HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: reid@pa.dec.com (Brian Reid)
Subject: new language school opening in Palo Alto
Organization: DEC Network Systems Laboratory
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 21:04:29 GMT


For years I've been meaning to take beginning classes in the foreign
languages that I want to learn (Spanish and Mandarin) and more advanced
classes in the languages that I already know (German and French). 

This week a new commercial foreign-language school opened in Palo Alto, and
after talking to them I'm sufficiently excited that I'm going to post this
information about them.

I have no connection with these people except that I am going to be a charter
customer; my motives for posting this are that I want them to stay in
business so I can take lots of lessons from them.

Here is their "short flyer":
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WE HATE SCHOOL! (GEoNEXUS communications). That's why we've redefined the
learning process with small classes and enthusiastic instructors. Beginning
October 12th, Geonexus Communications will offer you 8-week language courses
in Japanese, Spanish, French, German, or Mandarin Chinese.

Call for our free brochure: 415-321-6545

Sign up by Friday October 9th to take advantage of our special grand opening price.

522 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(note from me: this is the site of the old "If Wishes Were Horses" children's
bookstore; it's right behind Burger King and right across Ramona Street from
DEC WRL)

Here are some highlights from their brochure: 
	* classes begin October 12
	* evening group classes at 5:30 and 7:30 p.m.
	* Normal fee: $200 for 8 weeks. Grand Opening price is $160, but
	  must sign up by October 9 to receive this discount.
	* Books and materials are not included in the class price; the average
	  cost for these materials is $20 to $40.
	* Payment in full required by first day of class.
	* Partial refunds available if you drop out before the 4th class.
	* Private and corporate classes can be arranged on an individual basis.
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: GC.AVW@forsythe.stanford.edu (RAGIN CAJUN)
Subject: king size water bed
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:57:33 GMT






King size water bed for sale.  This is a brand new bed only 2 weeks
new.  Cost $300 asking $225 or bo.  Moving and no room for the darn
thing.

Posting for a friend.  If you are interested please reply to this
account and I can provide more info on it.

Prefer you transport it but if you are unable something can be
arranged.

Bed can be seen on Monday or Tuesday.

Thanks  Alma
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 11:00:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.013608.26231@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>In article <1992Oct5.160210.18021@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:

>>Part of your argument is that its impossible for
>>a parent to know all the time where a child is and what he's doing.
>>Fine; I accept that.  But most parents I know of could do a lot 
>>better than they currently do, and this is what bugs me so much about
>>AN laws.  

>And what about the parents who do their best and still feel that
>an unsecured pool is an unacceptable hazard? Should we deny them
>the protection of the A.N. laws because some or even many parents
>are irresponsible?

Well, old buddy, you loaded the question, so I'll pull the trigger.

Surely by now you must realize that, no matter how well-intentioned,
the AN laws represent an abridgement of a personal liberty (private
property usage) that is/was a big part of the value system upon which
this country was based.

Now if I could just get you to step out of your position of parent
and into one of critical political analyst, I'd ask you upon what
basis you're prepared to make such a breach.  And I wouldn't 
consider answers such as "it's worth it to save children's lives"
acceptable unless you're prepared to take equally far-reaching
measures on handguns, household poisons, demographically-unfit
parents, and whatever else populates the top couple of dozen causes
for infant/child fatalities.

In other words, I'll find your attitude toward third parties more
acceptable when you're just as strict with the parents themselves.

Fair enough?
-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:26:47 GMT

In article 23570@u.washington.edu, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>markr@mcil.comm.mot.com writes:
>>I believe we were talking about cases in which suit was brought after
>>the child climbed over the fence and drowned.
>
>The general principle of "attractive nuisance" arose out of cases where
>children were injured, not killed, though.

Really?  Why do you believe that there is a difference?


---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141

Xref: sparky ba.general:4237 misc.kids:25330 misc.legal:18186
From: mcb@borges.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Summary: Negligence law
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:14:47 GMT
Organization: Postmodern Consulting, San Francisco, California USA

In the referenced article, kudzu@netcom.com (Michael Sierchio) writes:
> [...]
> If you own a swimming pool, you have certain liabilities, just as you
> do in owning a motor vehicle -- if a pedestrian steps out in front of
> your car and you hit him unavoidably, breaking his legs, it's his fault
> and your liability.

Sorry, but this is simply not true.  Common-law liability in auto
accident cases is based on negligence, that is, deviating from a
standard of conduct of a so-called "reasonable person".  If the
accident is (100%) the pedestrian's fault, the driver/owner has no
liability.  Even in a no-fault jurisdiction, the pedestrian may collect
from his own insurer, but if the facts are as stated there is still no
liability.

In the case of some activities which are inherently dangerous, or for
certain consumer products, foods, drugs, etc, under certain narrow
conditions there is so-called "strict liability" (that is, liability
without negligence), but this does not apply to operating a motor
vehicle.

Of course, this is based on pure legal doctrine and is independent of
the question of proving liability, competence of evidence, likelihood
of settlement, etc.

--
Michael C. Berch
Member of the California Bar
mcb@postmodern.com
Xref: sparky ba.general:4118 misc.kids:24975 misc.legal:17985
From: dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 2 Oct 1992 23:37:31 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
>>Exactly to whom is it the worth the cost of a fence to put the
>>fence around Mr. Sohl's swimming pool?  Let that person speak up.
>>
>   ME, if it's my pool.

Unless your pool and Mr. Sohl's pool are one and the same, you
have not answered the question.

-- 
                     Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:14:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.204225.5479@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>In article <1992Oct1.191951.16634@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:

>>An element of judgement must be used here, as someone who left poisoned
>>candy bars by the sidewalk in their front yard is clearly culpable.
>>But I for one have a very hard time implicating pool owners when 
>>children trespass and drown.

>I guess that's the heart of the matter. I consider an unsecured pool to
>have a lot in common with poisoned candy bars on the sidewalk. You
>don't. Society does (hence the doctrine of "attractive nuisance").
>
>I'm sorry you don't accept the decision of me and society. You will
>be bound by society's decision, however.

Unfortunately, yes.  What's curious is that you used to sound pretty
libertarian in the past, but current tone is comparatively coercive
(some would say fascist).  Does becoming a parent have this effect
on people?


-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Xref: sparky ba.general:4026 misc.kids:24730
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:56:04 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Sep30.010529.21970@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>I'm really sick of the system the way it is: I pay (thru taxes) to
>send everybody's kids to school.

I like to think of the taxes you pay as paying for the education YOU
received in public schools. (it's not perfect, but nothing is)

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
Xref: sparky ba.general:4170 misc.kids:25139
From: kathyj@pyramid.COM (Kathy Johnson )
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:22:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Mountain View, California

In article <1992Sep30.195403.22638@cascade.Stanford.EDU>, king@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Robin King) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep30.165604.8251@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
|> >I like to think of the taxes you pay as paying for the education YOU
|> >received in public schools. (it's not perfect, but nothing is)
|> >-- 
|> 	That's fine, but then I shouldn't be paying more than
|> 	1 child's worth of taxes for this to be fair.
|> 
|> 	I would LOVE to see people pay completely for schooling
|> 	(babysitting) additional children-- why should I have to pay 
|> 	for everyone else's irresponsible breeding habits?  
|> 	
|> 	And here's a proposal for federal taxes:
|> 		1 child	=  1 tax deduction
|> 		2 kids  =  1 tax deduction still (no add'l)
|> 		3 kids  =  1 tax penalty (so neutral total)
|> 		4+ kids =  heap on those penalties!
|> 
|> 	People who want multiple kids should start paying for their
|> 	school costs and other services.

Would you apply this to people who adopt hard-to-place kids?  Or only to
'breeders'?
-- 
Lost:  One clever .sig file.  Short, witty and sweet.  Reward.
       Does not bite.

       kathyj@pyramid.com
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Cheap cars!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 21:00:24 GMT

>
>>Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
>
>Happier owner of a new Mazda RX-7.  Wanna drag for pink slips?
>

Confident owner of a new Sears Riding mower. Yeah, I wanna race for pink slips!


Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:51:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.211246.6246@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.180008.21720@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>Children should not die for the failures of the parents.
>>All you have to do is put a fence around your swimming pool.
>>If it saves just one life, it's worth it.
>
>And of course, you'll be happy to pay for it, won't you?

The owner of the attractive nuisance is responsible for securing it.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.

Xref: sparky ba.general:4102 misc.kids:24951 misc.legal:17973
From: dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:44:30 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>All you have to do is put a fence around your swimming pool.
>If it saves just one life, it's worth it.

Exactly to whom is it the worth the cost of a fence to put the
fence around Mr. Sohl's swimming pool?  Let that person speak up.

-- 
                     Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: bs@fatima.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:15:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.235436.607@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
:In article <183741@pyramid.pyramid.com> rtener@pyrman2.mis.pyramid.com (Rex Tener) writes:
:>>All you have to do is put a fence around your swimming pool.
:>
:>And all you have to do is put a fence around your house, if you can't
:>keep your children on your property.
:
:No, that is not acceptable. Children are not animals to be kept in
:a cage all their life.
:
:>Phil has said it now, "If it saves just one life, it's worth it."
:>
:>Let's ban bicycles, cars, swimming pools, football, tennis, golf,
:>work, beer, cigarettes, etc., etc.,...........................
:>.... because "If it saves just one life, it's worth it." 
:
:No one said anything about a ban. Just secure the attractive nuisance,
:that's all that society asks.
 
The problem is that there are still cases where a nuisance HAS been
properly secured, yet the protection was circumvented. Let's say you
put up a fence around your pool, and some idiot 10 year old climbs
the fence and drowns in the pool. I have seen juries STILL award damages
in such cases.

There was a case a few years back in New Hampshire concerning a snowmobile
accident. It seems some retard cut through a barbed fence that had 
'No Trespassing' signs on it so he could cut across some field in his
snowmobile. He ran into a ditch on the property at high speed and was
paralized as a result. He sued and won, claiming that the property owner
was negligent by leaving this open ditch on his property.

If people can get sued anyway, why should they bother with fences?
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 05:33:55 GMT

In article <6987@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
>If Phil didn't live next door and didn't have uncontrolled children
>it wouldn't be a problem.  Phil can build a fence around Phil's yard!

You don't have to have uncontrolled children to view an unsecured
attractive nuisance as a dangerous threat. Fencing children in
is unacceptable.

>All I can say to Phil and parents like him is this.  I understand
>why you want to protect your child.  I really can see that angle
>on it.  My problem is you don't see our side.  You try to use

I do see your side, but your side is irrelevant. Two wrongs don't
make a right. It doesn't matter what children have done to you,
you are not allowed to present a deadly threat to children. Period.
End of story.

>Phil wants to make all the
>decisions, but send the premium bill nextdoor.

Don't get so personal about this. I did not write the law, I do not
enforce the law. I am merely explaining how things work. As for
your complaint, if you can afford a pool, you can afford a fence.

>but I'll bet a fence
>around your yard is much cheaper.

Fencing children in like animals is unacceptable.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.

Newsgroups: sun.junk,ba.general
From: salil@igor.tamri.com (Salil Saxena)
Subject: Re: Defensive Driving Schools
Keywords: Bondurant high-performance
Organization: Toshiba America MRI Inc, S. San Francisco, CA.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 20:00:07 GMT

In article <lchee4INNrs@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> austin@nova.Eng.Sun.COM (Austin Yeats) writes:
>
>	I'd like information on defensive driving schools.
>	I've heard of the Bondurant school at Sears Point
>	but wonder if there are any others in the Bay
>	Area.
>
>	Has anyone taken the Bondurant driving course?
>	(I reaize there is a "racing" course as well
>	as the "defensive" course).
>

Driving schools in the area:

	Sears Point - Skip Barber 
	Laguna Seca - Jim Russell

The Bondurant school was relocated from Sears Point to Phoenix a couple of
years ago.

-- 
Salil Saxena		Gotta love those British Roadsters - '91 Lotus Elan SE
Toshiba America MRI, Inc.		Internet: salil@igor.tamri.com	
South San Francisco, CA  94080		Phone: (415) 872-2722 x2283
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Opionions expressed are mine and only mine <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Xref: sparky ba.general:4192 misc.kids:25208 misc.legal:18112
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:28:56 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Oct5.154955.16822@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>Where do you draw the line?  What do you do if studies indicate that,
>of the remaaining fatalities that still occur with covered pools, 5%
>could have been eliminated if the owner built 12' fences around his
>property, put padlocks on all the gates and changed the combinations
>every week?

I believe the requirements are part of the law and as such, I consider
that to be a reasonable guideline. I haven't looked at the details but
would expect something like 6 foot fences, etc.

>When you start using words like "reasonable," "practical," or
>"effective" you are bringing YOUR personal opinions into the picture.
>Your opinions are great as conversation fodder but terrible as a
>basis for law.

They're not intended to be a basis for law. The laws are already
written anyway. In my opinion, they are reasonable, practical,
and effective.

>Exactly how far are you prepared to encroach on other people's rights
>in order to suit your personal agenda?

I don't consider that you have a right to own an attractive nuisance
without securing it.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:31:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.180008.21720@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.154058.29552@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>>The line is very clear.  It is (or should be) the line which marks
>>the boundary of my property.  Neighbor's kids do not belong on my
>>property....period!  I am constantly amazed at the lack of parenting
>>in this area.  Each of my 3 kids knows it would be their hide that
>>pays if they were caught trespassing on someone else's property for
>
>Making them pay with their hide is fine. Making them pay with their
>life is not. A swimming pool is a deadly threat to children.
>
>>Let's be honest here.  The bottom line is that the parents of these
>>kids have failed in their role as parents, BUT that shouldn't make
>>you and I responsible for the acts of the hulligans they've raised.
>
>Children should not die for the failures of the parents.
>All you have to do is put a fence around your swimming pool.
>If it saves just one life, it's worth it.

I believe we were talking about cases in which suit was brought after
the child climbed over the fence and drowned.

Mark



Xref: sparky ba.general:4179 misc.kids:25152 misc.legal:18084
From: dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:14:47 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
=>>>Exactly to whom is it the worth the cost of a fence to put the
=>>>fence around Mr. Sohl's swimming pool?  Let that person speak up.
=
=   My original posting meant that I would feel morally obligated to
=   protect the community of children from my attractive nuisance if
=   it were my pool--whether or NOT it also happens to be the law.  
=
=   Does THAT answer your stupid question?

No.  I don't think the question is hard to understand, so I conclude
that you're evading it.
-- 
                     Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:25:15 GMT

In article 17462@adobe.com, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.154955.16822@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>
>>Exactly how far are you prepared to encroach on other people's rights
>>in order to suit your personal agenda?
>
>I don't consider that you have a right to own an attractive nuisance
>without securing it.

Michael seems to confuse society's agenda with Phil's.  

The answer to Michael's question, is "as far as is reasonably needed to protect
the members of the society at large".  The exact dimensions is developed in 
courts throughout the country every day, based on case law, common law, and the
concept of "what a reasonable person would do".


---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141
From: c164-ea@po.berkeley.edu (Jennifer Van Heuit)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Women Soccer Players Wanted!
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:01:22 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley


	Women Soccer Players Wanted!!!! (esp. Goalie)
	
	Friendly, enthusiastic women's soccer team needs players,
	especially goalie.  Some experience essential, ok if it
	isn't particularly recent.  Our emphasis is on playing good
	soccer, staying in shape, and having fun (but we like winning!).  
	We're 4-0 so far.
	
	Games are every Saturday, in the East Bay, Marin, or San Francisco.
	It's an all-women league. We practice Mondays & Thursdays.  Please call 
	me if interested:
	
	Jennie (510)865-8681
	
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: jonim@wanda.asd.sgi.com (Joni Mehler)
Subject: ***Childcare****
Keywords: South Bay Daycare
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:04:19 GMT

**********************************************************

Posting article for a friend, follow up to the name below:

Looking for "childcare" that will provide a Safe, Fun, and
Encouraging environment for your child?

I provide an exiting and stimulating daycare for children
between the ages of 3 months and 5 years.  I encourage 
children to discover and learn with positive interaction and 
reinforcement.

 An example of daily activities include:

	* toys and activities
	* singing and dancing
	* outdoor play
	* reading and interactive play.

I provide healthy food and snacks daily.  My home is located
conveniently off highway 101 for south bay commuters.
My hours are between 7:30 am and 5:15 pm, Monday through Friday. 
If you are in need of nurturing "childcare" for your
child, call (408) 281-4916 and ask for Diana.	

************************************************************** 
--

Joni Mehler      jonim@corp.sgi.com
(415) 335-1765