The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
User: Guest

Posts by Ozi Dan  

Joined: 22 Nov 2007 / Male ♂
Last Post: 17 Feb 2016
Threads: Total: 26 / Live: 17 / Archived: 9
Posts: Total: 569 / Live: 349 / Archived: 220
From: Australia
Speaks Polish?: No
Interests: Martial arts, fishing, reading, the Napoleonic wars, my missus, Poland, cars......

Displayed posts: 366 / page 7 of 13
sort: Latest first   Oldest first   |
Ozi Dan   
7 Apr 2011
History / Poland during the Renaissance [146]

I know nothing of what went on in Poland during the renaissance

I think the two key areas where Poland (and later Pol/Lit Cth) 'did something' during the Renaissance period were in the fields of Constitutional/legal reforms and military theory.

Poland was the only country in Europe to have in place a gradually increasing volume of laws and Constitutions essentially de-centralising 'power' away from the monarch, thus paving the road away from centralised, autocratic and absolutist rule.

Whilst the 'power' of the ruler was diminished somewhat, it was more the case as I see it that the ruler was to be held accountable, and hamstrung in regard to any machinations toward autocratic rule, rather than being politically impotent. I think it was Davies who suggested that as a consequence of the Pacta Conventa and the Henrican Articles (amongst others), no king of Poland could have aspirations other than being a closely monitored manager of a body politic. That said, a competent monarch, such as Batory, wielded power effectively, ensuring that the checks and balances against unilateral and arbitrary exercise of power were rarely evoked by carefully navigating through what he could and could not do.

Whilst these political/constitutional imperatives may seem commonplace and unremarkable to us relative to today's democratice principles, it must be remembered that the context to which these reforms took place, against the European backdrop of absolutist leanings at the time, were quite simply remarkable.
Ozi Dan   
2 Dec 2010
Life / Expats in Poland - would you fight for your new country? [105]

Could you perhaps go into some detail as to why a person would be hypocritical in not fighting for a country which refuses to give him the rights of a citizen of that country?

I don't get the gist of your question - please rephrase it. In any event, I was asking a similar question, so instead of asking me to answer my own question, why don't you try to answer it yourself?

Would you fight for Poland against Australia?

I honestly don't know what I'd do. Perhaps face some jail time for being a conscientious objector? It's a terrible thing to ask isn't it? That was the point of this thread really - to foster self-reflection for those UK expats (and/or Plastic Poms such as yourself) in Poland who are sometimes highly critical of the loyalty and conscience crises that face(d) Polish emigres who sometimes were forced to leave their home and adopt another country as their own.

You'd be pretty stuffed in that scenario wouldn't you - an Aussie who thinks he's a Pom but who lives in Poland. Who would you fight for? If you think deeply, it's a real tough one. How do you think Poles in WW2 felt when asked/forced to sign the Volkliste? Have a look at my thread on Koza-Kozarski's memoirs.

Personally I wouldn't fight for any country. People yes, a country no.

That's an interesting take. What do you mean by 'people'? What would be your criteria to establish whether certain 'people' were worth fighting for? How would you distinguish the criteria of 'people' in the notional sense as against a nation of people?

would fight for the Scottish side.

I appreciate your candour. But, if the unthinkable happened, would you form a fifth column behind Polish lines, or would you hand yourself in as an alien who poses a potential threat to Poland?

What if you became a Polish citizen, or had a child who was Polish of Scottish descent? Would that change your loyalties and the way in which you expressed those loyalties in reality?

How do we set the objective benchmark to decide whether your subjective assertions as to what you would do in a war are, objectively, the right ones to make?

The answer is simple - there is no right or wrong answer as to what you should or shouldn't do because the issue is metaphysical and has no right or wrong benchmark to be tested against. Thus, in my view, it's futile to assert that someone is a traitor or disloyal because those descriptions, in this context, do not apply. Judging is easy - empathising is hard.

Good question Dan :)

Thanks Ash - hope it gave you food for thought. Have you been to the Polish Club in Ashfield?

I'd be rather surprised to find out that he is a lawyer.

How are the fish portions at your local chippy? I also get bummed out when I order two large pieces of fish on a Sunday and they look like they're just medium sized.

I suppose that's the difference between you and me. I know who I am, and who you are. You wouldn't have a clue who I am, and indeed, I think you're suffering from some sort of identity crisis. You've called me omniscient and perhaps I am. Am I a lawyer though - who cares.

edited out personal content
Ozi Dan   
2 Dec 2010
News / Victory in 'anti-Polish camps' campaign in US [170]

Doesn't work like that in many places, though. Religion is massively important for a lot of people, even in Europe - you can even hear "German Catholic" and "German Protestant" being used a lot.

Whether or not it 'works like that' cf whether it's the right thing objectively are two totally different issues.

What do you think? Shouldn't the indicia of terms such as nationality, citizenship and so on be free of religious appendages, particularly where a religious tag seems to take precedence over what one actually is?
Ozi Dan   
2 Dec 2010
Life / Expats in Poland - would you fight for your new country? [105]

I wouldn't be eligible to do so - not a Polish citizen. Pretty simple, really.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall you recently saying words to the effect that in about two years you would be eligible for Polish citizenship and you would probably take that honour? Changing the parameters thus, would your answer change?

