Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States.

[Skylar]

A significant number of fathers in the mgroup were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.
46
What does 'not statistically significant' mean Elektra?
And where does it say anything about 'homosexual families'?

What is significant, is how you hacked your cut and paste to eliminate the word, "molested". You call me a liar when you won't even quote your own source, you have to hack it to state something different and I am the one lying? You spent a lot of time and had a lot of fun flaming my posts, but when it gets down to your link, your article, your source, You are a liar.

Your link, LIAR! http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf page 5/15

A significant number of fathers in the molested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

Frankly I had a real problem with the edit function(copying and pasting from PDF's is a pain)- nothing I posted was false- nor intentionally false- as compared to what you posted.

As I noted- Dr. Hall's said that what you noted was not statistically significant- this time I will just paste and not try to pretty up the nasty PDF formatting problems

The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents. A significant number of fathers in the mo-
lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of
lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but
th
is finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-
cerning the absentee fathers.
46
Similar findings occurred
in the study by Conte et al
51
(n=20) in which pedophiles
were interviewed about how they selected the children
they abused. The pedophiles stated they would choose
vulnerable individuals (eg, children living in a divorced
home,

You are a lousy liar, post #228 is there for all to see, you had trouble quoting, cut/paste, and only got the first letter and missed everything in between? You a lousy liar. Hiding in the truth.

He's got you dead to rites, Elektra. You intentionally and willfully omitted this passage:

but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-
cerning the absentee fathers.

.....intentionally trying to mislead and deceive. You knew it was not statistically significant. But you tried to hide that fact from us.

You are liar and completely untrustworthy. You speak for no child. You only speak for a hopelessly dishonest soul without a scrap of integrity.

I omitted something from your link?

Post #228, you can not take it when you get busted doing what you falsely accuse others of. You both are liars, omitting words in quotes from your own links.

There is no mention of homosexual families being at greater risk. You lied.

There's no mention whatsoever of homosexual families. You lied.

There is no mention of most boys being raped by homosexuals. You lied.

You are a liar. You are using children of abuse to forward your lies. You are beneath contempt.

 

[Syriusly]

A significant number of fathers in the mgroup were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.
46
What does 'not statistically significant' mean Elektra?
And where does it say anything about 'homosexual families'?

What is significant, is how you hacked your cut and paste to eliminate the word, "molested". You call me a liar when you won't even quote your own source, you have to hack it to state something different and I am the one lying? You spent a lot of time and had a lot of fun flaming my posts, but when it gets down to your link, your article, your source, You are a liar.

Your link, LIAR! http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf page 5/15

A significant number of fathers in the molested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

Frankly I had a real problem with the edit function(copying and pasting from PDF's is a pain)- nothing I posted was false- nor intentionally false- as compared to what you posted.

As I noted- Dr. Hall's said that what you noted was not statistically significant- this time I will just paste and not try to pretty up the nasty PDF formatting problems

The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents. A significant number of fathers in the mo-
lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of
lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but
th
is finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-
cerning the absentee fathers.
46
Similar findings occurred
in the study by Conte et al
51
(n=20) in which pedophiles
were interviewed about how they selected the children
they abused. The pedophiles stated they would choose
vulnerable individuals (eg, children living in a divorced
home,

You are a lousy liar, post #228 is there for all to see, you had trouble quoting, cut/paste, and only got the first letter and missed everything in between? You a lousy liar. Hiding in the truth.

He's got you dead to rites, Elektra. You intentionally and willfully omitted this passage:

but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-
cerning the absentee fathers.

.....intentionally trying to mislead and deceive. You knew it was not statistically significant. But you tried to hide that fact from us.

You are liar and completely untrustworthy. You speak for no child. You only speak for a hopelessly dishonest soul without a scrap of integrity.

I omitted something from your link?

Post #228, you can not take it when you get busted doing what you falsely accuse others of. You both are liars, omitting words in quotes from your own links.

