IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I've never liked personal property tax.
Sure, they're making income from the satellites, but they're also paying income tax on that income.

Personal property tax is BS. It amounts to double taxation IMO.
Regards,

-scott anderson
New But OTOH, the whole idea of "double taxation" is BS, too.
New That's just cause they use it to pay for schools. :)
I can't say I like it either, I'm rather agai'n the government taking my money, but again, we're back to what's *different* about this, versus established legal precendent. :)

And I don't see any.

Of course, possessing untaxed property geosync might be a problem.... :)

OTOH.............

Maybe its what we need to get the space program up and running... Telling the goverment that TAX REVENUE is up there.. Well. We might just be launching people daily, soon 'nuff. :)


Addison
New No, it isn't.
Property tax for schooling is inherently unfair, because everyone living in an apartment gets schooling for free. Or conversely, it's unfair because even poor people who own property have to pay for school as well. :-)

I have no problems paying tax for schooling for the community at large, whether I'm a homeschooler, a public school user, or someone without children at all. Schooling is something the community should be responsible for. Property tax isn't a good way to pay for it. School tax should just be a part of income tax and be done with it.

we're back to what's *different* about this, versus established legal precendent. :)

No, we are not, because I didn't say that LA couldn't do this. I said that I didn't like it, which is a very different thing. :-)
Regards,

-scott anderson
New wrong nothing is free
if you live in an apartment you pay school tax because the owner of the apartment pays school tax and that figure is part of your rent.
thanx,
bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
New It is in Michigan.
The Michigan Homestead Act allows apartment dwellers to get that property tax back by deducting their rent payments. Property owners can do so to a lesser extent (IIRC), and the deduction is capped at a fairly low income.
Regards,

-scott anderson
New learn something new everyday
and am also glad I didnt post that snarkey comment about googling a P&L statement:)
thanx,
bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
New Heh.
Believe me, I liked the Homestead Act back when I was making very little money, had a wife and son, and lived in an apartment. :-)

But the act wouldn't be necessary if the tax code were reasonable and simple in the first place.
Regards,

-scott anderson
New Teach me to be snide in subject titles.
I have no problems paying tax for schooling for the community at large,

Heh. You're one of the few that I know, then. :)

No, we are not, because I didn't say that LA couldn't do this. I said that I didn't like it,

Ah, true. I took what you said as rebuttal/comment on my postion, rather than comment. :)

Addison
New Children are the responsibility of the community IMO
That includes schooling.

I just don't like how the State secures that funding.
Regards,

-scott anderson
New Disagreed
Children are the responsibility of the community IMO

I strongly disagree here. This is the direction in thinking that leads to having Social Services people banging on your door to interview you and your kids to decide whether or not your fit enough to keep your kids just because you had to take one of them to the emergency room for an accident
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New So...
You don't think communities should provide schools?

Or playgrounds? Parks?

Or that child abusers shouldn't be punished? Or investigated?
Regards,

-scott anderson
New Re: So...
You don't think communities should provide schools?
Or playgrounds? Parks?


I don't think it's a responsibility of the community; I believe it's something good the community should do anyway, but they aren't beholden to

Difference between feeding my kids and enrolling them in little league. The first is a responsibility, the second is just something good I should do

Or that child abusers shouldn't be punished? Or investigated?

I don't have a problem invesitgating/punishing child abusers.

What I *am* concerned about is that Social Services has become almost a shadow police that often assumes guilty until proven innocent and does not seem to have to follow the same due process as the normal police.

Just about a month ago, a lady who didn't speak English very well was in a local hospital for an extended time. She was pregnant, but also had an outstanding medical condition (kindey or gall bladder or back problem can't remember) that the hospital was not aware of and she couldn't communicate her condition. Here's the fun part. The hospital interpreted her condition as depression and when her baby was born, they took it away from her and it took court and legal intervention for her to get her own newborn child back (along with another child put in foster care by the state because of her 'depression')
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New Actually, s/schools/schooling
Because I don't particularly like how schools are provided at this point in time. :-)

But I do think it's the community's responsibility.

As fas as for the anecdote, I don't particularly care for Social Service's tactics either, but that doesn't abrogate our responsibilities as community members.
Regards,

-scott anderson
New Don't think so
But I do think it's the community's responsibility.

I think it's the parents responsibility to see that their children are educated. One of the means we've chosen to do this is to band together into communites and provide education en masse for the members of the community.

Community (public) education is not a responsibility but is the implementation of a parental responsibility. But not the only implementation

As a home-schooler, you should realize that :)

As fas as for the anecdote, I don't particularly care for Social Service's tactics either, but that doesn't abrogate our responsibilities as community members.

But it illustrates the differences between the assumption that responsibilities for children are parentally given but implemented in a community versus being community given and exercised, often overruling parental wishes.
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New As a home schooler...
I realize that yes, I have a responsibility to my children to make sure they are schooled.

However, as a homeschooler, I also realize that the community has a responsibility to make sure that every parent has the opportunity to make sure their children are schooled. Not every family can afford to homeschool. It isn't the cheaper option by far.
Regards,

-scott anderson
New Problem is...
...the social services are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I hope I never have a job where *I* have to make the judgement call that could save a child if I get it right or get them killed if I get it wrong.

So they assume "innocent until proven guilty". Fine. The proof of guilt is the raped/battered/murdered child.

Outrage.

So they assume "guilty until proven innocent". Annoying as fuck? Yep. A possible infringment on your Rights? Yep.

Worth it, on the off chance you've just saved a child's life/virginity/bone structure?

Fuck yeah.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
New Re: Problem is...
So they assume "innocent until proven guilty". Fine. The proof of guilt is the raped/battered/murdered child.

Problem is, the proof too often is just a bruise from a sibling or an accident or the report of a vindictive neighbor or relative

So they assume "guilty until proven innocent". Annoying as fuck? Yep. A possible infringment on your Rights? Yep.

Taking children away from innocent parents because the state thinks it knows better than you and that you can't be trusted to raise them is a little bit more than "annoying"
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New And....
Taking children away from innocent parents [see below] because the state thinks it knows better than you and that you can't be trusted to raise them is a little bit more than "annoying"

[ and putting them into foster care (that is sometimes more abusive), and ironically, harder to investigate/remove children from, to raise with a differing set of values, and destroying their sense of saftey at home ]

(as well as pointing out to kids, who are natural masters of manipulation, that their parents can be "bullied" by someone else....)

Nasty nasty stuff.

Addison
New Stakes are high
And you think they (the social services) do this for fun?

"Gee, that kid has a bruise that could be suspicious. Let's add to our already enormous workload and vast ocean of paperwork by accusing the parents of neglect and abuse! That way, we can disenfranchise the parents AND fundamentally disorient the child, all at once!"

My ex's mother is a social worker, working in Children and Families - the sharp end, in other words. She has told me many things about her job. I know what the people who do this kind of work are like, and they give a shit like you wouldn't believe. Hell, no-one would be able to do the job if it wasn't for love.

Rule Number One Of Being A Social Worker : You Can't Win.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
New Yup
"Gee, that kid has a bruise that could be suspicious. Let's add to our already enormous workload and vast ocean of paperwork by accusing the parents of neglect and abuse!

Happened to me
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New And?
You're extrapolating out from your own experience, to what the whole system *should* be, based on the fact that you are a good parent - as I truly believe you to be.

There are a LOT of children out there who are with very, very bad parents. The really sad thing is that some of them are going to die horrible, painful deaths because the social services DARE NOT ACT lest they invoke the wrath of people like you.

In order to understand why the social services do what they do you have to understand that they routinely deal with people for whom beating a child half to death is "discipline".

No, the social services is most definitely not geared up for dealing with good parents. But as I have seen and heard, it can be very difficult to tell the really bad parent from the really good one, because these "people" can be consummate and articulate liars, prepared to say anything at all to continue doing what they do.

It's your call. You're a social worker. You have 10 minutes to decide whether this kid really fell and bruised herself and is telling you the truth, or if she's being systematically brutalised by her parents and dare not tell you anything like the truth.

The clock is ticking.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
New Re: And?
It's your call. You're a cop. You have 10 minutes to decide whether the man slipped and hit his head or was murderd

Point is that social services face the same kinds of situations as cops and must make the same kinds of life/death judgements. However, at least in this country, social service people are not under the same restrictions as police officers. Things like "innocent until proven guilty" and "unreasonable search and seizure" and "search warrents" and "due process" do not apply
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting
New Er?
No, you have a bloody long time in the trial in front of a duly appointed judge and 12 good men and true.

The guy is *already* dead. He's not in a hurry to go anywhere.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
New Same thing
Maybe a bad example but what aboot a woman accusing a man of assault, or stalking. Is she telling the truth? Is he innocent? Should he be locked up for her safety? Is she just out to get him in trouble?
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New It's slightly different
Firstly, the balance of power is not utterly one-sided, like it is with a child/adult situation.

Secondly, both parties are usually at least in the same ball park when it comes to reasoning and explicative capacity.

It's no better a situation - being falsely accused sucks, full stop - but it is quite different.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
New Re: It's slightly different
Firstly, the balance of power is not utterly one-sided, like it is with a child/adult situation.

Ask Ross about that. Balance of power can be very one-sided in adult interactions. And children have more 'power' then you realize when it comes to making accusations against adults

Secondly, both parties are usually at least in the same ball park when it comes to reasoning and explicative capacity.

Again, ask Ross

but it is quite different

The situations are quite similar. You have people with enormous power making life and death judgement decisions. What's different is that in one case there are controls over that power to try to ensure that good judgment prevails, in the other, there is not.
New Re: It's slightly different
You know better than this, Pete, what with all the recent cases of children falsely accusing adults. And the system here is so biased against the male it's silly. Teachers cannot discipline children any more.

I was assaulted a week ago by a gang of kids (14-15). I had to stand there and let myself get hit. Had I retaliated, I would have spent the night in the cells and likely been prosecuted.

A friend was falsely accused of a number of things by his wife and spent the night in the cells. His wife still got custody of the kids in the divorce. In a rape case, a woman is entitled to anonymity, but the man is not; her anonymity is maintained even if he is found innocent.
qts
New couldnt you have just pulled out yer gun and?
oh forgot where you lived. In Alaska they had one case of a couple of 20yo pounding on a 15yo and regardless of fault passed a new law making it a felony to smack down on a minor, until a sixteen yo 6ft 2inches 270lbs nicknamed monster attacked and half killed a worker in the facility he was being held at. The guards pulling him off were charged under the law. Needless to say a self defence claus has been enacted. It is intolerable that in a free society that you must allow yourself to be attacked to avoid jail. Alice in wonderland.
thanx,
bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
New Limitations of social workers
I'm not going to get into a big linkfest here -- I'll do you the courtesy of believing what you say is factually true, if you'll return the favour.

In the UK, it takes a court order from a Magistrate to place a child into *temporary* custody - it's called (IIRC) an Emergency Protection Order. It's usually used to get a child out of an immediately dangerous situation.

To permanently take the children away, perhaps for fostering, requires a court order from a Crown Court, which means barristers, which means a LOT of learned arguing by both sides.

There is no right to search, that I'm aware of.

The Children Act (1988?) makes it quite clear that the parents rights are entirely secondary to the safety of the child - and the social services operate on this principle. They have to, it's the law. But being understaffed, underbudgeted and overworked as they are (where's the profit margin?), mistakes are made, oversights occur. And children die - but they're the ones who slipped through the net, which I want to have somewhat smaller holes.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
New I don't believe I said that.
Rule Number One Of Being A Social Worker : You Can't Win.

Nope.

But you can lose. Big time.

And you think they (the social services) do this for fun?

I have an almost certain degree of probability that I didn't say that, or imply it

Addison
New Assuming..
Worth it, on the off chance you've just saved a child's life/virginity/bone structure?

....that's what you've actually done and not just destroyed the lives (and futures) of several people
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New Not nearly as equivocal
as a corpse.

Sorry.

The kid wins, every time, for me.

There have been a couple of high-profile cases here in the UK where the social services have played it your way, and it resulted in a couple of high-profile dead kids, battered to death by their parents.

That, sir, is a price I am *not* willing to pay.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
New My way?
The kid wins, every time, for me.

For very twisted definition of "win" as "win" seems to mean "take the kids away from the parents because we really don't know but we know better". No one wins

where the social services have played it your way

Just what exactly is "my way"?
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New I'm sorry
Not being clear.

I understood "your way", such as it is (i.e. largely undefined except by my assumptions (oops)) to mean "innocent until proven guilty".

That methodology has certainly led to dead children in the UK.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
New Re: I'm sorry
I understood "your way", such as it is (i.e. largely undefined except by my assumptions (oops)) to mean "innocent until proven guilty".

"My way" is simply that social actions have nearly police-state-like powers but without similar checks on their powers and that can lead to serious abuses, even unintentionally of power. "My way" is simply that any agent of that state with that much power should also have those restrictions

That methodology has certainly led to dead children in the UK.

And the converse is true as well. Abuse of power leads to destroyed innocent lives. That, at least in theory, is a price we've determined to pay as as a society. Power is not left unchecked and hopefully the number of innocents falsy prosecuted is kept low and the cost is that sometimes the guilty go free. Sometimes the innocent die so that the innocent can be free. It's a nasty line to dane on The emotionalism that this deals with children cannot over run reason because it works both ways. It's sickening when a child is abused; it's sickening when a family is ripped apart
Jay

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New Is that a price that you're willing to pay?
Are you prepared to let your children die so that another parent's right to privacy in parenting is preserved?

In other words, are your children less important than your Liberty and your Rights?

It's a terrible, terrible question to ask, one parent to another.

And for the record, I'm not prepared to pay that price.

--
Peter
Shill For Hire
New Turn it around
I'm damn well ready to let someone else's child die so that mine can live with me
New I'm the someone else
And I won't let your children die just so that mine can live with *me*.

Live children are infinitely more appealing than dead ones, wherever they are.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
New Couple of nits...
And I won't let your children die

First off, its really not within your baliwick, unless there's something you've not told us. :)

Live children are infinitely more appealing than dead ones, wherever they are.

The question is on which side to we err? As you put it, they can't win. And you're right.

But its a very tricky line...

And Jay's point - that if we err on the side of "caution" that you seem to indicate, that we rip families apart on the mere witchhunt for evidence, that that is overall worse, than the (far less likey to happen) case of well-hidden child abuse that results in a death - (at least, that's how I read it) - I think is well taken.

Boy, we're really burning up the philosophy today, aren't we? :)

Traumatizing and turning the lives of hundreds of families to shit (And have the parents have to beg, if they're ever allowed to see their children again - and also sending the children away from home, into strangers home's, which may or may not be *better*) for the sake of potentially stopping the murder of a child.......

I gotta side with Jay on this one.. you've got to have some harder evidence (because, his other point is similarly well taken - the Social Service people do NOT have to get a warrent, show cause, and they CAN remove from you your family - on a whim, with very little recourse.) to make that call.

As cold as it might sound.

Addison
New Re: Couple of nits...
Peter already said that they DO need warrants in Britain.

So the system here is broken, not the philosophy.

Witchhunt is a pretty charged word. Makes it sound pretty bad, doesn't it. I don't see an investigation the same as a witchhunt.
Regards,

-scott anderson
New Would it?
And I won't let your children die just so that mine can live with *me*.

Would it be solace to you? "Oh well, they took my kids away and I'm branded a child-abuser for life, but at least someone else's child might live"

How much paranoia is worth it? How many families that are wrongly accused are worth the off chance you might save one? 10, 100, 1,000. How do you even know how many kids have actually been saved?

How do you know if your child who has been taken by the state is even safe?

============================================
CHELSEA, Maine - The high chair was tipped over in an unfinished part of the basement and smeared with blood when detectives arrived. Strewn about were strips of duct tape with clumps of hair.

The horror chamber described by police is where 5-year-old Logan Marr spent the final hours of her life, taped to her high chair and, evidence suggests, her mouth covered with tape. Cause of death: asphyxiation.

It's not just the grisly nature of the case that's drawn attention since Logan died Jan. 31. The woman charged in the death, the child's foster mother, is a former caseworker for the state agency that monitors foster parents.
============================================

More examples of children dying after the state decided to 'err on the side of the child' for the sake of the children: [link|http://www.nccpr.org/newissues/3.html|SOME CASE HISTORIES]

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting
New That's a highly pathological example
And additionally it's a failure of a system that *tries* to prevent the death of *any* child. For me, at least, TRYING is highly important.

What I can't stomach is the idea that we back off and accept that the collateral damage of some dead children is a suitable price to pay for the sake of "rights".

Because for those "rights", we're sacrificing the rights of those children.

And that can't be right... can it?
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
New Peter, there has to be a better way.
For every failure here to pull a child from an abusive situation and the child dies is complicated by 2 children dying by abuse by the state. This is a fact. If someone thought my children were in danger and I knew that they would be in a safe home, fed well and taken care of until court I wouldnt have a problem. Knowing by the news and my own personal experience If my kids were taken, I would rescue them and take them home to our village where the Indian Child welfare act kicks in and the Tribal Council gets custody, fearless does not have that option. He knows the kids would lose if taken away. Everytime, everywhere in this nation. That is a fact that the state is the worse parent imaginable. Just read Charlie Manson in his own words of his state upbringing, his story is average not exceptional and you would wish this on our own children?
thanx,
bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
New NULL, ignore me please.
NULL

(There was a duplicate post here)
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
Expand Edited by pwhysall July 11, 2001, 01:44:23 PM EDT
New And also note:
I said community, not State.

If my neighbor beats his kids you had better be damn well sure I'm calling the cops or Social Services, or whatever else I need to do.
Regards,

-scott anderson
New Fair point
You said "community", but then talked about how the "Sate" secures funding so I blurred the two concepts in my reading of what you said

If my neighbor beats his kids you had better be damn well sure I'm calling the cops or Social Services, or whatever else I need to do.

That's fair enough, if you have evidence that the kids are being beaten. If you have evidence or are an eyewitness to it happening.

Turn it around from the other degree. What if your kid is playing on the top of a bunk bed and falls and gets a bruise on his forehead and your neighbor thinks you've been beating your kids because of seeing the bruise and now Social Services comes to your door asking about child abuse, etc... Sure your innocent, and can probably succefully convince them of that, but it's not a comfortable position to be in.

By the way, that's about a hypothetical example; I've been in a very similar situation where my son was injured in an accident and I was invesitaged for neglect/abuse. The chilling part is the next time he fell (and passed out), I was afraid to seek the medical help he needed
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New Not much that can be done about it.
Your neighbor can decide to report you, or do something else, whether the State is involved or not.
Regards,

-scott anderson
New Above thread describes the ickiest of human 'interactions'
A mere bruise on a child may signify - almost anything! And even fairly regular bruises (given certain maladies of children) - ditto.

But the appearance: excites all visceral imaginations and also - all ideas of 'justice' + whatever we want to call the 'save the Cheeldrun' at All Cost, mindset.

No wonder that, despite the perspicuity of the IWETHEY solons: there IS no 'answer' of universal application. The defects in ourselves + our systems guarantee that - always this area shall produce more or fewer outrages in both directions

{sigh}

ie dangerous.. to have children who get bruised via Whatever!




A.
New Kind of hits close to home...
My wife had a nasty facial bruise last week. Man, did I get the dirty looks. And she got the questions the minute I wasn't there.

She bent down to hug our 6 year old at the same time as he jumped to hug her, and they collided rather hard.

But on the whole, I'd rather face the suspicion than have people not care.
White guys in suits know best
- Pat McCurdy
New If I had a clumsy kid..
I'd get a laminated card signed by 'Doctor'*, the local DA, Chief o'Poleece an probably Scalia (Thomas would be to Cunservative to sign) saying..

*notice how the effusive assistants always omit the, 'The' ??


Back Off!! these folks got a Problem Kid\ufffd what runs into stuff...
Mind yer own Beeswax...


The Authority Figures


(And I'd have one next to my house gun, my car gun, my personal swimsuit .25, etc.)




:-\ufffd
New Agreed
I have no problems paying tax for schooling for the community at large, whether I'm a homeschooler, a public school user, or someone without children at all. Schooling is something the community should be responsible for.

I agree here. I homeschool and own a house. I pay property tax that funds schools (under New Mexico, my taxes actually augment schools throughout the state). I also pay local Gross Reciept Taxes that pay for buses I don't ride either. *shrug* It's part of the cost of living in a community/society

Property tax isn't a good way to pay for it. School tax should just be a part of income tax and be done with it.

I also agree here. What bothers me is the 'devide and conquer' approach to taxes that hides how much is being paid and what it's going for. A little tax here, a little tax there...
Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New squirms and taxation
Property tax is one way of trying to make sure the people living there care more than a fly's eyes about the property they're being taxed about.

OK, maybe property tax shouldn't be used for education. I can live with that argument.

Someone renting an apartment and who does not (directly) pay a property tax.... what do they care about the (invisible) tax on their (rented) property any more than they care about the (invisible) tax on their income?
To answer that, I have a counter-argument. When I pay my $800 check every six months or so, I damn well care about it. Dammit, make people pay their taxes every three months, six months, whatever and make them SWEAT. When I pay my taxes (and I know I'm unusual, I don't have that folded into my mortgage payment), I see a summary of what is spent toward schools, toward streets, toward sewers, toward the stadium, toward stupid statue at the corner, etc.

If there is no one other thing in favor of it, I favor property tax paying for schools because there are people who are writing checks to pay for it. Direct out-of-pocket expenses invite a LOT closer look than just dumping some state or federal money on it..
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
     popeye the movie was about LA - (boxley) - (57)
         Theft, outright theft - but not *from* whom you might think. - (CRConrad) - (56)
             I know how to make proper - (boxley) - (1)
                 So? - (CRConrad)
             Not really. - (addison) - (53)
                 I've never liked personal property tax. - (admin) - (52)
                     But OTOH, the whole idea of "double taxation" is BS, too. -NT - (CRConrad)
                     That's just cause they use it to pay for schools. :) - (addison) - (50)
                         No, it isn't. - (admin) - (49)
                             wrong nothing is free - (boxley) - (3)
                                 It is in Michigan. - (admin) - (2)
                                     learn something new everyday - (boxley) - (1)
                                         Heh. - (admin)
                             Teach me to be snide in subject titles. - (addison) - (42)
                                 Children are the responsibility of the community IMO - (admin) - (41)
                                     Disagreed - (Fearless Freep) - (40)
                                         So... - (admin) - (33)
                                             Re: So... - (Fearless Freep) - (32)
                                                 Actually, s/schools/schooling - (admin) - (2)
                                                     Don't think so - (Fearless Freep) - (1)
                                                         As a home schooler... - (admin)
                                                 Problem is... - (pwhysall) - (28)
                                                     Re: Problem is... - (Fearless Freep) - (13)
                                                         And.... - (addison)
                                                         Stakes are high - (pwhysall) - (11)
                                                             Yup - (Fearless Freep) - (9)
                                                                 And? - (pwhysall) - (8)
                                                                     Re: And? - (Fearless Freep) - (7)
                                                                         Er? - (pwhysall) - (5)
                                                                             Same thing - (Fearless Freep) - (4)
                                                                                 It's slightly different - (pwhysall) - (3)
                                                                                     Re: It's slightly different - (Fearless Freep)
                                                                                     Re: It's slightly different - (qstephens) - (1)
                                                                                         couldnt you have just pulled out yer gun and? - (boxley)
                                                                         Limitations of social workers - (pwhysall)
                                                             I don't believe I said that. - (addison)
                                                     Assuming.. - (Fearless Freep) - (13)
                                                         Not nearly as equivocal - (pwhysall) - (11)
                                                             My way? - (Fearless Freep) - (10)
                                                                 I'm sorry - (pwhysall) - (9)
                                                                     Re: I'm sorry - (Fearless Freep) - (8)
                                                                         Is that a price that you're willing to pay? - (pwhysall) - (7)
                                                                             Turn it around - (Fearless Freep) - (6)
                                                                                 I'm the someone else - (pwhysall) - (5)
                                                                                     Couple of nits... - (addison) - (1)
                                                                                         Re: Couple of nits... - (admin)
                                                                                     Would it? - (Fearless Freep) - (2)
                                                                                         That's a highly pathological example - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                                                                             Peter, there has to be a better way. - (boxley)
                                                         NULL, ignore me please. - (pwhysall)
                                         And also note: - (admin) - (5)
                                             Fair point - (Fearless Freep) - (4)
                                                 Not much that can be done about it. - (admin) - (3)
                                                     Above thread describes the ickiest of human 'interactions' - (Ashton) - (2)
                                                         Kind of hits close to home... - (mhuber) - (1)
                                                             If I had a clumsy kid.. - (Ashton)
                             Agreed - (Fearless Freep) - (1)
                                 squirms and taxation - (wharris2)

There's nothing you can't do with a proper snip of context.
313 ms