Would you fight against Poland then, given you are a UK citizen? Terrible hypothetical decisions, aren't they?

What about fighting as a guerilla for Poland? I'm sure any Polish insurgent band wouldn't be to fussed if you couldn't produce a citizenship certificate. The Scots (and Irish moreso) have a proud tradition of fighting alongside the Poles, citizenship or no.

It's a quandary, isn't it.
Ozi Dan   
2 Dec 2010
News / Victory in 'anti-Polish camps' campaign in US [170]

That's just a matter of language, though. You could say "Polish Jew" instead of "Jewish Pole" - same thing, at the end of the day, to most people.

Everything can be a matter of language but the import to the meaning ascribed by the particular use of language is a different thing.

What I mean is that if we use the term British Muslim, aren't we sub-consciously, and perhaps erroneously, saying that a person's religious observance is on par with their nationality vis a vis how they are describing themselves in the notional sense?

My subjective view is that your nationality comes first, and your religion comes a weak second, when identifying yourself.
Ozi Dan   
2 Dec 2010
Life / Expats in Poland - would you fight for your new country? [105]

Perhaps it would be better to ask Brits who have Polish citizenship, but they're probably few and far between. Most of them have permanent residence, nothing else.

It's an open question. Whilst I appreciate your analysis of the nuances between 'resident', 'citizen', 'allegiance' and so on, you haven't answered whether or not you would don the czapka and take up arms in Poland's defence.

Technicalities aside, you seem to profess a love for Poland and live there. Would you take the next step and fight for Poland if it was at war with the UK?

A simple yes or no is sufficient.
Ozi Dan   
2 Dec 2010
News / Victory in 'anti-Polish camps' campaign in US [170]

Exactly the same as "British Muslim" and so on.

Isn't that a misnomer though? Or are you saying that in this day and age religious identifiers take precedence over citizenship in establishing identity objectively?

I would have thought that the better identifiers would have been say a "Pole of Jewish faith" or a "Briton of Muslim faith".
Ozi Dan   
2 Dec 2010
Life / Expats in Poland - would you fight for your new country? [105]

Hi all,

It's always with a sense of wry amusement that I read posts from (generally) UK expats in Poland who are critical of Polish-Americans, and others of Polish descent living elsewhere, variously describing them as "traitors", "Plastic Poles" and so on.

That's fine, but the flip side of that coin is whether or not those expats would heed the call up themselves and physically fight for Poland, if, hypothetically, Poland ever found itself in a conflict, and moreso, if such conflict involved the UK as the other side.

If the answer is "no", then aren't you being hypocritical?

I'm looking forward to some hand-wringing excuses here...
Ozi Dan   
12 Nov 2010
News / Praising Poland can be dangerous [45]

Then again, I guess blaming communism is a good way to avoid taking responsibility.

It is though, isn't it (a good way to avoid blame)? How can a people, per se, be held responsible for the actions of a government with no popular mandate, moreso given that it was foisted upon them by an alien power? Isn't it a non sequitur to say that Poles should be responsible for the actions of a government that was not democratically elected. I would have thought that's anathema to the concept of democracy.

I see you profess an interest in law - I'm no constitutional/international law buff but I'm pretty sure my proposal is fairly safe. I'd like your take on it, given your interest.

WW2 happened, Yalta happened - get over it.

What about the Teheran Conference and HMG's contemptuous breaches of the Treaty of Mutual Assistance? Isn't one entitled to voice a grievance, and continue to voice it, until the perpetrator is recognisant?

If you'd like a background of my theories, have a look at my thread "Should HMG compensate..." so I don't have to repeat myself here with the minutiae. Feel free to respond on that thread....

Chris (sorry Harry) and Jonni, feel free to join the debate too chaps - I seem to recall you both leaving a similar debate without the benefit of your genuine comments some months ago - now's your chance to both respond - perhaps even swap notes perchance?
Ozi Dan   
15 Oct 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

so really, what ever your into, I dont care, I dont care what other people do, if they
like that stuff, Im not going to stop them.. maybe they were scorned like you.
maybe they just dont want any more abuse, that is prob the case in some of these
so called hard core fems.. I dont really take interest in it.

I think I'm with you here Pat. I'm really not interested anymore in continuing the debate.

Sorry, Zimmy. I enjoyed our fairly robust discussions but I really don't see any point in perpetuating our debate. I'll respect your POV, though I disagree with it, and I trust you'll reciprocate - hopefully that'll be the one thing we can agree on as a baseline.

In parting, I again appreciate the fact that you've given me food for thought and for what it's worth, you've made me think deeply, particularly about the nuances of subjectivity/objectivity. If you're ever in Oz and need a mediocre lawyer, let me know and I'll gladly help you. Unfortunately I don't do office visits so you'd have to attend my office, and no, I wouldn't kick you out ;)

I hope you achieve what you're after, however you measure that benchmark. If I can offer some constructive criticism though, it's this - practicing law, if nothing else, has taught me one thing - be your own devil's advocate - after doing that, argue your point with finesse: bullshit delivered in a vat of honey will, 9/10, be taken over a diamond wedged between someone's arse cheeks (metaphorically of course).

And I really can't stand Ms Greer either - I was just having a lend of you. Catch you round mate.
Ozi Dan   
14 Oct 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

lol you guys are so serious.. ok ok, all joking over, here I try to catch a grin.

Bugger it! I was trying to have a light hearted dig at Zimmy and be funny too. Germaine Greer is an Aussie feminist. She was reviled for her comment that Steve Urwin deserved to be stung and killed by that sting ray. I couldn't resist raising the connection between feminism and fishing but it was obviously lost. Oh well ;)

big jug beer with a bad can of tuna one night and
I was sick for three days

Tfui! What possessed you to mix the two Pat? Can't think of a worse combination.
Ozi Dan   
14 Oct 2010
History / What happened from 1650-1795? [68]

All the ******** we read today from the "international" history books about Poland being so poor and neglected and finally partitioned is something that the 3 Barbaric countries decided after they partitioned Poland.

A good point. Analogous to this type of conquest justification mythology is the similar stories put forward by the colonial powers in the C19 and C20 vis their conquering of Pacific nations, such as New Zealand and so on. Briefly, the propaganda put forward was that these races of 'noble savages' needed to be conquered and capitalised on not only under the Social Darwinism doctrine but also because of the perceived inherent flaws in their societies' makeup.

Isn't it funny how wrongdoing on a national level is always tempered by the perpetrator trying to justify their actions to afford a semblance of legitimacy?
Ozi Dan   
14 Oct 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

I threw the female fish back because they smelled so fishy.

Well Zimmy i would think you prefer to eat female over male.. but lol whatever
floats your boat.

I throw female fish (and crabs, yabbies etc) back because females produce more fish and that needs to be respected and cherished to sustain the marine ecology. Male fish are expendable if you're after a feed. Germaine Greer taught me that.
Ozi Dan   
14 Oct 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

You asked proof of cultural and societal bias against men and I provided you with several examples in post #186 and in a couple of previous posts as well. You have not commented on them. That's the crux of the general discussion but you prefer to play with 'words' (typical lawyer) thus obfuscating the premise.

Great argument. I have responded to what you've said though. You've post the titles of some laws with a bit of your own commentary, to which I then said:

"I further repeat – unless you provide me with concrete proof that your family/DV laws are biased I don’t believe you. You can so easily vindicate your position by providing a link to the relevant sections of the law. You won’t though because you’ve probably never actually seen them."

and rather than doing what I've requested and vindicating your position your above post infers that you do not understand that I CANNOT COMMENT ON A PIECE OF LAW WITHOUT YOU PROVIDING ME WITH A LINK SO THAT I CAN ACTUALLY READ IT.

You merely saying something is not proof of something. You continuing to hand wring and not provide me with the links tells me you really don't know what you're on about and got those laws and comments from a blog.

The amount of false assumptions on your part are too many to count. I almost feel embarrassed for you.

Another awesome argument Zimmy. I call you out as not actually having any genuine experience with the law in respect of the topic and instead of commenting on that with what your experiences were you say I have made false assumptions - prove they're false.

The deflections are all yours with your 'word' games instead of addressing the issue. You have no idea how distasteful your mediocre attempts at lawyering sound here.

Oh no you don't mister. You started all this when at the very beginning you were losing the argument and called me a "liberal" to obfuscate, then distilled the way in which we were discussing the actual topic down to your arguments being better because they weren't 'liberal'. Just face it mate - you started it when you couldn't challenge my comments and chose to try to attack the way in which you perceived my comments were made - and you lost. Take it like a man and move on ;)

No argument there; attempting to parcel definitions until they have no meaning only humiliates you. It's such a phony tactic and it doesn't work here.

See my preceding post.

You seem to either not know the definition of the word or are once again attempting to be relative with it. If you had really studied the hundreds of Fiebert studies you would realize that several thousand accredited individual professionals interviewing hundreds of thousands of individuals using diverse methodology (most did not know each other) is by definition not

You're correct in assuming that I didn't review all the studies, but forgive me the fact that I do have a life. I did however do you the courtesy of reading a dozen or so. Did you read Kennon? If so, what is your take on the way DV is treated in property settlements?

In any event, my proposition that that evidence is anecdotal still stands and you haven't displaced it. Good one though in arguing again that they cannot be because of their volume.

I'll use that style of argument next time I'm in court and want to lose - "Your Honour, this statistical evidence is not anecdotal because there are hundreds if not thousands of people who say vampires exist and these stats show that. It doesn't matter that that cannot be tested because I haven't provided any sworn affidavits, or subpoenaed witnesses for cross examination - the volume in and of itself speaks as to the veracity of there being vampires".

This'll test you - have I myself used anecdotal evidence? If so, where specifically, and is my form of anecdotal evidence sufficient if I've used it?

