HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aclark@netcom.com (Al Clark)
Subject: Re: Insurance for 1990 Ford Escort
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:06:41 GMT

In article <42924@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> tmarvan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Thomas Marvan) writes:
>
>What's the minimum insurance (legally) for a Ford Escort I just
>bought at the deadlership.  I.e., what does it have to cover?
>
>
>And, anyone with a similar car have any idea what such insurance
>will set me back?  I'm only 24 (which I understand is a problem) and
>just got my CA license (I've been driving wiht my foreign Australian
>license up to now).
>
>Can anyone suggest some reputable companies here in Sthn Ca where I
>could get the best deals.  So far the dealer who sold me the car is
>trying to make me buy with a private, small operation company whose
>front man seems a bit shady to me.  Any suggestions?
>
>
>(help.)
>
    Stay away from small insurance companies; there are multiple
    reasons including offshore operation, cancellation for trivial
    reasons, etc.  Go with a major company; I use Allstate.  Their
    rates are reasonable if you have a safe driving record.  Their
    agent will tell you the minimum you need.  My son who is 19
    has a 1984 Ford Escort, and his insurance premium for liability
    is about $740 per year.  However, this includes multiple car
    discount and renewal discount, which he gets by using my policy.
    I have no connection with Allstate other than satisfied policy
    holder.
-- 
Al - aclark@netcom.com - My opinions are my own.
From: aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Transferring a vehicle to CA from NY
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:23:41 GMT
Organization: Helen Keller Bondurant's Performance Driving School for the Blind

In article <1992Dec14.173428.22086@news.csd.sgi.com> kevinb@oblivion.csd.sgi.com (Kevin Brokaw) writes:
>I've just recently moved out here from "upstate" NY, where emissions
>testing is unheard of, and have found my vehicle (an 86 Ford Aerostar
>w/4 cyl and 5-speed) was not available in CA for that model year due to
>emissions problems. So far, I've heard estimates of from 300 to nearly a 
>grand just for the "pleasure" of putting CA plates on this thing. I still 
>maintain a residence in NY, so I have been able to keep my non-CA-resident
>status up to now, but I will soon become "permanent", and I'd like to 

Just FYI... whether you maintain other residences doesn't matter under the
law.  If you are employed in CA, that's all it takes -- you are legally
required to have a CA driver's license and CA registrations.

>Kevin Brokaw        ( kevinb@sgi.com )   | 

--
Alan Denney      aland@informix.com      {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland

  Smith and Wesson: the Ultimate Point-and-Click User Interface.
From: pnelson@cobra.Tymnet.COM (Phil Nelson)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Contract cooling off period
Summary: Say what?
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:01:54 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Dec30.232657.26609@netcom.com> dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross) writes:

>My understanding is the Rule of 78ths for consumer loans was abrogated
>statutorily in CA some year's back.  (Like, about 1978.  :-)

Judging by the payoff figure given me by Chrysler Credit Co. recently,
it is not their understanding. I didn't do the math, but it seemed to
me that the difference between the making the remaining 24 payments
totalling about $9K and the "pay off" amount should be more than the
few hundred dollars they quoted (I don't remember the exact amount,
but it didn't seem like much, it was less than $1K).

> __D_a l_l m a_n  _ R o_s s _ |dman@netcom.com  /or/  |"You sound like a man|



Phil Nelson . pnelson@tymix.tymnet.com . San Jose, CA, USA . 408-922-7508

	The highway of the upright turns aside from evil;
	    he who guards his way preserves his life.      Proverbs 16:17
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Subject: Re: Driver's License Test Question
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Distribution: ca
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 20:00:58 GMT

Thomas Marvan (tmarvan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu) wrote:
> [Re. 1991 (I think it is) law requiring sales disclosure within 5 days]

>  Yes, I had the same question on my exam which I took about a week
>  ago and guessed, incorrectly, 10 days.  I then asked an more
>  experienced Ca. driver and she said ten days also.  I found no
>  mention of this law in the Ca driver's handbook when reviewing my
>  error.

>  Now, it may be true that it is somewhere there, but if not, it
>  surely seems unfair for them to ask a question on something that is
>  not in the handbook....

Oh?  Why is it unfair?  Possession of a driver's license implies that you
are aware of every single law in the entire vehicle code, and any other
relevant code (e.g., Business & Professions Code, or local or municipal
laws) that might possibly apply to the acts you could undertake within
your domain as a driver; not just whatever laws they have put in the
little driver's handbook.

This premise (of the presumed knowledgeable driver) is all part of the
convenient "fiction," as it's called by social legal scholars, that
results in the old saw that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

If you break a traffic (or any other) law that isn't in that little
handbook and you are cited or arrested, the judge isn't going to let
you off because it wasn't in that book.  The book is merely a
somewhat-helpful aid to preparing for the test, and is not something 
the state is required to provide.

I had the question on my test in 1990 and got it wrong  too.  I think
it said something like, "Effective January 1st, 1991, California law
requires the seller of a motor vehicle to report the sale within how 
many days?"  I was pissed the my educated guess of 10 days was wrong, 
since it was the only question I'd gotten wrong in three quadriennial 
driver's tests in a row.  (Out of six total; I've been driving in 
California for 22 years.)   I agree that they should put it in the 
book, since it's obvious that they are stressing that we should know 
that particular law.  But "unfair"?  No, I wouldn't characterize it 
that way.

Hi, Tom.  :-)

--
 __D_a l_l m a_n  _ R o_s s _ |dman@netcom.com /or| /-\o /-()  -- -  --   - 
 l  \\ l\\   /l  /\\  l\\   l |dross@well.sf.ca.us| \_/ \\/ )  -- -    --   
 l   >)l \\ /ll /  \\ l \\  l |350 Perkins, #108  |       |/_\  -- -  --   -
 l  // l  \X ll/--- \\l  \\ l |Oakland, CA  94610 |        \_/ .  . . ........
_l//___AMA Life #585368___\\l_|phone:_510/645-1883|_DoD #696_Suzuki_'82_GS750E
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: daniels@netcom.com (Daniel A. Segel)
Subject: Re: I didn't receive a registration renewal notice
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:49:08 GMT

In article <byafuso.724617874@athena> byafuso@athena.qualcomm.com (Byron Yafuso) writes:
>I was getting new tires for my car the other day, and my buddy noticed 
>that my registration was expired.  I'm pretty sure I never got a renewal
>notice.
>
>So, I called the DMV and was informed that, because I was late, I would
>have to pay a late fee.  I was also informed that the late fee had been
>recently increased to %40 from %20 of the renewal rate.
>
>Hmmm?  I wonder if this is incentive for the state to "forget" to mail
>renewal notices to people.
>
>I might have confused the computer program last year when I went ahead
>and got my car smog-checked out of turn (I thought I had to do it
>every year).  But, then again, maybe not.
>
>Did anyone else not get a registration renewal notice in the mail?
>
This happened to me last year, and as many others have pointed out you
don't have much chance of getting out of the fine.

If you think about how many registrations the DMV has to send out each
year (something like 13 million? over 1 million/month), it kind of makes
sense that some percentage of them would get lost in the mail.

I know other's are claiming the DMV does this on purpose, but I'm in to
good a mood today to beleive it :)

Daniel S.
From: tmarvan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Thomas Marvan)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Insurance for 1990 Ford Escort
Date: 30 Dec 92 05:48:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


What's the minimum insurance (legally) for a Ford Escort I just
bought at the deadlership.  I.e., what does it have to cover?


And, anyone with a similar car have any idea what such insurance
will set me back?  I'm only 24 (which I understand is a problem) and
just got my CA license (I've been driving wiht my foreign Australian
license up to now).

Can anyone suggest some reputable companies here in Sthn Ca where I
could get the best deals.  So far the dealer who sold me the car is
trying to make me buy with a private, small operation company whose
front man seems a bit shady to me.  Any suggestions?


(help.)




*******************************************************************
*  Thomas (Tom) Marvan         Phone: (619) 450 3670              *
*  Dept. of Political Science, E-Mail: tmarvan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu     *
*  University of California,   Snail Mail: 9450 Gilman Dr.,       *
*  San Diego,  USA.            #92092-0644, La Jolla, CA, 92092.  *
*******************************************************************

"Two men say they're jesus, one of them must be wrong," M. Knopfler
From: devesh@bombay.oracle.com (A Rice Queen)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: new law
Date: 4 Jan 93 02:05:36 GMT
Reply-To: devesh@bombay.oracle.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: Oracle Corp., Redwood Shores CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <3450057@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> walt@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Walt  
Boeninger) writes:
> In ca.driving, markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz) writes:
> 
> > I wonder how much those 'seatbelt tickets would cost.
> 
> 
> I heard $22 on the radio this morning.  
> 
> Next question:  Is it a point?  Will it raise your insurance?
> 
> Walt Boeninger 

A report in Saturday's SF Chronicle said that it would not be considered
a moving violation. As far as the tickets were concerned, I think they 
were $22 for the first violation and $50 or so for subsequent ones.

Devesh

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Devesh S. Khatu                        Office: 3OP3 #307
  Strategic Technology Group             E-mail: devesh@bombay.oracle.com
  Applications Division                  Phone : (415) 506-4488
  Oracle Corporation                     Fax   : (415) 506-7293
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: walt@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Walt Boeninger)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:10:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Fines for not registering a vehicle?
Organization: the H.P. Mtn View RC
Newsgroups: ca.driving

In ca.driving, schwartz@nynexst.com (Steven Schwartz) writes:

> I'm missing something.  In NY, there's no legal obligation to register a
> vehicle unless it is to be driven on public streets.  If you want to
> drive it around your backyard, you don't need plates.  Is CA different? 
> -- 

A couple of years ago, California started collecting a $5 fee for     
"non" registered cars.  They wanted to keep track of them even if they were
not being driven on the street.

Walt Boeninger
From: gbarnet@uswnvg.com (Gary Barnette)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: doomsdayer
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:19:30 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Robert Fisher (rfisher@uswnvg.com) wrote:
: 
: I just viewed a PBS special on a tribal warning to the industrialized public.
: It had a profound effect on reestablishing my pessimistic view of the 
: probable outcomes of human expansion in the next 60 or so years.
: 	Current estimates place the food cosumption volumes at a maximum in
: sixty years from 1990.  This means that if every mouth was feed evenly,and at
: current growth rates, there will be just enough food for sustaining life.  
: Afterthe year 2050, this will not be true.  Does anyone out there have any 
: senarios that are not so gloomy?  Help me escape my pessimistic outlook! 
: I know about environmental dangers that are considered to be genecide 
: prior to 2050, but what about pure overpopulation estimates.

I may sound gloomy to us humans but it seems to be the natural way of
things. For one reason or another, species become exstinct all the time.
Why should we be any different? Just because we are aware of our
existance, have language and mathmatics doesn't cut of off from the 
natural way things work (evolution). Some that believe we are here to 
dominate the world and placed here by some sort of devine will instead 
of naturally evolving will disagree with me but that really doesn't matter. 
Time will tell.

There is also a theory called Gaia that says that the earth is a living
being and will eventually get rid of those that continue to ravage her
body. 

Some articles I have read say that it's too late already. We have passed
the point of no return when it comes to pollution and population and
it's just a matter of time before suffering becomes a way of life for
most of the planet. All we can do is prolong the inevitable. Not a very
pretty picture but you got to admit it's interesting.

Gary B.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: alpinist@eskimo.com (David Butler)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=
Distribution: seattle
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:41:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.014455.11049@tc.fluke.COM> lowell@tc.fluke.COM (Lowell Skoog) writes:
>klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross) writes:

>>You conveniently and completely ignored my point
>>that *YOUR* sport of mountain climbing is far more dangerous than riding
>>a bike/motorcycle without a helmet, not only to yourself but to possible
>>rescuers.  But since no one is coming after *YOUR* freedom, you say its OK
>>to eliminate *MINE*.

>I ignored your point because it didn't seem relevant.  You were
>talking about outlawing climbing.  Nobody is talking about outlawing
>bicycling.

Instead of ignoring his point because of irrelevance why don't you ignore
the point because it is WRONG!  Mountain climbing is not far more dangerous
than riding a bike/motorcycle with or without a helmet.  Statistically
bicycling is one of the most dangeous activities there is.
 

-- 
*          Dave         *  Why, sometimes I've believed as   *
#                       #  many as six impossible things     #
*  alpinist@eskimo.com  *  before breakfast. - Lewis Carroll *
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:40:47 GMT

In <1992Dec21.210708.17518@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:

:dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
:: 
:: Again I would suggest that government can not do everything, and it
:: should make some hard economic choices if it is determined that
:: government can not fund all it wants to do.  The government should not
:: limit personal freedom in order to make its expenses lower.

:Minor nit:

:It isn't *government* which is limiting personal freedoms in order to make
:expenses lower; it's the *people*.  The majority of people voted these
:seatbelt, helmet, etc. laws into effect, in order to decrease *their*
:costs.

In point of fact, few of these laws are voted in, they are made
by appointed bureaucrats various regulatory agencies and the
public rarely has an opportunity to vote on them.

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
From: cummings@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings)
Subject: Video Only ad
Keywords: stupid
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: seattle
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:14:12 GMT

	There's an ad for "Video Only" on TV where they solicit
testimonials from a bunch of Plain Folks about how cheap everything is
there.  One guy make the comment (not quite verbatim), "I checked around,
and everything here is about 12% less.  But that 12% is like 50% to me."

	HUH?!?!

	Anyone have any idea what this could possibly mean?

	I know it's just a stupid ad, but my wife and I both think this is
pretty funny and wonder whether we're missing something.

-- 
Michael Cummings  NX7E	
cummings@u.washington.edu
"To be hit by Moriyama's fastball is an honor exceeded only by being
-- 
Michael Cummings  NX7E	
cummings@u.washington.edu
"To be hit by Moriyama's fastball is an honor exceeded only by being
crushed under the wheels of the Imperial carriage." - _You Gotta Have Wa_
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: cummings@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings)
Subject: Re: Video Only ad
Keywords: stupid
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: seattle
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:49:05 GMT

In <1992Dec22.231304.7924@u.washington.edu> monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:

>If you're spending more that 1.85 seconds wondering about this STOOPID
>commercial...

>You and your wife need to get out more :)

	Yeah, I figured I'd get this sort of condescension in reply.

	Thanks for the help.

	To all of you who are above finding some amusement in a stupid
commercial, or never watch TV, or are superior for any number of related
reasons:  I'm very impressed.  You may hit 'n' now.

-- 
Michael Cummings  NX7E	
cummings@u.washington.edu
"To be hit by Moriyama's fastball is an honor exceeded only by being
crushed under the wheels of the Imperial carriage." - _You Gotta Have Wa_
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: gregs@eskimo.com (Greg Sumner)
Subject: Re: Who is Roy Ottis??
Keywords: Yes, yes
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:33:02 GMT

vanzwol@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Ted Van Zwol) writes:

>>Now that we [seem to] have this solved, who does the voices for Beave?

>I haven't a shred of physical evidence, but listening to it this morning,
>I really have to think it's Mike West from the morning show...well, that's
>the only time you'll hear the Beave anyways.  I think Mike does most of
>the voices of that little skit.
>-- 

Yeah, it's West.  He does a good Casey Casum too.

