HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: The Majority are "In Contempt"
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:14:35 GMT

Alan Yasutovich writes
>	And 25% of others pay part.  That's 75%.

   No, that's another 11 (partial payers) from the 
   58 men (out of 100) who have support orders.
   (25+11) / 58 = 62%.

>  The * * *  M A J O R I T Y  * * * are NOT in contempt.

>  The majority *ARE* in contempt.

> "Contempt" means willful disregard.

    Yea -- like when someone doesn't pay.

  Who know what a partial payment is?
  Who knows whether it was "willfull" or not?

  Now add the 42% who have no court order and
  the *majority* gets even bigger -- 75% don't
  fit in the (faithfull) Child-support payers circle.
  75% is a majority!
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2986 alt.dads-rights:2150 alt.config:5376
From: karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.config
Subject: Re: Truly Amazing Discovery!
Keywords: New moderated paternity group
Date: 30 Aug 92 18:20:14 GMT
Organization: Interactive Systems, Cambridge, MA 02138-5302

In article <XJ50PB2w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>For those who missed out for one reason or another: Discussion is underway
>for the creation of an alt.group that deals in paternity issues.

Has a name been settled on yet?  Perhaps it would be a good idea to use
something like "family" as a second component, with an eye toward the
possibility of migrating existing groups (e.g. alt.family.child-support,
alt.family.dads-rights), should anyone be so ambitious enough to take on
such a thankless project.

Karl Heuer   karl@ima.isc.com   uunet!ima!karl
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2992 alt.dads-rights:2158 alt.config:5383
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.config
Subject: Re: Truly Amazing Discovery!
Keywords: New moderated paternity group
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:28:46 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:

> In article <XJ50PB2w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpat
> >For those who missed out for one reason or another: Discussion is underway
> >for the creation of an alt.group that deals in paternity issues.
> 
> Has a name been settled on yet?  Perhaps it would be a good idea to use
> something like "family" as a second component, with an eye toward the
> possibility of migrating existing groups (e.g. alt.family.child-support,
> alt.family.dads-rights), should anyone be so ambitious enough to take on
> such a thankless project.

As to the paternity group, I would suspect that the issue is still open.
However, given the thrust of its expected content, alt.paternity seems to
make a certain sense. In the end, it'll go with a majority --at least I
would assume so.

In regards to the other issues you discussed, an RFD is currently going on
for the formation of misc.legal.family --a group which deals in all aspects
of family-law --as it pertains to existing codes and policies in use by the
various states. 


--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: More Deadbeats
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:29:30 GMT

From UPI on Clarinet Tuesday-25-Aug:
> 	At the (California) state Capitol, the Legislature plowed 
> through a mountain of bills but took no votes on proposals to 
> balance the budget.
> 	Meanwhile, the state issued another 6,979 IOUs Tuesday totaling $11.5
> million. Altogether, the state has sent out 1.28 million registered
> warrants worth $2.87 billion since the fiscal year began July 1 without
> a budget.
> 	The state owes $8.2 million in interest to those who hold the IOUs.

   Geez, the list of deadbeats goes on and on and on . . .

   Responsibility is (and should be) subjective.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2964 soc.men:15621 soc.women:15910
From: woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: "family values"
Keywords: responsibility sexual reproduction
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:50:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
X-Md4-Signature: 814a4248b462bef91ce5763820f7ff8e

Mr. EuStress,

If the agents of the court were placing financial burdens on randomly
selected men, there would be some justification for calling this
"financial rape."  However, there is nothing random about seeking
out a person such as you, who participated in bringing children
into the world, and requiring you to pay for support of these children.

You seem to be denying that you had anything to do with the creation
of any babies.  I doubt that your ex reproduced asexually.  You seem to
be trying to foist the financial burden of your children onto society --
people who did NOT participate in creating your children.  Given that
you helped create your kids, and society did not, for you to insist that
society pick up the tab for them would be "financial rape" of society.
For society to ask you to assume responsibility for your own kids is not. 

EuStress writes:
>  I don't know anything about you --
>  but I'm going to guess that you are either
>  married with kids or you are soon to be
>  married.  Am I right?
>
>  I'll also guess that you live near your
>  divorced kids.

Your assumptions are entirely wrong.  I am not and never have been married.
I have no plans, soon or ever, to get married.  I'm not even currently
dating.  I live in North Carolina and my boy lives in Salt Lake City --
that's over 2000 miles.  I plan to vote Democrat this fall.

>    I'll protect myself from society --
>    by being an outlaw.

And the taxpayers and me and your ex will pay for raising your children.
Now who do you suppose is trying to "financially rape" whom?

Woody, c/o the OTH Gang 
-- 
woody@wolves.durham.nc.us
"Nothing in human affairs is worth any great anxiety."  -Plato
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: Truly Amazing Discovery!
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:32:46 GMT

In article <717@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
[in response to Woddy Muller's note on the non-utility of a.c-s/a.d-r and the
 inate limitations of usenet, suggesting a miling list, omitted]

>2) only two people posted objections to the formation of such a group,
>   one of them was Eric Brunner who has some sort of personal agenda
>   that dislikes my presence,

Unfortunately I can't repost that earlier response to the original suggestion,
as I don't keep such things around. If Bob thinks its personal, well, I guess
it never could have been about the weakness of dependency law and agencies
in the first place. What humbug.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Fathers giving up their rights....
From: danny@utkux1.utk.edu (Danny W. McCampbell)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:48:38 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee

I have a friend who cannot and will not get along with his
ex-wife.  He very rarily sees their son because of that. 
He has mentioned to me that he would like to give all rights
to the child, quit paying child support and just let her
have him.  He feels that someday the child will wonder
who his father is and want to see him.  Is there a law
that will allow him to do this.  He want to break all ties
with his ex-wife even if it means giving up his child. 
Please respond to me privately as I do not read this group
often.  Thanks.

Danny McCampbell
danny@utkux1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: steveg@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Steve Gabrilowitz)
Subject: Re: Right Not to Support
Organization: Martin Marietta
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:33:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.141631.10114@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:

|> >A lot of people are car mechanics, and don't say why they are. Most of the
|> >time, it just doesn't come up. The same is true, I think, of people who
|> >have expertise in family law. Some learned through experience, some through
|> >study, and others through both.
|> >
|> 
|> 	Not a good comparison.  This is not a car repair newsgroup.
|> 	If I gave you advice about your car, you might ask, "Gee,
|> 	are you a mechanic?"  If I said, "No, I just read books",
|> 	or something, you wouldn't think much of my opinions.

But there is a flaw in your analogy Alan.  A much better one would be if you ask
"Gee, are you a mechanic" and I reply "No, I am not a licensed mechanic but I did`
graduate from automotive repair school".  What would you think of my opinion then?

I think
I think I am
Therefore I am!
I think...



                            Steve Gabrilowitz
                            Martin Marietta, Orlando Fl.
                            steve-gabrilowitz@orl.mmc.com
                            Fidonet 1:363/1701 (407-380-1701)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: The Majority are "In Contempt"
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:29:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.212509.29461@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
)Bronis Vidugiris writes
)>In fact, about 75% or so
)>pay support regularly.
)
)   The real numbers are (25+11) / 58 = 62%
)   NOT 75%.

Well, my copy of statistical abstracs give:

1981:     71.8%
1985:     74.0%
1987:     76.1%

for partial payments.  (It doesn't mention late being equal to partial, but
I do seem to recall that that was said on the survey form, which I 
)   When society $$ gang rapes men, the 
)   majority (57%) "protect" themselves
)   by being outlaws -- in contempt.

Nope.  The threat of being thrown in jail (and probably being *actually*
raped) seems to bring a lot of men around.  Judges unfortunatley tend to
think that this proves the Evil Vileness of men rather than to show how
opressive and unfair the system is.

Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: The Majority are "In Contempt"
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:17:15 GMT

hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:

>  If the majority of credicard holders
>  defaulted on their loans -- 
>  you'd hear about it more.

Well, it's a little off the subject, but the feft-hand column on 
p.1 of the LA Times is about a rash of people assuming false 
identities to escape bad credit and banckruptcy.  So I guess 
we are hearing about it more....

						--  Michal

Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Shooting in the Courthouse: Why?
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 13:15:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.214509.18730@ils.nwu.edu> lewis@ils.nwu.edu (Sharon Lewis) writes:
>
>
>Security, or lack there of, does play a role in these senseless slayings.  I
>for had a very amicable divorce -- but I wanted it to be.  I did not want my
>children to go through an ugly drawn out process which I knew would wreck our
>lives.  
>
>Notice that the men are doing the shooting -- not women.  And, for how many
>years did women receive the shaft during divorces?  We simply applied for
>and received welfare when he refused to pay child support or took jobs while
>we went to school.  Now men feel they are getting the short side -- some maybe
>are, but most are only giving what is expected.  Most of these men did not
>want their wives to receive anything!
>
>I hate this senseless killing -- yea, we do need more security -- but we also
>need people to be more understanding during these trying times of divorce.  The
>courts are suppose to be there for us.  Any divorce that takes more than two
>months to resolve is a SHAM!

