HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: NO SUBJECT (1)
X-To: WOODY MULLER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Followups-To: alt.dads-rights,e-mail
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:06:00 GMT

From: woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller)
WM> In <1992Aug29.032604.28702@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steev
WM> writes:

WM> >James, from what I know, a simple blood test will only detect inconsistenci
WM> >in blood types between father, mother, and child (I *think* that the mother
WM> >blood *is* needed ... Can SOMEONE please confirm whether this is correct or
WM> >not - Very Important), and therefore can only tell you whether you are *not
WM> >the father.

WM> Yes, a blood test requires samples from father, mother, and child.  The
WM> Paternity Evaluation Report I just pulled from my records (from early 1990)
WM> columnates about 10 separate tests and assigns a probability factor
WM> they call a "paternity index."  They multiply the 9 or 10 probabilities
WM> into an "aggregate paternity index."

...etc...

WM> CONCLUSIONS:
WM> "The alleged father, [me], cannot be excluded as the biological father
WM> of [Peter].  Based on the above genetic testing results, the probability
WM> of paternity is 99.93%, as compared to an untested random man of the
WM> North American Caucasian population.  (Prior Probability = .5)"


Hold on a second... Was this a "standard" blood typing test or a DNA sampling
test using blood samples?

I believe that there is a *big* difference in efficiency between the two.

Thanks for your information so far, although I'd love to hear back from you
about which test it was that you participated in...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Wesley, have you ever seen any ... gladiator movies
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18079 rec.arts.books:17645
From: barclay@RAIL9000.gatech.edu (Barclay Blanchard)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Literature Students/Small World
Keywords: permissible killing, more money
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:41:19 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

This morning in class a fellow student asked me if I'd been writing about our
class on the net; she heard about it from her boyfriend in Holland.  Wow!

(The following is not because of that. :)
Our class is getting more interesting.  I didn't like _Dubliners_ until we
discussed it in class and our professor pointed out that the style reflects
how Joyce saw Dublin... bleak, paralyzed, a place where not much happens
(in an "event" sense).  [If I sound bleary-brained it's because I stayed up
late writing a paper about _Lord Jim_, which I also like better now after
thinking about it on my own.]


-- 
Barclay Elizabeth Blanchard    barclay@rail9000@gatech.edu
"I've been laughed at by some of the funniest people."
--Lissie, Alice Walker's _The Temple of My Familiar_
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18032 alt.folklore.urban:24826
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History (was: Presidential UL's)
Date: 4 Oct 92 13:41:52 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <8f=S02DR24U801@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.164051.16126@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, 
>jlpicard@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker) writes:
>> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>> > > This does bring up an interesting question, though.  In case of
>> > > nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
>> > > officials, what is the line of succession? 

>> > The order is:

>> > Vice-President
>> > Speaker of the House
>> > President pro tempore of the Senate
>> > Secretary of State
>> > Secretary of the Treasury
>> > Secretary of Defense
>> > Attorney General
>> > Secretary of the Interior
>> > Secretary of Agriculture
>> > Secretary of Commerce
>> > Secretary of Labor
>> > Secretary of Health and Human Services
>> > Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
>> > Secretary of Transportation
>> > Secretary of Energy
>> > Secretary of Education
>> > Secretary of Veterans Affairs

			.............................

>1/19/1886, 24 Stat. 2 scraps the old list, and substitutes a new one: Vice-
>President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of War, 
>Attorney General, Postmaster General, Secretary of Navy, and Secretary of 
>Interior.  This is the first appearance of the cabinet positions in the order 
>of succession.  I don't know the rationale behind it.  To the best of my 
>knowledge, there was no legislative history being kept for statutes at this 
>point in US history, except to the extent that contemporary historians might 
>observe and record (I think the Congressional Record was around from the 
>beginning in one form or another, but I'm not certain).  Certainly nothing as 
>formal as exists today.

The reason given in the old history books has to do with the political
situation at that time.  It was rarely the case that the White House and
the two Houses of Congress were controlled by the same party.  It was also
felt that the Presidency should stay within the party which elected the
current president, and that by using the cabinet positions, this would
indeed be the case.

