--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"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)

It looks as if DVD is tired from dodgng all the questions he could not
answer, and has slunk away, as predicted. Oh, well...

I liken it to cancer. Every once in a while it flares up and a lil' chemo is
necessary to knock it back down. That is exactly what this type of poster
is. They think that somehow they are going to hijack a newsgroup with their
false claims and everyone is just going to lay down for them. But when they
get enough pounding of truth, eventually they disappear. Some just take
longer than others. But nonetheless, such "cancer" never quite goes away.
Wonder who the NEXT fool will be......



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.

Maybe they should consider changing some of their policies if they want to
keep subscribers.