HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rolf@sparc1 (Rolf Wilson)
Subject: Re: Growth rates
Reply-To: rolf@sparc1.isgs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:36:38 GMT

<CLH7@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <2728@master.CNA.TEK.COM>, judyd@pendragon.CNA.TEK.COM (Judy E.
>Drake) says:
>>  stuff deleted
>>  I read somewhere that growth only takes place when
>>they're asleep--is this true?
>>
>>Just curious!
>>
>>Judy Drake

>A few months ago my husband saw some report of infants growing as much as
>2 inches overnight.  He read it out loud to me one evening, so he wasn't
>making this up, but we can't seem to find the source again.  Does anyone
>else remember reading something like this, somewhere, sometime?  It's one
>of those fun facts I would like to be able to toss out at appropriate
>times.


   Science News, Vol. 141 February 15, 1992
   Infant growth: A sporadic phenomenon   - page 102

...Conventional wisdom holds that very young children gain an average
of about one-half millimeter in body length per day. But [Michelle]
Lampl's measurements of 32 healthy infants and one adolescent
indicate that growth occurred in a random series of roughly
1-centimeter spurts, each apparently lasting less than 24 hours.
During the two to approximately 60 days that separated successive
spurts, she says, absolutely no increases in body length occurred.

...The daily data document long quiescent periods of no growth,
suddenly punctuated by a permanent lengthening of 0.5 to 1.8cm over
a 24-hour period.

"there was a distinct correlation between fussiness and [increased]
hunger at the time of the growth episodes." Parents also reported
signs of increased sleepiness right before growth spurts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Science finally verifies what parents have always known...     
--

Rolf Wilson   Illinois State Geological Survey   rolf@sparc1.isgs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Working full-time out of choice
From: doug@doug.ksc.nasa.gov (doug hammond)
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:29:27 EST
Organization: NASA - Kennedy Space Center

In article <32565@darkstar.ucsc.edu> larrabee@cse.ucsc.edu (Tracy Larrabee) writes:
>We have no reason to fault other people's personal life
>choices--life is just too complicated to transfer simple, blanket
>solutions blindly to people we have never met. 

Beautifully put...

I think it's funny how people seem to think they can sum each other up from a
few lines scrawled on this silly bulletin board.  I've noticed this
phenomenon all over the net.  I would venture to guess that most people would
be quite surprised if they met and became aquainted with that person on the
other end of the wire.

Like the old saying, "walk a mile in my shoes".

Doug


Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: judi@laplace.biology.yale.edu (Judith S. Janette)
Subject: Re: demerol
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:16:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr1.222414.13229@umiami.ir.miami.edu>  
ahelmers@umiami.ir.miami.edu writes:
> In article <TIGGER.92Mar20224848@satyr.Sylvan.COM>,  
tigger@satyr.Sylvan.COM (Grace Sylvan) writes:
> > - I want to be able to think during my labor. I want to be able to ask
> > for and get support, and what if I *do* need an intervention -- then I
> > need to be *there* to find out what my choices are. Otherwise,
> > informed choice is just a nice set of words. Guess I'll stick with
> > homebirths, despite my longing for an epidural during Robin's birth.
> 
> 
> I'm way behind (as always :) in my  net.reading so this may be a  
redundant
> comment, but...
> 
> Grace, having an epidural DOES give you the benefit of "being there"  
while it
> takes away pain.  And I believe that in many cases relief from what can  
be
> excruciating pain during labor makes a vast improvement in one's ability  
to
> exercise the privilege of informed choice.  There is just a whiff of
> superiority in your lofty decision to "stick with homebirths"; are you  
somehow
> a better woman/mother because you didn't succomb to the urge for an  
epidural?!
> 
> Ann Helmers

>>AMEN!

>>Judi Janette
From: rdc8@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Robert D Castro)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: You know you had a rough morning...
Keywords: rough morning
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:33:19 GMT
Reply-To: rdc8@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Robert D Castro)
Organization: Columbia University


You know when you had a rough morning when your daycare sitter calls
you at work to inform you that your baby seemed a little uncomfortable
this morning and after they checked his diaper they found a pacifier
down there!  Oye!
From: patti@nestor.uucp (80122-stankovich)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: When did you know? (was: Woman's figure")
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:56:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <1992Apr9.135545.9645@cbnewse.cb.att.com> action@cbnewse.cb.att.com (timothy.d.acton) writes:
>
>We had been trying to conceive for about 6 months
>and right before Christmas, my wife was late with
>her period. So, she does the EPT thing and it
>comes back negative. She soon starts her period
>and we headed to the folks house for the holidays.
>
>The first night in the house, her mother looks at
>her backside and pulls her aside and tells her
>she should get examined, that she is definately
>pregnant. Now, I didn't notice anything unusual
>about her backside (familiarity breed indifference?) {:-)
>so after the holidays, the doctor confirmed Mom's
>intuition. Now three years later, grandma is
>anxious for number two.
>
That's funny -- something similar happened to us.
We had been trying for about 8 months, so far, nothing
had happened.  January 4th of this year, I did a home
pregnancy test and it came back positive.  I did a second
one the next day (just to make sure I didn't mess up the
first one) and that came back positive.  Anyway, to make
a long story short, I called my mother to tell her the good
news and before I could even get it out, she said "I know,
you're pregnant".  When I asked her how she knew, she said
she could tell by looking at my face when I was over at
Christmas.  I'm glad she knew at Christmas, because I
sure didn't!
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Summary: Diplomatic immunity ought not to protect evil men.
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:57:58 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <khtjqvc.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) 
writes:

>matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>>The Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and put him on trial
>>in Israel for ordering the murder of Jews in Europe.  As far as I can 
>>see, the main difference between what the Israelis did to Eichmann and 
>>what the Americans did to Noriega is that Noriega was a head of state
>>and Eichmann was not.   [Matt Rosenblatt]

>The main difference is that America has abandoned the Constitution.
>[David Feustel]

Since when does the protection of the American Constitution extend
to foreign despots acting in foreign countries?  As far as I am
concerned, the Mexican doctor who assisted Enrique Camarena's
torturers and murderers ought to be rotting in an American prison.

>>                      If Noriega was, as the jury found, engaged in
>>poisoning American kids with drugs, the fact that he was a head of state
>>ought not to have protected him from being brought to Justice.
>>[Matt Rosenblatt]

>What you're saying is that diplomatic immunity is no longer
>operational and that any law made in any country can be enforced in
>any other country.  [David Feustel]

What I'm saying is that diplomatic immunity can be, and has been, used
as a cover for injustice, and that it is unjust for diplomatic immunity
to protect an evil man from punishment for violating just laws.  At
best, exempting a Slobbovian diplomat from criminal trial for decking
an American citizen in America is excused on the grounds of expediency
(so that American diplomats won't be framed and locked up in Slobbovia),
not on the grounds of justice ("it's OK for diplomats to deck people").
I'm arguing for justice.  Justice for the Holocaust victims demanded
that Eichmann be punished for ordering their murder.  Justice for the
American "crack babies" demands that Noriega be punished for protecting
the dope dealers whose crack ruined the babies' lives.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Another Gun Thread Gets Cross-Posted
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:07:40 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Apr2.043037.1081@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <10286@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>> If we do limit the nature of weaponry that we may possess, how do we go
>>> about deciding these limits?
>>
>>By original intent.

>What was the founders' original intent wrt automatic weapons?

>You really *can't* go by original intent, unless you want to restrict it
>to weapons from 1791 technology.


You can't go with original intent, period.  The whole idea of
"original intent" is incoherent.  No act (such as passing a law) which
requires the cooperation of hundreds of people can possibly be said to
be movtivated by a single "intent."  Arguably, even the acts of
individuals are motivated by a multiplicity of conscious and
unconscious "intentions," most of which never appear in the "debates"
in Congress.

The language of the law, like that of any other body of literature,
is just the raw material for argument and other forms of pursuasion.

Anyone who thinks that the laws have unambiguous purposes is blinding
themselves to a) the real legislative process, b) modern understanding
of human psychology.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk%panix.com@nyu.edu) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Another Gun Thread Gets Cross-Posted
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:33:54 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Apr6.224331.11723@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
> In article <10317@optilink.UUCP>
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > So tell me, do we similarly restrict free speech to the sort of
> > printing presses used in 1791?  We either take an expansive view
> > of "press", "speech", and "arms", or we take the narrow definition
> > based on 1791 technology.
> 
> Are you claiming that those who prefer an "expansive view" of free
> speech but prefer a "narrower definition" of our arms rights are
> hypocritical?  If so, would you please explain how you arrived at this
> conclusion?

I'm saying that they are inconsistent.  There is a school of
constitutional interpretation that claims that the broad and
expansive definition of freedom of the press in the First Amendment
wasn't intended by the framers to protect pornography, for example.
This is a fairly legitimate line of reasoning -- a strict textual
analysis of the Bill of Rights would greatly restrict the powers
of the Federal Government.  

There is another line of reasoning that insists that because the 
text of the First Amendment leaves no room for prohibiting some 
types of speech, that therefore any law that limits such speech 
("fighting words", flag-burning) is therefore unconstitutional.
This is also a legitimate line of reasoning.

What I strongly object to is when a liberal insists on unlimited
right to free speech, based on the First Amendment's very broad
language, and yet denies that the Second Amendment's similarly
broad language means what it says.

As my example above showed, you can't argue, "1791 weapons only
are protected" without having to make the same silly claim about
1791 printing technology.

> Perhaps if the second amendment had read "...the right of the people to
> defend themselves in any way available against right wing bigots who
> desire to dictate their private lives using the force of
> government...", I would be able to see your point.

It's certainly one of the ways that I read the intent of the Second 
Amendment.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a
favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace
of God." -- Thomas Jefferson
From: danr@pro-franklin.cts.com (Daniel Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:18:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: crash.1992Apr08.211826.20789
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

Tim,

You make a key point in the Jury nullification discussion. RE: acquiting
the guilty person because the jury does not like the victim.

While the state is the accussor many people seem to forget the impact on
the victim.

Dan
---------
danr@pro-franklin.cts.com
Sysop of pro-franklin 614-462-7458 at up to 2400 BPS.
Home of pro.apo pro.scout and 2nd home of pro.law and pro.security.
Xref: sparky alt.sex:14736 misc.legal:9349 rec.arts.tv:9686
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:24:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <1992Apr15.160229.10801@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, by rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins):
> In article <1992Apr8.135341.3401@CERIS.Purdue.EDU>, jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
>> It isn't just for "pornographic" purposes.  There was a piece on
>> 60 minutes, last fall I think, about a photographer who was
>> arrested and had his entire life work confiscated because he had
>> some pictures of nude children (as far as I could tell, _no_ sex
>> acts were portrayed).  I understand that the negatives and prints
>> were later returned (damaged), but the guy was out big $ for
>> lawyers and such.  BTW, the parents of the kids gave their
>> permission and were there when the pictures were taken.   
>> 
>> I understand that parents who have pictures of their kids in the
>> buff have been prosecuted or gone after by the child protective
>> services.  It is my further understanding that in some cases
>> these folks have gone to jail or lost their kids.
> 
>      This sounds like the Mapplethorpe case in Cincinnati that happened
> recently. An art museum was showing his collection of photos, which, if
> I remember correctly, contained full nudity of children, some urinating
> scenes, and something else, I can't remember. Anyway the museum's
> director was taken to court on charges of pornography, but was
> acquitted.
>

I think the picture of the kids were a something of a side issue,
except for Jesse Helms ;-{).  There were some fairly gross
pictures of, supposedly, gay guys (fringe I think) doing "yellow
rain" things and the infamous bullwhip .....

The guy I am talking about is still alive and well somewhere on
the West Coast.  Maplethorpe is dead and was dead before the
Cicinnati brouhaha. 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas More)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: legal translater jobs
From: hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller)
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:11:29 GMT
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Thomas F. Pockberger, in a message to All on 04-09-92 at 10:35am, said:

TF/3We have an certified, University trained interpreter (with diploma) for E
   3German and French here.
   3She will be leaving to the states in a few month.
   3Where can she start hunting for a job.
   3She is specialized in legal translations.
   TMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM>

          There are legal translation services in every major city in
          the U.S. that hire independent translators on a case-by-case
          basis.  Courts also require translators for litigants.  The
          greatest demand is for Spanish, and, in general, the supply
          exceeds the demand for translators.  She can apply both to
          the courts and to a variety of the independent services (look
          in the Yellow Pages).  I'm not optimistic.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
   s r
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.21 #11645 ~ Jesse Jackson: the EDLIN of political candidates.
--
Executive Network Information System   (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 15:26:12 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <ARG.92Apr8160924@huxley.bitstream.com> arg@bitstream.com writes:
>
>There are no such things as "bad" laws--strictly speaking.

