From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Reply to Alan Yasutovich
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 23:51:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.191208.24949@leland.Stanford.EDU> garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) writes:
>
>   Funny thing, but Alan didn't bother quoting the part of my article
>where I asked him to read it carefully and think before he wrote.  I
>wonder why?
>
>   Maybe this will help:
>
>THIS IS THE ANSWER, ALAN.
>>>   Now let me say this as simply as I can, so you GET IT 
>>>RIGHT.  There's a little thing in this country called "due 
>>>process."  It's in the Constitution.  You might have heard of 
>>>it.  And if there's nothing else that due process guarantees, 
>>>it's _notice_ and an _opportunity to be heard_.  You therefore 
>>>_can't_ sue someone without notice.  Period.  And newspapers 
>>>won't do; notice has to be personal.
>>>
>>
>>	This "due process" you talk about doesn't apply to
>>	NCP fathers.
>
>   Tell it to the judge.  You asked why the suit wouldn't work, I gave
>you one reason.  If you think this counterargument--for that's all it
>is--will work, good luck with it.  But don't be saying I didn't give
>you an answer because I didn't anticipate your impotent
>counterarguments.
>
>   The very _best_ you'll get out of a judge with that one is
>something like: the remedy for this is to give due process to the
>plaintiff(s), not take it away from the defendant(s).  Case dismissed.
	
	So your "answer" is that, "the job is too difficult.  YOu
	can't fight city hall".  Nice reasoning.  Yet it's ok
	and defensable that it's, by your own reasoning,
	unconstitutional.  But that's ok.  A judge can get away
	with anything!

>>>   If you think you can get more support for "let's repeal the 
>>>due process guarantees of the Constitution so I can press a 
>>>claim against [well, I don't know exactly who]" than "let's say 
>>>that we should treat women equally" then you start the 
>>>amendment process.  I think it would be the most colossal waste 
>>>of time since the last alchemist died.
>>>

	Well, I guess we're all fucked!

>>
>>	Like I said......
>
>   As _I_ said.
>
>   ["As," not "like" is proper here.  "Like" is a preposition, and as
>such cannot be used to introduce a verbal phrase like "I said."  Note
>that "like" is proper in "like 'I said'" because here we are referring
>to the _words_ "I said," and words in quotes, unlike their referrants,
>are always nouns.]
>
	Thanks for the english lesson.  Anyone as preoccupied with
	my grammar can't be very interested in what I'm saying.
	So if my grammar were perfect, I'd be right?

>   This is a good start.  Now why don't you stop pretending to require
>things from others, particularly Anne?
>
	Well,I guess we all may as well go home!

>   However, your "real lawyer" left out a couple of salient points
>that make this particular class-action impossible, in a practical
>sense.  Like the fact that Rule 23 _demands_ personal service of
>process to all reasonably identifiable defendants--a rule which was
>upheld in a case where the defendants numbered several million.
>
	So.

>   Your "real lawyer" also left out the salient fact that Rule 23
>allows members of a class to opt out of the class JUST BY ASKING.  Now
>how many people do you think will volunteer to be on the opposite side
>of this lawsuit?
>

	So.


>   And there are problems beyond Rule 23.  Jurisdiction.  Measure of
>damages.  The practical difficulties of serving process.  Sounds like
>it's a lot more efficient to do this one in the legislature(s), or
>through individual test cases.
>
	Well I guess the job is just too tough.


>   And another thing.  The very fact that your "real lawyer" had
>something to disagree with indicates that there was an answer to your
>original question, despite the fact that you claim there wasn't!
>

	Not by *this* lot it wasn't.  I didn't notice the cross-posting
	of all this B.S. to misc.legal.


>>>   Oh, and another thing.  You don't ask, you demand.  There's 

	I demand to be acknowledged in a conversation.  Yes.
	I have that right (in a civil atmosphere) as a human being.


>>>a difference.  Demanding implies that you are entitled to an 
>>>answer.  You aren't.  You also insult, which makes it less 

	I *am*.  Otherwise, sign off the group.


>   Oh, and who died and made you God?  Who the hell are you to decide
>what reputation people "conjure," then berate them for not living up
>to it?
>

	It's self evident.



>   I've got news for you, kid.  By assuming that "third year law
>student" means "I know the answer to every legal question you can come
>up with" you're in the vast minority.  Further, anyone with a modicom

	"I dont' know" would be acceptable.  Ever hear of, much less
	practise common courtisy?

	Of course, Annie is letting all this go by because she has
	exams.  She needs to become a lawyer and sap all of you of
	your last penny while you figure it's not time or too hard
	to change the rules.  She's laughing all the way to the bank
	while you're eating peanut butter.  But she'll be back,
	and you'll revere her and kiss her ass.

>   Oh, I see.  Because they care about their children, they're
>supposed to care about you too?  Because you're acting like a child, I

	I consider "changing the rules" helpfull to their kids,
	as they then have more $$$$$ left to spend on them.

>   What's not you?  Oh, you mean because YOUR latest crusade just
>happens to benefit--in YOUR mind--people other than YOU, that means
>YOU have the right to push YOUR ideas onto others?  I don't remember

	No, I don't.  In fact I recommend the next time you go to court
	you drop your pants, bend over, and say, "right here judge...
	or do you prefer my mouth".  That's much more beneficial than
	fighting the system.

>Anne saying "You know, I could do this class-action thing, but I think
>I'd rather sit home just to annoy Alan."  YOU're the one who came to
>both conclusions--that she has the ability, and that she has the lack
>of interest.  Both are unfounded, and both are wrong.

	And you all will pay for her apathy.  But you're all stupid
	enough to exhalt someone who would rather see me squirm
	than to help your quality of living.

>>	Let her take her "shingle" off the net!!!!!!
>
>   Ah, I see.  You think that there's actually a logical connection,
>here.  Well, as you have been told repeatedly, there isn't.  Live with
>it.

	Oh, of course not.  Not in her sig.  Open your eyes.

>   Because I didn't sire a child I have no right to read a newsgroup?

	It gives you less right to argue about something you have no
	life with.

>I'm here because I find some of the articles interesting.  That's
>enough.  It's why I read alt.sex.motss even though I'm not gay, and I
>read soc.women even though I'm male.
>
	But do you argue there?


>   Further, I resent your implication that I am somehow unqualified to
>speak on this topic.  I think you have demonstrated more
>unqualification in the last few days than my credentials ever could.

	That's you opinion.  Nothing about my situation has been
	brought up.  And you *have* no personal situation to bring
	up. Go away.

>   You have a point?  I guess I must have missed it.  What possible
>point could you have that would be refuted by evidence of Anne's good
>works other than the bald assertion that she has none?  Let's review
>the evidence on that point:
>
>	Alan: none.
>
>	Anne: A personal statement, backed up by the statements of
>independant witnesses.
>
>   In any court of law, faced with this imbalance of the evidence, not
>only wouldn't they demand Anne's side come forth with further
>evidence, they wouldn't even let the case go to jury before granting
>summary judgement in favor of Anne.  (That means against you, Alan.)
>
>   Until you come forward with some evidence that Anne is doing
>nothing--and here's a hint: the fact that she hasn't helped you or
>your designated cause du jour isn't evidence of that--I have no
>obligation to come forward with further evidence on the other side.
>

	You've got it wrong!  First of all, this is the opposite
	of a court of law situation.  Your logic doesn't apply.
	I cannot prove, "there are no black ducks!", but if someone
	claims to have one, it's *their* burden to bring it to
	court.  It is Annie's burden to prove that works exist.
	It is logically impossible for me to prove there aren't.


>   No, I haven't.  Despite repeated email--from independant sources--
>saying "Good point, but you're wasting your time.  Alan will keep
>going no matter how wrong he is."
>

	Why don't these people say this to me.  And why is anything
	I've said here wrong?

	Is it wrong to try to begin discussion on a viable topic?
	Is it wrong to wonder why people don't tell you it's
	good, bad, or indifferent in some way?


	This entire arguement has gone to the place where if I
	physically produced Jesus Christ, I'd still be wrong.
	Everyone has cataracts on their eyes.


>   Yet another example of the Alan double-standard.  You expect others
>to take your statements at face value in the absence of contradictory
>evidence, yet you are perfectly comfortable assuming other people's
>statements are _false_ in the absence of _supporting_ evidence.
>

	Other people have made no statements.

>   With rules like that on your side, how could you possibly lose?
>Lucky for me those rules are only in _your_ mind, Alan.
>
	Hey.  It's the best game to play.  But *you* made it that
	way.


-- 
	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......
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2166 alt.dads-rights:1513 misc.legal:14632