From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Right Not to Support, etc.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 16:45:35 GMT

In article <cHN0oB3w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>> In article <s9k8oB1w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpat
>> >wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>> >
>> >> In article <mPZ4oB1w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirk
>> >> 
>> >> >alt.child-support:  A forum for discussing the current system of support
>> >> >methodologies and enforcement. This group is NOT for theory, instead it
>> >> >is supposed to be where people talk about the ramifications of existing
>> >> >orders, imminent orders, and the state-by-state court systems which make
>> >> >them.
>> >> 
>> >> Sounds like a child-support issue to me.  And who are you to rule
>> >> out theoretical discussions?  Are you a net.cop?
>> >
>> >I didn't rule. The network users effectively did when the group was proposed
>> >in alt.config. 
>> 
>> WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! 
>> 
>> When alt.child-support was proposed in alt.config, it was proposed 
>> S P E C I F I C A L L Y  to discuss the theoretical aspects of child-support,
>> particularly paternity child-support, and to siphon inflammatory threads from
>> other groups like soc.men, soc.women, talk.abortion, misc.legal and alt.flame
>> I was there, Bob. Were you?
>
>I was there Kevin. Somewhere in my archives I have the newgroup message --

Peter da Silva's newgroup message, you mean? What bearing does that have? I 
don't recall that there was any commentary in that message whatsoever. Da
Silva has stated publically that he just sent out the message because O'Tuama
didn't have the necessary newadmin priveleges, and asked him to do it for her.

The "charter" when it was proposed was to accomodate "any and all" discussions
relating to child support. The *MOTIVATION* for creating the group was because
alt.flame was sick and tired of paternity threads, and wanted to redirect them 
elsewhere. Ask Ms. O'Tuama (rissa). She proposed the creation of the group.

>But I find it incredibly interesting that you make the point of those who
>complained about this thread (all the way to the NIC) in your last para-
>graph. Look at the newsgroups you listed, and look at the newsgroup lines
                               ^^^ Er, _you_ listed those groups first, Bob
>which have been the hallmark of this thread. EACH AND EVERY ONE of them
>have appeared separately or together, with the exception of alt.flame.

Bob, first of all, I don't read soc.*. Whatever happens over there is of no 
concern to me. My views on discussing paternity issues in talk.abortion are 
well-known there -- if the subject clearly relates to abortion, as opposed to 
contraceptive fraud, etc., then I'm perfectly happy discussing the issue in 
talk.abortion. I'm perfectly happy discussing the primarily-legal aspects in 
misc.legal, although sometimes I wish Ted Frank would either learn how to use 
a killfile or at least quit his whining. And, lastly, I am under a solemn 
PROMISE not to discuss certain paternity child-support issues in alt.flame. 
Speaking as a self-appointed representative of those who wish to discuss 
paternity-related issues (and I've probably been at it longer than anyone
except Hillel Gazit), we really don't need another newsgroup -- we've already
got plenty of 'em. And, even if we did, it'd probably be better placed in the 
talk.* hierarchy, where it would get decent propagation, and be logically 
easier for folks to find (Altnet is a morass of junk groups these days, in 
case you haven't noticed).

								- Kevin