HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin)
Subject: Re: Truly Amazing Discovery!
Organization: Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 07:33:02 GMT


   I'ts kind of like a soap opera, really.  Every day something
happens, but you can leave it for months and come back without missing
a beat, because the substantive change is glacial, if it exists at
all.  There is, of course, an advantage to this: you can leave it on
as background noise while you're doing something else (vacuuming or
writing c code, as appropriate) without worrying you'll miss anything.

			-Gary
			Founder (and sole member) of NAMWLA
			the North American Man-Woman Love Association.
			Join now!  Ask me how!
-- 
|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.child-support
From: Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger)
Subject: Re: Please allow me to clarify my views
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 16:03:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.124335.13300@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug9.190520.4867@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>>Please stop ripping on me for trying to better my life and my son's life.
>>Would you rather I stay on AFDC til Matt is 18? That is an alternative,
>>you know. Suck on that for a while and let me know what you think I should
>>do. If you would rather I just stay on AFDC for two more years, than
>>please shut up and leave me be.
>>
>>Michelle
>
>
>	You brought it up!
>
>-- 
>	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......


Yah, you're right Alan, I asked you to rip on me and Try to make me feel
so low I want to kill myself. That's exactly why I was willing to open up
and tell a bit more about my life. 

Michelle
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: a modest proposal...
Date: 19 Aug 1992 02:41:11 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner) writes:

> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>> Okay netters.  Would the following be a fair and reasonable
>> substitute for the current setup:
>
>Just a few comments Steve,
>
>>o the state does not intervene in child custody and child
>>  support disputes
>
>Does the state have a role as the ultimate guardian of the wellbeing of
>dependent persons (mentally handicapped, prisioners, and children)? 

In my opinion, yes.

> If so, how can the state not have an interest in determining when it 
> must act?

My "modest proposal" would suggest that the state
is disinterested in how custody or support issues affect either
or both parents.  The state's interest is in how the child
is treated, without a particular interest in tying this
to the questions of custody and support.

>>o support and custody questions are not permitted as a cause for 
>>  civil or criminal legal action

>If neither civil nor criminal, what venue are support and custody 
>questions heard in? 

Under the proposed paradigm there would be no venue.  

An analogy: a couple buys an automobile, then defaults
on their loan obligation.  The auto lender can go after either/both 
individuals for payment, and doesn't particularly care
about the interests of one party vs. the other.  This is
considered fair and reasonable on the lender's part.

So: a couple bears a child, then defaults on their obligation to the
state to support it.  The state could go after either/both
individuals to mitigate the costs it's absorbed (e.g. AFDC) -- 
without getting embroiled in disputes over their individual 
interests.  The question I posed is whether it would be fair and 
reasonable for the state to take this approach.  I'm not saying it is,
at least not absolutely -- but if not, why not?

Another analogy: a separated couple owes $1000 in overdue tax to the 
IRS from a tax year in which they filed jointly.  Doesn't the IRS 
simply attach whosever assets they can lay their hands on
easiest?  Without caring about whether it's "fairer" to grab
the money from one party or the other?  

> [ text deleted ]
>
> I mention [ the views of a S. Clara judge ] because the next 
> paragraph and his published pieces are not too disimilar.
>
>> o the state *does* intervene when a child is neglected or
>>   endangered -- but does so in a way that is not influenced
>>   by parental opinions as to how custody and support are shared
>>   or should be shared

Eric, Thanks for relating the above.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: I'm Pro-Male-Choice
X-To: SBISHOP@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:42:00 GMT

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes...
SB> Will writes...
SB> >
SB> > But it SHOULD be, during the EXACT PERIOD during pregnancy when a *woman*
SB> > make that choice.

SB> No, since then he is making a choice that affects and possibly endangers
SB> the woman.  Yes, it isn't 'fair'.  So what?  Who says life is fair....

I say that it SHOULD.  Besides which, why does a man's decision to abdicate
responsibility of his child, endanger the WOMAN?  This is feminist logic at
its extremes.