As to the question of child custody and the law, the fact that women receive custody about 90% of the time speaks for itself.

Sheer brilliance - rather than giving me links to judgments or the law to sway your argument toward a semblance of plausibility, you merely say it is so because you say it is so - pure, unadulterated, anecdotal gold!

It's always a pleasure instructing you.

Unless you're my client, which you aren't, you are not instructing me. You are, in this context, 'advising' me.

Nice blog too, but I'm not really interested. Good to see that yet again you haven't answered as to whether or not non-payment of child support irks you or given any genuine material backing up your contentions.

You don't seem to be worth much money since you seem to be a mediocre lawyer who likes to play word games instead of addressing the issue I brought up.

Oh Zimmy, that's just silly games now - what do you think I earn? Have a guess mate. My missus looks after the household finances. Amongst myriad other things, women are just so much better than men at organising finances, but you wouldn't know that, would you ;). Go on chief, call me a mangina - it'll make you feel better.
Ozi Dan   
14 Oct 2010
History / RAF podcast tells tale of Polish pilots fighting in the Battle of Britain [12]

I'd like to think that if given the choice, and with all that we know now about HMG's betrayal of Poland, and with the way some of these pilots were treated when their usefulness expired, these heroes would probably have done it all again. What do you think?
Ozi Dan   
14 Oct 2010
History / Unusual soldier (The bear - named Voytek) [71]

but they don't get a monument and a bear does??

I'm sorry, but I don't think the Poms have any cause to erect a monument to Katyn on their own soil. Katyn had nothing to do with them.

There's now a facebook campaign which I'm part of - why not sign up?

Thanks mate - will do. Just need to sign up to facebook first.
Ozi Dan   
7 Oct 2010

Considering the hatred of jewish people by some Polish people (as clearly eveidenced by many members of this forum)

Crikey Shazza, give it a rest will ya! You're giving us Aussies a bad name with all this Pole bashing!
Ozi Dan   
7 Oct 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

The few friends I have that did have this type of arrangement didnt have child support
made by either, but I do believe the insurance was paid by the father, only because he
carried it.. and my ex paid CS but I covered the insurance thru my employer.

It's best to come to an agreement with your ex on child support. Insurance payments for children are theoretically covered under the principal sum of child support paid but of course extras like that can be added on top, as well as things like education costs and so on.

so yeah its basically different in all situations, but
the average numbers are not as high as what zimmy said, at least if someone is paying
that much, he must have made the judge pretty mad.. lol

Yeah, I though it was a bit high, and would be theoretically impossible here in Australia if working under the Agency's formula because last I checked the cap on the payer parent viz income is a bit over $100K per annum. What that means is if you earn right on the cap or $500 million a year it will make no difference to the calculation. This of course benefots payer parents who are rich. There could be exceptions though I'm no child support expert.

However, if parents agree to it, then the sky's the limit for the amount of CS paid.


and me and my ex made agreements on which holidays and such that
we would spend with our daughter.

I'm so glad to hear that and I hope you remain on amicable terms - have you formalised that arrangement or is it an understanding? There's some very interesting studies out there regarding the veiled but devastating impact upon children who are subject to or witness conflict between parents who are in these types of disputes. In some cases children developed severe personality disorder, suicidal ideation, extreme defensiveness toward one parent and other very traumatic manifestations. Drug use, criminality, cyclic parental dysfunction are other legacies left by parents who expose their kids to this.

The bottom line is kids must never be exposed to parental conflict in these situations and be kept as blissfully unaware as possible of the issues between there parents.
Ozi Dan   
7 Oct 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

Ok, that sounds vaguely similar to the approach here in Oz, which is effectively a sum worked out on the basis of each parents gross income, then looking at the overnight time spent arrangements per annum, then crunching numbers and coming up with the figure. Likewise it can increase/decrease with income fluctuations which are taken off the previous FY Tax returns.

The difference seems to be that even if their is an equal lives with (custody) arrangement there may still be child support payable if one parent earns less than the other.

Issues of reasonable weekly expenses impacting upon a CS sum are usually raised if there is an administrative or judicial appeal/review.

ozi dan, wow, you challenge the zimfeminist lol

Why not? ;-) We've crossed swords on this issue on previous pages. He's actually a highly intelligent bloke and I enjoy the exercise but can't resist having a dig if I think I can give it some legs.
Ozi Dan   
7 Oct 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

Seems like my 'victory' is complete.

It’s disappointing that you treat the discourse on domestic violence as being a victory or loss equation. I never knew there were such considerations when discussing various degrees of human misery but obviously it seems important to you. Notwithstanding your casual statements about you ducking down to the beach to pose which littered this thread before my appearance, I actually took you seriously as having a genuine and passionate concern for the topic. The above quoted merely serves to tell me this is all an ego trip for you and the topic is nothing more than a vehicle for your posturing.

Your continuing diatribe of 'no responses to my...' is fine but you seem to have forgotten that I've done you the courtesy of responding to nearly all your genuine comments, so what you're saying is really untrue, isn't it.

Indeed, in reviewing our exchanges I see that quite a few of my more weighty contentions, particularly in respect of objectivity/subjectivity/relativism, have either been entirely ignored by you or glossed over. Accordingly, I can only assume my positions on those points are vindicated and can only conclude my ‘victory’ is complete in the absence of genuine responses. Feel free to revisit and respond if you wish to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory ;).

Anyways, here we go again, and as you seem intent in perpetuating this debate I'll oblige you...

Be more specific. Is the attacker with a knife big; is the person defending him/herself slight?
Your example could be yes or no depending on the particular circumstances. In general, however, if a threat to life is perceived then it is morally alright to defend oneself, even to the most extreme measure.

There’s no need to be more specific because I laid the parameters here:

“Is it still moral though to defend oneself with say a gun if another comes at you with say a clenched fist?”

then added:

“If we accept your credo that there exist certain 'truths' that are immutable and not subject to cultural/moral relativism, then isn't the answer to the question I pose automatically 'yes'?”

Do you now see the folly of ascribing to notions of immutable truths and discounting relativism? In asking me to ‘be more specific’ you have effectively acknowledged that relativism is necessary to this type of discourse because being more specific entails relative considerations. In trying to answer the question I posed you have, by implication, said that the morality of the act of self defence is relative to the perceived threat “depending on the particular circumstances”.

You can’t have it both ways, your answer is therefore “Yes”, and unfortunately you are wrong.

...and therein lies your information gap. While personal experiences are important; it is best to overview as much information as possible outside of your domain which may be jaundiced.

No, it’s not an information gap, because if it was, I would have had to have not read the studies you posted. I did, then I challenged some of the foundations to which those studies were based and you largely ignored my challenges.

In any event, I've always been candid in saying my comments are based on my experience in practice. Ergo, you can assume they are not based on studies, blogs, youtube and so on. My experience does not align with your studies, though I have indicated that if your studies sometime in the future align with my experience my position will probably change accordingly. I've now had the benefit of making my comments in the context of real world experience but also after considering your material, which, again, is contrary to my experience. You, on the other hand, have no genuine experience in the matters being discussed. Who then is better placed to make a more persuasive argument?

The fact that you ignore statistics and other reference materials only limits you.

The fact that you answered in the above fashion (which has nothing to do with my contention) merely demonstrates that when cornered with one of the many contentions I have made challenging your credibilty you choose to deflect rather than concede. It doesn't work with me.

Several hundred studies involving hundreds of thousands of individual cases cannot be considered anecdotal. If you don't understand this then you are the type of attorney who likes to play with words and definitions. I'd probably kick you out of my office as well.

Once again, your answer is irrelevant to the ambit of my comment. I said they could be considered anecdotal because they cannot be tested. Rather than challenging that by commenting on how they could be tested, you simply said they cannot be anecdotal because of their volume. You couldn't answer the statement because you either don't understand what anecdotal means in the context to which I placed it or understood it but didn't have a genuine response. Again, smoke and mirror tactics don't work on me.

And yes, I do enjoy playing with words and definitions. The main theme of our discussion has been focussed on just that. If you can't play the game then I suggest you look to another interest other than 'critical thinking' because I've presented you with prime opportunity time and again to indulge your hobby.

As to kicking me out of your 'office', can I assume that's toilet cubicle no. 2 at the beach where you do your posing?

Now you are losing it;

No, I'm not. I asked if it should be subject to the child’s best interests or legally enshrined (equal custody). You said legally enshrined which to me means that no matter what, equal custody would apply because that’s the guillotine law. Guillotine Law, or guillotine orders, here means a law that automatically applies with no other consideration as to whether or not it should apply. A parallel could be our drink driving laws here which say that if you blow over 0.05 you will lose your licence, no argument, no exception (unless of course you go to trial and win on saying that the breath tester was faulty and so on).

The above link should also help answer the premise that women (de facto) receive default custodial judgments when children are the issue.

No, it doesn't. The Family Law Act does not automatically vest by default full custody to the mother – indeed, there is absolutely no reference to gender bias viz parenting in Pt 7 of the Act.

The ‘legislative pathway’ is clear and was set out in the case of Goode & Goode. Briefly, there is a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility that applies subject to there being say domestic violence, child abuse and so on, or if it is not in the child’s best interests for the presumption to apply (see s60CC for the best interests considerations). If it does apply, then it may be appropriate for equal custody arrangements to prevail and if not, a child may spend substantial and significant time with one parent whilst living with the other. In extreme examples, interim orders may mandate that a parent can spend time only when supervised by another person. This can happen to both mothers and fathers.

I repeat – the Family Law Act does not automatically vest custody in the mother. It is gender neutral. Can you comprehend that?

I further repeat – unless you provide me with concrete proof that your family/DV laws are biased I don’t believe you. You can so easily vindicate your position by providing a link to the relevant sections of the law. You won’t though because you’ve probably never actually seen them.

Wrong (yet) again. I oppose quotas in any form. I merely advocate real equalilty and justice no matter where it falls.

Sorry, but I'm not, yet again. It has nothing to do with 'quotas', and you know that. You advocate for automatic equal custody no matter what. I added that if we adopt that modle no-one would go to court over custody because a judge would not have to make the decision because the legislation has already made it. Do you understand that implication?

The judicial system is cruel to men and often ignores their loss of employment.

Link please showing judgments from the ‘judicial system’ whereby loss of employment was ignored – actually, don’t bother – you haven’t bothered to provide any links to any law or judgment I’ve requested. I reckon that’s because you’re making this up as you go along.

Again, does non payment of child support irk you?

The backside of this however, is rarely addressed. Women frequently prevent visitation rights; not necessarily all the time but now and then and yet demand child support.

You really don’t understand the concept of child support, do you. Child support is paying another parent your share of the costs of raising a child. It has nothing to do with whether or not the custodial parent is denying ‘visitation rights’ (do parents in the US really have that right?) but all to do with supporting your child.

I think the old maxim of cutting off your nose to spite your face is apposite here.

Women are not put in jail when they do this even though it can easily be argued that young children have a need of a male parental influence even more than money.

They’re not put in jail because if a father reckons they are being denied time with their child then, wait for it, perhaps they should apply to the court to have that time?

If on the other hand there is an order that a child is to spend time with their father and the mother has breached it then, wait for it, perhaps the father should apply to the court for remedy for such breach.

Also, how the money is spent by women is also rarely put to a court case (do women who divorce wealthy men after only a few years of marriage really deserve $20,000 per month for child support? Does the kid eat that much?) etc, etc.

Is it the case that in the USA child support is automatically determined by a court unless the parents otherwise agree as to an amount? You'll have to clarify how it works in the USA please. Given your expertise on CS, please also set out the formula for calculating child support in the USA – I don’t think you’re able to though because yet again you’re making this up as you go along.

In any event, I find it difficult to believe child support payments would be made to the tune of $20,000 per month. Is this just another story Zimmy?

You are contradicting yourself. You've already stated that you wanted my personal experiences and suggested that the Fiebert studies are merely anecdotal. So which is it?

Good attempt at obfuscation. I'm not contradicting myself. You said most applications for a DVO are false. That is an opinion, unless you provide genuine material in support. I said that whilst I value your opinion I wanted facts and material in support so that I could decide if that opinion was based on fact or if it was fiction. Instead of giving me that, you said I was contradicting myself – good one.

C’mon Zimmy – give me a real run for my money with proper responses rather than smoke and mirror, and genuine sources backing up your myriad opinions – dare you.
Ozi Dan   
14 Sep 2010
History / Poland provoked Germany to start WW2 by mobilising first [94]'s not as if you would be ready to face the facts, isn't it?
Avoiding...turning around, trying to shift the blame, point the finger at others...slimey weaseling out of acknowledging pure facts....nothing new here!

I for one acknowledge that it happened and regret that it did, particularly in respect of the children and women who suffered.

Would you prefer Tomato or BBQ sauce with your humble pie Krautwurst? Goose.

The really sad thing is that you can't be a man and acknowledge your own countries wrong doing and in doing so, you ostensibly and by default defend the actions of your so-called Nazi dictatorship.
Ozi Dan   
14 Sep 2010
History / Poland provoked Germany to start WW2 by mobilising first [94]

Again...all defensiveness...and peeps like you wonder why Steinbach and others are still so needed.

You Poles just don't have the disappointing! :(

Awesome response! When losing an argument, just call the other side out as being 'defensive', throw in an Americanism and finish off with 'you don't have the guts'.

We've been here before haven't we Bratwurst? Prussian Partitions ring a bell? No donning of helmet and into the fray eh? Where's the bravado you normally show...gone.
Ozi Dan   
14 Sep 2010
History / Poland provoked Germany to start WW2 by mobilising first [94]

I did it here

No, you didn't. What you did though is try to deflect by saying someone totally unrelated to you did something that you don't have the intestinal fortitude to do yourself.

Where's your acknowledgment and expression of regret?

Sorry, but that sounds more and more like a convenient excuse.

Sounds like it but it isn't. It's the reality of the situation whether you like it or not.

Nazi-Germany was a dictatorship

If we accept that it was, do you repudiate what Germany did under such dictatorship? Do you find repugnant what that dictatorship did to Poland?

You are living in MY land, in MY house!

My, my - touchy aren't we. Given I live in Oz, you are mistaken. Achtung - can I please have back the not insignificant family fortune that was stolen by your Nazi dictatorship during WW2. It's MY treasure, MINE MINE MINE!! Mein gott!

You are kidding right?

I'm dead serious. What did they do?

Neither had the Soviet Russians nor the Nazi-Germans

Did they have puppet regimes though?
Ozi Dan   
14 Sep 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

There you go again. This is why lawyers charge for so many hours of work. It takes them 10 hours to get to a point that someone with common sense understands right away.

So what's your answer then? That response took 30 odd words, carried another insult, but didn't answer my question, when a 'yes' or 'no' would have sufficed. Ironic response, no?

Does my long ago divorce count?

Why ask me? Does it?

I've sat and listened to lots of court cases, particularly ones involving domestic violence committed by men and women.

And did your observations of same align with your arguments on this thread? Why didn't you raise this before, given that I initially said my comments were based solely on my experiences in practice? I would have thought that if your observations in court aligned with your arguments you would have mentioned that, rather than relying on your blogs, stats and videos. You must admit it is a bit curious, no?

Unlike some here, I don't rely on anecdotal evidence. People who do usually have a self-centered prejudiced opinion and don't know how to overview a situation.

Yes you did. You relied on a couple of personal experiences where you say you witnessed some domestic violence incidents. I suppose if I wished to be technical, I could also say all the studies you've put forward are anecdotal too in that they cannot be tested as to their veracity or otherwise.

In passing, would it be anecdotal evidence to put forward (hypothetically, as it would be very difficult to do) copies of ALL judgments issued by whatever court in respect of domestic violence matters in the sense that if say 5000 judgements showed females were convicted of having committed DV and 5000 men were convicted of same your position would be vindicated?

It may be legally enshrined

That's interesting. I'd hate to be in the poor judge's shoes who has to make equal custody by virtue of a guillotine law when other evidence shows it wouldnt be in a child's best interest to do so because of say a parent is a drug addict, or abusive and so on. On second thoughts, if we adopt your model, no one would have to go to court because custody would be 50/50 automatically, no q's asked etc etc, thus no need to litigate even if litigation is needed to ensure a child's best interests are protected.

that's not how the law is carried out since child custody almost always defaults to the woman, even when she is the 'bad guy'.

Where's the proof that this is the way the law works. Can I have a link please to the section or Article (I think thats the term in the USA) that prescribes this?

Between 1980 and now the educational establishment in the U.S. has done everything from affirmative action to additional special incentives for women.

Ok, so the education system has favoured women purely because they are women? Isn't that discrimination (ie treating someone less favourably purely because of their gender)?

I may start a thread on this if I can tie it to Poland in some manner.

Why agonise over this issue when you can go to the off topic lounge?

Because the U.S. outlawed Debtors Prison long ago; interesting that this is the exception.

Could it be that the US government kept a special place in jail for defaulting payers because the US government wants to send a clear message that non payment of child support will not be tolerated and the govt is reluctant to pay for a child when the father or mother should be doing so.

Non payment of child support really irks me. Does it irk you?

So you really are unaware that most of such filings by women are false and are used as "divorce incentives" to procure custody and monetary benefits?

How do you know they are 'false'? Are you saying this because when you went to court and observed DV cases as you mentioned the judge struck them out for want of prosecution or found in favour of the respondent. Whilst I value your opinion, with these sorts of issues I'm not really interested in your opinion but I am interested in the facts and material in support.

I also note that you didn't actually respond to my assumptions. In any event, here's a link to the case of Kennon, which is authority used when arguing DV issues in Family Law property settlements:

It's an interesting case for two reasons: it talks about DV in Australia and gives insight as to how property settlement works here. If you're interested in how parenting matters work, let me know and I'll give you links to some cases and legislation, or you can have a squiz yourself on the austlii website.
Ozi Dan   
14 Sep 2010
History / Poland provoked Germany to start WW2 by mobilising first [94]

An acknowledgement at least would be a first step...nothing to speak of an apology (maybe later).

I for one acknowledge that it happened and regret that it did, particularly in respect of the children and women who suffered. Can you acknowledge and do you regret the fact that when the Gerries were trying to ethnically cleanse Warsaw during the Rising my dad was machine gunned and had German Shepherds set on him?

Do you regret the actions of your forebears wherein many children in Warsaw were forced to stand next to their parents and family members against a wall and suffered irreparable emotional and psychological damage when these children were left to survive after watching their family shot around them?

As for expellations of Germans - it was decided by Soviet Union, USA and Britain.
They decided the after-war borders of Poland we had nothing to say. We couldn't
say that we don't want Szczecin and Wrocław and would rather keep Kresy Wschodnie.
Nobody asked us.

Precisely. Responsibility to the Polish population as a whole could be apportioned to same if those 'expellations' (expulsions) were carried out by a government or representative body acting under a democratic mandate of the Polish people. There was no such government acting under such auspices so saying that Poles, as a people per se, are responsible, is misconceived and incorrect. Unless of course one can produce a document setting out that the entire eligible population of Poland were subject to say a referendum on the issue and a majority consented to the expellations...

I will agree to that nice and comfy theory of yours if you admit that the independence the Treaty of Versailles gave you led to your destruction during WWII, without Poland no WWII - so it's all the Poles fault. They should had stayed in Prussia inside the old borders and nobody would had been harmed! There would had been no reason to protest any treaty at all - ergo no Hitler - ergo no Nazis - ergo no war to redraw the borders again!

Let's go back even further in time - do you admit that the German nation per se ought to be eternally grateful for the fact that but for the magnanimity of Zygmunt August permitting the survival of the Prussian embryo that was to become Germany, there would be no Germany, ergo no WW1, no Versailles, no Nazis, no Hitler, no WW2, and, in all likelihood, no you?