	Interesting that you brought this up.  I couldn't help but think
	of this group when I saw the documentary last week.  And I
	couldn't help but almost laugh as I saw people discussing
	treating the symptoms of the problem with absolutely no regard
	for the actual problem.

	What you, and most women fail to understand is the specific
	dynamic that goes on in these cases.  Yes, remember how most
	of these assualts were done by people (men) involved in divorce.

	When a man goes in to a court room for a divorce, other people
	take all of his possessions (present AND future) and cast lots
	for them just like they did when Jesus hung on the cross.  He
	is stripped of any rights or dignity.  He has no input as to
	how a faceless court, a hired gun (lawyer), and a person who
	by definition hates him, are going to divide his possessions
	and re-write his future.

	If a woman leaves a court with or without a support order,
	society supports her emotionally and financially. Even if this
	were not true, and even if she received no support from the
	father, she still has her freedom.  No one made or makes any
	decisions about how she must live her life.  Furthurmore, she
	still has her most prized possession(s); her kids.

	A man who walks into a courtroom for a divorce is no more than
	a common criminal with no rights.

	Like the N.H. license plate says; "LIVE FREE OR DIE"!

-- 
	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......
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Shooting in the Courthouse: Why?
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:12:39 GMT

I have added this to this particular thread because
it somehow seems to fit.  Over in soc.singles - if
any of you have time to read it - there's a thread
under the subject "Commitment--The C-word?".  It has
managed to get down to a debate over just the types
of subjects talked about here.  One person posted a
description of what he was planning, and I e-mailed
him a query on whether my interpretation of what he
posted was correct - namely that HE is the CP and
is going to court to try and force his ex to pay her
back support - and also suggested that he post/read
these groups.  This is his response, with the permission
to post the e-mail at the end.  I'm leaving the
header info off for now - if anyone IS interested in
talking with him, e-mail me, and I'll pass it on, or
get permission to post his name.

Meanwhile - I thought that many of you would be amused
by his story of what happened in the court-room.

Diana 

}Hi Diana. No I've never posted to those groups (or read for that matter).
}I figure I'll trust my high paid attorneys.
}Your interpretation of my post is correct.
} Went to court yesterday. It was funny in retrospect.
} Judge tells me to stand on one side of states attorney and her on
}the other. (First time she's showed up.) States attorney babbles a
}bunch of mumbo jumbo. Judge is giving me this pissed off look.
}
}Say's "Do you understand why your here and what the states attorney
}is doing?"
} 
}I say, in my best legal jargon "I guess so."
} 
}Judge says "In relation to your failure to pay child support."
} 
}I look in astonishment and babble (sorta pissed at this point) "I'm not
}supposed to pay child support. She is".
} 
}Judge looks at states attorney(who is in charge of enforcing child
}support, who I had never met in person and who was to busy to talk
}with me before court).
} 
}States attorney babbles (seems like a lot of babbling, eh) "Oh I'm sorry
}your honor , blah blah blah).
} 
}They both start apologizing profusely and tell us to switch places.
} 
}Suddenly I'm a nice guy. The whole attitude has changed.
} 
}The part that made my day was when the judge said to this piss poor excuse
}for a mother(much less a human being) (bitter? never.) " You better
}start making your child support payments so your kids can eat or your
}going to jail."
} 
}States attorney says "when she doesn't make a payment in thirty days
}call your contact at the office and I'll be seeing you in about sixty
}days".
} 
}You can post this to those groups if you wish Diana. I spend to much
}time in 2 newsgroups as it is.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2957 alt.dads-rights:2132 soc.women:15900
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.women
Subject: Re: Shooting in the Courthouse: Why?
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:56:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Distribution: usa
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Aug27.115444.14544@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
|> 	Good analogy.  Boy, if you want to see things clearly, looking
|> 	at both sides usually does clear up the picture.


	"I've looked at life from both sides now,
	 From win and lose and still somehow,
	 It's life's illusions I recall.
	 I really don't know life at all." - Joni Mitchell (?)

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2934 soc.men:15537 soc.women:15832 misc.kids:21983
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:15:07 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

Not sent to alt.dads-rights because I don't get it

In article <1992Aug26.223358.14507@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>The study was of "math and reading skills", which are usually measured
>by results on standardized tests.  If the "emotional trauma" had
>affected the children's math and reading skills, it would have been
>detected.

And why should it?  Or, at least, why should it affect math and reading skills
monotonically?

Is there anyone alive who has not ever thrown his- or herself into work or
academia as a means of coping with or avoiding dealing with emotional trauma?

-EMP
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: king@meaddata.com (Mike King)
Subject: Re: Fair?? (was Re: Abandoment is not same as Adoption)
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:27:16 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Sep1.153206.10521@infonode.ingr.com>, morgana@infonode.ingr.com (Angela Morgan) writes:
|> king@meaddata.com (Mike King) writes:
|> 
|> >Like every man alive, I to, would like to have some say in what
|> >happens to my child before it's born.  Would I put it up for adoption,
|> >keep it, abort it, or forget about it.  Unfair or not that decision is
|> >not in my hands.  Would I like it to be?  Yes.  So long...flame away.
|> 
|> Are you saying that you favor taking that control away from the woman
|> and putting it in the hands of the man?  That's what it sounds like you're
|> saying....

No, I don't favor taking ALL of the control away from the women.  I'd
just like to get some small piece of it.  Anything is better than nothing!  

|> Is that what you think is *fair*?!?!  Oh well, if you do, I guess you
|> simply join the ranks of millions of men who have twisted and warped
|> definitions of "equality" and "fairness".

I can hardly believe you said that!  Unless, of course, you consider
the mother having all of the say and the father no say as being FAIR.
When you were pregnant you, and you alone, had the choice as to what 
to do with the child.  The husband had no say in it.  Is the child any
less his?  You call that fair?

|> [I realize, of course, that many women also have pretty twisted definitions
|> of fairness and equality, but I'm not one of them.]

|> I'm so sick of all the whining and bellyaching that I hear on this group,
|> I feel like starting a new group called alt.ncp.woman.  Even though I'm
|> in the same boat as all you ncp men (I'm the ncp, I've been raked over
|> the coals by the system, I pay a large part of my salary in child support,
|> etc., etc.), I feel practically *nothing* in common with any of you.

You definately are unique.  How on earth did you NOT get custody?
I'm assuming that you were a "fit" parent.  If that is the case, it's
the first time I've ever heard of a father getting custody over a
"fit" mother.
 
-- 
Michael W. King     |  "I'm going to graduate on  |     (513) 865-1395   
Mead Data Central   |  time, no matter how long   |     CAPRR Conversion
P.O. Box 933        |  it takes"                  | mead!mwk@uccba.uc.edu
Dayton, Ohio  45401 |      -- Rod Brookin         |    ...!uccba!mead!mwk

Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2978 soc.men:15656
From: steward@cup.portal.com (John Joseph Deltuvia)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Deadbeats Bush and Clinton / Soviet Union's debts
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 18:31:52 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)


If you paid any attention to the news between your rants, you would have
noticed that all the debts of the former Soviet Union have been trans-
ferred to the Republic of Russia (which is trying to get the other 
republics to take a share).

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and it's time Eu learned it.
Society didn't jump into bed and create Eur kids - Eu did.  There is no
reason for me, as a taxpayer, to pay for Eur bed-jumping.  That's Eur
job.  "Society" paying for Eur bed-jumping is slavery. Eu paying for it
is Eu paying for Eur actions.  Unless it is Eur thesis that Eu should have
the right to leave Eur kids to starve and no one should help them?
From: woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Bob is NOT the benefactor that he claims to be.
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:27:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
X-Md4-Signature: ea6fcf57bc8d7837753c118055ea5fcf

Mr. EuStress writes:
>   The "eu-" prefix means "true" or "good".
>   As opposed to "dis-" meaning "bad".
>        EuStress is productive
>        -- while DisStress is destructive.

Apparently we have different definitions of 'productive.'  Your decision
to forego quality legal defense for yourself is destructive in the extreme.
While you emplace your head in the sand, the courts will merely accept as
fact whatever your the opposition claims, and find summarily against you.

By presenting yourself to the court as the archtypical unwilling male
parent, you harm all responsible NCP men.  The [suspected] prevalence of
attitudes like yours is exactly why courts usually award custody to women,
and why congress feels it must set up draconian measures to ensure payment.
You harm, rather than help, the cause of 'male rights' in domestic affairs.

Mr. EuStress also writes:
>   Forced "intimate contact" is * * *  R A P E  * * *.
>   Your (majority) intentions to force
>   me to be a father is SLAVERY and RAPE.

If the thought of spending 'intimate' time with your offspring causes you
such diStress, by all means avoid this contact.  Nobody will force you.

They will, however, expect you to provide money for the upbringing
of any little EuStresses, and I expect that if you refuse they will invoke
available legal sanctions ("force" you).  If you were smart, you'd at
least take action to ensure that the amount of money you are required to
provide is as small as possible.
-- 
wm
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women