Ill be glad to help out anytime! There are quite a few folks here that are very helpful. SJ is not one of them. He is our resident troll, otherwise known as mysterymeat.
Want a good laugh? When you have a minute, read this thread:
http://forums.timesdaily.com/e...027316/m/8521029/p/1
The 'troll' being discussed in the ENTIRE thread is mysterymeat, aka SJ, aka Misterme, aka jetboy, etc etc.
It will also give you an idea of who some of the 'good folks' here are. Chances are, if a member does not have a pic under their name they are no longer with us (they were banned). Many were banned not too long ago in the great forum wars of 2009, between the BOS (best of the Shoals forum) folks and the BS (black sheep) forum folks. Lots of great folks were banned because they had a slip of the toungue and said something they shouldnt have....
Kirk
quote:Originally posted by uwsoftball:quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by uwsoftball:
Sorry, but I don't see anything on that page that contradicts what Lawguy has said. Can you be more specific to the point that you are making please?
Acknowledgement of Paternity
This acknowledgement, if properly signed and notarized, creates a legal finding of paternity under Alabama law. It is a legally sufficient basis for establishing an obligation for child support and birth expenses. This form can be completed anytime after the child's birth and before the child's nineteenth birthday. This form can be obtained at any county DHR office.
I'm sorry, but I think that you need to go back and read that page a little closer. It deals with the birth of a child outside of marriage and the steps that are required for the establishment of paternity. Nothing stated there contradicts what Lawguy has said.
The question was...
"Question. If a woman is married to a man and gets pregnant by another man, does husband #1 have any legal claim to the child as a parent?"
If that isn't outside of marriage I don't know what is.
Thanks, yeah I've been following that thread as sorta of a scorecard. But they change so much it's like a revolving door.
Check your PM
Check your PM
quote:Originally posted by mekirk2:
Ill be glad to help out anytime! There are quite a few folks here that are very helpful. SJ is not one of them. He is our resident troll, otherwise known as mysterymeat.
Want a good laugh? When you have a minute, read this thread:
http://forums.timesdaily.com/e...027316/m/8521029/p/1
The 'troll' being discussed in the ENTIRE thread is mysterymeat, aka SJ, aka Misterme, aka jetboy, etc etc.
It will also give you an idea of who some of the 'good folks' here are. Chances are, if a member does not have a pic under their name they are no longer with us (they were banned). Many were banned not too long ago in the great forum wars of 2009, between the BOS (best of the Shoals forum) folks and the BS (black sheep) forum folks. Lots of great folks were banned because they had a slip of the toungue and said something they shouldnt have....
Kirk
You see you and your partner made fools of yourself, so now you go into full attack mode...nothing new, its been done before.
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by uwsoftball:quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by uwsoftball:
Sorry, but I don't see anything on that page that contradicts what Lawguy has said. Can you be more specific to the point that you are making please?
Acknowledgement of Paternity
This acknowledgement, if properly signed and notarized, creates a legal finding of paternity under Alabama law. It is a legally sufficient basis for establishing an obligation for child support and birth expenses. This form can be completed anytime after the child's birth and before the child's nineteenth birthday. This form can be obtained at any county DHR office.
I'm sorry, but I think that you need to go back and read that page a little closer. It deals with the birth of a child outside of marriage and the steps that are required for the establishment of paternity. Nothing stated there contradicts what Lawguy has said.
The question was...
"Question. If a woman is married to a man and gets pregnant by another man, does husband #1 have any legal claim to the child as a parent?"
If that isn't outside of marriage I don't know what is.
Sorry dude, or dudette as the case maybe, but you are taking that one point completely out of context. Please follow the whole thread and see the discussion concerning disclaiming and claiming.
To make it clear, "outside of marriage" on your page is referring to the fact that the mother was not married to anyone at the time of birth.
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by mekirk2:
Ill be glad to help out anytime! There are quite a few folks here that are very helpful. SJ is not one of them. He is our resident troll, otherwise known as mysterymeat.
Want a good laugh? When you have a minute, read this thread:
http://forums.timesdaily.com/e...027316/m/8521029/p/1
The 'troll' being discussed in the ENTIRE thread is mysterymeat, aka SJ, aka Misterme, aka jetboy, etc etc.
It will also give you an idea of who some of the 'good folks' here are. Chances are, if a member does not have a pic under their name they are no longer with us (they were banned). Many were banned not too long ago in the great forum wars of 2009, between the BOS (best of the Shoals forum) folks and the BS (black sheep) forum folks. Lots of great folks were banned because they had a slip of the toungue and said something they shouldnt have....
Kirk
You see you and your partner made fools of yourself, so now you go into full attack mode...nothing new, its been done before.
hmmmm... are you suggesting that kirk and I have partnered up? Sorry, but once again your post is not clear. If that is what you are suggesting please note that's not the case.
From what I've seen of kirk he doesn't need any help. He's perfectly capable of debating you at any point-quite well I might add. Nor do I, however if for some strange and twisted reason I need to declare an allegiance to participate in the forums here then I gladly place my standard in kirk's camp.
Please note that I did not come here to cast stones. Rather to join in healthy debate with hopes that I might expand my horizons. I'm open minded, fair and willing to meet you more than half way.
Normally I don't attack the handicapped, but in your case I'll make an exception. So if it's a rumble that you want then grease your skids you flea bitten varmit. I'll more than meet you half way there also.
Ball's in your court-healthy debate or a rumble you decide! It matters not to me.
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
The question was...
"Question. If a woman is married to a man and gets pregnant by another man, does husband #1 have any legal claim to the child as a parent?"
If that isn't outside of marriage I don't know what is.
You're funny. Outside of marriage means she is not married. In your case, unless she speaks up and says that the other man is the father, her husband is assumed to be the father in the eyes of the court. Thats why every married couple does not have to get a dna test for their children to prove paternity.
And, just for clarification, if I read one of lawguys recent posts correctly, the law just recently changed to allow "(7) any interested person to challenge parentage. So, to answer your question, yes, it looks like the second man does have a legal claim to the child.
However, it is not through the DHR method you have attempted to link it to. It is through the Uniform Parentage Act of 2009 that lawguy so clearly explained on page 5 of this very thread. And the 'real' father would have to initiate the proceedings. If he did not, the husband would be the default father in the eyes of the state of Alabama:
"(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage;"
So, put on your tall boots, the crap you've been shoveling is getting real deep.....
Kirk
quote:Originally posted by mekirk2:quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
The question was...
"Question. If a woman is married to a man and gets pregnant by another man, does husband #1 have any legal claim to the child as a parent?"
If that isn't outside of marriage I don't know what is.
You're funny. Outside of marriage means she is not married. In your case, unless she speaks up and says that the other man is the father, her husband is assumed to be the father in the eyes of the court. Thats why every married couple does not have to get a dna test for their children to prove paternity.
And, just for clarification, if I read one of lawguys recent posts correctly, the law just recently changed to allow "(7) any interested person to challenge parentage. So, to answer your question, yes, it looks like the second man does have a legal claim to the child.
However, it is not through the DHR method you have attempted to link it to. It is through the Uniform Parentage Act of 2009 that lawguy so clearly explained on page 5 of this very thread. And the 'real' father would have to initiate the proceedings. If he did not, the husband would be the default father in the eyes of the state of Alabama:
"(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage;"
So, put on your tall boots, the crap you've been shoveling is getting real deep.....
Kirk
Trust me...there is not TWO sets of laws on this. Are you that dumb?
quote:Originally posted by uwsoftball:quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by mekirk2:
Ill be glad to help out anytime! There are quite a few folks here that are very helpful. SJ is not one of them. He is our resident troll, otherwise known as mysterymeat.
Want a good laugh? When you have a minute, read this thread:
http://forums.timesdaily.com/e...027316/m/8521029/p/1
The 'troll' being discussed in the ENTIRE thread is mysterymeat, aka SJ, aka Misterme, aka jetboy, etc etc.
It will also give you an idea of who some of the 'good folks' here are. Chances are, if a member does not have a pic under their name they are no longer with us (they were banned). Many were banned not too long ago in the great forum wars of 2009, between the BOS (best of the Shoals forum) folks and the BS (black sheep) forum folks. Lots of great folks were banned because they had a slip of the toungue and said something they shouldnt have....
Kirk
You see you and your partner made fools of yourself, so now you go into full attack mode...nothing new, its been done before.
hmmmm... are you suggesting that kirk and I have partnered up? Sorry, but once again your post is not clear. If that is what you are suggesting please note that's not the case.
