HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vanzwol@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Ted Van Zwol)
Subject: Re: Local Phone Cell Structure
Organization: Boeing
Distribution: seattle
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:21:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.225139.19313@u.washington.edu> kint@rio.engr.washington.edu (Rick Kint) writes:
>	Does anyone know details about the current structure of the 
>local cellular phone systems?  I'm curious as to how many cells there
>are in Seattle and/or the Puget Sound area, and the approximate size


I sure don't know, but I'll tell you it's not enough.  It was bad enough to
get through when stuck in the snow two years ago.  Now that everyone and their
brother has a phone and stuck on the freeway in the snow at the same time
yesterday, it sometimes took 10 minutes before I get anything but the fast
busy signal.  Maybe it's more of a problem with Cellular One than US West
(let the flames and defending commence).


-- 
Ted C Van Zwol                           |    Genius does what it must,
uucp:      {...!}uunet!bcstec!vanzwol    |    Talent does what it can.
internet:  vanzwol@bcstec.ca.boeing.com  |                  -Emerson
                         ^^^^ new...
From: dwdyer@eskimo.com (Wayne Dyer)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: FREE CHOICE QUESTION
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:40:15 GMT
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-

Well, I did take the initial post in jest, but it does raise an interesting
question if you read it incorrectly.  <no typo, read on>

If you take the helmet law as "For the greater good all <whoevers> shall
not <do thing X> unless <condition Y is met> under penalty of law."

And you take abortion rights as "No one shall prevent <whoevers> from
<doing thing Z>" (very broad)

Then you have an interesting question.  Namely, the question of individual
rights versus the greater societal good.  BUT, this isn't there.  I think to 
get a "serious" interpretation of the initial post, one would have to assume
that the person meant that people are willing to inflict "murder" on a fetus
in the name of individual rights, yet deny those rights in the name of
societal good in the case of forced helmet-wearing.

So, the initial post (if serious -- I like to classify it as a joke, so I can
dismiss it) hides the assumption that abortion is a violation of individual
rights.  The original poster takes it for given that a fetus has the
right to life, so the assumption is "obviously true".

I disagree, so to me the question is absurd.


-- 
Wayne Dyer, aka   || "I mistrust all systematizers and I avoid them.
dwdyer@eskimo.com ||  The will to a system is a lack of integrity."  F.W.N.
-- 
Wayne Dyer, aka   || "I mistrust all systematizers and I avoid them.
dwdyer@eskimo.com ||  The will to a system is a lack of integrity."  F.W.N.
From: jmethve@uswnvg.com (John Methven)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Bellevue Honda is good (was: Happy with Honda of Seattle service?)
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:21:35 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Honda of Bellevue is very good for people who work odd hours. There service 
area is open to 9 or 10 at night. I also like Honda of Renton because there
service area is open to 11 pm. There rates at both are not that bad, but the
hours they are open is what is important to me....

John
From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Bicycle Helmets.
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:03:47 GMT

>> I agree.  I don't support government mandated helmet laws.
>> 
I disagree, the government (us as a people) should mandate helmet laws.

>> But that doesn't mean we should rationalize and make excuses for not
>> wearing one.

>     Why should I have to make an excuse?  It should be a matter of personal
>choice as far as I'm concerned, there is no need for excuses.  If I choose to
>accept the risk, for whatever reasons, that is my choice.  As I mentioned, I
>do not ride where there is auto traffic, and whilst it is remotely possible
>that I could find a stationairy object to crash into head first, I view it as
>unlikely.

I don't care if YOU accet the risk, but by not have a helmet on, you force
me to also accept your risk.  I don't want your risk, I don't want to pay to
patch you up.  Ware the DAMN HELMET.
-- 
INTERNET:  ray@Celestial.COM   Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!ray   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!ray   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
The probability of one or more spelling errors in this missive approaches
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles,talk.politics.misc
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:31:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.230855.28570@nuscc.nus.sg> hiscrp@nuscc.nus.sg (C R Pennell) writes:
>
>That's what it's come down to, is it, all those fine ideals? LIberty
>Justice the pursuit of happiness, truths that we hold self evident, Tom
>Paine	 - BICYCLE HELMETS? Good grief

I'll tell you the way I read this (I may be misinterpreting it but here goes):

"After all, the freedom to choose whether or not to wear your helmet is
such a small liberty to lose that it is vanishingly unimportant."

The liberties that are enjoyed in the United States and so admired by
people of other countries that don't have them are being piddled away
by just such addlepated thinking.
From: harryb@phred.UUCP (harry barnett)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: FREE CHOICE QUESTION
Date: 16 Dec 92 01:24:31 GMT
Reply-To: harryb@phred.UUCP
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Physio-Control

In article KLJ@bcstec.ca.boeing.com, spady@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robyn Spady) writes:
>In article <Bz4BI9.x8@plato.ds.boeing.com> daylan@mlssun9.telecom_group writes:
>>
>But, the way I understand it, the helmet law is not to protect the cyclist from
>him/herself . . . It's to protect the cyclist from cars.
>

NOT! and NOT!

It's to protect insurance companies from having to pay claims.

For example, drunken bum A in car runs stop sign and injures non-helmet
wearing cyclist B.  Where no statute requiring helmets to be worn
exists, A will be liable for injuries to B.  B will be compensated by
A's insurance company.  However, if a statute requiring helmets exists,
then A's insurance company will argue that B contributed to his own
injuries, and possibly would have escaped injury had he not violated
the law by failing to wear a helmet.  In such a situation, it is not
only possible, but highly probable that A's insurance company will
escape any liability to B whatsoever, regardless of whether A was drunk
and entirely at fault for the accident.


Don't believe it?  For further discussion, see the topic AVOIDANCE, as
in "Avoidance of payment of claims", in any Legal Encyclopedia, such as
Corpus Juris Secundum, or AmJur 2d.


This law, along with seat belt laws, (and, incidentally, ALL other
statutory law, and most common law :-), is conceived, designed,
enacted, imposed, and enforced for the purpose of keeping The Money in
the hands of The People Who Have The Money. Any other purported reason
is a red herring thrown to naive, sophomoric fools to keep them happily
occupied with quarreling about inconsequential moral dilemmas and thus,
too busy to ferret out who REALLY slips these things to them, and why.

And the bit about how it's keep SOCIETY from paying the costs?  An
absolute masterstroke of propaganda!!!  The purpose is to keep the
STOCKHOLDERS from paying the costs, you twits!

harryb@phred

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brittanius (shocked):  Caesar, this is not proper.
Theodotus (outraged):  How?
Caesar (recovering his self possession):  Pardon him, Theodotus:  He is
a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and islands are
the laws of nature.

		--Caesar and Cleopatra, Act II, George Bernard Shaw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: fisel@eskimo.com (Aron Roberts)
Subject: Re: liberal attitudes on sex
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:53:03 GMT

I don't mean to get on any ones case but I think the original poster has
been watching too much TV. Granted there are cases where that is the
norm. However, most of the people I have known have had a very well
adjusted attitude to sexuality. To speak for myself "those years" are
not so far behind me. I personally have to say that my "respect" for a
woman has nothing to do with sex or how "easy" she is. It will take time
until society's view on sex matures. The problem lies in the extremes on
one hand you have the views of the original post (unless I greatly
misinterpreted them) and on the other you have the MINORITY of men who
are described in the original post. It will take time and patience.

Fisel@eskimo.com     ...naked and running with the infidels....
Xref: sparky seattle.general:4102 pnw.general:2926
From: zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 15 Dec 92 08:05:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: fasttech.1992Dec15.080522.8499
Organization: Fast Technology

In <josh.724362299@mowgli> josh@cqs.washington.edu (Josh Hayes) writes:

>I think the book full of warnings is not likely to be the development
>in product sales. Rather, you'll have to sign something like:

>"I am solely responsible for everything that happens while using
>this product. No other person, product, agent, or company will be
>liable under any circumstances for any damage that may occur."

>In other words, buy the product, use the product: you're on your
>own.

Nope.

Common law varies by state, but this sort of thing has been tried before and
hasn't worked. There are various excuses. It can be considered to be too
one-sided, or against the interests of the state, etc. A lawyer could explain
it better than I, but the bottom line is that it usually doesn't work.

About the only way it would work is if the legislature passes specific laws
on the subject. For example in Oregon the ski operators have had liability
limitation legislation passed. You even sign your rights away

	"whether due to negligence or any other legal theory"

I'm not sure that Oregon law actually lets ski operators avoid liability due
to negligence. Even if it does, I'd try to sue if I felt I was injured due
solely to their negligence.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: dwdyer@eskimo.com (Wayne Dyer)
Subject: Re: FREE CHOICE QUESTION
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:49:05 GMT

brennan@halcyon.com (J.D. Brennan) writes:


>> ... an interesting question.  Namely, the question of individual
>> rights versus the greater societal good.

>There is no such thing as the "greater societal good".  A society is
>only better off if the individuals in it are better off.  Individuals
>are not better off if they are required to wear a helmet.  Nor are
>they better off if they are required to pay for the health care of an
>individual who doesn't wear a helmet and gets injured.

Doesn't this last statement really approach a "societal good"?  If we strive
to keep -all- individuals from paying for non-helmeted injuries, and since
I'd bet the number of people who ride bicycles that don't wear helmets 
are in the minority (combining those who ride with helmets and those who
don't ride at all) then isn't that a "greater" good?

I realize I may have been misinterpreted as people usually say "greater good"
in reference to some abstract morality.  I meant [or at least I think
I meant :-)] that benefit to all individuals.

IOW -- No helmets, lots of injuries, everybody pays.
       Helmets, fewer injuries, everybody pays less.

       Does this mean we need a law for helmets?  That's the -real- question.

-- 
Wayne Dyer, aka   || "I mistrust all systematizers and I avoid them.
dwdyer@eskimo.com ||  The will to a system is a lack of integrity."  F.W.N.
-- 
Wayne Dyer, aka   || "I mistrust all systematizers and I avoid them.
dwdyer@eskimo.com ||  The will to a system is a lack of integrity."  F.W.N.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.
Reply-To: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Organization: Statistical Sciences, Inc
Distribution: seattle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:44:11 GMT

lowell@tc.fluke.COM (Lowell Skoog) writes:

     The right to express your opinion
     The right to vote
     The right to be represented in the government
     The right to redress grievances in the courts
     The helmet law has not affected those rights.  If you don't like the
     helmet law, you can exercise your basic freedoms in the next
     election.
   
How about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 
-My life, the way I see fit to live it. 
-My liberty, the way I see fit to express it.
-My happiness, the way I see fit to enjoy it.

There are many others, but you continue to ignore anything that does not
affect you personally.  You conveniently and completely ignored my point
that *YOUR* sport of mountain climbing is far more dangerous than riding
a bike/motorcycle without a helmet, not only to yourself but to possible
rescuers. But since no one is coming after *YOUR* freedom, you say its OK
to eliminate *MINE*.  That's pretty much how the Nazi holocaust began.

   Regulations like the helmet law are a response to those pressures.

   Ironically, many of the people most opposed to such regulations are
   the same people most in favor of growth.  I'd prefer to stop growth,
   but lacking that, I'm willing to put up with regulations that keep us
   from going broke or hurting each other, as long as my basic freedoms
   remain intact.

Again, you are willing to put up with my loss of freedoms as long as they
don't come after the few freedoms *YOU* deem important. Eliminate the
pressures, not the freedoms! Stop the unchecked growth or live with the
problems it produces, but don't rearrange the parameters of the Constitution
just because its easier to put a band-aid in place than to heal the wound.
Those pressures existed in some form or another way back in 1785, but the
framers saw fit to protect individual liberty OVER the desires of the majority.

If the profiteers and the wannabe saviours are allowed to continue 
chipping away at our Freedom, one day they will come after your so-called
basic freedoms, and you will not be able to do ANYTHING about it. It will
be too late.

ALL freedoms are basic and none of them are free. Freedom costs blood, money
and constant vigilance to maintain.  But don't worry, Lowell, you've got
me and thousands of others who have served this country and are continuing
to be vigilant against the chiselers who seek to destroy Freedom.  I'll
watch your back, even though you don't give a rat's ass about mine.
-- 
-Kevin L. Gross          klg@statsci.com           Disclaim THIS: 
 This message is protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution
 of the United States of America. I'm protected under the 4th, 5th, 9th
 and 14th Amendments among others, or at least I used to be.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: edm@halcyon.com (Ed Morin)
Subject: Re: Condoms in Public Schools
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Distribution: seattle
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:09:45 GMT

simnet@plato.ds.boeing.com (Mark R Poulson) writes:

>Condoms are available to anyone, they're just embarrassing to buy. If the
>schools can sell them for cost and maybe force a fact sheet with the
>different diseases you can catch and the responsibilities pregnancy causes,
>then all the better. Many students will throw the sheet out, but some will
>read it.

Not a bad idea.  I'm not sure I like the school even selling them, but
certainly providing facts is what they should be doing...

-- 
Ed Morin
Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505 (voice)
"Serving the Usenet community since 1987."
edm@nwnexus.WA.COM
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: mailbox@stein.u.washington.edu ()
Subject: Re: Christmas Lights
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:35:43 GMT

>Which neighborhoods around the
>city put on the most interesting
>Christmas light displays?
>
Well I just went out tonight and found 2 different places that are quite
well lit up. The first in Candy Cane Lane, off of Ravenna. Go north on
15th NE and turn right before the bridge, I think on Ravenna (in the U
district.) Go for a few blocks down the hill and look on your left.

The other place is something manor in Ballard. You can enter at the corner
of 85th NE and 23rd NW.


Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: adamy@carson.u.washington.edu (Adam E.C. Yeh)
Subject: Does anyone read Seattle PI today?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:36:24 GMT

Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Thursday, December 17, 1992 (Page A2) reports:
"South Korea election may be milestone for democracy." however, in the
captions of the accompanied picture, it reports that everything was
happening in Taiwan.

 SOUTH KOREA is not TAIWAN

When first reading this caption, I figure out that it is probably about
the election underway in Korea. But, hey, you have to be careful, there is
a picture showing someone who was caught by three policeme.  The man 
was apparently suffering and getting hurt. So, all the readers--such
as me--feel visually shocked: Where is this damn place! Oh, look at the
captions associated with this picture--Police in Taipei restrain an
opposition supporter.......of Taiwan's ruling Nationalist Party....
This year for the first time, all legislators will be chosen by voters
on Taiwan." So the election is in Taiwan?  South Korea and Taiwan seem
the same to the reporter; yeah, they both are in Asia.  I still confuse
about the whole report: Where is the place? Who are them?   
But, they are reporting my country, the imagine of my country.
You would never be surprised about the materpiece ever done by the 
teamwork of a media.

 DO NOT TRY TO FOOL PEOPLE

Now, I do not want to blame anyone even though I was REALLY uncomfortable
about this JOKE. Why cannot a reporter distiguish a country from others?
When the election goes on in South Korea, the reporter can find a picture
to show the campaign-related violence, and then faking some ridiculous
statements under this so-impressive show-picture.  Althoug geographical
ignorance could be the best execuse, the reporter--the one who tells you
about the international news ,and the one who you always trust--has to
take the resposibility.  When the media does not respect its readers,
this kind of ignorance would keep happening.  I believe that most subscribers
have a sense of logics, a sense that can perceive the differences 
between two totally independent countries.  WHO will report the famine
in Somali, showing the picture about U.S. troops and Somalian children,
and then under this picture saying: Hey, this in the Florida; see the
troops are helping people to recover their homes.  Maybe this would
happen. 8-)  Who knows?

 YOU DESERVE BETTER--You Want A True Intelligencer

I still can not believe this.  Today is definitely not April 1st.  I, 
therefore, urge all the people--who care about the right to know the
truth--to call Seattle PI, complaining this ignorance.  You ARE NOT
a fool, you should be respected.  Please ask they to take the resposibility
and give you, an intelligentia, a right to know the truth.

-Adam E.C. Yeh

Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: bossert@thalatta.com (John Bossert)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.
Organization: Thalatta Corporation, Bellevue WA
Distribution: seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:07:19 GMT

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that things *can* be looked
at fairly simply:

1) What does an individual's freedom cost that individual?
2) What does that individual's freedom cost society (everyone, including the
   individual)?

3) What portion of the cost is the individual willing (and able) to pay?
4) What portion of the cost is society (the rest of us) willing (and able) to pay?

When the private sector doesn't pay for something, the cost gets shifted to
the public sector - that's you and me, folks.

More power to you if you want to ride a bike without a helmet - just don't
ask me to contribute to the cost of your hospitalization.  If a particular
risk-group wants to get together and self-insure, excellent.

I'd love to see more people take responsibility for their actions and not
pass the buck to the masses via the dread catch-all ...entitlements...


-- 

In-Real-Life: John Bossert, Thalatta Corporation, (+1 206.455.9838)
Domain: bossert@thalatta.com   Path: ...!sun!sunup!thebes!bossert
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: donn@brat.wa.com (Donn Pedro)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Condoms in Public Schools
Date: 12 Dec 92 23:47:47 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Tandemonium, Kent, WA

In article <1992Dec11.190945.5641@nwnexus.WA.COM> edm@halcyon.com (Ed Morin) writes:
:simnet@plato.ds.boeing.com (Mark R Poulson) writes:
:
:>Condoms are available to anyone, they're just embarrassing to buy. If the
:>schools can sell them for cost and maybe force a fact sheet with the
:>different diseases you can catch and the responsibilities pregnancy causes,
:>then all the better. Many students will throw the sheet out, but some will
:>read it.
:
:Not a bad idea.  I'm not sure I like the school even selling them, but
:certainly providing facts is what they should be doing...

Though I am currently in a minor quibble with Ed over the handing
our of condoms from public schools I would like to commend him 
on what I percieve as a willingness to listen, discuss the issue,
and show a willingness to moderate his position if need be.

We should all 'argue' like this.




         Donn Pedro ....................a.k.a. donn@brat.wa.com
	
	       "You talk the talk.  Do you walk the walk?"

		    There are no ordinary moments.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: rsingh@goliath.stanford.edu (raj)
Subject: test
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 17:01:02 -0800
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA12621; Sat, 12 Dec 92 17:01:54 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA20161; Sat, 12 Dec 92 17:01:53 -0800
X-Received: by goliath.Stanford.EDU (5.57/1.34)
	id AA05979; Sat, 12 Dec 92 17:01:02 -0800
X-To: seattle.general.usenet


please ignore ;-)
Xref: sparky seattle.general:4076 pnw.general:2911 alt.society.civil-liberty:6887 alt.activism:19556 alt.individualism:6080 rec.bicycles.misc:1526 talk.politics.misc:64111
From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: FREE CHOICE QUESTION
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:41:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.025339.6268@eskimo.com> dwdyer@eskimo.com (Wayne Dyer) writes:
>
>So in this frame, the question is :
>
>Do people have the right to be protected from (take your pick) high
>insurance costs, high health care costs, etc., and if so, is that right
>more important that preserving the liberties that, when restrained, would
>possibly reduce such costs?
>

Or, to put in more "philosophically",

Which is more important, materialism or spiritualism?

-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      | "Zinc & cadmium plating stops |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: <DEAD>        |  rust & acts as a lubricant!" |