Question for Leigh
LilChica
Do you have any natural children of your own?
Drew
LilChica wrote:
>
> Do you have any natural children of your own?
LilChica, I don't want to go out on a limb here - but my guess is that
Leigh's high speed SF 1SG hubby has kids from a previous wife that he
pays/owes child support for. Whether or not she has kids of her own is
beside the point.
Just a stab in the dark...
Ye...@get.real.likei'mgonnatell*you*
In article <32C101...@express-news.net>, dre...@express-news.net
says...
Well heres the truth to grab from your stab in the dark - Leighs husband
had an agreement with his ex - that upon retirement the child support
would decrease to match the new income. If you think $1400.00 a month is
what is required to support 2 children - you are dreaming.
My son's expenses in total never reach more than $180.00 a month - there
abouts.
He is also never allowed to see them, as the Wife moved them far away and
plays games with visitation - bad mouths him to the girls etc.
Leigh did not give birth to these children - but because she married Mike
- The ex took a look at her income and wanted it.
Nice eh.
Ho ho ho eh?
Aw shut up ya putz
Meaghan Walker
Drew
Ye...@get.real.likeI'mgonnatell*YOU* wrote:
>
> Well heres the truth to grab from your stab in the dark - Leighs husband
> had an agreement with his ex - that upon retirement the child support
> would decrease to match the new income. If you think $1400.00 a month is
> what is required to support 2 children - you are dreaming.
>
> My son's expenses in total never reach more than $180.00 a month - there
> abouts.
>
> He is also never allowed to see them, as the Wife moved them far away and
> plays games with visitation - bad mouths him to the girls etc.
>
> Leigh did not give birth to these children - but because she married Mike
> - The ex took a look at her income and wanted it.
>
And so all of the above justifies Leigh's trashing of anyone on the
other side of the fence, right? There's just too many variables
concerning each individual case for the endless stereotyping that goes
on in this newsgroup. It's like listening to far left and far right
politicians arguing like little kids. They're too wrapped up in having
to argue because of what side they are on than in actually looking at
the issues.
Hope ya'll had a great Xmas (Really).
Drew.
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d2b02a08...@news.bcsupernet.com>, Ye...@get.rea
l.likeI'mgonnatell*YOU* writes
>My son's expenses in total never reach more than $180.00 a month - there
>abouts.
Really? Does he eat a varied and balanced diet every day (including say
a little candy, or a cookie or fresh fruit juice)? I'd reckon, based on
experience, that a child costs about (quick currency conversion...) $1
per meal, about 4 times a day, plus about another $1 for 'extras'. Which
works out at about $35 per week or $140 per month. Then add on clothes
(even if from thrift shops), fares/petrol once a month or so to the
doctor/clinic to deal with general maladies, checkups and innoculations
etc, Christmas (or other equivalent) and birthday gifts, school
trips/donations, pens, pencils, paint and paper, books etc, not to
mention medical fees (they are free here, or rather included in the
taxes). Then what about extra laundry (you might be surprised just how
much two small boys can generate), and renting/mortgaging and
heating/cleaning extra rooms. Extra beds and bed linen and towels, extra
toiletries (toothpaste, toothbrushes, soap!!!), extra dish-washing
liquid.... then there's occasional babysitting so that the CP can have a
break now and again (maybe one evening a month)...
A child costs a good deal more than $50 per week in my experience, and
that's *without* much in the way of *luxuries*.
And I'm speaking from the experience of trying to bring two kids up on
'welfare' without CS between the ages of about 5/6 and 10/11.
I'd be interested to see what you spend that $180 per month on... how
old is he??? :-)
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
TANSTAAFL
In article <lherspAb...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.d2b02a08...@news.bcsupernet.com>, Ye...@get.rea
> l.likeI'mgonnatell*YOU* writes
> >My son's expenses in total never reach more than $180.00 a month - there
> >abouts.
>
> Really? Does he eat a varied and balanced diet every day (including say
> a little candy,
Candy is not a *balanced diet*
or a cookie or fresh fruit juice)?
He does not get sweeties - He has decent and wholesome food. Occasionally
We will buy him natural fruit juice made gummi bears - but aside from
that his diet is sugar free. (as it should be)
I'd reckon, based on
> experience, that a child costs about (quick currency conversion...) $1
> per meal, about 4 times a day, plus about another $1 for 'extras'. Which
> works out at about $35 per week or $140 per month.
Well actually I figure it costs about $4.00 a day to provide meals for
Josh. As such - $4.00 times 30 days - equals less than $120.00 a month
for food.
Then add on clothes
> (even if from thrift shops), fares/petrol once a month or so to the
> doctor/clinic to deal with general maladies, checkups and innoculations
My son is First Nations Status Indian of Canada. Our Medical bills are
paid in total and full by my Band. (No expenses - except for over the
counter) He has been sick enough to require over the counter stuff 2
times in his 3 years. He was also totally breatfed for the first 9 months
of life - and continues to breastfeed now - at nearly age 3. Thats why
Milk isnt a huge expense on our budget.
I dont charge my kid money to take him to the doctor - I am not a Taxi
Service hired out by my Ex.
> etc, Christmas (or other equivalent) and birthday gifts, school
> trips/donations, pens, pencils, paint and paper, books etc, not to
Again - food costs maybe only $120.00 And I can cut that further by
buying things in bulk - and coupon clipping. which leaves another 100-
$80.00 a month to cover those extras.
> mention medical fees (they are free here, or rather included in the
> taxes). Then what about extra laundry (you might be surprised just how
> much two small boys can generate),
Again - I dont charge my son a laundrey bill. I do his laundrey because I
am his mother and I chose to be a parent. If I was in an intact family I
certainly wouldnt expect to get PAID to wash my kids clothes.
and renting/mortgaging and
> heating/cleaning extra rooms.
I dont charge my son rent. Though I am not surprised that *you* do.
Extra beds and bed linen and towels, extra
> toiletries (toothpaste, toothbrushes, soap!!!), extra dish-washing
> liquid....
That is covered under the grocery bill.
then there's occasional babysitting so that the CP can have a
> break now and again (maybe one evening a month)...
>
Ok lets say a whoile $10.00 a month to that.
> A child costs a good deal more than $50 per week in my experience, and
> that's *without* much in the way of *luxuries*.
>
Well the only think my ex is morally obligated to support is HALF the
BASIC costs as I outlined above.
You maye like chargeing your kids rent, and for Driving them places, and
For being a laundrey service.
I dont see my relationship to my son as any of those things. They are the
things I agreed to to - without charge and without begrudgement when I
signed on to the task of becoming a parent.
It is truley sad that you done see your children as anything more than a
series of bills that your ex should be footing.
> And I'm speaking from the experience of trying to bring two kids up on
> 'welfare' without CS between the ages of about 5/6 and 10/11.
If you couldnt provide for your children without living off the backs of
other people (ie welfare) you should have had them in the first place.
Talk about irresonsible and leeching.
>
> I'd be interested to see what you spend that $180 per month on... how
> old is he??? :-)
>
He will be 3 in a week
Meaghan Walker
Cici Clovis
On Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:52:35 -0800, yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com
(TANSTAAFL) wrote:
>Well actually I figure it costs about $4.00 a day to provide meals for
>Josh. As such - $4.00 times 30 days - equals less than $120.00 a month
>for food.
Wanna trade? With my son (age 16), the rate approaches $4.00 an HOUR.
Where does he PUT it all?
There's only one explanation -- the kid has a Black Hole in his stomach.
Cici in Texas
ccl...@mail.gte.net
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d2f367ca...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>
>You maye like chargeing your kids rent, and for Driving them places, and
>For being a laundrey service.
I'm not talking about charging the kids for stuff, simply pointing out
that some expenses incurred *because* a child is around are unavoidable!
Like extra detergent for washing clothes... I'm ignoring the cost of my
labour in doing the washing! Like extra petrol to take the little one to
the doctor for routine check ups that wouldn't be incurred if the little
one wasn't there... I'm ignoring the cost of my time/skill for
driving... the boys need bus fares to get to school - that is a *real*
cost.
(Noted that you don't have the silly medical expenses of the US, and
have a system roughly the same as here where medical attention and
prescriptions are dealt with in advance through general
taxation/insurance etc).
A query. Did you ever live on your own, off your own wages, before your
little one arrived? If so, look at the difference between what you
needed to spend then and what you need to spend now.
It has (the thing I'm querying) nothing to do with child support from
the other parent, simply estimates of what the extra cost is in having a
child around full-time.
I still think $180 per month as marginal expenses for one child is very
low. $250 ish is probably more like the absolute minimum, and that
should be split between the parents proportional to their income... the
one who has most after basic (rather than chosen) living expenses pays
more towards the basics (rather than chosen) for the child. Do you have
a problem with that?
Pat Winstanley
In article <5a5pur$q...@newsfeed.gte.net>, Cici Clovis
<ccl...@mail.gte.net> writes
>>Well actually I figure it costs about $4.00 a day to provide meals for
>>Josh. As such - $4.00 times 30 days - equals less than $120.00 a month
>>for food.
>
>Wanna trade? With my son (age 16), the rate approaches $4.00 an HOUR.
>Where does he PUT it all?
>
>There's only one explanation -- the kid has a Black Hole in his stomach.
Agreed - mine are now 12 and 13... they eat faster than I can buy the
stuff and carry it home from the shop! I was being kind to the mother of
a toddler who doesn't seem to realise what's about to hit her in a very
few years time! :-)
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d2f367ca...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
>> In article <MPG.d2b02a08...@news.bcsupernet.com>, Ye...@get.rea
>> l.likeI'mgonnatell*YOU* writes
>> >My son's expenses in total never reach more than $180.00 a month - there
>> >abouts.
>>
>> Really? Does he eat a varied and balanced diet every day (including say
>> a little candy,
>
>Candy is not a *balanced diet*
>
>or a cookie or fresh fruit juice)?
>
>He does not get sweeties - He has decent and wholesome food. Occasionally
>We will buy him natural fruit juice made gummi bears - but aside from
>that his diet is sugar free. (as it should be)
Why? I'm not advocating a diet of sweet things, but there's nothing
wrong with them as a balanced part.
What do you feed him as a typical daily diet?
When mine were about that age they had eggs, cheese, fruit, meat, milk,
cake, veg, salad etc in about equal proportions. I had cakes and
biscuits and sweets going off because they weren't interested!
Now when I bake (from raw) 'sticky buns' (Hot Cross Buns) I can't get
them out of the oven fast enough! My elder son prefers brown bread, my
younger white... me? I just bake and buy both these days and leave them
to it!
>
> I'd reckon, based on
>> experience, that a child costs about (quick currency conversion...) $1
>> per meal, about 4 times a day, plus about another $1 for 'extras'. Which
>> works out at about $35 per week or $140 per month.
>
>
>Well actually I figure it costs about $4.00 a day to provide meals for
>Josh. As such - $4.00 times 30 days - equals less than $120.00 a month
>for food.
Your son is a toddler? About age 3-4?
>
>
>
>Then add on clothes
>> (even if from thrift shops), fares/petrol once a month or so to the
>> doctor/clinic to deal with general maladies, checkups and innoculations
How much does he cost you for basic clothing, especially for shoes now
he will be growing rapidly and probably needing a new pair every 2 or 3
months at the moment.
>
>My son is First Nations Status Indian of Canada. Our Medical bills are
>paid in total and full by my Band. (No expenses - except for over the
>counter)
Do you have to travel a mile or so to reach the doctor? If so, do you
walk (and thus need to eat extra food to replace the calories expended)
or get a bus (fares), or drive (petrol)?
Incidntally medicine costs for under 17s are 'free' here so I didn't
take account of those... please add about $1 per week to allow for that
in my estimates (both my sons are asthmatic).
>He has been sick enough to require over the counter stuff 2
>times in his 3 years.
Have you taken him to be innoculated against various childhood diseases
likr measles, mumps, rubella etc?
> He was also totally breatfed for the first 9 months
>of life - and continues to breastfeed now - at nearly age 3. Thats why
>Milk isnt a huge expense on our budget.
>
Not huge here either... the boys now (at 12 & 13) take about half a pint
a day each. At 3 they probably drank about the same - most of their food
needs came from solid food by then. Milk bill, about $1 per day for the
pair of them. Oh, and they were breastfed too for about 3-6 months until
I couldn't produce sufficient flow.
>I dont charge my kid money to take him to the doctor - I am not a Taxi
>Service hired out by my Ex.
>
Petrol/gas or bus fares still need to be paid for.
>
>
>> etc, Christmas (or other equivalent) and birthday gifts, school
>> trips/donations, pens, pencils, paint and paper, books etc, not to
>
>Again - food costs maybe only $120.00 And I can cut that further by
>buying things in bulk - and coupon clipping. which leaves another 100-
>$80.00 a month to cover those extras.
>
Ah... so it really costs $200 or more to keep him in food, no matter how
economical you are?
>
>
>> mention medical fees (they are free here, or rather included in the
>> taxes). Then what about extra laundry (you might be surprised just how
>> much two small boys can generate),
>
>Again - I dont charge my son a laundrey bill. I do his laundrey because I
>am his mother and I chose to be a parent. If I was in an intact family I
>certainly wouldnt expect to get PAID to wash my kids clothes.
Neither do I, but I still have to buy extra washing powder because of
them, and leave the heating on longer to dry their clothes.
>
>
>
> and renting/mortgaging and
>> heating/cleaning extra rooms.
>
>
>I dont charge my son rent. Though I am not surprised that *you* do.
>
Again, neither do I, but I do need at least two bedrooms to accommodate
three of us... otherwise I would live in a bedsit (one room in a
building with shared bathroom and kitchen).
>
> Extra beds and bed linen and towels, extra
>> toiletries (toothpaste, toothbrushes, soap!!!), extra dish-washing
>> liquid....
>
>That is covered under the grocery bill.
>
OK, add about another dollar a day to the food/grocery bill.
>
>
>
> then there's occasional babysitting so that the CP can have a
>> break now and again (maybe one evening a month)...
>>
>
>Ok lets say a whoile $10.00 a month to that.
>
>
So you are now talking 190 rather than 180 per month? And yes I'd
agree... about 10 per 2-3 hr babysitting session for a neighbour's
teenager seems about reasonable.
>> A child costs a good deal more than $50 per week in my experience, and
>> that's *without* much in the way of *luxuries*.
>>
>
>Well the only think my ex is morally obligated to support is HALF the
>BASIC costs as I outlined above.
>
>You maye like chargeing your kids rent, and for Driving them places, and
>For being a laundrey service.
>
>I dont see my relationship to my son as any of those things. They are the
>things I agreed to to - without charge and without begrudgement when I
>signed on to the task of becoming a parent.
>
>It is truley sad that you done see your children as anything more than a
>series of bills that your ex should be footing.
>
>> And I'm speaking from the experience of trying to bring two kids up on
>> 'welfare' without CS between the ages of about 5/6 and 10/11.
>
>If you couldnt provide for your children without living off the backs of
>other people (ie welfare) you should have had them in the first place.
>Talk about irresonsible and leeching.
I was in an apparently stable marriage when my children were born. The
fact that their dad started physically hitting me later was *not*
forseeable at the time they were born!
What would you have had me do? Kill the kids off because their dad
became violent?
>
>
>>
>> I'd be interested to see what you spend that $180 per month on... how
>> old is he??? :-)
>>
>
>He will be 3 in a week
So... how about a breakdown of the daily/weekly amount you spend upon
him over and above what you would spend if you were just you?
And please wish him a Happy Birthday and a ruffled hair stroke from me!
:-)
You are aware that the 'terrible twos' are followed by the 'talkative
threes'? My sympathy/empathy - really! If you figure out an answer other
than "Because I say so, now shut up!" over the next 6-12 months or so,
please publish it for everyone to know! You will have a fortune coming
to you in voluntary donations from frustrated parents worldwide!:-)
Roanna Krisko
In <BeRSTuAn...@pierless.demon.co.uk> Pat Winstanley
<pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <MPG.d2f367ca...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
><yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>>In article <lherspAb...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
>>pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
>>> In article <MPG.d2b02a08...@news.bcsupernet.com>,
Ye...@get.rea
>>> l.likeI'mgonnatell*YOU* writes
>>> >My son's expenses in total never reach more than $180.00 a month -
there
>>> >abouts.
>>>
I got to this part and started wondering how someone could possibly
raise a child for less than $200.00 per month. I then read the
remainder of the message and realized she doesn't realize that this
child is NOT being raised on $180.00 per month. If she didn't have
special health care, that would cost. She isn't taking into account
the fact that a bigger house, more heat, more detergent, more body
soap, more shampoo, more EVERYTHING is used when you have children. I
have three kids and I would not kid myself into thinking I would have a
4 bedroom house if I lived alone, I would not have to do 75+ loads of
clothes monthly, or so many other things would be the same for 1 person
than 4 (5 counting my husband).
I was also amused that she doesn't allow her child to have sugar. You
can bet that kid will be the one to eat other kid's candies in school.
Whenever anything is taboo the child will seek it out. I never denied
my kids candies or sweets, just limited amounts, the will pass on junk
food a lot of times in favor of other things.
Breastfeeding at age 3? You will have to start weening this child,
pronto. How do you breastfeed when he is, or should be, attending
pre-school?
No, you don't "Charge" your child for basics such as laundry or
transportation, but get real, these things cost $.
Roanna
mother of 3 - 2 sons ages 25 yrs. and 11 yrs, 1 daughter age 9 1/2
ps - wait until he hits those clothes milestones - one size different
turns into $5.00 different in price (6x to 7, 14 to 16)
TANSTAAFL
In article <Hf5DTcAH...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.d2f367ca...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
> <yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
> >
> >For being a laundrey service.
>
> that some expenses incurred *because* a child is around are unavoidable!
> Like extra detergent for washing clothes... I'm ignoring the cost of my
> labour in doing the washing! Like extra petrol to take the little one to
> the doctor for routine check ups that wouldn't be incurred if the little
> one wasn't there... I'm ignoring the cost of my time/skill for
> driving... the boys need bus fares to get to school - that is a *real*
> cost.
>
So when the boys were with their father - did you reimburse him for the
money he spent on those *extras*? And further - why should he pay to fill
up *your* car with gas.. did you help pay to fill his car up with Gas
when he had them?
> (Noted that you don't have the silly medical expenses of the US, and
> have a system roughly the same as here where medical attention and
> prescriptions are dealt with in advance through general
> taxation/insurance etc).
Well Canada has a more socialized medical system than the Us - but
crappier service as a result...And Most people in Canada dont get the
benefits that I do - as a result of the Treaty Negotiations between my
Band and the government a hundread years ago. I dont require my ex to
provide any type of medical expenses for Josh - since the coverage I have
for him is much more comprehensive.
>
> A query. Did you ever live on your own, off your own wages, before your
> little one arrived?
Yes for about 6 years.
If so, look at the difference between what you
> needed to spend then and what you need to spend now.
>
My costs didnt rise all that dramatically. It was maybe the equivelent of
putting $200.00 a month on a car.
I know.. I am a tireless and very picky book keeper.
> It has (the thing I'm querying) nothing to do with child support from
> the other parent, simply estimates of what the extra cost is in having a
> child around full-time.
>
And - if the NCP has these exact same expenses while the child is in his
care - then there is no need for him to reimburse you for it - now is
there?
Unless he wants to start charging you money for doing their laundrey and
driving them to the park etc,.. Sure - if you want it to work both ways.
> I still think $180 per month as marginal expenses for one child is very
> low. $250 ish is probably more like the absolute minimum, and that
> should be split between the parents proportional to their income... the
> one who has most after basic (rather than chosen) living expenses pays
> more towards the basics (rather than chosen) for the child. Do you have
> a problem with that?
>
>
No - Basic costs means BASIC costs. As in - i dont want to be subsidized
by anybody for raising my son. I dont WANT to extort money at gun point
(vis a vis the Child Support Courts) to provide those extras - when I
dont see them as a burden - and nobody takes into account what my ex
would be spending on them - if he shared custody.
Meaghan Walker
TANSTAAFL
In article <BeRSTuAn...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> >> >My son's expenses in total never reach more than $180.00 a month - there
> >> >abouts.
> >>
> >> Really? Does he eat a varied and balanced diet every day (including say
> >> a little candy,
> >
> >Candy is not a *balanced diet*
> >
> >or a cookie or fresh fruit juice)?
> >
> >He does not get sweeties - He has decent and wholesome food. Occasionally
> >We will buy him natural fruit juice made gummi bears - but aside from
> >that his diet is sugar free. (as it should be)
>
> Why? I'm not advocating a diet of sweet things, but there's nothing
> wrong with them as a balanced part.
They are *not* part of a balanced diet. Where did you learn about
Nutrition - they are empty calories - they add nothing to your body but
complex carboyhydrates that do nothing for his health or wellbeing.
>
> What do you feed him as a typical daily diet?
>
Josh wakes up - has a few minutes on the boob - then he usually gets a
bowl of cereal - (sometimes dry depending on what he wants) - Has a cup
of apple juice and a piece of toast.
Lunch time he might have a grilled cheese sandwhich or some pasta.
I combine his food for maximum digestion. As in we do not eat Starches
and Meats together. So its vegies and Meat - or Veggies and Starches -
but never meat proteins and Starches (simple or complex carbs - together)
since the enzymes used to digest Meat are acidic - and the enyzmes used
to digest Starches are base - the two cancel each other out - and the
food is not as effiecently digested and vitamins are not as easily
absorbed by the food.
> When mine were about that age they had eggs, cheese, fruit, meat, milk,
> cake, veg, salad etc in about equal proportions. I had cakes and
> biscuits and sweets going off because they weren't interested!
For Dinner we might have a stir fry with noodles... or Rice and Veggies -
or just Some type of meat broiled - with steamed vegetables.
He averages about 2 8 once servings of milk or dairy products
6 servings of fruits and veggies or Juices
2 servings of starches (breads - rice etc)
and 1 1/2 servings a day of protein.
Each day.
Part of preparation for becoming a parent was learning about proper
nutrition for my son - discussing these with my pediatrician and acting
on the advice of a nutrionist at the hosptial.
My son is learning *healthy* eating habits from us... not ones that will
lead to heart or cholesterol problems later in life - or possible weight
problems.
> Now when I bake (from raw) 'sticky buns' (Hot Cross Buns) I can't get
> them out of the oven fast enough! My elder son prefers brown bread, my
> younger white... me? I just bake and buy both these days and leave them
> to it!
Rice Cakes are a lot cheaper and healthier.
>
> >
> > I'd reckon, based on
> >> experience, that a child costs about (quick currency conversion...) $1
> >> per meal, about 4 times a day, plus about another $1 for 'extras'. Which
> >> works out at about $35 per week or $140 per month.
> >
> >
> >Well actually I figure it costs about $4.00 a day to provide meals for
> >Josh. As such - $4.00 times 30 days - equals less than $120.00 a month
> >for food.
>
> Your son is a toddler? About age 3-4?
He is turning 3 in 12 days.
> >
> >
> >
> >Then add on clothes
> >> (even if from thrift shops), fares/petrol once a month or so to the
> >> doctor/clinic to deal with general maladies, checkups and innoculations
>
> How much does he cost you for basic clothing, especially for shoes now
> he will be growing rapidly and probably needing a new pair every 2 or 3
> months at the moment.
Right now - he does just fine for those - since we are bargain hunters
and both myself and Ron and Josh are frequent shoppers at the thrift.
And before you tell me that this is a *bad* thing.. I will let you know
that my fiance (who hasnt bought clothes off the rack in about 6 years)
is the best dressed man at his office. (Everybody is jealous of his shoes
and shirts and dress pants)
At the office Xmass party we went to... His boss joked about how there
was no way that what he was wearing could have come from a thrift( Since
it is an ongoing joke at the office about the Bargains Ron gets)
He found a Burburrys Jacket - Great shoes - White Polo Dress shirt - and
Beautifull dress pants - ( all in all his outfit cost him under $26.00)
I too have found some wonderfull skirts, blouses, jackets , blazers and
shoes at the thrift. It is one way of saving a lot of money - but it
takes effort and time to do it effectively. We go once a week to look for
bargains.
> >
> >My son is First Nations Status Indian of Canada. Our Medical bills are
> >paid in total and full by my Band. (No expenses - except for over the
> >counter)
>
> Do you have to travel a mile or so to reach the doctor? If so, do you
> walk (and thus need to eat extra food to replace the calories expended)
> or get a bus (fares), or drive (petrol)?
No - I walk.
Oh dear - I should be expecting my Ex to pay for the calories I burn off
when I walk my Kid to the doctor less than 15 minutes from my house...
Please you are stretching it. Great lets add that to the list of basic
support - Mothers should recive compensation for metabolizing calories
while taking care of their kids... Hell lets reimburse them for sleeping
and breathing tooo while we are at it.
>
> Incidntally medicine costs for under 17s are 'free' here so I didn't
> take account of those... please add about $1 per week to allow for that
> in my estimates (both my sons are asthmatic).
>
> >He has been sick enough to require over the counter stuff 2
> >times in his 3 years.
>
> Have you taken him to be innoculated against various childhood diseases
> likr measles, mumps, rubella etc?
Again - that was done at the tribal health office not far from where I
live. I used the time to visit my family. So NO I wont charge my ex for
the cost it took to drive down for Josh's series of shots.
>
> >I dont charge my kid money to take him to the doctor - I am not a Taxi
> >Service hired out by my Ex.
> >
>
> Petrol/gas or bus fares still need to be paid for.
Well - If I do drive anywhere - I dont waste effort only taking care of
one thing at a time.. I most often walk - and if I can't do that than I
plan a route that takes care of a number of things.. paying bills,
running errands...
and no I am not going to charge my ex for the insurance or cost of my car
- Or for the cost of getting my kid to the doctor - or for going to buy
groceries.
I wouldnt be reimbursing him for those costs if Josh was visiting with
him.. and I think in all fairness I shouldnt expect it.
>
> >
> >
> >> etc, Christmas (or other equivalent) and birthday gifts, school
> >> trips/donations, pens, pencils, paint and paper, books etc, not to
> >
> >Again - food costs maybe only $120.00 And I can cut that further by
> >buying things in bulk - and coupon clipping. which leaves another 100-
> >$80.00 a month to cover those extras.
> >
>
> Ah... so it really costs $200 or more to keep him in food, no matter how
> economical you are?
>
No.. Those things I mentioned cut down the above mentioned costs.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that it is possible to feed a child
a healthy diet on less than $100.00 a month.
I lived on less than that in college.
And I was a full grown woman there. If you buy the right healthy food -
it is not that difficult.
> >
> >
> >> mention medical fees (they are free here, or rather included in the
> >> taxes). Then what about extra laundry (you might be surprised just how
> >> much two small boys can generate),
> >
> >Again - I dont charge my son a laundrey bill. I do his laundrey because I
> >am his mother and I chose to be a parent. If I was in an intact family I
> >certainly wouldnt expect to get PAID to wash my kids clothes.
>
> Neither do I, but I still have to buy extra washing powder because of
> them, and leave the heating on longer to dry their clothes.
>
Ok - I'll be generous.. Making sure that none of your clothes get washed
with theirs... lets say you spend an extra $5.00 a month on laundrey
detergent.
As for heating... or the cost of extra hydro - Would you be reimbursing
your ex for his cost to do the laundrey if the kids were there with him
1/2 the time>?
> >
> >
> >
> > and renting/mortgaging and
> >> heating/cleaning extra rooms.
> >
> >
> >I dont charge my son rent. Though I am not surprised that *you* do.
> >
>
> Again, neither do I, but I do need at least two bedrooms to accommodate
> three of us... otherwise I would live in a bedsit (one room in a
> building with shared bathroom and kitchen).
And some familes can and do do that - and it is more than acceptable. If
you think that YOu should get more money from your ex to pay for *your*
bedroom - you are expecting lifestyle support.
> >
> > Extra beds and bed linen and towels, extra
> >> toiletries (toothpaste, toothbrushes, soap!!!), extra dish-washing
> >> liquid....
> >
> >That is covered under the grocery bill.
> >
>
> OK, add about another dollar a day to the food/grocery bill.
That still only brings us up to $150.00 although the estimate on food
stuff and sundries I gave before DID include that.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > then there's occasional babysitting so that the CP can have a
> >> break now and again (maybe one evening a month)...
> >>
> >
> >Ok lets say a whoile $10.00 a month to that.
> >
> >
>
> So you are now talking 190 rather than 180 per month? And yes I'd
> agree... about 10 per 2-3 hr babysitting session for a neighbour's
> teenager seems about reasonable.
>
I dont charge my ex to cover my babysitting or daycare expenses.. since
If Josh were to stay with him 1/2 the time - I wouldnt be reimbursing
him.
In fact - if he did take the kid 1./2 the time - I could cut down my
child care enourmously. I work from home, and
> >> A child costs a good deal more than $50 per week in my experience, and
> >> that's *without* much in the way of *luxuries*.
> >>
> >
> >Well the only think my ex is morally obligated to support is HALF the
> >BASIC costs as I outlined above.
> >
> >You maye like chargeing your kids rent, and for Driving them places, and
> >For being a laundrey service.
> >
> >I dont see my relationship to my son as any of those things. They are the
> >things I agreed to to - without charge and without begrudgement when I
> >signed on to the task of becoming a parent.
> >
> >It is truley sad that you done see your children as anything more than a
> >series of bills that your ex should be footing.
> >
> >> And I'm speaking from the experience of trying to bring two kids up on
> >> 'welfare' without CS between the ages of about 5/6 and 10/11.
> >
> >If you couldnt provide for your children without living off the backs of
> >other people (ie welfare) you should have had them in the first place.
> >Talk about irresonsible and leeching.
>
> I was in an apparently stable marriage when my children were born. The
> fact that their dad started physically hitting me later was *not*
> forseeable at the time they were born!
And when you decided to be a parent - did you consider what would happen
if something should happen to your ex - and ended up in the position of
supporting them alone.
I did. And I planned around it.
>
> What would you have had me do? Kill the kids off because their dad
> became violent?
>
Well 20/20 hindsight is better. Just I dont think other people should be
forced to subsidize poor decision making on your part - for refusing to
keep your capacity to support youself.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I'd be interested to see what you spend that $180 per month on... how
> >> old is he??? :-)
> >>
> >
> >He will be 3 in a week
>
> So... how about a breakdown of the daily/weekly amount you spend upon
> him over and above what you would spend if you were just you?
>
I have done this on the board before... and you know what.. I kinda get
tired of it.. Most people agree with the itemization I drew up - The only
people who didnt were people who were bound and determined to get
subsidized for pumping out babies.
The cost of Raising Josh right now is the equivelent to makine $200.00
payments on a new car.
If I didnt have Josh - We could be buying a new car instead of purchasing
the second hand one.
I know.. because I do the books.
> And please wish him a Happy Birthday and a ruffled hair stroke from me!
> :-)
>
Ok - Will do.
> You are aware that the 'terrible twos' are followed by the 'talkative
> threes'? My sympathy/empathy - really! If you figure out an answer other
> than "Because I say so, now shut up!" over the next 6-12 months or so,
> please publish it for everyone to know! You will have a fortune coming
> to you in voluntary donations from frustrated parents worldwide!:-)
>
>
Oh I love Josh talking... Ron Just about busted a gut laughing when he
read your comment there.
Why?? I think I'll try.. "hmmm why dont you tell me?"
Right now Josh is experimenting with phrases like "No More Mr.Nice Guy"
and a lot of "No" and "I dont Think so" (which he says in a sing song
kind of voice" - and "Dont TOUCH! " which applies to anything we want to
do that he disagrees with.
The other thing is being raised in a Canadian Family - with more than a
little British Background.. I am having difficulty trying to get him to
say "Pardon" instead of "Huh?"
We will have 20 minutes of me saying "pardon" and him saying "huh"
He does howver say "please" "thankyou" "Sorry" and he shakes hands and
says "Pleased to meet you" Which seems to really amuse anybody over the
age of 40. And he says'Thankyou and Goodbye" everytime we leave a store.
He is pretty much a delight - but very very very *busy* child.
Meaghan
Pat Winstanley
In article <5a6g93$e...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, Roanna Krisko
<chia...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>I got to this part and started wondering how someone could possibly
>raise a child for less than $200.00 per month. I then read the
>remainder of the message and realized she doesn't realize that this
>child is NOT being raised on $180.00 per month. If she didn't have
>special health care, that would cost. She isn't taking into accoun
Exactly. It costs me about 25-30GBP (about $50) a week to send my two
sons to school with bus fare and dinner money alone... when we were on
welfare and they paid the dinner money (or at least the absolute basic
amount) that was about $30!
My younger son (12) hasn't really started his adolescent growth spurt
yet, the elder one (13) certainly has and like a 3 yr old needs new
shoes and long pants about every couple of months. I keep telling him to
stop growing but he takes no notice - he just pinches my jeans, T-shirts
and jumpers! :-)
Yes, I can put the part worn clothes away for the Terrible, younger one,
but I still need to buy new for Horrible! And this is the first time
that I can't do a straight hand-me-down as despite only about a year's
age gap there is a good foot in height between them at the moment.
Incidentally, did/have you noticed an age (about 7-11) where they wear
holes into their clothes/shoes faster than they grow out of them?
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
TANSTAAFL
In article <qvrI$oAM1o...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> >>Josh. As such - $4.00 times 30 days - equals less than $120.00 a month
> >>for food.
> >
> >Where does he PUT it all?
> >
> >There's only one explanation -- the kid has a Black Hole in his stomach.
>
> Agreed - mine are now 12 and 13... they eat faster than I can buy the
> stuff and carry it home from the shop! I was being kind to the mother of
> a toddler who doesn't seem to realise what's about to hit her in a very
> few years time! :-)
>
And yes I do - and by the time Josh gets to that age - I will be earning
more money.
You know planning ahead - making smart career moves and working towards a
better position in education.
Duh.
This isnt really mystical way out incredible stuff.. its called planning
ahead to deal with the decisions you are currently making.
Like - when Josh is in school - I will be able to get back to school -
and complete my university to the point where I can apply for the Native
Law Program.
I dont think upon getting my degree in Law I will have too much trouble
supporting myself and my son in a great deal of comfort.
Oh - another benefit of being Native Indian in Canada - School tuition,
Books, Living expenses and child care are all covered by my Band.
In exchange I get to do some work for them when I get out in Treaty
Negotiations law and Family law for Native People in my area.
But then I knew this when I was making my decision to have a kid - I
didnt just stumble along hoping something would turn out.
Success comes from planning, forethought and goal directed action. And
YES if people are to dimwitted to do this for themselves before they
bring a child into the world - I have very little sypmathy for them
Meaghan Walker
TANSTAAFL
In article <5a6g93$e...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, chia...@ix.netcom.com
says...
> >>> l.likeI'mgonnatell*YOU* writes
> >>> >My son's expenses in total never reach more than $180.00 a month -
> there
> >>> >abouts.
> >>>
> I got to this part and started wondering how someone could possibly
> raise a child for less than $200.00 per month. I then read the
> remainder of the message and realized she doesn't realize that this
> child is NOT being raised on $180.00 per month.
I assure you - I do know exactly how much it costs to raise my child - I
have been doing it for a number of years. Just because I dont view my son
as a means to extort insane ammounts of child support doesnt make me a
dim wit.
If she didn't have
> special health care, that would cost.
Yup - Maybe all of $30.00 for the past 2 years (prescriptions) and
$180.00 for 3 years of medical coverage.
She isn't taking into account
> the fact that a bigger house, more heat, more detergent, more body
> soap, more shampoo, more EVERYTHING is used when you have children.
yes - i figure that into my grocery bill. Josh shares our toothpaste -
toilet paper - shampoo etc...
I
> have three kids and I would not kid myself into thinking I would have a
> 4 bedroom house if I lived alone,
I only have one kid - and I know for a fact - that a one bedroom
apartment is more than acceptable. I sleep in the living room on a
hideabed - and he sleeps in his bedroom. ( I did that for almost one year
months) then moved to a place where rent was much cheaper - as was the
cost of living... A more rural part of the country.
It was amazing - I got a 2 bedroom home - off the reserve for less than
$200.00 a month.. And the house was nicer than ANYTHING than most people
can afford in a city. It had a backyard and was less than 3 years old -
with new appliances and beautifull carpeting and smartly designed.
Of course when I moved in with my fiance - I was no longer eligible for
my Bands Co Op housing for single parents.
Oh and as for the waitlists - I signed up for the waitlist when I was 7
months pregnant - and I got in when my son was nearly a year old.
It didnt take forever to get in.. and the fact that I was working and
going to school and totally supporting my son (without a welfare cheque)
pushed me up the list a lot faster. My Band elders respected that
immensly.
I would not have to do 75+ loads of
> clothes monthly, or so many other things would be the same for 1 person
> than 4 (5 counting my husband).
I do Josh's laundrey with my own. It has never been an incredible burden
that I think I should be compsensated for.
> I was also amused that she doesn't allow her child to have sugar. You
> can bet that kid will be the one to eat other kid's candies in school.
Yeah - and My son will have healthy teeth and gums and eat healthy.
> Whenever anything is taboo the child will seek it out. I never denied
> my kids candies or sweets, just limited amounts, the will pass on junk
> food a lot of times in favor of other things.
>
Sure - I just dont need to extort money from my ex to ply my son with
sweets. They are not a nesseccary part of existence (Believe it or not)
> Breastfeeding at age 3? You will have to start weening this child,
> pronto. How do you breastfeed when he is, or should be, attending
> pre-school?
>
Well - My son breastfeeds twice a day now.. and he likes the closeness
and the feeling. Mothers milk is mothers milk... Cows arent Mothers to
babies and children - now are they.
It is only with recent conventions and weird ideas about bodies and such
(that you have obviously been brainwashed into believing) that would
suggest breatfeeding is unnatural. It is the most natural thing in the
world... And in Some Countries in the world - It is done to age 5 -
although I dont think I will continue that much longer.
I do know for a fact that my son is healthier and better adjusted than
most kids with regards to it. He doesnt sleep with a bottle, and he
doesnt go through more than 1 pull up diaper a day (for sleeping in) and
He gets immunizations from me EVERYTIME he latches on.
Contrary to your belief - Cows Milk doesnt do that. My son also has a
tendancy to be lactose intolerant some times... Breatmilk beats Cow Milk
in that regard and is much better for him than SOY products.
> No, you don't "Charge" your child for basics such as laundry or
> transportation, but get real, these things cost $.
>
>
yes - and these are the things I agreed to take care of when I became a
parent. I dont expect to be reimbursed for my decision to become a parent
- and I dont see my kid as a cash cow to get all these extras from my ex
-who would be providing them out of his own pocket if Josh was visiting
with him.
If I wouldnt be reimbursing my ex for these extras while my son is in his
car - I dont think he should be compelled to reimburse me for them while
Josh is in my care.
Then again - I dont see $$$$ as being the defining factor of my son's
relationship with his bio father.
Meaghan Walker
Roanna Krisko
In <MPG.d3084497...@news.bcsupernet.com>
yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com (TANSTAAFL) writes:
>
>In article <5a6g93$e...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, chia...@ix.netcom.com
>says...
>> >>> l.likeI'mgonnatell*YOU* writes
>> >>> >My son's expenses in total never reach more than $180.00 a
month -
>> there
>> >>> >abouts.
>> >>>
>>
***********************************************************************
>> I got to this part and started wondering how someone could possibly
>> raise a child for less than $200.00 per month. I then read the
>> remainder of the message and realized she doesn't realize that this
>> child is NOT being raised on $180.00 per month.
>
>I assure you - I do know exactly how much it costs to raise my child -
I
>have been doing it for a number of years.
3 is such a small number. I have a total of 44 child raising years and
you are such an inexperienced, no nothing novice.
Just because I dont view my son
>as a means to extort insane ammounts of child support doesnt make me a
>dim wit.
>
Perhaps that doesn't but Darling, you are a dimwit. Who the hell do
you think you are saying you are raising your son on such a limited
amount of $. The god damned government is paying to raise your son. Why
should other people pay that amount? The parents are the ones that did
the deed and damn it they should be the ones to support the child. You
get Indian $, Canadian government $.
> pre-school?
>>
>
>Well - My son breastfeeds twice a day now.. and he likes the closeness
>and the feeling.
Stick a bottle in your bra.
Mothers milk is mothers milk... Cows arent Mothers to
>babies and children - now are they.
>
>It is only with recent conventions and weird ideas about bodies and
such
>(that you have obviously been brainwashed into believing)
Don't even go there. Female circumcision is also custom in a lot of
parts of the world and we all know that is sick and demented.
that would
>suggest breatfeeding is unnatural. It is the most natural thing in the
>world... And in Some Countries in the world - It is done to age 5 -
>although I dont think I will continue that much longer.
See above
>
>I do know for a fact that my son is healthier and better adjusted than
>most kids with regards to it. He doesnt sleep with a bottle,
Nor should he have ever slept with a bottle.
and he
>doesnt go through more than 1 pull up diaper a day (for sleeping in)
and
>He gets immunizations from me EVERYTIME he latches on.
You, my darling, are so underwhelmed with facts.
>
>Contrary to your belief - Cows Milk doesnt do that. My son also has a
>tendancy to be lactose intolerant some times... Breatmilk beats Cow
Milk
>in that regard and is much better for him than SOY products.
>
>> No, you don't "Charge" your child for basics such as laundry or
>> transportation, but get real, these things cost $.
You are so stupid. I don't care if you do the neighbors clothes with
yours. More loads means more soap, more water, more electricity.
And if you are the awsome mother that you have so incorrectly labeled
yourself then you would know to do a babies clothes separately.
>>
>>
>
>yes - and these are the things I agreed to take care of when I became
a
>parent. I dont expect to be reimbursed for my decision to become a
parent
>- and I dont see my kid as a cash cow
IS THIS NOT HIS SON ALSO?????????????? Get off government dole and
make him pay for 1/2 the costs of raising a child.
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d308ef73...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>> >Again - I dont charge my son a laundrey bill. I do his laundrey because I
>> >am his mother and I chose to be a parent. If I was in an intact family I
>> >certainly wouldnt expect to get PAID to wash my kids clothes.
>>
>> Neither do I, but I still have to buy extra washing powder because of
>> them, and leave the heating on longer to dry their clothes.
>>
>
>Ok - I'll be generous.. Making sure that none of your clothes get washed
>with theirs... lets say you spend an extra $5.00 a month on laundrey
>detergent.
>
>As for heating... or the cost of extra hydro - Would you be reimbursing
>your ex for his cost to do the laundrey if the kids were there with him
>1/2 the time>?
Hydro? (Sorry, not familiar with that term)
I never charged him for when I did it all.
Overall I'm talking about the fact that caring for a child costs more
(and not just in food) than not caring for a child. You seem to be sort
of accepting this, but turning it all back on reimbursmet. I'n not
*interested* in reimbursement... just what it actually costs to raise a
child, so that some of the NCPs in here will realise that it does cost a
significant amount do do so, whether they are asked for contributions or
not.
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d305e611...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>In article <Hf5DTcAH...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
>pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
>> In article <MPG.d2f367ca...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
>> <yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>> >
>> >For being a laundrey service.
>>
>> that some expenses incurred *because* a child is around are unavoidable!
>> Like extra detergent for washing clothes... I'm ignoring the cost of my
>> labour in doing the washing! Like extra petrol to take the little one to
>> the doctor for routine check ups that wouldn't be incurred if the little
>> one wasn't there... I'm ignoring the cost of my time/skill for
>> driving... the boys need bus fares to get to school - that is a *real*
>> cost.
>>
>
>So when the boys were with their father - did you reimburse him for the
>money he spent on those *extras*? And further - why should he pay to fill
>up *your* car with gas.. did you help pay to fill his car up with Gas
>when he had them?
Well, neither of us could afford a car, and couldn't have driven one
anway after a drink-drive incident where he wrote my car off.
But yes, I did reimburse him here and there for fares etc. He didn't do
any laundry for them. However he didn't reimburse me for fares...
>
>
>> (Noted that you don't have the silly medical expenses of the US, and
>> have a system roughly the same as here where medical attention and
>> prescriptions are dealt with in advance through general
>> taxation/insurance etc).
>
>Well Canada has a more socialized medical system than the Us - but
>crappier service as a result...And Most people in Canada dont get the
>benefits that I do - as a result of the Treaty Negotiations between my
>Band and the government a hundread years ago. I dont require my ex to
>provide any type of medical expenses for Josh - since the coverage I have
>for him is much more comprehensive.
What would you do if you didn't have the Indian 'safety net'?
>>
>> A query. Did you ever live on your own, off your own wages, before your
>> little one arrived?
>
>Yes for about 6 years.
>
>
> If so, look at the difference between what you
>> needed to spend then and what you need to spend now.
>>
>
>My costs didnt rise all that dramatically. It was maybe the equivelent of
>putting $200.00 a month on a car.
>
How do you mean?
>I know.. I am a tireless and very picky book keeper.
So am I - see later in the message. :-)
>
>
>> It has (the thing I'm querying) nothing to do with child support from
>> the other parent, simply estimates of what the extra cost is in having a
>> child around full-time.
>>
>
>And - if the NCP has these exact same expenses while the child is in his
>care - then there is no need for him to reimburse you for it - now is
>there?
>
>Unless he wants to start charging you money for doing their laundrey and
>driving them to the park etc,.. Sure - if you want it to work both ways.
See above.
>
>
>> I still think $180 per month as marginal expenses for one child is very
>> low. $250 ish is probably more like the absolute minimum, and that
>> should be split between the parents proportional to their income... the
>> one who has most after basic (rather than chosen) living expenses pays
>> more towards the basics (rather than chosen) for the child. Do you have
>> a problem with that?
>>
>>
>
>No - Basic costs means BASIC costs. As in - i dont want to be subsidized
>by anybody for raising my son. I dont WANT to extort money at gun point
>(vis a vis the Child Support Courts) to provide those extras - when I
>dont see them as a burden - and nobody takes into account what my ex
>would be spending on them - if he shared custody.
I'm talking about *basic* costs! (Nothing to do with who pays, just how
much things cost). To keep my sons warm, reasonably fed, clean, housed
etc costs about $50 a week for each of them... NO luxuries!!! And about
$50 a week for me for the same so that I can take care of them. I'm an
inexpensive childminder! :-)
I lived on that sort of income for years, and we managed... just. I'm
still trying to pay off the debts incurred in trying to keep them fed
and warm and shod. A sudden growth spurt means new shoes at least, at
about $20 a pair even for very cheap ones which are not particularly
good for their feet. And the boys have a strict school uniform which
means not just shopping around, but having little choice of where to
shop. The cheapest place I could find to kit them out this year -
September (replacing some items for growth and some for wear), and I
have the bills in front of me...
Football shorts £3.25 and £2.99 (They both lost theirs!)
Blazers £27.95 and £18.99 (elder [13] is in adult size which has VAT -
tax - added)
Trousers £16.99 (the younger moved into the eleder's outgrown ones)
Total £70.17
About $100 or more.
Then, and you aren't going to believe this, not sure myself still, both
the boys' trousers were stolen off the washing line at half term
(October) so I had to keep them off school for the morning while we went
to buy replacements... £13.99 and £18.99
Total £32.98
About $50
Now, December, my elder son has shot up again and needs both new shoes
and new trousers (also new shirts as they are now too tight round the
collar as he's shot sideways too as he approaches man shape). This week
I'll have to spend about $25 on shoes, $25 on trousers and $20 on
shirts.
Another $70
Well over $200 in three months just for school uniform items, never mind
leisure clothes. *All* the high schools round here have similar uniform
requirements!
It'll be easier when the younger needs shirts/trousers as he can usually
manage on the hand-me-downs from the elder, if the elder hasn't worn
them out (or had them stolen) before growing out of them.
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d3084497...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
> She isn't taking into account
>> the fact that a bigger house, more heat, more detergent, more body
>> soap, more shampoo, more EVERYTHING is used when you have children.
>
>
>yes - i figure that into my grocery bill. Josh shares our toothpaste -
>toilet paper - shampoo etc...
But you still use more than if Josh weren't there.
>I would not have to do 75+ loads of
>> clothes monthly, or so many other things would be the same for 1 person
>> than 4 (5 counting my husband).
>
>I do Josh's laundrey with my own. It has never been an incredible burden
>that I think I should be compsensated for.
But you still use more detergent etc than if Josh weren't there.
>> I was also amused that she doesn't allow her child to have sugar. You
>> can bet that kid will be the one to eat other kid's candies in school.
>
>Yeah - and My son will have healthy teeth and gums and eat healthy.
My sons have absolutely perfect teeth... they have a moderate amount of
sugary things.
[breast feeding]
>I do know for a fact that my son is healthier and better adjusted than
>most kids with regards to it. He doesnt sleep with a bottle, and he
>doesnt go through more than 1 pull up diaper a day (for sleeping in) and
>He gets immunizations from me EVERYTIME he latches on.
And all your illnesses too. The immunisation only really happens for the
first few months. He'll probably be out of nappies shortly altogether
then... seems to be about 3 for boys, but nothing to do with whether or
not they are breast-fed.
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
Cici Clovis
>In article <5a5pur$q...@newsfeed.gte.net>, Cici Clovis
><ccl...@mail.gte.net> writes
>>>Meaghan said:
>>>Well actually I figure it costs about $4.00 a day to provide meals for
>>>Josh. As such - $4.00 times 30 days - equals less than $120.00 a month
>>>for food.
>>
>>Wanna trade? With my son (age 16), the rate approaches $4.00 an HOUR.
>>Where does he PUT it all?
>>
>>There's only one explanation -- the kid has a Black Hole in his stomach.
>Agreed - mine are now 12 and 13... they eat faster than I can buy the
>stuff and carry it home from the shop! I was being kind to the mother of
>a toddler who doesn't seem to realise what's about to hit her in a very
>few years time! :-)
Shh, don't tell her, it'll spoil the surprise.
Seriously, there's a lot to be said for enjoying the now and not worrying
oneself sick over the future. With one brother and three stepbrothers, all
over 6'4", I had a pretty fair idea of what I was up against. That didn't
do much to cushion the shock on the day my son first used an entire loaf of
bread and two pounds of lunchmeat to make sandwiches which he ate all in
one day IN ADDITION to his regular meals. That was four years ago, and he
shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon. You can see why I favor the
Black Hole theory.
Cici in Texas
ccl...@mail.gte.net
Cici Clovis
On Sun, 29 Dec 1996 21:32:59 +0000, Pat Winstanley
<pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
..............snip..............
>Yes, I can put the part worn clothes away for the Terrible, younger one,
>but I still need to buy new for Horrible! And this is the first time
>that I can't do a straight hand-me-down as despite only about a year's
>age gap there is a good foot in height between them at the moment.
Well, wait ten minutes, Terrible will catch up. At least you "planned"
better than I did . . . my younger child is a girl! Older Brother lives
in blue jeans -- Younger Sister refused to wear blue jeans until about two
years ago. I was SO relieved the first time she picked up a pair of
Brother's blue jeans from the giveaway pile and asked if she could try them
on.
>Incidentally, did/have you noticed an age (about 7-11) where they wear
>holes into their clothes/shoes faster than they grow out of them?
I don't know about Bonnie, but *I* sure did. Didn't take me long to learn
to add patches on the insides of the knees of the NEW blue jeans. My son
was very sensitive about wearing anything that -looked- patched (bit of
schoolyard teasing going on), but he didn't mind the extra layers on the
inside. He and I have now come full circle, as *I* am wearing the jeans he
has grown out of. (Which is a pretty weird feeling, trust me.)
>Pat
>=====================================
>Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
>pee...@cix.co.uk
>pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
>Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
>=====================================
>Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
Cici in Texas
ccl...@mail.gte.net
Pat Winstanley
In article <5a8pil$f...@news4.gte.net>, Cici Clovis
<ccl...@mail.gte.net> writes
>I am not exaggerating when I say that I once found myself arguing with my
>daughter about whether or not the sky is blue. How do I get suckered into
>these discussions, anyway?
>
ROFL!
Dunno... but do please let me know if you find out because I'm in
exactly the same position! :-)
LilChica
> >
> >Breastfeeding at age 3? You will have to start weening this child,
> >pronto. How do you breastfeed when he is, or should be, attending
> >pre-school?
> Hmmmm, I nursed mine til they were 3. I see no problem with this. We
> never even set up cribs for the last 2 cuz, egads! they slept with us til
> they were old enough for a regular bed. I also see no need to send a
> child to pre-school, or to school at all (it's off topic, I realize, but
> homeschooling is an entirely reasonable alternative)...different
> strokes....
Perhaps it was in reference to Meaghan's advocacy of daycares as being
*better* than some parents. Perhaps the assumption was made that
Meaghan utilizes daycare facilities (those *without* a wet-nurse I
presume..)
LilChica
TANSTAAFL wrote:
snip
> Yup - Maybe all of $30.00 for the past 2 years (prescriptions) and
> $180.00 for 3 years of medical coverage.
Helloo??!! I would pay $3,150 for 3 years to purchase medical insurance
for one child (and that is just the difference between the single and
family premiums)! And that only covers a percentage.. AFTER the
deductible...
snip
>
> I only have one kid - and I know for a fact - that a one bedroom
> apartment is more than acceptable. I sleep in the living room on a
> hideabed - and he sleeps in his bedroom. ( I did that for almost one year
> months) then moved to a place where rent was much cheaper - as was the
> cost of living... A more rural part of the country.
Not everyone can afford cars. Some of us who have to work for a living
have to get there too, which means living close to work or on a
busline. (Not everyone can sit at home and make $$$)
> It was amazing - I got a 2 bedroom home - off the reserve for less than
> $200.00 a month..
Rent here in Green Bay WI for 2 bedrooms... roughly $550. One
bedrooms... roughly $300. And this is cheaper than other cities in WI.
So I could say it costs me $250 to house my child, not including
utilities, etc. (And no way am I sharing a bedroom with my
pre-pubescent son!)
snip
>
> It didnt take forever to get in.. and the fact that I was working and
> going to school and totally supporting my son (without a welfare cheque)
> pushed me up the list a lot faster. My Band elders respected that
> immensly.
Again, not federal welfare benefits, but Indian welfare benefits?
snip
>
> Then again - I dont see $$$$ as being the defining factor of my son's
> relationship with his bio father.
I'm sorry, did I miss something? I didn't think he HAD a relationship
with his bio father.
TANSTAAFL
In article <9faNjcAK...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
[breast feeding]
> >I do know for a fact that my son is healthier and better adjusted than
> >most kids with regards to it. He doesnt sleep with a bottle, and he
> >doesnt go through more than 1 pull up diaper a day (for sleeping in) and
> >He gets immunizations from me EVERYTIME he latches on.
>
> first few months. He'll probably be out of nappies shortly altogether
> then... seems to be about 3 for boys, but nothing to do with whether or
> not they are breast-fed.
>
Actually - they get antibodies for as long as they breasfeed.
And breastmilk is pure food - it is more effiently digested than ANY
other kind of food - so there is less waste produced - as such - less
pee.
Brestfeeding actually increases my health. My Breatmilk produces
antibodies for the milk before it does for Me. Natures way of insuring
that babies get an edge on keeping away from illness.
I have often gotten colds that just totally bipassed my son.
Like I said - he has only been sick 2 times that required me to go to a
doctor and get any type of prescription or over the counter medication.
And one of those times was when he got Diahreeha on our Trip to Atlanta -
and the Doctor that I saw - suggested I up my breastfeeding - since it
was so easy on his system, and get pedialyte and no solid food.
Otherwise I would have been stuck buying a case of SOY Formula.
I estimate that breastfeeding alone over the past 3 years has saved me
well over $3000.00 in formula, milk and diapers and illness related
costs.
Also - women who have breastfeed for longer than 2 years decrease their
chance of getting breastcancer by as much as 25%.
And there has never been a documented case of a women getting
breastcancer while she was nursing.
I could go on - But I guess you get the point. I also figure - Josh is
going to be my only child - Ron and I dont want any more kids - So even
through nursing is not the most comfortable thing all the time - and it
is a downright pain in the ass to have Josh wanting to nurse - it has
gotten better with his verbal skills - when he says "Want to Boob please"
- and I can say "later josh" and he understandsand I wontbe doing it
forever and I wont be doing it again.. so why not make the most of it.
The LeLeche League says that if you wait - your child will gradually get
to the point where they will wean themselves. I hope so.. I really really
hope so. :)
It is also sometimes funny that he views my breasts as his personal and
private property - and quite confidently will pat them while we are
sitting down and say "My boobs" :)
I will say "No - mummys boobs " and he just smiles and says "No.. _MY_
boobs" very quietly and confidently.
Meaghan Walker
momo...@aol.com
>In <BeRSTuAn...@pierless.demon.co.uk> Pat Winstanley
><pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>In article <MPG.d2f367ca...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
>><yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>>>In article <lherspAb...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
>>>pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
>>>> In article <MPG.d2b02a08...@news.bcsupernet.com>,
>Ye...@get.rea
>>>> l.likeI'mgonnatell*YOU* writes
>>>> >My son's expenses in total never reach more than $180.00 a month -
>there
>>>> >abouts.
>>>>
>***********************************************************************
>I got to this part and started wondering how someone could possibly
>raise a child for less than $200.00 per month. I then read the
>remainder of the message and realized she doesn't realize that this
>child is NOT being raised on $180.00 per month. If she didn't have
>special health care, that would cost. She isn't taking into account
>the fact that a bigger house, more heat, more detergent, more body
>soap, more shampoo, more EVERYTHING is used when you have children. I
>have three kids and I would not kid myself into thinking I would have a
>4 bedroom house if I lived alone, I would not have to do 75+ loads of
>clothes monthly, or so many other things would be the same for 1 person
>than 4 (5 counting my husband).
>I was also amused that she doesn't allow her child to have sugar. You
>can bet that kid will be the one to eat other kid's candies in school.
>Whenever anything is taboo the child will seek it out. I never denied
>my kids candies or sweets, just limited amounts, the will pass on junk
>food a lot of times in favor of other things.
>
>Breastfeeding at age 3? You will have to start weening this child,
>pronto. How do you breastfeed when he is, or should be, attending
>pre-school?
---------------------------------
Hmmmm, I nursed mine til they were 3. I see no problem with this. We
never even set up cribs for the last 2 cuz, egads! they slept with us til
they were old enough for a regular bed. I also see no need to send a
child to pre-school, or to school at all (it's off topic, I realize, but
homeschooling is an entirely reasonable alternative)...different
strokes....
--------------------------------
Andi
>No, you don't "Charge" your child for basics such as laundry or
>transportation, but get real, these things cost $.
>
>
>Roanna
>mother of 3 - 2 sons ages 25 yrs. and 11 yrs, 1 daughter age 9 1/2
>
>ps - wait until he hits those clothes milestones - one size different
>turns into $5.00 different in price (6x to 7, 14 to 16)
>
>
>------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>newsbf05.news.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!howland.
erols.net!worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!news
>From: chia...@ix.netcom.com (Roanna Krisko)
>Newsgroups: alt.child-support
>Subject: Re: Question for Leigh
>Date: 29 Dec 1996 19:20:03 GMT
>Organization: Netcom
>Lines: 46
>Message-ID: <5a6g93$e...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
>References: <32C03A...@itol.com> <32C101...@express-news.net>
><BeRSTuAn...@pierless.demon.co.uk>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: sac-ca7-24.ix.netcom.com
>X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Dec 29 11:20:03 AM PST 1996
>
>
LilChica
Cici Clovis wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Dec 1996 15:25:00 +0000, Pat Winstanley
> <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <5a5pur$q...@newsfeed.gte.net>, Cici Clovis
> ><ccl...@mail.gte.net> writes
>
> >>>Well actually I figure it costs about $4.00 a day to provide meals for
> >>>Josh. As such - $4.00 times 30 days - equals less than $120.00 a month
> >>>for food.
> >>
> >>Wanna trade? With my son (age 16), the rate approaches $4.00 an HOUR.
> >>Where does he PUT it all?
> >>
> >>There's only one explanation -- the kid has a Black Hole in his stomach.
>
> >Agreed - mine are now 12 and 13... they eat faster than I can buy the
> >stuff and carry it home from the shop! I was being kind to the mother of
> >a toddler who doesn't seem to realise what's about to hit her in a very
> >few years time! :-)
>
> Shh, don't tell her, it'll spoil the surprise.
>
> Seriously, there's a lot to be said for enjoying the now and not worrying
> oneself sick over the future. With one brother and three stepbrothers, all
> over 6'4", I had a pretty fair idea of what I was up against. That didn't
> do much to cushion the shock on the day my son first used an entire loaf of
> bread and two pounds of lunchmeat to make sandwiches which he ate all in
> one day IN ADDITION to his regular meals. That was four years ago, and he
> shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon. You can see why I favor the
> Black Hole theory.
>
> Cici in Texas
> ccl...@mail.gte.net
And of course, as they eat, they grow. New clothes, new shoes....
My son is only 10, but I know his dad grew fast (had STRETCH MARKS on
his arms from growing too fast for his SKIN!) and is 6'4"...
Forget about saving for college... shoot I should be saving for tennis
shoes.... ;)
LilChica
TANSTAAFL wrote:
> >
> > A query. Did you ever live on your own, off your own wages, before your
> > little one arrived?
>
> Yes for about 6 years.
You were living on your own at 15? No parental $$$ to support you? No
living w/boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever?
LilChica
Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> Incidentally, did/have you noticed an age (about 7-11) where they wear
> holes into their clothes/shoes faster than they grow out of them?
There is a store in the US (Shopko) that GUARANTEES that if your kids
wear out their clothes before they grow out of them, they will be
REPLACED for FREE.
Theres gotta be a catch!!
TANSTAAFL
In article <rf+IjhAa...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.d308ef73...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
> <yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
> >> >am his mother and I chose to be a parent. If I was in an intact family I
> >> >certainly wouldnt expect to get PAID to wash my kids clothes.
> >>
> >> Neither do I, but I still have to buy extra washing powder because of
> >> them, and leave the heating on longer to dry their clothes.
> >>
> >
> >Ok - I'll be generous.. Making sure that none of your clothes get washed
> >with theirs... lets say you spend an extra $5.00 a month on laundrey
> >detergent.
> >
> >As for heating... or the cost of extra hydro - Would you be reimbursing
> >your ex for his cost to do the laundrey if the kids were there with him
> >1/2 the time>?
>
Hydro - is the BC equivlent to electricity.
>
> I never charged him for when I did it all.
>
> Overall I'm talking about the fact that caring for a child costs more
> (and not just in food) than not caring for a child. You seem to be sort
> of accepting this, but turning it all back on reimbursmet.
Thats what Child Support awards are about.
If a woman decides she wants to be a SAHM - that is her decision - it is
not a *right* - If she wants that - if she wants children - that is HER
choice and she doesnt deserve some special compensation for it from
anybody INCLUDING the NCP.
If it puts her in a bad situation with regard to emplopyment this is
something she should consider _before_ she decides to have children and
be a SAHM. If she values being a mother and being a SAHM then by all
means she should do that - I am not opposed to it. I am opposed to
somebody making a decision unilaterally to be a parent, and unilaterally
deciding to be a SAHM and then forcing either the taxpayers or her ex
spouse or partner to compesate her efforts and decision.
Those are her values - she has no right to impose her values on other
people - especially not at the gun point of taxation or Child Support
Court.
If the family was intact - the woman would not be getting this special
consideration for her decision. The partner would do his best to provide
and she would make her decison and things roll along and nobody is put
out - or forced to support their decisions.
However - in an intact family - if the father lost his job, or became
disabled - the mother would be forced to pursue another type of
occupation - if she wanted her children to eat etc.. and for the family
to survive.
The problem I see is this... If you award child support on the basis that
whoever decided to stay at home with the kids gets to do so NO MATTER
what happens (post divorce) it creates a slave of the person trying to
support the children.
By law - if he can not provide the extras's (which SAHM lifestyle is- it
is a luxury whether you chose to believe so or not) - he could go to jail
- face federal prison, lose his drivers liscenc etc... or be indebted for
20 years.
There is no safety net for the NCP. But there is all sort of protection
for the CP - and this protection is really a racket just like any other
kind of racket.
If they divorce - and she still wants to be a SAHM - then it is up to her
to make sure she has the adequete funds to support that luxury. If the
Father feels after the divorce that he doesnt mind paying those
additional costs so that his Children are at home instead of in daycare -
there is nothing stopping him from voluntarily providing it.
If he doesnt feel that he desires for his children to have these things..
then he should not be legally compelled to provide them. He wouldnt be
legally compelled to provide them if he was in an intact marriage.
Mother at Home with the Kids till Age of school - IS a tremendous luxury.
30 years ago - with the spending value of a dollar and with taxation
being considerably lower - it wasnt that big a chunk of money... and One
income families were the norm.
People who have the means to do this today are fortunate. It doesnt mean
parents are bad parents if they chose to have different dynamics in the
care of their children.
I personally work out of my home - on my computer. I generate enough
income that I and my son are not a burden to my partner. I pay our bills
and then some. My fiance works 60 some hours a week - I work 20-30 hours
in addition to raising Josh - and keeping house and putting supper and
lunch on the table everyday .
It is a tiresome schedual - but we both value having Josh at home. I
imagine that if I wasnt living with Ron - I would have to have josh in
Daycare on a part time basis again. But that seems to be almost a moot
point since he will be in preschool soon.
The deal is... These are OUR values - and we are not imposing them on
anybody else. If Ron lost his Job - I would be the one out working 60
hours a week and he would be at home with Josh and doing part time work
on the puter (since we both participate in my business).
But in no way - should Josh's father be forced to supplement my income in
such a way - that my decision to raise josh in my home is paid for by his
efforts.
Those are not his values and I have no right to impose my decision to
stay with my son at home on him.
And that Is why I think it is an arbitrary process by which you have
concluded that being a SAHM deserves some special compensation. It is a
luxury choice - not a BASIC one.
I'n not
> *interested* in reimbursement... just what it actually costs to raise a
> child, so that some of the NCPs in here will realise that it does cost a
> significant amount do do so, whether they are asked for contributions or
> not.
The average award for most of the men on this board is OVER $600.00 a
month in child support - with some of them paying as high as $1500.00
I think they are well aware of what it *basically* costs to raise their
kids - and if they were paying that - very few of them would complain.
many of them would just prefer to keep the money in their own pockets and
spend it on the kids Themselves - and most of them would be CP's in a
second and wouldnt give a damn about gettng child support - if they could
just be parents in their kids lives.
They dont need your reminders.
Meaghan Walker
TANSTAAFL
In article <32C83E...@itol.com>, yc...@itol.com says...
> TANSTAAFL wrote:
> > I only have one kid - and I know for a fact - that a one bedroom
> > apartment is more than acceptable. I sleep in the living room on a
> > hideabed - and he sleeps in his bedroom. ( I did that for almost one year
> > months) then moved to a place where rent was much cheaper - as was the
> > cost of living... A more rural part of the country.
>
> Not everyone can afford cars.
I didnt have a car untill Josh was over a year old.
Some of us who have to work for a living
> have to get there too, which means living close to work or on a
> busline. (Not everyone can sit at home and make $$$)
>
If you have a PC and basic windows skills and can learn HTML - you could
make money at home too.
I have made the offer to about 50 CP's on this board to go through the
process of turning their PC's into a money making machine... but so far
it is has only been a few NCP's that have taken me up on it.
Its not *easy* - it requires effort and time - and being willing to keep
your skills current and being aware of change in the market- and the
ablitity to sell your skills effectively
But it can be done.
but I digress.
> > It was amazing - I got a 2 bedroom home - off the reserve for less than
> > $200.00 a month..
>
> Rent here in Green Bay WI for 2 bedrooms... roughly $550. One
> bedrooms... roughly $300. And this is cheaper than other cities in WI.
> So I could say it costs me $250 to house my child, not including
> utilities, etc. (And no way am I sharing a bedroom with my
> pre-pubescent son!)
>
I know lots of single moms that sleep on hideabeds - and give their kids
a bedroom. Ron figures its fair enough to have a 2 bedroom place - I just
remember what rent in the city was compared to rent out here in the
sticks - Thats why I made the move - and I was able to afford a car less
than 4 months after I moved. It just seems odd to me to expect an ex to
finance anything on rent for the kid (unless he doesnt want visitation)
> snip
>
> >
> > It didnt take forever to get in.. and the fact that I was working and
> > going to school and totally supporting my son (without a welfare cheque)
> > pushed me up the list a lot faster. My Band elders respected that
> > immensly.
>
> Again, not federal welfare benefits, but Indian welfare benefits?
>
NO - Band benefits - as in Money Held in Trust by the government for the
rent collected by people (other than Indians) using our land.
> snip
>
> >
> > Then again - I dont see $$$$ as being the defining factor of my son's
> > relationship with his bio father.
>
> I'm sorry, did I miss something? I didn't think he HAD a relationship
> with his bio father.
>
Thats right - and I know for damn sure that if I place money as the
defining factor - he never WILL have one either.
Meaghan
TANSTAAFL
In article <32C83A...@itol.com>, yc...@itol.com says...
>
> Meaghan, are your Native Indian benefits not akin to welfare?
>
Well - no - My Band sort of considers it *rent*
As in - the government of Canada made an agreement with our tribes to
compesate us for the loss of use of our land - in 1865 - Then they
welched on it in 1867- And the government recognized that they did owe
the People of my tribe compensation.
The agreement was hammered out in 1968 - when my people were also given
the vote - and were offically allowed to live off and work off of the
reserves without governmental *permission* to do so.
My family owns a huge tract of land that was built on by a private
company that has paid the government rent for the past 40 years.
Currently there are some nice housing complexes - and a Big Mall -
sitting there- and the government collects monies from it on our behalf.
But (in its benevolent Nanny State way) it choses to distribute it -
amongst our tribe as it see's fit - rather than let us manage the
properties that we own outright.
As such - with current negotiations underway - The government seems to be
stalling untill the Bills are even. Every Road, Sewage treatment plant,
Clinic, Welfare Cheque - medical, dental etc... is deducted from the
overall lump sum owed to us. And the number devides everytime a new
member is born - or registered -
It isnt a free lunch - its late - late late Rent for the use of our land.
The Way my band elders tell it - it is better to get the funds now - with
governmental permission - before the the pot diminishes to such an extent
that it will be worthless.
For more info - check out Canadian national News on the settlement
between a much smaller tribe in Northern Canada about 6 months ago.
The government awarded $780,000 + to each band member and gave them back
title to exclusive use of their land.
That is the difference in Canada between a Status Indian and a Treaty
Status Indian.
Meaghan Walker
TANSTAAFL
I have lived on my own since I was 16.
And I worked and travlled all over North America and other parts of the
world.
Hitchhiked across the US with an Aussie Boyfriend - Moved to Hawaii -
worked in Banff , Whistler, Lake Louise, Rogers Pass etc..Montreal- New
York - Even spent 4 months working my way through Ireland :)
I Paid my own way through completing High school - then had to go back
when my son was 4 months old - to get my Grade 12- but before then I had
gone to college for 9 months and got my First Year (I did things kinda
backwards)
My Dad as he promised to do = helped with my tuition when I was 19 for 8
months - but disagreed with me about my courses = and withdrew his
support in the second semester. He wanted me to take more maths and less
Arts courses - and wasnt satisfied with my goals to major in psychology.
He has always thought I should be a lawyer - and in my advanced years - I
am tending to agree with him.
Untill I had Josh - I never lived with boyfriends - or girlfriends - Have
roomed with people in all sorts of places - and spent time on couches and
in sleeping bags on floors. I wasnt interested in getting married till I
was in my 30's - and I didnt think I was going to have a kid untill I was
married.
Then the sponge sort of changed that - and I had to change plans.
It was quite the change for me to go from Free Spirit world traveller -
to domestic mother of child - with bread machine and baking cookies
etc...
pregnancy does strange things to some people.
I havent looked back. I did enough living in that 6 years that when it
was time to settle down with Josh and raise him - it was nice and
comfortable - harder - and more demanding... but it gave me a sense of
purpose and direction that I had not found in those years of going
bannanas all over the world.
Meaghan Walker
TANSTAAFL
In article <32C843...@itol.com>, yc...@itol.com says...
> momo...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <5a6g93$e...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, chia...@ix.netcom.com
> > (Roanna Krisko) writes:
> > >
> > >Breastfeeding at age 3? You will have to start weening this child,
> > >pronto. How do you breastfeed when he is, or should be, attending
> > >pre-school?
> > ---------------------------------
> > Hmmmm, I nursed mine til they were 3. I see no problem with this. We
> > never even set up cribs for the last 2 cuz, egads! they slept with us til
> > they were old enough for a regular bed. I also see no need to send a
> > child to pre-school, or to school at all (it's off topic, I realize, but
> > homeschooling is an entirely reasonable alternative)...different
> > strokes....
>
> *better* than some parents. Perhaps the assumption was made that
> Meaghan utilizes daycare facilities (those *without* a wet-nurse I
> presume..)
>
Has no woman on this group ever heard of a breast pump????
Egads!!!
I did not say Daycare is better - I said it is not an unhealthy or bad
alternative. In some cases with some parents it is even *desirable*
Meghan
TANSTAAFL
In article <5a7cr9$n...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
chia...@ix.netcom.com says...
> >I assure you - I do know exactly how much it costs to raise my child -
> I
> >have been doing it for a number of years.
>
> you are such an inexperienced, no nothing novice.
>
Thats funny - If I am such a dimwit - how come I was smart enough to only
bring ONE child into this world to support - instead of Herds of them at
the taxpayers and the Fathers expense to keep you in bon bons.
> Just because I dont view my son
> >as a means to extort insane ammounts of child support doesnt make me a
>
> >dim wit.
> >
>
> Perhaps that doesn't but Darling, you are a dimwit. Who the hell do
> you think you are saying you are raising your son on such a limited
> amount of $.
I make $1700.00 a month working part time.
thats $35.00 an hour. How much do you make an hour dear?
The god damned government is paying to raise your son.
Huh? I dont collect WELFARE UI or any of that blood money.
Why
> should other people pay that amount? The parents are the ones that did
> the deed and damn it they should be the ones to support the child. You
> get Indian $, Canadian government $.
The government has *my land* for their exclusive use - It was THIER deal
with MY tribes. If you want to get going on that.. then let me warn you -
I have spent the last 4 months working for 2 tribal offices preparing WWW
documents for their Treaty Negotiations Offices.Lets go you simpering
ignorant bitch.
I'll take you on - and I have the facts at my disposal to make my case.
IF the government wants to give me back the land that they allowed a
private company to build a shopping mall on - or give us the rent and
taxes they collected for it - for the past 40 years - then I woul be
happy to take that in exchange - the estimation would be approximatley
$1.7 million dollars in tota for each member of my tribe.
That ammount diminishes significantly everytime a child is born into my
tribe - or the government hands out more welfare cheques to the people of
my tribe.
> > pre-school?
> >>
> >
> >Well - My son breastfeeds twice a day now.. and he likes the closeness
>
> >and the feeling.
>
> Stick a bottle in your bra.
>
Yeah - Guess you were one of the ones that couldnt produce enough for
your kids...
Get some professional help for your latent agressions towards those of us
who managed to stick with Breastfeeding. Breast is Best. But I guess
since you are an old cow you are biased towards Bottles.
> Mothers milk is mothers milk... Cows arent Mothers to
> >babies and children - now are they.
> >
> >It is only with recent conventions and weird ideas about bodies and
> such
> >(that you have obviously been brainwashed into believing)
>
> Don't even go there. Female circumcision is also custom in a lot of
> parts of the world and we all know that is sick and demented.
>
Oh - right... You are going to compare Breatfeeding with Female
Circumcision????
Please - Logical Fallacy. How is Breastfeeding harmfull to my child?
> that would
> >suggest breatfeeding is unnatural. It is the most natural thing in the
>
> >world... And in Some Countries in the world - It is done to age 5 -
> >although I dont think I will continue that much longer.
>
> See above
I did - and I addressed it - You are using a logical fallacy and
equivocation.
> >
> >I do know for a fact that my son is healthier and better adjusted than
>
> >most kids with regards to it. He doesnt sleep with a bottle,
>
> Nor should he have ever slept with a bottle.
Well you are the one that is so shit hot on sticking bottles in his
mouth.
>
> and he
> >doesnt go through more than 1 pull up diaper a day (for sleeping in)
> and
> >He gets immunizations from me EVERYTIME he latches on.
>
> You, my darling, are so underwhelmed with facts.
> >
Oh - and you, you sorry old cunt are such a toss pott that you make me
want to hurl. You just want to LEECH off of your EX and it disturbs you
that there are women who call you on your disgusting Secondhanded
Mentality of Living off of other people.
> >Contrary to your belief - Cows Milk doesnt do that. My son also has a
> >tendancy to be lactose intolerant some times... Breatmilk beats Cow
> Milk
> >in that regard and is much better for him than SOY products.
> >
> >> No, you don't "Charge" your child for basics such as laundry or
> >> transportation, but get real, these things cost $.
> You are so stupid. I don't care if you do the neighbors clothes with
> yours. More loads means more soap, more water, more electricity.
> And if you are the awsome mother that you have so incorrectly labeled
> yourself then you would know to do a babies clothes separately.
> >>
Yeah - And if you didnt want to do laundrey for your kids - you shouldnt
have become a parent.
> >>
> >
> >yes - and these are the things I agreed to take care of when I became
> a
> >parent. I dont expect to be reimbursed for my decision to become a
> parent
> >- and I dont see my kid as a cash cow
>
>
> IS THIS NOT HIS SON ALSO?????????????? Get off government dole and
> make him pay for 1/2 the costs of raising a child.
THIS ISNT A GOVERNMENT DOLE.
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT THAT MY BAND MADE WITH THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT in
1865 to provide these services for my PEOPLE in excahnge for the blights
that were visited upon our people - and THE USE OF
_OUR_
Land - by their cizitizens.
If you have a problem with the government keeping their part of the
bargin - the the whole bloody lot of you WHITE ENGLISH SHITS can go back
to the country of your origin and give us back the land that YOU STOLE!
And they called *MY* people _Indian Givers_
LOL
>
> to get all these extras from my ex
> >-who would be providing them out of his own pocket if Josh was
> visiting
> >with him.
> >
> >If I wouldnt be reimbursing my ex for these extras while my son is in
> his
> >car - I dont think he should be compelled to reimburse me for them
> while
> >Josh is in my care.
> >
> >Then again - I dont see $$$$ as being the defining factor of my son's
> >relationship with his bio father.
> >
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
EMPHASIS MINE
ROanna - whoever the hell you are - you are a leech - an irresponsible
money sucking leech - who wants EVERYBODY to support your poor decisions
to bring not one But SEVERAL children into this world seemingly without
being able to properly provide for them
I would be more than happy to take the Land back that is mine - A tract
of Land on Vancouver Island - that belongs to my Band - and I would
happily take the rent on it that the government collects - and has
collected for the past 70 or so years .
Believe me - If I was getting rent from the white people living on my
land right now - I could retire in comfort.
But The government isnt going to do that - instead they have chosen to
admister the monies collected on our behalf to us in the manner of
providing a welfare system building roads, providing a clinic for us to
use, and providing grants for education.
The housing I spoke of was ALL privatley funded - and was a CO OP. I
guess you are too stupid to understand what that is. And I am not even
going to bother explaining it. When I was living there - I wasnt even
living on Canadian Soil - since a reserve is NOT Canadian Land.
As for the education - If I had the $1.4- $1.7 million that that is the
quota per Native person in my tribes for the past 25 years - I woulnt
need to rent anywhere- I could buy a nice home - on my land on the
reserve and retire their comfortable with my son and my white soon to be
husband.
So Dont speak of things you know NOTHING about - Dont sound of on
subjects that you are painfully ignorant - and stop trying to reinforce
the BREED FOR GREED mentality in your head
Nobody gives a shit about you and your 44 years of living off your Ex
and God Knows who else
Meaghan Walker
TANSTAAFL
In article <0$APLaAgn...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> >> (Noted that you don't have the silly medical expenses of the US, and
> >> have a system roughly the same as here where medical attention and
> >> prescriptions are dealt with in advance through general
> >> taxation/insurance etc).
> >
> >Well Canada has a more socialized medical system than the Us - but
> >crappier service as a result...And Most people in Canada dont get the
> >benefits that I do - as a result of the Treaty Negotiations between my
> >Band and the government a hundread years ago. I dont require my ex to
> >provide any type of medical expenses for Josh - since the coverage I have
> >for him is much more comprehensive.
>
> What would you do if you didn't have the Indian 'safety net'?
>
Well - I would be a very wealthy woman - I would own a tract of Land that
belongs to my family - that a mall is currently situated on - and have
gotten the monies from rent on that land for the past 70 or so years.
If I wasnt indian - I wouldnt have had my baby.
I would not have kept Josh - if I didnt have the means to be able to
support him. I would have given him up for adoption - and at one point in
the pregnancy when I was unable to work for a time - I did seriously
consider it.
> >> A query. Did you ever live on your own, off your own wages, before your
> >> little one arrived?
> >
> >Yes for about 6 years.
> >
> >
> > If so, look at the difference between what you
> >> needed to spend then and what you need to spend now.
> >>
> >
> >My costs didnt rise all that dramatically. It was maybe the equivelent of
> >putting $200.00 a month on a car.
> >
> How do you mean?
Well - I look at the books I have kept for the past 6 years - and I look
at our expenses - All household bills - and If I wasnt paying for Josh's
food, or additional expenses - I would have an extra $250-300 kicking
around each month.
I would agree - just i dont think That I personally should be compensated
or supported to parent my child.
> I lived on that sort of income for years, and we managed... just. I'm
> still trying to pay off the debts incurred in trying to keep them fed
> and warm and shod. A sudden growth spurt means new shoes at least, at
> about $20 a pair even for very cheap ones which are not particularly
> good for their feet. And the boys have a strict school uniform which
> means not just shopping around, but having little choice of where to
> shop. The cheapest place I could find to kit them out this year -
> September (replacing some items for growth and some for wear), and I
> have the bills in front of me...
Uniforms are a blessing. I mean it - Imagine how much money you would be
spending if you had to outfit them in a new wardrobe every year.
I had uniforms for 8 years of my schooling - and we used the consignment
section of the shop - does your school provide that - or swapping with
mates who had older brothers etc... Its a lot better to buy that school
blazer for $30.00 than $300.00
>
> Football shorts £3.25 and £2.99 (They both lost theirs!)
> Blazers £27.95 and £18.99 (elder [13] is in adult size which has VAT -
> tax - added)
> Trousers £16.99 (the younger moved into the eleder's outgrown ones)
>
> Total £70.17
>
> About $100 or more.
>
> Then, and you aren't going to believe this, not sure myself still, both
> the boys' trousers were stolen off the washing line at half term
> (October) so I had to keep them off school for the morning while we went
> to buy replacements... £13.99 and £18.99
>
Yes - I would believe it - Somebody must have been preety desperate to
steal a school uniform trouser - but then again.. I was mugged when I was
13 years old coming home from school in Down Town Vancouver - and the
bitch that held a knife to me - only wanted my SCHOOL SKIRT - when she
realized I didnt have any money.
> Total £32.98
>
> About $50
>
> Now, December, my elder son has shot up again and needs both new shoes
> and new trousers (also new shirts as they are now too tight round the
> collar as he's shot sideways too as he approaches man shape). This week
> I'll have to spend about $25 on shoes, $25 on trousers and $20 on
> shirts.
Have you looked into thrifts as a way to save on shoes. Seriously - and
investing in a shoe shine kit is a very good investment. I know some of
the shoes in Ron's closet are older than I am - but they look close to
brand new. Shoes are a killer - but if you buy GOOD quality -
doublestiched shoes - and resole them as the boys wear them out they can
last for years. If you want You can get Ron to Email your sons and
explain to them what the best kind of good looking classy shoes to buy
and how to restore them and keep them in good shape. It is his passion.
>
> Another $70
>
> Well over $200 in three months just for school uniform items, never mind
> leisure clothes. *All* the high schools round here have similar uniform
> requirements!
>
The good thing about uniforms is that you dont have to buy so many
clothes for day to day school wear. It is a cost cutter.
> It'll be easier when the younger needs shirts/trousers as he can usually
> manage on the hand-me-downs from the elder, if the elder hasn't worn
> them out (or had them stolen) before growing out of them.
Seriously check into consignment stores - they are often a bargain - and
does the school have a uniform shop - with consignment items in them?
Meaghan
Kandle
Lil Chica wrote:
>>Forget about saving for college... shoot I should be saving for tennis
>>shoes.... ;)
You gotta think investment, Lil Chica. Think big!
Buy stock in Nike or Adidas!!!!!!
Kandle
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
" The time has come, the Walrus said, to talk of many things..."
- Lewis Carroll ( who happens to reside on the shelf right beside
Mr. Stevenson, who stepped out for a bit, but is now back to
take his rightful credit.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cici Clovis
On Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:12:56 -0600, LilChica <yc...@itol.com> wrote:
>Rent here in Green Bay WI for 2 bedrooms... roughly $550. One
>bedrooms... roughly $300. And this is cheaper than other cities in WI.
>So I could say it costs me $250 to house my child, not including
>utilities, etc. (And no way am I sharing a bedroom with my
>pre-pubescent son!)
What? You mean you don't WANT to sleep with frogs? Tsk tsk tsk. (shaking
head)
Cici in Texas
ccl...@mail.gte.net
Cici Clovis
On 31 Dec 1996 03:02:47 GMT, kan...@aol.com (Kandle) wrote:
>Lil Chica wrote:
>>>Forget about saving for college... shoot I should be saving for tennis
>>>shoes.... ;)
>You gotta think investment, Lil Chica. Think big!
>Buy stock in Nike or Adidas!!!!!!
>Kandle
No, no, no! Doc Marten and New Balance -- and *I* will make you rich!
Mother of BigFoot.
Cici in Texas
ccl...@mail.gte.net
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d31bdaca...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>In article <0$APLaAgn...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
>pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
>> >> (Noted that you don't have the silly medical expenses of the US, and
>> >> have a system roughly the same as here where medical attention and
>> >> prescriptions are dealt with in advance through general
>> >> taxation/insurance etc).
>> >
>> >Well Canada has a more socialized medical system than the Us - but
>> >crappier service as a result...And Most people in Canada dont get the
>> >benefits that I do - as a result of the Treaty Negotiations between my
>> >Band and the government a hundread years ago. I dont require my ex to
>> >provide any type of medical expenses for Josh - since the coverage I have
>> >for him is much more comprehensive.
>>
>> What would you do if you didn't have the Indian 'safety net'?
>>
>
>Well - I would be a very wealthy woman - I would own a tract of Land that
>belongs to my family - that a mall is currently situated on - and have
>gotten the monies from rent on that land for the past 70 or so years.
>
>If I wasnt indian - I wouldnt have had my baby.
Why?
(BTW, is it politically correct to refer to you as Indians... I have no
intention of offence - to me it's just a short descriptive term with no
implied overtones, like French, or American, or Chinese or English or
whatever).
[some irrelevant stuff snipped for bandwidth]
>> I'm talking about *basic* costs! (Nothing to do with who pays, just how
>> much things cost). To keep my sons warm, reasonably fed, clean, housed
>> etc costs about $50 a week for each of them... NO luxuries!!! And about
>> $50 a week for me for the same so that I can take care of them. I'm an
>> inexpensive childminder! :-)
>>
>
>I would agree - just i dont think That I personally should be compensated
>or supported to parent my child.
Nor do I, in the sense you seem to mean it. At least not my half of what
it costs to care for a child. What I'm trying to say is that child-care
does cost, and the NCP's share of the average cost of day-care should be
paid to the CP. If the CP wants to use that to pay for external day-care
that's their decision, if they want to treat themself as the day-care,
that's their decision too. Using external day-care costs more, but
enables then to earn more. And vice versa. Their choice.
>Uniforms are a blessing. I mean it - Imagine how much money you would be
>spending if you had to outfit them in a new wardrobe every year.
>
>I had uniforms for 8 years of my schooling - and we used the consignment
>section of the shop - does your school provide that - or swapping with
>mates who had older brothers etc... Its a lot better to buy that school
>blazer for $30.00 than $300.00
$300 for a blazer!!! ????
Actually we do swaps and hand-me-downs between families and the school
too, but sometimes it's neccessary (even for the kids' pride now and
again) to buy new. I was a second child and had to have my brother's
hand-me-downs for years... it was lovely to get something new from a
shop now and again (I was also a tomboy so having boys clothes didn't
bother me at all).
And I think uniforms are a great idea too. No more argumants in the
morning about what to wear, and an end to one-upmanship (more or less)
of the latest trainers or whatever. What strikes me as faintly
ridiculous is that much as kids protest that they hate uniforms, the
first thing they do when they get home is change into exactly the same
leisure uniform as all the other kids! :-)
>> Then, and you aren't going to believe this, not sure myself still, both
>> the boys' trousers were stolen off the washing line at half term
>> (October) so I had to keep them off school for the morning while we went
>> to buy replacements... £13.99 and £18.99
>>
>
>Yes - I would believe it - Somebody must have been preety desperate to
>steal a school uniform trouser - but then again.. I was mugged when I was
>13 years old coming home from school in Down Town Vancouver - and the
>bitch that held a knife to me - only wanted my SCHOOL SKIRT - when she
>realized I didnt have any money.
Forgive me, ROFL! I can just imagine it... a nightmare at the time, but
hilarious looking back...
>Have you looked into thrifts as a way to save on shoes.
Yes - we buy relatively cheaply, but shoes (rather than trainers) are
one thing I won't hand down or buy second hand, not for growing feet.
> Seriously - and
>investing in a shoe shine kit is a very good investment. I know some of
>the shoes in Ron's closet are older than I am - but they look close to
>brand new. Shoes are a killer - but if you buy GOOD quality -
>doublestiched shoes - and resole them as the boys wear them out they can
>last for years.
Lovely idea, but can you tell me how to tell the boys' feet to stop
growing? Buying good quality shoes is the ideal, but it just doesn't
help when they outgrow them in the space of a month or two. They might
be beautifully kept, and look really classy, but are useless if the shoe
is shorter than the foot.
> If you want You can get Ron to Email your sons and
>explain to them what the best kind of good looking classy shoes to buy
>and how to restore them and keep them in good shape. It is his passion.
In a few years when they stop growing, perhaps! For now I buy a quality
of clothes and shoes for them that I estimate will wear out as they are
grown out of. :-)
>
>>
>> Another $70
>>
>> Well over $200 in three months just for school uniform items, never mind
>> leisure clothes. *All* the high schools round here have similar uniform
>> requirements!
>>
>
>The good thing about uniforms is that you dont have to buy so many
>clothes for day to day school wear. It is a cost cutter.
Well, yes and no... they still need leisure clothes too. It's easier
rather than cheaper.
>
>
>> It'll be easier when the younger needs shirts/trousers as he can usually
>> manage on the hand-me-downs from the elder, if the elder hasn't worn
>> them out (or had them stolen) before growing out of them.
>
>Seriously check into consignment stores - they are often a bargain - and
>does the school have a uniform shop - with consignment items in them?
'Consignment stores'? Is that like what we call 'seconds'? Decent
quality clothes from good manufacturers that aren't quite perfect
(colour/shape/stitching etc)? Or simply end of season leftovers from
ranges that were/are perfect? Our open air markets generally deal in
these and there are some good bargains to be had (and some terrible
ones).
I'm presuming your 'thrift' stores are what we refer to as 'charity'
(they are run by charities and sell decent donated second hand clothes
about half the price of new - the proceeds going to charity rather than
them handing charity to the buyer)? There are regular collections here
for clothes for these... the boy's stuff is very rarely 'decent' enough
to donate, except as rags! :-)
They work well if you have the time to hunt. For a couple of years I was
full time at college, plus a part time accounts job, plus full time care
of the kids, no car, without a partner in sight, not even at arms
length... forget the bargain hunting - no time or energy left over! :-)
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d31b70fb...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>>
>> Hydro? (Sorry, not familiar with that term)
>
>Hydro - is the BC equivlent to electricity.
Cheers... not come across that one before!
>If a woman decides she wants to be a SAHM - that is her decision - it is
>not a *right* - If she wants that - if she wants children - that is HER
>choice and she doesnt deserve some special compensation for it from
>anybody INCLUDING the NCP.
>
>If it puts her in a bad situation with regard to emplopyment this is
>something she should consider _before_ she decides to have children and
>be a SAHM. If she values being a mother and being a SAHM then by all
>means she should do that - I am not opposed to it. I am opposed to
>somebody making a decision unilaterally to be a parent, and unilaterally
>deciding to be a SAHM and then forcing either the taxpayers or her ex
>spouse or partner to compesate her efforts and decision.
There's more to it than that, though. As I mentioned earlier, from the
basis of a (then apparently) stable marriage my ex and I agreed that I
should be a SAHM, at least until the kids started school. This was
mainly his choice rather than mine as he was brought up on the idea that
a man whose wife went out to work was seen as a poor provider. (Bear in
mind I'm about 20 years older than you and from a rather different
generation. Women of my generation were brought up to expect to be a
SAHM whether they liked it or not).
Now I could have popped the kids into daycare and continued to follow my
well paid *career*, but chose to go along with my husband's wishes, and
stayed at home. Over the first few years of the kids there were constant
fights and disagreements when I began to build a small business from
home. He felt even that was a slight on his manhood (I was probably
earning, net, about $10-$20 a week!!!) But just being a SAHM was not
enough to keep me occupied. What I was aiming for was to build up the
business (I was a freelance journo) to the point that when they started
school I could still stay at home as he (and to a large extent I)
wished, but work about half a week AT HOME while they were at school,
and gradually end up earning enough to significantly supplement our
joint income, and take some of the breadwinning and luxury earning
burden off him.
His attitude (and reaction) to this was one of the biggest factors that
broke our marriage, but by the time that happened the fact was that I
had lost continuity of employment (and lost track of everyday changes
in) accountancy, and was back to square 1 - full time work and
correspondence courses at home in the evenings to catch up.
Alternatively I could continue with the teleworking journo stuff and
build that up, with no phone and no money or time to get to the PR
'bashes' to continue keeping abreast of new products and building the
network.
Then what?
>The problem I see is this... If you award child support on the basis that
>whoever decided to stay at home with the kids gets to do so NO MATTER
>what happens (post divorce) it creates a slave of the person trying to
>support the children.
See above... the SAHM can be that cheerfully, but reluctantly, and try
to help out financially, and still end up (physically) beaten into the
ground!
>
>Mother at Home with the Kids till Age of school - IS a tremendous luxury.
>30 years ago - with the spending value of a dollar and with taxation
>being considerably lower - it wasnt that big a chunk of money... and One
>income families were the norm.
Exactly!! I didn't have my sons until I was 30+. I was born early 50's,
the boys were born early 80's. At the time I had them attitudes were
changing, but I, and most of the other mums round here, and the dads,
were brought up in a world different to yours...
>I personally work out of my home - on my computer. I generate enough
>income that I and my son are not a burden to my partner. I pay our bills
>and then some. My fiance works 60 some hours a week - I work 20-30 hours
>in addition to raising Josh - and keeping house and putting supper and
>lunch on the table everyday .
Likewise... now... but I refused to take another partner to *displace*
Dad for the kids. About two years after my ex's death I entered a new
partnership. My partner isn't and never will be the boys' Daddy, but he
is a male figure they love (have known and loved well for about 5 years)
and is helping to take over as a parent where their bio Daddy left off
(not Daddy's fault... you don't deliberately die of cancer).
My ex's mother still is and has always been a strong part of the boys'
daily lives (they see her once or twice a week each and clean out her
cupboards and snuggle up a lot). Despite the divorce. Just as their
Daddy didn't stop being their Daddy just because he and I divorced,
Nanna didn't stop being Nanna!!!! And she is pleased to see the boys
with a male figure in their lives again, while sad that it isn't her
son.
>But in no way - should Josh's father be forced to supplement my income in
>such a way - that my decision to raise josh in my home is paid for by his
>efforts.
>
>Those are not his values and I have no right to impose my decision to
>stay with my son at home on him.
Fine... so why fight with Josh's father? He has made it clear he wants
nothing to do with Josh (according to what I have read)... ignore him!
Never mind pieces of paper such as adoption etc, live as a family and
ignore your son's bio Dad. You don't want anything from him... put him
out of your life altogether. As a safeguard you might want to lodge an
account with the familiy court (or your equivalent) to go into your case
notes, outlining the sort of stuff you say here. *If* he then comes back
at you at a later date, the evidence is there that he doesn't want to
know, and that Ron does.
>
>The average award for most of the men on this board is OVER $600.00 a
>month in child support - with some of them paying as high as $1500.00
On what income?
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
TANSTAAFL
In article <RZfmyRAR...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> Fine... so why fight with Josh's father? He has made it clear he wants
> nothing to do with Josh (according to what I have read)... ignore him!
> Never mind pieces of paper such as adoption etc, live as a family and
> ignore your son's bio Dad. You don't want anything from him... put him
> out of your life altogether. As a safeguard you might want to lodge an
> account with the familiy court (or your equivalent) to go into your case
> notes, outlining the sort of stuff you say here. *If* he then comes back
> at you at a later date, the evidence is there that he doesn't want to
> know, and that Ron does.
>
Problem is - this man has never been consistent with any position on this
for longer than 6 months at a stretch. He made noise last summer about
wanting to come and meet his son - and be involved in some capacity. We
were happy - willing to oblige - offered plane fare. When it came down to
making a purchase on a ticket - for a time that was convenient for him -
he backed down - well thats not the right word - he got on line with Ron
one day on the IRC and proceeded to tell Ron what a horrible person I was
- not to be trusted - and he couldnt see Josh - because this was all just
a scheme to get him to marry him - and Ron might be part of it - since he
has never met him - and how does he know that Ron might not be in on this
plot to *get at him* and anybody even connected to me was *suspect*...
This was quite disturbing- I got to see it when Ron brought me a log of
the conversation. And So I wrote him and said - if you dont want to be
part of Josh's life - then will you sign paperwork allowing Ron to adopt
Josh - that would also mean - Josh's birth certificate etc...
he refused - and then told Ron over the phone 'why dont you just sign it
- wouldnt that make things easier all around" - Ron said he wasnt willing
to lie to the courts to save him the trouble of admitting that Josh was
his... For medical reasons (if Josh needs info) for legal reasons - Josh
has a right to know his biological heritage - for moral reasons - Ron
shouldnt have to lie - to cover up his ability to not tell the truth.
Then he made the mistake of threatening to sue for custody. He said - he
wouldnt sign away his rights as a father - because he would want to be a
father - conditional to me being dead - or if I wanted to give up my
rights to Josh 100%.
So - There we were - with a threat for custody - after we had *tried* to
give him what he said he wanted.
Then we discussed adoption with our lawyer here in BC - who said it would
be iffy - All he has to to do contest it is write a letter to the judge
and say "I want to be involved in my son's life - but financially I can't
afford the money to visit him till he is older - and I have sent some
money for Josh's upkeep" - He sent $75.00 a month for 3 months last year.
And that would be it. End of proceedings. Thats the Law here in BC.
We would have to prove not only has he not been involved or concerned in
his son's life - he also had the resources to be - but chose not too.
If an application for adoption is turned down - it is 1-2 years before we
could reapply. Each time costing about $3000.00 His consent in writting
is what is required for us to be sure not to be wasting money on process
to be torn apart by his whim. And I could just see it - Him deciding last
minute "NO WAIT - THATS MY KID!"
Then I was in a car accident - and not badly hurt - but it occured to me
to find out what Ron's status would be - if something serious DID happen
to me- and josh was left. Ron wouldnt even be allowed in Josh's
hostpitalroom in such a situation or have a say in whats going on. And if
I died - there is every possiblity he would be ripped from the only
father he has known these past 2 years - to be placed with my ex and his
mother (who has openly said - "It should have been an abortion") And who
didnt offer to put her dogs in the kennel for a few weeks - when I
offered for his father to take Josh - so I could attend a pre law school
course in Sask. The answer I got was "My moms dogs arent good with kids"
- He would have rather I put Josh into foster care - than take his son
for 3 weeks. Yeah... _ and then he threatened to sue me for custody. Yes
- like that is a HEALTHY environment for my kid to grow up in eh? -
Apparently my ex had been told by his mother that she had wished he was
an abortion too - (when he was young) it scarred him deeply.. and I dont
blame him for being a bit of a loon - with a mother like that.
> >
> >The average award for most of the men on this board is OVER $600.00 a
> >month in child support - with some of them paying as high as $1500.00
>
> On what income?
Depends - ask a few of them. David Bedard is a good one - So is Bill Holt
- havent seen him around... there are a few others - but I am sure they
will be willing to discuss the nitty grittys if you ask them. I dont want
to go posting peoples incomes - especially if I am not sure of them.
So thats why Adoption is so very important to us. I figure maybe when my
ex gets enough of his act together to stop living with his mom - maybe
his head will clear a bit too.
All I know is - He is really nice whenever we talk - but something
happens between the last time we talk and the next time - and he goes
apeshit and paranoid - even though he agrees with any points I raised in
a previous conversation.
Somebody is influencing his decision making. And as some sort of proof of
that - He never even disputed he was the father of Josh - untill after
Josh was born - then he wanted a blood test. When I spoke to his mother
upon getting the results - she STILL even with DNA blood test results in
hand maintains that Josh should have been born in October - if he was
Alans. hint - we were together for the month of March and April. Josh was
born January 12 - 2 weeks late. My guess is the old hag did her math
wrong - and My ex didnt even bother to check it out with a doctor or a
biology textbook - before accusing me of sleeping around on him - and
then by then it was too late to back down from the accusation and so he
claimed I might have had a lover on the sly - while I was in Hawaii
visiting him - spending pretty much 24 hours a day in his company. I
laughed at this - he didnt.
Then recently - he was trying to find a way to have the DNA test made
inadmissable because it hadnt been done in a US clinic. (If he had paid
for it - it would have been - but he refused to pay)
So - you see - its has been almost 4 years of trying to believe the good
in somebody - trying to trust somebody to keep their word - and making as
much effort as possible to faccillitate a relationship between him and my
son and getting jerked around time and time again.
Oh yeah - I got on with my life - found a sane and really decent person -
who wants to share the rest of my life and Josh's life. And he is the one
who is picking up the slack for my ex- and doesnt mind - except - he has
no legal authority over stuff that is really important. Aside from
popping into this board every once inawhile - it isnt that much of a
deal. Here I can discuss new events as the happen - without boring any of
my friends... and I can get feedback from other CP's and NCP's about my
decision making process. And when I have a few hours to kill - its fun
to yammer away on here - even if its a few minutes to myself to just
spend excercising my brain in dialogue with adults.
Recently - Having heard that some CS has been collected - but hasnt
reached me yet - I emailed and said a breif thankyou. - and was shocked
when I actually got a response.
He says he is interested in the adoption again... and asked what our
position was. I sent him a response - which I posted here and have been
waiting for a week to get his feedback or friends on the groups feedback
on whats going on.
I dont think he is a bad person. I think he is confused - and wants to do
the right thing - but he doesnt know what that is. I sometimes dont know
what I should be doing aside from what we have done - which is to protect
Josh's legal rights - and try and set up the best situation possible for
everybody.
Unfortunatley - you can only do so much - if somebody is paranoid and
acting irrationally. I gave him the reality he demanded. Or to use a
brilliant Line from Tom Cruise
"what you want is irrelevent - what you demanded is at hand"
I wouldnt mind if he made up his mind one way or the other. Our life will
proceed just peechy whichever way it goes. Just I dont think it is fair
to anybody that he gets the benefits of both ways - with the
responsiblity of neither. Josh deserves at least a decision on his
part.He is worth that much in the very least.
Meaghan Walker
Scott Morizot
LilChica (yc...@itol.com) wrote:
: Pat Winstanley wrote:
: > Incidentally, did/have you noticed an age (about 7-11) where they wear
: > holes into their clothes/shoes faster than they grow out of them?
Yes. So? My son's been through that age. He always had to keep
one pair in reserve as nice pants. If he wore holes in the knees
of others, he still had to wear them until time to get new clothes.
Never had money to buy him new play clothes just because he was
rough with the ones he had. 'Course, I've never had the luxury
of *any* money in CS .... :)
: There is a store in the US (Shopko) that GUARANTEES that if your kids
: wear out their clothes before they grow out of them, they will be
: REPLACED for FREE.
: Theres gotta be a catch!!
Sure sounds like it...
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| Scott Morizot -- tmor...@infinity.ccsi.com |
| "May you live in interesting times" |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d3236c2f...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>My family owns a huge tract of land that was built on by a private
>company that has paid the government rent for the past 40 years.
Shouldn't that read 'your ancestral family *used to own* a huge tract of
land, but bartered/sold it off to someone else in exchange for something
else they wanted more at the time'?
>
>Currently there are some nice housing complexes - and a Big Mall -
>sitting there- and the government collects monies from it on our behalf.
>But (in its benevolent Nanny State way) it choses to distribute it -
>amongst our tribe as it see's fit - rather than let us manage the
>properties that we own outright.
Does your family currently *own* the land, or is it that you see it as
your stolen birthright?
However, the fact is that they did *sell* it to someone else. Work to
earn the money to *buy* it back if it bothers you so much!
And before you tell me I'm off-topic, think about that as an analogy of
parental attitudes to children, and children's attitudes to parents...
and parents' attitudes to each other.
Now don't get me wrong... I think it was appalling the way native
Americans, and Indians (not just the the red ones) and Africans and
Australians etc were duped into handing over their ancestral homelands
due to gullibility of the then natives. But that doesn't mean the after
effects are still wrong many years later. Seems to me that however much
you scoff at the UK welfare state, and special priviliges for various
classes of society, you are wallowing comfortably in an exact mirror of
the same, yet telling other people off who are struggling without the
safety net you enjoy!
If you were to move off the reservation and live under the same
conditions as MOST Canadians do, and refuse to accept the welfare
benefits from your tribe, would you and your son (with no partner there
as a safety net either) be able to manage on your current *personally
earned* income alone?
Strikes me you are preaching one thing for others and doing something
else for yourself.
(I await the incoming obscene name-calling....) ;-))
[FX: Pat dons well-worn flame-proof suit]
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d32401f1...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>> Again, not federal welfare benefits, but Indian welfare benefits?
>>
>
>
>NO - Band benefits - as in Money Held in Trust by the government for the
>rent collected by people (other than Indians) using our land.
What's the difference?
steve joseph
TANSTAAFL wrote:
>
> In article <5a7cr9$n...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
> chia...@ix.netcom.com says...
> > >I assure you - I do know exactly how much it costs to raise my child -
> >
> > 3 is such a small number. I have a total of 44 child raising years and
> > you are such an inexperienced, no nothing novice.
>
> Thats funny - If I am such a dimwit - how come I was smart enough to only
> bring ONE child into this world to support - instead of Herds of them at
> the taxpayers and the Fathers expense to keep you in bon bons.
>
> > Just because I dont view my son as a means to extort insane ammounts of child support doesnt make me a dim wit.
> > Perhaps that doesn't but Darling, you are a dimwit. Who the hell do
> > you think you are saying you are raising your son on such a limited
> > amount of $.
>
> I make $1700.00 a month working part time.
> > >- and I dont see my kid as a cash cow
>> > Nobody gives a shit about you and your 44 years of living off your Ex
> and God Knows who else
> Meaghan Walker
Dearest and most beutiful Meagan:
I only wish to God and my son that it was you that I divorced. I send
my ex only the amount that I am required by law to pay. The rest goes to
the lawyers etc. If only my ex would stop hating me long enough to put
our son first. I would gladly buy him anything he needs and sacrifice
all to give him a head start. This was actually my intent when I first
opposed my wife in court - to have some control over how the money is
spent - or saved. If only I knew now . . . but alas I guess it just
wasn't meant to be. If all women thought like you there would be no need
for lawyers and such. It is the angry man-hating, and greedy bitches
that view thier ex's as wallets that are ruining it for everyone.
Perhaps it should be noted that the men who have good relationships with
their ex's are the ones who voluntarily pay the most.
Anyway, I think I love you already. Please keep saying what your saying
and keep the bitches in line. We need more women like you to speak up
and show the idiots how it should be done.:-)
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d3241c7f...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>> Perhaps it was in reference to Meaghan's advocacy of daycares as being
>> *better* than some parents. Perhaps the assumption was made that
>> Meaghan utilizes daycare facilities (those *without* a wet-nurse I
>> presume..)
>>
>
>
>Has no woman on this group ever heard of a breast pump????
Hang on... is Josh still breastfeeding because he doesn't tolerate cow's
milk, or soy milk (at 3 yrs old there are plenty of alternatives to
breastfeeding for that), or because you like him to suck your boobs, or
because he has an Oedipus complex?
There is no *way* a normal three year old boy *needs* breast milk
*pumped* for him!!!
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
TANSTAAFL
In article <ZacUCNAd...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.d31bdaca...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
> <yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
> >In article <0$APLaAgn...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
> >pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> >> >> (Noted that you don't have the silly medical expenses of the US, and
> >> >> have a system roughly the same as here where medical attention and
> >> >> prescriptions are dealt with in advance through general
> >> >> taxation/insurance etc).
> >> >
> >> >Well Canada has a more socialized medical system than the Us - but
> >> >crappier service as a result...And Most people in Canada dont get the
> >> >benefits that I do - as a result of the Treaty Negotiations between my
> >> >Band and the government a hundread years ago. I dont require my ex to
> >> >provide any type of medical expenses for Josh - since the coverage I have
> >> >for him is much more comprehensive.
> >>
> >> What would you do if you didn't have the Indian 'safety net'?
> >>
> >
> >Well - I would be a very wealthy woman - I would own a tract of Land that
> >belongs to my family - that a mall is currently situated on - and have
> >gotten the monies from rent on that land for the past 70 or so years.
> >
> >If I wasnt indian - I wouldnt have had my baby.
>
> Why?
>
Because I think parents should be able to provide for their children 100%
- or have the capacity to do so.
When I got pregnant I hadnt finished my Highschool - but had 1 year of
college. My father had told me that if I had my baby - he would not help
at all with tuition.
My bands Educational grants means I can more than realistically get a
degree in a very good field - and properly provide for josh while doing
so. I was single - so I looked at housing on the reserves - co op housing
and my own earning capacity.
I figured I had more than enough ability to be able to provide for Josh
100%. Definatley not with the same luxury I was brought up in - but he
would have a decent life.
> (BTW, is it politically correct to refer to you as Indians... I have no
> intention of offence - to me it's just a short descriptive term with no
> implied overtones, like French, or American, or Chinese or English or
> whatever).
>
No offence taken.
> [some irrelevant stuff snipped for bandwidth]
>
> >> I'm talking about *basic* costs! (Nothing to do with who pays, just how
> >> much things cost). To keep my sons warm, reasonably fed, clean, housed
> >> etc costs about $50 a week for each of them... NO luxuries!!! And about
> >> $50 a week for me for the same so that I can take care of them. I'm an
> >> inexpensive childminder! :-)
> >>
> >
> >I would agree - just i dont think That I personally should be compensated
> >or supported to parent my child.
>
> Nor do I, in the sense you seem to mean it. At least not my half of what
> it costs to care for a child. What I'm trying to say is that child-care
> does cost, and the NCP's share of the average cost of day-care should be
> paid to the CP. If the CP wants to use that to pay for external day-care
> that's their decision, if they want to treat themself as the day-care,
> that's their decision too. Using external day-care costs more, but
> enables then to earn more. And vice versa. Their choice.
>
I think that if the mother is using the daycare so she can go to work -
that is more than acceptable - and 1/2 the cost should come from the
father if he is unprepared to take on 1/2 the timeshare.
> >Uniforms are a blessing. I mean it - Imagine how much money you would be
> >spending if you had to outfit them in a new wardrobe every year.
> >
> >I had uniforms for 8 years of my schooling - and we used the consignment
> >section of the shop - does your school provide that - or swapping with
> >mates who had older brothers etc... Its a lot better to buy that school
> >blazer for $30.00 than $300.00
>
> $300 for a blazer!!! ????
>
um - yeah Brand New ones :(
> Actually we do swaps and hand-me-downs between families and the school
> too, but sometimes it's neccessary (even for the kids' pride now and
> again) to buy new. I was a second child and had to have my brother's
> hand-me-downs for years... it was lovely to get something new from a
> shop now and again (I was also a tomboy so having boys clothes didn't
> bother me at all).
>
Tom boy here too - The one thing nice about being a tomboy girl in a
private school of other girls with uniforms - was nobody was competing
with anybody on having the coolest clothes and the best make up job.
> And I think uniforms are a great idea too. No more argumants in the
> morning about what to wear, and an end to one-upmanship (more or less)
> of the latest trainers or whatever. What strikes me as faintly
> ridiculous is that much as kids protest that they hate uniforms, the
> first thing they do when they get home is change into exactly the same
> leisure uniform as all the other kids! :-)
LOL - I didnt mind my uniform so much - as not being offically allowed to
wear boxer shorts under my skirt - instead of Bloomers. Its a lot more
comfortable to run in a skirt if you know you arent displaying anything
to the world but brightly coloured shorts atop your tights if a suddden
gust of wind blows your skirt up :)
>
> >> Then, and you aren't going to believe this, not sure myself still, both
> >> the boys' trousers were stolen off the washing line at half term
> >> (October) so I had to keep them off school for the morning while we went
> >> to buy replacements... £13.99 and £18.99
> >>
> >
> >Yes - I would believe it - Somebody must have been preety desperate to
> >steal a school uniform trouser - but then again.. I was mugged when I was
> >13 years old coming home from school in Down Town Vancouver - and the
> >bitch that held a knife to me - only wanted my SCHOOL SKIRT - when she
> >realized I didnt have any money.
>
> Forgive me, ROFL! I can just imagine it... a nightmare at the time, but
> hilarious looking back...
>
Oh yeah - it was hilarious in retrospect - the police officers who
investigated kept saying "she took your SKIRT???" - I finnaly had to open
up my duffle coat and show them that all I was wearing under it was my
blouse - sweater- tights and those funny coloured contraband boxershorts
(theonly time I regretted wearing them)
> >Have you looked into thrifts as a way to save on shoes.
>
> Yes - we buy relatively cheaply, but shoes (rather than trainers) are
> one thing I won't hand down or buy second hand, not for growing feet.
>
Maybe you will luck out and their feet with stop growing soon. I doubt it
- I was lucky - My feet were size 14 ladies - size 10 mens at age 15 - (I
shot up to 5'11. I still have the oxfords my dad bought me for my school
uniform at age 15. and the are in good shape - been resoled twice - but
the double stitch lining is awesome - and with Ron around they never go
unpolished for long :)
> > Seriously - and
> >investing in a shoe shine kit is a very good investment. I know some of
> >the shoes in Ron's closet are older than I am - but they look close to
> >brand new. Shoes are a killer - but if you buy GOOD quality -
> >doublestiched shoes - and resole them as the boys wear them out they can
> >last for years.
>
> Lovely idea, but can you tell me how to tell the boys' feet to stop
> growing? Buying good quality shoes is the ideal, but it just doesn't
> help when they outgrow them in the space of a month or two. They might
> be beautifully kept, and look really classy, but are useless if the shoe
> is shorter than the foot.
>
Thats true. Ron developed this passion nay obsession with shoes when he
was 14. I'll ask him what his advice on it is.
> > If you want You can get Ron to Email your sons and
> >explain to them what the best kind of good looking classy shoes to buy
> >and how to restore them and keep them in good shape. It is his passion.
>
> In a few years when they stop growing, perhaps! For now I buy a quality
> of clothes and shoes for them that I estimate will wear out as they are
> grown out of. :-)
Yeah - keds are a good bet for runners - cheap and lasting for the money.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Another $70
> >>
> >> Well over $200 in three months just for school uniform items, never mind
> >> leisure clothes. *All* the high schools round here have similar uniform
> >> requirements!
> >>
> >
> >The good thing about uniforms is that you dont have to buy so many
> >clothes for day to day school wear. It is a cost cutter.
>
> Well, yes and no... they still need leisure clothes too. It's easier
> rather than cheaper.
>
I am not a clothes horse - and when I left home - and was spending my own
money on clothes - I started to develop a real appreciation for quality
clothes that last - with classic styles (never out of fashion) - I hate
shopping in department stores and retail outlets - because the clothes I
want to buy are way over my budget - and the ones I can afford are shoddy
craftsmanship and stiching. Thats why thrifts appeal to me... There are a
lot of wealthy people who buy expensive clothes - and wear them only
once - or decide they dont like them - and then donate them. I have 2
london fog raincoats that I got for $3.00 each - with lining... easily
worth over $500.00 for the both of them :) - Some designer blouses - and
skirts - nice dress pants - and dresses - I have a closet full of
beautifull wonderfull expensive eveningwear - that I spent maybe $50.00
on in total over the past 6 years - Now - if I had the money to be able
to afford to go to someplace that would be appropriate to wear these
dresses it would be nice. I have spent the past 2 years looking and
stocking up on business clothes.
With this recent snowstorm - was able to pick up extra sweaters, blankets
and a snow suit for Josh for under 10$ :)
> >
> >
> >> It'll be easier when the younger needs shirts/trousers as he can usually
> >> manage on the hand-me-downs from the elder, if the elder hasn't worn
> >> them out (or had them stolen) before growing out of them.
> >
> >Seriously check into consignment stores - they are often a bargain - and
> >does the school have a uniform shop - with consignment items in them?
>
> 'Consignment stores'? Is that like what we call 'seconds'? Decent
> quality clothes from good manufacturers that aren't quite perfect
> (colour/shape/stitching etc)? Or simply end of season leftovers from
> ranges that were/are perfect? Our open air markets generally deal in
> these and there are some good bargains to be had (and some terrible
> ones).
>
No - consignment is where people give their clothes to a shop - and the
shop sells them and gives a percentage of the money to the owner.
At our uniform shop we had a consginment section and a new section. I
think the only time I bought anything new for school uniforms was when I
was in Grade 5 - just starting at the school - and shoes each year -
tights and boxershorts. :)
> I'm presuming your 'thrift' stores are what we refer to as 'charity'
> (they are run by charities and sell decent donated second hand clothes
> about half the price of new - the proceeds going to charity rather than
> them handing charity to the buyer)? There are regular collections here
> for clothes for these... the boy's stuff is very rarely 'decent' enough
> to donate, except as rags! :-)
>
The thrift stores here are more like you pay a fraction of the origninal
cost of the items... A dress new for $150.00 could be bought for $2.00
that sort of thing... When I lived in vancouver - I would make a trip our
of heading to the thrift store in West Vancouver - (the richest area in
BC) and look there for clothes. Mostly the collections they got were
from wealthy people - who hadnt even worn some of the items. People
wealthy enough to spend $200.00 on a clothing item and then donate it
because it didnt go well with what they had - or they just didnt like how
it fitted them. And because the thrift store was in West Van with all
those wealthy people - there were damn few people that wanted to be
*seen* buying stuff from the Sally Ann. LOL Their loss ;)
> They work well if you have the time to hunt. For a couple of years I was
> full time at college, plus a part time accounts job, plus full time care
> of the kids, no car, without a partner in sight, not even at arms
> length... forget the bargain hunting - no time or energy left over! :-)
>
>
Yeah - I know what you mean. It has sort of become a family hobby hear to
hit the thrifts whenever we are in Vancouver - and once a month we go en
masse to the local 3 thrift stores. ROn goes every friday at lunch time.
Its just gotten to be a habit.
Meaghan Walker
TANSTAAFL
In article <AHJCVMAJ...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.d32401f1...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
> <yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
> >> Again, not federal welfare benefits, but Indian welfare benefits?
> >>
> >
> >
> >NO - Band benefits - as in Money Held in Trust by the government for the
> >rent collected by people (other than Indians) using our land.
>
> What's the difference?
>
People collecting welfare - are leeching
Indian Tribes getting money that is owed to them - is a little like if
the Canadian Government borrowed a lot of money from a foreign country
and then had to pay it back with interest
Each tribe in Canada is a soveriegn Nation. (or striving to resestablish
that goal)
Or to draw a parallel you might understand... the difference between a
welfare recipient and an Indian Tribe member getting their money is
Imaigine that you are sitting in your home - and a person (with the
sanction of the government) decides to camp on your lawn and refuses to
leave and steals money out of your pocket (Welfare recipeient)
Now - on the other hand - you are required to pay taxes on the land that
your house sits on - because it never was properly yours - nor should it
have been sold to you by the government since it was improperly seized by
the government.
The Indian Person Collecting Tribal benefits is the equivelent to a land
lord whose property (upon which your house sits) has been usurped by the
government (And the government recognizes that the theft that took place
and fraud they engaged in was unnacaapetable) - even if some redneck
idiots dont.
As I said before - I will be happy to stop collecting any of the monies
that are due me - for the use of our tribes lands - the minute all the
white people living there - get off the land - and it is returned to our
possession as it will be before the year 2004.
Do you not understand the difference between legitimate property rights
and the mentality of *entitlement*?
Meaghan Walker
TANSTAAFL
In article <enoFNIAP...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.d3241c7f...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
> <yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
> >> Perhaps it was in reference to Meaghan's advocacy of daycares as being
> >> *better* than some parents. Perhaps the assumption was made that
> >> Meaghan utilizes daycare facilities (those *without* a wet-nurse I
> >> presume..)
> >>
> >
> >
> >Has no woman on this group ever heard of a breast pump????
>
> Hang on... is Josh still breastfeeding because he doesn't tolerate cow's
> milk, or soy milk (at 3 yrs old there are plenty of alternatives to
> breastfeeding for that), or because you like him to suck your boobs, or
> because he has an Oedipus complex?
>
> There is no *way* a normal three year old boy *needs* breast milk
> *pumped* for him!!!
I didnt say I use a breast pump now - I did however use one less than 8
months ago when Josh was in full to part time Daycare for 3 months.
>
Every single women I know who couldnt breastfeed - seems to have this
massive complex against those of us who do.
Breast is best - even if *you* couldnt manage to do it pat
Sorry if reality troubles you so.
MEaghan Walker
TANSTAAFL
In article <rIy4mGAk$Pyy...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.d3236c2f...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
> <yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
> >My family owns a huge tract of land that was built on by a private
> >company that has paid the government rent for the past 40 years.
>
> Shouldn't that read 'your ancestral family *used to own* a huge tract of
> land, but bartered/sold it off to someone else in exchange for something
> else they wanted more at the time'?
No - In my case - there is a tract of land that was outright BOUGHT by my
Great Grandfather - which he leased to the tribes as a whole - and then
the government appropriated the land (without any consent) they *stole
it* - Please If you did some research - you would know what you are
talking about - you are being very very ignorant at this point.
>
> >
> >Currently there are some nice housing complexes - and a Big Mall -
> >sitting there- and the government collects monies from it on our behalf.
> >But (in its benevolent Nanny State way) it choses to distribute it -
> >amongst our tribe as it see's fit - rather than let us manage the
> >properties that we own outright.
>
> Does your family currently *own* the land, or is it that you see it as
> your stolen birthright?
Yes - and the government of Canada recgonizes it - and it will be turned
back to our posession (for our exclusive and unlimmited use in 2004 - Or
thats what the last promise was) With all the monies collected in Rent
and Taxes for the past 70 years.
>
> However, the fact is that they did *sell* it to someone else. Work to
> earn the money to *buy* it back if it bothers you so much!
WHY IN GODS GREEN EARTH SHOULD WE BUY BACK PROPERTY THAT WAS STOLEN FROM
US YOU FUCKING IDIOT
Should I BUY BACK my STUFF from a MUGGAR that Steals from me????
Jeezuz H Christ you are a redneck idiot.
>
> And before you tell me I'm off-topic, think about that as an analogy of
> parental attitudes to children, and children's attitudes to parents...
> and parents' attitudes to each other.
>
> Now don't get me wrong... I think it was appalling the way native
> Americans, and Indians (not just the the red ones) and Africans and
> Australians etc were duped into handing over their ancestral homelands
> due to gullibility of the then natives. But that doesn't mean the after
> effects are still wrong many years later. Seems to me that however much
> you scoff at the UK welfare state, and special priviliges for various
> classes of society, you are wallowing comfortably in an exact mirror of
> the same, yet telling other people off who are struggling without the
> safety net you enjoy!
WELL - If we had been allowed off our tribal land to work - if we had
been allowed to vote before 1968 - if laws had been repealed that allowed
for Native People to be SHOT if caught off their reseve - I might agree
with you about this all being ancient history.
As it is I have 6 aunts and uncles - whose lives have been almost
destroyed by the residential schooling - and the sexual and physical
abuse that occured under the authority of those people who were supposed
to be caring for them - and my grandparents didnt have a choice as to
whether or not their kids should go - it was THE law to uproot all the
kids and keep them from speaking their language and keep them from their
family.
If My People had been free to practice their religion (Potlatych
ceremony) without ending up in Jail (So far the only place I have seen in
recent history where a country in the civilized world jailed people for
their religious views and practices) -
If the Land that was outright stolen from us was back in our possession -
I would have no gripe.
If I had not been ripped from my mother by an overzealous courtworker -
trying to find babies for couples who wanted to adopt - And gave my
mother the equivelent to a *sophies choice* - which All who knew her said
was what led to her suicide less than 2 years after my adoption -
If none of these things had happened and happpened within MY LIFETIME - I
would agree with you about *ancient history*
Dont talk to me about just "let history be history"
My people were only allowed the vote less than 4 years before I was born.
And they were only allowed off the reserve whenever they wanted to - at
the same time.
That Land belongs to My 7 aunts and uncles and my nieces and nephews and
my son and his children it belonged to my Grandfather and his 13 brothers
and sisters and their children and their childrens children.
And believe me - if It was back in our possession right now - I wouldnt
be worried about money for the rest of my life. DO I trust the government
to keep its word - yet again?
Not bloody likely.
>
> If you were to move off the reservation and live under the same
> conditions as MOST Canadians do, and refuse to accept the welfare
> benefits from your tribe, would you and your son (with no partner there
> as a safety net either) be able to manage on your current *personally
> earned* income alone?
I would love to live on the reseve again. But what you are saying is
ridiculous - And the equivlent of what the government said to my people
for 80 some years. Where it forbid Native people from living and working
off the reserve - which led to poverty, starvation and illness.Up untill
1968 we could be shot for just wanting to live off the Res.
I have a right to be free wherever I live you commie bitch. That means My
LAND is MY land wherever I chose to reside. And the principle of land
ownership and property rights does not change simply because people WANT
YOUR STUFF. I do not have to pay back money to thieves who have stolen it
- but it doesnt surprise me that you sanction and welcome the THEFT of
our property,
You are an ignorant limey idiot. And If it werent for the fact that the
British Government was somewhat more honest than the Canadian Government
was to my people - and who recgonized our tribes as soverign nations - I
would be flaming you more.
You are totally ignorant of the history you are talking about. Refrain
from commenting untill you have actually done your homework.
>
> Strikes me you are preaching one thing for others and doing something
> else for yourself.
>
> (I await the incoming obscene name-calling....) ;-))
>
> [FX: Pat dons well-worn flame-proof suit]
All I can say is you are ignorant and daft - withn a fucked up view of
property rights - in that you sanction theft and ongoing theft and a
welfare state.
Thats the worst I can say about another human being.
Meaghan Walker
Kandle
Cici wrote:
>Lil Chica wrote:
>Kandle
::Mother of BigFoot.
::Cici in Texas
Oh! Guess I'm out of the loop on that one. I only have a daughter and
right now, we're big into Pocohantas and 101 Dalmation shoes. I guess
I have put my shareholder quota in on those! Them and K Mart!
Kandle
ccl...@mail.gte.net
Cici Clovis
>In article <MPG.d31b70fb...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
><yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>>Mother at Home with the Kids till Age of school - IS a tremendous luxury.
>>30 years ago - with the spending value of a dollar and with taxation
>>being considerably lower - it wasnt that big a chunk of money... and One
>>income families were the norm.
>Exactly!! I didn't have my sons until I was 30+. I was born early 50's,
>the boys were born early 80's. At the time I had them attitudes were
>changing, but I, and most of the other mums round here, and the dads,
>were brought up in a world different to yours...
It is awfully difficult to explain the cultural impact of having been born
in the 1950's -- mid-50's, in my case -- particularly if you were raised in
a strongly conservative religious atmosphere, as I was. Certainly it
wasn't a 'barefoot and pregnant' attitude -- I did know a few women whose
families scoffed at the idea of higher education for women, but most of us
were encouraged to go to college and get a job -- UNTIL WE GOT MARRIED. It
was taken for granted that we would then become homemakers and get busy on
'starting our families'. In one branch of my family, the daughters weren't
even given middle names, because when they married they would use their
maiden names as their middle names. Can you say 'early conditioning'?
We were assiduously instructed in the 'domestic arts' whether we had any
interest in them or not. We were given aprons, cookbooks and Hints From
Heloise for wedding presents. (Now they have lingerie showers. I'm
jealous!) I can't think of one woman I know in my age bracket who doesn't
know how to sew. Some of them even enjoy it. My aunt made virtually every
stitch of clothing her four daughters ever wore.
Yes, we were encouraged to be educated, but that was primarily to make us
better wives and mothers and keep our husbands from becoming bored with us.
We were taught to develop hobbies, join bridge clubs, and participate in
volunteer work. A career? Careers were for husbands and spinsters!
We _were_ encouraged to learn at least one 'marketable' skill (usually
typing) so that we could earn a little money if 'something happened' to our
husbands. 'Something happening' meant a husband becoming ill, getting
injured, or dying. Nobody ever mentioned to ME that he might just up and
leave. No, they would say, 'Look at poor Mrs. So-And-So, her husband died
five years ago and she had to go out to work.' In the language of the
times, the only mothers who went out to work were the truly desperate. Oh,
maybe a little part-time job while the kids were in school, that would be
okay. But a mother who would stick her kids in daycare (which was very
hard to find) and go out to work when she had a perfectly healthy husband
who made a perfectly good living (translation: had a job) was setting
herself up to be harshly criticized by her family and her friends,
denounced from various pulpits, and written up in magazines as the very
worst kind of mother in the world. Well, maybe if she was a schoolteacher,
it would be okay. Not great, but tolerable. After all, teaching is sort
of an extension of raising children. Nobody had to sit us down and spell
all this out for us -- it was in the very air we breathed.
Attitudes about how the world is supposed to wag are absorbed early in
childhood. The Women's Liberation Movement (no feminists back then, just
Libbers) had no significant impact on my life until I was in junior high
school. Even then, its only impact was that girls had to take shop class
and boys had to take Home Ec. So I know how to wire a lamp. Big deal.
It's very easy for anyone who did not grow up during that time to say
'Well, that's obviously garbage and I would never have fallen for it'.
Sure they would have, because there was nothing to compare it to. This
mindset was everywhere we turned. It wasn't just my parents or my family
or my church. It was practically everybody's parents, and so on. And the
girls weren't the only ones picking up on this world view, either. The
boys got a full dose of it as well, and were raised to believe that any
married woman who got a job was obviously married to a loser who couldn't
support his family.
Sure, by the time I got to high school, many people were beginning to rebel
against this rigid world view and to actually contemplate the radical
concept that women might actually have brains and might actually want to do
something BESIDES have babies, make curtains, and take cooking classes.
But it was still a =radical= concept, and a hotly debated one, at that.
And now we're being told that we're bad mothers if we DON'T go out and get
jobs. I guess we've come full circle. Ah, well. Life is a trampouline --
we have to learn to bounce.
Cici in Texas
ccl...@mail.gte.net
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d331199b...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>All I can say is you are ignorant and daft - withn a fucked up view of
>property rights - in that you sanction theft and ongoing theft and a
>welfare state.
I still don't know why you answer questions with attempts at insults.
From what I'd seen you say before, I was under the impression that the
land in question was part of your original hunting grounds, and had been
'bought' by the government some hundred or so years ago in exchange for
beads or guns or perceived services or whatever at the time.
You tell me to do my research... well asking the horse's mouth is
usually a good place to begin! I don't know any other American Indians
:-)
Actually, we have 'compulsory purchase orders' here too, where
land/buildings is claimed outright by the government (generally for
building roads and malls and so on) and a below-market-value price paid
to the original owners. Sounds like you're lucky in that your family
have a forced lease that runs out eventually.
>
>Thats the worst I can say about another human being.
Oh no... I've seen you say a lot worse to other people over the past few
days... inexcusably so.
I do wonder why you feel you need to insult others so often.
Pat Winstanley
In article <5ad89j$2...@news2.gte.net>, Cici Clovis
<ccl...@mail.gte.net> writes
>Attitudes about how the world is supposed to wag are absorbed early in
>childhood. The Women's Liberation Movement (no feminists back then, just
>Libbers) had no significant impact on my life until I was in junior high
>school. Even then, its only impact was that girls had to take shop class
>and boys had to take Home Ec. So I know how to wire a lamp. Big deal.
I regularly deal with the plug-wiring and fuse changing for my (almost)
70 yr old spinster neighbour. I had to learn for myself because my dad
didn't think girls had the capacity to learn such complex technical
subjects! My neighbour is in awe of my *skills*... :-)
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
Pat Winstanley
>childhood. The Women's Liberation Movement (no feminists back then, just
>Libbers) had no significant impact on my life until I was in junior high
>school. Even then, its only impact was that girls had to take shop class
>and boys had to take Home Ec. So I know how to wire a lamp. Big deal.
>
>'Well, that's obviously garbage and I would never have fallen for it'.
>Sure they would have, because there was nothing to compare it to. This
>mindset was everywhere we turned. It wasn't just my parents or my family
>or my church. It was practically everybody's parents, and so on. And the
>girls weren't the only ones picking up on this world view, either. The
>boys got a full dose of it as well, and were raised to believe that any
>married woman who got a job was obviously married to a loser who couldn't
>support his family.
>
>Sure, by the time I got to high school, many people were beginning to rebel
>against this rigid world view and to actually contemplate the radical
>concept that women might actually have brains and might actually want to do
>something BESIDES have babies, make curtains, and take cooking classes.
>But it was still a =radical= concept, and a hotly debated one, at that.
>
>And now we're being told that we're bad mothers if we DON'T go out and get
>jobs. I guess we've come full circle. Ah, well. Life is a trampouline --
>we have to learn to bounce.
>
>Cici in Texas
>ccl...@mail.gte.net
>
It's rare that I re-post a whole message and just add a one-liner
comment...
Well SAID!!!!!!!!
Cici Clovis
On Tue, 31 Dec 1996 02:26:40 -0800, yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com
(TANSTAAFL) wrote:
>Oh yeah - I got on with my life - found a sane and really decent person -
>who wants to share the rest of my life and Josh's life. And he is the one
>who is picking up the slack for my ex- and doesnt mind - except - he has
>no legal authority over stuff that is really important.
Just an idea -- while waiting for the ex to get off the dime, would it be
possible to have the court give Ron some designation more or less equal to
legal guardian? In Texas, this is done with a document called a Possessory
Conservatorship. In sole custody cases, the NCP is designated as a
Possessory Conservator. Has nothing to do with biological relationship,
that's dealt with elsewhere. It gives the holder the authority to consent
to medical care, exercise reasonable disciplinary measures, and some other
stuff I don't recall right offhand, and something along the lines of 'all
other rights and privileges of a parent' with the exception of changing
the child's permanent domicile, at any and all times that the holder has
actual physical possession of the child.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It also requires the holder to care for the child properly (food, clothing,
shelter) -- hard to believe some people have to be specifically told to do
this, but I guess they do.
If BC doesn't have anything like that, could you grant a Limited Power of
Attorney to Ron? You can pretty much have a power of attorney worded any
way you want to in order to specify what you want this person to do or not
to do. That way Ron could sign things as your agent if you were
unavailable or otherwise incapacitated (as in, out cold). I did this for
my husband. I could still have him designated as a Possessory Conservator,
but that has to be done through the court, and it's more time, money and
hassle than I care to expend.
Does anyone else have something like either one of these things? I
understand that there's a growing movement for grandparents to petition the
court for Possessory Conservator status (or whatever the various states
call it).
Cici in Texas
ccl...@mail.gte.net
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d330cbd6...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>Breast is best - even if *you* couldnt manage to do it pat
Oh, but I did (breastfeed and manage to do so), and I'm sure I've
mentioned that somewhere here very recently.
But it's not medically or socially (positively or negatively)
recommended for more than a year or thereabouts. [Except by the
fanatics].
In fact I was still breastfeeding my first when (and after) I got
pregnant with my second! :-))
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d330c2f1...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>> >NO - Band benefits - as in Money Held in Trust by the government for the
>> >rent collected by people (other than Indians) using our land.
>>
>> What's the difference?
>>
>
>People collecting welfare - are leeching
>
>Indian Tribes getting money that is owed to them - is a little like if
>the Canadian Government borrowed a lot of money from a foreign country
>and then had to pay it back with interest
'Welfare' benefits here are, as I've explained before, an insurance
payout, one that (in most cases at least) results from self and/or
family having paid the premiums beforehand. In what way is that
leeching?
I too have an asset, held by the state, and not under my control... oh
yes, it's also a savings account for pension later... and that part has
a specific value... I could if I wanted *buy* it from the government
(ie. get it back but ats market value)!! Meanwhile they hold the asset
and use it as they see fit, and in the future will or will not return it
to me with interest.
Rest of the post snipped, but read with interest and thanks for the
information.
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
TANSTAAFL
In article <GmiTtCAk...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.d331199b...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
> <yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
> >property rights - in that you sanction theft and ongoing theft and a
> >welfare state.
>
> From what I'd seen you say before, I was under the impression that the
> land in question was part of your original hunting grounds, and had been
> 'bought' by the government some hundred or so years ago in exchange for
> beads or guns or perceived services or whatever at the time.
>
And you got your information about EVERY tribes treaty with the
government where?
Your impression is wrong.
> You tell me to do my research... well asking the horse's mouth is
> usually a good place to begin! I don't know any other American Indians
> :-)
Put it this way - Treating people whose land was outright stolen from
them - as if they are criminals to expect the government to keep thier
part of the bargain is highly insulting. To suggest that what they are
getting is even similar to welfare is ridiculous. Even when it was
explained once *nicely* - you kept on with the jeers and unsupported
assertions.
Another thing is this.. I dont take ideas and positions lightly - and I
dont drop them at the *say so* of others.
If you dont care enough to do the research on this - then it speaks to
your fickleness and chimera like attitude about reality than anything I
could have said. If you havent done the research - refrain from
accusatory comments against those of us who have.
It is better to keep your mouth shut and have others merely think you are
foolish - than to open it and confirm it Pat.
You have made a fool of yourself with these claims that you KNEW more
about these things and were therefore justified in voicing an oppinion of
extreme insult.
>
> Actually, we have 'compulsory purchase orders' here too, where
> land/buildings is claimed outright by the government (generally for
> building roads and malls and so on) and a below-market-value price paid
> to the original owners. Sounds like you're lucky in that your family
> have a forced lease that runs out eventually.
>
The government does not have the right to do that to any person. Property
rights are absolute.
> >
> >Thats the worst I can say about another human being.
>
> Oh no... I've seen you say a lot worse to other people over the past few
> days... inexcusably so.
Oh no Pat - when it comes down to insults - somebody who sanctions theft
and applauds and defends the ponzi schemes of Social Security is even
LOWER than the worst invectives I throw at merely stupid people. When
somebody reaches the point where I dont even want to waste colourfull
metaphors on them - they are the equivlent of zero in my books.
A peeled zero.
>
> I do wonder why you feel you need to insult others so often.
>
And I do wonder why you feel the need to make sick insults and then
pretend that they werent - and you were only asking *questions*.
I personally would rather be called a bitch or a cunt (because I can be
and I have one) - than to be accused of being a welfare leech.
Maybe that is a distinction you dont understand. You think a bitch or a
cunt is worse than a theif - or people who approve of theft.
Fact is - in this post - you have simply demonstrated that you are
intellectually dishonest to the extreme that I wont be sanctioning any
more of your posts with replys.
*plonk*
Meaghan Walker
TANSTAAFL
In article <32CABD...@itol.com>, yc...@itol.com says...
