From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   )
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 31 Jul 92 05:18:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:

> > She will not get money from me!!! -- archaic quote from Mr. EuStress
> > Stick to your opinions, but let's try to be objective. Ok? -- Bob Kirkpatri
> 
>     No.
> 
>     I don't have to stick to my opions --
>     I'm free to change them anytime I want.
>     When I wrote the above quote to Bob,
>     I did have a different opinion.  Bob,
>     things change with time.  Courts are
>     much less likely to change -- while
>     I change whenever I want.
>        My ex is no longer an issue with me.
>     You, Bob, wanted to make her an issue,
>     I didn't -- that's where we disagreed.
>        I think Bob has more than a slight
>     dislike for feminists or any other form
>     of "liberal" thought.

Jeff, this is a load of blaoney and you know it. You and I both know    
that you and I parted company because you refused to follow the few
people who were giving you great support in your efforts to terminate
your responsibilities. You opted to "do it your way," even though it
went against the _accepted_ legal precedents, and failed to ensure that
you would remain protected over time. Instead, you wanted to "shoot 
from the hip," making statements which could only cause you to be charged
criminally. Those of us who advised you were alarmed that you chose NOT 
to accomplish the shortest and soundest way to sever your previous 
relationship, but instead wanted to grandstand and play power-trips 
with the courts. You were intent on martyrdom, going to court as a petty
dead-beat who would manifest absolute contempt for your life, as well
as your daughters. Yes, you bet I discontinued to communicate with you.

I wasn't attempting to make your ex "an issue," and you know that very
well. In fact, I was just the opposite, maintaining that you should NOT
get caught up in vindictive or resentful terminologies. Instead, I said
that you should make only those statements which achieved the end you
desired, and seek to accomplish only that, and get on with your life.
I tried to direct you to the only issue --a court approved stipulation
to your disengagement from your family.

BTW: That quote I sent out was not a quote to me, it was an open post
to anyone who happened to be reading alt.child-support. It was one of
nearly 20 --all of which said the same thing.

I'm not really posting this for you, Jeff. I'm actually explaining to
the people who might, in their readings misinterpret from you that I'm
a sexist. My whole approach is family rights. Not men, not women. Both.
But more importantly, I'm supportive of the well-being of victim kids.
I expect that you probably don't understand this. Like others, you have
been hurt, and are a victime yourself. But I wonder if, different from
others, you're a victim of yourself.


---
Bob Kirkpatrick  --  Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
root@dogear.spk.wa.us           bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights