"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...en-Beaten.html

''We looked at all the facts, and the facts at this point do
not point to what was first being alleged,'' prosecutor Bob
Donohoo said."


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jan06/389054.asp

"A mother arrested last week on allegations that she beat
three of her children so brutally that they sought refuge in
an abandoned home was released from jail Tuesday without
being charged.

Milwaukee police accounts of the situation were grossly
inaccurate, Nina Parker said in an interview Tuesday evening,
hours after her release."



Still no word about the father as in how many, who or where
they (he) might be, how much support they (he) are or are not
paying?

Why does that matter? This is a woman who worked double shifts
on occasion, to support her family. Bob Whiteside, and others,
tried to slam this woman as some sort of abusive welfare queen.
I've tried to show that their unfounded accusations are
precisely that - unfounded.

Perhaps the father simply abandoned, who knows?

Phil #3


She's doing somethig better than a father working two jobs to pay
child support... how, exactly?

Who said she did anything better than anyone else? Certainly not
me.

If you really think this single mother working two jobs is fully
and solely supporting 14, soon to be 15, children, can I interest
you in some oceanfront property in Nebraska?

Try reading the article. She doesn't have 14 children, and she's
not pregnant.


http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=ht...FXiQ2FJQ25FiAc
"A woman who was arrested after police found three of her 14
children..."
Ok, so she didn't have 14 children, she had 14 children. I got it
now.
(Is that some form of feminstimath?)
Phil #3

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jan06/389054.asp

Parker said the inaccuracies included the number of children she has
(11, not 14), which of her children were found in the so-called
"safe house" and that she is pregnant, which she denies.



Why are you defending this woman?

I'm not defending the woman, per se - I'm defending people at least
sticking to the truth.

I can tell the difference - can you?

Phil #3

I know your information is to be taken with a grain of salt as you are
extremely biased.

I quoted from entirely external souces. Haven't posted my opinion at
all. That's extremely biased?


Stop playing games. I doubt there's anyone who has read over three of
your posts who are unaware of your bias. NOT this one post, all your
posts.

But we're talking THIS post. So, what issues did you have with the
information I provided in THIS post?


The information was that she had 14 children and was pregnant, now she's
'only' got 11 and isn't pregnant. What difference does it make if it's 11 or
111, the state is paying for her choices and you seem to want to defend her,
as you do all CPs, that's all.



There's more wrong with the situation than is right with it. In this
day and age, having 11 children is a bit extreme and almost a guarantee
that the state is financing her choice to have them.

Perhaps so - but again, since there are no facts to back up the
assertion, it would be disingenuous to be making the accusation.

There are none so blind....

As those who love to make accusations and allegations without the data to
back them up?

It was YOUR information, duh.


Phil #3