Sorry – I thought it was fitting with the food fight that occurred surrounding this article.

Choose whatever inference you want that will make you feel good about my lack of interest.

I don’t need to “choose” Mike. The truth is evident.

Or did you think no one notices your “lack of interest” has kept you addressing me since the day you first engaged me in debate?

When someone continuously addresses someone over a period of a week, all the while claiming “boredom” and “lack of interest”, its clear to anyone who speaks English that he is neither of the two.

The word you are looking for, is “frustrated”.

Frustrated at losing the debate and frustrated by your own inability to admit when you’re wrong.

Have fun and Godspeed! You’re correct it wouldn’t interest me. Choose whatever inference you want that will make you feel good about my lack of interest. I would cite boredom, but then I’m such a poor debater, what would I know. You’re The Man!

I don’t do debate sites for just the reason that you exasperate and bore me simultaneously, they’re all about ego and less about actual issues.

Well I can certainly understand why they exasperate and bore you.

After all, being unable to coherent state your position and instead turning to strawmen, lies and boasting of your external achievements to shore up crumbling positions must be tiresome.

As far as about them being about the “issues”, thats exactly what real debate is about, and the kind I engage in.

Real debate, involves “drilling down”, and focus on key specific pillars and points in a persons argument, so as to either dismantle it, or be dismantled by it.

Your argument on A-THEISM I dismantled quite readily. So, you in turn turned to strawmen, and when you got exposed doing that, you turned to lying about ever saying the words you just said a moment earlier, trying to wiggle out of your strawman.

So, given my experience debating with you, it is easy for me to see why you’d find it “exasperating”.

I however find it exhilarating.

I am working on developing a website, designed specifically for those wishing to engage in specific debates on specific social, religious and political issues.

The site will be called “The Debating Room”, on the same domain name, and will be a place where two parties who have a debate from other blogs, can come to and have it settled, using a point system and judges.

I came to Professor Turley’s blog, hoping to find seasoned, experienced debaters who can deliver a position in a specific and detailed manner, hopefully asking some of them to act as judges for debates hosted in the new site.

So far however, other than a few bloggers who seem to engage in specifics, I’ve found bloggers like you and patty, who are more concerned with hosting a nice friendly “chatroom”, than actually debating over issues. And when they find anyone not falling into line with their ideas of what blogging should be, they harrass and hound any bloggers who like debate, until they either drive them away or push them into responding to their attacks.

I still see some people who might be good for “thedebatingroom.com” (coming soon) and there are some smart folks in here, to be sure.

But folks who like you, turn to lies, denial of those lies, then more lies trying to paint your opponent as an Anti-Semite merely because you cannot beat them in a debate, are the kind of people we hope will bring their debates to the debating room to be decided, for all too see, so they too can learn what it means to be specific with a point, and not turn to vain insults, name calling and lies when they find themselves bested in a simple debate.

Anyway, Gyges said it right. I am not Zakamir, never have been.

When the debating room is up, you will all be welcome to schedule a live debate with your opponent, and have it hosted by our moderators and judges (once we have more than the three we have so far, lol).

And if Mike, you want to “reach out to me” as you keep suggesting, then I suggest you can start by admitting to the straw position you created a week ago, and never recanted, and then apologize for lying about ever saying those words.

Once you’ve done that, you can apologize for trying gleefully last night to help your friend mojo paint me as the possibly psychotic , definately racist, “Zakamir”.

Those would be a good start for your “reaching out” efforts, and I will at that point, gladly accept your apologies and move forward.

So this is the same manner of “lie” that you accuse me of.

No Mike, this is not in the same manner of the LIE you told.

The lie you told invented a POSITION for me in a debate we were having that I never took, which is called a “Straw man” argument.

Then, you lied again, denying you ever said those words.

This was an off the cuff remark that has nothing to do with any debate we are having, merely a comment that IF you are a member of the bar, then shame on them for allowing such a dishonest person as yourself in.

So since I said IF, you cannot accuse me of saying you were a member of the bar.

And even if I had thought you were a member of the bar, it would merely constitute a mistake, as it is not a derogatory thing to elevate you to the bar, nor is it designed to produce any misleading positions.

It was simply a mistake. I assumed when you started bragging about your experience like your friend patty does, (my eyes glaze over when you guys start boasting of your acheievements) that you were saying you were a lawyer.

So trying to compare your out and out strawman, then your outright lying denying you ever said those words, to my simply mistaking you for an attorney, is further evidence of why its a good thing, you are not a member of the bar.

In any state.

I’ve got to disagree with you on this one. I don’t think that CroMM is Zakimar. There’s just some big differences. If he is he’s a VERY good writer and deserves are respect for pulling it off. Other than the style and content issues I’ll address, CroMM’s already tacitly admitted to being BartleBee, who I seem to remember being here at the same time as Zak (that doesn’t prove anything, but does address one of your points).

Most importantly, there’s the difference in Z’s obsession. Z was fixated on race and Zionism, we don’t see any of that mentioned with CroMM. CroMM on the other hand doesn’t have a single thematic fixation, but seems to jump from whatever debate happens to strike his attention to the next. I think Z was genuinely obsessed to the point of possible mental problems, there’s really no indication of that with CroMM.

As far as style goes, there are some similarities, but they’re far outweighed by the differences. Z tended to respond with a 1:1 ratio to others’ posts, CroMM is about 3:1. While Z very wrote in a more structured form, CroMMs posts tend to be a little more creative in their formatting. CroMM is generally a pretty witty guy with some really interesting comments on most subjects, as long as you don’t get him in debate mode. Z started out in debate mode and very rarely offered any true insights into the situation.

Pathetically, you again prove one of the points I’ve made about you. In your haste to find a debating point you only read comments looking for lines of attack. I’ve made clear to you in many of my comments directly to you and in general on this site, that I am not and have never been a lawyer. So this is the same manner of “lie” that you accuse me of. You’re logic is silly, to be charitable.

Many of those comments, such as my last one at the “Gay Jesus” thread were attempts to reach out to you to see if we could develop common understanding. Those attempts failed miserably because all you want to do is attack something….anything. You have stated on the “Gay Jesus” thread that you like to debate and have done it at other sites. I don’t do debate sites for just the reason that you exasperate and bore me simultaneously, they’re all about ego and less about actual issues. Discussion is much more educational and fun. Yes discussion sometimes leads to debate, but even debate must be tempered by civility and logic. Your debating technique lacks both. When you are in the “heat” of your debating loop, you do set up “straw men,” fail to read peoples comments in context and deliberately misconstrue what the other person is saying.

As you have alluded to elsewhere this is how you get your “fun.”
Your getting your “fun” is an annoyance, distraction and finally intellectual masturbation on your part. Finally, I have no idea if you are Zakimar, but as Mojo points out there is grounds for suspicion. This is because, as he more aptly put it, the two of you share the same style. Zakimar indeed may have morphed into you without the anti-Jewish rant. Whether you are or not though is immaterial, the salient point being you’re both annoying and like john McCain don’t get it.

But if you all you have is random personal attacks and false accusations, trying to turn your impotence at being able to debate me on a topic into nothing but mere personal attacks and accusatuions against me, then don’t bother.

Since I am not Zakamir, that makes him wrong and both of you look like fools for boasting of something that is not true.

But I don’t have to defend myself from two liars on a fabricated accusation because togther their brains aren’t capable of refuting a single position I’ve taken.

And Mike spindell, you could be the most titled person in the world, but at the end of the day, you’re essentially just a liar. You were proven a liar and you still haven’t owned up to it.

Apparently you are too much the coward to admit it still, so you’re taking refuge in someone elses ridiculous lie about me, trying to paint me with a dangerous and distorted character as Zakaimir, which is the refuge a coward and a scoundrel.

If Professor Turley ever wants my identity all he has to do is ask or confirm my IP address. I am not anyone who would ever call myself Zakamir or say any of the racist comments he has made in here and you are a slimey belly crawling worm for suggesting it. I don’t know if you’re lying about your educations or not but if you really are in the positions of authority you claim, then God help us all.

Because you are pathetic, simple minded witless debaters, who when cornered turn to lying like little children. You are pathetic, and I, unfortunately for your boasts, am not, nor ever was the character Zakamir, and your daring to try and link me with this fellow shows your utter lack of any moral character.

Mojo,
I think so.

Peace out. Good night. No hard feelings

I don’t need to examine my own posts you dimwit, I know I am not ZakAmir and I don’t need your help discerning that fact.

What you need to do boy, is get your pompous head out of your fat ass, and figure out that you made a mistake, and a fool out of yourself doing it.

Oh now I am protesting too much?

Some two bit hack with a big mouth and a handle named after Austin Powers balls waltzes in and starts attacking me out of the blue, suggesting I am Zakamir.

When I point out that you lie like a little girl, acting like you didn’t mean that, then when you see its obvious to anyone else thats what you were implying, you admit your deception and then claim to “own” me.

Well my cackling little hen, the only thing you own is the egg on your face.

Hey Spindell. That’s how we do that.

Peace out. Good night. No hard feelings. CroMM/Zak, but you just got owned.

When did you start to deliberately misspell Zakimar as Zakimir?
You’re right about the onus. I own you, son

No daughter, you don’t owe me. You owe everyone in here for wasting their time with this bs accusation, after Mystic River just left such a nice closing comment, that was I might add, on topic.

You are wrong about me being ZakAmir, and nothing you say will change that fact.

Cro Zakimar …

You’re right about the onus. I own you, son.

I am not Zakimir. I do not know Zakimir.

And you are doing nothing but launching personal attacks, in lieu of debating the topics.

And you were caught lying, and now are trying personal attacks, accusing me of being someone I am confident Professor Turley’s IP logs will demonstrate, that I am not, to try and cover up your deception.

“But thank you, for demonstrating that when I catch someone lying …”

And from Zakimar’s last post:

“Thank you russ for making my mission complete …”

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

Even the self-congratulatory tendencies are right on the money.

Still waiting for any evidence of your existence prior to Zakimar’s dramatic exit.

You can make all the false accusations you want but in lieu of any demonstrable evidence, other than his leaving around the I started posting, the onus of proof is on you, not me.

Prove your ridiculous accusation.

So assure me. Show me one of your posts prior to Aug. 18, when Zakimar left and you suddenly appeared. I’m sure with your excellent debating skill you must have engaged Zakimar (whom you already claim to know of.)

Show us when you debated with Zakimar. Oh show us the way, great debater. Someone with as big a mouth as you must have taken on the great Zakimar …

Just show me one post before Aug. 18.

I’m waiting.

I know a liar when I see one, and you are a liar.

And you’re also none too bright, because I am not Zakimir, never have been, nor do I even sound remotely close to him.

What you call “baiting”, everyone else calls lying.

zakimar 1, August 18, 2008 at 8:34 pm

There are a handful of people on this site I was watching to see if we ever agreed on a single thing and russ was on the top of that list. We FINALLY agreed on something, on how “sick” Pelosi is, although I would have used the word twisted.

Thank you russ for making my mission complete so that I can now concentrate on the things that are much more important to me.

To take a phrase from MASH, GOODBYE.

AND THE VERY NEXT DAY THIS FELLOW CRO MAGNUM MAN SHOWS UP ON THE FAKE BIGFOOT STORY (did you take the photo as a cue for your moniker?):

Cro Magnum Man 1, August 19, 2008 at 10:06 pm

I’m sorry, when exactly did this story go from a couple of yokels that NO ONE BELIEVED, to these two making “clowns out of a couple of yankee liberal idiots”?

No one believed them, so who are these “yankee liberal idiots” you’re referring to?

Last I checked, the only ones who bought these two inbreds stories, were other inbreds…. hence, other neocons.

SO, GOODBYE ZAKIMAR, AND HELLO CRO MAGNUM MAN. MAYBE JUST A COINCIDENCE, BUT THE ‘VOICE’ IS SO SIMILAR. IF YOU WOULD POINT OUT AN EARLIER POST THAN AUG. 18 FROM CRO MAG, I’LL EAT MY WORDS, APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GREAT DEBATER.

AND YES, OF COURSE I WAS BAITING YOU, YOU BIG APE.

While daddy in Watauga outside Forth Worth may have behaved less than admirably, in the scheme of things, I’d have to agree with folks above that there sure are a lot of busy bodies trying to second guess what might happen to the little guy.

Perhaps we need to use Drake’s Reality Scale. It’s a kind of ruler that can extend as far in either direction as you want. Toward one end is Conceivable and Fantasy and far on the other end is current reality (what is demonstrably happening). In between you may find imaginable, possible, probable, likely, etc.

A lot of people (often those in positions of authority) confuse one end with the other end of the scale and create legal requirements to fix something that may ‘not even be possible’ (the negative side of conceivable).

For their own benefit, some people deliberately use the confusion they create with such assertions about what might conceivable happen to create an outcome that can be very wrong.

Remember the bloody glove etc., from the OJ murder trial? The defense laywers buffaloed everyone, including the judge, by getting the jury to confuse ‘conceivable’ with probable, possible, or even reasonable.

Sometimes defining context is important to get things in perspective. As well as I can make it out from the above presentation, Daddy did nothing wrong. Many kids successfully navigate their world over much greater and more dangerous terrain without ill consequences.

In the context it appears there was next to no risk to junior related to daddy’s actions. The youngster should have walked home. Now the ‘authorities’ have massively undermined the authority of a (by all accounts) caring father to direct and guide his son into manhood. Perhpas in Watauga people would have been happier if pop just picked up the boy and carried him home?

Now is it conceivable that the consequences of the “authorities’” intervention may be much worse for the child and his relation with his father than might have happened under ‘benign neglect’ by those busy bodies??

What webs we weave!

Second, I do not respond to demands about random personal questions from clearly hostile petitioners.

Third, when you admit trying to suggest I was Zakimar, and thus an anti-semite, then maybe I’ll consider responding to your queries. In the meantime, I suggest you go help Mike hunt for his missing respect for the truth.

Maybe you lost yours in the same place.

Yes.

And more importantly, I will remember you.

So now you add to that lie, by lying about your intent? Do you think you’re fooling anyone?

Here, let me help you out here.

–

Hey Mojo, … I’ve heard it said that someone is like Mike Spindell, in that they lie about others and when caught lying, further lie to try and deny their lies to begin with.

They are essentially liars, too proud to admit their lies.

You wouldn’t.. know anyone like that… would you?

Do you even remember Zakimar? Nothing I said about him is untrue.

In the meantime, better give your fancy colleges and universities a call to their admissions office.

Not to enroll in further courses mind you, but to check on their refund policies.

Its another thing altogether, to randomly post lies about someone out of the blue, for not other reason than the ability to defeat me in a topic of debate.

And lies of such a filthy and foul nature as that.

To label someone “anti-semetic” who has never even spoken anything that could be remotely construed as anti semetic, then furthering it by declaring him “obsessed with zionism”, is beneath contempt.

He was also highly anti-semetic and was obsessed with ‘zionists’.

Notice the use of the word, “also”, when referencing Zakimar and myself.

Thus you are claiming that I am anti-semetic, which and am obsessed with zionists.

You sir, ARE a liar. That is a bold faced lie, and you’re a liar for saying it.

Either demonstrate one single post of mine that was “anti-semetic” or even the MENTION of the word “zionists” in ANY of my posts, or admit to being a dirty liar.

Nothing since.

Cro Magnum Man, any idea what ever happened to Zakimar?

It would seem to me, with your batting average thus far, I’d want to keep my educational and professional acheivments as far from inspection as possible.

I have a Masters from an Ivy League School (full scholarship),
five years postgraduate training as a psychotherapist, and the full training from the New York State Child Abuse Protection Academy and an accredited course in human sexuality. Besides that you twit, at the age of 55 I created and ran a successful housing program in the community, for people with serious mental illnesses and severe. addiction problems. When it comes to this subject, son, you’re not even in the ballpark.

Really?

I’m proud of ya. I really am.

But perhaps one more “saddest thing of all” for your list of saddest things, is how all that fine education and professional training hasn’t helped you debate one comparatively undeducated blogger, without being reduced to lying, blubbering and calling them names.

Nor has it helped you to admit lying, something one would think such a vastly experienced and titled “therapist” such as yourself would have no problem doing.

Perhaps some of your learned peers might lend you their couch?

Lighten up. Its all in good fun.

The saddest thing of all for you is that as I write this you’ve probably posted four more times trying to defend the nonsense you spout

Really? Thats the “saddest” thing?

One would think the “saddest” thing is that you fine scholars and learned folk with your fancy degrees from the best colleges and universites in the land, cannot seem keep pace with the posts of one lone non degreed blogger sporting his measly partial public school education.

“I understand you don’t think the case has merit.”
—
So tell me how you reconcile those two statements of yours. In one you strongly imply that I think the child was abused. In the other
you acknowledge that I didn’t think the child was abused

Well, if you look at your first comment, you started OUT by saying you agree with me, but then ended UP, saying this;

Mike Spindell
1, August 31, 2008 at 3:02 pm

I do believe the father was a jerk. If one is a competent parent of an 11 year old, you should not lose control. .

On the one hand you say you agree with me, on the other however, you accuse the father of being a “jerk” and losing “control”.

Losing control can be an actionable item, in family court.

Thus, your “agreement” with me was mired in your condemnation of the fathers actions, which is how child abuse cases start.

I didn’t accuse you of saying he should be prosecuted. I merely reiterated my case that it was not abuse. If that came off to you as my pushing you into a corner on accepting his abuse, then please, by all means, accept my apologies now, as I am aware of your statements that he should not be prosecuted and I never meant to imply otherwise. I did mean to imply that your positions on his actions, are the “SOURCE” of the Witchhunt we now live under, because it’s the constant judging of other parents methods that create the mentality that leads to such ridiculous overreaching cases as this one. But, that being said, I am aware you are at least reasonable enough to not wish prosecution on the fella.So, if you thought I was backing you into a position, or if I came across that way, then please accept my humble apologies.

But first, you might take a stroll over to the gay jesus thread, and apologize for ACTUALLY MISQUOTING me, and then repeatedly LYING about doing so.

Because you’ve yet in all your lectures to me since, found the “testosterone” to do so.

No, I’ve got more.

You know very well what I said, but as usual you interpret what you want. You then resort to “macho” insults like “blubbering” to try to impress upon me what a tough man you are

No, it was meant to be humorous.

Runt of the litter to imply your Dad was tougher than my Dad

No, you were the one who FIRST boasted of the size of your father. I merely pointed out that my dad was of similar proportions, however in my family, that is considered small. His brothers were all over 6’4. Just a fact, since you shared with me your fact about your dad.

By that I’m not referring to sexual preferences, but the need to prove somehow that you’re tough

How pray tell, does one do that using Pixels and Datagrams?

CroMM,
I quit. You are once again frozen in your competitive loop, which means not bothering to actually read what is being said because as I said in my first post

Well I did read your posts, and I understand you offered support for not prosecuting, however you then “qualified” that support, by calling him a “jerk” and suggesting it was the dad who was out of line.

Newsflash. When your children are out in public with you, it is NEVER the parent who is out of line during disputes.

In public, an 11 year old needs to do what he is told to do, and if part of that telling is telling him to shut the hell up, he needs to do that likewise.

Mike said…

“We have reached a point in the US where as parents we have become over-protective of our children. Much of this is the fear inculcated in us by the media, mainly TV.”

Agree, 100 percent. If only you hadn’t qualified that statement by calling him a jerk.

Parents today walk a tightrope when in public, where kids, painfully aware of the public “Witchhunt” for what now constitutes “child abuse”, leverage that knowledge against their parents in ways never conceived of in my day.

When I was a young man, smarting off to my parents in a public place would have earned me a scolding right there, and if I still wanted some more, a smack upside my head.

And NO ONE would have said a thing. No one.

Because we knew back then, that the parents were the authoritarian role in the family, not the children.

But today, thats changed, and kids can and regularly manipulate the meddlings of others in “controlling” their parents in public.

This man, obviously painfully aware of the fact that a smack to the kid would or even “grabbing” him and giving him a little shake, would immediately bring the Social Circuses running with charges of abuse, so, like most parents, he was left to figure other options besides sitting there and “reasoning” with the misbehaving brat, so as to appease the masses. He chose to dismiss the child, and let him learn what it means to be in control, by letting him walk home and consider his tantrum tossing.

Calling the man a “jerk” for that is certainly your right, but it is also my right to denounce that slur.

He is a parent. Another frustrated parent.

Frustrated not at his inability to cope with his misbehaving kid, who unlike your little angelic princesses, is growing into a young man and entering the period of open rebellion that if dad doesnt’ get a grip on early, can turn into a life of crime or worse for the boy, but frustrated at the smothering society in which we live, where observers tell the parent how to raise his own kids.

Whether his choice to make the kid walk home was a good one or not, is a matter left for him to decide, not us. He had a kid who was misbehaving in a public place, and he had to find a way of disciplining that kid right then and there that he thought would not incur the wrath of the crowd, and he made the call.

You also quoted yourself saying this, which apparently you would like addressed, so I will address this statement too.

“In my opinion, given these facts without any negatives we don’t see in the story, the man should not have been charged with two felonies.”

…to which all I can say is, gee… ya THINK?

“Anyway, if you’re going to start blubbering again, then I suggest you stop engaging with me in debate.”

“My father was also 6′2, and right around 220. He was the “runt” of the litter.”

“But since you didn’t raise two little boys, but two little girls by your own admission, you haven’t a clue apparently about difference, a few micrograms of testosterone make.”

crommy,
Is that the best you’ve got. You know very well what I said, but as usual you interpret what you want. You then resort to “macho” insults like “blubbering” to try to impress upon me what a tough man you are. Runt of the litter to imply your Dad was tougher than my Dad. You use testosterone alot in your material and it leads me to believe you’ve got some manhood problems. By that I’m not referring to sexual preferences, but the need to prove somehow that you’re tough.

As to the difference between boys and girls, I know a lot about that. I have a Masters from an Ivy League School (full scholarship),
five years postgraduate training as a psychotherapist, and the full training from the New York State Child Abuse Protection Academy and an accredited course in human sexuality. Besides that you twit, at the age of 55 I created and ran a successful housing program in the community, for people with serious mental illnesses and severe. addiction problems. When it comes to this subject, son, you’re not even in the ballpark.

“Tell me how exactly, the child was “abused” by having to walk a few blocks.”

“I understand you don’t think the case has merit.”

So tell me how you reconcile those two statements of yours. In one you strongly imply that I think the child was abused. In the other
you acknowledge that I didn’t think the child was abused. The kids own father admitted he behaved badly, that was the purpose of his column, which started this whole ruckus. These statements were in your peculiar thinking, similar to the “lie” you accused me of. The saddest thing of all for you is that as I write this you’ve probably posted four more times trying to defend the nonsense you spout. I could really go for the jugular and offer a full assessment of your obsession as exhibited by these “loops” you go into, but I really do feel sorry for the fact that you are so afflicted and would take no pleasure in further attacking you. Finis.

You, however, choose to interpret what is in your head, rather than what is written. So okay Mr. Debating Star, I quit. you win. The nature of your victory, however, is ephemeral. You bore me and waste my time trying to get me to defend positions I never took. I thought there was a possibility that you had learned something, but all you want to do is nitpick a fight.

No, I quoted you warmly and accurately. You stated discipline should not include even getting angry, and implied that corporal punishment was a bad thing, just because you don’t practice it on your girls.

Well, corporal punishment should be up to the parent, but in todays world its become a matter for everyone but the parent.

I understand you don’t think the case has merit. I also understand you called him a jerk, and I am contesting that it is not yours nor my role in calling him such for merely responding to misbehavior out of his son.

When a son is “arguing” with his father in a public place, he is misbehaving, and taking advantage of a situation where dad has to worry about busy bodies calling the cops.

So, dad let him walk home, so he could think about his misbehaving.

That the dad apologized for his actions after being surrounded by a resturaunt full of angry “concerned citizens” and police, is well… DUH!

Of course he did. What else was the poor bastard going to do?

Anyway, if you’re going to start blubbering again, then I suggest you stop engaging with me in debate.

The kid would always remember the day he smarted off at dad in the Mickey Dees, and found himself walking home.

Now, the kid will always remember it as the day the police made daddy submit to the HIS will, and then, came after daddy with the full weight of the criminal justice system.

“Tell me how exactly, the child was “abused” by having to walk a few blocks”

CroMM,
I quit. You are once again frozen in your competitive loop, which means not bothering to actually read what is being said because as I said in my first post:

“We have reached a point in the US where as parents we have become over-protective of our children. Much of this is the fear inculcated in us by the media, mainly TV.”

Seems to agree with your sentiments.

“In my opinion, given these facts without any negatives we don’t see in the story, the man should not have been charged with two felonies.”

I never said the child was abused in any way. I said the father was a jerk for getting angry at his kid and driving away. his own story expressed his regret at this action.

You, however, choose to interpret what is in your head, rather than what is written. So okay Mr. Debating Star, I quit. you win. The nature of your victory, however, is ephemeral. You bore me and waste my time trying to get me to defend positions I never took. I thought there was a possibility that you had learned something, but all you want to do is nitpick a fight.

My first post clearly stated that I disagreed with the police, court and child welfare authorities.

Yea, then you called him a jerk.

How is he a jerk, for making the kid walk home?

If the kid was out of line, making him walk home might teach him to get back in line.

Who are you, or anyone, to decide how he instills respect in his son for his authority and finality on a matter?