HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l)
Subject: The right to be "RIGHT or WRONG"
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 23:04:09 GMT

I have heard many men at different father's rights meetings say something
that I need to speak out about.  

I think too many people look at the land mark cases and try to justify what
happened to the last man because of something that was wrong with him.  He
was a sleeze, etc.  I hear many people talk about men getting raw deals 
because of their behavior.

Quite frankly, I think this hurts men.  When I use to work with sexually abuse
children, one of the first things I had to teach them was that nothing they can
do in life gives anyone the right to beat them or rape them etc.  Skirt too
high, neck line too low, bad behavior doesn't mean a thing.  You cann't deserve
to be distroyed like that no matter if you are a child, adult women, or
a man in prison.

I beleive the same is true for men.  Some how society thinks that it is their 
job to compensation for the ills of one person or another.  What he or she has
done with their life is their own choice.  No one ever deserves to be financial-ly raped, publicly humiliated, and everything they have work for distroyed
over marital problems.  

If he/she is a bum, so what.  It is a good reason to pray for them as they
leave and go on their way but, that is all.  I really think that too much 
credit is given to the notion that sometimes this type of behavior of 
distroying another person is approriate.  In my experience, it never is on 
any subject.

What do you think?

Just for the record.  I think women get a raw deal as NCPs also.  I just
do not observe them ever suggesting that it is right to happen to another
women.  Most women seem to share rage for a victimized women as if it happened
to themselve.  I think men could not be more distant to another man's
trouble, even if the same thing is happening to him.  I think men too 
often say "It shouldn't have happen to me becuase I'm not like him".  Really
it should not have happened to either of you.  But when you separate yourself,
you don't support him now and he wont support you latter.  I think we need
to heal the feelings among all of us how suffer without judgement.

Smile,

Dave

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Is $1000 a month exorbitant?
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:16:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>Does anyone actually believe that it costs $1,000.00 a month ABOVE AND
>>BEYOND a single parent's living expenses to raise a kid averaged over 18
>>years?

>        Daycare center          $600/month (a cheap one)
>        Food                    $100/month
>        Add'l Health insurance  $100-200/month
>        Add'l medical costs     $50/month (dental, medical deductible,
>                                            prescriptions, etc.)
>        Clothing + Shoes        $50/month
>        Add'l rent              $100+/month

>This is already over $1000/month, and doesn't include school costs,
>vacations, gifts (the average Christmas spending by American families
>is $600/child), braces, music lessons, swimming lessons, camp fees,
>nor lots or other expenses of raising a child in middle-class America!

>>Does anyone believe it costs TWICE that?

>Add in private school ($5000-15000/year), camp, music lessons,
>and college (today $15000-25000/year, and rising much faster than
>inflation!), and it can easily cost more than $2000/month!

>Get a clue, Karl!

While what you say about Christmas presents and college tuition, etc., is
admittedly true, Karl's question dealt ONLY with how much it costs for
a child to buy NECESSITIES per month.  Christmas presents, ponies, and
other sundries do NOT count in my book as necessities, and should I choose
not to pay for such extras, I would not pay for them.

Before telling Karl to get a clue, get rid of your own prejudicial notion
that child support should pay for almost everything above and beyond basic
living expenses.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * That's not line noise--my modem's speaking in tongues!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: 4 Jan 1993 08:43:29 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <Bzzu8C.FMp@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1h5bokINN2ep@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <BzLB81.2n1@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>In article <1gie2pINN1q2@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>>So why not apply some affirmative action to this problem, as feminists are
>>>wont to do in the work arena?
>>
>>Scuse, please, but how does a society apply affirmative action to an unwanted
>>pregnancy?
>
>We can apply affirmative action to the inequity in child custody and support 
>awards.  That is what I was (and am) proposing.

Ah,  I see.

Well, I'm all for applying equitable standards to child custody and support
awards, so that makes the rest of your posting suspect, since I am a feminist.

Oooops.

>Of course I don't expect the feminists to support this.  

Oh what will you do.

Adrienne Regard
.


Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6389 alt.child-support:4332 alt.dads-rights:3282
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Is $1000 a month exorbitant?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 06:27:35 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>Does anyone actually believe that it costs $1,000.00 a month ABOVE AND
>>>BEYOND a single parent's living expenses to raise a kid averaged over 18
>>>years?

>>        Daycare center          $600/month (a cheap one)
>>        Food                    $100/month
>>        Add'l Health insurance  $100-200/month
>>        Add'l medical costs     $50/month (dental, medical deductible,
>>                                            prescriptions, etc.)
>>        Clothing + Shoes        $50/month
>>        Add'l rent              $100+/month

>>This is already over $1000/month, and doesn't include school costs,
>>vacations, gifts (the average Christmas spending by American families
>>is $600/child), braces, music lessons, swimming lessons, camp fees,
>>nor lots or other expenses of raising a child in middle-class America!

>While what you say about Christmas presents and college tuition, etc., is
>admittedly true, Karl's question dealt ONLY with how much it costs for
>a child to buy NECESSITIES per month.  Christmas presents, ponies, and
>other sundries do NOT count in my book as necessities, and should I choose
>not to pay for such extras, I would not pay for them.

The above itemization shows that the necessities can amount to over
$1000/month, and thus answers Karl's question.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6354 talk.abortion:54799 alt.child-support:4283
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:13:25 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan7.170809.700@rotag.mi.org>
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1i7vsoINN86l@gap.caltech.edu>
>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>The only choice the woman has that the father doesn't is the choice
>>to abort the foetus 

>She also gets the choice to discharge her support obligations via the same 
>act. She gets both a biological choice AND and an economic choice, rolled 
>into one. Equity demands that the man be given parallel choices, insofar as 
>they apply to him, i.e. the economic choice, but obviously not the biological 
>one.

Hm.  If equity demands that, then equity also demands that the man be
tortured during the woman's pregnancy if they agree to have a child.

>If not that, then at least folks should get the chance to determine 
>their respective support obligations BY CONTRACT, free from state 
>interference as long as the child's rights are preserved.

Agreed, as long as the *default* condition is that both parents
support the child (until someone else agrees to assume thje
responsibilities -- in an adoption, for example).

>If not that, then
>at a BARE MINIMUM, the law should look at the elements of fraud, 
>coercion and/or misrepresentation which are causing many men to become
>ensnared in child support obligations.

If you can find a case where it's not just his word against hers, I
agree.  But what can you do with a complaint that "she told me she was
on the Pill"?

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6294 talk.abortion:54106 alt.child-support:4097
From: apb.4819@nd.edu (voluptua love)
Subject: Re: <none>
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Distribution: alt.planning.urban
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:34:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.014935.22854@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai) writes:
>Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
>Path: news.nd.edu!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu!PAPAI
>From: PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai)
>Subject: Re: <none>
>Message-ID: <1993Jan7.014935.22854@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>Nntp-Posting-Host: kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
>Organization: The Ohio State University
>References: <1993Jan5.034700.14899@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:49:35 GMT
>Lines: 4



>        Is this newsgroup active.  Ever?
>-J.



nope.  the urban scene has come and gone.
the only interesting plans concern
how to get out of town.

the largest megacities now have 30m people.
the interest is in alternatives.

see you at one of them,

bye!

love,

voluptua
 
------------------------------------------
voluptua love
University of Notre Dame
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: dan@ees1a0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (Dan Schlitt)
Subject: Re: Automotive congestion as a sign of health
Organization: City College of New York
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:09:03 GMT

>
>On a related note, I've decided that automobile traffic congestion can
>actually be a sign of urban health--it means that people are crowding
>out cars.  What do you-all think?
>
One of Parkinson's laws is "When facilities become adequate decay has
already set in."  Applies to roads as far as I'm concerned.

/dan

Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: calvert@QueensU.CA (John Calvert)
Subject: Death and Life of Great American Cities
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:46:32 GMT

I just finished reading this classic, and checked out a couple of
reviews, both from 1961, and more recent. Jane Jacobs seems to
get universal accolades. So why don't North American cities
conform to her 4 laws of city vitality?

1. diversity of use
2. small blocks
3. mixed ages of buildings
4. medium high densities

John
-- 
John Calvert

calvert@mast.queensu.ca
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: dtasman@NMSU.edu (Dan Tasman)
Subject: Re: Death and Life of Great American Cities
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:31:36 GMT

calvert@QueensU.CA (John Calvert) writes:

: I just finished reading this classic, and checked out a couple of
: reviews, both from 1961, and more recent. Jane Jacobs seems to
: get universal accolades. So why don't North American cities
: conform to her 4 laws of city vitality?
: 
: 1. diversity of use

Old zoning ordinances tended to discourage diversity in land use.  Creative  
planned unit developments, neotraditional developments, zoning which encourages  
a healthy mix of commercial and residential uses (Buffalo, as an example) are  
encouraging more diversity.

: 2. small blocks

Traffic engineers hate small blocks ... more pavement area is used as opposed  
to a larger block, and there are more "conflict points" ... street  
intersections in plain English.  As in most American cities, the engineers get  
more respect than the planners.

: 3. mixed ages of buildings

The United States and most of its cities is still too new of a country to have  
buildings from different eras in close proximity, with the exception of  
downtowns and college campuses.  1960s era urban renewal also helped contribute  
to the sterile atmosphere of many areas. 

: 4. medium high densities

Two reasons ... the car and the North American preference for low density  
housing.  Higher land costs in the future will take care of that.

--
   Dan Tasman                                       dtasman@dante.nmsu.edu
                                                     molson@rever.nmsu.edu
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   "I think that I shall never see a billboard lovely as a tree
    Indeed, unless the billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all."
                                                                Ogden Nash
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis)
Subject: Re: Gasoline Tax and Cities
Organization: OSF Research Institute
	<1993Jan9.153114.12063@Princeton.EDU>
Date: 11 Jan 93 11:44:31

In article <1993Jan9.153114.12063@Princeton.EDU> pmitra@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Pritha Mitra-stiff) writes:

   ...when drivers decide how much to drive, they largely ignore these
   costs, which they will have to pay no matter how many miles they
   drive.

I agree that incremental (variable) costs determine how much people
will use a car once they own it.

   Consequently, gasoline prices, and other 'out-of- pocket' costs --
   tolls, parking fees -- can strongly influence driving habits.

   For proof of this look at the situation in Europe, where gasoline
   prices are three times greater than in the U.S. (due to taxes).

It is true that gasoline prices are about three times higher.  Also,
in some countries (France, Italy), highway tolls are very high.  On
the other hand, city-center parking costs tend to be much lower than
in the US in France and Belgium, at least.

   In European countries, people drive much less than in the U.S.
   (around 1/2 as many highway miles per capita per year), and a
   greater portion of trips are made by public transportation.

However, the conclusion that high gas prices cause less driving is
fallacious.  European countries have very different characteristics
from the US.  For one thing, they are much more densely populated
(except for skyscraper areas like downtown New York).  Cars tend to
get higher mileage (precisely because of high gas tax, drivers prefer
high-mileage cars).  Downtowns are much more important (of course,
this is a two-way dependence).  Public transit tends to be
better-subsidized, and therefore of better quality.  Cars cost more to
buy and own (again, because of taxes).  And average discretionary
income is probably lower than in the US, even in countries where the
per capita GNP is higher, because taxes (income, social security,
etc.) are higher.

Then there is the issue of the status value of cars: different
countries have different status symbols.  This is hard to get an
accurate reading on, but in very broad terms, I think it is fair to
say that Americans spend proportionately more money on cars and
housing, Italians more on clothes and furniture, French more on food
and decor, Belgians on housing, Greeks on entertainment.  My very
unscientific reading is that only the Germans have the same level of
love affair with cars as the Americans.

I would be interested if anyone had harder data on any of these
points, whether they agree with my intuitions or not.

	-s

Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: micah@ravl.rice.edu (Micah Samuel Rosen)
Subject: Re: <none>
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: alt.planning.urban
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:45:00 GMT

Given the way urban planning has been approached here in
Houston (NIMBYism masquerading as a zoning ordinance) I 
can't blame anyone for the lack of interest in this group.

Perhaps we can use this group to begin discussing issues
of improving our cities so people will want to move back.



Micah Rosen        Univ. of Virginia B.S. Architecture 1990
                   Rice University M. Arch. 1993 
               
                   "Planned communities are for people with no
			plans of their own ... "
               
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai)
Subject: <none>
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:47:00 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis)
Subject: Cars and mass transit
Organization: OSF Research Institute
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:37:39

I lived in Versailles, a Paris suburb, for about two years, and
noticed an interesting phenomenon.

As has been pointed out, gasoline is expensive (about $3.50/gal in
France).  But within the Paris region, there are no tolls, and parking
is fairly cheap by US standards (maybe $10/day).

On the other hand, public transit is very efficient.  Commuter trains
run every 15 minutes or so.  The metro runs every 5 minutes or less
during the day, takes about 75 seconds per stop, and has excellent
coverage.  Some connections require a lot of walking, though.  Metro
tickets cost about $0.75, and commuter train tickets from Versailles
perhaps $2.  Both metro and train are very reliable and punctual
(except for infrequent strikes or maintenance).

Still, many people drive from Versailles to Paris.  The traffic is
terrible, the transit time is unpredictable, and the air quality is
poor.  Although the distance is only about 7 kilometers by highway to
the inner ring (Peripherique), it can take an hour or more at bad
times, but only 5 minutes in August.

Our neighbor, for instance, drove every day to his office, which was
three metro stops away from the commuter train terminus.  It clearly
took him longer this way, and cost more.  True, he didn't have to
stand in a crowded train, but on the other hand, he didn't have any
chance of reading the paper if lucky enough to get a seat (which
actually was not that hard, since Versailles is a terminus).  His car
was old and small, without air conditioning or a superb sound system.

So why did he drive, and what would have convinced him not to?

His own answer was vague, having something to do with feeling "in his
own space".  It is true that the trains and metros can be crowded.  He
liked the flexibility of a car, although he never used it during the
day; returning by car also would take an unpredictable amount of time
(I remember once being stuck in a traffic jam in Paris, completely
immobile, for over two hours).

I think it also has to do with the spirit in which the metro was
built.  Although it is certainly much cleaner than (say) the New York
subway, it still has a gritty, utilitarian feel to it.  The long walks
up and down stairs to change trains are unpleasant.

But I don't know if I've put my finger on why my neighbor and many
others preferred their cars to public transit.  Comments?

	-s
From: randolph@netcom.com (Randolph Fritz)
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
Subject: Re: Gasoline Tax and Cities
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:07:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Brian, car-oriented cities are very expensive, and most of the expense
is bourne by localities--I believe this would ultimately place most of
the tax burden on the businesses located in a city.  Care to argue why
business should support your car, Brian?

__Randolph
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: aljones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Alice L Jones)
Subject: Planners, Engineers, and Architects
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:31:11 GMT

I am a grad student in a planning department that resides within the
school of architecture, which in turn resides within the college of
engineering.

Despite this nesting-- which might imply some kind of ongoing communication
among the fields of planning, architecture, and engineering, I find very
little actually happening.  When I went to discuss some water resources
engineering classes that I'd like to take with an engineering professor, he
spent most of our 30 minutes together repeating questions like, "and tell
me again WHY you want to take an engineering class?", and "does your advisor
in planning know you are talking to me?"

Personally, as a planning student, I feel compelled to take an engineering
class or two just so I can speak a little "engineer-ese" in the real world.
Similarly, I feel compelled to take a couple of architecture classes so I can
talk intelligently with them.   The degree program as it is constructed here
doesn't forbid this kid of crossover, but neither does it encourage (or
require) it.

What experience have others had with the interconnectivity (or separation) of
these three professions-- both academically and as practitioners?

Alice
From: pkosidow@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul G Kosidowski)
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
Subject: Re: Where to study Urbanism(was Re: Death and Life)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 21:56:25 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: pkosidow@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: pkosidow@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

> Also, see places sveral times in varying weather conditions, throughout the year.  You get a very different feel and you see how people use a space over time,
> Jones Beach is wonderful in the winter.
> 
> To qualify my statements, I am a graduate student in Architecture/Urban Planning
> and there are definitely things to be learned in school, things that have
> changed the way I see the city.  The point being, you can study urbanism
> anywhere though.  You have to live it to really understand it.
> 
> Sean

While I'm no sure if Sean's program for Urban Studies is practical (?), I do
think he makes an interesting point about the abstraction of the urban space.
I've often wondered if the reliance of maps or aerial photos by urban planners
leads to a schewed experience of the urban space. The logic of a plan view,
after all, is valuable to a pedestrian only if it has been totally absorbed
and assimilated into his/her sense of space. I've been interested in the 
way the overhead viewpoint of cities (dating from Nadar's first balloon
photographs in the 1850s) has governed our perception of cities. Any thoughts?
Is the assimilation of the city plan the point of "rational" planning--Is that
what Kevin Lynch's "legibility" is all about? And what does that say about the
controlling function of city planning--I'm thinking of a Michel Foucault-style
"discipline." Look forward to any comments.

Paul Kosidowski
Modern Studies
University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban