HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:45:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.200751.6319@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <BzMDI4.Fvt@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec20.085201.6296@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>{_In article <1h0k4aINN32a@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>>> This would not allow the CP to save any of the chilld support for college!

>>>Ah, but Michal, both Alan and Bob consider anything except money paid for
>>>immediate basic minimal needs as luxury!  So, salting money away for a 
>>>bicycle (an HUGE luxury item in their eyes), or *gasp* college is a waste
>>>of THEIR precious funds.

>> There should be no LEGAL obligation to pay for college or to
>> pay child support that includes money to be saved for college.
>> Married parents are not legally required to pay for college.
>> 
>
>Did I say that the NCP should have to pay for college?  

What does "*gasp* college" imply?

Why did you respond so antagonistically to not allowing the CP to
"save any of the child support for college"?


Will you continue your "creative bookkeeping" in which you sometimes
claim you use part of X for vacations, part of Y for college, and then
say none of X or Y goes for vacations or college  -- because it's not 
enough to pay for a teenager anyway?

Sue, could you please just stick to one accounting system?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: ADDRESS
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:06:58 GMT

dan.baer@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Dan Baer)  writes:

> Question: Does anyone know a good way to find the address of a person
>when you only have their phone number. I have tried 'PhoneFile' on
>CI$ but they do not have the phone number in their database. The
>phone number should be in Carroll County Georgia (prefix 562).
>  Any help in this matter is appreciated!
>              AdvaThanksnce.

If you can't do it yourself, a private investigator probably can.
Just don't ask them how. ;)
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3096 alt.child-support:4050
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Signatures
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:00:56 GMT

<1992Dec22.214542.6340@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>I really don't see why you have a problem with me leaving your sig. at
>the end, but if it really bothers you so much I'll start removing it.
>It is sort of generic anyway.

As I explained weeks ago, there seemed to be the possibility that
someone might see my signature at the end of your article, and take 
it for a signature of your article -- despite indentation.

I'd like to avoid that, and I haven't understood why you have
continually insisted on leaving it there despite my requests.

Thank you for agreeing to stop doing it, and I hope the burden 
isn't too great.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 13:23:08 GMT

In article <BzoHAx.4vH@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.122810.9101@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>>	But I don't see her chasing after the MOTHER, who she
>>	claims ALSO has support obligations.  And I don't see
>>	her answering MY question(s) about why it isn't time
>>	to start putting the "squeeze" on the MOTHER as well
>>	as this kids FATHER.
>
>Sue Bishop mentioned that the mother has some mental problems --
>but Sue's description of the father seems to indicate the same.  So 
>I guess he'd have to commit himself to an institution to avoid paying -- 
>although I'd bet he'd be in arrears anyway, when he came out.
>
>Don

	But seriously!  What does any of that have to do with
	anything?


	*Are* they in the nut house?  Or are they working?

	I think it's as you said.  When they get out, they'll

	owe arrears.

-- 
	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,alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:00:04 GMT

<1992Dec21.200751.6319@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
><BzMDI4.Fvt@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1992Dec20.085201.6296@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>><1h0k4aINN32a@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>>> This would not allow the CP to save any of the chilld support for college!

>>>Ah, but Michal, both Alan and Bob consider anything except money paid for
>>>immediate basic minimal needs as luxury!  So, salting money away for a 
>>>bicycle (an HUGE luxury item in their eyes), or *gasp* college is a waste
>>>of THEIR precious funds.

[re paying for college]

>> I'm going to, for my kids.  That's the only reason I could imagine 
>> to call my money "precious."  And what better reason is there to make
>> sure that nobody is required to spend ANY part of such money on 
>> Florida condos instead of on a college education?
>
>Don, don, don...... I've told you repeatedly about the condo.  It's really
>none of your business how I spend my income.

Sue, *you* brought the condo up.  We've been over this.


> And why you are SO obsessed
>about it is really strange to me; you seem to have such a problem about me
>having a foster child, too.

Sue, we've been over this too.  I don't care about your vacations; 
I think it's wrong of you to justify using any part of your child support 
money, *as you have yourself claimed*, to pay for them -- especially 
when the NCP objects to that use.

I would admire your generosity in taking on a foster child if
you didn't spend so much time bitching about the burdens.


>  Seems that you have so much hate and hostility
>in you, it's sad.  And I feel very sorry for your kids.  If you are this
>nasty on the net, I bet you are a real psycho in person.

Your patience, kindness, and ability to read and reason accurately
make me thankful that my kids won't end up in a foster home.

I certainly hope you are a nicer and more rational person than 
your inflammatory articles seem to indicate.  At least for Mike's sake.

And let's see: you've continued to leave my .sig at the end of
your articles, even though I explicitly asked you not to.  It 
certainly won't kill me, but it says something about your maturity
level.


>Ever thought of counciling?

It's ironic that you suggest counselling after so clearly
ignoring Anne Mitchell's attempt at mediation.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3085 alt.child-support:4036
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:37:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.122810.9101@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>In article <BzMDI4.Fvt@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec20.085201.6296@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>{_In article <1h0k4aINN32a@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>
>>>> This would not allow the CP to save any of the chilld support for college!
>>>> Actually, depending on how you define "immediately", it may disallow the 
>>>> CP from salting away money for child-related emergencies, or Christmas
>>>> presents, or a bicycle, etc.
>>>
>>>Ah, but Michal, both Alan and Bob consider anything except money paid for
>>>immediate basic minimal needs as luxury!  So, salting money away for a 
>>>bicycle (an HUGE luxury item in their eyes), or *gasp* college is a waste
>>>of THEIR precious funds.

>>>And, yes, this is a flame.  And, yes, this is a fairly accurate description
>>>of their position.

And, yes, Sue Bishop said she is NOT salting ANY money away 
for "*gasp* college."

God forbid I mention that she IS taking her foster son
with the family on vacation in Florida.

I support her every right to do whatever she wants with her 
OWN money, though.


>	But I don't see her chasing after the MOTHER, who she
>	claims ALSO has support obligations.  And I don't see
>	her answering MY question(s) about why it isn't time
>	to start putting the "squeeze" on the MOTHER as well
>	as this kids FATHER.

Sue Bishop mentioned that the mother has some mental problems --
but Sue's description of the father seems to indicate the same.  So 
I guess he'd have to commit himself to an institution to avoid paying -- 
although I'd bet he'd be in arrears anyway, when he came out.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:21:02 CST

In article 1gql3fINN4o9@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BzErHD.3xA@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>Re:
>>>>>"4-6-8-10  Why are all your leaders men?"
>
>>Why is that surprising?
>
>>As long as women insist on having all the reproductive rights, and sticking
>>men with all the bills, you should expect that a goodly number of men will
>>take the other side of this issue out of self-defense!
>
>Brilliant logic, Karl.  Just sterling.
>
>Yup, it makes perfect sense to me that men, who *don't* want to be
>'stuck' with all the bills would go to bat to INSURE that children
>they don't want are gestated to birth.  Yup.  Makes PERFECT sense.
>
>After all, it couldn't be true, could it, that keeping abortion legal
>means FEWER men are 'stuck' with the bills, could it?
>
>Adrienne Regard
>   


  The surest way to secure an abortion from a women? Tell her you are 
penniless and have no ambition to earn above minimum wage. 

 It has worked for a penniless friend of mine for years?


Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
X-To: SBISHOP@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:12:00 GMT

This time, I decided that I'm just not going to let this one slide...

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes...
>{_In article <1h0k4aINN32a@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah
>eri) writes:
>> This would not allow the CP to save any of the chilld support for college!
>> Actually, depending on how you define "immediately", it may disallow the
>> CP from salting away money for child-related emergencies, or Christmas
>> presents, or a bicycle, etc.
>>
>Ah, but Michal, both Alan and Bob consider anything except money paid for
>immediate basic minimal needs as luxury!  So, salting money away for a
>bicycle (an HUGE luxury item in their eyes), or *gasp* college is a waste
>of THEIR precious funds.

So, what is so WRONG with this, Susan?  After all, child support was only
INTENDED for "support" with respect to basic necessities, not bicycles,
ponies, and indeed, not even *college*.  These *are* all considered
privileges and luxuries, and I have no problem with Don or Alan believing
this way.  The fact that they DO feel this way, does NOT indicate any
resentment of women, and I rather take some umbrage at your attempt to
label these men in such a fashion.

