HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: murphy1@husc10.harvard.edu (Gerard J. Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: December FACE Newsletter
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:26:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Aaron,

   I'm truly sorry that I seem to have pushed one of your hot buttons.

   As I was at some pains to point out I wasn't criticizing you or
FACE, just venting frustration at the article's lack of content.  Sorry
you took it personally.

>I think the key word above is "we."  We didn't do this Newsletter, did
>WE Gerry?

   You're mighty quick to take offense.  Had you kept your cool and
considered the context of my previous postings, which have all been on
this theme, you might have interpreted this a little more kindly, as
it was intended, to refer to we men who are in the same boat, organized
or not.

>These forums are full of critics...But many of these critics are only 
>here to criticize--they contribute nothing constructive.  

   Fine, even if you think I'm in that number I won't personalize this
except to point out that the ONLY thing I've criticized is the business
related to attorney referrals.

>Anyway, I take a lot of shots from you folks.  Some of you seem to think 
>I must agree with you on everything.  Well, I hate to yank you from your
>delusions....

   I'm not asking you to agree on anything, Aaron.  Perhaps you should
take a break, it sounds like you're under a lot of stress.

>I get paid NADA to do this.  I produce a Newsletter that it distributed 
>to over 20,000 people, 400-500 copies in hard-copy form and the total 
>cost to produce it is about $7 per month.
&
>If it doesn't meet your criteria for a professional publications, fine.
>But I'd like to remind you how much it cost you....
&
>I don't know, Gerry....  Can YOU do better than this?  
&
>You're Welcome,

   You got one thing right, Aaron, the last.  I haven't thanked you and
I should.  Thank you, Aaron.  

   But my advice is that if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.  
I might expect this sort of heated, personal diatribe from the author of 
the article but not it's editor.  If you can't maintain an editorial 
detachment it's time to quit.


                                       Gerry Murphy
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: child support probs
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 19:21:05 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac

In article <VkBoVB1w165w@jimmc.chi.il.us> jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (jim mcnicholas) writes:

>grease@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:

>> ...miserable, sorry, pathetic excuses for parents.
>> Bye the way kids, may I suggest something a little stronger than lithium.
>> How about a bullet?

>        Ya know It's funny when someone has no idea what they're 
>        talking about it sticks out like a sore thumb, eh!!

Sorry - Gary knows exactly what he is talking about - he's just angry enough
to let it overflow into a public newsgroup.

>        Dickhead, oh that's intelligent, deprived (depraved)!!
>        Listen you, I know what it's like you obviously don't and 
>        obviously you're not a NCP, so shut the fu*k up!!

Right - he's a step-parent, left out in the cold when it comes to the
situation his family is going through.

>        I pine not for any lost love!  I am a great parent, ask 
>        my kids. I would like to suggest you for 3 months without 
>        warning, put 60% of your net away after you get your check!  

That's really funny, given Gary's 100% support of his family. (OK, I lie -
he spends money on tobacco - the rest goes to his family.)

>        Live on what's left, sure you might have to sacrifice but 
>        that's not the point, remember what happens to the man is 
>        unimportant!  Even if it means bankruptcy you don't matter, 
>        Then 3 months down the road recieve a bill for horse boarding, 
>        which you can't pay!!  Try all this on 30,000 dollars a year!!  

Joke time - take your blinders off. I don't know how much Gary makes, but I
promise you it's nowhere near your 30K - Speaking as someone who actually
lives on less than $13K a year, your situation seems positively benign.

>        Then maybe you'll have walked in someone elses moccasins. Til 
>        then keep your hypothetical crap off the net dweeb!
>        Oh, BTW if the pony can be supported on the CS that is recieved

What pony?

>        I'd say that's good if not, then the CP might need to get a 
>        better paying job, imagine that taking responsibility for ones
>        own life, I'd like to go to france for a week, don't have the
>        money so I don't go!  Not that I'm deprived it just isn't in
>        the budget.  CP's on the other hand feel they have an unlimited
>        wallet, so they complain about not being able to do what they
>        once could do, poor babys!!

I doubt very much that CP's feel that way - Lisa certainly does not. Better
paying job? Get real - they don't exist in this neck of the woods for most
folks in Lisa's shoes.

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
 Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...  
                 Information is power - get connected
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: child support problems
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 12:33:56 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:

> In article <1992Dec17.191301.13365@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc
> >In article <Bz6GMB.HpJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) wri
> 
> >Hardly - the only relevance wrt the pony is that you have locked onto it
> >because you feel a need to attack CP's for reasons of your own, and, lacking
> >any basis whatsoever for doing so, you continue to ride the pony.
> >
> >>If 10% of what she said is true, then she has a sympathetic and

 >100% of what she has related is true, period. The ex has failed to pay
> >ordered support, with or without "luxuries," like food, rent, clothing, etc.
> >
>       Ken,
> 
> 	No one has ever objected to the fact that this father should pay what
> 	the court ordered.  Not I nor Don, nor anyone.
> 
>       It is not that way here though.  Support awards are in the 25-35% of
> 	GROSS PAY, here, along with unfair property division, marital debt
> 	allocation, and visitation/custody allocation/enforcement.
> 
>       And oftentimes the amounts of these support awards put men on the brink
> 	of bankruptcy, stripping them of both financial and social dignity all

>       While at the same time the word "alimony" is embedded in the support order,
> 	and the ex retains control of his money, his life, and his kids.
> 
Alan,

A "P.S." to my last post:

It is standard practise here for the CPs to be awarded a token "Spousal
Support" payment of $1.00/year (one dollar).  The purpose of this is provide
the CP with a "back-up" type order, so that in the event that the CP becomes
disabled, temporarily or permanently, and to the point of needing, for
example, a homemaker in to help cook for the children (or what have you),
then the CP may be granted increased (from the $1.00) Spousal Support, in
order to meet the needs of a situation like the one I've given as an example.
Once the CP has remarried, or if the children have ceased to be seen as "children
of the marriage" (ie. are over 18 yrs. old), the $1.00 spousal is cancelled, etc..

Lisa

               lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca (Lisa Lambeth)
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Child support problems
Date: 12 Dec 92 07:01:01 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1992Dec11.184510.15385@infonode.ingr.com>, morgana@infonode.ingr.com (Angela Morgan) writes:
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>>Yes, I can see this at times with Mike.  But I have encouraged him to
>>visit his mother, I have developed a good relationship with her and that
>>end of the whole situation is working well.
>>I would have liked to have done the same with Mike's father, but that
>>was impossible.
> 
> Why is Mike's mother not required to share the responsiblity of making
> support payments?
> 
> (Please excuse me if I missed something previously which would explain
> this.  The thread has been quite long....)

Mike's mother is mentally ill and on welfare.  His father had custody until
he was 14, Mike never met his mother until then.  THEN his father remarried,
very concedentally (Yeah, right) took Mike to his mother and turned custody
over to her.  So Mike was more or less dumped on his mentally ill welfare
stranger of a mother.  Mike got into juvenile trouble, eventually ended up
in the County Home.  His father refused return of custody, then got
taken to court and assessed for child support (which he had NOT been paying
all the time Mike was with his mother).   When he found out he had to pay
child support and couldn't just dump the kid on the county, he started 
yelling that his son had been stolen from him.  

Sue

> 
> --angela
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: "PISSING MATCHES"
Date: 10 Dec 92 15:44:52 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:

> 
> 	There have been several posts lately about pissing matches.
> 
> 	I can't help but notice that these "complaints" come from
> 	"lurkers", for lack of a better word.  People who have
> 	nothing to contribute here but to complain that we're
> 	not entertaining them properly.

C'mon, Alan. That was a cheap shot and not very accurate. Yes, there 
are a lot of lurkers out there. People who, for one reason or another
are looking for information. That's what brought me here, and I would
guess, many of the others. Some of the readers are in a position to
offer information, and like you, try to organize people for changes
in the systems.

As to whether this group is here for 'entertainment' or not probably 
depends on what gets posted here. Perhaps those of us who do post
here should ask ourselves if what we wrote motivates people to think,
or if it motivates them to sit back and watch like a crowd at an auto
accident.

Happy Holidays, and keep up the good work in Massachusetts.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for Child Support
X-To: ALL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:37:00 GMT

lstewart@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (L. Stewart -- IS Office 1058) writes...
LS-IO> In article <1992Nov20.033230.25957@u.washington.edu> zzz@byron.u.washingt
LS-IO> (Sample) writes:
LS-IO> >The courts should make a divorce between the parent who did
LS-IO> >not receive the primary custody and his/her child(ren)"
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >I wrote:
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >      "[The NCP -- i.e. the one with primary custody] can refuse
LS-IO> >      visitation and extort money with impunity
LS-IO> >         -- because forced visitation [on the NCP] is a form of rape."
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >Xenon Replied:
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >     "Yeah, right... when have you ever heard of any parent being
LS-IO> >     "forced" to visit their own kid?
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >I meant that the NCP -- NOT the CP (i.e. the one without primary
LS-IO> >custody) -- shouldn't be forced to provide visitation.
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >Then I wrote:
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >     "Mature people accept divorce -- even dad-kid divorce."
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >Xenon responded:
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >     "Well, you have been "divorced" from a chunk of your paycheck.
LS-IO> >     Be mature and accept it."
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >I have accepted it -- why did you think that I hadn't.
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >Xenon continues:
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >     "I sure don't see any increase in the popularity of vasectomies."
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >I have a vasectomy -- I highly recommend it.
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >
LS-IO> >WHY CAN'T YOU "MEN" OUT THERE LEARN TO LIVE WITHOUT YOUR KIDS?

LS-IO> This makes me very sad. I pity you for not even realizing what it is
LS-IO> that you have lost. Divorcing yourself from your own flesh and blood
LS-IO> does not enhance or prove your masculinity. Where possible and
LS-IO> given co-operation both parents should take part in the rearing of
LS-IO> their mutual offspring. For the sake of the child why can't parents
LS-IO> learn to live without recriminations, fights with a the child used
LS-IO> as leverage and abandonment sure won't help a child adjust to parental
LS-IO> separation. Forget your male or female ego and think about your kids
LS-IO> for a change.

Okay, *now* try telling this to "Pro-Women's Choice" advocates...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * * TD * Who needs fantasy when you have physics?
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Pony Support (was Re: child support problems)
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:45:36 GMT
Organization: Knapp & Viola, Attys. at Law, San Mateo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.home.vix.com


May I suggest that, at least in part, what is going on here is a
confusion of the issues, compounded by emotional clouding?

First, there is the issue that Lisa's daughter's father is apparently
not paying support at all, when he can, and should.

Second, assuming the father is capable, and just choses not to pay,
he's being a jerk.

Third, assuming the father is capable of paying to help the child keep
the pony, and he knows how important it is to the child, and he
refuses to help, he is possibly a callous and uncaring person.

Fourth, there is the issue of whether child support monies should be
used for "non necessities".

Fifth, there is the issue of whether a non-custodial parent should be
required to pay for the discretionary non-essentials that the
custodial parent elects to provide for the child.


I think that the problem has been that some of these are legal issues
[is a pony something covered by child support?], some of them are
moral issues [should a pony be something the non-custodial parent
should have to pay for when it is clear how important it is to his
child], and some of them are emotional [is this guy a coldhearted
s.o.b.?].

As these issues get all muddied up and clouded, people are running
high on emotions, and mixing the issues, resulting in anger,
frustration, flaming, etc.

Perhaps if the issues can be separated out, and addressed separately,
we'll get some where.

For the record, my take on these issues:

Child-support is not for the purpose of covering such discretionary
items as ballet, ponies, karate, etc.  In CA, support is determined by
income, not need/items, so it's kind of irrelevant.  But I'd be
shocked if any of the judges I've been before would ever order
additional support to pay for any discretionary items such as a pony.
This is the legal issue of what is support supposed to be fore.

The father, assuming he really is in a position to provide for these
extras, is probably a coldhearted jerk.  That's a moral/emotional
issue.

Should the father have to pay for the discretionary things which Lisa
chooses to provide for the child she has custody of?  Not in my
opinion, generally speaking.  Would it be a morally nice thing if he
did pay?  Of course it would, but that's between him and his maker.


-- 
   LOOKING FOR:  Anyone from Greenfield MA, Putney VT, & Lorna Taylor
I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, & founder of the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
Ask me about FREE!  FREE files available via anonymous ftp 128.45.1.1; dir /pub
   CUM CATAPULTAE PROSCRIPTAE ERUNT TUM SOLI PROSCRIPTI CATAPULTAS HABEBUNT
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: CP, NCP, FP
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:21:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.114818.6197@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>As for profiting from the $300 a month that my husband and I receive,
>I challenge either Alan OR the Beav to provide a home, allowance, clothing,
>transportation, food, etc. for a teenaged boy and have anything left over
>out of that amount.

