deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)

Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
t...
Chris wrote:
If he was willing to live in the
same city as her, he would have her half of the time. It is very
simple
Chris.

Indeed it is. Apparently, he IS willing to live in the same city as
her; you
just don't approve of the city.


He violated a court order by moving.

Irrelevant.

It is *not* irrelevant. Look, we obviously aren't going to agree on
anything, so continued debate is kind of pointless.


Sarah Gray

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
| Chris wrote:
| "Sarah Gray" wrote in message
| t...
| Chris wrote:
| If he was willing to live in the
| same city as her, he would have her half of the time. It is very
| simple
| Chris.
|
| Indeed it is. Apparently, he IS willing to live in the same city as
| her; you
| just don't approve of the city.
|
|
| He violated a court order by moving.
|
| Irrelevant.
|
| It is *not* irrelevant. Look, we obviously aren't going to agree on
| anything, so continued debate is kind of pointless.
|
|

You are just figuring that out? :-)

| Sarah Gray

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. net...
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
The thing is, it's for *his daughter*, not for me.

Uhuh.

*I* don't need anyone supporting me,

Umm, it's more like greed, not need.

It is not greed to insist her father provide for her.

Nice twist. It is GREED to insist that he give you FREE MONEY.

He has no way of providing for her commensurate to how I do without
either sending money, or paying in full for certain expenses on his
own.

His obligation to you and your daughter is exactly SQUAT!

How about his obligation to HIS daughter?

What part of SQUAT did you not understand; the "SQ" or the "UAT"?

So men have no obligations to their children?

According to the"child support" people, by THEIR reasoning...............
NO!

Uh....that's not exactly what they say, Chris.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
t...
Chris wrote:
But I *am* spending money on these things. He is unable to care for her
on his own.

NOW I get it....... duh! HE'S not good enough to care for her, but
he's
good enough to send you free money. Please forgive me as I am not the
brightest bulb in the chandelier. I keep forgetting that we are talking
about a man and NOT a woman.

I never said he wasn't good enough. He has no transportation or housing
of his own, and he claims he cannot afford to cover half of her basic
needs.

LOVE the contradiction.



--

Sarah Gray

animal02 wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
| Chris wrote:
| "Sarah Gray" wrote in message
| t...
| Chris wrote:
| If he was willing to live in the
| same city as her, he would have her half of the time. It is very
| simple
| Chris.
|
| Indeed it is. Apparently, he IS willing to live in the same city as
| her; you
| just don't approve of the city.
|
|
| He violated a court order by moving.
|
| Irrelevant.
|
| It is *not* irrelevant. Look, we obviously aren't going to agree on
| anything, so continued debate is kind of pointless.
|
|

You are just figuring that out? :-)

no, but I do so enjoy a good argument


--

Sarah Gray

Chris wrote:
NOW I get it....... duh! HE'S not good enough to care for her, but
he's
good enough to send you free money. Please forgive me as I am not the
brightest bulb in the chandelier. I keep forgetting that we are
talking
about a man and NOT a woman.

I never said he wasn't good enough. He has no transportation or housing
of his own, and he claims he cannot afford to cover half of her basic
needs.

LOVE the contradiction.

What contradiction? He is not capable of supporting her on his own. That
is not the same as "not good enough"
--

Sarah Gray

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
t...
Chris wrote:
If he was willing to live in the
same city as her, he would have her half of the time. It is very
simple
Chris.

Indeed it is. Apparently, he IS willing to live in the same city as
her; you
just don't approve of the city.


He violated a court order by moving.

Irrelevant.

It is *not* irrelevant.

Whether or not he violated ANY order makes NO difference to the fact that he
is willing to live in the same city as her, thus it is irrelevant.

Look, we obviously aren't going to agree on
anything, so continued debate is kind of pointless.


Sarah Gray

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. net...
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
The thing is, it's for *his daughter*, not for me.

Uhuh.

*I* don't need anyone supporting me,

Umm, it's more like greed, not need.

It is not greed to insist her father provide for her.

Nice twist. It is GREED to insist that he give you FREE MONEY.

He has no way of providing for her commensurate to how I do
without
either sending money, or paying in full for certain expenses on
his
own.

His obligation to you and your daughter is exactly SQUAT!

How about his obligation to HIS daughter?

What part of SQUAT did you not understand; the "SQ" or the "UAT"?

So men have no obligations to their children?

According to the"child support" people, by THEIR
reasoning...............
NO!

Uh....that's not exactly what they say, Chris.

They reason that men have no rights regarding children, thus it follows that
they have no responsibilities. Something most second graders understand.

Chris wrote:
They reason that men have no rights regarding children, thus it
follows that
they have no responsibilities. Something most second graders understand.

I thought that the reason you think men have no responsibilities towards
their children was that they don't "create" them....
--

Sarah Gray

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. net...
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
The thing is, it's for *his daughter*, not for
me.

Uhuh.

*I* don't need anyone supporting me,

Umm, it's more like greed, not need.

It is not greed to insist her father provide for her.

Nice twist. It is GREED to insist that he give you FREE MONEY.

He has no way of providing for her commensurate to how I do
without
either sending money, or paying in full for certain expenses on
his
own.

His obligation to you and your daughter is exactly SQUAT!

How about his obligation to HIS daughter?

What part of SQUAT did you not understand; the "SQ" or the "UAT"?

So men have no obligations to their children?

According to the"child support" people, by THEIR
reasoning...............
NO!

Uh....that's not exactly what they say, Chris.

They reason that men have no rights regarding children, thus it follows
that
they have no responsibilities. Something most second graders understand.

Unfortunately, the CS system is not run by second graders. chuckle