
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Child wrote:
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.
Don't be a liar. The claim made by those presenting the case is that it is AN EXAMPLE of child support being intended for the mother.
> Do you or do you not
believe that this case proves that?
I believe that it is an example of that.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |