HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Ataylor lies--repeats and new ones! Bring the kids!
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:32:35 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug28.115548.9747@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.232934.2580@u.washington.edu>, gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug27.012734.9724@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug26151459@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>>>God, you PERSIST in trying to make this into something it is not. Again and
>>>again.
>> 	If he is, then he's got plenty of company.
>Ataylor has repeatedly refused, under incredibly heavy proof that his
>interpretations were wrong, to do anything other than say, "I think you said
>something different!"
>You would think this person thinks admitting an error is like confessing to a
>murder. So, the debate goes on.
>And then I get blamed for being hostile.
>Go figure.

	I think a clue is mightily needed here.

>> 	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
>> found were women..."
>PS. Have you gotten any hate mail from feminists over your sig line?

	Here, too.
-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Apology to D. Cosgrove for Mis-Spelling His Name (Was: English Lesson For D. Consgrove)
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:45:36 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: NMSU Computer Science


	In the previous post, I mis-typed D. Cosgrove's name
	as "D. Consgrove". This was not intentional, but many
	people take offense to such mis-spellings.

	I apologize for my typographical error.

	The rest of the post stands.
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Self-Defense in the Home
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:09:04 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug26.201414.28122@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.113321.9702@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>> Can you tell us which state it is that does not permit the use of
>>> deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony in your own home?
>>
>>The rule of thumb is that the farther west you go, the more they permit deadly
>>force at the drop of a hat--except for CA.
> 
> That's an interesting rule, but it doesn't appear to be accurate
> enough to be useful.

Rules of thumb never are when you are talking about prison time. You have to
look up the rules as they apply.

> 
> WRT use of force to protect property, CA doesn't appear to be
> significantly different than most other western states.  (With maybe a
> couple of exceptions, they're all pretty down on it even though they
> all allow certain practices that are inconsistent with that rule.)
> 
> WRT use of force to protect people, CA's "castle doctrine" is a
> statutory rebuttable presumption of threat.  In some other states, it
> may be case law, but it isn't much diferent.

You're forgetting the fact that as the staute and case law are different, the
jury instructions change. In a close case, that is the difference between
walking free (State A) and doing time (State B). 

DC
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:42:57 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug27.145818.27472@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.102352.9731@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>Just a possibility. never count on a jury deciding ANYTHING in a particular
>>way, as they sometime come up with wrong results. Which is why JNOV exists.
> 
> Just a little nitpick for the benefit of those netters who Dar keeps trying
> to intimidate with his use of legal terminology -- JNOV no longer exists
> in the federal courts.  Congress repealed it last year.
> -- 
>              ......................................................
>              ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers


Ted, we are talking CALIFORNIA. Remember! California statute equals California
courts equals California rules of procedure! 

Keep your jursidctions straight.

DC

PS. Unless, of course, you claim she is being crminally tried under diversity,
which I would not think even you would attempt to argue.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Ataylor gets something right! Throw a party!
Followup-To: alt.stupidity
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug28162728@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Aug29.021918.9765@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug31161409@gauss.nmsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:19:46 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug31161409@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
   <In article <1992Aug29.021918.9765@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

   <   > 	Cosgrove, you are arguing with Andy on this issue, not me.
   <   > 
   <   > 	If Cosgrove cannot easily differentiate between *people* on 
   <   > 	such a trivial issue, why should anyone believe he
   ,   > 	can tell one *statute* from another?
   <   > 

   <   OK, I made a typo. Sorry to have maligned your reputation. 

	   "Andy" and "Ataylor" differ from each other almost
	   completely. To mistake one for the other requires
	   more than 1 typo.

   <   > <I want to humiliate you two. 
   <   > 
   <   > 	Note Cosgrove's obsession with public humiliation.

   <Absolutely. But you will note that the fact I enjoy doing it does not nullify
   <the fact that I do it.

	   Only in Cosgrove's dreams has he humiliated anyone
	   on this newsgroup so far....

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: gprall@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gene Prall)
Subject: Re: Self-Defense in the Home
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 07:28:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.044848.15372@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.005905.9535@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
(stuff about the burgalry deleted..)

