Fathers the key to child behavior

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Tuesday, 25th May 2004
Fathers the key to child behavior

Children who have contact with their fathers following a family break-up
suffer fewer behavioral problems, academics said today.

Youngsters who have a close relationship with their natural father after
their parents split up are likely to be less disorderly, anxious or
aggressive.
I would have to agree, considering I've had close contact with my youngest
daughter the last 15 years her mother I and have been separated.
The results where confirmed last Friday evening as I watched a very
wonderful young lady graduate from high school. She did it a year early from
hard work. It cost her being valedictorian being a junior and not a senior,
but she wasn't upset over that at all, she'd reached her goal. As she read
the benediction, I watched this young woman speak in confidence and poise.
Her words where clear and strong as every person there witnessed.
I have no doubt that if her mother and I had not worked out our problems and
had not agreed to putting our daughter above our differences, she would not
have given that speech.

Take a look at your child and ask yourself if you are being the best you can
be for them. A NCP still plays a very important part in their life. The
DEADBEAT STATE OF ILLINOIS may title me as a deadbeat dad, but they don't
know jack. All they know is they broke a contract 15 years ago and refuse to
admit it while every year they steal money from me that never gets seen by
my ex or daughter. During those 15 years they refuse to talk to my ex or
myself without going to court. They even had the nerve to tell me that my
daughter's welfare was none of my business.
To counter balance that, I have bought 3 cars for the ex, maintained them
( tune-ups, brake jobs, new tires, etc.), paid numerous electric and phone
bills, several $100+ trips to buy groceries, 3 trips a year to buy whole new
wardrobes because she grew so fast, money for her sports ventures, and not
to mention the many times I'd slip her mom a couple hundreds to pay for the
"un-expected". But still I'm a "deadbeat dad". LMFAO

The results I got was a fantastic daughter who is confident in what she can
do and knows what she wants to do with her future, med school. She's EARNED
full scholarships and knows she has her mother's and my undying admiration.
Of the last 15 years, I was there part of the time, BUT I WAS THERE.

Do your kids justice, BE THERE FOR THEM.

Proud father of Natasha, class of '04

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Tuesday, 25th May 2004
Fathers the key to child behavior

Children who have contact with their fathers following a family break-up
suffer fewer behavioral problems, academics said today.

Youngsters who have a close relationship with their natural father after
their parents split up are likely to be less disorderly, anxious or
aggressive.
I would have to agree, considering I've had close contact with my youngest
daughter the last 15 years her mother I and have been separated.
The results where confirmed last Friday evening as I watched a very
wonderful young lady graduate from high school. She did it a year early from
hard work. It cost her being valedictorian being a junior and not a senior,
but she wasn't upset over that at all, she'd reached her goal. As she read
the benediction, I watched this young woman speak in confidence and poise.
Her words where clear and strong as every person there witnessed.
I have no doubt that if her mother and I had not worked out our problems and
had not agreed to putting our daughter above our differences, she would not
have given that speech.

Take a look at your child and ask yourself if you are being the best you can
be for them. A NCP still plays a very important part in their life. The
DEADBEAT STATE OF ILLINOIS may title me as a deadbeat dad, but they don't
know jack. All they know is they broke a contract 15 years ago and refuse to
admit it while every year they steal money from me that never gets seen by
my ex or daughter. During those 15 years they refuse to talk to my ex or
myself without going to court. They even had the nerve to tell me that my
daughter's welfare was none of my business.
To counter balance that, I have bought 3 cars for the ex, maintained them
( tune-ups, brake jobs, new tires, etc.), paid numerous electric and phone
bills, several $100+ trips to buy groceries, 3 trips a year to buy whole new
wardrobes because she grew so fast, money for her sports ventures, and not
to mention the many times I'd slip her mom a couple hundreds to pay for the
"un-expected". But still I'm a "deadbeat dad". LMFAO

The results I got was a fantastic daughter who is confident in what she can
do and knows what she wants to do with her future, med school. She's EARNED
full scholarships and knows she has her mother's and my undying admiration.
Of the last 15 years, I was there part of the time, BUT I WAS THERE.

Do your kids justice, BE THERE FOR THEM.

Proud father of Natasha, class of '04

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Tuesday, 25th May 2004
Fathers the key to child behavior

Children who have contact with their fathers following a family break-up
suffer fewer behavioral problems, academics said today.

Youngsters who have a close relationship with their natural father after
their parents split up are likely to be less disorderly, anxious or
aggressive.
I would have to agree, considering I've had close contact with my youngest
daughter the last 15 years her mother I and have been separated.
The results where confirmed last Friday evening as I watched a very
wonderful young lady graduate from high school. She did it a year early from
hard work. It cost her being valedictorian being a junior and not a senior,
but she wasn't upset over that at all, she'd reached her goal. As she read
the benediction, I watched this young woman speak in confidence and poise.
Her words where clear and strong as every person there witnessed.
I have no doubt that if her mother and I had not worked out our problems and
had not agreed to putting our daughter above our differences, she would not
have given that speech.

Take a look at your child and ask yourself if you are being the best you can
be for them. A NCP still plays a very important part in their life. The
DEADBEAT STATE OF ILLINOIS may title me as a deadbeat dad, but they don't
know jack. All they know is they broke a contract 15 years ago and refuse to
admit it while every year they steal money from me that never gets seen by
my ex or daughter. During those 15 years they refuse to talk to my ex or
myself without going to court. They even had the nerve to tell me that my
daughter's welfare was none of my business.
To counter balance that, I have bought 3 cars for the ex, maintained them
( tune-ups, brake jobs, new tires, etc.), paid numerous electric and phone
bills, several $100+ trips to buy groceries, 3 trips a year to buy whole new
wardrobes because she grew so fast, money for her sports ventures, and not
to mention the many times I'd slip her mom a couple hundreds to pay for the
"un-expected". But still I'm a "deadbeat dad". LMFAO

The results I got was a fantastic daughter who is confident in what she can
do and knows what she wants to do with her future, med school. She's EARNED
full scholarships and knows she has her mother's and my undying admiration.
Of the last 15 years, I was there part of the time, BUT I WAS THERE.

Do your kids justice, BE THERE FOR THEM.

Proud father of Natasha, class of '04

mr.bill wrote:

snip of a very inspiring story of how things can turn out well when
parents work together for the kids

Do your kids justice, BE THERE FOR THEM.

Proud father of Natasha, class of '04

A big Congratulations to your daughter, you and your daughters mother!

Lori Mc

mr.bill wrote:

snip of a very inspiring story of how things can turn out well when
parents work together for the kids

Do your kids justice, BE THERE FOR THEM.

Proud father of Natasha, class of '04

A big Congratulations to your daughter, you and your daughters mother!

Lori Mc

mr.bill wrote:

snip of a very inspiring story of how things can turn out well when
parents work together for the kids

Do your kids justice, BE THERE FOR THEM.

Proud father of Natasha, class of '04

A big Congratulations to your daughter, you and your daughters mother!

Lori Mc

"Tiffany" wrote in message ...
"Lee" wrote in message
m...
"Tiffany" wrote in message
...
That is an ancient argument.

Still valid, as well.

If that were the case, everyone could say to
those paying tons of support to greedy women that THEY asked for is also
as
they had sex with the greedy women.

This is a Red Herring.
The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial
unprotected sex is going to be a pregnancy.

Therefore she chose poorly, as the result *will always be* a
pregnancy.

She choose poorly, he choose poorly.

His poor choice was to get married. To anyone. In the current legal
and political climate.

Human nature also dictates that no
human is perfect, therefor not perfect in its choses.

True, however current law makes marriage a very very bad business
decision for Anglo-men. There was always the risk of not succeeding.
What has changed is now the man is viewed as a wallet and sperm donor.
This attitude was not prevalent prior to 1965.



The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying is
*not* tons of support to greedy women. This result is due to the
currect C$ laws in the mostly Anglo-West. This can change. Human
biology cannot.

Human biology doesn't need to change, the way couples act when faced with
disicions that should be based on the needs of children DO NEED TO CHANGE.

The laws that curently favor women need to change.



The result *will not always be* a divorce and CPS CS payments.
Laws and sexist attitudes make it so, not a man's poor choice.

When a divorce happens, it is the act of one of those persons to use the law
to the best of interests. IF one isn't greedy, they won't feel the need to
use those laws.

Fascinating. You equate best of interests to greed.



In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile
heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex was going to be a
pregnancy.

In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile
heterosexual couple marrying *was not* tons of support to greedy
women.

The laws have changed since 1970. Human biology has not.

You assume female greed when a man pays CS. Interesting assumption,
coming from a(n apparent) woman.

I assume nothing, I am basing that statement on the millions of posts on
this newsgroup about greedy women.

Behavior which current divorce laws enable.
Change the law, and women will stop behaving so poorly.

"Tiffany" wrote in message ...
"Lee" wrote in message
m...
"Tiffany" wrote in message
...
That is an ancient argument.

Still valid, as well.

If that were the case, everyone could say to
those paying tons of support to greedy women that THEY asked for is also
as
they had sex with the greedy women.

This is a Red Herring.
The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial
unprotected sex is going to be a pregnancy.

Therefore she chose poorly, as the result *will always be* a
pregnancy.

She choose poorly, he choose poorly.

His poor choice was to get married. To anyone. In the current legal
and political climate.

Human nature also dictates that no
human is perfect, therefor not perfect in its choses.

True, however current law makes marriage a very very bad business
decision for Anglo-men. There was always the risk of not succeeding.
What has changed is now the man is viewed as a wallet and sperm donor.
This attitude was not prevalent prior to 1965.



The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying is
*not* tons of support to greedy women. This result is due to the
currect C$ laws in the mostly Anglo-West. This can change. Human
biology cannot.

Human biology doesn't need to change, the way couples act when faced with
disicions that should be based on the needs of children DO NEED TO CHANGE.

The laws that curently favor women need to change.



The result *will not always be* a divorce and CPS CS payments.
Laws and sexist attitudes make it so, not a man's poor choice.

When a divorce happens, it is the act of one of those persons to use the law
to the best of interests. IF one isn't greedy, they won't feel the need to
use those laws.

Fascinating. You equate best of interests to greed.



In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile
heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex was going to be a
pregnancy.

In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile
heterosexual couple marrying *was not* tons of support to greedy
women.

The laws have changed since 1970. Human biology has not.

You assume female greed when a man pays CS. Interesting assumption,
coming from a(n apparent) woman.

I assume nothing, I am basing that statement on the millions of posts on
this newsgroup about greedy women.

Behavior which current divorce laws enable.
Change the law, and women will stop behaving so poorly.

"Tiffany" wrote in message ...
"Lee" wrote in message
m...
"Tiffany" wrote in message
...
That is an ancient argument.

Still valid, as well.

If that were the case, everyone could say to
those paying tons of support to greedy women that THEY asked for is also
as
they had sex with the greedy women.

This is a Red Herring.
The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial
unprotected sex is going to be a pregnancy.

Therefore she chose poorly, as the result *will always be* a
pregnancy.

She choose poorly, he choose poorly.

His poor choice was to get married. To anyone. In the current legal
and political climate.

Human nature also dictates that no
human is perfect, therefor not perfect in its choses.

True, however current law makes marriage a very very bad business
decision for Anglo-men. There was always the risk of not succeeding.
What has changed is now the man is viewed as a wallet and sperm donor.
This attitude was not prevalent prior to 1965.



The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying is
*not* tons of support to greedy women. This result is due to the
currect C$ laws in the mostly Anglo-West. This can change. Human
biology cannot.

Human biology doesn't need to change, the way couples act when faced with
disicions that should be based on the needs of children DO NEED TO CHANGE.

The laws that curently favor women need to change.



The result *will not always be* a divorce and CPS CS payments.
Laws and sexist attitudes make it so, not a man's poor choice.

When a divorce happens, it is the act of one of those persons to use the law
to the best of interests. IF one isn't greedy, they won't feel the need to
use those laws.

Fascinating. You equate best of interests to greed.



In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile
heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex was going to be a
pregnancy.

In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile
heterosexual couple marrying *was not* tons of support to greedy
women.

The laws have changed since 1970. Human biology has not.

You assume female greed when a man pays CS. Interesting assumption,
coming from a(n apparent) woman.

I assume nothing, I am basing that statement on the millions of posts on
this newsgroup about greedy women.

Behavior which current divorce laws enable.
Change the law, and women will stop behaving so poorly.

"Lee" wrote in message
m...
"Tiffany" wrote in message
...
"Lee" wrote in message
m...
"Tiffany" wrote in message
...
That is an ancient argument.

Still valid, as well.

If that were the case, everyone could say to
those paying tons of support to greedy women that THEY asked for is
also
as
they had sex with the greedy women.

This is a Red Herring.
The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial
unprotected sex is going to be a pregnancy.

Therefore she chose poorly, as the result *will always be* a
pregnancy.

She choose poorly, he choose poorly.

His poor choice was to get married. To anyone. In the current legal
and political climate.

Human nature also dictates that no
human is perfect, therefor not perfect in its choses.

True, however current law makes marriage a very very bad business
decision for Anglo-men. There was always the risk of not succeeding.
What has changed is now the man is viewed as a wallet and sperm donor.
This attitude was not prevalent prior to 1965.

So don't get married and don't produce children. Thjis is a new generation,
educate men so they know what can happen.



The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying is
*not* tons of support to greedy women. This result is due to the
currect C$ laws in the mostly Anglo-West. This can change. Human
biology cannot.

Human biology doesn't need to change, the way couples act when faced
with
disicions that should be based on the needs of children DO NEED TO
CHANGE.

The laws that curently favor women need to change.

No the way two humans treat each other need to change. Though I don't agree
with the laws and have said so, individuals need to make change by being
humane. The total blame can't be placed on the laws.




The result *will not always be* a divorce and CPS CS payments.
Laws and sexist attitudes make it so, not a man's poor choice.

When a divorce happens, it is the act of one of those persons to use the
law
to the best of interests. IF one isn't greedy, they won't feel the need
to
use those laws.

Fascinating. You equate best of interests to greed.

For some women, THAT is what is in the best interest of the children. I know
some women are greedy in their demands while some need the law in order to
get SOMETHING. Not all men want to continue to help children. Not all men
care about what is good for the kids. Its not always the women who is the
bad person.





In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile
heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex was going to be a
pregnancy.

In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile
heterosexual couple marrying *was not* tons of support to greedy
women.

The laws have changed since 1970. Human biology has not.

You assume female greed when a man pays CS. Interesting assumption,
coming from a(n apparent) woman.

I assume nothing, I am basing that statement on the millions of posts on
this newsgroup about greedy women.

Behavior which current divorce laws enable.
Change the law, and women will stop behaving so poorly.

Yes, only women behave poorly. This gets old you know.

T