The Nanny State
Beauty
my own. Based on what I have been reading over the last six months, it
seems, despite the loud protests to the contrary, the group is in favor
of the Nanny State. It seems this group seems to really rely upon
"Children and Family Services" to strengthen its pov, which last time I
checked, is a part of the "Nanny State". After all it is funded by
*our**tax**dollars*, right? So what is it, is the majority of this group
in favor of or opposed to the "Nanny State".
It is an interesting, we had this political discussion within the OC
community and it turns out the loudest and most brazen were? Stalinist!
I await an answer.
(No this is not flame bait, but an honest attempt to try to understand
the *blatant* mixed messages I am getting from this group in regards to
the "Nanny State", and as it is elections time, seemed like a good time
to bring it up. The brazen and brash members of this group that *seem*
opposed to the "Nanny State" seem hypocritical at best and outright
dishonest at worst.)
Atlanta
~Fianna
Interesting question, actually. For my own part, I oppose the "Nanny State"
when it concerns adults. I'm all for legalizing prostitution and drugs
because you can't (and shouldn't) force adults to make intelligent choices.
I support using my tax dollars to pay for things like CPS, however, because
children can not make informed choices and children can not leave situations
that are physically or emotionally harmful to them. In that instance, it is
both a moral good and a public good to remove children from disfunctional
and dangerous situations because they will serve themselves and their
society better if they grow up in to whole people, not damaged, fractured
people. The morality of this issue, frankly, speaks for itself, aside from
the public good part of the equation.
~Fi
Beauty
>
> I support using my tax dollars to pay for things like CPS, however, because
> children can not make informed choices and children can not leave situations
> that are physically or emotionally harmful to them. In that instance, it is
> both a moral good and a public good to remove children from disfunctional
> and dangerous situations because they will serve themselves and their
> society better if they grow up in to whole people, not damaged, fractured
> people. The morality of this issue, frankly, speaks for itself, aside from
> the public good part of the equation.
>
> ~Fi
Can we engage in a rational discussion? Your posts still feel like
pokes. I will wait.
Interesting you mention CPS. I think I first heard about CPS while
studying Child Development in college. We had to learn about such
things as early childhood professionals. As early childhood
professionals, we often provided the only safe home for children, the
home we provided while they were in our care. Did you know that early
childhood professionals do this, especially in urban areas like San
Francisco? Often drug users would bring their children to us for care,
and that care we provided would keep their souls alive.
So, do you agree paying for foster mothers that lie to Children and
Family Service's about not smoking, and then turn around and smoke in
the same room as the children they are supposed to be caring for? Do
you support this with your tax dollars? Also, have you heard the
stories and the reputation of the foster care system? Do you know that
the goal of Children's and Family Services is to get children reunited
with their families? Did you know that people rip and run on the
foster care system just like you, or others, accuse "welfare mothers"
of doing?
Let me ask this: what do you think about parental rights? Do you think
parents have any rights, or does the nanny state reign supreme?
I mean after all we are not a Christian list and parental rights are
fundamentally a Christian issue, right?
I await.
H Duffy
"~Fianna" <ka...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:y9hwh.6642$u92....@newsfe16.phx...
> Beauty wrote:
>> It is an interesting, we had this political discussion within the OC
>> community and it turns out the loudest and most brazen were? Stalinist!
>> I await an answer.
>> (No this is not flame bait, but an honest attempt to try to understand
>> the *blatant* mixed messages I am getting from this group in regards to
>> the "Nanny State", and as it is elections time, seemed like a good time
>> to bring it up. The brazen and brash members of this group that *seem*
>> opposed to the "Nanny State" seem hypocritical at best and outright
>> dishonest at worst.)
Atlanta, if you want a rational discussion, how about being polite, rather
than trying to insult the very people you want to have a discussion with?
Have you learnt _nothing_?
>
> Interesting question, actually. For my own part, I oppose the "Nanny
> State" when it concerns adults. I'm all for legalizing prostitution and
> drugs because you can't (and shouldn't) force adults to make intelligent
> choices.
In think in order to asnwer the question, one actually needs a clear
definition of the "Nanny state"; I'm from the UK, so naturally I'm very much
in favour of a national health service, gun control, that kind of thing. As
an academic, I'm also in favour of publicly funded education, although I
with the government would stop trying to _run_ Universities, as they're not
very good at it.
H
Jennie Kermode
> Since we have started one political discussion, I figured I would start
> my own. Based on what I have been reading over the last six months, it
> seems, despite the loud protests to the contrary, the group is in favor
> of the Nanny State.
One of the things you should have learned during the past six
months, and which you might want to consider now, is that 'this group'
does not believe in _any_ single thing - it is not a single entity.
There are a wide range of differing views here. If that weren't the
case, you wouldn't see the long arguments which are present in other
political threads.
> It seems this group seems to really rely upon "Children and Family
> Services" to strengthen its pov, which last time I checked, is a
> part of the "Nanny State".
As Hester noted, it's impossible to have a useful discussion
of this topic without first agreing on a definition of 'nanny state'.
The term isusually used as a slur, pushing a particular point of view at
the outset - implying that certain aspects of what the state does
~(which, remember, will vary by country) are inappropriate. I think most
people here feel that some state interventions are appropriate and
others are not, but we'd draw the dividing line in diferent places.
> After all it is funded by *our**tax**dollars*, right?
Everything the state does is funded by our taxes. I don't
think there are any outright Libertarians in this group (though I may be
wrong); it's possible we still have an Anarchist or two; but I think
mostpeople here value at least some of what the state does and are quite
happy to support it, even if they'd be happier if it were cheaper. ;)
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Jennie Kermode
> I mean after all we are not a Christian list and parental rights are
> fundamentally a Christian issue, right?
I find this a curious statement. What does religion have to do
with the fundamemtal nature of the relationship between parent and
child? Do you think that religious people feel differently about their
children from non-religious people, or that Christians and
non-Christians differ in that way?
M Shirley Chong
> For my own part, I oppose the "Nanny State" when it concerns adults. I'm
> all for legalizing prostitution and drugs because you can't (and
> shouldn't) force adults to make intelligent choices.
Agreed. Also I think the amount of money and human resources spent on the
war against (some) drugs is wasted. The only people who benefit are lawyers
and the people who run drugs.
> I support using my tax dollars to pay for things like CPS, however,
> because children can not make informed choices and children can not leave
> situations that are physically or emotionally harmful to them. In that
> instance, it is both a moral good and a public good to remove children
> from disfunctional and dangerous situations because they will serve
> themselves and their society better if they grow up in to whole people,
> not damaged, fractured people. The morality of this issue, frankly,
> speaks for itself, aside from the public good part of the equation.
Absolutely agreed. If the government took 10% of the money spent on the war
against (some) drugs, including the money spent on imprisoning drug users,
and put it into child services and the foster system, it would prevent so
many problems that I think it would pay for itself many times over.
Shirley
Dark Phoenix
"M Shirley Chong" <eit...@netins.net> wrote in message
news:ept3ff$9fp$1...@news.netins.net...
>> Absolutely agreed. If the government took 10% of the money spent on the
war
> against (some) drugs, including the money spent on imprisoning drug users,
> and put it into child services and the foster system, it would prevent so
> many problems that I think it would pay for itself many times over.
Also put it into school funding and libraries. If a person sees that the
only futures they have are flipping burgers for minimum wage or selling
crack, they're more likely to choose selling crack. If they have a better
education, their options open up more.
--
Laurie, Dark Phoenix,
dark_p...@netw.com
"It is better to believe, than to disbelieve; in so doing you bring
everything to the realm of possibility."-Albert Einstein.
Beauty
> On 2007-02-01, Beauty <amkemail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I mean after all we are not a Christian list and parental rights are
>> fundamentally a Christian issue, right?
>>
>
> I find this a curious statement. What does religion have to do
> with the fundamemtal nature of the relationship between parent and
> child? Do you think that religious people feel differently about their
> children from non-religious people, or that Christians and
> non-Christians differ in that way?
>
> Jennie
>
>
seems to be an issue of fundamental Christians. The liberals, as
reflected on this list, for we are all liberals right? <smirk> seem to
be promoting the nanny state, and CPS, and foster care. The
fundamentalist Christians do not support these institutions at all.
Perhaps I am representing the Libertarian point of view. I have had a
lot of discourse with OC Libertarians on the Internet and while I have
never registered with their party, I seem to have more in common with
them then I would like. I am not dealing with politics right now.I used
to belong to different political communities, including Alternet where I
wrote a lot... but not right now.
The fundamentalist (?) Christians feel they have a right to discipline
their children as they see fit, which includes corporal punishment. The
liberals (?) demote this kind of child rearing. It is a *very* complex
issue and not one easily resolved. As you know I can and do argue both
sides usually.
Alas it is true as Tim said, I am truly and pathetically alone.
Beauty
> On 2007-01-31, Beauty <amkemail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Since we have started one political discussion, I figured I would start
>> my own. Based on what I have been reading over the last six months, it
>> seems, despite the loud protests to the contrary, the group is in favor
>> of the Nanny State.
>>
>
> One of the things you should have learned during the past six
> months, and which you might want to consider now, is that 'this group'
> does not believe in _any_ single thing - it is not a single entity.
> There are a wide range of differing views here. If that weren't the
> case, you wouldn't see the long arguments which are present in other
> political threads.
>
point of view in this group seems to disgustingly represent the Nanny
State, in the form of CPS, Children's and Family Service's, and the
ensuing bureaucracies that spin off of that. Truly despicable in my eyes.
>
>> It seems this group seems to really rely upon "Children and Family
>> Services" to strengthen its pov, which last time I checked, is a
>> part of the "Nanny State".
>>
>
> As Hester noted, it's impossible to have a useful discussion
> of this topic without first agreing on a definition of 'nanny state'.
> The term isusually used as a slur, pushing a particular point of view at
> the outset - implying that certain aspects of what the state does
> ~(which, remember, will vary by country) are inappropriate. I think most
> people here feel that some state interventions are appropriate and
> others are not, but we'd draw the dividing line in diferent places.
>
interventions are only appropriate when asked for by the person needing
the intervention. That is the proper use of the system. Not squealing.
"Calling CPS" is used as a weapon around here in that I live near a
disabled community (physically) where people are always questioning
other people's "fitness for parenthood". It tends to be the single,
childless jerks that are the most vocal and adamant in their
condemnation of other people's parenting. I will not conceal my hatred
of those types of hypocritical Pharisees.
I was slurring on purpose.
Very few people in Marin County and my town abuse their children if *at
all*. Oh and by the way, Renate, my apartment complex is managed by a
private non-profit corporation that even offers scholarships to its
denizens. It is not government subsidized housing ***at all***. Like I
said, I am sure my rent is higher than most in this group.
>> After all it is funded by *our**tax**dollars*, right?
>>
>
> Everything the state does is funded by our taxes. I don't
> think there are any outright Libertarians in this group (though I may be
> wrong); it's possible we still have an Anarchist or two; but I think
> mostpeople here value at least some of what the state does and are quite
> happy to support it, even if they'd be happier if it were cheaper. ;)
>
> Jennie
>
>
with OC Libertarians on the net and have been likened to one. You all
don't see my cynicism in regards to the 'Nanny State' because I have
been cloaking it, but I am exposing it now.
I am tired of being the door mat for this group. I have had *enough*. I
will no longer hide my disdain for ignorance. I am done playing nice.
When it comes to the 'Nanny State' and children I will not hold back on
my extremely strong convictions on this point. This group has angered me
to no end around that issue.
Atlanta
Lynn
> I mean after all we are not a Christian list and parental rights are
> fundamentally a Christian issue, right?
Only if you are a Christian.
Duh.
Lynn
Lynn
>
> Yes to the second question. Parental rights for all means and purposes
> seems to be an issue of fundamental Christians. The liberals, as
> reflected on this list, for we are all liberals right? <smirk> seem to
> be promoting the nanny state, and CPS, and foster care.
I see the misunderstanding. No, we're only promoting it for *you*.
You and your daughter are an extreme case and you need extreme
responses to keep her safe.
Lynn
Renate
> Jennie Kermode wrote:
>> On 2007-02-01, Beauty <amkemail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I mean after all we are not a Christian list and parental rights are
>>> fundamentally a Christian issue, right?
>>
>> I find this a curious statement. What does religion have to do
>> with the fundamemtal nature of the relationship between parent and
>> child? Do you think that religious people feel differently about their
>> children from non-religious people, or that Christians and
>> non-Christians differ in that way?
>>
> seems to be an issue of fundamental Christians. The liberals, as
> reflected on this list, for we are all liberals right? <smirk> seem to
> be promoting the nanny state, and CPS, and foster care. The
> fundamentalist Christians do not support these institutions at all.
Most people, of any Faith (or none), want children to live healthy and
secure lives. Under normal circumstances, there isn't any need for the
state to interfere. However, most will support the intervention of the
state, when danger to the child is a very real factor. In your case, they
need to be involved.
Renate
Troia
> ...
> Very few people in Marin County and my town abuse their children if *at
> all*.
Oh yeah, people who live in an "elite resort county" (as Atlanta keeps
reminding us she does) NEVER EVER abuse their children, not *at all*.
-- Troia
H Duffy
"Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:45c246ba$0$97270$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
*heh* I believe this is about where Sigmund Freud came in. And indeed where
he stepped out again...
H
Troia
> ~Fianna wrote:
>
>> For my own part, I oppose the "Nanny State" when it concerns adults. I'm
>> all for legalizing prostitution and drugs because you can't (and
>> shouldn't) force adults to make intelligent choices.
>
> Agreed. Also I think the amount of money and human resources spent on the
> war against (some) drugs is wasted. The only people who benefit are lawyers
> and the people who run drugs.
>
You left out all those making money off the exploding "prison industry".
And yes, it is an industry, now dominated by corporate interests.
I often think we'd be more reasonable about drug crimes & punishments if
there weren't so many people making money from the many prisons being
so privately run.
And then there is the "benefit" of keeping people employed in areas that
have little else going for them.
-- Troia
Troia
> On 2007-01-31, Beauty <amkemail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Since we have started one political discussion, I figured I would start
>> my own. Based on what I have been reading over the last six months, it
>> seems, despite the loud protests to the contrary, the group is in favor
>> of the Nanny State.
>
> One of the things you should have learned during the past six
> months, and which you might want to consider now, is that 'this group'
> does not believe in _any_ single thing - it is not a single entity.
> There are a wide range of differing views here. If that weren't the
> case, you wouldn't see the long arguments which are present in other
> political threads.
It's not news to her; she was told repeatedly in ssb-b that "There is
no group (TING)". So then she started addressing herself to (no
kidding) "the TING".
*sigh*
I think she just chooses ignorance sometimes, so that she can insist
it's OK to say whatever offensive things she wants.
-- Troia
Lynn
Child abusers are all unshaven, lower-income people who live in mobile
home parks or else have multiple broken cars on their front lawns.
