HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frank@fnbc.com (Frank Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Organization: First National Bank Of Chicago, Chicago IL, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 17:18:56 GMT

In article <1678@frackit.UUCP> dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
> Is this the same Islam that believes Christians are the enemy and as
> non-believers should be converted to Islam or destroyed? 
> 
> Or is there some other Islam to which you refer?

Not that I'm an expert on Islam, but I believe only the Shi'ites (and maybe
only a few sects of those) are that fanatic.  The Sunnis (the majority) take 
the attitude of "Well, as long as they don't do it in public ..."

Also, Christianity, for much of its history, took the same position that 
you attribute to Islam.  Does the name Hernando Cortez ring a bell?  What 
about the Crusades?

"He who is without sin among you ..."

--
Frank Mitchell,	Business Systems Analyst, First National Bank of Chicago
email:frank@fnbc.com (NeXTmail)

"In a way, staring into a computer screen is like staring into an eclipse. 
It's brilliant and you don't realize the damage until its too late."
-- Bruce Sterling, LA Times, 2/20/92
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: How Can I Really Annoy Someone?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:11:43 GMT

sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) writes:
>I believe you missed a critical part of my initial posting.  I stated that
>I *DO NOT* want to do anything even remotely illegal.  While I suppose I
>could agree with you that perhaps I "have intent to commit intentional 
>infliction of emotional distress," I don't believe that's against the law.

Eric didn't misunderstand.  Example: I decide to juggle, on my property,
flaming chainsaws, next to your property.  I'm trying to juggle 5 of them.
I happen to be able to juggle 5 balls somewhat, but have never tried flaming
chainsaws before.

One of the chainsaws slips, and crosses the property line and damages your
car.

I've not done anything illegal.  However, you can sue me for the damages to
your car.

"Intentional inflictions of emotional distress" is like that.  You won't
be breaking the law, but you will by subject to suit.

>If it is, then I think I've got a pretty good case _AGAINST_ my neighbor
>for his actions.  Unfortunately, the plaintiff has the burden of proof, and
>proving the causality of emotional distress has got to be rather difficult.
>
>I'm not looking to totally devastate this guy; I just want to _annoy_ him.

Hmmm...if he has done something to you, maybe you should sue him.  Even if
you can't meet the burden of proof (note: for a civil matter, it is only
"a preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt"),
it is bound to annoy him.

If you want to be really nasty, start a rumor that you are going to have
a fake process server serve fake papers on him, just to annoy him.  Then
file a real suit, and hire a real process server.  He'll ignore this, and
you'll get a default judgement when he doesn't show up in court.  Then you
can have the sheriff sell his house...that'll annoy him!

--Tim Smith
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: LaFave too broad?
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:04:18 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:

> In article <ZoV8RB1w165w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richa
> >Perhaps the LaFave and Scott volumes on criminal law are too broad
> >for my purposes.  They cover all of criminal law.  I want to
> >understand things relating to crimes against the person, mostly
> >short of manslaugher or murder -- i.e., assault, battery and
> >mayhem (assuming that something like knocking out someone's tooth
> >constitutes mayhem).  And in particular I want to understand the
> >_defenses_  a defendant can use when charged with one of these
> >offenses.
> >
> >Self-defense, provocation, mutuual combat, "heat of passion,"
> >temporary insanity, etc.
> 
> Then you should look up those subjects in the comprehensive index
> to LaFave and Scott.  I, for one, have used LaFave and Scott to
> find all of these issues discussed.  (For example, in their discussion
> of mayhem, they discuss one of my favorite Texas cases, Sensobaugh v
> State, where "provocation" [in this case, discovering one's wife in
> bed with another man] was not a defense to a particularly nasty case
> of mayhem.)

I think that was in the one volume Hornbook I found.  But the
discussion wasn't thorough.  If I remember correctly it was one of
the reasons I wondered if finding your spouse in bed with someone
else did _anything_ besides reduce murder to manslaughter.  (And
it doesn't always do that.)

> >What happens when a man finds his spouse in their marriage bed
> >committing adultery with another man and punches that man in the
> >nose and then orders the man out of his house?  Is witnessing
> >adultery only good for reducing murder to manslaugher?  Can the
> >wife's lover charge the husband with battery for puncning him in
> >the nose?
> >
> >Is there a book dealing witht the interrelations of defenses and
> >mitigating circumstances in battery?
> 
> LaFave and Scott.  There are other crim law books, of course, but
> I don't think their treatment will much different than that L&S use.

Possibly in the 2 volume version.  That one also has a slightly
different title.  It's in the law library at Emory.  I'll check it
out but I'm already ready to bet that it _won't_ answer my
questions.

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18359 alt.censorship:7981 rec.arts.tv:19600
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's Freedom of Speech ( was Re: SNL - Oct 3, Latest on Sinead reaction
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:41:27 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Oct7.162814.1220@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.133100.10766@linus.mitre.org> jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz) writes:
> >I find it mildly amusing that S(k)in(h)ead wouldn't appear on SNL with
> >Andrew Dice Clay because of how "offensive" she found him, and now she
> >may be banned from SNL for being offensive herself.
> >
> The Cute Bald Chick didn't refuse to appear with ADC because she found
> him offensive, but because she found him wrong.  Andrew Dice Clay
> attacks people who can't hit back (women, gays, and so forth) to make a

Gays can't hit back?  Today's Santa Rosa Press-Democrat (10/8/92,
p. A1) tells about what happened when Christian Action Network's
anti-Clinton ad ran on TV channel 50 here -- the station withdrew
from its contract (I didn't even know they could do that) to run
the ad, after having run it for three days.  They insist that the
threats of boycott from the homosexual community didn't have any
effect -- they just changed their mind about whether the ad met
their broadcast standards -- three days after they started running
it, and the phone calls started.

By the way, no other TV station in the Bay Area would run the ad.
Don't tell me that gays don't have a lot of power.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.education
From: tuff@ellis.uchicago.edu (Geoff Tuffli)
Subject: Re: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Reply-To: tuff@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 04:31:51 GMT

In article <Bw8H9H.A1G@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct16.140919.20549@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>>I've also noticed another aspect to the public school debate.  Why is
>>it that people who obviously are very liberal deeply oppose anything
>>that would elevate private schools?  Is it because the liberals fear
>>private schooling since they would have less ability to promote their
>>various agendas?  Just a thought.
>
>The liberals cannot consider that the reason one child learns better than
>another can be due to innate ability, rather than environmental factors.
>Or even if it is due to cultural factors, they insist that those from
>cultures which promote education must be held back until those who do
>not do as well catch up.  
>
>The idea that education should be geared to what the child can and is
>willing to accomplish, and that this varies substantially, is totally
>alien to the PC liberal thinking.

I find this rather odd. I consider myself liberal to the point of radical
(these are unstable times, what can I say? Can't afford to be conservative),
but would classify PC thinking with CONSERVATIVES, not liberals. Then again,
we could have different definitions of liberal and conservative.

Personally, I hardly think liberal philosophy (at least some of it - there
really IS no single "liberal agenda") necessitates any thinking to the effect
that you cannot have genetic differences that in turn necessitate enabling
children to learn at the level they learn best at.

	Geoff Tuffli

Xref: sparky misc.legal:18660 alt.folklore.urban:25692
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:50:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.154231.8705@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>I don't want to debate/discuss the political or social wisdom of this
>act... I'm just wondering if anyone knows what excuse the Congress
>used for having the federal government move into this area.  Did they
>rule that since some of the atoms that comprise a hijacked automobile
>have probably crossed state lines sometime in the past, the Interstate
>Commerce Clause granted federal authority in this area, or what?

Bill, surely this is a rhetorical question, right?

I'll stick my neck out here: without even looking up the statute, I'll
say that the justification for federal authority over these cases lies
in the Commerce Clause, either via an express "finding" by Congress within
the statute itself, or via a similar finding in a referenced and/or
related statute.

Call me crazy for gambling on this, but I feel lucky today.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
From: "herman diller" <herman.diller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: taped conversations
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:15:17 EST
Reply-To: "herman diller" <herman.diller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


HM>Herman Diller, in a message to Hilary Miller on 10-09-92 at 8:59am, said:

HD>|My question is still the same, I am a police officer (lt) and I was tap
HM>   |one of my men after referring him for disciplinary action.  The taped
HM>   |conversation was made about 4 months after the initial disciplinary act
HM>   |I do not remember the conversation, and his lawyer is now accusing me o
HM>   |perjury and being a political puppet.  My question is again can a perso
HM>   |tape a conversation with the intent to obtain desired answers to be use
HM>   |later date (7 months after the taping one year after the incident) even
HM>   |one person knows that the conversation is taped?
HM>   |_______________________________________________________________________

HM>          Herman, give me a call at (203) 622-6262 and let's talk about
HM>          this.  Your post raises a number of issues, and begs a number
HM>          of questions, that cannot (and probably should not) be dealt
HM>          with in this medium.


HM>   L A
HM> I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
HM>  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
HM>    
HM>---
HM>  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Old bankers never die; they just lose interest.

Herman Diller
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.12 #393s  Brentwood BBS!  Harrison, New York  (914) 835-7898
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 18:53:26 GMT

judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
: Furthermore, the idea of "school vouchers" is utterly ridiculous.  If it
: is proposed because it will give the chance for parents to send their
: children to good schools, then doesn't this send a message that our
: public school system is not adequate?  Instead of worrying about giving
: parents school vouchers, why doesn't the government put that money into
: the public school system.

I want good education for my children and think it is important for all
children to get a good education.  If the government were to get into
the fast food business, we would have cold $6 hot dogs.  (Go to an
airport with a single food server, and you will have high cost, low
quality food because they have a monopoly.)  Competition gives us better
quality.  Government schools ARE not adequate.  Our childrens education 
is far too important to leave in the hands of bureaucrats who can't 
balance a budget and are only worried about re-election.

Private Schools average about half the cost of government schools.  In
our town, one local private school costs $2,000 per year a student and
government schools cost $4,000 a year per student (not counting federal
costs of adminstrering the NEA.)  Private schools test no worse, on the
average than government schools, and sometimes better.  A $2,000 per
year per student voucher would save taxpayers $2,000 per student per
year.  But I am against vouchers and will explain later.

: Thus, the test derived in the case Lemon v. Kurtzman would have to be
: used in any future Supreme Court case, whether or not the school was 
: parochial.  And, in doing so, the "school voucher" law would not pass the
: second prong of the test, of whether or not religion is advanced or 
: inhibited.  This is because if parents were not given school vouchers,
: then they would be relying on scholarships provided by the school.  But if
: they were given vouchers, then schools would throw away scholarship
: programs because they wouldn't be needed.  And this would indirectly
: "advance" (so to speak) the parochial school, i.e. religion.

Vouchers give a school money with strings attached.  The private school
will have to meet some sort of criteria.  Those that accept these
vouchers will suffer in the long run since they will be forced to meet
more and more criteria and regulations that are already driving up costs
and degrading the quality of government schools.  Therefore, I would 
support TAX CREDITS for those that put their children in private schools
or home schooling, but would not support a voucher system.

For those that want to read more about the inadequacy of our current
system, "Dumbing Us Down" by NY Teacher of the Year John Taylor Gatto is
a good book.
-- 
Paul Schmidt:  706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604
(615)283-0084 -- uunet!tijc02!pjs269
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: afadel@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ayman Fadel)
Subject: A serious misconception (Was:  Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 16:41:37 GMT

In article <1678@frackit.UUCP> dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
>
>Is this the same Islam that believes Christians are the enemy and as
>non-believers should be converted to Islam or destroyed? 
>
>Or is there some other Islam to which you refer?
>
I wish Dave would come up with the source where he heard this, cause
it is not what any Muslims I know believe.
>
>-- 
> ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
> frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
> vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: student loans
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:47:31 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct8.182550.2277@nova.sarnoff.com>, jms@vision.sarnoff.com 
(Jerry Shapiro x2420) writes:
> There is no way you can be a recent graduate, unless your parants paid
> your way.  Your too insensitive to realize how much damage Reaganomics
> did to the American standard of living. You better save up to bail out
> your own children. They will not be able to make it on their own.

Hey, the kid bought a condo.  He's not doing too bad.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.planning.urban,alt.activism
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Justice Department Makes Grant to Enhance Public Safety in Urban Areas
Organization: NDA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:35:18 GMT


Here is a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice.

 Department Makes Grant to Enhance Public Safety in Urban Areas
 To: National Desk
 Contact: Stu Smith of the Office of Justice Programs,
          U.S. Department of Justice,
          202-307-0784 (office) or 301-983-9354 (after hours)

   WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Department of Justice
today announced the awarding of $150,756 to the U.S. Conference of
Mayors' Research and Education Foundation by the National Institute
of Justice (NIJ), a component of the department's Office of Justice
Programs (OJP), to continue and expand its work in developing and
disseminating effective local programs to improve public safety in
urban neighborhoods.
   In prior projects the Conference of Mayors highlighted, prepared
and disseminated the findings of 12 local policing programs that
involved the community in a variety of ways to officials in more than
30,000 cities and towns throughout the country.  Examples include the
Aurora, Colo., Community-Based Gang Prevention Effort; Carlsbad,
Calif., School Dropout Prevention program and its Juvenile Justice
project; the Columbia, S.C., Public Housing Community Policing
Program; the Wilmington, Del., Police and Social Worker Victim
Service Program; and the St. Petersburg, Fla., School Resource Office
Program.
   NIJ, the department's research and evaluation component, awarded
this new grant to support three regional conferences on effective
public safety initiatives that emphasize community and citizen
involvement as the key link between local government and urban area
residents.  Conference participants will include mayors, chiefs of
police, local drug policy experts, community development officials
and other community leaders.
   "This award is a significant contribution to the urban battle
against crime and drugs," commented OJP Acting Assistant Attorney
General Steven D. Dillingham.  "We are pleased to be able to assist
citizens throughout the nation to discuss effective ways to take back
their cities and neighborhoods from the scourge of violence and drug
dependency."
   Additional information about NIJ research and publications may be
obtained from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Box
6000, Rockville, Md. 20850.  The telephone number is 1-301-251-5500.
The toll-free number is 1-800-851-3420.
 -30-

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 7 Oct 92 09:58:58 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes: (in response to my
comment, following; his alterations of gender, etc, between lines of my
original comment):


>>I'm sorry-- he was FORCED to have sex with her?  If not, he knew what
>            she                             him?          she
>>he was getting into, and the risks involved.  He DID know, didn't he?
>she                                           She                 she?
>>If not, the fact that his parents never explained the birds and the bees
>                       her
>>to him hardly justifies an alteration of the law.
>    her                                       ^abortion
> 
>>peter bartlett.

>I told you this was going to happen months ago.  It doesn't take a rocket
>scientist to read the logic of society and make a very simple linear 
>prediction.  This HAD to happen.  It may not succeed now, but unless this
>society's attitude towards reproduction changes radically, it *must*
>eventually succeed.  Eventually, if you'll recall, was less than 20 years,
>according to my earlier predictions.  Anyone care to make wagers on that
>guesstimate?

This response seems to me totally illogical, but since a couple of people
have raised it, I shall respond briefly.

It seems to me that the fundamental question about the *availability* of
abortion involves when life is taken to commence.  If you adopt the "every
sperm is sacred" approach, then masturbation is murder; if you adopt the
"when it has left the mother" approach, you have abortion on demand right
up until the birth is complete.  Various ethical positions and legal 
positions support various intermediate stages.  That seems to be the real
issue, an issue quite different from the argument about the need to take
economic responsibility for ones actions.

If one accepts abortion as a legal option (as I do), the question becomes
who has control over the decision as to whether to carry the child to term.
It seems to me that can only be the woman: it is her body, not the father's
which is directly affected by the choice.

That is a completely different question than dealing with the economic
consequences of a birth.  Civil law is about holding people to financial
account for their actions, and I do not see that this branch of civil law
is particularly distinguishable from others in this regard.  I hesitate
to comment on the United States situation (the US striking me as a country
devoid of civilization in any regard), but certainly in the UK and Canada
both parents acquire rights and duties over the child, and both have to 
contribute to the support of the child.  It strikes me as completely 
bizarre that men talk about being taken advantage of in this regard.  As
we have (statistically) larger disposable incomes than women, we can
afford these payments with much less pain than women.  To suggest that
the woman somehow gets off totally free in this scenario strikes me as
out of touch to the point of offensive.

peter.
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History (was: Presidential UL's)
Date: 15 Oct 1992 23:46:35 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

Others said
 > This does bring up an interesting question, though.  In case of
 > nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
 > officials, what is the line of succession? 
 
# I'm not sure, but I think Churchill is in there somewhere.

Churchill comes AFTER Craig.....


--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Newsgroups: misc.legal