From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Organization: nope
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:57:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.230049.9693@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <9208251917.AA03130@ros6.gsfc.nasa.gov>, alan@ROS6.GSFC.NASA.GOV (Alan Smale) writes:
>> What do all the following people have in common?
>> 
>> Kathi. Ataylor. Sam. Kim Posey. Rolfe. More than one Susan. Synth.
>> Tim, I think. Probably a few other people I've forgotten about.
>
>As much as I can appreciate what you are trying to achieve here, let's
>clear something up. Out of your list of people I have 'attacked', there
>are a few errors.

DC is the only person between talk.rape and complete anarchy.  NOT!

I wrote:
>In article <1992Aug21.085329.9621@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>Regarding the debate over mace v. home brews, why not just get a
>>49 cent trial sie of WD-40 or similar product and carry that?
>>
>>Plus, it would be difficult to be prosecuted for.
> 
>Not really.  The DA merely establishes WHY it was being carried and
>then various weapons laws come into play.  The DA makes a deal with
>the attacker (assuming best case, you're found out AFTER a justifiable
>use) for no time or maybe even conviction, who then happily helps send
>the WD-bandit up the river.
> 
>A justifiable use does not imply justifiable carry.

DC's "spin" is:
>At no point did Andy pose ANY of this as a question or possible alternative.
>He stated flat out that my post was wrong and that the DA would cut a deal
>with a rapists to nail the victim.

No, I didn't say that DAs WOULD prosecute.  DC claimed "it would be
difficult to be prosecuted for."  My "Not really" is a response to
that.  I pointed out that it wouldn't be difficult, it would be rather
easy.  That doesn't imply that DAs would necessarily do it, only that
they COULD.  Since then I've been discussing the relevant charges.

>I know that Andy was talking off of the top of his head with NO references,

Actually, Andy wasn't.  Go the library and LOOK at the CA penal code.
Then look at weapon statutes in other jurisdictions.  Most outlaw
poisons/noxious substances when used as weapons, even if the very same
substances can be legally owned and used for other purposes.  It's
the same with clubs.

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.

>Tough shit if I can work the words
>better than you---that is no reason for me to hold back to your level.

As the "spin" demonstrates, DC's reading comprehension is lacking.

>Andy COULD have ASKED if mace laws cover WD-40. I would have looked it up.

Andy knows that they DO, when WD-40 is carried as a self-defense
against people weapon, as DC advised.  DC hasn't looked it up and
assumes that they don't.

>> OK, you "do research", and pride yourself on getting your facts straight.

While DC may pride himself on that, his record is somewhat different.

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