HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: Displaying a weapon (was Bicycles are Vehicles)
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
Distribution: seattle
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:10:34 GMT

In article <BzKozD.7BC@plato.ds.boeing.com> prang@plato.ds.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja) writes:
>
>When I lived in Colorado, there was a precedent-setting case there.  I
>forget how the situation started (whether the guy was verbally or
>physically threatened, or just did it for the hell of it), but the police
>arrested a man for displaying a weapon in public.
>
>The judge found for the defendant... he had a concealed weapons permit.
>The judge ruled that the permit gave him the right to display the gun when
>he felt it was necessary.
>

But, can't *anybody* (except maybe a convicted felon) carry an
*unconcealed* gun?  The whole point of a concealed weapons permit
is not that it entitles you to carry a gun, but that you can hide
the fact that you are carrying a gun from others.  For instance,
you supposedly cannot carry a gun in the glove compartment of your
car (at least this is how most cops interpret it) unless you have 
a concealed weapons permit - otherwise, you have to have it on the
seat beside you or in a gun rack, etc., where it is *plainly*visible*.
Has this law changed?

-- 
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!" |
From: hcorbin@uswnvg.com (Harold Corbin)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Good PANASONIC printer service center?
Date: 29 Dec 92 23:47:39 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

My Panasonic KXP-1124 24-pin dot matrix printer is on the fritz.  Anyone know
a good place in the Seattle area for repairs? 
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: fate@eskimo.com (Craig Stykel)
Subject: Re: public access to Internet
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Distribution: seattle
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 08:22:34 GMT

hen6940@bcsaic.boeing.com (Howard Nebeck) writes:
> Hello,
>    I'm interested in hearing from organizations which offer public
> access to the internet.  Information on services offered, procedures,
> rates, etc. would be appreciated.
>                                              Thanks,
>                                              Howard Nebeck
> 
Eskimo North offers internet to its subscribers, as well as 
Northwest nexus.
Eskimo in cheaper, 10.00/ month 
You get a 2 week trial account, ftp and irc acsess, as well as
most the regular featuers of the board..
Call 206-for-ever (modem) and give it a try....
 fate@eskimo.com
From: rfisher@uswnvg.com (Robert Fisher)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: doomsdayer
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:45:33 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5


I just viewed a PBS special on a tribal warning to the industrialized public.
It had a profound effect on reestablishing my pessimistic view of the 
probable outcomes of human expansion in the next 60 or so years.
	Current estimates place the food cosumption volumes at a maximum in
sixty years from 1990.  This means that if every mouth was feed evenly,and at
current growth rates, there will be just enough food for sustaining life.  Afterthe year 2050, this will not be true.  Does anyone out there have any senarios
that are not so gloomy?  Help me escape my pessimistic outlook!  I know about 
environmental dangers that are considered to be genecide prior to 2050, but 
what about pure overpopulation estimates.
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.
Date: 23 Dec 92 06:48:01 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1992Dec22.194135.14016@eskimo.com> alpinist@eskimo.com (David Butler) writes:
:In article <1992Dec19.014455.11049@tc.fluke.COM> lowell@tc.fluke.COM (Lowell Skoog) writes:
:>klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross) writes:
:
:>>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*.
:
:>I ignored your point because it didn't seem relevant.  You were
:>talking about outlawing climbing.  Nobody is talking about outlawing
:>bicycling.
:
:Instead of ignoring his point because of irrelevance why don't you ignore
:the point because it is WRONG!  Mountain climbing is not far more dangerous
:than riding a bike/motorcycle with or without a helmet.  Statistically
:bicycling is one of the most dangeous activities there is.
: 

What is the source of the above stats you assert (and the stats themselves)?
I think some of us would like to see the stats themselves, and their
sources, rather than an assertion.
-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:16:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: bnr
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Dec10.154219.11498@ObjecTime.on.ca>,
peter@helix.ObjecTime.on.ca (Peter Epstein) wrote:
> 
> Although this thread is dangerously close to drifting into outright political
> philosophy, I just have to follow up:  First, I agree with you 100%.
> What you say also implies that "income redistribution" should be eliminated.
> Why should someone who chooses to get a good education and a good job pay for
> those who choose to drop out of school and collect welfare?  The job of the
> government is to protect people from one another via a police force and a legal
> system.  Why should I be forced to be an altruist?  Here in Canada, we never
> really had a decent foundation for freedom, and we are becoming more and more
> socialist, as the U.S. does the same.

So far, not a blessed word about bicycles.

> I live on Ottawa (Ontario), and they're
> trying to put in a helmet law here too.  They try to justify it by saying that
> it will lower health care costs, which are shared (we have fully socialized
> medicine, and it doesn't work very well).  The answer to that argument is that
> we should let people ride without helmets AND we should let them pay for the
> resulting medical expenses through a private medical system.  The increase in
> socialism really upsets me too.

Look.  If you want to talk about the pros or cons of helmet laws, that's
interesting in the rec.bikes groups.  But if you want to preach
laissez-faire capitalism, or Trotskyism, or libertarianism, or liberalism,
or Marxism-Leninism, or Objectivism, or Social Darwinism, or Old Fogey
Fiscalism, or militarism, deconstructionism, creationism or any other
goddamn -ism, KEEP IT THE HELL OUT of the rec.bikes groups, for god's sake.
 I have directed followups to talk.politics.misc -- maybe it will give
those folks something new to wank about.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
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: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:36:18 GMT

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

   I ignored your point because it didn't seem relevant.  You were
   talking about outlawing climbing.  Nobody is talking about outlawing
   bicycling.
   The tendency to blow up a minor regulation like a helmet law into a
   major threat to liberty is what I called "civic claustrophobia".
   					--Lowell Skoog

Civic claustrophobia is *EXACTLY* what you have. You ignore points that
*YOU* don't see as relevant. If it doesn't affect *YOU* directly, then you
stick your head back into the sand.  As long as you continue to percieve
the world via shadows on the wall, then you will never see. Too bad.
-- 
-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: zoro@tc.fluke.COM (Mark Hinds)
Subject: Rose Bowl Tickets
Keywords: Football,Huskies,Tickets
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Distribution: seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:33:49 GMT


Posted for Joe Walsh (206) 794 0750 (home)
                     (206) 356 6346 (work)

I have 2 Rose Bowl Tickets (row 76, seats 105, 106)
for sale, asking $40 per ticket. Contact me via above
phone numbers if you are interested.

-- 
_________________________
Mark Hinds zoro@fluke.com
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.    
Everret, Washington
(206) 356-6264               
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
From: eris@tc.fluke.COM (Chris Beckmeyer)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:33:51 GMT

In article <BznJx9.JG3@agora.rain.com> lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.210708.17518@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>>
>>Minor nit:
>>
>>It isn't *government* which is limiting personal freedoms in order to make
>>expenses lower; it's the *people*.  The majority of people voted these
>>seatbelt, helmet, etc. laws into effect, in order to decrease *their*
>>costs.
>>

>I believe the term for this is "tyranny of the majority".

i don't recall *voting* for any such thing.  our elected representatives pass
this sort of law, generally after intense lobbying by the proponents, in this
case the insurance industry, i'm sure.  it then becomes our job to circulate
petitions, collect signatures, get the issue on the ballot, etc.  if memory
serves me, this how washington state voters had to REPEAL a motorcycle helmet
law some years back.

chris


Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: vanzwol@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Ted Van Zwol)
Subject: Re: Who is Roy Ottis??
Keywords: Yes, yes
Organization: Boeing
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:26:07 GMT

>Now that we [seem to] have this solved, who does the voices for Beave?

I haven't a shred of physical evidence, but listening to it this morning,
I really have to think it's Mike West from the morning show...well, that's
the only time you'll hear the Beave anyways.  I think Mike does most of
the voices of that little skit.
-- 
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: donn@brat.wa.com (Donn Pedro)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Posting under less than optimum conditions. Was (Re: Video Only ad)
Date: 26 Dec 92 20:08:41 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Tandemonium, Kent, WA

In article <1992Dec24.192649.16243@u.washington.edu> cummings@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings) writes:
:	I admit I was being overly touchy and overreacted.  This is because
:the speaker struck a nerve.  You see, I have spent the last two weeks flat
:on my back because of a back injury, and I really DID need to get out more.
:I also desperately wanted to do so.  I read that article while in pain and
:on medication, and fired off a knee-jerk response.  Now that I'm feeling a
:lot better, I see I was a little too sensitive.

Understood.  During the Todd/morotcycle discussion I was not at my best
wither (flu of some sort) and reacted a bit stronger than sometimes
warranted, to some posters.

It happens.

:	So go ahead and flame, I'll take it!

No need.




         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: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 19:33:49 GMT

In <1550@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:

:In article <3040@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> hcorbin@uswnvg.com (Harold Corbin) writes:
:/Why is it that people are always giving me dirty looks when they pass me on
:/the highway and I'm driving 60 in a 55 MPH zone?  I get irritated and angry
:/EVERY TIME some jerk tailgates me and flashes his/her brights fo rme to
:/move over justbecause I don't have a TOTAL DISRESPECT for the LAW and I
:/don't want to drive
:/75 just to get the hell out of their way!

:It is also the law:
:	Keep right except to pass.
:	Slower traffic keep right.
:If there is a lane to the right of you, and you are blocking traffic, you
:are legally required to move over to let them pass.

I generally drive in the far right lane and rarely have to move
to the left to pass the traffic to my left which is BY DEFINITION
driving faster than I am.  If the left lane bandits were to move
over, it would then mean that I would have to move to the left
and subject myself to the scrutiny of the Revenoors (State
Patrol) who are looking at the left lane for speeders :-).

It's fun when the opportunity comes up to snag one of these left
lane hogs.  I was driving into Issaquah on I-90 several months
ago and my Escort told me about the radar over the hill so I
carefully approached the top of the hill in the middle lane
around 80 timing it so the character in the Toyota in the left
lane who was doing 50 was the first one to appear over the crest
(by which time I was doing 55 :-).  He had the strangest look on
his face when the cop pulled him over.

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
From: saddler@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Ray, just Ray)
Subject: Re: Matt's Laws of Driving
Summary: originally found in rec.humor.funny
Keywords: smirk
Organization: Boeing Computer Services Traffic Control Center
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:26:27 GMT

In article <S4c8.82@looking.on.ca> matth@comm.mot.com (Matt Hintz) writes:
<
<  Matt's Laws of Driving:
<    1)  The person driving the slowest is always in front.
<    2)  The automobile directly behind the slowest driver will never be able
<        to pass due to other motorists passing both cars.
<    3)  If a slow driver turns off of the road he will be replaced by a slower
<        driver in a much larger vehicle before the next light.
<    4)  If you are able to pass a slow driver you will immediately be stopped
<        by the next light and then rule 3 applies.
<    5)  If you are in a hurry then rules 1-4 are affected exponentially for
<        every degree of hurriedness.
<    6)  If you anticipate rules 1-5 and leave early there will be construction.
<
<
<  Matt's 7th Law of Driving (addendum):
<     After risking life and limb, and much aggravation, to pass another vehicle
<     on a four or more lane road, said vehicle will move over.

In leu of all the recent discussion (and, most likely will on-going) regarding
driving skills and being socially correct "on the road", who out there would be
interested in to working with me on a very topical project (a book) entitled:

                           "Drive Like You Mean It"

The title was stollen by comment by a friend; Kari (coles@bcstec.ca.boeing.com)

(Hi, Kawi!)

-- 
Ray E. Saddler III             ___ ___ ___ ___     ___  "they say Confucius
P.O. Box 24346 M/S 2L-21      /__//  //__  /  /\ //  _   does his crossword
Seattle, WA  98124-0346 USA  /__//__//__ _/_ /  //__/    with a pen"   Tori
saddler@bcstec.ca.boeing.com    Computer Services       "Hello Earth!" KaTe
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: linnco@microsoft.com (Linn Compton)
Subject: For Sale: Aldus software
Date: 29 Dec 92 15:01:51 GMT
Organization: Microsoft
Distribution: usa

For sale, brand-new, unused, still shrink-wrapped:

Aldus PageMaker for Windows....$275

Aldus FreeHand for Macintosh...$250



Linn Compton
936-3762

Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: bonn@networx.com (David Bonn)
Subject: Re: Urban humor of sorts....
Organization: NetWorx
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:00:55 GMT

I'd argue that littering in a city and along highways should be protected as
free speech, like flag burning.  Compared with all of the other ecological
damage that goes into making a big city full of people, littering is minor
league stuff.  The fact that it so righteously annoys some people is a bonus.

It certainly is visible, though.  Personally I think the brightly colored
paper scraps and beerbottles are pretty.  At least they're prettier than gray
oilstained streets and (sub)urban housing pods and monster shopping malls full
of stuff I don't want.

In fact, I think I'll go out and litter today.

[ha ha only serious]

--

 David Bonn		"the fast ones always ride for free"
 bonn@networx.com
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
From: alpinist@eskimo.com (David Butler)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:34:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.211114.3823@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.012626.8675@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>>This would be great, but there would be a big outcry from various sections
>>of society.  My own parents insist that if someone goes out in a wilderness
>>area or wherever, and don't come back, society is *morally required* to go
>>in and find him/her, regardless of the costs.  Until we can get most of these
>>people to change their minds, society will bear the costs, and we will
>>continue to get more restrictive laws passed (seat belts, helmets, etc.).

>A point I am trying to make is that financial considerations should
>not be a reason for restricting liberty.  Take the above example, will
>we eventually see people banned from going into forests because the
>government will have to spend money to rescue them if they get lost?

Since I am a hiker I have to respond to the idiocy of bringing the
backcountry into this thread.  I guess it is a perfect example of the
stupidity of hysteria behind these protecting people for their own
good or cost of society laws.  Every time you sit down in your car you
are hundreds of times more likely to be seriously injured or killed than
when I grab my ice axe and head for the hills.  Yes, that's right,
HUNDREDS of times more likely.  But a lost hiker is a high profile news
item.  You know how many hundreds of thousands of people head out in the
back country for those three or four news articles on a lost or injured
hiker?  People are killed and injured every day in their cars - happens
so much it rarely makes it on the news at all.  Hiking is a low risk
activity.  You are just as likely to injure yourself cooking or taking
a shower as hiking.
 
And besides didn't they pass a law that people needing rescue do have
to pay for it?  I know that such a law was in serious consideration a
few years back.
 
On the other hand bicycling is one of the statistically most dangerous
activities (right up there with snowmobiling).  The question is do helmets
actually reduce injuries to a significant extent and is the cost savings
of such a reduction really worth the trouble of the law and the restrictions
on freedom.  If the law was done intelligently it would be in effect for a
year as an experiment at which time if bicycle injuries were not significantly
reduced then it would automatically be repealed.  Why not let the law since
it is now in effect be a means of gathering statistics and we can then
actually see in a year whether it is based on good facts or baloney.
 

-- 
*          Dave         *  Why, sometimes I've believed as   *
#                       #  many as six impossible things     #
*  alpinist@eskimo.com  *  before breakfast. - Lewis Carroll *
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
From: dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 23:52:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.210708.17518@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>Minor nit:
>
>It isn't *government* which is limiting personal freedoms in order to make
>expenses lower; it's the *people*.  The majority of people voted these
>seatbelt, helmet, etc. laws into effect, in order to decrease *their*
>costs.
>
>Scott Linn
>scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com


Is what your saying, is that it is all right to limit the freedom of
individuals as long as the majority says it's all right?
This kind of statement (if I understand you correctly) is contrary to
the spirit of the founders who wanted to ensure against a tyranny of
the majority with the constitution in general and the Bill of Rights
in particular.

If you are truly worried about government expenses then you need
to look at the big expenses of government. Looking at the federal
level for example, of about $1.5 trillion about half went for social
expenses (~$700 billion), about 25% to defense (~$350 billion), and
the balance to interest, mostly, and other stuff like infrastructure
(~350 billion). In the state of Oregon, of its ~$6 billion budget
about half went for social expenditures and the other half for
police, education etc.

Looking at an official count of 34.5 million poor people, dividing
this by $700 billion you get $20,289 per person!  If you assume Oregon
is average, with its 2.5 million population, about 340,000 are poor
in the state. Divide 340,000 into $3 billion and you get $8,823 per
person! Why don't we just send these people the money ($29,112 total)
and dispense with the programs?

Now, looking at the numbers in detail, you have expenses such as
agriculture subsidies, AFDC, and on and on. But all these programs
are designed to help people (voters). Would it not be better to
dispense with all this stuff and institute a negative income tax
for instance or direct payments to the truly needy? That is if you
are really interested in lowering the costs to society that
government must bear in today's world.

Now I have only suggested one area of government spending to look at
(the 50% part), the military should also be looked at as a possible
area of waste too.  But all kidding aside, it seems to me that worrying
about helmet use as a way to trim government expenses is the wrong
place to look for substantial savings. Plus the issue of a majority
limiting the freedoms of a minority in the name of costs is a bad
precedent.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Dick Winningstad                                                    +
+                    Italian Wines are Fine                          +
+          I'd rather be on a Moto Guzzi in eastern Oregon.          +
+          Fourth gear curves at 7000 RPM are the greatest!          +
+dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++