Child Support Lock Up

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:22:59 +0800, "Rambler" iamrambler (at) yahoo
"Sheila J" wrote in message

Women are maternal beings. It is our most inate characteristic. To
overturn this is going against nature. As a result, it is NOT common.

And fathers are *not* paternal???
Bobbi
************************************************** ***
Old Saudi saying: "My father rode a camel. I drive a car.
My son flies a jet airplane. His son will ride a camel."
Peak Oil - coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
************************************************** ***

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:22:59 +0800, "Rambler" iamrambler (at) yahoo
"Sheila J" wrote in message

Women are maternal beings. It is our most inate characteristic. To
overturn this is going against nature. As a result, it is NOT common.

And fathers are *not* paternal???
Bobbi
************************************************** ***
Old Saudi saying: "My father rode a camel. I drive a car.
My son flies a jet airplane. His son will ride a camel."
Peak Oil - coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
************************************************** ***

In article VKM_b.594130$JQ1.498881@pd7tw1no,
Sheila J wrote:

Ok, I assume you are being deliberately obtuse. I quote from the reason
.com article,
"In California, you don't even have to have proof of service of
the summons!" says Rod Wright, a recently retired Democratic state senator
from Los Angeles who tried and failed to get several paternity-related
reform bills, including a proof-of-service requirement, past former Gov.
Gray Davis' veto. "They only are obligated to send it to the last known
address."

Nice try shoving it under the rug with your 'one case' argument:

Having a problem with your system of service, is NOT THE SAME as having
a fault in your child support system.
It's just not the same. Why are you failing to understand this.

It is indeed the same, when there is no redress available in those
cases that are child support.

The 'system' certainly does allow women to make false statements about
paternity. Never heard of paternity fraud?
A woman can decieve her husband for years with a child that is not his, and
the courts will
do nothing to her except generally order him to pay for her deception.

And how is paternity fraud substantiated? Through a paternity test.
Which disproves paternity. Which proves the system works. Which was
my original point. That any man finding himself in a situation where he
disputes paternity, he should have a DNA test. He's silly not to.

The point being that actual paternity is -- by law and practice --
irrelevant to whether he has to pay child support. Cases have been
shown you already.


--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

In article VKM_b.594130$JQ1.498881@pd7tw1no,
Sheila J wrote:

Ok, I assume you are being deliberately obtuse. I quote from the reason
.com article,
"In California, you don't even have to have proof of service of
the summons!" says Rod Wright, a recently retired Democratic state senator
from Los Angeles who tried and failed to get several paternity-related
reform bills, including a proof-of-service requirement, past former Gov.
Gray Davis' veto. "They only are obligated to send it to the last known
address."

Nice try shoving it under the rug with your 'one case' argument:

Having a problem with your system of service, is NOT THE SAME as having
a fault in your child support system.
It's just not the same. Why are you failing to understand this.

It is indeed the same, when there is no redress available in those
cases that are child support.

The 'system' certainly does allow women to make false statements about
paternity. Never heard of paternity fraud?
A woman can decieve her husband for years with a child that is not his, and
the courts will
do nothing to her except generally order him to pay for her deception.

And how is paternity fraud substantiated? Through a paternity test.
Which disproves paternity. Which proves the system works. Which was
my original point. That any man finding himself in a situation where he
disputes paternity, he should have a DNA test. He's silly not to.

The point being that actual paternity is -- by law and practice --
irrelevant to whether he has to pay child support. Cases have been
shown you already.


--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

In article dNM_b.609034$X%5.399700@pd7tw2no,
Sheila J wrote:
Bob wrote:

Sheila J wrote:

Bob wrote:

There is no moral justification for women to be officers until and
unless women share the risk of combat duty.

4 combat UN tours, you twit. And you?

In the US army the femroids get "combat" pay while being exempted from
actual combat. Don't know about the Canadians.

Did you do any actual combat, or are women excluded in Canada too?

Sigh. I am an artillery officer. I do everything the guys do. I was in
Rwanda, Somalia, Croatia and Bosnia. I went where my troop went. No
distinction. We are not excluded in Canada.
And are you going to tell me that Shoshanna Johnson and Jessica Lynch
were not in combat just because they weren't being given combat pay?

Get a room you two.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

In article dNM_b.609034$X%5.399700@pd7tw2no,
Sheila J wrote:
Bob wrote:

Sheila J wrote:

Bob wrote:

There is no moral justification for women to be officers until and
unless women share the risk of combat duty.

4 combat UN tours, you twit. And you?

In the US army the femroids get "combat" pay while being exempted from
actual combat. Don't know about the Canadians.

Did you do any actual combat, or are women excluded in Canada too?

Sigh. I am an artillery officer. I do everything the guys do. I was in
Rwanda, Somalia, Croatia and Bosnia. I went where my troop went. No
distinction. We are not excluded in Canada.
And are you going to tell me that Shoshanna Johnson and Jessica Lynch
were not in combat just because they weren't being given combat pay?

Get a room you two.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

In article CQM_b.594137$JQ1.273477@pd7tw1no,
Sheila J wrote:
Melibokus wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:48:39 GMT, Sheila J wrote:

Bob wrote:

bobb wrote:

Could it be that women make 40% less than men do?

The last I read... women now make up 60% of the work force.. and 55% of
college students.

Women wont' take hard, dirty, or dangerous jobs, the ones that usually
pay better.

Said to a female artillery officer.......

A 13BoomBoom. No wonder.

I have no idea what that means. I'm a 21R

Go play elsewhere.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

In article CQM_b.594137$JQ1.273477@pd7tw1no,
Sheila J wrote:
Melibokus wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:48:39 GMT, Sheila J wrote:

Bob wrote:

bobb wrote:

Could it be that women make 40% less than men do?

The last I read... women now make up 60% of the work force.. and 55% of
college students.

Women wont' take hard, dirty, or dangerous jobs, the ones that usually
pay better.

Said to a female artillery officer.......

A 13BoomBoom. No wonder.

I have no idea what that means. I'm a 21R

Go play elsewhere.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Would you two please go play somewhere appropriate.


--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Would you two please go play somewhere appropriate.


--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences