From: garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin)
Subject: Re: Reply to Alan Yasutovich
Organization: Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 07:45:17 GMT

   Hey, kids, be the first on your block to put this thread in your
kill file!

In article <1992Jul22.235110.27309@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.191208.24949@leland.Stanford.EDU> garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) writes:
>>
>>   Funny thing, but Alan didn't bother quoting the part of my article
>>where I asked him to read it carefully and think before he wrote.  I
>>wonder why?
>>
>>   Maybe this will help:
>>
>>THIS IS THE ANSWER, ALAN.
>>>>   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.
>>
>>   Tell it to the judge.  You asked why the suit wouldn't work, I gave
>>you one reason.  If you think this counterargument--for that's all it
>>is--will work, good luck with it.  But don't be saying I didn't give
>>you an answer because I didn't anticipate your impotent
>>counterarguments.
>>
>>   The very _best_ you'll get out of a judge with that one is
>>something like: the remedy for this is to give due process to the
>>plaintiff(s), not take it away from the defendant(s).  Case dismissed.
>	
>	So your "answer" is that, "the job is too difficult.  YOu
>	can't fight city hall".  Nice reasoning.  Yet it's ok
>	and defensable that it's, by your own reasoning,
>	unconstitutional.  But that's ok.  A judge can get away
>	with anything!

   You asked for an answer, I gave you one.  And now, true to form,
you decide you don't like the answer, and attack me for giving it.
Then you "wonder" why people don't answer you.  Maybe--just MAYBE--
the problem is with you, here.

   Oh, wait, I think I see the problem.  You see, I made the same
mistake I accuse you of: I made an unsupported assumption.  I assumed
you actually wanted to know if there were any _real_ way to bring some
sort of suit on behalf of NCPs.

   What you were really asking is, can someone get into federal court
and make a speech about how NCPs are getting the shaft.  It's
possible.  However, for numerous reasons (some of which I have
outlined), you will be promptly laughed _out_ of federal court
thereafter.

   Is the job too difficult?  You bet your ass it is.  You see, in
order to make the suit stick, you will have to--amongst other
things--vastly change the concept of due process.  Which is not only
such a difficult job it borders on the impossible, I, for one, don't
think it would be a good idea if it succeeded.

>>>>   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.
>>>>
>
>	Well, I guess we're all fucked!

   No, you just have to come up with different, or more creative ways
to accomplish your goals.  If you want to keep bashing your head
against a brick wall, go ahead.  I will find a wrecking ball if I want
the wall to come down.

>
>>>
>>>	Like I said......
>>
>>   As _I_ said.
>>
>>   ["As," not "like" is proper here.  "Like" is a preposition, and as
>>such cannot be used to introduce a verbal phrase like "I said."  Note
>>that "like" is proper in "like 'I said'" because here we are referring
>>to the _words_ "I said," and words in quotes, unlike their referrants,
>>are always nouns.]
>>
>	Thanks for the english lesson.  Anyone as preoccupied with
>	my grammar can't be very interested in what I'm saying.

   This simply does not follow.  "We're grading this on content only,
not grammar" went out in junior high.  Which, as someone else already
observed, is where you seem to belong.

   Furthermore, I have deliberately avoided correcting most of your
horrendous grammatical errors, because it would confuse and unduly
enlongate my postings.  I included this one to explain the stark
contrast between our two juxtaposed statements.

>	So if my grammar were perfect, I'd be right?

   No, you would be grammatically correct.  Form and content are
separate issues, and both are important.

>
>>   This is a good start.  Now why don't you stop pretending to require
>>things from others, particularly Anne?
>>
>	Well,I guess we all may as well go home!

   This does not follow.  We can (and do, with one notable exception)
get along quite fine asking for responses without requiring them.  If
the requests are polite, usually someone answers.  Maybe not the
person you expected to answer, but that's life.

>
>>   However, your "real lawyer" left out a couple of salient points
>>that make this particular class-action impossible, in a practical
>>sense.  Like the fact that Rule 23 _demands_ personal service of
>>process to all reasonably identifiable defendants--a rule which was
>>upheld in a case where the defendants numbered several million.
>>
>	So.

   So with a large class the cost of finding and serving everyone in
it would be prohibitive.  It's a practical difficulty, indicating that
it might be more cost-effective to put one's efforts elsewhere.

>
>>   Your "real lawyer" also left out the salient fact that Rule 23
>>allows members of a class to opt out of the class JUST BY ASKING.  Now
>>how many people do you think will volunteer to be on the opposite side
>>of this lawsuit?
>>
>
>	So.

   So what's the point in bringing a class action suit where the class
quickly dwindles to one?  I think this one is the trump, frankly.  The
rule allowing removal from the class on request would, I think, make
the class action quickly degenerate into as many individual actions as
there were members of the class.  Which is just where we started
before trying to certify the class.

   Oh, but you'll love this one.  All the defendants would cough up
some money to various lawyers to have them draw up the proper papers
to get out from under it.

>
>
>>   And there are problems beyond Rule 23.  Jurisdiction.  Measure of
>>damages.  The practical difficulties of serving process.  Sounds like
>>it's a lot more efficient to do this one in the legislature(s), or
>>through individual test cases.
>>
>	Well I guess the job is just too tough.

   No, when I say "problems" here, I mean--at least with some of
these--that a court wouldn't even get to the substantive arguments
before it threw the suit out.  If that's not enough to make it a waste
of time, it's close enough for me.

   And, anyway, what's wrong with saying it's too tough?  "It's too
tough" is just another way of saying "I think I could do more good
elsewhere."  It's a little thing called cost/benefit analysis.  Most
intelligent people do it.

>
>
>>   And another thing.  The very fact that your "real lawyer" had
>>something to disagree with indicates that there was an answer to your
>>original question, despite the fact that you claim there wasn't!
>>
>
>	Not by *this* lot it wasn't.  I didn't notice the cross-posting
>	of all this B.S. to misc.legal.

   Ah, so because you didn't notice this, people who did--and didn't
bother to answer you because they'd already seen the answer--are the
deserving objects of your wrath?

>
>
>>>>   Oh, and another thing.  You don't ask, you demand.  There's 
>
>	I demand to be acknowledged in a conversation.  Yes.
>	I have that right (in a civil atmosphere) as a human being.

   And you forefit that right when you abuse the civil atmosphere.
Which you have.  Repeatedly.

>
>
>>>>a difference.  Demanding implies that you are entitled to an 
>>>>answer.  You aren't.  You also insult, which makes it less 
>
>	I *am*.  Otherwise, sign off the group.

   No, you're not.  You were never entitled to an answer to a
particular question from a particular other poster.  You were, maybe,
entitled not to be ignored by everyone--before you started abusing
other members of the forum.  Now, you are entitled to nothing, save,
perhaps, our pity.  Maybe not even that.

   However, when I tire of listening to you rave, I can--and probably
will--just put you in my kill file.  At which point, I won't even have
to deal with the nuisance of ignoring you.  If you don't like this,
well . . . sue me.

>
>
>>   Oh, and who died and made you God?  Who the hell are you to decide
>>what reputation people "conjure," then berate them for not living up
>>to it?
>>
>
>	It's self evident.

   Self evident what other people's self-made reputation is?  Do you
completely deny even the _possibility_ that you could misinterpret
something?  That's a dangerous--and false--position for _any_ person
to take, least of all one such as yourself who's been given so much
evidence to the contrary.

   Self evident that you have the right to berate someone for not
living up to your interpretation of their reputation?  Not bloody
likely.

>
>
>
>>   I've got news for you, kid.  By assuming that "third year law
>>student" means "I know the answer to every legal question you can come
>>up with" you're in the vast minority.  Further, anyone with a modicom
>
>	"I dont' know" would be acceptable.  Ever hear of, much less
>	practise common courtisy?

   I turn the question back upon you, sir.  Again, recall that I am
not taking you to task for asking the original question, but rather
for dictating the terms of the answer, then attacking because it has
not met your dictation.  If there's only one answer you will accept,
at least have the courtesy of telling us what it is so we can parrot
it back to you and thus make you go away.

>
>	Of course, Annie is letting all this go by because she has
>	exams.  She needs to become a lawyer and sap all of you of
>	your last penny while you figure it's not time or too hard
>	to change the rules.  She's laughing all the way to the bank
>	while you're eating peanut butter.  But she'll be back,
>	and you'll revere her and kiss her ass.

   Well, here it is, finally.  The tiger can't hide its stripes
forever.  What on earth makes you think that Anne is out to "sap"
anyone?

   Is it because you know her well enough to say this?  Obviously not.
The sum total of your knowledge of her comes from the net.  That isn't
enough.  Support your own statements, Alan.  Why do you think this is
true?  Because she won't ask "how high?" every time you say "jump"?

   Or is it because you just know, deep in your heart, that all
lawyers are like that?  (Maybe one abused you as a chld?)  Well, first
of all, you're factually incorrect.  Second of all, no such blanket
statement about lawyers gives you any right to attack a particular
individual one.

   Further, you accuse her of laughing--behind everyone's back,
presumably--at the feeble efforts of her would-be clients.  This comes
from so far out in left field, it's in the next ballpark.  Which, I
guess, shouldn't be surprising, since that's where you're posting
from.

>
>>   Oh, I see.  Because they care about their children, they're
>>supposed to care about you too?  Because you're acting like a child, I
>
>	I consider "changing the rules" helpfull to their kids,
>	as they then have more $$$$$ left to spend on them.

   Carefully, carefully.  You quoted me out of context, here.  I was
talking about caring about proving things to you, not caring about
particular ideas you champion.  Just because you're a jackass doesn't
mean your ideas are all wrong.  It just makes it more likely.

   But I can care very deeply about a particular idea you
(coincidentally) espouse without giving a good god damn what you
think.  Therefore, I may spend my time doing things that you might
approve of, but I won't waste my time trying to justify my actions to
you.

   Again, try to read--and UNDERSTAND--before you reply.

>
>>   What's not you?  Oh, you mean because YOUR latest crusade just
>>happens to benefit--in YOUR mind--people other than YOU, that means
>>YOU have the right to push YOUR ideas onto others?  I don't remember
>
>	No, I don't.  In fact I recommend the next time you go to court
>	you drop your pants, bend over, and say, "right here judge...
>	or do you prefer my mouth".  That's much more beneficial than
>	fighting the system.

   This is a logical and courteous argument?  Mmmm, no.

   Further, who are you to decide where and when I will "fight the
system"?  I do so when _I_ please, how _I_ please, as does everyone
else.  And if I conclude that I can best change the system from
inside, you are in no position to tell me I'm wrong.

   Further, I resent your implication that anything less than full
capitulation with your demands amounts to my prostituting myself to
"the system."  The opposite is true: to do everything you ask, I would
have to prostitute myself to you.

   Which I would do just about as soon as I would peel all my skin off
with my own fingernails.

>
>>Anne saying "You know, I could do this class-action thing, but I think
>>I'd rather sit home just to annoy Alan."  YOU're the one who came to
>>both conclusions--that she has the ability, and that she has the lack
>>of interest.  Both are unfounded, and both are wrong.
>
>	And you all will pay for her apathy.  But you're all stupid
>	enough to exhalt someone who would rather see me squirm
>	than to help your quality of living.

   Apathy?  Apathy?  WHAT?  For the sake of all that's holy, _read_
what I wrote.  The logical conclusion to draw from my statement is
that, while she does not (at least at this time) have the ability, she
does have interest.  Which, if you look in a good thesaurus (you can
find one in the public library--you _can_ find the public library,
right?  First, you swim across the Charles . . . .) is just the
opposite of apathy.

   And at this point I would exalt anyone who would like to see you
squirm.  Which says _nothing_ about how that person feels about anyone
else's quality of living.  Many of us want to see you, personally,
squirm, because you have demonstrated yourself richly deserving of it.

>
>>>	Let her take her "shingle" off the net!!!!!!
>>
>>   Ah, I see.  You think that there's actually a logical connection,
>>here.  Well, as you have been told repeatedly, there isn't.  Live with
>>it.
>
>	Oh, of course not.  Not in her sig.  Open your eyes.

   No, open yours.  Her .sig says that she's a law school graduate
(or, if she hasn't updated it recently, that she's a law student).
There is no logical connection between this and her being ready and
able to meet your demands.  She has every right to make factual
statements about herself without leaving herself open to your attacks
based on conclusions you jump to.

   You see, a lawyer's stock in trade is advice.  When you ask for
advice, you are asking for a handout.  Further, if the person is not
yet a lawyer, they are in danger (if they aren't careful) of being
liable for practicing law without a license--a felony, I believe, and
most certainly grounds for never being admitted to the bar.  So you're
asking for a handout _and_ a personal risk.

   If you get mad every time you don't get a handout, you will--
justifiably--get fewer and fewer of them.  Sore losers eventually get
run out of the playground.  Of course, usually the other kids beat 'em
up first.

>
>>   Because I didn't sire a child I have no right to read a newsgroup?
>
>	It gives you less right to argue about something you have no
>	life with.

   I'm not quite sure what you mean by "no life with," but I certainly
have an interest in it.  I am at risk of being an NCP sometime in the
future.

   In any case, I deny your assertion.  I am human; I can abstract my
thoughts from the situation at hand, and argue accordingly.

>
>>I'm here because I find some of the articles interesting.  That's
>>enough.  It's why I read alt.sex.motss even though I'm not gay, and I
>>read soc.women even though I'm male.
>>
>	But do you argue there?

   I argue wherever I have the desire to.  I will argue against
illogic and mindless attacks such as you have demonstrated whenever
and wherever I please.  And I have plenty of experience recognizing
them.  Fools like you, sir, are no uncommon thing.

>
>
>>   Further, I resent your implication that I am somehow unqualified to
>>speak on this topic.  I think you have demonstrated more
>>unqualification in the last few days than my credentials ever could.
>
>	That's you opinion.  Nothing about my situation has been
>	brought up.  And you *have* no personal situation to bring
>	up. Go away.

   Yes, I suppose it is my opinion, but that's usenet, isn't it?
Mostly opinion.  If you don't like it, you can lump it.

   On the other hand, I wasn't talking about your _situation_.  I
meant that your callous, unreasoning, uncaring attacks--not your life
situation--demonstrated your unqualification to speak in what is
ordinarily a civilized forum.  I couldn't care less what your
situation is; when you blatantly and repeatedly violate civilized
discourse, you lose your rights to continue to be an equal member of
that discourse.

>
>>   You have a point?  I guess I must have missed it.  What possible
>>point could you have that would be refuted by evidence of Anne's good
>>works other than the bald assertion that she has none?  Let's review
>>the evidence on that point:
>>
>>	Alan: none.
>>
>>	Anne: A personal statement, backed up by the statements of
>>independant witnesses.
>>
>>   In any court of law, faced with this imbalance of the evidence, not
>>only wouldn't they demand Anne's side come forth with further
>>evidence, they wouldn't even let the case go to jury before granting
>>summary judgement in favor of Anne.  (That means against you, Alan.)
>>
>>   Until you come forward with some evidence that Anne is doing
>>nothing--and here's a hint: the fact that she hasn't helped you or
>>your designated cause du jour isn't evidence of that--I have no
>>obligation to come forward with further evidence on the other side.
>>
>
>	You've got it wrong!  First of all, this is the opposite
>	of a court of law situation.  Your logic doesn't apply.
>	I cannot prove, "there are no black ducks!", but if someone
>	claims to have one, it's *their* burden to bring it to
>	court.  It is Annie's burden to prove that works exist.
>	It is logically impossible for me to prove there aren't.

   While it is true that proving a negative statement is difficult,
disproving one is easy.  And we already have, in this case.  The
burden then shifts to you to either disprove our evidence, or
otherwise show that your original assertion is correct.

   You see, a witness (such as myself) just coming in and saying "X is
true" is evidence of X being true.  You may not think it's very
convincing evidence, but it is some evidence nonetheless.  And when
some evidence--however weak--is up against no evidence, no evidence
always loses.

>
>
>>   No, I haven't.  Despite repeated email--from independant sources--
>>saying "Good point, but you're wasting your time.  Alan will keep
>>going no matter how wrong he is."
>>
>
>	Why don't these people say this to me.  And why is anything
>	I've said here wrong?

   Gee, I don't know why they don't say this to you.  Perhaps because
you don't make any good points?  Perhaps because they don't want to
have to deal with the barrage of insults you might aim at them?

   Some things you've said are wrong for reasons I've outlined.  Some
are wrong for reasons I've overlooked, or chose not to mention.  Some
are just wrong because they're too impolite to be correct.

>
>	Is it wrong to try to begin discussion on a viable topic?
>	Is it wrong to wonder why people don't tell you it's
>	good, bad, or indifferent in some way?

   No, it's wrong to attack people for not telling you.  There's a big
difference between these two statements:

	I wonder why Anne isn't answering?

	I wonder why Anne isn't answering; could it be because she's a
no-good, moeny-grubbing, lawyer scum who's just out to take all she
can get and couldn't care less about the issues she purports to?

>
>
>	This entire arguement has gone to the place where if I
>	physically produced Jesus Christ, I'd still be wrong.

   Well, you _would_ be wrong.  You see, treating people the way you
do is wrong, regardless of the truth or untruth of your underlying
ideas.  Most of us learned this in kindergarten.  Maybe you should go
back for remedial lessons.

>	Everyone has cataracts on their eyes.

   If true, it's because you've been punching them.

>
>
>>   Yet another example of the Alan double-standard.  You expect others
>>to take your statements at face value in the absence of contradictory
>>evidence, yet you are perfectly comfortable assuming other people's
>>statements are _false_ in the absence of _supporting_ evidence.
>>
>
>	Other people have made no statements.

   WHAT?  This is so blatantly untrue, it's almost unbelievable that
you said it.  Several paragraphs ago, you yourself claimed that Anne
(effectively) made the statement "I do good works," for just one
example.  (And one example is enough to disprove a negative assertion
such as yours.)

   Yet you persist in assuming that her assertion is false, even in
the face of corroborating evidence.  Even worse than the double
standard I outlined above.

>
>>   With rules like that on your side, how could you possibly lose?
>>Lucky for me those rules are only in _your_ mind, Alan.
>>
>	Hey.  It's the best game to play.  But *you* made it that
>	way.

   I'm responsible now for your delusions?  Oh, no.  You're going to
have to take responsibility for those yourself.  They were there long
before I came along.  I just choose to throw them into stark contrast
against the truth.

			-Gary

ObDemand: Learn the difference between "its" and "it's."  If you have
to, write "If you can't use 'it is' you can't use 'it's.'" on a piece
of paper, drill a hole in your skull, and shove it in.  But get it
right.
-- 
|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)|