> TANSTAAFL wrote:
> >
> > In article <AHJCVMAJ...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
> > pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> > > In article <MPG.d32401f1...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
> > > <yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
> > > >> Again, not federal welfare benefits, but Indian welfare benefits?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >rent collected by people (other than Indians) using our land.
> > >
> > > What's the difference?
> > >
> >
> > People collecting welfare - are leeching
> >
> > Indian Tribes getting money that is owed to them - is a little like if
> > the Canadian Government borrowed a lot of money from a foreign country
> > and then had to pay it back with interest
> >
> > that goal)
> >
> > Or to draw a parallel you might understand... the difference between a
> > welfare recipient and an Indian Tribe member getting their money is
> >
> > Imaigine that you are sitting in your home - and a person (with the
> > sanction of the government) decides to camp on your lawn and refuses to
> > leave and steals money out of your pocket (Welfare recipeient)
> >
> > Now - on the other hand - you are required to pay taxes on the land that
> > your house sits on - because it never was properly yours - nor should it
> > have been sold to you by the government since it was improperly seized by
> > the government.
> >
> > The Indian Person Collecting Tribal benefits is the equivelent to a land
> > lord whose property (upon which your house sits) has been usurped by the
> > government (And the government recognizes that the theft that took place
> > and fraud they engaged in was unnacaapetable) - even if some redneck
> > idiots dont.
> >
> > As I said before - I will be happy to stop collecting any of the monies
> > that are due me - for the use of our tribes lands - the minute all the
> > white people living there - get off the land - and it is returned to our
> > possession as it will be before the year 2004.
> >
> > Do you not understand the difference between legitimate property rights
> > and the mentality of *entitlement*?
> >
> > Meaghan Walker
>
> Nazis stole from my family who then escaped to the US...????
>
Well the Germans were ordered to make reparations. If there was a Nazi
Government in power today - You would have a legitimate case.
In My view just because a crime or series of crimes took place 40-70-100
years ago does not mean that the victims of the crime are not due their
just compensation.
The German people after the war had to give back and continue to give
back what had been stolen - They did not get to keep the spoils of their
looting, lundering and theft - and their leaders were put on trial for
their criminal actions in nuremberg (something that had never happened
post any war)
Check your history books.
Meaghan Walker
TANSTAAFL
In article <PtxhfOAo...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.d308ef73...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
> <yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
> >> Why? I'm not advocating a diet of sweet things, but there's nothing
> >> wrong with them as a balanced part.
> >
> >They are *not* part of a balanced diet. Where did you learn about
> >Nutrition - they are empty calories - they add nothing to your body but
> >complex carboyhydrates that do nothing for his health or wellbeing.
>
> Erm... yes they do... they give instant energy boosts when needed,
And as quickly as they do - they then fatigue the body trying to digest
it.
and
> more to the point they give emotional satisfaction, like breast feeding
> does.
>
I think in babies the soothing aspect of nursing (which comes from the
FEEL of suckling) is appropriate. I dont think *eating* cause it makes
you feel good is a healthy attitude about food. Read a few books on
Eating disorders.
> BTW, both my boys are like stick-insects (same build as me) and neither
> has ever had any tooth decay. They have had a moderate amount of sugary
> things available for most of their lives.
>
> Sugar is not *wrong* in moderation, just as many other food items
> (including fast food and snacks) are not *wrong* in moderation but can
> be harmful in excess.
>
Since we already get natural fructose from eating a good number of fruits
in our diets - there is no need to supplement this with succrose - or
sugar. It is just plain not neseccary - and could hardly be considered
"Requirement of living" - or to be included in *basic support*
There isnt a nutritionist in the world that will back up your arguement
pat., Why not quit while your ahead.
> I remember about 20 years ago a guy in America who died from overdosing
> on carrot juice! :-)
>
> Actually, I notice you don't/can't discriminate between different
> sugars... fruit juice (pure juice) contains sugar too... it's just that
> it isn't an added ingredient!
>
> Hell... BREAST MILK CONTAINS SUGAR!!!
>
>
Different kind of sugar pat - this is a hysterical and either ignorant or
blatenly dishonest way to try and bash somebody for breastfeeding - in
defence of your wanting to stuff your kids with candies
Take some courses on nutrition - before making such ridiculous claims.
The Sugar in an apple is not comparable to the sugar in a choclate bar.
The body reacts to both differently and digests them differently. Natural
sugars are digested much more quickly and easily than unnatural ones.
And believe it or not Choclate also isnt one of the major food groups
required each day for a healthy diet.
Meaghan Walker
Roanna Krisko
omparable to the sugar in a choclate bar.
>The body reacts to both differently and digests them differently.
Natural
>sugars are digested much more quickly and easily than unnatural ones.
>And believe it or not Choclate also isnt one of the major food groups
>required each day for a healthy diet.
>
>Meaghan Walker
Nutritionist have just discovered a chemical in chocolate helps
breakdown LDL levels in cholestrol so in a way chocolate just might be
part of a balanced diet.
Roanna
Roanna Krisko
In <MPG.d347a2fe...@news.bcsupernet.com>
yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com (TANSTAAFL) writes:
>
>In article <GmiTtCAk...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
>>
>> Actually, we have 'compulsory purchase orders' here too, where
>> land/buildings is claimed outright by the government (generally for
>> building roads and malls and so on) and a below-market-value price
paid
>> to the original owners. Sounds like you're lucky in that your family
>> have a forced lease that runs out eventually.
>>
>
>The government does not have the right to do that to any person.
Property
>rights are absolute.
>
>
this thing called "Imminent Domain" (I believe that's the correct term)
where the government can come in and basically kick you out of your
home (for a fee) if it is in the way of highways, rapid transits, etc.
being built.
Roanna
>
>Meaghan Walker
LilChica
True.. and cities may condemn properties for public health violations,
etc. We had a *crack house* in our city seized and condemned... despite
the fact that the owner of the house was never tried nor convicted of
any crimes.
> >
> >Meaghan Walker
LilChica
TANSTAAFL wrote:
>
> In article <AHJCVMAJ...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
> pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
TANSTAAFL
In article <32CB36...@itol.com>, yc...@itol.com says...
>
> True.. and cities may condemn properties for public health violations,
> etc. We had a *crack house* in our city seized and condemned... despite
> the fact that the owner of the house was never tried nor convicted of
> any crimes.
>
What business is it of the State to do such a thing to a privatley owned
house - on private land.
As far as I am concerned - it wouldnt trouble me in the slightest if they
had left it there - and the bloody roof caved in on all those crackheads.
If parents are concerned about children entering the property - or
getting involved in drug use - and so they would favour the Statist theft
and destruction of private property - I have 3 suggestions.
1. teach your children not to trespass on property that does not belong
to them
2. Supervise your children so that the possiblity of a drug pusher
corrupting them is not likely
3. get together with a bunch of neighborhood folks - and buy the house
and tear it down - and turn it into a revenue generating property.
Please - if we manadate that the government has the right to do this to
people who have (according to your post) not been convicted of any crime
- whose to stop the government from deciding *your* house shouldnt belong
to you anymore - because well... lets say... there are too many weeds in
the front yard?
Meaghan Walker
TANSTAAFL
In article <5ad9po$2...@news2.gte.net>, ccl...@mail.gte.net says...
I think we did that in my will. I will ask my lawyer about it - thanks
Cici :)
Meaghan
TANSTAAFL
In article <5aet5l$l...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, chia...@ix.netcom.com
says...
> In <MPG.d347a2fe...@news.bcsupernet.com>
> yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com (TANSTAAFL) writes:
> >
> >In article <GmiTtCAk...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
> >
> >>
> >> Actually, we have 'compulsory purchase orders' here too, where
> >> land/buildings is claimed outright by the government (generally for
> >> building roads and malls and so on) and a below-market-value price
> paid
> >> to the original owners. Sounds like you're lucky in that your family
> >> have a forced lease that runs out eventually.
> >>
> >
> >The government does not have the right to do that to any person.
> Property
> >rights are absolute.
> >
> >
> I don't know about other states but I do know where I live they have
> this thing called "Imminent Domain" (I believe that's the correct term)
> where the government can come in and basically kick you out of your
> home (for a fee) if it is in the way of highways, rapid transits, etc.
> being built.
>
> Roanna
>
Meaghan Walker
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d308ef73...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>> Why? I'm not advocating a diet of sweet things, but there's nothing
>> wrong with them as a balanced part.
>
>They are *not* part of a balanced diet. Where did you learn about
>Nutrition - they are empty calories - they add nothing to your body but
>complex carboyhydrates that do nothing for his health or wellbeing.
Erm... yes they do... they give instant energy boosts when needed, and
more to the point they give emotional satisfaction, like breast feeding
does.
BTW, both my boys are like stick-insects (same build as me) and neither
has ever had any tooth decay. They have had a moderate amount of sugary
things available for most of their lives.
Sugar is not *wrong* in moderation, just as many other food items
(including fast food and snacks) are not *wrong* in moderation but can
be harmful in excess.
I remember about 20 years ago a guy in America who died from overdosing
on carrot juice! :-)
Actually, I notice you don't/can't discriminate between different
sugars... fruit juice (pure juice) contains sugar too... it's just that
it isn't an added ingredient!
Hell... BREAST MILK CONTAINS SUGAR!!!
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d34cb137...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>> I don't know about other states but I do know where I live they have
>> this thing called "Imminent Domain" (I believe that's the correct term)
>> where the government can come in and basically kick you out of your
>> home (for a fee) if it is in the way of highways, rapid transits, etc.
>> being built.
>>
>> Roanna
>>
>Yeah - its done - and its legal - but it isnt defensible - or moral.
But the point is it isn't just happening to the American Indians!
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
LilChica
As a matter of fact, that can happen as well. Especially since in most
cities that could be considered a code violation.
LilChica
TANSTAAFL wrote:
>
> In article <5aet5l$l...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, chia...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
> > In <MPG.d347a2fe...@news.bcsupernet.com>
> > yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com (TANSTAAFL) writes:
> > >
> > >In article <GmiTtCAk...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Actually, we have 'compulsory purchase orders' here too, where
> > >> land/buildings is claimed outright by the government (generally for
> > >> building roads and malls and so on) and a below-market-value price
> > paid
> > >> to the original owners. Sounds like you're lucky in that your family
> > >> have a forced lease that runs out eventually.
> > >>
> > >
> > >The government does not have the right to do that to any person.
> > Property
> > >rights are absolute.
> > >
> > >
> > this thing called "Imminent Domain" (I believe that's the correct term)
> > where the government can come in and basically kick you out of your
> > home (for a fee) if it is in the way of highways, rapid transits, etc.
> > being built.
> >
> > Roanna
> >
> Yeah - its done - and its legal - but it isnt defensible - or moral.
>
Well, perhaps you would like to walk everywhere? I know that 95% of the
roads in the US that have federal funding would not be built w/o eminent
domain. I mean its not like the property owner does not get
compensated... IN MOST CASES they get well beyond what their property is
actually valuated at due to the law requiring that families be relocated
into *decent safe and sanitary* housing. For example: mom, dad and a
son and a daughter live in a 2-bedroom house with shoddy plumbing and a
bad septic. The government must pay them for their land and house by
appraising it and comparing it to others on the market (fair market
value assesment). However, they must also pay them the difference
between the cost of that house and the cost of a decent safe and
sanitary house (ie 3 bedrooms, good plumbing/septic) in *relocation
expenses*. This is on top of the actual moving expenses (movers come in
and move everything for you.. you don't even have to pack.)
I have seen literally hundreds of families *profit* off highway
improvement projects.... they would have never had the opportunity to
afford better housing otherwise.
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d347a2fe...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>And you got your information about EVERY tribes treaty with the
>government where?
Well the one (tribe) we have been discussing, the info came from you...
perhaps you need to be a little clearer.
>
>Your impression is wrong.
>
Fair enough... and I think I already posted that your messages had
misled me, but perhaps not. But I still don't see why you need to resort
to name calling.
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d346eb96...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>> Hell... BREAST MILK CONTAINS SUGAR!!!
>>
>>
>blatenly dishonest way to try and bash somebody for breastfeeding - in
>defence of your wanting to stuff your kids with candies
>
>Take some courses on nutrition - before making such ridiculous claims.
How do you know I haven't? :-)
Actually, don't know about where you are, but here we can buy fructose
in a granulated form (like the ordinary cane and beet sugar) and use
that to bake cookies and cakes. And incidentally the idea of a short,
sharp energy boost is used regularly by most professional outdoor type
people...
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
Roanna Krisko
Roanna Krisko
In <MPG.d34e2e04...@news.bcsupernet.com>
yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com (TANSTAAFL) writes:
>
>In article <32CB36...@itol.com>, yc...@itol.com says...
>
>
>>
>> True.. and cities may condemn properties for public health
violations,
>> etc. We had a *crack house* in our city seized and condemned...
despite
>> the fact that the owner of the house was never tried nor convicted
of
>> any crimes.
>>
>
>What business is it of the State to do such a thing to a privatley
owned
>house - on private land.
>
are in it just for the money and let their tenants ruin the
neighborhoods. It is now the law here that the owner of a house is
responsible for the actions of his tenants, if he KNOWS what is going
on in his house. By the time it becomes a crack house I'm sure he has
a fairly good idea they aren't The Partridge Family.
Roanna
>Meaghan Walker
LilChica
TANSTAAFL wrote:
> If the Road is SOO damn important - they can build it AROUND those of us
> who want to keep our rights intact.
>
> Meaghan Walker
With that NIMBY attitude nothing would ever be done.
TANSTAAFL
In article <32CBCE...@itol.com>, yc...@itol.com says...
> TANSTAAFL wrote:
> > > I don't know about other states but I do know where I live they have
> > > this thing called "Imminent Domain" (I believe that's the correct term)
> > > where the government can come in and basically kick you out of your
> > > home (for a fee) if it is in the way of highways, rapid transits, etc.
> > > being built.
> > >
> > > Roanna
> > >
> > Yeah - its done - and its legal - but it isnt defensible - or moral.
> >
> > Meaghan Walker
>
Well actually if it was a choice between *walking* everywhere and keeping
my rights... I would walk. But then I value my liberty.
I know that 95% of the
> roads in the US that have federal funding would not be built w/o eminent
> domain. I mean its not like the property owner does not get
> compensated... IN MOST CASES they get well beyond what their property is
> actually valuated at due to the law requiring that families be relocated
> into *decent safe and sanitary* housing. For example: mom, dad and a
> son and a daughter live in a 2-bedroom house with shoddy plumbing and a
> bad septic. The government must pay them for their land and house by
> appraising it and comparing it to others on the market (fair market
> value assesment). However, they must also pay them the difference
> between the cost of that house and the cost of a decent safe and
> sanitary house (ie 3 bedrooms, good plumbing/septic) in *relocation
> expenses*. This is on top of the actual moving expenses (movers come in
> and move everything for you.. you don't even have to pack.)
>
Fine - You want the roads bad enough - that you are willing to give up
your house and property to make sure they are built.. *you* do it.
hands off *my* stuff.
That the government does it for a *need* for roads - makes it no more
morally defensible than say - a mugger robbing you because he thinks he
NEEDS your jewellery more than you do.
Rights (like property rights) are absolute.
> I have seen literally hundreds of families *profit* off highway
> improvement projects.... they would have never had the opportunity to
> afford better housing otherwise.
>
Too damn bad- the government has absolutley NO right to BUILD on *my*
land. It's mine. I paid for it - out of the product of my labour - and as
such - it is up to me and me alone to do with it as I see fit.
The fact that the government has a legal monopoloy on the use of force
doesnt make its violations of liberty and legitiamte rights defensible.
Roanna Krisko
In <32cbdd09...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> faux...@ix.netcom.com
writes:
>The city tells me which and how many animals I can have. They tell me
>I can't have a car that does not run parked out in front. I can only
>have two yard sales a year. After one neighbor complained, I even got
>a ticket from the city (when my sprinklers were broken) for a 3.5' x
>5' brown patch in my grass, backed up by threats of $500 a day fine if
>it was not remedied in ten days. They told me that they did the same
>thing going up remote roads to isolated homes and whenever a place did
>not meet code, they'd ticket. (I considered painting that brown patch
>orange or paisley, since the code said no "brown.") I understand the
>need for the common good on some of these laws, i.e. power, roads,
>health, but common sense also needs to enter into it. (I ended up
>jury-rigging the watering, but since seeds would not sprout to green
>lawn in ten days, I bought 'grass paint' and painted the patch green.
>Stupid.)
LOL. Sometimes a neighborhood's CC&R's can get pretty restrictive.
Luckily I live around some pretty good people. Everyone takes care of
their yards but no one clucks over a brown spot.
Roanna
kind of like the paisley idea
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d35d3987...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
>Too damn bad- the government has absolutley NO right to BUILD on *my*
>land. It's mine. I paid for it - out of the product of my labour - and as
>such - it is up to me and me alone to do with it as I see fit.
I thought you said your great grandfather bought it? What labour did you
put in?
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
Cici Clovis
On Thu, 02 Jan 1997 09:03:03 -0600, LilChica <yc...@itol.com> wrote:
..........major snip...........
>I have seen literally hundreds of families *profit* off highway
>improvement projects.... they would have never had the opportunity to
>afford better housing otherwise.
I've seen the same thing. Hmm, think I should encourage the Texas Highway
Department to re-route the new bypass through my neighborhood? It's only
about four blocks away. Hmmm. HMMMMM!
Cici in Texas
ccl...@mail.gte.net
TANSTAAFL
In article <32CC7F...@itol.com>, yc...@itol.com says...
>
NIMBY Aye?
Are you *proud* of yourself for advocating the theft of other people's
property?
Dont hand me the *well at least the government gives people fair market
value for their property*
There is no difference between the government saying "Your property or
your life" and a muggar on the street - saying "your money or your life"
Pay no attention to Man behind the curtain... pay no mind to the GUNS
they hold at your back as they take your property and give you the
pittance of money in exchange for your freedom. Its ransom money.
Nimby AYE?
Well... Its too darn bad they didnt have effieciency experts like you in
Nazi Germany - as they approrpiated the property of the jews, russians,
gypsies, homosexuals, and like - and wrote up receipts for their victims
saying "We are just holding these for safe keeping for you" - "trust us -
we know better what to do with your property than you do" - "we're from
the Government - we're here to *help you*"
Yeah - Those DAMN silly jews - and those stupid Countries of the
Alliance, holding up the progress of the Reich - with their silly talk of
Rights of Humanity - and the repudiation of the instigation of force from
all human affaird .Too bad there wasnt more lil Chica's around back in
1945 - Maybe they could have doubled the number of ashes and bodies.
For all we know - They might have won the war - if ONLY they hadnt been
stopped by those idiots who were trying to protect the rest of the world
from this disgusting evil. Progress - yes.. The National Socialist Party
had a great deal of progress in mind as they carted off its victims to
Auschwitz treblinka and Dachau,
Nimby aye?
Id rather be a fucking nimby than a fucking facist like you - lilchica.
If being concerned about rights, like life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness makes me a nimby - then by GOD - I AM A NIMBY - Make the best
of it.
Do you even think about this crap that you spew - about welfare, Social
Security and Statist thug tactics - that you somehow seem to be happy to
be either reciveing or paying into or supporting?
Or have you been completely brainwashed to belive this bullshit you are
so proud of?
I wonder.
Fucking pathetic.
Meaghan Walker
TANSTAAFL
In article <NrYBOIAK...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.d35d3987...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
> <yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
> >Too damn bad- the government has absolutley NO right to BUILD on *my*
> >land. It's mine. I paid for it - out of the product of my labour - and as
> >such - it is up to me and me alone to do with it as I see fit.
>
> I thought you said your great grandfather bought it? What labour did you
> put in?
>
Get a fucking clue you twit.
Context Dropping - To make a vaccuous remark seems to be your style.
Inherited property does not make it any less legitmatley mine.
Shut up
Meaghan Walker
Oh - in case you hadnt grasped this Pattycakes... You are officially in
my killfile - I had to reload my newsreader last night so I lost my Bozo
bin - of which you have been a resident for 3 days.
*Plonk*
back you go with the rest of the donut heads
LilChica
TANSTAAFL wrote:
>
> In article <32CC7F...@itol.com>, yc...@itol.com says...
> > TANSTAAFL wrote:
> >
> > > If the Road is SOO damn important - they can build it AROUND those of us
> > > who want to keep our rights intact.
> > >
> > > Meaghan Walker
> >
> >
> > With that NIMBY attitude nothing would ever be done.
> >
>
> NIMBY Aye?
>
> Are you *proud* of yourself for advocating the theft of other people's
> property?
Advocating it? Shoot.. I just stated a fact.
> Dont hand me the *well at least the government gives people fair market
> value for their property*
>
> There is no difference between the government saying "Your property or
> your life" and a muggar on the street - saying "your money or your life"
Last time I checked, nobody was being murdered via the eminent domain
laws... cripes our state doesn't even have the death penalty.
> Pay no attention to Man behind the curtain... pay no mind to the GUNS
> they hold at your back as they take your property and give you the
> pittance of money in exchange for your freedom. Its ransom money.
Although I AM aware of an incident where a property owner pulled a gun
on a government employee... I am unaware of any incidents where the
government employee pulled the guns on the property owner while
negotiating to acquire his/her property via eminent domain (at least in
this state). Could you please give me an example of this?? And I am
not talking Waco or Ruby Ridge here, they were hardly highway projects!
> Nimby AYE?
>
> Well... Its too darn bad they didnt have effieciency experts like you in
> Nazi Germany - as they approrpiated the property of the jews, russians,
> gypsies, homosexuals, and like - and wrote up receipts for their victims
> saying "We are just holding these for safe keeping for you" - "trust us -
> we know better what to do with your property than you do" - "we're from
> the Government - we're here to *help you*"
Well, unlike you, I hardly claim to be an *expert* in things I know
little about. I simply stated the facts.
Last time I checked, victims of Nazi Germany were not given due
process... as they were unable to appeal (free of charge--court
costs/attorney fees paid for by the government) the decision, unlike
citizens of the U.S.
> Yeah - Those DAMN silly jews - and those stupid Countries of the
> Alliance, holding up the progress of the Reich - with their silly talk of
> Rights of Humanity - and the repudiation of the instigation of force from
> all human affaird .Too bad there wasnt more lil Chica's around back in
> 1945 - Maybe they could have doubled the number of ashes and bodies.
Again, I do not claim to make the laws. Simply stating them as they
are. Trying to insinuate I am a *nazi* is really out of line.
> For all we know - They might have won the war - if ONLY they hadnt been
> stopped by those idiots who were trying to protect the rest of the world
> from this disgusting evil. Progress - yes.. The National Socialist Party
> had a great deal of progress in mind as they carted off its victims to
> Auschwitz treblinka and Dachau,
Isn't due process a great thing? I am glad I live somewhere where those
rights are in place and utilized. Do you?
> Nimby aye?
>
> Id rather be a fucking nimby than a fucking facist like you - lilchica.
Names, names. Meaghan, I have not shared with you my political
ideology. You would be surprised. However, like I said before, I am
simply stating facts.
> If being concerned about rights, like life, liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness makes me a nimby - then by GOD - I AM A NIMBY - Make the best
> of it.
Again, if the highway dept were to come across someone like you, chances
are the highway would simply choose to go around your lil shack. They
do it all the time. The people who sell their houses/land do it
voluntarily. Again, in most cases usually for much more than they could
get elsewhere. People have the right to settle via negotiation out of
court or in. No stormtroopers with guns show up at the door. Nobody
*taking anything away*.
> Do you even think about this crap that you spew - about welfare, Social
> Security and Statist thug tactics - that you somehow seem to be happy to
> be either reciveing or paying into or supporting?
I do my part to help others less fortunate than I... despite the fact
that I am struggling to get by myself. I also volunteer and contribute
to charities, on top of paying taxes.
> Or have you been completely brainwashed to belive this bullshit you are
> so proud of?
It is very simple. If you do not like the laws of the country, you have
two options... change them or move. Since you don't even LIVE here...
what is YOUR problem?
> I wonder.
>
> Fucking pathetic.
Your lack of basic language skills really equate your response with that
of a child. Perhaps when you can come up with something beter than
*swear words* to spout at me, we can continue this discussion.
> Meaghan Walker
Meaghan... I have one question for you... do you have a telephone?
Kandle
:LOL. Sometimes a neighborhood's CC&R's can get pretty restrictive.
:their yards but no one clucks over a brown spot.
Just a sort of related funny:
I send a property inspection team to inspect all delinquent
mortgage properties to be sure they haven't been abandoned.
If they have been, I have to have the prop main company
secure the property. I also have to be sure it's kept up to
ordinance and H/O association guidelines. Anyway, this
one house had peeling paint, and that is a no-no to that
particular H/O association. Of course they let me know
right away that it must be painted.
Well, the homeowner was a little miffed at us foreclosing
and when he got wind I was sending someone over to
paint, he did what any conscientious property owner
would do to protect his interest.
When the prop main team got there, the guy had tied up
dobermans and pit bulls ( where he got them, we don't
know! ) on 10 foot ropes, around the entire circumfrence
of the house! Because they were leashed, animal control
would do nothing. We had to get specially trained handlers
to come and get the dogs moved. Took us days! The PMI
insurance covered the cost, so no loss to us, but the PMI
people were certainly chasing their tails on that one! See,
they were the ones that had denied him a short sale so he
could avoid foreclosure! He turned out to be smarter than
we thought!
Kandle
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
" The time has come, the Walrus said, to talk of many things..."
- Lewis Carroll ( who happens to reside on the shelf right beside
Mr. Stevenson, who stepped out for a bit, but is now back to
take his rightful credit.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Roanna Krisko
In <19970104030...@ladder01.news.aol.com> kan...@aol.com
Being in the housing industry and hearing oh so many compaints about
CC&R's and neighbors I can appreciated what you had to go through.
This is too funny!!
Roanna
Roanna Krisko
In <MPG.d3786c8a...@news.bcsupernet.com>
the sentences to which we answer.
At one point Meaghan said "Reagan tried and he only lasted about a
week", whereas I replied he was Gov. of California and President of the
US for 8 yrs. She then said she was "Waitingwaitingwaiting" for a
response from me because she MEANT his policies. Subject of original
sentence was REAGAN not his policies.
Now it seems the subject of land being hers because of her labor when
she had previously stated it had been her ancestral land. This I cannot
begin to interprate as it makes little sense, labor vs purchase.
As for language I suspect one uses foul language at every possible
point because either 1) they are very immature or 2) they do not have a
complete grasp of speech and constructive dialogues.
Roanna
awaiting the day I too will be in Meaghan's kill file
TANSTAAFL
In article <32ceabd8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, faux...@ix.netcom.com
says...
> On Fri, 3 Jan 1997 21:13:13 -0800, ye...@likeImgonnatellyou.com
> (TANSTAAFL) wrote:
>
> >In article <NrYBOIAK...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
> >pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> >> In article <MPG.d35d3987...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
> >> <yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
> >> >Too damn bad- the government has absolutley NO right to BUILD on *my*
> >> >land. It's mine. I paid for it - out of the product of my labour - and as
> >> >such - it is up to me and me alone to do with it as I see fit.
> >>
> >> I thought you said your great grandfather bought it? What labour did you
> >> put in?
> >>
> >
> >Get a fucking clue you twit.
> >
> >Context Dropping - To make a vaccuous remark seems to be your style.
> >
> >Inherited property does not make it any less legitmatley mine.
>
>
> labour"
>
>
Context dropping again.
I have property now. (Not land)
The settlement on property if it comes in 2004 - will make that above
mentioned property mine. It wont be right for them to do it then - and it
isnt right for them to do it (IF HYPOTHETICALLY - Do you understand) Now.
The government has no right to take EITHER.
Pat took one post unrelated to the ancestral land issue - and then tried
to use it as a weapon against me in another.
It is so transparently thin?
DO you people work this hard to be this stupid or what?
Meaghan Walker
TANSTAAFL
In article <5amd6i$h...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, chia...@ix.netcom.com
says...
> >pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk says...
> >> In article <MPG.d35d3987...@news.bcsupernet.com>,
> TANSTAAFL
> >> <yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com> writes
> >> >Too damn bad- the government has absolutley NO right to BUILD on
> *my*
> >> >land. It's mine. I paid for it - out of the product of my labour -
> and as
> >> >such - it is up to me and me alone to do with it as I see fit.
> >>
> >> I thought you said your great grandfather bought it? What labour did
> you
> >> put in?
> >>
> >
> >Get a fucking clue you twit.
> >
> >Context Dropping - To make a vaccuous remark seems to be your style.
> >
> >Inherited property does not make it any less legitmatley mine.
> >
> >
> >Meaghan Walker
> >
> >Oh - in case you hadnt grasped this Pattycakes... You are officially
> in
> >my killfile - I had to reload my newsreader last night so I lost my
> Bozo
> >bin - of which you have been a resident for 3 days.
> >
> >*Plonk*
> >
> >back you go with the rest of the donut heads
> >
> I think the problem with some of these threads is the subject matter of
> the sentences to which we answer.
>
Yeah - as in you idiots want to take the context of ONE situation and
then try to apply it somewhere else.
Its called smuggling in premises.
> At one point Meaghan said "Reagan tried and he only lasted about a
> week", whereas I replied he was Gov. of California and President of the
> US for 8 yrs. She then said she was "Waitingwaitingwaiting" for a
> response from me because she MEANT his policies. Subject of original
> sentence was REAGAN not his policies.
>
Christ - He tried for 1 week. He lasted ONE week to try and reform the
SOCIAL SECURITY system. Now - Either you think I didnt know how long
Reagan was president - or you were attempting to infer that I didnt.
I assure you I did. I have studied his reforms on welfare when he was the
governor of California. I also studied his economic plans - for when he
was the president of the United States.
I probably know more about Ronald Reagans Political life than you do.
I just wonder if you people have to work at being this obtuse.
> Now it seems the subject of land being hers because of her labor when
> she had previously stated it had been her ancestral land. This I cannot
> begin to interprate as it makes little sense, labor vs purchase.
>
Do you people not understand principles?
Can you not think logically long enough to sepparate two sepparate posts
- with completely different concepts from each other?
Regardless of whether land is inherited or bought - it STILL BELONGS to
whomever owned it or inherited it.
Jesus H Christ - are you people THAT dead set on trying to convince me
that the government should be allowed to STEAL WHAT DOES NOT BELONG TO
IT?
Talk about moral bankruptcy.
> As for language I suspect one uses foul language at every possible
> point because either 1) they are very immature or 2) they do not have a
> complete grasp of speech and constructive dialogues.
>
Oh - I am more than capable of being polite to people that deserve it
Roanna.
People who address me as "no nothing novices" dont deserve curtesy
Fuckwit!
> Roanna
> awaiting the day I too will be in Meaghan's kill file
>
Oh - right now you arent - because I think your errors are based on
genuine stupidity - rather than conscious and volitional moral
degeneracy.
I am giving you the benefit of a doubt - because I am assuming that your
ignorance is uninentional - and your inablity to think in absracts
without being so concrete bound is not a show of dishonesty - or evasion.
Rather you are too dumb to read for comprehension.
TANSTAAFL
In article <32CE49...@itol.com>, yc...@itol.com says...
> TANSTAAFL wrote:
> >
> > In article <32CC7F...@itol.com>, yc...@itol.com says...
> > > TANSTAAFL wrote:
> > >
> > > > If the Road is SOO damn important - they can build it AROUND those of us
> > > > who want to keep our rights intact.
> > > >
> > > > Meaghan Walker
> > >
> > >
> > > With that NIMBY attitude nothing would ever be done.
> > >
> >
> > NIMBY Aye?
> >
> > Are you *proud* of yourself for advocating the theft of other people's
> > property?
>
> Advocating it? Shoot.. I just stated a fact.
And you state it - as if there is nothing wrong with what the government
is doing - or has done... that those who wish to stay on *their* property
have the right to do so - whether you or any government disagrees.
>
> > Dont hand me the *well at least the government gives people fair market
> > value for their property*
> >
> > There is no difference between the government saying "Your property or
> > your life" and a muggar on the street - saying "your money or your life"
>
> Last time I checked, nobody was being murdered via the eminent domain
> laws... cripes our state doesn't even have the death penalty.
>
OK. The government makes you an offer - you refuse - they move you - if
you resist you will be arrested - if you flee arrest you will be shot.
It doesnt matter that they dont pull out the guns when the serve you
notice - the guns are still there - ready to kill you if you disagree or
dont do what the government asks as it steals your stuff.
> > Pay no attention to Man behind the curtain... pay no mind to the GUNS
> > they hold at your back as they take your property and give you the
> > pittance of money in exchange for your freedom. Its ransom money.
>
> Although I AM aware of an incident where a property owner pulled a gun
> on a government employee... I am unaware of any incidents where the
> government employee pulled the guns on the property owner while
> negotiating to acquire his/her property via eminent domain (at least in
> this state). Could you please give me an example of this?? And I am
> not talking Waco or Ruby Ridge here, they were hardly highway projects!
>
See above. If you resist - you will be jailed - if you try to flee from
jail you will be shot.
That simple.
> > Nimby AYE?
> >
> > Well... Its too darn bad they didnt have effieciency experts like you in
> > Nazi Germany - as they approrpiated the property of the jews, russians,
> > gypsies, homosexuals, and like - and wrote up receipts for their victims
> > saying "We are just holding these for safe keeping for you" - "trust us -
> > we know better what to do with your property than you do" - "we're from
> > the Government - we're here to *help you*"
>
> Well, unlike you, I hardly claim to be an *expert* in things I know
> little about. I simply stated the facts.
>
I have studied this lilChica - and what troubles me is mostly this... You
state "Nothing would ever be done if people were allowed to keep their
property rights intact" - If the government doesnt protect people from
having their rights violated - and instead violates those rights itself -
it is a Statist Tactic - no better in princple from what I described
above.
Dont be so quick to be proud of the Governments willinness to violate
your rights.
> Last time I checked, victims of Nazi Germany were not given due
> process... as they were unable to appeal (free of charge--court
> costs/attorney fees paid for by the government) the decision, unlike
> citizens of the U.S.
>
WHY ON GODS GREEN EARTH SHOULD ANYBODY HAVE TO APPEAL TO A GOVERNMENT TO
KEEP THEIR PROPERTY???
Are rights mere legal permissions handed to us by the State? Are we only
allowed to keep our property untill such a time as the government says
"sorry - we revoke that permission". If such is the case - then your own
life lilchica isnt really yours... it belongs to the government - and you
seem to have no problem with this.
My life belongs to me, my property belongs to me. And I have a right to
my life, and my liberty and my property no matter who disagrees. Those
people who argue so hard for the government to be able to infringe on
these rights are just as evil as the government doing it.
> > Yeah - Those DAMN silly jews - and those stupid Countries of the
> > Alliance, holding up the progress of the Reich - with their silly talk of
> > Rights of Humanity - and the repudiation of the instigation of force from
> > all human affaird .Too bad there wasnt more lil Chica's around back in
> > 1945 - Maybe they could have doubled the number of ashes and bodies.
>
> Again, I do not claim to make the laws. Simply stating them as they
> are. Trying to insinuate I am a *nazi* is really out of line.
>
Oh really?
Your defence so far has been that people can apeal and beg to the
government for their right to keep their lives. What are you going to say
when the government decides - that your life - just like your property is
not really yours and they revoke the permission they gave you to keep it.
You dont think they haven't already? What do you call the Draft?
> > For all we know - They might have won the war - if ONLY they hadnt been
> > stopped by those idiots who were trying to protect the rest of the world
> > from this disgusting evil. Progress - yes.. The National Socialist Party
> > had a great deal of progress in mind as they carted off its victims to
> > Auschwitz treblinka and Dachau,
>
> Isn't due process a great thing? I am glad I live somewhere where those
> rights are in place and utilized. Do you?
A governments job is to protect people's rights - not to violate them.
Saying "isnt it great that the government lets me BEG for my property" is
no defence of your postion.
>
> > Nimby aye?
> >
> > Id rather be a fucking nimby than a fucking facist like you - lilchica.
>
> Names, names. Meaghan, I have not shared with you my political
> ideology. You would be surprised. However, like I said before, I am
> simply stating facts.
And you are trying to defend an evil evil premise.
>
> > If being concerned about rights, like life, liberty and the pursuit of
> > happiness makes me a nimby - then by GOD - I AM A NIMBY - Make the best
> > of it.
>
> Again, if the highway dept were to come across someone like you, chances
> are the highway would simply choose to go around your lil shack. They
> do it all the time. The people who sell their houses/land do it
> voluntarily.
Unless they dont. Look at Atlantic City as one case where 5 city blocks
of people were *asked* to leave. They are still protesting.
Again, in most cases usually for much more than they could
> get elsewhere. People have the right to settle via negotiation out of
> court or in. No stormtroopers with guns show up at the door. Nobody
> *taking anything away*.
>
Bullshit. Do your homework.
> > Do you even think about this crap that you spew - about welfare, Social
> > Security and Statist thug tactics - that you somehow seem to be happy to
> > be either reciveing or paying into or supporting?
>
> I do my part to help others less fortunate than I... despite the fact
> that I am struggling to get by myself. I also volunteer and contribute
> to charities, on top of paying taxes.
>
Dont wave "Oh I pay taxes" as a badge of honour. It isnt. I'll give you
credit for wanting to help people - But nobody has the right to extort
money from me to give to poor people. I would gladly help out - and give
to those I value and to whom I consider worthy. I will not sanction the
government taking my property,or my money because people like you have
the utter nerve to suggest - you know better what to do with MY money
than I do.
> > Or have you been completely brainwashed to belive this bullshit you are
> > so proud of?
>
> It is very simple. If you do not like the laws of the country, you have
> two options... change them or move. Since you don't even LIVE here...
> what is YOUR problem?
>
I have a right to be free wherever I live lilChica.You do to. Although
you have no defence for your own life, liberty with the arguements you
present.
My problem is this... people like you vote in people like *them* who
think they should be allowed to take my money. I do work to change them -
so far the government hasn't made that impossible.
Your response is so typical.
Guess all those Jews, and Russians and Homosexuals and Gypsies - should
have just LEFT to if they didnt like the Laws. The problem is - by the
time they realized that was their option - it was too late. I can name
10 other governments off the top of my head that operated similarly - and
no people were not allowed to just LEAVE.
But I guess this hasnt occured to you.
What makes you think that the government is going to let you leave - if
you dont want to pay the ransom on your life (also known as taxes) - you
get thrown in Jail - thats what.
Offshore investments are made illegal - cause although they think you are
dispensible - your money isnt.
> > I wonder.
> >
> > Fucking pathetic.
>
> Your lack of basic language skills really equate your response with that
> of a child. Perhaps when you can come up with something beter than
> *swear words* to spout at me, we can continue this discussion.
>
Sorry - I treat people that are ignorant - with exactly the language they
deserve. If you respected the individual rights of other people - I
would probably be more polite.
> > Meaghan Walker
>
> Meaghan... I have one question for you... do you have a telephone?
>
Yes.
And The government engaged in a coercive monopoloy with the Phone Company
to bring it to me- nobody else is allowed to own phone companies here -
in my province. Nobody is allowed to compete with BCTEL for regular phone
service. Protectionist Racket - shit.
Its just corporate welfare. No better than individual welfare.
Meaghan Walker
Pat Winstanley
In article <32ceabd8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
faux...@ix.netcom.com writes
>>> >Too damn bad- the government has absolutley NO right to BUILD on *my*
>>> >land. It's mine. I paid for it - out of the product of my labour - and as
>>> >such - it is up to me and me alone to do with it as I see fit.
>>>
>>> I thought you said your great grandfather bought it? What labour did you
>>> put in?
>>>
>>
>>Get a fucking clue you twit.
>>
>>Context Dropping - To make a vaccuous remark seems to be your style.
>>
>>Inherited property does not make it any less legitmatley mine.
>
>
>labour"
>
Whoops! Another plonk coming up, methinks. :-)
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
LilChica
Subject: Re: (hands off other peoples property) pat makes it back into
my killfile
That of course would only be _after_ she fired off this response ;)
LilChica
[headers returned to original of only alt.child-support]
TANSTAAFL wrote:
[snip of a whole bunch of swear words and the like that Meaghan
obviously feels the need to use since she cannot seem to accept the fact
that someone might simply have an opinion different then hers without
resorting to name-calling and swearing]
> >
> > Meaghan... I have one question for you... do you have a telephone?
> >
>
> Yes.
> And The government engaged in a coercive monopoloy with the Phone Company
> to bring it to me- nobody else is allowed to own phone companies here -
> in my province. Nobody is allowed to compete with BCTEL for regular phone
> service. Protectionist Racket - shit.
> Its just corporate welfare. No better than individual welfare.
>
> Meaghan Walker
So then you are the head of the local chapter to abolish all phone
lines, etc.?
How did that phone line get to your house?
Do you own the land the road in front of your house is built on?
Do you have plumbing and/or sewer provided by the municipality in which
you live?
Do you have electricity? How did it get to your house?
Have you had a title search done on your property? Do you (or your
tribe or whomever) own that free and clear? No easements? No
restrictions? No protective covenants?
kr1...@aol.com
In article <MPG.d3639b0e...@news.bcsupernet.com>,
yeah@getreallikeImgonnatell*you*.com (TANSTAAFL) writes:
>
>> > If the Road is SOO damn important - they can build it AROUND those of
us
>> > who want to keep our rights intact.
>> >
>> > Meaghan Walker
>>
>>
>> With that NIMBY attitude nothing would ever be done.
>>
>
>NIMBY Aye?
>
>Are you *proud* of yourself for advocating the theft of other people's
>property?
>
>Dont hand me the *well at least the government gives people fair market
>value for their property*
>
>There is no difference between the government saying "Your property or
>your life" and a muggar on the street - saying "your money or your life"
>
>Pay no attention to Man behind the curtain... pay no mind to the GUNS
>they hold at your back as they take your property and give you the
>pittance of money in exchange for your freedom. Its ransom money.
Don't forget that it is the government which really owns the real
property. If you fail to pay your yearly "rent" [aka: property tax] to
the government for "your" real property, then they can "sell" your real
property to the highest bidder. All because you failed to pay your
"rent". The clause of "eminent domain" is another tool to ensure the
rights of the landlord [er: governemt]....
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d3856ff3...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<ye...@likeImgonnatellyou.com> writes
>Are rights mere legal permissions handed to us by the State?
Unfortunately, yes.
Pat
=====================================
Pierless Navigation, Wigan, UK
pee...@cix.co.uk
pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley (2:250/107.99@fidonet)
=====================================
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d3873ce3...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<ye...@likeImgonnatellyou.com> writes
>Pat took one post unrelated to the ancestral land issue - and then tried
>to use it as a weapon against me in another.
Why should I want to attack you with or without a weapon? I don't. What
I do want to do is try to figure out what you mean. Has it occurred to
you that the world is bigger than your little patch, and we hear of
injustices every day. When such injustices come to light those of us
opposed to injustices *anywhere in the world* try to get to the bottom
of what has happened, in preparation for trying to help do something
about them. International pressure can sometimes be helpful, but it's
hard to apply such pressure and be taken seriously without knowing both
sides of a story.
Look back through your recent messages on this matter and try to view
them from the point of view of one who doesn't know what you are talking
about beforehand. The two posts I queried (together) appeared to be
talking about the same situation, but saying entirely opposite things.
If I misread your intention, then I apologise, but what you actually
*wrote* appears to be a complete contradiction.
>
>It is so transparently thin?
>
>DO you people work this hard to be this stupid or what?
Some of us work hard to figure out what people in other cultures mean.
When it doesn't seem to make sense (in terms of the culture(s) we know
fairly well) we ask questions for clarification rather than simply
spouting a mouthful of abuse.
If you have a valid complaint then offer the other point of view too so
that others can weigh up the 'evidence' and make their own judgement as
to whether you are right or wrong. I have alrady stated that I think the
more 'modern' civilisations treated the 'native' civilisations
shamefully... I'm already on your side (more or less) but you are not
helping your own cause by foul-mouthed innuendos.
Can you not see the difference?
Roanna Krisko
In <rv$I$JAV84...@pierless.demon.co.uk> Pat Winstanley
<pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <5amd6i$h...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, Roanna Krisko
><chia...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>>I think the problem with some of these threads is the subject matter
of
>>the sentences to which we answer.
>
>think they mean or want other people to believe. When caught in a
>situation of contradicting themselves, or someone else contradicting
>them, they cannot gracefully say "Ooops - sorry!".
>
>I must admit I'm trying hard to figure out the situation over the land
>Meaghan is disputing.
>
>As far as I can gather:
>
>1. She would have no problem supporting her son if the land was in her
>possession.
>
>2. The land was/is the ancestral land of her tribe
>
>3. For some reason her great grandfather bought the land (implied -
from
>the government), presumably about 50-100 years ago (when was it sold
to
>the government in the first place and for what consideration)?
>
>4. For some reason the government then forcibly leased the land back
>from the family to build on, for a fixed term which ends in a few
years
>time.
>
>5. The government is either paying the family/tribe rent for the use
of
>the land now, or is holding the rent in trust - both seem to have been
>implied, the former because that's where her 'welfare' comes from, the
>latter because she said so somewhere in here.
>
>6. She paid for the land with her labour
>
>7. The land belongs to all her aunts and uncles and cousins etc
>
>8. The land belongs to her
>
>I can't be bothered to recall any more contradictions, but the point
is
>that different messages have implied contraditions with each other.
>
>>As for language I suspect one uses foul language at every possible
>>point because either 1) they are very immature or 2) they do not have
a
>>complete grasp of speech and constructive dialogues.
>
have
>the courage to admit or expand/explain it! :-)
>
>>
>>Roanna
>>awaiting the day I too will be in Meaghan's kill file
>
>
>Pat
Pat, I think we are part of an ever growing group if Meaghan puts every
"donut head" (read people she can't scam) in her kill file!
Roanna
Pat Winstanley
In article <MPG.d3786c8a...@news.bcsupernet.com>, TANSTAAFL
<ye...@likeImgonnatellyou.com> writes
>Oh - in case you hadnt grasped this Pattycakes... You are officially in
>my killfile - I had to reload my newsreader last night so I lost my Bozo
>bin - of which you have been a resident for 3 days.
What you seem to forget is that you can killfile me and swear at me or
about me as much as you like. Makes no difference to me! :-)
Unfortunately that does not prevent me from reading and *politely*
responding (as I have done all along) to your public messages in this
public newsgroup for everyone else to see.
And your killfile won't (usually - depends on the software and setup)
prevent you seeing messages responding to my responses to you or anyone
else. If it does then you will have less and less to read here as I
become more and more active. :-) I think that's called shooting oneself
in the foot!
(Perhaps someone not in the official killfile would be so good as to
respond to or repost this so that Meaghan can see this message and learn
- then again, I suppose I could always respond via my other [undisclosed
but perfectly legitimate] account... ;-))).
And I'm still curious as to the answer to my original question... about
how you laboured for the land your great-grandfather bought.