HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:57:36 GMT
Organization: UUMEME Public Access UNIX

>>>>    your government to not financially rape me.
>
>>> 
>>> The financial rape occurs as a result of a large number of scumbags who
>>> couldn't refrain from spreading their seed but refuse to take financial
>>> responsibility for their actions.
>
>>My sentiments exactly!  I know lots of men who have been good fathers, 
>>paid their support payments and then some, had shared or even full custody.
>>I also know more than a few who refuse to pay any support at all.  One woman
>
   [Downright good example deleted for bandwidth]

>Tell me Sue, how much child support does she pay him?
>If she pays none, does that make her a 'scumbag' as well?
>  ...somehow I won't be suprised when you say 'No'.
>
>Isn't it strange that fewer mothers pay child support to the father
>than vice versa, yet it isn't the women who get the 'bad name'.
>
>I hope one day people will learn to hate sexist attitudes
>such as yours.
>
>Toby
Tell me, Toby... why should she pay child support when SHE'S THE ONE RAISING THE KID(s)?!?!?
If YOU had the kids full-time, then I'd suggest SHE should pay support... 
but you DON'T... so far you've got the best of it... see 'em all the time,
I suppose (unwarrented assumption... many "fathers" {note the quotes} refuse
to even let their kids know who sired 'em {"fathers" meaning those not present})


BUT... this case, SHE has the kids full-time, pays for their shelter, food,
clothes, school, med bills, and about 10,000 other little sundries... what
do YOU pay for? From your posts, I'd say you pay for zilch, unless you take 'em out once in a while...
but then again, taking 'em out occasionally is RECREATION... so yer really
just paying for your OWN enjoyment of their company. Where's the responsibility?

Unless I'm reading this MAJORLY wrong, you've basically created kids, then,
so far as you're concerned, they're stuck on a shelf until you want to play
with 'em... get a life! I know several "absent" fathers, and only one was
anything like this at all... but he was shiftless, refused to even look for
a job until he was threatened with eviction (slept on the couch until he owed
over $4000 in rent/utilities/cash bummed from his buddies), and had a surly
outlook on life... had been moving to a new city every time his ex found him,
and as it turned out, was basically hiding from several arrest warrants 
(tax evasion {couldn't be bothered to pay 'em}, child-support malfeasance,
and about $3000 in various traffic violations (he didn't even bother with a
driver's license, as he was afraid to have his name on "a gov't snoop sheet"!)

I could wonder just how much of this might have a certain familiarity?
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3135 soc.men:16293 soc.women:16460 misc.kids:23073 alt.dads-rights:2240
From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:10:26 GMT
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK

>> In article <1992Sep2.224655.16781@u.washington.edu>, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>>> I wrote:

>>>    It's my choice and I'll thank you and
>>>    your government to not financially rape me.

>In article <123@allspts.ALLSPTS.COM>, jeffh@allspts.ALLSPTS.COM (Jeff Holloway) writes:
>> 
>> The financial rape occurs as a result of a large number of scumbags who
>> couldn't refrain from spreading their seed but refuse to take financial
>> responsibility for their actions.

In article <1992Sep9.063605.3983@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>My sentiments exactly!  I know lots of men who have been good fathers, 
>paid their support payments and then some, had shared or even full custody.
>I also know more than a few who refuse to pay any support at all.  One woman
>I work with has two adopted children, her ex-husband (who left her for another
>woman) makes very good money, more than she does, has the children every 
>weekend and as often as possible during the summer.  He also refuses to
>pay her ANY child support and changes jobs every time she is able to attach
>his wages.  (He's a nurse and this is easy for him to do.)  It's men like
>that who give the rest of the fathers a bad name in court.  

Tell me Sue, how much child support does she pay him?
If she pays none, does that make her a 'scumbag' as well?
  ...somehow I won't be suprised when you say 'No'.

Isn't it strange that fewer mothers pay child support to the father
than vice versa, yet it isn't the women who get the 'bad name'.

I hope one day people will learn to hate sexist attitudes
such as yours.

>Sue

Toby
-- 
Toby Kelsey
School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3122 soc.men:16256 soc.women:16424 alt.dads-rights:2232 misc.kids:23033
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Parent-Child Legal Reform
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:25:11 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

In article <1992Sep10.125325.27055@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> whalen@starch.enet.dec.com (Rich Whalen) writes:

>|>    
>|>  * I would increase the taxpayers support
>|>    of mothers and their children.
>|>    

>Should that be PARENTS and their children?  After all, the above statement
>is sexist.

It's also assholist.  He doesn't want fathers to be forced to support
their kids, but he thinks it's OK to force everyone else to support
them via taxes.  What a jerk.  Thank God he isn't actually RAISING any
kids; it's a shame he even made it into the gene pool.

I'm trying to comfort myself with the fact that if he's really only
making $4000 a year, he's probably leading a fairly meager life.  Good.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@tti.com to you!)
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3174 soc.men:16383 soc.women:16554 misc.kids:23332 alt.dads-rights:2262
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:08:17 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Sep13.064525.20969@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>Child support is for the kids, not the ex-spouse. At least, that's the
>>theory. Granted that in practice it can work out differently, but that's
>>not what this conversation is about.
>>
>>--- 
>>Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
>>Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
>
>Well, then let's make it what this conversation is about....
>
>Yeah, Bob - that's the way it's supposed to work.  Funny thing.  I just
>got off the phone with a guy who was talking with a woman about going
>out (as in dating).  She told him that she didn't have any money to go
>bowling with him because her child support check hadn't showed up.
>
>Yeah, it's for the kids, alright.
>
>One of the calculation methodologies used in "income shares" based
>child support calculations is called "The Rothbarth Methodology."  I
>don't know much about this, other than that it included many "costs"
>which seemed very extraneous to say the least - and had nothing to do
>with the support of children.  Apparently the cost of cigarettes and
>alcohol were included as costs for raising children.
>
>My oldest four-year-old drinks a six pack a day now, so he's going
>through about $4.00 a day to support his habit (he has mediocre tastes),
>while my youngest four-year-old smokes two packs of Lucky Strike
>filterless a day.  About the same $4.00.  Pretty expensive over a year's
>time.
>
>Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
>TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
>

	Aaron, your posts are usually a little long for me, but I 
	enjoyed this one!  You shot straight from the hip.

	I remember when I was getting divorced.  A long time ago
	when stuff like that mattered.  He asked if I smoked
	cigarettes.  Filled out a form that included "entertainment
	expenses".


-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
From: jmellen@carroll1.cc.edu (John Mellen)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Federal Student Loan Program is Anti-Family Values
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:53:42 GMT
Reply-To: jmellen@carroll1.cc.edu (John Mellen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carroll College-Waukesha, WI

As you know from previous postings my personal complaint about
child)support is not that I have paid it for 14 years.  My
issue surrounds the institutional discrimination against the
children of NCP's.  In the past my complaints have been about
employers denying benefits (tuition waivers, life and health 
insurance, etc.).   I've just encountered a new form of
this practice and this time its inside a federal program.

Last week I recieved an insert in my bank statement about loan
programs available for college.  One of the programs is called
PLUS.  It states:
    PLUS loans let you borrow money for your dependent child's 
    education at low interest rates regardless of your income.

Today I recieved information about this program which indicates
that a *dependent* child is one that appears on your IRS1040.
Consequently, NCP's, cannot generally apply for this kind of
assistance in helping to futher the future of their children.
I assume that a CP can waive claim of the dependent through the
usual form.

But, I ask you where are the family values in the PLUS program?
Nearly half of all children are raised by a single parent.  If
society wants to promote the involvement of BOTH parents in the
lives of their children why do NCP's keep getting this kind of
abuse?

At the present time I'm tracking down who were the authors of
the program.  I'll report back when I find out.

As always I am interested in registering the names of companies 
which are *institutional deadbeats*. if you know of one, and can
document the program please let me know who they are.

J. Mellen
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*This sure ISN'T Kansas anymore, Toto.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:20:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.142810.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.230821.20178@u.washington.edu>, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>> I wrote:
>>    "A man distragught over losing his
>>    wife and kids to a divorce is charged
>>    with 25 counts of hostage taking."
>> 
>> Daniel H. replied:
>>    "Someone this unstable shouldn't be trusted with kids."
>> 
>> Think about it. HE LOST HIS KIDS.
>> HE LOST HIS RIGHT TO NOT WORK.
>> ALL "HIS" FUTURE MONEY GOES TO HIS EX.
>> 
>> The news just dismisses him as mad.
>> The news does not explain that society
>> caused his problems.
>
>Lots of people have this happen to them.  Nearly all of them don't go around
>taking hostages.  The man in questions has more problems than society gave him.
>-- 
But I would bet that all of us have entertained similar ideas! I just haven't
gotten angry enough to snap like that---yet.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3208 soc.men:16484 soc.women:16653 misc.kids:23571 alt.dads-rights:2281
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:28:10 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep9.230821.20178@u.washington.edu>, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
> I wrote:
>    "A man distragught over losing his
>    wife and kids to a divorce is charged
>    with 25 counts of hostage taking."
> 
> Daniel H. replied:
>    "Someone this unstable shouldn't be trusted with kids."
> 
> Think about it. HE LOST HIS KIDS.
> HE LOST HIS RIGHT TO NOT WORK.
> ALL "HIS" FUTURE MONEY GOES TO HIS EX.
> 
> The news just dismisses him as mad.
> The news does not explain that society
> caused his problems.

Lots of people have this happen to them.  Nearly all of them don't go around
taking hostages.  The man in questions has more problems than society gave him.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Donald Andrew Agarrat)
Subject: Re: Cowardly Fathers Who Abandon Their Children
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:47:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.220048.21219@exu.ericsson.se> exuclh@exu.ericsson.se  
(Calvin L. Hall, x 6521, s034) writes:
} What about moms who pull the same stunt as the dads that you are vocal  
against?

*laughs*  I knew somebody would be stupid enough to ask that question.  We all  
know that's hardly the majority ...

Donald
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:22:20 GMT

I wrote:
    "A man distragught over losing his
    wife and kids to a divorce is charged
    with 25 counts of hostage taking."
Daniel Holzman replied:
     "Someone this unstable shouldn't be trusted with kids."
Alan Yasutovich adds:
     "What an orthogonal remark!"

hehehehe!
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: lindae@netcom.com ()
Subject: Missing, Abused, & Exploited Children
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 01:08:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 


If you haven't done so already, PLEASE take a look at the newsgroup
called alt.missing-kids

We want and encourage your input, comments, and suggestions.

Frequent postings include information on finding a missing child, preventing
abduction, recognizing abuse, and much more.

We also need your help in locating the missing children that are 
registered with Child Quest International in San Jose, California.  Please,
check out alt.missing-kids and help support our cause!

Thank you,
Keeping Hope Alive,
Child Quest International
lindae@netcom.com



Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3102 soc.men:16170 soc.women:16350 misc.kids:22857
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
From: arothman@eve.wright.edu (Aric C. Rothman)
Date: 9 Sep 92 09:38:04 EST
Organization: Wright State University

In article <123@allspts.ALLSPTS.COM> jeffh@allspts.ALLSPTS.COM (Jeff Holloway) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.224655.16781@u.washington.edu>, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>> I wrote:
>> > > [The taxpayer only pay] if the larger population of
>> > > taxpayers choose to pay the Child Support!
>
>The reason the taxpayers pay the support is because of deadbeats like
>you, who refuse to live up to their responsibilities.
>

Mr. EuStress has already described his situation.  Clearly he can
contribute little to his biological offspring, and they live in a
supportive environment now. 

Can you say witch-hunt?  Can you say McCarthyism?

>>    It's my choice and I'll thank you and
>>    your government to not financially rape me.
>
>The financial rape occurs as a result of a large number of scumbags who
>couldn't refrain from spreading their seed but refuse to take financial
>responsibility for their actions.
>

Prehaps when women stop their malicious ovulations and voluntary
copulations then this statement will have some validity.

>>    You choose to belong to that large group of
>>    society called: "taxpayers".  Your group has
>>    decided to pay for unwanted kids -- no one
>                                         ^^ ^^^
>>    is forcing the American taxpayers -- the 
>     ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>>    taxpayers, as a large and powerful group,
>>    have made there own decisions.
>
>The American taxpayers are being forced.....either that or let the
>children starve.  They had to make that decision because of all the
>jerks like you. As a result, fathers like me who admit to and take
                                                  ^^^^^
Yes judge, I ADMIT to being a father?!  Sounds like you've bought into
the male-guilt thing big time.

>responsibility for their actions still get treated like dirt because the
>prevalent opinion of fathers is that they are all deadbeats. The state
>automatically attempts to get all it can support-wise, because it
>expects all fathers to take off for parts north or south. And it's
>numbnuts like you who caused this to happen. So quit your bitching and
>start acting like an adult. You make me sick.

Classic logic.  He might bolt to Costa Rica, so let's take 40% of his
net and not enforce his rights to see his children.  That should
convince him to stay put and be an obedient wallet.

(I wouldn't take off for parts north, by the way.  As I hear it, men are
even more second-class citizens in Canada than they are here.)

Aric Rothman


Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
From: jac@pensoft.uucp (James A. Carter)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Organization: James Carter & Associates
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 23:21:21 GMT


I have read this thread for long enough to feel it is time to post a followup
of my own.

I was married for 10 years prior to my divorce in 1985, but have always had
custody of my two children (now 16 - son, and 13 - daughter). My ex has always
paid child support (but not on time or willingly).

The child support that she has paid, was figured according to the income
adjusted scale under discussion, and was ridiculously low since I was the
majority income earner.

I re-married in 1987, and now have four children, two 16 year old sons, and
13 and 14 year old daughters. My wife's ex has paid child support to her
since their divorce, and it was calculated the same way. He pays more
than my ex pays because he earns more, and therefore if he were still
married, his kids would supposedly live higher on the hog.

When I sit down to pay bills, it amazes me how much direct child care
expense is each month. If I were to use the same ratios that the courts use
to allocate my expenditures for the kids, they would all have to give up
some of their activities, which both ex's enjoy attending and take pride
in.

If we aren't willing to "sponsor" our kids for the rest of their life, not
just until they are eighteen, then why the hell did we have them in the
first place?

-- 
===============================================================================
James A. Carter	/ Sapulpa, Oklahoma, USA	No disclaimer necessary, I own
(918) 224-6522					the company!
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:28:03 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <f-snsng.boserj@netcom.com>, boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:
> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>>Someone this unstable shouldn't be trusted with kids...
> 
> Yep, and everybody upset about dying is too unstable to
> be trusted with living.
> 
> And everybody that gets upset about being raped is too
> unstable to be trusted with genetalia.
> 
> ....jeff

Read it again, Jeff.  The word "upset" does not appear in my characterization
of this person.  Lots of people get upset.  Lots of people get upset about
losing their kids.  Most of them don't go on shooting sprees.  Hence my word
choice "unstable."
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
From: joel@ssd.intel.com (Joel Clark)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division, Intel Corp.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:26:03 GMT

>In article <1992Sep9.234830.21050@u.washington.edu>, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>> Joel Clark:
>>    "He is indicating that he generally uses random social 
>>    security numbers in any paper work.  The $4000 dollars 
>>    a year is probably only his "cover" for many other forms 
>>    of income not reported against his SSN. Not to surprising
>>    considering his "I love America because I can be 
>>    irresponsible" attitude.
>> 
>> Joel, Does "responsibility" mean:
>>      "I **MUST** work for you."?

I wouldn't give you a job even if you paid ME.

joel
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Donald Andrew Agarrat)
Subject: Re: Evil "Dads"
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:01:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.225817.8365@u.washington.edu>  
hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
}  Maybe, as a male, he has no rights.

Are you really that stupid?  Maybe you don't live in this country, but the  
majority of the Law in these United States was written by and for Straight  
White Males like yourself ... Sure, Gay rights, Civil rights, Women's rights  
are stupid, but they are merely Band-Aids applied to a Law full of gunshot  
wounds.  Are you willing to rewrite the Constitution?  the Declaration of  
Independence?  History?  I didn't think so ...

Donald
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3194 soc.men:16454 soc.women:16618 misc.kids:23487 alt.dads-rights:2277