Discussion:
Narcissism
(too old to reply)
Ted
2009-07-11 05:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Narcissism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Narcissism describes the trait of excessive self-love based on self-
image or ego, as well as lack of empathy for others.

The term is derived from the Greek mythology of Narcissus. Narcissus
was a handsome Greek youth who rejected the desperate advances of the
nymph Echo. As punishment, he was doomed to fall in love with his own
reflection in a pool of water. Unable to consummate his love,
Narcissus pined away and changed into a flower that bears his name,
the narcissus.

In psychology and psychiatry, excessive narcissism is recognized as a
severe personality disorder. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and
narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit,
egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is
sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of
others.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-11 13:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Narcissism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Narcissism describes the trait of excessive self-love based on self-
image or ego, as well as lack of empathy for others.
The term is derived from the Greek mythology of Narcissus. Narcissus
was a handsome Greek youth who rejected the desperate advances of the
nymph Echo. As punishment, he was doomed to fall in love with his own
reflection in a pool of water. Unable to consummate his love,
Narcissus pined away and changed into a flower that bears his name,
the narcissus.
In psychology and psychiatry, excessive narcissism is recognized as a
severe personality disorder. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and
narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit,
egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is
sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of
others.
Now read dusty's posted response to the Michael Jackson post and see how
much of this definition applies there, I'd say all of it except I don't
think he is narcissistic as much as he is just stupid and unable to
think of anything other than his 'every child left behind' agenda.

Nice to see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in
the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense
postings or attempts to insult me.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-11 13:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Narcissism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Narcissism describes the trait of excessive self-love based on self-
image or ego, as well as lack of empathy for others.
The term is derived from the Greek mythology of Narcissus. Narcissus
was a handsome Greek youth who rejected the desperate advances of the
nymph Echo. As punishment, he was doomed to fall in love with his own
reflection in a pool of water. Unable to consummate his love,
Narcissus pined away and changed into a flower that bears his name,
the narcissus.
In psychology and psychiatry, excessive narcissism is recognized as a
severe personality disorder. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and
narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit,
egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is
sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of
others.
Now read dusty's posted response to the Michael Jackson post and see how
much of this definition applies there, I'd say all of it except I don't
think he is narcissistic as much as he is just stupid and unable to
think of anything other than his 'every child left behind' agenda.

I see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in
the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense
postings or attempts to insult me. Has anyone proven or disproven the
claim that MJ died a pauper? Or would that contradict the group's code
where you stick to every lie told by another deadbeat no matter how
stupiud it is.

The indifference to the plight of others is an intersting concept, can
you apply that to a group of guys who refuse to admit that they should
be responsible for their own kids and look for any excuse to deny that
responsibility? That is a pretty sad example of indifference to the
plight of others. I don't want to pay because their mother spends the
money wahhhh!! The kids are much better off if I contribute nothing at
all WAAHHHHHH. Talk about narcissism, I'm surprised none of your shrinks
have brought this to your attention before.
Chris
2009-07-12 15:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Ted
Narcissism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Narcissism describes the trait of excessive self-love based on self-
image or ego, as well as lack of empathy for others.
The term is derived from the Greek mythology of Narcissus. Narcissus
was a handsome Greek youth who rejected the desperate advances of the
nymph Echo. As punishment, he was doomed to fall in love with his own
reflection in a pool of water. Unable to consummate his love,
Narcissus pined away and changed into a flower that bears his name,
the narcissus.
In psychology and psychiatry, excessive narcissism is recognized as a
severe personality disorder. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and
narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit,
egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is
sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of
others.
Now read dusty's posted response to the Michael Jackson post and see how
much of this definition applies there, I'd say all of it except I don't
think he is narcissistic as much as he is just stupid and unable to
think of anything other than his 'every child left behind' agenda.
I see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in
the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense
postings or attempts to insult me. Has anyone proven or disproven the
claim that MJ died a pauper? Or would that contradict the group's code
where you stick to every lie told by another deadbeat no matter how
stupiud it is.
The indifference to the plight of others is an intersting concept, can you
apply that to a group of guys who refuse to admit that they should be
responsible for their own kids and look for any excuse to deny that
responsibility?
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make the
choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying this
pesky lil' fact?
Post by x***@xxx.com
That is a pretty sad example of indifference to the plight of others. I
don't want to pay because their mother spends the money wahhhh!! The kids
are much better off if I contribute nothing at all WAAHHHHHH. Talk about
narcissism, I'm surprised none of your shrinks have brought this to your
attention before.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-13 03:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy and
rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when it
comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he sends
another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.

I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological
father in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16
year old son he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad refused
the offer because it was his responsibility as a father to pay those
bills. See how it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All
you need to do is grow up and stop whining.
Dusty
2009-07-13 05:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids..
You are nothing of the sort. You are a despicable lowlife who claims to
make a 6 figure income and wonders why those that don't make what you claim
to make can't afford imputed child support payments.

Whenever someone states a fact, you counter with ad homonym attacks and
antidotal statements.

When pressed to provide factual evidence to back up your claims you deliver
with more of the same: ad homonym attacks and (my favorite) "I found it at
www.NYT.com, go find it."

And whenever someone posts their story of what happened, or is happening to
them, you attack them.

You are a fraud; a deceiver; a spinner of lies.

In short, you are a sociopathic cyber-bully.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-13 06:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dusty
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to
make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on
denying this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids..
You are nothing of the sort. You are a despicable lowlife who claims to
make a 6 figure income and wonders why those that don't make what you
claim to make can't afford imputed child support payments.
My kids live with me, I pay the bills, I coach their teams, take them to
the park .... show me some proof that I am not responsible for them. I
can show you some photos of us from this weekend at the beachhouse if
that counts as proof. I can also prove to you that I am responsible for
them regardless of my income, they are my kids and I would take care of
them if I made no money. They are my kids, they have my DNA so I am
responsible for them no matter what lame stories you tell me.
Post by Dusty
Whenever someone states a fact, you counter with ad homonym attacks and
antidotal statements.
As do you, except yours make no sense at all. You are just mad that
someone called you on your bullshit. Have you proven yet that MJ died a
pauper or is that just more bullshit from you?
Post by Dusty
When pressed to provide factual evidence to back up your claims you
deliver with more of the same: ad homonym attacks and (my favorite) "I
found it at www.NYT.com, go find it."
No, I added up the totals from YOUR links and proved that you are a
liar. Did you forget that part of the thread deadbeat? Maybe you should
review last week's lies and stop trying to dredge up your old lies from
3 months ago. I see you are just trying to preach to the choir with your
NY Times reference but try to remember that you were proven wrong by the
NYTimes 3 months ago just like you are being proven wrong by your own
references now.
Post by Dusty
And whenever someone posts their story of what happened, or is happening
to them, you attack them.
No I don't. I mostly ignore them because I assume that most of what you
post is lies, just like your recent MJ post was filled with lies to
support your deadbeat agenda. Truth is, whether I attack someone or not,
if they are being honest there is nothing vulnerable to attack. In your
case there is nothing but vulnerability because you post lies with no
substance to support them.
Post by Dusty
You are a fraud; a deceiver; a spinner of lies.
And you have been proven to be a liar who whines when he gets called on
it. I noticed that you haven't proven any of my statements to be false
yet ... is that because you can't do it? Show me some proof that MJ died
a pauper like you claimed. We both know it is a lie but if you can prove
it then I will apologize for calling you a whining, lying, piece of shit.
Post by Dusty
In short, you are a sociopathic cyber-bully.
Wahhhh, I can't lie to my idiot friends in public without getting called
on it anymore ..... wahhhhhhh .... how can I defend my deadbeat
position if I can't lie constantly ...... wahhhhhh the big bad bully is
calling me on my lies ..... wahhhh.

I'd recommend that you ignore me if you can't handle simple logic or
questions in response to your lying, whining bullshit.
Dusty
2009-07-13 21:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Dusty
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids..
You are nothing of the sort. You are a despicable lowlife who claims to
make a 6 figure income and wonders why those that don't make what you
claim to make can't afford imputed child support payments.
My kids live with me, I pay the bills, I coach their teams, take them to
the park .... show me some proof that I am not responsible for them. I can
show you some photos of us from this weekend at the beachhouse if that
counts as proof. I can also prove to you that I am responsible for them
regardless of my income, they are my kids and I would take care of them if
I made no money. They are my kids, they have my DNA so I am responsible
for them no matter what lame stories you tell me.
Post by Dusty
Whenever someone states a fact, you counter with ad homonym attacks and
antidotal statements.
As do you, except yours make no sense at all. You are just mad that
someone called you on your bullshit. Have you proven yet that MJ died a
pauper or is that just more bullshit from you?
Post by Dusty
When pressed to provide factual evidence to back up your claims you
deliver with more of the same: ad homonym attacks and (my favorite) "I
found it at www.NYT.com, go find it."
No, I added up the totals from YOUR links and proved that you are a liar.
Did you forget that part of the thread deadbeat? Maybe you should review
last week's lies and stop trying to dredge up your old lies from 3 months
ago. I see you are just trying to preach to the choir with your NY Times
reference but try to remember that you were proven wrong by the NYTimes 3
months ago just like you are being proven wrong by your own references
now.
Post by Dusty
And whenever someone posts their story of what happened, or is happening
to them, you attack them.
No I don't. I mostly ignore them because I assume that most of what you
post is lies, just like your recent MJ post was filled with lies to
support your deadbeat agenda. Truth is, whether I attack someone or not,
if they are being honest there is nothing vulnerable to attack. In your
case there is nothing but vulnerability because you post lies with no
substance to support them.
Post by Dusty
You are a fraud; a deceiver; a spinner of lies.
And you have been proven to be a liar who whines when he gets called on
it. I noticed that you haven't proven any of my statements to be false yet
... is that because you can't do it? Show me some proof that MJ died a
pauper like you claimed. We both know it is a lie but if you can prove it
then I will apologize for calling you a whining, lying, piece of shit.
Post by Dusty
In short, you are a sociopathic cyber-bully.
Wahhhh, I can't lie to my idiot friends in public without getting called
on it anymore ..... wahhhhhhh .... how can I defend my deadbeat position
if I can't lie constantly ...... wahhhhhh the big bad bully is calling me
on my lies ..... wahhhh.
I'd recommend that you ignore me if you can't handle simple logic or
questions in response to your lying, whining bullshit.
Good lord, you couldn't handle simple logic, you're brain would explode.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-14 01:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dusty
Post by x***@xxx.com
I'd recommend that you ignore me if you can't handle simple logic or
questions in response to your lying, whining bullshit.
Good lord, you couldn't handle simple logic, you're brain would explode.
I see, does this mean you will take my advice and ignore my posts or do
you plan to continue whining and lying and then trying to insult me when
you can't think of a lie that doesn't make you seem like a complete
douchebag?

Try this simple logic:

You claimed that MJ died a pauper in order to back up your own bullshit.

I told you that you were wrong.

You claimed I was lying and proceeded to post links which showed that
his assets exceeded his debt by 800 million dollars.

You then followed up by claiming you were correct about him being a pauper.

I explained it to you again and you respond with name calling and a
complete avoidance of the topic about which you are wrong.

You are just a whining, lying crybaby and even if you understand logic
you just don't have the sense to try using it.

Do you have some proof that I am not responsible for my kids? I'm sure
if you did you would have brought it up, no?
Phil #3
2009-07-15 13:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dusty
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Dusty
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids..
You are nothing of the sort. You are a despicable lowlife who claims to
make a 6 figure income and wonders why those that don't make what you
claim to make can't afford imputed child support payments.
My kids live with me, I pay the bills, I coach their teams, take them to
the park .... show me some proof that I am not responsible for them. I
can show you some photos of us from this weekend at the beachhouse if
that counts as proof. I can also prove to you that I am responsible for
them regardless of my income, they are my kids and I would take care of
them if I made no money. They are my kids, they have my DNA so I am
responsible for them no matter what lame stories you tell me.
Post by Dusty
Whenever someone states a fact, you counter with ad homonym attacks and
antidotal statements.
As do you, except yours make no sense at all. You are just mad that
someone called you on your bullshit. Have you proven yet that MJ died a
pauper or is that just more bullshit from you?
Post by Dusty
When pressed to provide factual evidence to back up your claims you
deliver with more of the same: ad homonym attacks and (my favorite) "I
found it at www.NYT.com, go find it."
No, I added up the totals from YOUR links and proved that you are a liar.
Did you forget that part of the thread deadbeat? Maybe you should review
last week's lies and stop trying to dredge up your old lies from 3 months
ago. I see you are just trying to preach to the choir with your NY Times
reference but try to remember that you were proven wrong by the NYTimes 3
months ago just like you are being proven wrong by your own references
now.
Post by Dusty
And whenever someone posts their story of what happened, or is happening
to them, you attack them.
No I don't. I mostly ignore them because I assume that most of what you
post is lies, just like your recent MJ post was filled with lies to
support your deadbeat agenda. Truth is, whether I attack someone or not,
if they are being honest there is nothing vulnerable to attack. In your
case there is nothing but vulnerability because you post lies with no
substance to support them.
Post by Dusty
You are a fraud; a deceiver; a spinner of lies.
And you have been proven to be a liar who whines when he gets called on
it. I noticed that you haven't proven any of my statements to be false
yet ... is that because you can't do it? Show me some proof that MJ died
a pauper like you claimed. We both know it is a lie but if you can prove
it then I will apologize for calling you a whining, lying, piece of shit.
Post by Dusty
In short, you are a sociopathic cyber-bully.
Wahhhh, I can't lie to my idiot friends in public without getting called
on it anymore ..... wahhhhhhh .... how can I defend my deadbeat position
if I can't lie constantly ...... wahhhhhh the big bad bully is calling me
on my lies ..... wahhhh.
I'd recommend that you ignore me if you can't handle simple logic or
questions in response to your lying, whining bullshit.
Good lord, you couldn't handle simple logic, you're brain would explode.
XXX criticizing anyone's lack of logic. is just too funny.
XXX criticizes those who have been through "family court" for failing to
understand and agree with what XXX read about it in the NYTimes.
Phil #3
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-15 15:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Post by Dusty
Good lord, you couldn't handle simple logic, you're brain would explode.
XXX criticizing anyone's lack of logic. is just too funny.
XXX criticizes those who have been through "family court" for failing to
understand and agree with what XXX read about it in the NYTimes.
Phil #3
What a pile of bullshit, reread this thread and show me one mention of
family court by me. Then show me where or when I used the NY Times as a
reference to prove anything about Michael Jackson (the topic you all
seem to be lying like crazy in order to avoid btw)

This is why I enjoy these threads, you all lie and swear to each other's
lies, when you are made fools of you resort to more lies and lying back
and forth to each other to assuage your hurt feelings. Dusty is
obviously the dumbest of you, I can see why you feel the need to protect
him from reality. You seem to be the biggest liar though, does that make
you a leader around these trailerparks?
Phil #3
2009-07-22 00:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
Post by Dusty
Good lord, you couldn't handle simple logic, you're brain would explode.
XXX criticizing anyone's lack of logic. is just too funny.
XXX criticizes those who have been through "family court" for failing to
understand and agree with what XXX read about it in the NYTimes.
Phil #3
What a pile of bullshit, reread this thread and show me one mention of
family court by me. Then show me where or when I used the NY Times as a
reference to prove anything about Michael Jackson (the topic you all seem
to be lying like crazy in order to avoid btw)
This is why I enjoy these threads, you all lie and swear to each other's
lies, when you are made fools of you resort to more lies and lying back
and forth to each other to assuage your hurt feelings. Dusty is obviously
the dumbest of you, I can see why you feel the need to protect him from
reality. You seem to be the biggest liar though, does that make you a
leader around these trailerparks?
You poor thing. See what I mean about lack of logic? I'm not talking about
this thread necessarily as you show zero logic in every post and I was
referring to another of your posts where you used the NYTimes as a reference
in regard to family court.
You are a sick individual who thrives on insult and accusation. Are you by
chance a divorce attorney or perhaps a "family court" judge? If not, you
missed your calling.
Phil #3
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-22 01:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
Post by Dusty
Good lord, you couldn't handle simple logic, you're brain would explode.
XXX criticizing anyone's lack of logic. is just too funny.
XXX criticizes those who have been through "family court" for failing to
understand and agree with what XXX read about it in the NYTimes.
Phil #3
What a pile of bullshit, reread this thread and show me one mention of
family court by me. Then show me where or when I used the NY Times as a
reference to prove anything about Michael Jackson (the topic you all seem
to be lying like crazy in order to avoid btw)
This is why I enjoy these threads, you all lie and swear to each other's
lies, when you are made fools of you resort to more lies and lying back
and forth to each other to assuage your hurt feelings. Dusty is obviously
the dumbest of you, I can see why you feel the need to protect him from
reality. You seem to be the biggest liar though, does that make you a
leader around these trailerparks?
You poor thing. See what I mean about lack of logic? I'm not talking about
this thread necessarily as you show zero logic in every post and I was
referring to another of your posts where you used the NYTimes as a reference
in regard to family court.
You are a sick individual who thrives on insult and accusation. Are you by
chance a divorce attorney or perhaps a "family court" judge? If not, you
missed your calling.
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I used the NYTimes as a referference to a phenomenoln in NYC. If I
recall the article showed the increase in nyc children over the past 6
years. I could never be a lawyer or judge because it would involve
dealing with lowlives, dimwits and liars for my paycheck. I can see
how you've had bad luck with the court system though. The only
gratifying thing is that you have proven to me that you absolutely got
what you deserved from everyone you dealt with. I can see why you need
to be insulated by a group of like minded people who will swear to
every lie you tell.
Chris
2009-07-23 04:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
Post by Dusty
Good lord, you couldn't handle simple logic, you're brain would explode.
XXX criticizing anyone's lack of logic. is just too funny.
XXX criticizes those who have been through "family court" for failing to
understand and agree with what XXX read about it in the NYTimes.
Phil #3
What a pile of bullshit, reread this thread and show me one mention of
family court by me. Then show me where or when I used the NY Times as a
reference to prove anything about Michael Jackson (the topic you all seem
to be lying like crazy in order to avoid btw)
This is why I enjoy these threads, you all lie and swear to each other's
lies, when you are made fools of you resort to more lies and lying back
and forth to each other to assuage your hurt feelings. Dusty is obviously
the dumbest of you, I can see why you feel the need to protect him from
reality. You seem to be the biggest liar though, does that make you a
leader around these trailerparks?
You poor thing. See what I mean about lack of logic? I'm not talking about
this thread necessarily as you show zero logic in every post and I was
referring to another of your posts where you used the NYTimes as a reference
in regard to family court.
You are a sick individual who thrives on insult and accusation. Are you by
chance a divorce attorney or perhaps a "family court" judge? If not, you
missed your calling.
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I used the NYTimes as a referference to a phenomenoln in NYC. If I
recall the article showed the increase in nyc children over the past 6
years. I could never be a lawyer or judge because it would involve
dealing with lowlives, dimwits and liars for my paycheck. I can see
how you've had bad luck with the court system though. The only
gratifying thing is that you have proven to me that you absolutely got
what you deserved from everyone you dealt with. I can see why you need
to be insulated by a group of like minded people who will swear to
every lie you tell.

***********

You just made an awful lot of claims. Care to back em'?
Phil #3
2009-07-23 16:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
Post by Dusty
Good lord, you couldn't handle simple logic, you're brain would explode.
XXX criticizing anyone's lack of logic. is just too funny.
XXX criticizes those who have been through "family court" for failing to
understand and agree with what XXX read about it in the NYTimes.
Phil #3
What a pile of bullshit, reread this thread and show me one mention of
family court by me. Then show me where or when I used the NY Times as a
reference to prove anything about Michael Jackson (the topic you all seem
to be lying like crazy in order to avoid btw)
This is why I enjoy these threads, you all lie and swear to each other's
lies, when you are made fools of you resort to more lies and lying back
and forth to each other to assuage your hurt feelings. Dusty is obviously
the dumbest of you, I can see why you feel the need to protect him from
reality. You seem to be the biggest liar though, does that make you a
leader around these trailerparks?
You poor thing. See what I mean about lack of logic? I'm not talking about
this thread necessarily as you show zero logic in every post and I was
referring to another of your posts where you used the NYTimes as a reference
in regard to family court.
You are a sick individual who thrives on insult and accusation. Are you by
chance a divorce attorney or perhaps a "family court" judge? If not, you
missed your calling.
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I used the NYTimes as a referference to a phenomenoln in NYC. If I
recall the article showed the increase in nyc children over the past 6
years. I could never be a lawyer or judge because it would involve
dealing with lowlives, dimwits and liars for my paycheck. I can see
how you've had bad luck with the court system though. The only
gratifying thing is that you have proven to me that you absolutely got
what you deserved from everyone you dealt with. I can see why you need
to be insulated by a group of like minded people who will swear to
every lie you tell.
*********************************************

As always, you see exactly what you want to see, which is rarely the truth
about anything.
Perhaps someday you will mature.
Phil #3
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-24 02:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
As always, you see exactly what you want to see, which is rarely the truth
about anything.
Perhaps someday you will mature.
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Might happen before you grow up and admit that fathers have
responsibilities.
Phil #3
2009-07-24 13:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
As always, you see exactly what you want to see, which is rarely the truth
about anything.
Perhaps someday you will mature.
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Might happen before you grow up and admit that fathers have
responsibilities.
********************************************************

Yes, their responsibilities are those that the mother and/or the court
decides for him, which is what I've been saying all along (that you either
don't read of can't understand).

Phil #3
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-25 01:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Might happen before you grow up and admit that fathers have
responsibilities.
********************************************************
Yes, their responsibilities are those that the mother and/or the court
decides for him, which is what I've been saying all along (that you
either don't read of can't understand).
Phil #3
No they aren't, but thanks for proving conclusively that you not only
have no idea what the word means but that you have no intention of ever
being a responsible adult. Just a hint, blaming others for your lack of
responsibility is a bad habit that I have already broken in my 7 year
old. You all prove an old adage, nobody is useless ... its just that
sometimes a person's only use is to serve as a bad example.
Phil #3
2009-07-30 13:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Might happen before you grow up and admit that fathers have
responsibilities.
********************************************************
Yes, their responsibilities are those that the mother and/or the court
decides for him, which is what I've been saying all along (that you
either don't read of can't understand).
Phil #3
No they aren't, but thanks for proving conclusively that you not only have
no idea what the word means but that you have no intention of ever being a
responsible adult. Just a hint, blaming others for your lack of
responsibility is a bad habit that I have already broken in my 7 year old.
You all prove an old adage, nobody is useless ... its just that sometimes
a person's only use is to serve as a bad example.
Proving yet again that you don't even know what YOU'RE saying, much less
what others are.

Phil #3
Chris
2009-07-15 15:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Post by Dusty
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Dusty
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to
make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on
denying this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids..
You are nothing of the sort. You are a despicable lowlife who claims
to make a 6 figure income and wonders why those that don't make what
you claim to make can't afford imputed child support payments.
My kids live with me, I pay the bills, I coach their teams, take them to
the park .... show me some proof that I am not responsible for them. I
can show you some photos of us from this weekend at the beachhouse if
that counts as proof. I can also prove to you that I am responsible for
them regardless of my income, they are my kids and I would take care of
them if I made no money. They are my kids, they have my DNA so I am
responsible for them no matter what lame stories you tell me.
Post by Dusty
Whenever someone states a fact, you counter with ad homonym attacks and
antidotal statements.
As do you, except yours make no sense at all. You are just mad that
someone called you on your bullshit. Have you proven yet that MJ died a
pauper or is that just more bullshit from you?
Post by Dusty
When pressed to provide factual evidence to back up your claims you
deliver with more of the same: ad homonym attacks and (my favorite) "I
found it at www.NYT.com, go find it."
No, I added up the totals from YOUR links and proved that you are a
liar. Did you forget that part of the thread deadbeat? Maybe you should
review last week's lies and stop trying to dredge up your old lies from
3 months ago. I see you are just trying to preach to the choir with your
NY Times reference but try to remember that you were proven wrong by the
NYTimes 3 months ago just like you are being proven wrong by your own
references now.
Post by Dusty
And whenever someone posts their story of what happened, or is
happening to them, you attack them.
No I don't. I mostly ignore them because I assume that most of what you
post is lies, just like your recent MJ post was filled with lies to
support your deadbeat agenda. Truth is, whether I attack someone or not,
if they are being honest there is nothing vulnerable to attack. In your
case there is nothing but vulnerability because you post lies with no
substance to support them.
Post by Dusty
You are a fraud; a deceiver; a spinner of lies.
And you have been proven to be a liar who whines when he gets called on
it. I noticed that you haven't proven any of my statements to be false
yet ... is that because you can't do it? Show me some proof that MJ died
a pauper like you claimed. We both know it is a lie but if you can prove
it then I will apologize for calling you a whining, lying, piece of shit.
Post by Dusty
In short, you are a sociopathic cyber-bully.
Wahhhh, I can't lie to my idiot friends in public without getting called
on it anymore ..... wahhhhhhh .... how can I defend my deadbeat position
if I can't lie constantly ...... wahhhhhh the big bad bully is calling
me on my lies ..... wahhhh.
I'd recommend that you ignore me if you can't handle simple logic or
questions in response to your lying, whining bullshit.
Good lord, you couldn't handle simple logic, you're brain would explode.
XXX criticizing anyone's lack of logic. is just too funny.
XXX criticizes those who have been through "family court" for failing to
understand and agree with what XXX read about it in the NYTimes.
Phil #3
Which begs the question:
Is it true because the NYT says so, and false because it was claimed by an
equal rights advocate in this newsgroup; or is the truth value based upon
some other measure?
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-15 15:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Phil #3
XXX criticizing anyone's lack of logic. is just too funny.
XXX criticizes those who have been through "family court" for failing
to understand and agree with what XXX read about it in the NYTimes.
Phil #3
Is it true because the NYT says so, and false because it was claimed by
an equal rights advocate in this newsgroup; or is the truth value based
upon some other measure?
Swearing to lies because you think it helps your own lies makes you seem
stupid.
Chris
2009-07-15 14:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Dusty
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids..
You are nothing of the sort. You are a despicable lowlife who claims to
make a 6 figure income and wonders why those that don't make what you
claim to make can't afford imputed child support payments.
My kids live with me, I pay the bills, I coach their teams, take them to
the park .... show me some proof that I am not responsible for them. I can
show you some photos of us from this weekend at the beachhouse if that
counts as proof. I can also prove to you that I am responsible for them
regardless of my income, they are my kids and I would take care of them if
I made no money. They are my kids, they have my DNA so I am responsible
for them no matter what lame stories you tell me.
They have their grandmother's DNA too.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Dusty
Whenever someone states a fact, you counter with ad homonym attacks and
antidotal statements.
As do you, except yours make no sense at all. You are just mad that
someone called you on your bullshit. Have you proven yet that MJ died a
pauper or is that just more bullshit from you?
Post by Dusty
When pressed to provide factual evidence to back up your claims you
deliver with more of the same: ad homonym attacks and (my favorite) "I
found it at www.NYT.com, go find it."
No, I added up the totals from YOUR links and proved that you are a liar.
Did you forget that part of the thread deadbeat? Maybe you should review
last week's lies and stop trying to dredge up your old lies from 3 months
ago. I see you are just trying to preach to the choir with your NY Times
reference but try to remember that you were proven wrong by the NYTimes 3
months ago just like you are being proven wrong by your own references
now.
Post by Dusty
And whenever someone posts their story of what happened, or is happening
to them, you attack them.
No I don't. I mostly ignore them because I assume that most of what you
post is lies, just like your recent MJ post was filled with lies to
support your deadbeat agenda. Truth is, whether I attack someone or not,
if they are being honest there is nothing vulnerable to attack. In your
case there is nothing but vulnerability because you post lies with no
substance to support them.
Post by Dusty
You are a fraud; a deceiver; a spinner of lies.
And you have been proven to be a liar who whines when he gets called on
it. I noticed that you haven't proven any of my statements to be false yet
... is that because you can't do it? Show me some proof that MJ died a
pauper like you claimed. We both know it is a lie but if you can prove it
then I will apologize for calling you a whining, lying, piece of shit.
Post by Dusty
In short, you are a sociopathic cyber-bully.
Wahhhh, I can't lie to my idiot friends in public without getting called
on it anymore ..... wahhhhhhh .... how can I defend my deadbeat position
if I can't lie constantly ...... wahhhhhh the big bad bully is calling me
on my lies ..... wahhhh.
I'd recommend that you ignore me if you can't handle simple logic or
questions in response to your lying, whining bullshit.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-15 15:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
My kids live with me, I pay the bills, I coach their teams, take them
to the park .... show me some proof that I am not responsible for
them. I can show you some photos of us from this weekend at the
beachhouse if that counts as proof. I can also prove to you that I am
responsible for them regardless of my income, they are my kids and I
would take care of them if I made no money. They are my kids, they
have my DNA so I am responsible for them no matter what lame stories
you tell me.
They have their grandmother's DNA too.
But she isn't the father, isn't responsible for paying their bills,
can't coach baseball worth a shit and doesn't have the patience to take
them to the park, plus we are a white family.
Chris
2009-07-17 04:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
My kids live with me, I pay the bills, I coach their teams, take them to
the park .... show me some proof that I am not responsible for them. I
can show you some photos of us from this weekend at the beachhouse if
that counts as proof. I can also prove to you that I am responsible for
them regardless of my income, they are my kids and I would take care of
them if I made no money. They are my kids, they have my DNA so I am
responsible for them no matter what lame stories you tell me.
They have their grandmother's DNA too.
But she isn't the father,
And he isn't the grandmother.
Post by x***@xxx.com
isn't responsible for paying their bills, can't coach baseball worth a
shit and doesn't have the patience to take them to the park, plus we are a
white family.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-17 12:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
They have their grandmother's DNA too.
But she isn't the father,
And he isn't the grandmother.
Depending on how far south he lives, you can't be sure of that.
Phil #3
2009-07-15 13:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy and
rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when it
comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he sends
another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological father
in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16 year old son
he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad refused the offer
because it was his responsibility as a father to pay those bills. See how
it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All you need to do is
grow up and stop whining.
The problem is this:
Only the women involved are allowed to choose whether a pregnancy will
result in a child yet you hold men (involved or not) solely responsible for
a child's existence if and when she chooses to do so.
"Responsibility" is NOT money from a man to a mother; responsibility is
being a parent which includes protecting and nurturing them, which is
impossible to fully be when not allowed to be with them.
For men to be a parent, they must be allowed to be a full parent, not an ATM
for the mother's convenience.
Phil #3
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-15 15:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to
make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on
denying this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy
and rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when
it comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he
sends another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological
father in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16
year old son he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad
refused the offer because it was his responsibility as a father to pay
those bills. See how it IS possible to take responsibility for your
kids? All you need to do is grow up and stop whining.
Only the women involved are allowed to choose whether a pregnancy will
result in a child yet you hold men (involved or not) solely responsible
for a child's existence if and when she chooses to do so.
We've been through this before, if a kid slips out with your DNA you are
responsible, a concept pretty acceptable to most of the civilized world.
And a concept which is written as law in the society you grew up in.
You can't claim ignorance in order to change the rules. If we want to
avoid that responsibility we have to avoid fertilizing the eggs, after
that it is out of our hands.
Post by Phil #3
"Responsibility" is NOT money from a man to a mother; responsibility is
being a parent which includes protecting and nurturing them, which is
impossible to fully be when not allowed to be with them.
If you were allowed to abandon them or force them to be aborted would
that allow you more time with them? After all this time are you denying
the claim that men shouldn't be responsible because they don't have the
right to decide? Should the "responsibility" you are talking about be
the father's even though he can't terminate a pregnancy? or are you just
defining things that have nothing to do with anything else?
Post by Phil #3
For men to be a parent, they must be allowed to be a full parent, not an
ATM for the mother's convenience.
Phil #3
In some cases, in others the ATM thing works out fine. To be a parent
all you have to do is have a child with a woman. The rest seems to be a
matter of negotiation.
Chris
2009-07-17 04:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy and
rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when it
comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he sends
another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological
father in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16
year old son he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad refused
the offer because it was his responsibility as a father to pay those
bills. See how it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All
you need to do is grow up and stop whining.
Only the women involved are allowed to choose whether a pregnancy will
result in a child yet you hold men (involved or not) solely responsible
for a child's existence if and when she chooses to do so.
We've been through this before, if a kid slips out with your DNA you are
responsible, a concept pretty acceptable to most of the civilized world.
And a concept which is written as law in the society you grew up in. You
can't claim ignorance in order to change the rules.
Ignorance has NOTHING to do with it. UNequal protection is why such rules
need to be changed.
Post by x***@xxx.com
If we want to avoid that responsibility we have to avoid fertilizing the
eggs, after that it is out of our hands.
It was never in their hands in the FIRST place. Unless, of course, you deny
the existence of legally imputed fatherhood.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
"Responsibility" is NOT money from a man to a mother; responsibility is
being a parent which includes protecting and nurturing them, which is
impossible to fully be when not allowed to be with them.
If you were allowed to abandon them or force them to be aborted would that
allow you more time with them? After all this time are you denying the
claim that men shouldn't be responsible because they don't have the right
to decide? Should the "responsibility" you are talking about be the
father's even though he can't terminate a pregnancy? or are you just
defining things that have nothing to do with anything else?
Post by Phil #3
For men to be a parent, they must be allowed to be a full parent, not an
ATM for the mother's convenience.
Phil #3
In some cases, in others the ATM thing works out fine. To be a parent all
you have to do is have a child with a woman. The rest seems to be a matter
of negotiation.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-17 12:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
We've been through this before, if a kid slips out with your DNA you
are responsible, a concept pretty acceptable to most of the civilized
world. And a concept which is written as law in the society you grew
up in. You can't claim ignorance in order to change the rules.
Ignorance has NOTHING to do with it. UNequal protection is why such
rules need to be changed.
Are you saying that you DO understand that you are responsible for your
offspring?
Post by Chris
It was never in their hands in the FIRST place. Unless, of course, you
deny the existence of legally imputed fatherhood.
I don't deny anything, how you can deny your own responsibility for a
pregnancy is mind boggling. That first step is almost always in your hands.
Chris
2009-07-17 23:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
We've been through this before, if a kid slips out with your DNA you are
responsible, a concept pretty acceptable to most of the civilized world.
And a concept which is written as law in the society you grew up in. You
can't claim ignorance in order to change the rules.
Ignorance has NOTHING to do with it. UNequal protection is why such rules
need to be changed.
Are you saying that you DO understand that you are responsible for your
offspring?
Post by Chris
It was never in their hands in the FIRST place. Unless, of course, you
deny the existence of legally imputed fatherhood.
I don't deny anything, how you can deny your own responsibility for a
pregnancy is mind boggling. That first step is almost always in your hands.
This discussion is NOT about me. How about staying on topic.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-18 02:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
We've been through this before, if a kid slips out with your DNA you
are responsible, a concept pretty acceptable to most of the
civilized world. And a concept which is written as law in the
society you grew up in. You can't claim ignorance in order to change
the rules.
Ignorance has NOTHING to do with it. UNequal protection is why such
rules need to be changed.
Are you saying that you DO understand that you are responsible for
your offspring?
Post by Chris
It was never in their hands in the FIRST place. Unless, of course,
you deny the existence of legally imputed fatherhood.
I don't deny anything, how you can deny your own responsibility for a
pregnancy is mind boggling. That first step is almost always in your hands.
This discussion is NOT about me. How about staying on topic.
Okay then, explain to me how michael jackson died a pauper. Here is your
100th chance to refute what I said about the topic of this thread before
you all derailed it rather than admit one of your clan was making shit up.
Phil #3
2009-07-22 01:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy and
rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when it
comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he sends
another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological
father in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16
year old son he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad refused
the offer because it was his responsibility as a father to pay those
bills. See how it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All
you need to do is grow up and stop whining.
Only the women involved are allowed to choose whether a pregnancy will
result in a child yet you hold men (involved or not) solely responsible
for a child's existence if and when she chooses to do so.
We've been through this before, if a kid slips out with your DNA you are
responsible, a concept pretty acceptable to most of the civilized world.
And a concept which is written as law in the society you grew up in. You
can't claim ignorance in order to change the rules. If we want to avoid
that responsibility we have to avoid fertilizing the eggs, after that it
is out of our hands.
Yes, we've been through it before and you STILL fail to learn. You think you
know the answer even before the question is asked.
DNA does NOT have to match in order for a man to be respoonsible to pay a
woman for her unilateral decision to give birth but you knew that, or at
least SHOULD know it, you've been told enough.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
"Responsibility" is NOT money from a man to a mother; responsibility is
being a parent which includes protecting and nurturing them, which is
impossible to fully be when not allowed to be with them.
If you were allowed to abandon them or force them to be aborted would that
allow you more time with them? After all this time are you denying the
claim that men shouldn't be responsible because they don't have the right
to decide? Should the "responsibility" you are talking about be the
father's even though he can't terminate a pregnancy? or are you just
defining things that have nothing to do with anything else?
What? That makes abzero sense.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
For men to be a parent, they must be allowed to be a full parent, not an
ATM for the mother's convenience.
Phil #3
In some cases, in others the ATM thing works out fine. To be a parent all
you have to do is have a child with a woman. The rest seems to be a matter
of negotiation.
For mothers the ATM thing works very well. For the father, society and the
children it blows big baby chunks.
Phil #3
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-22 01:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Yes, we've been through it before and you STILL fail to learn. You think you
know the answer even before the question is asked.
There is nothing I want to learn from the likes of you, thanks. If you
can deny responsibility for your own kids for whatever the reason,
please keep your teaching to yourself forever.
Post by Phil #3
DNA does NOT have to match in order for a man to be respoonsible to pay a
woman for her unilateral decision to give birth but you knew that, or at
least SHOULD know it, you've been told enough.
Strawman, nice try. If you have a kid you have responsibility for him.
Regurgitate your bullshit as much as you want, it won't make me agree
that you aren't responsible for your own kids. As you see none of your
deadbeat arguments sway me from that simple truth.
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
If you were allowed to abandon them or force them to be aborted would that
allow you more time with them? After all this time are you denying the
claim that men shouldn't be responsible because they don't have the right
to decide? Should the "responsibility" you are talking about be the
father's even though he can't terminate a pregnancy? or are you just
defining things that have nothing to do with anything else?
What? That makes abzero sense.
Then take 3rd grade over again, I'm not here to educate you, just
irritate you with facts and the truth.
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
For men to be a parent, they must be allowed to be a full parent, not an
ATM for the mother's convenience.
Phil #3
In some cases, in others the ATM thing works out fine. To be a parent all
you have to do is have a child with a woman. The rest seems to be a matter
of negotiation.
For mothers the ATM thing works very well. For the father, society and the
children it blows big baby chunks.
Phil #3
For some fathers it works out great, single life with kids every other
weekend, just because you are obsessed with money and married a woman
as trashy and dishonest as yourself doesn't mean that it is the
standard. I'd even guess that among non lowlives it is an ideal
arrangement.
Big D
2009-07-17 06:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy and
rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when it
comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he sends
another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological father
in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16 year old son
he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad refused the offer
because it was his responsibility as a father to pay those bills. See how
it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All you need to do is
grow up and stop whining.
Only the women involved are allowed to choose whether a pregnancy will
result in a child yet you hold men (involved or not) solely responsible for
a child's existence if and when she chooses to do so.
"Responsibility" is NOT money from a man to a mother; responsibility is
being a parent which includes protecting and nurturing them, which is
impossible to fully be when not allowed to be with them.
For men to be a parent, they must be allowed to be a full parent, not an ATM
for the mother's convenience.
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My goodness, you lot are a bunch of cry0-babies. For all the bitching
being done, at least ONE of you colud have filed the paperwork to get
visitation. You all cry that you're broke, so haul your ass to the
legal aid office and let them help you get more time with your kids,
instead of you complaining about what a victim of the system you are.
Cry because of money, yet call the mothers greedy. The nerve! I just
wonder how long before you all just start monitoring this group so you
can manipulate it to oonly reflect your bullshit views.
Chris
2009-07-18 19:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy and
rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when it
comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he sends
another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological father
in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16 year old son
he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad refused the offer
because it was his responsibility as a father to pay those bills. See how
it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All you need to do is
grow up and stop whining.
Only the women involved are allowed to choose whether a pregnancy will
result in a child yet you hold men (involved or not) solely responsible for
a child's existence if and when she chooses to do so.
"Responsibility" is NOT money from a man to a mother; responsibility is
being a parent which includes protecting and nurturing them, which is
impossible to fully be when not allowed to be with them.
For men to be a parent, they must be allowed to be a full parent, not an ATM
for the mother's convenience.
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My goodness, you lot are a bunch of cry0-babies. For all the bitching
being done, at least ONE of you colud have filed the paperwork to get
visitation. You all cry that you're broke, so haul your ass to the
legal aid office and let them help you get more time with your kids,
instead of you complaining about what a victim of the system you are.
Cry because of money, yet call the mothers greedy. The nerve!

***********

What would YOU call someone who tries to get as much UNEARNED money as
possible?

************

I just
wonder how long before you all just start monitoring this group so you
can manipulate it to oonly reflect your bullshit views.
Bob W
2009-07-18 21:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy and
rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when it
comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he sends
another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological father
in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16 year old son
he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad refused the offer
because it was his responsibility as a father to pay those bills. See how
it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All you need to do is
grow up and stop whining.
Only the women involved are allowed to choose whether a pregnancy will
result in a child yet you hold men (involved or not) solely responsible for
a child's existence if and when she chooses to do so.
"Responsibility" is NOT money from a man to a mother; responsibility is
being a parent which includes protecting and nurturing them, which is
impossible to fully be when not allowed to be with them.
For men to be a parent, they must be allowed to be a full parent, not an ATM
for the mother's convenience.
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My goodness, you lot are a bunch of cry0-babies. For all the bitching
being done, at least ONE of you colud have filed the paperwork to get
visitation. You all cry that you're broke, so haul your ass to the
legal aid office and let them help you get more time with your kids,
instead of you complaining about what a victim of the system you are.
Cry because of money, yet call the mothers greedy. The nerve! I just
wonder how long before you all just start monitoring this group so you
can manipulate it to oonly reflect your bullshit views.

======

Another misguided piece of advise from someone who doesn't understand the CS
system.

Filing for visitation does not reduce CS. The CS guidelines are set based
on the assumption the child(ren) are with the CP 100% of the time. Gaining
visitation increases the NCP's expenditures because the cost of visitation
is in addition to the CS order.

Even the new "parenting plans" are not NCP-friendly. Most states have a
threshold before CS amounts begin to reduce as parenting increases. Most
states requires the NCP to parent in excess of 30% of the time before any CS
order is reduced.
Dusty
2009-07-18 22:39:57 UTC
Permalink
"Big D" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b817d12a-3e2f-4e05-9f50-***@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

My goodness, you lot are a bunch of cry0-babies. For all the bitching
being done, at least ONE of you colud have filed the paperwork to get
visitation. You all cry that you're broke, so haul your ass to the
legal aid office and let them help you get more time with your kids,
instead of you complaining about what a victim of the system you are.
Cry because of money, yet call the mothers greedy. The nerve! I just
wonder how long before you all just start monitoring this group so you
can manipulate it to oonly reflect your bullshit views.
-----------------------------------------

I can't wait for your divorce.
Phil #3
2009-07-22 01:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy and
rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when it
comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he sends
another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological father
in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16 year old son
he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad refused the offer
because it was his responsibility as a father to pay those bills. See how
it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All you need to do is
grow up and stop whining.
Only the women involved are allowed to choose whether a pregnancy will
result in a child yet you hold men (involved or not) solely responsible for
a child's existence if and when she chooses to do so.
"Responsibility" is NOT money from a man to a mother; responsibility is
being a parent which includes protecting and nurturing them, which is
impossible to fully be when not allowed to be with them.
For men to be a parent, they must be allowed to be a full parent, not an ATM
for the mother's convenience.
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My goodness, you lot are a bunch of cry0-babies. For all the bitching
being done, at least ONE of you colud have filed the paperwork to get
visitation. You all cry that you're broke, so haul your ass to the
legal aid office and let them help you get more time with your kids,
instead of you complaining about what a victim of the system you are.
Cry because of money, yet call the mothers greedy. The nerve! I just
wonder how long before you all just start monitoring this group so you
can manipulate it to oonly reflect your bullshit views.

**************************************************

Crawl back under your rock since you've just proven you know jack-shit about
anything, especially anyting about those posting here.

Phil #3
Chris
2009-07-16 15:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy and
rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when it
comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he sends
another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological father
in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16 year old son
he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad refused the offer
because it was his responsibility as a father to pay those bills. See how
it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All you need to do is
grow up and stop whining.
The "responsibility" to which you refer is simply paying money to some
woman. ANYONE can do that! Not the responsibility I am talking about. I am
referring to the CONCEPT of responsibility; not some action. Apples and
oranges. If I take a match to your house and burn it to the ground, I am
"responsible" for the pile of ashes which is a state of being, NOT an
action.
Bob W
2009-07-16 18:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy and
rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when it
comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he sends
another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological father
in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16 year old
son he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad refused the offer
because it was his responsibility as a father to pay those bills. See how
it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All you need to do
is grow up and stop whining.
The "responsibility" to which you refer is simply paying money to some
woman. ANYONE can do that! Not the responsibility I am talking about. I am
referring to the CONCEPT of responsibility; not some action. Apples and
oranges. If I take a match to your house and burn it to the ground, I am
"responsible" for the pile of ashes which is a state of being, NOT an
action.
Responsibility as used in the CS system is really a code word for compulsory
participation. The sad truth is the only way the government can dictate
responsibility is to tax something or force inclusion into their programs.
Chris
2009-07-19 14:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob W
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy and
rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when it
comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he sends
another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological
father in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16
year old son he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad refused
the offer because it was his responsibility as a father to pay those
bills. See how it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All
you need to do is grow up and stop whining.
The "responsibility" to which you refer is simply paying money to some
woman. ANYONE can do that! Not the responsibility I am talking about. I
am referring to the CONCEPT of responsibility; not some action. Apples
and oranges. If I take a match to your house and burn it to the ground, I
am "responsible" for the pile of ashes which is a state of being, NOT an
action.
Responsibility as used in the CS system is really a code word for
compulsory participation.
Yup. And such participation is about NOT raising the children.
Post by Bob W
The sad truth is the only way the government can dictate responsibility is
to tax something or force inclusion into their programs.
Which brings to light the two different applications of "responsibility". If
the concept of responsibility is absent, then all other forms of
responsibility are non-existent. It simply follows.

Of course you're always gonna get the die-hard yoyos who say "they have your
DNA". Well guess what, they also have the DNA of their grandparents, great
grandparents, great great grandparents, etc.. What the heck is THAT supposed
to mean?
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-16 22:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to
make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on
denying this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy
and rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when
it comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he
sends another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological
father in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16
year old son he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad
refused the offer because it was his responsibility as a father to pay
those bills. See how it IS possible to take responsibility for your
kids? All you need to do is grow up and stop whining.
The "responsibility" to which you refer is simply paying money to some
woman.
None of what I posted above can be characterized as paying money to some
woman. Each example was an example of a person accepting responsibility
for his own kids, (a responsibility that exists whether the guy accepts
it or not btw)I defy you to back up that stupid lie.
Post by Chris
ANYONE can do that! Not the responsibility I am talking about. I
am referring to the CONCEPT of responsibility; not some action.
Exactly what my post described, none of the examples are examples of
just paying money to some woman.
Post by Chris
Apples
and oranges. If I take a match to your house and burn it to the ground,
I am "responsible" for the pile of ashes which is a state of being, NOT
an action.
You are not responsible for the pile of ashes, either I or my insurance
company is. You are only responsible for the crime of arson and the
damage, legally and morally. Again, you just don't make any sense.
Bob W
2009-07-17 00:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy and
rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when it
comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he sends
another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological
father in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16
year old son he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad refused
the offer because it was his responsibility as a father to pay those
bills. See how it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All
you need to do is grow up and stop whining.
The "responsibility" to which you refer is simply paying money to some
woman.
None of what I posted above can be characterized as paying money to some
woman. Each example was an example of a person accepting responsibility
for his own kids, (a responsibility that exists whether the guy accepts it
or not btw)I defy you to back up that stupid lie.
The problem you seem to want to ignore is the divorced, separated, or never
married father has the responsibility for children that you describe removed
from him in almost every case. In it's place the responsibility to parent
effectively is replaced with a newly defined responsibility to pay money.

Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give them a
new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are done against
the stated desires of most fathers, the courts rub the new arrangement in by
claiming the fathers new role is the "duty to support" and in any disputes
the judges tell fathers they "agreed" to their new role. Reality is 180
degrees from the court's characterization of these changes.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-17 12:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to
make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on
denying this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy
and rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for
their children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats
claim it is impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King
has something like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is
responsible when it comes to caring for them. Someone should clue
him in before he sends another kid to college, I bet he doesn't
think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological
father in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16
year old son he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad
refused the offer because it was his responsibility as a father to
pay those bills. See how it IS possible to take responsibility for
your kids? All you need to do is grow up and stop whining.
The "responsibility" to which you refer is simply paying money to
some woman.
None of what I posted above can be characterized as paying money to
some woman. Each example was an example of a person accepting
responsibility for his own kids, (a responsibility that exists whether
the guy accepts it or not btw)I defy you to back up that stupid lie.
The problem you seem to want to ignore is the divorced, separated, or
never married father has the responsibility for children that you
describe removed from him in almost every case. In it's place the
responsibility to parent effectively is replaced with a newly defined
responsibility to pay money.
Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed
then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that
responsibility for their offspring despite the fact that "only the woman
can decide." Therefore it is not impossible to to be responsible.
Post by Bob W
Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give
them a new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are
done against the stated desires of most fathers, the courts rub the new
arrangement in by claiming the fathers new role is the "duty to support"
and in any disputes the judges tell fathers they "agreed" to their new
role. Reality is 180 degrees from the court's characterization of these
changes.
None of the examples I mentioned involved family court.
Bob W
2009-07-17 18:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to
make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on
denying this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy
and rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when
it comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he
sends another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological
father in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16
year old son he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad
refused the offer because it was his responsibility as a father to pay
those bills. See how it IS possible to take responsibility for your
kids? All you need to do is grow up and stop whining.
The "responsibility" to which you refer is simply paying money to some
woman.
None of what I posted above can be characterized as paying money to some
woman. Each example was an example of a person accepting responsibility
for his own kids, (a responsibility that exists whether the guy accepts
it or not btw)I defy you to back up that stupid lie.
The problem you seem to want to ignore is the divorced, separated, or
never married father has the responsibility for children that you
describe removed from him in almost every case. In it's place the
responsibility to parent effectively is replaced with a newly defined
responsibility to pay money.
Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed then
obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that
responsibility for their offspring despite the fact that "only the woman
can decide." Therefore it is not impossible to to be responsible.
What pretzel logic. The responsibility is there but the responsibility is
removed, so it's not impossible to be responsible. Huh?
Post by Bob W
Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give
them a new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are done
against the stated desires of most fathers, the courts rub the new
arrangement in by claiming the fathers new role is the "duty to support"
and in any disputes the judges tell fathers they "agreed" to their new
role. Reality is 180 degrees from the court's characterization of these
changes.
None of the examples I mentioned involved family court.
Then your examples are all off topic.

This is a newsgroup about child support and child support is set by family
courts.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-17 21:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed
then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that
responsibility for their offspring despite the fact that "only the
woman can decide." Therefore it is not impossible to to be responsible.
What pretzel logic. The responsibility is there but the responsibility
is removed, so it's not impossible to be responsible. Huh?
What a blatant and purposeful misreading of a simple statement. If you
claim that responsibility was taken away, then you have to admit that
the responsibility was yours to begin with. So you cannot claim that it
isn't your responsibility because (insert nitwit excuse here). If you
never owned a Monet and you get robbed, could you claim the loss of a
Monet with the police and your insurance company?
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give
them a new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are
done against the stated desires of most fathers, the courts rub the
new arrangement in by claiming the fathers new role is the "duty to
support" and in any disputes the judges tell fathers they "agreed" to
their new role. Reality is 180 degrees from the court's
characterization of these changes.
None of the examples I mentioned involved family court.
Then your examples are all off topic.
This is a newsgroup about child support and child support is set by
family courts.
Sorry mister netcop. Did you complain when someone made posts about
michael jackson or were they okay because they weren't at odds with your
little support group's ideas that everything should be blamed on other
people and that nothing is your responsibility.

In case you are really lying and not just trying to make more empty off
topic declarations here is what this newsgroup is about ....

Activity Low - 93 recent authors
Description Raising children in a split family.
Language English
Categories Other
Access Public - Usenet

Notice the descrition there? It seems my examples are much closer to the
topic than any of your whining posts. While you post about judges and
how the system is at fault, my posts actually have some resemblance to
the stated description of the group. All of my examples were examples of
raising children in split families, none of yours were.

You might also notice the fact that it is a public newsgroup, which
means you have no say in what is on or off topic and your bullshit about
me being off topic is just that.
Bob W
2009-07-18 00:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed
then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that
responsibility for their offspring despite the fact that "only the woman
can decide." Therefore it is not impossible to to be responsible.
What pretzel logic. The responsibility is there but the responsibility
is removed, so it's not impossible to be responsible. Huh?
What a blatant and purposeful misreading of a simple statement. If you
claim that responsibility was taken away, then you have to admit that the
responsibility was yours to begin with. So you cannot claim that it isn't
your responsibility because (insert nitwit excuse here). If you never
owned a Monet and you get robbed, could you claim the loss of a Monet with
the police and your insurance company?
The problem you have is you have assumed every poster here fits your
stereotype image.

In my case, two children were conceived and born while I was married. I was
responsible for helping to create those two children. What changed was the
court stipped my parental responsibilities from me.

Now to your point that responsibility can go on. I agree with that. Even
though I was designated the NCP I continued to act as if I was the CP. My
actions really pissed off my ex. In fact she threaten to go to the court to
complain about my ongoing parenting involvement. When I told her she would
look foolish claiming I was being too good of a parent she backed off.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give
them a new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are
done against the stated desires of most fathers, the courts rub the new
arrangement in by claiming the fathers new role is the "duty to
support" and in any disputes the judges tell fathers they "agreed" to
their new role. Reality is 180 degrees from the court's
characterization of these changes.
None of the examples I mentioned involved family court.
Then your examples are all off topic.
This is a newsgroup about child support and child support is set by
family courts.
Sorry mister netcop. Did you complain when someone made posts about
michael jackson or were they okay because they weren't at odds with your
little support group's ideas that everything should be blamed on other
people and that nothing is your responsibility.
In case you are really lying and not just trying to make more empty off
topic declarations here is what this newsgroup is about ....
Activity Low - 93 recent authors
Description Raising children in a split family.
Language English
Categories Other
Access Public - Usenet
We've had that quoted to us before. Do you have a cite for where you got
that information? It dates back to some usenet requirement to establish a
group charter and description over 20 years ago. It is not valid today.
This group has been about CS/family law/custody/spousal support issues since
I arrived in the late 90's. We have had lots of CP mothers come in here
expecting sympathy for their positions only to find there are men here who
have a fathers' perspective on those issues.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Notice the descrition there? It seems my examples are much closer to the
topic than any of your whining posts. While you post about judges and how
the system is at fault, my posts actually have some resemblance to the
stated description of the group. All of my examples were examples of
raising children in split families, none of yours were.
You might also notice the fact that it is a public newsgroup, which means
you have no say in what is on or off topic and your bullshit about me
being off topic is just that.
Well if you have been reading the posts you should have a pretty good idea
the Usenet description of this newsgroup and what goes on here are out of
sync.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-18 02:52:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is
removed then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do
have that responsibility for their offspring despite the fact that
"only the woman can decide." Therefore it is not impossible to to
be responsible.
What pretzel logic. The responsibility is there but the
responsibility is removed, so it's not impossible to be responsible.
Huh?
What a blatant and purposeful misreading of a simple statement. If you
claim that responsibility was taken away, then you have to admit that
the responsibility was yours to begin with. So you cannot claim that
it isn't your responsibility because (insert nitwit excuse here). If
you never owned a Monet and you get robbed, could you claim the loss
of a Monet with the police and your insurance company?
The problem you have is you have assumed every poster here fits your
stereotype image.
But obviously my problem isn't logic or just making things up to protect
an agenda, I take it you understand the above point about responsibility
now.
Post by Bob W
In my case, two children were conceived and born while I was married. I
was responsible for helping to create those two children. What changed
was the court stipped my parental responsibilities from me.
Now to your point that responsibility can go on. I agree with that.
Even though I was designated the NCP I continued to act as if I was the
CP. My actions really pissed off my ex. In fact she threaten to go to
the court to complain about my ongoing parenting involvement. When I
told her she would look foolish claiming I was being too good of a
parent she backed off.
So your problem is the money and the ex, not the fact that you are
responsible for your kids. The fact that you continued to act as a
parent means that the court didn't strip your responsibilities from you.

My ongoing argument here is that you should not (morally) and cannot
(legally) deny your responsibility for your kids no matter what extra
choices women have, how bad judges are or how much the liberals torment you.
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Sorry mister netcop. Did you complain when someone made posts about
michael jackson or were they okay because they weren't at odds with
your little support group's ideas that everything should be blamed on
other people and that nothing is your responsibility.
In case you are really lying and not just trying to make more empty
off topic declarations here is what this newsgroup is about ....
Activity Low - 93 recent authors
Description Raising children in a split family.
Language English
Categories Other
Access Public - Usenet
We've had that quoted to us before. Do you have a cite for where you
got that information? It dates back to some usenet requirement to
establish a group charter and description over 20 years ago. It is not
valid today. This group has been about CS/family law/custody/spousal
support issues since I arrived in the late 90's. We have had lots of CP
mothers come in here expecting sympathy for their positions only to find
there are men here who have a fathers' perspective on those issues.
And you are entitled to them, you are not entitled to tell people what
they can and can't post about here. Especially when your posts are by
the description of the group farther off topic than any single mom's or
political kook's. Just trying to hijack a newsgroup with your opinions
doesn't make your opinions correct or the newsgroup yours. I've advised
all of you before, if you don't like what I have to say, feel free to
ignore me, argue with me or wet your pants. You can't stop me from
posting and just because the 4 or 12 of you have been sitting around
agreeing with each other blindly for 20 years doesn't make this your
forum. If you want to avoid outside opinions get your own moderated
group or a private group somewhere.
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Notice the descrition there? It seems my examples are much closer to
the topic than any of your whining posts. While you post about judges
and how the system is at fault, my posts actually have some
resemblance to the stated description of the group. All of my examples
were examples of raising children in split families, none of yours were.
You might also notice the fact that it is a public newsgroup, which
means you have no say in what is on or off topic and your bullshit
about me being off topic is just that.
Well if you have been reading the posts you should have a pretty good
idea the Usenet description of this newsgroup and what goes on here are
out of sync.
So if you want a forum where no dissenting opinions can be seen, find a
private one where you can restrict content to pre approved opinions.
Just because YOU all post about judges and money doesn't mean others
can't post about the described topic of the newsgroup.

Maybe you should be chastising the crossposters who attract the interest
of people who disagree with your mission. Without the crossposts I doubt
I would have ever found this usenet bizarro world.
Chris
2009-07-19 04:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed
then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that
responsibility for their offspring despite the fact that "only the
woman can decide." Therefore it is not impossible to to be responsible.
What pretzel logic. The responsibility is there but the responsibility
is removed, so it's not impossible to be responsible. Huh?
What a blatant and purposeful misreading of a simple statement. If you
claim that responsibility was taken away, then you have to admit that
the responsibility was yours to begin with. So you cannot claim that it
isn't your responsibility because (insert nitwit excuse here). If you
never owned a Monet and you get robbed, could you claim the loss of a
Monet with the police and your insurance company?
The problem you have is you have assumed every poster here fits your
stereotype image.
But obviously my problem isn't logic or just making things up to protect
an agenda, I take it you understand the above point about responsibility
now.
Post by Bob W
In my case, two children were conceived and born while I was married. I
was responsible for helping to create those two children. What changed
was the court stipped my parental responsibilities from me.
Now to your point that responsibility can go on. I agree with that.
Even though I was designated the NCP I continued to act as if I was the
CP. My actions really pissed off my ex. In fact she threaten to go to
the court to complain about my ongoing parenting involvement. When I
told her she would look foolish claiming I was being too good of a parent
she backed off.
So your problem is the money and the ex, not the fact that you are
responsible for your kids. The fact that you continued to act as a parent
means that the court didn't strip your responsibilities from you.
My ongoing argument here is that you should not (morally) and cannot
(legally) deny your responsibility for your kids no matter what extra
choices women have, how bad judges are or how much the liberals torment you.
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Sorry mister netcop. Did you complain when someone made posts about
michael jackson or were they okay because they weren't at odds with your
little support group's ideas that everything should be blamed on other
people and that nothing is your responsibility.
In case you are really lying and not just trying to make more empty off
topic declarations here is what this newsgroup is about ....
Activity Low - 93 recent authors
Description Raising children in a split family.
Language English
Categories Other
Access Public - Usenet
We've had that quoted to us before. Do you have a cite for where you got
that information? It dates back to some usenet requirement to establish
a group charter and description over 20 years ago. It is not valid
today. This group has been about CS/family law/custody/spousal support
issues since I arrived in the late 90's. We have had lots of CP mothers
come in here expecting sympathy for their positions only to find there
are men here who have a fathers' perspective on those issues.
And you are entitled to them, you are not entitled to tell people what
they can and can't post about here. Especially when your posts are by the
description of the group farther off topic than any single mom's or
political kook's. Just trying to hijack a newsgroup with your opinions
doesn't make your opinions correct or the newsgroup yours. I've advised
all of you before, if you don't like what I have to say, feel free to
ignore me, argue with me or wet your pants. You can't stop me from posting
and just because the 4 or 12 of you have been sitting around agreeing with
each other blindly for 20 years
Untrue.
Post by x***@xxx.com
doesn't make this your forum. If you want to avoid outside opinions get
your own moderated group or a private group somewhere.
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Notice the descrition there? It seems my examples are much closer to the
topic than any of your whining posts. While you post about judges and
how the system is at fault, my posts actually have some resemblance to
the stated description of the group. All of my examples were examples of
raising children in split families, none of yours were.
You might also notice the fact that it is a public newsgroup, which
means you have no say in what is on or off topic and your bullshit about
me being off topic is just that.
Well if you have been reading the posts you should have a pretty good
idea the Usenet description of this newsgroup and what goes on here are
out of sync.
So if you want a forum where no dissenting opinions can be seen, find a
private one where you can restrict content to pre approved opinions. Just
because YOU all post about judges and money doesn't mean others can't post
about the described topic of the newsgroup.
You have it backwards. Judges and money is at the HEART of "child support".
Post by x***@xxx.com
Maybe you should be chastising the crossposters who attract the interest
of people who disagree with your mission. Without the crossposts I doubt I
would have ever found this usenet bizarro world.
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-21 03:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
And you are entitled to them, you are not entitled to tell people what
they can and can't post about here. Especially when your posts are by the
description of the group farther off topic than any single mom's or
political kook's. Just trying to hijack a newsgroup with your opinions
doesn't make your opinions correct or the newsgroup yours. I've advised
all of you before, if you don't like what I have to say, feel free to
ignore me, argue with me or wet your pants. You can't stop me from posting
and just because the 4 or 12 of you have been sitting around agreeing with
each other blindly for 20 years
Untrue.
Perfectly true and accurate despite your wishes and beliefs. Sorry to
break it to you.
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
So if you want a forum where no dissenting opinions can be seen, find a
private one where you can restrict content to pre approved opinions. Just
because YOU all post about judges and money doesn't mean others can't post
about the described topic of the newsgroup.
You have it backwards. Judges and money is at the HEART of "child support".
To you obviously, to most of the world this isn't the case and you are
backwards and just irresponsible.
Chris
2009-07-22 17:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
And you are entitled to them, you are not entitled to tell people what
they can and can't post about here. Especially when your posts are by the
description of the group farther off topic than any single mom's or
political kook's. Just trying to hijack a newsgroup with your opinions
doesn't make your opinions correct or the newsgroup yours. I've advised
all of you before, if you don't like what I have to say, feel free to
ignore me, argue with me or wet your pants. You can't stop me from posting
and just because the 4 or 12 of you have been sitting around agreeing with
each other blindly for 20 years
Untrue.
Perfectly true and accurate despite your wishes and beliefs.

***********

Uhuh, and the sun rises in the west too.

***********

Sorry to
break it to you.
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
So if you want a forum where no dissenting opinions can be seen, find a
private one where you can restrict content to pre approved opinions. Just
because YOU all post about judges and money doesn't mean others can't post
about the described topic of the newsgroup.
You have it backwards. Judges and money is at the HEART of "child support".
To you obviously, to most of the world this isn't the case

************
When did you take a poll?

***********

and you are
backwards and just irresponsible.

*************

What, exactly, makes me irresponsible?
Bob W
2009-07-20 00:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed
then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that
responsibility for their offspring despite the fact that "only the
woman can decide." Therefore it is not impossible to to be responsible.
What pretzel logic. The responsibility is there but the responsibility
is removed, so it's not impossible to be responsible. Huh?
What a blatant and purposeful misreading of a simple statement. If you
claim that responsibility was taken away, then you have to admit that
the responsibility was yours to begin with. So you cannot claim that it
isn't your responsibility because (insert nitwit excuse here). If you
never owned a Monet and you get robbed, could you claim the loss of a
Monet with the police and your insurance company?
The problem you have is you have assumed every poster here fits your
stereotype image.
But obviously my problem isn't logic or just making things up to protect
an agenda, I take it you understand the above point about responsibility
now.
In a split family there are many downsides to a father's responsibility.
Fathers have to look past these negative consequences and just accept them
as reality. A few for you to consider are:

1. Mothers have a pro-rata share of each CS order they are expected to pay.
There is no accounting for their share of the money being spent. There is
no accounting for the money provided by a responsible father to be actually
spent on his children.

2. Mothers who like to "party" can easily treat a responsible father as her
"weekend babysitter". Fathers who accept the role of responsible parenting
are more than willing to take the children for visitation extra time.

3. CP mothers have legal standing to make all decisions regarding
children's living arrangements, healthcare treatments, education
requirements, and religious training. Responsible fathers have to violate
court orders when mothers fail to accept their legal responsibilities as
being important.

4. Mothers can play games with father visitation rights and use parental
alienation techniques to make it appear responsible fathers don't care about
their children. NCP fathers have no legal way to stop the father "push out"
games that make then appear to be not responsible.

5. In some cases, mothers have no financial responsibility for their
children. And responsible fathers who pay their CS don't see it go to
provide for their children because the money paid is diverted to state and
federal reimbursements of public benefits money.

6. Mothers who have had children with more than one father can easily add a
responsible father's CS into the family budget. This action forces a
responsible father to provide for another man's children.
Chris
2009-07-20 15:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed
then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have
that responsibility for their offspring despite the fact that "only
the woman can decide." Therefore it is not impossible to to be
responsible.
What pretzel logic. The responsibility is there but the
responsibility is removed, so it's not impossible to be responsible.
Huh?
What a blatant and purposeful misreading of a simple statement. If you
claim that responsibility was taken away, then you have to admit that
the responsibility was yours to begin with. So you cannot claim that it
isn't your responsibility because (insert nitwit excuse here). If you
never owned a Monet and you get robbed, could you claim the loss of a
Monet with the police and your insurance company?
The problem you have is you have assumed every poster here fits your
stereotype image.
But obviously my problem isn't logic or just making things up to protect
an agenda, I take it you understand the above point about responsibility
now.
In a split family there are many downsides to a father's responsibility.
Fathers have to look past these negative consequences and just accept them
1. Mothers have a pro-rata share of each CS order they are expected to
pay. There is no accounting for their share of the money being spent.
There is no accounting for the money provided by a responsible father to
be actually spent on his children.
2. Mothers who like to "party" can easily treat a responsible father as
her "weekend babysitter". Fathers who accept the role of responsible
parenting are more than willing to take the children for visitation extra
time.
3. CP mothers have legal standing to make all decisions regarding
children's living arrangements, healthcare treatments, education
requirements, and religious training. Responsible fathers have to violate
court orders when mothers fail to accept their legal responsibilities as
being important.
Which absolutely cracks me up when the court people say "joint legal
custody". What the heck does THAT mean?
Post by Bob W
4. Mothers can play games with father visitation rights and use parental
alienation techniques to make it appear responsible fathers don't care
about their children. NCP fathers have no legal way to stop the father
"push out" games that make then appear to be not responsible.
The most popular one being "the child is too sick to have their weekend
visit". Imagine if the father said the same thing when it is time to
transfer the child to the mother. He would be arrested in a New York minute!
And then, of course, there's the "he abused the children"; AUTOMATIC
restraining order. But let the father make the same accusation against the
mother. They'd laugh him outta court.
Post by Bob W
5. In some cases, mothers have no financial responsibility for their
children. And responsible fathers who pay their CS don't see it go to
provide for their children because the money paid is diverted to state and
federal reimbursements of public benefits money.
6. Mothers who have had children with more than one father can easily add
a responsible father's CS into the family budget. This action forces a
responsible father to provide for another man's children.
And the beat goes on............
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-21 04:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
6.  Mothers who have had children with more than one father can easily add
a responsible father's CS into the family budget.  This action forces a
responsible father to provide for another man's children.
And the beat goes on............
Maybe you can just marry each other's exes and sort the kids among you
so that you each trade equal checks back and forth each month.
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-21 04:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob W
In a split family there are many downsides to a father's responsibility.
Fathers have to look past these negative consequences and just accept them
And there are a few downsides to the mother's responsibility. Now
maybe you can explain to the rest here that fathers DO in fact have
responsibility for their kids, even if their ex refused to abort them.
Bob W
2009-07-21 18:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob W
In a split family there are many downsides to a father's responsibility.
Fathers have to look past these negative consequences and just accept them
And there are a few downsides to the mother's responsibility. Now
maybe you can explain to the rest here that fathers DO in fact have
responsibility for their kids, even if their ex refused to abort them.

======

Intentional unwed childbirths have two levels of responsibility. The
mothers have full responsibility for their decisions to go through with
childbirth and full responsibility for not using adoption as an option. All
of the post-conception responsibilities are under the direct control of the
mother.

Fathers have a secondary level of responsibility that is assigned to them
legally by a court order. There are three ways in which a father can be
assigned this responsibility - Signing a voluntary declaration of paternity
(which can be revoked within one year), having a positive DNA test, or by
judicial fiat in a filiation hearing.

Married fathers go into fatherhood with an expectation of their
responsibility to their children. When their spouses unilaterally file for
divorce over the father's objections, the father's responsibility changes to
the same responsibility assigned by the courts in an intentional unwed
childbirth case. The mother controls the father's responsibility in these
cases.

The term "responsibility" is a code word for involuntary participation to
transfer money to the mother which she may or may not use to provide for the
father's children. The legal definition of responsibility is the "duty of
support" which means provide money in the amount specified by the court.
Parenting is not normally included in this type of responsibility.

In some circumstances, men can be held responsible for children that are not
related to them biologically. A couple of examples are the "assumption" a
married man is the father of any children born while he is living with his
wife, and cases where DNA testing is done too late or declarations of
paternity are found to be signed under relationship pressures.
Chris
2009-07-19 04:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed
then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that
responsibility for their offspring despite the fact that "only the
woman can decide." Therefore it is not impossible to to be
responsible.
What pretzel logic. The responsibility is there but the responsibility
is removed, so it's not impossible to be responsible. Huh?
What a blatant and purposeful misreading of a simple statement. If you
claim that responsibility was taken away, then you have to admit that the
responsibility was yours to begin with. So you cannot claim that it isn't
your responsibility because (insert nitwit excuse here). If you never
owned a Monet and you get robbed, could you claim the loss of a Monet
with the police and your insurance company?
The problem you have is you have assumed every poster here fits your
stereotype image.
In my case, two children were conceived and born while I was married. I
was responsible for helping to create those two children. What changed
was the court stipped my parental responsibilities from me.
Now to your point that responsibility can go on. I agree with that. Even
though I was designated the NCP I continued to act as if I was the CP. My
actions really pissed off my ex. In fact she threaten to go to the court
to complain about my ongoing parenting involvement. When I told her she
would look foolish claiming I was being too good of a parent she backed
off.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give
them a new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are
done against the stated desires of most fathers, the courts rub the
new arrangement in by claiming the fathers new role is the "duty to
support" and in any disputes the judges tell fathers they "agreed" to
their new role. Reality is 180 degrees from the court's
characterization of these changes.
None of the examples I mentioned involved family court.
Then your examples are all off topic.
This is a newsgroup about child support and child support is set by
family courts.
Sorry mister netcop. Did you complain when someone made posts about
michael jackson or were they okay because they weren't at odds with your
little support group's ideas that everything should be blamed on other
people and that nothing is your responsibility.
In case you are really lying and not just trying to make more empty off
topic declarations here is what this newsgroup is about ....
Activity Low - 93 recent authors
Description Raising children in a split family.
Language English
Categories Other
Access Public - Usenet
We've had that quoted to us before. Do you have a cite for where you got
that information? It dates back to some usenet requirement to establish a
group charter and description over 20 years ago. It is not valid today.
This group has been about CS/family law/custody/spousal support issues
since I arrived in the late 90's. We have had lots of CP mothers come in
here expecting sympathy for their positions
Mainly that of "I am not getting enough FREE money".
Post by Bob W
only to find there are men here who have a fathers' perspective on those
issues.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Notice the descrition there? It seems my examples are much closer to the
topic than any of your whining posts. While you post about judges and how
the system is at fault, my posts actually have some resemblance to the
stated description of the group. All of my examples were examples of
raising children in split families, none of yours were.
You might also notice the fact that it is a public newsgroup, which means
you have no say in what is on or off topic and your bullshit about me
being off topic is just that.
Well if you have been reading the posts you should have a pretty good idea
the Usenet description of this newsgroup and what goes on here are out of
sync.
Chris
2009-07-19 04:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed
then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that
responsibility for their offspring despite the fact that "only the woman
can decide." Therefore it is not impossible to to be responsible.
What pretzel logic. The responsibility is there but the responsibility
is removed, so it's not impossible to be responsible. Huh?
What a blatant and purposeful misreading of a simple statement. If you
claim that responsibility was taken away, then you have to admit that the
responsibility was yours to begin with. So you cannot claim that it isn't
your responsibility because (insert nitwit excuse here). If you never
owned a Monet and you get robbed, could you claim the loss of a Monet with
the police and your insurance company?
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Clearly, TWO different kinds
of "responsibilities" are being discussed. Hence the confusion. If you want
to educate yourself, do some research on any "child support" system and you
will quickly learn that the ONLY legal "responsibility" (meaning obligation)
of a legally imputed "father" is that of paying money to some woman........
PERIOD.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Bob W
Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give
them a new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are
done against the stated desires of most fathers, the courts rub the new
arrangement in by claiming the fathers new role is the "duty to
support" and in any disputes the judges tell fathers they "agreed" to
their new role. Reality is 180 degrees from the court's
characterization of these changes.
None of the examples I mentioned involved family court.
Then your examples are all off topic.
This is a newsgroup about child support and child support is set by
family courts.
Sorry mister netcop. Did you complain when someone made posts about
michael jackson or were they okay because they weren't at odds with your
little support group's ideas that everything should be blamed on other
people and that nothing is your responsibility.
What "little support" group are you referring to?
Post by x***@xxx.com
In case you are really lying and not just trying to make more empty off
topic declarations here is what this newsgroup is about ....
Activity Low - 93 recent authors
Description Raising children in a split family.
Language English
Categories Other
Access Public - Usenet
Notice the descrition there? It seems my examples are much closer to the
topic than any of your whining posts. While you post about judges and how
the system is at fault, my posts actually have some resemblance to the
stated description of the group. All of my examples were examples of
raising children in split families, none of yours were.
Equivocation. This forum has always been about the "child support" industry;
NOT the raising of any child. Do yourself a favor and search "child support"
on the internet. Then get back with the results.

[My personal favorite is "child support 'enforcement'". Guess they're really
cracking down on those who refuse to raise a child.]
Post by x***@xxx.com
You might also notice the fact that it is a public newsgroup, which means
you have no say in what is on or off topic and your bullshit about me
being off topic is just that.
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-21 03:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Clearly, TWO different kinds
of "responsibilities" are being discussed. Hence the confusion. If you want
to educate yourself, do some research on any "child support" system and you
will quickly learn that the ONLY legal "responsibility" (meaning obligation)
of a legally imputed "father" is that of paying money to some woman........
PERIOD.
And you are in this group denying both kinds (actually all) when you
claim that you should have no responsibility when you can't decide the
fate of the fetus before birth, as if that silliness absolves you of
any type of responsibility. This sort of approach to children and
child support is very likely a contributing factor towards the
draconian nature of the child support system.
Post by Chris
What "little support" group are you referring to?
THis one where you all agree with each other no matter how stupid the
argument and logic is. Then change the subject when one of your fellow
supportees makes a fool of himself.
Post by Chris
Equivocation. This forum has always been about the "child support" industry;
NOT the raising of any child. Do yourself a favor and search "child support"
on the internet. Then get back with the results.
Since you claim to have no responsibility towards a kid you can't
abort or walk away from, of course it has nothing to do with raising a
child. For you it is about not paying money, even if you have to deny
all of your instincts and responsibilities to do it. For others this
is not the case. Some people actually support their children
willingly.
Chris
2009-07-22 17:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Clearly, TWO different kinds
of "responsibilities" are being discussed. Hence the confusion. If you want
to educate yourself, do some research on any "child support" system and you
will quickly learn that the ONLY legal "responsibility" (meaning obligation)
of a legally imputed "father" is that of paying money to some
woman........
PERIOD.
And you are in this group denying both kinds

************

Quite the contrary. I have been promoting cause and effect responsibility
and clearly explained BOTH kinds.

*********

(actually all) when you
claim that you should have no responsibility when you can't decide the
fate of the fetus before birth, as if that silliness absolves you of
any type of responsibility.

**********

I NEVER claimed that one should have no responsibility. I said that
responsibility is lacking because the CHOICE is lacking.

**********
This sort of approach to children and
child support is very likely a contributing factor towards the
draconian nature of the child support system.

*********

Guess again. GREED (of the "child support" people) is the ONLY contributing
factor!

*********
Post by Chris
What "little support" group are you referring to?
THis one where you all agree with each other no matter how stupid the
argument and logic is. Then change the subject when one of your fellow
supportees makes a fool of himself.

***********

I don't do that; therefore, your claim is false.
***********
Post by Chris
Equivocation. This forum has always been about the "child support" industry;
NOT the raising of any child. Do yourself a favor and search "child support"
on the internet. Then get back with the results.
Since you claim to have no responsibility towards a kid you can't
abort or walk away from, of course it has nothing to do with raising a
child.

*************

Correction: It has nothing to do with raising a child because it is about
"child support". Did you do your internet search yet?

*************

For you it is about not paying money, even if you have to deny
all of your instincts and responsibilities to do it.

***********

Untrue.

**********

For others this
is not the case. Some people actually support their children
willingly.

**********

Those who are not legally prohibited from doing so. Your point?
Phil #3
2009-07-22 01:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob W
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to
make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on
denying this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy
and rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when
it comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he
sends another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological
father in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16
year old son he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad
refused the offer because it was his responsibility as a father to pay
those bills. See how it IS possible to take responsibility for your
kids? All you need to do is grow up and stop whining.
The "responsibility" to which you refer is simply paying money to some
woman.
None of what I posted above can be characterized as paying money to some
woman. Each example was an example of a person accepting responsibility
for his own kids, (a responsibility that exists whether the guy accepts
it or not btw)I defy you to back up that stupid lie.
The problem you seem to want to ignore is the divorced, separated, or
never married father has the responsibility for children that you
describe removed from him in almost every case. In it's place the
responsibility to parent effectively is replaced with a newly defined
responsibility to pay money.
Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed then
obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that
responsibility for their offspring despite the fact that "only the woman
can decide." Therefore it is not impossible to to be responsible.
Two different questions:
1) Who is responsible for a birth (not pregnancy; for that both adults are
obviously responsible)?
2) Who is responsible for the actual support of children (not limited to
money, especially that given to a parent in the hopes it will trickle down
to the children)?
Post by Bob W
Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give
them a new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are done
against the stated desires of most fathers, the courts rub the new
arrangement in by claiming the fathers new role is the "duty to support"
and in any disputes the judges tell fathers they "agreed" to their new
role. Reality is 180 degrees from the court's characterization of these
changes.
None of the examples I mentioned involved family court.
What about in real life as it occurs in courts across America daily?
Phil #3
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-22 01:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
1) Who is responsible for a birth (not pregnancy; for that both adults are
obviously responsible)?
Both parents.
Post by Phil #3
2) Who is responsible for the actual support of children (not limited to
money, especially that given to a parent in the hopes it will trickle down
to the children)?
Both parents.
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
None of the examples I mentioned involved family court.
What about in real life as it occurs in courts across America daily?
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
Read my examples, they all occurred in America, the US specifically.
BB King is my favorite of those examples though.
Phil #3
2009-07-22 01:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
1) Who is responsible for a birth (not pregnancy; for that both adults are
obviously responsible)?
Both parents.
*****************************************************

Wrong-o but you knew that. Only a pregnant woman can decide if a pregnancy
will result in abortion or childbirth.
That's the ruling from the SCOTUS back in 1979.

***************************************************
Post by Phil #3
2) Who is responsible for the actual support of children (not limited to
money, especially that given to a parent in the hopes it will trickle down
to the children)?
Both parents.
****************************************************

True in an intact family only.

**************************************************
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
None of the examples I mentioned involved family court.
What about in real life as it occurs in courts across America daily?
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
Read my examples, they all occurred in America, the US specifically.
BB King is my favorite of those examples though.

**************************************************

What about people who work regular jobs and make less than $300,000/year?
Phil #3
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-22 02:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Post by Phil #3
1) Who is responsible for a birth (not pregnancy; for that both adults are
obviously responsible)?
Both parents.
*****************************************************
Wrong-o but you knew that. Only a pregnant woman can decide if a pregnancy
will result in abortion or childbirth.
That's the ruling from the SCOTUS back in 1979.
Doesn't mean the father isn't still responsible, its still his future
kid.
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Post by Phil #3
2) Who is responsible for the actual support of children (not limited to
money, especially that given to a parent in the hopes it will trickle down
to the children)?
Both parents.
****************************************************
True in an intact family only.
True always, both parents are responsible for their offspring. No
amount of lying changes that.
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
None of the examples I mentioned involved family court.
What about in real life as it occurs in courts across America daily?
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
Read my examples, they all occurred in America, the US specifically.
BB King is my favorite of those examples though.
**************************************************
What about people who work regular jobs and make less than $300,000/year?
Phil #3
They pay less and usually have fewer kids but they are still
responsible.
Phil #3
2009-07-22 22:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Post by Phil #3
1) Who is responsible for a birth (not pregnancy; for that both adults are
obviously responsible)?
Both parents.
*****************************************************
Wrong-o but you knew that. Only a pregnant woman can decide if a pregnancy
will result in abortion or childbirth.
That's the ruling from the SCOTUS back in 1979.
Doesn't mean the father isn't still responsible, its still his future
kid.

************************************************************
************************************************************

According to the law, he has neither responsibility nor options for or about
the unborn child until after the child is born.
If you have different information, I'd love to see it.

*******************************************************
******************************************************
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Post by Phil #3
2) Who is responsible for the actual support of children (not limited to
money, especially that given to a parent in the hopes it will trickle down
to the children)?
Both parents.
****************************************************
True in an intact family only.
True always, both parents are responsible for their offspring. No
amount of lying changes that.

****************************************************
****************************************************

Correct, your lying doesn't change the fact that outside marriage, fathers
have a responsibility to pay the mother but fails to mandate how the money
is to be used, thereby rendering the money a payment for the choice only the
mother can make. He has no further legal obligations (responsibility) or
options (rights) unless he has funding enough to seek a court order allowing
more options, which is usually denied above a few days "visitation" per
month. The mother is liable to only see that the children are given legally
minimum food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc., regardless the amount
of her income from child support. In fact, she is under NO obligation
whatever to provide for the children at all as long as they are minimally
cared for and regardless who actually spends the money to do so.
****************************************************
****************************************************
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
None of the examples I mentioned involved family court.
What about in real life as it occurs in courts across America daily?
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
Read my examples, they all occurred in America, the US specifically.
BB King is my favorite of those examples though.
**************************************************
What about people who work regular jobs and make less than $300,000/year?
Phil #3
They pay less and usually have fewer kids but they are still
responsible.
*********************************************
**********************************************

How so? What specific "responsibilities" do divorced or never-married
fathers have toward their children other than paying the mother?

Phil #3
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-23 03:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
According to the law, he has neither responsibility nor options for or about
the unborn child until after the child is born.
If you have different information, I'd love to see it.
according to jews muslims christians and anyone in the world claiming
moral authority, he is responsible. Since the kid is still in a
woman's body he has as much legal responsibility for it as he would
have for one of her kidneys. He can't force her into any decisions
about the fetus. Once the kid makes it into the world, its father has
legal and moral responsibility.
Post by Phil #3
Correct, your lying doesn't change the fact that  outside marriage, fathers
have a responsibility to pay the mother but fails to mandate how the money
is to be used, thereby rendering the money a payment for the choice only the
mother can make. He has no further legal obligations (responsibility) or
't > options (rights) unless he has funding enough to seek a court
order allowing
Post by Phil #3
more options, which is usually denied above a few days "visitation" per
month. The mother is liable to only see that the children are given legally
minimum food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc., regardless the amount
of her income from child support. In fact, she is under NO obligation
whatever to provide for the children at all as long as they are minimally
cared for and regardless who actually spends the money to do so.
****************************************************
****************************************************
They have those legal responsibilities plus his parenting
responsibilities. Same as with the pregnancy, just because the mother
has more options doesn't mean the father is absolved of his
responsibility.
Post by Phil #3
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
None of the examples I mentioned involved family court.
What about in real life as it occurs in courts across America daily?
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
Read my examples, they all occurred in America, the US specifically.
BB King is my favorite of those examples though.
**************************************************
What about people who work regular jobs and make less than $300,000/year?
Phil #3
They pay less and usually have fewer kids but they are still
responsible.
*********************************************
**********************************************
How so? What specific "responsibilities" do divorced or never-married
fathers have toward their children other than paying the mother?
Phil #3
Paying the child support is the minimum for people who want to be
absolved of their responsibilities, those who don't can share a
million other responsibilities with you. A few of those can be found
in the examples I provided.
Phil #3
2009-07-23 16:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
According to the law, he has neither responsibility nor options for or about
the unborn child until after the child is born.
If you have different information, I'd love to see it.
according to jews muslims christians and anyone in the world claiming
moral authority, he is responsible. Since the kid is still in a
woman's body he has as much legal responsibility for it as he would
have for one of her kidneys. He can't force her into any decisions
about the fetus. Once the kid makes it into the world, its father has
legal and moral responsibility.

******************************************
******************************************
******************************************

So now you want to make religion synonymous with law. Not surprising.
Legal and moral responsibilities are not at all the same thing nor does one
need to be religious to have morals however one can be legal without being
moral and visa versa.
I think perhaps your basic problem is that you have to have everything
compartmentalized and in agreement with your basic desires in order to make
sense of the world.
That's a shame. Individual thought is very liberating.

*****************************************
*****************************************
*****************************************
Post by Phil #3
Correct, your lying doesn't change the fact that outside marriage, fathers
have a responsibility to pay the mother but fails to mandate how the money
is to be used, thereby rendering the money a payment for the choice only the
mother can make. He has no further legal obligations (responsibility) or
't > options (rights) unless he has funding enough to seek a court
order allowing
Post by Phil #3
more options, which is usually denied above a few days "visitation" per
month. The mother is liable to only see that the children are given legally
minimum food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc., regardless the amount
of her income from child support. In fact, she is under NO obligation
whatever to provide for the children at all as long as they are minimally
cared for and regardless who actually spends the money to do so.
****************************************************
****************************************************
They have those legal responsibilities plus his parenting
responsibilities. Same as with the pregnancy, just because the mother
has more options doesn't mean the father is absolved of his
responsibility.

************************************************
************************************************
************************************************

So you're saying that a mother's ability to abort, abandon or use a child as
a means to a paycheck is "responsible" and moral while at the same time a
father doing the same thing is immoral and irresponsible.
How very sexist of you.

************************************************
************************************************
***********************************************
Post by Phil #3
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
None of the examples I mentioned involved family court.
What about in real life as it occurs in courts across America daily?
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
Read my examples, they all occurred in America, the US specifically.
BB King is my favorite of those examples though.
**************************************************
What about people who work regular jobs and make less than
$300,000/year?
Phil #3
They pay less and usually have fewer kids but they are still
responsible.
*********************************************
**********************************************
How so? What specific "responsibilities" do divorced or never-married
fathers have toward their children other than paying the mother?
Phil #3
Paying the child support is the minimum for people who want to be
absolved of their responsibilities, those who don't can share a
million other responsibilities with you. A few of those can be found
in the examples I provided.
***************************************************
***************************************************
***************************************************

Bullshit in spades. Allowing a parent to be a full and equal patrent is the
minimum. Forcing a man away from his children without cause and beign forced
to provide money because the other parent demand it is pure unadulterated
sexism.

****************************************************
****************************************************
***************************************************

Phil #3
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-24 02:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
So now you want to make religion synonymous with law. Not surprising.
Your strawman aside, I have made the distinction between legal and
moral responsibility from the start. The law usually steps in when
your morals and decency fall short or don't exist in the first place.
Post by Phil #3
Legal and moral responsibilities are not at all the same thing nor does one
need to be religious to have morals however one can be legal without being
moral and visa versa.
I've been making the distinction from the beginning, you liars all
play the same dishonest game ... if someone mentions the legal
responsibility harp on the non legal, if anyone mentions the other
than legal responsibilities for your kids, go back to the legal
argument. We both know it is bullshit and a simple minded way for a
group of liars to stick to pre approved agenda.
Post by Phil #3
I think perhaps your basic problem is that you have to have everything
compartmentalized and in agreement with your basic desires in order to make
sense of the world.
That's a shame. Individual thought is very liberating.
Unlike you dirty dozen deadbeats, I express my own ideas and call
bullshit when I see it.
Post by Phil #3
So you're saying that a mother's ability to abort, abandon or use a child as
a means to a paycheck is "responsible" and moral while at the same time a
father doing the same thing is immoral and irresponsible.
How very sexist of you.
Nice strawman, how long did it take you devise this stupid lie? I say,
as I have from the beginning, that father's have responsibility
despite the fact that women have more options. If you don't pay your
bills does that make it okay for me not to pay my bills? When the
sherrif shows up can I tell him that I shouldn't be responsible
because of how someone else acts? The fact that you pass this
stupidity off as an argument shows how fitting the deadbeat moniker is
for you. The fact that none of the other idiots here will call you on
this simpleton's attempt at an argument shows how correct I am in my
description of your m.o.
Post by Phil #3
Bullshit in spades. Allowing a parent to be a full and equal patrent is the
minimum.
Show me how "allowing you be a full ...." is your responsibility. The
minimum required of a father, hence his minimum responsibility is to
pay his child support.
Post by Phil #3
Forcing a man away from his children without cause and beign forced
to provide money because the other parent demand it is pure unadulterated
sexism.
Again you prove that you have no idea what the word means. Thanks for
making it so obvious this time.
Phil #3
2009-07-24 13:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
So now you want to make religion synonymous with law. Not surprising.
Your strawman aside, I have made the distinction between legal and
moral responsibility from the start. The law usually steps in when
your morals and decency fall short or don't exist in the first place.

*****************************************************

Bullshit. The law steps in to allow the major religions a method of forcing
everyone, even the non-believers or those of a different faith, into
observing the religious doctrines of the most dominant. An example would be
the cities/states/counties that forbid selling alcohol on Sunday or other
restrictions. Or when I was a boy, the "blue laws" that made working on
Sunday a misdemeanor ("necessary" employment (police, doctors, etc.) were
exempt, which was just more hypocrisy.
Post by Phil #3
Legal and moral responsibilities are not at all the same thing nor does one
need to be religious to have morals however one can be legal without being
moral and visa versa.
I've been making the distinction from the beginning, you liars all
play the same dishonest game ... if someone mentions the legal
responsibility harp on the non legal, if anyone mentions the other
than legal responsibilities for your kids, go back to the legal
argument. We both know it is bullshit and a simple minded way for a
group of liars to stick to pre approved agenda.

*********************************************************

Obviously, reading comprehension is not one of your abilities. You read what
you like into other's statements, believe everyone that disagrees with your
prejudiced and jaundiced viewpoint is a liar. Got it.
In other words, you're still full of shit and spewing nothing but insults in
place of facts because you can't handle the truth. Sadly, there's no way to
educate the intentionally ignorant.


*********************************************************
Post by Phil #3
I think perhaps your basic problem is that you have to have everything
compartmentalized and in agreement with your basic desires in order to make
sense of the world.
That's a shame. Individual thought is very liberating.
Unlike you dirty dozen deadbeats, I express my own ideas and call
bullshit when I see it.
******************************************************
******************************************************
*******************************************************






You lable me a "deadbeat" because....????????


Because I don't agree with your prejudicial viewpoint that men should give
money to women because..., well, just because?





****************************************************
****************************************************
***************************************************
Post by Phil #3
So you're saying that a mother's ability to abort, abandon or use a child as
a means to a paycheck is "responsible" and moral while at the same time a
father doing the same thing is immoral and irresponsible.
How very sexist of you.
Nice strawman, how long did it take you devise this stupid lie? I say,
as I have from the beginning, that father's have responsibility
despite the fact that women have more options. If you don't pay your
bills does that make it okay for me not to pay my bills? When the
sherrif shows up can I tell him that I shouldn't be responsible
because of how someone else acts? The fact that you pass this
stupidity off as an argument shows how fitting the deadbeat moniker is
for you. The fact that none of the other idiots here will call you on
this simpleton's attempt at an argument shows how correct I am in my
description of your m.o.

**************************************************************
************************************************************

Point out the lie. Once again, you can't back up your statements as usual
because it isn't a lie and you damned well know it, you simple-minded
ass-wipe You just have nothing else to say except to call "lie" and run for
cover.

***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
Post by Phil #3
Bullshit in spades. Allowing a parent to be a full and equal patrent is the
minimum.
Show me how "allowing you be a full ...." is your responsibility. The
minimum required of a father, hence his minimum responsibility is to
pay his child support.

****************************************************

Just when I think you've been as stupid as possible, you go one step beyond.

****************************************************
Post by Phil #3
Forcing a man away from his children without cause and beign forced
to provide money because the other parent demand it is pure unadulterated
sexism.
Again you prove that you have no idea what the word means. Thanks for
making it so obvious this time.
******************************************************

What is obvious is that men paying women because of the sex of each is your
opinion of "responsibile".
All you've proven is that you're a dumb son-of-a-bitch.
Phil #3
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-25 01:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Your strawman aside, I have made the distinction between legal and
moral responsibility from the start. The law usually steps in when
your morals and decency fall short or don't exist in the first place.
*****************************************************
Bullshit. The law steps in to allow the major religions a method of
forcing everyone, even the non-believers or those of a different faith,
into observing the religious doctrines of the most dominant. An example
would be the cities/states/counties that forbid selling alcohol on
Sunday or other restrictions. Or when I was a boy, the "blue laws" that
made working on Sunday a misdemeanor ("necessary" employment (police,
doctors, etc.) were exempt, which was just more hypocrisy.
So who do you blame for being raised a hillbilly? I was raised a
hillbilly, I play banjo, I can make myself a decent pair of overalls
from leftover jobsite canvas, I can turn a garbage disposal or dumped
lawnmower into a pretty good minibike engine, I can make running shoes
from old tires I even helped my uncle install an old bus engine into his
fishing boat. I never had much time for religions, but I never blamed
them when I couldn't buy beer/oil/tires on a sunday, I have no quarrel
with the law of the land.

I got through college fixing brakes on my classmates' cars and handing
wrenches to Trailways bus mechanics so their busses could make it to ski
trips. I showed up in class every day covered in grease but I never once
blamed my situation on anyone. I never had any idea that I had anything
to blame on anyone, I did my thing, accepted responsibility for my own
tuition and never found anyone to blame. In fact I felt sorry for the
kids who got stranded because their car's oil light came on, I couldn't
believe how helpless people allow themselves to be.
Post by ***@XXX.COM
*********************************************************
Obviously, reading comprehension is not one of your abilities. You read
what you like into other's statements, believe everyone that disagrees
with your prejudiced and jaundiced viewpoint is a liar. Got it.
In other words, you're still full of shit and spewing nothing but
insults in place of facts because you can't handle the truth. Sadly,
there's no way to educate the intentionally ignorant.
Nobody needs to read into anything you say, you are arguing against
child support and responsibility and arguing for anything promoted by
your little girlie cabal. I see you still can't address the whole MJ
died a pauper thing. Not a problem, your MO is as apparent as it is
transparent.
Post by ***@XXX.COM
You lable me a "deadbeat" because....????????
Because you support the deadbeat agenda and because your rhetoric is
worthless.
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Because I don't agree with your prejudicial viewpoint that men should
give money to women because..., well, just because?
Men should support their children as well as they can. Your deadbeat
argument is still worthless.
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Nice strawman, how long did it take you devise this stupid lie? I say,
as I have from the beginning, that father's have responsibility
despite the fact that women have more options. If you don't pay your
bills does that make it okay for me not to pay my bills? When the
sherrif shows up can I tell him that I shouldn't be responsible
because of how someone else acts? The fact that you pass this
stupidity off as an argument shows how fitting the deadbeat moniker is
for you. The fact that none of the other idiots here will call you on
this simpleton's attempt at an argument shows how correct I am in my
description of your m.o.
**************************************************************
************************************************************
Point out the lie. Once again, you can't back up your statements as
usual because it isn't a lie and you damned well know it, you
simple-minded ass-wipe You just have nothing else to say except to call
"lie" and run for cover.
Read it again. It is all lies.
Post by ***@XXX.COM
****************************************************
Just when I think you've been as stupid as possible, you go one step beyond.
I know, I am shocked by how stupid you are. At least you recognize it.
Post by ***@XXX.COM
What is obvious is that men paying women because of the sex of each is
your opinion of "responsibile".
All you've proven is that you're a dumb son-of-a-bitch.
Obviously you need a dictionary. Unfortunately you are surrounding
yourself with idiots as stupid as yourself.
Phil #3
2009-07-30 13:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Your strawman aside, I have made the distinction between legal and
moral responsibility from the start. The law usually steps in when
your morals and decency fall short or don't exist in the first place.
*****************************************************
Bullshit. The law steps in to allow the major religions a method of
forcing everyone, even the non-believers or those of a different faith,
into observing the religious doctrines of the most dominant. An example
would be the cities/states/counties that forbid selling alcohol on Sunday
or other restrictions. Or when I was a boy, the "blue laws" that made
working on Sunday a misdemeanor ("necessary" employment (police, doctors,
etc.) were exempt, which was just more hypocrisy.
So who do you blame for being raised a hillbilly? I was raised a
hillbilly, I play banjo, I can make myself a decent pair of overalls from
leftover jobsite canvas, I can turn a garbage disposal or dumped lawnmower
into a pretty good minibike engine, I can make running shoes from old
tires I even helped my uncle install an old bus engine into his fishing
boat. I never had much time for religions, but I never blamed them when I
couldn't buy beer/oil/tires on a sunday, I have no quarrel with the law of
the land.
I got through college fixing brakes on my classmates' cars and handing
wrenches to Trailways bus mechanics so their busses could make it to ski
trips. I showed up in class every day covered in grease but I never once
blamed my situation on anyone. I never had any idea that I had anything to
blame on anyone, I did my thing, accepted responsibility for my own
tuition and never found anyone to blame. In fact I felt sorry for the kids
who got stranded because their car's oil light came on, I couldn't believe
how helpless people allow themselves to be.
Post by ***@XXX.COM
*********************************************************
Obviously, reading comprehension is not one of your abilities. You read
what you like into other's statements, believe everyone that disagrees
with your prejudiced and jaundiced viewpoint is a liar. Got it.
In other words, you're still full of shit and spewing nothing but insults
in place of facts because you can't handle the truth. Sadly, there's no
way to educate the intentionally ignorant.
Nobody needs to read into anything you say, you are arguing against child
support and responsibility and arguing for anything promoted by your
little girlie cabal. I see you still can't address the whole MJ died a
pauper thing. Not a problem, your MO is as apparent as it is transparent.
Post by ***@XXX.COM
You lable me a "deadbeat" because....????????
Because you support the deadbeat agenda and because your rhetoric is
worthless.
Nope, not at all but don't let that get in the way of facts you have no
possible understanding of.
If anything, I am against the dead-beat issue which applies almost totally
to mothers, not that you'd understand that either.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Because I don't agree with your prejudicial viewpoint that men should
give money to women because..., well, just because?
Men should support their children as well as they can. Your deadbeat
argument is still worthless.
Bullshit. Fathers should support their children EXACTLY as mothers are
assumed and presumed to do, which is that they choose the level of support
as long as it is above that of legal neglect. Fair is fair and anything else
is patently illegal, not that you'd care being such a sexist.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Nice strawman, how long did it take you devise this stupid lie? I say,
as I have from the beginning, that father's have responsibility
despite the fact that women have more options. If you don't pay your
bills does that make it okay for me not to pay my bills? When the
sherrif shows up can I tell him that I shouldn't be responsible
because of how someone else acts? The fact that you pass this
stupidity off as an argument shows how fitting the deadbeat moniker is
for you. The fact that none of the other idiots here will call you on
this simpleton's attempt at an argument shows how correct I am in my
description of your m.o.
**************************************************************
************************************************************
Point out the lie. Once again, you can't back up your statements as usual
because it isn't a lie and you damned well know it, you simple-minded
ass-wipe You just have nothing else to say except to call "lie" and run
for cover.
Read it again. It is all lies.
Can't do it, huh? Big surprise.... not.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by ***@XXX.COM
****************************************************
Just when I think you've been as stupid as possible, you go one step beyond.
I know, I am shocked by how stupid you are. At least you recognize it.
Post by ***@XXX.COM
What is obvious is that men paying women because of the sex of each is
your opinion of "responsibile".
All you've proven is that you're a dumb son-of-a-bitch.
Obviously you need a dictionary. Unfortunately you are surrounding
yourself with idiots as stupid as yourself.
You just needs some sense, any will do.

Phil #3
Chris
2009-07-30 20:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Your strawman aside, I have made the distinction between legal and
moral responsibility from the start. The law usually steps in when
your morals and decency fall short or don't exist in the first place.
*****************************************************
Bullshit. The law steps in to allow the major religions a method of
forcing everyone, even the non-believers or those of a different faith,
into observing the religious doctrines of the most dominant. An example
would be the cities/states/counties that forbid selling alcohol on
Sunday or other restrictions. Or when I was a boy, the "blue laws" that
made working on Sunday a misdemeanor ("necessary" employment (police,
doctors, etc.) were exempt, which was just more hypocrisy.
So who do you blame for being raised a hillbilly? I was raised a
hillbilly, I play banjo, I can make myself a decent pair of overalls from
leftover jobsite canvas, I can turn a garbage disposal or dumped
lawnmower into a pretty good minibike engine, I can make running shoes
from old tires I even helped my uncle install an old bus engine into his
fishing boat. I never had much time for religions, but I never blamed
them when I couldn't buy beer/oil/tires on a sunday, I have no quarrel
with the law of the land.
I got through college fixing brakes on my classmates' cars and handing
wrenches to Trailways bus mechanics so their busses could make it to ski
trips. I showed up in class every day covered in grease but I never once
blamed my situation on anyone. I never had any idea that I had anything
to blame on anyone, I did my thing, accepted responsibility for my own
tuition and never found anyone to blame. In fact I felt sorry for the
kids who got stranded because their car's oil light came on, I couldn't
believe how helpless people allow themselves to be.
Post by ***@XXX.COM
*********************************************************
Obviously, reading comprehension is not one of your abilities. You read
what you like into other's statements, believe everyone that disagrees
with your prejudiced and jaundiced viewpoint is a liar. Got it.
In other words, you're still full of shit and spewing nothing but
insults in place of facts because you can't handle the truth. Sadly,
there's no way to educate the intentionally ignorant.
Nobody needs to read into anything you say, you are arguing against child
support and responsibility and arguing for anything promoted by your
little girlie cabal. I see you still can't address the whole MJ died a
pauper thing. Not a problem, your MO is as apparent as it is transparent.
Post by ***@XXX.COM
You lable me a "deadbeat" because....????????
Because you support the deadbeat agenda and because your rhetoric is
worthless.
Nope, not at all but don't let that get in the way of facts you have no
possible understanding of.
If anything, I am against the dead-beat issue which applies almost totally
to mothers, not that you'd understand that either.
Clearly, you are dealing with an individual that lacks a fundamental
understanding of the connection between choice and responsibility for such
choice; much less the concept of EQUAL protection. So don't hold your breath
waiting for the light bulb to turn on.
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Because I don't agree with your prejudicial viewpoint that men should
give money to women because..., well, just because?
Men should support their children as well as they can. Your deadbeat
argument is still worthless.
Bullshit. Fathers should support their children EXACTLY as mothers are
assumed and presumed to do, which is that they choose the level of support
as long as it is above that of legal neglect. Fair is fair and anything
else is patently illegal, not that you'd care being such a sexist.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Nice strawman, how long did it take you devise this stupid lie? I say,
as I have from the beginning, that father's have responsibility
despite the fact that women have more options. If you don't pay your
bills does that make it okay for me not to pay my bills? When the
sherrif shows up can I tell him that I shouldn't be responsible
because of how someone else acts? The fact that you pass this
stupidity off as an argument shows how fitting the deadbeat moniker is
for you. The fact that none of the other idiots here will call you on
this simpleton's attempt at an argument shows how correct I am in my
description of your m.o.
**************************************************************
************************************************************
Point out the lie. Once again, you can't back up your statements as
usual because it isn't a lie and you damned well know it, you
simple-minded ass-wipe You just have nothing else to say except to call
"lie" and run for cover.
Read it again. It is all lies.
Can't do it, huh? Big surprise.... not.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by ***@XXX.COM
****************************************************
Just when I think you've been as stupid as possible, you go one step beyond.
I know, I am shocked by how stupid you are. At least you recognize it.
Post by ***@XXX.COM
What is obvious is that men paying women because of the sex of each is
your opinion of "responsibile".
All you've proven is that you're a dumb son-of-a-bitch.
Obviously you need a dictionary. Unfortunately you are surrounding
yourself with idiots as stupid as yourself.
You just needs some sense, any will do.
Sense is a gift from God; and not all are blessed with such ability.
Post by Phil #3
Phil #3
Chris
2009-07-29 12:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
So now you want to make religion synonymous with law. Not surprising.
Your strawman aside, I have made the distinction between legal and
moral responsibility from the start. The law usually steps in when
your morals and decency fall short or don't exist in the first place.
Post by Phil #3
Legal and moral responsibilities are not at all the same thing nor does one
need to be religious to have morals however one can be legal without being
moral and visa versa.
I've been making the distinction from the beginning, you liars all
play the same dishonest game ... if someone mentions the legal
responsibility harp on the non legal, if anyone mentions the other
than legal responsibilities for your kids, go back to the legal
argument. We both know it is bullshit and a simple minded way for a
group of liars to stick to pre approved agenda.
Post by Phil #3
I think perhaps your basic problem is that you have to have everything
compartmentalized and in agreement with your basic desires in order to make
sense of the world.
That's a shame. Individual thought is very liberating.
Unlike you dirty dozen deadbeats, I express my own ideas and call
bullshit when I see it.
Post by Phil #3
So you're saying that a mother's ability to abort, abandon or use a child as
a means to a paycheck is "responsible" and moral while at the same time a
father doing the same thing is immoral and irresponsible.
How very sexist of you.
Nice strawman, how long did it take you devise this stupid lie? I say,
as I have from the beginning, that father's have responsibility

*************
The "responsibility" to pay FREE MONEY to some woman...........

***************

despite the fact that women have more options. If you don't pay your
bills does that make it okay for me not to pay my bills? When the
sherrif shows up can I tell him that I shouldn't be responsible
because of how someone else acts? The fact that you pass this
stupidity off as an argument shows how fitting the deadbeat moniker is
for you. The fact that none of the other idiots here will call you on
this simpleton's attempt at an argument shows how correct I am in my
description of your m.o.
Post by Phil #3
Bullshit in spades. Allowing a parent to be a full and equal patrent is the
minimum.
Show me how "allowing you be a full ...." is your responsibility. The
minimum required of a father, hence his minimum responsibility is to
pay his child support.

************

Perhaps YOU might show how paying free cash to some woman meets the minimum
responsibility of a man to his children.

***********
Post by Phil #3
Forcing a man away from his children without cause and beign forced
to provide money because the other parent demand it is pure unadulterated
sexism.
Again you prove that you have no idea what the word means. Thanks for
making it so obvious this time.
Chris
2009-07-17 23:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make
the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying
this pesky lil' fact?
I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy and
rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their
children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is
impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something
like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when it
comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he sends
another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible.
I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological
father in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16
year old son he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad refused
the offer because it was his responsibility as a father to pay those
bills. See how it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All
you need to do is grow up and stop whining.
The "responsibility" to which you refer is simply paying money to some
woman.
None of what I posted above can be characterized as paying money to some
woman. Each example was an example of a person accepting responsibility
for his own kids, (a responsibility that exists whether the guy accepts it
or not btw)I defy you to back up that stupid lie.
Not a "stupid lie". Rather a simple oversight on my part fueled by your
repeated position.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
ANYONE can do that! Not the responsibility I am talking about. I am
referring to the CONCEPT of responsibility; not some action.
Exactly what my post described, none of the examples are examples of just
paying money to some woman.
I'll give you that. But your post described nothing of the sort. Your use of
the word "responsibility" is in reference to action only, NOT the concept;
that being it is impossible to be responsible for a choice that is
IMPOSSIBLE to make. Stated differently, by its very definition
responsibility rests with the one that caused the effect.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Apples and oranges. If I take a match to your house and burn it to the
ground, I am "responsible" for the pile of ashes which is a state of
being, NOT an action.
You are not responsible for the pile of ashes, either I or my insurance
company is. You are only responsible for the crime of arson and the
damage,
Which is the ASHES! I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in the above statements;
no arson, no ashes. What am I missing?
Post by x***@xxx.com
legally and morally. Again, you just don't make any sense.
Based on your above thinking, I can see why you believe so.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-18 02:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
None of what I posted above can be characterized as paying money to
some woman. Each example was an example of a person accepting
responsibility for his own kids, (a responsibility that exists whether
the guy accepts it or not btw)I defy you to back up that stupid lie.
Not a "stupid lie". Rather a simple oversight on my part fueled by your
repeated position.
My mistake then.
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Exactly what my post described, none of the examples are examples of
just paying money to some woman.
I'll give you that. But your post described nothing of the sort. Your
use of the word "responsibility" is in reference to action only, NOT the
concept; that being it is impossible to be responsible for a choice that
is IMPOSSIBLE to make. Stated differently, by its very definition
responsibility rests with the one that caused the effect.
Responsibility the concept, the moral attitude, the legal obligation and
the following of societies rules are what my post described. Those all
exist for the father when his child is born. The action is either taking
responsibility (fueled by the first 2) or being forced to take the
responsibility (caused by the 2nd 2.

It is quite possible for a person to be responsible for choices he
doesn't make, if my 7 year old breaks all the windows in your house,
guess who is responsible .... me, even though it would be impossible to
make the decision to break the windows in your house. If my wife runs up
a million dollars in debt but has no money, who is responsible ....
again me. I wouldn't expect any judge to let me off the hook. So from a
legal standpoint your argument is 100% rubbish and you are responsible.

More to the point, you are partly responsible for the pregnancy and
therefore have responsibility for the child whether you want an adoption
an abortion or just no contact with the kid.
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Apples and oranges. If I take a match to your house and burn it to
the ground, I am "responsible" for the pile of ashes which is a state
of being, NOT an action.
You are not responsible for the pile of ashes, either I or my
insurance company is. You are only responsible for the crime of arson
and the damage,
Which is the ASHES! I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in the above
statements; no arson, no ashes. What am I missing?
It is my house, therefore my responsibility, since I am insured I will
lay some of that responsibility off on my insurance company. The ashes
are the remnants of the house for which I am 100% responsible. You are
only responsible for your crime. The house, the remnants and the ashes
would be my responsibility before during and after your crime.
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
legally and morally. Again, you just don't make any sense.
Based on your above thinking, I can see why you believe so.
No, based on your convoluted posts in which (such in your case) nothing
you say is correct and you use examples which are completely wrong to
support your incorrect ideas.
Chris
2009-07-19 14:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
None of what I posted above can be characterized as paying money to some
woman. Each example was an example of a person accepting responsibility
for his own kids, (a responsibility that exists whether the guy accepts
it or not btw)I defy you to back up that stupid lie.
Not a "stupid lie". Rather a simple oversight on my part fueled by your
repeated position.
My mistake then.
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Exactly what my post described, none of the examples are examples of
just paying money to some woman.
I'll give you that. But your post described nothing of the sort. Your use
of the word "responsibility" is in reference to action only, NOT the
concept; that being it is impossible to be responsible for a choice that
is IMPOSSIBLE to make. Stated differently, by its very definition
responsibility rests with the one that caused the effect.
Responsibility the concept, the moral attitude, the legal obligation and
the following of societies rules are what my post described.
Wrong. The concept of responsibility is nowhere to be found in your post.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Those all exist for the father when his child is born.
Strike TWO! The father CANNOT be responsible for the choice to bear the
child because he did NOT make such choice. A concept understood by most
third graders.
Post by x***@xxx.com
The action is either taking responsibility (fueled by the first 2) or
being forced to take the responsibility (caused by the 2nd 2.
It is quite possible for a person to be responsible for choices he doesn't
make, if my 7 year old breaks all the windows in your house, guess who is
responsible .... me,
Correction, you are responsible for improperly supervising him. He is still
responsible for his choice. But since he is incapable of discerning right
from wrong, the person who chose to be his guardian has voluntarily accepted
proxy to his choices. No different than if my dog bites someone. Is this
also the case with pregnant women?
Post by x***@xxx.com
even though it would be impossible to make the decision to break the
windows in your house. If my wife runs up a million dollars in debt but
has no money, who is responsible .... again me. I wouldn't expect any
judge to let me off the hook. So from a legal standpoint your argument is
100% rubbish and you are responsible.
Who's talking law? Certainly NOT me.
Post by x***@xxx.com
More to the point, you are partly responsible for the pregnancy and
therefore have responsibility for the child
Non sequitur. Notice how the subject magically changed from "pregnancy" to
"child"?
Post by x***@xxx.com
whether you want an adoption an abortion or just no contact with the kid.
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Apples and oranges. If I take a match to your house and burn it to the
ground, I am "responsible" for the pile of ashes which is a state of
being, NOT an action.
You are not responsible for the pile of ashes, either I or my insurance
company is. You are only responsible for the crime of arson and the
damage,
Which is the ASHES! I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in the above
statements; no arson, no ashes. What am I missing?
It is my house, therefore my responsibility, since I am insured I will lay
some of that responsibility off on my insurance company. The ashes are the
remnants of the house for which I am 100% responsible. You are only
responsible for your crime. The house, the remnants and the ashes would be
my responsibility before during and after your crime.
Your above claims are about as untrue as it gets. "I", not you, would be
responsible for (the creation of) the ashes since it was MY action (choice),
not yours, that created them. You might want to review the concept of cause
and effect.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
legally and morally. Again, you just don't make any sense.
Based on your above thinking, I can see why you believe so.
No, based on your convoluted posts in which (such in your case) nothing
you say is correct and you use examples which are completely wrong to
support your incorrect ideas.
Quote just one of my claims that is false.
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-21 04:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Responsibility the concept, the moral attitude, the legal obligation and
the following of societies rules are what my post described.
Wrong. The concept of responsibility is nowhere to be found in your post.
It is, it is in every example, you just don't recognize it, for
obvious reasons.
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Those all exist for the father when his child is born.
Strike TWO! The father CANNOT be responsible for the choice to bear the
child because he did NOT make such choice. A concept understood by most
third graders.
"such" .... that makes me laugh every time. That and the fact that you
are 100% wrong and the society you were raised in understands that.
Maybe this is why 3rd graders never get those cushy judgeships, they
can be convinced of any idiotic thing
.
Post by Chris
Correction, you are responsible for improperly supervising him.
Do you live in a cave? Jesus christ you are ridiculous. If my kid
breaks windows I am responsible for the damage and for replacing them,
morally and legally. I am also responsible for teaching him not to do
that, watching him so he doesn't do that and punishing him for doing
it.
Post by Chris
He is still
responsible for his choice. But since he is incapable of discerning right
from wrong, the person who chose to be his guardian has voluntarily accepted
proxy to his choices. No different than if my dog bites someone. Is this
also the case with pregnant women?
It is different in each case, I am just explaining to you how and why
(and how obviously) wrong your theory that you can't be responsible
unless you get to make all the choices can be. The fact is that there
are thousands of ways you can be held responsible despite not making
the decisions.
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
even though it would be impossible to make the decision to break the
windows in your house. If my wife runs up a million dollars in debt but
has no money, who is responsible .... again me. I wouldn't expect any
judge to let me off the hook. So from a legal standpoint your argument is
100% rubbish and you are responsible.
Who's talking law? Certainly NOT me.
Oh, my mistake, I thought your problem was with the law, judges,
courts and whatnot, now I see you just don't want to pay money. From a
moral standpoint as well as legal, I am responsible for those debts,
and I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me if I told them I wasn't.
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
More to the point, you are partly responsible for the pregnancy and
therefore have responsibility for the child
Non sequitur. Notice how the subject magically changed from "pregnancy" to
"child"?
Dude, this is your lamest statement ever you should have thrown a few
"such"es in there to really make it viable for a kook award. Translate
'non sequitur' and it means "does not follow" pregnancy is very often
followed by a child and every 3rd grader understands that. Are you
trying to claim that you accept responsibility for the pregnancy but
not the child?
Post by Chris
Your above claims are about as untrue as it gets. "I", not you, would be
responsible for (the creation of) the ashes since it was MY action (choice),
The creation of the ashes would be your crime, I would still be
responsible for them since I own them.
Post by Chris
not yours, that created them. You might want to review the concept of cause
and effect.
You are wrong and this stupid example keeps seeming dumber.
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
legally and morally. Again, you just don't make any sense.
Based on your above thinking, I can see why you believe so.
No, based on your convoluted posts in which (such in your case) nothing
you say is correct and you use examples which are completely wrong to
support your incorrect ideas.
Quote just one of my claims that is false.- Hide quoted text -
I quoted about three of them in this post.
Chris
2009-07-23 06:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Responsibility the concept, the moral attitude, the legal obligation and
the following of societies rules are what my post described.
Wrong. The concept of responsibility is nowhere to be found in your post.
It is, it is in every example, you just don't recognize it, for
obvious reasons.

**********

I NEVER recognize the imagination of another.

********
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Those all exist for the father when his child is born.
Strike TWO! The father CANNOT be responsible for the choice to bear the
child because he did NOT make such choice. A concept understood by most
third graders.
"such" .... that makes me laugh every time. That and the fact that you
are 100% wrong

************

If I am wrong, then I am going to choose to stop making my mortgage payment
and hold YOU responsible for payment.

**********

and the society you were raised in understands that.
Maybe this is why 3rd graders never get those cushy judgeships, they
can be convinced of any idiotic thing

**********
Yeah, like responsibilities being attached to rights.

***********

.
Post by Chris
Correction, you are responsible for improperly supervising him.
Do you live in a cave? Jesus christ you are ridiculous. If my kid
breaks windows I am responsible for the damage and for replacing them,
morally and legally.

**********

Who's talking law? Certainly NOT me.

**********

I am also responsible for teaching him not to do
that, watching him so he doesn't do that and punishing him for doing
it.

**********

There you go again, talking about action.

*********
Post by Chris
He is still
responsible for his choice. But since he is incapable of discerning right
from wrong, the person who chose to be his guardian has voluntarily accepted
proxy to his choices. No different than if my dog bites someone. Is this
also the case with pregnant women?
It is different in each case, I am just explaining to you how and why
(and how obviously) wrong your theory that you can't be responsible
unless you get to make all the choices can be. The fact is that there
are thousands of ways you can be held responsible despite not making
the decisions.

**************

I'm sorry, was that a "yes" or a "no"?

************
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
even though it would be impossible to make the decision to break the
windows in your house. If my wife runs up a million dollars in debt but
has no money, who is responsible .... again me. I wouldn't expect any
judge to let me off the hook. So from a legal standpoint your argument is
100% rubbish and you are responsible.
Who's talking law? Certainly NOT me.
Oh, my mistake, I thought your problem was with the law, judges,
courts and whatnot, now I see you just don't want to pay money.

*************
Correction: I don't subscribe to the concept of 'responsibility WITHOUT
accompanying rights'. In other words, being held accountable for a choice
that one did NOT make.

***************

From a
moral standpoint as well as legal, I am responsible for those debts,
and I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me if I told them I wasn't.

************

That's because you reject the concept of responsibility being bundled with
rights. Thus, you should have no problem being forced to pay my mortgage.

**********
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
More to the point, you are partly responsible for the pregnancy and
therefore have responsibility for the child
Non sequitur. Notice how the subject magically changed from "pregnancy" to
"child"?
Dude, this is your lamest statement ever you should have thrown a few
"such"es in there to really make it viable for a kook award. Translate
'non sequitur' and it means "does not follow" pregnancy is very often
followed by a child and every 3rd grader understands that. Are you
trying to claim that you accept responsibility for the pregnancy but
not the child?

************

"Pregnancy" does not equal "child"; thus, your conclusion does NOT follow
from your premise. Non sequitur. Pretty "lame", huh?

***********
Post by Chris
Your above claims are about as untrue as it gets. "I", not you, would be
responsible for (the creation of) the ashes since it was MY action (choice),
The creation of the ashes would be your crime, I would still be
responsible for them since I own them.

***********

What part of "creation" do you NOT understand?

***********
Post by Chris
not yours, that created them. You might want to review the concept of cause
and effect.
You are wrong

**********

How so?

********

and this stupid example keeps seeming dumber.
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
legally and morally. Again, you just don't make any sense.
Based on your above thinking, I can see why you believe so.
No, based on your convoluted posts in which (such in your case) nothing
you say is correct and you use examples which are completely wrong to
support your incorrect ideas.
Quote just one of my claims that is false.- Hide quoted text -
I quoted about three of them in this post.

**********

I saw NOTHING in quotes. Enlighten me.
Phil #3
2009-07-15 13:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Ted
Narcissism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Narcissism describes the trait of excessive self-love based on self-
image or ego, as well as lack of empathy for others.
The term is derived from the Greek mythology of Narcissus. Narcissus
was a handsome Greek youth who rejected the desperate advances of the
nymph Echo. As punishment, he was doomed to fall in love with his own
reflection in a pool of water. Unable to consummate his love,
Narcissus pined away and changed into a flower that bears his name,
the narcissus.
In psychology and psychiatry, excessive narcissism is recognized as a
severe personality disorder. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and
narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit,
egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is
sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of
others.
Now read dusty's posted response to the Michael Jackson post and see how
much of this definition applies there, I'd say all of it except I don't
think he is narcissistic as much as he is just stupid and unable to
think of anything other than his 'every child left behind' agenda.
I see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in
the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense
postings or attempts to insult me. Has anyone proven or disproven the
claim that MJ died a pauper? Or would that contradict the group's code
where you stick to every lie told by another deadbeat no matter how
stupiud it is.
The indifference to the plight of others is an intersting concept, can
you apply that to a group of guys who refuse to admit that they should be
responsible for their own kids and look for any excuse to deny that
responsibility?
IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make the
choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying this
pesky lil' fact?
It's almost guaranteed to be because if men aren't held responsible for the
decisions a woman makes about the results of her actions, she might be. We
just can't have that in a feminist society.
Phil #3
Post by Chris
Post by x***@xxx.com
That is a pretty sad example of indifference to the plight of others. I
don't want to pay because their mother spends the money wahhhh!! The kids
are much better off if I contribute nothing at all WAAHHHHHH. Talk about
narcissism, I'm surprised none of your shrinks have brought this to your
attention before.
Phil #3
2009-07-15 13:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Ted
Narcissism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Narcissism describes the trait of excessive self-love based on self-
image or ego, as well as lack of empathy for others.
The term is derived from the Greek mythology of Narcissus. Narcissus
was a handsome Greek youth who rejected the desperate advances of the
nymph Echo. As punishment, he was doomed to fall in love with his own
reflection in a pool of water. Unable to consummate his love,
Narcissus pined away and changed into a flower that bears his name,
the narcissus.
In psychology and psychiatry, excessive narcissism is recognized as a
severe personality disorder. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and
narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit,
egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is
sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of
others.
Now read dusty's posted response to the Michael Jackson post and see how
much of this definition applies there, I'd say all of it except I don't
think he is narcissistic as much as he is just stupid and unable to
think of anything other than his 'every child left behind' agenda.
I see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in
the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense
postings or attempts to insult me. Has anyone proven or disproven the
claim that MJ died a pauper? Or would that contradict the group's code
where you stick to every lie told by another deadbeat no matter how
stupiud it is.
The indifference to the plight of others is an intersting concept, can you
apply that to a group of guys who refuse to admit that they should be
responsible for their own kids and look for any excuse to deny that
responsibility? That is a pretty sad example of indifference to the plight
of others. I don't want to pay because their mother spends the money
wahhhh!! The kids are much better off if I contribute nothing at all
WAAHHHHHH. Talk about narcissism, I'm surprised none of your shrinks have
brought this to your attention before.
Are you incapable of understanding or simply refusing to do so?
(I know the answer, I just wonder if you actually think you know everything
about people you've never met, know nothing about)
Phil #3
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-15 14:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
The indifference to the plight of others is an intersting concept, can
you apply that to a group of guys who refuse to admit that they should
be responsible for their own kids and look for any excuse to deny that
responsibility? That is a pretty sad example of indifference to the
plight of others. I don't want to pay because their mother spends the
money wahhhh!! The kids are much better off if I contribute nothing at
all WAAHHHHHH. Talk about narcissism, I'm surprised none of your
shrinks have brought this to your attention before.
Are you incapable of understanding or simply refusing to do so?
(I know the answer, I just wonder if you actually think you know
everything about people you've never met, know nothing about)
Phil #3
Pot kettle, black ....

