Police: Man faked death to avoid child support

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:03:50 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

Too bad ...

It is too bad that you're such a failure, and a whiner to boot.

You should have been more careful.

Some thought would have saved you from your problems.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:18:16 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

Yes, very sad.

Your irresponsible temporary lay doesn't really
want your kids, either.

You'll find out.

Get yourself fixed now, before you make even
more mistakes and contribute to overpopulation
of unwanted, irresponsible people.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:24:16 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

I see ...

Not where you store your head, you don't.

Otherwise you'd understand that any man
who doesn't want to support children must
use birth control if he has sex.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:31:02 GMT, "Gini" wrote:
...
no man would
want to breed ...

I'm sorry you're in such a state of being unwanted,
but it's obvious that your hatefulness is the cause.

I certainly would never want to sire a child with a
woman who hates herself so much as to advertise
her hostility in a public forum.

You're also showing that you can't think logically
enough to avoid ad hominem fallacies.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:44:54 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

... the context ...

It's that you resent your temporary lay's being
held responsible for his own actions.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:34:40 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

... issues, TM, not the least of which is comprehension...

Yes, obviously you don't comprehend that those who don't
want to take care of or pay for children should make use of
proper birth control methods.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 05:35:49 GMT, "Phil #3" wrote:

... we live in a culture of victimhood where
everyone competes to be the most 'abused'.

Yes, we have men who can't learn how to use
basic contraception whining that they're being
abused for being expected to support their own
young - they're pathetic.

I'm not dismissing anyone's responsibility for raising
their young.

I'm pointing out that anyone who ****s an alcoholic
without using contraception is an idiot who has no
business expecting anyone else to take care of his
self-inflicted problems.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:50:00 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

...Are you saying that a health problem can excuse a person from being
responsible for their own children?

If they die of cancer?

You are an idiot and shouldn't be polluting the gene pool.

...this woman
has never earned a dime

You hate motherhood so much you feel it should be done
gratis. Try telling a daycare center they shouldn't charge
for their services.

They, too, will inform you that you are an idiot.

... she has chosen ...

He chose, too. You flunked sex-ed, didn't you.

Ummm--are you saying that expecting a woman to shoulder the responsibilities
for the children she brings into the world is *punishment*?

No. I wrote nothing of the sort. If you weren't too
stupid to read for comprehension the punishment is
forced labor without pay.

You're into the idea of slavery, aren't you.

If you were an American you'd be into the idea
of freedom, instead.

...my
comment was that she has *never* undertaken the responsibility of providing
for her own children

If you hadn't been stupidly lying, the children would
have died of starvation or neglect within days.

Your temporary **** should have had the wits about
him not to lay an alchoholic without contraception.

He's making a lot of really stupid choices in his 'life'.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:55:46 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Yet they deem EVERY child to be irrelevant.

Well, those who have unprotected sex without the
specific consensual desire to procreate do, anyway.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:03:27 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

... it might be nice if the mother took a stab at it...

Are you claiming that she has abandoned the child?

... our children are irrelevant...

To the matter of precedent responsibilities, they are.

It's your own problem if you didn't determine that
your temporary sexual liaison had a history of
careless profligacy.

Silly child--I

You seem prone to abuse of those you believe
to be children. I hope you are supervised with
all due diligence in any interactions with them.

that mean old alcohol

Apparently you aren't well-enough educated to
realize that alcoholism, as a drug addiction, is
a health problem.

It's quite inhumane, hate-filled, and spiteful of
you to want to punish sick people.

...grumpy mood...

I'm sorry you suffer such so severely that you
project it where it is inapplicable.

I pity you.

I pity your poor children even more.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:16:58 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

I bet

You shouldn't gamble.

You can't calculate the odds well enough.

You don't even dimly sense that when you attempt
to insist that someone else should shoulder the sole
responsibility for the actions of two people you
should at least first do so yourself.

overinflated ego ...

So that's why you believe others would owe you
compensation for your failures.

Thanks for the confirmation.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.

http://www.open2.net/money/briefs_20051125_women.html

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:45:06 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

I've been finding the responses quite interesting. The idea that a woman is
"providing financially" for a child simply by ...

She's providing for the care, which would otherwise cost money.

You are quite stupid not to be aware of that fact.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:52:38 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... bizarre ...

The world of reality seems so strange to the incognizant.

Any man who doesn't want to pay to support a child can
use contraception when he has sex.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:20:53 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

Where does the mother who is doing the caretaking get the money to provide
financially?

A man who ****s a woman who doesn't have
a good job, without using any contraception,
is choosing to support the kid with financial
contributions according to the requirements
in existence at the time he does the deed.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:18:19 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

Good--now let's go one step further. Do you believe that both men and women
are responsible to provide for their children FINANCIALLY?

There's a concept called opportunity cost.
Of course you're too stupid to know what
it means, but it entails the fact that the
person providing caregiving is providing
for the child financially.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:27:36 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

* US * wrote in message ...
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:34:40 GMT, "Gini" wrote:
... issues, TM, not the least of which is comprehension...

Yes, obviously you don't comprehend that those who don't
want to take care of or pay for children should make use of
proper birth control methods.

Including women?

Why would anyone be so stupid as to imagine otherwise?

That woudn't, of course, relieve any man of his responsibility
to use birth control when he does not prefer to parent.

Obviously you're too stupid to avoid a false dichotomy. You
shouldn't be permitted to impose your stupidity on children.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:26:59 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

... all they need do is pop a pill.

Or roll on a rubber.

Don't you believe men would be sufficiently
capable to use birth control?

Why do you hate men?

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:34:40 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

... issues, TM, not the least of which is comprehension...

Yes, obviously you don't comprehend that those who don't
want to take care of or pay for children should make use of
proper birth control methods.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 05:35:49 GMT, "Phil #3" wrote:

... we live in a culture of victimhood where
everyone competes to be the most 'abused'.

Yes, we have men who can't learn how to use
basic contraception whining that they're being
abused for being expected to support their own
young - they're pathetic.

I'm not dismissing anyone's responsibility for raising
their young.

I'm pointing out that anyone who ****s an alcoholic
without using contraception is an idiot who has no
business expecting anyone else to take care of his
self-inflicted problems.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:50:00 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

...Are you saying that a health problem can excuse a person from being
responsible for their own children?

If they die of cancer?

You are an idiot and shouldn't be polluting the gene pool.

...this woman
has never earned a dime

You hate motherhood so much you feel it should be done
gratis. Try telling a daycare center they shouldn't charge
for their services.

They, too, will inform you that you are an idiot.

... she has chosen ...

He chose, too. You flunked sex-ed, didn't you.

Ummm--are you saying that expecting a woman to shoulder the responsibilities
for the children she brings into the world is *punishment*?

No. I wrote nothing of the sort. If you weren't too
stupid to read for comprehension the punishment is
forced labor without pay.

You're into the idea of slavery, aren't you.

If you were an American you'd be into the idea
of freedom, instead.

...my
comment was that she has *never* undertaken the responsibility of providing
for her own children

If you hadn't been stupidly lying, the children would
have died of starvation or neglect within days.

Your temporary **** should have had the wits about
him not to lay an alchoholic without contraception.

He's making a lot of really stupid choices in his 'life'.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:55:46 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Yet they deem EVERY child to be irrelevant.

Well, those who have unprotected sex without the
specific consensual desire to procreate do, anyway.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:03:27 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

... it might be nice if the mother took a stab at it...

Are you claiming that she has abandoned the child?

... our children are irrelevant...

To the matter of precedent responsibilities, they are.

It's your own problem if you didn't determine that
your temporary sexual liaison had a history of
careless profligacy.

Silly child--I

You seem prone to abuse of those you believe
to be children. I hope you are supervised with
all due diligence in any interactions with them.

that mean old alcohol

Apparently you aren't well-enough educated to
realize that alcoholism, as a drug addiction, is
a health problem.

It's quite inhumane, hate-filled, and spiteful of
you to want to punish sick people.

...grumpy mood...

I'm sorry you suffer such so severely that you
project it where it is inapplicable.

I pity you.

I pity your poor children even more.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:16:58 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

I bet

You shouldn't gamble.

You can't calculate the odds well enough.

You don't even dimly sense that when you attempt
to insist that someone else should shoulder the sole
responsibility for the actions of two people you
should at least first do so yourself.

overinflated ego ...

So that's why you believe others would owe you
compensation for your failures.

Thanks for the confirmation.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:35:23 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:

And a man who is perfectly willing to be part of his child's life and
provide for her needs to be told of her existence....

If he's so willing then why are you whining? Why didn't
he hang around with his alcoholic **** if he cared so much?

He's the uncaring sort who recklessly causes pregnancies
about which he doesn't really have any concern.

He doesn't care about your spawn, either.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:52:38 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... bizarre ...

The world of reality seems so strange to the incognizant.

Any man who doesn't want to pay to support a child can
use contraception when he has sex.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:20:53 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

Where does the mother who is doing the caretaking get the money to provide
financially?

A man who ****s a woman who doesn't have
a good job, without using any contraception,
is choosing to support the kid with financial
contributions according to the requirements
in existence at the time he does the deed.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:18:19 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

Good--now let's go one step further. Do you believe that both men and women
are responsible to provide for their children FINANCIALLY?

There's a concept called opportunity cost.
Of course you're too stupid to know what
it means, but it entails the fact that the
person providing caregiving is providing
for the child financially.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:27:36 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

* US * wrote in message ...
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:34:40 GMT, "Gini" wrote:
... issues, TM, not the least of which is comprehension...

Yes, obviously you don't comprehend that those who don't
want to take care of or pay for children should make use of
proper birth control methods.

Including women?

Why would anyone be so stupid as to imagine otherwise?

That woudn't, of course, relieve any man of his responsibility
to use birth control when he does not prefer to parent.

Obviously you're too stupid to avoid a false dichotomy. You
shouldn't be permitted to impose your stupidity on children.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:26:59 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

... all they need do is pop a pill.

Or roll on a rubber.

Don't you believe men would be sufficiently
capable to use birth control?

Why do you hate men?

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:34:40 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

... issues, TM, not the least of which is comprehension...

Yes, obviously you don't comprehend that those who don't
want to take care of or pay for children should make use of
proper birth control methods.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 05:35:49 GMT, "Phil #3" wrote:

... we live in a culture of victimhood where
everyone competes to be the most 'abused'.

Yes, we have men who can't learn how to use
basic contraception whining that they're being
abused for being expected to support their own
young - they're pathetic.

I'm not dismissing anyone's responsibility for raising
their young.

I'm pointing out that anyone who ****s an alcoholic
without using contraception is an idiot who has no
business expecting anyone else to take care of his
self-inflicted problems.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:50:00 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

...Are you saying that a health problem can excuse a person from being
responsible for their own children?

If they die of cancer?

You are an idiot and shouldn't be polluting the gene pool.

...this woman
has never earned a dime

You hate motherhood so much you feel it should be done
gratis. Try telling a daycare center they shouldn't charge
for their services.

They, too, will inform you that you are an idiot.

... she has chosen ...

He chose, too. You flunked sex-ed, didn't you.

Ummm--are you saying that expecting a woman to shoulder the responsibilities
for the children she brings into the world is *punishment*?

No. I wrote nothing of the sort. If you weren't too
stupid to read for comprehension the punishment is
forced labor without pay.

You're into the idea of slavery, aren't you.

If you were an American you'd be into the idea
of freedom, instead.

...my
comment was that she has *never* undertaken the responsibility of providing
for her own children

If you hadn't been stupidly lying, the children would
have died of starvation or neglect within days.

Your temporary **** should have had the wits about
him not to lay an alchoholic without contraception.

He's making a lot of really stupid choices in his 'life'.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:55:46 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Yet they deem EVERY child to be irrelevant.

Well, those who have unprotected sex without the
specific consensual desire to procreate do, anyway.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:03:27 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

... it might be nice if the mother took a stab at it...

Are you claiming that she has abandoned the child?

... our children are irrelevant...

To the matter of precedent responsibilities, they are.

It's your own problem if you didn't determine that
your temporary sexual liaison had a history of
careless profligacy.

Silly child--I

You seem prone to abuse of those you believe
to be children. I hope you are supervised with
all due diligence in any interactions with them.

that mean old alcohol

Apparently you aren't well-enough educated to
realize that alcoholism, as a drug addiction, is
a health problem.

It's quite inhumane, hate-filled, and spiteful of
you to want to punish sick people.

...grumpy mood...

I'm sorry you suffer such so severely that you
project it where it is inapplicable.

I pity you.

I pity your poor children even more.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:16:58 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

I bet

You shouldn't gamble.

You can't calculate the odds well enough.

You don't even dimly sense that when you attempt
to insist that someone else should shoulder the sole
responsibility for the actions of two people you
should at least first do so yourself.

overinflated ego ...

So that's why you believe others would owe you
compensation for your failures.

Thanks for the confirmation.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:06:10 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote:

Describes ...

You describe yourself as a woman-hater who
can't imagine men being responsible.

You shouldn't reproduce at all.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:35:23 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:

And a man who is perfectly willing to be part of his child's life and
provide for her needs to be told of her existence....

If he's so willing then why are you whining? Why didn't
he hang around with his alcoholic **** if he cared so much?

He's the uncaring sort who recklessly causes pregnancies
about which he doesn't really have any concern.

He doesn't care about your spawn, either.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:52:38 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... bizarre ...

The world of reality seems so strange to the incognizant.

Any man who doesn't want to pay to support a child can
use contraception when he has sex.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:20:53 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

Where does the mother who is doing the caretaking get the money to provide
financially?

A man who ****s a woman who doesn't have
a good job, without using any contraception,
is choosing to support the kid with financial
contributions according to the requirements
in existence at the time he does the deed.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:18:19 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

Good--now let's go one step further. Do you believe that both men and women
are responsible to provide for their children FINANCIALLY?

There's a concept called opportunity cost.
Of course you're too stupid to know what
it means, but it entails the fact that the
person providing caregiving is providing
for the child financially.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:27:36 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

* US * wrote in message ...
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:34:40 GMT, "Gini" wrote:
... issues, TM, not the least of which is comprehension...

Yes, obviously you don't comprehend that those who don't
want to take care of or pay for children should make use of
proper birth control methods.

Including women?

Why would anyone be so stupid as to imagine otherwise?

That woudn't, of course, relieve any man of his responsibility
to use birth control when he does not prefer to parent.

Obviously you're too stupid to avoid a false dichotomy. You
shouldn't be permitted to impose your stupidity on children.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:26:59 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

... all they need do is pop a pill.

Or roll on a rubber.

Don't you believe men would be sufficiently
capable to use birth control?

Why do you hate men?

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:34:40 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

... issues, TM, not the least of which is comprehension...

Yes, obviously you don't comprehend that those who don't
want to take care of or pay for children should make use of
proper birth control methods.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 05:35:49 GMT, "Phil #3" wrote:

... we live in a culture of victimhood where
everyone competes to be the most 'abused'.

Yes, we have men who can't learn how to use
basic contraception whining that they're being
abused for being expected to support their own
young - they're pathetic.

I'm not dismissing anyone's responsibility for raising
their young.

I'm pointing out that anyone who ****s an alcoholic
without using contraception is an idiot who has no
business expecting anyone else to take care of his
self-inflicted problems.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:50:00 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

...Are you saying that a health problem can excuse a person from being
responsible for their own children?

If they die of cancer?

You are an idiot and shouldn't be polluting the gene pool.

...this woman
has never earned a dime

You hate motherhood so much you feel it should be done
gratis. Try telling a daycare center they shouldn't charge
for their services.

They, too, will inform you that you are an idiot.

... she has chosen ...

He chose, too. You flunked sex-ed, didn't you.

Ummm--are you saying that expecting a woman to shoulder the responsibilities
for the children she brings into the world is *punishment*?

No. I wrote nothing of the sort. If you weren't too
stupid to read for comprehension the punishment is
forced labor without pay.

You're into the idea of slavery, aren't you.

If you were an American you'd be into the idea
of freedom, instead.

...my
comment was that she has *never* undertaken the responsibility of providing
for her own children

If you hadn't been stupidly lying, the children would
have died of starvation or neglect within days.

Your temporary **** should have had the wits about
him not to lay an alchoholic without contraception.

He's making a lot of really stupid choices in his 'life'.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:55:46 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Yet they deem EVERY child to be irrelevant.

Well, those who have unprotected sex without the
specific consensual desire to procreate do, anyway.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:03:27 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

... it might be nice if the mother took a stab at it...

Are you claiming that she has abandoned the child?

... our children are irrelevant...

To the matter of precedent responsibilities, they are.

It's your own problem if you didn't determine that
your temporary sexual liaison had a history of
careless profligacy.

Silly child--I

You seem prone to abuse of those you believe
to be children. I hope you are supervised with
all due diligence in any interactions with them.

that mean old alcohol

Apparently you aren't well-enough educated to
realize that alcoholism, as a drug addiction, is
a health problem.

It's quite inhumane, hate-filled, and spiteful of
you to want to punish sick people.

...grumpy mood...

I'm sorry you suffer such so severely that you
project it where it is inapplicable.

I pity you.

I pity your poor children even more.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:16:58 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

I bet

You shouldn't gamble.

You can't calculate the odds well enough.

You don't even dimly sense that when you attempt
to insist that someone else should shoulder the sole
responsibility for the actions of two people you
should at least first do so yourself.

overinflated ego ...

So that's why you believe others would owe you
compensation for your failures.

Thanks for the confirmation.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:37:39 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

Oh, so now we are down to the man being responsible for determining the
woman's income, and her likelihood of continuing to work,

It must not be easy for a guy who ****s unconscious drunk women, huh.

You won't understand this, either, but responsible people get to know
those with whom they have sex, and if they're not likely to be able to
contribute much to the offspring, they use birth control.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:20:53 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

Where does the mother who is doing the caretaking get the money to provide
financially?

A man who ****s a woman who doesn't have
a good job, without using any contraception,
is choosing to support the kid with financial
contributions according to the requirements
in existence at the time he does the deed.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:18:19 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

Good--now let's go one step further. Do you believe that both men and women
are responsible to provide for their children FINANCIALLY?

There's a concept called opportunity cost.
Of course you're too stupid to know what
it means, but it entails the fact that the
person providing caregiving is providing
for the child financially.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:27:36 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

* US * wrote in message ...
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:34:40 GMT, "Gini" wrote:
... issues, TM, not the least of which is comprehension...

Yes, obviously you don't comprehend that those who don't
want to take care of or pay for children should make use of
proper birth control methods.

Including women?

Why would anyone be so stupid as to imagine otherwise?

That woudn't, of course, relieve any man of his responsibility
to use birth control when he does not prefer to parent.

Obviously you're too stupid to avoid a false dichotomy. You
shouldn't be permitted to impose your stupidity on children.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:26:59 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

... all they need do is pop a pill.

Or roll on a rubber.

Don't you believe men would be sufficiently
capable to use birth control?

Why do you hate men?

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:34:40 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

... issues, TM, not the least of which is comprehension...

Yes, obviously you don't comprehend that those who don't
want to take care of or pay for children should make use of
proper birth control methods.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 05:35:49 GMT, "Phil #3" wrote:

... we live in a culture of victimhood where
everyone competes to be the most 'abused'.

Yes, we have men who can't learn how to use
basic contraception whining that they're being
abused for being expected to support their own
young - they're pathetic.

I'm not dismissing anyone's responsibility for raising
their young.

I'm pointing out that anyone who ****s an alcoholic
without using contraception is an idiot who has no
business expecting anyone else to take care of his
self-inflicted problems.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:50:00 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

...Are you saying that a health problem can excuse a person from being
responsible for their own children?

If they die of cancer?

You are an idiot and shouldn't be polluting the gene pool.

...this woman
has never earned a dime

You hate motherhood so much you feel it should be done
gratis. Try telling a daycare center they shouldn't charge
for their services.

They, too, will inform you that you are an idiot.

... she has chosen ...

He chose, too. You flunked sex-ed, didn't you.

Ummm--are you saying that expecting a woman to shoulder the responsibilities
for the children she brings into the world is *punishment*?

No. I wrote nothing of the sort. If you weren't too
stupid to read for comprehension the punishment is
forced labor without pay.

You're into the idea of slavery, aren't you.

If you were an American you'd be into the idea
of freedom, instead.

...my
comment was that she has *never* undertaken the responsibility of providing
for her own children

If you hadn't been stupidly lying, the children would
have died of starvation or neglect within days.

Your temporary **** should have had the wits about
him not to lay an alchoholic without contraception.

He's making a lot of really stupid choices in his 'life'.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:55:46 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Yet they deem EVERY child to be irrelevant.

Well, those who have unprotected sex without the
specific consensual desire to procreate do, anyway.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:03:27 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

... it might be nice if the mother took a stab at it...

Are you claiming that she has abandoned the child?

... our children are irrelevant...

To the matter of precedent responsibilities, they are.

It's your own problem if you didn't determine that
your temporary sexual liaison had a history of
careless profligacy.

Silly child--I

You seem prone to abuse of those you believe
to be children. I hope you are supervised with
all due diligence in any interactions with them.

that mean old alcohol

Apparently you aren't well-enough educated to
realize that alcoholism, as a drug addiction, is
a health problem.

It's quite inhumane, hate-filled, and spiteful of
you to want to punish sick people.

...grumpy mood...

I'm sorry you suffer such so severely that you
project it where it is inapplicable.

I pity you.

I pity your poor children even more.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:16:58 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:

I bet

You shouldn't gamble.

You can't calculate the odds well enough.

You don't even dimly sense that when you attempt
to insist that someone else should shoulder the sole
responsibility for the actions of two people you
should at least first do so yourself.

overinflated ego ...

So that's why you believe others would owe you
compensation for your failures.

Thanks for the confirmation.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "garbageteachr" wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.

test
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"WhyNotMe" wrote in message
news:gDNAf.749992$xm3.405805@attbi_s21...
teachrmama wrote:

"Galileo" wrote in message
oups.com...

P. Fritz wrote:

A falsely created debt matched by a falsely created death.......not
a
problem to me.

Falsely created debt? So, you approve of men who father children and
contribute nothing to their upbringing or support...increasing the
chance that the mother (and children) will wind up on some sort of
government support? ****ing brilliant. Our tax dollars at work.


IF the father was required to pay for 1/2 the cost to meet the child's
basic needs (shelter, clothing and food--no luxury items) that would be
one thing. But requiring a man to pay for anything beyond that is way
too
intrusive. Married couples aren't required to pay for more than the
basic
needs of a child--why should divorced or never married fathers be
required to pay beyond that?



Free hint for the clueless.....college is not a right

Free hint for the comprehension impaired: read the whole paragraph
again. I said "IF" the mother could cover basic necessities on her
own, then maybe the father could start a college fund. What's your
suggestion for another way to contribute to the kids' support?


Even if the mother is able to cover the basic needs of the child,
college
is still not a right, and the father should not be required to start a
college fund.



Provide proof that he re ran away from his responsibilities and was
not
driven away, and had monetary demand placed on him, literally at the
point
of a gun.


I'm going by the article that was provided. Provide another source
that disproves it. Please.

My parents got divorced when I was 5, and my father paid support to my
mom until I was a teenager...because he knows I am partly his
responsibility. He was (and is) able to take responsibility for his
actions. From the whining we're seeing on this issue, it seems like a
lot of men out there aren't mature enough to cope with that idea.


I think that a lot of the complaints aren't about supporting
children--but about the intrusiveness of a system that gets to decide
how
much children "need" based on what a man earns. Needs are needs--a
child
does not "need" more every time his father gets a raise.



A decent man wants his child's life to improve as his own situation
improves. Please note, I said a decent man. There are plenty that
prefer
to spend that raise on a new car, new honey, new boat, etc...

If custody were set up as 50/50 by default, a father would have an
opportunity to just that. Even with the primary custody/visitation
situation we see right now, if child support were needs based rather than
percentage-of-income, a father could pay child support and still have
money
left to spend on his child--rather than forking it over to mom to spend
any
way she pleases, since it is not required that CS be spent on children. I
think that having a child ask "Dad, can I be in football this year?" and
being able to say "Sure, Son, let' go buy the equipment." is a far
better
scenario than "Well, Son, I paid you CS for this month and don't have any
money left for extras. Go ask your Mom."

test
* US * wrote in message ...
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:04:44 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... concept foreign ...

You're not good with concepts.

Otherwise, you'd know that any man who does
not want to have children can avoid doing so.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:17:11 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... a drug habit ...

That explains your incapacity to process information
or to ascribe responsibility to men.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:07:26 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...a quote

I have attributed all quotes correctly.

Learn to locate attributions if you can.

Then learn not to lie about irrelevancies,
and perhaps you'll earn respect someday.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:30:13 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

You are attributing words to me that are not even mine.

You are mistaken.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:53:00 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Translation: lack of funds = stupidity.

Apparently you aren't proficient with language.

Those who don't have enough money to support kids
don't need to have any.

Those who can't figure out what it costs shouldn't.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:08:26 GMT, "Gini Dimwit" wrote:

... the best you could do ...

I'm not the one having kids I can't afford to raise.

...She has a
choice.
He does not...

You are clueless. Any man who doesn't want to deal
with paternity can get fixed, use contraception, or
keep it in his pants.

Nobody else owes any man management of paternity.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:42:51 GMT, "Gini Dimwit" wrote:

...I assumed ...

You thus make an ass of yourself.

No one forces a man to undertake fatherhood.

When he does so, he becomes responsible for it.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:27:56 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Umm...It was the mother (with assistance of the state) whose methods
caused

She raped a man and forbade his use of birth control?

Oh, do tell.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:40:44 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager
DOTnet wrote:

Yawn

So you're an idiot due to oxygen deprivation.

Thanks for the confirmation.

If only women were held to that standard.

So you hate women and want to try to blame
them for not managing _paternities_.

You're not merely misogynist, but stupid.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:49:20 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager
DOTnet wrote:

Yet another clueless boob.

You must be, if you can't even understand that
responsible adults don't have kids they can't
afford to raise.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary partner
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.

test
* US * wrote in message ...
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:04:44 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... concept foreign ...

You're not good with concepts.

Otherwise, you'd know that any man who does
not want to have children can avoid doing so.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:17:11 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... a drug habit ...

That explains your incapacity to process information
or to ascribe responsibility to men.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:07:26 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...a quote

I have attributed all quotes correctly.

Learn to locate attributions if you can.

Then learn not to lie about irrelevancies,
and perhaps you'll earn respect someday.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:30:13 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

You are attributing words to me that are not even mine.

You are mistaken.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:53:00 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Translation: lack of funds = stupidity.

Apparently you aren't proficient with language.

Those who don't have enough money to support kids
don't need to have any.

Those who can't figure out what it costs shouldn't.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:08:26 GMT, "Gini Dimwit" wrote:

... the best you could do ...

I'm not the one having kids I can't afford to raise.

...She has a
choice.
He does not...

You are clueless. Any man who doesn't want to deal
with paternity can get fixed, use contraception, or
keep it in his pants.

Nobody else owes any man management of paternity.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:42:51 GMT, "Gini Dimwit" wrote:

...I assumed ...

You thus make an ass of yourself.

No one forces a man to undertake fatherhood.

When he does so, he becomes responsible for it.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:27:56 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Umm...It was the mother (with assistance of the state) whose methods
caused

She raped a man and forbade his use of birth control?

Oh, do tell.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:40:44 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager
DOTnet wrote:

Yawn

So you're an idiot due to oxygen deprivation.

Thanks for the confirmation.

If only women were held to that standard.

So you hate women and want to try to blame
them for not managing _paternities_.

You're not merely misogynist, but stupid.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:49:20 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager
DOTnet wrote:

Yet another clueless boob.

You must be, if you can't even understand that
responsible adults don't have kids they can't
afford to raise.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary partner
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.

* US * wrote in message ...

...problems...

It's a shame that your problems result in your
impairment to the extent that you can't even
comprehend personal responsibility.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:54:24 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager
DOTnet wrote:

... it's post ...

You babble "it is post" because your unfamiliarity
with English puts you at a distinct disadvantage
in terms of learning, including learning about such
important concepts as personal responsibility.

full of
errors ...

Yes, you are. Your belief that men must be helpless
dupes unable to manage their affairs is in error, too.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:08:10 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...a fictitious
discussion.

No one else is forcing you to lie.

Take responsibility for yourself.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:37:28 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Believe it ...

Mere 'belief' is not a fitting substitute for reasoning.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life
situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of
life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided
to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to
back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that
create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:54:24 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager
DOTnet wrote:

... it's post ...

You babble "it is post" because your unfamiliarity
with English puts you at a distinct disadvantage
in terms of learning, including learning about such
important concepts as personal responsibility.

full of
errors ...

Yes, you are. Your belief that men must be helpless
dupes unable to manage their affairs is in error, too.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:08:10 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...a fictitious
discussion.

No one else is forcing you to lie.

Take responsibility for yourself.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:37:28 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Believe it ...

Mere 'belief' is not a fitting substitute for reasoning.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life
situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of
life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided
to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to
back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that
create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:54:24 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager
DOTnet wrote:

... it's post ...

You babble "it is post" because your unfamiliarity
with English puts you at a distinct disadvantage
in terms of learning, including learning about such
important concepts as personal responsibility.

full of
errors ...

Yes, you are. Your belief that men must be helpless
dupes unable to manage their affairs is in error, too.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:08:10 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...a fictitious
discussion.

No one else is forcing you to lie.

Take responsibility for yourself.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:37:28 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Believe it ...

Mere 'belief' is not a fitting substitute for reasoning.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life
situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of
life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided
to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to
back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that
create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:54:24 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager
DOTnet wrote:

... it's post ...

You babble "it is post" because your unfamiliarity
with English puts you at a distinct disadvantage
in terms of learning, including learning about such
important concepts as personal responsibility.

full of
errors ...

Yes, you are. Your belief that men must be helpless
dupes unable to manage their affairs is in error, too.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:08:10 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...a fictitious
discussion.

No one else is forcing you to lie.

Take responsibility for yourself.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:37:28 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Believe it ...

Mere 'belief' is not a fitting substitute for reasoning.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life
situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of
life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided
to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to
back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that
create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.

* US * wrote in message ...

...intelligent.

Does not describe you.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:27:47 GMT, "Phil #3" wrote:

... one of those who lack the intelligence to shut their mouth
when a bird ****s in their face.
Phil #3

Of course you a one can only hope that you muster
the smarts, somehow, to use contraception, and thus
avoid polluting the gene pool with more idiots such
as yourself.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:55:28 -0800, "garbageteachr"
wrote:

...what I actually
said.

You blather a lot of bull**** about how men
would somehow be unable to determine
whether or not they have kids.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:12:41 -0800, "garbageteachr"
wrote:

...It does not seem as if ...

The response to the ignorant misperception that men
would somehow not be able to manage paternities with
personal responsibility is to point out that it's erroneous.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:08:10 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...a fictitious
discussion.

No one else is forcing you to lie.

Take responsibility for yourself.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:37:28 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Believe it ...

Mere 'belief' is not a fitting substitute for reasoning.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life
situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of
life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided
to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to
back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that
create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:27:47 GMT, "Phil #3" wrote:

... one of those who lack the intelligence to shut their mouth
when a bird ****s in their face.
Phil #3

Of course you a one can only hope that you muster
the smarts, somehow, to use contraception, and thus
avoid polluting the gene pool with more idiots such
as yourself.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:55:28 -0800, "garbageteachr"
wrote:

...what I actually
said.

You blather a lot of bull**** about how men
would somehow be unable to determine
whether or not they have kids.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:12:41 -0800, "garbageteachr"
wrote:

...It does not seem as if ...

