🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993May15.150616.759@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:

>In article <k3HJ4B1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:

>>Well, the taxpayer-funded, privately operated FMEP did it again.
[Lisa's complaint deleted for sake of brevity]

>	You know, *I* have never been "given" anything.  I support
>	myself (and several hundred others).  and my wife is from the
>	same "school".

So, I can directly assert, is Lisa.

>	I don't think that anyone wants to receive public assisitance
>	of any kind;  it's degrading.

Her remarks had nothing to do with public assistance. What were you
referring to?

>	But there are people who have nothing better to do with their
>	time than graze around looking for "free stuff".  Things they
>	can coolect on to better their own lot, rather than just
>	living and working like everyone else.  It's the basis
>	for our "sue crazed" society, and 90% of the lawyer commercials
>	we see on TV.

None of which, of course, has anything to do with Lisa's comments.

>	When are people going to live within their own economic
>	means, rather than always looking for cash-cows?

See above.

>	It's people like this.  People who stalk people financially.
>	That have pissed me off so much.

I might suggest that you take a deep breath, chill out a tad, and re-read
what Lisa had to say. She isn't "stalking" anyone, I assure you. She is,
however, involved in a continuing struggle to collect funds for the support
of her children, mandated by the courts over the course of many years, as a
part of the divorce settlement.

>	I'm DIVORCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Join the club - were there children from your union? If so, who has custody?
Who supports them?

>	My ex needs to look up that definition.  And my income, and
>	my money are none of her, or anybody elses business anymore!

That may well be true - it is in the case of my divorce - but it is not
remotely true in cases where the support of minor children is involved.
In such cases, the income of the non-custodial parent is indeed the business
of the court and the custodial parent, until such time as support for the
children is no longer legally required.

The fact worth noting in Lisa's article is that the taxpayers of this
province are being taken to the cleaners by a private organization that is
supposed to provide a necessary service, but which does not in the vast
majority of cases. It acts, again and again, contrary to the very laws that
govern its existence. Whether or not you have opinions regarding a specific
instance in which the FMEP becomes involved isn't even material to the
article - whether or not you like seeing your tax dollars going into the
pockets of a corporation that hasn't remotely earned them is another issue
entirely.

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse'f, Ryugen Fisher 
                   Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA
Home to the Holocaust archives - send INDEX to listserv@oneb.almanac.bc.ca
                         [This space reserved]