How do you, on a daily basis, acknowledge that the existence of your nation was suffered by a nation that your nation subsequently tried to exterminate?

If the situation was reversed, and the King of Prussia had before him on bended knee the King of Poland, would the result have been the same? Aberrations aside, I think not, and that, I suppose, is the eternal difference between Poles and some Germans. It's a real shame and a blemish on your character that you say, in what I can only assume to be a reference to the amount of Poles killed (or should have been killed) in WW2:

Not enough it seems...or there wouldn't had anyone of you left..

Apart from harping on about how you miss your helmet, what is your purpose and agenda on this forum?

What did your kin do to stop the Nazis? What did they do to help the Poles?

Yes, and that is why she's so hated by Poles: it's now much much harder for them to maintain their lies.

What lies Chri... sorry, Harry? Do you mean 'lies' as in Poles 'lie' about the events not occurring, or 'lies' in the sense that Poles do not accept blame for something that they had no control over?

Am I lying when I say that when these events occurred Poland did not have a (genuine) popularly elected government?
Ozi Dan   
7 Sep 2010
Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

Really? You are "not sure" that protecting oneself is moral? Well, with liberals everything is indeed relative.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about morality vis a vis legal implications cf ethics. If so (ethics), then I agree with you, as long as you mean morality as in 'right' and 'wrong', and assuming the act occasioning self defence is appropriate to the threat.

Is it still moral though to defend oneself with say a gun if another comes at you with say a clenched fist?

If we accept your credo that there exist certain 'truths' that are immutable and not subject to cultural/moral relativism, then isn't the answer to the question I pose automatically 'yes'?

The above pseudo rationalizations are a good example of what's wrong with lawyers. They don't use common sense, just gibberish and argumentation for its own sake.

Sour grapes Zimmy. Instead of challenging my assertions, you seek to belittle my contribution to the discussion. Why don't you show me precisely what is gibberish and argumentation and we can go from there. Simply saying it is without saying why is telling me that you either don't understand or have nothing in reply. I've done you the courtesy of answering nearly every one of your genuine arguments so why can't I have the same courtesy from you?

You assume I've never sat at legal proceedings? My experience with attorneys is vast and that is why I don't respect them (exceptions duly noted).

I should have clarified that by saying my assumption is that you haven't sat in on any Family Law or DV proceedings. I assume that because you haven't based any of your arguments on your experiences there and I think I'm on the money in saying that if you had those experiences you would have raised them by now. Conversely, if you had those experiences you haven't raised them in your argument because they probably align with what I'm arguing and we can't have that, can we ;)

Equal father custody

Automatically and enshrined in legislation or subject to what is in the child's best interests?

Elimination of alimony

Why? If a former spouse earns $500K a year and the other earns $40K, looks after the kids, can't get a better job because the skill set is lacking after spending so much time looking after the kids during the marriage (etc) shouldn't that spouse assist the other?

Elimination of discrimination against men in education

Where? If women are nowadays over-representing men in Uni in all the professional areas of study, men need to get off their bums and enrol.

Ending debtor imprisonment of fathers/ex-husbands

If fathers/ex-husband's are in contempt of an order obliging them to pay child support or spousal maintenance and if the law permits it, why not? I'm not too keen on my tax dollars paying for someone else's non-paid obligations when the wife/mother claims extra government allowances because the ex ain't paying.

Imprisonment of women who make false accusations

Just women eh? What about men who do the same? Aren't costs orders against the 'perjuring' party sufficient?

Equal sentencing for both men and women for the same crimes

Agreed. Parity of sentencing (viz gender) mustn't be applicable to the USA if you're saying this though.

Reforming domestic abuse laws to prevent their use as a tool in civil cases

No - if a person is found to have committed DV and convicted of same, why can't that be used in say a Family Law matter, if DV is one of the considerations apposite to the case at hand? To do otherwise would be to invite another jurisdiction to reconsider and retry something that's already been done elsewhere. A waste of time, money and resources.

Parity in health funding for men and women
Revocation of affirmative action for women
Removal of women’s divorce incentives
Repeal of IMBRA
Repeal of rape shield laws

I'm unfamiliar with these so can't comment.
Ozi Dan   
3 Sep 2010
History / Is Jozef Pilsudski the king of modern Poles? [138]

was a de facto dictator..

he was a reluctant dictator.

A benevolent dictator perhaps, but a great man nevertheless. Most Poles here in Oz have reliefs or pictures of him on the lounge room wall.

Some would say he was just an imperialistic terrorist who personally profitted from killing.

Pilsudski? Why would you say that?
Ozi Dan   
27 Aug 2010
Genealogy / Mixed-Blood Poles in America (Do we count?) [118]

Calling your grandparents "busha and dza dza" doesn't make you Polish at all - it makes you a Plastic Pole if anything.

G'day mate. What about calling myself "half-Polish" or an "Aussie of Polish descent". Would that be considered as being a Plastic? Do you think genetics are more relevant to national identity than where you were born?