Once again- you accuse someone of lying- but you can't identify the lie.

I can

You lied about Dr. Hall's article mentioning 'homosexual families'
You lied about Dr. Halls' article mentioning 'having elevated "F" scores.

You just lie.

 

[elektra]

syriusly, it is post #228, I even copied the post, just in case

I can not believe after all your accusations, how many times you stated I lie and ignore stuff, that you would do exactly what you falsely accused me of.

A significant number of fathers in the mgroup were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.
46
What does 'not statistically significant' mean Elektra?
And where does it say anything about 'homosexual families'?

What is significant, is how you hacked your cut and paste to eliminate the word, "molested". You call me a liar when you won't even quote your own source, you have to hack it to state something different and I am the one lying? You spent a lot of time and had a lot of fun flaming my posts, but when it gets down to your link, your article, your source, You are a liar.

Your link, LIAR! http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf page 5/15

A significant number of fathers in the molested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

 

[Syriusly]

syriusly, you are nothing but a liar, post #228 says it all, you will manipulate and cherry pick your own link, there are no words to describe how low you are.

Quote the lie I have posted- not your paraphrase- quote the lie- and show how it is a lie.

Here another of your specific lise:

According to your link, pedophiles have elevated "F" scores on the MMPI.

Dr. Hall's article refers to MMPI only once- in the notes- note '65'- going to the body to find note '65'- this is the note:

It is common for people who are diagnosed as having
pedophilia to also experience another major psychiatric
disorder (affective illness in 60%-80%, anxiety disorder in
50%-60%) and/or a diagnosable personality disorder
(70%-80%) at some time in their life.
7,12,63
An estimated
43% of pedophiles have cluster C personality disorders,
33% have cluster B personality disorders, and 18% have
cluster A personality disorders
23,31,53,55
(Table 3). A study by
Curnoe and Langevin,
65

Nothing about an 'elevated "F" Score- not anywhere in the entire article.

You just lie.

Over and over.

A significant number of fathers in the mgroup were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.
46
What does 'not statistically significant' mean Elektra?
And where does it say anything about 'homosexual families'?

What is significant, is how you hacked your cut and paste to eliminate the word, "molested". You call me a liar when you won't even quote your own source, you have to hack it to state something different and I am the one lying? You spent a lot of time and had a lot of fun flaming my posts, but when it gets down to your link, your article, your source, You are a liar.

Your link, LIAR! http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf page 5/15

A significant number of fathers in the molested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

Frankly I had a real problem with the edit function(copying and pasting from PDF's is a pain)- nothing I posted was false- nor intentionally false- as compared to what you posted.

As I noted- Dr. Hall's said that what you noted was not statistically significant- this time I will just paste and not try to pretty up the nasty PDF formatting problems

The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents. A significant number of fathers in the mo-
lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of
lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but
th
is finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-
cerning the absentee fathers.
46
Similar findings occurred
in the study by Conte et al
51
(n=20) in which pedophiles
were interviewed about how they selected the children
they abused. The pedophiles stated they would choose
vulnerable individuals (eg, children living in a divorced
home,

I can keep this up- it is fun to point out your lies.

 

[Skylar]

What is significant, is how you hacked your cut and paste to eliminate the word, "molested". You call me a liar when you won't even quote your own source, you have to hack it to state something different and I am the one lying? You spent a lot of time and had a lot of fun flaming my posts, but when it gets down to your link, your article, your source, You are a liar.

Your link, LIAR! http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf page 5/15

Frankly I had a real problem with the edit function(copying and pasting from PDF's is a pain)- nothing I posted was false- nor intentionally false- as compared to what you posted.

As I noted- Dr. Hall's said that what you noted was not statistically significant- this time I will just paste and not try to pretty up the nasty PDF formatting problems

The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents. A significant number of fathers in the mo-
lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of
lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but
th
is finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-
cerning the absentee fathers.
46
Similar findings occurred
in the study by Conte et al
51
(n=20) in which pedophiles
were interviewed about how they selected the children
they abused. The pedophiles stated they would choose
vulnerable individuals (eg, children living in a divorced
home,

You are a lousy liar, post #228 is there for all to see, you had trouble quoting, cut/paste, and only got the first letter and missed everything in between? You a lousy liar. Hiding in the truth.

He's got you dead to rites, Elektra. You intentionally and willfully omitted this passage:

but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-
cerning the absentee fathers.

.....intentionally trying to mislead and deceive. You knew it was not statistically significant. But you tried to hide that fact from us.

You are liar and completely untrustworthy. You speak for no child. You only speak for a hopelessly dishonest soul without a scrap of integrity.

I omitted something from your link?

Post #228, you can not take it when you get busted doing what you falsely accuse others of. You both are liars, omitting words in quotes from your own links.

Once again- you accuse someone of lying- but you can't identify the lie.

I can

You lied about Dr. Hall's article mentioning 'homosexual families'
You lied about Dr. Halls' article mentioning 'having elevated "F" scores.

You just lie.

She can't help herself. She lied about most boys being raped by homosexuals as well.

And worse of all? She's using children who have been molested and abused as pawns to forward her lies.

That's loathsome and sick. Elektra is beneath contempt.

 

[elektra]

What is significant, is how you hacked your cut and paste to eliminate the word, "molested". You call me a liar when you won't even quote your own source, you have to hack it to state something different and I am the one lying? You spent a lot of time and had a lot of fun flaming my posts, but when it gets down to your link, your article, your source, You are a liar.

Your link, LIAR! http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf page 5/15

Frankly I had a real problem with the edit function(copying and pasting from PDF's is a pain)- nothing I posted was false- nor intentionally false- as compared to what you posted.

As I noted- Dr. Hall's said that what you noted was not statistically significant- this time I will just paste and not try to pretty up the nasty PDF formatting problems

The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents. A significant number of fathers in the mo-
lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of
lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but
th
is finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-
cerning the absentee fathers.
46
Similar findings occurred
in the study by Conte et al
51
(n=20) in which pedophiles
were interviewed about how they selected the children
they abused. The pedophiles stated they would choose
vulnerable individuals (eg, children living in a divorced
home,

You are a lousy liar, post #228 is there for all to see, you had trouble quoting, cut/paste, and only got the first letter and missed everything in between? You a lousy liar. Hiding in the truth.

He's got you dead to rites, Elektra. You intentionally and willfully omitted this passage:

but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-
cerning the absentee fathers.

.....intentionally trying to mislead and deceive. You knew it was not statistically significant. But you tried to hide that fact from us.

You are liar and completely untrustworthy. You speak for no child. You only speak for a hopelessly dishonest soul without a scrap of integrity.

I omitted something from your link?

Post #228, you can not take it when you get busted doing what you falsely accuse others of. You both are liars, omitting words in quotes from your own links.

Once again- you accuse someone of lying- but you can't identify the lie.

I can

You lied about Dr. Hall's article mentioning 'homosexual families'
You lied about Dr. Halls' article mentioning 'having elevated "F" scores.

You just lie.

I gave an extra link, that your are ignoring, and I quoted from that link, and you have zero understanding the MMPI and what it means if one score is elevated above the other, your are an idiot. But more importantly, post #228 shows you as the liar you are.

A significant number of fathers in the mgroup were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.
46
What does 'not statistically significant' mean Elektra?
And where does it say anything about 'homosexual families'?

What is significant, is how you hacked your cut and paste to eliminate the word, "molested". You call me a liar when you won't even quote your own source, you have to hack it to state something different and I am the one lying? You spent a lot of time and had a lot of fun flaming my posts, but when it gets down to your link, your article, your source, You are a liar.

