HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: The Second Family
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 11:57:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.204710.15085@u.washington.edu> jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>Duane Hentrich writes
>> |>     What will you do if your new wife
>> |>     also takes "her" kids from you?
>> |>     Please don't answer with: "She won't."
>> And how would you feel if the long run turns out the way Chris says?
>> Please don't answer with: "It won't."
>
>   I don't think it's worth the risk.
>   

	To each their own.

-- 
	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.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Allen fights back, denies child abuse
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:23:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.070347.5939@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>But this is what I believed might have happened....  Probably several
>years ago Woody and Mia drifted apart.  They lived in separate, but
>facing apartments.  

I think you're reading too much into this fact; the couple never lived
together.

>That relationship was legal by definition of
>law, but was still a violation of what most people consider normal.

Not so much "normal," as "ethical."  A sexual relationship between
stepfather-stepdaughter (and Allen was a father to Soon-Yi since she
was nine, maybe even six) is much like one between a lawyer and client;
professor and student; or doctor and patient.  It's a violation of 
trust and a conflict of interest by someone in a position of power.
Furthermore, Allen should very well have realized the pain he would cause 
his companion, much less the children he purportedly cares so much about.  
He's also hurt his stepdaughter's life, and her relationship with her
adoptive mother (and now she gets to deal with helicopters following
her to school). 
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             you can't throw me to the lions -- i'm charlton heston
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:1988 alt.child-support:2728 soc.men:14887
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: The Second Family
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:30:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.dads-rights
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Aug12.214616.8774@u.washington.edu>, jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
|> Chris Rutkowski writes
|> > After some time, I remarried, and am now a new
|> > parent with my second wife.  Things are great, and I am enjoying going
|> > through the joys of fatherhood all over again, this time sharing the
|> > experience with a caring, attentive mother. 
|>     What will you do if your new wife
|>     also takes "her" kids from you?
|> 
|>     Please don't answer with: "She won't."

And how would you feel if the long run turns out the way Chris says?

Please don't answer with: "It won't."

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Allen fights back, denies child abuse
Organization:  Hickory Ridge - Lisle, IL
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:41:07 GMT

Ted Frank writes:
>					A sexual relationship between
>stepfather-stepdaughter (and Allen was a father to Soon-Yi since she
>was nine, maybe even six) is much like one between a lawyer and client;
>professor and student; or doctor and patient.  It's a violation of 
>trust and a conflict of interest by someone in a position of power.

Is there a defined list of which relationships are prohibited--or
are we expected avoid all relationships in which the two parties
who love each other are not in a position of identity?  Perhaps we
should limit ourselves to masturbation, since we ourselves are the
only other person in the world of equal power.  And perhaps the
feminists of the world, noting that men are supposedly "more
powerful" than women, will proclaim any heterosexual sex to be 
"a violation of trust and a conflict of interest by someone in a
position of power."  Or perhaps they already have.

Unfortunately, there is no line to define how much power difference
is too much and how much is simply to be expected...but sure as
hell, someone is out there trying to draw one in the sand.

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrccb.att.com
	      (effective Aug 1, 1992:  tjc@hrcce.att.com)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Sex and Power (was: Allen fights back, denies child abuse)
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 08:57:14 GMT

In article <65+nq#+.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>Oh, Catherine MacKinnon *already* has! But then somebody (like me) will point
>out that even two Lesbians (the only type of sex that is truly
>Politically Correct) are seldom "equal in power". One member of a
>lesbian couple is typically the dominant (the "dyke"), the other
>is typically more passive; in other words, a lesbian "husband and
>wife," just like in a hetero couple. Tom is right, masturbation
>is the ONLY answer!

Of the couple of hundred openly lesbian women I've known, I've known
only one couple who fit the stereotype of femme and butch.  The femme
had long hair, wore dresses and makeup, and worked as a schoolteacher.
The butch had short hair, wore jeans and never any makeup, and worked
as a gardener.

If you mean that, given a couple whether motss or motos, one will be
more talkative than the other, one will make more money, one will be a
little more outgoing than the other, etc., you're probably right.
This is bound to happen unless the couple are twins.  But to assume
nearly all lesbians play "husband and wife," imo, only shows your
ignorance.

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 12:40:58 GMT

In article <VIXIE.92Aug11032337@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>[Alan]
>>	The man only has a "choice" to make a mistake once.
>
>Yes, that's true.  Why do you think it's important?  As long as he
>has a choice and the free will to exercise that choice, he wins and
>will not have to do anything he doesn't want to do.  Note that the
>choice has to be exercised responsibly and that the consequences of
>making the wrong choice are pretty significant.


	The point involved the balance of control between men & women
	in the conception and eventual birth of a child.

	*Both* have a choice at conception; only the woman has
	any subsequent say.  The balance is off.

-- 
	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.dads-rights
From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
	<VIXIE.92Aug11032337@cognition.pa.dec.com>
	<1992Aug12.124058.9349@ll.mit.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Aug 92 11:04:50

[alan]
>	The point involved the balance of control between men & women
>	in the conception and eventual birth of a child.
>
>	*Both* have a choice at conception; only the woman has
>	any subsequent say.  The balance is off.

That's also true.  But both have(*) to participate in conception, while
only the woman has(*) to participate in pregnancy/birth, and neither has(*)
to participate in raising the child.

So the balance of control is off.  Yes, it is.  Indeed so.  So, now what?

(*)Note--speaking biologically/physically here, not morally/legally.
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:1990 alt.child-support:2732 soc.men:14893
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: The Second Family
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:46:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug12.214616.8774
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington

Chris Rutkowski writes
> After some time, I remarried, and am now a new
> parent with my second wife.  Things are great, and I am enjoying going
> through the joys of fatherhood all over again, this time sharing the
> experience with a caring, attentive mother. 

    What will you do if your new wife
    also takes "her" kids from you?

    Please don't answer with: "She won't."
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2032 soc.men:15244 soc.women:15515 misc.kids:21476
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 17 Aug 92 01:47:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <VIXIE.92Aug11032337@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>[Alan]
>>	The man only has a "choice" to make a mistake once.
>
>Yes, that's true.  Why do you think it's important?  As long as he
>has a choice and the free will to exercise that choice, he wins and
>will not have to do anything he doesn't want to do.  Note that the
>choice has to be exercised responsibly and that the consequences of
>making the wrong choice are pretty significant.

Tell me, what happens if that choice is obliterated? When a woman gets
pregnant, she can abort over the man's objections or allow the pregnancy
to progress to term, again over the man's objections. This removes all
of the man's options whether to have a child or not once a pregnancy
has commenced. When all of a man's options are taken away, there can
be no choice left, so how can a man make it.

Don't duck the issue by saying that the man "made his choice when he
dropped his pants". I have just argued that a woman's unilateral
right to an abortion severs completely the choice to drop his pants
from the choice to have a child. Refute that argument. Don't just
assert that a woman's unilateral right to an abortion has no effect.
Argue the case

If abortion is wrong, then the man who drops his pants *has* made his
choice to be a father.


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: MARCH ON WASHINGTON
X-To: RICHARD DONOVAN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 22:47:00 GMT

richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) writes...
RD> How about having a march on Washington on Labor Day. The irony is sublime
RD> But it has the advantage of being a time when people can make it.

Good idea...but how many thousand people will you be able to organise?

And *what* will you be marching about?  Pro Male-Choice, dad's rights, or...?

If you can get this thing working, then by jove, *I* will come, and I'm a
few thousand kilometres away in Toronto...  I can bring a respectable
complement of individuals with me, but I don't think that you've given
enough notice...

Will
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * All the cool rats drink beer.
-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Subject: Re: The Second Family
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:47:10 GMT

Duane Hentrich writes
> |>     What will you do if your new wife
> |>     also takes "her" kids from you?
> |>     Please don't answer with: "She won't."
> And how would you feel if the long run turns out the way Chris says?
> Please don't answer with: "It won't."

   I don't think it's worth the risk.
   
   Even if you still live in the 50`s (before the pill),
   Even if you think males are better than females,
   She has a life of her own -- SHE WILL WALK!
   
   You'll be stuck for all of your POTENTIAL money
   And your kids won't be their when you come home.
From: grantham@cstest.cs.vt.edu (Brad Grantham)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: We could blow up USL.
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:18:55 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA


(I'm not really that much of an extremist)

How about this idea:

Some kind, rich soul buys an AT&T license, and includes in their
charter a description of the members of their organization as any
breathing human being.  Voila, mess solved!

Oh, well.  I can dream, can't I?

I'd just like to voice my concern over this suit that I may never be able
to write UNIX-like code again, because I've seen substantial portions
of Net2...

		-Brad
-- 
Brad Grantham, Va Tech ACM Grand Duke. 		    grantham@csugrad.cs.vt.edu
		"#define no_bdev_def()	dev_disk_init(0)"
 Congratulations!  If AT&T wins its suit against BSDI, you've guaranteed that
  you can never write OS software again, just by reading the previous line!
From: gast@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Effort needed to implement Unix
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:44:23 GMT
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department

In article <BZS.92Aug11223913@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>

>>	"Perhaps the most important achievement of UNIX is to demonstrate
>>	that a powerful operating system for interactive use need not be
>>	expensive either in equipment or in human effort: UNIX can run on
>>	hardware costing as little as $40,000, and less than two man-years
>>	were spent on the main system software."

>>				Dennis M. Ritchie and Ken Thompson

>It's a silly claim, sort of like claiming that the only way AT&T is so
>rich is that they must be thieves, that sort of mean-spirited thing.

Mean spirited?  How many anti-trust suits and consent decrees do you need?

David
From: richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Sixth edition sources
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:12:49 GMT
Organization: Templi Resurgentes Equites Synarchici

In article <1863@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) writes:
>My memory is faint, but, isn't there a book containing all source code
>of V6 kernel published in public by accident in Australia in 1970s?

You're presumably thinking of the "Lions book", which consists of
a listing of the 6th edition kernel and a line-by-line commentary
on it.

The cover of this document says:

  This booklet has been produced for students at the University
  of New South Wales taking courses 6.602B and 6.657G.

  It contains a specially edited selection of the UNIX Operating
  System source code, such as might be used on a typical
  PDP 11/40 computer installation.

  The UNIX Software System was written by K. Thompson and
  D. Ritchie of Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ.  It
  has been made avaiable to the University of New South Wales
  under a licence from the Western Electric Company.

  This document may contain information covered by one or
  more licences, copyrights and non-disclosure agreements.
  Circulation of this document is restricted to holders of a licence
  for the UNIX Software System from Western Electric.  All other
  circulation or reproduction is prohibited.

  J. Lions
  Department of Computer Science
  The University of New South Wales.
  June, 1977

This document is in wide circulation (in the form of almost-illegible
Nth generation photocopies), though as far as I know it has not been
"published in public".

I suppose I should point out that the University of Edinburgh does indeed
hold any number of Unix source licences.

-- Richard
-- 
Richard Tobin,
AI Applications Institute,                                R.Tobin@ed.ac.uk
Edinburgh University.
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: drd@mv.mv.com (David R. Dick)
Subject: Re: Any 32V trade secrets revealed in Net/2?
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 10:55:39 GMT

In article <newlin.713808874@lucky.ecn.purdue.edu> newlin@lucky.ecn.purdue.edu (Johnny N.) writes:
>dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>
>>It's not clear what trade secrets, if any, have been revealed by the
>>Net/2 and other distributions.  I think the Unix community should get
>>together and figure out if there are any such trade secrets.
>
>  I'm curious.  How is the Unix community going to figure out
>  if there are any trade secrets in the Net/2 dist?  I mean,
>  if they really are secrets, then how would we know they were
>  secret?  After all, they are secrets, and if we knew they
>  were secrets then they really wouldn't be secrets.  Or would
>  they?  It's not like we are going to see something like this:
>
>   /***************** AT&T Trade secret **********************/
>     for(;;) fork();
>   /***************** end AT&T Trade secret ******************/
>
>  Anyway, this is all very interesting.  

Not only that, but the fact that a particularly dumb algorithm is
used in a particular place (or which particularly dumb algorithm :-)
might be considered a trade secret -- only USL, etc. know for sure.

David Dick
Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company]
From: sinster@cse.ucsc.edu (Darren Senn)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Copyright issues in this lawsuit.
Date: 14 Aug 1992 05:28:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyell.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Aug13.234659.1820@colorado.edu> kooros@refuge.Colorado.EDU (Paul T. Kooros) writes:
>    One of the important concepts of this lawsuit involves the application
>of an arcane copyright law to software -- a law which was written to apply
>to works of english prose and poetry.  Judges and jurors, most of whom
>have had no experience programming, have had difficulty in this application.
>Typically, their approach has been to draw analogy between book and program.
>Evidence of this can be seen in the "Lotus Development Corp. vs. Paperback
>Software" case, where Lotus sued Paperback for selling a program competing
>with their popular 123 program.  The judge concluded that since the function
>of the program was "substantially similar" this was like the "theme" of a
>book being the same, and therefore constituted copyright infringment, even
>though the actual program was independently written, and not copied.
>I believe that the Lotus suit must have been poorly defended (and should have
>never succeeded). [...]

Actually, this decision was overturned by Borland International in (I
believe) 3rd quarter 1991, just prior to acquiring Ashton Tate.
Interestingly, I believe the SEC was witness for the plaintiff.  I
don't have a case number, or even the court jurisdiction, but this
is what I heard from some Borland employee friends of mine.  If someone
could look up this information, I'd be interested.  But then again,
that doesn't really bear on the USL (aka. evil big nasty corporation
dedicated to the destruction of truth, justice, and apple pie) vs. BSDI
(aka. sweet and wonderful saviors of mankind, struggling against the
tyrrany of greed) case.  (Bias?  We don' got no stinkin' bias!  :)
-- 
Darren Senn                                            Phone:    (408) 479-1521
sinster@scintilla.capitola.ca.us                       Snail: 1785 Halterman #1
Wasurenaide -- doko e itte mo soko ni anata wa iru yo.     Santa Cruz, Ca 95062
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Effort needed to implement Unix
Organization: The World
	<1992Aug14.224423.12383@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 05:05:26 GMT


From: gast@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast)
>Mean spirited?  How many anti-trust suits and consent decrees do you need?

Hey, in the first place it's a bit weird to chop out everything but
the Ritchie & Thompson quote + my comment, even I could barely
remember what you were alluding to, I certainly wasn't commenting on
their quote.

In the second place: What are you talking about?

I don't need any anti-trust suits thank you.

You'll have to be a bit more clear to get a reasonable response.

Or maybe better, don't bother.


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: sgr@alden.UUCP (Stan Ryckman)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: 1-800-ITS-UNIX
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:24:50 GMT
Reply-To: sgr@alden.UUCP
Organization: What?  Me organized?  Naaah.

Does anyone know whether BSDI purchased that phone number,
1-800-ITS-UNIX, from AT&T?  Hmmm...

Stan.
--
This .signature has expired.  Call 1-900-YOU-FOOL to find out why.
    Stan Ryckman   sgr@alden.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: matth@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Matthew Hannigan)
Subject: Re: 'Busted Trade Secrets' vs. Copyright on Unpublished Works
Summary: source code published restricted to course notes
Keywords: Lion source code v7 v6
Organization: AODC, but I don't speak for them.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:21:42 GMT

In article <1863@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) writes:
>
>My memory is faint, but, isn't there a book containing all source code
>of V6 kernel published in public by accident in Australia in 1970s?
>
>If so, as 32V is similar to V6, I think very few can be claimed to be
>trade secrets of 32V.

What you _may_ be thinking of is a printing of the source code
for study in an operating systems class at the University of 
New South Wales by John Lion.  It wasn't published for general
sale, and it had some distribution restriction on it, so it probably
doesn't count as an ordinary publication.  It wasn't an `accident'.

Matt
matt@aodc20.aodc.gov.au
Xref: sparky alt.suit.att-bsdi:169 comp.unix.bsd:4127
From: rick@hci.hw.ac.uk (Rick Innis)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: 'Busted Trade Secrets' vs. Copyright on Unpublished Works
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:18:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Organization: Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University

In article <1863@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp
(Masataka Ohta) writes: 

   My memory is faint, but, isn't there a book containing all source code
   of V6 kernel published in public by accident in Australia in 1970s?

Not by accident -- it was allowed to be published as part of an operating
systems course, along with a companion volume giving a comprehesive
commentary on the code.  I can't remember the exact details of the copyright
and restriction notice on it -- I'll check that photocopy of it I don't have
on my shelves at home.

	--Rick.

--
Rick Innis, Computer Science, 	| "Has anyone seen the secret of the universe?"
Heriot-Watt University, 	| said Zebedee, arriving. "I know I left it 
Edinburgh, Scotland.		| around here somewhere."
rick@cs.hw.ac.uk		|  -> My opinions, not the University's. <-
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi