HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Somethings Just Worry me....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:43:38 GMT

k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
] bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh) writes:
] >
] >You like this consistency argument, don't you?  Well, I've thought
] >about the consistency of the pro-choice side.  I could show, for
] >example, that the concept of abortion being a "fundamental" right
] >is inconsistent with the utilitarian slogans and the coat hanger
] >insignias used by the movement.
] 
] OK, I'll bite.  Me and drieux both want you to explain this, now.
 
hum.... worries me when anyone from anyplace
listed as a 'zoo' supports me...

] As for consistency, I figure it like this.  If a position is internally
] consistent, that doesn't mean it's right.  But if it's not, it's wrong.
] If the pro-life movement rallies under the banner that All Life Is
] Sacred, then they'd better mean it--if they don't, they mean something
] else, and they're not pro-life, they're pro-something else.
 
cf. Asimov's discussion about 'proof and beauty'...

] Complete consistency is _easy_.  
 
hum....

Haven't read any Godel, eh?

so it seems taht the bottom line remains the
matter of what folks who Alledge that they are 
"ProLife" really Mean by that string, and whether
or Not Advocating Close Air Support for the troops
is a "ProLife" action....

As with sending Cluster Bombs at SAM sites that
"Paint" Allied Aircraft....


ciao
drieux


ps: what I still have NOT been able to figure out,
is why all these "Liberals" are "ProChoice"??????

Clearly Keeping the Government out of the Personal
Lives of the Citizenry has Traditionally been a
Conservative Rallying Cry.....


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: executive orders
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 07:14:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.060929.11298@athena.mit.edu> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
>	1. "ethics rules" for his advisors prohibiting them from lobbying
>	for 5 years after leaving government.
>
>When corporations try this, the courts don't allow it.  Does Clinton have
>the authority to indefinitely restrict former employees from working in a
>certain field?  (He said 5 years, but how is that legally different from 50
>years, or forever?)  What's the punishment for violating this rule?

I've been wondering about the legal enforceability of this, also.

>	2. reversal of ban on abortion counseling at federally funded clinics
>
>I thought this was a law, not a regulation?  Or is there a law that
>authorizes but does not require such restrictions?  I know Congress tried to
>reverse the ban but failed.

Nope, it was a regulation, one authorized, but not required, by existing
legislation.  Congress tried to rewrite the law so that it would no longer
countenance the regulation, but couldn't get the two-thirds to override 
Bush's veto.

>	3. end to ban on gays in military
>
>The reports on this issue that I heard last year said this would require an
>act of Congress.  Would a Clinton order preventing enforcement of the
>anti-gay regulations be illegal?

Truman desegregated the military with an EO.  The President is Commander-
in-Chief, constitutionally, which I would think gives him a great deal of
discretion over the whole thing, but that's just an educated guess.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky misc.legal:23184 talk.politics.misc:69424
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Media (was Re: Who's weakening the constitution?)
Date: 23 Jan 1993 15:40:31 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Distribution: usa,tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>> A lot of people said that they never watched the ads and could not even
>> remember them, but gave reasons that basically regurgitated the slogans
>> for the ads for the previous few years.
>
>This doesn't mean anything because there are only a few reasons for
>playing the lottery :) The lottery adds only reflect what is common
>knowledge. You don't need to see a lottery add in order to have that
>compulsion.

When I say they basically regurgitated the slogans, I don't mean they just
gave the same reasons.  I mean they used the same language of the ads.

For example, let's say the following were slogans from various ads (I don't
remember for sure what slogans were actually used, so I've probably got these
wrong):

	When you play, our schools win!

	If you don't play, you can't win: make your dreams come true!

	Wouldn't you feel bad if your numbers won without you?

The kind of answers they would get from people who played but said they had
not been influenced or even seen the ads were "Hey, man, like, you know, our
schools win, and, you know, like, dude, if I don't play, I can't win and have
my like dreams come true, you know, and like what a bummer if my numbers won
without me, you know what I mean?"

--Tim Smith
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Keywords: quarry
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:53:42 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <19617@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>That was no log he hit; it was a man, and he 
>killed him on the spot.
>
>Anyone who has ever been taught how to shoot knows that you 
>don't pull that trigger unless you're sure what you're shooting
>at.  If you're not sure, and you shoot anyway, that's reckless 
>behavior.  Reckless behavior that causes someone's death is 
>counted as manslaughter.  So the grand jury indicted this fellow 
>for manslaughter.

Was he convicted?  I'd guess not.  Just last year a young wife in Vermont
walked out in her backyard, less than fifteen yards, and stood for a moment
near the garage when a bullet from a gun wielded by a vacationing dentist
took her straight through the heart.  He was indicted, sure.  She was
standing within the one-hundred yard safety zone that was supposed to
surround each house, and he admitted to shooting without being sure of
what he was aiming at.  But, according to the court, the fact that the
woman was not wearing "hunter's orange" even though she was within the
safety zone constituted "contributary negligence" and the dentist was
not convicted.  All too often, the shooters successfully blame the victim.
It saved that dentists hide, I'm sure, but it damaged the cause of
responsible gun owners to an ghastly degree.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: avogadro@well.sf.ca.us (Michael D. Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Can I make my own cheques?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:17:35 GMT

In <28556@sybase.sybase.com> joe@bulldog.sybase.com (Joseph Weinstein) writes:

>Is this off base?

>Can I use cheques I've made myself by photocopying cheques issued
>from the bank or cheque printing firm?

Yes and no.  You can under the Uniform Commercial Code, as I recall, write
a check on a blank piece of paper, if it has the right words (Bank ID, account
ifnormation, "Pay to the order of XXX", etc.  On the other hand, non-standard
checks (including any not having the numbers in magnetic ink) are not pro-
cessed in the regular manner, leading to delays in processing, crediting, etc.,
and pssibly incurring "collection" fees or other surcharges.  I once replied
to a charity ad showing a blank check by cutting out the check, inserting the 
relevant information, and mailing it in.  They cashed it, but the bak charged
me a few bucks for processing it; the charity sent me a letter about my
unique response to the ad.

Every once in a while, someone conducts a publicity stunt involving a check
written on a tablecloth or something similar.  If properly written, these
are in fact negotiable.

>--
>Joe Weinstein   joe@sybase.com   Sybase 1650 65th st.  Emeryville Ca 94608

>NOT A DISCLAIMER!   THIS IS THE OFFICIAL OPINION OF AN IMPORTANT CORPORATE
>                    ENTITY (NOT SYBASE).     FOR COMPLETE DETAILS SEND $10
-- 
Michael D. Sullivan <avogadro@well.sf.ca.us> <74160.1134@compuserve.com>
-- 
Michael D. Sullivan <avogadro@well.sf.ca.us> <74160.1134@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: law40003@nusunix1.nus.sg (TAN YEW KEONG)
Subject: Legal Discussion
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:53:09 GMT



Please ignore ALL my previous postings on the subject.

I am a final year law student planning to specialise in law regarding
all aspects of computing. I am computer literate and will be able to
understand most computer jargon except highly technical subjects like
Huffman coding etc.

It would be interesting for me to get to know real world legal problems 
regarding computers. If you have any legal problems or experiences,
post to me, and I will be glad to discuss them with you. The experience will
prove invaluable to me.

Disclaimers :

I will not be liable for any prosecution, both civil and criminal,
arising in any way connected to our discussion, whether it may be
your reliance on our discussion, or our discussion leading to criminal 
behaviour.

Nobody should regard our discussions as final and conclusive, and I do not
profess any expert knowledge whatsoever.

I disclaim responsibility for any losses you incur by relying on our 
discussions, and if any of our discussions lead to criminal behaviour,
let it be known that I have no knowledge of collaboration with any
criminal.

I wonder if this disclaimer works, but it sure sounds legal. But I mean
all this mumbo jumbo, and if my drafting skills leave much to be
desired, read it in spirit, not in form.
--

_________________________________________________________________________
Michael Tan Yew Keong | law40003@nusunix1.nus.sg | law40003@nusvm.nus.sg|
Final Year Law student - OH GOD, IT'S BEEN A HELLUVA LONG TIME!!!       |
________________________________________________________________________|
--

_________________________________________________________________________
Michael Tan Yew Keong | law40003@nusunix1.nus.sg | law40003@nusvm.nus.sg|
Final Year Law student - OH GOD, IT'S BEEN A HELLUVA LONG TIME!!!       |
________________________________________________________________________|
From: linda@linda.intel.com (Linda Harbin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Purchasing a Horse
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:52:03 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp


My girlfriend sold her 6-month old filly last summer.  In the sales contract,
she specified that the buyer had to give her first refusal if/when he ever
sold the filly.  Last night, we found out the filly is for sale, and he has
yet to offer the filly to my girlfriend.  Since it was in the contract, does
she have any recourse?  Can she make him offer the filly to her first.  What
if he sells the filly to someone else without ever mentioning it to my friend?

Any help/advice would be appreciated. 

***************************************************
	Linda Harbin       Hillsboro, Oregon 
	503-696-2261       linda@littlei.intel.com
***************************************************
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Judges/Lawyers on TV 
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:12:27 GMT

In article <C1JBIr.5C3@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>In <1993Jan27.022313.17558@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>My law school roommates watch a disproportionate number of legal dramas,
>>and I can't help but notice how (1) the majority of judges on these shows
>>are black, and (2) the majority of the black judges are women.
>
>Yes, I've noticed this as well.  There's a TV ad for (I think) a
>credit card or maybe western union, where this judge fines some poor
>sucker for speeding, and he needs cash real fast.  The judge is black.
>
>Also, just last night I saw "Body of Evidence," Madonna's latest
>vehicle for exposing herself (silly, poorly acted plot, very high
>production values on the extremely titilating sex scenes).  There's an
>extended courtroom scene and the judge is a black woman who is
>constantly putting the two white male lawyers in their place (and
>creating numerous grounds for a mistrial, but that's another story).

Bogus legal stuff is common on TV.  They had a lawyer character on
Seinfeld tonight that committed acts that would allow for at least 
two or three separate grounds for disbarment, not to mention a suit
for malpractice.

Also, Marlee Matlin failed to remove herself from a case where she
had a pretty blatant conflict of interest.  (Of course, it's always
much more dramatic to have to cross-examine your lover who is involved
in committing the crime in the criminal case you're prosecuting.)  The 
black woman judge didn't even put her in her place, though she did set 
up the trial in such a way that there were at least a couple of grounds for
mistrial. 
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: joe@bulldog.sybase.com (Joseph Weinstein)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Can I make my own cheques?
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:52:10 GMT
Reply-To: joe@bulldog.sybase.com (Joseph Weinstein)
Organization: Sybase, Inc.

Is this off base?

Can I use cheques I've made myself by photocopying cheques issued
from the bank or cheque printing firm?


--
Joe Weinstein   joe@sybase.com   Sybase 1650 65th st.  Emeryville Ca 94608

NOT A DISCLAIMER!   THIS IS THE OFFICIAL OPINION OF AN IMPORTANT CORPORATE
                    ENTITY (NOT SYBASE).     FOR COMPLETE DETAILS SEND $10
Xref: sparky misc.legal:23179 talk.politics.misc:69417
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Media (was Re: Who's weakening the constitution?)
Date: 23 Jan 93 05:23:03 EST
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <1jqdghINN7je@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> This "the media doesn't tell me what to think" stuff reminds me of
> some research that was done on the California lottery ads.  (I'm not
> saying any posters have been told what to think by the media -- this
> thread just reminded me of this.)
> 
> A lot of people were asked why the played the lottery.  They were also asked
> if they were influenced by the ads, and if they could remember the ads.
> 
> A lot of people said that they never watched the ads and could not even
> remember them, but gave reasons that basically regurgitated the slogans
> for the ads for the previous few years.

This doesn't mean anything because there are only a few reasons for
playing the lottery :) The lottery adds only reflect what is common
knowledge. You don't need to see a lottery add in order to have that
compulsion.

-Garrett

> 
> --Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: griswoldj@bntley.bntley.ingr.com (John Griswold)
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Followup-To: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
Organization: Bentley Systems (Development)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:41:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.212210.6509@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) wrote:
> 
> In article <1993Jan19.184005.14778@csc.ti.com> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan16.142247.3160@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh) writes:
> >|> In article <casivils.727128267@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
> >|> >In <1993Jan14.222658.4107@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> >|> >
> >|> >
> >|> >>One wishes to Pause and wonder if this does NOT
> >|> >>also Mean that it is Now Open Season for Action
> >|> >>against any church engaged in the Political Struggle
> >|> >>against Abortion?
> >|> >
> >|> >>Will We Hear from the ProLifers that it is now 
> >|> >>Ok to Interrupt Catholic Masses?????
> >|> >
> >|> 
> >|> Many pro-lifers engage in this because they believe that they are
> >|> protecting the rights of the fetus.  Whose rights are you protecting
> >|> by interrupting a Mass?  
> >|> 
> >|> If you are going to make an analogy, try to make it valid...
> >
> >Not to mention the fact that the free exercise of religion is specifically
> >guaranteed in the first amendment whereas the "right to abortion" was arrived
> >at by a series of extrapolations which first created a "right to privacy" and
> >then classed abortion under the umbrella of that "right".
> >
> 	True.  But you won't have to look very hard at all to discover that
> citizens have a right to enter a legal place of business without being
> assaulted or having their way physically blocked.  

This statement could also be used against most people that are out on 
*strike* when they are picketing their place of *employment*.


> Churches of any 
> denomination and clinics of any type have this in common.  It is equally
> lawless to prevent citizens from entering either one.
> 	I would think this would be obvious.
> 
> The_Doge
> ObQuote:        "As for me, I'm going back into the closet, where women are
>         women, and men are empty overcoats!"
>                                         -- Groucho Marx, "Monkey Business"

--------------------------------------------+---------------------------
John Griswold                               | Bentley Systems Inc.
UUCP: ...uunet!ingr!bntley!griswoldj        | 690 Pennsylvania Drive 
INTERNET: griswoldj@bntley.bntley.ingr.com  | Eagleview Corporate Center
AT&T:     (215) 458-5000                    | Exton, PA 19341
--------------------------------------------+---------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:10:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.185438.19181@IRO.UMontreal.CA> simon@brome.iro.umontreal.ca (Daniel Simon) writes:

>So?  The boundary between "legitimate" lawmaking and restriction of
>freedom of expression is no more recognizeable, in the abstract, than
>the boundary between judicial interpretation and judicial legislation ...

I disagree. The former is more recognizable, and it's often the case that
a statute is struck down because it is "facially" invalid as limitation on
First Amendment prerogatives.

>...any piece of legislation can also, in principle, be characterized as a
>form of limitation on freedom of expression.

I don't see this happening.

> Yet for some reason
>judges and legal scholars never seem to despair of navigating *that*
>unbroken continuum.

It could be that they have more common sense than those who generate
parades of horribles on Usenet.

>One would have hoped that these same judges and legal scholars, after
>devoting such care and attention to the task of mapping out the
>complex subdivisions of the free speech/restricted speech spectrum,
>might also have made at least a token effort to draw a rough line
>between judicial interpretation and judicial legislation.

Why not give us your best shot? I'm all ears.

> ...it is far more
>convenient for them simply to throw up their hands in mock
>helplessness and announce that unlike, say, the distinction between
>the Schenk and Brandenburg tests, the line between judicial
>legislation and judicial interpretation is just too darned subtle for
>them ever to hope to demarcate.

If it's not subtle, let's see you take a shot at it.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Name Changes
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:22:15 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Civil Rights
From: COLBY BECK <CB27POLW@MIAMIU.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 27 Jan 1993 18:43:04 EST
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

I need a little help.  Can anyone out there come up with ways that civil rights
and civil liberties could be enforced??  Here is the catch...assume the 13th,
14th, and 15th Amendments had never been proposed or ratified.  I have some
ideas, The Commerce Clause, Bill of Attainder etc., but I am looking for
others.

         Thanks,
           Colby Beck (Just a Lowly Student)
           CB27POLW@MIAMIU
From: mark.schumann@pcohio.com (Mark Schumann) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Chelsea and the Intif
Date: 24 Jan 93 21:14:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PC-OHIO BBS - Cleveland, OH - 216-381-3320
Reply-To: mark.schumann@pcohio.com (Mark Schumann) 


Dennis B. Pollard writes:

!A friend of mine told me that the D.C. mayor and Superintendent of Schools both
!have their kids in private schools.  If this is true, then certainly Mr.
!Clinton cannot be "off the mark."

The chairman of the Cleveland Board of Education has his kids in private
schools.  I would question his qualifications for the job if he didn't.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Purranoia: the fear your cats are up to something.
                                                                                 
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|       PC-OHIO PCBoard BBS - Cleveland, Ohio - 216-381-3320       |
|   Computer Shopper Best BBS in America - 35 lines USR DS 16800   |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: antartic@byron.u.washington.edu (how?)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: HELP REQUEST: opening the car of another person
Date: 22 Jan 1993 07:05:58 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: byron.u.washington.edu

 I manage a small apartment building to be able to live without paying rent.
 We recently caught the boyfriend of one of the tenants opening the hood of
 a vehicle which belongs to a third tenant.  Although he claimed to just
 having been taking a look at the old V-8 engine, this type of behavior 
 makes our tenants very uncomfortable.   Much more when recently in this
 same garage during the night somebody broke the window of a car to steal 
 a CD player. 

 Can anybody help me with the following legal questions:

	1) Opening the hood of a vehicle of another person, without 
	   permission in a private garage is probably a crime.
           I believe so.  But what is its name? It is not theft since 
	   he does not seem to have attempted to remove anything. 
	   Is it some kind of trespassing (quare clausum fregit)?

	2) Since parking is a different contract, not included with the
	   rental of the apartment,  would it  be possible to  cancel
	   the parking   privileges of this tenant?  After all it is
	   her boyfriend who uses the garage most of the time,  using
	   a key which she gave him.
	   Or would it be possible to ban him from the garage?

 Any answers or ideas will be greatly appreciated.

 Joan
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution