deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in message
news:7a2db8f70a160@uwe...
DB wrote:
"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in

What's a "bulitan?"
You don't know what a bulitan is?
It's the same thing as a bulletin, but is is spelled bulitan-don't know
why.

LOL, don't know why!

Grammer for Air Heads!

You are not oppressed jack ass! Don't compare yourself to the black man
who
DOES know what oppression is.

Can you spell Institutional Servitude?

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in

What's a "bulitan?"
You don't know what a bulitan is?
It's the same thing as a bulletin, but is is spelled bulitan-don't know
why.

LOL, don't know why!

Grammer for Air Heads!

I looked bulitan up on dictionary.com, and it's not there. Don't know why.

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in message
news:7a2c338844bfc@uwe...
teachrmama wrote:
=======================================
THIS MESSAGE NOT POSTED VIA FAMILYKB.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
though you should not have said it at all. Is that what you are trying
to
say?

Are you certain you posted the comments IN CONTEXT? Or did you just post
the parts you thought would stir things up?
I copied her comment. All she said was "Huh-and blacks should sit in the
back
of the bus because it is illegal for them to sit anywhere else."

That is all of her comment.

But did you take it in the context of the thread--which is what we do here
on usenet.....

=========================================
THIS MESSAGE NOT POSTED VIA FAMILYKB.
THEY ARE STEALING CONTENT FROM FROM USENET
=========================================
"teachrmama" wrote
.....................

I looked bulitan up on dictionary.com, and it's not there. Don't know
why.
==
You obviously used the wrong dictionary.

Illiana via FamilyKB.com wrote:
Gini wrote:
What's a "bulitan?"
You don't know what a bulitan is?
It's the same thing as a bulletin, but is is spelled bulitan-don't know why.



Oh wow. I needed a laugh; thanks!

Anywho, everyone agreed that that coment was uncalled for, regardless what
the message you were trying to send. Child support is different from civil
rights. Nobody was lynched for not paying child support, and not paying child
support doesn't give your ex, or a group of ex's the right to come into your
house, or kidnap you off of the street for the purpose of hurting, wounding,
or murdering you because of the color of your skin.

Only the people here find such a comparison acceptable.



--

Sarah Gray

Illiana via FamilyKB.com wrote:
DB wrote:
"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in *ethical*.

Lets see if she can comprehend this concept?

[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
such
as this.
OK, Sheep like you need tohave it spelled out!
Abortion legal, selling cigarets that kill people is legal, selling alcohol
to alcoholics is legal, does it make it right?

O.K pig, you need to have it spelled out!

Women choose to have abortions-they are not forced on them (except that girl
whose parents kidnapped her in an attempt to make her have an abortion)

People choose to buy cigarettes, alcohol-they are not forced to do so

What black person chose to be lynched?
How is it that you fell it is o.k to trivialize the things that went on
during that time to an issue of child support?


a man that impregnates a woman is forced to a parent in the sense that
he has no post conception rights. I'm not nearly as hard-line about this
stuff as some folks on here, but I at least can understand their
arguments, geez!

--

Sarah Gray

============================================
THIS MESSAGE NOT POSTED VIA FAMILYKB.
THEY ARE STEALING CONTENT FROM FROM USENET
============================================
"teachrmama" wrote

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" wrote
teachrmama wrote:
=======================================
THIS MESSAGE NOT POSTED VIA FAMILYKB.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
though you should not have said it at all. Is that what you are trying
to
say?

Are you certain you posted the comments IN CONTEXT? Or did you just post
the parts you thought would stir things up?
I copied her comment. All she said was "Huh-and blacks should sit in the
back
of the bus because it is illegal for them to sit anywhere else."

That is all of her comment.

But did you take it in the context of the thread--which is what we do here
on usenet.....
==
I think she left out *her* part which precipitated my comment--She said
(paraphased):
Well, men should pay it (outrageous CS) because it's the law. To which I
then responded (sarcastically)
something like: and blacks should sit in the back of the bus because it's
illegal for them to sit anywhere else.
Now, in Prescious Illiana's little mind, because I used the present tense
(should sit), I must believe
that blacks should sit in the back of the bus--now. She has failed to see
the correlation w/unjust laws or the sarcasm. She also
failed to consider why I would say "it's illegal for them to sit anywhere
else" if I were stating they should be in
the back of the bus, now. As far as I know it is not illegal for blacks to
sit in the front of the bus anywhere in the United States...now.
Poor Illiana simply wants to appear a victim in any capacity she can conjure
up. As someone else posted--The worst part of all this
is that she has custody of her kids and is setting this kind of role model
for them.

Sarah Gray wrote:
"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in *ethical*.

[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
How is it that you fell it is o.k to trivialize the things that went on
during that time to an issue of child support?

a man that impregnates a woman is forced to a parent in the sense that
he has no post conception rights. I'm not nearly as hard-line about this
stuff as some folks on here, but I at least can understand their
arguments, geez!

You understand aproval from strangers. Can your ex just sign away his rights,
and you would let him? Be real, you enjoy the crack pipe too much. You were
complaining about $75.00! You change your stand point to gain approval from
people who don't care about their own kids, let alone yours.

At least I have my own mind...

--
Message posted via FamilyKB.com
http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.a...nting/200710/1

Gini wrote:
============================================
THIS MESSAGE NOT POSTED VIA FAMILYKB.
THEY ARE STEALING CONTENT FROM FROM USENET
============================================

teachrmama wrote:
=======================================
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
But did you take it in the context of the thread--which is what we do here
on usenet.....
==
I think she left out *her* part which precipitated my comment--She said
(paraphased):
Well, men should pay it (outrageous CS) because it's the law. To which I
then responded (sarcastically)
something like: and blacks should sit in the back of the bus because it's
illegal for them to sit anywhere else.
Now, in Prescious Illiana's little mind, because I used the present tense
(should sit), I must believe
that blacks should sit in the back of the bus--now. She has failed to see
the correlation w/unjust laws or the sarcasm. She also
failed to consider why I would say "it's illegal for them to sit anywhere
else" if I were stating they should be in
the back of the bus, now. As far as I know it is not illegal for blacks to
sit in the front of the bus anywhere in the United States...now.
Poor Illiana simply wants to appear a victim in any capacity she can conjure
up. As someone else posted--The worst part of all this
is that she has custody of her kids and is setting this kind of role model
for them.
OMG-get over yourself. It is pointless to even go here again. Shame on you
for saying it, no matter how it was meant.

If you think civil rights of a race of people is on the same level as child
support you are the idiot. There was no need to go there, but you did anyway.
Try to justify it any way you want, but you should never have said it!

--
Message posted via http://www.familykb.com

Illiana via FamilyKB.com wrote:
Sarah Gray wrote:
"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in *ethical*.

[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
How is it that you fell it is o.k to trivialize the things that went on
during that time to an issue of child support?
a man that impregnates a woman is forced to a parent in the sense that
he has no post conception rights. I'm not nearly as hard-line about this
stuff as some folks on here, but I at least can understand their
arguments, geez!

You understand aproval from strangers. Can your ex just sign away his rights,
and you would let him? Be real, you enjoy the crack pipe too much. You were
complaining about $75.00! You change your stand point to gain approval from
people who don't care about their own kids, let alone yours.

At least I have my own mind...


My daughter is 5, not a week old. I am not complaining about $75. I am
complaining about my daughter's father *insisting* that I take him to
court over support because he will not agree to a reasonable amount,
which he can afford. Hypothesizing about fixing the current statutes to
reflect equity for fathers does not change the responsibilities of men
who have already *chosen* to be part of their children's lives.

--

Sarah Gray