From: garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin)
Subject: Re: Reply to Alan Yasutovich
Organization: Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 19:12:08 GMT


   Funny thing, but Alan didn't bother quoting the part of my article
where I asked him to read it carefully and think before he wrote.  I
wonder why?

In article <1992Jul22.142630.16309@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.215418.24804@leland.Stanford.EDU> garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) writes:
>>   Besides, you were answered, first by others, then by Anne.  
>>You just didn't like the answer.
>>
>
>	What was the answer?

   JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, MAN!  You ask this half a dozen times despite
the fact that you quote the answer just below this paragraph?  I know
you must have a FEW little grey cells between your ears: you seem to
have some degree of control over your fingers for typing.  Try using a
couple of them, eh?

   Maybe this will help:

THIS IS THE ANSWER, ALAN.
>>   Now let me say this as simply as I can, so you GET IT 
>>RIGHT.  There's a little thing in this country called "due 
>>process."  It's in the Constitution.  You might have heard of 
>>it.  And if there's nothing else that due process guarantees, 
>>it's _notice_ and an _opportunity to be heard_.  You therefore 
>>_can't_ sue someone without notice.  Period.  And newspapers 
>>won't do; notice has to be personal.
>>
>
>	This "due process" you talk about doesn't apply to
>	NCP fathers.

   Tell it to the judge.  You asked why the suit wouldn't work, I gave
you one reason.  If you think this counterargument--for that's all it
is--will work, good luck with it.  But don't be saying I didn't give
you an answer because I didn't anticipate your impotent
counterarguments.

   The very _best_ you'll get out of a judge with that one is
something like: the remedy for this is to give due process to the
plaintiff(s), not take it away from the defendant(s).  Case dismissed.

>>   If you think you can get more support for "let's repeal the 
>>due process guarantees of the Constitution so I can press a 
>>claim against [well, I don't know exactly who]" than "let's say 
>>that we should treat women equally" then you start the 
>>amendment process.  I think it would be the most colossal waste 
>>of time since the last alchemist died.
>>
>
>	Like I said......

   As _I_ said.

   ["As," not "like" is proper here.  "Like" is a preposition, and as
such cannot be used to introduce a verbal phrase like "I said."  Note
that "like" is proper in "like 'I said'" because here we are referring
to the _words_ "I said," and words in quotes, unlike their referrants,
are always nouns.]

>
>>   Well, Alan, as I've said before, you got an answer.  You 
>>just decided you didn't like it.  It's postings like this that 
>>
>	What was the answer.

   Objection: asked and answered.

>
>>   Ah, but you're wrong.  You have no right to "require" 
>>anything from anyone here.  Particularly the time it takes to 
>
>	And that's why I'm not handing out my state-by-state
>	guideline list. HIRE A LAWYER, is my advice.

   This is a good start.  Now why don't you stop pretending to require
things from others, particularly Anne?

>
>
>>answer stupid questions when someone's otherwise occupied.  But 
>
>	*I* was not the one who came up with the idea.  Yet I
>	posted an actual response from a REAL lawyer, who dissagrees
>	with this net.

   Oh, thank you for giving me an opportunity to talk about this one.
What your "real lawyer" said (I saved the article so I would be sure)
is that Rule 23 of the FRCP [hereinafter Rule 23] allows class action
suits against a defendant class.  This is true.

   However, your "real lawyer" left out a couple of salient points
that make this particular class-action impossible, in a practical
sense.  Like the fact that Rule 23 _demands_ personal service of
process to all reasonably identifiable defendants--a rule which was
upheld in a case where the defendants numbered several million.

   Your "real lawyer" also left out the salient fact that Rule 23
allows members of a class to opt out of the class JUST BY ASKING.  Now
how many people do you think will volunteer to be on the opposite side
of this lawsuit?

   And there are problems beyond Rule 23.  Jurisdiction.  Measure of
damages.  The practical difficulties of serving process.  Sounds like
it's a lot more efficient to do this one in the legislature(s), or
through individual test cases.

   And another thing.  The very fact that your "real lawyer" had
something to disagree with indicates that there was an answer to your
original question, despite the fact that you claim there wasn't!

>
>>   Oh, and another thing.  You don't ask, you demand.  There's 
>>a difference.  Demanding implies that you are entitled to an 
>>answer.  You aren't.  You also insult, which makes it less 
>>likely that people will respond when you do ask.
>
>	I demand that people live up to the reputation they conjure.

   Oh, and who died and made you God?  Who the hell are you to decide
what reputation people "conjure," then berate them for not living up
to it?

   I've got news for you, kid.  By assuming that "third year law
student" means "I know the answer to every legal question you can come
up with" you're in the vast minority.  Further, anyone with a modicom
of common sense would be able to figure out the fallicy of that
connection after being told a couple hundred times, as you have been.
Attacking Anne for claiming to be a legal know-it-all is about as
logical as me attacking you for claiming to be a genius.

>
>>   Ah, but that assumes that people actually care enough to 
>>prove something to you.  You forget, most people don't really 
>
>	I know.  All these "caring ncp dads". How could I have been
>	foolish enough to believe anyone would "care".  Another
>	false advertisement by the net.  Can we archive *this*
>	though as well, so the next time everyone's heart bleeds
>	I can call them on that, too?

   Oh, I see.  Because they care about their children, they're
supposed to care about you too?  Because you're acting like a child, I
presume?  Jeez, it's bad enough to twist other people's words, you
twist your _own_.

   Let me be more explicit, then.  You, sir, are acting like a
class-1, grade-A jerk.  Lots of people--some of them caring
individuals--don't give a damn what jerks think.  Therefore, they
don't care what you think.  It logically follows that it isn't worth
their time and effort to try to change your mind.

>
>>   Furthermore, you GOT answers, and just decided that they 
>>weren't good enough for you, so you got mean.  Well, you may 
>>think faster than you type, but try reading before you do 
>>either.
>>
>	What was the answer.

   Objection!  Asked and answered!

>
>>   First of all, there's no logical problem here.  You decided 
>>that Anne could give what you decided was necessary, then you 
>
>	It is not *me*.  It involves everyone here.

   What's not you?  Oh, you mean because YOUR latest crusade just
happens to benefit--in YOUR mind--people other than YOU, that means
YOU have the right to push YOUR ideas onto others?  I don't remember
Anne saying "You know, I could do this class-action thing, but I think
I'd rather sit home just to annoy Alan."  YOU're the one who came to
both conclusions--that she has the ability, and that she has the lack
of interest.  Both are unfounded, and both are wrong.

>
>>   First of all, it's none of your business.  Second of all, 
>>it's irrelevant.  Regardless of what she's done, she has no 
>>obligations to you or to some cause you happen to designate as 
>>appropriate for her.  Third of all, I defend her honor, and not 
>>her particulars, because that's what you're attacking.
>
>	Then let her take her "three year law student" out of
>	her sig., so every time I see it I don't think, "Gee,
>	there's a knowledgable person.  Maybe *she* knows".

   Why don't you just read what you wrote here.  YOU think.  Well, if
I write "I'm from New York" and YOU think that means I carry a
switchblade, does that mean I should start hiding my place of birth,
or that you should stop jumping to conclusions--particularly after I
tell you that I *don't* carry a switchblade.

   Or, to make the analogy a little better, you think I _might_ have a
switchblade.  You ask me to cut something for you with my switchblade.
I refuse.  You post to the net: "Gary's just another stinking New York
hypocrite.  I asked him to cut something, and he didn't even reach for
his swtichblade."

   Then, I post back saying "I don't even own a switchblade."  You get
angry and say "Well, maybe you shouldn't go around saying you're from
New York, 'cause every time I see that I think 'gee, maybe he has a
switchblade I could borrow.'"

   I hope even you can see the utter stupidity of the hypothetical-
Alan's position, here.

>
>	Let her take her "shingle" off the net!!!!!!

   Ah, I see.  You think that there's actually a logical connection,
here.  Well, as you have been told repeatedly, there isn't.  Live with
it.

>
>
>>interesting speaker.  But then again, I'm not an NCP.  Their 
>>
>	So why are you here.

   Because I didn't sire a child I have no right to read a newsgroup?
I'm here because I find some of the articles interesting.  That's
enough.  It's why I read alt.sex.motss even though I'm not gay, and I
read soc.women even though I'm male.

   Further, I resent your implication that I am somehow unqualified to
speak on this topic.  I think you have demonstrated more
unqualification in the last few days than my credentials ever could.

>
>
>>   Did I go up to them and say "Tell me what benefit you're 
>>getting from this; Alan Yasutovich wants to know."?  No.  
>>Sorry.  And if I had, at this point I wouldn't tell you their 
>>answers.
>
>	Of course.  You refuse to provide evidence to refute my
>	point.  How convenient!

   You have a point?  I guess I must have missed it.  What possible
point could you have that would be refuted by evidence of Anne's good
works other than the bald assertion that she has none?  Let's review
the evidence on that point:

	Alan: none.

	Anne: A personal statement, backed up by the statements of
independant witnesses.

   In any court of law, faced with this imbalance of the evidence, not
only wouldn't they demand Anne's side come forth with further
evidence, they wouldn't even let the case go to jury before granting
summary judgement in favor of Anne.  (That means against you, Alan.)

   Until you come forward with some evidence that Anne is doing
nothing--and here's a hint: the fact that she hasn't helped you or
your designated cause du jour isn't evidence of that--I have no
obligation to come forward with further evidence on the other side.

>
>>   So what do we have here, after all this?  It seems that Alan 
>>is perfectly happy applying standards to others that he doesn't 
>>want applied to himself.  That he is a gadfly who has the 
>
>	Incorrect.  *I* don't have a "shingle".

   No, correct.  I was referring to your demand that others show
common courtesy when you show none yourself.

>>audacity to get angry when people ignore his rantings.  That he 
>
>	*You* haven't.

   No, I haven't.  Despite repeated email--from independant sources--
saying "Good point, but you're wasting your time.  Alan will keep
going no matter how wrong he is."

   I'll tell you what I told them.  I need a way to procrastinate.  I
am in search of a waste of time, and you, sir, are an excellent one.

>
>>That he doesn't care enough to look at what he writes, but he 
>>expects everyone else to take it as gospel.
>>
>
>	I at least expect a little proof otherwise.

   Yet another example of the Alan double-standard.  You expect others
to take your statements at face value in the absence of contradictory
evidence, yet you are perfectly comfortable assuming other people's
statements are _false_ in the absence of _supporting_ evidence.

   With rules like that on your side, how could you possibly lose?
Lucky for me those rules are only in _your_ mind, Alan.

			-Gary
-- 
|Gary Brainin                     |BITNET: garygm%leland.stanford.edu@stanford|
|garygm@leland.stanford.edu       |UUCP: ...decwrl!leland.stanford.edu!garygm |
|"...the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right |
|most valued by civilized men."    Olmstead v. U.S. (Brandeis, J., dissenting)|