From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:32:42 GMT

[pissing contest moving to alt.flame]

In article <1992Aug27.000407.9721@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.200422.27773@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> DC should reread the quoted text.  WD-40 isn't outlawed.  Doing certain
>> things with WD-40 is.  One of those things is carrying it as a weapon
>> for use against people, even if the use is otherwise legally justifiable.
>
>More lies Andy. I expected better from you. There is no statute which fits
>here.

Yet, everyone who's looked has found it.  One of them appears to have
even checked some of the case law.

>>>I'd be willing to bet money that most women would rather risk being
>>>convicted of that than allowing a rapist to finish his plans.
>> 
>> So?
>
>Go pull a clue from the clue bag if you need to ask that question. 

DC wants so much to be right about something that he introduces
irrelevancies and whines when I won't oblige him....

>>>> Since justifiable use while carrying without a permit is justifiable
>>>> use while carrying without a permit, yes, I do equate the two.  The
>>>> fact that there may not be a permit for carrying WD-40 as a weapon
>>>> doesn't change that.
>>>
>>>Yes it does. It changes it HIGHLY.
>> 
>> Really?  "Your honor, there's no permit that would let me do this, so
>> let me off" works?  Where?
>
>Your prior two sentences do not equal this most recent post. Which one are you
>now claiming is your real intent?

There's no change.  Before DC takes that "how to use an index" class, maybe
he should take a class in reading comphrension.

>> It is easy, but proving DC wrong to DC's satisfaction doesn't interest
>> me.  People who have bothered to use the information I've provided
>> know he's wrong; they're my intended audience and I don't care whether
>> or not he does.  If he wants me to, he's going about that a wrong way.
>
>OH! Now I see! You are writing for the benifit of those people who believe
>you.  These people who you have corresponded with and you all secretly know
>I am wrong.

Huh?  I haven't discussed this with anyone, although I have heard from
people who've found out that I'm right on this and DC is wrong.

DC doesn't see.  I'm writing for people who are interested enough to
look up the statute.  They'll know whether or not I'm right on this
point.  I don't really care whether or not they believe me in the
future because I always provide enough information to check what I
say.  They'll check when they're interested and won't when they
aren't.  That seems reasonable to me; checking always turns up other
useful stuff for interested people.

>Bullshit. There are a few people on here who would LOVE to be able to rub my
>nose in that fact that I was wrong, even if just once.

What is DC babbling about?  I've no interest in proving something to a
walking strawman.

>You once spent considerable effort in an attempt to do just that.

When and what?  (Hint: I haven't spent "considerable effort" in
ANY/ALL of my articles that have had any mention of DC.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu