"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:g6m3k.679$Jj1.275@trndny02...
"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob" wrote in message
...

"DVD" wrote in message
...

I told you that I got the $billion number for unpaid child support
from an article in the times, you were too lazy to look it up. Then
you or someone else posted the number as being 104 billion in
uncollected support. So if I was lying I was lying in favor of your
argument. I guess your claim is that I am lying about reading a
newspaper article, ridiculous as it seems I guess you need to hang
your hat on something when you can't argue a point honestly. Now,
back to the Times, tell me again about its liberal bias and how
liberals are causing all of these custody problems. I will post the
link to that article and a few others after you do.

You asked if anyone could prove the NYT was wrong, not if they could
prove you were lying. I posted the link to the federal OCSE
non-partisan study that quantifies the amount of arrearage CS at
$105.4 billion and explained how they come up with that number.

There is a big difference between lying and being mistaken. Your
recollection of what you read in the NYT was a gross mistake since it
understated the government's version of arrearages by $104 billion.

But thank you for admitting you might have lied. Now it is time to
admit either the NYT was wrong or your recollection of the facts you
read about in the NYT was wrong.
========================
Or maybe even just post a link to the article. That might help (not
that he can).

He's just bluffing and covering up his own foolishness. If none of us
can find the article, he can't either.

The NYT is so liberal they would never understate a social issue like CS
arrearages by $104 billion. If anything they would add a few billion
dollars to enhance their social commentary. It is pretty clear he
thought no one here would know enough to challenge him on his assertion
since he thinks we are all a bunch of whiners talking about experiences.
===
And trailer-dwelling deadbeat dads.

In short, he considers himself far superior to any of us, so we can't
possibly know what we are talking about. I'm sure he wonders why we
haven't caved in to his superior arguments yet. I'm betting that he hopes
that lots of other people are following the conversation, oohing and
aahing at his wit and wisdom. I must say, he is somewhat entertaining, the
way he jumps on issues in posts that he thinks he can challenge
successfully (such as Chris's sig line), while totally ignoring questions
that he has no answer to. And, when challenged, he posts the NY Times
addy. chickle

Here's the deal. I know from past experience the NYT used to require
registration to read their news stories. I signed up with a slight
variation on my name and I still get tons of junk mail under that altered
spelling. The NYT obviously sells their reader list despite all their
privacy policy statements to the contrary.

Then the NYT tried to charge a subscription for readers to read their op-ed
pages online. I refused to do that. They have since dropped that
requirement. I guess a lot of people could care less what Broder and Dowd
have to say.

Back on topic - I found a NYT story from February 2005 (when DVD showed up)
stating the CS arrearage amount nationally was $95 billion in 2003 not the
$1 billion currently s/he claimed. Now tonight I can't access the story
because the web site has gone back to requiring a username and password.

I guess since the Times is now selling off real estate like their Flatiron
Building in Times Square to Italian investors, they are out after expanded
revenue sources.