-- 
Gregory Sumner  *  gregs@eskimo.com
Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.
Seattle, Wa.
From: das@voodoo.boeing.com (Deb Schwartz)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Video Only ad
Keywords: stupid
Date: 23 Dec 92 01:09:06 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Yet Another Graphics Project, Bellevue, WA

>In article <1992Dec22.211412.5522@u.washington.edu> cummings@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings) writes:
>>
>>	There's an ad for "Video Only" on TV where they solicit
>>testimonials from a bunch of Plain Folks about how cheap everything is
>>there.  One guy make the comment (not quite verbatim), "I checked around,
>>and everything here is about 12% less.  But that 12% is like 50% to me."
>>
>>	HUH?!?!
>>
>>	Anyone have any idea what this could possibly mean?
>>

That he went to school during the 'New Math' craze?


------
Debbie Schwartz // das@voodoo.ca.boeing.com  // ....uw-beaver!bcsaic!voodoo!das
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
From: davevh@microsoft.com (Dave Van Horn)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 02 Jan 93 05:37:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

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.
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
From: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:36:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.210708.17518@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>
>Minor nit:
>
>It isn't *government* which is limiting personal freedoms in order to make
>expenses lower; it's the *people*.  The majority of people voted these
>seatbelt, helmet, etc. laws into effect, in order to decrease *their*
>costs.
>
>Scott Linn
>scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com


I believe the term for this is "tyranny of the majority".



-- 
Larry Cline (Amiga Harpoon Scenario Administrator)
lcline@agora.rain.com
C_________   Industrial Graphics

Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: peterk@seanews.akita.com (Peter Klein)
Subject: Re: Video Only ad
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News & Mail
Distribution: seattle
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:40:57 GMT
Keywords: stupid


Re: 10% is like 50% to me.

Possibility 1:  The advertisers are trying to make Joe Sixpack relate to
the guy on the screen. His wages are shrinking relative to the cost of
living, he either has been laid off or might get laid off soon, money is
tight and life is scary. So a 10% savings feels like 50% to him. (Hey,
wow, Velma, this guy is just like us. This Video Only must be all
right).

Possibility 2:  In advertising, the purpose is to get you to think about
the product. This is why common words are often misspelled in product
names, why catchy slogans and jingles work, etc. It almost doesn't
matter if the ad irritates the hell out of people as long as it gets
them to think about a product, and to trigger a memory when we see the
product on a store shelf.  By having the guy say something that doesn't
quite make sense logically, but does emotionally, they create a paradox.
The brain says, "hey, wait a minute!" and your attention is drawn to the
product.  It worked, didn't it?  After all, you asked about it here. So
it seems pretty stupid on the surface, but actually it's quite
crafty--if not a terribly sophisticated example of the kind of
manipulation the advertising folks trade in.

Possibility 3:  The whole thing is a conspiracy by the Liberal Media to
focus the attention of all Right-thinking Libertarians and
Neoconservatives on a question of Basic Constitutional Rights and the
Slippery Slope, so that while they're debating endless primal minuteae
on USENET, the sinister conspiracy that has been in the works for years
can take hold and turn the country into a Socialist wasteland overnight.

Possibility 4: Same as possibility 3, except its a libertarian
conspiracy to end all social programs and institute a mandatory program
of sexism, racism, ageism and ismism, and starve all unemployed people
to death, thereby decreasing the surplus population and leaving a
balance of only productive people who will raise the country to new
heights.

Possibility 5:  #1 and #2 are serious, but #3 and #4 demonstrate that
the poster has serious emotional problems and should go into therapy
immediately.

Possibility 6: The ad in question does not exist. The original poster
was just trying to provoke flames because he's a digital pyromaniac

;-)   ;-)   ;-)   ;-)   ;-)   
-- 
--Peter (Peter A. Klein)            :    -----==3==      ___      ___
peterk@seanews.akita.com            :   |    |  |  |    |   |    |   |
                                    :  @|   @| @| @|   @|  @|   @|  @|
Newsgroups: seattle.general