>>Surprise! Trick question! BOTH are valid, depending upon the rule of law of the
>>state you live in.
>
>Can you tell us which state it is that does not permit the use of
>deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony in your own home?
>-- 
I know here in Georgia, If a man is burglarizing your home and he is within
your 4 walls of your home you have every legal right to fill him full of lead

But stupidly, you cannnot shoot them outside of your house if they are breaking
in or climbing out...

Gene
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Theoretical book
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:12:43 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug28.195928.19773@news.columbia.edu>, dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
> 
>    Just to start a new thread that doesn't revolve around DC and friends...
> 
>   How would you react if you saw this book in a store:
> 
>      Rape: How to commit it, and how to enjoy it
> 
>   And it really seemed to be a manual for committing rape. The table of
> contents went something like this:
> 
> Chapter1: Victim selection
> Chapter2: 101 rape scenarios you can use
> Chapter3: Defending against counterattack
> Chapter4: Get the most enjoyment out of violence
> Chapter5: How to avoid detection and arrest
> Chapter6: Getting caught, getting off
> Chapter7: Humiliating and scarring your victim for life
> Chapter8: Group activities and other advanced techniques
> 
>    What would be your reaction? Would you read it? Would you try to ban it?
> 
> DanZ

Are we talking serious book that is advocating rape, or just some really sick
humor, or a book designed to combat rape by raising awareness of the subject?

DC
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:49:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.215024.18041@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.235013.9720@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> >I say you are making this 'code' up. I am stating that you either are:
> >
> >1. Not being honest.
> >2. Not being aware of what you 'alleged; code says or how it has been
> >interpreted.
> 
> Meanwhile, people who have looked for the section I'm referring to have
> found it, and found that I accurately interpreted it.

	I even checked with my attorney today, and had my, and Andy's, 
conclusions affirmed.  DC is full of hot air.

-- 
		Brian A. Ehrmantraut

BELL:   voice:(408) 492-0900  fax: (408) 492-0909  
USnail:	Auspex Systems, 2952 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:15:40 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <14322@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
> 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:
>> > Other people have found the statute; they were interested in it and
>> > the lack of a statute number was no obstacle to them.  DC either isn't
>> > interested enough to look in the index or has some other problem.
>> > Either way, that's his problem.  Pay me and I might care, but I don't
>> > now.
>> 
>> More lies Andy. I expected better from you. There is no statute which fits
>> here.
> 
> 	Wrong.  I found it easily.  Surely you can as well...

IF an applicable one existed--surely I could. But Ataylor is no expert and he
may have found some law against using poison in your garden for all we know.

I do not believe there is a law which prohibits a woman from using a can of
WD-40 for self-defense if she is being raped.

However, if you claim to have found it, maybe we should all just take your word
for it. God knows the trend here is to post messages saying little more than "I
am right and refuse to give facts to support", so you do appear to be fitting
the format of the group.

But, if that is the best that you and ataylor can do, I do feel sorry for you.


> 
>> Liars usually don't. (At least that is what they claim. But for someone who
>> does not care what I say, you DO spend a lot of time giving rebuttal. 'Me
>> thinks he doth protest too much.'
> 
> 	I think you may be onto something here...  

Absolutley. It is hard to claim you do not care what someone else says when you
try so very hard to disprove the slightest thing that you can. Ataylor has dug
through old posts, archived them, edited them, posted and reposted them, and
then claims he doesn't care what I say.

No, he wishes he didn't care. If he really didn't care, he never would have
responded to my posts.

DC

PS. Maybe he is schizo! One personality cares and writes posts and the other
one doesn't...nah. Because it was the one writing the post which was claiming
not to care. Sorry, my mistake. Looks like he DOES care after all.
From: bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:48:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.023418.9769@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> In article <14366@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
> > In article <1992Aug27.101540.9730@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> > 	That is not the original point of dispute, now is it?  We were 
> > discussing the consequences of carrying certain "weapons"...  
> 
> 
> No Brian, you are wrong. That IS the original point of the dispute. Some people
> were posting recipies for home-made rape-repellants for states where mace is
> illegal. I suggested that a woman could buy a trial size can of WD-40 and not
> worry about being prosecuted.

