From: garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin)
Subject: Reply to Alan Yasutovich (Was Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?)
Organization: Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 21:54:18 GMT


   Well, this got so complicated that I downloaded it to my 
word processor.  Consequently, quotes of Mr. Yasutovich will be 
indented instead of the traditional > marker.  Text he quoted 
will, of course, have that marker.

   This is an exceedingly long one, folks.  If you doubt your 
interest in the topic, bail now.

He says:

In article <2101@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.192246.14634@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>|> 	I never claimed to have anything to offer.  *You* have.
>|> 	But you offer nothing!
>
>I think one of the dangers here is that one could misread Alan's posting
>as an attack upon an individual (Anne) when it seems, from watching his
>posts for a while that these types of attacks are aimed at everyone that 
>doesn't have an immediate and effective solution to his personal problem.


	I have heard/seen this one before.  Might I duelly state/ask
	that I have not expressed any "personal problems" here,
	and when have I asked for anything?

And yet, on the same day, he says:

>>	Your problem (As I've said many times in the past) is that
>>	you came proudly to proclaim yourself as "champion of mens
>>	divorce rights".
> 
>"Champion"?  I never saw anything like that in her postings.  She said she
>*supported* the cause of rights for non-custodial fathers.
> 

	It's a net attitude.  Not a quote.

>>  Trouble is that one should not delegate
>>	authority without responsibility.  And I don't!
> 
>You have neither authority nor responsibility to delegate.

	Again.  A net attitude.  Plenty of others on the net with no
	"authority" have done so if even by their silence.  This
	includes *you* by this post.

   So, Alan, basically what you're saying is it's okay for you 
to divine someone else's "net attitude," but if someone does 
that to you, they are being unfair and should stick to the text 
of your messages?  Sounds reasonable.

Alan writes:

>Your bets and opinions are worthless.  I'm quoting you just so I can
>correct your spelling and usage.
> 

	Well then you're wasting your time.  I think faster than I
	type, and I type so fast and so much, it's not worth
	reviewing.

And:

> 
>>   ... Except if your genuinely fired up
> 
>[you're]
> 

	Fuck you!  I know how to read.
        [ed.: the poster was questioning your ability to 
_write_, not read]

Yet on the same day, we get:

	But all I've seen are posts like, "It's not my job, I won't
	do it."  And, "It's too expensive."  And those are responses
	to my flames.

	Give me a break people.  You're all always running stuff up the
	plagpole.  Yet when *I* push a particular subject, and none
	of you respond, I get pissed.  So *I* say so.  Then somehow
	*I* am wrong.  It's not me.  It's *you*.  *You* never answered
	my point.  And for people who like to bullshit your way
	through your day, I'd at least think I'd get *some* kind
	of educated answer to a reasonable idea, rather than to get
	put on the chopping block for taking people to task who *claim*
	to care.

   Give _me_ a break, Alan.  You don't have the time in your 
busy schedule to bother to edit your little pearls of wisdom, 
but whoever's name you invoke is supposed to jump to respond to 
your latest idea, lest they incur your wrath?

   Besides, you were answered, first by others, then by Anne.  
You just didn't like the answer.

   Furthermore, you are being taken to task not for coming up 
with the idea--heck, you didn't even come up with it, you just 
demanded that Anne explain why it wouldn't work.  You are being 
taken to task for being rather shockingly immature when people 
don't to exactly as you ask.

   But let's go over--again--just _one_ reason why this is a 
stupid idea:

>(persons, business entities, governments [if they choose to allow themselves
>to be sued]).
> 
>How can a suit be brought against an entire CLASS of people?
> 

	Good question.  That's what I've been asking "the experts".

   Oh, by the way, I think this was meant to be a rhetorical 
question.  Look it up in your Funk & Wagonall's.

>How does Alan Yasutovich propose that an entire class of people all be served
>notice that their day in court is coming?  Newspaper ads?
> 

	I don't.  I'm asking.  Just because you don't know the system
	doesn't mean it can't be done.  And I also don't know how
	people who are involved in these suits are told.  My presumption
	is that they don't *have* to know. It's issue oriented.

>No, this is properly the domain of legislatures.  Get the state and Federal
>laws changed -- a daunting prospect.  (The nation couldn't even get the
>Equal Rights Amendment passed, which stated simply that discrimination
>based solely on sex was henceforth to be illegal.)
> 

	And basing your chance of success on other issues is a *REAL*
	good way of judging your own possibilities.



	Boy.  I can see *you're* a rocket scientist.

   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.

   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.

   And I won't make any guesses as to your abilities in rocket 
science.

Moving right along:

	Someone said, "Put you money where your mouth is".  Leadership
	is what's needed.  I am not Moses. Nor am I qualified to be.

   Ah, but you are, I suppose, God?  For who else was it that 
told Moses what to do?

A minor factual issue:

>She participates by posting informative articles to the net.  When she
>passes the bar, and is permitted to practice law, she may consent to
>perform legal services for you and others, pro bono or not.
> 

	Yea, I know.  All that advice about, "in *my* state.........
	but I'd see a lawyer."  Hey, there's another possibility why
	she's here!  A side job drumming up business.  She gets
	a commission!

   In most states it is _illegal_ for a lawyer to give a 
referral fee of this kind (except to a registered referral 
service, usually ABA run).  Needless to say, Anne isn't getting 
one.

And now, Alan takes yet another unfounded logical step:

>>>Stop looking for a free handout from me.  You know nothing of the work
>>>and effort I put in, unless you truly think you can judge that from
>>>the net, in which case..well..that'd be pretty short-sighted.
>>
>>	Neither does anyone else know about it.  Cause if you had,
>>	you'd brag about it regularly.  That's why I'd think it.
> 
>Not everyone feels a need to brag.  Don't jump to conclusions.

	Correct.  I'm not junping to conclusions.  Her wearing
	her school on her sleeve is the brag.  She just never knew
	she'd have to live up to the reputation she created for herself.
	Bit off more than she could chew.


   Er, what you _said_ was that if she were doing X, she would 
brag about it.  That's the conclusion you jumped to.  The fact 
that she mentioned something else--which you TOOK to be 
bragging (but, knowing Anne, was probably a mere statement of 
fact)--is completely irrelevant.

Another minor point.  Alan claims not to care about English 
correctors, yet after several corrections, we get this:

> 
>>   ... Except if your genuinely fired up
> 
>[you're]
> 

	Fuck you!  I know how to read.

   First, this seems to indicate that you care a bit more than 
you care to let on, Alan.  Second, it's just the point.  
Writing with the atrocious style you write with implies that 
you don't know the basics of the language you pretend to 
communicate with.  It implies, in other words, that you are an 
illiterate oaf.

Well, I suppose it's only fair that I should quote his reply to 
me in full (although he didn't deign to show me the same courtesy):

In article <1992Jul21.005456.25810@leland.Stanford.EDU> garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) writes:
>   Sigh.  Well, I just couldn't sit idly by and let this one go.  So:
>
>In article <1992Jul20.192246.14634@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>>In article <14erv9INNc6l@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
>>>Forgive *my* bluntness Alan, but with all due respect, go away. 
>>>I do NOT owe you anything, and for that matter I do not owe ANYone on
>>>the network anything.  I do NOT have to PROVE myself and I certainly
>>>do not have to prove to YOU that I can do some real good.
>>>
>>	Well, there you have it.  Like a doctor at an accident scene
>>	who let's someone die because they might get sewed. You
>>	refuse to apply your skills to an area that you claim
>>	*personal* as well as *professional* interest.  See
>>	Annie, your presence here on this group indicates interest
>>	in the topic.  Your advertisement of your legal education
>>	puts some kind of attention to your skills in that area.
>>	And your unabashed willingness to advertise that fact
>>	that you want to be known as such.  If there were a doctor
>>	at a car accident, wouldn't people seek his help?  Wouldn't
>>	his/her M.D. degree indicate ability in that area as well
>>	as interest?
>>
>>	Your problem (As I've said many times in the past) is that
>>	you came proudly to proclaim yourself as "champion of mens
>>	divorce rights".  Trouble is that one should not delegate
>>	authority without responsibility.  And I don't!  *You* just
>>	came for the glory.  Not for the responsibility that goes
>>	along with it.
>
>   EXCUSE ME?  Where in the hell did this come from?  You come up with
>some lame-brained idea to sue the entire United States of America to
>rectify your personal wrongs, and when Anne doesn't come rushing to
>your side yelling "Yes, yes, Alan, you're a genius!  I don't know why
>I never thought of it before!  I'm going to dedicate my life to your

	No.  All I wanted was a response.  A simple, "That's the
	stupidest thing I've ever heard of.  And here's why"
	would have been acceptable.


