HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:24:50 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <1992Sep5.225135.5801@wolves.uucp> woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller) writes:
>In <1992Sep3.224314.6484@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>
>>  "My children" (as you are wont to call them) 
>>  live in a home that makes about $70,000 per year 
>>  -- I make about $4,000 per year.
>
>And you're so monumentally stupid that you're running from the court
>rather than bringing this to their attantion.  Then you whine because
>they make decisions without facts.  But you dug your own hole, pal.
>
>-- 
>woody@wolves.durham.nc.us
>"Nothing in human affairs is worth any great anxiety."  -Plato


  You have previously posted ideas that suggest by going to court
and presenting your case, that the judge will see the obvious 
injustice or whatever, and will as a result, reverse or modify 
previous court findings. 

Give me one example Woody, where modification of previous court findings
occurred in family court? Do you know of any? 

I don't. 

I know Minnesota Law very well. I also know pretty much how family 
law works in Minnesota. Running To the Court to solve injustices
as you advocate only shows your ignorance and inexperience. 

Jon Wood 

 I sincerely hope you never have to hear legal reality from a lawyer
when the stakes are big and on the line. I'll be able to hear your 
monumentally stupid jaw hit the table way out here in Wisconsin.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 12:11:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.220758.28074@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>
>  A man distragught over losing his
>  wife and kids to a divorce is charged
>  with 25 counts of hostage taking.
>
>  He walked in the K-Mart, where he
>  was known, and asked for a shotgun.
>  He loaded the shotgun and created
>  a hostage situation with the police.


	I was on vacation in Pa. and W Virginia last week. We were
	pretty much driving past the exit as we listened to the
	story announced on the radio about the exits being closed.


-- 
	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......
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 12:59:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.234830.21050@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>Sue B. wrote:
>   "I still wonder how Mr. EuStress is only making $4000 a year.  
>   Why not try McD's, they pay better than that!"
>
>Sue, are you advocating (like our government) forced labor?
>
>Joel Clark:
>   "He is indicating that he generally uses random social 
>   security numbers in any paper work.  The $4000 dollars 
>   a year is probably only his "cover" for many other forms 
>   of income not reported against his SSN. Not to surprising
>   considering his "I love America because I can be 
>   irresponsible" attitude.
>
>Poor guess -- you're wrong.
>
>  I spend $143/month for my basment "room" in the university 
>  district.  plus, I spend about another $150/month on
>  everything else, like food (brown rice, vegetables).
>  I don't see any doctors, I don't have any cars ,assets or
>  insurance.  My *very* few non-food needs are met by thrift
>  shops.
>
>Joel, Does "responsibility" mean:
>     "I **MUST** work for you."?


	So how do you have computer access?

-- 
	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......
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Subject: vixie says goodbye (Re: Cowardly Fathers Who Abandon Their Children)
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:23:24

> It turns my stomach to see how many fathers there are who stick the mother
> with the child(ren) [...]

It sickens me, as well, to have seen so many immature male "adults" here,
and elsewhere, who claim (honestly, so far as I can tell) that they have
no responsibility to children whom they helped create.  The usual refrain
is "but I told [the mother] before we had sex that I didn't want to be a
father, and she said she would have an abortion if pregnancy occurred, but
then it did and she didn't even though I offered to pay for it."

These immature male "adults" do not and will never see that the child does
not care what promises were made and should never be required to face such
facts or their consequences.  Only real, actual adults will ever understand
that nothing about child support is or can ever be "about" the parents.

Given the cyclic nature of Usenet, all the standard arguments have been
made and this newsgroup is now due for many years of rehash.  And I find
that the prospect of wading through the same crock of shit from EuStress
and Darcy and the others from now 'til doomsday just does not appeal to me.

Goodbye, everyone.  I'm going to unsubscribe now.  I wanted to let you all
know so that you wouldn't wonder why I'm so silent: it's because I'm gone.
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3113 soc.men:16209 soc.women:16381 misc.kids:22921 alt.dads-rights:2226
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:48:30 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

Sue B. wrote:
   "I still wonder how Mr. EuStress is only making $4000 a year.  
   Why not try McD's, they pay better than that!"

Sue, are you advocating (like our government) forced labor?

Joel Clark:
   "He is indicating that he generally uses random social 
   security numbers in any paper work.  The $4000 dollars 
   a year is probably only his "cover" for many other forms 
   of income not reported against his SSN. Not to surprising
   considering his "I love America because I can be 
   irresponsible" attitude.

Poor guess -- you're wrong.

  I spend $143/month for my basment "room" in the university 
  district.  plus, I spend about another $150/month on
  everything else, like food (brown rice, vegetables).
  I don't see any doctors, I don't have any cars ,assets or
  insurance.  My *very* few non-food needs are met by thrift
  shops.

Joel, Does "responsibility" mean:
     "I **MUST** work for you."?
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3200 soc.men:16475 soc.women:16645
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: vixie says goodbye
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:37:01 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

I wrote:
     "Paul loves being a parent.
     He never understood why forced parenthood,
     forced work, forced support and 
     FORCED VISITATION are bad."

Michelle replied:
   Excuse me for interrupting the oh-so-smooth flow of things here,
   but if I could just remind you that the only thing you don't have
   a choice about is death....Jeff, if you hate your life so much
   why don't you just jump off a bridge? Sounds like your life is
   a far cry from fun. I pity your poor soul, really I do...if you
   don't really wanna end your life, why don't you make an effort to
   just enjoy the life you were given and possibly make yourself
   a happy man by opting for the honesty route when you get in a 
   jam rather then screwing yourself over? Please, for your own
   sake, either stop whining and take positive action, or realize 
   the fact that you are alive and revel in that. Most people here are
   gonna give up on you and leave you in the dust if they don't start
   seeing a positive change in your attitude.

By this "reasoning" -- the next time you are raped you
should: "stop whining and take positive action".

Why are Male rights evil while Female rights are moral?
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Cowardly Fathers Who Abandon Their Children
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:19:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.213902.18527@wam.umd.edu> lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Donald Andrew Agarrat) writes:
>It turns my stomach to see how many fathers there are who stick the mother with  
>the child(ren) and go live another life.  It's disgusting.  And then they ask  
>for father's rights!  That's bullshit!  They had not only the right, but the  
>responsibility of taking care of their children!  They want everyone to know  
>it's their children so they can stick their chests out like the big studs they  
>supposedly are, but when it gets down to raising a child who will hopefully be  
>a productive member of society later in life, where is he?
>
>Probably somewhere doing the same thing to another woman ...


Sounds like a politician has entered our midst...

Don Beaver
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:08:01 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep4.220758.28074@u.washington.edu>, 
hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>   A man distragught over losing his
>   wife and kids to a divorce is charged
>   with 25 counts of hostage taking.
> 
>   He walked in the K-Mart, where he
>   was known, and asked for a shotgun.
>   He loaded the shotgun and created
>   a hostage situation with the police.

Someone this unstable shouldn't be trusted with kids...
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3161 soc.men:16368 soc.women:16537 misc.kids:23281 alt.dads-rights:2254
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: K-Mark Hostages
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:07:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep4.220758.28074
Organization: University of Washington


  A man distragught over losing his
  wife and kids to a divorce is charged
  with 25 counts of hostage taking.

  He walked in the K-Mart, where he
  was known, and asked for a shotgun.
  He loaded the shotgun and created
  a hostage situation with the police.
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: vixie says goodbye
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:28:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Sep15.223701.7957@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>By this "reasoning" -- the next time you are raped you
>should: "stop whining and take positive action".
>
>Why are Male rights evil while Female rights are moral?

I think you are missing the point. Rights of either sex are not the problem
under consideration. You are. Personally.

If you posted rational thoughts instead of slogans and rhetoric......
But, hey! You get to do what you want.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3096 soc.men:16123 soc.women:16312 misc.kids:22777
From: jeffh@allspts.ALLSPTS.COM (Jeff Holloway)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:45:37 GMT
Organization: All-Sports Supply, Inc. Portland, OR

In article <1992Sep2.224655.16781@u.washington.edu>, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
> I wrote:
> > > [The taxpayer only pay] if the larger population of
> > > taxpayers choose to pay the Child Support!

The reason the taxpayers pay the support is because of deadbeats like
you, who refuse to live up to their responsibilities.

>    It's my choice and I'll thank you and
>    your government to not financially rape me.

The financial rape occurs as a result of a large number of scumbags who
couldn't refrain from spreading their seed but refuse to take financial
responsibility for their actions.

>    You choose to belong to that large group of
>    society called: "taxpayers".  Your group has
>    decided to pay for unwanted kids -- no one
                                         ^^ ^^^
>    is forcing the American taxpayers -- the 
     ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>    taxpayers, as a large and powerful group,
>    have made there own decisions.

The American taxpayers are being forced.....either that or let the
children starve.  They had to make that decision because of all the
jerks like you. As a result, fathers like me who admit to and take
responsibility for their actions still get treated like dirt because the
prevalent opinion of fathers is that they are all deadbeats. The state
automatically attempts to get all it can support-wise, because it
expects all fathers to take off for parts north or south. And it's
numbnuts like you who caused this to happen. So quit your bitching and
start acting like an adult. You make me sick.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:19:56 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep10.212032.6704@kpc.com>, dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston) 
writes:
> But I would bet that all of us have entertained similar ideas! I just haven't
> gotten angry enough to snap like that---yet.

There is a difference between someone who entertains ideas about performing
criminal acts and someone who goes out and does it.  The former group may be
trusted with children.  Trusting the latter group isn't such a hot idea. 
Suppose something later in life made this guy snap?  Who's the immediate
target?  The kids.  All this guy did was confirm the court's good judgement IN
THIS INSTANCE by not letting him have custody of his kids.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3179 soc.men:16392 soc.women:16562 misc.kids:23355 alt.dads-rights:2266
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: K-Mart Hostages
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:31:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.181956.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.212032.6704@kpc.com>, dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston) 
>writes:
>> But I would bet that all of us have entertained similar ideas! I just haven't
>> gotten angry enough to snap like that---yet.
>
>There is a difference between someone who entertains ideas about performing
>criminal acts and someone who goes out and does it.  The former group may be
>trusted with children.  Trusting the latter group isn't such a hot idea. 

So far, eminently reasonable.

>Suppose something later in life made this guy snap?  Who's the immediate
>target?  The kids.  

I don't see where this answer came from.  Why the kids?  If my ex or my 
boss or the government or someone else did something to me that enraged me
or made me snap, the LAST people on Earth I would take it out on
would be my children.  Despite my testosterone-laced existence.

>All this guy did was confirm the court's good judgement IN
>THIS INSTANCE by not letting him have custody of his kids.

This is circular reasoning; the court seems to have made a 
self-fulfilling prophecy.  (But it is very *useful* reasoning
for politicians and policy-makers.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: vixie says goodbye
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 21:12:23 GMT

Paul Vixie wrote:
     "I find that the prospect of wading through 
     the same crock of shit from EuStress and Darcy 
     and the others from now 'til doomsday just does 
     not appeal to me. Goodbye, everyone.  I'm going 
     to unsubscribe now."

Paul loves being a parent.
He never understood why forced parenthood,
forced work, forced support and 
FORCED VISITATION are bad.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3160 soc.men:16364 soc.women:16534 misc.kids:23278 alt.dads-rights:2253
From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:56:12 GMT
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK

>> In article <1992Sep9.063605.3983@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu

>> >I also know more than a few who refuse to pay any support at all.
	[...etc, see original article]

>chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:

>> Tell me Sue, how much child support does she pay him?
>> If she pays none, does that make her a 'scumbag' as well?
>>   ...somehow I won't be suprised when you say 'No'.

In article <g24XqB2w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

>Toby, you aren't making sense. He doesn't have his kids, doesn't want
>his kids, so why on earth should she pay him anything?

Well, remember Sue said:
>> >woman) makes very good money, more than she does, has the children every 
>> >weekend and as often as possible during the summer.  He also refuses to

If child support is for the children, she should pay him during the summer.

Incidently if you follow soc.men you will hear about men with full
custody still having to pay their ex 'child support'.
Sue generalised from one man not paying child support to say:

>> >It's men like that who give the rest of the fathers a bad name in court.  

My point is simply that women have as bad or worse a record on not
paying, even if you restrict this to NCPs. So the anti-men attitude
Sue expressed is not justified by this - I would say the
reverse, this is just another (poor) excuse for men-bashing.

>Child support is for the kids, not the ex-spouse. At least, that's the
>theory. Granted that in practice it can work out differently, but that's
>not what this conversation is about.

I would have thought that what happens in practice is very relevant.
If, say, both the CPs and NCPs contributions were paid into an account,
and withdrawals from that account had to be matched with receipts for
expenditure on the children, then:
(i) NCPs would not be subsidising their ex.
(ii) CPs as well as NCPs would be made to pay, so they would
both have a motive for asigning realistic child support.

I believe NCPs would be much happier paying under these circumstances.

>BTW, that was Jeff@allspts who said 'scumbag,' not Sue.

And it was Sue who said (about Jeff's post):

>> >My sentiments exactly!

>Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
>Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 

Toby
-- 
Toby Kelsey
School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
From: Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger)
Subject: Re: vixie says goodbye
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:13:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.211223.13630@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>
>Paul loves being a parent.
>He never understood why forced parenthood,
>forced work, forced support and 
>FORCED VISITATION are bad.

Excuse me for interrupting the oh-so-smooth flow of things here,
but if I could just remind you that the only thing you don't have
a choice about is death....Jeff, if you hate your life so much
why don't you just jump off a bridge? Sounds like your life is
a far cry from fun. I pity your poor soul, really I do...if you
don't really wanna end your life, why don't you make an effort to
just enjoy the life you were given and possibly make yourself
a happy man by opting for the honesty route when you get in a 
jam rather then screwing yourself over? Please, for your own
sake, either stop whining and take positive action, or realize 
the fact that you are alive and revel in that. Most people here are
gonna give up on you and leave you in the dust if they don't start
seeing a positive change in your attitude.

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
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 21:18:11 GMT

"Ovarian Nurturer"?

No it's the UTERINE nurturer.

The courts recognize the uterus
over the sperm, egg and even 
"time" donors.
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Presidential Race
Date: 13 Sep 92 20:53:41 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

Bob Kirkpatrick writes
   "[Andre Marrou (Libertarian) says visitation-support]
   court involvements should be driven by one or the 
   other parent, and no standard should be applied."

I'd vote for him -- if he had a chance of winning.

Amongst the candidates that have a chance,
I'd pick Clinton because he's pro-choice.
He's anti-male-choice -- but he`s pro-female-choice
and that's better than Bush`s anti-any-sex-choice.

Both my ex and the county judge have their
hands tied by the state legislature that
mandates these "Child-support guidelines."
No wonder politicians are regularly shot.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3189 soc.men:16441 soc.women:16605 misc.kids:23451 alt.dads-rights:2273
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:53:24 GMT

Jeff Holloway wrote (Katie agreed):
    "The American taxpayers are being forced . . .
    either that or let the children starve."

The American taxpayer are the strongest single
force on earth -- nothing forces them to do anything.
The taxpayers support children IF AND ONLY IF
the taxpayers CHOSE TO.

This is in stark contrast to the forced 
finacial rape that those same taxpayers 
inflict on individuals whom they errantly 
claim to be "fathers" (remote wallets).
From: exuclh@exu.ericsson.se (Calvin L. Hall, x 6521, s034)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Cowardly Fathers Who Abandon Their Children
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:00:48 GMT
Reply-To: exuclh@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

What about moms who pull the same stunt as the dads that you are vocal against?