|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with some of the general statements: parentage is not dicated by genes.
Speaking from a perspective of "more than financial" and as a man who was raised by a step-father.
Paternity fraud is a problem and I think genetic testing should be a valid method to determine if a father should be held responsible for the child (based on the fact that father's are held responsible by law).
On the other hand, I think that a man that represents himself as a father to the children knowing that he is not the father (step-parents) should, in some way, be held responsible as a father.
I think the real clincher is someone that does not have the choice. Someone that believes themselves to be a father and takes some sort of responsiblity for those reasons, yet is not really the father. A person must make their choices based on a clear understanding of the situation. In paternity fraud cases, that clear understanding has been taken away.
Paternity fraud is nothing more than a theft, but a theft of more than money. It is a theft of identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As an intellectual exercise, let's consider the possibility of making it the de facto legal standard that DNA parentage tests are performed on every child born in the US. I know that this likely means that we have to disregard the cost and complexity of such tests for the moment, but bear with me. Every child has their parentage determined legally and scientifically. When the test results become available, the parents are notified and are given the opportunity to see them in private and without the foreknowledge of the other parent. At this time, both parents may accept or decline to see the results. If they choose the former, then the knowledge is known right up front and people cannot be deceived into believing they are the parent. If they choose the latter, then they are effectively acknowledging that they will act as the legal parents of the newborn, regardless of paternity.
I realize that doing this for all births may have the affect of delivering a slap in the face to those of established parentage, but look at it this way; here in the Northeast, all newborns are administered Silver Iodide eye drops to combat the possible effects of venereal disease being passed onto the newborn from one of the parents. Now I imagine that there are quite a few people who object to the inference that one or both had VD and that the child now has it, but you know...they get over it because it's simply the law.
So much is said and done in favor of children, yet parents are constantly reminded of how little they count in vast scheme of things. I believe that nobody has the right, whether they are children or not, to rob someone of their identity, their values, or their dignity. These are far too valuable to put on the legal chopping block.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:03 PM July 16th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
....possibility of making it the de facto legal standard that DNA parentage tests are performed on every child born in the US. I know that this likely means that we have to disregard the cost and complexity of such tests for the moment,
No. Let's not assume the tests are complex. They are actually simple and cheep. Let's do consider the costs of paternity testing.
In California about 120,000 new children are born every year. The costs of the DNA test would be under $200 per test when purchased en-masse. That cost $2.4 million per year. Let's round it up to $10 million per year to handle any so-called complexities.
Now compare that cost against the billions consumed by the CA-DCSS to establish paternity and collect on paternity fraud based child support. On the basis of costs alone we could cut the California budget by at least $1 billion!
THE CA-DCSS IS FULLY AWARE OF THIS FACT AND OPPOSES SUCH SAVINGS BECAUSE THEY WOULD LOOSE THEIR JOBS AND HIGH PAY! I know this to be true because I've sat in on paternity workgroup discussions with the DCSS officials who trembled at such a thought. We were very vocal about the savings to California.
Oh gees. Wait a minute. Suddenly we also don't need all of the courts that support the paternity fraud craze. Boom! Another $1 billion in savings! You can bet all of those judicial commissioners were opposed to such savings also. They don't want to loose their job that is based on fraud.
Oh now wait another minute. The state also gets over $120+ million in matching federal funds if they commit more paternity fraud. We cannot have that source of income go away. California must collect from the federal government even if it does mean committing paternity fraud and institutionalizing male oppression!
Oh. Then suddenly we also have men and women having equal knowledge of their biological relationship to the child. Boom! Equal rights in the form of parental knowledge, but that would be evil according to NOW and ACUL.
I kid you not! NOW argues that then the mother would need to tell the truth to the man, and that would be wrong! They really said that! The same it true of all the children's rights groups that are really feminist pussies hiding behind children.
Only an pro-fraud, pro-lie, pro-male hate individual would argue that DNA testing is too costly (if they know the facts) or somehow against the "best interest of the children."
And to think this all started over 100 years ago with the Marxist feminists in the Soviet Union..... Welcome to Amerika!
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:13 PM July 16th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Allowing men to stop paying support for the children of other men should be the secondary concern of the paternity fraud movement.
The primary goal should be to make paternity fraud a felony, punishable by SERIOUS prison time. As a bonus, women convicted of paternity fraud should be required to register as sex offenders, since paternity fraud is the rape that women perpetrate against men.
Amperro
Paranoia Is A Virtue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have the strong feeling that this legal professional would not be the least bit concerned if the father did not know he had a child. Never became involved, and then later was informed he would need to pay. No, I have a feeling she would instead call this person a dead beat dad, because he was the donor of the genetic material. She wants men whom are not the father to pay, and she most likely wants men whom didn't raise their kid to pay. I think the best way to show her the faults of her ideals is to make her pay. She would most likely cry foul saying, but I am not the father, or but I never raised the kid. As I have read on this site about numerous praternity cases where a man whom did not raise, and was not the biological father still be forced to pay, then when he could finally prove that he wasn't, he still had to pay because it was in the best intrest of the child.
I don't think anyone should forced to support a child they no longer want. Some people just don't want to adopt, why when the women lied to them must they in essence be forced to adopt them.
Inconclusion, make the women whom wrote the article pay for a child, because it is in the childs best intrests to recieve financial support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is simply an ersatz "principle" invented for the sole purpose of continuing the gravy train which is the child support industry. And, what if Mom divorces Hubby #1, marries Hubby #2, then divorces him three years later. Is his alleged "relationship" with Mom's children now going to allow her to double-dip and collect child support from both "biological" and "non-biological" parents?
Of course, it's all for the best interests of the wom.. er, I mean, children. And note the cheerleading for "non-traditional families" (meaning, "father not included").
I think it's high time for massive protests and maybe even civil disobedience when it comes to family "law". Aside from the obligations of parents to provide the basic necessities for their children, someone wearing a black robe does not, I repeat, does not have a "right" to decide what the "best interests" of the child are. It is simply an egregious, totalitarian government power grab.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:06 PM July 16th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Is his alleged "relationship" with Mom's children now going to allow her to double-dip and collect child support from both "biological" and "non-biological" parents?
The answer is yes. It is already happening in several states now. If you are a step-dad or boyfriend that the child sees as "dad" then you will pay, and so will the biological dad.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:10 PM July 16th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's high time for massive protests and maybe even civil disobedience when it comes to family "law". Aside from the obligations of parents to provide the basic necessities for their children, someone wearing a black robe does not, I repeat, does not have a "right" to decide what the "best interests" of the child are.
Sorry. Not going to happen. Amerika has decided that it like our Soviet style family law as put forth by the Socialist feminist. In fact the public supports socialist family on a massive scale.
You will literally find this support in the Christian, conservative, moderate, leftist, and progressive groups. They are the ones that voted in the politicians that gave them these laws.
What is ironic is that when the learn that our family law is now fully evolved into a socialist model they deny the truth and thus history.
Warble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually there is a movement towards civil disobedience in the US based on the group Fathers 4 Justice. It is slow in that many of the fathers behind the movement are embroiled in their own expensive and time consuming custody battles. A few small protests have been held, and banners placed, but unfortunately nothing pressworthy yet. Give them time to gain confidence. It will happen, as many people are getting fed up.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This professor argues that genetics take second place to upbringing...fair enough. But I doubt this same professor would argue that a man who has never had contact with his 8 year old child should be exempt from having to pay child support.
This is just another example of women wanting to have it both ways when it comes to child support.
When it comes to kids, women have choices. Men only have responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not so fair: every example of functional parenthood the author presents involves a person who volunteers in full knowledge of their non biological parenthood. This cannot justify coerced functional parenthood where a hoodwinked parent seeks to get out as soon as possible after becoming aware of the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These disestablishment petitions represent the emergence of a new family law phenomenon—the theory of paternity fraud.
The modern word 'cuckold' has roots in Middle English. The Ten Commandments of Judiasm/Christianity/Islam includes 'Thou shalt not commit adultery'. Even the oldest know code of laws, the Code Of Hammurabi, contains several laws dealing with adultery.
To pretend that adultery laws have nothing to do with establishing paternity is willfully stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The defenders of paternity fraud attempt to evade all the issues surrounding a child’s right to know who their biological father is, a father’s right to be a parent, equal protection under the law and so on. These are non-issues to them, and I for one don’t believe for a second that the reason they make excuses for fraud is their interest in children’s well being.
Is it really in the interest of children to grow up in a world where fraud is rewarded and where “equal protection” means that mothers are exempt from responsibility? What kind of reasoning says that to protect children we must encourage mothers to lie, cheat, steal, prevent their kids from knowing their father, and charge some other sucker for it? Anyone got examples of laws that give only fathers the right to use their kids as tools in the commission of a crime, and get rewarded for it?
The only thing that paternity fraud lovers are promoting is the woman-only right to use their own children as human shields to protect themselves from responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm married and I'd like to have kids. If I can't have my own kids, I'd like to make the decision about raising someone else's. I'm already dreading the fuss that will follow a birth by my wife when I refuse to sign the birth certificate until DNA testing has been performed. I hate that I will have to make that implicit statement of distrust there and then, and that if I don't, there will be no time to do so, ever again.
In Ray Bradbury's 'Something Wicked This Way Comes' a father lies awake at night pondering the fundamental and unknowable that every man must face, the worry that his children are not his own. I believe that rape and paternity fraud are analogous traumas. Both require a decision to either raise or abandon a life that is not of your choosing, a life which another (perhaps a stranger, perhaps someone known) has a claim to. That choice is available to women, and has been for two generations in the form of the pill and on-demand abortion. The choice for men is DNA testing at birth.
The difference between the two is knowledge. A woman knows when she's become pregnant against her will, a man doesn't know when his wife has become pregnant by another man. Without DNA screening, that knowledge may be thrust apon a man at many points during the child's life.
My wife and I are both blonde, blue-eyed and pale skinned. So if she bears a child born with brown skin, I would know it not to be mine. Many children are born bald, if the child grew black hair at two or three months, I would know then that it is not mine. Many children are born with blue eyes. If when the child turns 2 years old, their eyes have become brown, I would know then that it is not mine. If the child has a trip to the emergency room when they're 8 for a cut that needs stitches, and I learn their blood type excludes me as their father, I would know then that they are not mine. When the child is taking 9th grade biology and comes home with the task of checking for hanging or attached earlobes, and checking for hair growth on toes, they and I together would then know that they are not mine.
Under existing law, the only choice I have is to accuse my wife of adultery in the delivery room by demanding DNA proof of paternity then and there. If I fail to do so, I have no more choices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:17 PM July 16th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Under existing law, the only choice I have is to accuse my wife of adultery in the delivery room by demanding DNA proof of paternity then and there. If I fail to do so, I have no more choices.
We have found that it is the women who object to DNA testing that are committing paternity fraud. If you ask for a DNA test and then she asks if you don't trust her be afraid! Be very afraid! She is the one committing the paternity fraud.
Just tell her that she has knowledge the child is biologically hers because of the birth, and you want the same EQUAL level of knowledge. If a wife/girlfriend cannot support a man in that goal then they are guilty of infidelity.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let’s see if I have this correct…
Using the red herring of "the child’s best interest," this feminist attorney says that men falsely accused of paternity who can prove the fraud with DNA testing should have very limited legal due process to petition the courts for a rebuttal of paternity.
Hey! Now that we have reliable (i.e. evil patriarchal) technology that men can use in court, let’s change the law and make that technology irrelevant!
Maybe give him six months after the child’s birth, maybe a couple of years. But let’s make sure we define the "window of deception" the mother has to maintain, keeping the non-dad clueless – after which she can cash in on the remaining 18 years of child support for a kid he did not sire.
And, the author argues that in the Family Courts, the standard is not justice, but "the best interests of the child." So, too bad if the non-sperm-donor is on the hook for two decades of child support. (You may have been wronged sir, but you look at lot like an ATM machine in shoes to the blackrobe on the bench.)
And, let’s not get confused about treating false allegations of paternity as a "crime."
Let’s take that matter entirely out of the criminal courts, where women might actually face the consequences of their fraud.
Note what’s absent from this argument ...
no mention of the widespread extortion racket that paternity fraud has become (or how the state’s child support enforcement agencies require ever-expanding male "donors"); no suggestion that there ought to be penalties for false accusations; no interest whatsoever in the 18 years of indentured servitude a man faces under this proposed racketeering scheme to pay for his cupcake’s infidelity.
Nope. It’s "in the best interest of children" that men be merely state-conscripted wallets, soon to be tricked out with an implanted GPS tracking device...
And, let’s not have criminal proceedings for women committing paternity fraud. But I’ll bet there will be no similar dispensations for the non-dads who fail to pay their child support.
