The Greed Factor

[Paul Fritz]

The Greed Factor
Child support encourages greed. It boils down to the premise that 1) poverty
is the cause of poor child well-being and 2) money solves this problem.
Money has never solved any social problem. LBJ's war on poverty is a perfect
example. After spending trillions of dollars, poverty is alive and well.
Studies have also shown that children raised below the poverty level
academically outperformed children living above the poverty level - the
reason: they were living in an intact family. As mentioned above, money is a
single-parent household enabler, a destabilizer.

Current laws encourage custodial parents to get as much money as possible
from the noncustodial parent. The Bureau of Family Support Operations in Los
Angeles runs a public access TV program that urges custodial parents to ask
for increases "because things change." Nationally recognized child support
advocate Leora Gershenzon of The National Center for Youth Law, commenting
on the large increase in establishing paternity orders said, "Besides
receiving child support, the children will benefit from access to the father
's medical history, rights of inheritance and eligibility for the father's
health insurance." The ACLU states, "...it is essential to consider ways to
obtain an award that is higher than the basic amount dictated by the
guidelines."

Greed is also encouraged within child support enforcement administration, as
their funding is based on child support collected (or amount to be
collected). If the goal is to increase child well-being, why not base
performance incentives of these organizations on child well-being instead of
money collected? The fact that child support collections has become a big
business is another clue to its greediness. Lockheed-Martin, the world's
largest defense contractor, states that child support collections is "the
company's fastest-growing line of business." In today's one-sided atmosphere
of "anything goes," private collection companies have no qualms boasting
about how they intrude on noncustodial parents' rights and why these parents
shouldn't have any rights.

[Fighting for kids]

The greed factor

Child support encourages greed on the NCP's part. It boils down to the
following 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those
children in poverty conditions 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that
dont pay support to pay support (ie getting rid of big brother) is somehow
going to make this better 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to someone
else, they would rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house or
perhaps they just want to hord all their cash for themselves 3.) think they
dont have to pay support to actually support a child!!!

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...
> The Greed Factor
> Child support encourages greed. It boils down to the premise that 1)
poverty
> is the cause of poor child well-being and 2) money solves this problem.
> Money has never solved any social problem. LBJ's war on poverty is a
perfect
> example. After spending trillions of dollars, poverty is alive and well.
> Studies have also shown that children raised below the poverty level
> academically outperformed children living above the poverty level - the
> reason: they were living in an intact family. As mentioned above, money is
a
> single-parent household enabler, a destabilizer.
>
> Current laws encourage custodial parents to get as much money as possible
> from the noncustodial parent. The Bureau of Family Support Operations in
Los
> Angeles runs a public access TV program that urges custodial parents to
ask
> for increases "because things change." Nationally recognized child support
> advocate Leora Gershenzon of The National Center for Youth Law, commenting
> on the large increase in establishing paternity orders said, "Besides
> receiving child support, the children will benefit from access to the
father
> 's medical history, rights of inheritance and eligibility for the father's
> health insurance." The ACLU states, "...it is essential to consider ways
to
> obtain an award that is higher than the basic amount dictated by the
> guidelines."
>
> Greed is also encouraged within child support enforcement administration,
as
> their funding is based on child support collected (or amount to be
> collected). If the goal is to increase child well-being, why not base
> performance incentives of these organizations on child well-being instead
of
> money collected? The fact that child support collections has become a big
> business is another clue to its greediness. Lockheed-Martin, the world's
> largest defense contractor, states that child support collections is "the
> company's fastest-growing line of business." In today's one-sided
atmosphere
> of "anything goes," private collection companies have no qualms boasting
> about how they intrude on noncustodial parents' rights and why these
parents
> shouldn't have any rights.
>
>
>

[Dad]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 11:54:07 -0700, "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote:

>The greed factor
>
>Child support encourages greed on the NCP's part. It boils down to the
>following 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those
>children in poverty conditions 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that
>dont pay support to pay support (ie getting rid of big brother) is somehow
>going to make this better 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to someone
>else, they would rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house or
>perhaps they just want to hord all their cash for themselves 3.) think they
>dont have to pay support to actually support a child!!!
>


Fighting for kids? Even the name perpetuates the lie. if males wanted
a child then yes, they should pay support. If the female unilaterally
decides to have a child, that's her choice to spend her time and money
that way. Under no circumstances should someone be forced into
parenthood!

[Dusty]

OK, now prove what you just spewed is FACTUAL information.

SHOW US THE LAW!!
SHOW US THE STUDIES!!
SHOW US THE TRUTH IN YOUR STATEMENTS!!

But alas, you can't, or won't. It strikes me that you take a rather
perverse delight in throwing the standard NOW bull-**** about fathers around
the group like a you're swinging a dead cat.

I feel sorry for you FFK. I really do.

You refuse to see any other view point then what has been fed to you by
fascist wanna-be's.
You refuse to acknowledge the factual data that disproves every statement
that has been said about the dead-beat father.
You refuse to see what really is happening to families everywhere, their
adverse effects on fathers, mothers, children, grandparents, and the rest of
their families.
And you certainly don't give a damn about anyone other then yourself - which
is most evident from the way you post here.

You are, IMO, the most sorry excuse for a human being I've ever heard of -
save for my brother's X. She actually beats you in that department. But
your a very close second.


"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> The greed factor
>
> Child support encourages greed on the NCP's part. It boils down to the
> following 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those
> children in poverty conditions 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that
> dont pay support to pay support (ie getting rid of big brother) is somehow
> going to make this better 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to
someone
> else, they would rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house
or
> perhaps they just want to hord all their cash for themselves 3.) think
they
> dont have to pay support to actually support a child!!!
>
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Greed Factor
> > Child support encourages greed. It boils down to the premise that 1)
> poverty
> > is the cause of poor child well-being and 2) money solves this problem.
> > Money has never solved any social problem. LBJ's war on poverty is a
> perfect
> > example. After spending trillions of dollars, poverty is alive and well.
> > Studies have also shown that children raised below the poverty level
> > academically outperformed children living above the poverty level - the
> > reason: they were living in an intact family. As mentioned above, money
is
> a
> > single-parent household enabler, a destabilizer.
> >
> > Current laws encourage custodial parents to get as much money as
possible
> > from the noncustodial parent. The Bureau of Family Support Operations in
> Los
> > Angeles runs a public access TV program that urges custodial parents to
> ask
> > for increases "because things change." Nationally recognized child
support
> > advocate Leora Gershenzon of The National Center for Youth Law,
commenting
> > on the large increase in establishing paternity orders said, "Besides
> > receiving child support, the children will benefit from access to the
> father
> > 's medical history, rights of inheritance and eligibility for the
father's
> > health insurance." The ACLU states, "...it is essential to consider ways
> to
> > obtain an award that is higher than the basic amount dictated by the
> > guidelines."
> >
> > Greed is also encouraged within child support enforcement
administration,
> as
> > their funding is based on child support collected (or amount to be
> > collected). If the goal is to increase child well-being, why not base
> > performance incentives of these organizations on child well-being
instead
> of
> > money collected? The fact that child support collections has become a
big
> > business is another clue to its greediness. Lockheed-Martin, the world's
> > largest defense contractor, states that child support collections is
"the
> > company's fastest-growing line of business." In today's one-sided
> atmosphere
> > of "anything goes," private collection companies have no qualms boasting
> > about how they intrude on noncustodial parents' rights and why these
> parents
> > shouldn't have any rights.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Fighting for kids]

Not this retarded debate again.. unilateral decisions don't exist.
"Dad" > wrote in message
news.com...
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 11:54:07 -0700, "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote:
>
> >The greed factor
> >
> >Child support encourages greed on the NCP's part. It boils down to the
> >following 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those
> >children in poverty conditions 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that
> >dont pay support to pay support (ie getting rid of big brother) is
somehow
> >going to make this better 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to
someone
> >else, they would rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house
or
> >perhaps they just want to hord all their cash for themselves 3.) think
they
> >dont have to pay support to actually support a child!!!
> >
>
>
> Fighting for kids? Even the name perpetuates the lie. if males wanted
> a child then yes, they should pay support. If the female unilaterally
> decides to have a child, that's her choice to spend her time and money
> that way. Under no circumstances should someone be forced into
> parenthood!

