From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:07:32 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Jul21.005456.25810@leland.Stanford.EDU> garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) writes:
>   Sigh.  Well, I just couldn't sit idly by and let this one go.  So:
>
>In article <1992Jul20.192246.14634@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>>In article <14erv9INNc6l@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
>>>Forgive *my* bluntness Alan, but with all due respect, go away. 
>>>I do NOT owe you anything, and for that matter I do not owe ANYone on
>>>the network anything.  I do NOT have to PROVE myself and I certainly
>>>do not have to prove to YOU that I can do some real good.
>>>
>>	Well, there you have it.  Like a doctor at an accident scene
>>	who let's someone die because they might get sewed. You
>>	refuse to apply your skills to an area that you claim
>>	*personal* as well as *professional* interest.  See
>>	Annie, your presence here on this group indicates interest
>>	in the topic.  Your advertisement of your legal education
>>	puts some kind of attention to your skills in that area.
>>	And your unabashed willingness to advertise that fact
>>	that you want to be known as such.  If there were a doctor
>>	at a car accident, wouldn't people seek his help?  Wouldn't
>>	his/her M.D. degree indicate ability in that area as well
>>	as interest?
>>
>>	Your problem (As I've said many times in the past) is that
>>	you came proudly to proclaim yourself as "champion of mens
>>	divorce rights".  Trouble is that one should not delegate
>>	authority without responsibility.  And I don't!  *You* just
>>	came for the glory.  Not for the responsibility that goes
>>	along with it.
>
>   EXCUSE ME?  Where in the hell did this come from?  You come up with
>some lame-brained idea to sue the entire United States of America to
>rectify your personal wrongs, and when Anne doesn't come rushing to
>your side yelling "Yes, yes, Alan, you're a genius!  I don't know why
>I never thought of it before!  I'm going to dedicate my life to your

	No.  All I wanted was a response.  A simple, "That's the
	stupidest thing I've ever heard of.  And here's why"
	would have been acceptable.


>   First of all, to continue the point I made above, this is bullshit
>on your part, Alan.  Anne is, as she reports, working her tail off
>doing work for FREE for free.  You sit in your la-z-boy and complain
>that what she's doing isn't good enough.  What the hell do you know?

	I know nothing.  That's why I ask.  And I don't consider
	requiring a well thought out answer from someone who claims
	to be educated in an area as saying "she isn't doing enough."

	It's just common courtesy.  And that's what the net is for.
	Communication.


>Or do you just _assume_ that her work isn't doing anyone any good?
>Show me some evidence.  Put up or shut up.  I'm willing to bet Anne


	*I* have asked repeatedly even to people on this net what
	*good* is being done.  The burden of proof is on her; not me.


>can come up with some people she's already helped (in the less-than-a-

	I've asked.  She hasn't.

>year since FREE was organized) faster than you can find someone you've
>helped in the same time period.  And don't give me that crap about her

	I never claimed to be a "helper".  Doesn't someone have the
	right to ask help from someone who claims to be a helper?

>   And you wanna talk about work that won't make anyone's life any
>better, let's have a chat about your little class-action idea.  Unless
>you think being laughed out of federal court is going to help someone.
>

	Hoow do *you* know this?

>   One factual matter, though.  Lawyers in _this_ state, at least,
>must take an oath to not turn aside the cause of the defenseless or
>oppressed.  Perhaps you can explain which part of that means what you
>said, above.
>

	No, I can't.  I was hoping Annie or someone else would.

>   Are you serious?  Again, just because you come up with an idea--
>which, by the way, shows such a deep lack of understanding of the
>judicial system that it's almost impossible to start explaining to you

	When did I say otherwise?

>why you're wrong--and Anne doesn't come running that is supposed to
>mean that she's a hypocrite?  That she's in family law for the MONEY?
>(Ask any family lawyer about _that_ one, sometime!)  Even better, when
>it looks like you're in the wrong, you start questioning her very
>existance?  Does she have a daughter?  Perhaps she's just an AI
>program set up to annoy you, personally, Alan.

	Nobody told me I was wrong.  Nobody told me ANYTHING!

	How many times do I need to write the same words to you
	stupid people?

>   No, Alan, you do act as if she owes you something.  You act as if
>she owes you respect.  Well, I think right about now you don't deserve
>respect from anyone, least of all her.
>

	I act as if I deserve an answer on the net.  ANd not a
	reply to flames.  A reply to issues.

>>	I never claimed to have anything to offer.  *You* have.
>>	But you offer nothing!
>>
>
>   No, what happened is that YOU, Alan, _decided_ that Anne had
>something to offer, and got mad when she didn't.  Well, Anne has a lot
>to offer, and, as she has said in the past, she's offering it.  But
>that isn't good enough for you, Alan.  Oh, no!  She has to offer what

	What a logical nightmare.  First, *I* decided Annie has something
	to offer.  Then you *state* that she has.  Then you state
	that she's contributed more advice than, "see a lawyer".


	Why don't you people get this conversation out of generalities
	and state some specifics, rather than defending someone's
	honor.  What has she done?

	I keep asking the same questions, and the answer is, 
	"She's done a lot"

	
>   You know, this rings of a psychological effect called Projection.
>It's a stress reaction.  What it is is ascribing your own thoughts,
>emotions, and so forth to others.  You see, Alan, maybe YOU would brag
>to the net about every little thing you did to help NCPs, but Anne
>isn't that insecure.  I've been to a FREE meeting, and I've seen some
>small fraction of the work Anne's done.  Trust me, it's there, and
>it's big.
>

	I've never claimed to have helped ANYONE!


>   But it doesn't matter what I say, because you can't believe that
>anyone would act any differently than you would.  If someone doesn't
>brag, it must mean she isn't doing anything.  If someone doesn't rush
>headlong into the first idea that pops into your head to help NCPs,
>she must not really care about NCPs at all.
>

	But if someone doesn't answer a challenge, it's because there
	is no answer.  Even *you* who claim to have attended meetings
	give the answer, "trust me, it's ther, and it's big."

	That's right up there with, "the check's in the mail", and,
	"I won't come in your mouth."

	Oh, I see now.  You're personal friends!

>   Well, Alan, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but reality
>will go humming right along regardless of how wrong your perception of
>it is.  However, it might be to your personal benefit to get your
>perception more in line with reality.
>

	You are right.  And no matter what "benefit" you want to believe
	you're receiving (albeit unstated), reality will continue for
	you.  the federal guidelines will be in place.  You can attend
	all the  "Anne Mitchell" meetings you want.  And when you get
	home, your pockets will STILL BE EMPTY!!!!!

>   Just more noise.  You know, if you actually read the responses to
>your posts, you might not be posting this.  But I suppose it's easier
>for you to make unsupported assumptions about other people than it is
>to admit your position to yourself.
>

	The unsupported assumptions are on the part of everyone, including
	you, who make vague statements about benefits you receive,
	while continuing an unwillingness to express those benefits
	concretely.  *I* make no assumptions.  And when asked to by
	people who make unsupported allegations about "benefits",
	I challenge it.  I don't assume.

-- 
	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.child-support:2325 alt.dads-rights:1679 alt.parents-teens:1118 misc.kids:20137