They lounge about in their undershirts with the butts of old
cigarettes dangling from their lips and kick old beer cans at the dogs
they have tied up out front. They have bad teeth and don't use
deodorant.
So why does Marin have a CPS anyway?
Lynn
Endymion
> Based on what I have been reading over the last six months, it
> seems, despite the loud protests to the contrary, the group is in favor
> of the Nanny State.
In the words of the greatest 20th century president, "There you go
again!"
"The group" does not share any collective political beliefs.
> It seems this group seems to really rely upon
> "Children and Family Services" to strengthen its pov, which last time
> I checked, is a part of the "Nanny State".
Not really. The term "Nanny State" is generally used to refer to a
government that treats its adult citizens as children, not a
government that treats children as children.
- Endymion
Endymion
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't
> think there are any outright Libertarians in this group (though I may be
> wrong);
Careful; I have it on good authority there may be a couple of reformed
ones lurking about, and we wouldn't want to contribute to any
relapses.
- Endymion
(not referring to himself)
Renate
Why, to be at her personal beck and call. When she decided to move to the
"elite resort county", they opened an office, just for her! Without them
to say "yep, she's still missing a few fries, we need to keep an eye on
her", the benefit circle would be broken. If she were no longer a threat
to her child, or herself, then she would be 'cured', and the $$ would stop
trickling in.
Renate
Beauty
> On Jan 31, 6:53 pm, Beauty <amkemail2006-b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Based on what I have been reading over the last six months, it
>> seems, despite the loud protests to the contrary, the group is in favor
>> of the Nanny State.
>>
>
> In the words of the greatest 20th century president, "There you go
> again!"
>
> "The group" does not share any collective political beliefs.
>
my words, please. I know it is hard, but you can do it if you try. I bet
that if a poll were to be taken in this group that a majority of this
group would belong to the same political party.
>
>> It seems this group seems to really rely upon
>> "Children and Family Services" to strengthen its pov, which last time
>> I checked, is a part of the "Nanny State".
>>
>
> Not really. The term "Nanny State" is generally used to refer to a
> government that treats its adult citizens as children, not a
> government that treats children as children.
>
>
> - Endymion
>
>
>
>
this group want to make the government treat the adults who are parents
as children. Is that more clear now? I am striving for clarity in my
writing, you know. Thank you for your clear reply. I can put you down as
one of my 'positive' and constructive correspondents. Looks like we have
made a turn around, yes? Thank you for replying directly to my message
as well. It is always better that way. Keeps out the undesirables.
Beauty
However, it is elite and an intellectual hotbed. Wealthy intellectuals
tend not to abuse their children, right Troia and Hester? Especially not
those who own homes or higher educations. Here is the mirror shining
right back at you. I believe vladyka may move to a resort county,
however. So perhaps he was projecting when he made that comment. And he
is a hierarch. How much more elite can you get. Have you ever watched a
video of the hierarchs processing down the hall at a meeting of the synod?
Troia
> H Duffy wrote:
>> "Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message
>> news:45c246ba$0$97270$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>
>>> Beauty wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> Very few people in Marin County and my town abuse their children if
>>>> *at all*.
>>>>
>>> Oh yeah, people who live in an "elite resort county" (as Atlanta
>>> keeps reminding us she does) NEVER EVER abuse their children, not *at
>>> all*.
>>>
>>
>> *heh* I believe this is about where Sigmund Freud came in. And indeed
>> where he stepped out again...
>>
>> H
>>
>>
> I was parroting vladyka's words.
attribute it to anyone else when you posted it, therefore they are YOUR
words.
Again and for the thousandth time, you can't deny what you wrote,
after-the-fact, by claiming it was someone else's words. The
someone-else doesn't choose to post them here. Once you post something
and don't say it is someone else's opinion, but write it as our own ...
it IS your own, and you OWN those words.
Period.
No matter how many times you try to weasel out of it.
>There are no resorts in my county.
> However, it is elite and an intellectual hotbed. Wealthy intellectuals
> tend not to abuse their children, right Troia and Hester?
No, ignorant woman.
Nor have either Hester or I ever said nor implied such a thing.
> Especially not
> those who own homes or higher educations. Here is the mirror shining
> right back at you.
Eh? What mirror would that be?
> I believe vladyka may move to a resort county,
Who gives a sh**?!!!!
G-d you are DENSE. Clue-resistant.
Doesn't anyone have a LART handy, a BIG ONE?
> however. So perhaps he was projecting when he made that comment.
He didn't make that comment, you did. Right here. Non-attributed, as
your own. More than once.
And since we don't know him and he doesn't post here, they weren't his
words, even if he did say something somewhere else that sounded similar.
We're talking about you, your "elite"ness, and where you live, as
described in your own words.
Your persistent stupidity is terribly boring, you know.
> And he
> is a hierarch. How much more elite can you get. Have you ever watched a
> video of the hierarchs processing down the hall at a meeting of the synod?
I have never watched, nor would ever want to watch, such a video. I
don't think hierarchs are "elite" either.
And I suspect most would take offense at your trying to suggest they are so.
-- Troia
H Duffy
> Beauty wrote:
>> H Duffy wrote:
>>> "Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message
>>> news:45c246ba$0$97270$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>>> Beauty wrote:
>>>>> Very few people in Marin County and my town abuse their children if
>>>>> *at all*.
>>>>>
>>>> Oh yeah, people who live in an "elite resort county" (as Atlanta keeps
>>>> reminding us she does) NEVER EVER abuse their children, not *at all*.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *heh* I believe this is about where Sigmund Freud came in. And indeed
>>> where he stepped out again...
>>>
>>> H
>>>
>>>
>> I was parroting vladyka's words.
If he actually said any such thing, then he's almost as much a fool as you
are, Atlanta. In either case, it's nonsense, and was debunked a hundred
years ago.
>>There are no resorts in my county. However, it is elite and an
>>intellectual hotbed. Wealthy intellectuals tend not to abuse their
>>children, right Troia and Hester?
Absolute nonsense. What on _earth_ gave you such an idea?
>> Especially not those who own homes or higher educations. Here is the
>> mirror shining right back at you.
> Eh? What mirror would that be?
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has no idea what she's going on about. So
much for those communication skills, huh?
H
Renate
> Endymion wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 6:53 pm, Beauty <amkemail2006-b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> "The group" does not share any collective political beliefs.
>>
> The zeitgeist of this group is in favor of the Nanny State. Try to grok
> my words, please. I know it is hard, but you can do it if you try.
We might 'grok' your words, if you used them correctly. The "sprit of the
times", I'm sure is *not* what you meant to say. (Wonder which group
seeded that one?) You might want to concentrate on communicating clearly
in English, before you go mangling other languages.
> I bet
> that if a poll were to be taken in this group that a majority of this
> group would belong to the same political party.
Which has what, to do with anything?
>> The term "Nanny State" is generally used to refer to a
>> government that treats its adult citizens as children, not a
>> government that treats children as children.
>>
> Correct. Adults are parents. I am talking about the way the people in
> this group want to make the government treat the adults who are parents
> as children. Is that more clear now? I am striving for clarity in my
> writing, you know.
If the adults who are parents, acted like adults who are parents (rather
than misbehaving children), there would be no need for any intervention.
It's adults like you, which make it necessary.
Renate
Troia
...
> The zeitgeist
I didn't sneeze, but thank you.
> of this group is in favor of the Nanny State. Try to grok
> my words, please.
Sorry, I gave up that SIASL stuff when I was about 14.
> I know it is hard, but you can do it if you try. I bet
With apologies, I'd rather put my efforts into working, taking care of
my kid, that kind of silly stuff.
> that if a poll were to be taken in this group that a majority of this
> group would belong to the same political party.
Yeah, 'spechully them wily Brits! Why, I know for a *fact* that they
are almost all Democrats!
-- Troia
M Shirley Chong
news:52evvaF...@mid.individual.net...
*yawn* I guess Atlanta isn't getting enough attention here and it's obvious
she's getting no attention in SSBB. So she's going the old familiar route of
making statements that are outrageously wrong in order to provoke a
response. I find it sad that there is an adult who feels that bad attention
is better than no attention at all.
If she doesn't get enough attention with this, she'll whip out some sort of
racist statement.
Shirley, seen it before
fnordikins
There are no resorts in my county.
> However, it is elite and an intellectual hotbed.
Anyone care to research this? Let me know what resorts are in Marin
county. I may want to visit one.
Edvamp
> Beauty wrote:
> > that if a poll were to be taken in this group that a majority of this
> > group would belong to the same political party.
>
> Yeah, 'spechully them wily Brits! Why, I know for a *fact* that they
> are almost all Democrats!
That is why Kerry lost, we forgot to count the British vote.
Ever and Always
Edvamp
www.insidecx.com
Beauty
group, ok? I think he envies my high rent district. There are nice
retirement communities up here. The resorts are in Napa and Sonoma
County. Vladyka missed the mark. He needs to aim farther north.
My cheeks are burning with indignation at batushka's accusations that I
am corrupting children's morals. Is that what this all comes down to,
that the danger you THINK I pose to my child is MORAL? Jesus Christ does
not like moralizers. I am outraged.
Renate
> H Duffy wrote:
>> "Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message
>> news:45c246ba$0$97270$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>> Beauty wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Very few people in Marin County and my town abuse their children if *at
>>>> all*.
>>>>
>>> Oh yeah, people who live in an "elite resort county" (as Atlanta keeps
>>> reminding us she does) NEVER EVER abuse their children, not *at all*.
>>
>> *heh* I believe this is about where Sigmund Freud came in. And indeed where
>> he stepped out again...
>>
> tend not to abuse their children, right Troia and Hester? Especially not
> those who own homes or higher educations.
Good Lord, what century are you living in? Neither wealth nor education
have anything to do with whether a person abuse their child.
> Here is the mirror shining right back at you.
Your mirror is fractured.
> I believe vladyka may move to a resort county,
> however. So perhaps he was projecting when he made that comment. And he
> is a hierarch. How much more elite can you get.
If he's elite, it's only within his circle of believers. To someone who is
not part of a church (or even his church), he's just another old guy in a
fancy dress.
> Have you ever watched a
> video of the hierarchs processing down the hall at a meeting of the synod?
Have you ever watched a video of a Cub Scout procession, or a graduation,
or any other procession of people in uniforms?
Renate
Jani
"Beauty" <amkemail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PWpwh.5261$zH1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Jennie Kermode wrote:
>> One of the things you should have learned during the past six
>> months, and which you might want to consider now, is that 'this group'
>> does not believe in _any_ single thing - it is not a single entity. There
>> are a wide range of differing views here. If that weren't the case, you
>> wouldn't see the long arguments which are present in other political
>> threads.
>>
> Yes, you are correct, but when it comes to child rearing, the dominant
> point of view in this group seems to disgustingly represent the Nanny
> State, in the form of CPS, Children's and Family Service's, and the
> ensuing bureaucracies that spin off of that. Truly despicable in my eyes.
A nanny state is one which dictates what *adults* can eat, drink, smoke,
what films they can watch, books they can read, etc, all on the grounds that
"government knows best". It's not the same as a welfare state, which
comprises social and health care services, and protection for vulnerable
groups such as children.
>>
>>> It seems this group seems to really rely upon "Children and Family
>>> Services" to strengthen its pov, which last time I checked, is a part
>>> of the "Nanny State".
>>>
>>
>> As Hester noted, it's impossible to have a useful discussion of
>> this topic without first agreing on a definition of 'nanny state'. The
>> term isusually used as a slur, pushing a particular point of view at the
>> outset - implying that certain aspects of what the state does ~(which,
>> remember, will vary by country) are inappropriate. I think most people
>> here feel that some state interventions are appropriate and others are
>> not, but we'd draw the dividing line in diferent places.
>>
> Right, and I totally disagree with most people. I feel that state
> interventions are only appropriate when asked for by the person needing
> the intervention.
> That is the proper use of the system. Not squealing.
Uhm, no, quite often part and parcel of the vulnerability is *not* having
the opportunity to ask for intervention. Children, especially, are very
dependent on others spotting that abuse or neglect is occurring, and doing
something about it.
> "Calling CPS" is used as a weapon around here in that I live near a
> disabled community (physically) where people are always questioning other
> people's "fitness for parenthood". It tends to be the single, childless
> jerks that are the most vocal and adamant in their condemnation of other
> people's parenting. I will not conceal my hatred of those types of
> hypocritical Pharisees.
I'll agree there's a section of the childfree community which is so dead set
against "breeders" that they vilify all parents, good or bad, regardless.
But the fact remains that some parents *are* inadequate, neglectful or
abusive, and there need to be structures in place to deal with that. How
those structures are organised, what checks and balances there are, how you
guard against genuine cases slipping through the net and so on, is a
slightly different issue.
> I was slurring on purpose.
> Very few people in Marin County and my town abuse their children if *at
> all*.
And you would know this how, exactly?
Jani
Troia
> fnordikins wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:17:14 -0800, Beauty wrote:
>>> There are no resorts in my county.
>>> However, it is elite and an intellectual hotbed.
>>>
>>
>> Anyone care to research this? Let me know what resorts are in Marin
>> county. I may want to visit one.
>>
> I said there are no resorts in my county.
So, Sausalito is just a blue-collar community these days?
And Corta Madera? And Tiburon, like that seedy hotel called "The Lodge
at Tiburon"? And Lawson's Landing?
uhh ....
-- Troia
Renate
Right on the money, Shirley. She's whipped out that exact thing, on
another list. Called one of her detractors a "tarbaby".
Renate
Renate
<news:1170371106.9...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
> Troia wrote:
>> Beauty wrote:
>
>>> that if a poll were to be taken in this group that a majority of this
>>> group would belong to the same political party.
>>
>> Yeah, 'spechully them wily Brits! Why, I know for a *fact* that they
>> are almost all Democrats!
>
> That is why Kerry lost, we forgot to count the British vote.
That's what they get for not using FedEx for their absentee ballots.
Renate
user119
Renate <Ren...@joplin.deletethis.com> wrote:
Yeah, but the chads probably weren't all the way punched out.
--
Cui bonuo
remove the -N-COLD to reply
Troia
Listen, I don't mean to be *judgmental*, but really ... I know some
people are a bit homophobic, but don't you think punching-out Chads is
just going a bit too far?
-- Troia
All hail Discordia
wrote:
[snip]
>The zeitgeist of this group is in favor of the Nanny State. Try to grok
>my words, please.
Sigh. No not a nanny "state" we think _you_ need a nanny. There is a
difference.
> I know it is hard, but you can do it if you try. I bet
>that if a poll were to be taken in this group that a majority of this
>group would belong to the same political party.
Let see...
City, school board, etc... I do not care what party they are.
Province. I vote for that party.
National. I vote for that different one, or even that other different
one.
I never vote for "that" party.
Though I almost voted for the Marijuana party candidate when I was
living in Toronto for the provincial election.
