I need advice on the custody issue chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: I need advice on the custody issue

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 24 (view)

I need advice on the custody issue Posted: 11/3/2009 8:50:46 PM
2coldalone: Please do not construe my comments as to suggest that I think you are soley responsible for a bad situation. After all, in the words of family counselor I once knew, there is no such thing as an innocent party in a divorce. It seems to be an unfortunate reality that divorce has this way of causing otherwise sensible human beings to behave in ways no one, not even themselves, would ever dream of. My comments were meant simply to provide some perspective... something hard to come by during an emotionally trying time, for anyone. Another unfortunate reality is that no matter what you do, there will be those who will find a way to construe it badly... whether they are correct or not. And be aware that since you still "negotiating" the divorce... Although you may not enjoy the process... and neither will he for that matter... If you and your ex can not successfully discuss and resolve issues, which it appears you can not... Then the more clearly the final divorce documents spell out who is responsible for what, when, and how much, the better all we be in the end. I was not calling you a bad parent... Nor was I suggesting that you did not love your kids. I was simply suggesting that your ex might love them too. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 22 (view)

I need advice on the custody issue Posted: 10/31/2009 12:09:00 PM
A father's perspective anyone? 2cold... I will readily admit that I do not know your ex, nor am I aware of the obviously painful circumstances surrounding the break up of your marriage. However... While he may have agreed two years ago that he could not keep t he children half time, it would appear that his situation has improved over time, just as yours has. Otherwise, even if child support were his primary reason for doing so, he would not be able to apply for joint custody. It may be, however, that he has come to the conclusion that seeing his kids every second weekend just is not adequate. How would you feel if you were only able to see your children every second weekend? Also, there is obviously an issue surrounding him taking the children "extra days". He may feel that if he is being asked to look after the children frequently, then perhaps a reassessment of the situation is in order. It would also add some clarity as to when he should expect to be looking after the children. As for the legal aid lawyer.... The cold hard reality is that a legal aid lawyer is given X amount of dollars to look after your case. Whether he/she spends 5 hours or 50 hours on it, they get paid the same. So there are some who will do as little as possible. I know this because this is the explanation given to me by the legal aid lawyer I had many years ago to explain why he could not be bothered to address an issue that arose between myself and my ex-wife. It has been confirmed to me by a few other lawyers over the years. If this is the type of lawyer you have, and you can show that he is not adequately representing you, you can ask legal aid to assign you a new lawyer. There are no guarantees that the next lawyer will be any better than this one however. The alternative, is to find the very best lawyer you can afford, and pay for it yourself. It can be extremely difficult, financially and otherwise, I know. However, the effect of what happens now will be felt for a long time. No matter how much it costs, if you can find a way to pay it, it is worth it. This is my opinion as a result of hindsight. As for the safety of the children... The courts take a rather narrow view of what actually is risk to the welfare of the child. A person can be a lot of things... but as long as the child has a roof over their head, food in their belly, clothes on their back, and are not actually physically assaulted, the court considers them safe. It also takes significant evidence to show that any of these are in jeopardy. The issue of child support payments is obviously one that of concern to you. It is also one that I personally don't think the courts address very well. It is unfortunate, but the adversarial court system we have seems only to make these kinds of things worse for all involved. However, if he does end up with the children half of the time, does it not seem reasonable to think that his support payments should diminish or be removed altogether? Last.. but not least... It is important that you take the time and make the effort to heal from the emotional wounds you have incurred. And, now doubt, since your divorce is not final, there may be a few more "wounds" to revcover from. Divorce tends to be that way. This is not an easy thing to do, but it will help both you and your children now (while you are going through the divorce), and in the future. Best of luck to you all concerned. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 15 (view)

Is he in to me or what? Posted: 10/13/2009 12:05:39 PM
I did like him until we both started playing games The problem is the games. You need to stop playing games... untill the games stop, you will always loose. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 34 (view)

Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009) Posted: 8/17/2009 3:50:57 PM
You are quite right... almost. It is true that if they want to charge you with using a cell phone, it would stand to reason that they should have to see it. However, if you are doing something that attracts their attention... say, holding your hand in the way it might be held if you were using a cell phone... they might watch you a little longer to see what they might see. The reality however, is this is another "crime" the police do not have to prove. Regardless of what tools they use... or do not use... speeding is an offence that they observe. Anyone who has spent any time in traffic court will recognize the first words out of the cops mouth after he has asked and received permission to refer to his notes... On (insert time and date here) [bold] I observed [/bold]... This is the same most of the offences under the HTA... running a stop sign... speeding... seat belts... and the list goes on. The cop does not enter any real proof he saw it... he just says he does... whether he did or not. And like the blackberry hidden in your hand... All a cop has to do to get the conviction is to state in court that he saw it. Unfortunately, it is then up to you to prove he made a mistake. Guilty until proven innocent ... Geeee, I love traffic court.... NOT! T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 19 (view)

Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009) Posted: 8/13/2009 3:43:55 AM
I would be the last one to argue there are not other kinds of distractions that cause accidents. However, there appear to be few as statistically identifiable as cell phones. For example, the example of looking at a map while driving, as mentioned above. I have no doubt that looking at a map while driving can and has contributed to accidents. However very few of the people on the road are looking at maps. The statistical likelihood is probably so small as to not be of substantial concern. Another problem with cell phones is the duration of the distraction. Most other distractions are momentary... while the period of distraction with a cell phone can easily be several minutes. As the length of the distraction increases, the likelihood of error by the driver increases exponentially. Finally, the cell phone law may be as much as an "educational tool" as it is a way to cut down on a statistically identifiable problem. The fact that it is making news is an example of what I mean. Many people who might never have given a moment's thought to the issue may think twice about using their phone while driving, "just because" there is a law about it. And for those that don't... well... I can imagine only very few scenarios were driving while talking on the phone is really absolutely necessary. And those kinds of emergencies really are quite rare. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 15 (view)

Did you know? (New Law Passed June 12 2009) Posted: 8/12/2009 12:30:27 PM
Susan CD I guess next they'll be allowing the police to pull people over & ticket them for having their tires inflated at the wrong level (for our safety, of course). As a technical matter, they already can pull you over and ticket for such a violation. It comes under the category of the list of things that are required for a motor vehicle to be allowed on the road. It is not as obvious as a broken headlight, for example, but in theory they can ticket for it just as easily. Captain Girly Girl I think it's dumb, and it will be interesting to see if and how they can actually enforce it. Are they going to seize my cell phone to prove I was on a call? Are they going to try and subpoena my phone bill? As for the law being dumb, I would counter that what is dumb is the fact that there is actually a need for it. Unfortunately, most if not all of us can tell stories of some idiot driving in a dangerous manner because they were paying too much attention to their cell phone. As for how they will enforce it... I would submit the "proof" will be the same as most of the other "proof” in traffic court... The cop said so. Cops enjoy a special status as far as testimony goes. The judge automatically accepts what the cop says as gospel, unless evidence can be entered to cast doubt upon what was said And since you are guilty until proven innocent in traffic court (in my opinion anyway), the cop saying “I saw him” is about all it will take to get a guilty verdict. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 32 (view)

Gun blazing at a North end wedding social. Posted: 8/3/2009 4:30:35 AM
CaptainGirlyGirl Which could very likely result in charges of carrying a concealed weapon, possessing a weapon dangerous to the public peace, and other weapons related charges. WolfWoman you gonna have Cpt Girlie Girl on your case perty soon In fairness, CaptainGirlyGirl's comments might be construed as a warning. And they are correct, as far as they go. She did not offer an opinion as to whether or not they were right in a social (or any other) context, simply that charges were possible. I don't see that the jab was necessary. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 4 (view)

Friday June 26 - BAJA BEACH CLUB - The Forks Posted: 6/23/2009 5:48:38 PM
Well... If the weather right now is any indication, it looks like you will have great weather for it. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 25 (view)

manitoba nurses named if found abusing drugs and alcohol on duty Posted: 5/13/2009 6:36:12 AM
There are several things that need to be considered here... not the least of which is the well being of patients. In many professions, being caught at work while under the influence of any non prescription drug would result in immediate dismissal. Thereasons are simple. The employer may be liable if the impaired individual remained and was injured, not to mention the cost of replacing damaged product and/or equipment. However, in nursing, as with many other unionized enviroments, firing, even with cause, is difficult. We also live in a society that expects ever increasing dilligence on the part of employers, even prior to hiring. One way to prevent hiring someone who is a serious liability is to have some way of checking to see if they have used drugs while on duty. See the listing in the trade publication. It might sound harsh... but in this case, "damaged product" means that someone got hurt because the nurse was impaired. As a society, we have deemed this risk to be unacceptable. Even the majority of those who would promote leagalization of some drugs would stop short of allowing impaired individuals to be in positions were impairment might harm others. The reality is that when you are being payed for your time, you agree to a certain set of conditions. Lack of impairment due to drugs, legal or not, is normally one of those conditions. Failing to comply with those conditions and getting caught doing so will likely have consequences. It must also be realized by all concened that we are not talking about a minor infringement of those conditions. It stands to reason that the consequences would not be minor either. As traumatic as it may be, (and I in no way am minimizing the effect of being on that list), a nurse on that list might consider herself lucky. By being on the list, it implys she still has a job in her chosen carreer. She will have suffered from being on that list. But not nearly as much as someone who might have come under her care while she was unnecessarily impaired. While I understand that the stated purpose of the union is to protect its members, it does no one any good by trying to protect those who are ignoring the purpose of its members' duties. It is my understanding that in the nurses contract, there is already assistance available to assist with "medical" problems such as addiction. To further protect someone who is on duty while impaired not only puts the patients at risk, it puts the other nurses (also members of the union) in harms way, not to mention affecting the respect of the profession as a whole. By having a list of those who have been caught impaired on duty, the implication is that the profession considers such behavior a serious aberation, something that is so serious that it will be addressed. This leaves the rest of those within the profession not on the list to be innocent of such behaviour by default. This is good for the respect of the profession as a whole, and for those within it. It is even good for those who end up on the list, believe it or not. If you were on the list 5 years ago, you might be able to state what has been to prevent yourself from landing on it again, if you are looking for work. No one is beyond repair, nor is one's character. That being the case, respect is something that can be earned. It is a lot easier to earn that respect back if you are not looking over your shoulder, wondering when some nasty little secret in your past is going to blow up in your face. Last, but lnot least, we need to remember what we are talking about here... The usage of drugs... which is something that for the vast majority of us is a choice. For those who can not control themselves, (and even a large percentage of addicts can exhert some control over when to indulge if for no other reason than self preservation), removing them from the nursing floor is indicated. And if you can choose to indulge in a impairment causing substance, then you also choose to risk the consequences of getting caught. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 38 (view)

Canada's largest wind farm to be set up in southern Manitoba Posted: 4/10/2009 4:49:50 PM
With regard to nuclear... The CANDU reactors have a perfect safety record. The biggest thing wrong with them is timing... They were brought out in the middle 80's... right around the time of a huge anti-nuclear back lash. As for setting up solar panels instead of a wind farm? Solar cells are very expensive to make by comparison... and extremely inefficeint. As in 10% if you are lucky. Wind is not great... but typically 30% if I recall correctly... Which is huge compaired to solar. Also... wind can be set up as AC directly from generation... which makes it easy to step up to transmission levels.... Solar is strictly DC... which means costly transformation. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 19 (view)

Repair or Replace Posted: 4/10/2009 4:22:58 PM
Only when you buy the deluxe models with transwarp technology :) T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 76 (view)

Police use Taser during arrest of 15-year-old outside Gordon Bell school Posted: 4/6/2009 11:20:35 PM
CaptGirlyGirl WPS is pretty pathetic if they need to taze a 15 year old girl to control her. It's not like she was some expert with the knives. However, police have gotten completely lazy and cowardly now that they can use tasers. Why try to exert physical control when you can just tase? I often enjoy reading your opinions... but I think you are wrong on this one. Why tase rather than just use "physical control"? Simply because it is dangerous for all involved, including the suspect. A long time ago I had to learn how to deal with people with knives.... And to do it without anyone getting hurt, you not only need to know what you are going to do and how to do it, you also need to have a whole host of other things go just right. Any factor that does not go perfectly, and somebody can get badly hurt. Age and gender really are irrelevant here. That somebody might be you, it might be the person with the knife, or sometimes both. A taser, on the other hand, is generally predictable. There are far fewer things to go wrong. Granted, on rare circumstances they do go wrong, and the results can be tragic. Still, the likelihood of tragedy from a taser is far less than from a fire arm. It's a general rule in the military you don't get to shoot until lethal force is shown/ suggested to you, It is true just having a knife in your possession is not lethal force. However, when brandished as a weapon you have your suggestion of lethal force. As for whether or not the knife was "c0cked" or not... it is automatically as soon as an aggressive stance is taken with it. I think it's really stupid to tase a 15 year old girl just because she has a knife. If police aren't willing to risk going home differently than they showed up, they shouldn't be police. "Risking" going home differently than they showed up is done when ever they show up to something they already know involves risk. However, using the method of dealing with that risk that is statistically highest in harm would not only be "stupid", it would fail to benefit anyone, least of all the knife holder. And personally, what I am willing to risk is one thing. What I am willing to allow is another. While I might be willing to risk harm in that kind of situation, I certainly would not be in a hurry to take a course of action that would allow her to harm me. Try to disarm her? There were two of them and one of her. Again, is our police force so terribly trained that 2 police members can't remove a knife from a 15 year old girl? A 15 year old girl is strong enough and fast enough to be dangerous with a knife, especially if that knife happens to have a decent edge on it. As the person on the wrong end of her potential assault, you have to make worst case assumptions... failure to do so can get people killed. At the point she brandished the knife as a weapon, you expect that she is going to use it. I also find it highly likely she would have stated as much. You must also expect that she intends to seriously injure those she attacks... Anything less would be pointless from her position. And as for the training WPS receives... I happen to know (because of information acquired after the Dumas kid was shot) that the training that the cops get may or may not be good enough from the physical point of view (meaning the physical actions needed to disarm someone with a knife) but they fail from the psychological point of view. The cops train(ed) with a rubber knife. They do not gain the confidence critically needed in that situation to actually know that they can take that knife away... because they have not risked personal injury of any kind in doing so. With a rubber knife, no matter how serious you are about training, no matter how well you did, in the back of your mind, it was still "just a rubber knife". Fortunately, that will be/is changing. A new tool is/will be used in place of the rubber knife. It is called a shock knife, and it exactly what the name says it is. You mess up in your attempt during training, and you get a nasty shock... it actually feels like you are being cut with the knife. (Yes, I know from first hand knowledge) In addition, some things need to be practiced daily to keep up... and the reality is that if a cop was going to do that much training every day, he would never have time to get into the cruiser. Now, I do happen to like my face, but if I was a police officer, I'd think taking that kind of personal risk is part of my job. Kinda like soldiers and firefighters know their jobs may cost them their lives. Soldiers I would expect and firefighters I know evaluate risk, and use every piece of equipment at their disposal to mitigate said risk. The police are still obliged to protect the life of the 15 year old- it's debateable if they are when tasering her. It is true the cops are obliged to protect the life of the 15 year old were possible. The moment she chose to use the knife as a weapon, she just made this task considerably more difficult. I would submit however, that is exactly what they did... Consider the options: Physical Force (Control) RISK: While taking control of the suspect, she, the police, or both, could be injured by the knife. Also possibility of other injuries to suspect such as broken bones or strains in ligaments or muscles PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS WITHOUT INJURY: LOW Pepper Spray, if they had some on them... They spray this stuff in her eyes... RISK: She then starts to flail with the knife, injuring herself or others because she can not see PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS WITHOUT INJURY: MEDIUM Taser: RISK: eurhythmia, nerve or muscle damage is a statistical possibility, but very very low PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS WITHOUT INJURY: VERY HIGH FireArm: RISK: fatal injury PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS WITHOUT INJURY: Near 0% So now you are a cop who, for what ever reason, has to detain this individual. They have just brandished a knife as weapon, and the above goes through your head. I would choose the taser.... And when all was said and done... she did escape unharmed. Not bad when you consider what could have happened when she chose to draw a knife on two armed men. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 16 (view)

Repair or Replace Posted: 4/6/2009 8:56:42 PM
The socks end up in between the inner and outer tubs... where they ground into nothingness... And pumped out with the water. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 13 (view)

Repair or Replace Posted: 2/25/2009 8:15:08 PM
The inglis washer can probably be repaired fairly inexpensively by someone not trying to rip you off. It sounds like the "wig-wag" (yes, that is the proper name) is not pulling in... typically fairly inexpensive to fix. Inglis washers have a nearly bullet proof transmission... GE on the other hand... are not so simple, expensive to replace, and dump oil on clothes when they die. If it is only a start button on the dryer, then again, fairly simple and inexpensive to fix... T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 11 (view)

Repair or Replace Posted: 2/23/2009 4:37:39 PM
Somewere along the line, I spent 8 months in an appliance repair shop, rebuilding, you guessed it.... washing machines. As far as a preference between top loaders and front loaders... Front loaders tend to be more effecient in terms of water usage, and they do not beat up your clothes near as much as a top loader. Therefore you get longer wear out of your clothes. They are also much simpler mechanically, thus easier to fix. Note that easier does not always translate into cheaper. It is true that unless mounted on a proper stand, you have to bend down to use a front loader... and although I have not looked at prices in a long time, it used to be that front loaders were significantly more expensive to purchase. It was generally considered by people "in the know" at the time that you got the difference in the purchase price back many times over in savings on both clothes and energy. This tended to be born out in the fact that most large laundrys (ex hospital, commercial, etc) used front loaders. My vote for what it is worth.... front loader. As for the cost of fixing the dryer... It actually depends on which switch has failed. It can be one of three or four that come to mind. It will depend on which switch... This will affect both the cost of the switch, and the work involved in changing it. As for the washer that will not agitate... if the washer will spin, then it is not the belt. This leads to asking what kind of washer is it. Depending on the brand, it could be as simple as a broken wire, and 20 minutes to fix, to a busted transmission. If you would like to send me more information, I would be happy to give you less generic responses on the repairs. :) T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 24 (view)

I hereby declare that... Posted: 1/17/2009 6:57:56 PM
Ram... Some of the cell phone providers... ( Ithink MTS for example)... does have a package that does show the kids location on google maps. Or had anyway...I saw it some time ago. Failing that... I just happen to know about a tracking project that does that. It was not intended for kids... or people for that matter... but would not be hard to convert. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 54 (view)

An article: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means (Chivalry).” Posted: 1/15/2009 12:04:21 AM
I gotta agree with the posters who believe that this is just another women-bashing thread. But at least you took the scenic route OP. Edit: Oh I would also love to meet one of these women who cusses men out for holding a door open for them. I believe they only exists on women-bashing threads. Come on ladies fess up. Who here yells at men for holding a door open? Oh excuse me, the man who holds doors was assaulted physically by said woman. She didn't yell at him. I do not believe I was woman bashing... just drawing attention to a few relevant facts. And I suppose perhaps I should not post on "controversial" subjects when exhausted. One significant point I missed last night was this: If men are trying to be respectful of women... and they were led to believe that women no longer wished to be treated according to the mythological concept of chivalry... Then clearly a respectful man would cease doing so. As I also alluded to, perhaps not strongly enough, is that what I call the feminist radicals did not represent the majority of women who wished to be given equal treatment and respect to that of males. Expecting to be treated equally is entirely reasonable. Expecting equal opportunities, and equal pay for equal work is, of course, also reasonable. Being judged on the work that was done, not by the gender of the person who did the work is also completely just. These things were the "desires" of the majority of women. However, the radicals made the same statements, even while trying "to be a little more equal" than everybody else. And because the radicals were far more aggressive (in more ways than one) in making themselves heard, many (dare I say most) men came to associate the perfectly reasonable premises of the majority of women with the unreasonable bhavior of the radicals. This left many on both sides of both genders confused... A great many men ( I think it would be fair to say most, although there were admittedly "pockets" of them that did not) readily agreed with the idea of equal rights. What they were fighting was radical's idea of equal. Now, being that the majority of women desiring equal rights would not even imagine stooping to some of the behaviors of the radicals, many had difficulty believing that such things occured, and or were occuring. The above quote is a fine example. Here is a person who has no idea who I am, what I believe in, or what I stand for. But she is prepared to jump accuse me of lying in the form of ridicule, because she (hopefully) can not fathom anyone partaking is such unreasonable behavior. But it was exactly these kinds of incidents that a great many men came to associate womens demand for equal treatment with, because of the similarity of part of the message coming from the women who perpetrated them. Even today, many men who believe in equal treatment for both sexes will get very defensive (to say the least) as soon as the topic of feminism is raised, because these kinds of incidents are what are associated with feminism. Thus, the belief in chivilry went out the window for most. I was lucky. My grandfather taught me to always treat a lady as a lady. And I do. Like the men who still work at keeping woman at least one step beneath them, the feminist radicals are a dying breed. Niether are completely gone yet, but with each passing day there are fewer and fewer. This leaves woman who want to be treated both as an equal, and as a lady. They can get that treatment back, if they encourage it from the men. Most men like to bring a smile to the face of any lady. And if we are lucky, perhaps the behavior can be re-installed as a belief in the way things should be done. So was I woman bashing... not in the slightest. I highly respect women. Has radical feminism left a bad taste in my mouth... you bet. But I am one of the lucky guys who has learned that there is a big difference between radical feminism and what most women want. And ladies... do yourself a favor. Instead of calling a man a liar when he tells you of some of the things the radicals did... which is about the worst response there could be... (attacking him for retelling an experience is not woman bashing)... simply explain to him that they did not represent what the majority of women really want. The experience will be educational... and much more pleasant for both of you. Nap time... T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 29 (view)

An article: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means (Chivalry).” Posted: 1/14/2009 1:20:23 AM
First let me say that as an educational piece, I am quite enjoying this forum. Now... as a man of principal, honor, and integrity, (and perhaps even a little chivalrous) I qutie agree with Ameera in msg #24. Particularely A true man of honor behaved with chivalry because he believed in it; it was NOT dependent on circumstance or how he was treated. It was his moral code. and If your code of honor is dependent on the behavior of others, then it is no true code of honor, IMO. However, as a man living in the real, modern world, I would offer that while the "code of honor" must still be followed, just as many of the other definitions (lady, for example) the implimentation of said code has needed to change a little as well. Although not as common now, through the eighties and into the nineties, opening a door for a lady could find the man getting clobbered by said "lady". I am not speaking of the stinging but relatively harmless slap to the face, but a full on closed fist assault. Defence of said assault (note I said defence, which does not include any offense) could still land you in hot water (boiling oil ) with the local constabulary Even these days, offering assistance to a lady crossing the street because it is icey can earn you a less than gentle rebuke. So while a fellow might still believe in the old code, it is difficult to put into practice with confidence, or even knowing on which end of the sword he might fall. As has been noted, a considerable part of that code was based on the prevailing thought of the day that a woman was relatively helpless, and needed to be "protected" by said knight. When what I will refer to as radical feminism (not in any way the same as equality, at least in my opinion) came out and not only claimed that women no longer needed protecting, but that they should now be able to assault men (physically, verbally, etc) with impunity to make up for past wrongs, many men discarded the notion of chivalry. Admittedly for most it was done out of self preservation, but it was still caused by a breaking of that code by the feminists first. And even back in the time when it was practiced, a knight thought more than twice about provoking the "wrath" of a lady. This in turn raised the next generation of "men" who had never been taught how to properly treat a lady. Unfortunately while the radical feminists did not speak for all women, like many other small but "vocal" groups they were the ones that were heard. And they did make sure they were heard. Many men heard from them so often, they did not realize in reality just how few women they might actually represent. This has lead to the problems of the present day. Many ladys still want to be treated like ladys, but the "art" of chivalry is nearly lost as the result of the radical feminists efforts. Many men still cringe when they see another hold open a door for a lady. Many ladys are pleasantly surprised that there are still a few men around who will do so. The man cringing then typically stands amazed as the lady does the lady like thing and says thankyou. Then man holding the door breaths a sigh of relief as he says "you welcome". Chivalry may still be in the intesive care unit. But everytime a lady acts like a lady, she brings the good parts of it back to health. I am beginning to ramble... it is 03:20 after all... Good night folks. Time for a nap. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 21 (view)

Away from here for a year and I see the same women-why? Posted: 1/12/2009 3:45:56 PM
For those in this forum and else-were... who have been around here and have run into perhaps more than their share of players... (Unfortunately, not hard to do)... I can attest that there are folks who are actually here to find someone else... How do I know? Other than the usual "cuz I am one of them"? (I am, but that is not the point.) Because there are just enough people who actually make a connection and stick together... despite the rest of immediately available "candy". There have been several marriages around here in the last couple of years from POF... so it is working for some at least. For some of us, I guess it is just a matter of perseverance and hope. That too, might be why the pics of some are "still here." Best of luck too all those who continue to wait and try... T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 46 (view)

Photo Radar.... I was driving along, minding my own business Posted: 11/8/2008 6:58:40 PM
Seen it many times in court? Not so much a matter of not learning, as having a knack for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Anytime I was speeding and was caught, I chose to take the risk, and in doing so, chose to pay the price if caught. It is called responsibility. I only went to court if I was charged with something that I did not deliberately commit and was legally defensible, or was something I was not guilty of. However, considering the amount of hours per week I spent behind the wheel, over all, I did fairly well. As for them counting against insurance and licensing... I do not remember how that part of it worked out (as I said, it has been a while) but I have a foggy recollection that the it depended on how the judge ruled. If he ruled in such a manner that there was no "penalty", it did not affect your license. However if the judge only reduced the penalty, thn your license was still affected.

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 43 (view)

Photo Radar.... I was driving along, minding my own business Posted: 11/8/2008 11:51:55 AM
Well... as I said... This information directly from those whose job it is to know the law, and how to apply it, as well as considerable experience in court. When figuring out the lay of the land, I am inclined to listen to them. That is why we pay the lawyers.. Because they are expected to know the law. Judges are made judges, in part at least, because they have demonstrated knowledge of the law. That is why the wise man listens to the judge. "Guilty with explanation" was a valid plea, unique to traffic court, and was changed along with other changes in the legislation. Actual court would not accept a plea that was not valid under the law. So if "guilty with explanation" was an actual plea, which it used to be, then there had to be a law allowing it. One other thing... If you plead not guilty to speeding, by saying you were passing another car at the time, you will be found guilty. I have seen that many times in court. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 40 (view)

Photo Radar.... I was driving along, minding my own business Posted: 11/6/2008 12:18:02 AM
Actually printer, we both use a a different frame of reference my frame of reference was instruction of the HTA from judges, magistrates, and lawyers... all specializing in traffic law. This obviously would include not only the HTA itself, but application and precident. Significant time spent actually in court also plays a part. You see, when I was a lot younger than I am now, I spent a lot of time and money in traffic court. This necessarily meant that if I wanted to keep my license, I was going t o have to defend myself... which often meant hiring lawyers... good ones... in order to keep this privelidge. "Guilty with explanation" was more than "just a magistrates discretion". When asked "how doyou plea?", "Guilty with explanation" was a valid plea. The only two other accepted pleas are obvious... guilty, and not guilty. The risk was that if the judge did not accept your excuse, you had already plead "guilty" to the offence. In order to use mechanical failure or inaccuracy in the speedo, there were specific requirements that had to be met. Any traffic lawyer worth his salt could rattle them off, in order to you. The guilty with explanation could be used for any offence that brought you to traffic court... with varying degrees of success of course. How it arrived as being a valid plea remains to be seen. It was not a detail that I cared much about. I was more concerned with how to use it. However, being a valid plea in any traffic court, it would certainly have to written into the law somewere. Having been a good Tin_Man on the roads for a considerable period of time, along with changes in the law, I can not say when it was removed. I only know that the last traffic lawyer I dealt with (about 2 years ago) told me "it has been removed as a valid plea". If it had not existed, no lawyer would ever make reference to it. They have to be much too careful with what they say. As for the 7% or 10... the way it was explainded to me, judges and magistrates HAD to provide that as a minimum tolerance. They could provide wider lenience, but not less. That was the law. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 36 (view)

Photo Radar.... I was driving along, minding my own business Posted: 11/5/2008 12:13:48 AM
Printer... Sorry no such law The guilty with explanation use to be there... I know that, because I have used it, successfully. As I said... things have changed a lot lately, and I have been told it is no longer there. As for the 7 % or 10... The magistrate told me that it was to take into consideration inaccuracies in speedometers. I happened to be before him for speeding, pleading that my speedometer was out. This would be about 20 years ago. I will admit I have never actually checked to see if it existed under HTA, but if you can not trust the magistrate assigned to traffic court on these things... who can you trust. Incidently, he was the one who also explained to me how "guilty with explanation" worked. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 27 (view)