   And when you don't get the response you want, you get mad.  
Poor baby.  Let's review:

	Anne: I don't owe you anything.  I've got better things 
to do with my time than answer your stupid questions and jump 
on your latest bandwagon, or prove to YOUR satisfaction that 
I'm doing something equally valuable.

	Alan: Aha!  This proves it!  She's just another 
money-grubbing lawyer who doesn't care about issues at all.  
[ed.: logical step unfounded here.]

	Gary: What?  This doesn't follow.  Just because she 
doesn't want to play your little games means she's the moral 
equivalent of a callous MD. who lets people die by the side of 
the road?

	Alan: No, no.  All I wanted was an answer.

   Well, Alan, as I've said before, you got an answer.  You 
just decided you didn't like it.  It's postings like this that 
make people think you _deserve_ to be ignored, you know.  "Why 
bother answering Alan; he's just going to decide he doesn't 
like the answer, then flame me with personal insults."

>   First of all, to continue the point I made above, this is bullshit
>on your part, Alan.  Anne is, as she reports, working her tail off
>doing work for FREE for free.  You sit in your la-z-boy and complain
>that what she's doing isn't good enough.  What the hell do you know?

	I know nothing.  That's why I ask.  And I don't consider
	requiring a well thought out answer from someone who claims
	to be educated in an area as saying "she isn't doing enough."

	It's just common courtesy.  And that's what the net is for.
	Communication.

   Ah, but you're wrong.  You have no right to "require" 
anything from anyone here.  Particularly the time it takes to 
answer stupid questions when someone's otherwise occupied.  But 
as long as we're requiring things, I require a little common 
courtesy from you, Alan.  And I require that you edit your 
posts before you send them.

   Oh, and another thing.  You don't ask, you demand.  There's 
a difference.  Demanding implies that you are entitled to an 
answer.  You aren't.  You also insult, which makes it less 
likely that people will respond when you do ask.

>Or do you just _assume_ that her work isn't doing anyone any good?
>Show me some evidence.  Put up or shut up.  I'm willing to bet Anne


	*I* have asked repeatedly even to people on this net what
	*good* is being done.  The burden of proof is on her; not me.


   Ah, but that assumes that people actually care enough to 
prove something to you.  You forget, most people don't really 
care whether you believe they're doing any good or not.  It's 
not worth the effort, you see, because no matter what we say, 
you'll come back with "yes, but MY idea would help MORE 
people," or some such.

   Sure, we run the risk of your not believing what we say.  
But I, for one, can live with that.  I don't really care 
anymore if you believe what I say.  (I do care if other people 
believe what _you_ say, which is why I continue to bother to 
reply.)

   Or do you believe that you sit in judgment for people other 
than yourself?  That Anne's failure to convince you somehow 
makes her statements less truthful in the eyes of anyone other 
than you?  [ed.: This is a rhetorical question.]

>can come up with some people she's already helped (in the less-than-a-

	I've asked.  She hasn't.

   I said she could, not that she would.  She has the ability.  
It's probably none of your business.  Family law matters do 
tend to be private, you know.

>year since FREE was organized) faster than you can find someone you've
>helped in the same time period.  And don't give me that crap about her

	I never claimed to be a "helper".  Doesn't someone have the
	right to ask help from someone who claims to be a helper?

   You have the right to ask.  You don't have the right to 
demand.  In any case, you aren't asking for help.  You are 
pointing out a horrible situation, and saying "Isn't this 
awful?  Anne should go fix it."  To which "Fix it your damn 
self" is a perfectly reasonable reply.

>   And you wanna talk about work that won't make anyone's life any
>better, let's have a chat about your little class-action idea.  Unless
>you think being laughed out of federal court is going to help someone.
>

	Hoow do *you* know this?

   I know this because I learned it.  I went to school, I read 
a book or two, and I know that the courts won't stand for a 
suit against an unserved defendant, for one thing.

>   One factual matter, though.  Lawyers in _this_ state, at least,
>must take an oath to not turn aside the cause of the defenseless or
>oppressed.  Perhaps you can explain which part of that means what you
>said, above.
>

	No, I can't.  I was hoping Annie or someone else would.

   Ah, so now the lawyers of the world are supposed to explain 
your untrue assertions that they swear to be self-serving?  I 
don't think so.  Gary don't play that.

>   Are you serious?  Again, just because you come up with an idea--
>which, by the way, shows such a deep lack of understanding of the
>judicial system that it's almost impossible to start explaining to you

	When did I say otherwise?

   Er, genuine confusion time, here, folks.  Otherwise than 
what?

>why you're wrong--and Anne doesn't come running that is supposed to
>mean that she's a hypocrite?  That she's in family law for the MONEY?
>(Ask any family lawyer about _that_ one, sometime!)  Even better, when
>it looks like you're in the wrong, you start questioning her very
>existance?  Does she have a daughter?  Perhaps she's just an AI
>program set up to annoy you, personally, Alan.

	Nobody told me I was wrong.  Nobody told me ANYTHING!

	How many times do I need to write the same words to you
	stupid people?

   Maybe the problem _is_ that you're writing the same words.  
You come in with your "I need this" and "I demand that" and "I 
know what you ought to be doing" attitude, you get angry and 
inflammatory when people don't jump to respond, and you wonder 
why people don't give you answers?

   Furthermore, you GOT answers, and just decided that they 
weren't good enough for you, so you got mean.  Well, you may 
think faster than you type, but try reading before you do 
either.

   And if we're all communicating with each other, yet YOU seem 
to fail to communicate, who's the stupid person?

   But, I suppose in your mind this justifies accusing someone of
lying.

>   No, Alan, you do act as if she owes you something.  You act as if
>she owes you respect.  Well, I think right about now you don't deserve
>respect from anyone, least of all her.
>

	I act as if I deserve an answer on the net.  ANd not a
	reply to flames.  A reply to issues.

   Let me say this as plainly as possible.  YOU DON'T.  Nobody 
"deserves" an answer on the net, and nobody has a right to get 
pissed off when they don't get one.  Some people don't respect 
you enough to _give_ you an answer, which is what I was 
alluding to earlier.  And until you start acting like you 
deserve that kind of respect, you're just going to have to live 
with it.

>>	I never claimed to have anything to offer.  *You* have.
>>	But you offer nothing!
>>
>
>   No, what happened is that YOU, Alan, _decided_ that Anne had
>something to offer, and got mad when she didn't.  Well, Anne has a lot
>to offer, and, as she has said in the past, she's offering it.  But
>that isn't good enough for you, Alan.  Oh, no!  She has to offer what

	What a logical nightmare.  First, *I* decided Annie has something
	to offer.  Then you *state* that she has.  Then you state
	that she's contributed more advice than, "see a lawyer".

   First of all, there's no logical problem here.  You decided 
that Anne could give what you decided was necessary, then you 
got mad because she didn't.  As a separate statement, I 
mentioned that she does offer other things, to show that her 
not offering what you decided she should is not mere 
callousness, but rather that she is expending her energies 
elsewhere--a statement on her part that you expressed some 
doubt about.

   Second, "see a lawyer" is often the best advice.  Sometimes 
I give it myself.

	Why don't you people get this conversation out of generalities
	and state some specifics, rather than defending someone's
	honor.  What has she done?

   First of all, it's none of your business.  Second of all, 
it's irrelevant.  Regardless of what she's done, she has no 
obligations to you or to some cause you happen to designate as 
appropriate for her.  Third of all, I defend her honor, and not 
her particulars, because that's what you're attacking.

	I keep asking the same questions, and the answer is, 
	"She's done a lot"

   She has.  I was hoping you would just take my word for it.  
But I see now that you want the opportunity to pick her works 
apart in the same way you pick her words apart.  I refuse to 
give you the opportunity.  Your feeble attempts to respond to 
her posts are evidence enough of your motive.

>   You know, this rings of a psychological effect called Projection.
>It's a stress reaction.  What it is is ascribing your own thoughts,
>emotions, and so forth to others.  You see, Alan, maybe YOU would brag
>to the net about every little thing you did to help NCPs, but Anne
>isn't that insecure.  I've been to a FREE meeting, and I've seen some
>small fraction of the work Anne's done.  Trust me, it's there, and
>it's big.
>

	I've never claimed to have helped ANYONE!

   No, but if you did, I bet we'd hear about it.  Which, if you 
read carefully, is what I said above.  However, that doesn't 
mean that everyone else is like that.  Difficult as it may be 
to believe, some people just go on doing things without caring 
whether the net knows it or not.

>   But it doesn't matter what I say, because you can't believe that
>anyone would act any differently than you would.  If someone doesn't
>brag, it must mean she isn't doing anything.  If someone doesn't rush
>headlong into the first idea that pops into your head to help NCPs,
>she must not really care about NCPs at all.
>

	But if someone doesn't answer a challenge, it's because there
	is no answer.  Even *you* who claim to have attended meetings
	give the answer, "trust me, it's ther, and it's big."

   Again, jumping to conclusions.  Sometimes people don't 
answer because, for example, it just isn't worth their time and 
energy.  In this case, for example, I have decided that it 
isn't worth my time or energy to make a laundry list of Anne's 
accomplishments.  If you don't want to accept my assertions, 
well, then you'll just have to live in factual darkness.

   Sometimes people don't answer because the answer would 
violate some higher-order obligation.  Like someone else's 
privacy.  I used to work on a hotline.  Ask me what the calls 
were about, and I won't tell you.  It's not because we didn't 
get any.

   Sometimes people don't answer because the asker is rude.  
Answering would be encouraging that rudeness, so they refuse.  
I think the applicability to this case is obvious.

   I could go on, but I think I've disproved your assertion 
well enough.

   And what's all this about me _claiming_ to have attended a meeting?
Are you trying to imply that I might be lying about that?  You must be
pretty full of yourself, indeed, to think that anyone would bother to
lie to you about something so trivial.

	That's right up there with, "the check's in the mail", and,
	"I won't come in your mouth."

   I wouldn't come in your mouth if you paid me.  :-)

	Oh, I see now.  You're personal friends!

   True, but irrelevant.  People who aren't her personal 
friends are speaking just as strongly against you as I am.

>   Well, Alan, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but reality
>will go humming right along regardless of how wrong your perception of
>it is.  However, it might be to your personal benefit to get your
>perception more in line with reality.
>

	You are right.  And no matter what "benefit" you want to believe
	you're receiving (albeit unstated), reality will continue for
	you.  the federal guidelines will be in place.  You can attend
	all the  "Anne Mitchell" meetings you want.  And when you get
	home, your pockets will STILL BE EMPTY!!!!!

   What makes you think my pockets are being emptied by federal 
guidelines?  Other than, perhaps, the tax code, they're not.  I 
got just about exactly the benefit I expected from going to a 
FREE meeting: I got to listen to a very eloquent and 
interesting speaker.  But then again, I'm not an NCP.  Their 
attitudes indicated that the NCPs there were getting a bit more 
benefit than I was.

   Did I go up to them and say "Tell me what benefit you're 
getting from this; Alan Yasutovich wants to know."?  No.  
Sorry.  And if I had, at this point I wouldn't tell you their 
answers.

>   Just more noise.  You know, if you actually read the responses to
>your posts, you might not be posting this.  But I suppose it's easier
>for you to make unsupported assumptions about other people than it is
>to admit your position to yourself.
>

	The unsupported assumptions are on the part of everyone, including
	you, who make vague statements about benefits you receive,
	while continuing an unwillingness to express those benefits
	concretely.  *I* make no assumptions.  And when asked to by
	people who make unsupported allegations about "benefits",
	I challenge it.  I don't assume.

   First, your assumptions are legion.  I've flagged a few of 
them.  Second, vague statements are not the same as unsupported 
assumptions.  Vague statements can be (and often are) made with 
the knowledge of fully supporting facts; unsupported 
assumptions are, by definition, not.

			* * *

   So what do we have here, after all this?  It seems that Alan 
is perfectly happy applying standards to others that he doesn't 
want applied to himself.  That he is a gadfly who has the 
audacity to get angry when people ignore his rantings.  That he 
assumes the rest of the world thinks as he does.  That he 
delights in petty personal attacks upon his corespondents, 
perhaps in an effort to make himself seem more impressive.  
That he doesn't care enough to look at what he writes, but he 
expects everyone else to take it as gospel.

   Despite all this, he doesn't understand why his postings 
don't get a more favorable response.  I think the reasons are 
obvious, at least to everyone else.

   Do me a favor, Alan.  I'm asking, not demanding.  Read this 
posting.  Three times.  Slowly.  Respond, don't react.  And 
think _before_ you write, not just ahead of your typing.  I 
spent a couple or three of hours writing it; there's at least 
as much text I left out as there is text here.  The least you 
can do is take a proportional amount of time replying.

   Maybe if you do, this thread can end.

			-Gary
-- 
|Gary Brainin                     |BITNET: garygm%leland.stanford.edu@stanford|
|garygm@leland.stanford.edu       |UUCP: ...decwrl!leland.stanford.edu!garygm |
|"...the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right |
|most valued by civilized men."    Olmstead v. U.S. (Brandeis, J., dissenting)|
Newsgroups: alt.child-support