	No, you suggested that a woman could *carry* a can of WD-40 for the 
purpose of self-defense without worry about being prosecuted.[1] In California,
that is simply not legal, as Andy Freeman quite rightly pointed out.  People
*have* been successfully prosecuted for similar actions.

> Welcome to flame city.

	Better pick another fight...

[1] In article <1992Aug21.085329.9621@uoft02.utoledo.edu>.  

-- 
		Brian A. Ehrmantraut

BELL:   voice:(408) 492-0900  fax: (408) 492-0909  
USnail:	Auspex Systems, 2952 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054  
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:49:10 GMT

The story so far:  Cosgrove suggests that a potential victim should perjure
themselves on the stand (and if he's really a lawyer, the bar association
would love to hear that).  Rolfe suggested a line of cross-examination
which would catch the person in a lie.  Cosgrove tries to nitpick using
legal terminology.  My reply post was misdirected and misconstrued, I'll
try to start over and pick up the appropriate point.

In article <1992Aug26.080508.9698@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> In article <1992Aug25.003354.9670@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>Rolfe writes:
>>>> PW: No (perjury).
>>>
>>>(So? What is your point?)

Are you recommending your client commit perjury?  What is your point
in denying the reality of this?

>>>Objection your honor. Irrelevant under rule 401.

I might point out here that, given that we're talking about California,
Federal Rule of Evidence 401 is quite irrelevant to the California
Evidentiary Code.  But Cosgrove claims to be a lawyer and surely knows that.

>PS, Chicago School of law sure does a shoddy job of teaching people.

And then closes with a flame, and one improperly punctuated at that.  
You want to play "my resume is longer than yours," Cosgrove?  I can play 
that game if it will help relieve your testosterone pains that 
you seem to exhibit when you flame every single
member of the net.  (What law school did you go to?)  Your nitpick of
Rolfe (under an incorrect legal standard) is telling: Rolfe (who's
one of the most informed laypeople I've seen on the net) suggests a
hypothetical line of cross-examination to trip up the client you
propose to have lie -- and you miss the point and nit on specific
questions, as if there does not exist a single line of allowable
questioning that would accomplish the same result.

(Incidentally, I checked -- the carrying of tear gas for self-defense
purposes only is allowed in California, as long as it's in packaging
approved by the Federal Department of Justice.  Homemade remedies
(even assuming they're effective, which other posts seem to indicate
that they're not) would be prosecutable, even if used in self-defense.
Your state law may vary, and I've simplified the nature of the California
law, so check your local statutes rather than take this as gospel.  As
with all of my posts and e-mail, past, present, and future, standard
disclaimers apply -- I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and
does not represent the opinions of the University of Chicago or Judge
Posner or any of my other employers, past, present, or future.  
Often it won't even represent my opinion.)
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Date: 27 Aug 92 09:57:05 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <14321@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.235013.9720@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> In article <1992Aug26.195717.27603@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> > If you're not going to look at the penal code, statute numbers are
>> > useless, and if you are, they're unnecessary.  That's why I often
>> > don't bother.  Sometimes I do provide them.  It depends on the
>> > discussion.  In this one, I've no interest in making life easy for DC.
>> 
>> I say you are making this 'code' up. I am stating that you either are:
>> 
>> 1. Not being honest.
>> 2. Not being aware of what you 'alleged; code says or how it has been
>> interpreted.
> 
> 	Gee, DC, with the clues Andy provided, I managed to find the relevant
> sections of California law, and it only took about five minutes.  I didn't
> even have to leave my office.  Surely you, with all of your supposed legal
> expertise, could do as well...
> 
> 	Then again, perhaps you simply don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> -- 
> 		Brian A. Ehrmantraut
> 

Gee Brian,

	How do you know you found the same code Andy is referring to? The
California statutes are divided up into multi-volume sets each dealing
individual sub-sets of California law.

	Did you correspond with him to verify this?

	Let me state it clear and simply--the only reason Andy might have for
not divulging the statute--if one were to exist--is because he knows I will
simply dig into the annotations and show it is not relevant to the discussion
at hand.

	I also claim that is why YOU do not post it.

	Come on hot shot--prove me wrong.

	If you can.


DC
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: BE's attorney.
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:29:01 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <14368@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.215024.18041@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug26.235013.9720@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> >I say you are making this 'code' up. I am stating that you either are:
>> >
>> >1. Not being honest.
>> >2. Not being aware of what you 'alleged; code says or how it has been
>> >interpreted.
>> 
>> Meanwhile, people who have looked for the section I'm referring to have
>> found it, and found that I accurately interpreted it.
> 
> 	I even checked with my attorney today, and had my, and Andy's, 
> conclusions affirmed.  DC is full of hot air.

This attorney have a name?

DC
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Theoretical book
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:50:16 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.

In article <1992Aug29.011243.9763@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.195928.19773@news.columbia.edu>, dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>      Rape: How to commit it, and how to enjoy it
>> 
>> 
>> Chapter1: Victim selection
  [...]
>
>Are we talking serious book that is advocating rape, or just some really sick
>humor, or a book designed to combat rape by raising awareness of the subject?
>
   The book isn't humor. It seems to be advocating rape; or at least telling
you how to do it. But how can you tell the difference between 'advocating'
and 'raising awarness'?

DanZ



-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Goetz
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:02:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.022738.9767@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <14364@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
>> 	Your statement is quite simply false. The only way that you would come 
>> to believe this information would be from popular accounts. Case closed, eh?
>
>Listen, I hate to burst your bubble, but in public debate, you have to do more
>than just say someone is wrong, you gotta show WHY they are wrong.
>
>Do you have any refernces that show what I have claimed is wrong?

Said references have been provided.  The research impaired may not be
able to use them, but that's DC's problem.  The rest of us are not a
free typing service for him.

>Remember, in order to close a case where you are prosecuting someone, you got
>to present SOME kind of evidence. Let's see it.

Hint: this isn't a prosecution.  In any event, the evidence has been
provided in a form useful to the intended audience.  (DC appears to be
under the misconception that everyone has to play according to his
rules.)  If DC wants more, he'll have to figure out how to get someone
interested in helping him.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Cal Penal Code 12401/Time constraints on law review types.
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:01:24 GMT

In article <64939@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:

>Well, Chicago is inferior: "They came from inferior schools--Chicago,
>Columbia and Vanderbilt, as he recalled from a cursory examination of
>Martindale-Hubbell's Legal Directory.  He knew they would not dwell on
>academics."  That's from the #1 national best seller, "The Firm," by
>John Grisham.  You wouldn't want to argue with a best seller, would you? :-)

I know you're joking, Tim, but it's worth pointing out that the passage
you quote doesn't represent Grisham's opinion--it represents a
*character's* opinion, and the character in question is something of a
snob about his own law school. Grisham wants you to know something about
his character's arrogance.

The University of Chicago law school is inferior, IMHO, only to my own
alma mater, the University of Texas School of Law, which, in addition to
having top-tier faculty and facilities, has superior access to restaurants
featuring Tex-Mex cuisine. 


--Mike





-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Xref: sparky talk.rape:2364 misc.legal:16675
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Cal Penal Code 12401/Time constraints on law review types.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 23:17:16 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug27.233126.22600@midway.uchicago.edu>
  <1992Aug28.123612.9748@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
  <1992Aug28.231711.15226@midway.uchicago.edu>

> with little effort.  DC has taken it upon himself to claim that
> his unnamed law school has taught him better than the University
> of Chicago taught me, that I'm a poor excuse for a lawyer, and other
> abusive and misspelled flames at myself and others.  I'm bringing

Well, Chicago is inferior: "They came from inferior schools--Chicago,
Columbia and Vanderbilt, as he recalled from a cursory examination of
Martindale-Hubbell's Legal Directory.  He knew they would not dwell on
academics."  That's from the #1 national best seller, "The Firm," by
John Grisham.  You wouldn't want to argue with a best seller, would you? :-)

Perhaps DC is practicing to get into any sequel to "Disorderly Conduct."
For those who haven't seen that, it's a book of interesting things taken
from actual court transcripts.  The above report of DC's antics reminds
me of one that goes something like this:

	Defendant: I just want you to know, your Honor, that I have a
	law degree from La Salle and you aren't dealing with no dummy.

	Judge: Well, I have a law degree from the University of
	Washington, and you are not dealing with one either.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.rape