Photo Radar.... I was driving along, minding my own business Posted: 11/4/2008 3:45:39 AM
Ok... this is the way it used to be... say... 15 years ago... A magistrate once told me that under the law, you are allowed 7% of the maximum posted speed, or 10 kph, which ever is higher. Years ago, if your speedometer was reading incorrectly and you got a ticket, you had to go to one of the few places in town, and have the readings certified. You could then plead "guilty with explanation". If the certificate from the mechanic showed that you could have had a valid reading on the speedomter for the speed you were clocked at, the judge would usually let you off. He did not HAVE to, but most of the time they did. I have been told of late, however, the ability to plead guilty with explanation has been removed. I do not know how that affects the "mechanical problem" excuse. For those of you who care... An easy way to find out how far out your speedo is... On Highway 1, east of winipeg, is a 10 kilo stretch with signs at every kilometer. Keep your vehicle at exactly 100 kmph. Time how long it takes you to complete the 10 k. If it takes less than 6 minutes, you are travelling faster than your speedo says. If it takes more than 6 minutes, you are travelling slower. To find the percentage you are out, (time that it took)/time it should take) x 100% For calculation puposes, it is easiest if you convert both to seconds. So for example, if it took 5:50 to cover that distance, the calcuation would be 1. convert to seconds--- (560) + 50 =350 seconds. 2. perform calulation -- (350/360)100% =97.2% This means your speedometer is only reading 97.2% of the speed you are actually travelling. I hope this helps. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 24 (view)

Tuesday Night Pub Stumpers -Starting May 20!!!! Posted: 10/24/2008 3:08:25 AM
Does anyone know if this is still going on? T_M

tin_man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 25 (view)

Single Father Who Is Being Aliented From His Daughter By His Ex Posted: 10/23/2008 1:14:56 AM
Op... Here is the brutal reality. To get anywhere, you need to go through the legal system. Note lack of word justice. To do that, the first thing you do is figure out how much money you can spend on legal assistance. You WILL need the very best you can get. And make sure that the lawyer you get is willing to fight for you. Too many of them will be conciliatory ad nauseum, because it put money in their pocket while they do nothing. Not that always fighting is what you want. There is a time to fight, and a time to negotiate, and a time to talk. But the lawyer you find needs to be able and willing to do what it takes. Then LISTEN to what he/she says. If you strongly disagree, check around and get second opinions. If the second opinions agree with your lawyer, then do what you are told, whether you like it or not. Remember, the goal here is your daughter's well being. Part of the plan should be the suggestions included by brown_eyed_woman and TravelingMel. And I will say it again for good measure... DOCUMENT everything. It has not been said so I will also mention this: Document everything you are doing as well... All the plans mentioned with regard to sleeping arrangements, schools, etc. Also document everything you do with your daughter when you have her. Were you went, what you did, what she likes, what she does not like, etc... So that if/when you are called upon, you can show that you have a relationship with your daughter. Document every time you talk on the phone, with brief notes about the conversation, etc. And one other thing. You know and I know that child support and access are two completely different issues. However, unless on the specific advice of your lawyer, STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE PAYMENTS. Do not be late... ever. Because many of the judges look at that. Get receipts, or pay by cheque and retain stubs. Will all this guarantee success? Unfortunately, no. Although the various acts that look after custody and access are Federal, interpretation and enforcement is left to each province. So were a more liberal province might be more inclined to grant your petitions easily, a more conservative one wont. Some judges are coming to realize that fathers are more than a paycheck... and others subscribe to the description given by BGSU. So, if there is no guarantee this will work, why bother? Because, it really is the only choice you have. You can work at going through the system, and maybe make some progress, or walk away from your daughter. And remember to stay the course. Progress can be excruciatingly slow. The odds are good that progress will be made over time. How much remains to be seen, but for your daughter's sake, some is better than none. I wish you and your daughter the best of luck. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 23 (view)

Paintball Afternoon - October 4th - Paintball Paradise - Winnipeg - 2pm Posted: 9/30/2008 5:13:48 PM
I am afraid something has come up, and I will not be able to make it. Seems like the numbers are good though... I am sorry I am going to miss it. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 7 (view)

Paintball Afternoon - Cotber 4th - Paintball Paradise - Winnipeg - 2pm Posted: 9/18/2008 5:56:42 PM
Count me in... I have always wanted to try iy, but have never gotten around to it. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 45 (view)

Meeting halfway? Posted: 8/29/2008 12:02:57 AM
One other point here is interesting... And I bring it up only because I was previously reading a thread that was discussing "gender equality".... "discussing being a very kind way of describing it... LOL Now before I get flamed here, please note, this is simply an observation.... not an indictment. Personally, although each situation is unique, I generally offer to do the travelling first, because it is just the way I do things. But in a day and age were men and women are supposed to be equal, I note that the vast majority of posters so far on this thread believe that it is the man that is supposed to do the travelling in situations were travelling is required. Double Standard? You decide. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 44 (view)

Meeting halfway? Posted: 8/28/2008 11:55:30 PM
Op... First things first... Honesty is always the best policy. If you feel you have to lie in order to get past the next step, or hide something about yourself, then the guy is not for you... That simple. Next... In answer to your question... I think how the guy responds to your particular issues is really about how you present them. Some good suggestions have been made here that follow along a general principal... so I will spell out the principal. If the guy asks you to drive half way, explain why you wish not to. You have perfectly valid reasons. If you stop there, the guy might think you were blowing him off. But if you then offer an "equalizer" showing that you are prepared to put as much effort into the meeting as he is, although in a different way, no guy should have a problem with that. I happen to think your picnic approach is wonderful! Of course, if he has a similar issue, then the both of you need to find a more creative approach of bridging the gap. As an example, I went to meet a lady 2 hours away from here by plane once. It would have been pointless to meet in the middle... But as it turned out she worked in the hotel industry and could get a great deal on a hotel room. So that was her contribution to the meeting. Although we mutually agreed upon meeting that we would be friends, we both hada good time. It was a great way to spend my 40th birthday. Another poster asked... Why do we always think that special one has to live across the miles. While I don't think she has to live far away, I just don't rule out the possibility. While it would be wonderful if the person I seek was nice and close, I can not think of anyone next door I would care to date. All distances thereafter are relative to each person. Indeed, many simply refuse to consider the concept of "longer distances"... whatever they are to each person... the reasons vary. Then there are those, such as myself, who refuse to let what I refer to as geographical inconvenience get in the way. The more serious individuals are about finding the person they seek, the farther they are likely to go to find them. It is a given however, that if the relationship becomes "serious", one or both of you are going to have to move. This normally happens anyway, but the bigger the distance of the move, the bigger the step it becomes. Just make sure were it is you know in advance were you stand on that subject as well. Some people can move easily... they have skills that are in demand anyway they care to go, and very little "keeping" them were they are. The opposite end of the spectrum might be a single person with children that can not me moved for any variety of reasons. At one time I thought the idea of LD was something that could never work. Then I saw two people connect who were diagonally across the globe from each other. And other couples with varieties of distance have since made it work that I am aware of. So I was forced to re-examine my thinking. Best of luck to you... And take a picture of the look on the guy's face when he sees your picnic. It will probably be priceless! T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 57 (view)

Zipping....along at 150 feet up Posted: 8/24/2008 9:48:12 PM
Well... Count me in now for next year.. :) T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 52 (view)

Zipping....along at 150 feet up Posted: 8/24/2008 6:49:04 PM
It was definitely a blast.... And the company was great! Thanks SBB for putting this one together! T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 53 (view)

The Death of Mal-Wart? Posted: 8/19/2008 12:51:24 AM
It has been my observation over the years that many of the places that have unions (meaning have had them for a substantial period of time) often no longer need them, (and sometimes are now detrimental), and that the places that really do need them (Walmart might be a good example) don't have them. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 3 (view)

Pizza night - Thursday, August 14/08 Posted: 8/13/2008 8:31:53 PM
I keep trying to get there, but I will be out of town this week. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 21 (view)

Whose fault is it anyways? Posted: 8/11/2008 9:26:45 PM
Thanks Dianthus T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 17 (view)

Whose fault is it anyways? Posted: 8/10/2008 2:32:24 AM
A well respected counselor who specializes in relationshp rebuilding (ie preventing divorce) is on the record as saying "There is no such thing as an innocent party in a divorce" Lack of innocence means contributed to the breakdown of the relationship. The point here is not about assigning blame however, but examining your own behavior as it applys to the situation. The difference is huge. Instead of arriving at the statement "I was 14.3% to blame" examining your own behavior might arrive at the statement "I ignored my spouse some of the time". Both are hypothetical. One assigns an irellevant number... the other provides you with an opportunity to not make the same error in future. Sometimes the contribution might be small... sometimes not. As I am of the opinion that blame is irrelevant and counter productive in most cases (not limited to relationships) the size of the blame is really not important. What is important is how you choose to respond to the results of your self examination. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 38 (view)

Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War Posted: 7/18/2008 3:05:57 PM
While I agree with MontrealGuy's comments in principal, I think a part of the problem many Canadians have is that so often in this country so many absolve themselves from responsibility when it is not convenient. This includes many from whatever Prime Minister we happen to have at the time to the "lowliest" citizen. And they always have a "good reason". Now to be fair, sometimes there are mitigating circumstances, and there really is a good reason... accepted by superiors or not. So when someone like MontrealGuy talks about responsibility, obligations of oath, etc., that so few of us actually value and would stand up for... It tends to go against the grain of those who would simply say, "Well... they don't have to be responsible for ____". In my opinion, if we treated more people with respect, and demanded the responsibility that goes with it, we would have far fewer problems here... and perhaps the same could be said in the US too. Now as to how these people that see the war as illegal and do not want to fight... How do they best address the situation? I am not sure. Although I can see they are obligated by their conscious to refuse an order they see as illegal, that is not the same as deserting. On the other hand, are they likely to get a sympathetic ear at court marshal, which is part of the process? Somehow I doubt it. Perhaps there is a better way for them to proceed, perhaps not. But deserting to Canada, or anywhere else for that matter, only makes them look a whole lot worse. Part of the problem is that standing up for what you believe often has a price... and at times that price can be very large. Being willing to pay that price is part of separates men from adult males. No one wants to go to jail for doing what they feel is right... but if 200 men had gone to jail for refusing what might be an illegal order, it would have brought a considerably larger amount of attention favourable to them and their cause... instead of the negative attention they receive from deserting. In an odd sort of way, being returned to the states may cause them to take up that fight yet. I really do not know whether we should be sending them back or not. I still have to think about that one. But while I can respect someone willing to take a hit for acting on their conscious, I think in this case they tried to do without the penalty that comes with it. And right or wrong, it gets cheapened by doing so. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 6 (view)

Socks get holes in them over time, Do relationships too? Posted: 7/15/2008 12:58:57 AM
Like a hole in a sock, holes in relationships get much bigger if neglected. If neglected for too long, the "hole" can be irrepairable. But unlike socks, if it is just a small "hole", with effort from both, it CAN be repaired, and be better than ever. So I have been led to believe, and silly or not, will continue to believe. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 16 (view)

Zipping....along at 150 feet up Posted: 7/13/2008 11:36:09 AM
This sounds like it could be a blast. I would be in if there i a pof zip. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 21 (view)

