HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmarlan@titan.nmt.edu (Jon Marlan)
Subject: Re: Tuths
Summary: Kids World!
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:33:23 GMT


In article <g89s9141.9.711961474@giraffe.ru.ac.za> g89s9141@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR K SMITH) writes:
>Hi evryone
>
>Jon I lost five tuths already how many have you lost?  I still dont know 
>what a crush is cos evryone says its something difrent maybe my bruther 
>meens like being at the sports stadyim when evryone is trying to get to 
>there cars wen the game is over.  JC dont wory I dont want to crush you.  JC 
>said she like my bruther but I think hes mean.  He went to see a movie last 
>night and took Jill Barnes and wudnot take me.  This morning he just lay in 
>be looking at the roof I dont know if he got to lecchers in time.
>
>Next week at school we are going to have olimpics week I have to tell the 
>class all about Ben Jonsin.  My daddy ses hes a liar and I sed that not true 
>hes a runner does anybody know the truth?
>
>Bye friends
hikevin.how are you?iv only lost 2 tuths but im only 6.ilost 1 tuth a few
weks ugo.i got a dolr  frmo the tuth fery whut did you get.ilik to put  my
tung ware the tuf was.itfels funy.kevin i thnk that ther  musbe difrnt crushs.
mymom told me  to crush sum cans toda so i dontnow.thats to bad that yur 
bruther didnt takyou to  the movie.i wnt to go see pinokeo.wud you lik to
go with me?i askd dad abot ben jonsn and hesad  somthng abot staroids.mom
sad its nto good to star at pepl so he ma haf a problm.i dont now ifhes a
lir tho.im exitd abot the limpics to.the drem tem is gong towin.mikal jordn
is awsum.haffun
jon



Newsgroups: alt.kids-talk
From: jawatson@mtu.edu (JANET C. WATSON)
Subject: Re: Kiddie time
Organization: Michigan Technological University - CTS
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:38:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.132620.8460@fokus.gmd.de>, tom@fokus.gmd.de (Tom Pfeifer) writes:
> Hi Kids
> can I jion this grup. you seem to haf much fun togeser. may bee we can
> find a nic game to play, boys against girls. we ar nou more boys here
> so we wil win. i do like green beens very much but wite beens mak me so
> blo up like a baloon. jill wen you like riting stories can you rite won
> for us ?
> 
> By  Tom
> 
Hi Tom
We could play games if we can get people to play.  I leant to spel beteer.  We
like to have you as a frind.  Now we have Kevin, Jill, me, you, Ken, Betsy, Jon,
Chris, and lotsa more. I wasnt heer for awhile and got lots to read.  
Later
JC
Organization: Central Michigan University
Date: Monday, 27 Jul 1992 14:04:06 EDT
From: Jill Maree Thomas <34EP2A2@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.kids-talk
Subject: Long time, no C

     Hi Kevin, Jc, betsy, jon and everybuddy!  im sorri that i havent been able
to talk for a while but I had abirthdy party and i went to a concert withh my f
riend Richie..But I am riting a stroy right now and wehn its done I will send i
t to whoever would like to reed science-fiction.  its sort of dum but i could w
in 4000 dillors if i win first prixze.

                                        **jilly
Newsgroups: alt.kids-talk
From: tex@r-node.gts.org (Terence Dulay)
Subject: Re: Where are you?
Keywords: me
Organization: Association for the Preservation of Incompetence
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:59:23 GMT

In article <bsackste.39@AFIT.AF.MIL> bsackste@AFIT.AF.MIL (Bernadette M. Sacksteder) writes:
>Well, this was an interesting newsgroup for a few days, but now everyone 
>seems to have disapeared. I still wouldn't mind talking to someone over the 
>next few weeks. So come out, come out, wherever you are!
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bernadette M. Sacksteder       Here comes your father!
>Bsackste@afit.af.mil                -William Shakespeare
>                                            Henry V
>__________________________________________________________________
>You mean somebody actually CARES about my opinions?
>------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>                             
>                              
>                              


I haven't disappeared!! I'm still here!!  I'm wondering where the rest of them
have gone ;-)  ...well, hope to hear from you soon...
-- 
Terence M. "Tex" Dulay
tex@eastern.com
tex@r-node.gts.org
Newsgroups: alt.kids-talk
From: jmarlan@titan.nmt.edu (Jon Marlan)
Subject: Re: Kiddie time
Summary: Kids World!
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:59:53 GMT


In article <bsackste.68.711993637@AFIT.AF.MIL> bsackste@AFIT.AF.MIL (Bernadette M. Sacksteder) writes:

>i dont lik lymabeens either and my dad dusnt mak me eet them. i lik jumping 
>in the deep end becuz i can swim all the way bak to the sid and my mom is 
>proud of me i lik clorng boox but i lik to draw beter the tests arent lik 
>clorng boox you hav to reed questuns and color in the circel by the # of 
>your ansur did you see the # my dad just tot that to me what kind of ice 
>cream do you lik
>bye
>betsy

hi betsy.thats good that yur dad dosnt mak you et lymabeensbut my mom  maks
me et thm.luckly we dont haf thm oftn.you sond lik a good swimr cudyou tech
me?ilik drawng to.my mom sas i  shud be an artis.tests sond net cudyou  send
e on?########### heyiv got thta on  my comptr to!luks lik ralrod trcks.ilik
choclt ice crem.it is best!haffun
jon

>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bernadette M. Sacksteder       Here comes your father!
>Bsackste@afit.af.mil                -William Shakespeare
>                                            Henry V
>__________________________________________________________________
>You mean somebody actually CARES about my opinions?
>------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>                             
>                              
>
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:42:39 GMT
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington

Paul A Vixie writes
> > So (back to a common subject), why can't the parents divorce their
> > children??
> this is called "abandonment".  perhaps you've noticed that children are
> often not fully able to take care of themselves, and that they tend to
> have serious trouble eating and sleeping in warm dry places if there is
> no adult taking care of them.
> > Oh, I guess [the parents ...are] not allowed to have a say in their
> > own life.
> do you even understand what you're suggesting here?  do you know what
> principle would be in effect if the law permitted what you are here
> calling "divorce" ?

   Forced relationships are lose-lose.
   Children need AN adult not THEE adult.
   Our society DOES take care of unwanted children.
   To keep children tied to parents who don't want
   them is a PROVEN source of abuse -- abuse Paul
   doesn't care about so long as he can pretend
   that 100% of the parents want their children
   -- so long as Paul, as a taxpayer, doesn't have 
   to be more liable.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: M20614@mwvm.mitre.org (Hugh Pritchard)
Subject: Re: NCP Mortgages/Step Parent issues
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:42:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.114620.215@doc.bmd.trw.com>
mmord@doc.bmd.trw.com (Bret Webster) writes:
 
>I am a NCP of my two daughters (8 & 5) that I love very much.
 
I speak as a spouse of a CP and step-dad to her two daughters, 10 & 7
 
>1. Mortgages - When I apply for a mortgage as a NCP I get to put
>down my child support payment as a debt....
 
CS is not just the marginal cost of bringing up the children; it's your
share of TOTAL cost for your kids, their home, and their mom.  So the
mortgage people probably feel that you as an NCP are maintaining most
of TWO homes.
 
>2. Step Parenting - I think there are not many other types of
>relationships that are more challenging to be productive and
>successful.  Any insights on this matter?
 
I've been pretty lucky so far.  Of course, I *wanted* to be a dad; your SO
may be feeling ambivalent.
 
My wife told me to be assertive in establishing relationships with the kids,
and she stays out of the way.  In order not to be played off one against the
other, we agree beforehand on discipline.
 
>3. If my ex decides to move significantly far away does that at all
>improve my chances of winning custody if I attempted it?
 
If you now live in a different state then when you got divorced, "enter"
your divorce decree, so your new state of residence will assume juris-
diction over the divorce and the kids.  To answer your question, probably
not, since most states will "allow" the CP to move in order to take a job
or get married.  You could try to make a case that the kids' school and
health records are in-state, and it would harm the kids to move.
 
>would I have to prove my ex "unfit"
 
*Very* hard to do; you'd have to show she was selling illegal drugs or
selling herself openly in front of the kids to show her "unfit."
 
>or would I be attempting to prove me "more fit" or what?
 
See a "family law" lawyer, and spend the money for a good one.
 
>4. Does anyone know how Utah treats a NCP's spouse's income when
>calculating child support?
 
Most states have adopted the Federal CS guidelines pretty closely.  The
Federal guidelines indicate that, no, spouses' incomes are NOT figured
in; total income is just that of CP+NCP (minus a few things; see your
lawyer).  I'm a CP's spouse, *my* income was ignored when my wife and
our lawyer ran the numbers through the guidelines for an increase in CS,
as was income of her ex's new wife.
 
**  Hugh Pritchard,  hapritch@mitre.org,  703/883-6616
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Increased Child Support in Calif
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 23 Jul 92 11:42:25 CDT

In article 3765@wyse.wyse.com, donna@wyse.wyse.com (Donna Diloreto x2231 dept302) writes:
>  The new law
>basically increases child support, to where a $80K NCP may pay 50% of
>their salary for CS.
Ouch!!  I wonder if they expect the CP to accept IOU's like the State is doing
to pay its bills.  That isn't CS, that's highway robbery.

>Well, the judge orders him to increase CS from $125 to over $600!  
>This was based on an estimate that he was grossing $60K a year.  He doesn't 
>know about the judgement this yet, since he will be getting a letter from 
>my lawyer.  Talk about not wanting to face a confrontation (I still have a 
>headache from the stress in court.) I surely am not looking forward to 
>getting a screaming phone call from him once he gets that letter!
Probably a fair guess, and he will probably threaten all sorts of things.  Don't
panic, just sit back and see if he really does anything.  I doubt it.
BTW, would that judge consider moving to Minnesota?

> She is also
>a non-confrontative person, and is not looking forward to her father
>discussing CS (he has brought it up to her many times, asking her what
>amount I will take, and I don't think he should bring her into this.)
I agree.

Steve Anderson		312 more days of indentured servitude




Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.legal
From: jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe)
Subject: Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:34:59 GMT

In article <o552NB3w165w@jimmc.chi.il.us> jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas) writes:
>
>...Imagine if 100,000 men got together and marched on Washington. The 
>women who would be marching with us the media would think they were 
>spouses, only to find out they were NCP's as well. Maybe then the media 
>would wake up!!

Hey, I like that!  Come on, netters - how do we get 100,000 of us all in
the same place at the same time?  We know there are far more than 100K
divorced NCP dads in this country, right?

On second thought, never mind, I'm probably being too optimistic.


Jerry Roe
jrr@nsc.nsc.com		...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl)!nsc!jrr
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
From: Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:59:04 GMT

In article <92210.211354JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennifer Brown) writes:

>It's some sort of biological/mental creation of having a family.  They're
>not interested in the "child" at first.  Usually it starts out with the
>idea of being pregnant, and of starting a family.  Once the child is born,
>the best interests of the child are *usually* recognized by the parent.
>Notice, I say "once the child is born", not "once the child is past the
>first or second tri-mester".  I say this because, during those times, the
>welfare of the mother is still most important to most of the mothers&fathers.
>Once the child is an actual existing, non-dependent creation, the parents
>REALLY see the child.  (You know what I mean by non-dependent, right?
>I don't mean that the child does not need any further care, because it
>does.)

I must say Jennifer, that this was THE most short-sighted and IGNORANT
article I have read thus far. YOU have never been pregnant, so do the
world a favor and stick your generalized comments where they would serve
more purpose. If what you're saying is true, there would be a hell of a
lot more deformed babies out there. I didn't quit smoking for myself when
I was pregnant, I did it for my baby. And believe me, even when he wasn't
big enough to kick, I could feel him, and I did my best to start eating
more and taking better care of myself for HIS benefit. I also quit
drinking stuff with caffiene. So who do you really think the normal
expectant mother is thinking of? Really, Jennifer, who do you think we
care most about when we're pregnant? I could go on and on, because you
really hit a nerve with your comments, but I'll stop.

>
>However, without actually having children of my own, in order to compare
>and contrast the emotional feelings, this is just my opinion.  As it stands

Your opinion is too asinine to even deserve to be posted!!

>right now, I care more about myself and my soon-to-be-husband's welfare
>than I do about any "almost-existant-child".  And that is definitely NOT
>saying that I wouldn't be upset if I had a miscarriage or had a child
>die.
>
>But ... parent's do it for their own benefit.
>
>-Jennifer

Jennifer, just wait til you have a child, your views will change
drastically, (unless of course, you are greedy, overly self-centered,
cold, or do drugs, in which case I'd say please don't bother even carrying
through your "need" for a family.

Michelle
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2314 alt.dads-rights:1666 alt.parents-teens:1111 misc.kids:20094
From: mike@shemesh.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 30 Jul 1992 20:11:07 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@shemesh.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.63

Someone (not important who) says:
>don't think about the commitment they have to make for the next 18 years
>when they decide to have kids to satisfy their urges, and this is what is
>responsible for much of the neglect and abuse of children that exists

I have heard this here & elsewhere, & I'm sure everyone else
has, too.  While this supposition is attractive (so to speak),
is there any basis for believing it?
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2291 alt.dads-rights:1642
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Wednesday, 29 Jul 1992 10:57:31 MST
From: <IDSAW@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: FYI: California Mandates CS Increase

This was published in the Arizona Republic:
              CALIFORNIA MANDATES CHILD-SUPPORT INCREASE
   After two long years, the battle to increase child-support payments in
California is finally over.
   Starting this month, custodial parents will be able to go to court and seek
an increase in child support.  Absent parents will have to pay, on average,
25 percent more.  In many cases, payments could rise as much as 60 percent.
   Child-support levels in California, among the lowest in the country, soon
may be among the highest.



---------------------------------
Shirley Woods
Arizona State University
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Miss a Child-Support Paym
X-To: ANNE P. MITCHELL. JD
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:49:00 GMT

shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell. JD) writes...

APMJ> [NOTE:  I have attempted to limit the distribution of this to
APMJ> California.  Apparently some systems ignore the distribution line.  I
APMJ> apologize in advance if any of you get this and shouldn't have.]

Whoops!!

I believe that the "Distribution: ca" in your message implied that the
message was distributed within *CANADA* as opposed to *California*.

Ooops...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Bugs, What BBBuuugggsss?
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin)
Subject: AA&CW Act of 1980--Correction (Attn: Richard Donovan)
Organization: Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 00:30:31 GMT


   I have not read the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of
1980, which Mr. Donovan cites, and therefore make no claims as to what
it says.  However, it is PL 96-272, not PL 92-272.

			-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)|
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2326 alt.dads-rights:1680 alt.parents-teens:1119 misc.kids:20138
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:36:43 EDT
From: Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
 <1992Jul22.143442.3541@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com>
 <1992Jul23.011734.12085@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <1992Jul27.070214.5505@PacBell.COM>
 <92210.211354JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>


In article <92210.211354JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>, Jennifer Brown
<JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>
>>>My take on this is that, unless provided with evidence to the contrary, it
>>>might be best to assume that parents first and foremost have their *own*
>>>interests at heart.
>>>Michael Rawdon
>>
>>I hope this response is in jest!!
>>I feel that it should be always assumed that the parents have the best
>>interest of their childern at heart.  If not why have parents at all?
>>Why not let the government raise all children.
>
>Actually, this was discussed in soc.men/women I think.  People have
>children to suit their OWN wants and needs.  They "need" to have children.
>It's some sort of biological/mental creation of having a family.  They're
>not interested in the "child" at first.  Usually it starts out with the
>idea of being pregnant, and of starting a family.  Once the child is born,
>the best interests of the child are *usually* recognized by the parent.
>Notice, I say "once the child is born", not "once the child is past the
>first or second tri-mester".  I say this because, during those times, the
>welfare of the mother is still most important to most of the mothers&fathers.
>Once the child is an actual existing, non-dependent creation, the parents
>REALLY see the child.  (You know what I mean by non-dependent, right?
>I don't mean that the child does not need any further care, because it
>does.)
>
>However, without actually having children of my own, in order to compare
>and contrast the emotional feelings, this is just my opinion.  As it stands
>right now, I care more about myself and my soon-to-be-husband's welfare
>than I do about any "almost-existant-child".  And that is definitely NOT
>saying that I wouldn't be upset if I had a miscarriage or had a child
>die.
>
>But ... parent's do it for their own benefit.
>
>-Jennifer

It's just me again.  Maybe...ok, I DID forget a to put in a word here
and there.  The word is SOME, but I definitely did NOT say ALL parents
do it for themselves.  If it was implied to be that, I am sorry.
But SOME parents do it for themselves, there's no doubting it.
And if it's not for the NEED of having children, then it's for the WANT.
-Jennifer
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
From: jsellars@sf180.PacBell.COM (James E. Sellars)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: Pacific Bell - Financial Management
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 07:02:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.011734.12085@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>In <1992Jul22.143442.3541@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:
>>We should never assume that every parent always has their child's
>>best interest at heart, and/or knows what to do to act on that interest.
>>I'd much rather empower teens to have some say in their life, than empower
>>the state to meddle even more in family affairs via the social service
>>agencies.
>
>My take on this is that, unless provided with evidence to the contrary, it
>might be best to assume that parents first and foremost have their *own*
>interests at heart.
>
>-- 
>Michael Rawdon

I hope this response is in jest!!

I feel that it should be always assumed that the parents have the best
interest of their childern at heart.  If not why have parents at all? 
Why not let the government raise all children.

The dividing line between the family and the government
MUST be maintained.  I feel we need to protect the children that
are abused, but we don't have to sacrifice all the other children is
the process!!!

-- 
-------
James E. Sellars  Rm. 602, 180 New Montgomery St., San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 542-5822 ||  jsellars@pbseps.sf180.pacbell.com
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2167 alt.parents-teens:1053 misc.kids:19395
From: shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:54:16 GMT
Reply-To: shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

Hmm, this might open up a whole new industry...

<Television commercial, in the middle of 90210 or other teen-related
show: Open with man in business suit in front of loaded bookshelves>

Kids, are your folks hassling you?  Won't let you make the decisions
that matter to you? Don't recognize your maturity and needs?

You need to be aware of your legal rights.  Call the friendly people
at Soakum, Quick and Howe for a free consultation.  You may be able
to obtain full support _and_ full rights to make all your own
decisions _yourself_.  And all legal costs would be covered by your
parents.  Call now 1-800-SUE-THEM.
<end of commercial with SQH logo>

Isn't it surprising that a lawyer would come up with such a proposal
to expand lawyers' incomes?
				Tim
-- 
Tim Shimeall ((408) 646-2509)
The proper response to detecting a bug isn't to fix the bug - it's to make 
sure you'll never have to worry about that bug again.  --- Richard Hamming
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights