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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
http://frnaked.blogspot.com/
I think your blog is hilarious and quite revealing.
This is all very interesting. From what I see, there appears to be a campaign, by what would appear to be some mentally challenged and disturbed individuals, to discredit, without doing so what appears to be a genuine attempt to assist others.
As such, I've gone back to the start and picked this relatively short example to muse over and comment on.
These are the findings :-
This was a post that ETT picked, to only show what they want is a major part of their aggressive campaign of jealous hatred through lies and distortion. :-
Yes, I am female, yes I have a son who hopefully I have trained to be wary of all the predatory females who plot and scheme to sleep with with men in order to get pregnant.
I have my own business in fashion and what I hear in the changing rooms makes my blood run cold. So many times I hear girls actually plan to go on a date, grab the first guy that comes along, tell him she's on the pill, then go all out to get pregnant knowing full well that she will get every financial benefit going.
Time after time I see babies born into an absolute life of misery being pushed around in buggies by lazy mothers looking for the top fashions to get dressed up so they can go out and find the next gravy train.I know the men are equally selfish for having sex without a conscience but at some point something has to change because regardless of what the law does and says, there is now a generation of sad children being brought into the world as part of a get rich quick scheme by women.
Thinking purely of the child and I get sick of hearing 'we must consider the best interests of the child' a forced to pay, absent father and a morally challenged mother never put the child first so it might be the right time to introduce a sad but necessary law which halts a pregnancy if neither parents can commit to looking after a child.
This might sound harsh but I work in the frontline of hearing women at their worst by using men to secure their financial future. Last week I had to rush to the aid of a baby who was choking in her pram while her mother tried on clothes and took absolutely no notice of the distressed little girl. On grabbing her and tipping her upside down to dislodge the obstruction, her diaper was soaked, her legs red raw from dried urine and she had a bottle filled with coke.
Even if the fathers want to do the right thing, a lazy, greedy and selfish mother won't recognise the right thing if it slapped her in the face because they are not prepared to make the sacrifices most mothers make.
There is absolutely no excuse for a woman to get pregnant these days unless there is a huge pile of cash at the end of it which sadly, there is.
ETT’s response was :-
you're at the "frontline" so you say, waiting on these money hungry gold diggers while they try on clothes and you're minding the babies blah blah blah......hang on, aren't you benefitting directly from the purchases of these gold digging child neglecting single mothers? Isn't it your clothes they're buying? Aren't you helping them to buy your clothes? Aren't you profiting from their purchases? Hypocrite!
Here are some observations :-
They give the impression that they doubt that this person is on the frontline by including “so you say” (as the 5th to 7th words), obviously to discredit the person, yet later they accept what has been said, to then attack the person. They then resort to what so many children do, try to ignore what is being said with the exceptionally rude “blah blah blah”. A gross lack of maturity and a propensity toward mental instability is very evident from the content and arrangement of these statements. They then suddenly realise that they lack an ability to attack along the lines that they have and attack and cannot continue with this line of attack. They, in a desperate bid to continue the attack change the direction of their attack and reverse their stance by now accepting what has been said.
The attack now is to try to make a comparison between this person and those observed. The problem is that they lack the level of intelligence to see that in fact they are then attacking, but at the same time, also agreeing with the core of what they are responding to, which is what irks them. The minds behind such traits of actions and words is quite obviously very lacking of intelligence, also obviously of a noticeably lower level of maturity and intelligence than the average adult. They even embellish the observations that have been portrayed by themselves placing the observed into the class of “Gold Diggers”.
The majority of the attacks are against the fact that the person being attacked is running a business and getting out there and doing something, as do a very large proportion of mature and responsible adults. This abusive attacking response would likely indicate a mindset that does not understand the very basic fact that businesses have to make money to survive and they very much have to at least partly tow the “Customer is right” line, especially when it comes to a competitive area with very low margins. The attacks also show a great lack of the ability to see what is, as opposed to see what is wanted to be seen. There is a great deal of evidence that distinguishing between fact and fiction is not something that this mindset is capable of undertaking.
The very last action is to resort to inappropriate vocabulary, again indicating a noticeable lack of intelligence. This is done by trying to make out that one who is working is like many who aren’t, one who cares for children is like many who don’t and that one who assists other’s is like many being assisted.
What is also very noticeable is that there is no attempt to credit or discredit the actions of the person by the attacker or attackers. In fact, the fact that children are obviously being abused and neglected and this is not even considered indicates that the attacker or attackers has or have little, or more likely, no concern for the welfare and wellbeing of children and that the agenda is in reality something detached from this aspect. By removing the children as a factor, only the mothers remain. Thus it should be obvious to any that what is actually happening is that an ideology exists in the attacker or attackers. This ideology is one that will support mothers abusing and neglecting children.
Using statements such as "mentally disturbed" as an insult is hate speech. Like most discrimination attacks, usually the person has some phobia towards these attributes that stem from some past or current traits in that persons insecurities. A good example is homophobia. Most people who display this are homosexual.
When a person has been and is still receiving treatment for various delusional and other psychotic disorders then the description 'mentally disturbed' is not hate speech - just accurate reporting.
anonymums said Using statements such as "mentally disturbed" as an insult is hate speech. Like most discrimination attacks, usually the person has some phobia towards these attributes that stem from some past or current traits in that persons insecurities. A good example is homophobia. Most people who display this are homosexual.
My understanding is that that the derogatory phrase "Gold Diggers", is more discriminatory, and more hateful than the term mentally disturbed.
I also believe that you have a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word hypocrite. You have cited an example of what a hypocrite is, by pretending that you have the virtue to not resort to hate-filled and discriminatory vituperation as you so profusely resort to expostulations that others do, yet frequently you resort to diatribes that contain an enormous amount of hate-filled and discriminatory accusations.
The consensus would very likely be that you are the more incessant hypocrite.
Your musing about phobia's, is rather amusing as if this were the case, then if applied to you, you would be, at the least, some sort of indescribable abomination very much beyond description with having to resort to a great number of words.
However this certainly appears to be an interesting theory that you put forward, is it your own, or do you have any empirical research that shows what you say is anything other than a pathetic attempt at an insult?
Post a Comment