Messages

>Guess what folks, not one single person visiting
>this board would be in the position they are if they had not
>been flawed in whom they chose for a partner in parenting
>their child/children.  

So, it's their fault for not knowing that their partner would develop a drug habit, become an alcoholic, or turn out to be a screwup? It's their fault for not being able to predict that? How are you supposed to know in advance? Please tell me, because I'll write a book and make a million dollars.



>The system is not perfect and Mist does not deny that.  There
>is no one system that will be perfect for everybody.  

No one said there was or would be any system that will be perfect for everybody.  Where in the world did you hear anyone say that?




>I have yet to hear any suggestions from any of the naysayers
>posting as to what would make the system better.  

Maybe not in this thread, but various suggestions have been being put forth for YEARS. Please, give me a break. Just because you don't hear it here doesn't mean it hasn't happened.


>Anything you
>come up with may be a positive for some, but inherently will
>be a negative for others.  

Thank you, Captain Obvious.




>For instance I am apauled at my situation in that I don't
>think my X should have ever been allowed to start the custody
>action against me in the first place.

What, he should be forced to stay married to you and you to him? What gain is there in that? Should only one parent have the power to initiate divorce proceedings? Which one, and why? How will this sort of thing be fairly determined?




>I on the other hand have provided a safe loving home for the
>child for all her 13 yrs.  I have encouraged the X's
>involvement and his family's.  I have provided completely for
>the financials and necessaties for said child.  The child is a
>well adjusted straight A student who participates in numerous
>sports and extracurriculars.  

Well, since the Family Court system is so fair and just, they should see this and you should surely prevail, right? *cough* It's at least as fair as the child support system. Oh, wait....



>However, for every
>thousand people who have been let down there are 100 thousand
>that it has worked for just as it was intended.

As mistoffolees is so fond of saying, "Show me the evidence". You're just pulling those figures out of your butt. Show me the proof or stats to back your claim up. Otherwise expect mistoffolees to berate you for making unsubstantiated claims.



>The flaw that
>starts it all is the parents and the choices they make.

That's certainly true in some cases, but not in all. To make a blanket statement like that is both ignorant and ridiculous.

>Anyone saying the system is working quite well either isn't
>involved with it or is in denial.

I agree.

Mist appears to be defining the system "working well" in terms of efficiency or percentage of support paid. That's not necessarily the benchmark I'd choose. If all one cares about is 'efficiency', then they'd be right at home in the [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany]Third Reich[/a], which was notoriously efficient. Not fair, friendly, or rational, but very, very efficient. I understand that for the Nazis it worked well.

>I never claimed that only I know the truth - far from it. In
>fact, I'm actively seeking information to help get closer to
>the truth.

Except for the part about going out and actually doing research, seeking alternate opinions, or listening to people who say something you disagree with. Aside from that, yeah, you're just an information-seeking machine.



>I'm done with this.

Fine with me. I'm not intimidated by your vociferous bullshit, unlike a lot of people you buffalo, browbeat, and shout down.


>you're convinced that your claim is correct simply because
>you said so.

Actually that sounds more like you. Remember, you're the one that won't answer my questions. Why is that?



>Rather amazing. But I'm done arguing with you.

Lol, that wasn't even close to an argument. That was you trying to drill through a battleship with a Q-Tip. Your 'argument' consisted of "I saw a study and I believe it, so I'm right and everyone else is wrong."



>It's impossible
>to have a rational debate with someone who insists that that
>kind of irrational position makes sense.

That's exactly the way a lot of people here feel about you. Ask me how I know.

>And if you think you can analyze someone on the basis of what
>they post on a bulletin board, then it's no wonder you think
>the world is nuts.

I never said the "world is nuts". I think that comment tells us a lot more about you than you realized. Apparently you're here because your life is going so well and everything is fine, right? That's why you came to this board, mistoffolees- because your life is in perfect order and you have no problems. Riiiiiiiiight.


>That's an extremely juvenile and unprofessional thing to do -
> just what I'd expect from someone who makes up data.

I'd say the same thing about you- it's just what I'd expect from someone whose mind is closed and who's convinced that only they Know The Truth.

>Ola didn't provide anything to support the issue being
>discussed.

She did, and you immediately dismissed it out of hand. As for anecdotal evidence, once you have a mountain of it I'd say there's something there.

It's actually kind of amusing to watch you demand 'evidence' of this, while surrounded by loads of it. But 'anecdotal' evidence isn't good enough for you, you need to see it in print before it's 'true'. Nonetheless, tens of thousands of people visit boards like this one every day discussing how the system has failed them, and in your world they should all be ignored- their stories and personal accounts mean nothing to you.

Did you ever notice that there are no message boards or web sites where people gather to discuss how great the child support system is and how wonderfully it's working? Gee, I wonder why that is...

>And, yet, you haven't shown any errors in my analysis. Go
>figure.

The errors are in your thought process. Your rather shallow "analysis" is another story. I noticed you couldn't answer any of my questions about the methodology, the error rate, the sampling, etc etc etc. That's because you simply found a "study" that supported your conclusions and ran with it. That's the exact opposite of how the science of statistics are supposed to work.


>>Why don't you go start your own board? You seem to want to
>>devote your time to foolishness and distractions.
>
>Why don't you?

That question was asked of you (not of her), but for the first time in recorded history you seem to have no substantive answer. Are you afraid to answer the question, or are you unable to?

From your posts, it's plain to see that you're one of those people who just loves to argue pointlessly and has a deep-seated need to be "right" at any cost. If this is any indication of how you manage your interpersonal relationships, it's no wonder you ended up here.

>I like people to get facts right.

As long as they support what you personally believe in. Otherwise it's dismissed out of hand.


>WHy are you opposed to my pointing out errors?

Why are you opposed to the idea that you might be mistaken about something? You look at a study or two and suddenly it's like the clouds parted and you heard the Word Of God.  

Did you examine the methodology of the reporting criteria, the sample size, the error rate, external factors, or any of the other things that factored into the report? No, you didn't. You saw something that fit your personal beliefs and agenda and *boom*, now it's the One True Way and nothing else can possibly be right. Do you realize how ridiculous that makes you look?

Really....if the system works as well as you seem to think it does, why are you even here? Aren't there weightier problems that demand your vast, clearly infallible expertise? If things are working as well as you claim, what exactly are you doing here?

>so they don't disprove a thing I've said.

What they prove is that nothing will convince you.

We both know that it wouldn't matter how many studies you were shown or what they said- your mind is made up and that's that. And now you have so much emotionally invested in defending your position that you're utterly incapable of considering anything that contradicts it.

You hide behind a closed mind and pretend it's critical thinking. It's not.

>I'm actively seeking alternative evidence.

No, you're whining because people aren't serving it up to you on a silver platter. Don't be so lazy, do your own research.


>Which one is the closed mind?

Yours.


>You are convinced of something and insist that you're right -
>without any evidence and you're willing to ignore any evidence
>presented.

You must have been looking in a mirror when you said that. :) lololol

Lol...you're still having trouble letting go, eh? That's okay, I've seen loads of people like you who can't be bothered to consider an alternative point of view. With an attitude like that it's no wonder you ended up here. ;)

I'm curious, though...if you know so much and have all the answers to everything, why don't you start your own site? Then you could pontificate freely there without feeling so threatened by dissenting opinions. )


>there's no reason to ignore the evidence that HAS been presented.

I find your devotion to groupthink amusing. :)