HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Newsgroups: alt.great-lakes
Subject: Re: surfing in Lake Superior?
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:57:22 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <BxJ4p2.5vC@news.udel.edu> todd@chester.cms.udel.edu writes:
>Please,Please some respond to this.  It sounds completely outrageous.  I would love to know if people surf Superior!!
>
>
>In article 4984@cunews.carleton.ca, cs401005@scs.carleton.ca (jeff brinskelle) writes:
>
>>    Hey, has anyone on the net done any decent surfing on Lake Superior?  Especially the northern shores in Canada?
>

I've never heard of anything like that, but people do strange things.  A couple
of years back, a guy from my old home town on the North Shore crossed the
lake on waterskis.






-- 
Gary Charbonneau
charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
From: eam13@po.CWRU.Edu (Elizabeth A. Madigan)
Newsgroups: alt.great-lakes
Subject: Re: homesick in Autumn
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:05:19 GMT
Reply-To: eam13@po.CWRU.Edu (Elizabeth A. Madigan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ERB107@psuvm.psu.edu (Elizabeth R. Bain) says:

>Me too!!
>
>I'm from Plymouth (nice cutesy little suburb, decent water, trees,
>actual cown town area, etc.), and these people here in PA, nice as they
>are, just have no clue!  The other day I mentioned that I missed going to
>the apple orchard for the day, with hayrides and then cider and donuts for
>everyone, adn the people here looked at me like I had just walked off of
>a spaceship.  None of them have ever done the orchard thing!
>
>Oh well.  At least I know I'll be back for Christmas, so I can shop at Meijers,
>drink Vernor's, and window-shop at Jacobson's.
>
>Liz.
>erb107@psuvm.psu.edu
>The Pennsylvania State University  (University Park, PA)
>

Hey! Two Liz's on one bbs.  It's amazing-we're pretty rare
creatures.

Liz (the other one)
-- 
*******************************************************
*  email to eam13@po.cwru.edu                         *
*        *Snorkels are for snorkelling* (private joke)*
*******************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.great-lakes
From: steve@lopez.marquette.MI.US (Steve Lasich)
Subject: Re: homesick in Autumn
X-bbs-room: Great Lakes Net (room #202)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 00:48:34 EST
Organization: Great White North/UPLink

wurton@netcom.com (William L. Urton) writes:

>[deleted materail on being homesick for Michigan]

>  Springs are 
>kind of nice, but they are too short and we're back to the tropical summers
>again. I'm lucky though-I'll be able to spend a week in paradise (southern 
>Michigan) at Christmas! 

Well, I hate to be a wet blanket, but I have been to Paradise and
it's not in the lower peninsula.  Paradise is near the eastern end of 
the Upper Peninsula between Newberry and Whitefish Point.  

You might be thinking of Hell.  THAT's in lower Michigan.

	Yours in the pursuit of Geographical Correctness,

	Steve Lasich, steve@lopez.marquette.mi.us, acsl@nmumus.bitnet

-Posting from the Great White North, Public Access Usenet and the
-oldest established permanent floating BBS in the UP.  Now 
-delivered by satellite, believe it or not.  Write for details.
-Oh, and yes, there's snow on the ground.  Three feet deep in places.
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2595 soc.men:19148
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men
Subject: re: War on Fathers (was: StipU whatever
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 11 Nov 1992 22:06:06 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-From: xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
-Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men
-Subject: re: War on Fathers (was: StipU whatever
-
-So how does it feel on the receiving end, brother?  What do you do about
-it?   If you're reasonably articulate, college-educated, computer-
-literate, maybe you'll just channel it into angry postings to usenet
-newsgroups, or maybe you even try to organize some kind of political
-action.  But if you're just an average guy?  Watch for answer to that
-one on the evening news...
-
-- xenon
-
    It seems to me that the real problem is that men themselves do not
much care about the rights of (other) men as much as they do about the rights
of women.  Until this changes, individual men will be able to have power
and money, but men as a group WILL be victimized.  Every time that I see a
post on this net suggesting that men might perhaps have SOME rights, I
find that more than half the people attacking him are themselves men!!
Well, that is how it is - and what can we do about it?

Rohit Parikh
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Fight for sole custody or joint?
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:16:10 GMT
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article 2742@vicorp.com, mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous) writes:
>
>My lawyer is telling me that we have to get into a cooperative mode in order
>to get the best settlement from the court. Ie, the court is more likely to
>grant joint custody when there is a measure of cooperation between the
>parents. I will concievanly be throwing away my chances for joint custody
>if I go for sole custody and fail, if this argument is correct.

That's usual lawyer BS so they don't have to work.  "Get the guy to cooperate and
I can get to the next case fast."  If fought for custody and won, but I was
"cooperative" on the financial end and got taken to the cleaners.  Early next
year I may be going for a visitation modification.  Summer is now 8 weeks, and I
want it to be 4 weeks so my son can go to Scout camp and do all those things a
13-year old should do.  I will ask for 2 and the judge will most likely order 5.
See how the system works?

Steve Anderson		206 more days of indentured servitude.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: John Schulte
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:29:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.175324.3642@vicorp.com>, mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous) writes:
> This is unbelievable! This is a witch hunt! Somehow we've got to make
> these kinds of abuses, abuses of fatherhood by vindictive spouses,
> the next media "glamor issue".
> 
> 
> Does anyone mail this stuff to Geraldo, Merv Griffin or whoever those
> news magazine talkshow hosts are? This eventually *will* be a hot media

I haven't watched any significant amount of TV since I worked in a TV shop
in the 1970s (that'll cure you of TV for life) but my hazy memory is that
the shows you mention are DAYTIME TV.

I doubt you're going to see "abuses of fatherhood by vindictive spouses"
become a hot issue on daytime TV unless a time comes when there are as
many men home on weekdays as women.
From: jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Fight for sole custody or joint?
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:28:54 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

In article <BxCoEE.5y6@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.183036.21990@ccd.harris.com> mba@controls.ccd.harris.com (Belinda Asbell) writes:
>>
>
...
>
>>And it
>>looks to me like fathers are more likely to allow mothers visitation than mothers
>>are to fathers.
>
>This would be a great statistic to use if anyone has done a study.
>
>Has anyone seen any statistics on this?

Well, if you subscribe to the principle of balance in nature, then it must
follow that fathers are more likely to provide for visitation than their
exes, since the exes more often than not make visitation difficult.  {:^)
I can't cite a study, but I'm pretty sure I've seen some stats showing
just that.  Strangely enough, many (most?) states have laws on the books
stating that preference in custody *will be given* to the parent most
likely to provide for un-fettered access by the other parent.  Needless
to say, almost all judges routinely ignore this when visitation is denied
by a custodial mother, so it's a law without teeth.  I know both of the
previous two statements to be true in California, virtually without
exception - in probably over 100 cases I've come across, I think I've
found one or two where the judge did the right thing and enforced the
law on this point.  Bigots.  Yet more evidence in favor of term
limits...


Jerry Roe
jrr@nsc.nsc.com		...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl)!nsc!jrr
From: wtjones@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Bill Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Santa Clara County, CA Judge impression?
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:40:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA

This is for Santa Clara County.  Sorry for being sent to all.

I am going to be hauled back into Family Court again this year (Thanks to
SB101).  The previous Judge Clark (GRRRRRR) no longer is around, I guess.
I have a different one. One of the Stewart partners. I have James Stewart.
Does any NCP's have any impressions on his rulings.
Thanks.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: War on Fathers (was: StipU whatever
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:38:25 -0500
Summary: There is a war on fathers
Keywords: fathers custody
Distribution: world
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

 

Adrienne Regard writes:

> In article <Bx7FwF.2E9@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >Men are burdened just as fully by fundamentalists.  Why do you
> >think "deadbeat dad" is an easy political target?  A single,
> >unmarried or divorced father is a sinner, hence undeserving
> >of anything except the bill.
> 
> Ah, but there is the upside, too.  FATHERS who attend PTA meetings, or
> field trips with their kids, or go to the grocery store with little Johnney
> in the basket are positively fawned upon for their fatherliness, whereas
> women are just doing their duty (-:.

True enough... men are encouraged to become so-called 'new-style' 
fathers, emotionally and physically involved in the child-rearing 
process.  However, all of that changes pretty drastically if Wifey 
decides that she doesn't want him around anymore.  The *divorced* father 
is regarded as irrelevant and disposable, and usually as an out-and-out 
villain to boot.  Suddenly he is no longer welcome at PTA meetings or 
field trips, and he's lucky if he even SEES his kids more than a few 
hours a week.  His money is still welcome though, typically 25-30% of 
his GROSS income, even if it puts him below the poverty line.  If he 
loses his job the child support payments continue to fall due, and he 
may be jailed as a 'deadbeat dad'.  If his ex-wife gets a new boyfriend 
who abuses his kids, he will be dismissed as a jealous troublemaker if 
he reports it.  If he fights for custody there is a 95% probability that 
he will lose, especially if his ex-wife uses the 'atom bomb' of custody 
disputes, the false accusation of molestation.  Then the hapless ex-
dad's interest in spending time with his children will be deemed a 
suspicious, 'inordinate preoccupation' with children.  No matter what he 
does, he loses. 

What is going on in the divorce courts of America is nothing less than a 
war against fathers and fatherhood, perpetrated by an unholy alliance of 
self-righteous social workers, man-haters, and judges wallowing in the 
egotistical fantasy of themselves as noble saviours of oh-so-grateful 
women.  What they are creating is a nation of children without fathers, 
and an ever-growing body of impoverished, disempowered, rootless and 
angry men.  

- xenon

"Every day the bucket goes to the well.
One day the bottom is gonna drop out."

                      -- Bob Marley


  


be
.  , a *suspicious*
but in the event of divorce, the picture changes pretty
drastically.  The new-s

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: rmk@doc.cray.com (Bob Kass)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Organization: Cray Research Inc.
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:34:39 CST

In article <1d9a95INN31j@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>  (stuff about stereotypes of dads deleted)
>
>Ah, but there is the upside, too.  FATHERS who attend PTA meetings, or
>field trips with their kids, or go to the grocery store with little Johnney
>in the basket are positively fawned upon for their fatherliness, whereas
>women are just doing their duty (-:.
>

But......Doesn't this make a rather strong point about the stereotype image
of fathers? We are fawned upon in the above instances (I too often recieve
this type of attention when out with my 3-1/2 year old daughter). The
reason - people hold a stereotype of fathers and <we> are not conforming
to this stereotypical image hence all the attention. People just can't seem
to wake up - things HAVE changed - this is the 90's, NOT the 50's.

I don't feel that <women> are "just" doing their duty. I have always shared
in the chores'n'stuff. Thing is now that divorce is in process, I am no longer
allowed to take on the role of caregiver, nurturer, and guide for my child
in an ongoing consistent manner <I feel> because of the stereotypes.

The stereotype driven behavior you descrie above is 2-sided too - the 
assumption that women are "doing their duty" just strengthens the image
for men. I do those "duties" too and wish to continue to be able to 
perform those "duties" on a regular basis for and with my child.

>
>There are a bazillion stereotypes.  Without *supporting* any of them, it
>is probably still useful to acknowledge that some exist, and discover 
>rebuttals to those which don't appear to be much use in advocating change
>or justifying ones reasons for change.
>
>Adrienne Regard

It's hard to change those images without more of us being able to SHOW the
world. If we can't be with our children, how do we get out there with them
so society (who is suprised to see us <NCPs - mostly dads>) will notice?
The only reasonable and useful rebuttal to the most damaging stereotypes of
dads is for us to BE with our children and have society SEE us as the
nurturing, loving, caregivers that we are. Being denied our children, we
cannot do a thing. It is rather a Catch-22.


                                         *   *   *   *   *
                                           *    ~o.'   *   *
    Bob Kass                            *     .'// |      *
    rmk@els.cray                          *  /_/_>___,  *
                                           -------'
From: mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous)
Subject: Fight for sole custody or joint?
Organization: V. I. Corporation, Northampton, Massachusetts
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:28:39 GMT


My ex has moved 50 miles away in an attempt to make joint custody that
much more difficult. We're in Mass, in the beginning phases of the divorce. 

I filed for divorce, and asked for custody. My new expensive lawyer puts my 
chances of getting custody around 10%. I've pretty much decided to forget about 
going for sole custody and just go for joint, which is what he advises.

He says there won't be any benefit in trying for sole custody with the
real intention being joint, ie it won't help my chances of getting joint
if I seek sole custody. 

She is not an unfit mother. I would have to build my case on erratic, irrational
behavior that was essentially a result of our relationship. Her irrationality
includes episodes of violence (towards me and perhaps herself). I "could make
a case" for unfit parenting based on some of her actions that impacted the
children directly, but certainly not a real strong one.

I'm not sure if I should go along with my lawyers advice, who says that 
besaically we're fighting for 30% (ie, 70% of the 'situation` is already
determined, all we can fight for is the remaining 30%). He says the court
won't make a decision forcing her to move back to within the last place
of domicile (where I remain), despite the fact that I moved from California
to this area precisely to accomodate her a year and a half ago.

My lawyer is very expensive. I will be going into debt very shortly and
haven't even made a child support payment yet (separation happenned Sep 1).
Obviously, going for sole custody is going to be very expensive, and from
everything I've heard, probably futile.

Is it worth the expense to go for it, even when the cost of failure is going
to be further estrangement (if that's possible) and undoubtedly further
resenetment on her side which will mean more pain of every kind for the
next 15 years of my life?

My lawyer is telling me that we have to get into a cooperative mode in order
to get the best settlement from the court. Ie, the court is more likely to
grant joint custody when there is a measure of cooperation between the
parents. I will concievanly be throwing away my chances for joint custody
if I go for sole custody and fail, if this argument is correct.

I'm resigned to the fact that I'm not going to get justice for the abuses
I sufferred at the hands of my ex, my concern now is for what kind of 
relationship I'm going to have with my children in the future.

Mark
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:05:27 EST
From: <DAB112@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: - A questionable book on Custody

Greetings.

    In case no one knew about this, there is a book that exists (don't
count on finding it in ***ANY*** library, not even LOC) called "Preparing
For Child Custody Cases" in which its readers are coached to committ
PURGERY in the Courtroom in order to gain custody!  Isn't this absolutely
apalling?!

     I just thought I'd share this bit with you all.


                                         David.
==============================================================================
  || Disclaimer:  I have no disclaimer, and you can yell at  me all you  ||
  ||              want, because I'm half deaf anyway and I won't listen  ||
  ||              to you.... except if you're nice.                      ||
==============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2590 soc.men:19090
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Fight for sole custody or joint?
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:32:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.183036.21990@ccd.harris.com> mba@controls.ccd.harris.com (Belinda Asbell) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov5.162839.2742@vicorp.com>, mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous) writes:
>|> 
>|> My ex has moved 50 miles away in an attempt to make joint custody that
>|> much more difficult. We're in Mass, in the beginning phases of the divorce. 
>|>
>Hrm....I seem to notice an alarming trend here....you're the third person in the
>past few weeks who's stated that their ex (or ex-to-be) has wanted to move to
>Massachusetts, they move to accomodate her and she leaves him taking the kid(s).

It used to be Taxachusetts, but they passed Proposition 2-1/2
to limit taxes, so maybe they've progressed to Bashachusetts now.

Did Dworkin and MacKinnon get elected, or something?


>And it
>looks to me like fathers are more likely to allow mothers visitation than mothers
>are to fathers.

This would be a great statistic to use if anyone has done a study.

Has anyone seen any statistics on this?

(I imagine feminist groups might have some, in order to "show" that
men have more power and hence need to use children as pawns less.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: re: Alternate 'thinking' for non-dads?
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:43:53 -0500
Summary: Guess what?  The courts are a bad joke, so what's the use?
Distribution: world
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club



'David' (DAB112@psuvm.psu.edu) writes:

<Speculation about why courts are biased against fathers, deleted>

> This is where the difference occurs.  One might assume that if the father
> doesn't fight for his rights, then either he doesn't have much to argue
> his points with, or he has an incompetent lawyer.  On the other hand, to
> see a father trying to gain custody of his children shows me that he loves
> them and is a competent and trustworthy father, and should attain a totally
> equal consideration for custody.

One might more realistically assume that he doesn't have $20-50,000 to 
fight a legal battle that he has virtually no chance of winning.  
Perhaps he *should* 'attain a totally equal consideration', but in 
practice he gets about as much consideration as black defendants used to 
get in the old Jim-Crow South.  In short, the system is rigged 
overwhelmingly against fathers.
 
<More speculation, deleted>

> Of course, financial security is pertinent towards being capable of raising
> a child, but after that, I can only see one thing that matters:
>
> fathers, do you love your children?

What exactly is your point here?   

Whether or not a father loves his children may matter to you, but it 
matters very little to the courts when it comes to awarding custody.  
The only thing that matters is how much money can be wrung out of Dad.  
There is little or no interest in enabling the divorced father to 
maintain any kind of relationship with his children.  If the mother is 
hostile to the father, more often than not the courts are only too happy 
to aid and abet her in keeping the father out of his children's lives.  

Perhaps you did not intend it that way, but it seems to me that the 
basic thrust of your posting is to blame fathers for their own
victimization at the hands of perverse and bigoted courts.  I think you 
should consider the situation a little more fully.

- xenon









                                  David.

                                  dab112@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights