HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Question for Charles Perez and Ted Frank
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 18:50:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.180929.27116@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>Anyway, guys, why is it okay for jackanapes like Henry Schaffer and
>Chris "Knucklehead" Morton to parade their inability to write C code but
>not okay for yours truly to  lack quite the depth of knowledge of racist
>trivia on tap in Ted Frank?

They never claimed their code would compile and run; therefore, they
were writing pseudo-code, not C code.  Their code was quite
comprehensible (I'm sure even you understood the intended insult),
therefore it was correct in that it accomplished its desired goal of
communication.  On the other hand, as part of an argument, you made a
claim that certain statements were true.  Those statements proved to
be false.  Therefore, your argument fails.

Furthermore, in what way is knowledge of turn-of-the-century comedians
racist?  The fact that those comedians were of specific races?  The
knowledge of those races?  Is a similar knowledge of, say, turn-of-
the-century politicians equally racist?

>  I've shown how the secret incapability on
>display in Schaffer and Knucklehead has a subtle relationship to
>technological decay, for the unemployment and underemployment of the
>nonwhite, the nonmale, and the aged is paralleled by the overemployment
>of the young white male.

No, you haven't shown anything.  You've made a grandiose claim with no
evidence or reasoning to support it.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: State Universities & First Amendment
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:22:43 GMT

IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Ryan R Robbins) writes:

[...]
>Concerning the first amendment barring Congress from making laws
>respecting establishments of religion, isn't it a violation by a
>state when a state-run university provides a room in its student
>union for mass? What about when a state rents or leases university
>land to religious groups on its college campuses? Doesn't this
>conflict with the First Amendment? Has anyone sued a state to bar
>religious institutions from holding mass on public property?
[...]

I've never heard of this. The U. of Illinois has no chapels on campus.

I would think the legality would depend on whether religious groups
are treated like other groups who want to rent state land.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:02:32 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BtnvCC.FDB@world.std.com>, srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.021822.27242@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
> >In <1992Aug17.153015.16314@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
# ##No. Failure to report income is truly separate conduct from bootlegging
# ##and extortion.
# #
# #Failure to report income from illegal activies!!?!?  Give me a break.
# #I suppose you think the Marijuana Tax Act is a revenue measure.
# #
# I think Mike is right here:  My professor of Tax Law told us that to avoid
# this prosecution, one must declare all the illegal income, then write,
# "Fifth Amendment privilege" in the "Occupation" slot.
# --
# Stevens R. Miller J.D.

Well, at least the courts have recognized it as a revenue measure.
Keep in mind that the various controlled substance tax measures were
the model for the machine gun registration law.  In U.S. v. Rock
Island Armory, 773 F. Supp. 117 (1991), the machine gun registration
law was found to ONLY be valid as part of collecting the machine
gun tax.  When Congress stopped production of new privately owned
machine guns in 1986, the authority of the federal government to
prohibit new manufacture of machine guns was destroyed, because it
was only in support of the revenue aspects that the machine gun
law was valid.

That guy in Idaho who was indicted for possession of a shotgun
1/4" too short should probably have gone to trial.  The same
law applied to him, and he could have used Rock Island Armory
to beat the charge.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:31:34 GMT

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.153236.24131@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In fact, Shean was Jewish, a pretty close relative of the Marx Brothers
>>(that's Julius, not Karl, though Karl was sometimes funnier.)

>Ah, so the humor was anti-Semitic (in the sense of anti-Jewish) and
>anti-Irish.  I rest my case re your disgusting racism, Chuck.  And the
>humor you describe is unrelated to the humor of the Marx Brothers, for
>the Marx Brothers did not indulge in self-hating humor;

Sorry, Ed, Chico was a classic vaudeville dialect comedian.  I don't see how
you can complain about Al Shean/Shoenberg being a Jewish dialect comedian
(and he really WAS Jewish) but not complain about Chico being an Italian
dialect comedian (and he wasn't even Italian).  Harpo's character is a
throwback to the village-idiot type, and Groucho's character is related to
old vaudeville Germanic schoolteacher caricatures.

Next week: Parkyerkarkas - threat, or menace?

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cates@cherokee.unx.sas.com (Claire Cates)
Subject: Re: Order of Judgement
Originator: cates@cherokee.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:35:51 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <Btww0K.JIG@world.std.com>, srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
|> cates@cherokee.unx.sas.com (Claire Cates) writes:
|> 
|> >Now, I have asked my lawyer and he says this is unheard of in a 
|> >custody case that Order of Judgements are only used in civil cases.
|> 
|> Did your lawyer actually phrase it this way?  I ask because
|> because custody cases *are* civil cases.

I actually don't rememeber the specific words, but he gave an example.
He said that Offer of Judgements are done when someone owes someone 
else say $10,000.00 and they offer to pay $9,500 to keep it out of 
court.  If they go to court and he only has to pay $9,500 or less, then
the other party has to pay for all the court costs.  I do remember
him saying something to the effect that it is not done in custody
cases because that means the children are property.

I have talked with 3 lawyers and noone has ever heard of one being
filed for a custody case.

So has anyone out there heard of it used in a custody case?

Thanks,

Claire
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: Tort Reform (was: Number of Lawyers)
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:51:34 GMT


In article <1992Aug30.154230.22809@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug25.230134.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, 
>fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) said:
>
>> (Allen's remarks deleted for brevity.)
>
>No hostility intended, Allen, but I'll lay before you roughly the same
>challenge that the ABA gave Dan Quayle (and to which he has yet to
>respond): if you think that the tort system should be reformed, what
>do you think the new, reformed system should look like?
>
>

Here's a suggestion for discussion:

How about having punative damages acrue to the state, rather than to the 
plaintiff?  The successful plaintiff would still receive compensatory damages, 
and thus would not be deprived of anything they have a clear right to, but,
much of the motivation for seeking punative damages would be lost.  This might
not reduce the number of lawsuits, but might well reduce the size of the
awards.

This could accomplish the goal of reducing the legal costs of doing business
in the US.
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Intel RU486 (Was Re: Sexual Consent form #314159)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:10:01 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug30.220014.4193@eskimo.celestial.com> <L6UIYCL@taronga.com>
  <1992Aug31.152519.3795@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>

>Really? Then explain the crosslicensing between VAX vacuum cleaners and
>DEC, or between Apple Records and Apple Computers? Or the foofaraw between
>Sun and BT over Yellow Pages. British law isn't the same as US law.

Caution?  Don't companies buy rights to things sometimes, like trademarks
and patents, that they don't think they actually need, just to make sure
that nothing bad happen later (e.g., a trademark suit announced on the
day of your initial stock offering)?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: Fort Wayne: Landlords Must Evict Drug-Dealing Tenants
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:08:21 GMT

In article <1467@frackit.UUCP> dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
>In article <=0an3_r.feustel@netcom.com>, feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>> August 25, 1992
>> 
>> The Fort Wayne, IN.  City Council is voting tonight on an ordinance
>> providing for fines to be levied against landlords who do not evict
>> tenants after the city sends the landlord a letter asserting that drugs
>> are being sold in said tenants' apartment. The amount of the proposed
>> fines is to range from $500 to $2500/day.
>
>
>Wonderful. 
>
>The city 'asserts' that a tenant is selling drugs and tells the
>landlord to evict them. THERE'S due process for you. Did this idiotic
>ordinance pass? If so I'd LOVE to hear the results of the first court
>case using it as a basis. 
>
>Wonderful way to save your police department from busting into the
>wrong house on a drug raid.... make an 'assertion' and send a letter.
>Let the poor schnook landlord get the blame. 
>

Well,

can a landlord have a tenant evicted in Indiana without cause?  I would
think not.
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Computers for Law (Was Re: Advice for first year law student?)
Date: 22 Aug 1992 10:19:44 -0700
Organization: Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.home.vix.com

Mike <mnemonic@eff.org> says:

*Learning DOS machines as a lawyer is not particularly difficult. Learning
*them for the first time when you're a first-year law student turns out
*to be a bit more difficult, as I've discovered from counselling first-year
*law students. The nice thing about Macs is that they take less time from a
*first-year student's studies.
*
*Capturing the entire problem was not my goal. What I was trying to say
*was that, all things considered, I think students are better off with
*Macs as their first computers if they're first-years. If they already
*own a DOS machine, of course, they should stick with what they know.
*The whole business of incompatibility with your law office--which Anne
*Mitchell stated in extreme terms--seems to be fairly extreme exaggeration,
*even if we grant that most law offices have DOS platforms. 
*

You know, I don't think that Mike and I are in disagreement here...I
think that we simply were coming at the same general statement from
two different perspectives and sets of experiences.

Apparently, in Mike's mind's eye, he was seeing and thinking of 1Ls
with little to no computer experience, and who, once working, would
only need or want word processing compatibility between their home and
office computers.  Certainly a valid point of perspective.

In my mind's eye, based on my own, and only my own, personal
experience, I was seeing and thinking of 1Ls who did have some
computer savvy, as this was as often as not the case in my
experience.  We had several 1Ls this year who were already online
before school started, and running around UNIX like nobody's
business.  I was also starting from the perspective of wanting to run
more applications than just word processing between work and home,
such as billing and calendaring programs.  

I think that in the circumstances Mike is talking to [as I understand
them] Mike is absolutely right, and I think that in the circumstances
I am talking to that I am correct as well.

I really see no disagreement here.

But I do wish, Mike that you would stop using such unflattering terms
when referring to my statements as "extremely out of date" [first
posting] and "extreme exaggeration".  You probably don't even mean
them to be unflattering but they do seem that way, at least to me.
Besides, this subject is very subjective, not one based on hard facts
alone, so I suggest that even an extreme point of view, had I
evidenced one, would not be "exaggeration", but rather (over)zealous
advocacy. :-)
-- 
   LOOKING FOR:  David Widdicombe, Hobson Woodward, Lorna Taylor & JJ Lancey
I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, & founder of the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
Ask me about FREE!  FREE files available via anonymous ftp 128.45.1.1; dir /pub
   CUM CATAPULTAE PROtCRIPTAE ERUNT TUM tOLI PROtCRIPTI CATAPULTAt HABEBUNT
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Hornbooks -- Tax
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 11:59:31 GMT

Anybody have any recommendations for hornbooks for taxation of
individual income?
-- 
           .........................................................
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
         here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Maryland Law Brief
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:25:45 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <BtwuM5.MBH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gsbg9079@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (G. Scott Braley) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>The user, on the other hand, is looking to buy drugs solely for the
>>sheer pleasure of using them.
>
>While this may be true for non-addicts, there are people out there who are
>addicted, and do not buy drugs just for fun.
 
Speaking of penalties based on motives, is fun illegal now?
 
Remember Vietnam?
We lost that one because we were too wimpy.
We can win the WOD!  We just need Total Commitment!
Nuke Hanoi!  Oops, I mean Kentucky and Colombia.
Nuke em all!  Kill, kill, kill the dealers!
Torture the users!  Eat the growers alive!
We must destroy The People in order to save them.
Accuse, spy, confiscate, hate, attack, destroy! 
"We, the People...."  No!!!  Ban the Words of Pot Growers!
Don't hold back!  Beat em, jail em, kill!
	God is on our side!
        Rah, rah , rah!
Family values, morality, an example for our children.

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
What is the world's largest government subsidy to agriculture,
terrorism, speedboat manufacturing, organized crime, and prison
construction?
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Number of Lawyers
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:08:09 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug25.230134.1@acad3.alaska.edu>

Shouldn't that be "torte reform?"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: O1EVERT@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU (Tom Evert)
Subject: Dismissed with prejudice?
Organization: The University of Akron
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 07:54:21 GMT

Can someone explain what is meant by a "dismissed with prejudice" decesion
from a judge?   Thanks!
 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
TOM EVERT (O1EVERT@AKRONVM.BITNET) *   LISTSERV OWNER OF OPERS-L
     THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON       * MAINFRAME COMPUTER OPERATIONS
      INFORMATION SERVICES         *       DISCUSSION GROUP
      AKRON, OH  44305-3501        *
 
  COMPUTER OPERATIONS - A DIRTY JOB BUT SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT!!
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Maryland Law Brief
Summary: Druggies, Drunks, Studs'n'Sluts
Keywords: JOCUNDITAS DELENDA EST
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:12:27 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <23124@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker) 
writes:

>In article <BtwuM5.MBH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gsbg9079@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
>(G. Scott Braley) writes:

>>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>>>The user, on the other hand, is looking to buy drugs solely for the
>>>sheer pleasure of using them.

Carl M. Kadie didn't write this.  I, Matt Rosenblatt, wrote this.

>>While this may be true for non-addicts, there are people out there who are
>>addicted, and do not buy drugs just for fun.  [G. Scott Braley]

>Speaking of penalties based on motives, is fun illegal now? [George Tucker]

I wrote about the "user . . . for the sheer pleasure" because taxpayers
like me are sick and tired of paying for the consequences of other
people's "fun."  Most Marylanders don't enjoy the "sheer pleasure" 
of illegal drugs, nor do most of us drink ourselves into a stupor, 
yet our tax money that ought to be going for education is diminished
by the amount that has to go to fund "Drug Rehabilitation" and "Alcohol
Rehabilitation" for our fellow citizens who enjoyed themselves.  And
even this cost of paying for other people's fun with substances pales
when compared with the cost of sustaining the innocent little children
born as a consequence of other people's fun with sexual intercourse
outside marriage.

It's *illegal* for me to refuse to pay the share of my taxes that go
to pay for other people's "sheer pleasure."  Given the choice, I'd
rather have "fun at other people's expense" outlawed.  That means,
keep the drug laws, and reinstate the "man-in-the-house" rule for
public assistance recipients.  (The rule, for those too young to
remember, said that if you're a woman being supported by the State,
and some man not your husband is enjoying sexual intercourse with
you, then *he* and not the State is responsible for supporting you
and your children, and the State accordingly will cut off its payments.)

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus"
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,rec.arts.movies
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:53:16 GMT

In article <qumaqB2w165w@comtch.spk.wa.us> mhughes@comtch.spk.wa.us (Mark Hughes) writes:
>cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>> Yes, indeed. Could you imagine a more telling condemnation of the racist natu
>> of this society ? Not only were immigrants riducled by the White Male Norther
>> European Heterosexual Conspiracy as sex-crazed, fashion unconcious , sneaky  
>> vicious and animal-like sub-humans, but the Imperialist propaganda machine  
>> actually managed to brain-wash immigrant-americans into doing it to themselve
>> ! How perfect ! White Male Heterosexual Northern Europeans don't even have to
>> get their own hands and tongues dirty for their oppression, but they can  
>> actually exploit the oppressed into furthering their own oppression. Certainl
>> you must recognize this as the extension of the southern plantation system in
>> the intellectual sphere.
>> 
>> It is truely fortunate that today there are many people at our universities w
>> have finally woken up to these facts and can expose them for the less  
>> sophisticated among us.
> 
>  You are, I hope, joking?  That has GOT to be one of the most bigoted, 

Why would you hope he was joking and then proceed as though you know
he's not?  Isn't that a recipe for a bad day?

>hypocritical, stereotypical statements I have EVER heard.  The WMNHC is 

Which parts are which?  And who is it stereotypical of?  The Marx
Brothers, White Males, or people at our universities?

>hardly a conspiracy, and had nothing to do with the Marx brothers' names. 

Ah, but are you SURE?  You could be brainwashed YOURSELF!  And NOT
EVEN KNOW IT!!  ALSO, this guy could be the very person to SAVE YOU
FROM YOURSELF!!  Ironic, is it not?

>The trouble is, some people have built up such a guilt complex for the 
>sins of their forefathers, that they see racism EVERYWHERE.  I suppose I 

Even right-thinking people?  People full of love?  People with the
Common Sense we were all, without exception, blessed with at birth?
(Except the Evil People, of course, but I digress.)

>could go into an extended flame, but I'll leave it at this: 
> 
>  GET A LIFE!

Whew.

> 
> - Mark Hughes (Caves of Steel 509-624-2078)  mhughes@comtch.spk.wa.us

GM("Taking Myself Too Seriously")S
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:00:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.175738.356@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> 
> >> Ted Frank writes:
> >> > 
> >> > Leaving aside the fact that many whistleblowers have brought successful
> >> > suits against employers who've fired them, this does not implicate free
> >> > speech.  I can't start calling my boss names to his face, either.  (Not
> >> > that I would -- Doug's my hero :)
> 
> Well, why CAN'T you start calling your boss names?  Because he's a white
> guy?  Because he controls your paycheck?  If you don't have that right,
> why did Viktora have the right to terrorize a black family (noting in
> passing that the Supreme Court gave Viktora an absurd counterfactual
> "right" to committ a tort and a crime, since the SC acknowledged the
> applicability of non-hate-speech related law)?  At issue is the rule
> governing the applicability of free speech to situations including both
> Viktora and your behavior on the job, and it is question begging to
> airily say that free speech does not apply to your relationships with
> Doug but does apply as long as a minority group is being trashed.
> >> > 
> >> >But who is to determine what is "good" speech, and what isn't?  You?  Me?
> >> >Jesse Helms?  Better to have a blanket rule that all speech is protected.
> 
> But it's perfectly ok with you, isn't it, if the Supreme Court makes
> that decision (as long as they agree with you.)  And it is astonishing
> that the statement above is in the same post as the preceding extract.
> If you have a blanket rule protecting all speech then your calling Doug
> anything you choose is protected.
> 
> 
> 
Seconded!  It is obvious that under this blanket some speech is  more equal 
than the other.  Not being allowed to suggest abortion at federally funded
clinics, not being able to blow the 
whistle on your employer with job protection from the govt, violates 
ones right to free speech.  
But what we all strive to protect is the racists right free speech, right?  
But then again whites (no offense) are not really affected by racism, eh?
 
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16700 alt.politics.correct:5205 alt.censorship:7275