Provided, that is, you believe that form is more important than content.

>You must believe that  either (1)  there   is natural law whereby  laws are
>inherently good or bad like the physical laws of nature, or (2) there is no
>natural law and whatever rules we choose  to make in  our  society are only
>opinions.
>
>For those of us who do not subscribe to the doctrine of natural law, trying
>to figure out which laws are bad only depends on whom you  ask.  One person
>says it is good, another says it  is bad.  Likewise, one jury  may decide a
>law is good, and another may decide it is bad.  How can you prove  a law is
>good, or bad, or just, or fair?  You can't.  It's only a matter of opinion.

But, if you follow your relativist assumption-- that laws are just
opinions and cannot be intrinsically good or bad, my opinion is just as
good as yours, or the legislatures-- therefore by punishing me, you
are simply showing that you are stronger than me.  Your system
degenerates quickly into might makes right.

>We cannot  prove correctly  or  absolutely  whether a  law  is  or  is  not
>*substantially* fair, but we can prove that it  is  *procedurally* fair, by
>requiring   that  it is enactly  properly, applied   properly, and enforced
>properly.  This is what we mean by "fair".  Why is this so interesting?
>
>If a law is "bad" because someone says "In  my  opinion, this law  is bad",
>and if "bad" laws should not be enforced, we won't  have any laws left!  So
>I have to ask, if people should ignore ["bad"] laws, why have laws?

If laws are just a matter of who's opinion is enforced, why have laws?
If any set of laws will do, we don't need 'em!

(obviously, I am a believer in 'natural law'.  However, I think that
some procedurally good laws can be shown to be substantially bad, even
without that assumption.  For instance, a law as widely violated as
speed limit 55 cannot be a good law.)
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From: jokiniem@cs.Helsinki.FI (Jari Jokiniemi)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:31:40 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki, Department of Computer Science

In article <18482@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>"Right" and "wrong" exist independently of any particular system of
>positive law.  There are plenty of areas, especially where it concerns
>the family as the basic building block of society, where "US law and 
>justice" are off track compared to Islamic (with a capital "I") law 
>and justice.

Oh, it would be very interesting to see a proof of the claim that
"right" and "wrong" exist independently of any particular system of
positive law. There are indeed many forms of behaviour that almost all
of the people in the world agree to be "wrong", i.e. killing somebody
for no reason at all. But there are also many forms of behaviour 
that some people think to be "right" and some others think to be
"wrong". If the claim was right, one should be able to tell whether or
not to do something is "right" or "wrong" according to some absolute
truth which is independent of the law of any country in the world.

Many religions claim to know that absolute truth. Unfortunately people
do not agree which of the religions is the one to know that absolute
truth. This has caused many religion wars in the history for obvious
reasons. To keep the discussion outside the scope of religions I would 
like to see the proof of the existence of "right" and "wrong"
without any reference to any religion.
-- 
Jari Jokiniemi /            / Technical Research Centre of Finland:
              /  OH2MPO    /    jjo@tik.vtt.fi                 +358 0 456 6009
DO IT NOW!   /  OH3BU     /   University of Helsinki: 
            /  HSC 1182  /      jokiniem@cs.Helsinki.FI jokiniemi@finuha.BITNET
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:04:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.

In article <18446@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
   delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:

   >    ----> This is copied from a pamphlet that I was given. <----
   >          Please forgive any bad typing.
   >
   >                  --   *   --
   >      Fully Informed Jury Association
   . . .
   >If jurors were supposed to judge "only the facts",
  >their job could be done by a computer.  [Ben Delisle, quoting FIJA pamphlet]

If this is really from the FIJA pamphlet, I agree it's unfortunate and
silly.  That has nothing to do with the merits of their cause, though.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal