tayken , have your herad of this group?have you heard of this group? NADADS I tried to send a PM but your box is full LOL . I originated from southern Ontario please send your opinon back in a pm
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
grandparents rights in ontario
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Peaboo View Posttayken , have your herad of this group?have you heard of this group? NADADS I tried to send a PM but your box is full LOL . I originated from southern Ontario please send your opinon back in a pm
I am a neutralist and see only parents and family members not, sex, sexual orientation, race or religion.
I am of the opinion that any organization specifically gender biased is of very little value to improving the quality of the lives of our most precious asset in our great nation... Children.
I do not support nor endorse any organization that is gender identified or demonstrates any bias to any religious, sexual orientation or any identifiable difference that would constitute discrimination.
Children have parents. They are men, women, gay, straight, lesbians, trans-gendered, disabled, able bodied, and of many races. Until such time these organizations truly understand this very fact... They are only contributing to the conflict and "wars" they try to create on individual family law matters and in parliament as a whole.
Furthermore, my observation and opinion is that they appear on the service to be a "fathers rights" advocacy group but, I am very concerned with the membership fees, points system, and other possibly for-profit mechanisms on their site. Furthermore, they repost materials from CanadaCourtWatch.com which I do not affiliate with, support or recommend to anyone.
Good Luck!
TaykenLast edited by Tayken; 11-22-2012, 11:46 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tayken View PostI do not support nor endorse any organization that is gender identified or demonstrates any bias
Sometimes, the gazelles might kill a lion, or each other, but usually the lions are killing the gazelles. Pretending that the world is otherwise is a little silly. The rules are pretty non-discriminatory... you kill whatever you can. That doesn't make them fair.
I think it is reasonable and appropriate for the gazelles to make a group that focuses on saving the gazelles, and leaving the gazelle-on-gazelle or gazelle-on-lion violence for somebody else to deal with.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Janus View PostThat is like the gazelles forming a support group to stop the senseless slaughter by the lions, and you lambasting them because they are not treating all animals the same.
Sometimes, the gazelles might kill a lion, or each other, but usually the lions are killing the gazelles. Pretending that the world is otherwise is a little silly. The rules are pretty non-discriminatory... you kill whatever you can. That doesn't make them fair.
I think it is reasonable and appropriate for the gazelles to make a group that focuses on saving the gazelles, and leaving the gazelle-on-gazelle or gazelle-on-lion violence for somebody else to deal with.
When a gazelle is born with opposable thumbs your argument will hold more weight.Last edited by Tayken; 11-22-2012, 01:19 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Janus View PostThat is like the gazelles forming a support group to stop the senseless slaughter by the lions, and you lambasting them because they are not treating all animals the same.
"lambasting " is defined as:
1. To give a thrashing to; beat. See Synonyms at beat.
2. To scold sharply; berate.
How did I do this?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tayken View PostAs you clearly don't like me for some odd reason
and are continually trying to dissprove me and defame my character... I do have a question.
"lambasting " is defined as:
1. To give a thrashing to; beat. See Synonyms at beat.
2. To scold sharply; berate.
How did I do this?
I am of the opinion that any organization specifically gender biased is of very little value
Comment
-
Originally posted by Janus View PostI am sorry if I gave that impression. You present yourself as a wide-ranging authority, I like to challenge presumed authority . I've mentioned it before, I think that you are a very interesting person, and I like reading what you write.
I am NOT a wide-ranging authority on anything. Anything I post here is for information purposes and hopefully helps someone somewhere. Anyone can take or leave my advice at the door and I do not offer discounts for the information posted nor do I accept any liability for it either.
Originally posted by Janus View PostGuilty of the former, not the latter. You've been pretty snarky to me as well.
Originally posted by Janus View PostI just push back more than other people, big words don't scare me. You can say "cogent" ten times, it still doesn't mean that you've produced a case law to back up your statement.
Originally posted by Janus View PostYou said
I am of the opinion that any organization specifically gender biased is of very little value
In my books, that's a lambasting.
Good Luck!
TaykenLast edited by Tayken; 11-22-2012, 04:30 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tayken View PostAgain, what purpose do I have to prove a point to you? Or anyone on this board for that matter? You can simply put me on ignore and move along. Furthermore, I am not your researcher... Especially for general case law that any competent person with a search engine can find themselves..
I might be confusing threads, but you are the one who meta'ed this. You had claimed that a financial advisor could provide evidence to a court that could be used to reduce CS obligations. I asked if this had ever happened. You declined to provide any case law to back up your assertion.
You are welcome to put me on ignore as well if I bother you so much. I'm not sure how asking you for case law to back up a statement you made is so harsh that you have to repeatedly refer me to google as if I were a child. Furthermore, it is wrong, since I cannot find a case that does not exist.
Lambasting would be attacking the organization, without supporting an opinion without evidence to reason.
Also, I'm not sure why you are so hung up on a word I used while relating an allegory about gazelles. I was being moderately playful... is that really so wrong?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Janus View PostNote the "competent", not an outright attack, but as I said, snarky.
I might be confusing threads, but you are the one who meta'ed this. You had claimed that a financial advisor could provide evidence to a court that could be used to reduce CS obligations. I asked if this had ever happened. You declined to provide any case law to back up your assertion.
Originally posted by Janus View PostYou are welcome to put me on ignore as well if I bother you so much. I'm not sure how asking you for case law to back up a statement you made is so harsh that you have to repeatedly refer me to google as if I were a child. Furthermore, it is wrong, since I cannot find a case that does not exist.
Originally posted by Janus View PostExactly, you have dismissed some organizations immediately, without evidence, based soley upon their identification with a gender.
http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...tml#post116618
Originally posted by TaykenPeaboo:
I am a neutralist and see only parents and family members not, sex, sexual orientation, race or religion.
I am of the opinion that any organization specifically gender biased is of very little value to improving the quality of the lives of our most precious asset in our great nation... Children.
I do not support nor endorse any organization that is gender identified or demonstrates any bias to any religious, sexual orientation or any identifiable difference that would constitute discrimination.
Children have parents. They are men, women, gay, straight, lesbians, trans-gendered, disabled, able bodied, and of many races. Until such time these organizations truly understand this very fact... They are only contributing to the conflict and "wars" they try to create on individual family law matters and in parliament as a whole.
Furthermore, my observation and opinion is that they appear on the service to be a "fathers rights" advocacy group but, I am very concerned with the membership fees, points system, and other possibly for-profit mechanisms on their site. Furthermore, they repost materials from CanadaCourtWatch.com which I do not affiliate with, support or recommend to anyone.
Good Luck!
Tayken
As you have difficulty finding things in CanLII here you go:
C.S. v. M.S., 2007 CanLII 6240 (ON SC)
Date: 2007-02-27
Docket: 297-03
Parallel citations: 37 RFL (6th) 373
URL: http://canlii.ca/t/1qr43
Citation: C.S. v. M.S., 2007 CanLII 6240 (ON SC)
And this one... Which was used in the case law often cited on this site about "wings"...
S.(C.) v. S.(M.), 2007 CanLII 20279 (ON SC)
Date: 2007-05-31
Docket: 297-03
Parallel citations: 38 RFL (6th) 315
URL: http://canlii.ca/t/1rpb3
Citation: S.(C.) v. S.(M.), 2007 CanLII 20279 (ON SC)
Originally posted by Janus View PostI tend to do the same type of dismissal with the "men's rights" groups, but that just means that I'm guilty of the same thing as you are.
Not much of a "rights group"...
Originally posted by Janus View PostAlso, I'm not sure why you are so hung up on a word I used while relating an allegory about gazelles. I was being moderately playful... is that really so wrong?
Good Luck!
TaykenLast edited by Tayken; 11-22-2012, 08:39 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Janus View PostSnarky... againLast edited by Tayken; 11-22-2012, 09:17 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tayken View PostIt is a common pattern of behaviour for a possibly highly conflicted individual to not be able to respond to particulars and focus on a single element of communications and not the entire body of the message. Especially when they have nothing else to respond to possibly because they have nothing constructive to add to the discussion.
I have never personally attacked you Tayken, and I am disappointed that you would stoop to such a level.
Another possibility: I'm working on the computer, and procrastinating by going to this site, so I may not have time for a point by point rebuttal. But you never make assumptions, right?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Janus View PostOuch, and a personal attack.
Originally posted by Janus View PostI have never personally attacked you Tayken, and I am disappointed that you would stoop to such a level.
Originally posted by Janus View PostAnother possibility: I'm working on the computer, and procrastinating by going to this site, so I may not have time for a point by point rebuttal. But you never make assumptions, right?
Procrastination results from cognitive distortions i.e. faulty thinking (Ellis and Knaus). This is often treated by cognitive therapy. Procrastination is unrelated to ability or intelligence (Rosati 1975). Procrastinators however, may have problems perceiving and estimating time (Aitken 1982). On Psychometric validation scales, procrastination was found to be related to 1) fear of failure and neuroticism and/or 2) a lack of conscientiousness or impulsiveness.
1) Procrastinators in the first category, often have perfectionist expectations and are overconscientious. They may display an irrational fear of success or failure which leads to neurotic avoidance. They may also be emotionally overwhelmed and anxious. They lack self efficacy, self esteem( Effert and Ferrari 1989) and are publically self-conscious and highly self critical. They have less need for cognitive complexity (Effert & Ferrari 1989). High procrastinators are more likely to attribute success to external and unstable factors (Rothblum & Solomon 1986). Often, they avoid diagnostic information (Ferrari 1991)and engage in exaggerated self handicapping(Ferrari 1991), because they are so sensitive to rejection(Burka and Yuen 1983).
2) On the other hand, impulsive procrastinators may fail to pick up cues from the environment (Ferrari and Emmons 1994). They may be unable to delay gratification of pleasure, have exaggerated sensation seeking patterns and a lack of self control. They may be antiauthoritarian and therefore avoid meeting external demands (Aronson and Gilbert 1963). Procrastinators may lack motivation for the achievement of their goals (Briordy 1980), energy or organizational abilities(Psych Reports 1991). These patterns of neuroticism and impulsivness are not mutually exclusive and a procrastinator can have symptoms of both behaviors.
Just saying... Procrastination is usually an excuse for avoidance...
Good Luck!
Tayken
Comment
Comment