Well folks We have returned after an extended business and holiday trip to the UK and the USA. For those of us complaining about this dreadful hot weather and constant power cuts it was minus 2 when we left Heathrow and 44 at Tulla - that is quite a difference in 24 hours.
Anyway we digress, what has ETT been up to? In truth a lot quieter and slightly less venom but then again her work is in the middle of budgets which actually keeps her productively occupied and this is interspaced with her regular non ETT web musings.
Of course ETT might just be worrying that her main target has information of who the ETTers are. Stop worrying - they already know and apparently have known for some time. It seems as if the FLWG actually created a dummy front page especially for her and ETT fell for it hook line and sinker and mentioned it on her hate site. Even better another group inserted email's into their email queue especially for brenda.patrick@yahoo.com (also registered as Aphrodite on the FLWG)
Well if it were us we would be really careful about any email's to multiple yahoo and other web mail accounts we were receiving on and even checking just how 'dynamic' our Bigpond and Exetel IP addresses really are. We would probably be careful about trying to hide IP addreses when there is software that can do proper backtraces.
It would appear that other ETTers apprentices are running away and willingly dropping information to avoid legal action. We suppose that what seemed a good idea to them at the time was never envisaged as a pure hate site full of lies and misrepresentation.
Now we are wondering - will the FLWG start something in Court, or will they just emblaze the web with all the personal details that the ETTers enjoy doing? Now wouldn't that be something for the front page of the FLWG site with their million and a half hits a month?
Happy to say, Anonymous(mums) are not so Anonymous any more
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
COINCIDENCES
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)