The bottom line here is only that "there shall be no laws that impede a woman’s right to extort a man through her wanton promiscuity."
I wonder what this feminist attorney and passionate advocate for "what's best for the children" has to say about abortion?
Oooops,(very un-PC),I can fairly surmise her interests are limited only to unmurdered kids...
So, if the feminists favor this particular form of exchange based on sexual commerce, deceit, and female entrepreneurship, how come they oppose prostitution?
Do they just hate only the “honest” women?
PS – I left out all the "follow the money trail" critique of this travesty, because Warble (up above in thread) nailed it cold!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very good point Roy,
Not just that be she is also one of the those women whom believe that abortion is okay, but also stand behind crimes against pregnant women should be treated as double crimes.
Perhaps they cannot see the contridiction? Well, whom would expect some people to be logical, or even possess reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under existing law, the only choice I have is to accuse my wife of adultery in the delivery room by demanding DNA proof of paternity then and there.
Not at all, Beedle. The beauty of Warble's idea is that the testing is mandatory... everybody undergoes the testing. Your wife wouldn't even know whether or not you sneaked a peek at the results. It would be up to you to CHOOSE whether or not to protest should your wife, I mean, child, fail the test.
Think of it as a kind of no-fault insurance.
It really is a beautiful idea, and I may crunch the numbers and agitate for it in Washington State.
Thanks Warble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it sadly ironic that the very same politicians debating a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage are silent on paternity fraud. One instance of paternity fraud is a bigger threat to the institution of the family than ten million gay marriages.
Where is the Family Research Council on paternity fraud? Where is Focus On The Family? Where is Eagle Forum? Where are Rush Limbaugh, Bill O' Reilly, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity?
The next time you read about or hear a senator or representative talk about the importance of one man-one woman marriage, write or ask him/her on the issue of paternity fraud. If he/she does not give paternity fraud at least the same consideration as gay marriage, then he/she is anti-family.
Amperro
Paranoia Is A Virtue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You make an excellent point, and one which I had never really given much thought to. The very people who scream loudest against gay marriages are often strangely silent on paternity fraud.
Likewise, the very people who scream the loudest for gay marriages in the name of "rights" are the same people who don't hesitate to trample a man's rights, all in the name of "the children".
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:41 PM July 18th, 2004 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
MAN, Thomas!
That literaly sent a chill up and down my spine...!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MAN, Thomas!
That literaly sent a chill up and down my spine...!
Here's another quote to consider, when you're thinking about the fact that men are being removed from the family and single women, who are often steeped in feminism, are raising the children. That is, until the feminist teachers and feminist administrators at the schools take over.
"When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already.... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’"
—Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), speech, Nov. 6, 1933
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:03 PM July 19th, 2004 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
"Your child belongs to us already...."
There are still any number of post cards, stamps, and other photos floating around that normally don't make it into books for whatever reason. A number of these photos are Adolph Hitler with children. One popular photo that's a real shocker is Adolph being saluted (sieg heiled) by Goebles' three little tots. It looks so bizarre that you think it's an absurd joke, because all the little kids are just being kids and really getting into the salute, but then you see Adoplh and those chilling swastikas on all their arms and you know it's for real. Brainwashing of children into the new feminist socialist order's Kampf (plan) is nothing new. The National Socialist Deutche Arbeit Party (NSDAP) or Nazis where certainly doing the same thing 60 to 70 years ago before today's feminazis.
What happened to all those adorable little children in that photo? To the best of my historical recollection they took poison just as Germany was being overrun near the end of WWII.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:40 PM July 19th, 2004 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"Their mother either chose to let them be killed or murdered them herself."
Maybe I'm just being simplistic to say this, but it strikes me that this is what comes of allegiance to ideology at the expense of allegiance to the family. Weaken the traditional family, weaken the true strength of any nation. It was certainly true of socialist Germany/Nazi Germany.
Is America in trouble as a nation, due to its attack on the family through its war on Fathers and men? Has the states interference in families through DCSS and CPS harmed immeasureable numbers of children more than helped them?
Ray
(click) Save Our Families
Please do not scroll up the page(s) of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is as the page comes up initially
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:24 AM July 19th, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people."
NSDAP - National Socialist Duetche Arbiet Party
Sorry for the mix of mispelled German and English. Nazi is a derivation of that achronym (NSDAP) to the best of my recollection. In plain English it reads National Socialist German Workers Party and yes Karl Marx was one of the significant influences.
