Well ETT sure seems to have a strange habit of releasing internal FACHSIA material. Now let us see who sits on those committees. Well there are the usual Government representatives and then there is Tony Miller and Wayne Butler. Elspeth McInnes and Kathleen Swinebourne also sit on those committees. The last two have made their views about the SPCA very well known which only by coincidence happen to be the same as ETT. KS wont even sit near the devil worshipping Wayne Butler.
Let us just move this discussion a little further. Monteverdi was asking Orkin to deny he had anything to with the ETT blog. Now of course it is pure coincidence that McInnes, Swinebourne, Orkin and Flood wrote a combined Anti Shared Parenting submission for the HORSIP inquiry and all have made their views about the SPCA well known. Again we repeat this is just a coincidence.
It is also coincidence that ETT uses the same derogatory [Mr Cut and Paste] description about Lindsay that Orkin used to use. But we repeat this again is just a coincidence.
Again we repeat it is just a coincidence that Swinebourne, McInnes, Orkin and Flood cannot stand the SPCA and co authored an 'Anti Shared Parenting' submission for the AGs department.
Again we repeat it is nothing more than pure coincidence that McInnes and Swinebourne sit on the committee material is being leaked from and their well known connections with Orkin means this is nothing more than just a pure coincidence.
Again we repeat it is nothing more than a coincidence that internal FAHCSIA material finds it way onto the ETT blog that attacks the SPCA in the same manner as Swinebourne.
Nothing of course and we mean absolutely nothing should be drawn from this remarkable series of coincidences.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Kidding themselves - we don't read your blog but we respond to it.
More today from ETT, The usual nonsense is in blue
A Message for Peter Saxon/Viking/Conan/SneakyDevil
Peter there is no point trying to bait us via familylawwebguide.com.au as we really have no interest in reading your blog. If you're just a little bit clever you would realise we haven't been there for weeks and are not about to go there because our interest in "little man theories" is non existant.
Well you have just admitted you read the FLWG. Like us you must admit its good accurate reporting. Of course you have not been reading our blog that is why you have been responding to comments on it. Do you think your blog readers are stupid?
Of course you would be upset at the hits this blog receives via the FLWG. But then again the majority of FLWG readers (ETT and cohorts are excluded) are intelligent people and prefer 'togettherealfacts' rather than read trash.
But then again you might just be really upset because this blog is receiving more hits than yours - Google puts us 82% ahead!
A Message for Peter Saxon/Viking/Conan/SneakyDevil
Peter there is no point trying to bait us via familylawwebguide.com.au as we really have no interest in reading your blog. If you're just a little bit clever you would realise we haven't been there for weeks and are not about to go there because our interest in "little man theories" is non existant.
Well you have just admitted you read the FLWG. Like us you must admit its good accurate reporting. Of course you have not been reading our blog that is why you have been responding to comments on it. Do you think your blog readers are stupid?
Of course you would be upset at the hits this blog receives via the FLWG. But then again the majority of FLWG readers (ETT and cohorts are excluded) are intelligent people and prefer 'togettherealfacts' rather than read trash.
But then again you might just be really upset because this blog is receiving more hits than yours - Google puts us 82% ahead!
SOMEWHAT SILENT
What a lovely legal phrase, we are using it in reference to 'anonymums' when we asked whether this person stole the identity (Identity Theft) from the registered domains using these names [Domains that are registered in Australia and were easily found by 'anonymums' during their frequent Internet searches]
So readers
1 Is 'anonymums' the same as anonymums.com/.org/.net?
2 Or did they just steal the name in an attempt to mislead people?
If the answer to 1 is Yes - then why not say so?
If the answer to 2 is yes - then we all have a good idea we are dealing with a person that practises wholesale deception.
So readers
1 Is 'anonymums' the same as anonymums.com/.org/.net?
2 Or did they just steal the name in an attempt to mislead people?
If the answer to 1 is Yes - then why not say so?
If the answer to 2 is yes - then we all have a good idea we are dealing with a person that practises wholesale deception.
CONFUSION REINS AT ETT
Some ETT arguments and allegations are so confusing it is becoming difficult to comprehend whether they can:
1 Understand English
2 Actually believe what they are writing
Today’s humour section from ETT is in blue
Shared Parenting Council is the SLR
More trickery from Shared parenting Council where they try to create an illusion that the other groups involved in the "portal" are unrelated when it is clearly not the truth.
11. Self-Represented Litigants Program
A close alliance has been fostered between SPCA and the Self-Represented Litigants (SRL) group and program
Well that’s a change of tone – now it has become a ‘close alliance’. Firstly it was founded by the SPCA but now it’s a ‘close alliance’ – finally ETT has got part of the message! Mind you we had to repeat it half a dozen times. If you had to repeat the same thing that many times to a ten year old you would be booking a visit to a doctor or specialist.
We wonder how close the alliance is because certainly neither of the two ETT arch fiends [Wayne Butler and Michael Green] have any control over the decision making process of SRLR.
ETT then rather naughtily goes on to quote confidential internal FAHCSIA material [which has never appeared on the FLWG site]
whereby SPCA jointly assisted numerous persons in Court Cases and with their individual Child Support issues.
But as usual this is selective, why was the reference to Mothers left out?
ETT has quoted confidential internal FAHCSIA correspondence on a number of occasions –isn’t that a breach of trust from a committee member passing information onto third parties?
Sorry, that was a rhetorical question – we should have said it demonstrates the overall morality of the ETT blog.
Again we are confused because ETT continually attacks the SPCA as being anti Mother but has a ‘close alliance’ with an organisation whose membership is 40% female and has 30% of its Family Court cases supporting first wives. Well we can spot the contradiction but can ETT understand their own contradictions?
Now we got the information just by asking. We wonder why ETT cannot ask questions directly to the SPCA? or is it because they have no credible questions to ask?
Another internal FAHCSIA document leaked by ETT.
The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice has been a supporter of SRL reforms to enable the SRL to better prepare. We have also further enhanced our relationships with key major lobby groups
Well that’s no surprise as the DCJ was the ‘chair’ on the SRL Project in 2001
Every other group listed on the familylawwebguide community page is a part of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia and is not independent like they want you to believe.
By ‘every other’ does ETT mean one in two? We know they have math problem –so what is it 50% or 100%?
Saying that a group such as SRLR is not independent will surely bring chuckles from the SPCA who do not have any control over that organistion. Likewise Mothers4Equality does it own thing independently of the SPCA and so does the FLRA. Perhaps ETT does not understand what independent actually means?
1 Understand English
2 Actually believe what they are writing
Today’s humour section from ETT is in blue
Shared Parenting Council is the SLR
More trickery from Shared parenting Council where they try to create an illusion that the other groups involved in the "portal" are unrelated when it is clearly not the truth.
11. Self-Represented Litigants Program
A close alliance has been fostered between SPCA and the Self-Represented Litigants (SRL) group and program
Well that’s a change of tone – now it has become a ‘close alliance’. Firstly it was founded by the SPCA but now it’s a ‘close alliance’ – finally ETT has got part of the message! Mind you we had to repeat it half a dozen times. If you had to repeat the same thing that many times to a ten year old you would be booking a visit to a doctor or specialist.
We wonder how close the alliance is because certainly neither of the two ETT arch fiends [Wayne Butler and Michael Green] have any control over the decision making process of SRLR.
ETT then rather naughtily goes on to quote confidential internal FAHCSIA material [which has never appeared on the FLWG site]
whereby SPCA jointly assisted numerous persons in Court Cases and with their individual Child Support issues.
But as usual this is selective, why was the reference to Mothers left out?
ETT has quoted confidential internal FAHCSIA correspondence on a number of occasions –isn’t that a breach of trust from a committee member passing information onto third parties?
Sorry, that was a rhetorical question – we should have said it demonstrates the overall morality of the ETT blog.
Again we are confused because ETT continually attacks the SPCA as being anti Mother but has a ‘close alliance’ with an organisation whose membership is 40% female and has 30% of its Family Court cases supporting first wives. Well we can spot the contradiction but can ETT understand their own contradictions?
Now we got the information just by asking. We wonder why ETT cannot ask questions directly to the SPCA? or is it because they have no credible questions to ask?
Another internal FAHCSIA document leaked by ETT.
The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice has been a supporter of SRL reforms to enable the SRL to better prepare. We have also further enhanced our relationships with key major lobby groups
Well that’s no surprise as the DCJ was the ‘chair’ on the SRL Project in 2001
Every other group listed on the familylawwebguide community page is a part of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia and is not independent like they want you to believe.
By ‘every other’ does ETT mean one in two? We know they have math problem –so what is it 50% or 100%?
Saying that a group such as SRLR is not independent will surely bring chuckles from the SPCA who do not have any control over that organistion. Likewise Mothers4Equality does it own thing independently of the SPCA and so does the FLRA. Perhaps ETT does not understand what independent actually means?
ETT BELIEVES THE SPCA AND FLWG ARE FANTASTIC ORGANISATIONS
Reading the ETT blog and the back handed compliments they give to the SPCA most readers will get the impression that ETT believes the SPCA is an exciting organisation capable of the most incredible things and must possess a range of super powers. There can be little doubt that ETT is both enthralled and jealous of the prowess [and powers] of the SPCA.
According to ETT these are some of the almost mystical powers possessed by the SPCA and FLWG.
To demonstrate the incredible forward planning by the SPCA and FLWG the account of the supposed writer of this ‘counter the ETT slander and get the real facts’ blog was set up 8 months before the ETT blog was started. This is astounding – the SPCA and FLWG being able to read the future and predict the future existence of the ETT blog.
Again another feat of incredible forward planning by the SPCA and FLWG using their super clairvoyance powers was to set up the special user account [who posts links ot this blog] 6 months before the ETT blog started.
Further proving the SPCA is possessed of the most extraordinary powers the SPCA managed to set up the SRLR support organisation more than 5 years before the SPCA even came into existence.
Proving he is possessed of the most extraordinary physic powers Michael Green [President of the SPCA] managed to set up Mothers4Equality without ever meeting, speaking or having any communication with Debbie E.
Through the most incredible feat of hypnotic software engineering anybody that posts on the FLWG web guide reflects the exact views of the SPCA .
Through another incredible feat of software engineering the FLWG manages to get the 0.25% of posts that discuss reducing child support payments to appear as 100% on the ETT computer screens.
Through an additional feat of software engineering posts from Women thanking the FLWG for assistance never show on the ETT computers screens.
Well - we have only been repeating what ETT has written.
Obviously the SPCA and FLWG have found ways to manipulate the Space Time continuum in ways never imagined. Their President has the most amazing physic powers and the FLWG web site has software that can hypnotise and that automatically only displays what people want to see. So why does ETT ‘attack’ these organisations that they imply have more powers than Jedi Knights?
Sure beats us
According to ETT these are some of the almost mystical powers possessed by the SPCA and FLWG.
To demonstrate the incredible forward planning by the SPCA and FLWG the account of the supposed writer of this ‘counter the ETT slander and get the real facts’ blog was set up 8 months before the ETT blog was started. This is astounding – the SPCA and FLWG being able to read the future and predict the future existence of the ETT blog.
Again another feat of incredible forward planning by the SPCA and FLWG using their super clairvoyance powers was to set up the special user account [who posts links ot this blog] 6 months before the ETT blog started.
Further proving the SPCA is possessed of the most extraordinary powers the SPCA managed to set up the SRLR support organisation more than 5 years before the SPCA even came into existence.
Proving he is possessed of the most extraordinary physic powers Michael Green [President of the SPCA] managed to set up Mothers4Equality without ever meeting, speaking or having any communication with Debbie E.
Through the most incredible feat of hypnotic software engineering anybody that posts on the FLWG web guide reflects the exact views of the SPCA .
Through another incredible feat of software engineering the FLWG manages to get the 0.25% of posts that discuss reducing child support payments to appear as 100% on the ETT computer screens.
Through an additional feat of software engineering posts from Women thanking the FLWG for assistance never show on the ETT computers screens.
Well - we have only been repeating what ETT has written.
Obviously the SPCA and FLWG have found ways to manipulate the Space Time continuum in ways never imagined. Their President has the most amazing physic powers and the FLWG web site has software that can hypnotise and that automatically only displays what people want to see. So why does ETT ‘attack’ these organisations that they imply have more powers than Jedi Knights?
Sure beats us
Monday, November 24, 2008
Clutching at Straws – and Self Delusion
The usual silliness from ETT is in blue
The Lobbying for Shared Care Just Isn't Working
It is so good to see that good prevails over evil and that the Shared Parenting Council and the associated mens rights groups are not making any ground on their issues. The bullying attitude just doesn't cut it anymore and hopefully most people can see through the facade when they state "it's in the best interests of the children". The only reason they make it about the children is to gain control. The kids are just the pawns they use to achieve this. They don't really care about the children, if they did, they would be spending the time with them before they split up or divorced. The children are just pawns to be used in their bullying.
Dicosta & Dicosta [2008] FamCAFC 161 (29 October 2008)
ETT then goes on to quote ‘very selected’ parts of the judgment and use emotive terms like good and evil. Now for some reasons best known to ETT they have selected only one judgment in an attempt to illustrate that shared care is not always awarded by the Courts. But why? Well it is only one of many judgments made and of course they are hardly likely to publish Shared Care judgments of which there are many.
So the question is why? Are they trying to convince their readers that there are no shared care judgments knowing full well that their readers can also read published judgments OR are they trying to convince themselves. Unfortunately the latter, they are trying to convince themselves. This is self delusional and indicative of the attacks they are making on various organisations.
We should at this stage repeat ETT math. One equals ALL judgements are not giving shared care. Previously they have used ALL for less than 5% in another context.
We only hope their children are receiving proper math tuition at school –because there is none from the home front.
Then they go on to say
Brown Nosing Judges Doesn't Always Work.
Despite all of familylawwebguide/Shared Parenting Council's brown nosing of FM Altobelli, it seems he still has a mind of his own and wasn't swayed by their self serving poppycock.
Now hold it - the comments are posted by members of the FLWG – so the comments are brownnosing from the FLWG and SPCA –how does that work?
Or does it mean if we posted a comment on the ETT blog that would in essence mean that ETT is supporting what we say? Goodness gracious me – is there no end to the lengths’ that ETT is trying to connect a line of non existent dots?
Actually ETT does support what we say here. Whenever we show the public the errors in ETTs purported facts -they go remarkably silent [or veer off in another totally unrelated direction] This means that ETT is agreeing with us - that our version of the facts is correct.
They then go on to the refer to the case Hogan & Hogan [2008] FMCAfam 1219 (14 November 2008) and make some comments about it.
But and very big but ETT, the case has been discussed in the closed areas of FLWG [which you do not get access to] and the outcome considered reasonable and in the best interests of the children. You never know ETT - perhaps Monteverdi or one of his cohorts may have been in Court following the case and followed all that transpired during the hearing?
So how do these judgments in any way state that the Shared Care ‘business’ is not working and that Altobelli reads the FLWG. These really are delusional long shots.
The Lobbying for Shared Care Just Isn't Working
It is so good to see that good prevails over evil and that the Shared Parenting Council and the associated mens rights groups are not making any ground on their issues. The bullying attitude just doesn't cut it anymore and hopefully most people can see through the facade when they state "it's in the best interests of the children". The only reason they make it about the children is to gain control. The kids are just the pawns they use to achieve this. They don't really care about the children, if they did, they would be spending the time with them before they split up or divorced. The children are just pawns to be used in their bullying.
Dicosta & Dicosta [2008] FamCAFC 161 (29 October 2008)
ETT then goes on to quote ‘very selected’ parts of the judgment and use emotive terms like good and evil. Now for some reasons best known to ETT they have selected only one judgment in an attempt to illustrate that shared care is not always awarded by the Courts. But why? Well it is only one of many judgments made and of course they are hardly likely to publish Shared Care judgments of which there are many.
So the question is why? Are they trying to convince their readers that there are no shared care judgments knowing full well that their readers can also read published judgments OR are they trying to convince themselves. Unfortunately the latter, they are trying to convince themselves. This is self delusional and indicative of the attacks they are making on various organisations.
We should at this stage repeat ETT math. One equals ALL judgements are not giving shared care. Previously they have used ALL for less than 5% in another context.
We only hope their children are receiving proper math tuition at school –because there is none from the home front.
Then they go on to say
Brown Nosing Judges Doesn't Always Work.
Despite all of familylawwebguide/Shared Parenting Council's brown nosing of FM Altobelli, it seems he still has a mind of his own and wasn't swayed by their self serving poppycock.
Now hold it - the comments are posted by members of the FLWG – so the comments are brownnosing from the FLWG and SPCA –how does that work?
Or does it mean if we posted a comment on the ETT blog that would in essence mean that ETT is supporting what we say? Goodness gracious me – is there no end to the lengths’ that ETT is trying to connect a line of non existent dots?
Actually ETT does support what we say here. Whenever we show the public the errors in ETTs purported facts -they go remarkably silent [or veer off in another totally unrelated direction] This means that ETT is agreeing with us - that our version of the facts is correct.
They then go on to the refer to the case Hogan & Hogan [2008] FMCAfam 1219 (14 November 2008) and make some comments about it.
But and very big but ETT, the case has been discussed in the closed areas of FLWG [which you do not get access to] and the outcome considered reasonable and in the best interests of the children. You never know ETT - perhaps Monteverdi or one of his cohorts may have been in Court following the case and followed all that transpired during the hearing?
So how do these judgments in any way state that the Shared Care ‘business’ is not working and that Altobelli reads the FLWG. These really are delusional long shots.
THEY ARE GETTING FLUSTERED
We see that ETT is getting very flustered and when someone gets flustered they start throwing all sorts of meaningless comments around.
As usual the ETT material is in blue [the really really stupid stuff is not included]
Monteverdi in a DeadBeat Sandwich
You sure are keeping good company these days Monteverdi/Mike,to the extent that we have drastically revised our opinion of you.
Monteverdi you must immediately stop helping women in the Courts because it totally confuses ETT. They just dont know what to say.
The comment about ‘keeping good company’ is interesting – does that mean you are judged by your company? So that means anyone associated and keeping company with ETT must be interested in lies, distortion and perversion of any facts?
On one side you have BigHead who sole aim in life is to reduce and minimise his Child Support obligation. His hare brained schemes now involve tax issues which can only be viewed as TAX AVOIDANCE which is illegal in this country. (Bighead you might want to consider the fact that familylawwebguide have your identifying details on their files (IP etc) and as you are registered for online contact with the CSA that Familylawwebguide/Shared Parenting Council do not sell you out.)
Blah blah blah. Why would the site sell him out? I am glad ETT made reference to identification – because we caught them out on this. ETT is not only tracking IP addresses but also the Australian locations they originate from!
You guys really do not get it do you? You have no credibility at all with the public, with the government or with anyone that matters. The only people that Familylawwebguide attracts are losers.
My goodness 40% of site members are female – are they losers? But of course the FLWG also attracts ETT and cohorts so in that respect Losers is correct.
You all want to sit in your angry misery and blame women for the no fault divorce, for stealing your children, for stealing your money when the issues are really about CONTROL. Which co-incidentally domestic violence is all about, CONTROL. It angers you all that you do not have control.
Rant rave rant rave rant
The content of all posts is how to not pay Child Support, how to steal children and how to put down women.
Less than 5% of posts deal with child support [read my previous figures] and only a percentage of those are to do with not paying.
So when ETT says “the content of all posts” by ALL they mean less than 5% - since when does “ALL” [which equals 100%] mean less than 5%? -this is the true indication of just how far they are going to distort information and treat their readership as morons.
And now you don't support White Ribbon Day and the issues of violence against women and children?
Who does not support White Ribbon Day – we missed it being discussed – where is it?
That'll really help the Fathers Rights cause you morons. No wonder the Attorney General is turning his back on you. You're becoming social lepers.
Note to SPCA, FLRA - Quick send a memo to Robert McClelland to stop having those regular meetings with you.
As usual the ETT material is in blue [the really really stupid stuff is not included]
Monteverdi in a DeadBeat Sandwich
You sure are keeping good company these days Monteverdi/Mike,to the extent that we have drastically revised our opinion of you.
Monteverdi you must immediately stop helping women in the Courts because it totally confuses ETT. They just dont know what to say.
The comment about ‘keeping good company’ is interesting – does that mean you are judged by your company? So that means anyone associated and keeping company with ETT must be interested in lies, distortion and perversion of any facts?
On one side you have BigHead who sole aim in life is to reduce and minimise his Child Support obligation. His hare brained schemes now involve tax issues which can only be viewed as TAX AVOIDANCE which is illegal in this country. (Bighead you might want to consider the fact that familylawwebguide have your identifying details on their files (IP etc) and as you are registered for online contact with the CSA that Familylawwebguide/Shared Parenting Council do not sell you out.)
Blah blah blah. Why would the site sell him out? I am glad ETT made reference to identification – because we caught them out on this. ETT is not only tracking IP addresses but also the Australian locations they originate from!
You guys really do not get it do you? You have no credibility at all with the public, with the government or with anyone that matters. The only people that Familylawwebguide attracts are losers.
My goodness 40% of site members are female – are they losers? But of course the FLWG also attracts ETT and cohorts so in that respect Losers is correct.
You all want to sit in your angry misery and blame women for the no fault divorce, for stealing your children, for stealing your money when the issues are really about CONTROL. Which co-incidentally domestic violence is all about, CONTROL. It angers you all that you do not have control.
Rant rave rant rave rant
The content of all posts is how to not pay Child Support, how to steal children and how to put down women.
Less than 5% of posts deal with child support [read my previous figures] and only a percentage of those are to do with not paying.
So when ETT says “the content of all posts” by ALL they mean less than 5% - since when does “ALL” [which equals 100%] mean less than 5%? -this is the true indication of just how far they are going to distort information and treat their readership as morons.
And now you don't support White Ribbon Day and the issues of violence against women and children?
Who does not support White Ribbon Day – we missed it being discussed – where is it?
That'll really help the Fathers Rights cause you morons. No wonder the Attorney General is turning his back on you. You're becoming social lepers.
Note to SPCA, FLRA - Quick send a memo to Robert McClelland to stop having those regular meetings with you.
ETT getting paranoid?
Currently ETT is panicking
For convenience ETT nonsense is in blue.
Mike/Monteverdi we are not interested in a debate at all. Your constant calls for us to expose who we are
Of course they are not interested in a debate because they realise that innuendo and deceit is not a debating tool.
Where is the reference to CONSTANT calls - ‘once’ does not equal CONSTANT – but then again ETT does not let accuracy or facts stand in the way of a distortion of the truth.
only confirm your desire to see us threatened in some way. What does it matter who we are, the truth is still the truth and unless you can post some cold hard facts to prove that what we state is not true then it stands.
Why should he publish cold hard fcts – they are here on this blog - and the COLD HARD FACTS clearly prove that ETT is incapable of presenting real facts or anything containing any truth.
The FLWG and the S.P.C.A. have either threatened us, attacked us or called on us to expose our identities. Where is the rebuttal if in fact what we have exposed is not the truth.
Even a drovers dog reading this blog could see the real facts. The FLWG and SPCA have never threatened you - its in your imagination. You really need your specialist to either change or increase your medication.
Apologies to any drovers dogs reading this blog because unlike ETT you do something positive for Australia.
We are well aware of your views and posting them on a forum makes you as liable as we are, so when posting your little blurb from The Age, we hope you are taking notice of your own implied threat.
But it’s a legal threat! Understand that ETT, it’s a legal threat! Not like yours to us ‘We know who and where you are’!
Further, by posting in support of Bigred as a representative of FLWG and therefore the Shared Parenting Council of Australia you are only further reinforcing the message that his view is your view. We get it ok?
Hold it we must have missed something! Monteverdi is now a representative of FLWG? and this be default makes him a representative of the SPCA? Does this mean all members of FLWG are automatically representatives of the SPCA? This must mean that ETT and cohorts who joined the FLWG are now representatives of the SPCA.
So ETT why are you attacking an organisation you are representatives of?
Seems very schizophrenic to us!
Do you also support the use of threats of violence against us? Yes we thought so!
ETT asks a question and then answers it, so why ask the question? no wonder the Family Court made the Judgment they did about their case.
Judging from his background he would support legally sanctioned actions.
We are sure Gerry Orkin will not be impressed with you posting his name all over the internet and also by posting to Peter Saxon on his blog that you firmly believe it is Gerry Orkin who writes on this blog. You have left yourself wide open and we certainly hope that Gerry uses whatever means possible to force you to retract your statements. Egg on your face Mike! And as Peter Saxon says 1+1 does not equal 3!
Actually Gerry Orkin will probably send him a box of cigars. Orkin’s site generates 50 hits and day and he must be ecstatic at being mentioned on a site which generates a HUNDRED TIMES MORE PER DAY.
For convenience ETT nonsense is in blue.
Mike/Monteverdi we are not interested in a debate at all. Your constant calls for us to expose who we are
Of course they are not interested in a debate because they realise that innuendo and deceit is not a debating tool.
Where is the reference to CONSTANT calls - ‘once’ does not equal CONSTANT – but then again ETT does not let accuracy or facts stand in the way of a distortion of the truth.
only confirm your desire to see us threatened in some way. What does it matter who we are, the truth is still the truth and unless you can post some cold hard facts to prove that what we state is not true then it stands.
Why should he publish cold hard fcts – they are here on this blog - and the COLD HARD FACTS clearly prove that ETT is incapable of presenting real facts or anything containing any truth.
The FLWG and the S.P.C.A. have either threatened us, attacked us or called on us to expose our identities. Where is the rebuttal if in fact what we have exposed is not the truth.
Even a drovers dog reading this blog could see the real facts. The FLWG and SPCA have never threatened you - its in your imagination. You really need your specialist to either change or increase your medication.
Apologies to any drovers dogs reading this blog because unlike ETT you do something positive for Australia.
We are well aware of your views and posting them on a forum makes you as liable as we are, so when posting your little blurb from The Age, we hope you are taking notice of your own implied threat.
But it’s a legal threat! Understand that ETT, it’s a legal threat! Not like yours to us ‘We know who and where you are’!
Further, by posting in support of Bigred as a representative of FLWG and therefore the Shared Parenting Council of Australia you are only further reinforcing the message that his view is your view. We get it ok?
Hold it we must have missed something! Monteverdi is now a representative of FLWG? and this be default makes him a representative of the SPCA? Does this mean all members of FLWG are automatically representatives of the SPCA? This must mean that ETT and cohorts who joined the FLWG are now representatives of the SPCA.
So ETT why are you attacking an organisation you are representatives of?
Seems very schizophrenic to us!
Do you also support the use of threats of violence against us? Yes we thought so!
ETT asks a question and then answers it, so why ask the question? no wonder the Family Court made the Judgment they did about their case.
Judging from his background he would support legally sanctioned actions.
We are sure Gerry Orkin will not be impressed with you posting his name all over the internet and also by posting to Peter Saxon on his blog that you firmly believe it is Gerry Orkin who writes on this blog. You have left yourself wide open and we certainly hope that Gerry uses whatever means possible to force you to retract your statements. Egg on your face Mike! And as Peter Saxon says 1+1 does not equal 3!
Actually Gerry Orkin will probably send him a box of cigars. Orkin’s site generates 50 hits and day and he must be ecstatic at being mentioned on a site which generates a HUNDRED TIMES MORE PER DAY.
Friday, November 21, 2008
WELL - WHY ARE WE NOT SURPRISED?
It seems that when ETT gets embarrassed with the real facts and not their own inventions they have to change tack. This time they are attacking the charitable status of DIDS and the Fatherhood Foundation. Somehow their rhetoric is very similar to the Nazis in the 1930s – un researched questions just to stir a little hatred and confusion. OF course we note that ETT has not sought to challenge the Status of any Womens groups that receive Federal funding –but then again ETT has made it abundantly clear that the truth is not a valuable item and that Equal Parenting Groups are fair game.
ETT said this
Charities, we don't think so!
http://thesharedparentingdisaster.blogspot.com/2008/11/government-funds.html
We left this comment and question on the above blog TheSharedParentingDisaster:
"Expose The Truth has left a new comment on the post "Government Funded Propaganda":
The rest of the post is the usual incitement and mistruths and to be honest unless you are an insomniac and need a boring yarn is a waste of your time.
BUT they do go on to say
It doesn't appear to us that either Fatherhood Foundation or D.I.D.S should have received a rating as a charity when they discriminate against women when that is illegal in this country.
FINE, however the phrase ‘It doesent appear to us” is the most apt. ETT has demonstrated they have ZERO understating of Australian Law, its interpretation, the Privacy Act and any basic understanding of commons sense or decency. How they think they can interpret Tax department legislation and its interpretation is beyond us when they have consistently demonstrated their ONE AND EQUALS THREE allegations against the SPCA and FLWG. Never mind - when you are that far divorced from reality anything probably makes sense to them.
HOWEVER WE DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THEM POSTING ON THAT BLOG
The blog clearly identifies with anonymums – is ETT condoning identity theft?
Some previous parts of OUR blog follow:
IDENTITY THEFT?
Readers will still be puzzling over the ‘anonymums’ situation – did somebody STEAL the name?
Blogs posted under ‘anonymums’ always quote a lot of internet research so there would be a presumption they would have conducted a ‘who is ‘ search and discovered the domain names were registered.
Surely they were not trying to mislead readers by usurping (identity theft) someone else’s user name?
Now has the anonymums blogger STOLEN the names from the .com/.org/.net sites?
Is the owner of the domain names aware that someone is using the name?
OR are they just really annoyed they do not have a site with all the gloss and polish and millions of visitors of the Family Law Web Guide site?
Finally ETT had this to say
We will keep digging to see what we get back regarding the funding provided to S.P.C.A. for www.familylawwebguide.com.au. Stay tuned!!
STAY TUNED is correct because under an FOI for Government funding the applicant details are released to the recipient, NOT that it matters – ETT and the people that feed it information HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED and their links to other organsations verified.
ETT and cohorts might have done well to reflect on the old adage “People that live in glass houses should not throw stones”
ETT said this
Charities, we don't think so!
http://thesharedparentingdisaster.blogspot.com/2008/11/government-funds.html
We left this comment and question on the above blog TheSharedParentingDisaster:
"Expose The Truth has left a new comment on the post "Government Funded Propaganda":
The rest of the post is the usual incitement and mistruths and to be honest unless you are an insomniac and need a boring yarn is a waste of your time.
BUT they do go on to say
It doesn't appear to us that either Fatherhood Foundation or D.I.D.S should have received a rating as a charity when they discriminate against women when that is illegal in this country.
FINE, however the phrase ‘It doesent appear to us” is the most apt. ETT has demonstrated they have ZERO understating of Australian Law, its interpretation, the Privacy Act and any basic understanding of commons sense or decency. How they think they can interpret Tax department legislation and its interpretation is beyond us when they have consistently demonstrated their ONE AND EQUALS THREE allegations against the SPCA and FLWG. Never mind - when you are that far divorced from reality anything probably makes sense to them.
HOWEVER WE DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THEM POSTING ON THAT BLOG
The blog clearly identifies with anonymums – is ETT condoning identity theft?
Some previous parts of OUR blog follow:
IDENTITY THEFT?
Readers will still be puzzling over the ‘anonymums’ situation – did somebody STEAL the name?
Blogs posted under ‘anonymums’ always quote a lot of internet research so there would be a presumption they would have conducted a ‘who is ‘ search and discovered the domain names were registered.
Surely they were not trying to mislead readers by usurping (identity theft) someone else’s user name?
Now has the anonymums blogger STOLEN the names from the .com/.org/.net sites?
Is the owner of the domain names aware that someone is using the name?
OR are they just really annoyed they do not have a site with all the gloss and polish and millions of visitors of the Family Law Web Guide site?
Finally ETT had this to say
We will keep digging to see what we get back regarding the funding provided to S.P.C.A. for www.familylawwebguide.com.au. Stay tuned!!
STAY TUNED is correct because under an FOI for Government funding the applicant details are released to the recipient, NOT that it matters – ETT and the people that feed it information HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED and their links to other organsations verified.
ETT and cohorts might have done well to reflect on the old adage “People that live in glass houses should not throw stones”
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
THESE ARE TODAY'S JOKES FROM THE ETT BLOG
We wonder, should they be selling whatever they are on? They could make a fortune!
From ETT [their silly stuff is in blue]
Some more questions that have been bothering us today [seems like they are always bothered or angry]
1. Why is Michael Green constantly on our blog and yet does not bother to reign in his flunkies? He has made 3 visits so far today and never fails to check us out first thing in the morning when he can't sleep (hopefully because he feels some guilt about his deceit of the Australian public). There is no other conclusion than to declare that all of the harasment and lies perpetuated by Peter Saxon are on the instruction of Michael Green.
Here we go again – another unfounded accusation/allegation this time that Michael Green is visiting their site and cannot sleep because of his guilt – what childishness! How on Earth do they know that Michael Green is visiting their site? OUR CONCLUSION - How can someone who is not currently in Australia [a phone call to his office confirmed that] visit their site 3 times today and then be making someone who does not write this blog expose the lies and deceit of ETT.
Does ETT write Fairy Tales for a living?
2. Why do we constantly get visits from people at work like Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Government departments and Fairfax? Are you being paid to look at our site or are you using your time that is paid for by your employer?
Well of course your site is being monitored - just “PERHAPS” the FLWG or SPCA reported you to the AGs department for reporting and IDENTIFYING the real names of people involved in two current cases.
We also understand the SMH is currently preparing a series of articles on angry [vitriolic] first wives wars against second wives and CSA issues between first and second partners. What better research materials than the unfettered anger displayed on your site!
3. If Monteverdi works for SMH, how does he get to spend so much time in court helping fathers get control of their ex wives and children?
My goodness this actually proves you do not read either the site or your own material. Just a few weeks ago you were complimenting him for helping women in the Courts.
Should you rephrase this “as helping Mothers and Fathers in the Courts”.
Who on Earth said he works for the SMH?
4. Isn't the familylawwebguide and therefore the Shared parenting Council, responsible for printing details of court cases and therefore liable under Section 121 of the Family Law Act? If we can easily find out who is who on there, so can anyone else.
Since the SPCA has no control over what goes in the Forums what liability would they have? A proper read of the site and Section 121 [which is on the site] would confirm the site does not breach any 121 sections. Saying you can find out who they are is the height of “I am clever” self deception [hallucinogenic behaviour]
5. What are the penalties for printing details of court cases?
Obviously a rhetorical question because if you had read Section 121 you would know the answer. Perhaps you have read it but do not understand it? A 12-year-old child could understand it – quick go and find a 12-year-old child to explain it to you.
Some suggestions ETT:
And get someone to explain them to you before you make yourself look any sillier.
From ETT [their silly stuff is in blue]
Some more questions that have been bothering us today [seems like they are always bothered or angry]
1. Why is Michael Green constantly on our blog and yet does not bother to reign in his flunkies? He has made 3 visits so far today and never fails to check us out first thing in the morning when he can't sleep (hopefully because he feels some guilt about his deceit of the Australian public). There is no other conclusion than to declare that all of the harasment and lies perpetuated by Peter Saxon are on the instruction of Michael Green.
Here we go again – another unfounded accusation/allegation this time that Michael Green is visiting their site and cannot sleep because of his guilt – what childishness! How on Earth do they know that Michael Green is visiting their site? OUR CONCLUSION - How can someone who is not currently in Australia [a phone call to his office confirmed that] visit their site 3 times today and then be making someone who does not write this blog expose the lies and deceit of ETT.
Does ETT write Fairy Tales for a living?
2. Why do we constantly get visits from people at work like Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Government departments and Fairfax? Are you being paid to look at our site or are you using your time that is paid for by your employer?
Well of course your site is being monitored - just “PERHAPS” the FLWG or SPCA reported you to the AGs department for reporting and IDENTIFYING the real names of people involved in two current cases.
We also understand the SMH is currently preparing a series of articles on angry [vitriolic] first wives wars against second wives and CSA issues between first and second partners. What better research materials than the unfettered anger displayed on your site!
3. If Monteverdi works for SMH, how does he get to spend so much time in court helping fathers get control of their ex wives and children?
My goodness this actually proves you do not read either the site or your own material. Just a few weeks ago you were complimenting him for helping women in the Courts.
Should you rephrase this “as helping Mothers and Fathers in the Courts”.
Who on Earth said he works for the SMH?
4. Isn't the familylawwebguide and therefore the Shared parenting Council, responsible for printing details of court cases and therefore liable under Section 121 of the Family Law Act? If we can easily find out who is who on there, so can anyone else.
Since the SPCA has no control over what goes in the Forums what liability would they have? A proper read of the site and Section 121 [which is on the site] would confirm the site does not breach any 121 sections. Saying you can find out who they are is the height of “I am clever” self deception [hallucinogenic behaviour]
5. What are the penalties for printing details of court cases?
Obviously a rhetorical question because if you had read Section 121 you would know the answer. Perhaps you have read it but do not understand it? A 12-year-old child could understand it – quick go and find a 12-year-old child to explain it to you.
Some suggestions ETT:
- Read what you have written previously – because you are now beginning to contradict yourself
- Read the Privacy Act
- Read the NSW AVO legislation
- Read Section 121 of the Family Law Act
And get someone to explain them to you before you make yourself look any sillier.
Well we would think [like any normal person] that ETT would have learnt that allegations are meaningless when they cannot be backed up and WE are here
This is just part of today’s ETT missive [and highly incorrect blog]
ETT fiction is in blue
Some truths that need repeating.
S.P.C.A. (Shared Parenting Council of Australia) set up the website www.familylawwebguide.com.au with government funding and without seeing the application for the grant (although this has been requested under the FOI Act) believe it was a fraudulent application because they did not state that they are a Mens Rights group. They attempt to portray themselves as a family based help site but anyone that has joined or participated or even read the site would know that it is very anti mother and if you dare to express any view contrary to the S.P.C.A. one then you will be ostracised. They like to crow about how they have women members and this is true, but the women they allow to participate are second wives and partners and have their own agenda in wanting to take over their partners battle against the ex wife and children. And battle they do although the common problem appears to be the payment of money to the first wife in the form of Child Support.
Any one that has spent any time on the site would patently realise that it caters for both sexes.
The SPCA did not set up the FLWG.
The SPCA along with several other groups was asked to be a part of the site.
Subsequent funding allowed the SPCA to set up a range of initiatives for [and from] the Federal Government that are based from the site.
The Shared Parenting Council do not want anyone to know that it is them that operate the website
Rubbish, the SPCA do not operate the site – they pay a range of fees the same as everyone else does. This will frighten ETT [the truth hurts them] - the frequently attacked Wayne Butler and Michael Green DO NOT moderate any forums –which means they have NO control over the content of forums [except of course the private SPCA forums which ETT does not have access to]
A majority of what is posted on familylawwebguide.com.au, and in the process endorsed by The Shared Parenting Council is how to avoid paying Child Support and how to minimise financial support for first family children.
Absolute rubbish – the normal definition of majority is more than 51%. Child support issues account for less than 5% of the site and what percentage of these would be related to NOT paying support? It would be more accurate to say that >60% [that’s a majority!] is related to Family Law –but then again that is the name of the site!
The Shared Parenting Council under the guise of wanting to appear to be non gender specific ..........The most blatant one was the Mothers4Equality set up by Michael Green and Debra Esquilant who is a major contributor at Fathers4Justice, a very extremist anti mother group that was also set up by The Shared Parenting Council of Australia as a lobby group for them.
ETT caught themselves out very badly [and made themselves look rather stupid] when they alleged that the SPCA set up SRLR and for some strange reason they still keep alleging that Michael Green was involved in setting up the Mothers4Equality group..
Since we started this blog, we have been under constant attack by the Shared Parenting Council of Australia. They have sent in various flunkies to try to beat us down. They have made threats of violence, posted a series of 27 offensive comments mostly dealing with lesbianism and alternative names for female genitalia and now have set up a blog attempting to discredit us.
An absolute lie, the SPCA do not even acknowledge the existence of your hate site-so how can you be under attack from them. My goodness next you will be alleging they are sending Flying Saucers to your homes. Perhaps Michael Green will get in the time machine [see previous posts] financed by the SPCA and travel back and stop you parents from meeting each other? See we can be as silly as you are!
By resorting to threats of violence and using abuse is a typical behaviour of an abuser. They've said that everything we have posted is a lie and even gone so far as to suggest that we tried to extort money from them.
Strange were you not threatening us when you said……Remember that we know who you are and where you are so you cannot rely upon the anonymity of the internet to protect you.
Of course you tried to extort money that includes the email that said:
“I can identify the FLWG user name of the blogger attacking the SPCA……….you can then identify them……….all of this for a small donation”
That's a crime and our only aim is to expose them. Would we have posted this first and then asked for money?
Of course – it is a normal ploy, you attempt to create a threat or risk and ask for money. No one would give you a cent if there was no threat or risk.
Why would they feel the need to do this if they were as transparent as they say they are. If it is all lies, why don't they ask us to talk to them to "set us straight" if they think we are under any misconception?
Why would the SPCA or FLWG want to acknowledge or engage with verbal terrorists? Surely you should approach them because its not as if you have any political weight –you go to the Mountain. The only weight you can throw around is abuse, lies, mistruths and unproven allegations which is not a exactly a prerequisite for anyone engaging with you. Just look at your visitor count and weep, the FLWG gets over one and half million a month!
Just think how easily they could squash your silly blog by a series if articles and posts if you represented any real threat to them! They treat you like sewer odours – something to be ignored!
Time for you to take stock of yourselves and if you were in any way serious approach the SPCA or FLWG.
Why, because it is all true and now the Shared Parenting Council of Australia have been caught out and they're very upset and embarrased. That is what happens when you don't tell the truth. Let them try to stop us with their threats of violence and insults, it's not going to work.
Why would they be embarrassed if they have done nothing – it is in your imagination! If anything they would be embarrassed for you publicly embarrassing yourself with glaring errors and not seeking professional help.
ETT fiction is in blue
Some truths that need repeating.
S.P.C.A. (Shared Parenting Council of Australia) set up the website www.familylawwebguide.com.au with government funding and without seeing the application for the grant (although this has been requested under the FOI Act) believe it was a fraudulent application because they did not state that they are a Mens Rights group. They attempt to portray themselves as a family based help site but anyone that has joined or participated or even read the site would know that it is very anti mother and if you dare to express any view contrary to the S.P.C.A. one then you will be ostracised. They like to crow about how they have women members and this is true, but the women they allow to participate are second wives and partners and have their own agenda in wanting to take over their partners battle against the ex wife and children. And battle they do although the common problem appears to be the payment of money to the first wife in the form of Child Support.
Any one that has spent any time on the site would patently realise that it caters for both sexes.
The SPCA did not set up the FLWG.
The SPCA along with several other groups was asked to be a part of the site.
Subsequent funding allowed the SPCA to set up a range of initiatives for [and from] the Federal Government that are based from the site.
The Shared Parenting Council do not want anyone to know that it is them that operate the website
Rubbish, the SPCA do not operate the site – they pay a range of fees the same as everyone else does. This will frighten ETT [the truth hurts them] - the frequently attacked Wayne Butler and Michael Green DO NOT moderate any forums –which means they have NO control over the content of forums [except of course the private SPCA forums which ETT does not have access to]
A majority of what is posted on familylawwebguide.com.au, and in the process endorsed by The Shared Parenting Council is how to avoid paying Child Support and how to minimise financial support for first family children.
Absolute rubbish – the normal definition of majority is more than 51%. Child support issues account for less than 5% of the site and what percentage of these would be related to NOT paying support? It would be more accurate to say that >60% [that’s a majority!] is related to Family Law –but then again that is the name of the site!
The Shared Parenting Council under the guise of wanting to appear to be non gender specific ..........The most blatant one was the Mothers4Equality set up by Michael Green and Debra Esquilant who is a major contributor at Fathers4Justice, a very extremist anti mother group that was also set up by The Shared Parenting Council of Australia as a lobby group for them.
ETT caught themselves out very badly [and made themselves look rather stupid] when they alleged that the SPCA set up SRLR and for some strange reason they still keep alleging that Michael Green was involved in setting up the Mothers4Equality group..
Since we started this blog, we have been under constant attack by the Shared Parenting Council of Australia. They have sent in various flunkies to try to beat us down. They have made threats of violence, posted a series of 27 offensive comments mostly dealing with lesbianism and alternative names for female genitalia and now have set up a blog attempting to discredit us.
An absolute lie, the SPCA do not even acknowledge the existence of your hate site-so how can you be under attack from them. My goodness next you will be alleging they are sending Flying Saucers to your homes. Perhaps Michael Green will get in the time machine [see previous posts] financed by the SPCA and travel back and stop you parents from meeting each other? See we can be as silly as you are!
By resorting to threats of violence and using abuse is a typical behaviour of an abuser. They've said that everything we have posted is a lie and even gone so far as to suggest that we tried to extort money from them.
Strange were you not threatening us when you said……Remember that we know who you are and where you are so you cannot rely upon the anonymity of the internet to protect you.
Of course you tried to extort money that includes the email that said:
“I can identify the FLWG user name of the blogger attacking the SPCA……….you can then identify them……….all of this for a small donation”
That's a crime and our only aim is to expose them. Would we have posted this first and then asked for money?
Of course – it is a normal ploy, you attempt to create a threat or risk and ask for money. No one would give you a cent if there was no threat or risk.
Why would they feel the need to do this if they were as transparent as they say they are. If it is all lies, why don't they ask us to talk to them to "set us straight" if they think we are under any misconception?
Why would the SPCA or FLWG want to acknowledge or engage with verbal terrorists? Surely you should approach them because its not as if you have any political weight –you go to the Mountain. The only weight you can throw around is abuse, lies, mistruths and unproven allegations which is not a exactly a prerequisite for anyone engaging with you. Just look at your visitor count and weep, the FLWG gets over one and half million a month!
Just think how easily they could squash your silly blog by a series if articles and posts if you represented any real threat to them! They treat you like sewer odours – something to be ignored!
Time for you to take stock of yourselves and if you were in any way serious approach the SPCA or FLWG.
Why, because it is all true and now the Shared Parenting Council of Australia have been caught out and they're very upset and embarrased. That is what happens when you don't tell the truth. Let them try to stop us with their threats of violence and insults, it's not going to work.
Why would they be embarrassed if they have done nothing – it is in your imagination! If anything they would be embarrassed for you publicly embarrassing yourself with glaring errors and not seeking professional help.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
One and One Equals Three and more Outrageous Allegations
Dear oh dear just when we thought that some sense had gotten through to them reporting accurate facts ETT then comes up with this nonsense [unfounded allegation]
This is todays ETT allegation
Want to know who it is???
The author of this blog:
http://gettherealfacts-gettherealfacts.blogspot.com/
that was set up by the Shared Parenting Council of Australia via familylawwebguide.com.au to slam us is a guy called Peter Saxon. aka Nasty little man.
He is a founding member of Familylawwebguide.com.au and is a member of the SLR there. He is also a member of Dads In Distress.
One of his user names on familylawwebguide.com.au is Conan. Another is sneakydevil. There are others. Oh yes, another one is Viking, we almost forgot.
Whatever way you look at it, he is an accomplished liar and blatantly avoids the truth
Some correct answers:
This blog was not set up by the Shared Parenting Council
This blog was not set up by Peter Saxon who is certainly not a founding member of the FLWG. If Peter were Viking then his join date is listed as December 2006 whereas apparent founding members all have join dates of August and September 2006 [see ETT your lack of accurate research catches you out every time]
We are not certain whether he is amember of DIDS [presumably ETT means the DIDS forum?]
Where do they get those user names from? – just pick a name for the FLWG and hopefully label it to someone?
Note their use of the emotive term ‘to slam us’ which is actually their euphemism for ‘embarrass us by exposing our lies, false allegations and deceit’
Strange that when their allegations, mispresentations and deceit are exposed – they do not respond – such as this from yesterday. Still it is probably better they stay silent when they have made such a glaring mistake.
ETT had said
The SLR was set up by SPCA and so was Mothers4Equality. Debra Esquilante from the Gold Coast set this up in conjunction with Michael Green. Debra Esquilante is an active and key member of Fathers4Equality which is one of the vilest and most anti female mens groups out there. Spot any inconsistencies there Peter?
Get the real facts [us] replied
Yes a big inconsistency! because I assume you mean SRLR which traces back to 1999. You are actually saying the SPCA are really very clever people that can even read the future by setting up an organisation many many years before even the SPCA came into existence! That really beggars belief. Spot another inconsistency in your blog? –according to ETT the SPCA is anti female – if this had any truth in it why on Earth would they set up an organisation that also helps women? Inconsistency yes – if Debra is an active and key member of F4E why isn’t she posting on their site?
So folks when their shams are exposed there is no response, however some more questions for ETT -
How did the SPCA which started in 2002 set up another organisation which stared in 1989? [which by the way predates any of the groups in the SPCA]
Did the SPCA use their government funding to develop a time machine to do this?
Did the SPCA use this machine to transport Michael Green back in time to set up M4E because he was overseas when it was actually started on the FLWG?
OK my first question is serious and the second and third more in tune with the crazy allegations made by the ETT blog.
Bear in mind when you read ETT they make allegations which are not supported by facts, I could go through many [perhaps I will] and expose them for what they really are. Other material is just biased reporting looking for the very small percentage of bad and not reporting on the greater percentage of good. Not unlike a shopper at a Veggie stall checking though hundreds of apples looking for just one with a worm and then exclaiming “All your Apples are bad” Readers will not doubt be wary of what very sick minds are involved in that type of process when they cannot see the larger picture.
We are greatly cheered by the fact that ETT [by not responding] has supported our previous claim that many women:
More interesting is that some post on various ’Womens’ support boards BUT when they need real help they go to FLWG.
Let me repeat that: 'When they need real help they go to the FLWG'.
Does this then prove that the SPCA and the FLWG are not anti women and that ETT actually acknowledges this?
This is todays ETT allegation
Want to know who it is???
The author of this blog:
http://gettherealfacts-gettherealfacts.blogspot.com/
that was set up by the Shared Parenting Council of Australia via familylawwebguide.com.au to slam us is a guy called Peter Saxon. aka Nasty little man.
He is a founding member of Familylawwebguide.com.au and is a member of the SLR there. He is also a member of Dads In Distress.
One of his user names on familylawwebguide.com.au is Conan. Another is sneakydevil. There are others. Oh yes, another one is Viking, we almost forgot.
Whatever way you look at it, he is an accomplished liar and blatantly avoids the truth
Some correct answers:
This blog was not set up by the Shared Parenting Council
This blog was not set up by Peter Saxon who is certainly not a founding member of the FLWG. If Peter were Viking then his join date is listed as December 2006 whereas apparent founding members all have join dates of August and September 2006 [see ETT your lack of accurate research catches you out every time]
We are not certain whether he is amember of DIDS [presumably ETT means the DIDS forum?]
Where do they get those user names from? – just pick a name for the FLWG and hopefully label it to someone?
Note their use of the emotive term ‘to slam us’ which is actually their euphemism for ‘embarrass us by exposing our lies, false allegations and deceit’
Strange that when their allegations, mispresentations and deceit are exposed – they do not respond – such as this from yesterday. Still it is probably better they stay silent when they have made such a glaring mistake.
ETT had said
The SLR was set up by SPCA and so was Mothers4Equality. Debra Esquilante from the Gold Coast set this up in conjunction with Michael Green. Debra Esquilante is an active and key member of Fathers4Equality which is one of the vilest and most anti female mens groups out there. Spot any inconsistencies there Peter?
Get the real facts [us] replied
Yes a big inconsistency! because I assume you mean SRLR which traces back to 1999. You are actually saying the SPCA are really very clever people that can even read the future by setting up an organisation many many years before even the SPCA came into existence! That really beggars belief. Spot another inconsistency in your blog? –according to ETT the SPCA is anti female – if this had any truth in it why on Earth would they set up an organisation that also helps women? Inconsistency yes – if Debra is an active and key member of F4E why isn’t she posting on their site?
So folks when their shams are exposed there is no response, however some more questions for ETT -
How did the SPCA which started in 2002 set up another organisation which stared in 1989? [which by the way predates any of the groups in the SPCA]
Did the SPCA use their government funding to develop a time machine to do this?
Did the SPCA use this machine to transport Michael Green back in time to set up M4E because he was overseas when it was actually started on the FLWG?
OK my first question is serious and the second and third more in tune with the crazy allegations made by the ETT blog.
Bear in mind when you read ETT they make allegations which are not supported by facts, I could go through many [perhaps I will] and expose them for what they really are. Other material is just biased reporting looking for the very small percentage of bad and not reporting on the greater percentage of good. Not unlike a shopper at a Veggie stall checking though hundreds of apples looking for just one with a worm and then exclaiming “All your Apples are bad” Readers will not doubt be wary of what very sick minds are involved in that type of process when they cannot see the larger picture.
We are greatly cheered by the fact that ETT [by not responding] has supported our previous claim that many women:
More interesting is that some post on various ’Womens’ support boards BUT when they need real help they go to FLWG.
Let me repeat that: 'When they need real help they go to the FLWG'.
Does this then prove that the SPCA and the FLWG are not anti women and that ETT actually acknowledges this?
IDENTITY THEFT?
Yesterday readers will still be puzzling over the ‘anonymums’ situation – did somebody STEAL the name?
Blogs posted under ‘anonymums’ always quote a lot of internet research so there would be a presumption they would have conducted a ‘who is ‘ search and discovered the domain names were registered.
Surely they were not trying to mislead readers by usurping (identity theft) someone else’s user name?
Blogs posted under ‘anonymums’ always quote a lot of internet research so there would be a presumption they would have conducted a ‘who is ‘ search and discovered the domain names were registered.
Surely they were not trying to mislead readers by usurping (identity theft) someone else’s user name?
Monday, November 17, 2008
NOT A ‘WHOIS’ BECAUSE EVEN THEY DON’T KNOW THEMSELVES!
I would like to thank the person (female first wife) that forwarded me the following:
You receive a few comments’ from “Anonymums”. The .com domain name is registered but is parked.
For details goto www.whois.net and look up anonymums.com (which is registered in Australia)
Surprise - the .net and .org are also owned by the same person in Australia.
They have also been posting under various blogs for a little time and actually include fictional correspondence with the SPCA. Just as interesting that a domain called anonimum.com is registered to Maureen Harrod in Queensland who describes herself as a ‘maniacal’ woman in the blurb for her book ‘The Nook of Oz’. Pity ‘anonymums’ cannot be so accurate with her personal profile.
Thanks and I have seen the fictional correspondence which is actually quite pathetic, if they are going to invent correspondence then obviously they are devoid of any moral code.
Now has the anonymums blogger STOLEN the names from the .com/.org/.net sites?
Is the owner of the domain names aware that someone is using the name?
OR are they just really annoyed they do not have a site with all the gloss and polish and millions of visitors of the Family Law Web Guide site?
If they really own the .com/.org/.net names - have they approached the FLWG to host their site? because surely that would put their argument to bed about the true nature of the FLWG.
You receive a few comments’ from “Anonymums”. The .com domain name is registered but is parked.
For details goto www.whois.net and look up anonymums.com (which is registered in Australia)
Surprise - the .net and .org are also owned by the same person in Australia.
They have also been posting under various blogs for a little time and actually include fictional correspondence with the SPCA. Just as interesting that a domain called anonimum.com is registered to Maureen Harrod in Queensland who describes herself as a ‘maniacal’ woman in the blurb for her book ‘The Nook of Oz’. Pity ‘anonymums’ cannot be so accurate with her personal profile.
Thanks and I have seen the fictional correspondence which is actually quite pathetic, if they are going to invent correspondence then obviously they are devoid of any moral code.
Now has the anonymums blogger STOLEN the names from the .com/.org/.net sites?
Is the owner of the domain names aware that someone is using the name?
OR are they just really annoyed they do not have a site with all the gloss and polish and millions of visitors of the Family Law Web Guide site?
If they really own the .com/.org/.net names - have they approached the FLWG to host their site? because surely that would put their argument to bed about the true nature of the FLWG.
ETT goes into panic [paranoia] mode - more self deception from ETT and cronies after we rattled thir cages.
More biased reporting and fiction from ETT –the latest ETT silly stuff is in blue.
Peter what does it feel like to be Used??? We read your blog Peter and quite frankly we haven't had such a belly laugh for quite some time. You do realise that you are being used by Michael Green and friends to attack us as they don't have the gumption to do it themselves. They did the same with Danny Bell and if you want to contact Danny to ask about his AVO regarding threats made to a person that had nothing to do with this blog, we heartily recommend that you do this as a matter of urgency.
Well thank you for laughing – obviously at yourselves! Since have never spoken to Michael Green or ‘his friends’ that remark gives me a chuckle. No Peter is not my name, sorry ETT your source got that one wrong. One and one does not equal three!
You have made a number of incorrect allegations and some pretty outrageous assumptions but then again with your level of intelligence, it is within our expectations of you.
Thank you ETT you are right, with my high IQ/EQ the outrageous assumptions are CORRECT – but the so called allegations are NOT.
We are also reasonably sure that the incorrect and outrageous allegations you have made against specific persons will result in some type of legal action being taken against you.
Not when they can be proved – bring it on PLEASE!
PS What outrageous allegations?
You have alleged blackmail and extortion which is a criminal offence in our country. Allegations of this kind will be dealt with by the police.
Aha you are beginning to learn that greenmail will get you into trouble – and so will naming various women on your blog that have absolutely no connection with the FLWG –causing them to fear for their safety and causing them emotional distress!!
READ THE NSW AVO LEGISLATION VERY CAREFULLY
You have named people and user names in your blog of which we have no knowledge but we will be sure to track them down to alert them of your claims. We are sure that most will not be happy.
ETT do you think that people are fools –do you judge people by your own limited reasoning and abilities. Everyone named is also linked to your blog and the sites you link to – so why would you have to track them down?
You have claimed that what is contained on this blog is untrue but what if we are correct (and we are)? Is it so unpalatable that you must dramatically announce that it is all lies and that it must be the work of various people (and you can't quite make up your mind on that one can you)? We would suggest that you conduct some of your own research as it is all out there on the internet for all to see.
Of course what you write is incorrect and any intelligent person can read it for what it really is – gross misrepresentation, deception and lies by some very sick people.
You have stated that Womens groups are part of S.P.C.A. and FLWG and yet we have proof that the only females represented there have been set up by women (grandmothers and second wives) who have affiliations already with militant Mens Rights groups. It is all a farce and deliberate attempt to defraud not only the public but also the government who funds the Familylawwebguide under false pretences
Then unfortunately you do not read the site properly and the postings from the women that have thanked the FLWG for the help received. None of them are in any groups even remotely related to the SPCA or FLWG. More interesting is that some post on various ’Womens’ support boards BUT when they need real help they go to FLWG.
Let me repeat that: 'When they need real help they go to the FLWG'
You have also claimed that it is dishonest to track traffic to a website. Once again you are only showing your ignorance and embarassing yourself. We have always shown that we know who is coming to the website and it is a common practice and is in no way illegal, dishonest or immoral. You just got caught out so you hide your embarassment with aggression. So typical
You have never informed people you are tracking them, you just make "I am clever" remarks about you think is visiting the site so what you are doing is immoral but unfortunately because your blog contains so many lies and deceptions even a little piece of honestly could not be expected.
It also needs to be pointed out to you that despite you not wanting to provide the address of this blog on either your blog or on familylawwebguide.com.au (an attempt to portray only one side of the argument...what on earth are you afraid of?) that many people have the intelligence to know how to find us anyway. You wouldn't know that though. All one has to do is type in part of a quote and it takes them directly to that page. Your flaccid attempts to censor information have proven fruitless and we would like to thank you once again for all of the extra traffic and hope that readers or contributors of FLWG will be alerted to the truth that hasn't been provided by that website.
Why on Earth should I point people to your blog? It would be like directing people to an open sewer. No - your Google count has not increased as I to get figures from Google and ‘Sitemeter’ it not a good guide to traffic. Oh and remember when you insert HTML code ‘some of us’ may be able to put it in this site or comments made on your blog.
By the way have you figured out which of your people told us you were using Sitemeter?
The SLR was set up by SPCA and so was Mothers4Equality. Debra Esquilante from the Gold Coast set this up in conjunction with Michael Green. Debra Esquilante is an active and key member of Fathers4Equality which is one of the vilest and most anti female mens groups out there. Spot any inconsistencies there Peter?
Yes a big inconsistency! because I assume you mean SRLR which traces back to 1999. You are actually saying the SPCA are really very clever people that can even read the future by setting up an organisation many many years before even the SPCA came into existence! That really beggars belief. Spot another inconsistency in your blog? –according to ETT the SPCA is anti female – if this had any truth in it why on Earth would they set up an organisation that also helps women? Inconsistency yes – if Debra is an active eand key member of F4E why isn’t she posting on their site?
Coral Slattery is also a key member of FLRA and SPCA and yet fights only for grandparents rights, not mother rights. More inconsistencies? Don't try to play the "but we have women involved" card as we know it is a common discussion amongst Mens Rights groups that they need to enlist and enrol as many women as possible in order to gain credibility. Trouble is the only women they allow are second wives who are notorious for "protecting the money" which righfully should go to the children that were fathered first. Once the shoe is on the other foot watch them turn. You would know this.
I see you again confuse Children’s rights with Mens Rights where does it say that the SPCA is a Mens rights organstion. Again you AGAIN put down second partners as second class citizens. Don’t Grandparents come into your lopsided equation – are they second class citizens as well?
The CRC was set up by Lionel Richards one of the founding members of SPCA and now Ed Dabrowski is a Director of that as well as a Director of SPCA. And you are trying to say that they are independent? It appears we know more about the Shared Parenting Council and of familylawwebguide than you do! Please also read our post on the CRC on our blog for more information on the sham group.
You really should do more reading on the CRC so you can present the truth. [Well obviously that is not possible but you could at least try to learn something – other than mindlessly attacking people] Amazing how you know so much about the CRC, SPCA and FLWG and still get one and one to make three. So the gospel according to ETT is “When you don’t have information just invent it – never let the truth stand in the way of a good lie”. Very very silly by assuming any readers you have cannot think for themselves.
Remember that we know who you are and where you are so you cannot rely upon the anonymity of the internet to protect you.
Sounds like a threat of physical violence to me, does this mean I should get an AVO against you?
Well readers that’s what happens when you confront idiots with truth and facts. Mind you I really should not be responding to ETT because according to the old adage “Never argue with an idiot because they will drag you down to their level – and beat you with experience” and ETT has well and truly proven they have the experience.
Peter what does it feel like to be Used??? We read your blog Peter and quite frankly we haven't had such a belly laugh for quite some time. You do realise that you are being used by Michael Green and friends to attack us as they don't have the gumption to do it themselves. They did the same with Danny Bell and if you want to contact Danny to ask about his AVO regarding threats made to a person that had nothing to do with this blog, we heartily recommend that you do this as a matter of urgency.
Well thank you for laughing – obviously at yourselves! Since have never spoken to Michael Green or ‘his friends’ that remark gives me a chuckle. No Peter is not my name, sorry ETT your source got that one wrong. One and one does not equal three!
You have made a number of incorrect allegations and some pretty outrageous assumptions but then again with your level of intelligence, it is within our expectations of you.
Thank you ETT you are right, with my high IQ/EQ the outrageous assumptions are CORRECT – but the so called allegations are NOT.
We are also reasonably sure that the incorrect and outrageous allegations you have made against specific persons will result in some type of legal action being taken against you.
Not when they can be proved – bring it on PLEASE!
PS What outrageous allegations?
You have alleged blackmail and extortion which is a criminal offence in our country. Allegations of this kind will be dealt with by the police.
Aha you are beginning to learn that greenmail will get you into trouble – and so will naming various women on your blog that have absolutely no connection with the FLWG –causing them to fear for their safety and causing them emotional distress!!
READ THE NSW AVO LEGISLATION VERY CAREFULLY
You have named people and user names in your blog of which we have no knowledge but we will be sure to track them down to alert them of your claims. We are sure that most will not be happy.
