HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:34:08 GMT

In article <hppmq9_@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>
>Now, I agree that all men who have consented to become a parent should
>be made to support any and all such children to the best of his
>ability.
>
 Agreed. But this brings up another very important issue. Namely, consenting
 to become a parent and support you children, does *not* amount to agreeing
 to allow youself to be gouched by the courts and the custodial parent (can
 you say 'mother'? good i knew you could).

 I agreed to help support my son. I did not, however, agree to be reduced
 to poverty by the ridiculous amount of money, 40% of my gross, I have
 ended up having to pay my ex. I did not agree to have to struggle just to
 have enough to eat until next months pay check while my ex lives fat,
 relative to me at least, off of what she extorts from me.

 There also needs to be more control over the support amount and more
 safeguards to insure that all the money goes to the child and in what
 form he gets it. As an example, I would like to be able to specify that
 a portion of his support goes to a trust fund for him which his mother
 has no access to. This especially makes a lot of sense when the support
 amount greatly exceeds the monthly expenses of supporting the child.
 Currently, as long as the child isn't neglected, the courts aren't going
 to bother looking at exactly what the money is spent on at all.

-kelvin
 

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:09:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.050205.18456@colorado.edu> fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>In article <exukjb.26.712417719@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>biological parent(s) has a correlative duty not to *be* UNINVOLVED. Or does 
>
> there is a viable, legal alternative to this happening, abortion. If
>
>>mentality at work when a biological father is forced to pay child support in 
>
> We don't need sympathy, we need CHANGE!

Good idea.  Let's start by changing the newsgroups line to disinclude
misc.legal.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Xref: sparky soc.men:13726 soc.women:14114 misc.legal:14833 alt.child-support:2233 alt.dads-rights:1581
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Right To Not Support
Date: 25 Jul 92 22:47:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Jul25.224748.24971
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington

No man should be dehumanized by the removal
of his "Right To Not Support".  Be that 
financial support to minor children anything
else.  Slavery should be outlawed!
  Social Security provides for people who
are over 65 -- it should further provide for 
the minor children.
  This forced relationship between a man and 
a child will only be a source of abuse -- 
like babies in garbage cans.
  Every human should have the choice of who
he will or will not support!!
Xref: sparky soc.men:13583 soc.women:13956 alt.censorship:6154 talk.politics.misc:35390
From: bmb@bluemoon.rn.com (Bryan Bankhead)
Subject: Re: The Sheaffertron on Trial
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 15:46:56 EDT

revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>         From what I've seen, Sheaffer's beef against feminism appears to 
> spring from a strong sense of resentment of when women don't behave the way 
> he wants them to. Sure, my comments were _ad hominem_-- to the man, the 
> translation goes, and the problems aren't with the ideology but with 
> Sheaffer's apparently screwed-up psychology. The material I posted-- those 
> weird notes about how women are driven by their genes to 'crave' muscular 
> guys, and how evil and malicious this makes them, when they could be sharing 
> their bodies with the nerdy Sheaffer-types-- indicate that the man's more 
> concerned about his inability to meet women rather than any rational 
> criticism of feminism. Why else would his posts on the subject have such sad 
> passion in them?
Most of the anti feminist males down here write with this kind of dogmatic 
passion. They seem incapable of transcending the fixed idea thay because 
something is the way it is it's the way it SHOULD be.
for instance he says women can't succeed because they lack agression, 
then he indicts them for joining into groups agressively to promote their 
success!  You can't argue with logic like that!

 This is from
     bmb@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?  Sniff, sniff! I SMELL SNUFF!!!!
Summary: More "Snuff Films" Sighted!  UFO's at 11!
Keywords: Fergit about "Faces of Death" it ain't snuff either
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:14:17 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@Pitt.edu
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In soc.men (and elsewhere) datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes:

>It may be a stretch, but I recently saw a program on a local public station
>that included explicit footage from the Holocaust.

Yea, it's quite a stretch.  If that's all it took to make a "snuff film"
we could use the Zapruder (sp?) film of JFK buying the farm as "proof" of
SNUFF FILM existance.

The AFU defn. of "snuff film" includes (at least) that:

        The film show an actual murder.
        
        The film be "for profit" (that is distributed with intent to
        make money).
        
        That the film maker set the "vicitim" up for the murder.
        
This rules out Holocaust footage, JFK, and murderers who get their jollies
by videoing their victims.

So far, there hasn't been anyone who's been able to come up with a "real"
snuff film.

Terry "AFU -- What do you suppose it stands for?" Wood
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington

Chuck Irvine writes
> I think in the main he is being selfish (which, to an extent, 
> he and we must be) and vindictive (and I don't blame him 
> for this either), and he would do better to admit this.

    You don't know me.
    How ignorant of you to make assumptions about me!
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: asgard@plx.com (J.R. Stoner)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Keywords: n
Date: 25 Jul 92 03:31:43 GMT
Organization: Heironamous Botch's Murk Works

Yes, indeed.  Why should anybody in his right mind ever get married.
I think I develop more empathy for Bierce's plight the more I get older.

-- 
J.R. Stoner, DWMIT - asgard@plx.com - sun.com!plx!plxsun!asgard
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:25:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.233429.11235@u.washington.edu> jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
>Subject: Re: Right to not support
>Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:34:29 GMT

>ken bell writes
>> [kids] are dependent, 
>> and as such have a right to depend on their parents 
>                                              ^^^^^^^
>                                              WRONG!
>    Kids have a right to be supported -- but from their
>    community -- NOT from their "genetic link".
>       Individuals should have the right to NOT support
>    any kid -- but the community has already decided
>    that they want to support all kids.  Besides all
>    kids SHOULD be supported by something that wants
>    to support him -- otherwise he'll be abused.
>       Prehistorically -- kids were NOT supported by
>    the genetic father -- no one even knew who he was
>    -- the community supported them.


Well, either I don't understand the system of morality that's behind this 
view of community and individual responsibility, or I have misstated my 
view about parental responsibility. On your view, I can sire as many 
children as I want and then, should I not want them, simply turn them 
over to this amorphous thing you call the 'community'?  To ask a Kantian 
question here, is this something I could consistenly will to become a 
general rule for everyone in similar circumstances to follow? No doubt if 
some community group wants to take unwanted children by all means let them 
have them.  But this is far different from saying that the 
consequences of the irresponsible sexual activities of some individuals 
should be a mortgage on the 'community'. Besides, should we now model our 
social life on the mentality of prehistoric savages?

But then, perhaps I have misunderstood you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky soc.men:13699 soc.women:14081 alt.censorship:6266 talk.politics.misc:35875 alt.folklore.urban:19730 misc.legal:14788
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:10:15 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <cass8806.101@elan.glassboro.edu> cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY) writes:
>what about a public execution -- i'm thinking of the ones which recently 
>took place in romania, which were filmed and distributed world wide. is that 
>a snuff film? if so, the international media is traffiking in them to a 
>henious degree.
>

Has the academic year started already?  I didn't think the new accounts
would be distributed for al least another month.

Would someone recite the SNUFF Act to these people?  I never gout all
the phrasings down.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: A question about getting "asked out"
Date: 23 Jul 1992 00:04:54 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(John P. Stine x7381) writes:
>
>A question was recently brought up in another newsgroup, and I
>thought I'd share it with you to get your thoughts.  The question
>revolves around the issue of a homosexual male making a pass at,
>or simply asking out, a heterosexual male.  It seems that there are 
>straight men who, when put into this situation, respond with
>violence.  To wit: "If any faggot ever came on to me, I'd punch
>his lights out."
>

Anyone who would respond with physical violence
(although you don't say how the "pass" is accomplished)
has (IMO) difficulty socializing with others.

One need only consult Miss Manners; the gender should
not matter. In the example you mention it seems to me
that the "straight man...respond with violence" is
extremely homophobic. . .

D.
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: soc.feminism
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:47:25 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul31.051800.255682@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan  
Garvin) writes:

+ Maybe it was just a bias against you, Hillel.  There are plenty 
+ of anti-feminist men posting there now (I assume that these people 
+ fit your definition of Politically Incorrect.)  If they turned 
+ down one of your articles these days, I'd join you in making a 
+ complaint.

Which would accomplish what? 

It might make you feel better, I suppose. Which may be good enuff.

K'Char 
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Torn between Mother and Wife.
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Distribution: CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 00:36:54 GMT

In article <l6ugepINNqos@male.EBay.Sun.COM> stevie@tmina.EBay.Sun.COM (Steve Taormina) writes:

You've got a tough situation here, Steve. 

Your post seems to indicate that you think your wife is totally
in the right on these things and that your mother is being a 
pain in the ass. I'm posting with this perspective in mind; if
I misinterpreted your feelings, please ignore everything I
say.

The obvious answer is to tell your mother to fuck off, but of course, 
that isn't so easy.

>You may be wondering if I told my wife about all this.  Are you kidding?
>I think she would be too hurt and very angry.  Anybody out there feel that
>I should tell my wife?

Not me. What would it help? It would anger your wife and it
would make your life miserable. The only reason I would tell
her is if you know that she will find out anyway, either because 
someone in your family will tell her or because you know you are not 
good at keeping this kind of thing to yourself. It's better for
her to hear this openly and directly from you than it is to hear
it any other way, but it is better still for her to never know that
it happened.


>Anyway, my mom and I are still talking and recently she bought several
>things for my new house as sort of a housewarming gift.  Lights, a carpet,
>etc.  My mom and I got in late and my wife was in bed and didn't get a
>chance to see and thank my mom for all the nice things she bought.
>The very next day, I'm talking to my mother on the phone and she said that
>she would appreciate it if my wife was more emotional and appreciative 
>about all the things she just bought.  I thought "what the hell was my wife
>suppose to do, call my mother first thing in the morning?"  I didn't want
>to start trouble so I told my mom that I would have my wife call her.
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is the only real mistake you've made. Leave the relationship
between your wife and your mother to the two of them. I don't
appreciate when other people promise that I'll do something, I'm
sure your wife doesn't either.

A simple "I'll relay the message to her" probably would have
calmed your mother down and not ticked off your wife.


>mom expecting a phone call, but just told my wife to thank her when she 
>felt like it.
>

You fucked up by telling your mother that your wife would call. It's
not a big deal, but it was your mistake, not your wife's. And here
you are arguing for your wife to CYA. That isn't her job. Don't
try to make it her job.

>Advice?  Comments?

Sure. Don't get worked up about how well your wife and your
mother get along. Let them worry about their relationship. When
it affects you, as it did with the 4th of July party, do what
you think is right. But stay out of their fights.



-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
      There's something in my library to offend everybody.
        --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Impossible
X-To: LJF
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 02:52:00 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes..
LJ> In article <BqDpns.6Bz@comp.vuw.ac.nz> Gavin.Flower@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Gavin Fl
LJ> ) writes:
LJ> >In article <1992Jun24.221757.24760@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att
LJ>  (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
LJ> >[...]
LJ> >>P.S.  This is a joke, just for Farthing.  All you other folks please
LJ> >>ignore this.  OK?
LJ> >>
LJ> >>A well-known lesbian was being examined by her gynecologist.  After the
LJ> >>exam, the doctor just had to remark,  "I've been doing this for 20
LJ> >>years, and I must tell you that your vagina is the cleanest that I've
LJ> >>ever seen."
LJ> >>
LJ> >>The lesbian simply responded, "Well, I have this girl who comes over a
LJ> >>couple of times a week...."
LJ> >
LJ> >
LJ> >You are quite clearly sexist!  It could have been a "boy" who comes
LJ> >over!   :-) :-)

LJ> It is sexist but not for the reason you say.

LJ> Hoffman, a self-proclaimed "equalist," apparently finds the best way
LJ> to argue with a poster he thinks is female and lesbian is by: (1) in
LJ> one post, repeatedly referring to me as dear; and (2) telling me a
LJ> lewd joke after the cutesy preface that it's only for me, but it's
LJ> posted to the net.

LJ> This belittlement of a woman's voice is exactly what we were talking
LJ> about when so many women object to the word "girl."


IMHO, *I* think that he made that joke in order to BAIT you into reacting
so negatively towards him.

Now, as shocking as this might seem, although I admit that I am VERY biased
to liking him because of all that he has been through, I am finding that he
is INDEED a sensitive and INTELLIGENT individual, and would not have done
something so BLATANTLY RUDE unless he had a VERY GOOD reason.  Indeed, he
probably realised that you would have AMPLE grounds for discrediting HIM,
and conceivably, ALL Equalists, as "sexists in disguise".

And incidentally, your response WAS indeed "typically feminist," as I believe
he was *trying* to get you to do, perhaps in order to get you to prove that
you are in fact, female, or even feminist, as he believed, and so stated.
And since you weren't willingly giving many clues as to your gender, he
must have needed something to put you into a situation where you would "lose
it" and flame him.

If my theory is correct, then I think that you've bought it, lock, stock,
and barrel.  (I realise that you must feel angry about it, but admit it,
he got'cha...)

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                       "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * - FOR SYSOP USE ONLY - Do not write below this line!
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Yet Another AA Argument
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:53:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.001412.2194@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>
>I think that you're confusing AA with EO.

 I do not know all the formal details of either so if it makes thinks clearer,
 I will say that I am arguing on the basis of both AA/EO, since I think that
 there are issues that intimately tied between the two. There are issues
 plainly in one or the other (college admission and financial aid for racial
 and ethnic minorities historically discriminated etc..) is clearly in AA
 if the individual is not qualified for example. The line gets blurred
 however when one considers that EO (i believe) deals with examining
 minority hiring ratios (which was the original reason for blasting *AA*
 as i remember). Using minority employee percentages however can be used
 as a tool for both EO or AA. When there is a clear distinction I will
 try to be more specific which I am refering to.

-kelvin
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: topless?
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:50:25 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul24.152915.12799@ee.rochester.edu>  
cherkaue@ee.rochester.edu (Brian Cherkauer) writes:

+ If you mean to be insulting, by all means use insulting words.
+ If you do not mean to be insulting, then do not use insulting words.
+ This is merely the nature of communication.  It has very little to
+ do with "feminism."

Au contraire, mon ami. "Feminism" would argue that for a man to be
insulting, he would be "oppressing", and hence the term "girl" would
always be demeaning.

K'Char
Xref: sparky soc.men:13581 soc.women:13954 alt.censorship:6152 talk.politics.misc:35379 alt.folklore.urban:19480 misc.legal:14686
From: katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:49:23 GMT
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
: Please be careful with this topic -- you might make it happen!  I've heard
: that there is a group of bored rich people who like to make urban legends
: come true.  Remember the "Little Buddy" stories?  There was a kid named
: "Little Buddy" who was dying and wanted to get into the Guiness book for
: getting the most greeting cards.  This went around for years.  Then
: someone pops up (Craig Shergold) who really wants this.  What I heard
: was that one of his doctors is a member of this group, and heard the
: legend, and decided it would be fun to attach it to a real person
: instead of the mythical "Little Buddy."  It worked so well, he and his
: rich friends decided to try to make all the legends happen.
: 
: Too much talk of snuff films as urban legend might make them arrange
: to film one!

This is important to remember when posting about legends, in general. I can
see it now - bored, rich couples disrupting the Newlywed Game. Bored, rich
people digging up other people's dead rabbits and putting them back in cages.
Bored, rich women getting pregnant because their bored, rich boyfriends only
learned to put condoms on broomsticks, not on their bored, rich erections.


Kathy
Xref: sparky soc.men:13643 soc.women:14025 alt.censorship:6201 talk.politics.misc:35598 alt.folklore.urban:19594 misc.legal:14720
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:04:06 GMT
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <62588@cup.portal.com>, by ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith):
> Please be careful with this topic -- you might make it happen!  I've heard
> that there is a group of bored rich people who like to make urban legends
> come true.  Remember the "Little Buddy" stories?  There was a kid named
> "Little Buddy" who was dying and wanted to get into the Guiness book for
> getting the most greeting cards.  This went around for years.  Then
> someone pops up (Craig Shergold) who really wants this.  What I heard
> was that one of his doctors is a member of this group, and heard the
> legend, and decided it would be fun to attach it to a real person
> instead of the mythical "Little Buddy."  It worked so well, he and his
> rich friends decided to try to make all the legends happen.
> 
> Too much talk of snuff films as urban legend might make them arrange
> to film one!

Hmmmm, _this_ sounds like an urban legend to me.
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.discrimination,soc.women,misc.legal