Re: Woman charged for falsely accusing Lions receiver of rape

Michael Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> Child wrote:
>> "Michael Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 
>>>Child wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Bateau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>The point is that the increase in CHILD support payments were for
>>>>>the mother and did not benefit the child at all.
>>>>
>>>>we are speaking of one case with a manipulative woman, a lawywer,
>>>>for goodness sake.
>>>
>>>How come when it goes against your preconceptions, it's always
>>>some kind of fluke that doesn't mean anything significant?
>> 
>> 
>> How come the guy who says he understands statistics thinks that one
>> case of one woman making unreasonable demands, which she lost, is in
>> any way significant?
> 
> How come the gal who claims to be even-minded about these things
> thinks that, just because one case was mentioned specifically,
> it must be the only case that exists?


Don't be obtuse.

The claim made by those presenting the case is that it shows that child 
support is intended entirely for the mother.  Do you or do you not 
believe that this case proves that?



-- 
BethF, Anchorage, AK

It's YOUR God.
They are YOUR rules.
YOU burn in hell.