Domestic Violence – “A Media Beat Up”

[Penitent Penetrator]

Domestic Violence – “A Media Beat Up”

I just had the misfortune of hearing a televised Domestic Violence debate. There was no mention at all of violence against children or men, only violence against women. The panel constituted several so-called prominent women “in the field.” Less than 100 women are killed per year from Domestic Violence (DV). Yet, it is currently described in the media as an “epidemic” a “tsunami” and by Premier Baird as a “plague.”

The skewed nature of the entire debate is breathtaking – there is no context or perspective with regard to statistics showing factors that kill women in vastly greater numbers. The statistics (see below) clearly show just how miniscule the numbers of female mortalities are (less than 100 a year) as a result of domestic violence, in comparison to female mortalities resulting from: lung cancer, breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, gynaecological cancer, melanoma, cardio-vascular disease, suicide, car accidents, etc, etc, etc.

Thus, DV is not “the biggest threat to women’s lives” as is so wrongly and hatefully suggested by the misandrist media. Once the DV figures are given accurate context and perspective they look incredibly insignificant, statistically. Undoubtedly, this is a most bitter pill to swallow for the hate-filled shit-peddlers doing what they do best – peddling a grotesque falsehood for their own vested interests.

Statistics Providing Necessary Perspective:

Road deaths in 2013, total 1192: 856 male & 336 female.
(source: Aust Govt, Road Deaths Statisitical Report 2014).

Suicide Deaths 2012, total 2535: 1901 males & 634 females.
(source: Lifeline & Australian Bureaux of Statistics).

Cancer Deaths in 2011.
Lung Cancer, total 8114: 4959 male & 3155 female.
Bowel Cancer, total 3999: 2219 males & 1780 females.
Breast Cancer, total 2937: 0023 males & 2914 females.
Pancreatic Cncr, total 2416: 1219 males & 1198 females.
Gynaecological, total 1502: 0000 males & 1502 females.
Melanoma Cncr, total 1544: 1071 males & 473 females.
Stomach Cancer, total 1140: 715 males & 425 females.
Liver Cancer, total 1423: 980 males & 443 females.
(source: Aust Govt / Cancer Australia 2012).

Cardio Vascular Disease Deaths 2012.
Total 43895: with 20953 males & 22942 females.
(source: The Heart Foundation 2013)

The statistics very clearly show that many more women die from: various cancers; cardio vascular disease; suicide; and even road accidents, than from family or domestic violence. Thus, if this matter of domestic violence is put in statistical context and perspective, life-style choices & behaviours and associated general health issues are very significantly more dangerous to women than domestic violence.

I have heard the words "epidemic" "tsunami" "biggest threat" “plague” used by various feminist advocates, and now intellectual featherweight Premier Baird, in respect of the number of female deaths resulting from domestic violence. This abondonment to exaggerated rhetoric or hyperbole is embarassing to say the least, even for those whose job it is to actively advocate on the subject. They do their cause, and society, a gross disservice.

Domestic violence is categorically not the greatest threat to women’s lives, and those who advocate this are peddling a dangerous falsehood. By promoting this idea, by encouraging women to have heightened fears of men, and to be acutely sensitive to the concept & idea of domestic violence, they are creating a framework that will generate and induce further problems in domestic relationships. Where once a minor difference of opinion between partners would be discounted, by both involved, as nothing more than a frank discussion, the same exchange now may be seen by the ultra feminized female as a form of domestic violence perpetrated against her – a form of manipulation and psycholgical abuse. By planting the seed of fear, doubt, & mistrust of men in her head, via all manner of media platforms & advertising, they are generating the problem that they say they seek to address.

Meanwhile, the vote catching intellectual featherweight, Premier Baird, gleefully announces various government programs & people registers, that will see the state apparatus continue its steady creep into our government-laden lives, and nothing whatsoever is said. Even as he uttered the words “we must give women the choice” with respect to permitting them to check any likely man on the proposed register, he is blissfully ignorant of the fact that men should also be checking any likely female on the proposed register. But, of course, he and the media just don’t want to talk about the increasing propensity to violence of women. No mention of the 8 children killed by the mother up in northern Australia and other such incidents pepetrated by women. The hateful message the misandrist media, and numbskull politicians are sending, is an unveiled attack on men everywhere – men are bad, women are good, women need the full support of the media & state apparatus.

The entire DV debate is horribly skewed, without proper context and perspective. It demonstrates just how ethically and morally bankrupt both politicians and the media really are, to promote a hateful message to women that they should mistrust and fear men. Especially when there so many other factors that more significantly affect women’s lives. It is a contemptible disgrace that men are under such attack.

[Oneonone]

Well bro what you say may well be right but why should anyone man or woman for that matter have the right to commit domestic violence against another human being the figures should be zero.

I agree some woman are just as bad as the men but the thing is just because you have superior strength that does not give you the right to abuse others who in most cases rely on you for support and protection.

Any for of violence against another human being should not be tolerated or accepted in our society. If everyone respected the rights of others we would have a much better society.

[Penitent Penetrator]

Well bro what you say may well be right but why should anyone man or woman for that matter have the right to commit domestic violence against another human being the figures should be zero.

I agree some woman are just as bad as the men but the thing is just because you have superior strength that does not give you the right to abuse others who in most cases rely on you for support and protection.

Any for of violence against another human being should not be tolerated or accepted in our society. If everyone respected the rights of others we would have a much better society.


I agree with you. But I'm very concerned that the media/political debate is so horribly skewed and out of perspective (less than 100 female deaths a year from DV) in
comparison to other factors posing a massively greater threat to women's lives (suicide, car accidents, various cancers, cardio vascular disease), that the hateful debate will do more harm than good.
I truly believe the hateful message being sent to women to mistrust and fear men, will only make the problem worse. Women will become more confrontational, both in terms of attitude and behaviour, and men will respond.

[cleetusvandamme]

2 women are killed every week by their partners in Australia. How many men are killed by their partners?

Also, why do you hate women?

[Penitent Penetrator]

2 women are killed every week by their partners in Australia. How many men are killed by their partners?

Also, why do you hate women?


I don't hate women, not at all, but I'm not keen on misandrists (man-haters) whether they are women or men. The current media/political debate
is horribly skewed without sensible context or perspective. As I mentioned above, there are many factors killing women at vastly greater rates than DV,
but unless you are prepared to face statistical facts & perspective, you are likely to wrongly believe DV is a much bigger problem than than it actually is.
The matter has become highly politicised with all common sense long since lost in the misandrist media/political treatment.

[cleetusvandamme]

I don't hate women, not at all, but I'm not keen on misandrists (man-haters) whether they are women or men. The current media/political debate
is horribly skewed without sensible context or perspective. As I mentioned above, there are many factors killing women at vastly greater rates than DV,
but unless you are prepared to face statistical facts & perspective, you are likely to wrongly believe DV is a much bigger problem than than it actually is.
The matter has become highly politicised with all common sense long since lost in the misandrist media/political treatment.

The statistics you have quoted are mostly illnesses and accidents so not really relevant or comparable. Where's your statistics on violence against men by women?
And the 100 a year is just deaths, not injury and hospitalisation which is far greater.

I look forward to your next thread, "why do the gays get a parade when there are more straight people in the population?" It might even be better than your one about the last federal budget.

[Licker]

I look forward to your next thread, "why do the gays get a parade when there are more straight people in the population?" It might even be better than your one about the last federal budget.

And I'm waiting for the thread "Why are poets frown upon and banned more often than others?"

[uglyphil]

And I'm waiting for the thread "Why are poets frown upon and banned more often than others?"

It is rather sad that admin can ban someone like Yamada for life (probably correctly). Yet this little tool just always comes back like a horrible case of Herpes ;)

[Penitent Penetrator]

This is a very topical and relevant debate for all men, women (and indeed children). Unfortunately, men and children
are seldom mentioned because the debate has already been hijacked by the misandrist feminists. The horribly skewed
nature of the media/political debate is both embarrassing and dangerous for all concerned.

I welcome any intelligent contributions, or cogent arguments, on this very serious "general discussion" thread.

Thanks.

[birch]

This isn't a debate. It's simply yet another irrelevant rant by a nonentity that seems to be threatened by empowered women.

PP, just in case you have indeed been under a rock for the last couple of months - the current Australian of the Year was awarded her honour due to her plight and her effectiveness in helping to ensure abused women have a greater chance of receiving help before they do become a statistic. If the fact that she and her issues are receiving a bit of media oxygen as a result is a concern to you - suck it up, I honestly doubt you'll find much sympathy on this forum or elsewhere.

[Penitent Penetrator]

This isn't a debate. It's simply yet another irrelevant rant by a nonentity that seems to be threatened by empowered women.

PP, just in case you have indeed been under a rock for the last couple of months - the current Australian of the Year was awarded her honour due to her plight and her effectiveness in helping to ensure abused women have a greater chance of receiving help before they do become a statistic. If the fact that she and her issues are receiving a bit of media oxygen as a result is a concern to you - suck it up, I honestly doubt you'll find much sympathy on this forum or elsewhere.

I notice you haven't questioned the statistical facts or perspective that I have provided on this issue.
You prefer to "go on the attack" so to speak. It would seem you are threatened by fact-based or evidence-based discussion.

The question I raise is whether or not it is genuinely helpful to have a media/political debate about domestic violence which is so skewed that it becomes only a discussion about violence against women, to the exclusion of children and men. Further, basic statistics on mortality rates for women clearly indicate that there are many other factors posing a vastly greater threat to women’s lives. So, is it appropriate to use highly exaggerated rhetoric such as “epidemic,” “tsunami,” “biggest threat” and “plague” with respect to domestic violence? The debate has been hijacked by the misandrist media & feminist lobby, resulting in a completely “out of perspective” politicized discussion which will, in all likelihood, cultivate a further growth in the problems that they say they seek to address. When statistical prespective is completely lost, as it now is in the media, the domestic violence debate simply becomes an ideological joyride for anyone who wants to attack men.

[cleetusvandamme]

I questioned your statistics and perspective and as usual you didn't respond to that, you just became defensive.
To say the media is misandrist is laughable. You must be one of those middle aged white men who think men are being oppressed simply because you are threatened by women's equality.
You may not even realise you hate women because it's a subconscious fear probably caused by an abusive mother or other female figure in your childhood.
You don't want debate you just want attention. It makes me sad that you are that lonely so I'll be avoiding your pathetic misogynist rantings.

[Penitent Penetrator]

I questioned your statistics and perspective and as usual you didn't respond to that, you just became defensive.
To say the media is misandrist is laughable. You must be one of those middle aged white men who think men are being oppressed simply because you are threatened by women's equality.
You may not even realise you hate women because it's a subconscious fear probably caused by an abusive mother or other female figure in your childhood.
You don't want debate you just want attention. It makes me sad that you are that lonely so I'll be avoiding your pathetic misogynist rantings.

It seems you have a propensity for inaccurate commentary and unnecessary verbal attack, do you also have a propensity to violence? You sound like an ultra-conditioned feminist.

Back to the facts of the matter.....and well needed perspective.

I listed some statistics showing “mortality rates for women” across several health related issues and also suicide and car accidents. These statistics squarely place the domestic violence statistics in the right and proper context and perpective. Less than 100 women are killed per year through domestic violence. Thus, the mortality rates I have shown clearly show how miniscule the domestic violence numbers are when placed in the statistical context of other female mortality rates.

The media/political debate has lost all context and perspective on the domestic violence issue. They barely mention children and men in the discussion, and they label the small number of deaths as an “epidemic” “tsunami” and “plague.” It is quite ridiculous. As previously stated, the debate has been hijacked by the misandrist media & feminist lobby. When statistical prespective is completely lost, as it now is in the media, the domestic violence debate simply becomes an ideological joyride for anyone who wants to attack men.

[uglyphil]

I questioned your statistics and perspective and as usual you didn't respond to that, you just became defensive.
To say the media is misandrist is laughable. You must be one of those middle aged white men who think men are being oppressed simply because you are threatened by women's equality.
You may not even realise you hate women because it's a subconscious fear probably caused by an abusive mother or other female figure in your childhood.
You don't want debate you just want attention. It makes me sad that you are that lonely so I'll be avoiding your pathetic misogynist rantings.

cleetus, everything you have said is 100% true and accurate. You too birch :)

Now at the OP's request he wants something intelligent said in this thread so here they are.

1. This is my final reply in this thread and I respectfully suggest to everyone else that they no longer reply to this thread (or any other started by PP again). The most intelligent acronym for the Internet is DFTT, and there is no greater troll on this forum than this micro-dick. From experience he will not respond to logic, so it is useless trying. As cleetus said, all he wants is attention and he doesn't deserve it.

2. At the top of the thread you'll see a drop-down menu that says "Rate This Thread". Instead of replying, give this thread a rating of "Terrible" and move on.

3. If no one replies he will continuously bump this thread with non-nonsensical statements (much like the original post), in fact he mostly just repeats what he has said earlier in spite of being shown to be wrong. In this regard, this goose is basically the online equivalent of Andrew Bolt - a person the OP shares great affinity with (and has stated with other banned names that he also has great admiration for Bolt as well). While this is annoying, it is not enough to get worked up over and respond as you are actually rewarding him, not the other way around. Note that not once in this post have I responded to the OP. He is not worth my time. However other posters on this forum are and I am simply trying to give you all the benefit of experience in dealing with this moron.

4. If you feel strongly enough about this "person's" hatred of anything that isn't like him (and if you read through posts created by his many other banned personas you will see that he hates nearly every one and everything - after all there are, thankfully, very few people actually like him), then do not reply to the thread, report it instead. You do this by clicking on the little black triangle with an exclamation mark in it. While the moderators here do remove disgusting threads they can only really do so once a certain number of people have complained, So complain loudly and strongly.

5. Finally, I strongly suggest you all go to his profile and add him to your ignore list. This way, any posts he does make will not appear on your screen and you will not feel the need to respond. As a courtesy, I ask all other members who do (in the fit of a brain-snap) respond to this "person" to at the very least NOT QUOTE ANY OF HIS POSTS. If you do then his post appears in yours and those of us who want to ignore him will now see his vile words.

My apologies to all for bumping this very dubious thread, I will not do so again.

[Penitent Penetrator]

Well bro what you say may well be right but why should anyone man or woman for that matter have the right to commit domestic violence against another human being the figures should be zero. I agree some woman are just as bad as the men

I'm entirely in agreement with you OneonOne.

My concern is with the skewed debate that barely discusses domestic violence against men and children, but focuses exclusively on women.
As I said, the media/political debate has been hijacked by the ultra-conditioned feminists (or misandrist man-haters) who refuse to look at the
domestic violence issue in context and with perspective.

When comparing female mortality rates you can only compare the various factors that kill women i.e from health to care accidents. The stats I
provided at the beginning clearly show that the 100 deaths of women (less actually) a year from domestic violence are miniscule when compared to
the other mortality rates. Yet, the media dabate on DV uses grossly exaggerated language like "epidemic" "tsunami" and "plague." This is quite ridiculous,
and it does a disservice to those seeking to have an intelligent debate on a serious issue. When statistical prespective is completely lost, as it now is
in the media, the domestic violence debate simply becomes an ideological joyride for anyone who wants to attack men.

When the issue is viewed in perspective, the bubble of "frenzied and politicized feminist media debate" bursts. This is why they refuse to look at the issue
in proper context and perspective. Ultimately, this can only make the matter worse by sowing the seed of mistrust and fear into the heads of
impressionable women, who will increasingly take a more confrontational approach to their relationships and encounters with men.

[wilisno]

Where is Sextus when we need his words of approval ? ;) ;) ;)

[CunningLinguist]

cleetus, everything you have said is 100% true and accurate. You too birch :)

Now at the OP's request he wants something intelligent said in this thread so here they are.

1. This is my final reply in this thread and I respectfully suggest to everyone else that they no longer reply to this thread (or any other started by PP again). The most intelligent acronym for the Internet is DFTT, and there is no greater troll on this forum than this micro-dick. From experience he will not respond to logic, so it is useless trying. As cleetus said, all he wants is attention and he doesn't deserve it.

2. At the top of the thread you'll see a drop-down menu that says "Rate This Thread". Instead of replying, give this thread a rating of "Terrible" and move on.

3. If no one replies he will continuously bump this thread with non-nonsensical statements (much like the original post), in fact he mostly just repeats what he has said earlier in spite of being shown to be wrong. In this regard, this goose is basically the online equivalent of Andrew Bolt - a person the OP shares great affinity with (and has stated with other banned names that he also has great admiration for Bolt as well). While this is annoying, it is not enough to get worked up over and respond as you are actually rewarding him, not the other way around. Note that not once in this post have I responded to the OP. He is not worth my time. However other posters on this forum are and I am simply trying to give you all the benefit of experience in dealing with this moron.

4. If you feel strongly enough about this "person's" hatred of anything that isn't like him (and if you read through posts created by his many other banned personas you will see that he hates nearly every one and everything - after all there are, thankfully, very few people actually like him), then do not reply to the thread, report it instead. You do this by clicking on the little black triangle with an exclamation mark in it. While the moderators here do remove disgusting threads they can only really do so once a certain number of people have complained, So complain loudly and strongly.

5. Finally, I strongly suggest you all go to his profile and add him to your ignore list. This way, any posts he does make will not appear on your screen and you will not feel the need to respond. As a courtesy, I ask all other members who do (in the fit of a brain-snap) respond to this "person" to at the very least NOT QUOTE ANY OF HIS POSTS. If you do then his post appears in yours and those of us who want to ignore him will now see his vile words.

My apologies to all for bumping this very dubious thread, I will not do so again.

Great post!
For those wondering what his other banned ids are you can read all about it here
http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again
and I put together a little psychological profile of him here:
http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?42455-Psychological-profile-of-the-quot-poet-quot-troll

[Penitent Penetrator]

And I'm waiting for the thread "Why are poets frown upon and banned more often than others?"

Are you able to grasp the core point that men and children are largely excluded from the media's domestic violence debate?
(not withstanding that 8 children were recently killed by a woman, their mother, in northern Australia).

Further, are you able to grasp the statistical fact that female mortalities from domestic violence (< 100 a year) are miniscule
when compared to mortality rates for women derived from various other factors & threats as listed in the original post?

Two very simple questions. Do you have two simple yes or no answers?

[cleetusvandamme]

Ultimately, this can only make the matter worse by sowing the seed of mistrust and fear into the heads of
impressionable women, who will increasingly take a more confrontational approach to their relationships and encounters with men.

Yes it's the women's fault they get killed.

[duksta]

As usual, we see one fact poorly used to support a completely hysterical and unfounded opinion. So how about some actual facts.

http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/bocsar/bocsar_mr_bb61.html

The actual stats (albeit a few years old) show that -
82% of all domestic assaults reported to police are perpetrated by Men.
20% of victims were between 10-24 years old
Rural and regional NSW is more likely to report assaults.
It's a serious problem in indigenous communities.
Alcohol is frequently associated.

None of these facts talk to misandry. Encouraging this sort of noise and nonsense is what breeds hate. Go look at yourself before criticising others.

[kingwally]

I do not want to get into any debate on this but will tell my story.

The girl next door is the victim of domestic violence. Two weeks ago,she locked herself on the balcony to get away from the bloke she lives with (he looks very very much like a current NRL player). She was screaming on the phone to someone and had a HUGE knife in her hand,ready to protect herself. I have called the police several times in the past because I could hear her screaming. I have told her that my mate used to live next door to a girl that was murdered 2 years ago by her partner and I did not want told her I did not see her go the same way.

Years ago I was married to a girl that had bi-polar...one minute good,the next minute fucking crazy. I have 8 stitches in my head from the night I was sleeping and she hit me with a metal jug. Another time she kneed me in the kidney and I spent 2 nights in hospital. Several other instances happened that involved injuries not as serious as those others. I have been divorced from her for 20 years but last week I stayed near her place in Queensland, and I had a massive urge to go around and punch her head in...absolutely cave her face in if I could... clearly I did not because I do not want to see ,hear or see her again,and I do not want any criminal record. But the urge was definately there.

I would like to see more acknowledgement that men can be victim as well.

[shorttime]

I just like to say there have been 17 women killed by their male partners in the last 9 weeks :(
I think this is why the topic has resurfaced with more urgency.

[kingwally]

I do not want to get into any debate on this but will tell my story.

The girl next door is the victim of domestic violence. Two weeks ago,she locked herself on the balcony to get away from the bloke she lives with (he looks very very much like a current NRL player). She was screaming on the phone to someone and had a HUGE knife in her hand,ready to protect herself. I have called the police several times in the past because I could hear her screaming. I have told her that my mate used to live next door to a girl that was murdered 2 years ago by her partner and I did not want told her I did not see her go the same way.

Years ago I was married to a girl that had bi-polar...one minute good,the next minute fucking crazy. I have 8 stitches in my head from the night I was sleeping and she hit me with a metal jug. Another time she kneed me in the kidney and I spent 2 nights in hospital. Several other instances happened that involved injuries not as serious as those others. I have been divorced from her for 20 years but last week I stayed near her place in Queensland, and I had a massive urge to go around and punch her head in...absolutely cave her face in if I could... clearly I did not because I do not want to see ,hear or see her again,and I do not want any criminal record. But the urge was definately there.

I would like to see more acknowledgement that men can be victim as well.I forgot to mention that I did slap her face once and pushed her once as well,so I am no innocent either.

[CunningLinguist]

I wonder if the timing of the OPs post has anything to do with the legal aid funding cuts:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/state-attorneysgeneral-unite-to-warn-george-brandis-of-crisis-in-legal-funding-20150306-13x8d1.html

In the past he has been a mouthpiece for liberal policy ...

[wilisno]

I wonder if the timing of the OPs post has anything to do with the legal aid funding cuts:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/state-attorneysgeneral-unite-to-warn-george-brandis-of-crisis-in-legal-funding-20150306-13x8d1.html

In the past he has been a mouthpiece for liberal policy ...
Are you implying the OP might have been adversely impacted by the funding cuts ? Hence the rant ? ;) ;) ;)

[Penitent Penetrator]

As usual, we see one fact poorly used to support a completely hysterical and unfounded opinion. So how about some actual facts.

http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/bocsar/bocsar_mr_bb61.html

The actual stats (albeit a few years old) show that -
82% of all domestic assaults reported to police are perpetrated by Men.
20% of victims were between 10-24 years old
Rural and regional NSW is more likely to report assaults.
It's a serious problem in indigenous communities.
Alcohol is frequently associated.

None of these facts talk to misandry. Encouraging this sort of noise and nonsense is what breeds hate. Go look at yourself before criticising others.

You appear to be arguing with yourself here, rather than me. I agree entirely with the statistics on domestic violence. I agree that at the mortality end of the DV spectrum, women are being impacted upon more than men. What I, and others, are putting forward are two important facts: firstly, the DV media/political debate focuses almost exclusively on women to the detriment of men and children (remember men seldom report assaults from women, and neither do children) and secondly, when DV mortality rates are compared to other mortality rates for women, they look very small indeed. Thus, the media/political debate has lost all perspective and context on the issue when describing it as an “epidemic” “tsunami” and “plague.”

A hateful message is being sent to impressionable women, by misandrist feminists, to mistrust and fear men. Ultimately, if women respond by being more resentful, hostile and confrontational in their encounters with men, then there is likely to be a corresponding response. The debate is currently so skewed and “out of prespective” that it’s hard to see light at the end of the tunnel for anyone involved, other than the shit-peddling misandrist ideologues spreading their hate.

[Penitent Penetrator]

I do not want to get into any debate on this but will tell my story.

The girl next door is the victim of domestic violence. Two weeks ago,she locked herself on the balcony to get away from the bloke she lives with (he looks very very much like a current NRL player). She was screaming on the phone to someone and had a HUGE knife in her hand,ready to protect herself. I have called the police several times in the past because I could hear her screaming. I have told her that my mate used to live next door to a girl that was murdered 2 years ago by her partner and I did not want told her I did not see her go the same way.

Years ago I was married to a girl that had bi-polar...one minute good,the next minute fucking crazy. I have 8 stitches in my head from the night I was sleeping and she hit me with a metal jug. Another time she kneed me in the kidney and I spent 2 nights in hospital. Several other instances happened that involved injuries not as serious as those others. I have been divorced from her for 20 years but last week I stayed near her place in Queensland, and I had a massive urge to go around and punch her head in...absolutely cave her face in if I could... clearly I did not because I do not want to see ,hear or see her again,and I do not want any criminal record. But the urge was definately there.

I would like to see more acknowledgement that men can be victim as well.

I thoroughly commend you for offering your story, particularly in the current media climate where men and children are largely ignored.
It is very important for the ridiculous and frenzied media/political debate to be brought back into proper context and perspective. Your story
and more like it can help to do that, as will any impartial look at mortality statistics for women that clearly show how miniscule DV female deaths are when
viewed in proper perspective. The "epidemic" "tsunami" and "plague" of DV is more a media epidemic, tsunami and plague - a monumental "beat up."

[wilisno]

PP there is NO media beat up or debate, domestic violence happens! One death is too many. And mortality rates for women getting stung by a bee have nothing to do with domestic violence.
Maybe he meant the beehive's in her backyard ? ;) ;) ;)

[Penitent Penetrator]

PP there is NO media beat up or debate, domestic violence happens! One death is too many. And mortality rates for women getting stung by a bee have nothing to do with domestic violence.

Statistics on female mortality rates, no matter what the cause, put into clear perspective and context the severity or non-severity (as is the case) of the relative threat to women from domestic violence. This is just basic common sense, a comparative analysis delivers perspective. There it is.

As for there being "no media beat-up" as you suggest, well I can only say that you are mistaken. But I most certainly agree that one death is too many, whether adult female, male or a child. One would just like to see a little more discussion of children and men, rather than the terribly skewed focus on women.

[duksta]

You appear to be arguing with yourself here, rather than me. I agree entirely with the statistics on domestic violence. I agree that at the mortality end of the DV spectrum, women are being impacted upon more than men. What I, and others, are putting forward are two important facts: firstly, the DV media/political debate focuses almost exclusively on women to the detriment of men and children (remember men seldom report assaults from women, and neither do children) and secondly, when DV mortality rates are compared to other mortality rates for women, they look very small indeed. Thus, the media/political debate has lost all perspective and context on the issue when describing it as an “epidemic” “tsunami” and “plague.”

A hateful message is being sent to impressionable women, by misandrist feminists, to mistrust and fear men. Ultimately, if women respond by being more resentful, hostile and confrontational in their encounters with men, then there is likely to be a corresponding response. The debate is currently so skewed and “out of prespective” that it’s hard to see light at the end of the tunnel for anyone involved, other than the shit-peddling misandrist ideologues spreading their hate.

So is your point that the media and politicians use hyperbole to get attention for a serious issue? And that's apparently a "bad" thing? By using only one statistic you imply that the only result we should care about is if someone dies as a consequence of domestic violence - that trivialises the issue SO much more than your alleged "hateful" message.

I still struggle to see what is "hateful" about the message that domestic violence is unacceptable in ANY form. Tell me what "perspective" we should actually take about this, because your posts seem to suggest that you believe we should consider this "no big deal, because not many people die from it". To me, that is the only "hateful" view I've heard.

[Penitent Penetrator]

So is your point that the media and politicians use hyperbole to get attention for a serious issue? And that's apparently a "bad" thing? By using only one statistic you imply that the only result we should care about is if someone dies as a consequence of domestic violence - that trivialises the issue SO much more than your alleged "hateful" message.

I still struggle to see what is "hateful" about the message that domestic violence is unacceptable in ANY form. Tell me what "perspective" we should actually take about this, because your posts seem to suggest that you believe we should consider this "no big deal, because not many people die from it". To me, that is the only "hateful" view I've heard.

You don’t accept that the media/political debate has lost all perspective. You don’t accept the debate focuses almost exclusively on women to the detriment of children and men. You don’t accept that DV poses a miniscule threat to women’s lives when a comparative analysis is undertaken with other vastly more significant threats to female mortality. Therefore, you believe there is an “epidemic” and “plague” of DV in our midst, almost exclusively directed at women. I’m sure it’s comforting to know that you are showing the requisite compliance with the message demanded by the misandrist media lobby. And no need to let facts get in the way of the message being sent.

The frenzied media/political debate is not simply abandoning itself to exaggerated rhetoric, it is peddling a complete falsehood about the extent of the threat posed to women by domestic violence. This is an extremely dangerous thing to do. The message being sent to impressionable women (and men apparently) is that women should mistrust and fear men. The message attempts to induce a heightened level of resentment and hostility in women against men, by not simply by exaggerating but by actually lying about the real extent of the DV threat. This is the worst kind of scaremongering, and incredibly dangerous.

Ultimately, if women increasingly become resentful, hostile and confrontational in their encounters with men, then there is likely to be a corresponding response from men. The debate has been hijacked by the misandrist media & feminist lobby, resulting in a completely “out of perspective” politicized discussion which will, in all likelihood, cultivate a further growth in the problems that they say they seek to address.

[duksta]

Sheesh.. go back to your unabomber manifesto.... you're still just as useless as ever.

Still the same unsupported evidence. Still the same slippery slope and misrepresentation. Still the same refusal to engage in any sort of debate. Still the same "3 word slogan" method of proving your point.

Still nothing of consequence to say. Still no productive suggestions on what would be a better path to follow.

[CunningLinguist]

Sheesh.. go back to your unabomber manifesto.... you're still just as useless as ever.

Still the same unsupported evidence. Still the same slippery slope and misrepresentation. Still the same refusal to engage in any sort of debate. Still the same "3 word slogan" method of proving your point.

Still nothing of consequence to say. Still no productive suggestions on what would be a better path to follow.

In other words, he is a troll (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again)!

[Sextus]

duksta, many of those facts in the link you provided were quite eye opening and deserve to be posted directly.

Nineteen out of the top 20 NSW Local Government Areas for domestic assault are in rural or regional NSW. The top LGA for domestic assault was Bourke, with a recorded rate of domestic assault of 3,702 per 100,000 population. The only urban LGA found in the top 20 in 2010 was Campbelltown, which had a recorded rate of domestic assault of 680 per 100,000 of population.

So it is a direct link to either how aboriginal you are or how bogan you are that leads to the highest incidence of DV.

Forty-one per cent of all incidents of domestic assault are alcohol related. This percentage varies, however, from a low of 35 per cent in the Sydney Statistical Division to a high of 62 per cent in the Far West Statistical Division.

And also to how drunk you are.

The overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians as both victims and offenders of domestic assault has not changed over the last decade. The rate of recorded domestic assault for Indigenous women is more than six times higher than for non-Indigenous women.

So it is six times more an aboriginal problem than it is a white problem.

This means that PP makes a valid general point about media exaggerations but I think his conclusion about misandry motivating it is more massaging the facts and comparative statistics to fit his thesis.

Recorded rates of domestic assault over the last ten years have been either stable or declining, according to the Bureau's report.

If this still means that 100 women are murdered in nsw by their husbands every year, or about one every three days, then that is shocking. What is the road toll? 500? So the partner murder rate is a full fifth of the entire nsw road toll, and yet we whiz around in our cars tens of millions of kilometres at speed every year to reach that figure. But to kill 100 women apparently all that is needed are a few bogans and a few drunks.

[Penitent Penetrator]

Sheesh.. go back to your unabomber manifesto.... you're still just as useless as ever.

Still the same unsupported evidence. Still the same slippery slope and misrepresentation. Still the same refusal to engage in any sort of debate. Still the same "3 word slogan" method of proving your point.

Still nothing of consequence to say. Still no productive suggestions on what would be a better path to follow.

What I have said is entirely supported by the statistical evidence provided in the original post. Clearly, the problem you have is that you just don't like it.
Female deaths by domestic violence are miniscule when compared to other mortality rates for women. There is no argument against this fact, so you go
on the attack, it's very common when people realise they are in trouble in any discussion.

[Licker]

So it is six times more an aboriginal problem than it is a white problem.

This means that PP makes a valid general point about media exaggerations

Hi Sextus,

I agree with most of what you said, but not the above.

Firstly your comparison aboriginal vs white is not accurate, since there are other ethnic groups in Australia as well.
Those with a European ancestry (= the majority of the white) account for about 70 to 75 % of the population.
It would also be interesting to see the numbers per ethnic groups (not just aboriginals as a separate group).
How do for example people of Indian or Middle Eastern ethnicity rank.

Secondly, I don't really understand how the fact that domestic violence is more prevalent within aboriginals validate PP's point???
You do realize that only about 2% of the population are aboriginals.
Even totally speculatively when applying straight calculation of 2% of 100 deaths x 6 = 12, that still leaves 88 deaths for other ethnic groups.
Is 88 deaths then significantly lower than 100, and thus not a problem for "white" people???

[wilisno]

What I have said is entirely supported by the statistical evidence provided in the original post. Clearly, the problem you have is that you just don't like it.
Female deaths by domestic violence are miniscule when compared to other mortality rates for women. There is no argument against this fact, so you go
on the attack, it's very common when people realise they are in trouble in any discussion.
So, according to you, the issue of female death by domestic violence is so minuscule, the media shouldn't have covered it ? Nobody should be talking about it ? What are you afraid of about this " beat up " ?

If the " beat up " can help to raise the awareness of this issue, it's well justified. The only unwarranted " beat up " is for you to start this thread just to rally some attention to your miserable existence on this forum !

[Penitent Penetrator]

Hi Sextus,

I agree with most of what you said, but not the above.

Firstly your comparison aboriginal vs white is not accurate, since there are other ethnic groups in Australia as well.
Those with a European ancestry (= the majority of the white) account for about 70 to 75 % of the population.
It would also be interesting to see the numbers per ethnic groups (not just aboriginals as a separate group).
How do for example people of Indian or Middle Eastern ethnicity rank.

Secondly, I don't really understand how the fact that domestic violence is more prevalent within aboriginals validate PP's point???
You do realize that only about 2% of the population are aboriginals.
Even totally speculatively when applying straight calculation of 2% of 100 deaths x 6 = 12, that still leaves 88 deaths for other ethnic groups.
Is 88 deaths then significantly lower than 100, and thus not a problem for "white" people???

The ethnicity factor is interesting in some ways, but the DV media/political debate, as previously stated, has been made a gender issue specifically
claiming DV is a great threat to women. These claims are made by misandrist feminists and are then echoed by intellectual featherweights like Premier Baird
and other comparable lightweight politicians. The statisitical facts are beyond question, namely that mortality rates for women in Australia (as listed in the original post)
clearly demonstrate that DV represents a miniscule threat to women's lives. So, why are we told in the media that there is an "epidemic" "tsunami" and "plague" of
domestic violence perpetrated on women? This is categorically not true, so why are we being told this falsehood?

The answer is relatively simple; the misandrist feminist lobby is not interested in facts, evidence, or truth. They are interested in peddling the hateful message that
women should mistrust and fear men. In so doing, the seek to generate a heightened politicized sensitivity in women to the great breadth and scope of the horrible
threat posed by this thing called DV, which doesn't actually exist in any significant statistical context. This is the worst kind of fear mongering you could find, because
it will actively assist in generating the problems they say they seek to address. There is currently no "epidemic" and no "plague" of domestic violence against women.
The "epidemic" and "plague" is in the frenzied media/political debate, which is not a debate but a promotion of hate towards men by misandrist ideolgues with limited
cognitive ability but immense gender pride. Shame on them for their hateful ways.

[Sextus]

I don't really understand how the fact that domestic violence is more prevalent within aboriginals validate PP's point???

I just meant that according to those stats it is confined proportionally to a much narrower slice of the population than is usually mentioned by the press. But yes, of course, an equation is not valid unless all the relevant numbers are included, and your 2% aboriginal population is the missing figure. I must have posted too late last night! So in actual numbers yes, it happens much more outside aboriginal populations.

Which brings me to this figure of 100 domestic murder rate. While PP was playing it down, the first time I read it, to me it seemed to be appallingly large! Where did this figure come from? That is one DV murder almost every 3 days! Where are the press reports every three days about these murders?

In fact, the entire nsw road toll is 350 and we drive tens of millions of kilometres per year to reach that figure. So the DV fatality rate, if it is true, is almost a third of the entire nsw road toll! Is that figure accurate? I'm thinking 10 or 15, or one per month might be closer!

[Penitent Penetrator]

I just meant that according to those stats it is confined proportionally to a much narrower slice of the population than is usually mentioned by the press. But yes, of course, an equation is not valid unless all the relevant numbers are included, and your 2% aboriginal population is the missing figure. I must have posted too late last night! So in actual numbers yes, it happens much more outside aboriginal populations.

Which brings me to this figure of 100 domestic murder rate. While PP was playing it down, the first time I read it, to me it seemed to be appallingly large! Where did this figure come from? That is one DV murder almost every 3 days! Where are the press reports every three days about these murders?

In fact, the entire nsw road toll is 350 and we drive tens of millions of kilometres per year to reach that figure. So the DV fatality rate, if it is true, is almost a third of the entire nsw road toll! Is that figure accurate? I'm thinking 10 or 15, or one per month might be closer!

All the stats I provided in my original post are sourced and dated in the post. They are all national annual statistics from government & associated bodies.
The number of female deaths from domestic violence (< 100 per year) is the popular number currently being used in the media/political debate and I'm sure it is accurate.
I believe there were approx. 89 female deaths last year, and the 100 number is a predictive forecast for this year. (AIC stat I think) Either way it's around about 100 nationally.
Thus, when the national statistics on female mortality are given a comparative analysis, it is abundantly clear that deaths by domestic violence are miniscule when viewed
along side the other truly major threats to women's lives. There can be absolutely no rational argument on this statistical fact. Which begs the question, why do we have the talk
about "an epidemic" "the biggest threat to women" and "a plague" with respect to the threat domestic violence poses to women, in the current media/political debate?
I doubt whether any debate in Australia's history has been so politicized and entirely hijacked by any particular lobby, in this case the misandrist feminist lobby. The lack of perspective
in the debate is a shameful reflection of those proud misandrist ideologues peddling their hideous and hateful message to impressionable women. It is a contemptible thing to do.

[AHLUNGOR]

Penitent Penetrator

Member for three weeks, came from no where, with quite a unique user name, never posted a review, but posting long long long essays arguing on topics raised by himself. Sounds familiar ?

So when is this PP gonna be banned again, again, and again ??


:question:

[uglyphil]

Hi Sextus,

I agree with most of what you said, but not the above.

