From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: child support problems
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:17:58 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1992Dec18.121430.10824@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
> In article <1992Dec17.191301.13365@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>>In article <Bz6GMB.HpJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> 
>>Hardly - the only relevance wrt the pony is that you have locked onto it
>>because you feel a need to attack CP's for reasons of your own, and, lacking
>>any basis whatsoever for doing so, you continue to ride the pony.
>>
>>>If 10% of what she said is true, then she has a sympathetic and
>>>compelling story.  There's no need to claim that the ex should pay
>>>for luxuries, though, and it really detracts from her situation
>>>for anyone to say that he should.
>>
>>100% of what she has related is true, period. The ex has failed to pay
>>ordered support, with or without "luxuries," like food, rent, clothing, etc.
>>
> 
> 	Ken,
> 
> 	No one has ever objected to the fact that this father should pay what
> 	the court ordered.  Not I nor Don, nor anyone.
> 
> 	However we have repeatedly heard seemingly accurate reports about how the
> 	government in your area is fair in it's awards.  15% sounds fair to me.
> 

What you and Don canNOT seem to get through your heads, is; your problem is
YOUR problem.  What Lisa said is true, making statements like 'if 10% of
what she said is true' and 'seemingly accurate reports' is very much like
saying she is lying.  You both kept trying to imply she was spending money
on luxury, that I was wasting the support payments I get for my foster son,
that we both were in the wrong for getting (or being supposed to get) a
very reasonable amount of support money.

> 	It is not that way here though.  Support awards are in the 25-35% of
> 	GROSS PAY, here, along with unfair property division, marital debt
> 	allocation, and visitation/custody allocation/enforcement.
> 

So?  That's where you live!  Please stop trying to push that problem onto
Lisa.  Maybe you both are so blinded by your own problems that you are just
not seeing that other people have them, too.  

> 	In short men are, with the exception of the verbal title, viewed and
> 	treated as common criminals.  With outlawed practices like "debtors
> 	prison" held over thier heads.  Where most of the people who object to
> 	the "pony story" have, "ASSHOLES *THIS* BIG".
> 

The problem was, you both kept 'riding the pony'.  And ignoring the issue.
I got tons of support e-mail from both posters and lurkers in the group,
encouraging and favorable messages, NONE of them were in support of the
stuff you and Don were saing.

>  	And oftentimes the amounts of these support awards put men on the brink
> 	of bankruptcy, stripping them of both financial and social dignity all
> 	because they couldn't live with the bitch they married;  no furthur offense.
> 	While at the same time the word "alimony" is embedded in the support order,
> 	and the ex retains control of his money, his life, and his kids.
> 

Once again..... that is your problem, that is your 'story'.  Since you
spent so much time doubting everything Lisa and I said, then we are entitled
to take what ever you say with a strong grain of salt.......

> 	So "pony stories" are not going to receive the international acceptance
> 	that you would like them to.  Nor are dancing lessons, ballet, hockey,
> 	or whatever.  Not when most of them have 2nd and third notices of bills
> 	at home because they have to hand ove 1/2 their take home pay so their
> 	ex can live in style, and keep them from seeing their kids.  Ponies, pools,
> 	and whatever are EXACTLY what we men in the U.S. see our over inflated
> 	support monies going to.
> 

Sigh, get OFF the damn pony.  You either have a serious communication problem,
reading comprehension problem, or are so blinded by your hate and hostility
toward your ex-wife that you can't stand to see a woman get anything, even
the minimal support payments that Lisa needed to keep a home for her kids.
And, no, this isn't just my opinion.  I had e-mail from several people who
said exactly that.

Sue

> -- 
> 	Alan Yasutovich
> 	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
> 	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
> 	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: alt.child-support