From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Reply to Alan Yasutovich (Was Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 14:26:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.215418.24804@leland.Stanford.EDU> garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) writes:
>   Besides, you were answered, first by others, then by Anne.  
>You just didn't like the answer.
>

	What was the answer?

>   Now let me say this as simply as I can, so you GET IT 
>RIGHT.  There's a little thing in this country called "due 
>process."  It's in the Constitution.  You might have heard of 
>it.  And if there's nothing else that due process guarantees, 
>it's _notice_ and an _opportunity to be heard_.  You therefore 
>_can't_ sue someone without notice.  Period.  And newspapers 
>won't do; notice has to be personal.
>

	This "due process" you talk about doesn't apply to
	NCP fathers.

>   If you think you can get more support for "let's repeal the 
>due process guarantees of the Constitution so I can press a 
>claim against [well, I don't know exactly who]" than "let's say 
>that we should treat women equally" then you start the 
>amendment process.  I think it would be the most colossal waste 
>of time since the last alchemist died.
>

	Like I said......

>   Well, Alan, as I've said before, you got an answer.  You 
>just decided you didn't like it.  It's postings like this that 
>
	What was the answer.

>   Ah, but you're wrong.  You have no right to "require" 
>anything from anyone here.  Particularly the time it takes to 

	And that's why I'm not handing out my state-by-state
	guideline list. HIRE A LAWYER, is my advice.


>answer stupid questions when someone's otherwise occupied.  But 

	*I* was not the one who came up with the idea.  Yet I
	posted an actual response from a REAL lawyer, who dissagrees
	with this net.

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

	I demand that people live up to the reputation they conjure.

>   Ah, but that assumes that people actually care enough to 
>prove something to you.  You forget, most people don't really 

	I know.  All these "caring ncp dads". How could I have been
	foolish enough to believe anyone would "care".  Another
	false advertisement by the net.  Can we archive *this*
	though as well, so the next time everyone's heart bleeds
	I can call them on that, too?

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

>   First of all, there's no logical problem here.  You decided 
>that Anne could give what you decided was necessary, then you 

	It is not *me*.  It involves everyone here.

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

	Then let her take her "three year law student" out of
	her sig., so every time I see it I don't think, "Gee,
	there's a knowledgable person.  Maybe *she* knows".

	Let her take her "shingle" off the net!!!!!!


>interesting speaker.  But then again, I'm not an NCP.  Their 
>
	So why are you here.


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

	Of course.  You refuse to provide evidence to refute my
	point.  How convenient!

>   So what do we have here, after all this?  It seems that Alan 
>is perfectly happy applying standards to others that he doesn't 
>want applied to himself.  That he is a gadfly who has the 

	Incorrect.  *I* don't have a "shingle".
>audacity to get angry when people ignore his rantings.  That he 

	*You* haven't.

>That he doesn't care enough to look at what he writes, but he 
>expects everyone else to take it as gospel.
>

	I at least expect a little proof otherwise.

-- 
	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......