I see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in
the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense
postings or attempts to insult me. Has anyone proven or disproven the
claim that MJ died a pauper? Or would that contradict the group's code
where you stick to every lie told by another deadbeat no matter how
stupiud it is.
Phil #3
2009-07-22 01:49:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
The indifference to the plight of others is an intersting concept, can
you apply that to a group of guys who refuse to admit that they should
be responsible for their own kids and look for any excuse to deny that
responsibility? That is a pretty sad example of indifference to the
plight of others. I don't want to pay because their mother spends the
money wahhhh!! The kids are much better off if I contribute nothing at
all WAAHHHHHH. Talk about narcissism, I'm surprised none of your shrinks
have brought this to your attention before.
Are you incapable of understanding or simply refusing to do so?
(I know the answer, I just wonder if you actually think you know
everything about people you've never met, know nothing about)
Phil #3
Pot kettle, black ....
I see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in
the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense
postings or attempts to insult me. Has anyone proven or disproven the
claim that MJ died a pauper? Or would that contradict the group's code
where you stick to every lie told by another deadbeat no matter how
stupiud it is.
You're a fine one to talk about insulting others.
The term is called "hypocrisy".
Phil#3
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-22 02:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
The indifference to the plight of others is an intersting concept, can
you apply that to a group of guys who refuse to admit that they should
be responsible for their own kids and look for any excuse to deny that
responsibility? That is a pretty sad example of indifference to the
plight of others. I don't want to pay because their mother spends the
money wahhhh!! The kids are much better off if I contribute nothing at
all WAAHHHHHH. Talk about narcissism, I'm surprised none of your shrinks
have brought this to your attention before.
Are you incapable of understanding or simply refusing to do so?
(I know the answer, I just wonder if you actually think you know
everything about people you've never met, know nothing about)
Phil #3
Pot kettle, black ....
I see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in
the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense
postings or attempts to insult me. Has anyone proven or disproven the
claim that MJ died a pauper? Or would that contradict the group's code
where you stick to every lie told by another deadbeat no matter how
stupiud it is.
You're a fine one to talk about insulting others.
The term is called "hypocrisy".
Phil#3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And you put on a show of hypocrisy every time you post. I see you
can't show me where I was wrong about the original topic though, you'd
rather just make this post about me. Feel free, if that makes you feel
better about things.
Phil #3
2009-07-22 22:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
The indifference to the plight of others is an intersting concept, can
you apply that to a group of guys who refuse to admit that they should
be responsible for their own kids and look for any excuse to deny that
responsibility? That is a pretty sad example of indifference to the
plight of others. I don't want to pay because their mother spends the
money wahhhh!! The kids are much better off if I contribute nothing at
all WAAHHHHHH. Talk about narcissism, I'm surprised none of your shrinks
have brought this to your attention before.
Are you incapable of understanding or simply refusing to do so?
(I know the answer, I just wonder if you actually think you know
everything about people you've never met, know nothing about)
Phil #3
Pot kettle, black ....
I see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in
the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense
postings or attempts to insult me. Has anyone proven or disproven the
claim that MJ died a pauper? Or would that contradict the group's code
where you stick to every lie told by another deadbeat no matter how
stupiud it is.
You're a fine one to talk about insulting others.
The term is called "hypocrisy".
Phil#3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And you put on a show of hypocrisy every time you post. I see you
can't show me where I was wrong about the original topic though, you'd
rather just make this post about me. Feel free, if that makes you feel
better about things.

*********************************************

I don't need to show anything. You don't need help proving yourself to be a
hypocrite.
Phil #3
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-23 03:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
The indifference to the plight of others is an intersting concept, can
you apply that to a group of guys who refuse to admit that they should
be responsible for their own kids and look for any excuse to deny that
responsibility? That is a pretty sad example of indifference to the
plight of others. I don't want to pay because their mother spends the
money wahhhh!! The kids are much better off if I contribute nothing at
all WAAHHHHHH. Talk about narcissism, I'm surprised none of your shrinks
have brought this to your attention before.
Are you incapable of understanding or simply refusing to do so?
(I know the answer, I just wonder if you actually think you know
everything about people you've never met, know nothing about)
Phil #3
Pot kettle, black ....
I see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in
the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense
postings or attempts to insult me. Has anyone proven or disproven the
claim that MJ died a pauper? Or would that contradict the group's code
where you stick to every lie told by another deadbeat no matter how
stupiud it is.
You're a fine one to talk about insulting others.
The term is called "hypocrisy".
Phil#3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And you put on a show of hypocrisy every time you post. I see you
can't show me where I was wrong about the original topic though, you'd
rather just make this post about me. Feel free, if that makes you feel
better about things.
*********************************************
I don't need to show anything. You don't need help proving yourself to be a
hypocrite.
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Wahhhh, I can't prove that being a deadbeat is honorable or even
excusable so I will avoid the subject again...... wahhhhh
Phil #3
2009-07-23 16:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
The indifference to the plight of others is an intersting concept, can
you apply that to a group of guys who refuse to admit that they should
be responsible for their own kids and look for any excuse to deny that
responsibility? That is a pretty sad example of indifference to the
plight of others. I don't want to pay because their mother spends the
money wahhhh!! The kids are much better off if I contribute nothing at
all WAAHHHHHH. Talk about narcissism, I'm surprised none of your shrinks
have brought this to your attention before.
Are you incapable of understanding or simply refusing to do so?
(I know the answer, I just wonder if you actually think you know
everything about people you've never met, know nothing about)
Phil #3
Pot kettle, black ....
I see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in
the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense
postings or attempts to insult me. Has anyone proven or disproven the
claim that MJ died a pauper? Or would that contradict the group's code
where you stick to every lie told by another deadbeat no matter how
stupiud it is.
You're a fine one to talk about insulting others.
The term is called "hypocrisy".
Phil#3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And you put on a show of hypocrisy every time you post. I see you
can't show me where I was wrong about the original topic though, you'd
rather just make this post about me. Feel free, if that makes you feel
better about things.
*********************************************
I don't need to show anything. You don't need help proving yourself to be a
hypocrite.
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Wahhhh, I can't prove that being a deadbeat is honorable or even
excusable so I will avoid the subject again...... wahhhhh

**************************************************

See? Thanks for proving my point but it was actually unnecessary.

Phil #3
XXX@XXX.COM
2009-07-24 02:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Post by ***@XXX.COM
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Phil #3
Post by x***@xxx.com
The indifference to the plight of others is an intersting concept, can
you apply that to a group of guys who refuse to admit that they should
be responsible for their own kids and look for any excuse to deny that
responsibility? That is a pretty sad example of indifference to the
plight of others. I don't want to pay because their mother spends the
money wahhhh!! The kids are much better off if I contribute nothing at
all WAAHHHHHH. Talk about narcissism, I'm surprised none of your shrinks
have brought this to your attention before.
Are you incapable of understanding or simply refusing to do so?
(I know the answer, I just wonder if you actually think you know
everything about people you've never met, know nothing about)
Phil #3
Pot kettle, black ....
I see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in
the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense
postings or attempts to insult me. Has anyone proven or disproven the
claim that MJ died a pauper? Or would that contradict the group's code
where you stick to every lie told by another deadbeat no matter how
stupiud it is.
You're a fine one to talk about insulting others.
The term is called "hypocrisy".
Phil#3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And you put on a show of hypocrisy every time you post. I see you
can't show me where I was wrong about the original topic though, you'd
rather just make this post about me. Feel free, if that makes you feel
better about things.
*********************************************
I don't need to show anything. You don't need help proving yourself to be a
hypocrite.
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Wahhhh, I can't prove that being a deadbeat is honorable or even
excusable so I will avoid the subject again...... wahhhhh
**************************************************
See? Thanks for proving my point but it was actually unnecessary.
Phil #3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Oh, did you ever prove the original point in this thread was wrong? If
you did, that post never made it to usenet. Are you trying to avoid
the fact that you can't cover your co-deadbeat's bullshit so you need
to change the subject one more time? Your lies are pretty weak, you
must really have a vested interest in being a deadbeat if you are
willing to bullshit this much.
Dusty
2009-07-24 09:27:26 UTC
Permalink
"***@XXX.COM" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:63d1c0ca-5464-49bd-bdaf-***@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

Oh, did you ever prove the original point in this thread was wrong? If
you did, that post never made it to usenet. Are you trying to avoid
the fact that you can't cover your co-deadbeat's bullshit so you need
to change the subject one more time? Your lies are pretty weak, you
must really have a vested interest in being a deadbeat if you are
willing to bullshit this much.
----------------------------

From the OP:

"In psychology and psychiatry, excessive narcissism is recognized as a
severe personality disorder. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and
narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit,
egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is
sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of
others."

I'd say it fits you to a T, XXX.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-25 01:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dusty
[snip]
Oh, did you ever prove the original point in this thread was wrong? If
you did, that post never made it to usenet. Are you trying to avoid
the fact that you can't cover your co-deadbeat's bullshit so you need
to change the subject one more time? Your lies are pretty weak, you
must really have a vested interest in being a deadbeat if you are
willing to bullshit this much.
----------------------------
"In psychology and psychiatry, excessive narcissism is recognized as a
severe personality disorder. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and
narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit,
egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is
sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of
others."
I'd say it fits you to a T, XXX.
Sorry stupid, if you can prove that you have a 3 digit IQ or any
marketable skill I might take your 40th stupid post seriously. I have
never seen a dumber person willingly put his stupidity on display. Just
for kicks, do you have any SAT scores to share?
Dusty
2009-07-25 07:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Dusty
[snip]
Oh, did you ever prove the original point in this thread was wrong? If
you did, that post never made it to usenet. Are you trying to avoid
the fact that you can't cover your co-deadbeat's bullshit so you need
to change the subject one more time? Your lies are pretty weak, you
must really have a vested interest in being a deadbeat if you are
willing to bullshit this much.
----------------------------
"In psychology and psychiatry, excessive narcissism is recognized as a
severe personality disorder. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and
narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit,
egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is
sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of
others."
I'd say it fits you to a T, XXX.
Sorry stupid, if you can prove that you have a 3 digit IQ or any
marketable skill I might take your 40th stupid post seriously. I have
never seen a dumber person willingly put his stupidity on display. Just
for kicks, do you have any SAT scores to share?
Thanks for proving my point.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-25 13:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dusty
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Dusty
[snip]
Oh, did you ever prove the original point in this thread was wrong? If
you did, that post never made it to usenet. Are you trying to avoid
the fact that you can't cover your co-deadbeat's bullshit so you need
to change the subject one more time? Your lies are pretty weak, you
must really have a vested interest in being a deadbeat if you are
willing to bullshit this much.
----------------------------
"In psychology and psychiatry, excessive narcissism is recognized as a
severe personality disorder. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and
narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit,
egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is
sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of
others."
I'd say it fits you to a T, XXX.
Sorry stupid, if you can prove that you have a 3 digit IQ or any
marketable skill I might take your 40th stupid post seriously. I have
never seen a dumber person willingly put his stupidity on display.
Just for kicks, do you have any SAT scores to share?
Thanks for proving my point.
Which point was that? That you are indifferent to the plight of others?
Or were you referring to one of the many real descriptions of a
narcissistic sociopath which says they rarely pay their bills or manage
any long term relationships. Maybe you should look up projection next
time you are diagnosing yourself.
Ted
2009-07-26 02:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Dusty
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Dusty
[snip]
Oh, did you ever prove the original point in this thread was wrong? If
you did, that post never made it to usenet. Are you trying to avoid
the fact that you can't cover your co-deadbeat's bullshit so you need
to change the subject one more time? Your lies are pretty weak, you
must really have a vested interest in being a deadbeat if you are
willing to bullshit this much.
----------------------------
"In psychology and psychiatry, excessive narcissism is recognized as a
severe personality disorder. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and
narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit,
egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is
sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of
others."
I'd say it fits you to a T, XXX.
Sorry stupid, if you can prove that you have a 3 digit IQ or any
marketable skill I might take your 40th stupid post seriously. I have
never seen a dumber person willingly put his stupidity on display.
Just for kicks, do you have any SAT scores to share?
Thanks for proving my point.
Which point was that? That you are indifferent to the plight of others?
You can't seriously be accusing Dusty of being indifferent to you,
surely, XXX? He did respond to your post, after all.
Post by x***@xxx.com
Or were you referring to one of the many real descriptions of a
narcissistic sociopath which says they rarely pay their bills or manage
any long term relationships. Maybe you should look up projection next
time you are diagnosing yourself.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-26 12:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
You can't seriously be accusing Dusty of being indifferent to you,
surely, XXX? He did respond to your post, after all.
As you know (but are pretending not to) I am not. If you read the post
you will see that his indifference is to the plight of his kids, the
kids he is fighting for the right to completely abandon if he can't have
them aborted. Of course the obvious thing is that I don't have a plight
for anyone to take interest in, I'm not here whining about things the
way he is.
Post by Ted
Post by x***@xxx.com
Or were you referring to one of the many real descriptions of a
narcissistic sociopath which says they rarely pay their bills or manage
any long term relationships. Maybe you should look up projection next
time you are diagnosing yourself.
Dusty
2009-07-26 18:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
You can't seriously be accusing Dusty of being indifferent to you,
surely, XXX? He did respond to your post, after all.
As you know (but are pretending not to) I am not. If you read the post you
will see that his indifference is to the plight of his kids, the kids he
is fighting for the right to completely abandon if he can't have them
aborted. Of course the obvious thing is that I don't have a plight for
anyone to take interest in, I'm not here whining about things the way he
is.
Indifference to the plight of my kids? Fighting for the right to abandon
them or abort them??

Wow, I knew you were a whack-job XXX, but this is really over the top. I
am, however, slightly surprised that you haven't claimed to have read about
it in the New York Times..

I highly recommend that you seek medical help immediately, before the guys
in the white coats take you to the rubber room. You have definitely lost
the few remaining marbles you had left.
Ted
2009-07-27 00:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
You can't seriously be accusing Dusty of being indifferent to you,
surely, XXX?  He did respond to your post, after all.
As you know (but are pretending not to) I am not. If you read the post you
will see that his indifference is to the plight of his kids, the kids he
is fighting for the right to completely abandon if he can't have them
aborted. Of course the obvious thing is that I don't have a plight for
anyone to take interest in, I'm not here whining about things the way he
is.
Indifference to the plight of my kids?  Fighting for the right to abandon
them or abort them??
Wow, I knew you were a whack-job XXX, but this is really over the top.  I
am, however, slightly surprised that you haven't claimed to have read about
it in the New York Times..
I highly recommend that you seek medical help immediately,
There you go, XXX! Dusty has a sincere concern for your plight.
before the guys
in the white coats take you to the rubber room.  You have definitely lost
the few remaining marbles you had left.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-27 02:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Dusty
Post by Ted
You can't seriously be accusing Dusty of being indifferent to you,
surely, XXX? He did respond to your post, after all.
As you know (but are pretending not to) I am not. If you read the post you
will see that his indifference is to the plight of his kids, the kids he
is fighting for the right to completely abandon if he can't have them
aborted. Of course the obvious thing is that I don't have a plight for
anyone to take interest in, I'm not here whining about things the way he
is.
Indifference to the plight of my kids? Fighting for the right to abandon
them or abort them??
Wow, I knew you were a whack-job XXX, but this is really over the top. I
am, however, slightly surprised that you haven't claimed to have read about
it in the New York Times..
I highly recommend that you seek medical help immediately,
There you go, XXX! Dusty has a sincere concern for your plight.
If only you understood what was going on.
Dusty
2009-07-30 14:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Ted
Post by Dusty
Post by Ted
You can't seriously be accusing Dusty of being indifferent to you,
surely, XXX? He did respond to your post, after all.
As you know (but are pretending not to) I am not. If you read the post you
will see that his indifference is to the plight of his kids, the kids he
is fighting for the right to completely abandon if he can't have them
aborted. Of course the obvious thing is that I don't have a plight for
anyone to take interest in, I'm not here whining about things the way he
is.
Indifference to the plight of my kids? Fighting for the right to abandon
them or abort them??
Wow, I knew you were a whack-job XXX, but this is really over the top. I
am, however, slightly surprised that you haven't claimed to have read about
it in the New York Times..
I highly recommend that you seek medical help immediately,
There you go, XXX! Dusty has a sincere concern for your plight.
If only you understood what was going on.
Seems to me that Ted indeed does understand. I cannot say the same for you.
x***@xxx.com
2009-07-27 02:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dusty
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Ted
You can't seriously be accusing Dusty of being indifferent to you,
surely, XXX? He did respond to your post, after all.
As you know (but are pretending not to) I am not. If you read the post
you will see that his indifference is to the plight of his kids, the
kids he is fighting for the right to completely abandon if he can't
have them aborted. Of course the obvious thing is that I don't have a
plight for anyone to take interest in, I'm not here whining about
things the way he is.
Indifference to the plight of my kids? Fighting for the right to
abandon them or abort them??
Wow, I knew you were a whack-job XXX, but this is really over the top.
I am, however, slightly surprised that you haven't claimed to have read
about it in the New York Times..
I highly recommend that you seek medical help immediately, before the
guys in the white coats take you to the rubber room. You have
definitely lost the few remaining marbles you had left.
I recommend that you learn how to read for comprehension.
Dusty
2009-07-30 14:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Dusty
Post by x***@xxx.com
Post by Ted
You can't seriously be accusing Dusty of being indifferent to you,
surely, XXX? He did respond to your post, after all.
As you know (but are pretending not to) I am not. If you read the post
you will see that his indifference is to the plight of his kids, the
kids he is fighting for the right to completely abandon if he can't have
them aborted. Of course the obvious thing is that I don't have a plight
for anyone to take interest in, I'm not here whining about things the
way he is.
Indifference to the plight of my kids? Fighting for the right to abandon
them or abort them??
Wow, I knew you were a whack-job XXX, but this is really over the top. I
am, however, slightly surprised that you haven't claimed to have read
about it in the New York Times..
I highly recommend that you seek medical help immediately, before the
guys in the white coats take you to the rubber room. You have definitely
lost the few remaining marbles you had left.
I recommend that you learn how to read for comprehension.
I recommend that you get your head outta your ass, but that would be
redundant since they are one and the same.
samvaknin
2009-07-25 11:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Narcissistic and psychopathic parents and their children - click on
the links:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4727

Do not rely on the Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia" that anyone and everyone can edit,
even people who know nothing about the topic.

As a result, it contains a lot of misinformation and plain nonsense.

Learn more about the Wikipedia's flawed work here:

http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/wikipedia.html

For a more detailed view of pathological narcissism and the
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) - click on these links:

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/npdglance.html

http://samvak.tripod.com/personalitydisorders12.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/personalitydisorders13.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/personalitydisorders14.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/narcissismglance.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq1.html

Other Personality Disorders

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faqpd.html

Pathological Narcissism diagnosed with Other Mental Health Disorders

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq82.html

NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) and AsPD (Antisocial
Personality Disorder, Psychopathy, or Sociopathy)

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/personalitydisorders16.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/personalitydisorders15.html

Celebrity narcissists

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq19.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal73.html

Narcissism and Religion

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal45.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq47.html
Loading...