HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 19:22:17 GMT

In article <uuceoB3w165w@jimmc.chi.il.us> jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas) writes:
>:=} In article <1682AF34C.M20614@mwvm.mitre.org> M20614@mwvm.mitre.org (Hugh Prit
>:=} >In article <1992Jul20.192246.14634@ll.mit.edu>
>:=} >yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) whines:
>:=} > 
>:=} >Your bets and opinions are worthless.  I'm quoting you just so I can
>:=} >correct your spelling and usage.
>:=} > 
>:=} 
>:=} 	Well then you're wasting your time.  I think faster than I
>:=} 	type, and I type so fast and so much, it's not worth
>:=} 	reviewing.  If that's the only thing you've got to do with
>:=} 	you're time, then join Annie, or the guy with the fire radio.
>                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^
>I hope you don't mean me!!! Say it ain't so!!
>
>____________________________________________________________________________
>|jim@jimmc.chi.il.us   |   ...And I believe in long, slow, deep, soft wet  |
>|Prime Time Productions| kisses that last three days...good night...OH MY! |
>|Aurora, IL. 60504     |        -crash davis to annie savoy in BULL DURHAM-|
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


	Not unless you hang around the street corner or at the
	fire station all the time.

-- 
	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: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:07:00

> 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" ?

--
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
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:28:30 EDT
From: Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
 <1992Jul21.005456.25810@leland.Stanford.EDU>
 <1992Jul21.150732.28024@ll.mit.edu> <34dm8#g.ekman@netcom.com>

How'd my subject line get to be a flame argument!!
-Jennifer
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2232 alt.dads-rights:1580 alt.parents-teens:1093 misc.kids:19687
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   )
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 26 Jul 92 08:16:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:

> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes:
> >> >If you're going to post to every possible group you can think of, then
> >> >you defeat the whole purpose of individual newsgroups.
> 
> If I am remembering the situation correctly, Ms. Brown's message that
> started this sub-thread about "netiquette" was a *RESPONSE* to another
> posting that had gone to several newsgroups.  The phrase "all groups"
> in her message meant "all the groups of this thread," not "all 87 zillion
> Usenet groups"!!
> 
> Am I misremembering?  Or are all the people "reminding" her about
> netiquette totally misunderstanding what they're talking about?

I don't misunderstand that groups were created to handle topic-specific
information, and that to cross post to a number of groups which may or
may not have an interest in the post defeats the idea. Jennifer was
asking people to ADD to the newsgroup line.

> I think we have enough real issues to get angry at each other about,
> without people getting angry about this non-issue.

Let me repeat:
> >You weren't yelled at, you were given a short reminder regarding the
> >purpose of newsgroup segregation.

She says yelling, you say getting angry. I was neither.

To your comment; I think we have many topics to discuss, and that it
would be a good idea to discuss them in the most appropriate group.
The proper group for anger is alt.flame.


---
Bob Kirkpatrick  --  Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
root@dogear.spk.wa.us           bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:09:12 EDT
From: Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Reply to Alan Yasutovich
 <1992Jul21.150732.28024@ll.mit.edu>
 <1992Jul21.215418.24804@leland.Stanford.EDU>
 <1992Jul22.142630.16309@ll.mit.edu> <1682CADE8.M20614@mwvm.mitre.org>

In article <1682CADE8.M20614@mwvm.mitre.org>, M20614@mwvm.mitre.org (Hugh
Pritchard) says:
>
>Perhaps Bob Kirkpatrick was right; alt.child-support needs to be a bit more
>business-like.  We need fewer cranky people.
>I, for one, am a spouse of a CP.  Child support is very much a daily topic
>of conversation.  I've found some posts on alt.child-support very valuable.

Yeah, we've had some discussions on these topics, too.  But it's more than
a "very much daily", it's "EVERY-SECOND".  And none of them have been
"happy"---Suicidal is more like it.
-Jennifer
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2154 alt.dads-rights:1500 alt.parents-teens:1049 misc.kids:19374 soc.men:13487 soc.women:13858
From: salvaggi@sunshine.Kodak.COM (Nanette Salvaggio)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:58:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: kodak.1992Jul21.185818.6829
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY

In article <HROSE.92Jul21125553@rocza.eff.org>, hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose) writes:
|> Anne> == Anne P. Mitchell JD <shedevil@vix.com> 
|> 
|>  Anne> Give me a break!...is there a person among us who would have and
|>  Anne> could have made informed and reasoned decisions with such far
|>  Anne> reaching and permanent ramifications, when they were *12* years
|>  Anne> old?  Or even 13, or 14!
|> 
|> Yes, there are people like that, and that is what the Court is supposed
|> to decide. Whether or not the person in question is one of those people.
|> 
|> It doesn't say "All 12 year olds ....". There *is* a basic level of
|> competency that the court must decide whether or not it exists in the
|> person.
|> 
|> --Helen
|> 
|> --
|> Helen Trillian Rose             	email eff@eff.org for EFF info
|> Electronic Frontier Foundation   	irc operators: operlist@eff.org
|> Systems and Networks Administration	Flames to: 
|> <hrose@eff.org, hrose@cs.bu.edu>	women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org


I am not a Hillary Clinton fan, but by 8 years old I was getting myself
and my brother up for school, getting breakfast, packing lunches, the 
whole deal.  Cooking dinner when we got home. And deciding if he
or I was too sick to attend school and staying home with my brother
if he was the one sick.  By 12 I could have lived by myself it I
had to. By 12 I did all my own cloths shopping cleaned the house,
did the laundry,  basically ran the house.

My mother dies when I was 2, so this was just how things were for
us.  My point that there are 12 year olds very capable of making their
own decisions.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:53:08 CDT

In article <=7pmsta.rfelix@netcom.com> rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix) writes:
>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

The dysfunctional 15 year old is the son of my lovely  domestic 
associate. My heart goes out to him as he attempts the struggle to
go from teen to adult. He lost his father to suicide just a year
ago. His dysfunctionalness according to his mother has ALWAYS been
there, it has only become increasingly self-destructive. I have
lived with him and his mother for about 2.5 years. My personal 
distaste for the family court system has nothing to do with nor
is ever discussed within the confines of our home.

Get a grip? Sure, I grip the fact that Slick willy and Hillary
haven't balled in three years. If they had, Hillary wouldn't be 
such a screaming feminist man hating women that feels men are
responsible for her failures as well as her success. No wonder
Slick liked the idea of nippin' a Flower once in awhile.
Can anybody blame him. 

Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.legal
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 13:36:52 GMT

In article <2133@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>Another way of looking at it is that you get what you pay for.

	If it were only true.


-- 
	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: dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: none
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:34:42 GMT

albert@endor.uucp (David Albert) writes:

>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.

(Hi, David!)

One thing you left out -- I've read that there's a growing (and disturbing)
trend of parents declaring teenage children to be mentally ill, when in
fact the teens were only somewhat less manageable than a normal teen.
(Yes, that can still be hell -- but that IS the risk that a parent takes
when the child is born.)  The kids are then made de facto wards of the
state, by being locked up in hospitals.

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.

Dan Breslau
dan@codex.com
Disc claimer:  "Hey!  That's my floppy!"
From: garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin)
Subject: Re: This has nothing to do with... Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Organization: Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 23:28:41 GMT

In article <24799@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>Gary Brainin writes:
>#>who demands that we care what he says.  Second, I know that when I
>#>make mistakes, I like to be told.  It keeps me from repeating them.
>
>Ok, well, how about this:
>
>#>about a sloppiness that shows complete uncaring, coming from a person
>
>Logic error -- petitio principii


   I'm sorry, I don't speak Italian.  Or latin.  Or whatever.  What on
earth are you talking about?

			-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)|
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Class action suit
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:37:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Jul22.170203.10241@talon.ucs.orst.edu> kaufmanj@ucs.orst.edu (John Kaufman) writes:
>I guess maybe I don't quite understand what the debate is all about over the
>idea whether a class action suit could be invoked. I was under the assumption
>that the suit would be brought against the Federal government, not custodial
>parents. Isn't there enough evidence in the federal statutes to show that many
>of the new legislative mandates are unconstitutional and discriminatory?
>
>Wasn't there a recent Supreme Court ruling AGAINST laws created by the 
>government that supercede individual's rights, even if those laws were 
>supposed to 'protect' us from ourselves? Forgive my atrocious memory, wasn't
>that a judgment recently made in Pennsylvania? Seems to me there is enough
>here to at least begin a dialogue on how to get started and organized, and how
>to come up with the resources to pull it off. Even if it didn't succeed, the
>publicity would at least open some eyes.
>
>It also seems apparent that if the energy used in this newsgroup to stomp all
>over each other was channelled into a more productive vein, we MIGHT get 
>something accomplished. I for one would certainly like to see some changes
>
>made to the system, and that's going to take more than complaining.
>
>jk
>
>
	That's what *I* though and that was *my* hope.

	Trouble is, these people lose sight of an issue and
	get consumed by flames.

	I'll re-post my earlier post about class action.
-- 
	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: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: NCP Mortgages/Step Parent issues
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:29:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.114620.215@doc.bmd.trw.com> mmord@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>I am a NCP of my two daughters (8 & 5) that I love very much.  
>I suppose my divorce decree is fairly mainstream and uncontroversial
>compared to many that I read about hear. 
>
>I hope to generate some discussion about a few items:
>
>1. Mortgages - When I apply for a mortgage as a NCP I get to put
>down my child support payment as a debt.  Yet, as a married husband
>I wouldn't have included any analogous type of cost.  Even though I
>would have told the bank the number of my dependants, all the same
>qualification ratios would have applied in the same manner as they
>do to me as a NCP. Its as though the bank overlooks the cost of 
>raising children if you are married. Any thoughts as to why this is?
>

	When I got my mortgage I didn't put down my support.  I
	don't think they can generally find out anyway.  But I
	didn't want any snags (as anyone wouldn't) even though
	we were "qualified" for twice what we got.  The reason
	for that was we knew that my wife would eventually stop
	working to have kids.  I don't need anyone making evaluations
	of my long term plans if not necessary.

>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? Are there any particularly
>good books about this? Any good success/horror stories out there?
>My SO has never been married and I think she gets uncomfortable
>when I have my daughters...sorta becomes different somehow...more
>irritable, etc. Any thoughts on this?
>

	No doubt!  Some of it depends on if *she* plans to have a
	family with you.  Also the amount of your time taken from
	her, by them.  I think *we all* are uncomfortable when
	my son is up.  But he is not a "resident", and we take
	pains not to have him over 3 nights in a row.  Company
	is like fish;  after 2 days it begins to stink.

	But my wife, being very pliant, peacefully co-exists with
	the situation.  It's a simple friendship type of thing.

>3. If my ex decides to move significantly far away does that at all
>improve my chances of winning custody if I attempted it? BTW, in Utah
>would I have to prove my ex "unfit" or would I be attempting to prove
>me "more fit" or what?
>

	I'll leave this one for the experts.

-- 
	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:2172 alt.dads-rights:1516 misc.legal:14643
From: rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:14:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

No.

It's "Jacoby and Meyers".

   Robert
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: class action
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:40:13 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory



	Here is what I posted.  FROM AN ATTORNEY!  Problem will
	be that even if I make good sense, this topic will
	still fall on it's face because it's "unpopular" now.
	Regardless of it's merrit.  People would rather put
	out fires than hit the core of the problem.



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.


Regards,

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY


-- 
	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:2144 alt.dads-rights:1494 misc.legal:14609
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:25:13 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?
 <1992Jul30.204130.29339@u.washington.edu>
 <1992Jul30.232444.22402@samba.oit.unc.edu>

>>     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?

I take it you're from misc.kids, cuz in alt.child-support, we all know
what he's talking about...  No to this question.  He knows the kids are
his own "flesh & blood".

>                                                         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?

Ah, emotional sense: that's the answer.  Along with what you just said,
add "don't want the child(ren) to be a part of his life".

>                                                      (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

   *****M*****O*****N*****E*****Y*****  That's what it's all about.
   You put you left foot in...  Oops, wrong place for this...

>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.

Now you say that he should pay for visitation, when in fact, he'd be paying
for the costs of the child to visit him at his home.  Yet, he'd have to pay
the mother for time spent with him?  I understand, yet I don't.  Mostly don't.

Yet, how about the senario where there isn't another "man" in the child's
life.  Why would you let the "father" free if there's another man there, yet
not let him free otherwise?  It seems to me that people are putting too much
in "the best interests of the child" and not in "the best interest of the
individual" (in this case, the father or NCP).

-Jennifer

PS  Michelle, do you know where I'm coming from, when I post?
    Where my mind is set?  You say that I can't speak for you, as
    a mother.  Yet you can ...flame... (I considered it a flame)
    me for saying "Yes, there are people who put their own needs first."

PPS.  Thanks to the people who supported me.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2159 alt.dads-rights:1504 misc.legal:14621