Kirwood Inc. Now Runs the Canadian Lawyer Index New Corporate structure
Bildo
view your woman hater site. Are you planning on letting the female lawyers
access your sight? Or is it just for the men who hate women like you do?
Bildo
"J Kirby Inwood" <j...@canlaw.com> wrote in message
news:57n1cs4lrlgh7fm85...@4ax.com...
> J Kirby Inwood <ki...@kirbyinwood.com> hypothesizes:
>
> Good Morning
> Effective immediately, the Canadian Lawyer Index is now an operation of
Kirwood
> Inc. Kirwood Inc is a new corporation bringing together the services of
both the
> Canadian Lawyer Index and Kirwood Advertising (http://www.kirwood.com)
Kirwood
> Advertising offers all creative services from concept to completion, in
all
> media, including the Internet and web site creation.
>
> All existing services provided to you by the Canadian Lawyer Index will
> continue.
>
> In addition, all Canadian Lawyer Index clients will have one stop access
to the
> full range of professional creative services in all media to better
promote
> their practice. You will now have available both the current and highly
> successful advertising program offered by the Canadian Lawyer Index plus
all
> aspects of web site design, repair and promotion.
>
> Clients will also be able to access full advertising services from concept
to
> completion in all media. If you require yellow page ads, brochures, direct
mail,
> logos, right up to television Kirwood Advertising can provide first rate
service
> for all your needs.
>
> Kirwood Advertising has been responsible for all of the web design,
promotion
> and related work for the Canadian Lawyer Index from the start in 1996. The
> success of the Canadian Lawyer Index is a direct result of the work of
Kirwood
> Advertising.
>
> John Styles has been retired and is no longer involved with the
corporation.
> Effective with these changes, J Kirby Inwood is responsible for all
aspects of
> Kirwood Inc and its two operating divisions, the Canadian Lawyer Index and
> Kirwood Advertising.
>
> Mr Inwood has some 30 years of national and international award winning
> advertising experience. He is extremely familiar with the legal world and
the
> requirement of lawyers in promoting their practice. Few advertising
experts are
> as familiar with promoting lawyers and their practice as is Mr Inwood.
>
> If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, Additional
> information on these changes will be published in due course.
> J Kirby Inwood
> Canadian Legal Help, Articles, Legal Tips, Lawyer Referral Service
> and related support for anyone needing Canadian legal assistance in any
area..
> http://www.canlaw.com
> in...@canlaw.com
Tom Turner
<Anast...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Melanie <mell...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:sc2idm...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > Would you want a young child being the one to determine their purchases?
>>
>> Good point.
>
>Well, I don't know about anyone else's kids, but somehow, a month's child
>support worth of Pokemon cards just doesn't cut it, ya know? <G>
>
What about school fees, bus passes, shoes, clothes, kids weekly
spending moneys? None of the above is deductible from any child care
money pay ed to the mother! Have a look at both parts of section 7 of
the act governing child care payments and expenses.
Tracy
Hun, I think you missed her point. Do you honestly believe a young child
would pay for school fees, bus passes, shoes, clothes, etc... if he/she
was given child-support money directly? If not given, then had a total
say in how it was spent.
I don't know about other people's children, but mine has this attitude
that since I'm their mother I must provide for them. Hense, if they were
given money that was suppose to go towards their actual care and they
spent it on Pokemon cards, I would still provide for them.
While at work the other day, I read through some of Oregon's description
on child abuse... this is the legal definition. And not providing the
basic needs of a child is considered child abuse. Now kids are taught at
an early age that if their parents are not providing these things to them,
then that *is* abuse. So in terms of giving a child child-support money
to buy those things for themselves... and if that child decided to go a
blow it on Pokemon cards, CDs, games, etc... then the CP could be
investigated/charged with child abuse.
The above is just one reason why I would not support giving child-support
money to a child. No matter what their age is. As long as the primary
parent (CP) is going to be held legally responsible in making sure the
child is provided for... then it would not be right.
Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.intsites.com/ ICQ: 18737275
....................................
I believe that all humans are created equal and deserves
the same respect and dignity. Let's end hatred...
http://www.intsites.com/tracy.html
*** spamguard in place! to email me: nimue at teleport dot com ***
sh...@ecn.ab.ca
: You could try a charter challenge on the grounds that the you are being denied
: your charter right to enter or leave Canada freely since many countries require
: a passport and or visa. Probably will not work though and would take mega bucks
: and years to litigate.
: You will find real legal help at http://www.canlaw.com
: Fathers rights issues at http://www.kirbyinwood.com
I, for one am getting sick and TIRED of hearing all this snivelling about
RIGHTS. Time to hear a LOT more about RESPONSIBILITIES!!!! The Charter has
turned out, as predicted, to be a bloody curse. Canadians did fine BEFORE
the Charter messed things up.
sh...@ecn.ab.ca
: Tell you what, John, why don't YOU do the poll?
: After all, you're the one challenging the commonsense view that most
: people don't think that, because some people accused of murder are held
: without bail, it's OK to invalidate a father's passport on the basis of
: an unproved allegation of nonpayment of child support. While you're at
: it, why don't you ask how many people even KNOW that this can happen?
It is HIGH time that rights were ONLY protected as long as one fulfilled
their RESPONSIBILITIES.
: If I say that the world is round, and you disagree, it's for you to do
: the research.
: The Canadian and the U.S. Governments use passport invalidation as a CS
: enforcement technique because they control passports. They think they
: can get away with virtually anything when they're targeting one of the
: few remaining designated scapegoat groups. Court cases in both the U.S.
: and Canada may prove them wrong. However, there is no guarantee of
: this. The courts have proven to be a broken reed when it comes to
: protecting the mostly elementary human rights for fathers.
: John Fleming wrote:
: >
: > Kenneth S. <nim...@erols.com> wrote in message
: > news:38BDDC...@erols.com...
: > > Me? Commit heinous crimes? Never!
: > >
: > > You seem to be saying that, because someone can be held in custody
: > > pending trial for a crime like murder, it's OK to invalidate a
: > father's
: > > passport because of unproved allegation of non-payment of child
: > > support. I don't agree with that logic. And I don't think many
: > other
: > > people would agree with it either.
: >
: > Tell you what. Why don't you go do a poll on the number of people who
: > agree/don't agree with that logic and get back to me. You can take
: > your time.
: >
: > >That very curious reasoning could be
: > > used to justify any kind of restrictions on someone's movements
: > because
: > > of unproved allegations. It's just absurd.
--
Karl Chase
the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
The Hornschuch's
> Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
> the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
Hmmm... can you read? I don't like being rude, but the above had
nothing
to do with what I said below. The topic at hand was giving
child-support
directly to a child, and what they may end up doing with it... not what
child-support IS suppose to go towards.
Tracy
Max Burke
>Wait a second MAX
>You haven't even listened to what I am saying
Yes I *HAVE*.... That's why YOU got the response from me that you 'object'
to....
>I know several single fathers that are doing quite well.
And?????
>My attitude is the same for the non-custodial parent BE THEY MALE OR FEMALE
And what is that attitude????
To date ALL you've posted that the should be obligated to pay CS
irrespective of how much it is just to be seen as a 'good' parent in your
eyes.....
BTW it is NOT good form to snip the entire contents of the message you're
replying to.....
At best, no one else reading your message knows what you're talking about or
what you're responding to.....
And I can ONLY assume that you dont have ANY answers to the questions I
asked you about NCPs.....
It's a REAL CRIME against fathers that they are NOT permitted to be ALL that
they should be to their children by the system that denies them that HUMAN
right but DEMANDS they are financially obligated to the one that *MOST
OFTEN* uses the system to stop them being all they have a right to be to
their own children....
What about the MILLIONS of caring responsible fathers that are DENIED any
parent rights all, but are required to fulfil their financial obligations to
the one who *MOST OFTEN* caused their separation from their children in the
first place...
Do YOU care about them AT ALL????
------------------
# Whichever way you slice it and dice it no man can become a father until
some woman is ready, willing, and able to make that happen....
--
mlvburke@*e*pl*ce.co.nz
When replying replace the obvious with ihug
Visit my Sony Mavica Digital Camera Photo Gallery at :
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~mlvburke/ - FD91 portfolio
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Square/6008/ - FD7 portfolio
The Mavica Digital Camera's Info Exchange :
http://www.mavican.nu
Tracy
Max Burke wrote in message <89slrg$k12$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>>Melanie wrote in message ...
>
>replying to.....
>
>At best, no one else reading your message knows what you're talking about
or
>what you're responding to.....
Max, some people don't know how to configure their news reader to _not_
snip, or should I say... include the original text as quoted. I know it is
quite frustrating when I'm trying to figure out who someone is replying to
when there is no included text.
>It's a REAL CRIME against fathers that they are NOT permitted to be ALL
that
>they should be to their children by the system that denies them that HUMAN
>right but DEMANDS they are financially obligated to the one that *MOST
>OFTEN* uses the system to stop them being all they have a right to be to
>their own children....
Very well put.
Wilbur Streett
>Kenneth S. (nim...@erols.com) wrote:
>: Tell you what, John, why don't YOU do the poll?
>
>: After all, you're the one challenging the commonsense view that most
>: people don't think that, because some people accused of murder are held
>: without bail, it's OK to invalidate a father's passport on the basis of
>: an unproved allegation of nonpayment of child support. While you're at
>: it, why don't you ask how many people even KNOW that this can happen?
>
>It is HIGH time that rights were ONLY protected as long as one fulfilled
>their RESPONSIBILITIES.
Well, I think that you haven't fullfilled your responsibilities, so I
revoke all of your rights.
Wilbur
--------------------------------------------
Putting A Human Face On Technology ;-)
--------------------------------------------
Literally! http://www.monmouth.com/~wstreett/FaceIT/
Wilbur Streett
>> I understand what you are saying here. This may be a stupid question, I
>> guess I'm about to find out, but can you legally set up a joint account
>> for you and your child and put the support money in, so that only you
>> and your child/ren have access to it? That way you know the money is
>> going to the person it was meant for...your child/ren? Can you do this
>> instead of writing the cheque out to your ex? Give her/him a deposit
>> slip instead?
>
>Would you want a young child being the one to determine their purchases?
