HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ncjlog@atmos.washington.edu (Neal Johnson)
Subject: Re: Video Only ad
Organization: Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington
	<1992Dec22.231304.7924@u.washington.edu>
Distribution: seattle
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:39:57 GMT


>>   In article <1992Dec22.211412.5522@u.washington.edu> 
>>   cummings@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings) writes:

>>	There's an ad for "Video Only" on TV where they solicit
>>testimonials from a bunch of Plain Folks about how cheap everything is
>>there.  One guy make the comment (not quite verbatim), "I checked around,
>>and everything here is about 12% less.  But that 12% is like 50% to me."
>>
>>	HUH?!?!
>>
>>	Anyone have any idea what this could possibly mean?
>>
>>	I know it's just a stupid ad, but my wife and I both think this is
>>pretty funny and wonder whether we're missing something.
>>

> In article <1992Dec22.231304.7924@u.washington.edu> 
> monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:
> 
>    If you're spending more that 1.85 seconds wondering about this STOOPID
>    commercial...
> 
>    You and your wife need to get out more :)
> 
>   Happy Holidays

Yeah sure but that 1.85 seconds is like 5 minutes to him! 8^)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: ccw5695@eafs000.ca.boeing.com (Charles C. White)
Subject: Re: Who is Roy Ottis??
Organization: g2543
Distribution: boeing
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:47:33 GMT

chrisp@wimsey.bc.ca (Chris Phillips) writes:

>Does anyone know who Roy Ottis (KXRX) is? A friend of mine thinks it's
>John Manard(sp?) but I don't think so. They talk at the same time sometimes.

>	Just Wondering
>	  Chris

Obviously you don't listen that closely.  Roy Otis is Merle Mortens cousin.



-- 

Charlie White                 |  Boeing Computer Services  |
ccw5695@eafs000.ca.boeing.com |  P.O. Box 24346  MS 01-90  | "Bite Me!"
(206) 342-2837                |  Seattle, WA   98124-0346  |   - Roy Otis
Xref: sparky seattle.general:4217 pnw.general:3011 alt.society.civil-liberty:7011
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:08:52 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:

> It isn't *government* which is limiting personal freedoms in order to make
> expenses lower; it's the *people*.  The majority of people voted these
> seatbelt, helmet, etc. laws into effect, in order to decrease *their*
> costs.

I seriously doubt that most people who vote for paternalistic laws have
given any real thought to them. If they had, they'd realize that their
own costs of government far exceed any monitary inconvenience they may
suffer from the "wrong" they wish to make "right."

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Video Only ad
Keywords: stupid
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:32:42 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <1992Dec23.004905.10489@u.washington.edu> cummings@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings) writes:
:In <1992Dec22.231304.7924@u.washington.edu> monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:
:
:>If you're spending more that 1.85 seconds wondering about this STOOPID
:>commercial...

It is stoopid in the extreme.

to answer your original question about 12% being as good as 50%:

The customer was saying that 12% was good enough for him.  As good
as 50% off (which is unreasonible in any market)  He knows he can't
get 50% off, but 12% is pretty damn good as far as he is concerned.

:>You and your wife need to get out more :)
:
:	Yeah, I figured I'd get this sort of condescension in reply.

Compared to most of the replies you see on USENET, this was
quite friendly and funny.

Take a deep breath and stop taking offense and seeing condescension
where none is offered.



     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.

Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: Video Only ad
Keywords: stupid
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
Distribution: seattle
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:22:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.211412.5522@u.washington.edu> cummings@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings) writes:
>	There's an ad for "Video Only" on TV where they solicit
>testimonials from a bunch of Plain Folks about how cheap everything is
>there.  One guy make the comment (not quite verbatim), "I checked around,
>and everything here is about 12% less.  But that 12% is like 50% to me."
>
>	HUH?!?!
>
>	Anyone have any idea what this could possibly mean?
>
>	I know it's just a stupid ad, but my wife and I both think this is
>pretty funny and wonder whether we're missing something.
>

Maybe he's only 1/4 the man you are.

-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      | "Zinc & cadmium plating stops |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: <DEAD>        |  rust & acts as a lubricant!" |
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: Good PANASONIC printer service center?
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:40:41 GMT

In <3034@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> hcorbin@uswnvg.com (Harold Corbin) writes:

:My Panasonic KXP-1124 24-pin dot matrix printer is on the fritz.  Anyone know
:a good place in the Seattle area for repairs? 

I've had very good results with TypeTech (The Printer Store) in
Bellevue.  They're in the shopping area above Best on 116th
street.

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Subject: Re: Video Only ad
Keywords: stupid
Organization: UW Computing
Distribution: seattle
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:13:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.211412.5522@u.washington.edu> cummings@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings) writes:
>	There's an ad for "Video Only" on TV where they solicit
>testimonials from a bunch of Plain Folks about how cheap everything is
>there.  One guy make the comment (not quite verbatim), "I checked around,
>and everything here is about 12% less.  But that 12% is like 50% to me."
>
>	HUH?!?!
>
>	Anyone have any idea what this could possibly mean?
>
>	I know it's just a stupid ad, but my wife and I both think this is
>pretty funny and wonder whether we're missing something.
>

If you're spending more that 1.85 seconds wondering about this STOOPID
commercial...

You and your wife need to get out more :)


Happy Holidays
From: jmethve@uswnvg.com (John Methven)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Good PANASONIC printer service center?
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:06:05 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

I took my Panasonic printer to Computerworld in Southcenter and they did a good
job and charged a reasonable amount. I would recommend them again to do my 
repairs.

John
From: del@fnx.uucp (Dag Erik Lindberg)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Displaying a weapon (was Bicycles are Vehicles)
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:52:11 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: I/Ovations

Don't know where attributes for the ">>" quotes are, but I didn't
remove them myself...

In <4126@phred.UUCP> harryb@phred.UUCP (harry barnett) writes:
>>It is called
>>"brandishing".

>NOT!

>There are both Washington State statutes and local (King County,
>Seattle, other political subdivisions) ordinances governing "Displaying
>a Weapon" modelled upon (usually word for word) the State statute.  The
>word "brandishing" or any word even remotely close to it is not part of
>those statutes. If you believe this to be incorrect, please cite the
>Washington State statute, or King County or City (your specific city
>where you work as a Communication Specialist will do, or any other in
>Washington) ordinance on "Brandishing".

Nor does "murder" appear in any laws (it is technically called homicide
or something similar), yet we all use "murder" to refer to that particular
crime.  Same with "brandish", defined by Webster as 'to shake or wave
(as a weapon) menacingly'.  I believe the term pretty well describes
the following RCW:

RCW 9.41.270 - Weapons Apparently Capable of Producing Bodily Harm,
Carrying, Exhibiting, Display or Drawing Unlawful:

(1) It shall be unlawful for anyone to carry, exhibit, display, or draw
any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument,
club or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a
manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests
an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety
of other persons.

>>I also agree with your statements.  Carrying a deadly weapon is a
>>tremendous responsibility,

>In spirit, I agree.  However, "tremendous" is subjective, so we may not
>completely agree.

I think handling *any* deadly chemicals, machinery, or implements is
a "tremendous" responsibility, be it a knife, gun, or an automobile.
The fact that people tend to get casual about these deadly tools when
they deal with them on a daily basis does not lessen the "tremendous"
nature of the responsibility.  Unfortunately, sometimes "casual"
becomes "careless" and somebody dies.  Sounds pretty "tremendous" to
me.  And hardly subjective, since your commitment to the responsibility
has a direct bearing on my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".

-- 
del AKA Erik Lindberg                             uunet!pilchuck!fnx!del
                          Who is John Galt?
From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:35:21 GMT

In article <BznJx9.JG3@agora.rain.com> lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.210708.17518@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>>
>>It isn't *government* which is limiting personal freedoms in order to make
>>expenses lower; it's the *people*.  The majority of people voted these
>>seatbelt, helmet, etc. laws into effect, in order to decrease *their*
>>costs.
>>
>
>I believe the term for this is "tyranny of the majority".
>

Or how about "mob rule".

-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      | "Zinc & cadmium plating stops |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: <DEAD>        |  rust & acts as a lubricant!" |
From: scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:07:08 GMT

dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
: 
: Again I would suggest that government can not do everything, and it
: should make some hard economic choices if it is determined that
: government can not fund all it wants to do.  The government should not
: limit personal freedom in order to make its expenses lower.

Minor nit:

It isn't *government* which is limiting personal freedoms in order to make
expenses lower; it's the *people*.  The majority of people voted these
seatbelt, helmet, etc. laws into effect, in order to decrease *their*
costs.

Scott Linn
scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
From: scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:13:00 GMT

bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes:
: :It isn't *government* which is limiting personal freedoms in order to make
: :expenses lower; it's the *people*.  The majority of people voted these
: :seatbelt, helmet, etc. laws into effect, in order to decrease *their*
: :costs.
: 
: In point of fact, few of these laws are voted in, they are made
: by appointed bureaucrats various regulatory agencies and the
: public rarely has an opportunity to vote on them.

Possibly in WA, but not everywhere.  The seat belt (and helmet) laws were
voted in via ballot in Oregon.  I thought the same happened in CA, but I am
probably wrong.

Scott Linn
scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com
From: raoul@fangio.wa.com (Jeffrey E. Benedict)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Video Only ad
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 05:50:34 PST
Organization: J. Benedict Computing
Reply-To: raoul@fangio.wa.com (Jeffrey E. Benedict)
Distribution: seattle
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1

 
> >If you're spending more that 1.85 seconds wondering about this STOOPID
> >commercial...
> 
> >You and your wife need to get out more :)
> 
> 	Yeah, I figured I'd get this sort of condescension in reply.
> 
> 	Thanks for the help.
> 
> 	To all of you who are above finding some amusement in a stupid
> commercial, or never watch TV, or are superior for any number of related
> reasons:  I'm very impressed.  You may hit 'n' now.
> 
> -- 
> Michael Cummings  NX7E	

Oh, lighten up, Michael!  Sit down.  Loosen your shoelaces. Have a
glass o' wine! Reach for the remote and watch dumb commercials on
TV.  It's OK- this is America.  We can do these kinds of things here!

I like to watch wrestling on TV- I really do.  There. I've said it.
Flame me. Please. I love it.

Happy Holidays-

Jeff

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Jeffrey E. Benedict- raoul@fangio.wa.com - Port Townsend, WA. USA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In His infinite mercy, Allah does not subtract from one's alloted span those
hours which are spent in contemplation of net.news. All praise be to Allah."
-- an obscure commentator on the early work of Al-Khowariszmi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: markz@ssc.com (Mark Zenier)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: SSC, Inc.,  Seattle, WA
Distribution: seattle
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:35:15 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Pat Myrto (pat@rwing.UUCP) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec22.194135.14016@eskimo.com> alpinist@eskimo.com (David Butler) writes:
: :Instead of ignoring his point because of irrelevance why don't you ignore
: :the point because it is WRONG!  Mountain climbing is not far more dangerous
: :than riding a bike/motorcycle with or without a helmet.  Statistically
: :bicycling is one of the most dangeous activities there is.
: 
: What is the source of the above stats you assert (and the stats themselves)?
: I think some of us would like to see the stats themselves, and their
: sources, rather than an assertion.

And what type of bicycle riding.  I have a hard time believing
my taking a slow glide through the park on a sunny day should put
me in the same category as some adrenaline junky who gets dressed
up like some alien from another planet and goes out and plays in
traffic, or some little toad training to be the BMX champion of the
universe.

But I'm up for the same degree of police harrasment.

Mark Zenier  markz@ssc.wa.com  

Xref: sparky seattle.general:4296 pnw.general:3076
From: donn@brat.wa.com (Donn Pedro)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 27 Dec 92 17:24:42 GMT
Organization: Tandemonium, Kent, WA

In article <1992Dec26.080058.13911@microsoft.com> davevh@microsoft.com (Dave Van Horn) writes:
>On a deaths per hour of
>participation basis, bicycling even without a helmet is statistically far
>safer than, eg, rock climbing and hang gliding.  So if helmetless biking is
>too dangerous to be legal, shouldn't rock climbing and hang gliding also 
>be illegal?

You compare a requirement to wear a helmet in one sport with the
actual banning of others?

There is a difference between doing an activity with a reduction in
risk and not doing it at all.

That may not be what you meant, but ....


         Donn Pedro ....................a.k.a. donn@brat.wa.com
	
	       "You talk the talk.  Do you walk the walk?"

		    There are no ordinary moments.
From: mnb@voodoo.boeing.com (Mike Burr)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: FREE CHOICE QUESTION
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:41:20 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Boeing Graphics project, Bellevue WA

In article <4124@phred.UUCP> harryb@phred.UUCP writes:
>
>However, if a statute requiring helmets exists,
>then A's insurance company will argue that B contributed to his own
>injuries, and possibly would have escaped injury had he not violated
>the law by failing to wear a helmet.  In such a situation, it is not
>only possible, but highly probable that A's insurance company will
>escape any liability to B whatsoever, regardless of whether A was drunk
>and entirely at fault for the accident.

I think Harry is missing the point here.  Being entirely at fault for
an accident is not necessiarly the same as being responisible for all
injuries and costs that result from the accident.  Clearly, if the 
innocent party in an accident doesn't exersize
due care, or is negligent in providing for their own safety, most or
even all of the cost and injuries in a accident can be due to their
actions - and not the "at fault" individual.  

I personally applaud such behavior by an insurance company as I don't
believe having an insurance policy  gives one the right to 
abandon due caution and a *reasonable* amount of personal responsibility
and common sense.  I can't count the number of times I've heard someone
say "Don't bother locking the door... it's insured."  Translation: "I'm
too lazy to make even a minimal effort to protect myself, but if my
lifestyle winds up costing me, I expect everybody else to pay".

My own opinion is that insurance is supposed to spread risk amoung
individuals with *similar* risk profiles - not subsidize high risk
individuals with low risk individuals.  But this concept is getting
lost with "one size fits all" group insurance coverage.

>This law, along with seat belt laws, (and, incidentally, ALL other
>statutory law, and most common law :-), is conceived, designed,
>enacted, imposed, and enforced for the purpose of keeping The Money in
>the hands of The People Who Have The Money. 

Wow!  That a pretty broad (and ridiculous) statement.  The simple fact
is that the more insurance companies have to pay out, the more they have
to collect from the rate payers.  Blaming the "people with money" or
"the stockholders" is inappropriate and just plain wrong.

-- 
Michael Burr  Boeing Computer Services, Bellevue WA
              Email:mnb@voodoo.ca.boeing.com
From: jmethve@uswnvg.com (John Methven)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Christmas Lights
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:25:12 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

A CORRECTION TO MY POSTING OF THE CHRISTMAS LIGHT DISPLAY IN ISSAQUAH. THE      STREET IS NOT 3RD NW BUT DOGWOOD CT..I APOLOGIZE FOR THE WRONG STREET AND AGAIN
IT IS WORTH SEEING.

JOHN
From: alpinist@eskimo.com (David Butler)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: doomsdayer
Date: 2 Jan 93 01:24:34 GMT
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=

In article <3047@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> rfisher@uswnvg.com (Robert Fisher) writes:
>	Current estimates place the food cosumption volumes at a maximum in
>sixty years from 1990.  This means that if every mouth was feed evenly,and at
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>current growth rates, there will be just enough food for sustaining life.  Afterthe year 2050, this will not be true.  Does anyone out there have any senarios
>that are not so gloomy?  Help me escape my pessimistic outlook!  I know about 
>environmental dangers that are considered to be genecide prior to 2050, but 
>what about pure overpopulation estimates.

Your 'if' is a fantasy ideal (like frictionless planes).  There already isn't
enough food to sustain life in the real world at 'current' population levels.
 

-- 
Dave                | Truth is the most valuable thing we have.
alpinist@eskimo.com | Let us economize it. - Mark Twain
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: owen@astro.washington.edu (Russell Owen)
Subject: Rental in Pine Lake Plateau (Eastside)
Followup-To: seattle.general
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: seattle
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:31:36 GMT

(I am posting this for a friend; please do not reply to me)

Rental available in Pine Lake Plateau (Eastside)

Share a house with a part-time roomate
You get the master suite and car space
Available in January
Rent is negotiable

Phone Kate at 296-7266


(Please phone, e-mail replies will probably not get anywhere)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: Does anyone read Seattle PI today?
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: seattle
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 17:17:36 GMT

In article <4135@phred.UUCP> harryb@phred.UUCP writes:
>The "dethroning" of President Nixon in 1974 made them aware of the
>power they really have.  It has taken them about 20 years, but it takes
>a while for a sleeping giant to awaken; they are just now learning how
>to flex their muscles.  Among other things, they orchestrated the
>Travesty of November 3rd, the consequences of which are still to come.
>The drum beat to eliminate private ownership of firearms is increasing
>to a crescendo and will continue to increase in volume until they
>either get their way or we have a revolutionary blood bath.  (You don't
>believe the media is after the confiscation of private firearms?  Try
>two editorials, three articles, and one comic strip in the 12/21
>Seattle Times!  More to follow...watch that newspaper for coming
>events...)

When I see diatribes such as this, I always wonder if the writer is pulling
our legs. It also displays a great ignorance of US history. This is hardly
the first time the media have had great influence in the US. Consider, for
instance, the role of the "yellow press" in the Spanish-American war. Or
perhaps during Reconstruction. Or even during the Revolution. Newspapers
and other media have always had an important role in shaping and expressing
public opinion.

>IMHO, every act, EVERY ACT, of the US media is skewed (and has been,
>more or less, for years) to the ultimate intended result of "establish
>collectivism, eliminate individualism".  To this end, they promote the
>power of Big Government, to the denigration of individual rights.  The
>used-to-be Socialist World is collapsing economically and admitting
>that the principles of collectivism are incompatible with human rights
>and human government, and the US Liberal Left, using its mouthpiece,
>The Media, is trying to segue into it right here and now, and world
>wide, if they can get away with it.  Sigh.

The notion of the US media operating as a single conspiracy is rather
amusing. It also ignores a strong conservative element among the press.
Just because the Seattle papers tend to be liberal does not mean that
every paper in the state is liberal. Nor do they lack conservative voices.
The Times routinely publishes amazingly conservative columnists. Each
and every Sunday, we find William R. Hearst, Jr.'s, column printed for
our edification.

If you find that the popular media tends to be liberal, there may be a
reason for that. Those who actually bother to read the paper may tend to
be more liberal. If they are, it's sound business sense for the papers
to be liberal rather than conservative. 

You also have an alternative. Found a conservative paper here. If you
succeed, so much the better. If you fail, perhaps you'll learn something
about public opinion.
-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
Newsgroups: seattle.general