Paradox of paradoxes - Page 2

First my wife isn't hypothetical. A member of this board has even met her.

Second you present a rather interesting paradox yourself. Apparently you enjoyed and thought kindly of me when I noted I was being victimized or at a minimum was troubled. However when I noted this wasn't the fact and in fact said men should not allow themselves to be victimized, well this you get pissed off about.

I mean aside from being tricked into this realization, can you tell me how the reasoning makes any sense? Why are you so pissed that I am only fictionally troubled for the purpose of reflection as opposed to legitimately troubled?


I assure you I own the thread. You know I personally PM'ed you about your concerns. However you shared. I'll gladly get on those who were not mislead or tricked in any fashion and still take offense as if they were. Nothing was done to them.

The thread is about paradoxes and one of them is the willingness to lie to bring about the truth. The truth is that men will victimize themselves because they do not believe they deserve better. Society enjoys pointing at the few winners but ignores the many, many losers as well. No one is clamoring to break into the glass cellar of men in prisons, dangerous jobs, being killed in wars, divorced and tossed out of the lives of their kids, etc. I mean we will decry these things briefly but since we consider men to be disposable, it is never addressed long term.

I'm tired of teaching kids who have no fathers in their homes. I'm tired of seeing a member of my family and a close friend of mine self-persecute themselves for having bothered to choose the wrong woman. My friend took all the family debts, gave her the house, borrowed from his own 401k to set up a new household, and finally has the kids 60% of the time while paying her child support even though she earns the same money.

He does this so she won't fight him for the kids whereby in a court he knows he would lose due to the sexism out there.

If we won't wake up to it, we can't fight it. If the wake up call feels like a slap then we should all ask ourselves why portraying a man as strong and a woman as weak engenders good and kind feelings while pondering the reverse engenders animosity and anger.

You are claiming that there are no studies where the participants in it are mislead about what data is being collected about? No one is ever given placebos?

Since we both know that isn't true, you should just fess up to being ticked off at what you saw in the mirror. You are like the kid who is ticked off that they group made him raise his hand on the wrong letter when asked which line is the longest.

If no one cases about the conversation then let it go.


I don't twist the facts. I see them for what they are and treat them accordingly. People are mostly pissed because they know that no one would ever coddle them the way they suggested I coddle my wife. They would never want to be lied to, given false praise, or any of the other stuff that was suggested.

I would love to here Shawn declare that every woman who pulls off a work and home shift and complains that the man in her life cannot is actually an oppressor as he did here with the reverse.

I am the one calling bullshit. I did it with a mirror. Sorry if some people don't like what they see but those are the facts.

Let me call some bullshit on you as well. What "fallout" is there related to this? Someone believed I was troubled for two days on the internet. Did they jump into their car and come help? Did they send me some money? Aside from my mirror which some don't like, what is the fall out?

I agree. I think we should speak about credibility because it has absolutely nothing to do with factual reality.

In reality, something is ether true or it isnt true. The person presenting the information is really nothing more than a vessel for that information. If the vessel is bad, the information is not bad and likewise is the vessel is awesome and great, the information does not become awesome and great.

Believing credibility alters information is a logical fallacy.

However in speaking to credibilitity perhaps we should look at this...

Flounder ; screener ; tonton ; giant ; @_@ Artman ; Outsider ; FormerLurker ; hardeeharhar ; groverat ; Northgate ; addabox ; midwinter; BRussell ; franksargent ; Hassan i Sabbah ; MarcUK ;

This was the list of people who engaged in a PM discussion to manipulate the board. I think I see the name of a certain person bumping this thread and several more who have been banned.

Let's take one of the names on that list, a moderator at the time and see how he responded to an legitimate claim of harassment.


Hmmmmm.... I'm not feeling the love there are you?

How about this guy we call franksargent, let's see what he has to say about how to post.


Or how about this one?


So once again, we see the paradox of paradoxes. Those doing the complaining are those who are engaged in the conspiracy. They manipulate the content (or lack of it in posts) and even manipulate which posts are bumped and then COMPLAIN about it. In other words they hang nooses on their own office doors and scream victimization.

They start a cabal and complain that the group attacking the person won't admit paranoia when their little group goes around engaging in all their bullying tactics. They bump the posts of a poster then complain the poster is FLOODING the forum with posts.

But most amazing of all, they try to have a discussion on credibility when the pm's show that everything they do is a blatant dishonesty, a manipulation, a sham and a lie.

How about this for credibility...


Notice how the claim just floats out of the either. It wasn't that this POSTER brought up the credibility question, it was just that a question that wandered in out of the rain.

That lacks some credibility right there.

Why does he bring it up? It is just another ruse and more of the same. Part of flooding the forums with irrelevant responses from him includes flooding it with links to this thread. The spamming was stopped and now with hand in cookie jar, the spamming needs a justification.

It has none. The pm names and shows the tactics for what they are admitted to by the sources. The sources engage in the manipulation and then complain about the manipulation which is itself a manipulation.

Quite the paradox...

No problem Hassan or whatever your name is this week. I always feel that people who have been banned but keep reopening accounts to circumvent the board moderation have the high ground. Especially when they claim it is to PM but all their posts consists of spamming a sub-forum.

Perhaps you should look at the 72 hours before that 72 hours and note the reaction instead of the action. Perhaps the PM's I posted that include your name have dates prior to those threads and you'll note the reaction to that action.

That won't happen though. I mean really, I'm debating with a guy who has had his account banned because of his refusal to get it and the problem of course is still everyone else.

I'm sure someone somewhere gives a darn about the little crusade you and screener are on. I'm the guy laughing as you both attack windmills.