HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dmcmilla@djm.cs.gmr.com (Don McMillan CS 50)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:11:56 GMT
Reply-To: dmcmilla@djm.cs.gmr.com (Don McMillan CS 50)
Followup-To: alt.dads-rights


In article <1992Sep2.224655.16781@u.washington.edu>,
hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
|>    If you disagree with this larger society of
|>    taxpayers then LEAVE THE GROUP -- but don't
|>    bitch at me for something that you have decided.
|> 
|>    I live in America but I AVOID it's government.

And just how, pray tell, do you manage that?!

 \_\_\_\_      \_\_\_\_\_   \_      \_           Don McMillan       __  .   .  
 \_      \_         \_       \_\_  \_\_          GM Research Labs  /  ` |\ /|  
  \_       \_        \_       \_ \_\_ \_         (313) 986-1436    | ,_ | | |  
   \_       \_        \_       \_  \_  \_                          \__/ |   |  
    \_       \_        \_       \_      \_                                     
     \_      \_   \_   \_        \_      \_      CSNet: mcmillan@gmr.com
      \_\_\_\_      \_\_          \_      \_     I-net: dmcmilla@djm.cs.gmr.com
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2098 soc.men:15478 soc.women:15762 misc.kids:21886
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Sex and Power (was: Allen fights back, denies child abuse)
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:45:04 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

> In article <65+nq#+.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer
> 	Or read _The Book of Lavender Lists_; one section gives a
> humorous guide to gay male _faux pas_; they all seem to presuppose
> egalitarianism.
> 
> >We find a more SANE perspective on this question in Paglia's "Sexual Persona
> 
> 	Why is Camille Paglia supposed to be such a fount of wisdom?
> 
> 	There has to be some reason other than being Politically
> Incorrect. I've never heard anyone defending the KKK, for instance, on
> the ground that it is a Politically Incorrect organization.
> 
> /Loren

        I honestly don't know. Paglia has only recently discovered Susie 
Sexpert's _On Our Backs_, and most of the gay press thinks of Paglia as 
someone who's been out of touch for a long time.

        By the way, a nifty bit about Paglia-- turns out she's a _Nation_ 
reader, who recently wrote in congratulating the magazine on a nifty job of 
dissing Madonna-scholars. And the magazine, several years ago, gave a pretty 
favorable review to _Sexual Personae_. Maybe she's not as Politically 
Incorrect as Sheaffer wishes her to be.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"What? They have BIGGER DICKS?! _BOMB THEM!!!!_"
                        Our Leaders, paraphrased by George Carlin
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2192 alt.child-support:3043 soc.men:15942 soc.women:16152 misc.kids:22573
From: cliff@buster.stafford.tx.us (Cliff Tomplait)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:42:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: buster.1992Sep04.154248.28380
Organization: Buster irby

drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard) writes:
>Hear, hear. It constantly amazes me that so many take it as reasonable that
>the father "just naturally" must pay for the kid(s) upkeep, often seemingly
>with no rational basis. I fail to understand why it seems to be carved in 
>granite that the mother always has custody of the kid(s), ...

The rational basis is the court system and the manner in which fathers are
routinely abused.

Notes:  You know, I really do try to keep my voice down.  I don't often post
and really try to read and digest before responding.  However, there are days
and weeks (like this one) where I am AGAIN reminded (by my beloved former
spouse) just how few rights I really have and am presented with another set
of threats.

Only 11 more years.

Cliff
father of Kenneth (age 7)
victim of Harris County (Texas) "family" court system
fuck lawyers!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
when hell fills up, ex-wives will roam the earth
================================================
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2102 soc.men:15489 soc.women:15772 misc.kids:21891
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Sex and Power (was: Allen fights back, denies child abuse)
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:12:58 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <T2B4PB5w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
@  In article <65+nq#+.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer
@  	Or read _The Book of Lavender Lists_; one section gives a
@  humorous guide to gay male _faux pas_; they all seem to presuppose
@  egalitarianism.

@  >We find a more SANE perspective on this question in Paglia's "Sexual Persona

@  	Why is Camille Paglia supposed to be such a fount of wisdom?

@  	There has to be some reason other than being Politically
@  Incorrect. I've never heard anyone defending the KKK, for instance, on
@  the ground that it is a Politically Incorrect organization.
 
@  /Loren
>
>        I honestly don't know. Paglia has only recently discovered Susie 
>Sexpert's _On Our Backs_, and most of the gay press thinks of Paglia as 
>someone who's been out of touch for a long time.

	I saw an article on her in the most recent _Vanity Fair_, the
one with the Geena Davis cover story, and some of her opinions are
(well) strange. For instance, she had some strange things to say about
the symbolism of genitalia -- that penises are exploratory and
outward-looking, while vulvas were just the opposite and are really
rather shameful (I think that this may have been a quote from _Sexual
Personae_).

	More seriously, she has asked where all the sexy lesbians are.
She likes gay men but considers the lesbian community "sterile".

	I'm half thinking of inviting her to come to San Francisco
some time to see for herself :-)

>        By the way, a nifty bit about Paglia-- turns out she's a _Nation_ 
>reader, who recently wrote in congratulating the magazine on a nifty job of 
>dissing Madonna-scholars.

	I don't read the _Nation_ that much. What did these articles
say? I know it's rather Politically Incorrect to like Madonna, but...

...And the magazine, several years ago, gave a pretty 
>favorable review to _Sexual Personae_. Maybe she's not as Politically 
>Incorrect as Sheaffer wishes her to be.

	I've come up with the theory that she is trying to be
Politically Incorrect just for the shock value of it. If that is the
case, then Robert Sheaffer is just a sucker. And I can agree that
baiting feminists out of spite is a _very_ good example of
_ressentiment_, Robert Sheaffer's favorite sentiment :-), that of
being a bad loser.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard)
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Organization: UUMEME Public Access UNIX
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 22:43:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.164528.18572@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.173448.8904@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:
>)In article <1992Aug25.230720.19685@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>)
>)>   We need able parents not "remote wallets".
>)  
      (circa 1/2 dozen lines about making fathers pay thru the nose deleted)
>
>It's logical that you don't want the taxpayer to be a remote wallet
>either, IMO.
>
>However, there are some other choices.  You can give the father custody
>rather than insisting that the mother without resources raise the child
>and be paid by the father, for example.

Hear, hear. It constantly amazes me that so many take it as reasonable that
the father "just naturally" must pay for the kid(s) upkeep, often seemingly
with no rational basis. I fail to understand why it seems to be carved in 
granite that the mother always has custody of the kid(s), even if the 
separation involved and her own lack of salable skills (FAR from being always
the case, BTW... much kudos to those females who can handle themselves in the
real world!) would make her reliant on child-support and/or welfare...

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Organization: UUMEME Public Access UNIX
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 22:48:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.205335.11657@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>Bronis Vidugiris writes
>>It's logical that you don't want the taxpayer to be a 
>> remote wallet either, IMO.
>
>   Only if the larger population of taxpayers
>   choose to pay the Child Support!
>
>   The taxpayers have no right to financially
>   rape some one who does not wish to be a dad.
>

If these persons don't want to be dads, they should have either stayed out of
"field work" or taken other precautions. If you can't do the time,
then don't do the "crime", Willoughby...

If, on the other hand, y'all "don't like the feel of condoms", or are too rushed,
then ye've a real problem. You want yer cookies? Then take responsibility
(1/2 the total responsibility... takes two to tango!) for yer actions!
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: davej@sp31.csrd.uiuc.edu (David J. Jablonowski)
Subject: Visitation Arrangements
Keywords: visitation
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 13:06:59 GMT



   Here it is in a nutshell. Any advice or opinions are appreciated.
I have been divorced for three years and have joint custody of a now
6 year old boy. Since my ex has, up util now, lived nearby, the
visitation arrangements were not down in writing. We were able to
flexibly cooperate on weekend, holiday, and travel arrangements.

   But now my ex is planning to move about 100 miles away, and does not
want to formalize the visitation arrangements. I want to formalize everthing,
because I know otherwise I will get the short end of the stick. What are
my options for getting the visitation stuff down in writing. Can I file
something and have it legally binding ? Can I force her to agree to
formalize ?

   Thanks for any advice.


Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Person in flux)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Reply-To: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:35:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.205335.11657@u.washington.edu>, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>
>   Only if the larger population of taxpayers
>   choose to pay the Child Support!
>
>   The taxpayers have no right to financially
>   rape some one who does not wish to be a dad.

Then why do you refuse to support the child you brought into the world, a child
who DID NOT ask to be brought into the world, thereby financially raping *ME*,
a taxpayer who did not ask to support your child?  

In the end, you, fellow taxpayer, *ARE* supporting that offspring of yours; why
don't you be responsible and do so *directly*, sparing the rest of us taxpayers
a financial burden that's yours and shouldn't be ours.

Katie
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall)
Subject: Re: 32/V licensing
Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan
	<1992Aug20.235637.21040@njitgw.njit.edu>
	<KANDALL.92Aug21141122@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<BZS.92Aug21192010@ussr.std.com>
	<KANDALL.92Aug24143319@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> <Aug.25.21
	<BZS.92Aug31185349@ussr.std.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:03:24 GMT

>>>>> On 31 Aug 92 23:53:49 GMT, bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) said:

Barry> These are conclusions you drew, not my points which were much more
Barry> carefully considered.

Glad I clarified.

Barry> The point is, if you need it in a soundbite, the change in conditions
Barry> under which the contract was originally agreed to are sufficient that
Barry> there should be plenty of room for negotiation to salvage its intent.

Or reflect some new intent.  Renegociation is certainly possible if
both sides are willing.  If USL checked the NET/2 code for copyright,
issued a clean bill-of-health, dropped the suit and any claims to
"methods and concepts" which are well-known, allowed distribution of
the NET/2 code and its derivatives, promised not to hound people who
had knowledge of the UNIX System and limit their future employment
possibilities, what would USL get in return?  Certainly, USL could
always relax its restrictions, but there is no particular *incentive*
to do so.

Ideas?

Barry> A contract is only good so long as it reasonably serves both parties.

I could not agree more.


Mike
----
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: jhenders@wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Subject: Monopolistic Practices
Organization: Wimsey 
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 10:48:10 GMT
Summary: Licencing code to Universities done to ensure no copies?


	Just a thought on the whole eductional license thing. 

    Couldn't a case be made that USL, or ATT originally, used the
educational licencing to guarantee there could never be a "clean
room" U*ix? How many CS students could go through their entire 
time in school and never see U*ix source code? 
    Being the naive non-lawyer type I am, it would seem some kind of case
could be built on this being done intentionally. Thoughts?


-- 
John Henders                " Only _my_ words are relevant to the issue " 
jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca      <1992May11.073237.14684@rotag.mi.org>
 T.K.O.O.C.C                      kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: acheng@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Albert Cheng)
Subject: Re: Educational Unix licenses, derived works, and employability
Originator: acheng@shalom.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:50:39 GMT


Since Berkeley is a state supported university and much of the BSD
work is supported by Federal grants (NSF, ...), so the BSD work is
jointly owned by California state and Federal government.  (right?)
If so, can Berkeley ask California state and the Federal government
to join in defense of those work now sued by AT&T?
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall)
Subject: Re: 32/V licensing
Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan
	<1992Aug20.235637.21040@njitgw.njit.edu>
	<KANDALL.92Aug21141122@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<BZS.92Aug21192010@ussr.std.com>
	<KANDALL.92Aug24143319@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<Aug.25.21.17.13.1992.1004@athos.rutgers.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug26173417@ussr.std.com>
	<KANDALL.92Aug27115836@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<BZS.92Aug29201720@ussr.std.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:19:44 GMT

>>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 1992 01:17:20 GMT, bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) said:
Barry> I don't see how your "otherwise" follows.

We are obviously not communicating.

Maybe rather than responding to your second tier of Q's, clarifying
your original argument is a better starting point.  I understood it to
be:

	1) AT&T was prevented from commercial activities in 
		the computer biz at the time the licenses were
		signed.  (Cannot develop greenbelt).
	2) This condition has since changed.  (Now it can.)
	3) Since AT&T is allowed to participate in computer
		business activities, UCB should no longer
		be under its restrictions for how it uses
		its educational UNIX licenses.
		
That is, UCB should be able to use its current educational license
"for profit".

>Anyways, your analogy employing the law of propagating release from
>responsibilities (B was released from its responsibilities to A, so
>C must be released from its responsibilities to B!) does not hold.

Barry> Who says it does not hold?

Please clarify your greenbelt reasoning and I will come back to this
question.  Otherwise, answering it has no meaning.  Are 1, 2 and 3,
your points above?


Mike
----
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Monopolistic Practices
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:29:13
Organization: CSUA/UCB
	<Aug.27.16.53.58.1992.6957@athos.rutgers.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu's message of 27 Aug 92 20:53:59 GMT

In article <Aug.27.16.53.58.1992.6957@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:

   In article <1992Aug26.104810.13029@wimsey.bc.ca> jhenders@wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
   >How many CS students could go through their entire 
   >time in school and never see U*ix source code? 

   Almost all of them.  Only people who are supporting Unix system
   software have access to the source code at Rutgers, and I doubt
   that we're unique.  Even our faculty don't normally have access to
   Unix source.  When they need source to something, we are generally
   able to find a free equivalent that we can point them to.

You're talking about *now*.  In the old days (pre-divestiture) unix
source code was much more out in the open.  When I was in high school
I used a v6 Unix system on a PDP-11 and there was a full set of source
listings in the terminal room (it fit in two cardboard binders then)
so users could check on things when they didn't believe the manuals.
You didn't even need a login on the machine to read the sources...
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: 32/V licensing
Organization: The World
	<1992Aug20.235637.21040@njitgw.njit.edu>
	<KANDALL.92Aug21141122@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<BZS.92Aug21192010@ussr.std.com>
	<KANDALL.92Aug24143319@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> <Aug.25.21
	<BZS.92Aug31185349@ussr.std.com>
	<KANDALL.92Sep1170324@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:32:00 GMT


From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall)
>Barry> These are conclusions you drew, not my points which were much more
>Barry> carefully considered.
>
>Glad I clarified.
>
>Barry> The point is, if you need it in a soundbite, the change in conditions
>Barry> under which the contract was originally agreed to are sufficient that
>Barry> there should be plenty of room for negotiation to salvage its intent.
>
>Or reflect some new intent.  Renegociation is certainly possible if
>both sides are willing.  If USL checked the NET/2 code for copyright,
>issued a clean bill-of-health, dropped the suit and any claims to
>"methods and concepts" which are well-known, allowed distribution of
>the NET/2 code and its derivatives, promised not to hound people who
>had knowledge of the UNIX System and limit their future employment
>possibilities, what would USL get in return?  Certainly, USL could
>always relax its restrictions, but there is no particular *incentive*
>to do so.

Being as both sides, but particularly USL (being a for-profit corp
with shareholders), have a fiduciary obligation not to yield an inch
voluntarily one obvious source of leverage would be a judge making it
clear that the contract as it stands has a strong liklihood of being
thrown out entirely due to fundamental changes in the assumptions
under which the contract was drawn. Since that would also negate that
contract with every other signee one would assume USL would suddenly
find the motivation to renegotiate a modification of the contract.

Alternatively I suppose the possibility exists that some profitable
proposal could be made. There is more to the software biz and USL's
interests than just the OS. Or there had better be or they're dead
meat anyhow.

Negotiation oftentimes takes great creativity and what finally
appeases both sides often comes as a surprise in retrospect. One has
to sit down and understand both parties' interests. Even fiduciary
responsibility can be overcome in a negotiation, one "just" has to
generate a proposal that is at least potentially profitable to the
shareholders etc.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: tg@cs.toronto.edu (Tom Glinos)
Subject: Re: We could blow up USL.
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:07:24 GMT

In article <BZS.92Aug31184910@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>>I see the main sales-point of BSD/386 as the
>>provision of source code, which would appeal more to hobbyists and
>>students.
>
>(BSDI also provides source code of course)
>
>It's a fallacy that source supplied OS's are only of interest to
>"hobbyists and students". It's of interest to them also, but there are
>other very important markets out there.

BSDI's brave act of providing source tends to support my theory
that it's the people who wrote the source code, and not the code itself,
that is the companies greatest assets.

Having the source code is useless if your people don't know what
to do with it.
-- 
=================
No regrets, ever!			| Tom Glinos @ U of Toronto Statistics
For down that path, lies madness	| tg@utstat.toronto.edu
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: 32/V licensing
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:34:17 GMT
	<1992Aug20.235637.21040@njitgw.njit.edu>
	<KANDALL.92Aug21141122@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<BZS.92Aug21192010@ussr.std.com>
	<KANDALL.92Aug24143319@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<Aug.25.21
Organization: The World


I assume the date of the 32V license pre-dates the AT&T break-up which
allowed AT&T to enter the computer business.

Given that (and assuming UCB et al signed this version), it would seem
any two-bit lawyer can drive a mac truck through such a contract.

It's one thing to sign a contract for use of software with a company
that is federally forbidden from entering the software business.

It is quite another thing to have that point changed a posteriori.

It would seem to demand a re-review of the honest assumptions of what
the contract meant to both parties.

In fact, that point should be critical to this case: Given the
fantastic change in the underlying assumptions of the original
contract can it even be enforced in its general claims? (I'll assume
that the fundamental claim of AT&T owning the property described is
fairly solid.)

This begs for an analogy:

Suppose you bought a parcel of land, one among many, from a firm which
was enjoined not to develop any of the parcels. They therefore passed
that restriction to you as a covenant, you may not develop the land
either. That's ok, you accept the greenbelt splendor of it all behind
your house. That's the purpose of the restriction, to maintain natural
surroundings.

Now you find, several years later, that a court has removed that
restriction from the original owners and they are indeed developing
all the surrounding parcels, so much for greenbelt splendor. Would you
still feel beholden to the original covenant?

The analogy works if you believe that a party would enter into the
original 32V contract's limitations if at the time they believed that
the purpose was protect accessibility to research innovations
("greenbelt") for the computing community, rather than as a specific
restriction on one's profitable uses of the property.

The original property claim (i.e. AT&T's licensed code) would be
analogous to the covenant reading that one purpose is to also protect
the adjacent parcels still owned by the original company.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD