HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.
Reply-To: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Organization: Statistical Sciences, Inc
Distribution: seattle
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:56:49 GMT

lowell@tc.fluke.COM (Lowell Skoog) writes:

   I continue to be amazed at how some people can get all worked up
   about a bicycle helmet law.  If you don't like the law, you can vote
   against the people who passed it in the next election.  Your basic
   freedoms (the ones the American Revolutionaries fought for) have not
   been diminished.  Invoking the spirit of the American Revolution over
   a bicycle helmet law cheapens the idea of liberty, in my opinion.
   
   					--Lowell Skoog

Your usual haughty attitude aside, the point you are missing is that
Freedom *rarely* gets taken away all at once, rather, it is shaved away one
fine point at a time and that shaving is allowed by people like you, who
say, "but that particular law is OK". The erosion to Freedom that is caused
by that particular law is no less an erosion than if the Soviets had invaded
and taken away what you so cavalierly refer to as "basic liberties".

What are basic liberties, the ones *you* cherish? Just because you don't
mind wearing a helmet or a seat belt means its OK that *I* lose a basic
freedom that *I* cherish? 

Tell me Lowell, what are you going to do when they decide that climbing
mountains is too dangerous and costs too much money for the rescue attempts
of those who slip into a crevasse? Why should the rest of us pay for your
rescue and health care? We can pass a law against it, because 99.99%
of the people I have *ever* met think that people who climb mountains in
rarefied air, in ice and snow and in unbelievably cold temperatures are
just flat fucking crazy and we can reduce our costs significantly by
outlawing the whole damn idea. 

Or are you gonna be magnanimous when you slip into that crevasse and decide 
that it costs society too much $$$ to send a rescue chopper up, needlessly
endangering other people's lives, so you won't send up a flare, rather,
you'll just sit there and freeze to death like a good little Amerikan?

Standing up to the government when they get out of hand *IS* what Freedom
is all about. Wake up. Stand up.
-- 
-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: Mandatory Bicycle Helmets. (long - venting of disgust)
Summary: Your brother
Keywords: Big Brother, safety at all costs, revenue enhancement
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:31:19 GMT

In article <1351@brat.wa.com>, donn@brat.wa.com (Donn Pedro) writes:
> In article <1992Dec9.043047.10984@eskimo.com> nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) writes:
> :
> :     Don, this is a sad story, but it doesn't make a good argument for
> :helmet laws.  
> 
> I wasn't arguing for helmet laws, Robert.  I was arguing for helmet use.
> 
> :There already exists a law against driving while intoxicated,
> :but that didn't stop Todd from driving while intoxicated.  If Todd won't
> :respect that law, what makes you think he'd respect a helmet law?
> 
> I wasn't arguing for a helmet law.
> 
> :     Evolution in action.  If he doesn't feel anything "down there", so
> :much the better!
> 
> I wonder how many people would say thing like this, things like I have 
> received in e-mail, face to face to my brother Todd.

     Todd, I apologize for this remark.  It was a calous remark to make and I
made it when I was quite angry.  It appeared to me, and judging by the follow
up articles other have posted, that you were using this as an emotional
argument for helmet laws.  You state now that this wasn't the case, but a lot
of others also interpreted it this way.  This really angered me.

     I feel sorry for you and your brother, but you have to admit what Todd
did was stupid and there aren't any laws that can protect from that kind of
stupidity.

Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles,talk.politics.misc
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:42:40 GMT
Distribution: sqnt
Organization: Trivializers R Us
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.

In article <1992Dec12.015053.19084@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.180742.5313@sequent.com> stm@sequent.com
>(Scott "Worf" MacQuarrie) writes:
>>Well, I expect all the same arguements used against the mandatory Helmet law
>>for motorcycles will be used on the bicycle helmet law.
>>

>>This is why you are required to pass a test before legally driving a car,
>>flying a plane, or riding a motorcycle. This is why I'm required to wear a
>>seatbelt while driving my car and a helmet while riding my motorcycle. This is
>>why the manufacturer must pass inspection tests to insure the vehicles are made
>>to certain standards.
>
>Those tests exist to protect OTHERS from your mistakes; helmet laws only
>protect you, so the law is out of line.

I think this can be solved by a simple rule: in case of cycle accidents
involving head injuries, paramedics will not be dispatched for riders
not wearing helmets. 

paul

Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe)
Subject: Re: Seattle roofing contractors?
Organization: Boeing
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:57:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.173041.23675@nwnexus.WA.COM> osiris@halcyon.halcyon.com (David Ruggiero) writes:
>
>The roofing contractor I've used in the past seems to have gone the
.
.
.


I can recommend a fellow by the name of John Milhans.  His WA Lic # is
JEM****0880j.  I have used him for a roofing job and found him to be very
efficient and willing to return to do any touch ups.  His number is
206-584-0121.





-- 
Statement made by Oliver North when asked to comment on Clinton's draft
record.  "I would rather vote for Jane Fonda than Gov. Clinton!  At least
she has been to North Vietnam."
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: howie@simcon.boeing.com (Howie Modell)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Followup-To: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
Organization: Boeing Defense & Space Group
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:33:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.173732.26630@tessi.com>, allen@tessi.com (Allen
Warren) wrote:
> 
> nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:
> 
      <much deleted to save space>
> 
> >What does the freedom-for-all crowd say about that?
> 
> >Norman Miller
> 
> Pretty soon we're all going to be buying products that come with a 
> small novella of disclaimers:  "While riding this or any motorcycle,
> you shouldn't remove your hand from the brake to pick your nose as

         <much deleted to save space>

> represented the farmer in a lawsuit stating that "The manufacturer did
> NOT come out with a warning stating that it was not advised that the ladder
> be set on top of a frozen pile of cow dung, etc., etc., etc.,".  Sound
> far-fetched?  Now in today's world!
> 
> allen

I recall a news item of not too long ago about an incident near Boulder,
CO.   There was
a pond/lake there that the owner knew was not adequately frozen over, and
he (1) fenced 
off the area, and (2) posted several signs both on the fence and
around/near the pond to the
effect that the ice was unsage and no one should venture out on it.  Sure
enough, some guy, drunk
as a skunk as I heard it, ignored fence and all the warning signs and took
a small boat (?) on the ice,
fell thru, and drowned. 

His family subsequently *successfully* sued the owner (the county?) on the
grounds that he had not done enough to keep idiots from killing themselves
(entirely my phrasing, but the gist is correct).

The moral is: there is *no* way to successfully protect people from hurting
themselves if they really
want to.  

+----All opinions expressed are mine and *NOT* my employers!----+
   howard modell, Boeing Defense & Space group, Seattle, WA
         howie@simcon.boeing.com, h.modell@online.com,
         h.modell@ieee.org,   72376.252@compuserve.com
Xref: sparky seattle.general:4050 pnw.general:2901 alt.society.civil-liberty:6874 alt.activism:19514 alt.individualism:6072 rec.bicycles.misc:1506 talk.politics.misc:63917
From: hiscrp@nuscc.nus.sg (C R Pennell)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 10 Dec 92 23:08:55 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) writes:
: 
:      Last night I got on a tirade about the new bicycle helment laws we have
: here in King County.  Today I had some time to think more about what really
: bothers me about this law.  I hope that by sharing it I might convince some
: of you out there that what we are doing as a society is not a good thing.
: 
:      Years ago, this country (USA for those of you not in this country) was
: formed on the principles of individual liberty.  It's even in our pledge of
: alegence, liberty and justice for all.
: 
:      We fought a war of independence with the british.  Many died so that we
: could have our freedom. . . . etc., etc.,  

	[rest deleted]

That's what it's come down to, is it, all those fine ideals? LIberty
Justice the pursuit of happiness, truths that we hold self evident, Tom
Paine	 - BICYCLE HELMETS? Good grief


Richard Pennell, History NUS
From: killthis@kill.wa.com 
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Mandatory Bicycle Helmets. (long - venting of disgust)
Keywords: Big Brother, safety at all costs, revenue enhancement
Date: 12 Dec 92 23:42:28 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: T

In article <1832@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>
>Yawn.  Now your whole site is in the file, Killmenow.

It worked.

This is one of the loudest attempts at ignoring someone I have ever 
had the pleasure to wittness.

Announcing Kill files are just the USENET way of crying "I'm taking
my marbles and going home.  I am!  Right now!  See me leaving?
Well, do ya?  WELL --- DONT YA!  MAAAAAAAAAA!  "

Tell you what, Pat.  The next time I require invisibility, you are 
safe from requests to assist me.  As a matter of fact, the next time
I want to be noticed, maybe to be rescued or something, I'll call
upon you to make me 'invisible' by 'ignoring' me.

See ya.
Xref: sparky seattle.general:4139 alt.society.civil-liberty:6954 alt.activism:19647 alt.individualism:6114 rec.bicycles.misc:1600 talk.politics.misc:64584
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 17 Dec 1992 01:05:59 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec15.212152.12550@hounix.org>, wlarkin@hounix.org (Ward Larkin) writes:

> If you are really concerned about oppressive government,
> then I encourage you to study the various RICO laws and
> some of the various times these laws have been enacted.
> 
> You might think that these helmit laws are misguided
> forms of paternalism, but the RICO laws are the
> personification and embodiment of George Orwell's BIG
> BROTHER.

What's wrong with opposing BOTH?
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Xref: sparky seattle.general:4092 pnw.general:2922 alt.society.civil-liberty:6907
From: dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:22:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Dec15.012216.19235
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec13.223335.23667@starbase.trincoll.edu> nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:
>Dick Winningstad has got a point (never mind some of the reasoning).
>It would be possible--just as we now try to prevent people from buying
>cocaine or jumping off bridges--for the state to ratchet things up
>considerably.  Possible, though not as ineluctable as some people
>insist.



>What bothers me about dangerous activities is that I wind up paying
>some of the costs.  (I do now of course to keep the FDA and others
>in groceries, but I'm willing to pay those costs because I hope they
>protect me and mine.)  These costs stem from higher insurance rates
>as well as higher taxes because of negligency lawsuits.  The unhelmeted
>motorcyclist thus runs a better chance of dying or being maimed for
>life _and_ I wind up paying because he or his estate will sue my com-
>pany.
>
>What does the freedom-for-all crowd say about that?
>

The problem as I see it is we are in a mode of reducing our freedoms
because of costs to society. If something causes damage to an
individual, then it should be outlawed due to the costs to society or
to the government. This is not a viable way to conduct society's
affairs in in my opinion.

Take the head injured biker that wasn't wearing a helmet for example.
Since the government will be paying the costs for this bum that
didn't have a job, we should make everyone wear a helmet or so the
argument goes. But why should the government pay in the first place?
This guy made his choice and he should live with it. If the
government can not pay for these fringe cases, perhaps it should
consider dropping some of these types of clients and direct its
limited resources to more deserving people. I will repeat, the
government is not your mom.

In the case of insurance costs, we already pay according to our
activities/occupations. I paid more for health insurance and life
insurance when I was a motorcycle racer, and smokers pay more also.
So it would seem to me that people that ride with out helmets should
get to pay more too. And if the rider lied about his helmet use to
obtain lower premiums, then a cut in benifits would be a way to cover
the insurance company's interests.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Dick Winningstad                                                    +
+                    Italian Wines are Fine                          +
+          I'd rather be on a Moto Guzzi in eastern Oregon.          +
+dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:51:24 GMT
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <1992Dec16.164049.2990@mmm.serc.3m.com> ccg@tcdsp1.mmm.com ("Charles Ganzhorn") writes:
:In article <1992Dec16.135700.1991@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, paynter@bnr.ca (Stuart Paynter) writes:
:|> |>  It is MY skull that is cracked open, not anyone else's. 
:|> I don't usually like to comment on such things as pesonal freedom but here 
:|> I go....  Yes it is your skull.  By you cracking your skull open, you 
:|> affect (possibly)
:|>      - your FAMILY who worries about you
:|>      - your employer/customers while you are away from work
:
:OK, I'll give you those.

Shoudn't that be enough?




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

		     There are no ordinary moments.

Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:37:32 GMT

nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:

>Dick Winningstad has got a point (never mind some of the reasoning).
>It would be possible--just as we now try to prevent people from buying
>cocaine or jumping off bridges--for the state to ratchet things up
>considerably.  Possible, though not as ineluctable as some people
>insist.

>What bothers me about dangerous activities is that I wind up paying
>some of the costs.  (I do now of course to keep the FDA and others
>in groceries, but I'm willing to pay those costs because I hope they
>protect me and mine.)  These costs stem from higher insurance rates
>as well as higher taxes because of negligency lawsuits.  The unhelmeted
>motorcyclist thus runs a better chance of dying or being maimed for
>life _and_ I wind up paying because he or his estate will sue my com-
>pany.

>What does the freedom-for-all crowd say about that?

>Norman Miller

Pretty soon we're all going to be buying products that come with a 
small novella of disclaimers:  "While riding this or any motorcycle,
you shouldn't remove your hand from the brake to pick your nose as
this may cause you to lose concentration, as well as capability of
using the brake and thus may cause an accident."  Sound silly?  Yes,
but I don't discount ANY lawyer trying to put money into his own
pocket as well as get a few bucks for a client by arguing that whatever
situation the rider was in, it wasn't covered in a warning note by
the manufacturer.  Of course I don't limit this just to motorcycle
riding.  I also think of the humorous but could-be-true joke/story about
the guy in the Midwest who, upon rising one morning in the wintertime,
decided to do some repair work on his barn and needed a ladder to get
to some high spot.  So, it being winter and very cold in the morning, he
set his ladder on top of a pile of frozen cow/pig/horse (take your pick)
dung and proceeded to commence work.  As the morning wore on and the 
sun came out, it started to thaw the dung, to the point where the ladder
started to sink into it.  As the ladder sank, it sank unevenly, causing
the farmer to become unbalanced, fall and break his arm, whereby a lawyer
represented the farmer in a lawsuit stating that "The manufacturer did
NOT come out with a warning stating that it was not advised that the ladder
be set on top of a frozen pile of cow dung, etc., etc., etc.,".  Sound
far-fetched?  Now in today's world!

allen
Xref: sparky seattle.general:4131 pnw.general:2946 alt.society.civil-liberty:6942 alt.activism:19631 alt.individualism:6105 rec.bicycles.misc:1583 talk.politics.misc:64503
From: ccg@tcdsp1.mmm.com ("Charles Ganzhorn")
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:40:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.135700.1991@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, paynter@bnr.ca (Stuart Paynter) writes:
|> [lottsa stuff deleted].............
|> 
|> |>  It is MY skull that is cracked open, not anyone else's.  And as I said in a previous post, I think it is silly to think that ANYONE would see reduced insurance prices if there were mandatory helmet laws.  In fact, in Minnesota where we are required to|>  have car insurance, for example, it raised insurance prices since one of the basic concepts of capitalism is violated:  I don't have the choice NOT to purchase the product.
|> |>
|> I don't usually like to comment on such things as pesonal freedom but here 
|> I go....  Yes it is your skull.  By you cracking your skull open, you 
|> affect (possibly)
|> 
|>      - any people that may present when the accident occured

The only effect is they see something unpleasant.  Sorry folks, but I don't
change my behaviour just to coddle your sensibilities.

|>      - ambulance/paramedics/fire/police who have to come and patch
|>        you up
|>      - hospital emergency staff
|>      - hospital staff (doctors, nurses, orderlies, kitchen staff
|>        etc etc) while you recover.

I pay for all that stuff so I'm just being a good consumer.  It's their job to
patch silly fools like me up.

|>      - any person who also needs the hospital bed you are occupying

I have just as much right to use the services as anyone else

|>      - your (and/or your employers) medical insurance
|>      - every other person on that medical insurance plan

So do the hypocondriacs, and people with cronic conditions.  Again, I have
these services because I NEED them.  Perhaps I'll use more than I might have
but that's what they are there for.

|>      - your FAMILY who worries about you
|>      - your employer/customers while you are away from work

OK, I'll give you those.

|>      - lawyers/judges/court employees if there is a lawsuit

Again, I pay for this stuff either directly or through taxes.  I'm just using
services I've already paid for.

|> 
|> 
|> There are more.  I am not flaming anyone who believes in the right to choose.
|> I just want to point out that we cannot treat some of our choices as only
|> affecting ourselves, and that this reason cannot be used as a strong arguement
|> for that right.

So whatcha think?

Charles.
--
Charles Ganzhorn			E/Mail:  ccganzhorn@mmm.com
3M IS&DP Network Services		AT&T:	 +1 612 736 7122
St. Paul, MN				FAX:	 +1 612 736 7689
From: lowell@tc.fluke.COM (Lowell Skoog)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.
Reply-To: lowell@tc.fluke.COM (Lowell Skoog)
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Distribution: seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:35:10 GMT

klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross) writes:

>lowell@tc.fluke.COM (Lowell Skoog) writes:
>
>   Your basic freedoms (the ones the American Revolutionaries 
>   fought for) have not been diminished.
>
>What are basic liberties, the ones *you* cherish? Just because you don't
>mind wearing a helmet or a seat belt means its OK that *I* lose a basic
>freedom that *I* cherish? 

Here they are:

  The right to express your opinion
  The right to vote
  The right to be represented in the government
  The right to redress grievances in the courts

The helmet law has not affected those rights.  If you don't like the
helmet law, you can exercise your basic freedoms in the next
election.

In my view, the helmet law is yet another sign that our community is
"growing up", and I don't mean that in a positive sense.  As we try
to accommodate more and more people around here, we are running into
the limits of what our community can afford.  We see it in spiralling
costs, overcrowding, crime, and the increasingly hectic pace of
life.

Regulations like the helmet law are a response to those pressures.
Ironically, many of the people most opposed to such regulations are
the same people most in favor of growth.  I'd prefer to stop growth,
but lacking that, I'm willing to put up with regulations that keep us
from going broke or hurting each other, as long as my basic freedoms
remain intact.

					--Lowell Skoog
					  Seattle
Newsgroups: seattle.general