So Tired!

[olanna]

Reading faster doesn't mean that you comprehend better.  The more you post, the more you prove that.

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

[mistoffolees]

And, yet, you STILL haven't provided any evidence to back up your repeated claims.

Do you believe that repeating the same fabricated claims will somehow make them become true?

[MixedBag]

just because Ola provided them and Admin didn't...???

Knock it off.....and go back to being helpful.

[mistoffolees]

>just because Ola provided them and Admin didn't...???
>
>Knock it off.....and go back to being helpful.
>
>

Ola didn't provide anything to support the issue being discussed. So far, NO ONE has provided any evidence that the system is fundamentally broken. All that anyone has provided is anecdotal evidence that some people have problems - which no one has ever denied.

As for 'knock it off', why don't you ask Ola and Admin to do that? They're the ones who are constantly throwing around personal attacks and making statements that they can't substantiate (and, in the case of admin, just plain making things up such as the 'dozens of studies')? Why aren't you asking THEM to knock it off?

[mistoffolees]

>Reading faster doesn't mean that you comprehend better.  The
>more you post, the more you prove that.

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

>
>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?

[MixedBag]

Because it's Admin's site.

Because Ola is a moderator and has been here since the beginning of time.

And so have I....

It was Admin's vision to create this site and work to evolve it into a non-profit organization.

[MixedBag]

SPARC Admin started this board.

Like I said in the other answer, Ola, Kent, myself, and the other moderators have been here from the beginning.

That's why none of "us" will leave and start another board -- we're already home.

Let it go, stop this nonsense, and get back to helping.

[SPARC Admin]

>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.

[SPARC Admin]

>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...

[mistoffolees]

>>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.

I already provided the link to the studies I cited. The methodology was there. Unlike, of course, the studies that you made up.

>
>
>>>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.

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