From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Right Not to Support, etc.
Date: 15 Aug 92 18:03:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, Wa

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

> Bob, first of all, I don't read soc.*. Whatever happens over there is of no 
> concern to me. My views on discussing paternity issues in talk.abortion are 
> well-known there -- if the subject clearly relates to abortion, as opposed to
> contraceptive fraud, etc., then I'm perfectly happy discussing the issue in 
> talk.abortion. I'm perfectly happy discussing the primarily-legal aspects in 
> misc.legal, although sometimes I wish Ted Frank would either learn how to use
> a killfile or at least quit his whining. And, lastly, I am under a solemn 
> PROMISE not to discuss certain paternity child-support issues in alt.flame. 
> Speaking as a self-appointed representative of those who wish to discuss 
> paternity-related issues (and I've probably been at it longer than anyone
> except Hillel Gazit), we really don't need another newsgroup -- we've already
> got plenty of 'em. And, even if we did, it'd probably be better placed in the
> talk.* hierarchy, where it would get decent propagation, and be logically 
> easier for folks to find (Altnet is a morass of junk groups these days, in 
> case you haven't noticed).
> 


What I have noticed is the significant drop in the type of discussions which
were the hallmark of a.c-s only a couple of months ago. At that time, there
was some good information being disseminated about the various state laws,
and there was some activism posts which went a long way to inform people of
the inequities of the support/custody system. Anne Mitchell divided those
issues by creating a.d-r to help people isolate the information/discussions
which were most important to their circumstances.

We were seeing some EXCELLENT material from the likes of Hoffmeyer, Brunner,
Mitchell, and others. Yes, there were some flame wars --lord knows I had a
hand in some of them-- but there was a lot of good data. Now we have the odd
post which can be easily missed as people 'n' their way through the mess we
all created out of a pretty good set of newsgroups.

You're absolutely right that altnet has become a morass of junk and drivel.
It is more so today because peoples "rights" to post any old goddam thing
to a group which might be construed as relevant have selfishly overruled
the basic concept of cooperation --and the compartmentalization which made
the net(s) at least reasonably ordered. It sounds to me like you're saying
that as long as that's the case. let's go see how badly we can screw over
the other (non alt) newsgroups too... with the exception of soc, because
you don't read there.

Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I'd like to see a place where people can
discuss the pragmatic issues of the family legal system in such a way as
to benefit --perhaps NOT make mistakes which have repeatedly screwed guys
(and ladies) over. Sure, I admit that I got caught up in the furor, so I
may be a kettle calling the pot black, but I've quit the thread basically.
I wish others would too. There's a lot more to talk about than what has
been dominating the groups for the previous couple of months.

Yes, more people have been drawn into the conversation. But we see brief
flashes and then they're gone. I will speak for myself (something which
apparently annoys some --I guess they think everyone should speak for
everyone) and say this: If the topic is of great importance, it should
have a group of it's own, created and chartered by those who are driven
by their interest. As with all newsgroups, it's volume will stand or fall
on the interest of the net at large, and not because someone occasionally
presses 'f' and makes a comment.

I'm done with the flame wars. In my own weird way, I tried to show that
by ribbing people (like Alan) in a most off-topic way. The thread has
reduced itself to twin camps of mutual admiration scoieties --each of
which aren't going to give an inch to the basic issues. Some say that a
guy has choice --through his action or inaction before conception. Some
say that men are screwed because they have few choices afterwards. Fine.
So on and on it goes. A thousand ways to say the same thing --each as
important as George Bush's thousand points of light. The conversation
doesn't exist to pass information, IMO it exists for the fight and only
the fight.

At any rate, Kevin, feel free to defend whatever you wish. No, you don't
need my permission --but I give it anyway. But I plan to avoid this
subject as though it had rabies, and work to see about getting something
going that will benefit ALL of the people who're caught up in family law
hassles. Given the figures bandied about, it would seem to me that a lot
of people could find *something* for them personally --even if it's only
knowing in advance _how_ they're going to get screwed. And I personally
see it as important to get that information out on more than one subject.

Regards,

---
Bob Kirkpatrick, Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us