If you want your daughter to have a pony or a bicycle, or to go to college,
what is so wrong with putting your nose to the grindstone and doing it
yourself?  My mother managed to do it herself, without support, so what's
stopping other women from not relying on child support for things other
than necessities?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * You teach Unix?  That's GREAT!  What do you teach them?
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: econrad@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Eric V Conrad)
Subject: Re: FATHER IN CUSTODY CASE SAYS TV MOVIE LIBELS HIM
Keywords: Euphemisms, Double-Standard
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:30:11 GMT

>After a special act of Congress caused Morgan's release in 1989,
>Foretich learned the Hilary had been spirited out of the country by
>Morgan's parents, first to England, then to New Zealand, where the girl
>now lives with Morgan.

Imagine if the roles of Morgan and Foritech had been reversed.  I suspect
that "spirited out"  might become "allegedly kidnapped"  with the
"allegedly" being inserted to protect the newspapers from lawsuits.
Of course, if the roles had been reversed, Congress would not have
intervened.

--eric
-- 
There are two kinds of people:
	1) Those who classify people into two kinds; and
	2) Those who don't.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:20:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.085201.6296@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>{_In article <1h0k4aINN32a@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>> This would not allow the CP to save any of the chilld support for college!
>> Actually, depending on how you define "immediately", it may disallow the 
>> CP from salting away money for child-related emergencies, or Christmas
>> presents, or a bicycle, etc.
>
>Ah, but Michal, both Alan and Bob consider anything except money paid for
>immediate basic minimal needs as luxury!  So, salting money away for a 
>bicycle (an HUGE luxury item in their eyes), or *gasp* college is a waste
>of THEIR precious funds.

Who's Bob?


>And, yes, this is a flame.  And, yes, this is a fairly accurate description
>of their position.

"Fairly accurate?"  Apart from your inability to distinguish
three-letter names...  Child-related emergencies can be covered 
by insurance (provided by the NCP!) -- or will you now say that
a CP might have to buy an emergency bicycle or pony or condo in Florida?


In Pennsylvania, a NCP is not obligated to pay for college.
Thus, even the *law*, which you so religiously like to invoke,
says that college is not a basic need.

There should be no LEGAL obligation to pay for college or to
pay child support that includes money to be saved for college.
Married parents are not legally required to pay for college.

Are you going to pay for your foster son's college education 
all by yourselves, Sue?

I'm going to, for my kids.  That's the only reason I could imagine 
to call my money "precious."  And what better reason is there to make
sure that nobody is required to spend ANY part of such money on 
Florida condos instead of on a college education?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3055 soc.men:21589
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men
Subject: Re: Divorce woes
Date: 20 Dec 92 16:33:28 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith) writes:

> As for win-win, you have to look at the situation AT HAND, not the
> past.  If you are in a relatinship where you no longer care or can no
> longer function with your mate, something has to be done.  It can be a
> win-win situation, each person going their own way, providing for the
> children *where needed*, sharing the responsability of parenting, and
> being civil with someone that, at one time, you deemed worthy of
> pledging sincerity to for the rest of your life.  To do otherwise, and
> attempt to hurt the person, will in the end hurt a lot more people
> than just that person.  Can someone *really* feel good about that? 

Hmmmm. I'm stuck playing "what's wrong with this picture."

Perhaps the problem is that I note, in a single paragraph, that you
acknowledge that the spouses can no longer function with one another,
yet divorce is supposed to be a sudden repair.  "Ok, we're divorced,
so now we can get down to business!" 

Over time, many wounds, humiliations, and other assaults may heal.
This is as human as the common inability to be pragmatic in divorce.
What is equally human is an inability to let go of the hurt when it
is consistently rejuvinated. In other words, it's hard for a cut to
heal if someone keeps coming along and opening it up again.

The law is just such an irritant. Non-custodials are consistently
overassessed for support --regardless of gender. Custodial parents
are consistently denied assistance to get needed support --unless
they're on welfare programs, in which case they don't care because
support doesn't really change anything for them.

What we end up with are people like the over-discussed Lisa who can't
get the basics for her child, and Don who suffers continual assaults
into his life. Neither is allowed any stability. Lisa has to deal all
the time with what she doesn't have, and Don has to deal all the time
with what he doesn't have.

Right here in this forum, we see that it's difficult for some to get
along with ICONS of former spouses, no less the spouses themselves.
So your (correct) assertion that the spouses should 'work together'
meets an imposed doom from the get-go.

What we have is a chicken and egg paradox. The law needs to be changed.
That's obvious --regardless of the point of view. But the law won't be
too quick to respond unless a united front attacks it. Yet, until the
law starts giving people a break, they'll find it hard to get together
to make that united front.

Can parents cooperate for the good of their kids? Sure they can. But
only if they're allowed to do so, and in this case, 'allowed' means a
lot more than simple permission.

A nice article, Amy. Thanks for posting.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 13:21:07 GMT

In article <BzoHAx.4vH@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.122810.9101@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:

>>	But I don't see her chasing after the MOTHER, who she
>>	claims ALSO has support obligations.  And I don't see
>>	her answering MY question(s) about why it isn't time
>>	to start putting the "squeeze" on the MOTHER as well
>>	as this kids FATHER.
>
>Sue Bishop mentioned that the mother has some mental problems --
>but Sue's description of the father seems to indicate the same.  So 
>I guess he'd have to commit himself to an institution to avoid paying -- 
>although I'd bet he'd be in arrears anyway, when he came out.
>
>Don


	This, in fact, was the bait left for Sue.  This was where
	I asked if *I* didn't seem a bit crazy, and that maybe
	I should handle my situation in the way described by
	you above.

	Oh, poor dear parent(s).  They're in the nut house.

	What about when the NCP father doesn't have enough
	to live on HIMSELF!

	Should we be compassionate then?

-- 
	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,alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 13:26:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.213544.6339@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.122810.9101@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>Funny how you don't seem to be able to remember previous information, even
>when it is posted several times.






			POT.........




			KETTLE..........


-- 
	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......
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3084 alt.child-support:4035
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:29:14 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <Bzny8F.7Lr@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Dec21.200751.6319@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>In article <BzMDI4.Fvt@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>> In article <1992Dec20.085201.6296@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>>{_In article <1h0k4aINN32a@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> 
>>>>> This would not allow the CP to save any of the chilld support for college!
> 
>>>>Ah, but Michal, both Alan and Bob consider anything except money paid for
>>>>immediate basic minimal needs as luxury!  So, salting money away for a 
>>>>bicycle (an HUGE luxury item in their eyes), or *gasp* college is a waste
>>>>of THEIR precious funds.
> 
>>> There should be no LEGAL obligation to pay for college or to
>>> pay child support that includes money to be saved for college.
>>> Married parents are not legally required to pay for college.
>>> 
>>
>>Did I say that the NCP should have to pay for college?  
> 
> What does "*gasp* college" imply?
> 
> Why did you respond so antagonistically to not allowing the CP to
> "save any of the child support for college"?
> 

Wait a minute.  YOU were the one who was complaining about people using
money for non-essentials.  NOT me.  And that's your post about no LEGAL
obligation to pay for college.
Stop clouding issues.

> 
> Will you continue your "creative bookkeeping" in which you sometimes
> claim you use part of X for vacations, part of Y for college, and then
> say none of X or Y goes for vacations or college  -- because it's not 
> enough to pay for a teenager anyway?
> 
> Sue, could you please just stick to one accounting system?

And maybe you had better learn to read.  Out of the 'huge' amount of $368
per month child support that Mike's dad pays, my husband and I get $300.
This is mandated by the court, we are not the ones who filed for support,
the court did, long before we got custody.  Mike is given $68 by the court
to be put into his bank account, he *may* save it for college, he may 
spend it on clothes, he may burn it in the street, it's his money.  
We also give Mike (out of the support we receive) lunch money and an 
allowance, the same as my other two sons.  

I still am very puzzled as to why my finances and how we spend Mike's
money is such an obsession with you?  Is it some kind of envy thing?
Or are you just compulsively nosy?

Sue

> 
> Don
> -- 
> beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support