What is a deadbeat dad?
MsGrape1
support?
Joe Slackie
>Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay child
>support?
Not at all. A deadbeat dad is any male that has fathered a child (now
considered a crime in america). Eventually men who have not fathered
a child will be considered "deadbeats" also, since they could.
Joe
GJP
reality if we let it.
Greg Palumbo
Joe Slackie wrote in message
<36f086a3...@news.earthlink.net>...
Char
deadbeat as one who either does not take care of their half of their
child's needs through parenting and/or financially, or one that
interfere's with the other's ability to do so with no good reason.
MsGrape1 wrote:
>
> Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay child
> support?
--
Char
You can have peace or you can have freedom, but never count on having
both at the same time. - Lazarus Long
Char
ignore such rants of his unless they contain some "useful" information
to you. Joe's definition of a deadbeat is his own brand of sarcasm in
it's worse form. I'm sure you were looking for an "honest" definition of
what most here consider a deadbeat and not the ramblings of just one
bitter individual trying to lead you to believe that this is the way
this "newsgroup" feels.
Joe Slackie wrote:
>
> On 10 Mar 1999 13:39:35 GMT, msgr...@aol.com (MsGrape1) wrote:
>
> >Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay child
> >support?
>
> Not at all. A deadbeat dad is any male that has fathered a child (now
> considered a crime in america). Eventually men who have not fathered
> a child will be considered "deadbeats" also, since they could.
>
> Joe
--
Char
answer what you asked, would rather lead you to believe that this
"newsgroup" feels this way.
I'm sure you will get many true feelings on what a deadbeat is (I've
already given you mine), but you will not get them from Joe or Greg.
GJP wrote:
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!! Good one Joe. But it can only become a
> reality if we let it.
>
> Greg Palumbo
>
> Joe Slackie wrote in message
> <36f086a3...@news.earthlink.net>...
Sunny
<almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
> And Greg is another of those bitter, nasty people who, rather than just
> answer what you asked, would rather lead you to believe that this
> "newsgroup" feels this way.
>
> I'm sure you will get many true feelings on what a deadbeat is (I've
> already given you mine), but you will not get them from Joe or Greg.
Char, why is it so important to you to squelch the opinions of Joe and
Greg? Why are you trying to invalidate a very legitimate feeling on the
subject? What makes you feel that your opinion is the only correct one
that is representative of this entire newsgroup?
And one more question, why do you have no sense of humor? Just because
their comments are somewhat tongue and cheek doesn't mean it isn't a
valid opinion. I happen to agree: certain people seem to think that all
fathers are deadbeats. It is almost as though it is a crime to be a
father.
I suppose you will now tell the original poster to not listen to me
either. Are you the opinion police now or something?
Char
Sunny wrote:
>
> In article <36E69E13...@geocities.com>, Char
> <almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> > And Greg is another of those bitter, nasty people who, rather than just
> > answer what you asked, would rather lead you to believe that this
> > "newsgroup" feels this way.
> >
> > I'm sure you will get many true feelings on what a deadbeat is (I've
> > already given you mine), but you will not get them from Joe or Greg.
>
> Char, why is it so important to you to squelch the opinions of Joe and
> Greg?
Why is it important to them that they do not give responsive answers to
questions? And instead choose to be sarcastic to people who do not know
the answers to what they are looking for. And why is it important that
when the question relates to the general consensus of the newsgroup (see
the question), they feel they can give these sarcastic responses to lead
the poster into believing that is the general consensus? What they gave
in relation to "Does this newsgroup only consider...." was not an
opinion of what people here consider, but simple sarcasm.
Why are you trying to invalidate a very legitimate feeling on the
> subject?
Is what they state their opinion of what they consider to be a deadbeat
or what they feel perhaps the state considers? See the question that was
asked.
What makes you feel that your opinion is the only correct one
> that is representative of this entire newsgroup?
What makes them feel that their's is, is the question. My "opinion" of
what a deadbeat is...and not what other's think it is, was stated
thusly: "I would term a deadbeat as one who....."
>
> And one more question, why do you have no sense of humor?
Their statements are not humorous to one who needs honest answers to
questions.
Just because
> their comments are somewhat tongue and cheek doesn't mean it isn't a
> valid opinion.
And again I ask...is that "their" opinion of what a deadbeat is, or
their projected opinion of what others feel?
I happen to agree: certain people seem to think that all
> fathers are deadbeats. It is almost as though it is a crime to be a
> father.
The poster did not ask for people to tell them what "others" thought,
they wanted to know the general consensus of the "newsgroup."
>
> I suppose you will now tell the original poster to not listen to me
> either. Are you the opinion police now or something?
Only if you try to give the poster mine or someone else's opinion,
rather than your own.
Sunny
<almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
> And why is it important that
> when the question relates to the general consensus of the newsgroup (see
> the question), they feel they can give these sarcastic responses to lead
> the poster into believing that is the general consensus?
Why not give the poster the benefit of a doubt that he or she is
intelligent enough to separate the sarcasm from the "general"
concensus?
> Is what they state their opinion of what they consider to be a deadbeat
> or what they feel perhaps the state considers? See the question that was
> asked.
If it is the state's consideration that all fathers are deadbeats on
principal, why is it not valid for Joe or Greg (or any number of others
in this newsgroup) to say so?
Fact is, most states DO treat fathers as deadbeats. Automatic wage
garnishment, for example, does not imply any form of trust towards
dads.
And many moms routinely describe their ex's as "deadbeats" - regardless
if these dads pay child support or spend time with their kids. Seems
all you have to do, to be considered a deadbeat, is be male, divorced,
and a non-custodial parent.
That is not the true definition of deadbeat. I would agree with you
that a deadbeat is a parent who refuses to contribute anything toward
their children. But that is not how fathers are treated. They are
accused of being deadbeats on general principal.
> What makes them feel that their's is, is the question. My "opinion" of
> what a deadbeat is...and not what other's think it is, was stated
> thusly: "I would term a deadbeat as one who....."
I was not refering to your reply to the question. I was referring to
you adamant rejection of Joe's and Greg's responses, and telling the
original poster to ignore their answers.
> Their statements are not humorous to one who needs honest answers to
> questions.
Why doesn't the original poster look it up in a dictionary, if they
were not seeking a variety of opinions, and not the official definition
of "deadbeat"?
> The poster did not ask for people to tell them what "others" thought,
> they wanted to know the general consensus of the "newsgroup."
Now, that would be damn near impossible to get a common agreement on
this, don't you think?
In fact -- I wonder if the original poster was trolling for a huge war
to erupt over the question!
> > I suppose you will now tell the original poster to not listen to me
> > either. Are you the opinion police now or something?
>
> Only if you try to give the poster mine or someone else's opinion,
> rather than your own.
Where did Joe or Greg say that YOU consider all fathers to be deadbeats?
McManus
>
> Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay child
> support?
MsGrape,
As you can probably deduce from the responses you've solicited,
um...there are many versions of deadbeats going around.
Here's my version: A father who contributes no support to their child.
(Vagues? yes. Read on.)
My grandmother was marrid to a man for 13 years and after her two
daughters were born, the man had no interest in them. He did not attend
their piano recitals, dance recitals, or parades. He did not attend
church functions with the family. He did not take them to school or pick
them up. He did not help with their lessons. He found greater pleasure
in poker, fishing, and hanging out with his friends. (Hey, back then in
the 50's this was considering the same as whoring, drinking, and
stealing today....hehe) Was he a deadbeat dad?
When Grandmother finally divorced him the 13th year of marriage, he
refused to pay support. She had him hauled into court wearing shackles
(Again, back then being a deadbeat was not a *norm* but a disgrace).
Consider him a deadbeat yet?
So for years until his death in 1993, he never once got in touch with
his two daughters (my mother and my aunt). Could he now be considered a
deadbeat?
So, you see...all issues and yet no blanketed responses could really
justify consideration of the term "deadbeat."
--
McManus
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| AOL's ICQ Internet Connection: http://surf.to/aol-icq |
| Member List: http://www.angelfire.com/biz/AOLICQ/list.html |
| Mailing List: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/aol_icq |
| ICQ #: 5273569 (Remove xxxx's to respond via email.) |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joe Slackie
>ROTFLMAO!!!!! Good one Joe. But it can only become a
>reality if we let it.
>
>Greg Palumbo
I think it already is a reality to the general public Greg. In
general, if you are a father and not with the mother, the general
public considers you a deadbeat. The propaganda from the NOW org and
others like it has been very successful. It also helps them that they
have Clinton in their pocket. This is one of the reasons why we have
the laws that we have, the general public (even men) thinks that all
men are deadbeat monsters. That men must be punished for being men.
Joe
>
>Joe Slackie wrote in message
><36f086a3...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>On 10 Mar 1999 13:39:35 GMT, msgr...@aol.com (MsGrape1)
>wrote:
>>
>>>Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that
>does not pay child
>>>support?
>>
Joe Slackie
wrote:
>And Greg is another of those bitter, nasty people who, rather than just
>answer what you asked, would rather lead you to believe that this
>"newsgroup" feels this way.
>
>I'm sure you will get many true feelings on what a deadbeat is (I've
>already given you mine), but you will not get them from Joe or Greg.
>
You are right Char, my statement was about the general public and not
this news group.... I stand corrected.
The men, and some of the women in this news group, understand that the
term "deadbeat" is usually "beatdead". That the term "deadbeat" was
coined by the feminists as a weapon against men. That there is no
such thing as a "deadbeat dad", only men who have been broken by the
system.
Joe
>
>GJP wrote:
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!!!! Good one Joe. But it can only become a
>> reality if we let it.
>>
>> Greg Palumbo
>>
Sunny
msgr...@aol.com (MsGrape1) wrote:
> Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay child
> support?
Why not change the title of this to "What is a deadbeat parent?" Then
you might get some intelligent responses.
A deadbeat can be:
1. A non-custodial parent who refuses to pay support
2. A non-custodial parent who refuses to be involved with their children
3. A custodial parent who lives off the child support or spends it on
anything other than the child
4. A custodial parent who denies visitation to the NCP
5. Any parent who tries to alienate the child from the other parent
6. Any parent who puts their own needs ahead of the best interests of
the children.
Deadbeats are not just dads.
Tracy
: On 10 Mar 1999 15:22:47 GMT, "GJP" <g.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:
: >ROTFLMAO!!!!! Good one Joe. But it can only become a
: >reality if we let it.
: >
: >Greg Palumbo
:
: I think it already is a reality to the general public Greg. In
: general, if you are a father and not with the mother, the general
: public considers you a deadbeat. The propaganda from the NOW org and
: others like it has been very successful. It also helps them that they
: have Clinton in their pocket. This is one of the reasons why we have
: the laws that we have, the general public (even men) thinks that all
: men are deadbeat monsters. That men must be punished for being men.
:
: Joe
I have to agree with Joe on this one. I don't know if it's all due to
organizations, because I feel just the general opinion of the general
public has a lot to do with it too.
I'm constantly catching crap from people within my own family because I
choose not to go after Ryan's dad full force. And then you should have
seen their reaction when I mentioned that I plan on reducing support as
things get better financially for myself.... It isn't necessarily that
they consider Ryan's dad as a deadbeat... it's just the fact that he is a
father, and should pay.
Tracy
http://www.teleport.com/~nimue/index.html | ICQ: 18737275
Our patience will achieve more than our force. Edmund Burke
**** spamguard in place! to email me: nimue at teleport dot com ****
GJP
how he did it his way.....if you know what I mean.
Greg Palumbo
Sunny wrote in message
<100319991052517907%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
>In article <36E69E13...@geocities.com>, Char
><almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>> And Greg is another of those bitter, nasty people who,
rather than just
>> answer what you asked, would rather lead you to believe
that this
>> "newsgroup" feels this way.
>>
>> I'm sure you will get many true feelings on what a
deadbeat is (I've
>> already given you mine), but you will not get them from
Joe or Greg.
>
>Char, why is it so important to you to squelch the opinions
of Joe and
>Greg? Why are you trying to invalidate a very legitimate
feeling on the
>subject? What makes you feel that your opinion is the only
correct one
>that is representative of this entire newsgroup?
>
>And one more question, why do you have no sense of humor?
Just because
>their comments are somewhat tongue and cheek doesn't mean
it isn't a
>valid opinion. I happen to agree: certain people seem to
think that all
>fathers are deadbeats. It is almost as though it is a crime
to be a
>father.
>
Tracy
: In article <19990310083935...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
Very well put Sunny, and I totally agree... deadbeats are not only dads or
even NCPs.
I just simply define a deadbeat as a parent who refuses to help support
their child emotionally and physically.
Char
Sunny wrote:
>
> In article <36E6A80E...@geocities.com>, Char
> <almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> > And why is it important that
> > when the question relates to the general consensus of the newsgroup (see
> > the question), they feel they can give these sarcastic responses to lead
> > the poster into believing that is the general consensus?
>
> Why not give the poster the benefit of a doubt that he or she is
> intelligent enough to separate the sarcasm from the "general"
> concensus?
Why not give them the benefit of the doubt that they actually WANT the
information they ASKED for?
>
> > Is what they state their opinion of what they consider to be a deadbeat
> > or what they feel perhaps the state considers? See the question that was
> > asked.
>
> If it is the state's consideration that all fathers are deadbeats on
> principal, why is it not valid for Joe or Greg (or any number of others
> in this newsgroup) to say so?
Sure if Joe or Greg truly believe that all fathers are deadbeats.
>
> Fact is, most states DO treat fathers as deadbeats. Automatic wage
> garnishment, for example, does not imply any form of trust towards
> dads.
Question was...what does this newsgroup consider a deadbeat.
>
> And many moms routinely describe their ex's as "deadbeats" - regardless
> if these dads pay child support or spend time with their kids. Seems
> all you have to do, to be considered a deadbeat, is be male, divorced,
> and a non-custodial parent.
>
> That is not the true definition of deadbeat. I would agree with you
> that a deadbeat is a parent who refuses to contribute anything toward
> their children. But that is not how fathers are treated. They are
> accused of being deadbeats on general principal.
And that was the question that was asked. What we (here) consider it,
not how it's done by the state.
>
> > What makes them feel that their's is, is the question. My "opinion" of
> > what a deadbeat is...and not what other's think it is, was stated
> > thusly: "I would term a deadbeat as one who....."
>
> I was not refering to your reply to the question. I was referring to
> you adamant rejection of Joe's and Greg's responses, and telling the
> original poster to ignore their answers.
If you were looking to an answer to a valid question, would you pay heed
to sarcastic remarks that don't answer your question?
>
> > Their statements are not humorous to one who needs honest answers to
> > questions.
>
> Why doesn't the original poster look it up in a dictionary, if they
> were not seeking a variety of opinions, and not the official definition
> of "deadbeat"?
Most likely, what I gather from the question asked, is they are
concerned about something they'd like to post "here"...not in the
dictionary.
>
> > The poster did not ask for people to tell them what "others" thought,
> > they wanted to know the general consensus of the "newsgroup."
>
> Now, that would be damn near impossible to get a common agreement on
> this, don't you think?
On deadbeat? I think "most" here would agree on that term. And if not,
would give their opinion of what "they" feel a deadbeat to be.
>
> In fact -- I wonder if the original poster was trolling for a huge war
> to erupt over the question!
Doubtful...since she did post another thread regarding her ex.
>
> > > I suppose you will now tell the original poster to not listen to me
> > > either. Are you the opinion police now or something?
> >
> > Only if you try to give the poster mine or someone else's opinion,
> > rather than your own.
>
> Where did Joe or Greg say that YOU consider all fathers to be deadbeats?
The question was what does this "newsgroup" term a deadbeat...not what
are your feelings about how the state treats men. Their response doesn't
state "this is how the state does it".
Char
to people and answer questions without the sarcasm. They'll get much
more from honest answers than your (ahem) wit.
GJP wrote:
>
> When I read chars post I always listen to frank sinatra and
> how he did it his way.....if you know what I mean.
>
> Greg Palumbo
>
> Sunny wrote in message
> <100319991052517907%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
> >In article <36E69E13...@geocities.com>, Char
> >I suppose you will now tell the original poster to not
> listen to me
> >either. Are you the opinion police now or something?
--
Char
Joe Slackie wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:30:11 -0500, Char <almost...@geocities.com>
> wrote:
>
> >And Greg is another of those bitter, nasty people who, rather than just
> >answer what you asked, would rather lead you to believe that this
> >"newsgroup" feels this way.
> >
> >I'm sure you will get many true feelings on what a deadbeat is (I've
> >already given you mine), but you will not get them from Joe or Greg.
> >
> You are right Char, my statement was about the general public and not
> this news group.... I stand corrected.
At least some can realize when an actual question has gone unanswered...
>
> The men, and some of the women in this news group, understand that the
> term "deadbeat" is usually "beatdead". That the term "deadbeat" was
> coined by the feminists as a weapon against men. That there is no
> such thing as a "deadbeat dad", only men who have been broken by the
> system.
Disagree with the last sentence...there definately IS such a thing as a
deadbeat dad. As well as deadbeat mom's and deadbeats of all kinds.
>
> Joe
>
> >
> >GJP wrote:
> >>
> >> ROTFLMAO!!!!! Good one Joe. But it can only become a
> >> reality if we let it.
> >>
> >> Greg Palumbo
> >>
> >> Joe Slackie wrote in message
> >> <36f086a3...@news.earthlink.net>...
> >> >On 10 Mar 1999 13:39:35 GMT, msgr...@aol.com (MsGrape1)
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that
> >> does not pay child
> >> >>support?
> >> >
> >> >Not at all. A deadbeat dad is any male that has fathered a
> >> child (now
> >> >considered a crime in america). Eventually men who have
> >> not fathered
> >> >a child will be considered "deadbeats" also, since they
> >> could.
> >> >
> >> >Joe
> >> >
> >> >
--
Char
McManus wrote:
>
> MsGrape1 wrote:
> >
> > Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay child
> > support?
>
> MsGrape,
>
> As you can probably deduce from the responses you've solicited,
> um...there are many versions of deadbeats going around.
>
> Here's my version: A father who contributes no support to their child.
> (Vagues? yes. Read on.)
And what of a mother who contributes no support? You can be a mother and
let the state support you and the child, or dump the kids on the father
and still expect CS, or you can simply be a NCP mom not paying support.
--
Kandle
><almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>> And Greg is another of those bitter, nasty people who, rather than just
>> answer what you asked, would rather lead you to believe that this
>> "newsgroup" feels this way.
>>
>> I'm sure you will get many true feelings on what a deadbeat is (I've
>> already given you mine), but you will not get them from Joe or Greg.
>
>Greg? Why are you trying to invalidate a very legitimate feeling on the
>subject? What makes you feel that your opinion is the only correct one
>that is representative of this entire newsgroup?
1. Probably because Joe and Greg always post bitter rant, not facts.
They always scream at CPs to "SHOW YOUR PROOF", yet when
asked to do the same, they come back with non-responses of
rant.
2. She didnt' state her opinion is the correct one. She stated that
Joe and Gregs' wasn't. Big Difference.
Kandle
Kandle
GJP wrote in message <7c6rui$p...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>When I read chars post I always listen to frank sinatra and
>how he did it his way.....if you know what I mean.
>
>Greg Palumbo
SWIM. (see what I mean)
Kandle
>
>Sunny wrote in message
><100319991052517907%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
>>In article <36E69E13...@geocities.com>, Char
>><almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And Greg is another of those bitter, nasty people who,
>rather than just
>>> answer what you asked, would rather lead you to believe
>that this
>>> "newsgroup" feels this way.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you will get many true feelings on what a
>deadbeat is (I've
>>> already given you mine), but you will not get them from
>Joe or Greg.
>>
>>Char, why is it so important to you to squelch the opinions
>of Joe and
>>Greg? Why are you trying to invalidate a very legitimate
>feeling on the
>>subject? What makes you feel that your opinion is the only
>correct one
>>that is representative of this entire newsgroup?
>>
Kandle
Kandle
Sunny wrote in message <100319991534264094%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
>In article <19990310083935...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
>msgr...@aol.com (MsGrape1) wrote:
>
>> Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay
child
>> support?
>
Laura
My definition of a deadbeat dad:
1) one who makes no attempt whatsoever to pay at least part of his
court ordered child support.
2) one who has no interest in the upbringing of the child he/she
created together, or, worse yet, one who uses the child as a pawn
in a game to attempt to punish the x.
3) one who complains about the system, but does nothing about his
person situation except to complain on internet news groups.
Now that's a deadbeat!
Laura
MsGrape1 wrote in message <19990310083935...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
Laura
Mark Jebens wrote in message <7c7f62$b3r$5...@nnrp03.primenet.com>...
>Sunny <mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote on Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:34:26
>-0600:
child
>> > support?
>
>> you might get some intelligent responses.
>
>> A deadbeat can be:
>
>> 1. A non-custodial parent who refuses to pay support
>> 2. A non-custodial parent who refuses to be involved with their children
>> 3. A custodial parent who lives off the child support or spends it on
>> anything other than the child
>> 4. A custodial parent who denies visitation to the NCP
>> 5. Any parent who tries to alienate the child from the other parent
>> 6. Any parent who puts their own needs ahead of the best interests of
>> the children.
>
>fair share of support (while also spending the received CS on
>the kids).
>
>> Deadbeats are not just dads.
>
>Mark Jebens
>Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
>
>"Joltin' Joe has left and gone away", March 9, 1999.
Mark,
What's going on here? Our definitions almost match! My only problem is with
your #4. Can we agree to change it to read: A custodial parent who denies
visitation to the NCP for an unjustifiable reason.
My daughter is now 5. Her father hasn't seen her since she was 6 weeks old.