[Fighting for kids]

Oh I can prove it look at other posts ive made with statistical information
in them.

YOU cant prove those wrong because they aren't. You can "think" they are
but prove that they are. Prove anything you say!!!
YOU CANT
"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
> OK, now prove what you just spewed is FACTUAL information.
>
> SHOW US THE LAW!!
> SHOW US THE STUDIES!!
> SHOW US THE TRUTH IN YOUR STATEMENTS!!
>
> But alas, you can't, or won't. It strikes me that you take a rather
> perverse delight in throwing the standard NOW bull-**** about fathers
around
> the group like a you're swinging a dead cat.
>
> I feel sorry for you FFK. I really do.
>
> You refuse to see any other view point then what has been fed to you by
> fascist wanna-be's.
> You refuse to acknowledge the factual data that disproves every statement
> that has been said about the dead-beat father.
> You refuse to see what really is happening to families everywhere, their
> adverse effects on fathers, mothers, children, grandparents, and the rest
of
> their families.
> And you certainly don't give a damn about anyone other then yourself -
which
> is most evident from the way you post here.
>
> You are, IMO, the most sorry excuse for a human being I've ever heard of -
> save for my brother's X. She actually beats you in that department. But
> your a very close second.
>
>
> "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> ...
> > The greed factor
> >
> > Child support encourages greed on the NCP's part. It boils down to the
> > following 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those
> > children in poverty conditions 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that
> > dont pay support to pay support (ie getting rid of big brother) is
somehow
> > going to make this better 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to
> someone
> > else, they would rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house
> or
> > perhaps they just want to hord all their cash for themselves 3.) think
> they
> > dont have to pay support to actually support a child!!!
> >
> > "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > The Greed Factor
> > > Child support encourages greed. It boils down to the premise that 1)
> > poverty
> > > is the cause of poor child well-being and 2) money solves this
problem.
> > > Money has never solved any social problem. LBJ's war on poverty is a
> > perfect
> > > example. After spending trillions of dollars, poverty is alive and
well.
> > > Studies have also shown that children raised below the poverty level
> > > academically outperformed children living above the poverty level -
the
> > > reason: they were living in an intact family. As mentioned above,
money
> is
> > a
> > > single-parent household enabler, a destabilizer.
> > >
> > > Current laws encourage custodial parents to get as much money as
> possible
> > > from the noncustodial parent. The Bureau of Family Support Operations
in
> > Los
> > > Angeles runs a public access TV program that urges custodial parents
to
> > ask
> > > for increases "because things change." Nationally recognized child
> support
> > > advocate Leora Gershenzon of The National Center for Youth Law,
> commenting
> > > on the large increase in establishing paternity orders said, "Besides
> > > receiving child support, the children will benefit from access to the
> > father
> > > 's medical history, rights of inheritance and eligibility for the
> father's
> > > health insurance." The ACLU states, "...it is essential to consider
ways
> > to
> > > obtain an award that is higher than the basic amount dictated by the
> > > guidelines."
> > >
> > > Greed is also encouraged within child support enforcement
> administration,
> > as
> > > their funding is based on child support collected (or amount to be
> > > collected). If the goal is to increase child well-being, why not base
> > > performance incentives of these organizations on child well-being
> instead
> > of
> > > money collected? The fact that child support collections has become a
> big
> > > business is another clue to its greediness. Lockheed-Martin, the
world's
> > > largest defense contractor, states that child support collections is
> "the
> > > company's fastest-growing line of business." In today's one-sided
> > atmosphere
> > > of "anything goes," private collection companies have no qualms
boasting
> > > about how they intrude on noncustodial parents' rights and why these
> > parents
> > > shouldn't have any rights.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Dusty]

I have proven you wrong before and will do so again and again and again.
So, come on FFK, show me your proof about the claims you made in your
previous post:

1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those children in
poverty conditions

2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that dont pay support to pay support
(ie getting rid of big brother) is somehow going to make this better

3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to someone else, they would
rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house or perhaps they just
want to hord all their cash for themselves

(4) 3.) think they dont have to pay support to actually support a
child!!!

Come on, prove it. Make a believer out of me. Show me your proof.

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> Oh I can prove it look at other posts ive made with statistical
information
> in them.
>
> YOU cant prove those wrong because they aren't. You can "think" they are
> but prove that they are. Prove anything you say!!!
> YOU CANT
> "Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> > OK, now prove what you just spewed is FACTUAL information.
> >
> > SHOW US THE LAW!!
> > SHOW US THE STUDIES!!
> > SHOW US THE TRUTH IN YOUR STATEMENTS!!
> >
> > But alas, you can't, or won't. It strikes me that you take a rather
> > perverse delight in throwing the standard NOW bull-**** about fathers
> around
> > the group like a you're swinging a dead cat.
[snip]

[Bob Whiteside]

"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
> I have proven you wrong before and will do so again and again and again.
> So, come on FFK, show me your proof about the claims you made in your
> previous post:
>
> 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those children
in
> poverty conditions
>
> 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that dont pay support to pay
support
> (ie getting rid of big brother) is somehow going to make this better
>
> 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to someone else, they would
> rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house or perhaps they
just
> want to hord all their cash for themselves
>
> (4) 3.) think they dont have to pay support to actually support a
> child!!!
>
> Come on, prove it. Make a believer out of me. Show me your proof.

All of her statements are true if you selectively use the statistics to push
your agenda. The issue is the statistics she uses are not representative of
the bigger picture. According to the Census Bureau there are 13.529 million
custodial parents. Of those 1.786 million do not receive CS payments for
some reason. And of the 1.786 million who report receiving no cash CS
payments, 29.8% are in poverty. That means 532,000 CP's are in poverty
because they report receiving no CS. And that's just 3.9% of all 13.529
million CP's. And some portion of the 3.9% don't understand that CS is
being paid to the state to reimburse welfare benefits so they report
receiving no CS themselves.

[Cameron Stevens]

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> Oh I can prove it look at other posts ive made with statistical
information
> in them.

You really need to use punctuation.

There's some truth to every single post here. There are NCPs under the thumb
of the system, there are NCPs that deserve the pressure and there are many
more that don't. There are CPs that abuse the system's power for their own
purposes (beit revenge or greed). The fact is that NO SYSTEM does not solve
the problem and the system AS IT STANDS is part of the problem.

There's a lack of fairness in the system because it costs too much to manage
each case, it's easier to simply treat every NCP as a deadbeat and while
there are great NCPs out there and a good number of NCPs that would rather
be EQUAL CPs.

Personally I'd take the CP plunge right now if I could afford the luxuries
of a vehicle and working 4-6 hours a day for the City. I can't, that doesn't
make me a bad father. I pay my support faithfully each month, ahead of the
schedule. Why? Because I'm not a deadbeat. Do I agree with the amount, not
always I think it's been inflated because of the mis-understanding that the
CP is less capable of earning an equal or greater paycheck.

GREED is the factor on both sides, FFK and Paul Fritz are both right to some
extent. There are NCPs and CPs out there that are both good and bad
examples. The reality is the media and attention is paid to the bad in any
group.

Finding the solution involves first accepting that the system is necessary
and that it must change.

Cameron

[Gini52]

In article t>, Bob Whiteside
says...
>
>
>"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
>> I have proven you wrong before and will do so again and again and again.
>> So, come on FFK, show me your proof about the claims you made in your
>> previous post:
>>
>> 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those children
>in
>> poverty conditions
>>
>> 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that dont pay support to pay
>support
>> (ie getting rid of big brother) is somehow going to make this better
>>
>> 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to someone else, they would
>> rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house or perhaps they
>just
>> want to hord all their cash for themselves
>>
>> (4) 3.) think they dont have to pay support to actually support a
>> child!!!
>>
>> Come on, prove it. Make a believer out of me. Show me your proof.
>
>All of her statements are true if you selectively use the statistics to push
>your agenda. The issue is the statistics she uses are not representative of
>the bigger picture. According to the Census Bureau there are 13.529 million
>custodial parents. Of those 1.786 million do not receive CS payments for
>some reason. And of the 1.786 million who report receiving no cash CS
>payments, 29.8% are in poverty.

**That means 532,000 CP's are in poverty
>because they report receiving no CS.**
=====
Huh? Where on earth did this come from?? There is absolutely nothing above on
which to draw this conclusion.
=====

[Bob Whiteside]

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>, Bob
Whiteside
> says...
> >
> >
> >"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> >> I have proven you wrong before and will do so again and again and
again.
> >> So, come on FFK, show me your proof about the claims you made in your
> >> previous post:
> >>
> >> 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those
children
> >in
> >> poverty conditions
> >>
> >> 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that dont pay support to pay
> >support
> >> (ie getting rid of big brother) is somehow going to make this better
> >>
> >> 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to someone else, they would
> >> rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house or perhaps they
> >just
> >> want to hord all their cash for themselves
> >>
> >> (4) 3.) think they dont have to pay support to actually support a
> >> child!!!
> >>
> >> Come on, prove it. Make a believer out of me. Show me your proof.
> >
> >All of her statements are true if you selectively use the statistics to
push
> >your agenda. The issue is the statistics she uses are not representative
of
> >the bigger picture. According to the Census Bureau there are 13.529
million
> >custodial parents. Of those 1.786 million do not receive CS payments for
> >some reason. And of the 1.786 million who report receiving no cash CS
> >payments, 29.8% are in poverty.
>
> **That means 532,000 CP's are in poverty
> >because they report receiving no CS.**
> =====
> Huh? Where on earth did this come from?? There is absolutely nothing above
on
> which to draw this conclusion.
> =====

Kind of an awkward sentence, huh? What I meant was even when no CS is
reported as being received, there are only 532,000 custodial parents that
are below the poverty level based on their income only. And even this group
is over-counted because some portion of them are having CS paid on their
behalf to the state to reimburse welfare benefits so they never "receive"
any CS.

[Gini]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article t>, Bob
> Whiteside
> > says...
> > >
.................................................
Of those 1.786 million do not receive CS payments for
> > >some reason. And of the 1.786 million who report receiving no cash CS
> > >payments, 29.8% are in poverty.
> >
> > **That means 532,000 CP's are in poverty
> > >because they report receiving no CS.**
> > =====
> > Huh? Where on earth did this come from?? There is absolutely nothing
above
> on
> > which to draw this conclusion.
> > =====
>
> Kind of an awkward sentence, huh? What I meant was even when no CS is
> reported as being received, there are only 532,000 custodial parents that
> are below the poverty level based on their income only. And even this
group
> is over-counted because some portion of them are having CS paid on their
> behalf to the state to reimburse welfare benefits so they never "receive"
> any CS.
===
Whew!...You really worried me, there--I thought you were agreeing with FFK.
Thought I was gonna have to whack you upside the head to bring you to your
senses!
===
===
>
>

[Virginia]

the origional poster provided no proff either

Dusty wrote:
> OK, now prove what you just spewed is FACTUAL information.
>
> SHOW US THE LAW!!
> SHOW US THE STUDIES!!
> SHOW US THE TRUTH IN YOUR STATEMENTS!!
>
> But alas, you can't, or won't. It strikes me that you take a rather
> perverse delight in throwing the standard NOW bull-**** about fathers around
> the group like a you're swinging a dead cat.
>
> I feel sorry for you FFK. I really do.
>
> You refuse to see any other view point then what has been fed to you by
> fascist wanna-be's.
> You refuse to acknowledge the factual data that disproves every statement
> that has been said about the dead-beat father.
> You refuse to see what really is happening to families everywhere, their
> adverse effects on fathers, mothers, children, grandparents, and the rest of
> their families.
> And you certainly don't give a damn about anyone other then yourself - which
> is most evident from the way you post here.
>
> You are, IMO, the most sorry excuse for a human being I've ever heard of -
> save for my brother's X. She actually beats you in that department. But
> your a very close second.
>
>
> "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The greed factor
>>
>>Child support encourages greed on the NCP's part. It boils down to the
>>following 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those
>>children in poverty conditions 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that
>>dont pay support to pay support (ie getting rid of big brother) is somehow
>>going to make this better 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to
>
> someone
>
>>else, they would rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house
>
> or
>
>>perhaps they just want to hord all their cash for themselves 3.) think
>
> they
>
>>dont have to pay support to actually support a child!!!
>>
>>"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>The Greed Factor
>>>Child support encourages greed. It boils down to the premise that 1)
>>
>>poverty
>>
>>>is the cause of poor child well-being and 2) money solves this problem.
>>>Money has never solved any social problem. LBJ's war on poverty is a
>>
>>perfect
>>
>>>example. After spending trillions of dollars, poverty is alive and well.
>>>Studies have also shown that children raised below the poverty level
>>>academically outperformed children living above the poverty level - the
>>>reason: they were living in an intact family. As mentioned above, money
>
> is
>
>>a
>>
>>>single-parent household enabler, a destabilizer.
>>>
>>>Current laws encourage custodial parents to get as much money as
>
> possible
>
>>>from the noncustodial parent. The Bureau of Family Support Operations in
>>
>>Los
>>
>>>Angeles runs a public access TV program that urges custodial parents to
>>
>>ask
>>
>>>for increases "because things change." Nationally recognized child
>
> support
>
>>>advocate Leora Gershenzon of The National Center for Youth Law,
>
> commenting
>
>>>on the large increase in establishing paternity orders said, "Besides
>>>receiving child support, the children will benefit from access to the
>>
>>father
>>
>>>'s medical history, rights of inheritance and eligibility for the
>
> father's
>
>>>health insurance." The ACLU states, "...it is essential to consider ways
>>
>>to
>>
>>>obtain an award that is higher than the basic amount dictated by the
>>>guidelines."
>>>
>>>Greed is also encouraged within child support enforcement
>
> administration,
>
>>as
>>
>>>their funding is based on child support collected (or amount to be
>>>collected). If the goal is to increase child well-being, why not base
>>>performance incentives of these organizations on child well-being
>
> instead
>
>>of
>>
>>>money collected? The fact that child support collections has become a
>
> big
>
>>>business is another clue to its greediness. Lockheed-Martin, the world's
>>>largest defense contractor, states that child support collections is
>
> "the
>
>>>company's fastest-growing line of business." In today's one-sided
>>
>>atmosphere
>>
>>>of "anything goes," private collection companies have no qualms boasting
>>>about how they intrude on noncustodial parents' rights and why these
>>
>>parents
>>
>>>shouldn't have any rights.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Gini]

"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
> OK, now prove what you just spewed is FACTUAL information.
>
> SHOW US THE LAW!!
> SHOW US THE STUDIES!!
> SHOW US THE TRUTH IN YOUR STATEMENTS!!
>
> But alas, you can't, or won't. It strikes me that you take a rather
> perverse delight in throwing the standard NOW bull-**** about fathers
around
> the group like a you're swinging a dead cat.
==
I would discourage you from assigning her the strength and credibility to
toss anyone/anything
around. Her brain is the dead cat and she hasn't a clue what to do with it.
She will
swing it and throw it no matter who or where her audience is. She simply
needs an audience
to thrive. Her entire psyche depends on getting a reaction from others. It
is the fuel that energizes her.
If you starve her of that fuel, she has no choice but to go away and seek a
new audience.
==
.................................................. ...........
> You are, IMO, the most sorry excuse for a human being I've ever heard of -
> save for my brother's X. She actually beats you in that department. But
> your a very close second.
====
She can't see anything anyone else's way no matter how loudly you shout at
her.
She can only express her opinions which cannot change once she has accepted
them from those of similar ilk. She cannot deal with change or
uncertainty--in her mind, everything must remain the same. Curiously,
though, she has quite a bit of intelligence as you can see from several of
her posts. If you follow her closely, however, you will see that when she
begins to feel threatened she goes into a downward psychological spiral as
if she were getting drunker and drunker or higher and higher. She begins
misspelling words and furiously tosses out incoherent blather. That is when
she frantically posts all that off-topic drivel. This is the most exhausting
and dangerous state for her. She will likely react to this post in a similar
manner because she knows I've exposed her and fears that no one will react
to her anymore thereby starving her of that fuel. She knows she has two
options now:
either desperately deny everything I've said and hope she can still get
fueled here or quietly go away. What do you think she will do?
====
====

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 01:43:54 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:

>
>"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
>> In article t>, Bob
>Whiteside
>> says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
>> >> I have proven you wrong before and will do so again and again and
>again.
>> >> So, come on FFK, show me your proof about the claims you made in your
>> >> previous post:
>> >>
>> >> 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those
>children
>> >in
>> >> poverty conditions
>> >>
>> >> 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that dont pay support to pay
>> >support
>> >> (ie getting rid of big brother) is somehow going to make this better
>> >>
>> >> 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to someone else, they would
>> >> rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house or perhaps they
>> >just
>> >> want to hord all their cash for themselves
>> >>
>> >> (4) 3.) think they dont have to pay support to actually support a
>> >> child!!!
>> >>
>> >> Come on, prove it. Make a believer out of me. Show me your proof.
>> >
>> >All of her statements are true if you selectively use the statistics to
>push
>> >your agenda. The issue is the statistics she uses are not representative
>of
>> >the bigger picture. According to the Census Bureau there are 13.529
>million
>> >custodial parents. Of those 1.786 million do not receive CS payments for
>> >some reason. And of the 1.786 million who report receiving no cash CS
>> >payments, 29.8% are in poverty.
>>
>> **That means 532,000 CP's are in poverty
>> >because they report receiving no CS.**
>> =====
>> Huh? Where on earth did this come from?? There is absolutely nothing above
>on
>> which to draw this conclusion.
>> =====
>
>Kind of an awkward sentence, huh? What I meant was even when no CS is
>reported as being received, there are only 532,000 custodial parents that
>are below the poverty level based on their income only. And even this group
>is over-counted because some portion of them are having CS paid on their
>behalf to the state to reimburse welfare benefits so they never "receive"
>any CS.
>
But you dont know this for sure. You are only making assumptions
based on YOUR own agenda.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 21:18:38 -0500, "Gini" > wrote:

>
>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> "Gini52" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article t>, Bob
>> Whiteside
>> > says...
>> > >
>................................................
> Of those 1.786 million do not receive CS payments for
>> > >some reason. And of the 1.786 million who report receiving no cash CS
>> > >payments, 29.8% are in poverty.
>> >
>> > **That means 532,000 CP's are in poverty
>> > >because they report receiving no CS.**
>> > =====
>> > Huh? Where on earth did this come from?? There is absolutely nothing
>above
>> on
>> > which to draw this conclusion.
>> > =====
>>
>> Kind of an awkward sentence, huh? What I meant was even when no CS is
>> reported as being received, there are only 532,000 custodial parents that
>> are below the poverty level based on their income only. And even this
>group
>> is over-counted because some portion of them are having CS paid on their
>> behalf to the state to reimburse welfare benefits so they never "receive"
>> any CS.
>===
>Whew!...You really worried me, there--I thought you were agreeing with FFK.
>Thought I was gonna have to whack you upside the head to bring you to your
>senses!
>===
>===
heaven forbid that someone actually agree with someone who posts
contra to your own agenda.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 18:38:11 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> wrote:

>
>"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
>> Oh I can prove it look at other posts ive made with statistical
>information
>> in them.
>
>You really need to use punctuation.
>
>There's some truth to every single post here. There are NCPs under the thumb
>of the system, there are NCPs that deserve the pressure and there are many
>more that don't. There are CPs that abuse the system's power for their own
>purposes (beit revenge or greed). The fact is that NO SYSTEM does not solve
>the problem and the system AS IT STANDS is part of the problem.
>
>There's a lack of fairness in the system because it costs too much to manage
>each case, it's easier to simply treat every NCP as a deadbeat and while
>there are great NCPs out there and a good number of NCPs that would rather
>be EQUAL CPs.
>
>Personally I'd take the CP plunge right now if I could afford the luxuries
>of a vehicle and working 4-6 hours a day for the City. I can't, that doesn't
>make me a bad father. I pay my support faithfully each month, ahead of the
>schedule. Why? Because I'm not a deadbeat. Do I agree with the amount, not
>always I think it's been inflated because of the mis-understanding that the
>CP is less capable of earning an equal or greater paycheck.
>
>GREED is the factor on both sides, FFK and Paul Fritz are both right to some
>extent. There are NCPs and CPs out there that are both good and bad
>examples. The reality is the media and attention is paid to the bad in any
>group.
>
>Finding the solution involves first accepting that the system is necessary
>and that it must change.
>
>Cameron
>
So do you, NCP's not NCP

[[email protected]]

They never do. If someone posts something they come up with their own
scheme to debunk them, even if its based on assumptions only.


