HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 22:45:19 GMT
Organization:  I said WHAT!?!

In article <1992Jul22.182527.15619@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>slarsen@verdi.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>
>>But the problem is, when a child is completely dependent on their 
>>parents not only for survival, but also protection of their legal 
>>rights, some children are not being kept safe.  What mechanisms protected 
>>Lisa Steinberg from Joel Steinberg?  What mechanisms protected the 
>>little girl from Gary whose parents, a doctor and a school teacher, 
>>fed her poison?  What mechanisms protected the little girl in 
>>Florida, who ended up with AIDS because the system kept returning her 
>>to her guardians?  
>
>As Anne pointed out, the proposed "solution" does not really solve
>these problems. As long as parents have the responsibility to raise
>their children, they also have the right to do it in the way they
>consider best. They may err, they may be abusive, over-controlling,
>less than optimal in numerous ways, but it is their call. The truly
>horrendous cases often are uncovered in any case; the proposed legal
>remedies do nothing in this area. Or would you really rather have Big
>Brother looking over the shoulder of every parent to make sure they 
>raise their children in the currently approved way?

I don't mind children being able to sue their parents so long as *they*
bear the financial burden if their case is lost, and also pay consequences
for spurious suits that you *know* would be brought against some parents
somewhere by the irresponsible brats that are out there. If they are mature 
enought to utilize the legal system, they are mature enough to deal with the
results of their actions.

>Regards,
>       H. Biesel s.N.a.


     Tyger
-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker  And I would chose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com    That's if the choice were mine to make   
                          But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady  And you can have this heart to break 
 
                       
        
Xref: sparky alt.parents-teens:1081 misc.kids:19520 soc.men:13626 soc.women:14002 alt.dads-rights:1555
From: slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:03:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Jul23.150308.12230
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1992Jul22.200218.28513@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>
>I'm with Anne on this one. [Whew - I was almost getting a little worried
>there when we Sue L. and I were agreeing so much :-) :-)].  We already have
>laws that deal with 'emancipated minors'.  I don't find the argument that
>this law would encourage frivolous suits at all shallow - we have a large
>wave of litigation mania sweeping the US, IMO.  Allowing children to collect
>damages from their parents (which is my understanding of the point of this
>law) seems like a very bad idea to me.

Well, Bronis, at least we can both sleep better at night,now ;-)

I have conceded earlier that allowing children to collect damages 
may not be such a hot idea.  But, on the other hand, it strikes me 
that denying children a legal voice in their own upbringing leaves 
them vulnerable, not only to parents but to the state and any private 
institution or individual who may acquire custody/guardianship of the 
child.  Without accountability comes abuse.  We see this everyday in 
the mismanagement of child welfare agencies, in divorce court, and 
in homes.  Too many entities claim that they are operating in the best 
interest of the child when the reality is everything but.

Imagine if a child could sue a parent because that parent deliberately 
kept the child from the other parent, thereby depriving the child of
the parental comfort and support of the other parent.  Isn't it 
reasonable to assume that, given such level of child empowerment, a
CP would think twice about denying visitation?  If all parties involved 
with the care of children had to operate in an environment in which 
children did have rights and could exercise those rights just as freely 
as we adults do, that more serious consideration would be given to  
the best interests of the child?

So, the search is on for the middle ground.  Certainly, any rights 
granted to a child, while a child, would have to be limited rights.
Questions of the child's competency would have to be addressed. 
I believe in the original statements made by H. Clinton, she did 
qualify that the minor must be "competent."

>My understanding is that the current laws allow children to get away from
>bad parents, but don't allow them to collect damages.  This is just about
>how the law should be, I think.  If I'm wrong in my understanding (which is
>possible, this isn't something I've researched) I'd be interesting in hearing
>about it.

I think you may be right, here.  At least, I've known kids who on their 
own word, have gotten action from authorities against highly, physically
abusive parents.  But, once in the hands of the welfare state, I've also 
heard stories (some highly publicized) about children severely injured 
or killed in the care of the state.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
Subject: Re: Non-custodial Parent Issue
From: alan@StarConn.com (Alan Deikman)
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:11:13 GMT
Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA  415-949-3133

In article <5158@transfer.stratus.com> bill@az.stratus.com (Bill Everts) writes:
>and go for her. 
>
>Question: If his mother cannot/will not afford to care for his 
> well being when  
>he is there, how long should I (we) foot the bill for his visits?
>
>BTW: She has paid one month of child support in the last 5 years. The 
> attorney  
>I consulted recommended against persuing it as I would end up being 
> the bad guy  
>and Wil would feel guilty if his mother complained about funds since she has  
>trouble keeping a job.
>

I think you and your attorney made the right decision -- although 
the biggest loser long term is not Wil or you but Wil's mother.
By not being forced to face up to her responsibilities she will never
grow up, but its possible she's a lost cause anyway.  That's a nasty
thing to say about someone, but I have seen a number of cases like
that.

As to paying for visits, I think you should assert yourself on your
own behalf.  I would suggest that mom pay for the plane ticket (which
is cheap if you get a special fare 14 days in advance) and don't
worry about it too much when she expects you to pay for maintenence
when Wil is there.  If she dropped off the end of the earth and
Wil never went there, how much would you be paying then?  

One other suggestion.  Make sure that Wil knows what is going on as
soon as he is old enough to understand.  You may be restraining 
yourself for the sake of not "bad-mouthing" the other parent.  That
is a good policy, but put it out before him in a dollars and
sense [sic] way, no emotion.  He will draw his own opionions, and
he deserves that right.

Regards,

Alan Deikman
============
Xref: sparky alt.parents-teens:1063 misc.kids:19445 soc.men:13554 soc.women:13928 alt.dads-rights:1526
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:02:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.144714.10646@news.nd.edu> slarsen@verdi.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

)The argument that giving children the ability to sue their parents would 
)cause for frivolous lawsuits is, IMO, callous and shallow in light of 
)the huge numbers of children being abused by the same persons who are 
)charged with protecting the interests of the children.  If there is a 
)real failure on the part of the parent, where can a child go for help?
)Maybe H. Clinton's suggestion that a child should be allowed to divorce 
)a parent is unworkable, but at least the woman is trying to find a 
)voice for those whose voices are not loud enough, or strident enough, 
)or persistent enough to get a hearing on their own.

I'm with Anne on this one. [Whew - I was almost getting a little worried
there when we Sue L. and I were agreeing so much :-) :-)].  We already have
laws that deal with 'emancipated minors'.  I don't find the argument that
this law would encourage frivolous suits at all shallow - we have a large
wave of litigation mania sweeping the US, IMO.  Allowing children to collect
damages from their parents (which is my understanding of the point of this
law) seems like a very bad idea to me.

My understanding is that the current laws allow children to get away from
bad parents, but don't allow them to collect damages.  This is just about
how the law should be, I think.  If I'm wrong in my understanding (which is
possible, this isn't something I've researched) I'd be interesting in hearing
about it.

Xref: sparky alt.parents-teens:1061 misc.kids:19434 soc.men:13549 soc.women:13923 alt.dads-rights:1522
From: slarsen@verdi.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:47:14 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <24037@castle.ed.ac.uk> yfcw06@castle.ed.ac.uk (S R Leather) writes:
>shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
>
>
>>If I truly believed that this idea would help neglected or abused
>>children, then I wouldn't have even posted it.  Geez, I'm not
>>unreasonable, or unfeeling even.  I happen to believe though, that it
>>will not only not help the kids who need it, but it will *harm* those
>>kids who are *not* mature enough to make such decisions, but drag
>>their parents to court anyway..because they can.  So what if they end
>>up losing their case...the harm done to the family at that point could
>>be irreparable.
>
>>This is NOT to say that there aren't real problems with the system.  I
>>just don't think that this is the answer, and in fact I think it could
>>be very harmful, in the long run, to the kids themselves, as well as
>>to society as a whole.
>
>In summary, I agree with Anne - keep children children (and safe).  Let
>them grow up when they are ready to grow up - don't force them to feel
>that they have to make decisions about sex (safe or otherwise), peer
>repression etc.  Give them the discipline that they need and
>(subconciously want) and prepare them to be responsible adults in a safe
>world.

