HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: The Larger-Taxpayers Can't be Raped
Keywords: The taxpayers have no right to financially
   rape some one who does not wish to be a dad.
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:25:43 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


   Volition my boy!  Learn it and *** LIVE ***.

> > I'll protect myself from society -- by being an outlaw.
> And the taxpayers and me and your ex will pay for raising your children.
> Now who do you suppose is trying to "financially rape" whom?

   Only if the larger-taxpayers and my ex wish to pay.
   For them it's a choice -- for me it's rape.
   Sex is beautiful.
   Forced sex is rape.
   Money for kids is beautiful.
   Forced money is financial gang rape.
   
   My ex and her husband are both professionals
   who don't need government money.
   
   You don't understand:
      - Force vs volition
      - The larger society vs the individual


Woody Muller writes
>Mr. EuStress,
> . . . there is nothing random about seeking
> out a person such as you, who participated in bringing children
> into the world, and requiring you to pay for support of these children.

   Society has no right to label me a "remote wallet".
   You agree with their label -- I don't.
   I fight society.
  
> . . . for you to insist that society pick
> up the tab for them would be "financial rape" of society.

   That's impossible!??!  Who is forcing Society to pay???
   You have no idea what force means.
   You're not forced because you are a happy slave.
   You're not raped be cause you like your rapist (society).

   The taxpayers have no right to financially
   rape someone who does not wish to be a dad.

   Volition my boy!  Learn it and *** LIVE ***.

> > I'll protect myself from society -- by being an outlaw.
> And the taxpayers and me and your ex will pay for raising your children.
> Now who do you suppose is trying to "financially rape" whom?

   Only if the larger-taxpayers and my ex wish to pay.
   For them it's a choice -- for me it's rape.
   Sex is beautiful.
   Forced sex is rape.
   Money for kids is beautiful.
   Forced money is financial gang rape.
   
   My ex and her husband are both professionals
   who don't need government money.
   
   You don't understand:
      - Force vs volition
      - The larger society vs the individual
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Woody M. -- NOT EuStress -- is in Distress
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:10:00 GMT

Woody Muller writes
> EuStress in Distress

   I am very relaxed.

>I get the feeling that you have already let a court deadline or two
>lapse, and are already in contempt.  I strongly encourage you to cut
>your losses and defend yourself.  It's time to grow up.  It's not like
>like your martyr/"outlaw" stance is going to help anybody except your
>ex and her husband.

   The last "legal" thing my ex did was
   the divorce -- 5 years ago.
   There's been no legal action.

   I "actively" avoid the courts.
   Only handcuffs could get me in court
   -- and even then I would refuse a lawyer
   and I would say as little as possible.
   But I'm in Washington and my ex ignores me,
   so I probably won't ever face this.
   I think jail is funny -- at a cost to the
   taxpayers of $75 a day -- I'll be glad to let
   them give me room and board.

   I also avoid my ex.
   I flame the courts -- not my ex.
   
   I am not in "distress."
   
   A person "in distress" would go to
   court -- like I assume you are.

   Maybe we should take these personal 
   attacks to email.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women
From: terwill@arecibo.aero.org (Bill who?)
Subject: Contempting Statistics.....
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: terwill@arecibo.aero.org
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:10:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.221435.1004@u.washington.edu>, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes...
>Alan Yasutovich writes
>>	And 25% of others pay part.  That's 75%.
> 
>   No, that's another 11 (partial payers) from the 
>   58 men (out of 100) who have support orders.
>   (25+11) / 58 = 62%.
> 
>>  The * * *  M A J O R I T Y  * * * are NOT in contempt.
> 
>>  The majority *ARE* in contempt.
> 
>> "Contempt" means willful disregard.
> 
>    Yea -- like when someone doesn't pay.
> 
>  Who know what a partial payment is?
>  Who knows whether it was "willfull" or not?
> 
>  Now add the 42% who have no court order and
>  the *majority* gets even bigger -- 75% don't
>  fit in the (faithfull) Child-support payers circle.
>  75% is a majority!


Ah, statistics, they so acurately reflect reality. I went to pick up my two
kids on a friday night for their regular weekend visit with me at the end of
November 1983. 

They complained about being tired at 7:00 pm and during dinner I discovered
that their mother had two much older cousins of my children "staying over" for
the past several weeks and my childrens mattresses had been given to the
cousins while my kids were sleeping on their box springs! I asked when the
cousins were leaving and my kids stated that they both had jobs locally (they
were from Florida and this is Los Angeles) and their own phone line in their
room! 

That saturday we went and bought them new mattresses and I deducted this from
the child support payment due in December. Big mistake. I was burned by her and
her lawyer for not being current with my December payment. (Hillary Clinton
would have loved it, thank goodness it wasn't Arkansas!) Now where in the
statistics does this situation fit? 


Bill
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2929 alt.dads-rights:2116
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Truly Amazing Discovery!
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:43:53 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <1992Aug26.193246.8184@telebit.com> brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner) writes:
>[I said...]
>>2) only two people posted objections to the formation of such a group,
>>   one of them was Eric Brunner who has some sort of personal agenda
>>   that dislikes my presence,
>
>Unfortunately I can't repost that earlier response to the original suggestion,
>as I don't keep such things around. If Bob thinks its personal, well, I guess
>it never could have been about the weakness of dependency law and agencies
>in the first place. What humbug.

Only a week or so ago, you posted to Brock Serling that you had a
problem with my defense of {some} CPS organizations, accused me of
chest beating, and said you had a personal problem with my use of the
term "Tender Years." On the whole, you made it clear to Brock that you
had contempt for both my views and my activities.

In previous posts regarding the possible creation of an informational
v. loose-discussion group, you responded by belittling the proposed
forum as "BobK's little group" and stated that my views would render
it somewhat less than useful. (Ignoring the fact that it would be the
net-at-large which would provide any info to the group).

When Mr. Serling pointed out that we do share similar aims, and
suggested that we be working in concert, you refused, indicating that
you could do better alone (or something like that). When I said what
the hell, and posted a couple of complimentary comments to recent posts
you made, I received a slap for my effort.

What am I supposed to assume from this?
-- 
root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2983 alt.dads-rights:2145 alt.config:5367
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:45:11 GMT

In article <10479@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.162720.23466@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>
>>I'm not saying it should; I'm saying that criticizing a study of math
>>and reading skills because it fails to detect emotional traumas is (at
>>best) inappropriate.
>
>It certainly is appropriate when the study is sold as saying more, as it
>certainly is here.  If you go back and look at the original article, you will
>see a number of general claims.  It is blithely going from a specific finding
>to a general claim that I am criticizing.

I checked the original article.  I think you're referring to the
statement

"We need to get mothers better educated and boost income, because it's
this rather than having a father at home that affects kids the most."

In terms of the children's reading and math skills, that statement is
supported by the study.  If you want to disagree with other possible
meanings, fine, but what does that have to do with the study?  Have
you considered the likelihood that he was misquoted or quoted out of
context?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: daw@cray.com (Dave Wright)
Subject: Re: How do you find the right attorney?
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:39:53 CDT


I wish I had hired My x2b's lawyer. The fact that she thinks she has the
best lawyer in town makes her more difficult to negotiate with. Just as
important as the lawyer is the evaluator. They are about 90% of the case
and have to gender unbiased. ALso important is the mediator where most
issues should be resolved. Most cases do not go to trial so a lawyer will
only be dealing with the X2B's lawyer not the system. The lawyer will also
drag things out and drain finances. Don't let cost or retainer scare you.
Get the lawyer that can represent your position as best as possible and
truly has the "Best interest of the children" in mind. Many say they do
when in fact they care more about their bill and saving you money when
finances fall apart.

Dave Wright
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2989 soc.men:15712 soc.women:15967
From: woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: EuStress in Distress (was Re: The Larger-Taxpayers Can't be Raped)
Keywords: The taxpayers have no right to financially    rape some one who does not wish to be a dad.
Date: 30 Aug 92 15:32:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: wolves.1992Aug30.153257.5098
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
X-Md4-Signature: 3f93cfaaa7f3011f0ecf54d2d564761b

After several rounds of arguing that the taxpayers should assume the
burden of children 'unwanted' by their parents, Mr. Eustress writes:

>   My ex and her husband are both professionals
>   who don't need government money.

Are you taking steps to make sure exact amounts are determined and
brought to the attention of the court?  A smart person (note the
hypothetical) would have his advocate issue interrogatories to determine
their household income.  The courts act based on information they have,
and it is up to you and your attorney to make sure your side of the
issue is presented.

I got the impression a few weeks ago that the jurisdiction is Utah -- is
this right?  You know, Utah is one of the last bastions of paternalism,
and you might get a better deal from the court than you suspect.  But
if you run away, the courts will act based only on the information your
opponents will feed them.

You might want to try to convince her new husband to adopt.  You might
try to convince the court that the kids are already 'effectively'
adopted -- that his failure to adopt is out of malice toward you.
You might even have a reasonable shot here, but only if you cough up
the retainer and begin to fight this thing head on, rather than adopt
the position of the fleeing coward.

I get the feeling that you have already let a court deadline or two
lapse, and are already in contempt.  I strongly encourage you to cut
your losses and defend yourself.  It's time to grow up.  It's not like
like your martyr/"outlaw" stance is going to help anybody except your
ex and her husband.

-- 
woody@wolves.durham.nc.us
"Nothing in human affairs is worth any great anxiety."  -Plato
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: LESS THAN HALF (43%) of court ordered CS is paid in full!
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:59:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug25.235946.21083
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington

Michal Leah Peri writes
> > If the government wants to keep the kids in a "good" lifestyle
> > then THEY -- not some slave -- must pay for it THEMSELVES.
> Just exactly who is the "THEY" to whom you refer?

   The larger group of people.
   And yes -- that is NOT the same as the individual.

   Society can't demand family values from
   and individual -- that would be gang rape!
   Society -- as a whole -- must pay for what
   it wants.

   Gang rape is fun -- that's why we NEED an
   "Evil Empire" like Russia or Congress or
   (the majority) deadbeat dads to fight against.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women
From: king@meaddata.com (Mike King)
Subject: Re: LESS THAN HALF (43%) of court ordered CS is paid in full!
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:29:10 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug25.203342.14281@cco.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
|> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
|> 
|> >  If the government wants to keep the kids in a "good" lifestyle
|> >  then THEY -- not some slave -- must pay for it THEMSELVES.
|> 
|> Just exactly who is the "THEY" to whom you refer?

He means us...as in society.

-- 
Michael W. King     |  "I'm going to graduate on  |     (513) 865-1395   
Mead Data Central   |  time, no matter how long   |     CAPRR Conversion
P.O. Box 933        |  it takes"                  | mead!mwk@uccba.uc.edu
Dayton, Ohio  45401 |      -- Rod Brookin         |    ...!uccba!mead!mwk
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2977 alt.dads-rights:2141 soc.women:15934
From: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.women
Subject: Re: Shooting in the Courthouse: Why?
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:45:07 GMT
Reply-To: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas)
Organization: Prime Time Productions Aurora, Illinois

yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:

> In article <BtM0oy.8Fy@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writ
> >In article <1992Aug26.042447.14746@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago
> >>In article <1992Aug25.131512.8740@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutov
> >>>	A man who walks into a courtroom for a divorce is no more than
> >>>	a common criminal with no rights.
> >>
> >>Which is why, on average, men's standard of living improves after divorce,
> >>while women's standard of living declines.
> >
Oh yeah, my standard of living really improved...she has a house free and 
clear, a car free and clear, and the ability to go out and get a job and 
earn even more money, I on the other hand am working the same amount as 
always, 70+ hours a week and am living on 700 dollars a month, rent to pay 
car payment, and an inability to go out and work more!! With the economy I 
don't expect a raise this year do you?? So, how has my standard of living 
improved and hers declined and where do the majority of women live, I sure 
as hell never knew them!!

____________________________________________________________________________
|jim@jimmc.chi.il.us   |   ...And I believe in long, slow, deep, soft wet  |
|Prime Time Productions| kisses that last three days...good night...OH MY! |
|Aurora, IL. 60504     |        -crash davis to annie savoy in BULL DURHAM-|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:21:36 GMT


<Lots of stuff deleted to save Bandwidth.>

>support single mothers to go to college and better themselves. Real
>dads have been to war to preserve freedom, for their children. 
>Real dads dream and hope their children will not have to fight
>to preserve their freedom, and their 'syster's choices'. Real
>dads do the best they can and often tell others to go fuck themselves.
>
>
Three cheers from another "real Dad" . If my son didn't need me, I'd off
myself too. Its better than the hell the ex is putting me through.
>
>
>
>
>


Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,misc.legal
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: I'm Pro-Male-Choice\
X-To: R. CAGE
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 17:15:00 GMT

In deference to misc.legal, I will be deleting misc.legal from the newsgroups
line in future postings regarding this discussion, unless there is a specific
legal question that needs to be raised.  However, I have included it in this
particular post, because I am unaware of the other groups which are read by
Mr/Ms Cage.

wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes...
RC> In article <1992Aug04.060738.18832@ilx018.intel.com> donald@ilx105 (Rich Don
RC>  writes:
RC> >Abortion in physically and mentally hard on women.

RC> Not nearly as physically and mentally hard as carrying to term,
RC> in the general case.  Abortion before 8 weeks is 40 times less
RC> likely to result in death than carrying to term (the advantage
RC> drops to 10 times between 8 and 12 weeks).  Post-partum depression
RC> (which can be as bad as psychosis) is very common and has been
RC> documented for a century; "post-abortion syndrome" may not even
RC> exist, except among Catholics and others who make most things
RC> related to sex into a guilt trip.


I wish that this were true, but unfortunately, in *some* cases, it *does*
happen, and yes, it happens to women *and* men as well.

I realise that there are those who would use the argument of psychological
discomfort as an "anti-abortion" argument, but I do not agree with this sort
of propaganda.

Even so, it *does* happen ; I had a delayed reaction after trying to deny it
for TEN MONTHS, and ending up losing my job because, among other things, I was
unable to keep my mind settled without always going back to "it", and the
fact that I was unable to have a civilised discussion with anyone without
flipping out on them if they happened to make a comment even *vaguely* related
to gender issues, reproduction, relationships, sex, etc...

The experiences of other men and women will be different, and some suffer more,
and some suffer less.  Some do not even suffer at all.

However, please realise that it *does* happen, unfortunately.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Error #23: Reality Check Failed.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2911 alt.dads-rights:2104 soc.women:15784
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.women
Subject: Re: Shooting in the Courthouse: Why?
Date: 26 Aug 92 07:22:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <1992Aug26.042447.14746@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.131512.8740@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>>	A man who walks into a courtroom for a divorce is no more than
>>	a common criminal with no rights.
>
>Which is why, on average, men's standard of living improves after divorce,
>while women's standard of living declines.
>
>Is that Thelma and Louise I see gun-toting in the courthouse?

Good Lord. Ted, you just emitted a Quaylism.


-- 
root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2900 alt.dads-rights:2094
From: woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Truly Amazing Discovery!
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:07:18 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
X-Md4-Signature: 6a2fb391664a851aacbc3953ea93088b

shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:

>and you know?..despite the fact that several weeks have passed, you
>could never tell it from the current Thread..it's as if I never left!
>
>What a shame.

I've been drifting in and out of these newsgroups for the past few months,
and yes, most Usenet groups start resembling a tape loop after a while.
Our particular tape loop party breaks down into two rival camps:

(a) idealist/dreamer/ranter:  Railing at the moon and stars about the
    unfairness of life, the universe, and everything.  "Yeah, when a
    million zillion pissed off NCPs march on Washington, that'll show
    'em!"  "All I want is to be able to scr*w everything that moves
    with no personal risks."

(b) pragmatists:  Analysing the situation and trying to understand how
    and why the inequities of the system are there.  "What mechanisms
    can realistically help me improve my situation?"  "How can I/we
    bring these inequities to the attention of those who have the real
    power to change things in the state/USA/world?"

The pragmatists see the ranters as a liability.  How can we lobby for
increased rights and responsibilities for NCPs, when there are those
in our ranks who believe their children have no right to support at all?

And so, we play bat-a-ball tape-loop with each other.  Every once in a
while, a CP woman drifts into the group to share her experiences --
only to be attacked by ranters laying in wait.  This way, the ranters
protect themselves from having to try to understand the situation
from another viewpoint.  Very sad.  But very Usenet.

Fortunately, we have the mailing list, which gives a better s/n ratio,
thanks to a couple of peoples' efforts.  But it still isn't enough.  At
the risk of provoking the ranters, I'd like to revive the idea of creating
a moderated newsgroup.  Perhaps alt.family-law, but even better,
misc.legal.family.  It's a lot of work to moderate a group, and I know
I don't have the time.  I know Bob Kirkpatrick volunteered a few weeks
ago, and I for one would be comfortable with him in that position.

As I recall, the ranters shouted it down or something, or Bob issued a
challenge to all to answer a mongo interrogatory about their state laws,
or Mr. Brunner expressed some slight reservation.  Whatever the reason
the idea faded, it's too bad.  misc.legal.family (moderated) is a good
idea for us pragmatists.  The ranters will of course object that this
will reduce their ability to rant.  But that's Usenet!
-- 
wm
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2985 alt.dads-rights:2147 misc.kids:22180 soc.men:15691 soc.women:15954