"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.


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....

Phil #3