Then none taken.  Here's my take on this whole little episode between
Mr. Childers and myself.  Eric starts a good natured thread that was
intended to inform us of his engagement which the bulk of initial
responses were positive.  Mr. Childers throws a bucket of slop in the
mix with his prenup comment.  I don't respond as I really didn't have an
ax to grind regarding his comment.

Joe then made a response to him and then I made a response to Joe.  Now
my response was mostly a tongue-in-cheek response to Joe that happens in
ramfm numerous times a day on many topics.  It is kind of like sitting
in a bar having a few drinks with friends and sharing mostly meaningless
banter.  I'm sure you've done this and I would even wager Mr. Childers
has done the same.  Now Joe knows I'm just spouting off.  My definition
of spouting off means making a remark that has a mixture of exaggeration
and truth.  Joe and I have "spouted off" to each other quite a bit over
the years.  He can recognize it easily and knows I'm no looking to have
my views published in a journal as irrefutable truth.

Now here comes Mr. Childers wearing his Harvard Debate Team jacket,
fresh from the dry cleaners, asking me to provide proof to back up my
tongue-in-cheek remark.  Now why he felt the need to take a
tongue-in-cheek response I made to Joe and turn it into a pissing match
I can't say.  Now maybe I'm the only one here that sees the irony in him
requesting me to provide credible statistics to back up my claim while
he doesn't bother to show any credible statistics to show I am wrong.
Maybe he just plain doesn't like me for whatever reason and felt the
need to put me in my place.  I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the
sharpest knife in the drawer but don't come at me with the lame a.s,
hypocritical logic that he used.  We can spend the next three days
analyzing this mess like we are Sigmund Freud wannabees but my country
boy common sense tells me Mr. Childers, for whatever reason, has a cob
up his rectum and he needs to remove it so he is not so easily irritated
by any future "spouting off" I may indulge in. ;)

sh.t, I thought they were all made in Mexico..

While Divorces are becoming more & more fair, if there can actually be
such a thing, but I do not think that men have reached even parity on
child custody issues.  You would have to post some verifiable
statistics on that one for me to take it at face value.  The majority
of judges will still think that Mommy is the best place for the
kiddies to be with.  All things being equal I would tend to agree with
that as well.  Unless the natural mother is proven as being unfit it
will be a hard go for any man to gain complete and total custody of
their off-spring.  The only cases I am personally aware of have to do
with an unfit Mother, a Mother who does not want the kids, or has a
job that makes child rearing difficult.

First, my response in this thread was to Joe not you.  Second, I don't
have to do anything just because you make a statement.  You're the one
that seems to have a problem so go do the research to prove your claim
and get back to me.  Still don't see the hypocrisy do you?

So if I would have replied to your original post in this thread to show
me the proof to back up your statements you would have been obligated to
provide the appropriate research?  If you're not obligated, then there
is that pesky hypocrisy issue raising its ugly head again.

Who is sobbing?  This comment actually makes me laugh.  Thanks for the
giggle.

From the above, I see you like to warp reality and truth to support
your positions.  The first meaning is definitely applicable to your
debate techniques.  I guess you really can't see the hypocrisy of you
having one set of standards for your opponent and another set for yourself.

As for the second, the logic, or purpose, of the comment escapes me.  I
guess it is supposed to be such a witty barb that I scurry off in total
humiliation after reading it?

At least this is one thing we can agree on.