Your link, LIAR! http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf page 5/15

A significant number of fathers in the molested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

 

[Syriusly]

syriusly, it is post #228, I even copied the post, just in case

I can not believe after all your accusations, how many times you stated I lie and ignore stuff, that you would do exactly what you falsely accused me of.

A significant number of fathers in the mgroup were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.
46
What does 'not statistically significant' mean Elektra?
And where does it say anything about 'homosexual families'?

What is significant, is how you hacked your cut and paste to eliminate the word, "molested". You call me a liar when you won't even quote your own source, you have to hack it to state something different and I am the one lying? You spent a lot of time and had a lot of fun flaming my posts, but when it gets down to your link, your article, your source, You are a liar.

Your link, LIAR! http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf page 5/15

A significant number of fathers in the molested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

No matter how many times you lie about it- Dr. Hall clearly says that you are lying

Frankly I had a real problem with the edit function(copying and pasting from PDF's is a pain)- nothing I posted was false- nor intentionally false- as compared to what you posted.

As I noted- Dr. Hall's said that what you noted was not statistically significant- this time I will just paste and not try to pretty up the nasty PDF formatting problems

The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents. A significant number of fathers in the mo-
lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of
lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,

but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-
cerning the absentee fathers.
46
Similar findings occurred
in the study by Conte et al
51
(n=20) in which pedophiles
were interviewed about how they selected the children
they abused. The pedophiles stated they would choose
vulnerable individuals (eg, children living in a divorced
home,

 

[elektra]

seriously, nasty pdf formatting problems, syriously you are such a joke. let me try:

Pedophiles may target certain types of families when looking for children to abuse. The study by Bagley et al46 noted that the parents of children who had been abused by pedophiles had notable characteristics, such as a lower overall education and a higher rate of absenteeism from home. The mothers of abused children had less education than control group mothers and were more likely to be single parents. A significant number of fathers in the molested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls, but this finding was not statistically significant probably because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.

Again, syriously is a liar, the part that is not "statistically significant" is the socioeconomic and education levels, not the absentee part. You are again lying, and misquoting your source.

Further, there is no .pdf formatting problem preventing you from doing a quote. You are a filthy liar, busted twice now.

Actually three times, post #228 contains two significant lies as I point out here, and the formatting bull crap excuse, 3 lies.

 

[Syriusly]

Frankly I had a real problem with the edit function(copying and pasting from PDF's is a pain)- nothing I posted was false- nor intentionally false- as compared to what you posted.

As I noted- Dr. Hall's said that what you noted was not statistically significant- this time I will just paste and not try to pretty up the nasty PDF formatting problems

The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents. A significant number of fathers in the mo-
lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of
lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but
th
is finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-
cerning the absentee fathers.
46
Similar findings occurred
in the study by Conte et al
51
(n=20) in which pedophiles
were interviewed about how they selected the children
they abused. The pedophiles stated they would choose
vulnerable individuals (eg, children living in a divorced
home,

You are a lousy liar, post #228 is there for all to see, you had trouble quoting, cut/paste, and only got the first letter and missed everything in between? You a lousy liar. Hiding in the truth.

He's got you dead to rites, Elektra. You intentionally and willfully omitted this passage:

but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-
cerning the absentee fathers.

.....intentionally trying to mislead and deceive. You knew it was not statistically significant. But you tried to hide that fact from us.

You are liar and completely untrustworthy. You speak for no child. You only speak for a hopelessly dishonest soul without a scrap of integrity.

I omitted something from your link?

Post #228, you can not take it when you get busted doing what you falsely accuse others of. You both are liars, omitting words in quotes from your own links.

Once again- you accuse someone of lying- but you can't identify the lie.

I can

You lied about Dr. Hall's article mentioning 'homosexual families'
You lied about Dr. Halls' article mentioning 'having elevated "F" scores.

You just lie.

I gave an extra link, that your are ignoring, and I quoted from that link, and you have zero understanding the MMPI and what it means if one score is elevated above the other, your are an idiot. But more importantly, post #228 shows you as the liar you are.

A significant number of fathers in the mgroup were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.
46
What does 'not statistically significant' mean Elektra?
And where does it say anything about 'homosexual families'?

What is significant, is how you hacked your cut and paste to eliminate the word, "molested". You call me a liar when you won't even quote your own source, you have to hack it to state something different and I am the one lying? You spent a lot of time and had a lot of fun flaming my posts, but when it gets down to your link, your article, your source, You are a liar.

Your link, LIAR! http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf page 5/15

A significant number of fathers in the molested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

I can keep this up- no problem.

'Statistically insignificant"- a term Elektra ignores.

Frankly I had a real problem with the edit function(copying and pasting from PDF's is a pain)- nothing I posted was false- nor intentionally false- as compared to what you posted.

As I noted- Dr. Hall's said that what you noted was not statistically significant- this time I will just paste and not try to pretty up the nasty PDF formatting problems

The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents. A significant number of fathers in the mo-
lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of
lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,

but
this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-cerning the absentee fathers.
46
Similar findings occurred
in the study by Conte et al
51
(n=20) in which pedophiles
were interviewed about how they selected the children
they abused. The pedophiles stated they would choose
vulnerable individuals (eg, children living in a divorced
home,

 

[Syriusly]

seriously, nasty pdf formatting problems, syriously you are such a joke. let me try:

Pedophiles may target certain types of families when looking for children to abuse. The study by Bagley et al46 noted that the parents of children who had been abused by pedophiles had notable characteristics, such as a lower overall education and a higher rate of absenteeism from home. The mothers of abused children had less education than control group mothers and were more likely to be single parents. A significant number of fathers in the molested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls, but this finding was not statistically significant probably because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.

Again, syriously is a liar, the part that is not "statistically significant" is the socioeconomic and education levels, not the absentee part. You are again lying, and misquoting your source.

Further, there is no .pdf formatting problem preventing you from doing a quote. You are a filthy liar, busted twice now.

Specifically related to the 'absentee fathers'- once again you are just pulling crap out of your ass.

but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-cerning the absentee fathers.

 

[elektra]

You are a lousy liar, post #228 is there for all to see, you had trouble quoting, cut/paste, and only got the first letter and missed everything in between? You a lousy liar. Hiding in the truth.

He's got you dead to rites, Elektra. You intentionally and willfully omitted this passage:

but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-
cerning the absentee fathers.

.....intentionally trying to mislead and deceive. You knew it was not statistically significant. But you tried to hide that fact from us.

You are liar and completely untrustworthy. You speak for no child. You only speak for a hopelessly dishonest soul without a scrap of integrity.

I omitted something from your link?

Post #228, you can not take it when you get busted doing what you falsely accuse others of. You both are liars, omitting words in quotes from your own links.

Once again- you accuse someone of lying- but you can't identify the lie.

I can

You lied about Dr. Hall's article mentioning 'homosexual families'
You lied about Dr. Halls' article mentioning 'having elevated "F" scores.

You just lie.

I gave an extra link, that your are ignoring, and I quoted from that link, and you have zero understanding the MMPI and what it means if one score is elevated above the other, your are an idiot. But more importantly, post #228 shows you as the liar you are.

A significant number of fathers in the mgroup were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.
46
What does 'not statistically significant' mean Elektra?
And where does it say anything about 'homosexual families'?

What is significant, is how you hacked your cut and paste to eliminate the word, "molested". You call me a liar when you won't even quote your own source, you have to hack it to state something different and I am the one lying? You spent a lot of time and had a lot of fun flaming my posts, but when it gets down to your link, your article, your source, You are a liar.

Your link, LIAR! http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf page 5/15

A significant number of fathers in the molested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

I can keep this up- no problem.

'Statistically insignificant"- a term Elektra ignores.