On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 02:51:06 GMT, Virginia
> wrote:

>the origional poster provided no proff either
>
>Dusty wrote:
>> OK, now prove what you just spewed is FACTUAL information.
>>
>> SHOW US THE LAW!!
>> SHOW US THE STUDIES!!
>> SHOW US THE TRUTH IN YOUR STATEMENTS!!
>>
>> But alas, you can't, or won't. It strikes me that you take a rather
>> perverse delight in throwing the standard NOW bull-**** about fathers around
>> the group like a you're swinging a dead cat.
>>
>> I feel sorry for you FFK. I really do.
>>
>> You refuse to see any other view point then what has been fed to you by
>> fascist wanna-be's.
>> You refuse to acknowledge the factual data that disproves every statement
>> that has been said about the dead-beat father.
>> You refuse to see what really is happening to families everywhere, their
>> adverse effects on fathers, mothers, children, grandparents, and the rest of
>> their families.
>> And you certainly don't give a damn about anyone other then yourself - which
>> is most evident from the way you post here.
>>
>> You are, IMO, the most sorry excuse for a human being I've ever heard of -
>> save for my brother's X. She actually beats you in that department. But
>> your a very close second.
>>
>>
>> "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>The greed factor
>>>
>>>Child support encourages greed on the NCP's part. It boils down to the
>>>following 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those
>>>children in poverty conditions 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that
>>>dont pay support to pay support (ie getting rid of big brother) is somehow
>>>going to make this better 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to
>>
>> someone
>>
>>>else, they would rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house
>>
>> or
>>
>>>perhaps they just want to hord all their cash for themselves 3.) think
>>
>> they
>>
>>>dont have to pay support to actually support a child!!!
>>>
>>>"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>The Greed Factor
>>>>Child support encourages greed. It boils down to the premise that 1)
>>>
>>>poverty
>>>
>>>>is the cause of poor child well-being and 2) money solves this problem.
>>>>Money has never solved any social problem. LBJ's war on poverty is a
>>>
>>>perfect
>>>
>>>>example. After spending trillions of dollars, poverty is alive and well.
>>>>Studies have also shown that children raised below the poverty level
>>>>academically outperformed children living above the poverty level - the
>>>>reason: they were living in an intact family. As mentioned above, money
>>
>> is
>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>>single-parent household enabler, a destabilizer.
>>>>
>>>>Current laws encourage custodial parents to get as much money as
>>
>> possible
>>
>>>>from the noncustodial parent. The Bureau of Family Support Operations in
>>>
>>>Los
>>>
>>>>Angeles runs a public access TV program that urges custodial parents to
>>>
>>>ask
>>>
>>>>for increases "because things change." Nationally recognized child
>>
>> support
>>
>>>>advocate Leora Gershenzon of The National Center for Youth Law,
>>
>> commenting
>>
>>>>on the large increase in establishing paternity orders said, "Besides
>>>>receiving child support, the children will benefit from access to the
>>>
>>>father
>>>
>>>>'s medical history, rights of inheritance and eligibility for the
>>
>> father's
>>
>>>>health insurance." The ACLU states, "...it is essential to consider ways
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>>obtain an award that is higher than the basic amount dictated by the
>>>>guidelines."
>>>>
>>>>Greed is also encouraged within child support enforcement
>>
>> administration,
>>
>>>as
>>>
>>>>their funding is based on child support collected (or amount to be
>>>>collected). If the goal is to increase child well-being, why not base
>>>>performance incentives of these organizations on child well-being
>>
>> instead
>>
>>>of
>>>
>>>>money collected? The fact that child support collections has become a
>>
>> big
>>
>>>>business is another clue to its greediness. Lockheed-Martin, the world's
>>>>largest defense contractor, states that child support collections is
>>
>> "the
>>
>>>>company's fastest-growing line of business." In today's one-sided
>>>
>>>atmosphere
>>>
>>>>of "anything goes," private collection companies have no qualms boasting
>>>>about how they intrude on noncustodial parents' rights and why these
>>>
>>>parents
>>>
>>>>shouldn't have any rights.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 02:22:26 -0500, "Gini" > wrote:

>
>"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
>> OK, now prove what you just spewed is FACTUAL information.
>>
>> SHOW US THE LAW!!
>> SHOW US THE STUDIES!!
>> SHOW US THE TRUTH IN YOUR STATEMENTS!!
>>
>> But alas, you can't, or won't. It strikes me that you take a rather
>> perverse delight in throwing the standard NOW bull-**** about fathers
>around
>> the group like a you're swinging a dead cat.
>==
> I would discourage you from assigning her the strength and credibility to
>toss anyone/anything
>around. Her brain is the dead cat and she hasn't a clue what to do with it.
>She will
>swing it and throw it no matter who or where her audience is. She simply
>needs an audience
>to thrive. Her entire psyche depends on getting a reaction from others. It
>is the fuel that energizes her.
>If you starve her of that fuel, she has no choice but to go away and seek a
>new audience.
>==

Not entirely true. I think you are the one who depends on this why
else would you keep posting?
>.................................................. ..........
>> You are, IMO, the most sorry excuse for a human being I've ever heard of -
>> save for my brother's X. She actually beats you in that department. But
>> your a very close second.
>====
>She can't see anything anyone else's way no matter how loudly you shout at
>her.

Neither can you.

>She can only express her opinions which cannot change once she has accepted
>them from those of similar ilk. She cannot deal with change or
>uncertainty--in her mind, everything must remain the same. Curiously,
>though, she has quite a bit of intelligence as you can see from several of
>her posts. If you follow her closely, however, you will see that when she
>begins to feel threatened she goes into a downward psychological spiral as
>if she were getting drunker and drunker or higher and higher. She begins
>misspelling words and furiously tosses out incoherent blather. That is when
>she frantically posts all that off-topic drivel.

As you did exactly the same thing when you were threatened and posted
wrong information about the laws.

You cannot deal with change or uncertainty, as you sit and squander in
your own pile of hate and disgust for someone else.

This is the most exhausting
>and dangerous state for her. She will likely react to this post in a similar
>manner because she knows I've exposed her and fears that no one will react
>to her anymore thereby starving her of that fuel. She knows she has two
>options now:
>either desperately deny everything I've said and hope she can still get
>fueled here or quietly go away. What do you think she will do?

The two choices that you propose make you no better, because gini in
other posts you yourself have said you will no longer communicate with
such a person, yet here you are taking that one last stab trying to
get the last word in and make yourself feel somehow superior to this
other person, who may have valid points yet you will always side with
the other's in the group because you fear being attacked in the same
manner as FFK.
>====
>====
>

[Gini52]

In article >, says...
>
>On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 02:22:26 -0500, "Gini" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
>>> OK, now prove what you just spewed is FACTUAL information.
>>>
>>> SHOW US THE LAW!!
>>> SHOW US THE STUDIES!!
>>> SHOW US THE TRUTH IN YOUR STATEMENTS!!
>>>
>>> But alas, you can't, or won't. It strikes me that you take a rather
>>> perverse delight in throwing the standard NOW bull-**** about fathers
>>around
>>> the group like a you're swinging a dead cat.
>>==
>> I would discourage you from assigning her the strength and credibility to
>>toss anyone/anything
>>around. Her brain is the dead cat and she hasn't a clue what to do with it.
>>She will
>>swing it and throw it no matter who or where her audience is. She simply
>>needs an audience
>>to thrive. Her entire psyche depends on getting a reaction from others. It
>>is the fuel that energizes her.
>>If you starve her of that fuel, she has no choice but to go away and seek a
>>new audience.
>>==
>
>Not entirely true. I think you are the one who depends on this why
>else would you keep posting?
>>.................................................. ..........
>>> You are, IMO, the most sorry excuse for a human being I've ever heard of -
>>> save for my brother's X. She actually beats you in that department. But
>>> your a very close second.
>>====
>>She can't see anything anyone else's way no matter how loudly you shout at
>>her.
>
>Neither can you.
>
>>She can only express her opinions which cannot change once she has accepted
>>them from those of similar ilk. She cannot deal with change or
>>uncertainty--in her mind, everything must remain the same. Curiously,
>>though, she has quite a bit of intelligence as you can see from several of
>>her posts. If you follow her closely, however, you will see that when she
>>begins to feel threatened she goes into a downward psychological spiral as
>>if she were getting drunker and drunker or higher and higher. She begins
>>misspelling words and furiously tosses out incoherent blather. That is when
>>she frantically posts all that off-topic drivel.
>
>As you did exactly the same thing when you were threatened and posted
>wrong information about the laws.
>
>You cannot deal with change or uncertainty, as you sit and squander in
>your own pile of hate and disgust for someone else.
>
> This is the most exhausting
>>and dangerous state for her. She will likely react to this post in a similar
>>manner because she knows I've exposed her and fears that no one will react
>>to her anymore thereby starving her of that fuel. She knows she has two
>>options now:
>>either desperately deny everything I've said and hope she can still get
>>fueled here or quietly go away. What do you think she will do?
>
>The two choices that you propose make you no better, because gini in
>other posts you yourself have said you will no longer communicate with
>such a person, yet here you are taking that one last stab trying to
>get the last word in and make yourself feel somehow superior to this
>other person, who may have valid points yet you will always side with
>the other's in the group because you fear being attacked in the same
>manner as FFK.
>>====
>>====
===================
Then again, she could change her user ID with the hopes of getting a fresh start
to begin her game again--Curiously, in her mind, she believes we can't see her
behind the new ID. It's kind of like a child thinking that if he is hiding his
eyes, we can't see him--Or, it is like the pig who thinks that if he puts on
lipstick we won't recognize him. (For the record, please note that I am
communicating with everyone in the NG except FFK)
=====
=====
>>
>

[Fighting For Kids]

Im simply changed newsreaders and left the setting at default.
I have changed it back to what it was before, does this satisfy you
Gini?




On 10 Nov 2003 09:08:45 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>>On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 02:22:26 -0500, "Gini" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
>>>> OK, now prove what you just spewed is FACTUAL information.
>>>>
>>>> SHOW US THE LAW!!
>>>> SHOW US THE STUDIES!!
>>>> SHOW US THE TRUTH IN YOUR STATEMENTS!!
>>>>
>>>> But alas, you can't, or won't. It strikes me that you take a rather
>>>> perverse delight in throwing the standard NOW bull-**** about fathers
>>>around
>>>> the group like a you're swinging a dead cat.
>>>==
>>> I would discourage you from assigning her the strength and credibility to
>>>toss anyone/anything
>>>around. Her brain is the dead cat and she hasn't a clue what to do with it.
>>>She will
>>>swing it and throw it no matter who or where her audience is. She simply
>>>needs an audience
>>>to thrive. Her entire psyche depends on getting a reaction from others. It
>>>is the fuel that energizes her.
>>>If you starve her of that fuel, she has no choice but to go away and seek a
>>>new audience.
>>>==
>>
>>Not entirely true. I think you are the one who depends on this why
>>else would you keep posting?
>>>.................................................. ..........
>>>> You are, IMO, the most sorry excuse for a human being I've ever heard of -
>>>> save for my brother's X. She actually beats you in that department. But
>>>> your a very close second.
>>>====
>>>She can't see anything anyone else's way no matter how loudly you shout at
>>>her.
>>
>>Neither can you.
>>
>>>She can only express her opinions which cannot change once she has accepted
>>>them from those of similar ilk. She cannot deal with change or
>>>uncertainty--in her mind, everything must remain the same. Curiously,
>>>though, she has quite a bit of intelligence as you can see from several of
>>>her posts. If you follow her closely, however, you will see that when she
>>>begins to feel threatened she goes into a downward psychological spiral as
>>>if she were getting drunker and drunker or higher and higher. She begins
>>>misspelling words and furiously tosses out incoherent blather. That is when
>>>she frantically posts all that off-topic drivel.
>>
>>As you did exactly the same thing when you were threatened and posted
>>wrong information about the laws.
>>
>>You cannot deal with change or uncertainty, as you sit and squander in
>>your own pile of hate and disgust for someone else.
>>
>> This is the most exhausting
>>>and dangerous state for her. She will likely react to this post in a similar
>>>manner because she knows I've exposed her and fears that no one will react
>>>to her anymore thereby starving her of that fuel. She knows she has two
>>>options now:
>>>either desperately deny everything I've said and hope she can still get
>>>fueled here or quietly go away. What do you think she will do?
>>
>>The two choices that you propose make you no better, because gini in
>>other posts you yourself have said you will no longer communicate with
>>such a person, yet here you are taking that one last stab trying to
>>get the last word in and make yourself feel somehow superior to this
>>other person, who may have valid points yet you will always side with
>>the other's in the group because you fear being attacked in the same
>>manner as FFK.
>>>====
>>>====
>===================
>Then again, she could change her user ID with the hopes of getting a fresh start
>to begin her game again--Curiously, in her mind, she believes we can't see her
>behind the new ID. It's kind of like a child thinking that if he is hiding his
>eyes, we can't see him--Or, it is like the pig who thinks that if he puts on
>lipstick we won't recognize him. (For the record, please note that I am
>communicating with everyone in the NG except FFK)
>=====
>=====
>>>
>>

[Bob Whiteside]

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 01:43:54 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article t>, Bob
> >Whiteside
> >> says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Dusty" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >> I have proven you wrong before and will do so again and again and
> >again.
> >> >> So, come on FFK, show me your proof about the claims you made in
your
> >> >> previous post:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those
> >children
> >> >in
> >> >> poverty conditions
> >> >>
> >> >> 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that dont pay support to pay
> >> >support
> >> >> (ie getting rid of big brother) is somehow going to make this better
> >> >>
> >> >> 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to someone else, they
would
> >> >> rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house or perhaps
they
> >> >just
> >> >> want to hord all their cash for themselves
> >> >>
> >> >> (4) 3.) think they dont have to pay support to actually support
a
> >> >> child!!!
> >> >>
> >> >> Come on, prove it. Make a believer out of me. Show me your proof.
> >> >
> >> >All of her statements are true if you selectively use the statistics
to
> >push
> >> >your agenda. The issue is the statistics she uses are not
representative
> >of
> >> >the bigger picture. According to the Census Bureau there are 13.529
> >million
> >> >custodial parents. Of those 1.786 million do not receive CS payments
for
> >> >some reason. And of the 1.786 million who report receiving no cash CS
> >> >payments, 29.8% are in poverty.
> >>
> >> **That means 532,000 CP's are in poverty
> >> >because they report receiving no CS.**
> >> =====
> >> Huh? Where on earth did this come from?? There is absolutely nothing
above
> >on
> >> which to draw this conclusion.
> >> =====
> >
> >Kind of an awkward sentence, huh? What I meant was even when no CS is
> >reported as being received, there are only 532,000 custodial parents that
> >are below the poverty level based on their income only. And even this
group
> >is over-counted because some portion of them are having CS paid on their
> >behalf to the state to reimburse welfare benefits so they never "receive"
> >any CS.
> >
> But you dont know this for sure. You are only making assumptions
> based on YOUR own agenda.

Do we have to go through this little dance all over again? Do we have to
hear all your "I'm not FFK" garbage like we did when you denied FFK was not
CJ?

This information is right out of the resource you posted either as CJ or
FFK. Just changing your identity all the time doesn't make it look like
there are lots of people who agree with you. Look at page 6 on your Census
reference on CS and get back to us.

[Gini52]

In article >, says...
>
>On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 18:38:11 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
>>> Oh I can prove it look at other posts ive made with statistical
>>information
>>> in them.
>>
>>You really need to use punctuation.
>>
>>There's some truth to every single post here. There are NCPs under the thumb
>>of the system, there are NCPs that deserve the pressure and there are many
>>more that don't. There are CPs that abuse the system's power for their own
>>purposes (beit revenge or greed). The fact is that NO SYSTEM does not solve
>>the problem and the system AS IT STANDS is part of the problem.
>>
>>There's a lack of fairness in the system because it costs too much to manage
>>each case, it's easier to simply treat every NCP as a deadbeat and while
>>there are great NCPs out there and a good number of NCPs that would rather
>>be EQUAL CPs.
>>
>>Personally I'd take the CP plunge right now if I could afford the luxuries
>>of a vehicle and working 4-6 hours a day for the City. I can't, that doesn't
>>make me a bad father. I pay my support faithfully each month, ahead of the
>>schedule. Why? Because I'm not a deadbeat. Do I agree with the amount, not
>>always I think it's been inflated because of the mis-understanding that the
>>CP is less capable of earning an equal or greater paycheck.
>>
>>GREED is the factor on both sides, FFK and Paul Fritz are both right to some
>>extent. There are NCPs and CPs out there that are both good and bad
>>examples. The reality is the media and attention is paid to the bad in any
>>group.
>>
>>Finding the solution involves first accepting that the system is necessary
>>and that it must change.
>>
>>Cameron
>>
>So do you, NCP's not NCP
===
Incorrect. The apostrophe indicates possession, not plurality.
I noticed you had that wrong on your website as well. You are not using the
apostrophe when required for contractions and use it incorrectly in the
application of simple plurality. I can't believe your comp profs let you get
away with this.
===
===

[Fighting For Kids]

BOB,

Even though you think you are so smart you are not. If I really
wanted to disguise myself do you think I would use the "same" account,
and the "same" IP address?

Get real.. read the other posts. DUH on your part.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:18:42 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 01:43:54 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gini52" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> In article t>, Bob
>> >Whiteside
>> >> says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Dusty" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >> I have proven you wrong before and will do so again and again and
>> >again.
>> >> >> So, come on FFK, show me your proof about the claims you made in
>your
>> >> >> previous post:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those
>> >children
>> >> >in
>> >> >> poverty conditions
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that dont pay support to pay
>> >> >support
>> >> >> (ie getting rid of big brother) is somehow going to make this better
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to someone else, they
>would
>> >> >> rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house or perhaps
>they
>> >> >just
>> >> >> want to hord all their cash for themselves
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (4) 3.) think they dont have to pay support to actually support
>a
>> >> >> child!!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Come on, prove it. Make a believer out of me. Show me your proof.
>> >> >
>> >> >All of her statements are true if you selectively use the statistics
>to
>> >push
>> >> >your agenda. The issue is the statistics she uses are not
>representative
>> >of
>> >> >the bigger picture. According to the Census Bureau there are 13.529
>> >million
>> >> >custodial parents. Of those 1.786 million do not receive CS payments
>for
>> >> >some reason. And of the 1.786 million who report receiving no cash CS
>> >> >payments, 29.8% are in poverty.
>> >>
>> >> **That means 532,000 CP's are in poverty
>> >> >because they report receiving no CS.**
>> >> =====
>> >> Huh? Where on earth did this come from?? There is absolutely nothing
>above
>> >on
>> >> which to draw this conclusion.
>> >> =====
>> >
>> >Kind of an awkward sentence, huh? What I meant was even when no CS is
>> >reported as being received, there are only 532,000 custodial parents that
>> >are below the poverty level based on their income only. And even this
>group
>> >is over-counted because some portion of them are having CS paid on their
>> >behalf to the state to reimburse welfare benefits so they never "receive"
>> >any CS.
>> >
>> But you dont know this for sure. You are only making assumptions
>> based on YOUR own agenda.
>
>Do we have to go through this little dance all over again? Do we have to
>hear all your "I'm not FFK" garbage like we did when you denied FFK was not
>CJ?
>
>This information is right out of the resource you posted either as CJ or
>FFK. Just changing your identity all the time doesn't make it look like
>there are lots of people who agree with you. Look at page 6 on your Census
>reference on CS and get back to us.
>

[Fighting For Kids]

My website?
I dont have a website.

Sorry to disappoint you.


On 10 Nov 2003 10:35:11 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>>On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 18:38:11 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
>>>> Oh I can prove it look at other posts ive made with statistical
>>>information
>>>> in them.
>>>
>>>You really need to use punctuation.
>>>
>>>There's some truth to every single post here. There are NCPs under the thumb
>>>of the system, there are NCPs that deserve the pressure and there are many
>>>more that don't. There are CPs that abuse the system's power for their own
>>>purposes (beit revenge or greed). The fact is that NO SYSTEM does not solve
>>>the problem and the system AS IT STANDS is part of the problem.
>>>
>>>There's a lack of fairness in the system because it costs too much to manage
>>>each case, it's easier to simply treat every NCP as a deadbeat and while
>>>there are great NCPs out there and a good number of NCPs that would rather
>>>be EQUAL CPs.
>>>
>>>Personally I'd take the CP plunge right now if I could afford the luxuries
>>>of a vehicle and working 4-6 hours a day for the City. I can't, that doesn't
>>>make me a bad father. I pay my support faithfully each month, ahead of the
>>>schedule. Why? Because I'm not a deadbeat. Do I agree with the amount, not
>>>always I think it's been inflated because of the mis-understanding that the
>>>CP is less capable of earning an equal or greater paycheck.
>>>
>>>GREED is the factor on both sides, FFK and Paul Fritz are both right to some
>>>extent. There are NCPs and CPs out there that are both good and bad
>>>examples. The reality is the media and attention is paid to the bad in any
>>>group.
>>>
>>>Finding the solution involves first accepting that the system is necessary
>>>and that it must change.
>>>
>>>Cameron
>>>
>>So do you, NCP's not NCP
>===
>Incorrect. The apostrophe indicates possession, not plurality.
>I noticed you had that wrong on your website as well. You are not using the
>apostrophe when required for contractions and use it incorrectly in the
>application of simple plurality. I can't believe your comp profs let you get
>away with this.
>===
>===

[Dusty]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> BOB,
>
> Even though you think you are so smart you are not. If I really
> wanted to disguise myself do you think I would use the "same" account,
> and the "same" IP address?
>
> Get real.. read the other posts. DUH on your part.

I think you believe we're naive enough to buy into it.

[Freedom]

> Child support encourages greed on the NCP's part. It boils down to the
> following 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those
> children in poverty conditions 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that
> dont pay support to pay support (ie getting rid of big brother) is somehow
> going to make this better 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to
someone
> else, they would rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house
or
> perhaps they just want to hord all their cash for themselves 3.) think
they
> dont have to pay support to actually support a child!!!

There are NCP's who care, and those who don't. Unfortunately, the system is
only starting to realize this.

[Freedom]

Exactly! There are NCP's who care and who are the MAJORITY of NCP's. But
even those NCP's get "ripped off" by current laws that think women make
better parents somehow.


"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> > I have proven you wrong before and will do so again and again and again.
> > So, come on FFK, show me your proof about the claims you made in your
> > previous post:
> >
> > 1.) NCP's who dont support their children often leave those
children
> in
> > poverty conditions
> >
> > 2.) that leaving it up to the NCP's that dont pay support to pay
> support
> > (ie getting rid of big brother) is somehow going to make this better
> >
> > 3.) NCP's dont want to pay their money to someone else, they would
> > rather buy a nice new tv or live in a really nice house or perhaps they
> just
> > want to hord all their cash for themselves
> >
> > (4) 3.) think they dont have to pay support to actually support a
> > child!!!
> >
> > Come on, prove it. Make a believer out of me. Show me your proof.
>
> All of her statements are true if you selectively use the statistics to
push
> your agenda. The issue is the statistics she uses are not representative
of
> the bigger picture. According to the Census Bureau there are 13.529
million
> custodial parents. Of those 1.786 million do not receive CS payments for
> some reason. And of the 1.786 million who report receiving no cash CS
> payments, 29.8% are in poverty. That means 532,000 CP's are in poverty
> because they report receiving no CS. And that's just 3.9% of all 13.529
> million CP's. And some portion of the 3.9% don't understand that CS is
> being paid to the state to reimburse welfare benefits so they report
> receiving no CS themselves.
>
>

[Dusty]

FFK and all the pen names she uses rather remind me of a creature in a
Douglas Adams novel - the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Thrall. If you cover
your eyes, it will think it can't see you and therefore leave you alone.
Hence the need to bring a towel when hitchhiking across the galaxy...

Or when visiting a news group...

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
says...

[major snip]

> ===================
> Then again, she could change her user ID with the hopes of getting a fresh
start
> to begin her game again--Curiously, in her mind, she believes we can't see
her
> behind the new ID. It's kind of like a child thinking that if he is hiding
his
> eyes, we can't see him--Or, it is like the pig who thinks that if he puts
on
> lipstick we won't recognize him. (For the record, please note that I am
> communicating with everyone in the NG except FFK)
> =====

[Dusty]

It doesn't satisfy me at all. Change back to your old news reader.. It has
a better spell checker...

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> Im simply changed newsreaders and left the setting at default.
> I have changed it back to what it was before, does this satisfy you
> Gini?

[Melvin Gamble]

Punctuation, spelling, grammar - they've all been tossed aside as
subordinate to the proper "feeling" in academia today..

Mel Gamble

Gini52 wrote:
>
> In article >, says...
> >
> >On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 18:38:11 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> ...
> >>> Oh I can prove it look at other posts ive made with statistical
> >>information
> >>> in them.
> >>
> >>You really need to use punctuation.
> >>
> >>There's some truth to every single post here. There are NCPs under the thumb
> >>of the system, there are NCPs that deserve the pressure and there are many
> >>more that don't. There are CPs that abuse the system's power for their own
> >>purposes (beit revenge or greed). The fact is that NO SYSTEM does not solve
> >>the problem and the system AS IT STANDS is part of the problem.
> >>
> >>There's a lack of fairness in the system because it costs too much to manage
> >>each case, it's easier to simply treat every NCP as a deadbeat and while
> >>there are great NCPs out there and a good number of NCPs that would rather
> >>be EQUAL CPs.
> >>
> >>Personally I'd take the CP plunge right now if I could afford the luxuries
> >>of a vehicle and working 4-6 hours a day for the City. I can't, that doesn't
> >>make me a bad father. I pay my support faithfully each month, ahead of the
> >>schedule. Why? Because I'm not a deadbeat. Do I agree with the amount, not
> >>always I think it's been inflated because of the mis-understanding that the
> >>CP is less capable of earning an equal or greater paycheck.
> >>
> >>GREED is the factor on both sides, FFK and Paul Fritz are both right to some
> >>extent. There are NCPs and CPs out there that are both good and bad
> >>examples. The reality is the media and attention is paid to the bad in any
> >>group.
> >>
> >>Finding the solution involves first accepting that the system is necessary
> >>and that it must change.
> >>
> >>Cameron
> >>
> >So do you, NCP's not NCP
> ===
> Incorrect. The apostrophe indicates possession, not plurality.
> I noticed you had that wrong on your website as well. You are not using the
> apostrophe when required for contractions and use it incorrectly in the
> application of simple plurality. I can't believe your comp profs let you get
> away with this.
> ===
> ===

[Gini52]

In article >, Melvin Gamble says...
>
>Punctuation, spelling, grammar - they've all been tossed aside as
>subordinate to the proper "feeling" in academia today..
====
Not around here. My husband keeps a big jar of red pens on his desk and must
replenish frequently--even though the mistakes he's correcting *should* have
been corrected before the students left high school. (I was ecstatic one day
when I ran across a closeout of red pens at Staples.:-)
====
====

[Cameron Stevens]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 18:38:11 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> ...
> >> Oh I can prove it look at other posts ive made with statistical
> >information
> >> in them.
> >
> >You really need to use punctuation.

> So do you, NCP's not NCP

Ahem,

Apostrophes are used to form plurals of letters that appear in lowercase;
here the rule appears to be more typographical than grammatical, e.g. "three
ps" versus "three p's." To form the plural of a lowercase letter, place 's
after the letter. There is no need for apostrophes indicating a plural on
capitalized letters, numbers, and symbols (though keep in mind that some
editors, teachers, and professors still prefer them).
from: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html

[Melvin Gamble]

I know this is off-topic somewhat, but I have to ask: Are the classes
he's teaching ones where proper English is germaine to the class, like
"English 101" or a writing class, or is he demanding correct spelling
and usage in classes where that isn't the focus of the class? If the
latter, give him a heartfelt "thank you" from me, please....

Mel Gamble

Gini52 wrote:
>
> In article >, Melvin Gamble says...
> >
> >Punctuation, spelling, grammar - they've all been tossed aside as
> >subordinate to the proper "feeling" in academia today..
> ====
> Not around here. My husband keeps a big jar of red pens on his desk and must
> replenish frequently--even though the mistakes he's correcting *should* have
> been corrected before the students left high school. (I was ecstatic one day
> when I ran across a closeout of red pens at Staples.:-)
> ====
> ====

[Gini52]

In article >, Melvin Gamble says...
>
>I know this is off-topic somewhat, but I have to ask: Are the classes
>he's teaching ones where proper English is germaine to the class, like
>"English 101" or a writing class, or is he demanding correct spelling
>and usage in classes where that isn't the focus of the class? If the
>latter, give him a heartfelt "thank you" from me, please....
=====
Will do. He teaches history. Most of the profs I've had demand proper
grammar/spelling on papers regardless of the class. Comp. 101 should be the
first required college class. OTOH, those kids should have learned how to write
a complete sentence in elementary school but, many haven't. Many don't even use
a spellchecker. My husband has much more patience with them than I do. I
wouldn't read through a 10 page paper marking all the spelling/grammar/structure
errors, although I have helped him out with that when he's on overload. If it
were my class, I would require a rewrite or give them a 'D.' (That's a sure-fire
way to reduce class load ;-)
=====
=====

>Mel Gamble
>
>Gini52 wrote:
>>
>> In article >, Melvin Gamble says...
>> >
>> >Punctuation, spelling, grammar - they've all been tossed aside as
>> >subordinate to the proper "feeling" in academia today..
>> ====
>> Not around here. My husband keeps a big jar of red pens on his desk and must
>> replenish frequently--even though the mistakes he's correcting *should* have
>> been corrected before the students left high school. (I was ecstatic one day
>> when I ran across a closeout of red pens at Staples.:-)
>> ====
>> ====