Child support - meaning of "is in force"

[Sylvia Else]

Yes, this one again.

Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income from me
because a court order had been in place that set my child support for
part of the child support period. Their position was that subsection 60
(2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate, even though the end date
of the order had passed.

The revelant subsection says

"However, a person may not make an election relating to a child support
period if an income amount order is in force in relation to the person
and any part of the period."

What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's construction
gives no effect to the words, because to be in force, the order
certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this clause as if it
simply said "...an income amount order exists in relation..."

Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to give
effect to all the words.

Comments?

Sylvia.

[Galimatias]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Yes, this one again.
>
> Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income from
> me because a court order had been in place that set my child support
> for part of the child support period. Their position was that
> subsection 60 (2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate, even
> though the end date of the order had passed.
>
> The revelant subsection says
>
> "However, a person may not make an election relating to a child
> support period if an income amount order is in force in relation to
> the person and any part of the period."
>
> What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
> effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's
> construction gives no effect to the words, because to be in force,
> the order certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this clause
> as if it simply said "...an income amount order exists in relation..."
>
> Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to give
> effect to all the words.
>
> Comments?

If, at any time in the child support period, an income amount order was in
force, subsection 60(2) precludes an election.

So, if on day-one of the period, an order was in force, the provision
operates to preclude an election. Not only for that day, but for the whole
period. If the order expired on day-two, nothing can be done about an
election because the provision has applied and that continues for the rest
of the period.

Is this the nature of the problem?

[Sylvia Else]

Galimatias wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>Yes, this one again.
>>
>>Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income from
>>me because a court order had been in place that set my child support
>>for part of the child support period. Their position was that
>>subsection 60 (2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate, even
>>though the end date of the order had passed.
>>
>>The revelant subsection says
>>
>>"However, a person may not make an election relating to a child
>>support period if an income amount order is in force in relation to
>>the person and any part of the period."
>>
>>What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
>>effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's
>>construction gives no effect to the words, because to be in force,
>>the order certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this clause
>>as if it simply said "...an income amount order exists in relation..."
>>
>>Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to give
>>effect to all the words.
>>
>>Comments?
>
>
> If, at any time in the child support period, an income amount order was in
> force, subsection 60(2) precludes an election.
>
> So, if on day-one of the period, an order was in force, the provision
> operates to preclude an election. Not only for that day, but for the whole
> period. If the order expired on day-two, nothing can be done about an
> election because the provision has applied and that continues for the rest
> of the period.
>
> Is this the nature of the problem?

That's their position, yes. However, you may notice that you
automatically used the expression "was in force", which is not what the
act says. So how does one give effect to the expression "is in force"?

The whole essence of the expression is that orders can be in force at
some times, and not in force at others. The CSA's construction seems to
render the "in force" state of an order entirely moot.

It also creates a very obscure constraint on the powers of the courts to
make orders.

Sylvia.

[Tony Burns]

You have no idea!

Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> Yes, this one again.
>
> Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income from me
> because a court order had been in place that set my child support for
> part of the child support period. Their position was that subsection 60
> (2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate, even though the end date
> of the order had passed.
>
> The revelant subsection says
>
> "However, a person may not make an election relating to a child support
> period if an income amount order is in force in relation to the person
> and any part of the period."
>
> What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
> effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's construction
> gives no effect to the words, because to be in force, the order
> certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this clause as if it
> simply said "...an income amount order exists in relation..."
>
> Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to give
> effect to all the words.
>
> Comments?
>
> Sylvia.

[Galimatias]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Galimatias wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, this one again.
>>>
>>> Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income from
>>> me because a court order had been in place that set my child support
>>> for part of the child support period. Their position was that
>>> subsection 60 (2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate, even
>>> though the end date of the order had passed.
>>>
>>> The revelant subsection says
>>>
>>> "However, a person may not make an election relating to a child
>>> support period if an income amount order is in force in relation to
>>> the person and any part of the period."
>>>
>>> What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
>>> effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's
>>> construction gives no effect to the words, because to be in force,
>>> the order certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this
>>> clause as if it simply said "...an income amount order exists in
>>> relation..."
>>>
>>> Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to give
>>> effect to all the words.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>>
>> If, at any time in the child support period, an income amount order
>> was in force, subsection 60(2) precludes an election.
>>
>> So, if on day-one of the period, an order was in force, the provision
>> operates to preclude an election. Not only for that day, but for
>> the whole period. If the order expired on day-two, nothing can be
>> done about an election because the provision has applied and that
>> continues for the rest of the period.
>>
>> Is this the nature of the problem?
>
> That's their position, yes. However, you may notice that you
> automatically used the expression "was in force", which is not what
> the act says. So how does one give effect to the expression "is in
> force"?

The reasoning is simply that legislative drafters prefer to speak in the
present tense. You can read my paragraph, substituting "is" for "was". I
used the past tense only because the example looked back into the past.

The effect is to create a quite inflexible situation, but that's what was
intended with the formula. One size fits all, regardless. Just like the
basic tax system.

> The whole essence of the expression is that orders can be in force at
> some times, and not in force at others. The CSA's construction seems
> to render the "in force" state of an order entirely moot.

Not really, in my view. Once there is an order, the provision applies and
thereafter for that period.

> It also creates a very obscure constraint on the powers of the courts
> to make orders.

Not so much on their powers, but on the practical effect of orders made
under those powers. Once subsection 60(2) has applied, no subsequent order
can change anything by way of an election. To get the best result, you need
to know a lot about the way the process works and be able to control it.

[Sylvia Else]

Tony Burns wrote:
> You have no idea!
>
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>Yes, this one again.
>>
>>Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income from me
>>because a court order had been in place that set my child support for
>>part of the child support period. Their position was that subsection 60
>>(2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate, even though the end date
>>of the order had passed.
>>
>>The revelant subsection says
>>
>>"However, a person may not make an election relating to a child support
>>period if an income amount order is in force in relation to the person
>>and any part of the period."
>>
>>What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
>>effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's construction
>>gives no effect to the words, because to be in force, the order
>>certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this clause as if it
>>simply said "...an income amount order exists in relation..."
>>
>>Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to give
>>effect to all the words.
>>
>>Comments?
>>
>>Sylvia.
>

Well, I suppose that was a comment.

Sylvia.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
sednews:41AEF14B.10103@not.at.this.address:

>
>
> Tony Burns wrote:
>> You have no idea!
>>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, this one again.
>>>
>>>Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income from me
>>>because a court order had been in place that set my child support for
>>>part of the child support period. Their position was that subsection 60
>>>(2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate, even though the end date
>>>of the order had passed.
>>>
>>>The revelant subsection says
>>>
>>>"However, a person may not make an election relating to a child support
>>>period if an income amount order is in force in relation to the person
>>>and any part of the period."
>>>
>>>What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
>>>effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's construction
>>>gives no effect to the words, because to be in force, the order
>>>certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this clause as if it
>>>simply said "...an income amount order exists in relation..."
>>>
>>>Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to give
>>>effect to all the words.
>>>
>>>Comments?
>>>
>>>Sylvia.
>>
>
> Well, I suppose that was a comment.

Skipping out on your child support?

Or are you just bitter because your ex has run far and fast?


BTW, who feeds your kids and cleans them while you are wasting your time
giving nonsensical advice to usenet lusers?

Or did Dingoes eat your babies?


Bertie

[theguyonthebike]

Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message news:<con5ar$ern$16@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>...
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
> sednews:41AEF14B.10103@not.at.this.address:
>
> >
> >
> > Tony Burns wrote:
> >> You have no idea!
> >>
> >> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yes, this one again.
> >>>
> >>>Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income from me
> >>>because a court order had been in place that set my child support for
> >>>part of the child support period. Their position was that subsection 60
> >>>(2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate, even though the end date
> >>>of the order had passed.
> >>>
> >>>The revelant subsection says
> >>>
> >>>"However, a person may not make an election relating to a child support
> >>>period if an income amount order is in force in relation to the person
> >>>and any part of the period."
> >>>
> >>>What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
> >>>effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's construction
> >>>gives no effect to the words, because to be in force, the order
> >>>certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this clause as if it
> >>>simply said "...an income amount order exists in relation..."
> >>>
> >>>Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to give
> >>>effect to all the words.
> >>>
> >>>Comments?
> >>>
> >>>Sylvia.
> >>
> >
> > Well, I suppose that was a comment.
>
> Skipping out on your child support?
>
> Or are you just bitter because your ex has run far and fast?
>
>
> BTW, who feeds your kids and cleans them while you are wasting your time
> giving nonsensical advice to usenet lusers?
>
> Or did Dingoes eat your babies?
>
>
> Bertie

So you treat every one with disrespect, right?

[Tony Burns]

There was no "suppose" about it, it was a comment.

Sylvia, you're clearly a person who likes trolling. As such you're
feigned "offence" when someone takes the piss out of you demonstrates
how shallow you are.

If you were truly involved in the Legal profession I'd be concerned.
Thankfully no one would be stupid enough to engage you regarding legal
issues of any kind.

It's no wonder you're paranoid about the police, your record is
unparalleled.

Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> Tony Burns wrote:
> > You have no idea!
> >
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> >>Yes, this one again.
> >>
> >>Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income from me
> >>because a court order had been in place that set my child support for
> >>part of the child support period. Their position was that subsection 60
> >>(2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate, even though the end date
> >>of the order had passed.
> >>
> >>The revelant subsection says
> >>
> >>"However, a person may not make an election relating to a child support
> >>period if an income amount order is in force in relation to the person
> >>and any part of the period."
> >>
> >>What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
> >>effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's construction
> >>gives no effect to the words, because to be in force, the order
> >>certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this clause as if it
> >>simply said "...an income amount order exists in relation..."
> >>
> >>Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to give
> >>effect to all the words.
> >>
> >>Comments?
> >>
> >>Sylvia.
> >
>
> Well, I suppose that was a comment.
>
> Sylvia.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

theguyonthebike@veryfast.biz (theguyonthebike)
sednews:7071f97e.0412021235.2b58500c@posting.googl e.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message
> news:<con5ar$ern$16@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>...
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
>> sednews:41AEF14B.10103@not.at.this.address:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Tony Burns wrote:
>> >> You have no idea!
>> >>
>> >> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Yes, this one again.
>> >>>
>> >>>Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income
>> >>>from me because a court order had been in place that set my child
>> >>>support for part of the child support period. Their position was
>> >>>that subsection 60 (2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate,
>> >>>even though the end date of the order had passed.
>> >>>
>> >>>The revelant subsection says
>> >>>
>> >>>"However, a person may not make an election relating to a child
>> >>>support period if an income amount order is in force in relation
>> >>>to the person and any part of the period."
>> >>>
>> >>>What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
>> >>>effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's
>> >>>construction gives no effect to the words, because to be in force,
>> >>>the order certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this
>> >>>clause as if it simply said "...an income amount order exists in
>> >>>relation..."
>> >>>
>> >>>Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to
>> >>>give effect to all the words.
>> >>>
>> >>>Comments?
>> >>>
>> >>>Sylvia.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, I suppose that was a comment.
>>
>> Skipping out on your child support?
>>
>> Or are you just bitter because your ex has run far and fast?
>>
>>
>> BTW, who feeds your kids and cleans them while you are wasting your
>> time giving nonsensical advice to usenet lusers?
>>
>> Or did Dingoes eat your babies?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> So you treat every one with disrespect, right?
>

No, only kooks, Chuckles


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
sednews:41AED6EE.604@not.at.this.address:

>
>
> Galimatias wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, this one again.
>>>
>>>Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income from
>>>me because a court order had been in place that set my child support
>>>for part of the child support period. Their position was that
>>>subsection 60 (2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate, even
>>>though the end date of the order had passed.
>>>
>>>The revelant subsection says
>>>
>>>"However, a person may not make an election relating to a child
>>>support period if an income amount order is in force in relation to
>>>the person and any part of the period."
>>>
>>>What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
>>>effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's
>>>construction gives no effect to the words, because to be in force,
>>>the order certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this clause
>>>as if it simply said "...an income amount order exists in
>>>relation..."
>>>
>>>Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to give
>>>effect to all the words.
>>>
>>>Comments?
>>
>>
>> If, at any time in the child support period, an income amount order
>> was in force, subsection 60(2) precludes an election.
>>
>> So, if on day-one of the period, an order was in force, the provision
>> operates to preclude an election. Not only for that day, but for the
>> whole period. If the order expired on day-two, nothing can be done
>> about an election because the provision has applied and that
>> continues for the rest of the period.
>>
>> Is this the nature of the problem?
>
> That's their position, yes. However, you may notice that you
> automatically used the expression "was in force", which is not what
> the act says. So how does one give effect to the expression "is in
> force"?
>
> The whole essence of the expression is that orders can be in force at
> some times, and not in force at others. The CSA's construction seems
> to render the "in force" state of an order entirely moot.
>
> It also creates a very obscure constraint on the powers of the courts
> to make orders.