The response to the ignorant misperception that men
would somehow not be able to manage paternities with
personal responsibility is to point out that it's erroneous.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:08:10 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...a fictitious
discussion.

No one else is forcing you to lie.

Take responsibility for yourself.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:37:28 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Believe it ...

Mere 'belief' is not a fitting substitute for reasoning.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life
situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of
life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided
to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to
back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that
create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:27:47 GMT, "Phil #3" wrote:

... one of those who lack the intelligence to shut their mouth
when a bird ****s in their face.
Phil #3

Of course you a one can only hope that you muster
the smarts, somehow, to use contraception, and thus
avoid polluting the gene pool with more idiots such
as yourself.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:55:28 -0800, "garbageteachr"
wrote:

...what I actually
said.

You blather a lot of bull**** about how men
would somehow be unable to determine
whether or not they have kids.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:12:41 -0800, "garbageteachr"
wrote:

...It does not seem as if ...

The response to the ignorant misperception that men
would somehow not be able to manage paternities with
personal responsibility is to point out that it's erroneous.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:08:10 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...a fictitious
discussion.

No one else is forcing you to lie.

Take responsibility for yourself.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:37:28 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Believe it ...

Mere 'belief' is not a fitting substitute for reasoning.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life
situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of
life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided
to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to
back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that
create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:27:47 GMT, "Phil #3" wrote:

... one of those who lack the intelligence to shut their mouth
when a bird ****s in their face.
Phil #3

Of course you a one can only hope that you muster
the smarts, somehow, to use contraception, and thus
avoid polluting the gene pool with more idiots such
as yourself.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:55:28 -0800, "garbageteachr"
wrote:

...what I actually
said.

You blather a lot of bull**** about how men
would somehow be unable to determine
whether or not they have kids.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:12:41 -0800, "garbageteachr"
wrote:

...It does not seem as if ...

The response to the ignorant misperception that men
would somehow not be able to manage paternities with
personal responsibility is to point out that it's erroneous.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:08:10 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...a fictitious
discussion.

No one else is forcing you to lie.

Take responsibility for yourself.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:37:28 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Believe it ...

Mere 'belief' is not a fitting substitute for reasoning.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... gone haywire ...

All the more reason for you to avoid procreation.

Here's the info you can't seem to process, so that
you can have another try if you work up the guts:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:41:05 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Doubtful. ...

You sure are, if you can't even learn how and when
to use birth control.

Perhaps you can't even learn how to read this:

"Before copping an attitude about child support, consider the situation.
In this modern world, you can have sex without reproducing. So, whether
your children were intentional, or accidental, your actions caused them to
be here. It isn't their fault they were born. And, the fact that your life
situation
has changed should have as little impact as possible on their quality of
life. Both
of you made a financial, as well as an emotional decision when you decided
to
have kids. Now that they are here, it is too late for either of you to
back out
of your commitment to them."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/indiana/in_art04

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:07 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

You would haveto explain your reasoning here, US.

I've stated the facts plainly enough. If you're just not the
sharpest tool in the shed you sure shouldn't procreate.

It's rather unsettling to imagine that you'd be a 'teacher'.

I'm not certain what it
is that you think I am not controlling.

Yourself.

No one forced you to have kids at all, much less to do so
with a man already proven unwilling to support them.

I certainly had no control over ...

You can't control yourself. You got pregnant carelessly, by
a 'father' who isn't suitable.

Now you want to gripe about nothing more than your own
sequence of errors in having done that.

... her mother decided ...

You don't speak for her. It's disingenuous for you to try to
pretend otherwise.

How could you teach a child to be honest when you're not?

Since he has been found to be this young ladies father

You thus disprove your false claims about the mother.

... mother who has never worked a day in her life
to support any of her children.

You don't believe that raising children is work per se?

What do you do, lie on the couch eating bonbons as your
own neglected spawn rot in their own urine and feces?

We had two children--the number we knew we could afford.

You didn't know that. He didn't know that. You lie.

You're now complaining that you can't afford it.

You made the mistake. Don't beg for sympathy.

decisions were made by others that deprived her of a father.

Obviously the father cut out. He'll do it to you, too.

Uh--I don't think you really understand the accounting practices that
create
a monthly late payment

Actually, I'm well qualified in accounting.

You beat that system (intentionality notwithstanding)
with one well-timed advance payment.

If you're too arithmetically impaired to figure that out,
I hope your kids can find someone else from whom to
learn well enough to become numerate.

...Any payment made outside
the wage garnishment would not be counted as current CS

Try learning about the contractual nature of check memos.

He could be better off settling the arrearage via financing,
but considering that your temporary spouse hasn't the mental
tackle to manage basic birth control, that may be beyond him.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:
...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...

If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary 'partner'
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.