But the problem is, when a child is completely dependent on their 
parents not only for survival, but also protection of their legal 
rights, some children are not being kept safe.  What mechanisms protected 
Lisa Steinberg from Joel Steinberg?  What mechanisms protected the 
little girl from Gary whose parents, a doctor and a school teacher, 
fed her poison?  What mechanisms protected the little girl in 
Florida, who ended up with AIDS because the system kept returning her 
to her guardians?  And, for the *I* story, what mechanism protected my
cousin, whose parents did not want to pay for heart surgery, from dying 
at the age of 16 when his heart literally exploded?

The argument that giving children the ability to sue their parents would 
cause for frivolous lawsuits is, IMO, callous and shallow in light of 
the huge numbers of children being abused by the same persons who are 
charged with protecting the interests of the children.  If there is a 
real failure on the part of the parent, where can a child go for help?
Maybe H. Clinton's suggestion that a child should be allowed to divorce 
a parent is unworkable, but at least the woman is trying to find a 
voice for those whose voices are not loud enough, or strident enough, 
or persistent enough to get a hearing on their own.

Instead of trashing H. Clinton for possibly stepping on a few parental 
toes, I think the woman should be commended for having the courage to 
put the force of her personality, learning and reputation to work for 
the poorest and most legally defenseless segment of our society.

Treat your children well.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
From: cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond)
Subject: Re: Non-custodial Parent Issue
Organization: Integrated International Systems Corp. One Longfellow Place, Suite 3309, Boston, Ma.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:22:19 GMT

The retraining and the allowed behavior that you would not permit all
fall in the category of "unless its extreme you have to put up with it".
The financial thing however.... why don't you get a court order for
support. It is a responsibility for both parents to financially support
their offspring, not just for the man. My exwife and I have had very
amicable relations over the years , and she pays support even though
*I* don't need it. Note that she pays willingly and of her own volition
based on her feelings of responsibility. (count me lucky in having
an ex of exemplary character)

Charlie
-- 
*****************************************************************************
*  Charles Richmond 	Integrated International Systems Corporation        *
*  cmr@world.std.com	(Temporary) crichmond@mr4dec.enet.dec.com           *
*  Specializing in UNIX, X, Image Processing, and Communications.           *
Xref: sparky alt.parents-teens:1068 misc.kids:19473 soc.men:13569 soc.women:13944 alt.dads-rights:1532
From: danlip@cco.caltech.edu (Daniel Adam Lipofsky)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:01:09 GMT

In article <64@ima.com> kehres@ima.com (Tim Kehres) writes:

>This does not sound like a situation that is likely to have an ideal solution
>for all possible combinations.  Sure, there are parents out there that are in
>no position to offer guidance to their children (they themselves are in dire
>need of it many times).  The problem I see with this is that it establishes a 
>dangerous precedence.  At a time where one of my main concerns in this country 
>(USA) is the trend of the government to get more involved rather than less 
>involved in peoples personal and business lives, this type of situation scares 
>me.  Sure there are problems with some families in these area, but opening
>the door for the government to come in and take control (based on criteria it 
>establishes), does not sound like the act of a truly free society.


If you think the giving children rights will make the gov't become
more involed in peoples personal rights think of this:

- The gov't current forces anyone under 18 to get thier parents written
permission to do anything.
- If a minor try to get out of a bad situation by physically removing
themselves, the police will chase them down and drag them back.
- The gov't continues to force children into situations which get them
hurt or killed.
etc.

Giving children rights would remove many of these gov't intrusions into
private lives.  It would not cause gov't interference.
(A civil suit is NOT gov't interference.  Banning one group of people
from making civil suits is.)

--danlip
-- 
"The calender of the Theocracy of Muntab counts down, not up.  No-one knows
why, but it might not be a good idea to hang around and find out."
	--Terry Pratchett, _Wyrd_Sisters_
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: Non-custodial Parent Issue
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:43:50 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

I think you're stuck with "the financial thing" because I think if you
say the boy will only see his mother when she pays, he'll probably never
see her. IMHO it is worth putting up with the hassles so that he can 
see her: if, at age 14, he were to stop seeing his mother, I believe that
would be difficult for him even if he doesn't much like her and doesn't
much like being there. (If *he* wants to skip or shorten a visit, that
would be OK.)

Re legal issues: In some states/circumstances, "the parent that moved away"
is responsible for the kid's plane tickets. So if you divorce in Montana
and move to Maine, you have to pay. (No, I don't know what happens if
you move to Maine and your ex moves to Texas!)

What happens if the boy breaks his leg? Well, I assume he's covered on
your health insurance: make sure your ex knows this, and knows how to
deal with emergencies (e.g. make sure that the boy carries an insurance card
and that his mom knows he has it). 

Good luck!
-Laura "evil stepmother" Johnson. 
-- 
lpj@hpctdls.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.

Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights
From: donna@b21.b21.ingr.com (Donna Smith)
Subject: Re: Non-custodial Parent Issue
Organization: Intergraph Corp., Huntsville, AL
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 17:28:06 GMT

in article <5158@transfer.stratus.com>, bill@az.stratus.com (Bill Everts) says:
> 
> I have custody of my 14 year old son from my first marriage. His mother lives  
> in Virginia while we live in Arizona with my wife and 7.5 month old son.  I  
> have been divorced for 5 years and in Arizona for the last 4.
>  my wife and I have paid for Wil, the 14yo, to fly to Virginia every  
> summer. We also paid for his flight there this last Christmas.  Not only  
> doesn't his mother offer to pay for his flights, she doesn't even go so far as  
> to get his hair cut while he is there.  
> 
> Question: If his mother cannot/will not afford to care for his well being when  
> he is there, how long should I (we) foot the bill for his visits?

Since your son is 14 now, I think he should be involved in the decision
concerning whether he should continue to visit his mother. Does he enjoy
the visits? Does he think he is well cared for?

Since you have been footing the bill for four years, it seems to me that it
is not a question of you being able to afford it, but resentment that his
mother can't/won't even offer to help with the cost. 

Don't let the money issue get in the way of your son's enjoyment of the
visits (if indeed he does enjoy them and you can afford to continue to
foot the bill).
From: mdunbar@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Michael Dunbar)
Newsgroups: alt.rhode_island
Subject: i'm coming home!!!
Summary: help!!
Keywords: i need an account!!
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:05:30 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

Hello there! I am moving from wonderful (NOT) oklahoma BACK to rhode island...
I have been away for two years and have gotten quite used to having a net based
account...does anybody have any idea how i can get one when i return??? It would
be muchly appreciated...i will be going to school at either RIC or CCRI next
semester and i don't think they have access...:(   at any rate...this is my
VERY last day having access to this account as i am moving tomorrow...

if you have any information for me on this, please write me at:
 		julie levitt
		215 Cleveland St.
		Pawtucket, RI 02860

thanks in advance...


julie levitt
a.k.a. mortiana/bitch/pregnant

`:wq
Newsgroups: alt.rhode_island
From: pfleury@ddsw1.mcs.com (Patrick J. Fleury)
Subject: I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE!!  (Oh, its only a movie!)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:44:31 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

There was a recent discussion in rec.arts.movies about the goriest
film ever made and _I Spit on Your Grave_ was a top contender.  As
I remember it, this little gem of cinematic art had its world premier
- that's right, folks - world premier - at the Pike drive in Johnston,
RI.  It was sometime in the early sixties.  

Do I remember this correctly or is my daughter right and I am approaching
senility at warp speed?  Does anybody else remember this?
Was anybody dumb enough to see it?

--Pat F.
From: chris.mathis@madness.network23.com (Chris Mathis) 
Newsgroups: alt.rhode_island
Subject: RE: RI TRIVIA
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:25:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Terminal Madness BBS - Newport, RI - 401-848-9069
Reply-To: chris.mathis@madness.network23.com (Chris Mathis) 

->       >> Green Death
->       >> smoothe as oil
-> >> soft petal flowers >> a deceptive bite! >> serpents venom >> drink
-> slowly my dear young man, >> Because behind every  door, >> Green
-> Death doth stand...
->   >> He said he loved it!!!
->   >> But he might have been drunk....   :+)
->
->   What a fitting end to this quiz!
->
-> Scoring:
-> 1 pt for each laugh and remembrance this provoked.
-> -1 pt if you didn't have a clue, and it didn't remind you of anything
-> RI-ish

 Hmmm?  How much extra points do I get for wrighting that "Green Death"
poem/???? Do I win?! Do I win?!! :+) heh heh heh..


             chris.mathis@madness.network23.com
                                                                                                           
Newsgroups: alt.rhode_island
From: deegan@unx5.fxo.dec.com (bill deegan)
Subject: Over/Under Bars in Providence,RI
Reply-To: deegan@unx5.fxo.dec.com (bill deegan)
Organization: DEC Palo Alto
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 17:12:58 GMT


Could somebody post a list of over/under bars in Providence?

Thanks,
Bill Deegan
From: max@underg.UUCP (Max Cray)
Newsgroups: alt.rhode_island
Subject: RE: RI TRIVIA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 13:44:04 EDT
Organization: Underground Computing Foundation

chris.mathis@madness.network23.com (Chris Mathis)  writes:

>  Hmmm?  How much extra points do I get for wrighting that "Green Death"
> poem/???? Do I win?! Do I win?!! :+) heh heh heh..

Before we can actually award you the prize you must provide us all
with samples of the famous Rhode Island drink 'Green Death'.

By the way, does the name come from how the drink looks before you are
drinking it, or after you are throwing it up? :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 -= Max Cray =-                                       
 Net:     underg%max@uunet.uu.net                   Don't be afraid;
 UUCP:    ...!uunet!underg!max                       just believe.
 CI$:     76334,2203
From: cbas38@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.rhode_island
Subject: Re: Advice needed on getting to Providence, RI
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:49:03 GMT
Organization: Strathclyde University VAX Cluster

In article <1992Jul30.143918.1@vaxa.strath.ac.uk>, cbas38@vaxa.strath.ac.uk writes:
> Hello
> 
> 
> I'm travelling from GLasgow to Providence and was looking for advice
> on the best route to take. I can fly direct to New York or Boston 
> and was looking for information on the best route to take.
> 
> Cheers in advance
> 
> Sandy
> 
> cbas38@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
> 
> PS Please gonna e-mail me direct. Ta !!
> 
> 

Thanks to everyone who wrote. It looks as if it's Boston then !!

Cheers

SAndy
Newsgroups: alt.rhode_island
From: taschereau@trade.enet.dec.com (TASCHEREAU)
Subject: Re: RI TRIVIA
Reply-To: taschereau@trade.enet.dec.com (TASCHEREAU)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:15:40 GMT


Recipes from my days as a Newport Creamery soda jerk...

Milk Shake: Milk, flavored syrup; blended
Frappe/cabinet:  Milk, flavored syrup, ice cream; blended.
Awful-Awful(/Fribble?):  Milk, flavored syrup, unflavored ice milk; blended.
Ice cream soda:  Cream or half-n-half, syrup, soda water; mixed; scoop of ice
                  cream; dropped in.
Ice cream float: Prepared soda (root beer, coke, etc..), scoop of ice cream;
		 dropped in.
Malted: Frappe (or milk shake?) with malt powder blended in.
Freeze: Cream or half-n-half, syrup, soda water, sherbet; blended.

Other items of interest:
Dusty sundae: A hot fudge sunday with malt powder sprinkled on top.
Black-n-white: A frappe of vanilla ice cream and chocolate syrup 
		   (typically) or of chocolate ice cream and vanilla syrup.

Not on the menu but sometimes requested:

Vanilla coke:  A glass of coke with a shot of vanilla syrup in it.


				Enjoy,
				-Steve
Newsgroups: alt.rhode_island