Obama Honors Women in Weekly Address (Murkowski gives repsonse!)

Excellent rebuttal. I was struck by the author’s (Paul Elam) apparent hostility toward both men and women. He seems to sneer at marriage, sex, love, women, men, and daughters. I can’t even imagine why this bitter, angry man would inspire anyone to anything, except perhaps to inspire him to seek counseling.

You’re not Paul Elam, are you?

By the way, your wife is a lucky woman. :)

So I challenge you to offer facts, and you offer opinions.

Did you link us to that diatribe or not Sparky? Well, yes you did. And so far rather than defend it on merit, you have tried to change the subject. That's not going to happen, until you address the trash you linked us to.

No problem, I can respect your opinions even if I don't agree with them.

No you can't. You don't respect my opinion enough to respond on point. And if you don't respect me enough not to link me to that diatribe, it's ludacrist to say you respect my opinion.

That writer had no respect for me whatsoever, and neither do you.

Defend what you linked me to. When we're done with that issue we'll move on, and not until unless you want to bow out, too embarrassed to actually defend what this ass hat clown wrote.

But opinions aren't always facts, so I'll lay it out for you one more time.

You are rather dense aren't you. First you link me to a diatribe attacking men from the (stereotypical) point of view of that of a menopausal women. I call you on that, and you immediately try to change the subject to the supposed topic this guy was trying to advance. I've told you I'm not going to let you get away with that, so you ramp up the attempt to goad me into changing the subject. No.

In my posts to you, I have stated that I did not think men were getting a fair shake, but this wasn't good enough for you. You seem to have some insecure need to make it look like you're taking the high ground here, when you're linking folks to the diatribe of a bottom feeding asshole. Then you pass this off as a mere difrerence of opinion. Bud, there's no defense of that diatribe and you should know that. If you don't, you really don't have the tools to discuse important matters like this one.

Present for me any class action lawsuit organized by men, on behalf of men, and supported by men until won, against any institution that has historically discriminated against men, where male politicians expressed support, and that wasn't shot down by a male judge.

If your next post doesn't answer this directly, then I will rightly conclude you can't.

And I'll rightly conclude that you are trying to change the subject to cover your ass for trying to inimate that diatribe you linked us to was reasoned.

Oh darn. Now I can’t slam the author ignoring the likelihood this buffoon is one and the same guy.

That is the $60,000 dollar question isn’t it.

Some idiot-stick linked me to something similar to that a few years back. It may be the same nut-job.

They got the same full court press last time.

I agree this this guy is an equal opportunity insulter.

I’ll say it again, my gosh the baggage these two (or one) are carrying.

She thinks so too. And I am one luck guy to have her.

When she comes back from out of town tomorrow evening, I’m not going to feel one bit guilty about what happens next. ;^)

Take care Trisham.

I’ll say it again, my gosh the baggage these two (or one) are carrying.

************************************

I know. I know. It's very sad, really.

You too, friend. :)

;^)

Defend what you linked me to.

Defend it against what? Your claim that you're busy holding down a job, raising the kids, and helping around the house? What about the women who fought for their equal rights? Or the single fathers who successfully fought for the right to be with their children? Or the civil rights activists who, facing death threats and worse, fought for equality? Do you think none of them raised their kids, held down jobs, or took care of their houses?

What about the women who are currently participating in a class action lawsuit against WalMart? Do you think none of them are raising their kids, holding down jobs, or taking care of their houses?

Your list of daily activities didn't refute that op-ed, it supported it.

What else do I have to defend it against? Your example of the woman who drags her son to events supporting research against breast cancer "so the life expectency gap can be enlarged between her son and herself"? Why aren't men taking their sons to events supporting research against prostate cancer? You probably still haven't figured this out.

Or maybe trisham's comment that "I was struck by the author’s (Paul Elam) apparent hostility toward both men and women." Anybody who reads that op-ed will read the author's acknowledgement of the women who are helping in the fight for men's rights.

The challenge, unanswered for three days now, remains.

The previous reply was for you, too.

Defend what you linked me to.

Defend it against what? Your claim that you're busy holding down a job, raising the kids, and helping around the house? What about the women who fought for their equal rights? Or the single fathers who successfully fought for the right to be with their children? Or the civil rights activists who, facing death threats and worse, fought for equality? Do you think none of them raised their kids, held down jobs, or took care of their houses?

LOL, can't help yourself can you? Did that address all the attacks against men in the diatribe you linked folks to? No. You didn't address that at all.

Did you admit that post was unfortunate? Do you even now understand how bad it was? Do you even now think it's appropriate to insult men in that manor?

Here you seem to think I'm as stupid as you are. Well, evidently I'm not huh. You changed the subject. I'm calling you on it.

We will move on when you own up to the nature of that insulting POS post you linked folks to.

I may not be the perfect man, but I'm not going to walk off from this engagement until you understand what a prick you have been.

Men in general do not deserve to be accosted the way they were in that post. Deal with it.

What about the women who are currently participating in a class action lawsuit against WalMart? Do you think none of them are raising their kids, holding down jobs, or taking care of their houses?

Off topic: Pending recognition of another issue, taking ownership, and being frank about the insulting POS diatribe you linked us to, this will remain unaddressed.

Your list of daily activities didn't refute that op-ed, it supported it.

Off topic: Pending recognition of another issue, taking ownership, and being frank about the insulting POS diatribe you linked us to, this will remain unaddressed.

What else do I have to defend it against? Your example of the woman who drags her son to events supporting research against breast cancer "so the life expectency gap can be enlarged between her son and herself"? Why aren't men taking their sons to events supporting research against prostate cancer? You probably still haven't figured this out.

Off topic: Pending recognition of another issue, taking ownership, and being frank about the insulting POS diatribe you linked us to, this will remain unaddressed.

Or maybe trisham's comment that "I was struck by the author’s (Paul Elam) apparent hostility toward both men and women." Anybody who reads that op-ed will read the author's acknowledgement of the women who are helping in the fight for men's rights.

Off topic: Pending recognition of another issue, taking ownership, and being frank about the insulting POS diatribe you linked us to, this will remain unaddressed.

The challenge, unanswered for three days now, remains.

Off topic: Pending recognition of another issue, taking ownership, and being frank about the insulting POS diatribe you linked us to, this will remain unaddressed.

365 days from now, you'll still be trying to change the topic, if you don't own up to the nature of that diatribe you linked us to. It's your choice.
.
.
More general comments:

The Diatribe: Breakdown Linked in your first post on this thread

02: Compliments to men (Men's Rights Activists [MRA] only)
02: Compliments to women (MRAs only)
02: General comments (things to support)
04: Hard facts (things to support)
75: Insults to men (all non-participating - MRAs)

Do you think this guy may have been just a little over the top with his negativity? Obviously not. I have asked you repeatedly to fess up on that trash, and you have yet to come to terms with what it was.

The negativity of that linked diatribe is inexcusable. You try to justify it by stating that women took part in the women's movement. Earth to Paul Elam, the vast majority of women never took part in any of that. I would venture to say that over 90% of women didn't. Many of them were shagrined by the activities of NOW and others. Are you now here to tell us that women who didn't participate in that crap were slugs too? Even if you do mean well, and I'm not convinced of that at all, your logic is severely twisted.

Most women in those days were busy being moms. Most men today are busy being dads. BFD! Come to terms with it.
.
.
Now Lets Look at Some of My Comments to You
on this thread

In my original response to you, this is one of the things I said: LINK

    Sure men get a raw deal out life (in some ways), out of divorce (in some ways), and yet you hear perhaps 1% of the complaining out of them that you do out of the fairer sex. And now men get trashed for that too. Just damn.

    In this first response I told you what my take on activism was. I didn't put down the effort to mobilize and clearly expressed the idea that men did not get a fair shake.
    Some of my other comments focused on the males role in the household. I expressed the idea that I don't think men should go out of their way to assess evil on the part of their wives in the home. I still don't. I don't think men should allow women to walk on them, but then men walk on women in the home too. I should think this would be clear enough for you, if you've ever had a long term relationship.
    I did not infer that I didn't think men should take action against inequities, but I did leave room for men to take a pass on it if they weren't inclined to become involved.
    Not getting involved in this and other movements is not a sign of weakness, or a slovenly life, something the writer and seemingly you too, were dedicated to casting in granite. B.S.

Here are some sellected excepts from another post: LINK

    Where did I state that men should feel good about injustice, or stand by while injustice of this sort takes place? The author raises the premise that men are sex adicted droids, you seem to agree, and I laugh at the assumption and all of a sudden it is postulated that I think it's okay for men to be jailed over false assault charges. Where the hell did you come up with that?
    Nowhere have I said that men should simply allow women to walk all over them. I have not advocated them allow women to screw them over in divorce. I have not advocated men allow women to make false charges against them and do nothing.

More sellected excerpts from one of my posts: LINK

    ...perhaps if we truly want to see justice done, we'll get an attorney and fight for equal rights in court, and our friend will toast us for doing that. It happens every day. Men are getting joint custody out there. I don't happen to think we've reached equity by a long shot, and yes the courts are biased against men. I firmly believe that. Still, this commentary is not a good tool to get men to support anything. It will alienate them if they have a lick of sense.
    Is there still a major problem in this area? I believe so. And if some guy wants to go out and sell an effort to help men become involved, I support the idea. If that guy is going to use this approach, I'm not going to wish him luck, becuase he'll destroy any I grant him, any luck others will grant him, and every bit of his own in that effort.

More sellected excerpts from one of my posts: LINK

    In my posts to you, I have stated that I did not think men were getting a fair shake, but this wasn't good enough for you. You seem to have some insecure need to make it look like you're taking the high ground here, when you're linking folks to the diatribe of a bottom feeding asshole. Then you pass this off as a mere difference of opinion. Bud, there's no defense of that diatribe and you should know that. If you don't, you really don't have the tools to discuse important matters like this one.

    You have tried to waste both of our time in a number of posts, presenting a challenge to me. I didn't play along because I recognized immediately what you were up to. That challenge sought to move the topic away from the despicable post about men, that you linked others and me to.
    On top of that your challenge seeks to get me to admit that there is still work that needs to be done out there, as if I had said there wasn't. I believe you keyed in on a statement of mine, to the effect that men do defend themselves. The truth is, men do defend themselves. Unlike the portrayal you have sought to reinforce on this forum, I recognize the fact that men do defend themselves in the home. I never sought to indicate more than that with that comment. Even in the post you carved that comment out of, I expressed the belief that there was work to do concerning men's rights.
    Even so, outside the home, men do defend themselves in the divorce courts. They do so in other matters from time to time.
    If you had worked as hard to develop understanding here, admitting to the god awful tactics used in that post, you would have realized right away that you and I are in a number of ways, on the same page.
    Instead you chose to be argumentative, insulting of men (by backing that despicable POS article), using avoidance, and refusing to take ownership of what your agreement with that writer says about you.

    There wasn't a need to continue this exchange since about three posts back. I will make myself available as long as it take for you to be honest and forthright on this topic.

    I look forward to your upcoming attempts to change the subject.

(My previous) Defend it against what? Your claim that you're busy holding down a job, raising the kids, and helping around the house? What about the women who fought for their equal rights? Or the single fathers who successfully fought for the right to be with their children? Or the civil rights activists who, facing death threats and worse, fought for equality? Do you think none of them raised their kids, held down jobs, or took care of their houses? What about the women who are currently participating in a class action lawsuit against WalMart? Do you think none of them are raising their kids, holding down jobs, or taking care of their houses?

Off topic:

I was trying to anticipate your response, but I never thought your would cop out like that. You were the one who presented your busy work schedule as an answer to that op-ed. Now, after facing the fact that women's rights advocates and civil rights advocates also had/have to raise their children, hold down jobs, and take care of their houses, it's "off topic". The point of this op-ed is the failure of men to act, so this point is very much on topic.

(My previous) Your example of the woman who drags her son to events supporting research against breast cancer "so the life expectency gap can be enlarged between her son and herself"? Why aren't men taking their sons to events supporting research against prostate cancer? You probably still haven't figured this out.

Off topic:

Another issue you brought up that is suddenly off topic, because I posted a response you can't refute. Try again, although you probably still don't get it.

Do you think this guy may have been just a little over the top with his negativity?

Maybe he was, but regardless you can prove he was wrong by answering my challenge.

Most women in those days were busy being moms. Most men today are busy being dads.

But the women who were and are being moms aren't too busy to take action when they're discriminated against. Just ask WalMart (Assuming the allegations are correct).

Where did I state that men should feel good about injustice, or stand by while injustice of this sort takes place?

You didn't come out and state it, but you did say "Sure men get a raw deal out life (in some ways), out of divorce in some ways, and yet you hear perhaps 1% of the complaining out of them that you do out of the fairer sex." By labeling it "complaining", you attempt to take the high ground. Why, so you can feel good about not acting?

Is there still a major problem in this area? I believe so. And if some guy wants to go out and sell an effort to help men become involved, I support the idea. If that guy is going to use this approach, I'm not going to wish him luck, becuase he'll destroy any I grant him, any luck others will grant him, and every bit of his own in that effort.

And how much support did you give prior to reading this op-ed. My guess is that you're holding back support that you wouldn't have given regardless.

You have tried to waste both of our time in a number of posts, presenting a challenge to me. I didn't play along because I recognized immediately what you were up to. That challenge sought to move the topic away from the despicable post about men, that you linked others and me to. On top of that your challenge seeks to get me to admit that there is still work that needs to be done out there, as if I had said there wasn't.

My challenge was about one thing, proving the author wrong with facts. You obviously don't have to agree with the op-ed, but if you're going to challenge it, you could at least attempt to offer facts to refute it.

The challenge, now in its fourth day, stands.

repeating...

The Diatribe: Breakdown Linked in your first post on this thread

02: Compliments to men (Men's Rights Activists [MRA] only)
02: Compliments to women (MRAs only)
02: General comments (things to support)
04: Hard facts (things to support)
75: Insults to men (all non-participating - MRAs)

Do you think this guy may have been just a little over the top with his negativity? Obviously not. I have asked you repeatedly to fess up on that trash, and you have yet to come to terms with what it was.

Your most current answer on topic: Maybe he was, but regardless you can prove he was wrong by answering my challenge.

"Maybe he was." That's your come to truth moment isn't it. Maybe he was.

Tell me mighty Kong, the guy insulted men 75 times while trying to goad them into joining him in his cause, and you honestly think I have something to prove here about him being wrong?

And you cast this exchange as me copping out?

Peddle faster dude...

The Diatribe: Breakdown Linked in your first post on this thread
02: Compliments to men (Men's Rights Activists [MRA] only)
02: Compliments to women (MRAs only)
02: General comments (things to support)
04: Hard facts (things to support)

75: Insults to men (all non-participating - MRAs)

Really? Tell me, oh he whose opinions are more reliable than actual facts. Of all of the boys who have been misdiagnosed with ADD/ADHD, how many were misdiagnosed by Paul Elam? Of all of the men who have been falsely accused of rape or domestic violence, how many were accused or jailed by Paul Elam? Of all of the divorced fathers who have had their children taken from them, how many were taken by Paul Elam?

Since you're so fond of numbers, calculate that. Then, based on your own calculations, tell us who has done more harm to you, your sons, your brothers, and any other men you love. These activist judges and law makers, or Paul Elam?

You'll probably conclude it's Paul Elam and his 75 insults. Waa! Hopefully, the rest of the men out there will see it differently.

"Maybe he was." That's your come to truth moment isn't it. Maybe he was.

That wasn't even the small victory you seem to think it was. Whether he was over the top or not is a matter of opinion, one that I don't share.

Tell me mighty Kong, the guy insulted men 75 times while trying to goad them into joining him in his cause, and you honestly think I have something to prove here about him being wrong?

If you're going to try to convince me that you're right and he's wrong, yes. And the only way you'll do that is with facts.

The Diatribe: Breakdown Linked in your first post on this thread

02: Compliments to men (Men's Rights Activists [MRA] only)
02: Compliments to women (MRAs only)
02: General comments (things to support)
04: Hard facts (things to support)
75: Insults to men (all non-participating - MRAs)

Here's a link in case you lost it. You don't seem to remember a thing from that linked commentary. Linked in your first post on this thread

Really? Tell me, oh he whose opinions are more reliable than actual facts.

Okay, let's see what facts you'd like to point out from Paul's commentary diatribe.

Of all of the boys who have been misdiagnosed with ADD/ADHD, how many were misdiagnosed by Paul Elam?

Did Paul bother to complain about boys who had been misdiagnosed with ADD/ADHD in his diatribe linked above? Well, no, Paul the brilliant man that he is didn't bother to address this topic. He was too busy hurling 75 insults at men. And that you pinhead, is a fact.

Of all of the men who have been falsely accused of rape or domestic violence, how many were accused or jailed by Paul Elam?

Did Paul Elam bother to mention the problem with men being falsely accused of rape or domestic violence? No, Paul didn't bother to address that either. Once again, he was too busy hurling 75 insults at men. And that is another fact.

Of all of the divorced fathers who have had their children taken from them, how many were taken by Paul Elam?

Did Paul Elam bother to list this as a problem he wanted to work on? No, Paul didn't bother to address this either. Paul's informative commentary spent 100% of the time damning men, and not one single instance talking about what women, the courts, states, legislatures, or Congress has done to men. And that you pinhead, is the crowning fact.

Since you're so fond of numbers, calculate that.

I just did. Paul insulted men 75 times. He didn't take one other person or entity to task. How about them numbers butthead. 100% of Paul's anger was taken out on men.

Then, based on your own calculations, tell us who has done more harm to you, your sons, your brothers, and any other men you love. These activist judges and law makers, or Paul Elam?

Did Paul Elam mention any judges or law makers in his diatribe? No! He didn't did he. Paul was so busy bloviating at the expense of fine upstanding men in our nation, that he couldn't find one thing to complain about except them in the commentary you linked me to originally. It's linked above right now. Find one instance in there of Paul insulting anyone but men.

You'll probably conclude it's Paul Elam and his 75 insults. Waa! Hopefully, the rest of the men out there will see it differently.

You may consider yourself a professional. One of Pauls brilliant tactics to get men to join his cause, was to state that men get bent over in court and raped. And he didn't stop there. Here's the money quote: "While men, and by that I mean you, your brothers, fathers, sons and friends get bent over and raped in openly rigged family courts, you look the other way." That's sodomy in case you didn't quite grasp it. When I asked you if you didn't think Paul went just a wee bit over the top, you didn't think so. No, you thought he was right on target.

Is that your idea of being professional? Is that your idea of the proper way to represent a cause that is worthy of support? Well, after I've asked you as many times as I have, and you always refuse to admit this was an unfortunate 'cluster f--k', I'm going out on a limb here and state that you categorically approve of such language and depictions, to get your way.

Paul states that he's been working for men's rights for over twenty years. As angry as Paul is, it's quite clear he's not getting the amount of support he deems himself deserving of. And after reading the materials you linked me to, I understand why. At the same time, it's obvious that Paul and you are clueless why.

Those are some interesting facts to at least one man out here.

"Maybe he was." That's your come to truth moment isn't it. Maybe he was.

That wasn't even the small victory you seem to think it was. Whether he was over the top or not is a matter of opinion, one that I don't share.

By this point in the discussion, I don't really care what you thoughts on that diatribe are. You have proven yourself unable to be either honest with me, or able to discern between right and wrong. Paul is unable to lucidly explain what it is he would like to see changed so men could back 'the cause'..., either that or you thought the 75 insults were more important than something else more productive Paul may have written. Baring any other important information you have not found it pertinent to link to by this point in the discussion, I'm thinking you're both a couple of egocentric nut-jobs.

Tell me mighty Kong, the guy insulted men 75 times while trying to goad them into joining him in his cause, and you honestly think I have something to prove here about him being wrong?

If you're going to try to convince me that you're right and he's wrong, yes. And the only way you'll do that is with facts.

I have provided facts to you. Sadly you're a 10 watt bulb in a 100 watt world.

You issued a challenge to me. I was supposed to provide instances of legislation or court rulings that men had achieved, or some such. You predicated that challenge on faulty suppositions.

1. You thought I said men had offered up legislation or filed suit in the interest of all men.
2. You somehow seem to have asertained that I said men were getting a fair shake today, and no action was needed.

I didn't make any of the claims under 1 or 2 here. For that reason, I am not obligated to prove anything to you. If you have some facts you'd like to lay out, do so. Don't expect me to do your dirty work, when I haven't claimed anything that wasn't true.

Paul in his brilliant tactic, said that men were driven by their sexual urges, thinking with their penis or some such. I stated that men defended themselves. I stated this because the men I know are co-equal partners in their homes. They do not live in subservience to their wives, afraid to speak their mind or defend other men in trouble.

That is not the same as stating that men have been pursuing legislative and judicial remedies to inequties men face. To make it clear, I stated in my first respnse to you and in subsequent responses to you, that I thought there were biases and inequities out there that needed to be addressed. None the less, you sought to badger and belittle me because I wouldn't buy into the premise that all men are terrible beings, if they didn't physically join your cause, or donate to your cause. I say your cause, because Paul and you are clearly not working for men's rights.

Both of you reveal an incredible bias against men.

You chumps both think that men are evil, if they don't back your play. During the time of the Women's Right's movement, not all women got involved. Whether it's 85, 90, or 95% of them, that didn't participate, do Paul and you think housewifes back then were thinking with their vaginas, and afraid they wouldn't get laid? That's the equivelant of what Paul said about men, and you agreed with him here.

Not every man is going to join your cause. Those who don't are not evil, vile, or some other negative thing you would like others to think they are.

They are men who are busy doing other things, and many of those things are very worthwhile.

Did Paul bother to complain about boys who had been misdiagnosed with ADD/ADHD in his diatribe linked above? ...Did Paul Elam bother to mention the problem with men being falsely accused of rape or domestic violence?...Did Paul Elam bother to list this as a problem he wanted to work on?

Not in those terms, but he did mention "ever more female centered schools systems" and the "openly rigged family courts", both having plenty to do with those problems.

Paul's informative commentary spent 100% of the time damning men and not one single instance talking about what women, the courts, states, legislatures, or Congress has done to men.

You really need to think your responses through before posting them. In case you haven't noticed, most of the judges and legislators are men. Hmmm, they must be among the men that he is criticizing.

As for women, the point of the op-ed was the failure of men to act on this issue. You pointing out that he didn't talk about women who use the system that male legislators helped create to take advantage of men does not refute that point.

Paul insulted men 75 times. He didn't take one other person or entity to task. How about them numbers butthead. 100% of Paul's anger was taken out on men.

The subject of the op-ed was the failure of men to act on this issue, not to list every entity that uses that failure against them.

Did Paul Elam mention any judges or law makers in his diatribe? No! He didn't did he. Paul was so busy bloviating at the expense of fine upstanding men in our nation, that he couldn't find one thing to complain about except them in the commentary you linked me to originally. It's linked above right now. Find one instance in there of Paul insulting anyone but men.

His point was the failure of men to act on this issue. Finding no "insults" of anyone else does not refute his point.

You may consider yourself a professional. One of Pauls brilliant tactics to get men to join his cause, was to state that men get bent over in court and raped. And he didn't stop there. Here's the money quote: "While men, and by that I mean you, your brothers, fathers, sons and friends get bent over and raped in openly rigged family courts, you look the other way." That's sodomy in case you didn't quite grasp it.

And you can't understand he was speaking figuratively, although for the men who are jailed over false accusations, it can become very literal.

Is that your idea of being professional? Is that your idea of the proper way to represent a cause that is worthy of support?

I wouldn't have chosen to use those terms, but I still agree with the point of the op-ed.

Well, after I've asked you as many times as I have, and you always refuse to admit this was an unfortunate 'cluster f--k', I'm going out on a limb here and state that you categorically approve of such language and depictions, to get your way.

That coming from a Christian who has used such terms as "prick" and "BFD". Oh, and "butthead" and "cluster f--k".

Paul states that he's been working for men's rights for over twenty years. As angry as Paul is, it's quite clear he's not getting the amount of support he deems himself deserving of. And after reading the materials you linked me to, I understand why. At the same time, it's obvious that Paul and you are clueless why.

IC. Paul Elam's op-ed written a year ago is why he and other MRAs have been getting such little support over the past 30 years. Why do you even bother to go on posting on this topic if pathetic excuses like that are all you have left?

Baring any other important information you have not found it pertinent to link to by this point in the discussion, I'm thinking you're both a couple of egocentric nut-jobs.

The "other important information" is your failure to prove him wrong by posting examples of the successful class action lawsuits that would refute his claims.

You issued a challenge to me. I was supposed to provide instances of legislation or court rulings that men had achieved, or some such. You predicated that challenge on faulty suppositions.

1. You thought I said men had offered up legislation or filed suit in the interest of all men.

2. You somehow seem to have asertained that I said men were getting a fair shake today, and no action was needed.

I didn't make any of the claims under 1 or 2 here.

I never said or made either supposition. I have stated clearly what that challenge was about, and you have posted these straw men to avoid answering it. I'll state it again.

Present for me any class action lawsuit organized by men, on behalf of men, and supported by men until won, against any institution that has historically discriminated against men, where male politicians expressed support, and that wasn't shot down by a male judge.

That challenge, now nine days old, still stands. When you have answered my challenge, you will have proved your points about that op-ed. Your failure to do so will prove mine.

During the time of the Women's Right's movement, not all women got involved. Whether it's 85, 90, or 95% of them, that didn't participate, do Paul and you think housewifes back then were thinking with their vaginas, and afraid they wouldn't get laid? That's the equivelant of what Paul said about men, and you agreed with him here.

Trying to compare the support MRA's have received to the support that Women's Lib got, even in the early 70's, will only prove his point. Even if that many women didn't actively participate, almost all of them would have been ready to join in if they needed to. Just ask WalMart.

They are men who are busy doing other things, and many of those things are very worthwhile.

So you're repackaging that refuted argument now. Like you, women's and civil rights activists have many worthwhile things to do including working their jobs, raising their kids, and taking care of their homes, but as WalMart is finding out, that won't stop them from taking action when discriminated against.

The problem for men is, many don't consider men's rights one of those worthwhile causes until they end up in divorce court or arrested over false abuse charges. When that time comes, they have bigger problems than Paul Elam's 75 insults. By then, it's often already too late.

Did Paul bother to complain about boys who had been misdiagnosed with ADD/ADHD in his diatribe linked above? ...Did Paul Elam bother to mention the problem with men being falsely accused of rape or domestic violence?...Did Paul Elam bother to list this as a problem he wanted to work on?

Not in those terms, but he did mention "ever more female centered schools systems" and the "openly rigged family courts", both having plenty to do with those problems.

Okay, you've found two subjects Paul mentioned. Did he explain what he plans to do about them? Did he explain why he hadn't done it in his first twenty (now I guess he's claiming 30) years dedicated to this task? Well, no...

Paul's informative commentary spent 100% of the time damning men and not one single instance talking about what women, the courts, states, legislatures, or Congress has done to men.

You really need to think your responses through before posting them.

You mean like posting 75 insults to men, while hardly touching on the problems you think need to be fixed? You mean like using unfortunate vulgar depictions that would discredit or deminish the important issues you'd like to see remedied? You mean that kind of thinking before you post a commentary and link people to it?

In case you haven't noticed, most of the judges and legislators are men. Hmmm, they must be among the men that he is criticizing.

Okay, then why not focus on judges and legislators, refrain from trashing all men that haven't joined your cause or sent you money? If you had, we would have spent our time discussing issues we agree on.

As for women, the point of the op-ed was the failure of men to act on this issue. You pointing out that he didn't talk about women who use the system that male legislators helped create to take advantage of men does not refute that point.

You're pretty bright. Did you figure that all out by yourself? No, he didn't address women. Wow. I am addressing the blanket insult of all men who haven't joined your organization or send in funds. Women's libers have been using blanket statements to put down men for 40 years. And now Paul is too. You folks make a great tag team with the women's libers..

Paul insulted men 75 times. He didn't take one other person or entity to task. How about them numbers butthead. 100% of Paul's anger was taken out on men.

The subject of the op-ed was the failure of men to act on this issue, not to list every entity that uses that failure against them.

I'd say using 75 insults to put down men, is not a positive way to entice men to get involved. If you want men to get involved, then list for them the things that you want to see change. Explain to them what you see that is wrong, and ask them to help out. What you are doing here is tantamount to recognizing that women get raped, then saying they deserve to if they don't join or send in funds to an organization you set up. So far you still can't see that. Simply amazing...

Did Paul Elam mention any judges or law makers in his diatribe? No! He didn't did he. Paul was so busy bloviating at the expense of fine upstanding men in our nation, that he couldn't find one thing to complain about except them in the commentary you linked me to originally. It's linked above right now. Find one instance in there of Paul insulting anyone but men.

His point was the failure of men to act on this issue. Finding no "insults" of anyone else does not refute his point.

His point was severely flawed. You don't guilt people into joining you. You risk turning as many or more folks off, as you inspire to become involved. Talking about sodomy in this context is just plain stupid. Bringing in sons, brothers, fathers (grandfathers) into that mix, was actually twisted if you are trying to conduct yourself as a professional.

You may consider yourself a professional. One of Pauls brilliant tactics to get men to join his cause, was to state that men get bent over in court and raped. And he didn't stop there. Here's the money quote: "While men, and by that I mean you, your brothers, fathers, sons and friends get bent over and raped in openly rigged family courts, you look the other way." That's sodomy in case you didn't quite grasp it.

And you can't understand he was speaking figuratively, although for the men who are jailed over false accusations, it can become very literal.

OMG, you'll do anything to cover your ass for abysmal behavior. You speak in these terms when you're with your drinking buddies. You don't talk like this when you're trying go get folks to back you talking to political representatives, or representing a cause in court. You're trying to pass yourselves off as intelligent reasoned men, and here you are acting like high-school jocks.

Is that your idea of being professional? Is that your idea of the proper way to represent a cause that is worthy of support?

I wouldn't have chosen to use those terms, but I still agree with the point of the op-ed.

Okay, finally we're getting somewhere. "I wouldn't have chosen those terms." Do ya think? Good grief, and it took me to this point for you to even accept that the writing of this thing was in any way unfortunate. Now, what was the point? Oh yes, men are all sorts of dastardly things if they won't accept Paul's opinion of them, and join his cause.

This is the reason you think men are going to climb on board Paul's banana boat?

Well, after I've asked you as many times as I have, and you always refuse to admit this was an unfortunate 'cluster f--k', I'm going out on a limb here and state that you categorically approve of such language and depictions, to get your way.

That coming from a Christian who has used such terms as "prick" and "BFD". Oh, and "butthead" and "cluster f--k".

Ah yes, attack me, but let Paul do as he pleases. If he hadn't insulted men, but rather had explained the inequities he sees out there and would like to fix, not a single person would have seen his efforts in a negative light. They may have disagreed with his plans, but they could have seen there was some logic behind his plans, without a severe negative reaction. Do you think his diatribe will achieve that same overall view, a somewhat favorable one for his cause?

Did I use religion to take Paul or you to task? No. I used a secular approach to talk to you. So what did you do? You went to my home page because you couldn't discuss this matter on point. And now you're trying to embarrass me for not being a good Christian, when all I suggested was that Paul and you would do better to knock off the insults and address actual issues that need attention so they don't continue to have such a negative impact on men.

Isn't that a point that secular people could come to, without being Christian? Is it acceptable to use ephamisms like 'sodomy' in the board-room? Is it acceptable to use that subject for leverage in court, when the legal case is not about sodomy? I mean seriously fella, you've become unhinged. Whether I'm an angel or not, has no bering on the merits of Paul's diatribe. You know that.

You said, "I wouldn't have chosen those terms." Was that because I quoted some Bible verse to you, or was it because it became too obvious even to you that tactic was ill-advised?

What does my standing as a Christian have to do with this, at all? And why would you think you were going to get away with trying to make it about my religion? I mean, that's an act of desperation. Own up to what Paul has been doing. It's ill-advised. I'm not sullying the name of MRAs, Paul is.

Paul states that he's been working for men's rights for over twenty years. As angry as Paul is, it's quite clear he's not getting the amount of support he deems himself deserving of. And after reading the materials you linked me to, I understand why. At the same time, it's obvious that Paul and you are clueless why.

IC. Paul Elam's op-ed written a year ago is why he and other MRAs have been getting such little support over the past 30 years. Why do you even bother to go on posting on this topic if pathetic excuses like that are all you have left?

Look, Paul put his anger on display. I didn't out him. He did. As for why Paul hasn't been getting support over the last (now it's...) 30 years, I'm not sure. I haven't been sitting across the street from his organization. I haven't been frequenting his internet site, or reading his commentaries for thirty years. For the record, I did not make the point that he didn't get support for thirty years because of that commentary, and you damned well know it. I stated that commentary wouldn't win him support. I stated it was glaringly negative and inappropriate about men. I also stated it displayed a lot of anger. And judging by the topic, the anger, and what Paul wants people to do, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Paul is very angry that men haven' chosen him as their leader. If that's not true, so be it. It's still my best guess after reading that unfortunate bilge.

Baring any other important information you have not found it pertinent to link to by this point in the discussion, I'm thinking you're both a couple of egocentric nut-jobs.

The "other important information" is your failure to prove him wrong by posting examples of the successful class action lawsuits that would refute his claims.

Having not stated that men have launched successful class action suites, I don't have anything to prove. You could ask me to count the walnuts in Missouri to prove Paul wrong. Similarly, it wouldn't have anything to do with Paul's disgusting commentary filled with rage. The commentary sinks on it's own. That has been my focus. I've been factual about what it represents.

You issued a challenge to me. I was supposed to provide instances of legislation or court rulings that men had achieved, or some such. You predicated that challenge on faulty suppositions.

1. You thought I said men had offered up legislation or filed suit in the interest of all men.
2. You somehow seem to have asertained that I said men were getting a fair shake today, and no action was needed.

I didn't make any of the claims under 1 or 2 here.

I never said or made either supposition. I have stated clearly what that challenge was about, and you have posted these straw men to avoid answering it.

I have no reason whatsoever to look for this type of material, to please you. I challenged Pauls diatribe on the content. That challenge remains. You have even admitted that, "I wouldn't have chosen those terms."

I'll state it again.

Still trying to change the subject huh. You can state that you have a low IQ forty-two times also. What would be the need, it amounts to the same thing.

Present for me any class action lawsuit organized by men, on behalf of men, and supported by men until won, against any institution that has historically discriminated against men, where male politicians expressed support, and that wasn't shot down by a male judge.

That challenge, now nine days old, still stands. When you have answered my challenge, you will have proved your points about that op-ed. Your failure to do so will prove mine.

"I wouldn't have chosen those terms."

I've already proven my point. You agree with me. Neither of us would have published that rubish in it's current form.

Hurling insults at men in a display of anger, is not prodcutive. Who knew?

The op ed fails on it's own merits. Women who didn't take part in the

During the time of the Women's Right's movement, not all women got involved. Whether it's 85, 90, or 95% of them, that didn't participate, do Paul and you think housewifes back then were thinking with their vaginas, and afraid they wouldn't get laid? That's the equivelant of what Paul said about men, and you agreed with him here.

Trying to compare the support MRA's have received to the support that Women's Lib got, even in the early 70's, will only prove his point. Even if that many women didn't actively participate, almost all of them would have been ready to join in if they needed to. Just ask WalMart.

LMAO, you're so screwed. You agree to my premise, then in the same sentence state that all women would have joined if they had to.

Were they thinking with their vaginas or not you putz? We're they afraid of not getting laid or not?

Rather embarrassing isn't it... the kind of trash this guy was trying to get adults to buy off on.

They are men who are busy doing other things, and many of those things are very worthwhile.

So you're repackaging that refuted argument now. Like you, women's and civil rights activists have many worthwhile things to do including working their jobs, raising their kids, and taking care of their homes, but as WalMart is finding out, that won't stop them from taking action when discriminated against.

So all women are standing in front of Wall Mart right now? You really are an ass hat clown.

The problem for men is, many don't consider men's rights one of those worthwhile causes until they end up in divorce court or arrested over false abuse c.arges. When that time comes, they have bigger problems than Paul Elam's 75 insults. By then, it's often already too late.

Then express that thought without Paul's idiotic insults.

You have spent nine days trying to change the subject. Paul's diatribe was over the top. It was riddled with insults right out of the women's movement.

What still hasn't dawned on you, is that I am a man that in a number of ways agrees with what needs to be done. Instead of us agreeing about those things, expanding upon them, and reinforcing that mindset, you have actually found it productive to try to change the subject and cover Paul's posterior for nine days.

Right now I'm guessing this is more proof to you that Paul was right to use those tactics. Tell me, how do you like spending time defending Paul, rather than focusing on issues that do need attention?

Paul was an idiot to do that. So far you still can't grasp that. You'd rather argue with someone who in large part agrees with you, to prop up a guy that is unworthy of your support.

I have spent the last thirteen years discussing issues on this forum. Some of those issues addressed men's rights. I have championed the cause of supporting Legislation and court remedies to the imbalance we see today. And yet, because of Paul, neither of us has focused on those issues. You have been focused on defending Paul.

Unlike Paul, I'm not going to post anti-male filth on the internet, or watch a guy plaster a disgusting anti-male diatribe there without attacking it when it is brought to my attention.

Well, I just don't know what to make of you, but I'm going to take you at your word and post accordingly.

Okay, you've found two subjects Paul mentioned. Did he explain what he plans to do about them? Did he explain why he hadn't done it in his first twenty (now I guess he's claiming 30) years dedicated to this task? Well, no...

No. The topic of his op-ed was to point out the inaction of men on this issue. Bringing up that he didn't discuss his plans doesn't refute it.

You mean like posting 75 insults to men, while hardly touching on the problems you think need to be fixed? You mean like using unfortunate vulgar depictions that would discredit or deminish the important issues you'd like to see remedied? You mean that kind of thinking before you post a commentary and link people to it?

The only purpose of that op-ed was to point out the inaction of men on this issue. I agree with his conclusions.

Okay, then why not focus on judges and legislators, refrain from trashing all men that haven't joined your cause or sent you money? If you had, we would have spent our time discussing issues we agree on.

Because most of the judges and legislators are among the men that he was "trashing".

You're pretty bright. Did you figure that all out by yourself? No, he didn't address women. Wow. I am addressing the blanket insult of all men who haven't joined your organization or send in funds.

And where was this massive support for MRAs over the past 30 years that was lost when Paul Elam wrote this op-ed last year?

Women's libers have been using blanket statements to put down men for 40 years. And now Paul is too. You folks make a great tag team with the women's libers.

Failing to show any class action lawsuits on the part of men and by men and carried to success by men is a bigger insult to men than anything they've said.

I'd say using 75 insults to put down men, is not a positive way to entice men to get involved. If you want men to get involved, then list for them the things that you want to see change. Explain to them what you see that is wrong, and ask them to help out. What you are doing here is tantamount to recognizing that women get raped, then saying they deserve to if they don't join or send in funds to an organization you set up. So far you still can't see that.

MRAs have been doing that for over 30 years. What I can't see is where much support has resulted.

His point was severely flawed. You don't guilt people into joining you. You risk turning as many or more folks off, as you inspire to become involved. Talking about sodomy in this context is just plain stupid. Bringing in sons, brothers, fathers (grandfathers) into that mix, was actually twisted if you are trying to conduct yourself as a professional.

Don't waste your time trying to convince me that this op-ed posted last year is the reason men have given little support to MRAs over the past 30 years. To imply that a father would rather see his adult son go to jail over false abuse charges because Paul Elam insulted him 75 times is a bigger insult than anything he posted.

OMG, you'll do anything to cover your ass for abysmal behavior. You speak in these terms when you're with your drinking buddies. You don't talk like this when you're trying go get folks to back you talking to political representatives, or representing a cause in court. You're trying to pass yourselves off as intelligent reasoned men, and here you are acting like high-school jocks.

That coming from a Christian who has used such terms as "prick", "BFD", "butthead", and "cluster f--k".

Okay, finally we're getting somewhere. "I wouldn't have chosen those terms." Do ya think? Good grief, and it took me to this point for you to even accept that the writing of this thing was in any way unfortunate.

I only said I wouldn't have used his terms. That is a long way from disagreeing with anything he said.

Now, what was the point? Oh yes, men are all sorts of dastardly things if they won't accept Paul's opinion of them, and join his cause.

OK, since you identify yourself as an MRA, list the injustices you believe men are suffering today. Then, tell me what you think of a father who allows and even forces his sons to grow up with those injustices.

This is the reason you think men are going to climb on board Paul's banana boat?

Since you insist on repeating "75 insults", why don't you present a tried and proved method for getting men on board? Not a list of what won't work that includes Paul Elam's "75 insults", but a list of what has worked.

Did I use religion to take Paul or you to task? No. I used a secular approach to talk to you. So what did you do? You went to my home page because you couldn't discuss this matter on point. And now you're trying to embarrass me for not being a good Christian, when all I suggested was that Paul and you would do better to knock off the insults and address actual issues that need attention so they don't continue to have such a negative impact on men.

First, I didn't have to go to your home page. You listed your Christian activities in your response to that op-ed.

Second there is only one issue that I want to discuss. Is that op-ed an accurate description of the state of men today? On that I say two things. It is accurate, and prove it wrong. Repeating "75 insults" numerous times has done nothing to refute it.

Last, I didn't post "prick", "BFD", "butthead", and "cluster f--k". You did. If you're embarrassed now, it's because of what you posted.

Isn't that a point that secular people could come to, without being Christian? Is it acceptable to use ephamisms like 'sodomy' in the board-room? Is it acceptable to use that subject for leverage in court, when the legal case is not about sodomy? I mean seriously fella, you've become unhinged. Whether I'm an angel or not, has no bering on the merits of Paul's diatribe. You know that.

He never used "sodomy" in that op-ed, and everyone else understands he's using "raped" in "While men, and by that I mean you, your brothers, fathers, sons and friends get bent over and raped in openly rigged family courts, you look the other way." figuratively.

You said, "I wouldn't have chosen those terms." Was that because I quoted some Bible verse to you, or was it because it became too obvious even to you that tactic was ill-advised?

Neither. It just means I wouldn't have used those terms. I still agree with the point of the op-ed.

What does my standing as a Christian have to do with this, at all? And why would you think you were going to get away with trying to make it about my religion?

It's not about your religion. It's about proving that op-ed wrong.

I mean, that's an act of desperation. Own up to what Paul has been doing. It's ill-advised. I'm not sullying the name of MRAs, Paul is.

Paul hasn't sullied the name of any MRA. You sully men everywhere by failing to prove him wrong.

Look, Paul put his anger on display. I didn't out him. He did. As for why Paul hasn't been getting support over the last (now it's...) 30 years, I'm not sure. I haven't been sitting across the street from his organization. I haven't been frequenting his internet site, or reading his commentaries for thirty years. For the record, I did not make the point that he didn't get support for thirty years because of that commentary, and you damned well know it. I stated that commentary wouldn't win him support. I stated it was glaringly negative and inappropriate about men. I also stated it displayed a lot of anger. And judging by the topic, the anger, and what Paul wants people to do, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Paul is very angry that men haven' chosen him as their leader. If that's not true, so be it. It's still my best guess after reading that unfortunate bilge.

He said nothing about choosing him as the leader over any other MRA. That is another of your strawmen. What he did say was "Instead of buying those tickets to the ball game, or that next 12 pack, send the money to a fathers rights organization that is doing work for which you do not have the sense or the nerve."

Having not stated that men have launched successful class action suites, I don't have anything to prove.

Yet another strawman of yours. I didn't say you ever stated or had to prove that men have launched successful class action suites. I said prove Paul Elam is wrong by referencing any class action suits that men have supported until won. If Paul Elam is so wrong, that shouldn't be difficult.

You could ask me to count the walnuts in Missouri to prove Paul wrong.

I didn't, because it wouldn't prove anything. A list of successful class action lawsuits filed by men on behalf of men and supported by men would.

I've already proven my point. You agree with me. Neither of us would have published that rubish in it's current form.

Again, I didn't say I disagreed with him, only that I wouldn't have put it that way. Trying to put the spotlight on his choice of words and away from his point about male inactivity on this issue will not work.

Hurling insults at men in a display of anger, is not prodcutive. Who knew?

The biggest insult of men is your inability to list any class action lawsuits that men have seen through until won.

LMAO, you're so screwed. You agree to my premise, then in the same sentence state that all women would have joined if they had to. Were they thinking with their vaginas or not you putz? We're they afraid of not getting laid or not? Rather embarrassing isn't it... the kind of trash this guy was trying to get adults to buy off on. So all women are standing in front of Wall Mart right now? You really are an ass hat clown.

I can't believe you think you scored points with this. No, all women aren't standing in front of WalMart right now, not because they think with their vaginas, but because not all of them worked at WalMart or are part of the lawsuit, and because those who did work their have hired lawyers to represent them.

You have spent nine days trying to change the subject. Paul's diatribe was over the top. It was riddled with insults right out of the women's movement.

What you call insults, I call an accurate assessment of the inaction of men on this issue. You don't like the way he wrote it? Fine, that's your opinion. You think he's wrong? Refute it.

What still hasn't dawned on you, is that I am a man that in a number of ways agrees with what needs to be done. Instead of us agreeing about those things, expanding upon them, and reinforcing that mindset, you have actually found it productive to try to change the subject and cover Paul's posterior for nine days.

You and I may be on the same side, but we don't agree on what needs to be done. You say biased judges and legislators that are part of a biased system are the cause these problems. I say men, including many judges and legislators, are the cause of these problems.

Right now I'm guessing this is more proof to you that Paul was right to use those tactics. Tell me, how do you like spending time defending Paul, rather than focusing on issues that do need attention?

This has taken very little of my time.

I have spent the last thirteen years discussing issues on this forum. Some of those issues addressed men's rights. I have championed the cause of supporting Legislation and court remedies to the imbalance we see today. And yet, because of Paul, neither of us has focused on those issues. You have been focused on defending Paul.

I'll take you at your word. I have also made an occasional stand, and I've seen what Paul Elam has seen. Being laughed at by the men you're trying to defend, and then later hearing them whine about how unfair the system is, gets old after a while.

But, I managed to help keep one of those men out of jail over false abuse charges. He doesn't laugh at me any more.

Unlike Paul, I'm not going to post anti-male filth on the internet, or watch a guy plaster a disgusting anti-male diatribe there without attacking it when it is brought to my attention.

Your "attacks" have consisted of "75 insults" numerous times, complaining about his choice of words, or posting ridiculous comments about women thinking "with their vaginias" because they don't have 100% turnout at WalMart. About the only thing you haven't done with that op-ed is post facts that would refute it. The challenge to do so, now in its 12th day, stands. That is, unless you're conceding that he's right, even if his choice of words isn't to your liking.

And I have plenty of time to keep answering your "75 insults" with challenges to post facts to refute it.

Well, I just don't know what to make of you, but I'm going to take you at your word and post accordingly.

I don't think it's all that hard to determine what I'm up to here.

1. I don't appreciate anyone hurling insults at all men who don't become personally involved with any cause, in blatantly insulting terms.
2. I don't agree with that type of tactic being used, no matter how deserving the cause is for support.
3. I recognize that there are things that do need to be addressed with regard to men's rights, that involve legislation and litigation on their behalf.
4. I try to be supportive of issues that are raised along these lines, that favorably impact men's rights.
5. I will not support anyone who joins feminists to hurl the same insults at men they have for decades.
6. I will not support anyone that exhibits this poor judgment.
7. I will not support anyone who cares so little for his cause that he is willing to go out of his way to offend people who would otherside side with him.
8. I will not remain silent watching someone insult men in this manner, or supporting someone who is insulting them in this manner.

Okay, you've found two subjects Paul mentioned. Did he explain what he plans to do about them? Did he explain why he hadn't done it in his first twenty (now I guess he's claiming 30) years dedicated to this task? Well, no...

No. The topic of his op-ed was to point out the inaction of men on this issue. Bringing up that he didn't discuss his plans doesn't refute it.

Addressing the fact that Paul didn't address his plans is valid, in the overall assessment of a media release. At no time have I made a statement that Paul doesn't do good work. I have not sought to prove anything along those lines, except to point out the extreme negative vent of the diatribe we've been discussing, and that he would never get my support based on his unfortunate public comments at the expense of men.

You mean like posting 75 insults to men, while hardly touching on the problems you think need to be fixed? You mean like using unfortunate vulgar depictions that would discredit or deminish the important issues you'd like to see remedied? You mean that kind of thinking before you post a commentary and link people to it?

The only purpose of that op-ed was to point out the inaction of men on this issue. I agree with his conclusions.

Just so I'm clear here, are you able to understand the concept that a well meaning individual can actually harm the effort he says he supports, by using the wrong tactics? Are you able to undestand that backing someone who has gone over the top can be destructive to other people's perception of you, and cause harm to the effort you say you support? You have long sense destroyed your credibility with me. I have intimated as much, and this doesn't concern you at all. What's worse, you don't really care what impact it has on support for your cause either. In essense, I have far more respect for your cause than Paul or you do. I don't want to see your cause harmed by these intemperate comments. You don't really give a damn if it is..

So far it appears glaringly clear that you don't think these concepts come into play with regard to what Paul and you have been up to.

When Paul says that all men who aren't active MRAs are the things he said in his diatribe, and you agree with this, I can't have respect for either of you. You've already made it clear you don't respect any of the men in my family. Is this productive? If you continue to say yes, then I'm going to have to lower my thoughts on your reasoning abilities even further.

Okay, then why not focus on judges and legislators, refrain from trashing all men that haven't joined your cause or sent you money? If you had, we would have spent our time discussing issues we agree on.

Because most of the judges and legislators are among the men that he was "trashing".

But not all men are judges and legislators. Address the offending people. You will never get 100% of men to participate. You'll never get more than a small percentage to take part. And as the women have proven, that's essentially all you need. It doesn't take 'all men' to get change. It takes some men. As such, the blanket insults are childish.

You're pretty bright. Did you figure that all out by yourself? No, he didn't address women. Wow. I am addressing the blanket insult of all men who haven't joined your organization or send in funds.

And where was this massive support for MRAs over the past 30 years that was lost when Paul Elam wrote this op-ed last year?

Point out where I said there was massive support for MRAs over the last thirty years. When you find it and link me to it, I'll act as if we're talking about reality here. Until then, you're still playing make believe and I'm still refusing to play along.

Once again, I can't help it if Paul can't get support. There are plenty of excellent efforts out there that can't get support. Who knew?

Paul is going to have to come to terms with the fact that people are not buying what he is selling. His product is important, but his sales tactics are no more effective than a car saleman's who can't sell what he's selling, so he sends out a letter trashing everyone who lives in a five mile radius, blaming them for not supporting local jobs. Offending people IS NOT a great sales tactic. Once again, who knew?

Women's libers have been using blanket statements to put down men for 40 years. And now Paul is too. You folks make a great tag team with the women's libers.

Failing to show any class action lawsuits on the part of men and by men and carried to success by men is a bigger insult to men than anything they've said.

I know you think it is, but it isn't. People have lives. They aren't all going to be activists. Some people will participate if they are approached in an effective manor. Others never will. You can either insult men in the extreme and try to defend that, or you can come to terms with the reality that Paul has not been effective at getting people to join him. Now, is that their fault or his? I'd say it's to a certain extent both. It is not as universal as Paul and you are trying to depict is as being. Honestly, if Paul has been at this for thirty years and has very little to show for it, I would urge him to find something else to do with his life..

I'd say using 75 insults to put down men, is not a positive way to entice men to get involved. If you want men to get involved, then list for them the things that you want to see change. Explain to them what you see that is wrong, and ask them to help out. What you are doing here is tantamount to recognizing that women get raped, then saying they deserve to if they don't join or send in funds to an organization you set up. So far you still can't see that.

MRAs have been doing that for over 30 years. What I can't see is where much support has resulted.

That's probably true. Perhaps you haven't taped the homosexual groups and college student bodies to the extent the feminists did. I will wish you luck doing that on today's Leftist campuses.

His point was severely flawed. You don't guilt people into joining you. You risk turning as many or more folks off, as you inspire to become involved. Talking about sodomy in this context is just plain stupid. Bringing in sons, brothers, fathers (grandfathers) into that mix, was actually twisted if you are trying to conduct yourself as a professional.

Don't waste your time trying to convince me that this op-ed posted last year is the reason men have given little support to MRAs over the past 30 years.

I haven't suggested that it did, reminded you of that in my last post to you, and yet you feel compelled to state it once again. The repeat warning makes it clear you're trying to intill the image that I have, and I call you on using that misleading tactic. Try to stick with the truth, and refrain from trying to imply untruths.

To imply that a father would rather see his adult son go to jail over false abuse charges because Paul Elam insulted him 75 times is a bigger insult than anything he posted.

OMG, you'll do anything to cover your ass for abysmal behavior. You speak in these terms when you're with your drinking buddies. You don't talk like this when you're trying go get folks to back you talking to political representatives, or representing a cause in court. You're trying to pass yourselves off as intelligent reasoned men, and here you are acting like high-school jocks.

That coming from a Christian who has used such terms as "prick", "BFD", "butthead", and "cluster f--k".

I notice that you didn't include my response to this the first time you tried it. That's in keeping with your dishonesty to this point, so I don't mind. (After going all the way through this, I did find parts of my response split up down below. You'll have to pardon me for wanting to address that comment with my full response in tact here.)

You can't support your points by simple debate, so you have found it necessary to bring religion into this.

Ah yes, attack me, but let Paul do as he pleases. If he hadn't insulted men, but rather had explained the inequities he sees out there and would like to fix, not a single person would have seen his efforts in a negative light. They may have disagreed with his plans, but they could have seen there was some logic behind his plans, without a severe negative reaction. Do you think his diatribe will achieve that same overall view, a somewhat favorable one for his cause?

Did I use religion to take Paul or you to task? No. I used a secular approach to talk to you. So what did you do? You went to my home page because you couldn't discuss this matter on point. And now you're trying to embarrass me for not being a good Christian, when all I suggested was that Paul and you would do better to knock off the insults and address actual issues that need attention so they don't continue to have such a negative impact on men.

Isn't that a point that secular people could come to, without being Christian? Is it acceptable to use ephamisms like 'sodomy' in the board-room? Is it acceptable to use that subject for leverage in court, when the legal case is not about sodomy? I mean seriously fella, you've become unhinged. Whether I'm an angel or not, has no bering on the merits of Paul's diatribe. You know that.

You said, "I wouldn't have chosen those terms." Was that because I quoted some Bible verse to you, or was it because it became too obvious even to you that tactic was ill-advised?

What does my standing as a Christian have to do with this, at all? And why would you think you were going to get away with trying to make it about my religion? I mean, that's an act of desperation. Own up to what Paul has been doing. It's ill-advised. I'm not sullying the name of MRAs, Paul is.

Paul has been ineffective at getting people to support his cause. Paul is angry that people haven't chosen him as their leader on men's issues. He has now resorted to trashing any man that doesn't buy into what he wants them to do. I'm sorry Paul is a failure, but it's not my fault. Like I said up post, Paul really needs to find something else productive to do with his life. He's obviously not capable of carrying on this effort on behalf of men who do and do not wish to participate, and that's okay. Plenty of people have tried to do things and have failed. I know it hurts, but real men have to come to the point where they assess things honestly and move on if they can't accomplish what they want to.

Okay, finally we're getting somewhere. "I wouldn't have chosen those terms." Do ya think? Good grief, and it took me to this point for you to even accept that the writing of this thing was in any way unfortunate.

I only said I wouldn't have used his terms. That is a long way from disagreeing with anything he said.

LOL, he used terms you said you wouldn't have, but you don't see this as disagreeing with anything he said. Really? That's what you want to run with? LOL

Now, what was the point? Oh yes, men are all sorts of dastardly things if they won't accept Paul's opinion of them, and join his cause.

OK, since you identify yourself as an MRA, list the injustices you believe men are suffering today. Then, tell me what you think of a father who allows and even forces his sons to grow up with those injustices.

I didn't identify myself as an MRA. I don't feel the need to quarrel with you about what things I think need to be addressed. And the idea that men force their sons to grow up with injustices, is a sick mindset, something that Paul and you have in common.

This is the reason you think men are going to climb on board Paul's banana boat?

Since you insist on repeating "75 insults", why don't you present a tried and proved method for getting men on board? Not a list of what won't work that includes Paul Elam's "75 insults", but a list of what has worked.

Because that is not something I have chosen to address. Paul, the expert on all things MRA oriented, has been at this for thirty years. I haven't been focused on this for the last thirty years, never claimed to be. And yet, you want me to figure out why Paul has failed, and suggest corrective measures. Sorry, I'm not interested.

Did I use religion to take Paul or you to task? No. I used a secular approach to talk to you. So what did you do? You went to my home page because you couldn't discuss this matter on point. And now you're trying to embarrass me for not being a good Christian, when all I suggested was that Paul and you would do better to knock off the insults and address actual issues that need attention so they don't continue to have such a negative impact on men.

First, I didn't have to go to your home page. You listed your Christian activities in your response to that op-ed.

This was my comment, "I was making sure we made it to church." My Christian activities? Wow, you are desperate. Here's a link to that long response, and the "extensive" comments about my "Christian activities" contained in it. LINK

Second there is only one issue that I want to discuss. Is that op-ed an accurate description of the state of men today? On that I say two things. It is accurate, and prove it wrong. Repeating "75 insults" numerous times has done nothing to refute it.

If you want to state that those 75 insult to me represent a reasoned depiction of what men are all about, I'll let that stand and folks can judge for themselves.

Last, I didn't post "prick", "BFD", "butthead", and "cluster f--k". You did. If you're embarrassed now, it's because of what you posted.

I'm not embarrassed about it at all. Each was used in the proper context to communicate with a person who is having a hard time dealing with reality.

Those 75 insults were disgusting, and your approval of them clearly defines you as a person who despises men enough to trash them almost universally.

Isn't that a point that secular people could come to, without being Christian? Is it acceptable to use ephamisms like 'sodomy' in the board-room? Is it acceptable to use that subject for leverage in court, when the legal case is not about sodomy? I mean seriously fella, you've become unhinged. Whether I'm an angel or not, has no bering on the merits of Paul's diatribe. You know that.

He never used "sodomy" in that op-ed, and everyone else understands he's using "raped" in "While men, and by that I mean you, your brothers, fathers, sons and friends get bent over and raped in openly rigged family courts, you look the other way." figuratively.

What men do you know that have been bent over in court and raped? Men do get treated unfairly in courts all the time, but that can easily be described as men getting unfair treatment in court.

Did Paul say men get bent over in court and raped or not? He used that description, then said men look the other way while this happens.

Men don't get sodimized in court. Men aren't looking the other way when it happens, because it doesn't happen.

You said, "I wouldn't have chosen those terms." Was that because I quoted some Bible verse to you, or was it because it became too obvious even to you that tactic was ill-advised?

Neither. It just means I wouldn't have used those terms. I still agree with the point of the op-ed.

Okay, then you want to fly with the, "I wouldn't have chosen those terms, but I think those terms were just fine." defense. I'm sure that makes sense to you.

What does my standing as a Christian have to do with this, at all? And why would you think you were going to get away with trying to make it about my religion?

It's not about your religion. It's about proving that op-ed wrong.

The op-ed stands on it's own merits. If people agree that every man in the United States who doesn't become involved as a MRA activist, is those things, and that wording is just peachy, then you have nothing to worry about.

I'm comfortable that will not be the case. It's patantly absurd to state that all men who are not MRAs are dregs of life. It's actually rather comical to watch you twist in the wind trying to maintain the idea those 75 insults were reasoned. Next you'll tell us they were reasoned when the women's libers said the same things. Gloria, is that you?

I mean, that's an act of desperation. Own up to what Paul has been doing. It's ill-advised. I'm not sullying the name of MRAs, Paul is.

Paul hasn't sullied the name of any MRA. You sully men everywhere by failing to prove him wrong.

At one point I was about to list every insult, and what Paul's thoughts could have been behind each of them. After about five insults, it because obvious that Paul is so angry that he has become unhinged, that it wasn't worth my time to address them one by one.

I would encourage people to go up thread, hit your link in post seven and read that diatribe for themselves. If they want to back Paul's and your play based on that trash, so be it.

That you actually think I need to prove those comments wrong, expresses more than anything I could say negative about you.

Look, Paul put his anger on display. I didn't out him. He did. As for why Paul hasn't been getting support over the last (now it's...) 30 years, I'm not sure. I haven't been sitting across the street from his organization. I haven't been frequenting his internet site, or reading his commentaries for thirty years. For the record, I did not make the point that he didn't get support for thirty years because of that commentary, and you damned well know it. I stated that commentary wouldn't win him support. I stated it was glaringly negative and inappropriate about men. I also stated it displayed a lot of anger. And judging by the topic, the anger, and what Paul wants people to do, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Paul is very angry that men haven' chosen him as their leader. If that's not true, so be it. It's still my best guess after reading that unfortunate bilge.

He said nothing about choosing him as the leader over any other MRA. That is another of your strawmen. What he did say was "Instead of buying those tickets to the ball game, or that next 12 pack, send the money to a fathers rights organization that is doing work for which you do not have the sense or the nerve."

Strawmen? Look at that diatribe of Pauls and come back to talk about strawmen.

Yes, any man who takes his kid out to a ball game needs to have his head examined, and if he drinks a beer, why he should be put up against a wall and shot. /s

This is truly what passes for reason with you isn't it.

Having not stated that men have launched successful class action suites, I don't have anything to prove.

Yet another strawman of yours. I didn't say you ever stated or had to prove that men have launched successful class action suites. I said prove Paul Elam is wrong by referencing any class action suits that men have supported until won. If Paul Elam is so wrong, that shouldn't be difficult.

There is no justification for Paul making those slanders of men who are not MRAs. I don't have to prove this. It is a fact. If you want to act as if it isn't, I don't mind. You're crushing any credibility you could have here. Just keep it up. You'll be serving my purpose more with each denial.

You could ask me to count the walnuts in Missouri to prove Paul wrong.

I didn't, because it wouldn't prove anything. A list of successful class action lawsuits filed by men on behalf of men and supported by men would.

No it wouldn't. I have objected to Paul 75 slanders of men. You keep trying change the subject, as if Paul could ever justify talking about men that way as a group. It was a blanket slander of all men that are not MRAs. Many fine women didn't join the women's movement in the 60s/70s. Many fine men won't joing the MRA movement now. That does not validate the slander of either men or women across the board for not having done so in the past, or now. I don't have anything to prove. If you can't see that, admit to it, that's okay. I understand.

What I will say, is that if you are too simple minded to grasp this, it certainly isn't an indictment of me.

Keep asking me to prove something extremely outlandish is outlandish. I don't mind at all. In fact, I won't be surprised at all if you actually point out how many days you have been trying to get me to proove something outlandish is outlandish, as if your failure to grasp the dynamics of this to this point, was a real credit to you.

I've already proven my point. You agree with me. Neither of us would have published that rubish in it's current form.

Again, I didn't say I disagreed with him, only that I wouldn't have put it that way.

Which is another way of saying, "I wouldn't have published that rubish in it's current form."

Either you would have published it in that form or you woudn't have.

Which is it Sparky?

Trying to put the spotlight on his choice of words and away from his point about male inactivity on this issue will not work.

I have addressed his words throughout this thread, so I'm not changing the subject am I. Paul unwitting did. If Paul doesn't have the mental faculties to avoid that, he should seek some consultation.

Hurling insults at men in a display of anger, is not prodcutive. Who knew?

The biggest insult of men is your inability to list any class action lawsuits that men have seen through until won.

It was YOUR hero that decided to forgo reasoned logic, to lay out a carpet bombing diatribe against men. Now you're upset because I chose to criticize him for it. Too bad.

Here puddin, no wonder you're confused.

Like you, women's and civil rights activists have many worthwhile things to do including working their jobs, raising their kids, and taking care of their homes, but as WalMart is finding out, that won't stop them from taking action when discriminated against.

LMAO, you're so screwed. You agree to my premise, then in the same sentence state that all women would have joined if they had to. Were they thinking with their vaginas or not you putz? We're they afraid of not getting laid or not? Rather embarrassing isn't it... the kind of trash this guy was trying to get adults to buy off on. So all women are standing in front of Wall Mart right now? You really are an ass hat clown.

I can't believe you think you scored points with this. No, all women aren't standing in front of WalMart right now, not because they think with their vaginas, but because not all of them worked at WalMart or are part of the lawsuit, and because those who did work their have hired lawyers to represent them.

"I can't ~~believe you~~ think ~~you scored points with this~~." There. Next time you need help, just ask.

Oh, so not all women are out there with their sisters? Okay, that wasn't hard was it. In fact, not even all women at Wall Mart are out there. And in fact, not all women at Wall Mart donated to a fund to hire lawyers. So tell me Mighty Kong, do the non-participating women think with their vaginas and fear not getting laid? Come on Sparky, you can do this.

Are all women taking a stand with the women at Wal Mart or not?

You have spent nine days trying to change the subject. Paul's diatribe was over the top. It was riddled with insults right out of the women's movement.

What you call insults, I call an accurate assessment of the inaction of men on this issue.

Yep, when men don't take part, you two hurl 75 insults at them. When women take a pass, you run from the insults like a scalded dog.

Ha, ha, ha..., you sure are consistant.

You don't like the way he wrote it? Fine, that's your opinion. You think he's wrong? Refute it.

Refute it?

It doesn't take a brain trust to realize that many men are working long hours to suppor their families today. Most people will understand that there are people who cannot become involved with the MRA effort themselves or send in funds when their family is already short of them. You've in danger of losing the family home because you are barely making the payments, and some ass hat clown feels the need to desparage you for taking a pass.

This is just one scenario where a guy wouldn't be able to comply with your demands.

That you couldn't have come up with this example, reveals what a dilusional nut-job you are.

What still hasn't dawned on you, is that I am a man that in a number of ways agrees with what needs to be done. Instead of us agreeing about those things, expanding upon them, and reinforcing that mindset, you have actually found it productive to try to change the subject and cover Paul's posterior for nine days.

You and I may be on the same side, but we don't agree on what needs to be done. You say biased judges and legislators that are part of a biased system are the cause these problems. I say men, including many judges and legislators, are the cause of these problems.

You and Paul say a lot of things. I'm one guy who thinks your both laughable.

Right now I'm guessing this is more proof to you that Paul was right to use those tactics. Tell me, how do you like spending time defending Paul, rather than focusing on issues that do need attention?

This has taken very little of my time.

So?

I have spent the last thirteen years discussing issues on this forum. Some of those issues addressed men's rights. I have championed the cause of supporting Legislation and court remedies to the imbalance we see today. And yet, because of Paul, neither of us has focused on those issues. You have been focused on defending Paul.

I'll take you at your word. I have also made an occasional stand, and I've seen what Paul Elam has seen. Being laughed at by the men you're trying to defend, and then later hearing them whine about how unfair the system is, gets old after a while.

Look, when you use the tactics Paul used here, it's going to have some down side. I've been trying to get you to see the ligitimacy of staying with facts and laying of the insults. Imagine a time when men didn't laugh at you all the time. So far you're still using fifth grade logic that says, I can't admit to being wrong here, even if that would make it easier to get support, and fewer men laughing at me.

You must enjoy getting laughed at a whole lot, if you're so unwilling to forego an idiotic campaign of insults, to simply explain to men what it is you would like them to do.

But, I managed to help keep one of those men out of jail over false abuse charges. He doesn't laugh at me any more.

Ah, so you don't need me to prove there are people out there fighting for men's rights. That's just socking. I never would have imagined that like during the women's movement, there are activists and there are people who don't get involved. Life does go on. Once again Sparky, who knew?

Unlike Paul, I'm not going to post anti-male filth on the internet, or watch a guy plaster a disgusting anti-male diatribe there without attacking it when it is brought to my attention.

Your "attacks" have consisted of "75 insults" numerous times, complaining about his choice of words, or posting ridiculous comments about women thinking "with their vaginias" because they don't have 100% turnout at WalMart. About the only thing you haven't done with that op-ed is post facts that would refute it. The challenge to do so, now in its 12th day, stands. That is, unless you're conceding that he's right, even if his choice of words isn't to your liking.

That being said, how's that sodomy ploy working for you guys? How many men have walked up to you and said, "You know, I just couldn't find time until you accused me of not caring if my son, my dad, my brother, my grandfather, and all my other male relatives got cornholed in court."

And I have plenty of time to keep answering your "75 insults" with challenges to post facts to refute it.

So far you're batting 0.000. Keep on swinging Sparky.

One fact remains. All non MRA men are not dreggs. Only an intemperate person who can't control themselves would risk tarnishing a decent effort by carpet bombing a whole group of people who would not buy into his plans for their lives.

If you can't get enough people out there to buy into your dream, you're probably not describing the dream in the right terms.

Hint: Read Paul's diatribe until it sinks in what others will see it for. Or don't if you like wasting so little time with me. LMAO