HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Andrew McCallum <andrewm@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Hi!
X-To: DANIEL DRUCKER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:22:00 GMT

From daniel@mertwig.uucp (Daniel Drucker)
>> musical interests are Metallica, Guns-N-Roses (isn't Axl *cute*?), Slaughter
>
>Shades of 'people NOT connnect TO ReaLiTY', if anyone's seen that...

    The Edge!

---
    .sig's are neat,                   | Andrew McCallum
    .sig's are fun,                     \ andrewm@zooid.guild.org
    .sig's tell where to flame someone.  |andrewm@terranet.cts.com

            SUPRESS THE POOR, SAVE THE RICH, KILL THE STRANGE
From: cgrant@spuddy.uucp (Cameron Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.kids-talk
Subject: Life, the universe and everything...oh, and another newbie...
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:20:41 GMT
Distribution: all
Organization: Spuddy's Public Usenet Domain

Hi all...I -think- I've found the right option to post messages on the net...
at least I hope so, coz if this isn't goin' to the net, I'd sure as heck like
to know -where- it's goin...anyway, I just managed to get access to usenet
about a week or two ago, and I've been watching this newsgroup...and I thought
I might as well join in...:-)
A couple of personal details:
I'm 16, English, like gnr, bon jovi, skid row, etc...like reading almost
anything, but with a distinct preference for scifi/fantasy...oh, and I write
games for PC's in my spare time...:-)
and I horribly overuse smileys! :)
well...guess that's all for now folks...
cya all sometime...
now, how do i end this? :)

-- 

 * Meeeow ! Call Spuddy on (0203) 638780/682331 for FREE mail & Usenet access *
From: daniel@mertwig.uucp (Daniel Drucker)
Newsgroups: alt.kids-talk
Subject: Re: Jokes anyone?????!!!!!
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 16:19:29 EST
Reply-To: daniel%mertwig@uunet.uu.net  (Daniel Drucker)
Organization: Abnormalities of Reality

From biddy@ping.actrix.gen.nz (Bridget Ingham)

 >Anyone got any decent jokes that would make this newsgroup a bit fun?

Yes. Read rec.humor


--
Daniel Drucker        N2SXX       Coconut seashells whispering to me
daniel%mertwig@uunet.uu.net         "Forever, forever, my Coda..."
Newsgroups: alt.kids-talk
From: dagbrown@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Brown)
Subject: Re: I shoulda just done it...
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:22:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.022707.3584@ultb.isc.rit.edu> sjk6119@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.014922.4080@zooid.guild.org>, Andrew McCallum <andrewm@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>From daniel@mertwig.uucp (Daniel Drucker)
>>>Andrew McCallum <andrewm@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>>
>>>>     Then the week before the holidays.  I gotta get her number.. I gotta get
>>>> her number....
>>>
>>>You should be getting the 1993 phone books around now...
>>
>>    I don't know her last name.
>
>Gee, here's a stab in the dark - WHY DON'T YOU GET IT????? Look in last year's
>yearbook....ask a friend...ask one of her friends.....ask a teacher....

...look in the official school records--great place for finding phone numbers
as well.

:-), of course.

-- 
Dave Brown
dagbrown@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
Phone: (519) 747-5413
Newsgroups: alt.kids-talk
From: sjk6119@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Sgt. Kleper)
Subject: Re: I shoulda just done it...
Reply-To: sjk6119@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:32:29 GMT

Sexy eyes - that I'd believe
ears - sure, why not?
BUT TOES?!?!?!?!
Newsgroups: alt.kids-talk
From: Andrew McCallum <andrewm@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: I shoulda just done it...
X-To: JARED QUINN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:21:00 GMT

From jarqui@scorch.apana.org.au (Jared Quinn)
>I think she'd be able to comprehend what happens,  I  did  explain  in
>convo  with  her  and  she seemz to understand... the hardest part was
>explaining how two computers can actually `communicate'

    I'm good at that stuff.

>How long is it since your last girlfriend?

    Oh god... well, I guess about a month after the summer.

