From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:36:52 GMT

<1993Jan6.131329.6442@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
><C0E0GM.86t@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> <1993Jan4.152935.6417@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>><1993Jan4.170957.8804@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>>>><1993Jan4.065757.6405@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>>><1993Jan4.012311.17983@zooid.guild.org>, Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>>>>> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes...

[voluminous data deleted]

>At this point, The Beav edited several comments that I made concerning
>cost of maintaining a pony, which totally changes the context of my
>post.  Then, when I asked him to please not edit my posts (or if he
>did, then to so state), he accuses me of raving.  

You made NO attempt to explain what I may have edited
to your distaste, before you launched into diatribe.

And in fact, it is eminently clear to anyone following this thread
that you believe ponies are cheap but should be covered by child support.
Why should I repeat what is clear?

The cost of the pony was not at issue, but rather the 
principle of whether luxuries should be covered by child support.

I am not interested in your itemized pony/vacation/laundry list
(or in echoing it in my articles).

Part of the reason for itemizing is to stop misuses, however
big or small.  In principle, I find it wrong to use child support
for luxuries; you don't.  The rest is just insults and ravings
from you.

[deletia]
>I still can't understand why you seem to think that approximately $70
>dollars a week is excessive support for a teenager.  Ever tried to feed 
>a growing boy?  Or buy clothes for them?  Either you dress your kids out
>of the Good Will store and starve them or you are being entirely dishonest
>as to your costs.

You are wrong and misleading on all counts.  When did I ever suggest
that $70/week is excessive?  Ponies and Florida trips are excessive;
if you can afford them USING PART OF YOUR SUPPORT, then that portion of
support isn't necessary.  It is interesting how you ignored the poster 
who estimated the incremental costs at $200/month.


[deletia]
>> For a middle-class NCP, over the course of eighteen years, 
>> the total child support money including ponies, Florida condos, 
>> or the *gasp* college savings that *you* personally refuse to give 
>> to *your* children (seems not to be a necessity in your view) 
>> amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
>
>You are totally obsessed by the pony issue.  And after being told repeatedly
>that it was not a major expense at all.  Are you going to delete this also
>so that the meaning of my posts are distorted?  I've repeatedly said that
>keeping a pony is no more expensive than keeping a dog.  You always delete
>that!

Okay, undeleted.  So what?  Read again.  I spent two lines on
college education and one word on ponies.  They're both unsuitable
for child support.

And don't forget, it was you who brought up college education,
insulting me and Alan without reason, while in the same breath omitting
the fact that you won't spend a dime on your own kids' education.


>> Are you in favor of court-ordered luxuries, or do you feel entitled
>> to reject just the ones that *you* happen to disagree with?  
>
>If I say that I am in favor of a parent paying the legitimately fairly
>determined court-ordered child support, then you accuse me of being
>anti-male.  

Whoa, leave off a few adjectives before you make accusations.
"Legitimately fairly determined court-ordered child support"
is not the same as "court-ordered child support."  But your
idea of "fairly determined" is suspicious, to me, in any case --
the 1/3 million dollar child support was so determined, right?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged