HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: idall@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Ian Dall)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Effectiveness of WD-40 (was Re: Ataylor obsession with trying to win (just) one.)
Date: 2 Sep 92 04:17:47 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

I will refrain from entering into the "I'm a better lawyer than you"
debate.  (And note the change of subject)

In article <1992Aug29.021245.9764@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>Petrolium distillates also attack the nasal passages and lungs.

All petrolium distillates are not equal. Essentially the difference
is the temperature they are distilled out at. Gasoline is highly
volatile, axle grease is not. They are both petroleum distillates.
WD-40 is essentially a very light lubricating oil with, no doubt,
some proprietary additives. WD-40 is *not* volatile. It would make a lousy
lubricant if it were.

It is faulty logic to say that WD-40 and gasoline have similar effects
when sprayed in the face because they are both petrolium distillates.

>Water-displacing? Something which dissolves rust is water-displacing?

Actually it is water displacing. That is how it works to prevent rust.
Any claim that it dissolves rust is at best mis-leading advertising.
About the only commonly available  thing which really dissolves rust
is phosphoric acid. It is usually the active ingredient in the various
rust dissolving preparations.

Since the beginning of this discussion, I have been thinking that hair spray
would probably make a pretty good deterrent, but even then two things
come to mind:

  o Old style hair lacquer was cellulose in a solvent. The solvent
    would be pretty unpleasant but I don't buy hair spray (!) and I
    have no idea if modern hair sprays have similar ingredients.

  o I have never seen a can of mace, but maybe it has a different
    nozzle to other common aerosols. Most aerosols I have used wouldn't
    have enough range to be effective.

-- 
 Ian Dall           life (n). A sexually transmitted disease which afflicts
                              some people more severely than others.
   ACSnet: idall@augean.oz
 Internet: idall@augean.oz.au
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:23:52 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <14324@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.003354.9670@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> And, you do not need to give the damned disclaimer unless you are acting as an
>> attorney, and debating what the law says in a non-advisory role is NOT playing
>> advocate.
> 
> 	Well, DC, while you are blathering about things legal, why don't you 
> give us your assessment of the civil exposure due to (mis)using WD-40 as a 
> defensive weapon?

Same as any other device. Use a crowbar, knife, fist, WD-40 or mace for
self-defense when you should not have, and you open yourself up to liability. A
jury will decide whther or not your use was reasonable. If the find it was more
unreasonable than reasonable, they start calculating damages.

An interesting point, however, is you MIGHT be able to convince the jury you
were honeslty frightened by the event more if you used something bizarre like
WD-40 than by mace.

Follow the possible logic--there is a perception that women who carry mace
carry it always ready. Tom walked up to ask Mary the time and before he could
say "Excuse me miss.", paranoid Mary sprays mace in his face.

Whereas if she uses something which just happened to be on hand (WD-40) it
could lead a jury to believe she genuinely was frighttened, whereas she does
not normally worry about attack (no mace handy). Therfore, his actions that
frightened her may have been an actual attack.

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.

DC


Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:37:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.095705.9728@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <14321@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
>> 	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...
>
>	Did you correspond with him to verify this?

No.

>	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.

DC sure huffs and puffs a lot for someone who won't/can't use an
index.  Is the lack of a cite really the only thing that keeps him
from making his argument, or is he hoping for another way out because
he knows/suspects that he's all wrong?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.flame
From: bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Goetz
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:28:00 GMT
Followup-To: misc.test

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:
>> 	Sure.  In article <1992Aug23.194538.9655@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, you
>> state, in reference to Goetz:
>> 
>>> Yes, he was carrying a loaded gun in a subway. He walked over to his already
>>> shot panhandlers, and while one of them was bleeding on the ground, he said,
>>> "You don't look like you are hurt bad enough." and fired some more slugs 
>>> into his back.
> > 
> > 	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?

	I don't have any "refernces", but I can certainly produce "references"
that back up *my* claim (as have others...).  What do I have to do to satisfy 
you, staple the transcript to your forehead?

	Contact Don B. Kates if you feel some pressing need for independent 
verification.  A legal scholar of your stature should easily be able to 
locate Kates.  Hint: he practices law in CA, among other places...

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

	OK - I have presented my evidence that DC is wrong, as he has asked.
I have given him all the leads he needs to verify this.  

-- 
		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: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:59:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.012421.9638@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.015529.4582@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> 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.
>> 
>> -andy
>
>From the legal expert himself. How, pray tell, are you, Mr. Prosecutor,
>going to PROVE why someone was carrying a canister of WD-40??? 

The same way they prove intent in other cases.  It obviously isn't
a significant burden, as they do it all the time.

>Defense stands up, "Objection your honor. This line of speculation is NOT
>relevant as it is not a crime to carry said item as a weapon of self-defense."

It turns out that it may well be.  For example, carrying a baseball
bat as a weapon (even for self-defense) is different than carrying it
for playing baseball.  In one case, it's a forbidden club, in the
other, it's sporting equipment, even though it's the same hunk of
wood/metal.

In particular, carrying noxious substances AS weapons is generally
prohibited in CA.  There's an exception for specifically approved
Mace-like products under certain circumstances, but WD-40 isn't
specifically approved as a weapon under ANY circumstances.  If the DA
can prove you carried it as such, you're hosed.

While the "specific approval" process may differ, I suspect that other
states have similar laws that would apply to WD-40.

>but it is unlikely she would be proescuted for it as the DA would face a
>SCANDAL like no tomorrow, further, and DAs YOU know willing to cut a deal
>wiith a rapist to prosecute his victim for defending herself, but it is
>NOT A CRIME FOR HER TO CARRY ANYTHING FOR SELF-DEFENSE NOT SPECIFICALLY
>SPELLED OUT AS PROHIBITED BY STATUTE!

Ah, but it is prohibited in CA.  Moreover, DAs do pull this stuff.
They prosecute victims who had the temerity to defend themselves and
in doing so violated weapons statutes.  Does Goetz ring any bells?

>you KNOW I am going to correct you on legal matters.

I know that you blow a lot of smoke.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:03:22 GMT
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<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?

<   It's the same size as a mace canister, and is more effective.

	Please provide some support for this assertion.
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Goetz
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:27:37 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <14364@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.100714.9729@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> In article <14323@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
> 
>>>	You know, DC, it is quite evident that you are not even remotely 
>>>familiar with the facts of the Goetz cases, and are just making this stuff up 
>>>as you go along, basing your "analysis" on popular media accounts.
>> 
>>But, I suppose we should give your opinion a valid chance to be proven. So,
>>since you have made a claim, please either support it (show were I have relayed
>>false information)
> 
> 	Sure.  In article <1992Aug23.194538.9655@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, you
> state, in reference to Goetz:
> 
>> Yes, he was carrying a loaded gun in a subway. He walked over to his already
>> shot panhandlers, and while one of them was bleeding on the ground, he said,
>> "You don't look like you are hurt bad enough." and fired some more slugs into
>> his back.
> 
> 	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?

Are you just gonna claim you have them and will mail them to anyone who asks?

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

DC



> 
> 	Your attempt at terrorism and bullying is simply not going to work.
> 
> -- 
> 		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: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Organization: nope
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:50:24 GMT

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.

>You think that makes life difficult for me?

Something makes life difficult for DC.  He keeps demanding a complete
cite, so I've assumed that the lack of cite is a problem for him.  It
doesn't seem to be for anyone else.

Review: I say that CA law prohibits carrying WD-40 as a self-defense
against people weapon, even though using it as such isn't prohibitted.

DC disagrees and asserts that no such statute exists, even though
everyone who's mentioned looking for it has found it.  (One person
even provided appropriate search keys for some legal database system.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:42:16 GMT
Originator: news@auspex-gw.Auspex.COM

In article <1992Aug23.194538.9655@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> In article <1992Aug22.215948.18120@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> > Does Goetz ring any bells?
> 
> Yes, he was carrying a loaded gun in a subway. He walked over to his already
> shot panhandlers, and while one of them was bleeding on the ground, he said,
> "You don't look like you are hurt bad enough." and fired some more slugs into
> his back.
> 
> Jury acquited him at least once, didn't they? Second time he got, what kind of
> penalty was it? For pumping lead into a defenseless human?

	NOT.

	You know, DC, it is quite evident that you are not even remotely 
familiar with the facts of the Goetz cases, and are just making this stuff up 
as you go along, basing your "analysis" on popular media accounts.

	Blowing smoke indeed...

-- 
		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: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Subject: Re: genetics (was Re: Walking her to the car.)
Reply-To: rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Organization: CWRU Physics Department
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 18:43:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.122558.8576@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:

>There is no evidence that the difference in women and men's strength in our
>society is genetic.  It could be entirely cultural.

Hormones known to be more concentrated in male humans than female humans
are also known, in
yet larger concentrations, to result in appreciable increases in muscle mass
etc (e.g. there are genetic disorders which result in this).  There is
also strong but not incontrovertable evidence that use of these hormones
in modest concentrations by either males or females make athletic
training easier.  This seems to me strong evidence of genetic
differences between the likely phyisical strength of men and women.
This said I am sure that there are cultural
circumstances in which the average female human would be stronger than
the average male human.  However I doubt that this is the case in many
circumstances which are not largely artificial.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035 
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:27:03 GMT


This happens in talk.rape from time to time.  Some people are
drawn to the group for reasons other than a desire to discuss
rape prevention and the effects of rape on the victims.  I
generally put such people in my killfile and continue reading
the group without seeing their comments.  Eventually, they
tire of their new toy and move on to disrupt another group -
most commonly when people quit answering them.  

(I even think that some of these people unwittingly do
some good.  There have been some side discussions of 
some of "DC"'s more bizarre statements that have
been enlightening.)

There are interesting discussions in the group now.  I've been
reading the weapons discussion with some interest.  Just
because people aren't writing doesn't mean that they aren't
reading.  I appreciate your call for reason, although I
doubt that it will have any effect.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:38:35 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug25170322@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> <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?
> 
> <   It's the same size as a mace canister, and is more effective.
> 
> 	Please provide some support for this assertion. 
> 	
> 

Well, at Murray's discount auto parts, 3310 Secor, Toledo  OH  43606,
(419)535-1770, they offer it for sale at $.49 (trial size only).

It is not the exact same size as a mace canister, it is slightly fatter, but
not as tall.

Effective can be split into two categories, range and deterrence in eyes.

Range is about 8-10 feet. Some mace sprays in a better aimable stream, other
brands go for the 'shotgun' approach.

Deterrence is based upon the fact it uses petrolium distillates for it's active
ingredient. In brief, it is like getting gasoline in the eyes.

Becuase the general consensus is that mace is nto strong enough all of the
time, but gasoline is, this would appear to indicate that the WD-40 is better.

Speaking from personal experience, during tear gas training, not only was I
able to give my name, rank, and duty section in a room full of tear gas, I was
actually arrogant enough to ask the instructor if he was sure that was all he
wanted after he told me I could leave. (Yes, I regreted it for a full twenty
minutes after I got out, as it felt like my lungs were coming out, but overall,
it was worth it.)

Converesely, I once wiped my eyes with a hand that I had spilled gas on an hour
earlier.

I'll take the tear gas (Mace) in my face any day of the week, because I know I
can still operate under its effects.

Petrolium or distillates thereof? Not a prayer.

DC
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Self-Defense in the Home
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:48:48 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug18.005905.9535@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>But, let's change it. You are in your home when you hear someone knock on the
>door. He asks to use your phone. You show him you are armed and let him in, his
>friend comes up and tells him to hurry up. The first person pulls out a bag and
>starts stuffing valuables into. You ask him what he is doing, and he says "Do
>not be alarmed, we will not harm you or interfere with you at all. We are
>merely robbing your house. We are unarmed, nd will not hurt you. You are free
>to move about and even leave if you wish." Whereupon the second man comes in
>and says, "Oh, I just cut the phone line. By the way, nice VCR. I am sure I
>will get good money for it. Hope you are insured."
>
>The start to collect the things they want from your house. You pull out the gun
>and try to prevent them from leaving. They call your bluff and walk past you.
>
>Do you:
>
>1. Have to let them go, as they are not threatening you or any other human
>being?
>
>2. Have to right to protect your castle, and have the right to blow them away?
>
>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?
-- 
             ......................................................
             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: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Distribution: alt.flame
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:45:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.101540.9730@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <14322@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
>> 	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.

Huh?  Did Ataylor find it too?  (No, that's not the law we're talking
about.)

>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.

Bully for DC.  However, that's not what we're talking about.  We're
talking about a law that prohibits her from carrying it for that
purpose.  Remember, justifiable use doesn't imply justifiable carry
for that use; this is an example of that.  There are others.

>Ataylor has dug through old posts, archived them, edited them, posted
>and reposted them, and then claims he doesn't care what I say.

Did Ataylor?  Perhaps DC should take that up with him.  (It would be
reasonable to archive my postings so that I can rebut DC's
misrepresentations, but that's a different horse.  If I wanted to
comment on DC's reign of error, there's always fresh evidence.)
Methinks that DC is confusing his demons.

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