Frankly I had a real problem with the edit function(copying and pasting from PDF's is a pain)- nothing I posted was false- nor intentionally false- as compared to what you posted.

As I noted- Dr. Hall's said that what you noted was not statistically significant- this time I will just paste and not try to pretty up the nasty PDF formatting problems

The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents. A significant number of fathers in the mo-
lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of
lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,

but
this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-cerning the absentee fathers.
46
Similar findings occurred
in the study by Conte et al
51
(n=20) in which pedophiles
were interviewed about how they selected the children
they abused. The pedophiles stated they would choose
vulnerable individuals (eg, children living in a divorced
home,

In post #228, you eliminated the word "molested", now you are trying to state that the father being missing was not "statistically significant", cherry pick all you want, but here is the quote from your link, your article, which you claim you can not make an accurate cut/paste of. You are a pathetic liar, where is your helper, skylar? You both own this.

Lies and lies, read syriously's post and this, this proves syriously lied twice.

The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls, but this finding was not statistically significant probably because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.

 

[elektra]

syriously will not quote the whole post, syriously is a liar, 3xs! the quote refers to the socioeonomic and educational level, not being absent

The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls, but this finding was not statistically significant probably because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.

 

[elektra]

Specifically related to the 'absentee fathers'- once again you are just pulling crap out of your ass.

but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing con-cerning the absentee fathers.

Let us try again, Liar, liar, liar!

Your link!
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

The full quote from your link, which you will not quote, fully. You are a liar.

The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls, but this finding was not statistically significant probably because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmmmm I hate to do this.

Because Elektra is still a blatant liar- but that doesn't mean I can't recognize that I made a mistake.

The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents.

A significant number of fathers in the mo-lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably because a substantial amount of data were missing con-cerning the absentee fathers.
46

Looking at it again- Elektra is probably right that the reference to 'statistically significant' is probably in reference to the father's lower socioeconomic level rather than the absent father itself.

I was wrong- I made a mistake.

THAT out of the way- Elektra's claim still doesn't stand.

A significant number of fathers in the mo-lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

'A significant number' of 'absent fathers' is not the 'homosexual families' that Elektra originally claimed, nor does it say- explicitly or implicitly- that children raised by two lesbians- or two gay men- are at more risk of sexual molestation than a child raised by either a single mom or dad- or a mom and dad.

 

[elektra]

Hmmmmm I hate to do this.

Because Elektra is still a blatant liar- but that doesn't mean I can't recognize that I made a mistake.

The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents.

A significant number of fathers in the mo-lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably because a substantial amount of data were missing con-cerning the absentee fathers.
46

Looking at it again- Elektra is probably right that the reference to 'statistically significant' is probably in reference to the father's lower socioeconomic level rather than the absent father itself.

I was wrong- I made a mistake.

THAT out of the way- Elektra's claim still doesn't stand.

A significant number of fathers in the mo-lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

'A significant number' of 'absent fathers' is not the 'homosexual families' that Elektra originally claimed, nor does it say- explicitly or implicitly- that children raised by two lesbians- or two gay men- are at more risk of sexual molestation than a child raised by either a single mom or dad- or a mom and dad.

I did not use your link to substantiate my claims? On top of your three lies, which you claim was a "mistake", you a going to make a forth lie?

It was your link, I never once used it to substantiate any of my posts. Again, you make up lies, without quoting, just like you intentionally left out molested.

 

[elektra]

Post #228 and post #253, shows your lies, syriously. A mistake, nobody believes that your inadvertently cut part of a word in the middle of a copy and paste, that is pure hogwash.

A significant number of fathers in the mgroup were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.
46
What does 'not statistically significant' mean Elektra?
And where does it say anything about 'homosexual families'?

What is significant, is how you hacked your copy/paste.

A significant number of fathers in the molested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmmmm I hate to do this.

