I thank you indeed for taking all the trouble to read all the posts--- with painstaking trouble. As to the grammatical mistakes, let me assure you, they were, by no means whatsoever, supposed to beautify or, in any way, enhance the overall effect of these posts. It is only beauty of your disposition which is making you perceive it so. The actual reason behind the typos is that most of these posts were composed on my Iphone while I was either having tea in the cafe or having a five minutes break between seeing two patients. Anyways, I thank you indeed, and let me admit, I am impressed someone is there who can pick grammatical mistakes.
As to the issue in question, I am convinced now that most of us here, are numskulls to say the least. Instead of focusing on the grammatical mistakes, if we could have probably tried to focus on the content of the posts, things could, perhaps, have been alot better.
In this very case, every Tom, Dick and Harry is coming up with the same conclusion: kicking was not permissible. And in the same breath, everyone seems to be suggesting that I hold an opposite view on this one.
I really wonder why no one can see my point which is as clear as the sun in the heavens. My point is this: instead of jumping to a conclusion, one ought to assess a situation in its entirety.
Constantly have I been telling you guys that I am never justifying the man's kicking. I am only saying that the man got punished by mistake (he should have been punished for kicking the woman, not for causing an abortion, something which he was attempting to stop).
This, miss Mimi, is my point. He was trying to stop the woman from aborting the child. And he got punished for abortion. Now, that was no justice done. Is that not as plain as hell?
I am even not saying that his punishment was less or more than he deserved. I know all the pseudo-feminists are happy that he was jailed. But what these pseudos fail to see is that it was a human punished for something which he had not done. If the judge would have ordered him to be put in jail for five years for domestic voilence, I would have always respected the jury's decision.
But in this case, the man was punished for something which he did not do. And this, in my opinion, is not justified. I think I have made myself pretty clear now. If you still have any confusion (which you would most probably have, if you do not get out of this nasty habit of flaws-finding), I can only pray for you.
I thank you indeed for taking all the trouble to read all the posts--- with painstaking trouble. As to the grammatical mistakes, let me assure you, they were, by no means whatsoever, supposed to beautify or, in any way, enhance the overall effect of these posts. It is only beauty of your disposition which is making you perceive it so. The actual reason behind the typos is that most of these posts were composed on my Iphone while I was either having tea in the cafe or having a five minutes break between seeing two patients. Anyways, I thank you indeed, and let me admit, I am impressed someone is there who can pick grammatical mistakes.
As to the issue in question, I am convinced now that most of us here, are numskulls to say the least. Instead of focusing on the grammatical mistakes, if we could have probably tried to focus on the content of the posts, things could, perhaps, have been alot better.
In this very case, every Tom, Dick and Harry is coming up with the same conclusion: kicking was not permissible. And in the same breath, everyone seems to be suggesting that I hold an opposite view on this one.
I really wonder why no one can see my point which is as clear as the sun in the heavens. My point is this: instead of jumping to a conclusion, one ought to assess a situation in its entirety.
Constantly have I been telling you guys that I am never justifying the man's kicking. I am only saying that the man got punished by mistake (he should have been punished for kicking the woman, not for causing an abortion, something which he was attempting to stop).
This, miss Mimi, is my point. He was trying to stop the woman from aborting the child. And he got punished for abortion. Now, that was no justice done. Is that not as plain as hell?
I am even not saying that his punishment was less or more than he deserved. I know all the pseudo-feminists are happy that he was jailed. But what these pseudos fail to see is that it was a human punished for something which he had not done. If the judge would have ordered him to be put in jail for five years for domestic voilence, I would have always respected the jury's decision.
But in this case, the man was punished for something which he did not do. And this, in my opinion, is not justified. I think I have made myself pretty clear now. If you still have any confusion (which you would most probably have, if you do not get out of this nasty habit of flaws-finding), I can only pray for you.