Ms. Bishop, BA, FP (and whatever else):

Please take the chip off your shoulder long enough to remember 
that it was *you* who claimed that *you* use part of the $300 
from the [what? "NFP", now?] to pay for a vacation in Florida.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Pony Support (was Re: child support problems)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:24:11 GMT

I like most of what you have to say, here, but this part makes me
cringe...

shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:

[snip]

>Third, assuming the father is capable of paying to help the child keep
>the pony, and he knows how important it is to the child, and he
>refuses to help, he is possibly a callous and uncaring person.

[chop]

>The father, assuming he really is in a position to provide for these
>extras, is probably a coldhearted jerk.  That's a moral/emotional
>issue.

I am speaking generally because I don't know the details of this case.
I'm also not a father, much less a divorced one.  My parents aren't
even divorced.  In other words, you may have considered the following,
but the problems I see here are:

1) What _else_ is the father providing for above and beyond simple
necessity support?  Perhaps he's not paying for a pony because he's
already bought and cared for a dog, four ferrets, and tons of toys for
the kid.  Perhaps he's budgetted his extraneous expenses wrt this
child to keep from smothering her with gifts (assuming he can afford
to do so).

2) What other family responsibilities does he have?  Assume that he
has more children by another woman.  Can he afford to buy _all_ of
them ponies and keep up with expenses?  What about the psychological
affects on his other children of his buying a pony for this daughter
and not for them because he can only afford one?

3) Since when does a parent buy everything their kids ask for, even if
they can afford it?  I'm certain that half of the Toys 'R' Us
inventory would have been in my closet had my parents bought
everything I asked for.

4) Does the father really want her to have a pony?  Maybe he thinks
it's not safe for some reason.  Maybe he knows his daughter is just
going through a pony "phase" and will eventually decide that she wants
something else.  

Perhaps I've missed a lot of background in this particular case, but
in general I would be extremely hesitant to pass judgement on a father
and call him a cold-hearted jerk because he could afford yet did not
buy a pony for his daughter.  As I've shown above, it's not so simple.

Of course, it's possible he _is_ a jerk.  Perhaps he has the spare
money and he has been only sending the required support payments.
Maybe he really doesn't care about the kid.  However, I find that the
least likely set of circumstances.

However, under _no_ circumstances should he be required by the court
to provide extra support so the kid can get a pony.  The courts aren't
there to make that kind of moral decision.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: child support problems
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 12:14:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.191301.13365@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>In article <Bz6GMB.HpJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>Hardly - the only relevance wrt the pony is that you have locked onto it
>because you feel a need to attack CP's for reasons of your own, and, lacking
>any basis whatsoever for doing so, you continue to ride the pony.
>
>>If 10% of what she said is true, then she has a sympathetic and
>>compelling story.  There's no need to claim that the ex should pay
>>for luxuries, though, and it really detracts from her situation
>>for anyone to say that he should.
>
>100% of what she has related is true, period. The ex has failed to pay
>ordered support, with or without "luxuries," like food, rent, clothing, etc.
>

	Ken,

	No one has ever objected to the fact that this father should pay what
	the court ordered.  Not I nor Don, nor anyone.

	However we have repeatedly heard seemingly accurate reports about how the
	government in your area is fair in it's awards.  15% sounds fair to me.

	It is not that way here though.  Support awards are in the 25-35% of
	GROSS PAY, here, along with unfair property division, marital debt
	allocation, and visitation/custody allocation/enforcement.

	In short men are, with the exception of the verbal title, viewed and
	treated as common criminals.  With outlawed practices like "debtors
	prison" held over thier heads.  Where most of the people who object to
	the "pony story" have, "ASSHOLES *THIS* BIG".

 	And oftentimes the amounts of these support awards put men on the brink
	of bankruptcy, stripping them of both financial and social dignity all
	because they couldn't live with the bitch they married;  no furthur offense.
	While at the same time the word "alimony" is embedded in the support order,
	and the ex retains control of his money, his life, and his kids.

	So "pony stories" are not going to receive the international acceptance
	that you would like them to.  Nor are dancing lessons, ballet, hockey,
	or whatever.  Not when most of them have 2nd and third notices of bills
	at home because they have to hand ove 1/2 their take home pay so their
	ex can live in style, and keep them from seeing their kids.  Ponies, pools,
	and whatever are EXACTLY what we men in the U.S. see our over inflated
	support monies going to.

-- 
	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......