Because Elektra is still a blatant liar- but that doesn't mean I can't recognize that I made a mistake.

The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents.

A significant number of fathers in the mo-lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably because a substantial amount of data were missing con-cerning the absentee fathers.
46

Looking at it again- Elektra is probably right that the reference to 'statistically significant' is probably in reference to the father's lower socioeconomic level rather than the absent father itself.

I was wrong- I made a mistake.

THAT out of the way- Elektra's claim still doesn't stand.

A significant number of fathers in the mo-lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

'A significant number' of 'absent fathers' is not the 'homosexual families' that Elektra originally claimed, nor does it say- explicitly or implicitly- that children raised by two lesbians- or two gay men- are at more risk of sexual molestation than a child raised by either a single mom or dad- or a mom and dad.

I did not use your link to substantiate my claims? On top of your three lies, which you claim was a "mistake", you a going to make a forth lie?

It was your link, I never once used it to substantiate any of my posts. Again, you make up lies, without quoting, just like you intentionally left out molested.

True- you don't use links to support your claims- you lie about my links:

Here again is your original lie

I love your link, it is full of great information, children or more vulnerable to abuse in a homosexual family, by outside predators, pedophiles.

http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

And as pointed out- the article makes no mention of 'homosexual families, nor does it say that children are more vulnerable to abuse in homosexual families.

Entirely your fabrication.

I have got to go to bed- I leave you to spinning your homophobic tales.

 

[elektra]

Hmmmmm I hate to do this.

Because Elektra is still a blatant liar- but that doesn't mean I can't recognize that I made a mistake.

The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents.

A significant number of fathers in the mo-lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably because a substantial amount of data were missing con-cerning the absentee fathers.
46

Looking at it again- Elektra is probably right that the reference to 'statistically significant' is probably in reference to the father's lower socioeconomic level rather than the absent father itself.

I was wrong- I made a mistake.

THAT out of the way- Elektra's claim still doesn't stand.

A significant number of fathers in the mo-lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

'A significant number' of 'absent fathers' is not the 'homosexual families' that Elektra originally claimed, nor does it say- explicitly or implicitly- that children raised by two lesbians- or two gay men- are at more risk of sexual molestation than a child raised by either a single mom or dad- or a mom and dad.

I did not use your link to substantiate my claims? On top of your three lies, which you claim was a "mistake", you a going to make a forth lie?

It was your link, I never once used it to substantiate any of my posts. Again, you make up lies, without quoting, just like you intentionally left out molested.

True- you don't use links to support your claims- you lie about my links:
Here again is your original lie
love your link, it is full of great information, children or more vulnerable to abuse in a homosexual family, by outside predators, pedophiles.
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
And as pointed out- the article makes no mention of 'homosexual families, nor does it say that children are more vulnerable to abuse in homosexual families.
Entirely your fabrication.
I have got to go to bed- I leave you to spinning your homophobic tales.

And as syriously has proven, syriously will not quote, or if syriously does quote syriously will cherry pick the quote to say something differently. I would like to see my "quote",

quoted

, and linked, so we can see it in context.

And again, syriously has ignored what I said, and the relevant quote from syriously's LINK! That I used.

So syriously ends with another lie, on top of the 4 other distinct lies. I quoted your link syriously, if you were honest you would of included the entire comment with the quote from your link. Instead, syriously is a simple liar.

 

[elektra]

Here is the classic example of syriusly hacking a post, to lie, this was post #228, the other relevant post where syriusly lied is #253. And now #257, was there another I forgot? 3 posts, 3 lies, 4 lies if we include the lie about accidentally deleting all of the word molested except the "m", while doing a simple copy/paste/quote.

A significant number of fathers in the mgroup were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.
46
What does 'not statistically significant' mean Elektra?
And where does it say anything about 'homosexual families'?

What is significant, is how you hacked your cu

A significant number of fathers in the molested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

 

[Silhouette]

I get your frustration Elektra.