From what I've seen of kirk he doesn't need any help. He's perfectly capable of debating you at any point-quite well I might add. Nor do I, however if for some strange and twisted reason I need to declare an allegiance to participate in the forums here then I gladly place my standard in kirk's camp.
Please note that I did not come here to cast stones. Rather to join in healthy debate with hopes that I might expand my horizons. I'm open minded, fair and willing to meet you more than half way.
Normally I don't attack the handicapped, but in your case I'll make an exception. So if it's a rumble that you want then grease your skids you flea bitten varmit. I'll more than meet you half way there also.
Ball's in your court-healthy debate or a rumble you decide! It matters not to me.
You mean absolutely nothing to me... just another of the banned that created a new name...BUZZ OFF!
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
Trust me...there is not TWO sets of laws on this. Are you that dumb?
Well link away, my fine feathered friend, cause the links you have posted so far have to do with unwed mothers, as it clearly states on that dhr page you posted to. So, where is this second law you are referring to?
I'll be waiting, but if you wait as long to respond as you did this time you may have to wait until tomorrow for me to give you another helping of crow, I'm going to go celebrate the new year with my wife soon!
quote:Originally posted by mekirk2:quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
Trust me...there is not TWO sets of laws on this. Are you that dumb?
Well link away, my fine feathered friend, cause the links you have posted so far have to do with unwed mothers, as it clearly states on that dhr page you posted to. So, where is this second law you are referring to?
I'll be waiting, but if you wait as long to respond as you did this time you may have to wait until tomorrow for me to give you another helping of crow, I'm going to go celebrate the new year with my wife soon!
You are the one saying Lawguy was right. I may have posted the wrong link, that still doesn't change anything.
Post your link showing his claim to be true. I never said there were more than one law, you did.
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
You are the one saying Lawguy was right. I may have posted the wrong link, that still doesn't change anything.
Post your link showing his claim to be true. I never said there were more than one law, you did.
No, I didnt say there were two laws that I remember, please refresh my memory on that one. The only law I ever referred to regarding this situation was the one lawguy posted on page 5. If you want to see it, go to the bottom of this page and click the little #5. Its right there in black and white.....
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by uwsoftball:quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by mekirk2:
Ill be glad to help out anytime! There are quite a few folks here that are very helpful. SJ is not one of them. He is our resident troll, otherwise known as mysterymeat.
Want a good laugh? When you have a minute, read this thread:
http://forums.timesdaily.com/e...027316/m/8521029/p/1
The 'troll' being discussed in the ENTIRE thread is mysterymeat, aka SJ, aka Misterme, aka jetboy, etc etc.
It will also give you an idea of who some of the 'good folks' here are. Chances are, if a member does not have a pic under their name they are no longer with us (they were banned). Many were banned not too long ago in the great forum wars of 2009, between the BOS (best of the Shoals forum) folks and the BS (black sheep) forum folks. Lots of great folks were banned because they had a slip of the toungue and said something they shouldnt have....
Kirk
You see you and your partner made fools of yourself, so now you go into full attack mode...nothing new, its been done before.
hmmmm... are you suggesting that kirk and I have partnered up? Sorry, but once again your post is not clear. If that is what you are suggesting please note that's not the case.
From what I've seen of kirk he doesn't need any help. He's perfectly capable of debating you at any point-quite well I might add. Nor do I, however if for some strange and twisted reason I need to declare an allegiance to participate in the forums here then I gladly place my standard in kirk's camp.
Please note that I did not come here to cast stones. Rather to join in healthy debate with hopes that I might expand my horizons. I'm open minded, fair and willing to meet you more than half way.
Normally I don't attack the handicapped, but in your case I'll make an exception. So if it's a rumble that you want then grease your skids you flea bitten varmit. I'll more than meet you half way there also.
Ball's in your court-healthy debate or a rumble you decide! It matters not to me.
You mean absolutely nothing to me... just another of the banned that created a new name...BUZZ OFF!
FAIL, this is the only persona I've ever had. Sorry, hate to disappoint you again, seem to be doing a lot of that lately, am I not! Buzz off> Nahhhhh, this is starting to get fun. But I am going to take a break so that I can ring in the New Year.
kirk, I have arrived!!!!!!!! LOL, the varmit has accused me of being someone else! I guess it's mind boggling to it that someone can be perceptive and recognize a varmit when they see one.
Now that you have had a chance to sober up what do you have to say? 
I was sober last night, nothings changed. I see you havent provided any more information other than the misinformation you posted last night.....
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
You are the one saying Lawguy was right. I may have posted the wrong link, that still doesn't change anything.
It changes alot. It shows that all you have posted is misinformation, not true fact. So, you want me to post a link to my information to counter your misinformation? I really dont see the need. Lawguy posted the law on page 5, remember way back to page 5 (if not, see my previous post on how to get there), so there really is no need for any other links from me, unless you want me to post a link back to page 5.
So, where are these facts that you keep referring to, since you've admitted to posting misinformation.....
quote:Originally posted by mekirk2:quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
You are the one saying Lawguy was right. I may have posted the wrong link, that still doesn't change anything.
It changes alot. It shows that all you have posted is misinformation, not true fact. So, you want me to post a link to my information to counter your misinformation? I really dont see the need. Lawguy posted the law on page 5, remember way back to page 5 (if not, see my previous post on how to get there), so there really is no need for any other links from me, unless you want me to post a link back to page 5.
So, where are these facts that you keep referring to, since you've admitted to posting misinformation.....
It is fact that Lawguy was wrong. If you have proof to the contrary, post it. I stated he was wrong, and he was. I may have posted the wrong link...but my assertion still is correct. Deal with it!
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
It is fact that Lawguy was wrong. If you have proof to the contrary, post it. I stated he was wrong, and he was. I may have posted the wrong link...but my assertion still is correct. Deal with it!
You stated it so it just has to be true.
We all know how much stock to put into what you say. Im not going to ask again, provide some proof to your claim. He provided his.
Put up or shut up...
You'll have to come back tomorrow, I only teach the retarded on Saturdays now...
A new years resolution you see.
A new years resolution you see.
I see you chose to shut up, good choice. Its always better to keep your mouth shut when you dont know what you are talking about. I hope that is another one of your new years resolutions, it will make the forum a much better (and quieter) place.....
Tomorrow.
Good grief Ya'll really need a break from arguing 
Ya'll really need a break from arguing quote:Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
Good grief
Classes are tomorrow...
Well the child was not turned over to the other parent today as ordered. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34...ews-crime_and_courts
This case while between two women is not much different than when a woman prevents a man access to the child.
While we may not agree with two women being parents, they made their bed, and, now must lay in it.
Here is a copy of the 2006 Vermont Supreme Court order. http://www.glad.org/uploads/do...-miller-decision.pdf
I suspect the child will NOT be given to the other parent without police involvement, if they are even still in the United States.
Any woman intent on preventing a child access to the other parent will go to any length.
This one just happens to be two women and as such gained national media attention.
Sadly, I know factually that access denial - without any significant basis (other than momma doesn't value the other relationship) - goes on in Alabama more often than any of you realize. I also know in Alabama very seldom will a judge do any thing about it. Alabama case law says denial of access to a parent is not a reason to change custody.
Its that denial of the parent-child relationship that led the Vermont judge to issuing the order subject to this thread.
This case while between two women is not much different than when a woman prevents a man access to the child.
While we may not agree with two women being parents, they made their bed, and, now must lay in it.
Here is a copy of the 2006 Vermont Supreme Court order. http://www.glad.org/uploads/do...-miller-decision.pdf
I suspect the child will NOT be given to the other parent without police involvement, if they are even still in the United States.
Any woman intent on preventing a child access to the other parent will go to any length.
This one just happens to be two women and as such gained national media attention.
Sadly, I know factually that access denial - without any significant basis (other than momma doesn't value the other relationship) - goes on in Alabama more often than any of you realize. I also know in Alabama very seldom will a judge do any thing about it. Alabama case law says denial of access to a parent is not a reason to change custody.
Its that denial of the parent-child relationship that led the Vermont judge to issuing the order subject to this thread.
quote:Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
Well the child was not turned over to the other parent today as ordered. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34...ews-crime_and_courts
This case while between two women is not much different than when a woman prevents a man access to the child.
While we may not agree with two women being parents, they made their bed, and, now must lay in it.
Here is a copy of the 2006 Vermont Supreme Court order. http://www.glad.org/uploads/do...-miller-decision.pdf
I suspect the child will NOT be given to the other parent without police involvement, if they are even still in the United States.
Any woman intent on preventing a child access to the other parent will go to any length.
This one just happens to be two women and as such gained national media attention.
Sadly, I know factually that access denial - without any significant basis (other than momma doesn't value the other relationship) - goes on in Alabama more often than any of you realize. I also know in Alabama very seldom will a judge do any thing about it. Alabama case law says denial of access to a parent is not a reason to change custody.
Its that denial of the parent-child relationship that led the Vermont judge to issuing the order subject to this thread.
How does a Vermont judge have jurisdiction in Virginia?
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
How does a Vermont judge have jurisdiction in Virginia?
Vermont is the proper court with JD, although the woman with the child would rather have Virginia have JD. Much of this order explains JD more than custody, although that is addressed.
Read the Order, here it explains it: http://www.glad.org/uploads/do...-miller-decision.pdf
quote:Originally posted by Skiddles_98:
it should be based on how well the children are cared for by the individuals raising them. my vote is for mekirk.
quote:Originally posted by semiannualchick:quote:Originally posted by Skiddles_98:
it should be based on how well the children are cared for by the individuals raising them. my vote is for mekirk.
I don't believe that exposing children to sodomy is good for them or in their best interest.
Every homosexual relationship must inherently be a threesome or more to produce children. In this case, you advocate taking a child away from it's biological mother and giving it to another woman only so we can say we are being fair to homosexuals. You are turning laws and rights on their ears.
quote:don't believe that exposing children to sodomy is good for them or in their best interest.
Every homosexual relationship must inherently be a threesome or more to produce children. In this case, you advocate taking a child away from it's biological mother and giving it to another woman only so we can say we are being fair to homosexuals. You are turning laws and rights on their ears.
The Vermont judge/ courts are following Vermont law. The law is different in Alabama.
Alabama law says between a lesbian/gay parent and a straight parent, the straight parent is more fit for custody. That basis is along the lines of your thinking.
I am unsure if Alabama has case law on competing two lesbian/gay parents competing for custody.
A parent denying the child access to the other parent is a significant sign of parental unfitness.
Absent unfitness, really who is it for anyone to decide what is best for someones children, unless of course they are being significantly being harmed.
Certainly it could be argued that a lesbian/gay lifestyle is bad for a child, but remember you have two people that made a decision to have child together, so the courts should consider that aspect it was the parents choice.
The courts will not remove children from lesbian/gay parents that are living together no more than they would remove children from straight married parents that say argued more than everyone else thinks they should.
Personally, I don't understand the lesbian/gay lifestyle, but children growing up with two loving parents is best for children.
As a straight fit parent, I don't want someone telling me how to raise my children, no more than you would want someone else telling you how to raise your children.
An inherent social problem that needs correcting, is that children with divorced or never married parents are being excluded from one parent's lives without any legal or social basis, because a judge excludes one parent without any finding of unfitness.
Has excluding one parent - usually the father - led to the openness of the lesbian/gay lifestyle?
I don't know, but the backbone of the American family is being destroyed.
Why is that?
We do know the lack of father's - lack of two parents - leads to increased criminal behavior, teen pregnancy and drug use.
We know that half of all marriage's end in divorce.
We know that mother's are most likely to file divorce.
Why is that?
Is it because they know they will have custody of the children and a support check?
States that have equal custody laws have a lower rate of divorce.
quote:Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
A parent denying the child access to the other parent is a significant sign of parental unfitness.
So a mother that denies her child access to abusive exhusband/father proves she is unfit? Whether that abuse is physical, emotional/psychological or sexual...I would think that that abuse would be more "unfit" than being denied a parent...and it is harder to prove abuse in some cases in a court of law -- so according to you, the mother would be the bad parent and should custody of her child to a psycho...yea that is fit...
quote:Originally posted by Extra260:quote:Originally posted by semiannualchick:quote:Originally posted by Skiddles_98:
it should be based on how well the children are cared for by the individuals raising them. my vote is for mekirk.
I don't believe that exposing children to sodomy is good for them or in their best interest.
