HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Please tell me/part 2
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 12:44:21 GMT

In article <22826@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lbrown@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Latonya Brown) writes:
>
>Hi it's me again.  I have another question to my story.  My daughters
>father told me that if I take him to court that he'll let them lock
>him up (because he has stated that he won't pay) and come after me when
>he gets out.  How and/or can I get a restraining order.  This man already
>has 2 Restraining orders, they are 3 years from his son and his son's
>Mother. (PG County area)  He tookxx the door to his son's grandmothers
>off, just ripped it off.
>
>As of yet I have not filed, I do have the paper work though.  I don't
>know if it's worth the frustration or the harrasment that may come along
>with it.
>
>
>
>TONYA BROWN


	Well I haven't seen any responses posted to this so I 
	guess I'll have to pick up the gauntlette  and help this
	poor woman out.  (I am, of course, presuming that no private
	mail had been sent)


	You need to get a lawyer!



	There.  How's that?


	Hey!  I'm getting good at this!


-- 
	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,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
From: M18611@MBVM.Mitre.Org (Kathy Wilk)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA 01730
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:44:06 GMT

In article <13448@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:
>When I read Anne's intentionally distorting post, I thought about
>my friend whose father raped her repeatedly throughout her childhood.
>     ...
>(p.s. My friend *tried* to get help from child protective services, but
>they didn't believe her. Times have changed, though. Fortunately years
>of therapy, at great expense and suffering, have made it possible for
>her to lead a happy life.)
 
  This reminds me of a friend when I was a child and a teen-ager.
My friend's teen years were VERY hard for her.  Her cousin, who was well
into his twenties and married, seduced her.  She tried to commit suicide
but didn't get far enough into the attempt to be admitted to the hospital.
Her cousin (the married seducer) was approached by a close family friend
who was gay and 'came on' to him.
  When all of these things came out, after my friend was grown, and after
her cousin was divorced, the overwhelming reaction from family and family
friends was, 'Why bring this sort of thing up?', accompanied by a sneering
attitude.  It was very hurtful, even to me, and I only witnessed the reactions
and wasn't directly involved.  I have known the people since I was a child,
myself.  They would fall into the category of community leaders, by the way.
What to say or do?  How to handle the rage?
  I have written before about what helpless victims children are when it
comes to sexual abuse.  This sort of abuse has not happened to me.  My
friend was a teen when this happened (I never knew how much the cousin
forced himself on her, if he did, only that he was much older).  My friend
asked me to run away from home with her and I said no.  I was having a really
good (socially) year in high school and all I knew about was the suicide
attempt, not the seduction.  I wonder today how I could have helped her.
 
 
                        K. Wilk
                        M18611@MBVM.MITRE.ORG
 
            <--********************************-->
 'Thrusting my nose firmly between his teeth, I threw him to the ground
  on top of me.' - Mark Twain
            <--********************************-->
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: RE: HILLARY CLINTON - FAM
Date: 24 Jul 92 07:05:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

Tim:
If you think the government is involved now, then read the Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 which has the Federal
government giving a *bounty* to the states for each child taken of
$25,000 ++ per year. Its aka PL 92-272.
   As Voltaire said: It's dangerous to be right when the government is
wrong.
    Richard Donovan.
                                          
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
From: rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 21:21:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Jul30.120933.12421@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:
>> Jon>  Helen, come to my house. I want you to meet a young teenager (15
>> Jon> years).  who has serious emotional problems. Maybe you'll see that
>> Jon> the world isn't so fucking black and white. Maybe there are things
>> Jon> that happen in this world that have no explanation. Just maybe the
>> Jon> world you fairness seekers wish for WILL NEVER EXIST. I fear
>> Jon> clinton and his values because he lives in a fantasy world.
>>

>
>Helen, I'm THE COURT. You claim that you lived on your own for
>a while and took care of your sister at 14. BFD! I know a women who
>lived on her own in NYC as a hooker (if you call sharing an apartment
>and pimp living on your own) and she was 15 at the time! 
>questions for the overly concerned crowd (WE CARE!!!!)
>
>
> This is my problem with do-gooders like yourself who think if you 
>allow access to courts, throw dollars at people, pass laws to make
>people responsible, pass laws to make people behave .............
>that this will solve a particular problem. It doesn't work, it doesn't
>help and in fact it usually messes up thousands and thousands
>of innocent peoples lives everywhere. 
> Your intentions are good, your ideas stink. Hillary Clinton-Smith-
>Jones-McGillacutty stinks with her 'do-gooder' well intentioned ideas.
>Child Defense Fund, up her lilly white butt.
>
It seems no wonder to me ,Jon, that you have a dysfunctional 15 year
old. Your hostility is not productiove at getting your views or your
ideas heard in this forum.

Get a grip.

rf
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2161 alt.dads-rights:1505
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:29:02 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <13448@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:
> 
> |> In article <14g94kINN6am@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
> |>  > As the author of the article says, "In other words: 'Don't worry,
> |>  > we'll still leave mundane decisions to the discretion of parents, it's
> |>  > just the important ones they can't be trusted with.'"
> |>  > 
> |>  > Give me a break!...is there a person among us who would have and
> |>  > could have made informed and reasoned decisions with such far reaching
> |>  > and permanent ramifications, when they were *12* years old?  Or even
> |>  > 13, or 14!
> 
> When I read Anne's intentionally distorting post, I thought about 
> my friend whose father raped her repeatedly throughout her childhood. 
> Sure, it's always better to keep the parents in charge. They know what's 
> best for their child! You can't trust a 12-year old to make a decision 
> for herself.

Intentionally distorting?  How do you know this?  Telepathy?  A piece of
email the rest of us weren't privy to?  You're not helping your credibility
with personal attacks.

> I'm not campaigning for the Clintons, but a post like Anne's makes me 
> think that I should be. How many out there consider misc.kids an appropriate forum for misleading statements attacking a political candidate? I don't!

More of the same.

> Paula Burch
> pburch@bcm.tmc.edu
> 
> (p.s. My friend *tried* to get help from child protective services, but 
> they didn't believe her. Times have changed, though. Fortunately years 
> of therapy, at great expense and suffering, have made it possible for 
> her to lead a happy life.)

-- 

Dan S.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2274 alt.dads-rights:1625 alt.parents-teens:1102 misc.kids:19913
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:13:54 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>

>>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
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: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:24:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.204130.29339@u.washington.edu> jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:

>     Good for you!  But you missed one *SMALL* point.
>     How would you feel if "2/3 of your earnings"
>     went to "some child" who you honestly didn't
>     feel was "yours" (regardless of its DNA)?

I guess I don't understand your question. Do you mean that even though DNA
testing was done, you still feel the child is not yours? Or do you mean
that in the emotional sense that you don't feel attached to the child in
any way and he/she is not a part of your life at all? (because of distance
or a new husband in your ex's life taking on the role of dad) This
question would be difficult for me to give an opinion on. I guess to me,
it all depends on the income of your wife, as well as the expenses for day
care so that she can work. In other words, if she has a new husband who is
providing for her and they've been married for a while, the biological
father, if he so chooses to give up his rights over the child, should have
that option if he is really comfortable doing so (in his own mind).  Or if
he still wants to remain in contact with the child, he should still be
required to pay (a lesser amount) for the right to visitation. That may
sound crude to you, but the woman is going to be the one who has to handle
the greater part of the questions the child will have and the possible
side effects of bringing a child up without its natural father there. I
HOPE this doesn't upset you, but I think you are aware of the problems
adolesence can cause with the child wanting to live with the other parent,
etc. I would think it would lead to hurt feelings for the person (man or
woman) who has raised the child from birth.

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
From: lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:21:06 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <14g94kINN6am@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
 > As the author of the article says, "In other words: 'Don't worry,
 > we'll still leave mundane decisions to the discretion of parents, it's
 > just the important ones they can't be trusted with.'"
 > 
 > Give me a break!...is there a person among us who would have and
 > could have made informed and reasoned decisions with such far reaching
 > and permanent ramifications, when they were *12* years old?  Or even
 > 13, or 14!

I don't think the point of Ms. Clinton's words was that 12-year-olds
should start making their own major life decisions.  (I didn't read
the article... just the paragraph quoted in the original post.)
Certainly, parents should, in almost all cases, be the ones making
these decisions for children at that age, though I'd expect the
children *would* be capable of participating to some degree in the
process.  But there are parents who make exceptionally bad life
decisions for their teen-age (and earlier) children.  They either are
not themselves equipped to make proper decisions, or they just don't
give a damn.  And at that age, children of these parents can begin to
understand that the decisions are bad, and that they're going to
suffer as a result.  We're talking here about an *exceptional* vehicle
for intervening in such situations.  As in every other aspect of life
in which courts intervene, this should be used when what works in the
vast majority of cases breaks down.  And then it's not the 12yo child
who's making the decision; it's the court.

It seems to me that parents have been taken to court over major life
decisions affecting their children for years.  In the past it's been
social service agencies and the like who have filed the suits.  The
difference here seems to amount to recognizing that early teenagers
are often capable of doing some amount of assessment of their
situations and can recognize situations that require intervention but
that do not get the attention of the agencies.  I would not expect
them to always be correct in their assessments, but the question is
whether they'd be on the mark (or near it) sufficiently often for it
to make sense to empower them in this way.  I haven't thought about
the issue a whole lot, but it sure doesn't sound nearly as ludicrous
as the above would suggest!

-Andy

P.S. Be wary of arguments that start with "Give me a break!" or some
such contentless rallying cry.  They typically proceed to pick out one
tiny piece of the issue and then distort it until any reasonable
person will agree it's ridiculous.  Then by association, the original
proposal is seen as ridiculous.  Never mind that the connection is
tenuous at best!
--
Andy Lowry, lowry@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7925
IBM Research, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2149 alt.dads-rights:1497
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: class action suit
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:06:36 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory



	The following is some e-mail I just received.  Seems as though
	there *are* qualified and knowledgable peopl around who are
	willing to give substantive answers when they know the subject.



>It seems that you are scanning only alt.child-support or alt.dads-right
>while you are looking for an answer to your question.  It is almost a
>week since Hilary Miller, who is a lawyer, posted the answer to misc.legal.
>
>In article <1992Jul16.1297.14251@execnet> "hilary miller" 
><hilary.miller@execnet.com> writes:
>
>>Allen R Sparks, in a message to All on 07-15-92 at 11:24pm, said:
>
>>AR>|The legal system doesn't recognize suits where the defendant is a
>>   |class.  The plaintiff can be a class (called a class action suit) but
>>   |not the defendant.
>>   |_____________________________________________________________________
>
>>          Dead wrong.  I don't know where you got this idea, but if you
>>          look at Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P., and the cases decided thereun-
>>          der, you will find explicit authority for class actions where
>>          the defendants are a class.  Such actions are common where
>>          plaintiffs wish to quiet their rights or to have their rights
>>          declared as against a large group of potential claimants (who
>>          are named as defendants).
>
>
>   L A
> I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
>  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
   s r
>Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
>International ILink Host
>
>That is Hilary Miller's answer.  I hope it helps.
>
>When you post an article to several newsgroups, you should consider
>the possibility that not all your readers will be able to post a reply
>to all of your newsgroups.  This is especially true if some of them
>are in the alt.* hierarchy, such as alt.child-support and alt.dads-rights.
>Therefore, you would do best, when you are looking for an answer, to scan 
>all the newsgroups to which you originally posted.
>

-- 
	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,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:32:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.161130.10651@linus.mitre.org>, woycke@smiley.mitre.org (Daniel Woycke) writes:
> Umm, I hate to say it but there is a whole culture of people out there
> (crack mothers, etc.) who don't give all that much thought to their
> children. In an ideal world parents have the best interests of their
> children in mind. If a person has some other problem in life and their
> needs are not being met, how do they put their children first. Healthy
> people raise healthy kids, otherwise you pass on your problems to
> them. If all parents had the best interest of their kids in mind we
> wouldn't have any truancy or juvinile deliquents.
> 

I'd really have to disagree with this.  Some kids just 'turn bad' in
adolescence even if they have good homes, while other kids grow up
in hellholes yet still turn out OK.

Margaret Mead remarked that in the U.S.A. kids are more likely to get
their values from the mass media than from their parents.  In any case,
once kids arrive at adolescence they start making many important decisions
for themselves.  Sometimes these decisions are wrong, and have terrible 
consequences for themselves and their families.

It's just not always the parents' fault when a kid goes bad.

Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2171 alt.dads-rights:1515 alt.parents-teens:1055 misc.kids:19401
From: albert@endor.uucp (David Albert)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:11:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Jul22.031123.21577
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennifer Brown) writes:
>So (back to a common subject), why can't the parents divorce their
>children??  Oh, I guess they're not allowed to have a say in their
>own life.

First of all, the parent has made a choice to have the child, and so
must accept some responsibility for it.  However, it is not true that
the parent cannot divorce the child, so to speak.  In many states, a
parent is free to declare an older child 'incorrigible' and turn it
over to the state.  In all states, a parent can put a younger child up
for adoption.  There are plenty of ways for parents to divorce their
children, even when they chose the relationship, and few or sometimes no
ways for children to do the same, even though the relationship was
thrust upon them through no choice of their own.
----------------------------------------------__------------------------------
David Albert				  |  /  )                  /
UUCP: ...!harvard!albert		  | /  /  __.  , ___o   __/
INTERNET: albert@harvard.edu		  |/__/__(_/|__\/  <___(_/_
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:20:49 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Jul21.140035.26584@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>In article <2101@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.192246.14634@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>>|> 	I never claimed to have anything to offer.  *You* have.
>>|> 	But you offer nothing!
>>I think one of the dangers here is that one could misread Alan's posting
>>as an attack upon an individual (Anne) when it seems, from watching his
>>posts for a while that these types of attacks are aimed at everyone that 
>>doesn't have an immediate and effective solution to his personal problem.
>
>	I have heard/seen this one before.  Might I duelly state/ask
>	that I have not expressed any "personal problems" here,
>	and when have I asked for anything?

The personal problem I was refering to was your custody and child-support
situation which you have mentioned here on the net.

You ask constantly for those you feel should help you to give you advice
and explain things to you and give critique to your thoughts.

>	Give me a break people.  You're all always running stuff up the
>	plagpole.  Yet when *I* push a particular subject, and none
>	of you respond, I get pissed.  So *I* say so.  Then somehow
>	*I* am wrong.  It's not me.  It's *you*.  *You* never answered
>	my point.  And for people who like to bullshit your way
>	through your day, I'd at least think I'd get *some* kind
>	of educated answer to a reasonable idea, rather than to get
>	put on the chopping block for taking people to task who *claim*
>	to care.

You are not attacked because of the root article. It was a question that 
actually got an answer in another news group.  It is your reaction to a 
percieved slighting of you. Tens of thousands read USENET. And each of us 
has the right to ignore any post we wish to. Singling out one or two 
people to rag on because you feel ignored is behavior suited to junior
high school.

The people of the net owe you nothing, so your anger at the quiet is, I feel,
very misplaced. And anyway, do you really think berating people and insulting
them in a network bulletin board is going to get them to give you what 
you want?

The answer to a person who is irresponsible is not to remove all their
responsibilities. The answer is to help them to grow into their
responsibilities.

As for your root posting, I feel that class actions are one of the most heinous
constructs that the legal profession has created. I feel actions against a 
class, however humorous, are worse.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women