HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: donn@brat.wa.com (Donn Pedro)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 4 Jan 93 01:30:52 GMT
Organization: Tandemonium, Kent, WA

In article <1993Jan02.053714.20646@microsoft.com> davevh@microsoft.com (Dave Van Horn) writes:
>David Keppel writes:
>
>>You compare a requirement to wear a helmet in one sport with the
>>actual banning of others?
>
>Nope.  I compare the banning of one activity (bareheaded biking)
>with the banning of another (hang gliding).  Or if you prefer, I compare
>requiring a helmet while biking to requiring a fuselage while gliding.

This is not an valid argument.  The next step would require bicycles
to have fenders and bumpers, should we follow it to the conslusion.

Not availing ones self of reasonible safety precautions is foolish.

Requiring the use of such devices (which I oppose as law) is not
comparable to banning another activity because it is deemed dangerous.
Especially when said banned activity is carried out with accepted
safety precautions.




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

		    There are no ordinary moments.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: alpinist@eskimo.com (David Butler)
Subject: Re: doomsdayer
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:15:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.202708.2270@kopachuk.uucp> dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman) writes:
>Overpopulation is a problem, but
>at current polulation levels, not a agricultural one.
...
> Again, this
>is not a agricultural problem.  Please bear in mind that my comments
>did not expouse the premise that we *can* feed everybody in the world
>as it exists politically right now - just that the reason that we can
>not feed them is not due to the "fact" that there is not enough food.

The problems with food distribution are not just temporary current political
situations.  The inefficient nature of the world makes it so that the
current population levels cannot be maintained indefinitely no matter how
you try to change the political or social climate.
But if you want to just insist on a purely agricultural basis ... the
theories of how many people can be sustained in this world are based on
real simplistic equations of farmland can produce x amount of food on average
per acre, that x acres in the world can potentially be used as farmland, and
then dividing that by how much food an average person consumes per year.
It does not take into account real world wasteage, long term processing,
the ecosystem as a whole - both that destroyed to maximize farmland and the
long term effects of large human populations, the suitability of certain types
of land over others and their long term ability to produce good crops, the
differences in nutritional value of different crops and the amount of each
need per individual, etc. etc. etc.  Anyway, the whole idea / argument that
the world can agriculturally sustain large amounts of people is a total
fiction of imaginary numbers and has no relation whatsover to the real world
in terms of climate, politics, social / culturism, distribution, or even
agriculture.  The world cannot even sustain the current population levels.
And it is not just a political situation - though the politics of mammals are
such that with that alone this world will never be able to support such
populations.
 

-- 
*          Dave         *  Why, sometimes I've believed as   *
#                       #  many as six impossible things     #
*  alpinist@eskimo.com  *  before breakfast. - Lewis Carroll *
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:13:22 GMT
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <1993Jan6.201533.2191@kopachuk.uucp> dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman) writes:
>
>Most people who flash their lights at you are not doing it to annoy
>you.  It is an internationally-recognized signal that (you are
>obstructing traffic and) the person behind you would like to pass.

This is true and it is not recognized here.  In the states it
is seen as an irritant to get the other person to speed up.
I have no problem with getting flashed when it is possible to 
move over.  I do so at the earliest opportunity.

I have seen it many times on two lane rural roads with no passing
zones and no turnouts.  One car behind me, not six, with his high 
beams flashing.  Trying to get me to speed.

Sorry, have a nice coronary.




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

		     There are no ordinary moments.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Reply-To: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Organization: Statistical Sciences, Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:03:26 GMT

crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal) writes:
   
   And, of course, they are referring to traffic that is SLOWER THAN 55. 
   Not traffic that is too slow for the leadfoots to get around.

Doesn't say that, says SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT. Has it occured to anyone
that the fact that self-righteous 55 drivers in the left lane force those
who would pass them to pass on the right which is far more dangerous to
all? That doesn't matter as long as you law-abiding drivers are "within
your rights" to obstruct others.

How about those drivers in the left lane who are doing 55 when EVERYBODY
else is doing at least 60. By god, they are within their rights, right?

How about those lunatics, er, drivers that are in the left lane doing
55,53,54,52,57,51,58....they can't maintain a speed, and won't get out of
the way and won't maintain the traffic flow. Get a grip people, just
because you are following the letter of the law, which you aren't if you
don't move left, doesn't mean you are driving in a safe manner. Just as it
doesn't mean you are being unsafe when you are exceeding the speed limit.

I think the real issue is that the LAW decides to enforce certain laws and
ignore others based on their ability to generate income for the state and
thereby for their own coffers. What a ripoff!

I called the WSP to complain about nearly being forced off the road by
drivers who ignore the YIELD signs and was told that because most drivers
in WA don't understand the YIELD signs, they don't enforce it.

Not to mention, (but I will ;-), the fact that Right of Way in this state
is as backwards as it gets at stop signs. The person on the right as right
of way, what the hell is so hard about that? No, around here, it seems to
be, whoever has the guts to go first, goes first. And why the hell do
people turning left think they have the right to turn left in front of
you? And when I'm turning left, they sit there and wait, like I'm going to
wait for them to start across the intersection and then turn into them.

I've driven in IA,IL,AR,MI,MO,LA,MS,AL,TN,OH,IN,NB,WY,ID,OR,CA,NV,UT,AZ,
NM,TX,OK,FL,GA and ridden in taxis in New York City and this is the only
state that behaves this way.

-- 
-Kevin L. Gross          klg@statsci.com           Disclaim THIS: 
 This message is protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution
 of the United States of America. I'm protected under the 4th, 5th, 9th
 and 14th Amendments among others, or at least I used to be.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Subject: Re: doomsdayer
Summary: Get It!
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 08:13:01 GMT

In article <3056@uswnvg.uswnvg.com>, rfisher@uswnvg.com (Robert Fisher) writes:
> 
> NO NO NO!!! you dont get it do you!!!
> Distribution is not the issue.  Pure population volume will outpace the
> total oput of consumable goods producable with the expected level of tech.
> by the year 2050.  No matter how it is distributed.  Current starvation is
> a direct result of bad distribution, and mindless waste by developed countries, but it is nothing compared to distribution in 60 or so years.  Immagine, the
> U.S. having to import 33% of its food to support our population.  Then immagine a distribution problem!!



     I think YOU don't get it!  There is no way in hell you can predict what
technology will allow us to produce ten years from now let alone 57 years.

     These long term predictions of doom are nothing new.  I can remember
being told back in the 60's that at the current rate of consumption we'd be
out of oil by the late 70's or early 80's.  Well it ain't happened yet, I
imagine it will get too expensive to recover eventually, but the point is
that you're trying to make a prediction that we simply do not have the
required knowledge base to make.

Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall)
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Organization: Boeing
Distribution: seattle
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:48:44 GMT

There's a certain irony in people who quote the law that says you must move	
to the right lane to get out of the way of people who are violating the law	
by exceeding the speed limit.
 
-- 
 Bob Hall                   |  if [ -bs message ]; then
 Boeing Computer Services   |      mv message /compost/heap/$$
 root@chicken.ca.boeing.com |  fi
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: mccart@mdd.comm.mot.com (Gary McCartney)
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Reply-To: mccart@mdd.comm.mot.com
Organization: Motorola
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:24:32 GMT

Why has no one mentioned that it is not only courteous to move over from the 
left lane, but it is now a law that you are only to be in the left lane to
pass?
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Date: 9 Jan 93 18:21:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <1993Jan8.172337.16276@Happy-Man.com> Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com writes:
>
>This suggests to me that if speeding is the norm, as it is in
>many areas, driving at the limit makes you "slow" for the
>purposes of this law.  

This may be true but I will not turn my commute into a sucsession
of pullouts into driveways and turnouts, while I am doing the 
speed limit jsut because a portion of the population selectivly
chooses to follow the laws they agreed to when they received the
*privilige* of a drivers license.

I'm not passivly-aggresivly enforcing the law, as someone put it.
I'm jsut trying to arrive at my destination safely and in a
reasonible amount of time.

Yes, I will turn out, but only when it seems reasonible to do so.

>On the other hand, if most drivers go 35
>in a particular 45mph zone, for whatever reason, you aren't
>"slow" just because you're going less than the limit.

Good point.  Like the conditions we have seen in the last few
weeks.  Icy roads mean a lot of smart poeple slow down.




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

		     There are no ordinary moments.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: scott@statsci.com (Scott Blachowicz)
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Reply-To: scott@statsci.com
Organization: Statistical Sciences, Inc., Seattle, WA USA
	<1993Jan4.215937.21551@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<1iakisINNa9u@shelley.u.washington.edu>
	<1993Jan5.011938.27671@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:23:45 GMT

>>>>> "Neil" == Neil McKenzie <mckenzie@cs.washington.edu>

 Neil> People should drive at a speed that is safe according to the current
 Neil> conditions instead of just reading the number on the sign.  It would
 Neil> make no sense to drive 55 on ice even though is "legal."  Similarily
 Neil> there are times when 75 is perfectly reasonable even though the sign
 Neil> says 65 (like, a warm clear day in the desert on an interstate with
 Neil> light traffic).

I didn't think driving 55 on ice was legal. In drivers ed class (let's see,
how many years ago was that? Oh nevermind), they talked about a "prima facie"
speed limit. It sounded like the weather conditions could effectively reduce
the safe (and legal) limit. Enforcement is another issue. And I'm not sure if
that is even really a law. Seems driving 55 on ice could be considered
reckless driving, too, but I don't know what the legal definitions are.

--
Scott Blachowicz    Ph: 206/283-8802x240      USPS:  Statistical Sciences, Inc
                                                      1700 Westlake Ave N #500
scott@statsci.com / uunet!statsci!scott                Seattle, WA USA   98109
..or..     Scott.Blachowicz@seaslug.org
From: rfisher@uswnvg.com (Robert Fisher)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: doomsdayer
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:00:38 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Here we go again, comparing the unlike.  The consumption rate of oil or any 
resource which has a fixed quantity cannot be compared to that which varies
with respect to environment and technology.  As for "predictions and 
prophets", I am not referring to a religious ploy or an marketing scheme.  
To simplify things for the blind, population grows at a rate of X to the second
power, the food supply grows at X + Y, where Y= technology - environment. Lets
here responses from the masses who believe that this comparison will always
yeild a surplus of food.  The original question proposed, was is there an
intelligent respondent who believes otherwise.?.. Lets here it "hogwashman"!
Say something other than "I DUNNO".  

Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: harryb@phred.UUCP (harry barnett)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:42:56 GMT
Reply-To: harryb@phred.UUCP
Followup-To: seattle.general
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Physio-Control

In article 28678@Celestial.COM, bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes:
>
>Perhaps something akin to a proposal Robert Heinlein made in
>``Moon is a Harsh Mistress''.  It was something to the effect
>that all politicians have a small explosive device surgically
>implanted in their head and if enough constituants push a button
> -- it blows their head off.
>

How many are "enough"?  I would propose, hmmmm, 10?  ;-)

harryb@phred

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brittanius (shocked):  Caesar, this is not proper.
Theodotus (outraged):  How?
Caesar (recovering his self possession):  Pardon him, Theodotus:  He is
a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and islands are
the laws of nature.

		--Caesar and Cleopatra, Act II, George Bernard Shaw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: harryb@phred.UUCP (harry barnett)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Displaying a weapon (was Bicycles are Vehicles)
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:50:28 GMT
Reply-To: harryb@phred.UUCP
Followup-To: seattle.general
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Physio-Control


In article 1081@eskimo.com, timf@eskimo.com (Timothy R. Flanagan) writes:
>
>I am not personally inclined to engage in a flame-war at this time,
>and will probably decline your challenge.

No need to.  Just simply repeat:  "I, Timothy R. Flanagan, will
hereafter and forever refrain from implying that I am an authority on
things about which I have very limited knowledge."

Takes up much less net.bandwidth.

>-- 
>Timothy R. Flanagan				
>ACLU  EFF  NRA
>tim@reed.edu  
>timf@eskimo.celestial.com

harryb@phred
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brittanius (shocked):  Caesar, this is not proper.
Theodotus (outraged):  How?
Caesar (recovering his self possession):  Pardon him, Theodotus:  He is
a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and islands are
the laws of nature.

		--Caesar and Cleopatra, Act II, George Bernard Shaw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: dsra@netcom.com (DRSA)
Subject: William Knight - Call me!
Summary: Anyone who knows William Knight, please have him call me
Keywords: Knight call seeking william
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:34:44 GMT

I have been trying to get in touch with a friend in Seattle named
William Knight.  He usually wears a black leather jacket and black hiking
boots and carries a large backpack with all his personal possesions in it.
He hangs out at Cafe Espresso Roma by U Dub.  Please have him give me
a call.  My name is John Kohler.  (818)403-0977 or (818)793-9090
Thanks.

Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe)
Subject: Gun buy back failure
Organization: Boeing
Distribution: seattle
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:24:01 GMT

   Well, it was in the paper today, page 1 section B Seattle PI.
Murders near record In Seattle.  It appears that the well
intentioned but highly unrealistic idea of a gun buyback did
not keep the murder rate from reaching all time highs.  More
than half of the 60 murders were committed with a gun.  At
least we are not like Wash. DC that can boast of over 450 murders
last year!!


-- 
A town that had they Nativity scene thwarted by the ACLU placed a banner
saying "The ACLU is jealous of our Nativity scene for the fact that they
don't have 3 wisemen and a virgin in their organization".
From: donn@brat.wa.com (Donn Pedro)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:58:11 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Tandemonium, Kent, WA

In article <1993Jan09.232553.26158@Celestial.COM> bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes:
>How 'bout some of the other laws that are commonly violated.  I
>wonder if any of the 55mph fanatics have ever engaged in sex in
>anything but the missionary position, oral sex...  Many states
>have laws banning this type of activity and the laws have
>draconian penalties.

Many do not speed for one simple reason -- you can't really expect
to win in court often enough to save you any money on insurance and
fines.  You just cannot.

As for sex lives ... though I don't know the detals of yours I can
assure you that my own (the only one I can speak about with any
accuracy) is scary enough for most of the general populace and is
probobly considered illegal in most states in the country.

And I don't care.

It's got nothing to do with whether the law is really fair or
not (at least to me).  It has a lot to do with weighing the
cost verses the benefits/consequences of violating the law.

It's not that hard to go the limit and the cost for breaking 
the law (sometimes stoopid in the extreme) is just not
worth it.  We are not talking free speech here, just following
the contract we made with the State of Washington when it
issued us a license to drive.  That is a privlidge in this 
State and, until it is acknowleged as a right, we have little
complaint.

Really, there are things more important than this, aren't there?

>SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?

Exactly.




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

		    There are no ordinary moments.


Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: mnb@mira.ca.boeing.com (Mike Burr)
Subject: Re: doomsdayer
Organization: BoGART Graphics Development
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:52:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.202708.2270@kopachuk.uucp> dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman) writes:
>
>Well, if it's "our" responsibility to feed the entire world, then I
>guess that's a problem, alright.  Overpopulation is a problem, but
>at current polulation levels, not a agricultural one.  Most of the
>people who are starving to death live under despotic governemnts which
>don't see the welfare of their people as a prime concern.  Again, this
>is not a agricultural problem.  Please bear in mind that my comments
>did not expouse the premise that we *can* feed everybody in the world
>as it exists politically right now - just that the reason that we can
>not feed them is not due to the "fact" that there is not enough food.

Just because we could feed everybody right now (if politics wern't in the way) 
is not a valid indication that we can agricluturally *substain* the current
world population.  Topsoil levels around the world are falling at alarming
rates.  To me this indicates that the soils are being worked too hard to
feed the current population on a substainable, long term basis.  That to
me shoulds like an agricultural problem.


-- 
Michael Burr  Boeing Computer Services, Bellevue WA
              Email:mnb@voodoo.ca.boeing.com
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Driver Courtesy
Date: 10 Jan 93 02:01:18 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1558@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
:I have noticed that when I drive my Ferrari, I get a lot more courtesy
:from other drivers on the road. Specifically, they will pull over to the
:right to let me pass.
:
:Normal behavior on a 2 lane road coming up to a passing lane is for the
:cars ahead of me to split into 2 groups and block both lanes for the
:duration of the passing lane. With the Ferrari, amazingly they all move
:over to the right, let me by, and then form up to block both lanes!

:Also, I rarely get someone accelerating as I pass to try to prevent me
:from passing. In my old underpowered firebird, they would, causing me
:to eat up lots of ground in the left lane raising the danger. (I've had
:people speed up from 45 to 75 as I tried to pass.)
:
:P.S. In my old Dodge people still try to speed up as I pass, but they
:have forgotten about old '60s muscle (!).

Figgers.  They no doubt do that because they feel they will get smoked
badly and 'lose face' when they try to impose their PC-ness on you.  When
they see a car with less of a reputation for performance, they gotta
give it a try.  Hence the experience with the old Dodge.  Shows hypocracy
is alive and well, even in the most 'correct' of crowds.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Distribution: seattle
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 23:25:53 GMT

In <C0HqL9.JHs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall) writes:

:There's a certain irony in people who quote the law that says you must move	
:to the right lane to get out of the way of people who are violating the law	
:by exceeding the speed limit.
: 
How 'bout some of the other laws that are commonly violated.  I
wonder if any of the 55mph fanatics have ever engaged in sex in
anything but the missionary position, oral sex...  Many states
have laws banning this type of activity and the laws have
draconian penalties.

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