Every homosexual relationship must inherently be a threesome or more to produce children. In this case, you advocate taking a child away from it's biological mother and giving it to another woman only so we can say we are being fair to homosexuals. You are turning laws and rights on their ears.
So you think homosexual's put a child in the bedroom to watch them have sex?????
You believe that for a homosexual to have a child there must three or more doing the deed???
Hogwash!!!!
I don't approve of homosexually (don't jump me for having my own belief's, & it has nothing to do with religion) I think it's wrong. But if a child were being mistreated & abused in a home with your typical Mom & Pop environment, that home is no better than a child in a home with 2 moms/dads being lovingly cared for.
quote:So you think homosexual's put a child in the bedroom to watch them have sex?????
You believe that for a homosexual to have a child there must three or more doing the deed???
Hogwash!!!!
I don't approve of homosexually (don't jump me for having my own belief's, & it has nothing to do with religion) I think it's wrong. But if a child were being mistreated & abused in a home with your typical Mom & Pop environment, that home is no better than a child in a home with 2 moms/dads being lovingly cared for.
Agreed!
DC said
What you wrote is not what I said.
Unfitness is not solely for a mother to decide.
That is for a court to decide. If the court properly does its job, and decides by clear and convincing evidence by fully investigating.
Certainly there are sorry parents in the world. I am not disputing that.
But there are quality parents that children are being denied parent-child relationship without any just cause, and that is bad for children and society.
quote:So a mother that denies her child access to abusive exhusband/father proves she is unfit? Whether that abuse is physical, emotional/psychological or sexual...I would think that that abuse would be more "unfit" than being denied a parent...and it is harder to prove abuse in some cases in a court of law -- so according to you, the mother would be the bad parent and should custody of her child to a psycho...yea that is fit...
What you wrote is not what I said.
Unfitness is not solely for a mother to decide.
That is for a court to decide. If the court properly does its job, and decides by clear and convincing evidence by fully investigating.
Certainly there are sorry parents in the world. I am not disputing that.
But there are quality parents that children are being denied parent-child relationship without any just cause, and that is bad for children and society.
quote:Originally posted by Nurturing Father:quote:So you think homosexual's put a child in the bedroom to watch them have sex?????
You believe that for a homosexual to have a child there must three or more doing the deed???
Hogwash!!!!
I don't approve of homosexually (don't jump me for having my own belief's, & it has nothing to do with religion) I think it's wrong. But if a child were being mistreated & abused in a home with your typical Mom & Pop environment, that home is no better than a child in a home with 2 moms/dads being lovingly cared for.
Agreed!
Ditto!
Extra, do you approve of putting a child in a room with heterosexuals having sex??? Just curious.
quote:Originally posted by baracus:
Ditto!
Extra, do you approve of putting a child in a room with heterosexuals having sex??? Just curious.
That is a great question!
I also noticed that old mysterymeat hasnt been posting his trash, I guess he did wise up. As far as I'm concerned Saturday is over, big mouth hasn't followed through on his promise to back up his statement with some facts.....
quote:Originally posted by mekirk2:quote:Originally posted by baracus:
Ditto!
Extra, do you approve of putting a child in a room with heterosexuals having sex??? Just curious.
That is a great question!
I also noticed that old mysterymeat hasnt been posting his trash, I guess he did wise up. As far as I'm concerned Saturday is over, big mouth hasn't followed through on his promise to back up his statement with some facts.....
What is it with you? I have dealt with some nut cases in my career but you take the cake. You have a sadistic nature.
Why are you taking up for SJ unless you are another one of his groupies" 
quote:Originally posted by Hott_moma:
Why are you taking up for SJ unless you are another one of his groupies"
To steal from Semi -
WH - it looks like you have a td forum 'career' of about 6 weeks, with an entire 9 posts. From experience, you are either another of mysterymeats personalities or you are a newbie with no idea of what you are talking about. If its the first, Ill add you to the long list. If its the 2nd, you may want to step back and learn a bit before you jump in, it may help you some in the long run. Aligning yourself with mysterymean (aka SJ) wont get you far here.....
Kirk
Nevermind Hott_mama, looking at some of his posts he seems to show up when someone is arguing with SJ, he has critisized both Sassy and I already in his 9 posts, so I would have to lean more toward the first. Ill add him to the list.....
