I don't want a domain filter on this site -- I want a stupidity filter, so I don't have to read insipid comments like this:
"The current system which awards sole custody 60 percent of the time to women, joint custody 30 percent of the time and provides custody to men less than 10 percent of the time will need to change to reflect recent psychological studies which show earlier studies in support of a primary caregiver were ill founded." 60 + 30 = 90% So 90 % of the time men do not have full custody.
...
"60 + 30 = 90% So 90 % of the time men do not have full custody."
Oh there you go. Using those pesky facts on illiterate progressive liberals.
Mr Kennedy (Kennedy)
Now let's go back and read Kay's actual words (emphasis added):
Family law in the U.S. and Canada today continues to serve up the “make him wish he was dead” option to women, who win sole custody in 90% of disputed cases.
Now, gents -- what part of "sole" is giving you trouble? I await the sheepish retractions and apologies.
13 comments:
Maybe you should write to Barbara Kay for clarification.
Is it truth you're looking for? Or what?
Yeah, it's up to CC to seek clarification on a factual error in an article featured on someone else's blog. I suppose that makes sense to Joel Johannesen, since the truth, for him, seems to be a somewhat elusive concept.
“Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”
John Stuart Mill
If the Righties can post the same stupid rhetoric over and over and over again, I'm going to be posting this quote over and over again.
Why, yes, Joel, I am interested in the truth. And, given that Barbara Kay is one of your masthead contributors, I would have thought you would be, too.
Sadly, it seems only one of us gives a shit about what the facts are. And it's not you, is it?
It's not even a minor error. It's a gross misrepresentation.
Anyway, Joel's blog has been a running joke since forever. During the brief time I payed attention to it a long time ago, it was positively loony.
CC, have you written to her yet to seek the truth, as I've suggested?
And are you still prohibited ("banned" or "blacklisted", "preemptively") from registering, or commenting, CC? Were you ever? Please explain to your readers.
ti-guy, you claim that the "truth is an elusive concept" for me. Please tell me where I "lied". Don't give me generalities -- it's easy to spout off cute little sound bites like that -- but give me an instance of where I "lied".
JJ continues to whine childishly:
"CC, have you written to her yet to seek the truth, as I've suggested?"
No, Joel, I haven't, for a fairly obvious reason. Given the absolute storm of controversy swirling around that article and the numerous comments that have been posted there, I'm assuming that Ms. Kay would have to be a complete vegetable to not eventually realize that people are questioning her veracity.
Under the circumstances, then, I would think the onus is on her to respond in a timely manner to all of those comments. Why should it be my job to try to track her down? She's your columnist -- why the fuck don't you get off your worthless ass and try to resolve this?
Your columnist -- your problem. Deal with it.
CC, as I've already said, you should write her at bkay@videotron.ca
And as I've also already indicated, her column at our site is in our "Columnist Section", and she is a "columnist". It is not her personal blog, she is not a "blogger", and she, as it says right in the comments section, doesn't make it a career choice to read all the comments written about her column at PTBC. She writes for the National Post for a living. Do you think that, say, John Stossel (another of our columnists) reads PTBC daily and responds to all the comments people might leave him there and at all the papers and web sites in the world that carry his column? Or that any columnist does that?
So write her, CC.
I would like to see if you include links and some of the verbiage you use in all his preemptive blog entries about her columns, here. Perhaps start the letter to her with "Dear wank: Pay the fuck attention just this once, OK?", or sign off by calling her a "Canadian loon" or a "depressingly innumerate dumbass". Preemptively, that is, before you've even gotten an answer yet. Like how you wrote that blog entry calling her a "loon" and a "depressingly innumerate dumbass" prior to commenting on her column at my web site and then maliciously claiming censorship because your link to your ever-so-polite blog entry here didn't work.
"She's your columnist -- why the fuck don't you get off your worthless ass and try to resolve this?
Your columnist -- your problem. Deal with it."
I have no problem with Barbara Kay. You do.
By the way, I see you've finally filled in your registration at PTBC and submitted it for the very first time about an hour ago, despite claiming several times that you've been banned from registering. Did you notice how it worked? That's how it worked for all the other people from here who registered too. But you know all that.
JJ writes:
"I have no problem with Barbara Kay. You do."
That's right, Joel. I have a problem with right-wing, hack journalists who make shit up and you don't. And that's pretty much the fundamental difference between the two of us, isn't it?
No, CC, there's lots more that separates you from me.
Show me a judge who gets shot and I will show you a divorce case.
TESTING TESTING
My defence of JJ was not posted, I have been black listed or was it a mistake or did I do somthing wrong.
Wayne:
Your comment was deleted because you're rapidly turning into a total dick. If you have something substantive to contribute, feel free. But if you're just going to be a jackass, I will start deleting your drivel.
You've been warned.
Don't give me generalities -- it's easy to spout off cute little sound bites like that -- but give me an instance of where I "lied".
I didn't say you lied.
See? We can all do that, Joel.
Post a Comment