HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jim@apsicc.aps.edu (frost...)
Subject: Re: Early color reports
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 22:12:00 GMT
Organization: Albuquerque Public Schools - Career Enrichment Center
Distribution: na
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Jul28.141518.28543@news.iastate.edu>, sdebroux@iastate.edu (S.S. DeBroux) writes...
>Greetings!
> 
>As with much of the Midwest this summer, Iowa has been experiencing unusually
>cool weather.  I have recently seen on the news that leaves are falling in
>northern Minnesota, Wisc., and Michigan.  Can this be true?
> 
>Anybody up there willing to give a color report?
> 
>Steve
> 
> 
> 

Steve,
  My address might be New Mexico but don't let that deceive you. I was
back in Michigan for the Cherry Festival in Tracerse City and then left
for the high desert about a week later going out through the U.P. I saw
some, not a lot yet, trees starting to turn there and in upper Wisconsin
and Minn. Down here in the fall we just get aspen turning yellow not all
the different colors of the wide varity of trees in the North.
							   Jim

======================================================================
   We are rapidly ascending through prosperity to poverty...  Twain
                    Internet:    jim@apsicc.aps.edu
       Albuquerque Public Schools - Instructional System Manager 
======================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.great-lakes
From: mmb@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Michael Burger)
Subject: Milan, MI on CNN?
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:33:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

I was flipping channels last night and I caught a very brief ending to a
story on CNN-Headline about Milan, Michigan?  Can anybody tell me what
it was about?

Thanks


*******************************************************************************
*  Mike Burger                    *  I may have had the needle in my arm,     *
*  mmb@lamar.colostate.edu        *  but I never pushed the plunger.          *
*  University of Michigan - 1990  *  --Dave Barry                             *
*******************************************************************************


Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin)
Subject: Re: IN FLORIDA
Organization: Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 01:59:45 GMT

In article <1109.584.uupcb@factory.com> richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan)  writes:
>3) The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 also addresses
>your concerns. Please read PL 92-272 ( AACWA ) and its Code of Federal

   Well, I sent you two different email messages, but maybe you don't
read your email.  You are giving people the WRONG CITE.  AACWA is PL
96-272.  It is NOT PL 92-272.  Do you just have a macro for this that
you don't want to change?

			-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.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:41:07 GMT

Paul A Vixie -- displaying his ignorance -- writes:
> > So (back to a common subject), why can't the parents divorce their
> > children??
> this is called "abandonment".  perhaps you've noticed that children are
> often not fully able to take care of themselves, and that they tend to
> have serious trouble eating and sleeping in warm dry places if there is
> no adult taking care of them.
> > Oh, I guess [the parents ...are] not allowed to have a say in their
> > own life.
> do you even understand what you're suggesting here?  do you know what
> principle would be in effect if the law permitted what you are here
> calling "divorce" ?

   Forced relationships are lose-lose.
   Children need AN adult not THEE adult.
   Our society DOES take care of unwanted children.
   To keep children tied to parents who don't want
   them is a PROVEN source of abuse -- abuse Paul
   doesn't care about so long as he can pretend
   that 100% of the parents want their children
   -- so long as Paul, as a taxpayer, doesn't have 
   to be more liable.
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: STATUTE OF LIMNITATIONS
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:41:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

It should come as no surprise that all states have stautes of
limitations, and moreover the Federal Courts use them if there is no
express SOL in fed law. This pertains to civil rights as well as other
torts! In Kentucky, I think the SOL is 1 year.
   FWIW, fraud is a bar.
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: LAWSUITS & CHILDREN
Date: 25 Jul 92 23:00:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

I don't think the issue is that children don't have rights. IMHO, it is
that the government has an agenda that is carried out as policy of the
Federal and State governments. My money says that its the Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 and its Code of Fed Regs which
pays a bnounty, by the Federal government, when the state takes away
children, of $25,000.
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: SOS program
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:48:18 GMT
Keywords: SOS, foster parenting, male stereotypes

In article <Bs7DKG.5ru@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

)
)Some reasons why SOS allows *only* unmarried women as foster parents 
)were given:
)
)   . If there were a man in the house, he would demand
)     attention from the woman.
)
)   . A man in the house increases the likelihood of child abuse.
)
)
)The "regional director" said that he, the only man present,
)would provide the needed "authoritative father-figure."
)
)Did anyone hear this broadcast?  I hope I haven't misheard or
)misinterpreted the portion that I heard -- which, as it stands,
)was outrageous.
)
)Does anyone know anything about this program?

Never heard of it.  Who is paying for this?  I certainly hope it isn't
the public.

BTW - I have some comments on the 'a man in the house increases the
likelihood of child abuse'.  I can't quote a source for it, but it is
probably technically true - but *very* misleading.  A typical example of
the sort of statistical abuse one frequently encounters in gender related
issues in the media nowadays.

Statistics show that *women* are the ones who actually *commit* the majority
of child abuse.  If there is a man *present* anywhere, though, he apparently
makes a good scapegoat, even if he's not the one *comitting* the abuse.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: gearson@jove.Colorado.EDU (James R. Gearson)
Subject: Info needed on DNA vs blood tests for paternity determination
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:56:42 GMT

I am involved in a paternity case in the Chicago area.  I would like
to know as soon as possible whether this child is mine.   (If it is,
my wife and I intend to pursue custody.)  I have heard of various blood 
tests and DNA tests.  Can the DNA tests be performed earlier than at six
months, as is the case for the blood tests?  Are these tests of the
same reliability?  What literature is there on these tests?
From: jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Clinton's remarks
Keywords: idiot unfair myopic visitation support
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:29:51 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

In article <1992Jul17.151742.21375@exu.ericsson.se> exudnw@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>Anyone else boiling over about the Bill Clinton remarks on fathers?  I 
>held my breath after he lambasted "deadbeat dads" hoping for *any* mention
>of visitation *rights* - nothing.
>
>I'm sick of endless bickering over so-called "abortion rights" when my
>chidren can be taken away (at my expense) and visitation denied without
>the "family" court system giving a damn.  I guess the tender-years doctrine
>will be an unofficial plank of the "Democratic" party platform this year.
            ^^^^^^^^^^

More like "official".  Did you note Annie's comments about Mrs. Bill's
position on allowing children from the age of 12 up to sue their parents?
She's all in favor of it.  Right, an army of pubescent 12 year-olds suing
their folks because they're p.o.'d about something...geez.

>
>I'm pissed!

Good!  Stay that way!  That's what it's going to take, for ALL of us, to
get and stay pissed long enough and badly enough until we can get somebody's
attention.


Jerry Roe
jrr@nsc.nsc.com		...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl)!nsc!jrr
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: irvine@ntmtv.UUCP (Chuck Irvine)
Subject: Re: Questions about custody
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:35:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.211145.6183@news.stolaf.edu>, sjulstad@mari.acc.stolaf.edu (Michael Sjulstad) writes:
|> Hello everyone.
|> I'm currently involved in divorce and have proceeded thus far pro se
|> (without counsel).  I never wanted the divorce and still don't, but it
|> seems I have no choice.  I also have two daughters whom I have always
|> been extremely close to and raised them 50/50 with my wife.  We always
|> shared everything 50/50 around the house and really were each others
|> best friends.  Well here is my question:
|> She wants to remain friends, to split everything equally, except when it
|> comes to custody.  In her mind, she gets custody, end of discussion.
|> Figuring up to this point, fathers can't win I have done nothing but tried
|> to talk to her about all of this.  I'm trying to keep my family and assets
|> all in tact.  We worked too hard, and I'm not sure I can be a non-custodial
|> parent to these two little girls who are also my best friends.  Is it too late
|> to hire counsel?  Will I have even half a chance at winning?  And (the big
|> one) do I have to attack her to win, I just don't want anyone getting hurt,
|> although I know I will if I don't  have them.  She is a good mother, but
|> I am also a good father, and a good mother.  I certainly don't want them
|> involved or dragged through it either.
|> It seems to me (before anyone even responds) is that the only real way
|> for everyone to come out of this alright is a reconciliation, and God how
|> I have tried.  Thanks in advance.
|> 
|> Mike Sjulstad
|> sjulstad@stolaf.edu

Mike,

In California, I think you might have a chance to get joint custody.
I don't know what you're chances are in your state. But even if you 
don't, it doesn't mean you can't remain a big part of
your daughter's lives. However, I'm afraid that if you don't get a lawyer, you'll
do worse than you would without one, that is, in terms of custody. Wish
you the best.

Chuck irvine
ames!ntmtv!irvine
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: RE: HILLARY CLINTON - FAM
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:46:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

Read PL 92-272, aka Adoption Assistance aand Child Welfare Act of 1980
and its companion Code of Fed Regs, where in the Feds pay the states a
bonus of $25,000 per child per year.
                                                                             
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Is there a newsgroup called alt.moms-rights ??
Keywords: need info ..
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:13:13 GMT

In article <i13moB1w165w@jimmc.chi.il.us> jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas) writes:
>judy@disk.uucp (Judy Meredith) writes:
>:=} Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask such a question. But I have tried to
>:=} locate such a group before posting here.
>:=}  I would appreciate any advice on this. As moms too have the NEED TO KNOW!
>:=} And I need to know....!
>:=} 
>:=} Thanks for your help
>:=} 
>:=}  Judy
>
>W O W ! ! !
>Anybody not holding a flamethrower hold your hand up now!!!
>alt.moms.rights is most courts in this country!!!
>alt.moms.rights is most lawyers in this country!!!
>alt.moms.rights ...need          flaaaame more!
>flame off]
>
>|jim@jimmc.chi.il.us   |   ...And I believe in long, slow, deep, soft wet  |

Yes, it seems a pretty objectionable statement, given our
system of family law that is so heavily biased in favor of
moms and women in general.  I had the same gut reaction, but
I was immediately reminded of a "women's interests" radio show I heard
this spring, in which a collegiate feminist objected strongly 
to a publicized meeting about men's issues on the basis that,

	"If anyone wants to learn about men's issues, they just have
	to go to History 101."

IMHO, it seems better to push for your own concerns than
to degrade or deny those of others, even when they do seem unfair.
Even persons favored by a biased system have a right to pursue
their own interests (which aren't always automatically provided) --
and Judy expressed her questions reasonably and politely, after all.

But hell, I would like to put this energy from indignation to positive use 
and work on getting more rights for dads!  Directions?

Don           (beaver@cs.psu.edu)

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Children's rights?  What about responsibilities?
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 05:43:49 GMT

In article <Tw5HoB1w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes:
>J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>
>> Second, and foremost in my mind, is the concepts of rights and responsi-
>> bilities.  Perhaps I grew up in an old, archaic period (the 1970's), but I wa
>> always taught that with rights come responsibilities.  Well, if children have
>> a *right* to sue (such as for medical treatment), then why don't we *also*
>> give them the responsibility to pay for it?  Why should a child have a right
>> to something, without the corresponding responsibility?  It's similar to the
>> role of the father in an abortion decision--he has *no* legal rights in the
>> abortion issue, but he is held financially liable no matter what (perhaps for
>> 50% of an abortion or 18 years of support).  What responsibilities are there
>> without rights?  
>
>And what rights without responsibility? Men DO have a say in abortion. One
>which is continually ignored in the discussions. Contraception methods are
>available and effective for those men who don't want the responsibility of
>childrearing or child-support.

That's not a say in "abortion", and you know it, Bob. That's a say in
abortion PREVENTION. Not the same thing at all.

>I personally see a balance here. Men do have choice BEFORE the fact (of
>pregnancy) but they don't have it after. To state that men are held to
>ransom when an abortion isn't performed is pretty silly. All that happened
>was that a man failed to exercise his choice when it was available to him,
>and by doing so, forfeited his choice to the woman. That's a voluntary
>act.

Three little words for you, Bob: Last Clear Chance.

If you want to treat paternity child-support as a regular civil action,
then I would welcome that change heartily. Otherwise, you're probably better 
off sticking to the "Big Brother knows what's best for your children" Statist
line...

							- Kevin
From: sjulstad@mari.acc.stolaf.edu (Michael Sjulstad)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Questions about custody
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:11:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN

Hello everyone.
I'm currently involved in divorce and have proceeded thus far pro se
(without counsel).  I never wanted the divorce and still don't, but it
seems I have no choice.  I also have two daughters whom I have always
been extremely close to and raised them 50/50 with my wife.  We always
shared everything 50/50 around the house and really were each others
best friends.  Well here is my question:
She wants to remain friends, to split everything equally, except when it
comes to custody.  In her mind, she gets custody, end of discussion.
Figuring up to this point, fathers can't win I have done nothing but tried
to talk to her about all of this.  I'm trying to keep my family and assets
all in tact.  We worked too hard, and I'm not sure I can be a non-custodial
parent to these two little girls who are also my best friends.  Is it too late
to hire counsel?  Will I have even half a chance at winning?  And (the big
one) do I have to attack her to win, I just don't want anyone getting hurt,
although I know I will if I don't  have them.  She is a good mother, but
I am also a good father, and a good mother.  I certainly don't want them
involved or dragged through it either.
It seems to me (before anyone even responds) is that the only real way
for everyone to come out of this alright is a reconciliation, and God how
I have tried.  Thanks in advance.

Mike Sjulstad
sjulstad@stolaf.edu
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:1657 soc.men:13891
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men
Subject: SOS program
Keywords: SOS, foster parenting, male stereotypes
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:02:39 GMT
Organization: Penn State Computer Science

I caught part of a broadcast on NPR this morning which described
something called the SOS program, which apparently provides 
paid [18K/year] foster parenting by single women.  

Some reasons why SOS allows *only* unmarried women as foster parents 
were given:

   . If there were a man in the house, he would demand
     attention from the woman.

   . A man in the house increases the likelihood of child abuse.


The "regional director" said that he, the only man present,
would provide the needed "authoritative father-figure."

Did anyone hear this broadcast?  I hope I haven't misheard or
misinterpreted the portion that I heard -- which, as it stands,
was outrageous.

Does anyone know anything about this program?

The newscaster signed off from Chicago, but "regional directors"
and Africa were mentioned.


Don           (beaver@cs.psu.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:1556 alt.child-support:2210
From: cmoore@AFIT.AF.MIL (Chataun R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: TV movie
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:15:42 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology, WPAFB OH

In article <1992Jul13.133654.26908@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:



>       Last night there was a 1991 movie on.  It was about a mother
>       of 3 girls.  The father left.  17 years later she found him,
>       brought him to court, and got an award of just over 100k, plus
>       interest which made it about 145k.

>       It was based on a true story.  The woman told him all she wanted
>       was 5k and for him to acknowledge the girls.  He responded
>       poorly which lead to the court thing.

>       a) I guess my strategey is best.

>       b) It seems like these movies and such are on more & more,
>       just to soften public opinion, the same way they do it about
>       AID's.  Just like my last post said.  When you see some other
>       poor slob "getting it" it doesn't really bother you.  (Does
>       it Mr. Pritchard?)

>-- 
>       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......


I saw the movie too.  I think he was a poor excuse for a man.  He might have 
said he never wanted any of it but he shouldn't have made any of them.  He 
got what he deserved.
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: NEEDS ADVICE...
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:22:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

Can you turn off your capsLOCK key? PLEASE?! Thanks.
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: IN FLORIDA
Date: 27 Jul 92 07:18:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

LE>>have no way of refusing...Others are again abused and abandoned.

Simply not true. You need to read some law, go to court a few times and
talk with people who are out there on the front lines.
1) The adopting invididual in Florida is an attorney.
2) The CHild Abuse Prevention Act of 1985 addresses many of your
concerns.
3) The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 also addresses
your concerns. Please read PL 92-272 ( AACWA ) and its Code of Federal
Regulations Carefully and you will see that the Federal Government has
been paying the STATES a *bounty* of $25,000 ++ per child per year
taken.
3a) Audits of AACWA are not required to begin until 1993.
4) Various state ACLU suits over child welfare are foundering in Federal
Courts. You might check with Bob Hirschfeld of the Arizona ACLU.

ARe you suggesting that only abused children run away?
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: RE: FAMILY CHOICES
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:34:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

David:
     I think the book put out by Harvard Press by Ingo Muller
Hitler's Justice: Courts Inside the 3rd Reich covers the current program
we seem to operate under in this country.
    Try reading the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980
and its Code of Fed Regulations which offers a *bounty* of $25,000 ++
for children taken by the state. It's also know as PL 92-272.
                Richard.