(Jan 17, 2019 12:26 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan 16, 2019 11:24 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan 16, 2019 09:16 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Again, you seem really keen on blaming men, when your OP article only mentions...
Good grief, bud. You're completely missing the obvious sadism on my part. My second reply to Wegs was simply to perturb you further, once you indicated that the bait of the first one did.
So trolling.
You're either retracting what you wrote or you're just making up a backpedaling excuse. Either way, my point is made.
I'm fine with you taking "trolling" literally (a lot quicker than waiting on the Black Humor barrier to be hurdled). For me it was an offhand, "couldn't care less" sardonic way of replying about a couple of posts that were belatedly noticed and even then barely glanced at apart from inferring some degree of accusatory tone and agitation in them. Chalking it up to "Syne must be perturbed about a pebble being in the wrong place again."
Retraction? Backpedaling? You speak like a radio listener who shouted back at a program airing on it, and felt that what you said had an effect. I didn't respond to those two posts apart from quoting that initial projective ranting in the second. What was that again? Ah, yes: "Again, you seem really keen on blaming men..."
Finally taking a closer look at the first one (below)...
Quote:That's rather non sequitur to go from an article that only talks about cheating and deceiving women to the completely unmentioned delinquent fathers.
I placed no declaration in the original post that comments had to be narrowly confined to the article's content. So here we find you essentially hijacking the thread and posturing as a micromanaging administrator of what can and cannot be added to this conversation. Apparently trying to conflate guidelines from some strictly regulated venue with a casual conversation transpiring between two posters on a casual discussion board. The article being held up as a holy standard from which none can deviate.
It's akin to placing a fake or non-sanctioned stop sign at a rural intersection which didn't have one beforehand. Then standing by the sign and getting miffed when a vehicle drives right on by ignoring the sign's bogus authority. "How dare you, how dare you do that!"
Quote:Did you feel some need to try spreading the moral blame around?
What of it one way or the another? IOW, your question is a further implying that something improper was transpiring, trailing back in dependence to your spuriously introduced standard that the article narrowly sets the parameter for what can be discussed in this thread.
Quote:Do you have any data to back up the notion that DIY paternity tests are significantly motivated by delinquent fathers...or even just absent fathers? That article doesn't mention any.
I never mentioned a paternity test to Wegs. This is your loaded language, your own hand-crafted property which you are challenging. A misrepresentation projected onto another's post. The proposed connection of "delinquent, absent fathers" having to necessarily or automatically connect to paternity tests rests again on your spurious introduction of the article's role as providing absolute regulation of what can be brought up or mentioned. Thereby in turn all conversational items must trail back to it and its paternity test.
Quote:Again, you seem really keen on blaming men...
Wow. You seem really fond of running over Blue Heelers and eating them for breakfast.
~
(Jan 17, 2019 08:07 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]fyi previously (so i had read)male sought paternity tests had something like a 75% rate of proving the man was not the father.
Try the NBC Universal syndicated tabloids in Connecticut. I don't know if the
Maury show is available where you're at or not. But the few times I ever watched it while killing time in waiting rooms, the lie-detector tests were 100% and paternity tests always right.
~