ETT do you think that people are fools –do you judge people by your own limited reasoning and abilities. Everyone named is also linked to your blog and the sites you link to – so why would you have to track them down?
You have claimed that what is contained on this blog is untrue but what if we are correct (and we are)? Is it so unpalatable that you must dramatically announce that it is all lies and that it must be the work of various people (and you can't quite make up your mind on that one can you)? We would suggest that you conduct some of your own research as it is all out there on the internet for all to see.
Of course what you write is incorrect and any intelligent person can read it for what it really is – gross misrepresentation, deception and lies by some very sick people.
You have stated that Womens groups are part of S.P.C.A. and FLWG and yet we have proof that the only females represented there have been set up by women (grandmothers and second wives) who have affiliations already with militant Mens Rights groups. It is all a farce and deliberate attempt to defraud not only the public but also the government who funds the Familylawwebguide under false pretences
Then unfortunately you do not read the site properly and the postings from the women that have thanked the FLWG for the help received. None of them are in any groups even remotely related to the SPCA or FLWG. More interesting is that some post on various ’Womens’ support boards BUT when they need real help they go to FLWG.
Let me repeat that: 'When they need real help they go to the FLWG'
You have also claimed that it is dishonest to track traffic to a website. Once again you are only showing your ignorance and embarassing yourself. We have always shown that we know who is coming to the website and it is a common practice and is in no way illegal, dishonest or immoral. You just got caught out so you hide your embarassment with aggression. So typical
You have never informed people you are tracking them, you just make "I am clever" remarks about you think is visiting the site so what you are doing is immoral but unfortunately because your blog contains so many lies and deceptions even a little piece of honestly could not be expected.
It also needs to be pointed out to you that despite you not wanting to provide the address of this blog on either your blog or on familylawwebguide.com.au (an attempt to portray only one side of the argument...what on earth are you afraid of?) that many people have the intelligence to know how to find us anyway. You wouldn't know that though. All one has to do is type in part of a quote and it takes them directly to that page. Your flaccid attempts to censor information have proven fruitless and we would like to thank you once again for all of the extra traffic and hope that readers or contributors of FLWG will be alerted to the truth that hasn't been provided by that website.
Why on Earth should I point people to your blog? It would be like directing people to an open sewer. No - your Google count has not increased as I to get figures from Google and ‘Sitemeter’ it not a good guide to traffic. Oh and remember when you insert HTML code ‘some of us’ may be able to put it in this site or comments made on your blog.
By the way have you figured out which of your people told us you were using Sitemeter?
The SLR was set up by SPCA and so was Mothers4Equality. Debra Esquilante from the Gold Coast set this up in conjunction with Michael Green. Debra Esquilante is an active and key member of Fathers4Equality which is one of the vilest and most anti female mens groups out there. Spot any inconsistencies there Peter?
Yes a big inconsistency! because I assume you mean SRLR which traces back to 1999. You are actually saying the SPCA are really very clever people that can even read the future by setting up an organisation many many years before even the SPCA came into existence! That really beggars belief. Spot another inconsistency in your blog? –according to ETT the SPCA is anti female – if this had any truth in it why on Earth would they set up an organisation that also helps women? Inconsistency yes – if Debra is an active eand key member of F4E why isn’t she posting on their site?
Coral Slattery is also a key member of FLRA and SPCA and yet fights only for grandparents rights, not mother rights. More inconsistencies? Don't try to play the "but we have women involved" card as we know it is a common discussion amongst Mens Rights groups that they need to enlist and enrol as many women as possible in order to gain credibility. Trouble is the only women they allow are second wives who are notorious for "protecting the money" which righfully should go to the children that were fathered first. Once the shoe is on the other foot watch them turn. You would know this.
I see you again confuse Children’s rights with Mens Rights where does it say that the SPCA is a Mens rights organstion. Again you AGAIN put down second partners as second class citizens. Don’t Grandparents come into your lopsided equation – are they second class citizens as well?
The CRC was set up by Lionel Richards one of the founding members of SPCA and now Ed Dabrowski is a Director of that as well as a Director of SPCA. And you are trying to say that they are independent? It appears we know more about the Shared Parenting Council and of familylawwebguide than you do! Please also read our post on the CRC on our blog for more information on the sham group.
You really should do more reading on the CRC so you can present the truth. [Well obviously that is not possible but you could at least try to learn something – other than mindlessly attacking people] Amazing how you know so much about the CRC, SPCA and FLWG and still get one and one to make three. So the gospel according to ETT is “When you don’t have information just invent it – never let the truth stand in the way of a good lie”. Very very silly by assuming any readers you have cannot think for themselves.
Remember that we know who you are and where you are so you cannot rely upon the anonymity of the internet to protect you.
Sounds like a threat of physical violence to me, does this mean I should get an AVO against you?
Well readers that’s what happens when you confront idiots with truth and facts. Mind you I really should not be responding to ETT because according to the old adage “Never argue with an idiot because they will drag you down to their level – and beat you with experience” and ETT has well and truly proven they have the experience.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
RATTLING THE CAGES
When we started this blog it was to present the truth and correct the blatant lies of the ETT site in their attacks on the SPCA and FLWG.
ETT created a subsidiary site and now they have created another one (of course under the guise of different sites with supposedly different owners) WHAT’S THE MATTER ETT ARE WE RATTLING YOUR CAGE TOO MUCH? DON’T LIKE THE TRUTH? YOUR HYPOCRISY GETTING THROUGH TO YOU?
Here is the latest from ETT’s new number 3 site. Readers please take a deep breath with this one because it will try to stretch your imagination and credibility to new bounds
Here is the opening NONSENSE under the heading
‘Government Funded Proganda’
They have a cut and paste of this site with a red overprint labeled "Governement Funded Proganda"
OK well apart from them managing to get an extra ‘e’ in Government SINCE when is blogspot and Google part of Government Funded Propaganda? – did we miss something along the way –did the Federal Government buy Google? Or did they just buy the blogspot part of it?
Well we know people can be rather silly but is this not stretching imagination just a little too far?
ETTs 3rd blog then goes on to say:
Many members of the online community have expressed their distaste on the Family web Law Guide, Notably Anonymums and Expose the Truth. Even well respected researchers such as Dr Michael Flood have been attacked by these groups as "misandrist" or "feminazis". Few have challenged them without attacks. This is one of the latest distortions of two bloggers who have simply wrote to expose the true animosity that these hateful groups display in their scramble for yet again...more control over children and mothers. They have been obsessively plastering the internet with their agenda in one form or another and seem to develop meaningless rationales for needing more rights, particularly the rights to abuse more than anything else. The wording may change but the agenda is still the same.
The most abhorrent is that the previous government funded these men a quarter of a million dollars to continue to spread this propaganda and distort facts and figures so that they have more opportunity to harass, abuse and control women and children without reprisals from authorities.
Nothing new here this is the usual repetitive material, but why oh why the reference to Michael Flood in it? When was the last time he was mentioned on FLWG? Poor Gerry, had to mention your mate? and of course try to make the 3 sites appear independent as if they did not have one owner -come on ETT surley you expect your readers to have a modicum of intelligence?
Now ETT get paranoic and adds this:
Here is a confirmation that it in fact does come from the family law web-guide:
They they go on to post to post a screen print from FLWG with a link to this blog (Thanks FLWG I know your moderators have plenty of common sense)
Now somehow? And I have to repeat somehow this is supposed to imply that it comes from the Family Law Web Guide as if the FLWG sponsors my blog.
Now what makes ETT think that in any way that this blog is related to, sponsored by or funded by the SPCA?
Well ETT here are a few facts:
When you check the FLWG site that user name was registered on the FLWG on the 20th December 2007 and since they are a registered user can post anything within site rules.
ETT you started your miserable blog in July 2008 (ETT do the math - 7 months!)
Do you think 'Sneaky Devil' could actually anticipate your blog?
By the way ETT used a screen print from FLWG is as a ‘guest’ on the FLWG site. Obviously they would suspect that:
FLWG knows who ETT and co conspirators are!
A site that gets over a million visitors a month is going to have some pretty sophisticated monitoring and security software!
Perhaps? The software will identify spoof IPS and complete a back trace?
But then again if they read the forums properly (we do) they might just have seen a post earlier in the year referring to a software consultant who was donating his time to upgrading the security software. Now this software consultant specialises in helping Police forces with backtracking paedophile sites and email traffic BETCHA he’s an expert on spoof and hidden IP addresses in that line of work!.
If this was not so downright stupid would be amusing when they say this
Please feel free to contact FACSIA and report this fraud at:
fraud@fahcsia.gov.au
What fraud? The government sponsoring Google? A long registered user on FLWG using their account to point to this blog exposing the ETT sites?
Now they post some really strange material
Expose The Truth said...
We were under the impression that it was illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex and the Shared Parenting Council of Australia use the website www.familylawwebguide.com.au to blatantly attack women and mothers.
It is also apparently illegal to foster a hate site and yet the government funds this site? That is proposteous!
Why is this being allowed in our "lucky country"?
Where does the FLWG blantantly attack Mothers? ETT neglects to mention the many that post public thanks on the site. What about the comment “apparently illegal”. ETT was boasting about their expert opinions and knowledge and they do not know the answer? Well of course its illegal to foster hate sites – we suggest ETT read up on just how close THEY are to crossing that line themselves.
If you like the comment about ‘Lucky Country’ it is a reference to when we said that THEY were un Australian and should go back where they came from OR seek some professional help
Now some more lies
November 15, 2008 11:29 PM
Expose The Truth said...
Are you aware that the SPCA via familylawwebguide.com.au set up a Mothers4equality group that was supposedly part of the "Community" on the website?
The funny thing is that it was set up by Michael Green with Debra Esquilante from the Gold Coast who is an active key member of Fathers4Equality. Spot the conflict of interest there or is it merely another case of SPCA wanting to appear to be supportive of mothers too but it's all a carefully constructed facade. It is so typical of how they seek to mislead.
What absolute fiction. It would be doubtful if Debbie Esquilant has ever met Michael Green let alone spoken to him. Since when is M4E part of the SPCA? What “carefully constructed façade”? the group owners control what material they put on the site not the SPCA or FLWG.
DEAR OH DEAR ETT – ONE AND ONE MAKES THREE AGAIN DOES IT?
ETT created a subsidiary site and now they have created another one (of course under the guise of different sites with supposedly different owners) WHAT’S THE MATTER ETT ARE WE RATTLING YOUR CAGE TOO MUCH? DON’T LIKE THE TRUTH? YOUR HYPOCRISY GETTING THROUGH TO YOU?
Here is the latest from ETT’s new number 3 site. Readers please take a deep breath with this one because it will try to stretch your imagination and credibility to new bounds
Here is the opening NONSENSE under the heading
‘Government Funded Proganda’
They have a cut and paste of this site with a red overprint labeled "Governement Funded Proganda"
OK well apart from them managing to get an extra ‘e’ in Government SINCE when is blogspot and Google part of Government Funded Propaganda? – did we miss something along the way –did the Federal Government buy Google? Or did they just buy the blogspot part of it?
Well we know people can be rather silly but is this not stretching imagination just a little too far?
ETTs 3rd blog then goes on to say:
Many members of the online community have expressed their distaste on the Family web Law Guide, Notably Anonymums and Expose the Truth. Even well respected researchers such as Dr Michael Flood have been attacked by these groups as "misandrist" or "feminazis". Few have challenged them without attacks. This is one of the latest distortions of two bloggers who have simply wrote to expose the true animosity that these hateful groups display in their scramble for yet again...more control over children and mothers. They have been obsessively plastering the internet with their agenda in one form or another and seem to develop meaningless rationales for needing more rights, particularly the rights to abuse more than anything else. The wording may change but the agenda is still the same.
The most abhorrent is that the previous government funded these men a quarter of a million dollars to continue to spread this propaganda and distort facts and figures so that they have more opportunity to harass, abuse and control women and children without reprisals from authorities.
Nothing new here this is the usual repetitive material, but why oh why the reference to Michael Flood in it? When was the last time he was mentioned on FLWG? Poor Gerry, had to mention your mate? and of course try to make the 3 sites appear independent as if they did not have one owner -come on ETT surley you expect your readers to have a modicum of intelligence?
Now ETT get paranoic and adds this:
Here is a confirmation that it in fact does come from the family law web-guide:
They they go on to post to post a screen print from FLWG with a link to this blog (Thanks FLWG I know your moderators have plenty of common sense)
Now somehow? And I have to repeat somehow this is supposed to imply that it comes from the Family Law Web Guide as if the FLWG sponsors my blog.
Now what makes ETT think that in any way that this blog is related to, sponsored by or funded by the SPCA?
Well ETT here are a few facts:
When you check the FLWG site that user name was registered on the FLWG on the 20th December 2007 and since they are a registered user can post anything within site rules.
ETT you started your miserable blog in July 2008 (ETT do the math - 7 months!)
Do you think 'Sneaky Devil' could actually anticipate your blog?
By the way ETT used a screen print from FLWG is as a ‘guest’ on the FLWG site. Obviously they would suspect that:
FLWG knows who ETT and co conspirators are!
A site that gets over a million visitors a month is going to have some pretty sophisticated monitoring and security software!
Perhaps? The software will identify spoof IPS and complete a back trace?
But then again if they read the forums properly (we do) they might just have seen a post earlier in the year referring to a software consultant who was donating his time to upgrading the security software. Now this software consultant specialises in helping Police forces with backtracking paedophile sites and email traffic BETCHA he’s an expert on spoof and hidden IP addresses in that line of work!.
If this was not so downright stupid would be amusing when they say this
Please feel free to contact FACSIA and report this fraud at:
fraud@fahcsia.gov.au
What fraud? The government sponsoring Google? A long registered user on FLWG using their account to point to this blog exposing the ETT sites?
Now they post some really strange material
Expose The Truth said...
We were under the impression that it was illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex and the Shared Parenting Council of Australia use the website www.familylawwebguide.com.au to blatantly attack women and mothers.
It is also apparently illegal to foster a hate site and yet the government funds this site? That is proposteous!
Why is this being allowed in our "lucky country"?
Where does the FLWG blantantly attack Mothers? ETT neglects to mention the many that post public thanks on the site. What about the comment “apparently illegal”. ETT was boasting about their expert opinions and knowledge and they do not know the answer? Well of course its illegal to foster hate sites – we suggest ETT read up on just how close THEY are to crossing that line themselves.
If you like the comment about ‘Lucky Country’ it is a reference to when we said that THEY were un Australian and should go back where they came from OR seek some professional help
Now some more lies
November 15, 2008 11:29 PM
Expose The Truth said...
Are you aware that the SPCA via familylawwebguide.com.au set up a Mothers4equality group that was supposedly part of the "Community" on the website?
The funny thing is that it was set up by Michael Green with Debra Esquilante from the Gold Coast who is an active key member of Fathers4Equality. Spot the conflict of interest there or is it merely another case of SPCA wanting to appear to be supportive of mothers too but it's all a carefully constructed facade. It is so typical of how they seek to mislead.
What absolute fiction. It would be doubtful if Debbie Esquilant has ever met Michael Green let alone spoken to him. Since when is M4E part of the SPCA? What “carefully constructed façade”? the group owners control what material they put on the site not the SPCA or FLWG.
DEAR OH DEAR ETT – ONE AND ONE MAKES THREE AGAIN DOES IT?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
ETT creates another low visit blog
It seems ETT wants to increase it proganda reach and has created another blog called:
http://anonymums.blogspot.com/2008/09/...........
We wonder do these people actually expect anyone to believe this is another independent site? (Surprise surprise, same ownership and same tracking software as ETT)
Here is a little of the material that ETT wrote for their other site:
The truth is the shared parenting council is a component of fathers lobby groups such as Fathers for Justice, the family Law Action Group and the fatherhood foundation.
Well that’s slanted reporting. Since when has the SPCA ever supported F4J?
Since when has FLAG been part of the SPCA? Even slightly amusing is that some FLAG people have been banned from the FLWG (which ETT maintains is the SPCA) - Isnt that a little contradictory?
Is the Fatherhood Foundation an SPCA member? FF is a religious based organisation which as any body that has read their material will quickly discover.
Now read this disgusting hypocritical piece from the ETT subsidiary blog:
The few women representing their plights are often girlfriends, mothers of the fathers and wife's who have been vacant of their own opinions. Some unfortunately are desperate mothers who are caught in the system and no one else to turn to as these groups alike a terrorist organization have monopolized the system.
Actually many of them are second wives. So the first wives want to PUT down second wives and new partners as some form of second class citizens that should not have opinions?
What is this, some old Arabian nights tales where first wives get priority – and second wives and new partners and children are second class citizens?
So Mothers and Father ie Grandparents are also second class citizens?
In fact many second wives write of the tortures their partners experience by not having proper access to their children but according to ETT they should not be able to do this –remember according to ETT and their subsidiary blogs opinions they are SECOND CLASS citizens
Come on ETT and supporters –no wonder all these sick people have problems with the Courts if they elevate themselves to some superior status and regard everyone else as SECOND CLASS.
Totally un Australian – go back to where you came from – or get some professional counselling.
http://anonymums.blogspot.com/2008/09/...........
We wonder do these people actually expect anyone to believe this is another independent site? (Surprise surprise, same ownership and same tracking software as ETT)
Here is a little of the material that ETT wrote for their other site:
The truth is the shared parenting council is a component of fathers lobby groups such as Fathers for Justice, the family Law Action Group and the fatherhood foundation.
Well that’s slanted reporting. Since when has the SPCA ever supported F4J?
Since when has FLAG been part of the SPCA? Even slightly amusing is that some FLAG people have been banned from the FLWG (which ETT maintains is the SPCA) - Isnt that a little contradictory?
Is the Fatherhood Foundation an SPCA member? FF is a religious based organisation which as any body that has read their material will quickly discover.
Now read this disgusting hypocritical piece from the ETT subsidiary blog:
The few women representing their plights are often girlfriends, mothers of the fathers and wife's who have been vacant of their own opinions. Some unfortunately are desperate mothers who are caught in the system and no one else to turn to as these groups alike a terrorist organization have monopolized the system.
Actually many of them are second wives. So the first wives want to PUT down second wives and new partners as some form of second class citizens that should not have opinions?
What is this, some old Arabian nights tales where first wives get priority – and second wives and new partners and children are second class citizens?
So Mothers and Father ie Grandparents are also second class citizens?
In fact many second wives write of the tortures their partners experience by not having proper access to their children but according to ETT they should not be able to do this –remember according to ETT and their subsidiary blogs opinions they are SECOND CLASS citizens
Come on ETT and supporters –no wonder all these sick people have problems with the Courts if they elevate themselves to some superior status and regard everyone else as SECOND CLASS.
Totally un Australian – go back to where you came from – or get some professional counselling.
IS ETT SPYING ON YOU?
ETT published this a few weeks ago:
Good morning to all of our fans especially those from FamilyLawwebguide, unwired.net.au and the Sydney Morning Herald and a special wave to our friends in New Zealand this morning!! And we promise not to mention those fans that work in the Government departments whose Ip's have been logged...ssshhh we won't tell.
In case you think this is disturbing the ETT blog is running FREE software from ‘Sitemaster’ which inserts a little HTML code into the page to track the IP the hit came from. Not exactly cutting edge technology and VERY DISHONEST – where does it say they are tracking your IP?
BUT the FLWG does state every clearly that Google does index the site and you can even see your IP and others people IP in their account details
SO WHO IS BEING DISHONEST OR DEVIOUS?
Well of course ETT! But since everything else they post is either a gross distortion or fabrication such dishonesty and deception is par for the course.
Now guess who told this blog that ETT was using Sitemaster?
Could it be perhaps? the same person that told us:
“One of the ETT bloggers was all for contacting the FLWG and asking them for a large donation to remove the blog”
OK we get it – its called Greenmail, but then again that’s as dishonest as the ETT blog.
Good morning to all of our fans especially those from FamilyLawwebguide, unwired.net.au and the Sydney Morning Herald and a special wave to our friends in New Zealand this morning!! And we promise not to mention those fans that work in the Government departments whose Ip's have been logged...ssshhh we won't tell.
In case you think this is disturbing the ETT blog is running FREE software from ‘Sitemaster’ which inserts a little HTML code into the page to track the IP the hit came from. Not exactly cutting edge technology and VERY DISHONEST – where does it say they are tracking your IP?
BUT the FLWG does state every clearly that Google does index the site and you can even see your IP and others people IP in their account details
SO WHO IS BEING DISHONEST OR DEVIOUS?
Well of course ETT! But since everything else they post is either a gross distortion or fabrication such dishonesty and deception is par for the course.
Now guess who told this blog that ETT was using Sitemaster?
Could it be perhaps? the same person that told us:
“One of the ETT bloggers was all for contacting the FLWG and asking them for a large donation to remove the blog”
OK we get it – its called Greenmail, but then again that’s as dishonest as the ETT blog.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
FOR ALL OUR NEW READERS
You may have come across a blog called Expose the Truth which attacks the www.familylawwebguide.com.au
ETT is run by a small group of dysfunctional hypocrites who take 1% fact, add 99% fiction and then seek to represent it as some of special truth. ETT puts out so much garbage and pure invention and invective that it is sometimes difficult to determine whether they really believe what they are writing or are under the influence of the medication they have been prescribed.
ETT is so myopic they have even attacked the partners of FLWG programmers, this is akin to “get the women and children involved in our war on FLWG”. But of course anyone with any sense would realise that attacking women as periphery targets really illustrates the absolute hypocrisy of the ETT bloggers.
Rather than bore you with all the ETT stupid rhetoric we have taken a small sample of some of their propanda and added the REAL TRUTH to it just to illustrate the lengths they will go to in an attempt to create a false impression.
Just remember that the ETT bloggers are not concerned with the truth –just smoke and mirrors!
Here’s some ETT nonsense
“Thefamilylawwebguide is a thinly veiled front for the Shared parenting Council of Australia. Dads On The Air, Equal parenting Network, Family Law Reform Association Nsw are all for various aggressive mens groups like and are really just a part of the SPCA and have most members in common.”
Well firstly DOTA is not a member of the SPCA or the portal, its material was put on the site at the request of FACSIA. EPN is not a member of the SPCA. The FLRA which is an SPCA member has a female President and a female General Secretary.
Well, the ETT boggers forgot CRC, Mothers 4 Equality and the SRLR group and since when were these groups part of the SPCA?
Of course the blogger forgot other portal groups such as ‘Mothers 4 Equality’ – because it really does not fit in with their stance of “aggressive mens groups”. The SRLR group frightens the blogger because of its size and the fact that so many women come on the FLWG site to thank it for for the help provided to them - of course the bloggers never mention this, why not let a lie sit in the way of an inconvenient truth?
The SRLR group occasionally gets mention from the blogger usually in the form of childish comments, but what drives the bloggers to frustration is the need for some personal details before you can join; which of course stops the bloggers from getting in. Poor, poor, poor bloggers – just fretting away not having access to more than 40% of the site devoted to the SRLR members areas, and the bloggers think the FLWG is a thinly veiled front for the SPCA?
Of course the bloggers are still a little careful with the SRLR group because they know they are a non gender organisation and worry about the legal wrath that could be unleashed if the ETT fools go too far. Its a pretty fair assumption that the FLWG knows who publishes the ETT nonsnese which probably means the SRLR group do as well.
Of course the bloggers real frustration comes from the fact that some of the groups particularly the SPCA and the SRLR have some special relationships and are listened to by the ‘powers than be’. There is no question that the SPCA are as thick as thieves with FACSIA and the SRLR have some very special relationships in the ‘right areas’. But of course this is natural consequence of those ‘powers that be’ wanting to deal with rational individuals that deal in facts rather than individuals or groups that only seek to introduce/promote conflict to get Government funding and who degenerate meetings into childish hissy fits of who they will not sit next to.
ETT is run by a small group of dysfunctional hypocrites who take 1% fact, add 99% fiction and then seek to represent it as some of special truth. ETT puts out so much garbage and pure invention and invective that it is sometimes difficult to determine whether they really believe what they are writing or are under the influence of the medication they have been prescribed.
ETT is so myopic they have even attacked the partners of FLWG programmers, this is akin to “get the women and children involved in our war on FLWG”. But of course anyone with any sense would realise that attacking women as periphery targets really illustrates the absolute hypocrisy of the ETT bloggers.
Rather than bore you with all the ETT stupid rhetoric we have taken a small sample of some of their propanda and added the REAL TRUTH to it just to illustrate the lengths they will go to in an attempt to create a false impression.
Just remember that the ETT bloggers are not concerned with the truth –just smoke and mirrors!
Here’s some ETT nonsense
“Thefamilylawwebguide is a thinly veiled front for the Shared parenting Council of Australia. Dads On The Air, Equal parenting Network, Family Law Reform Association Nsw are all for various aggressive mens groups like and are really just a part of the SPCA and have most members in common.”
Well firstly DOTA is not a member of the SPCA or the portal, its material was put on the site at the request of FACSIA. EPN is not a member of the SPCA. The FLRA which is an SPCA member has a female President and a female General Secretary.
Well, the ETT boggers forgot CRC, Mothers 4 Equality and the SRLR group and since when were these groups part of the SPCA?
Of course the blogger forgot other portal groups such as ‘Mothers 4 Equality’ – because it really does not fit in with their stance of “aggressive mens groups”. The SRLR group frightens the blogger because of its size and the fact that so many women come on the FLWG site to thank it for for the help provided to them - of course the bloggers never mention this, why not let a lie sit in the way of an inconvenient truth?
The SRLR group occasionally gets mention from the blogger usually in the form of childish comments, but what drives the bloggers to frustration is the need for some personal details before you can join; which of course stops the bloggers from getting in. Poor, poor, poor bloggers – just fretting away not having access to more than 40% of the site devoted to the SRLR members areas, and the bloggers think the FLWG is a thinly veiled front for the SPCA?
Of course the bloggers are still a little careful with the SRLR group because they know they are a non gender organisation and worry about the legal wrath that could be unleashed if the ETT fools go too far. Its a pretty fair assumption that the FLWG knows who publishes the ETT nonsnese which probably means the SRLR group do as well.
Of course the bloggers real frustration comes from the fact that some of the groups particularly the SPCA and the SRLR have some special relationships and are listened to by the ‘powers than be’. There is no question that the SPCA are as thick as thieves with FACSIA and the SRLR have some very special relationships in the ‘right areas’. But of course this is natural consequence of those ‘powers that be’ wanting to deal with rational individuals that deal in facts rather than individuals or groups that only seek to introduce/promote conflict to get Government funding and who degenerate meetings into childish hissy fits of who they will not sit next to.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Would you take advice from the ETT fools?
Heres another attack on the FLWG from ETT -
"Advice for the Owners of Familylawwebguide.com.au
You need to be very careful about the advice that is being handed out on that website.
MikeT, Artemis and D4E seem to be the most prolific providers of advice and from our experience, most of what they write is incorrect and poorly researched".
Perhaps the ETTers [perhaps ETAs would be more accurate – the original Japanese description of the peasants that handled dung would be more accurate] should read the FLWG site more carefully because it does contain disclaimers, but then again reading and being able to comprehend are different abilities and the ETAs have demonstrated their unique ability to comprehend very little. In fact the ETAs abilities would see them underqualified to even clean public toilets.
Don’t you love the line “from our experience, most of what they write is incorrect”. Experience of what? Are these ETT people legal practitioners? Are they Accountants? Are they experts on CSA legislation? Do they have degrees in psychology?
Yes they are experienced – but in the disreputable arts of lying and distorting the truth. Surely these are not degree subjects or anything any reasonable person would care to admit to? [Apologies for the assumption that the word ‘reasonable’ might apply to the ETAs]
PS To Number 2 – do not forget your medical appointment this month.
"Advice for the Owners of Familylawwebguide.com.au
You need to be very careful about the advice that is being handed out on that website.
MikeT, Artemis and D4E seem to be the most prolific providers of advice and from our experience, most of what they write is incorrect and poorly researched".
Perhaps the ETTers [perhaps ETAs would be more accurate – the original Japanese description of the peasants that handled dung would be more accurate] should read the FLWG site more carefully because it does contain disclaimers, but then again reading and being able to comprehend are different abilities and the ETAs have demonstrated their unique ability to comprehend very little. In fact the ETAs abilities would see them underqualified to even clean public toilets.
Don’t you love the line “from our experience, most of what they write is incorrect”. Experience of what? Are these ETT people legal practitioners? Are they Accountants? Are they experts on CSA legislation? Do they have degrees in psychology?
Yes they are experienced – but in the disreputable arts of lying and distorting the truth. Surely these are not degree subjects or anything any reasonable person would care to admit to? [Apologies for the assumption that the word ‘reasonable’ might apply to the ETAs]
PS To Number 2 – do not forget your medical appointment this month.
Coincidences
Strange that groups that attack shared parenting think that coincidences are not noticed.
Here’s one of the “anti FLWG, SPCA, FLRA, Reasonable Parents” hate site usual attacks on Lindsay -
They always start with -
“This was posted by MR Cut and Paste, Lindsay.
Some questions we have Lindsay from a different perspective that what you are considering:”
We will not even bother to repeat the questions they were asking – to state they were biased and not relevant is the most accurate summation.
Heres some news - Lindsay does not hide behind the women’s skirts.
Fancy calling him “Mr Cut and Paste” – what a strange name –although Gerry O used to call him that -
JUST A COINCIDENCE?
The blog keeps posting about how computer knowledgeable they are – and how untraceable - Gerry O used to boast about that -
JUST A COINCIDENCE?
Ah a link to XY on the blog site [even Goebbels would have been proud of that sites gross distortion of the facts] is a site run by Gerry O -
JUST A COINCIDENCE?
Wasn’t [and still is] Gerry O associated with Michael Flood [the all men are wife beating bastards advocate] and aren’t they all part of the McInnes, Swinebourne tag team that opposed Shared Parenting and think that the SPCA are the personification of evil and should be destroyed? -
JUST A COINCIDENCE?
The real trouble with people that think they are clever is that they are not clever enough to understand there may be other people that know as much or more than they do.
Here’s one of the “anti FLWG, SPCA, FLRA, Reasonable Parents” hate site usual attacks on Lindsay -
They always start with -
“This was posted by MR Cut and Paste, Lindsay.
Some questions we have Lindsay from a different perspective that what you are considering:”
We will not even bother to repeat the questions they were asking – to state they were biased and not relevant is the most accurate summation.
Heres some news - Lindsay does not hide behind the women’s skirts.
Fancy calling him “Mr Cut and Paste” – what a strange name –although Gerry O used to call him that -
JUST A COINCIDENCE?
The blog keeps posting about how computer knowledgeable they are – and how untraceable - Gerry O used to boast about that -
JUST A COINCIDENCE?
Ah a link to XY on the blog site [even Goebbels would have been proud of that sites gross distortion of the facts] is a site run by Gerry O -
JUST A COINCIDENCE?
Wasn’t [and still is] Gerry O associated with Michael Flood [the all men are wife beating bastards advocate] and aren’t they all part of the McInnes, Swinebourne tag team that opposed Shared Parenting and think that the SPCA are the personification of evil and should be destroyed? -
JUST A COINCIDENCE?
The real trouble with people that think they are clever is that they are not clever enough to understand there may be other people that know as much or more than they do.
More from the Lunatic Fringe♦
Here is what the lunatic fringe [ETT] were asking from FLWG: “Another question that is pertinent is why do you all choose to operate under multiple aliases? Is that a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader that there are more active members than there are in reality?”
This is very cynical, since the following: BriarRose, Getthefacts, Solemother, HubbyPays and Aphrodite who are registered on the FLWG are just a couple of people. A feeble attempt to pretend there is more anti FLWG sentiment than really exists.
But of course the bloggers [see above] choose to operate under a great cloud of secrecy because if there was any truth to the following story then nothing would worry them.
IF YOU DON’T HAVE A STORY INVENT ONE!
Here is a classic, even a five year old could spot the stupidity and the beat up in this one – on the ETT blog
kmc said...
"Please take care.A person claiming to speak for FLWG has incorrectly identified me as the writer of this blog.That person has made both public and private threats against me and others, claiming to speak on behalf of FLWG. I have satisfied a court that I am not the writer of this blog and a restraining order has been issued against the person who made the threats. Any person making threats against me or publishing false accusations about me will be dealt with in the same way.I understand another Tasmanian has also taken action against that same person as a result of threats and false accusations. Please be very careful who you 'identify' as the author of this blog. Some people are prepared to take a reference to Tasmania as meaning you know something which you plainly don't and may not have intended but if those people act based on your error you may find yourself involved in legal action too. A misunderstanding arose because somebody published an identification based on no evidence at all and another person took it as fact without taking the trouble to check for himself. Please do not make the same mistake. Remember, a court has been satisfied that I do not write this blog. Please do not let rumour hold more weight than that. You may bring threats upon me and trouble upon yourself. I will do whatever it takes to protect my family.(Signed with initials because those who need to know will know what they stand for and those who don't need to know are better off not asking.)
“Remember, a court has been satisfied that I do not write this blog”. Well Katie we all missed the giant Court case about how you proved to a local Court you did not have another internet identity [your friends have multiple ones] There must have been teams of forensic computer experts on your side. Of course you may have just identified the blogger in Court! What utter bullshit but then again perhaps this was written for five year olds. How many believe this beat up? An organisation like the FLWG would just use the Courts, they are thick as thieves with the Attorney General so why would they jeopardise that? Then again perhaps they are waiting for the site to step over the Section 121 mark and let the AGs department deal with you.
This is very cynical, since the following: BriarRose, Getthefacts, Solemother, HubbyPays and Aphrodite who are registered on the FLWG are just a couple of people. A feeble attempt to pretend there is more anti FLWG sentiment than really exists.
But of course the bloggers [see above] choose to operate under a great cloud of secrecy because if there was any truth to the following story then nothing would worry them.
IF YOU DON’T HAVE A STORY INVENT ONE!
Here is a classic, even a five year old could spot the stupidity and the beat up in this one – on the ETT blog
kmc said...
"Please take care.A person claiming to speak for FLWG has incorrectly identified me as the writer of this blog.That person has made both public and private threats against me and others, claiming to speak on behalf of FLWG. I have satisfied a court that I am not the writer of this blog and a restraining order has been issued against the person who made the threats. Any person making threats against me or publishing false accusations about me will be dealt with in the same way.I understand another Tasmanian has also taken action against that same person as a result of threats and false accusations. Please be very careful who you 'identify' as the author of this blog. Some people are prepared to take a reference to Tasmania as meaning you know something which you plainly don't and may not have intended but if those people act based on your error you may find yourself involved in legal action too. A misunderstanding arose because somebody published an identification based on no evidence at all and another person took it as fact without taking the trouble to check for himself. Please do not make the same mistake. Remember, a court has been satisfied that I do not write this blog. Please do not let rumour hold more weight than that. You may bring threats upon me and trouble upon yourself. I will do whatever it takes to protect my family.(Signed with initials because those who need to know will know what they stand for and those who don't need to know are better off not asking.)
“Remember, a court has been satisfied that I do not write this blog”. Well Katie we all missed the giant Court case about how you proved to a local Court you did not have another internet identity [your friends have multiple ones] There must have been teams of forensic computer experts on your side. Of course you may have just identified the blogger in Court! What utter bullshit but then again perhaps this was written for five year olds. How many believe this beat up? An organisation like the FLWG would just use the Courts, they are thick as thieves with the Attorney General so why would they jeopardise that? Then again perhaps they are waiting for the site to step over the Section 121 mark and let the AGs department deal with you.
ETT = Lies and Bias
Well the Family Law Web Guide has quite a useful glosary of terms. We wonder if they could add the following to it?
ETT = An abbreviation for biased reporting, lies, denigration and personal attacks on people.
An ETT = Someone is who is need of some serious mental therapy.
ETT = An abbreviation for biased reporting, lies, denigration and personal attacks on people.
An ETT = Someone is who is need of some serious mental therapy.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The real truths behind another blog that constantly attacks and slanders the FLWG, the SPCA, the FLRA and the rights of parents.
This blog is dedicated to exposing the real truths behind another blog that constantly attacks and slanders the FLWG, the SPCA, the FLRA and the rights of parents.
The other blog ETT purports to represent the truth about a site called the Family Law Web Guide but does so by grossly misrepresenting stories and inventing others.
ETT is run by several individuals that have been diagnosed with various mental health issues that range from mild to severe including paranoid schizophrenia, all have been under or are under treatment with various psychiatric drugs. It would be hard to find any sympathy for people that hide behind their mental illnesses and seek to attack other individuals using their cover of psychiatric problems. This also explains why they occupy the absolute outer fringes of various movements, as no serious organisations will have anything to do with such flawed individuals.
For some reason they have particular issues with the Child Support Agency, one in particular who spent a great deal of time ‘whoring’ around Tasmanian bars is furious the Agency cannot locate one of the men she claimed is responsible for a pregnancy.
So these people seek to claim they represent and present the truth but unfortunately according to people that know them are causing uncalculated damage to Mothers in general by their lies and misrepresentation. Fortunately, other people are honest and concerned at the problems these ‘damaged’ individuals are trying to cause and have identified them.
Because these individuals have no concerns [or it appears morals] at naming their targets and the suburbs they reside in, this blog will likely do the same to them.
Tomorrow I will begin to expose their hypocrisy by indentifying the variety of names they operate under.
The other blog ETT purports to represent the truth about a site called the Family Law Web Guide but does so by grossly misrepresenting stories and inventing others.
ETT is run by several individuals that have been diagnosed with various mental health issues that range from mild to severe including paranoid schizophrenia, all have been under or are under treatment with various psychiatric drugs. It would be hard to find any sympathy for people that hide behind their mental illnesses and seek to attack other individuals using their cover of psychiatric problems. This also explains why they occupy the absolute outer fringes of various movements, as no serious organisations will have anything to do with such flawed individuals.
For some reason they have particular issues with the Child Support Agency, one in particular who spent a great deal of time ‘whoring’ around Tasmanian bars is furious the Agency cannot locate one of the men she claimed is responsible for a pregnancy.
So these people seek to claim they represent and present the truth but unfortunately according to people that know them are causing uncalculated damage to Mothers in general by their lies and misrepresentation. Fortunately, other people are honest and concerned at the problems these ‘damaged’ individuals are trying to cause and have identified them.
Because these individuals have no concerns [or it appears morals] at naming their targets and the suburbs they reside in, this blog will likely do the same to them.
Tomorrow I will begin to expose their hypocrisy by indentifying the variety of names they operate under.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)