HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: "As a taxpayer [Bob B. says] screw [Deadbeats]"
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:13:05 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <Pq4uqB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>
>hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>
>> I wrote:
>>   "May you be forced to support someone else --
>>   and may you have no legal recourse to get out of it."
>> 
>> Bob Blackshaw replied:
>>   "I did, and I wasn't forced either."
>> 
>> Wonderful things (like sex) aren't wonderful
>> any more if their forced (like rape).
>> 
>> If you weren't forced -- then you don't have a
>> clue about male slavery and financial gang rape
>> -- I do.
j
>Jeff, get a life.
>
>There are a lot of us who pay support --yes, it's forced and we don't
>like it. Some of us don't mind paying support, but object to the
>amount of it we have to pay when it isn't necessary. Many of us here
>have our own horror stories.
>
>But who the hell are YOU to pontificate? I remind you that you were
>just a hair short of having the order you wanted --no rights, and no
>responsibility. No payments. No runing. Keeping your whole income.
>The whole damn enchilada. You were a hair away from getting EXACTLY
>what you wanted and you turned it down because you preferred to be a
>belligerent.
>
>If anybody screwed EuStress, EuStress did. 
>
>I'm tired of seeing you build yourself as a martyr. You aren't one.
>You're someone who apparently engages in masochism. I wish I knew why.
>I don't dislike you Jeff, but what you're trying to build here is pure
>vaporware. 
>


	You are right.  I think that the idea of "ass kissing" disturbs
	him.  Trouble is, you have to know when the ass kissing is
	going to do you more *REAL* good, both immediate and total, than
	not.  Not accepting this is cutting off your nose to spite
	your face.

	I mean heck.  I'm the biggest ass kisser going.  I play the
	game to simply keep the peace and (tick tock) watch the
	clock run out.

-- 
	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......
From: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: "As a taxpayer [Bob B. says] screw [Deadbeats]"
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:10:03 GMT
Reply-To: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas)
Organization: Prime Time Productions Aurora, Illinois

bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

> 
> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
> 
> > I wrote:
> >   "May you be forced to support someone else --
> >   and may you have no legal recourse to get out of it."
> > 
> > Bob Blackshaw replied:
> >   "I did, and I wasn't forced either."
> > 
> > Wonderful things (like sex) aren't wonderful
> > any more if their forced (like rape).
> > 
> > If you weren't forced -- then you don't have a
> > clue about male slavery and financial gang rape
> > -- I do.
> 
> Jeff, get a life.
> 
> There are a lot of us who pay support --yes, it's forced and we don't
> like it. Some of us don't mind paying support, but object to the
> amount of it we have to pay when it isn't necessary. Many of us here

[much good reasoning deleted]

> I'm tired of seeing you build yourself as a martyr. You aren't one.
> You're someone who apparently engages in masochism. I wish I knew why.
> I don't dislike you Jeff, but what you're trying to build here is pure
> vaporware. 
> Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
> Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 

I had the impression that Mr. EuStress was putting up some kind of a 
smoke screen for something but couldn't for the life of me figure out 
what it was. Now I think we all have a concept of exactly what it was.
If you really want to be a martyr, work for the election of clinton and 
we'll all spend time in federal prison, after missing one support 
payment. If you didn't hear his most recent speech, it has gotten to the 
point here where I really am afraid for the NCP's rights in this country 
under the Clinton presidency. I couldn't believe the words that were 
coming out of his mouth. I have contacted some of my media friends and 
they have told me they'll help me get the word out, I'm on the radio, 
here in Chicago. We all need to pull together and ORGANIZE! NCP support 
groups should be formed I've even thought of a cool name Parents Without 
Kids. PWK is O.K. but what about Parents Unable to Keep Exemtions (PUKE) 
it's a great acronym, Imagine the PUKE march on washington!!! :->
Seriously though, I have found an apartment for about 430 dollars a month 
with two bedrooms which means I can now get my KIDS for overnights. Those 
of you who have unreasonable ex's know what I mean. 

-- 

____________________________________________________________________________
|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-|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: "As a taxpayer [Bob B. says] screw [Deadbeats]"
Date: 13 Sep 92 00:35:18 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas) writes:

> If you really want to be a martyr, work for the election of clinton and 
> we'll all spend time in federal prison, after missing one support 
> payment. If you didn't hear his most recent speech, it has gotten to the 
> point here where I really am afraid for the NCP's rights in this country 
> under the Clinton presidency. I couldn't believe the words that were 
> coming out of his mouth. I have contacted some of my media friends and 
> they have told me they'll help me get the word out, I'm on the radio, 
> here in Chicago. We all need to pull together and ORGANIZE! NCP support 
> groups should be formed I've even thought of a cool name Parents Without 
> Kids. PWK is O.K. but what about Parents Unable to Keep Exemtions (PUKE) 
> it's a great acronym, Imagine the PUKE march on washington!!! :->
> Seriously though, I have found an apartment for about 430 dollars a month 
> with two bedrooms which means I can now get my KIDS for overnights. Those 
> of you who have unreasonable ex's know what I mean. 

Slick Willie toes the lines that Hillary drew. 
Gore toes lines that Tipper drew.

It is kind of bizarre that both of the Democratic candidates have wives
who have agendas. I note that both of the agendas I disagree with, and so
am worried about the likly election of these two.

This is hardly a political forum, but lord knows we've surely deviated 
from the concept of child-support law here, so you'll have to forgive my
transgression here. 

I always looked at Libertarian candidates as fringe types. However, I
find myself in enough agreement with some of their main thrusts these days
to consider trying to get one elected. Andre Marrou has a stance on child
support which is interesting. He believes that kids should be supported,
but he doesn't believe that the federal government has any business being
involved in it. He also considers it a civil matter, where any court
involvements should be driven by one or the other parent, and no standard
should be applied. Considering that I resent the hell out of the general
classification being given to men in the politically correct view, it's
kind of refreshing to hear a politician saying this sort of thing. Family
Values, says Marrou, is for families to control --that's why it's called
Family Values and not Government Values.

Anyway, it seems to me that this guy is worth looking at. Now, back to
regularly scheduled programming... :-)


--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Male Rights
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:19:03 GMT

I wrote:
     "Why are Male rights evil while Female rights are moral?"

Duane Hentrich replied:
     "I think you are missing the point. 
     Rights of either sex are not the problem
     under consideration. You are. Personally."

You are sadly (willfully?) misinformed.
Women rarly go to jail -- even
if they kill a man.  But if you
turn the tables and "imply" that
a man was "beating" a women -- then
off to jail he goes.

    "If you posted rational thoughts instead of 
     slogans and rhetoric......"

Right.  I'm a moron.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: bitbug@netcom.com (James Buster)
Subject: Re: Cowardly Fathers Who Abandon Their Children
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 04:04:39 GMT
Organization: Lynx Real-Time Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep15.235641.11459@wam.umd.edu> lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Donald Andrew Agarrat) writes:
>Fathers in general DO "stick" the mother with the children.  And the judicial  
>system is not as "rubber stamp" as you think it is.
>Whoever is deemed more fit to raise that child gets the child.

That's true, as far as it goes. However, the reasoning process by which
the courts determine fitness is usually a rubber stamp.

>No, most fathers take the opinion, "well, if I don't have custody, I don't
>have the responsibility."  Which is bullshit.  It still your fucking child,
>whether you have the "relationship" you want or not.

Speaking of bullshit --- Why should any NCP pay for the support of a child
when the CP is making it impossible to have a relationship with that child?
This may seem cold to you, but I say punish any CP who refuses to allow the
NCP a relationship with the children by witholding support, *even if it
could be objectively shown that the children will suffer for it*. Any
reasonable CP will see that the children are suffering, and take appropriate
action. If the CP still won't cooperate, award custody to the NCP, because
the CP has shown an inability to modify their behavior in order to alleviate
the children's suffering.
-- 
				James Buster
			     bitbug@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 12:51:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.230801.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>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:


	What an orthogonal remark!

-- 
	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......
From: joel@ssd.intel.com (Joel Clark)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division, Intel Corp.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:14:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.063605.3983@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <123@allspts.ALLSPTS.COM>, jeffh@allspts.ALLSPTS.COM (Jeff Holloway) writes:
>> 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!
>> 
>>>    It's my choice and I'll thank you and
>>>    your government to not financially rape me.

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

Mr EuStress gave us an indication of that earlier in response to the question
"How to keep the US Government out of his life"

He said the secret is in the Social Security Number, they can't find you if
they don't have your Social Security Number.

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.

joel clark


Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:08:21 GMT

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

Daniel H. replied:
   "Someone this unstable shouldn't be trusted with kids."

Think about it. HE LOST HIS KIDS.
HE LOST HIS RIGHT TO NOT WORK.
ALL "HIS" FUTURE MONEY GOES TO HIS EX.

The news just dismisses him as mad.
The news does not explain that society
caused his problems.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3147 soc.men:16334 soc.women:16494 misc.kids:23198 alt.dads-rights:2249
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: "As a taxpayer [Bob B. says] screw [Deadbeats]"
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:38:24 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Followups-To: alt.flame


hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:

> I wrote:
>   "May you be forced to support someone else --
>   and may you have no legal recourse to get out of it."
> 
> Bob Blackshaw replied:
>   "I did, and I wasn't forced either."
> 
> Wonderful things (like sex) aren't wonderful
> any more if their forced (like rape).
> 
> If you weren't forced -- then you don't have a
> clue about male slavery and financial gang rape
> -- I do.

Jeff, get a life.

There are a lot of us who pay support --yes, it's forced and we don't
like it. Some of us don't mind paying support, but object to the
amount of it we have to pay when it isn't necessary. Many of us here
have our own horror stories.

But who the hell are YOU to pontificate? I remind you that you were
just a hair short of having the order you wanted --no rights, and no
responsibility. No payments. No runing. Keeping your whole income.
The whole damn enchilada. You were a hair away from getting EXACTLY
what you wanted and you turned it down because you preferred to be a
belligerent.

Maybe you have Hoffmeyer snowed, but not me, dude. I was there. Your
attempt to say that I was working you back to contact with your kids
is pure baloney, and if you pull that crap again here, I'm going to
post the damn brief. It was a clean cutoff. She and the lawyer had
agreed, man. It was tinkering the fine points.

Tell them what the people you forwarded the brief/agreement and order
to said, Jeff. Tell the folks here THAT. Tell them how they told you how
lucky you were to get someone to research and write that stuff for you
and to set the negotiation. Tell them what they told you when you dec-
ided not to go through with it.

Now you have what you chose instead of release. You get to be a victim. 
But don't keep going with this "unwilling" stuff about rape. 

If anybody screwed EuStress, EuStress did. 

I'm tired of seeing you build yourself as a martyr. You aren't one.
You're someone who apparently engages in masochism. I wish I knew why.
I don't dislike you Jeff, but what you're trying to build here is pure
vaporware. 


--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Evil "Dads"
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:58:17 GMT

Bruce Maynard wrote:
>[The deadbeat dad] was shiftless, refused to even look for
>a job until he was threatened with eviction (slept on the couch until he owed
>over $4000 in rent/utilities/cash bummed from his buddies), and had a surly
>outlook on life... had been moving to a new city every time his ex found him,
>and as it turned out, was basically hiding from several arrest warrants 
>(tax evasion {couldn't be bothered to pay 'em}, child-support malfeasance,
>and about $3000 in various traffic violations (he didn't even bother with a
>driver's license, as he was afraid to have his name on "a gov't snoop
>sheet"!)

 Maybe SATAN made him do it.
 Maybe he's mad.

 Maybe he's intelligent.
 Maybe, as a male, he has no rights.

Maybe . . . Just Maybe.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3167 soc.men:16372 soc.women:16542 misc.kids:23293 alt.dads-rights:2256
From: lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Donald Andrew Agarrat)
Subject: Cowardly Fathers Who Abandon Their Children
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:39:02 GMT

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 ...
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 22:55:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

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.

er, do you mean that by the act of loading a shotgun he
created a hostage situation?  I dont understand.  He didnt
wave it anybody's face, force them to do something, or
threaten to pull the trigger, just put a shell in teh
chamber and he therefor held the entire store hostage?

or..  do you mean he held a bunch of police hostage when
they showed up?  that i would have liked to see.  or,
actually not..  cops are notorious for spraying lead like
a texan with chewing tobbacca.

....jeff

Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3108 soc.men:16202 soc.women:16376 misc.kids:22909 alt.dads-rights:2223
From: steveg@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Steve Gabrilowitz)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:20:26 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta

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

|> I still wonder how Mr. EuStress is only making $4000 a year.  Why not try
|> McD's, they pay better than that!

Did he actually say that?  I got the impression that he was saying that $4K/yr
was all he had left after paying support...

-- 



I think
I think I am
Therefore I am!
I think...



                            Steve Gabrilowitz
                            Martin Marietta, Orlando Fl.
                            steve-gabrilowitz@orl.mmc.com
                            Fidonet 1:363/1701 (407-380-1701)
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3172 soc.men:16379 soc.women:16551 misc.kids:23320 alt.dads-rights:2260
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: K-Mart Hostages
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:46:37 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <BuGw8s.2JE@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) 
writes:
>>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.

You are thinking rationally, which cannot be said of someone who has snapped,
by definition.  I say the kids because they are there.  Why did this guy choose
to make the situation with the people he did?

And testosterone isn't a part of the equation.

-- 
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:3112 soc.men:16207 soc.women:16380 misc.kids:22912 alt.dads-rights:2225
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 23:30:11 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

I (RE-)wrote :
   "**No one is forcing the American taxpayers.**
   The taxpayers -- as a largest and most powerful group,
   -- make there own decisions."

Jeff Holloway replies (Sue B. agrees):
   "The American taxpayers **are** being forced . . .
   **either** that or let the children starve."

The word "either" suggests that the taxpayers
in fact do (more than I) have alternatives.

The person or persons who MOST wish to support
the kids must be the ones that support them.
NOT BY SLAVE LABOR -- NOT by labeling the
biological father as "The Father" (remote wallet).
From: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Person in flux)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Reply-To: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:33:54 GMT

>In article <123@allspts.ALLSPTS.COM>, jeffh@allspts.ALLSPTS.COM 
(Jeff Holloway) writes:

>> 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.

What Jeff said and I tried to explain in my articles.

Katie
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3197 soc.men:16464 soc.women:16631 misc.kids:23525 alt.dads-rights:2279