Change in SVO - Texas

Mel - why do you resort to name-calling when you don't agree with what
someone is saying?

Simpleton.

"angel235" wrote in message
om...
You are using your position as a parent - plus a change in
laws/circumstances - to try to take more money from him.
No - there isn't any change in the laws just the circumstances. The
original $$ was in no way adequate to pay for his portion of raising
his son so I was
supplementing his inadequacies. Now he is able to take up his own
slack and he should do so.

He is
threatening to use his position as a parent - plus a change in
laws/circumstances - to try and take more of his sons time from you.
Seems to me like both of you are using your son to fight over
time/money. If you want to show that you aren't, call his bluff - offer
him the extra time with no strings attached irregardless of the outcome
of any support debates.

My ex is a "Taker" and I'm sick of giving without getting the same.
Is that too much to ask?? Why should I concede to EVERYTHING? I am,
clearly, the bigger person but you know, I sometimes feel that he
should even attempt to take the high ground and he just doesn't. It's
just draining.
And, if I called his bluff as you suggested, he again, would be taking
(by my giving him more time) and in return, giving nothing. How
angelic am I supposed to be? Why don't I just let my ex have 5 days a
week with my son and pay no money for his support at all? Does this
seem fair???

By the way, if you are so burdened financially by all the time you have
to care for your son....why aren't you pleased that your ex would offer
to feed and house him more?

My son is no burden to me and the changes to schedules I make benefit
him and his father and their time together.


Mel Gamble

Melvin Gamble wrote in message ...
You are a perfect example to point at for those who argue...
that if raising your own children were such a costly undertaking,
women
would be begging fathers to take over the job.

If women were paid the same amount of money for the same job that men
are maybe they wouldn't have to ask for the money. However, the
bigger picture is that the women did not make these children by
themselves. Speaking strictly of my case, both of us chose to bring
our son into the world and be responsible for him. Just because we
didn't stay married doesn't mean that either of us should be absolved
of our responsibility of that decision.


Did you ever stop to think that if you called his bluff it would be FOR
YOUR SON?

I can HONESTLY say that my son (so far) has never expressed his desire
to spend more time with his father. The only desire he occassionally
has is to talk to him and I'm right there handing him the phone and
dialing his dad's number. And BTW - his father, who has only a cell
phone (no home phone) and a work phone with caller ID - frequently
doesn't answer his phone. And since you will probably assume that
it's me he doesn't want to talk to, I'll go ahead and let you know
that our (my Ex and I)means of communicating is via email or at
exchanges and we've agreed to not fight in front of our son.
I know that in the future my son may indeed ask to spend more time
with his dad and FOR THAT reason I will be happy to let him do so. I
have no such obligation to do things to make my Ex happy anymore -
we're divorced. But I will do things to accommodate my son's needs
when the time comes.


Why not let your ex have 5 days and pay nothing???? Why not
indeed? Why not? Does it seem fair? Does it seem fair to whom? Fair
to your son and ex? Maybe more fair than the limited time they have
now. Fair to you? Financially, yes - your ex would be responsible for
over half of your son's living expenses and you would be responsible for
less than half - what's your problem with that? Fair time-wise?
Hmmmmm, you'd have your son for more of the time than your ex does now -
you tell us how fair that would be.....

Who is being shortchanged? My son? No - see above. My ex? Maybe,
but if he wanted quality time with his son then why does he
consistently include others in his visits with his son? Why doesn't
he covet the time he has with his son so dearly that he wouldn't dream
of sharing him with someone else?

By the way, if you are so burdened financially by all the time you have
to care for your son....why aren't you pleased that your ex would offer
to feed and house him more?

My son is no burden to me

Geeee, wouldn't have guessed that from your posts....

My ex is the burden not my son.

and the changes to schedules I make benefit
him and his father and their time together.

So what was it again that you're moaning about?????

If you've forgotten why don't you take the time to reread previous
posts - it sounds like you have a lot of free time on your hands.


Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble

"angel235" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
k.net...
"angel235" wrote in message
m...
You are taking the only thing he has remaining after the divorce -
visitation leverage.

That's a load of crap. I interpret what you're saying as he has
nothing left that he can use to control of the situation to have it
work in his favor. I know it's hard to get used to it but get used to
it.

I guess this means input that doesn't fit the template of what you want
to
hear will be attacked. You really didn't want "thoughts and advice" did
you - you are looking for sympathy and agreement.

I never said I was going to agree with what thoughts and advice I
recieved. And as far as attacks go I don't believe I threw the first
"punch" but I'm sure as hell going to defend myself and my positions.
If all I wanted was sympathy and agreement I'd have gone to a
like-minded NG full of sinle parent families. (Note I said single
parent and not single moms.)

What you need to understand is you and your ex can work out an amicable
visitation/access agreement on your own that includes some flexibility
between the parents, or he can go to the court and the judge will order the
standard visitation order. Fighting his attempts to get the SVO terms is a
losing position for you to take. You have a pattern of agreeing with the
"old" SVO terms and you will be hard pressed to show a judge there are good
cause reasons to not allow the "new" SVO terms.



Plus you are taking a position that is totally
unreasonable, i.e. since he didn't attempt to update the visitation
order
several years ago, he lost his chance to update it.

I didn't make the rules.

You're not the first one to come in here and hide behind the state being
the
surrogate husband protecting you from your child's father. What you are
ignoring is the "rules" change and court orders can be modified over
time to
adjust the order's terms as the state laws change.

I've observed first hand what goes on on these particular NG's. I'm
not a surrogate father, I'm a determined, persistant mother who has to
take up the slack for my son's male parent because he won't step up to
the plate.

Apparently my point was missed. The STATE becomes the surrogate HUSBAND to
protect the MOTHER. I did not say anything about you being a surrogate
father.

He is the father of my son and like every mother I want
the very best for my son. Unfortunately, what we got was his father
which clearly demonstrates that the world is full of good and bad and
my son will have to learn to deal with negatives all throughout his
life. I'm just sorry that he has to start dealing with
disappointments in life so early. Well actually, that's not true -
all of this stuff has been successfully sheielded from him by my Ex
and me. But I know that every time I hold my tongue in front of my
son I keep telling myself that it won't be me who opens my sons eyes
to what his father is - it will be his father who does that.

If you really want what is best for your son, you will encourage liberal
visitation/access between the boy and his father. If you restrict their
time together you will eventually have to deal with your son coming to you
to let him go live with his father. Even with liberal visitation now,
teenage boys and girls have a strong desire to live with their fathers, and
that is why men like me become custodial parents when the children get
older.



What if he could take the same position and say since the CS order
was
not
updated when the CS guidelines were reviewed you as the CP have lost
the
ability to get an increase in CS?

Well, I suppose in your (male) perfect world things would work that
way but you know what - the white male america does not have the
control that he used to before slavery was outlawed and women were
given the power to vote. You're a sore loser.

How can I be a sore loser? My children respect me, we have a great
relationship, and I don't have to pay state mandated CS.

Good for you. I don't know your situation is but it sounds like your
pretty proud of the fact that your successfully circumvented having to
take responsibility for the children that you helped bring into this
world. Bravo!

Your agenda is showing. Have you considered that maybe some of the men here
are custodial parents? Or that our adult children no longer fit the CS law
definitions but we continue to support them without state mandated
interference?


But it sounds like
you are a racist who plays the race card to advance your vicitm status.

I'm not a racist I'm a realist who has grown up in a male-dominated
world.
But the tides are turning....

So why are you posting using the language of feminists and racists? Why
does a person's gender have anything to do with their advice? What does a
person's skin color have to do with the validity of their comments?


And to answer your question above, I guess I would just have to live
with it. Period.

The question you have to answer is - Why do you feel so threatened
by a
request from your children's father to increase his time with the
children?

I assure you I feel no threat of any kind from my ex.

So substitute the words "concerned" or "challenged" or "resistant" in
the
question about why you are against giving the children's father more
time
with the children.

Ok - I don't think he should have any additional time with his son
because the time he does have with him he always (ok - not always but
90% of the visits he has) he consistently has to include other people
in these visits. And the other people end up taking time with my son
while my Ex is doing other things.

When your son goes to school do you allow "other people" to interact with
him while you are not present? Do you "consistently" allow these "other
people" access to your son? Do you ever allow your son to associate with
"other people" like babysitters, his friends' parents, or your relatives
while you are not present? My guess is you are being critical of the boys
father for the same type of things you accept as being normal when you do
them.

There's no quality one-on-one time
with my son. For instance - my ex is in bad standing with his family
(although they love him as a family member they know what a FU he is)
and he uses his son to get the positive attention from his family he
so craves. He has no other interaction with his family at other
times.

Sounds like having his son with him is a positive, stabilizing influence and
you ex is getting significant support and encouragement from his family to
be a good father. Why is that a problem?

He tells his son he's going to take him to a movie and then I
find out they went to see Seabiscuit and the girlfriend went. Do you
think that a 6 year old is really the motivation for going to that
particular movie? For the sixth year in a row I throw my son's
bithday party totally at my expense and invite the his whole family
and his girlfriend. They show up, eat the food, put on their "I'm
such an awesome parent" persona but none of them brought presents for
my sons birthday. Instead they make my son wait an entire week to get
his birthday gifts so that the girlfriend can throw her own party in
my sons honor. So - you tell me who's being put first in my Ex's
mind? Do these examples constitute child abuse of something hideous
like that? Absolutely not. But actions do speak louder than words.
I could go on and on with examples but it would be pointless. I have
a boyfriend of almost 3 years and I _very rarely_ include him in
activities with my son and I. I have 7 days a week to see my
boyfriend but unlike my Ex I choose to not take away time with son to
see the BF I wait until my son is with my Ex to do so. My bonding
time with my son is precious and even though he lives with me I
treasure time we spend together and I want him to know that when we're
together I'm 100% focused on him. I would never dream of using my son
to look like a better guy but then again, I don't have too.

All of the above rant is about how you choose to parent your son, and
bitches about how your ex chooses to parent your son. You cannot control
your ex's behavior and you cannot dictate how he parents. Why do you insist
on projecting your parenting style onto your sons father?

Ignore him. He obviously is threatened.

"angel235" wrote in message
om...
Mel - why do you resort to name-calling when you don't agree with what
someone is saying?

Simpleton.

"angel235" wrote in message
om...
You are using your position as a parent - plus a change in
laws/circumstances - to try to take more money from him.
No - there isn't any change in the laws just the circumstances. The
original $$ was in no way adequate to pay for his portion of raising
his son so I was
supplementing his inadequacies. Now he is able to take up his own
slack and he should do so.

He is
threatening to use his position as a parent - plus a change in
laws/circumstances - to try and take more of his sons time from
you.
Seems to me like both of you are using your son to fight over
time/money. If you want to show that you aren't, call his bluff -
offer
him the extra time with no strings attached irregardless of the
outcome
of any support debates.

My ex is a "Taker" and I'm sick of giving without getting the same.
Is that too much to ask?? Why should I concede to EVERYTHING? I
am,
clearly, the bigger person but you know, I sometimes feel that he
should even attempt to take the high ground and he just doesn't.
It's
just draining.
And, if I called his bluff as you suggested, he again, would be
taking
(by my giving him more time) and in return, giving nothing. How
angelic am I supposed to be? Why don't I just let my ex have 5 days
a
week with my son and pay no money for his support at all? Does this
seem fair???

By the way, if you are so burdened financially by all the time you
have
to care for your son....why aren't you pleased that your ex would
offer
to feed and house him more?

My son is no burden to me and the changes to schedules I make
benefit
him and his father and their time together.


Mel Gamble

It's like this, "angel" - when I'm walking down the sidewalk with
somebody and we see a pile of dog**** laying in a nearby lawn, one of us
may remark on how big a pile of dog**** it is. NEITHER of us feels any
need to ask the one making the remark to PROVE that it's dog****.
Sometimes the fact that something is what it is is just so obvious that
NOBODY questions it...

Your pile is huge, "angel".

Mel Gamble

angel235 wrote:

Melvin Gamble wrote in message ...
WOOOOPS!!!!!!....

angel235 wrote:

You are taking the only thing he has remaining after the divorce -
visitation leverage.

That's a load of crap. I interpret what you're saying as he has
nothing left that he can use to control of the situation to have it
work in his favor. I know it's hard to get used to it but get used to
it.

Plus you are taking a position that is totally
unreasonable, i.e. since he didn't attempt to update the visitation order
several years ago, he lost his chance to update it.

I didn't make the rules.

What if he could take the same position and say since the CS order was not
updated when the CS guidelines were reviewed you as the CP have lost the
ability to get an increase in CS?

Well, I suppose in your (male) perfect world things would work that

...guess we know where this one's coming from:

************************************************** *********************
way but you know what - the white male america does not have the
control that he used to before slavery was outlawed and women were
given the power to vote. You're a sore loser.
************************************************** *********************

Don't look for any reasoned thinking from her, just dogma and hatred.

Mel Gamble


Mel - instead of trying to stonewall the conversation with labels why
don't you prove me wrong?

Hmmm....

angel235 wrote:

Mel - why do you resort to name-calling when you don't agree with what
someone is saying?

Simpleton.

"angel235" wrote in message
om...
You are using your position as a parent - plus a change in
laws/circumstances - to try to take more money from him.
No - there isn't any change in the laws just the circumstances. The
original $$ was in no way adequate to pay for his portion of raising
his son so I was

****************************************
supplementing his inadequacies.
****************************************

"inadequate";

Now he is able to take up his own
slack and he should do so.

He is
threatening to use his position as a parent - plus a change in
laws/circumstances - to try and take more of his sons time from you.
Seems to me like both of you are using your son to fight over
time/money. If you want to show that you aren't, call his bluff - offer
him the extra time with no strings attached irregardless of the outcome
of any support debates.

**************************
My ex is a "Taker"
**************************

"Taker";

Hmmm.... Shall I tackle some of your other posts or have you answered
your own question to your satisfaction, goosey???

Mel Gamble

and I'm sick of giving without getting the same.
Is that too much to ask?? Why should I concede to EVERYTHING? I am,
clearly, the bigger person but you know, I sometimes feel that he
should even attempt to take the high ground and he just doesn't. It's
just draining.
And, if I called his bluff as you suggested, he again, would be taking
(by my giving him more time) and in return, giving nothing. How
angelic am I supposed to be? Why don't I just let my ex have 5 days a
week with my son and pay no money for his support at all? Does this
seem fair???

By the way, if you are so burdened financially by all the time you have
to care for your son....why aren't you pleased that your ex would offer
to feed and house him more?

My son is no burden to me and the changes to schedules I make benefit
him and his father and their time together.


Mel Gamble

: : :

By hens like you two????

: : :

Mel Gamble

Fighting for kids wrote:

Ignore him. He obviously is threatened.

"angel235" wrote in message
om...
Mel - why do you resort to name-calling when you don't agree with what
someone is saying?

Simpleton.

"angel235" wrote in message
om...
You are using your position as a parent - plus a change in
laws/circumstances - to try to take more money from him.
No - there isn't any change in the laws just the circumstances. The
original $$ was in no way adequate to pay for his portion of raising
his son so I was
supplementing his inadequacies. Now he is able to take up his own
slack and he should do so.

He is
threatening to use his position as a parent - plus a change in
laws/circumstances - to try and take more of his sons time from
you.
Seems to me like both of you are using your son to fight over
time/money. If you want to show that you aren't, call his bluff -
offer
him the extra time with no strings attached irregardless of the
outcome
of any support debates.

My ex is a "Taker" and I'm sick of giving without getting the same.
Is that too much to ask?? Why should I concede to EVERYTHING? I
am,
clearly, the bigger person but you know, I sometimes feel that he
should even attempt to take the high ground and he just doesn't.
It's
just draining.
And, if I called his bluff as you suggested, he again, would be
taking
(by my giving him more time) and in return, giving nothing. How
angelic am I supposed to be? Why don't I just let my ex have 5 days
a
week with my son and pay no money for his support at all? Does this
seem fair???

By the way, if you are so burdened financially by all the time you
have
to care for your son....why aren't you pleased that your ex would
offer
to feed and house him more?

My son is no burden to me and the changes to schedules I make
benefit
him and his father and their time together.


Mel Gamble

You need to get the newer version of the talking points....

angel235 wrote:

Melvin Gamble wrote in message ...
You are a perfect example to point at for those who argue...
that if raising your own children were such a costly undertaking,
women
would be begging fathers to take over the job.

If women were paid the same amount of money for the same job that men

That old wives tale has been debunked for years now....

are maybe they wouldn't have to ask for the money. However, the
bigger picture is that the women did not make these children by
themselves. Speaking strictly of my case, both of us chose to bring
our son into the world and be responsible for him. Just because we
didn't stay married doesn't mean that either of us should be absolved
of our responsibility of that decision.

Guess that means you don't have a reply to the point I made so
successfully...

Did you ever stop to think that if you called his bluff it would be FOR
YOUR SON?

I can HONESTLY say that my son (so far) has never expressed his desire
to spend more time with his father. The only desire he occassionally
has is to talk to him and I'm right there handing him the phone and
dialing his dad's number. And BTW - his father, who has only a cell
phone (no home phone) and a work phone with caller ID - frequently
doesn't answer his phone. And since you will probably assume that
it's me he doesn't want to talk to, I'll go ahead and let you know
that our (my Ex and I)means of communicating is via email or at
exchanges and we've agreed to not fight in front of our son.
I know that in the future my son may indeed ask to spend more time
with his dad and FOR THAT reason I will be happy to let him do so.

Please excuse any laughing you may hear.....

I
have no such obligation to do things to make my Ex happy anymore -

Regardless of those pesky laws...

we're divorced. But I will do things to accommodate my son's needs
when the time comes.

Statistics indicate you are already damaging your son by failing to meet
his need for more time with his father. But then, you probably consider
yourself an anomally rather than an abomination....

Why not let your ex have 5 days and pay nothing???? Why not
indeed? Why not? Does it seem fair? Does it seem fair to whom? Fair
to your son and ex? Maybe more fair than the limited time they have
now. Fair to you? Financially, yes - your ex would be responsible for
over half of your son's living expenses and you would be responsible for
less than half - what's your problem with that? Fair time-wise?
Hmmmmm, you'd have your son for more of the time than your ex does now -
you tell us how fair that would be.....

Who is being shortchanged? My son? No - see above.

So, you wouldn't send your son to school unless he asked to go??? How
old is your son that he already knows what's good for him and what
isn't???

My ex? Maybe,
but if he wanted quality time with his son then why does he
consistently include others in his visits with his son? Why doesn't
he covet the time he has with his son so dearly that he wouldn't dream
of sharing him with someone else?

Your son should, of course, not be exposed to the life his father really
lives. Funny how some mothers derisively use the term "Disneyland
Daddy" to describe a father who doesn't treat his kids like they were
part of a real family, and then you put down your son's father for the
opposite. Guess it's just "damned if you do, damned if you don't" isn't
it....?

By the way, if you are so burdened financially by all the time you have
to care for your son....why aren't you pleased that your ex would offer
to feed and house him more?

My son is no burden to me

Geeee, wouldn't have guessed that from your posts....

My ex is the burden not my son.

That makes no sense at all. Not surprised.

and the changes to schedules I make benefit
him and his father and their time together.

So what was it again that you're moaning about?????

If you've forgotten why don't you take the time to reread previous
posts - it sounds like you have a lot of free time on your hands.

It sounds like you're saying "no problem" about the very same things
you've been bitching about.....

Mel Gamble


Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble

(angel235) wrote in message . com...

I've observed first hand what goes on on these particular NG's. I'm
not a surrogate father, I'm a determined, persistant mother who has to
take up the slack for my son's male parent because he won't step up to
the plate. He is the father of my son and like every mother I want
the very best for my son. Unfortunately, what we got was his father
which clearly demonstrates that the world is full of good and bad and
my son will have to learn to deal with negatives all throughout his
life. I'm just sorry that he has to start dealing with
disappointments in life so early. Well actually, that's not true -
all of this stuff has been successfully sheielded from him by my Ex
and me. But I know that every time I hold my tongue in front of my
son I keep telling myself that it won't be me who opens my sons eyes
to what his father is - it will be his father who does that.

It sounds like you're in a tough position, Angel. But, remember, you
are seeing your son's father through the eyes of *your* experience.
Your son sees him completely differently. What you perceive may not be
at all what he perceives.




What if he could take the same position and say since the CS order was
not
updated when the CS guidelines were reviewed you as the CP have lost the
ability to get an increase in CS?

Well, I suppose in your (male) perfect world things would work that
way but you know what - the white male america does not have the
control that he used to before slavery was outlawed and women were
given the power to vote. You're a sore loser.

How can I be a sore loser? My children respect me, we have a great
relationship, and I don't have to pay state mandated CS.

Good for you. I don't know your situation is but it sounds like your
pretty proud of the fact that your successfully circumvented having to
take responsibility for the children that you helped bring into this
world. Bravo!

You're quite wrong about Bob's responsibility to his children, Angel.
The fact is, the majority of men on this newsgroup not only pay child
support faithfully, but fight for as much contact with their children
as they can possibly get. Just because certain posters claim that all
the fathers here are trying to avoid their respinsibilities does not
mean it is true. The fact that they are questioning you on the
scenario you presented is a good indication of how they have been
treated by the system--and their ongoing commitment to each father's
right to be a father. It has nothing to do with shirking
responsibility.

snip


So substitute the words "concerned" or "challenged" or "resistant" in the
question about why you are against giving the children's father more time
with the children.

Ok - I don't think he should have any additional time with his son
because the time he does have with him he always (ok - not always but
90% of the visits he has) he consistently has to include other people
in these visits. And the other people end up taking time with my son
while my Ex is doing other things. There's no quality one-on-one time
with my son. For instance - my ex is in bad standing with his family
(although they love him as a family member they know what a FU he is)
and he uses his son to get the positive attention from his family he
so craves.

Does your son enjoy these times with his father's family? Are they a
positive influence in his life? Would he have any contact with them
if his father didn't take him there?


He has no other interaction with his family at other
times. He tells his son he's going to take him to a movie and then I
find out they went to see Seabiscuit and the girlfriend went. Do you
think that a 6 year old is really the motivation for going to that
particular movie?

Did it upset your son?


For the sixth year in a row I throw my son's
bithday party totally at my expense and invite the his whole family
and his girlfriend. They show up, eat the food, put on their "I'm
such an awesome parent" persona but none of them brought presents for
my sons birthday. Instead they make my son wait an entire week to get
his birthday gifts so that the girlfriend can throw her own party in
my sons honor. So - you tell me who's being put first in my Ex's
mind? Do these examples constitute child abuse of something hideous
like that? Absolutely not. But actions do speak louder than words.
I could go on and on with examples but it would be pointless.

And does your son complain about these things? They certainly look
neglectful from your perspective--but what is his take on the matter?


I have
a boyfriend of almost 3 years and I _very rarely_ include him in
activities with my son and I. I have 7 days a week to see my
boyfriend but unlike my Ex I choose to not take away time with son to
see the BF I wait until my son is with my Ex to do so. My bonding
time with my son is precious and even though he lives with me I
treasure time we spend together and I want him to know that when we're
together I'm 100% focused on him. I would never dream of using my son
to look like a better guy but then again, I don't have too.

Well, that's good. But do make sure to take time for yourself, too.
It is important for your son to see you as something other than just
his mom. He needs to understand that you are an individual in your
own right.

Melvin the Rambler,

On an on about nothing... the only pile of **** I see is the one in front
of your face after you are done talking..


"Melvin Gamble" wrote in message
...
It's like this, "angel" - when I'm walking down the sidewalk with
somebody and we see a pile of dog**** laying in a nearby lawn, one of us
may remark on how big a pile of dog**** it is. NEITHER of us feels any
need to ask the one making the remark to PROVE that it's dog****.
Sometimes the fact that something is what it is is just so obvious that
NOBODY questions it...

Your pile is huge, "angel".

Mel Gamble

angel235 wrote:

Melvin Gamble wrote in message
...
WOOOOPS!!!!!!....

angel235 wrote:

You are taking the only thing he has remaining after the divorce -
visitation leverage.

That's a load of crap. I interpret what you're saying as he has
nothing left that he can use to control of the situation to have it
work in his favor. I know it's hard to get used to it but get used
to
it.

Plus you are taking a position that is totally
unreasonable, i.e. since he didn't attempt to update the
visitation order
several years ago, he lost his chance to update it.

I didn't make the rules.

What if he could take the same position and say since the CS order
was not
updated when the CS guidelines were reviewed you as the CP have
lost the
ability to get an increase in CS?

Well, I suppose in your (male) perfect world things would work that

...guess we know where this one's coming from:


************************************************** *********************
way but you know what - the white male america does not have the
control that he used to before slavery was outlawed and women were
given the power to vote. You're a sore loser.

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

Don't look for any reasoned thinking from her, just dogma and hatred.

Mel Gamble


Mel - instead of trying to stonewall the conversation with labels why
don't you prove me wrong?