walker]

 I have no  problem discussing , disagreeing, or even agreeing with you Ms Who Me?, but its hard to be civil when I was falsely accused of using a very offensive word, and  only recieved a  qualified, "im sorry if I'm worong" type of apology, when its pretty evenly ascertainable that you WERE mistaken

[who me?]

I have no  problem discussing , disagreeing, or even agreeing with you Ms Who Me?, but its hard to be civil when I was falsely accused of using a very offensive word, and  only recieved a  qualified, "im sorry if I'm worong" type of apology, when its pretty evenly ascertainable that you WERE mistaken

And I apologized for the error.  You seem to have a real problem accepting the apology.

If you do not want to accept it............fine, but stop demanding what you refuse to accept.

[dr e]

You hae a choice, answer the question or get a warning.  I won't wait much longer.

What we see from this poster is the classic divert and misdirect.  She/he makes an accusation about content or some person and then never backs it up but finds ways to create chaos to divert attention away from the original question.  It would be more productive to argue over issues but the fems tend to avoid that if at all possible and try to break things down into personal attacks like we see made on Tony.

[who me?]

You hae a choice, answer the question or get a warning.  I won't wait much longer.

What we see from this poster is the classic divert and misdirect.  She/he makes an accusation about content or some person and then never backs it up but finds ways to create chaos to divert attention away from the original question.  It would be more productive to argue over issues but the fems tend to avoid that if at all possible and try to break things down into personal attacks like we see made on Tony.

I've answered this a couple of time during the course of this thread.  Maybe you prefer not to read back to see?  I'm not sure what the problem is.

But if you want to issue a warning because you do not feel I answered appropriately; that's your call I guess. 

Do you write the rules as you go or do the rules change with the poster?

http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=13627.msg150159#msg150159

Just in case you overlooked this before.