Whatta wanker


Bertie
>
>
>

[Sylvia Else]

Tony Burns wrote:
> There was no "suppose" about it, it was a comment.
>
> Sylvia, you're clearly a person who likes trolling. As such you're
> feigned "offence" when someone takes the piss out of you demonstrates
> how shallow you are.
>
> If you were truly involved in the Legal profession I'd be concerned.
> Thankfully no one would be stupid enough to engage you regarding legal
> issues of any kind.
>
> It's no wonder you're paranoid about the police, your record is
> unparalleled.
>
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>Tony Burns wrote:
>>
>>>You have no idea!
>>>
>>>Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, this one again.
>>>>
>>>>Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income from me
>>>>because a court order had been in place that set my child support for
>>>>part of the child support period. Their position was that subsection 60
>>>>(2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate, even though the end date
>>>>of the order had passed.
>>>>
>>>>The revelant subsection says
>>>>
>>>>"However, a person may not make an election relating to a child support
>>>>period if an income amount order is in force in relation to the person
>>>>and any part of the period."
>>>>
>>>>What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
>>>>effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's construction
>>>>gives no effect to the words, because to be in force, the order
>>>>certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this clause as if it
>>>>simply said "...an income amount order exists in relation..."
>>>>
>>>>Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to give
>>>>effect to all the words.
>>>>
>>>>Comments?
>>>>
>>>>Sylvia.
>>>
>>Well, I suppose that was a comment.
>>
>>Sylvia.
>

Some troll. This issue is listed to be heard before the Family Court.

Sylvia.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
sednews:41AFB918.9030702@not.at.this.address:

>
>
> Tony Burns wrote:
>> There was no "suppose" about it, it was a comment.
>>
>> Sylvia, you're clearly a person who likes trolling. As such you're
>> feigned "offence" when someone takes the piss out of you demonstrates
>> how shallow you are.
>>
>> If you were truly involved in the Legal profession I'd be concerned.
>> Thankfully no one would be stupid enough to engage you regarding
>> legal issues of any kind.
>>
>> It's no wonder you're paranoid about the police, your record is
>> unparalleled.
>>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>>Tony Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>>You have no idea!
>>>>
>>>>Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, this one again.
>>>>>
>>>>>Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income
>>>>>from me because a court order had been in place that set my child
>>>>>support for part of the child support period. Their position was
>>>>>that subsection 60 (2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate,
>>>>>even though the end date of the order had passed.
>>>>>
>>>>>The revelant subsection says
>>>>>
>>>>>"However, a person may not make an election relating to a child
>>>>>support period if an income amount order is in force in relation to
>>>>>the person and any part of the period."
>>>>>
>>>>>What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
>>>>>effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's
>>>>>construction gives no effect to the words, because to be in force,
>>>>>the order certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this
>>>>>clause as if it simply said "...an income amount order exists in
>>>>>relation..."
>>>>>
>>>>>Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to give
>>>>>effect to all the words.
>>>>>
>>>>>Comments?
>>>>>
>>>>>Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>Well, I suppose that was a comment.
>>>
>>>Sylvia.
>>
>
> Some troll. This issue is listed to be heard before the Family Court.

OOW

Maybe you can wach it while you're waiting for your own case.

Bertie

[Barbara's Cat]

In article <coo8gd$aa7$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ.> said:

> theguyonthebike@veryfast.biz (theguyonthebike)
> sednews:7071f97e.0412021235.2b58500c@posting.googl e.com:
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message
> > news:<con5ar$ern$16@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>...
> >> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
> >> sednews:41AEF14B.10103@not.at.this.address:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Tony Burns wrote:
> >> >> You have no idea!
> >> >>
> >> >> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Yes, this one again.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income
> >> >>>from me because a court order had been in place that set my child
> >> >>>support for part of the child support period. Their position was
> >> >>>that subsection 60 (2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate,
> >> >>>even though the end date of the order had passed.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>The revelant subsection says
> >> >>>
> >> >>>"However, a person may not make an election relating to a child
> >> >>>support period if an income amount order is in force in relation
> >> >>>to the person and any part of the period."
> >> >>>
> >> >>>What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
> >> >>>effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's
> >> >>>construction gives no effect to the words, because to be in force,
> >> >>>the order certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this
> >> >>>clause as if it simply said "...an income amount order exists in
> >> >>>relation..."
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to
> >> >>>give effect to all the words.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Comments?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Sylvia.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Well, I suppose that was a comment.
> >>
> >> Skipping out on your child support?
> >>
> >> Or are you just bitter because your ex has run far and fast?
> >>
> >>
> >> BTW, who feeds your kids and cleans them while you are wasting your
> >> time giving nonsensical advice to usenet lusers?
> >>
> >> Or did Dingoes eat your babies?
> >>
> >>
> >> Bertie
> >
> > So you treat every one with disrespect, right?
> >
>
> No, only kooks, Chuckles

You ain't implyin' Pedo-Chuck's a kook are ya?
Geez, I never though he had that much class.

--
Cm~

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Barbara's Cat <cat@127.0.0.1> sednews:MPG.1c1992e420b64dd2989f42@news-
60.giganews.com:

> In article <coo8gd$aa7$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
> Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ.> said:
>
>> theguyonthebike@veryfast.biz (theguyonthebike)
>> sednews:7071f97e.0412021235.2b58500c@posting.googl e.com:
>>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message
>> > news:<con5ar$ern$16@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>...
>> >> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
>> >> sednews:41AEF14B.10103@not.at.this.address:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Tony Burns wrote:
>> >> >> You have no idea!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Yes, this one again.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Quick summary - the CSA refused to accept an estimate of income
>> >> >>>from me because a court order had been in place that set my child
>> >> >>>support for part of the child support period. Their position was
>> >> >>>that subsection 60 (2)precluded their acceptance of the estimate,
>> >> >>>even though the end date of the order had passed.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>The revelant subsection says
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>"However, a person may not make an election relating to a child
>> >> >>>support period if an income amount order is in force in relation
>> >> >>>to the person and any part of the period."
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>What's new in this posting is that I'm raising the issue of giving
>> >> >>>effect to the words "is in force". I contend that the CSA's
>> >> >>>construction gives no effect to the words, because to be in force,
>> >> >>>the order certainly has to exist, and the CSA is treating this
>> >> >>>clause as if it simply said "...an income amount order exists in
>> >> >>>relation..."
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Such a construction should be rejected because of a failure to
>> >> >>>give effect to all the words.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Comments?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Sylvia.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, I suppose that was a comment.
>> >>
>> >> Skipping out on your child support?
>> >>
>> >> Or are you just bitter because your ex has run far and fast?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> BTW, who feeds your kids and cleans them while you are wasting your
>> >> time giving nonsensical advice to usenet lusers?
>> >>
>> >> Or did Dingoes eat your babies?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Bertie
>> >
>> > So you treat every one with disrespect, right?
>> >
>>
>> No, only kooks, Chuckles
>
> You ain't implyin' Pedo-Chuck's a kook are ya?
> Geez, I never though he had that much class.
>

OK, wannabe kook?

Bertie

[Andy]

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 08:51:47 +1100, Tony Burns <Wbch@bike.com> wrote:

>There was no "suppose" about it, it was a comment.
>
>Sylvia, you're clearly a person who likes trolling. As such you're
>feigned "offence" when someone takes the piss out of you demonstrates
>how shallow you are.
>
>If you were truly involved in the Legal profession I'd be concerned.
>Thankfully no one would be stupid enough to engage you regarding legal
>issues of any kind.
>
>It's no wonder you're paranoid about the police, your record is
>unparalleled.

I often find Sylvia's words a rather interesting read, though I must
admit it's somewhat concerning how she takes issue with some of the
most basic things our police do in order to keep peace and order for
the citizens of Australia. Quite curious behavior at times on her
part indeed.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Andy <ask_for_email@here.com>
sednews:9ll1r098fl9coqjjc4uhh9da5qvts22dl9@4ax.com :

> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 08:51:47 +1100, Tony Burns <Wbch@bike.com> wrote:
>
>>There was no "suppose" about it, it was a comment.
>>
>>Sylvia, you're clearly a person who likes trolling. As such you're
>>feigned "offence" when someone takes the piss out of you demonstrates
>>how shallow you are.
>>
>>If you were truly involved in the Legal profession I'd be concerned.
>>Thankfully no one would be stupid enough to engage you regarding legal
>>issues of any kind.
>>
>>It's no wonder you're paranoid about the police, your record is
>>unparalleled.
>
> I often find Sylvia's words a rather interesting read,

We all do!

Berti e

[Sylvia Else]

IfI wanttobeatmykidsit's mybusiness!


Sylvia

[Sylvia Else]

Naturally, i'm a stupid cunt, and therefore an object of ridicule.
It's just what I do...


Sylvia