At least she'd make better decisions than her mother.
Wilbur Streett
>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
And that it is not Child Support.
Edmund Esterbauer
"Wilbur Streett" <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote in message
news:38c2447d....@news.monmouth.com...
> sh...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:
>
> >Kenneth S. (nim...@erols.com) wrote:
> >: Tell you what, John, why don't YOU do the poll?
> >
> >: After all, you're the one challenging the commonsense view that most
> >: people don't think that, because some people accused of murder are held
> >: without bail, it's OK to invalidate a father's passport on the basis of
> >: an unproved allegation of nonpayment of child support. While you're at
> >: it, why don't you ask how many people even KNOW that this can happen?
> >
> >It is HIGH time that rights were ONLY protected as long as one fulfilled
> >their RESPONSIBILITIES.
>
> Well, I think that you haven't fullfilled your responsibilities, so I
> revoke all of your rights.
Typical Stalinist feminazi reply.
These workers at the Child Support (sic) Agency are the real criminals.
They are a Child Abuse Agency.
Their interest in only in patricide and laziness.
Wilber has no concern for children, fathers or basic democratic standards.
Pat Winstanley
<WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>kch...@kchase.net (Karl Chase) wrote:
>
>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>
>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
Used to cope with the non-resident parent's share of the children's
costs...
>And that it is not Child Support.
How so, when it is spent on the children?
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>"Anastazia" <Anast...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I understand what you are saying here. This may be a stupid question, I
>>> guess I'm about to find out, but can you legally set up a joint account
>>> for you and your child and put the support money in, so that only you
>>> and your child/ren have access to it? That way you know the money is
>>> going to the person it was meant for...your child/ren? Can you do this
>>> instead of writing the cheque out to your ex? Give her/him a deposit
>>> slip instead?
>>
>>Would you want a young child being the one to determine their purchases?
>
>At least she'd make better decisions than her mother.
In *your* case, perhaps, but in general?
--
Pat Winstanley
Sammi
<edm...@au.gateway.net> wrote:
>Wilber has no concern for children, fathers or basic democratic standards.
That Wilber, that's some pig.
Sammi
Streett) wrote:
>kch...@kchase.net (Karl Chase) wrote:
>
>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>
>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
>And that it is not Child Support.
>
Of course it is an income supplement. What else did you think? That's
the whole point and what the hell is wrong with it?
J Kirby Inwood
herself. Why should society continue to permit women to exploit men?
kch...@kchase.net (Karl Chase) hypothesizes:
>> Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
>> the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 14:12:50 -0800, Tracy <ni...@merlins.place> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, Tom Turner wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:06:18 -0600, "Anastazia"
>> >> <Anast...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Melanie <mell...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:sc2idm...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> >> > Would you want a young child being the one to determine their purchases?
>> >> >>
>> >Tracy
>> >
>> >~~~~~~~
>> >http://www.intsites.com/ ICQ: 18737275
>> > ....................................
>> > I believe that all humans are created equal and deserves
>> > the same respect and dignity. Let's end hatred...
>> > http://www.intsites.com/tracy.html
>> > *** spamguard in place! to email me: nimue at teleport dot com ***
>> >
Canadian Legal Help, Articles, Legal Tips, Lawyer Referral Service
J Kirby Inwood
being wrongfully convicted...
"For evil to triumph it is only necessary for us to have more ass holes like
Sharx"
Sharx must have been one of those millions of "Good Germans" who sat by and did
nothing to stop the German death machines.
sh...@ecn.ab.ca () hypothesizes:
>> I, for one am getting sick and TIRED of hearing all this snivelling about
>> RIGHTS. Time to hear a LOT more about RESPONSIBILITIES!!!! The Charter has
>> turned out, as predicted, to be a bloody curse. Canadians did fine BEFORE
>> the Charter messed things up.
>>
Canadian Legal Help, Articles, Legal Tips, Lawyer Referral Service
Karl Chase
>On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Karl Chase wrote:
>
>> Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
>> the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>
>Hmmm... can you read? I don't like being rude, but the above had
>nothing
>to do with what I said below. The topic at hand was giving
>child-support
>directly to a child, and what they may end up doing with it... not what
>child-support IS suppose to go towards.
>
>
Well giving the money straight to the child does have to do with what I wrote.
If the money was given to the child do you really think it would be used on
food, clothes, housing all of what child support it for? It is to help raise the
child and not meant to be used as spending money for the kids.
>Tracy
Karl Chase
wrote:
>kch...@kchase.net (Karl Chase) wrote:
>
>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>
>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
>And that it is not Child Support.
>
An income supplement is supporting the child, if the mother or father does not
make enough money to raise the child on their own then the money helps out. And
don't give me the crap that if the father has more money he should automatically
get the child because thats not always the case nor is it always best for the
child.
Karl Chase
>In today's world no woman should have a child if she cannot afford to pay for it
>herself. Why should society continue to permit women to exploit men?
How is a woman exploiting a man if they both together have a child and then down
the road they get divorced?
>
>kch...@kchase.net (Karl Chase) hypothesizes:
>
>>> Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
>>> the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>>>
>>>
Wilbur Streett
>> >It is HIGH time that rights were ONLY protected as long as one fulfilled
>> >their RESPONSIBILITIES.
>>
>> Well, I think that you haven't fullfilled your responsibilities, so I
>> revoke all of your rights.
>
>Typical Stalinist feminazi reply.
>These workers at the Child Support (sic) Agency are the real criminals.
>They are a Child Abuse Agency.
>
>Their interest in only in patricide and laziness.
>Wilber has no concern for children, fathers or basic democratic standards.
In case you missed it, I didn't make the original comment.
But your stupidity attempts to revoke my rights to being free of false
accusations.
Wilbur Streett
>On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:50:56 +1100, "Edmund Esterbauer"
><edm...@au.gateway.net> wrote:
>
>>Wilber has no concern for children, fathers or basic democratic standards.
>
>That Wilber, that's some pig.
Yes, and he's at the URL at the bottom of this message..
He's also the guy that invented the airplane..
And he's the guy that invented the walled in city.. Wille Borre.
But mostly, he's a guy that puts more effort into Dads Rights than any of
the twits that can't figure out who am really am.
Wilbur Streett
>In article <38c24591....@news.monmouth.com>, Wilbur Streett
><WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>>kch...@kchase.net (Karl Chase) wrote:
>>
>>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
>>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>>
>>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
>
>Used to cope with the non-resident parent's share of the children's
>costs...
Nope. The children's costs are not "supplimenting the CP income".
>>And that it is not Child Support.
>
>How so, when it is spent on the children?
It's not.
Wilbur Streett
>>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
>>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>>
>>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
>>And that it is not Child Support.
>>
>
>Of course it is an income supplement. What else did you think? That's
>the whole point and what the hell is wrong with it?
That's called Alimony twit.
Wilbur Streett
>>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
>>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>>
>>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
>>And that it is not Child Support.
>>
>
>An income supplement is supporting the child, if the mother or father does not
>make enough money to raise the child on their own then the money helps out. And
>don't give me the crap that if the father has more money he should automatically
>get the child because thats not always the case nor is it always best for the
>child.
There are plenty of studies that show that children fare better with their
fathers. Provide one to the contrary.
Wordsmith
>
> In article <38c24591....@news.monmouth.com>, Wilbur Streett
> <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
> >
> >>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
> >>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
> >
> >Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
>
> costs...
Balderdash. The purpose of child support is to ensure that the child's
standard of living does not suffer as a result of the dissolution of the
parents' relationship. It is not to establish equity--or parity--in
division of costs.
> >And that it is not Child Support.
>
> How so, when it is spent on the children?
Right: no custodial parent ever benefits from child support payments.
It was my *son* who needed the kitchen remodeled, the Jacuzzi tub in his
mother's bathroom, the new Mercedes--none of which she could afford
without the exorbitant child support payments I make.
And if the sole purpose of child support is so noble, why then is it
based upon ability to pay, rather than need?
--
If you must e-mail me, my correct address
is words2 (at) fls (dot) infi (dot) net
Axxia
>
> On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:50:56 +1100, "Edmund Esterbauer"
> <edm...@au.gateway.net> wrote:
>
> >Wilber has no concern for children, fathers or basic democratic standards.
>
> That Wilber, that's some pig.
Damn you Sammi! I was drinking when I read that. Nice referance BTW.
--
[www.nerdhive.org]
Login name: Axxia Email to: Ax...@nerdhive.org
Directory: /export/org/nerdhive Shell: /bin/sh
Project: To fully calculate the value of pi, before I die.
Wilbur Streett
>>>> I understand what you are saying here. This may be a stupid question, I
>>>> guess I'm about to find out, but can you legally set up a joint account
>>>> for you and your child and put the support money in, so that only you
>>>> and your child/ren have access to it? That way you know the money is
>>>> going to the person it was meant for...your child/ren? Can you do this
>>>> instead of writing the cheque out to your ex? Give her/him a deposit
>>>> slip instead?
>>>
>>>Would you want a young child being the one to determine their purchases?
>>
>>At least she'd make better decisions than her mother.
>
>In *your* case, perhaps, but in general?
In case you missed it, GENERAL has nothing to do with the individual child.
Wilbur Streett
>Sammi wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:50:56 +1100, "Edmund Esterbauer"
>> <edm...@au.gateway.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Wilber has no concern for children, fathers or basic democratic standards.
>>
>> That Wilber, that's some pig.
>
>Damn you Sammi! I was drinking when I read that. Nice referance BTW.
It's also the name of the HTML 3.2 specification..
Karl Chase
wrote:
>kch...@kchase.net (Karl Chase) wrote:
>
>>>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
>>>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>>>
>>>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
>>>And that it is not Child Support.
>>>
>>
>>An income supplement is supporting the child, if the mother or father does not
>>make enough money to raise the child on their own then the money helps out. And
>>don't give me the crap that if the father has more money he should automatically
>>get the child because thats not always the case nor is it always best for the
>>child.
>
>There are plenty of studies that show that children fare better with their
>fathers. Provide one to the contrary.
>
Heck I'd like you to provide even one study that shows that the child is better
with the father. If a mothers rights group did the study it would show one
result and than if a fathers rights group did the same study. Some dad's are
assholes and should not get the kids, yet they will still scream that it is
unjust that the mother got them. Don't you agree that not all fathers are
created equal? You may be a good dad but what about Joe Blow down the street? It
would all depend on the individual families, some fathers are abusive as are
some mothers, some are alcoholics, some are work-a-holics, some are drug
dependant. A mother might get the child if the courts determine that the father
spends more of his time working,drinking or shooting up than he spends with the
child and the same could be said for the mothers. I am in no way saying that a
mother should always get the children, what I am saying is that we can't take
your divorce and custody battle and have it fit ALL families divorce and custody
situations. Sure more dad's get the bitter end of the stick and the sooner some
of these older judges get off the bench the sooner we will see some equity in
divorce and custody situations.
Tracy
Karl Chase wrote:
>
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 01:55:05 GMT, The Hornschuch's <ni...@merlins.place> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Karl Chase wrote:
> >
> >> Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
> >> the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
> >
> >Hmmm... can you read? I don't like being rude, but the above had
> >nothing
> >to do with what I said below. The topic at hand was giving
> >child-support
> >directly to a child, and what they may end up doing with it... not what
> >child-support IS suppose to go towards.
> >
> >
>
> Well giving the money straight to the child does have to do with what I wrote.
> If the money was given to the child do you really think it would be used on
> food, clothes, housing all of what child support it for? It is to help raise the
> child and not meant to be used as spending money for the kids.
You didn't specify that... you made a statement concerning what CS is
suppose to be used for.
Sammi
Streett) wrote:
>Sammi <sa...@alt2600.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:50:56 +1100, "Edmund Esterbauer"
>><edm...@au.gateway.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Wilber has no concern for children, fathers or basic democratic standards.
>>
>>That Wilber, that's some pig.
>
>Yes, and he's at the URL at the bottom of this message..
>
>He's also the guy that invented the airplane..
>
>And he's the guy that invented the walled in city.. Wille Borre.
>
>But mostly, he's a guy that puts more effort into Dads Rights than any of
>the twits that can't figure out who am really am.
>
>Wilbur
Touche.
I was just lightly funning ya.
Sammi
Streett) wrote:
>kch...@kchase.net (Karl Chase) wrote:
>
>>>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
>>>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>>>
>>>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
>>>And that it is not Child Support.
>>>
>>
>>An income supplement is supporting the child, if the mother or father does not
>>make enough money to raise the child on their own then the money helps out. And
>>don't give me the crap that if the father has more money he should automatically
>>get the child because thats not always the case nor is it always best for the
>>child.
>
>There are plenty of studies that show that children fare better with their
>fathers. Provide one to the contrary.
>
>Wilbur
Uh...yeah.
There are plenty of studies that say say Pluto is populated by silly
looking dogs. Provide one to the contrary.
Sammi
Streett) wrote:
>Sammi <sa...@alt2600.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
>>>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>>>
>>>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
>>>And that it is not Child Support.
>>>
>>
>>Of course it is an income supplement. What else did you think? That's
>>the whole point and what the hell is wrong with it?
>
>That's called Alimony twit.
Well silly person, if Child Support is not an income suppliment you
tell me exactly what it is.
Sammi
>Sammi wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:50:56 +1100, "Edmund Esterbauer"
>> <edm...@au.gateway.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Wilber has no concern for children, fathers or basic democratic standards.
>>
>> That Wilber, that's some pig.
>
>Damn you Sammi! I was drinking when I read that. Nice referance BTW.
I half-apologized for it but I now see I was acting rashly. Wilbur
turns out to be nothing more than a shrill, arrogant windbag.
I now apologize for insulting the intelligence of pigs.
Pat Winstanley
<WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>Pat Winstanley <Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <38c24591....@news.monmouth.com>, Wilbur Streett
>><WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>>>
>>>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to
>suplement
>>>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>>>
>>>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
>>
>>costs...
>
>
>>
>
How is it not supporting the children when it is spent on the children
on behalf of the non-resident parent?
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>There are plenty of studies that show that children fare better with their
>fathers.
Which studies are those?
Or do you mean studies that show that a child generally does better with
BOTH father and mother than either one on their own?
I don't think anyone is disputing that in most cases the child does
better with BOTH parents involved in their lives (ie. father involved as
well as mother).
It's not always the case though... some dads, just like some mums, are
worse than useless!
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>Pat Winstanley <Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>> I understand what you are saying here. This may be a stupid question, I
>>>>> guess I'm about to find out, but can you legally set up a joint account
>>>>> for you and your child and put the support money in, so that only you
>>>>> and your child/ren have access to it? That way you know the money is
>>>>> going to the person it was meant for...your child/ren? Can you do this
>>>>> instead of writing the cheque out to your ex? Give her/him a deposit
>>>>> slip instead?
>>>>
>>>>Would you want a young child being the one to determine their purchases?
>>>
>>>At least she'd make better decisions than her mother.
>>
>>In *your* case, perhaps, but in general?
>
>In case you missed it, GENERAL has nothing to do with the individual child.
Are you saying that in all cases the child will make better spending
decisions than the parent regarding everyday needs such as food,
clothing, shelter etc?
--
Pat Winstanley
Tom Turner
>
>>>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to suplement
>>>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>>>
>>>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
>>>
>>
>>the whole point and what the hell is wrong with it?
>
>That's called Alimony twit.
>
There is really very little difference in Child support and Alimony. A
number of years ago Alimony was stopped in all but the most extreme
cases, so some bright feminist came up with the idea "lets call it
child support", "who could argue with that".
In an earlier message I wrote:-
"What about school fees, bus passes, shoes, clothes, kids weekly
spending moneys? None of the above is deductible from any child care
money pay ed to the mother! Have a look at both parts of section 7 of
the act governing child care payments and expenses."
Some twit took this to mean I was paying for these items AS child
support. NO, these are in ADDITION to child support!
So, how about I just say, "the hell with these additional expenses"
and let the Ex pay it all out of the child support payments. That's
what it's for. This is not me saying this, It's the law.
It's time the Mothers, who are the ones getting the child support in
most cases, learned that they can't have there cake and eat it also!!!
Axxia
> Uh...yeah.
> There are plenty of studies that say say Pluto is populated by silly
> looking dogs. Provide one to the contrary.
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/pluto.html
I can't find any mention of silly looking dogs here. Based on the facts
it does present, I don't see how a dog no matter how silly looking could
survive, let alone populate the planet.
Show *me* one study to the contrary. =8)
Tom Turner
The Canadian government CAN NOT take that from you.
>BC father loses passport over child-support.
>Files for injunction in BC Supreme Court.
>
>T.S. Thomas, a father embroiled in a long-standing dispute over
>child-maintenance arrears has had his passport suspended by the Family
>Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP). Thomas has filed for an
>injunction against FMEP in BC Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. A
>hearing is set for March 3rd at the Smithe Street courthouse.
>
>The injunction application is believed to be unprecedented and the first
>serious challenge of the punitive side of
>Bill C41. The federal government enacted the legislaltion in 1996 giving
>special enforcement powers to provincial agencies such as FMEP.
>
>Thomas was told by an FMEP officer his passport was recently suspended
>after Thomas had initiated court action to settle the arrears. Thomas,
>citing various civil libertarians and constitutional authorities, claims
>that the holding of a passport defines the fundamental relationship of
>citizen and State. That a passport is universally regarded as a symbol
>of citizenship and nationality. Thomas further alleges discrimination
>against non-custodial parents, particularly against fathers.
>
>Thomas lives on Gabriola Island and is the father of a 12 year old boy.
>He is well-know in BC as a poet and public artist. Thomas feels like a
>stateless, refugee in his own country. Astonishingly, for an alleged
>debt. Tens of thousands of students across the country owe substantial
>amounts in student loans. Will their passports be seized next?
>
>The former Canadian poet plans to file a complaint with the BC Human
>Rights Commission and may appeal to the U.N.
>
>
>
>-30-
>
>------- End of forwarded message -------
>
>Equal Parents of Canada
>EPOC_NEWS list operating instructions at:
> http://www.interlog.com/~parental/epocnews/home.htm
>_______________________________________________________
>_____________________________________________________________
>Want to find the best email lists? Check out the Topica 20!
>http://www.topica.com/topica20
netlynx
>
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:19:32 GMT, WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur
> Streett) wrote:
>
> >Sammi <sa...@alt2600.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
> >>>And that it is not Child Support.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Of course it is an income supplement. What else did you think? That's
> >>the whole point and what the hell is wrong with it?
> >
> >That's called Alimony twit.
>
> tell me exactly what it is.
Alright, I am not going to try to argue the symantics of being a
suppliment or not, I think it definately should be a suppliment though.
The legal system however does not treat it like a suppliment, because if
it were they would take into consideration the income of the parent who
is primary caregiver of the child. (I use primary caregiver as opposed
to custodial parent because I have joint custody, therefore I believe
that I am just as much a custodial parent as my ex, though the child is
not living with me, I am therefore not the primary caregiver, there is
probably another legal term I just can't think of right now) The child
support payments I make are based solely on MY income. How exactly is
this fair.
Based on my income I pay approximately $550 base payment a month for one
child. In theory if they were to calculate her income being
approximately equal to half of my income then technically I am paying
2/3 of raising the child, and she should be paying 1/3. So *MY* $550
plus *HER* $275 equals (drum roll), $825 per month, to raise one child.
Now this to me seems somewhat steep, considering at one point in time,
there was only a net income of $1200/month for the three of us to live
on. Though on the up side of this, my child gets to go to a private
school (guess public just isn't good enough) and she gets all the toys
she wants and is spoiled rotten (I have seen her room), yet by the time
I have paid all the expenses I have to pay out for my own personal cost
of living, there is not a lot I can do to 'compete' in the toy
department, and therefore, she likes *mommy* better. (wow, did that
sound bitter? I do realize that this is likely just a phase)
There is no accountability for the money, and please feel free to
correct me if I am wrong, but under the legal advice I had I was told
that I had no *right* to get a monthly budget of where the $550 I was
paying was going. I could request it, but the courts would never force
my ex to give me that information. So if the primary caregiver is not
required to present this information on request, then how are they held
accountable for the 20 packs of pokemon cards and the 30 stuffed animals
(pure bribery), and the legal fees that they are actually spending that
money on.
What it comes down to basically is that I do not think that the
guidelines that they have come out with is a fair way to assess the
amount of child support paid. I think that consideration of the
lifestyle *before* the separation should be taken into consideration (I
do think it is imporant to maintain the lifestyle the child has grown up
with) and should take into consideration *both* incomes. I don't think
that if the primary caregiver gets remarried that the new spouse should
take on the financial responsibilities, nor should their incomes even
factor into the equation, *unless* the primary caregiver's income
changes because of the new marriage (ie. they quit their job to become a
full time parent).
sh...@ecn.ab.ca
: Tell that to all the people who have been freed from unjust convictions after
: being wrongfully convicted...
: "For evil to triumph it is only necessary for us to have more ass holes like
: Sharx"
: Sharx must have been one of those millions of "Good Germans" who sat by and did
: nothing to stop the German death machines.
At least an ASSHOLE has a ***use****, unlike yourself.
: sh...@ecn.ab.ca () hypothesizes:
: >> I, for one am getting sick and TIRED of hearing all this snivelling about
: >> RIGHTS. Time to hear a LOT more about RESPONSIBILITIES!!!! The Charter has
: >> turned out, as predicted, to be a bloody curse. Canadians did fine BEFORE
: >> the Charter messed things up.
: >>
: Canadian Legal Help, Articles, Legal Tips, Lawyer Referral Service
: and related support for anyone needing Canadian legal assistance in any area..
: http://www.canlaw.com
: in...@canlaw.com
--
Wilbur Streett
>>> >Wilber has no concern for children, fathers or basic democratic standards.
>>>
>>> That Wilber, that's some pig.
>>
>>Damn you Sammi! I was drinking when I read that. Nice referance BTW.
>
>I half-apologized for it but I now see I was acting rashly. Wilbur
>turns out to be nothing more than a shrill, arrogant windbag.
>I now apologize for insulting the intelligence of pigs.
Yeah, sure. So want to bet on whether your IQ is higher than Wilbur's?
Wilbur Streett
>>>>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to
>>suplement
>>>>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
>>>
>>>Used to cope with the non-resident parent's share of the children's
>>>costs...
>>
>>Nope. The children's costs are not "supplimenting the CP income".
>>
>>>>And that it is not Child Support.
>>>
>>>How so, when it is spent on the children?
>>
>>It's not.
>
>How is it not supporting the children when it is spent on the children
>on behalf of the non-resident parent?
Alimony is the definition of supplimenting the CP income.
Child support is not defined as income for the parent.
I'm sorry that you don't have the intellect to grasp the differences. But
then we should make you pay more taxes, since you think that Child Support
is an income suppliment.
Wilbur Streett
>In article <38c28925....@news.monmouth.com>, Wilbur Streett
><WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>>There are plenty of studies that show that children fare better with their
>>fathers.
>
>Which studies are those?
>
>Or do you mean studies that show that a child generally does better with
>BOTH father and mother than either one on their own?
No, the studies that show that the children that end up living with the
mother end up in jail, etc.. while the children that live with the father
don't. Sexual Abuse statistics show that only 4% of the time is the sexual
abuse perpetrated by the father, so guess what?
>I don't think anyone is disputing that in most cases the child does
>better with BOTH parents involved in their lives (ie. father involved as
>well as mother).
Sure they do, you have already.
>It's not always the case though... some dads, just like some mums, are
>worse than useless!
But in the vast majority of the cases, the child fares better with the
father.
J Kirby Inwood
millionaire mother or go to jail?
We have two cases I personally know of in Toronto where one single child is
getting support payments of just over ten thousand dollars a month. What kid
needs $10,000 a month for pokeman cards????
If women paid child support there would be no laws jailing delinquents or
cancelling their passports or drivers licenses.
>> >
>> > >Sammi <sa...@alt2600.com> wrote:
> > >>>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
>> > >>>And that it is not Child Support.
>> > >>Of course it is an income supplement. What else did you think? That's
>> > >>the whole point and what the hell is wrong with it?
Canadian Legal Help, Articles, Legal Tips, Lawyer Referral Service
Kathy Harvey
justified. I have not bashed men. I say "Good for you all" for demanding your
rights. I do not believe that the custody issue is fair to men at all.
I happen to be a custodial parent, this however, was his father's choice as he felt
that it would be best for our son. He has never been denied access to our son.
Unfortunately this is not the case for all NCPs. I believe that NCPs should contribute
an appropriate amount to their child's welfare. In my case the amount I receive is not
even half of the daycare bill. Then there is clothing for a very growing boy on top of
this.
But this is NOT what is important. What IS important is that my son has a very good
relationship with his father. I believe that any parent who would deny their children
access to the other parent without an extremely good reason (i.e.. criminal reasons),
is doing their children a great disservice.
J Kirby Inwood wrote:
> The issue is that women are bashing men and now some of us are fighting back
> How do you like it so far?
>
> Kathy Harvey <Kathy_...@pancanadian.ca> hypothesizes:
>
> >> I thought that the issue here was child support and not women bashing!
> >>
> >> J Kirby Inwood wrote:
> >>
> >> > There is nothing sexist about my attitude and your saying, (a typical female
> >> > trick... divert attention from the issue) does not make it so.
> >> >
> >> > "Melanie" <mell...@hotmail.com> hypothesizes:
> >> >
> >> > >> Man you have a sexist attitude.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I am assuming that you don't have your children. Sorry to hear that.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I know several single fathers with the same attitude that you are claiming
> >> > >> is female.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> perhaps you should tru to be part of your childs life. Visitation birthday
> >> > >> cards etc.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> "J Kirby Inwood" <ki...@kirbyinwood.com> wrote in message
> >> > >> news:3ndubs4ep3n966037...@4ax.com...
> >> > >> > The only person who should pay child support is the person with custody,
> >> > >> Why
> >> > >> > should anyone pay for something which was taken from them?
> >> > >> > Women want equality except when it comes to the bill.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > The only time a woman says a child is the father's is when she wants
> >> > >> money.
> >> > >> > All the rest of the time, women use the singular possessive "MY" child,
> >> > >> never
> >> > >> > "OUR" child.
> >> > >> > In fact I suspect that the first word any female learns is "MINE."
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > cleo <cleo199@home.*NOSPAM*com> hypothesizes:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > >> Believe me, I know a LOT of women (and men) who recieve nothing from
> >> > >> > >> their ex's. I don't feel sorry for the ones who claim to have to pay
> >> > >> > >> too much. They're your children for crying out loud! Support them!
> >> > >> > >> (just my opinion)
Pat Winstanley
<WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>Pat Winstanley <Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to
>>>suplement
>>>>>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>costs...
>>>
>>>Nope. The children's costs are not "supplimenting the CP income".
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's not.
>>
>>How is it not supporting the children when it is spent on the children
>>on behalf of the non-resident parent?
>
>Alimony is the definition of supplimenting the CP income.
His/her personal spending, yes.
>
>Child support is not defined as income for the parent.
>
Absolutely - it is spending for the child.
>I'm sorry that you don't have the intellect to grasp the differences.
I see the differences perfectly well, thank you.
> But
>then we should make you pay more taxes, since you think that Child Support
>is an income suppliment.
I do not think child support is an income supplement *for the CP*... it
is funds transferred to the CP to be spent *on the child*!!!
What relevance does your response have to the question asked (when the
CS is spent on the children how is it not support for the children).
If we were talking about the CS being spent on the CP that would be a
different issue, but my question was specific about how it could be
other than support for the child when it is spent on the child.
You might just as well say that the CS is supplementing the income of
the anonymous bank clerk through whose hands it passes en-route to its
final destination! Is that what you *really* think?
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>No, the studies that show that the children that end up living with the
>mother end up in jail, etc.. while the children that live with the father
>don't.
Incorrect.
Show the studies that you believe say that.
--
Pat Winstanley
Wordsmith
>
> In article <38c3d9df....@news.monmouth.com>, Wilbur Streett
> <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
> >Pat Winstanley <Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to
> >>>suplement
> >>>>>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
> >>>>
> >>>>Used to cope with the non-resident parent's share of the children's
> >>>>costs...
> >>>
> >>>Nope. The children's costs are not "supplimenting the CP income".
> >>>
> >>>>>And that it is not Child Support.
> >>>>
> >>>>How so, when it is spent on the children?
> >>>
> >>>It's not.
> >>
> >>How is it not supporting the children when it is spent on the children
> >>on behalf of the non-resident parent?
> >
> >Alimony is the definition of supplimenting the CP income.
>
> His/her personal spending, yes.
>
> >
> >Child support is not defined as income for the parent.
> >
>
> Absolutely - it is spending for the child.
Then why do you object to accountability for child support?
> >I'm sorry that you don't have the intellect to grasp the differences.
>
> I see the differences perfectly well, thank you.
As usual, you see what you wish to see--and miss the forest due to the
trees.
> > But
> >then we should make you pay more taxes, since you think that Child Support
> >is an income suppliment.
>
> I do not think child support is an income supplement *for the CP*... it
> is funds transferred to the CP to be spent *on the child*!!!
One more time: why then do you object to accountability for child
support?
> What relevance does your response have to the question asked (when the
> CS is spent on the children how is it not support for the children).
Here's a question you, too, will ignore: how exactly is it determined
that child support monies are spent on the children when there is no
accountability?
> If we were talking about the CS being spent on the CP that would be a
> different issue, but my question was specific about how it could be
> other than support for the child when it is spent on the child.
My question is equally specific: how can you assure that child support
monies are spent on the child if there is no accountability?
> You might just as well say that the CS is supplementing the income of
> the anonymous bank clerk through whose hands it passes en-route to its
> final destination! Is that what you *really* think?
More sophistry from the Mistress of Malarkey! And here is the proof:
No, one cannot "just as well say that the CS is supplementing the income
of the anonymous bank clerk through whose hands it passes en-route to
its final destination," as said clerk has no opportunity to enrich
herself with these funds--at the least not without great risk of being
caught and prosecuted. A custodial parent bears no such risk when
misusing child support monies.
Wordsmith
>
> In article <38c3da6b....@news.monmouth.com>, Wilbur Streett
> <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
> >No, the studies that show that the children that end up living with the
> >mother end up in jail, etc.. while the children that live with the father
> >don't.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Show the studies that you believe say that.
Suppose you show any studies to support your assertion that Wilbur is
incorrect? Oh, I forgot: Winstanley Defence time, ie, "I say it is so;
therefore, it is so."
netlynx
j...@canlaw.com wrote:
> Do you realize that a welfare father is required to pay child support
to a
> millionaire mother or go to jail?
>
> We have two cases I personally know of in Toronto where one single
child is
> getting support payments of just over ten thousand dollars a month.
What kid
> needs $10,000 a month for pokeman cards????
>
> If women paid child support there would be no laws jailing delinquents
or
> cancelling their passports or drivers licenses.
>
Well I completely agree with you there. In another post in this huge
thread I did make mention to the fact that the income of BOTH parents
should most definately be taken into consideration when setting the
amount of child support. As for paying $10,000 for child support, I
would have to say there is a need for more information there, as if
paying less would lower the standard of living from what the child has
grown accustomed to, then that amount is completely fair, *however*
probably a good idea to gradually decrease that amount over time, to
ease the child into a more realistic standard of living. Obviously this
is an extreme case, and IMHO $10,000 is way too much for child support
of any one child, but it really comes down to the standard of living
that the child has recieved throughout their life, and the
circumstances. I think the tables and calculations for child support
are very unfair to the non-resident parent.
On the topic of whether a female non-resident parent not paying child
support and not getting jailed, well, unfortunately I have not enough
research or information on that to have formed an educated opinion, but
purely on the basis of what would be fair, I would say that both women
and men should be treated equally and jailed if that is the punishment.
Though I agree that the legal system isn't that fair.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sammi
Streett) wrote:
>Sammi <sa...@alt2600.com> wrote:
>
>>>> >Wilber has no concern for children, fathers or basic democratic standards.
>>>>
>>>> That Wilber, that's some pig.
>>>
>>>Damn you Sammi! I was drinking when I read that. Nice referance BTW.
>>
>>I half-apologized for it but I now see I was acting rashly. Wilbur
>>turns out to be nothing more than a shrill, arrogant windbag.
>>I now apologize for insulting the intelligence of pigs.
>
>Yeah, sure. So want to bet on whether your IQ is higher than Wilbur's?
I would not presume to compare.
That Wilbur was some pig.
As to you? Sure thing, lay down your bucks or shut the hell up.
Sammi
wrote:
>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>>
>> In article <38c3da6b....@news.monmouth.com>, Wilbur Streett
>> <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>> >No, the studies that show that the children that end up living with the
>> >mother end up in jail, etc.. while the children that live with the father
>> >don't.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>>
>> Show the studies that you believe say that.
>
>Suppose you show any studies to support your assertion that Wilbur is
>incorrect? Oh, I forgot: Winstanley Defence time, ie, "I say it is so;
>therefore, it is so."
Are you on drugs? Wordsmith hah!
You fair poorly in your attempts to twist people's statements. You
flatter yourself "Wordsmith".
Winstanley did not assert anything fool, he asked for the data to
support the assertion that was made in reality, not the one that
exists in your trollish mind.
Sammi
Streett) wrote:
>Pat Winstanley <Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>>Child support money is also used for rents, food etc. It is meant to
>>>suplement
>>>>>>the income of the CP so they can afford to raise the child.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for admitting it that it's nothing more than an income suppliment.
>>>>
>>>>Used to cope with the non-resident parent's share of the children's
>>>>costs...
>>>
>>>Nope. The children's costs are not "supplimenting the CP income".
>>>
>>>>>And that it is not Child Support.
>>>>
>>>>How so, when it is spent on the children?
>>>
>>>It's not.
>>
>>How is it not supporting the children when it is spent on the children
>>on behalf of the non-resident parent?
>
>Alimony is the definition of supplimenting the CP income.
>
>Child support is not defined as income for the parent.
>
>I'm sorry that you don't have the intellect to grasp the differences. But
>then we should make you pay more taxes, since you think that Child Support
>is an income suppliment.
>
Well Einstein, you're good at pointing out what it is not, you're good
at attempting witty insults.
Why don't you tell us what it is?
It's an income supplement silly.
Look up income.
Look up supplement.
Sammi
Streett) wrote:
>Pat Winstanley <Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <38c28925....@news.monmouth.com>, Wilbur Streett
>><WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>>>There are plenty of studies that show that children fare better with their
>>>fathers.
>>
>>Which studies are those?
>>
>>Or do you mean studies that show that a child generally does better with
>>BOTH father and mother than either one on their own?
>
>No, the studies that show that the children that end up living with the
>mother end up in jail, etc.. while the children that live with the father
>don't.
What studies? Let's see them. Do they exist?
>Sexual Abuse statistics show that only 4% of the time is the sexual
>abuse perpetrated by the father, so guess what?
What statistics? Compiled by whom? Where are they?
>But in the vast majority of the cases, the child fares better with the
>father.
According to whom? You?
Ayuh.
Sammi
<Kathy_...@pancanadian.ca> wrote:
> In my case the amount I receive is not
>even half of the daycare bill.
You want the ex to pay you child expenses so you can pay someone else
to care for the child?
Wilbur Streett
>>Yeah, sure. So want to bet on whether your IQ is higher than Wilbur's?
>
>I would not presume to compare.
>That Wilbur was some pig.
>As to you? Sure thing, lay down your bucks or shut the hell up.
You cant' even oink very well.
Mine was rated at 195, but specifically I was told that I was unratable,
since in that range, IQ is meaningless. So what was your IQ?
Wilbur Streett
>>>>>How so, when it is spent on the children?
>>>>
>>>>It's not.
>>>
>>>How is it not supporting the children when it is spent on the children
>>>on behalf of the non-resident parent?
>>
>>Alimony is the definition of supplimenting the CP income.
>
>His/her personal spending, yes.
>
>>
>>Child support is not defined as income for the parent.
>>
>
>Absolutely - it is spending for the child.
>
>>I'm sorry that you don't have the intellect to grasp the differences.
>
>I see the differences perfectly well, thank you.
>
>> But
>>then we should make you pay more taxes, since you think that Child Support
>>is an income suppliment.
>
>I do not think child support is an income supplement *for the CP*... it
>is funds transferred to the CP to be spent *on the child*!!!
OK, so why no proof that ANY OF IT is spent on the child? The father can
go to jail if he misses a nickel for any reason, even if he's run over by a
truck, but a woman is totally unacccoutable.
>What relevance does your response have to the question asked (when the
>CS is spent on the children how is it not support for the children).
See above.
>If we were talking about the CS being spent on the CP that would be a
>different issue, but my question was specific about how it could be
>other than support for the child when it is spent on the child.
The amount of money required for the support of the child is about 20% of
what is currently paid. Check out the ANCPR studies amoung others.
>You might just as well say that the CS is supplementing the income of
>the anonymous bank clerk through whose hands it passes en-route to its
>final destination! Is that what you *really* think?
I'm sorry that you don't understand that it is EXACTLY that. The FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT is funding this entire process, and they are getting 5 cents on
EVERY DOLLAR PAID along with all of the taxpayer funding, claiming that
they ARE COLLECTING what was paid all along.
Wilbur Streett
>In article <38c3da6b....@news.monmouth.com>, Wilbur Streett
><WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>>No, the studies that show that the children that end up living with the
>>mother end up in jail, etc.. while the children that live with the father
>>don't.
>
>Incorrect.
>
>Show the studies that you believe say that.
They have already been referenced in this forum. Wake up already.
Pat Winstanley
<WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>Pat Winstanley <Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>>How so, when it is spent on the children?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not.
>>>>
>>>>How is it not supporting the children when it is spent on the children
>>>>on behalf of the non-resident parent?
>>>
>>>Alimony is the definition of supplimenting the CP income.
>>
>>His/her personal spending, yes.
>>
>>>
>>>Child support is not defined as income for the parent.
>>>
>>
>>Absolutely - it is spending for the child.
>>
>>>I'm sorry that you don't have the intellect to grasp the differences.
>>
>>I see the differences perfectly well, thank you.
>>
>>> But
>>>then we should make you pay more taxes, since you think that Child Support
>>>is an income suppliment.
>>
>>I do not think child support is an income supplement *for the CP*... it
>>is funds transferred to the CP to be spent *on the child*!!!
>
>OK, so why no proof that ANY OF IT is spent on the child? The father can
>go to jail if he misses a nickel for any reason, even if he's run over by a
>truck,
As can the woman.
> but a woman is totally unacccoutable.
>
No, she isn't.
>>What relevance does your response have to the question asked (when the
>>CS is spent on the children how is it not support for the children).
>
>See above.
Where?
>
>>If we were talking about the CS being spent on the CP that would be a
>>different issue, but my question was specific about how it could be
>>other than support for the child when it is spent on the child.
>
>The amount of money required for the support of the child is about 20% of
>what is currently paid. Check out the ANCPR studies amoung others.
>
By whom? By some NCPs yes... the few high flyers. By most its closer to
50% or less.... down to zero. Check the figures.
Are you a high flyer? Are you an extreme person assuming that the
situation is the same for the average?
>>You might just as well say that the CS is supplementing the income of
>>the anonymous bank clerk through whose hands it passes en-route to its
>>final destination! Is that what you *really* think?
>
>I'm sorry that you don't understand that it is EXACTLY that. The FEDERAL
>GOVERNMENT is funding this entire process, and they are getting 5 cents on
>EVERY DOLLAR PAID along with all of the taxpayer funding, claiming that
>they ARE COLLECTING what was paid all along.
The bank clerk works for the government????
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
>><WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>>>No, the studies that show that the children that end up living with the
>>>mother end up in jail, etc.. while the children that live with the father
>>>don't.
>>
>>Incorrect.
>>
>>Show the studies that you believe say that.
>
>They have already been referenced in this forum.
Then name them... because of all the studies I have seen referenced not
one says that all the children of lone mums will end up in prison and
none of the children of lone dads will end up in prison.
Which one(s) did I miss that said that?
Please give the names and/or URLs.
--
Pat Winstanley
netlynx
I really agree with and enjoy reading the posts you have put in so
far. And yes this does sound really ironic to pay child support money
so a third party can raise your child. But at the same time I think I
personally would want the best for my child, and that would mean that my
ex would have to work, and therefore, what exactly do they do during
their working hours. It is a double income society these days and I am
all for both parents working to pay the bills. I don't see anything
wrong with that. And just maybe someday (gawd forbid) the legal system
acutally starts taking into consideration the CP's income, there is a
benifit there to the non-CP if the CP is working. No?
Igor wrote:
>
> Sammi <sa...@alt2600.com> wrote:
> * On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 09:58:42 -0700, Kathy Harvey
> * <Kathy_...@pancanadian.ca> wrote:
> *
> * > In my case the amount I receive is not
> * >even half of the daycare bill.
> *
> * You want the ex to pay you child expenses so you can pay someone else
> * to care for the child?
> *
>
> What is so wrong about it?
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
> "It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
> http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov
Wordsmith
> Are you on drugs?
Yes: aspirin.
> Wordsmith hah!
I earn well over $300k annually writing. And you?
> You fair
That would be "fare..."
> poorly in your attempts to twist people's statements.
I've not attempted to twist anyone's statements; rather, I merely
suggested Ms Winstanley justify hers.
> You flatter yourself "Wordsmith".
Closing quote goes outside the period in this case... and the name
Wordsmith was bestowed upon me by my tutor at Cambridge.
> Winstanley did not assert anything fool,
Yes, *she* did: she asserted that Wilburs's statements were in error.
> he
She...
> asked for the data to
> support the assertion that was made in reality,
I suggest you look back at Ms Winstanley's post. She began with an
assertion, to wit: Wilbur's assertion was "incorrect." Like it or not,
this refutation is an assertion.
> not the one that exists in your trollish mind.
I see you have learnt the Winstanley game plan quite well: when one has
no valid argument, launch personal attacks.
netlynx
Sammi wrote:
>
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 17:00:37 -0700, netlynx
> <"netlynx"@_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Sorry Sammi,
>
> No need to be sorry, nothing wrong with a difference of opinion.
>
> > I really agree with and enjoy reading the posts you have put in so
> >far. And yes this does sound really ironic to pay child support money
> >so a third party can raise your child. But at the same time I think I
> >personally would want the best for my child, and that would mean that my
> >ex would have to work, and therefore, what exactly do they do during
> >their working hours. It is a double income society these days and I am
> >all for both parents working to pay the bills. I don't see anything
> >wrong with that. And just maybe someday (gawd forbid) the legal system
> >acutally starts taking into consideration the CP's income, there is a
> >benifit there to the non-CP if the CP is working. No?
>
> I agree.
> Though I wish a mother could stay home full time with the child but
> reality says other wise.
> And yes, I am aware it sounds old-fashioned, sexist, whatever, to
> advocate mom staying home. However I believe it is best for mom to
> stay home with the child during the formative years. Conversely I'm
> not saying dad can't do the same.
Very true, it is always best if the child can be raised full time by a
parent rather than a third party, and it is unfortunate that it is not
always possible. I was a full time father for the first year and a half
of my daughters life. Unfortunately bills caught up with us and I had
to get back to work.
Wordsmith
>
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 19:56:24 -0800, Wordsmith <nos...@fls.infi.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Sammi wrote:
> >
> >> Are you on drugs?
> >
> >Yes: aspirin.
> >
> >> Wordsmith hah!
> >
> >I earn well over $300k annually writing. And you?
>
> on usenet.
Oh, you know me so well! It's as though you could read my mind--from
one UseNet post with which you happen to disagree.
Typical of the Winstanley mob.
> >> You fair
> >
> >That would be "fare..."
>
> Oh, ouch.
> A spelling flame.
No, merely a correction. You really should learn what such terms as
"flame" and "troll" mean before you attempt to apply them.
> I just pop these missives off the top of my head. I don't antogonize
> myself with long rewrites and reviews in a sad, vain attempt to
> project myself as some intellectual giant.
One does need to know one's limitations.
> Spare your wit; yes I accomplish that goal well, it's a runon
> sentence, blah blah blah.
>
> >
> >> poorly in your attempts to twist people's statements.
> >
> >I've not attempted to twist anyone's statements; rather, I merely
> >suggested Ms Winstanley justify hers.
>
> Take a look at the post again.
> If you need to brush up on your Reading Comprehension Skills I'm sure
> a local college will oblige.
It seems you're the one with a reading comprehension problem. And I
certainly have no trouble reading what I've written.
> >> You flatter yourself "Wordsmith".
> >
> >Closing quote goes outside the period in this case...
>
> An ambiguous rule.
Not at all, especially in this instance. Perhaps you could find a nice
adult education class in basic English.
> Surely you knew that.
>
> >and the name
> >Wordsmith was bestowed upon me by my tutor at Cambridge.
>
> Ayuh.
>
> >> Winstanley did not assert anything fool,
> >
> >Yes, *she* did: she asserted that Wilburs's statements were in error.
>
> Oh leave the semantics for the more gullible.
This has nothing to do with semantics, and you know it. Then again,
perhaps you don't.
> You were wrong.
A statement unsupported by the facts: yes, that's a viable argument.
> Not surprinsingly you don't have the moral fibre to simply accept that
> fact and move on.
Perhaps you should heed your own implied advice...
> >I suggest you look back at Ms Winstanley's post. She began with an
> >assertion, to wit: Wilbur's assertion was "incorrect." Like it or not,
> >this refutation is an assertion.
>
> I suppose your stint at Cambridge taught you nothing of advancing
> theories and the defacto rules of debate.
Six years with the Jesuits took care of that quite nicely, thank you.
> One does not advance a theory as fact and put the onus of proof upon
> the doubtful.
A blanket statement of refutation is not an expression of doubt. Ms
Winstanley accepted liability for burden of proof when she began her
refutation with the single word, "incorrect."
> >> not the one that exists in your trollish mind.
> >
> >I see you have learnt the Winstanley game plan quite well: when one has
> >no valid argument, launch personal attacks.
>
> Just the facts silly.
Or, as in your case, just the silly imagined facts.
> You're another arrogant windbag filled with a dose of keyboard courage
> and cyber-intellect.
More personal attack! And if this is the best you can muster, you have
my symapthies.
> Shoo little person, you're quite silly.
Ooh, how damaging! I'm silly, she says... Considering the source, I
can only take that as a compliment.
Sammi
Streett) wrote:
>Sammi <sa...@alt2600.com> wrote:
>
>>>Yeah, sure. So want to bet on whether your IQ is higher than Wilbur's?
>>
>>I would not presume to compare.
>>That Wilbur was some pig.
>>As to you? Sure thing, lay down your bucks or shut the hell up.
>
>You cant' even oink very well.
>
>Mine was rated at 195, but specifically I was told that I was unratable,
>since in that range, IQ is meaningless. So what was your IQ?
>
>Wilbur
Spew all the hot air all you want.
Put up or shut up son, you going to back that mouth with action?
Sammi
Karl Chase
>On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 09:58:42 -0700, Kathy Harvey
><Kathy_...@pancanadian.ca> wrote:
>
>> In my case the amount I receive is not
>>even half of the daycare bill.
>
>You want the ex to pay you child expenses so you can pay someone else
>to care for the child?
>
If the man had the child and a job he would have to pay for child care aswell,
so whats the diff?
Sammi
wrote:
>Sammi wrote:
>
>> Are you on drugs?
>
>Yes: aspirin.
>
>> Wordsmith hah!
>
>I earn well over $300k annually writing. And you?
All that cash and the most fulfillment you can find is empty puffing
on usenet.
>> You fair
>
>That would be "fare..."
Oh, ouch.
A spelling flame.
I just pop these missives off the top of my head. I don't antogonize
myself with long rewrites and reviews in a sad, vain attempt to
project myself as some intellectual giant.
Spare your wit; yes I accomplish that goal well, it's a runon
sentence, blah blah blah.
>
>> poorly in your attempts to twist people's statements.
>
>I've not attempted to twist anyone's statements; rather, I merely
>suggested Ms Winstanley justify hers.
Take a look at the post again.
If you need to brush up on your Reading Comprehension Skills I'm sure
a local college will oblige.
>> You flatter yourself "Wordsmith".
>
>Closing quote goes outside the period in this case...
An ambiguous rule.
Surely you knew that.
>and the name
>Wordsmith was bestowed upon me by my tutor at Cambridge.
Ayuh.
>> Winstanley did not assert anything fool,
>
>Yes, *she* did: she asserted that Wilburs's statements were in error.
Oh leave the semantics for the more gullible.
You were wrong.
Not surprinsingly you don't have the moral fibre to simply accept that
fact and move on.
>I suggest you look back at Ms Winstanley's post. She began with an
>assertion, to wit: Wilbur's assertion was "incorrect." Like it or not,
>this refutation is an assertion.
I suppose your stint at Cambridge taught you nothing of advancing
theories and the defacto rules of debate.
One does not advance a theory as fact and put the onus of proof upon
the doubtful.
>> not the one that exists in your trollish mind.
>
>I see you have learnt the Winstanley game plan quite well: when one has
>no valid argument, launch personal attacks.
Just the facts silly.
You're another arrogant windbag filled with a dose of keyboard courage
and cyber-intellect. Both traits as permanent as the bits that
transmit same.
Sammi
Streett) wrote:
>Mine was rated at 195,
You do a remarkable job disguising that fact.
Tom Turner
Streett) wrote:
>I'm sorry that you don't have the intellect to grasp the differences. But
>then we should make you pay more taxes, since you think that Child Support
>is an income suppliment.
>
>Wilbur
Get with reality!!
Tom Turner
<Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <38c3da6b....@news.monmouth.com>, Wilbur Streett
><WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>>No, the studies that show that the children that end up living with the
>>mother end up in jail, etc.. while the children that live with the father
>>don't.
>
>Incorrect.
>
>Show the studies that you believe say that.
>
Your the one saying he's wrong! Now prove he's wrong.
Wilbur Streett
>Spew all the hot air all you want.
>Put up or shut up son, you going to back that mouth with action?
Gee, I'm already doing things.
The only hot air that I see is Sammi Boy.
Wilbur Streett
>On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 22:57:31 GMT, WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur
>Streett) wrote:
>
>>Mine was rated at 195,
>
>You do a remarkable job disguising that fact.
I have to in order to communicate with people of your mentality.
Wilbur Streett
>>OK, so why no proof that ANY OF IT is spent on the child? The father can
>>go to jail if he misses a nickel for any reason, even if he's run over by a
>>truck,
>
>As can the woman.
Liar.
Name one woman that has gone to jail in the entire USA.
>>I'm sorry that you don't understand that it is EXACTLY that. The FEDERAL
>>GOVERNMENT is funding this entire process, and they are getting 5 cents on
>>EVERY DOLLAR PAID along with all of the taxpayer funding, claiming that
>>they ARE COLLECTING what was paid all along.
>
>The bank clerk works for the government????
Tier Technologiest is processing the payments..
They pass the checks to the banks, who charge for every check processed.
What part of those clerks being paid did you miss?
appaloosa
do you know what the word assume means. I used round figures to make it
easy to understand the imbalance of the situation. If you want to work out
the after or before tax numbers on 50K then go for it. The situation
does not change at all....
--
------------------------------------------------
Calgary , Alberta / Canada
appa...@telusplanet.net
"Anastazia" <Anast...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OPrfawfh$GA.251@cpmsnbbsa05...
>
> appaloosa <solt...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:C04w4.661$NU5....@news0.telusplanet.net...
> > the should be equity in the amount paid. Can you honestly tell me it
> > costs $1000 per month to raise a child when an ex (wife) makes wages in
> > excess of $50,000 per year? Not ! Both parents should pay based on
> > their combined income. Problem here is many moms should use the
> money
> > for the kids. But divorce is a second industry for some out there ..
> don't
> > believe me:? try these figures on for size. This is base on a Mom who
> at
> > the end of each month says to her new beau..... here comes our mortgage
> > money! Not the kids money
> >
> >
> > Assume both parties make the same salary and have 50/50 custody -
> equal
> > time with children at both homes too - the figures below however show a
> > financial inequity. ( two children )
> >
> >
> > Her
> > Salary $2500 per month
> > CS $1000 per month
> >
> > total income $3500 per month ( not bad! ) and that is
> before
> > expenses ( she also recievs the child benefits too from the gov.)
>
> Not at that income level, she doesn't.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Him
> > Salary $2500 per month ( no other
support )
> > CS -$1000 per month ( CS he can't
even
> > claim on taxes )
> > total income $1500 per month ( we haven't even
taken
> > taxes off yet, and taxes are based on the 2.5k/mo, so a lot less than
> 1.5k
> >
is
> > taken home to LIVE on. Its ok , because fathers don't have to live.
> Just
> > survive if barely! )
> >
> > Is she behind? No! Not when she is $2000 ahead! She lives in a
nice
> > house in Citadel (movin on up ). He lives in the basement of a house
in
> > Glenbrook ( movin on down ).
> >
> >
> > To have any equity, both parties should SPLIT ALL EXPENSES equally if
the
> > arrangement above exists! This happend to my friend and it irks me
that
> > occurs. It also pisses me off when fathers shirk their responsibilty
> > too. And yes that happens too. The whole system needs a major
> > overhaul. Fathers are the guilty ones and have to prove their
> innocense
> > each step of the way.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Pat Winstanley
<turner_tr@telus_planet.net> writes
I will do my best, when he can provide (for analysis) the studies that
as far as I am aware don't exist except in his imagination! ;-))
He says there are studies... well, what are these studies? Where can we
see them?
In any case it is obvious he is incorrect since vast numbers of people
who do or have lived with a lone mother are not and have not been in
jail. I have no idea what the incidence is for the kids of lone fathers
but I would be amazed if NONE have or are in jail. Whether there are
differences in the proportions between the kids in jail from lone father
or lone mother households I do not know, but simple observation shows
that it isn't 100% of one and probably isn't 0% of the other either.
I'd like so see the studies that say it is 100:0.
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
writes
>Very true, it is always best if the child can be raised full time by a
>parent rather than a third party, and it is unfortunate that it is not
>always possible. I was a full time father for the first year and a half
>of my daughters life. Unfortunately bills caught up with us and I had
>to get back to work.
It's really a variable thing, both on the situations of the people
involved and also on the general family situation. For instance with
several small children it may be more economic (because of childcare
costs necessary with both parents out earning) for one to earn and the
other to do the childcare, or a combination or shifts... or it may not.
Rather depends upon what earnings are available at the time too.
--
Pat Winstanley
GJP
Greg Palumbo
Tom Turner <turner_tr@telus_planet.net> wrote in message
news:38c468d1...@news.telusplanet.net...
Sammi
Streett) wrote:
>Sammi <sa...@alt2600.com> wrote:
>
>>Spew all the hot air all you want.
>>Put up or shut up son, you going to back that mouth with action?
>
>Gee, I'm already doing things.
>
>The only hot air that I see is Sammi Boy.
So you've been called on your challenge and you were only bluffing,
blowing smoke.
No surprise, just another silly wannabe cyber-warrior.
Sammi
Streett) wrote:
>Sammi <sa...@alt2600.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 22:57:31 GMT, WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur
>>Streett) wrote:
>>
>>>Mine was rated at 195,
>>
>>You do a remarkable job disguising that fact.
>
>I have to in order to communicate with people of your mentality.
And why is it so important you communicate with the likes of myself?
You're contradicting yourself child, get a grip.
Sammi
Streett) wrote:
>>As can the woman.
>
>Liar.
Man, you must have really strained the huge intellect for that one.
Sammi
wrote:
>Sammi wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 19:56:24 -0800, Wordsmith <nos...@fls.infi.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Sammi wrote:
>> >
>> >> Are you on drugs?
>> >
>> >Yes: aspirin.
>> >
>> >> Wordsmith hah!
>> >
>> >I earn well over $300k annually writing. And you?
>>
>> All that cash and the most fulfillment you can find is empty puffing
>> on usenet.
>
>Oh, you know me so well! It's as though you could read my mind--from
>one UseNet post with which you happen to disagree.
Context child, context.
I'm sure you've run across that word before, contemplate the meaning.
>Typical of the Winstanley mob.
I would not join any mob that would myself as a member.
>> >> You fair
>> >
>> >That would be "fare..."
>>
>> Oh, ouch.
>> A spelling flame.
>
>No, merely a correction. You really should learn what such terms as
>"flame" and "troll" mean before you attempt to apply them.
I know them very well thank you. Your sad type are all too prevalent
on usenet. Folks like yourself prove the adage about a million monkeys
wrong.
>> I just pop these missives off the top of my head. I don't antogonize
>> myself with long rewrites and reviews in a sad, vain attempt to
>> project myself as some intellectual giant.
>
>One does need to know one's limitations.
No, one needs to know one's priorities.
>It seems you're the one with a reading comprehension problem. And I
>certainly have no trouble reading what I've written.
Not at all, I see right through the bluster.
You may read what you've written but you either refuse to accept
reality or you refuse to acknowledge your weaknesses.
Either way, no skin off my nose.
>> >> You flatter yourself "Wordsmith".
>> >
>> >Closing quote goes outside the period in this case...
>>
>> An ambiguous rule.
>
>Not at all, especially in this instance. Perhaps you could find a nice
>adult education class in basic English.
Bwahahahahahaha......you're going to set English rules? Or are you
truly that ignorant?
>A statement unsupported by the facts: yes, that's a viable argument.
Again, your context is all out of whack. Distorting reality to suit
your pathetic need for some high status in a make believe world.
Sad.
>> Not surprinsingly you don't have the moral fibre to simply accept that
>> fact and move on.
>
>Perhaps you should heed your own implied advice...
I've accepted the fact you were wrong and don't have the moxy to
acknowledge such. I've been wrong before and happily admit it when the
occurence comes up. No big deal.
>> >I suggest you look back at Ms Winstanley's post. She began with an
>> >assertion, to wit: Wilbur's assertion was "incorrect." Like it or not,
>> >this refutation is an assertion.
>>
>> I suppose your stint at Cambridge taught you nothing of advancing
>> theories and the defacto rules of debate.
>
>Six years with the Jesuits took care of that quite nicely, thank you.
I beg to differ, as you have shown zero knowledge of the subject.
>> One does not advance a theory as fact and put the onus of proof upon
>> the doubtful.
>
>A blanket statement of refutation is not an expression of doubt. Ms
>Winstanley accepted liability for burden of proof when she began her
>refutation with the single word, "incorrect."
Hmmm, well perhaps a point there. If you're going to simply say
"incorrect" then some refuting evidence may be in order. I still
believe the onus is on the person presenting "facts" to provide data
backing that position.
>Or, as in your case, just the silly imagined facts.
Woohoo! Imatation is the sincerest form of flattery and I thank you
for the compliment.
>> You're another arrogant windbag filled with a dose of keyboard courage
>> and cyber-intellect.
>
>More personal attack! And if this is the best you can muster, you have
>my symapthies.
Just an observation is all.
And that was the least of what I mustered.
Keep your sympathies for yourself, you're the one with such low self
esteem your image in here is all important.
Here's a hint child; this ain't the real world, just words on a
screen.
>> Shoo little person, you're quite silly.
>
>Ooh, how damaging! I'm silly, she says... Considering the source, I
>can only take that as a compliment.
Take it any way you wish.
p.s.
In the future don't be so quick and smug with gender correction, you
silly person.
Kathy Harvey
that I stay at home and collect welfare? If I don't work then how do you
suggest I provide for my son??
Wordsmith
<snip>
> >Oh, you know me so well! It's as though you could read my mind--from
> >one UseNet post with which you happen to disagree.
>
> Context child,
Another personal attack! What, can't come up with a viable argument and
so resort to this pathetic retort? Typical.
> context.
> I'm sure you've run across that word before, contemplate the meaning.
Contemplate this: context, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
In your jaundiced view, anything which disagrees with your position
merits attack--or rather, your weak imitation thereof.
> >Typical of the Winstanley mob.
>
> I would not join any mob that would myself as a member.
Groucho, though misquoted, is spinning in his grave.
<snip>
> >No, merely a correction. You really should learn what such terms as
> >"flame" and "troll" mean before you attempt to apply them.
>
> I know them very well thank you. Your sad type are all too prevalent
> on usenet.
Another lame attempt at a personal attack... Sorry, Sammi, this one
fell flat, too. After all, it's quite obvious which of us is the sad,
bitter, lonely one. If you've not yet divined which, here's a hint for
you: look in your mirror.
> Folks like yourself prove the adage about a million monkeys
> wrong.
And I suppose folks like you prove it right? I apologise for the cheap
shot, but you deserved to have that pathetic attempt turned back on you.
> >> I just pop these missives off the top of my head. I don't antogonize
> >> myself with long rewrites and reviews in a sad, vain attempt to
> >> project myself as some intellectual giant.
> >
> >One does need to know one's limitations.
>
> No, one needs to know one's priorities.
I could refer you a bit further down your own post, but to save you the
time I'll simply quote: "Imatation (sic) is the sincerest form of
flattery."
> >It seems you're the one with a reading comprehension problem. And I
> >certainly have no trouble reading what I've written.
>
> Not at all, I see right through the bluster.
Pity that you can't see, and see through, your own.
> You may read what you've written but you either refuse to accept
> reality or you refuse to acknowledge your weaknesses.
My weaknesses: verbosity. Fiction from Poppy Z Brite. Music from
Loreena McKenitt and Enigma. Chateau Petrus. Redheads.
Reality: you were wrong. Accept it.
> Either way, no skin off my nose.
For an unskinned nose, yours certainly is out of joint.
<snip>
> >Not at all, especially in this instance. Perhaps you could find a nice
> >adult education class in basic English.
>
> Bwahahahahahaha......you're going to set English rules? Or are you
> truly that ignorant?
I don't make the rules, but I know and obey them--and break them, when
the flow calls for it. What I find odd is that someone with such
apparent distaste for Received Standard English would pretend such
familiarity.
> >A statement unsupported by the facts: yes, that's a viable argument.
>
> Again, your context is all out of whack. Distorting reality to suit
> your pathetic need for some high status in a make believe world.
> Sad.
Well, one of us (here's a hint: it isn't me) has trouble with reality.
We already have established which of us truly is sad.
> >> Not surprinsingly you don't have the moral fibre to simply accept that
> >> fact and move on.
> >
> >Perhaps you should heed your own implied advice...
>
> I've accepted the fact you were wrong and don't have the moxy to
> acknowledge such. I've been wrong before and happily admit it when the
> occurence comes up. No big deal.
Written as the true reality-impaired... Try again, and perhaps you will
recognise which of us was wrong--and admit your error, as you claim to
have done elsewhere.
<snip>
> >> I suppose your stint at Cambridge taught you nothing of advancing
> >> theories and the defacto rules of debate.
> >
> >Six years with the Jesuits took care of that quite nicely, thank you.
>
> I beg to differ, as you have shown zero knowledge of the subject.
Beg all you like, and differ all you will, it is not I who has ignored
all the precepts of organised debate throughout this exchange. By the
way, did no one ever tell you that ad hominem attacks--the very heart
and soul of your arguments--reveal the first to employ them effectively
admitting her position lacks substance?
<snip>
> >Or, as in your case, just the silly imagined facts.
>
> Woohoo! Imatation is the sincerest form of flattery and I thank you
> for the compliment.
You need to learn the difference between "mocking" and "imitating."
> >> You're another arrogant windbag filled with a dose of keyboard courage
> >> and cyber-intellect.
> >
> >More personal attack! And if this is the best you can muster, you have
> >my symapthies.
>
> Just an observation is all.
No, it's a personal attack--aka, the last refuge of the defeated.
> And that was the least of what I mustered.
Your posts are proof otherwise.
> Keep your sympathies for yourself, you're the one with such low self
> esteem your image in here is all important.
This is known as "projection." You have projected your shortcomings
onto an adversary in a piteous effort to boost your own self-esteem. I
reiterate: you have my sympathies.
> Here's a hint child; this ain't the real world, just words on a
> screen.
A quick assessment of your presence on this medium suggests it is your
entire world. How very sad.
<snip>
> p.s.
> In the future don't be so quick and smug with gender correction, you
> silly person.
Can't accept being wrong in any measure, can you?
This topic has been exhausted. Accept that or don't, I'll not respond
to further posts.
sh...@ecn.ab.ca
Distribution:
Sammi (sa...@alt2600.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 03:12:11 GMT, WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur
: Streett) wrote:
: >Sammi <sa...@alt2600.com> wrote:
: >
: >>Spew all the hot air all you want.
: >>Put up or shut up son, you going to back that mouth with action?
: >
: >Gee, I'm already doing things.
: >
: >The only hot air that I see is Sammi Boy.
: So you've been called on your challenge and you were only bluffing,
: blowing smoke.
It's not just smoke he blows.
: No surprise, just another silly wannabe cyber-warrior.
--
Pat Winstanley
writes
>
>
> Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
>> In article <38c43926...@news.monmouth.com>, Wilbur Streett
>> >Pat Winstanley <Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <38c3da6b....@news.monmouth.com>, Wilbur
>> Streett
>> >><WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>> >>>No, the studies that show that the children that end up
>> living with the
>> >>>mother end up in jail, etc.. while the children that live
>> with the father
>> >>>don't.
>> >>
>> >>Incorrect.
>> >>
>> >>Show the studies that you believe say that.
>> >
>
>> Then name them... because of all the studies I have seen
>> referenced not
>> one says that all the children of lone mums will end up in
>> prison and
>> none of the children of lone dads will end up in prison.
>
>> Which one(s) did I miss that said that?
>
>> Please give the names and/or URLs.
>
> try this one:
> http://researchmag.asu.edu/stories/fathers.html
>
> that's where i found the quote below:
>
> When divorce rates first began to skyrocket during the
> 1970s, many people assumed that with a strong mom,
> and financial support from dad, children of divorce
> would turn out just fine.
>
> Sanford Braver has been a professor and researcher at
> ASU for 27 years. The veteran psychologist says that
> evidence gathered from virtually every study
> conducted since the 1970s clearly shows that the lack
> of a strong father figure is connected to nearly every
> social ill one can imagine. Lack of a strong father figure
> can lead to gang involvement and violence, drug and
> alcohol use, depression and interpersonal problems,
> early sexual activity and teen pregnancies, as well as
> lower education levels and living standards.
>
>>
Yes, and... where does that say that all kids of lone mums will end up
in prison and no kids of lone dads will end up in prison?
--
Pat Winstanley
Sammi
It was a poor, clumsy excuse at lightly pointing out the irony.
I apologize.
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 08:33:46 -0700, Kathy Harvey
Sammi
wrote:
>> >Oh, you know me so well! It's as though you could read my mind--from
>> >one UseNet post with which you happen to disagree.
>>
>> Context child,
>
>Another personal attack! What, can't come up with a viable argument and
>so resort to this pathetic retort? Typical.
Personal?
My, what a fragile ego you have.
Sammi
wrote:
>> I'm sure you've run across that word before, contemplate the meaning.
>
>Contemplate this: context, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
>In your jaundiced view, anything which disagrees with your position
>merits attack--or rather, your weak imitation thereof.
Well seeing as I don't have a position you're being very silly now.
Fabricating in an attempt to cover your inadequacies.
Sammi
wrote:
>> I would not join any mob that would myself as a member.
>
>Groucho, though misquoted, is spinning in his grave.
Groucho never had anything against a misquote. If anything caused him
to spin it would be your distinct lack of humor and extreme self
righteousness.
Kathy Harvey
of the children. It does state however "that the lack of a strong father
figure is connected to nearly every social ill one can imagine". That
comment has nothing to do with who has custody. I believe this to be
absolutely correct. Every child needs a father figure. The father figure
(or mother) can be someone other than the biological parent.
netlynx
Kenneth S.
the biological father has no basis in the research. David Popenoe's
"Life Without Father" (The Free Press, 1996) contains many, many
footnotes and summaries of the relevant research.
Among other things, Popenoe says that:
(1) "One of the surprising findings of family-related research in recent
years is that the presence of stepfathers may actually aggravate
child-rearing problems and thereby increase the level of negative child
outcomes."
(2) A 1985 study of a representative sample of over 1,000 families
showed that children living with biological fathers exhibited the least
delinquency and children with stepfathers had the most disordered
behavior.
(3) A study by Sara McLanahan found that living in a stepfamily was no
better than living in a single-parent family in terms of child outcomes.
(4) The outcomes for children who lose their fathers through death,
rather than divorce, are not significantly worse than the outcomes for
children in two-parent families.
In short, the problem for children is divorce and illegitimacy. Some
nearby man cannot substitute for their fathers.
It's perfectly understandable that, for a variety of reasons, people
may convince themselves that the father is unimportant in the life of
children. For some, that may be a comforting thought. The problem is
that a substantial number of studies show otherwise.
GJP
father is only good for a paycheck. You have the dogma down pattiland.
Unfortunately studies by the US department of education indicate otherwise.
Studies on child abuse and neglect, in addition to identifying mothers as
the primary culprit, find that mothers in association with their
boyfriends. live-ins, and step-fathers are the next greatest risk to
children. Have a nice day but take your uneducated drivel elsewhere..like a
hen party.
Greg Palumbo
Kathy Harvey <Kathy_...@pancanadian.ca> wrote in message
news:38C58DC6...@pancanadian.ca...
> The quoted article does not specify whether the mother or father has
custody
> of the children. It does state however "that the lack of a strong father
> figure is connected to nearly every social ill one can imagine". That
> comment has nothing to do with who has custody. I believe this to be
> absolutely correct. Every child needs a father figure. The father
figure
> (or mother) can be someone other than the biological parent.
>
> Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> > In article <38C512F5...@netscape.net>, CEB
<luvm...@netscape.net>
> > writes
> > >
> > >
> > > conducted since the 1970s clearly shows that the lack
> > > of a strong father figure is connected to nearly every
GJP
they state all pattiland. Further your equating risk factors of 200-300
percent or more as being equal is very stupid.
Greg Palumbo
Pat Winstanley <Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VpxnxSBI...@pierless.demon.co.uk...