SB> >
SB> > Men currently cannot, and I too, support Mr. EuStress.
SB> >
SB> > Pro Male-Choice and proud of it!
SB> >

SB> Sounds very silly to me.

You're entitled to an opinion...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Its hosermania gone wild, eh. Where's my Beer, eh?
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Deadbeat Moms
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 19:41:57 GMT

In article <jon.713473192@lindy.Stanford.EDU> jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
>   In the case of the woman referred to, it should be obvious that here
>we a have an example of a person in a distressingly common dilemma who
>is handling it uncommonly well.  If every first time AFDC mother
>responded to her situation by determining to get a good education so she
>could get a good job, the welfare problem would soon cease to exist.
>That some posters in this newsgroup have reacted to her remarks by
>gleefully seizing the chance to heap abuse on a single mother who's in a
>jam and is tryng hard to get out of it is one of the ugliest episodes
>I've seen on the net -- and that's saying something.
>--

	This is a little off the subject and kind of over generalized,
	but "educating everyone" is not the answer to the world's
	social ills.

	If everyone had a masters degree, it would take 3 phd's to
	work at McDonalds.

	There will always be the ill-employed.

-- 
	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,soc.men
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Subject: Government Support to Mothers
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:35:50 GMT

Alan Yasutovich writes
> 	Finally let me mention that our second child is on the way.
> 
> 	My wife has repeatedly made mention about how many grants
> 	will be available to her (or any mother with kids) to
> 	go to grad school; especially [if she has] more than one!

   Why do we pay women to have babies?
   Why do we pay women to enslave men?
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:28:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Right To Not Support - Solution
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

In alt.child-support, bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

> Yes. But I think it may have been more accurate to say:

> WOMAN:  Choice 1:  Participating in becomming pregnant
>         Choice 2:  Dealing with Choice #1

> MAN:    Choice 1:  Participating in a pregnancy
>         Choice 2:  Dealing with Choice #1

I have some experience with this and would like to point out that men and 
women do NOT have equal rights for "Choice 2", as suggested above. Describing
women's choice as "Dealing with Choice #1" is, well, simplistic. (Sorry Bob.) 
Women have *three* options for "Choice 2" (abortion, adoption and keep it). 
Men's "Choice 2" can be more accurately described as "Dealing with women's 
Choice 2".

This is the whole crux of the "pro choice for men too" movement. Men's 
reproductive rights aren't being protected by our sexist courts. Check it
out. Read it now and believe it later.

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Request info on AMC
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 15:45:09 GMT



	Posted per request!







From: doug@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Doug Smith)
To: yasu@ll.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The Second Family
Status: OR

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I need some help and you have been selected....

I tried to post an article but got wiped out by the server. Don't know why, but *really* would like to get this posted ASAP. Would you be so kind as to post this for me with a Suject line of "Request for Info on AMC" Thanks a ton. Doug Smith

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just received a phone call from the American (America's) Missing Children (AMC) organization based somewhere in Florida regarding the case of my missing brother and his children. They disappeared over 2 years ago and various organizations, including the FBI have been searching for him.

Well, AMC certainly sounds like an organization which *will* find them and says that they are interested only in the welfare of the children and have offered amnesty in order to ascertain the current state of well-being of the children. AMC boldly states that they *will* be found and if it by the authorities that my brother will go to jail and the kids will in all likelihood be returned to their mother. Since she, in many people's eyes, is not a fit mother (attempted to kill the children before), I for one





 would not want that to happen (as well as seeing my brother in jail!).

So, assuming there is some way of getting this amnesty offer to him, I would like to know more about AMC. The person I spoke with certainly seemed sincere. Nothing like the Private Investigators or the FBI who have assumed the mother's statements as fact. Before I start talking with family and friends in my attempt at getting this offer of amnesty to my brother, I thought I'd seek more non-biased data on AMC. Anything you can share would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Doug 
doug@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com

-- 
	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,soc.men,soc.women
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: KILL files
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:23:34 GMT

In article <XZ8JPB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
[re: traffic volume and content, omitted]

>We were seeing some EXCELLENT material from the likes of Hoffmeyer, Brunner,
>Mitchell, and others.
                                                                     ^^^^^^^
WHAT? This must be a forged post, I was sure I was in BobK's kill file,
apparently not.

Since I read/write from a variety of client sites, the string "Brunner"
is one constant one can consistently kill on, unfortunatly that would
be unfair to several other people known to use news...

If you use rn, your kill file entry should read:

/From: *brunner@practic\.com/h:j
/From: *brunner@telebit\.com/h:j
/From: *brunner@adobe\.com/h:j

In fact, what this newsgroup (a.c-s) could use right now is some KILL file
info... see especially the part about filtering out newsgroups, e.g., soc.*.


Xref: bloom-picayune.mit.edu news.newusers.questions:6975 news.software.readers:797 news.answers:60
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: You will not change my beliefs
Date: 23 Aug 92 01:50:41 GMT
Organization: Penn State Computer Science

In article <1992Aug22.023502.4808@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>In reply to what whoever it was said about abortion, you don't seem to
>understand that some women believe the "blob" growing inside of them is a
>human and it is alive. 

More than a few men believe this also, but they cannot prevent the
abortion of their children.

>I will agree with the woman who said as far as she is
>concerned if she chooses to keep a child the man has nothing to do with it
>and should not be held accountable, but that holds true only if the woman
>is not forced to go on welfare because of it. If she's doing just fine,
>who needs his money anyway? I wouldn't and I won't take it when I am on my
>feet.

So he has no choice, yet he is fully responsible for your lack of resources
arising as a consequence of your moral beliefs.  Some women choose 
adoption or abortion to avoid this.  You object to abortion.  Why can't
he take the "adoption" route, exactly as you +could+, both legally and
(I'm guessing) morally?  

Specifically, if +he+ found fit and willing parents, why can't he
say to you: support and raise the child ENTIRELY on your own, or
give it to these parents.  [You do have the power to do this to him.]


>The govt will not allow a woman to
>forcibly kick the man out of the scene, 

To the contrary:  Visitation rights are not effectively enforced 
(and the existence of fathers who don't "visit" is +not+ a contradiction 
to this!).  Worse, the most pervasive, implicit assumption is that 
the child should stay with the mother, effectively kicking the father out 
to some degree, regardless of what is best for the three or more people 
involved.

>... the govt will not allow a man to
>forcibly kick the woman out of the scene, and the govt SHOULD NOT allow
>either the man or the woman kick the child out of the scene. 

Right on both counts.

>After all,
>the child is probably the only innocent victim involved. 

Yes, a young child is undoubtedly innocent.  Do you assume the father is not?

[compare: false accusations of abuse; implicit moral judgements such as
"sex + failed_marriage == moral_decrepitude".]

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu           pro-pro  anti-anti  anti-pro-anti  anti-anti-pro
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: children as appendage
X-To: MIC OETTINGER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:29:00 GMT

Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Michelle Oettinger) writes...
MO> In article <1992Aug3.203528.28265@leland.Stanford.EDU> dkeisen@leland.Stanfo
MO> DU (Dave Eisen) writes:
MO> >
MO> >No we aren't anti-father. Really. We are anti-"forced to be a father
MO> >against my will." If you want to be a father, good for you. And if
MO> >you are having problems convincing a court of that, you will get,
MO> >at the very least, emotional support from us.

MO> Are THESE the words of a man? Can I ask why you seem to think it's such a
MO> great honor to be able to kill your own child just because you can't see it?
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Do not condemn what he says, because of his sex.  If we did it to you, would
you call us sexist?  At any rate...

He is *not* asking for the right to "kill" anyone.  He, like many people who
are "pro-women's choice" does not wish to be forced to parent a child whom
he does not want.  We do *not* advocate "running off" once a child is born,
but the right to be relieved of unwanted reponsibilities by informing the
woman during the early months of pregnancy.  Since *she* is not required to
have the child, the knowledge that the father does not want the child, should
have some effect in her deliberations as to whether she still wants the baby.

If she *does* decide that she wants the baby, then it is *her* responsibility
alone.  After all, it is she who has the sole decision as to whether she
gets to force the father to take the responsibilities along with her.  This
is *not* by any means fair or just.


MO> Because you are being selfish and taking someone's life for the supposed
MO> betterment of your own? My dear, if we all had the same attitude you do,
MO> people would be killing their babies without a second thought and it would
MO> become commonplace, would you like that? If half the babies or even more
MO> conceived were killed off? Maybe there's a reason God made women to bear
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MO> the children, maybe women are more prone by nature to be caring and WANT
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MO> the child, regardless of the relinquished freedom and money.


Over a million abortions a year speak rather loudly that you are *quite*
incorrect.  I am not, however, saying that "men care more," but the silent
sufferings of thousands of scorned fathers (myself included) are certainly
speaking volumes as well...  ("Your silence speaks volumes" is an apt phrase
here).

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: CREECH@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Teresa Creech)
Subject: Re: e: The Second Family
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:14:43 GMT

When people stop blaming ALL WOMEN or ALL MEN for what's wrong with the
divorce laws in this country, then we will be able to make some headway
in FIXING the problems.
 
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:38:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Paternity suit vindication?
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

In alt.child-support, ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith) writes:

> Oops...that was intended to be email for my kids' father, not wasted
> bandwidth for the group.  

> > If you really feel that this is what happened to you, then I say go
> > for it.  Make it fly, if you can.
> > 
> > kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:
> > 
> > > This is an opportunity for one lucky guy to be publicly vindicated.
> > > 
> > > A *MAJOR TV NETWORK* wants to produce a show about MEN'S RIGHTS. 

Hmmm..... Do I detect a recurring theme here? One person making mistakes
(ie having kids and wasting bandwidth) and making other people paying for those
mistakes (ie a forced father and the network)? Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe 
someone could benefit from some soul searching. Sorry if I made this point 
at your expense, Shannon.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women
From: ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: AFDC moms
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:29:00 GMT
Reply-To: ssmith@xocolatl.com
Organization: Amethyst Systems, Fremont, CA

silver@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Nina Karp) writes:

> There are very few people who are happy to be single moms living on AFDC.
> She seems to be doing admirably under the circumstances.  Don't get judgement
> until you've trotted a mile in her moccasins, n'est pas?

I tell you how delighted *I* am to be in those shoes.  Yep, I'm just
sittin' on my tushie, poppin' bonbons, watching the children run
wild, not lifting a finger to improve our situation, and plotting to
become pregnant again real soon now so that I can continue in this
lifestyle.

Right at this moment, the sittin' on my tushie part is the only
accurate portion.  I am *trying* to finish my college education and
start a business of my own.  While caring for the kids.  If that
sounds like a lazy shiftless woman out to screw the system, then what
on Earth can I say?

Gosh, my kids' father had it good.  I moved out, worked full time and
paid all the bills while pregnant with #2 so that he could finish up
his MBA without the distraction of children or financial worries.

What a sap I was.

Anyway, thanks for the kind words, Nina.

---
Shannon Smith                     ssmith@xocolatl.com
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2862 soc.men:15383
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Deadbeats Bush and Clinton
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:59:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug23.235914.5208
Organization: University of Washington


  Why do Bush and Clinton talk about 
  cracking down on deadbeat dads when
  neither one will address the national
  debt other than to imply that 
  "growth (new babies?) will pay for it."

  Didn't the Soviets just change their 
  name to avoid paying their debts?
  They must prefer eating to communism.

  Bush didn't "bring down the wall" --
  Everyone is a deadbeat scofflaw in the 90`s.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Has anyone recently approached the Edna McConnel Clark Foundation?
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:54:47 GMT


The subject line says it all really, I just thought I'd ask if anyone had
recently.