---
    .sig's are neat,                   | Andrew McCallum
    .sig's are fun,                     \ andrewm@zooid.guild.org
    .sig's tell where to flame someone.  |andrewm@terranet.cts.com

            SUPRESS THE POOR, SAVE THE RICH, KILL THE STRANGE

Newsgroups: alt.kids-talk
From: Andrew McCallum <andrewm@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: A Poem
X-To: AMY BROWN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:31:00 GMT

From arbrown@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (Amy Brown)
>I ate winner.  It thucks.

    Bah.  I thought it would rhyme.

---
    .sig's are neat,                   | Andrew McCallum
    .sig's are fun,                     \ andrewm@zooid.guild.org
    .sig's tell where to flame someone.  |andrewm@terranet.cts.com

            SUPRESS THE POOR, SAVE THE RICH, KILL THE STRANGE
From: danielle@micro.caltech.edu (Danielle Sanine)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: itemizing child-support
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:10:20 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: helper.systems.caltech.edu

"Eddie Kovelan" <wk00191@worldlink.com> writes:

>I just have one comment to make on the subject.  If an ex-spouse should 
>have to itemize the allotted child-support payments to show proof that he/she 
>is actually using that money for the child(ren) and not to support his/her 
>lifestyle, then would it also be a good idea that the non-custodial 
>parent who asks for more than standard visitation rights be required to 
>account for the extra time?   
deletions

Hmmm, an interesting idea, but an unfair one I think.  The fact is that,
although I sincerely sympathize with your concerns, you DO have legal
recourse to change the visitation schedule for just the reasons you
stated.  You can easily document the amount of time your son spends
at the sitter and, assuming that your ex is NOT working during this
time, ask the court to change the schedule so your son is not in 
daycare unnecessarily.  If what you are saying is accurate, it is a
shame that your ex values his play time more than his time with his
child, but you can't control that.  Focus instead on what you _can_
control.  I encourage you to seek legal advise about this. 

The toughest thing for me to accept in my divorce was that I could not
control my ex's relationship with our kids.  I saw selfishness and
and neglect that made me want to scream.  My daughter had only one
pair of canvas shoes with holes the size of quarters in them during
a snowy winter.  All my "discretionary" income went to child support
so I couldn't even afford to buy her better shoes.  When I bitterly
complained to my ex his response was: " If she needs new shoes it's
her responsibility to let me know.  She hasn't said anything to me."
She was 8 years old and quite renowned for her "spaciness" and she
had always had a parent that actually looked after her (me)....
What I learned was that her relationship with her Dad was just that -
theirs, not mine.  I could go crazy trying to force him to be the
way I thought was best or I could learn to let go.  It is damned
hard when it's your child, but it's what NCPs deal with every single
day. Wanting financial accountability is just our way of asking
for a _little_ control in an area of vital concern where we have
no say.

Danielle



Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: bitbug@netcom.com (James Buster)
Subject: Re: Canada's FAMILY RELATIONS ACT
Organization: Lynx Real-Time Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:17:10 GMT

In article <0oTZwB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>46. (1) Where property is owned by one spouse to the exclusion of the other and
>        is used primarily for business purposes and where the spouse who does
>        not own the property made no direct or indirect contribution to the
>        acquisition of the property by the other spouse or to the operation of
>        the business, the property is not a family asset.
>    (2) In section 45 (3) (e) or subsection (1), an indirect contribution
>        includes savings through effective management of household or child
>        rearing responsibilities by the spouse who holds no interest in the
>        property.

What a useless bulls**t clause. Unless you could show that a spouse has
*no* child rearing or household management responsibilities whatsoever,
which I believe to be virtually impossible, that spouse will always
have a 1/2 interest in the property in question. By this definition, I
don't see how any spouse could avoid having an indirect contribution
to the business.
-- 
				James Buster
			     bitbug@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: "Eddie Kovelan" <wk00191@worldlink.com>
Subject: itemizing child-support
Organization: Tex-Tronics
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:42:29 GMT
X-Mailer: WORLDLink (3.11)

Since I just recently "logged-on" to the internet, I was not able to 
obtain the original artical written by rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca but got 
the jist of it by reading other replies.

I just have one comment to make on the subject.  If an ex-spouse should 
have to itemize the allotted child-support payments to show proof that he/she 
is actually using that money for the child(ren) and not to support his/her 
lifestyle, then would it also be a good idea that the non-custodial 
parent who asks for more than standard visitation rights be required to 
account for the extra time?  I receive only the minimum amount of child 
support from my ex and if I had to itemize every expense for our child, 
the report would show that I do not get enough.  However, my ex was 
granted four days every other week (plus the other standard holiday 
visitations)  instead of just every other weekend.  This will continue 
until our son reaches school age when it will revert to every other weekend.
During the four days of visitation, my ex spends a maximum of two days 
with our son and the rest of the time our son is shifted from babysitter 
to babysitter so that my ex can go out and have a good time.  He never 
has to tell me where our son is at a given time and I have to set 
appointments with my ex just to call our son during those visitations.  
My son gets very angry that he spends most of his time that is supposed 
to be with his father with daycare personnel and babysitters.  If he had 
to "itemize" the actual time spent with his son during visitations, I 
think I would have a good arguement to lessen the time and let my son 
spend his time with his full-time mother instead of a babysitter. 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Custody
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:23:12 CST

In article 6511@desire.wright.edu, sbishop@desire.wright.edu () writes:
>
>I didn't mean to argue for either parent to be sole custodian.  BUT the 
>child should still be allowed the option to decide if they DON'T want to
>visit a parent.  Quite a few years ago, a friend of mine was asked by her
>14 year old son to go to court so he would not be forced to continue to
>visit his father.  The father was very verbally abusive to the boy and
>he just didn't want to have to go through the visits any more.  The judge
>agreed and suspended the visits.  It's such a shame when a parent treats
>a child like this.  He was an only child, too.  But the father was still
>very bitter against his ex-wife, even though they had both remarried.
>In fact, the father had married the woman who broke up the marriage!
>(His ex had divorced him due to infidelity.)  I've often wondered if 
>perhaps the father was jealous since his wife had remarried fairly well.
>BTW, the mother had only asked for minimal support, about $20 per week
>so he really had no grounds for complaint in that area.

Was this guy a male version of my ex?  My son, soon to be 13, has asked me
to do the same thing.  We are currently negotiating (rather one sidedly) to
change the visitation schedule.  No response by 2/1 and we go back to court.
Not a pleasant prospect, but pleading guilty to Social Security fraud will not
help her case.

I agree with you on this one.  Visitation schedules need to be written so that
the custodial parent is not held in contempt if the child does not wish to
visit the other parent.  Nor should the custodial parent have to shell out
megabucks to keep their rear end clean.

Steve Anderson		140 more days of indentured servitude.




Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous)
Subject: Advice sought on Guardian ad-litum (sp?)
Organization: V. I. Corporation, Northampton, Massachusetts
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:58:08 GMT

My divorce/custody case is entering the phase where the court has ordered
that a Guardian ad-litum (sp?) be appointed to investigate and provide 
to the court a written recommendation as to the best interests of the children.

I am seeking custody. Currently my ex2b has temporary custody.

I'd greatly appreciate any input on how I can best serve my interests in this, 
whether it be personal anecdotal stuff or references to information.

I reside in Massachusetts. 

