HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:07:50 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Oct6.025243.27202@netcom.com>, mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.202405.12460@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
> 
> >  While I'm not a {L|l}ibertarian, I wonder why anyone would make
> >such a flawed analogy (other than to start a flame.)  The analogy
> >to an unfenced swimming pool would be a loaded gun left outdoors.
> 
> Before you make such a claim, you'd better be able to supply numbers
> that show a huge discrepancy in the number of fatalities caused by
> each.  Then explain why one is large enough to care about and the
> other isn't.

Examination of the 1989 World Almanac Vital Statistics section shows
that for 1985, drowning was responsible for 1260 deaths of children
0-14.  Firearms caused 278 accidental deaths.  Of course, we don't
know how many of those drownings were in pools, and it seems likely
that few of the accidental firearms deaths were because someone left
a handgun outdoors.

At first glance, there is at least 4x as much reason to be concerned
about pool accidents as about firearms accidents, if the subject of
concern is small children.  For some odd reason, however, our news
media are far more concerned about gun accidents and kids, then
they are about kids drowning in pools.  (Perhaps because it's hard
to overthrow an oppressive government with a swimming pool.  I can
see Patrick Henry concluding his famous speech to the Virginia House
of Burgesses: "I know not what course others may take, but as for 
me, give me liberty, or give me a pair of Speedos!"

> Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Xref: sparky ba.general:4268 misc.kids:25445 misc.legal:18254
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: dcriswel@oracle.uucp (David Criswell)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:46:15 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

Well, the other week, one neighbor's unleashed dog picked up
another neighbor's unsupervised kid and dropped him in yet
a third neighbor's uncovered pool. Does the parent get to sue 
both of them?

Or has this just gotten silly?
Xref: sparky ba.general:4337 misc.kids:25667 misc.legal:18393
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance (was: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions)
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:29:44 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <3eOn02ls25Ex01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>What are you doing letting your ten-year-old kid run around an abandoned 
>railroad turntable unattended?  A kid shouldn't be permitted to run around 
>unattended until he can realize the dangers.

The parents didn't even know there was an abandoned turntable in the
neighborhood. As for 10-year-olds running around unattended, it seems
fairly common to me. I ran around on my family farm at that age and
earlier. My nieces are doing the same thing right now. My neighbors
did too.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 20:17:59 GMT

>->>Ignoring the rude attitude of your request, In fact, I do have the data.
>->>The data was compiled by a private firm, and they 
>->>logged such things as "passenger fatalities per flight", and "passenger
>->>fatalities per passenger carried".  the Japanese airlines were
>->>almost four times higher (worse) in each catagory.
>->>
>->>>Henry Mensch:
>->>>how do you know this?  substantiate your statements.
>->>>
>->
>->	I saw the same article.  US companies were way ahead
>->	of the Japanese in safety.  
>
>this is not proof of anything ... until you can provide the reference
>(so we can see the numbers, as well as the methods used to arrive at
>those numbers) with title, author, source of the raw data, etc. your
>claim is meaningless
>

I made my claim.  If you don't beleive it, go do some research
on your own. PROVE ME WRONG.  Learn to use a card catalog. 

Newsgroups: ba.general
From: marcush@leland.Stanford.EDU (Marcus Edward Hennecke)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 21:16:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.200822.25150@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>>>>- I think Barbara Bush is a very nice woman and it was nice of
>>>>  George to have her picture put on the one dollar bill.
>>>
>>>	RETRO ALERT!  I thought this kind of shitty attitude toward 
>>>	women went out in the seventies.  Yet here again is the same
>>>	old fucked up deal:  A Woman's Value Is Based On Her Looks.
>>>	
>>>	Get a clue, ya lame-brain.
>>>
>>Now wait a minute, Robin! What makes you insult Paul? Can't you be a
>>little less emotional? Don't you know how to lead a serious
>>discussion? Why did you have to include the words "shitty", "fucked
>>up", "lame-brain"? Do you really think that makes your argument valid?
>>Do you think people take you more serious if you do that? It seems you
>>want to make a weak argument stronger.
>
>What I find interesting, marcus, is that you labeled ME a racist
>for using a simple abbreviation.

I never labeled you anything, Eric, you just think I did. Your remarks
are often racially insensitive. However, that does not necessarily
make you a racist. I don't think I know you well enough to label you a
racist.

>  Now Robin labels Paul (basically
>sexist) for commenting on Barbara's looks (as if that's all that matters!)

You said that. Please give me the sentence where Paul comments an
Barbara's looks. All he says is that Barbara is a nice woman. There is
nothing sexist to that. Are you trying to label Paul as being sexist?
Do you know Paul at all? Do you think you can make such a judgement?

>Now YOU complain when someone points out an OBVIOUSLY discriminatory
>comment?

No, Eric, you miss the point. I am complaining about Robin's insults.
Choosing words such as "shitty", "fucked up" or "lame-brain" is not
exactly a proof of maturity. That his argument is completely invalid
because there is obiously no discriminatory comment is just an aside.

Wasn't this whole discussion about buying Japanese or American? Why do
we have to talk about how to behave on the internet? There is never a
reason to insult anybody or to be rude even when you are being
insulted so why can't we just refrain from that? And why do people
tend to draw attention away from the topic? What's the Clinton-Bush
discussion doing here anyway? There are newsgroups for that such as
alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.clinton etc.

Marcus
marcush@leland.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: glo@dvlseq.us.oracle.com (George Lo)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Organization: Oracle World HQ, Redwood Shores, California
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:19:50 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Oct9.013759.28170@cascade.Stanford.EDU> king@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Robin King) writes:
>glo@dvlseq.us.oracle.com (George Lo) writes:
>>
>>If you have flown on any Asian airlines, Cathay, SIA, JAL, you
>>probably would not want to fly on any American airlines anymore
>>unless they are significantly cheaper.  The services are just
>>completely different.
>
>	Yes, perhaps they are, but I'll give my money to an American 
>	company, thank you. I don't care whether I get some flight 
>	attendant fawning all over me, I just want to get there safely,
>	on time (reasonably), and with luggage.
>
>	But since I HAVEN'T flown any Asian airline, what exactly
>	is the big difference that would make one send their
>	dollars to Japan?  What is so great?  I'm interested.
>
>	Robin

From what I have heard since I was born, I couldn't recall any major
accident with JAL, SIA or Cathay.  But I do remember quite a number
of UA PanAm accidents.

Xref: sparky ba.general:4388 misc.legal:18464
From: rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:34:09 GMT
Followup-To: ba.general
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. For info contact: info@BTR.COM

In article <1992Oct9.184610.6895@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
|In article <8101@public.BTR.COM> rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com) writes:
|>In article <1992Oct8.194203.19168@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
|>|How are you supposed to teach a ten-year old that an unfenced abandoned
|>|railroad turntable, which probably looks a lot like equipment at
|>|a playground, is dangerous and can hurt him badly, when you don't
|>|even know there is one in your neighborhood?
|>
|>10 years old is more than old enough to understand such concepts. I grew
|
|The courts disagree with you.
|

Precisely.  This is why the thread has gone on so long and to such extremes.

The law says "fence the pool" and so I would if I had a pool.  I would
even if the law didn't say so.  I might, on ocassion, forget to lock the
gate... no one's perfect  :-)

So, you are arguing law.. and you are correct.

The other side says "Yes, we too would be horrified if a child drowned in
our pools!"  Morally, however, "it is the parent's responsibility to
control the child."  A child drowning in a pool is the moral equivilent
of a child being allowed on high ground during a lightning storm.

This is this is the moral argument, and it too, is correct. 

IMHO, as usual, your milage may vary. 


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Richard Hyde  |  RaH@btr.com  |    This space intentionally left blank   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: king@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Robin King)
Subject: Threats and Name-calling
Organization: Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University, California
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:58:45 GMT

	Lefty and Henry:  Your postings are disgraceful.  No one is 
	expected to remember every source/author/title off the top of 
	their head and you have NO right to call someone a liar for 
	failing to do so.  It brings to mind little boys shrieking,  
	"Liar, Liar, Pants on fire!!"   GROW UP.
	
	YOU haven't come up with any solid references about Japanese
	airlines being as safe as US ones, yet you "know" they are.  
	I support Eric P's statement about safety because *I SAW* the 
	same study he did. YOU have seen nothing written in favor of 
	YOUR opinion, you've offered NO substantiation (your criteria 
	for being a labelled liar), yet you call OTHER people LIARS?   

				**********

	This is a sad state of affairs:

	Eric Brunner threatens Eric P with a noon-time shooting 
	(oh, gee, we HOPE he's not serious), and Henry and Lefty call 
	people liars when they disagree.

	PEOPLE, IF YOU'RE TOO IMMATURE OR OTHERWISE INCAPABLE OF
	BEHAVING CIVILLY THEN DON'T READ THE NET.

		
Xref: sparky ba.general:4428 misc.kids:25879 misc.legal:18552
From: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:19:46 GMT
Reply-To: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA

In the referenced article, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>I know I've said numerous times that the purpose of the A.N. laws is to
>encourage property owners to reduce the danger posed by hazards on
>their property. No amount of money can make up for the loss of a child,
>nor is it intended to. 

Well, perhaps here's a way to see whether this is a straw man or not:

Since (clearly :-) it is the property owner's fault that this child
died, and since the purpose of these suits is not to pay back the
parents (since they couldn't anyway) and since the parents bear at
least some of the responsibility for improper socialization and
supervision of their children, why is this a civil matter at all?

Why not deal with this in a criminal court, have any money paid out be
in the form of a fine, and include the parents in the prosecution as
well? 

Unless the claim is that the children are the parent's property that
has been damaged that is.

After all, we *are* talking about a negligent homicide here, aren't we?

Seems this is far too serious an issue to move into civil courts where
preponderance of evidence is the criteria for an award and lawyers get
paid big bucks to play on the emotions of the jurors and get them to
give a large award (coincidentally allowing lawyers to get their cut).

Any problems with this?
-- 
"When you're down, it's a long way up
 When you're up, it's a long way down
 It's all the same thing
 And it's no new tale to tell"                      ../ray\..
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 07:13:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.211946.18447@erg.sri.com> rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent) writes:
[stuff I've discussed in an earlier post this evening, omitted.]

>After all, we *are* talking about a negligent homicide here, aren't we?

Only in the special case where death results. The majority of injuries
pleaded are non-fatal, things like maiming on uncovered fan belts,
crushed limbs on collapsing timber piles, and so forth.

[a proposal to un-civil-ify or something, substituting criminal law
 standards of proof, and fines (directed one hopes, to either the
 victim, or the local medical offices, or the equivalents), and one
 suposes, making novel-recovery for injuries to children an additional
 portion of the case load of the DA's children's unit, omitted.]

>Any problems with this?

A few, but if grasping attornies and sobbing juries loom large on your
horizons, I doubt I could keep my focus in exploring them. Is this the
first place you'd choose to try to reform the courts? (Don't take this
"bait", I simply mean to say the cost of "reform" is not worth the
price of the "ill".)

-- 
Eric Brunner Tule Network Services
uucp: uunet!practic!brunner
trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head.
From: pad@galaxy.nsc.com (Paul Denny x8349)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: sign language classes
Keywords: signing
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:47:42 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

A collegue told me that there was a post here recently that
gave details of a signing class that was starting up soon
in Palo Alto. Unfortunately I was not reading the group at
the time and I missed the information which I would dearly
like to obtain.

If someone can Email the information I would be very grateful.

Thanks in advance - Paul
-- 
* In conclusion, it appears to me that nothing can be more improving *
* to the young naturalist, than a journey in distant countries.      *
*                                                                    *
* C. Darwin  - The Voyage Of The Beagle                              *
From: parish@lmsc.lockheed.com (Bob Parish)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: Springsteen Tickets 4 Sale
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:27:43 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: IS

I may call you or send you an email. 
Thanks. 

In article <1992Oct13.200657.22881@netcom.com>, lindae@netcom.com writes:
> 
> 
> I have 2 Lawn Seat tickets to the October 22nd Springsteen show at
> Shoreline Ampitheatre in Mountain View.
> 
> I will sell them to the highest offer.  If you're interested, please
> e-mail lindae@netcom.com
> 
>
From: wanday@wandaful.Corp.Sun.COM (Wanda Y. Wong, Corp. Consolidations, x67827)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: Fry's -- Yet Another Bad Experience
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:03:43 GMT
Reply-To: wanday@wandaful.Corp.Sun.COM
Distribution: ba
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: wandaful.corp.sun.com

brent@telebit.com (Brent Chapman) writes:

<<stuff deleted>>

Lately, I've taken to making a stink when the try to do that.  If they
say "let me ring that up for you", I answer "why?  You didn't help me
choose it or anything".  If they insist, I state quite clearly that if
they're going to be that way, I'm going to buy it somewhere else, and
ask to speak to the department manager; that usually makes them back
down.


-Brent



The last time we went to Fry's was Labor Day weekend.  Of course there
were tons of people there due to their sales.  Luckily my husband and
I knew what we wanted and since there was no sales associate ready to
help us, we picked up the VCR and walked to the checkout.  I was a bit
surprised that no one stopped us midway to the line and was just as 
happy that no one helped us.  We were out of there within 15 minutes.

Unfortunately, I think their service has gone downhill.  I remember a year 
after they first opened, I brought in my computer for service and they were 
really pleasant and helpful.  I guess since they think they have captured 
their audience, they don't need to work so hard at their customer service
just their commission.

-just my 2 cents


Wanda


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

Wanda Y. Wong				Sun Microsystems, Inc.
wanda.wong@Corp.Sun.COM			Palo Alto, CA
(415) 336-7827

--------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:11:35 GMT
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting

In article 18447@erg.sri.com, rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent) writes:
>
>Since (clearly :-) it is the property owner's fault that this child
>died, and since the purpose of these suits is not to pay back the
>parents (since they couldn't anyway) and since the parents bear at
>least some of the responsibility for improper socialization and
>supervision of their children, why is this a civil matter at all?

Because it is a tort.  This is one person being damaged by the actions
of another.

>
>Why not deal with this in a criminal court, have any money paid out be
>in the form of a fine, and include the parents in the prosecution as
>well? 

Criminal law is based on statute.  If it is not codified in the statute
that a given action is criminal, it is not a crime.  There does not need
to be "harm" to any specific person for a crime to have occured.  The victims
are not the prosecutors of a criminal case and do not have any participation
or standing (in general) in one.

>
>Unless the claim is that the children are the parent's property that
>has been damaged that is.

In A.N. cases, you can look at it as the parent is the guardian of the child
and is entitled to seek compensation for harm to the child.  There is nothing
about property.  And I'm sure that you wouldn't say that the parents do not
feel a loss if a child is killed.

>
>After all, we *are* talking about a negligent homicide here, aren't we?

No.  We are talking about attractive nuisance.

Negligent homicide is where a person through inattention or lack of care causes
another person's death.  There is some specific action, such as backing out
of your driveway and hitting a pedestrian, which leads to the event.  A.N. is 
the maintenance of a hazard, and the liability which goes with that, even if
there is no specific action on your part.  (I'm not a lawyer; these descriptions
are probably not quite accurate.)

>
>Seems this is far too serious an issue to move into civil courts where
>preponderance of evidence is the criteria for an award and lawyers get
>paid big bucks to play on the emotions of the jurors and get them to
>give a large award (coincidentally allowing lawyers to get their cut).

Criminal cases do not allow awards for pain and suffering.  Except in some 
circumstances, the victim is not compensated for the loss.  In a criminal
case, you have to show that a crime occured, and not that someone was damaged
by an action.  The standards of proof are different between criminal and 
civil cases: beyond reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of evidence.

>
>Any problems with this?

Yes, a confusion between criminal and civil law.  Criminal is codified, civil
is based on common law.


---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141
Newsgroups: adobe.misc,ba.general,ba.market.misc
From: jensen@adobe.com (Freddy Jensen)
Subject: Need recommendation for Roof Contractor.
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:29:39 GMT

My house needs a new roof  so I would greatly appreciate
recommendations on which contracters I should / should not
consider.


Some if my concerns are:

1. Neatness (do they do a good job and pay attention to details).

2. Cleanup (do they clean up after the job is done).

3. Honesty (do they break into your house while you are gone).

4. Price


I would also appreciate hearing people's opinion about the various
types of roofs that are available (shake, tile, shingle, ...etc)
regarding looks, price, endurance, fireresistance,...etc.

Thanks

Freddy
--
Freddy Jensen
Display Products Group, Adobe Systems Incorporated
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900, Mountain View, California 94039-7900
Phone: (415)962-3869, Fax: (415)903-0589, Email: jensen@mv.us.adobe.com
--
Newsgroups: ba.general