If he showed up at my door now, I wouldn't welcome visitation either. First
of all, she doesn't know him, secondly, she's calling her step-father "Dad"
and is too young to know the difference between biological and step,
thirdly, he has three OWI's (like I want him driving her around) and an
assault conviction and lastly, his new wife is mental and stalked us until
we moved 200 miles away. I know not all cases are like mine, but let's
change the definition for when there is justification alright?
Laura
Mark Jebens
Damon
>msgr...@aol.com (MsGrape1) wrote:
>
>> Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay
child
>> support?
>
>Why not change the title of this to "What is a deadbeat parent?" Then
>you might get some intelligent responses.
>
>A deadbeat can be:
>
>1. A non-custodial parent who refuses to pay support
>2. A non-custodial parent who refuses to be involved with their children
>3. A custodial parent who lives off the child support or spends it on
>anything other than the child
>4. A custodial parent who denies visitation to the NCP
>5. Any parent who tries to alienate the child from the other parent
>6. Any parent who puts their own needs ahead of the best interests of
>the children.
>
This pretty much sums up the answer to the posters question, and makes me
feel a little better! Everyone has their own opinions, but seem to lose
sight that
there are always two sides to the coin. Not everyone is in the same
situation,
and everyone sees people in different ways. I am considered a "deadbeat
dad"
by most people who don't know me, and only see parts of my situation. It is
hard
for me to believe that the courts consider me a "deadbeat dad" even though
the
CP has denied me visitation, asked me to stay out of our daughters life, and
moved. 7 years later, I get a package from the DA's office stating that I
am over
$20,000 arrear, and have to pay 25% of my salary to support someone I've
never
even been allowed to meet. After asking questions, I also found out that
she has
been on welfare for the last 3 years. I have never made secret where I have
been,
and have raised my own family with 3 kids which I love very much. I often
wonder
if my alleged daughter wouldn't be better off living with my family, but
then you
pose the question: HOW MUCH of a deadbeat does the mother have to be
before she is considered not to be of benefit, or a detriment to the child?
I would
hate to harm a 7 year old girl who doesn't even know me by taking her away
from
her mother, but I have been denied seeing her grow up and guiding her
through the
many wonders of what's out there - hell, I didn't even have a choice in her
name!
To me, the most important years in the development of a PERSON are when they
are very young, and still developing. I have been denied to be any part of
that stage
in her life. Maybe I am a "deadbeat" for not pursuing this from the
beginning, but
how often do you hear of the alleged father getting custody from the mother?
Sorry, I am trying to make a point that everything is relative, and how you
judge a
person probably depends on where you are coming from. Everyone can be a
"deadbeat" at times, it all depends on your morals, and ethics. Out of all
the posts
on this thread, this one seems to spell it out clearly, without any
emotional blur.
Damon
GJP
Kandle wrote in message
<7c7ce5$ckb$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
>
>Sunny wrote in message
<100319991052517907%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
>>In article <36E69E13...@geocities.com>, Char
>><almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And Greg is another of those bitter, nasty people who,
rather than just
>>> answer what you asked, would rather lead you to believe
that this
>>> "newsgroup" feels this way.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you will get many true feelings on what a
deadbeat is (I've
>>> already given you mine), but you will not get them from
Joe or Greg.
>>
>>Char, why is it so important to you to squelch the
opinions of Joe and
>>Greg? Why are you trying to invalidate a very legitimate
feeling on the
>>subject? What makes you feel that your opinion is the only
correct one
>>that is representative of this entire newsgroup?
>
not facts.
>They always scream at CPs to "SHOW YOUR PROOF", yet when
>asked to do the same, they come back with non-responses of
>rant.
More garbage by a moneygrubber. The only one who rants is
you...about the need for revenge and money for your own
actions, choices, and responsibilities. Good try to
obfuscate.
I have provided numerous studies and analyses over the
years....and it is this knowledge that makes me very
effective when coming up against the likes of you, or
agencies, or industries out for their own interests
($$$$$$$$)....and not that of the children. Good try.
>
>2. She didn't state her opinion is the correct one. She
stated that
>Joe and Greg's wasn't. Big Difference.
And of course it is these little digs that I appreciate so
much. On one hand there is you and your kind obfuscating and
justifying why you are not responsible...as mothers and why
you need cash. Then there are those of us who point out what
you are. It is the latter that you don't like...because it
is true.
Greg Palumbo
>
>Kandle
GJP
extortion level amounts, regardless of ability to pay, or
they call them deadbeats. My answer to you like others is
do a better job of picking a spouse. If you chose poorly,
don't come bitching to us or expect the public to bail you
out because you hold the kids up high in the air and say it
is so.
I always wonder why these men left. If only we could hear
their side of the story. Kind of like faux who did a sudden
disappearing act when a man claiming to be her ex told who
she was and what she had done. Quite different than the
radical feminist moneygrubber agenda she pushed.
Greg Palumbo
Laura wrote in message <7c7hgn$8lq$1...@ins8.netins.net>...
>MsGrape,
>My definition of a deadbeat dad:
>
>1) one who makes no attempt whatsoever to pay at least
part of his
> court ordered child support.
>2) one who has no interest in the upbringing of the child
he/she
> created together, or, worse yet, one who uses the
child as a pawn
> in a game to attempt to punish the x.
>3) one who complains about the system, but does nothing
about his
> person situation except to complain on internet news
groups.
>Now that's a deadbeat!
>Laura
>
>
>MsGrape1 wrote in message
<19990310083935...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
Sunny
<laura...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My only problem is with
> your #4. Can we agree to change it to read: A custodial parent who denies
> visitation to the NCP for an unjustifiable reason.
>
> My daughter is now 5. Her father hasn't seen her since she was 6 weeks old.
> If he showed up at my door now, I wouldn't welcome visitation either. First
> of all, she doesn't know him, secondly, she's calling her step-father "Dad"
> and is too young to know the difference between biological and step,
> thirdly, he has three OWI's (like I want him driving her around) and an
> assault conviction and lastly, his new wife is mental and stalked us until
> we moved 200 miles away. I know not all cases are like mine, but let's
> change the definition for when there is justification alright?
> Laura
Nope... wrong.... it is not up to you to decide that the father of your
child is not entitled to be a part of her life. It is up to the court
to deny this legal right.
If you go to court to have him permanently removed from her life, you
will be asked to prove that he is unfit as a parent and a threat to
your child. And if they officially cut off all his rights as her
father, then you have justification for dening visitation.
There is no justifiable reason for a mother to decide to deny her child
a relationship with her father, unless he is abusive or neglectful, and
if it can be shown in court. You have no right to keep him away from
his daughter any more than he has a right to do the same to you. If he
has court-ordered visitation, whether or not he has been exercising it,
you would be in contempt of court to intervene.
Let me ask you a question, though -- are you receiving child support
from this man? If you are, do you think it's fair to keep him out of
your daughter's life??
MsGrape1
I guarntee that I am paying more a month to raise our kids then my ex does. I
will have to say that now he does pay in a timely manner but it will never
equal what I pay towards raising our kids. Alot of the people on here that
respond to these post like to take things to the extreme. The NC parent likes
to say that CP parent are nothing but gold diggers. Well let me tell you I am
by no means getting rich off of my ex. In the eight years of our divorce I
have asked for a modification one time. And beleive me he did not take it
lying down either. I did however get the raise in support. So you have your
set of rules that you say that you have to follow, well being the CP have to
follow the sames rules reguarding wages, reporting your whearabouts, my
private financial affairs, I to pay the fines monthy as you like to call them.
I however do not consider it a fine to have to support my kids. When a person
gets married they no all the rules and consequence of diovrce if you have kids.
What is it that you call the money that the CP spends taking care of the kids?
I work for a living and I have since the start of my divorce.
Char
You do provide information...that which you want to provide. But when
asked a specific question, you become sarcastic.
--
Char
why must only "court ordered" support be paid? Should the CP be paying
half the support as well, even though not ordered?
Laura wrote:
>
> MsGrape,
> My definition of a deadbeat dad:
>
> 1) one who makes no attempt whatsoever to pay at least part of his
> court ordered child support.
> 2) one who has no interest in the upbringing of the child he/she
> created together, or, worse yet, one who uses the child as a pawn
> in a game to attempt to punish the x.
> 3) one who complains about the system, but does nothing about his
> person situation except to complain on internet news groups.
> Now that's a deadbeat!
> Laura
>
> MsGrape1 wrote in message <19990310083935...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
> >Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay
> child
> >support?
--
col...@aladdin.es.dupont.com
"GJP" <g.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snippity-doo-dah]
> I always wonder why these men left. If only we could hear
> their side of the story. Kind of like faux who did a sudden
> disappearing act when a man claiming to be her ex told who
> she was and what she had done. Quite different than the
> radical feminist moneygrubber agenda she pushed.
Really, Greg? Somehow I missed that. Can you recall any author or subject
strings I can use to search Deja for this?
-T.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Phil #3
>
> Joe is a bitter, hate-filled, nasty old man, and you will do better to
> ignore such rants of his unless they contain some "useful" information
> to you. Joe's definition of a deadbeat is his own brand of sarcasm in
> it's worse form. I'm sure you were looking for an "honest" definition of
> what most here consider a deadbeat and not the ramblings of just one
> bitter individual trying to lead you to believe that this is the way
> this "newsgroup" feels.
>
Joe is not the only "bitter, hate-filled, nasty old man" on this NG. :)
(just ignore the 'dirty ole man in the corner, he means nothing...)
> Joe Slackie wrote:
> >
> > On 10 Mar 1999 13:39:35 GMT, msgr...@aol.com (MsGrape1) wrote:
> >
> > >Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay child
> > >support?
> >
> > Not at all. A deadbeat dad is any male that has fathered a child (now
> > considered a crime in america). Eventually men who have not fathered
> > a child will be considered "deadbeats" also, since they could.
> >
> > Joe
>
> --
> Char
>
> You can have peace or you can have freedom, but never count on having
> both at the same time. - Lazarus Long
--
Phil
Phil #3
>
> Typical feminazi moneygrubber. Only men pay women the
> extortion level amounts, regardless of ability to pay, or
> they call them deadbeats. My answer to you like others is
> do a better job of picking a spouse. If you chose poorly,
> don't come bitching to us or expect the public to bail you
> out because you hold the kids up high in the air and say it
> is so.
>
> their side of the story. Kind of like faux who did a sudden
> disappearing act when a man claiming to be her ex told who
> she was and what she had done. Quite different than the
> radical feminist moneygrubber agenda she pushed.
>
>
She always had an argument for any and all men...except that one guy.
Right after his post, her next one was the last I ever saw where she
signed off the NG.
Wonder if she is back posting under another name...
--
Phil
Laura
You are assuming without knowing my facts.
Here they are: Mark went to court right after child support was established
and asked for visitation rights. Then I entered into evidence a letter he
had written me, offering to exchange dropping his request for visitation if
I would drop the child support (I'm not on welfare so I do have that
option). The judge granted Mark no visitation rights based on that letter,
his current wife's criminal record of stalking us, along with Mark's assault
conviction and OWI's. Not to mention numerous cases of "failing to appear"
which is what the judge gave as a reason against allowing visitation, he
felt he as a "flight" risk.
So, you see, it IS the court who has not allowed visitation. I've always
offered it, under the condition that it be supervised by a 3rd, uninterested
party.
And no, I don't feel it's fair that he has to pay but can't see her. But
it's also not fair he has 2 other illegitimate kids who are on welfare that
the mothers ran so he's never had to pay them and they've never admitted
he's the father so welfare can't get him either. And Mark made his own
grave by writing me that letter and having a past criminal history. So it's
been up to his choosing, and if he was TRULY interested in getting to know
his daughter, he'd agree to my offer of "supervised visits" until he can
prove that he really is interested in something other than getting me to
drop child support. He's not, so he doesn't.
Laura
Sunny wrote in message <110319990807368245%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
Char
Phil #3 wrote:
>
> Char wrote:
> >
> > Joe is a bitter, hate-filled, nasty old man, and you will do better to
> > ignore such rants of his unless they contain some "useful" information
> > to you. Joe's definition of a deadbeat is his own brand of sarcasm in
> > it's worse form. I'm sure you were looking for an "honest" definition of
> > what most here consider a deadbeat and not the ramblings of just one
> > bitter individual trying to lead you to believe that this is the way
> > this "newsgroup" feels.
> >
> Joe is not the only "bitter, hate-filled, nasty old man" on this NG. :)
> (just ignore the 'dirty ole man in the corner, he means nothing...)
That can be rememdied with a bath Phil. ;-)
Sunny
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
(regarding Fauxreal's disappearance)
In article <7c8t3k$a09$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
col...@aladdin.es.dupont.com wrote:
> Really, Greg? Somehow I missed that. Can you recall any author or subject
> strings I can use to search Deja for this?
Guess what -- I happened to save the article writeen by "Bob",
compelete with headers. His comments are at the end of the post. This
is the post that sparked Faux to run.
Path:
news.doit.wisc.edu!nntp.chorus.net!newsfeed.sgi.net!news-xfer.newsread.c
om!netaxs.com!newsread.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: Spam...@ix.netcom.com (Bob)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: NCPs vs CPs
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:20:34 GMT
Organization: Email spam is frankly refused
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <36cc1c0...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
References: <orMx2.2095$Y_1....@typhoon.nycap.rr.com>
<mashyne-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>
<36cae61e...@enews.newsguy.com>
<mashyne-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>
<36cb4f1b...@enews.newsguy.com>
<7ag7if$2df$2...@nnrp03.primenet.com> <36cba59...@enews.newsguy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lbx-ca42-15.ix.netcom.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Feb 18 8:20:37 AM CST 1999
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
Xref: news.doit.wisc.edu alt.child-support:202572
faux...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes <<why?:>>
>On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:10:14 GMT, Xmje...@primenet.com (Mark Jebens)
>wrote:
>
>>faux...@ix.netcom.com wrote on Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:26:00 GMT:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:03:01 -0500, mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu
(Sunny)
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>The reason many NCPs are"whining" is because people like you lump
>>> >>> them all into one category - deadbeats. And it makes them mad.
>>
>>> >In article <36cae61e...@enews.newsguy.com>,
faux...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> The reason many CPs are "whining" is because people like you
lump them
>>> >> all into one category - characterizing them in your last line as
>>> >> moneygrubbers. And it makes them mad.
>>> >
>>> >Tit for tat.
>>> >The only ones I characterize as "money grubbers" (your words) are
the ones
>>> >that clearly are.
>>
>>> But you see, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Tit for tat
>>> can go on ad nauseum.
>>> The only ones I call call "deadbeat" are the deadbeats who
voluntarily
>>> do not contribute toward meeting their children's needs.
>>
>>What you do and what the government that represents you does are
>>two different things.
>>
>>The government will produce lists of people whom they label
>>deadbeats, while not meeting your definition.
>>
>>On the other hand, you will not see the government produce
>>any list of people labeled money-grubbers.
>
>I wasn't speaking for the government, but quite personally.
Heh. Funny. As if you were entitled to call people, "deadbeat".
Jeez. If you hadn't defaulted on a home loan I co-signed for you, I
wouldn't be outraged by your condescending self-righteous babble,
deadbeat.
How are your kids, Krista? I miss them often. Funny, I don't miss
you at all. You were right about the rose quartz, butt apparently
everything else was just 6 years of emotional blackmail and bullshit.
At least Ted still sees his spawn. Good for him.
I guess this is what I get for glancing at usenet. Someday I'll
learn.
Joe Slackie
wrote:
>
>1. Probably because Joe and Greg always post bitter rant, not facts.
>They always scream at CPs to "SHOW YOUR PROOF", yet when
>asked to do the same, they come back with non-responses of
>rant.
>
>2. She didnt' state her opinion is the correct one. She stated that
>Joe and Gregs' wasn't. Big Difference.
>
>Kandle
No true Kandle, when one lady accused me of lying about being current
in my CS, I even went so far as to send her my latest statement. I am
truthful, honest, and everything I say is based on fact.
I suspect that Greg is the same way, but quite a bit more
knowledgable. I suspect the most well informed person in the group.
Joe
Char
I feel as if Kenneth is pretty informed and states his opinions and
gives statistics fairly well. And I much prefer reading his responses
over Greg's. The big difference is that his are not filled with sarcasm
and BWHAHAHAs, but generally address the issue and give heartfelt advice
rather than a BS - kneejerk response, that doesn't even answer the
question asked. I'd say they are both well informed, but one has a much
better delivery.
Sunny
<almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
> I feel as if Kenneth is pretty informed and states his opinions and
> gives statistics fairly well. And I much prefer reading his responses
> over Greg's. The big difference is that his are not filled with sarcasm
> and BWHAHAHAs, but generally address the issue and give heartfelt advice
> rather than a BS - kneejerk response, that doesn't even answer the
> question asked. I'd say they are both well informed, but one has a much
> better delivery.
I like Greg's posts. He doesn't sugarcoat anything, he has all the
facts, he is logical and he always makes sense, even if he is a MAN.
GJP
not care who the sperm donor is? Then they have the nerve to
complain and demand money for their choices.
Greg Palumbo
Laura wrote in message <7c8s9e$ceg$1...@ins8.netins.net>...
Char
I fail to see logic in a post that simply states BWHAHAHAHAHA you money
grubbing feminists are all alike!
GJP
col...@aladdin.es.dupont.com wrote in message
<7c8t3k$a09$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7c8ebs$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> "GJP" <g.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>[snippity-doo-dah]
>> their side of the story. Kind of like faux who did a
sudden
>> disappearing act when a man claiming to be her ex told
who
>> she was and what she had done. Quite different than the
>> radical feminist moneygrubber agenda she pushed.
>
author or subject
>strings I can use to search Deja for this?
>
>
Yep a post by Bob on 2/18/99 that stated:
"Heh. Funny. As if you were entitled to call people,
"deadbeat".
Jeez. If you hadn't defaulted on a home loan I co-signed
for you, I
wouldn't be outraged by your condescending self-righteous
babble,
deadbeat.
How are your kids, Krista? I miss them often. Funny, I
don't miss
you at all. You were right about the rose quartz, butt
apparently
everything else was just 6 years of emotional blackmail and
bullshit.
At least Ted still sees his spawn. Good for him.
I guess this is what I get for glancing at usenet. Someday
I'll
learn."
Greg Palumbo
Char
is. She in fact stated that the courts gave him "no" visitation, but
that she wants him to visit.
--
GJP
Greg Palumbo
Sunny wrote in message
<110319991127068214%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
>[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
>(regarding Fauxreal's disappearance)
>
>In article <7c8t3k$a09$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>col...@aladdin.es.dupont.com wrote:
>
>> Really, Greg? Somehow I missed that. Can you recall any
author or subject
>> strings I can use to search Deja for this?
>
Sunny
<almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
> You do provide information...that which you want to provide. But when
> asked a specific question, you become sarcastic.
Sarcasm (like cynicism) is a product of pain. It is a survival
technique. People with senses of humor have a grasp of the ironies in
life, and tend to live longer than people who get all upset when
someone makes a wisecrack, especially when that wisecrack is grounded
in truth.
Char
Humor and cynicism are entirely different. I've got quite a sense of
humor and am an optimist. So perhaps it's why I don't look at life as
being, if I get married again, I'll get screwed outta everything like I
did the last time, eh?
GJP
Char wrote in message <36E82658...@geocities.com>...
>
>
>Sunny wrote:
>>
>> In article <36E815F6...@geocities.com>, Char
>> <almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I feel as if Kenneth is pretty informed and states his
opinions and
>> > gives statistics fairly well. And I much prefer reading
his responses
>> > over Greg's. The big difference is that his are not
filled with sarcasm
>> > and BWHAHAHAs, but generally address the issue and give
heartfelt advice
>> > rather than a BS - kneejerk response, that doesn't even
answer the
>> > question asked. I'd say they are both well informed,
but one has a much
>> > better delivery.
>>
>> I like Greg's posts. He doesn't sugarcoat anything, he
has all the
>> facts, he is logical and he always makes sense, even if
he is a MAN.
>
>I fail to see logic in a post that simply states
BWHAHAHAHAHA you money
>grubbing feminists are all alike!
Well I don't think I have actually ever stated it that way
but I might have. I usually like to let a persons own
statement speak for itself, with the commentary to highlight
what the statement says or leads to or implies. Kind of
like physics.
Greg Palumbo
I also probably type a bit slower than others.
GJP
sired kids by three mothers with two on welfare. This is not
rocket science. She chose and now wants somebody to pay for
it.
Greg Palumbo
Char wrote in message <36E8272F...@geocities.com>...
Char
I may not agree with you, but at least the above is a response, and
isn't sarcastic. And BTW, maybe...what do you type? I'll swell my head a
bit and profess my 90+. ;-)
Char
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike: They say that we can' t go down the hill,
Before we go we really should write a will.
Sonny: Well I don't know if all that's true,
Watch out for that bush, 'cause I think it really grew.
Sonny: Tree
Both: I hit you, tree.
I hit you, tree.
Mike: They say football on skis is really dumb,
Before we know it we' ll both be very numb.
Sonny: I guess that's so, the wind' s in our hair,
You did the sitter, but baby I did Cher.
Sonny: Tree
Both: I hit you, tree.
I hit you, tree.
Sonny: I got flowers on my grave
It was stupid. We seemed brave.
Mike: And we weren' t drunk, just acting like clowns.
We didn' t see the tree, but we sure found the ground.
Don't let them say that we can' t ski,
We were doin' pretty good ' til we hit that goddamn tree. >
Sonny: So I put my little hand on the branch,
Thought I' d break my fall, but wound up buying the ranch.
Sonny: Tree
Both: I hit you, tree.
I hit you, tree.