Firstly your comparison aboriginal vs white is not accurate, since there are other ethnic groups in Australia as well.
Those with a European ancestry (= the majority of the white) account for about 70 to 75 % of the population.
It would also be interesting to see the numbers per ethnic groups (not just aboriginals as a separate group).
How do for example people of Indian or Middle Eastern ethnicity rank.

Secondly, I don't really understand how the fact that domestic violence is more prevalent within aboriginals validate PP's point???
You do realize that only about 2% of the population are aboriginals.
Even totally speculatively when applying straight calculation of 2% of 100 deaths x 6 = 12, that still leaves 88 deaths for other ethnic groups.
Is 88 deaths then significantly lower than 100, and thus not a problem for "white" people???

In addition, it should be pointed out that the correlation is more closely related to socio-economic issues than those of race :(

[uglyphil]

Penitent Penetrator

Member for three weeks, came from no where, with quite a unique user name, never posted a review, but posting long long long essays arguing on topics raised by himself. Sounds familiar ?

So when is this PP gonna be banned again, again, and again ??


:question:




Not soon enough. As stated earlier, if Yamada can be banned for life, so should this try-hard.

[uglyphil]

Sheesh.. go back to your unabomber manifesto.... you're still just as useless as ever.

Still the same unsupported evidence. Still the same slippery slope and misrepresentation. Still the same refusal to engage in any sort of debate. Still the same "3 word slogan" method of proving your point.

Still nothing of consequence to say. Still no productive suggestions on what would be a better path to follow.

I told ya :P


cleetus, everything you have said is 100% true and accurate. You too birch :)

Now at the OP's request he wants something intelligent said in this thread so here they are.

1. This is my final reply in this thread and I respectfully suggest to everyone else that they no longer reply to this thread (or any other started by PP again). The most intelligent acronym for the Internet is DFTT, and there is no greater troll on this forum than this micro-dick. From experience he will not respond to logic, so it is useless trying. As cleetus said, all he wants is attention and he doesn't deserve it.

2. At the top of the thread you'll see a drop-down menu that says "Rate This Thread". Instead of replying, give this thread a rating of "Terrible" and move on.

3. If no one replies he will continuously bump this thread with non-nonsensical statements (much like the original post), in fact he mostly just repeats what he has said earlier in spite of being shown to be wrong. In this regard, this goose is basically the online equivalent of Andrew Bolt - a person the OP shares great affinity with (and has stated with other banned names that he also has great admiration for Bolt as well). While this is annoying, it is not enough to get worked up over and respond as you are actually rewarding him, not the other way around. Note that not once in this post have I responded to the OP. He is not worth my time. However other posters on this forum are and I am simply trying to give you all the benefit of experience in dealing with this moron.

4. If you feel strongly enough about this "person's" hatred of anything that isn't like him (and if you read through posts created by his many other banned personas you will see that he hates nearly every one and everything - after all there are, thankfully, very few people actually like him), then do not reply to the thread, report it instead. You do this by clicking on the little black triangle with an exclamation mark in it. While the moderators here do remove disgusting threads they can only really do so once a certain number of people have complained, So complain loudly and strongly.

5. Finally, I strongly suggest you all go to his profile and add him to your ignore list. This way, any posts he does make will not appear on your screen and you will not feel the need to respond. As a courtesy, I ask all other members who do (in the fit of a brain-snap) respond to this "person" to at the very least NOT QUOTE ANY OF HIS POSTS. If you do then his post appears in yours and those of us who want to ignore him will now see his vile words.

My apologies to all for bumping this very dubious thread, I will not do so again.

I repost this for newcomers... and please people, can we stop quoting the troll?

Thanks :)

[cleetusvandamme]

So it is a direct link to either how aboriginal you are or how bogan you are that leads to the highest incidence of DV.


Or more accurately, how poor you are.

[CunningLinguist]

can we stop quoting the troll?


<trollspeak>

Is this acceptable :)
If you want to find out more about the troll:
http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again

[Sextus]

Or more accurately, how poor you are.

Yeah I didn't express myself that well. It was late in the night / early in the morning! :D

[Sextus]

Well, it looks like all views have been pretty well canvassed by now. And as PP has re-stated his conclusions several times, and as we are getting to the stage where calls for banning start to crop up (usually it happens sometime well in to page 2), I'd like to put in a request for a poem to wrap things up with a bow. :D :D

[CunningLinguist]

Well, it looks like all views have been pretty well canvassed by now. And as PP has re-stated his conclusions several times, and as we are getting to the stage where calls for banning start to crop up (usually it happens sometime well in to page 2), I'd like to put in a request for a poem to wrap things up with a bow. :D :D

There used to be a naughty troll,
that would repeat himself forever.
We all found him very droll,
and not very clever!

BTW This was meant to be bad to pay homage to the skills of the poet troll (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again):)

[Penitent Penetrator]

Or more accurately, how poor you are.

Yes, socioeconomic factors do play a part, as does ethnicity and acohol/drug use.
However, they play a part in a relatively miniscule issue when compared to the other factors
killing women in vastly greater numbers than domestic violence, i.e cardio vascular disease,
lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, bowel cancer, breast cancer, gynaecological cancer, melanoma,
& others illnesses, as well as suicide, and also car accidents. A simple comparative analysis can be done
using the list of government/officially sourced statistics in the original post.

[cato]

If it was anyone else posting this rubbish I'd be offended, but seeing that it's you (again) I'm not at all surprised.

Comparing the statistics of the violent and horrific murder of women which is often the culmination of prolonged abuse to the statistics of community diseases in order to trivialise this most serious of issues truly takes the cake.

Bravo old troll, you've really outdone yourself this time. You truly are a vile and disgusting creature.

[Penitent Penetrator]

If it was anyone else posting this rubbish I'd be offended, but seeing that it's you (again) I'm not at all surprised.

Comparing the statistics of the violent and horrific murder of women which is often the culmination of prolonged abuse to the statistics of community diseases in order to trivialise this most serious of issues truly takes the cake.

Bravo old troll, you've really outdone yourself this time. You truly are a vile and disgusting creature.

You somewhat miss the point, i.e that media debates about "threats to women" should have some proper perspective and context.
You want to ignore the simple comparative analysis that clearly shows the so-called threat to women from DV is very small indeed. For your own reasons,
you don't want to view the subject in perspective, you'd rather get your panties in a twist and drivel away ad nauseam. By the way, it sounds like
you haven't seen someone slowly die an agonising death at the hands of any number of diseases and illnesses, it can be quite horrific I assure you. But
of course, it's not often shown in the media.

Women do not have a monopoly on sympathy and pity. Domestic violence is an issue for women, men and children. But it is grossly overstated as a
threat to people's lives, this is just a simple fact that you just don't want to believe, you'd rather fall in line with the misandrist media & feminist dribble. I'm sure
you have your reasons for that, and I'm happy for them to remain your own.

[Penitent Penetrator]

Well, it looks like all views have been pretty well canvassed by now. And as PP has re-stated his conclusions several times, and as we are getting to the stage where calls for banning start to crop up (usually it happens sometime well in to page 2), I'd like to put in a request for a poem to wrap things up with a bow. :D :D

I'm bound to say, you do sound like the most thoroughly reasonable chap.

[CunningLinguist]

I'm bound to say, you do sound like the most thoroughly reasonable chap.

Righto then give us a poem then off with your head, shall we say French style, again:
http://crisisboom.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/guillotine.jpg?w=595

[cato]

You somewhat miss the point, i.e that media debates about "threats to women" should have some proper perspective and context.
You want to ignore the simple comparative analysis that clearly shows the so-called threat to women from DV is very small indeed. For your own reasons,
you don't want to view the subject in perspective, you'd rather get your panties in a twist and drivel away ad nauseam. By the way, it sounds like
you haven't seen someone slowly die an agonising death at the hands of any number of diseases and illnesses, it can be quite horrific I assure you. But
of course, it's not often shown in the media.

Women do not have a monopoly on sympathy and pity. Domestic violence is an issue for women, men and children. But it is grossly overstated as a
threat to people's lives, this is just a simple fact that you just don't want to believe, you'd rather fall in line with the misandrist media & feminist dribble. I'm sure
you have your reasons for that, and I'm happy for them to remain your own.

I think you might be somewhat missing the point... If your twisted logic has merit then you could apply your same reasoning to child abuse, and you could interpret the statistics again to demonstrate that far more children die of malnutrition than being murdered by paedophiles, therefore any media attention to child abuse is just a 'beat up'.

I'm trying to envisage where your type of logic may be of some use and to whom and the only scenario that springs to mind is Nazi Germany.... (you'll probably take that as a compliment)

[Sextus]

Righto then give us a poem then off with your head, shall we say French style, again:
http://crisisboom.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/guillotine.jpg?w=595

I retract, the thread just may have further to run, but I still say it definitely needs another poem! :D

But watch out, the moderator has proved several times that he is the world's harshest poetry critic. I mean truly, if you fall even just little bit short of Tennyson or Wordsworth then....shrricccckkkk!!!

[CunningLinguist]

I retract, the thread just may have further to run, but I still say it definitely needs another poem! :D

But watch out, the moderator has proved several times that he is the world's harshest poetry critic. I mean truly, if you fall even just little bit short of Tennyson or Wordsworth then....shrricccckkkk!!!

Lets set a deadline also to give him a challenge, shall we say sunrise ... :)

[Penitent Penetrator]

I think you might be somewhat missing the point... If your twisted logic has merit then you could apply your same reasoning to child abuse, and you could interpret the statistics again to demonstrate that far more children die of malnutrition than being murdered by paedophiles, therefore any media attention to child abuse is just a 'beat up'.

I'm trying to envisage where your type of logic may be of some use and to whom and the only scenario that springs to mind is Nazi Germany.... (you'll probably take that as a compliment)

You are not the brightest star in the celestial firmament are you. I want context and perspective in all serious media/political discussions, including DV.
Apparently, you want something quite different. And there it is, in a nutshell.

[Penitent Penetrator]

I retract, the thread just may have further to run, but I still say it definitely needs another poem! :D

But watch out, the moderator has proved several times that he is the world's harshest poetry critic. I mean truly, if you fall even just little bit short of Tennyson or Wordsworth then....shrricccckkkk!!!

I most humbly suggest that what the moderator knows about poetry could be written on the head of a pixie's needle.

I must say Sextus, you are the most charming fellow, quite the stand-out in these parts.

[CunningLinguist]

Looks like Sextus was right, he never made it to page 3.
I have updated the table:
http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again&p=442814#post442814

[wilisno]

Looks like Sextus was right, he never made it to page 3.
I have updated the table:
http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again&p=442814#post442814
Looks like Sextus' Kiss Of Death charm works again ! ;) ;) ;)

[Licker]

Looks like Sextus' Kiss Of Death charm works again ! ;) ;) ;)

Ave, Sextus, morituri te salutant!

"Hail, Sextus, those who are about to die [be banned] salute you!"

[Sextus]

I most humbly suggest that what the moderator knows about poetry could be written on the head of a pixie's needle.

:shout: The mod must be a more fearsome poetry critic than I had feared. Just the prospect of poetry brought down the hammer on PP! He didn't even get as far as the first line!

Now, in this literary regard the mod may lack a little humour, and that is cause for a bit of a chuckle too, but overall he is very tolerant and hands off, which is to be grateful for.

But look guys, I have enjoyed the cut and thrust, the robust debate and insult of this thread. There were some very eloquent views and opinions expressed. It sure beats a long line of shop ads on the front page.

I still wish it had concluded with the flourish of one of PP's poems. Or maybe I should be more careful for what I wish for! :shout:

[cato]

You are not the brightest star in the celestial firmament are you. I want context and perspective in all serious media/political discussions, including DV.
Apparently, you want something quite different. And there it is, in a nutshell.

Well, apparently you think you're the brightest star in the universe but you're mistaken. You're just a deluded sad old space cadet from Uranus...

[AHLUNGOR]

Looks like Sextus' Kiss Of Death charm works again ! ;) ;) ;)

"Many of you will die, but you will die in honour!

For King and country !"

Sons of Liberty, SBS. !

[Sextus]

"Many of you will die, but you will die in honour!

For King and country !"

Sons of Liberty, SBS. !

Well, that is on tonight at 9.30. The famous battle of Bunker Hill is featured!

I like shows that feature English Georgian baddies. In this case, the chief cunt is General Thomas Gage. :exciting:

The actor playing Samuel Adams isn't as commanding a presence as he should be - he's too lightweight, chosen for model looks I think.

Benjamin Franklin gets it on with WL's though - I didn't know that! :victory:

[Wayne]

Violence against women is not a media beat up. No clearer evidence is provided by two news items today. One, about the history of Jill Meagher's killer:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/adrian-bayleys-reign-of-terror-how-the-system-failed-us-20150326-1m6aj3.html
And two, Tony Abbott's lies to Rosie Batty:
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/why-is-the-government-lying-to-rosie-batty-20150325-1m6yhz.html
Thank you admin here, for banning this revolting troll who has repeatedly tried to agitate violence and hatred toward women.