When the current setup putting the Speaker and the President pro tem of the
Senate ahead of the cabinet officers was enacted, either this past history
was ignored or just not considered, and I suspect the latter.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Online Legal
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:19:00 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <RyDRRB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>, rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM 
(Richard Carlson) writes:
> >6.  BITNET LISTSERV GROUPS
> >--------------------------
> >
> >6.1.1  INT-LAW (Foreign and International Law Librarians) is a
> >list on for librarians and others interested in exchanging
> >information related to foreign, comparative and international
> >legal materials and issues.
> >
> >Selected topics in the six months since INT-LAW began include the
> >READEX CD-ROM Index to United Nations documents, databases
> >containing information on foreign and international law, the
> >"European Court Reports", sources of information on careers in
> >international law, GATT panel reports, the "National Trade Data
> >Bank" C D-ROM, etc. INT-LAW came up on April 31, 1991.
> >
> >
> >6.1.2  LAWSCH-L is a forum to discuss matters of concern which
> >affect all law students; it is also designed to allow for
> >interaction between students and law schools to lessen the gap
> >between them.  The list is based at American University Law
> >School.
> 
> 
> There are only _two_ BITNET lists dealing with legal matters, one
> discussing international law and one discussing the problems of
> law students?  Isn't that incredible, considering the highly
> specialized nature of so many BITNET lists?

There's also "INFO-LAW", but that's been pretty dormant.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fighting Words
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:30:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: bbx.1459
Organization: BASIS International, Ltd., Albuquerque NM USA

In article <R89uRB5w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes:
>> [...]
>> The attacker was prosecuted and dismissed because the jury felt that
>> the anti-war protester was out of line and inciting anger.  The
>> whole concept of "fighting words" was beaten to death in local newspapers'
>> editorial/letters columns.  I don't recall that anyone was able to
>> define "fighting words" as something other than "unpopular speech" (at
>> least in the context of this case).
>
>Do you think he would have, or should have, gotten off if the
>anti-war protestor was saying the exact same thing -- same content
>-- but in a quiet voice and with as few emotion-charged words as
>possible...
>[other scenarios deleted]

I don't think the attacker should have gotten off at all.  Also, for
what it's worth, the speaker wasn't even addressing the attacker 
personally.  The attacker was simply in the crowd.

-- 
Scott Amspoker                       |    
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM |  Too bad ignorance isn't really
                                     |  bliss.  Then it could be outlawed.
scott@bbx.basis.com                  |
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Online Legal
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:37:08 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <7L6uRB3w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:

>Where can I find books that tell me my rights, tell me what to do
>if I am arrested (I remember seeing one like that, but I can't
>recall who put it out), tell me what is likely to happen in a
>divorce, etc.  How about a book that tells me my rights when
>dealing with neighbors?  

I'd check local bookstores and libraries. Nolo Press also makes a number
of useful books available by mail order.


--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 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: LaFave and Scott (was: Fightin' Words)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 11:42:30 GMT

In article <10AX02bE24HR01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.182142.15720@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
>writes:
>> What you're interested in is not the "fighting words" doctrine, but
>> the doctrine of provocation as a defense. For that, see LaFave and Scott's
>> two-volume treatise, SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW.
>
>Two-volume?  Mine's only one.  Or did they publish more than one work on the 
>topic?

The student volume is a single volume. The practitioners' edition is
two-volume.


--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 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college,sci.econ
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:35:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.032536.22581@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:

>Again, the idea is NOT to defend anti-Semitism, the idea is just to say
>that people's feelings are important, no matter what their religion
>or color or creed.

Sure, people's feelings are important. But they're not the only things
that are important. And the fact that some Muslims can misread THE
SATANIC VERSES ought not to weigh into our evaluation of Rushdie's
purposes.


--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 misc.legal:18182 alt.activism.d:3572
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Men & elves
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:00:11 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BvEx7o.HD@solbourne.com>, ericr@solbourne.com (Eric Robison) writes:
> wharfie (wrat@unisql.UUCP) wrote:
> : In article <19229@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
# : #Good and evil exist independently of what men say and think.  "Nor
# : #are they one thing among Men and another among Elves," as Tolkien
# : #puts it.
# : 
# : 	Would you please describe evil for me so that I can be sure
# : and recognize it when I find it?
# : 								wr

I think someone needs to study some history:

# Dan Quaylee running a spelling bee

No, that's comedy.

# Taking George Bush to a Japanese restarant

No, that's farce.

# Corrupt pliticians who say "Trust me"

No, that's common self-delusion.

# Ross Perot saying "No, really, I'll run for president."

No, that's indecision.

# Bill Clinton asking if chick with the big hooters is your wife. 

No, that's just vulgarity and bad manners.

# Asking Tipper Gore to guard the 1st Amendment.

No, that's foolishness.

# Most of Congress

No, that's just "Congressional Corruption: A Renewable Resource."  
Evil is considerably worse.

# Letting Ted Kennedy drive your daughter home.
# 
# | Eric Robison                 |Disclaimer: These are not my opinions, they

You are at least getting slightly warm, but to call that evil is
in grave danger of demeaning the word "Evil."


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: tzs@milton.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: need advice for simple will
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:02:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep29.230242.10114
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

I've seen it claimed that a safety deposit box is *NOT* a good place for
a will, because when you die, it is very hard for your survivors to get
into the box for the will.  Even if the box is jointly owned (rented?
whatever...), I've been told that when any of the owners dies, the box
is sealed, even from the other owners, until a court orders that it be
opened.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 18:39:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.003204.4802@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.150012.6455@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>>I am less concerned with absolutes, however, than with posting against
>>the grain of the commonly accepted view that decisions like this will
>>increase access to education.  I believe that they will decrease access.
>
>You're entitled to hold that belief.  It might hold more sway with the
>rest of us were you to back it up with more than an assertion.
>
>Keep in mind that Overlap universities, from the privilege of their monopoly,
>were able to increase costs at twice the rate of inflation during the
>1980's.  

Despite anything that may have been agreed to, Harvard has a monopoly
on Harvard degrees, and will continue to do so.  Likewise the rest of
the Overlap group.

I also conjecture that they will continue to raise fees at whatever
rate they want, which will probably continue to exceed inflation.

Furthermore, I doubt that the consent agreement will change the total
amount of financial aid that any school grants; rather, it will
slightly change the distribution, in a semi-random manner.  Claim:
schools budget the amount of support they're willing to provide, and
then make offers aimed at meeting that budget.  (I'm assuming that
claim axiomatically, so you're welcome to dispute it.)  Now, each
school will make slightly smaller offers than it would have in the
absence of the consent agreement.  Since students will be biased
toward the higher offers they get, this will lead to the total amount
of aid from each school being the same as it would have been.  Those
students for whom the schools agree about scholarship amounts will get
slightly less; those whom the schools disagree greatly will get
slightly more.  The net effect of this will be small and random.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.college,alt.politics.correct
From: lee@ace.npac.syr.edu (Lee C. Brink)
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
In-reply-to: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com's message of 1 Oct 92 17:41:26 GMT
Organization: Northeast Parallel Architectures Center, Syracuse, NY
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 12:03:29 EDT


  You're right.  My newsreader decided to put in your name and not Larry's.
That'll teach me not to look at the header (My thread shows that I did respond
to Larry's post and not yours).
  My post should be a response to Larry Kolodney, and not Terry Carroll.  Sorry
about the confusion.

     Lee

--
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Lee C Brink	            | Office Support Co-ordinator at NPAC	   |
| lee@nova.npac.syr.edu     | Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 |
|			    | 315-443-1722				   |
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17714 alt.society.civil-liberty:6047 talk.politics.drugs:6471
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: History of forfeiture laws
Date: 26 Sep 92 14:06:04 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

According to a letter I received from Terry Bruce, my U.S. Representative:

"Congress and state legislatures have authorized the use of forfeiture
as a law enforcement mechanism for almost two hundred years.
Traditionally, the crimes that triggered forfeiture have been those
which threatened the government's revenue interested such as smuggling
or tax evasion or crime which has a preceived threat to the public
health."

Is this true, false, relevant to War-on-Drugs forfeitures?

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: RSA claims 33 and 37 of U.S. patent 4,405,829
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:56:59 GMT

When does the RSA patent expire?  Isn't is sometime around 1994 or so?

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18068 rec.arts.books:17627
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:03:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct5.120317.16094
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Oct4.195925.26632@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <1992Oct2.032536.22581@news.columbia.edu>
>ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:

IA:
>>So, the issue is still that if I write an article in wish a character
>>suggests things anti-Seimtic it would be attacked.

Not in the least for its abuse of the English language.

KA:
>Jews might not like such an article, but would not suggest that it be banned,
>let alone offer money to kill the writer.

I don't recall having appointed you my spokesman, so kindly abstain from
making sweeping claims on behalf of "Jews".  Incidentally, should the
charming fellows in the ex-East Germany happen to come up with an updated
edition of "Mein Kampf", I would gladly put up another $100 towards the
goal of conclusive and irreversible reeducation of its author.

>--
>"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
>the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
>disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler
>
>Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
>     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:33:56 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <b2SG02qc24uQ01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
# I found it, Mike.  State of Ohio v. Semple, 58 Ohio App. 3d 93;  568 N.E.2d 
# 750 (1989), appeal to Ohio S.Ct. denied (I neglected to get the cite for the 
# table entry denying).  It's only a few pages long; the syllabus is "Telling a 
# police officer that he is 'probably on the take' constitutes fighting words 
# unprotected by the First Amendment and sufficient to support a conviction for 
# disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(2)."
# 
# Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152

Boy, that's scary -- when a statement of what is almost certainly
true constitutes "disorderly conduct."



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: need advice for simple will
From: gregb@netlink.cts.com (Greg Beron)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 08:18:22 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

rmfowler@landru.mtc.ti.com (Rex Fowler) writes:

> I would like to have a very simple will drawn up that will simply
> state that if I die, everything goes to a certain person.   What steps
> Would a hand written, notarized letter suffice?
> 

In MOST states, a signed, handwritten document (a letter), expressing
testamentary intent ("this is my will") is sufficient.  Appointing an
executor, attorney, etc. is useful, but not necessary.   Dating the 
document is necessary in some, but not all, states.

DISCLAIMER:  I DO NOT PRESUME TO KNOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF TEXAS LAW.
However, the elements listed above will create a valid will in La., Ca.,
and at least 30 other states.
-Greg

--                    
INTERNET:  gregb@netlink.cts.com (Greg Beron)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!gregb
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: terry@gtm-inc.com (Terry Gerritsen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Sun-caused cancer award
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 05:44:24 EDT
Reply-To: terry@gtm-inc.com (Terry Gerritsen)
Distribution: world
Organization: G.T.M. Incorporated, Kingston, ON (613) 546-3078
Content-Type: Text

MELBOURNE, Australia- Australian bosses whose employees work long hours
in the sun could face legal action if they don't warn workers to cover-
up, following a recent award by the Victoria Accident Compensation
Commission. 
     The commission ruled in July that the widow of a bricklayer who
died of skin cancer after working in the sun for extended periods over
several years was entitled to approximately $93,000 Cdn. in compensation.
     Glen Powell died in 1989 at the age of 33, 18 months after
contracting cancer of the scalp.
     He had worked outdoors as a bricklayer for various contractors and 
councils since he was 16 years old.
     The commission ruled that, because no one employer can be held
liable, the compensation will be paid by the state.
     It is feared that the award could launch a flood of simliar 
lawsuits throughout Australia, which has one of the highest rates of
melanoma deaths in the world.
     Dr. Nigel Gray of the Victoria Anti-Cancer Council said that most
employers are now aware that proper protection from the sun is "just as
important for outdoor workers as hard hats for those on an industrial
site."
                    "The Lawyers Weekly"



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gerritsen         |  G.T.M. Incorporated              (613) 384 0162
terry@gtm-inc.com       |  Kingston, Ontario           Fax: (613) 389 4594
                      "Transportation is our business"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books