Sonny: I had Cher to hold my hand.
Mike: She had you then found a real man.
Sonny: I had Newt to think with me.
Mike: I had Ted to drink with me.
I went and kissed that tree goodnight.
Split my skull from left to right.
I hit the tree, I can't let go.
My blood is dripping on the snow.
Both: I hit you, tree.
I hit you, tree.
I hit you, tree.
I hit you, tree.
"Whee!, The Lemurs" wrote:
>
> <Sunny wrote:
> <> Char wrote:
>
> Sunny and Char?
Sunny
noe...@mindspring.com (Whee!, The Lemurs) wrote:
> <Sunny wrote:
> <> Char wrote:
>
> Sunny and Char?
BWHAHAHAHAHA!!
(you comedians are all alike)
Sunny
<almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Humor and cynicism are entirely different. I've got quite a sense of
> humor and am an optimist. So perhaps it's why I don't look at life as
> being, if I get married again, I'll get screwed outta everything like I
> did the last time, eh?
BWHAHAHAHAHA!!
Char
came) is not something that she can predict or stop from happening. If
he had them before, and she knew about it, you'd have a point. But I
didn't see her stating this one way or the other.
Sunny
<mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
> BWHAHAHAHAHA!!
That feels kind of good, actually. I should laugh more often.
Char
--
Char
Re: your follow-up, yup, laughter's good. But....it doesn't give me any
hint as to your feelings on what I stated, in and of itself. ;-)
Laura
I didn't quite want to go into the battle since you are unarmed, but
I will. I am sure you have a lovely barefoot and never ever to get
pregnant wife at home (cause you can't support the children you
already have). At this moment, I'm ABSOLUTELY sure she's baking
fresh bread and bringing you your slippers. These days, men like Mark
are very common. Plus, I knew of none of his sordid past until the judge
himself brought them up. He did his research and protected our child.
There should be more like him and many many fewer like you. BTW,
there are public records available on the internet. Maybe we should check
Greg out and see if he's all he thinks he is. ROFLMAO! That'd teach you!
Those of you NCP's who think you are perfect, aren't perfect and therefore
your wives left with your kids...I wonder why? DUH!!!!!!
Laura
GJP wrote in message <7c98i8$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Laura
I knew him for 2 years and we lived together for 2 more. He put on
a very convincing show. His family even backed him up on all his lies.
His current wife now knows all his lies thanks to me, and I've heard is
filing for divorce. I guess poor Markie poo's gonna be paying support for 2
of his crimes. The crime being making a child with no intent to be a father
or to support them. What do you recommend? Hiring a P.I. to investigate
people? I'm an old-fashioned girl and maybe just a bit naeve, but I believe
that honesty is the most important thing in any relationship, I've learned
from those mistakes and won't repeat them,
however, I am a very trusting person. And I won't have you saying that that
is a bad quality. It's not and I don't regret being that way.
Laura
GJP wrote in message <7c9ahl$3...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Do you not comprehend what it is that you read? He has
>sired kids by three mothers with two on welfare. This is not
>rocket science. She chose and now wants somebody to pay for
>it.
>
>Greg Palumbo
>
>Char wrote in message <36E8272F...@geocities.com>...
>>I fail to see anywhere that she stated she did not care who
>the "father"
>>is. She in fact stated that the courts gave him "no"
>visitation, but
>>that she wants him to visit.
>>
>>GJP wrote:
>>>
baffled1
You chose a sneaky whore who managed to grab your assets, Joe chose to boff
some bimbette who apparently charged him $39 a throw to go get her fake
nails done
and now you're all stomping your feet demanding that everybody burst into
action to help
you all out
GJP wrote in message <7c8ebs$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Typical feminazi moneygrubber. Only men pay women the
>extortion level amounts, regardless of ability to pay, or
>they call them deadbeats. My answer to you like others is
>do a better job of picking a spouse. If you chose poorly,
>don't come bitching to us or expect the public to bail you
>out because you hold the kids up high in the air and say it
>is so.
Char
doesn't it? ;-)
--
Kandle
GJP wrote in message <7c8ebs$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Typical feminazi moneygrubber. Only men pay women the
>extortion level amounts, regardless of ability to pay, or
>they call them deadbeats. My answer to you like others is
>do a better job of picking a spouse. If you chose poorly,
>don't come bitching to us or expect the public to bail you
>out because you hold the kids up high in the air and say it
>is so.
Hmmm...what brings YOU here Greg? Did you not pick the
spouse that has burned you so? I would suppose you did.
So why are YOU always bitching?
Kandle
>
>I always wonder why these men left. If only we could hear
>their side of the story. Kind of like faux who did a sudden
>disappearing act when a man claiming to be her ex told who
>she was and what she had done. Quite different than the
>radical feminist moneygrubber agenda she pushed.
>
>Greg Palumbo
>
>
>
>Laura wrote in message <7c7hgn$8lq$1...@ins8.netins.net>...
>>MsGrape,
>>My definition of a deadbeat dad:
>>
>>1) one who makes no attempt whatsoever to pay at least
>part of his
>> court ordered child support.
>>2) one who has no interest in the upbringing of the child
>he/she
>> created together, or, worse yet, one who uses the
>child as a pawn
>> in a game to attempt to punish the x.
>>3) one who complains about the system, but does nothing
>about his
>> person situation except to complain on internet news
>groups.
>>Now that's a deadbeat!
>>Laura
>>
>>
>>MsGrape1 wrote in message
><19990310083935...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>>>Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that
>does not pay
>>child
>>>support?
>>
>>
>
>
Kandle
GJP wrote in message <7c8dlt$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>Kandle wrote in message
><7c7ce5$ckb$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
>>
>>Sunny wrote in message
><100319991052517907%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
>>>In article <36E69E13...@geocities.com>, Char
>>><almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And Greg is another of those bitter, nasty people who,
>rather than just
>>>> answer what you asked, would rather lead you to believe
>that this
>>>> "newsgroup" feels this way.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you will get many true feelings on what a
>deadbeat is (I've
>>>> already given you mine), but you will not get them from
>Joe or Greg.
>>>
>>>Char, why is it so important to you to squelch the
>opinions of Joe and
>>>Greg? Why are you trying to invalidate a very legitimate
>feeling on the
>>>subject? What makes you feel that your opinion is the only
>correct one
>>>that is representative of this entire newsgroup?
>>
>>1. Probably because Joe and Greg always post bitter rant,
>not facts.
>>They always scream at CPs to "SHOW YOUR PROOF", yet when
>>asked to do the same, they come back with non-responses of
>>rant.
>
>you...about the need for revenge
So many unanswered questions, Greg. What revenge have
I ranted about needing? The child support I need to give my
child a normal childhood? The desire for her father to care
enough to be there for his visitation? What's revengeful about
that? I'm sure you won't give answers to this, you never do.
>and money for your own
>actions, choices, and responsibilities.
I didn't create a child alone, Greg. And the choice was made
mutually with my husband. And I have been a very responsible
mother. My ex, on the other hand doesn't pay child support and
doesn't bother to be home when I take her to see him for his
visitation. Or do you consider HIM the responsible one?
Again, I don't expect to see answers to these questions...you
don't seem to have answers to anything.
>Good try to
>obfuscate.
>
>I have provided numerous studies and analyses over the
>years....and it is this knowledge that makes me very
>effective when coming up against the likes of you, or
>agencies, or industries out for their own interests
>($$$$$$$$)....and not that of the children. Good try.
I've got a better try, Greg. When you make one of your
women hating statements, and someone asks you to clarify
it, why don't you provide a real answer? Give us something
to back up your statements.
>
>
>>
>>2. She didn't state her opinion is the correct one. She
>stated that
>>Joe and Greg's wasn't. Big Difference.
>
>And of course it is these little digs that I appreciate so
>much.
What? Facts? The truth? You are so embroiled in your
delusion of what you see as "the way the world is", you
couldn't recognize truth if it buttered your butt and called
you a biscuit.
>On one hand there is you and your kind
My kind! LOL!!!!
> obfuscating and
>justifying why you are not responsible...as mothers and why
>you need cash. Then there are those of us who point out what
>you are. It is the latter that you don't like...because it
>is true.
Greg, you've yet to point out anything!!!!!
Kandle
>
>Greg Palumbo
>
>
>>
>>Kandle
>>>
>>>And one more question, why do you have no sense of humor?
>Just because
>>>their comments are somewhat tongue and cheek doesn't mean
>it isn't a
>>>valid opinion. I happen to agree: certain people seem to
>think that all
>>>fathers are deadbeats. It is almost as though it is a
>crime to be a
>>>father.
>>>
>>>I suppose you will now tell the original poster to not
>listen to me
>>>either. Are you the opinion police now or something?
>>
>>
>
>
Kandle
Sunny wrote in message <110319991535354967%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
I was going to ask what you had for dinner! I want some! :)
Kandle
Kandle
Sunny wrote in message <110319991434455423%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
>In article <36E7DC67...@geocities.com>, Char
><almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>> You do provide information...that which you want to provide. But when
>> asked a specific question, you become sarcastic.
>
>Sarcasm (like cynicism) is a product of pain. It is a survival
>technique. People with senses of humor have a grasp of the ironies in
>life, and tend to live longer than people who get all upset when
>someone makes a wisecrack, especially when that wisecrack is grounded
>in truth.
But people who speak with NOTHING but bitterness and sarcasm quickly
lose any credibility...as well as their audience.
Kandle
Kandle
Joe Slackie wrote in message <36ecff84...@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 22:10:42 -0500, "Kandle" <lsn...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>1. Probably because Joe and Greg always post bitter rant, not facts.
>>They always scream at CPs to "SHOW YOUR PROOF", yet when
>>asked to do the same, they come back with non-responses of
>>rant.
>>
>>Joe and Gregs' wasn't. Big Difference.
>>
>>Kandle
>
>No true Kandle, when one lady accused me of lying about being current
>in my CS, I even went so far as to send her my latest statement. I am
>truthful, honest, and everything I say is based on fact.
>
>I suspect that Greg is the same way, but quite a bit more
>knowledgable. I suspect the most well informed person in the group.
But Joe, knowledge only works if you know how to use it properly.
Kandle
>
>Joe
>
Kandle
Phil #3 wrote in message <36E7E6A5...@bigfootX.com>...
>Char wrote:
>>
>> Joe is a bitter, hate-filled, nasty old man, and you will do better to
>> ignore such rants of his unless they contain some "useful" information
>> to you. Joe's definition of a deadbeat is his own brand of sarcasm in
>> it's worse form. I'm sure you were looking for an "honest" definition of
>> what most here consider a deadbeat and not the ramblings of just one
>> bitter individual trying to lead you to believe that this is the way
>> this "newsgroup" feels.
>>
>Joe is not the only "bitter, hate-filled, nasty old man" on this NG. :)
>(just ignore the 'dirty ole man in the corner, he means nothing...)
Is he asleep? Quick get the shaving cream and toothpaste! :)
Kandle
>
>
>
>> Joe Slackie wrote:
>> >
>> > On 10 Mar 1999 13:39:35 GMT, msgr...@aol.com (MsGrape1) wrote:
>> >
>> > >Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay
child
>> > >support?
>> >
>> > Not at all. A deadbeat dad is any male that has fathered a child (now
>> > considered a crime in america). Eventually men who have not fathered
>> > a child will be considered "deadbeats" also, since they could.
>> >
>> > Joe
>>
>> --
>> Char
>>
>> You can have peace or you can have freedom, but never count on having
>> both at the same time. - Lazarus Long
>
>--
>Phil
>
Phil #3
>
> Sunny wrote:
> >
> > In article <36E7DC67...@geocities.com>, Char
> > <almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You do provide information...that which you want to provide. But when
> > > asked a specific question, you become sarcastic.
> >
> > Sarcasm (like cynicism) is a product of pain. It is a survival
> > technique. People with senses of humor have a grasp of the ironies in
> > life, and tend to live longer than people who get all upset when
> > someone makes a wisecrack, especially when that wisecrack is grounded
> > in truth.
>
> humor and am an optimist. So perhaps it's why I don't look at life as
> being, if I get married again, I'll get screwed outta everything like I
> did the last time, eh?
>
> Char
>
I have trouble believing you would not wind up with absolutely
everything if you divorced again. If bets are taken in the event, my
money (both dollars!) are on you.
--
Phil
Phil #3
>
> Sunny wrote:
> >
> > In article <36E815F6...@geocities.com>, Char
> > <almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I feel as if Kenneth is pretty informed and states his opinions and
> > > gives statistics fairly well. And I much prefer reading his responses
> > > over Greg's. The big difference is that his are not filled with sarcasm
> > > and BWHAHAHAs, but generally address the issue and give heartfelt advice
> > > rather than a BS - kneejerk response, that doesn't even answer the
> > > question asked. I'd say they are both well informed, but one has a much
> > > better delivery.
> >
> > I like Greg's posts. He doesn't sugarcoat anything, he has all the
> > facts, he is logical and he always makes sense, even if he is a MAN.
>
> I fail to see logic in a post that simply states BWHAHAHAHAHA you money
> grubbing feminists are all alike!
>
> Char
>
But you have absolutely no doubt where he stands on the post, do you?
--
Phil
Phil #3
> > Char wrote:
> > >
> > > Joe is a bitter, hate-filled, nasty old man, and you will do better to
> > > ignore such rants of his unless they contain some "useful" information
> > > to you. Joe's definition of a deadbeat is his own brand of sarcasm in
> > > it's worse form. I'm sure you were looking for an "honest" definition of
> > > what most here consider a deadbeat and not the ramblings of just one
> > > bitter individual trying to lead you to believe that this is the way
> > > this "newsgroup" feels.
> > >
> > Joe is not the only "bitter, hate-filled, nasty old man" on this NG. :)
> > (just ignore the 'dirty ole man in the corner, he means nothing...)
>
>
Before Saturday? What are you a heathen?
> >
> --
> Char
>
--
Phil
Char
Phil #3 wrote:
>
> Char wrote:
> >
> > Sunny wrote:
> > >
Doubtful...I'm just not the type of person that most of you guys
envision all women to be. When I left my first ex, he'd already sold
everything, when I left the second, I left with nothing. It was better
to just end it amicably. I saw no need to fight over "things." Lost
things can be replaced, lost happiness cannot. "If" it should ever
happen again, and after two I've quite learned what signs to look for
and what mistakes not to make again, I would again leave with nothing if
that's what it took.
I don't express it the same way, but I'm much like Jean in that respect.
Though I'd never leave my child, but I certainly wouldn't at all mind a
break in 50% of parenting, I'd certainly leave every single asset if it
meant an amicable parting of the ways. Since I've already done that,
what makes you think that I wouldn't again?
Char
Phil #3 wrote:
>
> Char wrote:
> >
> > Sunny wrote:
> > >
As a matter of fact...yes I do. When you post several paragraphs worth
of info and the above line is all you get...WHAT exactly is he
disagreeing about? Which part of those several paragraphs? Which point
in general? And why does he disagree? Did he perhaps even read it wrong?
Since he gives no hint other than the above, I have no way of knowing
where he stands. Hopefully on both his feet, but I don't know that
either.
Char
Phil #3 wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Char wrote:
> > > >
Well as long as you take one. I don't care which day of the week it is.
Laura
Wanna exchange income tax returns? I betcha I make at least 3
times what you do so why would you call me a moneygrubber? Cause
I make my x pay 20% of his adjusted gross income to support "our" child?
Gee, I sure am an awful person. I am not a victim my any means....where did
you even get that? Out of your hat. Get help....and
go where you can be of some assistance to someone-HELL!
Love,
Laura (who is, as we speak, forming a newsgroup for CP's and honest,
hardworking NCP's who love their children and want to pay their fair share
of the expenses.) BTW, you won't be invited but I will post the address
here and I will continue to assist all CP's who ask for advice on getting
support.
GJP wrote in message <7ca4pu$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>Go for it feminista moneygrubber who wants others to be
>responsible for her actions. I don't buy your poor me I am a
>victim. In fact the country seems to be getting fed up with
>the poor me I am a victim and not responsible for myself
>type of gal like yourself. I look forward to the
>challenge.
>
>Greg Palumbo
>
>Laura wrote in message <7c9nbh$4au$1...@ins8.netins.net>...
>>Greg,
>>I didn't quite want to go into the battle since you are
>unarmed, but
>>I will. I am sure you have a lovely barefoot and never
>ever to get
>>pregnant wife at home (cause you can't support the children
>you
>>already have). At this moment, I'm ABSOLUTELY sure she's
>baking
>>fresh bread and bringing you your slippers. These days,
>men like Mark
>>are very common. Plus, I knew of none of his sordid past
>until the judge
>>himself brought them up. He did his research and
>protected our child.
>>There should be more like him and many many fewer like you.
>BTW,
>>there are public records available on the internet. Maybe
>we should check
>>Greg out and see if he's all he thinks he is. ROFLMAO!
>That'd teach you!
>>Those of you NCP's who think you are perfect, aren't
>perfect and therefore
>>your wives left with your kids...I wonder why? DUH!!!!!!
>>Laura
>>GJP wrote in message
><7c98i8$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>I can't believe there are so many women who apparently do
>>>not care who the sperm donor is? Then they have the nerve
>to
>>>complain and demand money for their choices.
>>>
>>>Greg Palumbo
>>>
>>>
Theophilos
Personally, I believe that a "deadbeat" parent (let's include all of
humanity, shall we) is a parent that not only doesn't pay to help support
their child(ren) but ACTIVELY avoids paying. I've even seen cases where a
"deadbeat" parent has spent thousands of dollars to avoid paying a similiar
amount to a CP. I further believe that in order to qualify as a "deadbeat"
one must have at least a reasonable ability to pay a debt.
Unfortunately, it seems as if all parents who are not 100% current on CS
payments are now being lumped under the heading of "deadbeat". I think that
this is an attempt to vilify and dehumanize NCPs, most of which are male.
By the way, I decided to answer the posted question as best I could and I
state only MY impressions since this NG is really not an entity but only a
group of individuals.
I see that Char,et al are off on another tangent "pointing out" how others
don't directly answer questions, apparently unaware that they're not
answering the posted question either.
MsGrape1 <msgr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990310083935...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
PAUL
What is a deadbeat dad? He's a man who works 45 hours a week for $9/hour,
brings home $6/hour and gives $2/hr to his ex-wife as backdoor alimony. So
he gets a second job so they can charge him even more child support. By this
time he is a: dead, beat dad.
Paul Laird
--
The evil of tyranny is rarely seen by those who practice it, but always felt
by those against whom it is practiced.
Damon wrote in message <7c80la$sj$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>Sunny wrote in message <100319991534264094%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
>>In article <19990310083935...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
>>msgr...@aol.com (MsGrape1) wrote:
>>
>>> Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay
>child
>>> support?
>>
>>Why not change the title of this to "What is a deadbeat parent?" Then
>>you might get some intelligent responses.
>>
>>A deadbeat can be:
>>
>>1. A non-custodial parent who refuses to pay support
>>2. A non-custodial parent who refuses to be involved with their children
>>3. A custodial parent who lives off the child support or spends it on
>>anything other than the child
>>4. A custodial parent who denies visitation to the NCP
>>5. Any parent who tries to alienate the child from the other parent
>>6. Any parent who puts their own needs ahead of the best interests of
>>the children.
>>
>>Deadbeats are not just dads.
>
>This pretty much sums up the answer to the posters question, and makes me
>feel a little better! Everyone has their own opinions, but seem to lose
>sight that
>there are always two sides to the coin. Not everyone is in the same
>situation,
>and everyone sees people in different ways. I am considered a "deadbeat
>dad"
>by most people who don't know me, and only see parts of my situation. It
is
>hard
>for me to believe that the courts consider me a "deadbeat dad" even though
>the
>CP has denied me visitation, asked me to stay out of our daughters life,
and
>moved. 7 years later, I get a package from the DA's office stating that I
>am over
>$20,000 arrear, and have to pay 25% of my salary to support someone I've
>never
>even been allowed to meet. After asking questions, I also found out that
>she has
>been on welfare for the last 3 years. I have never made secret where I
have
>been,
>and have raised my own family with 3 kids which I love very much. I often
>wonder
>if my alleged daughter wouldn't be better off living with my family, but
>then you
>pose the question: HOW MUCH of a deadbeat does the mother have to be
>before she is considered not to be of benefit, or a detriment to the child?
>I would
>hate to harm a 7 year old girl who doesn't even know me by taking her away
>from
>her mother, but I have been denied seeing her grow up and guiding her
>through the
>many wonders of what's out there - hell, I didn't even have a choice in her
>name!
>To me, the most important years in the development of a PERSON are when
they
>are very young, and still developing. I have been denied to be any part of
>that stage
>in her life. Maybe I am a "deadbeat" for not pursuing this from the
>beginning, but
>how often do you hear of the alleged father getting custody from the
mother?
>
>Sorry, I am trying to make a point that everything is relative, and how you
>judge a
>person probably depends on where you are coming from. Everyone can be a
>"deadbeat" at times, it all depends on your morals, and ethics. Out of all
>the posts
>on this thread, this one seems to spell it out clearly, without any
>emotional blur.
>
>Damon
>
>
>
GJP
Greg Palumbo
>>>>> your #4. Can we agree to change it to read: A
>>custodial parent who
>>>denies
GJP
life like many men. I didn't create the laws that promote
socialism and use women...women who are more than willing to
sell their children's future for cash. Actually it is a huge
difference and I am insulted that you consider our problems
to be similar whatsoever to your choices. It is women like
you who are the problem and have been the problem for 35
plus years......and it shows.
Greg Palumbo
Kandle wrote in message
<7ca1d4$a5m$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>...
>
>GJP wrote in message
<7c8ebs$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>Typical feminazi moneygrubber. Only men pay women the
>>extortion level amounts, regardless of ability to pay, or
>>they call them deadbeats. My answer to you like others is
>>do a better job of picking a spouse. If you chose poorly,
>>don't come bitching to us or expect the public to bail you
>>out because you hold the kids up high in the air and say
it
>>is so.
>
>Hmmm...what brings YOU here Greg? Did you not pick the
>spouse that has burned you so? I would suppose you did.
>So why are YOU always bitching?
>
>Kandle
>
>>
>>I always wonder why these men left. If only we could hear
>>their side of the story. Kind of like faux who did a
sudden
>>disappearing act when a man claiming to be her ex told who
>>she was and what she had done. Quite different than the
>>radical feminist moneygrubber agenda she pushed.
>>
>>Greg Palumbo
>>
>>
>>
>>Laura wrote in message <7c7hgn$8lq$1...@ins8.netins.net>...
>>>MsGrape,
>>>My definition of a deadbeat dad:
>>>
>>>1) one who makes no attempt whatsoever to pay at least
>>part of his
>>> court ordered child support.
>>>2) one who has no interest in the upbringing of the
child
>>he/she
>>> created together, or, worse yet, one who uses the
>>child as a pawn
>>> in a game to attempt to punish the x.
>>>3) one who complains about the system, but does nothing
>>about his
>>> person situation except to complain on internet news
>>groups.
>>>Now that's a deadbeat!
>>>Laura
>>>
>>>
>>>MsGrape1 wrote in message
>><19990310083935...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
GJP
Kandle wrote in message
<7ca20a$l7b$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>...
>
>GJP wrote in message>><7c7ce5$ckb$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
>>>
>>>Sunny wrote in message
>><100319991052517907%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
>>>>In article <36E69E13...@geocities.com>, Char
>>>><almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And Greg is another of those bitter, nasty people who,
>>rather than just
believe
>>that this
>>>>> "newsgroup" feels this way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure you will get many true feelings on what a
>>deadbeat is (I've
>>>>> already given you mine), but you will not get them
from
>>Joe or Greg.
>>>>
>>>>Char, why is it so important to you to squelch the
>>opinions of Joe and
>>>>Greg? Why are you trying to invalidate a very legitimate
>>feeling on the
>>>>subject? What makes you feel that your opinion is the
only
>>correct one
>>>>that is representative of this entire newsgroup?
>>>
rant,
>>not facts.
>>>They always scream at CPs to "SHOW YOUR PROOF", yet when
>>>asked to do the same, they come back with non-responses
of
>>>rant.
>>
>>you...about the need for revenge
>
>So many unanswered questions, Greg. What revenge have
>I ranted about needing? The child support I need to give
my
>child a normal childhood?
At a SOL above what you can provide...so you need more
money. We know.
The desire for her father to care
>enough to be there for his visitation?
It is call PAS and I am sure you are good at it.
What's revengeful about
>that? I'm sure you won't give answers to this, you never
do.
You likely lied to the man about all of your
problems...physical and mental.......and he discovered them
with time?
>
>>and money for your own
>>actions, choices, and responsibilities.
>
>I didn't create a child alone, Greg. And the choice was
made
>mutually with my husband.
Only after you misled him about maybe your fitness and the
problems that would be encountered?
And I have been a very responsible
>mother.
After your choices and lies? How good of you.
My ex, on the other hand doesn't pay child support and
>doesn't bother to be home when I take her to see him for
his
>visitation. Or do you consider HIM the responsible one?
Either he was a bad choice for a sperm donor or you drove
him away? We need to hear from him.
>
>Again, I don't expect to see answers to these
questions...you
>don't seem to have answers to anything.
>
>>Good try to
>>obfuscate.
>>
>>I have provided numerous studies and analyses over the
>>years....and it is this knowledge that makes me very
>>effective when coming up against the likes of you, or
>>agencies, or industries out for their own interests
>>($$$$$$$$)....and not that of the children. Good try.
>
>I've got a better try, Greg. When you make one of your
>women hating statements, and someone asks you to clarify
>it, why don't you provide a real answer? Give us something
>to back up your statements.
Right'o oh feminsta. I have the sneaking suspicion you are
another faux and have always been. We await your ex or ex's
to find you posting here...maybe some day....ehhhh?
Greg Palumbo
snipped
GJP
Kandle wrote in message
<7ca233$c2$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>...
>
>Sunny wrote in message
<110319991434455423%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
>>In article <36E7DC67...@geocities.com>, Char
>><almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You do provide information...that which you want to
provide. But when
>>> asked a specific question, you become sarcastic.
>>
>>Sarcasm (like cynicism) is a product of pain. It is a
survival
>>technique. People with senses of humor have a grasp of the
ironies in
>>life, and tend to live longer than people who get all
upset when
>>someone makes a wisecrack, especially when that wisecrack
is grounded
>>in truth.
>
sarcasm quickly
>lose any credibility...as well as their audience.
>
>Kandle
Truth is a bitch...isn't it candle????
Greg Palumbo
>
>
>
GJP
will export it to VA....where I know quite a few folks. I
can use you as an example perhaps.
Greg Palumbo
]
Kandle wrote in message
<7ca28s$3u3$2...@camel29.mindspring.com>...
>
>Joe Slackie wrote in message
<36ecff84...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 22:10:42 -0500, "Kandle"
<lsn...@mindspring.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>1. Probably because Joe and Greg always post bitter
rant, not facts.
>>>They always scream at CPs to "SHOW YOUR PROOF", yet when
>>>asked to do the same, they come back with non-responses
of
>>>rant.
>>>
Char
attitude.
--
Char
GJP wrote:
>
> Kandle wrote in message
> <7ca20a$l7b$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>...
> >
> >GJP wrote in message
> <7c8dlt$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> >>
> >>Kandle wrote in message
> >><7c7ce5$ckb$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
> >>>
> >>>Sunny wrote in message
> >><100319991052517907%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
> >>>>In article <36E69E13...@geocities.com>, Char
> >>>><almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> And Greg is another of those bitter, nasty people who,
> >>rather than just
> >>>>> answer what you asked, would rather lead you to
> believe
> >>that this
> >>>>> "newsgroup" feels this way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm sure you will get many true feelings on what a
> >>deadbeat is (I've
> >>>>> already given you mine), but you will not get them
> from
> >>Joe or Greg.
> >>>>
> >>>>Char, why is it so important to you to squelch the
> >>opinions of Joe and
> >>>>Greg? Why are you trying to invalidate a very legitimate
> >>feeling on the
> >>>>subject? What makes you feel that your opinion is the
> only
> >>correct one
> >>>>that is representative of this entire newsgroup?
> >>>
> >>>1. Probably because Joe and Greg always post bitter
> rant,
> >>not facts.
> >>>They always scream at CPs to "SHOW YOUR PROOF", yet when
> >>>asked to do the same, they come back with non-responses
> of
> >>>rant.
> >>
> >>More garbage by a moneygrubber. The only one who rants is
> >>you...about the need for revenge
> >
> >So many unanswered questions, Greg. What revenge have
> >I ranted about needing? The child support I need to give
> my
> >child a normal childhood?
>
> At a SOL above what you can provide...so you need more
> money. We know.
>
> The desire for her father to care
> >enough to be there for his visitation?
>
> It is call PAS and I am sure you are good at it.
So Greg, do you alienate your own children?
>
> What's revengeful about
> >that? I'm sure you won't give answers to this, you never
> do.
>
> You likely lied to the man about all of your
> problems...physical and mental.......and he discovered them
> with time?
Did you lie to your ex about all of your problems...physical and
mental...did she discover them with time? Is this why she left?
>
> >
> >>and money for your own
> >>actions, choices, and responsibilities.
> >
> >I didn't create a child alone, Greg. And the choice was
> made
> >mutually with my husband.
>
> Only after you misled him about maybe your fitness and the
> problems that would be encountered?
Did you misled your ex about your fitness and the problems that she
would encounter by marrying you? Is this why she left?
>
> And I have been a very responsible
> >mother.
>
> After your choices and lies? How good of you.
After your choices and lies? Is this why your ex left?
>
> My ex, on the other hand doesn't pay child support and
> >doesn't bother to be home when I take her to see him for
> his
> >visitation. Or do you consider HIM the responsible one?
>
> Either he was a bad choice for a sperm donor or you drove
> him away? We need to hear from him.
Did your ex pick a bad choice for a sperm donor? Did you pick a bad
choice for a mother? Did you drive her away? We need to hear from her.
>
> >
> >Again, I don't expect to see answers to these
> questions...you
> >don't seem to have answers to anything.
> >
> >>Good try to
> >>obfuscate.
> >>
> >>I have provided numerous studies and analyses over the
> >>years....and it is this knowledge that makes me very
> >>effective when coming up against the likes of you, or
> >>agencies, or industries out for their own interests
> >>($$$$$$$$)....and not that of the children. Good try.
> >
> >I've got a better try, Greg. When you make one of your
> >women hating statements, and someone asks you to clarify
> >it, why don't you provide a real answer? Give us something
> >to back up your statements.
>
> Right'o oh feminsta. I have the sneaking suspicion you are
> another faux and have always been. We await your ex or ex's
> to find you posting here...maybe some day....ehhhh?
>
> Greg Palumbo
Maybe someday we'll hear from yours. How many lies have you told? Ever
try looking at things from THAT perspective? You sling it, it gets slung
back.
Char
if you actually speak to your legislators in the manner you speak to
most of the women here? I don't think you do, but since I haven't seen
you and Phil has...Phil? Honestly? Does he say BWHAHAHAHAHAHA, you lying
money grubber to his legislators? Do they listen when he says that?
GJP wrote:
>
> Come to my state and see how well it is working. Maybe I
> will export it to VA....where I know quite a few folks. I
> can use you as an example perhaps.
>
> Greg Palumbo
> ]
> Kandle wrote in message
> <7ca28s$3u3$2...@camel29.mindspring.com>...
> >
> >Joe Slackie wrote in message
> <36ecff84...@news.earthlink.net>...
> >>On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 22:10:42 -0500, "Kandle"
> <lsn...@mindspring.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>1. Probably because Joe and Greg always post bitter
> rant, not facts.
> >>>They always scream at CPs to "SHOW YOUR PROOF", yet when
> >>>asked to do the same, they come back with non-responses
> of
> >>>rant.
> >>>
> >>>2. She didnt' state her opinion is the correct one. She
> stated that
> >>>Joe and Gregs' wasn't. Big Difference.
> >>>
> >>>Kandle
> >>
> >>No true Kandle, when one lady accused me of lying about
> being current
> >>in my CS, I even went so far as to send her my latest
> statement. I am
> >>truthful, honest, and everything I say is based on fact.
> >>
> >>I suspect that Greg is the same way, but quite a bit more
> >>knowledgable. I suspect the most well informed person in
> the group.
> >
> >But Joe, knowledge only works if you know how to use it
> properly.
> >
> >Kandle
> >>
> >>Joe
> >>
> >
> >
--
Char
what was thrown back at you.
GJP wrote:
>
> There is a slight difference. I want to be a part of my kids
> life like many men. I didn't create the laws that promote
> socialism and use women...women who are more than willing to
> sell their children's future for cash. Actually it is a huge
> difference and I am insulted that you consider our problems
> to be similar whatsoever to your choices. It is women like
> you who are the problem and have been the problem for 35
> plus years......and it shows.
>
> Greg Palumbo
>
> Kandle wrote in message
> <7ca1d4$a5m$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>...
> >
> >GJP wrote in message
--
Char
PAUL wrote:
>
> I'm snipping all that went before to answer the question of this thread.
> What is a deadbeat dad? He's a man who works 45 hours a week for $9/hour,
> brings home $6/hour and gives $2/hr to his ex-wife as backdoor alimony. So
> he gets a second job so they can charge him even more child support. By this
> time he is a: dead, beat dad.
> Paul Laird
> --
> The evil of tyranny is rarely seen by those who practice it, but always felt
> by those against whom it is practiced.
>
> Damon wrote in message <7c80la$sj$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >
> >Sunny wrote in message <100319991534264094%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
> >>In article <19990310083935...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
> >>msgr...@aol.com (MsGrape1) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay
> >child
> >>> support?
> >>
--
Char
if ya wanna get technical....according to the puter, I posted the
response before msgrape posted the question. Now...you were saying?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: What is a deadbeat dad?
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:55:28 -0500
From: Char <almost...@geocities.com>
Reply-To: almost...@geocities.com
Organization: Tech Trek
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
References: <19990310083935...@ng-fp1.aol.com>
There are all kinds of deadbeats, and not just dads. I would term a
deadbeat as one who either does not take care of their half of their
child's needs through parenting and/or financially, or one that
interfere's with the other's ability to do so with no good reason.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: What is a deadbeat dad?
Date: 10 Mar 1999 13:39:35 GMT
From: msgr...@aol.com (MsGrape1)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay
child
support?
> >Does this newsgroup only consider a deadbeat dad one that does not pay
> child
> >support?
--
Cici in Texas
>Well I don't think I have actually ever stated it that way
>but I might have. I usually like to let a persons own
>statement speak for itself, with the commentary to highlight
>what the statement says or leads to or implies. Kind of
>like physics.
>
>Greg Palumbo
>
>I also probably type a bit slower than others.
Yeah, well, I know a really good transcriptionist who types
roughly 95 wpm (slightly slower for ESL dictators) and is
looking for an extra part-time job. You know where to reach
her. ;->
Cici in Texas
--
If life is really an illusion, my compliments to the illusionist.
Cici in Texas
all with:
>> >
>> > Char wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Joe is a bitter, hate-filled, nasty old man, and you will do better to
>> > > ignore such rants of his unless they contain some "useful" information
>> > > to you. Joe's definition of a deadbeat is his own brand of sarcasm in
>> > > it's worse form. I'm sure you were looking for an "honest" definition of
>> > > what most here consider a deadbeat and not the ramblings of just one
>> > > bitter individual trying to lead you to believe that this is the way
>> > > this "newsgroup" feels.
>> > >
>> > Joe is not the only "bitter, hate-filled, nasty old man" on this NG. :)
>> > (just ignore the 'dirty ole man in the corner, he means nothing...)
>>
>> That can be rememdied with a bath Phil. ;-)
>>
>Before Saturday? What are you a heathen?
ITYM 'heretic,' Phil. And you only take a bath on Saturday
night if you're going to go to church on Sunday morning. If
you're just going to go to town on Saturday (you know, to do
the marketing and maybe go to the picture show), you take
the bath on FRIDAY night. No point in heatin' all that
water on the wood stove two nights in a row, after all. ;->
Cici in Texas
--
Why does trying to understand reality so often lead to going iinsane?
Kenneth S.
<baff...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>And the same could be said for you ,Joe and a multitude of others here
>You chose a sneaky whore who managed to grab your assets, Joe chose to boff
>some bimbette who apparently charged him $39 a throw to go get her fake
>nails done
>and now you're all stomping your feet demanding that everybody burst into
>action to help
>you all out
>
>
That might be a valid point if the money flows went both ways.
However, they don't. They are virtually entirely paid by men to
women.
P.S. Has the official name for these women changed from "bimbos" to
"bimbettes." Just wanted to know. Becoming a male bimbo has been a
longtime dream for me.
Cici in Texas
one and all with:
><Sunny wrote:
><> Char wrote:
>
>Sunny and Char?
>
Okay, NOW I'm scared!
Cici in Texas
--
What I really need is a mirror with a better view.
Cici in Texas
all with:
>Char wrote:
>>
>> Sunny wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <36E7DC67...@geocities.com>, Char
>> > <almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > You do provide information...that which you want to provide. But when
>> > > asked a specific question, you become sarcastic.
>> >
>> > Sarcasm (like cynicism) is a product of pain. It is a survival
>> > technique. People with senses of humor have a grasp of the ironies in
>> > life, and tend to live longer than people who get all upset when
>> > someone makes a wisecrack, especially when that wisecrack is grounded
>> > in truth.
>>
>> Humor and cynicism are entirely different. I've got quite a sense of
>> humor and am an optimist. So perhaps it's why I don't look at life as
>> being, if I get married again, I'll get screwed outta everything like I
>> did the last time, eh?
>>
>> --
>> Char
>>
>I have trouble believing you would not wind up with absolutely
>everything if you divorced again. If bets are taken in the event, my
>money (both dollars!) are on you.
>
>--
>Phil
Yeah? My money (all 73? of it) is on her lawyer, since he's
the one who's going to get it, anyway.
Cici in Texas
--
What I need is a lawyer who specializes in the Law of the Jungle.
Cici in Texas
all with:
>
>Sunny wrote in message <110319991434455423%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
>>In article <36E7DC67...@geocities.com>, Char
>><almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You do provide information...that which you want to provide. But when
>>> asked a specific question, you become sarcastic.
>>
>>Sarcasm (like cynicism) is a product of pain. It is a survival
>>technique. People with senses of humor have a grasp of the ironies in
>>life, and tend to live longer than people who get all upset when
>>someone makes a wisecrack, especially when that wisecrack is grounded
>>in truth.
>
>But people who speak with NOTHING but bitterness and sarcasm quickly
>lose any credibility...as well as their audience.
>
>Kandle
Well, okay, EXCEPT for Don Rickles.
Cici in Texas
--
Same old circus, different clowns.
Cici in Texas
with:
>In article <36E815F6...@geocities.com>, Char
><almost...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>> I feel as if Kenneth is pretty informed and states his opinions and
>> gives statistics fairly well. And I much prefer reading his responses
>> over Greg's. The big difference is that his are not filled with sarcasm
>> and BWHAHAHAs, but generally address the issue and give heartfelt advice
>> rather than a BS - kneejerk response, that doesn't even answer the
>> question asked. I'd say they are both well informed, but one has a much
>> better delivery.
>
>I like Greg's posts. He doesn't sugarcoat anything, he has all the
>facts, he is logical and he always makes sense, even if he is a MAN.
If he's logical and has all the facts (ALL the facts?), why
doesn't he share them? I hate to break it to you, but
BWAHAHAHAHA is neither logical nor a fact. Nor, come to
think of it, does it make much sense. I wouldn't be
surprised to hear that response from a third-grader, but
it's pretty disappointing to hear it from an "educated" MAN.
Cici in Texas
--
Why couldn't evolution have been based on the survival of the sweetest?
Cici in Texas
>I always wonder why these men left. If only we could hear
>their side of the story. Kind of like faux who did a sudden
>disappearing act when a man claiming to be her ex told who
>she was and what she had done. Quite different than the
>radical feminist moneygrubber agenda she pushed.
>
>Greg Palumbo
The only 'radical feminist moneygrubber agenda she pushed'
was one that YOU attributed to her and then crucified her
for. I'm sure you've also "conveniently" forgotten that she
had cancer at the time her husband left her to go live with
his girlfriend (because he never planned on living with an
invalid and had no plans to change his lifestyle), and that
she had been given less than a 3% chance of survival at that
time. Which rather puts a different interpretation on her
last post to this group, quoted as follows:
---------------begin quote------------------
I just thought I'd say it's been....sometimes swell. :)
The recurrence of health issues demands my attention. It's
the old serenity thing, you do what you *can* and accept
what you *cannot.* Maybe I should have put my energy into
nationalized healthcare. ;)
No need to respond: I have already desubscribed to the NG.
----------------end quote---------------------
Believe what you like, (and I'm sure it will be as nasty as
possible), but it sounds to me as though she is once again
battling for her life. Personally, I will continue to pray
for her, and for her children.
Cici in Texas
--
All forgiveness is a gift to yourself.
GJP
their kids lives and those that abandon willfully and don't
have to be driven off. There is a big difference between
women who change mentally after having a child due to
whatever reason, and knowing men who do not go through the
physical changes cannot. It is not surprising you do not
understand the difference.
Greg Palumbo
Char wrote in message <36E8AE57...@geocities.com>...
>> >>I always wonder why these men left. If only we could
hear
>> >>their side of the story. Kind of like faux who did a
>> sudden
>> >>disappearing act when a man claiming to be her ex told
who
>> >>she was and what she had done. Quite different than the
>> >>radical feminist moneygrubber agenda she pushed.
>> >>
>> >>Greg Palumbo
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
Char
"Kenneth S." wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 20:39:45 -0500, "baffled1"
> <baff...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >And the same could be said for you ,Joe and a multitude of others here
> >You chose a sneaky whore who managed to grab your assets, Joe chose to boff
> >some bimbette who apparently charged him $39 a throw to go get her fake
> >nails done
> >and now you're all stomping your feet demanding that everybody burst into
> >action to help
> >you all out
> >
> >
> That might be a valid point if the money flows went both ways.
> However, they don't. They are virtually entirely paid by men to
> women.
Sorry Kenneth, money flows having "nothing" to do with the type of
person one chooses. If the "you chose him" attitude is to be used, then
you'll have to deal with the "you chose her" attitude as well. No one
told anyone to marry the person they did. That works in all situations
when you choose to marry an individual and they don't turn out just like
you expected...regardless of money flows. The old "you chose poorly"
routine simply bites back when reversed, and some don't like it.
>
> P.S. Has the official name for these women changed from "bimbos" to
> "bimbettes." Just wanted to know. Becoming a male bimbo has been a
> longtime dream for me.
--
Char
Nothing more nothing less. You choose a woman who's gonna take your kids
and run away, you should have chosen better. And if you feel that men
cannot change, regardless of a pregnancy, you are delusional. Check with
mental institutions. People snap every day, for various reasons. People
who were once sane, go insane. Yup, happens to male/female alike.
Now back to the topic...your statement was "you chose poorly". And I
agree with you. You certainly did. You should have chosen a wife that
wasn't going to run off with the kids.