AllForHer? - no - I’m MartyK - Alina is Alina - sammy01 is sammy01 - you are thatbloke
QLD What is the Normal Timeframe of Family Dispute Resolution?
- Thread starter Rosie27
- Start date
AllForHer? - no - I’m MartyK - Alina is Alina - sammy01 is sammy01 - you are thatbloke
Sorry, you both make so many basic errors i thought you were the same person
Oh... No.... I... have... annoyed... sammy.... now will he relate that to his case of.... years....ago..like.....with every other.... post he makes........ posting in part.... sentences..... with lots of .... between words.......relating it to his ex....oh he has a hard... time.......
Thank you for the compliments Bert and Ernie.. I am actually a much bigger C*** than you give me credit for. Now where is that allforher?
Last edited:
Some passionate commentary here.
I just got home but read the above quote by MartyK earlier in the day and have been thinking about it since. I wondered how such a report written by McIntosh et. al. could be discredited in the scientific sense - for example like the scientific process that discredited Jan Schon research in computer engineering.
Young children are the scope of McIntosh's report. The standard, the process, the experiments required for scientific discrediting would amount to child abuse. It would be immoral and unethical to discredit using a scientific process.
The concluding paragraphs in Bettina Arndts articles resonate;
Diana Bryant, the Chief Justice of the Family Court, whilst stressing cases before the court are subject to individual assessment, says it is vitally important that "family consultants and experts giving evidence in family law proceedings, as well as judges, are familiar with the current research and differing views about it".
She also expects the court's family consultants to keep up to date with current debates: "They have been made aware of this particular issue in relation to overnights and young children."
The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health is revising its policies as are some key organisations which run the FRCs. "Given the new position papers that have recently been published we will be reviewing the literature that we give to parents to help them make the best decisions they can for their children," says Matt Stubbs, the acting clinical services director of Interrelate.
In a non scientific sense, that's discredit.
The point thatbloke made about issue motivated practioners integrating into operators like Relationships Australia is a good one. There are few better work places for misandrists to operate than FDR. Men need to be aware of this potential and make cautious decisions as these decisions will dominate the relationships with their children.
Retired Chief Justice Bryant’s comment from newspaper article - quoted by you - does not make any reference to a fallacy of McIntoshs’ work - nor any research - it emphasises that family consultants are to remain up to date with current research - this has always been expected
You agree there is no such research discrediting McIntoshs’ research - only opinion pieces - interested in further explaination of your claim research amounts to child abuse?
You can see how actual research over opinion pieces or reviews of research - remains more credible?
Bettina Arndts - fathers rights activist if I am not mistaken?
You agree there is no such research discrediting McIntoshs’ research - only opinion pieces - interested in further explaination of your claim research amounts to child abuse?
You can see how actual research over opinion pieces or reviews of research - remains more credible?
Bettina Arndts - fathers rights activist if I am not mistaken?
Cheers mate, good to know we can all agree on something here. The C word is offensive language, in NSW its use in public can come with a fine of $550. This is a law forum right? Your choice of words, while having a go at how some other folk (ME) choose to articulate themselves really does highlight your arrogance champ. Now go sit on the naughty chair and come back here when you can conduct yourself with some integrity. I have provided a link to a dictionary definition of the word integrity to help you understand it.... (oops sorry for the ellipsis and is a literary device. It is used when the composer assumes that their audience is intelligent enough to be able to infer the meaning of a statement without having to write it. So in my last instance I didn't feel the need to complete the sentence because it is obvious to an intelligent person. But, to help you out champ, I'll complete the sentence. I have provided a link to a dictionary definition of the word integrity to help you understand it because clearly integrity is something about which you really need to learn. Back to the naughty chair...)
integrity | Definition of integrity in English by Oxford Dictionaries
So you wrote - "Sorry, you both make so many basic errors i thought you were the same person"
Care to illuminate on the errors that were made. Making that sort of statement without providing an explanation only serves to highlight the issue here. The issue is you have no idea what you're talking about. So go on help us poor plebs out, what were the catalogue of basic errors? Make sure you provide a reliable source to support your testiculatoins. The woozle report doesn't cut it as a reliable source either mate... (oops) I dont see any errors in any of the other posts, unless of course you think that expressing an opinion that differs from your's is an error.
integrity | Definition of integrity in English by Oxford Dictionaries
So you wrote - "Sorry, you both make so many basic errors i thought you were the same person"
Care to illuminate on the errors that were made. Making that sort of statement without providing an explanation only serves to highlight the issue here. The issue is you have no idea what you're talking about. So go on help us poor plebs out, what were the catalogue of basic errors? Make sure you provide a reliable source to support your testiculatoins. The woozle report doesn't cut it as a reliable source either mate... (oops) I dont see any errors in any of the other posts, unless of course you think that expressing an opinion that differs from your's is an error.
I've been reading this thread with interest.
While I disagree with the tone and personal attacks and am disappointed with the deterioration in what has largely been a collegiate forum, there has also been some good information here.
The remarks by Retired Chief Justice Bryant implies McIntosh is discredited. I don't expect to see a Judge ever say we've been following the wrong expert opinions for the last 10 years. To do so would open up many many many cases to appeal bypassing the Rice and Asplund hurdle.
re: McIntosh. Two expert's have been quoted - Warshak and Nielsen. Both authors cite other research and analyse McIntosh's own data to arrive at very different conclusions. While I may be suffering from confirmation bias, I am happy to see McIntosh debunked using valid scientific methods.
Implied meaning taken from a quote of a Retired Chief Justice (who I believe attended Family law review in 2011 in support of wider definition of family violence?) - that falls short of saying anything other than current research is important to best practices - in an opinion piece - You do agree newspaper articles can serve agendas and journalists can be biased? - written by a father’s rights activist (Family Law is child’s rights) - does not make the statement factually true to the authors desired contention. This is why we have research - offers more than option
A peer review of research - in absence of research itself - is just a review - opinion. Any academic can write a review, positive or negative - it does not automatically negate the research itself - nor discredit the researcher reviewed - research discredits research
I agree you could be suffering from confirmation bias - can easily happen
Agreed. However that is not the only way to discredit research. Access to research data with peer review/investigations is also a valid way of debunking research conclusions. Numerous examples abound with William McBride and Jan Schon being but two examples that come to mind.
re: Journalist and opinion pieces. They have no place in a court room. Just as Bettina Arndt is a believer in men's rights, a review of McIntosh's work seems to indicate her work should be read in the same light, except she is a believer in the supremacy of mother's rights. It appears McIntosh has tried to back away from her own original conclusions and IMO her work should now be considered personal opinion, not expert opinion.
Sad that many fathers now have fractured relationships with their children because of seemingly flawed research.
Similar threads
