Lori - V-Day Causes Divorce - Now With Moar Ken! Part 2

[formergothardite]

http://web001.rbc.org/pdf/discovery-ser ... s-hurt.pdf

hupotasso.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/ephesians5-24/

For over two decades I twisted myself into a pretzel attempting to practice “SUBMIT to him in EVERYTHINGâ€. Once the newlywed shine wore off (by 5 years) I felt progressively more and more disrespected and by the time we were married 22 years, I was completely miserable in the marriage, I felt trapped like a prisoner in a concentration camp.

whenlovehurts.ca/2014/01/06/does-the-bible-really-say-that-wives-should-submit/

I found that many Christian women were coming to me saying that passages about submission were being used, in situations of abuse, to further entrap them. Some clergy were telling women that the solution to the abuse was that they “submit more.†Many abusive husbands were using this language to further control their partners

.charismamag.com/blogs/fire-in-my-bones/7229-the-dark-side-of-submission

During a past ministry trip to Hungary, I heard a painfully familiar story. Through a translator, a tearful young woman living near Budapest explained that her Christian husband was angrily demanding her absolute submission. This included, among other things, that she clean their house according to his strict standards and that she engage in sexual acts with him that made her feel uncomfortable and dirty. This lady was not demanding her rights or trying to be disrespectful. She was a godly, humble woman who obviously wanted to please the Lord. But she had been beaten to a pulp emotionally, and she was receiving little help from her pastor—who was either unwilling or unprepared to confront wife abuse.

In Kenya, several women told me their AIDS-infected husbands often raped them—and then their pastors told them they must submit to this treatment. In some parts of India, even some pastors believe it is acceptable to beat their wives if they argue with them or show any form of disrespect. And in some conservative churches in the United States, women are told that obedience to God is measured by their wifely submission—even if their husbands are addicted to alcohol or pornography or if they are involved in adulterous affairs.

This is just a five minute google search. I don't expect you to take my word, Ken, about submission being used abusively and the advice to "submit more" being damaging to women in some situations. You don't have to. It is easy to fairly easy to find out about.

I found lots of submission success stories too. The problem is, when Lori is giving her biased blanket advice to "submit more" when she can hardly have the whole story on the internet, she doesn't know who she is giving it to. The Miss Raquel's of the world who throw a tantrum when their husband doesn't take them out to dance in the rain and could benefit from the advice to stop being so demanding. Or the woman who has been abused and feels like she is living in a concentration camp. Chances are, if it is the second lady, Lori will never find out. If Lori is truly always willing to learn, what steps is she willing to take to make sure that the situations that are above and others like them are not going to be coming from her blog? What steps is she willing to take to make sure that abuse is never minimized and that her advice is not keeping women in abusive situations that are damaging to them?

[childerowland]

Funny that if this was about a husband who was difficult you all would be all over the fact that the wife should do whatever it takes to put him back in his place... and manipulation and power plays would be just fine so long as the ends justify the means.

This is a laughable misrepresentation. Where has anyone said anything that remotely implied that any of us believe that manipulation is fine as long as it's a woman doing it to a man?! Surely the disapproval shown in relation to Lori's diaphragm story proves otherwise. You're projecting. You simply can't conceive of a relationship between genuine equals, can you? In your world women are either sweet, submissive, childlike doormats whose eyes open wide in shame when their benevolent husbands gently reprove them for their misdemeanours, or nasty, hysterical, difficult, selfish women who don't care about anyone but themselves and would falsely accuse their husbands of abuse as soon as look at them. Until you see women as fellow adult human beings rather than aliens from Planet MisogynistStereotype, I can't see this discussion progressing in any meaningful way.

Lori's main point to women with difficult men is be kind, gentle and loving in return and do not manipulate and use power plays. That is what this group objects to.

No. Lori doesn't simply tell women to be kind, gentle and loving. She tells them to submit. To obey. To do everything their husbands tell them to do because they, as women, are subordinate. She literally encourages women to be doormats (lorialexander.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/priveleged-to-be-doormat.html). Don't be disingenuous, Ken.

[Mama Mia]

When will the ridiculous speculation stop? I can't I simply say something and you accept it as the truth? I have read maybe a total of portions of ten pages in "Created" and Lori has read me a few paragraphs. My recommendation of Created comes from watching what it has done in my wife's life and hearing a few dozen women all glowing over how it has done the same for their marriage. Do I need to read a book directed to a Christian woman to recommend it?

Lori has read to me twice the spot where Debbie Pearl tells women who are abused that they may need to turn in their husbands and go visit them in jail.

As for the spank harder, that is a thing of the past. Go back to my previous comments on this Forum and find that I have admitted that Lorio and I have had the discussion since I joined FJ and this approach does not reflect our true thinking about discipline as it potentially communicates the wrong message, or at least not the message we intend to convey.

We believe that a swat or swats should hard enough to actually work in training a child's obedience. The swat should also sting for only 5-20, and should not leave a bruise, although a small bruise is the risk worth taking to gain training in discipline. To spank harder does not communicate what we mean which is make sure that there is some modest sting so that the spanking is an effective tool.

So if you ever see us write, "spank harder again," I would be quite surprised. I know it is banned from my writing and I hope it is now from Lori's too. To hold that against us now is unfair, but who is looking for fairness, right? You just want to win. Keep it up and I may consider throwing in the towel and no longer try to find any pieces of wisdom floating in the load of manure I find in this Forum.

I'm really glad to see that you are taking to heart how statements like "just spank harder" can lead to behavior that could be over-the-top and are being more careful in how things are presented. That's not snark or sarcasm, it's my genuine belief.

[twin2]

Hisey published a facebook page that she has attributed to CM's wife. How does she know it is CM's wife and not some innocent victim now? Is it appropriate to splash such personal information on your Forum just because it meets your rules but cannot pass the test for common decency? It appears that CM's possible address was listed for a moment then taken down. Others threatened to "out" my business to try and harm me.

I've really never read your wife's blog, so I have no clue who or what you do. However, I am always up for a challenge and the bolded sounded like one to me. So...

I went to your wife's blog and hit the "about me" button. Did a 1 min read of thing, figured out 5 words to type into google, and got your business site as a the first hit. Took me all of 90sec. So if you want to blame anyone for outing your business, you need to point the finger closer to home.

[Koala]

I've really never read your wife's blog, so I have no clue who or what you do. However, I am always up for a challenge and the bolded sounded like one to me. So...

I went to your wife's blog and hit the "about me" button. Did a 1 min read of thing, figured out 5 words to type into google, and got your business site as a the first hit. Took me all of 90sec. So if you want to blame anyone for outing your business, you need to point the finger closer to home.

Tell me you didn't read the hidden and highly personal "About Me" section! :o Have you no morals!?! That is very private information :snooty: .

[Koala]

Do I need to read a book directed to a Christian woman to recommend it?

Yes, you need to read a book before you recommend it. Otherwise you don't really know what you're recommending do you?

So if you ever see us write, "spank harder again," I would be quite surprised. I know it is banned from my writing and I hope it is now from Lori's too. To hold that against us now is unfair, but who is looking for fairness, right?

I don't think it's unfair at all, I don't think you speak for Lori, and until I see her posting something clarifying her position, I will assume that is the position she holds.

You just want to win. Keep it up and I may consider throwing in the towel and no longer try to find any pieces of wisdom floating in the load of manure I find in this Forum.

Is that a promise you can keep, or are you just teasing us? Because you say it as if your leaving would somehow be a bad thing. Let me relieve you of the burden....if you find yourself swimming in a load of manure, then get out of the pool. You're welcome.

[samurai_sarah]

I've really never read your wife's blog, so I have no clue who or what you do. However, I am always up for a challenge and the bolded sounded like one to me. So...

I went to your wife's blog and hit the "about me" button. Did a 1 min read of thing, figured out 5 words to type into google, and got your business site as a the first hit. Took me all of 90sec. So if you want to blame anyone for outing your business, you need to point the finger closer to home.

It can be done even faster, going by the info on this thread and the previous, alone. Ken has given out info, like his name and the field he works in, which makes him very google-able. But I do rather wonder what harm he thinks might come from "outing" him, unless he thinks there's something shameful about his and his wife's views. :think:

[Koala]

I saw you wrote something about this, but I have never sen it on Lori's blog or comments. I travel and the last 7 days I have been traveling, so if you have not noticed, I made ZERO comments on Lori's blog during that time. So to blame me for a hypothetical "shouda, woulda, coulda' on some comment because we did not respond teh way you wanted us to... is that fair????????? Is it even close to reasonable? It will become strange to police Lori's blog with your thinking in mind.

Ken, Ken, Ken....my goodness, do you think we can't read?????

Again, let me help you:

Post:

lorialexander.blogspot.com/2014/03/feminist-founder-changes-her-mind.html

You will note that this post was made on the 11th....the time frame during which you claim you were traveling and made "zero" posts. I am assuming by zero you mean 3, because that's exactly how many times you commented on that post. All but one of your comments were entered after "Lady Virtue" wrote the following:

A previous commenter said something about rape within marriage. How is it even possible for a husband to "rape" his wife?

This comment was totally ignored by both you and Lori, although both of you found time to answer subsequent posts.

Here are the replies you submitted that day:

Ken · 1 day ago

Your statistic of 75% is referring to the workforce in ONE mill in the United States. The women in these mills were mainly young, pre-married girls and the expectation was that they would soon be married and become SAHM's.

Yes, children died and that had some impact on the number of children born to a family, but there were many other reasons for large families back then.

Most importantly is that Lori is accurate in associating the era of feminism with working women, with 25% of women in the workforce pre-feminism and now 60% in the workforce. That sizable leap in working women can definitely be traced to to women being told to become much more like men, work, and be independent.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104673.html

Almost all of the progresses you name would have come about without the doubling of the percentage of women in the workplace. Progress may have been a bit slower, but I think many of us now wish that the 70's, 80's, 90's era's might have dragged on a few extra decades or centuries. Some of the progress you think is so great may only be accelerating the demise of the United States as we knew it.

What do we really have by way of progress that has added much to quality of life and relationships the last 40-50 years having been accelerated by more people in the work place? Fewer people in the work place would mean higher salaries for husbands to support SAHM's. Maybe without a big screen TV or I-Phone, but really have these things enhance quality of life much? Maybe, the knowledge that now abounds is fun,but relationships have been harmed by the technology.

Many women's lives have been put to work instead of having the joy of being SAHM's because of the great lie of feminism that a woman can have it all? I see it every day, and the horse is out f the barn and almost impossible to reset the current system. The lie has won and women have lost big time. If husband's were all making 35% more because of a smaller workforce, combined with the economic savings a SAHM provides, many more mom's would be able to stay home with their babies.

Ken · 1 day ago

Exceptions for women are acceptable and necessary. We can both name many exceptions for why some women must work and drop off their babies at Day Care to raise them.

BUT 60% of women working? This is not the exceptions... this is now the rule.

I see no reason why an unmarried woman should not work or get a degree, so long as there is no great debt in doing so, but once the first baby, or max second baby comes along being a SAHM should not be the exception but the rule for a myriad of good reasons.

Ken · 22 hours ago

No I was not clear that I support what you are saying, Sorry :).

I was just pointing out a few additional things that were not directly related to your comments after a long plane ride home :).

So you cannot accept at face value what I am saying?

You have been repeatedly found to be:

1) outright lying

2) contradicting yourself

3) giving inaccurate information

4) making up statistics on the stop to back up your position

5) failing to understand the meaning of words

Now why on earth would we take anything you say at face value???

[Koala]

Ken, do you (and Lori) understand that words have meanings and when you arrange them in certain order that they mean specific things?

Lori said this:

When she says that it means that she is saying that BECAUSE she put a hole in her diaphragm, Ryan was conceived. It means that she continued to use the damaged diaphragm, KNOWING that it was not intact, because she knew that it would likely fail and she would get pregnant. That is what her sentence means, in plain English.

Then you come along and say "we have no way of knowing." Well, yeah you do. If you are using defective birth control, it's not too hard to figure out what the outcome is going to be. A 6th grader could tell you what is going to happen in this case, ffs.

WORDS HAVE MEANING! As long as you continue to say stuff like the above (both of you), you are going to continue to get the kind of comments you have been getting.

Reposting, because liking it is just not enough. Especially the bolded.

[formergothardite]

Thank you Koala for posting all that because I was pretty sure that he had responded after that lady had asked that. Unless that is a totally different Ken, but it doesn't seem like it its. But him not answering is less of a big deal than Lori totally ignoring it. What is her excuse Ken? She had time to reply to other comments but no time to stand up for morality and declare that rape shouldn't be put in quotes because it is very real and very wrong. You keep saying she is this wise mentor, but a wise mentor wouldn't ignore a comment or question that downplays rape.

[salex]

Ken and all

One of the key things in humans that makes birthrates per woman drop is increases in affluence--however, apparently all those advances Ken hates since the 70s have worked make the world secure enough (circa 2009) for enough people that more people are having more kids.... This article goes into it in depth, for those of you who are interested and want to know the facts... and you too, Ken.

economist.com/node/14164483

From the article

ONE of the paradoxes of human biology is that the rich world has fewer children than the poor world.

. . . as economic development gets going, country after country has experienced what is known as the demographic transition: fertility (defined as the number of children borne by a woman over her lifetime) drops from around eight to near one and a half.

A study they have just published in Nature suggests that as development continues, the demographic transition goes into reverse.

Dr Myrskyla looked at the world as it was in 1975 and as it is now (or, at least, as it was in 2005). He compared two things. One was the total fertility rate (the number of children that would be born to a woman in a particular country over the course of her life if she experienced the age-specific fertility rates observed in that country during the calendar year in question). The other was the human development index for that country. The HDI, a measure used by the United Nations, has three components: life expectancy; average income per person; and level of education. Its maximum possible value is one.

Back in the 1970s, no country got anywhere near one. Of the 107 places the researchers looked at, the best was Canada, with an HDI of 0.89. By 2005, however, things had improved markedly. Two dozen of what were now 240 countries had HDIs above nine—and something else remarkable had happened. Back in 1975, a graph plotting fertility rate against the HDI fell as the HDI rose. By 2005, though, the line had a kink in it. Above an HDI of 0.9 or so, it turned up, producing what is known in the jargon as a “J-shaped†curve (even though it is the mirror image of a letter J). As the chart shows, in many countries with really high levels of development (around 0.95) fertility rates are now approaching two children per woman. There are exceptions, notably Canada and Japan, but the trend is clear.

There are lots of social explanations of why fertility rates fall as countries become richer. The increasi

---

ng ability of women in the developed world to control their own reproductive output is one, as is the related phenomenon of women entering the workplace in large numbers. The increasing cost of raising children in a society with more material abundance plays a part. So does the substitution of nationalised social-security systems for the support of offspring in old age. Falling rates of child mortality are also significant. Conversely, Dr Myrskyla speculates that the introduction of female-friendly employment policies in the most developed countries allows women to have the best of both worlds, and that this may contribute to the uptick.

No doubt all these social explanations are true as far as they go, but they do not address the deeper question of why people's psychology should have evolved in a way that makes them want fewer children when they can afford more. There is a possible biological explanation, though. This is that there are, broadly speaking, two ways of reproducing.

One way is to churn out offspring in large numbers, turn them out into an uncaring world, and hope that one or two of them make it. The other is to have but a few progeny and to dote on them, ensuring that they grow up with every possible advantage for the ensuing struggle with their peers for mates and resources. The former is characteristic of species that live in unstable environments and the latter of species whose circumstances are predictable.

iewed in comparison with most animals, humans are at the predictable-environment and doting-parent end of the scale, but from a human perspective those in less developed countries are further from it than those in rich ones. One interpretation of the demographic transition, then, is that the abundance which accompanies development initially enhances the instinct to lavish care and attention on a few offspring. Only when the environment becomes super-propitious can parents afford more children without compromising those they already have—and only then, as Dr Myrskyla has now elucidated, does the birth-rate start to rise again.

I find this to be accurate based on my observation of people and how they act. But it does not present the 70s or the past as some nirvana of fertility and joy. Additionally, isn't the wish for "olden days"a standard wish of the aging person, who somehow gilds the past and their youth, when everything still lay ahead of them, while seeing the future as dark, sad and empty (since, somewhere in that future, they will not be around to participate.)

The people 30 years older than us bemoaned the 70s, the peo 30 years older than them bemoaned the debauchery of the 40s.... looking back wistfully is a waste of time...

[Ken]

I think he meant "ever read" not "never read". He makes a lot of typos that change what he is saying so that explains a lot of the confusion with some of his posts. I have also noticed that he doesn't actually read people's posts. He skims, picks out a word or two and focuses on that. That is how he ended up thinking the one poster had a bi-polar husband when what she actually said was that her husband had lied to the church elders and said she was bi-polar so that they wouldn't believe anything she said about him. The advice he gave didn't apply to anything she said.

Yes, the skimming is true, but the huge amount of extra time to try and answer questions makes it impossible not to skim at times.

It is also frustrating that when one comments you can't go back and look at what people have written when in the editor... at least I do not know how.

I was thinking about your marriage and wondering what your two personalities are like. Personality plays a big role in how a couple responds to one another. Certainly behavior we are all responsible to control, but if one is a more passive personality it is easier t go along with the flow as opposed to the two more active personalities who have more goals, dreams, ambitions, and like to be in charge.

Lastly, concerning child raising, I was at a large professional school when the director walked up to me and said, "I need to know how you raised such a great kid because I want to raise my children to be like him." The idea that somehow I have this horrible marriage and our kids are all messed up is so far from the truth. It is out of the well of success in both our marriage the lats 14 years and how we raised four terrific kids that we have something to offer others. You and your group may not want to learn anything from us, but I can tell you that my wife gets much of the credit for it all and that is why I value her, and her blog. She teaches me new things all the time and there is never a dull day around my house. I might have had more peace with a Relater or Steady personality, but no where near as much fun and excitement as my wife brings.

Thanks for the conversations. I sense you are not a typical FJer, or maybe you are and others like you are hiding in the wings. I just hope and pray that the group can find a little bit of grace and understanding, and realize that we are not the enemy. We get hit from both sides of the discussions with some saying or skirts are too high, or we are not strong enough on certain conservative things, then we get hit from the left. We only try to be Biblical in our lives and actions, and with what we write. We do not speak for God, but we do speak out of our personal and well learned knowledge. Others may disagree, and we are OK with that. But what we don't get is why so many get upset on both sides for our sharing our personal believes and experiences when so many appear to be benefiting from it. If you don't like it, stop reading. But why must we fit into other people's boxes? Isn't the world of ideas big enough to have varying pints of view without making it seem that our ideas are so horrible, when just 20-40 years ago the majority of America would have agreed with us? Has this country stooped so low that when we disagree we have to shout and call names and run for the tiniest of mud, instead of discussing the real issues?

Almost worn down... and sad.

[salex]

The idea that somehow I have this horrible marriage and our kids are all messed up is so far from the truth. It is out of the well of success in both our marriage the lats 14 years and how we raised four terrific kids that we have something to offer others. You and your group may not want to learn anything from us, but I can tell you that my wife gets much of the credit for it all and that is why I value her, and her blog. She teaches me new things all the time and there is never a dull day around my house. I might have had more peace with a Relater or Steady personality, but no where near as much fun and excitement as my wife brings.

Thanks for the conversations. I sense you are not a typical FJer, or maybe you are and others like you are hiding in the wings. I just hope and pray that the group can find a little bit of grace and understanding, and realize that we are not the enemy. We get hit from both sides of the discussions with some saying or skirts are too high, or we are not strong enough on certain conservative things, then we get hit from the left. We only try to be Biblical in our lives and actions, and with what we write. We do not speak for God, but we do speak out of our personal and well learned knowledge. Others may disagree, and we are OK with that. But what we don't get is why so many get upset on both sides for our sharing our personal believes and experiences when so many appear to be benefiting from it. If you don't like it, stop reading. But why must we fit into other people's boxes? Isn't the world of ideas big enough to have varying pints of view without making it seem that our ideas are so horrible, when just 20-40 years ago the majority of America would have agreed with us?

I don't believe that 20 years ago,(1994) most people believed that women should submit to their husbands--I have watched as that became a major pop christian movement and about 20 years ago it hit the christian radio big time and now it is very very popular there... but they preach to the choir. 40 years ago, everyone I knew went to relatively conservative small town churches and I never heard anyone who believed this or lived it. I met a few in college whose fathers valued their sons education and lives more than their daughters, but, even in the bible belt, I saw this as an anaomaly.

You would get far less grief if you didn't tell people your way is the only acceptable version to God. THere are enough Christians who know that is not taught in all churches (I'm sure they are all apostate, in your opinion) but either way, if Lori is going to be the Dear Abby of submission, she will have to get thicker skin and so will you. (Dr. Laura, who evolved to some similar beliefs, probably bought thick skin with her profits)

Has this country stooped so low that when we disagree we have to shout and call names and run for the tiniest of mud, instead of discussing the real issues?

Watch Fox news. Listen to Rush Limbaugh. (I don't listen to either, though I have) Maybe that TMZ show you talked about (is it a call in?) Heck, even the CSPAN morning call in shows prove that our country can get pretty excited over differences. Not that this is new. (Do you ever read history at all?)

I told you the real issues I have-- defining wives and women as the private and men as their leaders by virtue of their sex diminishes all women eventually, in the eyes of many men. As a woman, I see this as a serious threat. When a blog preaches against educating women, against women having equal rights within a marriage, against women working, against women being able to provide value if they do work, and even against women being viewed as full citizens under the law by contemplating ending the vote for women. This is a serious threat to women. Replace the word women with any other type of person -- blacks, asians, mexicans, "white men over 50" and see what it sounds like. Would any of those replacements be acceptable to you, or is it just ok to view women in this light?

Almost worn down... and sad.

Not sure why you are sad. What did you expect to accomplish when you came in? Are you sad that you did not accomplish it, sad that we are all going to hell, or sad that the image you thought you and Lori were presenting on her blog is read in a wholly different way? Or some other reason?

[Ken]

They both excuse a lot of CRAP by saying people take it out of context. Ken did it here and they both did it there.

Breaking the will is breaking the will... what causes a child to be a bit disobedient may be his/her natural curiosity--not his evil nature. I cannot imagine wanting to break a child's will, or how you can do it without breaking the child's spirit.... who wants to break their child?

Plus didn't Ken say on her blog that he had not read all of Debbie Pearls book on being his helpmeet? on this, he says Read the whole thing in context. and this

On Lori's blog, on november 30th of last year (2013) Ken wrote this

Then on the blog you found he is saying this... around Nove17-18 of the same year... sounds like he has read the book here.

The fact these two do marriage counseling to young couples is really sad. Perhaps we should pray that god gives them a gardening ministry or something that is more productive and less dangerous to others.

Best book I NEVER read... is not a typo. I have had my wife read me some excerpts, and I may have read a few pages she put n front of me, but who cares if I read it or not? Wrong again, and getting tired of having to correct you so much of the time.

I really don't get much of the rambling here. especially how I took anything put of context???

[ViolaSebastian]

How on earth do you know what you're endorsing if you haven't read the book? There may be something in the book that you disagree with and don't even know it.

[Ken]

I hope they weren't the mint kind because that would be quite serious in my household!

Well I would like to try to help you get them back, but to be honest I a not sure myself exactly what she meant by this... except we men do like certain things in life. I like a a lot of intelligence, good communicator and a nice looking face to go with my woman. Maybe she doesn't know that? Or maybe this was a bit of hyperbole which is acceptable for a writer, especially in this area. Women think all men care about is sex and tat is simply not true! We like food and sports too.

Did I get your M & M's back?

[salex]

They both excuse a lot of CRAP by saying people take it out of context. Ken did it here and they both did it there.

Best book I NEVER read... is not a typo. I have had my wife read me some excerpts, and I may have read a few pages she put n front of me, but who cares if I read it or not? Wrong again, and getting tired of having to correct you so much of the time.

I knew and was pointing out that it was not a typo, but you and Lori's 'cute" way of saying that it was a book that changed your life when lori read it.

I really don't get much of the rambling here. especially how I took anything put of context???

Actually, I said that you excuse a lot of what you write when people corner you about by saying that other people are taking what you write out of context. You seem to do it fairly frequently.

They both excuse a lot of CRAP by saying people take it out of context. Ken did it here and they both did it there. (read did it as "said it or "wrote it" or "accused others of taking things out of context" " and it might make more sense .

[Ken]

I am not a fan of the mint kind. I do like the peanut kind, though. I will clarify that it was a small bag, but still, a bag of m&m's is a bag of m&m's. :lol:

Sorry.. I was skimming too fast and thought Curious had lost the M & M's If you lost them, I will be happy to replace them. Just post your address and I will send a dozen packs. On second thought, don't post it... Koala would have a field day exposing it to the world because you posted it on the Internet in a Forum. I wonder what she does with wallets when she finds them? Finder's keepers... I mean they were walking in the world when they lost it, so I guess they are fair game.

[Koala]

Sorry.. I was skimming too fast and thought Curious had lost the M & M's If you lost them, I will be happy to replace them. Just post your address and I will send a dozen packs. On second thought, don't post it... Koala would have a field day exposing it to the world because you posted it on the Internet in a Forum. I wonder what she does with wallets when she finds them? Finder's keepers... I mean they were walking in the world when they lost it, so I guess they are fair game.

That might possibly be the creepiest shit you've pulled here. Scratch that, that is the creepiest shit you've pulled here. Seriously, I would venture you are in no danger of her giving you her address :evil-eye:

And hear me when I say, your wife has exposed the details of her life to the world, not me. I have simply commented on/ quoted information she has made available. The interwebz does not = Lori's journal :roll:

[lipstickgoalie]

Sorry.. I was skimming too fast and thought Curious had lost the M & M's If you lost them, I will be happy to replace them. Just post your address and I will send a dozen packs. On second thought, don't post it... Koala would have a field day exposing it to the world because you posted it on the Internet in a Forum. I wonder what she does with wallets when she finds them? Finder's keepers... I mean they were walking in the world when they lost it, so I guess they are fair game.

Ken, no one here has posted private information. You have been told this a number of times. Posting private information is against the TOU here. Before you return to the old "they tried to ruin my business" chestnut I will remind you that one person, ONE, brought up contacting your clients and that was immediately quashed. I was the first person to say that was not right. Several others chimed in right after.

I was also wondering if you saw my post from earlier today?

[GeoBQn]

That's a low blow, accusing someone of theft because they disagree with you.

[Koala]

Ken, no one here has posted private information. You have been told this a number of times. Posting private information is against the TOU here. Before you return to the old "they tried to ruin my business" chestnut I will remind you that one person, ONE, brought up contacting your clients and that was immediately quashed. I was the first person to say that was not right. Several others chimed in right after.

I was also wondering if you saw my post from earlier today?

This reminds me of the good ol' days when he accused us of impeding Lori's free speech, but was unable to provide any substantiation for his claim.

I'd like to see him address the fact that he lied about being in the comments on Lori's recent blog post where a reader pondered how marital rape could actually exist.

[Ken]

So you will state for the record that you are just fine with using the Google Crawler in an unnatural way to shift to the top of the page for all L_ri Alex...der's in the world to see that L_ri Alex...der is a F....ing Monst... er?

That is fine with you right?

Do you understand about search engines and crawlers?

It is not the crawler that is being unethical, immoral and unkind, it is a person hiding behind a moniker who is causing the harm, not the Crawler. If beat your husband with a baseball bat your defense s that the bat works well for giving beatings?

It is absurd to blame the crawler for irresponsible behavior.

Your search proves the point that it is imperfect. Th link you refer to has NOTHING to say about "spank harder." Yet it showed up in your search and you perpetuated the myth because you did not read what was said very carefully. So my wife now teaches "spank harder" because the Crawler shows you a search about spanking even if the word "harder" never shows up in the comments?

[Ken]

Ken, do you (and Lori) understand that words have meanings and when you arrange them in certain order that they mean specific things?

Lori said this:

WORDS HAVE MEANING! As long as you continue to say stuff like the above (both of you), you are going to continue to get the kind of comments you have been getting.

Yes, but words also have limitations in explaining context. There is often much more to a story than what the works in a brief sentence can convey. I have shown many mischaracterizations and speculations precisely because the reader chooses to use their bias to interpret the words without knowing the full story and context.

Regardless, it is almost like a soap opera on this site looking for mud and gossip material instead of dealing with the real issues... the disagreement with what God says in His Word, maybe jealousy, maybe taking out on others some real pain in one;s life? I see jealousy as a major factor in most rifts in relationships in the workplace. If I can't have it, let me try to destroy it, or at least make fun of it.

[lipstickgoalie]

So you will state for the record that you are just fine with using the Google Crawler in an unnatural way to shift to the top of the page for all L_ri Alex...der's in the world to see that L_ri Alex...der is a F....ing Monst... er?

That is fine with you right?

Do you understand about search engines and crawlers?

It is not the crawler that is being unethical, immoral and unkind, it is a person hiding behind a moniker who is causing the harm, not the Crawler. If beat your husband with a baseball bat your defense s that the bat works well for giving beatings?

It is absurd to blame the crawler for irresponsible behavior.

Your search proves the point that it is imperfect. Th link you refer to has NOTHING to say about "spank harder." Yet it showed up in your search and you perpetuated the myth because you did not read what was said very carefully. So my wife now teaches "spank harder" because the Crawler shows you a search about spanking even if the word "harder" never shows up in the comments?

Ken, your wife teaches spank harder because that was what she said. Not the crawler, your wife used her very own fingers to type "spank harder". Those were her thoughts. That is what she "taught" another woman. The spankings weren't working and your wife said "spank harder". To the best of knowledge she has not retracted that statement. You have said that neither you, nor she, believes "spank harder" to be an acceptable answer to a parenting dilemma but bottom line is your wife, in her blog used to instruct fine Christian women, has NOT RETRACTED "SPANK HARDER". You do not speak for her. Her target audience is not reading here. She said it Ken.

And just so you know, I have never used your wife's name in when I assert that she is a fucking monster. I also said that contacting your clients was crossing the line. Also I did happen to find a wallet at the grocery on Monday. I turned it in to the customer service desk after looking to see if I could find the person's phone number to contact them directly. It was the second time I found a wallet at that grocery. Last time I added 20 dollars to it because loosing your wallet sucks and I thought that would make its owner smile. I know it is Koala that you accuse of being a wallet thief but I thought I would cover my bases.

Did you have a chance to read my post to you earlier today?