Where is the snow!!!!!!!!!!! Posted: 7/5/2008 12:55:59 AM
As I said in a quick note to a friend earlier... It is summer time here.... If it is not raining, I will take it, and enjoy it! T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 8 (view)

Will You Still Love Me If ....... Posted: 7/5/2008 12:51:38 AM
One thing my dog is NOT allowed to do... Is lick people's faces... anyones. YEESH! T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 19 (view)

Hiking Posted: 7/5/2008 12:39:01 AM
Some folks at the "offleash" dog park get annoyed when a dog runs up to them... And I have to ask... If they are at an "off leash park" should they not be expecting this? Particularely if they have dog too? Silly me, I thought this would be normal behavior. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 30 (view)

Share Some Relationship Advice ....... Posted: 7/2/2008 7:53:57 PM
Further to dianthus' comment... Take the time to find out wether they are friendship material or not. Remember if you don't know them, you don't know them. They could be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if you never give them a shot, you will never know. I have always like a poster I once saw a very long time ago... "Behold the turtle, who only makes progress when he sticks his neck out." At the same time, give them that shot carefully... No need to become a police statistic. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 20 (view)

Tuesday Night Pub Stumpers -Starting May 20!!!! Posted: 7/2/2008 7:41:08 PM
I was thinking of coming out... With questions like those, I don't think I will be much help to whatever team I am on... Do you think I might be able to sneak on some "poor unsuspecting" team? T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 31 (view)

Dating in the 21st Century: Change of Roles. Posted: 7/2/2008 5:39:13 PM
I find the story in message 8 to be very sweet... But fortunately.... I will never have to "buy" a woman from her father. The prince in the story did the best that could be done in the situation for his bride. I am quite sure he was aware of the misery she was enduring, and in a way appropriate to the situation, shut the mouths of every person who had made any nasty remark. However, and maybe I have missed something here, I do not see the engagement ring as an indicator of what the groom thinks she is worth. I am aware that a similar statement was alluded to by the op in the opening statement, although I personally disagree with it. We all have opinions... mine have been known to be in the minority before. Since the lady I would love and want to marry I would value beyond all measure, I can not imagine some bauble indicating how much she means to me. Indeed, by definition, there would be no diamond big enough in the world, or enough money in the world to pay for it. And if she thought the size of the price tag was a measure of her worth to me, then it is time to back up the bus all the way to the beginning. That is just not how I do things. What I was been told many years ago (and to be honest I accepted it at the time and went with it, although today I would not have done things the same way) that the prospective wife is examining said ring against 3 criteria... 1. style, appearance, etc... is it aesthetically pleasing to her... does he have enough taste, class, etc, and know her well enough to "get it right". Because if she likes small and simple, and he buys huge, she is not going to be happy regardless of the price tag. It is seen as did he take the effort to know what she wants/likes... 2. Is he going to be an adequate provider/is he going to be a tightwad? The "standard" (sorry, I really hate generalizing) thing to do is show off the ring to everyone far and near. If the ring does not look expensive, then he appears poor, and therefore she has made a poor choice. Likewise, knowing his financial situation, did he spend an appropriate amount to indicate that he is not going to be a stingy tight wad, or and irresponsible spendaholic? To the best of my knowledge, there is no precise formula for the guy to follow. I have heard "suggestions" of everything from a month's pay to a year's pay over the years. The point here is that it is all about perspective... a $ 2500 ring in one case might be considered very impressive, (young couple just starting out) were it might be considered an insult in another (both well established, later in career). The guy buying the ring traditionally has buy the ring to put on her finger when he "pops the question" which by definition means no prior consultations. Quite the balancing act. Although some have made remarks to brides to be about being worth far more than the ring might indicate, the ring was supposed to indicate that he was a good provider, etc. Which brings us to now... because in this century, many things are different. Most women don't need a provider any more, they can do quite well on their own. Indeed in some cases, they make far more than the guys they marry. Yet despite all the "equality" rhetoric, there is still this test that needs to be passed by the men. And if he happens to be one of those guys who is not a good shopper, despite all his other great characteristics.... he is DOOMED! Oh... I nearly forgot number 3... Although usually not a deal breaker, I have heard it said that getting the ring size at least close to her finger is sometimes a another of those "how well do you really know her" tests that can blow up. It has been a source of much heartbreak were none was needed. If he thinks one way, and she thinks another she can wind up very upset. Or even if they agree initially, and then "society" disagrees... she can still wind up very upset. No man who loves the woman he wants to marry is going to intentionally upset her. Seems to me society has not done either the groom or the bride much good in this situation... except to exacerbate whatever differences in thinking they might have. T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 50 (view)

Latest book Posted: 6/28/2008 11:38:57 PM
CCNA 1 Companion Guide... And can't forget PopSci

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 19 (view)

Share Some Relationship Advice ....... Posted: 6/28/2008 11:20:13 PM
Well, it may be true we are single... But then perhaps.... Many of us took the time to learn what we screwed up the last time... and are waiting for someone else who took the time to see what they screwed up... to try all the stuff we learned how not to screw up. :) It also occurs to me when I see the calibre of the advice seen on this thread that many have learned the lessons... Because if one were able to follow all of the good stuff seen on this thread along with another who did the same... assuming a few of the intangibles like the ever hard to find "chemistry"... they would have a pretty good shot. But then again... I'm single .... T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 9 (view)

Hi Posted: 6/28/2008 11:12:50 PM
^^ Ooops.... Oh well, with the directions, he would find it... Damn, I hate when that happens T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 6 (view)

Hi Posted: 6/28/2008 3:50:41 PM
You are correct. ST Boniface is the place... T_M

Tin_Man

Joined: 1/23/2005

Msg: 31 (view)

Rules of dating when in our 30's??? Posted: 6/28/2008 2:23:20 PM
Often, one looks like the other. Besides that, generalizing can often be an even worse thing to do at times, as it paints many that are not guilty of the generalization with the same tarred brush. T_M

Show ALL Forums