The forum for general posting. Come join the madness.
-
themanintheseersuckersuit
- Posts: 7634
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
- Location: South Carolina
#1
Post
by themanintheseersuckersuit » Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:56 pm
thats Ms. Jack,
See if you can find the understandable error in this story. (at least I think its an error)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337531,00.html
"Mireles claims his ex-wife knew he was a man."
Should be "Mireles claims his ex-wife knew he was a woman"
Suitguy is not bitter.
feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive
The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.
-
Appa23
- Posts: 3770
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm
#2
Post
by Appa23 » Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:17 pm
They must have already caught the error.
However this does seem to be an error:
A judge will allow a woman to annul her marriage when she discovered after her divorce that her ex-husband was once a woman. The "ex-husband" still is a woman. (The article said that she still physically is a woman.
I also am wondering about this custody battle. I am guessing that Ms/Mr. Mirales must have adopted the kids, although it is not mentioned, but she otherwise would not have any claim to the kids. (With the second, despite being born into a "marriage", Ms. Jack can demonstrate that Ms. Mirales is not the father. ) In addition, although I do not know that jurisdiction's laws, there would be no custody battle in Nebraska. The adoption would have been fraudulently obtained by Mirales swearing that she is a male and husband to Ms. Jack.
