HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcmarx@bnr.ca (JC Marx)
Subject: Re: lioness method
Reply-To: jcmarx@bnr.ca
Organization: BNR
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:13:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.064303.23945@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, gprall@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gene Prall) writes:
|> 
|> To the ladies that carry tear gas in those cutesy cannisters.. That mace is
|> only half the stregth it ought to be to stop an attacker.. MAce is just
|> Tear gas and kerosene with a propellant (usually freon).. most times
|> that store bought stuff also is about 45% water to keep costs down..
|> 

And don't forget to test them every so often; after a while, they simply die -
no warning, no indication, it just won't work when you need it...

JC
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu (BOGGS RICHARD GRAN)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 18:49:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.183950.22341@nmsu.edu> loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer) writes:

>to kill the attacker, but to make them stop attacking.  If the sight of 
>a weapon, in the hands of someone who appears willing to use it, is 
>sufficient to cause the attacker to flee, that's wonderful.  If so, you
>have no business shooting them in the back as they run away.  If they
>continue, perhaps believing that you will not be willing to shoot them, 
>the object is to stop them.  If you shoot the attacker once and (s)he 
>falls to the ground, and does not make any further attempt to attack you,
>you do not have any business shooting them in the back of the head.  An

I agree with you here.  I would, however, still shoot to kill.  I would not
shoot a man who is obviously down and incapacitated though.  I imagine that
if a big, burly, scary looking fellow were charging me with a knife and I had
a handgun, I'd drill him a couple times at least.  Probably two or three shots
to the chest in rapid succesion.

If he fell and were still alive, I wouldn't go over and "finish him off" though.


-- 
Grant Boggs
boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: gprall@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gene Prall)
Subject: Re: lioness method
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 06:43:03 GMT

 Sorry not quote a message but just to add a little here to Roni's (I think)
statements.

A good quick move in judo, which I have found invaluable over the years
is when a person is reaching for you(from your front) and they are moving at you
very quickly.. Grab their wrist and sidestep thembut keep one foot in the way
to trip them. MAKE SURE YOUR FEET ARE FIRMLY PLANTED.. It works for me 99%
of the time..the only time it didn't was against another (higher level) judo
student..

To the ladies that carry tear gas in those cutesy cannisters.. That mace is
only half the stregth it ought to be to stop an attacker.. MAce is just
Tear gas and kerosene with a propellant (usually freon).. most times
that store bought stuff also is about 45% water to keep costs down..


Just more comments..
Gene

Newsgroups: talk.rape
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 00:52:57 -0400 
From: Albert Peter Michael <am3z+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Mace video

I have also seen the video, by the American Women's Self Defense Association.
I believe you can get a copy by sending them a blank video tape. (I borrowed
the copy I watched.)

Also, there was a guy who performed an experiment in which he was maced
and then proceeded to draw his pistol, empty it into a target, reload,
empty it again, and then draw a knife and run forward and hack up the target.
Now, this was a bit more than was done in the film noted above, but any of the
women in that one could have done the same.

Al
P.S.- I'd have to agree that no one has ever mistaken Massad Ayoob for a woman!
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: genetics
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:18:21 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug18.114639.18196@brtph560.bnr.ca>, jcmarx@bnr.ca (JC Marx) writes:

> |> 
> |> Only if you equate ability to fight as being dependent entirely on muscle and
> |> size.
> |> 
> |> You know it is amazing how few of those muscle-atheletes ever win the Hevy
> |> Weight Crown, or any kick-boxing competitions.
> |> 
> |> And I would put ANY of them up against Chuck Norris.
> |> 
> |> Or Franco from my old Karate school. (Little guy, could break several ribs on
> |> the first puch, and had.)
> |> 
> |> Strength is somewhat genetics. What you do with it is entirely a personal
> |> decision.
> |> 
> |> DC
> |> 
> |> 
> 
> With regard to your little friend (who breaks ribs on first punch): Imagine
> what he could do if he were, say two to three times stronger - or
> put him up against a previous body builder gone kickboxer - Van Damm (sp?).
> Sure, I'd love to see Norris vs. John-Claude...

Notice you had to introduce someone with self-defense training before you were
willing to put them up against Franco. He was not much bigger than most
women--so what stops them from getting pumped and trained to kill also?


> 
> As far as "those muscle-atheletes" ever winning the Hevy Weight Crown or
> any kick-boxing competitions - I could just as easily say, Hey, I'd like to
> see some of those Karate jocks bench press 500lbs.

Indeed, and that would be in line with my arguments quite well. Training in an
area makes you better than  those without training in that area.


DC

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: Amy Young Leith <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Critisizing the victim?
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:39:04 -0500

In article <1992Aug14.004044.9419@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>and greeks. Ninety-eight percent! (Please do not assume I am attacking
>either group, I am merely relying information.) These attacks do not happen
>walking to parking garages, or in the bushes near the physics building. They
>happen in dorm rooms and frat houses.

Wrong again.  Many DO happen in the bushes, woods, or buildings that
are not sports or fraternity related. 

amy
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Ataylor's "quote" source.
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:55:05 GMT

<In article <1992Aug12.023721.9347@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

< Well, it took some doing, but I have found the material Ataylor is claiming I
< said. Here it is (one page down):

	You found SOME material I quoted.

<   In article <VwuLoB2w164w@cellar.org> hacksaw@cellar.org (Hacksaw) writes:

	Correct. I have misattributed some text by "Hacksaw" to
	Cosgrove. This is an error I apologize for.

	Now let's look at some material that Cosgrove DID post:

	Comments are in [brackets]

==============================================================
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Critisizing the victim?
Date: 5 Aug 92 12:17:56 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug5.021755.10127@news.cs.indiana.edu>, Amy Young Leith <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
> In article <1992Jul28.074010.8993@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

	[Note the attribution lines. DC and alyoung are
	 the only posters, here]

	[some text deleted]

	[alyoung writes]
> What does "politically correct" have to do with it?  If respecting the
> property, personal, and legal rights of others is anything, simply
> "right" would be the term I'm thinking of.  

	[DC writes]

His comments were not politically correct because they were not entirely
sypathetic to the rape victim, and dared to depict that maybe some of them were
stupid in what they did and, while not wanting to be raped, sure invited it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


	[Thus DC repeats his claim that some women invite rape.]

	[More text deleted to save bandwidth]
=======================================================================

	There's more, but what's the point? DC appears to be
	much too stubborn to admit his errors.
From: jalden@coos.dartmouth.edu (Joshua M. Alden)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:27:30 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In <1992Aug18.184416.26208@brtph560.bnr.ca> jcmarx@bnr.ca (JC Marx) writes:

>I think the actual scenario is more like:
>1) Woman notices a man stalking her through the parking lot.
>2) From her peripheral vision, she sees him running towards her and knows now
>  that she cannot make it to her car in time.
>3) She runs from the attacker, drawing her revolver from her purse at the
>  same time.
>4) She stops and turns around, pointing the gun at the man's chest (he is still
>  running towards her) - shoot or don't shoot, it's that simple. If she shoots,
>  she stands more than a good chance of killing him, missing him, or hitting
>  someone else...

    That's a pretty accurate scenario.  Another common one has the
attacker surprising the woman sufficiently that she couldn't safely
draw, so she awaits an opportunity while he's momentarily looking away
(driving, opening a door, undoing his belt buckle, whatever) and then
draws and fires.

>Lastly,
>1) The attacker is getting closer.
>2) The woman continues walking at a fast pace towards her car.
>3) The attacker catches her from behind.
>4) The woman spins around, spraying the attacker in the face with mace.
>5) The attacker falls to the ground screaming. The woman runs to her car and
>   gets away.

>Assuming it is legal in the given state, I think mace is a pretty good
>decision.

    In an ideal world, you're right.  But it isn't always effective; see
my previous article.

    By the way, if you don't want to carry a handgun but do want to
carry a chemical agent, I recommend CapStun over mace.  Has a much more
dramatic effect on the mucous membranes, work well on dogs and other
animals (which mace doesn't, particularly), and is legal in some places
where mace is illegal.  And illegal in some places where mace is legal
(like California).  Always check your local laws before carrying
anything.

-Josh.

--
Josh Alden:  Joshua.Alden@dartmouth.edu
EMT Instructor, DMS Health Education And Rescue Training
Ownership of a weapon is a victimless crime.  (Where it's a crime at all.)
From: ttaylor@starl.miami.fl.us (Thelma Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: HANDS IN ACTION
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:46:55 EST
Organization: Starlight BBS Miami Fl


This is an Organization that is helping to build a home for children who has
been abused...This is very new Organization and I will be going on Cristina's
Show to make it known NATIONWIDE....I would like you all to tell or mention
this....I am going to give you the Address if people would like to no more
about this New Organization......Or E-mail me and I will answer any question
you might want to know about this.


  HANDS IN ACTION/MANOS EN ACCION,INC.
     11890 S.W.8th Street-Suite 402
         Miami Florida 33184

Tell them that Ms.Taylor gave you the information....Please every penny
helps....Please spread the word about this Organization....The GREEN RIBBON day
is in April....Lets help these Children.I will let who wants to know when I
will be on National TV.I am a survivor of abuse also....I will be going on
Geraldo too.Please stay in touch.....
               T Taylor
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: walking someone to their car
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:35:48 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug12.122128.2212@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>Ever heard of "Don't start a flame war."
> 
> Imagine that.  Mr Flame War himself, the man who turned talk.rape from a mostly
> constructive discussion into a flame fest, telling me how to avoid starting a
> flame war.

Well, when someone starts out dialogue with "Cry me a river white boy" directed
to someone who has been entirely civil, I like to give fair warning.

Besides, I suppose I FORCED you to write said post, since you appear to be
blaming me for the uncivilty on here--including your own.

> 
>>>>Second of all, the man has to walk all the way back from the car alone,
>>>>entailing a similar risk to the risk the woman was unwilling to take.
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> 
>>> If you think that men are raped on the street at night and in underground
>>> parking lots just as much as women are ("a similar risk"), in North America,
>>> you're not living in the same North America that I am.
>>
>>You have entirely missed the point Eric was making--that in situations a man
>>places himself at a higher risk by helping reduce a woman's risk. No one ever
>>said the man ALWAYS faces the EXACT SAME risk.
> 
> He didn't say "exact same", but he said "similar".  This was incorrect.  It is
> not similar.

How is his risk of violent physical attack not similar to hers? The fact
she'll get it vaginally where as he'll get it anally?

> 
>>All that was said is that in order for a man to reduce a woman's risks, he
>>must increases his own--expecially under certain circumstances.
> 
> Sometimes yes.  Sometimes not, for example in underground parking lots in the
> city of Toronto in which violence against men is quite rare but violence
> against women is commonplace.  But even if there is an increased risk, if it's
> substantially less than the decrease to the woman's risk, it makes sense for
> the man to accompany her.

No, it makes sense for YOU to accompany her. Tell me something, why should I
raise the risks to myself even a fraction of a percentage to lower someone
else's risks? Am I, and other males also, merely escort drones who's duty is
to escort until the dice are rolled enugh times to where we suffer? 

Tell me something, do you volunteer to walk inner-city youths to and from the
play-ground? Do you volunteer to patrol alleys in an effort to fight crime?
Have you joined the Guardian Angels yet?

If you want to rise the risks to yourself--rock and roll. But, what right do
you have to place a duty on someone else? Hey dude, walk her to her car if it
makes you happy, but do not say that the burden is so isignificant that we men
should treat it as zero just because you look at it that way.

DC



Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:03:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.184416.26208@brtph560.bnr.ca> jcmarx@bnr.ca writes:

Marx is under the interesting delusion that women can't identify attackers.

>I think the actual scenario is more like:
>1) Woman notices a man stalking her through the parking lot.
>2) From her peripheral vision, she sees him running towards her and knows now
>  that she cannot make it to her car in time.
>3) She runs from the attacker, drawing her revolver from her purse at the
>  same time.
>4) She stops and turns around, pointing the gun at the man's chest (he is
>   still running towards her) - shoot or don't shoot, it's that simple. If
>   she shoots, she stands more than a good chance of killing him, missing
>   him, or hitting someone else...

Actually, missing and hitting someone else are low probability events
in that situation (it's a nice big target), killing being a reasonable
risk, and the most common is "severe wound".  Handguns just aren't
that lethal.

That's assuming that shots are fired; in most cases they aren't.

>Lastly,
>1) The attacker is getting closer.
>2) The woman continues walking at a fast pace towards her car.
>3) The attacker catches her from behind.
>4) The woman spins around, spraying the attacker in the face with mace.
>5) The attacker falls to the ground screaming. The woman runs to her car and
>   gets away.

Not in this reality.  Mace doesn't work like that.

I've been Maced.  (I did it when I was checking whether or not Mace
was a useful self-defense tool.)  It hurt a bunch, and it made me
really mad, but it didn't incapacitate me at all.  I was completely
functional, and I wasn't even all that excited, let alone "under the
influence" before I got blasted.  (The manufacturer advises that Mace
isn't effective against emotionally agitated or people "living better
through recreational chemistry/alcohol".  Oops.)

I've heard that people even build up a tolerance to it, and eye
glasses provide a lot of protection.

Mace is great for discouraging the sort of people who aren't going to
attack anyone anyway.  It is worse than useless for those who are.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 22 Aug 92 15:01:37 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug22.085607.10847@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
> (argument for not using WD40 deleted)
> (counter argument and ego stroking deleted)
> 
>  NOT A CRIME FOR HER TO CARRY ANYTHING FOR
>>SELF-DEFENSE NOT SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT AS PROHIBITED BY STATUTE!
> 
> 	"Well, your honor, there isn't really a law that spells this one
> out..."
> 	Judge sits back and thinks for a few moments...
> 	"You're right.  Because there is no law specifically prohibiting
> the use of a Tomahawk (conventional) missile for self defense, I am afraid
> that the only charges we can prosecute for are wilful destruction of
> property..."

Your ignorance of the law would be most amusing if it were not for the fact
that you are presenting it as true to people who might mistakenly act upon what
you are saying.

Go to your local state staute and look up "primitive weapons", or similar
phrase. Further, go to your dictionary and look up "tomahawk", see if it
is defined as a weapon of sorts. Then look up "WD-40".

Jesus--THINK AND RESEARCH before stating something is legal--someone might be
foolish enough to listen to what you are saying.

> 	(further tripe deleted)

> 	I think that there are probably enough blanket laws out there that
> would cover a lot of home and store bought defenses.  Probably a state that
> restricts mace and capicum and the like would also make use of other
> chemicals for defense equally illegal.  I mean, it wouldn't make sense to
> make mace illegal, and allow, say, concentrated hydrochloric acid to be
> used...  Even though mace is a wee bit easier to carry and utilize for
> defense (Unless, of course, you rig something up...)

"probably enough blanket laws..." 
"probably a state that..."
"it wouldn't make sense..."

Why are you shooting off your mouth on a legal subject you know nothing about?
And further, you haven't taken the time to look up your own statutes on the
subject! Have you done any reasearch on the subject WHATSOEVER???

And you claim I am the one who just likes to talk to hear himself???

DC

 

> 	Sam
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu (BOGGS RICHARD GRAN)
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 08:23:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.115026.9466@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>You meet a woman at a party, talk to her, offer to "take her home", when she
>declines your offer, you follw her home anyway.
>
>You think the police will not look at YOU as a rapist?

Possibly.  I would, if I were a police officer.  But...

>You think that they will not arrest you for SOMETHING? (Refusal to cooperate
>with a police officer in his/her official duties, followed by resisting
>arrest.)

Probably not.  If they confronted me, I would do as they requested, as it is
a crime not to follow orders given to you by an officer of the law.  But hey,
I did try to watch out for the woman.

>> chance on something happening to me BECAUSE I FEEL THAT I WOULD BE BETTER
>> ABLE TO DEAL WITH IT THAN SOMEONE ELSE.  
>
>I am gald we all have Sam to protect us from our own folly!

Don't lose perspective, DC.  I don't really see anything so terrible about
Sam endangering himself to protect someone else.  Pretty selfless thing to do.
Seems rather nice too.  He knows the risks.  Knows what he is doing.  Sometimes
we need people to protect us from our own folly.

Sam says:
>> PS:  SInce, after reading my words in the above paragraph, where it says
>> that I understand the risks and so forth, and I feel better able to deal
>> with an attack situation, and also seeing my response, restating my
>> position on that, could you, DC, please not use the "Don't you know
>> the risks?  Dont you realize that all you do is increase your personal
>> danger?" idea anymore.  I have answerred it several times in language that
>> is fairly unequivocal, and I would preferr a discussion on this more
>> appropriate to this forum, rather than just being told that I am waiting to
>> become a victim...  I think that I know this, and, also, like I said, I
>> think that I am more prepared to deal with that situation, if it comes up
>> again.
>> 

To which DC replies:
>I am fully aware that you know the risks. What you are not aware of is that you
>are forcing other people to accept your views by forcefully escorting them.

May be true from one perspective, but I think Sam's doing alright.

I didn't read all the organizational lines in everyone's posts, but where do 
you all live that going out at night is so perilous?!

I feel very safe walking alone around the Stillwater, Oklahoma campus at any
hour of the day/night.  Or walking around town at any hour as well.


-- 
Grant Boggs
boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma