Ken Explains it All - Lori & Ken Alexander - Part 3

[Loveday]

NO we live out lives by the WHOLE of God's word in context. It is this group that has tried to narrow us down to two issues, both of which I have basically dispelled.

The problem is, Ken, that all Lori seems to talk about in her blog are submission and spanking. Oh, she throws in a recipe now and then, and a few wedding pictures, but I'd say a good 80-90 per cent of her blog centers around her two favourite themes, spanking and submission. Kind of hard to say WE'VE narrowed it down, when it's Lori who has done that all by herself. And trust me, you haven't dispelled a thing with your giant walls o' text.

Same with spanking... I say spanking should be modest with a goal not to leave any bruises and used sparingly along with many other disciplinary "time out" approaches. That is not good enough for the group as it is all or nothing.

I wish I could believe that, but I don't. Not for one hot minute.

[J'ean Skirt]

L.ri Al.x.nd.r is a F..king M.nst.r

1 ... 456by GeoBQn » Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:15 am

It begins here and the conspiracy is born with this first post. Many FJers jump on happy to help in the process of moving the defamation/libel up the Google Search Engine.

It might be helpful to talk to a lawyer before you proceed with the ongoing legal threats. A decent lawyer will not only make it clear whether or not you have an actual case, they will give you an idea of how much it costs. Hint: when we had our house broken into and were looking at a civil suit against the thieves in order to get their location to hand over to the police, the lawyer said it would cost between 8 and 10K (and at least 2 court appearances) just to get that information. That did not count the expert witness work, which we would have done ourselves.

You might also want to look up the case law and information surrounding section 230 of the communications decency act.

And, again, you probably want to look up the Streisand Effect.

To Curious again:

Ken says: are you kidding me? Go back and look at the thread again... Curious said: c) we don't control Google search in general and the person who suggested pushing a certain term to up the odds on hits didn't proceed with it.

At least be honest about it. Your group purposely manipulated the Google Crawler to defame my wife.

A number of people have tried to explain to you how no one can actually do this. Would it help if some man-with-an-actual-penis explained it to you?

Period and have refused my repeated requests to remedy the harm done. Solve the problem. I am not trying to curtail what you all say in the Forum, but it should stay here and not spew all over the Internet. You are the one's wielding the bat and causing harm.

You do understand that for any legal threat you will have to show actual harm. Harm in the legal sense, which usually refers to financial damage, not just "they made Google do something that I object to."

Edited to fix broken quotes.

[salex]

Ken wrote:

So you again are wrong on most counts, but you say it with such conviction that you actually think it is true.

To which I can only say

Back atcha, dude....

[Mama Mia]

NO we live out lives by the WHOLE of God's word in context. It is this group that has tried to narrow us down to two issues, both of which I have basically dispelled.

Biblical Submission looks a lot like a healthy Egalitarian marriage, but that comment gets whacked too because FJ does not want to look at the 98% we have in common on the concept of a healthy marriage, but the 2% we disagree upon.

Same with spanking... I say spanking should be modest with a goal not to leave any bruises and used sparingly along with many other disciplinary "time out" approaches. That is not good enough for the group as it is all or nothing.

As far as why I jumped into the Forum I made it clear I had no one specific reason, but made a request to remove the libelous URL's and remedy the problem, and stated I wanted to clear up much of the misinformation and mischaracterizations.

What I am discovering is that no matter how many mischaracterizations I clear up, you and others come up with new one. Rarely if ever does any FJer apologize for the mischaracterization or misinformation, but instead excuses it and moves onto another one. Now have recently reviewed what Cyber Bullying is all about, I am beginning to see the pattern. can't win, because as fast I I dispel the lies the faster new one are formed, and even those slightly sympathetic will say, "He should not have come here... so it is his fault."

So you again are wrong on most counts, but you say it with such conviction that you actually think it is true.

I actually thought that maybe some here were interested in the truth, but my patience is wearing thin with the inability to process reality and logic. I could clearly refute almost every one of your assertions, but what is the use, you will still parade your bad thinking and poor research as if it is reality. It is not even opinion... it is just plain wrong.

If I state up front that I do not know for sure why I am in this Forum or that I have various purposes... why can't my story keep changing to try and respond to the nonsense?

Ken,

I'm sorry to see this whole discussion is spinning into the google stuff. I actually do find the theological debates very interesting, and was glad to see you taking a more nuanced approach to some of the advice given on the blog. As I've said before, I happen to be Christian and don't disagree with wifely submission/ servant leadership if both parties desire that model AND are capable of living it. While I can see problems that can arise out of giving blanket advice without finding out more information, I realize that in this day and age many ( most?) people will go on-line for information and support on topics that concern them. Because people look to strangers with blogs for advice it makes it really important that the advice givers go out of their way to make sure the advice can't be construed in a way that will promote abuse or misuse.

The best way to not have the Google bomb comments appear in searches is to fill up the conversations with general conversation, the more the words you object to are brought up, the higher in the search they will go.

[Koala]

I am on the busy side today, so I don't have time to wade through all of your ridiculous ramblings, but there's someone I think you should meet.

Same with spanking... I say spanking should be modest with a goal not to leave any bruises and used sparingly along with many other disciplinary "time out" approaches. That is not good enough for the group as it is all or nothing.

Ken, meet Lori. Like you, she has 4 kids, but she parented them quite differently from the way you parented yours:

Lori:

Our children obeyed us. We didn't have to resort to charts, bedtime routines, stickers, or time outs. We spanked them if they didn't obey us!

She also differs with you on how spankings should be administered. While you advocate for "modest spankings" and "light swats", Lori believes that you should use a leather strap and hit hard enough that it hurts so much they won't repeat the behavior for fear of being hit again. She thinks that pain is a great teacher, and applied her leather strap accordingly.

[Koala]

Also, not bruising your children while hitting them should be more than a goal- it should be a hard line in the sand. Unfortunately you and Lori did not meet that "goal" did you Ken, because according to your earlier posts, you managed to bruise at least one of your children with your "modest spankings" and "light swats".

[kpmom]

Just for fun I did a google, yahoo, and bing search on Lori's full name. The monster one comes up only on google, but is 9th on the list (and no f****** is there, at least on the list I got). Her blog comes up right away. And an obituary on someone with her name also comes up much sooner.

If I was searching for her blog, I'd find it long before I got to the monster.

And, as someone upthread asked, is it illegal to call someone a monster, or a f****** monster on the internet?

[happy atheist]

To Curious again:

Ken says: are you kidding me? Go back and look at the thread again... Curious said: c) we don't control Google search in general and the person who suggested pushing a certain term to up the odds on hits didn't proceed with it.

Hey Ken, you need to be careful not to misattribute quotes.

Just in case Ken missed it the first time:

Curious said:

That's what I found last night. He's complaining about a thread from last year.

Oh and Ken if people had done what you are accusing them of trying to manipulate Google at least a couple of dozen people would have used that tag line to end their posts repeatedly and you'd see it hundreds if not thousands of times in these threads. They didn't so quit saying that they did. Yes, someone suggested it, but it was NOT carried out.

I think I should give Ken up for Lent.

Coconut Flan quoted Curious and then added her own thoughts. You're conflating them, and that might prompt lesser individuals to run around screaming about libel and slander and such.

[Coconut Flan]

Also Ken a half dozen Lori Alexander is whatever do not a concerted effort at manipulating Google make. It would take hundreds.

Thank you, HA. I was letting it go by as Ken has not shown the highest level of reading comprehension or attention to detail.

[polecat]

Also Ken a half dozen Lori Alexander is whatever do not a concerted effort at manipulating Google make. It would take hundreds.

Thank you, HA. I was letting it go by as Ken has not shown the highest level of reading comprehension or attention to detail.

Yes, yes, but Ken has all the logics! He says so himself!

[samurai_sarah]

I have a serious question for the legal brains here.

Is it illegal to call somebody a fucking monster? In the written word, or on the internet?

I don't personally recall being involved in the thread mentioned or the TOOL one, I just thought it was not my thing hey ho.

BUT is it illegal to call somebody who advocates hitting a child harder, a profanity laden title. It might not be pleasant, but is it illegal?

Simple answer to your questions: No.

***stop reading here, unless you want to know the detailed answer :lol: ***

And here's where it gets complicated, because I only know English law, so next time, you might want to be careful and cross the border, before you do that: Slander and libel both fall under the English Defamation Law, and are quite narrowly defined. What that means is that, say if you published a picture of me with a caption saying "pig", and no further information, it'd be insulting to me, but there's nothing much I can do about it. I'm not a person in the public eye, you calling me a "pig" may hurt my feelings, but it's not going to change my life. I would have to prove that I have a case against you.

If your caption read "samurai_sarah is a pig, because her kitchen is filthy", yeah I could bring a case against you. It would also promptly get thrown out of court, because I'm a private person and what you think of the state of my kitchen makes no difference.

If I were a professional cook, now then things would get serious! Your statement would possibly hinder my business and my standing, endangering my livelihood! Now the courts would listen, because there's a possibility of tangible harm. But again, I'd have to prove that.

If I were a professional cook, and your caption would read "samurai_sarah is a pig, because she cuts people off in traffic", it would have absolutely no impact. No court of law in England would bother. If I were a truck driver, it would be a different matter. But then, I'd still have to prove that you're lying.

"samurai_sarah is a pig, because she cheats on her husband/is a racist/beats up people" - statements like that are actionable. But with the burden of proof on me, I have to a) prove that that is untrue, and b) show how that impairs my professional standing. If you could prove only one instance of me cheating/being racist/committing assault, I wouldn't only wind up with the costs of the trial, but possibly a criminal trial.

And just to make matters more difficult, it is up to the claimant to prove that you said something, and how it hurt them. Tangible! Coming back to the original example, you calling me a pig is technically actionable, but if you shrug and say "well, that's just what I think of her", that's it. I lose. Or to come back to the second example of me being a professional cook, and you saying I'm a pig, because my kitchen is a mess. Again, actionable, if I prove that you said it. All you need to do is prove that you have good reason for calling me that. Say, you found a cockroach in your salad, and therefore good reason to assume that my kitchen is a pigsty.

Tl, Dr: Long story short: No. You can all anyone whatever you like, but be prepared to defend your position.

To your second question about calling someone who advocates hitting a child names, see above. In England, it's fine. It's up to the claimant to a) prove that you said it, and b) prove that that is not the case. It's up to the defendant to substantiate what they said. In this case, Lori advising to "hit harder", and anyone saying that she's a monster for that, would be actionable, but of no consequence. She said it, someone on the internet thinks she's a monster for that, end of.

Sorry about the novel, and apologies that I cannot advise on Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish law. Much less on the US. My point was mainly to illustrate how difficult it is to bring a suit for defamation. The law, and especially the judicial process, are rarely what people imagine. It's not straightforward, and legalese is its own language. It's as complicated as I hoped to have illustrated, precisely because so many factors need to be taken into account.

Back to defamation: As a claimant, it's hardly worth it. As a defendant, unless you've spread lies knowingly, it's relatively easy enough to refute. Besides, in England, it's a difficult suit to bring to court as a private, not famous, person. If you're a person with a blog, suing for that, you'd get laughed out of court. If it got that far.

2nd Tl;Dr: From where I stand, (probably*) all of us UK FJers can continue speaking our minds without fear of any repercussions.

Disclaimer: *probably, because I'm guessing that the UK, outside of England, has similar laws in place, but I can't speak to them with any authority, at all. Please, correct me, if I'm wrong. Unlike Lori, I'm always learning. ;)

[Full enough quiver]

Sometimes I forget that the people we snark on are real people with feelings. So, I'm going to take a minute to sincerely apologize if I have said anything hurtful or untrue. As far as I know, calling someone a monster is not illegal. It's not nice, but some of the things Lori has said on her blog are not nice. I try not to engage in name calling, so if I ever called Lori a monster, I apologize. However, I think her beliefs are terrible. Some of her actions are terrible. Everyone makes mistakes, (I know I'm not perfect) and I think people should be forgiven for their bad choices, but Lori not only justifies her bad choices using the bible, but encourages others to make the same choices.

My problem isn't with Lori's blog, or Lori and ken as individuals. My problem is with conservative Christianity in general. You have a group of people reading a book written thousands of years ago in ancient Palestine. Obviously, since god didn't write a sequel, people interpret it to make it relevant to today. I don't have a problem with that. My problem is when you call anyone on an interpretation you see as wrong, then you hate religion, or you hate god. You must be an atheist, a feminist , a fill in the blank, not true believer. When you object to conservative Christians wanting to involve the bible in politics, wanting to pass laws based on the bible, you're "taking away their religious freedom". And you can't have a debate, because you will never win with someone who believes that god is on their side.

I think a person's spiritual beliefs are a personal matter, but when a person, or group of people, uses their beliefs as an excuse to hurt others, that's not ok. When they use the bible to justify misogyny, child abuse, or homophobia, thats not ok. I would never say these things on Lori's blog, because we're not going to agree anyway. Our worldviews are so far apart, there would be no point. So I come here, and snark on people I believe are disseminating harmful beliefs, with other people who see them as harmful, and may have been hurt by these beliefs.

I am sorry if you feel ganged up on, Ken. This can be an intimidating group when you don't agree. Most of the people here are intelligent and well educated. (I'm often out of my depth here) You probably feel here the way I would feel if I tried to debate a group of conservative Christians, so I will give you some credit for coming back, and I think trying to hear the other side. With a few exceptions, I think we've mostly been polite :) I would recommend reading other threads that are less personal if you want an idea of what the people here believe.

[polecat]

You know what I find funny -- like actually funny? I haven't called him a name at all. Or his wife. Just not my style. And I've not used his full name OR hers. But several dozen pages ago, he told me that I was one of the most offensive people here. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=20947&p=694020&hilit=+polecat#p694020

I think then that I can say that it's not so much WHAT you say but exactly where on his sensitive little feewings you happen to strike. And if you strike closer to the heart of the problem, you're going to have to deal with more of his nonsensically hysterical blow back.

So go ahead, Ken. Sue me. Otherwise, quit threatening. You just look ridiculous.

[samurai_sarah]

(snip)

NO we live out lives by the WHOLE of God's word in context. It is this group that has tried to narrow us down to two issues, both of which I have basically dispelled.

Biblical Submission looks a lot like a healthy Egalitarian marriage, but that comment gets whacked too because FJ does not want to look at the 98% we have in common on the concept of a healthy marriage, but the 2% we disagree upon.

No, it doesn't. I get the whole "husbands love your wives, like Christ loves the church etc" thing, but in conjunction with the verses about wifely submission beforehand, it is nothing like an egalitarian relationship. In your model, Christ/the husband remains the ultimate authority. The authority in this case is supposed to be kind and benign, which is a lovely idea. But I'm with John Locke on this one, who (paraphrased) said that a good ruler was fine, but if said ruler didn't live up to expectation, get rid of the ruler. To me, that sounds very much like what you're trying to live.

Which may work for you. May I use this moment to mention that John Locke, in case someone doesn't know who he is, was a 17th century political philosopher and Christian?

That's how I see your ideal model of submission, with a benign ruler at the top, and submissive subjects at the bottom, who can rest assured that their authority will take their best interests and voices into account. Rebellion/divorce comes whenever the ruler/authority fails the subjects. Good if that works for you.

But the one thing that model failed to take into account is how different human beings are. It didn't work 300 years ago, it doesn't work now. And it is far, far removed from an egalitarian relationship. Locke advocated benign absolutism. Egalitarian relationships are all about democracy. The two don't meet. Benign absolutism is all about a "god-given right to rule", unless the ruler fails in their commitment. Democracy is the rule of the parties involved, for themselves.

See the difference?

Same with spanking... I say spanking should be modest with a goal not to leave any bruises and used sparingly along with many other disciplinary "time out" approaches. That is not good enough for the group as it is all or nothing.

Again, no. Physical punishment is about not respecting another's bodily authority. It doesn't matter whether or not you leave bruises, you're getting into someone's personal space. And worse, you're assaulting someone smaller than you. And someone who trusts you.

To keep with the John Locke theme, imagine the benign authority hurting you. They're supposed to take care of you, and they hurt you. As an adult, would you rebel or not? America certainly rebelled, when England imposed unfair measures.

As far as why I jumped into the Forum I made it clear I had no one specific reason, but made a request to remove the libelous URL's and remedy the problem, and stated I wanted to clear up much of the misinformation and mischaracterizations.

When you started out here, you made no such statement.

What I am discovering is that no matter how many mischaracterizations I clear up, you and others come up with new one. Rarely if ever does any FJer apologize for the mischaracterization or misinformation, but instead excuses it and moves onto another one. Now have recently reviewed what Cyber Bullying is all about, I am beginning to see the pattern. can't win, because as fast I I dispel the lies the faster new one are formed, and even those slightly sympathetic will say, "He should not have come here... so it is his fault."

See my post about "defamation" in England.

So you again are wrong on most counts, but you say it with such conviction that you actually think it is true.

No, it actually is true, for my life. Note the bit where I say "my life".

I actually thought that maybe some here were interested in the truth, but my patience is wearing thin with the inability to process reality and logic. I could clearly refute almost every one of your assertions, but what is the use, you will still parade your bad thinking and poor research as if it is reality. It is not even opinion... it is just plain wrong.

Did you note all the Christians here on FJ? For myself, it's your truth and logic. Not mine. I don't believe in your sacred texts, and I don't believe in your deity. So whatever you say about that doesn't mean a thing to me. I'll gladly discuss your holy book, but I refuse to take it as an ultimate authority on which to base logic on. The bible is a matter of belief, not knowledge.

If I state up front that I do not know for sure why I am in this Forum or that I have various purposes... why can't my story keep changing to try and respond to the nonsense?

I do wonder. But, regardless, I'd love to hear your thoughts on John Locke, his theories and your stance.

edited for riffles and clarity

[changemanagement]

Yo, Ken. Change any minds here yet?

You need someone to argue with. You made Lori into a good little doormat and now you miss the entertainment.

If it makes you happy you can keep on spinning your wheels preaching at us wimmens. You'll never make any progress, but, hey, keep on trying if it makes you happy!

[AnAgnostic]

At least be honest about it. Your group purposely manipulated the Google Crawler to defame my wife. Period and have refused my repeated requests to remedy the harm done. Solve the problem. I am not trying to curtail what you all say in the Forum, but it should stay here and not spew all over the Internet. You are the one's wielding the bat and causing harm.

What?! How is that even possible? Whatever you put on a public website is going to be indexed, including responses to what was put on the public website by other websites. Your problem is that you want to be in control. We are not your wife. You don't get to police what others say about her horrific "advice." You clearly came here to hijack the conversation, and you are an EPIC FAIL. If you want your wife's blog to not be discussed, then make it private. Please do. We won't get to snark on it, but at least the amount of damage she does will then be minimized. Now you SSM (the other fucking monster) and your wife can get leave on the high horse you rode in on.

[Koala]

Richard Meyers · 17 hours ago

Lori/Ken - I have been lurking on a certain site filled with mentally I'll, angry people who have been attacking your family and beliefs from every which way. I'm sure you know the site I am talking about. I don't want to mention it here. IF you wish to seek any type of legal repercussions against that website, I can provide you with information regarding the owner there (name and other info your lawyer would appreciate). The fact that they are intentionally trying to manipulate google into providing unfavorable search results is, by itself, grounds for libel and harassment as well as intimidation, since it means they want people to see these vile things and in doing so hope it damages your reputation/business.

Ken · 16 hours ago

Thank you Richard,

I am aware of the site and decided a couple pf weeks ago to engage these people to try and set the record straight and see who all is behind what at times appears to be an evil curtain of hate.

I have discovered that on an individual basis the group is probably harmless but I am quite disturbed about their manipulation of the Google crawler to defame and spew profanity upon innocent people who simply search for their own name, or name of someone they know and get hit with the evil spew. I have asked the owner whose moniker is "Curious" to rectify the transgression but have been told that she will not do so. Legal action may be a possibility, but I hope not to need to use it as my impression is that she is not truly a bad person. She does believe that the ends justifies the means, and wants to hide behind the 1st Amendment with what is called Snark, and blames the Internet for the issue instead of the people who use the Internet and the Google Crawler as a weapon. I do have many attorney friends who might relish the fight as I assume it is not just us they are abusing the Internet with, all in the name of trying to protect against abuse. Ironic.

Perhaps you can contact me by email and we can discuss the situation further. I am trying to appeal to the people on that site to use common human decency, but so far all I have received is a lot of manure, and a little perspective that may prove helpful in broadening my world view.Some on the site actually believe they are doing a service of some sort to attack conservative Biblical blogs like this one. It is messed up thinking justified by a world view that is myopic in scope, yet they would accuse us of the same. But we are certainly not attacking them, I am not sure what to do with them, ignore, fight, or try to continue reasoning with them.

"Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them." {Romans 16:17}

[samurai_sarah]

Simple answer to your questions: No.

***stop reading here, unless you want to know the detailed answer :lol: ***

And here's where it gets complicated, because I only know English law, so next time, you might want to be careful and cross the border, before you do that: Slander and libel both fall under the English Defamation Law, and are quite narrowly defined. What that means is that, say if you published a picture of me with a caption saying "pig", and no further information, it'd be insulting to me, but there's nothing much I can do about it. I'm not a person in the public eye, you calling me a "pig" may hurt my feelings, but it's not going to change my life. I would have to prove that I have a case against you.

If your caption read "samurai_sarah is a pig, because her kitchen is filthy", yeah I could bring a case against you. It would also promptly get thrown out of court, because I'm a private person and what you think of the state of my kitchen makes no difference.

If I were a professional cook, now then things would get serious! Your statement would possibly hinder my business and my standing, endangering my livelihood! Now the courts would listen, because there's a possibility of tangible harm. But again, I'd have to prove that.

If I were a professional cook, and your caption would read "samurai_sarah is a pig, because she cuts people off in traffic", it would have absolutely no impact. No court of law in England would bother. If I were a truck driver, it would be a different matter. But then, I'd still have to prove that you're lying.

"samurai_sarah is a pig, because she cheats on her husband/is a racist/beats up people" - statements like that are actionable. But with the burden of proof on me, I have to a) prove that that is untrue, and b) show how that impairs my professional standing. If you could prove only one instance of me cheating/being racist/committing assault, I wouldn't only wind up with the costs of the trial, but possibly a criminal trial.

And just to make matters more difficult, it is up to the claimant to prove that you said something, and how it hurt them. Tangible! Coming back to the original example, you calling me a pig is technically actionable, but if you shrug and say "well, that's just what I think of her", that's it. I lose. Or to come back to the second example of me being a professional cook, and you saying I'm a pig, because my kitchen is a mess. Again, actionable, if I prove that you said it. All you need to do is prove that you have good reason for calling me that. Say, you found a cockroach in your salad, and therefore good reason to assume that my kitchen is a pigsty.

Tl, Dr: Long story short: No. You can all anyone whatever you like, but be prepared to defend your position.

To your second question about calling someone who advocates hitting a child names, see above. In England, it's fine. It's up to the claimant to a) prove that you said it, and b) prove that that is not the case. It's up to the defendant to substantiate what they said. In this case, Lori advising to "hit harder", and anyone saying that she's a monster for that, would be actionable, but of no consequence. She said it, someone on the internet thinks she's a monster for that, end of.

Sorry about the novel, and apologies that I cannot advise on Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish law. Much less on the US. My point was mainly to illustrate how difficult it is to bring a suit for defamation. The law, and especially the judicial process, are rarely what people imagine. It's not straightforward, and legalese is its own language. It's as complicated as I hoped to have illustrated, precisely because so many factors need to be taken into account.

Back to defamation: As a claimant, it's hardly worth it. As a defendant, unless you've spread lies knowingly, it's relatively easy enough to refute. Besides, in England, it's a difficult suit to bring to court as a private, not famous, person. If you're a person with a blog, suing for that, you'd get laughed out of court. If it got that far.

2nd Tl;Dr: From where I stand, (probably*) all of us UK FJers can continue speaking our minds without fear of any repercussions.

Disclaimer: *probably, because I'm guessing that the UK, outside of England, has similar laws in place, but I can't speak to them with any authority, at all. Please, correct me, if I'm wrong. Unlike Lori, I'm always learning. ;)

Sorry about quoting myself, but I can't edit, and forgot to add that: this is no legal advice in any way, shape or form, and least of all, in a professional capacity!

Ahem, sorry about that announcement of fact. I forgot earlier, and just wanted to cover my bases. :embarrassed:

[RosyDaisy]

No decent man would assume that being drunk means a a woman is asking for it. A descent man keeps his dick in is pants and and make sure she gets home safely. The fact that you place any blame on the victim makes you a fucking monster!

[formergothardite]

I attempted to have a reasonable conversation with him. He resorted to using a logical fallacy, diverting the conversation away from difficult questions and totally ignoring some questions.

His wife is an extremists among submission bloggers and she gives biased, blanket advice when she is incapable of knowing the entire situation. He doesn't want to address how this is a wise move on her part. I hardly think that this is what the Bible meant when it said for older women to mentor younger women. Ken, do you really think the Bible meant that a woman who is outside the younger woman's community, who is biased against that woman, and who makes assumptions should be the advice giver? I don't think that is what the Bible is talking about.

[Ken]

I attempted to have a reasonable conversation with him. He resorted to using a logical fallacy, diverting the conversation away from difficult questions and totally ignoring some questions.

His wife is an extremists among submission bloggers and she gives biased, blanket advice when she is incapable of knowing the entire situation. He doesn't want to address how this is a wise move on her part. I hardly think that this is what the Bible meant when it said for older women to mentor younger women. Ken, do you really think the Bible meant that a woman who is outside the younger woman's community, who is biased against that woman, and who makes assumptions should be the advice giver? I don't think that is what the Bible is talking about.

I am game to go back to answering your questions just to have you move the targets instead of commenting on libel and defamation. Help me solve the defamation of character issue your group has created with the Google Crawler and we can go back to a more healthy debate.

Concerning an older godly women giving advice to younger women, the Bible is silent on the subject of the use of the Internet to do such a thing. I am generally quite open to accepting all forms of behavior that are not specifically condemned by the Bible. There is enough in tyhe Bible that is specifically condemned to start adding another layer.

Lastly, there are so few older godly women training younger women. It is not happening in most churches effectively. Unless you believe that no one should write a book on any subject related to behavior and beliefs and should instead deal with everyone they teach one-on-one, you have to accept that some spiritual teaching will take place on the Internet.

I am a bit amazed at your view of some women, considering them so inferior to you in their ability to process information, digest it and accept or reject it. That somehow because it was written on the Internet women everywhere are gullible and are taking what Lori writes without careful reflection, even not knowing her in person. WHY? Because she publishes a blog along with a million other women Lori's authority and control is just so much more powerful?

Herein has been one of my biggest issues with you and salex in that you press fr changes in Lori's blog because of a .0000001 chance someone may be harmed, without a modicum of proof that such a thing has, or ever will happen. The bottom line is you do not like her teaching and you want to shut it up or tame it for your purposes.

That is unreasonable.

Give me three of the most difficult questions you feel I have ignored. If I answer them clearly for you will you finally stop changing your targets? I cannot keep answering question after question with nothing in return except you move on to another mischaracterization.

[Ken]

No decent man would assume that being drunk means a a woman is asking for it. A descent man keeps his dick in is pants and and make sure she gets home safely. The fact that you place any blame on the victim makes you a fucking monster!

How many times do I have to say that 100% of the responsibility for the rape is the man's? You just don;t like anyone to give advice to not walk down an dark alley, or do not get skunk drunk and expect that n consequences come for that form of behavior. Let's just live our lives however we want and blame everyone else for what happens to us, because it really is their fault. Right?

[Hane]

I'm going for a gel mani and a pedi next Saturday. Should I stick with something subdued and work-appropriate, or go for a fun, crazy color? I usually delay my peacock-blue mani-pedi till the summer.

[Chowder Head]

I'm going for a gel mani and a pedi next Saturday. Should I stick with something subdued and work-appropriate, or go for a fun, crazy color? I usually delay my peacock-blue mani-pedi till the summer.

I would go with a pretty Lavender, fun , fresh with a pop & still in business "code".

[Hane]

I would go with a pretty Lavender, fun , fresh with a pop & still in business "code".

Great idea! I hear that Pantone's color of the year is a nice shade of orchid.