Thanks

Mark Charalambous
mc@vicorp.com

Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men
From: tas@sei.cmu.edu (Terry Ireland)
Subject: Re: Justice?
Summary: justice?
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:47:56 EST

In article <1993Jan11.202905.5995@tessi.com>, allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:
> sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson) writes:
> 
> >I got word on Friday that my ex had plea bargained her way out of social security
> >fraud charges.  She basically pleaded guilty, and is on a years probation.  The
> >maddening part is that they only made her pay back $60 of the $10,800 she received.
> 
> >I am guessing that she played the "poor, broke, mistreated" woman role.  And
> >lied to them again about her employment.
> 
> 
> GREAT!  (HUGE amounts of sarcasm intended)  =(
> 

I just got word from SS that my own children have been on SS for some time.
The ex has been collecting for years. SS would not say if that was because I
was dead or just disabled. They denied disability shortly before the ex took
off in 1984. Some records say DEAD some say DISABLED. How did you find out
about your ex? I asked for my records and found out the children were
collecting on my name and number. My records are lost somewhere right now. SS
has not been able to retrieve them for 6 months. They were in the wrong vault,
then sent to the wrong site. Now I wait for news of were the next location is.
   The maddening part is, I am not dead yet. I would like to hear more on
this from you, about your experience with SS. 
   BTW There are two death certificates for my name, my grandfather and my
father. Same name, same address at the time of death as me. A little white-out
and it goes a long way. It did not help that I was clinically dead once myself,
brain surgery for a burst aneurism. Flatlined 23 minutes, no motor function,
no brain waves. The insurance company ( Get Met ) would not pay. The excuse
was you had to stay dead or. They were looking for 72 hours or something. The 
policy did not specify a time frame. Snoopy would not get my vote. 
 

                                               George in Pittsburgh
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Is $1000 a month exorbitant?
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 12:39:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.100202.9279@hemlock.cray.com> sga@cray.com writes:
>$100-200/month for additional health insurance,  Get a clue Michal.  Even if they
>were paying the whole thing themselves it wouldn't be that expensive.  Furthermore
>most child support does not figure in insurance.  Dad usually has to cover the child
>with his insurance anyway.

	AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHTTTTTT!!!!!!!

	In Mass., the calculation sheet has a line item right on it for insurance.
	Once the basic calculation gets made, you get a deduction, penny for
	penny, for the cost of your "family plan" insurance.



>$50/month for medical costs and deductables.  Only if you have a really sick kid.
>My daughter had chronic ear infections for 2 straight winters and never cost us
>that much for the monthly office visits and the anti-biotics.

	Steve, I have EXCELLANT health insurance.  You must too.  But even
	with a kid healthy as a horse, my wife guestimated about $300
	one year just for checkups ($5) and prescriptions (about the same).

>$50/month is more than enough to keep to kid well clothed.  Where do you shop,
>Rodeo Drive?  Ever heard of Target or Kids R Us?  We make two trips a year and
>each one is from $100 - $150.  Add in a few misc. items and its at most $400/year,
>and my daughter has more clothes than she can wear.

	Right there!



>The rest of your list, private school, camp, college, etc are pure luxury and are totally irrelevent in figuring child support.  Even at your $1000/month figure
>that only works out to $500/month in child support since the mother is supposed
>to share the cost.  We figure that $400/month plus daycare for younger children
>is about what it really costs.

	That's what the foster care system figures as well.


-- 
	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......
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 9 Jan 93 10:32:15 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <20720205@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, laszlo@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Laszlo Nobi) writes:
> In alt.child-support, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>> 
>> Well, I am sincerely in favor of the child being provided a reasonable
>> lifestyle.  I DID go on record for saying that I thought the lifestyle
>> provided by the millionaire father was absolutely ridiculous, and I think
>> that children should not be given such ridiculous amounts of money.  
>> However, the court did so state that the child should not have to have
>> a tremendous life style change just because the parents got divorced and
>> the (very rich) father did not want to continue to provide the life the
>> child was used to.  
> 
> And this is the whole  point of  accountability.  I am  supposed  to provide a
> certain  amount of money that is supposed  to  maintain  the  lifestyle  of my
> children as it was when I was  married.  So, I am required to pay $X for their
> "lifestyle  maintenance".  However, *nobody* is ever interested in making sure
> that my ex actually  *does*  provide that  lifestyle  *for the kids*.  It only
> matters that she gets the money, not how she uses it.  If there is any "extra"
> money  after  providing  for  their  basic  needs,  what's to keep the cp from
> stashing  it away for  him/herself  or  spending it on  him/herself?  Nothing.
> 
> Child support payments *should* only provide for basic  neccessities, with any
> discretionary   expenses   being  the   responsibility   of   *both*   parents
> independently.
> 
> Laszlo

The main problem I see with this, is different people's definition of 'basic
necessities'.  My foster son's father keeps ranting and raving about paying
anything at all because he doesn't have custody.  And, while $100 shoes are
not 'necessities', what if the child needs orthopedic shoes?  Is an
occasional trip to McD's a luxury?  A pet dog?  Some people think that 
clothes for the child should only be bought at Goodwill, others prefer 
Sears (my personal choice).  If your child was occasionally taken on vacation
when he/she lived with both parents, had clothes nice enough that the other
kids at school didn't make fun, had a new bike every few years when the old
one was outgrown, took music lessons, participated in a school sport (in our
school district, parents must pay a fee for sports), etc., then what happens
when the NCP considers all these things luxuries?  Even if there is more 
than sufficient income to provide these things?  
Both Alan and the Beav have been riding the pony issue to the point of 
nauseum.  What's really funny is, just the other day I was offered TWO 
free ponies, no strings attached, just give them a good home.  Oh, yes,
very expensive luxuries.... right..... 

Sue
Organization: Security, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Date: Mon,  4 Jan 1993 12:46:49 -0500 
From: "Michelle A. Broadus" <mb9e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: help find children

Hi to anyone who can help me find my boyfriends children.  He hasn't seen
them in seven years.  They are twin girls an they live in California.
They live with there mother.  The reason that I need help is that I really
don't know where to start looking.        
To help me out in any way possible I can be reached at mb9e+@andrew.cmu.edu
Please help soon as possible.
From: danielle@micro.caltech.edu (Danielle Sanine)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Standard of Living Farce
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:55:29 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: helper.systems.caltech.edu

I understand that the premise behind child support is to keep
the standard of living consistent for the children and I feel
it is simplistic to think you can impoverish one parent and
somehow not adversely affect the children, BUT none of this
is relevant because in *FACT* NCP's are constantly and con-
sistently required to maintain a HIGHER standard of living
for their ex/kids than they enjoyed while they were together.
At least this is true in WA.  In my case, my ex-husband is
the CP.  He earns more now than the two of us made when we
were together.  The "consistency of standard of living"
theory would seem to dictate that my child support be very
low at the least.  Au contraire!  Since WA, like most states,
uses an income table, everytime his income goes up, so does
my support!  It is true that my % of our total income goes
down slightly, but it is not enough to offset his large
income increases.  The result has been my impoverishment
and his enrichment.  I know I am not alone in this!  My
attorney says she has argued continuously for keeping
child support at a level consistent with the intact family's
income and LOST everytime!  Some NCPs do flourish financially
after a divorce.  (Throwing yourself into work does have it's
merits, after all.)  These poor guys (no sexism intended, just
facts), get _reamed_ for child support even though they only
had a modest income while married.

What is needed is less complaining and more political activism.
When I return to dear old WA this summer it is my intention to
get politically active.  Anyone residing in the state that 
wants to send me their phone number is welcome to join me in
my crusade to make the public/legislators aware that the 
system has created the deadbeat dad syndrome and that punishing
those of us who do pay our obligations is NOT the way to improve
things. Unfair legislation hurts *everyone*...

My $.03 worth,

Danielle

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Effects on children of divorced parents ?
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:49:54 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire) writes:

> 
> What studies have been done on the effects of children of divorced
> parents. What I'm curious about is what does it do to kids that are
> shuttled back and forth, weekend with dad, summer with mon, 3.6543
> hours a week with dad (sorry but it just seems to be that way).

There have been quite a few, actually. What they determine is that a
child fares better in proportion to the joint contact. In other words,
the shuttling, on the whole, doesn't negatively affect the child. Any
negative comes from impeded contact with both parents. The more con-
tact, the better.

This is also reflected in terms of support payments. The greater the
contact, the more stable the payments. So, shared custody benefits
the child in a number of ways.

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support