[snip]
--
+-Grant
Panurge
> >
> > <rational discussion>
"Beauty" <amkemail...@yahoo.com> replied:
> Can we engage in a rational discussion?
I agree, it takes two to engage in a rational discussion. And as Fianna
obviously has *already done so*, guess who *that* leaves?
--
"There is no excellent beauty which hath not some
strangeness in the proportion." --Sir Francis Bacon
whisky-dave
> Since we have started one political discussion, I figured I would start my
> own. Based on what I have been reading over the last six months, it seems,
> despite the loud protests to the contrary, the group is in favor of the
> Nanny State.
It has it's usues even studetns have their uses.
>It seems this group seems to really rely upon "Children and Family
>Services" to strengthen its pov,
Not sure that's true.
> which last time I checked, is a part of the "Nanny State". After all it is
> funded by *our**tax**dollars*, right?
No , mine funed by the £ UKP pound, quid, 100p etc..
> So what is it, is the majority of this group in favor of or opposed to the
> "Nanny State".
that's like asking you if your opposed to drink.
> It is an interesting, we had this political discussion within the OC
> community and it turns out the loudest and most brazen were? Stalinist!
> I await an answer.
> (No this is not flame bait, but an honest attempt to try to understand the
> *blatant* mixed messages I am getting from this group in regards to the
> "Nanny State",
We are individuals rathe rthan a bunch of goths.
> and as it is elections time, seemed like a good time to bring it up. The
> brazen and brash members of this group that *seem* opposed to the "Nanny
> State" seem hypocritical at best and outright dishonest at worst.)
> Atlanta
I guess it really depends what the 'nanny state' does.
whisky-dave
> On Feb 1, 12:03 am, "~Fianna"
>>
>> people. The morality of this issue, frankly, speaks for itself, aside
>> from
>> the public good part of the equation.
>>
>> ~Fi
>
> Can we engage in a rational discussion?
fingers crossed.
>Your posts still feel like
> pokes. I will wait.
Didn;t to me.
> So, do you agree paying for foster mothers that lie to Children and
> Family Service's about not smoking, and then turn around and smoke in
> the same room as the children they are supposed to be caring for? Do
> you support this with your tax dollars?
Who has a choice ?
>
> Let me ask this: what do you think about parental rights? Do you think
> parents have any rights, or does the nanny state reign supreme?
No not supreme.
> I mean after all we are not a Christian list and parental rights are
> fundamentally a Christian issue, right?
Wrong.
animals seem to bring up their kids (well that's goats IIRC) but they do
have offspring,
very few if any of those off-spring end up starting wars or go around
killing
for no obvious reason, they rarely construct things in order to kill
themselves
or others,(such as guns) they don;'t appear to insist that they obey or
follow particular
rules for no logical reason, i.e they don;t all go to place X on a Sunday.
They don;t believe nakedness is shameful or wrong even if they have bright
purple arses.
They aren't destroying thier habit because of greed or design via a war.
What they don't appear to have is any sort of religion.
Perhaps there's a connection.
whisky-dave
>H Duffy wrote:
>> "Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message
>> news:45c246ba$0$97270$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>
>>> Beauty wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> Very few people in Marin County and my town abuse their children if *at
>>>> all*.
>>>>
>>> Oh yeah, people who live in an "elite resort county" (as Atlanta keeps
>>> reminding us she does) NEVER EVER abuse their children, not *at all*.
>>>
>>
>> *heh* I believe this is about where Sigmund Freud came in. And indeed
>> where he stepped out again...
>>
>> H
>>
>>
> I was parroting vladyka's words. There are no resorts in my county.
> However, it is elite and an intellectual hotbed. Wealthy intellectuals
> tend not to abuse their children, right Troia and Hester?
Any evidence of this claim.
Then it does depend on what you call abuse.
Remember Michael Jackson, while I don;t think he was an abuser ,
it seems that some of the parents of the kids he allegedly abused were more
than willing
to accept money rather than report the original abuse.
Perhaps an intellectual would chose a poor family and offer money to keep
them quite
if they ever found out abuse was going on.
A poor person would not be able to offer this bribe to keep things quite.
They also wouldn;t be able to buy such an expensive laywer to get the vital
not guilty verdict.
> is a hierarch. How much more elite can you get.
Depends what game you're playing.
Have you ever heard of priests abusing little boys or do you just think
it's
just all made up because of what a priest is or stands for ?
But I don't believe that makes every priest or religious leader
a child abuser, I don;t even thyink it has anything to do with
catholics in general, but it could have something to do with priests
not being allowed to have sex with women.
>Have you ever watched a video of the hierarchs processing down the hall at
>a meeting of the synod?
I'll wait for the T-shirt thanks ;-)
Beauty
> "Beauty" <amkemail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8_9wh.717$gj4...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
>> Since we have started one political discussion, I figured I would start my
>> own. Based on what I have been reading over the last six months, it seems,
>> despite the loud protests to the contrary, the group is in favor of the
>> Nanny State.
>>
>
> It has it's usues even studetns have their uses.
>
>
Sarah, the housemother of Martha and Mary House. Martha and Mary were
mentioned in the Scriptures this morning, so I know I am right on the
mark to be talking about Martha and Mary House. I am very proud of my
vladyka for having established a home for unwed mothers. Charity was one
of the two primary goals for him during his bishopric rule and I think
he accomplished his goal.
There is no shame in mentioning Sarah's name on Usenet. She wishes to
serve. There is an article about her in our Orthodox Vision which I can
post the link to if there is interest. I know Renate has expressed
interest in Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. I wish Renate were not
so venomous. Perhaps then I could interact with her directly.
Anyways, I gather you are a teacher. What subject?
>> It seems this group seems to really rely upon "Children and Family
>> Services" to strengthen its pov,
>>
> Not sure that's true.
>
Well there are some people in this group, Renate and Lynn and Grant and
Bob, who feel I am an "unfit mother" based on my writing on Usenet. They
are the ones I am talking about. They see a pathology that is not there.
I once was on the path to becoming a social worker. Then I found out
that an MDiv is the equivalent of an MSW and it allows a woman to become
a chaplain. It is another one of my dreams to become a hospital or jail
chaplain when my daughter grows up. That is why I am so very mortally
offended by Renate, Lynn, Grant, Bob and Ty attacking my motherhood.
>
>> which last time I checked, is a part of the "Nanny State". After all it is
>> funded by *our**tax**dollars*, right?
>>
> No , mine funed by the £ UKP pound, quid, 100p etc..
>
>
>> So what is it, is the majority of this group in favor of or opposed to the
>> "Nanny State".
>>
>
> that's like asking you if your opposed to drink.
>
Is it? At least five people in the group feel my daughter would be in
better hands with the nanny state then with her own mother. What they
don't know is my daughter would not even an honor a stepmother with the
title "Mommy" but would only call her "Mother". My daughter is *very*
attached to me. I deliberately parented her this way. Lynn has almost
grown children, Renate has a grown child, Ty has children, I don't
recall the ages, Grant has a family situation, Bob, don't know anything
about. Oh yes and there was Tim who told me to kill myself and my
daughter would be better off! That is obscene and not at all fit for 12
year olds to read. That is like a real live horror novel!
At any rate, all those people are upper class with houses and
educations. That is not what matters the most in God's eyes.
Renate makes me glad I am not a RC and that the EO church is separate
from the RC church. I never want to join with her.
>
>> It is an interesting, we had this political discussion within the OC
>> community and it turns out the loudest and most brazen were? Stalinist!
>> I await an answer.
>> (No this is not flame bait, but an honest attempt to try to understand the
>> *blatant* mixed messages I am getting from this group in regards to the
>> "Nanny State",
>>
> We are individuals rathe rthan a bunch of goths.
>
Really, well as I said there is a mob in this group who wants to take
my daughter away from me and lock me up! That is a common tactic to deal
with the politically incorrect. Heck journalists get murdered in the
former Soviet Union for speaking out against the president.
I don't know what it is about my writing that so threatens them. I think
it is because I refuse to bow down and venerate them. I retain my pride
and dignity and refuse to submit to them so they resent me for this.
>
>> and as it is elections time, seemed like a good time to bring it up. The
>> brazen and brash members of this group that *seem* opposed to the "Nanny
>> State" seem hypocritical at best and outright dishonest at worst.)
>> Atlanta
>>
>
> I guess it really depends what the 'nanny state' does.
>
>
>
Well as I stated that mob thinks I need a nanny. They think I am a
child. I think we need to start talking about the welfare state. I
highly recommend people go to alternet.org to learn more about my pov
regarding the welfare state. This group stigmatizes those on welfare. I
can not believe the awful things Hester, Renate and Troia are saying. I
think they would rather I die and my daughter goes to an orphanage than
I be helped in my time of need. Oh yes add Bob to that list. I sensed
that my detractors were politically conservative a long time ago. Oh
yes, don't forget to add Troia to that list, who also thinks she is a
superior parent to me.
I could use a daddy in my life. I am the type of girl who does need an
older husband beyond a shadow of a doubt. An older husband to serve and
respect and revere and who will take care of me and my daughter. I would
not mind staying home to serve my husband. That is the life I wanted. I
didn't plan on this disaster. And you know what? I realize my decision
to divorce has affected the whole body of Christ, the whole global EO
Church. It is that significant. It has hurt the body of Christ, caused a
small fracture in it, and it is my fault. Imagine being a bishop who has
to dismiss a priest. Yes, we bear much responsibility on our frail human
frames.
Beauty
> "Beauty" <amkemail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1170317569.6...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Feb 1, 12:03 am, "~Fianna"
>>
>
>
>>> people. The morality of this issue, frankly, speaks for itself, aside
>>> from
>>> the public good part of the equation.
>>>
>>> ~Fi
>>>
>> Can we engage in a rational discussion?
>>
>
> fingers crossed.
>
>
>> Your posts still feel like
>> pokes. I will wait.
>>
>
> Didn;t to me.
>
for being sensitive by my godmother long before I started writing on
Usenet. I will be sensitive. That is my temperament. The trick is to get
the group to respect my sensitivity. I will unfilter Fianna and see how
it goes.
>
>
>> So, do you agree paying for foster mothers that lie to Children and
>> Family Service's about not smoking, and then turn around and smoke in
>> the same room as the children they are supposed to be caring for? Do
>> you support this with your tax dollars?
>>
>
> Who has a choice ?
>
youth. Childcare is a HUGE issue in the Bay Area. There is a child care
council in San Francisco that publishes an excellent paper in regards to
childcare issues. You have to remember this was my former profession. I
take child care VERY seriously.
The reason I engaged Children and Family Service's was I need emergency
child care. Marital separation is an emergency and as I was new in the
county, moved here in October 2004, ended the marriage in May 2005, I
did not have a community to rely on yet. Today I could call up any
number of people for emergency child care.
That is why I despise my detractors such as Ty. They are *so* ignorant
about my situation. I started writing about my situation back in October
2005, and that's when my true love came along to save me, God bless him.
Keep him in your prayers. He is still enduring the suffering of "The
Next 90 Days". Those 90 days will be up in the middle of March. Someone
sent me that news article last night from ocanews.org. Oh my goodness my
Church is being TORN apart. Lord have mercy upon the OCA!
>
>
>> Let me ask this: what do you think about parental rights? Do you think
>> parents have any rights, or does the nanny state reign supreme?
>>
>
> No not supreme.
>
Good. So then you will listen. Now someone, was it Jani? differentiated
between the nanny state and the welfare state, so we must discuss the
welfare state. I do not believe in dismantling the welfare state. Tax
dollars are charity. God rules this world and we are required to be
charitable. <smirk> The people calling for an end to the welfare state
are selfish bastards. Again, I recommend alternet.org or The Huffington
Press or The San Francisco Child Care Council to start learning about
the issues. I will fight to the literary death for my causes, which
right now are dominated by child care issues. I am so angry with people
like Ty.
>
>
>> I mean after all we are not a Christian list and parental rights are
>> fundamentally a Christian issue, right?
>>
>
> Wrong.
> animals seem to bring up their kids (well that's goats IIRC) but they do
> have offspring,
> very few if any of those off-spring end up starting wars or go around
> killing
> for no obvious reason, they rarely construct things in order to kill
> themselves
> or others,(such as guns) they don;'t appear to insist that they obey or
> follow particular
> rules for no logical reason, i.e they don;t all go to place X on a Sunday.
> They don;t believe nakedness is shameful or wrong even if they have bright
> purple arses.
> They aren't destroying thier habit because of greed or design via a war.
>
> What they don't appear to have is any sort of religion.
> Perhaps there's a connection.
>
>
>
>
>
We are not animals. Do you know what man was made for? To worship God.
Many in this group are animals, but we do have a few spiritual beings in
this group.
Our nature is fallen. Adam's son killed his other son. As soon as we
fell from Grace, suffering and death came into this world. Evil is a
force that works against God. I recommend the theology on The Basic
Story on Reader John's website, jbburnett.com. It opened my mind to the
truth. Especially look up the theology of Father Georges Florovksy of
Blessed Memory. He and Father Alexander Schmemann had a tiff in the
seminary by the way and Father Alexander dismissed Father Georges! Talk
about fighting. Wow.
Anyways Reader John really opened my mind and for this I am grateful. He
was the first one who appealed to me as a second husband as I was ending
my marriage. Not available. He is a long term missionary in Uganda, the
seminary director. His life will be there, not here.
Beauty
squealers like Hester and Troia in addition to Ty, Renate, Bob, Tim,
Grant, Lynn, did I forget anyone?
Look, one of my neighbors in the other apartment complex has been
accused of being a drug user. Her ex husband is disabled. There is a
rumor that people deal drugs in the apartment complex apart from mine.
It is a disabled community. Another one of these disabled people once
spoke to me in a meeting about how she was worried about the children of
this family and I told her she could make an anonymous call to CPS if
she wanted. Now was this woman truly concerned or was she meddling or
gossiping? You see what I mean. I got sucked into those rumors. Those
poor kids. Catholic family too.
Those are the only allegations of child abuse that I know of in my
community.
I really hate the people in this group who point the finger at me when
God knows how they have treated their own children. They speak
vulgarities and then judge me? I can't even begin to repeat some of the
things I read last night. Poor batushka, I bet he is mortified. Lord
help if my vladyka ever started writing out here in his real name. The
ladies will be all over him like spiders on prey. If they think
batushka's nuts are sweet, and his soul is beautiful, they would be
blinded by vladyka's spiritual beauty, as I have said before.
I feel very protective of batushka and wish he would leave this group.
These ladies such as Renate and Troia wish to harm him. They are having
sexual fantasies about him. And then they project their filth on to me.
I have never once written about my sexual fantasies about my vladyka in
a such a way that they wrote about batushka last night. I never once
mentioned sexual organs to my recall.
I am shocked and horrified!
It is not morally corruptive to present one's dreams that bishops would
be allowed to marry someday. That is as wholesome as you can get. There
is no corruption there what so ever.
>
>
>> is a hierarch. How much more elite can you get.
>>
> Depends what game you're playing.
>
> Have you ever heard of priests abusing little boys or do you just think
> it's
> just all made up because of what a priest is or stands for ?
> But I don't believe that makes every priest or religious leader
> a child abuser, I don;t even thyink it has anything to do with
> catholics in general, but it could have something to do with priests
> not being allowed to have sex with women.
>
I am not going to speculate on this. Vladyka wrote a beautiful piece
regarding these issues in our Church last night that he posted to the
Indiana list, I highly recommend it. There is a huge problem going on in
our Church right now. The lawyer he mentioned is a personal friend of
mine, whom I have mentioned in my writing here. She is part of that
"pokrov" activity. I invited her out to this group. I told her batushka
mentioned pokrov and all hell broke loose. She does not have much time
to read posts but I think she should know that batushka mentioned pokrov
here. Batushka wants to finger my vladyka as a culprit when my vladyka
did NOTHING. And allegations of sexual misconduct is not the deal with
him anyways. It is the former Metropolitan that is being accused. Our
Church is being torn apart from the inside and it is tragic. Our Church
is young and delicate. In fact our Church and I are almost the same
fragile age. Our Church is but a few years older than I. I have been
told by my friend in Christ, Father Thomas, to offer my sufferings up
for our Church. Our Church and I suffer together. I weep and grieve for
our Church. God help her from sinking into the abyss.
Anyways, I can post a link to Vladyka's wonderfully creative piece on
this whole affair in our Church if you like. He is such an amazingly
gifted writer.
Priests are allowed to have sex with a woman in our Church, provided
they are married before they are ordained. That is the current rule.
Widowed priests are not allowed to marry, nor our celibate bishops. It
is really tragic. I think the rules of the Church need to change.
I can not speak on homosexual matters. Again, if there is a request I
can post the link to Vladyka's piece from last night.
By the way, Vladyka affirms my use of the word jurisdictions, and I got
the piece in the jurisdictions group he and I both belong to.
Jurisdictions is the correct word. He also made a veiled remark in
regards to batushka's jurisdiction and the co-founder of Saint Herman of
Alaska Brotherhood as well.
>
>
>> Have you ever watched a video of the hierarchs processing down the hall at
>> a meeting of the synod?
>>
>
> I'll wait for the T-shirt thanks ;-)
>
>
>
No, no t-shirt of that image. Wait for my portrait of them. They are
quite awesome to behold in all their finery, a parade of kings. I would
love to be in their midst. I have seen a wonderful picture of the woman
president of Greece conversing with the EP. It is time for bishops and
metropolitans and patriarchs and women to start interacting as equals.
Some women want to be bishops, others want to be bishop's wives. Change
and movement is a foot in the global EO Church.
Oh yes the Southern Baptist pastor is a bosom friend of mine. He is
married and I am single. There is no untoward behavior going on there. I
have mentioned him elsewhere and a book he has published. If you are
clever it should not be hard to track him down. If you have figured out
the city I live in, it should also not to be hard. I am not going to out
him yet. When I do I will send you to him with my greetings. I have
invited him to the group to converse but he would prefer to converse in
private. So we are also in a deadlock regarding conversation.
Everything I write is the truth. I am sorry Renate and Endymion and God
knows who else can not handle it.
Christians must not be anonymous. This is not the bdsm community.
Christians must be out in their name. However, clergymen are vulnerable
and sometimes have to be anonymous.
Renate doesn't get it when I said that. She has said HORRIBLE things
about vladyka that I hope she retracts. Vladyka would NEVER engage in
illicit sex, EVER. She had no right even mentioning Gor in relation to
him, no right at all. I am feeling fiercely protective of batushka and
vladyka today from the evil women in this group.
Our retired bishops have no where to go. It is a problem. We do not
provide for our retired bishops. They have been cut adrift and then are
scrutinized by those of ill will. I wish to serve my retired bishop in
any way I possibly can. I owe my salvation to him.
Lynn
>
> Is it? At least five people in the group feel my daughter would be in
> better hands with the nanny state then with her own mother.
Look, if you had cancer, you'd find someone to care for her while you
were in the hospital, right? [1] Well, right now you are so ill that
you might as well have cancer. Thing is, what you have is worse, in a
way, since it's communicable--you can pass it on to your daughter.
Yuo're robbing her of her only chance to be a kid--to be the one who
gets taken care of, who gets to make dumb mistakes, who gets to
experiment with how she wants to live in the world. You need so much
care-taking that she's been promoted to be the Parent over you,
comforting you for your nutty mistakes, watching you experiment with
yourself and changing every day--every hour!--so that she never knows
which mother she's coming home from school to--the one baking cookies
or the one ranting madly over her computer. If you could look at
yourself rationally you'd see it, but you can't. While you're healing
yourself, you just don't have the resources to be a good, consistent
parent.
[1] I'm hoping that the response to this isn't "It is not appropriate
for a christian woman to get cancer" or the equivalent.
Lynn
huey.c...@gmail.com
> After all it is funded by *our**tax**dollars*, right?
I think you mean 'your' tax dollars, since you've already admitted that
you're taking more money out of the system than you're putting into it.
--
Huey
Beauty
I don't recall admitting that. I do recall stating that I have worked
half my life. Are you against the welfare state? I am shocked at the
dominant political conservatism of this group. It is just like
s.s.b.b., moral degeneracy is treated by political conservatism, I
guess as some kind of antidote.
Wow.
I am going to have to find a current article from Alternet about the
welfare state and post the abstract and the link. I am shocked yet
again, just as I was shocked in s.s.b.b. by the right wing
reactionaries that dominate this group. Stalinists, all of you.
Renate
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Beauty" <amkemail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1170317569.6...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> On Feb 1, 12:03 am, "~Fianna"
>>
>>>> people. The morality of this issue, frankly, speaks for itself, aside
>>>> from the public good part of the equation.
>>>>
>>
>> fingers crossed.
>>
>>> Your posts still feel like pokes. I will wait.
>>
>> Didn;t to me.
>>
> You weren't on the receiving end. I am sensitive. I have been criticized
> for being sensitive by my godmother long before I started writing on
> Usenet. I will be sensitive. That is my temperament. The trick is to get
> the group to respect my sensitivity.
Not our problem. You don't respect the list members, so why would anyone
here accord you any special respect?
> I will unfilter Fianna and see how it goes.
It'll go, until the next time she ticks you off. It's getting pitiful.
>>
>>> So, do you agree paying for foster mothers that lie to Children and
>>> Family Service's about not smoking, and then turn around and smoke in
>>> the same room as the children they are supposed to be caring for? Do
>>> you support this with your tax dollars?
>>
>> Who has a choice ?
>>
> I take child care VERY seriously.
You must not take it too seriously, else you'd give better care for your
own child.
>
> That is why I despise my detractors such as Ty. They are *so* ignorant
> about my situation. I started writing about my situation back in October
> 2005, and that's when my true love came along to save me, God bless him.
> Keep him in your prayers. He is still enduring the suffering of "The
> Next 90 Days". Those 90 days will be up in the middle of March. Someone
> sent me that news article last night from ocanews.org. Oh my goodness my
> Church is being TORN apart. Lord have mercy upon the OCA!
Yada yada yada.
>>
>>> Let me ask this: what do you think about parental rights? Do you think
>>> parents have any rights, or does the nanny state reign supreme?
>>
>> No not supreme.
>>
> Good. So then you will listen. Now someone, was it Jani? differentiated
> between the nanny state and the welfare state, so we must discuss the
> welfare state. I do not believe in dismantling the welfare state. Tax
> dollars are charity.
Not quite. Paying taxes is not optional (unless you want to go to jail).
God rules this world and we are required to be
> I am so angry with people like Ty.
Too bad. Ty's (and others') opinions are just as valid as yours. Probably
more so, since they actually have opinions of their own.
>>
>>> I mean after all we are not a Christian list and parental rights are
>>> fundamentally a Christian issue, right?
>>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>> animals seem to bring up their kids (well that's goats IIRC) but they do
>> have offspring, very few if any of those off-spring end up starting wars
>> or go around killing for no obvious reason, they rarely construct things
>> in order to kill themselves or others, (such as guns) they don;'t appear
>> to insist that they obey or follow particular rules for no logical reason,
>> i.e they don;t all go to place X on a Sunday. They don;t believe
>> nakedness is shameful or wrong even if they have bright purple arses.
>> They aren't destroying thier habit because of greed or design via a war.
>>
>> What they don't appear to have is any sort of religion.
>> Perhaps there's a connection.
>>
> We are not animals.
Been studying up on basic biology, too, I see. Hate to break it to you,
but we are animals.
[snip of off-topic religious rambling]
Renate
huey.c...@gmail.com
> Child abusers are all unshaven, lower-income people who live in mobile
> home parks or else have multiple broken cars on their front lawns.
> They lounge about in their undershirts with the butts of old
> cigarettes dangling from their lips and kick old beer cans at the dogs
> they have tied up out front. They have bad teeth and don't use
> deodorant.
> So why does Marin have a CPS anyway?
This metaphor would appear to have three elements, as follows:
- Things Beauty has admitted to: lower-income, with the butts of old
cigarettes dangling from their lips,
- Things Beauty has not yet admitted to, but would seem to be
realistic assumptions: unshaven, lounge about in their undershirts,
kick old beer cans at the dogs they have tied up out front, bad teeth,
don't use deodorant
- Probably not: live in mobile home parks, have multiple cars on their
front lawns
So, given your own assessment of 'child abusers', Beauty would seem to
fit around 50% of the profile.
--
Huey
Beauty
> - Things Beauty has admitted to: lower-income, with the butts of old
> cigarettes dangling from their lips,
Pardon me? I have admitted to *no* such thing. In fact I have strongly
stated I am not a smoker.
I find you digustingly offensive, "huey".
>
> So, given your own assessment of 'child abusers', Beauty would seem to
> fit around 50% of the profile.
>
> --
> Huey
I don't know why you have a fixation on profiling me as a 'child
abuser' but I can assure you if you ever set *foot* in my community
you would be scrutinized from *head to toe* before you would even be
allowed to say 'hello' to a child.
I don't like the quasi-legal language I am seeing in this newsgroup
from some of you. It makes me mighty suspicious.
Yellow journalists, all of you. What cowardice. I thought you were all
for freedom of speech. No?
I have *zero* respect for the lot of you, and you know who *you* are.
You are the ones who pose the greatest danger to children by wanting
to cut the welfare state in half. Some of us choose not to sue our
homeless ex spouses for child support. I guess you would have us
mothers and children sleeping in our vehicles as well, or over at
friends houses. God forbid we should get something out of the taxes we
made before tragedy hit. Might as well get rid of that blasted FEMA
too while you are at it. I thought the Republicans were headed out of
the House. Guess not.
Again, rampant right wing conservatism to nullify the effects of
outright moral degeneracy, right? Hey if it works for the pervs, might
as well work for the goths too.
Renate
>>> However, it is elite and an intellectual hotbed. Wealthy intellectuals
>>> tend not to abuse their children, right Troia and Hester?
>>
>> Any evidence of this claim.
>> Then it does depend on what you call abuse.
>> Remember Michael Jackson, while I don;t think he was an abuser ,
>> it seems that some of the parents of the kids he allegedly abused were more
>> than willing to accept money rather than report the original abuse.
>> Perhaps an intellectual would chose a poor family and offer money to keep
>> them quite if they ever found out abuse was going on.
>> A poor person would not be able to offer this bribe to keep things quite.
>> They also wouldn;t be able to buy such an expensive laywer to get the vital
>> not guilty verdict.
>>
> Well whatever, I am handling my own business and I don't appreciate the
> squealers like Hester and Troia in addition to Ty, Renate, Bob, Tim,
> Grant, Lynn, did I forget anyone?
Doesn't matter what you appreciate. You aren't special.
> Another one of these disabled people once
> spoke to me in a meeting about how she was worried about the children of
> this family and I told her she could make an anonymous call to CPS if
> she wanted. Now was this woman truly concerned or was she meddling or
> gossiping? You see what I mean. I got sucked into those rumors. Those
> poor kids. Catholic family too.
Tsk Tsk. Encouraging people to *squeal*, anonymously even. See why your
words have no credibility?
>
> I really hate the people in this group who point the finger at me when
> God knows how they have treated their own children.
Mine's doing just fine, tyvm. Then again, I didn't begrudge his right to
be the priority in my life, even as a single mother. My time was before,
and then after he spread his wings; in between belonged to him, and he was
never given reason to doubt that.
> I can't even begin to repeat some of the
> things I read last night. Poor batushka, I bet he is mortified.
Why would he be? Unlike you, we give him credit for being intelligent
enough to know that we weren't discussing him, personally.
> Lord
> help if my vladyka ever started writing out here in his real name. The
> ladies will be all over him like spiders on prey. If they think
> batushka's nuts are sweet, and his soul is beautiful, they would be
> blinded by vladyka's spiritual beauty, as I have said before.
He'd have to prove himself, same as anyone else. You're the only one here
who reveres Bishop Tikhon as something above a mortal man.
>
> I feel very protective of batushka and wish he would leave this group.
Protective? That's why you've fouled his name, and attempted to discredit
him, in a number of groups, eh? Sure Sure.
> These ladies such as Renate and Troia wish to harm him. They are having
> sexual fantasies about him.
Don't know about Troia, but my fantasies are about Sean Connery.
> And then they project their filth on to me.
Who's the one who can't distinguish between fantasy and reality? Not us,
so that leaves *you*.
> I have never once written about my sexual fantasies about my vladyka in
> a such a way that they wrote about batushka last night. I never once
> mentioned sexual organs to my recall.
"Fucking your master (i.e. Bishop Tikhon)", is about as sexual as it gets.
We were just talking about generic CBT.
>
> I am shocked and horrified!
Not our problem. Maybe you should leave, if you can't cut it.
>
> It is not morally corruptive to present one's dreams that bishops would
> be allowed to marry someday. That is as wholesome as you can get. There
> is no corruption there what so ever.
"Fucking a celebate monk (i.e. Bishop Tikhon)", is far from wholesome.
>>
>>> is a hierarch. How much more elite can you get.
>>>
>> Depends what game you're playing.
>>
>> Have you ever heard of priests abusing little boys or do you just think
>> it's just all made up because of what a priest is or stands for ?
>>
> I am not going to speculate on this. Vladyka wrote a beautiful piece
> regarding these issues in our Church last night that he posted to the
> Indiana list, I highly recommend it. There is a huge problem going on in
> our Church right now. The lawyer he mentioned is a personal friend of
> mine, whom I have mentioned in my writing here. She is part of that
> "pokrov" activity. I invited her out to this group. I told her batushka
> mentioned pokrov and all hell broke loose.
Yep. We support the efforts of groups like Pokrov. The Catholics have
their own counterpart.
> She does not have much time to read posts but I think she should
> know that batushka mentioned pokrov here.
I'm quite sure she'd be very pleased to know that he supports them.
> Batushka wants to finger my vladyka as a culprit when my vladyka
> did NOTHING. And allegations of sexual misconduct is not the deal with
> him anyways.
You made it a "deal with him", when you've *publicly* accused him of
exactly that.
>
> By the way, Vladyka affirms my use of the word jurisdictions, and I got
> the piece in the jurisdictions group he and I both belong to.
> Jurisdictions is the correct word.
Duh. Given that he's also OCA, I'd imagine he would. Jurisdiction,
church, denomination, sect... all used the same way.
>
> Everything I write is the truth. I am sorry Renate and Endymion and God
> knows who else can not handle it.
We've already established that your "truth" changes with the minutes.
>
> Christians must not be anonymous. This is not the bdsm community.
> Christians must be out in their name. However, clergymen are vulnerable
> and sometimes have to be anonymous.
Sorry, troll, but Orthodox aren't the on Christians in the block.
>
> Renate doesn't get it when I said that. She has said HORRIBLE things
> about vladyka that I hope she retracts. Vladyka would NEVER engage in
> illicit sex, EVER. She had no right even mentioning Gor in relation to
> him, no right at all.
We doubt that he would. You are the only one claiming to have had a sexual
relationship with him, for which we mocked *you*, not him.
> I am feeling fiercely protective of batushka and
> vladyka today from the evil women in this group.
I doubt that either of them are thankful for your type of "protection".
>
> Our retired bishops have no where to go. It is a problem. We do not
> provide for our retired bishops. They have been cut adrift and then are
> scrutinized by those of ill will.
I doubt that very much. I'd imagine that Bishop Tikhon is more than
welcome in many an Orthodox monastery. After all, he is a monk, right?
The monastery can provide for all his needs, earthly and spiritual.
Renate
Beauty
>
> "Fucking your master (i.e. Bishop Tikhon)", is about as sexual as it gets.
> We were just talking about generic CBT.
>
exact words.
>
>
>
>
>
> > It is not morally corruptive to present one's dreams that bishops would
> > be allowed to marry someday. That is as wholesome as you can get. There
> > is no corruption there what so ever.
>
> "Fucking a celebate monk (i.e. Bishop Tikhon)", is far from wholesome.
>
Again, since you are so good with MIDs, show me where I wrote those
*exact* words, please. I take it you think this is appropriate
conversation for a 12 year old girl? Is this how all RC women are?
Wow, and you call yourself pious? I know pagans and Moslems that are
more genteel than you.
I don't think you are aware of my position on fornication? I mean our
Lord's? Its a SIN.
>
>
>
> Yep. We support the efforts of groups like Pokrov. The Catholics have
> their own counterpart.
>
Well guess what? We, meaning vladyka and I, don't. They stole the name
of a Church Feast. Do you know what Pokrov is? Protection of the
Mother of God. Do you know who the Theotokos protects? Mount Athos. Do
you know what Mount Athos is? An independent monastic state. You just
shot your credibility with the Orthodox in the foot.
But you know what? Despite my disagreement with Pokrov, I am pleased
to call them my friends. They are the ones who got me started on this
"whole Internet trip" back when I resented my ex priest.
Bet you didn't know that. Of course not. You are too busy judging me
from behind your smoky cloud of alcoholic inebriation.
> > She does not have much time to read posts but I think she should
> > know that batushka mentioned pokrov here.
>
> I'm quite sure she'd be very pleased to know that he supports them.
>
Actually she wanted to know what he said.
> > Batushka wants to finger my vladyka as a culprit when my vladyka
> > did NOTHING. And allegations of sexual misconduct is not the deal with
> > him anyways.
>
> You made it a "deal with him", when you've *publicly* accused him of
> exactly that.
>
Show me where I have publicly accused him of that. You have tried to
make it look I have publicly accused him of that. Nobody in my
diocese, nor jurisdiction, nor even the global Church that I know,
and I know a lot, would believe a *word* you say. You do know
that,don't you?
I have made no such accusations against him. Why would I? He is my
friend. He brought me into the Church. He placed the Holy Spirit in
me. I am loyal to him. I wish him no harm, but only good.
You are jealous and resentful of our friendship and your jealousy is
ugly and a product of Satan.
>
>
> > By the way, Vladyka affirms my use of the word jurisdictions, and I got
> > the piece in the jurisdictions group he and I both belong to.
> > Jurisdictions is the correct word.
>
> Duh. Given that he's also OCA, I'd imagine he would. Jurisdiction,
> church, denomination, sect... all used the same way.
>
Are you kidding me? Wow. And no one calls you on your arrogance? We
already discussed this but I will discuss it again. The local Church
is the diocese, centered around the bishop, as per the writing of
Saint Justin Popovitch. Denomination is a Protestant word, after the
Protestant phenomenon of the fragmentation of the Church after the
Protestant Reformation. Sect? You got me there. A further
disintegration of denomination?
The Church is what is whole.I thought you knew that. What, don't say
the Creed in your Church? Oh I forgot, you *mutilated* it.
>
>
> > Everything I write is the truth. I am sorry Renate and Endymion and God
> > knows who else can not handle it.
>
> We've already established that your "truth" changes with the minutes.
>
It does? I don't think so. If I am moving in the right direction, I
grow closer to God with the minutes.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Renate doesn't get it when I said that. She has said HORRIBLE things
> > about vladyka that I hope she retracts. Vladyka would NEVER engage in
> > illicit sex, EVER. She had no right even mentioning Gor in relation to
> > him, no right at all.
>
> We doubt that he would. You are the only one claiming to have had a sexual
> relationship with him, for which we mocked *you*, not him.
>
I never claimed to have had a sexual relationship with him. You
misunderstand my writing. My diocese and jurisdiction know that I have
never claimed to have a sexual relationship with him. But I can see
that the possibility of changing the 1500 year tradition of bishopric
celibacy makes you uneasy for some reason. If I ever *were* to have a
sexual relationship with him it would only be within the confines of
marriage. See the Orthodox only accept sex within the confines of
marriage. Everything else is misconduct, such as your sadomasochistic
activity.
I see you advertising for a mate on your Yahoo profile. You are
*quite* single.
Unlike you, I don't have sex outside of marriage. Everyone in my
community knows I don't date. I think you feel guilty about your own
sin and rather than clean it up, you project your dirt onto me. You
are an unrepentant pervert. You have no desire to change your evil
ways. You justify them every day. It is you who the bishop would
*never* be interested in. You are an unclean woman.
> > I am feeling fiercely protective of batushka and
> > vladyka today from the evil women in this group.
>
> I doubt that either of them are thankful for your type of "protection".
>
Really? Have you asked them? I can assure you that vladyka is not at
all thankful for "pokrov" but deeply dislikes it. Do you know why they
were created? I do. Guess you failed to see that after reading all his
analysis of their purpose on the Indy list.
>
>
> > Our retired bishops have no where to go. It is a problem. We do not
> > provide for our retired bishops. They have been cut adrift and then are
> > scrutinized by those of ill will.
>
> I doubt that very much. I'd imagine that Bishop Tikhon is more than
> welcome in many an Orthodox monastery. After all, he is a monk, right?
> The monastery can provide for all his needs, earthly and spiritual.
>
> Renate
Aha. And was that some kind of bait? Since you are so very concerned
about his earthly and spiritual welfare I suggest you start praying
for him immediately and until these 90 days are up.I am sure he would
appreciate the effort. He always welcomes prayer. You seem almost
obsessed with the man. Don't you have someone more appropriate to
focus your attention on besides a retired bishop?
Your demonic malice saddens me, Renate. Do you realize you are almost
old enough to be my mother?
I hope you have not formed your child to be as hard hearted and mean
spirited and spiteful and arrogant as you are.
If you think God cares about cleverness or approves of mockery, you
got another thing coming on Judgment Day. But go on ahead with your
ways and wiles. Enjoy.
In Christ,
Olympiada
huey.c...@gmail.com
> I find you digustingly offensive, "huey".
I find you on usenet, far too often.
> I can assure you if you ever set *foot* in my community you would
> be scrutinized from *head to toe* before you would even be allowed
> to say 'hello' to a child.
Oddly enough, I've been visiting your community for the last week. So
far, I've eaten in some really nice restaurants, and have been offered
a job.
> I have *zero* respect for the lot of you, and you know who *you* are.
You have no idea who I am.
> You are the ones who pose the greatest danger to children by wanting
> to cut the welfare state in half. Some of us choose not to sue our
> homeless ex spouses for child support. I guess you would have us
> mothers and children sleeping in our vehicles as well, or over at
> friends houses. God forbid we should get something out of the taxes
> we made before tragedy hit.
On the contrary, I fully support civic programs that could take care of
your daughter in a manner that you obviously can't.
> Again, rampant right wing conservatism to nullify the effects of
> outright moral degeneracy, right? Hey if it works for the pervs,
> might as well work for the goths too.
We must invade the moon for safety!
--
Huey
Renate
<news:1170490930....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> On Feb 3, 12:10 am, huey.calli...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> - Things Beauty has admitted to: lower-income, with the butts of old
>> cigarettes dangling from their lips,
> Pardon me? I have admitted to *no* such thing. In fact I have strongly
> stated I am not a smoker.
Except when you smoke, of course. Which you do and have, recently. Guess
what? That makes you a smoker. :)
> I find you digustingly offensive, "huey".
I'd rather be seen as offensive (by you)... than as a LIAR (by everyone).
>
>> So, given your own assessment of 'child abusers', Beauty would seem to
>> fit around 50% of the profile.
>>
> I don't know why you have a fixation on profiling me as a 'child
> abuser'
Perhaps because you have (publicly) stated that you are one?
> but I can assure you if you ever set *foot* in my community
> you would be scrutinized from *head to toe* before you would even be
> allowed to say 'hello' to a child.
Doubtful (unless we're hanging out with you). Many of us say "hi" to
children every day, without being challenged.
>
> I don't like the quasi-legal language I am seeing in this newsgroup
> from some of you. It makes me mighty suspicious.
Suspicious of what... "it"?
>
> I have *zero* respect for the lot of you, and you know who *you* are.
This should bother us, why?
>
> You are the ones who pose the greatest danger to children by wanting
> to cut the welfare state in half. Some of us choose not to sue our
> homeless ex spouses for child support.
So, that means that *we* (taxpayers) should be required to pay to support
you and your child, instead? Sorry troll, I supported my child (as did his
father), I object to being required to support yours, too.
> I guess you would have us mothers and children sleeping in our vehicles
> as well, or over at friends houses.
It's a sad fact, that many do; and many are even living on the streets,
because there isn't the funding to help them all. However, I certainly
don't think that we should be supporting *you* on a much grander scale,
than many people who do work (and pay taxes) are able to afford; let alone,
have to listen to your constant one-upmanship about how good you have it in
your resort community, even as you're bitching that it's *still* not good
enough.
> God forbid we should get something out of the taxes we
> made before tragedy hit.
Right. You started dipping into the taxes *I* pay, right around your 3nd
month in your apartment.
> Might as well get rid of that blasted FEMA too while you are at it.
That's quite higher up the disaster scale, than a measly divorce. Your
suffering is nowhere *near* what tens of thousands of people have gone (and
still go) through.
> I thought the Republicans were headed out of the House. Guess not.
Sorry, no Republicans in this house.
Renate
M Shirley Chong
>> You are the ones who pose the greatest danger to children by wanting
>> to cut the welfare state in half. Some of us choose not to sue our
>> homeless ex spouses for child support.
Renate wrote:
> So, that means that *we* (taxpayers) should be required to pay to support
> you and your child, instead? Sorry troll, I supported my child (as did
> his
> father), I object to being required to support yours, too.
Not that I am a taxpayer right now (am on disability) but when I was a
taxpayer I didn't object to paying for other people's kids. I feel that
children should not be penalized for their parents' poor choices.
It's my understanding that California is one of the states that sues
non-custodial parents if the child is a beneficiary of a number of state
programs. Doesn't matter what the parents agreed to between themselves, if
the state has to give any one of a number of benefits for the child, the
non-custodial parent has to pay.
If the non-custodial parent is indigent, the state does not require payment
at the time but arrears may be accruing (along with interest). It is
certainly not to a non-custodial parent's interests to quit working so that
they cannot be assessed for child support, since the interest does build up
and the parent can be pursued for the arrears long after the child has
attained his/her majority. Strategically it is much better to suck it up,
work and pay off one's child support obligations. And of course ethically
it's the right thing to do as well.
Now, if someone works "under the table" in order to avoid reimbursing the
state for aid to their child, that is a crime (and one that in the current
political climate is getting more attention). It's also a crime to help
someone hide their income from the state. I'm pretty sure that California is
one of the states that will prosecute custodial parents if the custodial
parent helps the non-custodial parent hide from their child support
obligations.
Shirley
Bob Terwilliger
>> I don't like the quasi-legal language I am seeing in this newsgroup
>> from some of you. It makes me mighty suspicious.
>
> Suspicious of what... "it"?
ROTFL!
Thanks, Renate.
Bob
user119
"M Shirley Chong" <eit...@netins.net> wrote:
> Beauty wrote:
>
> >> You are the ones who pose the greatest danger to children by wanting
> >> to cut the welfare state in half. Some of us choose not to sue our
> >> homeless ex spouses for child support.
>
> Renate wrote:
>
> > So, that means that *we* (taxpayers) should be required to pay to support
> > you and your child, instead? Sorry troll, I supported my child (as did
> > his
> > father), I object to being required to support yours, too.
>
> Not that I am a taxpayer right now (am on disability) but when I was a
> taxpayer I didn't object to paying for other people's kids. I feel that
> children should not be penalized for their parents' poor choices.
A noble sentiment. Though I think realistically there are a few
problems here. This is another step forward to making such children
wards of the state. Soon we'll have breeding farms for the state to
produce more tax payers.
> It's my understanding that California is one of the states that sues
> non-custodial parents if the child is a beneficiary of a number of state
> programs. Doesn't matter what the parents agreed to between themselves, if
> the state has to give any one of a number of benefits for the child, the
> non-custodial parent has to pay.
>
> If the non-custodial parent is indigent, the state does not require payment
> at the time but arrears may be accruing (along with interest). It is
> certainly not to a non-custodial parent's interests to quit working so that
> they cannot be assessed for child support, since the interest does build up
> and the parent can be pursued for the arrears long after the child has
> attained his/her majority. Strategically it is much better to suck it up,
> work and pay off one's child support obligations. And of course ethically
> it's the right thing to do as well.
And I'm wondering how many of the illegal aliens that are in this country
and California specifically, that are migrant workers, the state goes
after. Yet they remain one of the largest segments of aid recipients on
the rolls.
> Now, if someone works "under the table" in order to avoid reimbursing the
> state for aid to their child, that is a crime (and one that in the current
> political climate is getting more attention). It's also a crime to help
> someone hide their income from the state. I'm pretty sure that California is
> one of the states that will prosecute custodial parents if the custodial
> parent helps the non-custodial parent hide from their child support
> obligations.
Working "under the table" has been illegal since the Income Tax Act was
past.
Renate
> On Feb 3, 12:47 am, Renate
>>
>> "Fucking your master (i.e. Bishop Tikhon)", is about as sexual as it gets.
>> We were just talking about generic CBT.
>>
> Since you are so good with MIDs, refresh my memory where I said those
> exact words.
They've been posted already, ad nauseum. You do the work this time, and
look up your own posts.
>>
>>> It is not morally corruptive to present one's dreams that bishops would
>>> be allowed to marry someday. That is as wholesome as you can get. There
>>> is no corruption there what so ever.
>>
>> "Fucking a celebate monk (i.e. Bishop Tikhon)", is far from wholesome.
>>
> Again, since you are so good with MIDs, show me where I wrote those
> *exact* words, please.
(see above)
> I take it you think this is appropriate
> conversation for a 12 year old girl?
Hey, it's *your* fantasy. And if she's reading here, then she can access
the archives, too.
> Is this how all RC women are?
I don't know all RC women. Are all OC women like you?
> Wow, and you call yourself pious?
Only time I ever called someone 'pious', was in relaying what my OC clergy
friend had to say about your parish priest.
> I know pagans and Moslems that are more genteel than you.
Have you beat by more than that.
> I don't think you are aware of my position on fornication? I mean our
> Lord's? Its a SIN.
Well, it apparently wasn't last month, or the month before, or the month
before, etc.
LOL... Now she's speaking for God!
>>
>> Yep. We support the efforts of groups like Pokrov. The Catholics have
>> their own counterpart.
>>
> Well guess what? We, meaning vladyka and I, don't. They stole the name
> of a Church Feast. Do you know what Pokrov is? Protection of the
> Mother of God.
So, you're saying that the Mother of God *doesn't* protect sexually abused
*innocent* children? hat she wouldn't consider it a wonderful thing, to
have a group which protects sexually abused children, named after her
Feast? You have serious issues; but, what can you expect from an abuser,
herself?
> Do you know who the Theotokos protects? Mount Athos. Do
> you know what Mount Athos is? An independent monastic state. You just
> shot your credibility with the Orthodox in the foot.
You're a dollar short, and a day late. The good Father already gave us a
tour of Mount Athos. I'm quite sure that the Virgin Mother protects *much*
more than just a plot of land. But, hey, if that's what the entire
Orthodox Church believes (since you now speak for them), who am I to stop
them. I don't need any particular credibility with the OC, since I'm not
OC.
> But you know what? Despite my disagreement with Pokrov, I am pleased
> to call them my friends. They are the ones who got me started on this
> "whole Internet trip" back when I resented my ex priest.
Cool for you. Unlike you, I don't make a habit of calling my friends, as
vile names as you've called the folks at Pokrov.
> Bet you didn't know that. Of course not. You are too busy judging me
> from behind your smoky cloud of alcoholic inebriation.
Says the smoker, alcoholic... to the smoker non-alcoholic. <chuckle>
>>> She does not have much time to read posts but I think she should
>>> know that batushka mentioned pokrov here.
>>
>> I'm quite sure she'd be very pleased to know that he supports them.
>>
> Actually she wanted to know what he said.
And, of course you told her the full truth, right? Sure. And I have this
bridge for sale in NYC...
>>> Batushka wants to finger my vladyka as a culprit when my vladyka
>>> did NOTHING. And allegations of sexual misconduct is not the deal with
>>> him anyways.
>>
>> You made it a "deal with him", when you've *publicly* accused him of
>> exactly that.
>>
> Show me where I have publicly accused him of that. You have tried to
> make it look I have publicly accused him of that. Nobody in my
> diocese, nor jurisdiction, nor even the global Church that I know,
> and I know a lot, would believe a *word* you say. You do know
> that,don't you?
They don't have to believe a *single* thing I say. Other than your Parish
Priest, they only have to come here and read *your* words, written by
*your* hand. They may have to wade thru a zillion posts to find those
particular ones; but by the time they do, they certainly won't be
surprised, will they?
> I have made no such accusations against him. Why would I? He is my
> friend. He brought me into the Church. He placed the Holy Spirit in
> me. I am loyal to him. I wish him no harm, but only good.
> You are jealous and resentful of our friendship and your jealousy is
> ugly and a product of Satan.
I'm not the one living in the fantasy world of marriage to Bishop Tikhon
(Fitzgerald), am I? What's to be jealous of your fantasy? Sean Connery is
wayyy hotter.
>>
>>> By the way, Vladyka affirms my use of the word jurisdictions, and I got
>>> the piece in the jurisdictions group he and I both belong to.
>>> Jurisdictions is the correct word.
>>
>> Duh. Given that he's also OCA, I'd imagine he would. Jurisdiction,
>> church, denomination, sect... all used the same way.
>>
> Are you kidding me? Wow. And no one calls you on your arrogance? We
> already discussed this but I will discuss it again. The local Church
> is the diocese, centered around the bishop, as per the writing of
> Saint Justin Popovitch. Denomination is a Protestant word, after the
> Protestant phenomenon of the fragmentation of the Church after the
> Protestant Reformation. Sect? You got me there. A further
> disintegration of denomination?
And the OCC (as a whole) is from the phenomenon of their fragmenting away
from the *original* Church it once was a part of. The RCC (as a whole) is
the other fragment. Each fragment also has its own fragments, etc. on
down. "denomination: noun: a religious group, usually including many local
churches, often larger than a sect". So, the OCA could be considered a
denomination of the OC, and the diocese could be considered be a sect of
the OCA. Words are what they are. You don't get to re-define them, as it
suits you.
> The Church is what is whole. I thought you knew that.
The OC is not "The Church", to anyone other than another OC member.
> What, don't say the Creed in your Church? Oh I forgot, you *mutilated* it.
Are you forgetting that the version the OC uses, is *also* a modification
of the original? So, you went with the first modification, but not the
second. Big deal, if one is a "mutilation, then so is the other. Perhaps
you should read up on the history of the Creed, yourself?
>>
>>> Everything I write is the truth. I am sorry Renate and Endymion and God
>>> knows who else can not handle it.
>>
>> We've already established that your "truth" changes with the minutes.
>>
> It does? I don't think so. If I am moving in the right direction, I
> grow closer to God with the minutes.
Lip service isn't "moving" in any direction, it's just your jaw flapping.
>>
>>> Renate doesn't get it when I said that. She has said HORRIBLE things
>>> about vladyka that I hope she retracts. Vladyka would NEVER engage in
>>> illicit sex, EVER. She had no right even mentioning Gor in relation to
>>> him, no right at all.
>>
>> We doubt that he would. You are the only one claiming to have had a sexual
>> relationship with him, for which we mocked *you*, not him.
>>
> I never claimed to have had a sexual relationship with him. You
> misunderstand my writing.
Then perhaps you need to re-work those <koff> superior communication
skills. Everyone here, and on ssb-b, understood what you wrote *extremely*
clearly.
> I see you advertising for a mate on your Yahoo profile. You are
> *quite* single.
Then you obviously can't read at all. My Y! profile doesn't state anything
about looking for a mate. It gives generic information, so that someone
reading it has a bit of a clue about the person posting. And it's not a
secret that I'm not married.
>>> I am feeling fiercely protective of batushka and
>>> vladyka today from the evil women in this group.
>>
>> I doubt that either of them are thankful for your type of "protection".
>>
> Really? Have you asked them? I can assure you that vladyka is not at
> all thankful for "pokrov" but deeply dislikes it. Do you know why they
> were created? I do. Guess you failed to see that after reading all his
> analysis of their purpose on the Indy list.
Pokrov was created for the same reason that it's RC counterpart was. To
expose the pedophiles that both church hierarchies were protecting, and
force accountability. It's a great and much needed thing.
>>
>>> Our retired bishops have no where to go. It is a problem. We do not
>>> provide for our retired bishops. They have been cut adrift and then are
>>> scrutinized by those of ill will.
>>
>> I doubt that very much. I'd imagine that Bishop Tikhon is more than
>> welcome in many an Orthodox monastery. After all, he is a monk, right?
>> The monastery can provide for all his needs, earthly and spiritual.
> Aha. And was that some kind of bait?
Nope. Just the counter to *your* whining LIES that the OC just dumps *all*
of it's retired bishops out in the street, and washes their hands of them.
That's truly a terrible lie to tell about your Church.
Why on earth you would want people to think so badly about *your* Orthodox
Church, is beyond me...
Renate
fnordikins
>> Huey
> I don't know why you have a fixation on profiling me as a 'child
> abuser' but I can assure you if you ever set *foot* in my community
> you would be scrutinized from *head to toe* before you would even be
> allowed to say 'hello' to a child.
A message to any child who may be reading this:
Hello!
Troia
> ....
>> These ladies such as Renate and Troia wish to harm him. They are having
>> sexual fantasies about him.
>
> Don't know about Troia, but my fantasies are about Sean Connery.
Mine are about a very sexy Dom I've known for quite some time. The fact
that he looks like Jesus is merely a coincidence.
(Heh, no kidding, he really does look like what my daughter says is a
"Europeanized Jesus". Before that cross thing, of course!)
The thought of fantasizing about an old man in a dress has never crossed
my mind, though, especially considering how ugly that dress was in the
pictures I have seen. (Ewww, haven't these guys got someone to teach
them about color?)
-- Troia
TyMeDwn1st
>Don't know about Troia, but my fantasies are about Sean Connery.
At about his "Marian and Robin" period. Yum!
--
Ty
Who is mostly just a
slightly skewed
Donna Reed
It is easier to fight for one’s principles than to live up to them.
- Alfred Adler
Troia
> On Feb 3, 12:47 am, Renate
>> "Fucking a celebate monk (i.e. Bishop Tikhon)", is far from wholesome.
>>
> Again, since you are so good with MIDs, show me where I wrote those
You research it. Show us where you didn't say that.
> I never claimed to have had a sexual relationship with him. You
> misunderstand my writing. My diocese and jurisdiction know that I have
> never claimed to have a sexual relationship with him.
I see you are back to this LIE; I guess it's time for me to drag out
the MIDs and quotes again, huh?
Every time you repeat this lie and I show it for the lie it is, you lose
that tiny shred of credibility with anyone who might be even a wee bit
inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.
So you really want me to do it yet again, huh?
-- Troia
Diana Galletly
Troia <troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>Ewww, haven't these guys got someone to teach
>them about color?)
http://www.garethjmsaunders.co.uk/tte/vestments/index.html
is good for a laugh, on that sort of subject ...
--
+ Diana Galletly <gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> +
+ http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly +
+ http://diana-galletly.fotopic.net +
fnordikins
>
>> I don't think you are aware of my position on fornication? I mean our
>> Lord's? Its a SIN.
>
Does the position you do it in make any difference to its sinfulness?
Fnord, who declines to tell *his* position in fornication.
Troia
> On 03 Feb 2007 15:35:52 +0000 (GMT), Diana Galletly wrote:
>> In article <45c491e8$0$97227$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
>> Troia <troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>>> Ewww, haven't these guys got someone to teach
>>> them about color?)
>> http://www.garethjmsaunders.co.uk/tte/vestments/index.html
>>
>> is good for a laugh, on that sort of subject ...
>
>
> http://www.garethjmsaunders.co.uk/tte/inventions/hypercolor.html
>
Well, I'm not going in search of the picture, but the one I recall of BT
had something like a light mint green and yellow, satin-y, IIRC.
-- Troia
Lynn
>
> I don't know why you have a fixation on profiling me as a 'child
> abuser' but I can assure you if you ever set *foot* in my community
> you would be scrutinized from *head to toe* before you would even be
> allowed to say 'hello' to a child.
Er, Beauty? I've been to your town. I didn't see the Official
Scrutinizing Booth. I did, however, speak to a couple of kids. Do
you have roving Scrutinizers? Or did the Volunteer Scrutinizing
Committee sign off on me without my knowing it?
Lynn
Lynn
>
> Don't know about Troia, but my fantasies are about Sean Connery.
I'll do Sean, but if Pierce Brosnan were around, I'd throw Sean away
like yesterday's news. If Tom Selleck were interested, a threesome
might be nice.
Lynn
fnordikins
I like Sam "raptor food" Jackson. He knows how to treat a reptilian.
NightMist
Sam Elliot
NightMist
--
Come to the dark side.
We have cookies.
TyMeDwn1st
>On 3 Feb 2007 11:02:51 -0800, "Lynn" <socke...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 3, 12:47?am, Renate <Ren...@joplin.deletethis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't know about Troia, but my fantasies are about Sean Connery.
>>
>>I'll do Sean, but if Pierce Brosnan were around, I'd throw Sean away
>>like yesterday's news. If Tom Selleck were interested, a threesome
>>might be nice.
>>
>Sam Elliot
Sam Waterston
TyMeDwn1st
>On Feb 3, 12:22?am, "Beauty" <amkemail2006-b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't know why you have a fixation on profiling me as a 'child
>> abuser' but can assure you if you ever set *foot* in my community
>> you would be scrutinized from *head to toe* before you would even be
>> allowed to say 'hello' to a child.
>
>Er, Beauty? I've been to your town. I didn't see the Official
>Scrutinizing Booth. I did, however, speak to a couple of kids. Do
>you have roving Scrutinizers? Or did the Volunteer Scrutinizing
>Committee sign off on me without my knowing it?
Did you notice the minions doing surveillance? They were in a faux water
department truck all last week.
Beauty
> Beauty wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 12:47 am, Renate
>>> ...
>>> "Fucking a celebate monk (i.e. Bishop Tikhon)", is far from wholesome.
>>>
>> Again, since you are so good with MIDs, show me where I wrote those
>> *exact* words, please. I take it you think this is appropriate.
>
> You research it. Show us where you didn't say that.
sinning beyond measure and I am not proud of it. I will state again, for
the OC, sexuality is contained by marriage. I will not deny the fact
that I hope that he can marry me. He must successfully complete a
Byzantine process in order to be able to do so.
>
>> I never claimed to have had a sexual relationship with him. You
>> misunderstand my writing. My diocese and jurisdiction know that I have
>> never claimed to have a sexual relationship with him.
>
> I see you are back to this LIE; I guess it's time for me to drag out
> the MIDs and quotes again, huh?
>
> Every time you repeat this lie and I show it for the lie it is, you
> lose that tiny shred of credibility with anyone who might be even a
> wee bit inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.
>
> So you really want me to do it yet again, huh?
>
> -- Troia
in my real community whom I have real relationships who know the real
man and woman involved don't doubt me at all. Marriage is the
consummation of an intimate personal relationship. Sexuality activity
takes place within the confines of marriage. Courtship does not deny
sexuality, however it does not allow engaging it either. I have made it
quite clear with my community that I will not let a man lay a finger on
me outside of marriage. I set this boundary firmly in place with the
advice of the babushkas in my Church last year. They would like me to
date, to see me happy, but they also know of the situation. Believe, my
whole Church would like to see me happy. Since you are not a part of my
Church, you know nothing about this.
I wish you would stop naming him. It does neither of us any good. Normal
people would not do that, they would be discreet, and gracious and
pleasant. You are none of those.
Olympiada
All hail Discordia
wrote:
>On Feb 2, 11:42 pm, huey.calli...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Beauty <amkemail2006-b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > After all it is funded by *our**tax**dollars*, right?
>>
>> I think you mean 'your' tax dollars, since you've already admitted that
>> you're taking more money out of the system than you're putting into it.
>>
>> --
>> Huey
>
>I don't recall admitting that. I do recall stating that I have worked
>half my life. Are you against the welfare state? I am shocked at the
>dominant political conservatism of this group. It is just like
>s.s.b.b., moral degeneracy is treated by political conservatism, I
>guess as some kind of antidote.
>Wow.
>
>I am going to have to find a current article from Alternet about the
>welfare state and post the abstract and the link. I am shocked yet
>again, just as I was shocked in s.s.b.b. by the right wing
>reactionaries that dominate this group. Stalinists, all of you.
>
>
Go ahead I have my complaint form for your ISP in my draft folder all
ready to go.
--
+-Grant
M Shirley Chong
> Pokrov was created for the same reason that it's RC counterpart was. To
> expose the pedophiles that both church hierarchies were protecting, and
> force accountability. It's a great and much needed thing.
From reading the Pokrov site, it seems that Pokrov was formed for two
purposes: first, to reveal the problem of child molesters among the clergy
and second (more subtly) to encourage more support of the victims and their
families. Too often families in the OC have been told to be quiet, not to
"shame" a guilty party (as if their own actions weren't a shame) and made to
feel like outcasts for speaking up.
It's odd to me that Atlanta seems to think of Pokrov as merely being a bunch
of people doing something bad.
Shirley
Beauty
honored to be the wife of one. It would be a blessing beyond belief.
Olympiada
M Shirley Chong
>
> And I'm wondering how many of the illegal aliens that are in this country
> and California specifically, that are migrant workers, the state goes
> after. Yet they remain one of the largest segments of aid recipients on
> the rolls.
I can't recall the date or author but I did read in the _New_York_Times_ an
article which pretty convincingly showed that illegal aliens in the USA as a
whole are contributing more in taxes and unclaimed/unclaimable social
security benefits than they receive in aid.
Apparently it's becoming increasingly common for undocumented workers to
give a false SS number; the employer then sends in the withheld money and it
sits in the government's coffers, unclaimed and unclaimable--to the tune of
millions of dollars a year (I was staggered).
And... ya know, as the child of immigrants who did it by the book and the
strict letter of the law, I still have no problem with giving aid to
children. I keep coming back to the basic principle that children cannot and
should not be made to suffer for their parents' poor choices.
I wrote:
>> Now, if someone works "under the table" in order to avoid reimbursing the
>> state for aid to their child, that is a crime (and one that in the
>> current
>> political climate is getting more attention). It's also a crime to help
>> someone hide their income from the state. I'm pretty sure that California
>> is
>> one of the states that will prosecute custodial parents if the custodial
>> parent helps the non-custodial parent hide from their child support
>> obligations.
user119 wrote:
> Working "under the table" has been illegal since the Income Tax Act was
> past.
As I understand it, there was a marked upswing in the number of people
working under the table when the law went into effect that streamlined child
support collections between states. Supposedly it's the commonest way for
deadbeat parents to try to weasel out of their obligations. It used to be
that simply moving to a different state was enough to make collection
extremely difficult but that is no longer so.
Shirley
Beauty
>
>
>> I take it you think this is appropriate
>> conversation for a 12 year old girl?
>>
>
> Hey, it's *your* fantasy. And if she's reading here, then she can access
> the archives, too.
>
no secret. I have written about it in a feminist group before this whole
thing came about. I have an devout Russian woman friend who desires to
be a bishop. I told her I desired to be a bishop's wife. There is
nothing immoral about either of our desires.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> I don't think you are aware of my position on fornication? I mean our
>> Lord's? Its a SIN.
>>
>
> Well, it apparently wasn't last month, or the month before, or the month
> before, etc.
>
> LOL... Now she's speaking for God!
>
desires. I am speaking the word of God, not for God. There is a
difference. I will not call myself a prophet. That is not my place to do so.
>>> Yep. We support the efforts of groups like Pokrov. The Catholics have
>>> their own counterpart.
>>>
>>>
>> Well guess what? We, meaning vladyka and I, don't. They stole the name
>> of a Church Feast. Do you know what Pokrov is? Protection of the
>> Mother of God.
>>
>
> So, you're saying that the Mother of God *doesn't* protect sexually abused
> *innocent* children? hat she wouldn't consider it a wonderful thing, to
> have a group which protects sexually abused children, named after her
> Feast? You have serious issues; but, what can you expect from an abuser,
> herself?
>
"pokrov" is a watchdog organization in regards to the clergy. It is
constantly seeking to bust the clergy. It watches them around the clock.
The clergy are more vulnerable to sexual harassment and stalking than
the children are vulnerable to abuse in our diocese. We have never had a
single case of clergy sexually abusing a child, ever.
You are abusive towards me around the clock and you are just short of
being old enough to be my mother.
>
>> Do you know who the Theotokos protects? Mount Athos. Do
>> you know what Mount Athos is? An independent monastic state. You just
>> shot your credibility with the Orthodox in the foot.
>>
>
> You're a dollar short, and a day late. The good Father already gave us a
> tour of Mount Athos. I'm quite sure that the Virgin Mother protects *much*
> more than just a plot of land. But, hey, if that's what the entire
> Orthodox Church believes (since you now speak for them), who am I to stop
> them. I don't need any particular credibility with the OC, since I'm not
> OC.
>
Holy Theotokos depicts her holding her veil over Mount Athos. Batushka
represents his point of view and I represent mine. Both are valuable in
God's eyes, and the Church's eyes.
>
>> But you know what? Despite my disagreement with Pokrov, I am pleased
>> to call them my friends. They are the ones who got me started on this
>> "whole Internet trip" back when I resented my ex priest.
>>
>
> Cool for you. Unlike you, I don't make a habit of calling my friends, as
> vile names as you've called the folks at Pokrov.
>
with their organization and castigate their organization, but not them.
You are not morally superior to me despite your persistent thought that
you are.
>
>> Bet you didn't know that. Of course not. You are too busy judging me
>> from behind your smoky cloud of alcoholic inebriation.
>>
>
> Says the smoker, alcoholic... to the smoker non-alcoholic. <chuckle>
>
have made that quite clear. Regardless, smoking and drinking is not a
moral issue but a health one and you are unhealthy. How often do you
exercise? Interact with normal people? Normal people do not smoke and drink.
>
>>>> She does not have much time to read posts but I think she should
>>>> know that batushka mentioned pokrov here.
>>>>
>>> I'm quite sure she'd be very pleased to know that he supports them.
>>>
>>>
>> Actually she wanted to know what he said.
>>
>
> And, of course you told her the full truth, right? Sure. And I have this
> bridge for sale in NYC...
>
public newsgroup.
>
>>>> Batushka wants to finger my vladyka as a culprit when my vladyka
>>>> did NOTHING. And allegations of sexual misconduct is not the deal with
>>>> him anyways.
>>>>
>>> You made it a "deal with him", when you've *publicly* accused him of
>>> exactly that.
>>>
>>>
>> Show me where I have publicly accused him of that. You have tried to
>> make it look I have publicly accused him of that. Nobody in my
>> diocese, nor jurisdiction, nor even the global Church that I know,
>> and I know a lot, would believe a *word* you say. You do know
>> that,don't you?
>>
>
> They don't have to believe a *single* thing I say. Other than your Parish
> Priest, they only have to come here and read *your* words, written by
> *your* hand. They may have to wade thru a zillion posts to find those
> particular ones; but by the time they do, they certainly won't be
> surprised, will they?
>
marriage, and right now the Church does not allow bishops to marry. That
does not mean that these situations do not arise. The only thing the
public needs to know is that the rules of the Church need to change, if
only to allow a former monk to marry. There are many ways to go about
this, many choices.
>
>> I have made no such accusations against him. Why would I? He is my
>> friend. He brought me into the Church. He placed the Holy Spirit in
>> me. I am loyal to him. I wish him no harm, but only good.
>> You are jealous and resentful of our friendship and your jealousy is
>> ugly and a product of Satan.
>>
>
> I'm not the one living in the fantasy world of marriage to Bishop Tikhon
> (Fitzgerald), am I? What's to be jealous of your fantasy? Sean Connery is
> wayyy hotter.
>
passion. And there is a difference between vision and fantasy, and God
blesses Orthodox vision.
>>>> By the way, Vladyka affirms my use of the word jurisdictions, and I got
>>>> the piece in the jurisdictions group he and I both belong to.
>>>> Jurisdictions is the correct word.
>>>>
>>> Duh. Given that he's also OCA, I'd imagine he would. Jurisdiction,
>>> church, denomination, sect... all used the same way.
>>>
>>>
>> Are you kidding me? Wow. And no one calls you on your arrogance? We
>> already discussed this but I will discuss it again. The local Church
>> is the diocese, centered around the bishop, as per the writing of
>> Saint Justin Popovitch. Denomination is a Protestant word, after the
>> Protestant phenomenon of the fragmentation of the Church after the
>> Protestant Reformation. Sect? You got me there. A further
>> disintegration of denomination?
>>
>
> And the OCC (as a whole) is from the phenomenon of their fragmenting away
> from the *original* Church it once was a part of. The RCC (as a whole) is
> the other fragment. Each fragment also has its own fragments, etc. on
> down. "denomination: noun: a religious group, usually including many local
> churches, often larger than a sect". So, the OCA could be considered a
> denomination of the OC, and the diocese could be considered be a sect of
> the OCA. Words are what they are. You don't get to re-define them, as it
> suits you.
>
is a jurisdiction. I am not an expert on jurisdictions. I suggest you
join orthodox jurisdictions if you want to learn more about orthodox
jurisdictions. The diocese is the local Church, as defined by the words
of Saint Justin Popovitch.
>
>
>> The Church is what is whole. I thought you knew that.
>>
>
> The OC is not "The Church", to anyone other than another OC member.
>
>
>> What, don't say the Creed in your Church? Oh I forgot, you *mutilated* it.
>>
>
> Are you forgetting that the version the OC uses, is *also* a modification
> of the original? So, you went with the first modification, but not the
> second. Big deal, if one is a "mutilation, then so is the other. Perhaps
> you should read up on the history of the Creed, yourself?
>
stuff. All I know is that Roman Church split off from the Eastern
Church. I much reading to do of his writing before I can argue about
this in an educated and knowledgeable manner.
>>>> Everything I write is the truth. I am sorry Renate and Endymion and God
>>>> knows who else can not handle it.
>>>>
>>> We've already established that your "truth" changes with the minutes.
>>>
>>>
>> It does? I don't think so. If I am moving in the right direction, I
>> grow closer to God with the minutes.
>>
>
> Lip service isn't "moving" in any direction, it's just your jaw flapping.
>
unto God with every word I type.
>>>> Renate doesn't get it when I said that. She has said HORRIBLE things
>>>> about vladyka that I hope she retracts. Vladyka would NEVER engage in
>>>> illicit sex, EVER. She had no right even mentioning Gor in relation to
>>>> him, no right at all.
>>>>
>>> We doubt that he would. You are the only one claiming to have had a sexual
>>> relationship with him, for which we mocked *you*, not him.
>>>
>>>
>> I never claimed to have had a sexual relationship with him. You
>> misunderstand my writing.
>>
>
> Then perhaps you need to re-work those <koff> superior communication
> skills. Everyone here, and on ssb-b, understood what you wrote *extremely*
> clearly.
>
sexuality with OC marriage. However I had a lot of dross on my soul that
needed to be polished off.I am in the Crucible. Have you ever been there?
>
>> I see you advertising for a mate on your Yahoo profile. You are
>> *quite* single.
>>
>
> Then you obviously can't read at all. My Y! profile doesn't state anything
> about looking for a mate. It gives generic information, so that someone
> reading it has a bit of a clue about the person posting. And it's not a
> secret that I'm not married.
>
involved in bondage is advertising for a mate.
>
>>>> I am feeling fiercely protective of batushka and
>>>> vladyka today from the evil women in this group.
>>>>
>>> I doubt that either of them are thankful for your type of "protection".
>>>
>>>
>> Really? Have you asked them? I can assure you that vladyka is not at
>> all thankful for "pokrov" but deeply dislikes it. Do you know why they
>> were created? I do. Guess you failed to see that after reading all his
>> analysis of their purpose on the Indy list.
>>
>
> Pokrov was created for the same reason that it's RC counterpart was. To
> expose the pedophiles that both church hierarchies were protecting, and
> force accountability. It's a great and much needed thing.
>
pokrov was created by women who left our diocese.
>>>> Our retired bishops have no where to go. It is a problem. We do not
>>>> provide for our retired bishops. They have been cut adrift and then are
>>>> scrutinized by those of ill will.
>>>>
>>> I doubt that very much. I'd imagine that Bishop Tikhon is more than
>>> welcome in many an Orthodox monastery. After all, he is a monk, right?
>>> The monastery can provide for all his needs, earthly and spiritual.
>>>
>
>
>> Aha. And was that some kind of bait?
>>
>
> Nope. Just the counter to *your* whining LIES that the OC just dumps *all*
> of it's retired bishops out in the street, and washes their hands of them.
> That's truly a terrible lie to tell about your Church.
>
> Why on earth you would want people to think so badly about *your* Orthodox
> Church, is beyond me...
>
> Renate
>
>
>
bishops? Do you belong to the Orthodox Forum? Do you know about SS
Cosmas and Damian Home? Do you know that when a bishop retires he
usually has to leave his rectory because they need the space? Do you
know that bishops get castigated for buying condominiums. The bishops
are constantly being scrutinized by the laity.
You do not know what is truth from falsehood in my jurisdiction because
you are not a member of my jurisdiction.
Olympiada
Beauty
Beauty
> Beauty wrote in
> <news:1170490930....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>> On Feb 3, 12:10 am, huey.calli...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> - Things Beauty has admitted to: lower-income, with the butts of old
>>> cigarettes dangling from their lips,
>>>
>> Pardon me? I have admitted to *no* such thing. In fact I have strongly
>> stated I am not a smoker.
>>
>
> Except when you smoke, of course. Which you do and have, recently. Guess
> what? That makes you a smoker. :)
>
Yes, I smoked about two and a half cigarettes this year, if that, this
year, its true.
>>> So, given your own assessment of 'child abusers', Beauty would seem to
>>> fit around 50% of the profile.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know why you have a fixation on profiling me as a 'child
>> abuser'
>>
>
> Perhaps because you have (publicly) stated that you are one?
>
No I did not say I was a 'child abuser', I stated I found myself acting
in an abusive manner towards my child and got help. You act in an
abusive manner towards me, someone just about young enough to be your
daughter, and you do not admit nor get help.
>
>> but I can assure you if you ever set *foot* in my community
>> you would be scrutinized from *head to toe* before you would even be
>> allowed to say 'hello' to a child.
>>
>
> Doubtful (unless we're hanging out with you). Many of us say "hi" to
> children every day, without being challenged.
>
Well that is good for you. When dubious people come in to my community I
scrutinize them. I have changed the dynamic of the interaction of a
potential predator in the community with the children. I let him know
what he was doing was not ok, he stopped, and never did it again. I am
extremely and fiercely protective of children and devoted my education
and career to them. Now I devote my life to my child. What are you doing
to help children?
>> I don't like the quasi-legal language I am seeing in this newsgroup
>> from some of you. It makes me mighty suspicious.
>>
>
> Suspicious of what... "it"?
>
Yes, "it".
>
>> You are the ones who pose the greatest danger to children by wanting
>> to cut the welfare state in half. Some of us choose not to sue our
>> homeless ex spouses for child support.
>>
>
> So, that means that *we* (taxpayers) should be required to pay to support
> you and your child, instead? Sorry troll, I supported my child (as did his
> father), I object to being required to support yours, too.
>
That is your problem. I can see you want to ax the welfare state. You
are a sick person. My child's father is homeless. He can not support
himself, let alone her. He is doing the best he can to get back on his
feet. I have always paid my taxes and always will. Charity is required
of Christians. You are *no* Christian, but a heathen.
>
>> I guess you would have us mothers and children sleeping in our vehicles
>> as well, or over at friends houses.
>>
>
> It's a sad fact, that many do; and many are even living on the streets,
> because there isn't the funding to help them all. However, I certainly
> don't think that we should be supporting *you* on a much grander scale,
> than many people who do work (and pay taxes) are able to afford; let alone,
> have to listen to your constant one-upmanship about how good you have it in
> your resort community, even as you're bitching that it's *still* not good
> enough.
>
"Resort" community was sarcasm. It is good enough. I have worked all my
life. I got injured. I am rehabilitating. Your scorn for the disabled is
disgusting and demonic.
>
>> God forbid we should get something out of the taxes we
>> made before tragedy hit.
>>
>
> Right. You started dipping into the taxes *I* pay, right around your 3nd
> month in your apartment.
>
Pardon me?
>
>> Might as well get rid of that blasted FEMA too while you are at it.
>>
>
> That's quite higher up the disaster scale, than a measly divorce. Your
> suffering is nowhere *near* what tens of thousands of people have gone (and
> still go) through.
>
Really? I thought we did not compare suffering. Again, you are totally
unChristian. Are Catholics not Christians?
>
>> I thought the Republicans were headed out of the House. Guess not.
>>
>
> Sorry, no Republicans in this house.
>
> Renate
>
Well whatever you are, it is highly unpleasant and ugly.
TyMeDwn1st
user119 wrote
>> Working "under the table" has been illegal since the Income Tax Act was
>> past.
>
>As I understand it, there was a marked upswing in the number of people
>working under the table when the law went into effect that streamlined child
>support collections between states. Supposedly it's the commonest way for
>deadbeat parents to try to weasel out of their obligations. It used to be
>that simply moving to a different state was enough to make collection
>extremely difficult but that is no longer so.
I'll vouch for that. I used to do child-support enforcement for the State of
Florida, and the percentage of non-custodial parents [NCPs] who swore up and
down that they had no income was astonishing. We had extensive investigatory
resources (SSN tracking, employer withholding records, property tax rolls, auto
registration information, etc.), but it was *very* common to be unable to locate
any source of income. Construction workers, auto glass installers, yard service
folks, service industry workers, day laborers, home-based childcare workers, and
others are all in jobs where it's relatively common to have under-the-table
income. It's much less frequent with large companies and corporations, but
small shops and businesses can and often do handle employees that way. It
ultimately benefits both employers and employees -- at least in the short run --
and it's extremely hard to crack down on.
Especially difficult to snag income from were the NCPs who were living with or
married to someone who already owned a small business; the business supported
them both, but there was never a dime of money officially paid to the NCP.
Inter-state collections are (well, *were* when I was doing enforcement) still
very diifficult, since collection procedures still vary from state to statee and
frankly, few states are thrilled about putting much effort into tracking down
dead-beat parents when the fruit of their labor, so to speak, goes out of state.
Just for funsies: One of my office's legendary cases involved a dentist who
owed over $100k in child support and had manoevered out from under us for years,
until <shock!> the State changed a few laws regarding what was grabbable. Into
his office marched enforcement personnnel who pulled the guy's DDS license off
the wall, told the waiting room full of patients to go home, told his office
staff to start cancelling appointments, and suggested he finish up on the
patient he had in the chair. Amazingly enough, he showed up in court the next
day with a significant chunk of unpaid support and plans to pay of the rest
within a short period of time.
Beauty
>
> Oddly enough, I've been visiting your community for the last week. So
> far, I've eaten in some really nice restaurants, and have been offered
> a job.
>
I am talking about my two apartment complexes. I doubt you have been
hear. I always notice strangers.
> > I have *zero* respect for the lot of you, and you know who *you* are.
>
> You have no idea who I am.
>
You are right, I do not. Is "huey.callison" your name, or a nym? I do
not know you.
> > You are the ones who pose the greatest danger to children by wanting
> > to cut the welfare state in half. Some of us choose not to sue our
> > homeless ex spouses for child support. I guess you would have us
> > mothers and children sleeping in our vehicles as well, or over at
> > friends houses. God forbid we should get something out of the taxes
> > we made before tragedy hit.
>
> On the contrary, I fully support civic programs that could take care of
> your daughter in a manner that you obviously can't.
>
I can and do take care of my daughter. You have to remember I asked
for help from civic programs when I needed it. Now, the burden is all
on me. I got back on my feet. You are also my enemy, and have a mean
spirit in you, your writing to me is filthy! And you are also trolling
me.
Beauty
> Beauty wrote:
> >> You are the ones who pose the greatest danger to children by wanting
> >> to cut the welfare state in half. Some of us choose not to sue our
> >> homeless ex spouses for child support.
> > So, that means that *we* (taxpayers) should be required to pay to support
> > you and your child, instead? Sorry troll, I supported my child (as did
> > his
> > father), I object to being required to support yours, too.
>
> taxpayer I didn't object to paying for other people's kids. I feel that
> children should not be penalized for their parents' poor choices.
>
> It's my understanding that California is one of the states that sues
> non-custodial parents if the child is a beneficiary of a number of state
> programs. Doesn't matter what the parents agreed to between themselves, if
> the state has to give any one of a number of benefits for the child, the
> non-custodial parent has to pay.
>
> If the non-custodial parent is indigent, the state does not require payment
> at the time but arrears may be accruing (along with interest). It is
> certainly not to a non-custodial parent's interests to quit working so that
> they cannot be assessed for child support, since the interest does build up
> and the parent can be pursued for the arrears long after the child has
> attained his/her majority. Strategically it is much better to suck it up,
> work and pay off one's child support obligations. And of course ethically
> it's the right thing to do as well.
>
> Now, if someone works "under the table" in order to avoid reimbursing the
> state for aid to their child, that is a crime (and one that in the current
> political climate is getting more attention). It's also a crime to help
> someone hide their income from the state. I'm pretty sure that California is
> one of the states that will prosecute custodial parents if the custodial
> parent helps the non-custodial parent hide from their child support
> obligations.
>
I chose not to sue my child's father for child support. As a Christian
I can not abide by suing someone ever again, and I hope I *never* have
to. It is a demonic and destructive act to sue someone. It is like
excommunication. Sometimes the most severe medicine is needed, like
chemotherapy for cancer. I fear dissolving my marriage mortally
wounded me. Only time will tell. It is the worst thing I have done in
my life. Therefore there is no way I will sue him for child support.
When he is able, he will pay.
This is a most horrendous subject. Not at all Christian. Christians
resort to secular law when there is no other choice.
Olympiada
Beauty
> M Shirley Chong wrote in <news:eptr39$6vq$1...@news.netins.net>:
>
>
>
> > "H Duffy" <hester_du...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:52evvaF...@mid.individual.net...
> >> "Troia" <troia.leg...@gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message
> >>news:45c246ba$0$97270$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> >>> Beauty wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>> Very few people in Marin County and my town abuse their children if *at
> >>>> all*.
>
> >>> Oh yeah, people who live in an "elite resort county" (as Atlanta keeps
> >>> reminding us she does) NEVER EVER abuse their children, not *at all*.
>
> >> *heh* I believe this is about where Sigmund Freud came in. And indeed
> >> where he stepped out again...
>
> > *yawn* I guess Atlanta isn't getting enough attention here and it's obvious
> > she's getting no attention in SSBB. So she's going the old familiar route of
> > making statements that are outrageously wrong in order to provoke a
> > response. I find it sad that there is an adult who feels that bad attention
> > is better than no attention at all.
>
> > If she doesn't get enough attention with this, she'll whip out some sort of
> > racist statement.
>
> Right on the money, Shirley. She's whipped out that exact thing, on
> another list. Called one of her detractors a "tarbaby".
>
> Renate
I have known Al for a year. We have a relationship. He is no stranger.
I hurt him with a weapon someone else gave to me to use against him.
But he does pity me, he does have a Christian drop of blood in his
heart, unlike you.
Olympiada
NightMist
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 20:09:07 GMT, night...@gmail.com (NightMist) wrote:
>
>>On 3 Feb 2007 11:02:51 -0800, "Lynn" <socke...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 3, 12:47?am, Renate <Ren...@joplin.deletethis.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Don't know about Troia, but my fantasies are about Sean Connery.
>>>
>>>I'll do Sean, but if Pierce Brosnan were around, I'd throw Sean away
>>>like yesterday's news. If Tom Selleck were interested, a threesome
>>>might be nice.
>>>
>>Sam Elliot
>
>Sam Waterston
And fnordikins said:
"I like Sam "raptor food" Jackson. He knows how to treat a reptilian."
All actors named Sam then?
NightMist
wrote:
(snip amusing tale)
>
What I hate are the faux child support cases where the state is just
looking to recoup confinement costs. Most of the people they are
trying to collect from are custodial parents, and most of them
actually do have a limited income. By abusing support enforcement to
try and get blood from a stone, they screw with people's credit
ratings and make it near impossible for them to get a decent job. And
on top of that the whole thing is completely discriminatory because
they only try to collect from men who are not married to the mother at
the time of birth.
Troia
I REFUSE to lust after someone named Sam!!!
My harlequin-inspired heart would have to settle on "Pierce", if y'all
won't let me fantasize about my dear Jesus-lookalike friend.
-- Troia
TyMeDwn1st
>What I hate are the faux child support cases where the state is just
>looking to recoup confinement costs.
Can you explain what you mean by "confinement costs?" It's not a term I'm
familiar with.
>Most of the people they are
I'm sorry -- who is "they?"
>trying to collect from are custodial parents, and most of them
>actually do have a limited income. By abusing support enforcement to
>try and get blood from a stone, they screw with people's credit
>ratings and make it near impossible for them to get a decent job. And
>on top of that the whole thing is completely discriminatory because
>they only try to collect from men who are not married to the mother at
>the time of birth.
Again, who is "they" and where are they? You may be describing something that
is state-specific. I don't quite understand what you're referring to in terms
of discrimination. Can you be a bit more specific?
fnordikins
>>>>
>>>Sam Elliot
>>
>>Sam Waterston
>
> And fnordikins said:
>
> "I like Sam "raptor food" Jackson. He knows how to treat a reptilian."
>
>
> All actors named Sam then?
>
> NightMist
Sam Neill knows how to treat a reptilian too. He was so cute when he got
all subly so the raptors wouldn't kill him. That's the scene in JPIII when
they gave the stolen eggs back.
fnordikins
>
> I REFUSE to lust after someone named Sam!!!
>
Not even if I change *my* name to Sam? Remember how cute my feet are, and
my curly tail.
fnordikins
> But he does pity me, he does have a Christian drop of blood in his
How unusual. A single drop of blood in his heart, that never takes the big
artery-capillary-vein journey? The poor thing stays home all the time
while its peers check in now and then and tell it what it missed.
How sad.
fnordikins
> I chose not to sue my child's father for child support.
Then you have no right to complain when he doesn't give you any.
Troia
*sigh*
I never have figured out if it's the tail, or the hose clamp affixed
thereon, which gets to me.
-- Troia
NightMist
wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 04:10:21 GMT, night...@gmail.com (NightMist) wrote:
>
>
>>What I hate are the faux child support cases where the state is just
>>looking to recoup confinement costs.
>
>Can you explain what you mean by "confinement costs?" It's not a term I'm
>familiar with.
Costs relating to the birth of the child.
Usually when it is custodial parents involved the courts irk medicaid
by refusing to authorize further payment to recoup all medical
relating to the child, but that has also been know to happen on
occasion.
>
>>Most of the people they are
>
>I'm sorry -- who is "they?"
The state, medicaid, occasionally other dss orgs, depending on the
specific state
Full description of it in my state is here:
http://www.empirejustice.org/content.asp?ContentID=862
You may be interested to note that we live in Chautauqua county.
We kept up with the payments for our ladboy, until the place where my
husband worked went out of buisness. Then we fell behind. Now
Umbrarium can't even get a job flipping burgers because when they run
the credit check to see if he is safe around money, it shows he is in
arrears for child support. Some prospective employers have said the
most vile things to him because of that.
I do not know exactly how many states do this, but if I recall
correctly from previous research it is more than a fifth of them.
>
> You may be describing something that
>is state-specific.
Definitely. I do not know if Florida does it.
>I don't quite understand what you're referring to in terms
>of discrimination. Can you be a bit more specific?
The whole decision of whether or not the father of the child is sued,
is based wholey on the marital status of the parents at the time of
birth.
Umbrarium was never sued to recoup the costs of the birth of our
daughter born on medicaid, he was married to me. He was sued to
recoup the costs for our lad because he obviously could not marry
kiri.
If he had divorced me 10 minutes before the birth of daughter3, they
would have sued him. If he waited til 10 minutes after she was born
they would not. Similarly, if he could have married kiri 10 minutes
before our lad was born, there would have been no recoupment. But
wait until 10 minutes after and he would still have been sued.
Hell, theoretically he could have married her 10 minutes before the
birth and gone straight to a lawyer to start divorce proceedings and
he would not have been sued.
Clearly then the basis of the decision over whether or not to attempt
the recoupment is solidly based on discrimination re the technical
legitimacy of the child.
side note: kiri had to do the medicaid thing because the insurance
wouldn't cover her since she was not a spouse or legal dependant
kest
>
> So, Sausalito is just a blue-collar community these days?
>
Actually a lot of Marin is graying and turning into a little bit of a
retirement community.
k