The Nazi state controlled the people whose job it was to serve the state with service and children. In many ways children and people were considered property of the state, much like in America today (Feminazi uber alas), even if today's American Feminazi state denies that reality.
Here's a picture of my Uncle Herman, (click) Doughboy
Ray
Please do not scroll up the page. All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This waste of protoplasm actually used the term "Paternity Fraud", and that means more than you might realize. Paternity Fraud is an ugly term for an ugly crime. If even the feminazis are forced to use it, we could be on the slow road to victory.
Further, new terms find their way into the dictionary only by consistent repeated written use. The more the term "Paternity Fraud" is used, the greater its chances of winding up as a permanent part of English Lexicon. Use the term "Paternity Fraud" whenever the opportunity arises!
Amperro
Paranoia Is A Virtue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:17 AM July 17th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
. . .with the insistence upon mandatory testing -- despite my strong distrust of State interference and regulation and so forth, in opposition to which I take a very strong, hard line, as a rule.
Cheap, effective male birth control -- such as the very promising RISUG -- is vital, and will help considerably. . .
. . .but *mandatory testing* is absolutely *necessary*.
And to me, the thing about it that is simultaneously most disturbing and most intriguing is that those who argue against it are thus inarguably revealed for the amoral liars and male-oppressing femelitists that they are.
The only possible objection I can see which does not *necessarily* partake of this not only wholly gender-elitist but fundamentally *dishonest* POV is some kind of argument on privacy grounds RE the State's collection of data regarding Citizens. . .and somehow I suspect that a *paternity* DNA test could easily be developed which is not usefully informative in any other way.
Or may even already exist.
Which would seriously undermine any such objections.
Does anyone know much about current DNA paternity testing and results, or have links to worthwhile sources of information on the subject?
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DNA testing does not collect the actual DNA code. Performing the test does not yield any actual coding. However, if stored, it could be used in future DNA testing for comparison. Basically the data a dna test gathers cannot be used to say, check for herditary flaws, or other genetic properties. It could however be used in a data base to compare to other samples. It would be fairly simple to mandate that it is never actually recorded, just compared at that time then discarded. Unless a system was purposefully in place to record the data, there is no way it would be randomly collected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone else noticed that these vocal supporters of paternity fraud:
1.) Are always women
and
2.) Never mention the woman's culpability in the situation?
Maybe it's just me.
Amperro
Paranoia Is A Virtue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.) Are always women
For the most part that's probably true. That's no surprise, really. I mean, they're not the ones who are having hundreds, even thousands, of dollars stolen from them each month to pay for a child that's not theirs.
Although it's a big stretch of the imagination as to how this could possibly happen, rest assured that if there is ever a case of maternity fraud, the feminists would be screaming how it's unfair to make a woman pay and support a child that's not hers.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:32 PM July 17th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
"2.) Never mention the woman's culpability in the situation?"
Yes, evidnetally this lawyer was asleep during that part of the information being passed out on Paternity Frsud where they mentioned that. I mean they don't call it Paternity Inconvenience, or Paternity Roulette (although maybe they should). It's called Paternity Fraud, because a criminal Mother is intentionally or ignorantly naming a Father who is not the Father. For the state to knowingly go along with that when the means are available to determine Fatherhood makes the state nothing more than a police state, but then under radical feminist influence/laws it has been that for some time in the war on men.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:21 PM July 17th, 2004 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't notice anywhere that this biased article ever addressed the issue that these Mothers are committing fraud. This author tried to put more spin on the issue of paternity fraud than a tornado in a top factory.
Most of these paternity fraud Mother's just flat out lied so they could get the wealthiest man they could find to pay for their kid and that is just downright criminal. Those kind of Mothers should be doing hard time and silly advocates who support them should be pilloried for the hucksters they are.
Ray
(click) Liars, Cheats, & Thieves
(click) Paternity Fraud Queens
(click) 143 men
(click) Politicians Who Support Paternity Fraud
Please do not scroll up the page. All the information I am intending to convey is as the page comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't notice anywhere that this biased article ever addressed the issue that these Mothers are committing fraud.
And that’s no accident!!
Advocates of paternity fraud do their best to avoid the issue. But it’s clear that they are tacitly arguing that these crooks are entitled to immunity based on their status as mothers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anybody know her address?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
