HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance 
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:25:29 GMT

In response to my posting
In article 4295@leland.Stanford.EDU, eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>>
>>Again, no.  The neighbor is expected to do whatever is required to protect
>>any and all children (and others) from unreasonable hazzards, whether the
>>parent exercises adequate supervison or not.  
>>
>
>C'mon.  Parents can be stupid, and that's ok, but *property owners* are
>the responsible ones???????  Bull! This attitude makes me sick. Parents
>let the kids run the neighborhood and expect everyone ELSE to watch them.
>Aaaarrrggggg!

You do have a way of not reading what was said.  The parents have responsibilities.
But whether they follow them or not, the property owner has responsibility for
his or her property.  

I certainly didn't suggest that children should run the neighborhood and that
other people should be responsible for them.  I only said that each individual
is responsible for his or her own property, and insuring that it does not 
represent an unreasonable hazzard to children.

>
>>
>>Property owners are always responsible for their property.  Someone else's
>>negligence does not remove your responsibility.
>
>Negligence is not a good thing!  
>

My, that is profound.


---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141

Newsgroups: ba.general,sci.bio,sci.anthropology
From: jeg5s@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (John Ellington Godard)
Subject: Re: Darwin fish
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:04:06 GMT


Xref: sparky ba.general:4353 misc.kids:25695 misc.legal:18411
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:22:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct9.175441.28452@telebit.com> brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.002209.6446@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:

>>Very Simple: Don't let your kid roam, and play in areas that you
>>don't know about. If they wanna explore, go with 'em!

>You were right Phil, this person can't be helped. Len, pop over to Stanford
>and shoot this non-parent on your luch hour.

Eric, you are truly about the most close-minded, smug, self-righteous
and unpleasant cretin I've yet encountered on the net.  I have seen
nothing constructive from your blather.  I see nothing unreasonable
in the other Eric's suggestion, but even if I did, I wouldn't resort
to your loathsome net.tactics.  If you have something to offer, then
let's hear it; otherwise shut up.
                         ^^^^ ^^
                                Only the second time I've ever said this.

Is this what parenting does to you, or were you this much of a jerk
-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
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, 7 Oct 1992 19:41:07 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 <1992Oct6.221804.27985@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>
>Yeah, like I heard that Japanese ONLY fly Japan airlines because 
>(they boast) some wonderful safety record. Fact is, the US airlines
>are (as a whole) much safer on all counts than Japan's airlines. Yet
>the Japanese citizens are hell-bent on using ONLY their airlines.
>It's called "brainwashing".  Now they move the "brainwashing" 
>to rthe US.

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.
From: fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: US workers more productive.
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:15:47 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Protocol Engines Incorporated

In article <1992Oct14.213603.3891@cascade.Stanford.EDU> eap@everest.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>
>BALTIMORE (AP) - U.S. workers are more productive than their German or
>Japanese counterparts, largely because of America's highly competitive
>and open trade environment, the authors of a new study said yesterday.
...

>Free Trade may be the motivation. "There's more competition for U.S.
>companies," said Martin Baily, an Economics professor at the University
>of Maryland and coauthor of the study. "Managers are forced to raise 
>productivity in order to survive and be profitable."

Note that "Free Trade" is hostile to the concept of "buy American" (or
any other country, for that matter) propaganda campaigns.

Fred
From: hsiu@octel.com (Helen Hsiu)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: MAZDA service recommendations?
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:01:01 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Octel Communications Corporation

Any opinions on independent shops such as Made in Japan or Mazda/Honda 
Specialists in Campbell?  It's time for the 30,000 mile service on my RX-7
and they're asking over $100 less then the dealers are!  Are there any
advantages of going to the dealer that I'm not aware of?

Please respond directly.  Thanks!

Helen
From: kenj@kambo.wpd.sgi.com (Ken ``Blackfur'' Jones)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: CompUSA was Fry's -- Yet Another Bad Experience
Date: 14 Oct 1992 19:27:10 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: kambo.wpd.sgi.com

eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:

>I'm not so certain about going to CompUSA.  Just went there.
>Their stocks seem much smaller than Fry's.  This is not
>general electronics, but mostly computers, but I did find a battery
>which Fry's didn't have.

On principle, I refuse to shop at CompUSA.  A few months ago, I saw a
notice proudly displayed at the entrance to their Santa Clara store
announcing that they have mandatory random drug testing of their
employees.

I have no wish to support a store which so blatantly disregards their
employees' right to privacy and then brags about it to their
customers.

- Ken
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:33:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.152612.11964@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:

[that he's got kids, omitted.]

>Sadly, society believes no one should be personally responsible for
>their own stupid actions.

One dosen't suppose that you were referring to the property owner in this
phrase, one that has, presumably for profit operated a railroad, and that
has, presumably for the same reason, declined to pay the cost of either
reasonably securing the hazard or denying access to the hazard. Would it
be to much to ask that you were referring to the questionable intelligence
of the railroad operator?

>                            As I've said before, while I fully 
>understand the concept and case law relating to attractive nuisances,
>I do not agree with it AND I will work towards eliminating it 
>where ever/wneh ever I can.

Great, I look forward to reading your reversal in the next edition of Prosser.
Until then, do the world a favor and explain what the law is and how little
your personal opinion means in changing the common law before climbing up on
the soapbox. While you're up there, remind the listener that you are really
talking about revisiting trespass, or negligence without regard to the ability
of the injured to form either intent to trespass, or apprehend hazards
arbitrarily constructed, and that you may end up vindicating spring
guns -- if constructed with sufficient ingenuity. Don't forget to point out
that this little safari may revisit comparitive vs contributory theories of
negligence as well.

I'm sorry if you don't see a shadow of Yellow Cab here, or know Welk v S.P.,
or haven't heard of Palsgraf, or all the other "biggies" of tort common law.
I don't get a thrill out of being the electronic scourge of lite-head-libbies,
but they should consider achieving happiness in a jurisdiction that shares
their views...  which probably isn't misc.kids.

>In another post someone stated "how can you keep a 10 year old from
>an abandoned railroad roundhouse?  Simple, you make it off limits
>to the child and each and every time s/he violates that limitation...

Reset. The parents didn't know that the turntable even existed.

-- 
Eric Brunner Tule Network Services
uucp: uunet!practic!brunner
trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head.

Xref: sparky ba.general:4434 misc.legal:18578 misc.kids:25903
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.legal,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance (was: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions)
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:11:59 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <8122@public.BTR.COM> rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com) writes:
>That's why you cannot rely on A.N. laws.  The law says "you will be
>punished if a child drowns in your pool".  Not, " you will be punished
>if you do not bring your fence up to specification".  Note that some

I haven't studied this but I would expect there to be laws which
require A.N. to be abated. Consequences of non-compliance to extend to
the taking of the property in question.

Anyone know for sure?

>Many? or a few?  Does anyone have an idea how long that turntable was
>abandoned before the child was hurt?

Or how many children played on it? According to Eric B, the child
who was injured was only doing the same as the other children.

>   I read of a lawsuit in the paper last week (I know, I know)
>where a city? was sucessfully sued for 12 million(?) dollars because
>the playground had an asphalt surface, a child fell and was severely
>hurt.  Where do we draw the line?

I'd like to know what a playground has to do with attractive nuisances.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 18:58:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.003015.26189@telebit.com> brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.000814.5225@cascade.Stanford.EDU> king@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Robin King) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.183512.17582@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>>things. Heavy traffic and residental use are not the way you want to do
>>>things, whereas having pools in residental areas is good as long as
>>>they are secured.
>>	
>>	What's "secured?"  Is a standard yard fence OK?  Many city 
>>	ordinances prohibit fences over eight feet in height.  
>>	I say that having to have _another_ fence is unreasonable.
>>
>All you have to do is make that arguement to a jury, since your municpal
>ordinances may cover fence height, don't forget to bring a copy with you
>when you make your response. Bring your checkbook too.
>

The problem I see here is we're argueing from a legal standpoint.
The law isn't always right! (That's why we have legislators, to change
the bad ones!)

What you're saying is (I beleive) that "if the county ordinance says
it's not ok to have a high fence, THEN the owner is free of responsibility"

It's a damn shame we live in a convoluted "legal-sue" society, but
the issue here is TEACH the kids or WATCH the kids.  Suppose you
move to a neighborhood that has different ordinances?  Are the kids
supposed to adapt?  I think not. There are fundamnetal things 
that parents should teach their kids, and there is a certain ammount
of control that parents should have over their children. period.
forget the laws.



Newsgroups: ba.general
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:22:44 GMT

In article 8109@public.BTR.COM, rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.214237.15827@eagercon.com> eager@eagercon.com writes:
>
>Perhaps if a child drowns in a neighbors pool, the parents property should
>be examined.  If a similar hazard is found on the parents property, then
>the fact that the child died on a neighbors property could be considered random
>chance.   The property owner should not be responsible.  Perhaps the
>average degree of household safety should be considered. I don't know.
>I *do* know that liability seems to be out of control.  People are refusing
>to accept responsibility for their own actions in record numbers  :-( 

You and I agree on the last point.  About whether you can use a comparative
risk argument in a court and be convincing, I'm not sure.

>
>			 I think the discussion has been running at cross
>purposes for some time.  One side is arguing law, the other, morality and
>responsibility.  As a result of this mis-communication, tempers are flaring
>and extreme statements are being made on both sides.  I'm sure that
>no one want to see a child die.  The question is who has the primary 
>responsibility for said child. 

Many of the postings appear to claim that any violation of property rights
absolves the property owner of any and all obligation.  This is a position
which I clearly disagree with, and I'm not so sure that it really is a matter
of legal vs. moral concepts.  I think that it is immoral to claim that a
person's property rights transcend all others.

>|
>|---
>|Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
>|Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
>|1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141
>
>I never had a chance to tell you how much I enjoyed your 'C' class two
>years ago...   Thanks!

Well, er, ah, gee.  Thanks.



---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141
From: jdoskow@ichinen.Tymnet.COM (Jonathan Doskow)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: Any recommendation for a good Auto Service Center?
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:15:20 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Oct6.223602.25487@kpc.com> ashok@kpc.com (Ashok Yerneni) writes:
>
>I need to get my Mazda(MX6) tuned and serviced. Any recommendations
>for a good reliable place to go? Any opinions on the Mazda Dealer
>on El Camino in Sunnyvale(Sunnyvale Mazda, I think)??
>
>
Based on recommendations on this bbs I took my Accord to Far Performance
for its anual a few months ago.  Suffice it to say that the service was
excellent in every respect.

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
She can marry a taxi driver.  I don't care.

Opinions expressed are those of the author.  jdoskow@Tymnet.COM
From: koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Where to buy movie posters?
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:46:15 GMT
Organization: Hyperion, Mountain View, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: spud.hyperion.com

Where can I find lots of movie posters in the Bay Area (preferably near
Mountain View)?  Poster shops seem to carry only a few at a time, and even
those are only the big-name movies.  I want to plaster my office walls
with posters from box-office disasters.  Help!

---
Steven Grimm       koreth@hyperion.com       "              !" - Marcel Marceau
Xref: sparky ba.general:4316 misc.kids:25585 misc.legal:18357
From: rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:33:03 GMT
Followup-To: ba.general
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. For info contact: info@BTR.COM

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
up in a semi rural area and had more than enough chances to do myself in
with *natural* hazards.  I don't think an unfenced pool is any more dangerous
than a natural pond with hidden rocks and overhanging branches.  The
same with a railroad turntable.  If I had died by diving into a muddy pond,
who should my parents sue?  Mother nature?  

If a child drowns in a pond or a pool or a cave or a mineshaft... why is
to *so important* to assign blame?  Yes it's tragic, yes it's sad. *Yes*
we should do what we can to avoid it.  However, I personally, believe that
our society has far overstepped the bounds of denying personal responsibility.

If you have a pool, and my child has to surmount *some* obstacles to get
to it, and thereby drowns, I would be hard put to assign blame to you.

If I'm not comfortable with the amount of difficulty required to reach
your pool, be damn sure I'll talk to you about it.. and pay part or all
of the amount required to bring the security system up to *my* standards.

I talk to my neighbors all the time?  Don't you?  Don't you work *together*
to make the neighborhood a safe, comfortable place?  Why not??

Sorry, Phil, this isn't aimed at you personally.. your posting was just
the last in a long series that triggerd the outburst  :-)

Rick


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Richard Hyde  |  RaH@btr.com  |    This space intentionally left blank   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: CompUSA was Fry's -- Yet Another Bad Experience
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 07:54:29 GMT
Distribution: ba

I'm not so certain about going to CompUSA.  Just went there.
Their stocks seem much smaller than Fry's.  This is not
general electronics, but mostly computers, but I did find a battery
which Fry's didn't have.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Associate Editor, Software and Publication Reviews
  Scientific Programming
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Seeking Books to buy:	Bongard, Pattern Recognition
			Imhof, Cartographic Relief Presentation
			Books on or by Benjamin Whorf
Xref: sparky ba.general:4364 misc.kids:25708 misc.legal:18422
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 20:52:01 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Oct9.191528.20366@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.172944.5291@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>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.
>
>A family farm, eh?  Sounds like *your* *own* *private* *property* to me.

What, you think kids from neighboring farms don't visit each other?
Don't play together? Hm, interesting that you could even think that way.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 19:29:11 GMT

>
>- Dan Quayle spent the Vietnam War in a country club NG outfit
>  somehow passing > 1000 applicants on a waiting list for said
>  outfit.

At least he did SOMETHING!

>
>- Approximately 50% of married people have admitted extra-marital
>  affairs.  While this doesn't morally justify it, it should tell
>  you that it doesn't only happen to moral deviants.  Are you (or 
>  have you been) married?

Ah, but there's 50% who haven't.... And I think this country 
deserves better that "one of the lower 50%" for it's supreme
officer.

>
>- I think that if you judged people soley on the basis of who they
>  were years ago (with respect to pot smoking) you'd exclude a lot
>  of people from being productive members of society.  

I think it sends a terrible message to our kids: "It's ok to smoke pot
or do anything wrong while you're young. It'll never come back to
harm you"

>
>- You can't be serious about any of this crap.  It's just too silly.

I think not.

>
>- I think that Dan Quayle is lying about never smoking pot.  

Prove it.

>
>- But I doubt George Bush ever has.  Unless it was a sort of ritual
>  in Noriega's condo.  I would understand though, since he was just
>  trying not to look like a nerd in front of important CIA contacts.
>
>- 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.

Now that's funny.


Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:36:53 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Oct10.023834.15087@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>"Purposeless"?  What are you trying to accomplish?  When I entered
>this thread, I did so not do so to focus on some legal fine point.  I was
>surprised to see what I viewed as an inconsistency in a formerly very
>consistent libertarian (Ngai)?  I was trying to get him to explain the

For the sake of others just joining this discussion, I will explain
again. Libertarianism is not incompatible with protecting children.
It only concerns the relations between competent, consenting adults.
Children are none of the above.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
Newsgroups: ba.general